INT: TITUS?
GS: TITUS was really interesting show. Of all the shows I've seen the last couple of years I thought it had a different way of telling the story, different approach, I thought there was a real chance to discover what happens to the character. I was a little disappointed in the second season I worked on the show because I didn't think we got enough of Titus and his father and where he would really like to go as a character. I thought he was just venting about what happened to him. But I thought the series should have been more about Titus discovering how not to be trapped by his father's mistakes. I think that would have been better, would have lasted longer. I took an interest in the show for two reasons, one was the story telling, the other was a mixture of single camera and multi-camera. I liked that, thought it was a god opportunity for me. Like everything I've done, I left the Saturday shows to get back to the network. You do the Saturday stuff you are now a daytime kids director, you have to prove yourself again. It was a good opportunity.

INT: Show lasted 2 or 3 seasons?
GS: Lasted 2.5. Two seasons past the first initial order. [INT: Tell me how you felt the actor and the creators saw the show differently and how that added or detracted from the series?] I think in theory, the actor…it was CHRIS TITUS' life story brought to the air in the form of a situation comedy. He had a stand up act that included all this material, him talking about growing up and surviving what he feels is a very funny life, what the rest of us see as sad and dark. There were a lot of awful things that happened, but Chris chose a different view of that. I think that's what brought it to television, this dark would could perhaps be funny. I'm sure they talked about how the show was going to be arced. The producer creators along with TITUS, because he really was a creator and writer. He wrote an episode or two himself. Participated in his own rewrites. There every step of the way. I thought what was lost sight, I said it once to him in all the shows that I have done I have done every little of the father's characters, STACY KEACH who was the funniest element of the show. A guy who was outrageous, the way Archie Bunker was. He was good. they decided to make the stories a kind of variety of stories within his life. Not having a real purpose in terms of growth for Chris's character I thought. That's why in my way of thinking it wasn't as successful, nor as fun. It was too much like a day in the life, not enough of Chris at 25, 26, 27.

INT: You talked about how the show was a mix of styles, can you be more definite, how did that impact you as a director?
GS: We were using a camera, 24p, basically videotape with a cartridge. But it has a very film look to it. Not only that, but in that show we were on a film lot, they didn't want to lose their camera people. Even though we were on tape we wanted to do it film style. Which got to be complicated, and an amalgam of the two made it a worse choice. it had to be one or the other. I said it over and over, they had a wonderful DP, he hated video tape and didn't like this whole process, wanted to go back to film. I understood why, I told him without question this is the way we are doing it. we could be finished in half the time if we did it tape style. My giving shots to the camera guys and we can block it faster. [INT: You were 24p but on dollies?] On dollies, and it was a lot tougher I thought. With the film crew, my experience with film crews when I first started, there were a lot more so they were really good. This film crew I thought had three good cameras and one mediocre. As a result, you were always watching for the wrong thing. I know the camera coordinator is supposed to be watching, but as a director I watch all the monitors. You are aware that somebody cant do it or comes up short or mis-frames. You become very conscious. You are looking for ways to get around, takes you out of the moment.

INT: Before we start talking about directing in more specific terms, is there any show we didn’t mention, COACH or 9 TO 5 that stand out as experiences?
GS: COACH was a different experience. The funny experience was CRAIG T. NELSON was so difficult. He was wonderful in the role, he was a larger than life personality. BARRY had talked to me about doing it earlier, but that's when he was going through a little bit of hell with CRAIG. BARRY at one point thought he wanted to throw in the towel. He told me one case where it was a guy that was getting his first opportunity and CRAIG had loved him. Talking to him throughout the course of this guy observing, but the first moment he directed he absolutely murdered him. Anyway, I went on the show knowing the problems, did the reading. Worked with him before. I pulled SHELLEY aside, said what do we do next. She laughed, said we have lunch, sit around, and then when CRAIG gets up we get up and start to work. And that's exactly what happened. We sat around, he was doing taxes or bills. He opened up the script and as he opened up the script everybody recognized it, got up, walked onto the set and did it. When he was done he was done. It was the way of those...

INT: Who were producers?
GS: BRAD JOHNSON, MARK who just recently passed away, can't remember his name. JOE STARETSKI. [INT: It's interesting because whereas sometimes the director is talked about as the driving personality on a set, truthfully it’s the star?] It's the star, used to be the writer was the driving person. The show I didn't talk about was 9 TO 5 with SALLY STRUTHERS it was the second incarnation. JIMMY KOMACK produced the first year then MICHAEL KAGAN produced the next two years. That was a show driven by the writer where you could not manufacture blocking or writing in the scene, or try to rearrange the writing to fit a sequence because he would see you do it. It wouldn't last and they would resent it. You literally had to completely stay with the script. I understood that. I used to resist it because I came from a different place. Once I said this is the way it is, the fun of the PETER ENGALL shows even though they wanted the same quality was you could play it a bit.

