The Bully Pulpit & The President of the United States

WOW. YOU DON'T see this often in America. You don't even see this very often in Question Period in Ottawa -- and it's supposed to be a part of our political system in Canada. Contrast this with prorogation of government business and it looks even more notable.

It will be interesting to see how the media screws this up. But for now, here's one of the most astonishing exchanges I've seen in recent American politics. The President of the United States went to Baltimore to meet and answer questions from GOP Congressmen -- and he just spoke plain truth.

Will anybody have the guts to pick up the glove he just laid down?

Not if Rush & Bill & Michelle have anything to say about it, I'm sure. But what happens on CNN the next time somebody goes off the reservation and starts talking socialism and "death panels?"

Guess we'll see.



...At its core, if you look at the basic proposal that we've put forward: it has an exchange so that businesses and the self-employed can buy into a pool and can get bargaining power the same way big companies do; the insurance reforms that I've already discussed, making sure that there's choice and competition for those who don't have health insurance. The component parts of this thing are pretty similar to what Howard Baker, Bob Dole, and Tom Daschle proposed at the beginning of this debate last year.

Now, you may not agree with Bob Dole and Howard Baker, and, certainly you don't agree with Tom Daschle on much, but that's not a radical bunch. But if you were to listen to the debate and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot. No, I mean, that's how you guys -- (applause) -- that's how you guys presented it.

And so I'm thinking to myself, well, how is it that a plan that is pretty centrist -- no, look, I mean, I'm just saying, I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say this is actually what many Republicans -- is similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.

So all I'm saying is, we've got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality. I'm not suggesting that we're going to agree on everything, whether it's on health care or energy or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don't have a lot of room to negotiate with me.

I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America.

And I would just say that we have to think about tone. It's not just on your side, by the way -- it's on our side, as well. This is part of what's happened in our politics, where we demonize the other side so much that when it comes to actually getting things done, it becomes tough to do...

 ...I mean, we've got to be careful about what we say about each other sometimes, because it boxes us in in ways that makes it difficult for us to work together, because our constituents start believing us. They don't know sometimes this is just politics what you guys -- or folks on my side do sometimes.

So just a tone of civility instead of slash and burn would be helpful. The problem we have sometimes is a media that responds only to slash-and-burn-style politics. You don't get a lot of credit if I say, "You know, I think Paul Ryan is a pretty sincere guy and has a beautiful family." Nobody is going to run that in the newspapers.

2040Haha

GREAT ARTICLE in Huffington Post (by Omri Marcus) about what's going to be funny in 30 years...(further to the below, I guess.)  I'm not going to excerpt because you really should go read the whole thing.  (H/T to Jill Golick via Twitter)

On the other hand, here's an article that really isn't very funny at all.  What, now, 52% of the population, and 58% of the TV audience or something?

Oh, and the delightful Jude Klassen passes along this link that goes very spicily with the article above.

What Ipad Tells Us About Writing in the Instant Age

WITHIN FIVE SECONDS of Jobs' announcement Wednesday, the jokes started flying on Twitter & the other Social Networks.


Yes. Ipad. We get it. Like with Menstruation. 


After ten minutes, just about every piece of low-hanging fruit had been picked -- multiple times -- from quips about wings and flow to musings about how clearly no women worked at Apple, etc, etc, etc.


Aside from the icky quaintness of it all (one female friend of mine sniffed, "are these people straight out of Mad Men? I've seen a pad like, twice,") I found two things monumentally numbing and depressing:  1) how quickly it all went down, and 2) how many people reached for the same, unfunny, instantly stale observations -- and how proud everybody was to make them.


The democratization of punditry sure aint pretty.


By mid-afternoon, the only joke I'd laughed at, even a bit, had grown stale -- the one about how people from Boston were going to have trouble telling the difference between the "Ipad" and the "Ipod."


Not a great line, to be sure...but at least it went a different way.


And that's where we reach our teachable moment. 


See, even in the age where everyone's potentially a publisher & a content creator, the relationship between wheat & chaff exists.  Digging up a two-year old MadTV sketch that anticipated the Ipad -- and played out every single possible funny permutation of the joke -- before it was news -- just drove the point home.


Just because we all use pens & computers, and can tweet our thoughts, doesn't make us wits ... or, for that matter, writers.


Even in abundance, there is scarcity. For the scarcity comes from those who can make truly original observations about things -- be they events, or trends, or even just the reality of life.  In the dark days of the 1980's, when comedy clubs with red brick walls sprung up like kudzu all across North America, the very embodiment of the lame, hack comedian was doing jokes about airplane food. 


