Q-Cast

THE PODCAST from my appearance on Today's CBC Radio Q is up now here. (I'm up about 3/4 of the way through, but I'd advise listening to the whole thing. Jesse Wente on social gaming and author Dan Kennedy especially is a hoot.)

I wish I'd had time to turn it around on Jian a bit and ask him about the conference in Montreal he took part in last week, because the whole thing sounded really interesting. But such are the tyrannies of the clock.

Those of you who are interested in process and how I can possibly spend time writing blog entries while keeping pace with my career might note that this here entry seriously helped to focus a lot of what I talked about with Jian today.

There is one thing I left out of my little anecdote about Eli Stone: it was actually the dialogue from the Stop-Lossed Mom that blew me away: "I appealed to my sergeant and he didn't care. I appealed to my commanding officer, and my President. They didn't care."

Now THAT is not a sentiment that you would have heard on US TV a year ago. That's the thing about TV, it's not just the most influential of our mass reach media -- it's also got it's pulse on the zeitgeist in a way no other media does. And yes, I include the internet in that. It's coming -- but as a wag back in the day used to say, "The future is here, it just isn't fully distributed yet."

Culture Q

OH YEAH, I'll be on Q today in the last half-hour of the show (which I know is not available in all markets...maybe it'll be up tonight on the repeat, or on the podcast.)

Awareness and What Comes Next...

AN INTERESTING ARTICLE went out on the CP wire yesterday. It reports the details of a CP/Decima poll about the new CBC shows.

As of Jan. 28th, one in three people polled had heard about four of the CBC's heavily promoted winter shows: "The Border," "JPod," "Sophie" and "MVP." All of the shows launched in early January.

That hasn't yet translated into large numbers of Canadians tuning into the shows, however - only 10 per cent of those polled had actually seen "The Border," about an elite team of Canadian border-security officers. That's more viewers than the other shows had managed to attract among those surveyed.

But Bruce Anderson, president of Harris-Decima, said the results were promising.

"Prime time is a very tough market, and these shows were only on the air a few weeks before we ran the survey, so I tend to see the numbers as pretty reasonable," he said Sunday. "It's an encouraging start."

Of those polled who watched the new shows, 75 per cent liked them, with "The Border" getting the highest marks and "JPod," a dark comedy about a group of Vancouver video game creators that features a marijuana grow-op subplot, prompting a more polarized response - while it had the largest number of respondents saying they really liked the show, it also had the most reporting that they disliked it.

Now, the results of that poll are clearly glass half something, no matter how you spin it. But when you read between the lines, you can actually glean some interesting lessons in how Canadians respond to homegrown TV culture -- and support for the view that the recent vogue of closely tracking the week to week numbers maybe isn't the way to go.

Word of mouth is a funny thing -- and word of mouth has always been among TV's greatest strengths. Seinfeld, Cheers, The Office (UK) and any number of other eventual hit shows were slow builds -- they didn't catch on right away and needed that extra amount of time to build and have the audience find them.

Buried at the bottom of that survey is what I think is probably the most interesting data: the correlation that those who watched the new CBC shows were significantly more likely to view the CBC as going in the right direction. If you see the shows, you react favorably. And -- and here's the good part -- this is especially true for younger viewers.

This runs directly counter to the grumbling (much of it anonymous) you're going to find on CBC blogs, where the cant is universally, "shows are shit, no one cares, they're obsessed with young viewers, they can't do anything right..."

Well, apparently that's not the real story. So if word of mouth is positive, that means there's a possibility of building audiences down the road. From younger viewers, not just CBC's traditional Mom'nPop over 50 set.

The constant focus on the numbers and the arguments over what's a good number for a Canadian show and what isn't doesn't take into account so many things that are endemic and exclusive to the Canadian industry:

1) When private networks like CTV and Global simulcast U.S. shows, they count the ratings of everyone tuned in to their channel, and everyone tuned in to the U.S. channel (which has its signal substituted for the Canadian channel, thanks to Simultaneous Substitution regs.) This, in essence, gives the net a shot at two channels, not one. You might think that's dodgy logic, but ask yourself how often you've been flipping around and land on a station that catches your eye, and stop.

Two shots = two shots. Pure and simple. If you wanted an honest test, it would be interesting (and more honest) if the Cable co's simply had to "black out" U.S. channels when they were running the same show as Canadian channels.

See, effectively it would be doing the same thing -- protecting the Canadian channel's territorial purchase rights. But go suggest it. See how far you get. Then ask why.

2) One third knowing about the shows resulting in only ten percent sampling shows you just how hard it really is to attract the fickle viewer nowadays. CBC got a lot of notice for how hard they worked to promote THE BORDER this year (and MOSQUE last year,) but what those results show is that that level of promo is the bare minimum you need to get you in the game. Most Canadian shows never even reach that threshold, and so sink beneath the waves with zero awareness, and no chance to build viewership.

Still, with all the money CBC spent (and they did spend a lot -- for CBC) it's a drop in the bucket compared to the vertically integrated, omnipresent saturation of advertising promo and advertorial soft features built around your average U.S. shows.

None of that makes hits. It's just the price of admission. No amount of hype could make Bionic Woman a hit. All you can do is buy the awareness that leads to word of mouth, and that initial sample. To bring it back to the Canadian example, now you have that 10 percent who checked out THE BORDER who have a more positive view of CBC programming. You go through a few more program cycles, and grow that number, and suddenly you're somewhere.

In the shadow of the U.S. giant, the game is simply way more complicated than "how did The Border do against that HOUSE rerun?"

There's no question that it's a hard slog. But the reactionary yahoos with their "CBCgrr waste of tax money/Canadian showz suck/no one wants to watch" -- well, besides being a little pathetic in the self-hating Canadian department -- it simply isn't true.

But what is true is that dumping the shows on the air and expecting people to find them is cynical and foolhardy -- and broadcasters who do that should be called on it.

And also, um, if the shows themselves aren't entertaining, well, you're not gonna get that positive bounce from the sample who do check you out.

There's the side that needs to be taken care of by my people. We need to be better and craft better and better shows. That means training people and letting them have their third and fourth jobs as they build their skillset, rather than expecting some hipster soaking wet out of the CFC or NSI to come up with The Sopranos.

Then there's the promo side. And on that promo side, I think I want to give a shout out to Maureen O'Donnell.

Maureen handles promo for The Border. Maureen worked hard through shooting to make sure we had good art. She worked with the cast to make sure we crafted the message and the narrative of the show to reach people.

Traditionally, that would have meant articles and coverage leading up to the premiere, and then everything falling off a cliff. What makes Maureen's approach a model for what to come is this: she didn't stop there.

No, she's been assiduous in working to make sure that The Border remains in editorial consciousness. That means things like getting this article about Episode seven. (It ran in the print version with a GREAT PHOTO. Also important.) It means getting actors booked on Sports talk shows -- not in week one, in week six. It means trying to get features in Magazines that street in February, not just January. It means going for offbeat promo avenues like the Home section.

In short, it means working that word of mouth.

Bringing the A-Game is hard. But it's the only way -- the ONLY way, to make sure the brief Canadian TV breakthrough of January 2008 is the start of something, and not just a blip.

"Family Values" Streaming Now on CBC.ca

Family Values, Episode 107 of THE BORDER (which they annoyingly refer to by a previous title, "Family Affairs,") is now up for streaming viewing at the CBC site.

It should be available later this week at the Itunes store. Sorry, Canada only.

"Family Affairs?" Brrr. I don't want to imagine what happens when Gray Jackson gets Mr. French in the interrogation chair.

Don't Move, You're Surrounded By Armed Bastards (Wearing Lots of Hair Gel)

SO, DCI GENE HUNT is back. And this time he's taking guff from a bird.

Ashes to Ashes, the sequel series to Life on Mars, debuted last week in the U.K. to seven million viewers.

Ratings dropped in the second week by a million, as more than a few viewers decided the eighties weren't quite as fun as the seventies. Tell me about it, brother.

1973 is out. So's Manchester and Sam Tyler. Our hero now is DI Alex Drake. Taken hostage in 2008, she sees the bullet that will kill her. Now, in her estimation she's a moment from life or a moment from death.

The conceit of Ashes to Ashes (starring the delectable Keeley Hawes from MI:5/Spooks) is that, unlike Sam Tyler -- Alex knows precisely what's going on in her jaunt to the past. We find out that she studied Tyler after his coma. (We see a brief notation on his file: suicide.) During the course of becoming acquainted with Hunt, (who along with Ray and Chris, have relocated to London and the Metropolitan Police) she finds out that Sam Tyler lived and worked with them for seven years. It's only been a year since he drove his car into the water during an operation, never to be found.

This shocks Drake and re-frames her experience: seems that the seven years Sam experienced here were only a moment in the "real" world. She wants to get home, back to her daughter, Molly.

But there's that Gene Hunt...

Ashes to Ashes suffers somewhat by not having the shock of the new about it. Philip Glenister is still aces as Hunt. We don't get much of a sense of eighties Ray, but Detective Chris Skelton gets a nice grace note. He's not the nervous or hapless guy he was with Tyler -- as he says, he's just "cautious."

And maybe that's why the pilot of Ashes To Ashes left me a little flat. Cautious does seem to be the word for it. Hawes doesn't seem as immediately sympathetic as John Simm did, and I guess I have to admit a certain bias. Having been there the first time, the glance at some of those eighties fashions was...disturbing. Especially the women's fashions. The first time we see Drake in a Flashdance-style off the shoulder tshirt number, I kind of entered a sensory fugue state and no amount of Depeche Mode could pull me out.

There's a hint at where they're going in the pilot -- we're going to see the softer side of Gene Hunt. He certainly seems much more open to Alex's psychological-based insights into policing than he ever was with Sam's 21st century techniques. He even allows a moment of doubt: "the time for coppers like me is coming to an end."

There's a hint that things could turn romantic between the two leads, which certainly would take it into less Mars-like territory. But by offering a concrete explanation up front for Alex's experience, and not letting it be vague and open-ended, it feels maybe like a little something's been lost.

Future eps take on the wedding of Charles and Diana, and hopefully the scourge of shoulder pads.

Ashes to Ashes is fun enough. It's good to see Hunt back in the saddle (of an Audi Quattro, this time) but it's not as fun as Life on Mars.

Time will tell if Hawes signed up to be in the bestselling show, or if she's just beating up the wrong guy.

Border Bits: Making "Family Values."

IT WAS AN August morning, hot and sunny, when I found myself in a chair in a dingy little casting office somewhere in the shadow of the Weston bread plant just off Eastern Avenue in Toronto.

We were there to see Suliman's and Ali's. These were two of the key guest roles in "Family Values," my second episode of "The Border," which airs tonight at 9 across Canada on CBC.

Suliman was meant to be a vulnerable, lost and tragic man who shows up in Toronto claiming to be the real father of a teenager that's been adopted by an international movie star. Ali is his son - or is he? See, this being an action-adventure hour, nothing and no one is what it seems.

Including this episode. I've written before about the giddy high of seeing money spent on your work like drunken sailors hitting port with pay in tow, but this was something altogether different. This episode of THE BORDER, the 7th in the order, is meant to be a show where we pay for some of the excesses of the early shows. All shows do this to an extent -- none more brilliantly in my opinion than Battlestar Galactica, which blows the house on huge SFX-laden eps, and then tries to get back on budget with some smaller stories.

This ep will be shot over a seven-day schedule, instead of our usual 8 (and sometimes 9, when the ep is really big.) That means I have very few arrows in my quiver. I have to be in ICS a lot; I don't have room for big action. The only thing I can do is buckle down and try to deliver a big emotional story. If you can't wow'em with the bang-bang, you gotta nail them with the big emotional stakes.

So what I've written is a fairly contained story with some outsized personalities. We'll also see more of our main man Kessler's relationship with his daughter, and a grace note -- hopefully funny -- end to a storyline we've been doing on Slade's dating and heartbreak at the hands of budding computer whiz Sally Doctor.

For the part of the movie star, we've cast Aunjanue Ellis. Aunjanue's a great actor with a wonderful look. I'd seen her in Ray! and was thrilled to have her play our celebrity Mum, Amira. (That name took forever, by the way. I wanted a one word name like Madonna, or Cher -- and there was about two days of randomly yelling out single word names before we landed on one that would clear. If you're planning to be a single-named superstar, you may want to think about your trademark now -- the field's getting crowded.)

But now I'm in this small casting office waiting to see the kid and the Dad. Beside me is Phil Earnshaw, the episode's director. He's a deligthful man who I've really enjoyed working with the last week or so o the script. I know he's also Directed lots of Degrassi and Instant Star, so I'm fairly confident that if we see the right kid, he'll be able to pull a good audition out of him.

It doesn't go well.

We're on about the third or fourth audition where I start to get panicky. One's too young. Another's too fly. We're seeing a bit of the "processed" kid actor, who's mannered and done a lot of commercials -- exactly the wrong kind of polished feel for a part that requires some real depth.

I'm stewing and cursing myself in my seat. How could I do this? How could I write a part that so completely depends on having not just a good kid actor, but a fantastic kid actor. What is wrong with me?

This is not an isolated case of self-loathing. Part of the many problems of casting in this country is that you never know what you're going to get. There's so much good talent, but there's also that lure of L.A., so at any time you may find the really top people off chasing the down south dream. In certain hard-to-find categories, you're really taking your livelihood into your hands when you jump into a casting session.

I'm glumly mulling all this over when Isaiah Grant walks in.

He's tall. Serious. He looks anywhere from 14 to 17 -- so that works for the part. A lot of the kids they sent us were younger -- and just not up to it.

Isaiah starts to read and I sit up. There's something here. Not quite right, but certainly better than everybody else we've seen.

Reading over, Phil quietly talks to Isaiah and suggests an adjustment. Isaiah nods -- he understands what Phil's asking for. He asks for a second...he's really feeling this one, very focused -- not like a child actor at all.

The reader starts. And there, before my eyes, is Ali. I don't feel like I want to give away the store here, so I stab myself in the leg with my pen. I'm so relieved. This is it. This is Ali.

Bayo Akinfemi reads the same day. I like him a lot. He reads a little big on the sympathetic, and truly fearsome in the scenes where he's supposed to be scary. I like his look, too. He looks African, as opposed to some of the other people who gave good reads but who had a more American look. When we decide to go with Bayo a few days later, I'm thrilled. I've got a great guest cast.

I had no idea at the time, of course, how interesting Bayo's story was. He fled Nigeria over a decade ago, after suffering attacks in student protests. Bayo's also a writer and director -- he's presently looking for a distributor for his first completed feature film Eye of the Needle.

How lucky were we to get this guy?

The story of Family Values was heavily influenced by a few books I was reading last summer, including A Long Way Gone, and some echoes of the movie Blood Diamond. The climax required an open-air streetscape, and more out of pique than anything else, I wrote in "Dundas Square."

Dundas Square is the City of Toronto's attempt to engineer a kind of Times-Square meeting place. Largely derided when they first began work on it, it's actually come to be a quite successful gathering place for tourists and art performances. But it's a teeming, busy place -- on one of the busiest retail corners in Toronto, Yonge and Dundas. Never in a million years do I think we're ever really going to shoot there.

I should have remembered the lesson of the plane.

Sitting out in Dundas Square all day, watching them shoot the climax of the ep, I stood in the shadow of Ryerson University, where I went for Radio & TV. Where I first toyed with the idea of being a writer. It feels right to be there.

From the moment I see the cut of the episode I'm really pleased and kind of blown away. All the actors brought it. Jonas Chernick's Slade stuff is particularly hilarious, though its cut down a bit from the business he had in the script -- and which he landed perfectly. Jonas is a man who knows how to work a script.

But McGowan gets to show different colors in the father role -- which will play in the end of the season, but which we haven't seen since the pilot. The Guests step up. The Editor, Chris Donaldson, does some great intercutting in two key sequences near the end -- neither of which was scripted, both which paper over any of my purple excesses in scripting with a degree of panache that makes me extraordinarily grateful.

Oh and Layla! Layla -- this is the epidode where all the stuff that we've been seeding with Layla since Ep 3 finally comes to a head. And Nazneen Contractor does a great job with it.

There is one scene in the show that I had nothing to do with, past the outline. It's the scene with Layla at the psychiatrist's office. I tried a couple of times to nail it but people weren't happy. Having never been in therapy myself, I have very little to argue back with. I mean, I wrote it the best way I knew how. It's at times like this that you have to sublimate your own ego and step aside. Showrunner Janet MacLean contributes a scene that takes Layla to the edge. (Months later I'll watch episodes of "In Treatment" and go ohhhhhh... but for now it's just good to have an able assist from someone who knows what they want.)

In the end, I'm very happy with the script. We don't go crazy with the revisions on this one, if I remember correctly. What gets shot is pretty close to what I envisioned. Phil and I continue to work well together. I actually enjoy being on set.

And then there's my favorite exchange, not between any of the principals in the ep - but a nice little aside between Moose and Maggie as they wait on a stakeout, talking about Ali:

MOOSE
So Ali just walked through airport security.
MAGGIE
Yup.
MOOSE
And he got from one end of the city to the other on his own?
MAGGIE
He's survived a civil war, a Sudanese refugee camp, and six months in London with Amira. I think you overestimate the grand challenge Toronto presents.

Anytime you can sneak a dig in at Toronto, that's a good thing.

The Border airs tonight at 9pm on CBC.

"Family Values," Border-style

TODAY'S TORONTO STAR has an article featuring the thoughts of two of the guest actors on tonight's episode of "The Border," which I wrote, and saw ably Directed by Phil Earnshaw. I'll post my thoughts on the Ep and these fine actors a little later today. But for now, check out the link.

(Mild spoiler warning - the article does kind of reveal a twist at the core of the ep - but it's not that much of a twist, really, and it goes only a little further than this trailer:)

Chortle.

HMM. THIS is bad. I've seen this before. I mean, COME ON, it's ADORABLE, but it's also problematic.

Graham Abbey is our very able action guy on The Border. He's also Mr. Ex-Stratford Shakespeare Guy. Let it never be said that Canadians aren't well rounded.

Anyway, yup. Graham has a sordid past. With teddy bears.

I'm so sorry Graham. Don't blame me. Blame Diane.

Now if you want to see the grown up, action hero Graham Abbey, and if you're in Canada, you can see him on TSN with Michael Landsberg on OFF THE RECORD this Monday at 6pm ET.

And then be sure to tune in to my episode of THE BORDER featuring Graham at 9pm, on CBC.

And try not to think about the bears.

Um, We Need Something Here...

APPARENTLY, IT'S NOT so easy to go back to the room after three months off.

For many writers, returning to work brought an emotion akin to what they remembered experiencing on their first day of high school. There was the giddy mood accompanying the start of something new and fresh — and the pit of anxiety in their stomachs as they made the transition from mostly idle days to a daunting workload. And who was that guy in the corner? “I almost didn’t recognize you with that new beard,” said Mr. Brennan to Greg Weidman, a production assistant.

On the Warner Brothers lot, Stephanie Savage and Josh Schwartz, the co-creators of “Gossip Girl,” the teenage soap opera on CW network, likened reopening their offices to starting up a summer camp after the winter. “Nobody had been cleaning and there was crime scene tape across the door,” Ms. Savage said. Walking into her office, she said, “And somehow I remembered my office being much nicer.”

Is It Speaking Truth To Power if Power Isn't Listening?

IT'S BEEN ONE WEEK since a group of Canadian writers appeared before the CRTC in hearings on the Canadian Television Fund. The full transcript is now available on the CRTC website -- but I think these meticulous, well argued and passionate words deserve your attention. So I'm reproducing excerpts from them here.

Before you get too inspired, though, I want to let you know that if you read to the end, you'll see the whole thing doesn't have the happiest of endings.

Aaron Martin (The Best Years, Degrassi: The Next Generation)

These stories are important because they are our stories – Canadian stories. We are not Americans. And if all we consume are American stories, then what happens to Canada? What happens to the country that didn’t go into Iraq, that swears allegiance to a foreign monarch, that has barely the population of California? Simple – its culture and identity drowns.

The reason I’m here today is because some people in our industry are making the false claims that Canadian television doesn’t work. That it’s broken. That it doesn’t attract an audience. That we need to create “commercial” programs to draw in an audience, since “cultural” ones can’t. That commercial and cultural are mutually exclusive.

These are all lies.

I worked for four years on one of the most ‘Canadian’ series ever created. Not only has Degrassi consistently brought in respectable numbers for seven seasons (and is going into its eighth season next year. Think about that. Eight seasons. How many series get beyond their first?) – but it’s also become an international hit. It put an entire US cable network on the map. Degrassi has won or been nominated for the following: a Television Critics Award, two Teen Choice Awards, two GLAAD Media Award, a Prix Jeunesse, and various Canadian industry awards including multiple Geminis. Both the New York Times and Entertainment Weekly have claimed it to be the best teen series on the air. And this is the 4th incarnation of the Degrassi franchise.

Degrassi has entertained Canadians in one form or another since 1979. It is a huge commercial success. More important, it’s a huge Canadian cultural success. Its mix of no-nonsense, realistic storytelling, its liberal values, its casting of “real” and age-appropriate kids are all distinctly Canadian attributes – and are all things that differentiate it from any American teen series ever created. That’s why people watch – Canadians, Americans, Australians, Malaysians... This show would never have been greenlit in the US. It’s distinctly Canadian television.

But is it “cultural” or is it “commercial”. Is it “private” since Degrassi: The Next Generation airs on CTV, or is it “public” since 10 out of 10 Degrassi’s roots are firmly embedded in the CBC? Here’s a better question: what does it matter? It’s a success.

Karen McClellan (Bridal Fever, Alice I Think, Robson Arms)

It’s absurd to me that I NEED to be here today at all. One would think my birth record, track record, education and work experience alone would prove the fact that Canadian writers can be commercial. But it’s not enough.

Why is that?

Because Jim Shaw is doing his best to bully others into believing that there is a difference between being Canadian and being commercial and that somehow the two are mutually exclusive. In an article dated January 7, 2007 in the Ottawa Citizen, Jim Shaw is quoted from a letter he wrote to the CTF saying the fund "has become nothing more than a means of subsidizing broadcasters, pay and specialty services and independent producers to produce Canadian television programming that few watch and has no commercial or exportable value."

That is one of the most ignorant assertions recorded in the history of Canadian television. And yet it has caused a tempest and where is the ringmaster to defend his claims? Has he shown up in person this week to speak passionately about how the CTF is “broken”?

Corner Gas. Road To Avonlea. Due South. Robson Arms. Degrassi. Degrassi The Next Generation. Little Mosque On The Prairie. Trailer Park Boys. Cold Squad. These are a few of the commercial hits Canadians have written and produced in the last ten years. Cold Squad was so successful that Jerry Bruckheimer, one of the most successful and business savvy Hollywood producers, copied it.

All of the shows I’ve mentioned are commercial hits rooted in Canadian culture and distinguished by being singularly Canadian. Why are they commercial? Because the public wants them. In a recent poll, an overwhelming majority of Canadians – eighty-six percent – said they want access to Canadian programming that is distinct from American TV programs, and think the Canadian government, regulated by the CRTC should invest and help ensure that Canadians have access to Canadian TV programs that reflect Canada and its people.

Karen Walton (The Many Trials of One Jane Doe, Ginger Snaps, Queer As Folk)

Based on the report, certain parties' seem to assert a frankly willful confusion as to the state and standards of CTF products' and their market performance to-date. But I myself only conclude that certain participants just don't like sharing the sandbox with those charged to protect and promote the public's interest. And I don't see that improving by making them the stewards of the playground. I see no evidence they have any interests whatsoever at heart beyond charging Canadians more for less.

As a writer who works in much larger, much more competitive global markets, I know quality Canadian programs are only possible in public/private partnerships. And I'll grant you, I can't think of a formal organization that couldn't stand improvement. But as to the CTF's current funding guidelines, no where do I see stated in intent or result bad shows that no one watches and no one profits from. No where do I see a shred of evidence that the CTF is out to throw contributors' money down a well, burn it in the backyard, or hand it out willy-nilly to Joe Canadian, Credentials Unspecified, Experience Unknown, pipe-dreams nonetheless validated due to nation of origin.

We've all seen the BDU's programming schedules. The Canadian cable companies' are hardly flagships for either competitive Canadian programs, or even Canadian content beyond promises of cheap, copy-cat reality projects. Some of their representatives' very publicly derisive attitude toward what I as a successful Canadian creator have done so far, -- or what I might like to do in future --, their preference to hold us all hostage over say, working with willing partners responsibly toward a reasonable solution to their concerns … These things don't inspire images of ideal leadership to a land of milk and honey and "hits". Rather they only stoke my fears that corporate bullies can and will have their way in Canada…. Under that suspect banner of 'more market-driven objectives'. Whose market? Whose objectives?

Please do not subscribe to the rhetoric that suggests that culturally-representative programs are somehow antithetical to "hit"-driven commerce. We all know this is not about public policy versus private enterprise, at all. Culture IS commerce.

"Hits" occur when a distinctive and singularly identifiable voice reaches and resonates with Common Experience. Culture and Commerce are not separate ideas. In modern society, it is the all-pervasive entertainment media that is the principle carrier of popular attitudes, influences, information and new ideas. If you question this point of view, I humbly direct your attention to the overwhelming influence of American values, products and corporate agendas on all Canadian populations. Ask yourself how it all even got in the door. Television. Radio. Internet. Cable. Movies. Images and sound, created by the great melting-pot of mythologies of one conglomerated culture, disseminated for a single common result -- profit. America is in the business of pumping their culture into the world. And Canada should be in the business of pumping ours. America is an example to us only in the sense that if you invest in and cooperate, collaborate with --, cultivate a nation's talent, it pays HUGE.

David Barlow (The Border, Blue Murder, Nothing Too Good For a Cowboy)

Television drama is currently the most influential form of popular storytelling. At its best it speaks to where we have been, who we are now and what we wish to become. It shows us that we are not alone in what we feel and fear. It reinforces our sense of self.

The Americans understand this. They have been successfully showcasing their mores, their social attitudes and their lifestyle through their film and television dramas for over 50 years. A poll was done last year in Iraq. The Iraqis ranked America as the most hated country in the world. They also ranked it as the country they would most like to emigrate to. What was the source of this image of America as the promised land? American films and television.

Primetime television despite strikes, game shows and reality programs is still dominated by dramas. It is the single most pervasive and persuasive form of TV programming. It is also minute for minute one of the most expensive forms of television programming.

The CTF has as its objective to assist the creation and broadcast of high quality, culturally‑significant Canadian television programs and to build audiences for these programs. Making television drama is hard work and building an audience is even harder.

When I began in this business Canadian TV drama series were thin on the ground and the CBC resolved to increase their audiences for dramatic programming and CTV followed suit. And as time went on series like Street Legal, E.N.G. and Road to Avonlea drew weekly audiences of a million or more and ran for many seasons. A critical mass of high quality Canadian programming created an appetite for more Canadian programming.

Then a number of things happened; more channels, fragmentation, reduced distribution fees, the CRTC's expansion of the definition of priority programs and the faltering of will on the part of some broadcasters. Between 1998 and 2006 conventional broadcasters reduced their expenditures on Canadian programming from 5.1 percent of ad revenues to 2.3 percent.

The cumulative effect was a radical reduction in the amount of drama produced in this country. I felt like I had gone back in time. The level of drama production seemed to be not much greater than it had been when I entered the business over two decades ago and we had a stretch of almost five years without a breakout hit; some critical successes but no hits.

With little new Canadian drama on view the audiences went away. There were plenty of other choices. Canadian broadcasters were still merrily buying every new U.S. show that they could cram into their schedules and the refrain of the day was, "Well, Canadians won't watch Canadian shows. They are really not interested." But just when people started to buy that bit of sophistry along came a show called Corner Gas and then along came a show called Little Mosque on the Prairie. Wonder of wonders, Canadians turned out in droves for these shows. Networks recommitted to developing new series and we are now back to building a critical mass of Canadian quality programs which in turn will build audiences.

It is a maxim that the audience doesn't know what it wants until it sees it. The only way to succeed is to keep providing the audience with choices until it sees something it likes.

This has to be the toughest place in the world to make TV drama. Our channels are saturated with imports from the largest, most successful purveyor of English‑language entertainment in the world. And if that weren't enough competition we also import the best of British television.

U.S. production budgets are on average almost three times larger than ours per hour, as Aaron mentioned and U.S. broadcasters cover 85 percent of these budgets. Canadian broadcasters pay some of the lowest licence fees in the industrialized world. Thank goodness for public financing. But partially because it is public money the process of financing in this country is long and complex.

A friend recently completed an application for development money for a feature film script, not production just the script. The package; application, proposal, budgets, bios, contracts, corporate and other supporting documents ran to 125 pages. When he told me this I said, "Steve, the actual screenplay is only going to be 110 pages." Even if you manage to get your production financed you still have to face the fact that failure is the constant, success an exception.

All of these presentations, if you watch the video -- are poised and passionate. They're all prepared. And these presentations, combined with the Writers Guild of Canada presentation at the start of the week, have the advantage of having data, expertise, and facts to back that up.

The writers made the point -- strongly -- that the commercial/cultural, or private/public distinctions were illusory. They made the point why TV in Canada has to be a public-private partnership. They shared their expertise, they defended the fun.

And none of it matters.

This has been hinted at by John Doyle in the Globe and Mail, but the overwhelming consensus of everyone coming away from he hearings was that the fix was in. And had been all along.

The fund will be split in two. The cable companies will get what they're asking for. Jim Shaw, who didn't even bother to show up to the contretemps he caused -- will be rewarded for shirking his responsibilities.

There is much whispering about Shaw's connections to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, or to the Conservative Government's ideology of privatization...though I haven't seen any concrete evidence of that.

What I did see, and what you can see too - is the attitude of the commisioners through the week. The Chairperson, Rita Cugini, was engaged in the process. The other two commisioners, not so much.

But it's one particular exchange on the Friday that stands out. It's between Barlow, and the author of the original report that so fundamentally misrepresents what's best for TV culture, for Canadians, for Canada -- the report that recommended the ridiculous notion of 8/10 Cancon, and separate commercial and cultural funds -- Michel Arpin.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Vice‑Chairman Arpin.

COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Only one question.

Are you members of the Writers Guild of Canada?

MR. BARLOW: Yes, in ‑‑ yes, we all are.

COMMISSIONER ARPIN: The four of you?

MR. BARLOW: That's correct.

COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Thank you very much.

That's it. That's all he had to say.

If you're scratching your head and saying, "um, what?" Let me translate. What Arpin was saying, in effect, was we heard from the Writers Guild of Canada already. I don't know why I should have to listen to you.

That, my friends, on the record -- is the sound of one man dismissing all the hard work and passion and expertise.

This is the CRTC. This is the agency that's charged with protecting your interests.

But they haven't been in that business for a very long time. They are not guardians of the culture. They are facilitators for the industry. After all, there's no problem hearing from multiple cable co's -- Rogers, Shaw, Videotron -- or Networks -- Global, CTV, CBC. They have lawyers, and money, and lobbyists.

That's who gets listened to.

But Vice Chairman Arpin doesn't want to hear from cultural workers. Creatives. Storytellers. And he doesn't care about the viewer, either. He's there for the corporate interests in the industry. He has to sit there while the WGC and the unions tromp up and appear --but he doesn't have to listen to those who will be most affected by the capriciousness of their rule changes.

Watch the video. The writers come up about halfway through. Note the attitude. Listen to the patronizing questions. And remember.

What you do with that is up to you. They're counting on you being a good, docile Canadian and doing nothing. But when it comes election time and the candidates come stumping for your vote, remember Vice Chairman Arpin, and his displeasure at having to sit and listen to actual writers.

Ask them why the fix is in.

And ask them why the only people who don't seem to matter are the people who make shows, and the people they expect to watch them.

The Forward Gaze of the Room

VIEWER JENNIFER SMITH writes:

What I want to know is, how the hell did they manage to get an episode about illegal kidney harvesting on the air within a week of a major international news story about illegal kidney harvesting.
Did you guys have a Ouija board in the writer's room or something?

Heh. No. But we did have a Bat.

But that's part and parcel of trying to put your best foot forward and keep yourself grounded in reality. The most important thing, when you're pitching stories for a show like The Border is to have your head in the world. All writers do this. The men and women who pitch stories based on what they saw on HOUSE last night are never going to get anywhere. You never want to be the third movie out on a subject; so by design, especially on a non-serialized show like The Border, what you want to do is take note of the little stories at the margins; not the A1 story, the story buried in the back with only two column inches, which is interesting and odd and may just turn into something.

Every Sunday (Saturday in Canada) the big weekend paper lands with a WHUMP and wannabe writers find feature stories and think, "wow that would make a good..." and don't realize that at that point there are two thousand people thinking the same thing.

It's hard to tune yourself to be open to the less obvious sometimes, or to try to imagine what will work as a story and might be topical not when you're writing it - but three or six months down the line when it hits the air.

One of the problems of Canadian TV sometimes is that the shows sit on the shelf too long -- and so they don't seem fresh when they are broadcast. It's too hard to predict where people are going to be that far out for something that's supposed to be temporally responsive, like TV.

There are other mediums that have to think even further out. That's why the big U.S. studios do all that research to try and figure out their summer tentpoles three years out.

There's a friend of mine who just got a book deal to write a big fantasy book for one of the bigger publishing houses -- because they have data suggesting what will be a big trend next year.

In the case of The Border, we're now watching episodes that were filmed about four or five months ago -- which is still longer than the lead time on U.S. series. But at least it's close.

We've all been kind of shocked by the number of echoes that have emerged in the news that reflect Border episodes that we pitched and worked out months ago. Believe me, there's more of that coming in the episodes to come.

But it IS strange that our whole "stolen kidney" story -- which has been a popular urban legend for years, finally airs a couple weeks after a real organ ring story breaks...and that story has a Canadian connection.

So I'm here to tell you:

It's because we're brilliant and we totally saw it coming.

I am available for stock tips and prognostication.

And if you want to watch Physical Assets, our take on the organ thing, the show's up at CBC. (Canadian viewers only, sorry.)

Uh oh.

I HAVE IT on reliable authority that over the next couple weeks, Jim Henshaw is going to move the fridge, and expose all the dirt and dead bugs and dustbunnies and stuff that nobody usually sees under there. All the stuff that never gets said about the Canadian TV industry -- things I would never dream of saying, things I don't even really know; apparently Jim's gonna say it.

Grab a cup and get under your desk.

First up appears to be Alliance Atlantis and Canadian Accounting...

The Legion of Decency can be perused here.

Comment Housekeeping

AS OF TODAY, if you have an OpenID, (Livejournal, Wordpress, Typepad, AIM,) you can now comment on the blog. I've also got comment moderation on til I see how this shakes out.

"Family Values" For You All

A FEW PEOPLE have asked me about the titles of episodes of THE BORDER (I guess they see them on the IMDB or something) and the rationale behind them. That comes from Janet MacLean, one of the creators of the show. She seized upon the idea of naming our shows after some piece of jargon, or officialspeak, that hints at the content to come. There's something delicious and perverse about hinting at twists and turns with a phrase that in its original usage, is meant to placate and obsfucate: "Physical Assets," "Pockets of Vulnerabilty," "Compromising Positions," "Bodies on the Ground," etc, etc.

A couple of wags happened upon the title for my second episode, airing next week, and typed aggressively what a cliche the phrase "Family Values" was.

Sigh. I hate it when people don't stop for a second, and think long enough to get the dang joke.

The preview for my episode follows. Good promo. Gives the flavor. I'll write more about our astounding guest cast closer to the airdate next week. For now, here's the preview for the rather obviously-titled "Family Values."

Dunzo.

It's over.

...but for Jeff Zucker it's just beginning. What an eejit. Man oh man, it's been a bad month for the horses Henshaw backs.

Writer in the HOUSE

DIANE WAS ALREADY all over this, but Jill Golick posted details of a visit by HOUSE writer Pam Davis to the Canadian Film Centre.

Read it and weep, Canadian writers:

House has 11 writers in the story department and they work 50 weeks a year. That means each writer is responsible for about two scripts a season and has 25 weeks to work on each. They work long hours — ordering in dinner most nights, especially in the weeks before their own script goes into production.

(Let’s compare that to the work load in a Canadian story department. The typical story department has four writers and 13 episodes to deliver. They’ll have 2, 3 or 4 scripts each to write and the timeline is a lot shorter.)

The House story department is divided into two teams — in effect two different story departments each led by a senior writer. Davis told us that House showrunner, creator and fellow Canadian, David Shore prefers not to have story broken by the room. So on her team, each writer breaks story on his or her own and then re-works it with input from the team leader and notes from other writers.

The other team actually does break story in the room. So House has the best of both worlds.

Thanks, Jill!

The Border on Itunes

JUST IN TIME for my second episode, airing next Monday at 9pm on CBC, comes word that THE BORDER is now available in the Canadian Itunes Store.

If you've missed the show and want to have it on your Ipod, now you can.

And This Hour Is 22 Minutes is up too!

Attention Blood Ties Fans!

...KEEP DOWNLOADING and playing the Blood Ties game...

...that is all.

The Border Amps Up the Ewww!

TONIGHT AT 9PM is the first episode of THE BORDER written by my colleauge Sarah Dodd. The funny thing is that, in the story room it seemed I was the guy always pushing for heart and the emotion and thinking about the feelings; and Sarah's episodes are full of gross and weird and squelchy things like...illegal organs.

Awesome!

Now it needs to be said that Sarah is one of the sweetest, most even-tempered, nicest writers I've ever worked with.

The important thing is - we transcend gender roles on THE BORDER.

You can see Sarah's excellent, creepy good ep of THE BORDER tonight at 9 on CBC.

Extra bonus: More Nigel Bennet goodness!

Rock N'Roll, Cancon, and The Salt Eaters

JAN: How many voted for the Communist party, Max?
MAX: About two-tenths of one percent. It’s called the parliamentary route to socialism.
JAN: You got the strange gods vote: Marxism, Fascism, anarchism, kept on the side of the plate like a little bit of salt to bring out the flavour of English moderation. A thousand years of knowing who you are gives a people confidence in its judgment. Words mean what they have always meant. With us, words change meaning to make the theory fit the practice. We eat salt.

-Tom Stoppard, Rock N’Roll

ROCK N’ROLL is Tom Stoppard’s story of the life and times of several characters from shortly after the end of the Prague Spring in 1968, to the end of the “Velvet Revolution” which brought Vaclev Havel to power in 1989.

The show unfolds the stories mainly through the eyes of two protagontists. Max, played by Brian Cox, is one of the last unreconstructed Soviet-style British communists. Jan (Rufus Sewell,) starts out as one of Max’s students as Cambridge, but returns home to Prague to look after his mother.

But what Rock N’ Roll is really about is the intersection of culture and politics. It also, at the margins, tells the story of the Czech band “The Plastic People of the Universe,” whose persecution in the 1970s led to a sensational trial, and Charter 77 – a manifesto of sorts that for Havel and other dissidents, started the reclamation of their society from the Communist jackboot.

The love Jan has for music transcends politics, which is precisely what the above passage is about – it’s what makes it so dangerous. Through his thirty year journey, Jan, who starts out politically agnostic, is gradually pushed into dissidence simply because his desire to be left alone, to listen to the Plastics and music, can’t be accommodated.

Rock N’Roll is ultimately about so much more – the wilting promise of the sixties, paganism and freedom of thought and expression; a love story, a lament for Syd Barret (really). It’s meaty and provocative and vibrant and moving.

I’ve never been to Prague. I know very little about Syd Barret, pitifully little of the writings of Vaclev Havel – but such is the power of culture that I’ll be seeking each of these things out now.

For those of you drilled to think this way – there’s even a Canadian connection; Paul Wilson, the translator of much of the writings of Havel that Stoppard leaned on for the play – is Canadian. He was also a member of The Plastic People of The Universe. So there. There’s your angle!

I kid. That reductive, “what’s visibly Canadian?” angle is actually part of the problem. But that's another story for another time.

The true power of culture, of course, is when it can take a story like this one, a story that’s specific to a place, and time – and make you relate it immediately to something local and familiar. That’s the reason we’ve read Shakespeare’s “history” plays for five centuries. I guarantee you that there’s nary a soul anywhere who gives a toss about Henry Bolingbroke; and what does it matter that Richard III was actually a pretty decent monarch? Culture elevates us all. It makes us think. It tells us who we are, as it breaks us down and makes us look inward and outward at once.

And like it or not, the primary delivery system of culture today is television.

Now, let’s talk about words.

The passage I quote above – the argument between Jan and Max, sent a chill down my spine when I saw it on the stage of the Jacobs Theater last Thursday night. Because of course it (admittedly, with lower stakes than Russian tanks and secret police persecutions) echoes wonderfully the ridiculous masque that unfolded at the CRTC hearings into the Canadian Television Fund last week.

“Culture” and “Commercial” there were the buzzwords. The ostensible reason why the mechanism for funding domestic TV production could only be improved by splitting the current fund in two – each following one of those elusive, ephemeral definitions.

There were submissions through the week, by the creative unions, by the DGA and WGC and ACTRA; by creatives, by the CTF itself – which strongly disputed the idea that this differential was in any way meaningful. These unions came armed with Data: examples of shows that succeeded though they had 10/10 Cancon points – shows that were not as successful though they aimed for the 8/10 threshold that is the new savior proposed by the CRTC.

But unlike Jan’s words to Max above, we don’t have the confidence of a thousand years of knowing who we are in this country. Quite the opposite. As a nation that defines itself largely by what it is not, we tend to eat a lot of salt.

Or maybe salt’s the wrong analogy. Let’s call it… cheeseburger.

It’s good cheeseburger. The best in the world. American Cheeseburger. Very popular. Very tasty. I can haz American Cheezeburger. There’s simply no question that Canadians like the taste.

The reality is that this distinction the CRTC is currently peddling – “cultural” versus “commercial” – that’s a very U.S. way of looking at the problem.

In the U.S., “culture” is often used to connote the high-falutin – classical music, intellectual or literary novels, jazz, yup – theater too…things that are not designed to appeal to the mainstream. Culture is often to be suspected – part of a peculiar strain of anti-intellectualism that has always been at the core of American cultural life.

America, of course, needn’t worry about things cultural, since there is also the rubric of “entertainment.” And the U.S. is better at “entertainment” than just about anybody out there.

In other countries – countries like Canada, with real first world economies and everything -- this essentially American overlay of what “culture” means is not the understood meaning. And the results of this difference can be staggering.
In Great Britain, culture is Keeley Hazell and Page 3 and it’s also The War of the Roses and The Proms. People argue over the relative merits of this part of the culture and that part of the culture. They might even call it high, low, and middlebrow – but they won’t deny that it’s all culture.

There’s also a general recognition that supporting culture is good for building the nation. Why are all those British actors so goddamn good? Because they come up through a system of training in theatre that’s heavily subsidized. The British Film industry has its ups and down, but also has spates of being able to turn out films that run the gamut from challenging (anything by Ken Loach) to fun and still trenchant (Four Weddings and a Funeral, The Full Monty.) Comedies that are aggressively, specifically British still export – whether it’s types satirized in Little Britain, or the all-offense fest of Catherine Tait.

In France, there are very serious political consequences to not protecting the French culture. And yes, that culture includes some very silly comedies. And some very decidedly non-commercial dramas – both of which can become “hits.”

In fact, if there’s been a shift that Canada (the English speaking part, at least) has not been part of, it’s the rise of the domestic program. Other countries used to have an insatiable appetite for American shows, too. But somewhere over the last few years, from Germany to Italy to France and beyond, the populace has gotten a taste for their own cop shows, lawyer shows, medical shows. Nowhere was there a discussion or an argument as to whether it was cultural or commercial. There was a recognition that it was all culture, and that it was worthy of support. Most of these countries, to varying degrees, have the same challenges Canada faces – it’s a difficult playing field to compete against the American product. Because it’s difficult, it’s generally recognized – even as a point of national pride – that it’s to be supported. It’s good for the culture, which means good for the country.

This is also true in Quebec, by the way. It’s all well and good to put it down to the language barrier, but that doesn’t tell the full story. Les Boys is as worthy in their eyes as La La Human Steps. Which is as it should be.

But here in English Canada, culture comes smacking up against industrial policy.

And make no mistake, there’ s an industrial element to this, too.

When one country sells a product into another country at a cut rate, it’s called “dumping.”

If I have more cuttlefish than I can possibly eat in my nation, and I sell you my excess cuttlefish at a really cheap price, it’s good for me because I’m getting rid of it.

Of course, often, that means the cuttlefish industry in that country never gets going. That’s why tariffs are put in place.

What we’re in the middle of here is the side effect of an ongoing skirmish that concerns the industrial dumping of U.S. shows on Canadian channels. The system in this country is set up to allow for that. Simultaneous substitution practically demands it. The networks profit handsomely from it. They argue and lobby to keep their commitment to indigenous production low, as low as possible, to preserve it.

Adopting the U.S. definition of “culture” fits into this. So does a number of other things: getting people to run down the CBC, and question Canadian successes when they do happen. In order for all this to work, we have to keep alive that idea of “culture” having that slightly nasty, metallic, American definition to it. That way nobody notices what you’re doing. Nobody will rally to your cause.

Another component of this, and in many ways its most shameless part, is exporting and shipping off all your homegrown talent.

Ingrid Bergman was a star in Sweden before she went to the U.S.A. South Africa has a star system. UK bands always break at home first. Movie stars arrive from other nations with an adoring crowd in tow back home. But time and time again, a writer, or a director, or a star turns up in California having never really done anything or gotten anywhere in Canada.

And then if they are successful, then we claim them. It’s perverse.

Jim Carrey toiled for years here. There are still oldtimers here who, if you track them down, will run down how deeply, deeply Carrey was humiliated and ignored as he tried to make it in TV here. It’s not that he didn’t try. He did. He may occasionally mention his Canadian roots. But you notice that Carrey never comes back – never does a project here. Why would that be, exactly? There’s darkness in there – and memory of what it was really like.

Substitute Carrey for a lot of Canadian talent and you’ll hear a similar tale. People who couldn’t get anywhere here who left, and suddenly found out that driving 2000 miles south made them brilliant. Some will smile and wave and play the game and wear Leafs jerseys on Letterman. But don’t be fooled. Deep down, they know. They know.

It’s shameful. And we’ve been doing it to talent – both behind and in front of the camera – for decades in this country.

And the players in the system reinforce it. Shaw may say that what it wants is to be able to control investment in “Commercial” programming. But that’s not how he makes his money. He makes his money by being protected – by NOT doing exactly the thing that he accuses Canadian talent of not being able to do -- compete. Shaw, Rogers, CTV, Global – they all make money by bringing in U.S. signals. Shaw, in fact, instigated his brawl with the CTF soon after his request to bring in additional U.S. channels was turned down. This is not a coincidence.

Everybody in the system has a vested interest in making the U.S. definition of “culture” – ie: not for the people, not fun – stand, because that way they can continue the lock on the thing that makes them money, which is the industrial dumping of U.S. product into Canada, unfettered and unencumbered by limits.

Pushing talent away works for this, too. It’s better to have talented Canadians go south and learn to tell U.S. stories than it is even to keep them here to do a few things first – even if their ambition would eventually lead them to the bigger pond. If you don’t expand and encourage the talent pool, you see, then programs don’t get better. If no one can build on success, and move up the chain, and hone craft, and take that first staff writing gig or first feature script and go on to something better and get better – if in fact you can reinforce the idea that “if you’re any good you don’t stay here,” then you get to keep making your money off the dumped cuttlefish.

You can have truces. CTV, for instance, is so flush with a good run of successes that you do see them doing a bit more for Canadian homegrown material. They’re the best we have. Could they be doing more? Absolutely. But they still mainly make most of their money off the dumped cuttlefish.

The bottom line is, if too many people start watching Canadian shows, you have to say that the numbers don’t matter, and compare them to CSI or HOUSE.

And if shows strike a chord, like Trailer Park Boys, you have to figure out a way to run them down, too. Because getting a popular toehold in the culture and recognizing that might muddy that tidy split of “culture” and “commercial” that you’re trying to sell.

And if the CBC starts making you look bad by running way more Canadian shows – you have to go after them, because nothing can stop the forward momentum of the meme that Canadians don’t want to watch Canadian shows. Everything else depends on that, you see.

And you also have to make sure that the coverage the companies get when they go before the CRTC and talk about the “broken system” gets far more play than the voices of the creatives – because then you hope the people will hear “broken system” and swallow the lie.

And you have to make sure that it’s hard – too hard – too hard to stay if you’re blessed with actual talent, because if you were able to stay and train up and get better and have access to great actors here, if, in fact there was a whole bunch of talented people who could work regularly and advance both their expertise and craft without having to go to L.A. (like the class of Actor and creator who chooses not to leave Great Britain, for instance) then those empowered voices might juke your whole rotten system – and poke it for the sham that it is.

And if the result is that generations of Canadians think the crime rate is higher than it is, or that abortion is a third rail topic, or that you can plead the fifth here, or that racism is out of control in Canada, or that the War on Drugs is a noble and not an idiotic fight, or any one of a hundred other values that are not borne out in the Canadian reality are, in fact, real, then that’s a small price to pay, right?

And if you control all the papers and can reinforce this view, then that’s good too, right?

And if you can influence the regulatory body that’s supposed to oversee you, and ignore the experience of other nations, and just accept that American definition of the split between “culture “ and “commercial” well then that’s the best thing of all, right?
Sure, there’s a strong undercurrent of philistinism in the character of the nation that makes this possible. You couldn’t do it if there wasn’t already a glee to be had from chopping down all the tall poppies.

But still – you do need all these things marching in concert to maintain the status quo. Especially when shows start selling elsewhere, or the New York Times writes a good review, or you’re getting a million or a million two viewers a week..

There’s a moment in Rock N’Roll, quite near the end of the play where Jan comes home from being imprisoned. The secret police has been to his apartment and his records, which lined one wall – have been smashed. He looks over the terrible mess, and it’s at this moment that the friend who accompanies him remembers – he borrowed a record while Jan was away. Jan unwraps it and takes it out. It’s Pet Sounds. He puts it on and the two of them listen to “Wouldn’t It Be Nice.” It’s beautiful. It’s unbearable. It’s wonderful.

And it’s in music that I know that I’m right about everything I’ve written above.

For we were here before. With all the same arguments. With all the same hatreds coming from the audience who said, “we don’t want to have crummy shows rammed down our throats.”

Except that the shows were songs. And the medium was radio. And then, in the late 1960’s, the regulatory bodies – led in a large part by Pierre Juneau (for whom the Junos would be named) held firm and said, “no, we will carve out a percentage for our own material.”

And the result today is a cultural music scene that is vibrant and groundbreaking – successes at home and ambassadors to the world.

Cancon worked. And nobody made distinctions between “cultural” and “commercial.” The only distinction made was between doing it half assed, and really, really committing to it.

And so today we have Arcade Fire and Broken Social Scene and Stars and Blue Rodeo and the Hip and K-os and Sum 41 and Holly Cole and Barenaked Ladies and Feist and Black Mountain and….and….and….

Toward the very end of Rock N’Roll, Jan finds himself back in Cambridge, and in a raucous dinner party, returns to his old argument with Max:

JAN: …All systems are blood brothers. Changing one system for another is not what the Velvet Revolution was for. We have to begin again with the ordinary meanings of words. Giving new meanings to words is how systems lie to themselves…

Amen to that. Funny how it took a play by a Czech-born British playwright seen in New York city to make a New York –born Canadian writer see that.

Or maybe it’s not so funny.

Maybe that’s exactly what culture is for.