The “Game Changers” of Canadian TV

Posted on February 22, 2012 by Administrator

I keep drafting essays I intend to post — but then a random comment in one will kind of drag my thoughts off in a whole new direction for a different piece altogether. This post ended up morphing out of something I was thinking of writing about the CBC’s recent TV movie adaptation of Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town — and I might get to posting that. But I got hung up on reading a comment from one of the actors in that movie, Peter Keleghan, who was proud of the film and suggested it was a “game changer” for Canadian TV.

Keleghan’s point, I think, was that the movie was (in his mind) so good, it was re-setting the bar for Canadian productions. Now, whether or not you liked Sunshine Sketches, I’m not really sure I would call it a “game changer” — indeed, if anything, it seemed like a bit of a throw back to the kind of period pieces the CBC used to do regularly. Sunshine Sketches was certainly relatively expensive, with a huge cast…but I’m not sure I saw it as re-setting any bars…or, indeed, what exactly that bar might be even if it had re-set it.

But it got me thinking — what were the “game changers”?

Looking back through Canadian TV, were there things we can point to that arguably influenced the productions that came after them? I don’t just mean they were good productions, or entertaining — heck, in some cases they might only be okay, in and of themselves — but you could make a strong case that if they hadn’t existed, the shape of future productions would’ve taken on a different form…or not existed at all. In some cases they might have influenced simply their particular era, in other cases, their influence might be on-going.

And that, too, springs out of a few other essays I was working on (and may still post) musing on the nature of Canadian culture, and pop cultural history — of acknowledging the present owes a tip of the hat to the past.

So here is a rundown of, arguably, 11 of the most influential productions in Canadian TV.

1) Wojeck — this mid-1960s CBC drama about a crusading coroner was important both as being one of the first hour-long dramas attempted on Canadian TV, but also in its blatant earnest-ness. Oh, sure, it did let its hair down with occasional “lighter” episodes that were more straight forward crime/mystery dramas, but there’s no doubt Wojeck saw its dramatic framework as an excuse to tackle hot button issues of the day. As such it arguably set the tone for many “social”-dramas that came after it — from McQueen, Sidestreet, The Manipulators, all the way up to Street Legal, DaVinci’s Inquest and even, possibly, the 1980s cop drama Night Heat which veered into “social issue” plots in a way that wasn’t altogether common for the U.S. cop series it was ostensibly emulating. (It should also be pointed out that most people would argue Wojeck also influenced the U.S. series, “Quincy“) Now, to be fair — “issue” dramas were not unknown before Wojeck, either in Canada or the U.S. and Britain. Indeed, an earlier CBC series, R.C.M.P., though I’ve only seen a bit of it, also seemed to have a kind of Wojeck-ian “gritty” edge, too. In fact, that attitude of drama having to be more than just entertainment was itself a product of the Canadian film tradition which had evolved out of a documentary more than a fiction background. What’s equally interesting is that Wojeck didn’t seem to inspire imitations of its “style” — its episodes often experimental, playing around with chronology, and flashbacks. Many subsequent Canadian series may’ve been inspired by Wojeck’s social earnestness…but tended to be done as more conventional TV dramas.

2) Street Legal (CBC) was arguably one of the first true populist TV drama successes in Canada. A lawyer series initially arising out of that Wojeck-mould to which I alluded, it premiered around the same time as the hit U.S. series L.A. Law — and though still keeping a toe on its socially earnest roots, it was gradually re-shaped more in the style of that Hollywood series, with a greater emphasis on the soap opera of its characters, and faster-paced plots, with multiple stories per episode (as opposed to the first season where each episode tended to focus on a particular partner in the firm) and it became more and more popular and ran a number of years. And I can’t help thinking its success led to subsequent ensemble dramas and “professional” drama series inparticular (ie: series about professionals in a work place) — most notably CTV’s ENG (in which we also had an “ensemble” that was fronted by a woman — a rarity in the 1980s — and in which a sub-plot had her romantically involved with a “younger” hot headed Italian-Canadian hunk…just like Street Legal had done). And, of course, in its turn ENG may have influenced The Eleventh Hour.

3) Night Heat (CTV) may have influenced the direction of Canadian TV in a number of ways. Although initially dismissed by some critics as just an American-style cop drama…maybe that was the point. Despite a certain social earnestness (that maybe lingered from the days of Wojeck) it was a fast-paced, hard-boiled mystery-drama of wailing sirens, and occasional shoot outs that shook off the stodgy image that Canadian TV had and maybe more than anything before it proved Canadians could do pulpy entertainment when they put their minds to it, and could pull it together — in terms of writing, editing, direction, etc. It was also probably the first successful Canada-U.S. TV co-production (there had been others, but usually only lasting a season or two) even proving a programming centre piece for CBS in the States when they were airing a series of first run dramas in a post-primetime slot (their Crime Time After Prime Time block) and so it proved the viability of such efforts and it could be argued essentially paved the way for every co-production since then. Ironically, Night Heart was an all-Canadian production in terms of the stars, the scripts, the directors, whereas many later co-productions would hire American actors to star, and often with scripts (or at least script editors) hired from Hollywood.

4) Due South (CTV) took Night Heat’s ball and ran with it by taking the co-production template and moving it to the next level of prime time U.S. network TV. And just as Night Heat arguably proved Canadians could make credible American-style crime-dramas, likewise, Due South took it one step further by offering an “expensive” American style action-drama, with car chases, stunts, leaps from windows — not to mention slickly presented comic banter and interplay. I’m not sure Canadian TV had seen anything quite as professionally slick as Due South before. Previous series had proven Canada could make things as good as the Americans, as long as they stayed within certain parameters — Street Legal as basically a talking head drama, Night Heat which made a certain low-budgetness a necessary part of a its gritty, street-level atmosphere. Adderly was an action-comedy with stunts and fights…but it had a certain low-budget look to it. But Due South was pure Hollywood panache — and done about a guy wearing red serge! And it became a true international success, with a fandom to this day. And, if you want to talk about “game changers”, it basically re-positioned Paul Gross (already a leading man, but in parochial Canadian productions) as a populist star, who has gone on to be a significant film actor and director in Canada…stuff that probably wouldn’t have happened for him if he hadn’t starred in Due South. Admittedly, Due South’s influence on actual programs was more limited — the short lived action-comedy, Taking the Falls, and the TV movie would-be pilot, Love on the Run, being examples of programs that were probably inspired by it (mismatched-buddy action/comedies). But they weren’t successful, and Due South ultimately did not kick off a trend of similar series.

5) North of 60‘s (CBC) influence is, in a sense, almost more culturally profound than any other production on this list. I mean, sure, it was a slick, night time drama — arguably building on the ensemble drama tone of Street Legal, but anticipating the Hollywood-style gloss and confidence of Due South. And for a number of years after it went off the air, it was maybe beginning to look as though it would also be remembered as the last successful all-Canadian TV drama (but the current crop of drama series are finally starting to show healthier ratings). It wasn’t the first Canadian drama set in the wintery north (the high school drama 9B was there ahead of it) but one could argue it helped show that Canadian drama didn’t all have to be set in American-style big cities. But that’s not why I say it was culturally profound. No, arguably its biggest influence was being a drama set on an Indian Reserve. In a way, maybe the fact that we almost don’t think of that as being so significant is a good sign…but make no mistake — it was astonishingly unprecedented. North American Television had seen nothing like it before. Certainly I don’t think there had ever been something like it on U.S. TV, where Native roles were rare. Critics initially compared North of 60 to the U.S. series Northern Exposure, but Northern Exposure was about white characters with a few token, quirky Indians flirting about the peripheries. So in that sense, maybe North of 60′s roots date back to the days of The Forest Rangers, Adventures in Rainbow County and The Beachcombers which helped establish the idea of Native characters as being a legitimate part of Canadian drama in a way they weren’t in American TV. And there was the precedent of a predominantly Native cast with the youth-aimed series Spirit Bay. But an adult-aimed, expensive, prime time network drama about Native Indians? And even though North of 60 introduced us to the setting through the eyes of a white character (a mounty transferred to the area), it was an ensemble cast, the Native characters driving their own storylines, as much the leads as any of the (few) white characters. It helped make recognizable stars out of Tom Jackson, Tina Keeper, and the late Gordon Tootoosis. Perhaps equally it helped break Native Indian roles out of the archetypes of “wise old shaman” and “angry young renegade” and just let them be people in all their grey shade permutations. Would there have been The Rez, or Moccasin Flats, or Cashing In, or Blackstone, or even the current CBC drama, Arctic Air (with its large contingent of Native characters) without North of 60? Heck, would the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network have gotten off the ground if North of 60 hadn’t both galvanized the Native audience with an enthusiasm to see themselves on TV, and equally proving that Native-focused dramas could grab even a white audience? Well, consider this: since North of 60 aired, there have been, as mentioned, a number of Native dramas on Canadian TV, and Arctic Air boasts not just a number of Native actors in its mixed cast, but even as its top billed star. In that same time period…has there been even one comparable American series? Of course, CTV and Global haven’t really stepped up to the plate, either.

6) In a similar vein, was the CBC’s Codco. On one hand, it was just another sketch comedy series — arguably a little influential, and lasting longer than many sketch comedies that came before. But it certainly wasn’t the first sketch comedy on Canadian TV, nor even the first controversial one (heck, back in the 1960s, I think Nightcap raised a few eyebrows). But like North of 60, it perhaps changed the game by virtue of its ethnicity — by being a Newfoundland sketch comedy. Prior to it, I don’t think there had ever been a Canadian TV series set on the East Coast, and precious few motion pictures. And bear in mind, this was still around the time of “Newfie” jokes — so to have a bunch of Newfoundland comics blast on to prime time with their accents intact and proving as biting, and caustic, and edgy as anyone else, perhaps re-set people’s perceptions of the whole East Coast (I think it was actually shot in Nova Scotia). Not only did it, of course, lead to the long running This Hour Has 22 Minutes, but I’m pretty sure it helped establish the East Coast as a viable production centre for TV and motion pictures, directly and indirectly clearing a path for everything from the sci-fi drama Lexx, to the Trailer Park Boys, to the current action-comedy, Republic of Doyle.

7) Anne of Green Gables was a cultural touchstone long before its early 1980s TV mini-series, but still that particular CBC production set the style for the next few years. Writer/director Kevin Sullivan had already made one or two family dramas, with little wide impact, before he adapted L.M. Montgomery’s classic to the small screen, in the process making lead Meghan Follows a minor star. And for the next few years Sullivan was a giant of Canadian TV, with series like Road to Avonlea, Wind at My Back, and even limited series like By Way of the Stars, even gaining emulators (that surest sign of influence) with series like Emily of New Moon. In fact, family dramas seemed to be one of the CBC’s surest ways to ratings success for a number of years. But times change, executives get replaced with new guys with new vision, and the Sullivan school seemed to fall out of fashion a bit, but that doesn’t deny the significance Anne and Sullivan had for a number of years. Indeed, although the current CBC drama, Heartland, isn’t stylistically cut from the same cloth, the fact that the CBC is once more airing a hit “family” drama in the 7:00 PM Sunday timeslot once held by those old shows maybe suggests an influence still.

8) 8) The Degrassi series (CBC/CTV/MuchMusic) — and no, I have no idea why there’s a smiley face there, but I can’t get rid of it! — are perhaps the most significantly influential un-influential productions in Canadian TV. I mean, the series began in the 1980s as The Kids of Degrassi Street, went through various variations as the cast aged (climaxing in Degrassi High), before stopping…but remaining memorable enough to even warrant references in American films (like those by Kevin Smith). Then the series was revised — this time shaking off the on-the-cheap, cinema verite style of the originals for a slicker, more American style Beverly Hills 90210 vibe and is still going a decade or so later. I mean — you can’t argue with that, a series (at least in name) that has run, off and on, for over three decades! And certainly, there are few Canadians who if you refer to “Degrassi” wouldn’t know it was a teen-aimed TV series. Yet the reason I suggest it may not be that influential (after all, the point of my list) is because I’m not sure how much it affected other shows — but certainly there have been other Canadian teen dramas, ranging from Madison, Edgemont, Northwood, and Renegade Press. Would they have existed without Degrassi to set the tone? Maybe not. And Degrassi was certainly edgy and controversial, some episodes dealing with such hot button topics that they were dropped from airing in markets in the United States (though it rarely caused a fuss in Canada) and that “edgy”-ness might well have influenced other Canadian teen dramas to stray outside the safety zones in which comparable American series play. So Degrassi is a significant pin we can put in the map of Canadian TV.

9) Flashpoint (CTV) follows in the path of Night Heat and Due South, so in that sense one could quibble about its significance — but I think it still warrants its own place as a “game changer”. Initially greenlit as simply a Canadian cop-drama, American executives came sniffing around during a Hollywood writers strike, hoping to find some new shows that they could produce that wouldn’t violate union rules — and Canadian writers and crews weren’t part of the American strike. So a co-production deal was struck. But where Flashpoint was different from most previous Canada-U.S. co-productions was that they were either set in the U.S., or set in an anonymous Anytown, North America, or worked the dual nationality into the story, either about an American in Canada, or a Canadian in America. But Flashpoint was set in Canada with no especial effort to work in some kind of American presence into the story. And unlike almost all those previous series (with the exception of Due South) it found a spot on American network primetime. It proved a ratings success, and immediately led to a number of subsequent primetime co-productions, many, like it, more-or-less admitting they were set in Canada with Canadian actors, writers, directors, etc. One could even make the argument that the ratings success of many of these Hollywood-backed shows, in Canada, helped revitalize the Canadian TV industry, leading to the recent crop of Canadian dramas — even those without U.S. partners — winning solid audience numbers.

