Everything about Featured, eh?

WGC Award nominee Graham Clegg on Murdoch Mysteries’ “Kommando” episode

Leading up to the Writers Guild of Canada awards tonight, TV, eh? has been posting a series of interviews with some of nominees. Graham Clegg was nominated in the Drama category for the “Kommando” episode of Murdoch Mysteries.

Can you describe the episode “Kommando” and how it fit into the Murdoch Mysteries season?

“Kommando” embroils Detective William Murdoch into the increasingly macabre mystery of who is hunting down and killing an elite squad of Canadian soldiers who have recently returned from a training mission in Africa. The episode is somewhat darker in tone from others in Season 4, but it mirrors Murdoch’s demeanour in the arc of the season; he’s just lost the love of his life, the romance is gone, and yet through it all he proves that truth can help heal almost anyone. Well, almost anyone. Actually, hmmm, one or two people. I mean, hey: given the subject matter it ain’t gonna end all sunshine and roses. That would just be wrong. But there is an upside, believe me.

What about this episode are you particularly proud of?

The episode is set in the year 1898, and yet the story elements can be linked to the “upcoming” Boer War, World War 1 and World War 2, up to modern day and beyond. That’s the great thing about writing for Murdoch Mysteries; you’re writing about the past but the stories can often comment about the present and future.

What does this recognition mean to you?

It’s fantastic to be recognized by my peers and be honoured with my 5th WGC nomination. “Kommando” was my first script for Murdoch Mysteries and I’m grateful for the opportunity to have been included in such an innovative story department and production.

And finally (imagine my best Joan Rivers impression): what will you be wearing to the ceremony?

All I can tell you is that I’m not going “kommando.”

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

TV, eh?’s lament for the CBC that could be

Before the CBC announced which shows would be returning next season — and by process of elimination, which wouldn’t — I was making the joke that my recommendation would be “keep Michael: Tuesdays & Thursdays, poach Call Me Fitz, and change the network name to DianeTV.”

There are a few truths in that jokey non-answer:

  1. I don’t love a lot of Canadian television shows. That’s no slam on our homegrown industry — I don’t love more than a few currently airing shows at any given time.
  2. I don’t voluntarily watch anything else on CBC (ie not for the purposes of keeping up to speed for TV, eh? on some of the other fine-but-not-my-taste shows, or not because I’m trapped in a sports bar during the Stanley Cup playoffs).
  3. Everyone wants a CBC that reflects their individual tastes. Everyone is doomed to disappointment.

There is no way to talk about the current cuts without being highly subjective, coloured by our own favourite shows and expectations for a public broadcaster. But next year’s CBC lineup is not what I want to watch, and not what I want from a public broadcaster, and not just because they cancelled my favourite show.

I want a public broadcaster that doesn’t have to rely solely on ratings, that can take risks on the kind of challenging and creative programming private networks won’t touch. Unfortunately in Canada, “programming private networks won’t touch” narrows the field down to “Canadian shows that might be a hard sell to a US network.”

The 2012/13 lineup is a safe lineup, exactly what many of us expected given the magnitude of the recent cuts to CBC’s budget. Anything with a pulse was renewed, even a fading pulse. Anything that could play to a broad audience … the kind of audience a country’s private networks should be serving, only Canada doesn’t have any private broadcast networks who believe creating content is more important than simulcasting content.

I look back at some of my favourite Canadian shows, the ones I named as my top 10 of the last 25 years, and I see Intelligence, The Newsroom, Twitch City, Anne of Green Gables, Made in Canada, Rick Mercer Report and “some years of This Hour Has 22 Minutes” on my list. That’s 7 CBC shows in my top 10, many of them creative risk-takers.

The list was compiled long before Michael: Tuesdays & Thursdays aired, but it would now make the cut too. Sadly, it didn’t make the cut at the new CBC, so I will have to be grateful for this lovely mini-series that entertained me and spoke to me, that I found funny, poignant, and important (but not in a boring pretentious way).

When it was clear that Michael would have, as co-creator Matt Watts liked to joke, no more than “boutique ratings,” critics remarked that HBO Canada would be a better fit for the series. That may be true, but that’s a sad statement on where we’re at in the Canadian television landscape.

