THE PARIS HILTON RELIEF ACT

[POLITICS] The Senate is going to be voting soon to repeal the estate tax. This is a tax on bequests over $2 million -- only one in 200 estates pay any tax at all.

The Republicans will talk about family farms, though no one has ever really lost a family farm because they had to pay tax on the over-$2 million part of a family farm. As Paul Krugman points out, this is a tax on Paris Hilton.

From a tactical point of view, let's start calling this the "Paris Hilton Relief Act." I think that might help explain it to people who have a gut objection to an estate tax, but don't realize that they are never, ever going to benefit from the elimination of the tiny estate tax the US still has.

MUSICAL GENRE

Principal component analysis is a mathematical process for finding the underlying structure of data. If you have n dimensions of data -- say you have all the genetic markers in a population -- you can extract the "principal components," which are the ways in which the data tend to vary. That is, for example, if you take genetic markers in a population with European and African ancestry, how curly your hair is will tend to vary in the same way that your skin color varies, which may also vary with how likely you are to have sickle cell genes (an African trait). The "first principal component" would be the sum of all traits that vary with how much African ancestry you have. I bring up ancestry because of the fascinating studies of genetic markers by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, who found that the first principle component in European populations seems to indicate how much of your ancestry comes from European hunter-gatherers, and how much of it comes from the spreading population of Near Eastern farmers.

It occurs to me that you could extract principle componens from the huge database of song titles and their listening patterns on a site like Last.fm. That ought to give you a sense what the real genres of music are -- much like DNA analysis can tell us what the real tree of descent of the animal kingdom is, while observed traits sometimes gets you faux classes like "pachyderms."

If you know what the real musical genres are -- the real streams of musical thought -- you might get a little further figuring out what musical genres are and why they exist, on the esthetic and the biological level.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...

SET YOUR TIVOS

Bill Cunningham writes:

I just wanted to remind everyone that the Scifi Channel is premiering [his movie] Scarecrow and its sequel Scarecrow Slayer back-to-back on Thursday, June 8th at 7pm / 6 central. Please check your local listings. Have plenty of popcorn and beer on hand.

. Personally I think Bill should host a gathering. Huh Bill?

TOM FONTANA, PART FOUR

Part four in my interview with Tom Fontana, creator or co-creator of OZ, THE JURY, TATTINGER'S, THE BEAT, and THE BEDFORD DIARIES...

CRAFTY TV: What do you think of the move to five act structure on some broadcast networks (e.g. ABC)? Does it change anything fundamental? Or are we just looking at a long tag?

TF. We're there. A lot of the networks are moving to five acts. It's a tricky thing. Barry Levinson and I did THE BEAT on UPN, another short-lived show with Mark Ruffalo, about two uniformed cops in Manhattan. Some of it was about their personal life, some was about being cops. Since they're beat cops, they don't investigate. They're not SVU, they're not CSI. They're guys who minute to minute deal with tragic and funny situations. So Barry and I thought a five-act structure would work, because it gives you these 8-minute bursts of story, of adrenaline. The stories on THE BEAT weren't as literal and cohesive as a normal TV show. We were the first show to do a five-act structure. But we were doing it because it worked for the tone and style of the show. Now it's done because the networks are afraid the audience will lose interest if the blocks of commercials are too long, and they want more commercials. That's the worst reason to do a five-act structure.

CRAFTY TV: I read somewhere that David E. Kelley hates doing five-act structure.

TF: Well it's very hard to get traction if you have to do drama in 8 minute bits. It's hard enough that you have to push to get to a jazzy act out so they'll come back from a tampon commercial. You have to force act outs in four-act structure. Having an extra act forces you to goose it even more. Depending on the kind of show you're doing, it can work. WEST WING with a five-act structure would feel like Morse code. But it serves DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES because there's a kind of giddiness in that show.

CRAFTY TV: Do you have specific goals for the first, second and third act outs? E.g. there's the notion that the second act out should introduce a major plot twist, while the third act out should generate maximum jeopardy. Theoretically the first act out would establish the problem, though the problem is often established in the teaser. Or do you just go wherever the story takes you?

TF: I don't know anything about that. I've never written that way. Working that way, though obviously enormously successful for some folks, is too restrictive for me. What I do when I write a script ... I try to write it without act breaks. One piece. When I've found the whole piece, then I go back and look and say, how do I shape this into an act out. I find that when I do it that way there are a lot of natural act outs. Otherwise it's way too mechanical for me, and only feeds into the whole idea of formula television. Television as machinery, as opposed to creativity.

CRAFTY TV: So you don't even whiteboard the act outs?

TF: Depending on the script, especially if we're talking about pilots right now, I'll make some notes. I'll go like, it would be interesting if he kicks her... but I don't know where that would be. It's a vague, oh, this would work here ... something visual, a line, an emotion, and I'd like to see if that moment is in here somewhere. Sometimes - for example the script I just handed into Showtime, I had no outline at all. I totally went guts. That can be dangerous, and that can be fun. You're trying to stay ahead of your characters and if you let them run sometimes, they run in totally in the wrong direction, but as often as not they'll lead you to the great moments.

CRAFTY TV: So there must be a fair amount of carnage?

TF: Actually, no. I've been doing this for so long - some might say maybe too long - that I now have an internal editing mechanism. Where I used to write a script and it would be very long, and I'd have to sit and cut it, now I'm cutting it as I'm writing even before it's on the page ... so my scripts tend to be the right length from birth.

CRAFTY TV: So if the characters run in the wrong direction, they do that in your head and not on the page.

TF: Yeah.

WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY, HERE

[POLITICS, BUT YOU SHOULD READ IT ANYWAY] You guys down in the States, not so much.

Rolling Stone has a compelling article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., explaining how the 2004 election was stolen, with in-depth coverage of how the Ohio election was stolen.

I didn't think exit polls could be that far off. Turns out, they weren't. It was the vote reporting that did not match the vote counting, courtesy Kenneth Blackwell, Republican secretary of state for Ohio.

I thought I was tired of being outraged. But I'm outraged all over again. The US has a president who has twice won because the rules were bent in his favor. Doesn't that piss you off?

You can argue that Bush won the popular vote, not that that mattered in 2000, but I'm not sure he would have won that either, had there been a free and fair election.

TOM FONTANA, PART THREE

Part three in my interview with Tom Fontana, creator or co-creator of OZ, THE JURY, TATTINGER'S, THE BEAT, and THE BEDFORD DIARIES...

CRAFTY TV: Is this the best of all possible ways to develop television shows? Or is there a better way?

TF: There has to be a better way, because this is the worst way. The reason this system exists, like all things connected with TV, it's about the money. Some point about 40 years ago, I don't know when, somebody said that in March, all the advertisers are going to decide what shows they're going to advertise on and how much it's going to cost them. Working backwards from that event created pilot season which, in my mind, is the way to - you can almost guarantee - create shit. What you have is all these pilots - apples, oranges, bananas and mangoes - and they're competing against each other. You have a small pool of directors who can actually direct a pilot who are all working - if you don't get one of those A-listers, you're screwed - the same with those actors. There are the ones everybody wants and then there's whoever you can actually get. And what happens is the network is going to say, we really wanted Jack Nicholson and all you've got is Murray Schwartz. You're taking an energy pool and a talent pool and stretching it to the max in one brief amount of time and then wondering why they throw 98% of the pilots it away. There could not be a worse system.

Having said that, both NBC and Fox seem committed to off-cycle development. They now develop twice a year. That is a breakthrough of enormous magnitude, because two of the shows that NBC did on the off cycle are now on the schedule - KIDNAPPED and THE BLACK DONNELLYS. There is something to be said for spreading out development all year round. The only ones who suffer are the agents because they can't screw everybody over on the deals.

CRAFTY TV: Is there a problem with the networks being too quick to jettison shows that they think aren't working?

TF: Shows are definitely not given enough time, but that has more to do with the individual in charge of the network. Each of these men and women who run networks has his or her own personality. Some cancel a show prematurely and some have the balls to wait. The two greatest network execs were Grant Tinker and Brandon Tartikoff. They were both willing to give shows the time to grow. CHEERS being the prime example of that. In its first season, it was lowest rated of any show on TV. Something like 99th out of 99 shows. Tinker and Tartikoff didn't care. They loved the writing. They loved the direction, the cast. Ultimately CHEERS ran, what, 12 seasons? And spun off FRAISER. That's more to do with the courage or lack thereof of the individual network executive. What is he or she willing to suffer from his or her bosses and subordinates?

CRAFTY TV: Is there something structural that discourages executives from being courageous?

TF: Definitely, the system discourages execs from being brave. There is a level of fear that seeps through the floors of every network and studio office. It's always easier to imitate what has been successful than to be original.

NASCREEWRIWEE?

Bill Cunningham writes

A great many first time screenwriters are going to be participating in the 14 Day Screenwriting Contest. ... anyone seeking help over the next two days (today and Friday) for their loglines or titles can post it on my blog. I'm inviting all of you to join in the fun and check in to help people out. ... So log onto my blog and if you see where you can help someone then feel free to pitch in. We want to get folks off on the right foot before they write their first drafts in 14 days (all the time in the world really). The process stops at 7am PST on Saturday.

Sounds like NaNoWriMo. I would only recommend writing a screenplay in 14 days if you have an outline you've worked all the kinks out of. If you do, 14 days is not an unreasonably short deadline, assuming you don't have both a job and a family. And writing fast can often get the kinks out of your writing muscles. Anyway, check out Bill's site and feel free to help the guys out.

TOM FONTANA, PART TWO

Part two in my interview with Tom Fontana, creator or co-creator of OZ, THE JURY, TATTINGER'S, THE BEAT, and THE BEDFORD DIARIES...

CRAFTY TV: When you come up with a series idea, do you target one network or demographic? E.g. do you decide "this one's for HBO, this one's for CBS"? Or do you go out with multiple versions at the same time? Was there ever a broadcast version of "OZ" for example? Was there ever an HBO version of THE BEDFORD DIARIES?

TF: That's also changed over the years. Once upon a time when there were three or four networks, you'd pitch one idea to all of them. That still happens, to a limited extent, but the networks have become so branded that it becomes very hard to find an idea that will play both on ABC and CBS. They're airing shows so completely different from each other. DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES has nothing in common with CSI.

Oddly enough there was - not OZ - but a version of a penal system series that I pitched to the broadcast networks and was laughed out of the room. I was lucky enough to hit HBO at a point when they were looking for their first drama. Whereas BEDFORD DIARIES was created solely to fill a gap at WB.

CRAFTY TV: So do you go to cable if you want to be able to cross certain lines, and to broadcast if you want to be seen by a lot of people?

TF: I never really think about a lot of people seeing my shows. If you look at the ratings of the shows I've done, you can tell that's not a motivating factor. To me it's more about, okay here's an idea for a series and how far do I need to take this to tell the story truthfully - to be as honest as I can be. If it exceeds a certain line ... then I need to go to cable. If I think it could play on broadcast television, I'll pitch it to broadcast. It's easy to differentiate what works on cable and what works on broadcast.

CRAFTY TV: So with cable it's language and sexuality, and with broadcast it's ... ?

TF: The language and sexuality aside, stories on cable can be murkier. Characters can be truer because they can be more flawed. The story may have a point but it doesn't have to have a moral. On broadcast television, stories need to have a moral. And the moral has to be upbeat usually.

CRAFTY TV: In other words, on broadcast if someone gets away with something you have to go, "Oh, how terrible," while on cable if someone gets away with something-

TF: It's because life is like that.