South to North

SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

My Fame Is Bonafide, Check It, Worldwide...

GLOBETROTTING Director Extraordinaire Brett Sullivan, who has helmed many of the most exciting episodes of THE BORDER, sends along this picture of my worshipful brethren from Wellington, New Zealand.

(Actually, it's named for a Wellington City Councillor. But still. Pretty funny.)


This is where I sneak in a plug for the old old lady, reminding you that THE BORDER returns for its final two Season 3 episodes starting tonight at 9pm on the CBC.

The episode tonight sounds like a real doozer -- it involves a plot to assassinate the visiting U.S. President.  Zut Alors!


The Border got kind of burned over this season with a tough timeslot and a weak lead-in, but I remain tremendously affectionate toward the show. To me, at its best it's a nice escapist little actioner -- best when it lards its social message in tiny little pats rather than great slathered dollops.


But it's fun and it's well made and if you haven't checked it out for awhile, tonight sounds like a great episode to dip into.  You'll be surprised by some of the changes in the characters, especially my man Jonas Chernick as Slade, new (for S.3) cast member Athena Karkanis as the squad's language specialist... And Grace Park's back, too! 


"Credible Threat" is written by Sarah Dodd, who besides being an adorable brand-new Mom was always The Border writer who could be counted on for the mind-bendingest twists & contortions.  Great writer.  Great Director. Gunplay, Slade, and the U.S. Prez?  Heck, I'm in. What more do you need?


The visiting U.S. Prez is even black! Wow! How'd they get that past Legal? (Don't even get me started on how hard it is to clear stuff in Canada. Damn Reverse onus! Sigh.)


Remember, if those ratings don't come up you may not have Kessler & Co to kick around anymore, and I for one honestly think that would be a big damn shame.


THE BORDER airs tonight at 9pm (9:30 NL) on CBC.

The Male Gaze And Great Big Bangs

ARE YOU AWARE of this phrase, "the male gaze?"  Do you have a thorough understanding of what it is and what it means? It's one of those phrases that you hear bandied about, but a lot of people aren't sure exactly what it really means.  Unless maybe you're female writer.  Or a feminist film studies major.  If you're a guy maybe you're a women's studies major.  Or you're just a bit more advanced than me.

I mean, that's not entirely true.  I am aware -- I try to be consistently aware -- of the fact that the audience for TV is more female than male. If you're writing in this medium, you're writing for women.  So at some point you run across the idea of "the male gaze" and how it does or doesn't affect your show.

But it's a dicey thing trying to discuss, or make understood, the effect of "the male gaze" on TV and film -- especially to a younger male writer.  I've been in rooms where "the woman" (sad, I know) elicits groans time and time again when she tries to fight for one little antidote to the pervasiveness of that male gaze in the show.  Just something for the script. And I've been in other rooms where years and years of chafing under male-led writing rooms and programs leads to the classic overreaction:  the bullshit flip where every situation is a reversal ... where the woman always has to come out on top.  [Cue every current TV commercial, where the sensible wife is married to the fucking retarded manchild douchebag.]

Before we get further, lets get that 101 Feminism definition of the male gaze and what it means for film & tv.

Bringing up "the male gaze" will often get you in a lot of fights.  I've been on both sides of those fights at different times. But today I want to point you to a ... just extraordinary little article that every screenwriter should read.

It examines The Big Bang Theory, and how it freed itself from the tyranny of the male gaze; and how that made the show better.  If, like me, you're somebody who got caught off guard by how bad BBT was when it started and then saw it later and went, "uh, when did this show get so funny?" (To me it happened on an airplane watching a rerun in the seat back)  This article walks you through, start to finish, how rethinking your character and making somebody more than a prop can lead you to a stronger, fresher, BIG FUCKING HIT SHOW.

This article is incredibly well presented, and concise, so there's no point me even excerpting it.  Just go read the whole thing here.

I have no idea who Linda Holmes is. But she wrote the best article on TV writing I've read in months.

Check it out.

18 To Life to 779

BILL BRIOUX's got the skinny on the premiere numbers for new CBC comedy 18 to Life...

CBC's new comedy 18 to Life premiered to 779,000 viewers Monday, topping schedule mate Little Mosque on the Prairie, which managed 605,000 (all figures BBM Canada overnight estimates). The two sitcoms managed to hold their own against Law & Order on CTV (1,118,000) and Heroes on Global (599,000) as well as a strong season premiere of The Bachelor over on City (1,012,000, with 505,000 of those in the 25-54-year-old demo).

If you missed the show, it's available as an Itunes free Download (Canada only) right now.

[And good for CBC & the show's producers for finally getting hip to THAT promo tactic! Are you listening, CRTC?]

That's how I saw it this afternoon (I'm still away.)  I thought the premiere was a great intro to the cast and the leads, and zipped along at a great pace, but was smiley funny not guffaw funny -- which is where the show soon proceeds.  The show definitely gets better as it goes along, but I did think it starts from a solid, witty and warm place, and earned that solid  number.  I think it will probably build.

I do think, by the way, that 2010 might see a resurgence in shows like this -- now that Network TV's not as dead as everyone thought, and PPM's are redefining what gets sampled heavily, I think a few shows that capture multi-generational audiences are not out of the question.

For instance, I think that's a big part of the ongoing story of CBC's Heartland -- which is a solid hit in the family bracket because teens watch as well as older viewers.

18 to Life is sweet, and deserves the eyeballs to find that out for themselves.  Congrats to all involved.

"Read Norman Mailer, Or Win a Charles Taylor..."

FOR WHATEVER REASON, I seem to be part of that great cohort of men who've largely stopped reading fiction, opting for the non-fictive variety of book lately. I don't know why this is -- and in fact, since I got myself one of those nifty Kindle things, no doubt to be supplanted soon by Apple's Jesus Tablet or whatever it's called, I've tried redressing that imbalance by taking on a few new novels.  But the balance is still well and truly tipped.

I'm also one for not taking the whole "prize" thing too literally; prizes in TeeVee are a bit of a joke, you see, and though I get the prestige of the Booker, I chuckle a bit over the fooferal extended to the Giller Awards each year. It seems a lot of gewgaw for this little parish, y'know?

But I got a reminder today of just what purpose literary prizes serve with the announcement of the shortlist for the Taylor Prize, a 25K prize for a Canadian non-fiction book, named after journalist Charles Taylor.

The Boy in the Moon is writer/broadcaster Ian Brown's story of the daily life, and care, for his son, who has a genetic disorder.  I remember reading Brown's columns about his son in the Globe when they first appeared and being transfixed; the book left me no less so -- but my post read behavior did.  I have no idea why, but now that I think about it, I read this book, and it deeply affected me...it's well-written and searing and sad and a whole bunch of other things.  But when I was finished, I put it aside and to the best of my knowledge, I've never discussed it with anybody.

Which is weird. I mean, I read a book, I love a book, I tell everybody. But not Brown's simple, affecting memoir.

So the awards announcement jogged something in me, and now I have a bit of a mystery about myself to solve: why didn't I sing this book's praises?  Luckily, the Taylor Prize has.

As a stubborn believer that Canadian History isn't the boring broth some would have you believe, two of the other books on the list are intriguing titles that have been on my to-read list all year:  Just Watch Me, John English's 2nd volume of Trudeau biography, covering 1968-80, and Daniel Poliquin's Rene Levesque.

So maybe it's time I stopped being so smug about literary prizes like the Taylor Prize.

It gives me a shot at pushing Brown's wonderful book and two others I find compelling. (Actually the whole list sounds pretty good.)

I guess I've just been too well jaded by the Gemini's.

But you know what?

 The Gillers are still silly.  See?

Male anti-fiction bias and all that.

I'm a bad man.

Fall.

First go here.

Then go here.

neat.

UPDATE: It was only for yesterday, but it looked like this:

18 To Life Premieres Tonight!

REMEMBER, 18 to Life, CBC's new comedy, premieres tonight at 8pm.  Great buzz for this show.  Here's a (slightly different) trailer:

UPDATE:  In Andrew Ryan's very positive Globe & Mail review today, he raises -- without expanding on it -- a very interesting point, when he writes:

More impressive are the two young leads. Honed from four seasons as Derek on the family sitcom Life with Derek, Seater is a naturally gifted comic actor who has mastered the art of delivering witty dialogue with a blank expression. If you think that's easy, talk to Michael Cera.

The winsome Farber is a solid match for Seater and rises to the occasion now that's she's removed from the histrionics of Degrassi. Together, they make the perfectly adorable teen couple, which naturally puts viewers on their side for the wedding brouhaha, while the parents are left to sputter.

The significance just below the surface here is belied a bit earlier in the article where he repeats the tired old canard about Canadians being good or known for comedy... No, we're not. We're known for shipping our talent south before they really get a chance to do anything here because there's such a lack of opportunity.


That lack comes from consistently having to start over. I remember hearing stories from before my time about how when Seeing Things ended, everybody scattered and they lost everybody who'd learned anything.  How many vets of TRADERS went on to get shows immediately after? (Without going to the USA?)  Pat McKenna won Gemini after Gemini in that show -- why's he not a lead in something?


In the case of Farber and Seater -- one thing we DO have in this country is an actual bonafide tween/teen show industry -- mostly for U.S. partners, but still. The shows keep going, the crews work, and actors like Farber and Seater hone their craft and get really, really good at what they do so that when they're presented with an opportunity like this, they've learned the ropes. They're poised to deliver.

CTV, just out of Gas, gave both Brent Butt and a bunch of Gas writers the chance to create sitcoms. Just rolled them right over.  That's how it's done.


It's called "building an industry." And it works for crews, writers, directors, and everybody else too.

Messing With Male Minds: A Decade in TV, & Don't Shadow My Script, Man..

I'VE ARGUED BEFORE on this blog that one of the things ailing network TeeVee today was a dearth of realistic male characters.  As the audience tipped ever-more toward the distaff side*, so too did characters become ever more like caricatures -- feminized men who acted more like, well...women.

(All while the opposite happened with women's roles; outside of sitcom-land, the "wife" "girlfriend" "mother" roles for women enjoyed great expansion over the last while, in no small part because of the emergence of strong female writer/showrunners.)

Let it not be said that we don't rope in all opinions here in Sticksville. And in today's New York Times, Alessandra Stanley makes a pretty convincing case that the entire last decade of TeeVee was totally concerned with the male psyche.

So many dramas, good and bad, focused narrowly on the male mind. Every cop and fireman came with a set of complexes; witness “The Shield” and “Rescue Me” on FX. Fictional detectives have been eccentric and unorthodox since the days of Sherlock Holmesand Arsène Lupin, so it’s not unusual for television cops to be freakier than the robbers (and rapists).

But TV’s romance with the masculine psyche can be found even in the most prosaic network crime shows, including the evolution of “Law & Order” spinoffs. The original, which started on NBC in 1990, was conceived by its creator, Dick Wolf, as an antidote to crime shows like “NYPD Blue,” which fastened onto the psychic distress of antiheroes like Andy Sipowicz. For a while, at least, “Law & Order” kept crime and punishment in the foreground and gave viewers only sketchy details about the private lives of its detectives and prosecutors.

But even Mr. Wolf’s template gave in to the times. In 1999, on the cusp of a new century, came “Law & Order: SVU,” a procedural about sex crimes, but it soon turned out that some of the most lurid moments were found in the romantic and psychological entanglements of its central characters. By 2001 the lead detective on another spinoff, “Law & Order: Criminal Intent,” was a former altar boy burdened with a schizophrenic mother and a disturbing ability to bond with criminals and the criminally insane. In an episode titled “Untethered,” the detective (Vincent D’Onofrio) implodes and is suspended for psychiatric evaluation.

Female detectives are messed up as well, but in a welcome reversal of gender roles they are far more repressed about their feelings and failings. Nowadays they tend to follow the classic Raymond Chandler model, notably those played by Kyra Sedgwick, Holly Hunterand Mary McCormack on their shows on TNT. All three crime fighters are tough, dedicated loners who shirk help and hide their vulnerabilities under flip banter or bossiness. They are closer in spirit to Philip Marlowe than Miss Marple or Jessica Fletcher.

On the other hand, one of the most beloved private eyes of the decade was Tony Shalhoubin USA’s “Monk,” as a San Francisco detective with near crippling obsessive-compulsive disorder forced to leave the San Francisco Police Department.

I still think she uses a lot of Cable examples -- where male interest and eyeballs fled this decade. But it's a pretty good wrapup -- and hey, since I punted when it came to contemplating the same task, I think Stanley's take deserves more than a little consideration.

But it's actually in one of the Times' other decade-wrap articles that I found a line I'm still turning over and over, for its implications for screenwriters.  In his summation of the rise of digital music,  Jon Pareles writes:

For indie-rock bands like Arcade Fire, or for a rapper like Wale building a reputation on mixtapes, a mention in the right places online — accompanied, likely enough, by a free MP3 or a link to a YouTube clip — can be the makings of a national and perhaps international tour circuit: a star is blogged. And what once was a post-gig discussion among a handful of friends can now be a worldwide colloquy, complete with photos and video as documentary evidence. Less and less takes place behind the scenes, even if it belongs there.

This lack of a "behind-the-scenes" space has profound implications for screenwriters who fumble through multiple drafts (as we all do) til you get to a finished form.

Earlier this year, a site sprang up that started reviewing "in process" drafts of scripts that were circulating.  Screenwriter John August ran a couple of great pieces about why Scriptshadow wasn't such a wonderful idea.  The argument for the site seemed to be that it was just bringing a wider eye to something that happened anyway...scripts get passed around by assistants all the time.  There are even codified "buzz" lists such as The Black List that legitimize this process.  So what's the difference? As August put it:

In between answering phones and trying to get their bosses on flights out of Kennedy, bright underpaid aspirants have the opportunity to read almost every script in town. Impromptu networks of assistants pass around their favorite screenplays, in the process picking the next generation of hot writers.

Studios turn a blind eye to this because it helps the industry. You want the smartest people with the best opinions working for you, and you want them to have a good sense of what’s in development all over town. A boss at Disney isn’t going to lose sleep if an intern at CAA reads a draft of that Miley Cyrus comedy. It’s expected. It’s good.

So ScriptShadow should be a good thing, right? More is better.

It’s not. And the reasons become clear pretty quickly.

There’s a big difference between reading a script and reviewing it online for the world to see. Not only are you spoiling plot details, but you’re establishing a baseline judgment for a project that’s often still in its fetal phase.

And here’s the rub: just like the AICN reviews of screenings made studios much more reluctant to test their films, sites like ScriptShadow are making them clamp down much harder on the heretofore common practice of passing scripts around.

In other words, less and less happens behind the scenes, even if it belongs there.

If you read August's comment sections, you'll see a lot of howling outrage and charges of elitism -- from many of the same types who busted a gasket in the Great Josh Olson "I Will Not Read Your Fucking Script" Teapot Tempest of 2009.  Remember that, kids?

A local Toronto blogger gadfly summed up the anti-forces rather well in this post.

You know what's going on when someone starts talking about stuff in terms of 'castes' and 'elites.'  We're into the grand conspirian land again, where somehow the worthy are kept out through a cabal -- and the net's gonna bust that on out.

But to the scriberly among us, you and I know that's not really what's going on.

The self-same blogger above, it should be noted, generally has a kind of penchant for railing against anything where he feels he was "excluded."  I remember one post trying to whip up anger at not being invited to a pre-screening for WGC members of Being Erica.  That's right -- not a public screening...not even an invited screening...basically a coffee clatch for screenwriters to talk shop about an upcoming show.

Anyway, here's why I skeeve on this right now, despite the fact that the August article was at the beginning of December...

...I've just gone to a pre-second draft on a development project I have in the works.  The task for the first to second draft transition was to try and justify and bring up one of the secondary characters, and also to reframe some of the motivation for the lead character.  Because it's a pilot, there's also all the normal-challenge stuff of introducing the world and establishing the franchise.  Add to that the fact that in the first draft there was main-character voiceover, which I endeavored to remove.

Now, this winds up being quite an extensive rewrite.  And at the step before it's going to go into the network, it goes to the production companies and my partners for feedback.

And what comes back is -- what I knew would come back is -- that I've done a great job of bringing up the number two character -- but now that, combined with the loss of the "look-inside-the-head" quality the voiceover provided, means that I need to do further work on the main protagonist.

I knew this would be the reaction;  I'm fumbling toward a new show here -- this is not a production-ready script, this is very much a project in play, taking baby steps forward. And I've made it even harder for myself by trying to create something that's a genre hybrid I haven't seen before...so there isn't even the comfort of, "well it's like...." to fall back on.

Now, I say this with all humility and knowledge that there's likely to be a VERY low level of interest for an early draft of a pilot script of a potential Canadian TV series written by me... I am not delusional.  But nevertheless, If this half-step script got out somewhere and got reviewed, I'd be... well, I'd be pretty much paralyzed with anger and creative sturm and drang.

It's fun to see sketches and concept stuff, drawings of characters and wardrobe and whatever, when a movie comes out, because your first taste of the work is the finished work.  And that means somebody like me bashing a script's head against the wall til it comes out finished.  It's never pretty, and sometimes it's pretty painful. But it's the only way to do it.

If creatives lose the ability to do stuff behind the scenes, the art is going to suffer.

(Nick Hornby kind of explores this territory of finished/unfinished and the gulf between the art, the creator's intent and process, and fan interpretation, in Juliet, Naked.  Well worth picking up if you haven't already.)

An early draft that goes to a network or a producer or a trusted reader or even an agent's assistant is a very, very different thing than a draft that goes out into the world before it's ready.

I don't think writers necessarily expect everybody to understand that. I certainly don't.  But if you're wondering why most of us are pretty hostile to the concept of something like Scriptshadow, then there's your answer.

Early drafts are like the family catastrophe that you laugh about years later.   From a pleasing, far distance: hilarious. But Christ, there's nothing funny about it at the time.

* the derivation of this phrase, which I've used occasionally, apparently has to do with spinning, ie: "women's work."  As a progressive post-feminist man, does that mean I have to stop using it? Hmm. Readers, please advise.

Canadian TV Premieres This Week

CANADIANS KNOW WINTER.  And Canadian TeeVee programmers know that lots of people tend to be home.

Not me, of course...I'm travelling all this week and will miss most of these shows but I wanted to give you the lowdown... check with TV, Eh? if you want to know more.

Anyway, here's a short rundown of some series that are bowing this week that you could take a look at, should you so desire...

Monday

8pm - CBC - 18 to Life  -  Good buzz on this show from people I know who've seen cuts of finished eps.  Kinda charming premise too. Two 18 year old sweethearts get hitched.  After seeing the wonderful (but somehow existentially depressing) UP IN THE AIR on the weekend, a little positive on the love front might be what the Doctor ordered.



Wednesday

9pm - CBC - Republic of Doyle - Newfoundland local hero Allan Hawco wears all the hats in this story of a Father/Son detective team working the streets of St. John's.  The Globe & Mail's TV critic seems inordinately pleased to have a show share his surname.

And before the catty comments start, let me squash the rumors once and for all: the above has absolutely nothing to do with, and played no part in the creation of my own upcoming revisionist Western romp, "Badlands of Brioux."

(Preceded by the 5th season premiere of the suddenly unstoppable Dragons Den.)

Sunday

8pm - HBO Canada - Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures -  Premiere of this 8 part miniseries based on the book by Vincent Lam.  I'm looking forward to this one - loved the book. Read it in one sitting. Fabulous, well-rounded, flawed characters...everything good drama's supposed to have.  HBO Canada got me a screener so hopefully I can post something about it before it airs.

NEXT WEEK:  Jan 12...the show I'm waiting for...Kids in the Hall's Death Comes to Town!

Coming Clean, or Fiasco A-Go-Go

I WAS ALL SET to see 2010 in with a post about things I think -- just maybe -- we should be paying attention to in TeeVee this year, but alas, life got in the way as it tends to.


But I hope you'll really enjoy my Plan B.


Discovered these on Funny or Die.  It's great. It's Denis Leary in a rather unsentimental fashion discussing his "oeuvre."


Y'know I've had the same conversation with a few people over the last couple months and it basically goes like this:  we don't admit disasters in Canada.  Fiascos. That which just. does. not. work.


On my train down I heard a repeat of a This American Life show about a grade school production of Peter Pan that went so terribly, horribly awry that in the middle of hearing the story told, host Ira Glass had to stop taping because he was guffawing in such an out of control, unseemly manner.


It happens.  Things suck. Things that we went into with hearts pure and that had all sorts of talent behind it and just somehow utterly, completely unravelled.


I mean, look at Leary:

Denis Leary Remembers Denis Leary Movies - watch more funny videos

Great, huh? Wait. There's more.

Denis Leary Remembers Denis Leary Movies Part II - watch more funny videos

Too often we rob ourselves in this country of just celebrating the suck. How can we ask people to give our shows a fair shake when we won't admit when something just.....didn't.......work....?

Now I've learned over the year that I can't criticize too much on this blog shows that get made, and in a weird sort of way I've come to think that's kind of fair. I can't both be of the industry and expect to be able to offer an opinion about something to cut it down or do it harm.  I might be the guy with the show waiting in the wings with the show to replace it, after all.

So I try whenever possible to just...not talk about stuff that I think is bad and when I think something is good -- even if it's not perfect, but worth watching, I will shout it from the rafters because I think that does good for all of us and I can't abide being one of those people who can't praise others' work.  For me to succeed you do not need to fail. I think we need to collectively run those people out of town on the rails.

But for 2010, among friends, in the circle, en famille, I'm going to start being a bit less politic about something that's good for this region or that, or somebody who's talented and need a break.  Hey, if I can't say that I really think Bruce McDonald made some dodgy movies for awhile, then what impact can it possibly have when I say HOLY SHIT PONTYPOOL SCARED THE PANTS OFF ME and I loved, loved, loved it?

There has to be a statute of limitations, right?  Right?

You know what?  EXOTICA sucked. I don't get that movie at all. I know everybody loved  AWAY FROM HER and Sarah Polley's a national treasure, but Holy God I thought I was going to swallow my arm on that one.  And don't get me going on the WWI movie...

Anyhoo....look....I don't want catty or bitchy...but to start the new year, you, you pseuds, you commenters -- tell us a story from the vault.  Let us celebrate and giggle over fiasco! with the knowledge that we all make them, we all have the scene we wrote badly, the miscast part, the bad set, the compromise that killed, the ridiculous production or location fall through that turned a maybe into a massive shitshow.

Do you dare to clear the decks, chase away the bad creative karma for the new Decade by coming clean and sharing the best of your bad lot?

That's right.  YOUR bad lot.  Something you did that just.... wellllll....you know.

Let's do it.  For once, I'll go LAST.  Have at it.

And just by point of reference remember that everybody starts somewhere.  Back in the old days, when MTV showed videos, here's how everyone got their first taste of Denis Leary.  I remember when these came out, they landed with the force of a bomb, so incandescent was Leary's polarizing cool.

Denis Leary - MTV PROMOS - watch more funny videos

Happy 2010.  Now let's bring them fiascos into the light so that they may light our way to better creative karma in the new year!

and in an unrelated note, does anybody know why Blogger's all of a sudden doing this weird fail on the line breaking thing?

Listless in 2009

THE WEIRD THING of course, is that I'm usually right into the list thing.   I was that guy from High Fidelity for many, many years.  And on this blog, I did three year-end lists of the things that inspired me in the previous twelvemonth.


But the basic truth, and I know this will seem familiar to many of you, because it's something I've heard a lot of lately -- is that this year, I'm tired.  Just about the time I realized how tired I was, the decade lists started appearing -- and that made me downright exhausted.


I didn't join into a single, "you know, the Sopranos really debuted in 1999 so it's not really a show of the last decade..." arguments.  Usually that's kibble to me.  Fatigue can't explain it all.


I won't be sorry to see 2009 go.  It was a difficult year for me, and for many of my friends and relatives -- both personally, and professionally. Maybe the mojo from a decade sputtering out finally caught up with all of us.


So when I try to discern and delineate the things that inspired me this year... I have a tough time.  I got Top Tier on my Airline Miles.  That's never happened before.  I shall enjoy my upgrade certificates and doubtless nod sagely at all sorts of jokes in UP IN THE AIR that regular folk don't get...


...But I wouldn't call that inspiring.


The year started with work -- a difficult freelance assignment which I fully intend to write about with self-deprecating humility when the show finally airs. But that won't be a for awhile yet.


The career presented a whole host of choices in the first quarter, and against my better judgement, I went with my heart...and got royally burned.  But I'm proud of the work I did and treasure the experiences I had. And except for one bar fight I probably should have let unfold as God intended, I regret nothing about that time.   There's still professional stuff that I can mine for Canadian writers -- stuff about Contracts and things that I fully intend to write about ... it's just finding the time to order it so it's positive, affirming and helpful rather than a bitter shitshow.


It's not like 2009 didn't have its fun parts. A whole month off in the summer -- I haven't had that for five years and it was wonderful.  I got to spend time in NYC with a couple of my favorite people, and saw a great play, GOD OF CARNAGE.  


I got to spend more time with family this year -- my parents, Uncles, Cousins whom I never see...  and lo and behold, the year ended with one development project proceeding in a fine direction and another project appearing to challenge me in ways that I've never worked before.  So on balance, the narrative of the year isn't a negative one at all. 


But there's all these Goddamn LISTS...


And then ... A decade.  God.  Ten years ago I wasn't writing full time.  I was an unhappy television producer deep in the belly of network beast, seeing from that side just how little original production was respected, and how crazily and topsy turvy the talk would get from buyers who really thought that they were geniuses for going down to the L.A. screenings and watching TV.    


(*I should say that there are some very, very key exceptions to this attitude -- some programmers I know that were lovely people with great enthusiasms and infectious laughs.)


But see, being inside the network at that time was like living beside the magnet. The magnet distorted the natural order of things. The magnet made people who traded on the creativity of others seem more important than me, writing my little plays and trying to get out.  


But I wised up and got away from the magnet. And everything changed for the better.


So it's not a list per se, but maybe I'll just close the year by doing the thing a blog's supposed to do: pull back the personal curtain and hurtle into the overshare.


Here are some of the people who make one crazy writer's life bearable in the year 2009 and hopefully for a long time beyond:


Robert Sheridan is one of Canada's finest comedy writers.  He's smart and meticulous and committed.   We joke sometimes that our conversations are a race to see who can depress the other first, but really, we both share a healthy level of respect for professionalism and contempt for the lack of same.  If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well. I know if I ever read a Rob Sheridan script, I'm going to read a story that sparks and makes me laugh out loud at least twice.  And that's pretty fine in this world. He's a good ear, a loyal friend, and a fabulous enabler.


Peter & Diane Mohan are kind of the Den Father and Mother of a whole generation of Toronto (and sometimes outside Toronto) writers.  Diane is patient and wry, and puts up with -- well, I don't know how she... well, anyway... and Peter counsels restraint and shares his knowledge freely. He's the first guy to go to for advice.  And he's the best example of how to shake it off when the shitshow gets you down.


Howard Bernstein was my first boss over twenty years ago in journalism.  I've been waiting to try and put into practice the things he taught me about managing creative people for a long time.  This year I finally did, and they worked great, and had the situation been a bit different, it would have been glorious. But I'm convinced that the man did not offer a bum steer. And now, finally, after a long career in journalism, you can read his tough, uncompromising insights into what's going wrong with TV news at his blog.


Shelley Eriksen is not just a wonderful writer with a will of iron and a heart of fire, but she's also free with sharing her experiences both good and bad.  I would work in her story room in a heartbeat, and she will always have a place in mine.


Matt MacLennan was a guy I only knew socially before this year, but I've grown to appreciate not just his talent and his passion for the job but his loyalty and his passion for trying anything new.  In fact, before it gets sloppy, I should probably just group and come clean right now about all the writers I have terrible talent crushes on -- from Daegan Fryklind and Dennis Heaton, to Karen Hill, Elan Mastai, Anne Fenn, Wil Zmak, Susin Nielsen, Brent Butt, Geri Hall, Mark Farrell, Paul Mather, and Vera Santamaria.  Jason Belleville --  who will not let you go without making you laugh, Jocelyn Cornforth, Alex Epstein and Karen McClellan -- who also work the McGrath help line in regular shifts -- as well  as pretty much everyone I've ever gone to a writer brunch with.  


And then there's my friend of over twenty years, Mark Ellis. And suddenly, we can talk shop. Funny old world.


Then there's Karen Walton.  I can barely look directly into her eyes, such is the incandescence of her drive and her talent.  As an organizing force, a project juggler and a professional she is the gold standard and our industry's lucky to have her.


I should also put the shout out to the great Jim Henshaw and Will Dixon.  Aside from the fact that we all blog, Jim and Will and I have a rolling conversation via email that I wouldn't trade for anything in the world.  You wish you could read this shit. But you can't. In the words of the Daffy: "Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine!"


I also have the great fortune to serve on the WGC Council with a group of wonderful writers who do everything they can to try to make things better for our cohort in Canada: Chuck Lazer, Anne Marie Perotta, Sherry White, Jill Golick, Andrew Wreggit and WGC's President, Rebecca Schechter.  Hearing about the experiences of fellow travellers from all across Canada have hopefully made me somebody who doesn't live and die with that deadly "Toronto Focus."  And Sugith Varughese comes in regularly to keep us up to date as the WGC rep on the Actra Fraternal Benefit Society board. If you have money in that insurance plan, trust me on this one, you owe Sugith tapas, minimum.


Anyone who reads this blog regularly will know of my deep and abiding respect for Maureen Parker, Exec Director of the WGC.  Extend that same respect to Kathryn Emslie, who along with her Staff & Chairman Slawko Klymkiw keep the CFC humming.


And then there's the guy who's advice I turn to almost every day, my agent Glenn Cockburn.  Glenn's a man with vision and good humor to balance out the ambition.  God I hope I'm like that, too. That's kind of what I'm going for.


There's another agent -- well, Ex agent, who I admire and who inspires me intensely -- Elana Trainoff. For those of you not under the tent.... Elana used to be the Toronto based agent for The Alpern Group, after years working at the CFC.  But Elana recently decided that her dreams needed following, too.


So she quit and joined the FREAKING PEACE CORPS.


Admit it.  Your whiny little stuff and complaints seem small now, don't they? Mine sure do. THAT shit is inspiring, fullstop.


Oh, gosh...what about Diane Wild, who somehow runs TV Eh? as a hobby and shames the Canadian PR Corps in the process?  Or Editors Mr. MatthewPants Esquire and Jeffy, as well as new denizen CJ, who line my booth at the Paddock quite well, thank you. And Laura who will serve, sling and abuse.  Lisa's doing a good job of that too, lately.  


My world may be small, people. But I know what I like.


Anyway, there it is.  Inspiration.  People who make it possible for me to do what I do.  I'm sure there are many, many others. But it's growing late in the day, the sun's setting and a Florida sunset the night of a Blue Moon is something I won't deny myself, New Year or no.


Be safe and well and let's hope all our dreams soar in 2010.  You are all better looking than you think.


Happy New Year
Denis McGrath
Orlando, Florida, 12/31/2009

Carriage Fees: The U.S. Version

IT SHOULDN'T SURPRISE you to know that nothing in Canadian Television happens in a vacuum.  And so it is with the Cable TV - Broadcaster fight over "carriage fees." Or as KonRadvF (which I am hereby decreeing the Chairman of the CRTC's new "internet" spelling. Why? For the lulz, of course) would like to frame it:  "value for signal."


The Value for Signal proposition has been proceeding rather more quietly in the United States up til now.  CBS successfully negotiated a fee for programs with cable operators a few months back.  


Now all that's changing.  In a number of high profile markets (including the one where I'm currently parked, Orlando) carriage agreements expire December 31st.


And FOX is leading a push that might seem very familiar to Canadian viewers of the "Local TV Matters" "Stop the TV Tax" ads of the last several months.


The New York Times has a pretty good article on the lowdown. The upshot is that FOX is pushing for way more than anybody's ever gone for before -- up to a dollar a subscriber.  And that's resulted in a mini-version of the ad campaign Canadians have been seeing for months, catered for every market.


You can see some of the pics I took of the FOX-sponsored ads as they appear in recent editions of the Orlando Sentinel.  Elsewhere in the Times article they have the same ad, purposed for Time Warner Cable.


There are some key intriguing differences in the American-style fight that you have to understand going in, though, too:


1) Nothing's mandatory.   One of the points that the Canadian Cable and Satellite providers raised at the recent hearings that was actually quite valid was that they are required by law to carry the Canadian networks.  So they rightly turned about and said, "you can't make us carry them, and expect us to pay for them."  That would mean cable had no lever to negotiate. The Canadian networks could literally charge whatever they want.  In the U.S. system, cable is not required to carry anybody.  Even though fights like the current one have happened before (though never for so much money - a buck is a big jump) they usually get resolved because there IS pressure to both sides to come to a deal.  Customers want the channel because there's lots of programs on it that they like; cable wants to give the customers what they want so they can retain subscribers and keep their service valuable.

2) Affiliates -- The U.S. networks are a mix of what are called "Owned & Operated" stations and Affiliates.  "O&O's" are exactly what they sound like.  ABC owns several stations in major markets, CBS the same, etc.  Sometimes it's easy to tell, because of the station call letters:  WABC, or KNBC, for instance.  Besides the O&O's though, there is a large network of stations owned by smaller broadcast groups -- who pay to "affiliate" with the network for access to their programming, promotions, etc.  On these stations there are "network hours" where the advertising revenue is split between the nets and the local stations, and local hours, where all the ad money (and the responsibility to fill the airtime) goes to the local stations.  (Ie: local news hours, game shows or syndicated off-network sitcoms, etc.)


As I understand it, Cable started giving money to affiliates to carry their feeds years ago.  And now one of the fronts in the fight is the originating networks asking for some of that money back, since it's their marquee programming that makes those local stations valuable to carry.


In Canada, the nature of the "affiliate" culture went by the wayside a few years ago.  Now Global and CTV, and (mostly) CBC depend on stations that they own outright.  It's a different culture. (Very different, when you consider CTV, who once upon a time had a completely backward structure --  powerful affiliates with an anemic central network)


3) Tone of the ads -- if you're somebody into reading Tea Leaves, this is the most interesting part of the fight. First, in the FOX corner -- look at what they're threatening to pull.  Those are some programs. There really *is* a value to that signal.  


You now start to see the hole that the Canadian nets dug themselves into, after all those years of consolidation, cutting local shows and putting their entire focus on centralized schedules that relied almost completely on American shows.  It's not that framing the debate as "Save Local TV" was the best move. It's that it might have been the ONLY move.


But the difference that really matters is on the Cable side.  Last night I saw a Bright House ad responding to the FOX ads.  You can view the same spot on their website here.  It was calm, reassuring, explained that this was business, and it happened all the time and that nobody's going to lose their signal come New Year's day and they'll reach some sort of agreement just as they always do.   The print ad tries to make the same point, in much the same way.


Notice -- no hysteria, or histrionics, or "Stop the TV tax!" stuff.  (Although Time Warner's got a bit more heft in their RollOverorGetTough.com site...)  They know the value of their product -- and they also know that their business model's way more secure than the Networks' though for the next little while the fortunes are both are inextricably linked. 


Of course, this being the United States, somebody's also figured out a way to sue.


FOX is playing high stakes poker here, and going for a big grab, but the reaction isn't anywhere near as OTT.  I don't know what could possibly explain the cultural difference, except maybe that what we saw in Canada was two industries that are used to going to the CRTC and getting whatever they wanted, in terms of "goodies bestowed" from on high.  Maybe this is one of those cases where you don't pull out the grenade because you know at some point you're gonna have to shake hands and solve it yourselves. And it's harder to shake somebody's hand when you've just blown it off.


Or maybe I'm wrong, neither side will blink, Florida viewers won't get to see the Sugar Bowl, and the Panhandle will be burning by Friday.


Stay tuned -- if you can!


UPDATE:  lookieloo. they have a deal.  See?  It's possible. Think KonRadvF is on the phone yet?

Watching 2.0

HAVE YOU GIVEN any thought to how much "watching TV" has changed for you in the last decade?  Jill Golick has.

BitTorrents arrived on the scene in 2005.  The pilot for Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip got leaked onto the web during the summer of 2006. Remember that first bootleg pre-air of Studio 60 that was passed from writer to writer?  It was so exciting.

That same year,  “pre-airs” flooded the net and we watched nearly the entire American season before it launched.  It so cool.

Around the same time, torrents brought me a whole new world of British tv series.  I  used to feel like I had the contraband watching Shameless, Skins, Jeckyll.   It was like being a global television citizen.  Although, UK, US and Canada hardly a globe makes.  I still haven’t gotten to know much of the Aussie product and there’s that one German cop series that has been discussed and blogs and yet the torrent for it remains elusive.  Still, the world is wider and I imagine that twenty ten will widen it still.

I'm working on a new post that'll go up, oh, um.  Well. Sometime.  Yeah. Sometime.


In the meantime, here's Jill.

Up and Comers

I'M STILL doing the inter-holiday hibernate special. But Cassandra Szklarski, of the Canadian Press has an article about some of the new Canadian shows that are coming up over the next few months.  Szklarski is a regular friend of Canadian creatives in the reporter class -- she's always doing articles like this.  

There may be a chill in the air, but things are heating up on the tube as several new Canadian series prepare to launch in early 2010. From the long-awaited return of the Kids in The Hall to a sexy adaptation of the Giller Prize-winning book "Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures" to a potty-mouthed Jason Priestley, there are plenty of homegrown series on tap for those snowed-in nights.

Good for her. And maybe for us, too. These shows sound pretty offbeat and interesting. Read the rest of the article here.

A Visit from von Finckenstein

(with deep, deep, deep apologies to Clement Clarke Moore)

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house, Not a creature was stirring, Not even a louse.

The cable bill was flung on the ledge with despair

In hopes new antennas would grab HD off air.

Ivan in his kerchief, and Len in his cap

Had settled back down, for their post-hearing nap.

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter

sounded just like that douche yelling "local TV matters."

Away to the window I flew with a shoe

Thought maybe I'd nail the "TV tax" guy too.

The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow,

Gave a sterile appearance quite like Gatineau.

When, what to my wondering eyes did appear,

But a passel of bureaucrats looking severe.

And their driver, so precise and rigid of spine,

I knew in a moment twas von Finckenstein.

He mumbled and shouted in such a great barrage,

saying "value for signal,  not fee for carriage!"

"On Rogers! On Global! You too, CTV!

Bring me solutions, not money for free!"

"To the back rooms! Committees! There's deals to be made!

Throw out an idea, not just a grenade!"

As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,

came reams of paper, a snowstorm in the sky,

Up to the house-top the courses they flew,

With a sleigh full of arguments, and Jim Shaw too.

He was green, with a twinkling, and his face in a pinch

And I knew there and then that this dude was the Grinch.

"Here's what I want," he shook with his fist,

"You better sit down, cause it's quite a long list."

Von Finck whispered nervous, "we should move along,"

But Shaw slapped him back, saying, "this is my song!"

He pawed at my aerial, wrecking the mount, and claimed

that Canadians just couldn't count.

"Let the market decide, stay out of our way! 

But don't dare try to tell us how much they should pay!"

Shaw poked through the sack and found all U.S. shows,

and he shook his green head and said, "Finky, this blows."

Von Finck, how he brooded! Til they forged a detente,

and Finky admitted "well, that's all they want."

"I try to encourage, cajole and yes, shame.

But you know, our broadcasters are unspeakably lame."

The Grinch poked the sack and said, "most of it's junk,"

Von Finck sighed and nodded, said, "and thus, there's my funk."

It was round about now that these two got my goat,

I announced my appearance by clearing my throat.

Their eyes snapped to me and I felt a great dread,

And I wished with each fibre that I'd just stayed in bed,

"Who are you?" They demanded, with no ounce of fear.

"Where's your written remarks and notice to appear?"

I held my ground, said, "I just wish to note,

I know I'm supposed to just work the remote.

But now that you're here, I'll try a new tack,

Can you tell me what's there for me in that sack?"

The Grinch shrugged, and mumbled and von Finck went pale,

Then Shaw booked for a profile from the Globe & Mail.

Relief flooded through me, there'd be no background noise,

From the guy who hawks porn but hates Trailer Park Boys.

I then fixed my gaze on the man of the year,

Hoping his solutions I soon would hear,

But he shook his head sadly and said with a sob,

"Skinny basic? Unbundling? Man I hate my job."

So I patted his head, and offered a snort.

And he admitted he didn't have much to report.

So I said, "I'll be brief. And let's start with a fact.

Are we still trying to follow the broadcasting act?"

His eyes started glazing, and I held up my hand,

Said I'd keep my promise, and make short my demand.

"On gaffer, on seamstress, on writer, and grip,

On actor and P.A. and director so hip,

When we come before you, you seem so polite,

But like we don't really matter, and that, sir, aint right."

For it's we who make things, we haul and make fast.

We don't just sell pipe, or simulcast,

So when you consider a future direction,

Please Santa von Finck, can we have some protection?"

He stared straight ahead and he said not a word,

For a moment the whole thing seemed rather absurd,

Then, in a low voice he said something bold,

"Man." Said von Finck, "is it freaking cold."

So there in the midst of the holiday heather,

Two hosers a-sat, discussing the weather.

The hour grew late, and I ran out of beer,

And the man rose to leave, and I wished him good cheer.

But I heard him exclaim, as he rode out of sight,

"Licence renewals in April! Man will that be a fight."

Happy Holidays everybody. Be safe.  DMc