I Hope Robson Arms Makes Me Laugh, Because Right Now It Makes Me Cranky

So the first, Canadian TV headline here: Robson Arms returns to CTV with New Episodes tomorrow night at 9pm. John Doyle in the Globe & Mail posted a review today. And though the gist of his review seems to be that he didn't enjoy the new season's eps as much as he did last seasons, his description of same makes me think I might just enjoy it more:

It would be hard to match the initial subtlety and dramatic quality, and in truth, the first few new episodes don't. They're still finely crafted (Susin Nielsen and Gary Harvey return as co-creators and executive producers) and the performances are excellent, but the series seems to have developed a serious dose of the cutes...

What set Robson Arms apart in its first season was the delicacy of the drama, the lightness of the comedic moments and the authenticity of the humanity in the characters. Now it reaches more for outright comedy and the result is sometimes raucous farce -- often funny, certainly, but in the first three episodes, that hushed delicacy is missing.

When I watched Robson Arms last year, I found it interesting but a little unsettling. Mainly because I tuned in having heard it was a comedy and the first episode I saw was really, really dramatic. There were some that were more comic in tone, but that initial surprise left me feeling a bit turned around about the show.

In Canada, we've got a problem with Comedy. We can't really develop good ones, it seems, and I think it's often for one simple reason: we keep giving, and taking, drama notes.

Talk to writers in this country, and you'll eventually hear a story about a pitch meeting or a development meeting where they were told by a producer or a network type that so-and-so needed more depth or weight to their character. Which is fine if you're writing a drama. But like a souffle, comic characters are inherently more fragile. They can't freight too much complexity, or they become dramatic characters. You can see this in the evolution of what character backstories can carry: Once upon a time, Foster Brooks had a whole character based on how he was drunk all the time. There were lots of early TV shows where characters were lovable drunks. But in recent years, an awareness of the rigors of alcoholism and the costs of drunk drivers mean that habitual drinkers aren't really so funny anymore. Even on Cheers, though Sam was an alcoholic, him going off the wagon wasn't really played for laughs. And the other guys hanging out in the bar, even though they were there all the time, didn't seem like drunks. They didn't act drunk. Being a drunk is not something that you can reasonably put in a character today and have it read as funny.

One of the most interesting things about the Cheers example is Frasier. At the time, Frasier hanging out in Cheers was madcap and wonderful. But the few times they referenced it in Frasier, it seemed to be hinted at that his Cheers years were a dark time he'd rather forget. So... they finally dealt with the subtext of Cheers, in Frasier, because they didn't need to mine it for Comedy. Clever, but also illustrative of the delicacy of the comic character and how they can't have that much subtext.

Whoa. Interesting Cheers digression there. Now, back to Robson Arms. Doyle may have appreciated the hell out of Robson's quirky "hushed delicacy," but to me, though Robson was a very finely acted, well-written show, the shift and searching tone (not quite comedy, not quite drama) made it hard to place in my mind. And I'm a television writer.

We're constantly selling shows in this country that are neither fish nor fowl. We can't dare to put a show on the air that's just a comedy, so we wind up putting out these half-comedies that aren't funny enough, but aren't deep like a good drama. When you step up and sell comedy, you need to sell comedy. You are making a compact with the audience and that compact is this: watch this and you will laugh.

When you put a drama on the air, there are a lot more entry points, and potential compacts with the audience. You can say that you're going to learn something. You can say that you're going to see a story ripped from the headlines, explored in an interesting way. You can say that you'll be intrigued by the mystery, and stay for the romantic tension and witty repartee. Whatever. The West Wing, for much of its run, was one of the funniest shows on television, made even better by the fact that that kind of funny was sort of an unadvertised special. The compact with the audience, the sell, was that you were going to see a smart and passionate show about people grappling with big issues in the corridors of power.

Let me be clear here, again: I think Robson's a good show. The problem is that you get a very small window to sell people on the concept of a show. If the sell is "Little Mosque on the Prairie" that's a nice, easy, simple sell. As was "Corner Gas," (which is why the snarky, "Corner Mosque" jokes, though snarky, are kinda true, too.) Robson Arms, so long as it's a little of this, little of that -- isn't an easy sell. And considering how little it gets sold, that might be a problem.

If Robson is going for more comedy in its second season, I think that's a good thing. I liked the comic episodes last year a lot more than the ones that tried to be serious. In any case, it's certainly a worthy show and on Saturday, it's going to need all the help it can get.

Now for the cranky. David Moses, one of the Robson writers, has been tracking the promotion (or lack thereof) for Robson Arms' return. You could be forgiven if you were in Canada and had not heard anything about this show. It hasn't really been pushed very hard.

If Little Mosque has taught anything, it is this: one of the arguments about Canadian TV is over. Again. You can get an audience, but you do have to actually promote the show. That's such a basic thing, I know, but yet I'm not seeing from those on high any real recognition of this plain and simple truth. All because, for most of them, these shows are not moneymakers. But that doesn't mean that it's right, or that it should be stood for. Amid all the hoopla over what to do with the CTF, can we make a little room for, "why bother if you're not going to tell anyone?"

Or... considering the money they make off those huge American Idol numbers, how come there weren't 10 or 12 high quality, different, sassy Robson promos running once a break for the last three weeks on CTV?

What's the point of having the discussion about how to "fix" Canadian TV if you won't even do the things YOU KNOW WILL HELP?

Robson Arms, Saturday 9pm, CTV (The CSI/L&O/Idol Channel) I hope it gets a hail-Mary number. (Even though that would be disastrous, since it would reward the "benign neglect" promotional strategy.)

Aagggah! See, this is why I'm cranky.