Internet service providers could face a new tax to help pay for unprofitable programmes shown on ITV and Channel 4, which may in turn lead to higher broadband charges for consumers. The levy could be imposed by the Government on the service providers and websites within the next few years, under proposals published yesterday about the future funding of "public service" programmes which make little or no money for commercial broadcasters.
The proposals were made by Ofcom, the telecoms watchdog, which insisted that any new charges would fall on the companies providing the goods and services - although the firms could pass on these extra costs to their customers. A broadband tax is one option being considered by Ofcom to secure the future of the commercial broadcasters' public service programmes, such as ITV1's regional news and Channel 4's current affairs strand Dispatches.
The regulator is also concerned about the future of children's programmes and science, arts and history shows on commercial channels. By 2013, Ofcom predicts total funding for commercial public service broadcasting such as this will have fallen by around £335 million from its 2003 level of £520 million.
New levies on different parts of the media - such as other commercial broadcasters, equipment sales, broadband firms or UK online content providers - could be imposed in a version of a model suggested for French broadcasting. Ed Richards, the chief executive of Ofcom, insisted it was not suggesting introducing a direct tax. "I don't want to go too far with this - we're an independent regulator and we're setting out the logical range of issues," he said. "One of those which you might be closer to is industry levies. We haven't included new taxes on individuals, no. I don't think that makes any sense. There's the general source of general taxation - I can't see any logic for creating an additional personal tax. Industry levies is a different matter."
Other proposals in Ofcom's report include "top-slicing" - requiring the BBC to share the licence fee with commercial broadcasters, or subsidies from the Government paid for out of general taxation. Mr Richards said Ofcom had not yet made any decision on which of the many funding options it would favour when it makes its final recommendations early next year.
However, the range of proposals was criticised by the pay-television operator and broadband provider BSkyB. "Ofcom shouldn't swallow the argument that Channel 4 and ITV would stop producing original programmes if they didn't get public money," said Graham McWilliam, its group director of corporate affairs. "Most of what these broadcasters provide is a result of market forces, not regulatory intervention."
Ultimate decisions on funding rest with the Government. It has not yet decided when it will introduce the next Communications Act.
Regulator's suggested finance plans:
Direct public funding: money would go straight from the Government to broadcasters. It would come either from general taxation, or funds raised by charging for other broadcasting "spectrum" - for example, the space used by new high-definition channels.
Regulatory assets: the commercial broadcasters could be given cheap or free access to Freeview slots, guaranteed prominence on the electronic programme guide, or looser advertising rules in exchange for promising to provide public service programmes.
Industry funding: levies on other parts of the media industry, such as internet service providers.
BBC licence fee: this could be split between the BBC and other broadcasters.
Saturday 12 April 2008
Am I normal?
Few people seem more qualified to ask Am I Normal? than Dr Tanya Byron. Despite the fact that she’s Britain’s leading TV psychologist, or that she was personally asked by Gordon Brown to write a report about the internet’s effect on children, Dr Byron has made down-to-earth, practical advice her stock in trade.
Nonetheless, BBC2’s Am I Normal? (Monday, 9.00pm) marks a departure from the shows such as Little Angels and The House of Tiny Tearaways that made Dr Byron’s name. She tells Matt Warman that these programmes about managing problem children have already started to make her feel uneasy. They’ve moved, in her words, ‘from education into entertainment’.
‘There was this one moment when it just hit me,’ says Dr Byron. ‘I was watching another of these shows where a child was being managed by a person who wasn’t qualified, and the strategy was so wrong that the child was being treated as if they were being naughty when in fact they clearly had sensory difficulties. We’re talking about kids and lives, and I just felt that if I carried on making my programmes, even though they were very different, in a sense I’d be colluding in that.’
The BBC, however, was eager for Dr Byron to stay on our screens, and the result is a four-part series that aims to examine what society at large calls ‘normal’, and what the harm is in deviating from that norm. Looking first at addiction, then at body image, spirituality and sex, the programmes all aim to investigate what Dr Byron calls a ‘preoccupation for all of us’.
The opening episode deals with how our notions of addiction have evolved in recent years. ‘Addiction is something we could all have nowadays: Michael Douglas has sex with lots of women and then he’s called a “sex addict”,’ says Dr Byron. ‘There is quite a lot of scepticism out there, and it’s not just me asking if this is really about people’s weakness.’
One of the show’s themes, therefore, is the increasing array of things to which people can now apparently become addicted. ‘It’s not just about substances, it’s about behaviours now too,’ says Dr Byron. ‘I wanted to look at whether these are really addictions or whether people are just being allowed, or even encouraged, to make excuses. So I’m comparing and contrasting different people with different addictions – sex, porn, video games.’
The other side of the coin is the ever-growing industry surrounding the treatment of people who define themselves as addicted. ‘This isn’t about blaming individuals,’ says Dr Byron. ‘If someone believes they have an addiction, you’ve got to work with that. But there are lots of very vulnerable people out there, and there are lots of people offering services to those vulnerable people. Sometimes they have no evidence to back up the claims they make and the money they charge.’
Some therapies, she says, show impressive results, but still have no scientific background to justify their use. Equine assisted therapy, for instance, encourages patients to interact with horses in order to help them (the patients, that is) communicate better with people. It appears to produce good results in some cases.
‘But there’s one woman who thinks she has a chocolate addiction because she eats three bars of chocolate a day,’ says Dr Byron. ‘She goes to see this guy who does something called Thought Field Therapy. He taps on her face and says that he’s reprogramming her like he would reprogramme a computer after it’s had a virus. He claims to have a huge success rate. Watch the programme and you can see the look on my face.’
As the series continues, it becomes clear that Dr Byron’s interest lies primarily in examining whether the unconventional is simply a lifestyle choice, or whether it’s dangerously ‘abnormal’. In the final programme she meets a man campaigning for the age of consent to be lowered, and seems to find his ideas to be repellent and harmful. But she also meets a woman who, recovering addicts say, is addicted to video-gaming. Dr Byron points out that this particular ‘addiction’ doesn’t appear to be harming anybody, even if it does mean the woman sleeps for only four hours a night. Plus, she adds, 60 per cent of addicts grow out of their enthusiasms anyway.
In which case, does it even matter what ‘normal’ is, if deviating from it so wildly is of no real consequence? Is Dr Byron even asking a useful question? ‘No,’ she says with surprising firmness. ‘And it can’t ever be answered either.’
The point, however, is not the answer; it’s the question itself. Dr Byron says her aim is simply to get people thinking. ‘It’s a polarised debate at the moment, and I hope people see that “normal” can be very dull.’
Am I Normal? is on BBC2 on Monday at 9.00pm
Nonetheless, BBC2’s Am I Normal? (Monday, 9.00pm) marks a departure from the shows such as Little Angels and The House of Tiny Tearaways that made Dr Byron’s name. She tells Matt Warman that these programmes about managing problem children have already started to make her feel uneasy. They’ve moved, in her words, ‘from education into entertainment’.
‘There was this one moment when it just hit me,’ says Dr Byron. ‘I was watching another of these shows where a child was being managed by a person who wasn’t qualified, and the strategy was so wrong that the child was being treated as if they were being naughty when in fact they clearly had sensory difficulties. We’re talking about kids and lives, and I just felt that if I carried on making my programmes, even though they were very different, in a sense I’d be colluding in that.’
The BBC, however, was eager for Dr Byron to stay on our screens, and the result is a four-part series that aims to examine what society at large calls ‘normal’, and what the harm is in deviating from that norm. Looking first at addiction, then at body image, spirituality and sex, the programmes all aim to investigate what Dr Byron calls a ‘preoccupation for all of us’.
The opening episode deals with how our notions of addiction have evolved in recent years. ‘Addiction is something we could all have nowadays: Michael Douglas has sex with lots of women and then he’s called a “sex addict”,’ says Dr Byron. ‘There is quite a lot of scepticism out there, and it’s not just me asking if this is really about people’s weakness.’
One of the show’s themes, therefore, is the increasing array of things to which people can now apparently become addicted. ‘It’s not just about substances, it’s about behaviours now too,’ says Dr Byron. ‘I wanted to look at whether these are really addictions or whether people are just being allowed, or even encouraged, to make excuses. So I’m comparing and contrasting different people with different addictions – sex, porn, video games.’
The other side of the coin is the ever-growing industry surrounding the treatment of people who define themselves as addicted. ‘This isn’t about blaming individuals,’ says Dr Byron. ‘If someone believes they have an addiction, you’ve got to work with that. But there are lots of very vulnerable people out there, and there are lots of people offering services to those vulnerable people. Sometimes they have no evidence to back up the claims they make and the money they charge.’
Some therapies, she says, show impressive results, but still have no scientific background to justify their use. Equine assisted therapy, for instance, encourages patients to interact with horses in order to help them (the patients, that is) communicate better with people. It appears to produce good results in some cases.
‘But there’s one woman who thinks she has a chocolate addiction because she eats three bars of chocolate a day,’ says Dr Byron. ‘She goes to see this guy who does something called Thought Field Therapy. He taps on her face and says that he’s reprogramming her like he would reprogramme a computer after it’s had a virus. He claims to have a huge success rate. Watch the programme and you can see the look on my face.’
As the series continues, it becomes clear that Dr Byron’s interest lies primarily in examining whether the unconventional is simply a lifestyle choice, or whether it’s dangerously ‘abnormal’. In the final programme she meets a man campaigning for the age of consent to be lowered, and seems to find his ideas to be repellent and harmful. But she also meets a woman who, recovering addicts say, is addicted to video-gaming. Dr Byron points out that this particular ‘addiction’ doesn’t appear to be harming anybody, even if it does mean the woman sleeps for only four hours a night. Plus, she adds, 60 per cent of addicts grow out of their enthusiasms anyway.
In which case, does it even matter what ‘normal’ is, if deviating from it so wildly is of no real consequence? Is Dr Byron even asking a useful question? ‘No,’ she says with surprising firmness. ‘And it can’t ever be answered either.’
The point, however, is not the answer; it’s the question itself. Dr Byron says her aim is simply to get people thinking. ‘It’s a polarised debate at the moment, and I hope people see that “normal” can be very dull.’
Am I Normal? is on BBC2 on Monday at 9.00pm
Me and Mr Jones
There are no Indiana Jones thrills in Channel 4's The Quest for the Lost Ark. Professor Tudor Parfitt's over-long documentary is more Time Team than epic archaeology Indiana Jones-style, laments Caitlin Moran...
Let me make one thing very clear: I am no Time Team basher. I love Time Team. I've spent more time looking at the geo-phys on a ruined Tudor piggery than I have the sonograms of my own unborn children. There's no piece of crud-encrusted Roman pottery hoiked from a dead dog pit outside Slough that I haven't got weak historical stims from. Every sub-Horace Goes Skiing graphical recreation of what some medieval drainage ditch “would have looked like, in its own time” is of innate interest to me. I love that stuff.
But let's face it - however interesting Time Team is, it hasn't done the overall image of 21st-century archaeology much good. Not like the 1980s, when archaeology was all about Indiana Jones razzing around looking unbearably hot and desirable. Christ he was hot. Believe me, there isn't a woman alive who doesn't go a bit funny thinking about Indiana Jones. Even Margaret Thatcher would have fancied him a bit.
Because of Indy, for my generation, being an archaeologist was up there with being an astronaut, a rock star or a whale-trainer as one of the all-time glam jobs. But then, alas, Time Team came along. In an epic rebrand, archaeology suddenly went from a) thrusting, sweaty, man-totty saving the world, to b) Womble-like academics in home-knits, sitting in craters, in Monmouthshire, in the pissing rain, wiping oomska off a brown tile with a hankie. Watched by Baldrick.
Given all this, then, what we need - what we all sorely need - is for archaeology to start thinking big again. Go widescreen again. Give up on the getting excited about finding a patch of scorched clay that indicates the possible existence of a Georgian kiln, and start going after the big stuff. The Colossus of Rhodes! The Round Table! Jesus!
And, just in time, here's The Quest for the Lost Ark, which is literally a quest for the Ark of the Covenant. You know - the Nazi melty box thing from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Presented by Professor Tudor Parfitt - a man whose name suggests he might be the long lost Poshest Man in the World; until you see the documentary is produced by one Sheldon Lazarus - The Quest for the Lost Ark attempts to follow a 2,500-year-old trail of clues, and discover the last resting place of the Ark.
I don't think I'm going to wholly disintegrate your day when I tell you that Parfitt doesn't actually find the Ark. Let's face it - if humanity ever finds what is essentially God's handbag, it's not going to be left to the TV critics to break the news. CNN, I think, might get there first.
What Parfitt does do, however, is trace - using DNA - the lost tribes of Israel, their flight into Africa, and the establishment of Jewish tribes in Zimbabwe that exist until this day. It's all quite reasonable and mildly diverting. Definitely worth, say, half an hour of your life; particularly if you're into African Jews.
However, having worked himself up into a big tizzy about his life-long quest for the Ark - “Five years went by without any leads,” he says, at one point, with almost incalculable weariness - and having been giving a whopping and, frankly, unnecessary 75 minutes to fill, Parfitt keeps on flogging the dead Ark horse to a point of mild dementia.
In the end, he becomes convinced that he's found the real Ark. The real Ark, according to Parfitt and not really anyone else at all, is not a sacred box, 80cm wide and high, lined inside and out with gold, topped with a golden lid, and two golden cherubs with outstretched wings, through which one can hear the voice of God.
It's actually - a drum. Yes, a drum. A knackered old drum from Africa. That's, erm, only 600 years old. That Parfitt eventually finds in a cupboard. In a museum. By looking through a card index.
Yes, I know. It's not quite grabbing-your-hat-from-underneath-the-closing-stone-door-having-just-outrun-the-giant-boulder.
So, mmmmm. Whilst it's great to see bone-botherers going for the big ticket historical items again - why settle for a submerged Neolithic toilet-area, when you could track down the intercom to God? - in this case, it doesn't really work, thrill-wise.
To be honest, you would actually get marginally larger cheapies watching Phil Harding eating a fried egg sandwich, in the rain.
The Quest for the Lost Ark, Mon, Channel 4, 9pm
Let me make one thing very clear: I am no Time Team basher. I love Time Team. I've spent more time looking at the geo-phys on a ruined Tudor piggery than I have the sonograms of my own unborn children. There's no piece of crud-encrusted Roman pottery hoiked from a dead dog pit outside Slough that I haven't got weak historical stims from. Every sub-Horace Goes Skiing graphical recreation of what some medieval drainage ditch “would have looked like, in its own time” is of innate interest to me. I love that stuff.
But let's face it - however interesting Time Team is, it hasn't done the overall image of 21st-century archaeology much good. Not like the 1980s, when archaeology was all about Indiana Jones razzing around looking unbearably hot and desirable. Christ he was hot. Believe me, there isn't a woman alive who doesn't go a bit funny thinking about Indiana Jones. Even Margaret Thatcher would have fancied him a bit.
Because of Indy, for my generation, being an archaeologist was up there with being an astronaut, a rock star or a whale-trainer as one of the all-time glam jobs. But then, alas, Time Team came along. In an epic rebrand, archaeology suddenly went from a) thrusting, sweaty, man-totty saving the world, to b) Womble-like academics in home-knits, sitting in craters, in Monmouthshire, in the pissing rain, wiping oomska off a brown tile with a hankie. Watched by Baldrick.
Given all this, then, what we need - what we all sorely need - is for archaeology to start thinking big again. Go widescreen again. Give up on the getting excited about finding a patch of scorched clay that indicates the possible existence of a Georgian kiln, and start going after the big stuff. The Colossus of Rhodes! The Round Table! Jesus!
And, just in time, here's The Quest for the Lost Ark, which is literally a quest for the Ark of the Covenant. You know - the Nazi melty box thing from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Presented by Professor Tudor Parfitt - a man whose name suggests he might be the long lost Poshest Man in the World; until you see the documentary is produced by one Sheldon Lazarus - The Quest for the Lost Ark attempts to follow a 2,500-year-old trail of clues, and discover the last resting place of the Ark.
I don't think I'm going to wholly disintegrate your day when I tell you that Parfitt doesn't actually find the Ark. Let's face it - if humanity ever finds what is essentially God's handbag, it's not going to be left to the TV critics to break the news. CNN, I think, might get there first.
What Parfitt does do, however, is trace - using DNA - the lost tribes of Israel, their flight into Africa, and the establishment of Jewish tribes in Zimbabwe that exist until this day. It's all quite reasonable and mildly diverting. Definitely worth, say, half an hour of your life; particularly if you're into African Jews.
However, having worked himself up into a big tizzy about his life-long quest for the Ark - “Five years went by without any leads,” he says, at one point, with almost incalculable weariness - and having been giving a whopping and, frankly, unnecessary 75 minutes to fill, Parfitt keeps on flogging the dead Ark horse to a point of mild dementia.
In the end, he becomes convinced that he's found the real Ark. The real Ark, according to Parfitt and not really anyone else at all, is not a sacred box, 80cm wide and high, lined inside and out with gold, topped with a golden lid, and two golden cherubs with outstretched wings, through which one can hear the voice of God.
It's actually - a drum. Yes, a drum. A knackered old drum from Africa. That's, erm, only 600 years old. That Parfitt eventually finds in a cupboard. In a museum. By looking through a card index.
Yes, I know. It's not quite grabbing-your-hat-from-underneath-the-closing-stone-door-having-just-outrun-the-giant-boulder.
So, mmmmm. Whilst it's great to see bone-botherers going for the big ticket historical items again - why settle for a submerged Neolithic toilet-area, when you could track down the intercom to God? - in this case, it doesn't really work, thrill-wise.
To be honest, you would actually get marginally larger cheapies watching Phil Harding eating a fried egg sandwich, in the rain.
The Quest for the Lost Ark, Mon, Channel 4, 9pm
Bear Grylls is a born survivor
Former SAS man Bear Grylls braves jungles and deserts for our entertainment. Andrew Billen finds out why, as Grylls discusses his new Channel 4 series Born Survivor...
At 21, Bear Grylls broke his back sky diving. Two years later, he climbed Everest. Since then he has crossed the North Atlantic in an inflatable raft, swum with sharks, and flown a paramotor over the Himalayas. He is the bravest man I will ever meet. Yet as I leave to interview him on his house boat in South London, the question ringing in my ears is one suggested by an irreverent colleague: “Ask him if he knows any good hotels.” He was referring to last summer's scandal over Grylls's Discovery Channel series Man v Wild, many of whose episodes are repackaged for Channel 4 as Born Survivor. A consultant to the show claimed that while viewers might have gathered he slept rough in the Sierra Nevada mountains, some nights he was actually tucked up in a hotel advertised as “a cosy getaway for families”. This was in fact the least of the allegations surrounding his show's production values; others included a smoke machine being brought in to add excitement to a volcano, the trucking in of wild mustang he said he lucked upon, and the hiring of a bear suit.
The storm has died down, Bear is back on the box and we are drinking tea below deck. I ask how it felt to be branded a fake. “I think you have to make sure the rock in your life isn't fame,” he says. “It was the number one cable show in America. You are going to get the odd Exocet sent your way and you need to take the rough with the smooth."
It is, itself, a smooth reply, worthy of an Old Etonian whose father was the Conservative MP Sir Michael Grylls. I suspect he may have had help with it. He later uses a line he has used in interviews abroad: his shows are now so open that he cannot “break wind without it being acknowledged”. In Namibia his cameraman went one better and filmed him evacuating his bowels as he climbed a 100-foot waterfall. But while Grylls may not be Brain of Britain, he must be savvy enough to appreciate that while the Exocets did not sink his reputation, they holed it. By Christmas, Bear (as in Teddy, as in Edward) Grylls was a panto punchline.
Channel 4 investigated and concluded that it had broadcast scenes that “while not in breach of Ofcom's Broadcasting Code in so far as they were not materially misleading, should have been more transparent”. Viewers accepted artifice, but “some of the decisions made by the producers crossed the line”. As a result, the programmes in the new series on Channel 4 will be preceded by captions acknowledging Bear receives “support” in life-threatening situations and that some “situations” are “presented” to him. This outbreak of candour leads to an amusing edit in the first of the season in which he treks through the Sahara. “Got a cobra!” Grylls exclaims to camera, assuming the combat position. In a voice over, added later, he then says the cobra “has been brought here from nearby to show you how to stay safe”.
I suggest that the TV people he works with told him how television was made and he went along with it. “Well, you do. I let them do all of that. I am there to show the skills.” So does he think it matters if he spends the odd night in a hotel rather on the dunes? He does. “I think it is really important for the show that everything people see is absolutely transparent.” I cite the planted cobra. “There is enough danger and drama inherent in what you are doing. The more you show of it the better. And I have felt this from day one.”
But if this former SAS soldier was simply following orders, he is also extremely loyal to his comrades. It took years to get the composition of this private army right. I assume that means the bear-suit guy has been court-martialled? “Well, that was never on TV or anything.” So he really thought the black shape outside his tent was a grizzly? “The shadow of the bear certainly wasn't a bear suit. I don't know what that was. I definitely thought there was a bear, but that bear suit was a prank at a wrap party and a prank that has come back to haunt me. And a real lesson too.”
Bringing hot coals and a smoke machine to a volcano shocked me almost as much. “Well, the mistake in production early on was trying to add any extra drama for the sake of two seconds of shooting. And it wasn't needed.” With such revelations, did he fear last summer the whole thing might collapse around his head? “Yes, I am always riddled with self-doubt as to whether it is about the expeditions or the programmes. But I think you should not be afraid of failing in these things. Ultimately, the programme is showing people how to survive in life-threatening emergencies. It is not all about me.”
In the great scale of things Grylls' collusion in some telly-fibbing hardly matters. The real question about his judgement asks not why he takes short cuts but why he takes so many chances. He is married with two sons, Jesse, almost 5, and Marmaduke, 2. Four weeks after Jesse was born he left for the Arctic in an inflatable boat leaving his wife, Shara, to track its signal by the internet. One night the bleep went dead. The navy told her there was a “black hole of weather” precisely where her husband had gone off the chart. Mercifully, the storm had killed only the boat's electronics. But what must it have been like to be Mrs Grylls that night?
“If I am honest, a real struggle in my life is balancing risk and family. I lost my dad a few years ago and suddenly you are a dad to the coolest of kids in the world and all that matters is staying alive for them.” But does it? When he heard that crocodile hunter Steve Irwin had been killed - he was filming in Ecuador - it was, he says, a terrible reminder that “TV guarantees nothing”. And yet, a few weeks ago, taking revenge on Irwin's nemesis, he himself chased and speared a stingray and cooked it over a camp fire.
Would he like his sons to have his job? “I do not want them to climb Everest or earn their living by eating raw snakes in the jungle. I think they are probably smarter than that.” Does he find what he does humiliating? “I do it, if I am honest, because it is the only thing I am good at in my life.”
On the coffee table lie two children's books about the Antarctic explorer Shackleton. They are there, I fear, to soften the blow for his sons when, his TV career glued back together, he departs next year for the South Pole. I ask Jesse, who has returned from school, what he wants to be when he grows up. “A life boat man,” he says. Perhaps this brave little chap thinks his father needs one.
Bear Grylls: Born Survivor, Sun, C4, 8pm; Discovery, Tues/Fri, 8pm
At 21, Bear Grylls broke his back sky diving. Two years later, he climbed Everest. Since then he has crossed the North Atlantic in an inflatable raft, swum with sharks, and flown a paramotor over the Himalayas. He is the bravest man I will ever meet. Yet as I leave to interview him on his house boat in South London, the question ringing in my ears is one suggested by an irreverent colleague: “Ask him if he knows any good hotels.” He was referring to last summer's scandal over Grylls's Discovery Channel series Man v Wild, many of whose episodes are repackaged for Channel 4 as Born Survivor. A consultant to the show claimed that while viewers might have gathered he slept rough in the Sierra Nevada mountains, some nights he was actually tucked up in a hotel advertised as “a cosy getaway for families”. This was in fact the least of the allegations surrounding his show's production values; others included a smoke machine being brought in to add excitement to a volcano, the trucking in of wild mustang he said he lucked upon, and the hiring of a bear suit.
The storm has died down, Bear is back on the box and we are drinking tea below deck. I ask how it felt to be branded a fake. “I think you have to make sure the rock in your life isn't fame,” he says. “It was the number one cable show in America. You are going to get the odd Exocet sent your way and you need to take the rough with the smooth."
It is, itself, a smooth reply, worthy of an Old Etonian whose father was the Conservative MP Sir Michael Grylls. I suspect he may have had help with it. He later uses a line he has used in interviews abroad: his shows are now so open that he cannot “break wind without it being acknowledged”. In Namibia his cameraman went one better and filmed him evacuating his bowels as he climbed a 100-foot waterfall. But while Grylls may not be Brain of Britain, he must be savvy enough to appreciate that while the Exocets did not sink his reputation, they holed it. By Christmas, Bear (as in Teddy, as in Edward) Grylls was a panto punchline.
Channel 4 investigated and concluded that it had broadcast scenes that “while not in breach of Ofcom's Broadcasting Code in so far as they were not materially misleading, should have been more transparent”. Viewers accepted artifice, but “some of the decisions made by the producers crossed the line”. As a result, the programmes in the new series on Channel 4 will be preceded by captions acknowledging Bear receives “support” in life-threatening situations and that some “situations” are “presented” to him. This outbreak of candour leads to an amusing edit in the first of the season in which he treks through the Sahara. “Got a cobra!” Grylls exclaims to camera, assuming the combat position. In a voice over, added later, he then says the cobra “has been brought here from nearby to show you how to stay safe”.
I suggest that the TV people he works with told him how television was made and he went along with it. “Well, you do. I let them do all of that. I am there to show the skills.” So does he think it matters if he spends the odd night in a hotel rather on the dunes? He does. “I think it is really important for the show that everything people see is absolutely transparent.” I cite the planted cobra. “There is enough danger and drama inherent in what you are doing. The more you show of it the better. And I have felt this from day one.”
But if this former SAS soldier was simply following orders, he is also extremely loyal to his comrades. It took years to get the composition of this private army right. I assume that means the bear-suit guy has been court-martialled? “Well, that was never on TV or anything.” So he really thought the black shape outside his tent was a grizzly? “The shadow of the bear certainly wasn't a bear suit. I don't know what that was. I definitely thought there was a bear, but that bear suit was a prank at a wrap party and a prank that has come back to haunt me. And a real lesson too.”
Bringing hot coals and a smoke machine to a volcano shocked me almost as much. “Well, the mistake in production early on was trying to add any extra drama for the sake of two seconds of shooting. And it wasn't needed.” With such revelations, did he fear last summer the whole thing might collapse around his head? “Yes, I am always riddled with self-doubt as to whether it is about the expeditions or the programmes. But I think you should not be afraid of failing in these things. Ultimately, the programme is showing people how to survive in life-threatening emergencies. It is not all about me.”
In the great scale of things Grylls' collusion in some telly-fibbing hardly matters. The real question about his judgement asks not why he takes short cuts but why he takes so many chances. He is married with two sons, Jesse, almost 5, and Marmaduke, 2. Four weeks after Jesse was born he left for the Arctic in an inflatable boat leaving his wife, Shara, to track its signal by the internet. One night the bleep went dead. The navy told her there was a “black hole of weather” precisely where her husband had gone off the chart. Mercifully, the storm had killed only the boat's electronics. But what must it have been like to be Mrs Grylls that night?
“If I am honest, a real struggle in my life is balancing risk and family. I lost my dad a few years ago and suddenly you are a dad to the coolest of kids in the world and all that matters is staying alive for them.” But does it? When he heard that crocodile hunter Steve Irwin had been killed - he was filming in Ecuador - it was, he says, a terrible reminder that “TV guarantees nothing”. And yet, a few weeks ago, taking revenge on Irwin's nemesis, he himself chased and speared a stingray and cooked it over a camp fire.
Would he like his sons to have his job? “I do not want them to climb Everest or earn their living by eating raw snakes in the jungle. I think they are probably smarter than that.” Does he find what he does humiliating? “I do it, if I am honest, because it is the only thing I am good at in my life.”
On the coffee table lie two children's books about the Antarctic explorer Shackleton. They are there, I fear, to soften the blow for his sons when, his TV career glued back together, he departs next year for the South Pole. I ask Jesse, who has returned from school, what he wants to be when he grows up. “A life boat man,” he says. Perhaps this brave little chap thinks his father needs one.
Bear Grylls: Born Survivor, Sun, C4, 8pm; Discovery, Tues/Fri, 8pm
The infamous TV career of The Who
Along with the Beatles, the Stones and, rather less charmingly, the Sex Pistols, few bands have made such entertaining TV as The Who. Sure, they are famous for their music but with a mischievous - OK, near-certifiable - drummer to seize the limelight, their TV appearances could be as madly ridiculous as most modern pop shows are soul-numbingly bland.This week's rock-doc Amazing Journey: The Story of The Who (released on DVD late last year to glowing reviews) shows that the surviving pair of Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend have lost little of their amusing frankness in interviews, even if the days of brandy-soaked mayhem are long past. Time, then, to rewind and revel in The Who's most memorable TV moments...
- Smothers Brothers Show 1967- By some distance their most infamous TV appearance. Unbeknown to anyone, Keith Moon had bribed a stage-hand with alcohol to pack his bass drum with a surfeit of explosives. As the band ended My Generation with their trademark stage-destruction, the cameras were momentarily blinded by the blast. As the smoke cleared, Moon lay on the floor, his arm sliced open by cymbal shrapnel, Townshend's hair was on fire and, it is said, his hearing damaged for ever. Waiting in the studio's wings, Bette Davis fainted in Mickey Rooney's arms. Naturally, the band was banned from further US shows.
- Talkin' 'bout my religion 1969/1971- After the success of Tommy, Townshend had to get used to explaining its spiritual ideals. On the German show Beat Club he was out-philosophised by a presenter asking perhaps the most pretentious questions seen on a pop show (seek it out in The Kids are Alright). In other interviews, spirituality and his drug experiences were a recurring theme, not least during this rarity we found from 1971 (“I became obsessed by the fact I felt my consciousness was expanding”).
- The Russell Harty Show 1973- Harty braved out-of-control antics from Moon, who stripped to his pants, bit his bandmates, began a shirt-ripping contest with Townshend and taunted the then-in-the closet host about how long he had been married. They did find time to play on the show as well.
- Top of the Pops 1973- This ill-tempered performance of 5.15 on Top of the Pops ended not just with a mass instrument trashing but a grumpy Townshend flipping V signs towards the audience. They hurled wigs at him in return. All this, plus a tussle backstage, resulted in a ban from TV Centre. It lasted until a recent Later with Jools Holland.
- Keith Moon the TV host 1974- Acting as guest host on an American live-music TV show, Moon, with cat's whiskers painted on his face, broke off to offer a drum solo not far removed from the Muppets' Animal. In answer to an audience member asking why his tom drum contained live goldfish, he replied: “Well, even the best drummers get hungry ...”
- Townshend and Moon on Good Morning America 1978- A surprisingly searching and poignant rock interview for a cheesy breakfast show. It turned out to be the 31-year-old Moon's last (he died less than a month later). Looking shockingly old and overweight, he admitted that most days he is “quite out of control. I mean ... amazingly drunk”.
- Daltrey on Tiswas 1981- Roger Daltrey and new drummer Kenney Jones appeared on Compost Corner and endured being gunged while wearing green-leotard flower outfits. Chris Tarrant, Maggie James and Lenny Henry (as David Bellamy) cheerfully ignored the presence of rock royalty as they went about their shtick. A frankly bizarre spectacle.
- Live Aid 1985- The only people to see the whole performance were those in Wembley Stadium thanks to the TV feed failing halfway through the band's first song. The technical hitch was fixed in time for the world to see a ring-rusty Townshend fall flat on his back after trying one of the high kicks of old.
- The Concert for New York City 2001- Amazing Journey makes a big deal of The Who's performance at Madison Square Gardens in the wake of 9/11. (Eddie Vedder, of Pearl Jam, declares: “That could be one of the best illustrations of the power of music.”)
Friday 11 April 2008
From cradle to the stage
There are enough implicit lessons in parenthood to be found in the curious, new up-with-nepotism reality series Rock the Cradle that family therapists all over Laurel Canyon may suddenly find themselves with little reason to remain in practice.
Rock the Cradle is a singing contest for the children of musicians both brilliant and ridiculous, leading to a prize of a record contract and girded by the assumptions that connections aren’t enough. When the show made its debut last Thursday on MTV, America learned what it meant to be the daughter of Eddie Money, and it is no enviable position, observes Gina Bellafante.
Growing up, Jesse Money felt so sought after because of her father’s celebrity that, as she puts it, “I just stopped making friends.” Hierarchy of fame is a fiction really. Whether you’re Liza Minnelli or the daughter of the man who gave us “Two Tickets to Paradise,” people will still step-dance all over the tombs of their ancestors to get a piece of you.
Rock the Cradle isn’t merely a battle of talents, it is a competition about who has lived in the most privileged misery, confirming what we want to believe: that the glamorous upbringing is a ruinous kind. As Olivia Newton-John’s daughter, Chloe Lattanzi, succinctly explains, “I spent a lot of time alone in big houses.”
Apparently Jesse Blaze Snider, a son of Twisted Sister’s Dee Snider, spent a lot of time without cash. “He went to work on a bicycle,” Jesse says of his father’s financial troubles, the term “work” hanging there as if to imply that Dee Snider was working a cash register at Home Depot to settle his bills. Bobby Brown’s son Landon surely endured the worst of all though, watching other children dress up as his father in a prison suit on Halloween.
The Oedipal drama runs rampant on the show. After Landon received poor scores from the judges last week, Bobby Brown made no paternalistic, “my son is a genius” protests. “I accept what they say,” he offered. “I love him. It doesn’t matter what he does.”
Most competitive reality shows appeal to the perverse thrill of watching ordinary people fail. Rock the Cradle mediates our voyeurism, supplying another gross, mesmerizing layer: the smug faces of parents seemingly certain that their children will never surpass or outsell them. (The progeny, for their part, level passive-aggressive insults. “Danger Zone” never embarrassed him, Kenny Loggins’s son Crosby said, unprompted, last week. “It put lunch on the table.”)
The producers of the show are not so cruel as to present only a stage full of Frank Sinatra Jrs., but so far only Lucy, the daughter of the Eagles’ guitarist Joe Walsh, has proved a formidable talent. Still the judges display a generosity of spirit that would have the Simon Cowells of the world suing to get them out of the reality-show judges’ union. Only Larry Rudolph, a lawyer and manager complicit in the creation of Britney Spears, ever issues a harsh word, and when he does, he generally counters with something constructive.
Mr. Money turns out to be the most demanding presence on the show. “I’m a stage father, I just can’t help myself,” he explains. (What he doesn’t say is how he came to look vaguely like an old woman.)
One of the great mysteries of the world remains why children of successful singers — or actors, directors or microbiologists — don’t simply say to themselves, “You know, I think I’ll take up plumbing.” When, during a rehearsal, Mr. Money reprimands his daughter that she “blew the bridge” in her rendition of “When I’m Gone,” you hope she’s thought about graduate school.
Rock the Cradle is on MTV Thursday night at 10, Eastern and Pacific times; 9, Central time.
Rock the Cradle is a singing contest for the children of musicians both brilliant and ridiculous, leading to a prize of a record contract and girded by the assumptions that connections aren’t enough. When the show made its debut last Thursday on MTV, America learned what it meant to be the daughter of Eddie Money, and it is no enviable position, observes Gina Bellafante.
Growing up, Jesse Money felt so sought after because of her father’s celebrity that, as she puts it, “I just stopped making friends.” Hierarchy of fame is a fiction really. Whether you’re Liza Minnelli or the daughter of the man who gave us “Two Tickets to Paradise,” people will still step-dance all over the tombs of their ancestors to get a piece of you.
Rock the Cradle isn’t merely a battle of talents, it is a competition about who has lived in the most privileged misery, confirming what we want to believe: that the glamorous upbringing is a ruinous kind. As Olivia Newton-John’s daughter, Chloe Lattanzi, succinctly explains, “I spent a lot of time alone in big houses.”
Apparently Jesse Blaze Snider, a son of Twisted Sister’s Dee Snider, spent a lot of time without cash. “He went to work on a bicycle,” Jesse says of his father’s financial troubles, the term “work” hanging there as if to imply that Dee Snider was working a cash register at Home Depot to settle his bills. Bobby Brown’s son Landon surely endured the worst of all though, watching other children dress up as his father in a prison suit on Halloween.
The Oedipal drama runs rampant on the show. After Landon received poor scores from the judges last week, Bobby Brown made no paternalistic, “my son is a genius” protests. “I accept what they say,” he offered. “I love him. It doesn’t matter what he does.”
Most competitive reality shows appeal to the perverse thrill of watching ordinary people fail. Rock the Cradle mediates our voyeurism, supplying another gross, mesmerizing layer: the smug faces of parents seemingly certain that their children will never surpass or outsell them. (The progeny, for their part, level passive-aggressive insults. “Danger Zone” never embarrassed him, Kenny Loggins’s son Crosby said, unprompted, last week. “It put lunch on the table.”)
The producers of the show are not so cruel as to present only a stage full of Frank Sinatra Jrs., but so far only Lucy, the daughter of the Eagles’ guitarist Joe Walsh, has proved a formidable talent. Still the judges display a generosity of spirit that would have the Simon Cowells of the world suing to get them out of the reality-show judges’ union. Only Larry Rudolph, a lawyer and manager complicit in the creation of Britney Spears, ever issues a harsh word, and when he does, he generally counters with something constructive.
Mr. Money turns out to be the most demanding presence on the show. “I’m a stage father, I just can’t help myself,” he explains. (What he doesn’t say is how he came to look vaguely like an old woman.)
One of the great mysteries of the world remains why children of successful singers — or actors, directors or microbiologists — don’t simply say to themselves, “You know, I think I’ll take up plumbing.” When, during a rehearsal, Mr. Money reprimands his daughter that she “blew the bridge” in her rendition of “When I’m Gone,” you hope she’s thought about graduate school.
Rock the Cradle is on MTV Thursday night at 10, Eastern and Pacific times; 9, Central time.
New executive for HBO's entertainment division
Sue Naegle, a veteran Hollywood talent agent who helped bring the series Six Feet Under to HBO, was appointed president of the cable channel’s entertainment division on Wednesday and immediately charged with helping it identify and develop a slate of worthy successors to that hit series and, more important, The Sopranos.
Ms. Naegle, 38, was co-head of the television department at United Talent Agency in Los Angeles. She succeeds one of the channel’s longest-serving executives, Carolyn Strauss, who is being given a development and production deal inside the company. As president of HBO Entertainment, Ms. Naegle will oversee all series and specials.
Ms. Naegle’s task is a formidable one in which her performance will be measured against that of the executives who shepherded The Sopranos, one of the most popular series in the relatively short life of cable television and among the most well received programs in the history of the medium.
As The Sopranos prepared to make its curtain call last year, Showtime was able to steal some of its rival’s buzz with the comedy Weeds and the period drama The Tudors, while AMC drew rave reviews (in style columns as well as among television critics) for Mad Men, which was created by Matthew Weiner, a former writer and producer for The Sopranos.
Asked in a telephone interview on Wednesday whether Showtime and AMC in particular had earned a tip of the cap from her new employer, Ms. Naegle said: “Absolutely. I watch some of those shows.”
“They’ve worked hard,” she added. “They saw a chance to do things that were, truthfully, a little bit in the HBO model. They’re doing well with them. God bless them.” Like a new basketball coach inheriting a championship franchise that has struggled in recent seasons, Ms. Naegle sought to diminish expectations for herself, at least early on. “Not every show needs to reach the same size of audience, or same width, of a ‘Sopranos,’” she said.
As a foundation on which to build, Ms. Naegle expressed her enthusiasm for the HBO series Big Love, a sprawling, sometimes comic tale of polygamy; Tell Me You Love Me, which depicts an interconnecting web of couples and at times borders on the soft-core; and In Treatment, an innovative drama that recently concluded its first season, in which a therapist played by Gabriel Byrne sees regular patients on days that corresponded to the show’s schedule.
She also said she had high hopes for True Blood, a series that begins this fall and that she helped assemble (in her capacity as an agent) for HBO. It was created by Alan Ball, the creator of Six Feet Under, and seeks to depict vampires in Louisiana in ways that, Ms. Naegle said, were alternately amusing, scary and sexy.
Ms. Naegle, who began her career at the United Talent Agency 16 years ago, literally in the mailroom, also inherits a slate of pilots at HBO that are already being developed and could well yield a hit series or two. These include a drama set in Atlantic City in the 1920s (from Terence Winter, an executive producer of Sopranos); Suburban Shootout (a series about two rival gangs of housewives fighting over their idyllic town, from the director Barry Sonnenfeld) and 1 Percent (about an Arizona biker club, from Michael Tolkin, who wrote the film The Player, among others).
Asked in the same interview what had drawn them to Ms. Naegle, Richard Plepler, co-president of HBO, and Michael Lombardo, president of the channel’s programming group and West Coast operations, cited her sensibility as well as her reputation as an agent who worked closely with top writers in particular. Both said they hoped those relationships would prove to be of even more benefit to HBO now that she had moved in-house.
“Sue has always recognized what’s right for us,” Mr. Lombardo said. “Whatever she has brought us has been smart and on the nose.”
Mr. Plepler said, “We’re only as good as the people who come to work for us.”
Ms. Naegle, 38, was co-head of the television department at United Talent Agency in Los Angeles. She succeeds one of the channel’s longest-serving executives, Carolyn Strauss, who is being given a development and production deal inside the company. As president of HBO Entertainment, Ms. Naegle will oversee all series and specials.
Ms. Naegle’s task is a formidable one in which her performance will be measured against that of the executives who shepherded The Sopranos, one of the most popular series in the relatively short life of cable television and among the most well received programs in the history of the medium.
As The Sopranos prepared to make its curtain call last year, Showtime was able to steal some of its rival’s buzz with the comedy Weeds and the period drama The Tudors, while AMC drew rave reviews (in style columns as well as among television critics) for Mad Men, which was created by Matthew Weiner, a former writer and producer for The Sopranos.
Asked in a telephone interview on Wednesday whether Showtime and AMC in particular had earned a tip of the cap from her new employer, Ms. Naegle said: “Absolutely. I watch some of those shows.”
“They’ve worked hard,” she added. “They saw a chance to do things that were, truthfully, a little bit in the HBO model. They’re doing well with them. God bless them.” Like a new basketball coach inheriting a championship franchise that has struggled in recent seasons, Ms. Naegle sought to diminish expectations for herself, at least early on. “Not every show needs to reach the same size of audience, or same width, of a ‘Sopranos,’” she said.
As a foundation on which to build, Ms. Naegle expressed her enthusiasm for the HBO series Big Love, a sprawling, sometimes comic tale of polygamy; Tell Me You Love Me, which depicts an interconnecting web of couples and at times borders on the soft-core; and In Treatment, an innovative drama that recently concluded its first season, in which a therapist played by Gabriel Byrne sees regular patients on days that corresponded to the show’s schedule.
She also said she had high hopes for True Blood, a series that begins this fall and that she helped assemble (in her capacity as an agent) for HBO. It was created by Alan Ball, the creator of Six Feet Under, and seeks to depict vampires in Louisiana in ways that, Ms. Naegle said, were alternately amusing, scary and sexy.
Ms. Naegle, who began her career at the United Talent Agency 16 years ago, literally in the mailroom, also inherits a slate of pilots at HBO that are already being developed and could well yield a hit series or two. These include a drama set in Atlantic City in the 1920s (from Terence Winter, an executive producer of Sopranos); Suburban Shootout (a series about two rival gangs of housewives fighting over their idyllic town, from the director Barry Sonnenfeld) and 1 Percent (about an Arizona biker club, from Michael Tolkin, who wrote the film The Player, among others).
Asked in the same interview what had drawn them to Ms. Naegle, Richard Plepler, co-president of HBO, and Michael Lombardo, president of the channel’s programming group and West Coast operations, cited her sensibility as well as her reputation as an agent who worked closely with top writers in particular. Both said they hoped those relationships would prove to be of even more benefit to HBO now that she had moved in-house.
“Sue has always recognized what’s right for us,” Mr. Lombardo said. “Whatever she has brought us has been smart and on the nose.”
Mr. Plepler said, “We’re only as good as the people who come to work for us.”
'Monk' shrink found dead
Stanley Kamel, who played Adrian Monk’s long-suffering psychiatrist on the television detective show Monk, was found dead by his agents on Tuesday at his home in Hollywood Hills. He was 65. The cause was a heart attack, his publicist Cynthia Snyder said in a statement.
Mr. Kamel was born on Jan. 1, 1943, in New Jersey and worked as an actor for nearly four decades, mostly in television. He had a recurring role as an unscrupulous psychiatrist, Dr. Graham Lester, in the 1995 television series Murder One and other recurring roles on Days of Our Lives, Melrose Place and Beverly Hills 90210, as well as smaller roles on many other shows.
Mr. Kamel began acting off Broadway and received his first substantial television role playing Eric Peters on Days of Our Lives in the 1970s. He also appeared in several movies. For several years he portrayed Dr. Charles Kroger on the USA Network series Monk. As Dr. Kroger he dispensed advice during weekly sessions with Monk (Tony Shalhoub), a brilliant but neurotic private detective with obsessive-compulsive disorder.
"USA is deeply saddened by the news of Stanley Kamel's passing," the network said in a statement. Stanley was an amazingly talented and extremely kind man, and an important member of the USA family. He will be sorely missed."
Mr. Kamel is survived by his brothers, Stephen and Robert.
Mr. Kamel was born on Jan. 1, 1943, in New Jersey and worked as an actor for nearly four decades, mostly in television. He had a recurring role as an unscrupulous psychiatrist, Dr. Graham Lester, in the 1995 television series Murder One and other recurring roles on Days of Our Lives, Melrose Place and Beverly Hills 90210, as well as smaller roles on many other shows.
Mr. Kamel began acting off Broadway and received his first substantial television role playing Eric Peters on Days of Our Lives in the 1970s. He also appeared in several movies. For several years he portrayed Dr. Charles Kroger on the USA Network series Monk. As Dr. Kroger he dispensed advice during weekly sessions with Monk (Tony Shalhoub), a brilliant but neurotic private detective with obsessive-compulsive disorder.
"USA is deeply saddened by the news of Stanley Kamel's passing," the network said in a statement. Stanley was an amazingly talented and extremely kind man, and an important member of the USA family. He will be sorely missed."
Mr. Kamel is survived by his brothers, Stephen and Robert.
Harris: Britney bad for 'How I Met Your Mother'
If Neil Patrick Harris had his way, Britney Spears would be banned from the set of How I Met Your Mother. Nothing against the pop singer personally -- he just doesn't think the show should bring guests aboard for a ratings boost alone. "I'm in the minority that our show does not need stunt casting in order to succeed," Harris declared during a break from taping the Monday night CBS sitcom, which has grown a cult following since its 2005 debut.
"I worry that if they start 'Will and Grace'-ing us too much, that the show will suffer. And we're all really proud of the content of the show. I mean, viewership is not our game. It's the network and the studio's game, you know. It's the promotion department's game," the actor, who plays womanizer Barney, told The Associated Press in an interview this week.
Spears has been the most high-profile guest star to visit the set, following past appearances by Mandy Moore, Enrique Iglesias and Heidi Klum. But her capable March 24 cameo -- feverishly promoted, anticipated, blogged-about, critiqued, analyzed and, ultimately, well-reviewed -- gave Harris pause to voice a concern: Was the show selling out?
"We wish we weren't opposite an awkward reality dancing competition," he said. "But we have no say about that. I just am a real fan of our content. I think we have a great show going, and I hope it's not screwed up by the desire for 700,000 more viewers." Make that 1 million more viewers for the Britney episode, which grabbed an audience of 10.6 million tuning in as Spears filled her small role as a bubbly receptionist. Among the 18-to-49-year-old demographic, it was the most-watched episode of the series ever.
The show has an average viewership this season of 8 million per episode, including reruns; last season, it attracted an average of 8.5 million viewers each showing. It returned with all-new episodes last month following the writers strike, capturing 9.6 million viewers the week before Spears' appearance and slipping back to 9.5 million the week after.
Executive producer Carter Bays told the AP he'd be open to another Spears guest spot. As it happened, the pop star's camp approached the show, and Bays is proud of the result: "We had no illusions about what the stakes were. And if it was classic stunt casting, like, 'Oh, my tour bus broke down outside' and I just go, 'Wow, Britney Spears, what are you doing here?' then, like, we're just flying over that shark real fast. It was a great character and I think she played it well. ... I'm glad that we didn't sensationalize the character in any way."
The show concluded with Spears' secretary flirting with Barney. The following episode, which aired last Monday, introduced a "mystery woman" who's been warning other women not to date the single-minded cad. Asked if Spears might turn out to be the secret slanderer, Bays said: "Could be. There's no reason why not." He also suggested the talented actress Sarah Chalke, who guest starred alongside Spears. Asked for his guess, Harris said: "No telling, but based on the stunt casting we've done in the past I'm guessing Tara Reid."
How I Met Your Mother stars Harris, Josh Radnor, Cobie Smulders, Alyson Hannigan and Jason Segel as an urban family of twentysomething New Yorkers. A familiar premise (see: Friends), yet the show has stood apart through its own brand of clever writing and in-jokes, cast chemistry and signature use of flashbacks.
Still, it lacks the broad appeal of shows like Friends, which had a celebrity cast and a string of celebrity guest stars, and fellow CBS sitcom Two and a Half Men. It doesn't have the industry recognition of NBC critical darlings 30 Rock and The Office. Its only major Emmy nomination went to scene-stealer Harris last year for outstanding supporting actor in a comedy series.
"The challenge for the show has always been to get more eyeballs on it," said Radnor, who portrays unlucky-in-love architect Ted. "The only thing -- and this is not a slam on any of the other shows on CBS on Monday -- but the only thing we have in common with those shows is we're half an hour, multi-camera shows with a laugh track."
Radnor compared the show to an under-the-radar, yet-to-be-discovered band.
"That's why the people who love this show looooooove this show because I think it's like your favourite band that hasn't gotten popular enough for you to start hating it," he said. "So you can still kind of love it and wear the T-shirt and speak in code with the other people who are on to it, but it hasn't tipped into this kind of phenomenon where you start to turn on it."
"I worry that if they start 'Will and Grace'-ing us too much, that the show will suffer. And we're all really proud of the content of the show. I mean, viewership is not our game. It's the network and the studio's game, you know. It's the promotion department's game," the actor, who plays womanizer Barney, told The Associated Press in an interview this week.
Spears has been the most high-profile guest star to visit the set, following past appearances by Mandy Moore, Enrique Iglesias and Heidi Klum. But her capable March 24 cameo -- feverishly promoted, anticipated, blogged-about, critiqued, analyzed and, ultimately, well-reviewed -- gave Harris pause to voice a concern: Was the show selling out?
"We wish we weren't opposite an awkward reality dancing competition," he said. "But we have no say about that. I just am a real fan of our content. I think we have a great show going, and I hope it's not screwed up by the desire for 700,000 more viewers." Make that 1 million more viewers for the Britney episode, which grabbed an audience of 10.6 million tuning in as Spears filled her small role as a bubbly receptionist. Among the 18-to-49-year-old demographic, it was the most-watched episode of the series ever.
The show has an average viewership this season of 8 million per episode, including reruns; last season, it attracted an average of 8.5 million viewers each showing. It returned with all-new episodes last month following the writers strike, capturing 9.6 million viewers the week before Spears' appearance and slipping back to 9.5 million the week after.
Executive producer Carter Bays told the AP he'd be open to another Spears guest spot. As it happened, the pop star's camp approached the show, and Bays is proud of the result: "We had no illusions about what the stakes were. And if it was classic stunt casting, like, 'Oh, my tour bus broke down outside' and I just go, 'Wow, Britney Spears, what are you doing here?' then, like, we're just flying over that shark real fast. It was a great character and I think she played it well. ... I'm glad that we didn't sensationalize the character in any way."
The show concluded with Spears' secretary flirting with Barney. The following episode, which aired last Monday, introduced a "mystery woman" who's been warning other women not to date the single-minded cad. Asked if Spears might turn out to be the secret slanderer, Bays said: "Could be. There's no reason why not." He also suggested the talented actress Sarah Chalke, who guest starred alongside Spears. Asked for his guess, Harris said: "No telling, but based on the stunt casting we've done in the past I'm guessing Tara Reid."
How I Met Your Mother stars Harris, Josh Radnor, Cobie Smulders, Alyson Hannigan and Jason Segel as an urban family of twentysomething New Yorkers. A familiar premise (see: Friends), yet the show has stood apart through its own brand of clever writing and in-jokes, cast chemistry and signature use of flashbacks.
Still, it lacks the broad appeal of shows like Friends, which had a celebrity cast and a string of celebrity guest stars, and fellow CBS sitcom Two and a Half Men. It doesn't have the industry recognition of NBC critical darlings 30 Rock and The Office. Its only major Emmy nomination went to scene-stealer Harris last year for outstanding supporting actor in a comedy series.
"The challenge for the show has always been to get more eyeballs on it," said Radnor, who portrays unlucky-in-love architect Ted. "The only thing -- and this is not a slam on any of the other shows on CBS on Monday -- but the only thing we have in common with those shows is we're half an hour, multi-camera shows with a laugh track."
Radnor compared the show to an under-the-radar, yet-to-be-discovered band.
"That's why the people who love this show looooooove this show because I think it's like your favourite band that hasn't gotten popular enough for you to start hating it," he said. "So you can still kind of love it and wear the T-shirt and speak in code with the other people who are on to it, but it hasn't tipped into this kind of phenomenon where you start to turn on it."
Ferguson beats O'Brien for the first time
Recently sworn-in U.S. citizen Craig Ferguson is being embraced by his new countrymen: The late-night comic hit a ratings milestone last week with his first victory over NBC's Conan O'Brien.
The CBS Late Late Show averaged more viewers than O'Brien's Late Night (1.88 million to 1.77 million) for the first week during which they each competed with all-original shows since Ferguson started in January 2005.
It caps a slow and steady climb for Ferguson and raises a red flag for future Tonight show host O'Brien, although NBC says it is still happy with O'Brien's audience. "He's getting looser and looser all the time and for the last few months it's clear that he's having such a good time that you can't resist it as a viewer," said veteran late-night hand Peter Lassally, Ferguson's executive producer.
Ferguson, a Scotsman, passed an American citizenship test and was formally sworn in on Feb. 1. He'll be host of the annual White House correspondents' dinner in Washington later this month, a high-profile gig for a comic.
Although Ferguson had slowly become more competitive with O'Brien in the ratings, the writers strike was crucial to the surge, said producer Michael Naidus. "It was a tough thing but for us it just let us play with the show in a looser way," Naidus said. "We threw out everything and now just have our writers doing a comedy show."
The strike also put a brighter spotlight on late-night programming and Ferguson benefited from the attention, with correspondents from newspapers and magazines writing flattering stories about him, Naidus said.
NBC acknowledged Ferguson's victory but noted O'Brien -- the designated successor to Jay Leno when Leno steps down next year -- still led among viewers aged 18-49, the youthful demographic the network bases its advertising sales on. Among the younger half of that demographic, O'Brien gets more viewers than David Letterman, NBC said.
NBC also noted that CBS got a boost by having all-original shows at the 10 p.m. hour last week, possibly increasing its audience in late-night, while NBC was still in reruns.
FCC fines retailers over digital TV
As US broadcasters prepare for the government-ordered switch to digital television next year, federal regulators sent their own signal Thursday: Retailers and manufacturers face stiff penalties if they try to take advantage of consumer confusion.
The Federal Communications Commission announced plans to levy more than $3.9 million in fines against seven major retailers, including Sears Holdings Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Circuit City Stores Inc., for not alerting customers that the analogue TVs they sold wouldn't receive over-the-air stations after the digital transition on Feb. 17, 2009. The agency proposed an additional $2.7 million in fines against manufacturers for violating other related rules.
The FCC also announced that LG Electronics Inc., Vizio Inc. and five other leading TV manufacturers had agreed to pay a total of $3.4 million to resolve investigations into their alleged violations. "Swift enforcement of our DTV-related rules is critical to protecting consumers and reducing potential confusion," FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin told a Senate committee this week.
The government is offering two $40 coupons to each U.S. household to help purchase converter boxes that can translate the digital signal for analog TVs. It also is trying to ease the transition by requiring stores to put notices on or next to TVs that don't include digital tuners.
FCC inspectors visited more than 2,100 stores and monitored 36 websites last spring to make sure consumers were not being duped into buying sets that would be incapable of picking up broadcast signals after the transition. The FCC said the retailers had sometimes failed to include the required warning labels at dozens of stores. Each set found without a label subjects retailers to an $8,000 fine.
Sears was hit with $1.1 million in proposed fines, Wal-Mart $992,000, Circuit City $712,000, Fry's Electronics $384,000, Target Corp. $296,000, Best Buy Co. $280,000 and CompUSA Inc. $168,000. The agency's rules give the companies a chance to appeal before the fines are assessed. Some retailers said they were surprised by the fines. "We eliminated analogue inventory from our stores last fall and we'll soon be offering customers digital converter boxes," said Kimberly Freely, a Sears spokeswoman. The company is considering an appeal.
Wal-Mart said it had "voluntarily invested millions of dollars" to train employees and inform customers about the transition. Best Buy said it had taken "immediate steps" to correct problems in "a relatively small number of instances."
The other companies did not respond to requests for comment.
In addition, the FCC proposed a $1.3-million fine against Syntax-Brillian Corp. and $358,000 against Precor Inc. for importing and shipping analogue TVs after deadlines set by the agency. And it proposed a $775,000 fine against Polaroid Corp. and $300,000 against Proview Technology Inc. for shipping TVs that did not include a new version of the V-chip, which allows viewers to block programs based on ratings to protect children from material deemed to be offensive.
The V-chip violations also were the focus of the settlements. LG agreed to pay $1.7 million, Philips Consumer Electronics North America $450,000, Sanyo Corp. $375,000, Vizio $370,000, Panasonic Corp. of North America $320,000, Westinghouse Digital Electronics $210,000 and Audiovox Corp. $20,000.
The Federal Communications Commission announced plans to levy more than $3.9 million in fines against seven major retailers, including Sears Holdings Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Circuit City Stores Inc., for not alerting customers that the analogue TVs they sold wouldn't receive over-the-air stations after the digital transition on Feb. 17, 2009. The agency proposed an additional $2.7 million in fines against manufacturers for violating other related rules.
The FCC also announced that LG Electronics Inc., Vizio Inc. and five other leading TV manufacturers had agreed to pay a total of $3.4 million to resolve investigations into their alleged violations. "Swift enforcement of our DTV-related rules is critical to protecting consumers and reducing potential confusion," FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin told a Senate committee this week.
The government is offering two $40 coupons to each U.S. household to help purchase converter boxes that can translate the digital signal for analog TVs. It also is trying to ease the transition by requiring stores to put notices on or next to TVs that don't include digital tuners.
FCC inspectors visited more than 2,100 stores and monitored 36 websites last spring to make sure consumers were not being duped into buying sets that would be incapable of picking up broadcast signals after the transition. The FCC said the retailers had sometimes failed to include the required warning labels at dozens of stores. Each set found without a label subjects retailers to an $8,000 fine.
Sears was hit with $1.1 million in proposed fines, Wal-Mart $992,000, Circuit City $712,000, Fry's Electronics $384,000, Target Corp. $296,000, Best Buy Co. $280,000 and CompUSA Inc. $168,000. The agency's rules give the companies a chance to appeal before the fines are assessed. Some retailers said they were surprised by the fines. "We eliminated analogue inventory from our stores last fall and we'll soon be offering customers digital converter boxes," said Kimberly Freely, a Sears spokeswoman. The company is considering an appeal.
Wal-Mart said it had "voluntarily invested millions of dollars" to train employees and inform customers about the transition. Best Buy said it had taken "immediate steps" to correct problems in "a relatively small number of instances."
The other companies did not respond to requests for comment.
In addition, the FCC proposed a $1.3-million fine against Syntax-Brillian Corp. and $358,000 against Precor Inc. for importing and shipping analogue TVs after deadlines set by the agency. And it proposed a $775,000 fine against Polaroid Corp. and $300,000 against Proview Technology Inc. for shipping TVs that did not include a new version of the V-chip, which allows viewers to block programs based on ratings to protect children from material deemed to be offensive.
The V-chip violations also were the focus of the settlements. LG agreed to pay $1.7 million, Philips Consumer Electronics North America $450,000, Sanyo Corp. $375,000, Vizio $370,000, Panasonic Corp. of North America $320,000, Westinghouse Digital Electronics $210,000 and Audiovox Corp. $20,000.
Couric seen as discontented at CBS
Amid swirling news reports that Katie Couric may exit the CBS Evening News after the November elections, multiple people close to the situation describe a discontented anchor who is conflicted about whether she wants to continue labouring on the third-place newscast. Couric has yet to indicate that she is ready to leave the broadcast, but her departure is widely considered a foregone conclusion inside CBS News, according to half a dozen staffers bracing for another anchor transition.
Frustrated by the program's performance, Couric discussed the possibility of leaving her post several months ago with CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves and CBS News President Sean McManus, according to people familiar with the conversations. In their talks, which centered primarily on ways to bolster the newscast and Couric's profile, the anchor and the executives agreed to table discussion about her future until after the November election, said the people, who stressed that no decisions have been made.
Although the CBS Evening News still lags far behind its competitors on NBC and ABC, news executives are pleased that the broadcast has regained a hard-edged tone and believe that more viewers may tune in as the 2008 presidential election gains steam. "I think our product's as good as anyone's," Moonves said as recently as December, speaking at a media conference. He added about Couric: "I still believe in her. Hardest worker in town."
The anchor herself appears upbeat and deeply engaged, say several CBS News staffers who work regularly with her. On Thursday, Couric was in Washington interviewing Army Gen. David H. Petraeus. "The reality is, it's not the newscast she came to do, and she's disappointed," said a network source close to Couric. "But she's one of those people who says, 'This isn't what I signed up for, but for right now, I'm in it 190%.' "
After the presidential inauguration next January, Couric may consider leaving if the ratings haven't improved, said the source, but added: "She's in the here and now, and focused on right now." Still, many CBS News staffers believe it's likely that Couric will depart the anchor desk well before her $15-million-a-year contract expires in 2011. "Is it possible? Most people would say it's possible," said CBS News national correspondent Byron Pitts. "People here read the news and also keep track of ratings, and they're mindful that it's the measure in this business."
"They also know that it takes years, not months, to turn around a broadcast," he added, noting how long it took for anchors such as Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings to gain the top spot in the ratings. Moonves lured Couric from NBC's Today show in a much-hyped move in 2006 in the hope of reviving the fortunes of the newscast. But efforts to reshape the CBS Evening News around Couric's interviewing strengths and light-hearted manner turned off long-time viewers, executives now admit.
In the last year, the programme has reverted back to a more traditional format, much to Couric's frustration, but the audience has continued to dwindle. This season, the programme has averaged 6.65 million viewers, down 10% from the same point last season, according to Nielsen Media Research. In recent months, CBS executives have contemplated other ways to harness her star power and asked whether she would consider taking the helm of The Early Show, the network's low-rated morning programme, according to people close to the situation. Couric declined the offer.
If Couric left the anchor chair, it remains to be seen whether she would stay at CBS as a correspondent for 60 Minutes or look elsewhere. Her name has been floated as a replacement for Larry King on CNN, but the cable network is not talking to her about the post, according to a knowledgeable source.
On Thursday, speculation about Couric consumed the news division after the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post reported she may leave the anchor chair at the end of the year. "That's the kind of stuff that's been kicking around here, so it seems logical to people," one CBS staffer said. "The depressing part is it feels like we've fallen into a hard news rhythm, and the show was starting to hit its stride. These reports coming out are kind of a punch in the gut."
Frustrated by the program's performance, Couric discussed the possibility of leaving her post several months ago with CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves and CBS News President Sean McManus, according to people familiar with the conversations. In their talks, which centered primarily on ways to bolster the newscast and Couric's profile, the anchor and the executives agreed to table discussion about her future until after the November election, said the people, who stressed that no decisions have been made.
Although the CBS Evening News still lags far behind its competitors on NBC and ABC, news executives are pleased that the broadcast has regained a hard-edged tone and believe that more viewers may tune in as the 2008 presidential election gains steam. "I think our product's as good as anyone's," Moonves said as recently as December, speaking at a media conference. He added about Couric: "I still believe in her. Hardest worker in town."
The anchor herself appears upbeat and deeply engaged, say several CBS News staffers who work regularly with her. On Thursday, Couric was in Washington interviewing Army Gen. David H. Petraeus. "The reality is, it's not the newscast she came to do, and she's disappointed," said a network source close to Couric. "But she's one of those people who says, 'This isn't what I signed up for, but for right now, I'm in it 190%.' "
After the presidential inauguration next January, Couric may consider leaving if the ratings haven't improved, said the source, but added: "She's in the here and now, and focused on right now." Still, many CBS News staffers believe it's likely that Couric will depart the anchor desk well before her $15-million-a-year contract expires in 2011. "Is it possible? Most people would say it's possible," said CBS News national correspondent Byron Pitts. "People here read the news and also keep track of ratings, and they're mindful that it's the measure in this business."
"They also know that it takes years, not months, to turn around a broadcast," he added, noting how long it took for anchors such as Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings to gain the top spot in the ratings. Moonves lured Couric from NBC's Today show in a much-hyped move in 2006 in the hope of reviving the fortunes of the newscast. But efforts to reshape the CBS Evening News around Couric's interviewing strengths and light-hearted manner turned off long-time viewers, executives now admit.
In the last year, the programme has reverted back to a more traditional format, much to Couric's frustration, but the audience has continued to dwindle. This season, the programme has averaged 6.65 million viewers, down 10% from the same point last season, according to Nielsen Media Research. In recent months, CBS executives have contemplated other ways to harness her star power and asked whether she would consider taking the helm of The Early Show, the network's low-rated morning programme, according to people close to the situation. Couric declined the offer.
If Couric left the anchor chair, it remains to be seen whether she would stay at CBS as a correspondent for 60 Minutes or look elsewhere. Her name has been floated as a replacement for Larry King on CNN, but the cable network is not talking to her about the post, according to a knowledgeable source.
On Thursday, speculation about Couric consumed the news division after the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post reported she may leave the anchor chair at the end of the year. "That's the kind of stuff that's been kicking around here, so it seems logical to people," one CBS staffer said. "The depressing part is it feels like we've fallen into a hard news rhythm, and the show was starting to hit its stride. These reports coming out are kind of a punch in the gut."
Judge tosses part of Rather's CBS lawsuit
A New York state Supreme Court judge has tossed out part of Dan Rather's $70-million lawsuit against CBS, dismissing his claims that the network committed fraud and damaged the longtime anchor's ability to seek new work. But Justice Ira Gammerman denied CBS' request to dismiss the entire case, allowing Rather to pursue his claim that CBS broke the terms of his contract by sidelining him after he stepped down from the anchor chair.
In his ruling, the judge threw out four of the claim's seven causes of action, including those that specifically named Viacom Chairman Sumner Redstone, CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward as defendants.
"We're obviously very pleased," said James Quinn, CBS' attorney. "We've said from the beginning that CBS did everything appropriately and paid Mr. Rather every nickel he was owed. It's kind of like a grudge match he couldn't let go."
But Martin Gold, Rather's lead attorney, cast the ruling by the Supreme Court, which is a state trial court, as a victory for the former anchor. "Although not every legal theory of the case survives, as a result of the decision, the court has permitted discovery and a trial of all of the factual issues that form the basis of Mr. Rather's lawsuit," Gold said in a statement. "The essence of the case survives," Gold added in an interview. "This was a defeat for CBS."
Rather sued his former employer in September, alleging that the network sought to use him as a scapegoat for a controversial story that claimed President Bush received preferential treatment during his Vietnam War-era service with the Texas Air National Guard. The piece, which Rather reported on the weekday edition of 60 Minutes, was found to be based on documents that could not be authenticated.
In the ensuing furore, Rather said, CBS sought to minimize his role at the network. The newsman claimed that after he stepped down from CBS Evening News in March 2005, he was sidelined and denied the support staff and airtime his contract guaranteed. His requests to cover Iraq and Afghanistan were shot down.
Along with Rather's breach of contract claim, the judge also allowed his claim that CBS breached its fiduciary duty in its dealings with him to go forward, which Gold called "a major victory for us."
However, Quinn called what remained of the suit a garden-variety contract dispute. "At the end of discovery, it's our intention to move to get rid of the rest of the case," he added.
Further reading: Rather's lawsuit loses steam
In his ruling, the judge threw out four of the claim's seven causes of action, including those that specifically named Viacom Chairman Sumner Redstone, CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward as defendants.
"We're obviously very pleased," said James Quinn, CBS' attorney. "We've said from the beginning that CBS did everything appropriately and paid Mr. Rather every nickel he was owed. It's kind of like a grudge match he couldn't let go."
But Martin Gold, Rather's lead attorney, cast the ruling by the Supreme Court, which is a state trial court, as a victory for the former anchor. "Although not every legal theory of the case survives, as a result of the decision, the court has permitted discovery and a trial of all of the factual issues that form the basis of Mr. Rather's lawsuit," Gold said in a statement. "The essence of the case survives," Gold added in an interview. "This was a defeat for CBS."
Rather sued his former employer in September, alleging that the network sought to use him as a scapegoat for a controversial story that claimed President Bush received preferential treatment during his Vietnam War-era service with the Texas Air National Guard. The piece, which Rather reported on the weekday edition of 60 Minutes, was found to be based on documents that could not be authenticated.
In the ensuing furore, Rather said, CBS sought to minimize his role at the network. The newsman claimed that after he stepped down from CBS Evening News in March 2005, he was sidelined and denied the support staff and airtime his contract guaranteed. His requests to cover Iraq and Afghanistan were shot down.
Along with Rather's breach of contract claim, the judge also allowed his claim that CBS breached its fiduciary duty in its dealings with him to go forward, which Gold called "a major victory for us."
However, Quinn called what remained of the suit a garden-variety contract dispute. "At the end of discovery, it's our intention to move to get rid of the rest of the case," he added.
Further reading: Rather's lawsuit loses steam
CW turn up heat for Gossip Girl
The CW is launching a provocative new campaign for Gossip Girl showing an image of two characters locked in a passionate embrace.The print promo shows Serena van der Woodsen and Nate Archibald (Blake Lively and Chase Crawford) in the throws of passion with the tagline: "OMFG" (Oh my fucking god!) splayed across the page. A tamer version uses "OMG." The image is taken from the show's pilot. Another ad in the series shows two characters making out in the back of limo branded with the ":O" emotion. The ads are designed to promote the return of the programme to original episodes on April 21 after its writers strike-induced hiatus.
Two tantalizing teaser trailers have also been produced for the 'water-cooler' show: a PG-13 version that uses the benign "OMG" on-screen and a decidedly more risqué rendering that consists of a compilation of the series’ sexiest scenes while “sex” and “ladies” are repeated over and over.
The images hit the Internet a few days after the conservative watchdog group Parents Television Council targeted the CW for an anti-indecency campaign. The PTC is encouraging its members to file FCC complaints about a scene on "America's Next Top Model" that showed pixilated nudity.
"We wanted to create a provocative campaign that stands out from the competition and reminds viewers of some of the 'OMG' moments that have made Gossip Girl one of the most buzzed-about new shows on television," the CW said in a statement. "This sexy, sophisticated campaign speaks directly to our adult 18-34 viewers using expressions that are part of their lexicon."
Notes from the fringe
Darren Aronofsky will develop the psychological thriller series Riverview Towers for US cable network AMC, says The Hollywood Reporter. The show focuses on a family that moves into a haunted apartment building. John J. McLaughlin will write the script and Patty Jenkins (Monster) is in talks to direct. Aronofsky will produce the show through his Protozoa production company.
The project marks Aronofsky's first foray into TV. He has previously directed the films Pi, Requiem for a Dream and The Fountain. AMC recently moved into original programming with the critically acclaimed Mad Men and Breaking Bad, about a high school teacher who turns to a life of crime.
In other news, Lost executive producer Jeff Pinkner is joining the new sci-fi series from long-time colleague JJ Abrams. Abrams, who created Lost and previously worked with Pinkner on Alias, is now making a two-hour pilot and 13-part series of Fringe.
The X-Files and Paddy Chayefsky's Altered States with what Abrams calls "a slight Twilight Zone vibe." It will focus on brilliant but possibly crazy research scientist Walter Bishop, his estranged son and a female FBI agent who brings them together. Episodes will explore self-contained mysteries of the paranormal, as well as the relationships between the three leads. "So much of the story is relatable people in extraordinary situations," Abrams said. "The show is definitely a nod to Altered States and Scanners and that whole Michael Crichton/Robin Cook world of medicine and science."
There'll also be an overriding mythology that will come into play from time to time, as well as a healthy dose of humor. "It does the stuff my favourite TV shows and movies do, which is to combine genres that shouldn't fit together," Abrams said. "It's definitely meant to scare the hell out of you, but it's also meant to make you laugh... It pushes all the buttons of things we loved from our childhood." Driving the show will be the Walter Bishop character, a larger-than-life figure who bears some resemblance to the titular character in Fox's House. In the pilot, he's in a mental hospital. "Imagine that your father is Frankenstein mixed with Albert Einstein," Orci said. "He's someone who has the mental ability to solve so many problems but is so different that communicating with them is almost impossible.
Pinkner will be executive producer and showrunner on the project, which follows young FBI agent Olivia Warren and two others as they "confront the spread of unexplained phenomena". The show will star Joshua Jackson (Dawson's Creek) and is expected to air on Fox in the US from September.
Battlestar Galactica star Tricia Helfer has also signed up to a deal with Fox. The talent holding agreement will see her appear in a series for the network, probably a drama, though she has yet to be cast to a particular project.
Marcia Shulman, Fox's head of casting, said she first saw Helfer in Battlestar and last year gave her a role in drama pilot Them. "After we saw the pilot, we were wowed by her," she said. Shulman also praised the actress's performance in movie Walk All Over Me: "She had a pretty remarkable range, she showed vulnerability and strength. She is a star."
Emmy winners Joe and Anthony Russo will direct the Fox drama pilot Courtroom K, Richard Shepard is set to helm ABC's single-camera comedy pilot Bad Mother's Handbook and Dean Parisot will direct ABC's untitled Dave Hemingson drama pilot.
Courtroom K, from 20th TV and Paul Attanasio, is a darkly comedic courtroom drama set in a Milwaukee Superior Court. The Russo brothers won an Emmy for directing the pilot episode of Arrested Development, also for Fox/20th TV. They also were tapped by Fox's entertainment chief Kevin Reilly, then at FX, to helm the pilot for the cable network's comedy pilot Lucky.
Handbook, from ABC Studios, centres on a 32-year-old woman too busy taking care of her 16-year-old daughter and 48-year-old mother. Shepard, who recently directed the film The Hunting Party, also helmed the Ugly Betty pilot for ABC/ABC Studios.
The Hemingson project, from 20th TV, is a legal ensemble dramedy about a newly minted law school grad from a blue-collar background who joins an outrageous Los Angeles boutique law firm. Parisot also directed the pilots for USA's Monk and ABC's The Job.
The project marks Aronofsky's first foray into TV. He has previously directed the films Pi, Requiem for a Dream and The Fountain. AMC recently moved into original programming with the critically acclaimed Mad Men and Breaking Bad, about a high school teacher who turns to a life of crime.
In other news, Lost executive producer Jeff Pinkner is joining the new sci-fi series from long-time colleague JJ Abrams. Abrams, who created Lost and previously worked with Pinkner on Alias, is now making a two-hour pilot and 13-part series of Fringe.
The X-Files and Paddy Chayefsky's Altered States with what Abrams calls "a slight Twilight Zone vibe." It will focus on brilliant but possibly crazy research scientist Walter Bishop, his estranged son and a female FBI agent who brings them together. Episodes will explore self-contained mysteries of the paranormal, as well as the relationships between the three leads. "So much of the story is relatable people in extraordinary situations," Abrams said. "The show is definitely a nod to Altered States and Scanners and that whole Michael Crichton/Robin Cook world of medicine and science."
There'll also be an overriding mythology that will come into play from time to time, as well as a healthy dose of humor. "It does the stuff my favourite TV shows and movies do, which is to combine genres that shouldn't fit together," Abrams said. "It's definitely meant to scare the hell out of you, but it's also meant to make you laugh... It pushes all the buttons of things we loved from our childhood." Driving the show will be the Walter Bishop character, a larger-than-life figure who bears some resemblance to the titular character in Fox's House. In the pilot, he's in a mental hospital. "Imagine that your father is Frankenstein mixed with Albert Einstein," Orci said. "He's someone who has the mental ability to solve so many problems but is so different that communicating with them is almost impossible.
Pinkner will be executive producer and showrunner on the project, which follows young FBI agent Olivia Warren and two others as they "confront the spread of unexplained phenomena". The show will star Joshua Jackson (Dawson's Creek) and is expected to air on Fox in the US from September.
Battlestar Galactica star Tricia Helfer has also signed up to a deal with Fox. The talent holding agreement will see her appear in a series for the network, probably a drama, though she has yet to be cast to a particular project.Marcia Shulman, Fox's head of casting, said she first saw Helfer in Battlestar and last year gave her a role in drama pilot Them. "After we saw the pilot, we were wowed by her," she said. Shulman also praised the actress's performance in movie Walk All Over Me: "She had a pretty remarkable range, she showed vulnerability and strength. She is a star."
Emmy winners Joe and Anthony Russo will direct the Fox drama pilot Courtroom K, Richard Shepard is set to helm ABC's single-camera comedy pilot Bad Mother's Handbook and Dean Parisot will direct ABC's untitled Dave Hemingson drama pilot.
Courtroom K, from 20th TV and Paul Attanasio, is a darkly comedic courtroom drama set in a Milwaukee Superior Court. The Russo brothers won an Emmy for directing the pilot episode of Arrested Development, also for Fox/20th TV. They also were tapped by Fox's entertainment chief Kevin Reilly, then at FX, to helm the pilot for the cable network's comedy pilot Lucky.
Handbook, from ABC Studios, centres on a 32-year-old woman too busy taking care of her 16-year-old daughter and 48-year-old mother. Shepard, who recently directed the film The Hunting Party, also helmed the Ugly Betty pilot for ABC/ABC Studios.
The Hemingson project, from 20th TV, is a legal ensemble dramedy about a newly minted law school grad from a blue-collar background who joins an outrageous Los Angeles boutique law firm. Parisot also directed the pilots for USA's Monk and ABC's The Job.
Fiver to become reality TV central
A raft of new shows - mainly American factual entertainment - are coming to Five Life successor Fiver. The new series will be introduced at the end of the month along with the name change, a redesign and marketing push.
US newcomers include Intervention, about people "whose lives are in crisis due to a dependency on drugs, alcohol or other addictive issues". Five said: "The central characters are forced to confront their darkest demons through an unsolicited intervention from their friends and family."
Twelve-part series Ocean Force follows US lifeguards and coast police as they "handle everything from drunken brawls to dangerous open water rescues, traffic violations to life-threatening injuries". Reality competition The Shot sees ten amateur photographers compete to be given a professional contract.
Five's human interest documentary Hidden Lives will also be moved from the flagship channel to Fiver for its upcoming fourth series. A spinoff of Hotel Inspector has also been commissioned for Fiver. Hotel Inspector Unseen will "delve deeper into the failing hotels" seen in its cousin on Five. Already lined up for Fiver are the second series of US drama Dirt, reality series Celebrity Rehab and repeats of Sex And The City.
Hannah Barnes, director of programmes for Fiver and Five US, said: "I’m delighted to be able to announce this exciting new lineup of commissions and acquisitions for Fiver. Each one is a brilliant addition to the refreshed Fiver schedule."
US newcomers include Intervention, about people "whose lives are in crisis due to a dependency on drugs, alcohol or other addictive issues". Five said: "The central characters are forced to confront their darkest demons through an unsolicited intervention from their friends and family."
Twelve-part series Ocean Force follows US lifeguards and coast police as they "handle everything from drunken brawls to dangerous open water rescues, traffic violations to life-threatening injuries". Reality competition The Shot sees ten amateur photographers compete to be given a professional contract.
Five's human interest documentary Hidden Lives will also be moved from the flagship channel to Fiver for its upcoming fourth series. A spinoff of Hotel Inspector has also been commissioned for Fiver. Hotel Inspector Unseen will "delve deeper into the failing hotels" seen in its cousin on Five. Already lined up for Fiver are the second series of US drama Dirt, reality series Celebrity Rehab and repeats of Sex And The City.
Hannah Barnes, director of programmes for Fiver and Five US, said: "I’m delighted to be able to announce this exciting new lineup of commissions and acquisitions for Fiver. Each one is a brilliant addition to the refreshed Fiver schedule."
New skin for the old ceremony
The executive producer of Skins has confirmed its entire cast will change for the next series. Bryan Elsley said: "There are risks associated with dumping a cast, but we just did it. There was some disquiet at the channel, but then they told us just to go with it. It's exciting - we never stand still and we can tell our stories in a new way."
Speaking at Broadcast's television drama conference, he also confirmed the show would stick to its pattern of introducing college-age characters, moving them on in the next series, then letting them go. "The first year is about getting to know the kids, and the second gives us the advantage of being able to explore their psyches a little more," said Elsley. The show will also continue to use a team of up to 20 writers, including newcomers.
A pair of twins will be among the characters featured in the next series of Skins. Jamie Brittain, the show's co-creator, told Digital Spy that other new characters will include an Eastern European and a new male character who is "a real nasty piece of work". The new group will be centred around Tony's younger sister Effy, who has appeared in the first two series. In addition, the current cast members are unlikely to return in the future, even for guest appearances. Brittain added: "I just can't quite see what the benefit of that would be, other than for them to say 'hi'. We haven't ruled it out, but I think it's unlikely."
Further reading: Skins creator talks finale and new series
Speaking at Broadcast's television drama conference, he also confirmed the show would stick to its pattern of introducing college-age characters, moving them on in the next series, then letting them go. "The first year is about getting to know the kids, and the second gives us the advantage of being able to explore their psyches a little more," said Elsley. The show will also continue to use a team of up to 20 writers, including newcomers.
A pair of twins will be among the characters featured in the next series of Skins. Jamie Brittain, the show's co-creator, told Digital Spy that other new characters will include an Eastern European and a new male character who is "a real nasty piece of work". The new group will be centred around Tony's younger sister Effy, who has appeared in the first two series. In addition, the current cast members are unlikely to return in the future, even for guest appearances. Brittain added: "I just can't quite see what the benefit of that would be, other than for them to say 'hi'. We haven't ruled it out, but I think it's unlikely."
Further reading: Skins creator talks finale and new series
BBC may have to subsidise rivals' public service programmes
The BBC could be forced to hand up to £150 million a year to rival television companies to pay for regional news and children’s programmes. The money could be clawed back from the licence fee to safeguard so-called public service content on commercial television, the communications regulator said yesterday.
The proposals from Ofcom come amid gloomy predictions from the regulator about the future for British television after the switch to digital in 2012. Ed Richards, Ofcom’s chief executive, published projections showing that spending on programmes could tumble from £2.7 billion a year now to £1.1 billion as broadcasters shed audiences and advertisers alike and relied on repeats and American content. “The current system [of funding television] is breaking down,” Mr Richards said, adding that viewers wanted “public service competition to the BBC”, which could be provided by pumping licence fee money, or another form of public money, direct to commercial broadcasters.
Ofcom’s proposal marked the beginning of a review of public service broadcasting, which is likely to form the starting point for a parliamentary Bill shaking up the television industry as it enters the fully digital era. That could mean the biggest alteration in the funding of television since the introduction of the joint radio and television licence fee after the Second World War.
Implementing radical change will prove controversial among most broadcasters, with the BBC opposed to sharing even a small proportion of the £3 billion a year licence fee and ITV sceptical about whether it should take any public money. Only Channel 4, which is worried about its financial future, is keen to take a slice of the licence fee, or any other public cash. Andy Duncan, the chief executive of Channel 4, said: “This is a clear statement about the importance of plurality, of having public service competition to the BBC. We welcome the strong statement about the need for funding, and the new sense of urgency is very welcome.”
Mr Richards said that already some valued types of programming were under threat because of the growing financial pressures on ITV and Channel 4, which are suffering from fragmenting viewing and declining advertising at a time when people can choose from more than 300 channels. Mr Duncan said the problem could best be seen in children’s television, “where we have seen such a reduction in commercial broadcasters spending on children’s television that S4C, the Welsh language channel, is the second-biggest commissioner of children’s programmes after the BBC.”
Ofcom also identified question marks about the funding of regional news at ITV, and in Scotland and Wales, although not Northern Ireland. It said that Channel 4 may need some financial help if it is to survive, a statement that came after a long lobbying campaign by the broadcaster. Ofcom highlighted options for the future structure of Britain’s most popular channels. All placed the BBC at the heart of the system, but differed in the amount of public money that could be available to ITV, Channel 4 and other commercial broadcasters. However, in reality the debate will focus on whether some BBC licence fee or other money should be given to Channel 4, and how far ITV should be allowed to reduce its obligations to show regional programmes , although Mr Richards insisted that “we are not expressing a preference at this stage”.
The strongest criticism of the proposals came from BSkyB, the satellite broadcaster that is 39.1 per cent owned by News Corporation, parent company of The Times.A spokesman said: “Is it necessary to start pouring money into public service broadcasting, when the system is leaking like a sieve? The BBC, for example, uses licence fee money to pay for US programmes — cash that could be saved and spent elsewhere.”
In other news, the most powerful woman in British radio announced yesterday that she would be stepping down from her role as the BBC’s director of audio and music, after four decades at the corporation. Jenny Abramsky, who was ultimately responsible for the appointments and controversial pay packages of key BBC presenters, from Jonathan Ross to Chris Moyles, has been appointed by the Prime Minister to chair the Heritage Lottery Fund.
The proposals from Ofcom come amid gloomy predictions from the regulator about the future for British television after the switch to digital in 2012. Ed Richards, Ofcom’s chief executive, published projections showing that spending on programmes could tumble from £2.7 billion a year now to £1.1 billion as broadcasters shed audiences and advertisers alike and relied on repeats and American content. “The current system [of funding television] is breaking down,” Mr Richards said, adding that viewers wanted “public service competition to the BBC”, which could be provided by pumping licence fee money, or another form of public money, direct to commercial broadcasters.
Ofcom’s proposal marked the beginning of a review of public service broadcasting, which is likely to form the starting point for a parliamentary Bill shaking up the television industry as it enters the fully digital era. That could mean the biggest alteration in the funding of television since the introduction of the joint radio and television licence fee after the Second World War.
Implementing radical change will prove controversial among most broadcasters, with the BBC opposed to sharing even a small proportion of the £3 billion a year licence fee and ITV sceptical about whether it should take any public money. Only Channel 4, which is worried about its financial future, is keen to take a slice of the licence fee, or any other public cash. Andy Duncan, the chief executive of Channel 4, said: “This is a clear statement about the importance of plurality, of having public service competition to the BBC. We welcome the strong statement about the need for funding, and the new sense of urgency is very welcome.”
Mr Richards said that already some valued types of programming were under threat because of the growing financial pressures on ITV and Channel 4, which are suffering from fragmenting viewing and declining advertising at a time when people can choose from more than 300 channels. Mr Duncan said the problem could best be seen in children’s television, “where we have seen such a reduction in commercial broadcasters spending on children’s television that S4C, the Welsh language channel, is the second-biggest commissioner of children’s programmes after the BBC.”
Ofcom also identified question marks about the funding of regional news at ITV, and in Scotland and Wales, although not Northern Ireland. It said that Channel 4 may need some financial help if it is to survive, a statement that came after a long lobbying campaign by the broadcaster. Ofcom highlighted options for the future structure of Britain’s most popular channels. All placed the BBC at the heart of the system, but differed in the amount of public money that could be available to ITV, Channel 4 and other commercial broadcasters. However, in reality the debate will focus on whether some BBC licence fee or other money should be given to Channel 4, and how far ITV should be allowed to reduce its obligations to show regional programmes , although Mr Richards insisted that “we are not expressing a preference at this stage”.
The strongest criticism of the proposals came from BSkyB, the satellite broadcaster that is 39.1 per cent owned by News Corporation, parent company of The Times.A spokesman said: “Is it necessary to start pouring money into public service broadcasting, when the system is leaking like a sieve? The BBC, for example, uses licence fee money to pay for US programmes — cash that could be saved and spent elsewhere.”
In other news, the most powerful woman in British radio announced yesterday that she would be stepping down from her role as the BBC’s director of audio and music, after four decades at the corporation. Jenny Abramsky, who was ultimately responsible for the appointments and controversial pay packages of key BBC presenters, from Jonathan Ross to Chris Moyles, has been appointed by the Prime Minister to chair the Heritage Lottery Fund.
Speaking with forked tongue
Last night's TV reviewed: The Strange Luck of VS Naipaul; Cotton Wool Kids
There's an odd incident in A House for Mr Biswas, by general consent V S Naipaul's masterpiece, which seems to set the pattern for the writer's career. Anand, Mr Biswas's son, has been set a composition at school with the title "A Day by the Seaside". This is Port of Spain, Trinidad, in the 1940s, and though Anand is poor and Indian, he is expected to write about the sort of day that middle-class English people might have. The teacher even writes down acceptable phrases: "feverish preparations – eager anticipation – laden hampers – wind blowing through open car". Instead, Anand describes a day he really had, going down to swim at the docks and nearly drowning. "I opened my mouth to cry for help. Water filled it. I thought I was going to die and I closed my eyes because I did not want to look at the water." The teacher awards him 12 marks out of 10.
Anand is Naipaul himself, and what the incident reveals is a reluctance to settle for sentimental clichés, and an uncluttered, literal view of the world expressed in stark prose. Naipaul's refusal to soften the edges has won him some wealth, a knighthood, the Booker Prize and, in 2001, the Nobel Prize for Literature; but it has also got him a reputation for prickliness and arrogance. Paul Theroux, a friend with whom Naipaul fell out, put the case for the prosecution brilliantly but unreliably in his book Sir Vidia's Shadow (Vidia, short for Vidiadhar, being how he is known), and a number of reviewers of Naipaul's most recent work have been piqued by his haughty dismissal of other writers, his perceived condescension to non-Western cultures. At one point in last night's fine Arena film, The Strange Luck of V S Naipaul, Adam Low, the writer, director and narrator, mentioned a documentary he had made in 1982 about Naipaul's younger brother, Shiva. He had chosen Shiva rather than Vidia largely because he was worried Vidia would make things too difficult. You could see what he meant: at a press conference, Naipaul's impatience with what a silly question slowly blossomed into anger and disdain. (Rather slyly, Low didn't let on what the question was, so we couldn't judge how proportionate or otherwise Naipaul's reaction was.)
The Strange Luck of V S Naipaul showed a different side. "I mustn't sound curmudgeonly," he said early on, and then laughed, as if perfectly aware that there wasn't much hope of that. Throughout, his tone to the camera was warm, occasionally tinged with self-reproach, as when he spoke of his first wife, Pat. Their relationship was, he said, "dry", without passion, which he found instead through visits to prostitutes and a 20-year affair. Recalling Pat's death from cancer, he said he believed she had forgiven him. Though he is seen as lofty, Olympian, when he spoke about his first visit to India in the 1960s, what he recalled was the distress he felt at seeing people living in extreme poverty – he couldn't "establish a distance" between himself and them. "I really am a very gentle person," he said at one point, and "I feel myself it's not in my power to damage other people and other things – those other people can damage me, that's what I feel."
But Low didn't whitewash. That last remark about his powerlessness to damage is humble, perhaps, but also devastating, infantile. Who but children believe that only their own feelings can be hurt? The softness was offset by a kind of solipsism. Diana Athill, his first (and, he claimed, best) editor, said that for a long time she had no idea of Pat's existence – Vidia always said "I", never "we". And his grief-stricken demeanour when talking of the first Lady Naipaul's death was undermined by the present Lady Naipaul, who described how he proposed to her when Pat was still alive: Pat died in the January, her replacement moved in in the February. Lady Naipaul is a natural star, though, a kind of Indian version of Penelope Keith playing Margo Leadbetter, managing to maintain a grand theatricality of tone and gesture while peeling the vegetables.
There was an interesting moment towards the end of the programme when the great writer and his wife, visiting an animal sanctuary in Delhi, are introduced to a frisky green viper that is writhing angrily. Sir Vidia seems to like it, which doesn't surprise Lady Naipaul - he can smell snakes, after all. What did she say? I'm about to rewind, but then he confirms it. "I can smell a snake," he says. "He can smell a snake," Nadira repeats (she does that a lot - says what her husband has just said. He married an echo, but more about her later, she's fabulous). This is astonishing news. VS Naipaul, Nobel prize-winner, regarded by some - certainly by himself - as the greatest living writer in English, can smell a snake. Surely this needs further investigation, at least a question from Low. But no, Naipaul's extraordinary claim is allowed to slip away, unchallenged.
And that is symptomatic of this film. The subject is given a smooth ride, which is OK, except that if anyone deserves a bit of a going-over it's Naipaul. Race, women, prostitutes - they do get a mention, but only briefly. His playground spat with Theroux is largely ignored. Instead Naipaul moans on about his Nobel not being properly recognised in this country, he tells us how he couldn't damage other people, how much he cares for animals, and how wonderful his agent is for quadrupling his earnings. He prattles on about his blasted luck, and small passages from his work are read out - by him, by the wonderful agent, by the wonderful editor. I don't think you can get very much from just a few words of a novel, even if we hear it three times, as we do a passage of Miguel Street. Having the camera pan over the words on the page doesn't help much either. They're difficult things, films about writers.
Yet this one, despite of its flaws, still manages to be absolutely fascinating. And the reason is the subject himself. It's impossible not to astonished by the paradox of VS Naipaul: that someone so fiercely clever, who writes so beautifully and humanely, can be so very unlikable. For that's how he comes across, even without a proper grilling. He is self-possessed and cruel, and feels rejected and misunderstood by people and countries. Much of his life seems to have been about proving people wrong, getting his revenge. I even found myself disliking the way he proposed to Nadira: "Will you consider being Lady Naipaul one day?" Not marry me, or be my wife, but be Lady Naipaul. Married to Sir Vidia, the great writer, knighted for services to literature.
She - the new Lady N - is good value, though. Her job is to big her husband up, to put down the "creeps" who criticise him without even having read him, to clap and squawk as he receives his prizes, to call him darling a lot. And to be his echo. Wandering round the tomb of Mughal Emperor Humayun in Delhi, he's explaining how the building appears to change as the visitor approaches. "You're endlessly playing with the rise and fall of the dome," he says. "... fall of the dome," she echoes. And she does it the whole time - when she realises what he's about to say, she joins in. Maybe she thinks some of his wisdom will pass over to her. Or that by doing so she's emphasising what he's saying - a walking, talking confirmation. Lots and lots of talking. It's Nadira who finds the green snake in the animal-rescue centre. "Darling, come and look at this. Look at that, darling - darling, look at that."
And so we learn that VS Naipaul can smell snakes. Actually, it's not entirely surprising, coming as it does towards the end of the film, after we've watched him for an hour. He could be described as ursine, his eyes twinkling mischievously in his whiskered face. (Is it possible that the whole thing, all this bad behaviour and prickliness, is a big joke at our expense?) But, more accurately, everything about the way he is, his slippery poisonousness, is serpentine. If he stuck his tongue out - into Lady Naipaul's ear possibly - I wouldn't be surprised if it were forked.
What do you think parents worry about?” film-maker Joshua Neale asked a gaggle of eager pre-teens in Cotton Wool Kids (Channel 4). “Kidnappers… murderers… rapists… people climbing up our walls,” came the confident responses. Neale’s film was subtitled Tales of Modern Childhood and its subject was how children today have little of the innocence or freedom that their parents enjoyed growing up 30 or 40 years ago. Not exactly pastures new, then, but the approach was fresh and jolly. Largely played out in the eyes and words of children, the film was really about their over-protective parents.
So let’s do an experiment: take two groups of humans beings, one adult and one child, and subject them to a torture regime. We’ll force them to live in captivity, subject them to hours of Grand Theft Auto, and feed them paranoid fantasies of the most disturbing kind. These were the conditions shown to be a norm of overprotected modern childhood last night. As the cameras panned from one gloomy interior to another, interviewing families who kept themselves voluntarily banged up all day for fear of monsters, fast cars, and teenagers, I think we were meant to feel sorry for the children. But the children were doing just fine – in the way that wild animals do just fine at Chessington Zoo. OK, so you felt a bit bad for them – they were a bit fat, a bit bored, and a bit too obsessed with a lost girl called Madeleine, but basically OK. What I thought was going to be a depressing portrait of pale, sad-eyed youths was actually an extremely funny send-up of their ridiculous jailers. We need to stop worrying about the kids and start making more shows like this that exploit the comedy value in a crazily neurotic parent.
Because some parents have no interest in relaxation, only in permanent high alert. Take one mother who kept her nine-year-old daughter closeted all day playing on the computer. On a rare excursion to the supermarket, she delivered an educational chat for her child. Where others might have pointed out the nice clouds, this woman pointed out an innocent pedestrian. “See that man?” she said to her daughter, barely suppressing the terror in her voice. “He’s a stranger isn’t he?” Yes, her daughter dutifully replied, he was a stranger. That meant, her mother continued, her voice rising to screeching pitch, that there was a good chance he was a killer, paedophile or kidnapper. The poor bloke wasn’t even wearing an anorak.
Next it was the turn of 13-year-old Sid, who was indeed the victim of a stalker. Except in this case, the stalker was his dad. The few minutes of any day when Sid was out of custody, he was prowled by his creepy father, cruising after him in his car, neck craned for signs of his prisoner. Ten-year-old Harry’s pals had stopped calling round because he wasn’t allowed out of the house to play. “‘What if?’ That’s our problem,” said his dad. Essex mum Toni wanted her daughters microchipped (just as soon as the technology becomes available) so she can track them down in the event of their being snatched. And restaurant owner Adel spent so much time watching over his son that 13-year-old Siad likened him to a stalker.
The subtext was that although these cases may sound exceptional, they’re not. Statistics were hauled out about how in 1971 most eight-year-olds travelled alone to school, but only one in 10 does now. And while three quarters of parents believe that there has been a sharp increase in child murders by strangers in recent years, actually the rate of these rare crimes hasn’t changed in two decades. But as we all know, statistics will never convince a concerned parent they’re not right to be worried. With no sense of irony, these parents stated that their children didn’t have “enough experience of the world” to be allowed out. Yet these children were far more mature and responsible about risk than their jittery elders, who were stuck in childish fantasies about bogeymen under the bed. Hasn’t it always been this way, with generations constantly reacting against one another? The wild baby-boomer teenagers rebelled against their upright 1950s parents, just as the children of Thatcher infuriated and dismayed the ageing baby-boomers.
Casting a long shadow over this film was the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. And not just for parents. Every child here could quote some detail of her case and for them the name “Maddie” appeared to summon up the same kind of fears that “bogeyman” did for generations past. The final frames featured Siad on his first solo bus journey to school, having convinced his dad that he was mature enough to venture out alone. “Standing at the bus stop I felt really responsible,” Siad said. It was one of those “aw, shucks” moments you get in countless coming-of-age movies but the age-old point was well made: no matter how much you swaddle them, they’ll have to stand on their own two feet eventually.
There's an odd incident in A House for Mr Biswas, by general consent V S Naipaul's masterpiece, which seems to set the pattern for the writer's career. Anand, Mr Biswas's son, has been set a composition at school with the title "A Day by the Seaside". This is Port of Spain, Trinidad, in the 1940s, and though Anand is poor and Indian, he is expected to write about the sort of day that middle-class English people might have. The teacher even writes down acceptable phrases: "feverish preparations – eager anticipation – laden hampers – wind blowing through open car". Instead, Anand describes a day he really had, going down to swim at the docks and nearly drowning. "I opened my mouth to cry for help. Water filled it. I thought I was going to die and I closed my eyes because I did not want to look at the water." The teacher awards him 12 marks out of 10.
Anand is Naipaul himself, and what the incident reveals is a reluctance to settle for sentimental clichés, and an uncluttered, literal view of the world expressed in stark prose. Naipaul's refusal to soften the edges has won him some wealth, a knighthood, the Booker Prize and, in 2001, the Nobel Prize for Literature; but it has also got him a reputation for prickliness and arrogance. Paul Theroux, a friend with whom Naipaul fell out, put the case for the prosecution brilliantly but unreliably in his book Sir Vidia's Shadow (Vidia, short for Vidiadhar, being how he is known), and a number of reviewers of Naipaul's most recent work have been piqued by his haughty dismissal of other writers, his perceived condescension to non-Western cultures. At one point in last night's fine Arena film, The Strange Luck of V S Naipaul, Adam Low, the writer, director and narrator, mentioned a documentary he had made in 1982 about Naipaul's younger brother, Shiva. He had chosen Shiva rather than Vidia largely because he was worried Vidia would make things too difficult. You could see what he meant: at a press conference, Naipaul's impatience with what a silly question slowly blossomed into anger and disdain. (Rather slyly, Low didn't let on what the question was, so we couldn't judge how proportionate or otherwise Naipaul's reaction was.)
The Strange Luck of V S Naipaul showed a different side. "I mustn't sound curmudgeonly," he said early on, and then laughed, as if perfectly aware that there wasn't much hope of that. Throughout, his tone to the camera was warm, occasionally tinged with self-reproach, as when he spoke of his first wife, Pat. Their relationship was, he said, "dry", without passion, which he found instead through visits to prostitutes and a 20-year affair. Recalling Pat's death from cancer, he said he believed she had forgiven him. Though he is seen as lofty, Olympian, when he spoke about his first visit to India in the 1960s, what he recalled was the distress he felt at seeing people living in extreme poverty – he couldn't "establish a distance" between himself and them. "I really am a very gentle person," he said at one point, and "I feel myself it's not in my power to damage other people and other things – those other people can damage me, that's what I feel."
But Low didn't whitewash. That last remark about his powerlessness to damage is humble, perhaps, but also devastating, infantile. Who but children believe that only their own feelings can be hurt? The softness was offset by a kind of solipsism. Diana Athill, his first (and, he claimed, best) editor, said that for a long time she had no idea of Pat's existence – Vidia always said "I", never "we". And his grief-stricken demeanour when talking of the first Lady Naipaul's death was undermined by the present Lady Naipaul, who described how he proposed to her when Pat was still alive: Pat died in the January, her replacement moved in in the February. Lady Naipaul is a natural star, though, a kind of Indian version of Penelope Keith playing Margo Leadbetter, managing to maintain a grand theatricality of tone and gesture while peeling the vegetables.
There was an interesting moment towards the end of the programme when the great writer and his wife, visiting an animal sanctuary in Delhi, are introduced to a frisky green viper that is writhing angrily. Sir Vidia seems to like it, which doesn't surprise Lady Naipaul - he can smell snakes, after all. What did she say? I'm about to rewind, but then he confirms it. "I can smell a snake," he says. "He can smell a snake," Nadira repeats (she does that a lot - says what her husband has just said. He married an echo, but more about her later, she's fabulous). This is astonishing news. VS Naipaul, Nobel prize-winner, regarded by some - certainly by himself - as the greatest living writer in English, can smell a snake. Surely this needs further investigation, at least a question from Low. But no, Naipaul's extraordinary claim is allowed to slip away, unchallenged.
And that is symptomatic of this film. The subject is given a smooth ride, which is OK, except that if anyone deserves a bit of a going-over it's Naipaul. Race, women, prostitutes - they do get a mention, but only briefly. His playground spat with Theroux is largely ignored. Instead Naipaul moans on about his Nobel not being properly recognised in this country, he tells us how he couldn't damage other people, how much he cares for animals, and how wonderful his agent is for quadrupling his earnings. He prattles on about his blasted luck, and small passages from his work are read out - by him, by the wonderful agent, by the wonderful editor. I don't think you can get very much from just a few words of a novel, even if we hear it three times, as we do a passage of Miguel Street. Having the camera pan over the words on the page doesn't help much either. They're difficult things, films about writers.
Yet this one, despite of its flaws, still manages to be absolutely fascinating. And the reason is the subject himself. It's impossible not to astonished by the paradox of VS Naipaul: that someone so fiercely clever, who writes so beautifully and humanely, can be so very unlikable. For that's how he comes across, even without a proper grilling. He is self-possessed and cruel, and feels rejected and misunderstood by people and countries. Much of his life seems to have been about proving people wrong, getting his revenge. I even found myself disliking the way he proposed to Nadira: "Will you consider being Lady Naipaul one day?" Not marry me, or be my wife, but be Lady Naipaul. Married to Sir Vidia, the great writer, knighted for services to literature.
She - the new Lady N - is good value, though. Her job is to big her husband up, to put down the "creeps" who criticise him without even having read him, to clap and squawk as he receives his prizes, to call him darling a lot. And to be his echo. Wandering round the tomb of Mughal Emperor Humayun in Delhi, he's explaining how the building appears to change as the visitor approaches. "You're endlessly playing with the rise and fall of the dome," he says. "... fall of the dome," she echoes. And she does it the whole time - when she realises what he's about to say, she joins in. Maybe she thinks some of his wisdom will pass over to her. Or that by doing so she's emphasising what he's saying - a walking, talking confirmation. Lots and lots of talking. It's Nadira who finds the green snake in the animal-rescue centre. "Darling, come and look at this. Look at that, darling - darling, look at that."
And so we learn that VS Naipaul can smell snakes. Actually, it's not entirely surprising, coming as it does towards the end of the film, after we've watched him for an hour. He could be described as ursine, his eyes twinkling mischievously in his whiskered face. (Is it possible that the whole thing, all this bad behaviour and prickliness, is a big joke at our expense?) But, more accurately, everything about the way he is, his slippery poisonousness, is serpentine. If he stuck his tongue out - into Lady Naipaul's ear possibly - I wouldn't be surprised if it were forked.
What do you think parents worry about?” film-maker Joshua Neale asked a gaggle of eager pre-teens in Cotton Wool Kids (Channel 4). “Kidnappers… murderers… rapists… people climbing up our walls,” came the confident responses. Neale’s film was subtitled Tales of Modern Childhood and its subject was how children today have little of the innocence or freedom that their parents enjoyed growing up 30 or 40 years ago. Not exactly pastures new, then, but the approach was fresh and jolly. Largely played out in the eyes and words of children, the film was really about their over-protective parents.
So let’s do an experiment: take two groups of humans beings, one adult and one child, and subject them to a torture regime. We’ll force them to live in captivity, subject them to hours of Grand Theft Auto, and feed them paranoid fantasies of the most disturbing kind. These were the conditions shown to be a norm of overprotected modern childhood last night. As the cameras panned from one gloomy interior to another, interviewing families who kept themselves voluntarily banged up all day for fear of monsters, fast cars, and teenagers, I think we were meant to feel sorry for the children. But the children were doing just fine – in the way that wild animals do just fine at Chessington Zoo. OK, so you felt a bit bad for them – they were a bit fat, a bit bored, and a bit too obsessed with a lost girl called Madeleine, but basically OK. What I thought was going to be a depressing portrait of pale, sad-eyed youths was actually an extremely funny send-up of their ridiculous jailers. We need to stop worrying about the kids and start making more shows like this that exploit the comedy value in a crazily neurotic parent.
Because some parents have no interest in relaxation, only in permanent high alert. Take one mother who kept her nine-year-old daughter closeted all day playing on the computer. On a rare excursion to the supermarket, she delivered an educational chat for her child. Where others might have pointed out the nice clouds, this woman pointed out an innocent pedestrian. “See that man?” she said to her daughter, barely suppressing the terror in her voice. “He’s a stranger isn’t he?” Yes, her daughter dutifully replied, he was a stranger. That meant, her mother continued, her voice rising to screeching pitch, that there was a good chance he was a killer, paedophile or kidnapper. The poor bloke wasn’t even wearing an anorak.
Next it was the turn of 13-year-old Sid, who was indeed the victim of a stalker. Except in this case, the stalker was his dad. The few minutes of any day when Sid was out of custody, he was prowled by his creepy father, cruising after him in his car, neck craned for signs of his prisoner. Ten-year-old Harry’s pals had stopped calling round because he wasn’t allowed out of the house to play. “‘What if?’ That’s our problem,” said his dad. Essex mum Toni wanted her daughters microchipped (just as soon as the technology becomes available) so she can track them down in the event of their being snatched. And restaurant owner Adel spent so much time watching over his son that 13-year-old Siad likened him to a stalker.
The subtext was that although these cases may sound exceptional, they’re not. Statistics were hauled out about how in 1971 most eight-year-olds travelled alone to school, but only one in 10 does now. And while three quarters of parents believe that there has been a sharp increase in child murders by strangers in recent years, actually the rate of these rare crimes hasn’t changed in two decades. But as we all know, statistics will never convince a concerned parent they’re not right to be worried. With no sense of irony, these parents stated that their children didn’t have “enough experience of the world” to be allowed out. Yet these children were far more mature and responsible about risk than their jittery elders, who were stuck in childish fantasies about bogeymen under the bed. Hasn’t it always been this way, with generations constantly reacting against one another? The wild baby-boomer teenagers rebelled against their upright 1950s parents, just as the children of Thatcher infuriated and dismayed the ageing baby-boomers.
Casting a long shadow over this film was the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. And not just for parents. Every child here could quote some detail of her case and for them the name “Maddie” appeared to summon up the same kind of fears that “bogeyman” did for generations past. The final frames featured Siad on his first solo bus journey to school, having convinced his dad that he was mature enough to venture out alone. “Standing at the bus stop I felt really responsible,” Siad said. It was one of those “aw, shucks” moments you get in countless coming-of-age movies but the age-old point was well made: no matter how much you swaddle them, they’ll have to stand on their own two feet eventually.
Thursday 10 April 2008
Entourage imposter preys on women
The cast of Entourage have been rocked by claims an imposter is preying on ladies claiming he created the hit show, before he tries to get them into the sack.
TMZ.com reports the man is pretending to be Entourage creator Doug Ellin to try to get into girls' pants - and he's apparently proficient enough that a note went out to agents and actors last month warning them against him.
An official statement reads:
One veteran manager told TMZ.com that the fake Ellin called him back in 2006 wanting to meet a specific and very hot female client of his that very night for a role for the upcoming season of the show. "The guy knew more than enough about the show, and Mark Wahlberg, and particular members of the crew to convince me," says this manager.
He also knew the name of Ellin's assistant, casting peeps and future storylines.
The fake Ellin has allegedly asked starlets if they'd be comfortable sleeping with another woman on camera, then whether they'd ever done that in real life - and other very personal questions.
A source says HBO hasn't tracked the guy down yet, and the network had no comment.
TMZ.com reports the man is pretending to be Entourage creator Doug Ellin to try to get into girls' pants - and he's apparently proficient enough that a note went out to agents and actors last month warning them against him.
An official statement reads:
It has been brought to our attention that a man claiming to be Doug Ellin is
calling agents and actors alike about auditioning opportunities for Entourage.
Please be aware that this IS NOT DOUG ELLIN. Our producers will never call
you directly unless this has been facilitated through the casting office
first.
We are sorry for any inconvenience this has caused and a we're making a strong
effort to resolve this issue asap.
Thank you,
Entourage Casting
One veteran manager told TMZ.com that the fake Ellin called him back in 2006 wanting to meet a specific and very hot female client of his that very night for a role for the upcoming season of the show. "The guy knew more than enough about the show, and Mark Wahlberg, and particular members of the crew to convince me," says this manager.
He also knew the name of Ellin's assistant, casting peeps and future storylines.
The fake Ellin has allegedly asked starlets if they'd be comfortable sleeping with another woman on camera, then whether they'd ever done that in real life - and other very personal questions.
A source says HBO hasn't tracked the guy down yet, and the network had no comment.
Upcoming season will be last for Corner Gas
After six years of pumping gas, pouring coffee and pontificating about life and love, the Corner Gas gang is packing it in. The hit CTV comedy, one of the most successful Canadian sitcoms ever made, is coming to an end after the upcoming sixth season, the show's star and creator, Brent Butt, announced today.
The final 19-episode season, about the happenings at a small-town gas station in the fictional town of Dog River, Sask., begins shooting next month in Saskatchewan, with the series' finale airing some time in the spring of 2009. “It's a very difficult decision, but the right decision, and one I felt I had to make,” Butt said in a news release.
“When I told CTV about my decision, they made it clear that they were keen to do more seasons. They didn't want it to end yet. But for the good of the show, I wanted to exit gracefully, on top of our game, when we're at our prime — because that's how I want viewers to remember Corner Gas: at its very best.”
Corner Gas has been a ratings winner for CTV for years and has won numerous Gemini awards. It also airs in syndication in countries around the world, including Australia and the United States, where it outperforms shows like Heroes and Prison Break on the cable channel Superstation WGN.
CTV's Susanne Boyce lauded the show.
“This is not goodbye, it's see you later,” she said. “Brent and his team have accomplished something that has never been achieved before. They said it couldn't be done, but Corner Gas did it anyway. The series has paved the way for other Canadian productions by proving that if you make great TV, Canadians will watch.”
Corner Gas, which also stars Eric Peterson, is shot entirely in Saskatchewan and will end its run on its 107th episode.
The final 19-episode season, about the happenings at a small-town gas station in the fictional town of Dog River, Sask., begins shooting next month in Saskatchewan, with the series' finale airing some time in the spring of 2009. “It's a very difficult decision, but the right decision, and one I felt I had to make,” Butt said in a news release.
“When I told CTV about my decision, they made it clear that they were keen to do more seasons. They didn't want it to end yet. But for the good of the show, I wanted to exit gracefully, on top of our game, when we're at our prime — because that's how I want viewers to remember Corner Gas: at its very best.”
Corner Gas has been a ratings winner for CTV for years and has won numerous Gemini awards. It also airs in syndication in countries around the world, including Australia and the United States, where it outperforms shows like Heroes and Prison Break on the cable channel Superstation WGN.
CTV's Susanne Boyce lauded the show.
“This is not goodbye, it's see you later,” she said. “Brent and his team have accomplished something that has never been achieved before. They said it couldn't be done, but Corner Gas did it anyway. The series has paved the way for other Canadian productions by proving that if you make great TV, Canadians will watch.”
Corner Gas, which also stars Eric Peterson, is shot entirely in Saskatchewan and will end its run on its 107th episode.
Slings & Arrows finds new beginning in Brazil
Renowned director Fernando Meirelles has purchased the rights to adapt and broadcast the cult Canadian series Slings & Arrows in his home country of Brazil.
In an interview yesterday at Toronto's Soho Hotel, the Sao Paulo-based Meirelles explained that he fell in love with the quirky ensemble drama after Rhombus Media's Niv Fichman sent him the first season.
"Niv had sent me some examples of his previous work to convince me to be involved in Blindness [an upcoming feature film starring Mark Ruffalo and Julianne Moore]," said Meirelles, who was Oscar-nominated for his 2002 film City of God. "I watched the first one, and then I watched the remaining five [episodes], one after the other. I called him back and said, 'Niv, it's fantastic.' He sent me the second and third seasons, and I loved them even more than the first one."
The 52-year-old Meirelles has started casting Slings & Arrows in his country. The show, which he anticipates will be run as a 12-part miniseries over the same number of nights, will air on TV Globo, Brazil's No. 1 network watched by roughly 80 million people daily. Yesterday, Fichman said he found Meirelles's interest in the Brazilian rights, both "flattering and funny.
"When he called, he asked me if I thought [this deal] would be possible? If it would be very expensive [for him to buy the rights]?" says Fichman, laughing, whose Toronto company has produced features films such as The Red Violin and the Emmy-winning Yo-Yo Ma Inspired by Bach. "I said, 'Fernando, I can tell you one thing. Money is not going to be the issue here.' "
Fichman's Canadian cast - including big names such as William Hutt, Paul Gross, Martha Burns, Rachel McAdams, Don McKellar, Susan Coyne and Bob Martin - all worked for scale on the production. "I'm not going to make any money in Brazil doing this," concurs Meirelles, an observation that prompts Fichman to quip: "You can say that none of us are getting rich off this. But it's such a wonderful thing, and such a natural way, for us to continue our collaboration."
Blindness is expected to hit theatres in Brazil in mid-September and in North America Oct. 13. The Brazilian version of Slings & Arrows will start shooting in early July, and Meirelles expects TV Globo to air the miniseries in November.
When Slings & Arrows was conceived, even its creators and writers - actor-playwright Coyne, Kids in the Hall alumnus Mark McKinney and Martin, co-author of the current Broadway hit The Drowsy Chaperone - did not expect it would have a very broad audience. After all, it got off to a rocky start - green-lit by the CBC and then dropped before ever being produced, the drama finally found a home with TMN and Movie Central. Showcase also later found a berth for the fledgling show, which eventually was picked up in the United States on the Sundance Channel, where it earned Entertainment Weekly's vote as the year's best TV import.
In Canada, it picked up numerous Gemini awards during its three seasons. In the U.S., it was favourably received by television critics at The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and The New York Times, which dubbed it "absolutely addictive."
Slings & Arrows is focused on the wacky folk who work at the beleaguered New Burbage Theatre Festival (modelled on the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Stratford, Ont.). Meirelles translated the script into Portuguese. He has had to cut about 10 minutes from each episode "because our [broadcast] time slots are shorter." He also tinkered a bit with some characters, taking into account obvious cultural differences.
He said he hopes Slings & Arrows will "bring some fresh air to Brazilian television. "While our television is very good, technically, the quality of the programs is going down and down," said Meirelles, whose film The Constant Gardener netted Rachel Weisz an Academy Award for best supporting actress. "We only see very popular programmes, like soap operas, which are well done, but terrible - really unwatchable for me. This is intelligent and funny. News of the series just broke in Sao Paulo and I'm already getting e-mail from quality actors in my country who are very interested."
Fichman says it has been bizarre how, in Canada, the series developed several life-imitates-art twists. He points out that McAdams in the first season played an ingénue who went on to become a movie star. Hutt was the actor playing the doomed King Lear in the series and, sadly, passed away shortly after Slings & Arrows' final season. Most recently, he notes the management troubles at Stratford (last month, two of the festival's senior co-directors abruptly quit, leaving general director Antoni Cimolino to do damage control), eerily mirrored the upheaval that was commonplace at the New Burbage company.
Meirelles cast three Canadian Slings & Arrows alumni - Burns, Coyne and McKellar - in Blindness, a film based on the harrowing book of the same name by Portuguese Nobel Prize-winning author Jose Saramago. The film - a fierce and fantastical story of a blindness pandemic that eviscerates society - has an international cast that also includes Canadians Maury Chaykin and Sandra Oh, American Danny Glover, Japanese heartthrob Yusuke Iseya and Mexico's Gael Garcia Bernal.
The history of Slings & Arrows:
Timeline
Late 1998: Producer Tecca
Crosby and writer Susan Coyne bring the concept for the show
to Rhombus in late 1998.
1999-2000: Mark McKinney
and Bob Martin join the
writing team.
February, 2002: Showcase, Movie Central and TMN
green-light Season 1.
Late 2003: Season 1
premieres on Movie Central and TMN, and continues for another two seasons, through to 2006.
Mid-2005: Season 1
premieres on Showcase and Sundance Channel (USA).
Awards 13 Gemini Awards, including best dramatic series, best direction, best writing, and wins for actors Paul Gross, Rachel McAdams, Mark McKinney and Martha Burns.
Also the recipient of Director's Guild of Canada Awards, Canadian Screenwriting Awards and ACTRA Awards (2004-2007).
Accolades outside Canada
"Consistently engaging and it's often painful and gorgeous." - Virginia Heffernan in The New York Times
"Thank the Canadians, whose second-class status in North America seems to have led them to endure the (sorry, can't resist) slings and arrows of outrageous fortune with a bracing sense of good humour."- Newsday's Diane Werts
In an interview yesterday at Toronto's Soho Hotel, the Sao Paulo-based Meirelles explained that he fell in love with the quirky ensemble drama after Rhombus Media's Niv Fichman sent him the first season.
"Niv had sent me some examples of his previous work to convince me to be involved in Blindness [an upcoming feature film starring Mark Ruffalo and Julianne Moore]," said Meirelles, who was Oscar-nominated for his 2002 film City of God. "I watched the first one, and then I watched the remaining five [episodes], one after the other. I called him back and said, 'Niv, it's fantastic.' He sent me the second and third seasons, and I loved them even more than the first one."
The 52-year-old Meirelles has started casting Slings & Arrows in his country. The show, which he anticipates will be run as a 12-part miniseries over the same number of nights, will air on TV Globo, Brazil's No. 1 network watched by roughly 80 million people daily. Yesterday, Fichman said he found Meirelles's interest in the Brazilian rights, both "flattering and funny.
"When he called, he asked me if I thought [this deal] would be possible? If it would be very expensive [for him to buy the rights]?" says Fichman, laughing, whose Toronto company has produced features films such as The Red Violin and the Emmy-winning Yo-Yo Ma Inspired by Bach. "I said, 'Fernando, I can tell you one thing. Money is not going to be the issue here.' "
Fichman's Canadian cast - including big names such as William Hutt, Paul Gross, Martha Burns, Rachel McAdams, Don McKellar, Susan Coyne and Bob Martin - all worked for scale on the production. "I'm not going to make any money in Brazil doing this," concurs Meirelles, an observation that prompts Fichman to quip: "You can say that none of us are getting rich off this. But it's such a wonderful thing, and such a natural way, for us to continue our collaboration."
Blindness is expected to hit theatres in Brazil in mid-September and in North America Oct. 13. The Brazilian version of Slings & Arrows will start shooting in early July, and Meirelles expects TV Globo to air the miniseries in November.
When Slings & Arrows was conceived, even its creators and writers - actor-playwright Coyne, Kids in the Hall alumnus Mark McKinney and Martin, co-author of the current Broadway hit The Drowsy Chaperone - did not expect it would have a very broad audience. After all, it got off to a rocky start - green-lit by the CBC and then dropped before ever being produced, the drama finally found a home with TMN and Movie Central. Showcase also later found a berth for the fledgling show, which eventually was picked up in the United States on the Sundance Channel, where it earned Entertainment Weekly's vote as the year's best TV import.
In Canada, it picked up numerous Gemini awards during its three seasons. In the U.S., it was favourably received by television critics at The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and The New York Times, which dubbed it "absolutely addictive."
Slings & Arrows is focused on the wacky folk who work at the beleaguered New Burbage Theatre Festival (modelled on the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Stratford, Ont.). Meirelles translated the script into Portuguese. He has had to cut about 10 minutes from each episode "because our [broadcast] time slots are shorter." He also tinkered a bit with some characters, taking into account obvious cultural differences.
He said he hopes Slings & Arrows will "bring some fresh air to Brazilian television. "While our television is very good, technically, the quality of the programs is going down and down," said Meirelles, whose film The Constant Gardener netted Rachel Weisz an Academy Award for best supporting actress. "We only see very popular programmes, like soap operas, which are well done, but terrible - really unwatchable for me. This is intelligent and funny. News of the series just broke in Sao Paulo and I'm already getting e-mail from quality actors in my country who are very interested."
Fichman says it has been bizarre how, in Canada, the series developed several life-imitates-art twists. He points out that McAdams in the first season played an ingénue who went on to become a movie star. Hutt was the actor playing the doomed King Lear in the series and, sadly, passed away shortly after Slings & Arrows' final season. Most recently, he notes the management troubles at Stratford (last month, two of the festival's senior co-directors abruptly quit, leaving general director Antoni Cimolino to do damage control), eerily mirrored the upheaval that was commonplace at the New Burbage company.
Meirelles cast three Canadian Slings & Arrows alumni - Burns, Coyne and McKellar - in Blindness, a film based on the harrowing book of the same name by Portuguese Nobel Prize-winning author Jose Saramago. The film - a fierce and fantastical story of a blindness pandemic that eviscerates society - has an international cast that also includes Canadians Maury Chaykin and Sandra Oh, American Danny Glover, Japanese heartthrob Yusuke Iseya and Mexico's Gael Garcia Bernal.
The history of Slings & Arrows:
Timeline
Late 1998: Producer Tecca
Crosby and writer Susan Coyne bring the concept for the show
to Rhombus in late 1998.
1999-2000: Mark McKinney
and Bob Martin join the
writing team.
February, 2002: Showcase, Movie Central and TMN
green-light Season 1.
Late 2003: Season 1
premieres on Movie Central and TMN, and continues for another two seasons, through to 2006.
Mid-2005: Season 1
premieres on Showcase and Sundance Channel (USA).
Awards 13 Gemini Awards, including best dramatic series, best direction, best writing, and wins for actors Paul Gross, Rachel McAdams, Mark McKinney and Martha Burns.
Also the recipient of Director's Guild of Canada Awards, Canadian Screenwriting Awards and ACTRA Awards (2004-2007).
Accolades outside Canada
"Consistently engaging and it's often painful and gorgeous." - Virginia Heffernan in The New York Times
"Thank the Canadians, whose second-class status in North America seems to have led them to endure the (sorry, can't resist) slings and arrows of outrageous fortune with a bracing sense of good humour."- Newsday's Diane Werts
ER is back on the operating table
ER is not DOA.
When the long-running medical drama returns Thursday night with the first of six spring episodes, its future is known: The ensemble drama that made a star out of George Clooney will return for a 15th and final season in the fall.
ER executive producer John Wells confirmed that the final season will be 19 episodes, including a possible two-hour finale at the end of February. The season will air over consecutive weeks, without reruns, culminating with the finale.
"This just feels right," Wells told Canwest News Service. "I've been involved with any number of series where the network let us know we weren't going to be able to continue, and we couldn't wrap it up the way we wanted to had we known in advance. This way, we do know."
The once quick-paced medical drama, a cultural lightning rod when it debuted in 1994 in the same week as Friends, was said to be on life support when Hollywood writers went on strike last November. Rumours of its death were greatly exaggerated, however. When ER returns in the fall, the cast ensemble will feature a number of new faces, as well as the early retirement of several veterans.
Maura Tierney, who has played hard-luck nurse-turned-doctor Abby Lockhart since ER's sixth season, will be gone after a few episodes. Goran Visnjic, who plays Abby's husband, troubled surgeon and Bosnian war survivor Luka Kovac, will also leave. Parminder Nagra, Linda Cardellini and John Stamos will all return. Mekhi Phifer's status is still up in the air.
Wells said he hopes former cast members will return for ER's send-off. Other than Noah Wyle, though, who is committed to appear in at least four episodes, none have been confirmed. There had been speculation that original cast member Anthony Edwards, whose character Mark Greene died of brain cancer in ER's eighth season, might return in a dream sequence, possibly in the series finale. But Wells said that was just talk at this point. "I'm not quite sure where that rumour came from," Wells said. "People aren't going to come back unless -- and some people may not come back at all, under any circumstances -- they know exactly what we're asking them to do. And we haven't figured that out yet. Over the summer I'll start contacting people again."
Tierney admitted to feelings of bittersweetness about saying goodbye to the program that has been her home for nearly 10 years. She is ER's longest surviving regular cast member; her battered, emotionally bruised character had long been identified as ER's heart and soul. "I feel very fortunate to have been a part of this," Tierney said, quietly. "I'll want to take something iconic, on my last day. I will not be taking my scrubs with me."
Thursday's episode is the first new episode of ER since Jan. 17. The story, "Owner of a Broken Heart," focuses on turmoil in the surgeons' and medical interns' private lives, and hints at serious life changes to come. Aida Turturro and Hal Holbrook will appear in guest roles in future episodes, but Thursday's episode focuses on the regular players.
Ironically, when ER debuted, it aired just one day after another medical drama, David E. Kelley's Chicago Hope, also made its debut. Chicago Hope lasted just six seasons, however. When ER retires, it will be just four years younger than Law & Order, presently in its 18th season. Gunsmoke holds the record as television's longest-running prime time drama series, with 20 seasons.
ER earned a near-record 26 Emmy nominations in its debut season, a total surpassed only by NYPD Blue, with 27. ER holds the record for most Emmy nominations overall, with 120, three more than Cheers. ER won the Emmy for best drama just once, however, in 1996.
Wells is philosophical about ER finally calling it a day.
ER is leaving on its own terms, he said: Even though it's one of the most expensive programs on TV to make -- $13 million an episode during the Clooney-Edwards years -- and even though last fall's weekly average audience of nine million viewers was well off its 1995 peak of 32 million, ER has life in it yet. "I wanted to make sure we're going out while we're still strong, rather than waiting until we had stayed too long at the party," Wells said. "I wanted to be able to do it right."
Elsewhere, John Stamos has reportedly rejected an offer to star in an ER spinoff. The actor, who has played paramedic-turned-intern Tony Gates since 2006, said he did not want the commitment of his own show. NBC and Warner Brothers are believed to have approached him to ascertain his feelings about a new project. An insider told the New York Daily News: "Stamos wasn't having it. He's not interested in being locked into a contract right now. He's got other options open."
ER returns Thursday on CTV and NBC at 10 ET/PT.
When the long-running medical drama returns Thursday night with the first of six spring episodes, its future is known: The ensemble drama that made a star out of George Clooney will return for a 15th and final season in the fall.
ER executive producer John Wells confirmed that the final season will be 19 episodes, including a possible two-hour finale at the end of February. The season will air over consecutive weeks, without reruns, culminating with the finale.
"This just feels right," Wells told Canwest News Service. "I've been involved with any number of series where the network let us know we weren't going to be able to continue, and we couldn't wrap it up the way we wanted to had we known in advance. This way, we do know."
The once quick-paced medical drama, a cultural lightning rod when it debuted in 1994 in the same week as Friends, was said to be on life support when Hollywood writers went on strike last November. Rumours of its death were greatly exaggerated, however. When ER returns in the fall, the cast ensemble will feature a number of new faces, as well as the early retirement of several veterans.
Maura Tierney, who has played hard-luck nurse-turned-doctor Abby Lockhart since ER's sixth season, will be gone after a few episodes. Goran Visnjic, who plays Abby's husband, troubled surgeon and Bosnian war survivor Luka Kovac, will also leave. Parminder Nagra, Linda Cardellini and John Stamos will all return. Mekhi Phifer's status is still up in the air.Wells said he hopes former cast members will return for ER's send-off. Other than Noah Wyle, though, who is committed to appear in at least four episodes, none have been confirmed. There had been speculation that original cast member Anthony Edwards, whose character Mark Greene died of brain cancer in ER's eighth season, might return in a dream sequence, possibly in the series finale. But Wells said that was just talk at this point. "I'm not quite sure where that rumour came from," Wells said. "People aren't going to come back unless -- and some people may not come back at all, under any circumstances -- they know exactly what we're asking them to do. And we haven't figured that out yet. Over the summer I'll start contacting people again."
Tierney admitted to feelings of bittersweetness about saying goodbye to the program that has been her home for nearly 10 years. She is ER's longest surviving regular cast member; her battered, emotionally bruised character had long been identified as ER's heart and soul. "I feel very fortunate to have been a part of this," Tierney said, quietly. "I'll want to take something iconic, on my last day. I will not be taking my scrubs with me."
Thursday's episode is the first new episode of ER since Jan. 17. The story, "Owner of a Broken Heart," focuses on turmoil in the surgeons' and medical interns' private lives, and hints at serious life changes to come. Aida Turturro and Hal Holbrook will appear in guest roles in future episodes, but Thursday's episode focuses on the regular players.
Ironically, when ER debuted, it aired just one day after another medical drama, David E. Kelley's Chicago Hope, also made its debut. Chicago Hope lasted just six seasons, however. When ER retires, it will be just four years younger than Law & Order, presently in its 18th season. Gunsmoke holds the record as television's longest-running prime time drama series, with 20 seasons.
ER earned a near-record 26 Emmy nominations in its debut season, a total surpassed only by NYPD Blue, with 27. ER holds the record for most Emmy nominations overall, with 120, three more than Cheers. ER won the Emmy for best drama just once, however, in 1996.
Wells is philosophical about ER finally calling it a day.
ER is leaving on its own terms, he said: Even though it's one of the most expensive programs on TV to make -- $13 million an episode during the Clooney-Edwards years -- and even though last fall's weekly average audience of nine million viewers was well off its 1995 peak of 32 million, ER has life in it yet. "I wanted to make sure we're going out while we're still strong, rather than waiting until we had stayed too long at the party," Wells said. "I wanted to be able to do it right."
Elsewhere, John Stamos has reportedly rejected an offer to star in an ER spinoff. The actor, who has played paramedic-turned-intern Tony Gates since 2006, said he did not want the commitment of his own show. NBC and Warner Brothers are believed to have approached him to ascertain his feelings about a new project. An insider told the New York Daily News: "Stamos wasn't having it. He's not interested in being locked into a contract right now. He's got other options open."
ER returns Thursday on CTV and NBC at 10 ET/PT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
