Everything about Featured, eh?

Four in the Morning boasts humour and bittersweet-ness in debut

In this premiere episode of Four in the Morning, created by Ira Parker, we are treated to a bit of magic realism: a talking pig named Albert a.k.a. Buzz. More on that later.

Four in the Morning is being touted as a comedy. I would, however, describe this as a surreal dream that definitely takes itself seriously.  The dialogue flies by and the puns are delivered so deadpan that if you are not listening, you might not catch them all. But this is not a laugh-a-minute show. It delves a little deeper despite the many f-bombs and a few other liberal-isms that we  typically do not see on the CBC.  It features four (get it? FOUR!) twentysomethings experiencing life at 4 a.m..

Parker himself describes the series: “Four in the Morning is about that feeling you get after a long night of drinking with your friends, fluctuating somewhere between euphoria and misery. It’s about the things we say to each other that we couldn’t during our more sober hours. This is the world our show lives in.”

We open with a quick walking tour through the Patrician Grill—the 219 over the door should be a dead giveaway to Torontonians—and land downstairs in the the ladies’ room with Mitzi (Lola Tash, formerly of Republic of Doyle) sharing the news with her best friend Jamie (Michelle Mylett, “Katy” of Letterkenny) that her talking pet pig has died. See, I really wasn’t kidding about the pig.

Meanwhile, back in the booth, Bondurant (Daniel Maslany, whose credits include Corner Gas), confesses his love for Jamie to Jamie’s boyfriend William (Mazin Elsadig). Eventually, the foursome reunite in a scene reminiscent of When Harry Met Sally—we all remember that  “famous” scene in Katz’s Delicatessen—and the whole thing comes together like you would imagine a Seinfeld episode if it were written by David Lynch. Quirky is a bit of an understatement.

Anyhow, William turns to his girlfriend Jamie in frustration, “I am starting to get why your parents abandoned you,” and with that, the foursome becomes two twosomes, setting up a series of back and forth, his and hers scenes. We learn through Bondurant’s confession to William that he has lied to everyone about his acceptance to Julliard. We also learn via Mitzi’s  own confession to Jamie that she is merely “transitorily pregnant” and plans to abort Bondurant’s child because it is her belief that he has been accepted to Julliard.

This sequence of bantering scenes feels more like a one-act play than television sitcom, giving 4 a.m. a very fresh charm. It crams in a good deal of background information with its fast-paced dialogue.  Parker even gets a bit meta with his dialogue; William calls Bondurant out for dropping a famous Carnegie/Massey Hall joke.

We close with  the knowledge that Mitzi’s pig squealed on Jamie and Bondurant, while Bondurant contemplates his future, sans trumpet,  from the stage of an empty and darkened Massey Hall.

This is truly a refreshing blend of humour and bittersweet-ness. Definitely a standing “O” to the CBC for allowing Parker free reign with his creation. This, I hope, will be a really fun ride!

Will Mitzi decide to keep Bondurant’s baby? What do you think will happen next? Do you have a favourite line from the show? Leave your ideas in the comments below!

Four in the Morning airs Fridays at 9 p.m. on CBC.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

Reaction to CRTC’s Policy framework for Certified Independent Production Funds

By Anonymous 

UPDATE: If the intent is to attract “top talent” that will make all these new “American” Canadian shows more viable, the CRTC should probably know that even some of the most successful Canadians in L.A., like the showrunner/creator of Bones, isn’t impressed.

Hanson1

Hart2


Canadian Television is about to become slightly less full of Canadians, thanks to a major CRTC decision released quietly yesterday.

The CRTC is allowing the independent production funds (including the Shaw Rocket Fund, Rogers Fund, Cogeco Program Development Fund, Telefilm Canada, and the Harold Greenberg Fund) to reduce their “point system” for what determines Canadian-ness of a project from 8 to 6. The general effect of this will be to allow for the hiring of non-Canadians in key creation and starring roles (ie: Americans will be able to create and star in “Canadian” TV series).

