No Tea For Lahey!

WELL, TYPICALLY, IF you want to see what Sarah Polley and Wendy Crewson had to say to the Senate yesterday, all you have to do is pick a paper. Any paper.

But when you read over the full transcript of yesterday's Senatapalooza meeting of the Banking Committee, you have to conclude that there was a bit of funny air in the air up there.

It's a collision of strange scenes and revelations -- the Senator who outed himself as an ACTRA member, a joking reference by the DGC's rep that he should get an Order of Canada for cutting his speech in half, the sniffing by the Conservative senators charged with defending this turd of a bill, pissy press releases saying Polley had no right "telling hardworking Canadians what to do" (particularly hilarious, considering the 60-80 hours a week most writers, directors, and crew people work to make a film or TV show -- talk about out of touch!)

And, of course, talk of those rascally Trailer Park Boys.

Here in Sticksville, of course, we're primarily concerned with writers and what writers had to say, so here's a couple of excerpts from the presentations by the Writers Guild of Canada.

Maureen Parker, Executive Director, Writers Guild of Canada:

We want to be clear about what we object to.

We agree that the government should not fund pornography or programs that promote hate crimes or other criminal activity.

If the government wants to revoke easily a tax credit in the instance where a film or video or TV production is in breach of the Criminal Code, then that is what the amendment to the Income Tax Act should say, and to that end, we support the producers’ amendment.

As non-statutory instruments, the proposed guidelines may be revised at any time without the involvement of Parliament. It is then open to special interest groups with different views to lobby for changes in the wording of those guidelines or their interpretation. That, in turn, will have an impact on all of the Canadian film and television programs funded by the tax credit. This is not acceptable for an objective, labour-based funding mechanism, such as the tax credit.

We find it very curious that this amendment only affects the domestic tax credit and will have no application to the production service tax credit. Heritage department officials stated to this committee last week that it was inappropriate to apply the test to the production service tax credit because it is “a credit to encourage work in Canada. It is not a credit related to content.”

We were surprised to hear that, as it was always our understanding that the domestic tax credit was also intended to encourage work, but on Canadian productions in Canada and it is also not related to content.

In structure, both tax credits are administered identically, so we see no basis for identifying one as a labour-based credit and the other as content-based.

This legislation would make it more difficult to fund indigenous productions but not American productions filmed in Canada with Canadian tax dollars. That simply makes no sense.

The Canadian tax credit is a labour-based credit. It is not subjective financing. To apply for it, a producer fills out an application form and sends it along with a bunch of documentation confirming the Canadian residency of key personnel and contracts and a budget to confirm labour expenditures. The expenditures are reviewed and the producer receives provisional approval of the plan.

If the producer spends the budget according to the plan submitted, she or he will receive the tax credit. Producers do not send in a script. The content is not reviewed. The proposed guidelines will change all of that.

Film and television production is very expensive. The average budget for a feature film is over $5 million, and the average budget for an episode of an one-hour drama is $1.4 million.

Producers need the tax credit to complete their financing after they have raised as much as they can from the marketplace, which includes government agencies, independent funds, broadcasters and distributors.

The federal tax credit, which is roughly 10 per cent of the budget, is an essential element. Producers take the certificate worth about 10 per cent to a bank. The bank generally advances 80 per cent of the value of the certificate to the producer. If there is the slightest risk that the certificate will be revoked, the banks will not consider it acceptable security.

To say the producers can find private money to fund productions deemed unacceptable is tantamount to saying they will not get them made. Rarely do private investors invest in film and television production, as the current tax laws to not encourage that form of investment as they once did in the late 1980s. Introducing this level of uncertainty about funding may not be censorship in fact, but it is definitely censorship in effect.

Rebecca Schechter, the President of the WGC -- and a writer who's written for Little Mosque on the Prairie, among other shows, put the production process in perspective for the Senators:

It is incredibly difficult to get a movie made in Canada. It can take years from the germ of the writer's original idea for the film to the start of production. There are many creative and business reasons for this length of time and difficulty, but let me assure you once you have written a script and a producer wants to produce it, a director wants to direct it and actors want to act in it, it is a Sisyphean task, pushing a rock up a hill many times. To add another layer to this difficult job by trying to guess before you even begin writing what the government of the day will consider excessive or gratuitous violence, or whether a bureaucrat who functions completely outside the creative process might deem the sexuality portrayed as educational enough to pass muster feels like the kiss of death. Television is developed differently from movies. Before even beginning to come up with an idea for a TV series, a smart writer will find out what kind of material the broadcasters are looking for. Do they want a cop show for a ten o'clock slot, a soap opera for an eight clock slot, comedies or dramedies? In television, you are beginning by shaping your own creative urges around the needs and demands of the broadcasters.


Then you shape your work around the demands of producers, directors, actors, art directors and editors, all the while trying to hold fiercely to the creative vision that got you started. Hanging another layer of guidelines on top of this is oppressive and totally unnecessary. Broadcasters already screen out what most people consider gratuitous, excessive violence and explicit sexuality.


These proposed guidelines open the door to special interest groups who will have the power to dictate what films and television programs you and I get to watch. I do not presume to tell anyone else what kind of programming should get made. Once it is made, if I do not like it, I do not watch it. I see no reason why the taste of any particular interest group should be more privileged than mine.


And okay, okay, yes...Sarah Polley is also a writer...so because she was apparently so threatening to the Conservatives that they went out of their way to attack her directly, I offer this lovely, clearheaded quote:

We will all see movies that we do not like; I see movies I do not like. I see things that offend me politically. I see things that offend me morally. However, I choose to debate them and to have a dialogue about them, or to turn away from them. I do not say they should not be allowed to exist and certainly would not choose to give that power to the minister to make that decision.

In the post presentation question period, Independent Senator Mira Spivak from Manitoba spoke to the wisdom of the mob, and the "not with my tax dollars" argument:

Senator Spivak: First of all, I want you to know that no bill can become law unless the Senate passes it. It does not matter if the House of Commons does not agree with us. It comes back here, and we hopefully will never agree. I have two things to say. First, in the world in which we live where we can see increasing attempts to silence opposition, thank God for Canada. We should never disturb the fragility that exists in this wonderful country for freedom of expression.
The second thing I have to say is, as a taxpayer, there is all this business about how taxpayers should not give money to something that, God forbid, offends them. What about the oil sands? What about tobacco companies? I do not agree with it, but we live in this country and we support it. Scratch the taxpayers' arguments and thank you for coming.

And finally, the most surreal moment in a most surreal proceeding goes to this question from Sentator George Baker (Lib, Newfoundland and Labrador):

Senator Baker: My first question relates to the evidence here this morning that the tax credit is not given to pornography, that the production of pornography is excluded from the tax credit. Therefore, given that this provision will now be directed at other productions, would not you agree this is an attack on the Trailer Park Boys -- an attack on Bubbles and Ricky, and that they really want Mr. Lahey to drink tea and his sidekick to put on a shirt?

Shocker! Corner Gas To End in 2009!

A PRESS RELEASE just went out minutes ago: Brent Butt is going to bring Corner Gas to a close in 2009, after the completion of Season 6:

Corner Gas creator and star Brent Butt, on behalf of Prairie Pants Productions, announced today that the series will come to an end following the conclusion of its upcoming sixth season.

Production on the final 19 new episodes, to be broadcast in 2008-2009 on CTV and The Comedy Network, begins May 15 in Regina and Rouleau, Saskatchewan. The series' finale will air sometime in Spring, 2009.

"It's a very difficult decision, but the right decision, and one I felt I
had to make," said Brent Butt, who is also a writer, director and executive
producer of the series. "When I told CTV about my decision, they made it clear
that they were keen to do more seasons. They didn't want it to end yet. But
for the good of the show, I wanted to exit gracefully, on top of our game,
when we're at our prime -- because that's how I want viewers to remember
Corner Gas: at its very best."
"This is not goodbye, it's see you later," said Susanne Boyce, President,
Creative, Content and Channels, CTV Inc. "Brent and his team have accomplished
something that has never been achieved before. They said it couldn't be done,
but Corner Gas did it anyway. The series has paved the way for other Canadian
productions by proving that if you make great TV, Canadians will watch.
"It's been a great collaboration between CTV and the Corner Gas creative
team and we've always respected what should be the right creative choice. We
look forward to another great season of laughs, and seeing what this team
comes up with next."
Butt will continue to develop projects for CTV and The Comedy Network as
production wraps on the finale season of Corner Gas.

Classy way to go out! Hey, Producers, how about this challenge:

Do what you can to keep Canada's top comedy talent in Canada, eh?

Unbelievable! Even the Heritage Minister "Hates" C10!

FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, we have now officially entered the realm of the farce. You know, I'll grant that everything that I've written with public money, or accrued tax credits for, might not have been entertaining to everyone. But at least somebody, somewhere watched it and was entertained, or at least diverted.

The money going toward the fooferal of the Senate hearings on C10 just passed through the looking glass. This is the sound of your tax dollars flushing down the toilet:



Courtesy of xtra -- yes, that's right -- a publicaton put out by those "uppity gay folk," it seems that Senator David Angus left his mic on after adjourning the meeting.

Just in case you can't figure out the YouTube (Lookin at you, McVety...) here's what the Chairman of the Banking Committee said:

"The government has to bite the bullet. The minister agrees, she told me she hates the law."

So there we are. This whole thing is now about the Conservative government saving face. Everything else is a bag of B.S. Denials in the linked story aside, this sorry spectacle is an embarrassment.

They got caught. Kick the bill back.

Oh, and by the way - this is how media works in the 21st Century, Mr. Prime Minister. Try to control the message all you want.

Macaca!

Two snaps to Xtra!

Alex Strachan ALMOST Gets It Right

WRITING IN TODAY'S Vancouver Sun, Alex Strachan has a clear-headed argument about C10:

Bill C-10 is bad economics for publicly funded films, TV

There are arguments, and then there are silly arguments. It's funny how the silly arguments almost always come at taxpayers' expense.

The flap over Bill C-10 -- a government proposal to amend the Income Tax Act so that tax credits will be clawed back from those homegrown TV and film productions the government judges to be offensive -- is a classic example of what happens when the misinformed meet the misguided.

Bill C-10 is bad public policy masquerading as tax policy.

Strachan then goes on to posit a theory that I hadn't heard before, but which sounds like it could be plausible: that these provisions had their genesis in the once-upon-a-time flap over the making of a movie about Canadian serial killers Karla Holmolka and Paul Bernardo. When the Conservatives say that the policy was inherited from a previous Liberal Government, they're partially correct.

(They have juked the language to vest all the power in the Heritage Minister, and that is a change, but that's small beer.)

Where Strachan goes off the rails -- and it's only a little bit, is when he recounts the hysteria on both sides -- those like Charles McVety who want to deny tax credits to anything they think is dirty, and the cultural community who posit that it amounts to pre-censorship.

There's a tendency in journalism to take two contentious sides and ascribe a moral equivalency to the two of them. The formula goes like this: "So and so believe this; and So and so that, but they're both wrong, the point is this..."

The problem with doing that in this case, again, and dismissing the claims of censorship as false, is that it denies the real way this would be administered:

Film and TV Producers borrow money to finance films. These completion loans are repaid with interest to the banks once the tax credits come through -- at the very end of the process.

So you could borrow the money, and then have your tax credits denied.

No bank will lend you money for anything that might even POSSIBLY exceed the standards, ergo, you self-censor. The nice thing about it is the government doesn't have to act heavy handed -- after a while, the chill just stops "bad stuff" getting made. And believe you me, the line will get drawn by the banks far, far east of Eastern Promises -- just as, ever since the fining over Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, when FCC starting handing out fines for obscenity, the lines are far, far, more conservative than they were in the 90's. And this in the USA, the land of "free speech."

Today's censorship dresses up in finer robes. It doesn't have to be a coarse, blunt instrument -- only a whisper in the ear of a worried banker or producer.

Fortunately, judging by the exchanges yesterday, there are members of the Senate banking committee who are clearer on this line than Strachan.

Strachan continues:

Public funding of film and TV projects is decided by agencies like Telefilm and the Canadian Television Fund long before a TV or film makes it on to the screen. Proposed projects have to jump through a dizzying number of hoops to get made, and can be derailed -- or stopped outright -- at any stage of the process. Any proposal featuring a gratuitous amount of sex, violence or other offensive material -- whatever "offensive" means -- is already at a distinct disadvantage when a fund manager at, say, the CTF has to decide between a degrading exploitation flick and a feel-good family comedy.

Public funding is not the same as a tax credit, though. There's a difference between public funding, as represented by Telefilm, and tax credits, which are waivers on taxes due.

Economic decisions are just that -- economic. As a general industry rule, one dollar spent on TV and film production generates four dollars in economic activity.

The only issue, then, facing a government banking committee should be to figure out how to generate more economic activity, not less.

Bill C-10 is an unnecessary, misguided, wrongheaded and shortsighted piece of legislation. Not because it's censorship disguised as tax policy, which it may well be and which cultural critics insist it is, but because it's bad economic policy.

If somebody somewhere wants to make a film about Karla Homolka, fine, I don't have to see it. I certainly wouldn't pay to see it.

But if that same somebody is going to hire 200 actors, cameramen, electricians, carpenters, caterers, drivers and any number of other trades people, and pay them a decent wage -- a wage which will then be funneled back into the local economy -- I say, all power to them. Every one of those crew members is paying income tax and GST on top of any ancillary spending, regardless of what tax breaks the production is or is not getting. If that production weren't there, the tax haul wouldn't be there either, and there would be less money to go into government coffers.

So, yeah. Mostly right.

Down and Dirty With The Senators on Bill C10

WELL, IF YOU'RE a certain type who enjoys the perverse pleasure of a good Senate hearing transcript, you can read yesterday's presentations into BillC10 at the Senate Banking committee yourself. To subscribe, email boulim@sen.parl.gc.ca and ask to subscribe.

The first bit o' fun comes in this exchange between Senator Wilfrid Moore (Lib, Stanhope St./South Shore (N.S.) and Rose Anne Dyson, Chair, Science for Peace (Media Working Group) (University of Toronto) and Vice President Media Relations, Council on Global Issues (Ryerson University.) The Chair is Senator David Angus (C, Alma (Quebec)

What's nice about this exchange is that it runs down exactly what the problem is with the wording of the bill -- how it invests a whole lot of power, with no oversight, in the personage of the Heritage Minister .

Senator Moore: The chair in his remarks at the beginning highlighted the section of the bill which is very important and has caused most of the interest from the cultural community. I will read that:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall issue guidelines respecting the
circumstances under which the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the
definition of “Canadian film or video production certificate” in subsection (1) are satisfied.

This is the key part:

For greater certainty, these guidelines are not statutory instruments as defined in the Statutory Instruments Act.

That means those guidelines can be changed at any time – it is open-ended
authority – and they are not subject to review by Parliament, by the House of Commons or by the Senate of Canada. Do you think that is right?

Ms. Dyson: I am not a lawyer. I am sure there are many areas that government has to proceed in good faith from one administration to another. I am not sure what point you are raising.

Senator Moore: This was not in previous drafts. This is a new section. This is a new sentence. This is a very sweeping section. It is unassailable. I suppose you could go to court over it but otherwise Parliament does not have any say. I just thought that you, as a Canadian, may have a position on that.

Ms. Dyson: Parliament does not have a say but I thought the minister did.

Senator Moore: The minister only.

Ms. Dyson: The committee under the minister, established by the minister.

Senator Moore: No, the minister only has this authority.

Senator Tkachuk: The minister is responsible for Parliament.

Senator Moore: Read it. It says "these guidelines are not statutory instruments."We can move amendment.

The Chair: Clearly the response is also in order.

Senator Moore: Do you have an opinion on that?

The Chair: It is a legal issue.

Ms. Dyson: I would hope that Parliament and the minister would act in good faith in establishing a committee to develop guidelines, as she set out in her remarks, a copy of which I read early on. As far as the legal fine tuning, I would want to leave that to the discretion of her and her ministry.

Senator Moore: Do you think it is appropriate that one person has that authority?

Ms. Dyson: It is not one person.

Senator Moore: There is only one minister.

Go Wilfrid!

In a way, there's a perverse part of me that wishes for the passage of this bill, and through some funhouse weirdness, the rise of a Government with a Gay Richard Dawkins-like dude as Heritage Minister, who will pull funding for anything with a religious, or, um, breeder agenda.

I mean, I think that would be horrible for freedom of expression, and a terrible overreach. But man it would serve em right, wouldn't it?

There was another bit of comedy a minute later when Dyson showed her deep understanding of the issues, when Moore quoted from the Globe & Mail article quoting Sarah Polley on the issue.

Dyson replied that Polley was American -- and had to be corrected on the point by Moore. She's "Canadian all the way," he said.

Heh heh.

The next exchange is between two Senators -- Tommy Banks (Alberta) and Michael Meighen (C - St. Marys), in a question to the woman representing REAL Women of Canada (I leave it to you to discover the agenda of her delightful group.)

Senator Banks: I have two short questions. The first is to Ms. Watts. You
mentioned your view that film producers ought to be able to stand on their own two feet like other Canadian industries. Can you give me an example of a Canadian industrial sector that does not receive public support?

Senator Meighen: How about musicians?

Senator Banks: Musicians get a lot of support. So does the oil industry and themanufacturing industry. Every aspect of Canadian industry receives public support of one kind or another, farmers, fishermen, whatever. Our society is built in terms of its industrial aspect largely on the fact that there is public support. I wonder if you know of an exception.

She didn't. She dodged the question. Which is typical. Every idiot troll who bleats about the wasteful support of the cultural sector -- especially when you talk tax policy -- is probably employed in some industry receiving its own share of support. I know economics is hard. That's why, generally, one tries to actually inform oneself before you crack off on a subject.

A 50 000 person industry is at stake here. Hey Calgary, how bout we pull the support for your construction industry -- or the oil biz. Yup. That'd go over well, hey?

Senator Banks then got Dyson to agree, reluctantly, that guidelines set for tax credits before the fact might be better than leaving it to the end of the process.

Next, here's an excerpt from the presentation by Ms. Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, Director, Freedom of Expression Project, Canadian Civil Liberties Association:


What if I asked you to give me a cheque for a good cause, and I assured you that
even though you had not filled in the amount, I will not take more than needed. You
would have some good questions for me. You would ask: "What do you mean by a
good cause? "How much exactly will I be withdrawing? "Who gets to decide the
questions anyway?" How can you trust me or my affiliates not to take more than we
agreed upon or more than we need?" Bill C-10 and the provision we are talking is that
blank cheque that the government is asking you to sign. If this honourable house signs
off on it as it is and the bill becomes law, it would allow the government to take away
tax credits from any production that contravenes public policy, whatever that means.
This bill could give the government almost unlimited power to decide which films they
think are bad for the Canadian people, whether it is material they do not like or even
material that denigrates the government and its actions, so long as they can make out
that the films are against public policy. While the courts might not ultimately allow
this, they might even strike down the whole section for vagueness, the question before
this committee is: How much unlimited power are you willing to give the government
to suppress our cherished and vital freedoms? The government has reassured us, and
the bill states, that there would need to be guidelines. The government has said that
they will consult industry and restrict the scope of this power to certain limited
categories. Even if we can trust this government implicitly, how can we trust its
successors. The government might consult with the film industry and might even
consult with the public and civil liberties organizations, although they have not said
that they will. They might make limited guidelines, but they might change their minds
or they might change the guidelines; and they might do all of that tomorrow, if they
choose to do so. That is the chief problem with this bill and, in a democracy, "trust us,"
is just not an answer.

After the presentations by Ms. Mendelsohn Aviv and Mark Leiren-Young (Producer, Director, representing the Playwright's Guild of Canada, Senator George Baker (Lib, Newfoundland and Labrador) managed to contextualize in one statement, all of the frustration that people in Canada's battered cultural sector have been feeling for months on this issue.

Senator Baker: I will first congratulate the witnesses. Each witness who
presented made reference to the fact that, in our democracy in Canada, in the House of Commons, not one member of the elected members referenced this new law when speeches were given at second reading, at third reading, report stage or in the committee. None of the people affected by the legislation were asked to appear as witnesses, which is a part of our democracy parliamentary process. Not one of you were asked to appear.

It is an extraordinary event to see a bill passed in this manner. If this section ever goes to the courts – which it undoubtedly will – it will cause issue. Your organization intervenes in practically every case that has to do with matters such as this. I congratulate you for the marvellous work you have done. It is an extraordinary situation that no one Parliament knew that this was being passed and two political parties are asking for a second chance because they did not know what they were voting for.

Do you think, based on the principle that the NDP and the Bloc have admitted publicly they did not know what they were voting for, it should be returned to the House of Commons?

Mr. Leiren-Young: Absolutely.
Ms. Mendelsohn Aviv: For that and many other reasons it should be returned to the House of Commons.

The Presentations continue today -- including an appearance by the Writers Guild of Canada and Americ...sorry...Canadian writer/actor/director Sarah Polley.

CBC's New Series for 2008-2009

SO AFTER SWIRLING rumors for weeks, the official press release went out today. CBC has announced two new shows for next year:

“There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so” – Hamlet. What would you do if you had the chance to go back in time and relive the moments you regret the most? In THE SESSION, 32-year-old Erica Strange (Erin Karpluk – Godiva’s, The L Word, Bionic Woman) does just that. She is given the incredible opportunity to see her life from a fresh perspective when a mysterious therapist (Michael Riley – This Is Wonderland) unlocks the door to her past. It is created by Jana Sinyor (Dark Oracle). Aaron Martin (Best Years) is the showrunner and executive producers are Ivan Schneeberg and David Fortier. THE SESSION is produced by Temple Street Productions. BBC Worldwide has acquired international distribution rights.

Oil, money and greed in Canada’s Wild West—Calgary style. THE WILD ROSES dramatizes the story of a family of women fighting for what is lawfully theirs, set against the backdrop of the new West: steel and glass towers and vast Alberta ranchlands. It features Sarah Power (Repo! The Genetic Opera), Steve Byers (Falcon Beach), Michelle Harisson (The L Word) and Adam MacDonald (1-800-Missing). It is created by Amy Cameron (Song of Slomon, Canadian Film Centre), Gemini Award-winner Tassie Cameron (The Robber Bride, The Eleventh Hour) and Miranda de Pencier (PU-239, Adam). Shelley Eriksen (Shania: A Life In Eight Albums) is the showrunner. Executive producers are Jordy Randall, Tom Cox and Miranda de Pencier. THE WILD ROSES is produced by Seven24 Films and Northwood Productions.

I managed to see a copy of The Session pilot a while back, and it's a very nice piece of work. A good mix of pathos and light drama, with some bigger questions seeded in.

Production values were particularly good -- Holly Dale's direction was crisp and winning. Traditional shooting, well composed frames. Erin Karpluk (left) was always the best thing about Godiva's. There's something that's very sympathetic about her onscreen. And Michael Riley plays an odd kind of mysterious character. Tone? It's kind of Quantum Leap meets Life on Mars, with a dash of Joan of Arcadia, really. To me, it's exactly the right kind of series for CBC right now, especially if they're serious about picking up more of those 25-49 female viewers. There is much about this show that's pure chick crack. And the basic high concept feel of it, plus Riley's rumpled, edgy therapist just might help pull in a few XY viewers, too.

And, uh....seriously? High concept at the CBC? I never thought I'd see the day.

I'm interested to see where the cosmology of this world goes. The Session pilot leaves it vague whether she can actually change things, or whether it's just about changing herself. What's nice is that it avoids the sci-fi cliche angle of changing something and coming back to find that you've totally f-ed up the world.

But they definitely drop hints that there are a few serious things in Erica's past that she's desperately going to want to try and affect. And what's Riley's agenda?

It's a pleasing adventure series. Life on Mars had a great thing going with the Procedural elements. That formula's gotten a little more tired with Ashes To Ashes, the 80's set sequel series starring former MI-5'er Keeley Hawes. But this series is a fresh enough spin that should appeal to the kind of audience that likes Medium, Gilmore Girls, etc. It's got a shot with a few audiences. Will be interesting to see how the CBC promotes it, and if they sell to more than one target audience.

Also...man...hope they don't kill what's cool about the show. Cause there's a lot of cool in it.

This show, BTW, means that Aaron Martin won't be returning to his own series -- The Best Years, which was a late pickup for Global.

Mmm. Writers? In demand? Quoi?

As for The Wild Roses (a project whose working title was until recently "Cowgirls," -- good call on that change) this show's scuttlebutt was some rough development times. But a show like this, set in Calgary (which is Canada's fastest growing city) is also a smart choice. And Shelley Eriksen is a get, who should be great for the material. (She's a friend, so that's probably a little self serving, but the hell with it. It's also true.)

It will be interesting to see if CBC handles this show any differently from last season's MVP.

Good picks. Good talent behind the scenes. Fingers crossed for the future.

Alex Epstein Wants You To Be A Hooker

OUTLINES TODAY. Mine...other people's....outlines, outlines, outlines. So it's time for a bit of hump day linkslutting. Alex over at Complications Ensue has got an ingeniously sneaky post about how you, office peon on a tv show that you are, can actually get the Mighty Showrunner to read your script:

Here's what I would do. At some point when he is obviously procrastinating -- e.g. showing you a video of an elephant painting his self-portrait -- ask him a specific craft question about a script you are working on. The question should be something you can't answer yourself; don't ask him something you ought to be able to figure out for yourself. It should be something that can be answered quickly, but only by someone with great experience. Since you are constantly working hard on your scripts at home, right, you should have a few of these questions at any point.

Get his answer and thank him.

A couple of weeks later, ask him another thoughtful question...

The full post is great. And it's here.

Also, Kay Reindl explains how today's TV industry is just like the Kentucky Derby. It's insane, but as inside baseball analogies go, it's hard to fault.

And finally, the Globe and Mail today finally (outside of John Doyle) prints an article about C10 that gives the full context it deserves (and if it takes fronting Polley, then so be it):

"This legislation threatens freedom of expression as well as the very financial foundation upon which this industry was built," Polley said yesterday. "Take that away, and many of us would be hard-pressed to understand the motivation to stay here."

"The main reason that I choose to make films in Canada, and act in Canada, is because public funding allows a level of creative freedom that is simply not possible with private money," Polley added, whose feature-film directorial debut, Away from Her, was nominated this year for two Academy Awards.

The actress's comments come a week after Canadian Heritage Minister Josée Verner faced an onslaught of questions about why her department should have the power, as a provision proposes, to cut off tax benefits for productions that contain graphic sex, violence or other content that the government finds offensive.

Equally upsetting to Canada's cultural sector is the fact that this so-called "morality hammer" applies only to Canadian TV and film projects. Hollywood and other foreign productions that apply for tax credits get a free pass.

"I can't think of an issue that has galvanized people in the arts community the way this one has," said Polley. And the idea that Bill C-10 applies only to Canadian productions and not to Canadian tax credits subsidizing American productions is "horrific," she added.

"That's one of the more amazing things about this bill. Why should Hollywood studios, who apply for our tax credits, not be subject to the same criteria? The whole thing is sloppy. Of course we shouldn't invest in movies filled with excessive pornography or hate. That makes sense, and there are rules [under the Criminal Code] to prevent that. But there are a lot of things that have not been rigorously thought through."

Have a good day. And to those speaking to the Senate: may you be fleet of foot and Dr. King-like in voice.

What Canadians Think About TV

AS THE CRTC opens its hearings today, and the broadcasters and cablers both line up to the trough to demand more goodies, Pollara released the results of a survey of 1200 Canadians.

The survey, commisioned by arts organizations including ACTRA, the Writers Guild of Canada and the CEP Union, has some interesting conclusions, that probably won't matter a lot, since the CRTC is an organization that's essentially set up to give broadcasters whatever they want:

Of those surveyed, 74 per cent think that "less regulation is likely to reduce the choices of Canadian programs on TV."

Underscoring that suggestion is another key finding that "87 per cent believe cable or satellite providers would likely favour channels they own over independent channels."

Moreover, more than half believe Canada's television-production industry would not survive in an unregulated cable and satellite environment.

In fact, the survey also found only 15 per cent of Canadians were aware of proposals to reduce cable and satellite regulations.

The results are based on 1,200 telephone interviews from March 14 to 19 and are considered accurate to within plus or minus 3 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

Alex Strachan's take on the numbers (from The Calgary Herald):

Just eight per cent of respondents trust the cable companies to do what is right, according to the survey.
The survey also found that 92 per cent of Canadians say preserving Canadian values and identity is important to them.

Of course, it's hard to imagine anyone saying 'No,' when asked a question like, 'Is preserving your culture and identity important to you?' but that's the nature of polls. Ask an obvious question, get an obvious answer.

More interesting were some of the other questions:
. 55 per cent believe the Canadian TV production industry can't survive without cable and satellite regulation. This implies that nearly half the respondents - 45 per cent - believe it will get along just fine. I think they're wrong, but more on that later.

. 74 per cent believe less regulation will result in fewer Canadian programs. I happen to believe so, too.
. 88 per cent feel it's important that regulations and cultural incentives remain in effect, if the continued sustainability of privately owned Canadian broadcasters is to be ensured. That's a fancy schmancy way of saying that if cable regulations are lifted, Canada's private broadcasters will have about as much chance as the Leafs in this year's Stanley Cup race.

This all seems fair. I'm naturally suspicious of polls - so often, they don't jibe with what I hear from real people on the street - and the people who respond to pollsters are usually those who have time to answer the phone and are willing to co-operate with a disconnected voice on the phone.

But this poll feels right.

So Canadians, when they are informed about the possibility of deregulation, do not support it. But most haven't heard about it.

And they probably won't until their cable bills go up.

By which point, I and other people like me will not actually be saying things like, "I told you so," because we'll be busy couch surfing all over the Southland.

And then, on our next project somewhere down the road, when a Canadian reporter looking for a local angle tries to play the Canadian card, it's my firm and fervent hope that whoever's on the hotseat will smile tightly and say, "You don't get to claim the cow's milk after you've burned the field down and sent it down the road."

And they'll look kind of strangely at us. And we'll take a sip of our water, and blink and say, "is there another question?"

And they'll try to get us to say something nice about Canada, and we won't bite. Maybe we'll say something cryptic, like, "Neil Young has lived in the United States since the early 1970's."

And then we'll dodge the bullets and mudslides and copter chases on the way back to our houses in Brentwood, and watch Hockey on our illegal Canadian dishes.

It's hard not to get emotional about this when you see, time after time after time, greed elevated upon the smallest, silliest attempts to actually do something in this country. For that feeling, Strachan's got a comment, too:

As for the cultural advocates who are busy financing polls and booking speaking time in front of the CRTC, a little less hot air and a little less hand-wringing and sanctimonious posturing would go a long way to furthering your - our - cause.

It's a simple enough issue. Keep it simple.

Probably a great piece of advice. Lord knows, it would be great if ACTRA -- the largest and loudest of the organizations -- took a different and less one-note strident tack.

But then again, to quote the WGC's main dog in the hunt:

"This just shouldn't be this hard."

I Would Gladly Pay You Tuesday for an Industry Today

CANADA IS AN amusement park that I like to call "Policywonkland." This means that most things that are really important happen in meeting rooms and behind closed doors and don't really involve the adorable little humans we call "citizens," because most of the time they can't be bothered to care.

There are two of these sorts of spectacles going on this week, vis a vis broadcasting.

First, at the CRTC, a bunch of broadcasters will stand up and say how they really should get a bit more gelt from cable companies because cable companies are now offering "timeshifting" packages that allow you to watch shows from other feeds. And the Canadian networks aren't getting their taste. Oh, and they don't want their specialty channels to have to compete with other channels -- Ie: they don't want HBO to come in and eat TMN's lunch, and they don't want YTV to have to deal with The N, and they don't want SPACE to have to deal with Sci-Fi, or TSN to have its lunch eaten by ESPN, so could you pretty please keep the current rules on genre protection in place?

The cable co's on the other hand will say it's outrageous for the broadcasters to demand their gelt. Oh, and by the way -- we think genre protection is bullshit and we want to be able to bring you any channel we think we can make a buck on, cause that's the American Canadian way, eh?

Both, I'm sure, will not want anybody to do anything to jeopardize the inherently non-market driven forces that prop up their business models -- allowing foreign competition in for cable or satellite (no grey dishes please!) or ending cable substitution (don't take our double dipping ads away!)

Both will likely say that the business environment is so tough that, of course, they shouldn't be shackled to having to make more domestic stuff. Oh no. Heavens to Betsy. Anything but that.

The only sure thing that will come out of this? You'll probably have to pay more. You won't really gain anything, since only 3 percent of the programs that are produced in the U.S. aren't now available in Canada on one station or another.

From a sport standpoint, should be interesting, though, since the CRTC is traditionally in the business of giving the Cable companies and the broadcasters just about everything they ask for.

Now Mommy has to choose between her children. Uh oh. There's gonna be tears!

Meanwhile, over at the Senate, this week we'll hear about how pre-censorship in Bill C10 is really good for you. People concerned about violence and REAL women who like to wear dresses and support the traditional family and stuff will tell you about how industrial tax policy the PERFECT way to insure content that doesn't feature gay or brown people.

But none of that will matter at all because classical music fans will continue to stamp their feet and insist that it's all evil pop culture's fault anyway.

Or, as Doyle puts it in The Globe:

The other day, while answering questions from a Senate committee, Verner declared that the proposed legislation "reasserts the principle that there is audiovisual material which may not be illegal but which taxpayers should simply not be expected to pay for." Apparently, the existing legislation that deals with pornography and hate crimes is not enough. This government intends to make "other types of content" ineligible for tax credits. That is, content that the public might find "unacceptable."

This is mad. It centralizes the perception of unacceptable content in the office of a government minister. (By the way, I'm no expert analyst of immigration policy but it seems to me that the controversial changes to immigration policy fall into the same category - the Immigration Minister is given more discretionary power over who is allowed into Canada, just as the Heritage Minister is to be given more power over what gets made in Canadian film and television.) What disturbs many people is the possibility that such discretionary powers reflect one political party's position, not the position reached by consensus and outlined in our laws.

The potential censorship resulting from Bill C-10 is a rather more significant issue for the culture than the continued emanation of day-long classical music on a CBC radio network. There is hardly a shortage of classical music for consumption. The stuff is everywhere. You want Canadian film and television? That's a tad more difficult to find in the marketplace. No offence, classical-music devotees, but there's a whiff of self-absorption and pomposity in the tone and tenor of complaints about changes to Radio 2's schedule. And there's an ugly undercurrent of disdain for popular culture.

Oh, and one more thing: at some point in either the CRTC hearings or the Bill C10 thing, I'm gonna guess that someone will blame Toronto.

And this week, Canadian writers on picked up shows will start working on outlines and trying to define the world of shows they have to be passionate about, even though they don't know when they'll be scheduled, if they'll get a fair shot, or any promotion whatsoever.

There. You're up to date.