To what extent were Jack McCoy's closing arguments ad-libbed?

Many episodes of Law & Order culminate with a passionate closing argument delivered by Jack McCoy.

Often, these aren't merely dramatic speeches, nor are they just doing the work of advancing the plot (i.e. to get us to the jury verdict where fates are revealed). Rather, this is when the episode's philosophical concerns crystallize. It's when the show writers present to the audience what seems to be their best arguments.

So, if we consider L&O as a kind of real-world public dialogue on our society's pursuit of justice, McCoy's closing arguments are where that dialogue is usually the least-disguised. So I assume that the writers would want actor Sam Waterston to stay as close as possible to the exact text of the script.

But some of those closing arguments are pretty long. I know actors are in the business of memorizing lines, and none of these speeches set any records for length, but I still wonder.

Is there any info about whether Sam did any ad-libbing?

acting law-and-order

Best Answer

I'll start by saying, there is zero probability you will get a direct answer unless you can find an interview with Waterson where he is asked this question. And, given it's implausible, I'll bet my bottom dollar it's not what an interviewer wants to know.

That being said, the concept of Soliloquys have been inherent in theater since the early days of performance. Memorizing lengthy dialogue and scenes have always been a part of theater. So, just the simple thought of him memorizing a lengthy speech is pretty much part of the job of an actor. However, also remember that every single camera cut, from angle to angle, has the potential to be a stoppage of action. In between, at worst, an actor can refresh his memory of lines to be delivered until the next cut. But, if you're a professional actor and you've done theater (which Waterson has), you probably want to take pride in memorizing your lines.