This, in fact, by the CRTC’s own admission, was one of the points of the decision:

“The current criterion requiring eight out of 10 Canadian content certification points to qualify for CIPF funding is restrictive and excludes many productions that could otherwise be of high quality and qualify as Canadian. Moreover, a reduced requirement could help smaller and perhaps more innovative projects to qualify for funding. A reduced requirement of at least six points could also facilitate the hiring by production companies of non-Canadian actors or creators, who may increase a project’s attractiveness and visibility in international markets.”

Reaction from the Canadian creative community was swift, and critical.

Ellis

Zmak

McGrath

Senecal

Andras

What’s particularly unusual about this decision is that something with far-reaching implications was done as a “paper hearing,” ie: the CRTC did not hold any public consultations.

The last time something like this was proposed, the Writers Guild of Canada brought a group of screenwriters to Hull to appear before the commission. They made a convincing case as to why this “flexibility” wouldn’t lead to better quality Canadian programming. It seems that current chairman J.P. Blais was determined to not repeat this exercise.

Of concern to fans of actual Canadian TV shows, of course, is the fact that once again in no way was the audience consulted. The CRTC didn’t bother to seek out or try to understand the feelings of fans who celebrate unique Canadian points-of-view and creative directions on display in Canadian-created shows such as Orphan Black, Flashpoint, X Company, Letterkenny, Wynonna Earp, Lost Girl, Rookie Blue, Saving Hope, Motive, or many more.

As Peter Mitchell, executive producer and showrunner of Murdoch Mysteries explained on Facebook, even the premise of the CRTC’s decision is faulty:

Mitchell

The problem with the CRTC’s decision is that it really doesn’t advance any new idea. Many Canadian producers have been doing their level best to copy “American-style” shows for years, watering down the Canadian creative role as much as possible. They never seem to do as well as the original work such as Orphan Black or Murdoch Mysteries. That’s why you’re not seeing Season 4 of the forgettable XIII, and why Houdini & Doyle, which debuted to so much fanfare, died a quiet death.

The idea that Canadian producers will be able to attract top American talent is dubious at best. Because if you’re American, and you’re working in the American industry where there’s more money, and more prestige, why would you take a massive pay cut to work in Canada? Instead of top American talent, you’re likelier to get the people who can’t get hired anymore, who might have had credits in the 1980s or 1990s. And now the CRTC has blessed the idea that these marginal players are more valuable than the top homegrown talent who are responsible for the industry’s top successes.

Senecal2

Filia

There are other ways to approach the idea of creating hits, rather than this failed road. But the CRTC seems to be enamored with the fantasy that “flexibility” fixes all, rather than actually supporting talent.

WGC

And the best part? A government that ran at least partially on a platform of promoting culture is signalling to the next generation of storytellers not to bother—that it’s time to leave:

Morrison

Natty

So there’s nothing good here if you’re a Canadian writer or actor hoping to star in or create a Canadian show. Or if you’re someone who likes the unique point of view you see from Canadian TV shows. But the producer’s association loves it. I’m sure you’ll be getting something great from that writer who did one episode of Simon & Simon any day now.

McGrath2

Zmak2

Zmak3

Senacal4

Great news, isn’t it?

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

Comments and queries for the week of August 26

Your Morning not a hit with fans

Watched the first show of CTV’s Your Morning for maybe 20 minutes and will not be back. Huge disappointment! I agree with previous comments re: The View and The Social ( two other very uninteresting shows). Also very disappointed that both CTV channels broadcasted the same content. I envision a large boardroom with some hired (big bucks) consultant presenting this wild idea to members who have no clue of their audience. You drank the Kool-Aid! Terrible show! Gather any remaining senses and bring back Bev, Marci, Anwar, Todd and Michael—at least they know how to connect with an audience and present information worth knowing. —CJ

