I rented LES HAUTS ET LES BAS DE SOPHIE PAQUIN, the hit hourlong Québec comic drama that was remade as the Canadian comedy SOPHIE.
The problem is, my French is not good enough to watch francophone TV. I can pitch a show to a producer in French, and I can direct a film crew in French. I listen to the news in French in my car. But TV comes at you a bit faster and stronger than someone you're having a conversation with. (Also, my hearing is a bit degraded from too many nights at the Pyramid Club and too many days in the NYC subway system in my wasted youth.) So I was hoping for subtitles.
No subtitles.
How about closed captions? Surely there are closed captions so the hard of hearing can watch? I read French just fine.
It took me half an hour to figure out how to turn on closed captions on my TV, basically because...
... there were no closed captions to turn on.
This is a shame. Québec's TV industry is vibrant. It really speaks to its audience, who don't see themselves reflected in Canadian TV, or French TV, or American TV. It has funny comedies and dramatic dramas. It doesn't pull punches. Why do you think they keep remaking Québec shows?
It's possible that some Canadians might want to watch it, if only out of curiosity. And maybe, with a few subtitles, they could get into the characters and the stories.
Ditto Québecois movies. A lot of those aren't subtitled or closed captioned either.
Of course subtitles cost money, and Québecois TV shows are made on ridiculously tiny budgets -- think $170,000 per half hour instead of $500,000. So producers and distributors are not going to spring for them.
This strikes me as a problem worth throwing government money at. Subsidize subtitles!
Why? I've been deliberately using inflammatory language in this post, in case you didn't notice -- using "Canadian" to refer to Canada outside Québec. Why, you'd almost think I was a sovereigntist. And obviously, having gone to the trouble of immigrating to Canada, I'd like to keep Canada whole.
But I don't see Québec on Canadian TV. And I sure as hell don't see francophones on Canadian TV. It's practically verboten to show anyone with a Québec accent. A British accent, no problem. An Italian accent, no problem. A Turkish accent, no problem. But Québec? Sorry.
My producer and I were told by a funder that if we had anyone speaking French in our romantic comedy, which is set in Montreal, no one would see it outside of Québec. Maybe if Canadians got a little Québec culture now and then, they wouldn't feel it was "pretentious" for a movie to show a little bilingualism.
If francophones never see themselves on Canadian TV, and Canadians can't experience Québec TV unless their French is already perfect, is it any wonder that so many Québeckers feel like they live in a different country already? I get that feeling myself.
Culture binds a society together.
Subtitles are pretty cheap sutures.
UPDATE: The Collaborative for Communication Access via Captioning is an advocacy group for more closed captioning. Check'em out if you're interested.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Kindle Price
But would I sell more if it were $4.99? Would I sell five times more if it were $1.99? When there's no actual cost to put the book in someone's hands, you can really set the price anywhere you think demand will meet supply.
There's a lower limit where reducing the price doesn't really help, of course. If I'm interested enough to start reading a book, I'm probably not more likely to buy it for $.99 than I would be for $1.99, and I'm not really much less likely to buu it at $4.99. (But then, I have a pretty good allowance.)
What's the price at which you would just jump in and press "buy" without really worrying about it?
On the other hand, you can read the first chapter free. At the point where you've read the first chapter and you want to keep reading, at what price above which you start thinking hard about whether you need this book, and below which you go, what the hell, gimme the words?
Now be honest, boys and girls...
LA
Hello friendly LA readers:
I'm going to be in LA to pitch a series. I might possibly organize some drinkin' on the 10th or 11th. If you'd be interested in having a beer, drop me a note and I'll let you know if I put something together.
I'm going to be in LA to pitch a series. I might possibly organize some drinkin' on the 10th or 11th. If you'd be interested in having a beer, drop me a note and I'll let you know if I put something together.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Paul Feig Master Class: Comedy Gold
Kristine Kazias at the CFC was kind enough to invite me to Paul Feig's master class at the Just For Laughs Comedy Conference yesterday. Paul Feig created FREAKS AND GEEKS and directed BRIDESMAIDS, among other things, so I suppose he knows a thing or two about comedy. Some of the points I found most interesting:
He doesn't try to finish a script before casting. "We get the moves down," then they cast. He feels you can't really write a character until you know who's going to play them. Also, "if someone comes in and is brilliant, but wrong for the part, we change the part." (Note: he almost always says "we.")
He writes audition sides. For many parts, there may not be enough lines to really give them something to audition with. So he writes a scene where the character gets a few meaty speeches. Then he gives an "adjustment" to see what the actor does with direction. And then he has someone run an improv with the actor.
He thinks joke comedy is old hat. He likes "behavioral" comedy. People are used to seeing real people be ridiculous onscreen from reality TV and YouTube. So when you get 8 year olds talking like 40 year olds, it's alienating. Comedy should come from the character and the situation, not the line. This is a constant battle with studio execs, who complain that his scripts don't read funny. And it's a battle with writers, who like to write lines that read funny, especially when they're going to be read by 8 year olds.
He likes to let actors improv on set. That means he cross shoots -- he has cameras on both actors -- otherwise it's too hard to cut together. He'll get the take he wants, and then tell them to "take a take" and do what they want. (Obviously this is easier on a 40 day schedule than a 15 day one.)
He warns that sometimes people audition well in the room, but don't look good on screen, while other times an actor doesn't read well in the room, but "the camera makes sense of their face."
He suggests keeping a comedy script as simple as possible -- "just enough story to keep it going forward." If people get confused, they stop laughing. That's why "I don't understand this" is almost always a valid note, while "I would have done this differently" almost never is.
On BRIDESMAIDS, they did 8 screenings. They'll do a "p" or polished screening -- their best cut. They'll also do an "e" or experimental screening, where they try stuff out. Sometimes there's stuff that doesn't seem like it will work that absolutely "destroys" in front of an audience. The see the movie in terms of "pods." They mix and match various cuts of the pods to see what works best overall.
They always sit in front at screenings, so they can hear the laughter clearly. They also record the screening, so they can sync it up and watch it in the edit room. That way you don't have to remember what worked and what didn't. You can hear it in the editing room.
He says even a comedy has to come out of your own experience. Otherwise you just recycle other movies. "You fail when you chase" the audience. You don't want to try to be commercial as such: "Commercial means people want to see it."
Pretty fun stuff -- all in just an hour. Thanks for organizing this, Kathryn Emslie and her fearless CFC crew!
He doesn't try to finish a script before casting. "We get the moves down," then they cast. He feels you can't really write a character until you know who's going to play them. Also, "if someone comes in and is brilliant, but wrong for the part, we change the part." (Note: he almost always says "we.")
He writes audition sides. For many parts, there may not be enough lines to really give them something to audition with. So he writes a scene where the character gets a few meaty speeches. Then he gives an "adjustment" to see what the actor does with direction. And then he has someone run an improv with the actor.
He thinks joke comedy is old hat. He likes "behavioral" comedy. People are used to seeing real people be ridiculous onscreen from reality TV and YouTube. So when you get 8 year olds talking like 40 year olds, it's alienating. Comedy should come from the character and the situation, not the line. This is a constant battle with studio execs, who complain that his scripts don't read funny. And it's a battle with writers, who like to write lines that read funny, especially when they're going to be read by 8 year olds.
He likes to let actors improv on set. That means he cross shoots -- he has cameras on both actors -- otherwise it's too hard to cut together. He'll get the take he wants, and then tell them to "take a take" and do what they want. (Obviously this is easier on a 40 day schedule than a 15 day one.)
He warns that sometimes people audition well in the room, but don't look good on screen, while other times an actor doesn't read well in the room, but "the camera makes sense of their face."
He suggests keeping a comedy script as simple as possible -- "just enough story to keep it going forward." If people get confused, they stop laughing. That's why "I don't understand this" is almost always a valid note, while "I would have done this differently" almost never is.
On BRIDESMAIDS, they did 8 screenings. They'll do a "p" or polished screening -- their best cut. They'll also do an "e" or experimental screening, where they try stuff out. Sometimes there's stuff that doesn't seem like it will work that absolutely "destroys" in front of an audience. The see the movie in terms of "pods." They mix and match various cuts of the pods to see what works best overall.
They always sit in front at screenings, so they can hear the laughter clearly. They also record the screening, so they can sync it up and watch it in the edit room. That way you don't have to remember what worked and what didn't. You can hear it in the editing room.
He says even a comedy has to come out of your own experience. Otherwise you just recycle other movies. "You fail when you chase" the audience. You don't want to try to be commercial as such: "Commercial means people want to see it."
Pretty fun stuff -- all in just an hour. Thanks for organizing this, Kathryn Emslie and her fearless CFC crew!
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Joy to the World
Film maven 
Joy Loewen says nice things about YOU ARE SO UNDEAD and my various other projects on her blog Exposure Film. Thanks, Joy!
Joy Loewen says nice things about YOU ARE SO UNDEAD and my various other projects on her blog Exposure Film. Thanks, Joy!
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Heaviosity
A writer friend of mine asked me to show her HEAVY RAIN and some other video games -- she's planning her own detective game. So I played it a little deeper than I did the last time, which wasn't very far. I get Richard Rouse's complaint -- the game makes you its bitch. You don't really control the action at all. You can simple fail the action. I get in a fight with a dude, and I can either hit the right keys or not hit them. If I don't hit them, I lose the fight. But all I'm doing is hitting X when an X flashes on the screen and O when an O flashes. It's not like a proper fight where I can choose to dodge or hit or grapple.
I can see why a lot of hardcore gamers consider this not really a game, even if the critics liked it pretty well.
For me, it's about immersion. In a movie, I'm immersed if the character is someone I care about. (It doesn't help that the dad is such a pathetic, whiny guy -- he's not someone I care about.) But in a game, I'm immersed if I'm making choices for the main character. If I'm just following orders, then I don't get involved emotionally. Emotion (beyond sheer thrill and excitement) is about making moral choices.
When I blow a case in LA NOIRE and convict the wrong guy, I feel a lot worse than I do playing HEAVY RAIN. The setup was taking so long I was yelling at the game, "kidnap the damn kid already, for chrissake! Let's go!"
I'm developing this thought more in a talk I'm giving to the MIGS in November.
I can see why a lot of hardcore gamers consider this not really a game, even if the critics liked it pretty well.
For me, it's about immersion. In a movie, I'm immersed if the character is someone I care about. (It doesn't help that the dad is such a pathetic, whiny guy -- he's not someone I care about.) But in a game, I'm immersed if I'm making choices for the main character. If I'm just following orders, then I don't get involved emotionally. Emotion (beyond sheer thrill and excitement) is about making moral choices.
When I blow a case in LA NOIRE and convict the wrong guy, I feel a lot worse than I do playing HEAVY RAIN. The setup was taking so long I was yelling at the game, "kidnap the damn kid already, for chrissake! Let's go!"
I'm developing this thought more in a talk I'm giving to the MIGS in November.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Shifting Space
One of the things directors have to watch is the topography of a set. Often you don't have the budget to build an entire set; but you have to film it so that the viewer has a clear sense of what's where.
This article makes the case that Stanley Kubrick did the opposite in THE SHINING: he changed the set, presumably to subtly disorient the viewer.
It's an interesting technique. It leverages the way our brains tend to elide the editing. Even a scene of two people talking is actually multiple conversations shot from different angles and edited together. We generally remember the conversation but not the cuts. We assume that the hotel wouldn't change because we assume what we're seeing is really a hotel and not a series of hotel sets that may or may not join up. So how can we reconcile things when bits of the hotel change? We can't, and that's sort of subliminally alarming.
We've all seen this done explicitly, when the hero comes back to the place he saw the crime and there's no house there, or the house is abandoned and not the new house he was in, etc. This is the first time I've seen a convincing case of someone doing it without drawing attention to it.
How can you apply this technique to writing? You'd probably have to make clear to the reader what you're doing; otherwise the film crew would assume you were just sloppy.
UPDATE: John August says this is "the genius fallacy." It may be. But even Kubrick didn't do it intentionally, you can.
This article makes the case that Stanley Kubrick did the opposite in THE SHINING: he changed the set, presumably to subtly disorient the viewer.
It's an interesting technique. It leverages the way our brains tend to elide the editing. Even a scene of two people talking is actually multiple conversations shot from different angles and edited together. We generally remember the conversation but not the cuts. We assume that the hotel wouldn't change because we assume what we're seeing is really a hotel and not a series of hotel sets that may or may not join up. So how can we reconcile things when bits of the hotel change? We can't, and that's sort of subliminally alarming.
We've all seen this done explicitly, when the hero comes back to the place he saw the crime and there's no house there, or the house is abandoned and not the new house he was in, etc. This is the first time I've seen a convincing case of someone doing it without drawing attention to it.
How can you apply this technique to writing? You'd probably have to make clear to the reader what you're doing; otherwise the film crew would assume you were just sloppy.
UPDATE: John August says this is "the genius fallacy." It may be. But even Kubrick didn't do it intentionally, you can.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Upcoming Canadian Grant Deadlines
Here are some upcoming deadlines for free Canadian money, courtesy of grants consultant Catharine Bird:
Musicians, Managers and Record Labels
July 15, 2011: Marketing, Factor Supported Projects - Factor
July 15, 2011: Video Grant - Factor
July 29, 2011: Video Assistance Program - Country Music Television
July 29, 2011: Tour Support - Factor
July 29, 2011: Business Travel - Factor
August 2, 2011: Music projects - Toronto Arts Council
August 12, 2011: Showcase Support - Factor
August 15, 2011: Concert Music Promotion Program - SOCAN
August 15, 2011: Education Grants - SOCAN
August 15, 2011: Event and Project Grants - SOCAN
August 15, 2011: Publication Grants - SOCAN
August 25, 2011: Marketing & Promotional Support - Starmaker Fund
August 26, 2011: Collective Initiatives - Factor
August 26, 2011: Direct Board Approval - Factor
Artists and Arts Organizations of all Disciplines
July 15, 2011: Community Presenting - Alberta Foundation for the Arts
July 30, 2011: Arts-Based Community Development - B.C. Arts Council
August 1, 2011: Professional Development - B.C. Arts Council
August 1, 2011: Touring initiatives - B.C. Arts Council
August 2, 2011: Organizations and Collective Projects - Toronto Arts Council
August 31, 2011: Core-Funding for Organizations – SOCAN Foundation
Other Artistic Disciplines
August 2, 2011: Theatre Projects - Ontario Arts Council
August 2, 2011: Theatre Projects - Toronto Arts Council
August 2, 2011: Dance Projects - Toronto Arts Council
August 2, 2011: Literary projects - Toronto Arts Council
August 2, 2011: Visual/Media Arts Projects - Toronto Arts Council
August 15, 2011: Rogers Documentary Fund - Rogers Media Production Fund
August 26, 2011: Interactive Digital Media Fund - Ontario Media Development Corporation
Musicians, Managers and Record Labels
July 15, 2011: Marketing, Factor Supported Projects - Factor
July 15, 2011: Video Grant - Factor
July 29, 2011: Video Assistance Program - Country Music Television
July 29, 2011: Tour Support - Factor
July 29, 2011: Business Travel - Factor
August 2, 2011: Music projects - Toronto Arts Council
August 12, 2011: Showcase Support - Factor
August 15, 2011: Concert Music Promotion Program - SOCAN
August 15, 2011: Education Grants - SOCAN
August 15, 2011: Event and Project Grants - SOCAN
August 15, 2011: Publication Grants - SOCAN
August 25, 2011: Marketing & Promotional Support - Starmaker Fund
August 26, 2011: Collective Initiatives - Factor
August 26, 2011: Direct Board Approval - Factor
Artists and Arts Organizations of all Disciplines
July 15, 2011: Community Presenting - Alberta Foundation for the Arts
July 30, 2011: Arts-Based Community Development - B.C. Arts Council
August 1, 2011: Professional Development - B.C. Arts Council
August 1, 2011: Touring initiatives - B.C. Arts Council
August 2, 2011: Organizations and Collective Projects - Toronto Arts Council
August 31, 2011: Core-Funding for Organizations – SOCAN Foundation
Other Artistic Disciplines
August 2, 2011: Theatre Projects - Ontario Arts Council
August 2, 2011: Theatre Projects - Toronto Arts Council
August 2, 2011: Dance Projects - Toronto Arts Council
August 2, 2011: Literary projects - Toronto Arts Council
August 2, 2011: Visual/Media Arts Projects - Toronto Arts Council
August 15, 2011: Rogers Documentary Fund - Rogers Media Production Fund
August 26, 2011: Interactive Digital Media Fund - Ontario Media Development Corporation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)