Canadian Merger Mania hits CHUM

Well -- this is not really surprising. The Globe and Mail and 680 News are reporting that CHUM limited, the parent company of Citytv, Muchmusic, Space, Star, Bravo! and the A-Channels, is going to be sold to Bell GlobeMedia, the corporate parent of CTV, TSN, oh...and MTV Canada. (That should be interesting, considering Muchmusic...)

The last time a big merger like this happened, they created a huge fund for new programming. (The CRTC extracts that pound of flesh for the privilege of consolidation.) So it may be good news for creatives. Or it may be bad news. Or both. Ultimately, it's too soon to tell.

Oh. Oh Dear.

One of my good friends, R.S., is a very talented writer currently working on Corner Gas.

And one day I may forgive him for sending me this:




Wash your eyes out after. The burning, left untreated, could scar.

I Am A Bad Man

Which is why this photo makes me happy. Oh so happy. Id: 1 Better Angels: 0
Sorry, Abe.

Meetings With Stakeholders

This is a phrase you hear a lot about in Canadian Broadcasting. You hear it when discussing the CRTC, and a review that's being done here or there. You hear it when talking about the Canadian Television Fund or Telefilm.

What's significant to me, and always has been, is exactly who those stakeholders are. And who they're not. The Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television is non-political. They don't take stands on things, mostly. They just sponsor the Gemini and Genie awards. Things like that.

The private broadcasters in Canada have something called The Canadian Association of Broadcasters. They lobby on the Broadcasters' behalf. Usually for things like, oh, we want to ease restrictions on foreign ownership, or sell more ads, or not have to do so much for our licenses.

Producers in Canada have the Canadian Film and Television Production Association. They negotiate with representatives of the Directors Guild of Canada, Writers Guild of Canada, and ACTRA, the performers' union, on labor issues.

There used to be a Canadian Cable Television Association. But I think it disbanded. Richard Stursberg used to run that too. Before he bounced to Telefilm, then the CBC.

There are Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and Our Public Airwaves, who mostly complain about the CBC.

Stakeholders, stakeholders, stakeholders.

The problem with the whole stakeholders thing is that the biggest stakeholders in all of this mess are the ones who really are never consulted.

They're called The Audience.

The problem with not consulting the audience is that you start to have people speaking for the audience, which runs into all sorts of problems. You have squeaky wheels saying they're the audience.

Justin, who's a hardworking guy I know and like and have met on several occasions, posted this below in an ongoing thread about Canadian TV. Basically, his contention is that shows Like Canadian Idol are not Canadian shows...just ripoffs of American shows. Justin's speaking for a point of view that would like to keep the CBC "pure."

I don't consider the Office an American show, it's a cheap rip off and not done very well.

Elitist or not Steve Martin isn't the pink panther and I don't consider Canadian Idol, Canada's next top model or 'the One' to be Canadian shows regardless of where they are made.

Now this is, in actuality, a pretty radical view. I mean, most critics have come around on The Office, and I know a lot of people love these kinds of Reality shows. I don't watch any of the Idols, If I watch The One at all it'll be to see how George does. (On the other hand, flipping around last night I caught fifteen minutes of "Hell's Kitchen" for the first time, and I howled. My God that man is entertaining.)

Now, Justin's engaging in a fine old tradition of stating a taste that's contrary to the mainstream. We all do this. People who hate Pop Tarts talk about Radiohead like everyone should listen to Radiohead. Jazzbos sniff at rockists. Classical music fans look down on all of us.

The problem is, in Canada, the only "audience" view that ever gets through is the skewed, likely-to-write-a-letter-to-the-CRTC-or-Globe kind. Essentially, Private TV in Canada has been allowed to just chase eyeballs using cheaply purchased (because we're an ancillary market) U.S. shows, and Public TV is being fought over by a small, elitist group that doesn't really represent the audience at large. That's a big problem.

Now -- here's another view from the audience, direct from a meeting of a lot of the stakeholders. This might be the most devestating thing I've read about Canadian Television all year.

Now that I'm motivated to at least be aware of what's out there in Canadian television so that I'm not overlooking programs I might enjoy and programs that might reflect stories I wouldn't otherwise see, I find that Canadian television does not seem to see me as its future.

At the Banff festival, I attended a town hall session on the future of Canadian TV with representatives from funders, regulators, content producers, and broadcasters, talking to an audience of the same. Now I think I understand another layer of the invisible networks problem. Listening to executives talk about my own country's product, I felt completely invisible. The discussion was focused on everything but the Canadian television viewer.

I'm not necessarily the typical viewer. At this point, I'm probably more motivated than average to seek out Canadian programming. Unfortunately, the reason for my recent motivation is not a reproducible marketing strategy: I got addicted to the blog of a Canadian television writer who's insightful, passionate, and funny about a wide range of subjects, but particularly the industry he works in. And he kept talking about shows I'd never heard of, like Jeff Ltd., Billable Hours and The Jane Show.

I started to be conscious of the fact that all these Canadian shows were appearing without a blip on my radar and wondered why. Was I just not paying attention? Or was the industry not paying attention to me?

Now -- Diane, of course, is a friend of this blog. I've plugged her site a lot, and even interviewed her about her viewing habits, in an attempt to try and formulate what exactly we are all doing wrong here in this great big country that's not the United States but might as well be for all the homegrown culture that is not on our airwaves. So yeah, she's not exactly the average viewer. But I'm going to guess that there are actually way more Dianes out there than there are Justins. (And I'm not picking on Justin. He and I agree about things -- including TV -- more than we disagree. The difference is as a working writer, I recognize that the health of my industry depends on having things out there that do not appeal to my personal taste, and where my personal taste conflicts with something that's good for the health of the industry, I swallow my bile and move on.)

There are Dianes out there who sold out the Bloor Cinema in January of 2005 to meet the Trailer Park Boys. There are Dianes who did grow up watching Degrassi, and there are Dianes or Daves or Stews who were the ones who caught the CBC flatfooted when they almost got rid of Ron McLean from Hockey Night in Canada a couple years back. The CBC was surprised by the reaction. Why? They don't know what the audience really cares about -- because they never talk to those people.

The reason why the Dianes aren't being listened to? I think it has to do with the defeatist meme that's rife in the industry: "Canadians don't want to watch Canadian shows."

That's an article of defeatist faith among a lot of "stakeholders" in this country. I have an alternate theory. "Most of the shows we've done thus far simply aren't good enough to hold an audience."

I've seen numbers. Lots of Canadian shows premiere big. People tune in because they're curious. And then they go away. If, as Diane suggests, the audience is invisible, that's only because it's actually easier to blame the audience for not watching, than it is to look inward and ask if the product is really good enough.

So if you're going to Meet with Stakeholders, pretty please guys, can you try to get a few more Dianes in the mix? Cause right now, the Diane's aren't feeling the love:

Listening to executives fretting about international markets felt a little insulting. What about me? Wouldn't they like to make a TV show I might want to watch and then let me know about it so I can watch it? I heard "let's protect Canadian content in the scary new world of the unregulated Internet, but let's not make it too Canadian or we can't sell it."

I heard it suggested that successful shows like Corner Gas and Trailer Park Boys might be too Canadian for international markets, despite the fact that the former had just signed a US distributor, and the latter is broadcast on BBC America. Not to mention the apparently unimportant fact that Canadians like to watch them, too.

I had to wonder if, in their hunger for the secondary markets of the future, they'd forgotten their primary audience of the future, an audience that in the past made shows like Degrassi, Slings & Arrows, and DaVinci's Inquest successful within our borders before they were embraced outside them.

