"More talent than a monkey juggler..." says James Murphy

James Murphy’s Interview Sketchbook
The Actor: Gus Gallagher


Gus Gallagher is an actor to watch. He began his career as a child actor, appearing in ‘Children’s Ward’ and countless plays. And he crafted and grafted at drama, even during ‘A’ Levels at King Edward’s school in Birmingham. I was in a few of Gus’ classes during that Arcadian sixth form era.

I ultimately gave up on acting, and on winning the hearts of the lovely girls from the school’s drama societies (‘Am –Dram, thank you Mam?’). But Gus’ commitment to acting never wavered.

Now 29, Gus shrewdly divides time between television and theatre. You should remember his recent turn as a recurring baddie called Boscard in BBC spy drama, ‘Spooks’. You might even have been lucky enough to catch his recent theatrical turns (notably ‘Journey’s End’).

Gus has the gravitas of James McAvoy, a voice like Russell Crowe and a look of Ewan McGregor with a dash of Chris Pine. In short, he is a rising star and household name in waiting. Quite a nice bloke, too! I was lucky enough to catch up with Gus as he launched his latest project, ‘Partly Political’...


JM: 'Partly Political': what's it all about?

GG:

It's a political satire following the campaigns of the three major candidates vying for a seat on a suburban district council. It's been made for youtube. All episodes are under five minutes long. I think it's definitely worth a look. Find it on http://www.youtube.com/user/PartlyPolitico. All comments gratefully received - so long as they're nice ones.

JM: Are you political yourself? And indeed, do you think that acting has become a more political medium or is it a good escape from such responsibility??

GG:

I'm not sure I understand what it means to be 'political'. Everyone's got an opinion, whether they choose to express it in private, in public or not at all. Personally, I tend to choose all three - but that's one of the beauties of living in a democracy. I think we forget sometimes just what an amazing freedom that is. I don’t go on many marches, or sign many petitions, but I try to stay abreast of what’s going on and I like to think I read and listen enough to form my own opinions.

I actually think acting and the performance media - be it theatre, television, radio, film etc -have become less political than I gather they were twenty or so years ago. But I think this is mostly to do with general apathy, regrettably. I also think it's a wonderful escape from that very responsibility. Half the point of satire is exercising the right to shine a light on dysfunction, without the burden of suggesting a better alternative.


JM: Acting is a precarious trade, even at the top. What are your survival tips?

GG:

I've never been to the top, so I wouldn't know what life is like up there, but I'd be surprised if you ever get really comfortable. It is precarious insofar as you don't always know what's next - and even when you do have things lined up they can always fall through at the last minute - but you get used to it!

I'm not sure I'd be qualified for tip-giving. But I’d like to think that I've acquired some mechanisms to make the whole ride smoother. One is to stay active, whether you're working or not.

It's really easy to nosedive - even when it's all seeming to go well - but people are attracted to positivity and intrinsically repelled by negativity and that becomes pretty important when you're constantly seeking work. Lots of actors write, some paint or play in bands. Anything that allows you to keep your creativity flowing is well worth the effort.

I think another thing to be aware of is that – (contrary to popular belief) - casting directors generally work really hard and are constantly scouring the ranks of lesser-known actors when filling roles. However they often have to stay within very specific parameters and can normally only submit a handful of names so this is a very long-winded way of saying not to take it personally, and they do know who you are - the good ones anyway! -

JM: You do as much theatre as television, if not more so. Conscious decision? Or just a question of taking each job as it comes?

GG:

I do less television than theatre. I'd like to do more TV, but then I'd like to do more of everything, including theatre. It tends to be a case of ‘what comes up’ when you're at my stage!

Occasionally you do have to turn jobs down - either because of a scheduling clash or because it's just not what you want to be doing - and it's important to do that sometimes, if only to remind yourself of the little control you have over your career.

I don't subscribe to the idea that it's better to be doing anything than nothing, but something I have learnt is that it's often the least attractive jobs which yield the greatest results.

It's also not necessarily the worst thing in the world to be reminded once in a while that it's not a linear career path you've chosen - that you can find yourself playing the lead one moment, and a spear-carrier the next. A bit of humility never hurt anyone too much.

JM: You played a recurring baddie in the BBC drama 'Spooks'. Best of both worlds? You get to be in a series and have that sense of family..but not be too tied to it?..

GG:
Yeah, that was a great job. I didn't recur for very long but it was enjoyable to find myself returning a few times to work with a pleasant bunch of people and be paid a decent wage.

JM: Any anecdotes of encounters with famous stars / other personnel in film / tv / theatre that you'd like to share with us?

GG:
So many, I couldn't possibly fit them into this tiny space!

JM: Do you covet any 'name' roles? Doctor Who? James Bond? Or even just a character from a favourite play you'd like to have a go at?

GG:

I would LOVE to play Jimmy B! Aside from him, I'm still chasing the elusive Henry V and I always thought a young Macbeth with an older Lady M would be an interesting dynamic.

Hamlet certainly interests me, but I think slightly more as a play to direct than a part to play. But I've been really lucky and been able to cross off some desirable roles already - namely Stanhope in Journey's End, Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet and Iago in Othello, though I wouldn't mind another stab at him. I've got Romeo coming my way too next year - just in time, before I get too craggy.

JM: It's a world of 'instant celebrity'. Does that annoy you when you craft and graft as a professional actor?

GG:

Not really. Honestly, they're welcome to it, as far as I'm concerned. Being well-known for good work is great but I don't see the upside of total strangers reading what your favourite Chinese takeaway is. Then again, I've just bored your readers with my thoughts on political apathy, so maybe it's just a slippery slope!

JM: How do you prepare for a role? And do you have a basic 'warm up' routine before each performance?

GG:

Each job's different and requires its own preparation. I always make sure I limber up before a show, but I'd be lying if I said I did a thorough warm up of body and soul before every scene. I'm far more interested in being in the right head space and staying focussed. You can still have a cup of tea and a chat, but you just keep the motor running for when you need it.

I don't think it's necessary to exhaust yourself for the sake of it. That said, I do think it's essential - for yourself, your fellow actors, and whoever's watching you - to be utterly ready to perform any stretch the role demands - be it physical, mental or emotional.

I also believe quite fervently in respecting other actors' individual processes, and doing my bit to create an environment in which everyone feels totally safe to explore and take risks, and possibly fail.

JM: Do all actors have to have good physical skills? Hand /eye co-ordination? Action? Song and dance?

GG:

I think it's important to have a good physical awareness. Every single one of us is alarmingly well-tuned to physical signals. We can read from the tiniest outward signal if we think someone is nervous, lying, cold, tired, uncomfortable etc.

I've always found it fascinating how you can tell whether someone standing right the other side of a crowded room is looking at you or the person behind you. So for an actor I think the more they can be aware of what signals they're giving off, the more they can manipulate them.

The same is true of the voice, but then why wouldn't it be, since it's all part of the same instrument? In terms of singing and dancing, I guess that any skill you have, no matter how unusual, may prove useful at some stage. I did a TV job last year that I would never have got if I couldn't drive a truck. Fortunately I could, so I did.

JM: You were brought up in Birmingham. Do you miss Br'm and do you think sentimental attachments can actually impair actors' careers, seeing as they have to 'keep moving'??

GG:

I'm very fond of Birmingham, and I'm proud to be from there, but I’ve been gone nearly ten years and I can't say I miss it too much. I went back a few years ago to work at the Rep and the city had changed so much - mostly for the better - that I barely knew my way around anymore.
But I think it's a great city - though I'd love to see it further embrace its own cultural contribution. It's home to the CBSO, The Rep, The Royal Ballet and so much more, and yet it's still known for the Black Country Museum and Jasper Carrot.

I think it should be the Edinburgh of the Midlands. And the RSC's only just down the road of course. I don't think I am sentimental in that way, so it's difficult to answer but I do think it helps to be ready to pack a bag and live out of it for a couple of months at the drop of a hat.

JM: How do you unwind? I mean, can you just 'watch' a play or film now without dissecting its performances, professionally?

GG:

I think you can watch something with a critical eye and still enjoy it. I like films and plays. I like cooking, and eating - I'm really good at eating. I really like walking - I started walking round London as much as possible about a year ago and it's fascinating.

London's full of little green bits that are sometimes so thin you can barely see them on maps. I can now walk from Wood Green to Peckham (10 miles, north-south) only spending about half the time on roads. I haven't done it yet, but I can. Whenever I like. Maybe tomorrow. Actually, I'm busy tomorrow.

JM: Gus, it's been an education. Thanks.

InMagazines are a brand name owned and published by INDEPENDENT NEWS LIMITED (c) copyright 2009.

Is it worth the Trek to the cinema ? ...

‘Star Trek’
A review by James Murphy

Data stream:
Director: JJ Abrams
Starring: Chris Pine, Leonard Nimoy, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Bruce Greenwood
Genre: Sci-fi / action / adventure
Released: Star-date 08/05/2009
Certificate: 12A

Captain’s Log / Summary:
This is a ‘prequel’ to/‘reboot’ of the 1960s television show. James T. Kirk is a young hothead at Starfleet Academy, dreaming of command. Spock is a half human, half alien ‘Vulcan’, young but well respected by Starfleet. Kirk and Spock must work together and bond with a newly minted ‘Starship Enterprise’ crew, to repel a grave threat from the time travelling alien villain, ‘Nero’.

Main review:

‘Set phasers to stun’. I know many of you will enjoy this film, or have enjoyed it. Even hard hitting, tabloid columnists have showered praise on ‘Star Trek’. But I did not like it. And I cannot recommend it with any enthusiasm.

I can imagine how the film was pitched. ‘Hey..prequels are doing well..and we have not milked the ‘Star Trek’ cash cow for a while..I know! ‘Trek prequel!’. The last time Hollywood was that cynical, we ended up with dross like ‘Batman and Robin’. ‘Star Trek’ is not as bad as ‘Batman and Robin’. But it lacks coherence, originality and wit.

I enjoyed previous ‘Star Trek’ adventures, notably ‘The Wrath of Khan’ and ‘First Contact’. They had soul as well as grit, with philosophical discussion punctuating the action and nuances of character conveyed through clever dialogue, with literary allusions. And they ultimately had the good guys win resounding victories over everything from nuclear holocaust to ecological disaster. Not so in this, ‘war on terror’ era ‘Star Trek’, where battles are graphic and joyless and the motives of both heroes and villains are often ambiguous.

I have nothing against making ‘darker’ films. It’s good to add depth and maturity to legends. But this film’s script cannot even master basic logic. Case in point: Spock’s childhood, where he is taunted for being half human. Vulcan bullies elicit an emotional (and hence ‘human’) response from Spock. But said bullies show very human excitement in their own actions, at odds with the purely ‘logical’ world they inhabit.

The logic deficit is compounded by the absence of a decent plot or villain. The ‘plot’ is some rehashed nonsense about timelines, which would have been an incidental detail in the ‘Trek’ of old. And Eric Bana gives possibly the worst performance of his career as the villain. But Bana would have been upstaged even at his best, facing Chris Pine’s Kirk, whose charisma steals the film.

Pine captures the essence of ‘old’ Kirk (William Shatner), yet resists the trap of impersonating him. Pine conveys Kirk’s joy at action, adventure and bedding beauties after besting baddies. Kirk is the one thing that the film gets absolutely perfect, though even that is almost compromised by a pointless prologue showing his birth, childhood and quick chat from a mentor about ‘destiny’. I would have preferred a few more shots of that gorgeous green alien with the curly hair!

Leonard Nimoy makes an appearance as an elderly Spock, and exhibits both comic timing and dignified poise. But the ‘young’ Spock (Zachary Quinto, from tv’s ‘Heroes’) cannot mirror that magic. Quinto is disappointingly flat, only coming to life when facing fight scenes (well choreographed) and special effects (better than ever, on the whole). Simon Pegg’s Scotty lends warmth to proceedings, but his introduction is an ‘in-joke’ too far, too knowingly pleased with itself to be truly entertaining. Just like the rest of the film, really.

This is not a ‘bad’ film and is directed competently. But it lacks the inspiration, optimism and fun that defined previous ‘Star Trek’ outings. The film is scripted lazily and simply plunders an old series’ mythology under the guise of ‘reboot’ / ‘tribute’.

2.5 out of 5: Boldly go on DVD, but you need not beam up to the cinema. ‘Kirk out’.

InMagazines are a brand name owned and published by INDEPENDENT NEWS LIMITED (c) copyright 2009.

The Treats, Trials and Treasures of Today's Television

The Treats, Trials and Treasures of Today’s Television

By InChelsea Magazine's very own James Murphy

‘Previously on terrestrial television’..It was an era of frantically recording favourite shows. But we now live in a digital democracy. Hello mobile media. Download on demand. ‘Spoilers’ galore are available online. That said, you may have missed some recent television. So I’m offering an update here.

From soap and sci-fi to murder-mystery and reality shows, the best television simply tells good stories, through memorable characters, real or fictional. But all examples cited here have merit and should entertain, even as abject lessons in where television goes wrong.

Kicking off with soap opera, ‘Coronation Street’ (‘Corrie’) remains strong, retaining that ‘old women talking over fences’ gossipy fun that defined it from day one. Recent gems included Ken Barlow (William Roache) leaving his wife, Deirdre (Anne Kirkbride) for the alluring Martha (Stephanie Beacham).

In a piece that could have been penned by Arthur Miller, Ken walked the cobbled street, surveying his life. He spoke to a series of characters, none of whom realised that Ken was bidding a bittersweet farewell. It was ironic, poignant and trenchant and would have been too subtle and sophisticated for any soap other than ‘Corrie’. Ken ultimately returned home. So the plotline maybe over, but its characters survive, from Ken and Deirdre to Blanche and Norris and the engaging villainy of soap’s favourite new baddie, Tony (Gray O’Brien).

‘Eastenders’ take note: your characters should define and drive the plots, not vice versa. Otherwise, you end up sacrificing potential assets before their time. The resurrected Dirty Den, psychopathic Andy Hunter and most recently, the vulnerable Danielle, all met premature ends.

The powers that be at ‘Eastenders’ do appease the viewers occasionally. They have just returned favourite villain of old, Nick Cotton (a very funny and very scary turn from John Altman). But even ‘Nasty Nick’ will no doubt meet a nasty end in due course. ‘Goodbye, Ma’.

I concede that all shows lose good characters and still survive. ‘ER’ lasted a good ten years after George Clooney stopped playing Dr. Doug Ross regularly. Nevertheless, it was Clooney that defined and launched the programme, injecting cinematic charm to what might otherwise have been just another medical melodrama.

Such a shame then, that Clooney toned down his powerful presence in a cameo for the final episode of ‘ER’. Gone was the roguish charm and urgent professionalism of the Dr. Doug Ross we knew and admired. Clooney performed on an anaesthetised auto-pilot mode. But it was not his fault entirely. He was let down by a humdrum script that lectured viewers on the merits of organ donation. Worthy cause, wrong arena in which to plug it.

We needed another kind of Doctor, of the sci-fi variety, to truly entertain us. And ‘Doctor Who’ did not disappoint, delivering a cracking Easter special called ‘Planet of the Dead’.


I could not fault the Doctor’s latest adventure. There were spectacular set pieces, beautiful shots of a sandy planet and stunning effects. But the greatest strength in ‘Planet of the Dead’ was the balance between character and plot, c/o a perfect writing team (Russell T Davies and Gareth Roberts).

Davies’ genius was always in writing characters with infectious energy and emotional warmth. That’s what made ‘Doctor Who’ successful again. But Davies is even stronger when paired with Roberts. Roberts is a plot-smith, designing stories logically without losing a sense of adventurous fun. So we now have the perfect writing team for David Tennant’s last turns as the Doctor. Tennant deserves nothing less.

An exceptional actor, Tennant can change demeanour in a split second. His face can go from joy to fear, from benign to threatening. One other actor was capable of such brilliance on television: the late, great John Thaw.

John Thaw was most famous for playing Inspector Morse. Thaw gave that show a gruff machismo and charisma as well as soul, much missed in the inferior spin-off, ‘Lewis’.
‘Lewis’ does have mesmeric shots of Oxford and haunting music scores from Barrington Pheloung. And Kevin Whately clearly works at crafting Lewis’ character. But the plots are convoluted, allowing little if any breathing space to define and develop the eponymous hero.

There are nice moments between Whately ‘s Lewis and Theology grad sidekick (Sgt. Hathaway, played by Laurence Fox). But the show is still living in the shadow of Morse.

The scripts keep reminding us that Morse loved opera, beer and crosswords, making you miss his character more. Take Joanna Lumley’s recent cameo. I just kept thinking ‘Morse would have loved you’. Case closed.

Speaking of which..Joanna Lumley is living proof that television can be invaluable in mobilising public opinion. Her impassioned speeches on behalf of the Gurkhas treated us to entertaining ‘reality’ television, without trivialising or compromising the issues at hand.

But there is nothing real about the ‘reality’ shows themselves. They are stage managed, processed and packaged, with ready made archetypes (the baddie with a secret soft side, be it Simon Cowell or Alan Sugar) and plotlines (rags to riches? fish out of water? Susan Boyle fits the bill).

I take guilty pleasure in watching the less able ‘Britain’s Got Talent’ / ‘Apprentice’ hopefuls, who are a little over- eager to ‘give 150 per cent’ (who teaches maths to these poor souls?). But I cannot be blamed for watching. The families / friends of weaker candidates should dissuade them from exhibiting their vulnerabilities.

And besides, our reality shows have genuine social merits that cancel out the cheap thrills. Many cite the rise of the ‘reality’ genre as a sign of society’s decay. That is what Michael Parkinson had in mind when he wrote ‘that’ ill timed piece, condemning the circus surrounding the late Jade Goody. But I see ‘reality’ shows as a sign that society still has hope for regeneration.

I was particularly wowed by ‘Diversity’ on ‘Britain’s Got Talent’. I hope that they win the contest. ‘Diversity’ is a dance troop with zest, having crafted their act on the streets. You may prefer another act. But you can vote for your favourite. It’s a democracy, you see. And that can only be a good thing.

Bless you for watching. Tune in again soon. And in the meantime..Good night and Good luck...

InMagazines are a brand name owned and published by INDEPENDENT NEWS LIMITED (c) copyright 2009.