Why The World Needs Superman

That's a motif that keeps popping up all the way through Bryan Singer's loving, respectful, and luminous relaunch of the Superman mythos.

In the movie, Lois Lane has won a Pulitzer for editorializing the opposite. Througout the film, there's a distinct melancholy cant that we're now familiar with from Singer's superior work on the X-Men (as well as that first gutbusting script from Dave Hayter) and Spider Man.

But to see it applied to the Alpha and Omega of superheroes is to somehow elevate it. My friend Mark Askwith today was telling me about Neil Gaiman's book where he talks about stories written about tigers -- filled with violence and action, and trickster stories -- written about monkeys.

The strength of Superman, simply put, is that it has always been a tiger story written by monkeys. To truly grok the people, the sensibility that formed Superman back in the 30's, you have to read Michael Chabon's Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. This is not a hero from the haves. It's a dream of strength from the margins, from the have nots. Whatever it is about Singer-- and I won't psychoanalyse the man-- but he gets that on a profound level.

Much has been made of Superman Returns' reverence for the Donner film interpretation, and it certainly does show that. (Down to Glenn Ford on the mantel as Pa Kent.) But it's also probably the loneliest Superman you've ever seen. It's a comic book movie, yes. But by tapping in to the angst of the world moving on without you, Singer has tapped a vein, a weakness in Superman that's way more powerful than Kryptonite.

This, at its essence, is an immigrant's story. In our age, when there's so much debate about immigration and assimilation versus retaining your heritage, how subversive is it to take the consummate American hero, Superman, and anchor a story in his deep, deep need to belong, and his inability to ever fit in?

The other thing that's great about Superman Returns, in this day and age, is that even more than the Donner films, this is a document that posits that Superman belongs to the world. This is an American myth, yes, but there's enough attention paid at the margins that proves that Superman is the best that America has to offer. He's the city on the hill in tights. He's admired around the globe because he represents the best that America can be -- the idealism, the purpose, the generosity, the goodness, and the vision that she falls so short from today.

I was moved by this movie.

And...back to the sadness ... If you remember that image of the man falling from the WTC on 9/11 -- there's a couple of chills you'll get watching it.

More than any of that, this movie made me feel ten. I begged my father to take me to the original Superman film in 1978. I can't wait to talk about this one with him.

I've skippped all the other blockbusters this summer, and I likely will continue that behavior. It's served me pretty well so far. But boy, am I glad I saw Superman Returns today. It feels good to see a tiger, even when deep down you know you're a monkey.

UPDATE: Here I go. I'm opening myself up to flame war 2006 here, but has anyone else noticed that a lot of the negative reviews of Superman Returns are written by women? (And yeah, I know Ebert panned it. But really, you think that disproves my point? Kidding. Here's the shortcut, ladies. We hate chick flicks and make fun of them, and when we do you get mad at us. You don't like Superhero movies, and when we point out the similarity of the situation, rather than seeing the interesting sociolgical difference, you get mad at us. Can we just take our face slap and go back to sleep?

P.S. -- We're willing to fight it out -- but only if there's a HIGH degree of likelihood of the makeup sex. I mean, come on. It's Superman. Not Rapebear.

***

On another note, I'm deep into writing for Across the River to Motor City right now. There's very serious deadlines coming up -- and what originally I hoped would be a "yay, I'm done" trip to New York City turns out to be a "oh my god, I have to relax for 72 hours because I'm so busy" trip. So that means -- I think -- light blogging for the next several days.

I'll think of you when I'm writing in Washington Square Park.

Well, not really. But it's the thought, right?

Meantime, check out this nifty full interview Alan Sepinwall did with Tolan and Leary over THAT episode of Rescue Me (spoilers for Canadian viewers.)

By accident, last night

I watched Wag The Dog.

Jebus Chris!

When did that movie become a freaking documentary?

It's like how Broadcast News is a quaint period piece now. When you see a film that warns about something, and the something comes to pass, and it's worse than the movie warned you about, then what?

Is that stupid Day After Tomorrow Film going to play like this some day?

I need a hot toddy and a cold towel.

Whistler Goes South

An article that caught my eye this morning. So the brave new world of integrated content begins.

From C21 Media.net

MTV Networks' programming arm and nighttime network for teens The N will simulcast the premiere of teen drama Whistler on-air and online on its new broadband media player, The Click.

In addition, following the series' debut on Friday June 30 at 9:00 p.m. viewers will be able to watch online companion series Sneak Peeks and exclusive Whistler webisodes.

The former provides viewers with a glimpse of the following week's upcoming episode, while the webisodes comprise 13 original shorts that will roll out at the conclusion of each on-air episode. The webisodes also act as a prequel to the premiere and provide viewers with the opportunity to catch original narrative content that delves deeper into the series' storylines.

Whistler, set in the eponymous Canadian ski resort, is a mystery that revolves around the sudden death of an Olympic skier that sends shockwaves through the small – but secretive – community.

Whistler is produced by Canadian/US production outfit Blueprint Entertainment and Canada's Boardwatch Productions.

So while everyone flails wondering about mobisodes, it seems like this show, aimed at young adults, has them firmly entrenched in their DNA.

Fasten your seatbelts, folks.

Moose, 1990-2006

Some mourn Aaron Spelling. I go my own way.

From Canada.com:

Frasier star Moose, who played Eddie, has passed away. He was 16.

The four-legged co-star of Kelsey Grammar and David Hyde Pierce died last Thursday night at the home of his trainer Mathilde Halberg in Los Angeles.

Moose, a Jack Russell terrier, was on the popular sitcom for a decade, playing the companion of John Mahoney's character, Martin.

I haven't been this broken up since the last time I heard those immortal words, "Sit, Ubu, Sit...Good Dog. Woof."

Rescue Peter Tolan

Originally I was going to start delving into my Rx for Canadian TV makers, based on the interview with Diane Kristine.

But I mean, enough with the Canadian TV already, right?

(Note to readers bored from places like the USA: it's an easy habit to get into this time of year, since your networks aren't showing anything new and ours are dumping all their new Canadian stuff on the air right now.)

So what to write about. Sure, I could talk about how, from the moment I first watched Huff, I knew that the phrases "Russel Tupper" and "Dead Hooker" had to come together in some way.

But that doesn't seem to grab me. And besides, I'd much rather talk about Oliver Platt once I get back from New York. (I'll be seeing him on Broadway in Conor Macpherson's Shining City next weekend. Yay!)

So there I am, wondering what to talk about, and then, lo and behold, Peter Tolan (Rescue Me) goes on Television Without Pity last weekend.

Oh boy.

*A note for Canadians. Over the next few paragraphs, I'm going to be discussing things from the third season of Rescue Me, which has yet to air in Canada. If you're spoiler averse, you should probably stop reading.......now.



(l'il bit o' spoiler space)





At the end of the episode, Tommy went to meet Janet to discuss divorce arrangements. The whole thing went down calmly -- too calmly -- with Tommy acquiesing to most of Janet's requests.

Then he forced her down on the couch, ripped her blouse open, and forced himself on her. She fought back, but at some point, clearly gave in. After it was over, Tommy apologized: not about the rape -- about ripping the shirt.

Janet's answer: "It wasn't one of my favorites."

Tommy got going because he knew his brother, (who's now sleeping with Janet) would be home any moment. He left, the brother rolled up, and Janet was sitting on the couch (having changed her blouse) chipper, and smiling like nothing happened.

It was a horrifying scene. For a lot of reasons.

Most of the TV writer coverage has focused on the rape itself, understandably. But there was so much else to be horrified over. His cavalier attitude. Her cavalier attitude. Her willingness to cover it up. And, of course, the suggestion that the attentions -- though unwanted -- were not entirely unwelcome.

Editorials have taken Rescue Me to task for "its pattern of misogyny," and a lot of writers seem to be suggesting that this episode crossed the line.

So Tolan -- in a fit of I don't know what -- decided to try and go explain himself.

From the L.A. Times:

Before posting his first comment, "I sat there and thought, 'Should I do this? My gut is saying no,' " he said in a phone interview Friday. "I thought maybe I could explain some things.

"But all you do," he has since concluded, "is paint a target on your back."

So what did he say?

From the TWOP forums:

This is Peter Tolan. I learned about this site a few days ago while reading an article in EW, so I checked out the RM forum. I'm amazed about the quality of our fans. Some really interesting takes on things - even the people who take us to task do so in a consistantly thoughtful manner. And to the person who saw the World Series ring on DL's hand in the truck near the end of last season's finale - you made his day. He didn't think anyone would ever notice.

Let me affix the target to my back - there - now I'll continue. About last night's episode and the scene near the end between Tommy and Janet. We tried to be extremely careful about that scene. I did not direct the episode, but I did my most careful writing in preparing the scene. Our feeling has always been that Tommy and Janet are in a highly dysfunctional relationship (obviously), a negative vortex fueled by only one positive - a faint glimmer of love that is constantly overshadowed by truly fantastic physical attraction. In terms of the scene last night, I never wrote the words 'don't' or 'no' at any point in the scene, and when I talked to Andrea about the playing of the thing, I pretty much told her that she had to stand up to Tommy - that he had taken so much away from her over the years, that she had to stare him down from a position of strength while he was forcing himself on her. I told her to shame him with the words she was given - to let him know she couldn't hurt her anymore, no matter what he did.

Did this come across? For many viewers, obviously not. I was not on set the day the scene was shot (I live in California and am only in NYC when I direct episodes), so maybe those ideas weren't followed through as well as they could have been. I'll admit this is extremely dicey stuff. The idea of any woman 'enjoying' being raped is repellant, and caused all of us (and the network) a great deal of concern. But again, these are seriously damaged people who are unable to express their emotions - and so expression through brutality has become expected.

I don't want to answer to many other questions - although I'm sure I will in the weeks to come should anyone care to ask. But I do want to clear up the Probie story issue, which no one seems to be enjoying. I also want to clear up a quote that was attributed to me, about torturing Mike Lombardi with this storyline.

I came up with this story idea during one of our first story sessions of the year. Many times on this show, I'll pitch something that seems a little out there - even to me. This was one of those stories. I don't want to go into too much detail, but it was never pitched as a joke to see Lombardi discomfitted. Hey, we're moronic at times, but that's going too far. The truth of the story is - we've sort of bailed on the original pitch and now we're neither fish nor fowl. The original pitch had Probie much more invested in the relationship with the guy. When the crew found out about what was going on, they joked and slowly accepted it, but something else happened - they all started to chip away at him, questioning him, breaking his resolve about his choice. Soon he'd be so uncertain about what he was doing, he'd go to the guy with the intent of breaking things off. The guy - in love with Mike - would respond violently - and I can't say much more. It was very dark and much more interesting than what we've got now. Honestly, we disagreed about the story among ourselves - and now we're stuck with a much more shallow story that's played, sadly, more for laughs.

Welcome to writing a television drama. We're trying to do something different with RM - straddling a thin line between heart-wrenching drama and balls-out comedy. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we don't. Again, sorry if anyone was offended by the scene last night. That was not our intention.

And to the person who's had so many lovely things to say about me the last few hours, I wrote this whole post with both hands securely on the keyboard. Thought that might help you lighten up a little bit.

From there the conversation devolved. You can read the whole thread (starting with Tolan's post as "Jim Spriggs" here)

After a while, it started to devolve. You can see Tolan enjoying some of the adulation -- complimenting posters on analyses and details noticed...but eventually it all goes south. It got bruising, inevitably.

We've been here before, of course. I wrote about LOST fans sometime ago, and how demystifying the writing process is a non-starter that shouldn't be attempted. (At least not in that kind of unmediated environment.) Aaron Sorkin got his ass handed to him at TWOP, and eventually worked it into his show.

But this kind of stuff is only going to get worse. Because drama is at a point where it has now got to be more brutal, more raw, and take more chances. More chances mean more people not liking what you have to say.

When you're surrounded by lies every day -- when your culture is threatened by doublespeak and division, the choices seen on TV are going to reflect that.

It doesn't stop with Tony Soprano. Characters are going to die now. They're going to get fucked up. They're going to make terrible choices. They're going to do things that they wouldn't have done ten years ago. Jack Bauer will torture people. Tommy Gavin will rape his wife. And Janet Gavin will enjoy it on some sick level -- because she's still hot for Tommy, and that's probably why she's fucking his brother in the first place.

I was horrified by that rape scene. (And I won't entertain any of the idiots saying it wasn't rape, either. It started as rape. Ergo, It was rape.) But you know what? I was horrified the episode before, when Tommy beat his brother bloody because he discovered the brother was sleeping with his wife. I was horrified by Tommy's little girl having to look at her beaten-up Uncle, and him reassuring her that it was OK, and not to be scared of her daddy. I was horrified by the conversations between Tommy and his brother where their violent way of working things out was treated as normal -- and no big deal. I was horrified when the son died, and Janet blamed Tommy. I was even horrified by the comic subplot, when the Probie got a blowjob from his roommate and then insisted he wasn't gay -- cause he was only getting a BJ -- and rather than talk about it to a place of understanding -- they too got into a drag out fight. I'm horrified that the brother was probably coming to the house to confront Tommy. I'm horrified that he carries a gun. I'm horrified that he probably would have used it.

This is what Rescue Me is. It's about people bottled up and twisted by grief, who can't express themselves and who act out in stupid, self-destructive ways. It's about people thrown together who would probably be better off apart. It's all horrifying. Which is why it's such compelling viewing. The point isn't that they crossed the line. In the very first episode, we find out that Tommy is sleeping with his dead best friend's wife. We're told right off the top that among firefighters this is a great big no-no. Tommy has crossed the line. There it is, right from the beginning. Rescue Me is a show about characters who will set lines, and constantly cross them, and never, ever, ever be honest or stop to think, "what am I doing and why?"

Melodrama tells you what to think. You can watch an hour of melodrama, and at the end, the moral is, "racism is bad." Great. Nice. Next. You can now go feel really smug and have not have been moved one iota.

Drama, on the other hand, is supposed to raise provocative questions and get you thinking. You can't do that and not have a variety of opinions. YOU WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE DIFFERING VIEWS ABOUT IT.