The future of Canadian television also seems to overlook the primary product in the zeal to create secondary products. The suits talked about how to entice viewers through means other than television – that is, how to use new technologies and media to drive people to programming and vice versa. They talked about audiovisual content on the web, cell phone videos, and the need to train and support more Canadian artists to produce this new multi-platform content.

..

The Banff panel threw around the word "quality" a lot: "We have to make a quality product." But I didn't hear how the Canadian television industry plans to meet that goal of creating more quality shows, strategies to overcome barriers to making quality shows, or what happens when a quality show falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it.

Diane's full article on the Invisible Canadian Audience can be found here.

Note to Pinheads

I'm tired. I'm cranky. Some people are dumb. Note to dumb people:

Guess that bullshit about The One sounds pretty stupid now, hey, mofos? That's right. Your boy -- YOUR BOY -- is the one fronting the brand. CBC haytas, you can bitch all you want about firing all the publicists, and hiring nothing but new layers of management (because clearly that will fix anything) but this particular development is nothing but good for the CBC.

Unless, you know, they fumble the Strombo. Good for George. Let's see how fast CBC screws things up and loses him.

First bet?...they'll do something moronic like not tapping him to host the Canadian version.

Then there's this.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you're aiming a show at kids, you put together a website. And not a bullshit website. Honest to god. Spend money. Return calls. Keep sites up to date. PROMOTE YOUR SHIT.

Crazy One Eyed Dolphins, Mad Cows, and Whale Heaven, Oh My!

It's a rainy day here in Toronto. I've got a Gemini jury for a couple of hours this afternoon. I'm giving notes on one script, taking notes on another, and revising a third -- all of which swirls and kicks and has to be done magically by Friday. And the weird thing is: I know it will be. Just the way it goes.

But just because I can't blog my heart away for too long, doesn't mean that you guys should be shortchanged. So maybe it's time to hand it over to the next generation of storytellers.

Salon's Video Dog site is always a great place for interesting, curated videos, but rarely does a clip tickle my fancy like this one, animated by Ian Stewart.

Go watch Crazy Dolphins vs. The Mad Cows. For an extra-special bonus, pay attention to the voice of the third kid. That's pretty much how I sounded when I was nine. Awesome.

Look Up in the Skyland. Wait. It's gone.

Promoting Canadian TV is even harder than Diane thinks. By accident yesterday, post World Cup head-buttie and post-dinner woozy, I happened to come across a show that I'd written that was airing for the first time.

Skyland is a Canada-UK-France co-pro. I wrote three scripts for this last year, and the first of mine, "King For a Day" came up yesterday. I tried to find airdates for this a few weeks ago, but beyond the first few eps and a repeat, they had no listings, even on Wikipedia.

Here lieth the Canadian TV problem.

Anyway, it's always strange to just stumble upon your work on TV. It's equally strange to think that something that people worked so hard on spills onto the air without fanfare.

In the end, I recognized quite a bit of my script - though not all of it. I chuckled at some of the things that had been softened because of notes, and I had to admit that the strange lifelessness of that CG mo-cap look nevertheless does not diminish the beauty of the show's look. It's beautiful looking, that is for sure. Simplifying the MacGuffin in the episode kind of worked. I guess. And miracle of miracles, even one or two of the jokes I put in there made it through story editing (when you're dealing with international co-pros, the jokes never make it through.)

Anyway, it was a fun show to work on, and all the people involved with the Canadian side of the production that I met were extremely professional and wicked nice.

If I was a 10 year old kid I'd think Skyland was a really cool show. I mean, I loved Battle of the Planets when I was 10, and that show made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Still. Zoltar rules.

Skyland airs in Canada on Teletoon, weekends at 7:30 p.m. In the USA it can be seen on Nicktoons.

"Spreading Democracy"

This has been one of the USA's stated goals for a long time now. It goes back to the Monroe Doctrine, really, this quaint notion that somehow we had gotten something right in the governance of men (and women) and that it was our responsibility to set an example. To be the city on the hill that others look towards.

Sadly, in the last few decades we really took it on the chin in that department. We've toppled elected governments, as in Chile, we've supported oppressive regimes that we then turn around and spend money fighting. We've lost the moral suasion we had with European partners to influence things for good, in favor of unilateral and disastrous military action in Iraq.

And then there's this:

July 8, 2006 | MEXICO CITY -- "Ciberfraude," or cyberfraud, is not a word in the average Mexican's vocabulary. But most Mexicans have heard of the extraordinary electoral debacle that befell their neighbors to the north in 2000, and Martí Batres, the head of the Democratic Revolutionary Party's Mexico City chapter, was going to capitalize on that knowledge. At a press conference Friday afternoon at PRD headquarters, the close advisor to Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the leftist politician who lost an exceedingly close election here this week, nodded to an aide to turn on his laptop. "And now I'm going to show you a video," he told the roomful of reporters.

The lights went out, and on a pull-down screen, computer programmer Clinton Curtis explained in English to an American audience how he had allegedly been hired by Tom Feeney, speaker of Florida's House of Representatives and a Republican, to create a computer code that fixed that state's vote in favor of George W. Bush six years ago. Batres, or someone on YouTube, had added Spanish subtitles to the 3 and a half minute clip. "This video shows that cyberfraud is possible," Batres insisted when the lights came up. "There may have been a source code used to manipulate our elections just as with the Florida elections in 2000."

There it is. We've now become the ammo in an emerging democracy's doubt in their own system.

The partisanship of Electoral officials with ties to the ruling party, vote machines without paper trails, lineups in minority districts, the inanity of the Electoral College -- all of it is damaging the very NOTION of democracy that the USA was supposed to represent.

To me, admittedly, an internationalist -- there is no sadder example of how far the esteem of America has fallen than the above. We're now the go-to example of how to steal elections, not conduct them.

That's sad. The founding fathers would not be pleased.

Canadian TV all in one place!

Well, this is an interesting and positive development. Although typically, it's a grass roots thing.

Vancouver BlogCritic and Blogger Diane Kristine (Unified Theory of Nothing Much) has moved beyond HOUSE to home: specifically that brand of Television that she hasn't really checked out too much in the past: the homegrown, Canadian kind.

One of these days, I'll get back to my prescription for how to raise awareness for homegrown tv, based on the conversation I had with Diane a few weeks back. But one of my remedies was going to be something very much like what Diane has already set up:

I had an interesting exchange last week on my Invisible Networks post with a couple of people, one who admonished - me? the other commenters? - to give Canadian TV time to grow, and offered to help line up an interview I'd tried to get about The Jane Show. The other made this challenge:
A website promoting Canadian Television! Well...you've identified something that we need, and it seems to bother you that there is no such thing....Why not be the one to create it?!
He/she basically said stop whining, or be part of the solution. My attempt to get an interview about The Jane Show was part of trying to be part of the solution, but is now part of my frustration. Besides, how is it my role to publicize the industry, especially if they won't help?

There's so much funny and sad in that post. Identify a need: a website promoting Canadian TV. Anonymous person says, "you do it!" and polite Canadian says, "I'd like to, but so far I've tried to get one interview with a Canadian show and they've ignored me." It is, as they say, to cry.

Canadian TV frequently suffers from a lack of promotion. Some of it is sheer incompetence -- publicists who don't have the right materials or who aren't very good. Some of it is budget driven -- not enough money for ads, etc. And it's hard to establish an audience for a show that keeps moving around the schedule to take advantage of more valuable simulcasting opportunties.

What Diane has started, in a relatively lo-fi and pretty way, is a clearinghouse for info about Canadian shows, where they are, and when they're on. It's called Canadian TV, and it's here.

