INTERVIEW: Director Stephen Surjik on 'The Abandons,' 'The X-Files,' 'Person of Interest,' Marvel, and Upcoming 'Elsbeth'

With a television career spanning more than three decades, director and executive producer Stephen Surjik has helped shape some of the most influential series of the past 30 years, from The X-Files and Person of Interest to Marvel’s Daredevil and Netflix’s The Abandons. Known for his genre-spanning work, Surjik continues to evolve as a storyteller in the industry. In a recent conversation with Nexus Point News, Stephen Surjik reflected on how his directing style has matured over time, revisited his reunion with Gillian Anderson, and discussed the creative and logistical challenges behind bringing The Abandons to life.

Nexus Point News: I must say that you have one of the most impressive resumes. You've spent over 3 decades working in television. Looking back, how has your approach to directing evolved over time?

Stephen Surjik: Wow, gee whiz! I’ll tell you, sometimes I think about this, how has all of this experience affected my directing, and sometimes I think that I’ve actually learned a lot more techniques. I don’t have the same kind of fervor that I had when I was really young working on [shows] like Kids in the Hall or something like that. It’s very interesting because you make up, you learn all kinds of tricks as you go along down the road - not really tricks, but your understandings of certain genres and how people work. I think I understand actors more now than ever. Maybe I’m too empathetic. There are directors that are, rather than being influential, really controlling. But do they get good performances? I try to be more of an actor’s director now. I try to be much more open to the influence and the vision that they’re bringing to their character and how that affects the narrative and the shots in the scene. So that’s how it’s changed, I would say. I’m more open.

The Abandons reunites you with Gillian Anderson after nearly 30 years. What was it like directing her again today, given how much both of you have grown professionally ever since?

Stephen Surjik: Well, that’s another great question. When I worked with her on The X-Files, she was pretty crowded by the whole success of the show at the time. It was early, the first season for me and for them, and they were getting a lot of attention. It was Murdoch’s favorite TV show at the time, and it was building Fox Television. I had met Chris [Carter], the showrunner and creator, and he brought me in to do an episode, and I got to work with her. She was really good, but like me, she was pretty new and trying to find her way a little bit. It isn’t like she was learning how to act, but she was learning how to deal with the big spotlight.

Now she’s not dealing so much with the spotlight. And now, she’s really dealing with the nuances of her performance. What she can do now is finish a take. She would just look at me after she finished the take, and I would know she just was going to roll into another take. I wouldn’t call cut. She’d go into it again and again, and it was wild to watch her because every take would be different – different emphasis, different emotion, slight changes. There was always a choice in there, and that’s what she would do on The Abandons, whereas on The X-Files she would do a performance and I would cut and move on, she’s really grown into just a powerhouse.

The Abandons © Netflix

You're also working with Lena Headey – another incredibly powerful presence. How do you approach directing actors of that caliber and what do you look for in those collaborations?

Stephen Surjik: Lena approaches material quite [differently.] I’m not really trying to adjudicate the value of the style of performance, but it was the first time I worked with Lena and I saw how she worked much more. She would study the material as hard as Gillian and was as professional as Gillian. She didn’t want to talk about it as much as Gillian. You can discuss things in incredible detail with Gillian, whereas Lena would say, "Let’s just try one and see where it lands, let’s see how it feels." Different approach.

I wouldn’t say that Lena was a so-called method actor, but she really relied on her instincts in the scene and how she was responding to the other actors and the obstacles around her. That was the biggest difference that I could ascertain. I hadn’t worked with Lena before, [but] I’d worked with her husband, Marc Menchaca, on a Law & Order: Organized Crime episode where he was one of the bad guys. I had a really great relationship with both of them.

You also stepped into the role of executive producer. How did wearing both hats influence your experience as a director?

Stephen Surjik: A director wants to be either a producing director or an EP on a show to increase their influence so they can do a better job directing. That’s ultimately what it’s about. As a director, you have a lot of influence on a small number of people – the actors, the camera, the sound, maybe a little bit of design.

As an executive producer, that control is diluted, but it’s over a lot more people. There are probably a couple thousand people who ultimately worked on our show, with construction, wardrobe, and hair. You have a little bit of control over a lot more people, but I found it incredibly frustrating because I’m used to working with this person, that person, and you know we can work it out, and we're going to see it in the dailies. I don’t regret being an EP, but I just find it really exhausting. It’s a really hard job, and I really respect the good producers out there who are doing it right, and I’m learning from them.

Is this a level of involvement you'd like to pursue more often?

Stephen Surjik: Absolutely. As an EP, a lot of other responsibilities fell my way. I worked a lot with the First Nations to make sure they were integrating - with a linguist we brought in from Oregon to work on the Cayuse language. She was the only person who actually knew Cayuse in the world, and she would work with the actors. I made sure that happened at the right time and in advance. There would be a riding school because all the actors had to ride. I made sure the stunt people were good with that, that it was working properly, and that the firearms course was working for safety. There are all these logistics that have to be considered. We were working in a very remote area in Alberta, at altitude, with grizzly bears and wild animals. We even brought in a wild grizzly that had to be trained, and that training had to start way down the road before everything else. While we would talk about it as producers, a lot of these things fell on my lap and I had to handle those. I think I would prefer to do it as a producer and not as a director at the same time. Doing both is hard, truthfully.

With The Abandons, you are portraying a very specific historical period while also representing multiple cultures. How did you approach building authenticity within that world?

Stephen Surjik: We really relied a lot on experts that Netflix brought in for us. For instance, in the First Nations department, we had someone named Cass Kip. She is First Nations, and she knew a linguist from the Smithsonian Institute who knew how First Nations build fires, build homes, and socialize.

We also brought in a firearms expert from South Carolina who knew how to deal with antiquated guns from the period. There were layers and layers of specialists – wardrobe and all sorts of consultants – because we had to build everything from scratch. We had to build every building and every piece of wardrobe. That’s what happens in all period pieces or science fiction.

It is a big undertaking, and we started a long time back, about a year before, and then there was a strike in the middle of it. As for authenticity, we spent a lot of time with advisors and specialists, even in the music. We had live music played by Michael Houseman with Aisling, who played Trish in the Van Ness family. They had a little duet that they played. [Houseman] didn’t play piano. He was a guitar player. Aisling is a spectacular pianist, although she says she isn’t. They were playing a quite rarefied piece of music, and to make it work right, we had to start Houseman on a program months before he came to town. We had teachers in New York working with him and learned that scratch. That’s just speaking to authenticity. He actually played the piano; it wasn’t done with CG. The same thing with the First Nations village we constructed... In addition to the research, our designer would create basic drawings, and we’d run them through specialists. They'd say, "No, that's not how they make fire- [the] pit goes down and it's got another one on the side," and we'd fix that up and make sure that the everything was consistent and correct.

The Canadian Badlands are also a challenging location. Aside from the grizzly, how did the landscape shape the tone of the series and your experience with it?

Stephen Surjik: The Canadian Badlands, like the American Badlands, are a very rugged place. In Alberta, I love them. It’s a beautiful place. But we were working at altitude, so everyone was really tired, and we were hours out of town, so there was a lot of driving.

One of the major things our showrunner wanted us to adhere to was the man versus nature aspect of the period. This is a time when, if you’re riding along on a horse and you fall off, you could die. You just get crushed. You'd die from a toothache. There'd be a storm and you would die. Death was always very close, and in those rugged conditions, with the temperature changing radically and with the altitude and wildlife, it was dangerous.

This was a major theme that Kurt Sutter wanted us to promote through developing many obstacles in the environment. Even in the town, you see piles of dirt. There are no roads. People are climbing around things, building things, taking trees down. It’s wild. It was a major theme we were trying to promote. It was a character in the piece.

You've directed across many genres, particularly in sci-fi and superhero television. For example, you worked with Marvel on Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Punisher, and even more. Some of these characters are returning in new iterations. Would you be interested in revisiting that world?

Stephen Surjik: I’ve always enjoyed working in the Marvel universe. It’s always expanding, the characters are well defined, and it’s really well managed. I spent three or four years doing Marvel shows and worked on a lot of them. It was special. When I was working on the Marvel shows, it was known as peak television. There was a lot of [financial support], and they were saying, "You need more time, you can spend [more money] to get the details right, make it perfect." That was an exquisite experience as a director. I really enjoyed it, and of course I’d love to go back and do more of that.

There’s always a new horizon. You noticed in my resume, you were very flattering, but I try to do different things as I go along. It’s not exactly branding. If it were, I’d say I’m an action-comedy guy and that’s all I do. But I started in comedy, moved into action, I do some adult, I do some rom-com. It’s a real mix, and I like that because it’s always a challenge. It’s always new. It’s always different.

So what's next for you? Are there any upcoming projects you are currently involved in or you're excited about?

Stephen Surjik: I’m heading to New York to direct an episode of Elsbeth. It’s a TV show on CBS. I love it. I’ve watched every episode they’ve done, and I just think it’s so now. First of all, the Kings are great writers. They did The Good Fight, The Good Wife, and so many really great pieces of work. I’ve just been a huge fan, and I’m really delighted to have the opportunity to work with them.

Elsbeth is a character that I love. She’s so wacky and she’s so great. I actually worked with [Elsbeth actor Carrie Preston's] husband, Michael Emerson, previously on something else, so I sort of know the group. They’re fantastic.

She was also in Person of Interest. I was going to ask you about that. Person of Interest is one of my favorite shows. I rewatched it so many times.

Stephen Surjik: I love you! Thank you. I was lucky I was part of a little bit of that, yeah.

Are you going to work with Jonathan Nolan again anytime soon? It was a great collaboration you had on Person of Interest.

Stephen Surjik: No, it was awesome, and he’s gone on to do all sorts of great things. His brother [director Christopher Nolan] is huge in Hollywood, and I would love to work with him some more. I actually worked with his wife before I worked with him on something called Burn Notice. I was a producing director and she was a writer, and we worked together on that, and that’s kind of how I got to know the family a little bit.

Yeah, I hope to see more of that in the future.

Stephen Surjik: Thank you for loving Person of Interest. I really loved the show myself and I thought I was really lucky to work on it. It was amazing. And guess what, it’s over the future now. It’s so hot right now. It’s happening. It’s crazy.

You know, in the first season you have this procedural thing and then it builds into this huge narrative that's so good. It was just so beautiful. I am in love with that show, so I was very excited to speak with you because you directed Person of Interest.

Stephen Surjik: I only did maybe a half a dozen, 6 or 7. I'm not sure.

7!

Stephen Surjik: Thank you. I was just actually looking at one of them the other day, but I’m not going to get into the details. It was one where they go under and they’re doing a bank job, and the way they do it is they go into the basement and they blow the ceiling, and the whole bank vault falls down, and then they pick through it. Yeah, I was just looking at that and going, wow, we did that. We were doing that during Hurricane Sandy, and it was crazy times.

Yeah, it's one of the classics for me. Thank you so much for speaking with me today.

Stephen Surjik: Thank you for speaking to me and thank you for being a fan of some of my work. I look forward to the interview.

---

This interview has been edited for clarity.