Metal: A Headbanger's Journey

Well, I'm pretty hemmed in this weekend working on an animation script, but I wanted to put a plug out for a film that I did some work on last year that opened commercially this weekend in Canada.

Metal: A Headbanger's Journey is a personal odyssey through the culture of Heavy Metal. It's the kind of joyous doc that's interesting if you're a metalhead, but even more interesting if you're not. Seriously.

I blogged about the doc when it had its premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival in September. The nice thing about Metal: A Headbanger's Journey is that you learn something about culture, and people, and it's a damned entertaining film to boot. It's been getting great reviews, and if it's playing in your city, I would heartily recommend you go give it a looksee.

Go to their site for reviews, and cities where you can see it.

Paris is Burning

Once upon a time there was a woman who was famous for nothing, though she was rich.

Then came this.

Which begs the question: if you make your living by looking like a woman who's famous for having no discernable skills -- let's face it, she doesn't even seem to be that adept at the very act that kickstarted her fame -- well...what are you, exactly? I think we really might have reached fame's bottom on this one. What say y'all?

In the movies, the last time I remember them doing this well was DAVE. And that guy was pretending to be the President. Now we have a real President who says nothing about pretend things and a pretend person pretending to be a celebrity who's a pretender herself.

The snake's been eating his tail for a while now, I realize...but...um...what's left?

While I spiral into a black hole of unending creative torment...

Why would you be here, seriously, when there is the beauty of this post from the Kung Fu Monkey?

I particularly-heart-his description of the act breakdown of every sci-fi genre story.

Whoopsy-Daisy

Well, all of a sudden there's meetings to be had. And I'm behind on one script, and dangerously close to being behind on another. And just three days ago, I was filled with righteous vigor, and felt on top of things. Eep.

Anyway, what that means is that I'm going to have to delay the third part of the Spec Script post for a few days.

In the meantime, I've noticed that the site counter and stats have now ticked up to a respectable level...but so very many of you are like Charlie -- just laying in wait out in the jungle. Apparently Duvall got it wrong. Charlie do Surf...he just don't comment.

I've got anonymous commenting turned off because it attracts too many trolls and too much spam -- but though Blogger says when you register that you have to register a blog -- you really don't. Sign up, sign in, and let me know some stuff:

• Who are ya?
• What's yer business here? (Aspiring screenwriter, working writer, just interested in TV, Secretly Canadian, ex-girlfriend stalking you (enjoy the bunny))
• What kind of posts have you enjoyed the most?
• Have any of my ramblings sparked questions?
• Paper or Plastic?
• What bugs you most about TV?
• Is Michael Bay the Devil?

Now that it seems I have a healthy readership -- who the hell are you people?

And can I crash on your couch for a few days?

Seriously. Why Even Bother?

I defy anyone to read this article and not do one of two things:

1. Laugh.
2. Cry.

Maybe what's needed is fire.

Fire good.

Actually, Antonia's blog at The Toronto Star makes the inanity even clearer.

Spec: Part Two: Research

This is Part Two. Click here for Part One.

Okay, so now you’ve got the show.

Now what?

Stupid is the writer who starts writing a screenplay without an outline. But the TV writer who attempts a spec without a Beat Sheet is a total maroon. But here's the rub, chickens -- we're nowhere near the beat sheet. Not yet. Before you start to prepare a beat sheet, you have to do your Research.

In this case, research involves immersing yourself in everything you can find about the show. This is a lot easier today than it was a few years ago. Many writers blog, or there are online sites, official or fan-driven, where you can read all the interviews, online chats, blogs, and press materials in one place. Your first journey should be to try and get in the headspace of people who already write for the show. What do they think it’s about? What motifs or themes do they return to, again and again? Is it possible to explain the show in a couple of sentences? Early pre-press, and the first interviews given about the show are often invaluable for this – because it gives you the first blurt – often the simplest distillation of what the show’s about, and what makes it different.

It’s great if you can get screenwriting articles from the WGA or Creative Screenwriting or Script – and if you can find a script online, that’s gold. If not, reading some transcripts can help – just remember that you’re reading fan transcripts, not shooting scripts, so don't follow them for style -- just dialogue. Once you’ve waded through all that, here’s your next step:

Set it aside.

In the end, the only way to get a feel for the show that you’re about to spec is to screen multiple episodes, and deconstruct them. This is very much active, not passive viewing – so it’s best if you’ve seen the shows before. Watch them once for entertainment value, then return to them with fresh eyes; professional eyes.

Actually, if you’ll let me backtrack a bit, sometimes the best approach is not to use eyes at all – not at first.

Once upon a time, what set TV and the movies apart was the fact that movies were visual, and TV was radio with pictures.

If you think about the visual grammar of TV – it’s traditionally largely been composed of medium shots and close ups. The visual fooferal you’ll see in auteur-movies is largely absent.

In TV, stories have been conveyed primarily through dialogue. If you think back to childhood, I’m sure you’ve got memories of doing your homework in front of the tv. You still followed the show, right?

People watch TV and talk on the phone. People fold laundry, do their taxes, cook dinner, make love, in short, they often don’t devote 100% attention to the tv.

This has changed a bit over the years. DVD rewatching of TV means that more info can be layered in visually. HD and 16:9 mean the same thing. The complexity of TV storytelling is exponentially greater than it was a generation ago. But TV still has those Radio with Picture roots. So a first step in discerning how your show works may be to listen to the show. Go in the other room, play the recording back, and see how much you can follow the action. When you watch it later, ask yourself, “how much did I miss?” And what kinds of things did you miss? Were they major turning points? Most of the time, you’ll find that you may miss atmospheric details, but the essential turns in plot will either be revealed, or underlined in dialogue. By listening to the show first, you can “tune” just how visual or action-driven your show is, compared to how dialogue-driven it is. That’s an important thing to know going in to the rest of the research process.

The aim at this point is to break the show down into its component parts. Your object is to crack the DNA code of this show.

So how do you watch that way?

Sit on the couch with a stopwatch. Watch the teaser start to finish. Now watch it again. How long was it? How many scenes? Was it a cold open or a true teaser? Which plots were introduced? Which characters were featured? When did the A Plot get introduced?

Go through the whole show that way. You’re looking to construct a log of the show – how many scenes are there in total? How much time is given to the A? The B? Are there other plots or runners? How much screen time do they get? If it’s a show that has arcs, how much screen time is given over to plot threads that begin and end in the show, and how much to the overall arc?

How many acts, and how long are each? Some shows will have long teasers, almost an act unto themselves. Some shows will have the major turning point at the end of Act Two, some at the end of Act Three. Are any of the acts longer, or are they of more or less uniform length? Some shows tend to have longer scenes at the beginning, and then have the scenes get shorter and shorter as the show progresses – the better to suggest momentum. In some series, the penultimate scene is the longest scene in the show. In others, it’s the last scene. Does the A and B plot resolve in the last scene, or does the B resolve earlier? What else did you notice?

All of this is math.

You are doing a mathematical deconstruction of how the show fits together. You're looking for patterns. This is why…and get ready to groan… you have to do this at least three times, with three different episodes.

I know people who do it with two. But the problem is that even a great show can have an atypical episode. If you pick at random, an atypical ep, you may skew the pattern. Better to log three…chart em….put em up on the wall. And look at the map you’ve created.

Whatever episode you write is going to have to replicate this math.

Now, cast the math aside, and go back through the shows again.

This time you’re mapping character interactions, and story points. Is the show an ensemble or a main star? How does the story revolve around the core cast? (One of the biggest rookie mistakes is writing an episode with a great guest star and having the story revolve around the guest star. Even if the guest star is compellingly written as all get out, in series television, the show revolves around your core cast…everything needs to be their point of view and reveal their characters.)

Are there characters who always find themselves paired? That might be important later – because you either have to nail the essence of that relationship, or if you’re going to play against type, put two characters together who don’t normally interact and go from there.

What role do the various characters play in the show? Who drives the plot? Who discovers things? Who is the conscience? Who sends our characters off in another direction? Which characters are instigators and which are followers? What is the map of how these characters interrelate? Do all interactions go back through the star/central character (ie: Raymond on Raymond) or are they allowed to go off on their own tangents (Jack and Karen on Will & Grace.) Now look at the plots the same way – Are the A & B separate? Are they linked thematically? Do they stay separate, join in the end, kiss somewhere in the middle, and then spin off to separate conclusions, or do they conclude together? Does the solution for the B point the way to the solution for the A? Most of the time, you’re going to see some kind of overall theme emerge. Usually the plots won’t say the same thing about the theme – they may act as point or counterpoint. Or the connection between them might be slight at best. What’s the norm for your show?

Finally, apply the old rule of “what is this scene doing?” Traditionally a scene can fulfill three functions: it can move the plot along, it can reveal character, or it can reveal theme. Good scenes do one of these things. Better scenes do two. The best scenes do all three. What happens in your show?

Meredith and Cristina walking along the corridor with the bomb in the guy’s chest moves the plot along, but it also gives them a chance to talk through Cristina’s relationship troubles, which reveals both what they think is important in life, and their deepest fears. This is another way of approaching the hoary and difficult subject of laying in subtext in the scene. Breaking it down into its three components is often easier than thinking of a big scary word like subtext. When you look at the scenes this way, it also helps you to understand how the show handles the difficult problem of laying pipe and hiding pipe. (doling out plot info, and doing it in such a way that it’s not overly exposition-y.)

Once you’ve done your due diligence, and performed this task for three episodes, you should start to grok the DNA of how the show works.

Now it’s time to come up with your plot.

That’s for next time.

Specs: Part One

So you want to write a spec script.

Great. Good for you. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you know if you’re targeting the half-hour or the hour arena. In places like Canada, you do flip back and forth between hour and half-hour, simply because there’s not enough work to specialize too much. There’s also some odd ducks here too, like the occasional half-hour drama.

In the U.S. this isn't usually the case. You pretty much have to declare yourself an hour writer or a half-hour (comedy) writer. There’s not a lot of flipping between the two camps. Switching between one and the other is not impossible, but it’s extraordinarily unlikely. Few seem to even try. In Canada, it’s not at all uncommon to have a half-hour sample, and an hour sample in your library. I think that’s probably of much more limited value if you’re going to take a run at L.A.

So if you’re looking about, how do you pick the right show?

Well, to decide that you need to know a bit more about you-- what kind of person you are, where your interests and skills ultimately lie; also what’s going on in the industry at large.

I’ve always thought a good time to spec a show is at the end of its first solid season, or sometime in its second. Every show takes several episodes to find itself. If you compare, for instance, early episodes of My Name is Earl or Commander in Chief to the ones that are on the air now, you’re going to see some subtle but very important differences. (In the case of the latter, you'll also have the benefit of seeing how a show that seemed like a sure-fire hit can go south; CiC took exactly the opposite trajectory as last year's House.)

The show you pick should have a degree of familiarity and currency. You don’t want to pick a show that’s going to be canceled. You want one that’s going to be around for a while, but that’s had the time to find itself.

It should also be something you’re naturally interested in. If you’ve had a background in science, maybe a medical drama or a police procedural would work for you. For my part, you’d never catch me specing a House or a CSI in a million years. All the science leaves me cold, and the one true thing about a spec script is this: you cannot fake it. If yours is a show that requires research, you need to do the research. (And yes, I know, on House they have people that do that. But you're not on House yet, are you? Suck it up, buttercup.)

I spec’ed a West Wing at the end of Season One. I’ve read a lot of bad West Wings over the years, but it was a natural for me because I have a very deep grounding and interest in U.S. Politics. I also took a bit of insider knowledge and worked that into my spec – years ago as a journalist, I’d done a story on the Library of Congress…I interviewed the Librarian, Dr. James Billington. So I worked that kind of insight about the institution, its history, what it meant, and hung that on a couple of my characters. And the result was something that still gets me work six years later.

Is there some kind of personal experience you’ve had that you can imbue into the script? We’ve all gone to high school, certainly, but is there something that happened to you in High School that might inform or put a new spin on Summer or Seth on The O.C.?
Trying to match your sensibility to the show you choose to spec is a very important step. The one thing I’ve seen fail, time and again, is when someone decides to spec a certain show because it will be “easy,” or because “How hard can it be?”

It’s hard, Cochise.

It’s hard because of one very, very salient fact:

You are not trying to write an average episode of that show. Average episodes are not going to impress anybody. If your spec’s going to pop, it needs to be a superior episode of that show. An episode that displays that you can write the structure of the show, and embody the singular voices of the characters, but a story that also engages or twists, or turns, or shines brighter than all but the very best that show is about. There’s going to be a median level of knowledge that readers bring to this show you’re doing. Some who read your script will know the show quite well, and some will know the show only in passing. Most will fall somewhere in between. Your dialogue, action, story, and description needs to crackle with the very essence, the lifeblood of the show. It has to nail the template, and offer the reader an experience that stands out not only against all the other specs of that show they’re ever going to have to read – but also against the show itself.

Tall order.

So starting with a show that connects with you emotionally is a good start. At the same time, it probably shouldn’t be your favorite show. We all tend to get a little fanboy about our favorites. You’re not writing...shudder... fanfic. You’re trying to show your professionalism and your talent.

Once you’ve come up with candidates of shows you think are in your wheelhouse emotionally or experientially, then there are a few strategic questions to ask:

Is this going to be the thing everyone is writing?

The more spec scripts of a certain show that go out, the more tired people get of reading them, and the higher the bar gets – in order to impress, you have to rise above the rest, and also impress enough to overcome all the half-hearted, desultory attempts at the same material the person has to wade through.

What market are you trying to target? Can your show do double duty?

There are some shows that really have very limited appeal, and others that can work for wider, or multiple markets.

For instance, the new Battlestar Galactica might be on everyone’s best of lists – but it’s still sci-fi. That will probably help you with Sci-fi work – but even though it should, it probably won’t help you with Adult dramas. People are funny that way.

On the other hand, Smallville works for Sci-fi, and it would probably also work as an action adventure sample, and a youth sample. You could send that out for multiple assignments. The O.C. has both Adults and Teens in it – if you write ‘em both well, you could show breadth that way.

Grey’s Anatomy shows you can write relationships and adult drama. CSI or Law & Order can show that you write procedural, but if you’re trying to also demonstrate mastery of character, CSI probably would have the edge. Scrubs shows that you can write comedy, absurdity and character, but because it also has serious scenes it can show a certain depth that say, a Two and A Half Men can’t touch. (Also, 4 camera and single camera half-hours: very different. But you know that already, right?)

A teen sample might work for animation aimed at teens as well, or vice versa. Children’s or Sci-fi shows probably don’t work beyond those genres.

Recently, some people have tackled vintage specs, either as parody or straight-up. I think they’re risky. Jane Espenson wrote on this subject a while back. I certainly can’t add anything better than she’d say. But I know if I was looking at scripts, and I got a well-written Cheers, that might be something that could stand out, and provide an edge.

All these come with the same caveat: they have to be extra-special good.

So now you’ve found your show. Good for you. Now what?

Next time, we’ll talk about prepping and analysis, doing the ‘ear’ test, and spec math for math idiots.

Hola, amigos.

Query-Feary

A reader emails, basically, the following:

You write a lot about a lot of stuff. And you don't mind saying what you think. But you don't talk about what you're doing. Why not?

That's a good question. In some cases, it's to be circumspect. I'm not sure, exactly, what my obligations are when it comes to development deals I have, and what I can and can't talk about. So I mostly err on the side of "say little." Also, I'm of Irish background, and fatalistic in the way of all the Irish in the sense that it's not nice to talk about something until it's actually something. Development deals are like bums. Everyone has one. They all work the same. Nothing to get excited about.

That being said, I guess a more general rundown of exactly what I'm working on right now wouldn't be too out of order. So, in my best vague terms, here we go:

1. A half-hour comedy -- currently on a desk somewhere in Toronto waiting to be read -- takes place in the dorm of a mid-sized University somewhere in Canada. It's like Degrassi meets Dawson's in a Dorm. Status: Work completed, in with the Network.
   
2. An hour-long mystery series about a father and a daughter, set in two eras. Status: Two of three scripts co-written, and in with a Network. Revising 1 & 2, writing 3, and revising bible.
   
3. A half-hour comedy set in and around a neighborhood, about small neighborhood issues, and the whole NIMBY movement. Status: Pilot and Script, In Consideration for the Canadian Film Centre Pilot program. Currently being pitched.
4. An hour-long series that's part soap, part office drama, and a spin on the "case walks in the door each week" engine that fuels most cop, lawyer, and medical shows, but in an arena that isn't cops, doctors, or lawyers. Status: Bible + Pilot, 2nd Episode currently at Outline. With a Network.

Right now I'm also in various stages on a couple of other projects where I'm a hired gun, among the ones worth talking about:

1. Writing an episode of an animated series.
2. Story Editing a half hour comedy series.
3. Writing & Story room work for a friend's half hour series.
   

Those at the moment are my open projects. It sounds like a lot more than it is, because there's usually one or more lying fallow while you wait for notes and feedback. Still, in an average week, I'm usually writing two different projects. Sometimes three. Sometimes it's hard. Sometimes it's not. It is definitely easier than working for a living.

This is the main reason why I want to be out of the development game for a while. At this point, being able to focus on one project through production would be a godsend. Some of my projects seem tantalizingly close. But close, we all know, is only good for horseshoes, hand grenades, and shooting close personal friends of the Vice President.

So that's what I'm up to.

What Happens When You're Bold?

It's a cold and beautiful sunny day here in Toronto. I'm enjoying coffee and an omelette at the place on the corner. It's the kind of day where you almost don't mind working through the weekend.

Well, except for the fact that I'm not working. I'm writing this. But anyway.

The week ahead has a few meetings, and a few "definitely have to do that's" attached, along with the usual passel of "hmm, that might need to get done too's" -- but I'm definitely thinking in the Spec Script frame of mind. So I'm probably going to do a series of posts on how to approach that, since the Agent's put me on notice that it's time (past time) for me to wade in with some new samples myself.

In the meantime, I'd like to address a slightly different, slightly smaller audience. And I'd like to do it by saying, "lookee at this picture."

I'm assuming you know who the guy on the right is. The guy on the left is the President of the Sundance Channel, Larry Aidem. In the middle is Sundance Channel Executive Vice President Laura Michalchyshyn.

Ms Michalchyshyn is the reason why Americans are seeing the great Canadian series Slings & Arrows, which starts its second season on the Sundance Channel today.

Michalchyshyn used to be an executive at Alliance Atlantis here in Toronto, where she oversaw a number of specialty channels. She developed a reputation for being very encouraging of talent, and shepherding a number of high-quality projects to the screen. She was bold, and worked hard, and had vision, and was very good at what she does.

Now she's in New York, working for Robert Redford, and bringing some of those great series she helped get going reach a wider audience.

This is an interesting time for the Canadian TV biz. There's lots of competing visions about how things are going to go. CBC...Global...CTV...CHUM...CORUS...all have some serious decisions to make about how they're going to go forward. Now the future can belong to the shoppers, who go to the U.S. screenings, and cherry pick and come back and simulcast and tell themselves that they're really very, very important and effective broadcast executives...

...or the future can belong to the bold.

Just saying.

Enjoy Slings & Arrows, guys. Second season's awesome.

I, Your humble Heywriterboy, Have Changed The Face of Canadian Television Forever.

Today, speaking to the Canadian Film and Television Production Association's annual meeting in exciting and exotic Ottawa, CBC VP Richard Stursberg announced that CBC is going to change the way they do things when it comes to drama.

For the humor impaired, I'm kidding. I don't for a millisecond believe that I had anything to do with this. Even if that Dithering and CBC article I wrote did get Antonia at Canada's largest Newspaper to go, "Oh, Snap!"

The reality is that the whole thing's been so broken for so long that even a monkey could realize that clearing the decks was a good way to go.

Except...

In the aftermath of the cancellation of This is Wonderland, The Tournament, and DaVinci's City Hall, ACTRA, the Canadian Actors' Union, has come out with their usual hysterical condemnation that doesn't really help things.

I love the Actors' Union. Seriously, I do. But it's funny how, just like the Directors' Guild of Canada, and IATSE, the whole banging the drum on indigenous Canadian production chorus has gotten a whole lot stronger in the last few years, since all those juicy U.S. service productions that employed all their members dried up.

All of a sudden now -- well Gosh Golly -- the Actors and the Directors and the Crews have started getting behind what the Canadian Writers have been saying for years, "um, guys...maybe we should, you know...have a domestic industry too."

Don't get me wrong. It's great to have them onside. But like Actors always do, if we start to make inroads now, I'm sure they'll take a lot of credit for winning the battle...even though they came pretty late to the party, once all the Relic Hunters dried up, and that dollar of ours started flirting with parity, and the pressures against "runaway production" made the whole counting-on-the-U.S. thing seem a little dicey.

So hell, if that's the way it's going to go, might as well get in front of the curve:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

(Toronto, February 18) Richard Stursberg, VP of CBC, is implementing a whole new way of doing drama at the CBC because of what I, Denis McGrath, wrote on my blog. I am clearly awesome.

Take that ACTRA, and Friends of Canadian Broadcasting!

Anyway, once you look at the Broadcaster report on what Stursberg said today, it's less champagne-cork popping and more sad-little-noisemaker-going-pffft.

A few key sentences from the article I linked to above:

Today, CBC Television unveiled its new program and development commissioning process at the annual meeting of the Canadian Film and Television Production Association. With appropriate funding, the new process would help CBC Television to vastly increase the amount of original prime-time drama and entertainment programming it broadcasts.

Emphasis above is mine. *Sigh.* See? On some level, all this could be cynically read as more window-dressing for a cash grab. From a Conservative Government. Okay everybody, pinky to the lips and do your best Dr.Evil/Lorne Michaels:

"Riggggghhhht."


The CBC's answer to everything is "we need more money." Oh...uh....and "we need to lock our employees out." And...um..."wanna rent our building?" Is this change-of-heart for real or more dog-and-pony? Remains to be seen.

The new process will improve turn-around times for new program pitches; improve the ratio of programs developed to programs produced; and bring increased rigor to the development process.

Well, the turn-around time was pretty much what I wrote about. The ratio of development is good, too. But the "increased rigor to the development process" thing just makes my blood run cold.

Canada is a billingual country, so let's see if I can reach for my French here. Okay. Here goes.

What. The Fuck. Does that mean?

"Increased rigor" is something that just sounds like...well...I don't know what it sounds like. But it's a perfectly formed bureaucratic phrase that really means not a lot of anything. The problem with CBC is that everything is developed by committee. There are no uniform standards...money doesn't drive it - except when it does...ratings don't drive it - except when it does...and quality certainly doesn't drive it. Sadly, a lot of the time -- geography drives it. Welcome to the Pleasuredome. "Increased Rigor" isn't the problem, guys..."Decisiveness" and "Having a Clue" is the problem.

But I'm sure it's a lot less fun to say in a speech. And, you know, you might get called on that. Rather than "increased rigor," which means, um, you know, whatever you want it to mean.

Over the next four years, CBC Television would increase to 250 hours the amount of original Canadian drama and entertainment programming it brings to air.

"Achieving this goal," said Stursberg, "would solidify CBC Television's position as the cornerstone of Canadian dramatic programming, just like the public broadcasters in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Australia and New Zealand."

Unless you don't give us the more money, in which case, my fingers are crossed.

The words are okay. The words are good.

The words have been said before.

Now let's see what the follow-through is. I'm rooting for them. Lord knows I am.
After all -- I'm the guy responsible for all of this...right? Right?

I'm going to go have a lie down.

In The Jungle, The Mighty Jungle, The Lion Sleeps Tonight (or at least his heirs do.)

Well it appears to be South African day here at Dead Things on Sticks Labs.

When I was working in S.A. in 2004, I was pretty entranced by the story of Solomon Linda. You've never heard of him, I'm sure. Why would you?

Except that he wrote one of the most famous songs in the world.

From the 1939 Mbube -- definitely the most famous song to ever come out of South Africa, came the Weavers and the Tokens "The Lion Sleeps Tonight." Disney made a bit of money on that tune courtesy of "The Lion King."

Linda, as these stories always seem to go, died mostly penniless in 1962. But thanks to the kind of Copyright Laws at work in the British Commonwealth at the time, the rights to Mbube and that famous "In the jungle, the mighty jungle, the lion sleeps tonight," and that memorable chorus, should have reverted to the family 25 years after Linda's death. (There's a lesson in there somewhere for the real pirates at the RIAA trying to ram-through copyright provisions that enrich corporations, not people.)

Anyway, while I was in S.A. the story took a funny turn. S.A. courts decreed that while the case proceeded, the Disney trademarks in S.A. might attach to ... the Linda family. Ho ho.

There was much bluster from the mighty corporation at that point.

Lo and behold...two years later, they've finally settled with Linda's heirs.

Now, some of Mbube's (Zulu for Lion) money might finally start going where it belongs.

UPDATE-Y DO: Alex is clearly better at Googling than I am. Way to work it, Epstein. This is an article that the South African Journalist Rian Malan (My Traitor's Heart) wrote for Rolling Stone about the Linda story.

Helluva Towne

Checked out Robert Towne's talk last night at the Art Gallery of Ontario's Jackman Hall, as presented by the Toronto International Film Festival Group and Cinematheque Ontario.

Host Geoff Pevere reined in his more annoying side, and proved to be a very able moderator. He actually did an excellent job - I've been left twitching in the past at those kinds of things by the double whammy of bad moderator/bad questions from the audience. But mercifully, not this time.

The stories from Towne were definitely worth the journey on a very wet and rainy Vancouver winter night (made marginally more disturbing by the fact that, um, I live in Toronto, so heavy rain in February is...um...out of place.)

They showed a bunch of clips and one of the highlights, of course, was that scene from The Godfather between Michael and Vito in the garden, where Vito expresses regret that he never wanted this life for Michael.

Towne said that he got a call from his friend Francis Ford Coppola to come to New York. They were about to lose Brando from the picture, and they realized that Puzo hadn't written any scenes between father and son. Puzo was in no condition to do it - he had other troubles.

Towne was ushered into a screening room in the Gulf & Western building on Columbus Circle and shown 45 minutes of Godfather footage.

Here's the most interesting part of the story for me: at this point, Coppola was a beaten dog. The studio and everyone was saying that the Godfather was a disaster. When Towne saw it he told Coppola it was "the best daily footage he'd ever seen." And Coppola shook his head. He didn't believe it at this point.

Just goes to show. Those brilliant executives being so supportive of their talent.

Oh, I hope there's a special slab in hell for those types of executives.

Anyway, Coppola said he wanted some sort of scene where the father told the son that he loved him. And Towne immediately said, "I can't do that." And Coppola agreed. Towne took the part that said "at that meeting you will be assasinated" and split the speech, shoehorning all the gold in between about "I never meant this life for you" and all, and then ended with the "whoever comes to you will be the assassin" line from the original script.

When they went out to shoot, Brando made Towne read the scene to him twice. He then went through every line with him and asked what it meant. Then he did the scene.

What a fucking scene.

There were other entertaining blind alleys and half-steps -- Towne got involved with the film version of The Firm, for instance, when his next door neighbor Sydney Pollack asked him for help one day. They were both outside, and Pollack was taking out the garbage -- Towne thought he needed help with the cans. I liked hearing about The Firm because years later just about the only thing I can remember about that film was the jazz score and the fact that Towne's ending in the screenplay was so much better than Grisham's ending in the book. Every time the bookists break out the "how the book is always better" canard, I'm right there with, "Oh yeah? What about The Firm?"

