IT'S NOT LIKE Canadian media companies were alone in this -- remember how AOL TIME WARNER was going to do everything cause of "synergy?" Riiight. But U.S. media companies also invested heavily in Content by becoming their own TV studios: FOX now feeds FOX and F/X, NBC Universal, ABC Studios and CBS Productions also pump product.
To understand the problems broadcasting is experiencing it helps to compare it with the changes that took place 30 years ago in the computer industry.
At that time, the market was controlled by IBM, the corporate leader in producing hardware. In a few years, however, everybody was able to build computers and IBM became only one of several manufacturers. Then Bill Gates came along and software took over the industry.
The same has happened with broadcasting. Thirty years ago, the sector was controlled by the companies that owned the medium through radio or TV broadcasting licences. Then something happened. New technology – fibre-optic cable and satellites – came along and viewers were flooded with hundreds of channels, many from abroad, mainly from the United States. The sudden abundance of channels (hardware) and shortage of programs (software) changed the game. Quality content became the dividing line between success and failure.
Unfortunately – and contrary to what Gates did – broadcasters ignored the software, meaning programs, and tried to maintain their control of the industry by buying new channels and asking the CRTC for more. Imagine IBM trying to control the computer industry by buying clone computer makers and leaving the opportunity to fill them with content to others – that's what it was like.
Private Canadian broadcasters (the CBC is in a different category because of public financing and unique regulatory demands) increased their capacity to broadcast but reduced their ability to fill their outlets with quality Canadian-produced programs. They looked for easy profit by flooding Canada with American-produced shows and got around the CRTC's Canadian content requirements by airing cheaply produced ethnic programs and repeats of Canadian-produced shows to the point that viewers have memorized them.
But new technology allows us to bypass their stations and watch programs directly on foreign channels. It's the same with ethnic programs. There are so many channels from around the world broadcasting quality programs in every language that Canadian production, aside from some newscasts, is useless.
Broadcasters didn't invest heavily in production because, they say, we can't compete with American companies whose audience is 10 times bigger than ours. In this lame defence is concentrated the core of the problems affecting our broadcasters: They ignored the fact that new technology long ago crashed geographic barriers, and they have always seen the 300-million-strong American market as a threat rather than an opportunity. We speak the same language, after all.
Instead, the broadcasters cocooned themselves inside Canada's borders and chose the easy way out, asking the CRTC to tax their viewers while buying more American programs. They complained that their over-the-air channels were less profitable than specialty cable channels and asked for permission to charge a fee to cable companies carrying their programs. Why not improve the quality of their programs to woo viewers back from the specialty channels? Because they own most of the specialty channels and would have been competing against themselves. So instead of improving quality, they sought to subsidize their over-the-air channels by charging viewers for programs they don't watch. This request, denied by the CRTC, came last year when the economy was booming. I'm sure they will try again, this time blaming the recession for their problems.
In fact, you could argue that the conventional broadcasters are doubling down on their bad strategy right now. How? They're trying to get out of local news. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Hey CRTC, are you listen...never mind, they're not. We know that already.
Meanwhile, later today, if my information holds up, another cavalierly disastrous decision for the Canadian creative industry is coming down. We'll return to that later. For now, I'm running my little Freedom app and unplugging for a few hours to get work done.
WILL DIXON had some Friday Fun and posted my favorite Cartoon ever. And today I started futzing around with a comment on his piece which just sort of metastacized into this. So thanks, Will.
First, again, here's the Cartoon in question:
And here...are The Notes.
I was just looking at the Froggy Even cartoon again, and while I appreciate your enthusiasm that it is some sort of "classic," in the making, I'm afraid there are a few notes that I really think we should deal with before moving forward.
-First, in the scene with the "Free Beer," the men rush into the theatre having been promised free beer. And when the curtain comes up they see the frog and get angry. Does this track? Are they getting angry about the frog not being able to sing, or the lack of free beer? In fact, the whole concept of the "free beer" and the loss of it seems to get lost.
-Where do they get the rotten fruit to throw at the guy? They came in looking for free beer. Why would they suddenly have fruit? Could you rework so this makes sense, please?
-I'm not feeling I know enough about the backstory of the construction worker. Who is he and where does he come from? Presumably, since we see his apartment and it seems to be modest, he is single, and you drop a hint that he is very mistrustful of traditional authority (ie: he hides money under the bed) Am very excited by this. Could we make more of this?
-re: the frog. Have you done research on Frog's lifespans? Does it track that this frog could survive from 1892 to 2056? Is his long lifespan tied into his ability to sing?
-Do they allow mental patients to keep pet frogs? Is it a companion animal thing? Will have to explain this, I think. The audience will want to know.
-Please reconsider the choice to have the frog be the only one who speaks. I think this keeps the audience at a distance. Could you perhaps take a look at Family Guy, where they have animals who talk and other people can hear them? Just a thought.
-Is the frog singing the right songs? Could we have him sing something that speaks to our demo better?
-I'm just throwing this out there -- wouldn't it be more satisfying if, in the end, maybe by accident, the guy actually gets the frog to sing for someone else? Might make for a more uplifting ending -- give the guy more of a 'win.'
We're very excited by this Froggy Project and we're sure that with these few minor changes it's going to be something really special.
Say what you will about the sorry state of Canadian TV, a beleaguered U.S. satellite pumping out generic comedy and drama series that shamelessly mimic the rhythms of American blockbusters: you gotta love Rick Mercer.
