text:
St. John the Baptist Cathedral (Mayfield, Pennsylvania)
St. John the Baptist Russian Orthodox Cathedral, located in Mayfield, Pennsylvania, is one of the oldest Orthodox churches on the East Coast and is currently under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, operating under the Julian Calendar.
The Beginnings of the Church, 1878-1907
The beginnings of the cathedral community date back to 1878 with the arrival of Carpatho-Russian immigrants from the western part of Galicia, known as Lemkovstchina. These early settlers possessed deep religious feelings and desired to worship in their own church. As a result, they began holding services in the Stec home, located directly behind the present church. Shortly thereafter, they rented an inactive Baptist church and immediately converted the interior to resemble an Orthodox church.
In 1888, the Brotherhood of St. John the Baptist was organized. With an inordinate amount of support and encouragement from the growing congregation, plans were implemented to build a new church. This initial building was a wooden frame structure and was constructed in 1891. This church was located on the corner of Hill and Maple Streets in the geographic center of town at the cost of $6,500. The original name given to the church was the Russian Greek Catholic Church of St. John the Baptist.
The early immigrants in Mayfield were a very enterprising people. As a result, by 1896, the faithful had built a parish home and school building, which also contained a social center for church affairs. The people totally supported a priest and a choir-master. The latter also taught religious classes. The people's foresight and energy are exemplified by such accomplishments as the establishment of a food co-operative store, the parish drum and bugle corp, boy scout troop #85, a library, the Russian Hose Co. (present day Mayfield Hose Co.), and many other organizations.
Toward the turn of the century, more Greek Catholic churches were founded in the area. As a result, the initial apathy of local Roman Catholics evolved into overt hostility against these Christians of the Eastern Rite. The Roman hierarch demanded that the faithful of St. John's adopt a new charter and sign their property over to the Roman Catholic Church. The parishioners vehemently resisted these pressures and became determined to reunite with the Orthodox faith that they did not realize they had left.
In 1902, Fr. John Olshevsky petitioned Archbishop Tikhon (now St. Tikhon of Moscow) to accept them under his omophorion (spiritual protectorate). By 1903, the parish was officially accepted into the Orthodox Church by the celebration of a hierarchal Divine Liturgy with Abp. Tikhon.
In 1905, the parishioners of St. John's played an integral role in establishing St. Tikhon of Zadonsk Monastery and Orphanage in South Canaan, Pennsylvania (later also the site of St. Tikhon's Orthodox Theological Seminary. In the ensuing years, the parish was a major financial supporter of the monastery and the orphanage, as well as offering food to help sustain the inhabitants. During those years, many parishioners would walk the distance of approximately 13 miles for pilgrimages from St. John's to St. Tikhon's. This same walk was done in May of 1980 by some forty plus clergy and parishioners from St. John's to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the monastery.
On January 7, 1907, St. John the Baptist Russian Orthodox Church was officially chartered in the Lackawanna County Court. Soon thereafter, St. John's was honored by being chosen as the site of the first Orthodox All-American Sobor (council). This historic event was held from March 5-7 of 1907 and was presided over by Fr. Alexander Hotovitzky. While Abp. Tikhon was present he could not preside as he had been transferred back to Russia.
The Early Years 1908-1950
During World War I, the faithful actively participated participated in the Red Cross as well as many other war-time charities. More significantly, many of the parish's young men were called to serve in the United States Armed Forces, and subsequently sent overseas during the war years. Three parishioners gave their lives in the service of their country. Their names were Michael Tomasky, John Kulenych, and Aleck Hrapchak.
As time passed, throughout the 1920's, the spiritual flock of St. John's Church grew in leaps and bounds with families increasing in both size and in numbers. By the late 20's the original wooden church, now almost forty years old, was no longer adequate as a house of worship, and the need for a larger structure became apparent. In 1930, the old church was moved onto Maple Street and was still used for the cycle of services until the new church could be completed. The structure was constructed of steel and brick and adorned with five cupolas at a cost if $64,692. To adorn the interior for Orthodox worship, the faithful raised and spent an additional $20,000. Aside from the fact that none of these people were wealthy, all was accomplished during the height of the depression. This makes the feat all the more impressive.
On Sunday, February 22, 1933, matins was served in the old church for the last time. This matins service was followed by a procession in which the clergy and parish faithful removed vital liturgical articles so as to serve the first Divine Liturgy in the new church.
The new church was consecrated on September 4 (Labor Day), in 1933 by the Rev. Bishop Adam (Philipovsky) under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, as noted on the official document of the Act of Consecration. Prior to moving into the new church, the iconostasis was dismantled in the old church and re-assembled in the new church (it had been hand-carved by Mr. Dzubinsky, one of the early immigrants during the early 1880's). Though the old church was almost entirely dismantled, a small portion was kept intact and added onto the Kurlick home, which stands until today at the southwest corner of May and Maple Streets.
During the 1940s the faithful of St. John's satisfied the debt they had incurred to build the new church and celebrated the burning of the mortgage. There again, many young men of the parish were called to serve their country during World War II in the United States Armed Forces. Among those who gave their lives: Constantine Dorish, Michael Chilek, Stephen Hrapchak, Paul Lawbosky, John Karliak, William Kulick, Alexander Kuzmack, John Oleynik, Andrew Bolash, Michael Hanchak, Stephen Demchak, Stephen M. Liptak, Paul Soroka, John Krisa, Peter Hladick, and Gregory Guzey, all of blessed memory.
The Middle Years 1951-1981
In 1951, the parish council petitioned Metr. Leonty (Turkevich) for acceptance into the Metropolia. This action came about as a result of circumstances which happened several years earlier. In 1946, at the Cleveland Sobor, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia indicated that the church headquarters would be moved to New York. A split then occurred in the American Metropolia, and the decision was by approximately half of the bishops to disassociate with the Russian Synod Abroad. The church council made their decision in 1951, based on the fact that their familiarity has been with those bishops who had aligned.
On February 10, 1959, a fire began in the church. As smoke and flames spread, parishioners formed a human chain and removed sacred articles from the church. The fire took several hours to subdue completely and did extensive damage to both the interior and exterior of the church. The parish hall was used as a temporary place of worship until arrangements could be made to repair the church. With the help of the Good Lord, the church was re-blessed and the new altar was consecrated on May 29, 1960 by His Grace Bishop Dimitry (Magan).
Since 1896, the hall/school building served St. John's parish as a school for religious instruction, Russian and English classes, a place where the annual yolkas were held and where the choir featured many outstanding concerts and productions. The "Russian Hall," as it was more commonly referred to in the community, was also used by the senior classes from the local public school for activities such as class night and graduation exercises. The many Saturday night dances sponsored by different clubs within the parish were looked forward to and enjoyed over the years by people up and down the valley. The hall was raised in 1966 and groundbreaking ceremonies for the new hall took place on Sunday, May 7 of the same year. Dedication of the new church hall took place on October 27, 1968 with Bp. Kiprian (Borisevich) presiding. The new parish center picked up where the old hall left off and has provided ample facilities for the continued growth and development of the parish. On September 1, 1974, the debt incurred while building the new hall was satisfied and the mortgage was burned.
In June 1976, ceremonies were held for the groundbreaking of the new rectory and plaza area. On Sunday, June 5, 1977, one year later, Abp. Kiprian returned to Mayfield for the dedication.
In 1978, extensive work was done to the interior of the church, including new carpeting, bleaching and refinishing of the pews, and the addition of new main doors. Also, in 1978, after a period when a private caterer had been operating out of the parish center, it was realized that the parish could raise funds by organizing and operating a catering service on its own. The main auditorium of the center was then redecorated so as to entice outside organizations and bridal couples to book their affairs with St. John's Catering Service. As a result of the tireless efforts of a small number of dedicated individuals, the catering service has continued for over 25 years and has been a substantial aid to the operation of the parish as a whole.
On September 20, 1981, St. John's celebrated the 90th anniversary of the parish. The faithful, on that occasion, erected a plaque in the vestibule of the church, quoting from Abp. (later Patriarch and Saint) Tikhon during his historic visit to Mayfield from February 20-23, 1907, when he attended the first All-American Sobor. Abp. Tikhon proclaimed: "Our North American Orthodox Church considers itself to be the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church, embracing all nations, languages, and the world, as the first to proclaim the Orthodox Faith her in America." The Divine Liturgy was celebrated on Sunday, September 20, 1981, with Metr. Theodosius (Lazor) and Bp. Herman (Swaiko) present.
Recent Years 1982-Present
In the winter and spring of 1982, parish meetings where conducted to address certain decisions which were made by the Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America (former Metropolia which the parish had associated itself with in 1951). The issues greatly affect the Orthodox practice of the Liturgical life within the parish, among them being the celebration of the immovable feasts according to the Julian (Old Style) church calendar. These parish meetings were held to clarify the issues for the faithful, and gave them the opportunity to express their feelings. On February 14, the faithful voted overwhelmingly (in excess of 98% of those present) to retain the Old Style Calendar. As the spring and summer of 1982 passed, the faithful were made aware that their decision to retain their liturgical traditions according to the Old Style (Julian) calendar was denied by their diocesan bishop, as well as by the Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America. Mr. Pavuk, who has been serving as Starosta since 1977, was summoned by registered letter and personal notice to appear before Bp. Herman to answer for his actions in holding these parish meetings. He was ordered not to conduct any additional meetings regarding these issues. Mr. Pavuk, together with the church council, felt it necessary to call another meeting. On August 22, 1982, a gathering of parish faithful voted overwhelmingly (151-3) to disassociate the parish from the Orthodox Church in America and to petition Metr. Philaret (Voznesensky) and the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia for acceptance under their omophorion (spiritual protectorate). At the same time, Fr. John Sorochka, because of deep feelings about these same issues, felt it necessary to resign as pastor under the Orthodox Church in America and petitioned the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia to accept him as a priest. His Eminence, Metropolitan Philaret accepted St. John's Parish and Fr. John almost simultaneously, and immediately re-assigned Fr. John as the pastor of St. John's. A letter dated August 29, 1982 was delivered on behalf of the parish to Bp. Herman (Swaiko) giving notice of the parish's disassociation. As a result of their decisions, Mr. Pavuk, Mr. Paserp, and Mrs. Telep were excommunicated from the OCA. Fr. John was suspended. Several years later, the suspension and the excommunications were rescinded.
This was the start of some difficult years in the life of St. John's parish, which was created by a court action initiated by a handful of dissenting parishioners and the hierarch of the OCA. Basically, an attempt was made to seize control of the church and all related real property from the great majority of parish faithful. During the next six plus years, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth, Superior, and ultimately the State Supreme Courts consistently upheld the decisions on the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas real property. Through the years, these court proceedings cost the faithful in excess of $75,000.
By the Grace of the Good Lord, the issue was finally brought to rest in 1988. Aided by constant prayer, thanks goes to Thomas Pavuk, Fr. John, and the council, who worked countless hours with Atty. Gene Goldenziel to bring this matter to a close. Gratitude is also expressed to Bp. Gregory (Grabbe) and Bp. Mark (Arndt), who clarified to the court the particular questions about church history, and to Andrew Sabric, Fr. Vladimir Shishkoff and Brother Isaac Lambertsen, who actively aided in the court proceedings, as well as to the S.O.C. (Save our Church) organization, which was formed to raise the necessary funds to cover the expenses incurred, and all those others too numerous to name.


text:
I like to call this my "Out of Africa" faze.
Could I hang these pictures further apart:)
Here is a picture of the bathroom when we were looking at the house.
The floor was crappy so I had seagrass installed wall to wall. That might sound like a bad idea but it worked pretty good for about 10 years!
This guest room was the original master bedroom and bath. My house was built in 1946 and when we moved in it had never been renovated in any way. Mr. and Mrs. Anderson had lived there for 50 years.
Alrighty then....I have to drill down on a plan. I am a wiz at doing that for others.....why not me?
Please join me and a gob of other creative bloggers on this journey.
Linda suggested that I remove my link from the above list but that would mean I knew how to do that.....:)
Stay tuned for more next week.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
What card consolidation loans services you decide to utilize will depend heavily on different kinds of financial trouble you've gotten yourself into, and the degree of high interest debt you've got in total. If you decide to credit card consolidation loans or take out any bad credit funding whenever you don't have an income, you must be quite careful. Using a Oshawa, ON consolidate debt service is an important issue for a great deal of Oshawa people nowadays. Ontario bills that may be forgiven include credit cards, Oshawa medical accounts, judgments, even some home mortgages in Oshawa Ontario should they exceed the worth of your Oshawa house! With these kinds of card relief loans, you combine all your bills, which makes it easier because you simply must make a single credit card consolidation loans payment monthly. Another wonderful means to escape from high interest credit card bills faster is to make additional income. On your financial trouble spreadsheet, be certain to update it every Oshawa payday (or however frequently you pay charge card debts) so you can realize your reduction financial trouble amount.
You should have a minumum of one credit consolidate loan which is not yet consolidated to qualify for a new consolidation loans loan. Personal loans aren't qualified for credit card consolidation loans. Unlike mortgages, unsecured credit card relief loans aren't backed by collateral like your Oshawa property. It is possible to add new eligible student loans to a present debt relief loans loan for as much as 180 days after your initial credit card consolidation date.
The Truth About Credit consolidating loans Agencies
Like every card consolidation loans loan, you've got to put in an application for a Oshawa consolidation debt loan and become approved by the lending card relief loans company. Credit consolidating loans provides borrowers the possiblity to simplify their financial trouble payments and lower the quantity of hard earned funds that they must pay monthly, which is precisely why so many unemployed men and women look to them as satisfactory solutions. A debt relief loans loan is merely a particular sort of Oshawa loan. As you might believe that you have gotten a credit consolidating loans loan since you are making a single monthly credit card consolidation payment, this isn't a credit consolidating loans loan.
When the debt relief lender has a judgment, it must figure out a means to collect the past due bills. Lenders should know that you are able to repay the credit relief loan, and should they grant you a Oshawa Ontario consolidate credit loan while you're unemployed, you're not likely to get competitive card consolidation loans rates of interest or terms. This might or might not be a bright move in Oshawa Ontario since there are a whole lot of consolidation loans lenders that could easily consolidate your credit card debts without a lot of difficulty in Oshawa.
Bankruptcy will destroy your Oshawa credit, but it's possible to recover. Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in Oshawa ON forgives some or all your debt liabilities so that you can begin fresh. In reality, a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in Oshawa was made to help save assets like your Oshawa home or car if you're facing foreclosure or repossession in Oshawa Ontario. It is not a liquidation bankruptcy, and your Oshawa house and car are not in danger of being taken in Oshawa ON by the court to satisfy your debt.
As it is such a huge consolidate credit Oshawa, ON company it also has a lot of complications coming up each day that they must solve in Oshawa within few days to meet the customer. The card consolidation loans organization knows that if they need to satisfy the Oshawa customers they need to address their complications and grievances first. There are economic companies offering unsecured card relief loans loans at sky-high interest prices in Oshawa Ontario.
Up in Arms About Credit consolidating loans Agencies?
Once you've discovered a consolidation debt Oshawa Ontario agency which you feel is reputable and worth doing business in Oshawa with then it's only a matter of finding out and picking the types of Oshawa services that could help you receive relief from your high interest debt. Credit consolidating loans agencies might be worthwhile choice to explore in Oshawa Ontario as long because you can research the things in Oshawa that they tell you to do for yourself ordinary, as many situations a specific agency may offer you a superb recommendation that's only intended to provide their Oshawa partners with a chance to earn hard earned funds off of the business it's possible to supply them. A credit consolidating loans agency can supply you with a lot of different kinds of Oshawa services that may help provide you with a few relief from your credit card debts, and there essentially three sorts of services that every debt relief agency might or might not have the ability to supply you in Oshawa Ontario.
When you choose a face-to-face in Oshawa, you will probably be advised about the Oshawa options mentioned previously. When working with a economic consultant or debt counsellor Oshawa you'll be able to determine the most suitable Oshawa, ON consolidate debt option and obtain expert guidance to guarantee the very best Oshawa outcome. An alternative is for the credit card consolidation lender to acquire a court order permitting the sheriff to go to your house and take any hard earned funds he finds there up to the quantity of the Oshawa judgment. Understand Your Basic bills Options Before you seek a good consolidate credit agency, it will help to understand your alternatives in Oshawa Ontario.


text:
Over 100 Killed In Fire At Bangladesh Garment Factory
Fire raced through a garment factory that supplies major retailers in the West, killing at least 112 people, many of whom were trapped by the flames because the eight-story building lacked emergency exits, an official said Sunday.
The blaze broke out late Saturday at a factory operated just outside Bangladesh's capital of Dhaka by Tazreen Fashions Ltd., a subsidiary of the Tuba Group, which makes products for Wal-Mart and other companies in the U.S. and Europe.
The Aftermath
Firefighters recovered at least 100 bodies from the factory, Maj. Mohammad Mahbub, fire department operations director, told The Associated Press. He said 12 other people who were injured after they jumped from the building to escape died at hospitals.
Local media reported that up to 124 people were killed. The cause of the blaze was not immediately clear, and authorities ordered an investigation.
Army soldiers and border guards were sent to help police keep order as thousands of onlookers and anxious relatives of the factory workers gathered, Mahbub said.
Deemed 'High Risk'
Tazreen was given a "high risk" safety rating after a May 16, 2011, audit conducted by an "ethical sourcing" assessor for Wal-Mart, according to a document posted on the Tuba Group's website. It did not specify what led to the rating.
"Had there been at least one emergency exit...the casualties would have been much lower."
Maj. Mohammad Mahbub, fire department operations director
Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin Gardner said online documents indicating an orange or "high risk" assessment after the May 2011 inspection and a yellow or "medium risk" report after an inspection in August 2011 appeared to pertain to the factory where the fire broke out. The August 2011 letter said Wal-Mart would conduct another inspection within one year.
Gardner said it was not clear if that inspection had been conducted or whether the factory was still making products for Wal-Mart.
If a factory is rated "orange" three times in a two-year period, Wal-Mart won't place any orders for one year. The May 2011 report was the first orange rating for the factory.
Neither Tazreen's owner nor Tuba Group officials could be reached for comment.
International Clients
The Tuba Group is a major Bangladeshi garment exporter whose clients also include Carrefour and IKEA, according to its website. Its factories export garments to the U.S., Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands, among other countries. The Tazreen factory, which opened in 2009 and employed about 1,700 people, made polo shirts, fleece jackets and T-shirts.
Bangladesh has some 4,000 garment factories, many without proper safety measures. The country annually earns about $20 billion from exports of garment products, mainly to the U.S. and Europe.
In its 2012 Global Responsibility report, Wal-Mart said that "fire safety continues to be a key focus for brands and retailers sourcing from Bangladesh." Wal-Mart said it ceased working with 49 factories in Bangladesh in 2011 because of fire safety issues, and was working with its supplier factories to phase out production from buildings deemed high risk.
In Search Of Victims
At the factory, relatives of the workers frantically looked for their loved ones. Sabina Yasmine said she saw the body of her daughter-in-law but had seen no trace of her son, who also worked there.
"Oh, Allah, where's my soul? Where's my son?" wailed Yasmine, who works at another factory in the area. "I want the factory owner to be hanged. For him, many have died, many have gone."
Mahbub said the fire broke out on the ground floor, which was used as a warehouse, and spread quickly to the upper floors. Many workers who retreated to the roof were rescued, he said. But he said that with no emergency exits leading outside the building, many victims were trapped, and firefighters recovered 69 bodies from the second floor alone.
"The factory had three staircases, and all of them were down through the ground floor," Mahbub said. "So the workers could not come out when the fire engulfed the building."
"Had there been at least one emergency exit through outside the factory, the casualties would have been much lower," he said.
Many victims were burned beyond recognition. The bodies were laid out in rows at a school nearby. Many of them were handed over to families; unclaimed victims were taken to Dhaka Medical College for identification.
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina expressed shock at the loss of so many lives.
The Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association said it would stand by the victims' families.
This article was originally published on November 25, 2012.
This program aired on November 25, 2012. The audio for this program is not available.


text:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The Shield: Shawn Ryan post-finale Q&A
When did you come up with the endings for Vic and Shane?
We spent a lot of time figuring out, and I would say, right around the third or fourth episode of this season, how we wanted to end it. I've actually had in my head for a couple of years, the idea of Vic in a suit, in an office somewhere, consigned to Hell. I knew that, but I had no idea how to get there. But we figured out the Shane stuff, and the family stuff, and we had to figure out how to get there.
The thing I kept talking to the writers about, once Shane and Mara went on the run, was for Shane and Mara to become closer. In a strange way, it becomes a romantic tale between them, while Vic and Corrine get torn apart. They meet different fates.
That's a really uncompromising choice on Shane and his family.
You don't do something like that idly. I have two kids. But there are people who do that, and they think they do it for the right reasons. We were writing that in the summer and fall of last year, and there was that wrestler last year, sort of steroided out. It's such a f---ed-up mindset that exists in some people, that we're better off together than torn apart in this world. In a way, I'm sort of glad we were on strike (when the finale was shot), because I would have had to go watch that scene. It was tough. Walton was so seminal to the show.
There was a lot of discussion about Shane and how his fate would end. We figured out around episode 3 or 4 what we wanted to do, and we got on a call with John (Landgraf) and the people with Fox TV, our studio.
I do remember that, that's the first moment I thought, "Well, this could work." Because in the bubble of the writers room, you usually have a pretty good idea whether something works or not, but the ones that are really out there, until you expose them to some people you're not sure. And this was a pretty heavy thing: "We want Shane and Mara to go on the run, and ultimately he takes his own life and he takes their lives in an effort to keep them from being captured and to keep them tog as a family."
What was it like to watch those episodes again with us?
It's obviously been a special show for me, but it's nervousness, even knowing what's coming, and I'm really impressed with the actors in this, like that scene with Claudette and Vic at the end, where she lays the photos out, I still get goosebumps watching that. Michael barely says a word in that scene. In fact, I'm not sure he says a single word, but just watching his face and reaction to all that (was incredible).
I've always been incredibly lucky, I take great pride in the scripts, and the writers and I work very hard on the scripts, but these episodes turn out better than the scripts because you can't just write, "Vic gives a mesmerizing look for 30 seconds." You have to trust your actor to do that, and we're just so lucky to have all them and to see them play, and then to have someone like Andre Benjamin come for this episode and play that stuff, that was great.
Is all of Andre's talk about "a new paradigm" supposed to be a mission statement for the series?
We've never tried to comment too much but you give yourself maybe a little license in the finale to say something through a character. A lot of that story was inspired and helped by Chick Eglee, who is the old pro on our staff who really came up with a lot of that stuff. We all know there's something wrong with how the system works and different people have different ideas what to do about it, but his was an interesting, occasionally rational voice.
Why doesn't Dutch get a win?
Don't you think Dutch is going to win with that kid at the end, do we have to see it?
We cast his wife in real life, Julia Campbell (as Billings' lawyer). That was my little hint that that should work out well for Dutch.
What were the songs used at the beginning and end of the finale?
Those were two LA bands: X's "Los Angeles" at the beginning, and then Concrete Blonde at the end, that song is called "Long Time Ago." I'd always envisioned that Concrete Blonde song ending the show, and the first cut I sent John, the first cut I did that I sent him, I started that Concrete Blonde song over like the last 5 seconds that you saw Vic putting on his jacket and leaving, and I did it because over last 3 years I thought I want to end the show on that song, that song has always spoken to me in terms of this show.
It's really shocking to see those moments of intense silence, like Vic sitting at the interrogation room table before he confesses.
We have done it before. The thing I always say is that if you have a real breakneck pace show, which we tend to have, that those moments when you decide to slow down and just live with someone, they stand out more. My guess is they're probably not as long as you think, but because show usually goes rip-roaring along, when we do slow down for something like that, that they stand out.
Do you view what happens to Vic as a fate worse than death?
As a shark and a survivor, no, I think as long as a shark's alive it can find some place to swim to, I think this is a bad situation for him, and I don't think he's gonna enjoy those three years. The tank's very tiny at the moment.
The other thing, and I've always had this in mind for a number of years because, some people would write, whether it was fans or some critics, about "How many bad things can these cops do and not get caught?" I realize, you do research, there was a group of Chicago cops, one tried to put a hit out on another cop because he was afraid that the guy might turn, and I read about a guy who was doing this kind of stuff for like 11 years. And there was always one common ending to those stories that I found, and that was one of the cops eventually turned on the other cops, to lessen their own load. And so I always had in my mind that as much as a team guy that Vic would be -- and he would not do this until it was his last resort, but he would do it -- is that he would sacrifice somebody like Ronnie for his own freedom and safety. And of all the police corruption scandals I investigated, they all end with one of the cops eventually turning on another.
And he winds up betraying Ronnie.
He's the classic scorpion on the frog, Vic. I think that they can work this way, they can talk any frog into the trip across the river, but then he stings and in some cases he does that in an episode and in other cases it takes 7 seasons to do it.
I don't think he relished doing it, I think he felt bad about doing it, but ultimately there is a real kind of selfishness that exists there.
Vic had the opportunity early in that second to last episode to screw him, and didn't. It was only when he had to make a choice with the mother of his child, that's when he screwed him. I don't think Vic would do it out of simple self-preservation; he would have run. But he knows his autistic kids can't run, his family can't run.
And he gets away with everything.
That's why I like that ending, is he kinda does and he kinda doesn't.
But everybody knows what he's done.
Yes, and his self-image is important to him, but he's not in a cell next to Antwon Mitchell, like Ronnie is. He's not dead by his own hand, the way that Shane is. He's not dead by the hand of another team member, the way that Lem is.
I never had any doubt if there was one person to skate on the whole thing, that it would be Vic, that Vic was just that step ahead of everyone else.
Had you envisioned any other endings earlier? Did you ever consider Vic dead or Vic in jail or even Vic, somehow, someway, keeping his badge and triumphing completely?
We talked about a lot of things, because you want to explore all possibilities. Even though I had that thought of Vic caged in some office, I wasn't sure if there would be a good way to get there. While it was a place I could see as a signpost ahead. The way the story broke for us, it seemed the right way to go.
But would you have been okay with a version where Vic died, or where he got away with it?
That's a tough one. I'm just trying to go through my mind, the various blind alleys we went down. I really kind of felt like we let the story discover itself. We didn't try too hard to pigeonhole an ending and work towards that. If we found something that worked for us -- I investigated briefly the idea does Vic die but appears to die heroically, and the image the city is left with from a PR standpoint is sort of "Hero cop gives life for toddler in burning house," or whatever the equivalent would be. I thought there was an interesting possibility there, that the way we're remembered isn't the way that we were. But that didn't feel as good. But if the right story came where Vic got away with it, or went to jail, or died in the line of fire, I wouldn't have been afraid to do that.
So it's fair to say that you weren't trying to make a thematic point, but just let the story and the characters dictate where things should go?
That's a good way of putting it, yes.
Vic's confession just goes on forever, doesn't it?
In the first draft there were more, and then we cut them back, seriously it went on longer. But it was just from a plot point of view: we needed to clear him, so he had to say them all. I mean, the audience has seen everything he's done, they know that there's a litany.
I remember when I first saw the cut, like this is something an actor does that you just don't script, but when we came back from commercial break and Vic's remembering, and he has that little laugh, the way that you would remember how your kid threw up on an amusement park ride, "Oh, yeah," but he's talking about some awful things. It's such a great moment for Michael.
The series ends with Vic alive and relatively free, and while you strongly hint at what's to come for Claudette and Dutch and some of the others, could you ever see yourself revisiting this world in some form a few years down the road?
Possibly. I might be interested in where Vic Mackey is when that three years with ICE is up. I don't think it would be as a TV series. I don't know if anyone would want to make a movie of it. Again, we're not a "Sopranos," "Sex and the City"-esque hit, but we've also made our shows cheap and dirty and it's done well overseas, so that's something I could investigate.
But if anything came out of it, it would only be after giving FX the ending the series deserved. We did not leave anything out in order to preserve the opportunity to do something like that.
So do you ever think about what the characters are up to after the events of the finale?
I do. I envision Ronnie with a shaved head, probably having to sidle up to some of the white supremacist crowd to stay alive, so that might be interesting to see.
We talked a lot over the years about how some fans refused to judge Vic and Shane no matter what they did. And it felt like this season, there was a concerted effort on your part to make their actions so extreme that there would be no doubt left as to exactly who and what they were. Was that your intention?
I'm not sure I agree with you. I'm sure there will be plenty of fans who will work hard to find ambiguity. I don't want to dictate how people think about Vic Mackey. I had my ideas, and those ideas worked their way into the writing, but there's ways for people to watch and argue and have different opinions, but it just felt like the story demanded more desperate measures on both their parts. Obviously, those guys are capable of it, and this season they were placed in a position where they had to do that.
I think the reaction was specifically strong after we got to the episode where we found out that Vic was ready to kill not only Shane, but Mara and the unborn baby.
Would he have? He had the shot, but you could see that he was hesitating. it was a tough one. I talked with Michael a lot about that moment, and how it should play. "Is he certain, is there some element of doubt?" What was fun was putting Vic and Shane in a position of, "It's you or me." There really wasn't a way for both of them to get out of this.
If Vic doesn't taunt Shane about going to visit Jackson while Shane is in prison, does Shane do what he does to his family?
Possibly not. And that was intentional, and I think that's part of what goes through Vic's head as he's going through those (crime scene) photos later in the episode. I think one of the things that people always liked about Vic was that he had a code and that he was true to that code, and that the code allowed for a lot of creative rules and breaking of laws, but oftentimes there was a greater good there. I think Vic -- you're getting me to talk about this more than I would like to -- Vic has a harder time at that table justifying his code when he looks at those photos and thinks about that phone call. But he lives with it for a minute and then he turns it off. And then he looks at the camera and realizes he probably let someone see something he didn't want to be seen, and he compartmentalizes again and turns it off.
I know you don't like to talk about what it all means, but one of things that struck me in watching this season, there were a lot of moments where Vic and Ronnie and Shane are busy cleaning up one mess after another with the Armenians and the Mexicans, and there's Julien in the background getting actual work done, to the point where it becomes a problem for them with their extra-curricular activities. Were you trying to make some kind of point about what the strike team could have been if they hadn't been caught up in all this other stuff?
I think that was a byproduct. I don't think I'd call that an intention. It seemed like that's the cop Julien would be. I think it was episode six where the attempted hit on Shane and the Armenians went down, they were counting on being with Julien and not getting much done, and Julien kept coming up with clues. What was always fun about "The Shield" was you could tell those stories, and you don't see those stories on "Law & Order" and "Without a Trace." Those are the best stories to tell: Julien's just getting a little too much done. That's a conflict you don't see on other shows. We were always trying to look for those things: what were those stories you can see on "The Shield" and don't see on any other show? When you take those dynamics, the rogue band of cops, you look for those stories that those characters open up that you won't see anywhere else.
You've said often that you wrote the pilot without ever
expecting it would be made, and that you made it without ever expecting it would go to series, let alone a series that would run this long. With 20/20 hindsight, if you had known what the show would become, is there anything you would have done differently with that pilot?
Boy, I don't know. I know you and I have had conversations about, "Is the Vic Mackey who shot Terry Crowley in the pilot the same Vic Mackey who exists in the series afterwards?" Different people have different opinions about that. I think it worked. Maybe I would have held it back in episode two if I knew we would be on, but when we made that pilot, you have no such assurances. You have to establish who your character is and what the dilemma is. If we had some assurance, it would have been cool to have Reed Diamond on the show for four or five episodes and see Vic and Shane wrestle with what to do. Certainly, there could have been a very good story to tell about that -- maybe they try to set Terry up so he loses his job before he can rat on them. But that's just me thinking right now about it.
Since this is the final time we're going to discuss this, was there any point in the run of the series where you said to yourself, "Man, I wish I hadn't made Vic kill a cop way back when, because it kind of gets in the way of the point I want to make here?"
Any stories or other decisions you wish you had a mulligan on? Stories you wish you'd spent more time on?
I know (John) Landgraf disagrees with this, but I still don't know that we gave a total 10 to the Glenn Close character and situation. She was so good that I figured a lot of people rolled with it and there were some good episodes in that season. But when I look at what a clear take we had on season five with Forest's character, or the clear take we had in this final season, or season one, or the money train storyline, I don't think we ever had as full a grasp of exactly what we wanted to do with Glenn. It was a great character, I think, we got off to a good start. We weren't trying to make her a mortal enemy of Vic, the way we did with Forest Whitaker, the way we were able to do in the final season with Shane, and it made the storytelling tougher. I'm honest enough with myself to know that we didn't have as complete a clear take as we did in other seasons. I don't know that audience members would agree with that, but that's my take, if I'm being brutally honest with myself.
Were there any people you wanted to bring back for this final season but couldn't?
The one person that I wanted to use in this season that I couldn't was Franka Potente. We had a little mini story arc that was going to deal with her character, but she was stuck in the jungles of Bolivia or something filming "Che" for Steven Soderbergh, in like this never ending film session, she really wanted to come back, we had like a 2-3 episode thing that was gonna incorporate her, it would have complicated the Armenian-Mexican thing, it would've made you so happy, Alan.
We were always looking for excuses to bring Anthony Anderson back but there was just no right story this year. We've been talking about bringing Army back, Michael Pena, and he had wanted to do it for awhile but people keep hiring him to do movies so we haven't been able to get him.
People still ask about Julien's struggle with his sexuality and Dutch strangling the cat. Why did you decide to move away from both of those stories?
Julien, we covered that a lot in the first two seasons. And I felt like at that point, we'd investigated every alley we could with that. The place we got with Julien -- married, being a stepfather to this kid, really clinging to his religious convictions -- it seemed to me like this was a guy who would live that life for 8-10 years before it all came crashing down. In the storytime we were telling everything else, it didn't seem real that he would backslide so quickly. I'd done a lot of research on these people who come out of the closet after 20 years of marriage. That seemed to be the real thing. I really took very seriously Julien's issues of faith, and it felt to me in some ways he was a very strong guy, in some ways, he was weak, but one way he seemed strong was I thought he would resist this for a while. I do read the forums, and I know people ask what's going on, and I did want to throw that little ode, in the finale, you see him watching those two gay men holding hands and walking to that thing, that was my acknowledgment that that struggle and that chapter isn't closed just because the show's ending. It's a small grace note that casual fans may miss, but the hardcore fans might not ignore it.
As for Dutch and the cat, I always viewed that as a one-episode story. I was sort of surprised when people watched it, and most people really loved it. Dutch strangling the cat and Aceveda getting sexually assaulted are the two things people always bring up to me on the show, or Lem's death. I think it was so impactful for a lot of people, and they're so used to impactful things on "The Shield" carrying over, that I realized after the fact that people were expecting that, and by then, we'd moved on. I just saw it as Dutch stuck in an interrogation room with Clark Gregg, thinking he's manipulating this guy, but Clark Gregg's manipulating him and using Dutch's insatiable desire to understand these people. I thought it was clear the way Jay played it that he felt used at the end. I never felt like it was played as, "Oh, I'm really getting juice out of this." People have compared Dutch to Bayliss (from "Homicide"), and they did a storyline on "Homicide" near the end where he got really fascinated with that stuff and killed someone, and I didn't want to cover any territory that Tom Fontana and those people did so well.
What kind of timespan did all these events take place over?
What we started figuring out was that a typical "Shield" season would take place in about 3-4 weeks time. We did our best to try to make sure that everything was accurate, time-wise.
Were Vic's kids played by the same actors all the way through?
Believe it or not the only contract dispute that I was unable to successfully resolve in my history with "The Shield" was for the kid playing his son Matthew, and we recast that. I think it was season 3, sort of like "The Partridge Family" swapping out drummers. Obviously the kids have grown, that's an area where you could probably catch us if you went back.
But we did figure out, we referenced it at the end, it was about 2 1/2-3 year period, the total scope of the show.
Then Aceveda had a really meteoric rise in that time, from new precinct captain to mayoral frontrunner.
Or Barack Obama in that time.
(Landgraf gives a long monologue comparing The Shield with Shakespeare.)
I think John gives me a little too much credit, I mean the reason why I think John and I have a good relationship is, you see how smart John is right there.
I tend to be much more of am instinctual writer, and I think where the partnership was really good for us is that he really thought in these terms, and he really pushed me to see the series as a five-act Shakespearean kind of drama and where would that go. I don't think I would've thought of that in my own terms.
I always just would sit in the writers room and think, "What's cool?" And I don't mean what's cool like what's trendy, what's "Gossip Girl"-y. I mean "what's cool" is what gives me a little jolt in my heart watching something on TV, what feels right, what feels authentic, what feels surprising, and to sort of take that instinct, which I think myself and the writers were good at getting, and filtering it through a plan that John suggested to us, of thinking of it as five-act tragedy, is what led me there.
I will take credit for one decision I made early on that I think benefited the show tremendously, and that was after that first season where we got a lot of praise, we won some awards, my first instinct at beginning of the second season was I said, "I think the success of the show will come from going smaller rather than trying to go bigger."
Meaning, that, there was a lot of ass-kicking and out there sort of stuff. And it's not that the show didn't do that again, but the show to me became more and more and more personal to the characters over the years, and that's why I think we were able to keep it going. And it got to that point of being so personal that literally in these final two episodes you have whole segments which is just the camera on an unspeaking character and yet you've lived with them and gone through the journey with them for so many seasons that you understand what they're thinking, even if you don't necessarily empathize with them.
And I think that was a key to the longevity of the show, was not trying to say, "Boy, you know, we did all this outrageous stuff, what can we do that's more outrageous?" I think the show became less outrageous over the years, and I think if we had gone the other direction I think we would have flamed out quicker.
Vic sometimes seems like a superman, doesn't he?
There is definitely a heightened aspect to it, and this is the difference I think between "The Wire" and "The Shield," "The Wire" strives to be utterly sort of journalistic. I've always come from a place as a fan of TV from looking for that I like to say cool, sort of entertaining thing. And so I fully acknowledge there are aspects of Vic that we always tried to keep in the believable, but were in the high portion of the believable and of what was cool. But Chiklis will tell you, once every couple of months somebody would come up to him and say, "I'm a police officer and I know a guy like that!"
But he needs no sleep, has instant recall of everything, and has a Huggy Bear on every corner to provide him with tips.
But the Huggy Bears on the corner allowed us to tell the story the way that I wanted to tell it. There's very little exposition on the show a lot of times. And you get to a place where you just assume, Vic knows someone, I don't need to know the three steps. There were a couple scenes that got cut from finale, and I don't think you missed them, because you're used to going along with Vic for a ride, and you assume that when Vic walks into a bar and there's the bad guy that he wants to talk to, you don't wonder, "Well how does he find him?" You figure, "Well, he took two or three steps, I just didn't see it," and we trust that he's that guy.
But it's also a shortcut storytelling wise, it's how we were able to show so much plot, that you don't need to see every single step, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but on "CSI" or "Law & Order," they take you A-B-C-D-E, you know, all the way down, but to me their episodes end on F or G. Our episode goes from A to Z, but we're skipping letters of the alphabet, which I really think is cool
We showed Vic doing the laundry once and I didn't get a lot of fan mail, so never again.
This is a difference I think between this show and "The Sopranos," and if there's one reason I avoided those kind of stories, it's because I didn't think I could tell those kinds of stories as well as David Chase and company did. I can't tell -- it's not I can't, maybe I could, but it's not my strong suit -- the "let's talk over making a sandwich and in three minutes we're going to have subtle inferences that lead to minor discoveries of each other."
Late in the run, Vic tells Beltran a story about his grandparents, and before he gives his confession, we hear his full name for the first time ever. We really knew very little about these characters' lives before the series began. Why was that?
David Mamet always talks about backstory being bulls--t in his mind, but I definitely had adopted that attitude before I heard it out of David's mouth. As a storyteller I think I'm a little bit like a shark -- I'm about going forward. And there are certain ways that I ran the show, I would like to think a lot more benevolently than how Vic operated in that world, but the way I ran the show was very similar to the way Vic approached things, and that's where a lot of those stories came from. You know a lot of our episodes, the stories were broken at 11 o'clock at night with deadlines, that "We gotta do this, failure is not an option, what we have is only mediocre right now, you turn it on and you get it done." And those scenes of reflection, you always talk about Vic not liking to be self-reflective, I guess I didn't as a storyteller like to look back too much to the past.
Was it difficult to write the last episode?
This last episode was by far the easiest thing to write on "The Shield," ever, and I don't mean that in some sort of glib way. It's the building up and setting up to get there. I wrote the entire Shane and Mara story in about 2 hours, at my house. The way we always ran "The Shield" is we would tackle the stories, we'd never try to write in order. So I wrote the entire Shane and Mara saga as one document, the entire Vic-Beltran drug takedown as another. Some of my writers contributed scenes in some of those because we were heading towards a deadline, and the one thing I tend to be very good at is figuring out how to integrate them together, how to put them together, within an episode. So once all those dominoes were put in place, that last one went very quick. It just felt like I just had to push the first one and it all fell.
It's those middle episodes where you're trying to conclude the Armenian-Mexican business and you're launching Shane and Vic, and what are we doing with them in The Barn, how are we getting there, those are hard. But once we knew where we were going, we had everything set up, now you've just got to write, you can have fun with it, and write this long scene where he has to wipe her off after going to the bathroom.
I didn't mean to be glib, it's always hard to write things, but that one was easier than most, I think
Other than him being physically different from the "Harrison Ford type" image you had in your head, how did the casting of Michael change your original conception of Mackey?
More charismatic. Obviously, you're looking for a charismatic star to play a role. But he made Vic more likable than I thought of him. I thought of him as more of a hard-edged guy, not the guy who would smirk and crack a joke. That inspired me to write Vic that way going forward. He could be hard as nails, but when he wanted to charm you, he could charm you. It's what made people root for him even when they shouldn't.
Charles Wyms became Claudette Wyms when you cast CCH Pounder. Were any other characters changed significantly, either through casting or just over time?
A lot of the times, the casting informed me of who they were. Shane did not have much to do in the pilot, and I give credit to Kevin Reilly at FX. I had initially put forward a different actor for Shane to be approved. He was more a straight ahead looking guy, since I thought Vic would be the Harrison Ford kinda guy, maybe we need that kind of guy but younger as Shane. But Kevin rightly said, "The character doesn't have a lot to do in the pilot, we want someone who'll be an instant character," and we said, "We had this guy who was really good, but there was something a little off about him." That was Walton.
I had no idea how good Walton was when we cast him. Then I saw "The Accountant," the short film he made with his friends that would go on to win an Oscar. I realized this guy is really good, and we wrote him a real big thing in the second episode where Aceveda's interrogating him about Terry's death, and it's that sort of kismet that has really helped the show.
What was the purpose of the B and C stories and Dutch and Claudette, and Danny and Julien? Was it just to lighten the load on Chiklis by making it more of an ensemble show, or was there a thematic point you were trying to make by switching from Vic's latest shenanigans to the work of cops who, for the most part, played by the rules?
It was partly that. It's funny, you probably don't pick up on this, but the show is pretty similar structure-wise to "Nash Bridges," which is where I got my start. The execution may be different, but on "Nash," I got very good at was breaking stories, and sort of balancing, "Nash is over here in the A story, Joe is in the B, and this is how they intersect." I always loved that way of storytelling. I felt like the strike team stories had the impact they had because they weren't taking up an hour of story with them. I see a lot of procedural stories on TV where they have the one case they're trying to solve for the hour, and there are always scenes that drag, that you need to fill out an hour of television but aren't interesting. We always looked at it as, what's the fewest number of beats we need to tell the story?
Also, I wanted to have some balance to these police officers, for every Vic and Shane, there's a Dutch and Julien and Claudette. I was interested in telling those stories as well, how good well-meaning cops can get the job done or not get the job done.
One of my readers suggested there are basically two distinct arcs to the series: everything before Vic robs from the money train, and everything after. That before the theft, Vic is ascendant, can do anything he wants, is largely breaking the law to make money to provide for his family, and after the theft, he's just caught in this downward spiral of trying to cover for the last bad thing he or Shane did. Would you say that's accurate?
I should have had that guy on staff, probably. It's an astute observation, and not one I was aware of at the time. Them looking at the money on the table, and the look of concern coming over their faces of what it all means was a huge turning point. But they still could have gotten away with it, so maybe you extend it to Lem burning the money, where that's the team coming apart, it's all sort of out there and up for grabs, and by season four, Shane's off working on his own and gets tied in with Antwon Mitchell.
I did think that there was an expiration date that we had to be careful of with the Strike Team just blithely going around kicking ass. If you look at real-life incidents like the Rampart scandal, one in Chicago, these guys did pull it off for a number of years. I read about the Chicago cop who was on this 12 year run of taking bullwhips to suspects. I never got the bullwhip into the show.
In real life, there's enough people wiping things under the carpet and enough getting done or however. But I did feel that at a certain point, Vic had to go a little from being a hunter to being the hunted.
Which came first: the jeopardy, or the escape from it? When you would write Vic into these various messes, particularly the season-long ones, did you always know going in how he would get out of it, or was part of the fun to figure it out at the same pace as Vic?
We figured out the problem first, and then we'd spend three days trying to figure out how to get out of it. What's the tightest box you can get into, what's the biggest moral dilemma you can put your character into? David Mamet keeps talking about -- and I realize I'm quoting Mamet a lot lately -- how good drama and conflict isn't choosing between right and wrong, it's choosing between two wrongs. We did a lot of that on "The Shield." I think a lot of times, choosing between right and wrong, Vic would choose the right. But he wasn't afraid of choosing between two wrongs.
I don't know that we're quite as bad as what I hear about "24," they really write themselves into a situation and then have to figure out how to get out of it at the last possible minute. We were a little bit of that: What's the situation we want to put Vic into, how do we get him out of it, how does it fit into the larger arc of the season? That's why Vic's a compelling character: it takes a group of writers three days to figure out how to get out of a situation, and it takes him ten minutes of screen time to do it.
When you said you wanted to offer people something they couldn't see anywhere else -- is that what led to some of the more graphic imagery and storylines?
I could blame Kurt Sutter for that stuff. Believe me, there's a lot more pitched, more explicit that we talked about in the room than we put on screen. But it really came from a place of me encouraging the writers, "Don't censor yourself. I'll be here to censor you if you go too far. Just try to come up with the best story, and if it requires us to do something that feels a little shocking, and we can justify and earn it, then we can do it." The writers probably relished it, and would push a little too far in early drafts, and I thought I had a pretty good head for pulling it back. Or we had a really cool idea and thought we had to build up to it and earn it. Vic burning Armadillo's face against a stove in season two, we really built up Armadillo as a really vicious villain where we got to this place of Vic doing it. I would not have done that story of Vic burning a guy's face on a grill if it was just some guy.
When did Chiklis coin the whole "The Shield: It's so wrong" catchphrase?
That was mainly an actor thing, not a writer thing. When Clark (Johnson) directed a batch of two episodes that aired as numbers 3 and 4, while Clark was back filming again, they came up with that. That was a phrase I would hear bandied about on set a lot more than in the writers room. I never wanted to take the attitude that we were trying to be wrong for the sake of being wrong. It amused me that Michael and the actors used that phrase, it was their way of embracing whatever the script sent them.
Were there ever moments, either from the actors on set or from Cathy at home, where people would seem taken aback by the nature of the material?
Only in the first season, before anyone saw any episodes. I remember Catherine Dent almost got physically ill over the "Cherrypoppers" episode, about underage prostitution. No one had seen anything, and she was, like, "You can't do this on TV." I just tried to calm her down and said, "Listen, your job is to act, my job is to write, and you have to trust me." And she came back to me a couple of months later, once everyone was seeing the episodes, and said, "Oh, I get it now."
How far in advance did the actors know about what was going to happen to their characters?
Usually when they got the scripts for the episodes where those things happened. I would get accused of being overly secretive. But there were two reasons for doing that. One was, I'd often change my mind about where a story would go. I didn't want to promise an actor, "Oh, this moment's going to happen," and it didn't. And also, it's difficult sometimes for actors in an ongoing serialized kind of show. There are certain things where I felt it was important to say, "We're building towards this in a few episodes," but I didn't let Walton know his character was going to do what he was going to do. He read it in a script -- that was a little different because he was in Italy filming the Spike Lee movie - and I think, as great an actor as Walton is, it would have been more difficult to play those scenes squatting in the house, playing the piano and barbecuing burgers, if he knew he was going to kill his family and himself. Michael, in the final episode, has the scene where he stops by the house and says goodbye to the kids, he doesn't know that's the last time he'd see them. But Michael had read the script, and there was a couple of takes where he played it a little bigger, even though Vic is supposed to have no idea that this was a goodbye.
What was Walton's reaction when he got the finale script?
Very moved, and thought it was completely appropriate.
These actors want to play great stuff. They want to play Macbeth, they want to play Hamlet. They don't worry that Hamlet dies in the end. It was tougher for Kenny (Johnson) knowing that the show was going to go on without him.
You don't end this show with people eating onion rings and listening to Journey.
It's important, anytime, if anyone writes a big thing about "The Shield," I don't think you can write it without referencing "The Sopranos." This show would not be on TV if not for "The Sopranos," and if not for the success it had creatively and economically, it's the show that I believe gave the courage to FX to try this show. And so I always will have a great debt to that show.
That show was a huge moldbreaker, and opened the way for us, and then I think we opened the way for "Battlestar Galactica," and "the Closer" and "Damages" and "Nip/Tuck." And now a show like "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia," which I adore, is going to open up comedy things for people I think, because it's telling comedic stories in different ways.
I always just had a little jealous love-hate relationship with "Sopranos," in all honesty. It's hard not to. We felt like we made a great show, we felt like our show was comparable to them, and we got about a fifth of the attention and about a 20th of the awards, and you get a little jealous.
I've been able to sort of put that away over the years, and realize that I'm grateful for what I have. But maybe I watched the show with a little harder eye in the later season because I had some jealousy.
But if not for them we wouldn't be on the air, we never would've been on the air. But I don't think that anyone was putting David Chase's feet to the fire in the way that John (Landgraf) would with me if something wasn't coming (out right). And I think we benefited by that.
When they did something well, I think they did it better than anyone, including us, a lot of times, but it wasn't as high a batting average as I would've liked to have seen from them.
(Landgraf observes that, for a show with such dysfunctional character relationships, everyone on "The Shield" cast and crew got along remarkably well.)
I always used to joke about "The Shield" vs. "Grey's Anatomy," because we were on same lot. Our drama would be on screen, and theirs would be off screen.
They took over our sets. They ripped down The Barn now, and that's McDreamy's house.
We had to film things so quickly that it just didn't leave a lot of time for actors to sulk in trailers and things like that. Most episodes were filmed in 7 days, we had a little extra time on the finale. We could give ourselves a couple 8-day episodes each year, but for the most part, you'd just do it quick.
And in a strange way, when award attention dropped off after the first couple years, it kind of freed us not to worry about, "What's Michael's Emmy episode going to be?" We never had to worry about that sort of stuff, just focus on, "We'll be the show that's listed in the 'who got robbed this year,' and that's okay." We just knew that's who we were.
Why did the Emmys largely ignore you after Chiklis' one and only win?
I don't necessarily think there was any evil intention behind it. Fewer people watch "The Shield" than watch "Grey's Anatomy" and "House" and "24," and so when you have more people watching those shows, you're going to have more people voting for those shows.
Is it true that you picketed your wife's final scene on the show?
She was upset that I wasn't going to be there, so I said "Well, I guess I could be there if I picketed." So I set up a one-person picket at that point, the scene in the house where Vic's checking in on her and the kids and doesn't realize that will be the last time that he sees them.
(At the end of a long discussion of how Ryan's two best friends are Jay Karnes and David Rees Snell, and how Snell appeared in the pilot as a favor to Ryan because they needed someone to fill a non-speaking role as the fourth strike team member:)
I love what he does in the finale when he finds out Vic has betrayed him. To see your friend go from background extra in the pilot to this big scene in the finale, this great arc over 6, 7 years, was great.
You've said that one day you want to show "The Shield" to your kids so they can understand what Mommy and Daddy were up to when they were growing up. How old do you think they'll have to be before you can have that screening?
It might vary depending on the kid. My guess is junior or senior in high school, freshman in college, but it's as much about emotional maturity as age.
What will be interesting is how the show holds up later. I'm hoping that it holds up well. We made an effort not to put too many pop culture references into the show. I don't think there's a ton of stuff that will date it. There was a Britney Spears reference in the pilot, but we tried not to do too much of that. I'm hoping the story will end intact.
Alan Sepinwall can be reached at email@example.com
40 comments:
I think the show became less outrageous over the years, and I think if we had gone the other direction I think we would have flamed out quicker.
*cough*niptuck*cough* - 12:14 AM, November 26, 2008
Thanks, Alan.
I have for years wanted to ask Shawn Ryan about the pilot and whether he ever regretted having Vic shoot Terry so early in the run.
It seemed to me that that was a little out of sync with some moments later in the show, specifically when he burned Armadillo Quintero's face instead of killing him.
But that's being a little nitpicky. The fun of The Shield has always been the ride, and it was definitely a hell of a ride for seven years. - 12:23 AM, November 26, 2008
Great interview, thanks for posting it. Poor Ronnie.
- 12:23 AM, November 26, 2008
Complete cop out ending, all set up for a movie.
- 12:51 AM, November 26, 2008
Ha, ha. Cop out.
But seriously, is there any other way for Vic to end the series? It's his own personal hell.
His family is still out there but he can't see them, even after he sacrificed a Strike Team member for them.
He has his ICE job, but can't see the streets. He's impotent, his gun locked in a drawer.
Over the course of this season, he has become the opposite of all his own personal ideals.
He is alive and out of jail, but he is completely alone.
As an aside, after all that setup with the Prez's motorcade (how many times did they mention that thing?), nary a whiff. Nice fakeout. - 1:00 AM, November 26, 2008
- Unknown said...
Sean Ryan really seems to have his act together. Does he have any future plans lined up for other projects?
- 1:16 AM, November 26, 2008
- Jeff K. said...
@seaver78, "President Maguffin, your motorcade is waiting..."
@Brian, Shawn Ryan's other project is currently on CBS, "The Unit"
@Alan, awesome job as usual. - 1:30 AM, November 26, 2008
- Unknown said...
@Brian, Shawn Ryan's other project is currently on CBS, "The Unit"
Ah, cool. Never really picked up on that show and didn't know of his involvement. Since it's got Haysbert in it I may have to check it out. - 1:47 AM, November 26, 2008
What a great interview.
I am very encouraged by the mere prospect of some sort of revisitation to these characters a few years down the line.
I can't wait for the season 7 DVD. The audio commentaries on the episodes from cast/crew are always really insightful, and there's usually a really detailed and informative documentary as well. - 3:13 AM, November 26, 2008
It is nice to see that Mr. Ryan really loves his show and is not above giving us fans this insight in to the show. While I disagree with Mr. Ryan's opinion of the Sopranos having a low batting average, it is nice to see the complete opposite response of Ryan to his show's finale compared to David Chase. Chase was so above talking about his own show that it was sickening.
Good job on the interview Alan. Just wish we could get an answer about Vic and the ICE deal, I just cant wrap my head round that deal. - 3:55 AM, November 26, 2008
Hey, does anyone know how to see Wayne Goggins' "The Accountant"? I looked on Netflix and it wasn't there.
Is it on DVD or on the web? - 6:09 AM, November 26, 2008
@ Chris, It was a academy award nominated Short. According to the IMDB message boards:
1. You can order it on DVD or VHS here:
2. It is available for rent at...
www.movielink.com - 12:25 PM, November 26, 2008
Sorry bad link...
Apparently you can't buy the DVD anymore - 12:31 PM, November 26, 2008
You can buy it here. Sorry about the run around. - 12:33 PM, November 26, 2008
- Jonathan A Mince said...
"The Shield" equals pure, dynamic perfection.
- 3:17 PM, November 26, 2008
- Pamela Jaye said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- 3:58 PM, November 26, 2008
I went to bed shortly after the episode finished. I had a really hard time sleeping, I kept thinking how bad Ronnie got screwed.
- 7:19 PM, November 26, 2008
I have to agree with the above poster who mentioned the "cop out" ending in hopes for a movie.
Ryan could have learned a lesson from David Chase. Chase had the balls to kill off his main character (and his cash cow)but did it in a poetic and beautiful way that will have all of us discussing it for years.
This finale was sound and fury signifying nothing. - 9:34 PM, November 26, 2008
- Middle Class & White said...
Great Q&A. Only thing I'd be dying to ask is if Vic's personal and professional demise at the hands of 2 women was as intentional as it seemed.
- 12:17 AM, November 27, 2008
- xaque said...
Wow. Thanks Alan, that was just what I needed to keep my fix going. I love the misc back stories and trivia that leads to a great end product.
- 1:03 AM, November 27, 2008
- WWVMD said...
"Chase had the balls to kill off his main character "
Chase has said in interviews that Tony is not dead. - 8:55 AM, November 27, 2008
- Kimmy said...
Great interview! I love the insight from the creator after the fact. I was mad for about thirty seconds after the show. I wanted Vic to pay for all the sins and the betrayal. But then I realized, Vic might have beat jail, but he lost everything to do so!! I think I need to get the WIRE on dvd. Seems like every one that watched Sopranos and The Shield also liked that show too! Thanks Alan!
- 9:28 AM, November 27, 2008
"Chase has said in interviews that Tony is not dead."
You need to stop reading the N.Y. Daily News. - 12:20 PM, November 27, 2008
- Clayton Jones said...
Outstanding interview, it covered so many different questions I would have asked Ryan. I've never read your blog before Alan but I'll definitely look into it now.
As for the ending itself, if there's been a better series finale in the history of television, I haven't seen it. - 2:50 PM, November 27, 2008
- J.R. LeMar said...
Fantastic interview!
- 3:46 PM, November 27, 2008
SERIOUSLY? ? ? The author of this article did not know "X" of Concrete Blond? With the numerous things that could have been asked a question about the soundtrack!
- 10:58 PM, November 27, 2008
- Alan Sepinwall said...
1)It wasn't my question. If you read the intro, the questions in italics (and not in bold) came from a group interview session, some of which were asked by me, many not.
2)If it hadn't been asked in that session, it sure would've been asked at some point in the comments on this blog.
3)What exactly was there about the finale that you feel didn't get asked? - 11:07 PM, November 27, 2008
Great interview! It was interesting to hear Shawn Ryan elaborate on Vic and Ronnie's fates. Loved the shark analogy for Vic. Poor Ronnie! In lock up with Antwon Mitchell. I'm relieved we won't get to see him with a shaved head sucking up to white supremacists to survive. That's too heart-breaking.
The only question I had was about Cassidy. I still don't understand her sudden change in behavior. They spent so much time showing her rebelling against Vic: using drugs, pimps & hoes parties, neglecting her autistic brother, pushing Corrine, confronting Danny about her father killing Terry and demanding that Billings arrest him for kidnapping Mara. I thought it would lead up to something but instead it was dropped. Suddenly overnight Cassidy started being nice to Vic and getting 98% on tests. What happened? Is there a deleted scene?
And what happened with Danny and Lee? Again, they built up this tension between Danny and Vic about shared custody and suddenly that storyline was dropped too. They spoke again. Not once!
Those were my only real gripes. - 1:56 AM, November 28, 2008
I was very satisfied with the finale. I'm not certain how those saying that "this was a cop out--set up for a movie" come to that conclusion. There aren't a whole lot of avenues left to explore. Ronnie is going to end up, as Ryan said, siding with white supremacists. The Strike Team never had encounters with that sort of gang so I don't see Ronnie having any plausible means of getting Vic whacked. It would be pretty hard for him to form any alliances with any prisoners because they're either going to be there because of him or get the low down from other prisoners about Ronnie and the rest of the Strike Team. Therefore, they will, in all liklihood, not want anything to do with Ronnie.
In the final few weeks, I *thought* that Shane might do what he ultimately did. As far as what I wanted to see....well I was hoping that Olivia would let Ronnie know what Vic had done. I was hoping that they would bust Beltran together and then, as Vic was taking care of the business around the crime sce, that Ronnie would walk up behind him and kill him. Onc completed, Ronnie runs for Mexico; - 2:16 AM, November 28, 2008
Tony Soprano is neither alive nor dead at the end of The Sopranos. It was an open-ended conclusion. This is not a secret, and anybody who thinks Tony is 100% alive or 100% dead is only projecting themselves upon the ending.
I can't believe there are still suckers out there. - 10:00 PM, November 30, 2008
Barfly, what are you talking about? The Shield finale was perfect. Vic was trapped in the personal hell he created.
Its widely known David Chase despised his audience and the black out ending was his final kiss-off. - 6:08 PM, December 01, 2008
Vic's appeal...? What is the clue to the love/hate Shield fans had for our fav sociopath bad boy. Many psychobabble themes apply, but can anyone sum up in 50 words or less the intensity of Vic's appeal... Can't fully get a handle on why we pulled for a character sooo deeply bad.
- 12:56 AM, December 02, 2008
- stuartresnick said...
Re: the sub-plot of Dutch and serial-killer-kid Lloyd...
At the beginning of Claudette's interrogation of Lloyd, she says that his mother's clothes were found in Dutch's trash. Then later, Lloyd exclaims, "He burned my mother's clothes!" I immediately thought the kid had screwed himself... how could he know that the clothes were burnt unless he'd planted them?
The show didn't highlight this point... but in everything that follows, Claudette and Dutch act as if they're confident they'll convict Lloyd. Most of the forums don't mention this at all, and just assume Lloyd's guilt and fate are left ambiguous. I found only one other person who agreed with me that the "burnt clothes" outburst was a slip-up that sealed Lloyd's fate... but the show was subtle enough to let the viewers figure it out for ourselves.
Any truth to my perspective? Or did I miss something?
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/ - 3:11 PM, December 02, 2008
I have never missed a single episode of The Shield. It was one of a kind. I cared about each one of the characters. It was always the ends justifies the means. The truth is that Lem was the most descent and I was devistated when Shane killed him, especially when Lem trying to protect Shane is what got him arrested in the first place. Then the ending for Ronnie.. devestation again. I had the vision that Shane and Vic would die and Ronnie would sort of give some narrative at the end of what the cost was. He was always the level headed one so I thought he should be able to walk away. That ending stuck with me for days. How could Vic do that to Ronnie? To me,it didn't fit his code no matter what. He could always find a way to make things work out. I kept waiting for some plan to reveal itself. I was bummed!
- 6:00 PM, December 03, 2008
I saw the finale last night after waiting to see the whole season in one strech (over this weekend). I've watched the Sopranos and thought it had a "cool" ending but after the final episode of "The Shield" I actually, physically felt sick. I fell a sleep not knowing if I felt sick because of me liking (in a weird twisted way) Vic and Shane and wishing they got away or being a shame of me liking them and wishing they got away. The closeness between Mara and Shane in the scene where he wipes her almost made me understand all the crap he's done. And the genious of Vic's office "hell" was probably the best TV I've seen. I've watched A LOT of TV series but have never been this moved by a final episode... Thanks for the interview Alan.
I think I'm going to watch the show all over again... - 10:02 AM, December 15, 2008
- J-rod said...
Great interview and really caps a good series. I enjoyed The Shield even though it doesn't rank as one of the greatest for me. But it was very good and quite a fun ride with a specific feel unlike any other.
I thought everyone understood that the ending of the Sopranos was us, the audience, getting whacked. Look back at Bobby talking about what it would be like and you'll see that is exactly what happened. We were there, in Tony's world, and then suddenly we weren't. Simple as that. As soon as I realized that I was convinced it was a genius ending. - 10:14 PM, August 09, 2009
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to check in, and give you all an update on what has been happening since my show ended.
The Barn fell into a mundane existence when Claudette retired and Dutch took over. The numbers were not spectacular (considering we weren't there to keep a lid on things), and the brass shut it down. Dutch is now Metro Division Commander, a plum assignment and talk is he'll be a Deputy Chief in the next 5 years.
Ronnie. Man, I feel sick about him. He found some hotshot lawyer who convinced the powers that be a big showy trial would be bad PR for the department. Then Ronnie had a change of heart, went to trial in Santa Clarita and got himself off! He still doesn't answer my calls.
Acevada won the election, then one year in got caught fooling around on his wife with a TV reporter. He's a slick one, managed to get all of his programs passed anyway. as much as we were opposites, you gotta respect a guy with less morals than even me.
While I am stuck here at ICE, I have been doing some independent work on my own, to the point even Dutch calls me once in awhile for intel. Not everyone hated me at the barn, so I keep my fingers in whatever I can.
I can't wait to get out of here, altho I do like my new boss much more than Olivia, who was transferred to Brownsville to do immigration checks.
I'll post more when I can, right now I have to run down something from a text message I got from my daughter last night... - 12:16 AM, August 28, 2009
Great interview.
Also a great "post" by Vic above mine. - 3:26 PM, January 01, 2010
Awesome show, great interview !
I just spent the last two weeks hooked into it !
Amazingly built with the acme right in the middle when they are looking at all the money, and how everything falls apart afterwards ...
I loved it, great ending, everything made sense, all the characters were consistent and real until the end, got attached to each one of them
Hard to find a series to compete with it ... - 5:46 PM, April 12, 2012
I've watched the show's ending in real time in 2008, but since I've started watching the show and until the present day, I think "The Shield" is the greatest tv show of all time, and I still enjoy watching it and reading about it now and then.
I can't get enough of it. I even bought the whole DVD set recently just for a few extra content it might have that I didn't already get online, and also in order to support the makers of the series (it's a shame the episodes are in widescreen, though).
So I've just read this Q&A now, and it was great and very interesting to read.
It "broke my heart" a little while reading, to think that the show could be even better if Franka Potente was available for the last season (not that I remember thinking that something was missing).
About the show not being as popular as "The Sopranos" and whatever other shows ("Breaking Bad"?), on one hand I can sympathize with Shawn and the others. It must not be so easy to make this masterpiece and see others get more credit on lesser shows, but on the other hand, it makes me feel more special, knowing and loving the series so much. They all probably know the quality of the show that they've made, and that they have many quality fans that acknowledge it.
If Shawn, Michael or anyone else of the writers, actors or production men that helped making this show what it is will ever come across this comment - I want to say a big THANK YOU! YOU ROCK! - 12:50 PM, February 02, 2014


text:
Here is my last minute contribution to the events, Spicy Tasty's Fortune Cooking Contest and Pooja's Vow- JFI "Bell Peppers" event. As this is a hors d'oeuvre (appetizer), I am also sending this to Mansi's Monthly Mingle - Appetizers & Hors'Doeuvres event.
All these above qualities apply to my dear sister, who is a dear friend of mine rather than a sister. She gives me so much moral support in everything. I remember her even helping me do my homework from school. She was (is and will be) my best friend. She is like a right hand to me. I love you dear Sis! Here is a yummy recipe for you!
- Shriya and Nithu's Fortune Cooking Contest:
- Pooja's Vow- JFI "Bell Peppers" event:
- Mansi's Monthly Mingle - Appetizers & Hors'Doeuvres event:


text:
Monday, April 5, 2010
Cooking Grass-Fed Beef: Episode 5 – Homemade Beef Stock (There's Nothing Funny About It)
Normally when I get my package from Steve, I look to see what I have to work with and then decide what recipe would best show off the meat. This time I had no such decisions to make. When I saw this beautiful box of bones I knew there was only one option – a classic beef stock.
You know I like my cartons of ready-to-use stocks and broths. For the busy home cook they offer an easy way to have an array of cooking liquids on hand, which significantly expands anyone's recipe repertoire. Those recipes that say "add 3 cups of beef broth, or water," don't really mean that.
But when beef bones are available, making your own is a great idea. Not only will you be thrilled with the flavor of homemade stock, but you'll save a ton over those handy, but expensive cartons.
One statistical oddity to share – after watching this video I realized there wasn't one humorous moment in the entire thing. No bad puns, no pithy observations, no obscure references, no intentionally mispronounced words, nothing.
How ironic that the day I learn we've won Saveur Magazine's 1st Annual Best Food Blog Award for Most Innovative Video Content, I post this culinary cure for insomnia. Now that's funny! Enjoy.
1 tablespoon vegetable oil
1 large yellow onion, cut in 8ths
2 large carrots, cut in 1-inch chunks
2 stalks celery, cut in 1-inch chunks
5 pounds beef marrow bones
2 teaspoon tomato paste
8 whole black peppercorns
1 bay leaf
5 quarts cold water
36 comments:
Its never the price of the ingredients. Its the 8-12 hours of simmering like the sorcerere's apprentice with the whole house expecting that your creating a feast only to be dumbstruck when you pack away the stuff in the deep freeze at the end of the day.
- April 5, 2010 at 10:52 PM
- Peter Li said...
What a coincidence...I was in the middle of making my first batch of beef stock when I stumbled across this entry :)
What do you do with all the scraps after the stock is made? Seems like such a waste to throw out. - April 5, 2010 at 11:29 PM
Making stock makes me happy. Odd, but true. Homemade stock is so comforting and tells people that you really care about what you're cooking for them. I would love to know how you make chicken stock, Chef. Do you use a chicken carcass (I hate that word) in place of the beef bones?
I was really surprised to see tomato paste as an ingredient. I never would have thought to use it. Is it a common ingredient for beef stock? - April 5, 2010 at 11:51 PM
- Chef John said...
peter, you can suck the marrow out, but there is nothing edible left.
jack, yes, a little tomato (mostly for a touch of acid) is a common addition. - April 5, 2010 at 11:57 PM
- rosemary said...
Thank you so much for sharing and congratulations on Saveur Magazine Award. Made Clifton wings mmmmmmm, and gumbo with okra, yum! Even I was amazed by me! You have taken me to great heights and it makes me so happy!
I also made Rachael Ray and Trisha Yearwood's German chocolate cake, came out very well. I am only telling you this because I know you are a big Rachael Ray fan too! - April 6, 2010 at 3:15 AM
- Unknown said...
Chef John what is the reason for browning in oven? Can't i just simmer all that like i do the chicken stock?
- April 6, 2010 at 3:38 AM
- 30 and Fun said...
This is great! Thanks Chef. Can you use this wherever you would use beef broth if you have it around? Congrats on the food blog award. I voted!
- April 6, 2010 at 9:43 AM
Is veal stock made the same way?
- April 6, 2010 at 11:21 AM
- Chef John said...
yes, all stocks are made this way, sometimes the bones are roasted for a darker color and deeper flavor, sometimes they are not, if a lighter stock is wanted. this can be used in any recipes I use beef broth.
- April 6, 2010 at 11:34 AM
- Tamar@StarvingofftheLand said...
A lovely beef stock, and exactly what I'd expect from AN AWARD-WINNING FOOD VIDEO GUY!
Can I make one persnickety suggestion? (I hear you saying yes ...) If you roast the bones and mirepoix in a roasting pan (add the vegetables partway through if you want the bones to roast longer than the vegetables), you can make the stock right in the pan, thus preserving all the juices and the lovely little brown bits that stick to the bottom. And less to clean -- always a plus. - April 6, 2010 at 11:34 AM
Ummmm. I have a bunch of bones in the freezer that need to give up their nummy flavor this way.
Do you have any experience with making stock in a pressure cooker? I've never tried beef stock, but I've taken to doing my chicken stock in a pressure cooker. It's done in two hours including straining and packing away. I think it may be a little cloudier than the traditional method, but for the time it saves I can live with that. - April 6, 2010 at 11:40 AM
- Chef John said...
Thanks T! I like half your suggestions (well, technically 1/3). I want the vegetables to be very well browned, the darker the better for me, so I always cook them the same as the bones. But I agree that if someone has a nice deep roasting pan, you can deglaze and and add the liquid to the pot. I'd transfer to a stock pot though, since the liquid will evaporate faster in a wide pan, and you have to be careful the bones are covered and your levels down go down.
P.S. You've inspired me to start a much delayed interface redesign! - April 6, 2010 at 11:41 AM
- Chef John said...
Anon, DO NOT use a pressure cooker for stick. it has to cook a very low temp to be right, not higher like in a PC.
- April 6, 2010 at 11:45 AM
- Fatcat said...
Chef: Congrat's on the Saveur award, I guess my vote put you over the top. If one was to reduce this lovely stock for several days would you then have DEMIGLAZE?
- April 6, 2010 at 12:01 PM
- Chef John said...
days? you could boil this down by half (demi means half I think) in an hour, but real demiglace is made with veal stock which has much more collagen and makes a better glace.
- April 6, 2010 at 12:20 PM
- Eric said...
Congratulations on the award John. Never a doubt in my mind.
I have a freezer full of corn fed venison and I'm looking at your instructions for lean grass fed beef thinking these procedures would be great for venison. Anything I should know about or is there a connection here?
Eric - April 6, 2010 at 2:26 PM
- Chef John said...
yes it would! thanks
- April 6, 2010 at 2:27 PM
- Chris K. said...
Actually pressure cookers are a great way to make stock. I do it all the time. Higher pressure = lower boiling point (temperature).
The guys at Cooking Issues wrote up a couple of nice, thorough blog posts about it. - April 6, 2010 at 6:02 PM
- Chef John said...
are u sure? of course i don't own one so maybe
- April 6, 2010 at 6:05 PM
Hi Chris K. Could I have a link to that blog? Ive considered pressure cookers for stock before because the time on the stove drive me nuts. My only issue is that to get the pressure up in the first place, you need to bring the stock to a rolling boil which I understand to be like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters. Only worse.
- April 6, 2010 at 8:44 PM
- iamronel said...
nice to know about this dish thanks a lot :)
- April 7, 2010 at 1:46 AM
Found the link:
Arggh!Now, I'll have to reconsider this again. Chef John, please use your Cheffy powers and contacts to resolve this issue with your final culinary decree. If a good clear stock of equal or better quality can be obtained from a pressure cooker in 7-11 hours less time than in a conventional stock pot, it certainly sounds like a worthy investment for that purpose alone. - April 7, 2010 at 4:43 AM
- Mike said...
Are you able to make chicken stock the same way?
- April 7, 2010 at 4:31 PM
- Chris K. said...
Yeah... totally got that reversed on the physics of pressure cooking. Sorry about that!
Higher pressure = higher boiling point. So when you prepare stock in a pressure cooker on "low" heat, you're actually cooking at a higher temperature without boiling the product. Furthermore, since it's a sealed vessel, you lose less liquid volume.
You also have the advantage of using less heat energy over time, so it's economical too. - April 7, 2010 at 7:35 PM
Hi Chris K, Isnt steam the pressure in a pressure cooker. Doesnt that you mean you have to initially bring it to the boil to build up the pressure before reducing the temperature? Almost all the cookbooks Ive read seem quite adamant that you should never bring a stock to a boil.
- April 7, 2010 at 11:10 PM
- Chris K. said...
Hey AM,
No need to boil anything. After skimming your stock, close the lid and allow the pressure cooker to seal. Then lower the heat and wait for 40-60 minutes.
At no point should there be lots of steam shooting out of the valve - that indicates boiling, which is bad. A little bit of steam escaping every now & then is OK.
Always remember to fill the pressure cooker no more than 2/3 full - otherwise it won't achieve adequate pressure. - April 8, 2010 at 4:40 PM
Thanks, Chris. Looks like I'll have to start hunting for a pressure cooker.
- April 8, 2010 at 8:34 PM
- Eric said...
I use a pressure cooker frequently and it has it's place. The best use of this tool is for tough meats that require long cooking to make them tender. A corned beef takes 50 minutes, pork butt is shred-able in 1 hour. Lemon chicken in 20 minutes and so on.
Chef is correct however that stocks made with a PC are cloudy. The liquid IS boiling, at a higher temperature than 212F. That's what the rocking steam weight is doing on top of the pot.
Do your self a big favor and try Chef John's braised ox tails or any braised dish here. Learning to braise properly will make you famous. Thanks Chef! - April 9, 2010 at 10:14 AM
- steve said...
Instead of tomato paste a mini can of V8 works great with the duration of cooking.
- October 13, 2010 at 11:33 PM
- Food Junkie said...
I have a found a slow cooker to be a great way to do the long simmer needed for stocks. If you want to reduce you will have transfer to the stovetop after.
- March 19, 2011 at 3:30 PM
- Twfme57 said...
Chef, can I make stock if I only have a little over one pound of bones or should I wait till I've gathered more (or buy more)? Trying to clean out my freezer!
Thanks ! - January 15, 2012 at 11:17 AM
- Chef John said...
i would wait, or just add to one soup recipe.
- January 15, 2012 at 1:25 PM
- Unknown said...
hey Chef,
i was wondering how rich would this stock be?
if i was to make a beef soup, i was thinking oxtail, how much water/beef stock ratio would i use? or should i just use no water and only beef stock? - December 10, 2014 at 7:51 PM
- Billy MacKenzie said...
currently I have a glass bowl of stock in the fridge that I finished making last night. Is the white fat layer on top what scholars refer to as 'Tallow' that I could use to fry up some sliced potatoes in, or do I have to do an extra step with the fat in order to make tallow? By the way this Björk LP is great.
- March 13, 2016 at 10:38 AM
- Unknown said...
I made Chef's roasted chicken soup in my Instant Pot and it turned out perfect! And in 45 min. Not cloudy at all
- March 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM
- Or ti said...
Hi! Do i cook for 8-10 hours with the lid on the pot? Or without the lid?
Thank you!! - September 12, 2019 at 1:43 PM