The other thing that happened in Toronto this weekend, of course, was the opening of the musical stage version of Lord of the Rings.
Most of the critics weren't too kind.
To most arts-people in Toronto, this wasn't really a surprise. After nearly two months of previews, the buzz had been pretty negative.
What gets me, reading between the lines of the various reviews, is how the show failed.
It seems like just about everyone praises the stagecraft. There are rotating stage pieces, big sets, rising and falling platforms -- all manner of excellent hoo-hah and spectacle.
It's just that the songs, and the story weren't very good. A pretty key omission.
Amidst all the outscaled elements, somehow they lost the human (hobbit?) story of Sam and Frodo, and the fellowship, and the quest. The book lurches from place to place without cohesion -- all sturm and drang, no heart.
One of the reviews, and I forget which one described the musical score thusly -- and I'm paraphrasing here: they said it was like someone went into the world music section of a record store and scooped up a bunch of CD's at random.
I was a little worried about exactly that when I heard the four or five names of people who were working on the music. There didn't seem to be any connection or cohesive vision to it. Many of the reviews called out this one, incongruous Celine Dion-like belter, an 11'o'clock number that you know's supposed to be the breakout hit, but which, like most of the show, simply doesn't fit.
What struck me about Lord of the Rings and the reaction to it was that all of this seemed very, very familiar. In the Canadian film and tv industry, we have crews now who've been trained by the golden years of American service productions to be very, very good. The cliche used to be that Canadian shows had a "look" to them, which meant that they looked cheap. But now, if it looks cheap, it's cause not enough money was spent.
If they have the money to spend, Canadian stuff can look beautiful.
But we still have not licked the problem of story. (I know that LOTR is a big UK co-pro, so it's not entirely Canadian, but still, it was birthed here.)
Vision is something that gets talked a lot about here. Telefilm talks about it, CBC Presidents and VPs talk about it. Filmmakers talk about it all the time.
But in another, more real way, vision and story is just the little cat-toy that the fourteen people around the table in the big meeting toss around. People that have vision don't get to see it get to screen supported -- they see it committeed out of them...and people who can talk to Telefilm or please the mandarins get to scoop up money and accolades, even though they miss the point that the real story is about two innocent travellers, and their quest to do the right thing and stay true to themselves and their friendship.
Reading the bad reviews for Lord of the Rings gave me the opposite feeling from schadenfreude. (Is there a word for that? Sympathetic Pain, perhaps? Toxic Empathy?) Toronto desperately needs the tourism injection a long-running show like this would provide. The producers of the show are already saying that the reviews don't matter. I gather Les Miz and many other hit musicals had anemic reviews at first (though they didn't come of age in the blog and net age, when that bad mojo is always just a couple of keystrokes away.)
But the reaction of the producers, and the subtle shift to how they're trying to critic-proof the show now, smacks of something I remember from my theater history.
The shift now is toward describing the show as "a spectacle." It's not a play, it's not a musical...it's a spectacle.
Well. After Shakespeare died, the theater in England generally went out of fashion for awhile. Instead, the courtiers and the wealthy turned back to giant, opulent masques. People would dress up, and recreate a static scene, down to minute detail. And people would ooh and ah and clap. No story. No challenge. No vision. Just...pretty.
Sounds pretty horrible to me.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Weekend Reading
As I said last week, I took a few days away from the blog because I had nothing to say and I felt I needed a little break. Truth be told, I've been working flat-out for a while now and I probably need more than a blog-break -- but schedule and finances and other committments just made it unworkable.
I have high hopes for the end of April.
After a great spate of work last week, I also needed some creative recharging. So that's what I spent the weekend doing, more or less.
Norah Vincent's Self Made Man was one of the things I turned to. I wrote a bit about Vincent's book before. But that was based on the one chapter I'd read, a newspaper excerpt of an account of her months bowling in an all-male league. Now I've dipped farther into the book, and I can tell you that the insights keep coming. They're fresh and ever-surprising.
As a longtime lover (and dater) of women, I found the chapter on Dating to be fairly revelatory. She says something along the lines of, "women who date only men tend to put a lot of the bad things done to them down to men," then suggests that as a lesbian, once you date a few women, you come to have a different view. What's amazing about this chapter is how her POV keeps switching from female to male -- and how her sympathies shift too. She knows that there's something fundamentally deceiving in what she's doing, which is why if the dates go more than a couple of times, there's a confession. This is a longtime trope in the book -- it's very effective, because the post-confession conversations are invariably more interesting and even surprising.
Vincent is a sensitive, very expressive writer. And her fearless reportage of what she finds makes this a page turner. Another standout chapter is when she goes to a Catholic monastery, and experiences firsthand a lot of the male socialization rituals she finds most puzzling.
This seems like a weird book to read for fun, but it really isn't. A couple of my key projects right now involve male-female relationships: father-daughter, mother-son, two women in the workplace. As a never-married male, I've got a limited insight pool to bring to bear on some of these situations, and a burning desire to dramatize them correctly. I have my friends, and a few relatives -- though most of them are too far away to prove too useful. What gets me about Self Made Man, and the reason why I think it's ultimately a very useful book for all writers -- is that it plumbs the world underneath. It's about conflicts under the surface that no one talks about, contradictions in self and in identity that make otherwise inexplicable actions seem logical, nuanced, and natural.
People often say, when they read this script or that, that they were disappointed because nothing the character did surprised them. I'm starting to think that surprise is the wrong word. True surprise usually comes from an external source. What I think people are really missing is revelation. They miss actions taken by a main character that may seem surprising at the time, but that in context, when one considers this evidence or that, or when one gains this piece of the puzzle or that one -- actually seem like a natural, and eminently explicable reaction.
Ultimately, the reason why I'm enjoying Self Made Man so much is because there's revelation at every turn. It's one long-character reveal. Not only does the reader gain insight into Ned (Norah Vincent's "male" incarnation,) but Norah herself, and the many people she meets, and women and men generally.
It's a great book.
I have high hopes for the end of April.
After a great spate of work last week, I also needed some creative recharging. So that's what I spent the weekend doing, more or less.
Norah Vincent's Self Made Man was one of the things I turned to. I wrote a bit about Vincent's book before. But that was based on the one chapter I'd read, a newspaper excerpt of an account of her months bowling in an all-male league. Now I've dipped farther into the book, and I can tell you that the insights keep coming. They're fresh and ever-surprising.
As a longtime lover (and dater) of women, I found the chapter on Dating to be fairly revelatory. She says something along the lines of, "women who date only men tend to put a lot of the bad things done to them down to men," then suggests that as a lesbian, once you date a few women, you come to have a different view. What's amazing about this chapter is how her POV keeps switching from female to male -- and how her sympathies shift too. She knows that there's something fundamentally deceiving in what she's doing, which is why if the dates go more than a couple of times, there's a confession. This is a longtime trope in the book -- it's very effective, because the post-confession conversations are invariably more interesting and even surprising.
Vincent is a sensitive, very expressive writer. And her fearless reportage of what she finds makes this a page turner. Another standout chapter is when she goes to a Catholic monastery, and experiences firsthand a lot of the male socialization rituals she finds most puzzling.
This seems like a weird book to read for fun, but it really isn't. A couple of my key projects right now involve male-female relationships: father-daughter, mother-son, two women in the workplace. As a never-married male, I've got a limited insight pool to bring to bear on some of these situations, and a burning desire to dramatize them correctly. I have my friends, and a few relatives -- though most of them are too far away to prove too useful. What gets me about Self Made Man, and the reason why I think it's ultimately a very useful book for all writers -- is that it plumbs the world underneath. It's about conflicts under the surface that no one talks about, contradictions in self and in identity that make otherwise inexplicable actions seem logical, nuanced, and natural.
People often say, when they read this script or that, that they were disappointed because nothing the character did surprised them. I'm starting to think that surprise is the wrong word. True surprise usually comes from an external source. What I think people are really missing is revelation. They miss actions taken by a main character that may seem surprising at the time, but that in context, when one considers this evidence or that, or when one gains this piece of the puzzle or that one -- actually seem like a natural, and eminently explicable reaction.
Ultimately, the reason why I'm enjoying Self Made Man so much is because there's revelation at every turn. It's one long-character reveal. Not only does the reader gain insight into Ned (Norah Vincent's "male" incarnation,) but Norah herself, and the many people she meets, and women and men generally.
It's a great book.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Dead Things Stick-Fu
It's my fervent hope that I'm going to take a break for a few days. And when I say, "break," I mean "Blog break." Plenty of work still to do here in the shire.
I would like to thank the management of my condo building, who've been testing the fire alarm for the last two days, just as I had to burn ass churning out a script.
I would even more like to thank the dude who, when kibitzing on the emergency mic in the building during the alarm today, let slip just off mic, "No Luke, I am your father." Seriously dude. I plotzed.
The following is a list of some of my favorite blog topics on and about the whole thing when it comes to writing and the hey hey and the stuff like that. M'Kay?
Don't forget to tip your waitresses.
Seriously, buy me an Itunes certificate or something. Why should nubile hot co-eds get all the wishlists? I'm not Alex. I can't just tell you to buy my $#@!$ing book.
Writing Nitty & Gritty:
Preparing to write a spec script. Part One. Two. & Three.
And don't go crazy with the continuity.
How 24 Changed Everything
Protagonist or Hero?
What happens when you go up against bitter, bitter LOST fanboys? Well, it looks a lot like this or this.
What the hell's wrong with Canadian Television?
Or the CBC, for that matter?
Or Cancon?
Bottle shows and why you should love them.
US vs. Canadian vs. British TV
What the @%#$% is the Objective Correlative?
How men watch TV.
Those wacky sci-fi fans.
Should I include music cues in my script?
So why do I need a story room, anyway?
What if they won't pay me to write TV?
What does it take to be a Writer? HINT: It's kind of a lot like coming out.
Recently I've been working on a few new pilots. Which brings on the occasional bouts of sturm and drang.
On Comedy:
One
Two
Three
Conversations with Family
Logrolling and Admiration:
Sons & Daughters
The Unit
Checkin out Robert Towne.
A Charlie Brown Christmas
Charlie Jade
Profit
Commander in Chief
What I dug in 2005.
The E-book Valuable Lessons.
What's the future of TV? Beats me.
Important things I've learned from Drunks:
Really.
I would like to thank the management of my condo building, who've been testing the fire alarm for the last two days, just as I had to burn ass churning out a script.
I would even more like to thank the dude who, when kibitzing on the emergency mic in the building during the alarm today, let slip just off mic, "No Luke, I am your father." Seriously dude. I plotzed.
The following is a list of some of my favorite blog topics on and about the whole thing when it comes to writing and the hey hey and the stuff like that. M'Kay?
Don't forget to tip your waitresses.
Seriously, buy me an Itunes certificate or something. Why should nubile hot co-eds get all the wishlists? I'm not Alex. I can't just tell you to buy my $#@!$ing book.
Writing Nitty & Gritty:
Preparing to write a spec script. Part One. Two. & Three.
And don't go crazy with the continuity.
How 24 Changed Everything
Protagonist or Hero?
What happens when you go up against bitter, bitter LOST fanboys? Well, it looks a lot like this or this.
What the hell's wrong with Canadian Television?
Or the CBC, for that matter?
Or Cancon?
Bottle shows and why you should love them.
US vs. Canadian vs. British TV
What the @%#$% is the Objective Correlative?
How men watch TV.
Those wacky sci-fi fans.
Should I include music cues in my script?
So why do I need a story room, anyway?
What if they won't pay me to write TV?
What does it take to be a Writer? HINT: It's kind of a lot like coming out.
Recently I've been working on a few new pilots. Which brings on the occasional bouts of sturm and drang.
On Comedy:
One
Two
Three
Conversations with Family
Logrolling and Admiration:
Sons & Daughters
The Unit
Checkin out Robert Towne.
A Charlie Brown Christmas
Charlie Jade
Profit
Commander in Chief
What I dug in 2005.
The E-book Valuable Lessons.
What's the future of TV? Beats me.
Important things I've learned from Drunks:
Really.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Fact vs. Fiction on "Arrested"
The Hollywood Reporter has a great dash of cold water/warm water on the "Showtime picks up Arrested Development" rumors.
Bottom line makes it sound like it's up to creator Mitch Hurwitz. And the deadline is June. I'm not entirely sure about either of those things, either. But that's the way the Reporter makes it sound.
Bottom line makes it sound like it's up to creator Mitch Hurwitz. And the deadline is June. I'm not entirely sure about either of those things, either. But that's the way the Reporter makes it sound.
I Want My MTV?
The moon man lands today at 6pm ET.
MTV is finally launching in Canada, after a short, half-hearted and aborted attempt a couple of years ago on a couple of digi-channels, Canadian network Behemoth CTV is going to bring the venerable brand north.
Americans and people in other countries may be surprised to know that MTV isn't in Canada yet, mostly since it certainly seems to be everywhere else.
The MTV incursion was headed off for years by the fact that we in Canada had our own Music Video channel, Muchmusic. Though Muchmusic started three years after MTV, it came out of a tradition of music programming that had started on sister channels like Citytv -- whose New Music was one of, if not the first, program to bring journalist chops to music reportage. If you were a teen in Canada in the late 70's or early 1980's, you probably heard about Talking Heads, The Police, Elvis Costello, and any number of other bands from The New Music, and later, Much.
(Full disclosure here: for years I worked for CHUM, the parent company of Muchmusic, though except for a couple of small projects here and there, I never worked for Much directly.)
In its time, Muchmusic was pretty innovative. From the beginning, and especially after their 1986 move to their current digs on Queen Street West, Much was about interacting with the street. MTV VJ's did their links in a canned, empty studio. Much cameras would wander outside the building and up the block, and there was always something going on in the "environment."
Much presented Concerts in their environment, and people and fans piled in and asked questions. Much presented election coverage aimed at youth -- and believe me, there was no more arresting image than seeing a VJ like Master T bull his way into a scrum with the then-current Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, and ask, "Yo Brian, what's up?"
In short, while MTV was exporting its brand around the world, scrappy Muchmusic was bending the rules as best it could, on a dollar-and-a-half budget and with a lot of heart.
Inevitably, things change. MTV started with the Real World, and slowly discovered its niche was lifestyle, not videos. Much was a little slower off that mark. Then again, MTV also looked north to its cousin and saw some things it liked, too. Total Request Live is, and was, an MTV response to the vibrancy and audience interaction Muchmusic brought to the airwaves every day.
What changed so much wasn't MTV, or Much, but the idea of who you were supposed to cater to, and how you were going to get them.
When MTV and Much first came on the scene, they were different because youth viewers weren't in the bullseye. I remember that time very well -- it wasn't too long ago when it was only the baby boomers who were in the demographic bullseye. Everything catered to the boomers. If you were young and you wanted to see yourself, or people like you, Much or MTV was the only place to do it.
Once the culture shifted, and everyone started chasing the youth brand, two things happened: the loyalty that initial generation had to Much and MTV was replaced by fickleness: when you have a host of choices, you don't feel the passionate connection to a channel as the only place to see your culture...and the channels themselves needed to change.
We know what happened to MTV...they deemphasized the M and got heavy into reality. Some shows changed the landscape, some dumb-downed the culture, and others just became crummy, comfort food fun.
Much tried to get bigger and slicker. There's nothing weirder now than tuning in and seeing the current "Much On Demand" show that airs daily -- mainly because it's a weird photocopy of Total Request Live. So, yeah -- Much is now doing a photocopy of the MTV photocopy of the format they invented.
Shows like the Muchmusic Video Awards tried to get bigger and better. The concerts aren't in the environment anymore, they're in the parking lot and they're huge. Oh, and they don't call it the environment, either.
The goofiness of years gone by is gone. No more do they pull stunts like the annual Christmas Tree Toss, where they set the Christmas tree on fire and chuck it off the roof into a dumpster, all to fake sports commentary ... nope, now Much is very much the slick, forced hip reflection of youth culture that you see everywhere else.
The problem with this is that Much never really could compete on that level. It doesn't really have the money. Not when stacked against CTV and MTV. CTV's launch plans for MTV include a programming block on the main network, an on-demand channel, and what sounds like a fairly major, major online venture where you can basically create your own MTV, MTV Overdrive. Eep. That's a lot of money right there.
Interestingly enough, in the battle for eyeballs and cultural touchstones that's about to take place, belatedly, in Canada, I find myself thinking of a little channel I saw in South Africa.
It's called GO. And it's a youth-branded station on the satellite there. They air MTV shows, but also youth targeted dramas like The O.C. (I still have one of their cheeky promo postcards: how's this for a tagline: what do these kids do for fun after school? Each other. Now that's funny.)
GO goes into malls, and runs testimonials from kids from all over South Africa. The ad campaigns they run are colorful and wacky, and very cheeky. The graphics, the approach, the schedule choice: everything about it says, "this is YOUR channel."
I found it recognisable. Familiar and comforting. Because that's what I remember youth TV being - a refuge from the larger culture where nobody cared about you. And I guess to an extent, the culture is still a little like that in South Africa.
Now that MTV and Much are going to battle it out on Canadian turf, head to head, I'm hoping the competition will be good for both. It's a chance for Much to step up and innovate again. MTV the channel here is saddled with a regulatory Talk-TV format which hopefully means it won't be able to horn in too much on Much's musical bonafides. In a culture where you're the only youth alternative, I'm not sure there's room for both, because one has to be the destination.
But now there is no one destination. There's VOD and Cell Phones and XBox and Broadband and as long as you're all chasing the same demographic, then I guess there's plenty of room in the tent.
I just can't help but feel that today's young people are missing something. If you're constantly being catered to, how do you ever discover anything outside your comfort zone?
Maybe you don't.
That's sad.
JAM article about the changeover is available here.
MTV is finally launching in Canada, after a short, half-hearted and aborted attempt a couple of years ago on a couple of digi-channels, Canadian network Behemoth CTV is going to bring the venerable brand north.
Americans and people in other countries may be surprised to know that MTV isn't in Canada yet, mostly since it certainly seems to be everywhere else.
The MTV incursion was headed off for years by the fact that we in Canada had our own Music Video channel, Muchmusic. Though Muchmusic started three years after MTV, it came out of a tradition of music programming that had started on sister channels like Citytv -- whose New Music was one of, if not the first, program to bring journalist chops to music reportage. If you were a teen in Canada in the late 70's or early 1980's, you probably heard about Talking Heads, The Police, Elvis Costello, and any number of other bands from The New Music, and later, Much.
(Full disclosure here: for years I worked for CHUM, the parent company of Muchmusic, though except for a couple of small projects here and there, I never worked for Much directly.)
In its time, Muchmusic was pretty innovative. From the beginning, and especially after their 1986 move to their current digs on Queen Street West, Much was about interacting with the street. MTV VJ's did their links in a canned, empty studio. Much cameras would wander outside the building and up the block, and there was always something going on in the "environment."
Much presented Concerts in their environment, and people and fans piled in and asked questions. Much presented election coverage aimed at youth -- and believe me, there was no more arresting image than seeing a VJ like Master T bull his way into a scrum with the then-current Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, and ask, "Yo Brian, what's up?"
In short, while MTV was exporting its brand around the world, scrappy Muchmusic was bending the rules as best it could, on a dollar-and-a-half budget and with a lot of heart.
Inevitably, things change. MTV started with the Real World, and slowly discovered its niche was lifestyle, not videos. Much was a little slower off that mark. Then again, MTV also looked north to its cousin and saw some things it liked, too. Total Request Live is, and was, an MTV response to the vibrancy and audience interaction Muchmusic brought to the airwaves every day.
What changed so much wasn't MTV, or Much, but the idea of who you were supposed to cater to, and how you were going to get them.
When MTV and Much first came on the scene, they were different because youth viewers weren't in the bullseye. I remember that time very well -- it wasn't too long ago when it was only the baby boomers who were in the demographic bullseye. Everything catered to the boomers. If you were young and you wanted to see yourself, or people like you, Much or MTV was the only place to do it.
Once the culture shifted, and everyone started chasing the youth brand, two things happened: the loyalty that initial generation had to Much and MTV was replaced by fickleness: when you have a host of choices, you don't feel the passionate connection to a channel as the only place to see your culture...and the channels themselves needed to change.
We know what happened to MTV...they deemphasized the M and got heavy into reality. Some shows changed the landscape, some dumb-downed the culture, and others just became crummy, comfort food fun.
Much tried to get bigger and slicker. There's nothing weirder now than tuning in and seeing the current "Much On Demand" show that airs daily -- mainly because it's a weird photocopy of Total Request Live. So, yeah -- Much is now doing a photocopy of the MTV photocopy of the format they invented.
Shows like the Muchmusic Video Awards tried to get bigger and better. The concerts aren't in the environment anymore, they're in the parking lot and they're huge. Oh, and they don't call it the environment, either.
The goofiness of years gone by is gone. No more do they pull stunts like the annual Christmas Tree Toss, where they set the Christmas tree on fire and chuck it off the roof into a dumpster, all to fake sports commentary ... nope, now Much is very much the slick, forced hip reflection of youth culture that you see everywhere else.
The problem with this is that Much never really could compete on that level. It doesn't really have the money. Not when stacked against CTV and MTV. CTV's launch plans for MTV include a programming block on the main network, an on-demand channel, and what sounds like a fairly major, major online venture where you can basically create your own MTV, MTV Overdrive. Eep. That's a lot of money right there.
Interestingly enough, in the battle for eyeballs and cultural touchstones that's about to take place, belatedly, in Canada, I find myself thinking of a little channel I saw in South Africa.
It's called GO. And it's a youth-branded station on the satellite there. They air MTV shows, but also youth targeted dramas like The O.C. (I still have one of their cheeky promo postcards: how's this for a tagline: what do these kids do for fun after school? Each other. Now that's funny.)
GO goes into malls, and runs testimonials from kids from all over South Africa. The ad campaigns they run are colorful and wacky, and very cheeky. The graphics, the approach, the schedule choice: everything about it says, "this is YOUR channel."
I found it recognisable. Familiar and comforting. Because that's what I remember youth TV being - a refuge from the larger culture where nobody cared about you. And I guess to an extent, the culture is still a little like that in South Africa.
Now that MTV and Much are going to battle it out on Canadian turf, head to head, I'm hoping the competition will be good for both. It's a chance for Much to step up and innovate again. MTV the channel here is saddled with a regulatory Talk-TV format which hopefully means it won't be able to horn in too much on Much's musical bonafides. In a culture where you're the only youth alternative, I'm not sure there's room for both, because one has to be the destination.
But now there is no one destination. There's VOD and Cell Phones and XBox and Broadband and as long as you're all chasing the same demographic, then I guess there's plenty of room in the tent.
I just can't help but feel that today's young people are missing something. If you're constantly being catered to, how do you ever discover anything outside your comfort zone?
Maybe you don't.
That's sad.
JAM article about the changeover is available here.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Grey's Anatomy is Starting to Bug Me a Little.
Seriously. What's that about?
Nice character reveal on the Chief there. And Sandra Oh really does have the role of a career there. But...
...it's starting to feel a little paint-by-the-numbers, isn't it? Or is that just me.
Though Shonda Rhimes really does sound like the kind of lovable lunatic I love to work for.
No. I'm not kidding.
Lovable lunatics rule.
Nice character reveal on the Chief there. And Sandra Oh really does have the role of a career there. But...
...it's starting to feel a little paint-by-the-numbers, isn't it? Or is that just me.
Though Shonda Rhimes really does sound like the kind of lovable lunatic I love to work for.
No. I'm not kidding.
Lovable lunatics rule.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Sons & Daughters & Blogs
Sons & Daughters Executive Producer, Co-Creator and Star Fred Goss is blogging about the experience of his show over at the ABC site.
There's a lot of great stuff in there -- entries on what it's like going to the upfronts, meeting with Lorne Michaels and what have you. There's also a bit more info on just what's improvised on the show.
After seeing four eps of Sons & Daughters, I'm a little depressed. I'm depressed because the format does seem to work pretty well. So long as you cast right and work out the story clearly, the improvised dialogue does keep everything very fresh.
I'm depressed because, as you can see in the blog, the self-righteous "Everything has to be suitable for fucking children" brigade are all over Goss. Five years, guys. Five years more of this and you Yankees won't be able to put anything on the air that isn't suitable viewing for a nine year old. And none of you seem to care too much about that. So, from where I sit, you sort of deserve what's coming.
I'm depressed because he already seems to be giving into defeatist thinking. You can read it in his entries. He's trying to be positive, but I think he thinks the die is already cast. And I do too.
There are probably dumber things done in the name of network TV than scheduling Scrubs and Sons & Daughters, two of the only intelligent comedies on TV, opposite each other. I just can't think of it right now.
Anyway, go read Fred Goss's blog. It's great and heartfelt and it makes me a wee bit sad.
And tell someone to watch Sons & Daughters, wouldja?
There's a lot of great stuff in there -- entries on what it's like going to the upfronts, meeting with Lorne Michaels and what have you. There's also a bit more info on just what's improvised on the show.
After seeing four eps of Sons & Daughters, I'm a little depressed. I'm depressed because the format does seem to work pretty well. So long as you cast right and work out the story clearly, the improvised dialogue does keep everything very fresh.
I'm depressed because, as you can see in the blog, the self-righteous "Everything has to be suitable for fucking children" brigade are all over Goss. Five years, guys. Five years more of this and you Yankees won't be able to put anything on the air that isn't suitable viewing for a nine year old. And none of you seem to care too much about that. So, from where I sit, you sort of deserve what's coming.I'm depressed because he already seems to be giving into defeatist thinking. You can read it in his entries. He's trying to be positive, but I think he thinks the die is already cast. And I do too.
The numbers were OK but not great. Now we're looking at two weeks opposite American Idol. Sweet. My feeling is that no matter what the promos or the good reviews...it just doesn't matter at this point. Unless the 8.5 million viewers who caught the first two episodes go out and tell two friends, and they tell two friends and so on...we're not going to get a bigger audience unless the audience itself decides it's going to get bigger. I think there are about 300 million people in the U.S. We need about 10 or 12 million of those people to feel the same way about the show as we do. I love everyone who sent his or her best wishes and praise for the show to this site. I can't say that I love the people who responded negatively, but I defend your right to dislike the show, probably more than you defend my right to make a show that you feel is too offensive to be on Network TV.
There are probably dumber things done in the name of network TV than scheduling Scrubs and Sons & Daughters, two of the only intelligent comedies on TV, opposite each other. I just can't think of it right now.
Anyway, go read Fred Goss's blog. It's great and heartfelt and it makes me a wee bit sad.
And tell someone to watch Sons & Daughters, wouldja?
Friday, March 17, 2006
Help You to Help Me.
Well, today is about writing up the outline to Episode 3 of the first season of Across The River To Motor City.
It's a crucial script (I know, I know, they all are) because this marks the halfway point in our mystery story. Months ago, we broke a period story that was kind of interesting, a good little investigation for our main character to go through in 1964 Detroit and Windsor.
But in development, as sometimes happens, other elements in the contemporary narrative start to change. So when it came time to weave together the contemporary and period story, the beats of the former didn't really fit the latter. So, to the well of despair with me.
No. I'm on track now, thankfully. But it's a slow slog. And the script deadline approaches next week.
In fact, this weekend, partly due to this script, and partly due to family obligations, I will be missing out on a fabulous cottage weekend with my Agent and his posse of boy-writers. No cards for me. No steaks. No drinks. Just....typing. Sad.
Anyway...
A while back I printed some links to some unusual words from other languages. Everybody knows schaedenfreude, of course. But there were some other juicy ones.
This is not that.
This morning, I got up and turned on the XM and I was a little weighted down by everything I had to do today, and I was feeling a little harried and maybe a trifle put upon, and then a song came on. (It was actually Sting's Brand New Day...ugh. I know.) And the song was treacly and full of bullshit greeting card bromides and empty feel good promises that should not pierce the cynical sheen of my dark and steely heart, but damnit if by the end of the song didn't I feel better anyway. Shamelessly manipulated, and a little sickly about it, but nevertheless, artificially shluffed into a better headspace.
Someone needs to come up for a word for this feeling. It doesn't need to be German.
For further study and reflection: this word could also be used to describe the feeling one gets as an adult, walking around Walt Disney World's Magic Kingdom.
Go to it in the comments below. You're doing the Prophet's work.
It's a crucial script (I know, I know, they all are) because this marks the halfway point in our mystery story. Months ago, we broke a period story that was kind of interesting, a good little investigation for our main character to go through in 1964 Detroit and Windsor.
But in development, as sometimes happens, other elements in the contemporary narrative start to change. So when it came time to weave together the contemporary and period story, the beats of the former didn't really fit the latter. So, to the well of despair with me.
No. I'm on track now, thankfully. But it's a slow slog. And the script deadline approaches next week.
In fact, this weekend, partly due to this script, and partly due to family obligations, I will be missing out on a fabulous cottage weekend with my Agent and his posse of boy-writers. No cards for me. No steaks. No drinks. Just....typing. Sad.
Anyway...
A while back I printed some links to some unusual words from other languages. Everybody knows schaedenfreude, of course. But there were some other juicy ones.
This is not that.
This morning, I got up and turned on the XM and I was a little weighted down by everything I had to do today, and I was feeling a little harried and maybe a trifle put upon, and then a song came on. (It was actually Sting's Brand New Day...ugh. I know.) And the song was treacly and full of bullshit greeting card bromides and empty feel good promises that should not pierce the cynical sheen of my dark and steely heart, but damnit if by the end of the song didn't I feel better anyway. Shamelessly manipulated, and a little sickly about it, but nevertheless, artificially shluffed into a better headspace.
Someone needs to come up for a word for this feeling. It doesn't need to be German.
For further study and reflection: this word could also be used to describe the feeling one gets as an adult, walking around Walt Disney World's Magic Kingdom.
Go to it in the comments below. You're doing the Prophet's work.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
I heart Kirstine Layfield?
Just to prove -- to prove -- that I'm not anti-CBC (and lordyloo I'm not, despite what that dick at the bar I ran into last night says) Here's some quotes from an article on new CBC programming head Kirstine Layfield, from Playback.
She's new in the job. She comes from a successful tenure somewhere else (unlike VP Richard Stursberg, for instance...) and she's saying the right things. I have fingers crossed. She really does have the power to make a difference. And she sounds like she knows exactly what the task is.
Let's see.
She says the oft-sluggish CBC executives will be expected to greenlight projects faster and will be more direct and open when communicating what they want from producers - reversing the previous party line that Canadians would know CBC shows when they see them.
"We have to work with the production community - tell them we have the knowledge of how to get to the viewers, and it's their business to create the programming to reach the viewers," she says....
Layfield plans to hit the ground running, possibly by holding a national road show to explain the CBC's new programming strategy and its execution to producers. She started a similar series of gatherings while at AAC.
"We have to climb down from the ivory tower and become the Tower of Babel, talk more about what we want, more about what we know and the shows we want to air," Layfield explains. "We need to draw a picture of what success looks like. One million viewers is a lot less than Desperate Housewives' [viewership]."...Layflied insists her strong card is that she is not in the pocket of independent producers who have been long allied with the CBC. She wants to give a chance to next-generation producers...Recalling the media furor over the recent cancellations, Layfield also dismisses the suggestion that dramas should be immune from cancellations or audience targets...."If a beautiful tree fell in the forest, and no one was there to watch it, how beautiful was it?" she asks.
She's new in the job. She comes from a successful tenure somewhere else (unlike VP Richard Stursberg, for instance...) and she's saying the right things. I have fingers crossed. She really does have the power to make a difference. And she sounds like she knows exactly what the task is.
Let's see.
You Yankees down there....
For Pity's sake, when are you going to take care of this?
The Robots at the American Family Association are organized, and ready, and making phone calls the moment anyone says something other than "Oh My Heck!"
What good is it having freedom of speech if you can't say anything that wouldn't offend a Sunday school teacher.
There are less of them than there are you!
Grow. Some. Balls.
The Robots at the American Family Association are organized, and ready, and making phone calls the moment anyone says something other than "Oh My Heck!"
What good is it having freedom of speech if you can't say anything that wouldn't offend a Sunday school teacher.
There are less of them than there are you!
Grow. Some. Balls.
The Fan Who Came In From The Cold
I know, I've given fans a lot of grief over the blog-year I've been doing this. Most of it was deserved, especially the pesky, airborne-mutated strain of 'hater' fan that breeds like kudzu on the internet. But it's worth remembering, and stating that every single person who got into this business did so because they were a fan. Of something.
The first thing I remember being a fan of was Snoopy. All of Peanuts, actually. I bought all the books, I watched the specials whenever they were on TV. (this was Pre-VCR. Oh, uh, a VCR was this thing that was like a TiVo but it...oh never mind, go ask your grandparents.) I loved Charlie Brown and Snoopy, and vowed to become a cartoonist. (This was an ambition of mine right up until I was about 13.)
After a brief detour into Evel Knievel, I found Steve Austin and The Six Million Dollar Man, and also the Bionic Woman (who may just have been my first object of unfocused, free-floating, I- don't -really -know -what -I'm -feeling -here lust. Don't kid yourselves. Boys start early.)
Anyway, I guess all you gangstas out there are really ripping it up now. Yesirree. The 70's was a far more innocent time. I spent some of that time in Florida, so I had an unfortunate dalliance with all things Disney. That didn't survive my move to Toronto.
But something else did. One weekend in May, about three weeks before we moved to Canada, my Dad took me to a movie. It was a movie that I'd heard about, and everyone else my age had heard about, but no adults seemed to know about. It was called Star Wars, and everything from that point on was different.
I'm hardly the first to remark on how Star Wars changed the landscape. And I know Star Trek was there first. But I was just young enough that Star Trek was something that older kids were into. Star Wars was mine. I wouldn't become a Trek fan until shortly before the movie came out in 1979. But I did have the "placeholder package" -- the promissory empty box that they put on sale before they put out the first Star Wars action figures. Yup. I was hardcore.
I loved Battlestar Galactica, too, of course. Though even then I got tired of the same three cylon raider shots played over and over and over. I also remember thinking how odd it was that the pilot had been released in movie theatres here in Canada -- but not in the USA. Yes, I was destined to go into television, parsing as I was the intricacies of foreign territory marketing at the age of nine.
Galactica also marked a turn for me toward a more critical eye toward the things I loved. Because much as I did love it, I found myself disappointed later in the season, because they stopped "telling cool stories." I sensed that somehow, the concept was cooler than the stories they were telling within that world. Then came Galactica 1980, and I had my first writer-reaction. I didn't have the vocabulary for it then, but if I had, I would have said in my prepubescent alto, "Fucking studio notes."
I guess, looking back, I got slotted into my path naturally, and gradually. I read voraciously. My father went through a period where he went to war with me over MAD Magazine, which I loved and he didn't want me reading. (He didn't appreciate the development of my sarcasm.)
(I can remember being traumatized a little because one time when we were back visiting relatives in New York, we had to take the subway, and he bought me a MAD and said, "read it and don't look at anybody." The fact that he bought it willingly terrified me. It meant the subway was even more dangerous than I thought it was. And seeing as this was the Son of Sam Summer of '77 -- he probably was right.)
My Dad need'nt have worried. I read everything. I sucked it all up -- by High School I became a fan of something else, when I discovered how much I loved Shakespeare. There were high school teachers who encouraged me to act and write: Ms Atkinson, Jim Hunt, Mrs. Salgo. By the time I went to university, it was a woman named Dr. Naomi Diamond and the great Dr. Bob Gardner, along with a kind and decent man named Clive Vanderburgh, who encouraged my talent. I picked up a couple of writing awards. And then I lost my way for a few years, losing nerve, spending time as a TV producer.
It was playwriting for Fringe Festivals that got me back on the horse. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if I'd stayed the course and had the courage of my convictions at twenty-one. But then again, I probably wouldn't have made anything of it then, because I was a real asshole at twenty-one. (Seriously.)
Why am I thinking about all this now? It's not just cause of the series I have to write now. (Although Episode 3 is looming above me right now like a great, unbroken, looming, looming looming-thing. With teeth. And fur. Damn Story. I'll kill you, I will. You will be broken before me and I will hear the lamentations of the...)
Sorry. Where was I?
No. Okay. Here's why I started thinking about this.
It's a link to a Video Dog clip on Salon. It's a Star Wars fan film. A lightsaber duel. It's incredibly well done.
I've been aware of fan films before, of course. I think Troops is probably one of the funniest things I've ever seen. But there's still something humbling in seeing that something that made me slack-jawed with wonder when I was eight, is something you can do on a Mac today.
But as cool as that fan film is, or as cool as Troops was, it's still a derivative work. And that's why I feel really blessed to be in the position I'm in today.
Because I have friends whose fandom took them a different way. A couple of friends of mine took their high-school interest in horror and gore and became very adept Special FX and Prosthetic makeup artists. They've worked on most of the big shows that have come through Toronto. Lots of Zombie films and the like. Horror, Sci-fi, what have you...
There's only one problem: what they do is going away. The Star Wars kids with the Macs are, with every passing day, shrinking the need and window by which these guys can make a living doing practical effects. It's an intractible problem, and it makes me a little sad -- because nothing bores me more than those moments in the new trilogy of Star Wars films where you're watching one set of pixels fight another set of pixels for twenty minutes.
But writing, you see, is not a special effect. It's not something that goes away, despite Hollywood's attempts to try and prove otherwise. Sure, you can get directors to plan six big action sequences, and then try to get a writer to write around them (basically, how Robert Towne worked on MI:2) but that doesn't mean it's going to be any good.
Fan fiction, and the fan impulse to "fix" stories when they don't like where they're going, is something that's of endless fascination to me. Because the solutions fans come up with are inevitably so very much worse.
What we do -- what writers do -- is a rare commodity. And it's not going anywhere. And if you can actually do this thing we do, long after the executives lose their jobs, and the distribution model changes and the focus groups go home, and the bold new Presidents with a plan have taken their golden parachutes and skedaddled, you will still be there.
And damnit, that makes me feel lucky.
The first thing I remember being a fan of was Snoopy. All of Peanuts, actually. I bought all the books, I watched the specials whenever they were on TV. (this was Pre-VCR. Oh, uh, a VCR was this thing that was like a TiVo but it...oh never mind, go ask your grandparents.) I loved Charlie Brown and Snoopy, and vowed to become a cartoonist. (This was an ambition of mine right up until I was about 13.)
After a brief detour into Evel Knievel, I found Steve Austin and The Six Million Dollar Man, and also the Bionic Woman (who may just have been my first object of unfocused, free-floating, I- don't -really -know -what -I'm -feeling -here lust. Don't kid yourselves. Boys start early.)
Anyway, I guess all you gangstas out there are really ripping it up now. Yesirree. The 70's was a far more innocent time. I spent some of that time in Florida, so I had an unfortunate dalliance with all things Disney. That didn't survive my move to Toronto.
But something else did. One weekend in May, about three weeks before we moved to Canada, my Dad took me to a movie. It was a movie that I'd heard about, and everyone else my age had heard about, but no adults seemed to know about. It was called Star Wars, and everything from that point on was different.
I'm hardly the first to remark on how Star Wars changed the landscape. And I know Star Trek was there first. But I was just young enough that Star Trek was something that older kids were into. Star Wars was mine. I wouldn't become a Trek fan until shortly before the movie came out in 1979. But I did have the "placeholder package" -- the promissory empty box that they put on sale before they put out the first Star Wars action figures. Yup. I was hardcore.
I loved Battlestar Galactica, too, of course. Though even then I got tired of the same three cylon raider shots played over and over and over. I also remember thinking how odd it was that the pilot had been released in movie theatres here in Canada -- but not in the USA. Yes, I was destined to go into television, parsing as I was the intricacies of foreign territory marketing at the age of nine.
Galactica also marked a turn for me toward a more critical eye toward the things I loved. Because much as I did love it, I found myself disappointed later in the season, because they stopped "telling cool stories." I sensed that somehow, the concept was cooler than the stories they were telling within that world. Then came Galactica 1980, and I had my first writer-reaction. I didn't have the vocabulary for it then, but if I had, I would have said in my prepubescent alto, "Fucking studio notes."
I guess, looking back, I got slotted into my path naturally, and gradually. I read voraciously. My father went through a period where he went to war with me over MAD Magazine, which I loved and he didn't want me reading. (He didn't appreciate the development of my sarcasm.)
(I can remember being traumatized a little because one time when we were back visiting relatives in New York, we had to take the subway, and he bought me a MAD and said, "read it and don't look at anybody." The fact that he bought it willingly terrified me. It meant the subway was even more dangerous than I thought it was. And seeing as this was the Son of Sam Summer of '77 -- he probably was right.)
My Dad need'nt have worried. I read everything. I sucked it all up -- by High School I became a fan of something else, when I discovered how much I loved Shakespeare. There were high school teachers who encouraged me to act and write: Ms Atkinson, Jim Hunt, Mrs. Salgo. By the time I went to university, it was a woman named Dr. Naomi Diamond and the great Dr. Bob Gardner, along with a kind and decent man named Clive Vanderburgh, who encouraged my talent. I picked up a couple of writing awards. And then I lost my way for a few years, losing nerve, spending time as a TV producer.
It was playwriting for Fringe Festivals that got me back on the horse. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if I'd stayed the course and had the courage of my convictions at twenty-one. But then again, I probably wouldn't have made anything of it then, because I was a real asshole at twenty-one. (Seriously.)
Why am I thinking about all this now? It's not just cause of the series I have to write now. (Although Episode 3 is looming above me right now like a great, unbroken, looming, looming looming-thing. With teeth. And fur. Damn Story. I'll kill you, I will. You will be broken before me and I will hear the lamentations of the...)
Sorry. Where was I?
No. Okay. Here's why I started thinking about this.
It's a link to a Video Dog clip on Salon. It's a Star Wars fan film. A lightsaber duel. It's incredibly well done.
I've been aware of fan films before, of course. I think Troops is probably one of the funniest things I've ever seen. But there's still something humbling in seeing that something that made me slack-jawed with wonder when I was eight, is something you can do on a Mac today.
But as cool as that fan film is, or as cool as Troops was, it's still a derivative work. And that's why I feel really blessed to be in the position I'm in today.
Because I have friends whose fandom took them a different way. A couple of friends of mine took their high-school interest in horror and gore and became very adept Special FX and Prosthetic makeup artists. They've worked on most of the big shows that have come through Toronto. Lots of Zombie films and the like. Horror, Sci-fi, what have you...
There's only one problem: what they do is going away. The Star Wars kids with the Macs are, with every passing day, shrinking the need and window by which these guys can make a living doing practical effects. It's an intractible problem, and it makes me a little sad -- because nothing bores me more than those moments in the new trilogy of Star Wars films where you're watching one set of pixels fight another set of pixels for twenty minutes.
But writing, you see, is not a special effect. It's not something that goes away, despite Hollywood's attempts to try and prove otherwise. Sure, you can get directors to plan six big action sequences, and then try to get a writer to write around them (basically, how Robert Towne worked on MI:2) but that doesn't mean it's going to be any good.
Fan fiction, and the fan impulse to "fix" stories when they don't like where they're going, is something that's of endless fascination to me. Because the solutions fans come up with are inevitably so very much worse.
What we do -- what writers do -- is a rare commodity. And it's not going anywhere. And if you can actually do this thing we do, long after the executives lose their jobs, and the distribution model changes and the focus groups go home, and the bold new Presidents with a plan have taken their golden parachutes and skedaddled, you will still be there.
And damnit, that makes me feel lucky.
RSS? Mess? Quest? Que?
Reader Sandra writes below:
Dear Sandra,
I'm a writer. I use a Mac. I can't add three digit numbers in my head. Add those things together and what you get is this: I am a one-trick monkey savant.
I have heard of this RSS of which you speak, but that is all. I have something called the Atom site feed turned ON in Blogger, but as far as this RSS goes, it's all geek to me.
If some nice person out there wants to send me a set of clear, easy-to-follow directions for setting up my Blogger template to make an RSS feed possible, on a Mac, using a few easy steps that will take me no more than five minutes to do, then awesome.
Otherwise, I'm just going to continue to throw feces the old way.
That is all.
UPDATE-Y DOO:
Helpful reader Matt Watts writes:
So there you go. I'll add it to the sideboard when I get some gumption to do so.
Please add an RSS feed to your blog!
Dear Sandra,
I'm a writer. I use a Mac. I can't add three digit numbers in my head. Add those things together and what you get is this: I am a one-trick monkey savant.
I have heard of this RSS of which you speak, but that is all. I have something called the Atom site feed turned ON in Blogger, but as far as this RSS goes, it's all geek to me.
If some nice person out there wants to send me a set of clear, easy-to-follow directions for setting up my Blogger template to make an RSS feed possible, on a Mac, using a few easy steps that will take me no more than five minutes to do, then awesome.
Otherwise, I'm just going to continue to throw feces the old way.
That is all.
UPDATE-Y DOO:
Helpful reader Matt Watts writes:
your RSS feed is - and always has been - woring fine.
The address is:
http://heywriterboy.blogspot.com/atom.xml
So there you go. I'll add it to the sideboard when I get some gumption to do so.
CHUM Orders Series; Our Hero Secretly Pleased
Today, Canada's CHUM Television (CityTv/Muchmusic/Space, etc.) ordered three new Canadian Drama Series. Excerpted from their press release:
Canadian TV is changing, and with the CRTC's increased demand on drawing ratings, a lot of hard choices are going to need to start being made about ongoing programs. CHUM reflects this in the release, too, with the revelation that their current series Godiva's and The Collector are not being renewed.
And now we come to the part of the story where I reveal how I've buried the lead:
I'm the co-creator of Across the River To Motor City, with a man named Bob Wertheimer, who was also the co-creator and Executive Producer (and my boss!) of the show I wrote in South Africa, in 2004, Charlie Jade.
Looks like I have a busy summer ahead. I'm going to have to rethink what and how much I'll be able to write about the process here on this blog. As we've talked about before, the writing room is a place of trust, and production is a fragile and stressful experience. I have partners now. And making television, well, it's a bit like making law and sausages...you don't really want to see the process up close -- even if you think you do.
For a guy with a big mouth, I've always prided myself on being fairly circumspect and professional in my dealings in this business. I like being enthusiastic, and I like working with people, and being able to trust people. And I like it when they trust me. And that's going to be even more important now.
But...don't get me wrong. I'm thrilled.
This is a big step forward for me. Huge, actually, as I've only been a hired gun up to now. I'm sure I'll be able to talk about the process obliquely here and there. But if occasionally you don''t see my normal fist to the groin level of candor about my day-to-day projects, I hope you'll understand.
This blog has always been a procrastination enabler and focuser and a work in progress -- and I hope both those things can continue. Hell, if the Scary Movie guy can keep writing, I should be able to handle blogging and a six pack!
Though... I'm not sure I'll be doing a lot of procrastinating over the next few months. Eep.
Anyway. Yay!
TORONTO, March 16, 2006 – CHUM Television has ordered three new original dramas – The Murdoch Mysteries, a 13-episode spin off of the hugely-successful made-for-television movie franchise, Blood Ties, based on the popular Tanya Huff vampire novels and the mystery series Across the River to Motor City.With this announcement, genre fans get something new in Blood Ties. I've read a couple of early scripts for this show, and they're good fun. I don't know about the Murdoch Mysteries, but it sounds intriguing.
“CHUM has a long history of support for homegrown production and these series will see us continue and grow our commitment to Canadian drama that connects with our viewers,” said Roma Khanna, Senior Vice President, Content, CHUM Television. “We will be bringing our audiences three exciting new programs that are set in Canada and feature strong, dynamic, original storylines that combine universal appeal with a uniquely Canadian perspective.”
“We are very excited about these productions”, said Diane Boehme, Senior Director, Independent Production, CHUM Television. “Blood Ties will appeal to anyone with a thirst for romance and vampire lore while Across the River to Motor City offers engaging characters and a unique perspective that has not previously been explored on television. The Murdoch Mysteries were so well received as MOWs, that we felt obligated to satisfy our audiences’ very clear desire for more.”
The Murdoch Mysteries, from Shaftesbury Films, builds on the success of the highly-rated Detective Murdoch Mysteries made-for-television movies adapted from Maureen Jennings’ best-selling mystery novels. The series, set in 1895 Toronto, combines compelling Victorian tales of murder with the fast-paced, visually-intriguing styles of today’s leading crime series. Casting and pre-production for the series is expected to begin this summer. (13 x 60’)
Blood Ties is based on Tanya Huff’s internationally popular “Blood” novels. When her latest love interest turns out to be a 450-year-old vampire and the caseload of her fledgling P.I. agency shifts from fraud artists and cheating spouses to battles with ghosts, ghouls, zombies and demons, ex-police detective Vicki Nelson realizes that her life will never be the same. The series will be produced by Kaleidoscope Entertainment and goes into production later this summer. (22 X 60’)
Across the River to Motor City is a mystery series spanning two eras, two countries and two unforgettable characters. As an insurance investigator in 1960s Windsor and Detroit, Ben Ford weathered the storms of those tumultuous years. Four decades later, a long-buried tragedy leads his daughter Kathleen to unravel the secrets and lies at the heart of her troubled relationship with her father – secrets Ben will risk everything to keep. The series is being produced by Jonsworth Productions in association with Devine Entertainment and will begin shooting in the fall. (6 x 60’)
Canadian TV is changing, and with the CRTC's increased demand on drawing ratings, a lot of hard choices are going to need to start being made about ongoing programs. CHUM reflects this in the release, too, with the revelation that their current series Godiva's and The Collector are not being renewed.
And now we come to the part of the story where I reveal how I've buried the lead:
I'm the co-creator of Across the River To Motor City, with a man named Bob Wertheimer, who was also the co-creator and Executive Producer (and my boss!) of the show I wrote in South Africa, in 2004, Charlie Jade.
Looks like I have a busy summer ahead. I'm going to have to rethink what and how much I'll be able to write about the process here on this blog. As we've talked about before, the writing room is a place of trust, and production is a fragile and stressful experience. I have partners now. And making television, well, it's a bit like making law and sausages...you don't really want to see the process up close -- even if you think you do.
For a guy with a big mouth, I've always prided myself on being fairly circumspect and professional in my dealings in this business. I like being enthusiastic, and I like working with people, and being able to trust people. And I like it when they trust me. And that's going to be even more important now.
But...don't get me wrong. I'm thrilled.
This is a big step forward for me. Huge, actually, as I've only been a hired gun up to now. I'm sure I'll be able to talk about the process obliquely here and there. But if occasionally you don''t see my normal fist to the groin level of candor about my day-to-day projects, I hope you'll understand.
This blog has always been a procrastination enabler and focuser and a work in progress -- and I hope both those things can continue. Hell, if the Scary Movie guy can keep writing, I should be able to handle blogging and a six pack!
Though... I'm not sure I'll be doing a lot of procrastinating over the next few months. Eep.
Anyway. Yay!
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Prairie Giant Indeed, and Hi To Warren's Many Minions...
The mighty Warren Ellis saw fit to link to me. To quote Penn Jillette: "Yessssssssssss."
Further to our discussion of the CBC below...whoops...seems like amidst all their shufflin' for attention and entertainment and nothing challenging and those one-million viewers -- well...um.
Prairie Giant: The Tommy Douglas Story, the biopic of the father of Canadian Medicare (and the NDP, and grandfather to 24's Kiefer Sutherland) drew just 50 000 viewers shy of a million viewers Sunday. And 750 000 viewers returned for part two.
This is SIGNIFICANTLY more viewers than CBC has drawn for any of their other drama shows recently.
Now, if they'd not been craven and cowardly, they maybe could have drawn those viewers at a time when Politics was actually on the agenda, not now...but, you know...whatever.
Point being, this is NOT a validation of stuff like This is Wonderland. It will undoubtedly be spun as such by some. But the point is -- there are people who want to watch drama on CBC. See? There they are. They weren't watching Wonderland. Maybe they tuned in and didn't like what they saw. Who knows?
Point was, they didn't stay.
However --
The CBC's whiplash reaction: we're going to test everything, we're going to be popular, we're going to appeal to younger viewers, we're going to...what do you want us to do?
Well, flop sweat may not be the answer either.
Could it be that it's the material, stupid?
Choose something good.
Further to our discussion of the CBC below...whoops...seems like amidst all their shufflin' for attention and entertainment and nothing challenging and those one-million viewers -- well...um.
Prairie Giant: The Tommy Douglas Story, the biopic of the father of Canadian Medicare (and the NDP, and grandfather to 24's Kiefer Sutherland) drew just 50 000 viewers shy of a million viewers Sunday. And 750 000 viewers returned for part two.
This is SIGNIFICANTLY more viewers than CBC has drawn for any of their other drama shows recently.
Now, if they'd not been craven and cowardly, they maybe could have drawn those viewers at a time when Politics was actually on the agenda, not now...but, you know...whatever.
Point being, this is NOT a validation of stuff like This is Wonderland. It will undoubtedly be spun as such by some. But the point is -- there are people who want to watch drama on CBC. See? There they are. They weren't watching Wonderland. Maybe they tuned in and didn't like what they saw. Who knows?
Point was, they didn't stay.
However --
The CBC's whiplash reaction: we're going to test everything, we're going to be popular, we're going to appeal to younger viewers, we're going to...what do you want us to do?
Well, flop sweat may not be the answer either.
Could it be that it's the material, stupid?
Choose something good.
Dear Arrested Development,
Hi. How are you? It's been a while, I know.
Yes baby. Sure I miss you. No. No one will ever replace you.
Sons & Daughters? Oh, yeah. Well...sure...I've seen it.
Yeah. Okay. Back to back. Every week. I know.
But that aint serious, baby, you know that.
That's what they do when they think you're gonna crap out,
that's what they do when they're gonna cancel the show.
No. Shh. Shh. It wasn't you?
Lorne Michaels? He's a punk.
Funny? Well....
Sure baby. It's a LITTLE funny...
Y'know. Like that.
It's a little, you know...improvised.
I know. I was skeptical too, baby, but it
works.
Even if they do put a little ostentatious
"this program is partially improvised"
"warning" at the top. Wonder why they do that?
Still, all in all, it's pretty funny.
Baby?
Baby?
Oh. Come on, Don't be that way, baby.
We had a good run.
We'll always have Portia DeRossi.
And Buster's hand.
Listen, I have comedy needs.
I don't think I should apologize for that.
Jon Stewart is only one man.
Fine. Be that way.
Yes baby. Sure I miss you. No. No one will ever replace you.
Sons & Daughters? Oh, yeah. Well...sure...I've seen it.
Yeah. Okay. Back to back. Every week. I know.
But that aint serious, baby, you know that.
That's what they do when they think you're gonna crap out,
that's what they do when they're gonna cancel the show.
No. Shh. Shh. It wasn't you?
Lorne Michaels? He's a punk.
Funny? Well....
Sure baby. It's a LITTLE funny...
"I'm not racist. I dated a black man once."
"Did you tell anybody?"
"Of course not. I'm not stupid."
Y'know. Like that.
It's a little, you know...improvised.
I know. I was skeptical too, baby, but it
works.
Even if they do put a little ostentatious
"this program is partially improvised"
"warning" at the top. Wonder why they do that?
Still, all in all, it's pretty funny.
Baby?
Baby?
Oh. Come on, Don't be that way, baby.
We had a good run.
We'll always have Portia DeRossi.
And Buster's hand.
Listen, I have comedy needs.
I don't think I should apologize for that.
Jon Stewart is only one man.
Fine. Be that way.
Playing Obscurity for Depth
John August talks about The Matrix trilogy in a very funny, and a little angry post. He also gives a phrase to something that I see all the time in scripts. It's the title of this post.
We've all seen things that played obscurity for depth. Sometimes it bothers you because your head hurts and you really think you've missed something, and sometimes it really is a cop out.
I think Syriana had a bit of playing obscurity for depth. I liked it, but I'm not sure at what some of the players were trying to accomplish with their final actions.
The problem, though, is that Canadian film and TV is chock full of stories that play obscurity for depth. It is a massive cop out, I've been guilty of it myself from time to time, and it really needs to stop if we're going to hold and build an audience.
We've all seen things that played obscurity for depth. Sometimes it bothers you because your head hurts and you really think you've missed something, and sometimes it really is a cop out.
I think Syriana had a bit of playing obscurity for depth. I liked it, but I'm not sure at what some of the players were trying to accomplish with their final actions.
The problem, though, is that Canadian film and TV is chock full of stories that play obscurity for depth. It is a massive cop out, I've been guilty of it myself from time to time, and it really needs to stop if we're going to hold and build an audience.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
In the funny papers.
Reality series were going to kill television. We're still here, but some of those popular characters aren't. After all, Death is the new Black.
If you are a popular TV character actor, and you're suddenly unemployed and want to try your hand at something else, I'd suggest avoiding the-three-camera-traditional-sitcom.
If you are a popular TV character actor, and you're suddenly unemployed and want to try your hand at something else, I'd suggest avoiding the-three-camera-traditional-sitcom.
Mad Pulp Bastard Hijacks the Blog
...to talk about, of all things, The CBC. You know Bill Cunningham's D2DVD wonderland -- and if you don't, Seamus on you. (I'm getting in shape for Friday.)
Anyway, down in the comments section of my last CBC post, Cunningham posted something that I think deserves some top-love.
I want to outline Cunningham's comments here, because he is, of course, American. And like it or not, we live in Canada. So whatever an American thinks is news.
(Oh, just try to deny it.)
But there's a great point in there. I wasn't even in the Biz when Northern Exposure was first on the air. (Actually, I was, but as a lowly current affairs researcher) I have doubts that a show like that would survive on CBS more than two episodes today. Things have changed a lot since 1992. BUT -- he's right. NX is the perfect Canadian show that wasn't. I often thought that The Full Monty was a perfect, enduring model of a story that was tellable anywhere -- it was very specific to the UK, but the story was universal and that's why it traveled. No one worries about making a self-consciously English program, or a self-consciously American program. Yet because of the way the system works, that's almost all we seem to make here North of the 49th Parallel.
The whole thing is about the deal, because the deal is so hard to make.
And that's where you start considering things like regionalism and representation -- so that a show that was actually funny, like Rabbittown, gets shitcanned, because, presumably, "we already have a Newfie show on the air," and a show that's clearly inferior like "This Space For Rent" gets a second, or third chance because it's Vancouver-based and you know...YOUNG and...what's that other word...oh yah...HIP. Um...now...where's my knitting?
That's also how you do something embarrassing like say that the secret to your success in the future will be to institute quantifiable testing to come up with sure-fire shows people want to watch -- despite the fact that they test American shows up the yin-yang and it does NOTHING to guarantee you a hit!
You cannot replace qualitative decisionmaking with quantifiable, dispassionate testing. Can NO one see that this is the same fruit of the poison tree that makes us consider place over concept, and 'overt Canadian-ness' over quality? Is there NO ONE at the CBC who will stand up and say, "I think this show is funny and deserves to be made, and if I'm wrong, I'm responsible?"
Testing. Pfft.
What else?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Stop making it about the deal. Jesus, Bill, it sounds so simple when you say it! :)
Anyway, down in the comments section of my last CBC post, Cunningham posted something that I think deserves some top-love.
My view (for what it's worth - probably not much as I'm not Canadian and thus not as "involved") is that your CBC needs to focus on programs that are so damn funny or dramatic or action-packed or whatever, that people from all over Canada - no matter what the region - will find something to like or hate about it. Must see tv.
Alex Epstein was talking on his blog about NORTHERN EXPOSURE - a show that on the surface had limited appeal: small town life of an Alaska doctor. What made that show run for six years was the fact that the characters, while outside our experience here in the Southland, were relatable and funny. Damn funny. Quirky too.
Memorable.
I want to outline Cunningham's comments here, because he is, of course, American. And like it or not, we live in Canada. So whatever an American thinks is news.
(Oh, just try to deny it.)
But there's a great point in there. I wasn't even in the Biz when Northern Exposure was first on the air. (Actually, I was, but as a lowly current affairs researcher) I have doubts that a show like that would survive on CBS more than two episodes today. Things have changed a lot since 1992. BUT -- he's right. NX is the perfect Canadian show that wasn't. I often thought that The Full Monty was a perfect, enduring model of a story that was tellable anywhere -- it was very specific to the UK, but the story was universal and that's why it traveled. No one worries about making a self-consciously English program, or a self-consciously American program. Yet because of the way the system works, that's almost all we seem to make here North of the 49th Parallel.
If the CBC wants to put "butts in seats" to watch their programs, then they need to focus on the product and not the deal. Make memorable shows and market them accordingly.See what Bill just did there? He pulled out a crossbow and Ted-fucking-Nugented a fucking arrow right through the heart of the whole biz up here.
The whole thing is about the deal, because the deal is so hard to make.
And that's where you start considering things like regionalism and representation -- so that a show that was actually funny, like Rabbittown, gets shitcanned, because, presumably, "we already have a Newfie show on the air," and a show that's clearly inferior like "This Space For Rent" gets a second, or third chance because it's Vancouver-based and you know...YOUNG and...what's that other word...oh yah...HIP. Um...now...where's my knitting?
That's also how you do something embarrassing like say that the secret to your success in the future will be to institute quantifiable testing to come up with sure-fire shows people want to watch -- despite the fact that they test American shows up the yin-yang and it does NOTHING to guarantee you a hit!
You cannot replace qualitative decisionmaking with quantifiable, dispassionate testing. Can NO one see that this is the same fruit of the poison tree that makes us consider place over concept, and 'overt Canadian-ness' over quality? Is there NO ONE at the CBC who will stand up and say, "I think this show is funny and deserves to be made, and if I'm wrong, I'm responsible?"
Testing. Pfft.
There's a story about SPOOKS/MI-5 that the BBC wanted everyone in their target demo for the show to be talking about it at the water cooler the next day. That's part of the reason why they cast a recognizable star and killed her (deep fried her face) in the second episode. That's why every bus had banners for the show. That's why every young person's music station and cable channel and cell phone had ads about the show. They went out and made a show that, like it or hate it, you HAD to see it and talk about it.So there's Bill's gauntlet. Okay, Canadian readers, time to de-lurk, and step up. Any suggestions for Mr. Bill here? I'll start us off. Early DaVinci's Inquest. Corner Gas, probably. Slings & Arrows, definitely.
Are there ANY shows on Canadian TV that you HAVE to talk about(other than the fact it's set in Vancouver or Toronto)? If there are - I want to see them (and I don't mean that rhetorically. I want to see them).
What else?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Stop making it about the deal. Jesus, Bill, it sounds so simple when you say it! :)
24 Hits The Bottle
Pretty exciting 24 last night, heh?
Poor Edgar. Poor SamWise McGill. Poor...Tony? Um...maybe.
But watching last night with my ever-attuned Canadian TV spidey-sense tingling, I noticed something else:
They never left the bottle. 24 last night was a bottle show.
When info leaks out about how so-and-so's budgeted, "IE: Each ep of 24 costs $2.8 million..." or whatever, that's actually a misnomer. During the course of a season, some episodes, locations, stunts, special effects are just going to cost more. Remember when they blew up the motorcade? That cost some change. Helicopters to-ing and fro-ing? More change.
You obviously don't want to go over your budget, so sometimes the best way to catch up is to do a Bottle Show.
A bottle show, classically, is a show that takes place only on the standing sets of a particular show, using the main cast. (Ie: guest leads minimal, low extras.) You don't do any location shooting, and you don't do any really complicated camera setups. That usually means you can shoot fewer days, and save money that you're going to spend down the road -- or, more likely, get your show's budget back into a manageable place after you've blown it.
The bottle show is a valuable safety valve - another contingency that you have to make sure that you stay on budget and don't spiral out of control. Since it's easier to shoot, it's also a chance to rest your crew a little.
The other way to save money, of course, is the much-derided Clip Show. The Bottle Show is at least a little more viewer friendly, because you're getting a new story...and depending on how it's executed, GREAT new content.
Here's why I love Bottle Shows: the writing is the only real special effect.
If you can't blow things up, fly helicopters willy-nilly, or employ a ton of extras, well, then son, you better have a pretty kick-ass story...because most of your story is going to be people talking to each other.
The trick is to raise the stakes as high as possible. On 24, that means trap everyone in a room -- literally, in a bottle -- and kill a couple of people we've been watching all season. (Once I realized it was a bottle ep, for a brief, sick second I was sure -- SURE -- they were going to kill Kim.) A Nerve Gas attack on CTU is a perfect bottle story plot. The tension's so high you don't even notice that 80% of the show is in three rooms, with characters unable to go anywhere.
On Charlie Jade, I wrote our bottle show (which, for budgetary reasons, was also a clip show -- don't even get me started.) and the solution we came up with was this: amp the stakes by making this the first time the hero and the villain confront each other directly. Oh, and have the hero torture the villain. And reveal a major, major twist: in this case, the true nature of one of the enduring mysteries of the first 12 episodes -- a change that makes our hero never able to look at things the same way again.
On 24, it means getting the Presidential subplot to the precipice of declaring martial law, and revealing that Homeland Security is, for all intents and purposes, shutting down CTU. Oh, and let Peter Weller escape. And maybe Kill Tony. And the nerve gas. Boom. Big stuff.
Yeah -- those two Homeland Security people were in a car that we haven't seen before. But you didn't see a driving shot, did you? Did you see outside, as they drove? Nope? Driving rigs are expensive.
It takes a special kind of TV director to make a bottle show sing. On CJ, we got ourselves into the comical position of having the director move two of the three bottle-show plots out of the bottle. I don't think he got that he was directing actors in this show, and that's what made it cool. He just wanted to blow things up. Whatever. Usually that doesn't happen.
When you sit down to write a bottle show, it brings an almost zenlike quality to the task. You know that, in effect, you're really going to be writing a four act play. It's a very different discipline, which is why I relish the challenge.
Unfortunately, a lot of Canadian shows are budgeted so close to the wire that they wind up including a bottle show in the budget...which removes it as a useful contingency when things fuck up. And things always fuck up in Television.
In fact, once upon a time, I was involved with a show that may-or-may-not have made it to production. Their season plans called for two bottle shows, two clip shows, and a show that had to be block shot with a second show which was the same story from someone else's perspective.
It was awesome.
There are worse things you can do as an exercise than think about how you could tell an interesting story with your main characters without leaving the standing sets.
Poor Edgar. Poor SamWise McGill. Poor...Tony? Um...maybe.
But watching last night with my ever-attuned Canadian TV spidey-sense tingling, I noticed something else:
They never left the bottle. 24 last night was a bottle show.
When info leaks out about how so-and-so's budgeted, "IE: Each ep of 24 costs $2.8 million..." or whatever, that's actually a misnomer. During the course of a season, some episodes, locations, stunts, special effects are just going to cost more. Remember when they blew up the motorcade? That cost some change. Helicopters to-ing and fro-ing? More change.
You obviously don't want to go over your budget, so sometimes the best way to catch up is to do a Bottle Show.
A bottle show, classically, is a show that takes place only on the standing sets of a particular show, using the main cast. (Ie: guest leads minimal, low extras.) You don't do any location shooting, and you don't do any really complicated camera setups. That usually means you can shoot fewer days, and save money that you're going to spend down the road -- or, more likely, get your show's budget back into a manageable place after you've blown it.
The bottle show is a valuable safety valve - another contingency that you have to make sure that you stay on budget and don't spiral out of control. Since it's easier to shoot, it's also a chance to rest your crew a little.
The other way to save money, of course, is the much-derided Clip Show. The Bottle Show is at least a little more viewer friendly, because you're getting a new story...and depending on how it's executed, GREAT new content.
Here's why I love Bottle Shows: the writing is the only real special effect.
If you can't blow things up, fly helicopters willy-nilly, or employ a ton of extras, well, then son, you better have a pretty kick-ass story...because most of your story is going to be people talking to each other.
The trick is to raise the stakes as high as possible. On 24, that means trap everyone in a room -- literally, in a bottle -- and kill a couple of people we've been watching all season. (Once I realized it was a bottle ep, for a brief, sick second I was sure -- SURE -- they were going to kill Kim.) A Nerve Gas attack on CTU is a perfect bottle story plot. The tension's so high you don't even notice that 80% of the show is in three rooms, with characters unable to go anywhere.
On Charlie Jade, I wrote our bottle show (which, for budgetary reasons, was also a clip show -- don't even get me started.) and the solution we came up with was this: amp the stakes by making this the first time the hero and the villain confront each other directly. Oh, and have the hero torture the villain. And reveal a major, major twist: in this case, the true nature of one of the enduring mysteries of the first 12 episodes -- a change that makes our hero never able to look at things the same way again.
On 24, it means getting the Presidential subplot to the precipice of declaring martial law, and revealing that Homeland Security is, for all intents and purposes, shutting down CTU. Oh, and let Peter Weller escape. And maybe Kill Tony. And the nerve gas. Boom. Big stuff.
Yeah -- those two Homeland Security people were in a car that we haven't seen before. But you didn't see a driving shot, did you? Did you see outside, as they drove? Nope? Driving rigs are expensive.
It takes a special kind of TV director to make a bottle show sing. On CJ, we got ourselves into the comical position of having the director move two of the three bottle-show plots out of the bottle. I don't think he got that he was directing actors in this show, and that's what made it cool. He just wanted to blow things up. Whatever. Usually that doesn't happen.
When you sit down to write a bottle show, it brings an almost zenlike quality to the task. You know that, in effect, you're really going to be writing a four act play. It's a very different discipline, which is why I relish the challenge.
Unfortunately, a lot of Canadian shows are budgeted so close to the wire that they wind up including a bottle show in the budget...which removes it as a useful contingency when things fuck up. And things always fuck up in Television.
In fact, once upon a time, I was involved with a show that may-or-may-not have made it to production. Their season plans called for two bottle shows, two clip shows, and a show that had to be block shot with a second show which was the same story from someone else's perspective.
It was awesome.
There are worse things you can do as an exercise than think about how you could tell an interesting story with your main characters without leaving the standing sets.
Put 'Em in Your Mouth and Suck'em
Well, I guess this was inevitable, once South Park did the Scientology episode.
Hey, isn't it past time for someone to come up with a competing crazy-celebrity religion?
I tag John Rogers. He could do it.
Hey, isn't it past time for someone to come up with a competing crazy-celebrity religion?
I tag John Rogers. He could do it.
Monday, March 13, 2006
CBC Pays the "...Rent."
Today's Globe & Mail has a story by Henrietta Walmark chronicling CBC's latest programming move. This is hard on the heels of a hoity-toity speech by CBC Prez Robert Rabinovich at the Empire Club.
When last we checked in with the CBC, chickens, The Prez chose to outline a major address about how they're going to reach out to the people by speaking to a crowd of the most priveleged insiders in the country. Sigh. When the CBC doesn't get it, you have to admit, they don't get it hard.
I'm reminded of Louis Armstrong's response when someone asked him to define Jazz:
"Man, if you gotta ask, you'll never know."
Apparently, they've ordered two new half-hour pilots of one of the new comedy pilots CBC showed this past January. The lucky (very) show is called This Space For Rent.
Excerpted from the article:
That's ambitious, certainly. But it's not impossible. Corner Gas on private network CTV draws 1.5 million viewers a week. (Coincidentally or no, that show is escapist, and certainly anything but dark -- but not particularly fast-paced.) CBC has, in the past, achieved those kinds of numbers for their comedy shows, newscasts, and (it's Canada) Hockey.
The question is, is This Space for Rent the right horse to back, right now?
Here's what I had to say about it when it aired back in January:
When last we checked in with the CBC, chickens, The Prez chose to outline a major address about how they're going to reach out to the people by speaking to a crowd of the most priveleged insiders in the country. Sigh. When the CBC doesn't get it, you have to admit, they don't get it hard.
I'm reminded of Louis Armstrong's response when someone asked him to define Jazz:
"Man, if you gotta ask, you'll never know."
Apparently, they've ordered two new half-hour pilots of one of the new comedy pilots CBC showed this past January. The lucky (very) show is called This Space For Rent.
Excerpted from the article:
It didn't achieve the highest ratings of the three pilots that aired that week (only 188,000 viewers, compared to Rabbittown's 251,000). And the new episodes won't go directly to air -- they'll be tested with focus groups before any decision is made about turning the show into a permanent series.Full Globe article available here... For Americans or others struggling to parse that one million figure -- Canada's population hovers around 30 million right now. Subtract roughly 7 million francophones (mostly in Quebec, who watch Radio Canada, CBC's French service) and you're talking a pool of roughly 23 million potential viewers. Roughing it, that means CBC says it expects to pull audiences that would be, if we were expressing this in American market terms, about 10 million viewers.
But according to Anton Leo, CBC Television's head of comedy, This Space for Rent is an example of the kind of show the network is looking for. Last month in Ottawa, Richard Stursberg, CBC's vice-president of English-language television, told a conference of independent film producers that CBC's mix of genres will henceforth be driven by a new "audience-first" development strategy, with shows that aim to attract a minimum of one million viewers and are "fast-paced, accessible and escapist."
This Space for Rent, says Leo, "possesses a number of characteristics that are in line with what Richard was talking about. It has some lovely comedic situations, strong character and some outright funny lines. So much comedy now comes from either extreme discomfort or tremendous darkness. That's not what this is and not where we want to go."
Television critics were deeply divided about the pilot episode, even here at The Globe and Mail. Henrietta Walmark called it a "knockout comedy" in Globe Television, the paper's Toronto-area TV magazine. Critic John Doyle, on the other hand, found the show's "stoned-slacker" attitude "deeply irritating."
That's ambitious, certainly. But it's not impossible. Corner Gas on private network CTV draws 1.5 million viewers a week. (Coincidentally or no, that show is escapist, and certainly anything but dark -- but not particularly fast-paced.) CBC has, in the past, achieved those kinds of numbers for their comedy shows, newscasts, and (it's Canada) Hockey.
The question is, is This Space for Rent the right horse to back, right now?
Here's what I had to say about it when it aired back in January: