David Hyde Pierce on The Perfect Host, Fearlessness and Living With Niles Crane

After last week's rousing round of My Favorite Scene, actor David Hyde Pierce returns to Movieline today to chat about The Perfect Host. Director Nick Tomnay's feature debut features Pierce as Warwick, a posh Angeleno hosting a dinner party crashed by a wounded bank robber (Clayne Crawford) on the lam. That's about all I'm going to tell you about the narrative, which twists like a Red Vine and swings from psychological thriller to dark comedy to heist intrigue -- and sometimes back again -- with dizzying speed.

Pierce, still best known for his Emmy-winning role as Niles Crane on Frasier, spoke about Perfect Host's playing against type, why he still watches old episodes, and why he'd never play another variation on his most famous character.

This poster is kind of transfixing every time I look at it. What do you think of it?

I think it's good. I think it's great! I love the slogan, or the tagline. Or whatever you call it.

You're so menacing!

I think what's good about it, too, is that people who know me -- like, from Frasier -- recognize the face. Clearly this is going to be something slightly different from what they're used to seeing. So hopefully that makes them go, "Oh. Well, maybe we should see this, since we haven't seen him do whatever it is he's doing with his fork in that man's ear."

It is a pretty crazy role. Was it the type of thing that you knew you had to do as soon as you read it? Or did it require some coaxing?

It didn't take coaxing. There were a few meetings just to see how it would go. But I read the script, and I loved it instantly. I loved the writing. I think any actor would love the character; it's such a juicy part. There's a short film the director had done that this is based on, so I saw that. I got to see his work as a director, which I liked a lot. Just visually, it was, "Whoa. He really knows what he's doing." Then it was just a couple of meetings with Nick, the director, to make sure we were thinking along the same lines [about] how to approach this complicated character. We hit it off, and that was it.

He credited you with taking "a risk" with this role. Did you perceive it that way?

No. It didn't feel like a risk. I think that the main reason it may have seemed like a risk was that most people -- including Nick -- know me from Frasier. If that had been my only acting experience, then this would be quite a plunge. But I've done a nuber of different things in theater for many years -- very heavy stuff, very crazy stuff. Just being in the theater for almost 30 years, you're exposed to a lot of wild and crazy people and stuff. So there was nothing out of my experience where I thought, "Oh, wow, what do I do?" I remember on the set there were these very dark and intense and disturbing scenes, and Nick was, as any good director would be, very solicitous and wanting to make sure I was comfortable and everything. And I was like, "Yeah, I'm fine! I'm fine. It's not a big deal for me. I'm happy to do this."

Speaking of that, was there ever a moment where you or Nick were compelled to pull the character back a little bit? That maybe he was too much?

That's a good question. [Pause] I would say that the character is fundamentally on the page. Because of the arc of the character -- there's so much complexity in what's going on with him the whole time -- there might have been sort of nuances where Nick said, "That's too much." Or, "Do more." Or whatever. But in general, he had expressed it so clearly in his writing that I don't remember having a lot of questions. The style of the piece, the nature of the character, and everything else just seemed to be evident.

We always hear about how a set is "closed" when shooting a love scene or something especially intimate. And while there's no romantic relationship between Warwick and John, the intensity and intimacy is such that I wondered what the shooting conditions were to create that experience.

What made it intimate, first of all, was that we had a week of rehearsal ahead of time where it was just me and Nick and Clayne. That was invaluable. We got to discover how to work with each other, which happened very quickly. Especially when you're playing characters who are such antagonists, it's so important that you're able to work together. Ironically! We found that out right away, which was great. We were able to work through dynamics. I hadn't thought about it until you asked the question, but aside from the fact that we didn't have time in the schedule to figure these things out on the set, it would have been strange. The privacy of that rehearsal time was very important in developing trust with each other -- knowing we could try anything and see where it went. By the time we got to the set, the chemistry was there between us, and our relationship with Nick was there. I think that was really important.

Considering everything that happens at this dinner party and the way the story is told -- but without spoiling anything -- just how crazy-making was this role?

I think that the complexity of what's going on in the scenes is probably more of an issue for the director than it is for me, especially with the short shooting time. You can't just shot everything and then figure it out in the editing room. He knew exactly what he wanted, and he's really good. What he wanted was the right thing. And again, I go back to that week of rehearsal -- that being able to chart where everything went really helped. So no. I didn't feel inappropriately crazed.

Pages: 1 2