This new show is such a letdown. Where is the actual news? Having to see and listen to Ben, and his harem of chatty ladies, is extremely annoying first thing in the morning. They seem to be speaking over one another in a quest to get the most attention. I have to admit that I was happy to say goodbye to Jeff and good riddance to his ridiculous videos, but this new team is too much! Surely, you can do much better CTV! —From Ottawa

Terrible! Used to watch every morning and loved it. I can’t stand the new version. Bring the old format back and the former hosts! Unless they change the format I will watch another channel/competitor! —Pat

Agree there no class on this show. Can’t stand The Social and this is what this is. If you only appeal to the young you will lose millions. The young watch the Internet for news, not TV. The Social is immature and yappy and so is this. Weather girl trying to compete with other noisy people. Not to criticize, but this generation has no intelligence emotionally, no sophistication and can’t pull off charm. And you can’t fake charm. —Sharon

Please cancel this new morning show! It is unbearable. I gave it a third chance! Couldn’t do it. Thirty minutes later and I switched channels again! It is terrible. Please bring back the Canada AM we all knew and loved in the mornings! Ben and the gals have to go! —F&B

I watched Canada AM every morning since the early 80’s. Sorry, not a fan of the new show. I also don’t like the change to the news channel. The whole point of a news channel is to watch the news, not some poor version of The Social. —April

I truly don’t understand the mindset of creating Your Morning! Our kids are thirtysomethings and watch Breakfast Television. One tuned in and found it “noisy” due to hyper-like chatter. We agree. If an updated format was needed, why not update Canada AM? It seemed a well-oiled machine, relaxed, great hosts! The Social is successful—why duplicate it? What is CTV trying to accomplish? It’s too early in the morning for this crew and the type of program this is! We’re now watching CBC. —Kathy

Very very sad when Canada AM was cancelled. I enjoyed starting my day with the the wonderful hosts and easygoing format. I was not able to enjoy a morning show when I was working, and once I retired Canada AM fit the bill perfectly! I think CTV made a mistake by trying to appeal to a younger age group. They are probably all at work and won’t be watching anyway. I decided to give Your Morning a chance and watched a few episodes—very disappointing :(. There is not much on TV  to appeal to 60-plus demographic anymore. I think I will probably turn off the TV and either read a good book or go for a walk instead! —Jane

Got a question or comment about Canadian TV? Email greg.david@tv-eh.com or via Twitter @tv_eh.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

Killjoys doles out heartbreak heading into season finale

This week’s new episode of Killjoys may be “Johnny Be Good,” but Johnny is anything but good heading into Friday night. Last week, Kendry instructed Jelco to activate the wall, dosing everyone with the feel-goods, poisoning the rations and framing Johnny and Pawter for murder. With Friday’s instalment standing between us and the season finale, a lot of stuff went down. And not everyone made it out unscathed.

Here’s what Space supplied as an episode synopsis:

Dutch and Johnny are at odds when Pawter’s plans to free Old Town from Jelco’s control results in Dutch being seized by an angry mob.

And here’s what we can tell you after watching the episode, written by Adam Barken, in advance:

Dutch and Pawter have a heart-to-heart
The two ladies discuss lying, men and people in power. It’s not a nice conversation, but it is necessary, what with Johnny keeping his secret plans from his Killjoys partner and all.

Killjoys4

D’Avin and Johnny vs. the computer
Every episode offers laughs from the Jaqobis brothers, and “Johnny Be Good,” is no different. Their back-and-forth with a company computer is snort-worthy.

Dutch is in deep
Cut off from Johnny and D’Avin, Dutch can still talk tough, but she’s in real danger. It’s a predicament we’re not used to seeing Dutch in, and it’s darned scary.

Dutch and Johnny have a heart to heart
We’re not giving it away, but their quiet scene is stunning in its emotion, with feelings laid bare.

Return of the plasma
Yup, the green goo is back, and turns up in a very unexpected place.

Killjoys‘ season finale airs Friday, Sept. 2, at 9 p.m. ET on Space.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

Ira Parker’s “magical realism” comes to CBC’s Four in the Morning

Ira Parker’s budding writing career couldn’t be more different. Last year saw him writing and co-producing the DirecTV drama Rogue. This year? He’s not only part of the writing and producing team of The Last Ship, Michael Bay’s explosive end-of-the-world adventure headed into a fourth season, but his own project, Four in the Morning.

But where the characters on The Last Ship are larger than life, those in Four in the Morning are totally relatable. Debuting Friday at 9 p.m. on CBC, the eight half-hour instalments catch up with a quartet of twentysomething friends who discuss life through the alcoholic haze of early-morning, where answers are simple, succinct and brilliant. Because alcohol. Starring Michelle Mylett as Jamie, Daniel Maslany as Bondurant, Lola Tash as Mitzi and Mazin Elsadig as William, Four in the Morning fits perfectly in CBC’s primetime lineup, an unconventional comedy with twists of the absurd, something Parker calls “magical realism.”

Four in the Morning couldn’t be any more different from The Last Ship.
Ira Parker: It’s true. I always thought that my first show coming out of grad school would be a comedy. And then I got on to Rogue, which is maybe the least comedic series in the history of the world. All of a sudden, this drama thing started taking off. Then I got a call from Serendipity Point Films, saying CBC loved the show and we were going to make a first season. I was like, ‘Cool, I guess we’re going back to this.’ I wrote the pilot script for Four in the Morning, like, four or five years ago. I wrote that in grad school and it was great to sit down and dig back into that world.

It must have been interesting to go back and revisit those days, days when your mindset was in a very different place.
It was different. I think, certainly, having some space away from it gave me some perspective and informed the writing going forward. But I had a season mapped out in my mind a long time ago. I knew I was in good hands with the producers, who were on board with this odd little feature. Writing on The Last Ship is very navy intensive and requires a lot of reading and research; with Four in the Morning I get to just sit down and write what naturally comes out of me.

I’ve watched the first two episodes of the series and I really liked it. A friend of mine described it as Woody Allen-esque whereas I thought it presented very much like a play. Was that what you were going for?
It’s funny that you say that the first episode was like a play, because that was the goal of the pilot episode, to make it feel like a play. We started with 15 pages in the diner, and then a long walk and talk. Episode 2, to me at least, feels almost like our most standard episode, but we do have a long intro that is heavy on dialogue in the diner.

(l-r) Michelle Mylett, Mazin Elsadig, Daniel Maslany, Lola Tash

Were you in your 20s when you wrote the initial pilot?
I wrote this when I was in my mid-20s. In Episode 2, we talk about life and death, the existential crises that we all get into arguments about at that time of the morning. In Episode 1, we talk about jealousy and letting that fester until it comes out later on. Each episode is really about that rather than specific moments and things that happened to me over many, many long nights at four o’clock in the morning.

Let’s talk about the writing process. Did you do it all on your own and what were the challenges of bringing to life four very different voices?
Yes, I penned all the episodes on my own, but I also had Daniel Goldfarb—who is a playwright in New York City, worked on Rogue and is a dear friend of mine—who came in and we spent a week together. Once we got picked up, we were on this incredible timeline, so we spent a week together breaking the stories for the whole season. That was very, very helpful to me.

Delving into the characters … each one of them is based a little bit on me or friends I have. Putting it all together came out of moments and situations that we put them in.

What do you want viewers to come away with when they tune in to Four in the Morning?
Twenty-two minutes of entertainment. There’s nothing else that I’m going for here. Everything that needs to be said about people in the 20s has been said very well by a lot of TV shows. Creating something that is entertaining to people is the ultimate goal of this.

Four in the Morning airs Fridays at 9 p.m. on CBC.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail