And The Winner Is...

A VERY WISE friend just said something that I think is very true. In these Canadian - U.S. series sales, it really remains to be seen whether it will be good in the end for any of the writers, or producers -- once everything's taken into account.

But there is someone who's gonna win. And chances are they'll be an Actor or an Actress.

So start taking your bets now: who wins?

"Extremely Emotionally Complicated"

AN INTERESTING AND candid interview with Greg Berlanti in Forbes. (H/T to Jaime Weinman @ Macleans) Ostensibly, it's about his new show, Eli Stone (which means this season he's resp. for Brothers & Sisters, Dirty Sexy Money, AND Eli Stone. Whoa.) He also, for you trivia buffs, is the guy who came up with "Pacey Kisses Joey," which Jeffrey Stepakoff describes in his excellent memoir Billion Dollar Kiss (coming out soon in trade paperback!)

Some excerpts that caught my eye:

Eli Stone is premiering at a time when there is little scripted competition on the airwaves. Do you feel even a little guilty about taking advantage of the strike?

It's interesting because I think people sort of see it that way, but I don't think the strike is good at all. I think there's almost no good that can come out of it, because the reality is yes, there's not that much competition, but it's also harder to promote your show since there are less talk shows to go on and less people are talking about TV. Given the choice of premiering in a strike or non-strike environment, hands down I would have chosen a non-strike one. It's made the whole thing extremely emotionally complicated.

So it's not just Canadian shows that are putting people in complicated positions. And when you're a writer/viewer, too. I was really interested to see Eli Stone. I've heard from some people who watched it that it was good. And I wanted to watch Lost, too. But I just couldn't bring myself to watch either one. I watched House the other night and it just felt wrong to me -- it felt like I was doing something wrong. I know that's not logical. But I don't want to write about Eli Stone or watch it til this thing is settled. And I know that's not consistent, because I did write about Breaking Bad -- but maybe that's because AMC seems like it's a bit of a maverick right now.

I guess it's just extremely emotionally complicated. More from Berlanti in Forbes:

There's been a lot of talk about the strike being used to overhaul some of the inefficiencies of the current television model, whether it's pilot season, the traditional TV season or the upfront ad bazaar. If you were at the helm, what would you fix first?

I do think that how pilots get made is an antiquated system. The reality is everyone is making the majority of network pilots at the same time, so you're grabbing for the same actors at the same time, the same directors at the same time and the same crews at the same time. It just creates a sort of craziness. I've done four or five pilots over the last four or five years, and it makes the process more sort of luck of the draw--it's not designed for quality.

What do you think television will be like after the strike? Will it change much?

Television is always kind of changing. I've been writing TV for about nine years, and I've already seen a few different changes. There was a time when I first got into the business where feature writers were just starting to write their own TV shows, that first sort of crossover. And then a few years later, people started spending more and more money on pilots to make them bigger events to capture people's attention.

So I'm sure it will change again, and I'm not so certain that it will happen as a result of the strike, or it would have just sort of happened anyway. I think the biggest--or at least the most interesting--change to me that is on the horizon: what it means to be a hit these days. Shows that are doing much lower in the [ratings] than their predecessors are deemed hits. And there are younger shows where 50% of your audience is watching online and how do you register success there. As television becomes more and more niche, what defines a hit will be the next question that comes up.

Hey, Henshaw, your whole thing about ratings for Canadian shows -- hmm -- sounds like the on-the-fly "hit or no hit?" thing isn't just a Canadian problem.

It's almost like we ... face some of the same problems? Ooooh.

CTV Sells Another Show To The Amnets

WELL, I GUESS the story just became a bit more complicated.

Yup, I was wrong about nothing selling. But then again, I also thought the strike would be over by now.

No one knows the 2nd part of this story until the shows go to air down south. Does anyone actually remember how long Due South lasted on CBS?

***

Now might be the time to ask the pros who lurk here, who have experience from the old days of late night shows on CBS and copros with studios like Tribune and stuff -- I wasn't in the game at that point, so I throw it open to you, call it a public service to the writers now working on Flashpoint and The Listener:

Canadians Tell Their Favorite U.S. Network Note Stories.

