The Globe & Mail's John Doyle had an interesting interview with HOUSE creator/executive producer (and showrunner, and Canadian) David Shore this weekend.
Highlights below. (Emphasis added is mine)
The odd time that I get a chance to catch a movie, I frequently walk out realizing that I could have stayed home and seen a better story, better told by just turning on the TV. Movies have too often become about the event while television is almost always about the story.
Q. Canadian TV, especially drama, seems to be in a permanent state of crisis. You were associated with two successful Canadian dramas, Due South and Traders. Do you have a prescription for reviving Canadian TV drama, or do you have a Dr. House-like skepticism about the problem?
A. I am skeptical. There is obviously a smaller market, and therefore less money and greater limitations, but I think the problems are deeper than that. I left Canada because I knew I had a lot to learn as a writer and I saw very few opportunities to do that without moving. In my opinion, Canadian television so often fails for the same reason American movies so often fail: They're not controlled by writers. Now I'm biased on this one and there are obviously great, smart directors out there and great, smart producers but no one knows the story like the writer. American movies are controlled by directors; Canadian television is controlled by producers; American television is controlled by writers.
How many times does it have to be said before Canadian TV types start to believe it? Mr. Stursberg? Mr. Clarkson? Hellll-ooo?
Interesting other observation to come out of the article...this makes two U.S. based showrunners who cut their teeth on TRADERS, Global's mid-1990's series set in the financial world of Bay Street. (Toronto's Wall Street, or The City)
Hart Hanson (Bones) developed TRADERS, and had a Canadian career. After that show he made the painful jump to the U.S., eventually moving up to showrun Judging Amy.
Shore already had a U.S. career, owing to his writing on Due South, which was created by his friend Paul Haggis, who despite our propensity for claiming the Canadian connection -- spent his whole career down in the U.S.
Global got a lot of stick for turning away from Drama after Traders, and the relaxing of Cancon regs in 1999. Yet of most recent Canadian dramas, it had the most solid, go for the commercial appeal construction -- and it's the one that's produced U.S. - style showrunners.
Whatever could it all mean?
9 comments:
What's really interesting to me, an outsider, is the following:
" Q: Do you have a prescription for reviving Canadian TV drama, or do you have a Dr. House-like skepticism about the problem?
A. I am skeptical. There is obviously a smaller market, and therefore less money and greater limitations, but I think the problems are deeper than that."
Yes, the problem IS deeper than that because the market for Canadian television is the same market for US television, or British television - the whole damn world.
Television is a global enterprise, and those that succeed at it do so by exporting their programs around the world. Those that fail are the ones who JUST think within their borders.
Its the big difference between PASS and FAIL.
Your point about the differences between Can TV and US TV (director driven v. writer driven) is also a big nut to crack, Denis. It seems that your TRADERS did it and produced several "showrunner quality" writer-producers. Bravo. Now rinse and repeat.
There was an article in Emmy magazine awhile back which showcased the showrunners who came out of Star Trek - Moore, Shankar, Braga and Echevarria - and how the open-door policy there fostered their development as writers eventually leading to their becoming exec. producers on MEDIUM, CSI, BATTLESTAR: GALACTICA and THRESHOLD.
A lot of this can also be traced back to the philosophies of the late producer Michael Piller, who after ST:TNG developed and produced THE DEAD ZONE and WILDFIRE with his son Shawn.
Well, Bill, most of what you say is of course, common sense stuff -- but it's the "outsider" thing that you're missing that is the point.
First, yes, both Shore and Hanson came out of Traders and became showrunners -- IN THE U.S.
My point is that their talent was NOT recognized while they were here. They weren't offered carte blanche to run shows - even if it was "only" Canadian shows and even if they "only" used them as stepping stones to L.A. -- the point being that the CONVENTIONAL WISDOM here is to marginalize the writer -- like in film. So you have shows that are mostly half-baked -- like in film.
Where the writers have a strong hand -- Trailer Park Boys, Corner Gas, Slings & Arrows, Davinci's Inquest (others would say Robson Arms, but that wasn't my taste) -- the resulting quality is clear.
Where the Line Producers rule, it doesn't. Much as Traders was a success, the people who had the greatest success off it were not the ones making the decisions. The ones who were really in charge haven't gone on to set the world on fire.
Second, Canadian series do get exported - all the time. I saw a ton of them on the tube in South Africa. A) they were sold cheap and b) they were weirdly received.
Because from that world perspective, they look...odd.
Why?
Well, because Canada has a TV market unlike any in the world. We watch US shows at the same time you do, sometimes on the same networks. When the occasional FX series or whatever is not on at EXACTLY the same time as in the US, viewers here are LIVID.
(Try explaining that attitude, at least pre-torrent, to a UK viewer, for insance.)
In short, Canadian viewers (at least on the English side) consume American TV like they're part of the domestic market.
So when they try to make these series, they either go for something that "feels American" -- which always fails because there's not the money to throw at it, or there's too much chicanery trying to get the US feel past agencies that say they want things to be "visibly Canadian."
Or--
The series are made to be self-consciously NOT like an American show -- which is no way to create a piece of art, either.
It's a culture run by people who can look at US tv and say what they like, and then either try to replicate it or react against it.
In neither case are you actually exploring something true, and unique, and based in YOUR REALITY, which is why the ersatz, faux US series stuff leaves viewers in places like S.A. scratching their heads.
It's kind of like an American show...but....off.
You know the way out of that?
Let the people who know story take the stick -- just as Shore says. But there's so little consideration of that here that you don't even have networks looking at shows they have that work and asking, "um, why do they work?"
In fact, I think you've got the equation pear-shaped. The reason why you like Life on Mars and Hustle and all those other shows isn't because they're made to be exported - it's BECAUSE they are so specifically English, that it's exotic, and interesting, and then that gets you to zero...and the question becomes, as it always does, "does this story work?"
Every other country in the G8 has homegrown hits. And most of them are not, in fact, exported. You actually need both.
The reason why Canada doesn't have both is because the magnetism of the U.S. means that either the why/how of series getting made has to do with issues that are non-creative, and because the relative ease of mobility and difficulty of navigating the system means most talented writers get frustrated and go the way of Shore and Hanson.
And Canadians reinforce that, too. "If you were any good -- why would you be here?"
No, Denis - I get it. There is a need for Canada (or any tv producing country) to nuture writers and bring them to the fore. That was what I was implying with my mention of all those showrunners coming out of Star Trek and the system of writing that Michael Piller set up post first season ST:TNG.
You are of course correct in the reasons why I like both LIFE ON MARS and HUSTLE - new faces, new locations and perspectives BUILT ON STORIES THAT I CAN RELATE TO AND ENJOY. Entertainment VALUE. I think that was part of the reason I so love ISPY - they traveled the world having adventures in exotic locales, but with suspenseful intriguing stories that gripped the audience.
It always does boil down to story.
That was definitely an interesting quote from him. Especially in relation to movies and television.
I wonder if that's because television is a much more fragmented universe, so all TV shows have to be screaming for viewer attention all the time, thus requiring excellent stories.
Perhaps there just isn't enough competition in the movie theatres.
On a given Saturday, any movie only has maybe six or seven other films to contend with, and maybe only one or two of those films to seriously contend with.
Any given TV show at any given time has dozens, if not hundreds of competing TV shows, depending how you look at it.
Good television is coming from the market place, bred by competition, and being led by HBO in my little opinion.
However, I can also understand how directors came too rule Hollywood a long time ago, because that is their medium. Television hasn’t had the option of letting the images carry the story, so the writers took over.
Wonder what will happen when HD home theatres infiltrate the living rooms of even Ozarkian Mountain people. Will fancy pants directors take over then? Maybe it will end up being the perfect medium.
Good find, this quote.
(Puts on Devil's advocate horns and pitchfork)
You'll note that ABC Family bought the series way back in April of 2005 -- while it was still in production.
If, while I was producing my show, someone came to me and said, "We'll buy it for one of the world's biggest TV Markets and promote it heavily. All you have to do is change a few things for our audience - some names, license plates and references. Just make it an added take."
I would do it for the following reasons:
1. This purchase this early would immediately put my show in the black. No deficit financing involved.
2. The promotion factor is huge - "We sold to the US, so why don't you buy for your territory?" It raises the asking price for the show worldwide.
3. With these two things in mind, I could be looking at a guaranteed second and third season if the show does well on ABC Family.
Besides, the stories are the same, and the actors aren't being replaced. This is not a remake here - this is shooting some additional material for a guaranteed sale. No different than a "cable" or "european" version of a show (nudity and cursing) and a tamer domestic broadcast version (both of which are shot at the same time).
WC - I don't disagree with you at all. I think however Canadian television needs a few marks in the "Win" column. A deal like this gives you that.
As far as the dealmaking goes, it's a pain in the ass - but choose your battles. You've opened the door and stuck your big toe inside.
Now's the time to make sure the rest of you gets over the threshold. If the entertainment industry has taught me anything its that "Success breeds success."
You have a hit then people start to ask, "What else you got?"
That's when the producers and the line producers start coming back to the writers.
I loved Traders.
But then when Marty's wife ended up as the unfortunate distaff companion to the Canadian Tire Guy I knew it was just a blip on the radar and nothing that could be extrapolated into 21st century Cdn TV.
Works good on the business side, but sometimes the audience hates it.
Take War of the Worlds for instance. Supposedly, the end scene occurs in Boston. To any Boston native, though, it's obvious that it doesn't happen in Boston.
As a Boston/Massachusetts/New Hampshire transplant to Chicago, Winnipeg being much more north of Minnesota and never having ever been to Winnipeg or Manitoba, I can see plenty of New Englanders getting very annoyed with a show that deems to being set somewhere where it probably obviously isn't.
Then again, I guess when New England is something of a small market, it probably doesn't matter so much.
Post a Comment