Thursday, December 11, 2008

Underdogz

YESTERDAY WAS SPENT in a Writers Guild of Canada Council Meeting (coughing into a green handkerchief, yes, ladies he is available...) and there was some interesting stuff -- not all of it bad, believe it or not. Hopefully I'll get into that later.

But here's what caught my eye on the old Google Alert this morning:

Re:10 best U.S. shows you're

probably not watching, Dec. 2

It would be nice if Rob Salem were also to write about Canadian shows you probably aren't watching. One show I never miss is The Border on CBC Monday night. It is every bit as good as CSI and Law & Order but never gets into the Top 10 listed each week in the Sunday Star.

It has well-written stories, top notch acting, lots of action and even sex etc. Anybody I mention the show to usually replies that they [don't] watch CBC. What a shame. They don't know what they're missing.

Albert Speisman, Toronto

Albert was writing in regards to this article on the "10 Best U.S. Shows You're Probably Not Watching."

Now, Rob Salem at the Star is a good guy. Nobody likes TV more than him and he writes what he thinks his audience legitimately wants to read about, same as all journalist/critics. But Albert's letter does poke a bit at something that is an ongoing problem (one of many) when it comes to domestic Canadian product. I write about what writers have to do, and what Canadian creatives have to do all the time. But whenever I point out the fourth estate's shortcomings, I hear grumblings from certain quarters. No matter. People hate to be told they should be doing better... that's just human nature.

I can't speak to other cities in Canada. Thanks mainly to TV, Eh? I do see a lot of their articles, but there's that thing where you don't connect them all together in a pattern like you do with your homegrown stories.

For what it's worth, my impression is that over the last little while, The Toronto Star has slacked off a bit on covering homegrown stuff -- and slacked off in the most important department, which is covering the homegrown stuff right along side the U.S. stuff. I'll get to that in a minute. Alex Strachan in the Canwest Papers gives Canadian shows a good shake, and by far the fairest and best coverage comes from The Globe and Mail. (John Doyle, for instance, has made no secret of the fact that he really doesn't like The Border -- but he has written about it, and plugged it, quite a bit -- and he also is a consistent champion for more domestic tv.)

For most of the rest, they tend to rely on the Canadian Press, when they write a story on something homegrown.

Now, of course, you have to view all this within the context of the very, very serious contraction that's going on in the newspaper business. It seems that intelligent writing about TV, from a local perspective, is going the way of Newspaper Classified Ads. I think that's a huge mistake. Having a local guy like Sepinwall from the Star Ledger or Maureen Ryan from the Chicago Tribune write about something most people do for over 20 hours a week is an important part of connecting with your audience; but that's me. I don't run the presses.

The Globe and the Canadian Press both recently ran stories on the state of Canadian domestic television, with a cautiously optimistic spin. Both articles are informative, as far as they go. I'm not going to knock either one.

But the problem is that that's the only kind of article that Canadian TV gets. Usually in the paper it's treated as a thing apart. In fall preview articles, they spend lots of column space on U.S. shows, and if you're lucky, the Canadian stuff gets covered in a sidebar. In discussions of how the business is changing, Canadian writers may write all about Jay Leno, and the fortunes of NBC, but even for a Canadian audience they don't mention things like the upcoming CRTC license renewal hearings, and how that might affect what homegrown shows there are to watch.

Articles about Canadian TV, when they appear, are also exclusively the province of the Arts sections of papers. In the Business section, they're never, ever discussed -- even when the article is about the pressures facing the industry, Canadian or American. To read an article on Canadian TV networks, in the Globe Report on Business, you'd think that one hundred percent of the point of broadcasting in Canada was to re-broadcast American shows. It's ninety-five percent, true. And Lord knows, they'd probably like for it to be 100 percent -- but it's not. Not yet.

By hiving off and making sure that Canadian TV is usually only talked about in this separate bubble, it subtly reinforces the point of view that it's something different, something, in the stentorian tones of my long-gone Catholic youth: something slightly unholy.