People are restless today because their media is constantly telling them what to think, and the background white noise is buzzing, buzzing, buzzing, and telling them that it's all bullshit. Some people hate this. They want to have an easy answer, especially from TV.

But the best dramas: Six Feet, Sopranos, Rescue Me -- are not about giving you answers. They don't let you off the hook that way. Why should they? Life doesn't let you off the hook, either.

But there's always going to be a sector of the audience that hates that. Just like the fans of the old, cheesy 1978 Battlestar Galactica who complain that they want the shiny campy original, rather than the dark drama of the re-invention. These fans will go so far as to insist things that are just not true: like the new series is a failure (even as it's renewed) and no one likes it (even as it makes top ten lists, and is singled out by TIME and the New York Times.)

There's no talking to these people.

Some of 'em, anyway. And you know what? The moment you write something that doesn't have an easy, melodrama-like interpretation, that's what you've signed up for.

Andrea Roth, the very smart, very beautiful actor who plays Janet, had her say about the scene in a recent interview. You'll notice that Tolan, though he seems out on a limb on this one, actually is pretty in step with the people making the show, who may have a deeper or different view of the central relationship. She spoke to TV Guide, and said:

It has a dark, dysfunctional soul, mixed with a lot of light, funny drama. The audience has no idea [what will happen], so it's like a big kids' roller-coaster ride. There's enough alcohol, swearing and sex involved so it's a good ride. Every once in a while, because it can get so outrageous, I wonder if people think it's just too over-the-top or soapy, but they just eat it up. The crazier it gets, the more obsessed people get.

Interestingly enough, in the TVGuide interview, Roth seems to indicate that she was far more disturbed by the anger she had to play in the wake of her child's death than the rape scene. That makes total sense to me. She wants to connect to the human emotion, the thing that lets us get through times of grief. But Tolan said, "stay angry." That's hard. Because that's not how we want to think of people in times of sorrow. It's counter-intuitive. But that is also the absolute dysfunctional DNA of Rescue Me.

So where does that leave things? How did Tolan come through his online experience? From the L.A. Times again:

Meanwhile, Tolan has gotten a bit of karmic payback himself. He clearly feels a little burned by his online adventure. But his experience may prove useful for future producers who find themselves squaring off against an empowered fan base. He also can't say he wasn't warned.

"I've actually talked to some friends, some of whom are actors who are very well known and other writers, and I've said, 'How do you find it to be dealing with your fans of your shows?' To a person, they said, 'You know, it's probably not a good idea to get involved.' "

So does that mean farewell to the message boards?

"I think I'll go back to say I won't be back," he said.

This is now a well-established pattern. Simpsons writers, Aaron Sorkin, Tolan -- each has been through the fire of TWOP and come out burned. At what point do you concede that it's not that you presented yourself poorly, but maybe -- just maybe -- it's a function of the kind of unmediated experience a board represents that you are going to come out the loser?

You have your say. It's on celluloid, or HD, and people watch it. A little mystery and mediation in your interaction with the audience is a good thing. Because once you put yourself down on the level with the audience -- eventually someone will turn on you.

I don't want to say that the audience is Mark David Chapman laying in wait outside the Dakota for John Lennon, but...

...well, wait a second. Will that image keep you off the boards? Will it keep me off the boards, trying to justify my work?

Fine.

The audience (or part of em, anyway) are like Mark David Chapman waiting for John Lennon.

If you are an actual, honest-to-mergutroid writer: Message boards are not for you. Stay away. As much as the fans may say they want your feedback, they really don't. The nature of the social experience will be that once you are a voice among many, and eventually, they will take you down. Partly because you've introduced a power dynamic to an area that's supposed to be "equal." Everybody on a message board is entitled to their opinion. Some are stupid, some are trenchant, but so long as they don't P.O. the moderators (who they bitterly resent, BTW) they get to have their say. And they fiercely protect that right. But if you come in with more knowledge, or first-hand knowledge, sure, at first they might like it. But after a while, they're going to think that you think you're better than them. That's just the way it goes. Eventually that accusation comes out. You may think it's true. You may think it's not. But it doesn't matter. You're not on the dais. You're not being interviewed by the NYTimes or Entertainment Weekly -- you're in the bearpit with the groundlings. And they smell blood.

You get your chance to express yourself through art. This is theirs.

As much as it may be tempting, as much as you think it's a more egalitarian way to interact than answering mail on a website (filtered) or podcasts that go one-way, or screenings with Q&A's, it's not.

Leave it alone.

Whistler'ing Past The Graveyard

Whew.

Well, except for the fact that once again, CTV must have a herd of rabbit's feet stashed in a basement in Agincourt somewhere, I'm pleased to be able to say that Whistler's premiere has come and gone, and everyone involved can hold their head high.

For the kind of show Whistler is, you kind of have to apply what I call The O.C. test. There is a LOT of sneering, provincial, anti-intellectualism that passes as "Kulture" among the Canadian hoi-polloi -- but I've always trusted those who can throw down and admit, "Yeah, I watched Survivor..." or, as I tongue-in-cheekily declared to a friend of mine a few years back, "The O.C. is the most important show on television."

Those were the days.

So, how does Whistler stack up? Well, sadly, no memorable line like "Welcome to the O.C., bitch..." but you've got your solid high school characters: the decent younger brother (who actually does look like a high school student) and the luscious babe he loves from afar (who can act and is really pretty.) Among the adults, you have a very strong Nick Lea making us forget Alex Krycek from The X-Files, and -- well -- I don't know many of the other actors, but some of them are intriguing enough. The guy playing Krycek's brother is particularly creepy.

Then there's the TV stuff woven into the DNA of the show: a who-killed-Laura-Palmer like mystery...a rich mouse, poor mouse simmering conflict between have and have nots...and more importantly, sexy people doing cool moves on the slopes and then coking and boozing it up apres-ski. Gnarly, dude.

Sure, Canadian TV preserves its perfect streak of never being able to cast someone who can do a credible Aussie accent, but that's a minor quibble.

What's revelatory, though, is the look -- a quantum leap forward for Canadian drama. I watched in HD and the composition of each shot was painterly and beautiful. They remembered to give the actors EYELIGHT -- which Canadian drama NEVER does. Rather than the flat, drugstore lighting we're used to, each setup had depth and grace -- hinting at shadows beyond, and bathed in golden light at other times.

I know a lot of the time when they talk about the look of the show, that's code for "it sucked but it looked good." And this is not that. The storytelling moved along at a pleasing clip...scenes didn't sag. The writing wasn't self-consciously spectacular, but it more than did the job -- you had a pretty good idea about the characters and the relationships between them as the hour wore on -- and most of that was communicated without a ton of clumsy exposition. Maybe the writing wasn't West Wing -- but it was good. I enjoyed it. And there were a couple of funny lines, too. So that's great and bodes well for the show's future. Kelly Senecal, the creator, John Fawcett, the director, and the whole team should be very proud of this show. It's got more potential than CTV's last three high profile series ever had.

(I might have waited til Episode 2 to introduce the talking ghosts, but hey, that's me. When you're going for the high-O.C. vibe -- I don't know if you want to muddy it up with that touch of Rescue Me or Six Feet.)

But the best thing about Whistler -- and here's me burying the lead -- it was NOT EARNEST.

Yaaayyyy!

Finally, I've been to the real Whistler once or twice in my life. I'm not a big skier or snowboarder. But this program made it seem exotic, and glamorous and fun -- it made it seem like a place you want to go back to-- a key hurdle for establishing a franchise for a series, and seeing as they're building toward the next Olympics, it strikes me that there's plenty of room for stories for years to come.

Whistler did great. I'm definitely going to watch again. I don't know if it's got the chops to replace my mourning for the O.C. when it was still good, but I'm willing to stick with it a while to find out.

...and I was curious about some of those songs on the songtrack. Hmmm.

Whistler continues Sunday nights at 10pm in Canada on CTV. You can get information on how to view it on demand at www.ctv.ca -- and if you're in the U.S., check the listings for The N to find out when it's on in your viewing area.

New Series Alert (For Canadian Viewers)

(UPDATED BELOW.)


I missed this until right now: CTV's long-in production WHISTLER premieres tomorrow night on CTV 10pm ET/PT.

It's a frothy soap set in and among the hoi polloi of B.C.'s fabled ski town -- and host to the 2010 Olympic Winter games, don'tcha know.

I hear there's a murder.

You've been warned!

UPDATE: After reading the Globe & Mail Weekend Review today, there's an article about how WHISTLER is using music licensing to try and leverage popularity. This is a great, welcome development -- and it scoops one of the recommendations I was goingt to make about how we can be savvier.

Interesting article.

UPDATE II: Here's a link to CTV's site and an article on Whistler. Bill M.P.B Cunningham, in his inimitable fashion, comments below:

I'm sorry, but aren't there unit publicity folks on staff with this show? Is that not a component of a Canadian TV show's budget?

It seems absolutely inconceivable to me that the network wouldn't spring for a decent publicist.

If that's the case they deserve everything they get (or don't as the case may be).

CTV has actually been reasonably O.K. with publicizing its original shows -- but anecdotally to me, at least, Whistler has flown under the radar. Now - again, my well-established summer pattern (Because I watch so much TV during the winter) is not to turn on the TV too much right now, so I haven't seen the coverage that Whistler may or may not have received on the entertainment magazines. There were articles in all the tv guides this weekend, and I think I saw a newspaper ad, but since I don't watch much TV, I don't see many promos, so I don't know if they've been running.

That being said, there is the problem of the proximity to the U.S. market. There is a problem that we will never be able to afford the level of promo that U.S. series receive: the question is, is that truth being used to conceal a "give up" mentality?

You tell me. Whistler comes to the N in the USA on June 30. Seen any promos?

I'm still getting massive hits off searches for Falcon Beach on ABC Family...

As for the hiring a publicist thing...well...we're getting ahead of ourselves...

TV Mandarins, Meet The Viewer (Part Two)

This is the second part of my interview with Diane Kristine--let's call her the uberviewer -- from Unified Theory of Nothing Much. For Part One, click here.

DTOS: How much do the following ways of finding out about a show influence your decision to sample a show? You can give a 1 to 10 answer, one being not very
much, 10 being absolutely important -- and if you want to make a comment about how you use these different methods, go ahead.

-On-air promos on the station.

3 - The problem is if I'm not watching shows on that channel in the first place (hello CBC), I can't catch the promos for others. And I don't tend to watch commercial breaks.

-Internet-based articles.

10 - I do most of my news gathering on the Internet, both for newsy news and entertainment news, so this is how I find out about most television shows. For American TV, I get most of my news from tvtattle.com, which gathers stories published elsewhere, and The Futon Critic, which gathers information from the networks. As far as I know, there's nothing like those sites for Canadian TV, so coming across information about a Canadian show is pretty hit and miss.

-Reviews by television critics.

9 - Which isn't to say that a critic has to rave about something for me to tune in. A proper review will give me a hint of whether I might find the show appealing, whether or not the critic does. The reviews I read of Love Monkey, for example, were mixed, but it sounded like something I'd like (and the on air promos looked good, and I like Tom Cavanagh,and I liked the book it was based on).

-National Magazine/Newspaper Articles.

2 - Mostly only if I can find them online. There's the laziness again, but if they want to reach me where I am, that's online.

-Outdoor/Advertising in other media

1 - I've never seen a static ad for a show that's intrigued me enough to decide to watch.

-Word of Mouth/The Water Cooler

3 - Not too important, just because many of the main water cooler shows are ones that tend not to interest me. At work, there's lots of conversation about reality shows, sometimes the heavily serialized ones that keep people guessing. But if I haven't been on board from the beginning, I'm not going to jump in and start watching 24 midway through the season. I did start watching the X-Files after a couple of seasons because so many people I knew raved about it, but that's probably my most recent example of word of mouth that prompted me to watch something. Well, I finally caved and rented Lost, so we'll see how that goes, but that was a combination of several of these factors.

-DVD

5 - I love the opportunity to catch up on shows I missed, though I have to be pretty motivated to want to watch a show in that concentrated way. That's how I watched Six Feet Under and Sex and the City, because at the time I didn’t have access to the channels they aired on.

-Star power

6 - Using a loose interpretation of the word "star" though. I originally tuned in to House because I tend to like medical shows, but also because I was a fan of Hugh Laurie and intrigued at seeing him as an American in a drama. I watched the Grey's Anatomy pilot for the medical show reason and the strong female focus, but also because I liked Sandra Oh. I don't have to recognize the cast to tune in to a show, but I am more likely to check something out because it has an actor I like in it, as long as there are other factors to interest me.

Canadian TV probably suffers from the opposite effect. It sometimes seems like there's three working actors in Canada, and they carry the baggage of any past bad shows they've been in. If I've seen the actor in several cheesy shows, I'm probably less likely to tune in. There's only a few Canadian "stars" I can think of off the top of my head who might make me check out what they're up to – Don McKellar, Rick Mercer, Sarah Polley.

DTOS: What kinds of things attract you to a show? Is there a common thread in the shows you like?

I think so, though it sounds pretty vague when I try to describe it: strong characters, intelligence, sarcastic/witty sense of humour (god, that sounds like I'm describing what I find attractive in the opposite sex). Characters are probably more important than plot to me. I love dramas that are funny, like Picket Fences and Ally McBeal (I had a thing for David E. Kelley shows until I turned on him), or comedies that have strong dramatic elements, like Sports Night or The Office.

Medical shows have a strangely big appeal, considering how squeamish I am. M*A*S*H, St. Elsewhere, early ER, Chicago Hope, Scrubs, House, Grey's Anatomy are/were some favourites. Maybe that's the key to Canadian shows not reaching me – not enough medical shows. But really, I have little interest in American politics and yet The West Wing is probably my favourite show of all time. For me, the best shows transcend their setting to be character studies, and often talk about issues that interest me.

DTOS: How important is it for a show to "make you feel something?" in deciding
whether you'll keep watching it?

Fairly important, though it depends on the type of show. I'm not saying everything has to be deep or touching. I loved Moonlighting for its frothiness. Arrested Development made me laugh and admire its cleverness – I didn't feel anything profound.

DTOS: Do you need to like the characters in the show you watch? Admire them? Or
simply find them compelling?

I don't have to like or admire them completely or even mostly, but I have to find them compelling. I think ER did a good job early on of having characters I disliked, like Weaver and Benton and Romano, but giving them enough shades to their characters that they were intriguing, not just black-hatted villains. Conversely, I wouldn't like House as much if I always agreed with his actions and didn't think he's an outright bastard sometimes. That's what makes him interesting.

And I don't have to relate to the characters. In shows I like, sometimes I do see something of myself in the characters, sometimes it's sort of an anthropological fascination (Sex and the City, for example, or Arrested Development).

But I don't think I could like a show if I disliked all the characters, either. I wouldn't have watched ER if it was all about those three characters.

DTOS: Is your relationship to other art in your city the same as your relationship to homegrown TV, or different? How aware are you of homegrown music, art, theatre, authors, etc.?

I'd never thought about it, but I'm far more clueless about TV than anything else (I mean, culturally speaking). I haven't felt the need to pay close attention to other forms of Canadian culture. They're just there. I've worked and volunteered with arts groups, studied Canadian literature in school. If I want to see theatre, I'm not going to hop a plane to New York for the latest Broadway production. If I want to see an art exhibit, I'm not going to MoMA. If I want to watch TV, I have many, many channels I can watch, mostly American – and most of the Canadian channels show mostly American shows - so Canadian TV is more overshadowed by its competition.

Also, papers like the Georgia Straight cover the local music and arts scene, including movies, so I have an awareness of what's out there, but I haven't noticed television coverage.

Plus there's no culture of appreciation for Canadian TV in non-industry circles. There's a grassroots organization promoting Canadian movies (the First Weekend Club), but as far as I know, no one is championing Canadian television to the public.

That would be a fine line, though, because desperation doesn't sell. If someone tells me I have a duty to watch Canadian television, I'm perverse enough that I'll not want to watch it because of that. It shouldn't be cod liver oil or charity. But I'd like to at least be able to easily find out what's out there and what's interesting about it, so I can decide for myself if I want to watch. Not because it's Canadian, but because it's good.

I think the real key is that, except philosophically, I don't care if something's Canadian or not. And I don't choose my leisure activities based on philosophical principles.

I don't read Ann-Marie MacDonald or Yann Martel or Rohinton Mistry because they're Canadian – I read them because they write books I like. They get prominence in book stores and in arts journalism, so there's no extra effort to dig them up. And they're not fighting any stigma like, oh, the binding is just not as slick as an American book, and we just can't afford the good typefaces like American books can.

Philosophically, I do think it's important to have Canadian talent and stories valued, in every form. But I don't know what makes a story Canadian other than the fact that a Canadian talent writes it. I don't really care where something's set. Toronto's nearly as foreign to me as Tisdale, and I know Seattle better than either of them. You're not going to hook me with overt Canadiana, unless it's something like The Mercer Report. You might hook me with an attitude or character that strikes a chord with whatever it means to be Canadian to me, but that's not likely to be a Mountie and his quirky townspeople.


Thanks, Diane, for taking the time to give us the viewer perspective.

I remember years ago going to the Genie Awards (Canada's Oscars, only, so not...) This is when they were being run on CBC to tragically low ratings, just before they turned to what they are now: a show in French. Anyway, person after person tramped up to the stage and got their awards and berated an audience (who wasn't watching) that "we keep making these great films, but you won't go see them..."

And as I sat down there in the audience, all I could think is, "what enterprise has ever succeeded by blaming their customers for not buying their produt?"

Of course, this is exactly what the music industry is doing right now, too, so maybe we went through the looking glass when I wasn't looking.

In any case, I'm dead sure that -- if the success of Corner Gas, Degrassi, and even Trailer Park Boys says anything, it's that Canadians WILL watch homegrown shows. Let's merely move off that debate point forever, because it's silly and untrue.

But I think Diane's answers (and I know they're simply anecdotal, not a meticulously researched representative sample) can point the way to things we need to do better as an industry in this country.

And that's what I'll talk about next time.

RealitARRGGh! on CBC

I was all set to let the Diane post be my only post today, but once again, the Canadian Media Intelligentsia make this impossible.

The short version is this:

• The CBC has bought the Canadian format rights to the Idol-like show "The One."
• Part of the deal involves broadcasting the American version this summer.
• That means simulcasting it, because that's what we do in this country because otherwise people just watch the US network. This way they get to get all the ad revenue, because they substitute the Canadian signal over the U.S. one on cable.
• The U.S. version will air Tuesdays at 10pm.
• 10pm is when the CBC usually airs "The National," their flagship newscast.
• So for nine Tuesdays, they're going to have to move the news an hour earlier.
• Everybody's freaking out.

Why?

Well, that part isn't so simple. The bleating involves, "moving the news for a REALITY SHOW!" The Usual Subjects are Saying all the Usual Things.

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting -- you are officially part of the PROBLEM.

Apparently the Globe & Mail -- the elite newspaper -- has received 50 letters of complaint! Zounds! Zounds! The CBC is back to quaking.

What is the big deal here?

Canada's media cabal are utterly out of touch with the Canadian Public, and always have been.

They get to turn their chardonnay-swilling noses up at reality, cluck their narrative about the CBC "dumbing down" (ie: appealing to the Canada that exists north of Steeles Avenue, West of Forest Hill, East of The DVP and below the 72nd floor of the Ivory Tower.)

But let's look at the reality, again, in short, sharp, easy to understand bullet points:

• 10 p.m. is Prime Time
• The CBC is in trouble because NO ONE IS WATCHING.
• CTV's 11 o'clock news trounces the CBC's 10 p.m. news EVERY NIGHT. (suggesting that maybe 10 p.m. ISN'T actually the best time for news on the main network.)
  
• The News is pre-empted for Hockey anyway, and has been for years (though the Ivory tower hates that too. Guess what, guys -- Don Cherry is a bigger CBC star than Anchor Peter Mansbridge will EVER BE.)
• Performance based reality shows like Idol are the only shows that now draw a broad audience -- because they are pretty much the one kind of show that Parents and Kids watch together.
• By choosing a show that has a little buzz, you may just be building warm fuzzy feelings for CBC Television from multiple generations. For a network with a median age that's grey haired, this is a good thing.
  
• In Canada, the most Heavily-Cabled nation on the planet, if you want to watch the newscast at 10pm for one of those Tuesdays, all you have to do is tune to the CBC's News Channel, CBC Newsworld.
• Let me make that point again...for 90% of Canadians, if you want to watch the news on CBC at 10 -- all you have to do is tune to the news channel.
  

I have never watched more than ten seconds of American or Canadian Idol. I just don't care. But I understand why people watch them, and it is entirely appropriate for a network that is trying to become more important to Canadians to mount a show like this.

There are many things to criticize the CBC for. This is not one of those things.

Stop being such insufferable elitist bastards!

But you know what the worst thing about this story is? It means I agree with The Toronto Sun's Bill Brioux.

I need mouthwash.

TV Mandarins, Meet The Viewer (Part One)

Readers of this blog probably already know that I'm a pretty big fan of Vancouver's Diane Kristine. Diane is a writer for BlogCritics, and often publishes insightful and interesting interviews with writers and showrunners on her blog, Unified Theory of Nothing Much. And during the season, her weekly recaps and analyses of House is a TV writer's reason to keep going: thoughtful, interesting, willing to hash issues of character, and unabashedly written from the perspective of the ultimate TV fan.

She recently returned from covering the annual Banff Television Festival for BlogCritics, which was her first up-close crash course in watching the Canadian TV Firmament mix and match.

I decided to do a little interview with Diane for a few reasons:

• She's an engaged viewer with a solid grounding in the internet. In other words, she's the kind of viewer we're going to be seeing for years to come.
• She's obviously passionate about things she likes. TV is not wallpaper to her. She's loyal to shows she finds interesting -- again, obviously the viewer we say we all want to reach.
• She's admitted that she knows next to nothing about homegrown TV. It's not really on her radar too much.
  

Now, the last part doesn't surprise me. Not at all. And I don't blame her for having that attitutde -- she has the attitude of a majority of people in English Canada.

But while people at Banff buzz around talking about mobisodes and different content platforms, and just before the Canadian industry gets into another orgy of structural talk (A Senate report on the future of the CBC is going to be released on Monday, a CRTC review of the Canadian TV industry is about to start, and TVO (Ontario's PBS) is about to hear the results of yet another "strategic review" of their mandate. I'm reminded of the cartoon about what separates Canadians from other people -- imagine a picture of people walking among clouds with little wings on their backs, and they reach a fork and a sign pointing left says, "HEAVEN" and the sign on the right says "PARLIAMENTARY SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE POSSIBILITY OF THERE BEING A HEAVEN," and, of course, the Canadians are the ones who go right) I wanted to inject a little real into the discussion.

Because it's always felt to me that the one thing that gets left out of the discussion whenever the usual suspects start clucking about TV in this country is the viewer.

Unless the viewer is under fourteen. I've sat in any number of meetings about tween shows and animation, and heard focus group results that break down pretty cleanly what the audience wants and needs, and what they like and don't like. It's impressive to listen to. And in the end when you go out and write the tween and animated shows for kids (one sector of Canadian TV that actually seems to be successful) the first charge is one that I can get behind: entertain them.

I've been working with another writer for one of my shows over the last two weeks, and it's really a treat to have her aboard, because I get to hear questions from her like, "what does the audience know at this point, and why are they going to keep watching?" I love it, because that's how I try to look at TV too -- and because it's so specific. The audience in TV in Canada often seems to be an amorphous, faraway thing. And it shouldn't be.

So I figured: let's go to the source.

Throughout this interview, I'll make comments on Diane's answers (because that's the kind of big mouth bastard I truly am) and also I'm going to emphasize things she said that I find particularly apt.

DTOS: You recently got a look at the belly of the beast, ie: the Canadian television industry up close, at one of the biggest gatherings of the tribe: the Banff International Television Festival. As a neophyte, and a person who identifies most as a viewer, what was your impression of what you saw outside of the "official" sessions?

DK: Someone called it "Banff Camp" ("one time, at Banff camp…") and I thought that was funny and apt. It seemed like a small, chummy club. Some people were part of the club, and some people were trying to get into the club. And then there was me, trying to figure out what this club is all about.

DTOS: Did anything about what you saw or heard from the Canadians puzzle you?

The more I see and hear, the more puzzled (but fascinated) I am. A couple of things:

I think it's great that it's an international festival and doesn't try to downplay the importance of American TV on the world stage. And I’m a big fan of Paul Haggis and David Shore's work and have no problem with people moving to where the opportunities are (though I wish there were more opportunities here). But I thought there was an odd insistence on recognizing their contributions to Canadian television. Television, sure, but Canadian TV? Both of their careers are overwhelmingly American. Nothing wrong with taking pride in the local boys making good, but they are not shining examples of what can be done in the Canadian television industry, unless the message is you should all move south.

Wayne Clarkson from Telefilm Canada made comments about fighting for Canadian content on the international market, while saying he thought Corner Gas and Trailer Park Boys might not translate well outside of the country. What's the message there? That we should be aggressively promoting Canadian products … but let's try not to make it too Canadian? That we should care about international markets more than domestic markets? I'd like to think the industry was more worried about making a show I want to see, and finding ways to let me know I want to see it, before they're thinking of how to sell that show to Brazil.

(DMc say: They talk about presales sometimes in TV. This sounds a bit like pre-defeatism. We've tried for years to make ersatz American shows on shoestring budgets, and we're just not good at it -- it's like watching people with no knowledge of English try to act Shakespeare phonetically. There were a lot of old Canadian shows on the air in South Africa while I was there, because, I guess, they were cheap. And the locals mostly didn't know what to make of them. They said they were like American shows, but...off.)

DTOS: You've proven that you are an enthusiastic viewer, and quite appreciative of the time, effort, and craft that goes into making good TV. Yet though you live in Vancouver, you're fairly clueless about what's happening in Canadian TV. Why do you think that is?

Aww, thanks, a compliment before you call me clueless.

I blame it mostly on poor marketing, combined with my own laziness. There's a marketing rule of thumb that someone has to see a message several times in order for it to register. I'm lucky if I hear one mention of a Canadian show – maybe a polite review on CBC or the Vancouver Sun, maybe you mention it on your blog, maybe a promo that's playing while I'm off grabbing a snack. Mostly, nothing.

And while there are reasons for the lack of promotion (like money, and media who know their audience cares more about House than Slings & Arrows), it doesn't matter in the slightest how good those reasons are. Another marketing 101 lesson – you can have the best show in the world, but if I don't know about it, I can't watch it.

I'm inundated with information on American shows whether I want to be or not. I have to work to hear about Canadian shows. I've only recently realized that it hasn't been a conscious decision to spurn Canadian shows because they don't appeal to me. Sometimes that's true - I've seen lots of ads for Godiva's and Falcon Beach and haven't been inspired to watch. But more often, I've never heard of the shows, or if I have, vaguely, I don't know when they're on. I ended up loving the second episode of The Jane Show, and will keep watching, but I've still only seen mention of it on your blog. Thank god for PVRs now - at least I don't have to worry about keeping track of a show once I've decided to watch it.

(DMc say: In fact, let's steal a bit from Diane's own blog to show how big the problem really is.)

I've seen two episodes of The Jane Show now, and while I was lukewarm on the first, I loved the second (in a noirish spoof, Jane gets addicted to television - I can relate. Though maybe not to the noir part of it. My life is more ... blanc). But good grief Global! You don't make it easy to promote. It apparently airs Thursdays at 8:30 in Saskatchewan and Manitoba; 9:30 in BC, Ontario, and Quebec; and 10:30 in Alberta and Atlantic Canada. Doesn't quite roll off the tongue like, say, Tuesdays at 9/8 Central. Plus, the show's website doesn't seem to have been touched since the show premiered. It has a banner saying "Catch the series premiere on Global Thursday night," a blog with two entries, the latest from June 1, and an episode guide that has only the June 1 episode listed.

(DMc say: How can we fix the marketing problem? It's not enough to spend, obviously -- we're not going to be able to overcome the American advantage in that. But marketing is clearly being ignored. Even when a show is heavily promoted, like Falcon Beach, the money is mostly front loaded for that first tune...then the ads drop off the cliff. Promoting Canadian TV doesn't really seem to be much more sophisticated than when my friends promote their FRINGE theatre shows: most time, it's an email, "Please watch my show!!!" Ugh.)

DTOS: What do you think the main barrier is to you watching Canadian shows?

I watch shows that are already on my radar, so the challenge is to get Canadian shows on my radar. For all my devotion to some of the shows I do watch, at this point I don't watch a ton of television and I'm not a channel surfer. Everything's pretty much appointment TV unless I'm watching with friends.

Unlike the US model, shows don't regularly start in September and run until May, so there's not some big media frenzy at the beginning of the season to gain my attention. It seems Canadian shows are on for a few weeks at some random time, then I never hear about them again.

Even now that I've decided I want to actively pay attention to what's going on, I don't know where to turn for one-stop shopping about what's coming up, and I'm not likely to put a lot of sustained effort into it for the long term. Lazy, remember.

DTOS: Do you ever recall watching any Canadian scripted programs? What is your impression of what you watched?

Yes, it's not like I've never seen a Canadian show! And there's been enough good to make me want to seek out more. But enough bad that I'm more skeptical than I'd like to be.

I enjoyed Twitch City, Made in Canada, The Newsroom, which were all sort of odd and vicious with interestingly self-absorbed characters. I'm not sure what that says about me. And I liked Naked Josh and Slings & Arrows, but I've only sporadically had the channel they were/are on - but they have that blend of drama and comedy I'm attracted to.

I've seen bits of things like DaVinci's Inquest and This is Wonderland, but they didn't grab me – I wasn't hooked by the characters, and a lot of our dramas seem so earnest.

I did absolutely love Anne of Green Gables, and watched and liked some of Road to Avonlea out of nostalgia. While I was a complete Anneaholic as a kid, they were also well-crafted shows – the production values seemed better than average for the time, with good acting. Degrassi felt more real than most of the other kids shows on at the time.

Mostly, though, I have memories of cheesiness that have given Canadian shows a bit of taint. I hate to admit it, especially to a Canadian TV writer (except I think you know), but there's a Canadian content stigma lingering in much of the public's perception. There have been shows that might as well have had a disclaimer that they were put on the air to fulfill CanCon regulations, with acting and writing that was pretty terrible. And it's hard to get over that stigma when it's so difficult to find the quality shows.

There have been shows that seemed like cheap knockoffs of American shows – Street Legal wasn't horrible, though I wasn't a fan, but it felt like a watered down version of LA Law. There are the co-productions I don't even know if I should count as Canadian TV – The Lost World, Relic Hunter - that seem like they're trying to appeal to a mass audience by being bland, generic copies of popular concepts.

Then with shows like North of 60, Beachcombers, Trailer Park Boys, Corner Gas, I get the impression us Canadians are all supposed to be quaint, rustic people. I recognize myself and my attitudes in American shows far more often than Canadian ones.

(DMc say: Once again, I'm prompted to remind any Telefilm'ers who may be reading this: the majority of Canada's population lives in an Urban area within 100 KM of the U.S. border.)

Where does Diane get information on TV? What attracts her to a show? How likable do characters have to be?

More tomorrow.

Hey, England, are you really going to stand for this?

I know, I know. I just haven't had anything big to say.

But seriously, am I the only one who thinks this is dumb?

BBC Drops 'Top of the Pops'

Forty-two years after the Rolling Stones sang "I Wanna Be Your Man" on the first broadcast, "Top of the Pops" is being canceled by the BBC. "The time has come to bring the show to its natural conclusion," said Jana Bennett, the BBC's director of television. A BBC statement said that the weekly program, which features a countdown through the pop chart to the No. 1 single of the week, could no longer compete with 24-hour music channels. In its heyday in the 1970's, the show attracted audiences of 15 million, but by 2002 the number had dropped to 2 million. When "Top of the Pops" first went on the air it was scheduled for six episodes, but soon proved so popular that it was given a weekly slot. The final broadcast is scheduled for July 30.

I'm Accepting Apologies Through Sunday.

Well. Well. Well.

According to a new Reader's Digest study, New Yorkers now rank as the most courteous citizens in world, followed closely by the residents of Zurich, and then by Torontonians, who came in third.

Just one point of clarification, though -- most of the time, when Torontonians say "Sorry," they really do mean, "Fuck You."

It's the way it's said, see?

Full article is here.

Did You Work Today?

Seriously. Did you get anything done? Did you write?

I finished an outline and read and did notes on another outline and made notes to revise three drafts. How bout you?

If you did work, then you may bask in the glory of this...

It makes my soul happy.

If you didn't work though...boo...shame...don't click the link.

Sometimes the simplest, most childlike things bring the biggest smiles.

His Ursine Shaft of Doom

How To Write Screenplays. Badly. just gave me one-hour's worth of procrastination joy goodness in two minutes.

I don't have the money or the project to hire Jeremy Slater, but I'm torn between wanting someone to snap him up, and wanting him to continue on like this, growing progressively more bitter, and way, way, way more funny.

Rapebear. Jesus Galoot.

Cheer Up, Angry Writer-san!

Are you feeling a little put upon? Some kind of pressure? Like no one's listening? Maybe you feel that you're being unfairly blamed for things that have nothing to do with you? Or maybe that deadline of yours was unreasonable in the first place?

Well, whatever you do, don't tense up your wrists. That could lead to carpal tunnel syndrome or some other sort of repetitive stress injury. That's deadly for a writer.

You know what you should do? Relax a little bit, and learn from one of the world's oldest cultures.

I heart YouTube. I really, really do.

Getting Lucky?

I've been working flat out (doing different things for the same project) for fourteen days now. I'm knackered, and the last couple days I've felt like I've been starting with the pitcher less than full. So I'm downshifting a bit just for today, Father's Day, happy to all of you out there with rugrats and all.

In the meantime I want to throw open a question to any readers of the blog who've watched Lucky Louie on TMN or HBO. Opinions?

Three camera with laughtrack, swearing and sex. Yea or nay? I admit I laughed out loud a couple times. Thoughts?

Robson Arms Blogs!

Robson Arms is a mostly-worthy half-hour comedy-drama set in and around an apartment building in Vancouver. I found it to be a little odd, because the tone radically shifted in some episodes -- but it was very well written and acted, by talented and familiar Canadian faces.

They're shooting Season Two now, and there's a blog that's chronicling the process. Good for them -- getting it out there without futzing with the gatekeeper!

More on Rumours the CBC series...

I would link to the article in the Toronto Star that mentions it, but The Star has done some weird thing now that linking to their stuff is hard -- so screw em.

The new info contained in the article was basically this:

• Mary Walsh's Hatching, Matching and Dispatching is getting a new season, but Colin Mochrie's Getting Along Famously has been cancelled.
• Rumours, the show that's set in a Toronto Life - like magazine for women, is going to be Executive Produced by my old boss, Moses Znaimer. That should be interesting, at least. The show stars David Haydn-Jones as a sports journalist who needs a job, Amy Price-Francis as the editor and Jennifer Dale as the publisher.

Moses, ever the raconteur, is quoted as saying the show is going to be the anti-Corner Gas. Let's hope he doesn't mean in quality.

Moses, baby, you should really give me a call.

Heh heh.

I'm The Guy In Corner Quietly Judging You

Todd wrote something on South Dakota Dark that's kind of messing me up.

The Wizard Was Right

In response to my comments about CBC moving The Hour to their main network, writer PEI writes:

I love strombo.
He's everything you said he is.
fuck the writers, I wouldn't mind him just shooting the shit on tv for awhile just talking about whatever he wants to talk about cause he's that informed and intelligent to do it.
Just like Jon stuart [sic] or Colbert, I mean sure having 20 writers help but i don't believe it's truely necessary

I graduated PEI's comment to a post here for a very good reason, which I'll get to in a moment. First let's deal with the factual landscape he's talking about.

If everything is humming smoothly, it should look like that: like George is just being George. Like Jon Stewart is just being Jon. That's the magic of TV. You should believe that everything is just coming off the top of his head, and that the person looks good because they are just that naturally erudite and informed.

The reality, of course, is very different. No matter how informed or funny someone is, to get to a certain level and produce a good product takes an enormous amount of work. A standup comic hones and hones the same twenty minutes of material over and over and over, to a pinpoint delivery so that when they appear in front of an audience, there's the illusion that everything they're saying has just occurred to them, and you're the first crowd ever to hear it. In reality, if you watch films like Comedian, the Documentary Seinfeld did about his return to live performing, you can see that it's a painful, painful, long and labored process for a comic to build five minutes, then ten minutes, then fifteen, and so on.

In a large city like Toronto or L.A. or New York, one of the perks is that occasionally you can see professional comics working out new material on stage at new material nights. Some jokes bomb, some fly, and you can see them struggling to figure out if something didn't work because of construction or because it's just not as funny as they thought it was. This is a rare chance to see all the gears working -- and it can be both very instructive, and seriously humbling.

Now, add TV and five nights a week, and I don't care HOW talented the person is. If they're going to seem like they're on top of it all, they're going to need more brains. More brains to research. More brains to write jokes. More brains to keep the whole ball of wax moving. Take away the brains, and the wheels come off the train.

PEI, you may not be old enough to remember, but there was a time several years ago when any audience member could see for themselves how wrong you are about how great it was to see a guy like George " just shooting the shit on tv for awhile just talking about whatever he wants to talk about cause he's that informed and intelligent to do it."

During the last Writers' Guild strike, production shut down on films and TV series, but also on shows like Letterman, and I believe (as he was still hosting then) Johnny Carson. After a few weeks or a month or so off the air, Letterman returned to the air. Carson did too, but I wasn't watching him as much, so my memories of that aren't as clear.

Because Letterman didn't have his writers, and he couldn't replace them (that would be scabbing, and he, like every big network show, was a Guild signatory) the only way he could return to the air was to write everything himself, or he just had to wing it, as you suggest George is talented enough to do.

Though it was sometimes thrilling to watch, and it was sort of interesting in an intellectual way because you knew he really was making it up as he went along (kind of like the feeling you get when you watch Improv comedy, an art form to be appreciated rather than really loved) the fact remained that it wasn't really the Letterman show. It was a pale imitation. Less funny, less full of the stuff that made Letterman great in his heyday. Paradoxically, with the loss of the constructed reality of writers who made Dave seem effortless and off the cuff each night - the show seemed somehow less real.

"Late Night With David Letterman" was pierced by a labor dispute, and suddenly anyone could see that the show that looked so natural, so off the cuff, was anything but.

Similarly, I know that one of the great appeals of Reality Shows is that it looks like all this crazy stuff is just happening out of the blue!

But the reality of reality is that a lot of producers and yes-- writers -- are working hard behind the scenes to manipulate events, shape the material, and engineer situations and conflicts. It takes a lot of work to make everything look so spontaneous. One of the biggest looming fights in Hollywood is the fight to try and organize to get reality tv covered under the auspices of the Writers Guild of America.

So okay, PEI's wrong. So what? Did you really just reproduce his comment to take a couple of blog-swings at the poor guy?

No. Exactly the opposite.

I reproduced this because I think it should be instructive to writers. Remember when the Wizard called out, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?" Well, you're seeing that in the comment above. And it's fine. Wait, no. It's more than fine. It's exactly what we should be working for.

See, if you're going into screenwriting because you want the world to know your brilliance, give it up. It's not going to happen. So much of what we do succeeds only if we make it seem effortless. We are never going to get the general public to understand what we do. We are never going to change the perception that everyone could write if they had the time or that everyone has a great idea for a movie or a TV series.

In almost every case I can think of, writing for the screen that calls attention to itself is self-indulgent, and actually hurts the cause of quality. Aaron Sorkin's one of my favorite writers, but even he occasionally gets caught doing that extra-smarty-pants victory lap. And that -- just like a bad prop or a bad accent or terrible acting or a stupid camera move, can pop you right out of the action.

When we're really cooking, really, really cooking, the audience should not perceive that we're there. That we were ever there. Especially in things like variety, or talk shows, it's in our best interest to make sure that guys like Letterman or Conan or Strombo are just that funny off the top of their heads. Mike Bullard (a once-nightly talk show host in Canada) is a funny guy. But his show failed. Why? Because they did it on the cheap. Not enough talent -- not enough resources. Not enough writers or producers. Not enough material. The seams showed every night.

It's our job to make it seem like Clint Eastwood or Jay Leno or Craig Ferguson would be brilliant and funny and informed even if there weren't writers or researchers behind them.

So that means there's a lot of silly fights that we shouldn't waste our energies on. In Canada, there's a group that keeps saying we need to get the public onside in the fight for increasing Canadian content.

Never gonna happen. Why should it? They don't care. Nor should they. They're the audience. Don't blame them -- they just want to be entertained. Trying to make them more aware of what you do is quixotic at best, toxic at worst. They will never care about the plight of the artist as much as property taxes or schools or making sure that the city isn't going to dump garbage in their backyard. It's a waste of energy. This is not a path that should be pursued.

Similarly, all the stick that Ted and Craig take over at Artful Writer about "raising writer's profiles." Hooey. You know what? I'm never going to get a million hits a day on this blog and I wouldn't want to, either. If I wanted to, I could always put up fake nudes of Jessica Alba. It's not the goal toward which any of us should strive.

That being said...

The point I made in that column below is still valid. Just because the public doesn't know what goes into making Strombo look brilliant (and don't get me wrong, he is brilliant. A natural interviewer, very sharp, very informed, and quick as hell -- he just isn't brilliant enough to carry it on his shoulders because NO ONE IS THAT BRILLIANT) doesn't mean we should let the people who should know better off the hook.

Stop chasing the approval of the public. You don't want them paying attention to the man behind the curtain.

Focus your energies on the people pulling the strings.