10) The irony about The Newsroom (CBC) when it premiered was that a few naysayers simply dismissed it as a “rip-off” of the U.S. cable series, The Larry Sanders Show. And there’s no doubt it shared a stylistic similarity — but I’m not sure I would call that a rip-off. I mean, in film and TV (and art in general) that’s how mediums evolve, someone does something first, and others pick up on it. If they didn’t…we’d still be watching black & white silent movies shot from still cameras. And though the two series shared a similar style — no laugh track, and shot like a drama — and both were media satires, they weren’t the same idea. Larry Sanders was about the apolitical behind-the-scenes antics of a Tonight Show-like celebrity interview series, with the main character the host. The Newsroom was about a TV news show, making it a far more provocative political satire, with its main character the behind-the-scenes producer. You might as well claim Republic of Doyle is a “rip off” of Magnum PI because they’re both about private eyes who live on an island (and believe me, there are people who will claim that — but to most of us, you need a few more specific parallels to cry rip-off). And at that point, I’m not sure network TV in either Canada or the U.S. had seen anything like it (Larry Sanders being a cable series) — I suppose an advantage to the fact that the CBC, and to a lesser extent even Canadian private networks, are often a little more open to off-beat programming than U.S. networks. And it seems funny to accuse the Newsroom of ripping off The Larry Sanders Show…when nowadays it seems half the sitcoms out there use a similar drama/pseudo-documentary style. Anyway, The Newsroom proved a surprise commercial and critical hit at a point when Canadian sitcoms had become an endangered species and it ended up shaping the look, tone and even subject matter (many comedies set within media organizations) of many Canadian sitcoms that followed. Creator/star Ken Finkleman himself became his own little mini-factory, churning out a number of subsequent series. One could even argue it influenced even less stylistically similar series — like Corner Gas, which though a conventional sitcom in tone, nonetheless was shot without a laugh track and on location, rather than before a studio audience. Now to be fair, that had already been tried earlier — with the later seasons of the sitcom Material World. But Material World didn’t really seem to have any immediate influence on the programs of its era, whereas the post-Newsroom series followed quickly on its heels. Granted, many of these series didn’t last too long, but I can’t help thinking that without The Newsroom, there wouldn’t have been a lot of subsequent Canadian sitcoms (from Made in Canada to Twitch City to Big Sound)…or they’d have been done in a significantly different style (including recent shows like Mr. D, Michael: Tuesdays & Thursdays, and even InSecurity). The Newsroom may also have started the trend of actors creating vehicles for themselves, as many subsequent sitcoms (and even some dramas like Republic of Doyle) are created by their stars…in a significantly greater proportion than, for example, American series. Again, The Newsroom wasn’t the first (Seeing Things was created by its star) but it was the first that was so clearly at the front of a trend.

11) And what about CTV’s Corner Gas? Its artistic influence is a little harder to quantify (though the setting of a small prairie town was recycled for the subsequent Little Mosque on the Prairie) but it was probably the biggest, most successful Canadian series of its day, and pumped a shot of adrenaline into the failing heart of Canadian comedy (that had begun to fade away again after The Newsroom briefly kick started it). One could argue the fact that we even have had recent Canadian sitcoms is partly attributable to Corner Gas’s success. Not just that, but writers who worked on Corner Gas have gone on to show run subsequent sitcoms. Though its long term influence is yet to be determined — many of the sitcoms not doing that well, with even those fronted by ex-Corner Gas stars being cancelled after a couple of seasons.

Now as I said at the beginning, I was trying to suggest “game changers” — series that shaped and influenced Canadian TV. I wasn’t necessarily saving these were the “best” series, or that there weren’t equally good, or even better series…but they might not have been as influential. So what are some honourable mentions?

Well, the 1970s sitcom King of Kensington was probably English-Canada’s first successful sitcom, and star Al Waxman was probably recognized as “Larry King” to the day he died. So it was culturally significant…I’m just not sure it had much influence, in the sense of paving the way for other shows, or starting a trend within Canadian comedy. Although there are always behind the scenes influences, in that a story editor on King of Kensington was writer-actor Louis Del Grande…and one assumes Del Grande’s efforts on King of Kensington led to CBC brass okaying him to create and star in the subsequent Seeing Things. Now there’s a worthy honourable mention — Seeing Things was arguably one of the best and brightest Canadian series of its era, a witty mystery-comedy about a psychic reporter. It was a great show…I’m just not sure it had much impact on later series (although the number of subsequent Canadian mystery series about some sort of special, or even super powered, detective — in a country not always prone to “fantastical” TV — maybe owes something to Seeing Things…including the current The Listener about a psychic medic!)

Little Mosque on the Prairie may well go down in Canadian history as a cultural milestone — a sitcom about small town Muslims in North America, and where they were the main characters (as opposed to being about, say, a WASP hero befriending some “alien” Muslims) it smashed ratings records with its premiere and garnered international attention. Like North of 60 before it, it perhaps showed Canadian audiences were more open to pluralistic heroes and environments than you might expect…or might expect on an American network. But its creative influence is less apparent — in themes, or style, or diverse ethnicity. Sure, its brown heroes might have led Global to experiment with its black sitcom, Da Kink in My Hair, but in general, the jury’s still out on whether the future of Canadian sitcoms will be influenced by Little Mosque.

There have been series that ran for a few years, and have their fans — but that doesn’t necessarily mean they were “game changers”. Made in Canada ran years…but it was just following The Newsroom’s lead. The big city drama, Traders, has its fans, and certainly it had some technical influence in that for a while after it, directors and writers would often heavily reference it in their resumes…but it arguably was just reading from the Street Legal play book, without any particular signature moves of its own that we can definitively say shaped future series. Trailer Park Boys was certainly a cult hit, and even spawned successful motion pictures — but I don’t think it has especially influenced or re-shaped Canadian TV (maybe its coarse, profanity laden scripts pointed a direction for Rent-a-Goalie and others…although even then, Canadian series with coarse language had been around before).

Now if you want to talk about a series that should’ve been a “game changer” we could look at Slings & Arrows, the comedy-drama set at a theatre festival. In terms of sheer professionalism and panache, I’m not sure Canadian TV has ever produced anything to beat it — particularly its first season. A Robert Altman-esque dramady — but Altman at his pinnacle, like Nashville or something — done as a weekly series, Slings & Arrows was refreshing, edgy, sure footed, and deliciously complex and ambitious (though I did think each of its three seasons was a little less effective than the one before). But even though it easily warrants a place as one of the best things done for Canadian TV…I’m just not sure I can point to any obvious influence it has had, so far.

We can point to influences and mini-trends — I was thinking of mentioning the CBC mini-series Love and Hate, which landed a spot on American primetime and begat a brief mini-boom of Canadian made (and set!) TV movies and mini-series on American network TV — including Conspiracy of Silence and Million Dollar Babies. Or there was Douglas Bowie’s various pulpy historical dramas on the CBC in the 1980s — which you can hear an echo of in Global’s current hit, Bomb Girls. And one could argue that the dark Durham County was foreshadowed by the limited series Dice. Then there’s The Lost Girl (an all-Canadian fantasy series) which was arguably greenlit thanks to the success of Sanctuary (another all-Canadian fantasy series) and Sanctuary sprang out of StarGate (the actors and writers using their popularity from that series to get Sanctuary into production) and the various StarGate series totalled 3 live action series (and I think an animated one)…but StarGate itself arose out of the co-production trend that, arguably, began with Due South and, before that, Night Heat. So although we can point to its influence…I’m not sure if “game changer” is quite the appropriate designation. Without StarGate, people like Amanda Tapping (Sanctuary) and Michael Shanks (set to star in the upcoming Saving Hope) wouldn’t have become stars…but I’m just not sure the overall course of Canadian TV would necessarily be any different without it — or whether something else would’ve merely arisen to take its place.

Anyway, so there we have it — a little meander through Canadian TV history and looking at the key players (kind of like Max the 2000 Year Old Mouse – say, now there’s an important Canadian touchstone!) Did I miss some obvious ones? Did I overstate the importance of others. Yeah, maybe — but still, I think it provides some food for thought.

Posted in Canadian film and TV | Leave a comment

Those Who Don’t Learn From Time Travel TV Series Are Doomed to Repeat Them…

Posted on February 1, 2012 by Administrator

And that cheeky paraphrasing of George Santayana’s oft-referenced admonishment leads us into today’s topic, kiddies n’ pals…

Sometimes you’ll see books (or advice columns) about how to write great movies, hit movies, how to craft a great screenplay. But, you know, I’ve sometimes thought it might be interesting to write a book, not so much on the “Do”s of writing…so much as the “Don’t”s — how to avoid writing a bad script. I was thinking about this because of how often I’ll see bad movies (or TV series) — or not bad, but let’s just say commercially unsuccessful — that seem to repeat the same cliches as previous unsuccessful movies and TV series. Now there’s nothing wrong with that — there’s nothing wrong with seeing an idea or plot idea that hasn’t worked and saying, hey, I’m going to make it work this time, because I know what the others did wrong! (The Wright Brothers weren’t the first people to build an airplane — they were just the first to build it right) But a lot of the time I get the impression problematic ideas get recycled…simply because those using it now are completely ignorant that it didn’t work before. Hence why a book pointing out bad story points might be as useful as a book pointing out good ones.

These thoughts got churned up in my mind reading about the up-coming Canadian-made SF series called Continuum. Now I touched on Continuum a few postings back — back when its press releases announced it under the working title of “Out of Time“. And, yes, I’m still just looking at press releases (the series itself in production but still a few months away from a broadcast date). So why am I musing and reflecting upon a series I haven’t yet seen, you ask? Isn’t that unfair to it? Well, yes…and no. After all, the reason the producers are putting out press releases is because they are hoping to galvanize viewers, to stir up enthusiasm, prior to the show’s premiere. They want to get us thinking and talking about the show, sight unseen. So that’s what I’m doing.

I also like to look at it from a purely academic, abstract point of view. You see, I’m interested in the process of storytelling — the choices made (and not made), the archetypes and cliches that work…and those that don’t. I’ve watched a lot of TV and movies over the years (and read a lot of novels, etc.). And, I’m guessing, so have you. So any time a “new” show comes along…we all can’t help viewing it in the context of those that came before.

I’m rooting for Continuum — honest. But there are a few things, based simply on a few paragraphs in press releases, that kind of worry me, that kind of erode my fan-boy enthusiasm before they’ve finished the edit on the first episode.

The fact that Continuum has undergone a name change can maybe raise an eyebrow — but isn’t really as ominous as it sounds. Series undergo pre-production title changes all the time. It might make the producers seem a bit like flibbertigibbets, unable to even settle on a name…but it doesn’t necessarily reflect upon the quality of the production (it’s when something’s been released, and bombed, and then they re-name it that can you can see it as a bad sign).

In my earlier post where I referenced the series (when it was called Out of Time) I suggested the premise sounded problematic — simply because it had been done many times before, with limited success. The premise of the series is that a cop from the future has come to modern times to hunt down criminals from the future. There’s nothing wrong with idea — but the very tidiness of the premise might suggest it could get repetitious very quickly. More to the point, the idea of an otherworldly cop chasing otherworldly crooks in a (budget-saving) modern big city had been the inspiration for past series — Time Trax (most obviously), Tracker, Brimstone and others I referenced in my earlier post. Most lasting only a season or two before cancellation — if that. Now, just because a premise has been tried, and found unsuccessful, doesn’t mean a new creative team can’t find that twist, that fresh window into its creative core, that will make it work this time — but they kind of need to be aware of the pitfalls in order to avoid them. Hence my allusion to George Santayana.

Indeed, a new American series, Alcatraz, sounds like it’s another variation on the general premise.

(In my earlier post, I even mused about a variation on the premise that would allow them to keep the basic idea…but broaden the story possibilities).

Of course, times change, audience expectations — and the demographic needs of cable networks — can alter. I’ve seen series do well today that aren’t noticeably different, or an improvement, over older series that tanked. So maybe Continuum just needs to be the right series at the right time — nothing more.

But another plot point came up in the more recent press release — a more detailed description of the premise. And it struck me as funny — because it was a plot cliche I’d been thinking about even before I knew Continuum was going to use it. A plot device that, frankly, strikes me as problematic…and doomed to failure. A plot device that I had actually considered referencing maybe in an essay on the do-s and don’t-s of a TV series.

To whit: according to the press release, our heroine will be stuck in modern times…separated from her husband and child. So we can infer a running theme will be her pining for her lost family, always hoping someday they will be reunited.

Unfortunately, I’ve seen it before and (cue Mr. Santayana) it almost never works!

I mean, at first glance it seems like a good idea — rife with pathos and emotional drama, every week the hero(ine) looking longingly into space, wondering if they’ll ever be reunited –every…episode…week…after…fricking…week. (I think you see where I’m headed with this) It seems like an emotionally rich idea — but it’s a narrative dead end. It was a dead end when they used it in the recently cancelled The Cape (outlaw hero separated from his wife and child), or the one-season wonder that was The Crow (ghostly hero separated from his ghost girlfriend). It was such a dead end in The Beastmaster (hero searching for his kidnapped irreplaceable one true love) that they killed her off after a season (the hero discovering she wasn’t so irreplaceable after all, apparently). Heck, back in the 1960s, in The Silver Surfer comic books, they almost made it work, simply because writer Stan Lee and artist John Buscema invested the panels with such purple passion and hearts-on-their-sleeves emotiveness — but it too got real old, real fast.

The problem is, it can’t go anywhere.

A TV series (particularly today) is about movement, about narrative drive. Separated lovers can’t progress in their relationship, so you end up with scenes that are basically just the same repetitious scenes, week after week. Either of the characters separate, thinking about each other (which precludes really generating any chemistry between the characters so that we, the viewer, can be invested in the relationship) or maybe flashback scenes, as they remember better times…which also bog down the plot (since the scenes have no impact in the current story, and basically just exist as character scenes within a narrative vacuum). All with no real hope that plot line will go anywhere. And by giving the protagonist this lost love…it kind of hamstrings the possibility of romance in their current environment, often a big part of TV series — hence why the lost love is sometimes killed off as the writers realize it’s keeping them from exploring more viable story ideas. Now maybe in Continuum that’s the point — given the heroine is going to be teamed with a hunky guy cop, the lost hubby idea is simply to provide an obstacle to their burgeoning relationship (after all, in the will they/won’t they romantic tension used by many TV series, the hard thing is to come up with a some reason why consenting adults might be resisting their mutual attraction). But that still seems problematic to me — setting up this past relationship simply to be disposable.

I honestly can’t think of a series that used the “separated lovers” idea where it worked. Can you?

And then we get to the casting.

Again, in my earlier post, I suggested that I was looking forward to seeing who would be cast (the roles not assigned at the time of the earlier press release) — wondering if it would be some favourite actress of mine, or some unknown, or what. Well, casting has been announced and the lead, starring role has gone to — drum roll please! — Rachel Nichols. And I can feel a little deflated. Oh, I’m not saying anything against Ms. Nichols…indeed, I’ve never heard of her, nor to my knowledge have I seen her in anything (looking at some credits, I guess I have seen her in things…just not to identify her). She may be a fine performer. But she is an American. And as anyone knows who’s spent much time paying attention to the Canadian entertainment industry, reserving leading roles for American actors has long been a frustration in the Canadian entertainment biz.

It’s not as bad as it was. Indeed, quite a few “Canadian” series airing right now feature Canadian actors as the leads. But that hasn’t always been the case, and I’d hate to see the industry start back sliding so soon, like an alcoholic falling off the wagon when he’d only quit drinking a week before.

And it could well be that Ms. Nichols American status had nothing to do with her casting. It could be she really was the best person for the role, that the producers had scoured high and low through the Canadian talent pool and not found an actress who could embody the role as well. Fair enough. Certainly that’s what producers usually claim in such circumstances, and sometimes they’re telling the truth, and sometimes they’re lying, and sometimes…they’re lying to themselves (in that they did hold a few token Canadian casting calls…but never in their hearts seriously considered the Canadian actors).

I like American actors — I liked David Marciano in Due South. Richard Dean Anderson was a personable lead in StarGate: SG-1. And so on. But it can be frustrating when there are so few TV series made in Canada, and even fewer clearly aiming for (hoping for) an international distribution — and then when the roles do come along, the producers hang out a sign that says “No Canucks Need Apply”.

Actually, listed in the supporting cast is Canadian actress Lexa Doig — and, honestly, I could easily see Doig carrying a lead role in a series (plus Doig has a sci-fi recognition factor after 5 seasons of Andromeda). But I guess Ms. Doig had the misfortune to be born Canadian…and brown (oh, don’t get me started on that topic, or we’ll never be done).

(I should also point out that I’m labelling Rachel Nichols as “American” simply based on her birth place, and a list of credits at the IMDB that don’t seem to be Canadian. I know nothing about her otherwise. Maybe she does have some Canadian connection. Maybe she was raised in Canada, or spends her summers in a cottage in Canada. It’s problematic in an immigrant-heavy country like Canada to be too quick, or Draconian, in labelling people as “non-Canadian”. The definition of “Canadian” can be pretty broad — and I can be even looser, myself.)

Co-starring in Continuum is Canadian actor Victor Webster. And, I’ll admit, again…not so much enthusiasm from me. Not that I’ve seen Webster in much — Mutant X, years ago, a recurring role on Castle, a few guest spots. There’s nothing wrong with him…but so far nothing that really excites my enthusiasm about how he tackles a scene or milks nuance from dialogue, either (granted, I’m not female, so less swayed by Webster’s chisled jaw and rock hard abs).

Still, both Nichols and Webster could easily win me over — the proof of the pudding will be in the tasting, obviously. I repeat — I’m just writing this as an exercise in visceral-ness. The producers release a press release, hoping to galvanize a reaction — and that’s what I’m giving them.

Continuum lists Jeff King as its show runner. And, again, going through his CV…King doesn’t exactly fire any enthusiasm. It isn’t that King hasn’t a long list of credits, he does. It isn’t that he hasn’t been involved in some decent shows — he has. But there’s little indication he’s got any particular Midas touch, that with Mr. King looking over everyone’s shoulders, we’re guaranteed a good production. A lot of one or two season misfires (with an American actor as lead), a lot of, well, competent mediocrity (to quote a line from a long ago Canadian movie). Granted, King is a professional — with that long list of credits he clearly knows how to get a production done. And, again, like with Webster (or Nichols) seeing his name in the credits shouldn’t make me (or you) run away — not at all. But if you’re someone who regards the history of Canadian TV with cynicism — King perhaps falls into the category of being one of the “usual suspects”.

One final point is that in the initial press release it was stated the series would be set in Vancouver. Yet the premise involved the criminals from the future escaping from Death Row — which (as I mentioned in my earlier post) is odd, given Canada doesn’t have the death penalty, kind of making one wonder how “Canadian” the series will be. Well in the most recent press release…there’s no reference to it being set in Vancouver. It will be filmed there…that doesn’t mean it will be set there. So it’ll be interesting to see the finished series to see if it clearly admits it’s set in Canada…or whether it drapes American flags from every window and pretends it’s set in the United States…or whether it will go the middle route of not really saying it isn’t set in Canada (and with Vancouverites able to recognize street corners and the like) while avoiding idiosyncratically Canadian references to Mounties, and Premiers, and Loonies, and Celsius.

So what’s my point? What’s the purpose of all this naysaying — this Eeyoring (as I called it in another post)?

Well, a few things. One, maybe by expressing my cynicism up front, I can clear it out of my system, so that when the series airs, it can’t help but exceed my expectations (as opposed to assuming it’ll be brilliant, and being disappointed). I’ve been cynical before…and pleasantly surprised with the final product.

Maybe by saying these things up front — divorced from any rancour or bias (since I haven’t seen the series) it will get people thinking about the underlining principles. Heck, maybe the makers of the series will stumble upon my blog and, after an initial screaming fit and declaring I’m a sad, pathetic, loser who can’t appreciate their genius…maybe they will calm down, think I raise some valid points, and tweak the series accordingly. Who knows?

But it all gets back to my initial point — and title of this post. Stories don’t exist in a vacuum. And it’s worth knowing your roots, knowing what came before, in order to avoid similar fates.

It’s not enough to assume you’re a genius, and therefore your series will inherently be better than the previous failed examples. You have to decide why they failed (if only to your own satisfaction) and make a plan to succeed. You might well be a genius — indeed, the difference between a “good” series and a “bad” series is often simply the execution, the dialogue, the pacing, the characterization, as much as any broad strokes idea or premise. But you can’t bank on being a genius, either. Just as the first sign of insanity is to not realize you’re insane…perhaps the first sign of NOT being a genius is to think you ARE a genius.

I mean, everyone thinks they’re a genius in the arts — they have to, because art is subjective. A brick layer knows he’s good at his job if the wall doesn’t fall down. The artist has no such criteria, so he has to believe in himself. But that can be a trap, too.

So I’m put in mind of a quote from the British sitcom, Yes, Minister, where an exasperated character tersely advises another character: “If you’re going to do this damn silly thing, don’t do it in this damn silly way!”

And I guess that would be my advice, in a sense.

If you want to make a series using the problematic cliches of a future cop after future criminals, pining for her separated lover — fine. If you want to hire an American actress ’cause the Canadians aren’t good enough — fine. If you want to Americanize it (with the death penalty) and hire a veteran executive producer with an uneven track record — fine and fine again. If you want to do all the things that those before you have done — fine.

Do it — just do it right this time!

Posted in Canadian film and TV, Science Fiction & Fantasy | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

A Science Fiction Story

Posted on January 18, 2012 by Administrator

Despite this being my blog — I feel odd about using it for self-promotion, feeling I should be talking about other things. Which is sort of weird (after all, commenting and opining is, itself, narcassistic). But, anyway, I just thought I’d take a moment to draw attention to a story I had published on the webzine Escape Pod — partly because it was published as part of an audio webzine, which means there’s a guy reading the story (in addition to posting the story text). And, I’ll admit — that was kind of cool. Hearing another artist interpret your words can be problematic, but I enjoyed Josh Roseman’s reading — particularly the quirky way he did the narration (the story is a science fiction tale told from a robot’s POV). It was almost like hearing a dramatization of my story.

Called “Marking Time on the Far Side of Forever”, it was first published about a decade ago in the magazine Prairie Fire, a “special” mammoth issue with a variety of categories, and award winning science fiction author, Robert J. Sawyer, selected those for the SF category.

I have bittersweet feelings toward this story — personally it’s one of my favourites of what I’ve written, and a few other family members told me it was among the best things I ever wrote (and the Escape Pod forum has a number of nice comments). So why is that “bitter“-sweet? Well…one would like to think my “best” is still ahead of me!

Anyway, for those as are curious about me putting my money where my mouth is (particularly given how much time I spend commenting and critiquing the works of others) here’s a link…

http://escapepod.org/2011/12/15/ep323-marking-time-on-the-far-side-of-forever/

Posted in Radio and Audio drama, Science Fiction & Fantasy, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Is Canadian TV Getting Some Much Needed Rain?

Posted on January 16, 2012 by Administrator

Looking at recent Canadian TV ratings, one can get an inkling of how farmers must feel. I mean, farmers toil away, month after month, season after season, doing the same thing, the same way, every time…and due to factors they often have little control over, one year they’ll get a bumper crop, and another the crops’ll wither in the fields. An unexpected cold snap, or a dry spell, or, on the other hand, moderate weather and even rains, can decide the yield regardless of what the farmer does.

I mean, recently, Canadian TV had some hits…but also an inordinate amount of misses. More to the point, as I’d mentioned in an earlier post, most of the “hits” tended to be co-productions with American networks. While purely domestic Canadian series were often struggling, even those reaping great critical reviews like Michael: Tuesdays & Thursdays.

Those eager to pounce on and dismiss Canadian productions in general (yes, there are those people) and the CBC specifically, were rubbing their hands with glee over the seeming inevitable, and inexorable, slump in ratings. Of course, some of it was just optics. I mean, for all that the CBC was struggling to justify keeping Michael, Being Erica, and others on the schedule, series like Heartland and Republic of Doyle were certainly delivering consistently solid audience numbers (as usual, my focus tends to be on scripted narrative series — but the CBC also had successes with Rick Mercer Report and This Hour Has 22 Minutes and some news programs).

But at a cursory glance — it seemed like Canadian producers couldn’t deliver a “hit”…at least without partnering with a big U.S. network, which arguably compromised the “Canadianness” of a show…and even its long term success (Combat Hospital was cancelled, despite great Canadian ratings, because its U.S. partner pulled out).

Yet every drought ends in rain.

This week saw the premier of a bunch of new Canadian series — and the ratings, frankly, saw my jaw hitting the ground, as almost all of them cracked the 1 million mark, and most by a comfortable margin. Global’s The Firm might not be too big a surprise, since it is one of those aforementioned U.S. co-productions, having been heavily hyped and promoted for weeks (and even then, some articles suggested its numbers have been disappointing compared to what was expected).

But it’s the all-domestic 100% Canadian series that have proven even more interesting.

CBC’s Arctic Air, Mr. D, and the third season premiere of Republic of Doyle all opened above the million mark. As did Global’s period drama/mini-series Bomb Girls. Even those with lesser ratings have been unusually solid. Little Mosque on the Prairie began its final season with ratings, I believe, comfortably higher than it’s had for a while. Global’s second window airing of the police-drama King (it had previously aired on the cable station Showcase) was up above 400 000 (double King’s Showcase numbers…and also better, I believe, than the numbers for Global’s second window airing of Haven, a heavily marketed U.S. co-production it had shown on the same night a few months back) — all the more remarkable because, unlike all the other series mentioned here, King received next to no promotion from Global. I won’t say it categorically received “no” promotion — I’ll just say I don’t recall seeing a single commercial for it (unlike Bomb Girls and The Firm whose ads were in heavy rotation). One wonders what numbers King might’ve been able to achieve if Global had actually bothered to hype it!

So…wot happened?

After a year or two of Canadian producers and programmers seeming to be running into a brick wall of audience indifference, where glossy commercials, critical praise, and even “name” recognition (the Corner Gas alumni’s sitcoms) seemed to be unable to blossom and grow fruit…suddenly everyone seems to be enjoying good numbers.

It’s problematic to lean too much on my farmer analogy — suggesting it’s just a result of capricious weather patterns and not the programs. After all, maybe it just is the shows. Maybe the networks and the producers just came up with a crop of shows that caught people’s attentions in a way the last batch didn’t. Maybe they just did a better job of promoting them, or the commercials were better crafted to entice viewers. Maybe it’s a “critical mass”-thing — the success of Combat Hospital, Rookie Blue, and Flashpoint (as well as Republic of Doyle and Heartland) finally just coalesced to create a climate where Canadians were once more willing to approach Canadian shows with an open mind.

Maybe the premieres were well timed. Most of these series premiered within about a week of each other — just after Christmas, when a lot of the big American series are still temporarily in re-runs but, unlike the summer hiatus, the audience is still indoors, turning on the TV. That may be part of it — a soft competition. But that’s certainly not the whole story, because although, yes, some U.S. series are still airing re-runs…a lot aren’t, and the Canadian series have still carved out a healthy chunk of the market place (even going up against “event” programming like sports events and entertainment awards shows).

Obviously, the real story will be in the weeks to come, and whether these series can hold onto these numbers. Let’s face it, lots of series — including American series — open bigger than what will end up being their season average (The Guard, Hiccups, Dan for Mayor and other Canadian shows wowed people with solid premier ratings…that they were unable to sustain). Right now, these strong openings have proven that people are ready, willing, and able to watch Canadian shows. And that’s half the battle — more than half, really. The good numbers prove that Canadian shows — domestically produced, without U.S. partner — can grab an audience. But now it’s up to the shows to prove they can hold them.

Based on one or two episodes (and so not enough to form a legitimate review) I’ll be interested in seeing what happens.

The first episode of the CBC’s bush pilot drama, Arctic Air (Tuesdays, CBC), was a solid, slick, entertaining drama, with a few minor lapses (Brian Markinson’s guest starring role was a little too cartoony a villain — as written, no fault of Markinson). I liked the use of the “ethnic” angle (star Adam Beach, and some other cast members, are Native Indian) — not ignored, yet not belaboured. It has a good cast (including, in that peculiar way of Canadian productions, some top notch performers languishing in supporting and minor guest starring roles, like Timothy Webber, Carmen Moore, Michael Hogan, and Lexa Doig). I had earlier in a post suggested the commercials looked good, but I questioned whether the night time soap/drama premise could sustain itself in a TV landscape of crime and medical dramas. I still wonder, but that’s a thought for down the line. As it is, based on that one episode, Arctic Air comfortably takes its place as the centre piece, not simply of the CBC’s winter schedule — but the Canadian TV schedule in general. Good on ‘em.

Global’s Bomb Girls (Wednesdays, Global) I’m more mixed on. Presumably inspired a bit by the mini-trend of American period dramas (Mad Men, Pan Am, and the Playboy Club) but it’s set even earlier, in the 1940s. It’s okay…but maybe tries too hard to find conflict, playing up not just gender prejudice, but ethnic and class schisms where the constant sniping and snapping can get exhausting. And the desire to confront the sexism of the time has kind of led to a series where almost all the men are one note sexist pigs, making a lot of the characters (and character conflicts) kind of cartoony. Actually, I’m not sure what’s worse — that almost all the men are obnoxious pigs…or that I’m not entirely sure if the makers realize just how obnoxious they are (given we are sometimes supposed to sympathize with them)! And for all that it sort of wants to tackle the prejudices of the day with a modern eye…so far it’s still an all white cast of characters (the “ethnic” angle is Anglo-Saxon vs. Italian-Canadian). Actually star Meg Tilly is, in reality, Eurasian…but her character doesn’t seem to be. Still, it’s certainly a “concept” premise…and being marketed as a mini-series, it doesn’t have to worry about sustainability.

As the big American-style (and co-produced) drama on the schedule, I’m finding The Firm (Thursdays, Global)…problematic. It’s not horrible. And as a lawyer series, the first two episodes seem to want to deal with dilemmas and legal ethics more than simply winning the cases, which could be interesting. But some TV shows (and movies) you can just lose yourself in, completely buying into the characters and their situations…and some you can find yourself just too self-conscious of the actors, of the scenes, like watching a marionette show where you find yourself distracted by light glinting off the wires. I don’t know if it’s a problem with the production, or simply once my mind starts in that direction, it’s hard to turn it back…but I’m just conscious of a lot of clumsy and corny dialogue, of scenes where I’m watching actors hit their marks and, well, act…as opposed to believing in the characters and their actions. Scenes which seem like heavy handed imitations of subtler scenes in other shows where they seemed more organic (the testy judge, the prosecutor who objects as soon as the hero opens his mouth). Honestly…I’m starting to chuckle at scenes that aren’t meant to be funny! It’s still a fine line, and it’s not impossible that with a few more episodes it will win me over, as the writers, actors, and directors get more comfortable with what they’re doing (though I still feel the actors/characters themselves are a bit bland).

Perhaps the biggest ratings surprise for me was the teacher comedy Mr. D (Mondays, CBC) – ’cause I’ll admit, I found it kind of painful to sit through. Yet the ratings for the first episode were great. I don’t even know if one can attribute that to comic Gerry Dee having a pre-built following, given an earlier stand up special featuring him only brought in a third of Mr. D’s ratings. Obviously the inspiration for Mr. D is shows like The Office, built around a dimwitted, self-obsessed cad who thinks he’s the cat’s meow and is oblivious to his inadequacies…and his lack of popularity. It’s a genre of comedy I’ve come to call “cringe comedy”, in that the humour is supposed to make you cringe as much as laugh as you watch the character blunder into one embarrassing situation after another (the humour partly because most of the surrounding actors play it straight). The problem is the lead character, so far, doesn’t really have any lovable or endearing qualities (the fact that the pretty, bright lady teacher would seem to gravitate toward him is inexplicable). And Dee is pretty much the whole show (despite a nice supporting cast) — unlike, say, The Office, where the character was part of an ensemble, and so the romantic trials of Jim and Pam could produce a counterpoint to Michael’s narcissism, or where Dwight could steal a few scenes. A lot of modern Canadian series are created by their stars, as vehicles for themselves, but Dee may not be exactly a team player. That is, in Corner Gas, even though Brent Butt was the star…he shared the limelight, other cast members getting their bits. But maybe that’s just a problem with a first episode, and the jokes and plot lines will get spread out among the characters as Mr. D goes.

What’s curious about the (initial) ratings for Mr. D is when you contrast it with the chronically anaemic numbers for Michael: Tuesdays & Thursdays. Both series use a realist drama-style of filming (no laugh track, and shot more like movie than a comedy on a sound stage) and a kind of low-key style, yet Michael was infused with a genuine warmth for (most of) its characters whereas Mr. D is more a snide, snarky effort. And Mr. D’s opening ratings pretty much ground Michael’s into the hardwood floor of the character’s basketball court.

Amid these new series, even returning Republic of Doyle (Wednesdays, CBC) enjoyed an extra boost — in part due to the casting coup of landing international movie star Russell Crowe as a guest star. Yeah — not just some two-second cameo, but a genuine guest starring role. Crowe doesn’t normally do TV — even American TV. Don’t expect to see him playing a patient on House anytime soon. (Apparently Crowe and series star Allan Hawco share a circle of friends). To be honest — I’m not a big fan of Republic of Doyle, though Lord knows I want to be. But I just find the plotting kind of, well, half-arsed most of the time — like it’s less a detective series than it is an imitation of a detective series. Granted, it’s as much a comedy as a mystery series, so maybe narrative coherence isn’t big on their priority list, but a lot of episodes just seem to involve the characters running back and forth from point A to point B, often with little logic…and the third season premier was no different. Still, what the heck — I’m happy to see such a Canadian, and such an idiosyncratically regional, series do so well. Though ironically, Crowe’s guest turn was a bit problematic. Crowe’s a fine actor…but watching him in Republic of Doyle it occurred to me that he’s a dramatic actor, usually playing dark and intense roles, and amid the swashbuckling hi-jinks of Republic of Doyle he seemed a bit out of place.

The final premier I want to look at was for the cop drama, King (Fridays, Global). As mentioned, King had already run last year on Showcase, and Global’s just giving it a bigger exposure (prior to its second season on Showcase). Now, full disclosure time: I liked King, and I like its star, Amy Price-Francis. In fact, it may well be my favourite Canadian made series currently in production (certainly it’s up there). And I’m not kidding when I suggested earlier that Global didn’t seem to put much effort into promoting it the way it did Bomb Girls and The Firm — so the fact that it mustered even 400 000 viewers is perhaps remarkable. Likewise, when King earlier aired on Showcase, it seemed not to get much promotion — at least, in an impromptu survey I did of a few people months ago…no one had heard of it! So here’s hoping this time out it can build a bit of word of mouth notice.

Now, as I say — these are just opening numbers. It could well be the audiences will drop off in the next few weeks (undoubtedly they will, if only by a little). Opening numbers just indicate the audience is interested in the premise of a new series…subsequent ratings will determine if they actually enjoy the series itself. But that’s still better, a more hopeful sign, than some recent Canadian series have had, where even their premier numbers were soft.

Don’t know about you, but it looks like that might be rain on the horizon. And we know who that’s good for.

Posted in Canadian film and TV | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Firm and Others — how perspective colours reviews

Posted on January 9, 2012 by Administrator

I’m intrigued by the mechanism of storytelling. Just as a biologist is fascinated by how and why a living organism functions, I’m intrigued by how and why a story works (or doesn’t work). That’s part of why I do my reviews. But that also leads to an interest in the process of reviewing itself — to understanding how and why you, me, or th’ ot’er fella responds the way we do. Reviewing isn’t a science — it is coloured by our personal biases. We all have different baggage we bring with us — sometimes for good, sometimes not — when watching a movie or TV show, or reading a book or comic, that influences how we respond to it…and even how we anticipate responding to it.

One thing that got me thinking about this was the Canadian-made TV series, The Firm which, at least at the time of my writing this, I haven’t yet seen (* see post-script at the end of this post). The Firm is a new crime-suspense series based on the 1993 Hollywood movie starring Tom Cruise which, in turn, was based on the best-selling novel by John Grisham. TV series based on hit movies are not uncommon (though the actual successes in that particular sub-genre are few) and Canadians have made weekly series derived from Hollywood (and elsewhere) movies before — notably StarGate, as well as the first Nikita series (though there have only been a few examples of Canadian series based on Canadian movies — Men With Brooms and the French-language Les Boys come to mind).

But how this relates to my opening comments is that, as a “franchise”…The Firm doesn’t really mean much to me. Apparently it isn’t so much a re-make of the story, as it’s a sequel, following the characters a few years later. But the thing is, though I read the novel, years ago, and saw the movie, years ago, I have no especial attachment to it. Indeed, I can barely remember what it was about! The novel struck me as a bit of what I call an “airport read”…a breezy enough page turner that you might pick up when heading out on a long flight, to hold your interest while bumping through turbulence, but doesn’t really require any deep thought or emotional involvement. The prose style simple and matter-of-fact, rather than something where you savour the descriptions and the metaphors. Indeed, I was kind of surprised when, as years went by, author John Grisham seemed to be acquiring a reputation as a “literary” novelist…’cause that’s certainly not how I perceived The Firm.

And the movie — the movie was pretty much the same. An okay time-killer, something I might even watch again some day if I’m bored and channel-surfing, but not something I’m liable to seek out deliberately.

All this, I repeat, is based on my feelings close to two decades ago — I may well react differently today were I to read/watch the story. But that’s how it is.

Actually, one thing I do remember is noting how the movie makers tried desperately, valiantly, to add an element of morality into — what I recall as being — a kind of amoral novel. As an example, the story required the hero to be blackmailed for an extra-marital affair so, if memory serves, in the novel…he just blithely cheats on his wife. Not exactly an admirable thing to do, eh? So in the movie version, though the story still required him to cheat on his wife, the film crafted a rather more elaborate scene, giving the would be mistress some weirdly pretentious dialogue, trying to suggest a certain momentary kinship between the two, so that he’s not simply two-timing his wife, but the affair stems out of some deep seated sense of disconnectedness and dissatisfaction with his life, and the meaning of existence…or, y’know, something. They were basically struggling to slam a round peg into a square hole, but I admired the effort. Likewise, a scene in the novel where the hero murders someone in cold blood is re-written in the movie, as I recall, to make it unarguably self-defense. (I keep reiterating that “I recall” because I am dredging up imperfect decades old memories here).

I know there are a lot of people who scoff at Hollywood for such things — for this desire to create “moral” heroes. But, personally, I kind of admired them for it, for reading the novel and clearly having the same WTF? reaction I did (particular as it’s not like the novel otherwise was supposed to be some grey-shade noir-ish drama about anti-heroes).

ANYWAY…the point is, The Firm, as a novel or a movie, doesn’t hold any particular place in my mental library of beloved movies or novels, so that when I first heard about the TV series, my reaction was kind of: “huh…that old thing?” I mean, given how fickle and transient is pop culture, I wondered how many people would even remember the movie.

Yet reading some of the accompanying articles, and some internet message boards, clearly there is a fan-base — clearly people are hyped about the idea of a return of Mitch McDeere and his family. Indeed, some of the negative comments seem to be from people worried it won’t live up to their expectations, that it will betray the legacy of the classic movie and the original novel. Clearly, almost twenty years on…there are people who have placed The Firm in a special place in their personal mental library.

Now whether it’s a big fan-base…well, we’ll see once the ratings are in. Just because you can read a few comments on a message board doesn’t mean it’s a wide-spread, grass roots phenomenon. Movies based on video games will often get message boards ignited by eager gamer fans convinced the movie will break box office records…only to have it bomb because, well, outside of game fans, no one cared. That’s the funny thing about fandom — fans often unable to realize (or unwilling to acknowledge even to themselves) how much of a minority they are. Fans of an actor who will trumpet their idol as a world famous movie star…when the actor generally just gets supporting parts in B-movies…that bomb. But, as I say, maybe I’m doing the same. Because The Firm meant little to me, maybe that blinded me to realizing just how well-regarded it is in other circles.

This perspective even applies to the casting. I came upon some references suggesting it was a coup to land American actor Josh Lucas as the star…when, frankly, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen him in anything, or had even much heard of him! So am I out-of-touch for not recognizing his prestige…or are others a little wrapped up in their fan-boy (or girl) idolatry? (And I should point out, whether Lucas is a “star” or not is in no way a reflection on his talent…he could be a complete unknown and still be a perfect casting choice).

Again, that all relates to perception, to personal baggage — but it can influence how people react to things, sometimes unconsciously. I came upon a comment about the TV series Combat Hospital where the commentator dismissed it out of hand for its “unknown” cast, to him/her a sure sign of it being a bad series. Now, personally, I wouldn’t really see that as proof of anything — I see good movies and TV shows all the time with largely unfamiliar faces, or programs where the unfamiliar faces quickly steal scenes from the established pros. Yet putting that aside, it seemed an odd comments to make, given that even though I had never before seen Combat Hospital’s lead actress, Michelle Borth, she apparently has assembled a pretty hefty resume of roles in the last few years. And far from “unknown”, the casting of film actors like Elias Koteas and Deborah Kara Unger, actors not usually given to TV roles, could be perceived as a bit of a coup.

So to one commentator, from his/her perspective of not recognizing the actors, the cast was “unknown”…while from another perspective, it boasted some impressive talents.

Having devoted so many years to watching Canadian movies and TV shows, I’ve probably developed a rather different perspective on things than a lot of other people. For one, I’ve developed a familiarity with Canadian actors. Whereas years ago, I could watch a Canadian movie and recognize its imported Hollywood star surrounded by a supporting cast of largely unknown Canadian actors, these days I’m only likely to recognize the American “stars”…simply because I don’t recognize them. The supporting Canadian cast are the welcome, familiar faces, the A-list talent, but to me, the unknown face in the lead role is some American actor just recently off some briefly trendy night time soap or sitcom that I’ve never even heard of. And this familiarity or lack of familiarity can influence your reaction. I’ve seen some movies where I’ve liked the Canadian cast, but was less impressed with the American “star”…yet then will read another review which shrugs off the acting, save for special praise for the American actor…whom the reviewer clearly has seen in other productions. So do I have undue appreciation for the Canadian cast simply because I recognize them…or is the person who singles out the American actor’s “stellar” performance doing so simply because they recognize them as an American star?

Obviously — there’s no right or wrong. Probably, it’s a little of both.

Sometimes, knowing a movie is Canadian will lead to a reviewer automatically using that fact as a negative — dismissing the acting in a low-budget Canadian B-movie as being, well, “what can you expect…it’s Canadian!” when I’m doubtful they would find the acting any better in a comparable low-budget American B-movie.

A few years ago there was a Canadian-made series called Peter Benchley’s Amazon which I kind of liked, and featured an ensemble cast of Canadian and some American actors. Going into it, the actor I was most familiar with was Canadian Rob Stewart, from an earlier series called Sweating Bullets — I wasn’t a big fan of Sweating Bullets, but I had liked Stewart in it. So he was the “name” in the cast to me and initially I liked his performance the most (until I got used to the other actors, and began to appreciate their work as well). Yet then I was talking to someone else who had seen a few episodes…and who had never seen Stewart before. They were, however, well familiar with his American co-star C. Thomas Howell and, significantly, it was Howell they singled out as delivering the noteworthy performance. So, two people, watching the same ensemble cast, and in both cases, it’s the actors we were already familiar with that we felt gave the notable performance. Coincidence?

I came to like most of the actors in Amazon — including Howell. Yet, funnily enough, years later, I continue to like Rob Stewart when I see him in things…yet can pretty much take or leave Howell (not that I dislike him, or dismiss his talent).

Perception is everything.

A while back I came upon a review of the Canadian TV series Being Erica — an American review that actually was complimentary. But in the course of the review, the reviewer made the comment that you can recognize a Canadian series because the actors aren’t as “attractive” as they are in American series. And you wonder…was this really how the reviewer perceived things, or was it simply how they had convinced themselves to perceive things based on pre-conceived stereotypes? I mean, sure — American TV is populated by a lot of ex-models turned actresses, but I wouldn’t really say that’s the be-all-and-end-all of the casting pool. Is Being Erica’s Erin Karpluk any less pretty — cheekbone to cheekbone — than a lot of the actresses headlining U.S. series?

Now the reviewer was, ironically, being complimentary to the series — they liked it. But they still felt a need to get in that little dig that, one could argue, has very little basis in reality.

And of course beauty — let alone “attractiveness” — is even more subjective than talent. The fact of the matter is, I’ve seen more than a few Canadian movies where the producers have brought up their “beautiful” American actors to star…and frankly, I think some of the Canadian actors in supporting roles are better looking!

Anyway, what this all relates to is just realizing how subjective these things can be. Not simply subjective in that I might like something you don’t, or vice versa, and both of us are equally right. No, I mean even what influences that opinion can be affected by subconscious factors. A mediocre performance might seem better than it is simply because you recognize the actor, and are pre-disposed to like them (or assume that, since they get a lot of work, then, gosh, they must be good) and a perfectly solid, perfectly good performance you might dismiss simply because you don’t recognize the actor and so overlook the genuine care and nuance they are bringing to their part.

*Okay — so I did catch the two-hour premier of The Firm. One episode isn’t enough for me to commit to an official review, so I’ll have to see a couple more episodes. And pilot episodes are a bit like a shakedown cruise, working out the kinks and bumps before the series hits open water. But with that one two-hour episode The Firm basically seemed…well, okay. It seems as though it’s basically just going to be a pretty conventional lawyer series, with a case-of-the-week plots, but strung together with a sub-plot involving an on going conspiracy. There was, to my mind, some clunky dialogue, some clumsy scenes…but also some decent scenes so, as I say, it could go either way once it has a few more episodes under its belt. My problem, I suppose, is that it is just another lawyer series…and there are a bunch of them on the schedule as it is. Right now my favourites in that genre are The Good Wife (though its third season doesn’t seem quite as sure footed as previously) and newcomer, Suits. And I’m not sure the actors, and their characters, are doing enough to distinguish The Firm, to get it a place at the table, as it were — the actors (Josh Lucas, Callum Keith Rennie, Molly Parker, Juliette Lewis) were fine, without anyone really delivering a stand-out, scene stealing performance, and the characters are kind of, well, serviceable — which may be its biggest Achilles heel. In a weekly series, how much you care about and are interested in the characters can be as important as any plotting. Still, as I say, more than a few series have won me over after a few episodes…so, we’ll see…

Posted in Canadian film and TV | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Audio Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: The Reification of Hans Gerber

Posted on January 3, 2012 by Administrator

Although my usual focus with this blog is Canadian film and TV, part of the point of a blog is to allow me to comment on a broader range of topics — including non-Canadian entertainment subjects and another interest of mine, audio and radio dramas (hence why there’s a “categories” column to the right). And such is today’s topic…as well as a considering one of pop culture’s most enduring characters…

Sherlock Holmes is a remarkably enduring creation. Is there any other character who a century and some later remains a genuine pop culture icon? Sure, ancient myths and legends continue to resonate today — King Arthur, Robin Hood, Odysseus — and individual works of literature — from Hamlet to Jane Eyre — are still read today. But in the case of the latter examples, those are specific works, specific stories — not a series character. And often their true, grass roots appeal is uncertain — their endurance relying a lot on being mandatary reading in schools, or with their occasional resurrections on the silver screen often creating barely a ripple at the box office. I’m not sure there’s another pop creation that continues with such vigour so many decades after his creation. Ask anyone under 50 who Allan Quatermain is, and odds are most’ll look at you blankly. Most people probably still know who Tarzan is…but in the abstract, many not having seen a movie or read a book about him. John Carter of Mars is slatted for a Hollywood movie to be released in the coming months…but the general public is largely unaware its based on a Century old novel. And so on.

Obviously, I’m thinking in terms of mass popularity, open to interpretation as that may be — I’ve read Quatermain, Tarzan, John Carter and more, and perhaps you have, too. And they still crop up occasionally in new movie versions. But as far as true, broad-based awareness?

But Holmes…Holmes is still a force to be reckoned with. I was thinking about this when reading an article about the new Sherlock Holmes movie, Game of Shadows, which referred to the Robert Downey, Jr./Jude Law films as having re-started the franchise. And I thought, you know, not really. Oh, they definitely gave it a shot of adrenaline, but even before these Hollywood blockbusters, Holmes had never really faded into obscurity. Wander into any bookstore, and you were still liable to find the original Holmes stories readily available and in print…as well as assorted pastiches written by later authors after Arthur Conan Doyle’s death. Glancing at the IMDB, in the decade prior to the first of the Downey/Law films there were at least six movies/series featuring Holmes — hardly a character on the cusp of cultural anonymity!

Perhaps equally interesting, is how resilient the core concept remains. Unlike other characters who get “re-imagined” over the years, sometimes becoming almost unrecognizable in the hands of later creators who believe their vision is intrinsically greater than the original creator’s, it could be argued later interpretations usually stay within the parameters of the original concepts. The Downey/Law films may have jazzed it up, turned Holmes into a Victorian James Bond, and Downey’s Holmes may be a little more comical and irresponsible than Doyle’s original…but it still hovers close to the creative tin can, as it were. Put another way, if some young person, whose only experience of Holmes & Watson was the recent blockbusters, were to flip on the TV and catch a scene featuring some older pairing — Rathbone & Bruce, Brett & Hardwick, Plummer & Mason, Frewer & Welsh — chances are, even if the characters did not identify each other by name, he would sit back and say, “Oh — I bet this must be a Sherlock Holmes movie”.

More actors have portrayed Holmes & Watson (in an electronic medium) than probably any other characters. And not just in film & TV — but in radio and audio productions. A multitude of actors have lent their voices to the characters in a non-visual medium over the decades. And I have a particular love and passion for audio dramas — fostered in my youth by coming upon radio stations airing already nostalgic re-runs of The Shadow and Jack Benny, and continuing today with modern, arguably more sophisticated productions — radio and audio a marginalized, but far from dead, storytelling medium.

Which then brings us to the point of this essay — Big Finish’s Sherlock Holmes series.

Big Finish is a British production company best known for its Dr. Who full cast audio plays — begun before the revived TV series and continuing, unabated, to this day. The Big Finish Dr. Who plays are as good — frankly, often better — than the current TV series! Big Finish has branched out into other productions and series (some, like Dr. Who, revivals of old TV franchises with brand new audio-only dramas) but Dr. Who clearly remains the centre piece of the company (much, I suspect, to their frustration at times! — not because they don’t passionately love Dr. Who, but clearly no other line has proven as successful).

Added to their range (and no doubt inspired by the Downey/Law success) they’ve added some Sherlock Holmes plays.

Now my personal preference for a Holmes drama is something original — or at least not based on Conan Doyle’s originals. Simply because the core canon stories have been dramatized so often, by so many (in TV, radio, and movies) there’s just so many times you can listen to the same story again — particularly when I have the original stories on my bookshelf that I can, and do, read. I want something new!

Big Finish has approached its Holmes line with variety in mind, adapting some of the original stories, but also adapting some later non-Doyle pastiches (novels and plays) as well as some brand new, never before presented tales — some are little more than dramatized readings, others are true, full cast dramas, so-called “movies for your mind”. Some of the audio plays featured different actors (reprising a stage performance) but the main series of plays feature the set cast of Nicholas Briggs as Holmes and Richard Earl as Watson.

Big Finish knows how to put together audio dramas. Their lines (such as Dr. Who) will inevitably have better and lesser efforts, but as actual productions (acting, sound mix) their professionalism is not in question. It’s not unusual to hear familiar movie and TV actors in their casts, from old veterans like David Warner to genuine rising stars like Hayley Atwell! As well, unlike some radio dramas which do indeed come across as “radio plays”, with talky scenes and limited use of music, Big Finish’s productions come across as dynamic motion pictures, with a cinematic-like musical score. A not too long ago BBC radio series of Holmes stories starring Clive Merrison, though well regarded by some, generally struck me as plodding and static…in part because of a kind of “stagy” production.

Anyway, because I’m not too interested in “classic” adaptations, talking book readings, or other “quirky” productions, the first Big Finish Holmes play I tried was the full cast Holmes and The Ripper, in which Holmes (Briggs) is set to the task of investigating the real life crimes of Jack the Ripper. Based on a stage play by Brian Clemens, it’s a well done production, boasting an unusually large cast (Big Finish productions usually crafting their in-house stories around a limited cast) and, despite its origins as a stage play, it has a rich, cinematic feel, with a musical score, and atmospheric scenes set amid winding alleys, with hansom cabs clattering forlornly in the distance. My main quibble with the play…was that it frankly just came across as a re-hash/re-make of the 1979 Holmes movie Murder by Decree. Not simply because both involved Holmes investigating Jack the Ripper, but because Clemens based his plot on the same urban legend/conspiracy theory that had inspired Murder by Decree, resulting in a similar plot and even scenes. So, as someone looking for a “new” Holmes story…I couldn’t help feeling it seemed like just a remake of an old one. Still, particularly after a second listen (once I was prepared for that) Holmes and The Ripper is a well presented mystery/thriller.

Still, for my next Big Finish Holmes I decided to go with The Reification of Hans Gerber which was marketed as being wholly original to Big Finish — not based on a Doyle original, nor adapted from a previously produced play or novel pastiche.

Briggs and Earl are back as Holmes and Watson and are an exceptionally good team, boisterous and robust without sliding into camp — they’re a fun pairing (with Briggs even seeming to be channelling a bit of Jeremy Brett this time around, with his Holmes even more flamboyantly eccentric than in Holmes and The Ripper, without sacrificing the genuine warmth and camaraderie between him and Earl that seems to be the special hallmark of this duo). By this point I’ve heard quite a few Holmes (and their Watsons) in audio — Basil Rathbone, John Stanley, John Gielgud, Clive Merrison, Simon Callow, more than one in the Jim French Productions series, and others…and Briggs and Earl may well be my favourite team (partly, no doubt, a result of the “feature length” nature of their adventures allowing more room to let the characters breathe).

And as a play, The Reification of Hans Gerber is an exceptionally good example of a Holmes pastiche. Writer George Mann captures the sense and spirit of Arthur Conan Doyle in a way that, frankly, few others have…or have even tried. Over the years, many a writer (in books, plays, movies, and radio) have attempted to follow in Doyle’s footsteps. As mentioned earlier, usually they do a decent enough job at capturing some semblance or echo of the characters…but the plots themselves can be less evocative. Some just come across as generic murder mysteries…that frankly could’ve been re-written for almost any detective. Many are just adventure stories as Holmes pursues Professor Moriarty, with little in the way of “mysteries” to be fathomed. In the, frankly odd TV movie, The Case of the Silver Stocking, it was as if Holmes had been dropped unceremoniously into a Thomas Harris novel, as Holmes hunts, of all things, a serial killer and rapist!

It isn’t that these plots can’t be used with Sherlock Holmes…but they hardly evoke the true flavour of the classic Holmes stories, where the puzzle was everything, where the mystery often wasn’t simply whodunit…but what is even going on? What I tend to classify as the “curious incident” mystery.

So in The Reification of Hans Gerber, Mann gives us a story that can actually intrigue, as you aren’t just waiting to discover who the villain is…but how and why everything connects. There is a murder (more than one by story’s end) but Holmes’ initial involvement in the case is almost banal, to investigate a missing will — what I meant about the “curious incident” sort of puzzle. The story involves Victorian cliches of old manor houses, and the idle rich relying on the largesse of relatives. The case becomes complicated by the title character, Hans Gerber, a mysterious presence who seems like he must surely be responsible for some of the initial skulduggery…yet you’re not quite sure how. Another aspect to the “classic” Holmes’ stories is an occasional aspect of eeriness, plots that flirt with the creepy and the Gothic, and Mann supplies that as well…Gerber, a mysterious figure in black glimpsed only occasionally, adds a suitable sense of eeriness to the proceedings.

The story is well paced, more or less justifying its two-hour length (unlike some Holmes dramatizations — particularly those adapted from the short stories — which can feel rather stretched and padded). Though the opening prologue is a bit protracted…but no moreso than a lot of the straight adaptations of Holmes stories done for radio and TV. It boasts a good cast (in addition to Briggs and Earl) and, again, a “cinematic” feel, with varied locations, scene changes, and use of ambient sound and an effective musical score. And even if some of the revelations you can see coming, Mann has enough threads being teased along that even if you can guess some of it…there are one or two extra shoes he has to drop before the end.

My main quibble might be that Mann sometimes leans too much on Earl’s narration, to the point where sometimes whole scenes are being described as if it’s a talking book more than a full cast play. That may have been necessary, to squeeze everything in, but if so, Mann might have been better to edit his story a bit, dropping scenes to tighten it, rather than simply have Watson tell us about them. And references to Holmes’ drug use seems a bit cliched (like pastiches that employ Moriarty). Another, perhaps minor, quibble, is that at the end of the day…it is basically just plot driven, with little deeper emotional resonance (though, as mentioned, well acted by a cast playing well enough written roles). One doesn’t expect a lot of deeper emotion from a Holmes story…but when stretched out to two hours, it might benefit from some — a more endearing client or something (much as Holmes and The Ripper had some emotional scenes and even, of all things, added a romantic interest for Holmes!).

But I can’t stress enough how good a job Mann (and the Big Finish team) did in not just crafting an entertaining audio play — but in genuinely creating something that you’d half swear Doyle himself must have written! As if based on a fifth full length Holmes’ novel that had slipped your mind.

In addition to some adaptations (including of the Hound of the Baskervilles) and some, I gather, more talking book-like productions, Big Finish has up-coming The Tangled Skein — a full cast adaptation of a Holmes’ pastiche novel pitting the sleuth against the vampire, Count Dracula. Because of my enjoyment of the two Big Finish plays I’ve heard, and my interest in non-Doyle based dramas, I suspect I’ll be getting that one when it comes out in January. Though I do have a slight hesitation. Like Holmes and The Ripper, Holmes battling Count Dracula has been a concept visited by many writers over the years — including in an earlier BBC Radio play, Holmes vs. Dracula, starring John Moffatt as Holmes, and Timothy West as Watson. I quite enjoyed that earlier play, liking Moffatt’s no-nonsense Holmes (a far different interpretation from Briggs’ take, but equally legitimate), and finding it a surprisingly atmospheric production (I’d half swear they recorded on locations around London, not just in a sound booth) — but, as such, like with Holmes and The Ripper and its similarity to Murder by Decree, I worry the Tangled Skein might just seem like a re-make of Holmes vs. Dracula. But hopefully, though using a similar hook, each will tell its own individual plot.

Anyway, if you like Sherlock Holmes, if you like mystery-thrillers, and if you like audio plays (or are curious to try one, but worried they can’t hold up against movies or TV) you might consider giving Sherlock Holmes: The Reification of Hans Gerber a try.

Posted in Radio and Audio drama | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Combat Hospital, KIA…and the “war” for Canadian content

Posted on December 30, 2011 by Administrator

So…a funny thing happened on the way to a successful Canadian TV industry. The industry, such as it is, said: No Thanks.

News came down a few weeks ago that Global TV’s military-medical drama, Combat Hospital, has been cancelled. So what? you ask. Series get cancelled all the time. Too bad and maybe they can do better next time — right?

Wherein lies the proverbial rub. According to some reports, Combat Hospital was bringing in even better ratings than other bona fide Canadian hits like Flashpoint and Rookie Blue, with numbers easily on a par with, and often trouncing, the big American series Canadian networks treat as the jewels in the crowns of their programming schedules. You really couldn’t hope to do much better than Combat Hospital.

As well, though a series about a multinational field hospital featuring a multi-national cast, Combat Hospital was also unusually, unapologetically, Canadian — with many characters featuring Canadian flags on their shoulders and even occasionally (well, very occasionally) doing episodes that actually used that Canadianness for story ideas (like one where a conflict arises among the characters because of the differing policies the Canadian and American armed forces employ).

But despite all that, Global blinked and said, “Nyah, nevermind.”

Why? Well, obviously the story is little complicated (as these things always are). Combat Hospital was a co-production with the American network ABC, which was putting up some of the production money. And though the Canadian ratings for Combat Hospital were great…the U.S. ratings were more tepid (not necessarily horrendous…but not strong enough that ABC felt it was worth continuing). The why of the different ratings — well, who knows? Critics of the series might argue Canadians viewed the series with a hometown hero mystique that left the American viewers unaffected. Fans of the series might argue it was just a little too raw for an American audience more comfortable with who’s going to walk down the aisle of the Bachelorette than in seeing a drama set amid a conflict many people would just as soon pretend wasn’t happening. Contemporary conflict dramas have proven a tough sell in the past.

ABC decided to pull out for reasons that seemed appropriate for them and Global decided to follow suit…for reasons that would seem highly detrimental to them and any claims they would make to having a commitment to producing successful, Canadian programming.

Granted, the decision may not have been that quick and easy. Possibly there was some effort made to line up an alternate partner — perhaps a U.S. cable network. An effort that failed. Though if so, I wonder how hard they looked, given how quickly Global announced the series’ cancellation after ABC. I mean, with all those zillions of cable stations and networks…they couldn’t even get a nibble?

Combat Hospital was doubtless an expensive series to make. Series have been cancelled before, not so much because of bad ratings, but because it was a money losing endeavour even with good audience numbers. Although I can’t help wondering whether Combat Hospital could have had its budget trimmed with little discernible impact on the stories. I mean, the initial start up costs (building the standing sets, casting, etc.) had already been done. As well, there were certainly extraneous shots and scenes that could have been left out of later episodes. Shots of helicopters or jets flying through the air, or even the big panorama crane shots showing the whole camp — all rather extraneous to a medical drama where most of the real action and character development takes place on in door sets.

And, admittedly, there might have been cast problems. Actors who might see committing to a big budget American TV series as a hole-in-one, career-wise, might have considered it a professional sand trap to stick around in a Canadian series that would no longer be seen in America by Hollywood producers and casting agents. This might be particulary true of series stars like Michelle Borth and Luke Mably, American and British respectively, with no particular ties to, or desire to be incorporated into, the Canadian entertainment industry. Even Canadians like Elias Koteas and Deborah Kara Unger (both film actors “slumming” in TV) might have lost their enthusiasm a bit. I say “might”, because equally they might not — after all, at a relatively short 13 episodes season (half the length of an American season) one could star in it and still have time to take on other projects. But for that matter — Combat Hospital was an ensemble and could probably have weathered a cast shake up or two (look at the cast changes ER, Grey’s Anatomy, and CSI have undergone). Borth was an appealing, nominal lead…but even if she had chosen not to stay with a smaller, more Canadian series…that wouldn’t have necessarily been a fatal blow, narrative-wise.

Still, maybe all these things were considered, maybe numbers were crunched, the cast polled (to see who would and wouldn’t want to stick around) and it was finally, with great lamenting and melancholy, decided continuing Combat Hospital without ABC just was impossible.

Maybe.

But the optics are bad. Given all the braying from the political right about how the CBC should be shut down because the private networks like Global can do the job, Global’s cancelling of a hit Canadian series like Combat Hospital just makes such claims embarrassing. It looks bad because Global had next to no Canadian programs on its schedule anyway! It looks bad because with Combat Hospital fallen on the battlefield, Global’s next big series (slatted to premiere this January) is The Firm. Based on the long ago novel by American John Grisham (and the decade and a half old Hollywood movie), it’s set in the United States, and will star some American actors (and some Canadians, too, of course). Not exactly a stellar example of a commitment to “Canadian” programming. To be fair, Global is also priming Bomb Girls, which is Canadian-set…but it’s being promoted as simply a one-time mini-series, not an on going series.

For that matter, The Firm is also a U.S. co-production! So if Combat Hospital is any example, if once again Global is faced with hit Canadian ratings and poor American ratings, it will no doubt cancel The Firm, as well. (Cynically, I doubt it’ll be an issue — the commercials for The Firm look uninspiring, and I’m dubious it’ll be a hit either side of the 49th parallel…though I’m the first to acknowledge commercials can be misleading, so we’ll see).

Now this issue has arisen before — the co-production dilemma is a two-edged sword. On one hand, it means bigger budgets and better publicity (if only because the Canadian press treats American involvement as a “legitimizing” stamp of approval) on the other, it means handing a great deal of control for a Canadian series over to an American partner. And it means that if the American partner pulls out (and takes their money with them) the Canadian producers are left with a hemorrhaging hole in the side of their production.

Another, albeit less significant example, was the CBC’s Camelot – in this case, it was announced it had been cancelled even before it aired in Canada! I say it was less “significant” because Canada was only a junior partner in its production, making it only nominally a “Canadian” series, anyway…and its Canadian ratings weren’t as spectacular as Combat Hospital.

Still, Due South was a Canada-U.S. co-production and when CBS pulled out after the second season…the Canadian producers toughed it out, cobbled together some new production partners, and got another season out of it (though American co-star David Marciano was no longer involved). Likewise The Listener lost its U.S. network partner but, after a hiatus to rally the finances, it too came back without a U.S. network partner. Flashpoint was kept on tenterhooks for four seasons, with American CBS keeping it around, renewing it…but often kind of grudgingly and last minute, the series clearly having few champions among CBS executives (according to some reports, Flashpoint had good U.S. ratings…just not of the key demographics networks like to shop to advertisers). Yet even with the recent, definitive announcement that CBS is finally pulling out…Flashpoint has lined up a U.S. cable partner and promises to keep going. So it can be done, and has been done. I suppose it depends on whether you can find new partners to fill the gap, whether the cast and crew are enthusiastic enough to fight for their show…and whether the Canadian network programmers are committed to making it work.

Things that clearly didn’t happen for Combat Hospital.

And just as Combat Hospital is an example of a series killed despite stellar domestic ratings, there are also the reverse examples. Canadian series that stay in production, that networks keep on their schedule for multiple seasons even though the ratings are poor…because they do well enough for their American co-producer in the American market. In other words, at least when it comes to certain series, the Canadian audience has little say in whether a show gets renewed or cancelled.

And that doesn’t bode well for Canadian TV in general.

Posted in Canadian film and TV | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Christmas — Canadian film style

Posted on December 28, 2011 by Administrator

Christmas time heralds many things — presents, decorations…radio stations switching over to an all-carol format. And, of course, what can be both a highlight — and a scourge — of the yuletide season: the Christmas movie. As much as eggnog and stockings, the family gathering around the boob tube to watch — or re-watch — Christmas themed movies can be a beloved tradition in many-a-home.

And don’t producers and programmers know it, eh?

So every year, in addition to re-running acknowledged classics, much lesser and dodgier efforts will also get dusted off and slapped on the schedule, and of course there are the multitude of newly minted offings. And as with all things Christmas, I’m sure there’s a mix of genuine sincerity…and crassest commercial pragmatism. After all, any filmmakers who grew up watching It’s a Wonderful Life or A Christmas Carol harbour some slight fantasy that they, too, might be able to craft some lasting ode to Christmas Spirit that will touch and affect people for generations to come as they, themselves, were touched. And they are equally aware, cynically, that even a terrible Christmas cheapie knocked out in a couple of weeks, will probably attach itself to the season, barnacle-like, and return with an almost malaria-like regularity year after year…assuring the filmmakers residual checks for years to come. There’s as much mercenary as mirthfulness in the making of holiday movies.

And to be fair — some regard such potential immortality with trepidation. I once read an interview with an actor who admitted some nervousness about accepting a role in a Christmas movie, because the actor noted if the movie was terrible…he’d be stuck with it for years to come!

When it comes to “classics” there are certain widely embraced movies…and others that are more singular and personal. I’ve seen Christmas movies that do nothing for me — indeed, that I loathe — that others will proclaim a beloved tradition in their household. When it comes to inevitable re-makes, some seem to regard the versions as interchangeable…even as I might regard one as clearly superior to others.

I had certain films I regarded as “classics” but recently have expanded my thinking, at least a bit, having spent a few holidays with relatives who have introduced me to newer “classics” they like to re-watch, and which have, indeed, kind of grown on me — particularly those aimed at a more grown up audience than are the family classics I consider staples. Love Actually, The Family Stone as well as more boisterous efforts like Elf, the hilarious Just Friends, or even Surviving Christmas. I think it was last year that I turned on a TV movie called “November Christmas” on a whim…and surprised myself by liking it. Obviously, different movies strike different tones — some genuinely overflowing with Christmas sentiment…others are just comedies, or romances, that use Christmas as just a convenient backdrop. Sometimes Christmas traditions can be episodes of old TV series — more than a few Christmases have seen my popping the funny Partridge Family Christmas episode, “Don’t Bring Your Guns to Town”, into the DVD player (“What’s a bell-bell, Belle?”) or the Sherlock Holmes story “The Blue Carbuncle”. Some movies can take on a holiday association, even if they are not about the holidays — particularly Hollywood blockbusters (perhaps there’s a favourite James Bond movie or Star Trek film you like to settle back to re-watch at this time of year). While The Sound of Music is certainly a holiday staple…I’ve only seen it occasionally, myself. I like it — but the commercial breaks are so frickin’ long!

For me, the cinematic anchors of the holidays from my childhood was the triumvirate of A Miracle on 34th St. (1947 version), It’s a Wonderful Life (the original), and A Christmas Carol (1951).

I’ve seen a lot of versions of A Christmas Carol over the years (including radio adaptations and, of course, having read the original book) and have yet to find one that matches the 1951 version starring Alistair Sim. Oh, others have their moments, individual scenes that rise to the occasion, actors who bring a certain personal style to Scrooge, but as a well rounded production, mixing laugh-out-loud comedy, scares, and heart-breaking pathos, all anchored by a stellar central performance, the Alistair Sim version can’t be beat.

I find other A Christmas Carol movies often seem to miss the nuance of the themes and motives being explored — the filmmakers aware of the story’s cliches and beats, but losing track of what they are supposed to mean, like a singer who can sing the melody well enough…but has stopped paying attention to the meaning of the lyrics.

Likewise, the 1947 Miracle of 34th Street is a very funny comedy, deliciously cynical even as it is also up-lifting and sentimental. And, in a sense, of those “classics” to which I allude, it is the secular Christmas fable. Some later versions of the story I’ve seen seem to lose track of the comedy aspect, recreating the same scenes…but without the snappy, witty dialogue that gets laughs even after repeated versions. And in the 1994 version, there seemed to be an added effort to wrench the movie away from its secularism and turn it into a religious movie — when the appeal of the original was that its message of good will and “imagination” wasn’t tethered to any particular belief system.

Yet because of the need to recycle Christmas movies — any Christmas movie — to fill a schedule, the also rans get just as much air time as the classics. The CBC annually airs the 1994 Miracle on 34th Street and, I’ll admit, I can get a bit Grinch-like whenever I see that pretender in the TV listings (even as I’m sure others, particularly those of a younger generation who grew up on it, might react differently). Likewise, the CBC also airs the Alistair Sim A Christmas Carol…but in its appalling colourized version! I don’t know what’s worse — that anyone would colourize a movie that was so obviously made to be black and white (with its use of shadows and gothic mood) or that it was so obviously colourized at a point when the process was in its infancy and it…just…looks…awful. I can’t imagine anyone willingly watching that version (without turning off the colour on their TV). But I suspect the CBC airs it simply because it’s all they could get — I believe CTV owns the broadcast rights to the true black & white version (as well as the 1947 Miracle of 34th Street).

But honestly, as much as I love the Alistair Sim A Christmas Carol, I don’t think showing the colourized version does it — or the audience — any favours. Frankly, if the CBC is desperate to have a version of the story to re-cycle every year…maybe they should just make their own version they can slip into rotation (can’t you picture someone like Gordon Pinsent playing Ebeneezer Scrooge?).

Which kind of brings me to the “Canadian film” aspect of this essay.

As mentioned, the yuletide season is a veritable blank check for those ready and willing to make Christmas movies — in the States I think there’s even a Hallmark Channel which, I’m guessing, relies quite a bit on airing seasonally themed programs. And where there’s a demand, there are more than a few Canadian filmmakers eager to provide the supply. Type in the word “Christmas” into the IMDB and dozens of TV movies made in just the last few years will pop up…and the lion’s share are Canadian, or Canadian co-productions, mainly made for the American market. And you’ll also notice the same directors and writers will be associated with more than a few of them. Now, I’m all for Christmas Spirit, but I’m guessing when the same directors are churning out a dozen Christmas themed movies in just a few years…it’s a factory job more than anything truly motivated by holiday sentiment.

Which probably explains the general mediocrity of them. They are made to fill a quota, like mass produced Christmas lights, rather than lovingly hand crafted decorations.

That isn’t to say there isn’t a token sincerity to them — they try to touch the key bases, being about cynics finding Christmas Spirit, depressives re-discovering hope, estranged families re-united by the forgiveness of the season, etc. I’m sure the actors enjoy a certain tingle the first day on the set, thinking how they now get to star in a Christmas movie just like the movies they grew up on. Even as, I suspect, they are well aware they aren’t working on anything of the same calibre as the classics they loved.

Still, when I used the word “mediocrity”, I did so deliberately — as opposed to “bad” (though some are that). Because though a lot of these films you wouldn’t necessarily recommend to a friend, if you’re flipping around the TV, looking for something to half watch while wrapping presents, or to keep you awake on a lonely wintery night, they can probably kill a couple of hours. After all, Christmas is the time of good will and forgiveness…and the filmmakers, cynical old sons that they are, are counting on that — are counting on the audience’s generosity of spirit. After all, you can watch a Christmas themed movie around Christmas time and declare it “okay”…even as at any other time of the year, divorced from the Christmas trappings, you’d be more ready to pounce on the story holes, the illogical motivation, the trite plot.

Yet despite all these multitude of Canadian-made Christmas movies churned out over the years — I’m not sure Canada has ever produced a classic…or even a semi-classic. Something that warrants a re-watching and you would happily put on the shelf between your DVDs of It’s a Wonderful Life and Elf.

As with so many films made in Canada, very few of them are even explicitly Canadian — most aimed at the American market, featuring American actors in American settings. Although there may be a slight shift in recent years with some of these TV movie products — some recent Canadian-made films (like Christmas Magic) though set in the U.S. for a U.S. market…nonetheless featured an all-Canadian cast!

Funnily, one quasi-classic is A Christmas Story which, apparently, is beloved by some…I say “apparently” because the one time I saw it, I didn’t much care for it, finding it a little too strident and abrasive. But, hey, maybe I should try it again some year. But what’s funny about it, is that it is often referred to as being “Canadian”…but I’m not really sure it is in any substantial way (though it was shot in Canada). So aside from the fact that it didn’t float my boat…I’m not sure I’d count it among Canadian movies anyway.

Though as I say, a lot of technically Canadian movies…aren’t really Canadian in any obvious on screen way.

Perhaps the first big stab at a Canadian “classic” was One Magic Christmas — a big budget theatrical release…though of course with a lot of American actors imported and being set in an ambiguous Anytown, North America. But aside from a singular and memorable take on Santa Claus by Jan Rubes, it seemed to me it missed the point of Christmas Spirit (not unlike what I said about some versions of A Christmas Carol) resulting in a message that’s rather mean and grim, rather than up-lifting and heartening (more bullying someone to embrace the Christmas Spirit). Another big budget stab — this one for TV — was Must Be Santa, about an everyman (Arnold Pinnock, of The Listener and Combat Hospital) tagged to become Santa Claus (in echoes of the Tim Allen movie, The Santa Clause). Although made for the CBC, it too was a U.S. co-production, so once again it doesn’t really admit to being set in Canada…though at least this time most of the cast were Canadian (save American import Dabney Coleman). Must Be Santa is of the close but no cigar category — a decent watch, but not something that quite begs you to return next year.

A problem with a lot of Christmas movies is a feeling they have trouble quite settling on the tone they want — and are focused on being a Christmas movie, rather than on being just a movie (with the more stringent standards that requires). So they’ll often be light-hearted…while lacking any genuine comic scenes. They’ll have a romantic plot…without really being something where we really care about the lovers. Etc.

Another Canadian Christmas movie that comes to mind was the TV flick Ebeneezer, which relocated A Christmas Carol to the wild west. It actually was nominally set in Canada — nominally in that one suspects they originally planned to set it in the American west, then figured they could set it in Canada just by changing a police man’s jacket from cavalry blue to red serge. Though it was still headlined by some American actors (including Jack Palance as Ebeneezer). The problem with the incessant desire to re-make A Christmas Carol is that, really, how many versions of the story can you possibly sit through in a given December? Even if they do change the setting, and a few details, by and large it’s just the same story, the same scenes, the same themes, as all the others. Unless you can borrow the basic idea of the story, but sufficiently overhaul it to create something different…an example of which we’ll get to before the end of this essay…

Obviously, there are Canadian-made Christmas movies I’ve seen that have certainly been decent watches (Santa Who? — though how “Canadian” it was, I’m not sure — and Small Gifts) — and plenty more that I haven’t seen at all, and may well be an undiscovered Christmas classic (the CBC tends to trot out Booky’s Secret Santa and a Heartland Christmas, but I’ve yet to catch them). And movies that take place around Christmas…but are hardly Christmas-y: Black Christmas, The Silent Partner, or the Arty thriller Kings and Desperate Men.

Still, there are a couple that come to mind as worthy mentions.

The Man Who Saved Christmas was of the American-aimed Canadian movie field, being set in the States, about real life toy maker A.C. Gilbert (appealingly played by American actor Jason Alexander). It’s a mix of Christmas themes, with a bio-pic, and a homefront drama (set during World War I). Granted, I’ve only seen it once…so I don’t know if it quite would hold up for repeated viewings, but I recall it as an unexpectedly good effort.

Perhaps the closest Canadian movie that comes to my mind as being, if not a classic, or even a semi-classic, but at least a worthy contender, was the movie The Ghosts of Dickens’ Past — though admittedly it’s been a few years since I last saw it. Like with the Man Who Saved Christmas, it was as much a historical drama as a Christmas movie, but it was also a clever variation on Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol (which in addition to getting re-made a zillion times, the plot has also liberally been borrowed for other movies). By that I mean though you could see the echoes of A Christmas Carol in it, it wasn’t just the same scenes and story recycled. In this case, the story is about Dickens, feeling a bit melancholy at Christmas time, who then is taken on an odyssey through London’s slums by a mysterious, possibly supernatural street urchin. So Dickens himself is cast as Ebeneezer Scrooge — though a Scrooge who has not so much lost his faith in Christmas, but is on the cusp of losing his faith. It’s a spiritual intervention, more than the full scale redemption Scrooge required, and the journeys through past and present are less overtly supernatural (though with a hint of that). It also boasts a Canadian cast…including an anchoring performance by charismatic Christopher Heyerdahl as Dickens. Again, whether it can really stand repeated viewings…I dunno. But it’s one case of a Canadian Christmas movie where I have deliberately watched it at least twice over the years (though I do wish they had made a little more effort to be true to the historical facts of Dickens’ life).

Still, given how inevitable Christmas movies are, and, as mentioned, how Christmas movies have almost become a cottage industry in Canada (Canadian filmmakers basically the North Pole elves of cinema, merrily toiling away at a succession of Christmas movies) it’s disappointing they haven’t offered more that stand as worthy contenders on the field. (Granted, one could say that about Canadian film in general!). Sure, as with anything — it ain’t easy. Hollywood churns out plenty of disappointing festive concoctions itself. And, as mentioned, I suspect a lot of these Canadian movies are fuelled by only a dollop of true sincerity…and are mainly powered by pragmatism.

Christmas movies can take on a variety of forms…fantasy & magical or realist & down-to-earth; comedy or drama; family-aimed or more adult; full of Christmas sentiment or a spoof of Christmas-time schmaltz. (Often Christmas movies get derailed precisely because they can’t decide which they want to be, and end up trying to be a little of everything with contradictory results).

If I were to be snarky, I might suggest part of the problem with Canadian filmmakers making Christmas movies is it requires a certain inner soul to do them right — compassion, empathy, an understanding of the traditional themes inherent in a Christmas movie (redemption, forgiveness, etc.) and a love of your characters, and, indeed, a love of your audience, a desire to please them. And having been an observer of Canadian film for many, many years…I sometimes think these virtues are lacking in many Canadian filmmakers. Oh, not so much that Hollywood filmmakers are intrinsically better people than Canadian ones…but I do sometimes think they know how to fake it better.

Still, it’s 12 months till the next barrage of Christmas-themed movies, time enough for some Canadian filmmaker to surprise us all with that most unexpected and lasting of presents…a good Christmas movie!

Posted in Canadian film and TV, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Eeyore-ing the Up-Coming Winter/Spring Canadian TV Season

Posted on December 1, 2011 by Administrator

When it comes to Canadian arts and entertainment, which always seems to be reeling from one body blow in the ring or another, one probably shouldn’t always play Eeyore — y’know, bemoaning this or that, always seeing the glass as half empty.

At the same time, indulging in a certain pessimistic negativity has a value — if only to galvanize those with opposite views. To cause people to think — to really think — about things, even if it’s too conclude they disagree with you. I’ve often thought the point of a review isn’t to automatically convince someone of the validity of your POV, so much as just to put it out there and let them see it if resonates (pre-supposing they are open to genuinely considering what you have to say — as opposed to deciding they disagree with you before they’ve even finished reading your first sentence).

A filmmaker shouldn’t read a negative review of his film and automatically accept it as true — yet neither should he dismiss it out-of-hand (as some artists brag they do about negative reviews). Rather, he should consider it and see if it connects with anything inside him. If not — fine, ignore it. But if the reviewer says the characterization was weak…and the filmmaker kind of knew that the characters weren’t his story’s strong point, then it’s kind of silly for him to disregard that criticism, and not to carry it with him into his next project.

Likewise, if a film (or TV show) both tanks with the audience and receives mediocre reviews, for the filmmaker not to at least consider what the reviews say before starting on his next project would be idiotic…and creatively irresponsible. To say, “I’m an artist — I know what I’m doing!” when both the paying public and a host of critics are telling you don’t would be crazy.

A definition of insanity is to repeat the same action over again and expect a different result. Likewise, if your previous projects have faired poorly and been badly reviewed, yet you refuse to listen to criticism and just charge ahead into your next project, convinced everyone else is wrong…well, it’s crazy.

But, as I say, that doesn’t mean the opposite — that you blindly accept any negative comment directed at your work. Which is what I meant about resonance — seeing if, deep down inside, what the critic is saying is kind of what you knew already.

I’ve read interviews with filmmakers bitterly enraged about negative reviews, angrily convince it’s some conspiracy to bring them down…even as they kind of intimate that all the criticisms were things they were aware were problems even in mid-production. In other words, they aren’t frustrated about unfair reviews…they’re frustrated the reviews were a little too insightful.

Years ago a Canadian film producer made a telling remark when he said of his film: “Compared to most of the $#%$ produced in this country, this film is a masterpiece.” Not exactly a quote to put on the poster, eh?

But this isn’t confined simply to Canadian film. Consider how many Hollywood films and TV series hit the screens — movies with a lot more money, and time, and or preparation behind them — and critics and fans will almost unanimously point out the same plot holes, the same motivation flaws. In other words, the people making the movie must — I say must — have known these problems existed, too, but just blundered ahead anyway, hoping against hope no one would notice it.

Movies — particularly Canadian movies — are plagued by a lot of problems, relating to budget limitations and timing. But the audience doesn’t really care about that. A filmmaker may proudly feel it was a miracle his film even got made given the obstacles, and therefore a testament to his skill and passion…but the audience only cares whether the finished result entertains them.

Excuses don’t sell tickets.

All this is just a preamble to my making a few scattershot observations about some press releases I’ve read relating to up-coming productions. So, yeah, I’m making comments about things I haven’t seen yet — that in some cases haven’t even started filming. But as I say, maybe it’s good to get the ideas out there. As well, there’s a part of me that indulges in a little superstition: that is, if I’m negative ahead of time, maybe the gods that oversee Canadian film will then conspire to prove me wrong. I’ve certainly had other experiences where I’ve pre-judged something negatively (based on commercials or word of mouth) only to then really enjoy it.

No one would be happier than me to have me proven wrong!

Anyway, so one thing that caught my eye was a press release announcing some of the CBC’s up-coming schedule — particularly its up-coming TV movies and mini-series. Now, on one hand — at least the CBC is announcing something. I’m not sure CTV or Global have any Canadian movies or mini-series slatted for the new year. And even in the days when CTV and Global did offer a few home grown movies on their schedule — often it was more about PR than reality, a movie offered as part of the new season might not actually hit the air until a season or two later…or at all (I’m still waiting for the Coco Chanel bio-pic starring Genevieve Bujold that CTV proudly trumpeted as being on its schedule some twenty odd years ago!)

Still, the CBC’s roster of up-coming programs, even if better than what CTV and Global are offering, is still wafer thin — when there was a time the CBC would have a dozen or more TV movies and mini-series ready to air. So according to the press release, there’s a comedy movie based on Stephen Leacock’s Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town, and a sequel to an earlier Don Cherry bio-pic — which, I’ll admit, I have some ethical issues with…a CBC bio-pic about a still living, still working CBC employee, written by his son (yeah, now that’s objectivity)…but it did good in the ratings, so I guess I’ll just lump it. The CBC also announced it’ll be showing the hockey-comedy Breakaway — which isn’t an original TV movie, but the network broadcast of a theatrical release…that, I’m guessing, bombed. (added Dec. 2: actually an e-mailer pointed out Breakaway has so far apparently earned 1.8 million at the box office – whether that means a profit or not, I dunno, but it’s definitely decent by Canadian film standards.)

Not exactly a robust schedule with something for everyone, is it? (Of the three announced, two are hockey movies, two are comedies, and only two are original, never-before-seen productions).

Admittedly, sometimes it’ll turn out there are other things in the offing that just get left off the promos, so there might be more stuff coming. Let’s hope. Certainly when the CBC aired the historical-drama, John A: Birth of a Country a short while back (starring Shawn Doyle and Peter Outerbridge) it seemed to me it was with next to no promotion — which was a true tragedy, because it was pretty freakin’ good.

Still, that miserly schedule of movies and mini-series doesn’t exactly get me looking forward to curling up before the TV in the coming cold winter months. But, as I say — it’s still better than what CTV and Global are offering which seems to be precisely…nothing.

The CBC is also offering two new weekly series — the drama Arctic Air and the comedy Mr. D.

Mr. D I guess could be funny…but the commercials haven’t been inspiring. But funny comedies can sometimes be hard to capture in a 30 second clip — unfortunately, that’s equally true of unfunny comedies. So…we’ll see.

Arctic Air is clearly meant to be the new year’s centrepiece drama — a big budget soap about northern Canadian bush pilots. I’ll admit though — I’m a little dubious. Rather, it actually looks like it could be good and exciting, starring dashing Adam Beach, reliable Kevin McNulty, and Pascale Hutton — an actress I haven’t seen in enough to really make much impression (she currently co-stars in the sci-fi drama Sanctuary — which is maybe a problem with Canadian TV: hundreds of talented, out-of-work actors…and instead, the same actor stars in two series concurrently). But the thing is — Arctic Air looks like it could be genuinely good and exciting…as a one-shot TV movie or mini-series, with its clips of high drama and planes skimming perilously through the air.

But as a weekly series, where I’m guessing the air-action will have to be curtailed a bit for budget reasons…? And even if it wasn’t…can we really get excited week after week over presumably the same sort of crises? Didn’t that sink — pun intended — Global’s The Guard?

I appreciate what Arctic Air — and by extension the CBC — is offering: something different. That is, the CBC is clearly trying to offer variety with its schedule of series that include Republic of Doyle, Being Erica, and Heartland (not to mention its comedies like InSecurity, Michael: Tuesdays & Thursdays and Little Mosque on the Prairie) — variety in regions (east, west, central, and north) and variety in genres…unlike CTV and Global which, it could be argued, are sticking to very narrow formulas (CTV’s Flashpoint and The Listener are both Toronto-set crime-mystery series, while Global’s Rookie Blue and Combat Hospital are both ensemble dramas set in a para-military workplace).

But Arctic Air strikes me as the kind of premise that seems like a neat idea in theory…but not so much in execution, watched week after week. I’ve often commented that there’s a reason many dramas tend to revolve around cops, doctors, or lawyers…because the audience likes to watch series about nominally altruistic heroes dealing with important dilemmas. An hour long drama essentially about the ins and outs of running a small business sounds a bit dramatically dubious to me. Which is why Global’s much ballyhooed car dealership drama (starring Tricia Helfer and William Devane) I’m not sure ever even made it to air!

Still, in the case of Arctic Air — nothing I’ve seen or heard makes me think it won’t be a perfectly good series. I just worry that it’ll be a good version…of a problematic premise. This season’s Wild Roses — a series I actually liked, but failed to ensnare a large audience.

And for my final Eeyore look-in on “things to come” is a press release announcing an up-coming Canadian-made sci-fi series called Out of Time. Out of Time is apparently going to be about a female cop from the future who’s come back to modern times in pursuit of fugitive criminals from her era.

So, there’s no reason this can’t be a perfectly good series — but there are a few red flags that pop up and of which those working on the series might do well to be wary.

I worry a little about a series that they are already promoting, that is supposedly scheduled to air in just a few months…and yet apparently they haven’t even cast yet!

Also, the premise of the series is, of course, one you use when you don’t have any money but you want to do something with a sci-fi/fantasy spin — so you set it in modern times (no worrying about sets or funky costumes) with the fantastic element just a transplanted hero/heroine. Unfortunately, the danger is it will be too fantasy/SF for those who don’t like fantasy/SF…and not enough of it for those that do.

But more to the point, the premise has kind of been done a zillion times before — otherworldly hunter chasing otherworldly fugitives on modern earth. There was Brimstone (hell cop hunting fugitives from hell), the Canadian-made Tracker (alien cop hunting alien fugitives), even the Canadian-made The Collector (another hell cop), and others that have probably slipped my mind (not to mention series that aren’t quite the same…but close, like Something is Out There, Life on Mars, the Canadian-made Codename: Eternity).

And the premise of Out of Time quite literally evokes the TV series Time Trax.

But where this becomes significant is that — none of these series did particularly well (Time Trax mustered two seasons, the Collector three…most of the rest only one…if that).

Now, just because a premise has been tried many times before, with problematic results, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it — but it does mean you should be aware that it’s clearly not a slam dunk, and you should work hard to make sure you identify and avoid the flaws that brought down your predecessors. You remember what I said about insanity being repeating the same action but expecting a different result?

Sure — times change. Maybe the makers of Out of Time figure fantasy/SF/horror is more mainstream than it was when those other series aired. In other words, they figure they don’t have to worry about falling into the same traps as those other series…because they figure there was nothing wrong with those series, except bad timing. A risky assumption. But then again — honestly, I’ve seen a few fantasy/SF things in recent years that, though not bad, just struck me as bland, and derivative, and trite, and failed to hold my interest…yet proved hits with the audience in ways that more clever, or innovative, fantasy/SF didn’t. So, maybe there’s something to be said for a familiar, vaguely generic premise.

The irony is, just as I say the premise sounds familiar (particularly as regards Time Trax) I could just as easily believe the creators of Out of Time are completely unaware of the antecedents. That’s the funny thing about fantasy and SF — it often flies below the radar of mainstream culture enough that writers new to the genre will be completely unaware of how clichéd a story idea is to those more familiar with the genre. At the same time, because of this below-the-radar phenomenon, it can also lead to writers claiming an idea is original, because they know no one in the mainstream press will call them on it.

But the point is, I can easily understand why someone might come up with the premise for Out of Time. As mentioned, it’s a way of doing a SF series without needing a significantly bigger budget than any regular cop/drama. And the idea of hunting fugitives allows for an instant premise that can direct the various episodes. But that can also be a problem. As the other series I mentioned maybe indicate, it’s a little too formulaic a premise — not really allowing much room for variety in plots and tones. The very reason it seems like a good hook for a series when you first hear it…is precisely why it might grow whiskers very quickly. Now — maybe they’ve factored that in. The press release refers to her pursuing nine fugitives…and the season is slatted to run ten episodes, which suggests maybe they have planned it as a specific arc, and if they come back for another season, they’ll move on to a new idea.

Just as I’m writing this, and thinking about the premise, I can’t help wondering if a better idea might be to imagine, say, that people have been transplanted from the future into our time to escape the future (kind of like the old Star Trek episode “All Our Yesterdays”) — not escaped criminals, just regular folk (instead of escaping an apocalypse, as in the Star Trek episode, which might make the series too pessimistic, maybe it’s that a disease has broken out in the future that only people with a certain gene are susceptible too — so these people have been allowed to emigrate into the past to before the disease existed). And our cop hero isn’t there to specifically hunt fugitives, merely to police the refugees — to make sure that they don’t interfere with the time stream. So, you’ve got basically the same idea…but with broader scope to the stories and dilemmas (as some episodes could, indeed, involve tracking down hardened criminals…but others could involve less formulaic crises, like a non-villain who, nonetheless, is doing something that might damage the time stream…or our hero could investigate the murder of a future refugee, etc.) Seems to me, a premise like that retains all the desired elements of the original concept, but with more flexibility to the stories, a greater range of plots and emotions available to the writers…and, as such, more material to last multiple seasons.

There’s another, final point I want to address, that relates to an earlier post about “Canadianism” in Canadian programs. According to the press release, Out of Time will, indeed, be set in Canada (now whether that will be true, or whether they simply mean it’ll be Anytown, North America, we’ll just have to wait and see). The concept, as described, is that she’s hunting fugitives from the future…who have escaped death row. And, again, I find myself going…huh.

See death row/capital punishment/execution is a useful story idea — it provides a sense of permanence, a point of no return. I can understand its narrative appeal. But as I’ve pointed out before — Canada has no capital punishment and hasn’t for decades. Indeed, most western democracies (excepting the U.S.) have abolished capital punishment. So to do this sci-fi series in which in the future there is capital punishment seems to be doing one of two things. It’s either deliberately pushing a pro-execution agenda (by suggesting in the future the world will logically have reverted to using capital punishment when extrapolating from the trends over the last few decades the opposite scenario would seem more likely — or will the series’ makers also indicate we have returned to racial segregation and denying women the vote?) But that’s perfectly fine, if that’s the agenda they want to push — but it is an agenda. Or — as relates to my earlier post — is it because once more we have a Canadian series, made by Canadians…that isn’t really comfortable with (or aware of) the Canadian experience/reality and would much rather just emulate American culture? In other words, they aren’t really envisioning her coming back in time from a future Canada…but a future America.

Now as I say, this is all me just looking at a few words in a press release — maybe when Out of Time hits the airwaves I’ll become its biggest fan, and the creators will have taken a problematic premise with a poor track record and shown how it can be done right! Maybe the capital punishment idea will be logically, plausibly justified in the scenario. I’ve mentioned before that I’m a fan of actors, so the very fact that casting hasn’t been announced will kind of leave me on tenterhooks for the next little while. Will it be some actress I’ve long been a fan of and finally — finally! — gets the break I’ve always felt she deserved? Or will it be some actress I’ve long felt was an albatross around the industry’s neck but inexplicably keeps getting the top roles? Or will it be some unknown face and I’ll just have to wait for the first episode to see if she clicks for me?

The Eeyore in me can’t help but anticipate the worst from the months to come — but the Tigger in me is always hoping for the best!

Posted in Canadian film and TV | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Murdoch: Renewed…Me: Emboldened!

Posted on November 17, 2011 by Administrator

Just a quick post (which is part of the point of a blog — not everything has to be an essay)!

A few weeks back there were some shocked industry tongues wagging over the announcement that the Victorian-era crime/mystery series, Murdoch Mysteries, starring Yannick Bisson, was being cancelled by its Canadian channel, CITY-TV — despite apparently solid ratings and good international sales. It didn’t bode well as an example of the private networks and their  commitment to Canadian programming — particularly as it’s not like CITY has a bunch of Canadian series on its schedule.

Anyway, in an essay I was writing (and is still a draft or two away from being posted – and might not get posted at all) I made a passing, off the cuff observation that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should really give the producers of Murdoch Mysteries a call about giving it a new home on the CBC. After all, the CBC is still a bit shy in the successful series department…and the Murdoch Mysteries is a moderately successful (if not quite hit) Canadian series in need of a broadcaster with a greater commitment to Canadiana than, apparently, CITY has. It seemed like a not unreasonable alliance (Canadian TV has had past series that have jumped from one broadcaster to another…as has American TV). If Murdoch Mysteries can bring its audience to the CBC, it won’t be the network’s most watched drama (Republic of Doyle and Heartland have better numbers) but, assuming it can retain its existing audience (let alone build upon it), it would certainly be a respectable player for team CBC . (That’s an if, of course — TV series can lose viewers just by being switched to a different time slot, let alone a whole other network! At the same time, the CBC is available in more homes than CITY-TV, meaning there’s an equal possibility Murdoch Mysteries could see its numbers rise with the switch).

And I’ve just read that — that’s exactly what is being proposed, and the CBC is apparently going to pick up the Murdoch Mysteries!

Of course, I know some will see this as an opportunity to knock the CBC, blasting it as a failed network picking through the discards of other networks. Let’s face it, the CBC can’t so much as sneeze without someone (such as the Sun Media) claiming it’s spreading a plague.  If you aren’t a fan of the Murdoch Mysteries and its decidedly old school, Agatha Christie vibe, you might see this as an example of the CBC’s stodgy, old fashionedness. But, first off, as I say: series moving from one network to another have happened before — yes, even in the United States, and is a perfectly acceptable programming gamble. More to the point, if a Canadian series, set in Canada, is winning respectable audience numbers…then I say more power to it and to any programmer who’s willing to support it.  In a showdown between “edgy” and “populist” I’ll side with populist (though, ideally, there should be room on the dial for both).

So why is this significant?

….

Okay, it’s not that significant — except to me, for having idyly mused the CBC should look into picking up Murdoch Mysteries and, lo and behold, the CBC has. It’s like hearing a movie is going to be adapted from a novel, whimsically thinking about what actors would be good in the central roles…and then discovering those are the very actors the producers actually chose.  It makes me feel a little better about myself, about my ability to read the industry tea leaves — which, as someone who writes a lot about Canadian film and TV, y’know, is kind of nice.

I may not have my finger on the industry’s pulse all the time, but at least I can sometimes read the ECG blips with some authority.  So I shall indulge in a bit of smugness for a day or two.

Posted in Canadian film and TV | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment