Lip Service to Screenwriters

At the behest of the WGC, today I joined other screenwriters like Pete Mitchell (The Guard), Steve Lucas (Blue Murder), Peter Mohan (Blood Ties), Sarah Dodd (The Border) and Denis McGrath (The Border) to protect the interests of Canadian screenwriters in the wake of the amalgamation of the CTF and the Canadian New Media Fund into the catch all fund to finance TV and gaming (and other other online media) called the CMF or Canadian Media Fund.

What was billed as the Toronto focus group was really an unwieldy conference of at least 500 attendees in a cavernous subterranean hall in the Toronto convention centre. This "focus group" was the latest in a series of consultations across the country. (Though when the moderator announced that these consultations had had anywhere from 20 to 100 people attending in the past, I wonder how could 500 people in Toronto equal 20 people somewhere else. I guess that's what someone living in the 416 area code is worth to them?)

The whole experience reminded me why I'd rather be a writer. In fact, I wish I were home writing than attending this thing. But my ability to earn an income from screenwriting depends on how this fund gets implemented so I felt compelled to attend.

Most of the time was taken with the leaders of the fund explaining the new rules to the gathered throng in Orwellian language. Do these bureaucrats actually read what they write? They have labeled the two funding streams "Convergent" and "Experimental" but as far as I can tell the difference boils down to the first having a TV component and the second one not having a TV component. So why not call the streams, TV and Other? Or TV and Not TV? A good half an hour was spent explaining what they meant by convergent and experimental--and they admitted that experimental wasn't a good name!

Screenwriters must write so that their intentions CAN'T be misinterpreted because if it's possible to be misinterpreted, it will be. At least that's my modus operendi. And so the obfuscation in the language of todays consultation was headache inducing for me. Clarity is a screenwriter's currency but it's in short supply among bureacrats.

I'm concerned that this fund is going to get hijacked by the broadcasters/production companies who've made no secret of their desire to see public money like the CMF be siphoned off to foreign nationals to run their story departments and be the star of their show. In fact, a broadcaster went so far as to demand that at the session. And it was given as much credence as the numerous voices demanding public money support only 10 out of 10 productions, as it does currently--that is, fully Canadian on and off screen. But when the day was summarized, the multiple voices for 10 out of 10 equalled the single broadcaster demand for reducing Canadian content.

It felt like lip service was being paid to the attendees. We were pitted against each other by the CMF bureaucrats, who apparently just want us to all get along. Producers versus broadcasters versus screenwriters. Why put us all in a room and expect consensus? Why not meet with the various stakeholders separately and see what we have to say? I guess that would have been too considerate and responsible because today felt like the whole thing was a kiss off to consultation. They can say they consulted us and now do what they want.

Steve Lucas, Denis McGrath, Sarah Dodd, Peter Mohan--these writers are primarily responsible for hundreds of hours of successful television that's been exported and made money for the producers, (probably more than these writers made.) They spoke passionately and intelligently and yet were just placed on a lip service list at the end of the day.

Another day in the life of a Canadian screenwriter. How long before that becomes a contradiction in terms?

Living National Treasures

I've been in Saskatchewan shooting exteriors for the CBC sitcom Little Mosque on the Prairie, on which I have a fun recurring role as the fundamentalist wannabe "Faisal." (We shoot the interiors on sound stages in Toronto and all the exterior scenes are saved for a shoot in Saskatchewan at the end of each season's work.)

This season, Jayne Eastwood has been added to the cast who along with Deb McGrath, who plays the town's mayor, serve as incredible models of comedy brilliance for me. It was heartbreaking to me to see how much of Deb's comic bits in last season's climactic wedding episode were cut out, I guess for time. I hope they resurface as deleted scenes on the upcoming DVD release.

It's amazing to be on the same set as comediennes of their calibre and I frankly think they are as good as any who have ever been on TV. They are in the same league as Lucille Ball, Bea Arthur or Jean Stapleton.

Naturally, being Canadian, they don't have the same name recognition to audiences--BUT THEY SHOULD.

I suppose the best they can hope for is an Order of Canada, but frankly I wish we could be like Japan and declare our great artists Living National Treasures. As a country, if we acknowledge anyone, it's usually too late. I'd rather Jayne and Deb knew how valuable they are to our culture while they're still around to appreciate it. The Japanese understand this.

I've got my own list of who should be Canada's living national treasures. It's time someone in power did too.

Giving Criticism

Recently a good friend and colleague asked me to write coverage, (see much earlier posts on this blog to learn what coverage is if you don't know already), for a script he had written. Usually I am happy to give a supportive scan, especially with writer colleagues who are much more talented than I am. I can often learn as much as I can offer by way of feedback.

But my friend was not a seasoned veteran writer, but a neophyte with grand ambitions. And his script did not have the weight or marketability to fulfill those ambitions. Unlike in the past, it took me several days to come to terms with what he had asked me to do and what I had to offer. He'd asked for a professional evaluation. And I knew my evaluation was that at this point, his script would get a failing grade. But I dreaded having to do this.

For a few days I thought about some kind of alternative. Not being honest, but just being vaguely supportive. Perhaps that's what my friend really wanted. Perhaps I should encourage him and let the marketplace decide whether his script had merit. After all, there's plenty of stuff on TV that I can't stand. Yet those shows are bringing in an audience and revenue to their creators. Who am I to be critical?

But finally I came to the conclusion that my own reputation as a story editor would be on the line as well. If I gave him a vaguely supportive opinion, he may use that to sell his show. And if I was right, but had soft-pedaled my concerns in the coverage, what would those who were then assessing his work think of mine? If I was wrong, they wouldn't care what I had to say.

So in the end, I decided to be as honest and even more complete than I would have been if the assignment was from a stranger. I decided not only to write extended coverage with a lot of backup for my view--unlike critical coverage others have written about my work!--I also went through the script and appended it with comments. Over and above what he'd requested. Perhaps he'll see this as overkill and professional jealousy on my part. I hope he's not that sensitive, but I know I take a real risk on our relationship in treating his request as professionally as possible.

I sent my response to him and as yet do not know how he reacted. I know how I feel.

Rally for Respect

My brief video about the rally in support of arts and culture in Canada, (in the face of the former and now new Conservative government's attacks) is posted here. Also on YouTube, though in YouTube's wretched quality. Here you can see it in glorious HD.


Rally for Respect from Sugith Varughese on Vimeo.">