Heroic Interventions

NIKKI STAFFORD, who I had the pleasure of being on Q with this morning, (she has a blog here, and you can find out about her nifty LOST companion books here) emailed me to ask about No Heroics, which I again plugged on the show. Because that's what I do with my AWESOME POWER OF PUNDRITY -- plug TV shows I like.

Quake before me, oh you who dare to talk about health care and recessions and other less important matters...


Anyway, she asked the question that I knew was coming, along the lines of "Do you know if it's going to be on in Canada?" (or the U.S. for that matter, I guess.) Sadly, I found myself feeling like poor Diane, in the face of the great suck that is Canadian Television P.R. I have no idea. In Canada, you see, if there's not massive U.S. promo behind a show, you don't know it's there. Sad.

(And let's remember kids, in the time before the Interwebs, it would sometimes be YEARS before you found out about a show like this. ALL HAIL the Interwebs.)

I did some research the other day trying to find if anyone had bought it for broadcast here, and came up empty. It's ITV, so that means the usual fast route to sales from the BBC sales arm funneling it to Showcase or BBC Canada isn't in play.

But then it occurred to me that, checking my hit counters, oh yes there are many of you from within Citytv, Alliance/Canwest, CBC, TMN/Astral, Corus, etc. that read this blog. Somebody must know something.

So how's about it, program buyers? Any of you snapped up this great show?

And if you haven't, um....well...now that you're yawning, getting out of bed, going to the Google and finally looking into it, I'll take my commission in the form of a Season One No Heroics DVD box set, please.

Any help, stick it in the comments below.

And before anybody gets all smartassed, yes, I remember The Tick. Great comic. Okay cartoon. Very flawed Live Action Execution. (Except for Patrick Warburton and Liz Vassey, who were awesome.)

No Heroics is way funnier.

That Guy

JAIME WEINMAN performs many exceptional services to the TV-obsessive community. Not the least of which is the unearthing and appreciation of the seriously underappreciated character actors.

Have you ever seen Sam Anderson in the credits? You have no idea who he is, do you? He's like Terry O'Quinn, pre-LOST. Just a name. You don't know him.

But you do, see?

He's that guy.

They Call Me Mister Q

I'LL BE ON CBC Radio's Q again this morning, talking to Jian about why breaking up's not hard to do.

10: 00 a.m. on your local CBC stations. Uh. 930 ish on Sirius and an Newfoundland. I'm up in the 2nd block.

CTF Renewed

ONE OF THE things to come out of today's Canadian Budget:

Toronto, January 27, 2009 - The Canadian Television Fund (CTF) today thanked the Government of Canada for its decision to renew the Fund at the current level for two years.

“The Government’s commitment to Canadian television ensures the continued viability of this growth industry,” said Valerie Creighton, President and CEO of the CTF. “It enables Canadian producers to continue innovating and creating shows that are successful both at home and abroad. It strengthens the Canadian economy by sustaining over 22,000 jobs generated by CTF-funded shows and by advancing the already expansive global sales of these productions. And it gives Canadians inspiring and entertaining television shows to watch.”

This is big because the CTF has been something the Tories were not talking about AT ALL. So though Henshaw might not be pleased, at least we don't have to blow up the system while everything else melts.

Same level for two years is the best news we could get in this economy. I'm actually surprised. And relieved.

Hey Jonas, Buy Me a Beer

JONAS CHERNICK, the adorable ur-geek Slade on my ex-show, THE BORDER, has been nominated for an ACTRA Award for his work on the show. (He won a Gemini for the same role last year.)

Nicholas Campbell -- who had a memorable recurring role in Season 2 -- was also honored -- for his work in Englishman's Boy.

Best Actress nominations include a third Border-thesp, Sarah Gadon (Zoe Kessler) - who's honored for her guest shot on CTV's Flashpoint.

The ACTRA Awards are Canada's equivalent to the SAG Awards. It's a very, very pretty party.

Congrats to Jonas, Nick, Sarah, and all the other fine performer nominees.

The Awards will be handed out February 20th.

Rabbit is Dead

JOHN UPDIKE HAS died. I was always more of a fan of his New Yorker and magazine writing than his books, but you have to admit the guy could turn a phrase.

I particularly like this obit in the Telegraph, as it discusses his style and his way of writing.

He also had this to say to the Charlotte Observer about his process:

I'm a slow writer who works rather short hours.
I was reading last night about Hawthorne working all day when he was doing "The Scarlet Letter." Other writers mention 10-hour days. And you read of fantastic word rates that writers achieve -- 5,000 words a day.

When I set out, I decided that about 1,000 words a day would be a good quota. ... My working day generally goes from about 9 to 1, when I get hungry.

Maintaining this modest demand on myself has produced, as you say, a fair number of books.

Updike also had a very succinct and useful guide to doing reviews.

We're losing our literary characters. Mailer, Vonnegut, Updike...

...And I don't mind saying I miss Carol Shields quite a bit too.

Sigh. Books.

Woke Up This Morning

BOUGHT MYSELF A GUN, bought myself a gun...bought myself a gun.

Man, I miss that show.

No, no. The first thought I had this morning when I woke up was a line that stuck with me from John Doyle's latest run at Michel Arpin in the Globe (in the paper today, or check the link here.)

By the way, after last Thursday's column about Michael Arpin's remarks appeared, I heard from a veteran Canadian TV producer who warned me to “be cautious” in highlighting Arpin's remarks. The suggestion was made that it might be a mistake to embarrass the vice-chairman of the CRTC. I dunno what that could possibly mean.

My friend Jim Henshaw's put it best. "That kind of cowardice is what's doomed us for years."

Coward's a strong word.

But it fits.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: I love TV. I love writing TV. I'm good at it and I will do anything to make TV better. I will bang my little drum and speak up and praise and castigate and cast light when it's needed and ask for a little self-examination when it's needed too. I don't save lives, and I don't help people get off drugs. But this is my little corner of the world: I try to write things that will entertain people at night.

For over three years now, I've been hearing the refrain that I shouldn't write this, or that, or the other thing because it'll hurt my career. I struggle sometimes with what I should write about, and how much I should say, but in truth it's not that difficult. I'm not that much of an idiot. I protect my confidences. Preserve my business relationships, and am always discreet about what I learn through the job. And the sheer volume of what I can't say is shocking.

But it sure beats the "zero" that was being said and written truthfully about Canadian TV three years ago. But still, even three years in and with a career that doesn't seem to have suffered, it's the comment above that is the prevalent view in the Canadian industry -- still. Still.

It doesn't work. It hasn't worked. Sitting back and being a timid little churchmouse hasn't resulted in better programs or opportunities. The same people get the shows and films and may get accolades from their little coterie, but there's a great seething mass of us here that aren't going to go quietly down to the USA, and we're not going to keep silent and go along -- especially when the guy running us down is an imperious bureaucrat.

A Producer?

Really.

REALLY?

It's funny, because every portrayal I've ever seen of a Producer is somebody who moves heaven and earth to make the project; the person who keeps pushing and never says no and gets something made through force of will.

If you're not that person, then do us a favour and get the hell out of the business. Don't swan around Prime Time in Ottawa. Rip up your CFTPA card, and get out. We can't carry you anymore. We're trying to do better.

And hey Playback -- you started this. Are you going to follow up? Time to see if that "new direction" has any teeth.

And you, at home, reading this. You've got a role too. At the end of this post are addresses for the Heritage Minister, the Chairman of the CRTC, and the people on the Heritage file for the NDP and Official Opposition Liberals. Take a stand. Prove the cowards wrong.


EDIT: After reading a little more this morning, I see this article about James Moore and the restoration of funding to arts programs in Canada. As Martin Knelman put it:

And within this $160 million there's also another message being sent: Moore doesn't just talk about supporting the arts; he delivers.

This is the moment he has been waiting for, after weeks of intense pre-budget meetings with arts leaders all across the country, spreading the gospel that in his view, as he told me last month, "Support for the arts is not just a want but a need."

We might just conclude from this turn of events that Moore has a great deal more clout in cabinet than the two Tories who preceded him in the Heritage post: Bev Oda and Josée Verner.

Here's how Moore put it to La Presse: "I told the finance minister of the need for significant investment in the arts and culture in the budget, and I'm sure that priority will be respected."

If you do wind up writing to the Heritage Minister, congratulate him on securing arts investment for Canadian communities. These are theatre grants and arts grants for creatives working on far smaller margins than those of us in the film and TV industries can think of. Times are tough and I don't think any of us in cultural industries think that the CBC or Telefilm or the CTF should be getting more money; we'd love to avoid cuts. There are more pressing priorities, both within the arts and without.

Tell him we can carry it -- but only if we know that the guy who's supposed to be looking out for us, and for all citizens, on the Broadcasting commission isn't completely in the tank for those who'd see our own stories wither and die on the airwaves.

No Heroics

I GOT PASSED this terrific six part UK sitcom about a bunch of second-tier superheroes hanging out in a bar. It's not just wonderful in its sense of love for comics and genre stuff, it's cleverly constructed in that way that we seem to have forgotten in North America.

Fully ninety percent of the "action" takes place in the bar where the heroes hang out, "The Fortress," where there are "no masks, no capes, and no heroics." The characters are well drawn -- the quibbling couple, the shy and socially awkward girl (who happens to have super strength,) and the broody, gay, Spanish superhero who's more of a "modern" take on the character. Ie: the rest all have bright spandex costumes, while he has form fitting body armor, is tortured and broody and prone to violent rage and heroin abuse.

And, of course, the Superman-inspired character is a total, total asshole.



The show is very, very amusing all the way through, start to finish. I don't know if you could do 100 episodes of it. But after six, they seem to have no problems with slowing down or running out of story. And again -- 90% of it is just arguing in a bar. Proving that if the characters are sharply drawn and you have a hook, that's 90% of the show right there.

I just worry that the particular vagaries of the development grind in this country make a show like this utterly impossible here. Nobody learns here. There is no deeper meaning. There's heart, but it's always undercut with acid. And the result is freaking hilarious.

And here's a surprise...the female characters are better drawn than the men. I know. In a comic book show.

Doyle on Arpin, Again

FROM TUESDAY'S GLOBE, John Doyle goes at Arpin again, with more brevity and wit than I could master. There's a reason why prose is only my hobby.

The explanation is outright, insultingly ludicrous. It doesn't hold up. Asked about his favourite shows, he didn't demur. Didn't explain that, as a top CRTC chap, he couldn't play favourites. Didn't say, “No comment.” Instead of being gracious, he chose to be churlish. He responded with a bald statement of naked hostility to TV drama and comedy.

Apparently we are to believe that of all the possible options open to him in order to avoid any awkwardness, he chose to tell an untruth and thereby heap scorn on the genre of television enjoyed by, you know, the regular folks at home on the couch. Never mind the fact that he just insulted all those Canadian writers, directors and producers who strive to tell Canadian stories to Canadians through television and, of course, through the good graces of the CRTC.

Even if we believe that Arpin's answer was a way to avoid awkwardness, the hostility, smugness and snobbery inherent in the answer bespeaks an appalling lack of judgment. As an explanation, Arpin's statement is hooey. Of course, there's no hint of apology in it.

I call on the CRTC, as a body, to give us a full and formal reassurance that its officers are obliged to be interested in “televised fiction” and known to be so when hired. And I call on the CRTC, as a body, to apologize to the creators of Canadian “televised fiction” for the distress caused by Arpin's remarks.

By the way, after last Thursday's column about Michael Arpin's remarks appeared, I heard from a veteran Canadian TV producer who warned me to “be cautious” in highlighting Arpin's remarks. The suggestion was made that it might be a mistake to embarrass the vice-chairman of the CRTC. I dunno what that could possibly mean.

Yeah, I'm done with caution, too. I have to say, this is turning into some shameful shit.

I heard the same thing from a couple of people. "He will seek revenge."

Really? Wow. I guess the Do Not Call list debacle was round one?

I want Rick Mercer to interview this guy so bad...

Oh, and keep reading to the end. The National thing segment with the folks from Dragons' Den is ... just ... ugh.

...and then tonight, I'm watching Being Erica. (Because I'm an 18 to 49 year old woman, you know) and there's this fifth estate promo. And they're doing when Second Life online romance leads to real life cheating.

The Fifth Estate.

Really?

REALLY.

Michel, ZOS is ten times more informative about human nature, Slings & Arrows is a hundred times more cultured, and Flashpoint is a thousand times less sleazy than those "news and docs."

Konrad, It's Time To Step In

OKAY, NOW BACK to Arpin.

As I alluded to below, Michel Arpin, the Vice Chair wrote to the Globe & Mail in response to John Doyle's column of Thursday, January 22nd, where he stated the following: (edits are mine)

The man with considerable influence over the amount of drama and comedy that airs on Canadian TV says he's not interested in watching the stuff. Couldn't care less. He'd rather read a book.

This is, by any standards, an incredibly indiscreet, out-to-lunch remark.

Now, to be charitable, it's possible to speculate that Arpin was, ah, pulling the reporter's leg. Being a wag. Just goofing around. That's implausible, I think. Me, I've see Arpin in action at CRTC hearings. All pursed lips and bristling skepticism, I saw him treat what he calls "the unions" with the air of an impatient parent hearing out the teenagers on the some newfangled trend in music or technology.

It's the way it is with culture snobs. But for a vice-chairman of the CRTC to take this position is outlandish.

He should - in fact, must - explain himself and his crackpot position. And apologize.

Doyle's column picked up on my original post here. Those who wrote to the CRTC in the wake of my original post recognized the response to Doyle's column, since it was a truncated version of the email we received from Mr. Arpin.

John Doyle (Michel Arpin, You Need To Explain - And Apologize - Review, Jan. 22) quotes an answer I gave to Playback magazine, where I said: "I'm a news and documentary consumer. I'm not that interested in televised fiction or even feature films. I would prefer to read a novel."

As far as the quote is concerned, you must appreciate that the interviewer had asked me to name my favourite show; I felt it was inappropriate to do so, given my position with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission as vice-chairman in charge of broadcasting. Rest assured that, throughout the year, I watch all types of television news and documentaries, as well as drama or feature films.

A frosty response to a bunch of bloggers is one thing. But you know, now we're talking about something in the public record. Given the chance to truly clear the air or assuage the issues of credibility Arpin's insensitive and impolitic remarks raised, the man instead chose to stonewall.

Why is the response offered simply inadequate? (And keep in mind, I stop well short of joining Doyle to ask for an apology. I don't expect apologies from bureaucrats.) When issues are raised, I do expect a straight answer from public servants.

So let's break it down.

1. The answer does not meet the credibility test.
   
   Arpin would have us believe that his position as CRTC commissioner shackles him from mentioning a particular show. But Polticians are asked their favorite films, books, and music all the time. James Moore, the current Heritage Minister, gave several interviews when he was installed as Minister where he discussed his personal likes and dislikes. This is not the answer of a man who is being careful. This is the answer of a man who doesn't have an answer, or who doesn't care.
   
   
2. Having said he cannot take a stand, he actually does the opposite.
   
   The question he was asked was "What are your favorite television programs?" Mr. Arpin did not choose not to answer. He instead did what he said he could not do: expressed a preference. "I am a news and documentary consumer."
   
   That is a preference. And had he stopped there, well, maybe I would have grumbled. There probably would have been a whole lot of, "hey, no kidding, you can certainly tell." Nothing beyond that.
   
   No. We're here because, on the way to being extra careful to remain impartial, he chose to go way further than asked, by saying, "I'm not that interested in televised fiction or even feature films. I would prefer to read a novel."
   
   That is an extraordinary statement that is simply not explained or clarified in any way by a late-letter grudging declaration that he indeed watches news "as well as drama and feature films." It's also not the answer of someone who's trying to be careful and impartial, as Arpin claimes he was doing. It's very partial, and dismissive. Does it sound in any way like a careful answer? No, it doesn't. It's far more likely that it is what it appears to be - an expression of his true feelings.
   
   
3. It gibes with other anecdotal evidence.
   
   In Doyle's column, he calls out Arpin's statement as typical, and exactly in line with his conduct toward presenters at CRTC hearings during the last little while. Now, Doyle's an observant guy, but not exactly a seer. Anyone who watched CPAC during a hearing last year could see exactly the same attitude that Doyle wrote about. It wasn't particularly hidden. Over the last several days, I've received several emails with off the record "Arpin stories," that I choose not to pass along, because since I can't prove them, they're hearsay. But let's just say they weren't out of line with the attitudes expressed in the Playback interview.
   
   I think most Canadians, being decent and reasonable people, understand that occasionally you get turned around and say something you don't mean to say. The problem is that the statement's in character with past statements - so the argument that he didn't mean to say what he said strains credulity.
   
   
4. The statement deliberately does not deal with the crux of the issue.
   
   In the original interview that started all this trouble, Arpin brought on the "what's your favorite program" question by his answer to a previous question, where he was asked, "Will Canadian drama on our television screens be an issue again at hearings in 2009?" His answer: "The decline in Canadian drama is an issue that the unions regularly put on the table. It's documented. I'm sure they will bring it to the top of the pile at the hearings." Again. This statement is perfectly in line with what he has said on the record before.
   
   Which is that the issue of Canadian drama on Canadian screens is a "union issue."
   
   But it's not. It's, in fact, part and parcel of the mandate of the very commisison on which Arpin sits as Vice Chair. Arpin is deliberately choosing to focus on the tree and not the forest here. The outrage we are expressing isn't because he likes news better than drama, or even that he'd rather read a book.
   
   

What's at issue here is that when asked to go on the record about drama on Canadian TV screens, he dismisses it as a union issue, an issue that they "regularly put on the table."

Where he chooses to dismiss and ignore it.

Mr. Arpin is hopelessly compromised as a commisisoner because he is clearly biased. And everything he's done since this interview makes him seem more, not less, so.

Here's where we sit right now:

After having the scripted TV industry neatly and nearly decimated by a rule change favourable to the Broadcasters in 1999, creatives have spent the last several years trying to rebuild. Toronto has lost the lucrative industrial TV and TV movie business that once sustained it. Pockets across the country eke out little shows here and there.

And though it's been hard, we have still persevered and achieved something: CBC's ratings for scripted programming are up from a few years ago, after falling precipitously after the 1999 rule change, the fragmentation of audiences and the heydey of million plus hits like DaVinci, and The Newsroom.

Yes, flashy U.S. dramas with a hundred times the advertising exposure, promo support, simulcasting on two channels and blanket magazine and newspaper publicity draw in the 1 to 2 million range. But CBC dramas with exponentially less exposure manage to draw numbers within shouting distance of a million -- against Idol. Against Heroes. Against House.

And for the first time I can remember, we have a Canadian comedy that draws over 1.5 million viewers a week, and a Canadian drama that does the same, on the air at the same time. (Corner Gas and Flashpoint.)

Spending on homegrown stuff has dropped, although they're spending more now because license renewals are coming up. Well documented elsewhere is the huge rise in spending on U.S. programming.

But on the horizon, we have a host of challenges, and a whole bunch of chances for the CRTC to completely change the face of broadcasting again. Companies like Canwest and CTV are making noises that they want to reduce their local news output...even close stations, and stop serving certain markets altogether. So much for the CRTC's vaunted "local programming fund." Wonder who will be left to apply for it once Canwest closes all its stations outside of Vancouver, Toronto, and Winnipeg. Hear that, Michel? No more news!

Then there's this: the New Media hearings. The CRTC has already ruled badly -- against the interests of consumers and in favor of telecom companies, when it comes to issues of net neutrality and traffic shaping by ISP's. Now those same ISP's are gearing up to fight any efforts for Canadians to preserve their creative voices on the internet. They'll do it by lying and distorting the truth, and ruthlessly lobbying and protecting their profits. And they have at least one commissioner who's shown in the past that he's much more sympathetic to the big money than to, you know, citizen taxpayers.

And I'm not even going to get into the debacle of the Do Not Call list -- a decision who's mishandling has made things worse for Canadians seeking relief from aggressive telemarketing.

When I first posted my reaction to Arpin's Playback interview, I and several others who wrote to the CRTC's Chairman, Konrad von Finkenstein (konrad.vonfinckenstein@crtc.gc.ca) quickly received the following reply, which was directly to Arpin, cc'ing us.

Michel,

I would suggest you reply to [Mr McGrath] directly and explain your
interview.

Respectfully, Mr. von Finckenstein, the explanation has not been forthcoming. The questions about Mr. Arpin are still too grave. If the CRTC is to be seen as the impartial steward of the radio, television, and telecommunications system, as outlined in the Broadcasting Act, then as the representative of the Canadian public you must direct your Vice Chair to be more forthcoming on these issues, or to recuse himself from hearings involving issues that could impact the fate of Drama and Comedy on Canadian TV screens.

Enough is enough.

If you have questions or concerns about the conduct of Mr. Arpin and the CRTC in this matter, may I suggest you write the following people:

Your member of Parliament. Presuming the Government survives its budget, this is the sort of thing that could be raised in Question Period next week or the week after. (Right about the time the CRTC is taking all those "how come we can't see the Superbowl commercials" complaints.)

The Honourable James Moore
Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
or

Parliament Hill:

Telephone: 613-992-9650
Fax: 613-992-9868

Department:
Canadian Heritage
Les Terrasses de la Chaudière, 12th Floor
15 Eddy Street
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0M5 Telephone: 819-997-7788
Fax: 819-994-1267

The Honourable Pablo Rodriguez, M.P. Liberal Party Heritage Critic.
Ottawa Office:
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Constituency Office:
7450 Les Galeries d'Anjou Blvd, Suite 530
Anjou (QC) H1M 3M3
Phone: (514) 353-5044
Fax: (514) 353-3050

His Email:
Rodriguez.P@parl.gc.ca

The Honourable Charlie Angus, M.P. NDP Party Heritage Critic
Ottawa:
House of Commons
Ottawa Ontario K1A 0A6
Tel: (613) 992-2919
Fax: (613) 995-074

His Email: angusc@parl.gc.ca

Doyle Gets It Right

BEFORE YOU ASK, yes, I saw that Michel Arpin wrote a letter to the paper on the weekend, in response to Doyle, purportedly "explaining" his comments. It was lame twaddle. We'll get into it later.

Right now, though, I want to point you to the Globe and Mail, where that self-same Doyle helpfully points out seven shows you should be watching. Now I read the article quickly, but near as I can figure, he doesn't point out anywhere that a full three of his seven are Canadian shows. Which means, Canadians, that for at least a couple of them, you get to see them and Americans don't. Or at least you see them first.

More importantly, there they are -- good shows that you should be watching. Not good Canadian shows. They're just all part of the same pot. Which is exactly what I was talking about here.

Thanks, Doyle. Just for that, I'll give you this:

There was too much melodramatic music on The Border. Way too much!

Now I gotta deadline to meet.

The Week The CBC Went

THAT TITLE DOESN'T necessarily track for the content of this post, but the hell with it. I'm jet lagged and pun-dry.

In the battle of the CBC newbies, it's status quo.

Being Erica on Monday did 632 000 viewers, down a little from the week before but still up from the premiere. What's more promising is that just under half of those viewers are in the magic 18-49 demo. Sophie had a better-than-season average night at 385 000 just before it, which means that Erica builds substantially on its lead in. Sophie also lost a big chunk of viewers from its lead in, Little Mosque. The aging sitcom posted 717 000 viewers Monday -- and 18-49's were less than 30% of that audience.

It will be interesting to see what happens when Mosque returns in the fall. For the third straight year, they've chucked their creative team and will be returning with all new writers -- and if the rumors hold true -- shy a couple of cast members. Hope they don't lose the few who can sell a joke. Although selling the joke doesn't seem to be Mosque's focus anymore.

Moving to Tuesday, Wild Roses is mired in the mud at 467 000 viewers. But the really dismal thing is that fewer than 75 000 of those viewers were 18-49. Maybe grey hairs are the only one who get all the "Shakesperean themes." Mercer posted 877 000, and 22 Minutes did 580 000 just before Roses.

But let's keep this in perspective. The Week The Women Went grabbed 819 000 (a little over 25% 18-49) and Fifth Estate drew 699 000. (less than 15% were 18-49; Michel Arpin is 102.)

Razzie!

I CAN'T EVEN imagine what to say about Benjamin Button's 13 Oscar nominations. My friend Jordan Kawchuk is doing the Lord's work.

More importantly, several weeks ago, just before Christmas -- I had the good fortune to spend an evening conversing and tippling with the delightful Doug Taylor, Montreal based screenwriter of some renown. Doug told stories of his time working on a picture with Uwe Boll, the infamous Uwe Boll, Director and Critical Pugilist.

Doug's very smart and self-effacing, and of course to a bunch of writers, sitting around talking about the hash made of a script with low ambition to begin with is great sport. Nobody understands why things go bad, but they know there are words, and they love to blame the writer -- even when it's not the writer's fault. The only thing to do is belly up and drink deep from the cup of the suck, when it comes. You learn way more from the suck, anyway. God knows you end up with better stories.

At the time, Doug mused about the upcoming Razzie nominations, and speculated about what they might contain. See, apparently Mr. Boll's other movies have all received "worst screenplay" nominations. And Doug couldn't figure out whether it would be better or worse not to get one. To be passed over -- would that be the greater pain? And if you do get nominated, do you show up to collect the Razzie?

I'm delighted to report that Doug gets to work through those issues for real. Yesterday, he got the nod!

The nominees for Worst Screenplay 2008 are:

Disaster Movie

and

Meet The Spartans

Both Written By Jason Friedberg & Aaron Seltzer

---

The Happening

Written By M. Night Shyamalan

---

The Hottie And The Nottie

Written By Heidi Ferrer

---

In The Name Of The King:
A Dungeon Siege Tale

Screenplay By Doug Taylor

---

The Love Guru

Written By Mike Myers & Graham Gordy

Wow. That is some esteeemed competition. And come on, Canada! TWO of the FIVE "worst" screenplays are Canadian! Yeah! YEAH! Let's celebrate! No sense handwringing and gnashing teeth about the nation's Oscar shutout! Get behind Doug! I think he can go all the way!

Good luck, Doug. Hold that head high and watch out for Uwe's stray right. A nation turns its lonely eyes to Uwe.

More details on the Razzies here.

My Online Ubiquity is Infamous

AND MAYBE IF I read books instead of wrote and watched TV alla time, I'd know what half those words mean.

(That's the corollary dodge of the TV writer; intellectual snobs in Canada pretend not to like TV, and writers pretend not to be smartypants.)

La Doyle picks up the Michel Arpin baton today in the Globe. And he manages to work in another dig at my ex-show, which I'm gonna be giggling about all the way onto the plane from Vancouver.

To track how this all started, click here.

To the battlements, citoyens.

Now, to be charitable, it's possible to speculate that Arpin was, ah, pulling the reporter's leg. Being a wag. Just goofing around. That's implausible, I think. Me, I've see Arpin in action at CRTC hearings. All pursed lips and bristling skepticism, I saw him treat what he calls "the unions" with the air of an impatient parent hearing out the teenagers on the some newfangled trend in music or technology.

Besides, a lack of interest in television, specifically what Arpin calls "televised fiction" is the proudest boast of the Canadian intellectual snob.

And it's a curiously Canadian boast. In Canada, declaring ignorance of television, and, in some cases, pointedly declining even to own a TV set, marks the speaker as a serious person. It is also bizarrely old-fashioned, in a crackpot kind of way. A considerable number of people who consider themselves thoughtful and no-nonsense will declare that they watch only the news on TV or, perhaps, the occasional documentary. As if, you know, to be cultured is to be certain that most television shows rot the brain and are best ignored.

It's the way it is with culture snobs. But for a vice-chairman of the CRTC to take this position is outlandish.

Call Girls, Head Cases, and Liars

MY DELIGHTFULLY MOROSE compatriot Rob Sheridan has pronounced United States of Tara (TMN/Movie Central, Monday nights, Showtime in the USA) "excruciating." He's called me long distance in Vancouver, and even changed his Facebook status message to taunt my lack of taste. Which only goes to prove, of course, that taste is subjective, and that someone else should please, please, please hire Rob to write some more comedy. Apparently, this is how it gets if people like us aren't working at least 80 hours a week.

Really, the next step is cutting, people.

Anyway, today I want to talk about three shows, one returning, and two new. Each, I think, offers some interesting writing and story lessons for the television form. Besides Tara, I'd like to talk Secret Diary of a Call Girl and the pilot to FOX's Lie To Me -- which has the unenviable task of premiering against the return of LOST. (Set those PVR's, people -- Lie To Me is worth a look.)

Let's start with Tara. Okay, yes, if you hate Diablo Cody, you might have a problem here. The dialogue's not as stylized as that movie, but if you hated Juno, I don't see this series turning you around. The other thing that's difficult about the premiere is that they establish that Tara has three 'alters' but you don't meet the third, and arguably the most entertaining one -- until the second episode.

The pitch and press materials for this show were just so weird that I decided before I ever wrote about it, I was going to break out the only focus group I have personal access to. So it was that I slipped the preview disc into the DVD on Christmas night and watched it with my family. The group includes: Mother figure, late sixties. Likes The Closer and The Sopranos, also Brothers & Sisters. Father Figure, 70. Likes 24, Sopranos, and Brothers & Sisters. Hates Bad language. Sister Figure, 30's -- eclectic taste, urban thirtysomething demo, likes probably what you'd expect from that demo, only minus most reality, and probably a little hipper than the norm.

Father figure shifted uncomfortably through the first ep. But he did not fall asleep, which is a good sign. So far so good. At the end of episode one, everyone wanted to keep going through episode two.

In the pilot of Tara, we meet two of Tara's "alters." T is sexually aggressive and 16, and Buck is a beer swilling, male Vietnam vet. We get a sense of the rules of the world -- the emergence of the 'alters' is triggered by some stress that Tara can't handle on her own. In the Pilot, this turns out to be the discovery that her daughter is sexually active, and later, seeing her daughter slightly manhandled and roughed up by her dickhead boyfriend.

What I liked about this pilot was the sense of joining a family treating something that's clearly outrageous as normal. They teach you in comedy that there are two ways to make a comedy -- make a big deal out of a little thing, or treat something completely crazy as utterly normal. Tara definitely takes from the latter stream.

And because there's this thing at the centre of the drama that's so out there and crazy (Mom has multiple personalties!) and no one in the drama treats it as surprising, it immediately establishes a world whose contours and history hint at a much longer continuity. You're playing catchup in the pilot for Tara for the entire episode. From John Corbett's world-weary husband to the understated performances of the two kids, the utter lack of surprise everyone has with the emergence of the personalities completely rejigs your sense of 'normal.'

In my case, what that meant is that rather than focusing on the freakshow, I paid way more attention to the family supporting characters. The teenage daughter gets some scabrous, Juno-like lines, and they're not afraid to flirt with making her unlikable. And the son is quirky, and clearly smart, and clearly gay. And the world weary Corbett, and his elucidation of the rules, gives you the essential info early: they've been dealing with this for a long, long time. This is 'normal' for them.

I found that compelling, and it drew me in because it was surprising. A show where the mom had multiple personalities and it was an utter clusterfuck all the time would actually have been a lot less interesting.

The plot mechanics, because of the personality stuff, is by necessity, thin. Basically Tara discovers that her daughter got a morning after pill, that triggers the emergence of the teenage personality, that runs its course. Next day, Mom drives something to school for daughter and sees her roughed up by same BF, which triggers 2nd personality, Buck. There's a bit of drama around will Buck go to the recital. Eventually he does, and daughter is a little mortified, but moreso when Buck kicks boyfriend's ass in the parking lot.

Basically that's it.

Along the way there's a couple of other devices that are employed that I found interesting. First, just in case you are freaked out and skeptical and thinking this is too crazy -- Rosemarie DeWitt shows up as Tara's sister -- who proceeds to voice all your doubts about the condition, and the life as Tara's family lives it. It's kind of like a valve.

The second thing is a built in little joke...the "Muffins of Triumph" that the son bakes for his sister before her dance recital. Multiple references to this by all the characters involved -- a little family tradition and in joke that's never explained -- gives the family a sort of 'lived in' feel. They have traditions that go beyond managing their crazy mother. Nice touch.

Having worked hard to tell you that the family of the Mom with Dissociative Personality Disorder is fine with it, they pull the rug out from under that for Ep.2. The son doesn't want Mom to deal with the teacher that's tormenting him. The Daughter is mortified in the aftermath of her mom beating up her boyfriend. It all comes to a head when the heretofore unseen third personality emerges -- Alice, who is the 50's housewife from hell. She has a parent-teacher interview scene that's electric. And at a family dinner out that goes horribly wrong, the daughter winds up getting a job at an Applebee's like place, with manager Nate Corddry, whose creepy sad manager is one of the best things in Ep. 2, 3, and 4 of the show.

I've met and interacted with a lot of weird families in my time. Families with kids with special needs. Families where a sibling died, or is in jail. Blended families, families with gay offspring who are accepted, and who aren't. After a while you realize that, as the book goes, All Families are Psychotic. The neat trick that United States of Tara does is show you the accepting and loving part of the family -- the accomodations made and acceptance offered, before it starts to ladle out the dysfunction.

Secret Diary of a Call Girl is based on the diaries of Belle Du Jour, a former London Call Girl. The first season of the show followed Billie Piper's Belle through the predictable series of problems a call girl might face: how do you keep your private life private? What does it do to your friends? What happens when a friend finds out? And also, the predictable parade of titillation -- threesomes, BDSM, the overnight client, etc, etc.

It was diverting watching, and well made, and Billie Piper's peformance was grand, but somehow the whole thing seemed...less...than it should be.

The 2nd season is much, much stronger for amping up the personal, serialized stake: Belle meets a guy and starts to date him and like him. Immediately, all the questions are messier. And the titillating reason you may have started watching the show is supplanted by a character in an impossible situation. They sucked you in on the sex, but they keep you with the drama. I'm not even sure I saw all of Season One's ep. But I can't wait to see more of season 2.


Finally, there's Lie To Me. This is a very, very slick pilot. It explains and sets the rules of the world really well, and teases you about Tim Roth's character. The man seems to have some sort of code about when and how he'll intervene and tell people when the people are lying.

How did that code develop? Why? All that's left for later eps. It's probably the most effective character intro since Dr. House.

Take note of the secondary characters, too: the perky and delightful second banana who's like Cuddy and Wilson and Cameron all in one... the 'new girl' who lets you get out most of the premise exposition, and the 1234th execution of the lovable nerd.

None of these characters, or the structure of the show is really groundbreaking. It's hipper than your average CBS drama, but it's definitely mainstream, and network-y in its outlook. The flash, such as it is, comes from taking a new wine in old bottles premise and taking the variation and executing it with such absolute brio that you have to like it. With this show, if it catches on, you could argue that the FOX drama is as identifiable as the CBS brand, or indeed, any of the cable networks -- who took the branding of their drama franchises to a new high over the last few years.

I can't really talk more about what else I liked about the show without revealing some packaging elements that you really need to see cold. But trust me when I say that this show makes its argument forcefully. The only question I have is what the legs might be. But then again, smart writers in a room -- I'm sure I just don't see it yet because I don't see it. Everything else about this show has winner written all over it. Please watch. Please. I could use another good network drama to watch.

Now...back to writing out beats. And later, a gathering of Vancouver's most dangerous screenwriters. Mmmm.

Tasty.

Dix on LOST and the Game Changer

WELL WHERE WERE WE?

I'm still in Vancouver, still in a hotel room, still socked in by fog. Might go for a walk this afternoon, but so far I've been taking advantage of my east-coast time orientation to beetle away at new work. New script, new show, new challenge as a freelancer -- it's these kinds of developments that fire up the imagination and make this job worth doing.

Dix has got another one at his digs today... he's late to the party on LOST, but nicely encapsulates why this show -- which returns tonight -- is one that I just can't seem to quit, though I've come close.

The show has balls. And they proved it at the end of Season 3 by messing with their tried and true formula...that is, taking their episode story model of intercutting the adventures of the survivors on the island with a 'flashback' story (usually focusing on one of the primary island survivors), and bringing a game changer to the table by introducing 'flash forwards' to a time of life after the island for six of the survivors.

I would've loved to have been in the writers room when the story department came up with that one.


Now anyone who follows the show more closely than I might inform me that this was always part of the series gameplan...but I'd call bullshit. If that had been on all the writers minds right off the top, there's no no NO way they would've held off using flash forwards for nearly three entire seasons...66 episodes....no friggin' way.

Because its too cool a move. It'd take just way much discipline and dedication not to play that card whenever you felt the show might be growing a little repetitive or stale or what have you...(like middle of Season 2 or beginning of Season 3).

No I say they were well into it all, probably end of Season 2, and spinning and riffing and bickering and bantering and perhaps someone in the room said: "So, does anyone get off the island or not?"...and someone else said, "Of course some of them do." And someone else said, "Well who? And what would that be like for them?" And then someone else jumped up and exclaimed, "What if we showed life after the island for some of our characters, but treated as if it was a flashback, until we revealed it was actually the future...and...and...

Whoa.

It's a thrilling thing when a show hits some shoals and then manages to roar back. And based on most of Season 4, and the fact that their endgame is now in sight, has got to revitalize that team.

Yet another thing the small-minded of the internet brigade will never understand -- a top story room plus the occasional curve ball (helloooo, drunk driving cast!) makes writing a series like this a high wire act that's as addictive as...well, whatever your personal poison might be.

I have too long a list to mention here.

Welcome back, LOST. Ben, you're my bestest creepiest friend ever.

Now, what's next?

WWW.WHITEHOUSE.GOV

Something's Happening Here

FREEZING FOG. That's the weather report for Vancouver today. I've never seen that forecast before.

My hotel room is socked in. Looking down Burrard or Robson I can barely see fifty feet. Yet I'm guessing that the Hope burning off the TV in my hotel room can burn it off.

Two million on the Mall, millions more watching elsewhere. E Pluribus Unum. Finally. Finally. Finally.

May he bind up our wounds.

NO More Days

DON'T LET THE White House door hit your ass on the way out, Georgie.

I think I'm gonna watch W. in my hotel room before I go to bed. What the hell.

One More Thing

BE SURE IF you can to catch the season premiere of Secret Diary of a Call Girl and especially the premiere of Diablo Cody's United States of Tara -- which really is as good as everyone is saying it is. (I've seen the first four eps.)

I think both have built in valuable lessons about story and character that I'll be writing about later.

Both shows premiere in Canada tonight on TMN/Movie Central. (Showtime in the USA)




oh my GOD it's early.

ZOS: The One to Beat in '09

THE INTERVIEW SITS partially transcribed. But sadly it seems that my paid job as a writer has overwhelmed and subsumed my unpaid job as a Blogger.

But I'd be remiss if I let tonight go by without pointing you to ZOS, (Zone of Separation,) the Canadian-made limited series about a group of UN Peacekeepers trying to keep the two sides apart in a fictional town in the Balkans.

ZOS is surprising in so many ways. It goes for the tough scenes, with unbearable tension...tension that some people find difficult to watch. Yet it's also cut through with sophisticated, gallows humor. For anyone looking for an English Canadian window on the world, and an answer to the question, "what exactly is that Canadian perspective?" This is it. You want to contrast that with the American view? Well somewhere, there's a truly excellent thesis waiting to be written comparing ZOS to Generation Kill.

American troops do not serve in UN peacekeeping roles, for the most part. Canada, for the small size of its military, rotates between peacekeeping roles like in Bosnia and Cyprus, and the war footing in Afghanistan. ZOS is also about the futility of military power, and the no-win of trying to keep the peace in a place where nobody particularly wants peace. But it's also a sophisticated character study of the different players in the town, and in the Forces thrown in with them. Characters who start out hated, become sympathetic. Characters who are thuggish have remarkable conversions. Surprise and shock lurk around each juncture. And then there's Speedo Boy.

By the third episode of ZOS, as a viewer you are juggling about eight or nine storylines -- but with ease. It's involving and absorbing and funny and terrible and profound and wonderful. And very human.

During the interview last week, I joked that ZOS was the best Canadian series of the year, and Malcom MacCrury and Enrico Colatoni took a decent, Canadian beat before reminding me that it was, in fact, only January. No matter. Come time for Geminis and other Kudos, I'm pretty sure ZOS will stand above them all.

Hopefully I'll get that feature and focus piece done for next week. For now, you can sup on the truly excellent multi-part interview that Alex Epstein did with Co-creator and showrunner Malcolm MacCrury. And I'd also encourage you to check out Diane's article on the same show.

And if you're plum tired of reading, the delightful Judith Klassen has her Judecast of the entire fandango available to you, you lucky so and so. (What's interesting about Jude's podcast is that it's on-set, which means it's of a 2007 vintage, as opposed to most of the press interviews which were done in January 2009.)

Oh...and if you watch, check out my man Jim Codrington, who turns in a performance that's winning, and light years away from his work on THE BORDER!

As for me, I'll let you know how many people on Air Canada are taking advantage of the free preview. I'm off to Vancouver for a few days, so blogging might be erratic. Between work and the Tuesday night Inaugural euphoria, I imagine I'm going to be rather occupado.

Be well. Oh, and if you do watch ZOS and can't resist the nifty STARS song that serves as the show's theme -- the version of "Celebration Guns" they use is the remix from Do You Trust Your Friends? NOT the album version from Set Yourself on Fire.

Now you know.

ZoS premieres Monday Jan 19 @ 9pm PT on Movie Central - 10pm ET on TMN

The Keeper

AN INTERESTING article by Edward Wyatt in the NY Times Arts & Leisure section profiles a guy who -- depending on your perspective -- has one of the coolest jobs in TV, or one with the most potential for wackness.

Meet the guy who keeps everything straight on LOST, Gregg Nations:

A co-producer and the show’s longtime script coordinator, Mr. Nations has become the keeper of what has been found on “Lost,” charged with tracking everything that has happened and will happen to the characters on and off the island, in addition to charting the many mysterious characteristics of the island itself.

While most television series maintain a so-called bible — a guide to characters and plotlines that are developed by the creators but revealed over multiple seasons — few if any shows have twists and turns as byzantine as those on “Lost.”

And unlike many jobs, which get easier as the material becomes more familiar, this one has become exponentially more complicated and challenging with each new episode. That will be particularly true this season, when the island itself starts moving through time as the people who seem to be the guardians of its secrets try to protect it from a shadowy conspirator who could have darker uses for its powers.

Enter Mr. Nations, who has now compiled an archive that, were he ever to print it out, might — as he put it in an interview at the “Lost” production offices on Disney’s Burbank studio lot — give “War and Peace” a run for its money.

Just how long the entire document is he does not know; he has never printed it out in full, in part because he and his secretive bosses do not want copies falling into the wrong hands. But he has multiple electronic copies, which he keeps in undisclosed locations.

Gimme a 'C!' Gimme an 'R!' Gimme a 'T!' Gimme a...aw forget it.

FURTHER TO THE last week or so of Arpin posts... I was prodded this weekend by a former colleague at 299 Queen Street West that we've seen this sort of thing before.

Time was, when you'd walk into the CHUM building (as it then was,) you'd make your way up to the second floor, past the smoking patio and the edit bays, and you'd come to a junction. Straight ahead you'd go toward a boardroom and Moses' office, or take a stairway up to the third floor publicity area. And if you'd hang a left you'd hit the bathrooms.

Opposite those bathrooms was a very Moses touch: a wall with a bunch of stark quotes about the medium of television. Some writ large, some small, a cacophony of typography and thought about the medium we toil in.

It was a fitting monument to ponder as you made your way to...read a magazine, say.

Well, Moses' office is now the open area for Etalk, and there's barely an inch of the building and the vibe at 299 Queen Street that CTV hasn't changed. But one of the things that always puzzled me, and one of the things that I think is most emblematic of the takeover of those properties by CTV, is what happened to the wall.

Did they tear it down?

Nope.

They just painted over it. It's now...white. Totally white. Where once there was thought and an ongoing argument about the merits of the medium, there's now...a big white wall. I fear the quotes could have stimulated an idea of how to get broadcasting out of its doldrum state long before the white wall could. But maybe that's just me.

Anyway -- amidst the many quotes, here's the relevant one for the last week. You'll like this:

"I don't own a television"
- John Meisel, CRTC Chairman, 1979-1983.

Enjoy your Sunday.

Vroom Vroom

THE GREAT WIL ZMAK hepped me to this:

Kurt Sutter, Sons of Anarchy creator and showrunner. A'bloggin.

Tell'em Sam Cro sent you.

Of Great Notions and Fifth Cylons

YOU'VE GOT TO hand it to Maureen Ryan. The woman gets the 'gets.'

If you are like me, you fell off your couch a couple times during last night's mid-season premiere of Battlestar Galactica.

Today she's got a great interview that lifts the veil to Ron Moore's thought process in hashing out the themes of BSG. And there's more goodness from the writers and the episode Director, too. Once again Moore gets full props for cracking open the door on the process wider than just about any other current series.

And the remarkable thing, too? Last night's ep was the one shot as the WGA strike hit. So Moore and none of the writers were around. The Directors and Actors had to muddle through best they could. And boy, could they ever.

I won't quote since it's spoilery if you haven't seen the first of the final 10 eps of BSG. But it's really, really worth a good long read.

And Pour Me a Highball!

THE NEW FIVE STEPS:

1. Fill Glass with Ice
2. Remove Cigarette from Pack
3. Tap, Palm, and Light Cigarette
4. Read this Article Again.
5. Pour three fingers, sit back and act all aloof, while inside realize that life is an existential roller coaster and we're all deeply pretending.

Ahhhhhhhhh.

Mon Cher Michel: The Final Chapter (Til The DVD's Start Shipping)

WELL, HERE'S WHAT might be the final word -- my response to Michel Arpin's rather chilly letter regarding that infamous Playback interview. (Follow the whole saga here.)

In what's becoming a regular occurrence here in Sticksville, I'm bowled over by the response I've gotten to this off the blog, where it can't be tracked, traced, or parsed by "the powerful." At last count, I had received about twelve phone calls/emails/texts/answering machine messages, about eight Facebook "right ons" and two random fist bumps (okay, maybe not so random -- I was in the CBC building.) The subtext to all these off-the-blog messages was the same, "thank you, but please don't use my name, because I'm afraid of the CRTC."

If I was the Chairman -- that alone would give me pause.

Finally, a source within Playback has told me that it was the opinion of people there that Arpin was trying to be funny to get past the question.

Har dee har.

But the desire to jest your way out of the question, or to jest about a subject that literally affects thousands of livelihoods...well, let's just say it hasn't been the finest hour for our Broadcast regulator.

Now, for pity's sake, enough of this...I'm going to go write something.

Dear Mr. Arpin,

Thank you so very much for your timely response. It's a matter of some relief to hear that drama and feature films are indeed an important part of your viewing menu.

I hope you understand that the concerns expressed in my letter, and the other letters you received, come from a place of great love for and attachment to the legacy of broadcasting in this country, the legacy that -- as you rightly point out -- you have served yourself for nearly four decades.

However, someone with your long experience in the media will doubtless understand the power and potential pitfalls that come with the magnifying power of words.

The remarks in Playback touched a nerve because they seemed to demonstrate an attitude we've seen from you before; an attitude that appeared quite hostile to the interests of creative media writers, actors, and directors in this country. Creatives' most memorable interaction with the CRTC in recent history was the 1999 decision that relaxed Broadcaster commitments to homegrown drama. A decision made in the name of "flexibility" destroyed the foundation of that industry for years to come, and drove out thousands of creatives. So maybe we are a bit jumpy. But really, can you blame us?

By the way, many of those people can still be found making television - but they're now making American television in the USA. Whether or not that was the intent, that was the effect. The effect on our corner of the industry was profound. We've yet to fully recover. And in that time, broadcaster spending on American product has increased tenfold.

Separate and apart from your comments regarding your personal viewing habits, your answer to the question about the decline of drama amounted to, "well, that's a guild thing." But it's not. It's a Canadian thing. It goes to the very heart of your job and the Commission's mandate, and your answer raises serious doubts about the very neutrality you claim to be striving for. You either are for the protection of the Canadian industry, or you are not. A mandate where you protect those who sell ad time, and distribute signals, but not those who generate content (outside of news content) is intellectually and practically inconsistent.

It's my fervent desire that Canadian BDU's and Broadcasters be allowed to build robust companies. In theory, it's a rising tide that floats all boats. All we ask is the same degree of consideration and respect as you show to the BDU's and Broadcasters.

But it's not my intent here to berate a man with a long history of public service. It's my fervent hope that the next time someone asks you about a Canadian show you might have enjoyed, you'll have a ready answer. That's why a group of concerned citizens is working out a way to supply you with a selection of high quality series and films over the next year. We can't promise that every one will be your cup of tea. But if you give them a fair shake, I'm fairly sure that some of them will make you a fan, just like millions of other Canadians who watch homegrown product each year.

You've got a busy year ahead of you on the Commission. I wish you the wisdom and the patience to balance all the interests and come up with a framework that is truly best for all Canadians.

Sincerely,

Denis McGrath
Screenwriter & Canadian

A Crama's Not a Comma

IN RESPONSE TO my explanation of the word "Crama" below, clever commenter sID had this to say:

instead of cramas, how about "commas?"

as in, "I listened to Denis tell this guy for two hours about this comma he's been working on and then about this other comma he just saw that was total shit. That dude needs to get out more..."

Whenever possible, I think it's a good idea to stay away from coined words that already have a meaning, especially if that meaning is entrenched, and yours is more obscure.

The problem with, for instance, the sentence, "Denis, that hack, he can't write a comma to save his life" is that everyone will at first wonder if you mean ",".

It's a logical question. The punctuation mark and the written script are both in the same rough area so even context-dependent sentences won't immediately make it clear. It would be different if you said, oh, I don't know, "Wow, that lady is a real comma." I don't know what that means, exactly, but you likely aren't going to get it confused with this: ",".

The other nice thing about the word "crama" is that it's tonally accurate. The problem with the excreble word "Dramedy," besides the sin of its overuse and misuse (which has sometimes meant defending unfunny comedies by saying, "it's really more of a dramedy,") is that most of the root comes from the word "comedy." Which doesn't describe most "dramadies" (a drama with a few comic elements) at all. With Crama, you have a word perfect for both form and function. Mostly a drama, but with a tiny bit of comedy. Say, a "c's" worth. Also, it's a funny sounding word, which helps. And it's also not unadjacent to the phrase "cram it," which is kind of what you want to say to the fluffernutter types who want you to parse these hybrid things into tinier and tinier buzzwords, anyway.

Nope. Sorry, sID...I'm sticking with crama.

Michel Arpin, You, and Q, Too.

I'LL BE ON CBC RADIO'S Q today, right at the end of the program, talking about this. Which is really about this.

Make sure to drop by the discussion on Ink Canada to ad your .02 (CDN) to the discussion about which Canadian Films and TV shows we should sned to Mr. Arpin in the future. Or if you can't do that, feel free to comment on the thread below.

In the meantime, I and others who had written to Mr. Arpin about this all received the same timely response from him explaining the context of the Playback interview:

Thank you for sharing your concerns in your e-mail dated January 15. Rest assured that I share your passion for Canadian television programming – in all its varieties – and Canadian culture.

As you may know, I have dedicated my entire career, now stretching over 40 years, to the Canadian broadcasting industry. In fact, you may be surprised to learn that early in my career I was a television producer.

It has been my privilege to serve as the CRTC’s Vice-Chairman of Broadcasting since September 2005, and in the last three and a half years, I have participated in numerous hearings and decisions that hopefully have benefited the Canadian television industry as a whole.

Those who are appointed to the CRTC have the obligation to remain independent and to share their expertise with their fellow Commissioners and Commission staff. Our decisions are guided by the principles and objectives of the Broadcasting Act, and are made on the basis of the facts and the public record before us, regardless of our personal preferences.

As mentioned in the Playback interview, my primary mandate as a regulator is to “create a framework for [creative people] to allow the broadcast media to expand and provide better service to Canadians.” The more successful we are in creating this framework, the more Canadian television creators will have opportunities to tell their stories.

As far as the Playback quote is concerned, you must appreciate that the interviewer asked me to name my favourite show; I felt it was inappropriate given my position. However, rest assured that, throughout the year, I watch all types of television news, documentaries as well as drama or feature films.

I've been doing this a long time, and I find it difficult to imagine where the question and the quote Arpin gave lined up. The important thing, though, is trust. Trust that you put in an official in that position. Trust that says, "I believe you're working for me, and not just for moneyed cable and broadcaster interests." I'll be making that point in my follow up letter. Stay, as they say, tuned. Or if you don't like these kinds of cultural debates, you could always read a novel. I guess.:)