WGC's Got Your Back

TECH SURVEYS ARE really odd. A dozen people tromping to location after location in a antiseptic smelling bus, poking through alleys and hotel corridors and parking garages.

It gets really weird when, for instance, twelve people find they have to stay in a room for a minute because the RCMP won't let you out because you're scouting the same floor where Her Excellency the Governor General is staying. Whoops.

And I'm not even wearing my good sneakers.

Then, just for laughs, let's say you manage to drop your cell phone down in the heating vent between the bus and the metal thing covering the bus, and you have to get crew people with coat hangers and pliers and screwdrivers to help you out. Would you feel like a loser then, writerboy? I'm guessing yes. Yes you would.

(Thanks, Bruce, and the other guy whose name I don't know but will learn soon, I swear.)

Anyway, it's a loser kind of day in Canadian Writerland. Good thing that all we nasty, pasty, scribbler types have peeps on our side.

Those peeps had a lot to respond to today. And just because they do it so much better than I ever could -- here's the WGC response to both the CRTC decision regarding the CTF, and the Canadian "Upfronts."

First, about the CTF decision, they prefaced the release with the following backgrounder:

Canadian Television Fund – The Sequel

The CRTC issued its recommendations today on the Canadian Television Fund. You all remember the CTF: it’s that essential support of Canadian television production that is partially supported by portion of a subscriber fee the cable and satellite companies are supposed to direct to the Fund. Though the Fund has been scrutinized and refined over the years – including a positive review by the Auditor General in 2006 – it has come under attack by certain cable providers (Shaw and Videotron withheld payments into the fund, and Jim Shaw initiated a very public media campaign against the Fund). Their charges led the CRTC to commission a Task Force Report on the Fund, the proposals of which pleased no one. This led in turn to a week-long CRTC hearing. Today’s release is the result of those hearings.

As you will remember, the WGC fought hard on this one, understanding that what was at stake was the dismantling of a working program that was only getting better at what it did - that is, supporting the production of high quality Canadian programming. We responded formally in writing to the Task Force Report, and we presented at the public hearings. Several of our members – David Barlow, Aaron Martin, Karen McClellan and Karen Walton – also presented at the hearings. We lobbied in Ottawa and we held special meetings in Banff.

The WGC voiced its opposition to a number of the Task Force recommendations, chiefly the proposal to divide the fund into a ‘cultural’ and a ‘commercial’ stream, with the commercial stream having lesser (8 point as opposed to 10 point) Canadian content requirements. During the hearings, the terms of the discussion shifted from “commercial” and “cultural” to “private” and “public.” The WGC made clear that it is all public money, and that there is no proof that using non-Canadians in Canadian shows (8 point) guarantees greater success. The facts lead us to conclude exactly the opposite – Corner Gas, Rick Mercer Report, and Little Mosque – the most popular Canadian shows on TV right now, are all 10 point shows.

Today’s decision makes several key recommendations, chief among them, dividing the Fund into two streams – one public-sector (primarily CBC) and the other private-sector, with two separate Boards. The good news is that they are not recommending an 8-point fund, and the CTF will continue to support only 10-point Canadian programs. From the Report itself:

-------

Key recommendations: In its report, the CRTC recommends that:

The CTF's funding be split into private- and public-sector streams. The private-sector stream would support the production of commercially successful programming and be accessed by private commercial broadcasters. The public-sector stream would be set aside for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, educational broadcasters and other not-for-profit broadcasters.

Two separate Boards of Directors be established, with one having oversight of the private-sector funding stream and the other being responsible for the public-sector funding stream. However, both streams should share the day-to-day administrative services of the CTF to reduce operating costs.

Increased emphasis be placed on audience success as a criterion for access to the new private-sector funding stream.

The CTF maintain its current practice of funding productions that score 10 out of 10 points on the scale developed by the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office (the CAVCO scale).

The proposals by two companies that distribute broadcasting services to opt out of their contributions to the CTF, as required by the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, be rejected.

The CTF establish a new funding stream to support the production of Canadian programs for broadcast on new media platforms.

Actions by the CRTC

While the majority of the report's recommendations require action by the CTF Board and other government entities, the Commission is able to act in certain areas. Among other things, the Commission will amend:

its policy to allow tangible benefits stemming from ownership transactions in the broadcasting industry to be directed to the CTF, and

the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations to make mandatory the monthly contributions of companies that distribute broadcasting services, once the Department of Canadian Heritage has resolved the major issues.

We are pleased that the CRTC has made mandatory the monthly payments into the Fund, closing the loophole that saw Shaw and Videotron withhold payments.

The Guild will have the opportunity to discuss the CRTC recommendations further with the relevant organizations as the Banff World Television Festival next week. In Banff, the Guild will be meeting with representatives of CRTC, which is bringing a large delegation to the festival. The Guild is also meeting with the CTF itself, and has a meeting scheduled with representatives from Canadian Heritage. The WGC will recommend to Heritage that they do not accept the CRTC’s recommended restructuring.

Then they released this to the press:

CRTC’s Two Streams for CTF an Unnecessary Complication

Toronto – June 5, 2008 – The CRTC today delivered its recommendations on the Canadian Television Fund (CTF) to the Department of Canadian Heritage. The Writers Guild of Canada (WGC) is disappointed that the Commission felt it necessary to split the Fund into two streams with no clear distinction between them other than the source of the money.

“There was no evidence presented in the CRTC’s Task Force Report or the hearings in February that the CTF was not working,” says Maureen Parker, Executive Director, Writers Guild of Canada. “Now they’ve broken the Fund in two with no clear rationale. This introduces new layers of complication, duplication and bureaucracy into the Canadian TV production financing process – and all because cable companies like Shaw didn’t want to contribute to a system that has made them wealthy.”

The WGC is relieved that both streams of the Fund will continue to support only 10-point Canadian productions, but questions the “increased emphasis” on “audience success” of the so-called “private-sector fund.” Audience success was already a key criterion in the CTF model. And evidence indicates that those shows most distinctly Canadian – shows like Little Mosque on the Prairie, The Rick Mercer Report and Corner Gas – had the best success with Canadian audiences.

“As screenwriters,” says Rebecca Schechter, President, WGC, “audience success is always the goal whether we’re writing for the CBC or one of the private networks. Our objective in all cases is to make a show of the highest quality possible and to go after the largest audience possible. The recommendations create an artificial distinction for shows written for the private broadcasters.”

At the same time, the WGC applauds the CRTC’s decision to make mandatory the cable and satellite companies’ monthly contribution to the Fund. Shaw and Videotron’s withholding of their regulated CTF contribution created a crisis in Canadian television production.

“It was not their money to withhold in the first place,” adds Parker. “Shaw, Videotron and Rogers laid claim to public money, and the CRTC listened. This just goes to show that if you treat something as yours for long enough, people will start to believe it. And now, in order to close the loophole in the funding structure and give the cable companies something in return, they are introducing unnecessary complication into a system that didn’t need fixing in the first place.”

And the release about the Upfronts...gotta say, not the biggest fan of the pun, but this one kinda works:

Canadian Nets Not Upfront About Lack of Canadian Original Scripted Drama.

Toronto – June 5, 2008 – Canadian broadcasters CanWest and CTV held their upfronts this week, allowing a sneak peek at what Canadians can look for on their TV screens come Fall. To the Writers Guild of Canada, the new season is best summed up in the title of CanWest’s new show: “True Hollywood Story Canada” – the Canadian networks are filling their best time slots with U.S. programming, and offering very little new original scripted Canadian drama.

To the opening strains of “Baba O’Riley” (Teenage Wasteland), CTV’s Ivan Fecan referred to his network as a “major originating force.” But the lineup unfolded by President of Programming Suzanne Boyce reflected a schedule dominated by U.S. dramatic programming. They proudly touted that 75% of their prime time schedule is in simulcast with the American networks. With Flashpoint and The Listener the exceptions, the rule for new Canadian programming was copycat reality shows like Canada’s Next Top Model.

The story was much the same later in the week at CanWest’s upfront. They talked of building on a “strong foundation” with “new programming that is both diverse and distinctively Canadian.” Yet their foundation of Canadian dramatic programming has been crumbling for years, and this year they are throwing a patch on it with just one new half-hour animated series (Producing Parker) and one mini-series (The Last Templar) written by Canadians. Included in the CanWest lineup of so-called “Canadian Original” programming are an international co-production with limited Canadian involvement and a Punk’d-style production starring long-time Los Angeles resident Howie Mandel. And, like CTV, CanWest too pastes the word ‘Canada’ into the American title and calls it Canadian, offering shows like Project Runway Canada.

“Even Bob and Doug Mackenzie come to us via American writers,” says Maureen Parker, Executive Director, Writers Guild of Canada. “Calling programs like The Hills After Show and True Hollywood Story Canada original Canadian programming is confusing the mirror-image for the real thing.”

Last year, broadcasters outside of Quebec spent almost half a billion dollars ($461,770,968) on non‐Canadian drama. These same broadcasters spent just over $36.5 million on Canadian drama last year. Spending on Canadian drama by conventional broadcasters has dropped from 5.1% of advertising revenues in 1998 to just 2.3% of advertising revenues in 2007. And this figure would be even lower were it not for incremental benefits arising from CRTC approvals of media consolidation and new licences.

The WGC also learned, following the CTV celebration, that the broadcaster has killed the award-winning and critically-acclaimed series Robson Arms. The loss of this showcase for Canadian talent is a major blow to Canadian programming, and is further evidence of broadcasters’ minimal commitment to original scripted drama – the true identity pieces of Canadian television. Just tacking on the word ‘Canada’ doesn’t make it Canadian, and Canadians will not be fooled.

For more information, please contact David Kinahan, Writers Guild of Canada, at 416-979-7907 or 1-800-567- 9974, or by email at d.kinahan@wgc.ca

CTF, CRTC: Two Funds Good!

HOO BOY. This is breaking. I'll edit and attach the WGC release when it goes out later today. The CRTC decision is in on the CTF. Sooprise, sooprise. They're splitting the fund in two.

You may remember that this contretemps started when fatuous gasbag Jim Shaw stamped his little troll feet and said, "why do I have to write a check for Trailer Park Boys?"

Oh, what fun was had when rich cable companies decided to shirk their responsibilities -- the commitments they'd made for market protection and the right to gouge you and I more -- and decided they simply wouldn't pay!

They prompted a whole nice big 'ol review, and a disastrous report that nobody liked recommending the CTF be split into two funds -- one for "cultural" programming and one for more "commercial" fare. The commercial fund would be able to fund so-called 8/10 programs -- that means they could use either American stars or writers, and still qualify.

The outpouring of attention and letters to the CRTC on the matter led to hearings, and near the end of those hearings it became pretty clear by the attitude of some of the commissioners that this two fund thing was a done deal.

Well, so it is.

But not so fast, because Jimmy Jims didn't get all he wanted.

Both funds, the "commercial" and the "cultural" will still have to fund only 10/10 fully Canadian programs.

The CTF will also administer both funds. I'm sure that Jim will be happy to hear that.

So the worst part of this whole stupid, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic affair was beaten back, thanks in no small part to the tireless efforts of organizations like the Writers Guild of Canada.

I would love to know, now, seeing as I'm right in the middle of a Blue Draft of The Border -- is that show cultural, or commercial?

Should I throw in a string quartet? Irish dancing? Boobs? What?

In case you're scoring along at home, the net result of this is yes, they have actually found a way to introduce another level of paper-shuffling and bureaucracy to the process of making TV in this fine country.

So you see -- we all win!

Sharpen those pencils, kids....we gots more forms to fill out! Yeeee-hahhhh!

See No Evil, But Judge it Anyway...

I KNOW I'M late on this, but considering that YPF is getting a big release now and it really is a sweet little movie, I think it still bears noting:

A special screening of Young People F—king, the film at the center of the Bill C-10 debate, was held in Ottawa on Thursday at the World Exchange Plaza in Ottawa. However, very few of the 40 high-ranking politicians that signed-up actually attended.

Nonetheless, the theatre was packed with young parliamentary aides and assistants, including Victoria van Eyk. Van Eyk was the assistant to Conservative MP Gary Goodyear until earlier last week, when she was fired for ordering tickets to the show under her boss’ name.

The film’s distributor set up the screening so politicians could judge the controversy over the film for themselves, rather than rely on the word of opponents who are mostly basing their opinions on the title.

Young People Fucking has been used as an example by proponents of Bill C-10, which would allow the Heritage Minister power to deny tax credits to Canadian television and film products deemed offensive or contrary to public policy – even if government agencies have already invested in them.

The website describes the film as “a scathingly honest and hilarious portrayal of four couples, one threesome and a crazy night of sex.” The filmmakers have insisted the comedy about sexual relationships isn’t pornographic and they wanted to prove it by showing the movie to those who might be voting on the bill.

Several Conservative MPs were amongst the 40 MPs and senators that originally signed up to see the film; however, they later said their names were listed by mistake and they had no intention of attending the screening.

Is there a single thing in the article above that's in any way surprising to anyone? Up to and including the firing of the admin assistant?

But remember, kids, your government doesn't want to censor you.

Fuck.

Charlie, Charlie, Charlie

IT'S LIKE RUNNING into an ex-girlfriend on the street. Kinda exciting, but at the same time, a little weird.

A full four years after we made it, the first and only season of CHARLIE JADE is finally going to the Sci-Fi Channel in the USA. The show's site on SciFi is here.

Four years on, and five or six shows later (and those are the ones that got made) it's interesting to return to those days, the mindset of that writer. Who was that guy? He had a bit more hair, and said things like, "Here's why I hate that."

Nice room manner. Geez. Although I guess if you asked my intrepid colleague, she might tell you I haven't come all that far. Let's just say that there is a way to call someone's writing, "just like Shakespeare" and have it, um...not be a compliment.

That McGrath. What a maroon.

Anyway, I feel like a different writer now, that's the main thing. But it's been a couple years since I've seen Charlie Jade. I wouldn't mind checking it out again.

Alex Epstein has an entry on the show here. That's another reason to have great affection for CJ. I had to go to Cape Town, South Africa to meet another native New Yorker. Funny old world.

I'm pleased that, true to form, exactly ZERO of the publicity materials on the show mentions me as one of the writers. Typical. (To be fair, the EP did actually take steps to let them know that. Ah, whatever. They'd probably spell my name wrong anyway.)

If you're a U.S. viewer and are thinking about tucking into CJ from the beginning, it's a very challenging narrative. Ambitious. A little confusing. And if you're a writer, you should watch it just because of how instructive it is to a lot of the process that gets discussed on TV writer blogs.

Charlie Jade had a lot in common with Bionic Woman from a process standpoint. Through about the first eight episodes, you can see a struggle to try and decide, to frame, what kind of show it was going to be. There's flashes of about three shows in there -- it could be this, it could be this, nope... hmm.

Nail the template, folks. It's the hardest part of the heavy lifting. And (he said, self servingly) it's one of the most telling reasons why a show that's not writer-driven has such a hard time finding its feet. (vis Bionic Woman.)

I was part of the writing team that came on in Episode 9 -- so we're weeks away from having anything that I wrote show up on SciFi. In any case, I'm sure glad it's finally getting seen in the USA. I think there are real flashes of trippy brilliance in the show.

For comparison, here's one of the posts I wrote about the show when it aired in Canada.

Anyway, enjoy the show, Yankees. It's an interesting ride. I'll probably write more about the show as it unspools.

Oh Yeah, All Right.

SOMETIMES WHEN DADDY is snowed under it's the little things that help recharge. Like taking a little time out just to be a face in the crowd.

So the kids aren't buying CD's anymore, hmm? Whatever. Some of us remember the smell of vinyl and the feel of three chords and the truth, baby.


Heh heh. He played "Rebel." Heh heh.

Make it last all night.

Pimp My Show

SORRY. I'M HEAP snowed under with writing work right now. And I'm not sure I've got much to say anyway. I mean, really, about what? CTV and Global's launches?

Okay: they're buying a bunch of U.S. shows. They think they're going to kick each other's asses. You get these shows on the U.S. Nets anyway. They should do more Canadian stuff.

Corner Gas going goodbye is a drag, and it'll be missed. Hopefully Brent Butt's new show will be good. Pretty smart of CTV not to drop that ball.

Ummmmm...

Yeah, I got nothing. I'm prepping Season 2, Episode 2 of The Border, reading episode 6, and trying to write Episode 4 at the same time. So, uh, how about this interview with Nazneen Contractor on Q?



Oh, actually, one more thing to say -- interesting bit off the top when Jian quotes one of his delightful letter writers.

Are we really this ugly as a culture? Really? I mean, I know all the provinces hate Toronto and it's very fashionable to hate the CBC, but are Canadians really this pissy? I haven't seen a lot of generosity of spirit lately and it's getting me down.

Back when I can.

David Cole

DAVID COLE passed away late last week in Toronto.

David is a writer/producer whose credits read like a history of Canadian TV for the last couple decades: Due South, Bob & Margaret, Traders, Black Harbour, Cold Squad, Seeing Things -- just to name a few.

He also gave freely to educational efforts like the Canadian Film Centre, where he took a turn mentoring a new generation of screenwriters who went on to success in the industry. He worked with everybody, and had stories about everything.

I didn't know David well. I only worked with him once, on an animated program called Skyland. We kind of were ships that passed in the night on another project, too. What I recall most from the Skyland story meetings we had in his house was that he looked for a good laugh, and didn't take himself too seriously. He had a pleasingly irreverent attitude toward contradictory network notes, was generous with praise, and was a wonderful storyteller.

He'll be missed. Writers who knew him well, please feel free to pipe in in the comments below.

EDIT: The Writers Guild of Canada just sent out this email to members:

It is with sadness that we report the passing of longstanding member and contributor to Canadian television, David Cole. David has been a member of the Writers Guild of Canada since 1990. He was a screenwriter on such iconic Canadian television series as Street Legal, Due South, Cold Squad, Black Harbour, and ENG. He was also a frequent contributor to children’s television and animation, writing for such shows as Di-Gata Defenders, Skyland and most recently, Ricky Sprocket. Many of you will have seen the obituary in the Globe and Mail suggesting that the family would be especially grateful to those inclined to write any memories of David you may like to share. There will be a place to leave these notes at the memorial. The memorial service will be held at Trinity-St Paul United Church in Toronto (427 Bloor Street West) at 3 p.m. on Friday, June 6th, with a wake afterwards at Sarah and Tom Milroy's house at 73 Linwood Avenue. There will be a service in Nova Scotia at a time yet to be decided upon.

Scott McClellan is Not My Hero. But.

THERE'S SOMETHING DELICIOUS about the whole story.

I don't think I can add anything of substance, really, to the shitstorm of complaint McClellan's memoir has raised. There are things that I find funny and compelling in the coverage, though.

I think it's hilarious that the right wing dittoheads, (who surely have to be on the endangered species list by now -- don't hold your breath for protection there, boys) scream bias because Weasel boy Ari Fleischer's memoir opened dead.

Memo to the frothing, let's do this one more time: Man bites dog is the story. Dog bites man, not so much. And the dog gets bit in Scotty's book.

I also think it's notable that the "cashing in to get rich" argument (besides, you know, being an argument that Republicans should be able to get behind) is so easily refuted by the reality -- a five figure advance for a book like this? That's poking through the cushions money. Nope, McClellan's that most dangerous of things: the true believer who got burned.

And what really has me fascinated, watching this story play out, is the denial and the somersaults you see media types going through to try and douse McClellan's most explosive point -- that the media haven't done their jobs. Not after 9/11, not in the leadup to the Iraq war, and not now.

I find that interesting because a few years ago I had to make a choice. I was supremely uncomfortable working in "journalism" or "factual", because everywhere I looked, I saw people clearly writing with bias and then denying that's what they were doing. I saw obsequious toadying to those above, no matter what the facts on the ground were, to reflect the corporate agenda. I saw people clinging to this little torchlight of truth, when in reality, there was none. I saw self-censorship because nobody wanted to be accused of being "typical left wing media," so the most ridiculous nosestretchers from the other side got free passes.

In Canada, you get an extra level of deliciousness, because most of the time those same people will tsk tsk at the US media, and think we're better here. More measured, somehow. That may be so in certain pockets, but it's done while closing their eyes to the fact that, if anything, we're even more deferential to the power structure here.

I saw all that and felt queasy about it and somewhere in there I made the decision that somehow I had to get out of that business, because the premise was fundamentally broken. The things that James Brooks posited in Broadcast News had all come to pass. Hell, Network seemed to be playing like a doc. The poor, brittle, deluded few, left claiming objectivity in a sea of spin and bias; that was a lie, and that if I really wanted to stab at truth, maybe I should figure out a way to make things up the way I think they are, and get someone to pay me for that.

So I did.

As far as I see, I pretty much do the same job now I did then.

Yet somehow it feels more honest.

Reprint: As Prep Continues

IT WAS PROBABLY a little ambitious to try and run down prep day by day. Those days easily get away from you. Then it's 10:00 pm and you've been here 13 hours and you're suddenly thinking that life would be better if we didn't have to use the word "and" so much. Really, look at it there on the page. "And." It mocks you. What kind of stupid motherfucking word is "And?"

And don't even get me started on prepositions.

Anyway, I think I left you on Day Four with the Pink Draft out to people, and getting ready for the Blue Draft.

The problem is I kind of forget now what changed from Pink to Blue.

On Friday, there were a couple of more meetings. The first was very long -- and difficult. It's the Playback meeting.

The Border is kind of a tech-y show -- and there's moments that involve seeing information come up on a video screen...news stories, maps, computer searches -- anything that you see on a computer or TV screen has to be edited together, and played back on the day.

One of the signature elements of our set is a very cool looking technical station where one of the characters monitors incoming data. This is where we get a lot of the exposition and story out, and also where the character, who's irreverent and fun, plays a lot of his scenes. There are seventeen monitors there. Each one has to have something up on it. It has to be fed from the other room. If things need to change during the scene, those changes either have to be edited together and played back in sync so it looks like our guy is driving those changes -- OR, it has to be in such a way that the guy behind the scenes really is driving the changes live, in essence doing for real what the character on screen seems to be doing.

So our Graphics & Motion Designer, Jae, has to put together, design and make ready for the day it plays every single element that appears on a computer screen or a TV screen. There's another way you can do this, if you lock off, you do what's called "a burn in." That's where people basically watch a blank (or green) screen and you put it in in post. Canadian TV does this a lot because it's cheaper and it's way faster than trying to coordinate playback on the day -- but it also doesn't look nearly as good. And -- our visual esthetic is handheld -- so it wouldn't really work for our show anyhow.

So you find yourself sitting through a meeting and going...through... every...single ...image. It's great training. Seriously, you will never lazily write "so and so looks up on the monitor and sees a giant condor streaking across the screen then exploding into a frog's anus" again.

Not that you would. Just saying.

Anyway -- it's a loooong meeting. Once again, I'm impressed by the dedication of all the people who work to actualize something that I just cavalierly throw down on a page.

Later in the day, there's a spirited discussion surrounding costumes for our guest lead. The action in my script is compressed so it all takes place in one day. But my guest lead is supposed to be a huge movie star, so we're trying to motivate costume changes. There is, believe it or not, a long and involved discussion on the mechanics of how and when she would change, and why. I have her in a bathrobe for a scene. Really? Ruth, the costume designer wants to know, why would she be in a bathrobe then? She's under great stress at that moment for a reason I can't go into because of spoiling the fun.

And you know what? It's a legit question. All these things that never occur to you -- and they're good questions. It takes a village, man. And once again I remember one of those things about film that really gets to me:

"A film by." Wow. That credit really is bullshit. If only the DGA had an ounce of shame.

It's finally decided that she can get in the bathrobe, but it needs to happen earlier. Also, our timeline through the day is a little off, and we need to adjust time somewhere in the second act so that there's enough time elapsed for the actions we have to play out. I decide to add a running timeline in the scene heading slugs so it's clear how much time has passed from scene to scene.

The Blue Draft came out on Monday. I started work on it over the weekend and came in and did some more stuff, sending it out about midday. I seem to recall that it was tweaky stuff -- lines of dialogue here, a bit of different staging there. One scene changed significantly -- a psychiatrist scene that I wasn't really getting the flavour of, so one of the showrunners took a pass and I integrated that with my changes.

Because I've added that slugline timeline, though, what is a minor set of revisions still pushes the draft from pages to a full draft. Once you go to production, you lock the script, and then every change you make generates the next coloured page. If you change more than half the pages, you issue a full new draft. Less than half, you issue pages, and people collate the revisions into their last full coloured draft.

People in the other departments kind of hate it when you issue too many drafts. Production has to run the drafts, and that's way more work for them -- and every member of the team : art, costumes, construction, set dec, props -- have all made notes. Every time you make a new draft, they have to go through and transfer those notes across. It's a drag. You learn to dread having to put out a full draft.

The story coordinator looks at you with those damaged soulful, "don't make me do this" eyes, and you just say, "full draft, bitch..." because you're cold like that.

The rest of Monday is easy enough for me, I guess. They're still scouting locations, and finalizing casting of some of the smaller parts.

Tuesday -- Day 7 of Prep

Everything's going Green.

Green Draft, that is. The day starts with a "tone meeting," which is exactly what it sounds like. The story department sits down with the Director to talk through the tone of all the scenes. We've been sneaking a little more emotional heft into the story in the last few drafts. Once you get the story working structurally, suddenly you have room to deepen this note, or that note. The exact turn of phrase you were struggling with suddenly seems to present itself.

There's one more thing we're there to do: cut scenes. The board still looks fearsome on a couple of days. So with fresh eyes, we figure out a way to lop off a scene in Act One and get the essential info out in a later scene. And there's another series of three scenes that we figure can play as one long scene with a walk through.

The problem is that every time you break out a scene, that's a setup. The unit needs to block, light, go in for coverage. If you have too many scenes -- even if they're short, you start to add up the time you spend in that setup and pretty soon you've burned an hour you don't have. The funny thing is, now you know the story so well that you can be ruthless: cut a scene here, combine two, all to make it fit the board.

But it leads to...another full draft. That's right, story coordinator, Jimmy the Bat, Take it! Take it!

There's also a bit of back and forth with the art department. I've called for passports, a newspaper headline, a visa letter -- all of these need to be created. I wind up writing a fake letter for the visa application. I'll save you the freeze frame time next year -- there are no dirty words, just a fun bunch of strung together legalese and officialspeak. It's actually way more satisfying to write that stuff than to open up your mailbox and have to read it. Is it possible that real lawyers get secret fuzzy jollies coming up with this shit for real?

Prep Day 8

The major event today is the production meeting. Once through the shooting schedule, day by day. By now, the story is pretty set. The locations are chosen. We're cast. And so through the meeting, the script pretty firmly passes out of my comfort zone -- as a collection of story beats and scenes, to the realm of the first A.D., Michael -- now it's just a bunch of pieces -- numbers of extras, props needed, cars, playback, art. Here it is, story deconstructed into its component parts. It's in that in between phase -- for the moment, not a story to be told -- but a product to be manufactured.

Then, after, one more playback meeting. I want to kill myself.

There are a few change pages for the Yellow, but we're going to hold them off until the read through. Hopefully the read through will only mean dialogue tweaks. You hear how the actor reads a line, sometimes a substitution they make that works...you answer their questions.

Which brings us to today.

There's a bunch of prop photos that play in my ep, too. (Playback and Prop photos -- I can't make it simple, can I?) They were shot this morning, Cherry Beach standing in for the Sudan. Magic of TV. The Director comes in to tell us they look great.

Actors are trickling in for their costume fittings with Ruth. Our guest lead is flying in from Los Angeles later this afternoon. The Producers will meet her later.

Then, at the crew lunch, the read through, some quick and dirty changes and hopefully we'll issue Yellow pages tonight. And hopefully it won't be a full draft.

Tomorrow we shoot. And another episode starts prep.

So it goes.

Nailed It!

FOR THE LIFE of me, I can't figure out Alex Strachan. Sometimes I think he's out to lunch and desperately wrong, and sometimes he cuts through and makes sense like nobody else writing about TV in Canada. Well, maybe that's the point. Maybe you shouldn't always agree.

And sometimes, after all, Strachan actually manages to nail it in a way that others simply don't. So it is on his latest column about the CBC Fall Launch. An excerpt (but you really should click through and read the whole thing.)

Earlier this week, CBC-TV executives got to have their say, at their annual fall-season announcement in Toronto.

Then the Toronto media weighed in with their 75 cents' worth. The critics' notices — where they weren't bored, apathetic or dripping with condescension — were downright pissy.

Like Don Cherry, snow in June and constant hand-wringing over the Leafs, is there anything more predictable than the whinging and whining of the Toronto press corps?

Just one example: Could there be a bigger non-story in this country right now than CBC's decision to air Jeopardy! five nights a week, and hold the one-night-a-week Marketplace back until January. Yes, yes, I know. Chances are, you've never heard of Marketplace, let alone watched. Welcome to North American network television in the 21st century.

Personal disclosure: I'm no fan of CBC-TV, either in concept or in practice. I used to be. I used to be a fan of CBC's flagship newscast The National, but they lost me around the time that, with everything else going on in the world, their lead story was an interminable health item about how eating too much canned tuna might be bad for you.

I used to think CBC-TV was important to the cultural fabric, until I saw one too many hamfisted miniseries about uncouth, unsophisticated, Tory-voting, middle-aged white males being uncouth and unsophisticated. Okay, I get it: Uncouth, unsophisticated, Tory-voting, middle-aged white males who are uncouth and unsophisticated are bad people. I get it. Can I switch over to Jeopardy! now?

But you know what? In today's multimedia landscape, none of that matters. I'm predisposed to disagree with nearly every decision that CBC decision-makers make, but the Toronto media conflagration over Jeopardy! has made me realize that the public broadcaster truly is in a no-win situation.

If CBC-TV sticks with self-important, low-rated programs like Rene Levesque and The Tommy Douglas Story, on the off-chance they will find an audience, it's accused of being elitist and using taxpayers' money to entertain and edify a tiny minority at the expense of the larger majority who pay taxes.

If, on the other hand, CBC-TV favours populist entertainment that appeals to the broadest possible spectrum of viewers, then it's accused of pandering to mass tastes and being no different than the private broadcasters, whose sole responsibility it seems is to deliver eyeballs to advertisers and keep the shareholders happy.

CBC-TV made a terrible pact with the devil in a past life to allow commercials. That decision has been made, however, and it's too late to change now.

That pact with the devil is the reason CBC uses taxpayers' money to outbid private broadcasters for NHL hockey and the Olympics — and it's the reason CBC is vulnerable to criticism in a way that PBS and BBC aren't.

The reality is that CBC needs hockey and the Olympics, because it's hockey ads that help pay the bills the rest of the time.

Here's a curious fact that went unmentioned in all the Toronto media hand-wringing earlier in the week. CBC program director Kirstine Layfield noted in a private conversation with yours truly that The National got a ratings boost over the past season, thanks to decent lead-in audiences from 9 p.m. shows like The Tudors and The Border.

That won't convince me to watch, as long as The National continues to feature eight-minute stories about how eating too much canned tuna might be bad for you, but I see Layfield's point.

Strachan is also no fan of The Border, which currently pays my bills. But that, and the fact that he doesn't necessarily like a lot of the decisions CBC has made, actually raises his credibility in this case.

It's just nice to read someone finally making that point.

Great. Now I Have to Start Over.

JOHN DOYLE, writing in the Globe today, totally wrecked my new outline.

1. Stockwell Day, our esteemed Minister of Public Safety, is just thrilled skinny about The Border. That's CBC's pumped-up melodrama about fighting terrorism 'n' stuff. The one in which the border security people are the heroes, not merely officious geeks looking for out for porn in the mail. Nogoodniks lurk everywhere on The Border. Stock Day has let it be known he's a huge fan. Wants to meet the cast and crew and, you know, maybe have a little cameo on it. I'm totally not making that up.

10. Maxime Bernier will guest-star on the new season of The Border. He'll play a government minister who has a fling with a gal who used to be a gangster's moll and he discovers, to his horror, that he left some papers lying around somewhere. He forgets where. Helicopters, a SWAT team and much gunplay are involved. Then Stock Day shows up and saves the situation by talking about God 'n' stuff. I am totally making that up.

The really sad part of this? Now I have to lose that waterskiing up to the ICS headquarters and jumping off in a wetsuit scene. I was looking forward to that one.

Oh well. Now....let's see. Don Cherry walks into a bar, and...

EDIT: for the sake of clarity, I should say that I heard offhand that Mr. Day did enjoy The Border. I don't know if it's true if he said he wanted to be an extra. And if he did, I don't know if he was serious. The guy is probably a little busy. I mean, the Tories probably need all the ministers they can get right now, hey?

Reprint: Prep, Days Two and Three and Four

WELL THAT got away from me. See, that's the problem with Prep. You get busy.

Day Two of the prep of my episode had two major components for me.

The first was the Concept Meeting. This is the first big meeting where the producers, the writer of the ep, the A.D.'s and Art Dept and Locations sits down and gets their first look at the Production White Draft. The 1st A.D. walks through the script, scene by scene, basically giving a precie of what goes on in the scene. If there's things like props that will take a while to form, or stunts, that's noted. Sometimes it's unsure whether the people in the scene need to be actors or not -- they may not have a line, but are they really an extra -- or do they have to do something specific again and again (in which case, they're probably going to be upgraded to actor.) An extra really is someone just in the BG. If they do something like, oh, I don't know, dance or juggle or something, then they're a special skills extra. If the director's going to give them a specific action (ie: if they're not cued as background by the A.D.'s) then they're an actor. If they get more than five lines, then suddenly they're a principal. It all adds up.

The capable assistant to our producer Brian Dennis, Alex House, produced these notes from the meeting. This gives you a flavour for the kinds of things talked about.While, or soon after the concept meeting, the A.D.'s release their first Board of the show. The board is the idea based on the Initial Location Scout of how you're going to shoot the bastard. The trick is to get a certain percentage of the show onto your standing sets, and then to find the locations in such a way that you make up whatever your shooting days are and get it done in time.

It's math. But it's also voodoo. And here's the problem: You need to shoot a certain number of pages a day, yes. You have a certain number of days to shoot a script. And you have to fit it all in.

On a show like The Border, that can be even more challenging, because we've established a shooting style that is very fast, with a lot of cuts. A lot of cuts means more angles which means more setups which means you can shoot less in a day. But your episode has to be 43 minutes. And you only have X days. See the headache? Something's always gotta give.

We've found after a few episodes that because of our pacing, scripts need to be about 60 pages, give or take. You go too much under that and you can't make it to 43 minutes. Too much above -- too many scenes, and the board doesn't work.

On The Border, we generally shoot eight days per episode. Now, in the beginning we shot a couple of eps that shot for nine days. My first ep -- also the first show they shot post-pilot, was nine days. Then you also have to add in days for Second Unit shooting. Our show is set in various places across Canada. So we did a day of shooting in Vancouver last week. And we've been to Ottawa to shoot exteriors around the Parliament Buildings and recognizable landmarks.

That means that some of our episodes have to be seven days. My ep that's prepping now is our first one of those.

But when they did the first board -- the seven day version just looked...silly. There was no way that they were going to make those days. They worked up an eight day schedule, but the truth is that I deliberately broke, crafted the story and wrote it in such a way where there's high stakes drama but not a lot of stunts, and fewer locations.

The "production value" in the script comes from acting, and meaty scenes, and some stuff like populated scenes with extras, and Playback elements like TV and stuff.

If we couldn't get this puppy down to seven we were in trouble.

So that becomes a challenge for the Pink Draft -- cut scenes, combine others. Simplify and pare down so it becomes more manageable.

After the Concept meeting, I went with the Director to a Casting Session for our guest leads. Saw a bunch of great actors who gave great reads.

I kind of always feel bad for actors when they come in, but the more I go to casting, the more I really do appreciate the professionalism of those who really readily prepare, and the more ashamed I am of those long ago days when I went on auditions for, like, five minutes. What was I thinking?

The great thing about casting for the writer, especially when there's a time crunch, is generally they're reading off an earlier draft. Which is good and bad. Bad because it doesn't necessarily reflect where the script is now. Good, because no matter how good the actors are, when you hear a scene or two twelve or thirteen times, you start to really fucking hate it.

Anyway. Saw some good people. That was fun.

Day Three of Prep

Was my white whale.

The script is out to actors now, and the Director has given me his first thoughts, and some of those thoughts are really sharp for story. There's some stuff missing in the arcs of some of the characters through the piece. There's a few beats that were left over from the 1st draft that don't seem necessary now. And there are others that just don't work.

This is despite the fact that the feedback from the network on this script has been GREAT. Good suggestions, not too hard to implement, all in the service of making it clearer and more dramatic.

But today the story department sits down to try and come up with a direction for the pink draft.

And it's a brutal meeting.

Six hours.

There are lots of interruptions, lots of discussion about beats that may be missing, and beats that might be tried, things that might be made clearer or better. And there are also all those ideas that came out of the concept meeting the reality of trying to get that board down to seven days.

It's an interesting position to be in when you're the episode writer, when you're on staff. It requires you to be nimble. On the one hand, you know the story better than anybody else -- so some of the suggestions are going to be things you already tried and didn't work, or things that maybe screw up other parts of the story.

On the other hand, remember that "knowing the story really well" isn't necessarily an advantage. The people you're writing it for, after all, are only ever going to see it once. You can talk yourself into things -- Oh this is clear, oh no one will care about that -- and some of it is wishful thinking. You have to respect bumps -- when people don't buy something and think something is illogical, often they're right. I'd say especially when it's coming from your colleagues in the story department, they're probably more right than wrong.

Then there are other notes, the ones we call, 'different and not better.' That's the reality of the business -- no one will write things exactly the same, and there can be a great spectrum of difference on what constitutes improvement and what is just...different.

Somebody I worked for once described working for one of the legendary guys in the Canadian business (an L.A. dude, natch) and said that the secret to surviving notes sessions with him was that you had to defend your idea, or try to get it across three times -- so you didn't feel like a hack. But at the end of the day, the buck stops with the showrunner. They're going to do what they're going to do. You have to have the personality that can accept that.

I am a fierce advocate for my stuff, but at the end of the day, I know that what I write isn't exactly handed down on stone tablets. If three people are telling you something, you better do it, schmuck. Even if two have got a bee in their bonnet about something -- I suggest you take the note.

Being tired, irritable, under the gun -- all of this can increase the stress of a story meeting. And when the producers are being pulled in every direction at the same time, well...you're gonna go slow.

So it was that I sat down to pump out the pink at five pm.

I finished about six hours later, and sent the script to the story coordinator to be checked out and published in the morning.

I left on day three of prep, having worked a 14 and a half hour day. It. Happens.

I'm single. There are people -- on this show -- who do this and have wives and children. Seriously, if you're lazy or don't want to play that way -- best not to suit up.

Day Four of Prep

There's all sorts of stuff going on around me, but I take the morning to dog it a bit. When the draft's ready to go out, I get called by Sarah, my fellow writer, who's helping to get the draft out with the story coordinator. She runs a couple of mistakes by me that, in my fatigue I missed -- including one that blew a runner where a character kept getting a name wrong. The point of the last scene was that he got the name right...showing he learned.

I wrote the wrong name in. Heh heh. Fun.

I go into the office and do the best possible thing you can do when you're in this state -- think about someone else's story! In this case, Sarah and I sit down and start spitting a bit to come up with beats for her next script. It's just what I need.

The draft is out. I see the Director later in the day - he gives me thumbs up on the changes. Two of the actors call me to say they loved the script -- and they're talking about the last draft -- which in the way of the writer -- I now hate hate hate because all it does is reveal my hackery and imperfection.

Tomorrow, we see how that board's doing, and I start thinking about the Blue Draft.

So it goes, man. So it goes.

Righteous Ragin: A Daegan Digression

I HAVE ACTUALLY managed to stress myself into a neverending headache that Advil cannot cure. So I must still turtle and do my work.

But Award-winning JPod writer Daegan Fryklind wrote a bit down in the comments on my CBC launch piece that deserves promotion. So, over to her, then:

If people want to rally for Canadian TV, let them eat cake. I know you've pointed to your rules of engagement, and have shaken a finger at the jPod fans -- no, no, don't do it that way, don't alienate the CBC by telling them they're stupid -- of course this makes sense from the outside, but when you're a fan of a cancelled show in full stage 2 kubler-ross anger, some words are bound to get thrown.

Of course it'd be best of all if the fans in the world fought a fair fight (say that five times fast), but the fact that they're fighting at all for Canadian shows is heartening. Bless them for that. Bless any fan who fights to keep their favourite show on the air, who demands to see more. Yes, we never got the numbers we needed. But we got a consistent fanbase who came every Friday night.

We mattered to some people. And that matters to us, and in the end, that should matter to anyone who works in or is a fan of Canadian TV. Heaven help the system if we produce shows that don't raise a cry when they're cancelled.

Yup. Can't disagree with a word of that. And more importantly -- what did that passionate coterie of Jpod fans see in the show? And how can we make more shows that speak to that, while also speaking to a bigger audience? Is that doable? Desirable? Discuss.

Now I've gotta concept meeting and then I have to drill a hole in my head to release the foul humours.

Reprint: Prep, Day One

While I toil on prepping one show and outlining another, here's an oldie but goodie. This refers to the making of Episode 7 Season One of The Border, "Family Values," which will re-air this summer on CBC.

IT STARTS with a friendly meeting. The Director of the episode, Phil Earnshaw, sits down with me in my office and we go through the script and talk about his notes.

This is a first-blush discussion, based upon the Production White Draft. This draft represents probably the 3rd or 4th full draft of the script. Of those, there was a pre-first draft of about 65 pages that was only for my eyes. The pre-first that I sent to the Story Department was about 61 pages. There were changes made on that draft which then went to the network, on a 60 page script. The Production White is about 58 pages, which is what we're finding is a good length to get us to 42 minutes and change -- we're a fast paced show. I would have liked to have maybe one more draft to tinker with it, but we were a little late on getting this one out, so there will probably be some more story rewriting at the Pink and Blue draft stages.

You can learn a lot about what your work experience is going to be from this first meeting. Some directors come in with very clear ideas off the bat of things they'd like to change, and some don't. Those who want to change a lot don't necessarily make for a bad first impression and those who don't don't necessarily make for a good impression. Because TV writing is so much a temporal art, there comes a point where you just want someone who's got a handle on your story other than you to tell you what they respond to, and what they don't.

As we talk through the script, the Director's notes are very logical and straight forward. What does so and so think of here? When he's doing this, what's the intent? Why wouldn't this happen instead of that?

There are a few questions that have to do with changes that happened to the script from the First Draft to the White Draft. Many of those changes have to do with streamlining, some have to do with network notes and a few have to do with notes from other people in the story department. There's discussion back and forth of a few moments that are missing from the current draft that might be worth going back to re-explore. And there are a couple of questions that arise from "widows." Widows are lines of action description or dialogue that are left over from an earlier draft and either duplicate something or don't make sense in the current iteration of a story. If you change the setting from, say, the ocean to an outdoor swimming pool, but still talk about a seagull landing in the surf, or someone shaking the sand out of their shoe -- that's a widow. The Director hasn't heard that term before -- but gets it immediately. Much little bits of bonding ensue.

Widows can be really, really bad if you don't catch them early enough. Because the last thing you need is the props person bringing you five pink lifelike dildos when, in story terms, that didn't make it past the first draft.

Note: there are no pink dildos in the border. Unless you count yours truly, and I'm actually probably more of a dil-weed.

But back to "Family Values." There's a mystery at the core of the story, and several characters acting in ways that conceal their true agendas, so we discuss and track these characters through the draft, pointing out what the audience is supposed to think what's going on at this moment, and what's really going on in the character's mind.

Directors are usually pretty good at this, because they're used to having actors come up and say, "what am I thinking in this scene?" And when they ask that, you better have an answer, bub. Them actors, they'll eat you alive if you don't.

There's a famous Canadian Director who was told on his last movie by the Star you've heard of, after ten minutes of cerebral reasoning about a scene, "Okay, I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. You've given me nothing I can act. Just say 'Action' and I'll do something."

Directors and writers can talk subtext and stuff till we're blue in the face. But actors have to make it tangible...We writers can fudge that stuff. Directors can't.

In a couple of cases, there will be playback of video surveillance that's meant to repeat an earlier scene, so that you see something different this time. That requires a lot of talk of staging, how to approach the scene, and precisely what everyone's doing so it's clear. You don't want to telegraph it to the audience, but you also don't want to make it so obscure so people need a decoder ring to figure out what the hell is going on.

Canadian TV usually suffers from two scourges: either over explaining the obvious, or not explaining enough. (I realize this is perverse. But it's true.) I'm hoping we can avoid both extremes.

We get to the end of the script, and the Action takedown, and I offer that I'm really flexible on how this goes down. I'm not married to the way I've written it. I mention the three story points that need to happen. We're basically in agreement.

The Director will go away and come back with more thoughts, and that will probably generate another draft or so, before we get into changes sparked by locations and other production considerations. I'm open to good ideas -- a good idea is a good idea, and it's part of my job, as I see it, to make the Director excited about the script. At this point, my story is structurally pretty there. But there are different colours to the palate to be explored. The next 48 hours will be all about that.


Tomorrow: The Concept Meeting and Casting. My next rewrite will probably happen tomorrow night and Wednesday morning.

Taking The Phone off the Hook

SORRY. I JUST REALLY need to focus right now. And too much has gotta happen too fast. I'm going to pre-load some old "classic" craft posts. I'll be back soon as I can be.

Five Second Movie Night

WELL, IT SEEMS like now we're down to brass tacks.

I start prepping an episode in two days but I'm also trying to pump out an outline for my next episode. It's a little bit stressful. Not only isn't there much time to blog, but there's really no time for other things, too.

I mean, I want to go see the new Indiana Jones movie, review or no review, but I just can't. So maybe the best thing to do is just cut my losses and enjoy the first one. At least I know it's good. But I don't have time for that either.

I guess I'll just have to enjoy the 5 second version.

A clever YouTuber who calls himself "ThatGuyWithTheGlasses" has done a bunch of wonderful 5 second edits of popular films. Others have tried to imitate him, but few capture his wit. So just cause I really do need to relax, I'm going to spend some time taking in an entire film fest of my favorites:













Ahhhh. That's better. Nothing like a great one minute night at the movies. Now, back to work.

CBC Fall 2008

THIS AFTERNOON IN the CBC Atrium on Front Street, Executive VP Richard Stursberg almost sounded...cocky.

It's true -- CBC's had a very good season. Mercer's at record numbers, Mosque held, and The Border and Sophie bested previous scripted efforts, leading to a kind of qualified optimism for what's to come. The CBC even scored with its second attempt to launch a daytime talk show.

Depending on how you fiddle the numbers, CBC even beat Global this year. And, as Stursberg pointed out several times, "we did it with all-Canadian shows."

It's probably the closest you can get to gloating without...well...it's close. Let's leave it at that. :)

CBC had their best season since 2001. The slogan for the upcoming season, "Canada Lives Here," suggested a comfort level with the programs. As they were announced, the warmest applause was reserved for David Suzuki, but The Border, Sophie, and the departing Air Farce got an ovation from the crowd that was certainly more enthusiastic than desultory.

So the schedule announced this afternoon by Kirstine Layfield, the Executive Director of Network Programming, looks a lot like what went before. In fact, two of the most notable changes come in the Fringes of the dayparts -- two game shows formerly on CTV will be used as lead ins to lift the rest of the all-Canadian schedule. Wheel of Fortune at 5:30 will flow into the regional newscasts, and Jeopardy at 7:30 (which, let's face it, is still the only Quiz show still out there that requires you to, you know, know stuff) will lead into the 8'o'clock Prime Time block.

When I was a boy, they used to call this, "providing a lead in." It'll be interesting to see if the investment pays off.

I got to interview Layfield just before the kickoff, and the results of that convo will be posted later this week.

For now, though, here's something that got sent to me that blows me away because of what it suggests -- actual break-through. I mean, man...if fans are out there doing shipper videos, that means somebody out there in viewerland likes you.



You can read CP's coverage of the CBC Launch here.

Leo Awards

THE LEO AWARDS are awards that celebrate the West's slice of the production pie. They were handed out over the weekend in Vancouver.

We're all about the whole Canadian industry here in Sticksville, so I point you to this Vancouver Sun article about the winners.

(Unlike the Geminis, the Leos apparently don't have the Sticks on their mailing list)

You West Coasters can quibble about the legitmacy of the Awards all you want, (supposedly, big whigs like Chris Haddock don't participate, which is why you don't see Intelligence nominated,) we out here in Central Canada do not have a dog in the hunt one way or another, so we will not express an opinion beyond our fervent hopes that you all were dressed up and handsome.

See, we don't have Ontario Awards for Film and TV. Just living in beautiful, cosmopolitan Toronto every day is its own rich award.

That's a joke, Vancouver. Ease off the throttle.

Anyway, special writerly congrats to scriptor extraordinaire Daegan Fryklind for her Best Writing Award for JPod, and also to Blake Corbet for his script for Elijah.

Mea Culpa Pulpa

A FRIEND OF the blog wrote last week, in response to this post, and specifically, this excerpt:

"And this staffing season (which in Canada is to the U.S. staffing season as a Mosquito is to the U.S.S. Nimitz) actually saw, for the first time, active competition for writers - with 'go' shows going after the same small pool of talent. It's ... an interesting development, to say the least. And instead of the usual for-me-to-succeed- you-must-fail Darwinism that's always prevailed, there's a genuine feeling of camaraderie and support that's emerged, largely in the last year, year and a half. More and more, it seems like maybe a rising tide actually does float all boats.

I know you weren't around in the 80s and 90s, but there was a community of writers. And it was an active group of working writers who were all in demand in a MUCH more active market (more series and every show shooting 22 or more episdoes) who were fought over and who bumped their rates time and time again because there were so many shows looking for their skills. Unfortunately, many of those people can no longer find work, have lost the stomach for the bullshit involved in the business or have, quite literally, died.

Yup. And as the same person has been wont to exclaim, "Then, people bought houses."

Every generation tends to skew its own experience, and I'm certainly no different. Anecdotally, I know that there was a period in the not-so-distant past when things were much better for TV writers in this country.

I've had the experience of being told every time I've done something, that it was the worst time to do it. When I graduated high school, it was supposedly the worst time to go to University (I forget why now.) When I graduated University, it was the worst time in years to be entering the Media Job Market. (The Job board in my faculty that had about 14 or 15 jobs on it in my first year, sported just two when I graduated. And one of those was in Fort Frances, Ontario.) When I quit my job to go to the Canadian Film Centre, it was the worst time to try to get into writing in Canada.

After a while you just gotta harden your heart to all that and plunge on.

But I'm also of the generation that's not entirely self-focused. So that leads to a question. (Let's see if we can raise any of you lurking leviathans of the good old days)

If there was one thing -- just one -- about working as a TV writer in the 80's and early 90's in Canada that you could bring back, what would it be?

And "free flowing cocaine" is not an acceptable answer. Just saying.

Puttin It Out There...

SO, MY SUGGESTON that the almost-omnipotent TV knowledge of Macleans TV blogger Jaime Weinman might make him a good consultant, or even CBC President, was met with some amusement by his Macleans colleagues.

It's not just Macleans, of course. Any TV writer with a decent working knowledge of the medium, or anybody who reads Desperate Networks, for instance, knows that bench strength at a network is a rare and incredibly valuable thing.

But sure, maybe it was an outrageous suggestion.

Or...was it?

NEW YORK, May 23, 2008 -- Frank Rich has signed on as a creative consultant to HBO, it was announced today by Richard Plepler, co-president, and Michael Lombardo, president programming group and west coast operations.

In this capacity, Rich will both initiate and help develop projects at the pay-TV network.

"Frank is one of the smartest and most astute observers of popular culture and we are thrilled that we can call upon his judgment and superb instincts," said Plepler and Lombardo.

Added Rich, "To my mind, HBO has always been the gold standard for some of the best work in television. I'm excited to be a part of this collaboration."

Rich will recuse himself from writing about HBO and Time Warner in his weekly OpEd column, which is largely about politics and public affairs.

See, Toronto media elite? Not a crazy idea at all. I mean, look...they do it in New York and everything!

Seventy Thirty?

DAMNIT. LOOKS LIKE The New York Times giveth and taketh away, depending on your perspective. There's a piece on the new Adam Sandler film, You Don't Mess With the Zohan. When I started reading the article, I think it's fair to suggest that I had less than zero intentions of seeing the film. But Damn you, Dave Izkoff. It actually sounds interesting. Some excerpts:

About eight years ago Mr. Sandler conceived of the Zohan character, an Israeli assassin who has been trained to hate and kill Arabs; exhausted by the ceaseless bloodshed, he fakes his own death and flees to New York to become a hairdresser. There he finds Jews and Arabs living together in grudging if not quite harmonious tolerance.

At the time, Mr. Sandler (who rarely if ever gives interviews to the print news media) delegated the script to Mr. Smigel, who had frequently written for him on “Saturday Night Live,” and Judd Apatow, a former roommate of Mr. Sandler’s, who was not yet the one-man comedy juggernaut of “Knocked Up” and “40-Year-Old Virgin” fame.

Both writers found “Zohan” a subversive, somewhat improbable assignment. “There was always this question of, can you make this movie?” Mr. Apatow said in a phone interview. “Because it is making fun of the fact that people are so mad at each other.”

In revisions of “Zohan,” the Mideast nations cited in the script were given fictitious names, and their ancient territorial feud became a dispute over orange groves.

However, Mr. Sandler and his team ultimately returned to a draft that did not disguise the political subject matter, believing that some filmgoers would be upset by it no matter how subtle their approach.

“Any time you do any version of comedy that has anything to do with race or prejudice, you’re always going to make some people mad,” Mr. Smigel said. “Whether your intention is pure or not, they’re going to find something to be angry about.”

To the extent that “Zohan” deals with the intractable cycle of violence in the Middle East, it is careful not to take sides, and mocks itself for making such perilous source material a subject for comedy. In the midst of elaborate fight sequences, its characters debate the region’s complex history of aggression and retribution, even as they continue to act it out. (“I’m just saying, it’s not so cut and dried!” an assailant shouts as he falls off a balcony.)

The movie does not dare to suggest solutions to these conflicts, or to offer false hope that they will soon be resolved: in one scene, three Arab New Yorkers attempting to take down Zohan call the “Hezbollah Phone Line” for instructions on how to make a bomb. In a recorded message, they are told the information is not currently available during peace talks with Israel, and are instructed to call back “as soon as negotiations break down.”

Even in satirical discussions of race and ethnicity, Mr. Smigel said, a certain amount of self-censorship might be prudent. “I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing that people can’t freely call me a dirty Jew, like they might have been able to 30 years ago,” he said.

For now, advocacy groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations are taking a wait-and-see attitude with “Zohan.” Given Mr. Sandler’s previous work, “I would say I’m a little worried,” said Ahmed Rehab, that organization’s national strategic communications director. He added that Mr. Sandler, like all artists, has a right to freedom of expression.

Mr. Badreya, who was recently seen playing an Afghan terrorist in “Iron Man,” said that by offering Arab or Muslim characters that are in any way divergent from the usual Hollywood stereotypes, “Zohan” is a step in the right direction.

“The movie presents what happened to me,” said Mr. Badreya, who grew up in Port Said, Egypt, during the 1967 and 1973 wars and emigrated to the United States in 1979. “Since it happened to me, it will work for someone like me.”

Mr. Badreya said that the comedy in “Zohan” was not quite evenly divided between ridiculing Arabs and ridiculing Jews. “The jokes are not 50-50,” he said. “It’s 70-30. Which is great. We haven’t had 30 for a long time. We’ve been getting zero. So it’s good.”

The Best Self

WOW. A GREAT profile of Salman Rushdie by Patricia Cohen in today's New York Times, which ends with a quote that made me clap my hands in joyful recognition. Which was unfortunate as I was holding a coffee at the time.

“There’s a writing self which is not quite your ordinary social self and which you don’t really have access to except at the moment when you’re writing, and certainly in my view, I think of that as my best self,” he said. “To be able to be that person feels good; it feels better than anything else.”