INT: Did CARROLL O'CONNOR go word for word?
GS: Never. It was funny, used to piss JOHN off. We would get to Friday and CARROLL'S script would be someplace in the room, not with CARROLL. After awhile he had a facility to know pretty much where everything was. If you told him the punch line of a joke he knew how to get there. He wasn't normally that quick of a study but for some reason on that show he had a facility for trying to get there. As he gradually merged with that character it seemed obvious. All of the malapropos were his, him coming up with it. He came up with some and then they began to suggest things and he would change it. The wording was the way he put everything into his mouth. He would get the sense of it and change it to the way he thought Archie would talk. Wonderful ear for sound. He had this wonderful rage. People can see rage and say he is acting. CARROLL just looked like it came right out of him.

INT: One of the questions here on the list is how do you think in the multi-camera shows, what do you think is the biggest change from JOHN RICH to TITUS for the directors?
GS: No booth. Your entire experience is on the floor. You have less of a relationship with the camera people unless you go out of your way to make it such. You have a camera coordinator to expedite the design. Unfortunately in a lot of cases for some directors is the camera coordinator does too much. Gives an inordinate power to a camera director in the eyes of a producer. It's not just about staging actors, but its about how we get along with a producer. You got to work. If you don't get along or are at odds, it's different.

INT: How about the number of run throughs, lack of rehearsal time?
GS: Never more noticeable than a show like TITUS. We read in the morning, did a run-through at 230 in the afternoon, half an hour for lunch, take an hour to read it, and gosh you don’t have much. Not much time at all to rehearse that show. Then you were doing a run through not only for the producers but for the studio people too. They are doing key notes, story notes, all those. I said there is no chance to work it. I'm sure we could find those things. You have to be so quick. In the case of Titus you have an actor who is on hyper speed anyway. He is very quick, the minute he is not funny he responds to it. So that's a big change. CARROLL O'CONNOR was as big a personality, but he never exercised it quite that way. It wasn't about power, it was about improving the work. Sometimes today it was about power. I worked on a show last year which the actor, star of the show, was also one of the co-creators. We did a complicated show with two or three hours of make up involved for him to play an older character. He would always show up an hour late. Always. Nothing else to do, he is in every scene but one. Standing around waiting. Nobody saying anything else. No producer saying anything different. Still on the air, unbelievable. I'm going back to do some more, I told my agent I want to work but this is not a show I would like to do 26 of. You're going to kill yourself doing it.

INT: Talk about casting a little bit?
GS: Lost art. In a half hour sometimes it is, because a half hour director can literally work every week. Unless you work on a show where you are the main director, two shows here and there, you can't coordinate your time with the show that's coming up next. You may not be able to. You can make suggestions but you may not be there and that is unfortunate. A good part of doing every episode of the series is you are there for every minute. Every aspect of post. When you go from place to place you lose a little bit on both sides, pre and post.

INT: Do you feel that the producer writers of these shows welcome you in casting and post?
GS: No they don’t open your arms for casting. They ask if I want to come along. My answer is I would like to be there, like to see what's there even if I say nothing. I'd like to see what they do. Yeah, there isn't enough of, and its easy to say the time doesn't work out or I'm going to be busy. There are all kinds of reasons you can explain away why everybody doesn't coordinate, but it can be done. I did it in Virginia. I was there for every minute of every casting, but I never saw a cut I didn't say well that's good. Let's change this and this, but I was a part of the party. I was the sole guy, made it clear this was how it was going to work. You can't do that, you don't have that position when you are a vagabond.

INT: What things would you like to direct other than what you’ve direct, what forms? Theater?
GS: I'd be curious about the theater. I don’t know the first thing about it. I've seen enough so I know where you physically have to be, but the whole process I would be interested to work. I like working with the writer, saying I'm not getting this idea. Could we look at it and maybe rework it. When I did the SHERMAN HEMSLEY pilot was I had a lot of questions about the script. I told BOB there is a joke here but we don't have it. I think it will help in these next two moments. That was fun to do, we were working for the same goal. Trying to make it better, no ego about it. Not trying to upstage you and get my way. It's just a suggestion that looking at a material we can do better. I would like to do that. I'd love to do a movie if I could find something I really love to do. I found a small script about fathers and sons that a cop in New York wrote. Optioned at one point, I looked at it, but you don't find that kind of thing. It's funny. I read a thing on Tokyo Rose that I wanted to do, but it's getting done now. FRANK DARABONT is going to do it. Actually, one of the producers is a woman I talked to who owned the rights for years. Something about the Asian American experience I would love to do. There is a book. It's not great so much as its a great idea of a period of time we need to look at and at least talk about. It was a book called NO-NO BOYS about people who refused either end of the loyalty oath. Those people were incarcerated, thrown in jail, key thrown away. Released at the end of the war, men without countries. Not accepted by the Americans or Japanese Americans. Written by JAMES OKADA, wrote it in the fifties. I think there is a story there. I don't know the book had the form of a story, but I like it so much I called ROB REINER. I seldom would use a friend in a position that way unless I felt it was good enough to explore. I thought ROB had the political sensibility to look at it, called me back in a week said he was fascinated. But there wasn't a story. He was busy. I'd like to do something about that. There is a wonderful Americana story about World War II about 442nd, most famous division in history of world wars. Most highly decorated, Japanese Americans. Made up of Hawaiian-born Japanese Americans, saved division in Italy. That was a movie called GO FOR BROKE, which was made interestingly enough in 1950, 51 by DORE SCHARY who had the chutzpah to do that movie. Wonderfully heroic about a group of people who in spite of incarceration they thought they loved the country so much they would give their lives for it.

INT: Was there ever an attempt by the government to make reparations to people they took away from?
GS: The whole reparation act was I think brought up in the late 60s and maybe by DANIEL INOUYE of Hawaii. He was a good friend of my cousins who won two purple hearts in WWII. He brought it up, bandied about congress for a number of years, finally it got resolved in the war reparations, 25,000 dollars given out in 1980 I think. So my father got 25,000, and I did too. When you consider dollar wise what it was [INT: Hardly equal?] No, but at least in this country that kind of thing can happen.

INT: You may be attracted by all three, but it is it story, character, or action that brings you to a project the most?
GS: I like all three, I think story is most important. There isn't enough story in half hour television. One of the things I miss, going back to ALL IN THE FAMILY, was all the stories, the arc of each year was really the arc of the full year. These characters grew and changed with the times. The producers used to bring down LA TIMES, POST, and we would read them. That's how we found Watergate on the 16th page of the NEW YORK TIMES. I remember JOHN coming in. We could use this. We used it at the end of that season. The beginning of the next season we opened up three shows built around Watergate. That was great. That's really, it made people talk about the shows. With the lack of story, we don't talk about it. There isn't something to really say did you see that? We don't say that anymore. That was funny. I laughed my head off. Can't remember the line. There are moments, I can remember lines and jokes, joke patterns that were built. I perhaps, something special. I loved the story. Character, all three of those things, character and action I love. I'm writing an animated feature that hopefully has those elements. I looked at FINDING NEMO, wonderful story wonderful characters. PIXAR, brilliant film making I thought.

INT: We talked earlier about your situation as a Japanese American. Since you and I are both guys who have been around for a while, talk about age and how you feel that impacts you as a creative force and how it may effect your perception in the community as a creative force?
GS: I think it does impact me. I think you look at somebody with my background and career. The one thing that is good is I have done a lot of things over a regular period of time and been successful. When they look at my resume I think they are interested. I do think that because I'm older I don't know a lot of the younger people. I don't have that relationship. In a lot of ways I find I am starting over. I have to improve myself. How it impacts the community? I don't know. The Asian community up until recently has seemingly been interested in movie stars and people in front of the camera, not behind the camera. That's my biggest complaint when I said the reason why Asian Americans don't get enough stories for themselves is they don't develop writers. It's writing that helps give those opportunities. But then you read articles about actors. There are a lot of people in this business of color who don't get written up. Set dressers, editors, they should be treated the same. If they are excellent in something, attention should be paid.

INT: When you have to go meet some of these new people and they are your daughters age, 25, how do you feel they look at you?
GS: As a guy with a tremendous background and an asset, or a guy who cant be in touch with the things they feel are important? I think its a combination of both. Sometimes I look at my background and say wow you are all by yourself then. The other thing they say, first thing out of their mouth, what they want to do is to direct. I don't want to, the answer for me would be I want to get to first base. I don't want a home run. That's a little bit of the change. Some younger people don't know what I've done. They see the name, don't know what it means. A lot of younger people don't have a sense of history I find. They don't pay attention to it. So what happens to them at 25, they complained they have to take courses in sequences. That's always been the case, they say no I just want to start.

INT: As a guy who's been a part of the DGA for many seasons, how do you view the Guild? In terms of itself and you?
GS: I think it’s the strongest of the guilds, seems to be the one that push came to shove the producers will pay more attention to. When you think of the guild you think not specifically directors, but you think of filmmakers which makes them a larger force than somebody who directs theater or television, that they are filmmakers. It's been great for me, in every way. I made wonderful friends from it. It protects me. Even when I first started, when I was an AD, the kind who would sometimes take over from directors if we thought a director was weaker or wanted to be taken over. They were very understanding with what my problems were, bringing somebody or criticizing somebody. I remember I did a pilot in which a wonderful theater director, great guy, but he didn't know his ass from an elbow in terms of cameras in a kind of shooting that has to be continuous. He was terrific on stage, didn't spend any time in post. So I took over for him, but I got censured. Not censures but somebody called and said the AD was taking over. I got a call from the directors guild saying why did I do this? I said people like me are in a rock and a hard place. The producers want me to help make this work. I cant sit back and let it die so I have to help that along. So if you are saying to me that you want to give me directing money for this I didn't direct the whole show. They said they have to give me something, so I said give me an episode. but they were understanding, they understood where I was coming from and I've always gotten that from the guild. I thought everybody I talked to never had only one way of doing something. They were always thoughtful about what circumstances were.