Six major prime time series have debuted in Canada since the New Year. Over at the CBC, that's "The Border", "MVP", "JPod" and "Sophie". Global launched "The Guard" this week, just before "The Murdoch Mysteries" bolted from the CITY-TV stable.
To the surprise and delight of many, all three networks pulled out more stops than they've previously been known to in getting the word out. The word being, "Hey, there's GREAT NEW SHOWS and WE got 'em!" It was incredibly charming and businesslike.
As a rule, I don't review and try not to form opinions until a series has had a chance to work out its kinks. Kinda broke that resolution with a recent post on "The Border" but, so far, I haven't seen any reason to recant.
However, I do have an observation I'd like to share about all of the new arrivals and it's this...
There isn't a "Mad Men", a "Dexter" or a "Breaking Bad" in the bunch. There's no pretender to "The Wire", no series remotely trying to challenge the creative skill of "Jekyll" or anyone even attempting to re-imagine a genre in the manner that "Battlestar Galactica" did.
Now, that's odd, because the creatives of this country (and the audience) have been inspired and invigorated by all of those shows. Their episodes are endlessly dissected, their elements examined and their potential directions spec'd. Chatrooms are aflame with debate and conjecture. High School kids, barely literate, churn out fan fiction in homage at a rate and abundance that would give Stephen King and JK Rowling pause.
Most of these programs quickly found a significant audience and critical acclaim, those little things that networks enjoy and their shareholders prosper from.
These are the series that clearly excite the creative "us" and the hungry "them". They're where "we" want to start in raising the stakes and exactly what "they" need to see to go "All In" in committing their viewing hours.
But for some reason, our Canadian nets have ignored the overwhelming creative drift toward changing the paradigms and trotted out a selection of knock-offs of shows everybody's seen and done before -- in some cases, long before -- and like those eager kids who put on a show in somebody's barn over the summer, they seem quite proud of themselves for doing little more than not forgetting their lines or bumping into the furniture.
"See we made a TV show that looks like a TV show." is fine and dandy but there's supposed to be more to this business than just keeping your pencil inside the borders of the template you're tracing.
Let's be honest. "The Border" does what cop shows have always done and stopping now and then to declaim our sovereignty just isn't anybody's idea of compelling. "MVP" feels like its made by people who've never actually had sex and wouldn't titillate eighth graders. "Jpod" is vacant and "Sophie" isn't very funny.
Those footsteps you hear is somebody coming to repossess my Cancon pom-poms, so I might as well keep going.
"The Guard" is a perfectly acceptable version of "Sea Hunt" (1958) even though it copies Kevin Costner's 2006 Coast Guard film "The Guardian" almost shot for shot at times. Okay, maybe there's only so many ways to shoot a guy alone in the ocean, but think one up! It's kind of a rule.
And "Murdoch Mysteries" (sigh) I assume the pitch was "Murder She Wrote" meets "Road to Avonlea" but did it also have to meet "slow" and "ponderous"?
Look, I know shooting on the water is hard and maintaining a period sensibility is hard and comedy is really hard. But that's the job! The audience doesn't care how cold or budget strapped or bereft of a gag you were when it was time to roll the cameras. They want something to excite them, move them and strike them as funny. They've seen it all, have it on DVD and it's packed into their PVRs or available online. You have to give them something they've never experienced before.
Once they've bought into your premise and like that cranky but benign old Dr. House and the way David Caruso takes off his sunglasses, you can settle back and just keep repeating what worked in the past. But that's not Season One!
Season One is when you grab them by the throat and the imagination and insist they pay attention. Because if you don't -- they won't.
And it appears they already haven't.
The initial ratings for these series are not good numbers, spin or add 'em up any way you want.
Set the arbitrary "IT'S A HIT" bar at a million if that's your safety zone. But not one of these shows even got an "A" on that self-imposed scale. And there were no episodes of "24" to compete with. Viewers weren't coming home eager to find out what any Ghosts were whispering or which Housewife was most desperate because the American nets have no new dramas or comedies. We had a clear road and a full tank of gas, kids. Nothing was in the way. We could've hit Two Million easy.
But we didn't.
And all of us who work in this industry, whether we'll say it out loud or not know why. Those innovative scripts exist in Canada. There are producers who want to tackle challenging concepts and arenas. We have world class directors and actors, more often than not only recognized as world class after they work somewhere else.
But nobody in network development asks for that stuff or those people. Oh, they'll say they want them. But if they're presented, they're quietly shunted aside or watered down to get to "what our audience wants" although the programming supervised by many of these people indicates they don't have the first clue who that audience is.
I recall being at a seminar guest addressed by the head of CBC drama when their big hits were "Beachcombers" and "Seeing Things". Somebody asked which show she most wished had been brought to the CBC first. Without hesitation she named the then current audience sensation "Twin Peaks" and was practically laughed out of the building.
Alter those titles with the present day equivalents and you'll have that conversation with a Canadian TV exec any day of the week.
Unlike most television industries, ours does not require domestic hits or foreign sales to survive or create profits. Government funding and tax breaks cover the lion's share of production and development costs and therefore the bulk of the financial risk. Our broadcasters enjoy an additional safety net of rebroadcast American hits that draw ad dollars and audience. Over at the CBC, the golden goose that is "Hockey Night in Canada" and 3 months of NHL playoffs ensure that nobody there has to wonder where their next meal is coming from.
As I've been preaching since I started this blog, because it's not their money and their future careers don't depend on it, Canadian programming is seen as little more than an unfortunate license requirement by our broadcasters.
There is no passion for the work, and passion is what creates good television.
It's interesting that what we have built is actually the perfect system for taking chances. But that's not what happens. Because that's hard work too. And Hits bring the expectation of more Hits and raise the bar, which makes the job that much harder.
So our nets stick with mediocrity because they're most comfortable at that performance level.
This week, sportscaster Steve Dankoff, in describing the ongoing lack of success that is the Toronto Maple Leafs, coined a phrase that aptly describes the current state of Canadian television -- "The Winning Skid".
Everybody knows what a losing skid is. And like any business with a poor product that isn't selling, when a team's losing skid gets bad enough, ownership is forced to make changes. The coach or manager lacking original ideas is fired. A beloved star who can't cut it anymore is traded. Once the system has been cleansed, the passion returns and the team starts winning again.
But sometimes a losing team doesn't get to the point where changes get made because it goes on a "winning skid".
As Dankoff describes the phenomenon, "Through small victories, everything moves in the wrong direction". And instead of reaching the crisis point where something changes, a take-what-you-can-get mentality develops and the downward slide continues unchecked.
Instead of building our industry, the small victories of "almost a hit" numbers and good reviews by media owned or beholden to the broadcaster or the concept of Canadian drama at any cost extend our winning skid and preclude turning this around.
The unsuccessful managers remain in charge, the uninspired players stay on the first line, the backroom buddy system continues oiling the ATM at the CTF -- while the audience thins further or wears paper bags over their heads.
Small victory by small victory we convince more and more Canadians that we're not really very good at making television. Which, in turn makes it harder to get those innovative shows made and provides more ammunition for those who would prefer that having to pay for Canadian television goes away all together.
Despite my harsh words, the problem in our industry is not with the people who work on any of the series that debuted this month. All of them have bigger dreams, higher personal expectations and a desire to be part of projects that could really make an audience sit up and take notice. They merely lack the supportive spark that could have ignited those possibilities.
That spark comes from the top and it doesn't seem to exist in our executive offices. And that has to change or the winning skid, as all skids inevitably do, will reach a point where recovery is impossible.
