Program Note: Mayerthorpe

A LOT OF people didn't see it the first time because the promo wasn't that great. (Whaaat? On Canadian TV? I'm shocked! Shocked!) but the TV movie on the terrible 2005 killings of RCMP officers at Mayerthorpe repeats tonight at 9pm on CTV, a few days shy of the 4th anniversary of the event.

The movie was written by Andrew Wreggit and Directed by the redoubtable Ken Girotti and it's really a great piece of work. Worth PVR'ing and checking out. Just saying.

And I tried to find a good still to go with this, but I've just hit five minutes Googling without finding something decent. But there's no problem with PR. Pffft.

The Fallon Flies at Midnight Monday (12:35 actually)

THREE TAKES ON the ascendancy of Jimmy Fallon to Conan (and the once-Dave) Late Night throne @NBC.

(Photo: Diane Bondareff/Associated Press)

Andrew Ryan has a take in the Globe that, to my great surprise, got me rooting for Fallon:

Demonstrating rare network foresight, NBC made its decision looking to snag the young and restless Web generation. Nice suit notwithstanding, Late Night with Jimmy Fallon will be a show aimed at younger viewers, most of whom network executives believe are watching TV and surfing the Web simultaneously.

“We grew up with the Internet,” says Fallon, 34. “I'm into tech and gadgets and I want those kind of people on the show, whether it's Bill Gates or the guy who designed the new Palm Pre. I want to know what makes it so great. I think that's interesting for people who are awake at 12:30 a.m.”

The new and improved Late Night will still boast some of the standard antiquities – the big host desk, the studio audience setup, the wacky staff announcer, the house band (Fallon himself approached the hip-hop group The Roots for the honour) – while simultaneously moving into heretofore untouched pop-culture areas. Say, for example, video games.

“Video games are important to a lot of people these days,” Fallon says. “The video game industry now makes more money than the movie business. We want to cover the big video game premieres almost like they were movie premieres.”

Then there's the always-reliable Bill Carter's insider-y version in the NYTimes:

He said the intimacy of late-night shows demands early modulating. “First you ask, ‘Can I come into your house?’ After a while you take your shoes off, you have a couple of drinks, and by the end of the night you’re singing and dancing, and it’s crazy. You just have to figure a way to get into the house.”

So, yes: first a monologue emphasizing the day’s events, perhaps as long as 13 minutes. Mr. Fallon has been polishing his stand-up skills in clubs. Then some other comedy ideas, which he hopes will eventually include out-of-studio pieces. “You look at Conan’s ‘best of” clips, it’s mostly remotes,” he said. “We got to get out there.”

Then the guests. Mr. Fallon said he decided to “call in favors” early. So his old “SNL” partner from “Weekend Update,” Tina Fey, is on Night 2.

The guest list on opening night includes Robert De Niro, Justin Timberlake (talking, not singing) and Van Morrison, singing “Sweet Thing” from his classic album “Astral Weeks.”

Mr. Fallon has already dived into the Web. He is the first late-night host to start a video blog, latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/video, running snippets of comedy bits and background reports on how he was building the show. He even took his blog followers along when he had eye surgery.

Mr. Fallon has also been courting fans through Facebook and Twitter, where at last count he had more than 100,000 people following him. He said that Questlove, the leader of the Roots, his house band, will be “sending tweets during the show.”

“The Internet has been awesome,” he added. “They’ve got my back.”

And finally, in the same paper, Allessandra Stanley's lament over how Late Night remains the province of the White Male. (That's probably not a totally fair characterization of the article...especially toward the end, her characterization of the tropes of Late Night are quite winning.)

The charm isn’t seeing a host discomfited by an ill-prepared celebrity, it’s watching an experienced entertainer draw a sliver of comedy out of an uncomfortable moment or humorless guest. It’s diverting, and effortlessly so. The hosts — male, middle-American, middlebrow, middle-aged or close to it — are easy to like: subversive enough to poke holes in pomposity or pretension and make us laugh, but not so offbeat or marginal that they seem to be laughing at us. Mr. Fallon may seem more boyish and antic than his predecessors, but he shares their engaging good manners. (He made Martha Stewart laugh while making chili on her show, and she is rarely distracted.)

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, meanwhile, are too steeped in political satire and current events to let us forget our troubles. And the best comedians — Larry David, Dave Chappelle or Sarah Silverman — don outré comic personas that discomfit as well as amuse.

A host who is daringly different breaches the contract: it’s not civility, it’s the breakdown, and however funny and cathartic that can be for a while, the pleasure is not a lasting one. In 1986 Joan Rivers tried to host her own late-night show on Fox and flopped. Mr. Chappelle was brilliant on his own Comedy Central series, but he flamed out after two years and disappeared.

Talk show hosts are just that: hosts who make viewers feel welcome. They are not angry, eccentric or crazy (at least, not on the air). At the close of each show they convince us that everything is all right in the world, and Mommy and Daddy still love each other.

(For my part, I think Chelsea Handler notwithstanding, any man who's ever seen three women cut up a fourth on her appearance and choice of footwear understands why a broad-based female late night host is a way tougher sell. I'm pretty sure Senator Pam Wallin is still smarting over all those letters she'd get about her haircuts.)

All I know is, as a once and future insomniac otherwise subject to the hegemony of infomercials (I am NOT buying the %@#% snuggie, OK?) the late night shows are a godsend. Bring on the video game premiere, Jimmy. I'll give it a shot.

If This is Wrong Than I Don't Wanna ... Wait, no. I'd Still Like To Be Right, I Think.

WHEN CBC CHANGED the timeslot of Being Erica three weeks ago, they had every reason to think they were doing something good. The show was performing well, but they thought it could do better.

They hit upon moving it into a slot behind The Week The Women Went, which drew more of a younger women demo, and was drawing over a million viewers.

Only one problem. It never hit that number again. And every Wednesday Erica since has shed more and more viewers. Bill Brioux enjoys the death spiral here.

This whole "bold CBC" thing -- where rather than let underperforming shows run three years, they cancel them; or move them -- that's all still new. Maybe we're hurtling toward the "timeslots don't matter" age, but the rapidly cratering fortunes of the freshman drama show we're not there yet.

Any move the CBC makes is always met with a great big storm of complaints. Whatever it is. So that shouldn't be the metric here. In retrospect, you look at the competition and the truth is that the reason why Fifth Estate was better in that slot was because of the very reason it's "pooh poohed" -- all those over 55 viewers. See, Wednesdays at 9 crushes Erica because there are at least three shows splitting that younger female demo. Unfortunate, but true.

What to do?

Move it back. Period. Clearly the show did better Monday at 9. The CBC doesn't have the most flexible schedule anyway because of the need to show the news at 10.

Yes, there will be 'tsk'-ing. But there was going to be that anyway. Right now you have to stop the freefall. Right impulse, wrong decision. Ah well. Live and learn.

Meantime, it also bears repeating that the other freshman drama on CBC, Wild Roses, has built audience every week. And it's way outpacing Erica since the timeslot change. So I guess there's good news for that show too.

Of course, good news is relative. Look at that pretty glinty thing on the horizon. Is that an iceberg?

Plus ca Change, Plus c'est la meme chose

THE CANCON DEBATE.

From 1970, CBC radio. It's shocking how little has changed. Marshall McLuhan pointed out how new media don't replace old, they just recontextualize. It's a shame that the arguments don't move similarly forward.

From 1978. TV footage -- Albert Johnson, then CBC President, testifying to the CRTC.

"Most of our kids know more about the Alamo than they do about Batoche or Crysler's farm. They know more about Davy Crockett than they do about Louis Riel. What I'm trying to say quite bluntly is it does matter whether our kids are watching American rather than Canadian television. For they are being influenced by the values and attitudes reflected on American television, instead of Canadian values, attitudes, and Traditions."

John Louis Gagnon, the CRTC commissioner, goes on to recount the hostility met when French language service was extended across the country, and when Cancon was extended, and asks the simple question, "are you sure people want to be Canadian?"

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Now back to your Jonas Brothers 3D movie.

(For the record, I had to look up Crysler's farm. But then again, I was born in the USA.)

Who Doesn't Like a Nice Statue Now and Then?

STILL BURIED, but I thought I'd stick my head up and post some awards info. Yes, I know, I know, the Oscars, blah blah...didn't even post the screenwriting winners but I didn't watch this year and so am exercising my full prerogative not to care.

But I do care about the fact that a very fine young actor I had the pleasure to work with on the Ex-show has been nominated for a Young Artist Award for his guest starring role. The awards, presented to actors under the age of 18, celebrate their 30th year this year, and will be given out in March. Congrats once again to Isaiah Grant for his excellent work in that episode (for which he was also nominated for a Gemini!) (And thanks, as always, to TV-Eh? for the tip.)

Next, nominations are out for the Canadian Screenwriting Awards, which will be presented in Toronto April 20 (hosted by the vivacious Geri Hall from 22 Minutes)

I was incredibly fortunate and lucky to win one of these last year. In the world of writers, it means something to know that you've been nominated by your peers. I see a lot of names on this list that I don't know, which is funny. It seemed like last year I knew everybody. Such is the ebb and flow of things. Congrats, and I look forward to meeting some of you on the big night!

Word of caution, though. Pump some iron. The award itself is actually surprisingly dense and heavy. And people have been known to steal them. Sneaky people.

For more information on the Awards, including tickets, check out the WGC site.

ANIMATION

6Teen “Date and Switch”

Written by Robin J. Stein and Alice Prodanou

6Teen “Whoa Baby!”

Written by Alice Prodanou

Ricky Sprocket, Showbiz Boy “The Perfect Family”

Written by Shane Simmons

CHILDREN OR PRESCHOOL

Captain Flamingo “Comic Slip”

Written by Christin Simms

Captain Flamingo “The Gobbler Robbler”

Written by Suzanne Bolch & John May

Future is Wild “Monkey Brains”

Written by Jeremy Winkels

DOCUMENTARY

FLicKeR

Written by Nik Sheehan

Passage

Documentary Script Written by John Walker

The Strangest Dream

Written by Barry Cowling & Eric Bednarski

EPISODIC ½ hour

Corner Gas “Bed & Brake Fast”

Written by Kevin White

Corner Gas “Bend It Like Brent”

Written by Andrew Carr

Corner Gas “Full Load”

Written by Brent Butt

Rent-a-Goalie “Eva Has a Dot Dot Dot”

Written by Josh Gal

EPISODIC 1 hour

Flashpoint “Attention Shoppers”

Written by Tracey Forbes

Flashpoint “Who’s George?”

Written by Adam Barken

Murdoch Mysteries “Elementary, My Dear Murdoch”

Written by Jason Sherman

ReGenesis “The Truth”

Written by Tom Chehak

FEATURE FILM

Blindness

Screenplay by Don McKellar

One Week

Written by Michael McGowan

Passchendaele

Written by Paul Gross

MOW or MINISERIES

Everest

Written by Keith Ross Leckie

Mayerthorpe

Written by Andrew Wreggitt

Would be Kings

Written by Tassie Cameron & Esta Spalding

RADIO DRAMA

Afghanada “Over the Ridge, Far Away - Parts 1 to 3”

Written by Jason Sherman

Afghanada “Special Forces”

Written by Greg Nelson and Adam Pettle

Afghanada “Man of Iron - Parts 1 to 3”

Written by Emil Sher

Afghanada “The Lotus Eater - Part 1 of 3”

Written by Greg Spottiswood

SHORT FILM

Awkward

Written by Kellie Ann Benz

How Are You

Written by Martha Burns & Susan Coyne

Spoiled

Written by Sherry White

VARIETY

History Bites “Celine Dion”

Written by Rick Green, Duncan McKenzie

This Hour Has 22 Minutes XVI “Episode 1”

Head Writer: Jennifer Whalen / Written by Mark Critch, Gavin Crawford, Kyle Tingley, Jennifer Whalen, Albert Howell, Tim McAuliffe, Dean Jenkinson, Geri Hall, Nathan Fielder

This Hour Has 22 Minutes XVI “Episode 2”

Head Writer: Jennifer Whalen / Written by Mark Critch, Gavin Crawford, Kyle Tingley, Jennifer Whalen, Albert Howell, Tim McAuliffe, Dean Jenkinson, Geri Hall

This Hour Has 22 Minutes XVI “Episode 8”

Head Writer: Jennifer Whalen / Written by Mark Critch, Gavin Crawford, Kyle Tingley, Jennifer Whalen, Albert Howell, Tim McAuliffe, Dean Jenkinson, Nathan Fielder, Joanne O’Sullivan, Peter White

YOUTH

Life With Derek “Two Kisses, One Party”

Written by Daphne Ballon

The Latest Buzz “The Gala Issue”

Written by Brent Piaskoski

The Latest Buzz “The Showdown Issue”

Written by Darrin Rose and Fraser Young

Free-for-all

I AM POSITIVELY snowed under and panicky right now about all I have to do. So this little space is going to be dormant for the next few days. I leave you this pristine open thread to vandalize and use as you see fit.

A few potential conversation starters:

• Does comedy have to be mean to be funny?
  
  
• How much could the CBC get for selling ad space on Mansbridge's head?
  
  
• Is anyone really that excited about the BSG spinoff Caprica?
  
  
• Is that picture of Stephen Harper walking through Times Square like Mary Tyler Moore hilarious or just creepy?
  
  
• Could someone please explain the Hugh Jackman thing because I just don't get it?

There. That, or anything else. Amuse yourselves. Really. Daddy's gotta go pound keyboard.

WGC makes the Case

FROM THEIR PRESS RELEASE:

The WGC asked the commission to recognize that consumer behaviour has changed, and that the Internet is now an integral part of the Canadian broadcasting system. They can do this, asserts the WGC, by implementing a new framework bringing more Canadian TV programming online and fostering the creation of original online content.

“Canadian audiences want to be able to access Canadian television content on any platform,” says Rebecca Schechter, President, WGC. “Their demand has pushed ISPs to become part of the Canadian broadcasting system. Yet only a fraction of Canadian TV content is available online – and just try to find it, buried as it is under mountains of U.S. programming.”

The WGC is advocating for a minimum level of 60% streamed Canadian TV content on broadcasters’ websites and branded channels, and policies ensuring Canadian content is more accessible. In addition, the WGC is proposing incentives and other ideas to foster promotion of Canadian content online. Despite the ISPs claims that they are not broadcasters, the cultural relevance of the Canadian broadcasting system is not diminished because there is a new pipeline.

The WGC made it clear that it has no desire to see user-generated content regulated, and its proposal will in no way restrict what people can see and do on the Internet.

The WGC is also calling for the creation of a new fund – established through a modest ISP levy – to support the development of professionally produced Canadian new media content.

“Because Canadians want this content,” says Maureen Parker, Executive Director, WGC, “the few public funds devoted to new media in Canada are drastically oversubscribed. The levy will support new original programming, and strengthen the ISPs’ offering to their customers, Canadian audiences. The ISPs are the gateway to the Internet. They are protected from foreign competition, but are completely unregulated and charge whatever they want for Internet services. We are asking for 1.5% of their total revenues – which last year was $5.7 billion. This will not break the bank or the Internet.”

In their appearance, the WGC reps looked prepared. They tried to show some examples of sites that "broadcast" in new media now (Degrassi and the ZOS site) -- with limited success due to the orientation of the room -- but they made a presentation that was considerably more nuanced than many of the arts groups that have gone before.

Some key points:

• The WGC thinks that any content levy could easily be absorbed by the ISP's -- because it proposes exempting smaller ISP's who might have trouble paying. Driving an increase in bandwidth due to increased demand for video traffic will increase the profits of the ISP's -- who already charge more for people who download more heavily. It's in their interest to drive people to download more so they can charge more.
  
• Fund could fund Broadcaster add-ons for existing shows, or all-new shows for the internet only.
• ISP's are trying to pull a bait and switch. They are not broadcasters, but they are part of the broadcast system, and they are trying to avoid their responsibilities to contribute to that system like every other player in the system.
• CanCon on the internet should be defined as 75% of the money spent in Canada, and the top 5 creative positions going to Canadians (recognizing that diff projects might have different creative needs, ie: a designer not a director, a writer who also codes, etc.)
• Proposing a system by which new web-broadcasting ventures could "opt in" to a voluntary CanCon cert. system where they would then be able to access funds for new media production. Let's call this the "Jim Henshaw point." :)
  

I think it's more than possible for reasonable people to disagree about an ISP levy. But not from a position of dishonesty about how the Canadian broadcast system truly works.

Like the broadcast system, ISP's are protected telcos and cablecos who are shielded from competition. They receive regulatory advantage every day they operate. The question is whether they should be made to give something back to the system. The WGC made a presentation for the 'Yes' side, and what's more, they did it without hysteria, and showing that they understood how the internet differs from the traditional broadcast system.

It will be interesting to see if opponents to the levy idea can bring themselves to argue their point on a level playing field, or if they'll conveniently omit how ISP's benefit from the kind of "protectionism" that they're decrying in the cultural community.

EDIT: Heard from a few more folks, and yup, I did think the questions were a little odd. The CRTC seemed to throw a lot of very technical questions at the Writers group. Considering the fact that they had the CFTPA this morning, who have more staff and resources and who co-sponsored the report, it was an odd area to focus on with the Writers.

The whole notion of "what is CanCon in the new media world" got only a cursory glance. Very strange.

Anyway, with that, I think we're capped here at Dead Things Labs about writing about these hearings. There'll be plenty of coverage of the ISP's and Broadcaster submissions that you can parse for yourself, and people like Michael Geist cover the whole Net Neutrality thing better than I could ever hope to.

It will be nice not to type the letters "C-R-T-C" for awhile. And anyway, I just got a go-ahead to go to script on one of my projects, so Daddy gets to be a real live screenwriter again. Yaaaay!

WGC on the Stand

FROM THE "This shouldn't be this hard" file -- Mighty Maureen Parker and her group of secret WGC Ninjas present today on behalf of Canadian writers. Hopefully the WGC's more nuanced case for the need for New Media support will demonstrate that somebody in the arts realizes that the net is all diffrent and stuff.

We'll have deets later.

Like "The Wonder Years" - but with track marks!

THIS SHOULD be good:

Multihyphenate John Sayles has been tapped to write HBO's series project based on the childhood of Red Hot Chili Peppers frontman Anthony Kiedis.Drama, tentatively titled "Scar Tissue" (the name of Kiedis' autobiography), centers on the rocker's early years living in West Hollywood with his father. At that time, Kiedis' dad, known as Spider, sold drugs and mingled with rock stars on the Sunset Strip, all while aspiring to get into showbiz (Daily Variety, Nov. 12).

Parsing the CRTC: Say 1 to 1, or "Control" Again and I'll Throttle Ya!

I AM POSITIVELY queasy about the fact that I'm writing about the CRTC again. But here we go.

An unfortunate and persistent side effect of the times that we live in is that activism finds itself up against money, all the time. In the current hearings going into whether the CRTC will assert any jurisdiction over televised content over the internet, lobbyists for broadcasters and cable types blanketed the commission for months.

Currently on Twitter, if you search the comments regarding the CRTC, you won't see as many tweets about "keep your hands off the net" or "stop trying to control the net!" as you did a few days ago -- but they're still there.

The truth is that these are only the first set of hearings this year that will be dealing with the internet. And here's where the wisdom of the mob breaks down. Many of the same people who are currently crying that the CRTC should do nothing, and keep your hands off the net, are going to be arguing in a few weeks that the CRTC do something about net neutrality.

Well, folks, that's a load of bullshit. Either you're for free expression on the net or you're not. Either the CRTC has regulatory authority here, or it doesn't. Either you're with the corporate agenda of the Bells and the Rogers or you're not. Things are being decided in a windowless rooom in Gatineau. They will affect you. It's time you put down the tweet deck and read a few articles first.

Here's something else: the same artists and "arts groups" (not cultural workers or industry representatives, because that would make it sound like, um, you know, we were taxpayers or stakeholders or something) that are currently arguing for support are going to be the same people on your side in a few weeks when all that talk about "net neutrality" comes down. They're fighting for a place at the table. And your interests align with them -- not with Rogers, Bell, and the other ISP's. Just saying.

The other thing that came up last week was the potential change to the licensing requirements for OTA broadcasters. The CRTC has signalled that they're going to renew everyone for a year, and then when the hearings resume, they want broadcasters to present as a group. So over the air channels and specialty channels will be renewed at once. This is a good thing because it will hopefully put an end to the semantic games where people claim their channels are in the toilet, when the reality is that the viewership has largely shifted to other properties they own anyway.

Now, the other piece of info that was buried in that little call to action was the commission's idea that maybe for a year they would require a 1 to 1 spend on foreign to domestic programming.

This is an attempt to subtly reframe the debate that is going to require vigilance from the cultural industry.

The reality is when you talk about "foreign" spending versus "domestic" spending, it changes things. The ratios aren't that far apart. That's because "Domestic" spending includes things like local programming, news, and sports programming -- stuff that you can't exactly buy elsewhere. Believe me, if the Calgary Global affiliate had found a way to buy local Calgary news from L.A., they would have done it by now.

What's good about this from a broadcaster and commission point of view is that maybe, just maybe, you can kick up a catfight between those who are worried about local news, and the cut in spending and jobs there, and sports fans, and those who want spending on drama and comedy to be increased. You know, those programs that Vice Chair Arpin would rather read a book than watch.

Make no mistake. The place where the spending has gotten out of control in the last few years is foreign -- mostly American -- scripted programming. Ten years ago they spend 6 dollars on American shows for every dollar they spent on homegrown. That went up to 12 to 1 in the last few years. In the last year it's ticked up a bit -- more like 9 to 1 -- because the license renewals were coming up, and the broadcasters always spend more to pretty up before they have to traipse up before the commission.

The battle in these cases is always "How do you define the issue?"

The ISP's so far have been really good at throwing down a smoke bomb, and saying they're "fighting for your rights" in the fight against creating any sort of content fund. In a few weeks, you'll see how much they're fighting for you as they patiently explain why they should be able to prioritize sites, shape your traffic, and control -- there's that word -- what you can and can't do with your internet service.

And down the road, when everyone starts talking "1 to 1" -- we have to all be vigilant and say, "isn't this really about what we get to see on TV? " What good is it having only the same shite we see on the U.S. channels? Who cares if they're on a Canadian or US channel at that point?" Maybe point out that all those specialty channels they bought that are supposed to be showing History or whatever just shovel the same old reruns. That Showcase is NOT a better channel just because it's one more place for House and CSI reruns.

A lot of the younger, wired people will quibble because they look at CanCon alternatives and see shows that they don't watch. I know I haven't had a whole lot of success talking to twenty-one year olds about Corner Gas. But if you want a cutting edge show like they have in Britain, say...if you want your own Mighty Boosh or maybe a shot at a Canadian Robot Chicken, this is why it's your fight, too.

Someone gets to define the future. Is it you? Or the people who've benefited so clearly from the past?

The Deacon and the Damages Done

HEY, SO YES, I know we're behind up here. But I was watching DAMAGES last night. (What? Was there something else on? The correct answer is 'no, not really.') Anyway, nothing is too arch or out there for that show. It's already proved a friendly environment for actors to re-invent themselves. But one of my favorite recurring figures has to be the shady "fixer" character who's charged with doing all sorts of nefarious doings for the oil company at the heart of this year's conspiracy.

He's malevolent and still in every scene he's in. A guy who's one hundred percent coiled threat. Not because he's all buff and lunked out. No no no, this is corporate America, providence of the soft and pasty white man.

So the assassin figure, who has to fly under the radar and not get noticed, ever, when he's meeting with executives and other types, has to be a slightly pasty, white, and unassuming guy. The key is, he communicates that bone chilling degree of threat simply by force of personality: dead eyes, a flat affect, and a way of calmly looking through you that leaves no doubt that you are in the presence of an extreme sociopath.

The actor they chose to play the role, credited as "The Deacon," is Darrell Hammond.

Yup. That Darrell Hammond. The reliable, rubber faced comedian who's impersonated Clinton and Rumsfeld and Cheney, and so many others so well in his tenure on Saturday Night Live.

The key to his portrayal: stillness. For a guy who spends a lot of time contorting his face under makeup, it's a chance to do very little and do it all with a look.

An impressionist works through exaggeration. And in Damages, every moment he's on screen, Hammond does very little at all. And he's thoroughly creepy doing it.

He must be having an absolute ball. He's becoming my favorite part of the show.

Go Deacon!