Specialty stations such as Movie Central/The Movie Network and HBO Canada, stations few Canadians have access to, are currently the only fitting home for shows Americans don’t want access to and that aren’t populist enough for a gutted CBC.

There should be a place on a public broadcaster’s schedule alongside more popular fare for a critically acclaimed cult show and, yes, even a dipped-in-maple-syrup-and-riding-a-moose reality series such as Battle of the Blades.

We can write our MPs or protest about cuts to the CBC, but their woes (and mine) are part of a bigger issue. Our Canadian television industry as a whole does whatever it can to not produce Canadian television, leaving our public broadcaster to try — and fail — to appeal at all times to all people.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

WGC Award nominee Alan McCullough on Sanctuary’s “Metamorphosis”

AM - Headshot

Leading up to the Writers Guild of Canada awards on April 23, TV, eh? is posting a series of interviews with some of nominees. Alan McCullough was nominated in the Drama category for the “Metamorphosis” episode of Sanctuary.

Can you describe the episode, and how it fit into the Sanctuary season?

“Metamorphosis” was a departure episode for Sanctuary. It was conceived as our version of “The Fly”, but following our mid-season two parter, we were looking to save money (and relieve our VFX department), so we decided to shoot it from a first person POV. This gave the script a uniqueness, but presented a whole host of production challenges. Specifically, we were forced to shoot the episode on three different types of cameras, eating up any savings we were trying to achieve. It also meant no cutaways, so each shot had to be as technically perfect as possible. Truthfully, the entire shoot was something of an experiment, and I credit director Andy Mikita with making it all work.

What about this episode are you particularly proud of?

One of the things I wanted to achieve with the script was to build the story using a series of vignettes. One scene didn’t necessarily lead into the next, and we were constantly jumping forward in time between scenes. My hope was that it would leave the audience scrambling to catch up, which is where the characters are during the story.

What does this recognition mean to you?

It’s always a great honor to be recognized by peers. Also, other awards shows use a DVD of the episode to evaluate writing, which means other factors such as directing, casting, music, etc. can influence the decision. The WGC Awards focus solely on the script.

And finally (imagine my best Joan Rivers impression): what will you be wearing to the ceremony?

Denim has been my fashion friend for years. Also, I bought a Hugo Boss sport jacket a few years ago that I intend to be buried in.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

Vancouver Writing Seminar with Larry Kaplow (House, Body of Proof)

lkaplow

Before TV, eh?, I wrote about television for other sites. American television (gasp) for American sites. That’s how I learned that I wasn’t learning about homegrown shows and a website was born. At the time I was writing an awful lot about House, so really you could credit an American show created by a Canadian for the existence of this website dedicated to Canadian TV. If you want to ignore a lot of other factors.

My first interview with a TV writer was with Larry Kaplow, who had just written House’s second-season episode “Autopsy,” which went on to win the Writers Guild of America Award for episodic drama. And as one of the House producers he would later be nominated for a few Emmy Awards for best drama. I take all the credit.

He’d also go on to be a friend who allows me insight into the creative process of writing for television, a warts-to-wonders view I hadn’t seen clearly from simply researching and reviewing books on the subject.

When he was giving a week-long writing seminar in Kiev, Ukraine recently (after talks at USC, NYU, Duke, Johns Hopkins, and the National Association of Broadcasters, among others), I took advantage of our friendship and his jetlag to ask him to conduct a one-day seminar in Vancouver on May 6. Aimed at aspiring and emerging TV writers, it’s for people who, unlike me, can put his hard-won experience into practice.

“I’ll show people how to do it, how to write for television in the real world,” he told me about the seminar, which will cover topics such as breaking in, pitching, story structure, the writing room, dealing with notes, writing for production, and the development process. “There are a ton of great books out there. Best of luck to you. I only understand them now because I’ve spent the past however many years doing it.”

That however many years started with assistant gigs on Clueless and Chicago Hope before writing for Family Law, Hack, House and Body of Proof as well as developing his own projects.

