THAT I get John From Cincinatti.
I'm also not sure that I care. The performance of the actor playing John, which I thought would get old fast, is really growing on me. Greenwood is dependable as always. And to see Ellsworth and Charlie from Deadwood show up in very different roles is both disconcerting and joyous.
And I haven't even thought about Luis Guzman yet.
And Rebecca DeMornay as a hot granny? Come ON!
John Doyle wrote yesterday about HBO series and how far and away better they were, and you have to admit it's true. Even the ones that I don't care for, like Big Love, are consistently more interesting than anything available from the major networks.
The thing is, because of how crappily CanCon does here anyway, you would think that would take the pressure off to make things more accessible. I'm almost sure that I could live with an industry where we weren't getting the boffo numbers thanks to poor promotion and various other structrual limitations, so long as the quality suggested that we were making a contribution to the art.
One problem, of course, is that fine line between art and self-indulgence. I think there's a bit of Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome out there in CanConLand. Many that have been called "brilliant" and "visionary" have struck me as "boring" or "twee."
I've worked on cheeseburgers and I've worked on vanity projects, and I've worked on shows that were on a continuum between those two things. But if any network, any broadcaster would have the balls to let someone talented here make a John From Cincinatti, well...that'd really be something, now, wouldn't it? That's probably why I flipped for Durham County. Save us Obi-Wan-TMN...you're our only hope!
Except they're not...or they shouldn't be. CTV 's run The Sopranos, terrestrial. CBC gets a whack of cash from taxpayers. How is it possible that they don't have room in their development slate for brilliant? Where is their process failing them?
Think: the only thing keeping us from doing these shows is will. Will, and the wisdom to trust a creative voice and get the hell out of the way.
8 comments:
"Think: the only thing keeping us from doing these shows is will. Will, and the wisdom to trust a creative voice and get the hell out of the way."
Wait, this is all Dixon's fault? I knew he looked suspicious.
Man, if we had known it was Dixon all along. . .!
But isn't it sort of a prerequisite for doing these HBO-style shows that the creator first gain experience in regular network TV? The Davids (Chase and Milch) as well as Alan Ball and basically just about every showrunner HBO has given carte blanche to had all had extensive experience working in "conventional" television.
Which may be a way of saying that you can't effectively break the rules until you've mastered them, and that Canada's lack of good "art" shows may be just the flip side of our lack of good commercial shows -- we can't have one without the other.
That was one of the first things my dad (an old school drama prof) taught me..."learn the rules, then you can break them."
Jaime Weinman is da man...
The CBC has certainly given Ken Finkleman a lot of creative latitude. (A perfect example of that thin line you referred to.) Chris Haddock seemed to enjoy a lot of freedom before the current management came in.
I think Weinman's right -- as far as it goes.
The problem is, I'm consistently getting feedback -- both personal and secondhand that what's really going on is a vast, vast underestimation of the intelligence of the audience.
I know.
That sounds loopy. But nevertheless, I think in Canada the gatekeepers have a view of the populace that vastly underestimates a) how much they'll be challenged and b) what they'll find entertaining.
And the people who can talk encyclopaediacally about drama -- the people who actually watch tv and love tv and understand tv...
...I'm not sure they're the ones getting the shows greenlit.
More Al Magees, less second guessing.
"Your audience is as smart as you let them be." Probably paraphrasing Amy Sherman-Palladino, because I can't remember exactly how she phrased it, but the gist of it has stuck with me.
She was talking specifically about the rapid-fire cultural references on Gilmore Girls, but I think the concept applies much more broadly.
I'm aware that I'm not all that representative, being a big ol' unrepentant geek. But I know my share of very-much-non-geeks who are just as appreciative of a little challenge from their TV now and then.
interesting thoughts here.
i try and break down the question of audence intelligence into two components.
1. how much narrative can a viewer resonably be expected to follow and how convoluted can the narrative be? while i reject the "tell, them, show them and then tell them again" approach that a lot of TV employs it is really important that one doesn't try tell "too much" story in an episode. (I still fuck this up on a regular basis.)
While today's viewers do have the option to "stop, rewind and watch it again" I would say that if your screenplay or show depends the viewer's complete and utter attention to every nuance you have to expect that there will be times when even the most literate viewer will be lost.
Finding the right measure of detail, story turns etc so that your show appeals to both the casual and committed viewer is a skill that will take a lifetime to master. This is one of the reasons that many of the makers of the best TV have had such a long apprenticeship in television before creating their masterworks. To do something as well as the people jjw mentioned is the culmination of years of experience, carefully honed craftsmanship and raw talent.
2. character. a major problem one wrestles with when trying to write or create a series is convincing the network that the audience will like the characters you created. more than any single issue this is the one where the firefights occur.
it is my feeling that the audience likes characters they can identify with and for that to happen the characters need to be deeply flawed. they need to have committed sins, they need to lie just as much as they need to occassionally rise up and do the right thing.
I think the audience hates perfect characters and often I think they hate the kind of characters that certain network/producer types try and make us create. When we create superior beings I think the audience turns on them because they resent watching people they will never be.
Post a Comment