And I have to admit, in the sober light of a Monday morning, I'm swayed.
Not because I don't think that there shouldn't be some flexibility in casting if you can't find a Canadian 'star.' And not because I think that I need protectionism to work in my own industry. Not totally.
What it comes down to for me, is this: the system's being gamed again, in an unpredictable way, without providing any relief or hope to the people who got screwed over the last time they gamed the system.
In 1999, when the CRTC relaxed the rules on drama spending by networks, allowing them to count reality and cheaper fare as Cancon, they insisted this wouldn't result in less homegrown material. Instead, the number of Canadian scripted shows dropped off overnight. With a business model based solely on rebroadcasting U.S. hits, there was no reason to do more than the minimum. And so it goes.
Now they're talking about reforming the fund again, and when I wrote about the bit last week, I missed one very important part. As someone wrote to me:
The main thrust of the CRTC report is that the CTF should be divided in two– the Heritage contribution of $100 million, renewable annually, and the Broadcast Distribution Undertakings’ (BDU) required contribution of 5% of revenue which is about $130 million. The report makes a clear distinction about which projects should be funded from which stream of money. Also there a whole bunch of new governance provisions, etc. for the BDUs’ portion. It is a return to our murky past with different streams of funding and two different boards and policies.See what happens when I read too quickly?
This is indeed a disaster. Because it's a return to "bureaucrats decide what makes a program Canadian." So the ridiculous, hamfisted values of "visibly Canadian" (you know, wheat and beavers) will rear its ugly head. Also, inevitably, a two fund system will mean one favored fund and one idiot cousin. Wonder which will be which, hmm? The "commercial" fund or the "100% Canadian" fund? It'll be the wild west fighting over the "commercial" fund, while Canadian producers fight over the scraps tossed by Heritage. Feh and fie.
Besides leading to a further institutional ghettoizing of Cancon, the inanity of this process is clear to see. In kicking off this whole tantrum-driven imbroglio, Jim Shaw, regulatorily favored monopolist, criticized the bad shows his money had to support. And one of the examples he used was Trailer Park Boys.
Trailer Park Boys. The successful Canadian show which has run six seasons, spawned an Ivan Reitman produced movie, made cultural icons out of its stars, and pleased fans all across Canada.
But not Jim Shaw. And he's rich, so, you know, he gets to make the call.
Now, is TPB 100% Canadian? Fuck yeah. Is it 100% Canadian by whatever bullshit definition Jim Shaw and his ilk want to use? Ummmm....derrrr.
By two-tiering CTF investment, we could well take a step back. And the track record by production companies and broadcasters -- who immediately go to do the absolute minimum and no more -- isn't good.
Lead Actor, and Writer both equal 2 points on the 10/10 system...so that's why getting 8/10 is essential to a lot of these companies who want to access Canadian Taxpayer money. But when there were 6/10 options, the L.A. writers grew fat off our dime, while actual Canadian writers were left out in the cold. It's easy to see it happening again.
We're the ones who are still fighting the perception that we're not good enough -- even though there are plenty of us who want to write in a more commercial vein -- we just don't want to have to go to L.A. to work on Canadian shows.
Forget about finding the next "Corner Gas."
If this goes through, I can easily see a return to the days when L.A. based firms hired a "Canadian producer" and ran the whole creative on their end. And we'll be paying for it.
You know what else seems suspicious? The fact that the DGC hasn't said a damn thing.
Sure, I'm still pissed at ACTRA for selling out writers in the past -- but this is a separate issue. A stronger waver system where you could "waive" the lead actor for foreign sales could accomplish the same thing.
The whole thing's a mess. And it basically still comes down to: you haven't fixed what was wrong from 1999, and you're rolling the dice on us again.
The WGC, right now, is preparing their response. So for any of you out there who have experience from the 6/10 days, about working on a show (or trying to work on a show) where all creative decisions came out of L.A. and your voice or input was ignored, tell your tale in the comments below...and also drop a line to Maureen Parker at the WGC.
It's not that I don't think the CTF needs reform. It does. It's just that this tinker seems, once again, to put creative people firmly in the bullseye of experimentation, when all the experiments they've tried in the past have been disastrous for us, while they made other people very rich.
UPDATE: Doyle's got a column about this this morning.
27 comments:
You keep holding Corner Gas up as our big success, proof that our industry can make successful, 100% Canadian shows. Why no mention of that other equally successful, homespun 100% Canadian comedy, Little Mosque? Could it be because it's exactly what the jaded audience has come to expect from "100% Canadian," with cheesetastic writing and acting?
Maybe if they'd expanded the search beyond Canada for the young imam they'd have found someone who coulc act. How can the average joe believe we have room for another Corner Gas in our talent pool, when Little Mosque's solution for shaky writing was to pilfer from ... Corner Gas?
Forgive me if I'm not waiting for the WGA's response to fix the industry. Why are they constantly in reactive mode to announcements like this? Why isn't there a coordinated strategy to advocate in a sustained way for ... something?
Diane:
At times like these I ask myself: wwpgd?
m
Corner Gas *is* our big success, Diane. And a CBC vehicle turning to Corner Gas writers is a good thing -- proof of that. As for LM, I've been pretty clear on my feelings about the show in the past. I reserve judgement now because I think it's important to see what the new writers do with that show's one million viewing base.
"pilfering from other shows" is how the entire talent system in the USA works. You work on someone else's show, and the cream is siphoned off to give pilots to and maybe they come up with the next hit.
By moving over to LM, 2 slots were filled on Corner Gas, and everyone moved up. That's the way things are supposed to work. It's far preferable to the current Canadian system, where inexperienced people win the lottery and a show and then reinvent the wheel everytime, with predictably craptastic results.
As for why he WGC is reactive, that's very simple: writers are a very small minority in the industry. The DGC -- because they rep crew, have a much bigger base. ACTRA is a much bigger base. The CFTPA (Producers association), the cablecos, the networks -- everybody has more money, and money talks.
However you slice it -- making the process of getting funding more bureaucratic -- which this proposal clearly does - is not any kind of answer.
Giving the Americans to make programs here with Canadian money without having to employ Canadians at anything other than the hammer this or carry that level is not good policy, or good investment.
It's marketed as a fix. It is not a fix. It is a break for those who don't deserve breaks. Better the system was left broken the way it is now, or the fund abolished altogether, and start over.
Broken record time but I have to agree with what denis is saying, at least in the second half of his comment about the dgc and actra.
Their members still work when we do nothing but service produce. Writers don't.
It seems to me that 8 out of 10 starts moving us (back) down to service production.
What mef said...crews will work, actors will primarily fill secondary roles, producers will service produce, while writers and directors will mostly be Americans or Americans with questionably obtained landed immigracy passports or LA-based Canadians. Seriously. Anyone who can convince me otherwise please do.
Is not the question that needs to be answered simply "would more people watch 'Intelligence' if it starred Richard Dean Anderson than Ian Tracey?". That seems to be the crux of the debate re 8/10 with the corallary being if more people watch Intelligence becuase of that is it now "better".
You think there are enough talented, experienced Canadian writers to staff more Corner Gases, and yet you don’t think they’d be selected over American writers, and that the resulting show would be a commercial success?
One thing I haven’t heard from all this sky-is-falling talk is that the private funding stream also has proposed guidelines for “Canadianness.” Besides the 8/10 rule, that recommendation includes the language: “Underlying rights are owned and significantly and meaningfully developed by Canadians; Projects must reflect Canadian experiences.” The recommendations also include the broadcasters paying more, and be required to pay monthly, and more sources of income for the CTF. There is no recommendation to have two boards governing the two separate streams.
You don’t want bureaucracy when getting money from bureaucrats? Good luck. Everyone wants the money from the CTF and no one wants to be accountable for that money.
Because the WGA is small and poor they don’t need to have an advocacy plan? Bullshit. That’s exactly the kind of organization that needs a strategic advocacy plan.
I've always believed that if Canadians are writing it, starring in it and direct it, it will be Canadian whether or not it features the Prairies, or the East Coast or logs.
One year on Made in Canada we were denied funding because we weren't Canadian enough (that was overturned on some weird appeal process). This was a show that only hired Canadians and was set in Toronto (we didn't pretend we were in an n.d. american city) had a tragically hip song for a theme and even had the word Canada in its title. But we weren't Canadian enough.
In terms of if there are enough writers: the LM/CG thing happened pretty close to when both shows were going to camera; not a lot of time to look for new people and read everyone's writing packs.
In a system where we are basically service producers I'm saying it won't matter how many talented writers there are in the country. I thnk writers will be screwed over first. I concede that right now we are in the realm of the hypothetical.
Maybe the answer is paul gross.
I think the thing to understand (and it's WGC by the way) is that the 'Canadianess' guidelines are really only minor hoops for producers to have to get around. And as for the underlying rights being owned by a Canuck company, I once witnessed a US studio hire a local lawyer, incorporate them, transfer the rights to them, so they could then access federal and provincial tax credits via the lawyer as local "producer".
Producers for the most part are just trying to get their shows financed and made...and that's fully financed so they won't have to defer away a lot of their fees, as so many of them have to do. And they will do most ANYTHING to raise that last 15% that blueglow and others have touched upon as being the tough money to try to raise. And though their hearts might be in the right place (i.e. their country), a lot of producers will go so far as buy some hot American lead actor/writer/director their citizenship papers in order to not only qualify them as Canadian but insure full financing of their project. And on top of that, will deem that person a local for the purpose of 'training' the industry (even though there may be more than half a dozen more than qualified local writers/directors standing by wanting to work) in order to claim the provincial tax credits as well. I've seen it happen far too often.
It's business, and it's the reality that the majority of known and more experienced/talented personnel are in LA.
Yet it's tough because I know that producers have a much easier time of it raising that last 15% with some known American names on board. But this is supposedly Canadian money for Canadian productions. I guess what I'm saying is that I know the lengths some will go to manipulate the 10 out of 10 system, and with an 8 out of 10 system it will just make it easier to not use Canadian creatives.
And I'm trying to just whine...just pointing out that if you want to work on 'Canadian' shows, it's looking more and more like one needs to move to LA.
And blueglow...yes, more people would be aware of and probably tune in to Intelligence if it had Richard Dean Anderson, but it wouldn't make it necessarily better. I don't buy a lot of the star casting for TV anyway...nobody really knew the cast of House or Six Feet Under or the Sopranos for that matter, it was the shows themselves that won people over.
Oh man, I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out who pg was, mef - heh. I wasn't the one suggesting he was our saviour, or I would have picked up on it right away. Maybe.
I do know it's WGC, my fingers just keep typing WGA, Will. I'm acronym impaired, as the pg thing attests to.
It'll be interesting to see what official responses the CRTC gets to these recommendations. I predict: bitching and naysaying, with no alternatives that consider how to make a product the audience wants to watch. You guys are making me cynical :)
I don't think the "Canadianess" issue is just a minor hoop. Denis can speak to this better than I, but didn't Space have a helluva time trying to tap into CTF funding because their content wasn't considered Canadian enough for the longest time.
That is the very language that gets us in trouble in the first place, because it sets the tone that is reinforced and repeated throughout the industry to create the ghetto.
This "Canadian experience" horseshit is like saying your citizenship isn't determined by your birth, but by your behavior. You have to count the number of times you say "eh" for points, drink Export - 2 points, watch hockey - 6 points, live in Antigonish - 36 points.
What happens is that bureaucrats have to judge the very thing they are not equipped to judge: the spirit of art. They set up guidelines and rules to evaluate something that is capricious by nature.
Then the writers twist themselves up into pretzels trying to act "Canadian" as defined by these artificial rules. What do you get? The embarrassing sight of someone trying to imitate himself. No fun for anyone.
If a project is populated by Canadians above the line, it is ipso facto Canadian, no matter the content. There is no need to pretend to be yourself. We have to stop trying to manufacture culture. It's the only true "free market" out there.
And if we have learned anything, the "Canadianess" of TV is not a marketable idea. Not in the world, and especially not within Canadian borders.
-Wil
Diane:
So let me get this straight: you weren't cynical before?
i know you weren't the one who proposed pg and to be honest I mostly fall into a pro-pg position.
I just got a chuckle out of the discussion. Not in a bad way. I just enjoyed it.
I like this blog. and the weird tangents it allows.
And I also when I put the word verification up in the comment part.
"zpzyzg"ily yours
Mark
m
on the cop shows I've done our bad guys killed like Americans and the streets of Vancouver were as bloody as any in the US. never had a problem, in fact i don't think I've ever been on a show (and I haven't really done that many industrials) where lack of Can Con has been an issue with Canadian funders.
where I have run into problems is with the foriegn investors who want to strip out ANY canadian reference and even when we have done that we have faced no ramifications from the cultural police.
(mef -- it usually takes me three tries to type the word verification correctly)
It usually happens at the beginning. I've seen projects turned down because they weren't Canadian enough (it's more prevalent on the feature side). It's quite possible that it's just an easy out to jettison a lousy project, but it shouldn't even be part of the discussion.
-Wil
"If a project is populated by Canadians above the line, it is ipso facto Canadian, no matter the content."
I couldn't agree more, wil...I just take objection to the ease some are able to get their Canadian passport which is solely for gaining employment (and points).
Because I've worked on 10 out of 10 shows that still had to insert "a minimum of two highly identifiable Canadian elements into the script" in order to qualify (which usually took the form of a small Canadian flag perched on the corner of someone's desk and a line of dialogue about someone's cousin being from 'Edmonton'.) Pointless.
And yet I've also been on shows where the 'Canadianess' was mandated but, like blueglow says:
"...the foriegn investors who want to strip out ANY canadian reference and even when we have done that we have faced no ramifications from the cultural police."
Been there done that. It all makes no sense and just seems to keep us going in circles trying to 'be something else' and service for regulations and mandates instead of just doing and making good entertaining stories.
Refining the bureaucratise won't work. Films like THE FULL MONTY are British, but they are universal, because you're not trying to play games on a checklist. Nor are you trying to a) artificially inflate or b) artificially cut out any reference to place.
I have to sign a residency requirement form any time I work on a show here. I have to affirm my citizenship.
The simplest test ever would be "programs where the key above the line talent is creative."
So long as we're doing experiments -- can we do that experiment for a few years? That one we've never tried.
This one, we did. It didn't work. It didn't get us any closer to our selfish goal -- actually having Canadian writers write so called Canadian shows. And it didn't get any closer to Diane's goal either -- more shows on the air that Canadians want to watch.
How would you select projects then? I don't know. But what I do know is futzing wiht the bureaucratese is just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.
So let me get this straight: you weren't cynical before?
I believed in fairies and unicorns and Paul Gross until I met you Canadian TV types. Now I think we should import all our shows from Finland and give up.
It is all cyclical...
This whole Jim Shaw / Trailer Park Boys flap reminded me of the tax shelter days. Producers were gaming the system on the one hand and everyone thought Cronenberg was a dirty word on the other. The system never realized that the problem was always at the distribution end, and only recently recognized that there was nothing more Canadian than blowing up Louis Del Grande's head.
-Wil
Can you imagine what would happen if the regulators said to the broadcasters that they need to have -- pick a number, let's say four -- primetime hours a week devoted to Canadian produced drama to be able to simulcast the rest of their schedule?
Ho boy. They would crap their pants, but our problem would be solved.
-Wil
Diane, I don't know about unicorns and Paul Gross. But fairies are real.
Seriously.
And what's more...
...they're PISSED.
LMAO at Diane. You can't blame your cynicism on us, girl. We are just your enablers ;-)
Reading all this stuff about bureaucracy and how something is Canadian just makes me think "Wow. . .Canadian TV is a 3rd World Country that's about to have a blood bath of ethnic cleansing except that they're too complacent to got off their asses to do it."
I'm obviously caricaturing the conversation at hand, but it's just something that popped into my head.
"Cheesetastic"? If Mosque continues to pull in excess of a million viewers (real not invented numbers) the Pubcaster will soon become the Cheese Broadcasting Corporation. It will be wall to wall fromage. And the menu will be soundly justified with the claim that it is what the people want ... they just love their cheese.
It has to remain 10/10, that's the purpose of the program.
"It has to remain 10/10, that's the purpose of the program.
But does that program make good television?
Clearly no, Bill, but now we're back to the circular argument again about supported government money in the industry vs the free market.
to which I say, again, the USA is very good at talking about the free market so long as they're completely dominant in that market.
If you can get the U.S. studios and film system to stop viewing Canada as part of U.S. domestic, then let's talk.
Not necessarily, but neither does any other model I know of. Does it stop good shows from being made? I don't think so.
I can't believe I'm in any way going to defend the studios, but part of the reason they tie Canada and the US in place is the fault of the unions, who tie residuals for the two markets together. Ergo, potentially one telecast of something in Medicine Hat would trigger the residual for all of North America. Just sayin', there is a business reason for it, and it wasn't them that created the system.
Post a Comment