I don’t remember exactly when it was brought to my attention, or by whom, but at some point around the end of last year, I found out that first-year “Justified” writer Jon Worley was a fan of Uproxx and Warming Glow. This excited me to a degree you probably can’t wrap your heads around. I reached out to him after the season premiere to see if he’d be interested in doing a Q&A for the site, and he was gracious enough to play along. Over the last few weeks, we traded emails on everything from the process of mapping out a season of the show, to the whole Ava vs. Winona thing, to our theories about Guy Fieri. It was really informative, and quite a bit of fun.
In addition to joining the “Justified” staff this year (he co-wrote this season’s fifth episode), Jon has worked on “The Chicago Code” and “Terriers,” and has been involved with another Uproxx family favorite, 5-Second Films. Also, when I asked him if he had any other bio information he wanted me to include in this intro, he proceeded to list a number of bourbons he likes (for the record: Elmer T. Lee, Pappy Van Winkle, and Black Maple Hill). I think I showed a great deal of restraint by waiting until the second email to suggest that we become best friends. Because I am a professional, you see. (Okay, I lied. It was the first email. Whatever, like you’re so great.)
Anyway, the Q&A is after the jump. I hope you all enjoy it as much as I did.
Even though “Justified” is beginning its third season, this is your first on staff as a writer. Can you talk a little about how you got involved with the show, and any difficulties you encountered coming aboard one that was not only established, but also critically acclaimed?
It was just a serendipitous thing. “The Chicago Code,” which was this big Fox cop show I had a ton of fun working on, got the ax, and there I was, the writer equivalent of driftwood. I felt like doing something crazy that would later sound completely out-of-context in an interview situation, so me and some friends took off to Equatorial Guinea and made a documentary about a reclusive poet.
I got back to LA and started hearing rumbles that “Justified” was looking for new writers, and promptly started running around in circles like an excited ferret. Because I love “Justified.” Graham [Yost] and Fred [Golan] read some of my stuff, met me, hired me, and we started work in July. I guess it’s in some ways easier to join a show in the 3rd season, because they’ve already, to a large extent, figured out what works. The daunting task is, how do we keep this fresh? How do we surprise people without getting shark-jumpy? And as acclaimed as Season 2 was, Graham didn’t want to repeat the formula, and I think we all agreed.
What is the process like at “Justified” for setting up a season-long story arc? Last year’s finale brought closure to a lot of the big plot lines, so it seems like season three is a fresh start in that way. Do the writers try to set up a framework and build around it, or do you try more to look at where you want the characters to go, then develop the plot from there?
We started with a lot of notions, worlds we wanted to explore, possible themes and signposts for the season. And of course our new villains. There was this idea of a rural, black crime kingpin. Which is interesting, not something you’re used to seeing. So, okay, what’s the reality of that? One of the writers, Nichelle Tramble Spellman, came in with some great research. These wild, insular hollers and communities like Coe Ridge became the inspiration for what we call Nobles Holler. Even the character’s name, “Limehouse,” came from a real historical figure who brought freemen up to work in coal mines. Such a badass name.
Then there was the idea of a Carpetbagger… we just called him “Carpetbagger” for weeks. That’s the Neal McDonough character, Robert Quarles. We had him come from Detroit, as a sort of nod to Elmore Leonard. The idea of this gangster in a three-piece suit thinking it would be a cakewalk to take over and organize hillbilly crime, that was there early on. Also, two of the writers, Ingrid Escajeda and Ryan Farley, visited Harlan County and came back with a ton of great material, especially regarding the f-cking nutty/gonzo politics of Harlan. I mean, that place is full of such ludicrous chicanery. So we figured we’d try to delve into that.
And then, we still have Dickie Bennett, and the spectre of Mags’ money, as the threads that sort of tie us back to last season story-wise, and are still very much at play. But to answer the question, we have all these characters we’re juggling, and a rough idea of where we’re going, and then the slow, careful work of fitting all the pieces together in a way that makes sense. There’s an alchemy to it. Cool ideas bubble up from various places and somehow it all ends up telling a cohesive story (we hope) where a lot of people get shot in cool ways.
The relationship between Raylan and Boyd has really developed over the show’s first two seasons, changing from a more traditional lawman/outlaw story into one of the more complex, fascinating interpersonal relationships on television. I’m sure a lot of that can be attributed to the chemistry between Timothy Olyphant and Walton Goggins, but how do you guys go about dealing with that relationship in the writing process, and is there ever pressure to work in a scene with the two characters just because of the way they play off each other?
That’s a great relationship, right? There’s this mix of odd affection and deep animosity. Part of it’s the Kentucky thing, which goes back to Elmore Leonard’s original stories — they dug coal together, and that’s a lifelong bond. There’s a bit of bromanticism there. If there isn’t slash fiction about them yet, it’s only a matter of time. I’m pretty sure someone on Youtube did a “Brokeback to the Future”-style montage.
What was the question? Oh. Yes, whenever a story can somehow incorporate Raylan going to Boyd, we try to get it in there, because f-ck, it’s fun to watch. But we wouldn’t do it for no reason. And their relationship is explored more this year — you know, how it looks to outsiders that this Marshal has such a close history with an outlaw. And, sh-t, Raylan’s father is part of Boyd’s crew. That doesn’t look good.
I forget where I saw this, but someone had a theory that the more unruly Boyd’s hair was at the beginning of a scene, the more likely he was to do something dangerous or crazy by the end of it. Can you confirm or deny that? (Pleaseohpleaseohplease confirm it.)
Huh. I don’t think that’s purposeful, unless Walton and the hair department have some deviant conspiracy going on. (Ed note: [frowny face])
Banner image by Burnsy
Another main issue in the show has been the Raylan/Ava/Winona triangle. Ava and Winona seem to represent almost a yin and yang: Ava takes action, Winona is often a damsel in distress, Ava is strong and independent, Winona can sometimes come across whiny and needy, etc. One thing I’ve noticed is that this leads to divisive viewer reaction to the two women. Is that something you’re conscious of when you’re writing?
I guess it’s always a concern… with a male-oriented, testosterone-y show. I can’t talk too much about what we’re doing with Ava or Winona this year without gushing spoilers. But, as you saw in 301, Ava is getting to do some take-charge face smashing. And there’s some major stuff with Winona coming up.
As to whether we’re conscious of it? Totally. We read blogs. We had some very long conversations about both of them at the beginning of the season. And thank goodness we have two very talented honest-to-goodness females in the writer’s room.
I’ve gotta ask… personal preference, Ava or Winona? Personally, I’d go with Winona, if only because hanging around Ava seems to increase the odds you will get blasted with a shotgun or kabonged in the head with a skillet, and I try to avoid those kinds of things in general.
Dude, I don’t want to get kabonged with a skillet, or have a bunch of cash stolen from my locker. I plead the 5th.
Come ooonnnnnnnnnnn.
Fiiiine. You know what, Joelle hugged me at the premiere, so I’ll give Ava the edge.
So far this season we’ve been introduced to two new villains: Neal McDonough’s slick mobster character, and the absolutely terrifying Limehouse. I have two questions about this: First of all, I know you can’t give away too much here, but can we expect those two storylines to intersect at some point this year? Second of all, can you please make Limehouse less scary going forward? That speech he gave at the end of episode two? HOLY MOLEY. It gave me the heebie-jeebies. Thanks in advance.
First of all, we don’t cater to pansies. Your name is “Danger,” for f-ck’s sake. Sack up or watch “Burn Notice.” (Ed. note: Jon later pointed out that this would be an excellent slogan for “Justified.” I concur.) We’re not making Limehouse less scary. And yes, Ben Cavell wrote an AWESOME speech for Limehouse at the end of 302.
As for our two villains intersecting, uh, well, I think it’d be pretty dumb if they didn’t, right? That’s all I’ll say.
Carla Gugino was terrific in her “kind of Karen Sisco but named Goodall but really Karen Sisco” guest spot. Did you guys know she was going to be playing the role when you were writing it, or did that all shake down later? And will she be making more appearances this season? I thought the chemistry between her and Timothy Olyphant was great.
Oh, Carla. *Swoon* [sighs]. I never got to meet her. Um, yes, it was written with her in mind, and obviously as a nod to that other Karen from the Leonardverse, whose name we could not use. There is an interview with Ben that I think is going up on the “Justified” blog in the next couple of days where he talks about that character more in-depth.
And to the second question, it’s certainly a character we’d like to see more of, but no, it’s not happening this season.
Moving away from “Justified,” you’ve also written on “The Chicago Code” and “Terriers.” I was a huge fan of “Terriers,” and was totally heartbroken when it was canceled. Can you talk a little about your experience working on the show, and what it was like to be involved in a show that had such trouble with ratings despite high critical praise?
“Terriers” was my first real writing job, and I was completely in love with that show. It was just a perfect mix, noir and buddy dramedy, witty, at times raw and heartbreaking. As a completely green 25-year-old, I couldn’t have hoped for a better experience to teach me how the TV world works. And such a great, fun staff. I still keep in touch with all of them. And yes, it kind of broke my heart for a while when it got canceled. Because there was nothing else like it on TV, and if I hadn’t written for it, I would have been a fan.
When we were making it, we had no idea how it would fare ratings-wise. We had been wrapped for months by the time it premiered. And it was amazing and flattering to see the huge critical outpouring — you know, from you guys, from Sepinwall, and the AV Club — and kind of crushing to see that it never found an audience. Or at least a sizable enough audience to survive.
Did the staff have concerns about the title and marketing before the show aired, or were those issues that people started noticing after the fact?
We did have concerns, sure. We pitched various other titles. “Small Time” was the title that probably got the most traction, “Dirty Deeds” and “Rain Dogs” were some others. But it was never changed. I guess in retrospect, it’s easy to say we should have called it something else, or that it should have been marketed differently. I mean, when you call a show “Terriers,” and the most prominent thing on the poster is a dog, people are likely to get the wrong idea.
The show was fundamentally so character-based… it was a tough thing to put on a billboard, or in a promo. That central relationship, between Hank and Britt, is just something you had to watch the show to understand, and, you know, not enough people watched the show.
We really like 5-Second Films here at Uproxx. Like, more than friends “like.” How did you get started with those, and what’s the process like for putting one together?
It’s something my friend Brian Firenzi started back in his dorm at USC. I found it hilarious… a sort of askew genius, and joined in eventually, and we were just doing it for fun, drinking beer and making funny shit with our friends. Which I guess is how it still is, four years later, although we now have an LLC and a website and a Youtube partnership and celebrity guest stars — it’s still mainly a “drinking beer and making funny” affair, as I see it. As many people as are available get together every Sunday, we shoot the sh-t for a while, hone our jokes, spend a few hours shooting them, and edit them throughout the week. Credit belongs to the other guys and gals for doing the heavy lifting, production and editing-wise. I just don’t have enough time these days, although I love it. I mainly just try to say funny sh-t, occasionally I act, often in compilation style stuff like “Everyday Dubstep” or “Grumpy Ben” with my buddy, comedy savant Paul Prado.
There was a Spin article in the Patton Oswalt-edited “funny issue” that gets into our routine more in-depth.
Okay, let’s close with some nonsense questions. Guy Fieri is a 44-year-old man who talks and dresses the way old people think young people do. Do you think maybe he’s a narc, like in “21 Jump Street”?
That guy looks like someone electrocuted a fat skunk. Or like the evil-universe Ethan Suplee in The Butterfly Effect. Or like the guy the Joker sews an explosive cell phone into in The Dark Knight. Narc? No, he’s the new Marlon Brando.
There’s a scene in Fast Five where The Rock’s character and Vin Diesel’s character fight, and Vin Diesel’s character wins. This is bullsh-t. Vin Diesel can’t beat up The Rock. Not a chance. Admittedly, this is not a question, but I think it’s important.
Gina Carano would own both of those dudes.
Last question: I just found this GIF of Bobby Brown humping some stairs in a folder on my computer. It’s the best thing, right?
It’s the best thing I’ve ever seen in my life, and that includes Lawrence of Arabia and The 400 Blows. Speaking of internet bullsh-t, I just discovered this Blues Name generator. Mine’s “Boney Bones Bailey.”
Duly noted. Thanks a lot, Boney.
“Justified” airs Tuesdays at 10 p.m. on FX. Follow Jon on Twitter, because he asked me nicely to get him more followers.