If unit and network publicists ever wake up to this, this could be a great development for promoting Canadian TV as a brand, and not just an afterthought. Diane does great interviews, too -- so creatives from these Canadian shows should get in touch with her. (One of the problems you're going to face, Diane, is that short ep runs mean that by the time the show gets close to air the people are long onto their next project.) Daddy's gotta eat.

Diane should be commended for taking a stab at this. And you know what? If there's anyone else out there who's interested in Canadian TV, but not embroiled working in it yet -- I'd suggest dropping Diane a line and asking how you can help.

Now, industry -- go and give her content that creates buzz. Go on. Kick in that self-preservation instinct.

The Meaning of "Got Your Back"

I've written about this a couple of times before, but the story doesn't seem to go away. And to be honest with you, the more I think about it, the more it kind of upsets me, and the more I come to a sad conclusion:

If you're Canadian, and you want to tell a Canadian story based on Canadian events, the one place you should be pitching first, is the one place you can't.

The CBC.

Earlier this year, the CBC ran a biopic on the life of Tommy Douglas, one of the founding members of the CCF Party...God. I can't write this again. Here...this is from the Wikipedia entry.

As leader of the Saskatchewan Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) from 1942 and the seventh Premier of Saskatchewan from 1944 to 1961 , he led the first socialist government in North America and introduced universal public medicare to Canada. When the CCF united with the Canadian Labour Congress to form the New Democratic Party, he was elected as its first federal leader and served in that post from 1961 to 1971. He is warmly remembered for his folksy wit and oratory with which he expressed his steadfast idealism, exemplified by his fable of Mouseland.
He was the father of actress Shirley Douglas, and the grandfather of actor Kiefer Sutherland.
In 2004, he was voted "The Greatest Canadian" of all time in a nationally televised contest organized by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The miniseries Prairie Giant: The Tommy Douglas Story, was filmed between February and May of 2005 and aired on CBC in two parts on March 12 and 13, 2006.

Now, Medicare is still something that's controversial in Canada, believe it or not. At least in some circles. What happened after the movie aired is the truly interesting, and scandalous part.

The short version is this: Relatives of Jimmy Gardiner, a predecessor of Douglas', objected to the portrayal of the politician in the film. Remember, this is a film that was developed, researched and vetted all the way along by the CBC. They complained. The CBC hired an independent historian to vet the film. He said it was innacurate. CBC pulled the film from circulation, and canceled the DVD release.

If you're thinking, "did a step get missed in there?" You're right.

Because at no point, before taking these actions, did the CBC ever talk to the screenwriter, or the director, and give them a chance to defend their film. They were ready to defend it. But they were never asked. In fact, they found out that the film was being pulled by watching television.

So now these creative people are tarred with this brush of accusation, and the CBC is left cowering in the corner, terrified of offending anyone.

They didn't back up their people. Surprise, surprise. The spirit of the Lockout lives on.

The issues of historical innacuracy, or fictionalizing historical movies, is something that rears its ugly head all the time. CBS pulled a biopic of The Reagans a few years back, and shunted it to a cable net. Now, at the time, the focus (I think, rightly) was the fact that the program trotted out lots of tabloid stuff about astrology and whatnot. It was by no means an important piece of work. But CBS managed to frame the discussion for what it was: largely a business decision.

What the CBC has done is not anything close to that. The disputed bits: that so and so took a drink in public instead of in private -- are inane in the context of the historical drama. But that's neither here nor there.

The point is that the CBC hung the writer and the director -- everybody involved with the production of this show -- out to dry, just as they did years ago with The Valour and the Horror.

This is a shameful, craven action. You know, a lot of the people who criticize the CBC want it to morph into something more like a PBS North. But PBS has a lot more integrity on this score. PBS -- especially shows like Frontline -- have no compunctions about running hard hitting programs that pull no punches and speak truth to power.

CBC is in the midst of trying to say to writers, directors, and creatives, "The bad old days are gone, come work with us."

Well, actions speak louder than words. I agree with this anonymous, frustrated CBC manager... they owe the creators of this fine movie an apology. They couldn't have handled this worse if they'd tried.

See what happens when you fire all your publicists?

EmmyShmemmy

So. They're out. The nominations that I found interesting:

Comedy Series: Tough call between the beloved but gone, Arrested, and still has a future, The Office. Like the President, though, I'm all about The Future.

I honestly can't say I'd be unhappy if any of the Best Drama Series nominees got it, but I'd probably lean toward House. Interesting that Lost didn't make the cut, but The West Wing did. Way to be bold!

I'm really happy that South Park got nominated for the Tom Cruise episode. Hail Xenu!

Good (and by good, I mean, not scandalous) that Steve Carell got a Lead Actor comedy nom for The Office. But then again, there's Charlie Sheen...

I don't like the show, but it's a bit of a drag that Lauren Graham, who everyone knows is great, didn't get a nom for Gilmore Girls. Thank God they preserved that Debra Messing nom.

Lead Actress, Drama: Kyra Sedgwick's nomination for The Closer -- a series I've just started watching on DVD, is a great one. Though how anyone could best the great Frances Conroy is beyond me. Mariska whatshername will probably win, though. And then there's Allison Janney and Geena Davis. Sigh.

Lead Actor, Drama: Christopher Meloni? Really? I mean, is that show even still on? I'm guessing you don't want to get too close to Diane right now...but Hugh Laurie really was robbed. Nice to see a namesake in there, but considering Martin Sheen carried less of the West Wing in his final year than ever before, it's a dopey nom. A strange category.

Supporting Actor, Comedy. I feel very conflicted in this. Will Arnett for Arrested never fails to make me laugh, but how can you possibly win over the juggernaut that comes wrapped in a giant, "Hug it out, bitch:" Jeremy Piven? Also...Sean Hayes from Will and Gr...snorrrre.

Supporting Actor, Drama. This category's a bitch. How do you vote against the slime that is Gregory Itzin's President Logan? Well, maybe you throw Shatner, Alda, and MY MAN OLIVER PLATT in there, too. Wow, look, kids, the cliche has teeth: Michael Imperioli, it really IS just an honor to be nominated.

Supporting Actress, Comedy. Megan Mullally will take it, of course, which is a shame since Elizabeth Perkins in Weeds was sublime.

Supporting Actress, Drama. Shouldn't they just FedEx the statuette to Sandra Oh now?

And because it's the bread on which this blog is buttered..the full writing noms:

Outstanding Writing For Nonfiction Programming
American Masters • Ernest Hemingway: Rivers To The
Sea • PBS • Thirteen/WNET New York and Maha Films
DeWitt Sage, Written by
American Masters • John Ford/John Wayne: The
Filmmaker And The Legend • PBS • Thirteen/WNET New
York
Ken Bowser, Written by
How William Shatner Changed The World • The History
Channel • Handel Productions in co-production with The
History Channel, Discovery Canada, Discovery
Communications International, Arte and Channel 5 UK
Alan Handel, Writer
Julian Jones, Writer
Penn & Teller: Bullshit • Prostitution • Showtime •
Showtime Presents in association with Penn & Teller, A
Division of Buggs and Rudy Discount Corporation, Star
Price Productions, The Wolper Organization
Penn Jillette, Written by
Teller, Written by
Cliff Schoenberg, Written by
Jon Hotchkiss, Written by
Michael Goudeau, Written by
Star Price, Written by
Stardust: The Bette Davis Story • TCM • Peter Jones
Productions for Turner Classic Movies & Turner
Entertainment Co.
Peter Jones, Writer


Is it proof that I'm old that I saw at least part of every one of these? Penn & Teller always make me laugh, but it's hard to go up against American Masters.


Outstanding Writing For A Comedy Series
Arrested Development • Development Arrested • FOX •
Imagine Television and The Hurwitz Company in
association with 20th Century Fox Television
Chuck Tatham, Teleplay by
Jim Vallely, Teleplay by
Richard Day, Story by
Mitchell Hurwitz, Story by
Entourage • Exodus • HBO • Leverage and Closest to the
Hole Productions in association with HBO Entertainment
Doug Ellin, Written by
Extras • Kate Winslet • HBO • BBC and HBO
Entertainment
Ricky Gervais, Written by
Stephen Merchant, Written by
My Name Is Earl • Pilot • NBC • An Amigos de Garcia
production in association with 20th Century Fox
Television
Greg Garcia, Written by
The Office • Christmas Party • NBC • Deedle Dee
Productions, Reveille, LLC in association with NBC
Universal Television Studios
Michael Schur, Written by

Tough call. Sentimental, you gotta go with Arrested. But Earl's pilot was so admirable and fresh, the Christmas Party Office was hilarious, and the Kate Winslet Extras actually made me scream laughing.

Outstanding Writing For A Drama Series
Grey’s Anatomy • It’s the End Of The World, As We Know
It (Part 1 & 2) • ABC • Touchstone Television
Shonda Rhimes, Written by
Grey’s Anatomy • Into You Like A Train • ABC •
Touchstone Television
Krista Vernoff, Written by
Lost • The 23rd Psalm • ABC • Grass Skirt Productions,
LLC in association with Touchstone Television
Carlton Cuse, Written by
Damon Lindelof, Written by
Six Feet Under • Everyone’s Waiting • HBO • Actual Size
and the Greenblatt/Janollari Studios in association with
HBO Entertainment
Alan Ball, Written by
The Sopranos • Members Only • HBO • Chase Films and
Brad Grey Television in association with HBO
Entertainment
Terence Winter, Written by

Sorry guys. You gotta go Six Feet, if only for the last five minutes and the line, "You can't take a picture of this, it's already gone."

Outstanding Writing For A Variety, Music Or
Comedy Program
The Colbert Report • Comedy Central • Central
Productions with Busboy Productions and Spartina
Productions
Allison Silverman, Head Writer
Rich Dahm, Head Writer
Stephen Colbert, Writer
Peter Gwinn, Writer
Laura Krafft, Writer
Michael Brumm, Writer
Rob Dubbin, Writer
Eric Drysdale, Writer
Jay Katsir, Writer
Frank Lesser, Writer
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart • Comedy Central •
Central Productions LLC and Hello Doggie, Inc.
David Javerbaum, Head Writer
Rachel Axler, Writer
Kevin Bleyer, Writer
Rich Blomquist, Writer
Steve Bodow, Writer
Tim Carvell, Writer
Stephen Colbert, Writer
Eric Drysdale, Writer
J.R. Havlan, Writer
Scott Jacobson, Writer
Ben Karlin, Writer
Rob Kutner, Writer
Sam Means, Writer
Chris Regan, Writer
Jason Reich, Writer
Jason Ross, Writer
Jon Stewart, Writer
Late Night With Conan O’Brien • NBC • Broadway Video,
NBC Studios, Conaco
Mike Sweeney, Head Writer
Chris Albers, Writer
Jose Arroyo, Writer
Dan Cronin, Writer
Kevin Dorff, Writer
Daniel J. Goor, Writer
Michael Gordon, Writer
Tim Harrod, Writer
Berkley Johnson, Writer
Brian Kiley, Writer
Michael Koman, Writer
Brian McCann, Writer
Guy Nicolucci, Writer
Conan O’Brien, Writer
Brian Stack, Writer
Andrew Weinberg, Writer
Late Show With David Letterman • CBS • Worldwide Pants
Incorporated
Eric Stangel, Head Writer
Justin Stangel, Head Writer
Michael Barrie, Writer
Jim Mulholland, Writer
Steve Young, Writer
Tom Ruprecht, Writer
Lee Ellenberg, Writer
Matt Roberts, Writer
Jeremy Weiner, Writer
Joe Grossman, Writer
Meredith Scardino, Writer
Bill Scheft, Writer
Frank Sebastiano, Writer
Sam Saltz, Writer
David Letterman, Writer
Real Time With Bill Maher • HBO • Kid Love Productions
and Brad Grey Television in association with HBO
Entertainment
Ross Abrash, Writer
David Feldman, Writer
Matt Gunn, Writer
Brian Jacobsmeyer, Writer
Jay Jaroch, Writer
Chris Kelly, Writer
Bill Maher, Writer
Billy Martin, Head Writer
Danny Vermont, Writer
Scott Carter, Writer

Uh, once again, CBC, you know that whole make George's The Hour more of a late night talk show?

Read. Those. Freaking. Names.

Outstanding Writing For A Miniseries, Movie Or
A Dramatic Special
Bleak House (Masterpiece Theatre) • PBS • A BBC
WGBH-Boston Co-production in association with Deep
Indigo
Andrew Davies, Screenplay by
Elizabeth I • HBO • Company Pictures and Channel 4 in
association with HBO Films
Nigel Williams, Written by
Flight 93 • A&E • A David Gerber Company Production in
association with A&E Network and Fox Television Studios
Nevin Schreiner, Written by
The Girl In The Café • HBO • Tightrope Pictures and BBC
Wales in association with HBO Films
Richard Curtis, Written by
• HBO • Killer Films and Number 9 Films and
John Wells Productions in association with HBO Films
Phyllis Nagy, Written by

I really enjoyed The Girl in the Cafe the most. Kelly MacDonald. Rowwr!

I Love the Smell of Re-Writes in the Morning

Okay, here it is:

Writing at night is bullshit.

I know that a lot of you guys do it. Hell, once upon a time I did it. But I'm here today to repudiate the practice.

For family reasons, and reasons of just general interest, I've always been interested in research about the brain. I think that just about everything we've really learned about the brain we've learned in the last decade or so, since the advent of the MRI and CATscans became common. And what they're finding is that the night is just...different. Your brain is different at night.

This was a hard thing for me to admit. When I was in my early 20's I was a big believer in the romance of pulling an all nighter to get something done. I think I wrote every one of my University essays that way. I was also, famously, an inveterate up-to-the-wire last minute procrastinator. I was the guy who turned the essay in on Monday at 7:59 a.m. because it was due on Friday, but you'd heard from your buddy that the woman in the office hadn't stamped stuff when she left on Friday...

When I was doing sketch comedy, writing at night was like writing drunk. It was awesome fun! Everything was funny, and your creativity flowed free, man... but I was kidding myself. I was so hopped on adrenalin and being young that I mistook that early flower of being in love with writing to be the feeling that I would always get. It wasn't.

And so began the transition.

I am not a morning person. There are no morning people in my family, other than my father, who doesn't count because he takes two hour naps every afternoon. Must be nice, Dad.

My family gets dragged out of bed. When I was a kid, I made sure to ask my mother to sign permission slips or if I could do this or that first thing in the morning, because let's face it, she's a mess before about 10:30.

I have had whole conversations with my little sister that she recalls completely differently years later, and my theory is that she was slipping in and out of alpha state because it was morning when we had them.

Mornings. Feh.

Except...

There's coffee. And there's that great, grand, shining sun. And the hours stretch before you filled with portent and possibilty. The world looks different in the morning.

We live in difficult times. People seem to have trouble telling the truth -- they even seem to have trouble recognizing the truth, it seems. The night, for me, has never been about truth. The night is about regret and secrecy and passion, and longing and recrimination and rumination. But not truth. Truth is best observed and channeled in the morning's light. And truth is essential to what we do.

