Intelligence and the Raconteur Quote

INTELLIGENCE is coming out on DVD from Acorn media. The justly-adored CBC series was canceled after the end of its second season due to low ratings. Anybody who really got into the story of Jimmy Reardon can't understand why the show was only drawing 250 000 viewers near the end.

Except, of course, for the fact that when you compare that 250 000 viewers on CBC to a show like Rescue Me, which gets 3, 4 million viewers on cable in the USA, you see that with Canada's 1/10th population, that kind of number is probably what you should expect a challenging, literate show like Intelligence to get.

Yet another reason why it would be wonderful, as the WGC pointed out recently, if government finally confronted the CBC's mandate in the Broadcasting Act. There are a million different constituencies arguing about what CBC should be, what it shouldn't be, what it should do and what it shouldn't. The very same people who excoriate CBC for canning Intelligence would be ripping it a new one if the show was currently finishing up Season 3 with 200 000 viewers. It's all so depressing.

So, a show gone too soon seems destined to suffer the fate of many others -- a discovery and raving on DVD. Tv Eh? Points us to a current RAVE for the DVD set in the New York Times.

But reading that review, the other thing struck me was that Chris Haddock, the Exec Producer and Creator of Intelligence, has absolutely mastered the kind of muscular, grabby quote that encapsulates his series. When we're selling, you've gotta have a way to push that series in a sentence. Look how Haddock does that with Intelligence:

“I believe that everything can be understood through the lens of a dope deal.”

Man. That is a killer quote.

FYI, by praising Intelligence here I am in no way suggesting that it was the first show that was good that maybe got canceled before its time in the history of Canadian TV. Nor am I suggesting that Haddock is the only guy to ever come up with a good quote to sell his Canadian series. Okay? Everybody happy? Nice.

ACTRA Got It Wrong

THERE ARE CERTAIN inevitabilities to the problem of Canadian TV. But none are more reliable than the duelling press releases of Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and ACTRA, the national performers' union. It's gotten to the point where you don't even have to read them, because when any news event happens you pretty much know what they're going to say.

Here's the latest, on the subject of CBC cancelling MVP (whose name they get wrong), JPOD and Intelligence:

CBC'S CANCELLATION OF INTELLIGENCE, HOCKEY WIVES, jPOD
ANOTHER DEVASTATING BLOW TO CANADIAN DRAMA

March 10, 2008 - Toronto - The CBC's decision to cancel three shows for the fall season - Intelligence, The Secret Lives of Hockey Wives, and jPOD, is a clear example of inexperienced CBC executives who don't understand their mandate to support Canadian programming, especially drama.

"CBC is a public broadcaster, and they have a responsibility to actively support and promote Canadian critically acclaimed series like Intelligence, and work to build a bigger market share for new, distinctive and creatively exciting programming like MVP: The Secret Lives of Hockey Wives and jPOD, " said Richard Hardacre, ACTRA National President.

The CBC has an unfortunate history of cancelling quality Canadian productions before they have had a chance to build audience share - and without announcing replacements thereby abandoning their audience. Past cancellations include Da Vinci's City Hall, This is Wonderland and The Tournament.

"It appears that CBC executives don't even understand the basics of marketing and how to support distinctive Canadian programming. CBC's mandate is different from that of private broadcasters, that inundate us with U.S. production, yet the CBC's idea of supporting Canadian production is to kill it before it's given a chance to grow, "said Stephen Waddell, ACTRA National Executive Director.

"Canadian TV screens are swamped with U.S. programming that private broadcasters are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on to buy and market in Canada. We need our public broadcaster to show more commitment to supporting Canadian production, which is critically acclaimed around the world," added Waddell.

ACTRA has been sounding the alarm about the crisis in Canadian television drama for years, and demands that the CRTC fix its disastrous 1999 Television Policy. ACTRA is calling on the CRTC to set a regulatory minimum expenditure of 7% of broadcaster ad revenues on English-language drama.

You have to hand it to journalists, though. Sometimes when you have only the predictable way to respond, you gotta work hard to find your fresh angle. And -- heh heh -- Rob Salem in the Toronto Star today did a bang-up job doing just that.

Leafs blamed for CBC cancellations

It has not been a good season for hometown hockey wives – real or imagined.

Along with the hopes and dreams of long-suffering local fans, the Maple Leafs' characteristic end-of-season fizzle has allegedly had a devastating impact on the CBC prime-time lineup. Including, oh-so-ironically, the sexy, soapy MVP: The Secret Lives of Hockey Wives, whose final episode airs tonight at 9.

A CBC news release issued Friday trumpeted the new and returning series that were being picked up for next year, with the critically acclaimed Intelligence and the freshman efforts jPod and MVP noticeably absent from the list.

Unofficially, the inevitability of another Leaf-less playoffs, expected to cost the national broadcaster some $10 million in potential ad revenues, is being blamed.

Later in the article, Salem does quote the ACTRA position. So what's wrong with it? How did ACTRA get it wrong?

Well, first of all, they're wrong on the facts. Take this paragraph:

The CBC has an unfortunate history of cancelling quality Canadian productions before they have had a chance to build audience share - and without announcing replacements thereby abandoning their audience. Past cancellations include Da Vinci's City Hall, This is Wonderland and The Tournament.

Yes. DaVinci's City Hall was a one-season spinoff/retool of the once-mighty DaVinci's Inquest. The problem is that the show did not invigorate the ratings for DaVinci, which had been on a steady slide for years. Taken together, the two incarnations of DaVinci ran for something like eight seasons and 104 episodes. It went from being a hit of around a million plus viewers an episode to nearly a third that. How is that not giving the show a chance to build audience share?

This is Wonderland was canceled after its third season, with 39 episodes in the can. It was drawing around 300 000 viewers max. How is three years not giving the show a chance?

Intelligence. Now, at the risk of angering the passionate fan base of this show, of which I count myself a member -- there were two 13 episode seasons and one pilot movie. They never did better than slightly over 400 000 viewers, and in the end, the show on the main CBC network was being regularly beaten (as in EVERY episode was being beaten) by the ninth and tenth reruns of Blue Murder on Showcase -- a cable channel in less than half the homes reached by CBC.

We can quibble about ads and advertising support. And believe me, we have. But if you want to try to convince me that ads in every break would have pushed that 250 000 number back up to 700 000, I'm sorry, I don't buy it.

In the case of Intelligence, in fact, I'm afraid we have the most painful situation in the world. A really, really, really good show that the public, for whatever reason, simply did not buy into. That's life. It did get 26 episodes and a movie. And yes, I fully expect we will be talking about it in five years. But you have to ask yourself if ACTRA's position here is fair. DOES the CBC have a responsibility to keep on shows nobody's watching? Well? Um...Why again?

Because people are always gunning for the CBC. "Look no one is watching these expensive dramas," can become, "why are they making expensive dramas no one watches' in a heartbeat.

How can you save Intelligence if you canceled This is Wonderland, which was getting more viewers? What's the rationale there? Everyone's quoting Sophie's last number because it was a huge dip, but that's pretty unfair, since up to then the show has pretty much hit a rock-solid target and stayed remarkably consistent week to week. (And drew about 3 times the audience of Intelligence, by the way.)

There's a problem with campaigns to save our show in Canada, and it's this: they generally don't come from fans. They come from producers and interested parties, like ACTRA. And the act of condemning the CBC for trying to build on successes and cut losses is tremendously alienating to the one constituency that should really matter: The audience.

What does this attitude lead to? Something vaguely like what Jaime Weinman wrote here, (complete with an excellent clip from the Kids in the Hall):

This is dangerously close to advocating that the CBC should be airing series even though nobody watches them, which verges on unintentional parody of the traditional Canadian TV mentality (the mentality that it's not important to have good or popular shows as long as they're Canadian). MVP was a bad series that deserved to be cancelled; jPOD had some potential but not enough to make people like it. Intelligence is a sadder case because it was a terrific show, but its lack of popularity wasn't some kind of myth invented by the evil CBC for the purpose of destroying Canadian content; it really wasn't popular and shows that aren't popular tend to get canceled. If we want a stronger Canadian TV industry we have to accept one of the things that go with such an industry: the fact that shows can't just hang on indefinitely without being successful.

What else did ACTRA get wrong? Well there's this quote, for one:

"It appears that CBC executives don't even understand the basics of marketing and how to support distinctive Canadian programming."

This just takes whatever credibility ACTRA has managed to build up and shoots it straight out the Air Farce's chicken cannon.

Because anybody who actually watches CBC, or takes public transit in the three cities that were heavily targeted with outdoor for the current season can tell you that this winter, CBC's launch efforts were exemplary. Studies showed that people were more aware of their efforts. If they hadn't yet bought in ... they at least had been made aware.

The basics of marketing, at least where marketing of TV and films are done well, proves that you do what you can to support something, but you cut your losses if it doesn't work.

Question: when was the last time you saw saturation ad coverage in the second week of a release for a film that opened at number 14?

Answer: Try never. They pull the money. They cut their losses. That IS marketing.

Because in Canadian TV we're never going to have the money to pay for programs and not run them at all, like they regularly do down south, the closest we can get to cutting our losses is not spending two or three seasons on something the people do not watch. And CBC, finally, has done that. They've made hard choices. ACTRA can say that they were "abandoning their audience" (who weren't watching) by not announcing replacements -- but in the very press release they were responding to, CBC announced that they were going to announce their new shows in a few weeks.

Note to ACTRA: When ABC or NBC cancel a show, they don't immediately announce a new show. It's not a quid pro quo. That's NOT how marketing works.

So long as we keep mixing these things together -- bad calls like, "You should keep these shows that no one watches indefinitely" with "Broadcasters should spend 7 percent of their revenues on production," you're going to hurt the cause of creatives. Because there are a whole bunch of structural reasons why the latter is probably a good move. But if I'm a viewer, and I hear the former coming from ACTRA -- it sounds like Crazy Talk. So I'm going to think that everything that comes from ACTRA is crazy talk.

Because that's human nature, dood.

Alex Strachan's got a much better analysis of the CBC moves here. As does Brioux, here. And then there's Bill Harris in the Sun, here. Do I agree with everything they have to say? Hell no. But at least they seem to understand the medium they're commenting about.

ACTRA, on the other hand...

When Networks Don't Know What They Want.

JOHN DOYLE in the Globe uses the axing of Intelligence (moment of silence...........there) to posit that "CBC doesn't know what it wants to be."

So, in getting rid of Intelligence, CBC TV has left itself open to the rage of its fiercely loyal viewers. Over the weekend, numerous readers wrote to me, all latching on to the same theme: "Cancelling Intelligence pretty well sums up CBC's decision to scrap this brilliant program." As many of those loyal CBC viewers see it, CBC has simply swapped intelligence for stupidity.

CBC itself was obtuse about the cancellations. "We certainly recognize they were frankly terrific shows and in many cases they attracted quite a degree of critical acclaim, but unfortunately they were unable to attract an audience. Audience is not our only consideration, but it is an important one," the CBC's spokesman told Canadian Press on Friday, speaking about the cancelled shows.

There's the rub - CBC TV really wants to be a big shot broadcaster, just like the commercial channels, and boast about audience success. And there's the problem - CBC doesn't know what it wants to be. A shrink would ask, 'Do you want to be popular or do you want to be smart?' CBC would probably answer, 'Well, popular is not the only consideration but it's an important one.' Then the shrink would tell CBC to make a decision, grow up and quit alienating those who love and cherish it.

It's a good column, but I'd say he doesn't go wide enough. In fact, as I wrote the other day, this isn't just a CBC problem. All the Canadian networks are like this. In CBC's case it's because they're bureaucratic and swing based on politics and management whims (even if I think the current strategy to try and woo under 50 year olds back to the broadcaster is ultimately the right call. If you want a future in broadcasting, I mean.)

CTV and Global, on the other hand, don't really develop enough of their own shows to even HAVE an identity beyond, "what did we buy this fall?" I think that's why they send out so many duelling press releases. They're desperate to prove that the audience prefers them, when really, I think the audience couldn't care less. They've made sure of that by simply being clearing houses for someone else's creativity.

In fact, you could make a strong argument that the only channel with a strong brand identity that knew what it was over the last five years was Showcase. And in the takeover of Alliance Atlantis last year by Canwest Global, they promptly sacked most of their development department. So let's see how they go from here. Fingers crossed.

These disconnects between networks and their core audiences, or even their own development people, aren't even strictly a Canadian thing, though it's probably more acute here because of the lack of development of original shows.

You could argue that the Frankenstein-like creation of the CW from the dessicated corpses of UPN and the WB was disastrous because it took one channel that knew what it was (the WB) and grafted it together with another that was far murkier (UPN.)

One of my favorite shows of the last few years, Love Monkey, was dead out of the gate -- even though the very few reruns have become a big hit in reruns on VH1. Why? It had the bad fortune to be on CBS, a network where it just did not fit.

Plus, ask any genre fan and they'll tell you that the development department at FOX has, for years, been way more ambitious and original than their current department. Fox is famous for developing these really interesting, original shows and then throwing them on the air and abandoning them. (New Amsterdam looks like the latest casualty in this regard.)

In a time when exactly zero eyeballs are guaranteed, maybe a loss leader like Intelligence is appropriate for a public broadcaster.

Then again, between DaVinci and Intelligence, Haddock did have something like nine or ten seasons of shows on the air with the CBC. CBC stuck with Ken Finkleman through series that drew increasingly smaller returns. At what point do you shake it up and try something else?

Intelligence is gone, and that's sad. But we won't know the second verse of this tune for a few more weeks.

In the meantime, I wonder if Showcase has some money to burn? Some of us still really want to find out what happened to Jimmy Reardon.

On Classy Cancellations and Can-Creative Wonkery

IN THE GLOBE today, Mary Leckie's quoted about the demise of CBC's hockey-themed MVP:

"Seventy per cent of the audience was in the 25-54 age group," she said. "I think we created a fabulous brand with MVP. It looks like a world-class show and has been sold to several countries already. I think CBC did its best with the show, but I did think they'd stick with us a little longer. This is a tough business and I can't slam anyone. We move on. "

That, ladies and germs, is how you do that. Note perfect quote. Graceful and upbeat.

It's funny, because the chatter has already started about how this is an unusually decisive move for CBC. Everyone always talks about how series in Canada get two seasons whether they deserve it or not. That's not been my experience, but it says something about CBC -- something good, I think, that they're willing to cut losses and move on with something else. Maybe it means they feel they've got something else in development that might connect more. I don't know. We'll find out in a few weeks, I guess.

The thing about Leckie's gracious quote is that it's sadly, not usually the norm. Engage a Canadian TV reviewer from one of the newspapers off the record, and they'll tell you of the usual response to a bad review -- a storm of drive-by-carping by peeved Producers, whiny writers, and raging relatives of the show creators. I've heard directly from ink-stained wretches who exited the racket because they just couldn't take it anymore.

And yet, without a more honest dialogue about quality, and what it means, how can any of us expect to start forging the only conversation that really matters -- the one with our audience?

I've recently had a drive-by carping over something I wrote about a show. That kind of thing always fills me with despair. We need more people willing to give a quote like Leckie, then shutup, and go back to the tickle trunk and come up with the next thing. That's the thing about ideas, theyr'e supposed to be endlessly renewable, right?

The other chatter that's starting to surface, is the predictable carp of regionalism. Both J-Pod and Intelligence were west-coast based series. I've read at least one analysis already that's trying to fan the flames of "centre of the universe" Toronto vs. "the Left Coast."

Poppycock. Don't buy it. Dollars to doughnuts, expect at least one of CBC's new series, when they're finally announced, to be a west-coaster. I think that's probably a given.

Meantime, this entry sparked a thoughtful reply from nouveau blogger and Canadian Director Ken Girotti (Mayerthorpe, Rescue Me, The Border, Law & Order:SVU)

You bring an interesting point on the "taste" front, Denis. Here in Canada we have been moving toward, what...more "market friendly" film and TV? Well I think that can be read (and certainly is by many) to mean "American style." I just took a look at the pilot for "Sniper" and it's terrific. Hugh Dillon is wonderful to watch. And there's definitely a Canadian sensibility in the theme of (spoiler coming) a sniper making the kill that rocks his confidence and, I'm assuming, will rock his world as the series progresses. But it definitely has a bit of an American sensibility. Lots of gun-porn. Pretty people. And the principal cast was almost entirely white guys. This in a show that's supposedly set in the world's most multicultural city. Perhaps they were making a statement against tokenism...I don't know. But there sure were a lot of white people on the screen.

But I digress. For the American viewer much of what's on offer year after year on the main nets lines up behind itself -I mean it starts to all look the same. One hit gets all the other networks rushing to jump on the thematic, stylistic or conceptual bandwagon. Perhaps that makes the more savvy (or bored) viewer go in search of something different. HBO, FX Networks etc, provide the antidote to that sameness. I guess I worry a bit that the "market friendly" direction we're taking in Canada could become a blessing and a curse. It gets us market share, but at what cost?

I'm an entertain 'em first, deliver the message later guy for sure, and I've spent quite a bit of time south of the border shooting all that filler between commercials. But even down there is a hunger to set things apart. There's less and less an appetite to ape the success stories and a real drive to cut a new path...and this is the vibe I get in the meeting rooms of the network shows I've shot!

If, as you suggest, there's great danger in a supposed difference of taste between here and the country we love and hate to our south, I'd like to suggest that perhaps it's the American viewer whose sophistication may be more highly evolved. If the only shows (I'm being provocative here) we can sell down there, and more importantly, sell to the Canadian viewing public are the ones fit that "line up behind the winner" mold, how can we continue to distinguish ourselves in that 1000 channel universe? Do we need to? Should everything look the same?

And as I suggest, perhaps even more frightening is the notion that the only Canadian shows with a snowball's hope in hell of being successful in their own country are the shows that look and feel (wish I knew how to italicize) American.

I'm just spit-balling here. I guess I'd like is to cling as closely as we can to what makes us different and Terminal City was a show that was just different. It's a grey area, it's completely subjective, but at the end of the day I think the trade off bears examining. Yeah, we want bums in the seats but there's more to making that happen than just putting something up on the screen.

I ranted here before about how little promotion my movie "Mayerthorpe" got. It scored very respectably in spite of that. Watching the Oscars and seeing promos for eps of Housewives and ER which weren't slated to air for SEVEN weeks pissed me off. My movie got a week of promotional attention. One week.

It's a bad hypothetical example because it was on TMN (and you hated it), but here goes anyway: what would Terminal City have done with enough publicity and exhibition on one of Canada's main webs? Hmmmm?

Few housekeeping points above: the "Sniper" pilot that Ken refers to was the original pilot for the CTV show now known as "Flashpoint." I agree that it's pretty great. It shows the aftermath of a shooting and its effect on Dillon's character in a way that I don't think I've ever seen in a U.S. show.

I try to test things on various people to see sometimes if my taste isn't leading me astray. I showed that pilot to a friend who, though they are in the business, doesn't work on hour dramas, and in fact, doesn't watch too many of them - and he agreed it was pretty compelling.

(In the interests of full disclosure, I should also say that the writers of that pilot are two dear friends of mine, and I did a bit of consulting on the show prior to it getting picked up for series by CTV.)

Ken raises, I think, a whole raft of really great questions. They're the kind of questions we all could really tuck into, I think, if we Canadian creatives didn't have to spend all our time responding to crap like this and this. I don't necessarily have a lot of answers to the questions Ken raises. But I know it's a conversation worth having.

Anyway, let's see. I think one of the problems is a lack of precision in what we're really aiming for. Ken asks, "what would Terminal City have done with enough publicity and exhibition on one of Canada's main webs?"

I think it probably would have bombed hard. But that's not the point. Because whether you liked Terminal City or not, to me it just doesn't feel like a big network show. Sundance in the USA is a tiny cable channel, so something like Terminal City or Slings & Arrows can score without drawing big numbers.

To me, part of that branding strategy is: are we, like Ken suggests, trying to create big, American style, broad based network-y hit shows? Then those shows should be marketed and judged like those shows. That was certainly the case with The Border, and MVP.

Or, taking a page from when those dispassionate American critics judge Canadian shows and praise their "different'ness" -- is it okay for CBC or CTV or Global to have a show that's more like a cable show -- character driven, a bit edgier or more challenging? For CBC it's a mandate issue, and for CTV and Global, face it, it's going to always be a, "make the best of something you have to do" issue. There's something to be said if a show attracts interest from a cable channel in the USA. In the USA, cable shows have lower audience number expectations, which are made up for by lower budgets, and hopefully, a metric of success that involves things like a good demographic. No one would claim that AMC scored a ratings Bonanza with Mad Men, but it's back because, though the audience was small (1 million an ep - a very Canadian number) a whole shitload of that one million was people making over 100K a year who like to buy Lexuses and "Talk to Chuck."

There is a certain logic toward aiming for these kinds of cable successes here, even on our over-the-air nets -- because the reality is that that's the budget level we have to play with. Those broad American style hits DO rely on gun porn, and big action set pieces -- four of them an episode, and lots of locations and lots of fast moving hoo-hah. And when we take the field with a "big budget" Canadian show that is less than half the budget of a U.S. show, who are we kidding that we can compete with that? British shows don't. Even a "high budget" British program like Spooks (MI:5) or Life on Mars, has a budget (and an action level) closer to Canadian shows than American shows. And -- here's the thing -- they don't play on U.S. networks either.

But that would require finetuning how we see things and how we market the shows. It would mean not muddling up how we frame things. Global ran The Best Years at 10pm. It wasn't a 10pm show. I read reviews of the show that took it on like it was NYPD Blue. It wasn't. It was a show that ran on ABC Family in the USA. And apparently, that audience responded well to it. But here it wasn't marketed that way. The whole expectations of the show were hopelessly confused. No wonder the audience didn't find it.

I'm not sure that Jpod, even if it was a half hour like it should have been, EVER would have drawn a "Canadian network" big number. It was specialized and weird. But don't you think it's significant that it started to do better when it was moved to a fringe-ier timeslot on a Friday night?

I've been in tons of meetings where the network person references "Six Feet Under," or "Deadwood," or any one of another number of cool, interesting, niche-y shows -- and then in the next breath talks about how the slot they're thinking about is 8pm on a Wednesday and, oh, by the way, it has to draw 800 000 viewers in Canada. Well, there's a profound disconnect there. It's just not got anything to do with the realities of the TV business.

I think what's needed is a consistent project-by-project set of rules and expectations that everybody gets. I think that CTV or Global should be able to say, "we love this project, but this is kind of going to be like our in-house cable show." And then do that show, and when it gets 300 000 viewers, say, whatever, that's fine -- look at the demos... Market the damn thing like, "if you lived in the USA, you'd have to subscribe to HBO to see something like this. But we're the channel that brought you The Sopranos for free, damnit."

I think the CBC should be able to say, "Hey, we love Intelligence, and it only gets 250 000 viewers. And that's fine. Because look at who those viewers are."

Unless, you know, they're not that desirable demo. Then, you know...(slashing motion across throat.)

Right now, nobody has a clear idea of the types of shows they want or how to deliver the shows they ask for.

• Networks have to stop asking for a 4 million dollar per episode show on a 1 million dollar budget, for which they're only kicking in 300K.

• People have to stop promising CSI numbers for a show whose whole DNA is a niche cable show.

• Stars and Producers have to know what to say, and how to say it, so that their show is well-branded. We have to be message-focused, and not see things in print that creates audience confusion about the brand.

Now that the internet means that the numbers for this or that show leak every week, it's just added chum (as opposed to CHUM) to the waters.

We need to line up the material, with the expectations for the material, and carry that through to the marketing of the material, the promotion of the material, and the foreign sales positioning of the material.

In other words, it's time to get into the television business. For real. That's what I think, anyway. What do y'all think of Ken's questions? Rumble in below.

CBC Renewals and Cancellations

FURTHER TO THE JPOD article posted earlier today, comes this CBC press release:

CBC Television announces returning shows for 2008/2009; network achieves record success this season

    TORONTO, March 7 /CNW/ - CBC Television broke viewership records with its
2007-2008 programming lineup. Our season-to-date prime-time share is 7.9, the
highest in six years. In addition, Canadian content on the network has
increased significantly over the last two years, with drama series increasing
68 per cent and comedy series up 41 per cent. This incredible success heralds
the return of several new hit shows from this past season and returning
favourites.
   "This has been an outstanding year for CBC Television," said Kirstine
Layfield, CBC-TV's executive director of network programming. "These returning
shows will be the cornerstone for next season. We'll be announcing our new
shows in the coming weeks."
   Canada's favourite homegrown drama, The BORDER will be back with James
McGowan reprising his role as Major Mike Kessler. HEARTLAND, a heart-warming
family drama based on the international best-selling novels of the same name
is also back after winning the hearts of Canadians. Debuting on CBC to nearly
one million viewers, CBC's hot and steamy co-production THE TUDORS returns for
a second season and the drama continues with the marriage of Anne Boleyn and
King Henry VIII, played by Jonathan Rhys Meyers. The charming comedy series
SOPHIE, picked up by ABC Family, is also back with star-on-the-rise Natalie
Brown returning as the hot-tempered, but loving single mom out to re-balance
her life and priorities.
   Returning comedy favourites include; RICK MERCER REPORT coming off its
best year ever averaging 1 million viewers weekly, LITTLE MOSQUE ON THE
PRAIRIE, THIS HOUR HAS 22 MINUTES, AIR FARCE LIVE, JUST FOR LAUGHS, HALIFAX
COMEDY FESTIVAL and WINNIPEG COMEDY FESTIVAL.
   CBC also continues its legacy of award-winning journalism and
documentaries with the fifth estate, MARKETPLACE, DOC ZONE and THE NATURE OF
THINGS
   Reality fans will see the return of the hit series DRAGONS' DEN, TRIPLE
SENSATION, TEST THE NATION and CANADA'S NEXT GREAT PRIME MINISTER.
   THE HOUR with George Stroumboulopoulos is back with A-list interviews and
his take on world events. And STEVEN AND CHRIS will continue to add a little
bit of fabulous to daytime programming.

So there it is. Not on the list, obviously: JPod, MVP, and Intelligence.

MVP's ratings can't make that much of surprise. And unfortunately, the same's true of Intelligence. Nevertheless, the latter's a show I'll mourn -- a lot. And I'm pretty sure that people will still be talking about that show, and how great it was, a few years on.

And I'm also guessing that like some other Canadian shows of recent vintage, once it starts stripping a lot on Showcase or somewhere, a whole new audience is going to discover it. What a shame.

But, if nothing else, you gotta think that Haddock will be back on Canadian TV screens soon. Can't wait for that.

Congrats to the shows renewed, and to the shows not coming back: hope everyone gigs up soon.

The Hairy Eyeball, The Grumps, and The Day The Love Died

IT ALL COMES DOWN to the hairy eyeball, my friends.

I'll admit it. I woke up this morning feeling rather shattered. I was out with The Sister last night. The Sister is quite a sensible thing, good head on her shoulders, always with the top-shelf advice. And she's not afraid to bust Brother's chops about his media promiscuity. "People keep telling me they hear you on the radio," says she, "And I say, 'about the strike?' and they say 'No. I think he was talking about Christmas specials.' And then she shakes her head.

The Sister is amazed that apparently, I will talk about anything.

The Sister has a plan and an adventure. She's always planning some adventure, is The Sister, and this one involves Europe and Paris on the New Year's and it makes us feel rather ordinary and protean.

So when we're ordinary and protean we like to fix it with a bit of the Irish. And maybe a draught. Or six. And then there's laughter and it's all well and good because we're at the place, not the place I always go but the place that's even closer -- the place that's mere steps from the digs-- where there's wireless and the food's good and they make burritos with Havarti. And the sister's spinning the tale of the time so-and-so did so and so; and then there's the cameo appearance by a cutter friend -- top chap, let's call him Rentals, fresh from some reality-tv show wrap party and that, dear readers, is when it all started to tip into the wrong. By the time the sister grabbed her cab and the Rentals stayed on, the hairy eyeball was well nigh inevitable.

So ce matin I rose and Advil'ed and did some outline work for a while and was generally a man of the grumps. And lo, the student from years gone by tipped me on Facebook to someone of similar disposition. Seems John Doyle's back, my friends. He's got the hairy eyeball too. And it's pointed squarely at yours truly.

This is good in so many ways. There were those who were starting to suggest that there was, perhaps, something a little off in my praise of the Doyle. A little bit of dressdown does wonder for my cred. It chases away those annoying whispers of logrolling, even if it does sting a bit on a heavy-lidded day such as this.

In his column today, Doyle opines on the things that make him grumpy...an excerpt of which I reproduce lovingly below:

The wussiness of the Canadian TV racket While I was away - I came back grumpy, obviously - an issue blew up. Chris Haddock, creator of Da Vinci's Inquest and Intelligence, complained - during an interview with a reporter - about CBC's lack of promotion for Intelligence. He had a point. As anyone with eyeballs can conclude, The Tudors and Little Mosque get tons of promotion while Intelligence got little.

In a response, a CBC spokeschappy took this condescending view: "We have not yet made a decision as to whether we'll continue with the show; when we do, Chris will be the first to know. That's precisely as it should be. We're happy to see Chris remains a passionate supporter of his show, which we happen to think is pretty good." Yada yada. Spokeschappy also tut-tutted about Haddock's "attempts to negotiate through the media his relationship with the CBC."

Worse, the normally sensible Denis McGrath, a TV screenwriter of some note, tut-tutted in his blog, "I'm with the CBC on one thing on this: This is not something that should be playing out in the media."

What utter nonsense. The Canadian TV racket suffers from enough don't-quote-me wussiness as it is. There is so much fear of angering some self-aggrandizing TV exec that hardly anyone speaks the truth, out loud, to the press. Intelligence is an excellent, world-class TV drama, internationally acclaimed. CBC should be proudly promoting it and is mandated, as a public broadcaster, to air what is not necessarily massively popular, but simply excellent. Haddock is right. CBC is wrong. Another TV writer going all meek and mousy on the subject is disheartening. I really hate that.

Now I've already heard from one country, a wag and wit who took issue with the concept that I'm "normally sensible" about anything -- an opinion I'm sure The Sister would agree with -- but it's the tut-tutting I take issue with. I think it's fairly clearly established at this point that I do not "tut-tut."

If anything, I bloviate.

Doyle was reacting to the rather terse entry entitled CBC to Haddock: Mommy Has Other Kids, Too. But in selectively quoting only the first part of my comment, I think Doyle missed my essential point:

Whereever you come down on the issue, I'm with the CBC on one thing on this: this is not something that should be playing out in the media. There is precious little space available in our American dominated mediasphere for stories on Canadian shows as it is. Sucking the air away for a process story about a producer's griping is a bit unseemly.

Intelligence was burned in promo this fall. And they took away the late night window repeat. And it's unfortunate that they couldn't get a bump for Season 2 by getting those DVD's of Season 1 out before the premiere -- which, after all, is exactly the thing that made 24 (a middling success in Season 1, into a monster hit for Season 2)

Point is, Intelligence was promo'd in the first season, and didn't do that well then, either.

Doyle's frustration is palpable because he gets so much regular stick and doubletalk from the CBC, and Canadian producers in general. The timidity he speaks of is a real problem. I see it myself every day. It's why I started this blog. This week's round of holiday parties has brought out, once more, the comments from people who'll whisper things to me and then say, with horror, "don't write about this on your blog." (Inevitably, it's a piece of gossip I wouldn't write about in a million years.) It's hard getting people to go on the record about things like writing "letters of support" and the real commitment to homegrown stuff at various outlets. I just think the nature of my objection to Haddock's complaining comes from a different place.

Though CBC's Cancon bonafides can't be questioned, it also has the sturm, drang, and otherworldly considerations that go with being a first class bureaucracy.

The psychology of covering the Canadian TV racket is a thorny and complex stew. Diane of Tv, Eh? described Lee Anne Goodman at CP this way in a recent entry:

"one of the few reporters to integrate Canadian television into her TV coverage as if it's not living in a ghetto"

Doyle does that too -- but he's got a slightly different cant, being a columnist and not a regular reporter. This invisible ghetto of Canadian TV coverage is a real problem. And the column space comes down to math: if we get a Haddock complains article, we don't get another article about something that's coming up. It's process over content. I don't like political stories where they cover the polls and not the issues, either.

I would submit I've probably written almost as much as Doyle trying to support Intelligence. I've been clear that I'm an unabashed fan, and that I think Haddock's kind of a genius. And in my wrapup/eulogy for the show I pointed out that even if the show's done, it's not done...

I just find it difficult to differentiate between Haddock complaining and, say, Jeff Seymour complaining. What's the difference? Besides the fact that one show is a good show, and one was a bad show, aren't these two guys doing exactly the same thing? Why is it okay for Haddock to go off at his network, if it's not okay for Seymour to go off on his network?

Haddock is a man of supreme gifts, and Intelligence was a frequently sublime show. But the audience didn't find it -- for whatever reason. Bad promo is part of that. But it's not the full story.

And another thing. Now this is the hairy eyeball talking. With all the tremendous respect Haddock has in the industry, I wish he'd use a bit more of that to build up the industry, and not just promote Haddock. He's had a famously fractious relationship with the Writers Guild of Canada, for example. And the cross-country grapevine for months has suggested that he's none too pleased with The Border, either. I keep hearing that he considers it "his territory" or "Intelligence-lite."

You know, rather than complaining about your promo, hell, why not say that? That at least is a feud that gets the name of another show in there. That's a dustup I could get behind. It might even be fun.

Anyway, dear readers, as I sat here with a warm cloth on the head, trying not to see stars, the hairy eyeball feeling came full circle. My immediate thoughts of Doyle and the Sister and how I wronged the Rentals with that last Irish are supplanted by a call from an actor of my acquaintance. He was calling about his underwear. Apparently he left underwear here during the last poker game.

I know how that sounds. No, gentle reader, I have no further information on how and why the underwear came to be left here. I can almost 100 percent vouch that there was no nudity during the poker game. We simply don't play that kind of poker. I will, however, reveal one very important, salient point in this peculiar new development:

The last poker game at my place was three weeks ago.

I search around for about five minutes, and sure enough, there's a bag with the actor's three-week-old ginch. It's been sitting there in my entry closet for three weeks.

Oh my stars. It's all too much. I'm simply shattered. It's hard to worry about a show's promo or who's tut-tutting about what when you've got three-week-old-ginch staring you in the kisser.

But the writer in me has to admit, damnit, that is one fitting end to the day of the hairy eyeball.

So to sum up:

Haddock: still a genius. Doyle: grumpy, but a good read. The Sister: Adventurous and Sensible. Rentals: Wronged. The Actor: Ginchless.

As for me -- I'm just looking to warm up the cloth. Oh, my stars.

***

EDIT: I've been told that some people (a lot) don't actually read Blogger comments, and that they don't automatically come up unless you click the permalink. For that reason, I'm appending this post because Chris Haddock left a comment below where he responds to some of the stuff I said in the post. First, let's print Haddock's comment in its entirety:

Alright, to correct some very large and unsubstantiated comments attributed to me by some apparently anonymous types: Regarding the BORDER. The Producer, Peter Raymont, and I'm sure Peter will happily verify this, when developing the show the Border, was referred to me for some insight into producing, as he'd apparently never done a drama before. I happily agreed to talk to him. When he asked me to recommend a direcotr for his pilot, I recommended John Fawcett, who he did not know. He hired John Fawcett. That may address both comments a)that i do something to aid the industry. I offer freely (that is happily and no charge) to many producers, writers, actors and directors and network execs,all of whom solicit my advice from time to time.

My simple answer to yur suggestion that I help the industry and not just promote my show is I concentrate on making the best show I can, offering dozens, indeed, hundreds of jobs to crew, actors, directors, editors, producers, the chance to play at the top of their games. But dn't take my word for it. Ask around. You can ask John Fawcett, who solicited my comments on his pilot for The Border. I gave further solicited advice to others involved in the production as well.

B)Regardin my alleged comments that I don't like the border, or call it intell lite, or the silliest of all, that I consider they walk on my turf, these are all inventions of other people, at least I hope that they are of other people and not you. So if you choose to publish these sort of rumors, please do me the proper thing and solicit my comment on these allegations. Seems only reasonable, before you start saying things that are patently untrue

)what famous fractious relationship with the wgc are you talking about? I know nothing of what you speak, and would love to know more, you apparently know a side of things to which I am not privy. Really, you gotta watch your mouth if your'e gonna repeat things other people apparently make up on the spot. I would like to know where you heard these things, because I'm bewildered by them. Finally, I did not solicit any press, I did not solicit the ex spook who wrote for the Star. I responded to journalists who call me, which by the way, is really really easy to do. Phone, dial, ask for Chris. I do not comment publicly on other Canadian shows, unless it is to help out. When I have said that we do make our fair share of crap up here, I don't cite any particular show. As far as The Border goes, I wish it well. importantly, i wish the cbc well i happen to think it is operating on less than all cylinders. I do not agree with many of your comments about various aspects of the industry, I don't agree with your comments about me just speaking out to get publicity: It says more about the lack of publicity for the show that when I do make critical comments it's interpreted that aha, I must be doing it to get publicity. I don't think setting up false competitions between producers is at all helpful to the industry. When people take shots at me or the show, I let most of them ride, it's par for the course. However, it is also part of my job, and any producer worth their salt, to defend themselves or their shows from false, invented, or misleading information which is publiclly published. There is a truth in this industry in this country, and that is, it is small, it is competitive, and full of frustrated artists who daily equivocate between speaking the truth and keepign their mouths shut so as not to offend real or imagined powerbrokers and endanger their careers. Same goes for journalists. You're right about one thing: Intelligence ain't done. and the best of luck to you dennis, i understand you are one of the writer's on The Border. I hope you have the integrity to question your sources more rigorously in the future.

Blogging is not journalism and it is first draft stuff, but in retrospect, I guess it was a little offside to publish scurrilous rumor about The Border and Haddock. There is, of course, a few thousand miles between here and the coast and a whole lot of place for rumor to get inserted in. I may not have solicited Haddock's comments, but nevertheless, there they are, unedited -- so I hope that provides the record there, answered.

Second, John Fawcett has said on many occasions very nice things about Mr. Haddock and his work. As have I. And Alan Di Fiore, his collaborator on DaVinci's inquest, has an article profile up through the Victoria Times Colonist where he praises Chris and his work. It's not actually too hard to find people that will praise Chris and his work. I praise Chris and his work, so if I didn't think before I typed, I also have real doubts that I could do a bit of damage to the guy's rep.

Of course Haddock's over a decade (if you count DaVinci and Intelligence) body of work has helped the Canadian industry and lots of craftspeople, and writers in it. His company keeps many people working in Vancouver. So I probably chose my words poorly there. I'm sorry about that.

There's a couple of other things that get tossed in there too -- from the WGC thing, which I've heard from several people and was spoken about like it was a pretty well-known thing; Chris says it's not so. He also makes reference to the article I reposted about Michael Wilson, the ex-spy who inspired Burn Notice, and the op ed he wrote for the Star praising the show. Several of my commenters suggested Haddock was behind that. I think that's bullshit, frankly, I've exchanged emails with Wilson and he's the kind of guy who says what he wants, period. But because those comments were made on this blog, even if they weren't made by me, I'm more than happy that you get to hear straight from the horse's mouth that it's bullshit.

Here's the thing about Canada: it's a pretty small place. I write what I think here, and I want people to talk about it, and I really and truly believe that stuff doesn't get talked about enough. I wrote once upon a time about Twitch City and how I didn't really like the show (upon its DVD release, tied to a review in the NYTimes; a positive review, by the way) and Don McKellar came on here to poke me a bit. Now Chris is taking his turn. I am actually delighted by this. Not because I'm some self-aggrandizing ninny, though I'm sure that can be said -- but because this kind of thing will shake loose the quiet, stale orthodoxy that underlies and holds back the industry in this country. I think I am frequently right in what I write about here, but like every other guy in the world who ever sticks their neck out, I can get it wrong. Opinion's like that -- whether you're a mid-level writer or a guy with his name above the title, and a 200 person staff. You're not gonna get it right all the time.

For where I was unfair and conjectured unwisely, I apologize to Haddock -- and you know, though I've probably just pissed off one of the bigshots in this country, a guy who does have years more experience than me and who I admire, I still don't regret it. But nor do I back away from it.

Cause agreeing with someone, even 97% of the time doesn't mean you gotta agree with them all the time. And I still don't.

But I do count myself as one of those that hopes that Jimmy Reardon gets to get his shot ass out of the doorway of the Chickadee, and that Haddock and the CBC -- however they argue, through the media or in private -- continue a creative partnership that's set a very high bar of quality and a target for everyone else to aim for.

And the rest of it? I guess I'll wear it. If you got a big mouth, you have to do that sometimes.

Hairy eyeball out.

CBC to Haddock: Mommy Has Other Kids, Too.

I'VE UPDATED my entry below about Intelligence to include a link to the Tyee's letter from Jeff Keay from CBC, talking about the show.

As I've said to several reporters who've raised the issue with us (presumably in response to Chris's attempts to negotiate through the media his relationship with the CBC:

We have not yet made a decision as to whether we'll continue with the show; when we do, Chris will be the first to know. That's precisely as it should be.

We're happy to see Chris remains a passionate supporter of his show, which we happen to think is pretty good. We're disappointed he feels he's not being adequately promoted (but at same time doubt there's a producer in the history of show business who thinks their program HAS been adequately promoted). And with all due respect to Chris, his is not the only program in our schedule that requires promotion. I can tell you that the program has received significant promotion in both its first and second seasons. It will continue to do so through its season finale;

Given that our promotional budgets (regrettably) are not infinite, we have put a plan in place that matches resources against our various programs in ways that will generate the most impact (i.e. in specific targeted markets) and that ensure that we're taking a strategically planned approach to our overall schedule. We're happy to report that it's working.

Whereever you come down on the issue, I'm with the CBC on one thing on this: this is not something that should be playing out in the media. There is precious little space available in our American dominated mediasphere for stories on Canadian shows as it is. Sucking the air away for a process story about a producer's griping is a bit unseemly.

Stories about spies praising the show, on the other hand -- that's kinda cool.

Intel from an Unusual Source

IF YOU'VE READ this blog for any length of time at all, you'll definitely get the sense that there are a couple of competing streams that our homegrown TV is up against.

The first is a lingering sense that it's not any good. Such is the domination of Canadian airwaves by U.S. product, that it's hard to find homegrown shows, and even harder to keep them in their timeslots.

Then there's the notion of promotion. There isn't any. Promotional budgets are scant. The Canadian privates rely on piggybacking on the U.S. promo, and the CBC only has enough juice to pick a few shows each quarter.

And then, there's that malingering sense of whingeing and entitlement. People who complain about their reviews. Reviews that let homegrown stuff off too early, or the corollary -- reviews that reflexively judge Canadian stuff by a harsher yardstick. The combo of the two makes for that strange feeling that anything you read is unreliable.

And then, unfortunately, there is the carping. Sometimes, people will carp about their shows being treated badly. This is en famille stuff that shouldn't be in the news -- there's little enough ink devoted to our shows in the first place. Our family squabbles shouldn't suck the air away from that.

Chris Haddock has been engaged in an increasingly bitter feud with the CBC over the treatment of his series Intelligence, this season. As the ratings have dropped, Haddock has been everywhere, accusing the CBC of dumping his show on an icefloe to die.

While I sympathize with his frustration, and even agree with some of his points, I don't think airing the laundry out has helped Intelligence, which concludes its second season with two hours tomorrow on CBC.

What I do know is this: in much the same way that critics everywhere praise The Wire, Intelligence is a show that is not done.

The Wire is changing the way that a lot of people think about HBO and Television, even if it's never had the same audience response as The Sopranos or Six Feet or even Deadwood. What it lacks in viewers it more than makes up for in sheer, plate tectonic moving virtuosity.

There is not a doubt in my mind that Intelligence is our Wire. It is a show that rewards careful viewing. It is a show that is quietly inspiring a generation of younger TV writers who want to seize the showrunner reins and do quality, nuanced work in this country -- NOT have to head to the U.S. like the generations before us. It is a prescient view of the toxic relationship between source and handler, and the need for 'humint' that, I think, will still stand years from now as an extraordinary document of this time, a brave show that cast a jaundiced eye on a very important and shady aspect of our relationship with the Americans, and our relationship with our own government.

In sophistication, in execution, and in scope, Intelligence ranks up there with British miniseries like State of Play, Prime Suspect. The show is not without its flaws, but those flaws are pale indeed when stacked against the show's importance for Canadian screenwriters and the medium of Canadian television. You want to know what the Canadian point of view is? There it is. Skeptical, unsentimental, and adult when it comes to issues that matter. That is the show's legacy.

If, as expected, the show is cancelled sometime after tomorrow, it will not be the end. The first season is finally going to come out on DVD next year. The second season will probably follow. And people will pore over those DVDs for the next several years and marvel at the Canadian show that got it so right, and wonder why we couldn't get more Canadians to watch it.

