Listless in 2009

THE WEIRD THING of course, is that I'm usually right into the list thing.   I was that guy from High Fidelity for many, many years.  And on this blog, I did three year-end lists of the things that inspired me in the previous twelvemonth.


But the basic truth, and I know this will seem familiar to many of you, because it's something I've heard a lot of lately -- is that this year, I'm tired.  Just about the time I realized how tired I was, the decade lists started appearing -- and that made me downright exhausted.


I didn't join into a single, "you know, the Sopranos really debuted in 1999 so it's not really a show of the last decade..." arguments.  Usually that's kibble to me.  Fatigue can't explain it all.


I won't be sorry to see 2009 go.  It was a difficult year for me, and for many of my friends and relatives -- both personally, and professionally. Maybe the mojo from a decade sputtering out finally caught up with all of us.


So when I try to discern and delineate the things that inspired me this year... I have a tough time.  I got Top Tier on my Airline Miles.  That's never happened before.  I shall enjoy my upgrade certificates and doubtless nod sagely at all sorts of jokes in UP IN THE AIR that regular folk don't get...


...But I wouldn't call that inspiring.


The year started with work -- a difficult freelance assignment which I fully intend to write about with self-deprecating humility when the show finally airs. But that won't be a for awhile yet.


The career presented a whole host of choices in the first quarter, and against my better judgement, I went with my heart...and got royally burned.  But I'm proud of the work I did and treasure the experiences I had. And except for one bar fight I probably should have let unfold as God intended, I regret nothing about that time.   There's still professional stuff that I can mine for Canadian writers -- stuff about Contracts and things that I fully intend to write about ... it's just finding the time to order it so it's positive, affirming and helpful rather than a bitter shitshow.


It's not like 2009 didn't have its fun parts. A whole month off in the summer -- I haven't had that for five years and it was wonderful.  I got to spend time in NYC with a couple of my favorite people, and saw a great play, GOD OF CARNAGE.  


I got to spend more time with family this year -- my parents, Uncles, Cousins whom I never see...  and lo and behold, the year ended with one development project proceeding in a fine direction and another project appearing to challenge me in ways that I've never worked before.  So on balance, the narrative of the year isn't a negative one at all. 


But there's all these Goddamn LISTS...


And then ... A decade.  God.  Ten years ago I wasn't writing full time.  I was an unhappy television producer deep in the belly of network beast, seeing from that side just how little original production was respected, and how crazily and topsy turvy the talk would get from buyers who really thought that they were geniuses for going down to the L.A. screenings and watching TV.    


(*I should say that there are some very, very key exceptions to this attitude -- some programmers I know that were lovely people with great enthusiasms and infectious laughs.)


But see, being inside the network at that time was like living beside the magnet. The magnet distorted the natural order of things. The magnet made people who traded on the creativity of others seem more important than me, writing my little plays and trying to get out.  


But I wised up and got away from the magnet. And everything changed for the better.


So it's not a list per se, but maybe I'll just close the year by doing the thing a blog's supposed to do: pull back the personal curtain and hurtle into the overshare.


Here are some of the people who make one crazy writer's life bearable in the year 2009 and hopefully for a long time beyond:


Robert Sheridan is one of Canada's finest comedy writers.  He's smart and meticulous and committed.   We joke sometimes that our conversations are a race to see who can depress the other first, but really, we both share a healthy level of respect for professionalism and contempt for the lack of same.  If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well. I know if I ever read a Rob Sheridan script, I'm going to read a story that sparks and makes me laugh out loud at least twice.  And that's pretty fine in this world. He's a good ear, a loyal friend, and a fabulous enabler.


Peter & Diane Mohan are kind of the Den Father and Mother of a whole generation of Toronto (and sometimes outside Toronto) writers.  Diane is patient and wry, and puts up with -- well, I don't know how she... well, anyway... and Peter counsels restraint and shares his knowledge freely. He's the first guy to go to for advice.  And he's the best example of how to shake it off when the shitshow gets you down.


Howard Bernstein was my first boss over twenty years ago in journalism.  I've been waiting to try and put into practice the things he taught me about managing creative people for a long time.  This year I finally did, and they worked great, and had the situation been a bit different, it would have been glorious. But I'm convinced that the man did not offer a bum steer. And now, finally, after a long career in journalism, you can read his tough, uncompromising insights into what's going wrong with TV news at his blog.


Shelley Eriksen is not just a wonderful writer with a will of iron and a heart of fire, but she's also free with sharing her experiences both good and bad.  I would work in her story room in a heartbeat, and she will always have a place in mine.


Matt MacLennan was a guy I only knew socially before this year, but I've grown to appreciate not just his talent and his passion for the job but his loyalty and his passion for trying anything new.  In fact, before it gets sloppy, I should probably just group and come clean right now about all the writers I have terrible talent crushes on -- from Daegan Fryklind and Dennis Heaton, to Karen Hill, Elan Mastai, Anne Fenn, Wil Zmak, Susin Nielsen, Brent Butt, Geri Hall, Mark Farrell, Paul Mather, and Vera Santamaria.  Jason Belleville --  who will not let you go without making you laugh, Jocelyn Cornforth, Alex Epstein and Karen McClellan -- who also work the McGrath help line in regular shifts -- as well  as pretty much everyone I've ever gone to a writer brunch with.  


And then there's my friend of over twenty years, Mark Ellis. And suddenly, we can talk shop. Funny old world.


Then there's Karen Walton.  I can barely look directly into her eyes, such is the incandescence of her drive and her talent.  As an organizing force, a project juggler and a professional she is the gold standard and our industry's lucky to have her.


I should also put the shout out to the great Jim Henshaw and Will Dixon.  Aside from the fact that we all blog, Jim and Will and I have a rolling conversation via email that I wouldn't trade for anything in the world.  You wish you could read this shit. But you can't. In the words of the Daffy: "Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine!"


I also have the great fortune to serve on the WGC Council with a group of wonderful writers who do everything they can to try to make things better for our cohort in Canada: Chuck Lazer, Anne Marie Perotta, Sherry White, Jill Golick, Andrew Wreggit and WGC's President, Rebecca Schechter.  Hearing about the experiences of fellow travellers from all across Canada have hopefully made me somebody who doesn't live and die with that deadly "Toronto Focus."  And Sugith Varughese comes in regularly to keep us up to date as the WGC rep on the Actra Fraternal Benefit Society board. If you have money in that insurance plan, trust me on this one, you owe Sugith tapas, minimum.


Anyone who reads this blog regularly will know of my deep and abiding respect for Maureen Parker, Exec Director of the WGC.  Extend that same respect to Kathryn Emslie, who along with her Staff & Chairman Slawko Klymkiw keep the CFC humming.


And then there's the guy who's advice I turn to almost every day, my agent Glenn Cockburn.  Glenn's a man with vision and good humor to balance out the ambition.  God I hope I'm like that, too. That's kind of what I'm going for.


There's another agent -- well, Ex agent, who I admire and who inspires me intensely -- Elana Trainoff. For those of you not under the tent.... Elana used to be the Toronto based agent for The Alpern Group, after years working at the CFC.  But Elana recently decided that her dreams needed following, too.


So she quit and joined the FREAKING PEACE CORPS.


Admit it.  Your whiny little stuff and complaints seem small now, don't they? Mine sure do. THAT shit is inspiring, fullstop.


Oh, gosh...what about Diane Wild, who somehow runs TV Eh? as a hobby and shames the Canadian PR Corps in the process?  Or Editors Mr. MatthewPants Esquire and Jeffy, as well as new denizen CJ, who line my booth at the Paddock quite well, thank you. And Laura who will serve, sling and abuse.  Lisa's doing a good job of that too, lately.  


My world may be small, people. But I know what I like.


Anyway, there it is.  Inspiration.  People who make it possible for me to do what I do.  I'm sure there are many, many others. But it's growing late in the day, the sun's setting and a Florida sunset the night of a Blue Moon is something I won't deny myself, New Year or no.


Be safe and well and let's hope all our dreams soar in 2010.  You are all better looking than you think.


Happy New Year
Denis McGrath
Orlando, Florida, 12/31/2009

Carriage Fees: The U.S. Version

IT SHOULDN'T SURPRISE you to know that nothing in Canadian Television happens in a vacuum.  And so it is with the Cable TV - Broadcaster fight over "carriage fees." Or as KonRadvF (which I am hereby decreeing the Chairman of the CRTC's new "internet" spelling. Why? For the lulz, of course) would like to frame it:  "value for signal."


The Value for Signal proposition has been proceeding rather more quietly in the United States up til now.  CBS successfully negotiated a fee for programs with cable operators a few months back.  


Now all that's changing.  In a number of high profile markets (including the one where I'm currently parked, Orlando) carriage agreements expire December 31st.


And FOX is leading a push that might seem very familiar to Canadian viewers of the "Local TV Matters" "Stop the TV Tax" ads of the last several months.


The New York Times has a pretty good article on the lowdown. The upshot is that FOX is pushing for way more than anybody's ever gone for before -- up to a dollar a subscriber.  And that's resulted in a mini-version of the ad campaign Canadians have been seeing for months, catered for every market.


You can see some of the pics I took of the FOX-sponsored ads as they appear in recent editions of the Orlando Sentinel.  Elsewhere in the Times article they have the same ad, purposed for Time Warner Cable.


There are some key intriguing differences in the American-style fight that you have to understand going in, though, too:


1) Nothing's mandatory.   One of the points that the Canadian Cable and Satellite providers raised at the recent hearings that was actually quite valid was that they are required by law to carry the Canadian networks.  So they rightly turned about and said, "you can't make us carry them, and expect us to pay for them."  That would mean cable had no lever to negotiate. The Canadian networks could literally charge whatever they want.  In the U.S. system, cable is not required to carry anybody.  Even though fights like the current one have happened before (though never for so much money - a buck is a big jump) they usually get resolved because there IS pressure to both sides to come to a deal.  Customers want the channel because there's lots of programs on it that they like; cable wants to give the customers what they want so they can retain subscribers and keep their service valuable.

2) Affiliates -- The U.S. networks are a mix of what are called "Owned & Operated" stations and Affiliates.  "O&O's" are exactly what they sound like.  ABC owns several stations in major markets, CBS the same, etc.  Sometimes it's easy to tell, because of the station call letters:  WABC, or KNBC, for instance.  Besides the O&O's though, there is a large network of stations owned by smaller broadcast groups -- who pay to "affiliate" with the network for access to their programming, promotions, etc.  On these stations there are "network hours" where the advertising revenue is split between the nets and the local stations, and local hours, where all the ad money (and the responsibility to fill the airtime) goes to the local stations.  (Ie: local news hours, game shows or syndicated off-network sitcoms, etc.)


As I understand it, Cable started giving money to affiliates to carry their feeds years ago.  And now one of the fronts in the fight is the originating networks asking for some of that money back, since it's their marquee programming that makes those local stations valuable to carry.


In Canada, the nature of the "affiliate" culture went by the wayside a few years ago.  Now Global and CTV, and (mostly) CBC depend on stations that they own outright.  It's a different culture. (Very different, when you consider CTV, who once upon a time had a completely backward structure --  powerful affiliates with an anemic central network)


3) Tone of the ads -- if you're somebody into reading Tea Leaves, this is the most interesting part of the fight. First, in the FOX corner -- look at what they're threatening to pull.  Those are some programs. There really *is* a value to that signal.  


You now start to see the hole that the Canadian nets dug themselves into, after all those years of consolidation, cutting local shows and putting their entire focus on centralized schedules that relied almost completely on American shows.  It's not that framing the debate as "Save Local TV" was the best move. It's that it might have been the ONLY move.


But the difference that really matters is on the Cable side.  Last night I saw a Bright House ad responding to the FOX ads.  You can view the same spot on their website here.  It was calm, reassuring, explained that this was business, and it happened all the time and that nobody's going to lose their signal come New Year's day and they'll reach some sort of agreement just as they always do.   The print ad tries to make the same point, in much the same way.


Notice -- no hysteria, or histrionics, or "Stop the TV tax!" stuff.  (Although Time Warner's got a bit more heft in their RollOverorGetTough.com site...)  They know the value of their product -- and they also know that their business model's way more secure than the Networks' though for the next little while the fortunes are both are inextricably linked. 


Of course, this being the United States, somebody's also figured out a way to sue.


FOX is playing high stakes poker here, and going for a big grab, but the reaction isn't anywhere near as OTT.  I don't know what could possibly explain the cultural difference, except maybe that what we saw in Canada was two industries that are used to going to the CRTC and getting whatever they wanted, in terms of "goodies bestowed" from on high.  Maybe this is one of those cases where you don't pull out the grenade because you know at some point you're gonna have to shake hands and solve it yourselves. And it's harder to shake somebody's hand when you've just blown it off.


Or maybe I'm wrong, neither side will blink, Florida viewers won't get to see the Sugar Bowl, and the Panhandle will be burning by Friday.


Stay tuned -- if you can!


UPDATE:  lookieloo. they have a deal.  See?  It's possible. Think KonRadvF is on the phone yet?

Watching 2.0

HAVE YOU GIVEN any thought to how much "watching TV" has changed for you in the last decade?  Jill Golick has.

BitTorrents arrived on the scene in 2005.  The pilot for Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip got leaked onto the web during the summer of 2006. Remember that first bootleg pre-air of Studio 60 that was passed from writer to writer?  It was so exciting.

That same year,  “pre-airs” flooded the net and we watched nearly the entire American season before it launched.  It so cool.

Around the same time, torrents brought me a whole new world of British tv series.  I  used to feel like I had the contraband watching Shameless, Skins, Jeckyll.   It was like being a global television citizen.  Although, UK, US and Canada hardly a globe makes.  I still haven’t gotten to know much of the Aussie product and there’s that one German cop series that has been discussed and blogs and yet the torrent for it remains elusive.  Still, the world is wider and I imagine that twenty ten will widen it still.

I'm working on a new post that'll go up, oh, um.  Well. Sometime.  Yeah. Sometime.


In the meantime, here's Jill.

Up and Comers

I'M STILL doing the inter-holiday hibernate special. But Cassandra Szklarski, of the Canadian Press has an article about some of the new Canadian shows that are coming up over the next few months.  Szklarski is a regular friend of Canadian creatives in the reporter class -- she's always doing articles like this.  

There may be a chill in the air, but things are heating up on the tube as several new Canadian series prepare to launch in early 2010. From the long-awaited return of the Kids in The Hall to a sexy adaptation of the Giller Prize-winning book "Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures" to a potty-mouthed Jason Priestley, there are plenty of homegrown series on tap for those snowed-in nights.

Good for her. And maybe for us, too. These shows sound pretty offbeat and interesting. Read the rest of the article here.

A Visit from von Finckenstein

(with deep, deep, deep apologies to Clement Clarke Moore)

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house, Not a creature was stirring, Not even a louse.

The cable bill was flung on the ledge with despair

In hopes new antennas would grab HD off air.

Ivan in his kerchief, and Len in his cap

Had settled back down, for their post-hearing nap.

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter

sounded just like that douche yelling "local TV matters."

Away to the window I flew with a shoe

Thought maybe I'd nail the "TV tax" guy too.

The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow,

Gave a sterile appearance quite like Gatineau.

When, what to my wondering eyes did appear,

But a passel of bureaucrats looking severe.

And their driver, so precise and rigid of spine,

I knew in a moment twas von Finckenstein.

He mumbled and shouted in such a great barrage,

saying "value for signal,  not fee for carriage!"

"On Rogers! On Global! You too, CTV!

Bring me solutions, not money for free!"

"To the back rooms! Committees! There's deals to be made!

Throw out an idea, not just a grenade!"

As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,

came reams of paper, a snowstorm in the sky,

Up to the house-top the courses they flew,

With a sleigh full of arguments, and Jim Shaw too.

He was green, with a twinkling, and his face in a pinch

And I knew there and then that this dude was the Grinch.

"Here's what I want," he shook with his fist,

"You better sit down, cause it's quite a long list."

Von Finck whispered nervous, "we should move along,"

But Shaw slapped him back, saying, "this is my song!"

He pawed at my aerial, wrecking the mount, and claimed

that Canadians just couldn't count.

"Let the market decide, stay out of our way! 

But don't dare try to tell us how much they should pay!"

Shaw poked through the sack and found all U.S. shows,

and he shook his green head and said, "Finky, this blows."

Von Finck, how he brooded! Til they forged a detente,

and Finky admitted "well, that's all they want."

"I try to encourage, cajole and yes, shame.

But you know, our broadcasters are unspeakably lame."

The Grinch poked the sack and said, "most of it's junk,"

Von Finck sighed and nodded, said, "and thus, there's my funk."

It was round about now that these two got my goat,

I announced my appearance by clearing my throat.

Their eyes snapped to me and I felt a great dread,

And I wished with each fibre that I'd just stayed in bed,

"Who are you?" They demanded, with no ounce of fear.

"Where's your written remarks and notice to appear?"

I held my ground, said, "I just wish to note,

I know I'm supposed to just work the remote.

But now that you're here, I'll try a new tack,

Can you tell me what's there for me in that sack?"

The Grinch shrugged, and mumbled and von Finck went pale,

Then Shaw booked for a profile from the Globe & Mail.

Relief flooded through me, there'd be no background noise,

From the guy who hawks porn but hates Trailer Park Boys.

I then fixed my gaze on the man of the year,

Hoping his solutions I soon would hear,

But he shook his head sadly and said with a sob,

"Skinny basic? Unbundling? Man I hate my job."

So I patted his head, and offered a snort.

And he admitted he didn't have much to report.

So I said, "I'll be brief. And let's start with a fact.

Are we still trying to follow the broadcasting act?"

His eyes started glazing, and I held up my hand,

Said I'd keep my promise, and make short my demand.

"On gaffer, on seamstress, on writer, and grip,

On actor and P.A. and director so hip,

When we come before you, you seem so polite,

But like we don't really matter, and that, sir, aint right."

For it's we who make things, we haul and make fast.

We don't just sell pipe, or simulcast,

So when you consider a future direction,

Please Santa von Finck, can we have some protection?"

He stared straight ahead and he said not a word,

For a moment the whole thing seemed rather absurd,

Then, in a low voice he said something bold,

"Man." Said von Finck, "is it freaking cold."

So there in the midst of the holiday heather,

Two hosers a-sat, discussing the weather.

The hour grew late, and I ran out of beer,

And the man rose to leave, and I wished him good cheer.

But I heard him exclaim, as he rode out of sight,

"Licence renewals in April! Man will that be a fight."

Happy Holidays everybody. Be safe.  DMc

A Pox on All Your Houses -- oh, and Happy Holidays!

I'M GETTING READY to pull out of Dodge and drive into oblivion,  (Glad that blizzard hit the East Coast YESTERDAY...) but before I do there's one more kick to be had at the TV-fight can.

This subject has been woefully under-covered in the Canadian press, and it's not hard to figure out why.  Newspapers showed up for the first days of the latest round of CRTC hearings -- when the broadcasters and cablers sturmed and dranged, and sucked the air out of the room by making what was supposed to be a review of the Canadian broadcasting system since 1999 all about Carriage Fees -- for the THIRD TIME...

Discussion of later issues, indeed, any coverage at all beyond that narrow frame, was ignored.  The Globe and Mail continues to feel the chill of writing honestly about anything that might reflect badly on corporate parent CTV. And the Post and Canwest Papers have their own issues with broke Daddy broke.

The disappointing thing here has been The Toronto Star -- by a miracle of turndowns and vagaries of this or that -- is one of the only papers in the country WITHOUT a significant finger in the broadcast pie.  But they followed the pack and didn't do much to elucidate and illuminate the issue, either.

Well, the Sunday Star today makes an attempt to rectify that, with a series of three articles.

Bill Brioux, of the TVFeedsMyFamily parish, lets loose on the guff that the broadcasters have been giving.

The Canadian broadcasters claim that – especially during the recent recession – their business model is irreversibly broken and that they can no longer survive off ad revenue alone.

What they really want is for the government and ultimately taxpayers to bail them out after decades of reckless overspending on American shows.

The dark side to the whole Canadian broadcast story the past decade or so has been the limitless, reckless overspending – especially by CTV – in order to attain total dominance in the marketplace. CTV has owned the Canadian Top-20 nationally the past decade with its deep line-up of American hits – American Idol, the CSIs, The Amazing Race, Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, the list goes on and on.

During – and, really, because of – that drive to dominance, the cost of importing American shows skyrocketed. Still, it seemed, no price was too high to keep a potential hit away from arch rival Canwest Global.

Yours truly tears a strip out of Canada's cable bullies:

Forgive an old cynic, but cable leading the "Stop the TV tax" charge is kind of like the schoolyard bully turning around and telling you you've hurt his feelings. Satellite companies like Bell Expressvu, who aren't as profitable, (they have to pay for those satellites, after all) earn equal disdain for throwing in with the disingenuous tubthumping.


Like every good story, this one comes with a late-breaking twist. The wireless divisions of our new "consumer friendly" carriers got a shock when the government overruled a CRTC decision on Globalive Wireless Management Corp. Wireless phone competition – and maybe foreign ownership – the industry's last big protection – is on its way. I wonder if they feel that one in their bones. I can't wait for the next ad campaign.

And Garnet Fraser, Sunday Star editor -- raises that provocative point that maybe there's some blame to point at our own houses.

In poll after poll – see the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting at friends.ca if you don't believe me – the public has said it wants distinctly Canadian broadcasters and programs. But we'd rather that someone else do the watching. U.S. imports dominate the ratings of private broadcasters; heck, even the CBC does it with British stuff (Coronation Street and the co-production The Tudors).


Last week CTV and Global put out duelling news releases crowing about all of their shows in the top 10. But the shows aren't really their shows; they're the likes of House and CSI. These networks wouldn't mind if their own creations (e.g. DeGrassi) were charting instead; heck, they'd prefer it, as popular shows also sell more DVDs, etc. that the shows' owners would greatly profit from.
But that's not what most Canadians want to watch, whatever we tell pollsters. And it's not like Canadian broadcasters don't sometimes make a pretty decent effort to woo us.

I must admit when I was writing my piece, I found myself in a very weird place with all this.  Weird because I'm currently researching an MOW on a figure in Canadian history -- that of course nobody I seem to meet and talk with casually seems to have ever heard of.   Being American-born, there is something really astonishing about that to me.  I grew up hearing, like everybody else, that "Canadian history is boring."  Right now, I'm learning just how false that is, and how terrible and pernicious that misapprehension is... it probably goes a long way to explaining the conundrum Garnet explores above.

But every time I tell people what I'm working on, there's all this tedious explaining to do.  The equivalent would be if I had to explain who Davy Crockett was to an American. But of course, you'd never have to do that. Not in a million years.

I don't know how a country with such a complete disconnect from itself ultimately survives. But there you go.

It's hard to boil down a problem -- especially one that leaves you with such a feeling of disgust -- to 600 words.   And were there more enterprising and courageous journalists in this country covering the most corporate concentrated media in the world, perhaps one or two might have wondered at how the Broadcast Execs could have repeated the falsehood that "Canadian shows don't make money," when the CRTC has a report prepared by the WGC and other groups showing how patently untrue that is.

But we live in a nation of "official truths," not "real truths."  Where we try to destroy truthtellers instead of embrace them and learn from them.  Where we have no idea where we've been, so no inspiration for where to go next.

No wonder it's so easy to frame a false debate between "saving local tv" and "tv taxes."

And remember, folks, it IS a false debate:




Anyway, hopefully I won't be writing any more about this bullshit.  Through it all I never did get my big questions answered:  1) Howcum U.S. channels make all sorts of money on their local newscasts (so much so that Jay Leno's 10pm numbers are a BIG problem for affiliates) but here, those same newscasts are framed as big money losers?  How is that not just an example of the sales team not being very good at their business?  And the 2nd one -- Corner Gas, our biggest homegrown hit -- a show that was paired with any number of U.S. sitcoms through the years that it regularly beat -- why were commercials in it sold at a discount from shows it was completely outrating?

No matter how you uncoil the tail of Canadian TV it seems, you get caught in the slime trail.

And with that I point my car south.  Happy Holidays to you all.  Stop the Reindeer Tax.  Save Local Elves.

Great Moments in Bad Science

YOU KNOW, sometimes Academics really stretch.  But I've avoided writing about this article on a study done somewhere for two days just because I couldn't get past how stupid it was.

Through a set of ingeniously concocted experiments, reported Friday in the journal Science, researchers show that white characters in television series display far more negative body language toward their black peers than to members of their own race.

The bias conveyed by these body clues is not only recognized subconsciously by people who watch the shows, but significantly influences their feelings about the black characters.

I'm too weary to go into it further. But let's start from the top:

TV storytelling is about characters in conflict.  Therefore, any study of "tv body language" is going to be skewed because on TV, unlike in life, people are ALWAYS IN CONFLICT.

Comparing relations and body language of say, "House  and Foreman" vs. "House and Wilson" that doesn't take into account not just the race of the character, but their social relationship to the other character, the genre of the show, the way they tell stories...all of it...is BULLSHIT.

Phrenology & "subliminal" science -- that's about the weight of this.

I would love to see this study, I really would. I bet any TV writer, no matter how addled, could demolish it simply by comparing how they've cherrypicked character relationships, in about twelve seconds.

Completely fucking stupid.

A Writer's Appreciation: Dan O'Bannon

SCRIBE OF ALIEN & great sharer of his talent, Dan O'Bannon was one of the good ones. Jim Henshaw has an appreciation of the kind of screenwriter who I aspire to be -- not just successful, but generous and inspiring and willing to pay it forward.

Go read.

Lord I Want To Be In That Number...

WHISKEY, RADIOHEAD, a 100 year old autobiography, a moleskin for notes and the watchful eyes of St. Clare, Patron saint of Television.  (courtesy of Chantal Jackson)


Bliss on a cold Canadian winter night, coming on Christmas.

Damn!

FIRST, Shit My Dad Says gets a movie deal, now Epstein relates how LOLCats is driving new creative frontiers.

Does this mean I actually have to spend MORE time trolling the Internet?


The Horror.


In any case, let this be the nail in the "where do you get your ideas?" questions for awhile.

Clearly if you have to ask, you're not in the game.


Hitman Monkey. Jesus.

Things That Make Me Laugh

I'M ON A bunch of email lists at the various Canadian networks.  I'm regularly shovelled press releases, 90% of them for shows that I have zero interest in. (Have I *ever* written about The Bachelor? No? Precedent set, then.) 


But I do get them.  And sometimes they're on point.  And most of the time, at the very least if they manage to get the time and channel right (not always a given in the Canadian media game) they can be useful.  


So it was that I half-remember receiving a press release about a new Doctor Who special airing on the SPACE channel here sometime in the next few weeks...


...Hang on, if I'm going to blog this I guess I should do the plug.  Okay. There.  

January 2nd at 8pm, after a full day of a Doctor Who marathon, the SPACE channel will have the Canadian premiere of David Tennant's last Doctor Who appearance, Doctor Two: End of Time.  

There we go. Plug over.


Anyway, the release isn't the funny part. The funny part is the follow up received this morning.  And I don't know if you're going to find it funny or not. But see, I worked at the Space channel for years, and had many many interactions with those lovable Sci-fi fans, and especially the very -- how are we going to put this -- particular Doctor Who diehards.


And so, for whatever reason, I found this funny:

So, there you go, citizens.  I've blocked out the publicist's name out of sheer human decency, but I'm sure that she (or he) is now resting comfortably at Ivan Fecan's Cottage Country chalet-bunker, contemplating his (or her) return to civilian life under a new identity.


That is all.

This is Pretty Smurfed Up

You Say You Want a Revolution?

THE MOST INTERESTING thing I heard on the subject of "new media" and storytelling last week was relayed to me by someone who attended the first World Congress of Screenwriters in Athens, Greece last month.

Apparently there was this presentation, see.  All about the British networking and social media site Bebo.  Bebo is  a UK Facebook for Under 18's.  In 2007-08 they an original web series called "Kate Modern." This was basically a Brit Lonely Girl15, made by the same producers for the British audience and premiered on Bebo.

Because it's viewable and eminently trackable, the makers of Kate Modern could see how the viewers interact with the material.  (Oh, yeah, it's interactive -- cause everything has to be interactive, right? Because this newfangled generation, they demand it! Their minds are wired differently!)

So there should be all that juicy data about who was doing video blogs, sharing clues, theories, and "taking part in" the world, right?

Well apparently what they found out was that about  1 - 2% of the users were "highly interactive" with the material.

...about another 9% or so were "somewhat interactive" with it.

...and 90%?  Watched it completely passively.  Just like TeeVee.

Oh Brave New World that has such people in it!

This Song of Mine, In Three Quarter Time...

I DON'T KNOW why this is, but it seems like every year for the past several, I've developed this new Christmas ritual:  I get hooked on a line from a Christmas song, and that line drills its way around my head for the whole season.  I like the shape of it, the feel, the cadence -- and for the remainder of the holiday walk-up I seek out and listen to that song over and over to be entwined and enraptured by that line again and again.  Maybe it's a defensive move to keep all the rest of the holiday out, who knows.


In past years, it's been that immortal first line of River by Joni Mitchell, "coming on Christmas, they're cutting down trees, putting up reindeer and singing songs of joy and peace."  Or "come down to the manger, see the little stranger." One year, I found myself determined to learn the latin for "Adeste Fideles" -- seeing as I just missed that whole "Catholic Latin" window.


This year, the line's from The Christmas Waltz --  it's the title of this post. I don't know why this little song has never been on my playlist before. But there it is.  I've Itunesd Joe Williams and Rosemary Clooney to augment my Sinatra recording. The phrase that pays has presented itself. One more Christmas tradition, sorted.


Of course there are others. Especially this time of year people start making their lists.  This year, all the deeper because, of course, now we can do "best of the decade" lists.


I'm not ready to wade into all that.  Though I maintain that I would like to put in a vote for naming the decade almost past, the "Uh - O's" -- since that pretty neatly encompasses the prevailing feeling in our threat level orange world.


One other thing came up amidst friends the other night. A very writerly kind of query, that I'd love to extend to all of you now: What's your favorite word?


I was caught by surprise, but managed to pull up two of my favorites:  plethora and obstreperous ... but forgot peripatetic --  also a fave.


So there it is then. No lists, but lyrics and words.  You wanna add to the fun? Have at it below.  And don't get too crazy out there in the malls.  

And Then There's Clong.

FOR THE LIFE of me, I can't believe this word hasn't come up in Sticksville before. But here it goes.


CLONG.


Clong, as it was taught to me by my mentors at the CFC  at a time that seems so long ago now, is defined as, "a sudden rush of shit to the heart."


It's the moment where you realize that you have bitten off more than you can chew, where you know that you're not just working on a theoretical project; that the task before you is daunting and what's more, that it's not just about making a movie.


There are projects where the movie is the movie.  And there are projects where, sadly, the movie doesn't even matter. And then there's the third kind. The kind where you very quickly sniff the sense of responsibility. The idea that, um, there are people who really, really, really care about how this one goes. And it's not just you and your Mom and the Producer and the Producer's mom and the Network Executive and the squishy, acid filled birthing pod that they...


...alright, that's cheap and uncalled for.  Just trying to cut the tension.  Oh I know you're not feeling tension. I mean me.  You know what that tension sounds like? 


It's really, really loud, and it sounds kind of like this ... say it with me, now...


CLONG! 


Today, I got to pore over documents about the Second Anglo-Boer War, (or if you're so inclined, the Vryheidsoorloeë,) while visiting the Military Museums in Calgary, and if you get a chance to take in these fine museums, you really should...they're something else.  I  talked military life and ethics -- a fascinating talk -- with an incredibly helpful and inspiring guy named Ted MacLeod. 


Anyway -- you flip through bits and pieces, koan like clues to the life you wish to portray, a life lived on such a large canvas you find yourself making jokes about it.  "Like Forrest Gump," you say.  "But for keeps."  You wonder who would not feel humbled by the size of that canvas and you come up with names like Teddy Roosevelt or Churchill or Mark Twain or Golda Meir and then you realize it's way worse than telling a story about those people because those people all had at least some level of recognition in the public mind and then your head starts racing again and it's a total clongfest.


So you have one small whiskey and you go to sleep, because tomorrow, way too early, you have to drive to Edmonton.  


And you realize that these little mood swings are going to be your constant companion for the next couple months.


clof.


(That's what it sounds like through the Advil haze.  Good night.)

Bubbling Up

A TIRING DAY -- first big foray into research for new project.   Calgary is cold but I'm warmed by the wealth of info ahead and the possibilities this new story presents.  Ideally, you always want to be able to change and grow a little outside your comfort zone on every project.


Well I'm way outside the zone.  


Today I was ushered into a back room and shown pieces -- little objects of history.  And beyond medals and trinkets there were things with heft -- uniforms.  Why is that uniforms retain a shape  that say, a sweater never does?  There it sits in a drawer locked away and you could reach out and feel the wale and the buttons between your fingers.  If you didn't have to wear white gloves, I mean.


Anyway...it's daunting and it's going to be a challenge and my Christmas is pretty shot right through with obsessing and reading and arranging and carding and discarding and dreaming.  And Gosh, I wouldn't have it any other way.


And I get to indulge my inner historian a bit too. Massive win all 'round.

The Quotable Parker

POSTED W/O FURTHER COMMENT -- this is taken from Brendan Kelly's article in today's VARIETY.  (emphasis is mine.)

Canadian auds get their say

MONTREAL The bitter fight over the future of the TV biz in Canada is set to heat up again this week, with the public poised to weigh in on the debate.

CTVglobemedia executive VP Paul Sparkes warns that if the networks don't get a monthly fee from the cable and satellite companies, "we'll be closing stations and the government will have to deal with that."

The exec went even further, saying the media giant might even close major-market stations or get out of the free-to-air TV business altogether to focus on its more profitable cable channels.

If there is no extra money, CTV wants the rules changed to allow it to pull its network from cable systems like Rogers.

Worse yet for viewers, CTV owns the Canuck rights to U.S. shows such as "Desperate Housewives" and could force Rogers to black them out when they appear on the U.S. webs that Rogers carries, such as ABC.

Meanwhile, cable execs claim the networks are looking for an unwarranted handout.

"We're not the ones that are destroying the system," Rogers senior VP Ken Engelhart says. "We're the ones that lost money for years. (The TV networks) have had one bad year and they're saying the sky is falling."

Rogers execs say the Canuck networks are in an irrational bidding war for U.S. shows, which is a big part of the reason they're losing money -- and it's true that spending on American fare has risen sharply in recent years.

CTV also would like the CRTC to radically reduce the Canadian-content requirements for terrestrial networks, which forces them to fill 60% of their weekly skeds with expensive, locally produced shows. CTV would like to see that quota cut to 35% to help their bottom line.

That's an idea that has Canadian screenwriters seeing red.

The response of Maureen Parker, executive director of the Canadian Writers Guild, is unequivocal.

"We'd say -- 'Good-bye, see ya, get out of the business.' They just don't want to make Canadian television. That's their bottom-line position. They overspend in L.A. and it results in a very unhealthy business environment for everyone because there's no money left for Canadian drama." 

Way to go, Maureen.

Agency party tonight, then off to Calgary tomorrow to research for the new project.  Take care, and if you happen to be in Toronto tonight, I dare say the writer-rip up to beat is Paul Quarringon and the Pork Belly Futures at the Dora Keogh.

Network Viral: It Can Be Done.

IF THE CANADIAN NETWORKS manage to survive to 2013, they should be just about caught up enough in their thinking to start trying to engage with viral videos like, oh, other networks are doing in 2009...

The Little Things

MANAGED TO SCORE some episodes of the eighth season of SPOOKS, the Brit show that's one of the inspirations for The Border.

One of the things you sometimes see on Brit dramas are dodgy American accents.  Spooks/MI-5 has had its good and its bad over the years.  In the current series (the show's eighth) Irish Actress Genevieve O'Reilly takes on the role of the new CIA Liasion to MI-5.

But it's not the accent that jars.

Nope, in the second episode, she takes on a false identity, that of "Victoria Franklin," who she id's as named after "her favorite U.S. President."

Ouch.

I suppose you could say she was taking the name from Franklin Roosevelt, or hell, even Franklin Pierce.  But most Americans in the know, seeing as it's the last name, would probably associate it with Ben Franklin.

Who of course...was never President.

Ouch.

It's the little things that will kill ya.  I remember in my 1st ep of The Border, we scripted chatter between scrambled F-16's and the ground.  And there was a hole in the cut where the stock would go. And when the stock got put in, of course, the plane was an F-15.  D'oh!

People notice.

Nitpickers.

Like me.

Curse you, Internets!

DMc: Bold Cultural Commentator, Massive Douche? Or Both?

WELL COLOUR ME SURPRISED.


The podcast is now up for my appearance on CBC Radio Q yesterday.


The discussion starts around 21:30 with an interview with the (surprisingly reasonable) Communications Director from the Parents Television Council, and continues with me and Timothy Jay, the author of Cursing in America: A Psycholinguistic Study of Dirty Language in the Courts, in the Movies, in the Schoolyards and on the Streets

Wow that title alone makes me want to drop an F-bomb or two.

Interestingly enough, although I immediately heard from the usual passel of friends and well-wishers saying, "heard you! sounds good" -- the fact that I also got more than one email from people who remain "highly offended" by the use of the word "douche" on TV (and by Michael Buble's use of the word to describe himself on Q, which sparked the segment yesterday in the first place.)


Now my impulse is to say, "wow, with everything people have to worry about, we make a stand on language on TV? Really?" That certainly seems to be one of the prevailing sentiments on the Q blog about the subject.

And yet...and yet... the response I got makes this easily the most controversial appearance I've had on the show. Even though I would argue that I've said way more provocative things on the radio in the past. Goes to show that whatever the conventional wisdom says, people will care about what they care about, not what you think they should care about. It's a good lesson for writers to always keep in mind.

So yeah, maybe it might be great to kill your hero or get that cat...

...but then again. Maybe not. Not if it makes the audience hate you.

One of the negative emails I got to the appearance raised the point that as a man, I really had no right to pass judgement one way or another on the use of the word 'douche.' I'd like to excerpt a little of what I wrote back. I started by pointing out that I think Jay made the point of the segment when he said that society cannot function where we go by what riles the most-easily offended. Then I wrote:

I also really think we hit a slippery slope if the only metric of whether something is offensive or not comes with the proper sex organs or racial orientation attached. What is the difference between that and the argument that only black people can write books featuring black characters, or only deaf people can play deaf people in the movies?  A non-disabled actor has no ability to play someone in a wheelchair?  I don't want to create art in that world.  It's a trap.

South Park did a pretty interesting episode a couple of weeks ago where a similar issue was explored around the use of the word "faggot."   The boys used the word to describe Motorcycle riding guys who were obnoxious, and were taken to task for being homophobic, though it was clear from their stunned reactions that the boys didn't associate that word with "gay" at all.  During the episode they managed to sneak in some of the etymology of "faggot" in there -- and uncovered that long before its association with gay people, it had other meanings -- women, heretics, soldiers drafted into armies and on and on.  Meanings change.

Similarly, where do we go with "bitch?" There's a word that was rehabilitated, robbed of its power largely by -- not women -- but gay men using it with each other, reframing it to something harmless.  That was a pretty serious word to throw around when I was a child.  Now it's mild enough that a singer could have a hit song saying "I'm a bitch, I'm a lover...etc etc." Damn catchy song.  All for the better.

I recognize that there are people out there who do find the word offensive. But the problem here is that you find it offensive because of a usage and a connotation completely divorced from the context of its current use.  By that logic, we should all not be able to use "damn" because to highly religious people, "damning" someone is serious business. 

In high school, I learned the danger of living in a context where what was offensive hewed to the most conservative definition.  I was banned from doing school announcements because I said, "What the hell?" in relation to something -- and that offended one of the highly Christian teachers.

I think in Canada, part of the reason why our art is so mild much of the time is that we use that same metric.  And I don't think it's good for either pushing the envelope of art, discourse and society.  

The other point I never got to make on the radio was that, of course, I do consider that portion of the audience (which includes my Sainted Catholic Papa, by the way) when I'm writing dialogue and cursing into dramatic scripts. One of the differences of opinions I employed on a recent show was where I'd try to shy away, whenever possible, from using "Goddamn!" or characters saying, "Jesus Christ!" because I know that there is still a very large segment of the population that might otherwise have no problem with what I was writing that would view the use of those words as a dealbreaker. Seeing as I was writing for a public broadcaster, and you could easily get at the intent and the cadence and truth of the scene by employing other salty language instead, I generally try to avoid using those epithets. Not because I'm censoring myself, but because the need to use those specific terms is low. And sometimes I think there are writers who'd use them MORE because they disagreed with religion so much that they were delighted to "stick it" to the faithful.


Now, does that make me inconsistent with the use of the word "douche?" I don't think so, cause I don't think that the opinion on that word is anywhere near as settled and universal as the number of people who'd be offended by dropping "Goddamnit!" into a script.


Does that make me a hypocrite? Or merely a big douche?


Couldn't resist. Sorry. Have at it in the comments below.

Cussin

APPARENTLY I'LL BE on CBC Radio's Q tomorrow about 10:30 am ET, jawin about whether Tv is getting worse with the potty mouth.


My father will be so #@&%ing proud.