Jeremy Podeswa, from Toronto, Canada, is one of the most prolific television directors working in the United States and Canada. He’s directed shows like Queer as Folk, Carnivàle, The L Word, Six Feet Under, Rome, Nip/Tuck, Weeds, The Tudors, True Blood, Homeland, The Newsroom, Ray Donovan, American Horror Story, The Walking Dead, Boardwalk Empire, True Detective, and most recently, Game of Thrones.

Jeremy Podeswa

Photo by Karl Jungquist

Before moving into television in the early 2000s, Podeswa wrote and directed several independent films, including The Five Senses (1999), starring Mary-Louise Parker, which won Best Canadian Feature Film at the Toronto International Film Festival as well as a Genie Award for Best Achievement in Directing. Podeswa has been nominated for two Primetime Emmy Awards for Outstanding Directing in a Drama Series (Game of Thrones and Boardwalk Empire) and one Primetime Emmy for a Miniseries (The Pacific). He’s been nominated for two Directors Guild of America awards, and he’s won five Directors Guild of Canada awards.

Would you say that The Five Senses was the major turning point in your career?

It was, I think. The film premiered at the Directors Fortnight in Cannes and got a lot of attention there, and that led to me getting my first American agent. It’s kind of a convoluted story, but one of the people on the Advisory Committee for the Sundance Screenwriters Lab, where The Five Senses was developed, was Alan Poul, who ended up becoming the producer of Six Feet Under. He read my screenplay when I submitted it to Sundance and recommended it to the lab. After I made the film, Alan invited me to direct Six Feet Under. That confluence of things changed my life, really.

Tell me how Queer as Folk came about. Did you direct that show before Six Feet Under?

They overlapped, actually. Queer as Folk was one of the first American cable shows to shoot in Canada and hire Canadian directors, which was something the Canadian co-producers were very progressive about. Up until that point, any American shows shooting in Canada would have brought their American directors. But there was a very forward-thinking producer, Sheila Hockin, and she wanted to bring the young independent Canadian filmmakers into the TV fold. She’s a great producer. She’s gone on to produce The Tudors and The Borgias and Vikings. She really gave me a break, and a lot of other people who had never done TV before. And while I was doing my first episode of Queer as Folk, I got invited to do Six Feet Under.

So to get hired on a show like Six Feet Under, do you first have a sit-down meeting with Alan Ball? What does that initial conversation look like?

It depends what stage of your career you’re in. In the beginning of my career, I would sometimes have to meet the key decision makers—the showrunner/creator, and then the network and the studio. Funnily enough, for Six Feet Under, I was technically approved for premium cable as I had just done Queer as Folk, so I didn’t have to meet anybody. So it can go different ways. But more typically, you meet the creator of the show, and they’ll sign off on you, and then if the network or studio wants to meet you, you’ll meet with them as well. But once you’re in the game, you don’t really have so many of those kinds of meetings.

The reason I was hired to do Six Feet Under is because they were looking for independent filmmakers who could bring an independent vision to the show. They weren’t necessarily looking for people who had done hundreds of hours of television. Six Feet Under was very bold in its conception and compositional style, so they actively looked for interesting new voices to be involved as writers and directors on the show.

For something like Six Feet Under, is there an expectation that you present Alan Ball with a plan or pitch, or do you just go to the meeting to have that “get to know you”?

The most amazing thing is that I never met Alan until I had the job. And I didn’t know anything about the show. All I knew was that Alan had done American Beauty. Then they sent me the pilot, and I almost fell out of my chair when I watched it, because it was so amazing. So I called my agent and I was like, “I have to do this.” Then it all happened very quickly, and the next thing I knew I was going out to LA.

But once you’re on the show with the creator, you always get what’s called a “tone meeting,” which is your first meeting about the show. The tone meeting is usually with the writer of your episode, the creator of the show, and the main producer. You’ve had a chance to read the script, so the talk becomes about what you need to know to direct the show. You may have questions about the intention of a scene, or you may want to know what the creator has in mind. You want to make sure you’re all on the same page—and usually, you’ll go scene by scene through the script.

Do the showrunners usually come into those meetings with a lot they want you to know, or do you as the director drive the meeting with your questions?

