Outrageous Fortune

It's not often that we Canadians get something great, first. But last night, I finally managed to catch the 3rd season premiere of this fine homegrown comedy. It's stellar. It's probably going to be the best season yet.

They've started from an intriguing place: success. New Burbage (the thinly disguised Stratford Festival) is utterly flush; the momentum of (last season's) production of Macbeth led to a glittering remount in New York.

Richard (Mark McKinney) is on the cover of Canadian Business. Things are good, and Geoffrey (Paul Gross) is about to take on King Lear. He has his pick of whichever famous actor he wants. Everyone's chomping at the bit.

But Geoffrey's madness has a new tic: he seems to be weeping uncontrollably in front of strangers. Richard, too, realizes that his life is empty. Even when he gets a new car given to him by the board, all he can do is cry.

The idea of the emptiness of success, and the desperation that comes from the dawning horror that success does not lead to fulfillment and happiness -- is a potent theme for season three. Even better paired with the idea of putting on Lear. Mark McKinney's nuanced acting has turned that character from a cutout in Season 1 to someone utterly compelling to watch. Paul Gross is so, so, so much better when he's acting and not trying to wear nine hats and save Canadian Television.

By the time they bring the great William Hutt (left) in as a legendary actor tapped to play Lear - hiding a shocking secret, no less! You can see the chess pieces set up for Season 3 in the most delightful way.

Success is much on the mind of everyone behind this show, of course, since most of the writers are currently the toast of Broadway thanks to The Drowsy Chaperone. Now word comes that Bob Martin et al might actually be looking at developing a Broadway-set series much like Slings & Arrows for American Television.

There's going to be a lot of juice, too, in the subplot where Don McKellar's crazy director tries to rip-off Rent. Expect all manner of joy-joy faux songcraft from Drowsy's Lisa Lambert et al. And pairing McKinney and McKellar will be a gas.

See? This is it, kittens. This is solidly written, well-directed, well conceived and acted, but not break the bank expensive Canadian produced drama. It's allowed to be what it's about. It hasn't been picked over or noted or developed to death. It is a slice of backstage life. The effect is glorious.

It's a great treat. And while we're talking, just between us girls, maybe someone should be talking to Martin and McKinney and all the people doing Slings and asking, "um, what did you guys do differently?" I know because I've asked people from CTV in the past why they think Corner Gas works, and they don't really seem to know. And I asked people from CBC why early DaVinci's Inquest worked and they didn't really seem to know.

Let's all start asking.

Are executives asking questions they did that others haven't? Are they more hands on? Hands off?
How were their note processes handled? Were there a lot of notes given? From how many sources?
What did the producers offer in pitches or bibles that got them the freedom to do this level of work?

It's not just that these people are talented. There is lots of talent in Canada. Loads.
But for this show, however it happened, the PROCESS worked. I want to know why. I want to replicate that why.

But in the meantime, I'll just sit back and enjoy the show. Nothing will come of nothing, but I expect much from Slings and Arrows 3. Shoulder to the Storm. Bring on Lear.

R.I.P. Patsy

Before I quit my job at the big Canadian Tv Company at the end of 2000, I had already taken my first steps out the door, thanks to one of my mentors in the business.

I first worked for Howard Bernstein when I was first out of University. I was a researcher on a show he executive produced. It was clear that my gifts lay not really with guest booking, but with tape, and later, writing. I drifted from the small Educational Broadcaster to the Hip Downtown Cutting Edge TV Company which gradually morphed into the big Canadian TV Company. By this time I'd spent a few years there and I knew I wasn't happy doing what I was doing. I was feeling very unchallenged, and found myself taking direction from people who didn't seem to share my love of television, and whose skills and insights into the medium didn't really inspire or command respect.

And then an offer came from my old mentor. Would I be interested in writing a new documentary show on what went on behind the scenes at the Toronto Zoo?

I did the first few episodes, and the Canadian network liked it and picked it up. I remembered thinking at the time, "this is my chance to get out." So I applied to a program at the Canadian Film Centre and quit. And strangely, no one really begged me to stay. (I kid. If there's one thing that's true everywhere, it's that no one is indispensbile. If you feel like you want to leave a job but stay because "they couldn't get along without you," seriously, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.)

The zoo show, Zoo Diaries, ran for 75 half hour episodes -- and one Christmas special. It was a very formulaic show, three act documentary structure, three stories. One story was always medically based, and you tried to profile the keeper while getting out info about the animal. The Zoo always wanted to push the conservation angle -- and the SSP -- the species survival plan. Many Torontonians don't know it, but their little zoo is heavily into the research and conservation of several species. Their programs -- most of which the public don't see -- are focused greatly on breeding and reintroducing species to the wild.

We used to joke about Zoo Diaries that the formula was, "Today at the zoo, something was born, something died, and something else did something cute."

You'd think that doing 75 episodes of a show like that over a few years would get to be dull. But it wasn't. It was my lifeline. The shows didn't take up too much of my time, and the rest of the time I tried to get myself established writing other things. It was just enough to keep me afloat through a few very lean years. One of those years, I don't think I was paid for a single piece of dramatic writing -- but the zoo kept on going.

And it was fun! You'd learn things. I started becoming a bit of a Cliff Claven. I'd have all these funny facts on hand about animals, gleaned from my research. Habits of the chinchilla. The story of the porcupine or the anteater who wandered the medical centre. Komodo dragon factoids. I sat, open mouthed and slack jawed and tried to come up with narration script that actually could do justice to the sight of a baby giraffe being born, and then getting up and walking away five minutes after being born. Whoa.

But in all those stories...let's see, three a show, seventy-five a show, but there were a few shows with only two...let's call it 200 stories of the animals and their keepers...my favorites were always the ones that featured Patsy.

Patsy was the matriarch of the African Elephants. She came to the zoo when it opened in 1974, and lived a long life. Patsy was a character. She was fierce. She got a little ornery with her keepers from time to time. Sometimes she'd decide not to come in at night. She'd just stay out. And if any of the other (now hungry) elephants tried to come in on their own, Patsy would block their way. She'd block the door, and literally rattle her cage. Patsy was the boss.

At the Toronto Zoo, they have a strict policy where they don't go in with the animals, so much of the care of the elephants has to be voluntary. They get trained to offer their ear so blood can be taken, they offer their feet for cleaning. It's quite a regimen, interspersed with enrichment activities to stimulate their minds, too. They were smart and they were mischievious. In the stories, after a while, you could definitely notice the different personalities of the elephants. Everything about them was fascinating. Writing an elephant story for Zoo Diaries was something that, to this day, brings a smile to my face. It was great.

Patsy was a strong elephant and nobody's fool. Eventually, they had to redesign the whole elephant enclosure to give her her own entrance so that they could get the elephants in at night. She was really something.

Patsy died earlier this week at the ripe elephant age of 40. She was euthanized when tests showed that her arthritis had progressed so that she was in constant pain, and wasn't going to get any better.

Keepers left the body of Patsy in with the other elephants overnight, so that they could mourn her, and touch her with their trunks. This is important to do, because it will help them to process she's not coming back, rather than the fact that she just disappeared. Also, it will help the process of the social order re-aligning itself as one of the other females assumes the role of matriarch.

I'm kind of glad we wrapped Zoo Diaries a few years back -- cause I don't think I would have wanted to see that, much less write about it. It's just so sad.

Anyway, from the times I got to see you as a kid visiting that zoo, to a baby writer trying to make his bones, you were a beautiful and important elephant, Patsy. You fired the imaginations and the hearts of everyone who saw you. I and all the visitors and keepers and viewers of Zoo Diaries are going to miss you a lot.

The Toronto Zoo release can be obtained here. This is a Star article on Patsy -- but I can't guarantee the link will work.

I'm Your Man

By the way -- Itunes Music Store is rocking me hard today on this soundtrack to a concert film of everyone's favorite Trouba-Eeyore, Leonard Cohen.

Some of the versions are unexpected and sublime: like Martha Wainwright doing Tower of Song. I was a big fan of Lloyd Cole's Chelsea Hotel No. 2 - but Rufus Wainwright's slowed down version comes close. You can't go wrong with Nick Cave doing I'm Your Man, and Jarvis Cocker's I Can't Forget is surprisingly affecting.

And hey, he needs your money. Go download this -- and pay for it, hippie. Pay for it.

How To Get Through The Production Rewrite

Not bad. I've managed to do about five hours of solid revision work with less than 10 mins of procrastination time. That's a great ratio. I deserve a little keyboard stretch.

Right now, I'm trying to get from what's known as the last writer's draft to the Production White. This is where the script gets locked, and numbered, and all those little scenes go up on the board and it's all terribly exciting.

The Production White is where the A.D.'s have shaken their finger at you and said, "we can't possibly afford that." In my experience in Canadian TV -- the most common A.D.-driven notes come down to this:

1. -What the fuck were you thinking putting in so many Night Exteriors?
2. -What the fuck were you thinking putting in all those speaking parts?
3. -What the fuck were you thinking thinking we could shoot a 55 page script?

I want to be clear: A.D.'s and Producers are usually nicer about saying these three things. I hear the "what the fucks" in my head because, well, that's how Daddy's built. But they definitely say these three things. A lot.

Wait. Driving shots are another one. Driving rigs? Very expensive. What the fuck are you doing putting in so many driving shots?

Besides eliminating all the stuff that isn't strictly necessary to tell the story (Scenes and setups that add atmosphere for days are all well and good, but not if they burn a day of shooting you can ill-afford) there's creative considerations, always.

To begin with, since you're starting from the beginning, and it's probably been a while since you've seen that first script, you start seeing stuff that's changed along the way -- stuff that fit when you were writing episode one may not exactly track with what you learned about the characters in later episodes. Or maybe you want to set up other stuff that pays off a few episodes down the line. In this case, in an earlier draft there was voiceover that was removed...everyone missed it, so now it's back.

With every one of these changes, you see that page count creep up and down and front and back-- and it's a bit like a teeter totter. But it's also kind of fun, too. It's like a negotiation with yourself. "How can I solve the problems to make this more produceable?"

There are writers who hate doing production-driven rewrites. I think I've never been that kind of writer. To me, sharpening the script for production is kind of fun.

I say that now.

Talk to me when we're at double goldenrod.

What I generally do, because I like to warm up, and am essentially lazy and stupid -- is go through and do all the easy stuff first. Change characters names. Examine Day/Night splits and change them. Combine characters, and eliminate unnecessary stuff. Put the voiceover back. There are scenes that need to be artfully and more extensively rewritten. I generally try to leave them til the beginning of a session and attack them in this order:

1. -the second hardest
2. -the hardest
3. -kind of hard
4. -not very hard
5. -easy

Start second hardest, because you have to warm up a bit before attacking the enchilada. Also, I find that skipping around the script allows you to view it more like the A.D.'s do -- as a series of component parts. We get precious about our material, we writers. But at some point, it's got to be interpreted. Skipping around helps me to view it that way. (I do an organic "last pass" from start to finish before submitting the script.)

Still, by the time Kind of Hard comes around, I'm generally whining for a popsicle or a glass of water with lemon or something. Note to self: I have to get a dog, because whining to yourself is just really, really pathetic.

Anyway. Truth is that every script in the world starts out overwritten. And sometimes a little pruning can be fun. I don't get people who like to garden. When I was a kid, I famously tried to strike a deal with my father. We lived in Florida at the time, and had a big yard. And they wanted to pay me to go out and weed, and I suggested the rate of 25 cents a weed. My father did not think much of my offer. I did not think much of weeding, period.

Weeding through my words, though -- that I can do.

Blog-o-roll meets Procrasto-Man

Sal is a guy who's finishing up a stint in the Disney ABC Writer's Fellowship. I've been reading his blog for a while and it's a straightforward blow-by-blow diary of one guy breaking in. Considering that's the single biggest question anybody ever gets asked, I think it's well worth your perusal.

As for me? Rewrites, baby. Track how things are going by the number of posts, I make today and tomorrow.

YOUR HANDY DMc PROCRASTO-KEY:

0-2 posts
plugging along, thank you

3-4 posts
I wish one time Samantha woke up in bed on Bewitched, and both Darrens were there, and she screamed and screamed and screamed. That would have been a cool episode.

5+ posts:
If I pull my tongue really hard, I wonder if I could rip it out? And how much would that fucker bleed? Seriously!

If A Program Airs in the Middle of a Vacuum, Does It Make a Sound?

Day Two of casting today. At least it's Day Two for me. You see, the Casting Agency and the other Producers have already viewed scores and scores of candidates and tapes, and these are callbacks. I had no business being near the casting the first time out because I was still busily pounding out scripts. Now I'm starting the more manageable production rewrites.

Casting is just one tiny, small part of making TV. An incredibly important part, to be sure, but a small part nonetheless. There's also finding studio space, locations, all the key crew, dealing with governments and bonders and organizations you need permission from, and agents and the list goes on and on and on.

As I finished the tone meeting for one of the scripts last night, one of the other producers and I were joking as we walked out onto Yonge Street, about how "the glamour" of making TV really isn't very glamourous at all.

It's hard, hard work. Which is why if you poke over to Toronto Star media columnist Antonia's blog today what you'll read is just so depressing.

See, one of the things that is most lacking in Canadian TV is effective publicity. Yeah, maybe there are problems with the shows sometimes. Undoubtedly the material could be better. The Material can always be better. But if there's not a basic level of competency in the promotion of that Material, you're dead before you start. And all that work is for nothing.

While you read the coverage at The Star, I want you to remember the following things:

1. - The P.R. managers who came up with the outsourcing plans are paid for out of Canadians' tax dollars.
2. -The salaries of the senior managers are paid for out of Canadians' tax dollars.
3. -The shows that they're talking about, or not talking about as the case may be, are paid for out of Canadians' tax dollars.
4. -Danny Iron, who may or may not be a producer who's being punished, is one of the people who did Slings & Arrows, one of the best Canadian TV shows produced in the last ten years.
5. This is the same network that hung the creators of Prairie Giant out to dry just last month.
6. This is the same network who declared to all that they wanted to be "friendlier to creative people" the month before that -- when they toured to 11 different cities, paid for by Canadians' taxpayer dollars.
   

Years ago, when I was still a "journalist," I wanted to do a story on the critical and audience hit that CBC had just put on the air, called The Newsroom. The CBC publicist I talked to then was so cute, and very bewildered. She was delighted -- DELIGHTED -- to have something to promote that the public and the critics seemed to be embracing.

I betcha she got fired last year.

Yeah, Right, Sea Cow.

Another week, more summer, more desire to be on Vacation. I'm in casting today, looking at rewrites later this week. Sounds to me like the perfect time for a little Jim Gaffigan.

You know you want some. Bonus: some good old fashioned Dr. Katz action, too.

What Betty Can Teach Us About Globalization

She's got Salma Hayek shilling for her. She's conquered Colombia and much of Latin America, Russia, Germany, the Netherlands and even India. And yes, she's kind of ugly.

(L: Salma Hayek, Exec Producer of "Ugly Betty." Why can't my producer be this hot?)

The question is, is Betty the one? Or at least, as far as ABC is concerned, more The One, than, say, oh...The One?

If you take a spin over to the New York Times site today, there's an incredibly interesting article about the attempt to bring the Colombian telenovela "I Am Betty The Ugly" to American screens. ABC will premiere their version this September 22nd. Will it hit in the USA like it did in all those countries I mentioned at the top? And since when does Amurrica, the greatest exporter of culture in the history of the world, take direction from, you know...anywhere?

“The traditional telenovelas tend to be Cinderella stories of social mobility,” said John Sinclair, author of the book “Latin American Television: A Global View.” “With Betty, she is able to change her unfortunate situation not by discovering her father was secretly a very rich man but by discovering she is beautiful.”

By the end of its two-year run — 340 half-hour episodes, all written by Mr. Gaitán — “Yo Soy Betty La Fea” was Colombia’s most popular telenovela, pulling in three million viewers a night. Betty’s every move became a national obsession. With Colombia in the midst of a huge political bribery scandal, Betty briefly considered accepting money from a fabric company desperate to get into business with her boss. El Tiempo, the country’s influential daily newspaper, ran an article on its front page decrying “They Want Her Ugly, But Not Corrupt,” and Mr. Gaitán wrote a column urging the show’s fans to remain calm. Betty, of course, did not accept the bribe, and for her integrity she was rewarded with an enormous raise. Colombians rejoiced.

So did the show’s production company, RCN. By 2000 the show was drawing record ratings throughout Latin America; in Puerto Rico, when the leaders of political protests in Vieques noticed crowds thinning out, they erected a giant screen for viewing the show.

I've read a bit about telenovelas in the past, and though I'm not that familiar with any form of the soap opera, I have seen how they can fulfill different places depending on the culture. "Soapies" as they called them, were one of the biggest things on the South African television landscape when I was there, too. "Coronation Street" seems to hit a different kind of storytelling itch than the Australian soaps, and all of these forms make the American soap operas look like what they are: brittle, silly, escapist trash.

So ABC getting behind "Betty the Ugly" means is, I think, something different. Time was we all looked to the United States as the be all and end all of television programming. There might have been the occasional exception, like All in the Family, a program that came out of an import, but for the most part, U.S. television is, and was, regarded as "The shit."

When watching the extras for Coupling, and even Stephen Merchant and Ricky Gervais talking about "The Office," I was struck by how much they spoke of U.S. programming as the golden bar, the thing that we should all aspire to.

If you look around the TV landscape today, that's just not so. The Office is highly regarded as one of the best comedies on the air right now -- and that's because it manages to Americanize the beloved British original. But without that show's pioneering spirit, it's highly doubtful that any American office comedy would have developed and filled the comic landscape that's now on display on NBC every week.

Sure, there's CSI. But the biggest show in the USA is American Idol, which is a straight import of a British show -- complete with Simon Cowell and all. Before that, there was Millionaire. Or Big Brother. Or Survivor. Take your pick. I'm pretty sure that there have never been so many shows on the air at the same time that came not from the idea factory in Hollywood, but from elsewhere.

Ten years ago, I did a story on Endemol, one of the world's most popular reality TV companies. At the time, they were trying to peddle their program formats in the USA and no one was biting. They couldn't understand why -- because they had shows that worked in country, after country, after country. How could the American execs they were meeting be so arrogant as to think that the United States was the one country where the show wouldn't work?

Obviously we've moved beyond all that now -- but just as the attitude is changing in the USA, there are places outside where we're still struggling to catch up. Canada, Australia, even the U.K. -- a lot of people I talk to and correspond with seem to be in thrall to American TV just at the point where Americans have finally started looking around at what works elsewhere and saying, hmm...

Another article in the Times today marks the U.S. premiere of the BBC's Life On Mars, which is coming to BBCAmerica sometime this week. (I think those of us who suffer with BBC Canada are still S.O.L. for the moment. EDIT: It looks like Life on Mars will premiere on BBC Canada on Sept 27) David E. Kelley has already bought the American remake rights, just like Betty was snapped up. So what does that say?

With “Life on Mars,” it is easy to see how humor and bits of science fiction can be scattered throughout a grim, straight-ahead television cop drama. But eight years ago, when the creators of the series, Matthew Graham, Ashley Pharoah and Tony Jordan, first pitched their genre-bending idea — revisiting the unconflicted lawlessness of a testosterone-driven 70’s-style police force through the brain of a coma patient — the BBC’s reaction was not warm.

“They just looked out the window,” Mr. Graham said, adding that the series was finally given the go-ahead after a regime change in 2004. The new executives agreed to take a risk, Mr. Graham said. “They said: ‘Look, we think the idea is insane, but let’s do it, let’s show the world that the BBC leads the way with innovative dramas.’ That was it. We never looked back, really.”

"Let's show the world that the BBC leads the way with innovative dramas."

That's a bold statement -- and it's also the key to breaking the malaise. To stop the tail wagging the dog.

I see so many of my compatriots here in the Canadian industry trying to ape or come up with U.S. style shows -- pale retreads -- or going off completely in the other direction, and coming up with shows that are so anti-U.S. style programming that they eschew things like plot, and pacing, and humor, and things for an audience to seize on and chew on.

We-who-do-not-work-in-Hollywood do not work in Hollywood. We have to stop pretending that we do, or reacting childishly and doing the equivalent of smearing crap on the walls for attention -- making unwatchable shows. America takes notice and comes calling when you come up with shows that speak to your home, that mines what's unique about you. Trailer Park Boys is filthy and profane and dumb, and wouldn't come anywhere but out of Nova Scotia. CBC had a pilot called Rabbittown last year that was singular and different, and they didn't pick it up. Of course. Degrassi became a hit because it was a high school show that just seemed so different than any U.S. high school show. They dealt with serious, fucked up stuff. Americans watching on PBS couldn't get enough. A generation later, it's still rocking The N in a new incarnation.

We've had it backwards for a whole long time now. We think we should do American style shows. But we shouldn't. We should entertain our audience -- doing that is not pandering, it's not trying to sell out and be American -- it's doing what TV is supposed to do. But nowhere are we trying to do something as wacky as our own Life on Mars. Why not? If we have one-tenth the budget and no money for promotion, don't you think a concept that grabs you by the throat might work better? Might at least get us some traction? Should we try to do The O.C.? Or should we do the show that the O.C. would never dare to be?

Where are the fucked up ideas? Where are the shows that no one in their right mind would ever try to pitch in the USA?

Those are the shows we need to be doing -- and if we do it, ten will get you nine U.S. that the Americans will finally beat a path to offices in London, or Toronto, or Sydney.

That means we writers have to free our minds and go nuts. And we need to get in there and batter down resistance from our risk averse, milquetoast, American wannabe network execs.

We are Betty the Ugly. Let's get out there and stir the shit.

Smooth, Geeky Goodness

Mmm. Oh yes. Mmm.

Edit Shmedit

I was going to do an edit to the post below but decided to do this instead.

In all that silver lining stuff, I think it does bear saying that of course, I feel for the 281 CHUM staffers in news across the country who were pinkslipped the day the takeover was announced. Media concentration can indeed be scary when it reduces the number or quality of news voices being heard, but if you read the excellent coverage on Antonia's blog at The Toronto Star, you'll see that the "independence" and local focus of those news voices were already being compromised before the takeoever. Also, Adam Vaughn has got a pretty incendiary piece in eye magazine this week.

I still think there's no good reason to really stop the merger, but the CRTC should take a long hard look at establishing ground rules so that the public interest in news is not compromised.

For questions of impact on journalism -- another side of the business in need of desperate change, I usually defer to the interesting take of the Fine Young Journalist. After all, MSM dinosaurs, this guy's not just the future of the audience, he's the future of the people bringing you the news.

Friends, With Benefits, or How I Stopped Worrying And Learned To Love the Merger

[CANADIAN TV] Ok. So it's been a week now. Little details about the Bell-Globemedia takeover of CHUM are filtering through. Yeah, media concentration is bad, but it's also a fact of life, and if you're a creative person -- and even an audience person, there's a reason why this could actually benefit you.

First of all, let me say something bold: I don't think you've been well served, as viewers, by your Canadian homegrown drama up til now. There. I said it. There are a few shows that I think are wildly entertaining. On that list, I would put Trailer Park Boys, Corner Gas, Degrassi and Slings & Arrows. Below that, there's a tier of shows that I think are trying really, really hard, and hitting some of the time, and missing some other times. What's interesting is that, within their little boxes, the creative "hits" have inspired exactly what a lot of people say Canadian TV doesn't inspire: joy and loyalty and excitement. Get around a couple of TPB fans when they see Bubbles on the street and you'll see what I mean. But you'll also see it on the message boards for Degrassi, and I even saw it at a dinner party as a long time Stratford fan waxed enthusiastically about Slings & Arrows, and how fun it was to see the backstage goings-on in the theatre she so loved (and then, astonishingly, watched as three other ladies agreed with her -- AND STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE SHOW. They had all SEEN it. Imagine that!

The reality is that for the domestic Canadian TV industry to mature, there have to be a whole lot more shows like that. We don't do pilots much in Canada -- we tend to greenlight 13 scripts or 6 or 8 and then go into production. Is this the best way?

We also tend to split the responsibility of showrunner so that the person who has the writing vision and the person who can get the show made are different people. Is this the best way?

We tend to pack most of our production into the summer, and premiere most of our series in the winter or ... lately, it seems ... summer. Is this the best way?

How do you answer all these questions? Well. I don't know. But I do know this:

As a condition of approving any ownership change in Canadian media, the broadcast regulator, the CRTC, demands about 10 percent of the sale be set aside in "benefits," which means a fund that can go to other creative projects. The last such big fund was called the BCE Benefits fund, which was over 100 million dollars (CDN) that was triggered by the formation of Bell Globemedia several years back.

Playback magazine speculates that any fund triggered by the takeover could stretch to either $140 or 160 Million CDN, depending on what math you use.

There's also a regulatory decision about percentage ownership change in the makeup of the companies that make up Bell Globemedia . This deal was in play before the CHUM takeover was announced. There's a small chance that the CRTC might require a benefits package for this change. (Probably not, as all the parties are arguing that no real change of ownership took place, just everybody shuffling their percentages) If that happens, the fund could be even bigger.

So then, what gets done with it?

The BCE Benefits package did a lot of good over the years it was in place. It allowed CTV to create a "Writer's Only" development stream, which, though flawed -- was an interesting initiative that could really be effective if it was run a bit differently. It paid for some education, through bequests to the Canadian Film Centre and the University where I taught, Ryerson University.

But now we're at a crucial time in TV's future, and it may be time for BGM to think outside the box in how to administer this fund.

In the last year, we've gone from a world where downloading TV shows was illegal to where it was sanctioned by the networks and prodcos themselves. They're even taking a cut. ON DEMAND channels on Cable increase value for properties like HBO or TMN. I've repeated the same scene about five times with friends when they come to my house: they see the ON DEMAND channel for TMN, see all the movies that they can get anytime they want every month, along with all those HBO series and stuff, and they go home and subscribe. Why not? The price point finally makes sense: people want to watch what they want to watch when they want to watch it.

So that's where the audience is going. The problem with the Canadian Networks, of course, is that their entire business model is based on making money off US tv shows they buy cheaply at the L.A. screenings, simulcast, and piggyback on US promo. Their Canadian product, with notable exceptions, is done grudgingly and dumped on the air as the cost of doing business.

But not anymore.

Because they're not going to get sold the rights to stream or download LOST, or THE OFFICE, or 24. If they want to get in that game, they have to start developing their own buzzworthy product.

So. Cancon becomes important. At the same time a whole new pile of money becomes available.

Hmm.

Pilots?
Different ways of commissioning shows?
Development funds allocated to Prodcos who've produced past hits?
Seed funds?
A beefed-up Writer-Only fund?
A "showrunner" class/academy?

There are all sorts of different ways BGM could spend this money that could break the cycle of mediocrity and usher in a new era for Canadian TV. Maybe, it might even encourage a few Canadians who flee to the USA because they don't want to deal with the bullshit here-- well, maybe a few of them will stay.

And maybe the programs will be better.

Which could benefit the viewer, and the writer, and the actor, and the network, and the industry, and the culture.

Just saying.

UPDATE: The CRTC approved the ownership change of BGM and agreed it was a transfer of control rather than a change, so no new benefits package. Oh well.

The CHUM sale will definitely be subject to the 10% benefits requirement, tho.

Cue The Lake

Well, I'm still knackered. But I'm fixing to fix that. Gonna disappear to a cottage for a few days. So in the great tradition of TV, here's a few reruns for you:

Are you a writer in Canada? Do you suck?

Why I never smote a note.

And just becasue it still gets linked to: Why "The Room" is Like Vegas.

Have fun, don't get too hot, and see ya in a few days.

"You Don't Mind if We Kill You, Do You?"

Well. 5:23 p.m. Sunday. It's almost as hot outside as it is inside my Macbook Pro.

That's not a good sign.

But for the moment, at least, I am two-scripts-in-a-week finito. Let the wheels start turning.

Lot of sleep needed plus tonight I get to see my one and only going to the Fringe show of 2006. The Catering Queen, at the Tarragon. Any Torontonians, I'll be the tall, broad one with the slack jawed yokel look.

Today's NYTimes has a great profile of Mr. Law-and-Order Dick Wolf. Every article I read, he sounds like a real prick. But the kind of prick I really, really appreciate.

The Weekend Round Up: Where Jack Is a Very Dull Boy

Well, I've been pretty much working about 10 hours a day since I returned from NYC. Before that, I was churning out a first draft for a week or so. So by my count, by the time Monday rolls around, I will have written or rewritten about 160 or so pages over the last 2-3 weeks. That tends to knacker one out.

I have a final stretch to do to get the scripts in, then there's the pause that refreshses, before production and notes start dictating rewrites. I've spent so much time in my condo for the last 10 days or so that I'm starting to feel like the Phantom of the Condo.

So I'm doing the kind of thing that I've always wanted to do. Work necessistates that I spend the weekend writing, missing yet more of what really seems like a lovely Toronto summer. But it doesn't say where I've got to do the writing. And yeah, you gotta eat. But that doesn't mean you gotta cook.

Screw it.

I'm checking into a hotel for the next two days. I'm going to write til I can't, then enjoy the scenery and the accoutrements. I will not be doing an Aaron Sorkin writing The American President, but I'm hoping it will be fun and make work more manageable.

Whatever gets you true, right?

Anyway, with that being said, the TV biz is in the midst of the TCA critics tour down in L.A. Lots of news out there, some of it interesting.

HBO Prez defended "that scene" in Rescue Me at the HBO session. (note to Canadians, spoilers for the third season which starts airing on Showcase Aug 29.) He also revealed that, due to Jimmy Gandolfini's knee surgery, the final 8 Sopranos won't come til March. But the 2nd -- and final -- season of Rome debuts Jan. 7.

I also haven't written about Brotherhood, whose first ep aired last week on Showtime in the USA and TMN in Eastern Canada. I loved it. I love it where you don't have to explain everything. I love when things are hinted at in TV and not spelled out. I love stories about two brothers. I think this show is going to be a new fave for me. I mention it now because the pilot is going to be replayed on CBS tomorrow night, Saturday, at 10pm. Way to drum up business for the pay channels. Sneaky, sneaky.

I just clicked over to the Futon Critic for other TCA (Television Critics Association) news and the sheer volume of stories there spiked my procrasto-meter. I don't have the time to read any of that stuff right now, but feel free to talk about whatever you read in the comments below. I'll weigh in when the monkey's off my back.

"Hello? Room service?"

Dick Cavett: Comic Legends

I'm not old enough to remember Dick Cavett when he was on the air. I mean, I kind of remember him from my childhood, but I was a toddler when his various shows were on ABC.