Someone in the audience asked Towne if when he was doing the work on Godfather, Shampoo, Chinatown, etc, if he wanted to direct even then, or if he was happy screenwriting. He replied instantly, "No, I was happy screenwriting. Very happy." That made me feel kind of good. Occasionally I've had friends ask why I don't seem particularly interested in directing right now. I've always had this vague sense that maybe I'd want to direct -- someday -- but I guess it took hearing Towne to realize that my reluctance has nothing to do with fear -- it has to do with marshalling energy. I need to focus my energy and work on making my scripts great first, before I go off on a tangent and start trying to direct. The word at this point in my career is more important to me. That's not fear. That's focus.

After the session, they showed Towne's latest film, which he wrote and directed, called Ask The Dust. That was a bit of a treat because the film isn't supposed to open til March, and they had only said they'd be showing 15 minutes. Also, there was a weird sense of things coming full circle screening that film, since it was shot in South Africa while I was there shooting Charlie Jade.

To my everlasting dismay, I never did see Selma Hayek, but the Cape Times was full of Colin Farrel sightings, and I even saw the guy once as he sidled up beside me to wait for his Sushi order at my beloved Beluga Restaurant, whose bar and fine wine cellar I still miss.

Ask the Dust is an interesting, strange, weird, messy film. It really is all over the place, strangely paced -- but with something compelling at the core. It makes me want to read the book, which Towne apparently has been trying to film for 30 years, and which was one of the inspirations for the L.A. he painted in Chinatown. If you're a Towne buff, I think it's something you have to see -- but it's a strange film. Stranger still seeing a bunch of places that four years ago would have been exotic to me, but now are as familiar to me as my own street.

Traffic Spike, Ho!

Hi to anyone surfing in for the first time from Antonia Zerbisias' Toronto Star Media Blog which linked to my Dithering & CBC piece.

Here at Dead Things On Sticks Labs, we endeavor to provide the finest chatter about TV writing, Canadiana & General foolishness, with occasional sidetrips into Politics and other weirdness. Please stay awhile, look around, kick the tires, and jiggle the handle on the toilet after flushing.

For the record, I actually kind of like the CBC. I do not want to see it privatized. I just want them to make fewer stupid decisions.

'Och Aye Buh-bye

Wow, some days the news just wants you to procrastinate.

One of the odd quirks of Canadian life is this strange little undercurrent of Scottishism.

I think it may go back to Mike Myers' So I Married An Axe Murderer, where he played a character who was Scottish, based on his Dad. (This is years before he pulled the same trick as Fat Bastard in one of the Austin Powers movies, but a few years after he kicked off the trend with the "If it's not Scottish, it's crap" sketches on SNL.)

For my money, neither was as funny as the incarnation of the angry wacky Scot he did when he was trying to kill time between sketches at Second City in Toronto back in the 80's. Then, he'd get up there and say, "Okay, here's my impression of Sean Connery starring in Anne of Green Gables." He'd then take a pigtailed wig, put it on, and say in a pretty passable Connery: "I'm Anne of Green Gables, ya bashtard..."

I guess you had to be there.

Anyway, point is, however it started, for years now, Canadian airwaves have been filled with Ads featuring "angry/wacky Scots."

It completely replaced the other trend in Canadian advertising from a few years ago, which was the "voiceover-actor-with-a-British-accent-for-no-discernable-reason."

The "Angry/Wacky Scot" shows up all over the place. Mostly in bad radio ads. It's an easy Go-To (a term I really should post about) because in craven copywriters' minds, just the sound of the Scottish accent is funny -- which means you don't actually have to write anything with wit or humor. The funny voice will carry it. Ugh.

Probably the worst example of the trend right now is a gum ad where an animated piece of gum runs after a woman running a marathon. For some reason, the whole time, this piece of gum talks in a Scottish accent. It's not funny. It's not motivated. It's just weird.

It probably made the client swoon.

On the other hand, the most ubiquitous "angry/wacky Scot" in Canadian television for the last few years has been the shill for Alexander Keith's India Pale Ale. (right) He's a full-on Scot in sporin and everything, berating people in bars for not treating their beer with the proper respeck. The ads are really annoying, and a little bit funnier than...mm...cancer.

Anyway... my friend Rob and I now humbly predict the end of the Wacky/Angry Scot in Canadian TV. From Today's Toronto Star:

A 40-year-old Toronto comic better known as the obnoxious Scot who berates bartenders and pub patrons in television commercials for Alexander Keith's India Pale Ale has been charged with possessing child pornography and making it available over the Internet.

Whoops. This actor also stars in lots of other Canadian ads. (Casting directors up here, for some reason, always cast the same twelve people. Hmm...in light of this story, maybe that trend can go away now, too. After all, you never know what those crazy actors will do when they're away from set...better to spread the work around...)

You can read the full story in the Toronto Star. Warning: High Ick Factor.

Rabbittown Goes Down

Hey, remember that CBC Pilot I praised when they ran the three pilots in January? It was the only one of the three that wasn't brain dead or stillborn. It was actually quite charming. It was called Rabbittown, and I wrote about it here. Some excerpts:

The template is simple: two girls, best friends, who probably shouldn't be friends, because they're destined to bring the worst out in each other. Their competitiveness means poison for the relationship...I've seen articles written about toxic female friendships. I've seen them in action among some female friends. But I've never seen a TV show about it, with the exception of AbFab. It's a rich, comic area...Rabbittown weaves through logical, rich, consistent character development...every scene in the half hour promises more... If this sucker doesn't get at least six episodes, then there's no hope.

Well, Alex, let's go for item (b.) I've just heard through an impeccable source that CBC passed.

CBC President Robert Rabinovich has bloviated that he wants to be "audacious."

ZZZZZt. Failed right out of the gate. What a load of hooey. Plus ca change, plus ca meme CBC.

What Happens When You Don't Have A Story Room.

I've got a big post brewing about spec scripts and how to start one - and also a little about the TV writer/Movie Writer demarcation point. But those posts will be heavy-lifting and heavy committment (which, by the way is the one word, after all these years, that I can never remember how to spell, so if I got it wrong there, then great: the streak is alive.)

So instead today I offer a wafer.

I've written before about development, and how lonely and crazy-making it can be...and how sometimes you really find yourself jonesing for the story room.

What I didn't share was this: a couple years ago, a writer friend and I were bitching over the difficulties of breaking story by yourself. There's no trick to it, there's no back and forth, and you never know if you're really going in the right direction.

So anyway, she confessed at that point that when things got really bad, really lonely, sometimes she'd dig out her childhood teddy bears and arrange them around the table so it seemed like she had company, or people to bounce ideas back and forth with.

Hearing this, I did what any self-respecting man would do in the situation with a girlfriend with whom he was not currently canoodling: I passed about three inches of vodka through my nose and mocked her mercilessly for the rest of the night.

To her credit, not only did she take it, she bought me a new vodka. And then she fixed me with a vengeful gleam in her eye and she said five words that chilled my soul:

"You laugh now. But wait."

Well, now here it is February 2006. I'm trying to break an important story for one of my shows. It's going very slowly. I have the corkboard out. I have the index cards with beats on them. I have the coffee. I have the laptop.

Hell, I even broke out the Magic Guinness Hat.


Sometimes, it helps me to focus. Not today.

Today, nothing seems to be working. So... *sigh*








Opus has an absolutely foolproof bullshit detector, and surprisingly, Marvin the Martian is really good with story. Although he does go for the ray-gun vaporization deus ex machina climax a little too often for my taste.

If this series goes, and these guys sue me for story credit, there's gonna be scissors.

So basically, I guess what I'm saying is...
Dorothy Parker*, you win.

*not her real name

Monkey Spins Plates!

Meetings today. Lots of meetings.

Talk amongst yourselves.

For Toronto-based Cinephiles...

This Thursday, Feb 16, The Toronto International Film Festival Group is presenting a conversation with Robert Towne. Sounds like it could be interesting.

Details here.

Uh oh.

Cheney's victim just had a heart attack.

Paging Aaron Burr...

If You Speak Up, then the Quail Will Win

Well Jon Stewart sure didn't disappoint. But watching the Cheney-shooting-a-guy-in-the-face story play out in the news cycle, it amazes me that right there in there, again, is the root of all the trouble that people seem to have with this administration.

This is a nothing story. It's so obviously a hunting accident, unfortunate, but not anything sinister. (EDIT: Well, except if you have something against shooting canned, pen-raised animals rather than actually, you know, going hunting -- the part of the story that isn't getting much play outside of The Daily Show. Thanks to Alex for that catch.) Point is, It's a one-day story.

Except the conduct of the administration makes it more:

• Wait a day to disclose something that they should have gotten out in front of immediately.
• Spin it so that you blame the victim, which leads to the refutation stories by wildlife officials.
• Keep the VP out of sight and unwilling to comment, insuring that you can't put it behind you
• Change your story a couple of times about how and when the President found out.

The mania this administration has for secrecy knows no bounds. How is it possible that these guys haven't learned in more than thirty years, that it's not the event itself, but the cover-up you have to watch out for?

In other news -- I know it's Valentine's Day, so before I tell you how much I love each and every one of you in my special way in my secret places, let me tell you that I love this post.

It's beautiful to see someone make an argument, and then see a bunch of commenters prove the argument for him.