He explained his glamorous path to show business: “I went to undergrad for English, grad school for creative writing, then wrote a shitty novel and a bunch of scripts that got options, then I got lunch for writers on the lowest-rated show in the business, then a kindly upper-level writer named Marjorie David basically begged David Shore (Canadian) and Stephen Nathan (not Canadian) [editor’s note: but who now works with Hart Hanson (Canadian)] to hire me as a researcher. I worked my ass off for Paul Haggis (Canadian) and I got my first script, and miracles of miracles I’m still here writing.”

“Passion and commitment are everything — because if you’re willing to let things go, then you’re not right for this business. And believe me, this is something I still have to learn.” In fact, he cites the most important thing he’s learned over his career as “I’m here to learn.” (He’s also here to teach; he’ll be giving a couple of class talks at local schools while he’s in Vancouver.)

His advice to aspiring writers? “If it’s what you want to do, don’t give up. That ‘if’ isn’t a small thing. If it’s REALLY what you want to do, you won’t care who you are in the business, because the business is telling stories. And if you can be a part of that in any way, how cool is that? I never thought I was going to write TV. Never. And yet here I am, courtesy of kindly giants — several of them Canadian.”

As for what he wants to get out of his time in Vancouver, that would be “to meet the mad and interesting, of course. Is there anything else?” With the Stanley Cup playoffs we’ve got mad covered, no question. So come on Vancouver, let’s bring the interesting.

Seminar Details

TV, eh? presents a one-day seminar on Writing for TV with WGA Award winning, Emmy nominated Larry Kaplow (House, Body of Proof), at Vancouver’s Morris J Wosk Centre for Dialogue, Simon Fraser University.

Aspiring and emerging writers will learn practical information on breaking in, pitching, story structure, the writing room, dealing with notes, writing for production, as well as the development process for their own work.

Where:
420 Strategy Room
Morris J Wosk Centre for Dialogue, Simon Fraser University
580 West Hastings Street, Vancouver

When:
Sunday, May 6, 2012
9 am – 5 pm

Cost:
$250 + HST, including lunch

For more information and to register:
www.tv-eh.com/events
diane@tv-eh.com

778-230-1587

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

WGC Award nominee Matt Watts on Michael: Tuesdays & Thursdays’ “Bridges”

BL02 DAY08 2604

Leading up to the Writers Guild of Canada awards on April 23, TV, eh? is posting a series of interviews with some of nominees. Matt Watts was nominated in the Comedy category for the “Bridges” episode of Michael: Tuesdays & Thursdays.

Can you describe the episode, and how it fit into the Michael: Tuesdays & Thursdays season?

“Episode 5: Bridges” is the first episode where the season arc really kicks in. At the beginning of the episode, David realizes that he’s allowed his patient, Michael, to become too dependent on him and tries to make the relationship more professional by putting some distance between them. As a result, Michael feels he’s being pushed away, and reacts badly. This forces David to tell Michael the big truth: that he’s been writing a book about him without his knowledge or consent. It’s a huge turning point in the season.

What about this episode are you particularly proud of?

It went through so many drafts. For a brief period, the script was about clothing, and Michael’s inability to remove his hoodie and toque (to tie in more with the b-plot where Michael and Claire are having sexual difficulties) and the exposure scenes had Michael and David in a crowded bar wearing short-shorts. No, really.

There’s so much going on in that episode, I didn’t think we’d be able to pull it off – but we did (Allison MacLean did an amazing job directing it) and we were all involved in it. Don (McKellar) oversaw everything, Bob (Martin) did a pass on it before I did my final pass (and then went back to Bob for the production drafts – as do all the scripts) and it ultimately turned out to be one of my favourite episodes of the season. So yeah, I’m proud of that… That we pulled it off. Although my name is on this script, it was a group effort, it was a monster.

What does this recognition mean to you?

I’ve had such a crazy, fortunate career, meeting these guys when I was really young. They took me under their wing when I was 20 and have included me in so many of their projects, but this is the first time I’ve had a “written by” credit on one of them. It means a lot to me, but it also means a lot to Bob and Don; they’ve told me they’re really proud of me, and this nomination. So that means the world. It’s been a long time that I’ve been vying for their approval. Whether I win or not, I have it. Now I can die.

And finally (imagine my best Joan Rivers impression): what will you be wearing to the ceremony?

Whatever I wear it’ll have to look decent no matter how much alcohol is spilled on it.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail