THE TORONTO STAR'S Martin Knelman has the possible positive spin on the "well, guess we better wait and see," merger news I wrote about yesterday.
To anyone not involved in the film business, all this may seem like a bewildering game of chess, or possibly musical chairs. Why should we as mere moviegoers or taxpayers care?
Here's why. The government of Canada invested millions of dollars in Alliance Entertainment, a company founded in the mid-1980s with Loewy and his old friend Robert Lantos among its principals. Prior to its 1998 sale to its chief rival, Atlantis, Alliance was a huge operator that produced major movies and TV shows seen around the world, with huge subsidies from Ottawa.
But after 1998, Alliance Atlantis (as the company was renamed) gradually retreated from the risky business of producing films. Instead the new owners, led by Michael MacMillan, focused on the less dangerous business of acquiring channels.
Then in a controversial deal last year, MacMillan and cohorts sold the company to the New York financial giant Goldman Sachs and its partner CanWest Global (which took over the broadcast empire).
What may be most significant ultimately is that for the first time since 1998, Canada appears to have a strong film company capable of producing movies and TV shows here and selling them to the rest of the world. We can hope.
We certainly can. You know hope, right? It's the thing with feathers.
AS HAS BEEN written about here and elsewhere, The Writers Guild of Canada and the Producers' Associations of Quebec (Francais) and the rest of Canada have come to a mutual agreement to extend the IPA -- the basic agreement that covers professional screenwriters in Canada. Approximately 1900 WGC members now have until July 17 to vote Yes or No to ratify the agreement. (All members should have received packages in the mail or in their email; voting can be accessed online on the member only section of the WGC site.)
The terms are very simple: extend the IPA by one year, until December 31, 2009. In exchange, WGC members get a healthy (better than recent) bump in almost all script fees, and a bump in the Production Fee (which is much more significant, because when you actually get something made, that's the bulk of how you get compensated.)
Now why go for a year extension? And why do I say that the script fee increase and terms -- simple though they are -- are better than we probably would have gotten in a negotiation?
Well, it comes down to the very idea of bargaining itself. It is a give and take. In order to gain something, you have to have something the other side wants. For them to give something up, there has to be a compromise.
In this case the compromise is this: neither the WGC nor the Producer's Association can afford to be in bargaining right now. There are several high-profile CRTC hearings and licence renewals that are coming up -- a year and a half cycle that will result in a changed industry. For good, or for ill. The WGC and Producers want to go forward in that process speaking with one voice -- and the idea of fighting over a contract at the same time would be counterproductive in the extreme.
Since the original deal extension was announced, I've heard a bit of grumbling from feature writers, and especially from animation writers. The feature writers are (understandably) upset that the one script fee that doesn't get a bump is theirs. (Though the 3% bump in the Prod Fee is arguably way more significant if your movie gets made.) And animation writers, who were only recently covered under the WGC, were hoping for minimums -- to counteract a market where fees for scripts seem to be shrinking.
It's instructive, I think, to look south for the example of how bargaining actually works. The WGA went on strike for months over internet royalties.
They were also talking about extending coverage to reality and animation, and that never got past the post. It went nowhere, even in the face of their ultimate threat: the witholding of their labour.
I know animation writers deserve minimums; there's not a writer anywhere who will dispute that. When Animation was brought under the WGC agreement, minimums actually might have hurt some writers, because there was a spectrum of fees and once you set a minimum, the people who were earning more than that are going to feel downward pressure because they're "priced out of the going rate."
But understand that minimums for animation is going to be a huge fight: and it's a fight that the WGC isn't going to be able to do alone. In the current climate of fear and with these hearings looming, I think, personally, that any attempt to go in with a bold expansive agenda like that would have gotten smacked back like Venus returning Serena's serve.
For the WGC to take on that fight in the next negotiation, animation writers need to be active, and ready -- and up to now, I haven't seen a lot of that. I've asked a couple of times for animated writers to write in and talk about their work experiences here; there's been silence. I hosted one of Jill Golick's Toronto "Writers Talking TV" events last month on animation. Usually these talks draw anywhere between thirty and forty writers. For the animation discussion and screening, we had about six.
Six.
Animation writers, you need to vote 'Yes' for this deal not just so we've got a shot at a better bargaining position next time; but so you guys can have the time to organize, get on the same page, and find your voice so that the WGC can help you channel it.
I know it's hard, and there's intimidation out there. But really, the quiet Canadian way is going to get us all steamrolled. A fight is tough. You have to be resolved. We have to be serious about it.
Vote yes, and then let's talk about getting serious when the next round comes up near the end of 2009.
As for the feature writers, well, guys, I know it's a drag. But a lot of the same applies. We need to go into negotiation when we're strong, and when we've accomplished something, and when people aren't saying the sky is falling. And I know there's always an element of that in Canadian film and TV -- but with uncertainty piled upon uncertainty right now and a hostile government environment, never mind increases -- I'm pretty sure a full out negotiation at this point would probably involve exactly what the WGA faced -- a significant call for clawbacks.
The entire next two years is a gamble on the viability of this industry. The gamble is going to happen whether you vote yes or not. But if you do vote yes, and the contract is ratified with a great percentage of members in favor, then we will at least demonstrate that we have the resolve to go forward as one. And believe me, that's something.
THE BIG STORY in Canadian entertainment circles yesterday was this, a big production merger.
Entertainment One swallowed Barna-Alper, Blueprint, Oasis and Lantos' shingle, Maximum Films.
What's the result?
On Monday, the company, once dedicated to wholesale CD sales, said it bought Blueprint Entertainment of Los Angeles and Barna-Alper Productions of Toronto.
It's also taking over TV distributor Oasis International, which has offices in Toronto and L.A., and Maximum Films, a film distributor co-founded a year ago by producer Robert Lantos, who previously created Alliance Communications.
The price was not disclosed, but Entertainment One, or E1 as it likes to call itself, said it will be paid mostly in shares, along with some cash.
"We thought that the television production businesses in the Canadian marketplace... was a great place to go," said Darren Throop, CEO of Entertainment One, in an interview.
"It gives us huge access to an already established catalogue and access to new content."
To be perfectly honest, I've fielded the same phone call four or five times. "What's your take on it?" And from the perspective of the "we who make things" the quick reaction seems to be a bit of a head scratch.
On the one hand, as we've all learned by now, being bigger supposedly makes it easier to compete.
On the other hand, going the bigger and bigger company route in the USA hasn't exactly resutlted in a huge boon and more jobs and better product.
And whispers point to some of the elements in this deal and say, "well, based on that track record, is it going to actually be about making stuff here in Canada?" or is it more like, "how can we access Canadian money and make shows where we want to make them?"
Is this bound to be one of those long-storied Canadian Production stories where the deal was better than the result?
And the whole thing seems to be a precursor to going public. Does stockholder price concern and shareholder responsibility mix well with developing good projects?
And doesn't anyone remember Alliance Atlantis' "permanent downturn" greatest hit from a few years back. You know, how production in Canada was never going to go anywhere. Is that true? False? What? Bueller?
THIS MORNING'S FOOD for thought comes via a piece I first saw on Diane's page yesterday.
Now, upfront I should say that I have a pretty hit-and-miss track record with Internet trends. I'm an early adopter for some, and trailing edge for a growing number of them. It seems like maybe more fit into the latter category with every passing year. That's inevitable, I guess, seeing how busy I've been. I may procrastinate, but I don't have hours to surf YouTube. And then there's that other part, the part of me that rhymes with the phrase, "Sweating Colder."
So I understand if this is old hat to you. But I spent about an hour tossing and turning last night, and another little while over coffee this morning, trying to explain away my reaction to Matt:
I mean, isn't that just great? I watched that last night about three times all the way through. In a way, I'm glad I didn't discover the earlier videos (he's done two previous versions, in 2005 and 2006) or Harding's internet semi-fame, because to me it's the 2008 edition that packs all the power.
I started with 'why' and my emotional reaction to the piece. The music is extremely effective, of course, but for me the key to the reaction starts with the fast series of shots where all the people join him dancing. I find that section of the video unbelievably moving. I mean, I physically felt like I was going to cry when I hit that point. (I didn't, I mean, Jesus, I'm still a man, and don't you say different, varmint.)
This speaks to me with all that is important and key about video content on the internet: it must punch, and be immediate, and evocative, and most of all -- convey its message in a short, sharp burst.
What is the message? I don't know, exactly. I mean, that's what's great about this, too. At root, it's just a guy dancing. But what does it say about you, how you react to this? What does it say about me? Is it about how small really our world is? Is it about the necessity to connect with other people as best you can? Is it about beauty being where you find it? Is it a different message when passed from country to country? Is it about Carpe Diem? Is it a plea for tolerance? A challenge to find adventure in your life? Or a simple, pure, joyous celebration of what it can and should be like to be alive?
Yes.
It's all of these things.
It occurs to me that TV used to embody a lot of this, too. And not so long ago. When I would watch Sports Night or The West Wing, even though people talked fast about subjects people might have been cynical about (TV, sports, presidential politics) contained in that rapid fire were multiple meanings and emotional states left for you to uncover. You can still find that level of complexity, but largely, it's on cable, in great American dramas like The Sopranos or Six Feet Under or Deadwood, or Mad Men.
The popularity of a few current dramas, among them House, and maybe the most sophisticated of the Law & Orders, Criminal Intent, can rely on that complexity too, at times. But they speak to an olderage. A rapidly growing fogey contingent of which I'm increasingly a member.
I don't know who was really caught by surprise by the fact that the dominant TV audience is over 55 and mostly female. But I sure wasn't. And, unfortunately, much like the reaction to Hillary Clinton's flameout candidacy, we who toil in the trenches of TV have a couple of perilous steps ahead of us. Advertisers will be cruel and tell us that that audience -- the audience that does watch TV -- is notrelevant. They don't want them. And we are being charged to go ever younger in our appeal. But woe betide us if we anger that audience that actually is there, and watching. They might not vote for us. And then the exodus from TV will become a mass desertion. And then we're cooked. The Hillary supporters, as we've seen, tend to take being marginalized a little personally. (Gee, I wonder why?)
Yet here's a funny thing: the decision makers -- the gatekeepers at networks and elsewhere, are increasingly part of that cohort. Not necessarily female (though they are, to a point) but older. So we have older people obsessed with reaching youth.
I know, I know, I know... it was ever thus. But I don't think that's true, necessarily. I think something's changed and we haven't even begun to face it yet.
In my own writing and career, I'm finding myself stymied in my instincts to pull this younger crowd. Instinctively, I know we're doing things wrong. I look at shows like the CBC's "Maria" Sound of Music contest and the shows that me and my friends work on and I think, "we are not going to hit that younger mark." We are being asked to reach an audience and then actively prevented from structuring stories, and telling them in a way that could have a hope in hell of reaching them.
I joked on Jaime Martin's Macleans blog that it would be five years before the Canadian networks get the message that the audience is over 50. That kind of "news travels slow" feeling is part gallows humor and part defence against a growing, mounting problem: the disconnect in attitude between younger viewers (and I'm not just talking 18-24 here, I'm talking about my cohort, too, 25-39) and the people who are trying to reach them. The decision makers flail and push for safe, and for what's tried and true -- yet keep repeating like some sort of zombie mantra -- "reach a younger audience."
Well we all know the old saw about what it means when you keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result. That seems to apply everywhere but in Television.
I don't necessarily know what the answer is -- how you do reach and engage that younger audience?
But I can't help but think that maybe it has something to do with Matt.
And so we all dance on...to quote a story of an earlier time that was, in its own way, equally obsessed with youth:
"tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther....And one fine morning----- So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."
WELL I FORGOT. Apparently I was on Q again today with Globe & Mail entertainment writer Kate Taylor, talking "reality teevee that makes you feel dirty."
Repeats tonight at 10 on CBC Radio.
And there was this nice mention of a show I wrote in NOW Magazine's roundup of 20 years of Toronto Fringe Moments.
16. TOP GUN! THE MUSICAL (2002) Writer Denis McGrath and composer Scott White cruised into a hit with this laugh-out-loud musical send-up of the hit film, with the gay subtext writ large and the battle between actors’ egos as gigantic as the planes the performers were supposed to pilot. The show later flew south of the border to play at the New York Musical Theatre Festival.
Have a good weekend -- oh, and keep voting on our new CanTV terms - and feel free to submit your own in the comments below.
TO THIS DAY, this is the only column I've ever published for which I received an actual, serious threat.
It was pretty creepy. Someone went to the trouble to register a brand new Hotmail account, or to spoof one or whatever, and they wrote to tell me that I should keep my mouth shut or -- and I'm not kidding here -- I would "never work in this town again."
Which is weird, because I got the email on my cell phone when I was in Brampton, and I was like, "Pshaw, whateva, whateva!"
Seriously, though. A threat. Weird.
The narrative used to be easy. It went like this:
"Canadians don't want to watch Canadian shows."
That statement was a powerful defence. It's the reason why, in 1999, the broadcasters successfully got the CRTC to relax Canadian Content regulations on homegrown comedy and drama.
Actually, what they did was allow networks to count things like lifestyle shows and light entertainment and reality toward their CanCon quotas. The result, by now, is well known. There were eleven drama series on the air in 1999 on the various Canadian networks. Those numbers dropped by half within a year or so. These days, you'd be hard pressed to find more than one drama or comedy show on any of the Canadian networks at one time or another. The private networks continue to make their money by buying U.S. shows at the L.A. screenings, programming them at the same time as the U.S. networks, to take advantage of their promotional spending and then, as a final gift, the CRTC allows them to substitute their signal over the American networks, so that even if you watch the NBC show on NBC, you're actually watching CTV or Global, and their commercials. Then, they fill out their schedule and CanCon with cheap shows like ET Canada or E Talk Daily -- which they sell as -- and here's the final insult -- a way to promote Canadian stars!
At the time, Canadian creatives tried to make the case that maybe the reason people weren't watching had something to do with a lack of promotion, bouncing the few series they did do around the schedule to accomodate money-making U.S. simulcasts, dumping homegrown series in unflattering slots where they were designed to fail (like scheduling TRADERS for years against E.R. which was then Canada's Number 1 show.)
But the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (the broadcaster lobby group) had a powerful, though passive ally: viewers themselves.
Because they could also point to viewers and hear things like, "Canadian shows look cheap." "They're not good." "There's no one in them that I know."
That's a hard thing to hear -- and unfortunately, it's often true. I'll return to that later.
I WROTE A short rumination on the review in the NY Times on the release of the DVD of Twitch City, a show that I didn't enjoy as much as I really, really wanted to.
Don McKellar weighed in, and in the end I think in the end we came to somewhere sweet and accomodating. Seriously. Read it and tell me you don't get the goosebumps.
I'm not gonna excerpt this one, because my thoughts weren't really anything special. The gelt comes in the comments.
Interesting coda, too. One night recently, I'm at the Paddock, as is my wont. I'm talking to John Doyle, who frequents the place too, and McKellar comes over. I congratulate him on Blindness getting into Cannes (it had just been announced that day,) and he basically just blinks, and turns away and has a conversation with Doyle for five minutes while I sit there like Mr. Bump on a log. Seriously, folks, it's glamorous being a writer.
Okay, okay, before I cause more trouble, I know, I know, it wasn't about me. I mean, I hear he's like that. He probably didn't know who the hell I was. I mean, I just got back from the airport right now, and weird thing, true story, I ran into one of my sister's best friends and I KNOW her and I didn't recognize her, so, you know...Whatever.
But you don't know how Daddy cries.
McGrath vs. McKellar: and the winner, my friend, is JESUS:
WHY O WHY do I pick on the fanfic people? Clearly a deep flaw in character. I STILL get hate mail about this one.
But to me, the thing about fanfic is ... it's bad. All of it. So close to all of it that, yeah, you might as well say all of it. It's like When Leonard Nimoy recorded albums. I'm sure somebody could make the argument that, hey, you know his cover of...X...actually wasn't too bad. But it doesn't matter. Ed Wood might have very well, in one of his movies, wrung a real human emotion out of somebody and done a great scene. But it doesn't matter.
What matters is the overall impression. And the overall impression of fanfic -- all the fanfic I've ever read -- is that it's puerile, overwrought, florid, hamfisted, tin-eared, illiterate, badly spelled, laughably punctuated, intellectually bankrupt pig vomit.
I'm not sure I've made myself clear enough.
Fanfic makes the Baby Jesus cry. It's snuffed it. Bereft of life, it's gone up the pole and shuffled off to meet its maker. This is an Ex-Genre.
And please, ValP or whatever mu-mu, caftan wearing keyboard ranger who's reading this right now, shuddering with rage at my callous disregard for all the people paying homage - don't send me the good stuff. I don't care. I really, really don't.
A writer, someone who trades in words, is always going to be rankled a bit by bad writing. But bad writing involving great characters that professional writers have worked at, invented, discussed, outlined, drafted, and pored over, is just -- yucky.
I think people trying to repaint Monet's waterlilies are yucky, too, by the way. Hell, I think anyone who tries re-painting Warhol's soup can is yucky, too. I would rather see someone's bad watercolor of the view of the bluejay in their yard than see their bad attempt at the Warhol soup can. I'd rather see their bad attempt at the bluejay than their pitch perfect copy of the Warhol soup can, too.
While we're at it, too, let's drop the intellectual dishonesty on the paying homage front, too. Because that's not the drift of most fanfic. Trying to find a neutral exploration of fanfic in any universe is like trying to find someone who's neutral on the subject of abortion or Israel or Islamic fundamentalism.
SO YEAH. I was writing a script till 5:30 this morning. I'm sitting here quietly waiting for my concept meeting, emitting random beeps and flutters that has Boy Wonder the story coordinator very frightened indeed.
Not to break into the tour of trouble, but I've put up a new poll on the side there about new phrases that could be popularized in Canadian TV, now that Ivan Fecan's "Reverse Simulcasting" is out there.
A couple of wags wrote in saying it's difficult to choose without having some sort of parameters of definition. Fair enough.
To define the terms, then:
Mansbridgian - The act of sonorously declaiming something with gravitas which probably doesn't deserve it.
"I heard so and so on the CBC discussing Reality TV in such Mansbridgian terms that I just wanted to hurl." or "Don't you think all the Mansbridgian sturm and drang over the Hockey Night in Canada theme is a little over the top?"
Gemini-neutral - A show that's either so good, so bad, or so typicaly Canadian that it will either be completely ignored, or win 135 Geminis spread over sixteen nights.
"Have you seen so-and-so's new doc on that left-wing- thing- people-in- Rosedale- care- about? " "I couldn't get into it." "Why not?" "Well, for one thing, it was really Gemini-neutral, don't you think?" or "I'm really hoping that that new CTV show is good and breaks the streak of all that Gemini-neutral stuff they've been doing lately."
Canwesticular- pertaining to or describing a great bit of shameless spin.
"Did you see the angle so and so is trying to hawk on the C10 thing? Seriously, dude, it's postively Canwesticular." or "It's ironic that Ivan came up with that "reverse simulcasting" thing, because it was a really Canwesticular thing to put out there."
Finckensteiniable - a position that you feel can be sold to the CRTC.
"I'm hearing that this whole "let's spend more money on homegrown shows thing is having trouble gaining traction because it's not Finkensteiniable." or "The Broadcasters tried their damndest to make their cash grab proposals Finkensteinable, but I don't think the commission bought it."
OOH, THIS PARTICULAR Tour of Trouble entry got me a bit of a caning from two writers I much admire, John Doyle and Chris Haddock. (Actually, I think I was responding to Doyle calling me out in his column.) Oh, and now that I reread it, this is also the entry that caught the attention of Tony Nardi, a guy who's put his own "J'accuse" out into the firmament with his "Letters." (Performance pieces about the problems with the Canadian Theatre, Film and TV industries. Go see'em if you get a chance.)
Haddock had some specific criticisms which I subsequently edited into the piece.
And Doyle feels free to continue to call me out when he thinks I've written something a bit arse-ful. And I don't collapse like a little flower at the crit, because hey, Irish blood means a good fight just gets the heart going.
From my grovelling apology:
For where I was unfair and conjectured unwisely, I apologize to Haddock -- and you know, though I've probably just pissed off one of the bigshots in this country, a guy who does have years more experience than me and who I admire, I still don't regret it. But nor do I back away from it.
Cause agreeing with someone, even 97% of the time doesn't mean you gotta agree with them all the time. And I still don't.
But I do count myself as one of those that hopes that Jimmy Reardon gets to get his shot ass out of the doorway of the Chickadee, and that Haddock and the CBC -- however they argue, through the media or in private -- continue a creative partnership that's set a very high bar of quality and a target for everyone else to aim for.
And the rest of it? I guess I'll wear it. If you got a big mouth, you have to do that sometimes.
LET'S START OFF the TOUR of TROUBLE with an oldie but a goodie. When I first wrote this, I took tons of shit from people at TV Without Pity or other Internet fans. I still believe every word.
(I'm linking to the original articles here to preserve their colorful comment trails. Comments will be closed on all these posts -- you want to say something, click through to the original post.)
Writers crave approval. They do. It's a lonely job, and it's natural to want approval. But the more I do this, the more I think that professional writers need to insulate themselves from their fan base. It's not just the disasters that ensue when Simpsons or West Wing writers get into dustups with their online fans; it's that the internet's ability to disseminate any little nugget of info renders what would be a small, entre famille feud (Like the LOST spat) into a huge freaking deal that will never go away -- and is picked over obsessively by fanboys who will never understand what they're talking about because they have not and never will be in the room.
When a writer says to another writer about LOST, "they know where they're going," a writer with any experience knows what that means. It means that they have the basics of their mythology sketched out. They know what the major mysteries are and how they will resolve. But the individual details of how A goes to B -- well, the fact that they don't know that yet doesn't mean they don't know where they're going, it's the air that feeds the flame of the creative process.
To say that you have a show where you have every detail of every episode worked out over five years perfectly ahead of time -- well...uh...that's kind of going into Beautiful Mind schizophrenic territory. Of course you don't. Yes, I know that JMS had a five year plan for Babylon 5. But that five year plan was broad strokes, not every freaking detail...that's why he was able to adjust to things like cast departures.
But the problem is that to a fan, they look at TV like they look at a novel. It exists, and if "you're just making it up as you go along," then the moment something happens that they don't like, they ascribe it to desperation or "not having a plan."
In short...there's just no talking to these people.
To read the rest of the post, or leave a comment, click below:
IN RIVER CITY. That's what we all fear, isn't it? My friends, I've just come back from the Shangri-la land where "you wanna know what I think?" is always a rhetoricalquestion. Where people speak their mind, and, yo, shit gets done!
Before my hellish airplane ride home (Seriously, Air Travel in the USA? It's over.) today I got to have lunch with a lovely old friend down in the Meatpacking District. She, once upon a time, was a publicist here in merry old T.O. And then she jumped ship and made a grand new start of it.
So we got talking, as is the wont, about risk, and the risk averse, and how maddening it can be when no one will say what's wrong, and when chances won't get taken, and when everything seems to be guided by... don't cause trouble. don't make waves. here's why we shouldn't do that.
I swear, we weren't talking about any countries in particular. Nosiree.
It's part of the refrain I've heard from this blog from the beginning. Don't cause trouble. Don't make waves. You can't say that!
Well, almost three years in and the occasional spot of trouble hasn't killed me yet.
All that's the way to say that, um, I'm actuallyin trouble right now. Crunch time to get a first draft out that has been judged, "not quite up to snuff" (It happens, baby, it happens -- 'specially when you have to write it on set.) So blogging as a priority has once again, slipped somewhere south of "get a life."
But this time, it's not just any repeat posts. Oh no, Chickens. For the next few days, we're going to revisit posts that got me a good hiding. I've often said that sometimes, shooting from the lip means having to walk something back. So you do, and you know what? It's not the worst thing in the world. We're all still here. Better to issue a correction or take your lumps than to never speak up and speak the truths that need saying, say I. Passive Aggressives of the world -- well, no fine, I guess that's okay, you manage to make that work, you really do. Wouldn't be my choice, but I suppose it's fine. It's fine. Yes. Fine.
For those who won't dare to squeak, and for those who just like to see me in pain, today we kick off the DTOS
TOUR OF TROUBLE, or, WHEN THE DEAD THINGS LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE GOING TO BE ME.
These are the posts that sparked the most negatory reaction from readers, or on the net, or from people in the industry, or from my mom, or whatever.
First one is up later today.
I know this might not seem like much to somebody like Henshaw, for whom every post is its own smart bomb, but consider this a good old fashioned warts and all fest.
Those of us who work in the story telling trade in Canada are often asked why we stay here. The weather's crappy. Nobody seems to need the tales we come up with and pay you poorly for them when they do.
Writers who become ex-pats often bemoan the fact that more Canadians are exposed to their work after they leave the country than when they were resident. That's hardly ever the motivation for their move, but it's still a truth we all find hard to fathom.
Somehow we're a nation neither comfortable creating our own myths and heroes nor interested in going out of our way to celebrate those that we do have.
Around the time I was going to that first rodeo, my own hero was the Cisco Kid, a Hollywood version of a Mexican Caballero. Nothing about him was remotely "Canadian" but I still thought he was cool. I got my mom to save up some boxtops or coupons from something and sent them off to get my own Cisco Kid coloring book. Another odd choice since the Kid only dressed in black.
Instead of the book, I got a nice letter from the cereal company explaining that the offer wasn't available in Canada. That was the identical experience of another Canadian writer (whose name for the life of me I can't remember) who'd sent off a request for his very own "Captain America" decoder ring a couple of decades earlier, also discovering that it couldn't be sent across the border.
That writer's famous quote went something like. "Not only did they have heroes we didn't, they had codes we weren't able to solve".
SO IN THE interest of showing that I don't cherry pick bad reviews, (Still waiting for that guest column, by the way, Aaron,) Lee Anne Goodman has the reaction to MVP in the U.S.A. in a much grander light:
The most surprising American review, arguably, appeared in a recent issue of The New Yorker, the high-brow magazine popular among the intellectual set.
The show "calls to mind such past treasures as 'Dynasty' and almost every other nighttime soap you can think of," Nancy Franklin wrote. "I'm going to sit right down and send Canada a thank-you note."
Mark A. Perigard of the Boston Herald was in agreement: "Not since the glory days of 'Melrose Place' has a soap seemed like such a naughty pleasure," he wrote.
The CBC cancelled "MVP" in March after just a few weeks on the air because the show had failed to attract a large enough audience. But ABC's Soapnet - a cable channel devoted to soap operas - soon bought the rights to the show, and its premiere episode aired on the main ABC network following the daytime Emmy Awards on June 20.
ABC has apparently put its might behind promoting "MVP," including a massive billboard in New York City's Times Square featuring "MVP" star Dillon Casey - an economics grad who studied at McGill University and the University of Toronto - clad only in his tighty whities while clutching a hockey stick.
I must say that my U.S. approval radar goes extra tingly when someone swoons over a TV review in the New Yorker. I love the New Yorker, but come on, that review is like the puckish story they'll run once in awhile where somebody writes, "in defense of championship wrestling..."
And as for the billboard, I've been in Times Square twice in the last two days and I'll be damned if I can find it. Maybe it just lived through the premiere?
None of this changes the fact that I'd be a whole lot happier with lots of Canadian reviews and press when these shows launch in Canada. The Star, The Globe, and one chain wide Canwest article does not a publicity blitz make.
But hey, whatever. Look, the Yankees like us! They really, really, really like us!!!
IT'S SCORCHING HOT in New York City. Which makes the walking to and fro sticky, but the cafe sitting and people watching glorious. And as always, the away leads the thoughts to swirl and move -- promises and ideas and ruminations all stirred together to be applied like tar in the unforgiving heat.
But there's also a couple things I wanted to remind you all about.
The first is for fellow members of the Writers Guild of Canada. By now you should have received your packages explaining the WGC proposal to extend our IPA -- the basic labour agreement between writers and Canadian Producers -- to December 31, 2009. (The current agreement expires Dec 31, 2008.) Jill has details here.
There's a very good reason to extend this agreement now: focus. Over the next year or so there are going to be several key regulatory hearings that promise to reshape Canadian Television and film. We've seen in the past that the bureaucracy in this country don't take the creatives that seriously -- such is the burden of a (nominally) sponsored cultural sector.
The point is that now is not the time to be fighting amongst ourselves. The Producers and Writers have common cause in the next year.
So in return, we've actually gotten a very good deal as incentive: a 3% bump in script fees and production fees across the board for all contracts in 2009.
I urge you to vote yes to the extension, and in great numbers, because a big yes vote shows that we are united, and strengthens our hand going forward. Most of the WGC's membership is concentrated in Ontario, and it seems like my fellow Ontario based writers have, in the past, led in apathy. Let's try to turn that around this time, shall we?
Secondly -- I just remembered that one of my episodes of Season One of THE BORDER,Bodies on the Ground, re airs on CBC tomorrow night at 9pm. If you didn't catch it the first time, now here's your chance to catch a fast paced tale of terrorists roaming Northern Quebec!
IN THE MIDST of an entertaining profile article about Hart Hanson, Diane Kristine relates this telling quote:
"Part of me is very cranky that I felt I had to go the States to reach a larger Canadian audience. The Canadian audience on Judging Amy or Bones is higher than any Canadian show I worked on, and they were some successful Canadian shows. I don't know who to aim that crankiness at, that I had to become an ex-pat, to live in LA, to reach a Canadian audience. I don't understand it at all."
And that's it, aintit?
Kids, have yourselves a nice weekend. I'm going to New York City. Cause I can. Be safe.
THE NATIONAL SCREEN INSITUTE has launched a spiffed up website that's got an online "Industry Centre" portion. A worthwhile effort to try and gather more information about the film and TV industry (such as it is) in Canada.
WELL, I'M NOW a little over halfway through my first draft for my second episode of The Border, Season 2. I'm also trying to work up some materials for other projects, and just cause I have so much copious free time, I have two days of WGC Council Meetings.
That's a whole lot of travailler. So while I struggle to keep all these balls in the air, why don't y'all just sit back and enjoy le hip hop.
The big narrative around since the end of the WGA strike, and leading up to the chaos of the SAG contract negotiations, is that the WGA strike cost Hollywood "2 Billion Dollars."
Now the same P.R. firms that were hired to pose as "regular people" and bomb comments to Nikki Finke and other blogs and letters pages are out there promo'ing the fact that Hollywood still hasn't staggered back and everything's a mess.
But is it really the fault of the strike? Or is there a connection to the banking crisis in the USA? IE: Lots of the banks that float loans and help finance films have been so decimated by the Subprime thing that they're not playing ball anymore.
So much for the marketplace...
CITY-TV bye bye:
For people like me who got a chance to work there -- even in the waning days of Znaimer glory, Toronto's Citytv was a special place. Creative people, working hard as hell, getting paid way less than they were worth, but hey, at least you got to have fun, work with cool people and sometimes see rockstars, or cadge free drinks.
That hasn't been true for years, of course -- by the waning days of CHUM, the uniqueness of the CITY brand had been so diluted that it was a mere shadow. And everybody else, even CBC, had caught up to all the things that set CITY apart -- no anchordesks, hand-held shooting, POV style...
But for anybody paying attention it's been a bad month for a place that used to be innovative. Today, the news that ED THE SOCK's been canned. Yup, it hasn't been a force for years, but still -- it was part of that old sensibility. Same thing with the weekly SPEAKER'S CORNER, the TV show that pretty much anticipated YouTube.
Time was you could land on City and immediately knew you were on something different. With most of that now faded away, the question is how long before they just give up the ghost? What good is a brand if it's meaningless? How long before CityTV becomes RogersTV?
KUNG FU: STRONG!
I've still gotta stick my head down and get back to pumping out a draft, but those who actually DO have the time to watch the TeeVee seem to be unanimous -- at least the ones talking to me... John Rogers' LEVERAGE is the awesomeest of the so-far leaked shows.
in the WGA-MBA, they are no longer called bibles, they are called formats. I think the change in wording is significant and we should opt for that here. A format is a general blueprint, not a paint-by-numbers document. Perhaps it is time for the WGC to educate the industry and initiate that change in the IPA.
That is, in simple terms, a Rockstar point.
But I don't think it should be something that waits for the next IPA. You be the change you want to make. Henceforth, I'm not gonna talk about Bibles anymore. Ever. When talk comes up, I'll ask for clarification: "what do you mean by a Bible?" And I'll say, "nobody does Bibles anymore." And then later I'll gently suggest, "oh, you mean a format. Oh, yeah, that we can do. Gosh, I thought you meant you expected us to come up with every plot point and beat of the season, and throw it into prose, and write the season before we actually write the season. Which we both know would be ridiculous. I mean they'd never do that down in Los Angeles -- not in a million years!"
Change the language and we change the thinking.
Showrunner, meet Format.
Hey, Reverse Simulcasting, who invited you to the party?
Hoselton confirmed that House doesn't have a show bible, a document that supposedly collects the known facts of the series. "It's sort of a joke," he revealed. "Every now and then, somebody will say 'Where does Wilson live?' 'I don't know, it's in the bible.' "
Greenstein suggested show bibles are not particularly common or useful, given the collective memory of the writing staff and the availability of episodes and scripts online. "If there's one on Desperate Housewives, I haven't seen it." In fact, he hasn't read a bible for any of his shows. "It's probably a useful tool if you're a freelancer," he shrugged. "But the series bible to me is a relic of pre-Internet days. It's not necessarily a tool we worry about."
Pretty much every US showrunner I've spoken with over the past few years has echoed this sentiment, that TV series bibles are a thing of the past. There might be a pitch document that gives character overviews and the gist of the show and where it all might go, but once it gets rolling the 'bible' really only lives in the writers room and showrunner's head.
But here in Canada for some reason, bibles continue to be a broadcaster-required necessary evil. I suppose it helps the execs maintain some control over the creative process ("That can't happen, it's not in the bible!"), but it can truly stifle the natural progression of things.
Good TV series don't happen according to a hard and fast pre-designed plan...they evolve. Of course you need a jumping off point, but once production begins, actor chemistry develops and character relationships take on a life of their own...pitches that sounded great don't end up that way on the page...arcs that felt right don't play out as well as expected....budget crunches require a bottle show or a lot of studio shooting...and then there's the audience response to take into account. And by that I don't mean listening to the screeching of the Internet fan boy/girls...I mean getting a sense of what viewers are responding to once shows go to air (what they are digging and what they aren't) and then applying it to future episodes.
And most importantly, there's 'the rooms' response to produced episodes. If you are any good as a creative, you should be able to recognize if something is working or not. But that can't happen if the season is being mapped out in minute detail from beginning to end prior to filming even beginning. And if it wasn't working, it'd be so painful to keep adhering to the bible because someone upstairs kept saying you had to...and by upstairs I don't mean God, though some may see themselves that way.
First of all, congratulations, Beavis. I wasn't going to touch this with a ten foot pole. But now that you have...
I'm of the opinion that a short(ish) bible is an OK necessary evil to get a TV series greenlit. By shortish, I mean something in the twenty page range - where you have a few pages of the basic premise, the characters, maybe a tiny bit of backstory, and thumbnails of possible episodes. If it helps an executive to see the show, then fine.
Just as long as you realize one essential, important truth:
The bible is a completely useless document for a story department, or a writer.
Useless? Did he really say that? Yes, he did. Why is he saying that?
Well, for most writers, you're going to get a sense of the show by reading a really good pilot script. If you don't, it's not a really good pilot script. The problem with a Bible is that it can paper over a whole bunch of storytelling sins that actually make it harder to make a show. How?
1) It locks you in.
There are people out there who don't like uncertainty. But a prose document is not a living breathing script. And I've never met the writer who will spend as much loving attention on a bible as you will on a script. You just don't. You can't. One, because experience shows you time and time again that the show really develops in the room. That's the creative process. Like when Ken Girotti was talking about Directors, the development meeting, the development of that script -- that's where you get to shape the show. If you stand over demanding what was in the bible, what you're really saying is that there can be no deviation from that initial thing conceived in haste when you knew the show a lot less.
I know it may be counterintuitive if you're an accountant or a bureaucrat or something. And I'm sorry about that. Did I mention that creative people were freaky? We are. Sorry. But if you play our way, you will occasionally get a great show. Your way?
NEVER.
EVER.
EVER.
Clear? Wait.
EVER.
I've used this example a bunch of times...but on The West Wing, Bartlett had two daughters, until he needed the third. Aaron Sorkin wasn't locked into that third daughter long before they had need of her because it had to be pre-approved in a bible.
Demanding a bible, and then forcing a story department to adhere slavishly to that document is exaclty like forcing a band to release their first demo of a song -- or that if they re-record the song, forcing them to make it sound EXACTLY like the demo.
It's a stupid way to work.
2) It papers over storytelling sins.
Was something not clear in your script? Okay. No problem! Explain it in the bible.
"But wait," you say... "the audience will never read the bible!"
"Aha. Exactly."
3) It doesn't help you write the show.
When you do have a bible, here is the guaranteed thing that happens every time you go to the one pager in that bible that describes the story you're about to write.
"uh huh. what? Goddamnit, this is all handwaving! It doesn't help AT ALL."
Network types in Canada feel very comfortable talking about Bibles. They're documents, they're hefty, they look good going to the CTF, and you can argue over little thumbnails here and story ideas there and whether this character should come from a three child household or two or be an only child.
But it doesn't get you any closer to creating a good script.
Recently, many Canadian shows found themselves having to write Bibles -- long Bibles, BIG Bibles for shows that were returning for subsequent seasons. In other words,there were already 13 or 26 episodes in the can and they STILL wanted a Bible!
There are other shows that have had lengthy Bibles for a good long time -- and it doesn't help them to get to finished, useful scripts. This is happening now. Right now. Bibles are not making for better series.
The problem with The obsession with the Bible is that it allows you to discuss ephemera and arcana; it lets you off the hook from seeing the movie or engaging with story. It makes creative storytelling more like writing a big old Psychology Paper.
Which, as you all know, you always do the night before anyway.
As a short primer for a new show, or even a document that a new writer reads first to get a taste for a show, I see the value in a Show Bible. I do.
But that stock is seriously overvalued in this country. And that lesson is yet to be learned. If you can't trust the creative process, then you probably shouldn't be involved in the creative process. Or you picked the wrong people to see it through.
The most important thing you do to influence the creative direction of a show?
Hire a writer. Buy their pitch. Discuss it with them. Give notes.
Er...that's it.
Obsess on the Bible, and you may think you're getting the show you want, but all you've done is force somebody to play around with the baby scissors, the magic markers and coloured construction paper.
Eventually, you gotta let someone get a hold of the sharp scissors.
THE FUNNIEST THING around the whole DMCA debate, and the even-worse-than-the-made-in-the-USA version that the Tories are trying to saddle us with here, is that at the margins, even a system as corrupt and intellectually bankrupt as the current doyennes of Hollywoodoccasionally show that they get it too. That the whole old thing's over. That something else has gotta take its place.
Nowhere is this more true than in the world of the pre-release torrent. For the last couple years, around this time, whoops, heavens to Betsy -- upcoming big TeeVee shows from the fall have had their pilots "leak" online.
Oh man! Quelle Horreur! Break out the lawsuits and the corporate sturm and drang!
Except...uh...it doesn't come. Amidst all the finger shaking over copyright and the evils of bit torrent and corporations suing their customers, here's this one tiny area where they're quiet as churchmice.
Now...why would that be, exactly?
Hmm.
Last year, much of the pre-release goodwill for Pushing Daisies was generated off the strength of its very engaging and impressive Barry Sonnenfeld pilot. Bionic Woman, too, generated some excitement - unfortunately, most of it was for the character played by Katee Sackhoff -- you know, the way more interesting Bionic Woman.
The strike narrative may have overwhelmed these nascent promotional efforts, but yet again this is a phenomenon that has its roots in Cable. Cable was there first -- Season 2 of Weeds, and both Seasons of Dexter and Brotherhood were helped by some pre-release torrenting of their first few episodes.
It's really smart when you think about it. The kind of people out there torrenting are the early adopters -- the technology-friendly junkies who build buzz. The buzz that starts online can make that jump to the mainstream media, and suddenly you have a wedge against all the other shows that are competing for attention.
The only problem is, you have to build in that plausible deniability. You can't admit that, you know, you're the ones who sort of leaked it in the first place.
It's just one more of our delightful little 21st century hypocrisies.
Starting last weekend, the eagle eyed caught the Pilots for the New J.J. Abrahms series FRINGE, and the Anna Paquin-starring HBO adaptation TRUE BLOOD, from Alan Ball (Six Feet Under.) In recent days the trickle of pilots has become, well...a torrent (forgive me.)
Now you can find the Kung Fu Monkey's new show, LEVERAGE, DO NOT DISTURB, starring and directed by Jason Bateman, the American adaptation of LIFE ON MARS, genderbending new fX show PRETTY HANDSOME, and the new Stephen Bochco series RAISING THE BAR. By the time this post goes live, there's liable to be four or five more.
First impressions? FRINGE is slick. The Aussie lead actress is credible and hawt, and Pacey acquits himself well. It's a straight up XFiles for the 21st Century, but man -- don't tell me I'm the only one who's missed that kind of show. I thought the world painted in TRUE BLOOD was utterly fascinating, and I want to spend time there. And Anna Paquin is just....cuuuute. But the storytelling in the pilot itself left me a little cold. I'll have more thoughts on these later.
The easiest way to find these shows is to go to one of the torrent sites like Isohunt, Pirate Bay, Mininova or what have you, and type in "PREAIR" in the search engine.
Normally, I'm against wholesale torrenting because for the moment it eats my lunch. Or, you know, the lunch of the system that still refuses to pay us writers fairl--fuck it I am NOT getting into that again right now....but seeing as, you know, wink wink, they're all SO VERY UPSET that these new shows leaked, I think it's fair game to go check 'em out. Everybody else is.
Oh, but don't say I sent you.
I wouldn't want to get in trouble.
EDIT: If you're the type that's concerned about Spoilers and such and you intend to watch these shows, you shouldn't read the comments. That is all.
In theory, the piece offers up a look behind the scenes at the TV story of ad men in the early '60s from one of the guys behind "The Sopranos." But writer Alex Witchel, whose husband Frank Rich wrote an equally vapid, keep-the-story-at-arm's-length-at-all-times piece on the adult film industry years ago, just doesn't get it. "Mad Men" is man porn--the pornography of manhood--and not in the pejorative sense. At its heart, "Mad Men" works not because it's about the culture of ad execs in the sixties; it works because it's a fantasy about the time before feminism, when men were men, period. "Mad Men" works for the same set of reasons that "The Sopranos" worked--by painting gender roles in black and white--and the result of transgressing into this bawdy, martini-ed, lying, cheating, dirty, loving life is pleasure.
The shortcomings of "Mad Men" are few and far between, but what it lacks it lacks because it isn't hard enough, likely because it's on AMC, not HBO. Either way, men will take their pleasures where they find them. Anything's better than listening to the endless stream of static coming from the mouths of 21st century women who can't decide if they're feminists or freaks.
I'm not sure I totally buy that. But it sure is an interesting theory. Anybody else wanna bite?
(And yeah, I misspelled that word in the title on purpose because I simply can't BEAR the thought of the Google searches and comment spam that would show up if I spelled it the right way.)
THE DEFINITIVE CONTEXTUAL obit of George Carlin and why he was important is at TIME.com:
Like Lenny Bruce — whom he idolized and who helped him get his first agent — Carlin saw the stand-up comic as a social commentator, rebel and truthteller. He challenged conventional wisdom and tweaked the hypocrisies of middle-class America. He made fun of society's outrage over drugs, for example, pointing out that the "drug problem" extends to middle-class America as well, from coffee freaks at the office to housewives hooked on diet pills. He talked about the injustice of Muhammad Ali's banishment from boxing for avoiding the draft — a man whose job was beating people up losing his livelihood because he wouldn't kill people: "He said, 'No, that's where I draw the line. I'll beat 'em up, but I don't want to kill 'em.' And the government said, 'Well, if you won't kill people, we won't let you beat 'em up.'"
Most famously, he talked about the "seven words you can never say on television," foisting the verboten few into his audience's face with the glee of a classroom cut-up and the scrupulousness of a social linguist. While his brazen repeating of the "dirty" words caused a sensation (and prompted a lawsuit that eventually made it to the Supreme Court, resulting in the creation of the "family hour" on network television), his intention was not just to shock; it was to question our irrational fear of language "There are no bad words," said Carlin. "Bad thoughts. Bad intentions. And woooords."
Fuzzy language and fuzzy thinking were always among Carlin's favorite topics. He marveled at oxymorons like "jumbo shrimp" and "military intelligence," and pointed out the social uses of euphemism: "When did 'toilet paper' become bathroom tissue'? When did house trailers become 'mobile homes'?" He reminisced about his class-clown antics and Catholic upbringing in the rough Morningside Heights section of New York City. He took on all the taboos, even the biggest one, God. How could the Almighty be all-powerful, mused Carlin, since "everything he ever makes ... dies."
IT'S ABOUT SO much more than those seven words you can never say on television, though that in and of itself might have been enough.
This was one of the first comedy records I ever owned. I had it on LP, and I think I wore it out and I probably bought it again when it started to skip. And then I think my Mom found it and threw it away so I got smart and I bought it again on cassette.
When I was a kid, I didn't know from no counterculture. Nor did I care. What I did know from a very early age was that Carlin was inordinately interested in language. The feel of it, the heft of words -- words that are used to hurt, and especially words that are used to hide and paper over hypocrisy. From his deconstruction of Airline Terms to his comparisons of the relatively benign socialist implications of baseball versus the military oppression of football, Carlin was a writer's comic, first and foremost.
Words are weapons and they were never funnier, more direct, or more beautiful than when allayed in the hands of the master.
One of the more interesting Carlin routines I'd ever heard was one that was never made public. It turns out that in his shuffling around high schools in New York, before he finally dropped out, he made a short pitstop at Cardinal Hayes High Schoolin the South Bronx. That's where my father went, too. My Dad would have been the year behind George.
Anyway, some years later a tape arrives from the Cardinal Hayes Alumni Association. The school still does what it did back in my Dad's day -- provides scholarships and a leg up for poor students. Only now the students aren't Irish or Italian, they're Puerto Rican and African American. Anyway, Carlin did a fundraiser for them -- and it wasn't quite a performance. But it was cerainly an appearance. He name checked nuns by name, and kibitzed, and it was part routine but really part reminiscence. You got to see a bit of the heart of the man, I thought. Maybe you didn't notice that as much when he was raging. But it was there. And like a lot of cynics, I don't think it was ever very far from his sleeve.
The best line in the routine came not from Carlin but from somebody else on the tape -- talking about Carlin's (single) mother. I believe the word "sainted" might have been thrown around.
It felt like a peek behind the veil of the performer. The iconoclast who never went away and never stopped raging, or kicking against the pricks.
Well, George, we might not have gotten that one, but we got piss and ass, and we're working on the rest. (Because if you're an aficianado of the Carlin oevre, you know not just the "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" but also the much longer and dirtier, "Filthy Words.")
For his love of language and for making me laugh so very hard for so very many years, Thanks George.
Bing Bong, check the time, five hours after the big hour of five o'clock.
WELL WELL. When I got up and started writing this morning, it was grey and rainy and I thought, "Score!"
But now the sun's out and I'm bitterly resentful here in my solarium, taking my mid afternoon procrasto-break. Then I see Will Dixon's talkin' about music.
Well.
Apparently we're back in big meme country. So Will went and tagged me with this idea:
“List seven songs you are into right now. No matter what the genre, whether they have words, or even if they’re not any good, but they must be songs you’re really enjoying now.”
Right now my musical exposure is broken down into three sections:
What I listen to when I'm writing
What I listen to when I'm driving to and from set.
What I listen to when I'm procrastinating, or trying to get back my gumption.
So, here's my seven current listens -- in no particular order.
Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers "American Girl" I saw Tom Petty from wicked seats at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto a couple weeks ago. But to be honest, I'd been playing this song on the Ipod a lot before that. I've also recently watched the Bogdonovich "Running Down A Dream" documentary on the band. Why Petty? Well, probably because I'm old. Not even because I play Guitar Hero, cause I don't. I think it's that Petty and the Heartbreakers represent a pure, comfort food, rocksolid craftsmanship in all their songs that just appeals to me. People (including me) will go nuts over Bob Dylan's brilliance, but nobody in this day and age is going to ladle much praise on Petty's three chords and jangly guitar approach. But I loves me the jangly guitar. And they just released a new remastered Greatest Hits, and goddamn, seriously, how can you not love these songs?
American Girl is also one of my favorites because it's an anthem about doubt and desperation. That PLUS craftsmanship?Shit, son, that's all I you needed to say.
Robert Plant & Alison Krauss "Please Read The Letter" There's something so stately and beautiful about the reading of this song. I actually listen to this song, and sometimes the whole "Raising Sand" album, to help me focus before I get down to writing. I'm going to see this show too. Awesome.
Yazoo "Only You" I must admit, I smiled a bit when I heard that Vince Clark & Alison Moyet were getting back together and touring. This song, well. There's backstory to teenage heartbreak and wondering where you were going to end up and was anyone ever going to help fill that emptiness?
And then, the other night, after wrapping my episode, this song came up on the Ipod as I was bombing down the Lakeshore at 3am thinking, "Hey, this must be what driving drunk is like." I was pretty tired, and in hour 22 after getting up at 7 a.m. to finish my outline.
So I reduced speed. Considerably. And as the song unfolded I mused a bit on the years in between and what this song meant to me then, and how simple and plaintive it was. And in that way that you can only get when you're tired and thoughts come muddled, I think I realized that whatever else was going on, I could tell the fifteen year old me that the emptiness got filled -- but not in the way I'd ever thought. And so an old song takes on another color. Which is pretty cool, I guess.
Oh, and my cousin Ann Weadock were totally into these guys first. She lived in Belgium, you know. Well la-dee-dah.
Sharon Jones & The Dap Kings "I Just Dropped in to See What Condition My Condition Was In" If you only know this song from The Big Lebowski, you owe it to yourself to hear Sharon Jones funked up version. There's nothing about Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings that isn't cool. I've seen them three times now. Nothing will ever beat that first show at the Horseshoe, though. A full on soul review, the tightest horns around -- this is what I put on when I've spent too much time in the Herman Miller chair and the prescription has to be nothing less than a damned good ass shaking.
This single's on the Daptone singles collection #2, which you can buy on Itunes.
Bat for Lashes "What's a Girl To Do?" This comes courtesy of Mohan. Part Donnie Darko. Part gothic weirdness. I can't get enough of this damn song. Whole album's great, too.
Al Green "Lay it Down" Don't have a video for this one, but I defy anyone to not like this record. Old style soul meets ?uestlove and the Dap Kings Horns? Please. Just buy it and stop embarrassing yourself.
Here's a making of they have on YouTube.
Electric Six "Gay Bar" Occasionally when you're really busy, you have to return to the classics. And nothing is more classic (in Internet time, at least, which we all know is measured in days) than this. Oh, where do I start? Is it the whole Gay Lincoln motif? The simple and horrifying image that plays over the instrumental break in the middle? Or is the perfect, fucked up, 2006-era Bush weirdness of the terrified record company censoring the second verse: "I want to start a war....start a Nuclear War...in the gay bar, gay bar, gay bar..." Oh God, honey, don't mention the war!
Re-TARDED. I seriously play this song about once every couple days.
Okay, so supposedly the end of it is to tag other people. Greedy will manages to tag just about every other scribe I know. So I'll say, Diane Kristine, Brandon Laraby, Jill Golick,Brioux, Callaghan (I'm not going to link to his dead blog because it's just embarrassing) and then I'll tag a few people who don't blog but who I know show up here on occasion.
Walton and Mohan, you can lay down some shit in the comments if you like. There. Done.
