Everyone's A (Proven) Winner, Baby?

Frak it's gotten cold out here in the west...so cold it almost makes one want to curl up with a cup of Hot Chocolate and not think too hard about the Canadian TV/movie industry.

Almost.

Yesterday it was this interesting essay HERE at Mediafest's TV Board that got me thinking about "audiences"...and a couple of days ago it was THIS POST that had me thinking about the stigma in this country of being labelled a "Canadian" production.

Today I was thinking about how we measure success.

Lately, on a number of fronts, I've been involved with the analysis and assessment of a lot of Canadian TV and movie projects seeking development money. And I kept hearing a particular 'phrase of praise' heaped upon applying producers or filmmakers in order to evaluate the merit of their project.

"They're a proven winner."

Me (as always, being the curious one), asked "Why?"

Why?

"Yeah...why is this particular filmmaker or producer a proven winner?"

I wasn't challenging or disputing...I was genuinely interested.

Well, it was explained to me...their last film got accepted at TIFF or the Whistler Film Festival; or the CTF or Telefilm supported their last series or movie; or they got nominated for a Gemini or Genie; or even, their last film got a great review in the Globe or the Star or NOW Magazine!!

This is what we use to determine proven winners in film/TV in Canada? WTF?

I proceeded to be difficult and kept asking questions: "But how many actual viewers (aka eyeballs) did their last TV series or television movie get? Or what was the actual box office take for the last feature film of said producer/filmmaker?"

Colleagues looked at me like I was nuts. Much whispering and headshaking. Well, I was told... we can't really use things like that to measure success here in Canada. We have to judge our successes 'differently'.

There's that freakin' word again.

But I guess it kinda makes sense...since almost EVERYONE (media, journalists, Joe 'Average Viewer' Public) treats Canadian TV and movies as 'different', and nobody really expects any of our shows/movies to actually 'hit'...it only follows that the system that finances them has to have a different set of criteria for whether to fund or back them.

I know its kinda always been that way, but all of a sudden it struck me as pretty messed up. And further discussion with my colleagues uncovered a real desire to have more substantial criteria in place in order to determine our 'proven winners', but these days, that would mean excluding almost everyone. And that's no good.

Which isn't to say there isn't great stuff out there...it just might not be particularily popular or accessible. Or if it happened to be popular and accessible, it wasn't necessarily that good. Sigh.

Of course, we do have exceptions to the rule. Recently, Brett Butt got the greenlight for a new series...that made sense. And some of the key creatives behind Corner Gas and Little Mosque and This Hour Has 22 Minutes also got the greenlight on a pilot...that also made sense. And I'm not trying to downplay the 'success' of shows like Flashpoint, but I'm trying to focus just on programs that are all around homegrown and not riding the thoroughbred that is the US/Hollywood machine right out of the gate. And I really don't want our only 'legitimate' success stories to be just U.S. network co-productions...

And I'm not stupid or naive...I know how things work up here. Many smarter than I have written about the problems and ways to make it all better. I know how hard it is to get any sort of decent marketing or promotional campaign in Canada; or any good 'primetime' slot for your homegrown TV series or TV movie; or a wide release or even screens in movie theatres for your indigenous feature. And I know these are all huge factors necessary to a decent shot at a hit or even an "audience", but still...c'mon. Should filling out a form properly for a funding agency, or getting accepted to a film festival, or receiving a positive review or an award nomination really be our most commonly used measures of 'success'?

I dunno....the bar needs to be higher.

"That's the truth. And that's no lie."

But who should be responsible for raising that bar....and why.


Stay warm.

Timber!

Really interesting essay by Frank Maggio at MediaPost's TV Board where he asks, "What is TV -- really? And doesn't TV require an audience, in fact, a mass audience, to REALLY be TV?"

TV has always defined itself at the intersection of time and real estate. It's that cubby in the primary focal point of the house, in the armoire at the foot of the bed, or in the corner of the gym. But it's also a human allocation of attention to a one-way televisual communication -- one that historically generates internalized emotions, and on rare occasion, reaction.

But in each and every instance and location, the element most necessary to qualify as TV, is an audience. And as the mass audience continues to dwindle, so, too, does TV's very existence (and its definition) become less meaningful.

Despite Les Moonves' cheerleading that "the model ain't broken," TV is, at a minimum, a medium that has lost its identity by allowing itself to be too many things to too many people. What it has failed to do is to fully embrace and enable communication among its consumers, its entertainers, and its sponsors.

Then he goes on to talk about hardware and interactivity...

With the digital-analog transition countdown now reduced to double digits, the TV will, for most people, soon become merely another "dumb" device with speakers -- a monitor with multiple inputs, for all intents and purposes. And like every other monitor we own, its usefulness is linked to the enabling hardware attached to it.

Truth be told, it's always been about the hardware. While the cable or satellite TV set top box tends to grab input A, as these monitors leave room for other connections, the threat to TV will continue to come from devices that provide for the most important input of all: CONSUMER INPUT.

Go read all of what Mr. Maggio has to say HERE...he certainly offers some interesting meat to chew on.

Cars And...Kittens?

Yes, it's a Corolla ad. With ninja's...with cat heads. But it's still Friday Fun-worthy.



Because it makes me smile.


H/T to Ricky Drew

Running/Falling Up That Hill

Really liked what Denis had to say this morning about how Canadian TV shows (and movies) are generally treated as 'different' by journalists and television critics in this country.

By hiving off and making sure that Canadian TV is usually only talked about in this separate bubble, it subtly reinforces the point of view that it's something different, something, in the stentorian tones of my long-gone Catholic youth: something slightly unholy.

This kind of disconnect and separation is what allows a lot of the misapprehensions and fictions to keep bubbling through; it's what allows some people to turn up their noses at Trailer Park Boys and talk about it like it's an object of shame, and not a show that brings hordes of fans out every time the actors make a personal appearance. It's what allows a double standard where Canadian shows are judged (sometimes) by a harsher yardstick -- and 'judged' is probably the wrong word, what I really mean is "dismissed."

Go read the rest of what the big guy has to say.

And like DMc says, it extends far beyond just the media. I'll get into conversations with regular folk all the time about something I worked/am working on, and invariably I'll hear: "I've never heard of that!"; or "I didn't know that was Canadian."; or (and most commonly) "But it's Canadian, right?"...that last one being the big 'qualifier' or justification for why they didn't watch it.

And though we must take responsibility for the quality of the programs we put out there, the stigma is really hard to overcome. And it's instilled so young. A quick story.

Over the past five years my kids have watched Family Channel a lot. A LOT. And two "Canadian" shows made a positive impression...one was Radio Free Roscoe, the other was Life With Derek. The young 'uns were big fans of both programs, but I remember when it was revealed that they were homegrown. Really. Really? That was the almost 'in shock' response...it was like they heard me but didn't actually believe me.

They still watched...but it was like the experience was tainted somehow.

More recently, two other programs showed their true colours to the kids, Naturally Sadie and The Latest Buzz. They would watch these series, but not happily...really only to get through them until the next show came on (usually a Disney or Nickelodeon effort). I clearly remember when I recognized one of the writers or directors names and mentioned it aloud, and thus it came up that these two shows were also homegrown, and the venom that spewed forth from my youngsters was palatable. "I knew it! I knew they were Canadian...because they're just soooooo bad!"

Whoa!

My youngest aren't even teens and yet that's what had somehow been impressed upon them. How is this possible? I certainly don't walk around the house muttering: "Canadian TV and movies suck!" Where was this attitude and opinion coming from? I asked and got the usual criticisms: the shows looked cheap and not as slick or polished....the actors were weak (and remember, they're measuring 'acting' against Miley Cyrus or Jaime Lynn Spears)...but mostly, it was that the shows were just kinda lame.

I pointed out some American shows that seemed to fall into the category of 'lame', and got this sort of begrudging..."Yeah...I guess...but the Canadian shows also feel or seem 'different'."

That word again. And as you can guess, it wasn't 'different' in a good way. And in all of these examples, the kids didn't know the programs were from here initially, but discovering that definitely painted them in a negative light....lame somehow equaled Canadian.

Like Denis concludes, I don't know how to fix this problem either....but it's like it's ingrained in our DNA or something. And if the media at large treat our programs as different, that certainly can't help. Look, I know our stuff has to stand on its own two feet...and be able to measure up to American or UK/foreign programs in terms of quality and entertainment value. But if every single program we produce has been consciously or even subconsciously stamped with the label of: "Oh, but it's Canadian, right?", is it any wonder we're always running/(falling?) up that hill?


EDIT: Maclean's Jaime Weinman posted his thoughts on McGrath's piece the same time as me, and interestingly enough uses some of the same examples I did:

Some Canadian shows have, I think, managed to prove that there’s a way out of the ghetto. Kids’ shows especially. The viewers of the Family Channel don’t see The Latest Buzz or Life With Derek as CanCon; they see them as shows, no different from the American shows on the same network. They argue over whether they prefer the realistic family shows or the fantasy wish-fulfilment shows, not over whether they prefer American or Canadian product. For one thing, these shows don’t really identify themselves as Canadian. Not that they deny that they’re Canadian, but they don’t go out of their way to demonstrate it, and a new viewer doesn’t always know if they’re Canadian or not. Which is one way around the innate suspicion that Anglo-Canadian audiences have of their home-grown shows.

I would've thought the same thing about a lot of our kids shows being 'exempt' so to speak Jaime, if I hadn't witnessed otherwise.

Living Vicariously

If you have any sort of fear of heights, you probably shouldn't watch this video. Ah, what the hey...even if you do suffer vertigo easily, watch this video.



Frak.

El Caminito del Rey (The King's pathway) is a walkway or via ferrata, now fallen into disrepair, pinned along the steep walls of a narrow gorge in El Chorro, near Álora in Málaga, Spain. The walkway has now gone many years without maintenance, and is in a highly deteriorated and dangerous state. It is one meter (3 feet) in width, and is over 200 meters (700 feet) above the river. Nearly all of the path has no handrail. After four people died in two accidents in 1999 and 2000, the local government closed the entrances; however, adventurous tourists still find their way into the walkway.

Personally, that's one walk I'd like to take myself...but I know a lot of people who wouldn't even be able to start up the hill, much less step one foot on the pathway. Watch this vid however, and they can a healthy dose of 'whoa' without fearing for their life.

To see what others have seen and experienced...amazing things that we may never see or experience ourselves...that's one wicked upside to the youtubes and the internets and such.


H/T to Aaron Moore

But Where's Gross And McKellar?

Vanity Fair pulls out the funny with this 'story' about us not wanting to be outdone by Baz Luhrmann's Australia and commissioning our own epic movie, Canada.

Executive-produced by Lorne Michaels, the 300-minute tentpole will be helmed by Canadian-Armenian director Atom Egoyan, whose 1994 heavy-breather Exotica remains the only film about sex ever to emerge from the Great White North (the triple-X-rated ouevres of Peter North and Brandon Iron excluded).

Rounding out the cast will be Donald Sutherland, as a retired member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police whose border-side empire of duty-free shops becomes an underground railroad for draft-dodging Americans; Celine Dion, as a militant Québécois separatist who cuts ties with Morissette after she takes up with Aykroyd’s Ottawan bureaucrat; and Mike Myers, in full Dr. Evil mode, as a poutine-munching French-Canadian terror-cell leader plotting to kill the Queen of England during a royal visit to the Chateau Frontenac.

Read all the funny HERE.


H/T to NYbro

Don't Be Embarrassed About The Other Night

Friday Fun = a young (though it seems he's never looked 'young') Steve Martin doing a phone bit on Johnny Carson, back when accessing your answering machine remotely was 'new technology'. It's old school funny, but I found myself just as entertained watching Carson trying to sneak a puff of a cigarette whenever he thought he was off camera.



Because it makes me smile.

Was It Something I Said?

Or rather...something I wrote? Because you see, visits to Uninflected Images have dropped off by well over 150% since last Wednesday. If this site was a stock listed on the NYSE or TSE, it'd be...erm...crashing like pretty much every other stock I suppose. Perhaps the statcounters are fuggy, or everyone south of the border is still enjoying Thanksgiving, or fact I'm not posting as often...but still, what's up with that?

On the other hand, maybe everyone is just preoccupied by more pressing and disconcerting issues....like our country's government meltdown, or the continuing global economy crisis, or the very real potential of a SAG strike.

Sheesh...taking all that into account, I should probably feel lucky anyone is visiting at all.




Anyway...who knows...have a smile as Charlie Brooker takes on adverts and Mad Men for Screenwipe.

H.B. Oh No (Canada)

Still grasping for something to write about...so bear with me while this old man mutters.

Yesterday, DMc waxed on about fall TV and PVR's and the internets and the experiencing of one's television (and glad to see the big guy has managed to finally locate Super Channel on his dial), and it got me thinking about cable providers and the channels we get/have to take.


HBO is still considered the darling of premium pay television networks (even though Showtime and several cable nets are starting to challenge HBO's crown). And in Canada, we've been able to watch a lot of HBO's finer offerings via our own premium pay 'darling's', Movie Central and The Movie Network. MC and TMN had an exclusive deal with HBO to simulcast a lot of the US nets TV series and specials. A lot, but not all.

That is until recently when Corus and Astral Media (owners of MC and TMN) struck a deal with its southern partner in crime to replace one of their channels with HBO Canada.

I'm not sure if I like.

The upside: lots of wicked documentaries....several have really grabbed me, including Thank You Mr. President: Helen Thomas At The White House and Hard As Nails. And it's been cool getting to see shows I'd been hearing about but never viewed, like Summer Heights High (overrated); Little Britain USA (yet to really grab me); and Real Time with Bill Maher (entertaining though it completed its run after the election and won't be back on until March or something).

As for specials, I did rather enjoy Chris Rock's Kill The Messenger concert last night, though for the life of me didn't see the point of intercutting between three shows taped in New York, London, and Johannesburg --- I mean I got the point, but it really didn't have any impact). And I'm looking forward to Ricky Gervais' Out of England standup special airing next weekend.

The downside: REPEATS REPEATS REPEATS! In the past week alone, entire days were filled with full seasons played back to back to back (and then again later in the evening) of In Treatment or Curb Your Enthusiasm or Entourage --- and it was at least the third such 'day run' of these and other series since the network premiered in Canada only last month. Also, HBO Canada's pretty much all about the series and specials and docs, but movies...not so much. Which may not seem like that big a deal, but when we only get two HD channels from MC/TMN and one is now HBO Canada...it means not getting to watch a lot of theatrical releases in HD.

Personally, I find that kind of a drag.

And I understand, more and more, tee-vee viewing is becoming about HD viewing --- but it's still movies I enjoy most watching in HD. Less opportunity to see feature films in HD takes away one of the big reasons why I subscribed to Movie Central. And when you calculate into the equation the fact that HBO seems to be sliding downward from its heyday of creating and producing ground-breaking innovative entertaining series (sorry True Blood - you ain't no Six Feet Under)...I wonder if this was the right time for one of TMN/MC's coveted HD channel slots to go 'all HBO all the time'.

Not that we have any choice in the matter...yet.



(oh, and PVR's need bigger hard drives...mine's always full....just sayin')

Before Moulin Rouge....

I'll admit I got nothing this week....no interesting thoughts worth expressing...no brilliant or even not so brilliant bits of wisdom at the top of the brain --- no posts leaping to mind at all.

It just is what it is. And the depressing industry news hitting us from all sides isn't helping either.

So instead I'm taking a moment to marvel at the genius that was Coppola...and trying to even grasp making The Godfather, The Conversation, The Godfather Part II, Apocalypse Now, and One From The Heart in a nine year span during the mid/late '70's.

Waits + Gayle + Coppola. It was such a visual and musical feast, yet so overlooked and underrated...

The opening:



And the closing...



Not a perfect movie by any means, but still....wow. And it's melancholy mood accurately reflects the prevailing winds round here these days.

For those feeling a little blue, or the pinch of a battered economy, or especially those in our business getting laid off of late...I'm sorry.

That one's from the heart.

Requiem For Lux Aeterna, Puh-leaze...

A stylistic tale of substance abuse and addiction, Requiem For A Dream is a wicked wicked film (I'll cop to borrowing at least a couple of director Darren Aronofsky designed shots for stuff I directed...can you say SnorriCam?). But the picture is probably most memorable for its score, composed by Clint Mansell, and most notably the piece Lux Aeterna aka Requiem For A Tower.

But let's give it a rest people! It's not only been reused in the trailers for The Two Towers, Spider, The Divinci Code, I Am Legend, Sunshine (the list goes on and on)...but in tv shows, video games, and commercials as well! Most recently here in Canada, it's been blasting from the speakers in every movie theatre in town during pre-previews in a Telus ad entitled, not surprisingly, 'Epic'.




Gak. Enough already.

I bought this soundtrack shortly after seeing Arnophsky's masterpiece, and loved listening to it...letting it wash over me... move me...inspire me. But now I can't put it on anymore. Whenever I do, all I see are hobbits and meerkats and Tom Hanks with long hair.

C'mon movie studio trailer producers and commercial advertising houses...compose something original, and let Lux Aeterna die a noble death.

Acting!

Friday Fun with Ian McKellan on Extras hilariously instructing Ricky Gervais in the art of 'pretending'.



"How did I know what I was supposed to say? The words were written down for me in a script."


Because it makes me smile...

Making TV Thought Food

I love it when a post spawns comments that make me go 'Hmmm...", like the last one did.

"The promotion of "death" episodes as well as episodes where you're told somebody will break-up, get bad news, lose their job etc robs the viewer of the full experience of the moment."

AND

"These days, with seasons of 13 episodes (or less), it's short term writing, more bang than substance, less quality, and ultimately, less satisfaction and viewer loyalty."

AND

"If a surprise death happens on Canadian TV and no one is watching, does it even exist?"

AND

"There comes a point in time you realize you are only writing for the crew..."


If you've been doing this for any length of time in Canada, you've been there for that last one...and it hurts.

Ouch.

I may have to go lie down.

EDIT: I feel the need to clarify after seeing 'Dolly's" comment about only writing for the crew getting discussed in comments today of a DMc post.

Of course you write for the crew. They're your first 'audience', so to speak...your biggest fans and harshest critics. And that in and of itself doesn't hurt or is sad. But when it's "only" for the crew....when you know that the network doesn't seem to care and show isn't being promoted or scheduled in a decent slot...therefore the viewers aren't tuning in and the few that are aren't really responding in the form of fan sites or forums because it isn't being presented as something worth watching, and thus you feel like you're 'only' writing for the crew... THAT's when it hurts.

Carrying on.


Thx to Jimmy, Morjana, Your Girl Jimmy, and "Dolly"

It Spun In...Then Faded Away

Shocking TV series character deaths.

I don't know why I've been thinking about this lately, but I have. Probably has something to do with the recent season premieres of CSI: Vegas or CSI: Miami, both promoting the hell out of themselves as to whether Horatio or Warrick or whoever will live...one ad even clamouring: "This week, a cast member will die!"

Sigh.

In the world of serialized episodic dramatic television, I'm not sure if anything carries more weight than the 'out of left field, WTF??!!' death of a lead character. But in these days of stand-alone episodic storytelling, those 'impact moments' are few and far between.

I recollect a few that really stood out, starting of course with Mash. Colonel Blake received his discharge, flew off, and then Radar entered the OR at the end of the episode to announce the plane had gone down. It spun in. No survivors. I remember just staring at the television in disbelief.

Other memorable TV series character deaths include Ms. Calendar getting her neck snapped by evil Angel on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I sat right up out of bed when that happened, and then had to endure the remaining moments of the episode watching Giles find his slain love...ughh - total shocker.



Or the great reversal/shocker on ER of Carter getting stabbed by the psychotic patient...and we think he's going down for good when he collapses to the floor...and then from his prone position he sees his colleague and love interest Lucy already lying on the floor on the other side of the room...bleeding out. He survived...she didn't. Gak.



And Mark Harmon's character on The West Wing getting shot while trying to foil a robbery was another shocker...especially since it happened right after the show gave finally TJ a love interest in Harmon.



Good TV writing...it giveth, and then it taketh away.

Which brings me to my most memorable shocking TV character death...the one that caught me completely off guard...and taught me the power of TV drama that can only come from watching every week, falling in love with the characters, and completely buying into the world of the show.

thirtysomething. 1991. Season 4 I think. Nancy has been fighting cancer. Everyone is gathered at the hospital, anxiously waiting for her latest test results. The entire focus of the episode, in fact a lot of the season, had been on her fight, and thus it was all I the viewer was thinking about. And then the results come back...and she's clean, cancer-free. And there is rejoicing, and dancing, and tears of joy. And Michael is trying to call Gary to let him know the good news...and getting no answer...and, well... watch for yourself:



That moment slayed me. I felt like I'd been punched soooo hard in the gut (Good NY Times article HERE about decision to kill off Gary). And I'll admit I cried, like a little gurl, when Michael had to identify the body. It showed me all that can be great about serialized episodic television drama, even though it shook me to my very core.

And the kicker was they didn't end the episode with the death, but bombed you with it halfway through...so you had to endure all the other characters reacting to the news. I still get shivers remembering it.

But I don't know if you can have moments like that in today's television universe. First of all, it was before Internet spoilers....back when a show was just allowed to unfold and evolve and play out. And when people watched week after week because it was good and entertaining, not because ads screamed at them all week to: "Watch this episode of 'thirtysomething' because SOMEONE DIES!! (although in this case they might have actually done that, because everyone watching was expecting or would've expected Nancy to die. But anyway...)

Now I'm not disputing some cable and premium pay series like The Sheild or Six Feet Under or The Sopranos have been able to achieve some of those WTF death moments, but we're talking more major network TV-land here...series that everyone was watching, and thus seemed to impact in a much larger, collective consciousness stun-gun kinda way.

But the reality of today's TV drama landscape is that the networks don't really seem to want you to get so emotionally engaged. You know, with the casts of all the Law & Order's able to live, die, come, and go more or less as they please. And the CSI's and Criminal Minds and Without A Trace's casts being soooooo interchangeable. And storylines designed to be more self-contained and not arcing over many episodes. And the tendancy to advertise a characters demise rather than let it surprise and shock and move the viewers or fans...let's face it, these memorable 'shocking' impact moments feel like pretty much a thing of the past.

But do viewers even miss them? Do they even care? Maybe not. Which is sad. So sad. Such a sad sad situation...

Um....Klum Rocks

Friday Fun...



Say no more.

Because she makes me...smile?

Good Role Models

Saw Role Models a couple nights ago with the teenage daughter, and even though I experienced slight discomfort when boobies were flashed on screen (is there ever a time when watching sex and nudity in movies with your children isn't awkward?), we both enjoyed it immensely. Paul Rudd is snide but sweet, Seann William Scott is simple but solid, and the supporting cast delivers big time. Lowbrow funny but with lots of heart, it's got a kind of 'School of Rock' meets 'Clerks II' feel. Even though this trailer makes it seem like a PG Disney flick, this R-rated trailer tells it like it is.

Speaking of telling it like it is, the two Bill's (Martell and Cunningham) are both crawling from the AFM wreckage with reports of their adventures.

I've only attended the American Film Market a couple times...and as icky as it can be (the fringe-dwellers all converge), I had a blast each time. So many stories....no time to tell. Martell seems like his plate was full and just in and out of the Loews (though he relates a great post here), but Cunningham was a busy boy and lists a bunch of responses and thus tips for the wannabe producers and filmmakers that attend such trade fair events. So many of these made me laugh out loud:

Producers: (title given with tongue firmly wedged in cheek) ...

- Deodorant is not an option.
- No, you don't look hip and cool in that t-shirt. Or that ice cream suit with lime shirt. Or that hat. Or that spandex that says"Camel Toes R Us."
- Honey, put your plastic boobs back in the bra. I ain't buying your movie.
- Get a haircut. After you first wash that greasy mop. And shave while you're at it.
- I don't care if they were on "One Tree Hill" (in the background) they are NOT a star.
- Relax. Just tell me what your movie is about -not its "themes, motifs or breath-taking locations." Your story is what hooks me. Nothing else.
- Yes, your key art is ugly.
- Everyone has a project. No one has a script, a budget, or a cast. No one has done their homework.
- No, I don't like your title (Somebody said their werewolf picture was called FOUR DAYS -- for the 4 days a month of a full moon. When I pointed out that there was only one true full moon per month and two 98% moons (one before and one after) he said nothing and walked away).
- Japan makes (and sells) a lot of movies that will never get any play here in the states. No judgments made with that statement just the facts.
- More and more people are shooting HD. It is not a selling point. I mean really - who cares? It's great for technically-minded folks, but not for sales people.
- No, I will not give you free advice on how to fix your poster after you've seen our portfolio, and know that we deliver.
- I said "no." You can leave now.

Funny cuz he's right, but all good advice. Thanks Bill(s). Nice role modeling.

Television. Adventure.

Where to begin.

Around this time last year I purchased my first HD television, a 26 inch Sony KDL 26M3000. And I gotta say....I lurve my HD tee-vee. I've actually watched more basic network tv programs over the past year because I find myself only flipping between channels 501 - 525 now...cuz dem's the HD channels. Four are movie channels...two are PBS...and the rest are just your basic U.S. nets NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC east and west...and Canadian nets CTV, GLOBAL, CITY, and CTV. There's been more than one occasion that I've found myself watching an ep of L&O: Criminal Intent, just because it looks so fine.

Anyway, a few months ago a black line appeared down the right half of the screen or picture panel. Out of the blue. And then the line widened. I looked into the problem...dead pixels. Looked like this:

And as I investigated some more, I learned this is fairly common in LCD televisions. Happens about 30% of the time apparently. Not common to any particular brand, it just happens. New technology I was told. Harrumph. Well that sucks. But no worries, it still should be covered under the manufacturer's one year warranty.

So last week, with the warranty nearly expired, I went to my neighbourhood Best Buy...you know, where I purchased the telly in the first place...to get some direction. Erm...bad idea. I asked the first sales assistant I could find where I should take my television to be fixed, and his response: "Why didn't you get the Best Buy extended service plan?" Um, I just didn't. Again I asked, where's the authorized Sony service dealer in town? He shrugged and said: "Don't think there is one. You're going to have to box it up and ship your television back to Sony. Probably will be gone months. Should've got our extended service plan, man."

Sorry...but you're not helping.

I asked another sales assistant...exact same response. Now I was getting snarky. C'mon...let's move past the fact I didn't get the Best Buy extended service plan, where do I go to get it fixed? Shrug. Still not discouraged, I asked a third sales assistant where the authorized Sony service dealer was in town. "Oh, that'd be Video Refit over on McKara." Thank you! I immediately led this helpful gentleman over to the two other fucktards and had him tell them what he'd told me. It didn't seem to matter, they just stared at him blankly... but I felt better.

So I went home and boxed up my Sony and whisked it over to Video Refit, along with my bill of sale and one year warranty card. They seemed very busy there, but were quite helpful...even though I was the annoying customer with lots of questions: were they going to repair or replace screen/panel? Or were they going to just replace it with a new television since apparently the cost of the panel is the majority of cost of the entire unit? And how were they determine what was going to be done...were they going to assess the dead pixel problem themselves? Or did they have to ship to Sony HQ for them to assess?

All my questions were answered...and panel replacement or television replacement were definitely options. They also said a third option might be a refund or voucher so I could go back to Best Buy and replace my TV that way. But they said give them 7-10 days to figure things out...I nodded but left reluctantly, already missing my HD TV.

A refund/voucher, huh? The wheels in my head started spinning...if I got back the purchase price of what I paid a year ago, I could upgrade to a 32 inch version of same television (since prices have dropped). And not only that, I could get the 1080p model, as opposed to the lowly 720p model I was currently saddled with. I raced back to Best Buy to explore this option. And happily, a former student of mine was working in the TV department that afternoon. So I was able to pick his brain without the annoying "Why didn't you get the service plan?" question.

And here's what I learned.

He guessimated it would be about three months before I saw my TV again....that was his experience with people trying to get items repaired or replaced under manufacturer's warranty. WTF? And as for the second part of my master plan, he said he'd never seen a refund or voucher in lieu of replacement or repair before. Bummer. But most importantly, he said that no North American networks broadcast in 1080p!

I. Did. Not. Know. That.

Read about it here and here and here, but bottom line is that it's a bandwidth issue (networks broadcast HD in 720p or 1080i), so having a 1080p television doesn't mean my HD network shows will look noticeably better. Which begged the question: why spend the extra $ for the 1080p if the best digital HD signal you can receive is 720p (or 1080i, same diff)? Oh sure...your Blu-Ray movies will look better, since they are actually delivering a 1080p signal, but that's pretty much it.

I was glad to discover all this, but a little miffed. I'd always been led to believe that HD tv means 1080p tv, if your television can accommodate it. As it turns out...not so much.

Anyhow, my new best Best Buy pal also informed me 'defect' is open to interpretation when it comes to manufacturer's warranty...and in the case of dead pixels, there's actually a number that have to appear before it's considered defective. It varies from manufacturer to manufacturer and model to model, but bottom line is that several (up to 10 I believe) random dead pixels on your LCD screen falls into normal use/wear and tear, and not a defect to be repaired or replaced. And he said to make sure the manufacturers warranty covered parts and labour...apparently some don't do both.

I was now muttering and twitching...expecting my TV to not only not get looked at for months, but that then I'd be informed my problem wasn't even 'covered' or I'd have to pay for work done anyway.

At any rate, this television adventure has a happy ending. One that sent me over the Marquee Moon, so to speak.

End of last week, a mere six days after dropping off my Sony, I received a call from the repair shop. Come pick it up, your television is ready. Really? I double-checked to make sure they had the right person....even reading out the number off my ticket stub. Yep...it was mine.

I drove over later that afternoon and was greeted by the manager. Nice fellow. But he immediately launched into a "Oh we're so sorry about how long it took to repair your telly..." I'm confused. Say I'm not complaining. He sighs and explains how many units they get in that need repair and how short-staffed he is...pulls out my invoice and loudly sighs: "Oh c'mon...let's see when you brought your tv in. The 30th....see?", followed by more apologies. I am now really confused. It's okay I say...I'm really not complaining. Then he takes a closer look at my work order...now he looks confused. "This was just last week," he says. I nod. He hustles over to the box containing my tv and checks the ticket stub number. "Wow," he says, "Did you really bring it in last week?" Again, I nod.

Now he's shaking his head and reviews the work order --- they'd looked at it the day after I'd dropped it off, determined enough pixels were dead to warrant repair, sent the evidence to Sony HQ (they have to take pictures and list specs apparently), the new panel arrived two days later, they took out the 'defective' one and replaced it with the new one, and then called me.

He told me I should buy a lottery ticket, because in all his days he'd never seen one go through the system that fast. Nevertheless, I still had him turn mine on, just to make sure it was working properly. It was. I thanked him, signed the completed work order, and humped my Sony out to the car and home again.

And the warranty covered everything.

Thus endeth my television adventure. In and out in six days..the way it should be. Nice.

As for the other Television Adventure, that's another post for another time...when the topic is brilliant but unsung new wave bands from the late '70's.

Ante Up Ernieeeeeeeee

Friday Fun gets all gangsta and street...as in Sesame Street, brothers and sisters...



Because it makes me smile.


H/T to Shelley Eriksen

They Came To Dance

You ever hear a new cd and think: "I like this...I like it a lot, but boy does it ever sound like someone else that I used to listen to..."

I've always enjoyed the music of Ryan Adams...from his debut cd Heartbreaker, or his loving tribute to the Big Apple 'New York New York', but his new release Cardinology has really struck a chord. It hasn't left my CD player since last Tuesday. I'm really digging it.

Listen to him and his band The Cardinals perform new tunes Fix It and Cobwebs on Letterman last week. Sweet and yummy alt-country rock goodness.

But it reminds me, especially his delivery and inflection on certain songs, of some other musical artist buried deep in the recesses of my brain.

And then it suddenly hit me...! Yay!

Nils Lofgren.

Nils who?

Nils Lofgren is a rock singer, songwriter, and multi-instrumentalist (read: wicked pianist and guitarist). He is also a long-time member of Bruce Springsteen's E Street Band.

I first discovered Lofgren in the late 70's after learning he'd played on Neil Young's After The Goldrush lp at just seventeen years old. After that he'd had a stint with the band Grin and then a blossoming solo career, plus the fact he played all kinds of instruments really well, and I wanted to hear this guy play. I wore out his double live album Night After Night on my turntable...yes, those were the days of albums and turntables.


Across The Tracks, Goin Back, Delivery Night, Valentine, Moon Tears, Keith Don't Go, No Mercy, and his classic (with a crappy clip) I Came To Dance...these songs were burned into my brain. And though his guitar work was always stellar, it was his singing style that stuck with me....a soft haunting warble that still managed to pierce...that's the essence of Lofgren. And to circle back around to where this post began, that's what finally connected him to Adams for me.

The both sing in a very similar way.

Sure, Lofgren is more rock and Adams more alt-country, but vocally, cut from the same cloth for sure. Not to diminish Adam's accomplishment with Cardinology, it's one of the best CD's of the year...but Adams arrives to us today via the trail blazed by Lofgren. And though both were cult figures in search of a mass audience, they still made it...while still remaining artists through and true.

Someone else arrived last night, also via trails blazed by others before him...but he did it. Yes, he did.

And for anyone to get there, you must believe a little bit in yourself.


(that's Lofgren with Neil Young)


Obama. Adams. Lofgren. They came to dance.

Yikes

There's horror movies...and then there's THIS + THIS.

I really don't want to see how this film ends...or even watch Dexter (or...gak...Star Wars?) tonight for that matter.


EDIT: Not to sound morbidly obsessive about a morbid story, but read the two articles linked above and tell me....aren't they the most detail-filled pieces you've read about a purported crime in like....ever? I mean, the story is just breaking and they both read like graphically embellished 'true crime' book tales written years after the case has been put to bed.

I think I find that almost as bizarre as the supposed crime that's being 'reported'.

Scary Monsters...Super Creeps...(And Lousy Teasers?)

Been reading a lot of horror feature scripts lately...they've been ending up on my desk for development or story editing consideration. And frankly, most have been really disappointing.

First, they all start with a scary action 'teaser'...and fair enough, that's B-movie 101. But the problem with every one of the opening sequences in the scripts I read was that the 'teasers' weren't really connected to the 'story' at all. In fact, most felt tacked on after the fact.

And when I realized later that the opening had been just a bit of a wank, I got pissed. It's like...cheating.

Then we had 'the stories'. Now I don't expect the bar to be set very high, but the in between scenes (or plot) in most of the scripts I read just felt plugged in to get us from one supposedly scary, gross-out sequence to the next supposedly scary gross-out sequence.

Character development? Forget about it. Motivation? Not important. Logic? Hardly. Even suspense and tension seemed a secondary consideration...they were all just about trying to get to little scenario's that could shock or repulse the reader/viewer. Generating some squirm factor is good, but not just all about the squirm please.

And then there were the endings...ALL ultimately unsatisfying, much less surprising or even making any sense. I know endings are tough to make sing when there's generally only two or three ways these kinds of stories can go, but still...try at least. Sigh.

It's paint-by-numbers screenwriting. Imitating, not invigorating. Trying to marry and thus capitalize on two recent horror movie trends - the resurgence of the slasher film (mostly remakes though), and the 'success', I suppose, of goreporn like Hostel I and II, followed by Vacancy and Captivity (but thankfully that trend seems to be behind us).

And while I know you can go back to the original Halloween or Friday the 13th or The Hills Have Eyes or Last House on the Left or Texas Chainsaw Massacre and question whether those flicks had any of those elements in spades, I would argue that they still had more than a lot of these scripts. And those films in their day weren't trying to be 'hits'. Instead, they were designed to be made on the cheap and scare the shit out of teens at the drive-in, NOT be released in 3600 theatres after a month long 20 million dollar marketing campaign.

The greedy system is creating these new types of script 'monsters', whether it knows it or not (or cares or not).

I was discouraged reading most of these submissions. I felt the writers weren't bringing anything original to table. Okay, maybe original is too much to expect from a horror flick...but something 'special' then.

Because it can be done. Like my faves of the past five years...28 Days Later, The Ring, and Saw.

Yes, Saw.

I think Saw was a freakin' great horror movie. Part slasher/gore, part psychological thriller...it worked on a lot of different levels. And had a killer twist/reveal at the end. You can mutter about the quality of the sequels this picture has inspired, but you can't deny the originals masterful horrific simplicity.

28 Days Later was Night of the Living Dead on speed...and managed to not only reinvigorate the tired 'zombie' movie genre, but was an intriguing commentary on human nature.

And even though it's a remake (a better remake) of a Japanese hit, The Ring succeeds with many of the same elements (though with less of the slasher/gore).

All were scary as hell but ultimately 'about' something... morality plays...loaded with complications and dilemmas....characters we could understand and even relate to...created rules and logic that tracked within the context of the story, and all told with loads of tension and suspense.

That's what I'm looking for.

Lately, we've been subjected to constant 'reimaginings' of twenty year old slasher flicks, or remakes of foreign (mostly Japanese) horror hits.

Think about it, and naming only a few...'Halloween'...'Texas Chainsaw Massacre'... 'Amityville Horror'....'Black Christmas'...'The Fog'...'Prom Night'...'The Hills Have Eyes'...even 'Psycho' for crying out loud?!

And then there's all the foreign remakes...'Dark Water'...'The Eye'...'The Grudge'... 'Mirrors'...'Shutter'....'The Invisible'...'Quarantine'...

So many do-overs. So few originals. No wonder new writers don't feel like they have to work too hard.

Be special. Be inspired. Be scary.


Keep me running, ruh-ning scared.


Happy Halloween.

Scaring Up A Good Score

Yesterday was a brief overview of scary movies....today, some soundtracks that helped make those movies even scarier. And not surprisingly, a lot of the most haunting or unforgettable scores are from a lot of the same films.


First rule seems to be LOTS of minor keys...major notes or chords, not so much.

Next, refrain from resonance...add plenty of dissonance.

Then bring on the cacophony...leave the harmony on the shelf.

And finally, a LOT of repetition...drilling it into your head over and over...this is scary...this is scary...this is scary...

As for classic horror movie soundtracks, there's the obvious ones..John William's Jaws... the theme from The Shining... Bernard Herrmann's score from Psycho...Mike Oldfield's theme from The Exorcist... Krzysztof Komeda's score from Rosemary's Baby ...Jerry Goldsmith's The Omen ...

But even though clearly influenced by Oldfield (in the case of Halloween) and Berrmann (in the case of Friday the 13th), for me the two most memorable have to be from the 'original' modern slasher films...

John Carpenter's theme for 'Halloween':



...and Harry Manfredini's theme for 'Friday the 13th':



Ki ki ki ki... ma ma ma ma

Ki ki ki ki... ma ma ma ma

Scary.

The Horror...The Horror...

Saw V did over 30 million at the box office this weekend, proving once again that public appetite for such 'horrific' fare still reigns supreme, especially when All Hallows Eve approaches. Also in the spirit of Halloween, my tweenage son and I watched Will Smith's I Am Legend on Friday night.

Bad idea.

Now I am old and jaded, so it didn't do much for me (not to mention an abundance of CGI which, however well it's done, always tends to push me out of a movie as opposed to draw me in), but it freaked my son out. A lot. He's since woken up from nightmares, and when awake hasn't stopped talking about it - ("...what if world got wiped out by virus?" "...what if a virus turned us into flesh-hungry zombie-like creatures?"). What if. What if. Gak.

I will admit I'm feeling a little guilty for subjecting him to it (even though he was the one who said: "Let's watch something scary!")

"I Am Legend", like most contemporary horror films, isn't 'original'. The story is adapted from a 1954 sci-fi novel by Richard Matheson, which has been filmed twice before, as "The Last Man on Earth" (1964), and "The Omega Man" (1971) starring Charlton Heston.


And I do remember "The Omega Man". Oh yes. It freaked me out when I first saw it...probably around the same age as my son is now. And like him, I didn't even see it in a theatre but on late-night television, and it still freaked. Of course, checking it out now, it seems pretty cheesy...but way back when...Omega Man...."shiver".

Sticking with when I was younger, the two movies constantly referenced as well-made pictures that also managed to scare the crap out of the audience were "The Exorcist" and "Psycho".

No argument here...but when I eventually saw them, I'd either heard too much already or my expectations were too high, and I felt let down. I wasn't 'fugged up'.

"Jaws", on the other hand, freaked me out quite a bit, but most wouldn't really categorize it as a horror movie. The first "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street" all had their moments, but they were just good candy-coated popcorn...tasty in the moment, but generating very little of the residual 'wake up screaming covered in sweat later that night' factor.


No, the two that really did it for me it were John Carpenter's "The Thing" (1982)...







...and "Alien" (1979).


I suppose one could debate whether they are 'horror movies' in the classic sense as well, but I would say so. At their core they're 'trapped in the house with a monster' movies...relentlessly suspensful and tension-filled...and they accomplished horror's highest grade - they scared the bejesus out of me.

More on contemporary horror later this week, but now that you've read this far --- scariest horror films ever?

Bummer-Free Zone

Friday fun...Ferrell returns to SNL (Thursday)




Because it makes me smile.

YouTube meets Amadeus (Cont.)

A quick followup to my previous post.

During my channel flipping and subsequent rediscovery of Amadeus, I witnessed something I found rather fascinating in regards to youth/kids and their media viewing habits per say.

My youngest tweenage daughter and I were chatting as I scrolled through the tee-vee channels...she was telling me about how impressed she was by another student's drumming talent....she wanted to know how someone got to be so good at such a young age. I said that some of it could be natural ability, but most of it was because of practice. Anyway, the word prodigy came up...she asked what that was...and I explained...and then she went on YouTube and looked up 'child musical prodigies' or something. And she found a clip of an amazing pianist who was like, 6...and a wicked guitarist who was 8 or something. Then she asked if Beethoven was a prodigy. And I said I believed so, and then mentioned Chopin or especially Mozart. So she 'youtubes' Mozart...which led us to a list of clips from the Amadeus movie.

And here's where it got interesting.

If I'd said: "Let's go down to the big TV and put on the Amadeus DVD," she'd have laughed and said no way. But instead, she clicked on Amadeus movie Part 1, and we watched the first nine minutes of the film. "Cool," she said, "And look, there's more." And she clicked Part 2...the next nine minutes of the movie.

She was totally engrossed...asking some questions, but still enjoying the story.

The clip ended. I held my breath. She said: "Onto Part 3..." and was about to click it when she remembered she had some homework to finish. And off she went to do her math, but her parting words were: "That was pretty good...I'll watch some more 'parts' tomorrow."

That's how the kids take in so much of their media and movies and music and TV today...in 'clips' and 'parts'. And I know that's no big revelation, but it was kinda cool to see the process unfold in front of me.

And my takeway was realizing that the big challenge ahead for us creatives is to figure out how to create stories best told in that manner, make them (that's the hard part...financing the 'making' part), and then somehow attract the kids to our story (on the computer/internet) that's presumably told in 'parts', thus tapping into and hopefully capitalizing on their new-found viewing habits.

Easy peasy...like composing a symphony. Hmmm. Sigh.

Rock Me Ama... BloodMonkey??

Was flipping this evening and came across something called 'BloodMonkey' on one of the movie channels - kind of an Anaconda meets Blood Diamond but with killer apes instead of snakes - and was about to keep flipping when I recognized the crazed leader of the rain forest expedition...it was F. Murray friggin' Abraham!!



Great 'so bad its good' trailer HERE.


You know, F. Murray Abraham. Best Actor Oscar winner for his portrayal of Salieri in Peter Shaffer and Milos Foreman's Amadeus. Amadeus! Oh sweet Jesus, Amadeus...how you rocked my world way back when...



Perfect storytelling. Perfect casting. Perfect direction. Perfect performances. Pitch perfect score. In relating the tale of a lessor artists agonizing and ultimately futile quest for notoriety and creative excellence while the 'genius' of another eats away at his very soul (we've all been there), the film works on so many levels.

I needed more...



But YouTube clips couldn't quench the thirst, I had to have it all on the big (TV) screen.

"On the page it looked nothing. The beginning simple, almost comic. Just a pulse - bassoons and basset horns - like a rusty squeezebox. Then suddenly - high above it - an oboe, a single note, hanging there unwavering, till a clarinet took over and sweetened it into a phrase of such delight! This was no composition by a performing monkey! This was a music I'd never heard. Filled with such longing, such unfulfillable longing, it had me trembling. It seemed to me that I was hearing the very voice of God."

Sort of like how the words on a page of a screenplay, in the right directors hands and right performers mouths, can result in an amazing film...but it still all begins with the words.

And after I watched Amadeus through and been moved to tears yet again by this wonderful film and F. Murray's brilliant performance, I didn't begrudge Abraham and his 'BloodMonkey' money. He's a great actor, but there's just not that many Amadeus's floating around...and a man's gotta eat.

Still, it seems a little sad that compositions by performing monkeys, like the script for BloodMonkey, are more the norm and not the exception. Or perhaps it's that our business is primarily made up of "Salieri's", while the "Mozart's" are few and far between.




And as a bonus, go HERE to find all six parts of a marvelous behind the scenes making of Amadeus...sweet filmmaking goodness.

Young Haiku

Less folky, more 'Arc/Weld'
Lurching, stomping, shreds Ol' Black
Old man, lot like me

Crash! Ah-hahh

Sort of a work-related plug, but also kind of a cool tip for Canadian television viewers...


Like Burn Notice, The Closer, Skins, and Sons of Anarchy before this, Super Channel continues to add provocative and entertaining TV to its broadcast roster - next week its Crash, a new series, in fact the first original dramatic series, from the Starz network in the States.

Inspired by the Academy Award®-winning Best Motion Picture of 2006 of the same name, Crash explores the complexities of social and racial tolerance and the meaning of the American dream through characters whose lives intersect and collide as they strive to achieve that dream in Los Angeles California.

The production team headed by writer/executive producer Glen Mazzara (The Shield) includes executive producers Bob Yari, Bobby Moresco and Paul Haggis and co-executive producers Don Cheadle, Tom Nunan and Mark R. Harris – part of the group behind the Oscar-winning movie.

Add to the mix a large ensemble cast, including Dennis Hopper doing his best variation on 'Frank' in years, and you got Crash: the series.



And in a nice bit of cross promotion, you can find the entire first episode of Crash posted HERE on the short film sharing Super U website.

Check it out...it looks good (Alan Sepinwall reviews pilot here), but know this online exclusive will be available in Canada only until November 30, 2008.


Super Channel will premiere the Crash series on its premium pay television network with a double episode Oct. 20 at 10 p.m. ET.

He Won't Stand Still!!

So, one national election down (a disappointment but not a shock - we are so spread out as a country with so many parties to choose from, I predict minority governments will continue to be the norm...and I don't know if that's necessarily a good thing. It feels kinda...half-assed, if you know what I mean, though that may be what we deserve after the lowest voter turn-out in our nation's history), one more national election to go...

And as I watched CNN speculate over the weekend and today with story after story wondering whether color or 'race' will be a factor in the US presidential election (more like 'how much of a factor it's going to be', I'm sad to say)...I couldn't help but remember this classic Eddie Murphy bit:



I'd like to think that we've all come a lot further in terms of acceptance and tolerance and 'color-blindness' since 1982 (yes...1982...when Murphy was only like 20 and funny as hell), but when it comes to the USofA, I'm really really doubtful.

Although here in Canada, the majority/minority? seemed colour-blind to Harper's sweaters, so perhaps there's still hope.

Go Vote...

...it'll be funtime!

Well, the final result at the end of the day might not be so fun for Canada, but still, do your duty....

Bagpipes?

So, not only did the Leafs get stomped 6-1 by Montreal last night, the new Hockey Night In Canada Theme song winner was announced:



Um...yeah. (Bagpipes...seriously? Since when did our national sport become synonymous with the River Dance?)

Oh well, at least it doesn't suuuuuccck. When Monday Night Football changed its theme song there was lots of grumbling and gnashing of teeth, and now we can't imagine it any other way. Eventually, this HNIC anthem will be the norm.

So for old times sake, HERE is the old HNIC theme song...but also found this entry that didn't make the finalists but absolutely positively should have been on the short list:



I laughed till I peed. Then I ate more pumpkin pie.


Happy Thanksgiving Canada!

Times A Wastin'

This might be like so ten years ago, but I just found it. For fun, create your own South Park character HERE...


Should I call mine Wilbur, or Willard? Either way, I'd probably want him to tell Cartman and co. that last night's Season 12 Part II premiere kinda suuuuuucccckkkked... (though I'll never be able to look at Steven Spielberg or George Lucas the same way again - OMG!!!)

Gonna See If I Can't Unwind

Thanks to Jaime Weinman for reminding me that South Park returns tonight to Comedy Central for the second half of its 12th season with the episode 'The China Probrem'. I can't remember when this ep will air up here in Canada, whether it's this Friday night or next Friday night. But no matter, I'll catch it online later this evening (which makes me wonder...since most US TV series are simulcast up here at the same time, including 'premium' shows from HBO and Showtime, why do we always have to wait a few days or a week to catch South Park on Canada's Comedy Network?).

Anyway, Weinman was somewhat underwhelmed by the first half of Season 12 which aired back in the spring...and upon reflection I suppose I have to agree. I feel kind of fortunate to have only discovered South Park and all of its yummy goodness in the past couple years, when the show has really been on a roll. But the whacked-out funny goodness of 'Super Fun Time' and 'Major Boobage' didn't make up for several one-note one joke episodes like 'Over Logging', 'Britney's New Look', and 'Canada On Strike'. And the show has set the bar pretty high with a lot of consistently brilliant episodes (not to mention lotsa relevant political, social, and cultural commentary) in Seasons 9-11....which Mr. Weinman also points out in this great article he wrote earlier this year.

Come to think it...who cares what I think. Go read Weinman, and find somewhere to watch 'The China Probrem' tonight. Even if it isn't an 'instant classic' ('Make Love Not Warcraft' or 'Le Petite Tourette' anyone?), South Park's less than stellar episodes are still better than most comedy series on air right now.

Bill Kills

Sorry about being all linky and slutty, but that's how some days go.

Today Bill 'the Mad Pulp Bastard' Cunningham comes out swinging, then pulls off the gloves and tears apart some B-movie maker's lame poster and marketing campaign. Witness the carnage HERE...

Part of me has been sometimes tempted to post a really badly executed (read: shitty) synopsis or outline or screenplay I've been sent, just to point out what's not working (read: rip it a new asshole) in an effort to educate and inform...but I always jam out. Maybe it's because I'm just a nice guy. More like I'm just a pussy.

Not Bill.

But as tough as he is on these poor people's work (or peoples' poor work), there's a lot to be learned from their mistakes and his analysis.

Students...school is in session at Pulp 2.0. Go. Now.



p.s. I especially liked the 'why the Trajan font sucks' clip.

Sanctuary 2.0

Remember when I chatted up old pal Damian Kindler about his new web-only supernatural series 'Sanctuary'? Well after a relatively successful run on the internets, the show was picked up by Sci Fi Channel in the U.S. and then eventually Movie Network/Movie Central here in Canada (funny how so many of our Canadian nets only come in after our neighbours to the south get on board...hmmm) for a 13 episode television season.

The rejigged and rewritten reboot of the pilot premieres tonight, and although some reviews or other reviews or even other reviews haven't been glowing, with old colleagues like Damian and Sam Egan (Outer Limits) and Martin Wood (Earth: Final Conflict) at the helm, I'm still looking forward to it. I'm sure it was difficult to re-introduce the series again after you've already done it, but now with a whole new layer of input and expectations. And the news hasn't been all negative, especially with the Canadian Press. And here's a nice article where Wood discusses the in's and out's of directing a show set primarily against green screen.

Check out Sanctuary this evening....let's see where they take us.

No Blinking!

Film and television acting is more of a science than an art, in my opinion.

Not to belittle the brilliance of the many talented performers who grace our movie screens and TV sets every year, but acting for 'the lens' requires lots of other very specific abilities. Of course it's about creating a voice and becoming the part to make the viewer believe you 'are' the character being portrayed, but it's also about finding your light and hitting marks and maintaining eye lines and understanding lenses and knowing edge of frame...I could so go on and on. Not to mention NOTHING is performed continuously top to bottom, but rather in little bits and pieces all filmed out of order.

Generating a performance is very important. Conveying that performance effectively to the audience within the parameters and constraints of the filmed medium...as if not more important. More math than method...again, in my opinion.


That's why the 'Acting In Film' series with Michael Caine is so money, and should be required viewing for every aspiring (and even established) thespian. Caine's all about less is more, craft not art, and in a straightforward and understandable way drops dozens of helpful hints to make the camera love you.

Here's a taste:




Michael Caine On Acting In Film...I own the book and DVD and recommend them to anybody, but you find find some of the best video bits HERE (parts 1-6)


And...cut!