That can depend. On The Newsroom, for example, Aaron Sorkin doesn’t feel like he needs to explain anything. But if you have questions, you can ask him. If you were the kind of director who didn’t want to have a big conversation about something, I’m sure you could just go in and have a ten-minute conversation and then leave. I prefer to go through the script scene by scene and get his take on things. And he’s totally happy to do that as well.

The main point is for you—as the director coming into the show—to get as much feedback as you need so you can do a good job. That’s what those meetings are all about. Then the showrunner is always available when things come up later, either with actors or once you start to think more intensely about the show. You can always go back and ask specific things or email them.

Is the showrunner on set during the shoot?

That really varies. I would say, interestingly, on the premium cable shows that I’ve really loved working on, with networks like Showtime, HBO, AMC, and FX, there’s a big vote of confidence when they hire you. Once they’ve made that decision, they tend to leave you alone and let you do your work unless you need them for something—or unless something goes off the rails. But typically, if everything is going well, they just let you do your thing.

Alan Ball almost never came to set, because he was busy with the writing and sometimes with prepping for his own directing. On Game of Thrones, if there’s nothing critical for Dan [D. B. Weiss] and David [Benioff] to be there for, they’ll be back working on scripts and dealing with other business. They won’t be on set. My experience with them is that when we’re shooting on location in Spain or Croatia they’re likely to come around in more of a friendly producer capacity, because they’re away from the production office in Belfast and less pressed on other things. But when we’re shooting in Belfast, they rarely spend too much time on any one set because they have so many other things going on. That’s been my experience. But this may also vary depending on the complexity of whatever is being shot and where they are most needed. Game of Thrones often has two or three units shooting on the same day, so they really can’t be everywhere all the time.

How much time is involved with directing one episode of a television drama?

Well, for a typical episodic you prep for the same number of days that you have to shoot, and then you post. So if it is a ten-day shoot, you have ten days to prep, ten days to shoot, and then a week or so to edit. So it really ends up becoming a five-or six-week process. On a bigger show like Game of Thrones, obviously it’s a whole other paradigm. It takes six months to do two episodes. But typically, with a network show or a normal cable show, you have anywhere between eight and fifteen days each to prep and shoot.

Besides the director, is the rest of the crew the same for most shows?

Yeah, depending on the series, you may have alternating cinematographers. On those shows, they feel it’s important for the DP to prep with the director, so they can’t be shooting all the time. On some shows, the DPs are shooting without a break through every episode, so they have no time to prep with the director. I always prefer it if you have alternating DPs, because then for your ten days of prep, you have the DP there to run things by and design things. But you don’t always have that luxury.

What about the assistant directors? Are they there for every show?

You’ll always have two ADs, because you have to have a dedicated AD with you during prep. Every 1st and 2nd AD will only do every other episode, no matter how the show is designed. But the rest of the crew is consistent, and they’re there all the time, shooting every episode.

It seems like it would take a certain personality to be able to walk onto a set with a cast and crew who already know each other. Are the cast and crew typically happy to have the new direction with each show?

In my experience it’s good for everyone because they get variety. A new director comes in with a fresh eye and hasn’t shot that set a hundred times, and everyone gets jazzed that somebody is approaching things in a new way.

I’m the oldest person on the shows now. Everybody is young. The writers are young, the producers are young—it’s a young business. But when I first started, people would look at me and be like, “You’re the director?” because I looked so young. But I always thought that if I just did a good job—if I was nice to everybody, if I was prepared, if I spoke to everybody in a collegial, collaborative way—then it was going to be okay. And that’s actually how it went. If you’re not a jerk and you’re prepared and you have the skill set, then everyone tends to fall in right away.

So much about being a director is having people invest in your vision, so if you can convey that, most often, it works. You’re the one to answer questions and solve problems and bring everybody together and make it cohesive.

Are there certain questions that come up where you have to make a judgment call and you wish you had the showrunner’s input?

Sometimes, but very often, actually, you have a representative of the creator on the show, if not the creator. I’ve found that on many HBO shows, the writer of your episode is also a producer, so they’ll be designated to represent the creator, and they’re there on set to answer your questions. That’s really great. But as time goes on, I’m more confident in making those kinds of calls myself about how to interpret something and knowing whether it would be in the vernacular of the show.

