That One

That One '08
Originally uploaded by copelanda

(Politics)

As you know if you read the papers, McCain infelicitously referred to his opponent in the debate as "that one."

And at 10:44 pm last night, it was a bumper sticker.

I think this election is a changed game. Ideas and themes used to come from the top down; party "activists" were people who knocked on doors and made calls and got out the vote. Now you can participate by making web videos and campaign art -- e.g. the classic Obama "Hope" poster and its many spinoffs.

It takes some getting used to. The Obama people seem to get it. With their history of community organizing, their campaign has been all about empowering their volunteers. The campaign gives you the template and the tools, and you go and do it.

(Though to be accurate, at the top they are extremely well-disciplined, with message control to rival the Bush campaigns.)

I have the impression that McCain is running a more traditional campaign, and it's hurting them. I'm not sure they really understand how much more dangerous it is to flip-flop when there are flocks of people with time on their hands ready to edit together a Youtube of your candidate saying both A and not-A.

I think future politicians will have to be clearer in their choices. Either say nothing at all, always say the same thing, or have no more than one road-to-Damascus moment where you change your mind. Otherwise you'll get nailed by the Net.

What's a Word That Means ...

If you're searching for the right word, try this Reverse Dictionary. You type in what the word means, and it tries to find your word.

Hey, guys, what's your favorite online thesaurus?

Drug Use?

How common is marijuana use in writers' rooms? Do companies really enforce a no-drug policy, or just let the kids play as long as the shows are getting ratings? Is Canada different than U.S. in this respect?

I have never seen drug use on the job on either side of the border. I think, to most show people, getting stoned on the job would be like getting drunk on the job. They would see it as a personal problem that you have. They might or might not fire you, depending on how they manage their people. But they wouldn't view it as a plus.

It's not a question of morality. Show people are tolerant of all sorts of extravagant personal choices if you have enough talent and people like you enough; that's how Robert Downey, Jr. still has a career. But most companies will fear that if you're using drugs or alcohol on the job, you're unreliable. My understanding is that Aaron Sorkin's coke problem on THE WEST WING led to him getting fired off his own show. Not because he was coked up; because he was late with episodes.

Personally, I can't imagine trying to write while high. I gather it works for Seth Rogen, though who knows if he wouldn't write even better straight. If you need to get wasted to put out the pages, maybe you should look at what's stopping you from writing, rather than trying to drug your way through it.

I have to say that overall, I have seen surprisingly little drug use in showbiz off the job. I've been to my share of industry parties both in LA (in the Nineties) and Canada (in the Naughties). Rarely have I been aware of anyone doing coke. I rarely smell pot smoke, either. Not that many people even get seriously drunk. Is it a generational thing? Do people not invite me to the really fun parties? Do show people not want to be wasted when they're working a party?

Make of it what you will. I'm going to get another coffee.

Lyrics

Q. My script is a musical drama about a band. I'm no songwriter, but the one original song in the movie has meaning for the two main characters. Should I try to write the lyrics, or just put the meaning and purpose of the lyrics into the script?

You can do it either way. In BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, William Goldman puts in a lot of hype about how wonderful one particular song is, how haunting and how lovely. He didn't put lyrics, and somehow it wound up being "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head."

No one expects you to be a songwriter. We have songwriters for that. And there's a good chance that the lyrics won't "read" very well. They rarely do without the music attached.

(However, if you do write the lyrics, you have a shot at a Grammy.)

If your band isn't playing an original song but covering a known song, I'd stay away from naming the song and writing in the lyrics. Readers may not have the same reaction to a given song as you do, so you're better off saying "a haunting love song," and telling us the characters' reactions to it, rather than hoping that "You've Lost That Loving Feeling" is your reader's favorite love song, too.

Do Canadian Shows Want Specs or Pilots?

Q. I've been reading a lot about shows and agents generally looking to read original materials (spec pilots, etc) as opposed to spec episodes.

I was wondering how (or if) that trend is carrying though in Canada? Are Canadian agents/shows looking for spec episodes or original material? If they're still looking at spec episodes, is the preference Canadian shows, or American shows?

Canadian shows were traditionally more willing to look at spec pilots than American shows, so now the Americans have just caught up.

But you're still better off showing one spec episode (of a hit American show) along with your spec pilot. I can't tell from a pilot if you can write my show. I only know you can write your show. And I don't know how long you've been working on your spec pilot. Maybe years. An up-to-date spec means you can write in a reasonable amount of time.

Doc Researcher?

Q. I would love to do background research and write scripts for documentaries. I would be more at ease with historical, scientific or nature-related topics.

1) Do I need to go to a film school for that? Or are my training in the history of science and my experience as a freelance journalist enough to start working on a project?

2) Where should I start? Where are the producers looking for researchers/writers for that type of docs?

3) If I limit myself to this genre, could I make a living out of it?

I certainly wouldn't go to film school to learn to research docs. I have major doubts about the value of film school. (See my many posts in this department.) But research is a skill you learn by doing it. If you've been to college, you ought to know how to do research. Especially if you've made a living as a journalist.

There isn't a hell of a lot of money in docs. Many people working in docs are their own research. And their own director, writer, producer, financier and driver.

There are companies that hire researchers from time to time. See who's doing e.g. wildlife series for Discovery Channel, find their production company contact info and call them up.

But it's not high paid work. There are too many really smart people already working as professional researchers; it keeps the pay down.

Showbiz is an entrepreneurial business. Much of the work you get, you have to create for yourself. That goes for screenwriting, and it goes for research too, I'm afraid. You may need to finance and shoot your own doc in order to pay yourself for the research.

An Appreciation of the Hedgehog

(Political story-telling)

New Quinnipiac polls put Obama ahead 8, 8 and 15 points in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Generally, you need to win two out of three of those to become President. However, Obama is also looking good in Virginia and Colorado, either of which would give him the election if he holds Pennsylvania. If I weren't superstitious about wasting my luck, I'd be putting serious money down on Obama at Intrade, where he's getting only 60-40 odds; FiveThirtyEight.Com gives him 6-1 odds.

Why is McCain tanking so spectacularly? (Aside from, you know, Americans actually disagreeing with what he stands for.)

One thing I feel has been missing in the McCain campaign is what in a script we'd call a "through line." What is the point of the story?

Obama has a compelling narrative that fits together. He's young, he's Black, he's anti-war, he's for change. It's a commonplace that this is a "change election," but that is partly the result of the Obama campaign's successful framing. When Hillary hit her stride in March, her frame was "I will fight for you"; and I think if she'd been pushing that paradigm in December (when it was "It's My Turn") or January ("Experience") or February ("I'm for change, too!"), she'd have won.

The McCain people have never really nailed down what his story is. Partly I think they've been distracted by his personal story of being a prisoner for 5 years. It's a compelling personal story but they've never tied it convincingly to what McCain would actually do. Obama would change things. Hillary would fight for you. McCain... what? Would be honorable? Would be brave? Do voters even want a brave President? I'm not sure they do. Presidents tend to be brave with your kids.

Moreover, it's hard to run a campaign on how honorable your candidate is when your campaign manager is a Karl Rove protege and your staff are lobbyists. McCain could have run an all-out insurgent campaign, rejecting the lobbyists and the Rovians, to make the "honorable" story the through line of his campaign. But he didn't.

So the McCain campaign has been flailing. At the convention they tried to make the case that McCain was also a change candidate. But that's a tough sell coming from a Republican candidate who isn't willing to actually run against the President. And who is going to believe that the 72 year old white guy is the change candidate? Even if he does call himself a "maverick," and pick the "hottest governor from the coldest state." You are simply never going to beat the black guy for who's going to change things more.

(That was Hillary's mistake running on "experience." She was never actually the most experienced candidate, and everyone knew it. How was she going to beat McCain if the election was about "experience"?)

The McCain campaign has also been flailing in how it frames Obama. Is he an angry black man? Is he a freaky weirdo? A corrupt pol? A bleeding-heart liberal? A radical? Wishy-washy? The McCain people have tried each of these, but they keep changing the attack, and so their attacks tend to contradict. If he's wishy-washy he's not an angry man. If he's a weirdo then he's not a bleeding-heart liberal.

Meanwhile the Obama campaign has been pounding away at McCain relentlessly on message. McCain = Bush. That's been their message from Day 1. They have never bothered with attacks that don't fortify that message. Various bloggers have attacked McCain for being angry, senile, reckless, corrupt and a liar. The Obama campaign has gone with the "liar" meme, but that fits with the Bush association. They haven't, that I've noticed, made much of McCain's anger issues. Not relevant.

It's all about picking one story and telling it. The McCain people have told many stories about their candidate and their opponent; the Obama campaign has told one story about their candidate and one about their opponent.

Human beings are hardwired to absorb facts better when they fit into a single story than when they are just a grab bag.

As the proverb goes, "The fox knows many things. The hedgehog knows one Big Thing." And that's why foxes rarely get to eat hedgehogs.

To be fair, this election has always been structurally difficult for the Republicans. Party registrations are down. They're carrying an incumbent who's duking it out with Nixon for lowest approval / highest disapproval ratings in history. And McCain's timing is bad. People acknowledge him as a hero, but (I forget who noted this) the country is probably looking for a steward.

Still, would it have made more sense to frame the McCain story as Experience? When you have 26 years in the Senate, shouldn't you embrace that? The best argument against Obama is probably his lack of experience, coupled with his habit of voting "Present." Would it have made more sense to pound away at Experience vs. Inexperience? Frame it that way?

Because you could certainly distinguish yourself from Bush that way. Bush was inexperienced when he came into office. He has continued to behave like an inexperienced guy, rarely seeking out conflicting opinions and knowledge. Compared to McCain, Bush is still a callow youth. You would make the case that the country needs a leader with experience in prior crises, not a junior senator with most of his experience in local politics.

And if you can convince people that you're Mr. Experience, then you get to shuck off some of the other attacks. Experienced people have a right to be angry. He's not senile; he's just weighing his responses. Sure he's been involved in some shady deals, but hey, he's been around a long time. You can't expect a guy to spend 26 years in a Senate without ever having shaken the hand of someone who's a bit dirty.

Of course it's easy to carp at this point. Anyone can see that McCain is facing long odds now, so whatever McCain did must have been a mistake, just as whatever Obama did must have been wise. Right after the convention, Obama looked passive for all the things that now make him look steadfast.

But I can't help thinking that McCain would be doing better now if he had picked one compelling story and stuck to it all along.

Cours Écrire Ton Court

If you're a Montrealer, SODEC has a series of interesting workshops and classes in French related to its Cours Écrire Ton Court program:

Mardi 14 octobre, à 10 h
Classe de maître avec le scénariste Ken Scott

Mercredi 15 octobre, é 10 h
Atelier rencontre : Comment les producteurs abordent-ils le scénario ?

Jeudi 16 octobre, é 10 h
Classe de maître avec le scénariste Jérôme Beauséjour

Vendredi 17 octobre, é 13 h
Lecture publique des scénarios finalistes au concours Cours écrire ton court !

More details (PDF).