Flash ahead to 2010, and you don't need to have your tray table locked and upright to see that true wit, or an original take -- isn't really any more common than it used to be.


Lame Ipad jokes will always die beside fresher comic takes, like this one from The Onion on Apple Mania.


The comics I worshipped in my youth -- George Carlin, Richard Pryor -- got to where they were because they made the connections no one else made.  Someone once described George Carlin as the guy who pointed out stuff you already knew, but forgot to laugh at the first time.


Now, comedy burns out fast sometimes.  Anyone watching an archived Lenny Bruce set might have trouble getting their head around why he was so groundbreaking. He doesn't even seem funny.  Steve Allen is another one.  I can appreciate contextually why he was so important, but time has not been kind to his routines.


Then you look at a guy like, say, Michael O'Donaghue or Bill Hicks, and you think, "wow, I'm not sure society's ready for those guys even now."


I found sitting on my ON DEMAND channel a couple of days ago, a 2006 special from Louis C.K.  And he has routines about his four year old kid, where he calls her an asshole for being so selfish. And it's terrible and it's wonderful, and it's laugh out loud funny because it's just so original and fresh a take.


And as a writer, that's what your "brand" is. That's what you get paid for.  Your "take."


Now, from Dane Cook on down, there's any number of examples that prove that there's plenty that get somewhere without that original a take; but the writers were the ones looking at the low-hanging fruit in those immediate post-Ipad announcement moments and thinking, "uh...no. Not funny...lame."


(What's more, one of the more interesting conversations I had on Wednesday afternoon was actually quite meta, about how Twitter's 140 character limitation actually encourages the hacky-joke rhythms of an earlier time.  Thanks to @julie_bush and @weinmanj for that. Although there are still some writer friends who consistently make me laugh on Twitter. And no, I'm not saying who.)

Civilians will often get quite shirty when you point out that the idea they just expressed is lame, or not very original. (Which of course you don't do unless they make a deal of it. Psychic self-preservation demands they be the asshole, not you.)  Writers do so in a much lower percentage, because there's always a gut-check going on, an internal voice asking, "is this lame?"


One of the best pieces of advice I ever received about identifying and eliminating cliché was this: "Do you find yourself asking, "Is this a cliché?" Then strip it out. It's a cliché."


The second guesser's version of this, of course, is plugging a line you've just written into the Google.  Less than three hits?  Congratulations -- your line may not be funny, but it's at least fairly original.  Ten thousand hits?  Wow? Really?  Did I just say that out loud?  Wow, that went well. I guess you better talk to the hand, then.


So for the thousands of people who are funny at parties, to the cab drivers who have great ideas for movies, to so and so who causes you to smile tightly at a party when they joke, "you gotta watch this one, they're writing everything we say down," thanks for the reminder that the struggle to mine from a different place, to offer something new and different and not a retread of what everybody's already thinking, is not a vain pursuit.  Well that's not exactly true. It's pretty vain.  One of the raps that writers get is that we can be elitist.  To which the only possible answer is, "OF COURSE we are elitist. We actually think you should listen to what we say! We make money off our thoughts."


In an age of ubiquity, I guess it's just kind of nice to remember that it's not so easy to join that club. 


Especially since, for most of the writers I know, it was back to self-loathing by Five P.M. Wednesday, anyway.


Now where's my Ipad?

Salinger.

“I hope to hell that when I do die somebody has the sense to just dump me in the river or something. Anything except sticking me in a goddam cemetary. People coming and putting a bunch of flowers on your stomach on Sunday, and all that crap. Who wants flowers when you're dead? Nobody.”




Well, I guess at least now he'll finally get left alone. 

Thanks for the books, man.  You sure were right about girls.

"That's the thing about girls. Every time they do something pretty... you fall half in love with them, and then you never know where the hell you are."

Death Porn! Death Porn!

THE MAKERS OF cra$h & burn are clearly feeling the pre$$ure of the old Canadian TV, "can it be more like..?"

...They're starting to crack, methinks.


cra$h & burn tonight at 10pm on SHOWCASE.  I have it on good authority that $hit blows up good.

Damnit.

SIGH.

Iwant.

Ask A Stupid Question...

THE TORONTO STAR yesterday was all over a new study by Ad Agency Bensimon Byrne that should have nervous nellies all through the Canadian TV biz making dookie in their shorts.  Too bad the thing reads as a shoddy retread that's been pre-debunked.


Among the 'revelations' in Dana Flavelle's article:

People are twittering and on the computer and not paying attention to the ads.

Um, you know. Which is different than, uh...getting up to make a sandwich or take a leak or any one of the number of other things people have been doing to avoid ads since, oh, I don't know...the birth of television.


And advertising, as we all know, in the world of pre-Twitter & the falling sky, was always designed so ads only ever aired once, because it's entirely a new, 21st century, post cell phone and computer phenom that people are distracted during ads and might need to see them several times before the message gets through.


Elsewhere in this crackerjack, methodically bullet-proof study, as re- typed by Flavelle:

Just over half of PVR owners use them to record the majority of the shows they watch and eight in 10 report that they fast-forward through the commercials, the study found.

"report" is the key word here. If you asked me in a survey, I would probably say that I always fast forward through the commercials, too.  So howcum when I played HOUSE back on PVR late Monday night, I saw about 3/4 of the ads?  Because I forgot to FF, or a commercial caught my attention, or ... I just didn't.


Studies that actually look at the DATA collected from Peoplemeters have long since refuted the conventional wisdom.  More than a year ago, one study showed that The Office was one of the least fast-forwarded programs...and that programs that caught a well-heeled audience tended not to be skipped as much.  Then last fall came the news that, based on the actual data, people weren't skipping as much as they thought.  (I'm not going searching for the links here, but both studies were widely reported at the time, and I believe I blogged about these findings, too.)


So why this report now?  Well, maybe  it's the latest hit of the "Canada's two years behind" phenom. 


Or maybe it's just that one dying medium (newspapers) likes to deflect the pain to another "dying" medium (TV) whenever they can.


In a related story, I'm sure that Bensimon's Byrne's next study will reveal that nobody is affected by advertising, they report -- but they totally think everybody else but them totally is. 


Totally.


You think they have a new media advertising department? Oh wait. They do?


Quel Shocker.

Death & The Shuckton

SO EP3 of THE KIDS IN THE HALL'S "Death Comes to Town" airs tonight on CBC at 9pm.

I found the first episode funny, but last week's left me a little flat. Seems like the ratings also flattened considerably, which have -- in that oh so Canadian way -- inspired a weird level of glee in certain quarters.  (As opposed to Glee which inspires a certain level of Canadian to play quarters. (Seriously, two points for Sue, & while you're at it, take a drink every time the fashion-forward gay kid changes outfits.))

Well, CBC was nice enough to send me a screener of tonight's episode, and I'm happy to report that there's plenty of weird, great laughs -- including a funny autopsy, a fine use for a garbage disposal, and what's rapidly becoming my new TV favorite -- RAMPOP!

Again, this show is very much in the vein of the Little Britain/League of Gentlemen  (and can someone out there remind me of the other British one where two people play all the characters in the town?)

If you like the Kids in the Hall kind of anarchy, it's well worth your while.

And if not, well, Glee is now available on DVD.

If I Twittered your Facebook, Would You Stumbleupon Myspace?

FRIEND OF STICKSVILLE Cathleen MacDonald is part of an interesting venture that also includes the Writer Mafia's own Jill Golick -- Crushing It.. a ... oh heck, I'm going to let the release explain it.

People will be following, participating in, and sharing stories when the comedy series, CRUSHING IT, unfolds in real time on social media from February 1st, 2010 through to February 5th. That’s the topic of a panel discussion to be presented as part of Social Media Week at the Rivoli Theatre, Toronto, on Thursday, February 4th, 3:30pm.

Jill Golick be doing the panel on the project at the Rivoli on Thursday February 4.  

For more info on Crushing It...  on Social Media Week ...

Or to find out more about the panel, email Cathleen here.

Spartacus: Blood & Sand & Tushie

IT'S A LITTLE bit difficult for me to figure out what to say about SPARTACUS: BLOOD & SAND. (TMN, 9pm) the first two episodes of which I caught via screener.


I have to say off the bat that my love for the sandals & swordplay genre has been pretty well sated now. After Gladiator & Rome, & the passing-interesting 300 & my long-ago memories of I Claudius, I'm not sure what there is to say.  


And that's where bias gives way to the headshake of pragmatism.  Of course, there's nothing really to say -- it's all about show now, now that those nifty slo-mo ramp shots and lovingly gross splattery blood effects can be made on a TV budget. And that's when I start to drift off and put on a different hat.


But first, the basics. This is indeed the retelling of Spartacus -- a warrior consigned to slavery after betrayal by a weaselly but ambitious Roman commander,  and ripped from the bosom (oh yes, literally) of his extremely hot wife, only to be reborn as the greatest of gladiators. 


The script is a bit stiff, written in that "heroic adventure" patois that makes this very 2010 series feel almost old-fashioned. After the wit and realism of Rome, it's a bit disappointing. (Although there is gusto in coming up with scatalogical curses involving not very-flattering terms for parts of the human anatomy.)


There's life every time John Hannah and Lucy Lawless are on screen, but in between that it's a whole lot of blood spatter in slo-mo and -- did I mention -- a whole wack of nudity, of both the male and female stripe.


Spartacus: Blood & Sand is an original series from the Starz! cable network in the USA,  produced in New Zealand by Rob Tapert -- who's partnered with Sam Raimi, who of course is no stranger to either blood & guts or shooting in New Zealand. It's deliberately shot entirely against greenscreen -- so there are no sets, which makes for a heavily CGI look.


The look, again, is one of those things you're either going to go with or not.  At least until the crazy technology of Cameron's Avatar filters down to the TV level, heavy CGI shows are forced to make a choice -- deploy the tools to try and get as close to real-looking as possible, knowing that the matching might occasionally -- on a TV timeline -- not quite work when lined up against the real elements, or just embrace the artificiality.


Spartacus opts for the latter route. The whole thing is lit and shot in a way that's meant to evoke the graphic novel experience.  So the transitions are flashy, and the frame is always full, and instead of realism everything looks stylized and painterly.  You're either going to go with that or you won't.


Did I mention there's nudity?


Anyway, as I was sitting there trying to figure out what I thought of the show, I found myself thinking about it as example, as product -- as example for what's getting made out there, and for what it might teach us about where the market goes next.


And from there it's a lot easier to see the show's appeal.  Attractive cast...lots of violence, story always moving forward, good visuals, bunch o'sex and fight scenes. It's diverting, for sure, and it's pretty well paced.  But the true test of the show was when I put it on again while I was playing cards yesterday, so people could see what it looked like.


The show very clearly reverses the TV usual of being dialogue-driven, or at least demanding that it be listened to. This is a show that's probably destined to do very well internationally because you can watch it, hear nothing, and figure out most of the story. It's that visually driven.  I suppose that's smart when it comes to export.  It's an interesting exercise watching how they choose to tell the story visually rather than through dialogue at almost every step.


So in the end, personally, there's more to admire in Spartacus than necessarily enjoy.  It looks gorgeous, it's competent popcorn entertainment -- and if you're working in TV you should probably watch it, because shows like it may just be your bread & butter over the next several years.  

Classy.

"All I ask is one thing, and I’m asking this particularly of young people that watch.  Please don’t be cynical.  I hate cynicism. For the record it’s my least favorite quality.  It doesn’t lead anywhere.  Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard and you’re kind, amazing things will happen. I’m telling you. Amazing things will happen."

See ya soon, you pasty redheaded freak.

One of the Good Ones

DIDN'T KNOW HIM well. Only met him a couple of times. But there's more than one dear friend of mine who's in pain today from the loss of a writer who approached all with good humor and equanimity -- even his own diagnosis.

A Rock and Roller and Humorist, a Screenwriter and a guy you never heard a bad word about.

We're poorer without you, Quarrington.

56. My God. Too soon. Too soon. Peace to you.

Paul Quarrington, 56, a beloved Canadian writer, musician and screenwriter, passed away early this morning after a heroic battle with lung cancer.

A statement posted to his official website said: “Paul Quarrington's brave battle with cancer is over. He passed peacefully at home in Toronto in the early hours this morning surrounded by friends and family. It is comforting to know that he didn't suffer; he was calm and quiet holding hands with those who were closest to him. The past few days saw a rapid decline in his ability to breathe.”

Quarrington was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer in the spring, but managed to keep working on a range of projects that reflected his diverse artistic interests and talents – a new solo album of his own songs, another album with his band, the Pork Belly Futures, a new screenplay, a new novel, as well as a memoir, Cigar Box Banjo.

He also continued to perform, at times even while hooked up to an oxygen machine, toured Labrador, chronicled his illness in a series of newspaper articles and worked on a documentary film inspired by the memoir, Life in Music.

In the last several months, Quarrington had managed to maintain a pace that would have exhausted a healthy man – demonstrating a prodigious work ethic that belied his familiar persona as a rumpled, slightly undisciplined laggard.

What I remember is that he had a great laugh, and kind eyes.

If you knew him and want to share a story below, please do.

Citytv R.I.P.

I HAD A WHOLE different post to write. Believe me about this.  What I was going to write about was an example of good news in the Canadian TV business.  It was about how corporate largesse can make way for a little bit of joy over art.

It's still a good nugget.

I've joked frequently to people -- from personal experience -- that having a CanCon show on CityTV is kind of like joining the TV Witness Protection Program. Nobody will know you're on.  There will be no advertising.  You will live a peaceful life in anonymity.

That's what happened to my eight part miniseries, Across the River to Motor City.  It bowed on City, was lightly promoted, never rerun, and slipped beneath the waves.

And that's kind of what happened to Less Than Kind, a much-admired and little seen show that had its first season on Citytv - the rump of five stations, post ROGERS buy, ignominiously strafed by technical problems, episodes shown out of order, in the wrong aspect ratio -- I swear to God, one time I tuned in and saw only the music and effects track, no dialogue. Awesome.

Nevertheless, City renewed Less than Kind for another year.  But the problems off the top were always intense. They wouldn't schedule it.  They asked for "toned down" changes.  The problem?  LTK is a raucous, scabrous comedy and Rogers decided that Citytv was to be rebranded in a "family way."  Sigh.

But the good news is that TMN was interested in picking the show up. They picked up the finished but not scheduled second season from Citytv and committed to development of a third. (Decision on a green light should come later this year.)

That's a Canadian good news story you don't usually see. And what's more, the Rogers people now in control of City actually deserved credit -- because they could have at any moment just said "no" and scuttled the deal. Part of the problem with having broadcasters that don't make money on the things they actually make is that those shows really do become pinatas...not only are they bounced around the schedule, but they're subject to caprices and whims.   Good? Not a defense.

But ... but... Citytv really liked the show -- it just didn't fit.  TMN really wanted the show; they thought it was much more up their alley.  So they made a deal. Rogers could have stood in the way but they didn't. Good for them.  Good news. Win win.

Then came the Citytv bloodbath Tuesday.

Now, I've written before about how I used to work at Citytv...and how much I loved the place.  I just... I mean, heres' some coverage from yesterday.  I just feel like I can't say anymore about the place.  What's happened to it breaks my fucking heart.

So now you get reruns. A couple of excerpts from earlier posts where I talked about why City used to be special.

My sympathies to all the canned.  You worked hard. And you deserved better.

From:

Localized Pain, Nobody's Gain:

McLuhan and Znaimer, the two guys I spent a lot of time in my 20's studying, both theorized that the future of programming was local. That the best TV was going to be the station that told you what happened to you, today.

I was lucky enough to work at one of those stations in the last years before they worked to dismantle it: Toronto's Citytv. Others have written better and longer essays about what made City unique and different, but I have to say that rather than being any one thing, it was everything. The fact that the promos were cut by promo guys in house, who wrote funny voiceovers for Mark Dailey to read. The fact that you could sneak funny and slightly off stuff onto the air at 3am. Many have reminisced about the great post midnight voiceover for Atlantic City, where Mark Dailey enthused to the night owls watching, "Don't go anywhere! Coming up next you get to see my boss get shot in the chest!" And indeed you did. Moses had a small part in that Louis Malle feature.

If you were in a hotel in Toronto and you flipped on the TV and saw City Tv, it made you want to get out and explore that city. My time exploring other cities, especially when I started working in TV and had cause to visit other affiliates, I found the local affiliates were parked in strip malls or far out industrial bunkers divorced from the city proper never made me feel that way.

From "Getting Brandtastic"

How Ego Can Wreck a Brand

Citytv was a local Toronto brand that took the superstation mentality and ran with it long before Ted Turner thought to do the same thing. From the news to the promos to the very character of the station, Citytv looked like nothing else in the world.

It ran magazine shows like FT or Movie Television that eschewed chirpy v/o and polished film look, for “authentic,” “handheld” and “street level.” (Also: cheap.)

But even before Citytv founder Moses Znaimer was slowly forced out, things started to change. The parent company, CHUM, wanted to be more of a player. They wanted a more corporate look. Instead of “A City tv production,” (a brand that had some funky history) shows started being tagged by “CHUM Television.” (a brand that had none.) And the slice of life people-in-the-city promos were replaced by flashier graphics, similar brand and promo elements. Lot more shooting on film. Lot less heart.

The people then in charge “upscaled the look” of the station. When acquisitions of other stations in other cities caused them to become rebranded Citytv’s, they went for a unified look – promos that used to be charming and idiosyncratic became…just like other stations. They brought in the same news consultants selling the same snake oil they’d sold all over the USA – weather porn, action news-style stuff. They lost what was special about the place, and added a whole wack of Vice Presidents. The ratings went down. There wasn't anything special anymore. No mythos, no heart. I remember in the ten years I taught University -- at the beginning it was the best students saying, "how do I get into Citytv?" and by the end... the ones asking were no longer the best, the brightest, or even the hippest. They'd found other places to go. Hubris and a desire to be a mini-network bled out what was once charming and special about the place.

That's it. That's all I got. Other than this:  What a goddamn shame. And what a great, great loss to the City of Toronto.


UPDATE 01/22  Seems like I have a lousy record with these on-the-road posts. This article has been corrected. Incorrect information appeared yesterday. The blogger regrets the error.

The Other Side of The Envelope

EVERY ONCE IN AWHILE, amidst the recriminations & the sleaze & the pettiness & the outright small-mindedness of this business, if you're very very lucky, you get to do something cool.

Like sit in a room, and strain to read hundred-and-twenty-one year old handwriting.

And yes, maybe the eyestrain is acute.

But then, even more occasionally, the items aren't crumbly and in mylar, and very gingerly, Oh so very carefully, you pick up the page and read.

And what comes to life is a persona unlike the one you've been reading in books, or research briefs -- gone suddenly, forever, is the cant of Victorian rectitude & seriousness, the awareness always of the official audience.  Suddenly, you're reading the plaintive and the personal. You're reading the very private words for an audience of one; the words of a man, simply, then as now, vulnerable, and in love.

And it's then you feel very privileged indeed.

Dreams. True. True.

SO SOMETIMES YOU land and you check into your hotel and you just want to drink a bottle of water, and so you flip the dial on the TV and that's how you wind up watching...Rachael Ray.


One of the things I vowed this year was to try to be more positive in my work life, and my personal life.  And the former isn't always so possible. But for anybody pounding themselves right now trying to make the budget work, or the day out of days line up, or the second draft conform to the three sets of impossible notes, or even try to find that last 10% of financing...


...Kwitcherbitchin' and check your future competition.


These kids made my day.  Hope they make yours too.  Now, turn this up, watch, have fun and then go do another Pomodoro.

Not To Take Credit...

THE FINE PEOPLE at the WGCtweet feed alerted me to this article outlining some of the back-and-forth, behind-the-scenes drama over screenplay credits during this awards season.

The article suggests that credit arbitrations have become more contentious and common lately -- which is true in Canada too, with one notable twist.

In Canada, the arbitration doesn't stop at the film screen.

Part of the blurring of Producer-Showrunner-Creative duties over the last few years has been the fruit of a very poison tree. For years, so called "Creative Executive Producers" here have hired writers as word slaves to "flesh out" what some call, derisively, "napkin ideas," and then turn around and claim a "Created By" credit.

This is made easier by a weakness in the WGC IPA, where there is no automatic "Created By" assigned to the writer of a Pilot script, which is standard practice in the USA.

I was witness a couple months back to a very protracted and extremely entertaining argument between a screenwriter and a producer - both of whom I like and admire, over just this issue. Believe me, the feelings were intense -- and fierce.

The complicating factor in this, with the new U.S. first mode of development, is that we have a situation now where, theoretically, a U.S. person could be brought in on a Canadian project, and get an automatic "Created By" credit, while the Canadian writer who actually created the project doesn't get it.  This has, in fact, already happened at least once.

(I'm actually incorrect on this one point; see end of post.) 

This is a big minefield, and will probably get bigger in IPA negotiations down the road.  It's also, ultimately, a craft issue.  Writing is one of those things that everybody thinks they understand, because everybody writes in some way, sometimes.  But each and every day, writers are exposed to the truth that -- in film and tv, at least, where the teleplay/screenplay is only an intermediary document -- nobody really understands what we do.

Actors are quoted as "contributing to the dialogue" and people assume that all the most spontaneous stuff in the script came from them.

Directors downplay the script and big up their contributions because of the natural tension between writer and director as dual spokes that create the finished product -- the film or TV episode.

The Producer (in TV) is the one who deals with the network, and sometimes instigates the project, and therefore believes they should be able to share in the created by glory.

This sometimes has financial implications, but in Canada, most of the important considerations are still of the moral variety.

Where do I come down? Well, it might not surprise you too much to find out that I tend to side with the writer on this one.  Then again, I've given away shared credit in the past for projects that I pretty much wrote everything for myself.  It's not easy.

But maybe it's made better through a series of statements and questions:

• There is probably no bigger Executive Producer identified with a "type" of program bigger than Jerry Bruckheimer.  Yet Jerry Bruckheimer doesn't take a "created by" credit on the shows he puts forward.  Is the Producer saying that their contribution to the script is more significant than Jerry Bruckheimer's creation of his shows?
• If the writer didn't write the script, could the Producer get to a greenlight through whatever he/she writes himself?
• In Canada, we have a system of "story editors." But if a Producer can get a "created by" or a shared screenplay credit just be giving notes -- which is essentially what a story editor does, then explain why any story editor hired doesn't immediately become a co-writer and co-creator? Or a network exec, who does the same thing?

None of these things are cut and dried, and a lot has to do with the levels of mutual respect in the relationship, and whether someone is treated right, or winds up feeling used.  I have created things with non-writers, and such was the level of their conception, discussion with me, contributions of ideas and themes, that I truly, truly could not think of denying them the co-creator credit.

I guess the real problem is a significant and general problem in conceptualizing just how much work "creating" a show really is.    Tellingly, people who aren't writers often talk suspiciously about being afraid that so-and-so will "steal their idea" if they talk about it.

Most writers don't think this way, simply because most of us, a) have more ideas than we'll be able to develop within our lifetimes  and b) know that the idea is cheap. It's the development and execution of the idea to get it to a shootable state where the blood and sweat and tears truly lie.

This is muddied further these days by an annoying trend to give non-writers writing development deals. In the states, these are mostly "Producer only" deals or POD deals.  In Canada it tends to come from Acting agents advising their clients to pitch writing projects.

In both cases, inevitably, the next thing that happens is that they engage a writer to "work with" the nominal creator.

The problem being - with the "created by" situation so fluid & changeable, there is just too much opportunity for abuse and hard feelings in this situation. I've honestly come to the conclusion that for most writers, unless you really, really need the money -- these deals just aren't worth it.  Better to put your energy trying to get something of your own up and running.

Or, you know, try to get an acting deal. I guess.

What a mess.

Okay, they're calling my flight. Guess I'll just drop those shells and go.   Comments are open.

ADDENDUM:  I should specify here, of course, of course that there are perfectly lovely and talented Actor-writer hyphenates, just as there are writer-directors, and even Producer-directors.  Stephen Soderbergh DOP's his own movies, and he's good at it. The Coen's edit their own films. And people like my friends Stephanie Morgenstern & Mark Ellis (Creators of FLASHPOINT) may have spent years treading the boards, but when it comes to writing, they came up and matriculated and sweated and conceived & did millions of drafts and worked just like writers who weren't also pretty & handsome.

What I'm talking about is those who want the gelt & the glory without being capable of doing the work, or even understanding what work is actually involved.

Clarification off.

CORRECTION 01-19:  Apparently I got my wires crossed on this issue, and I've received this correction from the WGC:   

"Under the WGA’s waiver system, when a WGA writer is working on a Canadian show, contracted under the IPA, he/she does not automatically get a “Created by” credit if they get sole, or shared, “Written by” or ‘Story by” credit on the pilot. They do when working in their own jurisdiction under the MBA but not up here.  Up here, just like the WGC member, the WGA member under a waiver must negotiate entitlement to a “Created by” credit. "

So, bad news in the sense that you still have to negotiate that credit manually in Canada under the IPA (which a commenter takes me to task for below) but at least the treatment of Americans working here is not MORE favourable than Canadians in the same situation.


Of course, writer peeps, I'm sure you may know of Canadian companies who'll do and give just about ANYTHING to tray and attach a U.S. writer to a Canadian project... But, well, that's a different fight for a different day, isn't it?


El Blogger regrets the error.

Your Blue Monday Morning Zeitgeist

SO I'M OFF on a flight to Edmonton today to do archive research at one of the University of Alberta libraries. While there I hope to immerse myself utterly in the fugue feeling of what my life might have been like had I taken the academic path and not done this silly masochistic writing thing.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say better sleep, and my wardrobe, number of interesting dinner/drinks companions & love  of arcane knowledge would wind up being a bit of a wash.

Do you know that today is supposedly, statistically, the most depressing day of the year?   Man, I hope the pilot is in a good mood.

These are some things that I'm watching that I think add up to one big thing.

THE LITTLE SHOW THAT COULD

While everyone fretted this way and that over various elements of the CBC lineup, Heartland has quietly become that network's highest rated scripted show, regularly cracking a million viewers.  Sunday at 7pm used to be gravy for the CBC, a family hour when that meant something, and it seems like that show, along with unscripted fare like "Battle of the Blades", pull down numbers that seem to fit in the steroid-pumped PPM era, up against powerhouses like House.  Multigen & friendly/accessible - the show's ascendancy seems like no accident.

I'd be willing to bet that CBC goes for more straight up fare like this.  The national broadcaster should resist what they've been doing the last few years -- panic, and over react, puttting all the eggs in that basket now.  I look forward to a time when somebody strides out on the dais at some preview show and says, "and here's a show that's never gonna get a million, but it's a flat out great show; it could easily be on cable, but that kind of show is a part of our mandate at CBC, too."

GOOD & GOODER

I haven't really had a chance to spill too much ink over The Good Wife, and that's too bad.  When it comes to working up a new spec script, this is the one that I'm telling writers to do.  Others have written about how the show, minus its "ripped from the headlines" kicker of the politico wife, is rather old-fashioned, but I think that's the point.  I've seen about five episodes of The Good Wife -- out of order, without staying up with the backstory.  Every one has been incredibly tightly formatted, with classic, great structure -- and A-plots that put this firmly in the character-driven mystery camp.  Every episode's main plot ultimately reveals some new aspect of Juliana Margulies' character; it's about HER.  The other characters, too -- all help you to understand her better.  Consequently, you watch one or two episodes, and you have a very strong sense of what the show is.

This doesn't just stand for me.  I've watched two of the eps with my father.  My father, who's become my standard focus group of one, sometimes has trouble following some of the herkier or jerkier dramas with their POV bullet shots and fancy talk.  Okay, yes, it's cause he falls asleep a lot in front of the TV and never sees the full thing.

He doesn't fall asleep in front of The Good Wife. He stays engaged, and when the twists in the story come, we both nod sagely like we saw it coming, when really we didn't.

With none of the tawdry, empty gimmickry of the CSI's and none of the fear-pumping ugliness at the heart of a Criminal Minds, I think The Good Wife has got something to it that could point the way to the next few (the last few?) broad based network hit shows... which brings us to...

THE PEOPLEMETERS SPEAK

Two key things have emerged from the data garnered by new peoplemeters & measurement technologies: more people are watching TV -- and especially network tv -- than we thought, and PVR's that add to viewing numbers do not necessarily strip the value from advertising -- because people who have and use PVR's a lot don't skip through the ads as much as everyone assumed.

That's good news for both networks and network tv.  Yes, long term, the network model is not viable, and something subscription based is the likely successor...but all the fire sale gloomy talk and NBC's premature surrender is now exposed for what it is:  too much, too soon.  There's still a few hands left to play in the game.

None of this applies to the Canadian networks, of course.  The simulcast model is pretty much dead.  Happy Blue Monday.


CROSSED WITH NOTHING

Every year, with scores of new plots and shows it gets harder and harder to show the audience something they haven't seen before. So for several years now we've been seeing hybrids. Hybrids are shows that try to weld this to that... it's a medical drama, but it's also a mystery...It's a cop show, but it's also a supernatural thriller, etc.   The Good Wife (see above) is pretty straight up.

When you look at the wonderful USA dramas, you'll see more shows that are just what they are -- decent shows, fun, uncomplicated.  WHITE COLLAR, about an unlikely team of FBI agent and con man, could have been out in the 80's.  ROYAL PAINS explores a new area (The Hamptons, the very rich) but it's a fish-out-of-water Doctor show -- Northern Exposure with quirky rich people instead of quirky Alaskans.

Maybe it's time to amp down the gimmicks and just go for a bit of straight genre -- whatever that genre is -- executed well?

(side note here --  I managed to get ahold of THE ROCKFORD FILES pilot by David Shore. And. It's. AWESOME. Yayyy!  Now all they have to do is cast those 4 great roles.)

COMMUNITY, MODERN FAMILY, and PARKS & RECREATION are all excellent comedies -- but there's nothing particularly revolutionary about any of them.  Yeah, Modern Family & Parks use The Office style confessional interviews -- but that's become a creaky old trope on its own.

These trends, in and of themselves might be notable, but I think they add up to something...and it's something that would be well to note, because it's TV's traditional role.

Times suck.  People are agitated. They want TV to soothe, to entertain, and to a certain extent, to reassure. There is nothing wrong with any of these desires. And we who toil in the TV mines should take a second and realize that there's nothing wrong with making programs that someone can flip on at the end of the day and watch, knowing they'll be entertained and maybe even lifted up a little.

Maybe that's what we can do to help people get through these challenging times. It's not a lot. But it's not nothing.

Think about that when you're writing this week.

Oh, and Christina Hendricks. Think about Christina Hendricks.

Right. That last one might just be me.