Much of my pique, and yeah, it's pique, and sure, maybe it's a bit precious is the frustration that comes from this guy seeming to voice an opinion that is demonstrably false. Yet it IS a millstone that we deal with each and every day. Last night I was out with my friend Mark, who created Flashpoint with his wife. There's no arguing that that's the most successful Canadian show going right now. Yet somewhere in Canada, somebody's calling it Shit. Mark told me a story about being at the airport heading out to Calgary for the Gemini Awards, and people recognizing Enrico Colatoni & Hugh Dillon and it being cool, until the Trailer Park Boys showed up in character and the departure... lounge...went... bananas. I've seen that myself. It's great to see. A Canadian show that undoubtedly connects with Canadians, just like Corner Gas did, and there are all sorts of people who'll line up to say it's shit. We can't have an honest conversation when we have to wade through basic, ill-informed, self-hating douchebaggery like that. But whatever.
What I really wanted to do was promote this comment from my friend Rob Sheridan. I think it says what I haven't seen anybody else saying about this thing -- including me. So take it away, Rob.
Feels like we're being a little hypocritical jumping on this guy but I'll get to that in a second. The annoying part of what he said, for me, is this whole business of asking "Why aren't broadcasters picking up more Canadian content? Because Canadian content isn't what it should be."
Assuming he's referring to Canadian broadcasters, we all know what's wrong with that argument and why it's ridiculously simplistic. The financial incentives aren't there and they make more money on U.S. programming and they're not investing enough in talent or production because they view Canadian programming as a mandate of their license and little more etc. etc. So laying all the blame on the creatives is obviously a stupid thing to say and he should know that.
But what everyone seems so up in arms about is the "shit" comment. C'mon. This guy's not saying anything I haven't heard nearly every single writer and actor I know say at some point in private, either over drinks, or around the writer's table, or between takes, or at a WGC party. Seriously. It's a national fucking pastime. We all do it.
This show is shit, that movie was shit. Who decided to make that shit? How did that shit get funded? I can't believe that guy keeps getting shows/movies. He's shit. Hey, how's that show you're working on? It's okay, but I'm worried it might be shit. How's that show you created? I don't know yet. I'm hoping I can make it good, but a million things could go wrong, and it could be shit.
Shit is like gravity. Shit is the baseline. We're always trying to do slightly better than shit. Because no matter what country you're in or if you're writing movies or plays or novels or TV shows or albums, it's really, really hard to make something that isn't shit. It requires a lot of time and effort and talent and money and sometimes a couple of those things are in short supply for reasons this dude has clearly chosen to ignore, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.
There's lots of shit out there. Canadian shit. U.S. shit. UK shit (see Stephen Fry's comments at BAFTA). I'm always amazed if I do anything and can look at it when it's all done and go "hey, you know, some of that wasn't shit." There isn't a day goes by when I don't worry that I'm not shit at what I do. I'm sure there are lots of folks who think I'm entirely justified in that.
Is this healthy? Maybe not. Probably it's a better thing to build each other up instead of tearing each other down, and usually after our second cup of coffee or a couple of drinks, when we're feeling more generous we do just that. But would we really be worse off we weren't all at least a little harder on our own shit?
Assuming he's referring to Canadian broadcasters, we all know what's wrong with that argument and why it's ridiculously simplistic. The financial incentives aren't there and they make more money on U.S. programming and they're not investing enough in talent or production because they view Canadian programming as a mandate of their license and little more etc. etc. So laying all the blame on the creatives is obviously a stupid thing to say and he should know that.
But what everyone seems so up in arms about is the "shit" comment. C'mon. This guy's not saying anything I haven't heard nearly every single writer and actor I know say at some point in private, either over drinks, or around the writer's table, or between takes, or at a WGC party. Seriously. It's a national fucking pastime. We all do it.
This show is shit, that movie was shit. Who decided to make that shit? How did that shit get funded? I can't believe that guy keeps getting shows/movies. He's shit. Hey, how's that show you're working on? It's okay, but I'm worried it might be shit. How's that show you created? I don't know yet. I'm hoping I can make it good, but a million things could go wrong, and it could be shit.
Shit is like gravity. Shit is the baseline. We're always trying to do slightly better than shit. Because no matter what country you're in or if you're writing movies or plays or novels or TV shows or albums, it's really, really hard to make something that isn't shit. It requires a lot of time and effort and talent and money and sometimes a couple of those things are in short supply for reasons this dude has clearly chosen to ignore, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.
There's lots of shit out there. Canadian shit. U.S. shit. UK shit (see Stephen Fry's comments at BAFTA). I'm always amazed if I do anything and can look at it when it's all done and go "hey, you know, some of that wasn't shit." There isn't a day goes by when I don't worry that I'm not shit at what I do. I'm sure there are lots of folks who think I'm entirely justified in that.