I wanted to ask about the journeyman aspect of being a television director, this ability to do your job at that level in completely different genres. Is that challenging? Exciting?

For me, it’s a really exciting challenge. It’s very appealing as a filmmaker, because you get to stretch different muscles. Sometimes it can be scary if you’ve never done something before. But now I trust the process. I know that once I get in there and start listening to the people I’m working with—talk to the DPs, the designers, the writers—and start getting a feel for the world and the material, then I can see what I can bring to it and feel more comfortable in the new environment.

When I directed Rome, never in a million years did I think I was going to be shooting a Roman epic, shooting at Cinecittà [Studios]. I was quite nervous stepping into that. I knew HBO had faith in me, and I was very excited by that, but I didn’t really realize until I was on the plane going to Rome what I was getting into. I was looking at all the materials they sent me, which was basically a crash course on ancient Rome, and the set drawings and plans and designs, and I realized, holy moly, this was such a huge leap in terms of the ambition of the show and anything that I’d done before. But at the same time, I thought, okay, it’s the same skill set.

As a director, my job is to interpret the script and work with actors and find a way to bring this thing to life. So, yes, in some cases the sets are bigger, and there are more extras, but my work is essentially the same. Rome was challenging, but I had so much fun doing that show. I actually had this moment on set one day in the Roman forum, and we had a few hundred extras, and there were live animals, and I thought, “I wish everyone I know could be here today.” It was such a great experience, and I just thought people wouldn’t even believe I was doing it.

Was that a five-to six-week process too, for that one episode of Rome, or was that longer?

It was longer. It was more days of shooting. It was a very high-budget show. I was there close to three months to do one episode, between the prepping and the shooting and the editing—it was a more expansive editing schedule as well. But it was probably one of the best experiences of my life.

Could you describe how the television director works with the editor, what that process looks like?

By the Directors’ Guild rules, you have typically four days to edit a one-hour episode, and that’s before anybody gets their hands on it. You’re the first cut, so the editor is assembling the show as you’re shooting. And you usually have a dialog with the editor to answer any questions. They might ask, “What was your intention when you shot this scene?” or “How did you want to put it together?” Sometimes while you’re shooting, they’ll send you a first assembly of scenes and you can comment on those, so you’ve done a little work before you even get into the cutting room. Or sometimes you have no communication with the editor—you just shoot and they assemble as they think it should be. Then usually, they have another two or three days after you finish shooting so they can catch up on the dailies, and then you go in and do your four days of editing.

But you’re the one who picks the performances, picks the editing style, the pacing. You get to put your imprint on it in terms of presenting your best version of the show. You deliver that to them, and especially in the case of the cable networks, they’re typically very filmmaker-friendly. If you do a good job on your edit, the show won’t change substantially. I try to give them my best version as close to the delivery time as possible, so I can be the one to decide what to cut. Sometimes they might tighten things up, but they’ll almost never dramatically change performances or cutting patterns.

You’re not hands-on doing the editing yourself, are you?

No, I’m never hands-on. In my view, it’s much healthier if you have the freedom to sit back while the editor executes your editing choices, and then you look up and see it put together. Some directors don’t feel it’s necessary to be in the room for four days with the editor, though. So the editor might put an assembly together, and the director is in another city, and they’ll watch it and send notes back. And then the editor interprets those notes and sends it back again. And it goes back and forth over four days until the director is happy, and then that edit gets delivered to the producers.

But I’ve never done that. I have to be in the room. Many times, it’s like, “Oh, I remember on that day she did this little thing on that take that I really loved.” And then we go searching and find that little thing. You can’t do that remotely, because then you’re not really looking at material together and discussing things in an organic, conversational way that makes something better.

Does an editor typically stay with a show? So every director for Homeland works with the same editor, for instance?

They typically have two or three editors on a show. Because of the volume of work, they can’t just have one editor through an entire series. But also, when you’ve finished the director’s cut, then there’s the producer’s cut and also a network cut. What happens is that the editor stays on that episode and executes the producer’s notes, and then if the network has notes the same editor will execute those changes. So the editor has to be available to finish that show.

I’m curious about Homeland. On that show, you directed such a crucial episode. Were you aware of that at the time? Do you watch all the shows leading up to your episode?

I always watch everything, and I know where we are. It’s really important. You have to know the show you’re directing. You have to get inside the DNA of that show. You want to see how the sets are filmed, and what other directors are doing with the material, and how it’s interpreted. And I always find it very helpful going into a show to have candid conversations with the creators and DPs and say, “Okay, you’re ten episodes into the show. What are you happy about and what are you not happy about? What has worked for you? What hasn’t worked for you? How can I make this closer to what you envision as a perfect form of this show?” So then I can use all of those shows that I’ve seen as a reference point to have a deeper conversation about how the creators envision the show.

How busy are you? You’re going from one show to the next. How much downtime do you have?

As an independent filmmaker, if you can make a movie every five years, that’s great. So when TV came along for me and there was an opportunity to work frequently with very good writers and very good actors, working in different styles and genres—it was a like a godsend being able to do Six Feet Under and Carnivàle and Rome. It wasn’t until I was a few years into it that I thought, man, I need to have a life, too. It’s seductive to jump from show to show, and it was a very exciting time to be in television when I first got started, because it was really the renaissance of television. But over the years, I’ve tried to find a better balance between work and life. It’s still a challenge because (a) there are so many good shows to work on, and (b) especially now as TV has become so attractive to so many filmmakers, you don’t want to take yourself out of the game too much.

Do you mean that feature film directors are now looking to direct television?

Yes, because I think there used to be a perception that being a TV director wasn’t as creative as being a film director, because you’re dealing with so many things that are already given—in terms of the visual language of the show, the casting, the writing. You aren’t developing them yourself as you would in an independent film. But that perception has really changed since the emergence of premium cable and the more innovative storytelling that’s happened.

Any advice for someone aspiring to direct television?

The typical road to TV directing has historically been through film school or by demonstrating that you could direct by scraping something together independently and using that as a calling card. But in the case of network TV in particular, you could sometimes also find an in by working your way through the ranks as a script supervisor or possibly as an editor or DP. I know quite a few people who have done that. Now there are also television directing workshops that the studios have, so you can apply for those. Shadowing on a show (with the network’s support) can also be helpful.

For cable, I would say that the most important thing is to demonstrate that you have a voice as a filmmaker. And you can only do that by having made something personal. That doesn’t mean something slick and commercial. It means something that shows a distinct personality and an unusual skill set or unique perspective on the world, so somebody can look at that and say, “This is an interesting person. This is somebody I want to bring into the fold.”

But I always say that television directing isn’t for everyone. I think about that sometimes when I’m on set and there are a thousand things going on. There are particular skill sets to be a TV director, aside from knowing how to direct. It’s partly an ability to get along with people, to collaborate, to be passionate about the work and not get too blasé about it.

I wonder, too, about the sheer number of people that you have to be able to collaborate with. On every show, you have a new editor, a new DP, new actors.

Yeah, and they all have personalities. So you have to be able to adapt and find a way to work with all different types of people—and with actors in particular. You have to be flexible and adaptable. Movie directors have to do that too, but you have to do that with a lot more frequency in television. Within a year, you can do six or seven productions with entirely new groups, and each one of those has 150 people that you’re working with.

Do you feel pressure to know everyone’s names? That seems impossible.

No, it’s impossible to know everybody’s name. I gave up on it ages ago. Game of Thrones has 900 people on the show, so you’ll never know everybody’s name. But you’ll get to know a lot of people. It’s amazing how many people you connect with much more quickly and intimately than you ever thought possible.

Is there anything you haven’t done yet that you’d still like to do? What are you working on next?

Producing and creating shows is an arena that I hope to move into in the very near future. But the very next thing I’m doing is a pilot. And with pilots, you’re creating the language of the show—you’re casting it and approaching it as you would a feature film. Laying the groundwork and world creation, that’s all part of your job with a pilot, and that appeals to me, for sure. If I can bring my creative input to bear on something, so I’m not just executing material but shaping it in a more fundamental way—that’s material I look forward to working on.