Site Presented By
Friday, Jul 10, 2009
The "Six Feet Under" creator on the show's death, and on asking tough questions in an era of simple answers.
Aug 20, 2005 | There are two kinds of writers in Hollywood: those who enjoy and believe in the work, who stretch and challenge themselves, who set the bar higher for everyone else, and the ones who are content to imitate others until they can retire to a golf course in Cabo in a few years. While we can all get behind a little Mexican sunshine, it's no coincidence that the best writers often seem far less focused on their successes than they are on the next challenge that lies ahead.
It probably goes without saying that the man behind "Six Feet Under," a show that shoves mortality in our faces when every other part of our culture tries to distract us from it, is more than a little fond of challenges. He's that rare type, the Buddhist overachiever, the success story who never fails to stop and smell the roses, the busy mover and shaker who takes time to be friendly and to listen.
In fact, when he spoke to me on the phone from his Hollywood office, he told me his day had been pretty hectic, and I countered with some thoroughly off-topic digression about planning for months to plant bamboo in my backyard, only to learn it's a terrible choice for the space and that I'll have to plant a hedge instead. Ball listened and offered his own advice -- forget the bamboo. Let go, move on! -- and went on to discuss why viewers hate Nate Fisher, with the same honesty and humor.
Nate Fisher (played by Peter Krause) has been such a bastard, this season in particular. Did you always intend on killing Nate off in the end?
No. When I wrote the pilot, I had no idea where the show was going to go. When I tried to break down each character's journey over the course of the series, Nate's journey has always been towards accepting his mortality, but fighting it every step of the way. You know, towards accepting mortality in general and those he loves specifically and himself even more specifically. And the final, most fundamental acceptance of mortality is death itself. You don't really have a choice whether you're going to accept it or not. At what point in your life are you going to accept it? Are you going to accept it before it happens or are you going to wait for it to happen?
What do you think is the benefit of accepting death before you die?
I think there's a certain amount of peace that comes with that, there's a certain amount of liberation, and there's a deeper appreciation of every day. It's not like, "Oh, I'm so pissed off, I haven't gotten that promotion," and "Goddamn it, why don't I have a BMW?" It's a lot harder to find fault with the mundane details of daily existence when you really, really know on a cellular level that you're going to go, and that this moment, right now, is life. Life isn't what happens to you in 20 years. This moment, right now, is your life.
So screw all the bamboo!
Exactly, screw the bamboo. Whatever new plant you choose is an amazing miraculous creation.
Did Nate ever frustrate you as a character?
Absolutely.
And do you like that? Because the characters on "Six Feet Under" feel sort of like family members to me, in that they're so often such a serious pain in the ass.
I wouldn't have it any other way. I'm not interested in writing characters who figure it out, and get it right, because I feel like that's too simplistic, and then you're writing about something that vaguely resembles life instead of writing about life. Because even if you figure out something, something bigger is going to come along that confuses the hell out of you. And for characters who are soulful and have a soulful connection to life ... One of the enduring themes of the series is that trying to figure out the right thing to do is such a mystery, it's so baffling. So many times when you do the quote right unquote thing, it makes your life harder, and you don't get rewarded for it. Then you get into the whole question of what is right and wrong. Is there a black-and-white universal right and wrong, or is there what's right for you, or is there what's right for people you love, or is there what's right for the global community? Life is infinitely complex and I feel like we live in a culture that really seems to want to simplify it into sound bites and bromides, and that does not work.
Well, I guess some people can probably cling to an idea that's very simple, or some structure or framework. And Nate is envious of those people!
Sure, or some illusion. You say Nate's been a bastard, but I don't see him that way because I don't see any of the characters as, "Oh, what a bitch!" or "What an asshole!" I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for Nate and his desire to get to the root of things and be authentic. And I think he is always [Pauses] he's difficult to describe because he's so complicated. Probably what is at the root of a lot of his less than noble actions is that, while not serving those who he's committed to well, there's something admirable, on some level, about still having this childlike hope of finding the right thing. Because there is the notion of, you know, you grow up, you lose your illusions, whatever, and you have to do that to become a functioning adult in society, but there is something fundamental that gets lost, a kind of joy. So I find him to be a deeply tragic character and a deeply romantic character. Whether I would say he's just a garden-variety asshole, no, I don't think so at all.