I can't write drunk either, anymore. No big loss, that. Though, yes, I know, Looking for Mr. Goodbar was written that way. But I'm going to go ahead and guess if you're one of those "I write at night people," you're probably 21 and drink and don't get hangovers and you've never even heard of "Looking for Mr. Goodbar."

Now there are some people who are locked into writing at night. I know. You may have a job that requires you to work days. You may have shift work. You might have kids. I know. I'm not talking about you. You do what you have to do with your personal situation to write your way out. Writing your way out means trying to treat the craft as respectfully and professionally as you can until such time as it becomes the primary way you make your money.

Does anyone recognize how similar that last sentence is to the sentiment, "fake it til you make it?"

Same thing. You have to be a professional writer long before you become a professional writer. Paradox. Deal.

When I decided to go full-time in my writing, I had a couple of advantages. I was writing a documentary soap show that gave me one script a week that didn't take very long to do, and that was enough for me to live on, for at least part of the year. I also quit a full time job, yes, but I went to school for four months, so I had a transition between work and writing.

But when that program was over, one thought came to me above all others, and it was this:

The day I'm not up and working by nine a.m. it is all over.

And I've mostly kept to that. I can say with genuine confidence that in the five years since, I've missed that Monday-Friday nine a.m. start maybe twenty times. A couple of times it was cause of a late night. A couple of times I was sick. I usually wind up working on the weekend when I don't think I accomplish enough during the week anyway. But why? Why try to emulate that workaday schedule when you don't have to?

I've thought a lot about that over the years. I think part of it has to do with trying to establish normality. People who go to work, most of em, go from 9 to 5. If I can do that, I have limits same as other people. It makes me connected to the world at large, not out on my own as much. It also gives you a built-in time to stop. It makes it easier to make plans with friends who have real jobs.

But it also maximizes those morning hours. And here's the secret, the real reason why I don't write at night anymore: if I'm going to write in the morning, I need all the churning, flipping, funking and random disconnected thought that occupies me at night to just sit there and perk. perk. perk. I don't write at night because I need the night to do something else.

What I think about at night, what I don't think about at night, what I don't realize I'm thinking about until it works its way into my dreams, that's filling the tank. Night is for maintenance and detailing. And mornings are for writing.

Karma

Good.

Nobody's Watching

Well -- if this goes anywhere it's going to be a huge, huge, quaking sea change.

From the New York Times:

At the moment the most talked-about situation comedy in the United States isn't on television at all. It's on your computer, though, and you can find it on www.youtube.com, where thousands of videos of all levels of quality are posted every day.

A comedy called — with intended irony, but not in the way that it has worked out — "Nobody's Watching" has been available on YouTube for about two weeks. As of yesterday it had been downloaded more than 300,000 times by a growing legion of fans...

"Nobody's Watching" seems to be another example of a story that the Internet world loves: the power of the amateur over the professionals. It is also the story of "viral video," which is what YouTube is all about. People post a snippet of self-made video, and word spreads about how funny, shocking, stupid or embarrassing it is.

One of the amazing things about this story is that the guy behind the show is --ta DA-- Scrubs' Bill Lawrence. This is his full-throated defence of the multi-cam sitcom, odd since Scrubs is famously, aggressively one-camera filmed -- and in fact, it probably kicked off the current round of one-camera-filmed-comedy era. Nobody's Watching was created with two writers from Family Guy: Garrett Donovan and Neil Goldman. So I guess if this show does rise from the dead, it will, in a sense, be a new twist in the incredible odds-defying saga of that show.

Between YouTube, Family Guy (and now Futurama!) rising from the dead -- kids -- nobody knows anything isn't just a credo anymore. It should be a tattoo network execs are forced to get when they sign their contracts.

Read the full Times article above -- it's quite a tale. And to save you from going to YouTube, lookie what I've got below. You're welcome.

Part One:



Part Two:



Part Three:

Cancon by the Numbers

Well, back from NY, not exactly rested, but somewhat recharged. Great theater, a lot of walking, an hour of poking around The Strand and a couple of mugs of McSorely's Cream Ale will do that to you. More on that later. And Happy Independence Day to fellow Yankees -- keep those fingers safe.

A quirk of my travel plans that I didn't realize until the moment I stepped up to the single most beautiful Canada Customs agent I have ever seen: I was entering Canada on a plane from New York, exactly the same as I did when I immigrated here 29 years ago, to the day. Weird.

Anyway, over the weekend, the CRTC released the Broadcast Policy Monitoring Report. The headline, which no one should be surprised by: Canadians like watching American Comedy and Drama much more than homegrown fare.

23% of comedy and drama watched on free-to-air, specialty, and pay tv in 2004/05 was Canadian. The remainder was imported (mostly from the U.S.)

Contrast that with news (92% homegrown) and sports (73% homegrown.)

As a baseline metric, let's compare to French language TV. In Quebec, homegrown drama and comedy drew 35% of the audience.

I am not a crazy economic nationalist, and I like American TV as much as any full-born, red blooded Canadian. But I think 35% is a fine threshold to aim for. It's still lower than homegrown viewing in just about any other country in the world. The problem, of course, is how do we get there?

Well, the study gives numbers that might indicate one way there -- and they contain a big surprise for me.

How much do Canadian networks spend on drama and comedy as a percentage of their revenues?

Pay and specialty broadcasters: 22%
CTV (over the air, number one broadcaster in every way, ratings and revenue behemoth): 3.5%
Global: (over the air) 3.4%
CHUM: (over the air) 3.3%

That is a really, really big gulf. I had never really contemplated how much the Canadian over-the-air channels spent, but in my mind's eye, I guess I always assumed it was at least 5%, if not more.

Look, the argument over whether Canadians will watch Canadian shows is over. It just is. Corner Gas. Done. Degrassi. Done. Even, if you want to go more niche, Trailer Park Boys. (if no one thought there was money to be made, why would they be making a TPB movie?) Canadians will watch these shows if they're good. They will not watch them because they're Canadian. Nor should we ask them to.

In 1999 the CRTC changed its broadcast policy, and removed provisos and guarantees which stipulated how much broadcasters had to spend on homegrown drama. The figures are familiar by now: the number of Canadian comedy and drama shows fell off a cliff overnight. (And the networks were allowed to count low-budget reality and other types of programming toward their cancon requirements.)

Why are the Pay and Specialty spending figures so much higher? Because when they were licensed, they had to promise to make drama and comedy shows. They were compelled, and so they spend.

Now, especially to American ears, the very idea of having to mandate spending on locally produced programming smacks of socialism. It leaves a bad taste. What is this, France?

Well, no. The reality is that there are tons of protectionist impulses already in place -- only they currently all favor the broadcasters. Cable substitution, that allows Canadian channels to get more bang for their buck, and keeping out U.S. competition in specialty (ie: no HBO, no Sci-Fi Channel, no ESPN, until recently no MTV) are only two of the biggies.

At the Banff TV Festival a couple of weeks ago, the CRTC announced that it was reviewing its broadcast policy again -- which some people see as the first step toward maybe reversing the disastrous 1999 decision that killed the industry for Canadian Actors, Directors, Writers, and Producers.

Canada is, and remains, a protected TV market. Any civilization that's 1/10th the size of their closest neighbor has to retain some control, lest they be culturally overrun to such a degree that the very idea of sovereignty becomes moot.

But when you're asking yourself, "How can we make TV that Canadians want to watch?" I think those percentage figures show you one way. You can't compete against U.S. fare that is made for four and five times the budget. Canadian fare will never get to that level -- but imagine how much better it would look, and be, and feel, if maybe those expenditure rates were closer to 10%? How many more writers could you hire? Could you maybe not have to block shoot? Could you order more episodes, allowing for viewership to build? Could we include "promotion" of Canadian fare into the expenditure money, so that eyeballs know where to find it? Could we do more pilots? Could we pay writers for longer, so that scripts weren't being rushed into production before they're ready?

People will -- people DO -- watch Canadian programming. But not if it's an afterthought.

Why The World Needs Superman

That's a motif that keeps popping up all the way through Bryan Singer's loving, respectful, and luminous relaunch of the Superman mythos.

In the movie, Lois Lane has won a Pulitzer for editorializing the opposite. Througout the film, there's a distinct melancholy cant that we're now familiar with from Singer's superior work on the X-Men (as well as that first gutbusting script from Dave Hayter) and Spider Man.

But to see it applied to the Alpha and Omega of superheroes is to somehow elevate it. My friend Mark Askwith today was telling me about Neil Gaiman's book where he talks about stories written about tigers -- filled with violence and action, and trickster stories -- written about monkeys.

The strength of Superman, simply put, is that it has always been a tiger story written by monkeys. To truly grok the people, the sensibility that formed Superman back in the 30's, you have to read Michael Chabon's Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. This is not a hero from the haves. It's a dream of strength from the margins, from the have nots. Whatever it is about Singer-- and I won't psychoanalyse the man-- but he gets that on a profound level.

Much has been made of Superman Returns' reverence for the Donner film interpretation, and it certainly does show that. (Down to Glenn Ford on the mantel as Pa Kent.) But it's also probably the loneliest Superman you've ever seen. It's a comic book movie, yes. But by tapping in to the angst of the world moving on without you, Singer has tapped a vein, a weakness in Superman that's way more powerful than Kryptonite.

This, at its essence, is an immigrant's story. In our age, when there's so much debate about immigration and assimilation versus retaining your heritage, how subversive is it to take the consummate American hero, Superman, and anchor a story in his deep, deep need to belong, and his inability to ever fit in?

The other thing that's great about Superman Returns, in this day and age, is that even more than the Donner films, this is a document that posits that Superman belongs to the world. This is an American myth, yes, but there's enough attention paid at the margins that proves that Superman is the best that America has to offer. He's the city on the hill in tights. He's admired around the globe because he represents the best that America can be -- the idealism, the purpose, the generosity, the goodness, and the vision that she falls so short from today.

I was moved by this movie.

And...back to the sadness ... If you remember that image of the man falling from the WTC on 9/11 -- there's a couple of chills you'll get watching it.

More than any of that, this movie made me feel ten. I begged my father to take me to the original Superman film in 1978. I can't wait to talk about this one with him.

I've skippped all the other blockbusters this summer, and I likely will continue that behavior. It's served me pretty well so far. But boy, am I glad I saw Superman Returns today. It feels good to see a tiger, even when deep down you know you're a monkey.

UPDATE: Here I go. I'm opening myself up to flame war 2006 here, but has anyone else noticed that a lot of the negative reviews of Superman Returns are written by women? (And yeah, I know Ebert panned it. But really, you think that disproves my point? Kidding. Here's the shortcut, ladies. We hate chick flicks and make fun of them, and when we do you get mad at us. You don't like Superhero movies, and when we point out the similarity of the situation, rather than seeing the interesting sociolgical difference, you get mad at us. Can we just take our face slap and go back to sleep?

P.S. -- We're willing to fight it out -- but only if there's a HIGH degree of likelihood of the makeup sex. I mean, come on. It's Superman. Not Rapebear.

***

On another note, I'm deep into writing for Across the River to Motor City right now. There's very serious deadlines coming up -- and what originally I hoped would be a "yay, I'm done" trip to New York City turns out to be a "oh my god, I have to relax for 72 hours because I'm so busy" trip. So that means -- I think -- light blogging for the next several days.

I'll think of you when I'm writing in Washington Square Park.

Well, not really. But it's the thought, right?

Meantime, check out this nifty full interview Alan Sepinwall did with Tolan and Leary over THAT episode of Rescue Me (spoilers for Canadian viewers.)

By accident, last night

I watched Wag The Dog.

Jebus Chris!

When did that movie become a freaking documentary?

It's like how Broadcast News is a quaint period piece now. When you see a film that warns about something, and the something comes to pass, and it's worse than the movie warned you about, then what?

Is that stupid Day After Tomorrow Film going to play like this some day?

I need a hot toddy and a cold towel.

Whistler Goes South

An article that caught my eye this morning. So the brave new world of integrated content begins.

From C21 Media.net

MTV Networks' programming arm and nighttime network for teens The N will simulcast the premiere of teen drama Whistler on-air and online on its new broadband media player, The Click.

In addition, following the series' debut on Friday June 30 at 9:00 p.m. viewers will be able to watch online companion series Sneak Peeks and exclusive Whistler webisodes.

The former provides viewers with a glimpse of the following week's upcoming episode, while the webisodes comprise 13 original shorts that will roll out at the conclusion of each on-air episode. The webisodes also act as a prequel to the premiere and provide viewers with the opportunity to catch original narrative content that delves deeper into the series' storylines.

Whistler, set in the eponymous Canadian ski resort, is a mystery that revolves around the sudden death of an Olympic skier that sends shockwaves through the small – but secretive – community.

Whistler is produced by Canadian/US production outfit Blueprint Entertainment and Canada's Boardwatch Productions.

So while everyone flails wondering about mobisodes, it seems like this show, aimed at young adults, has them firmly entrenched in their DNA.

Fasten your seatbelts, folks.

Moose, 1990-2006

Some mourn Aaron Spelling. I go my own way.

From Canada.com:

Frasier star Moose, who played Eddie, has passed away. He was 16.

The four-legged co-star of Kelsey Grammar and David Hyde Pierce died last Thursday night at the home of his trainer Mathilde Halberg in Los Angeles.

Moose, a Jack Russell terrier, was on the popular sitcom for a decade, playing the companion of John Mahoney's character, Martin.

I haven't been this broken up since the last time I heard those immortal words, "Sit, Ubu, Sit...Good Dog. Woof."

Rescue Peter Tolan

Originally I was going to start delving into my Rx for Canadian TV makers, based on the interview with Diane Kristine.

But I mean, enough with the Canadian TV already, right?

(Note to readers bored from places like the USA: it's an easy habit to get into this time of year, since your networks aren't showing anything new and ours are dumping all their new Canadian stuff on the air right now.)

So what to write about. Sure, I could talk about how, from the moment I first watched Huff, I knew that the phrases "Russel Tupper" and "Dead Hooker" had to come together in some way.

But that doesn't seem to grab me. And besides, I'd much rather talk about Oliver Platt once I get back from New York. (I'll be seeing him on Broadway in Conor Macpherson's Shining City next weekend. Yay!)

So there I am, wondering what to talk about, and then, lo and behold, Peter Tolan (Rescue Me) goes on Television Without Pity last weekend.

Oh boy.

*A note for Canadians. Over the next few paragraphs, I'm going to be discussing things from the third season of Rescue Me, which has yet to air in Canada. If you're spoiler averse, you should probably stop reading.......now.



(l'il bit o' spoiler space)





At the end of the episode, Tommy went to meet Janet to discuss divorce arrangements. The whole thing went down calmly -- too calmly -- with Tommy acquiesing to most of Janet's requests.

Then he forced her down on the couch, ripped her blouse open, and forced himself on her. She fought back, but at some point, clearly gave in. After it was over, Tommy apologized: not about the rape -- about ripping the shirt.

Janet's answer: "It wasn't one of my favorites."

Tommy got going because he knew his brother, (who's now sleeping with Janet) would be home any moment. He left, the brother rolled up, and Janet was sitting on the couch (having changed her blouse) chipper, and smiling like nothing happened.

It was a horrifying scene. For a lot of reasons.

Most of the TV writer coverage has focused on the rape itself, understandably. But there was so much else to be horrified over. His cavalier attitude. Her cavalier attitude. Her willingness to cover it up. And, of course, the suggestion that the attentions -- though unwanted -- were not entirely unwelcome.

Editorials have taken Rescue Me to task for "its pattern of misogyny," and a lot of writers seem to be suggesting that this episode crossed the line.

So Tolan -- in a fit of I don't know what -- decided to try and go explain himself.

From the L.A. Times:

Before posting his first comment, "I sat there and thought, 'Should I do this? My gut is saying no,' " he said in a phone interview Friday. "I thought maybe I could explain some things.

"But all you do," he has since concluded, "is paint a target on your back."

So what did he say?

From the TWOP forums:

This is Peter Tolan. I learned about this site a few days ago while reading an article in EW, so I checked out the RM forum. I'm amazed about the quality of our fans. Some really interesting takes on things - even the people who take us to task do so in a consistantly thoughtful manner. And to the person who saw the World Series ring on DL's hand in the truck near the end of last season's finale - you made his day. He didn't think anyone would ever notice.

Let me affix the target to my back - there - now I'll continue. About last night's episode and the scene near the end between Tommy and Janet. We tried to be extremely careful about that scene. I did not direct the episode, but I did my most careful writing in preparing the scene. Our feeling has always been that Tommy and Janet are in a highly dysfunctional relationship (obviously), a negative vortex fueled by only one positive - a faint glimmer of love that is constantly overshadowed by truly fantastic physical attraction. In terms of the scene last night, I never wrote the words 'don't' or 'no' at any point in the scene, and when I talked to Andrea about the playing of the thing, I pretty much told her that she had to stand up to Tommy - that he had taken so much away from her over the years, that she had to stare him down from a position of strength while he was forcing himself on her. I told her to shame him with the words she was given - to let him know she couldn't hurt her anymore, no matter what he did.

Did this come across? For many viewers, obviously not. I was not on set the day the scene was shot (I live in California and am only in NYC when I direct episodes), so maybe those ideas weren't followed through as well as they could have been. I'll admit this is extremely dicey stuff. The idea of any woman 'enjoying' being raped is repellant, and caused all of us (and the network) a great deal of concern. But again, these are seriously damaged people who are unable to express their emotions - and so expression through brutality has become expected.

I don't want to answer to many other questions - although I'm sure I will in the weeks to come should anyone care to ask. But I do want to clear up the Probie story issue, which no one seems to be enjoying. I also want to clear up a quote that was attributed to me, about torturing Mike Lombardi with this storyline.

I came up with this story idea during one of our first story sessions of the year. Many times on this show, I'll pitch something that seems a little out there - even to me. This was one of those stories. I don't want to go into too much detail, but it was never pitched as a joke to see Lombardi discomfitted. Hey, we're moronic at times, but that's going too far. The truth of the story is - we've sort of bailed on the original pitch and now we're neither fish nor fowl. The original pitch had Probie much more invested in the relationship with the guy. When the crew found out about what was going on, they joked and slowly accepted it, but something else happened - they all started to chip away at him, questioning him, breaking his resolve about his choice. Soon he'd be so uncertain about what he was doing, he'd go to the guy with the intent of breaking things off. The guy - in love with Mike - would respond violently - and I can't say much more. It was very dark and much more interesting than what we've got now. Honestly, we disagreed about the story among ourselves - and now we're stuck with a much more shallow story that's played, sadly, more for laughs.

Welcome to writing a television drama. We're trying to do something different with RM - straddling a thin line between heart-wrenching drama and balls-out comedy. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we don't. Again, sorry if anyone was offended by the scene last night. That was not our intention.

And to the person who's had so many lovely things to say about me the last few hours, I wrote this whole post with both hands securely on the keyboard. Thought that might help you lighten up a little bit.

From there the conversation devolved. You can read the whole thread (starting with Tolan's post as "Jim Spriggs" here)

After a while, it started to devolve. You can see Tolan enjoying some of the adulation -- complimenting posters on analyses and details noticed...but eventually it all goes south. It got bruising, inevitably.

We've been here before, of course. I wrote about LOST fans sometime ago, and how demystifying the writing process is a non-starter that shouldn't be attempted. (At least not in that kind of unmediated environment.) Aaron Sorkin got his ass handed to him at TWOP, and eventually worked it into his show.

But this kind of stuff is only going to get worse. Because drama is at a point where it has now got to be more brutal, more raw, and take more chances. More chances mean more people not liking what you have to say.

When you're surrounded by lies every day -- when your culture is threatened by doublespeak and division, the choices seen on TV are going to reflect that.

It doesn't stop with Tony Soprano. Characters are going to die now. They're going to get fucked up. They're going to make terrible choices. They're going to do things that they wouldn't have done ten years ago. Jack Bauer will torture people. Tommy Gavin will rape his wife. And Janet Gavin will enjoy it on some sick level -- because she's still hot for Tommy, and that's probably why she's fucking his brother in the first place.

I was horrified by that rape scene. (And I won't entertain any of the idiots saying it wasn't rape, either. It started as rape. Ergo, It was rape.) But you know what? I was horrified the episode before, when Tommy beat his brother bloody because he discovered the brother was sleeping with his wife. I was horrified by Tommy's little girl having to look at her beaten-up Uncle, and him reassuring her that it was OK, and not to be scared of her daddy. I was horrified by the conversations between Tommy and his brother where their violent way of working things out was treated as normal -- and no big deal. I was horrified when the son died, and Janet blamed Tommy. I was even horrified by the comic subplot, when the Probie got a blowjob from his roommate and then insisted he wasn't gay -- cause he was only getting a BJ -- and rather than talk about it to a place of understanding -- they too got into a drag out fight. I'm horrified that the brother was probably coming to the house to confront Tommy. I'm horrified that he carries a gun. I'm horrified that he probably would have used it.

This is what Rescue Me is. It's about people bottled up and twisted by grief, who can't express themselves and who act out in stupid, self-destructive ways. It's about people thrown together who would probably be better off apart. It's all horrifying. Which is why it's such compelling viewing. The point isn't that they crossed the line. In the very first episode, we find out that Tommy is sleeping with his dead best friend's wife. We're told right off the top that among firefighters this is a great big no-no. Tommy has crossed the line. There it is, right from the beginning. Rescue Me is a show about characters who will set lines, and constantly cross them, and never, ever, ever be honest or stop to think, "what am I doing and why?"

Melodrama tells you what to think. You can watch an hour of melodrama, and at the end, the moral is, "racism is bad." Great. Nice. Next. You can now go feel really smug and have not have been moved one iota.

Drama, on the other hand, is supposed to raise provocative questions and get you thinking. You can't do that and not have a variety of opinions. YOU WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE DIFFERING VIEWS ABOUT IT.

People are restless today because their media is constantly telling them what to think, and the background white noise is buzzing, buzzing, buzzing, and telling them that it's all bullshit. Some people hate this. They want to have an easy answer, especially from TV.

But the best dramas: Six Feet, Sopranos, Rescue Me -- are not about giving you answers. They don't let you off the hook that way. Why should they? Life doesn't let you off the hook, either.

But there's always going to be a sector of the audience that hates that. Just like the fans of the old, cheesy 1978 Battlestar Galactica who complain that they want the shiny campy original, rather than the dark drama of the re-invention. These fans will go so far as to insist things that are just not true: like the new series is a failure (even as it's renewed) and no one likes it (even as it makes top ten lists, and is singled out by TIME and the New York Times.)

There's no talking to these people.

Some of 'em, anyway. And you know what? The moment you write something that doesn't have an easy, melodrama-like interpretation, that's what you've signed up for.

Andrea Roth, the very smart, very beautiful actor who plays Janet, had her say about the scene in a recent interview. You'll notice that Tolan, though he seems out on a limb on this one, actually is pretty in step with the people making the show, who may have a deeper or different view of the central relationship. She spoke to TV Guide, and said:

It has a dark, dysfunctional soul, mixed with a lot of light, funny drama. The audience has no idea [what will happen], so it's like a big kids' roller-coaster ride. There's enough alcohol, swearing and sex involved so it's a good ride. Every once in a while, because it can get so outrageous, I wonder if people think it's just too over-the-top or soapy, but they just eat it up. The crazier it gets, the more obsessed people get.

Interestingly enough, in the TVGuide interview, Roth seems to indicate that she was far more disturbed by the anger she had to play in the wake of her child's death than the rape scene. That makes total sense to me. She wants to connect to the human emotion, the thing that lets us get through times of grief. But Tolan said, "stay angry." That's hard. Because that's not how we want to think of people in times of sorrow. It's counter-intuitive. But that is also the absolute dysfunctional DNA of Rescue Me.

So where does that leave things? How did Tolan come through his online experience? From the L.A. Times again:

Meanwhile, Tolan has gotten a bit of karmic payback himself. He clearly feels a little burned by his online adventure. But his experience may prove useful for future producers who find themselves squaring off against an empowered fan base. He also can't say he wasn't warned.

"I've actually talked to some friends, some of whom are actors who are very well known and other writers, and I've said, 'How do you find it to be dealing with your fans of your shows?' To a person, they said, 'You know, it's probably not a good idea to get involved.' "

So does that mean farewell to the message boards?

"I think I'll go back to say I won't be back," he said.

This is now a well-established pattern. Simpsons writers, Aaron Sorkin, Tolan -- each has been through the fire of TWOP and come out burned. At what point do you concede that it's not that you presented yourself poorly, but maybe -- just maybe -- it's a function of the kind of unmediated experience a board represents that you are going to come out the loser?

You have your say. It's on celluloid, or HD, and people watch it. A little mystery and mediation in your interaction with the audience is a good thing. Because once you put yourself down on the level with the audience -- eventually someone will turn on you.

I don't want to say that the audience is Mark David Chapman laying in wait outside the Dakota for John Lennon, but...

...well, wait a second. Will that image keep you off the boards? Will it keep me off the boards, trying to justify my work?

Fine.

The audience (or part of em, anyway) are like Mark David Chapman waiting for John Lennon.

If you are an actual, honest-to-mergutroid writer: Message boards are not for you. Stay away. As much as the fans may say they want your feedback, they really don't. The nature of the social experience will be that once you are a voice among many, and eventually, they will take you down. Partly because you've introduced a power dynamic to an area that's supposed to be "equal." Everybody on a message board is entitled to their opinion. Some are stupid, some are trenchant, but so long as they don't P.O. the moderators (who they bitterly resent, BTW) they get to have their say. And they fiercely protect that right. But if you come in with more knowledge, or first-hand knowledge, sure, at first they might like it. But after a while, they're going to think that you think you're better than them. That's just the way it goes. Eventually that accusation comes out. You may think it's true. You may think it's not. But it doesn't matter. You're not on the dais. You're not being interviewed by the NYTimes or Entertainment Weekly -- you're in the bearpit with the groundlings. And they smell blood.

You get your chance to express yourself through art. This is theirs.

As much as it may be tempting, as much as you think it's a more egalitarian way to interact than answering mail on a website (filtered) or podcasts that go one-way, or screenings with Q&A's, it's not.

Leave it alone.

Whistler'ing Past The Graveyard

Whew.

Well, except for the fact that once again, CTV must have a herd of rabbit's feet stashed in a basement in Agincourt somewhere, I'm pleased to be able to say that Whistler's premiere has come and gone, and everyone involved can hold their head high.

For the kind of show Whistler is, you kind of have to apply what I call The O.C. test. There is a LOT of sneering, provincial, anti-intellectualism that passes as "Kulture" among the Canadian hoi-polloi -- but I've always trusted those who can throw down and admit, "Yeah, I watched Survivor..." or, as I tongue-in-cheekily declared to a friend of mine a few years back, "The O.C. is the most important show on television."

Those were the days.

So, how does Whistler stack up? Well, sadly, no memorable line like "Welcome to the O.C., bitch..." but you've got your solid high school characters: the decent younger brother (who actually does look like a high school student) and the luscious babe he loves from afar (who can act and is really pretty.) Among the adults, you have a very strong Nick Lea making us forget Alex Krycek from The X-Files, and -- well -- I don't know many of the other actors, but some of them are intriguing enough. The guy playing Krycek's brother is particularly creepy.

Then there's the TV stuff woven into the DNA of the show: a who-killed-Laura-Palmer like mystery...a rich mouse, poor mouse simmering conflict between have and have nots...and more importantly, sexy people doing cool moves on the slopes and then coking and boozing it up apres-ski. Gnarly, dude.

Sure, Canadian TV preserves its perfect streak of never being able to cast someone who can do a credible Aussie accent, but that's a minor quibble.

What's revelatory, though, is the look -- a quantum leap forward for Canadian drama. I watched in HD and the composition of each shot was painterly and beautiful. They remembered to give the actors EYELIGHT -- which Canadian drama NEVER does. Rather than the flat, drugstore lighting we're used to, each setup had depth and grace -- hinting at shadows beyond, and bathed in golden light at other times.

I know a lot of the time when they talk about the look of the show, that's code for "it sucked but it looked good." And this is not that. The storytelling moved along at a pleasing clip...scenes didn't sag. The writing wasn't self-consciously spectacular, but it more than did the job -- you had a pretty good idea about the characters and the relationships between them as the hour wore on -- and most of that was communicated without a ton of clumsy exposition. Maybe the writing wasn't West Wing -- but it was good. I enjoyed it. And there were a couple of funny lines, too. So that's great and bodes well for the show's future. Kelly Senecal, the creator, John Fawcett, the director, and the whole team should be very proud of this show. It's got more potential than CTV's last three high profile series ever had.

(I might have waited til Episode 2 to introduce the talking ghosts, but hey, that's me. When you're going for the high-O.C. vibe -- I don't know if you want to muddy it up with that touch of Rescue Me or Six Feet.)

But the best thing about Whistler -- and here's me burying the lead -- it was NOT EARNEST.

Yaaayyyy!

Finally, I've been to the real Whistler once or twice in my life. I'm not a big skier or snowboarder. But this program made it seem exotic, and glamorous and fun -- it made it seem like a place you want to go back to-- a key hurdle for establishing a franchise for a series, and seeing as they're building toward the next Olympics, it strikes me that there's plenty of room for stories for years to come.

Whistler did great. I'm definitely going to watch again. I don't know if it's got the chops to replace my mourning for the O.C. when it was still good, but I'm willing to stick with it a while to find out.

...and I was curious about some of those songs on the songtrack. Hmmm.

Whistler continues Sunday nights at 10pm in Canada on CTV. You can get information on how to view it on demand at www.ctv.ca -- and if you're in the U.S., check the listings for The N to find out when it's on in your viewing area.