confused

I'm not sure if any of this means anything. A year or so ago we'd have been cheering the regulator for something like this, but now...? Okay, I guess a cheer is in order for this new CRTC edict to Rogers, which essentially says, "Don't do anything." But the fee for carriage thingie? And all that local programming stuff? I'm confused...and I just don't trust any of 'em.

Gayle MacDonald

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Tuesday, Jul. 07, 2009 05:23PM EDT

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has slapped down a request from Rogers Broadcasting that its CITY-TV stations in Toronto and Vancouver no longer be mandated to air 100 hours of Canadian films a year in prime time.

The decision was greeted enthusiastically yesterday by the country's distributors, who were spitting mad over Rogers's appeal to the federal regulator this spring. They argued the controversial change of licence would snuff out the sale of English-Canadian features to television stations.

“We're thrilled the CRTC has rejected Rogers' request to have the condition of licence to support Canadian films dropped,” said Ted East, president of the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters. “CITY has been a critical partner in financing Canadian films and reaching audiences, and the loss of this support is having a devastating effect on Canadian film.”

East added that sales of Canadian features have ground to a halt since Rogers purchased a total of five CITY-TV stations from CTVglobemedia two years ago. (Sales to television stations represent roughly 40 per cent of the overall TV market for Canadian feature films.)

Susan Wheeler, Rogers Media's vice-president regulatory affairs, said yesterday the company was not surprised that the CRTC insisted on maintaining the status quo, adding, “It's not necessarily decisions that affect only the movie condition licence, [the CRTC] has indicated they have no appetite to change any licence rules for the one year before they will extensively review all specialty and conventional licences in April, 2010.”

The news was overshadowed by another CRTC decision on Monday that gave conventional broadcasters such as Global and CTV a foot in the door in their quest to get cable companies to pay for their signals.

The federal regulator also launched a public proceeding – which will start Sept. 29 in Gatineau, Que. – to develop a new regulatory framework that will give broadcasters greater flexibility to cope with the rapid evolution of the communications industry.

In exchange for that “greater flexibility,” however, East pointed out that the CRTC made clear that it will not be letting the conventional broadcasters ease up on their commitment to making, acquiring and broadcasting high-quality Canadian programming.

“The CRTC told broadcasters it will expect them to make ‘meaningful commitments' to Canadian content,” said East, “and going into the September meetings we are encouraged by that.”

careful

I got a text message from a friend the other day which gave me pause. The previous post in this space (although old news now) had been misinterpreted by more recent business acquaintances as applying to them. That means somebody at the show I just worked on thought my "chemicals" post was in reaction to something that happened there. Nah. Not the case. "Chemicals" applied to something I was engaged in early this spring. The blogosphere has its pitfalls. Misinterpretations like that one not the least among them.

Oh, and sorry I've been inactive here. I carved almost two weeks of semi down-time. I thought I'd be sailing a bit more but the weather got in the way. That's actually a bit of a good thing because I needed to scribble a little director's primer for a friend a colleague (which was harder and more time consuming than I thought). Off to New York on Wednesday, then back in late July to hop into Cra$sh & Burn (formerly: Lawyers, Guns & Money) which I'm thinking might just be the highlight of my year.

Ramping up to rant more in this space too. Stay tuned.

chemicals

Some chemicals mix, others don't.

I've never been in quite this position. The position of having survived a gig, a difficult one for all involved, with so little residual understanding or empathy among the interested parties.

So the chemical reaction was...less than perfect. Once the water makes its way under the bridge shouldn't most people be able to stand up, dust off and get on with it? Apparently not. It's amazing what one email, a somewhat playful airing of views can provoke. Sure, my little tome pushed a few buttons (you'll never see it here) but what I got in return was a dark, tropical storm (you'll never see that here either).

I have been accused of being arrogant three times in my professional life...that I know about. I honestly believe that the arrogance of a director, any director is no arrogance at all. It is a misinterpretation of the necessity to get the fuck on with the job.

I love actors, and for the most part it gets requited. I protect my on-set relationship with them as I would the population of an abandoned orphanage in Tehran. Once I've settled on an approach, disseminated that approach to those holding stakes, I get to the work. In TV I defer to the showrunner. It's their meat I'm cooking, and I'll give it to them anywhere from raw to well done. That's what I believe I'm there for.

Where I go off the rails and start pissing on my territory is when the committee shows up. When the committee diverges from the showrunner I sometimes end up having to pick a side. I never want to, but often it's the only way the thing will get shot.

Nobody wants to give somebody enough rope with which they might be able to hang themselves, and those around them who've sunk in the dough. But neither can the leash be so short as to prevent departure from the dog house.

Because a committee with a hand on too short a leash is only going to piss off the dog.

So, back to the opening lame analogy: chemicals. I don't know if I was the hydrogen peroxide or the sulfuric acid...but this shit blew up real good.

guy

Guy preps pilot.

Guy shoots pilot.

Guy submits director's cut of pilot.

Guy moves on to other gainful employment.

Guy anxiously awaits screening of producer's cut.

Guy gives up on being invited to see producer's cut.

Guy doesn't get called when pilot is mixed.

Guy communicates with genius showrunner who supported him through the ordeal to ask, is it still bad?

Guy waits to see mixed and sweetened version of pilot...the one guy shot.

Guy finally emails producers and reasonably asks for copy of finished pilot.

Guy tries to lift jaw off floor when he's told that he can't see finished pilot because it's being sold in LA and is completely top secret.

Guy finds out five minutes later that said pilot was screened the previous night at WGC.

What the fuck is a guy to do?

snob

Yeah. I'm a goddamn snob.

I want my HBO. I want my TMN.

But I gotta move these refridgerators.

Gotta move these colour TV's.

Doyle and McGrath, provoked by a quote from a Canadian Exec Producer in this past Sunday New York Times, have been duking it out. The "snob" card was played. Flashpoint Executive Producer, Anne Marie La Traverse was quoted in said NYT as follows:

“There’s a snobbery about commercial shows here, among writers particularly,” Ms. La Traverse said. “Everyone dreams of doing a dark HBO series. There’s a resistance.”

“It took us a while to find writers who embraced this shape,” she added, “and wanted to be accessible, relatable, heroic, emotional, all the choices we really wanted to make.”

Umbrage was taken by Mr. McGrath at his DTOS blog follows:

This is frankly, bullshit. And because the rest of the article is so on, a perspective like that can be particularly damaging.

Oooooh...kaaaaay.

Today comes Doyle in the Globe and Mail:

Thing is, La Traverse is correct, as I see it. Yes, many members of the tribe of Canadian TV writers take themselves very, very seriously indeed. They complain constantly. They complain about network executives and producers. They complain that their work is being diluted and diminished by people who are not, you know, artists. They complain about press coverage of their work. They complain about the lack of promotion for their work, often without reason. Most are decent, interesting people, devoted to creating really good television. But some of them make up the biggest chip-on-the-shoulder bunch in the entire arts and entertainment world. There are a few who sneer outright at those Canadian shows that are a commercial success. There are some who are, as La Traverse says, outright snobs.

So, who's right?

Like I said, I'm a snob, so the perception would be that I'd side with McGrath (he did qualify his comments in this posting today). But the reality is I make my living on those network chestnuts. The all things to all people variety. The tres commercial, filled-with-commercials filler between commercials. Hell, I'm a veteran of the Law & Order franchise.

At the same time I get a case of the standing dander whenever I hear about another push for commercial viability at the CBC. The CBC shouldn't be "commercial." It should be THE C-B fucking C. And that means it should be different. It should be ferociously Canadian, ferociously individual and ferociously independent.

See, I've shot Rescue Me too. And that's generally seen as one of those quirky, dark, funny cable shows that all the snobs want a piece of. It ain't Six Feet Under, but Six Feet Under ain't Rescue Me either. I shot a pilot this spring for a Canadian cable channel. A quirky, dark, funny cable pilot. It was fun. I loved it. Know why? It was quirky, dark and funny. Ooooooh, mmmmmm.

But wait; the show now has to satisfy that conglom's free commercial prime time demands now too. Apperently if it doesn't that net will surely go bankrupt. I mean how can a Canadian network on the verge of ruin afford to produce exclusive shows for its different outlets...when it complains to the CRTC that it can't afford to shoot anything Canadian at all? But I digress.

So, I'm a snob and a journeyman. I'm a craftsman and a creative type. I'm a brick and a balloon.

You know what that makes me? It makes me Canadian. I do it because I want to. I also do it because I have to. I find a way to commit, wholeheartedly to whatever I'm doing. And then I try to do my best. This is my love and my living. Wait until somebody calls wrap, then I can make a value judgment on the quality of the material I'm doing. But not before.

I like commercial. And sometimes commercial can be deliciously artsy. I love artsy. But sometimes artsy can be overwhelmingly boring. I do 'em both because I gotta eat.

So in my opinion (a clearly Canadian one at that), nobody's right...and everybody's right. Simple answer is: when you're thinking about it, you commit to what you have and aspire to what you want. And while you're doing it you delight in what you have and aspire to make it better.

Oh, and that show LaTraverse was talking about? I'm in the middle of shooting it now.

And I'm having fun.

heaven-ly

And so the "new" script arrives and...

(insert deep sigh of relief)

...it's such a vast improvement over what preceded it that director has to contain his joy, so as not to appear like a twelve-year-old school girl.

Today

is a good day.

hell-ish

Script purgatory. It's where a director is shackled to a dripping stone wall alongside the skeletons of his peers, unable to move or sometimes even breathe. Director doesn't struggle. Director waits, silently hoping that the powers swirling above him feel the same way he does about the script they've assigned to him. The director hopes that a miracle will occur in the writer's room and out will come a shiny, new script upon which the director can hang his creative hat. Such is director's lot; most of the time the quality of director's work can be chalked up to director's luck with the script rotation.

Script purgatory is fickle, fickle in an impersonal way. SP doesn't choose its victims. It just is. It's like crossing the street; sometimes getting strained through the grille of a Mack truck just happens. Sometimes the rung on a ladder just breaks. Question is, why, on those infrequent occasions when the rung does break, does it always have to be one near the top? Falling toast. Murphy's Law. Bad luck. Nothing personal from script purgatory. Just...purgatory.

Often the swirling powers above have as much say in improving said script as said director does: essentially no say whatsoever. The real devil here is big, bad network. Network wants simplicity...on occasion downright stupidity. And since network (and studio) has signing authority on the cheques, network word can often be seen as gospel.

Purgatory. I'm there. Wish me luck.