For a "professional" view on Intelligence -- here's an endorsement that should give you a jolt. Try one from an ex- U.S. spy -- the guy who was the inspiration for the show Burn Notice, Michael Wilson (NOT the former Tory Finance Minister)

Away from the technology, intelligence thrives – indeed relies – upon deception, manipulation, and betrayal. To take an example, in the U.S., we have the case of Valerie Plame, an intelligence officer working counter-proliferation: keeping hostile actors from acquiring terrifying new weapons. There is no more trying beat to walk and by all accounts, she was exemplary. Chosen because she was pretty, blonde and intelligent, Plame was trained and then slotted into a "non-official cover" role to get men to betray themselves and their interests. Consider that she was a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and you'll have an appraisal of the toxic culture that outed her.

When working covertly, the way a case officer does, you have to find a way to meet your targets and work them. Large men of military bearing need not apply. Plame was given a commercial cover that would put her into rooms of men who, frankly, wished to bed her. Not only did she get in the room, she had a way (as long as nobody ever did manage to bed her) to get men to talk to her, even compete to top each other for her attention. She worked them by making them work themselves.

The act of blowing her cover not only took Plame out of the game, but exposed the tradecraft of her cover, how she operated, what she was asking about, any of her contacts. Pulling apart the Plame story on the outside became a roadmap for "hostiles" to look for other potential officers; pulling apart the damage on the inside became a roadmap of how to prepare a new one. Meanwhile, there's a gap between now and when a similarly prepared officer might be ready to accomplish something.

Intelligence has taken you into this world – building trust with questionable people, engaging in deception and manipulation to encourage betrayal. It's tough to get someone to sell themselves out, but that's what officers do to agents (as assets are known).

Intelligence's Jimmy Reardon (Ian Tracey), the drug kingpin, can provide essential information and insight to Mary Spalding (Klea Scott), who is not just his handler but the head of the operation. Of course, Reardon is being gunned for (rival mobs, law enforcement, and this season, the CIA), just as Spalding is by co-workers like Ted Altman, her own bureaucracy (if only that glass ceiling were bullet-proof), and the CIA.

The inherent conflict between handler and asset in Season One of Intelligence was in the dynamic between Jimmy and Mary, both trying to use the other, both trying to maintain their own agenda.

You won't need a spoiler alert for this next bit about Season Two, but Mary is about to be thrust onto the horns of a moral dilemma: do your job as a handler and protector of your country, but deal with the human cost of having that upper hand.

That's a pretty heady thumbs up. Canada, you've got one chance to give those numbers a goose, Monday night on CBC. No sense lamenting it as the TV equivalent of the Avro Arrow three years from now. Intelligence needs you to vote with your remote.

EDIT: In the interests of balance, here's a response from Jeff Keay at CBC on the network's handling of Intelligence. The one point I can quibble with here is the contention that CBC continued to promote Intelligence in season 2. That certainly did not seem to be the case -- but, everything else he says really can't be countered. It simply solidifies the point I've made above -- this shouldn't be being fought about in the media.

An Interesting Turn of Events

FUNNY OLD COUNTRY. Had a bountiful and raucous night Saturday in the lounge at the Sutton Place Hotel in Vancouver. Much TV talking and special guest appearances by Writer Mafia types, East Coast and West. The new generation is coming, my droogs. We're silent like Charlie. But we're coming. Bwaa ha ha.

Meanwhile, what do you do if you've got a critically acclaimed show that's not getting the love from the Canadian audience, or the promotion from your network? Where do you turn?

Doyle has the scoop:

Intelligence (CBC, 9 p.m.) is going to be remade as a pilot for a possible series for the Fox network in the United States.

Haddock Entertainment, the production company of Chris Haddock, the show's creator, confirmed late last week that in a co-production with John Wells Productions, Intelligence is on the Fox slate of possible series for next year. John Wells is the TV and movie veteran who is executive producer of ER, was executive producer of The West Wing for several years, and was in charge of Third Watch and China Beach. He's accumulated six Emmys over the years.

According to Haddock, an agent at CAA, the powerful Hollywood agency, brought Intelligence to the attention of Wells, and he and Haddock got along famously when they met to discuss a possible U.S. network version. Haddock told me, "I'm looking forward to working with John Wells, that's for sure. I pitched it to Kevin Reilly at Fox and they came in to the deal. It will change substantially in adaptation to an American setting. There is no production order as yet. I believed that the series had great potential as an American franchise and John Wells agreed. We'll see how it goes."

Of course, speculation about a U.S. version of Intelligence is premature. It's only a pilot that's definitely being made. But ironies abound in this circumstance. Intelligence has had critical acclaim in Canada but hasn't been the huge ratings hit that CBC would like. Given the way of things in Canada, if the Fox pilot succeeds in being picked-up for a full-season production, it would probably land on CTV or Global in Canada. As the show is owned by Haddock Entertainment, CBC would not benefit in any financial way.

A lot of steps between here and there -- but what do you want to bet, too , that if by chance a U.S. version of Intelligence did make the sked, and drew real numbers, Canadians would start falling all over themselves to point out that this was the original? If you want to get ahead of that curve, check out my interview with Haddock, download the audio of the Tv, Eh? podcast, and tune in Intelligence, tonight at 9pm on CBC.

Our Readers Write: CBC's Got a New Season?

THE NATIVES are restless.

One of the perennial complaints in the industry (which Chris Haddock alluded to in our conversation) is that the promotion is abysmal. And it is. But our commenters (and a few others who emailed me and didn't want to leave a comment) seem to have a big old problem with the CBC's efforts to promote its stuff, specifically.

Chet started the ball rolling:

I probably watch more CBC than anyone who isn't on their payroll. I've seen all kinds of promos for their new season, but I've never seen "Intelligence" mentioned even once. I assumed they were holding it back until January or after the playoffs. If it wasn't for Doyle, I would never have known it was on tonight.

The CBC brass desperately wants to bury this show so they can then point at the ratings and use them as an excuse to cancel it. They're not even being subtle about it.

Scott picked up the...uh...Torch:

I don't want to kick the CBC but honestly...

I write and edit for a gay magazine in Toronto and thought I'd throw a little love their way for 'Torchwood.'

I had to talk to numerous people and jump through several hoops before I was finally passed along to the outside PR company that, quite frankly, can't care less about the show.

The show debuts Friday and I haven't seen a single ad, even though CBC was a co-producer on the thing! I shouldn't be surprised but I am.

And our good friend Dixon brought it home:

I have to side with the other 'bitchers'...if it wasn't for you or Diane, I wouldn't have known 'Intelligence' 2 begins tonight (or the Torchwood debut for that matter). But it's all the same old Canadian mumblemutter about promotion, or lack thereof. I had no idea 'Whistler' 2 aired on Saturday night either...until I flipped past it by accident. And we all saw how Global buried The Best Years in the spring/summer.

But I did have lunch with the kids at Burger King recently...and couldn't miss that 'Heroes' Season 2 was premiering 'Only on Global' as the promo was plastered on every cup and wrapper. Um...it's not 'only' on Global...it's on NBC - Global just gets to simulcast and ad substitute and 'say' it's their show...but you all already know that.

Now, separate and apart from this general problem with Canadian lack-of-promo, I think the CBC stuff is a little different, for a couple reasons.

First, you and I pay for it. In taxes. You pay for a great show like Intelligence. It's a shame that they're not very good at telling you how and when to see it.

It may be that I'm cranky right now, (Scratch that, I'm definitely cranky right now. I haven't eaten and got very little sleep last night, and sat through a meeting and six hours on set today, and now I've just spent two hours formatting and writing up a feature on Little Mosque that will run tomorrow and Wednesday) but this just seems extra wrong.

I did a podcast interview with Chris Haddock, and spent an hour transcribing it for this site. That interview was set up because a helpful P.R. person from Haddock's company made it happen. I pushed to interview the two writers from Mosque. I've heard, anecdotally many times from people like Diane that the CBC is atrocious at getting back to you with promo requests. Now it's their premiere week, and where are the ads, where is the promo?

Edit: this was posted as a comment to this message, but it deserves a bump up -- because if anything, it's worse than I thought. Over to Diane:

A year and a bit of doing the TV, Eh site and I have not once received anything from CBC. The producers of Intelligence and 22 Minutes, for example, send me information directly from their own production companies (Haddock and Halifax Film). There's other stuff to complain about with the private broadcasters, but CBC is the lone network that will not send me information.

Last year, the CBC fired its publicists and hired a company called Media Profile to outsource their P.R. and Media requests. Everyone predicted this would be a disaster. It has been. Everybody knows it.

I said as much on the TV panel I was on in Banff last June. Afterwards, the head of CBC English Media Relations, Jeff Keay, came up to me and gave me his card and said if I ever had problems getting info from anybody at CBC, give him a call.

I haven't. I try to do my little part here. But if you're frustrated at not being able to find out anything about CBC programs, maybe it's time to email Jeff Keay, and tell him that Media Profile doesn't work, and that CBC needs to do a better job of promoting its shows. Hiring a publicity staff and spending some money on ads might be a start.

One More on Intelligence...

BY THE BYE, Haddock's people were also kind enough to send me the screeners of the first two episodes of Season Two. If you lost track of the show last year because it moved too slowly for you -- these two definitively stay with the pace established by the final two episodes of the first season. It's taut, hot, exciting drama -- and one of the most involving crime dramas I've seen, Canadian OR American. If you're a fan of quality TV, Intelligence really is for you. It's got the pulse, and the brain to go with it.

John Doyle, this morning, calls it "a wild ride." Pretty apt description.

Intelligence: Sex, Drugs, Espionage, and Chris Haddock

MORE SEX, DRUGS, AND ESPIONAGE. Sounds like a good hook for a show, huh? You'd think so. But CBC's Intelligence struggled last year to find an audience. It's frustrating, if you're a fan of quality tv. Intelligence is very much a show of the moment -- about how crime and government and policing all intersect. As the U.S. government pushes for more and more executive power, including the power to spy without any accountability, this is a show about where that lack of accountability leads -- and how personal agendas affect the pursuit of information on both sides of the border, and both sides of the law.

Season Two of Intelligence premieres in Canada Monday night, October 1st, at 9:00 p.m, on CBC.

Last week, I managed to catch creator and showrunner Chris Haddock, stealing him away from set for twenty minutes to talk season 2 and some of the challenges he faces making the show. You can hear the audio part of the interview on the latest Tv Eh? Canadian TV podcast. An edited, partial transcript of the interview is below.

DEAD THINGS ON STICKS: In a first season of a show you spend so much time setting the table, coming up with the characters and establishing the situations. Season 2 you’ve got more room to explore, so what kind of place you want to go with the second season where maybe you weren’t able to get to with the first?


CHRIS HADDOCK: On the Mary Spaulding side, she gets to really start building her intelligence network, and on the Jimmy Reardon side, he starts to really question the wisdom of staying in the trade – so he’s trying to accelerate his exit from the street level dope trade that he’s in, and they manage to come together to help each other further, as he gets much more into money laundering and tries to step back from his real… what got him the money in the first place…He’s trying to play a bigger game, and she encourages him in that direction to try and gain new information about that world. And we get to spend a little more time with his family troubles, his moral conflicts as he tries to get away from an increasingly violent trade. And she’s trying to keep him inside, so she can use him as an intelligence source. So it really is a continuation in the arcs of their ambitions, but we do see a little bit more of their internal struggles with what they’re doing.

DTOS: Talking about those arcs, this whole idea of accessibility, bringing in new viewers – and I know you’ve spoken a little on that point. But is there anything concrete you’re trying to do with the show to …

CH: …Address some of that?

DTOS: Yeah. How do you do that with a show that sort of demands to be serialized?


CH: It’s the constant refrain that show creators and broadcasters deal with which is the desire to appeal to casual or intermittent viewer that isn’t a regular viewer but likes the show and wants to be able to drop in and those of the constant viewers who like the serial aspect, and then there’s the syndicators who say we just want to be able to play the show anywhere in any order. Those demands are constantly there, and 24 you’ll hear they have huge followers but in syndication it tanks because viewers can’t invest in that. But you know many of these companies also own the DVD divisions, so what they’re losing in the casual viewers they’re making up by people buying the DVD’s. So it’s a really shifting landscape...script by script it’s a negotiation on the authors part, saying “how can I give the audience, the casual viewer a full satisfying experience, ah without them having to know all the backstory?” And you tackle that practically by saying, “okay, I will give those viewers a story that concludes, that begins and concludes and you don’t need to know all of the nuance, and then you’ll continue with another storyline, more of a serialized one.” It’s always going to be there. The only shows that have completely addressed that is something like the Law&Order franchise, or the CSI franchise, where you really don’t need to know anything before you get there. And that satisfies a great portion of the audience, and yet there’s a huge audience out there that, some of the biggest hits, are the ones that are extremely serialized. So if you’re a show like mine, you address the casual viewer, but some of the things the broadcaster can do is promote the show, and keep up the promotion, and that’s their task. My task is to try to satisfy both ends of that audience without alienating either. And no bones about it, it’s not always an easy thing to do.


DTOS: Are there any plans for an Intelligence Season 1 DVD release?

CH: Yeah, there have been. We’ve been trying to get the American distributor – we ‘ve got an American company that’s been putting the DaVinci show out on DVD and they look at Canada as a small market but we’ve been trying and just pushing, pushing to try and get them to make the investment in the first season. We won’t have it out when we hoped we’d have it out – this summer, because in their mind Canada’s just too small a market to put a rush on it. It’s a struggle. If we had the ability as CTV did to put a lot of coin behind it like Corner Gas, boom there they were with the set…it really does help. It’s a good support system. Unfortunately we don’t have the resources at the CBC to do that.

DTOS: You know, it’s funny with the current American government there’s this impulse to paint things in black and white, and in this show you burrow further and further into the ambiguity of it all. So why fight the tide?

CH: It’s partly because… really ambiguity allows everyone to participate in it and put a read on it. Whereas black and white, by necessity you’re missing all those people in the middle, really, all the people who are of an undecided nature. Who want to see the thing and decide for themselves. And to me it’s always been, as a viewer, the most satisfying material is something that engages you and invites you to participate, to make part of the decisions as to what’s going on, what’s really going on. So I guess I find that things of an ambiguous nature are more inclusive of an audience, and encouraging them to engage in it and some of the black and white stuff just addresses what might be the more passive viewer who turns on the TV at 7 and turns it off at 12, you know? The first year of DaVinci I faced the same thing, where people said, “man you really don’t resolve anything, it’s really ambiguous at the end and I’m not used to that.” And the second season people were more, “that’s really quite intriguing how you don’t sort things out.” And the third season was, “Man, I love how you never wrap things up.” So part of it is bringing an audience that is entirely used to that more simplistic black & white approach – and edging them over to a different kind of approach. By necessity it takes a while, but once people get on board with that, they find it extremely satisfying.

DTOS: You did a series for CBS a couple of years ago [the short-lived The Handler with Joe Pantoliano] Besides the obvious – budget -- What’s the difference for you between working in Vancouver and working in Los Angeles?

CH: Well working in Vancouver, they gave me the creative latitude that in the U.S. you don’t get as a newcomer – they give creative latitude to people who’ve delivered massive hits for them. You have to earn your creative freedom, really. I’ve been really fortunate to have that creative freedom, but that’s the deal with the devil I’ve made – I have creative freedom, but very little promotion and back end financial participation. In Los Angeles you give up creative freedom for bigger audiences and back end financial participation. I’ve been places where many people have said to me, “you’ve got what everybody in L.A. wants – you’ve got creative freedom and you’re not in L.A.”