Have at it in the comments below.

Dead Letters (Not ON Sticks)

I STARE OUT my window at a wall of white and I can't help but think of picketing writers in NYC today. Good Luck, you hardy, frozen scribes. When the ice age comes and the mole people rise up with the hungry polar bears flanking south in a pincer motion to decimate Manhattan, it is you who will be the loyal resistance and last best hope for humanity. Word.

Now, see, sometimes the Sticksville Post Office gets letters. I am reliably informed that many of these communiques come through that famous series of tubes known collectively as the Interwebs. Naturally, we can't answer the, oh, tens of thousands of queries that come through (thanks to some tidy linking from Kung Fu Monkey on a previous post. Thanks John!) So sometimes we try to take care of them here. Let's get to it, shall we?

Don't you love it when there's a new exec that's brought in on a show and they want to "mix it up". That's so fun. Why do they do that?

I know it can sometimes seem like a mystery. But the answers you seek are all there in the Good Book. I direct you to Chapter 21, Verse 3:

And so The LORD sayeth unto the scribe,

Your work pleases me. And your honesty and your creativity
celebrates me and all my works.

So lo, today I send unto you, this fucktard.

They will fix what is unbroken,
And stir that which is polished.
Verily, they shall challenge the premise that thy hast sold
And the jokes thou hast giggled over.


As the bounty of grain has its locust
As the flower has its putridity
And the dove that nasty white poo stuff
So too shall you endure my trials.

And yea, it shall make thee stronger,
Thy skills shall multiply a hundred times
And a hundred times again
Betwixt the force of their banality.

And in the times to come, you will
Have the basis for a new character,
And the fucktard shall go home and
abuse their cat. Who totally hates them,
By the way, and spends every moment
of every day trying to figure out a
way to kill them and keep the food coming.

And the fucktard shall never know
The joy of my love.
For I do so love you, scribe.

It's a little hard to swallow, I know. But look on the bright side. At least he/she didn't ask you to cut the baby in two. Thanks for writing. Next!

First of all, long time reader, some time poster and all around fan of the
blog.  But as much as I appreciate what you put out on the web, to make as
much noise as you did on the slim possibility of a Canadian series being
sold to the US and what you'd label the writers of such a series, only then
to close the comments of a post that deals specifically with those issues -
whether you're friendly or not with the creators of such series - is very
lame.

What you do, while hard sometimes to admit, is important to the dialogue of
Canadian production.  I understand that blogging is only posting your
opinion.  However having read you consistently, I believe you take your
opinion seriously.  As such, I think you owe to those who read you a further
defense of what you've said in earlier posts or to retract your previous
comments.

Okay. Um. Wow.

First of all, I think perhaps you've flattened and squeezed out any of the nuance in my written and quoted position.

But of course, that's not the meat of the issue here. So let's talk a bit more about what I do here, and how I do it.

There are those who have taken me to task in the past, throwing around the contention that I hide behind the, "I'm just a blogger" thing sometimes. I think that's an unfair charge, but that's fine. I can take it. It does also happen to be true.

What standard do I hold myself to? Saying what I believe to be true. That's it. That can change. It can evolve. The reason this blog took the turn it did a little over two years ago was because I thought the reportage of Canadian media was insular and deadly. It was full of single-sourced stories that reflected, almost totally, a corporate agenda. For a long time, Antonia Zerbisias seemed to be lone voice in the Toronto Star actually approaching Canadian media issues from something other than a business perspective. John Doyle tries, but he is constricted somewhat by the fact that primarily he's supposed to be reviewing TV.

So I started blogging about what I knew. About the things that were being said everywhere I went inside media circles; about the truths that seemed to be common truths -- but were never disseminated.

But here's the thing -- as I've said many, many times before -- it's never been the whole truth. It can't be.

You seem to want to hold me to a journalistic standard. That's rich, because of course it speaks to the very reason why I started. Believe me, I see the irony. But I'm the first to say that this blog, and what gets written in it cannot ever be considered as a journalistic source, or as the full truth in anything. And this is for one simple reason:

I always have a conflict of interest.

I try to be even handed. I try not to settle scores. I dare to go so far in speaking about issues -- and I think it's a problem that there are so few voices that are willing to go as far as I go, in saying the crap that everybody thinks anyway.

But you cannot both be in the industry and outside it. I can't divorce my personal and economic interests from the work I do here. You can't take me as an objective source because I am never objective. I do have a dog in the hunt.

That doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. It just means that I'm not always willing to share that opinion with you. This shouldn't be a surprise. I've written about this before.

So in this case, as in others, if I say I won't comment on something, it's not because I don't have an opinion. I'm just not gonna share it with you. You think I owe it to you? Mmm. Okay. That's an interesting viewpoint.

I tend not to agree.

Now, the price I pay for that is that you get to speculate and think whatever you want about why I won't comment or talk about something. I can't help that. That's your right. The reason why it doesn't drive me crazy is because I know my reasons, and I know that whatever you imagine those reasons to be is very, very far removed from the reality.

I'm comfortable with my personal integrity on this issue. I won't be losing any sleep.

If you want to explore the issue, there are plenty of other people willing to talk about it. There's a discussion on Facebook, at Karen Walton's Ink Canada Group. You can go comment on Brioux's site. Hell, maybe you could, you know, read up on what the official voice of Canadian writers, the Guild, has to say.

I am not such an egotist that I think if I don't weigh in on a subject, that subject goes unexplored. I am simply not that important in the grand scheme of things -- and every cross that comes up is not mine to bear, no matter what you may think.

As for retracting what I said. Why? I still believe every word I wrote on the subject. I believe what I said in those interviews. I think every Canadian writer has a duty to explore how they feel, and what they're willing to do, especially since, you know -- it's going to happen again. (It already has, in fact.)

I'm already on the record. I don't feel the need to say any more. If you do, then by all means, find a way to do that. Step up.

One more thing. I've been thinking a lot in the last little while about what the most useful course of this blog might be in the months ahead. I don't know if I have an answer. I have been exploring and thinking of other ways in which I could help my industry and have a voice that's not related to the blog. That might evolve things here.

One thing I'll promise, though, is this: one day I'm probably going to stop. I'll either get too busy, or I'll decide that my off time is better spent writing a book or something. This thing has always had a stale date. We haven't reached it yet. But when we do, the conversation will continue without me, I hope.

If you don't like them terms, then I'm afraid my only recourse is to offer you a full refund.

Goddamn, that's a lot of snow.

Pucks Pass Pod as CBC Shuffles The Deck

WELL I GUESS this was inevitable. According to a press release (two years doing this blog, and CBC is finally sending me press releases. It's like....Christmas!) beginning next Tuesday, MVP -- the Hockey-themed-riff on Footballer$ Wives, and J-Pod, the slacker office hourlong comedy kinda drama hybrid are swapping places.

So JPod will inherit the MVP slot, Friday at 9pm, while MVP will now go up against the American Idol buzzsaw. MVP's first Tuesday airing is Feb. 5.

I guess we're going to get to see if MVP's weakness on Friday nights is entirely due to the unsuitability of that timeslot.

Theoretically, it might even be not so bad for J-Pod. In a less competitive slot (Friday night wasteland) the quirky show might just get more channel surfers sampling it. Latest ratings were dire, so something's gotta give.


At right: "We're going where?"

One more word about J-Pod....Yes, this is a constant refrain in Canadian TV, and yes, it's a big problem -- but everyone I know who's seen the later episodes say that the show really, really is much better starting Episode 7 or 8. Better storylines, better writing, better...well...everything.

Yes, yes, yes. That's the kiss of death for any show -- since by then the audience is fed up...but if you are a member of the Coupland cult -- and I know there's a lot of you out there -- it just might be worth your while to go back and check it out a couple Fridays hence. Just saying.

Timeslot juggling due to ratings. My God, CBC seems like a real network more every day!

All you lemmings can have Chuck Norris. I say don't count out the Thicke just yet.

And Then Later I Invite Them Over To Bowl

THIS WILL probably only be funny to the fourteen people out there who have seen There Will Be Blood.

As it sits with me, the movie doesn't exactly grow in my estimation, but there is that undeniable, crazy visceral performance by Daniel Day-Lewis. And a great part of that character, I'm convinced, is the loving specificity of the rhythms of his speech. A few days later, and I've still got that voice rattling around in my brain pan. There's a couple scenes where Daniel Plainview is making his pitch -- and the timbre and control, the charisma and the buried menace of it, the sheer force of it is truly spellbinding. I find myself wanting to appropriate that voice, somehow -- to use it in my own attempts to peddle snake oil.

What would that look like?

Well...I imagine...something...like....this:

"You see, I am a TELEVISION WRITER. And I wish to speak to you today about WRITING FOR TELEVISION. There are those who will say they can craft you a pilot, and that may VERY WELL be TRUE. But can they get you to SIXTY EPISODES? Can they craft a decent ACT BREAK? Will they rely on a creaky FOUR ACT structure, or have they mastered FIVE? It is THESE QUESTIONS you must consider.

I have a six episode strike over at the former CHUM, you see. I have had meetings with executives both HIGH and LOW. You could go with someone from the Film Centre, or someone who's developed a CANADIAN FEATURE, yes, about a man having sex with his GRANDMOTHER. But only I can have the FIRST DRAFT and the BIBLE for your series by APRIL. I can do it, I can have it, and I can make it exciting, with explosions and sexual interplay. YOU can GO WITH SOMEONE ELSE, that is your right. BUT you CANNOT say that you were not PRESENTED with the option to skip all that; to just DEVELOP WITH ME.

I await your decision. I will sit here and calmly wax my mustache. Please don't mind my son, J.W. He will be stepping out momentarily to procure a SMOOTHIE.

NOW, what is for LUNCH?"

Trending Up

LAST NIGHT, The Border's fourth episode was watched by 760 000 viewers across Canada. That's up significantly from the week before, and up from the heavily promoted premiere, which drew 710 000 viewers. Better still, younger audiences seem to be responding to The Border's mix of action and humor. The Terminator's numbers are going down. The Border's are going up.

There were a lot of naysayers, but it's safe to say now that the show is building audience. That's good news. If The Guard manages to hold on to its HOUSE audience tonight, that'll be another piece of good news.

Someone was laughing to me down the phone line today about this Toronto Star article. This is a typical Canadian news spin and another example of what I was writing about down below. Really, at what point do you look at the angle you're taking and ask, "is this really the right spin to the story?"

Fighting against the drag, and the perceptions is never easy. But with baby steps forward being taken by better ratings, and things like this story, about a CTV series sale to CBS, the chains are moving down the field ever so slowly.

Just keep grinding out those first downs, and maybe down the road there's a happy tale to tell.

(Though the timing of the CTV series sale is a little unfortunate.)

Parallel Intersections, Part Two

This is the continuation of my first Parallel Intersections post.

THE THING about movies that succeed or fail in the American marketplace, artistically or financially, is that they're allowed to rise and fail on their merits. Each success or failure is about that project and that project alone. It doesn't have to carry the burden of what it means for the industry.

There have been those movies that have done just that. Heaven's Gate will forever be a movie that sunk a studio. Cleoptatra, before it, was the standard bearer for a level of Hollywood Excess.

Yet in Canada, in English Canada, anyway -- every single film is subjected to this scrutiny. It leads to impossible heights that no project can meet, and a self-fulfilling cycle of failure. It also exposes faultlines that speak to something odd and wanting in the Canadian character -- the need for American validation (when something or someone does well in the USA, it's always news) and the grandiosity of purpose leads often to a certain type of producer fronting projects that are meant to be "so much more" than entertainment.

When we haven't even gotten the entertainment part right, for the most part.

***

The thing about that group of writers at lunch is that they all shared the best quality that writers can have besides wit: Doubt.

I've always believed that the best television and film writers aren't defined by their assuredness. It's quite the opposite. The writer who says, "it's brilliant!" when he or she looks at a finished script is never going to be as effective as the one who doubts. An agent friend of mine was relating the story of a top who he was thinking of representing. Keep in mind, this is a writer who was currently employed on a show that was a ratings success. "I don't even know why you'd want to represent me. I still have so much to learn." Of course the agent looked at him and said, "that's why I want to represent you."

That has profound implications for the issue of talent management in this country. Knowing that this is how writing talent thinks should affect the way that you deal with that talent. Yet it doesn't. From network executives to executive producers to publicists -- the Canadian industry is extraordinarily bad at managing and dealing with writing talent. The WGC has horror stories a mile long of writers being berated for taking jobs when they weren't under option; of being asked to create shows out of whole cloth and then give the created by credit to a producer who came in with a napkin.

In order to move forward as writer, at some point you're asked to make bold choices. But you do so wrapped in a cloth of always having that other, questioning voice wondering if you're doing the right thing.

A producer who finds the way to support that voice and bring it out; to hold it up and to allow it to find the right path is someone who will be successful in helping to birth artistically sucessful productions.

But unfortunately, far more common is that the creative writer who has a lot of doubt runs up against the producer who has way too little.

And those producers will often shake their heads and bitch that they can't find good writers.

While the greatest writing room Canada never had sits at brunch divvying up the check.

But the doubt that can be useful in creation can be harmful out here, checking the reaction to work.

There are shows that are overpraised, yes, which don't deserve it. But also, just like in the first example, there can also be an element of voracious devouring of one's own. There are a lot of people out there who will insist that they are judging the Canadian work they see fairly, when they really aren't. They're looking for it to be bad, to fulfill this strange need Canadians have to savage their own -- until such time as they're validated down south.

Now, which is it in each circumstances? Is it fair critique of something that isn't very good, or is it something being judged to an unfair standard and not simply allowed to be?

Sometimes it's both.

If you're a creative person, with a creative person's doubt, that can be hard to take.

***

I've always been a sucker for American history. I just love it. So I was tremendously excited at the prospect of seeing The Patriot. But I should have known better than to go see it in a Canadian theater.

From almost the moment the lights went down, any moment that nudged up against American mythmaking, there were snickers. And groans. The grabbing of the standard -- a rousing moment in any war movie, elicited over the top groans and catcalls.

Canadians' favorite sport was being played out in the theater -- the razzing and ridicule of American patriotism or sentimentality about their roots.

I had to finish watching the movie on video months later because after a while I couldn't follow the plot. The audience and their reactions were getting in my way.

Now the thing is, there's a large portion of the Canadian audience that doesn't just do this for American stuff. They do it for Canadian stuff, too. If there's a Tim Horton's cup in a scene, it's pandering. If the cop uses a Canadian place name reference, it's distracting.

English Canadian culture, because it has largely learned to define itself by being "not American," presents an incredibly difficult target to someone who says that they just want to tell a good story. Because part of the audience is always going to be looking for some element of Canadian-ness and seize upon it as an example of "trying too hard," or "Pandering." If you do an American style action hour, you're trying too hard to be American. If you put in Canadian stuff, "look at that, they're doing it!" It's like that audience at The Patriot. They're not even looking at the story. They don't want to get past the trappings.

Quebec audiences, watching their own sitcoms and silly shows and serious shows, and loving them, don't really engage with the material this way. They're just looking to watch tv and enjoy themselves. So they do. And the people making the shows don't second and third guess whether they're going to be cited as being too this or not enough that. They just focus on the work.

***

The root of my friend asking about the rituals of the Catholic liturgy came out of his own dissatisfaction with the kind of experience he'd had in his church.

Not having ever been to most other Christian churches, I guess I had the Catholic's view of Protestantism, that it was all about getting rid of the worst parts of Catholic excess, streamlining.

Not so, said my friend. The key is right there in the word: protestant. In opposition to. Often, it seemed to him, a whole lot of things were done not because they thought about the traditions and what would actually work best in terms of a service, or a celebration of faith, or an exploration of that faith; no. What was done was done in terms of how different it was from how the Catholics did it.

There were a lot of arguments in his church, he said. Arguments drove protestantism -- all the splits that happened down the line. Baptists who would argue and take stands on the issue of, if the person isn't fully immersed in the water, are they truly baptized or are they going to hell?

As this culture filtered to the day and day, he wondered if all the arguing really got in the way of doing what the thing was supposed to do: which was be a celebration, a service designed to get the congregation to think about how they felt about God, and what was said in the scriptures; what that meant to put into practice in daily life.

That's why he wanted to know about what I got out of church, when I went to church. And I surprised myself, when I started talking about it, with just how much actually I had gotten out of it. The brief sermon, the codified sameness of the Catholic mass, the fact that it was set in stone with the feast days tied to the calendar, which made themeing a homily easy -- all of that made for an hour a week where I thought about spiritual conduct, moral and value choices. Lessons of humanism and helping your fellow man -- all the things, in fact, that you were supposed to be thinking about.

Now, this is one highly subjective conversation. Never in a million years do I want or plan to get into a discussion of the merits or values of one Christian religion over another, or even the notion of religion itself.

What struck me about it was that all the arguments that my friend seemed to be talking about --they were all over the wrong things. They took us away from talking about what was really important.

Back in my secular world, I guess that's how I feel about the Canadian TV industry at this point, too. We're all arguing about the wrong things. There's arguments that have nothing to do with content -- like the portion of the audience that will inject into every single discussion their contention that the CBC is too this or too that, or run by commies. There are the people who will discuss the ratings, and what do they mean, do they mean this or that, should we be creating this kind of show or that...

...you've got cable moguls who want to throw fits and make the issue their personal taste. Along the way, if that means denying successes like Trailer Park Boys or even Corner Gas, so be it.

Swirling, swirling around, as I dive back into development, it's with the knowledge that as much as I want to just focus on creating a compelling world that people will want to watch...well, the conversation in Canada always seems to be about all the other things first. I'm as guilty of it as anyone.

All these intersections, all these implications. I'm not sure what any of it means. I don't know what the future of the internet is. I don't know if there should be one fund or two, or if broadcasters should be mandated to run drama or not. I don't know.

I just wish we talked about story more. And I wish there was a place in Canada where they encouraged that.

Cause there isn't.

At The Negotiating Table

YEAH YEAH, it's awful that there's no news. Everybody's all antsy. I'm with you.

So how about this link to a video produced by Disposable Television, featuring, among others, Seth MacFarlane and How I Met Your Mother's Josh Radnor?

It's profane, not like that thing with the cup that I've only heard about, but profane enough that I don't want to host it on the blog. But it involves puppets. And the subtle comic stylings of Seth MacFarlane. You were warned.

"Now let's go make Bionic Woman!"

In Treatment

I RECEIVED preview discs for HBO's latest experiment, IN TREATMENT, (Monday, 9pm, Movie Central and TMN in Canada/HBO in the USA) a while back, and I've worked my way through some of them.

If you're the kind of person who believes the idea of seeing a shrink talk to four different pages for a half hour a night seems deadly, I have to say: it's surprisingly compelling.

There's also no doubt that HBO, having lost the crown of innovation it once wore so effortlessly, is looking to try something new.

IN TREATMENT follows psychiatrist Paul Weston (Gabriel Byrne) as he has sessions with four different patients, one a night, Monday to Thursday.

The patients are various degrees of screwed up. The series is an adaptation of an Israeli series, as the New York Times recounts:

“In Treatment” is not entirely a plunge into the unknown, however. The show is HBO’s version of “Be’ Tipul,” one of Israel’s most successful and most talked about dramas ever. The American adaptation hews close to the original, with minor adjustments: a patient is a combat veteran of the Iraq war, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It also helps that Paul’s patients have an interesting patchwork of neuroses. Laura (Melissa George) is a young, very pretty hospital worker with a fierce erotic attachment to her therapist. Alex (Blair Underwood) is an ace Navy pilot who had a heart attack after a disastrous bombing mission in Iraq. Sophie (Mia Wasikowska) is a 16-year-old schoolgirl and a gifted gymnast who may have suicidal impulses as well as an unhealthy relationship with her coach. Jake and Amy (Josh Charles and Embeth Davidtz) are a couple straining over whether to have a second child.

All of them are intelligent, cagey and hard to classify, let alone treat. And as the problems pile up, Paul’s confidence begins to sag.

The interesting thing, as the Times points out -- is that the conversational sessions themselves are puzzles. They're as much about what the patients are not saying as what they're saying.

On the fifth day, we see the cost all this takes on Paul, as we view his sessions with his own therapist, played by Dianne Wiest.

In Treatment runs for four weeks. It's an interesting experiment. Whether you bond with one patient and choose to follow only their night, or go for all five -- it's evidence that HBO, though not as sure footed as it might have once been, still knows how to take that TV frame and shake it up when needed.

Parallel Intersections

LAST NIGHT I went to see There Will Be Blood. Although, probably like everyone else, I was bowled away by Daniel Day Lewis' performance, the experience was strangely empty. I felt like very little character was revealed and that, in the end, the length of the narrative wasn't justified by the meat of the story. It was strangely enervating, kind of like the feeling I had after seeing No Country For Old Men. That film had me gripped for the first hour. But, the second hour felt like holding a large balloon that was slowly leaking. By the time I walked out of the theatre, both the film and my rapture with it were completely deflated.

* * *

A few weeks back, I found myself at a resto on College Street in Toronto's Little Italy for a brunch with some fellow TV writers. The conversation was lively and animated, as it always is with a group of sharp and open minds. I walked away with a warm feeling, but also a feeling of melancholy, which didn't make a lot of sense until someone else who'd been at the table articulated the very feeling: "that was the best writing room Canadian TV never had."

* * *

About eight years ago, I went to the movies to see Roland Emmerich's The Patriot. The film was one that I'd wanted to see because Mel Gibson hadn't yet wacked out. Besides giving me my first real look at a young actor named Heath Ledger, the movie also introduced me to the considerable charms of Jason Isaacs. Yet it took me about six months to see the end of the movie on video, which I quite enjoyed. I didn't see it the first time cause I had to leave the theatre.

* * *

Last Thursday I met a friend for a drink. It was an impromptu thing, so instead of going somewhere with an atmosphere I enjoyed, we just went across the street to the sports bar. As we talked, a couple of people watched the Leafs game desultorily. A much larger, louder group cheered on the Raptors.

I hadn't seen this friend in a while. Long enough that I didn't know he had a new job. Which he'd had for three months. Whoops. Time, it does get away from you.

Anyway, after an hour or so, the conversation turned to a really surprising place. My friend is an evangelical. A Baptist. And he asked me, the lapsed Catholic, what was it that I found appealing about the Catholic liturgy. The celebration of the mass, the service, the tradition...was there anything I missed? Did it do anything for me, even still?

I had to reach back. It's been over twenty years since I went to mass regularly. But there's been weddings and Christenings since. And half-remembered traditions, words that, I only need bid them come and they spring to the lips like they'd never gone away. I picked out elements of prayers, of moments, of traditions personal and games from childhood meant to pass the time. I articulated something I'd never ever put into words before -- this one part of the liturgy, where the blessing of the host happens and the priest intones, "Do this in memory of me," how, from when I was about sixteen that became a time, a moment as I observed the ritual where I fixed the face and memory of someone who'd died, firmly in my mind, and took a beat to think about them. Then the altar server would ring the bells -- that job used to be mine -- and the spirit of that lost loved one would dissolve, and I'd imagine it at peace. A quantum of solace, if you will.

He wasn't asking about the mass out of sheer curiosity. There was a point to his questioning. As there was to all these stories. They all connect. They all relate. But the how and the why's for a little bit later. Now I've got to go read some scripts.

Before we reconvene for next time, though, I'd encourage you to go read Jim Henshaw's piece here, and take a gander at Diane's here.