OH, YEAH. Time to close the door on the Geminis for another year. Thank God.
You can find coverage of all the winners here. Great night for Durham County -- well deserved.
Random thoughts in no particular order:
The best, most dramatic parts of the night -- and the best story, of course -- came before the televised portion. Cock'd Gunns, a small budget show produced for IFC, walked away with statues for Best Comedy Writing, and Best Comedy Ensemble. Having seen a couple eps of the show, I agree that it's pretty fresh and it's great to see new people doing something that's worthy of recognition -- even though in my heart of hearts, I think that Comedy Ensemble award belonged to Rent-A-Goalie this year. Cheekiest line from the stage was on this award too, "Showcase, let's talk season two." An out of nowhere win for a small show like that could have been a great human interest story. But it wasn't in the broadcast. So it didn't exist.
How sad to see the final resting place of Intelligence. A win for best series, no one there to collect, more than a year after it went off the air. Heard after: "Why do we always give the award to the show that was canceled?" Good point. Still, it's sad to see a worthy show go out with a whimper.
It was a great on-air moment, but really, at this point, what is the point of awarding statues for Best News Anchor and Best Sports Anchor on air? Ron MacLean's won a dozen times. Ian Hanomansing admits that it's PeterMansbridge's award, but others only get to hold it every once in a while. CTV refuses to even participate. Isn't it time to think about separating out the news awards and figuring out how to not make them so crazy-CBC biased? Or do we not care about credibility at all anymore?
Best Drama Series and Best Dramatic Miniseries don't have to compete against each other. How are you supposed to judge 22 Minutes or Mercer against scripted comedy fare? Why are these things in the same category? Don't we have enough in terms of Variety shows or Comedy specials to make that category competative for shows that are sketch based, and let Comedy series be judged separately? The mismatch of other genres is the same thing. I'm very sympathetic to someone who has to do costumes, for instance, for a 13 part series being judged against someone who had a budget for one 2 hour film. They're just not comparable.
The Craft vs. "Big" Awards. Which are which? I don't understand how you build recognition for actors -- the pretty people -- if you present half of their awards out of the broadcast times. Especially in the case of things like BestSupporting -- where you might actually get new faces to watch in years to come. (Or in the year and a half before they give up and go to the USA.) And finally, why in heaven's name would you present all the writing awards but Best Comedy Writing in October, and then bump Best Comedy Writing out of the Broadcast in November?
PART OF THE result of my bi-national upbringing has been a longstanding argument that I've conducted with myself my whole life over which system of government -- the representative democratic model as practiced by the United States, or the Canadian Parliamentary model, was more responsive to the citizenry. It's a great ongoing argument to have (assuming you are a politics geek) because there's great evidence on both sides. The Prime Minister is a Member of the Legislature, and has to face other Members in Question Period; Americans get to vote directly for the President; Congressmen and Senators represent their districts first, and aren't strictly required to vote party lines; MP's being part of the Executive more easily bring local concerns to Ottawa; a multi-party system where only 39% of the vote gets you a majority; the abomination that is the Electoral College...
But the extraordinary events which have transpired in Canada since Thursday add a compelling new chapter to the argument.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has ruled with a minority government for almost three years now. Except he hasn't really ruled that way. A high-stakes game of chicken has met every turn, as Harper dared the other parties to bring him down. Finally, sticking a wet finger in the air and sensing a chance to score a majority, he broke his own promise about establishing fixed election dates to bring down his government and go to the electorate. So an election-weary populace (we've had four general elections since the year 2000) voted again - in record low numbers. Harper didn't get his majority. Close, but no cigar, and he only got that close because of a particularly weak showing by the Federal Liberal Party.
Through the campaign, Harper showed his vindictive spirit -- the same spirit that has him at war with the civil service, Doctors, any number of other constituencies. He lost seats in Quebec by attacking the arts. He tried to put on a sweater and come off as cuddly to Canadians, and even those who supported him found it a bit creepy. This is a guy who sips from the Karl Rove cup of destroy your political enemies at all costs; everything else comes second.
There were flashes of trouble in that campaign. As the economic picture darkened, Harper didn't seem to have any plan for it. He insisted that Canada wasn't in a recession; he told people to buy stocks. But all that was prologue to last Thursday, when the Conservatives grimly read their economic statement in Parliament.
I'm going to cut through the parliamentary language here, and boil it down to what it was:
It said, "fuck you."
Instead of stimulus for the economy, it was filled with score-settling: the public finance component of political parties -- which was supposed to get rid of corporate and union influence, was set to be scrapped -- even though the amounts would have no real effect on the economy or the budget. What they would do, though, is cripple the other parties much more than the ruling Conservatives. And in Stephen Harper's calculus, that's always the most important thing. It also gutted Unions, and pushed a shockingly partisan Conservative agenda, while doing nothing to reassure Canadians that there was some sort of stimulus package in place for the cratering economy.
A Prime Minister, promising in a throne speech a few days previous to work with the other parties to tackle a quickly descending economic situation, unleashes a fiscal update that all but blisters the paint off of any goodwill that might indeed have remained in the House. His brazen attack on all three opposition parties completely changed the dynamic of the Chamber in seconds - perhaps forever.
It’s not what we expected. To be sure, certain portions of the update had been leaked a day earlier, but the sheer scope of the Prime Minister’s statement suddenly laid bare everything that we had all feared might dwell beneath the veneer of the government’s civility. In that moment at least, we stared into a kind of abyss and didn’t like its depth. What fascinated me were the faces of the Conservative MPs during the reading of the statement itself. They appeared on edge, worried, and more than a little apprehensive, as if they knew danger was ahead.
No sooner was the speech ended than the Prime Minister and his Finance Minister left the House, along with half of the Conservative caucus. The faces on those that remained told the story in vivid detail. Listening to the response from the three opposition parties, you could tell from their countenance some kind of line had been crossed.
In the Opposition Lobby, I saw things I had never witnessed in my two years here. Bloc members were “high-fiving” NDP caucus members, and some women from the Bloc were embracing their counterparts in the Liberal caucus. It was incredible to watch.
Flash ahead to today. Harper is scrambling. His caucus is in open revolt. And as much as Tory bloggers may try to spin it, it's hard to see the looming Constitutional Crisis as anything other than the poison fruit of this PM's myopia.
That phrase, "has lost the confidence of Parliament" has never seemed more clear. The man managed to unite the NDP and the Liberals.
If Prime Minister Stephen Harper is indeed going down, it will be as the most successful politician in Canadian history.