Say what you will about lazy journos. Hey Joel, two points:
THE CITY WHERE I live, Toronto, turns 175 years old today. Torontonians complain about the place almost as often as the rest of Canada does (forget it, even I can't sell that one.) But it really is a nifty little city. Here are some pics of my favorite things about the place:
Palmerston Avenue, in the Annex, is the most beautiful stately street. At night, walking down past the old-fashioned globed streetlights always makes me feel wistful. Man, I'd love to live on this street one day.
The great thing about Toronto is that its always changing. Almost 20 years ago, I lived in a neighbourhood that was just starting to feel a Korean influx. Now, it's Little Korea. I find that ebb and flow, and the fact that the neighbourhood doesn't decline, just changes, special. Right now, you're seeing collisions and gentrification in two neighbourhoods close to my heart, Roncesvalles and Parkdale. It makes for an interesting urban collision. Those little back and forths and old residents smacking against new, that's the feeling and the vibrancy of urban renewal.
Streetcars. They're annoying when you're driving and get trapped behind them. But man, I'm glad we have'em.
The Palais Royale. On the Lakeshore, this venue has been around since the 1930's. It was a DanceHall. Duke Ellington played there. You move around and you can feel the history, and then go outside and you can stare into the Lake Ontario night. I've only seen a few shows there, and I've never been to a wedding there, but I bet it's special. Between the Palais Royale and Massey Hall, all my concert going needs would be covered.
Sigh. I still can't talk about it.
Well, this was never meant to be a definitive survey. There's so much more I love about the city, but I guess we'll just leave it there and add one more thing I love about Toronto.
BACK IN THESE parts, we sometimes joke that having a show on the Citytv stations is sort of like being in the Canadian Television Witness Protection Program.
Less Than Kind is a winning comedy that premiered earlier this year.
The ads and promo for it were spotty, so don't worry if you haven't heard of it. Even if you did tune in, chances are you didn't see it the way it should have been seen -- this show had the most unlikely, unlucky series of technical glitches I've ever heard of -- with audio tracks run out of sync, episodes swapped, aspect ratios being wrong -- the whole magilla of possible screw ups.
For those of you who managed to miss it, Hall, one of the current anchor/comedians on This Hour Has 22 Minutes, interrupted a press avail by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty yesterday.
She did it in character, as the Single Girl. This is a character who uses tremulous, needy eyes and catch phrases to inhabit an overly sensitive woman-on-the-make, part reporter, but really just an old fashioned girl looking for love.
As with all comedy, your reaction to it is entirely subjective. I find the bit hilarious, because it seems to skewer all those Bridget Jones chick-lit clichés while at the same time pointing out something more wicked – the uncomfortable stagecraft underneath the modern politician.
Hall’s character has pulled her shtick on politicians from Ignatieff to Dion to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose overzealous security forces briefly detained her during the last election, making for headlines coast to coast and an even more memorable 22 Minutes experience. Here's Hall in character with Michael Ignatieff:
The bottom line is: this is the show’s shtick. 22 Minutes “ambushes” politicians, and does a little good natured light back and forth. The Pols that play along come out the best; at most they get lightly skewered with a bit of gentle criticism. As satire goes, it is exceedingly genial.
In character as Single Girl from the CBC show This Hour Has 22 Minutes, Ms. Hall was attempting to poke fun at Mr. McGuinty's new rule requiring reporters to stand five feet back when they question him.
“I'm going to come a little bit closer and you tell me when you feel nervous,” she said.
“I get your point OK, because if a pack of guys I didn't know approached me every day, shoved their stuff in my face and expected me to just stand there while they recorded it, I'd be a little freaked out too.”
But there were few laughs as Ms. Hall vainly attempted to get Mr. McGuinty to hug one of the reporters after she walked into the middle of questions on U.S. Steel's decision to shut down the former Stelco mills in Ontario.
New Democrat Peter Kormos, who was visibly angry at Ms. Hall's routine, was on the outside of the media scrum yelling that thousands of layoffs were no joking matter.
“Get the hell out of here,” yelled Mr. Kormos as Mr. McGuinty, looking uncomfortable, stood beside Ms. Hall, who was arrested last year for trying to approach Prime Minister Stephen Harper as Single Girl.
From my reading of it, the villain in this piece is MPP Peter Kormos, who went splenetic and dialed it up to 11 on the sanctimonius scale.
The producers and Hall quickly read the tenor of the room as ugly and retreated.
Here’s the thing. They did what they do. What they’ve done for YEARS – since the days when Mary Walsh would wander the Hill in a Xena Warrior Princess breastplate.
Kormos’ reaction -- and the clucking of the press -- says way more about them than it does about Geri Hall.
There is not a Canadian alive who isn’t feeling the effects of this recession. But both 22 Minutes and the RickMercer Report are enjoying surging audiences. Why, I wonder? Could it be the healing, hopeful, oh-my-god-Shelly-put-the-butter-knife-down respite that comedy provides?
There’s a dirty little secret in Canadian show business. (Okay, there are many, but there’s only one that I’m revealing today) Every few months somebody likes to score an easy feature by talking about Canadians in Comedy, and why are Canadians so funny, and so on and so forth.
Canadians are not funny. There are comics who happen to be Canadian. And nine out of ten of them go to the United States to be discovered and enjoy their greatest success. Why?
Because there’s a persistent strain of priggishness and humorlessness that runs under the psyche of this country. Maybe not down east – but in most other places in Canada you’re going to find a certain schoolmarm-y squeamishness.
Comedy commercials in Canada get complaints. I’ve read them. They have to change lines and tweak shots here all the time because some dear in Abbotsford or Wingham was outraged. You want to know why ads in Canada are so toothless? There's your why. It's a mug's game to try to get anything above the level of a scottish-sounding honeybee on the air here, cause someone is going to take umbrage and get the spot changed. Quick to judge, easily goaded into self-righteousness – Canadians may not have the religious right driven humorlessness of some U.S. states, but they more than make up for it with a lack of generosity of spirit when it comes to laughing at yourself.
Canadians do smug very well. And this is the tension that underlies the image. “Oh,” the stereotype goes, “Canadians are so nice and polite.”
Maybe so. But underneath, resentment fairly seethes. Call it little brother syndrome, or the dark side of all that passive aggressivity, but from tall poppy syndrome to a national appetite for schaedenfreude, Canada eats its young and spits out the bones and you better not make a joke about anything that’s “important,” because that is just! Not! done!
In this, no one is more culpable than Canadian pols and their willing enablers, the Parliamentary Press Corps. From Craig Oliver to Andrew Coyne, you’re not likely to find a more humorless bunch at an undertakers convention. If not for Scott Feschuk, it would be rope-swingin’ time. Puffed up, full of themselves and prone to bouts of self righteousness, it’s these geniuses who’ve managed to so poorly cover the politics of the country that Canadians don’t really understand the issues or even how the government works. It’s all personality this and who’s up in the polls that. And yes, I know, in the USA they cover the horse race too much, as well. But you can find pieces on the issues. Here, every province and region is played expertly off every other province and region and nobody does a lick of work to try to pierce the received wisdom. It's much better to hang back and tsk and cluck.
In the UK, even with someone like Jon Stewart in the USA, the barbs have bite and force – and still manage to inform the populace. In Canada, it seems, even the mildness of 22 can go too far – by doing what they do every single day.
It’s the height of hypocrisy.
If you’re comically minded in any way…even if you’re not a fan of Hall or 22, I hope you’ll stand and send good thoughts in the days ahead to Geri and the crew of 22 Minutes. Guys: Don’t back down. Don’t look away. Do what you do. Use this, flip it, and make us laugh.
Because with the job losses mounting and the economy cratering, honestly, isn’t that what we need way more than some fucking humorless pol grandstanding, complete with the crocodile tears?
I mean, at least Hall’s upfront about playing a character, for chrissakes.
FURTHER TO THE below, today's koan-like wisdom comes courtesy of a Toronto writer/producer who has run rooms from CornerGas to Little Mosque to The Mercer Report.
In our culture wars, northern division, there's a very tedious and ongoing fight between the highfalutin "worthy" dramas and the "entertaining" shows. Along the way there is so much reaching for the former that too often our reach exceeds our grasp and we forget to deliver the latter. So this simple lesson bears repeating -- for newbie writers and pointy-penciled culture critics, too:
Complex multi-dimensional characters in interesting situations IS entertainment. The rest is branding. Why does someone like Mad Men but not South Park? Mad Men is highbrow, South Park is a vulgar cartoon. But they're both brilliant.
Maybe CBC has an opportunity to do PBS-style worthy fare -- the equivalent of Ken Burns' Civil War -- that privates can't do.
But that's the icing and popular, well-crafted Canadian shows are the cake. Respect the cake. It's hard to make cake.
I truly believe this false split is a generational thing that is currently working itself out. Which is not to say that there aren't showrunner-writers who were working years back who put entertainment value first. Far from it. They're actually quite easy to spot. They're the ones who have the scars from years of fighting the stupidity of the system here; the ones who may have pissed off enough people that they don't get called to run shows until the shows are in the toilet and need to be saved.
Come the revolution, we will build statues to them out of empty whiskey and vodka bottles.
YOU MAY HAVE cause to argue, but most of the time on this blog I try to write about stuff I know stuff about. Today is not going to be one of those columns. In fact, I don't really know what I'm going to say, beyond a few simple truths.
The license renewals are coming up for Canadian Broadcasters. The CRTC recently signaled that they're going to give one-year renewals to the various broadcasters, and have a fuller hearing next year by Broadcast group. So rather than talk about CTV, or Global (if they're still around), they'll talk about all their properties together -- the OTA (over the air) "network" channels that are losing Ad money hand over fist, and the specialty channels, which are doing well because they have a combination of ad revenue and subscription fee to fall back on.
In the meantime, leading up to the hearings, there's a lot of posturing. Canwest is just trying to survive -- after making about seven or eight years worth of really bad business decisions (long predating the current recession.) But CTV is making the boldest moves -- moves some people are saying are designed to try to steamroll the CRTC in doing what they want them to do.
Ironically, Citytv, the stations that CTV tried to swallow (til the CRTC made them sell them off to Rogers for fear of concentration) was a station that built itself and its reputation by being aggressively and completely local in focus. They turned away from that by the time of the CHUM sale. More great media decisionmaking. Man, these execs, I tell you. If I put together a story like these guys ran their businesses...
Here's where it gets intersesting. The Conservative Government, who never met a play out of the Karl Rove playbook they didn't like, has a habit of using the media in a particular way. They go around the national media, who presumably are prepped and tough on political matters, and try to get their message to the people by doing loads of local news interviews, where presumably the questions will be softer. If you're a back bencher, the only time you're ever going to get on the tube is if you do local stuff.
So right now the once-upon-a-time business that for years was called a "license to print money" is smacking up against Government strategy.
It's a measure of how cynical our times have become that I think that that's actually the strongest reason to believe the government might want to do something.
The other argument, of course, is that if you cancel all local programming, don't provide news, or weather, or anything different, why do you exist at all?
It seems to me the most dangerous game CTV is playing with this move is that somebody -- maybe a consumer group, might just wake up and say, "hang on a second. No news. No local stuff. You don't do any original programming (because believe me, being let out of that is the next thing they'll ask for) -- and all you show is the same American shows that are on NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX..."
"But we already get those channels."
