Saturday, July 25, 2009

Gross Slaughters the Co-Pro "Magic Bullet"

PLENTY TO TALK about in Sticksville, lots of changes round the joint (and I'm not just talking the spiffy new three column layout) but it's going to keep for a little while so I can enjoy the Avalon Penisula.

But today, in a fine article by Gayle MacDonald, Paul Gross follows up on the comments he made last month, and that I first wrote about here. Considering the turns in the news of late, and some odd miscategorizations of Writers' takes on the same subject, I have never been so happy for an actor to take the lead on an issue.

But then again, Paul Gross is hardly just an actor. He's, as my friend and colleague Matt MacLennan might say, "the sauce."


In early June, while attending the Banff World Television Festival, actor Paul Gross sat down with a reporter to give his opinion on the current rush of Canadian TV producers, distributors and broadcasters vying to team up with American networks. Never one to hold his tongue, Gross – whose show Due South was the first Canadian-made show to win a prime-time slot on a major U.S. network – said things that very few in the gung-ho-to-sell crowd wanted to hear.

First, he warned that the Canadian industry should not rely too heavily on the U.S.-Canada co-production model, saying there is a danger of becoming “an assembly branch plant” for the American networks. “You might be putting in the lion's share of the money, but you do not control the fate of the production,” Gross said. “Sure, it's extraordinarily attractive. You get big exposure in a way you can't generate out of Canada alone. And it certainly helps with foreign sales to have ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox behind it. But it does bring some handcuffs that aren't all that attractive, creatively and for broadcasters.”

Jump ahead one month, and Gross's words seem oddly prescient. A little over a week ago, broadcasting giant NBC, which had teamed up with CTV to simulcast this summer's The Listener , announced it had decided to pull the plug on the Canadian-made drama halfway through its inaugural season.

“Canadians just need to be wary of certain pitfalls,” he adds. “While it's nice to have a U.S. partner, they can take a disproportionate amount of creative control over the show,” and without the U.S. licence fee, the production quality could decline. “On Due South , CBS had a huge amount of input,” Gross says, of the Mountie drama that ran on CBS – simulcast by CTV – for two seasons before the American network cancelled it. (Produced by Alliance Communications, Due South survived for four seasons in all thanks to CTV, the BBC and France's TF1.)

“It's an interesting thing,” adds Gross. “We'd all like [this model] to work seamlessly. But what people forget is that the American failure rate is unbelievably high: 85 to 90 per cent of new shows don't succeed. The Canadian market is slightly more forgiving.”

Another Toronto producer, who asked not to be identified, worries that Canadian broadcasters will begin to rely too heavily on the bilateral model – and only order series based on Canadian-made pilots if there is an American broadcaster attached. “Some writers are reacting strongly against the unfairness of American networks putting in a minute amount of money and having so much creative control over casting and scripts,” he says. “And they worry that Canadian stories could suffer because the thinking seems to be: Unless you sell into the States, your show isn't worthy. That's the risk of playing in these leagues.”


Meanwhile, elsewhere in the paper today, a different kind of CanCon story that I first heard about from my friend Peter Mohan a while back. What happens if you don't go the U.S. sale route? Well with a little luck maybe you can inspire an entire nation:

It's a koo-koo article, right up until you hit this paragraph:

Slaughter's clumsiness and Homer Simpson-like fallibility had also always appealed to the Serbian sense of humour, which is self-deprecating – a trait Stewart believes Serbs share with Canadians. Stewart and Vespi heard time and again that Serbians loved the TV character because he would always come back after being beaten down in a fight. “The most powerful alliance in the world was bombing them, and they had a dictator, but they just kept getting up every morning and trying to get through it,” explains Stewart. “They responded to the goofiness of the character rather than anything heroic.”

So, you know, the next time it's said, "ah what does it matter if we try to get a Canadian sensibility up there on the screen? What possible difference could it make?" the answer is, "Fuck you. It could make the kind of difference you'd never even dream of. But you won't ever know that, because you won't even try."

Screw the presentations and position papers. Let's sic Nick Slaughter on the CRTC.

Now THAT would be some kind of shit to see.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

The World

STILL TURTLING FOR NOW, but just a quick head poke to show you all the difference between the world of TV and the world we live in.

TV:


The World We Live In:


Via my once-and-future colleague, the great Matt MacLennan.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Time for a Rest

SOMETIMES THE FEVER burns, and sometimes it breaks, and sometimes you just wake up one day and don't remember if you're sick or well.

In any case, I'm taking a little break from this blog. A bit of exhaustion, a bit of ennui, a bit of, we'll, what else is there to say, really?

Don't know when I'll be back. Maybe a couple weeks. We'll see.

The Way It Is/Was

MY FRIEND HOWARD has one of the best takes I've read on the life and legacy of the last important Television Journalist.

Unfortunately there will never be another Walter Cronkite. Sure there will be great news people, great television hosts, but the world has changed. Television news will never be as important as it was. The internet has seen to that. The opportunity to speak to and sometimes for all the people just does not exist anymore in any medium.

The TV news business has changed too. It used to be a reporter centric medium where the guy on the site of the story provided the all the answers. Today it’s the news desk that writes and produces the stories. The reporter in most cases is just a face holding a microphone. It’s not a lack of reporting talent, it’s a lack of time. In the golden age a reporter had to produce one quality news story per day. Today they have to file for radio, TV, the internet and in some cases for multiple newscasts all day long. They have no time to think let alone assess a story.

Speed has become as important, if not more, than accuracy. And the technology allows for live reporting from any scene anywhere in the world. That means an anchor sitting in New York or Toronto is expected to comment on a story that’s happening right now in Teheran or Beijing. If we have the live pictures we go to air. The technology that was supposed to make TV news more accurate has in fact devalued the news. How can a man or woman sitting at a desk really know what’s happening 10,000 miles away?

A more important change has occurred since the Vietnam War. Politicians came to understand the power of TV. President Lyndon Johnson, I believe was first when he was quoted as saying that when he lost Walter Cronkite’s support for the war in Vietnam, he lost the American people. He decided not to run for re-election. Smart politicians since that time have learned the art of spin. Spin doctors are among their most important staff members. The purpose of all of this is to manipulate the media. In Walter’s time the media, to quote Marshall McLuhan, was the message. Today they are pawns to the message. The power has shifted. The Carl Roves of the world are better at getting their stories out than the reporters that cover them. Carl and his buddies have the time, the expertise and the money. All the reporters have is a camera and a microphone…easy pickings for the pros.

In the end it is no surprise that TV news just isn’t what it used to be. There are too many factors weighing against television journalism.

So when we look back at Walter Cronkite’s career and his amazing accomplishments we should shed a tear not just for the loss a great pioneer and icon but for television journalism. Walter Cronkite is both an example and a symbol of what it has lost and what it has become.