But thanks to Zip.Ca, I've been dipping into the compilation of "Comic Legends" DVD's they put out last year. I've been through two discs already, and they're mighty revelatory, especially if you presided over the shrinking of the TV talk show through the 80's and 90's.

I think once before I remarked on how weird it was to see an interview with Paddy Chayefsky about Network on the Dinah Shore Show. Weird because it was a) a screenwriter on tv and b) actually a rambling, interesting conversation about ideas, and not the setup-punchline-plug Kabuki that passes for "couch interviews" today. (Even Jon Stewart, in the quest to get laughs, ploughs through his interviews.)

But the Comic Legends series is something different. They're actually a chance to see kind of a master class, and learn about the craft.

The first disc featured two appearances by Groucho Marx -- this is just before he started going downhill. It's an amazing interview, really a time capsule from another time. He talks about trouble at the Democratic convention at one point, and you realize, right, this is from 1969 -- that convention was last year.

Marx's stories about Margaret Dumont and his brothers and how they approached things are just priceless. Then there's a show featuring Woody Allen. The show with Bob Hope is remarkable not just for its length, but for the fact that Hope actually speaks very seriously; it pretty much could stand as one of the definitive autobiographical documents of his life.

But the next disc, again featuring Woody Allen, from right around the time of the release of Bananas, is the truly enlightening one. It's fun, too. He plays jazz clarinet with the band, which is the only time I've seen him do that on TV.

It's startling to see the young Woody -- especially in a context you haven't seen him in before. I guess I've internalized his film performances so much by now that they're retina-burned. But to see him on the couch there talking to a guy who is genuinely his friend, swapping in jokes about coming up as joke writers, is thrilling to see.

Also, Allen explains his dilemna about wanting to do serious things but having no one take him seriously. There it is, the thing that's going to dog him the rest of his life. He talks about the precision and the joy he gets from writing prose. Cavett and Allen talk about their neuroses with women, and how that fuels them. Allen discusses how he tries not to watch comedies, because he's a believer in not being influenced, and then goes on to dissect the nature of his comedy.

The conversation is meandering and never less than amusing. Seventy-five full minutes. I haven't watched the Bill Cosby interview, but I'm sure it's similar stuff.

If you're a student of comic writing, it's well worth renting.

Wow.

I picked a pretty good week to not pay attention to the news.

Canadian Merger Mania hits CHUM

Well -- this is not really surprising. The Globe and Mail and 680 News are reporting that CHUM limited, the parent company of Citytv, Muchmusic, Space, Star, Bravo! and the A-Channels, is going to be sold to Bell GlobeMedia, the corporate parent of CTV, TSN, oh...and MTV Canada. (That should be interesting, considering Muchmusic...)

The last time a big merger like this happened, they created a huge fund for new programming. (The CRTC extracts that pound of flesh for the privilege of consolidation.) So it may be good news for creatives. Or it may be bad news. Or both. Ultimately, it's too soon to tell.

Oh. Oh Dear.

One of my good friends, R.S., is a very talented writer currently working on Corner Gas.

And one day I may forgive him for sending me this:




Wash your eyes out after. The burning, left untreated, could scar.

I Am A Bad Man

Which is why this photo makes me happy. Oh so happy. Id: 1 Better Angels: 0
Sorry, Abe.

Meetings With Stakeholders

This is a phrase you hear a lot about in Canadian Broadcasting. You hear it when discussing the CRTC, and a review that's being done here or there. You hear it when talking about the Canadian Television Fund or Telefilm.

What's significant to me, and always has been, is exactly who those stakeholders are. And who they're not. The Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television is non-political. They don't take stands on things, mostly. They just sponsor the Gemini and Genie awards. Things like that.

The private broadcasters in Canada have something called The Canadian Association of Broadcasters. They lobby on the Broadcasters' behalf. Usually for things like, oh, we want to ease restrictions on foreign ownership, or sell more ads, or not have to do so much for our licenses.

Producers in Canada have the Canadian Film and Television Production Association. They negotiate with representatives of the Directors Guild of Canada, Writers Guild of Canada, and ACTRA, the performers' union, on labor issues.

There used to be a Canadian Cable Television Association. But I think it disbanded. Richard Stursberg used to run that too. Before he bounced to Telefilm, then the CBC.

There are Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and Our Public Airwaves, who mostly complain about the CBC.

Stakeholders, stakeholders, stakeholders.

The problem with the whole stakeholders thing is that the biggest stakeholders in all of this mess are the ones who really are never consulted.

They're called The Audience.

The problem with not consulting the audience is that you start to have people speaking for the audience, which runs into all sorts of problems. You have squeaky wheels saying they're the audience.

Justin, who's a hardworking guy I know and like and have met on several occasions, posted this below in an ongoing thread about Canadian TV. Basically, his contention is that shows Like Canadian Idol are not Canadian shows...just ripoffs of American shows. Justin's speaking for a point of view that would like to keep the CBC "pure."

I don't consider the Office an American show, it's a cheap rip off and not done very well.

Elitist or not Steve Martin isn't the pink panther and I don't consider Canadian Idol, Canada's next top model or 'the One' to be Canadian shows regardless of where they are made.

Now this is, in actuality, a pretty radical view. I mean, most critics have come around on The Office, and I know a lot of people love these kinds of Reality shows. I don't watch any of the Idols, If I watch The One at all it'll be to see how George does. (On the other hand, flipping around last night I caught fifteen minutes of "Hell's Kitchen" for the first time, and I howled. My God that man is entertaining.)

Now, Justin's engaging in a fine old tradition of stating a taste that's contrary to the mainstream. We all do this. People who hate Pop Tarts talk about Radiohead like everyone should listen to Radiohead. Jazzbos sniff at rockists. Classical music fans look down on all of us.

The problem is, in Canada, the only "audience" view that ever gets through is the skewed, likely-to-write-a-letter-to-the-CRTC-or-Globe kind. Essentially, Private TV in Canada has been allowed to just chase eyeballs using cheaply purchased (because we're an ancillary market) U.S. shows, and Public TV is being fought over by a small, elitist group that doesn't really represent the audience at large. That's a big problem.

Now -- here's another view from the audience, direct from a meeting of a lot of the stakeholders. This might be the most devestating thing I've read about Canadian Television all year.

Now that I'm motivated to at least be aware of what's out there in Canadian television so that I'm not overlooking programs I might enjoy and programs that might reflect stories I wouldn't otherwise see, I find that Canadian television does not seem to see me as its future.

At the Banff festival, I attended a town hall session on the future of Canadian TV with representatives from funders, regulators, content producers, and broadcasters, talking to an audience of the same. Now I think I understand another layer of the invisible networks problem. Listening to executives talk about my own country's product, I felt completely invisible. The discussion was focused on everything but the Canadian television viewer.

I'm not necessarily the typical viewer. At this point, I'm probably more motivated than average to seek out Canadian programming. Unfortunately, the reason for my recent motivation is not a reproducible marketing strategy: I got addicted to the blog of a Canadian television writer who's insightful, passionate, and funny about a wide range of subjects, but particularly the industry he works in. And he kept talking about shows I'd never heard of, like Jeff Ltd., Billable Hours and The Jane Show.

I started to be conscious of the fact that all these Canadian shows were appearing without a blip on my radar and wondered why. Was I just not paying attention? Or was the industry not paying attention to me?

Now -- Diane, of course, is a friend of this blog. I've plugged her site a lot, and even interviewed her about her viewing habits, in an attempt to try and formulate what exactly we are all doing wrong here in this great big country that's not the United States but might as well be for all the homegrown culture that is not on our airwaves. So yeah, she's not exactly the average viewer. But I'm going to guess that there are actually way more Dianes out there than there are Justins. (And I'm not picking on Justin. He and I agree about things -- including TV -- more than we disagree. The difference is as a working writer, I recognize that the health of my industry depends on having things out there that do not appeal to my personal taste, and where my personal taste conflicts with something that's good for the health of the industry, I swallow my bile and move on.)

There are Dianes out there who sold out the Bloor Cinema in January of 2005 to meet the Trailer Park Boys. There are Dianes who did grow up watching Degrassi, and there are Dianes or Daves or Stews who were the ones who caught the CBC flatfooted when they almost got rid of Ron McLean from Hockey Night in Canada a couple years back. The CBC was surprised by the reaction. Why? They don't know what the audience really cares about -- because they never talk to those people.

The reason why the Dianes aren't being listened to? I think it has to do with the defeatist meme that's rife in the industry: "Canadians don't want to watch Canadian shows."

That's an article of defeatist faith among a lot of "stakeholders" in this country. I have an alternate theory. "Most of the shows we've done thus far simply aren't good enough to hold an audience."

I've seen numbers. Lots of Canadian shows premiere big. People tune in because they're curious. And then they go away. If, as Diane suggests, the audience is invisible, that's only because it's actually easier to blame the audience for not watching, than it is to look inward and ask if the product is really good enough.

So if you're going to Meet with Stakeholders, pretty please guys, can you try to get a few more Dianes in the mix? Cause right now, the Diane's aren't feeling the love:

Listening to executives fretting about international markets felt a little insulting. What about me? Wouldn't they like to make a TV show I might want to watch and then let me know about it so I can watch it? I heard "let's protect Canadian content in the scary new world of the unregulated Internet, but let's not make it too Canadian or we can't sell it."

I heard it suggested that successful shows like Corner Gas and Trailer Park Boys might be too Canadian for international markets, despite the fact that the former had just signed a US distributor, and the latter is broadcast on BBC America. Not to mention the apparently unimportant fact that Canadians like to watch them, too.

I had to wonder if, in their hunger for the secondary markets of the future, they'd forgotten their primary audience of the future, an audience that in the past made shows like Degrassi, Slings & Arrows, and DaVinci's Inquest successful within our borders before they were embraced outside them.

The future of Canadian television also seems to overlook the primary product in the zeal to create secondary products. The suits talked about how to entice viewers through means other than television – that is, how to use new technologies and media to drive people to programming and vice versa. They talked about audiovisual content on the web, cell phone videos, and the need to train and support more Canadian artists to produce this new multi-platform content.

..

The Banff panel threw around the word "quality" a lot: "We have to make a quality product." But I didn't hear how the Canadian television industry plans to meet that goal of creating more quality shows, strategies to overcome barriers to making quality shows, or what happens when a quality show falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it.

Diane's full article on the Invisible Canadian Audience can be found here.