Tag Archives: TV

Who Knew Watching Paint Dry Could Be Sexy?

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

“Hey, let’s throw it up on the wall and let’s see if this sticks!” It’s long seemed to be the mantra of the television executive but, increasingly, it appears that we’re buying whatever they’re selling. Mainly because no matter what the product is, the packaging is sexy, and sex sells on TV!

We’re now into the summer season, at time where re-runs once ruled the roost. But now, especially with the proliferation of reality television, no topic seems to be taboo – and ideas that would once be laughed out of the pitch room are now being embraced by TV execs and the viewing public alike.

There once was a day when Bob Vila was toiling away in relative obscurity on PBS and Wok With Yan was a guilt pleasure, enjoyed by a select few. But now, the digital channel revolution seems to have opened the spigot on this type of programming and a deluge of copycat shows are flooding various networks.

No matter where I turn, there’s another home renovation show, all with just a slightly different twist on the others. Let’s switch houses! Let’s rebuild a restaurant! Let’s let the kids re-do their rooms! Let’s show somebody organizing someone else’s house! Organizing someone else’s house? When did filing become must-see T.V. The adage “As exciting as watching paint dry,” used to have a negative connotation – but now we have entire networks dedicated to doing just that! And it’s not just the channels dedicated to this type of programming that are jumping on the stylishly redesigned bandwagon – even CNN is dabbling in business makeover programs!

Cooking shows have enjoyed a similar popularity surge. We’re now at the point where the term celebrity chef is no longer an oxymoron and some have even attained sex symbol status. And millions of us watch these shows – spending hours enjoying not just the finished result, whether it’s a home or a meal. But it’s not just the beauty of the room or the dish we’re appreciating – it’s the beauty of the host or hostess.

Case in point is the summer hit Dancing with the Stars. Essentially, it’s ballroom dancing (with a dash of other styles) being served up to the mass market. But we’re watching it – I’m watching it! And why? What’s making it succeed? Sex.

As a society, we like watching beautiful people. It’s what we do. It’s why our magazine racks are filled with countless gossip magazines and it’s why there are a million and one interchangeable Entertainment Tonight-esque shows on TV. It’s also why I’m watchingDancing with the Stars. I’ll be honest, I’m not the world’s biggest dance fan. And, although I find myself mildly entertained by this show (and channeling an inner critic I didn’t know I had – as if my two left feet could do any better), the fact is that I – and many of my brethren – am watching this show for prurient interests. Hello Kelly Monaco, I’m talking to you.

The TV executives know we’re slaves to our libido. It’s why the masses know who Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson are, but other women – who actually have some sort of talent that doesn’t extend to wearing a halter top – toil in relative obscurity. We live in a time where a beautiful woman can sell millions of records without actually being able to hit a note – paging Ms. Lopez – and when ballroom dancing can be a success as long as you put a few beautiful people in skimpy dance costumes.

It works for both genders. Ty Pennington, who’s biggest talent appears to be the ability to annoy, is a bona-fide sex symbol, know more for his abs than his proficiency with a hammer. No matter how much lip service we pay to the idea that it’s what’s inside that counts, when push comes to shove we want good-looking entertainment.

Sex sells. Embracing that idea is how we know reality and specialty TV is maturing. Check out the rosters of shows like Survivor and the Amazing Race – they’re inordinately skewed towards the buff and beautiful, aspiring actors and models. The majority of the stars of cooking, design, and makeover shows are not just easy-going, they’re easy on the eyes. That’s because TV execs realize that we want a filtered reality. We don’t want to see everyday people in extraordinary situations – we still want reality wrapped up in a pretty package. And that’s why we’ll watch ballroom dancing if there’s a hot guy or girl doing it!

So, to all you aspiring actors and actresses out there, no matter what idea you have for a TV show, pitch it. Because, more and more, it doesn’t matter if the idea’s good – it’s only important that you look good doing it.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Hands Off My Memories, Molly Ringwald!

Leave a reply

June 9, 2005 — Really, I don’t know about you, but I know I’ve been sleeping better this week knowing that one of life’s great, unsolved mysteries has come to a close. No, I’m not talking about Mark Felt finally revealing himself to be Deep Throat – I’m talking about the eternal mystery of what ever happened to Samantha Baker!

