Getting the Word Out: Start Talking!

UH OH.

Variety's got a disturbing article up that kinda puts a different slant on what I was writing about this morning.

When 10 hours of negotiations broke down Sunday at 9:30 p.m. PT, AMPTP president Nick Counter issued a statement at 10:16 p.m., saying "the guild was unwilling to compromise .... It is unfortunate that they choose to take this irresponsible action." WGA spokesman Gregg Mitchell simply said, "For now all I can confirm is contract talks have ended for the night."

It wasn't until 11:46 p.m. that the guild countered Counter -- too late for some newspaper deadlines, including Variety's. Meanwhile, those 90 minutes allowed the producers' version of events to spread on the web. When so many in the industry are hungry for facts quickly -- and especially in the age of the Internet -- silence and slowness can prove to be a serious handicap.

Admittedly, the guild has a an inherent difficulty because both parts of the negotiating committee -- the WGA East and the WGA West -- must approve statements.

As a result, many media outlets are accused of taking the companies' side. Several emails to Daily Variety have charged that the paper's coverage is one-sided. In truth, articles here -- and in other major media outlets -- often have included sharp quotes from the producers, but not much from the writers due to their delayed reactions.

WGA members were told over the weekend, "Please do not talk to the press. There will be a press captain and a WGA staff member at each gate on each shift to handle press and any other issue we may encounter" during picketing.

Off the picket line, scribes normally receptive to giving interviews with reporters were suddenly clamming up. Several returned calls, but begged off giving on the record interviews. They cited chatter that there had been a backlash against several prominent scribes who had talked to reporters, even if their comments were pro-guild.

Writers are careful about crafting their words. During the 2004 presidential election, John Kerry took "the high road" and refused to comment on the Swift Boat rumors. His silence allowed the rumors to get out of hand and by the time he responded, irreparable damage was done.

By carefully watching their words, the writers are in danger of getting swift-boated.

Please, please don't lose the plot here guy. It doesn't matter that you're right. It matters how you sell it.

Blooming Late and Next Year's Pilots

I TRIED, and probably failed, recently to explain the concept of royalties to somebody on a message board, and why the WGA was so dead set against having them rolled back.

And by extension, why the hardline on internet royalties is needed (because the business is moving to downloads, and a bad deal on net usage royalties amounts to the same thing: a rollback in effect if not name.)

I know that issues in any Labor dispute are hard to understand for people who aren't intimately familiar, or immediately concerned about them.

That's why something that I read somewhere else in all the strike coverage has really stayed with me. Forgive me for not being able to attribute this -- I just don't remember where I saw it. But it's a good, concrete example.

Royalties allow writers who bloom late to hang on, and make enough of a living til that one great idea comes along.

See, development can take years. It's intensive, it's in your own head -- the creative process, mysterious and weird and peculiar as it is, doesn't often work on an easily monetized timetable.

Writing -- good writing -- also requires smarts. Lots of smarts. It's no exaggeration for me to say that the writers I know are mostly also the smartest people I know.

Now, if you're smart, there comes a point where you just can't justify doing this thing that makes you so little money, when you know for a fact that if you went into law, say, or advertising or marketing you'd be able to support your family, or even yourself better.

Even if you're a great writer, it's entirely possible that you will go months, and years between jobs. That's just the way it is. In the U.S. system, your royalties can carry you and keep you in the business long after you think, "maybe I would be better off doing something else."

Now take an example like David Chase. Chase wrote for The Rockford Files and Northern Exposure -- and did some great work. But that one great idea, that game changer, actually came pretty late to him in life.

If he hadn't had royalties to support himself, he probably would have quit. Money runs out, writing is hard, at some point -- stop struggling. Go do something else.

If there were no royalties, it's entirely possible we would have never gotten The Sopranos.

Now, for a 180 degree turn, friend o'the blog Blueglow has the laugh out loud dark cloud to the dark cloud of this strike:

I guess my biggest fear regarding the fallout of the strike's eventual outcome will be the number of shows and stories about "labour disputes" I am going to have to endure next year.

Oh God. Right. That's gonna be horrendous.

Midseason 2009 Pilot Schedule

FOX

Labor Pains - A buxom yet misunderstood legal secretary (Pamela Anderson) convinces all the secretaries at her law firm to fill out union cards. It's the suits versus the saucy secretaries! Co-starring Kathy Griffin, and Flava Flav as the boss.

Final Offer - Each week, a firebrand mediator (Adam Arkin) has just eight hours to conclude a contract before a key industry shuts down forever. Co-starring Knocked Up's Dr. Ken as the People's Republic of China, with special appearances by Abe Vigoda as the Ghost of Sam Walton.

CBS

Black Rock - Each week, Les Moonves yells at somebody. A lot.

Steeerike! - Kevin James plays a former Showrunner who once ran a 40 million dollar action adventure show, til he refused to cross a picket line and was blacklisted forever. But none of that stress compares to the horror of coaching Little League Baseball! Starring Mischa Barton as the skinny wife.

NBC

Hardliners -- Three lovable lugs (Kenan Thompson, Andy Samberg, Kristin Wiig) walk the picket line as the strike against Globalco enters its 3rd year. In a very special Episode 3, Former Vice President Al Gore stops by to fit the pickters with solar-generating beanies and windmills for their signs.

...are you rocking foetally yet?

Any other suggestions, let loose in the comments below. *unless you're a striking WGA member that is...pencils down means pencils down.

Across The Internet

COURTESY OF THE TIRELESS DIANE, and her TV-Eh? site, comes the news that the official website for ACROSS THE RIVER TO MOTOR CITY is up.
The Program airs in Canada on CityTV stations November 22 (November 20 in Winnipeg.)

From the story description, written by yours truly:

In every life there is a river that divides one generation from the next. A river of time that separates the people we were from the people we become. For Ben Ford and his daughter Kathleen, the river of history is about to change course, exposing the secrets of a lifetime laying just beneath its surface.

Across the River to Motor City is an epic story about the lengths a father will go to protect his daughter from his tormented past.

November 22, 1963 – A motorcade rounds a corner – a muzzle flashes into history and nothing will ever be the same. Not for Ben Ford, not for anyone. Camelot is dead.

On that fateful day, Ben’s love, Katie, disappears after a flight from Dallas. From quiet, industrious Windsor to the decaying giant, Detroit, he searches for answers that draw him deeper into a world of deceit and violence. A world that reflects his inner turmoil; “Who killed Katie?”
Forty years later, the remains of two bodies are found. Ben is a broken old man with a grown daughter he barely knows. The police are at his door. He is the prime suspect in Katie’s murder.

Only he knows the truth and is willing to take it to his grave but the specter of his past finds new life, threatening to destroy his daughter and her family.

The events of his life unfold in back alleys and bars, crossing the paths of ruthless mobsters and helpless victims. In his search for justice, Ben is swept into a conspiracy that shaped the modern world. The ashes of his youth are scattered across the river to Motor City.

History's not done yet. Not with Ben, his family, any of us. Whether it's November 1963 or today – the river of history can always change course. Whether you go with the current – or get pulled under – that's a lesson for a lifetime.

The website looks pretty nifty.
Funny, it seems like a million years ago and another lifetime when I wrote all that description and copy. Good to see it going to good use. The best thing about the show is probably the great performances from the two Ben Fords -- (David Fox and Sasha Roiz) -- two fine, fine Canadian actors.

I saw one of the actresses from the show in a casting session last week. She mentioned she'd done some press. That's cool.
I'm all about letting the pretty people do the selling. Even I don't want to see my barnacled ass on the TeeVee.

I'll be writing more about ATR closer to the air date, and maybe post some script stuff. We'll see. For now, go, poke around the new site, kick the tires a bit, and let me know what you think. (Like what was I thinking sending them that photo?)

The URL is www.acrosstheriver.tv

Blogging for Context

IT'S STRANGE reading the coverage of the strike in the major news media. Strange because there is a distinct lack of "reality check" coverage. There seems to be much repeating of Producer fictions like the laughable "writers earn $200 000 on average."

I guess you couldn't expect much from Variety or the Hollywood Reporter on that score. But the longer this thing drags on, the more opportunities there are to draw attention to just how the stranglehold of corporate concentration affects the supposedly "free" media.

The 2005 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation strike was a black eye for Canada's national broadcaster, and one of the worst parts about it -- if you were management -- was seeing the parade of CBC blogs out there, getting the point of view of the raw, unfiltered opinions of the working class out there. CBC was never the savviest broadcaster in the getting out the message department, but they were caught seriously off guard by the raw opinions of their own workers in the Summer of 2005.

The WGA strike has the advantage, of course, of being about writers. The public may not know who they are, but they are the ones who can frame a story. And proceeding from the platform of blogs I've recently added to the Strike section of the sideboard, any reader can skip through the rhetoric and read up in a moment on just why this strike is going on. The more you read, the more you start to understand just how odious the Studios' position here is. I particularly love John Rogers take on it: they've gone tiger.

One of my favorite jokes, just a lovely piece of writing, is Chris Rock's bit about the time one of Siegfried and Roy's tigers mauled Roy.

"Everybody's mad at the tiger. 'That tiger went crazy!' That tiger didn't go crazy ... that tiger went tiger."

This is how I feel about corporations in general, extended to the Studios in particular. There are those who rail at the AMPTP for being profit-maximizing heartless, soul-less bastards as if that were a bad thing. It's not.

A corporation's job is to make money, and if necessary fuck you in the process. Just like a tiger's job is to eat, and if necessary kill you in the process. I'm okay with that. I like capitalism. A lot. I like tigers. A lot. That doesn't mean I trust corporations not to try to screw me and everyone next to me when negotiating. Nor would I trust a tiger not to attack me in the wild. Nor am I personally offended when they try.

All this to say that the Studios have not been negotiating in good faith, nor probably did they ever intend to. Why? They went tiger.

How Did We Get Here?

The negotiations started like this:

Writers: "We want residuals in internet downloads, let's start at a 2.5% for a negotiating point, an increase in our DVD residuals from .3% to a nominally less pathetic .6%, and a bunch of other bullshit that's on the table for negotiating purposes."

Studios: "How about ZERO PERCENT, not only of the new stuff but we also redefine existing residuals so that you won't get any of those, either? Oh yeah, and here are some other rollbacks, all financially punitive and some actually morally objectionable!"

Tiger.

Then, at the last minute, after the Guild yanked a bunch of its proposals off the table, the AMPTP made it plain that they weren't going to budge at all on the one issue driving the entire strike, the internet download issue. That they would, indeed, go tiger over it.

Rogers' full post can be read here. It's not as clean and simple as John August's version, but it is more forward looking.

When you read about strikes of old, the big ones from the early 20th century, you see a pattern emerge. In those early battles, the management's position was so indefensible, the workers' demands so basic, the overreaction to them so out-of-proportion -- that you can only marvel from our safe vantage of history and say, "man, I can't believe how unfair things were before."

Now, no one's dying in the machinery. They're not making Children work. (Well, the Olsen twins, but that turned out...um..never mind) Yes, film and TV is essentially frivolous -- but the basic issue here -- the principle of whether artists will be allowed to share proportionally in the fruits of their intellectual labors -- is a basic precept that will have implications for people who work in "knowledge industries" for years to come. This is the economy we're heading for -- not bricks and mortar, but ingenuity and brainpower.

It's about whether the only guy who gets rewarded for that is the 20 billion dollar a year CEO, or if we're going to let, you know, people buy houses and raise their kids.

I agree with Kay Reindl. I hope pretty soon we stop hearing from the Carlton Cuse's and start hearing from Joe Middleclass, who's barely making it, and who went into writing to save the world from having to suffer another schlepping lawyer.

The thing is, you won't read about him or her in the big papers or corporate media...that much is becoming clear. So seek out those alternative sources. Read the voices from the line. Guys, ramp up that storytelling.

And appreciate those few major media sources that will frame the strike in the proper context, like the Globe & Mail's John Doyle:

Sometimes a reader will contact me and ask if I could spare a few minutes to talk to a son or daughter who wants to be a journalist or writer, create a TV show or write a movie. The parent is always proud but wary of the child's ambition and seeks advice.

Usually, I give what advice I can.

I was thinking about these requests on Monday morning when it became clear that, for a start, you won't have Leno, Letterman and Jon Stewart to entertain you for a while. Maybe you'll miss 'em. Maybe you won't. Perhaps most of you are in bed by late-night, TV talk-show time. But the question is this: Should you care about the strike by the Writers Guild of America?

Yes, you should. It's about a fair deal for writers. It's about knowing that people who toil in the entertainment racket are getting a fair return for their work. It's about dollars and cents and the obligation of everyone to acknowledge the work of people you never see on TV and rarely hear about. It's about the endless battle to ensure a fair deal for those who create what we consume as art and entertainment. It about what worries parents when a child decides to write and create for a living.

According to reports on the negotiating strategies by the Writers Guild, the union's proposed increase in the amount writers would earn from DVD sales would cost the studios and broadcasters about $220-million (U.S.) over the three years of the next contract. Simultaneously, according to accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, $24.4-billion in revenues was generated by DVD sales and rentals last year and that's just in the United States. Yes, you read that correctly - more than $24-billion.

Then there is the matter of money derived from the Internet, iPods, cellphones and all manner of other devices. You and I are watching TV material online or buying devices that allow us to watch TV here, there and everywhere. There's always an ad that comes with the show. That's revenue for some giant entertainment corporation. The writers just want a fair share of the royalty.

Almost everybody who creates something that is consumed by the public has been through this fight as technology changes the marketplace. Writers of books had to fight for compensation when it became clear that schools, universities and others were simply photocopying them. Musicians and songwriters are still fighting to ensure that the public pays for their creations instead of grabbing it, for free, from the Internet.

Apparently, during last-minute negotiations on Sunday, the Writers Guild was willing to shrink its demands for more money from DVD sales, but unwilling to move on its demand for a bigger share of revenue from the Internet and other platforms.

The Writers Guild is taking a very tough stand, and so it should. If your son or daughter, spouse or any family member was working in the entertainment business, you'd want them compensated fairly, wouldn't you? That's why you should care.

No, you won't be laughing along with Leno, Letterman and Jon Stewart for a while. This strike is no laughing matter.

Oh, one more thing. Let's not think about what impact American Democracy will suffer, now that a bunch of younger voters have lost their primary source of politial info, (which studies show actually keeps them pretty well informed.)

Ah, The Daily Show. What will we do without you?

Strike Day One

Strike
Originally uploaded by Celluloid Refuge

WELL, THAT DIDN'T take very long. I'm starting to hear trickles from various people I know down in L.A. from the picket line and environs.

A Canadian writer L.A. transplant friend writes:

Spent the past couple hours on the picket line outside CBS. Yes! Lil' ol' me. Gossip I heard:

"Cane" is finally dead. They're blaming the WGA strike. Not the shitty ratings.

And Julia Louis Dreyfuss walked off the set of "New Adventures of Old Christine" today and promptly joined the picket line. Probably because of the fact that (duh) you kinda need a writer around when rehearsing a sitcom.

Yeah! You Go, Julia Louis Dreyfuss. You join Shawn Ryan on the Awesome list. (Edit: It may be hard to see without clicking on it, but a Flickr'r called Celluloid Refuge actually snapped that awesome pic. Yes, that is indeed Julia Louis Dreyfuss on the left. Cool pic, dood!)

Of course, remember that whatever bullshit Nick Counter wants to spill about the "average writer making 200 000 a year," remember, front and center that there are plenty of people standing up for principle today who have a lot more to lose than a pulled out of your ass six figure salary.

An aspiring writer who works in the Prod Office of one of the struck shows had this to say: (Some identifying details have been removed)

I can't tell you how tough it is. The costs are enormous for everyone, and it's clear this is going to be a long battle. The studios don't give a shit - and the writers (will always) care more about this than the studios. What's scary is that it's almost as if the studios want a strike.

Myself... I don't know how much time I have left. My freelance script is now in the garbage. I am getting married soon, and will probably be out of work sooner.

But I realize there are bigger forces at play. I most certainly support my boss and the writers, and I hope for the best.

But, you know, it's Jim Henshaw who has, I think, the best and most immediate action that you can take if you don't feel like siding with huge multinational media conglomerates:

As of tonight, I'm turning off all programming that's been served by WGA writers. No shows and immediately plummeting ratings are the only things that might bring studios and networks to their senses.

Sounds like an idea to me. Hmm. Guess tonight's the night I crack that new Charles Schulz biography.

Shawn Ryan: Not a Finger

A LOT OF the articles now are focusing on how difficult it's going to be for writer-producers to wear one hat while on strike on the other. People point to The Office as an example of a show where writer-producers who are also actors may have a tough time splitting their loyalties.

Well, Shawn Ryan (The Shield) is saying that it's not a hard choice at all. From Deadline Hollywood Daily:

At the Showrunners Meeting it became very clear to me that the only thing I can do as a showrunner is to do nothing. I obviously will not write on my shows. But I also will not edit, I will not cast, I will not look at location photos, I will not get on the phone with the network and studio, I will not prep directors, I will not review mixes. These are all acts that are about the writing of the show or protecting the writing of the show, and as such, I will not participate in them. I will also not ask any of my writer/producers to do any of these things for me, so that they get done, but I can save face.

I will not go into the office and I will not do any work at home. I will be on the picket line or I will be working with the Negotiating Committee. I will not have an avid sent to my house, or to a new office so that I can do work on my show and act as if it is all right because I'm not crossing any picket lines.

I truly believe that the best and fastest way to a good contract is to hit these companies early, to hit them hard and to deprive them of ALL the work we do on their behalf.

How do we ask our staff writers to go out on strike as we continue collecting producer checks? How do we ask the Teamsters to respect our picket lines if we won't ourselves or if we're sneaking around to do the work off-site.

More importantly, a part that frequently gets lost -- taking a principled stand does not come without cost.

Tomorrow, we begin to film the Series Finale of The Shield. I think it's the best script our writing staff has ever written. This is the show that made me. This is the show that is my baby. If the strike goes on longer than two weeks, I won't be able to step on set for the final episode of the show. I won't have a writer on set, as I have had on every episode since the fourth episode. I won't be able to edit this final culminating episode. I won't go to the wrap party that Fox TV and FX are paying for. You can't tell me that any episode of television is more important than this one is to me, and I am ready to forego all those things in order to strengthen my union.

Tomorrow, we begin filming a new pilot, The Oaks, that I am Executive Producing. It's an amazing script that David Schulner wrote and I signed up to help him make this show. Until we have a fair deal I cannot do that now and it kills me.

We are currently filming Season 3 of The Unit, a show that does fairly well, but against House and Dancing With The Stars, usually finishes in 3rd place. We have no guarantee that we will back for a 4th season. I just gave a director friend of mine his first TV directing gig. I'd like to see him succeed. He'll have to finish the show on his own now without a writer on set, or my help in the editing room.

Some people have made the argument that if they don't do this producing work or this editing, that someone else will do it, and this act won't hurt the companies. I respectfully disagree. If we ALL stop ALL work tomorrow, the impact of this strike will be felt much more quickly, much more acutely and it most likely will end sooner, putting our writers, our cast and our crews back to work sooner!

I spent nearly 12 hours today in the Negotiation Room with the companies. I watched our side desperately try to make a deal. We gave up our request to increase revenue on DVD's, something that was very painful to give up, but something we felt we had to in order to get a deal made in new media, which is our future.

I watched as the company's representatives treated us horrendously, disrespectfully, and then walked out on us at 9:30 and then lied to the trades, claiming we had broken off negotiations.

I can't in good conscience fight these bastards with one hand, while operating an avid with the other. I am on strike and I am not working for them. PERIOD.

The full Shawn Ryan email can be read on Deadline Hollywood Daily here.

In the past here, we've had discussions about that term, "showrunner," and what it really means -- especially in Canada where there's not a clear lineage to the term. Well in all the definitions bandied about, I think the most important one right now is this:

Showrunners are the people who step up.

Good on Shawn Ryan.

There is Power in a Union

SORRY IT'S come to this. But my thoughts are with all the WGA writers who start picketing at 9AM PT today.

Walk tall. You have nothing to apologize for.

At left: look how the sign brings out the brown in her eyes. Swwooon.

If you're still hazy on the what's and why's of this strike, Alex has reposted a pretty chilling story. And Seriocity has more.

On SNL this weekend (probably the last one for a while) Fred Armisen did a hilarious gallows riff on Weekend Update as a studio mogul who starts out talking about how writers are "valuable partners" and ends up wishing that we all "get ass cancer and die."

That's about the size of things. I feel like it's gonna be a long winter. The only bright side as a viewer?

I'm gonna read a whole lot more.

The Line in the Sand Does Not Lead Back to Winnipeg, My Friends.

PENCILS DOWN.

So I guess it's come to this.

(Thanks to Chris Leavins for the awesome pic, taken at the L.A. Hallowe'en Street Party)

In many ways, if you're a TV scribe in Canada, or a lot of other places in the world, right now, you're scratching your head and trying to decide how you feel.

The very things that the WGA is fighting for
are things that writers in Canada and a lot of other jurisdictions don't have. In Canada, we don't make residuals until the producers recoup. Instead, we get a bit more "upfront money" as a buyout when shooting starts. The difference in the economics is profound. There are writers I know who've had a couple of WGA scripts -- and the royalties from those are a big part of their yearly take. If you've read this blog for a while, you'll know that I've had a pretty good run over the last eighteen months. In fact, I've been working my great big Irish butt off.

But a good year is just that. I know that it's equally possible that my 2008 may look more like 2005. Or even 2002 or 2003, where I spent many miserable weeks wondering what I was going to do with my bank account in overdraft. Even successful years in Canada mean not scrambling for a few months, at best.

The AMPTP's policy of demanding rollback after rollback was a non-starter to begin with. But if American writers are walking a picket line Monday, what are they fighting for? Why don't you get to watch new TV?

Well, here's the cleanest explanation I've found ... this was posted on Deadline Hollywood Daily:

'What's the biggest issue? Internet and New Media

What are we asking for in Internet and New Media? Two things: 1. Residuals for reuse of content (like replaying tv shows) on the internet. We're asking for residuals of 2.5% of revenue -- that means for every dollar they get paid, we'd get 2 and a half cents. It's a flat percentage, so if they're right and they're never ever going to make a penny, well then, we won't either. No harm, no foul. Since 2.5% is our starting point, in any normal negotiation we'd end up somewhere between what they want to pay (.3%) and what we're asking for (2.5%). I'd guess 1 to 1.5 %. 2. Coverage and protections for original content (new stuff we create for the internet.) We're asking for basic protections so that when we write original stuff for the internet, we have rights -- health and pension, minimum amounts, credits and separated rights (so if we make some amazing character or show, we get the right to share in its success.) We're just asking for the same protections we already have for writing in TV or film. Nothing new or weird. Just the basics.

What are the other issues? DVDs: Currently we get .3% per dvd, we're asking for .6%. Translation: now we get 4 cents per dvd. We are asking for 8 cents per dvd. Since most DVD's cost at least 10 bucks, that doesn't exactly seem like a bank-breaker. Whatever. Enforcement of Coverage: There are lots of shows, like game shows, documentaries and talk shows, where writing is supposed to be covered under our contract. The companies sometimes just ignore the contract -- which means folks don't get health and pension, and if they ask for it, they get fired. We want them to stop that, and honor the contract they signed. Expansion of Coverage: We want to cover stuff where writers are working without coverage, which means without health and pension and other protections. The two big areas are animation and reality. We think those writers should be covered.

You don't actually think you'll get all that, do you? Personally? I think in a perfect world, negotiation involves, well, negotiating. That's give-and-take, where we get some of what we want and they get some of what they want. So far, they just keep showing up at the table with more and more things they're saying they're going to take away -- rollbacks on health and pension, gutting of separated rights, that kind of thing.

But they gave back those resid-whatever-thingums, right? Sort of. They took that one rollback off the table -- but since they're not moving on "digital delivery", and since pretty much all content is going to be digitally delivered in the coming years, well... we'll lose those residuals as soon as that happens. So without internet coverage, it doesn't mean much.''

So anyway, in looking for the local angle, Lee-Anne Goodman from the Canadian Press wrote this article.

Now there's about five things in there that are just howlers, but I'll leave that aside for now. Others have written about them, anyway.

But to Canadian-born scribes thinking about coming home and slurping up some work, I can only say this:

You're gonna be surprised by the contracts you're asked to sign, and you're going to be surprised by the people you find yourselves in meetings with. You may find yourself wishing you'd stayed put and picked up a sign.

My thoughts and best wishes are with you all, right up til the moment where you decide to carpetbag it back here. Cause I know the calls have started. I've heard it from more than one agent-type acquaintance.

In the worst case scenario, while your brothers and sisters walk a picket in L.A., if you come back and get work from fickle, starry eyed producers, and help perpetuate the idea that if you're good, don't bother to try and build something at home -- go to L.A. -- and flee back only when you can't get work there, or if there's a strike.

In the best case scenario, who knows? Maybe producers who can't hire scribes and start new projects will come to Canada. Yeah. Imagine, producers who can raise money from different places, and really know what they're doing. You know, Maybe this strike could end up spilling a little bit of sparkle dust on the Canadian community. There's so much Canadian talent down there ... there may be some really interesting, wonderful opportunities for Canadian writers as they draw on the experiences of people who have done volumes and volumes and volumes of producing in L.A. who are coming back home and want to stay home.

Nah.

In any case, Good Luck guys. At least you're picketing in California and not Winnipeg.

Cause that would suck.

My So Called Could Have Been

"I would have gotten somebody pregnant. Sharon's the obvious choice. I would have made Angela unable to resist turning to Brian Krakow for advice about her doomed relationship wiht Jordan Catalano, and I would have split Graham and Patty up, so Patty could fall into a deep depression -- the kind where you can't get out of bed -- so that Angela is forced to somehow run the household. I would have had Rickie move in with Mr. Katimsky (by the way, Katimsky was executive story editor and writer Jason Katims' family name, once upon a time) and when Mr. Katimsky is fired for the crime of giving a kid a place to live, I would have forced Patty out of her depression to defend him.

These are the ideas that were playing around in my mind, anyway. But there's an intensity, an of-the-moment-ness to making T.V. -- you plan, and the plans go awry and that's called your script. Then it turns out that weird idea that came to you in the shower is more what you meant anyway. Which is part of what I love about writing."

Me too.

Winnie Holzman, ladies and gentlemen. I'm geeking out right now.

My So Called Life is the show that made me realize that I'd never be happy as a TV producer, that eventually I was going to have to take a shot at writing for real.

If you're a fan of quality TV, or if you loved what indie Shout Factory did with their sublime Freaks and Geeks set, run, don't walk to your favorite retailer and order My So Called Life, the complete series -- just out on DVD. A tasteful, insightful book with more of the essay by Holzman I excerpt above, and quotes from the likes of Joss Whedon, featurettes galore, and oh, oh, oh the pain. It's all there.

Winnie Holzman managed to create a show that was just a few years ahead of its time. Imagine what path pop culture and the rise of the new teenage class might have taken had her writing caught on then.

Man. That would have been...Wicked, I guess.

Matt Neffer, Boy Spotwelder Dares to Say The 'S'-word

WHILE I STRUGGLE to get twenty-six hours of work out of a standard twenty-four hour day, Friend-of-the-Blog Matt Neffer, Boy Spotwelder dips his gnarly, wizened comedy toe into the big bad blogosphere, with some truly spook-tacular, scaaaaaary thoughts about a scaaaary word that has a lot of people running scaaaaared these days. And though he writes specifically about the industry here in Canada, I think what he has to say is actually pretty universal.

So read on. Wake the neighbors, phone the kids, and as always, please...

...no wagering.

A Dispatch from Matt Neffer, Boy Spotwelder

So there's this interesting phrase I keep hearing a lot when it comes to comedy in Canada. It's something I've heard from network executives and producers over the years, to be sure. But, more often than not these days, I hear it from fellow writers, particularly emerging writers, about whose future I care deeply, if only because they may be in a position to hire my tired old carcass in years to come.

The writer has a pitch. It's an idea for a half-hour comedy program centering on a small group of individuals, let's say 4 - 8, who either live or work or play together on a regular basis, and each week some sort of problem comes up that needs fixing, and in doing so, the characters interact with one another and try a bunch of solutions and most of those solutions fail until maybe one succeeds, or doesn't, and there's your show.

Hopefully the pitch has a little more meat on the bones than that, but you get the general idea. At that point, the writer often takes a deep breath and says this: "But it's not a sitcom."

"It's not a sitcom." It is a phrase perhaps second in popularity only to the old standby, "We know your show will be funny, but what else will it be?"

(Well, you don't know it'll be funny. A thousand things have to go right before that happens. My name could be Giggles McChucklepants and you'd still have no guarantee the show I'm pitching you will be funny. We should be so lucky. Comedy is hard.)

But I digress.

My little theory is that there are three reasons why the fear and loathing of the word "sitcom" tends to persist. The first, I've grown to suspect, is particularly unfortunate: The writer in question refuses to use the word "sitcom" because it gives them a sort of insurance policy just in case the show isn't actually funny. For some reason, calling their project a "half-hour comedy" or, God forbid, "half-hour dramedy," seems to ease the pressure, because that way, if the jokes are few and far between, it was done on purpose. It's not a sitcom.

This is an important point because it distinguishes the "sitcom versus half-hour comedy" issue from being purely one of semantics to an issue of actual quality. It could just be me, but I believe that a comedy, no matter what you call it, should be funny. Quite funny. Like, ideally, a-couple-of-chuckles-and-one-big-laugh-on-every-page funny. If you're writing a comedy pilot and there aren't a lot of actual laughs, it's a bit like writing a Die Hard movie where there isn't a lot of actual action. The audience comes through the door expecting something and when we don't deliver it we shoot ourselves in the foot.

Now, please note I say "laughs" here and not necessarily "jokes." Personally, I like jokes, and lots of them, but I will labour to make the distinction because it speaks to the second reason people are sitcom-phobic, which is that the word "sitcom" seems to conjur a certain creaky set-up/punchline/my boss-is-coming-to-dinner-and-all-I-have-to-serve-him-are-my-pot-brownies kind of show, like, say, Three's Company (which had its merits, but whatever).

Personally, I say enough. It's time to re-claim the stupid word. The old adage that a sitcom should have "three jokes a page" may sound hacky and tired, but keep in mind that it's not all sarcastic retorts. It's wordplay, it's pratfalls, it's cutaways, it's bad behaviour, it's reactions to that bad behaviour. Things that are not all necessarily "jokes" but things that are clearly, demonstrably funny. Comedy scripts should be chock full of them. That's not to say we can't have dramatic moments, or land an emotional punch here and there, but if we're doing comedy, we have to earn that stuff, not just cram it in because we ran out of gags.

Cheers, Taxi, Everybody Loves Raymond, Will and Grace, Two and a Half Men, and Happy Days are all sitcoms. But so are Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Office, Flight of the Conchords, 30 Rock, Extras and so forth.

Now: You might look at that list and note that none of those shows are Canadian, which brings me to the third and possibly most common objection to the use of the word sitcom, which is that we don't have that kind of history up here. Well, you're right, we don't, which is why any time I get into a discussion about sitcoms in Canada someone invariably brings up The Trouble With Tracy. Truth be told, that was a perfectly good argument twenty years ago. Maybe even ten.

But I think we should move on. The Trouble with Tracy was nearly forty fucking years ago, and the tide has, I believe, finally turned. If we accept that Corner Gas, Trailer Park Boys, Rent-a-Goalie, Little Mosque, Made in Canada, The Newsroom, etc. are, by definition, sitcoms, then we have to come to the conclusion that we have, in fact, rounded some kind of corner in this country, and that there is nobility in building on this new tradition. Television comedy isn't dead. People like to laugh. It's like some sort of weird thing with them, in fact.

What kinds of sitcom are we going to make, traditional or groundbreaking? I'm not sure. I recently had a conversation with a very talented Canadian television writer who argued that not only is sitcom a dirty word, but that comedy had "evolved" past shows like Cheers.

I like this guy, but I say that's bullshit. The traditional multi-cam show has run aground in recent years, no question, but I am convinced it is resting and not dead. Much has been made of the fact that CBC are currently looking to produce traditional, family-oriented, multi-cam sitcoms. Some people question the idea, but I happen to like it a lot. There is something to be said for zigging while everyone else zags, and I actually believe that the Ceeb, rather than dragging behind the curve on this one, are in fact out-front, anticipating a time in the near-future when frenetic, uber-ironic, 40 locations-and-65-scene comedies wear out their welcome. People like shows where they can drop in to a place they know and actually hang around a while. It was nice to go back to the WJM Newsroom, or Mary's apartment. It felt good. Shows like Arrested Development had no real home base, and I think suffered because of it. The show was hilarious, but the emotional connection wasn't there.

This is related to my "Friendly Giant" theory of television, which is that people like a certain amount of repetition in their TV because it's ingrained in us at an early age ("I'll close up the draw bridge when you leave...") But that's another post.

Similarly, it's been a while since I sat down with CTV, and they may not be as interested in doing the multi-cam thing, but I can't believe they wouldn't love to have another Corner Gas on their hands. Are they gonna back away from the next great idea or vehicle simply because the man or woman pitching it calls it a sitcom? I doubt it. (Though if I'm wrong, don't sue me).

So, that's my little rant. Be curious to find out if I'm alone on this one.

Oh, one other thing: Assuming we ever get over the sitcom thing, could we also possibly put a moratorium on saying things like "It's a comedy about a family, but it's not "Frasier." Or, "it's a show about young people, but it's not "Friends." Or, "it's quirky, but it's not Seinfeld."

Why do we always pick the most successful shows in television history as an example of what we don't want to do? I'm not saying we should set out to re-make a show that's already been done, but wouldn't it be nice to at least duplicate that kind of success?

It always seems to me like it would make more sense to say "It's a story about a guy on the radio, but it's not 'Hello, Larry.'"

Now there's a pitch I could get behind.

"Hello, Larry"? Anyone? As I say, I'm old.

If you're an industry professional, and you'd like to guest blog here in Sticksville, drop me a line at the email link on Ye Olde Sideboarde. Thanks to Matt Neffer. Promotional considerations by Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco Treat. This guest blog is a Mark Goodman/Bill Todman production.

I Got Nothin

A LONG DAY of tech surveys and production meetings. And strangely, when I say I got nothin...I mean I got nothin. At all. Leopard is a sweet looking O/S. I suspect no one in the industry in L.A. has fingernails right now. How much did it suck that the World Series only went 4? Still... nothin.

And nothin it shall continue to be. At least til tomorrow, when guest Matt Neffer, Boy Spotwelder takes on what is, inexplicably, currently the dirtiest word in television.

Here's a hint. It ends with "com."

They Say You Better Listen To the Voice of Reason...

ANOTHER WEEK, wah.

I'll be on Q on CBC Radio again on Monday, talking post-Geminis and other TV related stuff.

Good Luck to the great cast of Rent-A-Goalie, who are up for Best Ensemble at the Geminis on Sunday night. There's a whole lot of sometimes deserved joking about the Geminis and what they mean or don't mean...but for a first season show to get that kind of nomination really recognizes how great all those actors are playing off each other.

I was at the second season launch party last night and they rode in on a Zamboni. It was awesome.

It was also fun as hell to see that second season premiere with James McGowan, who's Mr. Composed and Steely Leader on The Border, playing a crazed primadonna goalie arsonist. The guy's got range, yo.

RAG premieres Sunday at 9:30 on Showcase, with back to back episodes. I do believe the second one's written by a certain writer-blogger. I would be extremely remiss if I didn't point out that it was heavily rewritten by the RAG braintrust, who made it way funnier. That's what happens when you're a freelancer.

More thoughts next week. Good luck to everyone going to Regina.

Regina. Wow. Tres Jaloux.

Whose Fault Is It Anyway?

I THOUGHT A LOT about whether I should write this post or not. I don't really have a desire to go to war with people. I really don't. And you can just tell when someone won't really cotton to a little constructive criticism. So maybe I'll do the thing that you're supposed to do when you're giving big notes on a draft that needs a lot of work. I'll start with the good.

Onscreen, Jeff Seymour can be a very compelling actor. He has a dark, handsome, brooding look and a great voice and presence. He can play a hero, but he's best playing a kind of opportunistic guy out for his own ends. In any case, he's good on screen. He is.

Seymour emigrated to Canada from the United States when he got one of the leads on The Eleventh Hour, a CTV show that ran three seasons, but ultimately didn't really connect with an audience.

After the cancellation of that show, Seymour decided to stay here. Then after he produced a demo for it himself, CTV gave Jeff his own series. It was a half-hour, a comedy. Originally it was called Jeff@Work, and when it went to air, it was called Jeff Ltd. It ran two seasons on CTV and the Comedy Network, and was ultimately canceled due to low ratings. I wrote about it a few times.

Since the show was canceled, Seymour has, in increasingly public forums, heavily criticized CTV for not promoting the show effectively, especially in moving it to Saturday nights.

Last week, I sat through a very uncomfortable Gemini Awards gala that Seymour hosted. He did a lot of material that didn't connect, and didn't get laughs. And in one segment, he went after CTV again, from the stage. The sound of shifting and shuffling,the sheer uncomfortable vibe in the room was palpable. It practically walked up and smacked you in the face.

A performer can always have an off night. But the general consensus after the show was that this...this was kind of something else.

Now, in the latest issue of Playback, Seymour does it again:

The topic of how much broadcasters promote Canadian shows is a delicate one, but Jeff Seymour makes no bones about it - he believes that his comedy Jeff Ltd. died after two seasons due to insufficient support from broadcaster CTV.

The half-hour show, starring Seymour as a conceited advertising exec, premiered in March last year in the plum Wednesday timeslot after American Idol to nearly 900,000 viewers, with subsequent episodes averaging solid audiences of 700,000. But those numbers plummeted quickly to the 100,000s after Jeff was moved to the Saturday 9 p.m. timeslot toward the end of its first season, which is where it remained for its second run, though bumped to 9:30 p.m.

"[CTV] didn't really announce [the scheduling change]. I can't tell you the countless people that assumed my show was over...they couldn't find it," Seymour told Playback, just days before he joked about Jeff's fate as a host of the third night of the Gemini Awards in Toronto...

Jeff was paired on Saturdays with the Vancouver-set comedy Robson Arms, which averaged 311,000 viewers at 9 p.m., compared to Jeff's 176,000 second-season average. Robson Arms has been renewed for a third season.

[CTV VP of Communications Scott] Henderson says Jeff simply did not perform, noting that of the 10 original productions on CTV during the 2006/07 season, Jeff ranked number 10.

"The data that was coming in was showing us that viewers were not coming to the show...We let it take its natural course," he says. Numbers provided by CTV indicate Jeff's audience dropped 65% from the first to the second season.

Now that is truly a precipitous drop. But can it really all be blamed on a lack of promotion? The article in Playback goes on to point out that Robson Arms, the show that was paired with Jeff Ltd. in that Saturday night death slot, still managed to pull almost twice the audience.

Here's the thing: in TeeVee, massive promotion can buy you a big first week audience, just as blanket advertising can make for a big opening weekend. But you can't expect promotion to save or bolster a product that people simply don't want to see.

The first CTV show starring Seymour, The Eleventh Hour, had a similar viewer trajectory. It was heavily promoted and opened well -- I believe at least 1.5 million viewers watched it. And then the audience declined every week. People saw it, sampled it, decided they didn't like it, and moved on.

Then CTV heavily promoted the show for its second season premiere...and it got HUGE numbers. I think almost what it had got in the beginning. When viewers tuned into that premiere, they saw a show that ended in a very unsatisfying way. The next week, half the audience was gone. They never came back.

In the case of Jeff Ltd, a show that was paired with it (Robson Arms) not only got better reviews, it drew a bigger audience with the same lack of promotion. People felt more warmly toward it.

On Jeff Ltd., Seymour was the star. He was the Executive Producer. He wrote or co-wrote every episode. He was in charge of who got cast...he was personally involved in just about every decision made on that show. If you watched more than one show (as I did) you quickly saw that the scripts and gags were repetitive, and unfunny. The show was kind of a mess. Jeff made sure that his show was a one-man band. At what point do you take a bit of responsibility for it not connecting with the audience?

Break it down another way: Corner Gas moves every single season, but people still manage to find it. And it's not because the time change is all that well advertised. It's because there's a baseline of goodwill toward the show.

A Global cop show called "Blue Murder" repeats on a specialty channel here called Showcase. A recent broadcast -- of a years- old repeat, that's already aired multiple times, with no promotion, rated 260 000 viewers in Canada. That's more than two and a half times the numbers Jeff Ltd. got when it was canceled.

Under promotion IS a chronic problem in Canadian TV. But Jeff Seymour is not the standard bearer for it. That's a frequent problem in our industry -- we mix together things that are real concerns with stuff that are excuses that can't be justified. It makes us ripe for attack from those who'd try to choke off Canadian content altogether.

This is one of the things I was talking about when I wrote this post. Seymour talking about his show as an example of a real problem muddies the waters. It's like dealing with famine by having a supermodel talk about how starving she is: it's not good optically, and it doesn't advance the cause.

There are shows that I think could do better with better promotion. Intelligence is probably one (it also was better reviewed.) But I could be wrong about that. I don't know. I find it interesting that Intelligence has built its audience slightly over the last couple weeks, compared to the first two episodes.

Later in the Playback article, the CFTPA makes a case for one way to fix the chronic under-promotion problem:

The CFTPA is now pushing the CRTC to facilitate collective producer agreements with broadcasters, according to Brinton, who says "these terms of trade" would create a framework of basic practices.

"Things like [lack of promotion] wouldn't happen, because the broadcasters would have pre-negotiated levels of commitment for any productions before they enter into specific agreements with that individual show," he says.

When Michael Bay blamed his cast and just about everybody else for the failure of The Island, he was roundly ridiculed for it. His reputation took a big hit. I don't think anyone should be ridiculed here. But there should be a reality check.

Before we crown a standard bearer for the problems facing Canadian TV, we really need to have a consensus that the project is actually an example of the problem -- and we're not just glomming onto a real problem to escape our own culpability.

So long as we mix the bad and the good, the real problems and the excuses together -- it's never going to get better.

Good shows fail. Bad shows succeed. It happens. But when the audience votes with their feet, it's another kettle of fish altogether to suggest that they'd choose differently if you shoved a few more promos down their throats. Seymour's complaining doesn't pass the smell test, and it makes it harder to attack and rectify the real cases where maybe promo IS the problem.

Meanwhile, on the Fatuous Gasbag Beat...

OH LORDY LOO. There's now letters a flying, thanks to Jim Shaw, CEO of Shaw Communications (at left, *may not be exactly as pictured.)

See, bad enough that he's winner of the random genetic lottery who somehow thinks he's a visionary mogul. But he also would really like to control how TV gets made in this country. The last time Jim Shaw last got all yappy, the Writers Guild of Canada encouraged people to write in and provided a template form letter to crib from or copy. Now, WGC members are starting to get form letters back. Here's what Shaw's saying now. I've added a few annotations.

We have received many form letters like yours criticizing our initiative to reform the
CTF. We are sure the policy makers will note the level of your personal support of the
CTF – which seems to be limited to copying someone else’s form letter and sending it
off to the policy makers.

(See, this is where I'm dead sure the real way to get to this guy is to ridicule him. That's a classic bully opening salvo. His entire investment in this issue is on a child-level, and look at the breathtaking pissiness of that opening line. By the way, this letter was sent to a Shaw Cable subscriber. Implied message: fuck you -- shutup and send us your money.

This attitude continues through the letter. Note the entitlement and the POV. Effectively what he's saying is: "Policy makers should not listen to you. They should listen to millionaires like me who can spend money on ads and take out time to whinge to the CRTC."

Shaw has such contempt for form letters -- and he responds with...you guessed it, a form letter. From a purely optical sense, what is the message here? "Form letters won't make an impact. We don't care. Your opinion matters so little that I'm going to...tada...send you a form letter response!"

Hey Henshaw, this is really the horse you're backing?

The disingenuousness continues below where he dodges the fact that in every interview he gives, he mouths off about Trailer Park Boys.)



As you know, we have been engaged in a long drawn out process to try to change the
way Canadian television programming is funded. We continue to pour some $50 million
per year of our subscriber’s money into the Canadian Television Fund with no
measurable results.

Last year we stopped paying monthly stipends of this annual tax on our customers into
the fund. In doing so, we finally created enough of a fuss to force the Government and
the CRTC to address the issue.


(I am Spartacus!)

We were prepared to continue our funding revolt on behalf of our subscribers before a
Parliamentary committee in February when the CRTC Chair announced a serious
review of the CTF.

That review has taken place and we contributed to it by appearing in front of the CRTC
commission and offering concrete suggestions about how Canada could derive more
benefit from supporting unique Canadian Television production.

A final report was expected in August and has been delayed.

(Because the CRTC got a shitload of replies and interventions, most of them overwhelmingly negative to the interim suggestions prompted by Shaw's review)

Over the intervening months, we have tried to keep the pressure up to force the
government and the CRTC to deal with this issue. We have written letters, made our
views known to the media and lobbied government and CRTC officials.

(I have lots of money. I can do this. You can't. Go the fuck away.)

We started this campaign because we believed that the CTF was broken and needed to
be fixed. Canadians and cable subscribers deserve to get real value for the money
taxed away from them. The CTF simply has not delivered value for the enormous sums
of money that have been entrusted to them.

Neither I nor my colleagues at Shaw Communications want to determine what Canadian
programs are to be funded by the CTF. We do not want to control decisions on content.
We believe television should entertain us, inform us, inspire us, and make us all think –
as Canadians. We support the development of original Canadian programming and we
want to ensure that money is well spent to produce programming that matters.

That means the CTF should be an active participant in supporting shows that people
actually watch. They should be as great as this country; they should tell our stories and
they should be aimed at commercial success.



Okay. Now here's the kind of amusing response that's going back to old Jimmy:


Thank you for your form letter criticizing my use of a form letter. I have heard from
fellow writers who have also shared their opinions regarding the CTF that they have also
received the same form letter. Do not mistake the use of a form letter for a lack of
passion for Canadian television. As you yourself have demonstrated with your form
letter, at times a form letter is an effective method of communicating to many people at
once. I am a concerned individual and do not have the resources to hire lawyers and
public policy experts, buy full page ads or fly to Ottawa to lobby politicians and senior
bureaucrats. Instead I share resources with other like-minded individuals and we share
the same passionate letter.

I must reiterate my position that when you purport to speak for subscribers and Canadians
you do not speak for me. The CTF is accountable for its activities through its Board,
which is made up of industry representatives, and its contribution agreement with
Heritage. The CTF provides the public with detailed reports on its spending along with
analysis of the patterns of the spending. The structure of the CTF has allowed it to revise
its guidelines over time to become more efficient and effective in fulfilling its mandate to
support quality Canadian programming. The CTF needs to be left alone to do its job and
not spend significant resources defending itself from attacks in the media.

In ads, letters and submissions you have repeatedly made broad generalizations about
programs that Canadians are not watching and what kind of programming the CTF
should be funding instead. These generalizations have been misleading and unsupported
by facts. It is disingenuous to say on the one hand that the CTF should not be funding
certain programs and on the other hand write in your form letter that you do not want to
dictate what programs the CTF should fund. As an objective fund, it is the broadcasters,
who know their audience best, who chose the programming funded by the CTF. The
system works as evidenced by the recent large audiences for “Little Mosque” and “The
Rick Mercer Report”, two CTF funded programs that earned audience numbers higher
than U.S. shows “ER” and “Prison Break”. These are facts that are publicly available at
the BBM Nielsen Media Research website. I have seen no similar facts to support your
assertion that CTF funds programs that Canadians do not watch.

I support the CTF and defend my right to share my opinion as a concerned citizen.

That's a pretty good letter. But it's not going to pierce the thick skull of arrogance of a privileged asshat like Shaw.

I'd also like to point out that as far as I know, people like me who went and wrote their own letters have so far received bupkiss. In Shaw logic, I care enough to actually intervene and construct my own argument -- but that still doesn't rate a response from him. Nothing like keeping your arguments consistent.

(If you wrote a non-form letter to Shaw and got a response, I'd love to hear about it.)

Also...let's peel back the disingenuousness once and for all here. Jim Shaw doesn't give a crap about Canadian content. Jim Shaw is so concerned about Canadian content that one of his many grudges is about how the CRTC turned down his request to be able to carry the ... USA Network.

So if you're keeping score at home: regulatory decisions that offer protection to Cable companies like Shaw = Good.

Regulatory decisions that benefit existing Canadian broadcasters, or Canadian Creatives = Bad.

Millionaires, man. They don't have to give a shit about optics, eh?

If you'd like, if you want, I offer you a template for another form letter.

Dear Jim Shaw,

It takes a special kind of craven genius to criticize someone for using a form letter...in a form letter. Well done for that.

Read your rhetoric-heavy response. And it raises a question -- a big one.

You (or your people) wrote: "Neither I nor my colleagues at Shaw Communications want to determine what Canadian programs are to be funded by the CTF. We do not want to control decisions on content."

Yet every ad, comment and interview you've given does specify the kind of content that you think is not appropriate. Unfortunately, one of your consistent examples is a program that's beloved by a great many Canadians, and that spawned a successful movie last year.

So here's the thing, Jim. If you're so out of touch with the taste of Canadians that you can't even recognize or acknowledge a show that IS reaching an audience, then why should anyone believe you know better about the CTF?

By the way, your ad also keeps talking about a show with "shape shifting aliens with a grudge against the government." Respectfully, sir, what the fuck are you talking about? None of us can figure the show you're referring to.

Kisses,

So and so, blah blah blah.

Feel free to adjust the salutation. I just think maybe if this guy got more kisses and hugs, maybe he wouldn't be such a bully. Can't help it. It's the humanist in me.

Golick is Mad! Mad, I Tell You!

IT'S A LITTLE logrolling, since I'm now writing about a piece Jill wrote because I wrote about a Maureen Ryan interview in the Chicago Tribune with Matthew Weiner -- but lay all that aside, for now.

Go read as Jill lays out the perfect intricacy of Mad Men's story construction:

Now that I’ve seen a whole season and lapped up Weiner’s every word, I’m in a bit better position to dissect his story telling style.

The episodic stories are unveiled in a series of sequences; groups of scenes that tell little stories. Together these sequences take you some place unexpected and yet inevitable. Each sequence is it’s own entertaining little story, filled with character revelations and detail that may or may not feed into the larger picture of the episode. There were somewhere between 14 and 19 of these sequences in the episodes I dissected with the help of the episode guide.


The sequences do not drive the story forward as they do in so many other series. Instead, they come at the story sideways, like a bank shot in a game of pool. The story beats aren’t as obvious as they usually are, but they do connect up with the larger story.

Like the Simpsons and the Sopranos, the opening moments of a Mad Men episode don’t telegraph the ending. We start one place, end up some place very different.

Massive spoilers if you haven't seen the end of the season yet.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that though I can understand not liking Mad Men, I cannot understand anyone who wants to be a TV writer not liking it. So there.