Two Sides Of Glee

I get the Glee love, but I don't really get "Glee". It is so fraught with dramatic storytelling problems and repetitive plots that I can't seem to forgive its shortcomings as easy as most people. Plus so many of the songs feel like a dated setlist on karaoke night. So it doesn't really work for me. Or it doesn't work for me on any sort of level beyond a few fun moments per episode, and so far the moments haven't been greater than the whole. And this has been frustrating because I like to understand why a show works for audiences, even if I don't really like the show.

MacLean's Jaime Weinman tweet discussed this last night after I read via The A.V. Club Todd VanDerWerff's review of the Glee season finale HERE wherein Todd ultimately gave the episode and series a thumbs up even though half the review was pointing out all the problems with it. And though I grasped Todd's further assertion that the show really just wants to make you 'feel', Jaime came through today with an excellent post that explained it in terms I could relate to (not that I don't want to or can't feel, but the whole has to track for me in order to do so effectively - comedy and making me laugh is a different fish kettle) and perhaps even coined the phrase 'scattershot' drama.

I’d compare Glee to shows like Family Guy and (on a higher level) 30 Rock, which are from the school of “scattershot comedy.” The basic idea behind that kind of show is to do a comedy with all the boring parts cut out and filled in with more jokes. They’ll barrel through the exposition, conflict, resolution stuff as fast as they possibly can, and make sure that a new joke is coming at us every few seconds. This means certain dramatic/structural values don’t get serviced (plus most of the characters become tiresome freaks). But it also means that there’s something new and entertaining all the time, and we don’t have to sit through dry set-ups in the hope that they’ll pay off with something funny later on.

What Glee is doing is taking that approach, familiar enough in pure comedy, and applying it to episodes that are twice as long, and include elements of scattershot drama. That is, it’s giving us the big juicy dramatic scenes without all the usual build-up, just as other shows (including Glee itself) give us rapid-fire jokes. I guess this isn’t a completely unfamiliar approach; you can also find it in daytime soaps, where the writers are often trying to avoid doing a scene that doesn’t have some big hook to it. But a soap opera scene will often start small and build to the big dramatic moment at the end. Glee doesn’t have time for that, because it’s doing three different shows at once and the scenes are very short. So whatever type of scene they’re doing will start big and end even bigger.

Go read the rest HERE, and thanks Jaime. I still might not understand why viewers are so forgiving, but I better understand what Glee is doing and why.


And on another Glee-related note, check out this interesting piece by Christina Mulligan at the Balkinization site discussing the issue of copyright.

The absence of any mention of copyright law in Glee illustrates a painful tension in American culture. While copyright holders assert that copyright violators are “stealing” their “property,” people everywhere are remixing and recreating artistic works for the very same reasons the Glee kids do — to learn about themselves, to become better musicians, to build relationships with friends, and to pay homage to the artists who came before them. Glee’s protagonists — and the writers who created them — see so little wrong with this behavior that the word ‘copyright’ is never even uttered.

In these days where copyright seems to be on every one's brain, it raises some very interesting points. Read the rest HERE.

The 'Room'

"Sometimes there's a table that everyone sits around, sometimes just a room with comfy chairs and sofas. Sometimes it's in the showrunner's office. Sometimes it's in a clean-and-corporate setting, sometimes it's peeling paint and a window propped open with a book. Personally, I don't care as long as there is enough corkboard space." - Jane Espenson

"If the writers room doesn't work, the show doesn't work. If the show doesn't work, hundreds of people are out of jobs. And that is, at least in my writers room, evermost in our minds — that we are the people who lay the track for the train." - John Rogers

"One of the rules I put in my writers room was Don't Break Anything You Can't Fix. Which is to say, if you don't like an idea I don't want to hear from you unless you can clearly articulate why you don't think it's any good and unless you have something to counter-pitch." - Javier Grillo-Marxuach

"There are two things that a writers room can't live without: caffeine and toys. Caffeine is vital, as you're working yourself into a state of mental exhaustion every day. By about 3:00 in the afternoon, you're ready for a nap. Having toys around the office is an important reminder that the room is supposed to be playful. It helps keeps things light, fun, and imaginative." - Amy Berg

"A safe comfortable place for to think, laugh, cry, gnash, mourn, sulk, joke, mull, curse, spitball, create, destroy, and ultimately break story with others." - Will Dixon


Okay, I'm actually not included in the roundtable with several talented and respected TV writers interviewed by Marc Bernardin for io9, but hey, it's my blog - just throwing in my two cents...nevertheless you can read the above and way many more tasty nuggets of crafty goodness from this most excellent group discussion about the TV writers room and how it runs HERE.

Johnny Mnemironic?

So was scanning today's Twitter headlines and wondering what it means, if anything, to learn from TV/film scribe @jamesmoran that:


...when he was at last night's Streamy Awards (for web series), which reading HERE at Web Series Today were apparently an unmitigated disaster and embarrassment...

In the coming days there will be plenty of finger pointing. However, the award show blunders in no way detract from the work that was supposed to have been honored at the event. The nominees should be proud of what they accomplished, even if the award show designed to honor them treated them like a joke.

...the same morning I read HERE in the Globe & Mail that online revenue for broadcasters and specialty and pay TV companies accounted for a paltry 2.3 per cent of overall advertising revenue in 2009...

"When you contrast the amount of TV revenue … to the online numbers, they are drops in the bucket,” said Brahm Eiley, principal at the research firm. “Even if [online revenues] go up steadily for the next few years, it's not going to do anything for the business.”

...and thus reports of TV's death were greatly exaggerated.


I KNOW we're in a period of transition, and getting ANYTHING not just made but FINANCED for television OR web is going to be a tough slog for next while (because we keep getting told that TV is dead and New Media or Digital Media is the future except that business model is not quite here yet so we don't want to pay for it and yet we don't really want to pay for TV either cuz it's, you know, DEAD), but still...geez...does it really need to be this HARD?

Nice Place To Start Out...

...but I wouldn't expect to have much of a career there.

Denis McGrath has an excellent post up this morning about a number of issues facing the Canadian TV industry...and he makes some great points about how easy it is to get started in this business in this country, but really difficult to keep a career going. Read it HERE.

Nothing we do seems to create anything to build on. Admittedly, a lack of public interest in original home-grown programming combined with an over-reliance on U.S. service work using tax credit rebates and government subsidies doesn't help, but it sure can get demoralizing and frustrating.

Denis also references what has been going down recently out here in Saskatchewan.

If you're not a resident of Saskatchewan, you may not yet be aware of the latest doom n'gloom in the Canadian TV industry. In short, last week, Saskatchewan's only true local station, SCN, was shut down. In addition, the government refused to increase subsidies and tax credits to the province's film industry to help it keep up with other provinces, and an equipment supplier who'd set up shop in Regina is pulling out.

Basically, the entire film & TV production industry in that province is imploding. This is an industry that was built up through a bit of service work, and mainly on the back of Corner Gas. But with that show shuttered, the dollar high & times hard, everything is tumbling together at once.

In Canada, it seems, it is ever thus.

Okay so his facts may be a little off regarding how the industry was built up (believe it or not there was a small but thriving community here before Corner Gas (and Little Mosque, and Renegadepress.com)), but the sentiment is well-intended and well-taken.

I was part of a small group here in Saskatchewan 20 odd years ago that joined SMPIA (Sask Motion Picture Industry Association) and helped lobby for SCN and SaskFILM. And it worked. And then I moved away and more hearty and determined souls pushed and lobbied and got a Tax Credit rebate program and a state of the art Soundstage and numerous other pluses and advantages for this small industry.

It didn't come simply and easily, but it all helped create and maintain a film and TV industry infrastructure that allowed us to tell our stories and be able to get them out there to be seen.

And then the government changed hands and the world had a recession and the film and TV business financing model as we knew it got broke and new media stormed the scene...and here we are today, starting over again it seems.

The abrupt shutting down of the Saskatchewan Communications Network was a shock and deals a serious blow to local film and television, especially for emerging and up and coming filmmakers. Its closure should not go unquestioned and without protest.




Go HERE and show your support for SCN. And if you live in Saskatchewan please get involved and join SMPIA to help your voice be heard, but not to try to get the old SCN back. Seriously. That horse has left the stable. We need to move forward and push for a new local network or "broadcaster" (however that will be defined in near future) that not only encompasses digital strategy and delivers local/regional programming to the province, but also has the ability to trigger investment from the likes of federal agencies like Telefilm and the Canada Media Fund. THAT needs to be the next "lobbying" agenda.

Getting off soapbox now. Spring has sprung and I'm going outside to try to enjoy it.

I hope you can enjoy your day too.

LETTERS FROM MAMET

This is basically just a cut, lift, and paste (courtesy Kevin Parnell) from Karen Walton's Ink Canada facebook group discussion board. It's a letter David Mamet purportedly sent his writers on the TV series The Unit a few years back. And even though it's mostly advice he's relayed previously in books like On Directing Film I'm a bit of a Mamet groupie, so um...read, absorb, and enjoy. The ALL CAPS can make it seem like you're being lectured or shouted at, but still... screenwriting crafty goodness.


TO THE WRITERS OF THE UNIT

GREETINGS.

AS WE LEARN HOW TO WRITE THIS SHOW, A RECURRING PROBLEM BECOMES CLEAR.

THE PROBLEM IS THIS: TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN *DRAMA* AND NON-DRAMA. LET ME BREAK-IT-DOWN-NOW.

EVERYONE IN CREATION IS SCREAMING AT US TO MAKE THE SHOW CLEAR. WE ARE TASKED WITH, IT SEEMS, CRAMMING A SHITLOAD OF *INFORMATION* INTO A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

OUR FRIENDS. THE PENGUINS, THINK THAT WE, THEREFORE, ARE EMPLOYED TO COMMUNICATE *INFORMATION* — AND, SO, AT TIMES, IT SEEMS TO US.

BUT NOTE:THE AUDIENCE WILL NOT TUNE IN TO WATCH INFORMATION. YOU WOULDN’T, I WOULDN’T. NO ONE WOULD OR WILL. THE AUDIENCE WILL ONLY TUNE IN AND STAY TUNED TO WATCH DRAMA.

QUESTION:WHAT IS DRAMA? DRAMA, AGAIN, IS THE QUEST OF THE HERO TO OVERCOME THOSE THINGS WHICH PREVENT HIM FROM ACHIEVING A SPECIFIC, *ACUTE* GOAL.

SO: WE, THE WRITERS, MUST ASK OURSELVES *OF EVERY SCENE* THESE THREE QUESTIONS.

1) WHO WANTS WHAT?
2) WHAT HAPPENS IF HER DON’T GET IT?
3) WHY NOW?

THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE LITMUS PAPER. APPLY THEM, AND THEIR ANSWER WILL TELL YOU IF THE SCENE IS DRAMATIC OR NOT.

IF THE SCENE IS NOT DRAMATICALLY WRITTEN, IT WILL NOT BE DRAMATICALLY ACTED.

THERE IS NO MAGIC FAIRY DUST WHICH WILL MAKE A BORING, USELESS, REDUNDANT, OR MERELY INFORMATIVE SCENE AFTER IT LEAVES YOUR TYPEWRITER. *YOU* THE WRITERS, ARE IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE *EVERY* SCENE IS DRAMATIC.

THIS MEANS ALL THE “LITTLE” EXPOSITIONAL SCENES OF TWO PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD. THIS BUSHWAH (AND WE ALL TEND TO WRITE IT ON THE FIRST DRAFT) IS LESS THAN USELESS, SHOULD IT FINALLY, GOD FORBID, GET FILMED.

IF THE SCENE BORES YOU WHEN YOU READ IT, REST ASSURED IT *WILL* BORE THE ACTORS, AND WILL, THEN, BORE THE AUDIENCE, AND WE’RE ALL GOING TO BE BACK IN THE BREADLINE.

SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE THE SCENE DRAMATIC. IT IS NOT THE ACTORS JOB (THE ACTORS JOB IS TO BE TRUTHFUL). IT IS NOT THE DIRECTORS JOB. HIS OR HER JOB IS TO FILM IT STRAIGHTFORWARDLY AND REMIND THE ACTORS TO TALK FAST. IT IS *YOUR* JOB.

EVERY SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. THAT MEANS: THE MAIN CHARACTER MUST HAVE A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, PRESSING NEED WHICH IMPELS HIM OR HER TO SHOW UP IN THE SCENE.

THIS NEED IS WHY THEY *CAME*. IT IS WHAT THE SCENE IS ABOUT. THEIR ATTEMPT TO GET THIS NEED MET *WILL* LEAD, AT THE END OF THE SCENE,TO *FAILURE* – THIS IS HOW THE SCENE IS *OVER*. IT, THIS FAILURE, WILL, THEN, OF NECESSITY, PROPEL US INTO THE *NEXT* SCENE.

ALL THESE ATTEMPTS, TAKEN TOGETHER, WILL, OVER THE COURSE OF THE EPISODE, CONSTITUTE THE *PLOT*.

ANY SCENE, THUS, WHICH DOES NOT BOTH ADVANCE THE PLOT, AND STANDALONE (THAT IS, DRAMATICALLY, BY ITSELF, ON ITS OWN MERITS) IS EITHER SUPERFLUOUS, OR INCORRECTLY WRITTEN.

YES BUT YES BUT YES BUT, YOU SAY: WHAT ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF WRITING IN ALL THAT “INFORMATION?”

AND I RESPOND “*FIGURE IT OUT*” ANY DICKHEAD WITH A BLUESUIT CAN BE (AND IS) TAUGHT TO SAY “MAKE IT CLEARER”, AND “I WANT TO KNOW MORE *ABOUT* HIM”.

WHEN YOU’VE MADE IT SO CLEAR THAT EVEN THIS BLUESUITED PENGUIN IS HAPPY, BOTH YOU AND HE OR SHE *WILL* BE OUT OF A JOB.

THE JOB OF THE DRAMATIST IS TO MAKE THE AUDIENCE WONDER WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. *NOT* TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT JUST HAPPENED, OR TO*SUGGEST* TO THEM WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

ANY DICKHEAD, AS ABOVE, CAN WRITE, “BUT, JIM, IF WE DON’T ASSASSINATE THE PRIME MINISTER IN THE NEXT SCENE, ALL EUROPE WILL BE ENGULFED IN FLAME”

WE ARE NOT GETTING PAID TO *REALIZE* THAT THE AUDIENCE NEEDS THIS INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THE NEXT SCENE, BUT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WRITE THE SCENE BEFORE US SUCH THAT THE AUDIENCE WILL BE INTERESTED IN WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

YES BUT, YES BUT YES *BUT* YOU REITERATE.

AND I RESPOND *FIGURE IT OUT*.

*HOW* DOES ONE STRIKE THE BALANCE BETWEEN WITHHOLDING AND VOUCHSAFING INFORMATION? *THAT* IS THE ESSENTIAL TASK OF THE DRAMATIST. AND THE ABILITY TO *DO* THAT IS WHAT SEPARATES YOU FROM THE LESSER SPECIES IN THEIR BLUE SUITS.

FIGURE IT OUT.

START, EVERY TIME, WITH THIS INVIOLABLE RULE: THE *SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC*. it must start because the hero HAS A PROBLEM, AND IT MUST CULMINATE WITH THE HERO FINDING HIM OR HERSELF EITHER THWARTED OR EDUCATED THAT ANOTHER WAY EXISTS.

LOOK AT YOUR LOG LINES. ANY LOGLINE READING “BOB AND SUE DISCUSS…” IS NOT DESCRIBING A DRAMATIC SCENE.

PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR OUTLINES ARE, GENERALLY, SPECTACULAR. THE DRAMA FLOWS OUT BETWEEN THE OUTLINE AND THE FIRST DRAFT.

THINK LIKE A FILMMAKER RATHER THAN A FUNCTIONARY, BECAUSE, IN TRUTH, *YOU* ARE MAKING THE FILM. WHAT YOU WRITE, THEY WILL SHOOT.

HERE ARE THE DANGER SIGNALS. ANY TIME TWO CHARACTERS ARE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.

ANY TIME ANY CHARACTER IS SAYING TO ANOTHER “AS YOU KNOW”, THAT IS, TELLING ANOTHER CHARACTER WHAT YOU, THE WRITER, NEED THE AUDIENCE TO KNOW, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.

DO *NOT* WRITE A CROCK OF SHIT. WRITE A RIPPING THREE, FOUR, SEVEN MINUTE SCENE WHICH MOVES THE STORY ALONG, AND YOU CAN, VERY SOON, BUY A HOUSE IN BEL AIR *AND* HIRE SOMEONE TO LIVE THERE FOR YOU.

REMEMBER YOU ARE WRITING FOR A VISUAL MEDIUM. *MOST* TELEVISION WRITING, OURS INCLUDED, SOUNDS LIKE *RADIO*. THE *CAMERA* CAN DO THE EXPLAINING FOR YOU. *LET* IT. WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERS *DOING* -*LITERALLY*. WHAT ARE THEY HANDLING, WHAT ARE THEY READING. WHAT ARE THEY WATCHING ON TELEVISION, WHAT ARE THEY *SEEING*.

IF YOU PRETEND THE CHARACTERS CANT SPEAK, AND WRITE A SILENT MOVIE, YOU WILL BE WRITING GREAT DRAMA.

IF YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF OF THE CRUTCH OF NARRATION, EXPOSITION,INDEED, OF *SPEECH*. YOU WILL BE FORGED TO WORK IN A NEW MEDIUM - TELLING THE STORY IN PICTURES (ALSO KNOWN AS SCREENWRITING)

THIS IS A NEW SKILL. NO ONE DOES IT NATURALLY. YOU CAN TRAIN YOURSELVES TO DO IT, BUT YOU NEED TO *START*.

I CLOSE WITH THE ONE THOUGHT: LOOK AT THE *SCENE* AND ASK YOURSELF “IS IT DRAMATIC? IS IT *ESSENTIAL*? DOES IT ADVANCE THE PLOT?

ANSWER TRUTHFULLY.

IF THE ANSWER IS “NO” WRITE IT AGAIN OR THROW IT OUT. IF YOU’VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS, CALL ME UP.

LOVE, DAVE MAMET
SANTA MONICA 19 OCTO 05

(IT IS *NOT* YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW THE ANSWERS, BUT IT IS YOUR, AND MY, RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW AND TO *ASK THE RIGHT Questions* OVER AND OVER. UNTIL IT BECOMES SECOND NATURE. I BELIEVE THEY ARE LISTED ABOVE.)


Good stuff.

PS: I also liked Peter Mitchell's advice in the Ink Canada comments:

"Here's a super simple trick. Once you've written a scene or a script look for the "question marks" after each character's speech. Is the question being asked so that the other person in the scene can provide exposition. if so, consider revising it so the "exposition" comes as a declarative statement rather than an answer."


Excellent.

Own The Prejudice

Springboarding off DMc's most excellent Gold Is Everywhere post yesterday and some tweets that made me go: "Hmmm..." (also from yesterday, courtesy @camdocorg, @klashton27, @gregobr, and yours truly)













Not long ago my kids were watching Family Channel... Naturally Sadie was on I think...and at some point my daughter shook her head and said, "Ugh!" I asked what was wrong, and she muttered something about how much the show bugged her. And I mentioned it was Canadian-made, and her eyes lit up and she exclaimed: "Well no wonder it sucks!" My son agreed wholeheartedly.

When queried as to why they felt this way, they referred to the same vague criticisms that I've heard from other "regular folks" over the years - the lighting or sound seems different...the acting is kinda lame...the jokes or the writing isn't that good....it's just too earnest or serious or stupid even. And conversely, when I pointed out to them that a few shows they did enjoy (Life With Derek, 6Teen) were homegrown, they seemed at first surprised and then almost disappointed, like their image of said programs was now tainted or spoiled.

Where did this negative attitude come from? It's not like I gather the kids round the dinner table each night and teach them the glorious ways of the American television broadcasting model whilst puhshawing and spitting upon that which is Made In Canada. How had this come to pass?

So I pressed the issue, and this is what my kids told me... 1) since our prime time schedules are primarily made up of US imports and that constitutes "the norm", the few shows we do make stand out and are more open to scrutiny and attack. The other thing I heard from them was... 2) the lack of promotion, or more like the over-promotion of US import shows on our networks made our Canadian series, again, stand out as being unworthy or certainly less worthy of a show to get behind and support and, god forbid, enjoy.

This has created a stigma. A negative image of and lack of pride for our homegrown programs. And that stigma breeds prejudice against them.

Now, imagine if you will, our prime time schedules filled with homegrown sitcoms and comedy shows and cop and doctor and lawyer shows and singing and dancing and dating/Bachelor-like competitions.... and then a couple of times a week you had a House or a 30 Rock slotted in. What if that was "the norm" - do you think the anti-Canadian TV show stigma would still be so prevalent? I don't.

And as for promotion, 1.9 million tuned in for the premieres of Hiccups and Dan For Mayor last Monday night. Those are some huge numbers by Canadian standards. And just as importantly, the numbers stayed constant throughout the hour...as in, people didn't just tune in for the first 5 minutes and then click away. They stuck around. And this was aided immensely by the fact that CTV promoted the shit out of them throughout their coverage of the Winter Olympics.

Look, I know bad is bad and good is good, no matter where shows are produced. The viewer is the ultimately decider. And the shows we make have to engage and entertain when they get to air, that's our job and responsibility as creators and makers of Canadian TV. We need to deliver with gold...much like how many of our Canadian athletes delivered with gold medal performances in Vancouver recently. But in order to do that we need the support and backing and yes, money, from the Canadian TV networks and funding agencies in order to make them as good as they can be using the finest talent this country has to offer. And our shows also need to be promoted as worthy of the general public's time and attention. Positive promotion creates value and pride which in turn reduces negative stigmas and prejudice.

Coming full circle, during the Olympics I asked my daughter if she would watch Hiccups and Dan For Mayor. She shrugged and said they weren't really her cup of tea, but she might check them out. I reminded her that they were both Canadian shows. And she thought a minute and then shrugged and said that didn't matter because "...they looked alright."

We aren't born with prejudice already inside us - it is taught. And in the case of Canadian TV it isn't overt and obvious teaching like via parents or church sermons or teachers in classrooms, but in a more subtle subversive manner...like making so few homegrown shows, the lack of promotion for them, the ghetto time slots, and pandering reviewers: "It's not bad, for a Canadian show."

Teach our kids differently - show them more homegrown shows, promote them accordingly, and the stigma will be removed. And maybe we in the Canadian TV industry can also own the podium.

Getting Educated In Creativity

A teacher asked a little girl what she was drawing and the little girl said: "I'm drawing a picture of God." And the teacher said: "But no one knows what God looks like." And the little girl replied: "They will in a minute."


TED talks are great. Some mind-blowing. Others thought-provoking. But always inspiring.

This one from Sir Ken Robinson has been around for a while but I just watched it recently and really liked it. Please, enjoy.




One part I found interesting was when Robinson says, and I'm paraphrasing... "The extraordinary evidence and variety and range of creativity here has put us in the place where we have no idea what is going to happen, in terms of future, no idea."

And then today over at Alex Epstein's blog I watched this lecture by Jesse Schell about creativity and future possibilities in the gaming world and thought: Wow...could that be the future? And if so, where does conventional and traditional TV/movie storytelling fit into it all? What the hell should I be doing?

PC Games - E3 2010 - Guitar Hero 5

We may not quite know right now, but I betcha we will in a minute.

I'm On A Horse, Or Am I?

Great ad, but can you spot the CGI?

Watch this behind the scenes about the making of the commercial...you'll be surprised how little computer graphic imaging there actually was.




Which brings me to today's "Thing that makes you go hmmm..." Since so many of our movies, TV shows, advertisements, etc. now use liberal amounts of CGI relatively seamlessly, does it really matter if it was done live or 'in post' anymore?

Dreaming In Blog

So just had a dream, mostly made up of me searching a large city park for a children's baseball that was missing (by children's baseball I mean one that still had some weight, but was smaller and had a soft-ish exterior). Not sure if I found the ball or not, but at one point I went past an outdoor cafe and see Jim Henshaw sitting with some woman. What was strange was in my brain I said "Hey it's Jim!" but in my dream I ducked behind a tree and then tried to slip around the back of the establishment...but it didn't work, because there was a payphone there and Jim was somehow now talking on it and he waved at me and I was busted and so had to come over to him.

So Jim's on the phone trying to finish a call and this kinda creepy guy holding a small knife makes his way over to us and asks to use the phone and I say he's gotta wait until Jim's finished and then the creepy guy jabs the knife into his leg...and I'm like: "Shit man, what are you doing?!" and he's like: "I need help." And then I notice creepy guy has knife puncture holes in his arms and his chest and his neck and they're all trickling blood and so I tap Jim and gesture at creepy guy and Jim nods and finishes up his call and hangs up and I tell creepy guy to call for some assistance.

Anyway, I told you that dream to tell you this one. No, not really.

So Jim and I go back to his table in the cafe and the woman is gone and Jim proceeds to tell me about his phone call and how it was with a producer from the US or UK or somewhere who wanted to come shoot here in Canada but didn't understand how it was possible for him to get so much tax credit rebate money since his project was written by a foreigner and he wanted to bring a lot of his own crew and Jim said he explained to the producer that depending on the new Canada Media Fund guidelines when they're released the project could maybe get CMF money even with a foreign writer and might be able to cast some foreign star actors in the lead roles and still get Telefilm funding and the foreign producer was like: "That's insane!" and Jim was like: "I know!" and I was like shaking my head and all: "I know! Insane! Tell me about it!"

And then Jim said the foreign producer asked how we all make a living over here and Jim said he wasn't sure anymore....with line producer fees mostly. And then we sat there for a moment sipping mint juleps, and then I asked: "So what are you gonna do?" And Jim replied: "I'm not sure, but it'll make a great blog post!" And I was like: "It will! Because listening to you retell the phone conversation sounded exactly like another one of our industry is fucked up blog posts!" And Jim nodded. We both seemed very pleased with ourselves, and then we high-fived each other or something. And then I woke up.

The end.

Fetch Me A Coffee Every Time I Clap My Hands...Run!

Things are slow-ish. Spirits are low-ish. Not to mention it's February.

Time for some Charlie Brooker.




Ahhh. That's better.

F*ck. Me. Gently. Please?

Acting. Auditioning. So hard. So so so hard.

I wrote a post a few years ago entitled But Would You F*ck Him? using a scene from James L Brooks' film I'll Do Anything to relate some of the harsh realities of the casting process...but Ken Levine takes the same topic and hits it out of the park in a recent entry entitled, not coincidentally, Guys Are Not Going To Want To F**k Her.

For example:

Your agent submits your name. The casting director may not think you’re right or not be a fan and you’re dead. Assuming you’re over that hurdle you’re invited in to read. There usually are a hundred or more actors reading for every role. Great odds, huh? In these initial sessions you’re usually reading for a committee – the writer/producers, the pod producers, a couple of studio representatives. All you need is one of them to not like you and you’re toast. And by “not like” that could mean “too tall”, “good but we’ve seen him in things”, “he was my waiter last week at the Daily Grill and was terrible”, and “guys are not going to want to fuck her”.

It gets better. Or worse, depending on your prospective.

You can hit it out of the park and still not get the part. The network president may be partial to a name on his golden list. He may have no ability to judge talent. He may not want to fuck you.

By some miracle he likes you. But there’s a hang-up. He still wants a bigger name. So you hold your breath while the producers make an eleventh hour plea to Paula Marshall. She passes. They settle for … I mean “cast” you.

You’re in, right? Not so fast.

During the week of production there are network table readings and runthroughs. You could get fired at any one of them. And it’s not necessarily your fault. The material could be awful, the director gave you bad direction, they never really wanted you in the first place.

Yeow. The line that resonates the most with me is..."They settle for - I mean *cast* you." With just about every writing or directing job I've gotten I've felt like they *settled* for me. Maybe we creative types always feel that way. Or maybe 'they' always do settle. Who knows.

Anyway go read all of Mr. Levine's post HERE. It's a classic.

Jesus Is Not A Zombie

I shouldn't have to tell you that.

Find below an excerpt from a VERY LONG transcript from the keynote speech that buddy Hart Hanson gave at a 'Future of Story' conference in Edmonton last weekend. And there's some of that, the future of story stuff...but mostly it's Hart just being funny and talking about creating and running Bones or TV writers vs. Artists or writing for mass audiences and so on and so forth. Check it out...very entertaining stuff.

HART: I thought what I’d do is show you a couple things, a couple values, that we put up on the screen in Bones, and discuss, and sort of point out how one deals with the values and hopes to gain a mass audience without completely and utterly writing Sunday School tripe. My apologies to all Sunday School teachers here. Heather, could we run the next…

Clip:
Booth: Voodoo, who’s going to believe that stuff?
Brennan: It’s a religion, no crazier than… what are you?
Booth: Catholic.
Brennan: They believe in the same saints you do, and prayer. What they call spells, you call miracles. They have priests.
Booth: We don’t make zombies.
Brennan: Jesus rose from the dead after three days.
Booth: Jesus is not a zombie. I shouldn’t have to tell you that.


HART: Of all the lines I’ve gotten on American television, “Jesus is not a zombie.” I’m so proud. I was amazed that it went by Standards & Practices.

The States, that culture is a very, very religious culture these days. It’s… a significant amount of it is very fundamentalist. My lead character is an atheist. The female character is a scientist and an atheist. The value that we were talking about there is faith. Not to get too personal, but I tend more toward her than him. I’m a little cranky about religion these days, since about 9/11.

So I put a lot of what I think into Brennan’s mouth. But in the end, because Bones is mass entertainment, the spiritual, religious man gets the last word. Okay, it’s a little subversive to say that Jesus is a zombie. But you know what, Jesus was a zombie – three days […] and then he went and scared people!

We get a lot of mail about Brennan’s offensive statements about God, the pope… I don’t know if anyone watches the show a lot… I make a lot of fun of the pope’s hat, and I treasure every one of them. The funny thing to me is that the same letters will say, “Thank goodness Booth was there to set you straight.” And it’s like, I wrote that, too! Apparently, I’m writing the atheist, but Jesus is writing Booth.


Jesus is writing Booth....nice!


Check out Hart's entire talkey speechey thing plus the q&a HERE.

I've Got ADD (Assistant Director Diagrams)

Two circles may intersect in two imaginary points, a single degenerate point, or two distinct points. The combined area of sets A and B is called the union of A and B, denoted by A ∪ B. The area in both A and B, where the two sets overlap, is called the intersection of A and B, denoted by A ∩ B. If the circles intersect in two points, the line connecting their two points of intersection is called the radical line.

In the following example, the 'radical line' would be the Assistant Director.




A Venn-like diagram to help explain film production. I like it. A lot.



Diagram courtesy On-set With An Indie Film Junkie

Everybody Needs A Copilot

This will only mean anything if you've seen Up In The Air, which I liked a lot, but man oh man....depressing. George Clooney plays hatchet man Ryan Bingham who flies around the country firing people for bosses that don't have the balls to do it themselves. But he also gives motivational speaking engagements...we're talking major Tony Robbins shit, as he puts it. And the film opens with Bingham in the middle of one of these presentations, standing at a lectern in front of dozens of attentive listeners. And while I was watching the film, and this scene specifically, I wondered: What if Up In The Air’s Ryan Bingham was the TV series writer’s answer to Robert McKee?

It might go something like this.


How much does your draft weigh?

Imagine for a second you’re carrying your story in a backpack...I want you to feel the straps on your shoulders...you feel them?

Now I want you to pack it with all the tricks you have in your writer’s toolkit. Start with the little things. The premise and the overview. The set up and the exposition. Inciting incident and complication. Feel the weight as it adds up. Now start adding the larger stuff. Your beats, plot points, rising action, resolution, your climax. That backpack should be getting pretty heavy at this point – go bigger. Your B-story, your act breaks, the cat you want to save...stuff it all in. Your theme...get it in there. Your structure – whether you have five act television pilot or a two part to-be-continued, I want you to stuff it into that backpack.

Now try to write.

Kinda hard, isn’t it? This is what we series TV writers do to ourselves on a daily basis. We weigh ourselves down with so many story possibilities we get blocked and can’t move. And make no mistake – in TV, moving your fingers fast on the keyboard is living.

Now I’m going to set your backpack on fire. What do you want to take out of it? Plot? Plots are for people who can’t remember how to feel. Drink some glingko and let the plot burn. In fact, let everything burn and imagine waking up the next morning with nothing.

It’s kind of exhilarating isn’t it? That’s how I approach every episode rewrite.

Okay, this is where it gets a little difficult, but stay with me. You have the same story, but a new backpack...and this time, I want you to fill it with characters. Start with bit parts, walk on’s, friends of friends and passersby, and work your way to the people your main character trusts with their most intimate secrets. First, the secondary characters – relatives, best friends, co-workers, colleagues, and relatives...get them all into that backpack. And finally your main character’s husband or wife or boyfriend or girlfriend. Get them in there too.

Don’t worry. I’m not going to ask you to light it on fire.

Feel the weight of that bag. Make no mistake, your main characters’ relationships are the heaviest components of your TV screenplay. Feel the straps cutting into your shoulders. All those negotiations and arguments and dilemmas and secrets. But all that conflict equals drama. And drama equals story.

Now set that bag down. You don’t need to carry all that weight. But your episodic screenplay does. And if you have to rewrite a draft fast, let your characters show you the way.

Some animals were meant to carry each other. To live symbiotically over a lifetime. Star-crossed lovers. Monogamous swans. We are not one of those animals. The slower we move, the faster we die. We are not swans. We’re sharks.

We’re TV writers.





EDIT: Having just read the ugly arbitration backstory between Jason Reitman and original screenwriter Sheldon Turner regarding this screenplay, I now wonder how the above speech may have sounded if it was given by Turner. And the backstory certainly gives new meaning to the 'needing a copilot' line

Quintuple Lavender

"We'll fix it in post." -- the five most expensive words EVER!

This Hitler clip has been used a zillion times, but you gotta love it being used as the setting for the final production meeting of the TV series Cra$h & Burn's first season.




And if you play in the Canadian TV series sandbox, there's the added bonus of recognizing some of the names involved with the show. Big tip of hat to writers J. May and J. Beasley and editors G. Tucker and T. Seaborn...bang on good.

Also should mention clip was found on a new Facebook Group 'Overheard On Set'. Check it out. Funny!

This Is Not A Challenge, This Is An Opportunity

When you make your living as a creative freelancer, you're constantly getting asked to work on spec, as in: "Could you do this for us and if we get any traction there will be some work/money in it for you down the road." The future employment, that's always the carrot dangled in front of your nose.

And when you're starting out, you do need to take on some of those freebies. Because you need to get noticed. Because you need to show what you've got. Because you need to start building professional relationships. But the problem so many of us face is that even after doing it successfully for years, decades even, you'll still get the "We've got no money, but could you whip something up?" calls.

The following are two Friday Fun examples of what you wish you could say instead of "Sure thing. I'll get right on it." They're from the worlds of advertising and graphic design, but they absolutely apply to screenwriting or making TV.

The first is a hilarious e-mail exchange between David Thorne and a prospective client. It's from Thorne's website 27b/6 .

An excerpt:

From: Simon Edhouse
Date: Tuesday 17 November 2009 4.10pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Logo Design

Anyone else would be able to see the opportunity I am presenting but not you. You have to be a f*cking smart arse about it. All I was asking for was a logo and a few pie charts which would have taken you a few f*cking hours.


From: David Thorne
Date: Tuesday 17 November 2009 4.25pm
To: Simon Edhouse
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Logo Design

Dear Simon

Actually, you were asking me to design a logotype which would have taken me a few hours and fifteen years experience. For free. With pie charts. Usually when people don't ask me to design them a logo, pie charts or website, I, in return, do not ask them to paint my apartment, drive me to the airport, represent me in court or whatever it is they do for a living. Unfortunately though, as your business model consists entirely of "Facebook is cool, I am going to make a website just like that", this non exchange of free services has no foundation as you offer nothing of which I wont ask for.

Regards, David.


Go read the rest of the transcript HERE, with pie charts and everything. Simply brilliant.



The other example is in the same vein and pretty self explanatory. And pretty funny.




Because they make me smile.


H/T Matt MacLennan H/T Jay Robertson

Film Director Gets Schooled In TV

The CRTC hearings are melting my brain, so it was a nice diversion to read this entry from director Justin Lin, mostly known for directing features (The Fast And The Furious: Tokyo Drift, Fast & Furious), relating his first foray into directing television on the comedy series Community.

Going in, I had some preconceptions of shooting in television. I had heard that TV moves much faster than feature productions. And since I came from the indie world, I thought I’d be used to it. But the reality is that TV is like shooting an indie film on steroids but with a studio and network right there with you. Forget Jenny Craig, if you want to really lose weight go shoot a TV show. Not only is time money, you better go in knowing what you want because things will shift and if you don’t know the core of what you’re trying to achieve, you’re in trouble because you’ll have no time to figure it out.

Before we go on I want to make sure I don’t overstate the position of the episodic director. In feature land the director is like Magic Johnson (and for you kids Lebron James). But in TV land the episodic director is like Michael Cooper (or Anderson Varejao). The creator and the writers are what drive the engine. The director of the pilot establishes a visual style and tone for the show. The actors are responsible for crafting and honing their characters as they grow from episode to episode. The job of the episodic director is to come in, learn as fast as possible the essence of various aspects of the show and deliver them within the confines of the specific episode without hopefully missing a beat.

Lin then goes onto say something very interesting.

The other thing I learned is that television is the one lone standing medium where one has to earn their way. This might sound obvious but we do live in an era now where anyone can pick up a camera and proclaim themselves a “filmmaker”. They can’t do that in TV.

In feature world as long as one can get their hands on funding or equipment they can set out to tell a story. There’s no way a person can come in and be a writer or create a show without some body of work to back them up. A feature film production can average two to three pages (about two to three screen minutes) a day but in TV it’s doubled most of the time. In feature world filmmakers spend usually at least a year to complete two hours of film but in TV they have to produce eleven hours of quality content for a half hour show in about 25 weeks. There is independent cinema but there’s no such thing as independent television.

In Canadian TV try triple the page count a day!

Speaking from experience, I couldn't agree more. It was a serious 'holy crap' slap in the face moment moving from independent movie/one-off production to the careening almost out of control train that is series TV...first as a director then as a writer/producer. The 'reality' vs. the preconception was almost overwhelming. Note I say 'almost' - you either embrace it or avoid it. I embraced it.

But when I teach film and TV production or screenwriting, I always feel like the students leave class never really grasping much less appreciating how massive an undertaking it is to write, produce, shoot, edit, and get to air a season of a TV series. The crew and cast may be the same size, but the fact that production goes on and on for the better part of a year while delivering the equivalent of ten or twenty quality feature films, it's near impossible to execute and deliver without an experienced leader and qualified team who have battled through the gauntlet time and time again. Not to negate the work involved in producing a feature film, but Lin speaks the truth...getting a feature made doesn't ever really prepare you for the making of a TV series.

Though there's many in the feature world that would like you to believe otherwise.

Read the rest of Lin's post HERE.

Directing TV...By The Numb3rs

Other than the pilot (I always try to view every pilot when they air), I'd never really watched the TV series Numb3rs...until about a month ago. I was flipping and an episode was just starting and I found myself pausing and then found myself watching and then still watching and then it was over. And it wasn't bad. Sure, I didn't get the major buzz 'must watch again' feeling I got when I first watched The Sopranos or Six Feet Under or Lost or Dexter or Breaking Bad...but I enjoyed it for what it was (in a CBS Friday night prime time mathematician detective procedural kinda way), and that's since prompted me to watch a few more episodes.

Anyhow this all led me to cross paths with series writer and co-creator Cheryl Heuton on Twitter, who then pointed me toward one of the series' regular directors Stephen Gyllenhaal also on Twitter, which led me to a series of behind the scenes 'making of' videos produced by Mr. Gyllenhaal that he's been POSTING HERE on his blog.

They're just snippets, moving snapshots if you will, of the process of prepping and directing a one hour of network television, but well worth watching.

A taste:


Creating the Show




The Script




Rehearsing A Scene




Producing the Episode



"My job is to keep you on schedule."


Very true. Because at the end of the day yes it is about the show and making a good episode, but it's also about the numb3rs.


Lots more to watch HERE, go check them out.

Jump Right In...It's *Your* Story

Sure it's kinda spoofy and a little over the top, but this post from TV writer/producer Richard Manning still captures the essence of excitement/pain blend that a freelance screenwriter experiences when trying to successfully navigate a television series' Writer's Room.

Mary Sue’s successful pitch: “Griff and Angela [the series leads] must mind-link with K’Vax [their sentient, female, wisecracking spaceship] after a radioactive nebula erases K’Vax’s memories.”

There was more to her pitch – such as the mind-link forcing the aloof Griff and Angela to confront their true feelings about one another – but Mary Sue never got that far; Sam had interrupted. “Good hook, but amnesia’s soft. Needs more jeopardy. Hey! What if the nebula turns K’Vax evil? And she tries to kill everybody on board! So it’s dangerous for Griff and Angela to go into her mind; they might never come out. Terrific pitch! Sold!”

Mary Sue was ecstatic. “Great! I’ll write up an outline –”

“We don’t do outlines. We – me and the writing staff – break all our stories in the room. Once we get the structure down, you go off and write the script. Come in Tuesday at nine. Bring in a beat sheet. Not an outline, just the big moves. Some rough act breaks. Keep it simple. One page, tops, just to get things started.”

And so it begins…

9:00 am Tuesday. A punctual Mary Sue happily looks around her first Writers’ Room. Cheap, mismatched “executive” chairs surround a coffee-stained table strewn with old magazines, food wrappers, a Slinky, a broken water pistol, various Rubik’s-type puzzles, and other toys. The walls are a crazy quilt of actors’ headshots, set blueprints, costume design sketches, test photos of alien prosthetics… and three large whiteboards.

Two are covered with multicolored scrawls, circles, arrows, renumbering, and crossouts – the story beats for Episodes 5 and 6, in impenetrable shorthand: “5. BRIDGE: G + A expo. K ng 10 min no Froonium. H/L payoff? AB: J zapped.” The third is frighteningly blank – a naked canvas awaiting a plot.

I've been there. It's confusing, terrifying, intimidating, and exhilarating all at the same time.

Read THE ENTIRE POST HERE.

Talent Assumed Of Course

A NICE SUMMARY HERE of a panel on TV Development at the Austin Film Fest starring “Lost” co-creator Damon Lindelof, “Freaks and Geeks” creator Paul Feig, and late-night comedy writer Chuck Sklar.

A taste:

On writing “safe”: “Nobody knows what safe is,” Lindelof said. “If anybody knew, there would be no pilots and no failures. People are always asking me, ‘Do you have another “Lost” in you?’ That completely ignores that (‘Lost’) was a fluke. People are always saying something is the the next ‘blank’ to create an illusion of safety.

“The public and television executives all say ‘we want something new,’ but (the executives) anesthetize it — make it the same,” he added. “If you can get your pilot made without compromise you’re good.”

“Really be original, don’t be beholden,” Feig said. “Don’t mute your voice; write what you’re passionate about. If they love the idea, it blasts through. (TV executives) are not ultimately creative people, but they know what they want, and they want good content.”


On casting: “We did not have a script when we started casting (‘Lost’); we just had an outline. Yunjin Kim came in to read for the character of Kate … we just had to create a character for her. We made a suit tailored to the body. That’s entirely different than pulling suit off the rack and trying to find most perfect fit. If I ever do another TV show I’d do it the same way.

Feig talks about a youngster coming in for an audition. “Smart show runners go, ‘this kid is so great, there’s nothing in the script that’s so good that we can’t change it’. It makes it easier to write the show. You need the blueprint, but then you need to be open to the human beings who are bringing it to life. There’s nothing worse than the inflexibility of saying, ‘well, this is how I heard it in my head’.”


On opportunity: “Every great success story has 2 things in common: right place, right time — also called luck, which you have no control over; and you knew somebody — that you do have control over,” Lindelof explained. “I was in LA for 5 years building up my network of somebodies. Talented is the other important part, of course.”

Of course.

Be original. Be flexible. Be passionate. Be adaptable. Be talented. Be lucky. Easy peasy.

Good Monday morning TV stuff. Go. Read. Now.