This kind of disconnect and separation is what allows a lot of the misapprehensions and fictions to keep bubbling through; it's what allows some people to turn up their noses at Trailer Park Boys and talk about it like it's an object of shame, and not a show that brings hordes of fans out every time the actors make a personal appearance. It's what allows a double standard where Canadian shows are judged (sometimes) by a harsher yardstick -- and 'judged' is probably the wrong word, what I really mean is "dismissed."

Oh, don't get me wrong. There are a whole host of things that creatives still need to fix about Canadian shows -- at the development level, the production level, and certainly at the promotional level. But moving the needle of the public's opinion is made ever more difficult when there's the subtle intimation that there is TV, and then there is Canadian TV.

What prompted me to write this was a happy accident. I watched my colleague Sarah Dodd's episode of The Border on Monday night. When Sarah was writing this ep and prepping it and putting it together, I was deep into getting the next episode ready -- so I didn't have a lot of familiarity with the material. I think I read the script a couple times, and gave a few notes and suggested a few lines. But it changed in production, as it always does. And I never did watch an early cut. So when I tuned in Monday, I got the closest experience I've ever gotten to seeing an episode of The Border purely as a viewer does.

I was pretty entertained. John Fawcett's an awesome action director. And Sarah's script was emotional, with good personal subplots and stakes. There was a way cool neck-snap at the end that had me going, "whoa!" Fun. The episodes of The Border that weren't written by either of the Senior Writing Producers, Janet MacLean and David Barlow, were always supervised by one of them. This happened to be a Janet episode, and I could see some of the touches that she brings to it - things that she thinks are important to convey. My instincts are not always the same as Janet's, but to watch the finished episode, you can definitely see some choices that I know she pushed for that made the episode better. But... there's Sarah's voice too, and John's and there's Jonas rocking out a few very funny Slade lines, and some fine work from James McGowan, and everyone doing their level best and in the end, it adds up to a very exciting hour of TV, with a nice bittersweet coda.

I did a guest teaching stint at Humber College's Film and TV writing program this week, and one of the things I told them was that it's a miracle that anything good ever winds up on TV, since every single episode of every single show requires about sixty people to do what they do and not screw up at all.

From the couch, it was an entertaining ride. I enjoyed it way more than this week's House, for instance, which I found manipulative and schmaltzy. Isn't that funny? Even in my head, even with all I do to try and argue the opposite, I've got a bit of that double standard at work in my own brain, too. I was surprised that I enjoyed The Border more than House. I don't know why. But I was.

I remember years ago going to a video store and seeing all the Canadian films in the Foreign section. And I thought that said a lot. And I think the editorial "separateness" of Canadian TV accomplishes the same thing. I don't know how to fix it. But it certainly is a factor.

One among many.

EDIT. Wicked. And from the "look how au courant we are" spy this little story in today's Globe. Turns out there's a huge RCMP investigation into gangs infiltrating Canadian airports. Sarah's Border episode, which was written two months ago -- spins out from a gang that has infiltrated the Airport. Score another one for The Border crystal ball!

12 comments:

Diane Kristine Wild said...

Would it surprise you to learn I agree about House? But supporting your point even more, Rob Salem didn't ignore Canadian shows - he wrote a separate column about Canadian shows you're not watching. It would be nice to get to the point where the top 10 shows you're not watching happen to include some Canadian shows, or where a website dedicated to Canadian shows isn't necessary because it's hard to miss coverage of them in with all the rest of the tv news. I recently slammed my own site for being a well-intentioned Canadian TV ghetto, pointing out that one of my ironic/hypocritical pet peeves is that "Canadian TV shows" are often written about as a separate entity from "TV shows," in the media and with fans.

I find Canadian shows are just as often treated with kid gloves as judged more harshly, which is equally bad. It seems like there's 2 camps, the "Canadian TV is special!" side and the "Canadian TV sucks!" side, but there's very little discussion where that sort of eat your vegetables politics doesn't enter into it.

In my fantasy world where unicorns roam, journalists and fans would talk about Canadian shows the way they do any other show, Canadian tv industry people would not berate them for saying something they don’t like, and TV, eh? would be obsolete.

Peter Saunders said...

I agree with Diane. Just as often as "something slightly unholy," Canadian shows are treated as "something very holy," which is just as unfair an approach.

I think it's great that Canadian media can help promote Canadian TV, given that all the American media we see certainly isn't going to, but such promotion shouldn't infect the work of critics and the like. That is to say, they shouldn't rave about Canadian shows just because they're Canadian, but they should rave about the good ones just as much as they rave about good American shows.

And good on Salem for doing so.

DMc said...

Diane, I agree with every single thing you said. And I didn't know that Salem had written a separate article about Canadian shows. So that kind of proves one point, but disproves another. At least he wrote about them.

You're also dead on about the light reviewing, too. In fact, the combo of those two is the real killer, because it means that neither kind of article can be trusted. Where is the straight dope?

The light or kind reviewing certainly reinforces the public perception. If anybody reads an article about how a show is great and tune in and it's lame, that's bad. And I have also been in the room when I heard someone dismiss a review that raised good, honest critical reports by being able to claim, "oh, they're just biased against the show."

When you don't have an honest barometer, you don't have a starting point for a discussion.

I guess all people can do is try to keep an open mind, try to work with people who engage in honest self-criticism, and keep praying for unicorns.

DMc said...

And not to be too much of a stickler, but I did make that point about the two types of reviews and how they're both damaging two years ago, in my post "10 things that would make Canadian TV better." It's right here



1) Honest Peer and Critical Review

A lot of people wouldn't start here, but brothers and sisters, it's necessary. One of the pervasive barriers to the industry maturing here is what I call "agenda reviewing." There are TV critics out there who review Canadian shows "lightly," ladling out faint praise, which damns as faint praise always does. There are other critics who have an axe to grind, like a few who really do make it their mission to come down hard on everything the CBC does, good or bad. Still others are a little close to some producers, and they give them a pass.

We're a long way from the days when a major newspaper TV critic was pitching programs at the same time as he was reviewing others, but this inconsistency in critical approach isn't helpful. One of the things that we have to overcome as an industry is a lingering feeling in some of the population that "if it's a Canadian show it automatically sucks." It doesn't. But part of the reason that's out there is because anyone arguing the oppostie view seems compromised. Program makers have a vested interest in the subject, and the audience, whether they know it or not, smells the agenda in writing about Canadian TV and knows it's not really honest or accurate.

When it comes to peer review, it's the same thing. I've heard stories of Producers lodging complaints with the Globe & Mail because they didn't like John Doyle's review. Or going up to critics at industry events to bitch. Or when Doyle or someone else points out some newsworthy gaffe the CBC has made, dismissing the whole thing as evidence of "his anti-CBC bias."

This kind of thing simply has to stop. It's terribly unprofessional. Critics must have the space to judge, as they see fit. Cleaning out those who really do have an agenda will increase the credibility of those who, like Doyle, call it as they see it. (I remember at least as many columns where Doyle praised CBC as when he took it to task.) As for us, we have to cowboy up. It is not the job of critics to booster homegrown tv. It's their job to tell us if it's good or bad. And it wouldn't hurt all of us to be honest about that, either.

In the long run, we will get further if we don't pressure those who criticise into having to fulfill any other agenda than critical review. The struggle with that is enough."

Diane Kristine Wild said...

PS Just to get poindexterish on myself for accuracy, the Canadian Salem article I was thinking of wasn't a mirror image of the US shows you're not watching one. He'd written about good new Canadian comedies and then did a follow up of ones he'd missed that were worth watching. Similar idea, but they weren't companion pieces like I remembered.

wcdixon said...

Canadian films in the Foreign section at the video store...I remember that as well.
Too funny.
Well, sad and funny.
Well..maybe just sad.

Nelson Carter-Leis said...

Hey Denis,
I just wanted to say a general 'thank you' for writing this blog and keeping me informed. I'm enjoying the hell out of your point of view. Since finding it a week ago (as a link from Alex Epstein's site), your column now occupies a part of my morning routine - along with the joe, Huffington Post and Variety.
As an actor, a 'Canadian' one!, who's recently moved to the big show from lil' Vancouver - you've provided me with a daily connection to our industry and are un-knowingly holding my hand as I orient myself with your metropolis.
Not intending this as a virtual hand job - just a genuine thanks.
Nelson

Rob Salem said...

I was gonna call you on this, cause I do write about and mostly champion Canadian shows whenever possible, as a scan of my column page on thestar.com will attest.

But several readers did this for me. And you did kinda did give me credit yourself. And the truth is, with Jim Bawden gone and Vinay Menon re-assigned to the navel-gazing beat, I am the last man standing, and only human, and space is at a premium anyway, and to a certain extent I do have to take into account what people actually watch.

But I love you, man. I admire and respect your prolific and consistently excellent output. You are one of the main reasons Canadian TV no longer categorically sucks.

And to further assuage my ego, that Humber class you talked to is actually mine, though you had no idea at the time, and thus your unwitting and unsolicited commendation there was a much-appreciated vote of confidence. The class has an all-new respect for me too.

Glad you have my back pal, and that I can count on you to keep fighting the good fight and keeping me honest.

I remain an avid reader -- even when you aren't writing about me.

Cheers, Salem

Peter Saunders said...

Interesting comment, Rob, about "what people actually watch" ... there's the question ... do we as readers need to hear more about the shows we're already watching? Or do we really need to hear about the stuff we're NOT already watching?

I know your columns have brought to light series I and many others wouldn't have otherwise known about, so I'm certainly not accusing you of only writing about "what people actually watch" ... but I would think the more central issues would be "what people might want to watch," "what people should hear more about" and just "what's good on TV."

I'm always amazed how much additional press coverage an established hit series like 'American Idol' gets even while it's built-in North American audience is already in the tens of millions. Talk about a waste of premium editorial space.

ME said...

My bad, Salem. I specifically didn't tell D who else taught in the program, lest it inhibit his usual candour.

Considering you are a one man band, I think you do a great job and I appreciate your efforts, though sometimes it must feel Sisyphean.

You are definitely in that small group but proud group of people who really loves tv and consistently says so (why there are so few of us actually working in tv who will admit to loving it and watching it is beyond me).

And we should have honest dialogue about what is good and what isn't. This country produces a lot of programming that competes on a world stage, both scripted and otherwise. We should be trying to get better and we can't do that if we don't tell the truth about what is and isn't crap.

And BTW, it doesn't necessarily take more money to get better. I've seen some fantastic shows coming out of unlikely places like Israel, where the population is small and the budgets even smaller. It is there that the original series that became In Treatment came from ... simple, pure, and good. And not crazy expensive.

I agree with Diane, as usual. Take me to this Unicorn place when you find it :-)

DMc said...

Lot of good stuff here. Salem, I did scan the column archive and you're right. In Bushian fashion, I had "misremembered." I guess I had transferred the feelings that grew out of a slight downsizing of TV writing at the Star, which I think is a big mistake. It's amazing that since Vinay moved on, you're the only one on that gig. Sisyphisean is a good word for it.

Caroline, you're so right that it's not about money.

And I think you can't fault a TV writer for going with articles about shows that draw eyeballs. Articles about shows that draw eyeballs draw eyeballs. Again, don't fault the communicator, fault the taste of the public.

My central point, amidst all these interesting sidebars does remain, however. If it's held up as "a thing apart" it will never get a fair shake. Whether treated with kid gloves or a self-loathing hypercritical hammer, it's all the fruit of that poison tree. Separate is not equal.

Werner Patels said...

Canadian content is great -- especially these days, it's much better than most stuff our "Canadian" networks import from the U.S.

It's always a shame, though, that shows (like jPod) are pulled way too soon.

This season so far has been extremely lousy in terms of U.S. imports. I have therefore found myself watching mostly Canadian and Brit TV.

I don't agree with the bashing of CanCon by the likes of Doyle all the time. The Border is a great show.