When Networks Don't Know What They Want.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Classy Cancellations and Can-Creative Wonkery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CBC Renewals and Cancellations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JPOD Canceled

THE VANCOUVER SUN got the scoop, so far as I can see:

It's a shame that the show never really found its feet, though numbers have actually trended up a bit since moving to Fridays. (MVP, which switched timeslots with the show, continues to struggle on Tuesdays.)

JPOD finished the season with a very small story department, and I think half of them are already working on other shows. So producers, hop to it...get a-hiring. And maybe they'll even tell you all the dirt.

Though probably they won't, because Canadian TV writers are all fine, circumspect, God-fearing, peaceloving upright citizens.

From the SUN:

About 150 jPod cast and crew members are out of a job.

Larry Sugar, executive producer of jPod, was shaken by the cancellation. Sugar says the network did not adequately promote the show.

"No other show was intended to meet the mandate of Canadian broadcasters than a show that was written by one of the great Canadian writers," said Sugar. "To not fully support it is beyond me.

"I really love the show, and I think it's as good as anything I have done."

The CBC mounted an online promotion when jPod was launched, including a website that contained blogs of the show's characters and jPod video games.

All due respect to Larry Sugar, but the promotion wasn't the problem here.

Good "Dead Things" wishes to the cast and crew -- hope you all land on your feet soon. Thank heavens at least Vancouver's ramping back up again, post strike...

What Are They Saying in Abbotsford?

WHEN I WAS out West, I learned a very interesting shorthand that I'd never heard before. People started talking about how something would play in Abbotsford.

That kind of stuck with me, and when I got back to Toronto, I looked into it a bit further. What I learned was that Abbotsford, B.C., is a place in Canada where you find quite a few religious conservatives. Not only are they there, but they are, in that very American-kind of way, very active in exercising their displeasure when they see something they don't like.

I talked to people who worked in Audience relations -- at CBC, at CTV and someone who'd worked at Global too. I also polled some of my contacts from the former CHUM, and found out that, if something appears on TV that could in any stretch of the imagination be viewed as too racy or offensive to a socially conservative, (usually) religious sensibility, you're gonna get a bunch o'letters from Abbotsford.

I guess I'd always known that Canada had its own, smaller Bible belt. But you get out of B.C. and we Central Ontarians (as well as people from Quebec and Down East and Saskatchewan I've talked about this with) tend to associate B.C. with permissive and lefty Vancouver. Abbotsford isn't that far from Vancouver, really. But it's a world away.

So to my mind, "What are they saying in Abbotsford?" kind of became like a subjective Canadian version of "How Will It Play in Peoria?"

Believe it or not, most TV writers in my ken are not people who go around thinking, "How can we serve the cause of child exploiting, head chopping, meth smoking gay abortionists this week?"

I mean, most of us really are out to try to craft popular entertainment that will appeal to the widest popular audience. Now, there are always going to be social differences, as well as generational ones. I guarantee you that my boundaries for humor and social acceptability are wider than my parents' generation. That's always the way, right? 1.5 and 2nd generation children of immigrants constantly find themselves striking up against their parents "old country" ways. It's in such a collision of ideas and social mores that change emerges, and societies evolve. "Not for the better!" the old people say. "Shhh, Grandma, I'm watching American Gladiators, ISM'ing my BFF, and downloading the new Tupac!" we answer.

What distorts, often, is that older people have more time on their hands. Usually. They vote more. They follow local politics more. And they write letters. Fundamentalist conservatives, too, are very comfortable being preached to from the pulpit. One of the reasons why religious boycotts are so often effective is because they really can mobilize a lot of people to do something. And traditionally, they're untroubled by the constant self-questioning and splintering that usually comes from any issue from the left. Discipline and an accustomed familiarity with proscribed and absolute rules mean that when those letters come sailing out of Abbotsford, they come in droves. Does this mean that that's representative of a huge groundswell of opinion?

No. Not really. It means that those who are motivated to react, are highly motivated to react.

I'm a guy who, in my every day career really does try not to needlessly antagonize. I like my humor and my material edgy, but I have great sympathy for someone from a more conservative background who wants to have something they can watch and enjoy with their family and not feel uncomfortable by being exposed to stuff they don't want to see.

So I'm not a big fan of shows that really are aimed at a family audience that have jokes that "push the envelope." I don't think that envelope needs to be pushed. In a similar vein, I've argued in a couple story rooms against the use of epithets like "Goddamn" -- not because it's something that shouldn't be said every once in a while...but because, why needlessy antagonize those nice folks in Abbotsford when you don't need to? You can use another word, just as easily. I see this as very different from self-censorship, because I don't really see anything being lost.

Now, there's lots that the Abbotsford crowd would probably hate that I won't compromise on. Like a majority of Canadians, I see absolutely nothing wrong with Same-sex relationships. So even though I know that it's gonna drive those Abbotsford people crazy, I'm not going to restrict myself from portraying gay people as just normal, everyday folk. Sorry guys, that's where your social agenda and mine don't mesh. I fully expect, in those cases, that you'll probably not opt to watch my show. And that's your right.

See, being respectful of someone else's sensibilities doesn't mean capitulation. And the problem with the culture wars as they're currently constituted is that the Abbotsfordians kind of want to be able to dictate what the rest of us can and can't watch.

To reduce it to a T-shirt slogan, there's an actual satirical T-shirt that I quite like, which basically just says, "How Dare I Wear This Shirt In Front of Your Goddamn Kids." At a certain point, you draw a line. And yup, if you say, "I don't want my tax dollars going to support smut. You shouldn't get tax breaks." then my answer's going to be, "I don't want my tax dollars going to support people who preach hate against some of my friends. Your church shouldn't get tax breaks."

Don't you think that maybe the best thing here would be, um, to kinda call it a draw?

Anyhow, I bring up Abbotsford as a way to get around to Ed Fast. Ed Fast is a Conservative member of Parliament for, you guessed it, Abbotsford. A couple of days ago, when C-10 came up in Question period, Fast rose up and said that he didn't think it was a big deal, and in fact, he'd only received one email speaking out against the provisions of the bill having to do with Film and Television.

This sparked, in the 28 000 member Facebook group opposing C-10, a suggestion to write and email Fast about why people oppose C-10. Lots of people took up the cause.

And here's where I have to admire Ed Fast a little bit. He wrote back.

Personally. To every one of the people that wrote in. Now, he said the things that the Conservatives have been saying all along, which I find to be a little disingenuous. He is a politician, after all. But still, that kind of engagement is personally interesting to me.

But even with all that, I probably wouldn't have blogged any of this, except for the fact that today, one of the people who joined in the dialogue in the Facebook group was the eminently good-humored, hard working and logical Maureen Parker, Executive Director of the Writers Guild of Canada. I'm gonna reproduce her whole letter here. She says a lot of the things I've said before, but she says them in that no-nonsense, I've been talking to these guys for a thousand Sundays kind of Maureen Parker way. So, here you go:

Hi Anti C10 Group -

I feel I should get on record just to keep Ed Fast on his toes. Hi Ed! I've spoken with Ed many times and I can say that without a doubt he is my favourite conservative.

Ed makes the point several times that this was initially Liberal legislation and that it is true. In fact, the current Bill contains two provisions that the WGC worked very hard to get - one provision allows development costs for a two year period to form part of the Canadian tax credit and another finally allows all Canadians to see what films and TV shows they have invested in. (Previously we were not able to get confirmation from CAVCO on what productions had received the tax credit.) But we were never consulted or told about new guidelines which would determine which productions are contrary to public public policy. It makes no difference to us as to whether this was Liberal or Conservative legislation - we would have objected to this regardless. The "guideline requirement" was buried in an omnibus bill and it was never brought to our attention nor were we given an opportunity to respond to it. So now we have to ask the Senate to address this.

Now about the public money argument. I am a tax payer and I pay for plenty of things I don't use because I believe in a Canada we everyone contributes to sustain Canadian values - like universal health care, public education, and proper infrastructure and yes, even culture. Sorry, I don't believe in a Canada where individuals can pick and choose where their taxes go. That's why we have a federal government which hopefully supports cultural funding amongst many other priorities.

It is disingenuous to say that the film and TV community can simply go out and use private funding to make their offensive films. In fact it makes me laugh. I started working in this industry during the tax shelter days when dentists invested in film and TV productions in exchange for huge tax write-offs. I have plenty of great stories about those days but just like my youth they are never coming back. The government changed the tax rules and rightly (in my mind).

It costs alot to make a film or TV production - an average one hour drama episode comes in at $1.3m So a tax credit on a 13 episode drama comes to $1.69 million (roughly) - this is not chump change. And this is quite different from the magazine and book industry. In our industry when a producer puts together her financing together she borrows against this amount of $1.69m in order to make the production. Without this interim financing from a bank this show wouldn't be made. So when you introduce subjective guidelines into the equation you put the financing for the whole production in risk. Banks don't want to invest unless they know they are getting their money back.

We are being asked to trust the government and the Department of Heritage to draft guidelines that won't create instablity in our industry. And sorry but we can't do that. We've been told that films like Eastern Promises and Juno are perfectly fine. But that's today and according to Ed.

The Canadian tax credit for film and TV productions is an industrial tax credit. It is based on Canadian labour expenditures and no way is it subjective. Our government designed this years ago to pump money into the Canadian film and TV industry and develop a skilled labour force. And it works. But it won't work if this government introduces inappropriate measures into the tax credit system where they do not belong.

So this is not alot of ado about nothing. Our industry has been hit with one regulatory change after another and uncertain public funding from every quarter. Enough already go after the oil and gas industry!!!

Maureen

Maureen Parker
Executive Director of
the WGC

See? You don't have to talk Nazi or Beijing-style gulag censorship. You don't have to demonize your opponents. All the heat in the world hasn't led the United States any closer to coming up with real solutions in the last eight years. On a subject like this, where the facts, the economic arguments, the law and Canadian values are on our side, sometimes you just have to make the case patiently, and hope for the best. That doesn't mean you can't be passionate. It just means, you know, no Nazi talk, k?

One more thing:

The other thing that happens in situations like this is that a whole bunch of other stuff gets lumped together and folded into the same cause. There's nothing both the right and the left like more than being able to label each other as knee-jerk reactionaries who just follow a script and don't think through anything.

Here's a perfect example of something that some people are trying to roll into C-10 that I don't think needs to be there.

The short version is that Adbusters is an anti-consumerist magazine and organization that has been fighting a lawsuit to try and force broadcast outlets to let them buy time for their anti-commercials, which preach against things like McDonalds and consumerism.

A couple of weeks ago they lost their case. Which I think is perfectly a-okay.

There is a big difference between getting to go on The Daily Show or The Current and air your view about Media Literacy and Buy Nothing Day, and forcing channels that depend on Advertising to also accept your ads that basically argue against the entire capitalist system.

Sorry doods. That's too out there for me.

I've always been of a couple of minds about Kalle Lasn and Adbusters. On the one hand, I think what they do is incredibly necessary. On the other hand, I've always thought they embody a bit of the worst kind of thinking that fuels some on the left: an irretrievably and unforgivably smug attitude that hectors rather than persuades.

The reason why advertising works is because it demonstrates an uncanny ability to tap into people's desires. It seduces.

Adbusters tries to preach to convince you of the other side. But that's never going to work. If you want to get that message across, you have to be at least as seductive and as clever as the industry you're going up against. And I think Adbusters rarely meets that burden.

Authors like Naomi Klein and a hundred YouTube stars make a lot of the same points. But they're packaged in a such a way that the message is compelling and appealing...

...just like the message they're fighting against.

So, to sum up: Ed, good on you for answering your mail. Maureen, keep fighting the good fight, Bill C10 opponents, careful with the rhetoric, and guys, don't try too hard to ride the coattails of this one.

Oh, and read your Naomi Klein. She's the business.

Catching Up on The Why I Got Into This In The First Place

FIRST OF ALL, I don't want to talk about THE WIRE. Shhhh. I have my PVR filling up at home, and I'll just have to wait to hear what happens to McNulty and Bunk and Bubbles et al.

But in this little window between the resumption of the strike-shortened U.S. TV season, there's a moment for reflection and sampling and such. And there's something about a staid, low-key, not-doin-much vacance that puts your sampling gear into high alert. It makes you more open to try stuff. As I work up a few pitches for original material, and research other stuff for an upcoming paid gig, here's what I'm seeing, and liking:

NEW AMSTERDAM

I was surprised by how much I actually dug this. Being able to say, "Hey, that's Proposition Joe from The Wire!" was cool. And you have to love that episode-ending money shot montage of Times Square from the 17th century til now.

Actually, there's a little bit of craft goodness in there, too -- remember that any original series should have the thing in there that only that series can do. No sense demo'ing a pilot that feels like every other cop show you've seen; or every other medical show in the live-long world.

So that reveal for New Amsterdam -- the way Amsterdam has patiently taken a shot of Times Square every year of his existence, is not only a unique thing about the series, it also serves as a great kind of objective correlative of the thing that makes him different: his immortality.

Immortality in characters is something that every writer struggles with. Joss Whedon got lucky in the fact that David Boreanaz's Angel character was such a strong character in early Buffy -- it really sold that part of it. For as much as the adaptation of Interview With the Vampire was pretty good, they had trouble translating that part of Anne Rice's book. Immortality is a very difficult thing to get us all to identify with, I mean, really identify with. We're all terrified and protective of our threescore and ten or twenty or thirty. From Blood Ties to Moonlight to New Amsterdam, selling immortality is a huge challenge. And damn if the latter show didn't find a new and fresh way to sell it that was simultaneously lovely, and a little sad, too.

Oh, and the lead in this show -- I don't know his name, and I'm on vacation so I'm not looking it up, screw it...you do it -- is gold. Immensely likable to men. I'm guessing he's fairly easy on the eyes for the ladies too. I'll be following this show for a few weeks.

ELI STONE

is turning out to be not the show I thought it was going to be. I've dipped in and out of this show since it premiered, and I watched it again last night. Again, the show is largely on the back of Jonny Lee Miller and Victor Garber, who are just money-in-the-bank actors. Seeing Garber in a Hair-inspired musical number brought a huge smile to my face.

The other thing that's great about this show is that it's the best kind of high concept -- easily explainable. If I can relate what this show is about to my sixtysomething parents and have them go, "oh it's kind of like Picket Fences," then that's an interesting step. Not only does the concept seem instantly understandable. (You know why all this is happening, it's not all arcane and mysterious like on Journeyman or Lost) but having that easy and upfront allows you to take the more outlandish fantasy elements and relate them to something more familiar. Oh, and how incredible is Loretta Devine? Man, I must be relaxed and on vacation if I'm giving actors this much credit. Damn, though. Damn. They really do make the show warm, don't they? Writers can't warm up material. Juno without Ellen Page is just a smarmy smart aleck wordfest, honest to Blog, Diablo.

I will never admit this again. Actors. You...um...you're still vain. And uh...you...uh...talk about your thighs too much. There! ha Hah!

(Secretly I'm crying inside.)

Anyway, back to off the top. I've dipped in and out of Eli Stone, so I'm surprised to see that by the end of last night's ep, most of the tropes that they'd set up since the pilot are gone. He's no longer engaged. The news of his aneurism is out. He's seemingly out of the office. I would be fascinated to know how much of this is a retool from the writers' room and how much was planned all along. It seems like they're chipping away at the setting, but I'm not sure what they're reaching for. Guess that means I better keep tuning in.

STATE OF PLAY

is FINALLY, FINALLY out on DVD in North America. If you haven't seen this superb British mini, with Kelly MacDonald (No Country for Old Men,) John Simm (Life On Mars,) James McAvoy (Atonement, Shameless) and the incredible Bill Nighy, get thee to the video store, now. Journalism, Politics, and intrigue in a British stew by the incredible Paul Abbot. Rent it. Do it now. It's even great the second time through.

JOHN ADAMS

is HBO's adaptation of the David McCullogh best selling memoir of the life and times of the second President of the United States. Paul Giamatti, Laura Linney, David Morse, Sarah Polley, Tom Wilkinson -- I was lucky enough to get preview discs sent to me of the first four eps, and it's a breathtakingly good miniseries. Smart, incredibly well made. A total winner. I'll have a fuller review closer to its premiere date, March 16th.

All this, and maybe a third season for Friday Night Lights? It's great that the TV news isn't all bad.

Submitted For Your Approval...

PICTURE A MAN, giving an interview which handily anticipates the whys of the current flap over Bill C-10.

Imagine that he explains, eloquently, exactly how "pre-censorship" works.

Note, if you can, how this concept of pre-censorship lines up rather handily with the critique Canadian artists, lawyers, filmmakers and writers have about the C-10 proposal to deny tax credits to whatever the government deems to be "contrary to public policy."

Now, imagine that interview took place almost fifty years ago. And that the subject is considered to be one of the greatest TV dramatists of all time. And he's been dead for decades.

Issues like this don't go away. They keep coming back. And battles of pre-censorship must always be re-fought, from generation to generation.

Now, submitted for your approval, what Rod Serling talks about here is mostly to do with sponsorship and networks. Substitute a minority government, elected (as most governments are in our multi-party system) by a minority of the population, and imagine that these officials are the arbiters, not of taste based on sales or commerce, but taste based on political agenda.

Now imagine the shoe was on the other foot. And it was a radical left wing government who actually, you know, DID go after the tax-exempt status of churches...

I wouldn't support that either.

It's amazing how the more things change, the more they stay the same. For those who claim C-10 has nothing to do with censorship, I respectfully submit that you're living in a little place we like to call....The Twilight Zone.

The "pre-censorship" comments start about 2:07 in.

H/T to Floppy Toth

Crafty Canadian Musing: Terminal City vs Breaking Bad

The Canadian-made series TERMINAL CITY gets its U.S. premiere tonight on the Sundance Channel, the boutique cable co that made a splash a couple years back through another Canadian acquisition, the much-praised (if little watched, at least in Canada) SLINGS & ARROWS.

What's interesting about some of the critical reaction to Terminal City by Our American Cousins, is that they find it intriguing precisely for the same reasons some Canadians reject Canadian programs -- their markedly different feel. The slight torque that makes them feel, well, less like American shows. (That's also the most common reaction Americans have when they see things like Intelligence, or DaVinci's Inquest.)

In other words, what in Canada leads to what I call the Foley, Really? principle, in the USA, winds up being a bit of a selling point -- at least to the type of boutique audience that the Sundance Channel chases.

Take Heather Havrilesky's recent review in Salon. (Scroll down, halfway down the page.)

We're supposed to understand, early on, that Katie and Ari are people who make odd, unconventional choices. Take the second episode, when Ari tells his wife, "[W]e can get dressed up, but we're not doing horse tranquilizers." Now imagine that line on an American drama.

Katie makes another odd choice when, halfway through the first episode, she brings her 16-year-old daughter, Sarah, along with her when she goes to her breast biopsy. When Katie steps out of the procedure room, there's a TV camera in her face, filming a reality show called "Post-Op." Instead of mumbling an excuse and moving on, Katie lights up and shows the camera her tumor (which includes baring her naked breast). The show's producer, Jane, calls her boss with an idea: Let's fire our lame real-life-doctor host, and hire Katie to host the show instead.

This very off-kilter drama is nicely cast, beautifully shot, and the mix of desperation and joy presented here is about as ambitious as a TV show can get. Of course, with ambition and smarts comes pretentiousness -- the writing can get more than a little precious at times. After Katie's TV appearance, for example, Sarah admonishes her mom about her language on camera.

Sarah: Mom, you said fuck!

Katie: I know ... and I should use that more often, because it's a great expletive.

Sarah: What's that?

Katie: An expletive? It nails life! My life and your life, too.

If an expletive nails life, having your lead character say that an expletive "nails life" doesn't nail life at all -- it nails unnatural, queasily cute, overwritten dialogue onto an otherwise worthwhile backdrop.

What's interesting to me here is that Havrilesky, who's a pretty discerning reviewer I generally agree with, manages to zero in on exactly what I didn't like about this series, while giving it an entirely different spin. Same basic conclusion, different overall impression.

I have to confess: I hated Terminal City -- though I watched every episode. I was kind of duty bound to do that, since I had business with one of the companies that made it. (The series apparently did A-Okay without my lovin -- hence the American sale.) I will say that I found the Television subplot excrutiatingly arch, and hamfisted and yes, pretentious. (When a movie made in 1975, Network, manages to say more about reality tv -- a genre it anticipated, than a tv series made 30 years later that got to observe the trend, you know the arrow's missed the mark.)

That being said, the final episode of Terminal City, which plays almost like a one act riff on the play Our Town, is original and quite lovely. I just wish I'd enjoyed the characters and the journey leading up to the coda a little more.

The pretentiousness of the dialogue, unrealistic feel of the characters and situations surrounding the TV broadcast Katie comes to host sunk my enjoyment largely because, of course, I found myself viewing it through the same unfair prism that creatives always do in this country: "how will reaction to this one show affect the perception of Canadian TV as a whole: will it make it better or worse?"

That's a hell of a thing to put on one little television show. And I'm guilty of it as anybody else. In many ways, it's the en famille version of Foley, Really? I struggle to try and let go of it, and don't always succeed. So it's interesting to read a review from a critic who approaches it without that baggage.

Now, on the other hand, that doesn't mean that U.S. critics are universally raving about the show. Take this review in the Hollywood Reporter as a fr'instance:

This light dramatic series -- which premiered in 2005 on Canadian television and now comes to Sundance Channel -- doesn't always succeed. It's serious stuff, all right, because it focuses on a fortysomething wife and mother who learns that she has breast cancer. But when it tries to be humorous, it hits some rough patches. It's hard to balance the serious stuff with the lighthearted, and not many have succeeded at it. Also, "Terminal City" has a somewhat colorless delivery, and that often makes it seem to be falling off the screen.

The first episode, directed by Rachel Talalay, is pretty slow going, as if unfolding under water. Of course, it takes time for the setup, which includes our introduction to Katie's family and then to her illness. It could, however, use more snap. Creator-writer Angus Fraser infuses the series with a seriousness that often overtakes the humorous situations Katie and her family find themselves in. Even as the opening credits roll, Thomas Burstyn's cinematography offers serious, natural images that collide with Schaun Tozer and Ben Mink's rather lighthearted music.

Hmm. There it is again, that critique that does seem to be pretty common about Canadian shows -- they start too slow and take too long to get going. (I can clearly remember, with horror, several development meetings where a Canadian D-exec asked, "could we maybe slow this down a bit, and get to know them more?" Canadian D-execs sometimes seem to be allergic to plot.)

Anyway, I actually found myself thinking quite a bit about Terminal City in the last few weeks, even though it's been three years since I've seen it. I think that has to do with Breaking Bad.

(Spoilers for Breaking Bad, eps 1-5 ahead)

I wrote about Breaking Bad right after its premiere. But it was a few episodes later when it dawned on me that it followed a lot of the same thematic script as Terminal City. Bryan Cranston's character in the first episode, Walter, finds out that he has terminal lung cancer.

He, too, makes an odd choice. But unlike Katie's choice -- deciding to become the host of a reality TV show, Walter's choice -- using his knowledge of chemistry to go into the crystal meth manufacturing business -- actually seems more plausible, even though really, at the heart of it it's just as outlandish.

There are two craft things that set the two series apart, right off the top. You find out that Walter character is definitely terminal barely ten minutes into Episode 1 of BB. Katie thinks she has Cancer, but isn't really diagnosed for sure (she won't call her doctor back) until Episode 3 of TC.

So much for starting fast.

Where Breaking Bad also pulls away, I think, is through finding a away to tack away from the expected. Once Walter makes the choice to start cooking meth, things spin wildly out of control. You think this is going to be a show about freeing yourself through transgressive behavior, a la American Beauty. But Creator Vince Gilligan throws an interesting curve ball. You might even call it a very Canadian kind of curve ball -- he slows the action down in the next few episodes to deal completely with the implications of the actions Cranston takes in that first episode. It makes the series zig instead of zag. And though I've heard from several people that they found the detour into cancer drama offputting -- I was held by the inexorable series of circumstances that drove the character back to the place we shockingly saw him in Episode 1 -- deciding to transgress completely, and set up shop as a meth dealer. To me it didn't feel like a backtrack. It took a character who made a choice that most of us would never make, and bit by bit, sucked you in to make you see why, and how, he's making the only choice he could make.

(The final piece of the puzzle, that makes the main character flawed and compelling? He's actually offered an easier way out, which he doesn't take because of pride. Which you learn, more or less, has been his problem his whole life. Neat.)

Episode 5 of Breaking Bad contains as wrenching, as emotional, and as real a dramatization of the agonizing choice of the Cancer patient as I've ever seen on Television. To me, it rang true and delivered in a way that nine out of ten hours of Terminal City did not.

I've been trying to figure out why for a couple weeks now.

As near as I can figure it, I think it's a question of focus. Breaking Bad wants to be about a man dealing with Cancer, and about the politics of meth, and the insanely difficult choices people face in dealing with the cruelty and dysfunction of the American health care system. Those are all big, huge, potentially enormous capital S subjects. But the stew that Gilligan cooks works because all of these issues are writ small: the scenes of family drama are small; the choices made on the way to becoming a meth dealer are small (except for one huge choice, which, fittingly, takes most of two episodes to play out.)

In contrast, everything in Terminal City attempts to be huge, and writ large. Katie is larger than life to begin with. Cancer doesn't really seem to change her. There are subplots about hate crimes and holding onto ancient hatreds, and (this being a Canadian drama -- a weird sex subplot or two... gotta get those in before C-1o.)

All of these huge actions seem to happen independently of each other, without any sort of connection. And oh yeah, we also try to indict the entire genre of reality TV.

Breaking Bad, in contrast, is a story about a man who never really lived up to his potential, finding out that he's run out of time. Cancer, and meth dealing, and the vagaries of marriage all find their riffs and rhythms in the drama -- but the big issues are given weight through small, easily understandable choices leading to outrageous, but inevitable actions.

And that to me is the essential difference, that makes Breaking Bad far more thoughtful about Cancer, and life, than Terminal City. We are asked to walk in the main character's shoes. In Terminal City, Katie is always kept at arm's length.

But you know, that's just my opinion. If you get the Sundance Channel, tune in tonight and see what you think. Terminal City premieres at 9pm.

Breaking Bad airs on AMC Sundays at 10pm.

John Doyle On Canadian Self-Censorship

IN MY NOTE below that the rhetoric should be cooled, I did not mean to suggest that the time had come to be conciliatory. Today in the Globe and Mail, John Doyle wrote a very clear, concise, and measured summation of the situation of Bill C-10.

I would hate to think that my suggesting that Nazi and Soviet comparisons were offside might be interpreted as suggesting the fight not be continued. I agree with Doyle's every word. And at the risk of raising the ire of the Globe and Mail and their firewall, I'm reproducing it here, verbatim.

Doyle writes:

Yesterday morning on CBC Newsworld, a reporter in Alberta was giving us the gist of the election results there. As footage of the Premier of Alberta rolled, viewers saw him walking into a victory celebration and the reporter informed us that Ed Stelmach "looked a bit like a rock star."

No, he didn't. There is hardly a middle-aged man anywhere in Canada who looks less like a rock star. Barack Obama looks like a rock star at his campaign events. Stelmach looks like some guy nervously counting the days until his vacation.

What the TV reporter was doing was engaging in subtle self-censorship by gravitating toward the winner and gilding the lily. It's what TV reportage in Canada so often does.

Self-censorship is the great weakness of the Canadian culture in general. This is a relatively small country and everyone knows where the power resides. The powerful don't need to make big threats. They just need to let it be known that they're watching. Suggestions are made, and too many people - especially in the TV racket - respond by subtly gravitating toward the point of view of the powerful.

Me, I see a connection between the rantings of cable honcho Jim Shaw and the implications of that complicated tax bill that might see tax credits being rescinded for TV and film productions deemed to be what is being loosely defined as "offensive."

What Shaw has wanted is an end to Canadian TV programs funded by the Canadian Television Fund that he deems offensive to his personal taste and sensibility. He regularly cites Trailer Park Boys as a show he doesn't like, which gives the public a sense of his taste and sensibility. With the breathtaking gall that seems to arise from control of a powerful cable company, Shaw and his staff make the assumption that they are speaking on behalf of many people. At last month's Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission hearings in Ottawa, Shaw's representatives spoke as if they represented all their subscribers.

It's all part of the same package - a right-wing government is in power, albeit in a minority government - and the right-wing agenda on culture comes to the forefront. Those forces in the minority Conservative government and their allies make the case that they are not indulging in censorship, but in the close examination of how public funds are spent and tax credits allowed.

To some extent, they are correct. It's not outright censorship. It's a warning that there are new people in power, new rules in place, and if the TV and film industry wants to continue to operate, it'll have to engage in self-censorship.

It's a matter of creating uncertainty about what might pass the test as worthy of funding. Create the uncertainty, and the screenwriters and producers begin to self-censor.

Now, it might seem like too large a leap to jump from a TV reporter in Alberta referring to the Premier as "a bit like a rock star" to the complaints of Shaw, to the proposed new rules that would allow the federal government to deny tax credits to TV and film productions that contain graphic sex and violence or other "offensive" content. But it isn't.

At last month's CRTC hearings, I could feel and hear the commission's deference to Shaw's position. At every opportunity, it seemed to be suggesting to TV writers, actors, directors and producers that they'd just have to get used to new rules. And in the past week, I haven't heard any authentic outrage from the Liberals or NDP about the new tax-credit legislation. This is a controversy in which the opposition will defer to the government, minority though it is.

The opposition is gravitating toward the winner, like that TV reporter in Alberta. To the winner goes the spoils.

"The Cooling Factor on Financing Is Real." - Danny Iron, Producer, "Slings & Arrows"

THERE'S AN AWFUL lot of movement on the Bill C-10 front again, so rather than do a bunch of separate posts, I'm gonna collect them all together here to talk about where things stand today.

Firstly, I want to call your attention to a column in the Toronto Sun by Bill Harris. Harris' column is important because it points toward a real and persistent problem in the communication being put across by opponents to the Tories' back-door attempts to control culture. I'll return to Bill at the end of this post. But that column is the reason why I -- from the beginning -- have said that the economic arguments are the stronger ones to make.

Those arguments, briefly?

• Tax Credits are meant as economic stimulus, not as element of social policy. They are a poor method of influencing content.
• Any uncertainty surrounding how a tax credit might be retroactively pulled means you will not have banks risking making the bridge financing loans ALL productions need to start up. This will seriously cripple the industry.
• What are the concrete examples of shows that were financed under the current, unspecified structure, that shouldn't have been. If this is indeed a loophole that needs to be filled -- point to who got through the loophole. And why it's a good thing that this loophole be closed.
• It discriminates against Canadian production, and gives American productions applying for tax credits an advantage. The complete absurdity of this last point was well illustrated in this article in today's Globe:
  

Under the proposed changes to federal tax legislation, Canadian films that receive public funding may be scrutinized by the government for their moral suitability. Yet Hollywood films shot in Canada that have applied for tax credits will get a free pass.

Film director David Weaver (Century Hotel, Siblings) said yesterday that he finds it preposterous that the Department of Heritage would apply this only to Canadian producers, not to Americans or other foreign parties. "The message seems to be big-time American producers can come and produce anything they want, but [Ottawa is] going to undermine and perhaps make impossible smaller Canadian productions. It's outrageously discriminatory."

Toronto lawyer David Zitzerman said the controversial Bill C-10 - the federal government's proposal to cancel tax credits for films or television programs deemed too offensive - deals only with the Canadian film or video production tax credit (the "Cancon Credit") in Section 125.4 of the Income Tax Act.

The proposed amendment does not apply to the Canadian film or video production services tax credit in Section 125.5 of the Income Tax Act (the "Services Credit," through which Hollywood studios and producers from other countries can apply for labour tax breaks).

I simply do not see how you can read the full article and conclude that this is anything other than a hamfisted and unfair burden on the domestic industry. Any similar provision, applied to any other industry that put our homegrown suppliers at such a disadvantage would cause a huge storm of protest.

In fact, if you take the case of something like Climate Change, isn't that the main argument the Tories make against things like trying to make our Kyoto targets? That it puts our homegrown industries at a disadvantage? So you won't take steps to curtail an industry for a reason that's probably our greatest challenge in this century -- a clear case of weighing economic impact versus worldwide good. But that distinction isn't a problem for you whatsoever when it comes to Film and TV?

Well. Um. Why? Why is that good public policy? Or even...consistent, in like, any way?

Now I want to call your attention to something else. Here is a transcript of an interview between a Conservative MP and host of CBC Radio's The Current, Anna Maria Tremonti. An excerpt:

— The same guidelines that are already applied to books and magazines. Again, we don’t see why it is that Canadian taxpayers should be forced to pay for porn films. But I’d like to –

— Well, in fact, Canadian taxpayers buy a lot of pornography. We should get that straight. It’s a big industry. But that’s not the issue.

— But they pay for it themselves.

— Are you saying that all Canadian filmmakers are making pornography? I mean, what are you saying here?

— Of course not. In fact, of the roughly thousand films that have got this tax credit, a very, very, very small number would ever be denied it because of the new rules contained in Bill C-10. Movies like Eastern Promises, Borderline, Ma fille, mon ange, those kinds of films would not have been touched. I don’t think that anything that was at the Genies last night would have seen any difference in its treatment if the bill had been in effect when those movies were produced. But, you know, we believe that – and all the movies that you see in the theatres, that you can order, you know, from your home –

— A lot of those movies, of course –

— Those movies will all, largely, with very minor exceptions, continue to receive the tax credit. All we’re saying is that the same thing that has been done for books and magazines for years in this country, that porno or extreme violence should not be paid for by the taxpayer.

— But again, who decides that? You say “the movies in Canadian theatres” – but a lot of those movies are of course American movies distributed by American-owned distributors. A lot of the Canadian films that are made we don’t get to see – not because they’re not popular, because they can’t squeeze into the theatres.

— Right. You say “Who decides?” Again, there is a board that is already in place within the Heritage department, and that board already decides which companies – sorry, which productions get the tax credit. That is an independent board. It is not a partisan operation. It has existed prior to the arrival in power of the Conservative government. And that group already makes the decisions of who gets the tax credit. If this bill passes, effectively the guidelines that exist for books and magazines will be added to their list of criteria. So an independent group of public servants, separate from the political arm of government, will make those decisions based on rules that already exist for books and magazines.

— So you’re basically concerned about pornography.

— And extreme gratuitous violence. And I think Canadians can distinguish between incidental violence or incidental nudity that forms a part of a broader plot in a movie and something that is produced exclusively for the purposes of pornographic gratification or gratuitous violence. And the latter description –

— But you’re saying they won’t get the chance to distinguish. You’re going to distinguish for them.

— Absolutely not. Canadian filmmakers will continue to have the right to produce anything they want and Canadian viewers will have the ability to watch anything they want within the existing Criminal Code. The only thing we’re saying is that if it’s nothing more than senseless pornography or gratuitous violence, then taxpayers are not going to pick up the tab.

That transcript, by the way, was prepared and sent by Joe Clark. Joe (not the former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister once known to one and all as "Joe Who?") is an activist who writes frequently about accessibility issues. He's also not a big fan of mine -- and I find him to be, shall we say, contrarian. But I'll say this about Joe: he does good, important work for people who really could use it. He is consistent in arguing for openness from government and organizations...and the guy has a highly developed bullshit detector.

The amazing thing about that transcript is that when you see it in Black and White, you really do see the strings of what's behind this. The guy keeps repeating the same two phrases over and over -- "gratuitous violence" and "pornography."

It's awesome that Tremonti keeps trying to nail the guy down -- "what exactly do you mean?" and he can't answer, because of course he doesn't have the answer. He's merely been given the talking points. Remember, the Conservative party is absolutely disciplined when it comes to staying on message. So he's been told to hit that stick over and over. Why?

It's good politics. I mean, really, who in heaven's name would stand up and say, "you know, I really would like tax credits (not dollars, remember -- tax credits) to go to pornography and gratuitous violence?"

But here's the thing: those things are already illegal. They are already ineligible for the tax credit. Pornography has always been specifically excluded. And gratuitous violence -- whatever that means -- is surely prosecutable under the criminal code.

Again -- stick to economics. What movies with grauitous violence received tax credits in the past? What is the actual, real world, provable, discernible problem that the rule change is trying to solve here? And why does it require a wording change giving that power to the Heritage Minister or a body appointed by the Heritage Minister?

In short, there are three options that are really on the table.

• The Tories actually think there's a real problem with pornography and snuff films with horrific violence getting tax credits.
• They don't think this, but they've got data that says it'll poll well with their base, and it's a chance to do something symbolic -- but they didn't really think about it beyond that. So all this is catching them by surprise.
  
• They know exactly what they're doing; they know that this is likely to have a chilling effect on what gets made, and that's exactly what they're going for, because they know that chilling the sector before the fact is a far more effective, and plausibly deniable way of controlling content, than actually trying to fight the cultural fight.

The secrecy inherent in burying the change, the fact that the "guidelines" that were supposed to be ready are now, um, not...the fact that they lean so heavily on two things they know that Canadians couldn't possibly be in favour of, and the fact that anybody who knows anything about things like production, or tax credits, thinks this is a unnecessary and onerous change would seem to argue for that latter interpretation.

Which is why there's such an outcry -- and why most people who object to C-10 think this is really an attempt at censorship by another name.

Now. Back to Bill Harris.

To me, Bill Harris seems like a regular guy. He writes for a right-leaning populist newspaper. He's only been the TV critic there for a few years. And in his column today, he gets some things a little wrong, but the point he makes is really well worth listening to:

The Canadian TV and film industry's reaction to the existence of the bill has included references to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China and the Guantanamo detention camp. And while I share some of the industry's concerns, it's that type of terminology that strikes me as inappropriate.

The average Joe should understand something: This is not about censorship. Censorship means you aren't allowed to make a certain TV show or movie. No one is talking about that here. Everyone in Canada is completely free to make whatever TV show or movie they want, provided -- and herein lies the heart of the debate -- they pay for it themselves or secure private financing.

If the government gives you a tax credit for an artistic pursuit, how much of a say, if any, should the government have in what you create with that money? That's the debate, people. Simple as that. So let's throw away all the talk about censorship and dictatorships and prison camps, okay? That's an insult to anyone who ever really has experienced censorship, or lived under a dictatorship, or been detained in a foreign land.

Hey, maybe carte blanche on subject matter should apply when the government hands out tax credits. I don't know. I understand the concept of the slippery slope when governments slide from artistic assistance to artistic regulation. And I understand that on a level playing field against the risk-taking financial behemoth that is the United States, habitually nervous-to-spend Canadians wouldn't invest very much in TV or film if the government didn't do it for them, and our culture would get swamped even more.

But isn't this a debate worth having? Shouldn't we be talking about this every five or 10 or 15 years, just to make sure Canadians still feel the same way?

Bill Harris correctly summarizes the change to C-10 as a sneaky attempt to add a "morals clause" to the administration of Tax Credits. He's right. That's exactly what it is.

He's also right when he talks about the rhetoric getting out of hand. I think we should all agree on a new rule. Unless you're talking about people en masse actually getting hauled off to Concentration Camps or Gulags, comparisons to the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are...overheated.

I describe myself, when I'm forced to, as generally centre-left in my thinking. (I know, to many Americans who read regularly, you might think, "uh, really?" to which I punt to a description from 1960's "Beyond the Fringe" about the American system: "you have the Republicans, who are the equivalent of our Conservative party, and the Democrats, who are the equivalent of our Conservative Party..") People on the left very often shoot themselves in the foot by going to a place that's shrill. And that simply isn't necessary here.

There is no good economic argument for the change proposed. The idea that it's censorship by another name is simply the most plausible option. And the reason why, it's great to see, that it looks like the Senate will now send C-10 back to the House of Commons for further debate. Because that debate is clearly needed.

The thing that Harris gets wrong is also on the economic argument: the tax credits he's talking about are breaks that are given to productions by just about every country, besides the United States. It is a common precept that in order to compete against the much larger American machine in culture, homegrown productions need some help. Canada is not alone in this.

But I'll tell you this much: if Canada actually implements a policy that penalizes its own shows over U.S. shows -- well, that's gonna be a unique, Only-in-Canada folly.

Finally, Maureen Parker of the Writers Guild of Canada had this to say today:

I just received a phone call from the Stephane Dion’s chief of staff who advised me that the Senate has now officially (controlled by the Liberals) decided to address the issue of Bill C-10, in particular the requirement for guidelines to ensure that an film, TV or digital program is not contrary to public policy.

Should the Senate decide an amendment is required (and this seems likely), the entire Bill will be sent back to the House for another reading as an amended Bill. If the government manages to raise enough support amongst all of the MP’s it seems that this could mean a non confidence vote for the government. But given that the Liberals, Bloc and NDP are supporting an amendment to this Bill, it doesn’t seem likely that it will become an issue that will bring down the current government and force us into an election. But if it does, we say bring it on.

Maureen is off to Ottawa again tomorrow. Maybe she can ferret out the disappearing guidelines that supposedly don't exist yet. We'll see.

In any case, I leave you with this:

In Montreal last weekend I did two things that you wouldn't think would have bearing on C-10, but they do.

First, I went to Mass for the first time in a long while at the Notre Dame Basilica. Mostly for the novelty of it. The service was in French, but you know Catholics, it's all hard wired in there somewhere. As I struggled to catch snippets in my imperfect French, I looked around the faces in that church -- young and old, and I reminded myself that this was not a fight of the secular versus the religious -- even thought that's the way that the McVety's of the world want to paint it.

This is a fight of one religious minority trying to impose their will on a Canadian populace who simply does not support their radical views of what is and what is not acceptable. They can't go in the front door -- because it won't work. They have to stealth this through.

So that means that the only way we can lose this thing is if we somehow manage to piss off the average Canadian.

It's easy these days to demonize people of faith. But they are not all (if you'll pardon the expression,) cut from the same cloth. You go to the shrill rhetorical place and you put your argument on the level of those who currently have neither social support, or economic sense on their side.

The second thing I did was walk through a very interesting exhibit of Cuban art from conquest to the present. There is an island that's endured much, and the swings of politics and politics trying to sway culture. Some of the strongest pieces were wildly propagandist in nature. Pretty interesting stuff. But the show also had a fatal weakness, in that the cooperation of the Cuban authorities and the Havana Museum meant that there could really be no inclusion of anything that even slightly criticized Castro.

So in a sense, like when I saw RockN'Roll last month, I was struck by what is lost when you can't make part of the argument.

There's nothing -- nothing at all -- that says we have to fall into the rhetorical traps the Conservatives set for us. Make the argument. The full argument. Do it with passion in your heart. Demand answers, and proof that this change is needed.

Truth. Economics. And the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are on our side. The only way we lose this one is through apathy or by turning freethinking, reasonable Canadians against us.

Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain!

YOU WANT ABSURDITY? The Toronto Star's Martin Knelman breaks it down for you. Don't let ANYONE tell you that this was just an "innocent misunderstanding." They've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar and now they're trying to backtrack.

Keep the pressure on.

Call it the Mystery of the Disappearing Guidelines for Bill C-10. It's the latest dramatic development in a struggle in the land of cultural politics, featuring a head-on collision of tax reform and film censorship.

Matters took a turn into comic absurdity yesterday at a heritage committee meeting with a startling statement by Jim Abbott, parliamentary secretary to Heritage Minister Josée Verner.

Only days before, Abbott had undertaken to come back to the committee with the guidelines for implementing the proposed changes to the Income Tax Act, under which the heritage minister could deny tax credits to productions judged contrary to public policy.

In fact, it was the guidelines that started the controversy when a heritage bureaucrat described them to a journalist. And then the leader of a religious right group claimed credit for pressuring the government to adopt these guidelines, supposedly targeting any material that God-fearing moralists might finds offensive.

That nightmare scenario induces Hitchcock-like anxiety in those who care about the arts industries and the government funding that makes it possible for them to exist.

But yesterday, Abbott reportedly said the guidelines don't exist yet, claiming they won't be drawn up until the legislation is passed.

"It was just before the meeting had to adjourn because the bells were ringing and we had to go to the House for the vote on the budget," says Bill Siksay, the NDP heritage critic. "There wasn't time for anyone to react to what Abbott said. But I have trouble understanding how it's possible the guidelines don't exist when just a few days ago he undertook to produce them for the committee."

Abbott could not be reached for comment.

So what about the bureaucrat who referred to the guidelines? Abbott's explanation is the bureaucrat was mistaken. He misspoke.

That leaves some big questions.

Bill C-10 "Supporters?" It's Time to "Come To Jesus"

WHY ARE YOU wasting your time here when Uncle Jim explains it all for you here?

Canadian Drama By The Numbers

THE CRTC RELEASED their report on Canadian Broadcasters' Financial Results, and WGC responded. But the numbers themselves paint an interesting picture.

Ratio of money spent on foreign drama to homegrown drama, in dollars: 12.6 to 1

Amount spent on foreign: 461, 770, 968. Homegrown: 36, 500 000.

That's almost 462 million versus 36 and a half million.

Broadcaster profits in 2007: stable

profit before tax income, 5.2 %

increase over last year's profit, 1.3 %

And you pay twice on your cable bill for these programs -- once for the U.S. networks where you'd get them anyway, and once for the Canadian nets. Nice. Racket.