Is this healthy? Maybe not. Probably it's a better thing to build each other up instead of tearing each other down, and usually after our second cup of coffee or a couple of drinks, when we're feeling more generous we do just that. But would we really be worse off we weren't all at least a little harder on our own shit?
Anyway the guy didn't even say that everything was shit. He said "so much shit." True, when asked for specifics he could only say Heartland which is indeed a little self-serving given that, oh, look, it shoots in his province.
We all know we've made some great television and movies in this country. There are plenty of unbelievably talented, hard-working people working at the top of their game. I won't trot out the titles. The same dozen or so movies and shows tend to come up in these arguments and I agree with them. They're not shit. Not at all.
But we have made a lot of shit, too. As I said off the top, a lot of the reasons for that are beyond our control as creatives, and I totally get why it's infuriating that one of the guys at the top of the funding system doesn't seem to get that. The U.S. have made an awful lot of shit, too. The hit and miss ratio may even be more or less the same, but they get away with it because volume is a lot higher and there's rarely public money involved.
We need more investment of money, not less. But throwing money at it alone isn’t enough. We need to train talent and retain talent and give enough care and incentive so that every gifted writer and actor and director and producer and crew member in this country knows they are surrounded by people who are also the best at what they do, and were given the resources to do it.
We need to make more shows, not fewer, even if it means smaller episode orders with slightly lower budgets. A network that only produces one or two homegrown shows a year is naturally going to want to get their hands all over those shows – they have plenty of time and reason to do so. More shows with less at stake might mean that those networks could back off a bit and allow those shows to breathe a little, be what they are, good or bad. The batting average might end up the same but the better shows are going to have a real voice, and probably a real audience (As Steve Smith used to say about his first pitch meeting with CHCH: "Gimme enough money that I can do something, but not enough that you care what it is.")
We all know we've made some great television and movies in this country. There are plenty of unbelievably talented, hard-working people working at the top of their game. I won't trot out the titles. The same dozen or so movies and shows tend to come up in these arguments and I agree with them. They're not shit. Not at all.
But we have made a lot of shit, too. As I said off the top, a lot of the reasons for that are beyond our control as creatives, and I totally get why it's infuriating that one of the guys at the top of the funding system doesn't seem to get that. The U.S. have made an awful lot of shit, too. The hit and miss ratio may even be more or less the same, but they get away with it because volume is a lot higher and there's rarely public money involved.
We need more investment of money, not less. But throwing money at it alone isn’t enough. We need to train talent and retain talent and give enough care and incentive so that every gifted writer and actor and director and producer and crew member in this country knows they are surrounded by people who are also the best at what they do, and were given the resources to do it.
We need to make more shows, not fewer, even if it means smaller episode orders with slightly lower budgets. A network that only produces one or two homegrown shows a year is naturally going to want to get their hands all over those shows – they have plenty of time and reason to do so. More shows with less at stake might mean that those networks could back off a bit and allow those shows to breathe a little, be what they are, good or bad. The batting average might end up the same but the better shows are going to have a real voice, and probably a real audience (As Steve Smith used to say about his first pitch meeting with CHCH: "Gimme enough money that I can do something, but not enough that you care what it is.")
More shows also mean more opportunity. For young writers to staff, to grow, to be promoted, to learn about how a TV show gets made. Those people will then hopefully go on to create not-shitty shows of their own one day, as opposed to the current system, where more often than not we hand out development deals to untested writers and then assign experienced showrunners to “story edit” their projects, which generally speaking won’t get made anyway. Because if you’re 23 and you’ve never worked on another person’s show, the show you’re creating has a decent likelihood of being… well, shit.
But even my little farm system-utopia idea won’t make a lick of difference if, when those people are experienced enough to become showrunners, we don’t actually let them run the show. We all know that the word showrunner gets bandied around a lot in Canada, but that we rarely fully embrace the model, so that the showrunner is often reduced to the role of “head writer” and does not, in fact, have final say on the script, the costumes, the editing, the anything, and must instead collate input from all manner of non-writing producers. I’m not talking about collaboration, which is healthy and important, I’m talking about the right to say “no” when it counts.
We all bitch about this. Everyone agrees on it. And we know that on those rare occasions where showrunners actually run the show, the show is often good, and when they don’t, the show is often less good. Sometimes a lot less good. Sometimes even… shit. So what are we up in arms about, exactly?
The problem with this guy is that he sees the symptom but he completely misdiagnoses the disease. Which, given his position, is highly regrettable. But I just don’t think we should be babies about this. Yeah, the bad man said a mean thing. Okay. But really, deep down, we all know his biggest mistake was saying it in public, instead of doing it the only proper, decent way we can respect: Behind our backs.
But even my little farm system-utopia idea won’t make a lick of difference if, when those people are experienced enough to become showrunners, we don’t actually let them run the show. We all know that the word showrunner gets bandied around a lot in Canada, but that we rarely fully embrace the model, so that the showrunner is often reduced to the role of “head writer” and does not, in fact, have final say on the script, the costumes, the editing, the anything, and must instead collate input from all manner of non-writing producers. I’m not talking about collaboration, which is healthy and important, I’m talking about the right to say “no” when it counts.
We all bitch about this. Everyone agrees on it. And we know that on those rare occasions where showrunners actually run the show, the show is often good, and when they don’t, the show is often less good. Sometimes a lot less good. Sometimes even… shit. So what are we up in arms about, exactly?
The problem with this guy is that he sees the symptom but he completely misdiagnoses the disease. Which, given his position, is highly regrettable. But I just don’t think we should be babies about this. Yeah, the bad man said a mean thing. Okay. But really, deep down, we all know his biggest mistake was saying it in public, instead of doing it the only proper, decent way we can respect: Behind our backs.
Oh so THAT'S how you're supposed to do it? Well aren't I the king of the douchebags. Shit.
Thanks Rob. Seacrest out.
11 rumbles:
I agree with Rob's point that we call TV shit all the time. But if WE, (writers, directors, actors) say TV is shit, at least we're in the trenches trying to do it. So we have some kind of ownership/authorship of the shit to critique it. But this politician doesn't! (Any more than a white guy gets to tell racist jokes. I'm brown, so I can mock my people a la Russell Peters, but if Russell Peters was a white guy, his jokes wouldn't be that funny to me. But I digress...)
This clown obviously got so excited to be on stage that he shot off his mouth without thinking - and NOW is claiming he meant what he said though I'm sure he'd pay cash money to go back in time and not say it - he must be called on his shit! Thanks to you both for doing that. But the sooner idealogues like this guy are replaced, the better.
Irish guy walks into a bar...
Yeah but Sugith, by that logic we shouldn't be able to criticize politicians unless we've done their job. Sports fans wouldn't be able to complain about their team unless they themselves were professional athletes. Have you thought of the effect this would have on sports call-in shows?! Or the little boy in the stands behind you at the ballgame? For God's sake, Sugith, the kid wants a pitcher, not a belly itcher, and now he has to keep that to himself.
So I guess what I'm saying is, when Major League Baseball is overrun by belly itchers -- and mark my words, it will be -- I'm going to looking at you.
Well, no, that's not the point I'm making. I'm not trying to exclude the right of anyone to criticize anything they want to.
I just don't think this guy's shit statement is "clean." I think it's a knee-jerk, heat of the moment, stupidness that he's now trying to claim is a well thought out critique. And as a politician, his opinion, unfortunately, carries weight.
Canadian television makers are in a battle for the audience, many of whom assume that what we make is shit by definition. And this guy validated that presumption which only makes it that much harder to convince our audience that it isn't shit.
Yes, he's entitled to say what he says, just as I'm entitled to decide how much credibility to give what he says.
If you say a TV show is shit, Rob, I give that opinion more weight than when he does. That was my point.
No, no, I get your point. I was really just making a joke. Didn't come off well I guess. You should've heard it in my head. It was hilarious.
1. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. No matter how ignorant.
2. The real culprits here are the broadcasters. They select which shows to develop; which shows to green light. That process has nothing to do with writers.
3. Much of "Canadian" drama is deal driven and has been for at least two decades.
4. Shows stay on the air longer than their shelf life in order to amortize the costs.
5. Dolly, what happens after the Irishman walks into the bar?
I knew that. I did. And it WAS hilarious on screen, Rob. Really.
(Happens to my first drafts, too.)
You know, if we keep this up long enough, it will drive Denis crazy having to approve each post. Fun, eh?
Sugith, Rob -
That comment thread was shit.
From the Globe:
“I was at a loss when I heard the statement – a complete loss and quite surprised and quite taken aback for every producer and content maker in Canada, let alone Alberta,” said CBC Television General Manager Kirstine Stewart, who was in the audience. “Nobody can ever question the quality of what we do here in Canada, creatively or otherwise.”
So there you go...NOBODY can ever question the quality of what we do here in Canada, creatively or otherwise.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prairies/alberta-culture-minister-defends-criticism-of-home-grown-television/article1606941/
If you want to make critical "hits" -- Durham County, Crash and Burn, ZOS -- give the creators/showrunners control of the means of production.
If you want to make commercial "hits" like Flashpoint you have to give the production enough money to do it properly.
I don't think one is necessarily better than the other but the network's need to decide what they want. Do they want to come up with the next Mad Men or the Next NCIS.
(oh and the Irish guy walking into the bar ....
that's gotta hurt) courtesy my daughter
Didn't HBO pass on Mad Men?
Sometimes I think part of the problem is that in Canada we don't have enough respect for how hard it is to do this stuff.
Control, more money, sure that would be good, but maybe more important is that we need to make a lot more shows. Many will fail both critically and commercially but the best ones might be really good.
Can you make the best without all the rest?
Post a Comment