Help for N00bs?

Jonathan writes

What would you suggest to a budding Canadian screenwriter who is looking for guidance and support? Are there any mentors one could approach? Perhaps organizations dedicated to helping out the scriptwriting comminity?

Being in Canada, you're in luck.

The Canadian Film Centre and the National Screen Institute both have a slew of programs for teaching cultural learnings. The CFC is the gold standard. If you can get into the Prime Time programme, you're several steps ahead in the TV world. The feature program is great too, except that then you're in the Canadian feature world, which I'm not entirely sure is a blessing. The NSI programs are outpatient clinics where you come in for a week, then work on your own for months, with access to a mentor, then come in for a week, etc.

All the festivals seem to have some sort of program for emerging writers. There are fellowships at Banff, and the Talent Lab at TIFF.

Telefilm runs quite a few programs for relative newbies. Spend some time on their website. In particular check out the Young Creators / Jeunes Créateurs program for funding films by creators under 35. Also the Sprint for Your Short. And Feature It! Many Telefilm programs include funding to hire a mentor or script editor to work with you. Some require credits. Some don't.

There are many Telefilm-funded workshops around the country. For example, there's the Screenwriters Bootcamp in PEI in June for Atlantic Canadians. I taught there a couple of summers, and some of the more promising guys there have gone on to agents, development deals and the CFC, like my boy Tommy Gushue.

There are various funding programs for making shorts, e.g. BravoFACT!, Telefilm and the regional development organizations (OMDC in Ontario, SODEC in Quebec, etc.).

For general support and community, there is Ink Canada, Karen Walton's community of screenwriters "and their sketchy friends." They hold irregular drinking sessions in most major cities. There's also the Montreal Film Group, if you're in Quebec.

Readers: I'm less familiar with the programs for aspiring writers. What am I missing?

Ex-Pat?

I'm an American writer just beginning my foray into writing as a career. Even though I grew up a stone's throw away from Los Angeles I can't see L.A. being my gateway to the industry. I spent my first three years as an undergraduate in New England, enjoyed six months in Ireland, about to head up to UBC in Vancouver for a semester, and finishing up an undergraduate degree in creative writing at UCR . Not only do I tend to live a better life away from California, but most of my writing tends to thematically wrap around questions of cultural identity with a distinctly Anglo tint (the only spec script I've written was an episode of Skins).

While all of my classes, books, and blogs detail Hollywood with steely accuracy, what if we don't want to go that route? What if I'm an American planning to live and work and write abroad? Are there any good resources detailing the non-american systems?

The key issue here is nationality. You can't work on Canadian shows if you're not a Canadian citizen or a Canadian permanent resident. (Permanent resident = Green Card.) I don't know about the British system, but I imagine you would need to be a British or EU citizen, or a Commonwealth citizen residing permanently in Britain. Likewise, I imagine, Oz.

So working in another country's system requires planning, effort and time. It probably takes 12-18 months to get a visa to be a Canadian permanent resident, after which you can come here and work. (You don't have to be here while you're waiting for the visa.)

There are a few automatic shortcuts. I understand that if you can prove Irish grandparents, you can get an Irish/EU passport. If you're Jewish, you can get an Israeli passport, though that's not as useful. And I have heard that if you can prove that your parents or grandparents left Spain during the Spanish Civil War, or if you can prove your Jewish ancestors were expelled from Spain in 1492 -- you can get a Spanish passport. Who knows if that's true -- ask your Spanish consulate.

The Canadian and British systems have their own flaws. The Canadian English film market is currently dreadful, and Canadian TV is under constant threat from the Conservative government. Canadian producers are only just beginning to appreciate the role of the showrunner in TV. The US market is the only market that doesn't depend on government handouts and regulations. All sorts of Canadians and Brits would love to move to LA, if they could only figure out how.

Also, there are plenty of people making indie movies and co-productions in LA. My first salaried job in showbiz was working for an Israeli producer who made elaborate co-productions. The movie I came in on, EMINENT DOMAIN, was an Israeli-French-Canadian co-pro shot in Poland and partly financed by a Welsh bank. It's a big town, LA. Not everyone's working on the next Michael Bay picture.

You can, of course, write anywhere and have LA agents, though it will be a serious drag on your career.

You can also try to break into the New York showbiz community. The drawback there is that there isn't that much work and the competition is ridiculous, because every other New York prep school kid is trying to avoid going out to the Coast, you're up against them and their connections, and they're living in their parents' classic six on Central Park West, and vacationing in the Hamptons where they might bump into Spielberg.

Without knowing what your specific questions are, it's hard to point you to resources. This blog has a lot of info on Canada, and there are probably Brit writing blogs with a similar slant. What do you want to know?

Going to the Awards?

[Canada] As Denis reminds, the WGC Awards are Monday, the 20th. You can buy tickets at the new WGC site.

The WGC Awards is the best schmooze in town. Imagine hundreds of drunken wallflowers. People fly in from Vancouver for it. Network execs will come, along with some of the cooler producers, and Telefilm people, but mostly it's every single Canadian screenwriter who can make it.

And the awards themselves are mercifully brief.

Tickets, if you're a non-member, are $75, which isn't cheap, but you get some awesome catering for that, plus an open bar, and it's a schmoozefest. (And schmoozing is your job.)

I'll be there. You should too.

WWTV: Being Erica

Writers Watching TV is WGC honcho Jill Golick's extremely cool series of get-togethers with showrunners and creators in Toronto. This Wednesday night WWTV invites creator Jana Sinyor to screen her series BEING ERICA and then talk about it. Looks like a big crowd of writers and execs and producers and directors.

And then we drink. Drunken writers = always fun.

I'll be there. If you're in the T-dot, you should too! And come on by and say hi.

It's Time for Prime Time, Canada

The CFC’s Prime Time Television Program is recognized within the industry as an essential source for trained writers and newly developed projects for the television marketplace.

Through industry driven training our residents learn to write for episodic television in a collaborative story room environment, acquire real on the job skills, meet industry contacts and develop and pitch their own original series.

Application deadline: Thursday, May 14th, 2009. For complete information on eligibility, the application package and program details, please visit: www.cfccreates.com/tv or e-mail: tv@cfccreates.com.

If you're Canadian, the CFC is the place to go to start your TV or feature career. The program is short and extremely effective, and you get to meet lots of industry players. And then you go to Banff for free. A ridiculously high percentage of successful Canadian writers, execs, producers, etc., went to the CFC. There's actually a Facebook group for people in the Canadian industry who didn't go to the CFC.

Start working on your application, Tommy!

UPDATE:

Q. What are the demographics of the people in the program?

I asked, and was told:

Prime Time residents range from their mid-twenties to their 50s or 60s. This past year half of our residents were between 35 and 40, while the other half were between 24 and 30. However, in previous years we have had residents from every age range.

As for experience, we have had people come in who have taken just a few writing courses, and we’ve also had people come in who have been in story rooms for established shows, but felt they needed the extra something that the course provides.

What we truly look for is talent and dedication.

Canadian N00b Questions

Q. I have been studying/writing screenplays on my own for close to ten years now, and I'm returning to Canada after a stint teaching English overseas. What I want to know is, do I need to live in Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver to be "in the industry?" How close-knit is the Canadian screenwriting community?

I'm considering taking a scriptwriting course at a college in Ottawa. Am I going to be removing myself from the industry and the jobs by living there? The main reason I'm thinking about going to school is to build relationships and network, but if I'm completely cut off from everyone else geographically, it won't do me a whole lot of good.

I know that if you're writing for the U.S. market you pretty much have to be in L.A., but is there a Canadian equivalent?

Toronto is far and away the center of anglo showbiz in Canada, as Montreal is the hub of francophone showbiz. The networks are guilds are all Toronto-based. At least a plurality of Canadian shows are staffed and cast out of Toronto. There is a good deal of production in Vancouver, and to a lesser extent Montreal, but many of those shows originate in Toronto. 18 TO LIFE, SOPHIE and DAD'S IN THE ATTIC are all Montreal productions with Toronto prodcos; BLOOD TIES, which shot in Vancouver, was largely a Toronto creation as well. (Weirdly, they shot Vancouver for Toronto, which seems a huge waste of production value.)

I live in Montreal, because it's the best city in the world to live in. But I make a point of visiting Toronto regularly. Maybe every 6-8 weeks. My pay cable series is set up with a Toronto production company. Montreal producers are, collectively, terrible at reading people's material.

I also have feature writing friends who live here, who work with producers in LA, New York, England, even Mongolia. But their agents are in Toronto or LA, or they have networks of producers who know and love and think of them.

In Canada there is support for regional production, which means that an Edmonton-based writer will occasionally get a gig because he's the best available Alberta writer. But I wouldn't advise anyone to stay in Edmonton and wait for that to happen. [UPDATE: Though, as DMc points out in the comments, I would recommend that person make friends with any production companies active in Edmonton, and maybe Calgary too, before ditching the Prairies for the Center.]

Anyone who's serious about working in the Canadian biz should make it a priority to go to the Canadian Film Centre. A shockingly high percentage of working screenwriters and development execs and network execs are alumni of the Prime Time Television Program or the Film Resident Program. They're both only six months long.

Should I Move to Canada?

Q. My Canadian wife says we should move to Canada, where there are fewer screenwriters. My career is not catching fire down here in LA. Would my writing career be better there?

I began my career in the US, and moved to Canada because of its more nurturing cultural environment. Canada supports emerging writers, established writers, producers, and production, in various ways, through various government programs and subsidies. Canada funds grants and training programs, and has a truly awesome film school (the CFC). Because of that network of support, once you establish Canadian permanent residency (the equivalent of a US green card), it could be easier to make it up here than down there.

Establishing permanent residency takes about eighteen months. Unlike the US, Canada has a fairly sane immigration policy, which encourages educated people with professional experience to come here. You're looking at spending a couple thousand bucks if you do the paperwork yourself, or about five thousand bucks if you hire an immigration lawyer. You wouldn't actually come live here until you're granted permanent residency, which is also when most of the fees come due.

There are indeed fewer screenwriters up here. Of course, there are also fewer jobs. Herman Mankiewicz lured Ben Hecht out to Hollywood with a telegram that read "There are millions to be grabbed out here and your only competition is idiots. Don't let this get around." Nobody is making millions in Canada, and the competition includes some very smart, talented people.

However, as someone who's knocked around Hollywood, you might have a bit of an edge. People in the Canadian industry often have an inferiority complex about the US industry. Anyone who's worked down South gets a bit of hero worship. Some of that is undeserved, but you have probably also absorbed the LA work ethic. Many writers in Canada do not hustle much. They don't write spec scripts, because even newbie writers can get development deals. They don't agent their agent. They fail to send samples when you ask for them. They don't go to every party they conceivably could. Some of the most talented writers don't have agents.

Also, we do periodically lose some of our best and brightest to LA. We lost K-Walt years ago; she lives here but works there. DMc keeps threatening to go down to LA to test the waters.

So you would probably be welcome here. Canada is probably one of the most welcoming countries to immigrants in the world. We're a melting pot like the US, without the anti-immigrant hysteria.

And then there's the free health care. If you're free lancing, it's nice to know you can go to the hospital if something's wrong.

The major downside to working in the Canadian industry is that, if you decide to go back to La-La-Land, I don't know how transferable Canadian credits are Down South. (Otherwise we would have lost DMc long ago.) I generally tell Canadians that the only good times to move down South are when you have no credits, or when your Canadian show is getting good numbers in the US. (I hope Heaton and Barken aren't reading this.)

How do you break into the Canadian biz? Same way you break in to the US biz. One kickass spec script of a popular US show. One kickass spec pilot. And lots of networking.

So... move to Canada? It is a biiiiig step. It is another country. You will have to make new friends. You'll have to make new contacts. But it could be the break you need.

Now, would I encourage writers to move to Canada? Aren't I increasing my competition? I don't think that's how we think up here. We're mostly in competition with you down there. The more brilliant writers we have up here, the more shows we can get into the global marketplace. The more shows shoot up here, the better the crews, and the more credibility Canadian shows have overseas. What's good for FLASHPOINT is good for me.

It's a small enough community that you can get to know everyone. The weather outside is variable, but the weather inside is pretty warm.

UPDATE: Tim asks if it's harder to make a living in Canada. My response in the comments is: it's easier to make a living. It's harder to make a fortune.

UPDATE:

Q. regarding your comment that to get work you need a kick ass TV spec and a kick ass spec pilot, what about a spec feature? is it worth it to write one in Canada?

If you want to get paid to write movies, then write spec features. The Canadian English-language feature market is not strong. (The Quebecois one in French is tiny but strong.) But about half my business is writing features, so there you go.

Freelancers

DMc posts about the reasons why the WGC contract shouldn't mandate a certain number of freelancers. To recap, the WGA contract specifies that a certain small number of scripts on a WGA show must go to free lancers. The idea is to help newbies come up.

Denis's argument is that spreading the scripts around makes it harder for skilled writers to make a living.

I agree. There are some important differences between the way we work in Canada and the American Way.

First of all, in Canada, most of the money is in the scripts. Weekly salaries are not that high. My contract for my series gives me a lower weekly salary than the $6,000+ a junior story editor is entitled to in the States. If my show should go, I'll make that up in production fees. The WGC deal mandates that the writer of an episode be paid around 3% of the budget of the episode. (There's a more complicated formula than that but if the episode budget is a million bucks, the writer's getting a check for over $30,000.)

Normally a free lancer's script has to be heavily rewritten. They're not in the room. They aren't immersed in the show. I've never had a free lancer turn in a script that I didn't have to rewrite at least 50%, and often, in situations where I didn't get to choose the writer myself, we've had to throw the script out and go back to the beat sheet. A freelancer can bring new story ideas and a fresh perspective. They never turn in something you can shoot.

That's awkward because under the WGC rules, the contracted writer -- the free lancer -- is entitled to sole credit and 100% of the production fee no matter how little of their work remains.

In the US this matters less because the story editors are getting paid a whack of cash to rewrite things. That's their job, to rewrite. There is no production fee, either. So the scripts are worth relatively less and the salary is worth relatively more. It is less of an injustice to the writer actually turning in the shootable draft -- whether story editor or showrunner.

Moreover, in the US system a showrunner or story editor who heavily rewrites a free lance script is entitled to credit. So there may be no injustice at all.

There's another difference between the two systems. Shows in the US have bigger staffs. You can go over to Rogers where he's got seven or eight writers for a thirteen episode season -- and that's considered a small room. When you see the writing staff of a Canadian drama on the cover of CANADIAN SCREENWRITER, you'll rarely see more than six people, and often you'll see four. On NAKED JOSH the story room was my co-creator and I.

So if you take away a couple of story editors and turn them into free lancers, you leave the show with one head writer frantically rewriting everyone else's free lance script, working it like the one-legged man at the ass-kicking contest. And that's just nuts.

I'm not a big fan of hiring free lancers. In my experience they don't justify the pay. It's a mitzvah to bring newbies up, but they're not going to learn that much from free lancing anyway. I'd rather pay a few bucks more and have the same newbie writer in the room breaking story and giving notes. If I'm going to throw anyone a bone, it's going to be the writers assistant or script coordinator with a great spec. At least they're around, absorbing the show.

Q. What exactly is the reasons free lancers scripts have to be rewritten so much? I realize that they aren't privilege to information that those in the room would be, but could you give some examples of mistakes that freelancers make that they wouldn't if they were in the room?

Think of all the ways something could be a competent script by itself without being the show. Getting the character's voices wrong. Getting a character's personality wrong. Wrong tone. Not knowing that the set is only 20' long and you can't have a chase scene. Freelancers do all that and more.

To be fair, many of the freelancers I've worked with were not people I chose. In South Africa on CHARLIE JADE we had a bunch of guys who were already contracted when we came on board. Ditto on GALIDOR. Some more or less got the show. Some did not get the show at all. Some were not particularly competent writers. One guy turned in his draft and then went on a weeklong seminar so he wasn't available to write his second draft on schedule. I've had better experiences with people I selected. But still not great experiences. You bring in free lancers for the fresh perspective, but that's really more valuable on the 5th Season of LAW & ORDER -- where the staff is jaded, and the template is easy for a free lancer to copy -- than on the first season of a serial show where you're still finding your feet.

Also, why isn't the freelancer brought in the room for the time he/she is writing the episode? Wouldn't that solve many of the problems?

That's what they did with Rogers on EUREKA, for example. So long as the writer's agent didn't call in and start complaining that the writer was entitled to a weekly salary, that would solve many problems. But at the point where that writer has an office to plug in their laptop, and attends story meetings, what you're doing there is hiring a staff writer without paying them a salary. (Technically in the WGA deal, a "staff writer" in the specific sense is a writer who comes into the office to write their free lance script, but does not rewrite other people's scripts.) On CHARLIE JADE, rather than continue to work with multiple South African free lancers, we brought in Dennis Venter on a less than extravagant salary to write all the remaining South African scripts. (The co-production deal mandated a certain minimum number of SA-scripted episodes.) He did a lot better job for being in the room than he could have done from home.

Re-editing

A friend o'mine wrote:

I saw something on TV that had me scratching my head. I've been studying HOUSE for a spec.

My TiVo recorded this week's episode twice. Once on Global and once again on a FOX affiliate on the west coast. As I was watching and re-watching this episode at different times - making note of things like the different sets used, how the new characters were being integrated into the A, B, and C stories, and how much screen time everyone seems to get - I happened to switch between the two recordings of this same show.

Now while the U.S. recording followed the show's scripted teaser and subsequent four-act structure with commercials inserted at the proper times, the airing on Global created it's own act break midway through the fourth act creating its own fifth act. I was actually able to pause just before the commercials started to see a FADE TO DIGITAL SNOW as if someone in the control room hit PAUSE.

1. Is it common practice in Canada to add commercials in the middle of an act where they do not belong?

God, I hope not.

2. Do you think this kind of thing breaks up the flow of a show?

Ch'yeah.

TV writers spend a lot of time on their act outs. After a springboard is approved, the first document you might do would be a "breakdown" of the acts and their outs, before anybody writes an outline. That's how basic the act structure is.

An extra act-out where there's no cliffhanger or emotional moment is jarring. Coming near the climax, it derails the whole episode emotionally.

I've written elsewhere about the re-editing of THE TUDORS and what that did to the flow of the episode. It sounds like here again, no writer was involved in picking the moment to go out on -- and possibly no creative editor, either.

Re-editing for secondary markets (such as Canada) and syndication is a fact of life. That's why DVD sales, iTunes downloads, and even to a lesser extent free, ad-based streaming on the Internet, are a nice benefit of advancing technology: you see the episode the way it was planned, sometimes even in higher picture quality (with DVDs).

Toronto/LA

Q. I'm about to start looking for an agent, but as I'm Canadian and want to (eventually) write for US shows, I'm trying to determine a course of action. I read on one of your previous posts that a Toronto agent can't get you work in LA, so would I get both a Toronto agent and an LA-based agent? Is that possible? And can I get an LA agent without being in LA? Hypothetically if I did get one, I'd be OK with taking the occasional trip there for meetings, but since I'm Canadian I'd need a Green Card to actually move there. I assume that if I did get some US credits first, an LA-based company would be more likely to sponsor me moving there.

You really need to decide whether you want to start in LA, or Canada.

The most important resource you have is your writing ability and your scripts. Your second most important resource is your connections. If you make Canadian connections, they won't help you in LA. I've got a reputation up here; down there no one knows me. If I were to go down to LA after the strike, I might get some polite attention, but I'd have to spend serious time down there to get to know people who might want to hire me. I'd probably be lucky to get work as a writer-producer staffing a show. A good friend of mine has occasionally thought about going down to LA to try his luck; he would actually move there for a year to see if he can break in. An "occasional trip" won't cut it.

At a bare minimum you could get an LA agent in one trip, and then come down later for staffing season, but you would need to spend all of staffing season in LA.

LA credits will definitely help you in Canada, but you still won't know anybody. So pick the market you want to work in.

It is generally easier to break in in Canada, provided of course that you are Canadian.

I don't know how you get working papers in the States, since I've never had to do it, but there is a whole community of expat Canucks in LA, so it must be possible. Anyone want to weigh in?

Q. Well, which do I do? I'm a feature writer. Do I move down there asap as soon as I have a couple scripts under my belt (written, not sold)? Do I write until I sell something, and THEN move to LA? Do I try to get a movie made in LA while writing in Toronto?

If you're a feature writer, it's less urgent to move to LA. You can get a feature agent without living in LA. You'll be missing the meetings with development people, but those never turn into anything anyway until you've sold a script.

On the other hand, you learn a lot from being in LA. You absorb a sense of showbiz. If you work in an agency as an assistant, you get a sense of the biz. If you work on a set, you get a sense of the biz.

Canada's more nurturing, but it's a kiddie pool compared to LA. If you like to swim in the ocean, and don't mind undertow and sharks, go to LA. If you want swimming lessons, and a lifeguard, stay in Canada.

There's no right answer. People come out of the Canadian Film Centre and start working in the Canadian biz, and make a good career here. People go to LA and become Jim Cameron. People go to LA, spend 5 years, can't get arrested, lose their dog in the divorce, come back, and are big successes because they absorbed a work ethic and creative standards that blow the competition away. People go to LA, fail, and become embittered real estate agents in San Berdardino.

You gotta ask yourself a question ... "do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya?

Yankee Go North

I have begun to wonder if I should be paying some attention to the Canadian market. Must one live in Canada to write there?

You have to be at least a permanent resident -- have the equivalent of a Green Card, be accepted as a potential immigrant -- or Canadian producers can't benefit from the various federal support programs when they produce your stuff. Practically that means you can't work in Canada.

However, it is much easier to immigrate to Canada than to get a Green Card in the States. Canadian immigration policy is based on the attitude that there's a lot of room here, and importing bright, successful, educated people is a good thing. And we lack the paranoia about furriners that currently infects the Department of Fatherland Security. Any talented, professional-minded TV or film person ought to be able to find or create work for themselves in Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal. You'll still have to break in, but it is a more nurturing environment; and you can still spend half the year in LA.

But the immigration application takes a year or two to process. And you'd need to spend some time making contacts up here. So don't try it unless you're willing to go for it.

Strike's Effect?

Q. I wanted to know your thoughts on this article.... For Canadian writers, could a WGA strike actually be beneficial?

I asked my manager in LA, and he said:

I strongly disagree with this one. Yes, everybody is rushing into production, but it's not for Canuck scripts. What I am seeing is buyers trying to cast up their movies. They are not looking for new projects as they won't get done in time for the strike. They are looking for actors and directors. Not much for writers.

So there you go. I'm not sure I'd be crazy about taking advantage of our brethren going out on the picket line to score a few gigs, anyway.

QWF Mentorships

The Quebec Writer's Federation has a mentorship program for fiction writers, poets, and aspiring screenwriters:

For the sixth year in a row, QWF is proud to offer the only English-language writing mentorship program in the province of Quebec. This four-month program pairs experienced, professional writers with emerging writers who are deemed ready by an independent jury to benefit concretely from one-on-one, intensive mentoring.

There's an application form (PDF) for both mentors and mentees. (There's a different one for mentats or Mentos, but what the deadline for those is.)

I'll be on the jury for screenwriters.

For Emerging Quebec Writers and Directors

Telefilm Quebec has a new program for emerging writers and writer-directors. It's short on money but long on advice and consultation; as I understand it, it's there to help you workshop your commercial thriller idea into a script. Check it out; the deadline is October 11.

All Your Quirk Are Belong To Us

DMc blogs:

This morning Russell Smith in the Globe & Mail has an interesting column about U.S. cultural quirkiness, which riffs off an article by Michael Hirschorn in this month's Atlantic. It's interesting because, of course, quirky for quirky's sake has traditionally been a Canadian film and tv development ... uh ... quirk.

Huh.

I can't help wondering if the whole Quirky Art thing is a residual impression, like the raft of "alcohol-infused incest and abuse in a small dying fishing town" movies that DMc and I like to rail about. Slings and Arrows isn't quirky -- it's a straightforward comedy about quirky people, just like, say, 30 ROCK. Corner Gas, ditto. LITTLE MOSQUE, ditto. DE GRASSI: THE NEXT GENERATION is not quirky at all, is it? (I dunno, I don't watch it.) WHISTLER? Not quirky. I could go on.

And the last small dying fishing town movie I saw was the adorable LA GRANDE SEDUCTION which was about a small town trying to snooker a Big City Doctor into moving there. Nary an incest or an abuse in it. All the drunkenness was happy funny drunkenness.

In fact, since I moved to Montreal in 2000, I have not run across any serious quirkiness in either the TV or film industries. TRAILER PARK BOYS is, sure, about very quirky characters. But it is not a quirky show. It is a mock-documentary that uses classic story structure. The Boys want something. They concoct a dumb scheme to get it. Complications Ensue. TPB is, essentially, a cross between THE THREE STOOGES and I LOVE LUCY, updated via THIS IS SPINAL TAP.

There are art films, of course, but I would call Atom Egoyan cerebral, and Denys Arcand a tad bombastic. Not quirky. The Coen brothers are quirkier than Atom Egoyan, and Oliver Stone or M. Night Shyamalan can give Denys Arcand a run for his bombast any day.

Is it possible that Canadian storyteller, in fact, moved on from teh quirk years ago? And we're too Canadian to admit that we have, like the man who claimed to have been turned into a newt, "got better"?

UPDATE: Bill Cunningham comments:

If your show has quirky characters then by definition it is quirky. You can't separate character from setting and say it's not quirky

I disagree. Let me try to clarify.

30 ROCK is a sitcom. All sitcoms have quirky characters.

But they are going for the laughs. The jokes are not quirky jokes. They're mainstream jokes. Funny jokes, often, and even when they're not funny, they're meant to be funny.

Whereas what Denis is irked at, in his comments below, are quirky show: rather than going for the laughs, they are going for the chuckle. Sometimes the squirm. They'll settle for an intelligent nod. They're either afraid of going for the laugh, or they can't get a laugh, so they settle for the wince, or the bemused "wtf?" frown.

That's a quirky show.

One of my favorite quirky shows, because it only used quirk as a jumping off point, was NORTHERN EXPOSURE. The characters were indeed quirky. But the plotlines were also quirky. You weren't always sure if you were supposed to laugh or what. We saw the dramatic sides of comic characters, and vice versa. Sometimes it got philosophical. At least once it broke the fourth wall and got all meta. That's quirky.

When you don't know what the hell they're going for, but you're pretty sure the storytellers had something in mind, it's probably quirky. Does that make sense?

I'm With Denis

If you're interested in Canadian TV, DMc has a great post today about Jim Shaw, Fatuous Gasbag, Cultural Warrior. Jim Shaw, owner of a big chunk of the Canadian TV industry, thinks

Instead of promoting the creation of better children’s programming or developing a series based on the icons and the elements of our country that make Canada great, they [the CTF] have pumped 2.5 billion dollars into shows about the dysfunctional residents of a mobile home park, shape shifting aliens with a grudge against the government and educational programming that offers instruction on the right and wrong way to host an S&M Bondage Party.

Jim Shaw would like you to write in to complain, so that Jim Shaw won't have to give a small chunk of his profits back to the CTF to support such shows. (Profits he gets, of course, because his stations get a share of the national airwaves for free, and are protected from American signal by government regulation.)

Obviously, he'd rather spend that money buying more American shows.

I love that some of the CTF money goes to TRAILER PARK BOYS, an outrageous comedy about a bunch of lowlifes in a trailer park. I thought parts of KINK were quite illuminating. I don't know what the shapeshifters show was, but I'm sorry I missed it.

Culture is culture. Does Jim Shaw really want shows about Mounties and voyageurs? Of course he does. Because no one will watch them. Then he can claim that "no one wants to see shows about Canadians" as he licenses another season of LOST for far more than he'd have to pay for a show of the caliber of, say, SLINGS AND ARROWS or CORNER GAS or DURHAM COUNTY. Right now that argument doesn't work because CORNER GAS is a hit, and TRAILER PARK BOYS has legions of diehard fans who'll stand in line for hours to see "the boys."

Culture is not high culture. Culture is just culture. Culture is whatever stories people want to see, whatever paintings people want to paint and other people want to look at, whatever music kids want to put on their iPods. The Montreal music scene did not become one of the hothouses of North American pop because The Arcade Fire is writing songs about snow and maple syrup. New York does not have a rich cultural heritage because Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani know how to pick cultural winners.

Cultural policy should, I think, support Canadian artists telling their stories, whatever those are, so long as they're pulling in an audience.

So, as you can imagine, I wrote in to the CTF and the CRTC and the Minister of Heritage:

I don't at all agree with Jim Shaw's self-serving ad in the paper today. Canadian culture needs to be protected, but not by a guy who's getting rich off having a protected share of Canada's airwaves. And I think TV shows like Corner Gas and Trailer Park Boys are part of Canada's rich mix of high and low culture. Canada needs its own voices telling its own stories. Government -- and Jim Shaw -- shouldn't tell us what those voices are supposed to say.
Yours,

Alex Epstein
co-creator, NAKED JOSH
co-writer, BON COP / BAD COP

You can, too

With Flying Colours

I am pleased to report that I passed my Canadian citizenship test. Actually, everyone in the room passed their citizenship test. Do you know when Nunavut joined the Confederation? (Hint: April Fools.)

The much scarier test is afterwards, where the nice lady asks you all sorts of questions about where your kids go to school, and whether a loft is a suitable environment for a kid, and what was your first job in Canada (VAMPIRE HIGH!), and can you prove you're really a professional writer? Fortunately I keep my beloved Writer's Guild card in my wallet -- usually the only thing in my wallet that serves no actual purpose beyond making me feel proud, and giving me 5% off on ViaRail -- so I was able to prove that I am in fact a professional writer.

Another reason not to work non-union!

Ellen Sandler, Partito Quarto

CS: Do you think YouTube is a threat to broadcast TV?
ES: I think it's both a threat and a developmental tool, the way sound was, or color, or TV itself.
CS: But if the market is heading toward YouTube, then will TV shows will be forced to head towards shows that are more YouTube-like, the way pay cable has pulled TV in a direction of being more serial, darker, fouler-mouthed? Or will TV shows be forced to move in the opposite direction, the way movies moved to widescreen and 3D to give the audience something they couldn't get on TV?
ES: I think it's a little early to tell what impact it will have, because the marketing model doesn't exist yet. How does anyone make money with YouTube? That paradigm has not come down.

CS: Do you watch/are you aware of Canadian TV? Do you think the broadcast audience will tolerate shows set outside the US?
ES: I definitely think they'd tolerate them, but I don't know how they get sold in the marketplace. I think audiences would love to see shows about other places. I have consulted on a few Canadian shows. I've had some clients with shows on the CBC. They do seem to have slightly different concerns -- they're more focused on character and story than on marketing. I find that refreshing. They also seem to be more interested in getting the writer's perspective rather than telling the writer how to fix it. But I guess their shows are financed differently.
CS: The CBC is the pubcaster, so they're less about the advertisers. On the other hand there's a mandate to have shows with a million viewers. And in a country of 22 million anglophones that's swamped with American TV shows, getting a million viewers is pretty hard. So they are audience driven. But they probably care more about the number of eyeballs than the demographics of that audience.
ES: That explains it, because story and character appeals to an audience driven show, not a marketing driven show. Look at cable. Cable shows are about the number of subscribers. So you see stronger characters and story lines. The shows are less about spectacle and more about story. Broadcast TV in the US is market driven, not audience driven. It's a distinction that has powerful consequences.

CRTC Planning to Throw Canadian TV Industry Out the Window

This is the sort of article that makes one wonder whether one is going to have any jobs at all in a year or two.

Konrad von Finckenstein has called for an extensive review of CRTC rules and policies for broadcasting, suggesting big changes are in the works for the federal regulator, which is in need of some "rebalancing."

"There is no doubt that a new wind is blowing," von Finckenstein told the annual conference of the B.C. Association of Broadcasters late last week in Penticton.

"We have a government that is very keen on less regulation, and that has directed us to accept market forces as the default and regulation as the exception."

From Playback: "Deregulation in the cards, says CRTC chief".

The problem, of course, is that "deregulation" probably doesn't mean "stop protecting the Canadian broadcasters from US signal." It means, "continue allowing Canadian broadcasters to block out US signals, but don't expect them to produce any Canadian content." Right now CTV (a Canuck broadcaster) can buy CSI, and lay its own ads over CBS's content.

US broadcasters can reach, oh, say, 80% of the Canadian population; and of course, US satellite networks could reach 100%, if they were allowed to sell into Canada. If Canadian broadcasters really did have to compete with US broadcasters, then they would have to invest heavily in Canadian content. Who's going to watch Grey's Anatomy on Global when they can watch it on ABC? The only way they'd get any audience at all would be to offer shows that the US broadcasters aren't offering, that speak to Canadians.

I suspect thought that the Conservative's "deregulation" rap, like the Bushies', doesn't mean "let market forces work," which is a point of view I can respect. It means "protect corporations from the little people," which is not the same thing, at all.

Pitching at PitchIt

Chris writes:

Q. I read through some of your entries from last year about your pitching at Banff and I have a few questions. I'm considering entering the PitchIt! dealie and wanted to know what makes a winning pitch. What's the difference between a winning pitch and a not-winning pitch, is it theatrics? Quality of the show? A clever balance of both? What are some pitch do's and don'ts? How long do pitches usually run and is their running time mandated? How should I structure my pitch? What would you have done differently in your pitch?

The PitchIt! program is an event at Banff where creators (including creator teams) pitch their idea to an audience of 150+ people. To pitch, you submit 750 words on your idea, and 300 words on you or your team, and the best five are selected. At the pitch, you get 4 minutes to say or do whatever you like, and then a few more minutes to answer questions from the panel of judges, who are network execs.

Needless to say, not how pitching usually happens.

I submitted four pitches last year, and one got into the program. I didn't win, so I can't claim any special brilliance there.

What gets you into the program, I have to imagine, is a good 750 word pitch. To me that means about 300 words on what your show is; 250 words on who your characters are; and 200 possibly story ideas. They don't have to be in sections like that, but for most shows that's the simplest and cleanest presentation.

I memorized a four-minute pitch down the word, honing it constantly, and pitching it to anyone who would give me four minutes. I thought it came off well. I did lousy at the Q & A, though. I didn't understand what one of the judges was asking, so instead of answering the question in two sentences, I rambled on incoherently.

That's okay. I eventually set up the project in development at a cable network here, with a 20 page pitch that answered pretty much every damn question anyone ever asked me when I pitched them, including the one I bobbled at PitchIt!

What were the others, lessee ... A comedy about a heavy metal band that performs for kids ... A comic procedural about health inspectors ... a comedy about two drunken louts who used to be the Hardy Boys and now solved mysteries about their missing beer can and the like ... can't remember the last one. I thought Sarah Timmins' health inspector show was the best pitch among the others (obviously I have no perspective on my own). The Hardy Boys guys did some schtick onstage and then showed a trailer they'd shot. The heavy metal guy seemed a little shaggy, and so did his pitch, but he won the prize and the audience prize, so there you go.

Personally I'd stay away from theatrics. I don't want to be judged on how well I bring off the theatrics. I want to be judged on the value of my idea. And if you have a great idea, all it needs is for your to explain it coherently and cleanly. If you don't, no amount of theatrics will rescue it.

My pitch was fairly complex, so I spent about two months moving bits around and trying them out over and over to see if they would go into people's brains better. I started with an image, then my main character, then her problem, and expanded from there. I ended on a mystery, and my theme. I was doing other things during those two months, but whenever I had a spare moment I worked on my pitch. I practiced it while I went running. I pitched it to absolute strangers. I pitched it to my (then) 10 year old son.

(As a side note, it is always a good idea to pitch your idea to a fifth grader. If there's anything he can't understand, the odds are excellent your story is too complicated.)

The biggest question you need to answer in any pitch is, I think: how is this a series. An obvious question, you'd think, but not all of the pitches answered it well. Some of the ideas seemed good for a show, or maybe even five shows. But 100 shows? If you can't explain out how you're going to come up with ideas for at least three seasons, then maybe your idea isn't a tv show.

I'll be submitting a couple of things to PitchIt! this year too. Whether or not your pitch wins, you get a lot of exposure pitching in front of a huge crowd like that, and it structures your visit to the Rockies. It might help you get the show set up, but expect for it to take six months to a year to get anything solid out of your Banff trip.

Good luck, and hope to see you at the podium!