When you watch cable in the USA you see a lot of crap...but there's also plenty of smart and innovative shows in lots of genres. Meanwhile, on the Canadian specialties, it seems every time they get swallowed up, you get the same reruns spread around thinner.
"See CSI the way it was meant to be seen... on Showcase."
Yeah. I didn't think so.
I don't know where this ends. I really don't. And yup, I'm not a smart businessman, which I guess means I haven't lost millions of dollars and gone through gobbledy gobbledy mergers that just two years ago I said were essential...essential! to the health of the industry.
But for the first time, I don't feel anything about this. I'm just tired. I feel terrible for all the hardworking people who are losing their jobs because of short term bad decisionmaking, and, I suspect, not a little brinksmanship. But the thing I do? I'll do it down the line for somebody else.
A story teller can always tell stories. You can't do the news without a newscast.
I'll tell you another thing. For the first time I can remember, I actually feel a little sorry for the people on the CRTC.
I'm sure that'll be short lived, but still.
Round and round it goes, and where this stops?
You got me.
For all the bitching and moaning, thank God there's the CBC. For a lot of Canadians, a CBC station might be their only local media left. Soon.
MAYBE HE HATES me lately. One gets tired of the backhand barbs, the rough, come-lately jabs, the rough plating of opinion and man...I have no cat to take the brunt, you see. So it was that we saw Mister John Doyle at the Place last Friday, yes we did. And well, many of us wanted to say something and extend welcome, Band Practice writers that we were. There was no Walty to give us succor, no Sherry White, no Daegan, no possible entree of warmth and common sense, no, just plebian scribes deathly and dirty, bereft of entry and fearful of supplication.
And besides. Himself was busy socializing, so fair play to him.
But then he goes and writes such about the CBC to make one weep. Clear headed and lovely and full of sense. Ah sense. The TV Racket could use more of you.
ABC's "Life on Mars" won't return for a second season.
The network has decided not to renew the series starring Jason O'Mara as 2008 Detective Sam Tyler working as a cop in 1973 New York.
The series, from 20th TV and ABC Studios, will complete its 17-episode freshman series order with the season finale written as a series finale that will wrap the loose story ends, explain how Tyler got transported back in time and (maybe) bring him back to his own time.
"Mars" enjoyed strong support from ABC brass and was slotted in some of the network's premiere slots, Thursday 10 p.m. after "Grey's Anatomy" and Wednesday 10 p.m. after "Lost."
Still, the show, based on the British series of the same name, didn't click with viewers.
With its serialized nature, many considered "Life" to be better suited as a limited series the way it aired in the U.K.
ALL CANADIAN... ALL SUCKY. In its history, the nation sometimes referred to as "America's Hat" has never, ever, ever produced
an internationally renowned musician
a decent singer
a good piece of fruit
a decent log
a vaccine of any importance
a railroad worth riding on
combat troops with an ounce of heart
a novel that anyone wanted to read
a hand held device that people could use with their thumbs to check email
a cutting edge communications theorist.
a decent hockey player
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but all of the above are true. They are absolutely, 100% true. I mean, they must be true, because I've gone around saying it over and over and that's got to make it true, right? Right? I mean, that's the way it works, does it not?
Facts are terrible things. And facts in the face of an subjective element -- as in, say, cultural theory -- may be harder to establish, but consensus can still be reached. But it requires balancing and a clear head. People once overwhelmingly believed that the earth was flat, and that the body could be bled of vile humours. They believed that the bumps on your head told your deepest soul's stirrings. They believed that men owning other men was perfectly A-ok. They believed a woman couldn't hold her own intellectually with a man.
All of these are risible things. Demonstrably false.
And yet, the canard that "All CanCon Sucks" gets repeated blithely in every cultural argument, by the dead enders and the no brainers and the churlish "myyyy txxxx ddooolllrrrrrs" crowd.
It's bullshit. It's demonstrablybullshit. When these worm-like skeetly slugs are challenged with concrete examples, they back away -- they try to hive it off, declare it an exception, or whinge that it doesn't really count.
Fie on these tinkerers. These pea-brained, no-quarter, self-hating, dunderheaded fools. Meet them full throated and without apology. It's insane that in order to gain traction as "good", a Canadian show has to receive, what, a good review in the New York Times? Variety? Where's the bar, now? It keeps moving, it's so hard to keep track of.
Meet this attitude full on. It is the opinion of a philistine. An ignorant ass. And it's time that was pointed out EVERY TIME IT IS CLAIMED.
The small, the cowed, the self-hating, the twist-hearted, the sour CANNOT be allowed to drive the discussion anymore.
"All CanCon Sucks?"
"I'm sorry sir, but I couldn't help hear what you said, and I wish to extend my condolences for what is obviously the rotted, festering, maggot-ridden, syphillitc pustule of ooze and fear and loathing that your brain has become. I hope you die without pain. But do it soon, please. The rest of us have facts to discuss."
I'M BEING A little disingenuous with the post title, just riffing off the common perception that issues in Canada tend to...shall we say...lag a bit.
As we contemplate fees for online web-content, ISP levies, and Net Neutrality (which, by the bye, I don't give a toss about if there's not also going to be some sort of system to enable professional content creators to do things on their own. If there's nothing for that, then what do I care that Bell and Rogers prioritize content? All you willy-nilly "free market"ers should keep that in mind. You're pissing off the very people who could make the biggest stink on the issue) it's time to check in with people who are looking further than that, to an entirely different game.
"If you want to watch your favorite TV network or shows through broadband on any device -- PCs or mobile -- you can do it as long as you subscribe to any multichannel provider," Mr. Bewkes told Advertising Age. "It's a natural extension of the existing model." The initiative, dubbed "TV Everywhere," is intended to be an industrywide effort, and Mr. Bewkes expects to ready a test of it this year. "This is not just for the cable industry," he said. "It's about keeping the health of all these fantastic networks while making them available at no extra charge on the online platform."
On our radio program the other night we were talking about “The Closer,” a show that has successfully allowed Kyra Sedgwick to meld with her character, Brenda Johnson.
Forget the formulaic storylines. We watch “The Closer” because, as viewers, we connect with Brenda on a human level, with Kyra Sedgwick delivering the quirks and foibles that make the character singular and the series memorable.
A great character, a great actor and great writing make a show timeless, regardless of what channel it’s on. At a time when network TV is relying more on gimmicks than interesting characters, it’s the sort of thing that people who call into our show constantly yearn for. Viewing habits may be changing these days, but one thing remains the same. People want to invest their lives in the lives of other people… or, in TV, other characters.
Coming not-very-soon to a hearing room near you! (Though Ed Robertson's riff on character would be good reading at just about any Canadian net these days.)
A LOT OF people didn't see it the first time because the promo wasn't that great. (Whaaat? On Canadian TV? I'm shocked! Shocked!) but the TV movie on the terrible 2005 killings of RCMP officers at Mayerthorpe repeats tonight at 9pm on CTV, a few days shy of the 4th anniversary of the event.
The movie was written by Andrew Wreggit and Directed by the redoubtable Ken Girotti and it's really a great piece of work. Worth PVR'ing and checking out. Just saying.
And I tried to find a good still to go with this, but I've just hit five minutes Googling without finding something decent. But there's no problem with PR. Pffft.
Demonstrating rare network foresight, NBC made its decision looking to snag the young and restless Web generation. Nice suit notwithstanding, Late Night with Jimmy Fallon will be a show aimed at younger viewers, most of whom network executives believe are watching TV and surfing the Web simultaneously.
“We grew up with the Internet,” says Fallon, 34. “I'm into tech and gadgets and I want those kind of people on the show, whether it's Bill Gates or the guy who designed the new Palm Pre. I want to know what makes it so great. I think that's interesting for people who are awake at 12:30 a.m.”
The new and improved Late Night will still boast some of the standard antiquities – the big host desk, the studio audience setup, the wacky staff announcer, the house band (Fallon himself approached the hip-hop group The Roots for the honour) – while simultaneously moving into heretofore untouched pop-culture areas. Say, for example, video games.
“Video games are important to a lot of people these days,” Fallon says. “The video game industry now makes more money than the movie business. We want to cover the big video game premieres almost like they were movie premieres.”
He said the intimacy of late-night shows demands early modulating. “First you ask, ‘Can I come into your house?’ After a while you take your shoes off, you have a couple of drinks, and by the end of the night you’re singing and dancing, and it’s crazy. You just have to figure a way to get into the house.”
So, yes: first a monologue emphasizing the day’s events, perhaps as long as 13 minutes. Mr. Fallon has been polishing his stand-up skills in clubs. Then some other comedy ideas, which he hopes will eventually include out-of-studio pieces. “You look at Conan’s ‘best of” clips, it’s mostly remotes,” he said. “We got to get out there.”
Then the guests. Mr. Fallon said he decided to “call in favors” early. So his old “SNL” partner from “Weekend Update,” Tina Fey, is on Night 2.
The guest list on opening night includes Robert De Niro, Justin Timberlake (talking, not singing) and Van Morrison, singing “Sweet Thing” from his classic album “Astral Weeks.”
Mr. Fallon has already dived into the Web. He is the first late-night host to start a video blog, latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/video, running snippets of comedy bits and background reports on how he was building the show. He even took his blog followers along when he had eye surgery.
Mr. Fallon has also been courting fans through Facebook and Twitter, where at last count he had more than 100,000 people following him. He said that Questlove, the leader of the Roots, his house band, will be “sending tweets during the show.”
“The Internet has been awesome,” he added. “They’ve got my back.”
And finally, in the same paper, Allessandra Stanley's lament over how Late Night remains the province of the White Male. (That's probably not a totally fair characterization of the article...especially toward the end, her characterization of the tropes of Late Night are quite winning.)
The charm isn’t seeing a host discomfited by an ill-prepared celebrity, it’s watching an experienced entertainer draw a sliver of comedy out of an uncomfortable moment or humorless guest. It’s diverting, and effortlessly so. The hosts — male, middle-American, middlebrow, middle-aged or close to it — are easy to like: subversive enough to poke holes in pomposity or pretension and make us laugh, but not so offbeat or marginal that they seem to be laughing at us. Mr. Fallon may seem more boyish and antic than his predecessors, but he shares their engaging good manners. (He made Martha Stewart laugh while making chili on her show, and she is rarely distracted.)
A host who is daringly different breaches the contract: it’s not civility, it’s the breakdown, and however funny and cathartic that can be for a while, the pleasure is not a lasting one. In 1986 Joan Rivers tried to host her own late-night show on Fox and flopped. Mr. Chappelle was brilliant on his own Comedy Central series, but he flamed out after two years and disappeared.
Talk show hosts are just that: hosts who make viewers feel welcome. They are not angry, eccentric or crazy (at least, not on the air). At the close of each show they convince us that everything is all right in the world, and Mommy and Daddy still love each other.
(For my part, I think Chelsea Handler notwithstanding, any man who's ever seen three women cut up a fourth on her appearance and choice of footwear understands why a broad-based female late night host is a way tougher sell. I'm pretty sure Senator Pam Wallin is still smarting over all those letters she'd get about her haircuts.)
All I know is, as a once and future insomniac otherwise subject to the hegemony of infomercials (I am NOT buying the %@#% snuggie, OK?) the late night shows are a godsend. Bring on the video game premiere, Jimmy. I'll give it a shot.
WHEN CBC CHANGED the timeslot of Being Erica three weeks ago, they had every reason to think they were doing something good. The show was performing well, but they thought it could do better.
They hit upon moving it into a slot behind The Week The Women Went, which drew more of a younger women demo, and was drawing over a million viewers.
This whole "bold CBC" thing -- where rather than let underperforming shows run three years, they cancel them; or move them -- that's all still new. Maybe we're hurtling toward the "timeslots don't matter" age, but the rapidly cratering fortunes of the freshman drama show we're not there yet.
Any move the CBC makes is always met with a great big storm of complaints. Whatever it is. So that shouldn't be the metric here. In retrospect, you look at the competition and the truth is that the reason why Fifth Estate was better in that slot was because of the very reason it's "pooh poohed" -- all those over 55 viewers. See, Wednesdays at 9 crushes Erica because there are at least three shows splitting that younger female demo. Unfortunate, but true.
What to do?
Move it back. Period. Clearly the show did better Monday at 9. The CBC doesn't have the most flexible schedule anyway because of the need to show the news at 10.
Yes, there will be 'tsk'-ing. But there was going to be that anyway. Right now you have to stop the freefall. Right impulse, wrong decision. Ah well. Live and learn.
Meantime, it also bears repeating that the other freshman drama on CBC, Wild Roses, has built audience every week. And it's way outpacing Erica since the timeslot change. So I guess there's good news for that show too.
Of course, good news is relative. Look at that pretty glinty thing on the horizon. Is that an iceberg?
From 1970, CBC radio. It's shocking how little has changed. Marshall McLuhan pointed out how new media don't replace old, they just recontextualize. It's a shame that the arguments don't move similarly forward.
From 1978. TV footage -- Albert Johnson, then CBC President, testifying to the CRTC.
"Most of our kids know more about the Alamo than they do about Batoche or Crysler's farm. They know more about Davy Crockett than they do about Louis Riel. What I'm trying to say quite bluntly is it does matter whether our kids are watching American rather than Canadian television. For they are being influenced by the values and attitudes reflected on American television, instead of Canadian values, attitudes, and Traditions."
John Louis Gagnon, the CRTC commissioner, goes on to recount the hostility met when French language service was extended across the country, and when Cancon was extended, and asks the simple question, "are you sure people want to be Canadian?"
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Now back to your Jonas Brothers 3D movie.
(For the record, I had to look up Crysler's farm. But then again, I was born in the USA.)
STILL BURIED, but I thought I'd stick my head up and post some awards info. Yes, I know, I know, the Oscars, blah blah...didn't even post the screenwriting winners but I didn't watch this year and so am exercising my full prerogative not to care.
But I do care about the fact that a very fine young actor I had the pleasure to work with on the Ex-show has been nominated for a Young Artist Award for his guest starring role. The awards, presented to actors under the age of 18, celebrate their 30th year this year, and will be given out in March. Congrats once again to Isaiah Grant for his excellent work in that episode (for which he was also nominated for a Gemini!) (And thanks, as always, to TV-Eh? for the tip.)
Next, nominations are out for the Canadian Screenwriting Awards, which will be presented in Toronto April 20 (hosted by the vivacious Geri Hall from 22 Minutes)
I was incredibly fortunate and lucky to win one of these last year. In the world of writers, it means something to know that you've been nominated by your peers. I see a lot of names on this list that I don't know, which is funny. It seemed like last year I knew everybody. Such is the ebb and flow of things. Congrats, and I look forward to meeting some of you on the big night!
Word of caution, though. Pump some iron. The award itself is actually surprisingly dense and heavy. And people have been known to steal them. Sneaky people.
Afghanada “Over the Ridge, Far Away - Parts 1 to 3”
Written by Jason Sherman
Afghanada “Special Forces”
Written by Greg Nelson and Adam Pettle
Afghanada “Man of Iron - Parts 1 to 3”
Written by Emil Sher
Afghanada “The Lotus Eater - Part 1 of 3”
Written by Greg Spottiswood
SHORT FILM
Awkward
Written by Kellie Ann Benz
How Are You
Written by Martha Burns & Susan Coyne
Spoiled
Written by Sherry White
VARIETY
History Bites “Celine Dion”
Written by Rick Green, Duncan McKenzie
This Hour Has 22 Minutes XVI “Episode 1”
Head Writer: Jennifer Whalen / Written by Mark Critch, Gavin Crawford, Kyle Tingley, Jennifer Whalen, Albert Howell, Tim McAuliffe, Dean Jenkinson, Geri Hall, Nathan Fielder
This Hour Has 22 Minutes XVI “Episode 2”
Head Writer: Jennifer Whalen / Written by Mark Critch, Gavin Crawford, Kyle Tingley, Jennifer Whalen, Albert Howell, Tim McAuliffe, Dean Jenkinson, Geri Hall
This Hour Has 22 Minutes XVI “Episode 8”
Head Writer: Jennifer Whalen / Written by Mark Critch, Gavin Crawford, Kyle Tingley, Jennifer Whalen, Albert Howell, Tim McAuliffe, Dean Jenkinson, Nathan Fielder, Joanne O’Sullivan, Peter White
I AM POSITIVELY snowed under and panicky right now about all I have to do. So this little space is going to be dormant for the next few days. I leave you this pristine open thread to vandalize and use as you see fit.
A few potential conversation starters:
Does comedy have to be mean to be funny?
How much could the CBC get for selling ad space on Mansbridge's head?
Is anyone really that excited about the BSG spinoff Caprica?
Is that picture of Stephen Harper walking through Times Square like Mary Tyler Moore hilarious or just creepy?
Could someone please explain the Hugh Jackman thing because I just don't get it?
There. That, or anything else. Amuse yourselves. Really. Daddy's gotta go pound keyboard.
The WGC asked the commission to recognize that consumer behaviour has changed, and that the Internet is now an integral part of the Canadian broadcasting system. They can do this, asserts the WGC, by implementing a new framework bringing more Canadian TV programming online and fostering the creation of original online content.
“Canadian audiences want to be able to access Canadian television content on any platform,” says Rebecca Schechter, President, WGC. “Their demand has pushed ISPs to become part of the Canadian broadcasting system. Yet only a fraction of Canadian TV content is available online – and just try to find it, buried as it is under mountains of U.S. programming.”
The WGC is advocating for a minimum level of 60% streamed Canadian TV content on broadcasters’ websites and branded channels, and policies ensuring Canadian content is more accessible. In addition, the WGC is proposing incentives and other ideas to foster promotion of Canadian content online. Despite the ISPs claims that they are not broadcasters, the cultural relevance of the Canadian broadcasting system is not diminished because there is a new pipeline.
The WGC made it clear that it has no desire to see user-generated content regulated, and its proposal will in no way restrict what people can see and do on the Internet.
The WGC is also calling for the creation of a new fund – established through a modest ISP levy – to support the development of professionally produced Canadian new media content.
“Because Canadians want this content,” says Maureen Parker, Executive Director, WGC, “the few public funds devoted to new media in Canada are drastically oversubscribed. The levy will support new original programming, and strengthen the ISPs’ offering to their customers, Canadian audiences. The ISPs are the gateway to the Internet. They are protected from foreign competition, but are completely unregulated and charge whatever they want for Internet services.We are asking for 1.5% of their total revenues – which last year was $5.7 billion. This will not break the bank or the Internet.”
In their appearance, the WGC reps looked prepared. They tried to show some examples of sites that "broadcast" in new media now (Degrassi and the ZOS site) -- with limited success due to the orientation of the room -- but they made a presentation that was considerably more nuanced than many of the arts groups that have gone before.
Some key points:
The WGC thinks that any content levy could easily be absorbed by the ISP's -- because it proposes exempting smaller ISP's who might have trouble paying. Driving an increase in bandwidth due to increased demand for video traffic will increase the profits of the ISP's -- who already charge more for people who download more heavily. It's in their interest to drive people to download more so they can charge more.
Fund could fund Broadcaster add-ons for existing shows, or all-new shows for the internet only.
ISP's are trying to pull a bait and switch. They are not broadcasters, but they are part of the broadcast system, and they are trying to avoid their responsibilities to contribute to that system like every other player in the system.
CanCon on the internet should be defined as 75% of the money spent in Canada, and the top 5 creative positions going to Canadians (recognizing that diff projects might have different creative needs, ie: a designer not a director, a writer who also codes, etc.)
Proposing a system by which new web-broadcasting ventures could "opt in" to a voluntary CanCon cert. system where they would then be able to access funds for new media production. Let's call this the "Jim Henshaw point." :)
I think it's more than possible for reasonable people to disagree about an ISP levy. But not from a position of dishonesty about how the Canadian broadcast system truly works.
Like the broadcast system, ISP's are protected telcos and cablecos who are shielded from competition. They receive regulatory advantage every day they operate. The question is whether they should be made to give something back to the system. The WGC made a presentation for the 'Yes' side, and what's more, they did it without hysteria, and showing that they understood how the internet differs from the traditional broadcast system.
It will be interesting to see if opponents to the levy idea can bring themselves to argue their point on a level playing field, or if they'll conveniently omit how ISP's benefit from the kind of "protectionism" that they're decrying in the cultural community.
EDIT: Heard from a few more folks, and yup, I did think the questions were a little odd. The CRTC seemed to throw a lot of very technical questions at the Writers group. Considering the fact that they had the CFTPA this morning, who have more staff and resources and who co-sponsored the report, it was an odd area to focus on with the Writers.
The whole notion of "what is CanCon in the new media world" got only a cursory glance. Very strange.
Anyway, with that, I think we're capped here at Dead Things Labs about writing about these hearings. There'll be plenty of coverage of the ISP's and Broadcaster submissions that you can parse for yourself, and people like Michael Geist cover the whole Net Neutrality thing better than I could ever hope to.
It will be nice not to type the letters "C-R-T-C" for awhile. And anyway, I just got a go-ahead to go to script on one of my projects, so Daddy gets to be a real live screenwriter again. Yaaaay!
FROM THE "This shouldn't be this hard" file -- Mighty Maureen Parker and her group of secret WGCNinjas present today on behalf of Canadian writers. Hopefully the WGC's more nuanced case for the need for New Media support will demonstrate that somebody in the arts realizes that the net is all diffrent and stuff.
Multihyphenate John Sayles has been tapped to write HBO's series project based on the childhood of Red Hot Chili Peppers frontman Anthony Kiedis.Drama, tentatively titled "Scar Tissue" (the name of Kiedis' autobiography), centers on the rocker's early years living in West Hollywood with his father. At that time, Kiedis' dad, known as Spider, sold drugs and mingled with rock stars on the Sunset Strip, all while aspiring to get into showbiz (Daily Variety, Nov. 12).
I AM POSITIVELY queasy about the fact that I'm writing about the CRTC again. But here we go.
An unfortunate and persistent side effect of the times that we live in is that activism finds itself up against money, all the time. In the current hearings going into whether the CRTC will assert any jurisdiction over televised content over the internet, lobbyists for broadcasters and cable types blanketed the commission for months.
Currently on Twitter, if you search the comments regarding the CRTC, you won't see as many tweets about "keep your hands off the net" or "stop trying to control the net!" as you did a few days ago -- but they're still there.
The truth is that these are only the first set of hearings this year that will be dealing with the internet. And here's where the wisdom of the mob breaks down. Many of the same people who are currently crying that the CRTC should do nothing, and keep your hands off the net, are going to be arguing in a few weeks that the CRTC do something about net neutrality.
Well, folks, that's a load of bullshit.Either you're for free expression on the net or you're not. Either the CRTC has regulatory authority here, or it doesn't. Either you're with the corporate agenda of the Bells and the Rogers or you're not. Things are being decided in a windowless rooom in Gatineau. They will affect you. It's time you put down the tweet deck and read a few articles first.
Here's something else: the same artists and "arts groups" (not cultural workers or industry representatives, because that would make it sound like, um, you know, we were taxpayers or stakeholders or something) that are currently arguing for support are going to be the same people on your side in a few weeks when all that talk about "net neutrality" comes down. They're fighting for a place at the table. And your interests align with them -- not with Rogers, Bell, and the other ISP's. Just saying.
The other thing that came up last week was the potential change to the licensing requirements for OTA broadcasters. The CRTC has signalled that they're going to renew everyone for a year, and then when the hearings resume, they want broadcasters to present as a group. So over the air channels and specialty channels will be renewed at once. This is a good thing because it will hopefully put an end to the semantic games where people claim their channels are in the toilet, when the reality is that the viewership has largely shifted to other properties they own anyway.
Now, the other piece of info that was buried in that little call to action was the commission's idea that maybe for a year they would require a 1 to 1 spend on foreign to domestic programming.
This is an attempt to subtly reframe the debate that is going to require vigilance from the cultural industry.
The reality is when you talk about "foreign" spending versus "domestic" spending, it changes things. The ratios aren't that far apart. That's because "Domestic" spending includes things like local programming, news, and sports programming -- stuff that you can't exactly buy elsewhere. Believe me, if the Calgary Global affiliate had found a way to buy local Calgary news from L.A., they would have done it by now.
What's good about this from a broadcaster and commission point of view is that maybe, just maybe, you can kick up a catfight between those who are worried about local news, and the cut in spending and jobs there, and sports fans, and those who want spending on drama and comedy to be increased. You know, those programs that Vice Chair Arpin would rather read a book than watch.
Make no mistake. The place where the spending has gotten out of control in the last few years is foreign -- mostly American -- scriptedprogramming. Ten years ago they spend 6 dollars on American shows for every dollar they spent on homegrown. That went up to 12 to 1 in the last few years. In the last year it's ticked up a bit -- more like 9 to 1 -- because the license renewals were coming up, and the broadcasters always spend more to pretty up before they have to traipse up before the commission.
The battle in these cases is always "How do you define the issue?"
The ISP's so far have been really good at throwing down a smoke bomb, and saying they're "fighting for your rights" in the fight against creating any sort of content fund. In a few weeks, you'll see how much they're fighting for you as they patiently explain why they should be able to prioritize sites, shape your traffic, and control -- there's that word -- what you can and can't do with your internet service.
And down the road, when everyone starts talking "1 to 1" -- we have to all be vigilant and say, "isn't this really about what we get to see on TV? " What good is it having only the same shite we see on the U.S. channels? Who cares if they're on a Canadian or US channel at that point?" Maybe point out that all those specialty channels they bought that are supposed to be showing History or whatever just shovel the same old reruns. That Showcase is NOT a better channel just because it's one more place for House and CSI reruns.
A lot of the younger, wired people will quibble because they look at CanCon alternatives and see shows that they don't watch. I know I haven't had a whole lot of success talking to twenty-one year olds about Corner Gas. But if you want a cutting edge show like they have in Britain, say...if you want your own Mighty Boosh or maybe a shot at a Canadian Robot Chicken, this is why it's your fight, too.
Someone gets to define the future. Is it you? Or the people who've benefited so clearly from the past?
HEY, SO YES, I know we're behind up here. But I was watching DAMAGES last night. (What? Was there something else on? The correct answer is 'no, not really.') Anyway, nothing is too arch or out there for that show. It's already proved a friendly environment for actors to re-invent themselves. But one of my favorite recurring figures has to be the shady "fixer" character who's charged with doing all sorts of nefarious doings for the oil company at the heart of this year's conspiracy.
He's malevolent and still in every scene he's in. A guy who's one hundred percent coiled threat. Not because he's all buff and lunked out. No no no, this is corporate America, providence of the soft and pasty white man.
So the assassin figure, who has to fly under the radar and not get noticed, ever, when he's meeting with executives and other types, has to be a slightly pasty, white, and unassuming guy. The key is, he communicates that bone chilling degree of threat simply by force of personality: dead eyes, a flat affect, and a way of calmly looking through you that leaves no doubt that you are in the presence of an extreme sociopath.
The actor they chose to play the role, credited as "The Deacon," is Darrell Hammond.
Yup. That Darrell Hammond. The reliable, rubber faced comedian who's impersonated Clinton and Rumsfeld and Cheney, and so many others so well in his tenure on Saturday Night Live.
The key to his portrayal: stillness. For a guy who spends a lot of time contorting his face under makeup, it's a chance to do very little and do it all with a look.
An impressionist works through exaggeration. And in Damages, every moment he's on screen, Hammond does very little at all. And he's thoroughly creepy doing it.
He must be having an absolute ball. He's becoming my favorite part of the show.
