WHILE THERE'S A pause in the CRTC Hearing bafflegab, let's kick for a moment toward something that's NOT being talked about, but that has EVERYTHING to do with what's going on in the "review" of the TV system currently going on in Gatineau.
One look at the (mostly) aged white men asking the questions at the podium will tell you that this is not a particularly hip group. The challenges and implications of 21st century media is not likely to be something that motivates them. I would even go so far as to say, they probably don't see the forest for the trees.
But the cable companies do. And so do the phone companies.
While they're up there arguing for the entire system to be thrown open to deregulated, unrestricted American signals, there's another battle quietly going on. If you're a customer of Rogers or Bell, you've already seen the first stirrings of it: you may buy a nice high speed connection, but you're not getting it. See, thanks to something called "traffic shaping," or "throttling," these companies are already trying to dip their toes into a much larger pool. Traffic shaping means that they throttle, or restrict, some types of media files going across the network. Like video. So video comes to you at a much lower bit rate than, say, email or text.
The telcoms and cablecos are testing and gauging the public's taste for this right now because they have a much bigger target in mind: net neutrality. You might have heard that phrase, or maybe you haven't, but this is a video that explains what's going on and what's at stake:
That's a U.S. example, of course. But don't for a moment think that Shaw and Rogers and Cogeco and Bell and Telus aren't all over this as well. Their plans for the future include controlling the pipe you can use to access the internet, and also being able to endrun Canadian channels to drive more American content to you -- all while maintaining their historic protections through government regulation, without giving anything back, either to the system, or consumers.
As you watch the big corporations battle, remember that this is lurking in the background.
They're playing a much bigger game than you are.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
"Don't Get Rid of the Rules Just Because they're Difficult to Enforce."
THAT'S RENT-A-GOALIE's Graeme Manson at the CRTC hearings today.
It's always a depressing watch when you tune in that little room in Gatineau. But today -- even though I didn't hear a lot of it -- there were some gems and some observations that just seemed weirder than most.
First - will someone, preferably a fully billingual English-French speaker, assure me that Arpin, author of the bilgeworthy report on the CTF, famous snubber of the writers at the last presentation, will someone please tell me that he makes sense in French? Because if this is a translation, or second-language problem, that's one thing, and worthy of a pass. But if he's half as muddled a thinker in French as he seems to be in English, it's no wonder we're in deep fudge.
There's something deeply troubling to me when these appointed mandarins sit before the unions' reps and dismiss them as "special interests" when the people who actually COST Canadians money get to whine for more protections and breaks, and it's called "improving the market."
If any of these guys ever saw a free market, it would land on them like the butt cheek of a 800 pound sumo wrestler.
The worst part is, if the broadcasters DO manage to get fee-for-carriage, you just know that's going to be blamed on US. And no amount of pointing out that the tiny fingernail we have in their pocket is nothing compared to the whole fucking arm the cablecos have managed to get -- thanks to their friendships with certain politicians who may rhyme with "Leave and Tarp Her."
I'll get into transcripts and excerpts once I can post them -- if I can stand them without raising too much bile in my throat.
In the meantime, THANK YOU once more to our WGC presenters, and the other creative union representatives, and Graeme -- for rockin it. And oh yeah. Go Ricky!
It will be wonderful sipping drinks with you down in Santa Monica when all this settles.
Kidding.
(Or am I?)
It's always a depressing watch when you tune in that little room in Gatineau. But today -- even though I didn't hear a lot of it -- there were some gems and some observations that just seemed weirder than most.
First - will someone, preferably a fully billingual English-French speaker, assure me that Arpin, author of the bilgeworthy report on the CTF, famous snubber of the writers at the last presentation, will someone please tell me that he makes sense in French? Because if this is a translation, or second-language problem, that's one thing, and worthy of a pass. But if he's half as muddled a thinker in French as he seems to be in English, it's no wonder we're in deep fudge.
There's something deeply troubling to me when these appointed mandarins sit before the unions' reps and dismiss them as "special interests" when the people who actually COST Canadians money get to whine for more protections and breaks, and it's called "improving the market."
If any of these guys ever saw a free market, it would land on them like the butt cheek of a 800 pound sumo wrestler.
The worst part is, if the broadcasters DO manage to get fee-for-carriage, you just know that's going to be blamed on US. And no amount of pointing out that the tiny fingernail we have in their pocket is nothing compared to the whole fucking arm the cablecos have managed to get -- thanks to their friendships with certain politicians who may rhyme with "Leave and Tarp Her."
I'll get into transcripts and excerpts once I can post them -- if I can stand them without raising too much bile in my throat.
In the meantime, THANK YOU once more to our WGC presenters, and the other creative union representatives, and Graeme -- for rockin it. And oh yeah. Go Ricky!
It will be wonderful sipping drinks with you down in Santa Monica when all this settles.
Kidding.
(Or am I?)
Kids, the Candy Store, And Breaking the Cookie Jar
A BIG "GOOD LUCK" to the WGC contingent, as well as Rent-A-Goalie writer Graeme Manson, who get to trundle up to Gatineau today for the latest hearings that could completely spike the entire broadcast system.
They're against, by the way.
It's funny, you know, I don't have a lot of time to blog right now, so I can't get off on too much of a rant here, but I would really like to hear from someone with a better background in economics than me. Here's my question. Ready for it? Deregulation. Has it ever worked?
I mean, really? Can you please tell me the industry that it's been great for? Let me rephrase that -- can you tell me the industry that was deregulated where things turned out better for the general public? Right now, as we watch the U.S. teeter on the brink of a spectacular financial crisis because one firm managed to almost tank the whole investment market? And as our lips work their way around "Bear Stearns," lips still parched from mouthing the dreaded name of "Enron," plenty of us have time to contemplate such issues as we wait in crowded terminals amidst the blasted, hellish clusterfuck that air travel has become in the wake of that industry's deregulation. Maybe we can try to soothe ourselves, and turn on the radio -- except of course that'll just annoy you, as you listen to the same Mariah Carey song on every station in the country because Clear Channel owns them all, and if you can't get NPR you're screwed because, hey, consolidation and deregulation of the airwaves has really helped the public really stay better informed because there are so many new, wonderful players in the infosphere.
Oh, I could go on. But I won't. If there's a budding John Kenneth Galbraith or Adam Smith out there, please let me know. Because deregulation to me smells vaguely like ass.
So of course, the kabuki spectacle at the CRTC this week is all about deregulation. Basically, two groups who have long enjoyed a great degree of protection -- Broadcasters and BDU's (don't you love that -- it's a fancy way of saying cable and satellite and TeeVee through your phone line -- broadcast distribution units) are duking it out. Each wants to take away the other's protections and keep their own.
Like a dyspeptic Don Quixote, even Jim Shaw's been riding back in on his ass. See, our favorite foot stamper has written his friend the Prime Minister (big donor, Jim Shaw, and we all know how seriously the Conservatives take their election financing) because he's "fed up" with the CRTC. He wants the government to intervene directly to give him what he wants. Just like Charles McVety, another good friend of the Conservatives.
Sweet Jesus, it makes me want to scream. Privileged kids, all, fighting over the candy and the cookies and leaving the entire production community -- which employs tens of thousands of people in this country, and adds millions to the economy -- to fight over the crumbs. And we are the ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD that pulls this bullshit. In Australia, they understand culture. Their parties may not agree on everything, but support of cultural industries? They get why they need to be supported. They understand what they mean to the fabric of a nation. England, France, the rest of what they used to call, "The West," -- they all get it. Canada stands alone on this philistine-crowded cliff, dying to jump off. Way to go! We're number one!
At this point, nothing would surprise me. Nothing.
Ulp.
Holy Gods. You have to understand something. Canwest and CTV appearing together at this point is like watching the entire player roster of the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox go into a gay bar, start doing body shots, and pair off for canoodles and backrubs. It's Sharks and Jets sharing a soda. It's like watching Jon Stewart french kiss Dick Cheney. It's dogs and cats sleeping together. It's like Woody getting together with Mia to talk about the kids. It's like...well....you get the idea.
But, sad to say, this is just a measure of just how weird it's gotten. And also a wakeup call for creatives in this country. There are sides in this hunt, and if you write, produce, act, work on a film set, in marketing, sales, accounting, or anything even tangentially connected to the film and tv business -- whatever your issues might be yesterday, or tomorrow -- you gotta suck it up and pick the Canadian networks on this one.
The CFTPA, Canada's producers association, did a survey that showed that of the top 200 shows in the United States -- fully 97 percent of them were already available on Cable and Sat. That means 6 out of 200 weren't. Six. Out of 200.
What the Cablecos want is complete deregulation. They want to be able to do what they want -- with all the protections they have retained, with no responsibility either to you as consumers of local programming or to the industry at large.
They are all Jim Shaw. Well, most are, anyway. Here's how bad it is. You think the Global/CTV thing is weird? Last week, Ted Rogers spoke out against his own company.
Even he sees what's behind this. It's the purest, wettest, most breathtaking kind of arrogant greed. It's a giant, candy-coloured, gift wrapped "fuck you."
Flown lately in the U.S.A.? Fun, huh? Well fasten your seat belts, bitches. That's what's coming to your TV soon.
So I guess you'll just what, turn to the internet, right? Not so fast, buster. They're putting the fix in on that, too.
So good luck Graehme, Kelly, Maureen, and the other voices trying to counsel some degree of sanity in this mad spectacle. I'm sure you'll be met with the same respectful and attentive attention you got the last time round.
Remember the Bowie song from Ziggy Stardust? "Five Years?"
Two.
Depending on what goes down at the CRTC in the next couple weeks, anybody who makes their living off anything other than shovelling U.S. programs down a pipe has got about two years before you have to seriously think about, you know, maybe doing something else.
Not a great way to end the week, but hey, at least it's sunny, right?
EDIT: You can listen to the CRTC hearing by clicking the button their page. Or you can watch video via CPAC here. (Unless your ISP shapes the traffic.)
They're against, by the way.
It's funny, you know, I don't have a lot of time to blog right now, so I can't get off on too much of a rant here, but I would really like to hear from someone with a better background in economics than me. Here's my question. Ready for it? Deregulation. Has it ever worked?
I mean, really? Can you please tell me the industry that it's been great for? Let me rephrase that -- can you tell me the industry that was deregulated where things turned out better for the general public? Right now, as we watch the U.S. teeter on the brink of a spectacular financial crisis because one firm managed to almost tank the whole investment market? And as our lips work their way around "Bear Stearns," lips still parched from mouthing the dreaded name of "Enron," plenty of us have time to contemplate such issues as we wait in crowded terminals amidst the blasted, hellish clusterfuck that air travel has become in the wake of that industry's deregulation. Maybe we can try to soothe ourselves, and turn on the radio -- except of course that'll just annoy you, as you listen to the same Mariah Carey song on every station in the country because Clear Channel owns them all, and if you can't get NPR you're screwed because, hey, consolidation and deregulation of the airwaves has really helped the public really stay better informed because there are so many new, wonderful players in the infosphere.
Oh, I could go on. But I won't. If there's a budding John Kenneth Galbraith or Adam Smith out there, please let me know. Because deregulation to me smells vaguely like ass.
So of course, the kabuki spectacle at the CRTC this week is all about deregulation. Basically, two groups who have long enjoyed a great degree of protection -- Broadcasters and BDU's (don't you love that -- it's a fancy way of saying cable and satellite and TeeVee through your phone line -- broadcast distribution units) are duking it out. Each wants to take away the other's protections and keep their own.
Like a dyspeptic Don Quixote, even Jim Shaw's been riding back in on his ass. See, our favorite foot stamper has written his friend the Prime Minister (big donor, Jim Shaw, and we all know how seriously the Conservatives take their election financing) because he's "fed up" with the CRTC. He wants the government to intervene directly to give him what he wants. Just like Charles McVety, another good friend of the Conservatives.
Sweet Jesus, it makes me want to scream. Privileged kids, all, fighting over the candy and the cookies and leaving the entire production community -- which employs tens of thousands of people in this country, and adds millions to the economy -- to fight over the crumbs. And we are the ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD that pulls this bullshit. In Australia, they understand culture. Their parties may not agree on everything, but support of cultural industries? They get why they need to be supported. They understand what they mean to the fabric of a nation. England, France, the rest of what they used to call, "The West," -- they all get it. Canada stands alone on this philistine-crowded cliff, dying to jump off. Way to go! We're number one!
At this point, nothing would surprise me. Nothing.
Ulp.
GATINEAU, Que.–Two of Canada's largest television broadcasters set aside their fierce rivalry yesterday and presented a united front, imploring the federal regulator to put consumers first by resisting demands from cable and satellite companies to relax the regulations governing the television industry.
The top executives of CanWest Global Communications Corp. and CTVglobemedia Inc. sat shoulder to shoulder as they made an "unprecedented" joint submission at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, warning the very survival of Canadian TV is at stake.
Holy Gods. You have to understand something. Canwest and CTV appearing together at this point is like watching the entire player roster of the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox go into a gay bar, start doing body shots, and pair off for canoodles and backrubs. It's Sharks and Jets sharing a soda. It's like watching Jon Stewart french kiss Dick Cheney. It's dogs and cats sleeping together. It's like Woody getting together with Mia to talk about the kids. It's like...well....you get the idea.
But, sad to say, this is just a measure of just how weird it's gotten. And also a wakeup call for creatives in this country. There are sides in this hunt, and if you write, produce, act, work on a film set, in marketing, sales, accounting, or anything even tangentially connected to the film and tv business -- whatever your issues might be yesterday, or tomorrow -- you gotta suck it up and pick the Canadian networks on this one.
The CFTPA, Canada's producers association, did a survey that showed that of the top 200 shows in the United States -- fully 97 percent of them were already available on Cable and Sat. That means 6 out of 200 weren't. Six. Out of 200.
What the Cablecos want is complete deregulation. They want to be able to do what they want -- with all the protections they have retained, with no responsibility either to you as consumers of local programming or to the industry at large.
They are all Jim Shaw. Well, most are, anyway. Here's how bad it is. You think the Global/CTV thing is weird? Last week, Ted Rogers spoke out against his own company.
Even he sees what's behind this. It's the purest, wettest, most breathtaking kind of arrogant greed. It's a giant, candy-coloured, gift wrapped "fuck you."
Flown lately in the U.S.A.? Fun, huh? Well fasten your seat belts, bitches. That's what's coming to your TV soon.
So I guess you'll just what, turn to the internet, right? Not so fast, buster. They're putting the fix in on that, too.
So good luck Graehme, Kelly, Maureen, and the other voices trying to counsel some degree of sanity in this mad spectacle. I'm sure you'll be met with the same respectful and attentive attention you got the last time round.
Remember the Bowie song from Ziggy Stardust? "Five Years?"
Two.
Depending on what goes down at the CRTC in the next couple weeks, anybody who makes their living off anything other than shovelling U.S. programs down a pipe has got about two years before you have to seriously think about, you know, maybe doing something else.
Not a great way to end the week, but hey, at least it's sunny, right?
EDIT: You can listen to the CRTC hearing by clicking the button their page. Or you can watch video via CPAC here. (Unless your ISP shapes the traffic.)
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Smart People Doing Smart Things To Help Canadian TeeVee
I'D LIKE TO point you in a couple of good directions today. First, one of my colleagues on Blood Ties, Mark Leiren-Young (The Green Chain,) testified to the Senate last week as one of the voices opposing Bill C10.
In The Tyee, he wrote an entertaining piece about what it was like to be a normal human called to testify before a Senate committee. It's a fun look behind the process that so affects the life of this country, yet couldn't, seemingly, be more removed from it:
In The Tyee, he wrote an entertaining piece about what it was like to be a normal human called to testify before a Senate committee. It's a fun look behind the process that so affects the life of this country, yet couldn't, seemingly, be more removed from it:
I was one of the people in the Canadian arts scene not named Sarah Polley who spoke to the Senate last week about the dangers of allowing the Canadian Heritage Minister to deny tax credits to films and TV shows deemed "contrary to public policy."
Being asked to appear before the Senate is like being called to the principal's office. You know how high school teachers talk about "your permanent record." I remember the day I realized there was no permanent record and I had a sudden urge to torch my guidance counselor's desk. Preparing to speak to the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, looking at the senators, then past them at the media control booth where people record every word and simultaneously translate it from English to French and vice versa, I suddenly realized that yes there is a permanent record and this is it.
While I work in film and television, I wasn't invited to the Senate as me. I was asked to speak as a member of the Book and Periodical Council because I serve on their freedom of expression committee on behalf of the Playwright's Guild of Canada. And if that sounds confusing, it was confusing, because while I'm personally appalled by the implications of C-10, the organizations I represented are probably closer to "concerned." So when we drafted our brief -- the BPC's official statement for that permanent record -- I wrote a toned down version of how I felt, that was toned down even more before it was approved to present.
Leiren-Young's personal take on the experience is a fun read. Hopefully, you'll be able to hear more about yourself -- which is a nice segue into the second great thing you should be prepped for this weekend -- the launch of a brand new, unprecedented live Net Radio show about Canadian TV.
It comes courtesy of Diane Kristine, tireless toiler and keeper of the PR flame the Networks Should be doing -- hostess of the TV, Eh? Canadian TV site, to which we Canculture types really do all owe a debt. (The best place for info on Canadian Television is a volunteer run site. Crazy.)
Robson Arms co-creators Susin Nielsen and Gary Harvey talk about the show's return on April 28. Technogeek Steve Wild weighs in on web streaming and downloads, and what the networks are doing wrong ... and right. Mark Leiren-Young reports on Bill C-10: censorship, bad business, or prudent stewardship of public funds?I know from personal experience that Susin and Gary are two very interesting people to talk to. It's well worth tuning in -- especially since thanks to a bit of corporate synergy, you have a chance to catch up with the entire series of Robson Arms!
Meet the neighbours of Robson Arms all over again during Bravo!’s two day, 26-episode marathon, leading up to the Season 3 premiere on CTV. Revisit the hijinx and hilarity of sleazy superintendent Yuri (John Cassini), slackers Nik (Fred Ewanuick) and Hal (Zak Santiago), adorably clueless Bobbi (Gabrielle Miller), and the rest of the Robson Arms’ tenants. The marathon begins with the very first episode Saturday, April 26 at 11 p.m. ET / 8 p.m. PT.
Season 1 airs back-to-back and features Canadian talent including Margot Kidder, Mark McKinney, and Will Sasso. In Season 2, beginning Sunday, April 27 at 10 a.m ET / 8 a.m. PT, the building may be falling apart, but new tenants are still moving in, including cantankerous Caldo Vasco (Leslie Nielsen). Bravo!’s marathon wraps up with an encore presentation of Gila Monster, one of Season 3’s sneak peak episodes, Sunday, April 27 at 4:30 p.m. ET / 1:30 p.m. PT.
After the marathon, viewers can renew their lease with Robson Arms on CTV – Season 3 airs Mondays at 9:30 p.m. ET beginning April 28.
So there it is, my mitzvah for the day. Set your PVR's, people. And don't forget to tune in for the radio show on Sunday!
Casting Notice: This Guy Does it All
SURE, MAYBE NONE of us will be Casting anything if the Cablecos get their way at the current CRTC hearings, but hey, just in case anybody in the Canadian TV industry still have jobs next week, I thought I'd pass along a little something that came to The Border via new scribe Greg Nelson. It's a savvy and seductive pitch from actor Billy MacLellan (Afghanada.) This kind of multi-tasking talent should be embraced by all shows:
I am avail for work on The Border if you have a character that needs to...I'm sorry. We can't keep talent like that to ourselves. Cast him at will...for all our sakes.
-run with a loaded crossbow
-cock a shotgun with one hand
-uppercut a punk-ass onto a banquet table or into a large bowl of punch
-rollerblade chase through the streets of San Fran
-hang offa that part of a helicopter, ya know, that part. (not the propeller)
-Oh! Rescue a girl from train tracks. (No one does that anymore)
-Put quarters on my bent elbow and then catch them with the same hand. ( I think that I saw the Fonz do that one)
-Wrangle a wild stagecoach.
-Headbutt a Scottish guy. (or girl)
-Sing to a kid that is stuck in a drain. (H2O, not sewer)
-Cut the blue wire. (Hold on...)
-Cut the RED wire.
-Get kids outta a trapped bus, submerged in a pool.
-Jump offa a building because the alien in me is too powerful.
-Swim under water that is on fire.
-Ride on the top of an elevator.
-Hurdle over a German soldier to take out the tower with the live grenade around my neck.
-Oh. And I once played Tommy Djelias in The Music Man.
Much love,
Billy Mac
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Writer Geek Tool #456
I MYSELF am a "write with music" person. But I know there are those of you out there for whom this is simply not a workable solution.
Sadly, sometimes in the world there are people who want to have conversations or practice their piano or have loud sex while you're trying to come up with an Act Out.
What to do, what to do?
Well, courtesy of Greg Nelson, here's a website with all the flavours of white noise you would ever want to hear.
Dishwasher? Ventilator? Hard Rain? Flowing River? Pick your non-obtrusive sound, download, plug in headphones and go.
You're welcome.
Sadly, sometimes in the world there are people who want to have conversations or practice their piano or have loud sex while you're trying to come up with an Act Out.
What to do, what to do?
Well, courtesy of Greg Nelson, here's a website with all the flavours of white noise you would ever want to hear.
Dishwasher? Ventilator? Hard Rain? Flowing River? Pick your non-obtrusive sound, download, plug in headphones and go.
You're welcome.
On Exits Graceful and Notso
EVERY ONCE IN a while a reporter calls and wants a quote and you start talking and you talk for a while if the subject's fun and you get off the phone and think, "Oh My God, what the hell did I say?"
And then you live in fear til it appears.
Luckily, Cassandra Szklarski, who I had a long, rambling and fun conversation with last Friday, has turned out a fun and thoughtful article about TV shows and how to know when to hang it up -- and the dangers of hanging on too long -- tied to the recent news that both Corner Gas and Air Farce are bowing out.
I am not only quoted accurately, she actually manages to squeeze out the juice...
Interestingly enough, one of the things Cassandra and I talked about was SNL -- here's the relevant bit from the article:
What can you say about this character bit from Kristin Wiig?
And I think I may be developing a bit of a Tina Fey for new featured performer Casey Wilson, who did the five to one slot proud:
So, good timing on talking about SNL, I guess. The flak-pundit gods smile upon me. Do not forsake me, Keith Olberman.
And then you live in fear til it appears.
Luckily, Cassandra Szklarski, who I had a long, rambling and fun conversation with last Friday, has turned out a fun and thoughtful article about TV shows and how to know when to hang it up -- and the dangers of hanging on too long -- tied to the recent news that both Corner Gas and Air Farce are bowing out.
I am not only quoted accurately, she actually manages to squeeze out the juice...
The article, also with quotes from the insightful and encyclopaediaclly-knowledged Jaime Weiman of Macleans, is also available here.When announcing the end to "Corner Gas," star and creator Brent Butt said he was largely motivated by a desire to end on a high note, even though the show regularly draws viewers and critical acclaim.
The alternative is to suffer the fate of a slew of once-glorious shows that have spiralled into creative mediocrity and worse, says blogger and TV writer Denis McGrath, who cites marathon series "Law and Order" and "ER" among the guilty.
"What I think is crazy is these stealth shows that nobody ever writes about and then run for years and years, like (the now cancelled) 'JAG', " says McGrath, who runs the TV website "Dead Things On Sticks."
"That show ran 12 years or something; it was completely under the radar, nobody wrote about it but it kept running and why did it keep running? Because millions of Americans watched it every week.... In the United States, there is so much money to be made from a successful television series that the impulse to carry it on even beyond where it might be good to retire it, that's a very strong thing."
McGrath says he's noticed a rhythm to drama series that is pretty much universal - in the first season, it finds its feet and in the second, the possibilities start to gel.
The real test is Season 3 and 4, when a show either takes off or starts to dip, he says.
McGrath cites the political serial "West Wing" as taking a dive in Season 4, while the doctor drama "House" found new life in Season 3.
In some cases, paradoxically, it's the short-lived series that burn bright in people's minds because there were only a few episodes, says McGrath.
Think "My So-Called Life", which only had 19 episodes, or the cult-following enjoyed by "The Prisoner," after just 17 episodes.
"I think one of the funniest sitcoms ever created was 'Fawlty Towers' and there's exactly 12 episodes and that's it, that's all they ever did," says McGrath. "There's something kind of seductive about that. You don't get rich that way, but boy, you make sure that everybody has in their head how great that show was."
Interestingly enough, one of the things Cassandra and I talked about was SNL -- here's the relevant bit from the article:
I point that out because, in the depths of my cold and after a busy weekend, I finally got around to watching SNL last night before going to bed early. And hola, it was funny. I mean, really funny. None of the usual, get through the show in twenty minutes with your finger on the FF..."Battlestar Galactica" has said this is its last season, while "Lost" promises to tie up all of its loose ends in 2010. By the time "ER" embarks on its last hurrah next season, it will have been on the air 15 years.
After such convoluted storylines, the pressure is on to make the wait worth it.
"You don't want to just dribble off the air, especially for something that's that long-running," says McGrath.
"One of these days, there's going to be the last season of 'Saturday Night Live.' And I hope that they bring on great people and they employ a ton of writers and they go out with a bang. Because boy, it would really suck if the last season of 'Saturday Night Live' was totally lame and nobody liked the cast and all the bands they put on sucked."
What can you say about this character bit from Kristin Wiig?
And I think I may be developing a bit of a Tina Fey for new featured performer Casey Wilson, who did the five to one slot proud:
So, good timing on talking about SNL, I guess. The flak-pundit gods smile upon me. Do not forsake me, Keith Olberman.
Well, What is There To Say?
ABOUT THE 2008 Canadian Screenwriting Awards? You've read the articles that listed the winners, and yes, yours truly was humbled to be among them...but none of them capture the flavour of the event.
(Pic below: Sticks meets 22 Minutes Producer & Head Writer Kevin White, whose staff picked up the best comedy trophy [courtesy WGC])
First, it was packed. To the gills. There's no doubt that the party's reputation precedes it. "Way more fun than the Geminis," some wag was heard to opine. A writer-actor added, guiltily chomping on a Lambchop: "the ACTRA party was nothing like this." And the CFTPA awards? Well, they're just learnin. (But you might want to hire a showrunner next year, guys. Ha. I kid. I kid because I love.)
Once you get past the teeming horde, then comes the dissonance. To see so many writers in one room, all prettified, well -- it's disorienting. And kind of exciting.
There was Gavin Crawford's winning patter -- a fearless mix of industry in-jokes that went after CBC and Little Mosque's relationship with its labor, CTV and their new shows...Josee Verner and Bill C10...nobody was spared. Pretty cheeky -- but all in good fun.
Canwest and CTV were the major sponsors of the night, and seeded in the crowd there were many of the development execs from both companies: Brent Haynes from CTV, and Karen King, Tara Ellis, and Christine Shipton of Canwest; they mixed it up, loose and informal like...there's no doubt in my mind that this is one of the best things both companies do for writers all year. Thanks from us all.
Al Magee, uberproducer, received the mentorship award, named for the late Alex Barris. Sometimes it seems like everyone in the room has worked with Magee -- and as previously mentioned, we're talking a big room. Still, for all the breadth and depth of his work for and in the industry, I'd like to think that the light in his eyes on Monday came from the realization that he could have an entirely new career if he wants: Ivan Fecan stand in. Seriously. There has to be a market for that. Maybe at the CRTC? Al, your phone will be ringing shortly. I mean, more than usual.
There is nothing greater to a acceleratingly balding man than to see a man with lustrous hair make good. Which is probably why I called out, "nice hair" before Al started to speak. Al, I am sorry. It wasn't me talking, really, just a potent mix of Advil and Cough Syrup and maybe a whiskey or so.
I know for a fact that my similarly-superiorly-coiffed superagent Glenn Cockburn did the math as he got the most shout-outs of the night.
WGC Communications Director David Kinahan was right on top of things getting those pressers out, as always, and the mighty Jill Golick once again delivered the leanest, fastest awards show in the business. Forty five minutes and out. Combine that with the great food and the open bar, and ho chee mama, it was a time.
The Border writing staff had triple glory -- co-creator Jeremy Hole was one of those honored for his work on the credit committee; new Season 2 scribe Greg Nelson picked up a trophy for Afghanada (along with his co-writers, Jason Sherman and Adam Pettle,) and I tromped up at the end of the night along with my co-writer Bob Wertheimer to receive honors for Episode 1 of Across The River to Motor City. It's true, by the way, with the lights in your eyes, you really can't see a thing once you're up there. Although you have to like it when the first thing you're required to do when you take the podium is down a tequila shot. Writers. We crayyzzee.
The late lamented Blood Ties writing room had a good night, too. Shelley Eriksen did a capital job saluting Showrunner Award Winner Peter Mohan -- who was nominated by his entire staff, including me, and Travis McDonald, who scored a trophy for writing the script for Normal.
McDonald probably had the best on-stage moment of the night when he read from a note he received from an agent about an early draft of the very script he was being honored-- note that advised something about day jobs, and, you know, keeping them. McDonald also scared the talent, by confessing to presenter Yannick Bisson that "my girlfriend says she had the biggest crush on you growing up." You should have hugged it out, Travis.
The rest of the night is a blur -- not for the good reason, mostly cause the head cold that's dogged me since last week started winning, but much conversation and frivolity ensued. Writers new and freshly minted did their best material and good laughs were had by all. Spotted out back and in the cozy booths: Karen Walton, Directors Michael DeCarlo and Jeff Beasley, Dennis Heaton, (JPod, Blood Ties) nominee Daegan Fryklind (Robson Arms, Jpod) Mark Farrell and Kevin White, (Corner Gas) Paul Mather (Rick Mercer, Little Mosque) Stephanie Morgenstern (Flashpoint,) Aaron Martin, (Best Years, The Session) Karen McClellan (Best Years, Sophie) David Barlow, Janet McLean, (The Border) Peter Mitchell, (The Guard, Sabattical) Laurie Finstad-Kniznik (Durham County,) Actors Carlo Rota (24, Mosque) and Nazneen Contractor (The Border) and many, many, many more.
CTV and CBC both pulled the savviest trick -- sending out their press releases highlighting their wins first. That's part of the game, too. Somebody might want to explain that to new Citytv owner Rogers. In the past, City always sent a camera to the awards and got a couple clips here and there. But last night -- when their station's show took top hour long drama -- quite a feat for a place that only produced one -- nobody. Nothing. Sad. (I don't care for myself - I got a nifty trophy -- but you should at least acknowledge the great work of your development department.)
Anyway, enough solipsism, let's bring this to a wrap.
By the time the bar closed and the crowd thinned, I was ready to go home, bigtime. So thanks to the great trickster spirit who cagily stole my award to ensure that I'd come to Shelley Eriksen's after-party do at Reposado.
I'll have to come back some time and actually taste the tequila. When I can taste tequila again, I mean. Sniffle Sniffle.
I've often wondered why the party was so much more important than the actual awards -- though don't get me wrong, the awards are nice. I thought it was merely the novelty -- all those writers, doing essentially what can be a lonely endeavor, getting together to form the biggest writer's room going...but my good friend Rob Sheridan (a winner last night, along with Mark Farrell, for Corner Gas) who put it all in perspective when he said, "I almost preferred it last year when I didn't win. Gracious disappointment, that I can do no problem. This feeling happy just makes me... uncomfortable. I don't know how to do that."
Writers, yes. But Canadian writers.
See y'all next year.
(Pic below: Sticks meets 22 Minutes Producer & Head Writer Kevin White, whose staff picked up the best comedy trophy [courtesy WGC])
First, it was packed. To the gills. There's no doubt that the party's reputation precedes it. "Way more fun than the Geminis," some wag was heard to opine. A writer-actor added, guiltily chomping on a Lambchop: "the ACTRA party was nothing like this." And the CFTPA awards? Well, they're just learnin. (But you might want to hire a showrunner next year, guys. Ha. I kid. I kid because I love.)Once you get past the teeming horde, then comes the dissonance. To see so many writers in one room, all prettified, well -- it's disorienting. And kind of exciting.
There was Gavin Crawford's winning patter -- a fearless mix of industry in-jokes that went after CBC and Little Mosque's relationship with its labor, CTV and their new shows...Josee Verner and Bill C10...nobody was spared. Pretty cheeky -- but all in good fun.
Canwest and CTV were the major sponsors of the night, and seeded in the crowd there were many of the development execs from both companies: Brent Haynes from CTV, and Karen King, Tara Ellis, and Christine Shipton of Canwest; they mixed it up, loose and informal like...there's no doubt in my mind that this is one of the best things both companies do for writers all year. Thanks from us all.
Al Magee, uberproducer, received the mentorship award, named for the late Alex Barris. Sometimes it seems like everyone in the room has worked with Magee -- and as previously mentioned, we're talking a big room. Still, for all the breadth and depth of his work for and in the industry, I'd like to think that the light in his eyes on Monday came from the realization that he could have an entirely new career if he wants: Ivan Fecan stand in. Seriously. There has to be a market for that. Maybe at the CRTC? Al, your phone will be ringing shortly. I mean, more than usual.
There is nothing greater to a acceleratingly balding man than to see a man with lustrous hair make good. Which is probably why I called out, "nice hair" before Al started to speak. Al, I am sorry. It wasn't me talking, really, just a potent mix of Advil and Cough Syrup and maybe a whiskey or so.
I know for a fact that my similarly-superiorly-coiffed superagent Glenn Cockburn did the math as he got the most shout-outs of the night.
WGC Communications Director David Kinahan was right on top of things getting those pressers out, as always, and the mighty Jill Golick once again delivered the leanest, fastest awards show in the business. Forty five minutes and out. Combine that with the great food and the open bar, and ho chee mama, it was a time.
The Border writing staff had triple glory -- co-creator Jeremy Hole was one of those honored for his work on the credit committee; new Season 2 scribe Greg Nelson picked up a trophy for Afghanada (along with his co-writers, Jason Sherman and Adam Pettle,) and I tromped up at the end of the night along with my co-writer Bob Wertheimer to receive honors for Episode 1 of Across The River to Motor City. It's true, by the way, with the lights in your eyes, you really can't see a thing once you're up there. Although you have to like it when the first thing you're required to do when you take the podium is down a tequila shot. Writers. We crayyzzee.
The late lamented Blood Ties writing room had a good night, too. Shelley Eriksen did a capital job saluting Showrunner Award Winner Peter Mohan -- who was nominated by his entire staff, including me, and Travis McDonald, who scored a trophy for writing the script for Normal.
McDonald probably had the best on-stage moment of the night when he read from a note he received from an agent about an early draft of the very script he was being honored-- note that advised something about day jobs, and, you know, keeping them. McDonald also scared the talent, by confessing to presenter Yannick Bisson that "my girlfriend says she had the biggest crush on you growing up." You should have hugged it out, Travis.
The rest of the night is a blur -- not for the good reason, mostly cause the head cold that's dogged me since last week started winning, but much conversation and frivolity ensued. Writers new and freshly minted did their best material and good laughs were had by all. Spotted out back and in the cozy booths: Karen Walton, Directors Michael DeCarlo and Jeff Beasley, Dennis Heaton, (JPod, Blood Ties) nominee Daegan Fryklind (Robson Arms, Jpod) Mark Farrell and Kevin White, (Corner Gas) Paul Mather (Rick Mercer, Little Mosque) Stephanie Morgenstern (Flashpoint,) Aaron Martin, (Best Years, The Session) Karen McClellan (Best Years, Sophie) David Barlow, Janet McLean, (The Border) Peter Mitchell, (The Guard, Sabattical) Laurie Finstad-Kniznik (Durham County,) Actors Carlo Rota (24, Mosque) and Nazneen Contractor (The Border) and many, many, many more.
CTV and CBC both pulled the savviest trick -- sending out their press releases highlighting their wins first. That's part of the game, too. Somebody might want to explain that to new Citytv owner Rogers. In the past, City always sent a camera to the awards and got a couple clips here and there. But last night -- when their station's show took top hour long drama -- quite a feat for a place that only produced one -- nobody. Nothing. Sad. (I don't care for myself - I got a nifty trophy -- but you should at least acknowledge the great work of your development department.)
Anyway, enough solipsism, let's bring this to a wrap.
By the time the bar closed and the crowd thinned, I was ready to go home, bigtime. So thanks to the great trickster spirit who cagily stole my award to ensure that I'd come to Shelley Eriksen's after-party do at Reposado.
I'll have to come back some time and actually taste the tequila. When I can taste tequila again, I mean. Sniffle Sniffle.
I've often wondered why the party was so much more important than the actual awards -- though don't get me wrong, the awards are nice. I thought it was merely the novelty -- all those writers, doing essentially what can be a lonely endeavor, getting together to form the biggest writer's room going...but my good friend Rob Sheridan (a winner last night, along with Mark Farrell, for Corner Gas) who put it all in perspective when he said, "I almost preferred it last year when I didn't win. Gracious disappointment, that I can do no problem. This feeling happy just makes me... uncomfortable. I don't know how to do that."
Writers, yes. But Canadian writers.
See y'all next year.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Well.
So. That happened. :)
I'll need to collect myself a bit before posting more than this.
EDIT: I'll post my thoughts on the Awards when I get a chance, but right now I'm fighting deadlines and a truly toxic cold. That's the thing about being a working screenwriter. Downtime is for lightweights. No rest for the sniffly.
One thing I will mention, though -- It was expressed by several people last night at the Awards that maybe I was too harsh on Gayle MacDonald's Globe article. Some suggested that maybe I missed the point, that the amazing thing of profiling these great female screenwriters was enough, and should be lauded because nobody ever does that.
I'm somewhat swayed by that. Good on MacDonald for taking a stand FOR something Canadian and not shovelling the same American-packaged newsbits. Insofar as I was overly critical, I'm sorry. I don't want to obscure how much everyone last night was really excited by the prospect of a front page, weekend arts section article profiling screenwriters.
There it is. I get to be wrong sometimes. Probably why I was a shitty journalist!
Back later.
I'll need to collect myself a bit before posting more than this.
EDIT: I'll post my thoughts on the Awards when I get a chance, but right now I'm fighting deadlines and a truly toxic cold. That's the thing about being a working screenwriter. Downtime is for lightweights. No rest for the sniffly.
One thing I will mention, though -- It was expressed by several people last night at the Awards that maybe I was too harsh on Gayle MacDonald's Globe article. Some suggested that maybe I missed the point, that the amazing thing of profiling these great female screenwriters was enough, and should be lauded because nobody ever does that.
I'm somewhat swayed by that. Good on MacDonald for taking a stand FOR something Canadian and not shovelling the same American-packaged newsbits. Insofar as I was overly critical, I'm sorry. I don't want to obscure how much everyone last night was really excited by the prospect of a front page, weekend arts section article profiling screenwriters.
There it is. I get to be wrong sometimes. Probably why I was a shitty journalist!
Back later.
Monday, April 14, 2008
What Happens At The Awards, Stays At The Awards
OKAY, BITCHES.
I'm tired of wonking and policy and all that shiite.
I want lots of laughs and a few dirty jokes and a whole lot of uh huh and you know and heh heh and hey that other thing.
If you're one of the lucky ones to have scored a ducat to the utterly, profoundly, scarily and irrevocably sold out Canadian Screenwriting Awards at Brant House in Downtown Toronto tonight, all I can say to you is, "Excelsior." You are a gangster. I hereby move you as an honorary or, in point of fact, actual member of the Canadian Writer Mafia.
Secondly, there are a number of things that, well, may be hard to explain to the novice, and/or the outside world. There are things that you just must accept on faith.
Among these things:
I'm tired of wonking and policy and all that shiite.
I want lots of laughs and a few dirty jokes and a whole lot of uh huh and you know and heh heh and hey that other thing.
If you're one of the lucky ones to have scored a ducat to the utterly, profoundly, scarily and irrevocably sold out Canadian Screenwriting Awards at Brant House in Downtown Toronto tonight, all I can say to you is, "Excelsior." You are a gangster. I hereby move you as an honorary or, in point of fact, actual member of the Canadian Writer Mafia.
Secondly, there are a number of things that, well, may be hard to explain to the novice, and/or the outside world. There are things that you just must accept on faith.
Among these things:
- That lamb had it coming.
- The disoriented wait staff are used to a better looking and dumber group.
- Don't stare at the defibrulator tech. You might need him.
- Tequila is an appropriate first drink. Who are you to judge?
- Gavin Crawford is not the boy who sent people to the cornfield.
- The bathroom attendant is not hitting on you.
- Yes, yes, those kids writing animation are way more lithe than they have a right to be, you need to get over it.
- Don't make fun of radio drama unless you've listened to it.
- Network executives are very, very susceptible to being plied with free alcohol. Just saying.
- Karen. Motherfucking. Walton.
- Make sure to talk to every writer you see from Corner Gas and ask, "so, got anything lined up?"
- Do not look Peter Mohan directly in the eye. That's exactly what he's looking for and it will not end well.
- Oh yeah. Same with Heaton.
- Give the Montreal people some love. You know they have that whole Toronto thing going on. And they feel strangely naked without their smoked meat.
- "That's what she said" is only appropriate as a comeback if, in fact, you're quoting The Office.
- If you're in a conversation, and the subject drifts to the following: Breaking Bad, Robot Chicken, In Treatment, The Wire Season 5, Durham County, Little Mosque Season 2, Jekyll, Life on Mars, Ashes To Ashes, Sabattical -- under no circumstances do you admit that you haven't seen these shows.
- She's drunk. She's not into you.
- Oh, she works for Rogers? Shit, boy, that's all you had to say! {Please note: joke also works with Canwest Global and TMN. Strangely, it does not work with CBC.}
- Maureen Parker likes it when you call her, "Dutch."
- Yes. That is my hand. How you doin?
Fan Campaigns, Again.
I'M QUOTED TODAY in an article Kate Taylor has written in the Globe and Mail about the Save JPOD campaign that's currently underway. It's mostly because of my canonical Guide to Save Our Show Campaigns, which seems to turn up on this or that fangroup every few days now.
The Blood Ties crack that I made was relying on an old joke I've made for months - and was in advance of me hearing about this campaign, via Tanya Huff's site.
So kudos to the vampire fans!
With the advent of e-mail and now the rise of Facebook and on-line petitions, they have become deceptively easy to wage, lulling fans into false confidence about their numbers.
"Back in the days of Star Trek, people had to write letters. There were flyers, they went to conventions, they had phone trees," said Denis McGrath, a Canadian screenwriter who blogs about television. "Nowadays, it's easier, but it is also more myopic.... They are only talking to people who have drunk the Kool-Aid."
He advises outraged fans to reach out beyond their narrow on-line constituency and to write polite letters explaining why they liked the show, trying to highlight their demographic desirability as viewers. Better yet, they should write advertisers telling them they saw the ads and even tried the products. Angry letters insulting network programmers, deconstructing the ratings and criticizing replacement shows are less effective, and mountains of stuff only get the mailroom mad at you, he believes.
"I worked on a vampire show," he said, referring to Blood Ties, a Canadian series now in limbo with its American broadcaster after two seasons, "and all I could think was somebody is going to start sending blood through the mail and that will be the end of it."
The Blood Ties crack that I made was relying on an old joke I've made for months - and was in advance of me hearing about this campaign, via Tanya Huff's site.
BLOOD TIES FANS RECYCLE FOR SIGHTNow THAT is smart, people. (The main character on BT, Vicki Nelson, wears glasses and suffers from a degenerative eye disease.) THAT is a wonderful campaign - tied into the show, progressive, and helpful to the larger community.
As spring cleaning gets under way, Blood Ties Fans are asking people to look through dresser drawers and closets for used eyeglasses and donate them to the Lions Recycle For Sight program.
During the month of May, the Blood Ties Fans Give Back Lions Club Drive will be collecting used prescription eyeglasses and prescription and non-prescription sunglasses as part of a unique recycling program. The collected glasses will be cleaned and prepared for distribution in developing countries where eye care is often unaffordable and inaccessible.
“We need everyone to donate their used eyeglasses,” said Candy Burke, spokesperson for the Blood Ties Drive. “In most developing countries, an eye exam can cost as much as one month’s wages and a single eye doctor may serve a community of hundreds of thousands of people.”
The drive is an International effort with fans participating from all over the world. The donated glasses will be shipped to Lions Eyeglass Recycling Centers where they will be cleaned, categorized by prescription and prepared for distribution by Lions and other groups.
To donate used glasses, including sunglasses and reading glasses, pledge online at http://www.youchoose.net/campaign/blood_
ties_fans_give_back_to_save_blood_ties or email SaveBT@gmail.com.For more information you can visit www.btfgb.wordpress.com.
So kudos to the vampire fans!
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Director Counselling
OH, IF YOU have a bit MORE time -- Ken's piece on the Director as Marriage Counsellor is required reading:
Ken's advice (available by clicking the link above) is priceless. That's all. Enjoy your Sunday.
Today's rant is about the potential dysfunction in the relationship between show runners and numbers one through five (give or take) on the call sheet.Sure, the show's Executive Producers have a hand in choosing the stars of their respective shows. But often it's a marriage arranged by the network. And even when it isn't, like in that perfect world where the EPs and the nets completely agree on casting, the potential for friction that would challenge the world's supply of "Gold Bond" is always there.What's that courting time amount to? A casting session. Perhaps a few callbacks. Maybe even a screen test or two. So even if there is a courtship, say something on the order of an arranged marriage on the Indian subcontinent, how long can we expect the honeymoon to last? After the cows and the rest of the dowry is exchanged and the families (agents and network execs) head back to their dusty villages, hubby and wife are shacked up and expected to produce offspring (TV), and the bedroom wherein they shall copulate is the fishbowl of a film set. And neither of them knows what the other looks like naked.Please excuse the lame parallels but to my mind this is exactly what it is: an arranged marriage between strangers, where the couple is then forced to bump uglies in full view of a large group of people, many of whom they've never met before.So, very soon the greasy veneer of "this is going to be great" and "you're perfect for this" and "it's like you write exactly what I'm thinking" wears off. That's when you get the EPs crowded into a room with their rapidly developing nervous ticks and shallow mouth breathing. They tell the director du semaine, "Jane really isn't that good and you might need to give her line readings." Or, "Bob thinks he's the smartest guy in the room, but whenever there's tension in a scene he does this really annoying thing with his nostrils." Or, "Lou has this big pulsing vein in his forehead that drives me nuts. Can you direct that vein not to pulse anymore."And on the set the director du semaine starts to get slimed with, "I feel like an extra here, I should have known they couldn't write for women." Or, "I wish they actually understood where I'm taking this character." Or, "Fuck that. I'm not saying this shit." Or, "Richard Dean Anderson" used to get every Friday off when he did Stargate; how come I don't get that kind of respect?"And this is where the director du semaine ceases to be a director and suddenly becomes a completely untrained marriage counsellor.
Ken's advice (available by clicking the link above) is priceless. That's all. Enjoy your Sunday.
XX or XY, They're All Writers To Me
THERE'S AN ODD little article by Gayle MacDonald in this weekend's Globe & Mail about some pretty great female Canadian screenwriters:
But it doesn't fit. Not really. For a lot of reasons.
First, the move of TV viewership to being predominately female is not a new trend. It's been going on for my entire career in TV, which is about to hit the 20 year mark.
Articles like this were written when Sisters premiered (1991) -- and that ran for over 100 episodes. The truth is, if you're a TV writer working today, the amazing thing is not a woman who can write action. It's the number of men who have learned, by necessity, to write women. (Compare and contrast the roles available for women in the movies - ie: wife, girlfriend) That's why you get lots of big female stars turning to series when they reach a certain age. Glenn Close getting bad scripts? Come to TV. We love you. We'll treat you right.
Men learning to write women is an adjustment to the realities of who's watching, sure. Just as the article points out that women have been raised to be more assertive, you've got pretty much everybody under 40 these days -- boys included, being raised to look at that as no big deal. It's hard to be a real Type A jerk writing tv drama. You have to mine too much stuff. You know, feelings and shit.
There is a selfish, satisfying reason for men learning to write women, too: for the most part, they're more interesting to write. They have more layers. They can deceive others while they're deceiving themselves. They articulate feelings -- and conceal things. Men -- most men -- simply don't display that kind of emotional range. Those still waters run pretty deep, which makes it harder to get out in 43 minutes.
In the Canadian context, of course, there's also the reality that we have to have more talk because even at 1.3 or 1.5 million an hour, that doesn't buy you four action act outs. And the other reality, that as the bleeding of male eyeballs has worsened, many networks are uneasily asking, "how can we lure more men back?" (As I've posited before, the writing of male characters on TV is often now the problem -- not the writing of women.)
Also like the commenter on TV, Eh? there's another wrinkle to all this that makes it weird. The vast majority of TV development execs in Canada are female. As for staffs, well, I worked last year on a show that was 50-50. One of the showrunners -- and the co-creator -- was a woman. And she joked several times that I was hired because I could write the emotional stuff, and my coworker Sarah was good with action.
To me, that's a testimony to what's really great about this job today. In the next couple years, I hope to get a show greenlit, and when I staff up, I'll be reading for the best writers, period.
There are areas that do need a catchup. Female showrunners were thin on the ground, but that's starting to change. I think, if you want to really talk about the need to connect with the female audience, that we could use way more episodic directors. And with Little Mosque, Weeds, Grey's Anatomy, and the like, it's nice that we're getting more female show creators.
There are some who will point to that split still being alive and well in comedy rooms. That may or not be true. Most of my experience is in drama.
What's a much bigger, and much more interesting story, generally, is the gradual, slow, inexorable move in Canada away from the Line-Producer driven model of the past, and toward the embracing of the Writer/Showrunner as the model from which success can more reliably be drawn. That's been a tough slog -- and still is, in many quarters, because non-writing producers incorrectly see it as a threat to their livelihood (which it's not) and their control (which it might be, but not really - not when TV hs to be so collaborative, and also, hey -- if the trade is a chance to work on a show you're proud to have on your resume, why wouldn't you do that?)
Cause to me, that's really what it's all about. I was feeling under the weather last night, but I went to a friend's birthday party, and when small talking with a couple of her very nice cousins, I found myself in a conversation that I've never had with somebody who wasn't a sci-fi fan. They were fans of The Border. Big fans. They asked me all the questions that people usually ask tv types (I mean, non-Canadian TV types.) When they asked me where we got our ideas, I practically had to keep from biting my cheek with joy.
That was great. And why not? I'm proud of my work on The Border.
Anyway, congrats to Tassie Cameron, Tracey Forbes, Vera Santamaria, Daegan Fryklind, Esta Spalding, Semi Chellas and Karen Walton for their exposure in the article. A rising tide floats all boats, and anything that raises the profile of screenwriters in Canada is a good thing.
Of course, nothing raises the profile quite like a swanky, crazy zoo-up. And tomorrow night in Toronto, Canada's film and TV writers get to do just that, at the Canadian Screenwriting Awards. If you don't have a ticket -- you might want to think twice about trying to get one at the door -- the event is reportedly sold out.
I'm going to spend the next two days as a guest at the National Forum of the Writers Guild of Canada. I'm excited. Hanging out with writers makes me happy.
So what indeed. To be honest, without taking anything away from the wonderful writers profiled in the article, I kind of agree with the sentiment expressed by a commenter on the Tv, Eh? site:“To work in a story room, you've got to be confident enough to throw out your good ideas and your bad ones,” adds Forbes, who is also part of Cameron's team on Flashpoint. “These days, girls are raised to be more assertive. Good writers – regardless of their sex – can write anything. Women can write kick-ass action. And men can write a heart-wrenching breakup scene.”
But while women writers are making their mark in part by conquering territory once claimed almost exclusively by men, it hasn't hurt, either, that Canadian networks are hungry for female viewers, especially those 25 and older, a coveted demographic for advertisers. Last year, at the launch of CBC Television's winter schedule, Kirstine Layfield, executive director of programming, made no secret of the fact that the public broadcaster was looking for new shows aimed specifically at a younger female viewership. “We're trying to be more inclusive,” Layfield said. “This is our opportunity to include women more aggressively into the mix. Women are huge followers of drama.”
This past week, CBC announced two new big-budget pickups: The Session, about a 32-year-old woman able to revisit the mistakes of her past; and The Wild Roses, the story of a Calgary-based family of women fighting for what they see as rightfully theirs. The latter was created by Cameron, her sister Amy, and Miranda de Pencier.
“Because viewership is skewing more female, the shows being brought to the screen are in reaction to the viewership,” says Daegan Fryklind, another finalist at Monday night's awards show, for her work on CTV's Robson Arms. “So if these are strong female leads, then they need strong females in the room to write the material they need,” adds the 38-year-old, who also was part of the team on CBC's recently cancelled drama jPod. “But I've never felt anyone only hired me because I'm a woman. I bring myself to the table, ovaries and all, so what?”
It feels to me like Gayle MacDonald wanted to profile female screenwriters in advance of the Canadian Screenwriting Awards, which is a fine and laudable thing. But that's not enough. You've got to torque it with a thesis. And this is one she thought she could make fit.
You know, sometimes I read stories and I wonder what planet I have been on because it is not the one described by the journalist. My first boss in the bizz (say 20 yrs ago) a woman, my second ditto. My third — the same and the creative head of the network, a woman. last year was the first time I ever worked on an all male writing staff, the writing staffs on all the shows I have ever worked on have had equal #’s of men to women and they have been shows in all different kinds of genres.
But it doesn't fit. Not really. For a lot of reasons.
First, the move of TV viewership to being predominately female is not a new trend. It's been going on for my entire career in TV, which is about to hit the 20 year mark.
Articles like this were written when Sisters premiered (1991) -- and that ran for over 100 episodes. The truth is, if you're a TV writer working today, the amazing thing is not a woman who can write action. It's the number of men who have learned, by necessity, to write women. (Compare and contrast the roles available for women in the movies - ie: wife, girlfriend) That's why you get lots of big female stars turning to series when they reach a certain age. Glenn Close getting bad scripts? Come to TV. We love you. We'll treat you right.
Men learning to write women is an adjustment to the realities of who's watching, sure. Just as the article points out that women have been raised to be more assertive, you've got pretty much everybody under 40 these days -- boys included, being raised to look at that as no big deal. It's hard to be a real Type A jerk writing tv drama. You have to mine too much stuff. You know, feelings and shit.
There is a selfish, satisfying reason for men learning to write women, too: for the most part, they're more interesting to write. They have more layers. They can deceive others while they're deceiving themselves. They articulate feelings -- and conceal things. Men -- most men -- simply don't display that kind of emotional range. Those still waters run pretty deep, which makes it harder to get out in 43 minutes.
In the Canadian context, of course, there's also the reality that we have to have more talk because even at 1.3 or 1.5 million an hour, that doesn't buy you four action act outs. And the other reality, that as the bleeding of male eyeballs has worsened, many networks are uneasily asking, "how can we lure more men back?" (As I've posited before, the writing of male characters on TV is often now the problem -- not the writing of women.)
Also like the commenter on TV, Eh? there's another wrinkle to all this that makes it weird. The vast majority of TV development execs in Canada are female. As for staffs, well, I worked last year on a show that was 50-50. One of the showrunners -- and the co-creator -- was a woman. And she joked several times that I was hired because I could write the emotional stuff, and my coworker Sarah was good with action.
To me, that's a testimony to what's really great about this job today. In the next couple years, I hope to get a show greenlit, and when I staff up, I'll be reading for the best writers, period.
There are areas that do need a catchup. Female showrunners were thin on the ground, but that's starting to change. I think, if you want to really talk about the need to connect with the female audience, that we could use way more episodic directors. And with Little Mosque, Weeds, Grey's Anatomy, and the like, it's nice that we're getting more female show creators.
There are some who will point to that split still being alive and well in comedy rooms. That may or not be true. Most of my experience is in drama.
What's a much bigger, and much more interesting story, generally, is the gradual, slow, inexorable move in Canada away from the Line-Producer driven model of the past, and toward the embracing of the Writer/Showrunner as the model from which success can more reliably be drawn. That's been a tough slog -- and still is, in many quarters, because non-writing producers incorrectly see it as a threat to their livelihood (which it's not) and their control (which it might be, but not really - not when TV hs to be so collaborative, and also, hey -- if the trade is a chance to work on a show you're proud to have on your resume, why wouldn't you do that?)
Cause to me, that's really what it's all about. I was feeling under the weather last night, but I went to a friend's birthday party, and when small talking with a couple of her very nice cousins, I found myself in a conversation that I've never had with somebody who wasn't a sci-fi fan. They were fans of The Border. Big fans. They asked me all the questions that people usually ask tv types (I mean, non-Canadian TV types.) When they asked me where we got our ideas, I practically had to keep from biting my cheek with joy.
That was great. And why not? I'm proud of my work on The Border.
Anyway, congrats to Tassie Cameron, Tracey Forbes, Vera Santamaria, Daegan Fryklind, Esta Spalding, Semi Chellas and Karen Walton for their exposure in the article. A rising tide floats all boats, and anything that raises the profile of screenwriters in Canada is a good thing.
Of course, nothing raises the profile quite like a swanky, crazy zoo-up. And tomorrow night in Toronto, Canada's film and TV writers get to do just that, at the Canadian Screenwriting Awards. If you don't have a ticket -- you might want to think twice about trying to get one at the door -- the event is reportedly sold out.
I'm going to spend the next two days as a guest at the National Forum of the Writers Guild of Canada. I'm excited. Hanging out with writers makes me happy.
Friday, April 11, 2008
No Tea For Lahey!
WELL, TYPICALLY, IF you want to see what Sarah Polley and Wendy Crewson had to say to the Senate yesterday, all you have to do is pick a paper. Any paper.
But when you read over the full transcript of yesterday's Senatapalooza meeting of the Banking Committee, you have to conclude that there was a bit of funny air in the air up there.
It's a collision of strange scenes and revelations -- the Senator who outed himself as an ACTRA member, a joking reference by the DGC's rep that he should get an Order of Canada for cutting his speech in half, the sniffing by the Conservative senators charged with defending this turd of a bill, pissy press releases saying Polley had no right "telling hardworking Canadians what to do" (particularly hilarious, considering the 60-80 hours a week most writers, directors, and crew people work to make a film or TV show -- talk about out of touch!)
And, of course, talk of those rascally Trailer Park Boys.
Here in Sticksville, of course, we're primarily concerned with writers and what writers had to say, so here's a couple of excerpts from the presentations by the Writers Guild of Canada.
Maureen Parker, Executive Director, Writers Guild of Canada:
We want to be clear about what we object to.
We agree that the government should not fund pornography or programs that promote hate crimes or other criminal activity.
If the government wants to revoke easily a tax credit in the instance where a film or video or TV production is in breach of the Criminal Code, then that is what the amendment to the Income Tax Act should say, and to that end, we support the producers’ amendment.
As non-statutory instruments, the proposed guidelines may be revised at any time without the involvement of Parliament. It is then open to special interest groups with different views to lobby for changes in the wording of those guidelines or their interpretation. That, in turn, will have an impact on all of the Canadian film and television programs funded by the tax credit. This is not acceptable for an objective, labour-based funding mechanism, such as the tax credit.
We find it very curious that this amendment only affects the domestic tax credit and will have no application to the production service tax credit. Heritage department officials stated to this committee last week that it was inappropriate to apply the test to the production service tax credit because it is “a credit to encourage work in Canada. It is not a credit related to content.”
We were surprised to hear that, as it was always our understanding that the domestic tax credit was also intended to encourage work, but on Canadian productions in Canada and it is also not related to content.
In structure, both tax credits are administered identically, so we see no basis for identifying one as a labour-based credit and the other as content-based.
This legislation would make it more difficult to fund indigenous productions but not American productions filmed in Canada with Canadian tax dollars. That simply makes no sense.
The Canadian tax credit is a labour-based credit. It is not subjective financing. To apply for it, a producer fills out an application form and sends it along with a bunch of documentation confirming the Canadian residency of key personnel and contracts and a budget to confirm labour expenditures. The expenditures are reviewed and the producer receives provisional approval of the plan.
If the producer spends the budget according to the plan submitted, she or he will receive the tax credit. Producers do not send in a script. The content is not reviewed. The proposed guidelines will change all of that.
Film and television production is very expensive. The average budget for a feature film is over $5 million, and the average budget for an episode of an one-hour drama is $1.4 million.
Producers need the tax credit to complete their financing after they have raised as much as they can from the marketplace, which includes government agencies, independent funds, broadcasters and distributors.
The federal tax credit, which is roughly 10 per cent of the budget, is an essential element. Producers take the certificate worth about 10 per cent to a bank. The bank generally advances 80 per cent of the value of the certificate to the producer. If there is the slightest risk that the certificate will be revoked, the banks will not consider it acceptable security.
To say the producers can find private money to fund productions deemed unacceptable is tantamount to saying they will not get them made. Rarely do private investors invest in film and television production, as the current tax laws to not encourage that form of investment as they once did in the late 1980s. Introducing this level of uncertainty about funding may not be censorship in fact, but it is definitely censorship in effect.
Rebecca Schechter, the President of the WGC -- and a writer who's written for Little Mosque on the Prairie, among other shows, put the production process in perspective for the Senators:
It is incredibly difficult to get a movie made in Canada. It can take years from the germ of the writer's original idea for the film to the start of production. There are many creative and business reasons for this length of time and difficulty, but let me assure you once you have written a script and a producer wants to produce it, a director wants to direct it and actors want to act in it, it is a Sisyphean task, pushing a rock up a hill many times. To add another layer to this difficult job by trying to guess before you even begin writing what the government of the day will consider excessive or gratuitous violence, or whether a bureaucrat who functions completely outside the creative process might deem the sexuality portrayed as educational enough to pass muster feels like the kiss of death. Television is developed differently from movies. Before even beginning to come up with an idea for a TV series, a smart writer will find out what kind of material the broadcasters are looking for. Do they want a cop show for a ten o'clock slot, a soap opera for an eight clock slot, comedies or dramedies? In television, you are beginning by shaping your own creative urges around the needs and demands of the broadcasters.
Then you shape your work around the demands of producers, directors, actors, art directors and editors, all the while trying to hold fiercely to the creative vision that got you started. Hanging another layer of guidelines on top of this is oppressive and totally unnecessary. Broadcasters already screen out what most people consider gratuitous, excessive violence and explicit sexuality.
These proposed guidelines open the door to special interest groups who will have the power to dictate what films and television programs you and I get to watch. I do not presume to tell anyone else what kind of programming should get made. Once it is made, if I do not like it, I do not watch it. I see no reason why the taste of any particular interest group should be more privileged than mine.
And okay, okay, yes...Sarah Polley is also a writer...so because she was apparently so threatening to the Conservatives that they went out of their way to attack her directly, I offer this lovely, clearheaded quote:
In the post presentation question period, Independent Senator Mira Spivak from Manitoba spoke to the wisdom of the mob, and the "not with my tax dollars" argument:
Senator Spivak: First of all, I want you to know that no bill can become law unless the Senate passes it. It does not matter if the House of Commons does not agree with us. It comes back here, and we hopefully will never agree. I have two things to say. First, in the world in which we live where we can see increasing attempts to silence opposition, thank God for Canada. We should never disturb the fragility that exists in this wonderful country for freedom of expression.
The second thing I have to say is, as a taxpayer, there is all this business about how taxpayers should not give money to something that, God forbid, offends them. What about the oil sands? What about tobacco companies? I do not agree with it, but we live in this country and we support it. Scratch the taxpayers' arguments and thank you for coming.
And finally, the most surreal moment in a most surreal proceeding goes to this question from Sentator George Baker (Lib, Newfoundland and Labrador):
Senator Baker: My first question relates to the evidence here this morning that the tax credit is not given to pornography, that the production of pornography is excluded from the tax credit. Therefore, given that this provision will now be directed at other productions, would not you agree this is an attack on the Trailer Park Boys -- an attack on Bubbles and Ricky, and that they really want Mr. Lahey to drink tea and his sidekick to put on a shirt?
But when you read over the full transcript of yesterday's Senatapalooza meeting of the Banking Committee, you have to conclude that there was a bit of funny air in the air up there.
It's a collision of strange scenes and revelations -- the Senator who outed himself as an ACTRA member, a joking reference by the DGC's rep that he should get an Order of Canada for cutting his speech in half, the sniffing by the Conservative senators charged with defending this turd of a bill, pissy press releases saying Polley had no right "telling hardworking Canadians what to do" (particularly hilarious, considering the 60-80 hours a week most writers, directors, and crew people work to make a film or TV show -- talk about out of touch!)
And, of course, talk of those rascally Trailer Park Boys.
Here in Sticksville, of course, we're primarily concerned with writers and what writers had to say, so here's a couple of excerpts from the presentations by the Writers Guild of Canada.
Maureen Parker, Executive Director, Writers Guild of Canada:
We want to be clear about what we object to.
We agree that the government should not fund pornography or programs that promote hate crimes or other criminal activity.
If the government wants to revoke easily a tax credit in the instance where a film or video or TV production is in breach of the Criminal Code, then that is what the amendment to the Income Tax Act should say, and to that end, we support the producers’ amendment.
As non-statutory instruments, the proposed guidelines may be revised at any time without the involvement of Parliament. It is then open to special interest groups with different views to lobby for changes in the wording of those guidelines or their interpretation. That, in turn, will have an impact on all of the Canadian film and television programs funded by the tax credit. This is not acceptable for an objective, labour-based funding mechanism, such as the tax credit.
We find it very curious that this amendment only affects the domestic tax credit and will have no application to the production service tax credit. Heritage department officials stated to this committee last week that it was inappropriate to apply the test to the production service tax credit because it is “a credit to encourage work in Canada. It is not a credit related to content.”
We were surprised to hear that, as it was always our understanding that the domestic tax credit was also intended to encourage work, but on Canadian productions in Canada and it is also not related to content.
In structure, both tax credits are administered identically, so we see no basis for identifying one as a labour-based credit and the other as content-based.
This legislation would make it more difficult to fund indigenous productions but not American productions filmed in Canada with Canadian tax dollars. That simply makes no sense.
The Canadian tax credit is a labour-based credit. It is not subjective financing. To apply for it, a producer fills out an application form and sends it along with a bunch of documentation confirming the Canadian residency of key personnel and contracts and a budget to confirm labour expenditures. The expenditures are reviewed and the producer receives provisional approval of the plan.
If the producer spends the budget according to the plan submitted, she or he will receive the tax credit. Producers do not send in a script. The content is not reviewed. The proposed guidelines will change all of that.
Film and television production is very expensive. The average budget for a feature film is over $5 million, and the average budget for an episode of an one-hour drama is $1.4 million.
Producers need the tax credit to complete their financing after they have raised as much as they can from the marketplace, which includes government agencies, independent funds, broadcasters and distributors.
The federal tax credit, which is roughly 10 per cent of the budget, is an essential element. Producers take the certificate worth about 10 per cent to a bank. The bank generally advances 80 per cent of the value of the certificate to the producer. If there is the slightest risk that the certificate will be revoked, the banks will not consider it acceptable security.
To say the producers can find private money to fund productions deemed unacceptable is tantamount to saying they will not get them made. Rarely do private investors invest in film and television production, as the current tax laws to not encourage that form of investment as they once did in the late 1980s. Introducing this level of uncertainty about funding may not be censorship in fact, but it is definitely censorship in effect.
Rebecca Schechter, the President of the WGC -- and a writer who's written for Little Mosque on the Prairie, among other shows, put the production process in perspective for the Senators:
It is incredibly difficult to get a movie made in Canada. It can take years from the germ of the writer's original idea for the film to the start of production. There are many creative and business reasons for this length of time and difficulty, but let me assure you once you have written a script and a producer wants to produce it, a director wants to direct it and actors want to act in it, it is a Sisyphean task, pushing a rock up a hill many times. To add another layer to this difficult job by trying to guess before you even begin writing what the government of the day will consider excessive or gratuitous violence, or whether a bureaucrat who functions completely outside the creative process might deem the sexuality portrayed as educational enough to pass muster feels like the kiss of death. Television is developed differently from movies. Before even beginning to come up with an idea for a TV series, a smart writer will find out what kind of material the broadcasters are looking for. Do they want a cop show for a ten o'clock slot, a soap opera for an eight clock slot, comedies or dramedies? In television, you are beginning by shaping your own creative urges around the needs and demands of the broadcasters.
Then you shape your work around the demands of producers, directors, actors, art directors and editors, all the while trying to hold fiercely to the creative vision that got you started. Hanging another layer of guidelines on top of this is oppressive and totally unnecessary. Broadcasters already screen out what most people consider gratuitous, excessive violence and explicit sexuality.
These proposed guidelines open the door to special interest groups who will have the power to dictate what films and television programs you and I get to watch. I do not presume to tell anyone else what kind of programming should get made. Once it is made, if I do not like it, I do not watch it. I see no reason why the taste of any particular interest group should be more privileged than mine.
And okay, okay, yes...Sarah Polley is also a writer...so because she was apparently so threatening to the Conservatives that they went out of their way to attack her directly, I offer this lovely, clearheaded quote:
We will all see movies that we do not like; I see movies I do not like. I see things that offend me politically. I see things that offend me morally. However, I choose to debate them and to have a dialogue about them, or to turn away from them. I do not say they should not be allowed to exist and certainly would not choose to give that power to the minister to make that decision.
In the post presentation question period, Independent Senator Mira Spivak from Manitoba spoke to the wisdom of the mob, and the "not with my tax dollars" argument:
Senator Spivak: First of all, I want you to know that no bill can become law unless the Senate passes it. It does not matter if the House of Commons does not agree with us. It comes back here, and we hopefully will never agree. I have two things to say. First, in the world in which we live where we can see increasing attempts to silence opposition, thank God for Canada. We should never disturb the fragility that exists in this wonderful country for freedom of expression.
The second thing I have to say is, as a taxpayer, there is all this business about how taxpayers should not give money to something that, God forbid, offends them. What about the oil sands? What about tobacco companies? I do not agree with it, but we live in this country and we support it. Scratch the taxpayers' arguments and thank you for coming.
And finally, the most surreal moment in a most surreal proceeding goes to this question from Sentator George Baker (Lib, Newfoundland and Labrador):
Senator Baker: My first question relates to the evidence here this morning that the tax credit is not given to pornography, that the production of pornography is excluded from the tax credit. Therefore, given that this provision will now be directed at other productions, would not you agree this is an attack on the Trailer Park Boys -- an attack on Bubbles and Ricky, and that they really want Mr. Lahey to drink tea and his sidekick to put on a shirt?
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Shocker! Corner Gas To End in 2009!
A PRESS RELEASE just went out minutes ago: Brent Butt is going to bring Corner Gas to a close in 2009, after the completion of Season 6:
Corner Gas creator and star Brent Butt, on behalf of Prairie Pants Productions, announced today that the series will come to an end following the conclusion of its upcoming sixth season.
Production on the final 19 new episodes, to be broadcast in 2008-2009 on CTV and The Comedy Network, begins May 15 in Regina and Rouleau, Saskatchewan. The series' finale will air sometime in Spring, 2009.
"It's a very difficult decision, but the right decision, and one I felt I
had to make," said Brent Butt, who is also a writer, director and executive
producer of the series. "When I told CTV about my decision, they made it clear
that they were keen to do more seasons. They didn't want it to end yet. But
for the good of the show, I wanted to exit gracefully, on top of our game,
when we're at our prime -- because that's how I want viewers to remember
Corner Gas: at its very best."
"This is not goodbye, it's see you later," said Susanne Boyce, President,
Creative, Content and Channels, CTV Inc. "Brent and his team have accomplished
something that has never been achieved before. They said it couldn't be done,
but Corner Gas did it anyway. The series has paved the way for other Canadian
productions by proving that if you make great TV, Canadians will watch.
"It's been a great collaboration between CTV and the Corner Gas creative
team and we've always respected what should be the right creative choice. We
look forward to another great season of laughs, and seeing what this team
comes up with next."
Butt will continue to develop projects for CTV and The Comedy Network as
production wraps on the finale season of Corner Gas.
Classy way to go out! Hey, Producers, how about this challenge:
Do what you can to keep Canada's top comedy talent in Canada, eh?
Corner Gas creator and star Brent Butt, on behalf of Prairie Pants Productions, announced today that the series will come to an end following the conclusion of its upcoming sixth season.
Production on the final 19 new episodes, to be broadcast in 2008-2009 on CTV and The Comedy Network, begins May 15 in Regina and Rouleau, Saskatchewan. The series' finale will air sometime in Spring, 2009.
"It's a very difficult decision, but the right decision, and one I felt I
had to make," said Brent Butt, who is also a writer, director and executive
producer of the series. "When I told CTV about my decision, they made it clear
that they were keen to do more seasons. They didn't want it to end yet. But
for the good of the show, I wanted to exit gracefully, on top of our game,
when we're at our prime -- because that's how I want viewers to remember
Corner Gas: at its very best."
"This is not goodbye, it's see you later," said Susanne Boyce, President,
Creative, Content and Channels, CTV Inc. "Brent and his team have accomplished
something that has never been achieved before. They said it couldn't be done,
but Corner Gas did it anyway. The series has paved the way for other Canadian
productions by proving that if you make great TV, Canadians will watch.
"It's been a great collaboration between CTV and the Corner Gas creative
team and we've always respected what should be the right creative choice. We
look forward to another great season of laughs, and seeing what this team
comes up with next."
Butt will continue to develop projects for CTV and The Comedy Network as
production wraps on the finale season of Corner Gas.
Classy way to go out! Hey, Producers, how about this challenge:
Do what you can to keep Canada's top comedy talent in Canada, eh?
Unbelievable! Even the Heritage Minister "Hates" C10!
FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, we have now officially entered the realm of the farce. You know, I'll grant that everything that I've written with public money, or accrued tax credits for, might not have been entertaining to everyone. But at least somebody, somewhere watched it and was entertained, or at least diverted.
The money going toward the fooferal of the Senate hearings on C10 just passed through the looking glass. This is the sound of your tax dollars flushing down the toilet:
Courtesy of xtra -- yes, that's right -- a publicaton put out by those "uppity gay folk," it seems that Senator David Angus left his mic on after adjourning the meeting.
Just in case you can't figure out the YouTube (Lookin at you, McVety...) here's what the Chairman of the Banking Committee said:
"The government has to bite the bullet. The minister agrees, she told me she hates the law."
So there we are. This whole thing is now about the Conservative government saving face. Everything else is a bag of B.S. Denials in the linked story aside, this sorry spectacle is an embarrassment.
They got caught. Kick the bill back.
Oh, and by the way - this is how media works in the 21st Century, Mr. Prime Minister. Try to control the message all you want.
Macaca!
Two snaps to Xtra!
The money going toward the fooferal of the Senate hearings on C10 just passed through the looking glass. This is the sound of your tax dollars flushing down the toilet:
Courtesy of xtra -- yes, that's right -- a publicaton put out by those "uppity gay folk," it seems that Senator David Angus left his mic on after adjourning the meeting.
Just in case you can't figure out the YouTube (Lookin at you, McVety...) here's what the Chairman of the Banking Committee said:
"The government has to bite the bullet. The minister agrees, she told me she hates the law."
So there we are. This whole thing is now about the Conservative government saving face. Everything else is a bag of B.S. Denials in the linked story aside, this sorry spectacle is an embarrassment.
They got caught. Kick the bill back.
Oh, and by the way - this is how media works in the 21st Century, Mr. Prime Minister. Try to control the message all you want.
Macaca!
Two snaps to Xtra!
Alex Strachan ALMOST Gets It Right
WRITING IN TODAY'S Vancouver Sun, Alex Strachan has a clear-headed argument about C10:
(They have juked the language to vest all the power in the Heritage Minister, and that is a change, but that's small beer.)
Where Strachan goes off the rails -- and it's only a little bit, is when he recounts the hysteria on both sides -- those like Charles McVety who want to deny tax credits to anything they think is dirty, and the cultural community who posit that it amounts to pre-censorship.
There's a tendency in journalism to take two contentious sides and ascribe a moral equivalency to the two of them. The formula goes like this: "So and so believe this; and So and so that, but they're both wrong, the point is this..."
The problem with doing that in this case, again, and dismissing the claims of censorship as false, is that it denies the real way this would be administered:
Film and TV Producers borrow money to finance films. These completion loans are repaid with interest to the banks once the tax credits come through -- at the very end of the process.
So you could borrow the money, and then have your tax credits denied.
No bank will lend you money for anything that might even POSSIBLY exceed the standards, ergo, you self-censor. The nice thing about it is the government doesn't have to act heavy handed -- after a while, the chill just stops "bad stuff" getting made. And believe you me, the line will get drawn by the banks far, far east of Eastern Promises -- just as, ever since the fining over Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, when FCC starting handing out fines for obscenity, the lines are far, far, more conservative than they were in the 90's. And this in the USA, the land of "free speech."
Today's censorship dresses up in finer robes. It doesn't have to be a coarse, blunt instrument -- only a whisper in the ear of a worried banker or producer.
Fortunately, judging by the exchanges yesterday, there are members of the Senate banking committee who are clearer on this line than Strachan.
Strachan continues:
So, yeah. Mostly right.
Strachan then goes on to posit a theory that I hadn't heard before, but which sounds like it could be plausible: that these provisions had their genesis in the once-upon-a-time flap over the making of a movie about Canadian serial killers Karla Holmolka and Paul Bernardo. When the Conservatives say that the policy was inherited from a previous Liberal Government, they're partially correct.Bill C-10 is bad economics for publicly funded films, TV
There are arguments, and then there are silly arguments. It's funny how the silly arguments almost always come at taxpayers' expense.
The flap over Bill C-10 -- a government proposal to amend the Income Tax Act so that tax credits will be clawed back from those homegrown TV and film productions the government judges to be offensive -- is a classic example of what happens when the misinformed meet the misguided.
Bill C-10 is bad public policy masquerading as tax policy.
(They have juked the language to vest all the power in the Heritage Minister, and that is a change, but that's small beer.)
Where Strachan goes off the rails -- and it's only a little bit, is when he recounts the hysteria on both sides -- those like Charles McVety who want to deny tax credits to anything they think is dirty, and the cultural community who posit that it amounts to pre-censorship.
There's a tendency in journalism to take two contentious sides and ascribe a moral equivalency to the two of them. The formula goes like this: "So and so believe this; and So and so that, but they're both wrong, the point is this..."
The problem with doing that in this case, again, and dismissing the claims of censorship as false, is that it denies the real way this would be administered:
Film and TV Producers borrow money to finance films. These completion loans are repaid with interest to the banks once the tax credits come through -- at the very end of the process.
So you could borrow the money, and then have your tax credits denied.
No bank will lend you money for anything that might even POSSIBLY exceed the standards, ergo, you self-censor. The nice thing about it is the government doesn't have to act heavy handed -- after a while, the chill just stops "bad stuff" getting made. And believe you me, the line will get drawn by the banks far, far east of Eastern Promises -- just as, ever since the fining over Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, when FCC starting handing out fines for obscenity, the lines are far, far, more conservative than they were in the 90's. And this in the USA, the land of "free speech."
Today's censorship dresses up in finer robes. It doesn't have to be a coarse, blunt instrument -- only a whisper in the ear of a worried banker or producer.
Fortunately, judging by the exchanges yesterday, there are members of the Senate banking committee who are clearer on this line than Strachan.
Strachan continues:
Public funding of film and TV projects is decided by agencies like Telefilm and the Canadian Television Fund long before a TV or film makes it on to the screen. Proposed projects have to jump through a dizzying number of hoops to get made, and can be derailed -- or stopped outright -- at any stage of the process. Any proposal featuring a gratuitous amount of sex, violence or other offensive material -- whatever "offensive" means -- is already at a distinct disadvantage when a fund manager at, say, the CTF has to decide between a degrading exploitation flick and a feel-good family comedy.
Public funding is not the same as a tax credit, though. There's a difference between public funding, as represented by Telefilm, and tax credits, which are waivers on taxes due.
Economic decisions are just that -- economic. As a general industry rule, one dollar spent on TV and film production generates four dollars in economic activity.
The only issue, then, facing a government banking committee should be to figure out how to generate more economic activity, not less.
Bill C-10 is an unnecessary, misguided, wrongheaded and shortsighted piece of legislation. Not because it's censorship disguised as tax policy, which it may well be and which cultural critics insist it is, but because it's bad economic policy.
If somebody somewhere wants to make a film about Karla Homolka, fine, I don't have to see it. I certainly wouldn't pay to see it.
But if that same somebody is going to hire 200 actors, cameramen, electricians, carpenters, caterers, drivers and any number of other trades people, and pay them a decent wage -- a wage which will then be funneled back into the local economy -- I say, all power to them. Every one of those crew members is paying income tax and GST on top of any ancillary spending, regardless of what tax breaks the production is or is not getting. If that production weren't there, the tax haul wouldn't be there either, and there would be less money to go into government coffers.
So, yeah. Mostly right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)