The man who united the right and the left.
It is how he will go down as Prime Minister that puzzles at the moment, as this past week he has resembled some bizarre amalgamation of former prime minister Joe Clark, former U.S. president Richard Nixon and, unbelievably, former Roman emperor Nero.
Canada has a long history of leaders oddly out of touch with regular people, from Mackenzie King talking to his dead mother and dog, to Pierre Trudeau peering out the limousine window at the country lights and wondering aloud whatever do such people do?
But the lack of street sense - or even common sense - demonstrated last week took being out of touch to a new level.
There are other things buzzing in the background, too. In the United States, the palpable sense of hope that's resulted from the election of President Barack Obama (My God I love to type that) has left Canadians with a weary jealousy; a yearning for leadership -- the kind of leadership that hasn't been seen in this country for quite some time.
As I doff my Politico-geek hat and put on my screenwriter chapeau, though, the thing that strikes me about the extraordinary events of the last few days is that it's done what even Rick Mercer couldn't. It's made Harper interesting. He's the kind of deluded political figure you could acually write a good drama about. However the week goes down -- whether the Conservative government stays or goes, there's a movie in there.
Of course it's a movie that the CBC should do and never would, but at least that means maybe we'll get a play out of it. In any case, it's high drama indeed.
I'M NOT ENTIRELY certain where I'll be riding out this winter. But I do know that one of the things that makes the cold bearable is indulging the inner fanboy. So which upcoming show threatens to rule your couchtime this winter? Is it Door Number One?
CONTINUING DISENCHANTMENT WITH the offered network TV choices. Very frustermaking. What's even odder, though, is a small behavior that's started to show me how much things are changing, how fast.
First of all, I'm a guy who likes to keep my screens separate. Watching TV on the computer for me has always been an extremely meh experience, and never something I'm eager to repeat. If it means watching The Shield finale a week earlier than in Canada (Thank you, legal Itunes download!) then it'll do in a pinch...
...except.
It does make it more disposable...and more prone to distraction. There were tough bits in that finale, and because I knew that, it really did activate my procrastination circuits. I checked email, I read news articles, I even dipped in and out of work (on a scheduled break...quelle horreur!) The 74 minute finale took me about two hours to watch.
Then let's move to the other screen but at another time. For whatever reason -- a full PVR, a misprogramming of sorts, I've missed a couple of episodes of 30 Rock and a couple of House. So it was that I found myself going to the on demand menu on my digital cable, and ordering them up.
The experiences of how the Canadian networks are handling this is illuminating. Global is lax in updating the menu -- the newest House still wasn't up five days after broadcast. But they have better presentation. The episodes are "wrapped" with Global promos -- and I think a few ads. Less ads that are normally on the broadcast. Except now that I type that I seem to be having a bit of a senior moment. I can't say for sure whether there were anything other than Global promos. Hmm. If they ever put up the next episode, I'll check again.
However, if you contrast that to Citytv, the difference is striking. For their on-demand serving of 30 Rock, it seems to be just a straight record of the episode as it aired that night on Citytv. Full commercials, a promo (but not many -- for instance, no promo for Less Than Kind...and you'd think they'd be looking to promo one of their own funny comedies inside the hot comedy show of the moment) but nothing that seemed catered to the way that a viewer was watching the on demand. The whole thing, like so many of the Canadian networks' steps into anything new, seemed like a big afterthought. Half the commercials were time-sensitive, ie: for 72 Hour sales, or a movie that "starts Friday." These are clearly less effective to an on-demand viewer who, like me, is watching a week or so later.
What's different about watching this way -- and what I think is the missed opportunity - is the one technological spin on this way of watching tv: you can't fast forward through the commercials. All functionality of the remote is disabled for the broadcast. Once you press start, the episode unspools and plays through without interruption. It's a bit annoying if you're used to the full functionality of the PVR experience -- but like when they roll an add on a streaming broadcast, it's an intriguing retrenchment of the broadcaster/viewer compact. You know, it used to be, "we'll show you this piece of entertainment at little or no cost to you so long as you watch our ads." And now we've found ways to get around that. But if you miss the show or forget to PVR it, you can still watch -- but now you have to sit through our ads.
I think that's fair. But at the heart of the thing is this argument nobody's figured out yet -- are these on demand availabilities promotional, or are they revenue generating? Global clearly thinks they're promotional, so they pack it with promos. Citytv treats it like a bad afterthought, and bobbles the chance to make their brand stronger. I mean, I don't watch Citytv a lot. I don't have any idea what shows are on City. This would have been a chance to tell me. (And it's all the more ironic, since City is now owned by Rogers, whose on-demand cable service I'm using.)
I also wish they figured out how to preserve the pause. Even streaming episodes online allow you to pause. I get not being able to fast forward, but pause? (What I haven't tested is if you can use the workaround of channeling off and back on. Does that put it into pause mode like on a regular on demand broadcast, or do you lose your place and have to start over? Or does it keep playing in the B.G. like a broadcast on another channel would in real time?)
Beyond form, there are other shows that I'm getting into in other ways. I may not like the TV on computer model, but I'm pretty psyched about Dead Set, the horror series from Charlie Brooker, the U.K. writer behind Screenwipe. It's such a simple conceit: combine Zombies and Big Brother -- so the people who are supposed to fight off the Zombie Apocalypse are people who were thrown together for the specific reason that they couldn't get along. It's brilliant. A great and clever amalgalm and use of the medium. There is idea meeting form. There's a simple "oh, yeah!" elegance to the idea that activates all your, "why didn't I think of that?" circuits. The second show I've watched is the first episode of the Buzz show Sons of Anarchy, which I've got thanks to my spanking new subscription to Super Channel. This biker series is doing well down south. The premiere I found medium-involving. CharlieHunnam is good as the heir apparent to the biker gang. (And practically unrecognizable from the last role I saw him in, Undeclared.) Katey Segall is fierce as the biker-mama bear. I'll probably stick with this one for the oldest tv-watching reason in the world: it's a world that seems exciting that I feel I haven't seen too much of before.
As for the broadcast offerings? Well, I watched the 24 movie and thought it was a little flat. Now I find out that the DVD has a longer version that fleshes out the story and actually makes it way better. Wonderful. Thanks guys. Your show wasn't good enough for me to watch again. Now I've got a hate on for 24. I'm not sure that was the best way to set me up to watch the new season...
And for the record, I still don't want to watch TV on my phone. Ever.
WELL, AFTER AN impromptu wake for the laid-off at 299 Queen Street West last night, I'm really not in much of a mood for the big shiny Gemini Awards party. But I guess that's just part of the game. If I had one wish, one small little hope, it's this...
...it would be awesome if sometime during the night, Jason Priestley or somebody got totally Rickrolled.
RIGHT NOW, APPROXIMATELY 105 people, most at 299 Queen Street West, are being laid off. The layoffs include, reportedly, the entire production staffs of STAR! and MuchMoreMusic.
WELL I WAS going to take a pass today on account of it being American Thanksgiving and me being American and all, but then this letter landed in my inbox today, and I just felt that I had to alert you all. I know that it's been printed on a couple of other sites here and there, but no one has yet thought to use the delightful play on the title of the book above. Now if you want to know who was damn sexy, that Hester Prynne was damn sexy.
Anyway, it keeps me from flipping on the TV and obsessively watching the news from Mumbai.
Let's have more conspirian, so-and-so-is a clone crazy and less making-things-blow-up crazy, hmm? That would be something to be thankful for.
Happy Thanksgiving, Americans. Be nice to your sister and your cousin and your niece and your grandfather. They can't help being that way. And at least they're not clones!
WARNING ! STOLEN BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL ! Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2007! regarding Scarlett Johansson (actress) From: Serge G [EMAIL REDACTED] Sent: November 27, 2008 3:05:11 AM To: heywriterboy[REDACTED} IT IS NOT A SPAM, but if you received that message second and plus time JUST CLICK DELETE button and have a nice day. Don't feel bad, please understand original Scarlett's family very desperate to shout down that humiliating antichristian "actress" clones line career development.
Hello dear Ladies and Gentlemen!I would like inform you that Scarlett Johansson (actress) actually is a clone from original person Scarlett Galabekian last name, who has nothing with acting career. That clone was created illegally by using stolen biological material. Original person is very nice (not d**n sexy),most important - CHRISTIAN young lady!
I'll tell you more,those clones (it's not only one) made in GERMANY - world leader manufacturer of humans clones, it is in Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Rhineland-Palatinate, Mr. Helmut Kohl home town. You can not even imaging the scale of the cloning activity. But warning! Helmut Kohl clone staff strictly controlling all their clones (at least they trying) spreading around the world, they are very accurate with that, some of them are still NAZI type disciplined and mind controlled clones, so be careful get close with clones you will be controlled as well.
Original person is not happy with those movies, images, video, rumors and etc. spreading on media in that way it would be really nice if we all will try slow down that ''actress'' career development, original Scarlett will really appreciated that. Please remember that original Scarlett's family did not authorize any activity with stolen biological materials, no matter what form it was created in it was stolen and it is stolen. It all need to be delivered to authorized personals control in Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. Original Scarlett never was engaged, by the way!
Her close friend Serge G.
P.S. CONTROLLING ACTIVITY OF ANY CLONES IS US MILITARY OPERATION.H.R. 534, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003, was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives on February 5, 2003. After discussion, it was passed on February 27 by a vote of 241-155. It now moves on to the Senate for consideration. This bill makes it unlawful for any person or entity to perform or participate in human cloning, or to ship or receive embryos produced by human cloning. The penalties are imprisonment of up to 10 years and fines of $1 million or more. These now join other nations as diverse as Norway, Australia, and Germany, which had already added cloning for any purpose to their criminal code. And in Germany where it carries a penalty of five years imprisonment they know a thing or two about unethical science.
You know, I knew there was something up with that whole, "I sent email to Obama" thing.
I bet you the whole email was in clonish. Worse, wasn't Scarlett first in Ghost World? That means Buscemi must be in on it. And the Horse Whisperer too. And when she played a clone in The Island, that was just what, some sick little in joke? Oh Michael Bay, you are one sick twist.
I MANAGED TO spend a full thirty-three minutes this afternoon convinced that my slow progress on the breaking of my Pilot story was a direct result of not having the right Moleskine.
IT MAY SEEM like embarrassing fanboy stuff, namechecking Shawn Ryan two days running, but for this one, I have the reflexive link-love loop of Jaime Weinman to thank. There is no earthly reason not to love and read TheA.V. Club religiously, but Noel Murray's interview with Shawn Ryan is front-and-centre the best nuts and bolts interview I've read about the biz in awhile.
In fact, to Playback or the Banff TV Festival or anybody else organizing a "master class" or "interview" for an industry crowd (Ie: not the public) THIS is the type of drill down questioning your audience wants; not softballsthey could read in a USA Today profile.
Ryan thinks very, very similar things about the process of running a show that I do -- which, of course, is why I think he's so brilliant. (Hey at least I cop to it.)
But it's more than that. I've been lucky enough to see Ryan's way of working up close, and I've seen the disaster that results from trying to work in, shall we say delicately, a less magnanimous way.
There has been a whole bunch of chatter to and fro about the summer of discontent on Canadian TV shows. (None of it in the press, because nothing that doesn't make it into a press release gets covered in entertainment reportage in this country.) There were a whole lot of bumpy rides out there. Rides that could have been a damn sight less bumpy with a little more of the method Shawn Ryan discusses below. It's a method that requires two things that aren't always present here: confident and articulate managing showrunners, and writers who have, and bring, A-level game.
First show I get up on my own, I shall read from the Book of Ryan. The whole interview's a great thing: but here, to me, are the most relevant bits: (Photo credit: Mark Mainz/Getty Images)
AVC:Have you had the ending of The Shield in mind from the start, or did that develop as you went along?
SR: Over the years, yeah. It wasn't until I started getting into seasons three and four that I thought about how I wanted it all to end. I had a couple of big notions, but the show has always been a collaborative effort, so I took my ideas to the writers, with all of us sitting in a group. We had like three months' time before we began filming season seven, so we all sat down and worked it out. By the time we started filming the first episode of the final season, we had a pretty good idea where we were gonna go. Then we figured some other things out along the way, as we were filming. So it was a process. It evolved. But I always think it's better to take your time and go through a lot of ideas—and dismiss a lot of ideas—before figuring out where to land. It's a good way to care for your audience, too. If you spend hours and hours and days and weeks coming up with the ending, then there's a chance the fans won't figure it out on their own.
AVC:When you're dealing with a tightly serialized drama like The Shield, is it appropriate to think of it as being like a long feature film, or a novel? Or is it still ultimately TV?
SR: There are story-room sessions where you think about the big picture, like a novel, but once you have certain things in place, you have to treat each episode like an hour of TV, and think that maybe this will be the only episode that anyone will ever watch. You want to have some sort of beginning, middle, and end to the episode, even if you have storylines that are carrying over. You still want it to feel like a cohesive hour of entertainment. And you can't think about both at the same time. We'd have story meetings where we'd sit around and talk about the big picture, and a lot of meetings where we'd sit around and think about what we were going to do for one particular episode: "What's the arc for this character in this episode?" And so on. That's how we dealt with it.
AVC:Yet when the last episode airs, fans will have seen one of the rare TV series that has a beginning, a middle, and an end.
SR: Yeah, and that wasn't always intentional, because when you start a TV show, you're not necessarily thinking, "Are we setting up what we need for season seven?" You're just trying to stay on the air, and you try to learn your job as you go, and do what you can. But we've been able to plan for a couple years toward an ending, and that has helped us make things come back around. So I do think that people who watched the series from the very beginning, or watched the episodes in a short time frame—on DVD or online, for instance—will think The Shield feels novelistic, in the sense that it's cohesive. We tried really hard to be consistent and have things make sense from one season to another.
AVC: If you had to boil down what The Shield is ultimately about, what would you say?
SR: The original central question still holds true, I guess: "What are you willing to accept, in terms of behavior, from the people who protect you?" That was a very resonant question in 2002, when we were still in the shadow of 9/11. But I think as the series has gone on, the question has turned more inward, relating more to Vic and the other guys on the Strike Team in terms of, "What price do people pay for having bent the rules?"
What I've always liked about The Shield is that the show asked a lot of big questions early on, and a lot of the episodes were very broad, and the show was kind of shocking in many ways, especially compared to the other things on TV. But TV has really evolved since 2002, both on network TV and on cable, and I think The Shield isn't as unique as it used to be, even though we were the first to do a lot of stuff. But what we did—which is why I think the show has had some legs—was make the questions smaller and more personal. We went more inside Vic's head and heart, and did less ass-kicking. I think if we'd tried to up the ante on the ass-kicking, we would've lost our way, and the show would have become less relevant. The fact that we were able to spend two to three years asking those big questions, but then turn toward, "Okay, what happens to the man Vic Mackey, who has put himself above the law, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad reasons?" Now it's become very much a character piece about what happens to Vic, what happens to Shane, what happens to Corrine, what happens to Dutch and Claudette. Which I really like.
But you know, I always like to leave it for other people to talk about what the show means. Nothing makes me happier than to have a really smart person tell me why the show is smart, especially if I didn't intend that. [Laughs.] I tend to be a very instinctual writer, and I don't plot shows out like, "This is my thesis and this is how I'm going to subtly sneak my thesis into this episode." I really just approach it from, "We know these characters well, here are the situations that they're in, now how would they behave? What would the consequences be?" And it's always fun to see how people interpret that and dissect it afterward, and make me and the other writers seem probably smarter than we really are.
Amen to that. There's also another wonderful piece of insight for getting started writers about the value of working on a show that you may not think is "the best show." One of the lamest things that the dyspeptic snipers do when they want to somehow score points off you is to cherry pick previous credits. It shows no understanding of the business whatsoever, but hey, it's the internet - ignorance is bliss. But the point Jaime Weinman picked up on is true: a show like Nash Bridges, believe it or not, can lead to The Shield and LOST. It's all part of the unpredictability of the game -- where you learn the process, and how is more important than the content when you're building your career and learning your craft.
Now if you'll excuse me, I see my Itunes download of The Shield finale is finished. My phone is off the hook for the next forty-four minutes!
EVERY ONCE IN a while I forget that, ah, this is actually a personal blog too, and enough people have asked me now about the third season renewal for The Border that there's no reason not to say it. As was reported in the Globe & Mail and elsewhere, the show was given a great vote of confidence by the CBC: an early renewal, which was announced to the crew at the recent wrap party. Better still, that vote of confidence has been rewarded, as ratings have trended up over the last few weeks. (Last night drew 729 000 viewers, a big bump from the week before. The week before that, Grace Park's first show drew 765 000...I'm guessing with Grace and Canadian TV favorite Nicholas Campbell there, those numbers will probably stay near the 700 range for the last three eps of the season.)
Anyway, I had a tremendous experience on the show, and learned quite a bit along the way about Producing and Casting and Showrunning and Time and People Management and Post -- but I'm also not going to return to staff the show for the third season. It's time for me to move on. Life's short and a writing career is shorter, and I wanna try some different things.
Who knows what's gonna go down in the future? I've let them know I'd be open to penning a freelance ep, but all that stuff depends heavily on how they reshuffle their staff. New blood in the third year of a show is usually a good thing. I wish 'em all well. And the best thing is -- now I don't have to say the same thing to people a hundred times on Gemini night. Gee, sometimes the blog is useful!
NB: the following contains spoilers for Episode 12 of The Shield, which doesn't air in Canada until tonight. The Series Finale, which airs in the USA on F/X tonight, airs on Showcase next Tuesday at 10pm.
"I'VE DONE WORSE."
With that kiss off at the end of The Shield's penultimate episode, Vic Mackey became the character who haunts my dreams. I think long before you ever become a writer, when you're still a little kid, you decide whether you're a hero guy or a villain guy. Much as I recognized, in my childhood, that Darth Vader was badass and Luke kind of wimpy, I couldn't help it. I was a hero guy. I was the guy who read Superman comics, not Batman -- I didn't like the Batman's darkness. I wondered why he wasn't more like the TV show iteration. For that matter, I was a DC Comics reader rather than Marvel. That probably says everything you need to know about my formative hero narratives.
At a point, you put away childish things, of course, and you start aching for complexity in your characterizations. And then the hormones start doing their worst and as a teenage boy you discover antiheroes, and usually you never look back.
Vic Mackey always had it over Tony Soprano for me -- from the moment he pulled the trigger and killed Terry in the pilot (in the first of Shawn Ryan's many, many mindbenders.) Tony, for all his bluster, was a bad guy. He was a bad guy that you got a sick thrill out of occasionally identifying with, sure, but I don't think anyone felt particularly good when Carmela went back to him. I don't think anyone felt that great when he killed his cousin, Tony. And the death of Christopher was one of the most hateful, awful, amazing moments of TV ever. Seven years in the making.
But Vic's allocution was a horse of a different color entirely -- a bravado combo of writing and performance and framing that took a riveting episode and kicked it up into one for the ages. Whatever happens tonight, that scene was the climax of the series -- and I have to shake my head and marvel at it.
You have Vic's savior there -- Olivia Murray, the horror on her face, hearing the truth of the guy that she's gotten in bed with. They took such time in Season 7 massaging that character into focus. They teased you with the flirting, with the idea that maybe, as before, this was heading for the sheets. But no. Vic came to her aid as part of his quixotic, doomed attempt at self-rationalizing his bad behavior through "redemptive acts," (avenging Lem, taking a couple more bad guys off the streets, helping out a slightly dirty law enforcement type.) It was all about getting things into this position -- so that she has to sit there with the knowledge that the man who's sprung her from her own compromise with the law is has leveraged her guilt into putting her in a place that's worsethan getting caught. She's sold her soul forever.
And so there, with that, and with Claudette's reaction, we get to see what we haven't seen for a long while: Vic through fresh eyes. It's a remarkable trick. But the presence of Agent Murray and Dutch's plot in the episode -- even at this late date, keeps up the counter argument that has crackled through The Shield from the very beginning: We could never be Tony Soprano, but we are all Vic Mackey.
Oh you don't think so? How did you feel every scene where you saw or heard about those autistic kids? And what about Corinne -- who he's still working to help, even as she's torn apart by betraying him? What about his daughter, who despite her rage, can't stay mad at him?
Never mind all that. Let's just look at the small evidence of the Dutch/Billings subplot in that episode. Claudette's violent reaction to Dutch's coverup comes from a place of tacit understanding: that for cops the power makes it so easy to take that first slide. Too easy. There was that chilling episode a couple of seasons ago where we flashed back and we saw Vic and the Strike Team on the precipice of their first wrongdoing...and it all becomes heartbreakingly clear. You think Dutch can't become Vic?
He strangled a cat to see how it would feel to kill something.
Remember that? No? Oh, yeah. He did.
Throughout its run, the genius of The Shield is that they've never once put their finger on the scale. They never denied that Vic was a bad guy. You saw him BE a bad guy. The triumph of audience manipulation at the heart of the show was that there were always people up against him that were worse. That's one of the tricks that show has consistently pulled through the years. You saw Vic put away, time and again, people who were worse than he was. To watch The Shield was to engage in a constant, rolling existential debate about the nature of power, and good vs. evil, and justice. Vic was bad -- but was he worse than Aceveda? Vic at least got things done. Was he more effective than Aceveda? Sometimes. Was Monica Rawlings pragmatic? Was her downfall due to an overreach of power or cowardice on the part of her superiors? Was John Kavanagh's driven sense of justice good, even if it destroyed him in the end? Can any of us handle purely good or purely bad? Is that even relevant anymore? I'm not sure.
The point was: you got to decide for yourself. And re-decide. Over and over, as many times a season, or an episode, as you needed to. That's the hallmark of great TV drama.
From a structural standpoint, too, there was something bravura about the show. Ryan deployed guest stars shamelessly in the last couple of seasons -- first Glenn Close, and then Forrest Whittaker -- all so that he could move the chess pieces into place for the show's Act 3 -- the disintegration of the Strike Team as the bad pennies all turn on each other.
Then there are the thousand and one little, tight things that made the show a writing tour de force: how most episodes take place over the course of the day. The best action teasers on TV. The compelling, episodic-only stories that satisfy and don't feel anemic next to the superplot of the serial elements.
But at the root of it was Vic. Dear Vic. Self-justifying, rationalizing, evil Vic. Hero Vic. The worst good guy on TV. The most noble bad guy ever to abuse a badge.
He was the compromised hero for our times -- where we all know the systems don't work, are corrupt and gamed to within an inch of our lives. In a way, it's the perfect time for Vic's exit, as we contemplate the excesses of a real life manifestation of the, "if I decide it, it must be justified" brand of decisionmaking. With a correction coming, let's hope that The Shield looks like a period piece in a few years. Anyway, it's fitting that Mackey's not the only bad guy getting a pass. Stay tuned for more from that show, too.
Let's also not forget The Shield for what it was for the industry: the show that kicked in the door for the basic cable drama. Weeds, Rescue Me, The Closer, Burn Notice, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Damages, Nip/Tuck -- all followed.
For writers, these shows are the new Gold Standard. And Shawn Ryan has been a vocal proponent of training writers up; and let's not forget that it was Ryan on point during the WGA strike. It was he who stepped up first as a showrunner to stand in solidarity.
If this reads as unfocused appreciation, that's because that's what it is. It's been a hard slog keeping up with The Shield in Canada. The show's broadcaster here was less than diligent about scheduling and following through, meaning that much of the last seven years has been dodging spoilers and scoring DVD's -- but Showcase has done pretty well by the show this year. If you're a Canadian cable viewer, tonight is the Penultimate episode. Next Tuesday is the finale.
If you're an American viewer -- shh... please no spoilers on this blog til the Canadians get to see it. (And on a personal note, I'm ahead of Glenn Cockburn on this show for the first time in seven years. Suck it, Agent Man! Heh heh heh!)
Aw, who am I kidding? I'll probably be downloading it off U.S. Itunes tomorrow. (Thanks, American address and credit card!)
Vic, you bastard, thanks for keeping the streets of Farmington safe. And Damn you for crossing the line and muddying us all.
Finally, to Canadian networks and writers and producers, with those sad whiffs of "we're superior" distance -- let the last seven years of this show be the gauntlet. Go. Pick it up. Put something...anything on the air that's this thrilling, with this degree of storytelling elan and moral complexity; a show that asks so much and delivers so much for the viewer.
Today we have ourselves a guest post, courtesy of The Border's Season One and Two Story Coordinator, Jimmy The Bat. Jimmy the Bat, or Bat as he is sometimes known, also gets his cherry broke tonight at 9pm on CBC, with his first profeessionl onscreen writing credit -- a co-write (with the ever-intrepid Mr. Greg Nelson.) So, that being said, over to you, Bat:
As I finish up my time as story coordinator on The Border, I figured I’d share some of the wisdom I gained through my experiences. And what better time to do so then on the day that the episode I co-wrote goes to air. (Sure, a lot of my stuff was re-written/dropped in due process, but the story’s intact, and I like to think that the 200 bullets that were fired during the shootout were my fault). You learn a helluvalot hanging out with some of the most talented writers, producers, and crew in the Canadian industry, but to be able to see if you can stay afloat while actually working is a whole different story (HA! Bad pun! Take THAT, McGrath!).
NB: we need something here, Jimmy. Drop the self reverential tone, and ... whoops, sorry... old habit. No notes -- notes are bad. I'll just shutup and stand over here.
So here it is, the wisdom of Jimmy the Bat, as it pertains to working in the industry, story coordinating, and co-writing a script:
WHERE’S THE COFFEE?
One of the first things you’ll be doing in the film and television industry, whether it be as PA, story coordinator, or producers assistant, is getting coffee. As a general piece of advice, on your first day, find out what your bosses like to drink, how they take it, and how frequently they need it. This will keep you in good standing, as you’ll be able to anticipate when you need to put coffee on, when to buy milk, etc. etc. etc. In the case of The Border’s story department, the coffee should constantly be flowing. And it can’t be any of that cheap generic crap. No no. If the beans weren’t roasted this week, it just won’t do (that’s the stuff we pass off to the other departments).
YOU ARE ALWAYS WRONG
That’s right. But I framed it positively, instead of saying “You are never right,” so there’s some optimism there.
What I mean is this: as a new writer, working with seasoned writers, you have to understand that, even if you have good ideas, the ideas of your seniors are better. They know what works, they know what sells. That’s why they’re where they are. And the fact that they’re giving you the opportunity to work with them means that you should take to heart everything that they say. Makes sense. Listen to the conversations that go on in the room, pay attention to the arguments, and learn from it all.
DON’T LET THE FACT THAT YOU’RE ALWAYS WRONG PREVENT YOU FROM TALKING
Contradictory? Kinda. But here’s the thing: in order to learn, you have to ask questions, make suggestions, and put your ass out there. In a story department, tonnes of ideas are tossed around. When you’re collaborating on a script, you’re one of the ones in control of the ideas, so you’ve gotta throw everything you’ve got into the mix. A lot of ideas are really lame, but out of those lame ideas can come some great ones. Speak up, let your ideas flow, put them on paper. In a story room, everyone works together, so the crap will get filtered out.
As the lowest rung on the story department ladder, when co-writing, there’s the extra step that you take of putting the crap that you’ve come up with on paper and giving it to others to comment on and revise and work out. In approaching my parts of the script for The Border, I wrote a lot of superfluous stuff, knowing that it would be trimmed down. If you write long, you can trim down and make it make sense. Drafts should always come in long, and if they don’t, you should worry that you lack in ideas. As the new-guy, I learned a lot from having what I wrote re-worked by the rest of the department. Which bring me to my next point:
HUMILITY IS EVERYTHING
As a writer, you have to throw pride out the window. As the new guy/co-writer, you shouldn’t even think of the word. You should be honoured just to have your name associated with the show you’re working on, and that fact that you’re getting your name on an episode is huge. So accept everything that’s given to you, don’t be upset when what you’ve written is rewritten, and listen and take to heart everything that’s said to you by the senior writers. They know what they’re doing.
WHAT ARE WE DOING FOR LUNCH?
Yes. It’s true. A good portion of the morning in a story department is spent trying to figure out what’s for lunch. While this may come as a surprise, writers are only human, and they need to eat to survive. As story coordinator, it’s your job to ensure that the department is fed. You order the lunches. You pick up the lunches. You take the piss when the order’s messed up. That said, there can be some good eating going on, so don’t complain.
WRITE FAST. WRITE THROUGH THE BLOCK. WORK ALL THE TIME.
While this applies to any kind of writing, when co-writing, it takes on particular import. Since you’re not the only one steering the ship, there’s always going to be another person waiting for you. And as the junior, you’re not only going to have other people waiting on you, but you’re going to have other responsibilities that you have to tend to in order to help the other writers. So you’re going to have to work doubly hard in order to meet deadlines. That means whenever you get some spare time, you have to be working on the script. And as you’re going along, you really have to do some self-editing, because that might be the only editing you do on your own script. As soon as you have a draft done, you have to give it a quick proof read, then get it off to your collaborator, who (if he’s the senior writer) will work extra hard to make it jibe with what he’s written. And if you don’t work fast, and if you don’t sacrifice your spare time, then the other guy’s left waiting, and the whole process starts to fall apart.
When you’re writing, you’re building a structure from the ground up. When you’re co-writing, two people are building the same structure, one from the bottom up, and one from the top down. The trick is making sure that when you meet in the middle, all the pieces fit, and nothing is going to cause the structure to topple. You and the person you’re working with have the same set of instructions, but you’ve both got your own voice, so no matter how you work, things are not going to match perfectly. You then have to work together and really polish of the sides, get rid of the excess weight, and make the structure as sound as possible.
SERIOUSLY. WHERE’S THE GODDAMN COFFEE?
See point one. No joke. People get irritable.
BE ORGANIZED
While I am not, this is really important. When people ask for something, they want it five minutes ago, so it’s got to be readily available. Whether it be research, casting DVDs, dailies, whatever, everyone in the department is busy, so you have to do some of the thinking for them. Figure out what they’re going to need, when they’ll need it, and what’s the priority. (NB: coffee is always the priority, but sometimes even that has to wait).
DON’T PLAN ON HAVING A LIFE OR WORKING NORMAL HOURS
The shortest work day you’ll put in as story coordinator is about 10 hours. Some days, you’re looking at 16 plus. Accept it. Move on. If you try to make plans, chances are you’re going to have to cancel them. Friday nights are no different from Tuesday afternoons. So manage your time. If you can get out early, do it, and enjoy the time. Because it won’t happen often. But the thing is, you’re working in one of the coolest businesses with some of the most interesting people you could hope to meet, so don’t complain.
DON’T TAKE THINGS PERSONALLY
Attitudes flare up at the best of times. When people are working long hours and on tight deadlines, tensions do rise. People will snap. People will yell. Learn from mistakes. Move on. If you let things get to you, you won’t last.
CORRECTION: DON’T TAKE EVERYTHING PERSONALLY
Some shit is your fault. You messed up. You should feel bad. Own it.
Of course, this is only a brief overview of what I’ve learned. Any production is a living organism that reacts differently to different situations. The trick is trying to understand the beast, and figuring out how to work with it. As story coordinator, you’re one spoke in the wheel, and are easily replaceable. Then again, it IS within your power to completely stall production by not issuing revisions on time…
Just sayin’.
***
DMc again:
Well there it is. Nice work, Bat. I'll have to invite you over once I've set up my sexy new espresso machine and make YOU coffee for a change.
Extra points, too, for describing more experienced writers as "your seniors," or "senior writers." Ouuch.Niiiiice touch.
I think there's some great stuff in there for starting out-people, especially about that tricky beast of the co-write. One thing that's sometimes said these days is the so-called "millennial attitude," and how it affects jobs like story coordinator. Basically, and feel free to weigh on this below, jobs like this are low status, but high learning value. I started out doing a very similar job, where the most important thing I did was to get coffee and lunch, and the most glamourous thing I did was log tapes. And I was fine with it because, hey, you know, what the hell did I know?
But sometimes these days when you encounter the "most praised generation" you find people who desperately want to speak up and think they should be listened to at every opportunity. And think they're way too good to get coffee.
It's a troubling attitude, because learning how to be a working writer is all about the gleaning. And you can't glean when you're indulging your unique and beautiful flower-ness every moment of the day.
And everyone thinks that the lunch thing is overplayed, but it's really not. I swear. I think Phil Rosenthal, the creator of Everybody Loves Raymond, named his production company, "What's For Lunch?" or something like that.
Here's a preview for Bat and Greg's episode, airing tonight at 9pm:
THE GREAT WILLIAM GOLDMAN famously opined that in Hollywood, "nobody knows anything."
So I wonder why I'm surprised by being surprised by this:
ABC made a flurry of midseason programming announcements Thursday, including ordering more episodes of "Life on Mars" and deciding against picking up "Pushing Daisies," "Dirty Sexy Money" and "Eli Stone" for a full season.
I'll skip the usual eulogy I have -- and that sick feeling of knife to the heart -- any time an interesting or original show like Daisies (which I admit I didn't return to this year after hearing from people that it wasn't as good as last year) and Eli Stone, and say that though the Dirty Sexy Money move is hardly surprising -- so is the vote of confidence in Life on Mars.
I always thought the show was too out there to work on a U.S. network. I stopped watching after Ep 3 convinced me they were going to go too watered down to be true to the material. (that ep had a gay subplot where even the 'homophobic' officers weren't so terrible about the killing of a gay guy -- this, supposedly less than five years after Stonewall in NYC. Uh uh. No sale. If you're gonna be PC 21st century, what's the point?) I also am disappointed that Harvey Keitel isn't more like his character in Bad Lieutenant. I mean, he's a sock compared to Philip Gleinister in the original.
But not only are they giving it more eps, they're putting it on after LOST in January.
FURROWED BROWS. SOFT AD MARKETS. 110 INCH TV's. Whoops, sorry.
Point is, you likely won't be going out much this holiday season, at least to company sponsored events. In fact, some of you are likely to be sent home from work on a more permanent basis. So, based on the last few days, let's practice the hot new Broadcaster Jargon, and apply it in context:
Town Hall Meeting- once beloved of politicians, the new "town hall" is an "all hands on deck" gathering where the bosses scare the living shit out of you by declaring that you're probably toast.
If you're going to take the pain out of that phrase, you have to own it.
Scene:
A dark bar. Wood paneling. candlelit tables, Rolling Stones playing BG. SHE: sitting at the bar. HE: other side of the bar. Eye contact, on and off, about thirty minutes worth. He sidles up to her.
HE:
"So, I couldn't help but notice your concern. I'd like to invite you to a town hall meeting...back at my place."
Or...
A Grocery. SHE comes out of Aisle two and heads for the YOUNG BUCK checking for bruised fruit.
SHE:
"How are the peaches today?"
HE:
"Not bad, I guess."
SHE:
"This bad economic news really has me freaked."
HE:
"Me too."
SHE:
"Hey, listen. You wanna have a town hall?"
HE:
"A town hall for two?"
SHE:
"Why not?"
He replaces the peaches.
Or, finally:
A TTC Bus. Two FRAT BOY types.
FRAT BOY:
"Dude, you know that waitress last night?"
FRAT BOY2:
"Yah. S'up?"
FRAT BOY:
"I totally town halled that."
They go 'up high.' Everyone else squirms in their seats. The Dow drops 1000 points.
I DON'T EVEN know what that title means. Didn't get a lot of sleep last night.
The Podcast is up from yesterday's Q. Listen to Tara Thorne and I as we break down the thorny issue of Product Placement. It's about halfway through, directly after the interview with "Branded Entertainment" expert Jak Severson from Madison Road Entertainment.
Is the recession driving viewers away from reality programming?
There has been so much chatter about politics and the economic meltdown on TV this fall that it's obscured another reality: Some of the networks' biggest unscripted series have been sinking in the ratings.
Now, it could be argued that all of network TV is down. But virtually all of the series that have shown improvement this fall are scripted shows. Among them: NBC's "30 Rock" (up 23%), the CW's "Gossip Girl" (20%) and CBS' "Ghost Whisperer" (8%) and "How I Met Your Mother" (12%).
So, what's up?
Part of the explanation is TV's natural aging process. Many of the reality shows currently on network schedules are, not to put too fine a point on it, old. "Survivor" is in its 17th cycle, an eternity given that TV lifespans roughly approximate dog years.
And what about that economy? Well, hard times may not have any direct effect on what people choose to watch. But there's little doubt that during times of upheaval, viewers' tastes can shift. For example, the deep recession of the early 1980s may have created a fertile environment for the success of nighttime soaps about the treacheries of the rich and infamous, such as "Dynasty" and "Dallas."
Thus, at the outset of what looks to be another deep recession, the sudden success of once-suffering comedies such as "30 Rock" and "Mother" is striking. As the Dow continues to spiral down and jobs dry up, viewers may have decided that their everyday lives already contain more reality than they can bear.
There is opportunity here. Traditionally, as people retrench, stay home, spend less, maybe they do look for other things. Six months from now, maybe all those "the sitcom is dead" articles will look silly.
You have Canadian networks pre-freaking while their bottom lines are still robust - talking layoffs, expense cuts, the sky is falling -- and blaming the CRTC not giving them free money. Next will be the predictable demands to be let out of doing their (already minimal) Canadian Content.
What if someone stepped up?
We need a content Warren Buffet.Stat. Grow a pair, lock and load, and try to put something on the air that makes people's lives a little more enjoyable. Out of panic can come opportunity.
Apparently people are looking for, you know...distractions.
SO AS I alluded to the other day, a return to development means questioning a whole bunch of stuff about how you work and how to focus a new concept. Luckily, that means being able to have conversations with smart people.
One of those smart people is the Producer who I'm working with on one of my development projects. Al Magee has been praised elsewhere, so let's dispense with that one right off the bat. A few weeks ago, we're having a meeting about this project, and after I talked in circles for a little while, Al said something that I found unbelievably trenchant:
The Brits used to make movies about "what happened." The Americans make movies about "what happens next." And we tend to get pushed into movies about "why it happened." Which as box office shows - nobody really gives a shit about.
What happened. What happens next. Why it happened. Three simple phrases.
Two of them can lead to pretty good, or even great -- films and TV shows.
But the "Why..." The Why will kill you every time.
Canadian TV is forever about the why. Most of the time you will spend in a meeting with the network, they will want to talk about 'the why.' What you're saying, why the characters are doing this and that. We employ freelance 'story editors' on film, and even development TV projects. And if they've been raised under the Canadian system and they're doing their Telefilm best, they'll steer you clearly toward the shoals of "Why it happened." In the unlikely event that you do manage to score a scintilla of press coverage for a show, you're probably going to get asked questions about the why, and most creators who get a show will blather about the why given half a chance.
It's all specactularly wrongheaded.
Why?
(Oh come on, you knew that was coming.)
Before I unpack why 'Why it happened' leads us down a bad road, let's examine the reasons why the Canadian system has evolved that way (and for those who aren't Canadian, this is still instructive if you're a newbie writer because a lot of newbies play this game too):
1) The Desire for 'Cultural Importance.'
Many Canadian TV shows and movies, traditionally, have been developed by people who look at the dominant U.S. culture and find it wanting. They want to do shows that look as slick as U.S. shows but have "higher aspirations." That's why you couldn't swing a Dead Cat in a Development Pitch at a network a few years back without hearing "Six Feet Under." It's why FLASHPOINT getting on CBS is the most important thing everrrr... and why the P.R. for that show goes to great pains to point out how a straight-up CBS procedural is very different from U.S. cop shows.
Sometimes the people wielding the power in these situations are Producers who chafed under the industrial model, where U.S. creative would come up here and boss all the Canadian Line Producers around. One day, they vowed, we will do better.
Writers, too, usually see the writing on the wall. Those who want to sign up for the 'loftier sell' stick around, and those who have a more 'commercial bent' -- traditionally -- have lit out for L.A. at the first opportunity.
I could get into a cultural sidebar here and point out that every person I've ever met who talks about wanting to 'do better' than the U.S. culture generally reveal the more they talk, the less they really understand about the United States or Americans, and also how they fold in some pretty elitist ideas about Canadians, too...but that's a digression too far this morning.
The Desire for Cultural Importance is one of the main reasons why an actual, very Canadian show that's a huge worldwide success -- Stargate -- is never mentioned in the press here as a Canadian show. Even though ALL the key creative behind it are, in fact, Canadian.
It's also why everybody gets skittish about praising Trailer Park Boys. Look at Rob Salemhaving to defend his praise for the show in the Toronto Star because of 'outraged readers.'
Notice that both Stargate and Trailer Park Boys are shows that actually draw a dedicated audience. A measurable one, I mean. They have actual 'fans.'
The disconnect between shows that people watch and shows that fulfill the Desire for Cultural Importance is key.
2) The Government in the System
Telefilm, the CTF, all public funding of TeeVee and Flim requires you to blather on and on in documents about what this project does to further Canadian culture. Bureaucrats like reading about how this show will explain Canada to Canadians. The "Why," then, becomes the most important thing in the project to secure your fundings. The more time you spend talking about the why, the more it feeds back into the DNA of it. Why is also an easy thing for people to talk about. It's way easier to talk why than to talk story or character, because that discussion requires some level of craft or writing knowledge.
This pear-shaped discussion process leads to meetings where people tell comedy writers, "oh, we know it will be funny, but we want to talk about the heart," as if nailing the funny was the easiest thing in the world. And as if people tuned in to shows to see 'the heart.'
3) Unfamilarity with the Medium
There are a whole lot of people who make TV in this country who don't watch TeeVee. And a whole lot of people who make films who only see films at Film Festivals -- which is not how 90% of the viewing audience sees them.
The Tyranny of "Why this Happened," separates the makers of filmed entertainment from the consumers of filmed entertainment. It's one of the big reasons why so many shows fail to find an audience.
Why Why Sucks:
Tell me if this happens to you. Last week, watching a TV program with my Dad, I quietly endured the usual outbursts. My dad likes to try and 'figure things out.' In the opening scenes of a show, if a mystery is set up, my Dad will spend the next fifteen minutes saying, "he did it," or "I think it's her" or, sometimes, "they're related." -- whatever it is. Point is he's trying to figure out the mystery.
It doesn't matter that he's almost always wrong. The truth is that the only difference between my father and everybody else is that, um, he doesn't use his internal voice. We're all trying to figure things out all the time. That's how we derive pleasure from watching a show. In a comedy, we laugh out of anticipation, and then we laugh again out of surprise when it goes somewhere different from where we think it's going. In drama, one of the reasons why procedurals are so popular is that desire to figure out why. The reason why they're satisfying and hold our attention is because most people try to figure it out, and delight when they can't. That's what keeps them watching.
In both cases, what do you notice about people? They're not the monolithic couch potatoes they're supposed to be. They're engaged in the process. They're trying to imbue meaning, and their search for that meaning is the thing that makes them like the show. LOST is entertaining because we all try to figure out the mystery, and never quite get there.
Marshall McLuhan famously deconstructed his visions of media, and described TV as a 'cool' medium, meaning that we need to do more work to extract meaning from it. That, in fact, is the point.
The problem with making a show about 'why it happened' then, is that you are fundamentally robbing the audience of their part in the transaction.
They're the ones who get to decide what it means.
If you remove them from that process by making your show all about explaining, or lecturing, or hammering home the why and the theme, you are actually forcing the audience to disengage, not further engage in your presentation.
A light sprinkling of theme helps to focus you -- but only if you're focused on the what happened, or what happens next. If you spend all your time thinking about 'why,' then you are almost guaranteeing that you'll wind up with something that's not engaging to the viewer.
Which, by the numbers, seems to be most scripted Canadian TV.
I LAST CHECKED my email on a free wi-fi connection at the Orlando International Airport at about noon today. A few things here and there, send, forward, delete -- the usual. I just got in the door (Hey, it's fucking winter!) and there were thirteen messages in my Dead Things Mailbox.
That, chickens, is NEVER a good thing.
The emails were multiples, of course. In the wake of last week's catastrophic Global layoff of over 500 people, both CTV and Corus today sent out all-staff memos announcing hiring freezes, restrictions on travel, forensic examination of all expenses that would make David Caruso blush, and a well of other draconian pronouncements.
The soft ad market, she ith a bitch mistress, shurely...
My favorite part of the CORUS memo was the following:
All company supported Christmas parties are cancelled for this year Are there no workhouses?
CTV's having a big staff town hall tomorrow to gloom and doom a little further.