The uncertainties that have plagued the masses will finally come to an end. Now we will be able to answer those important life questions such as: What every happened to Long Duc Dong? Did Sam pick Jake Ryan or Blaine McDonnagh? Did Farmer Ted and Duckie ever find love?

Or am I getting my John Hughes/Molly Ringwald movies mixed up?

Recent wire reports have shown that Ringwald – now 37 – would like to reprise the role of Samantha Baker in a sequel to the 1984 film Sixteen Candles. She claims that there’s been interest in the past, but it was only recently that she read a script that met her satisfaction and she wanted to star in the movie.

”I’ve turned it down for years. I couldn’t see how it would work,” she said. “Now, it seems right.”

Maybe it’s the cynic in me, but why do I read that quote and see, “OK, I’m so far out of the public eye that I’ve got a standing offer for a spot on the Surreal Life, and my bank account is dwindling rapidly – can I please get a paycheque??”

How often do we see these actors, who are desperately clinging to past glories, decide to sell their souls for one more kick at the can. And why do we, as the buying public, allow our pleasant childhood memories to be ruined by actors pillaging their past in search of the almighty dollar?

Ringwald, and her “Where Are They Now?” compatriots always pay lip service to spending time at home, doing theatre, or whatever other occupation they can come up with to justify their time out of the spotlight. But, despite these high-minded pursuits, they’re seemingly always willing to shed their pretentious airs (almost as fast as whatever scraps of dignity they hold on to) the second a shot at the big time comes around again.

And we, the viewers, are left with the empty feeling and tarnished memories.

Whether you liked John Hughes or not, his movie-making prowess cut a rather wide swath over the popular culture scene in the 80s. Beyond the aforementioned Ringwald star vehicles, Hughes brought Ferris Bueller, the Breakfast Club, and Some Kind of Wonderful to the silver screen. His ability in visualizing a common voice for 80’s youth is almost enough to give him a pass for infesting the world with not one, not two, not three, not four – but five, count ‘em, five Beethoven movies. Almost.

But the thought of revisiting Pretty in Pink would seem to signify a career nadir for all involved — after all, those are pretty shallow waters in which to be fishing for inspiration. People who grew up with these movies are generally polarized in their opinions of them. You either loved Molly growing up you didn’t – and I certainly fell into the latter.

However, I AM a child of the ‘80s. In retrospect, those movies – whether I liked them or not – are part of the fabric from which my popular culture reference is woven. And what those movies — and others like them from that time period – stand up on is not outstanding acting, rich writing, or complicated plots, but rather they are propped up by fond memories, nostalgia, and our general romanticizing of our past.

How often have you held a fond remembrance for a show in your heart, only to have its memory tainted upon a viewing several years later? I used to love TV’s The Greatest American Hero and V – until I saw them again recently. The reality couldn’t stand up to my memories, and a part of my youthful enjoyment was lost.

You would think that we’d have come up with a cure for Sequelitis, but we keep getting afflicted with the disease time after time, bad remake after bad remake. Instead of heeding the once-bitten, twice-shy adage, we desperately cling to the hope that this time, truly, Hollywood will be able to recapture the magic.

But it’s an impossible dream. That magic is borne of a combination of our youth, our memories, and the mollifying effect of time. No matter what strides and advances movie making has made over the years, they’ll never be able to harness the power of our memories.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Reality Check

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Reality TV turned five years old this week, and while it’s still experiencing some growing pains, it’s certainly not the unruly red-headed stepchild that the critics make it out to be.

While the reality genre extends back into the 1970s, the modern era of reality began back on March 31, 2000 with the original cast of Survivor. At the time, reality TV was confined to MTV-Real-Worldeque shows, but Richard Hatch and his gang of merry – and backstabbing – men and women captivated a mass audience like never before.

Once again, a TV show became water cooler talk. People had their favourites, joined office pools, gathered at each other’s homes for Survivor parties. And each and every week people sat riveted to the actions of 16 average Americans stranded on Puala Tiga.

Just as quickly as Survivor-fever spread, so too did the critics of the genre proliferate. And, as more and more networks and shows jumped on the Reality TV bandwagon, the louder and more vociferous the expressed distain for the genre became.

As it stands now, people either love Reality TV or look down their noses at it. Worst of all, the criticism of this particular style of television extends towards its viewers’ collective intelligence. It’s been referred to as mindless and the signal that the end of culture is upon us.

But, essentially, Reality TV is no different than any other genre. The pseudo-intellectual snobs may look down on TV as a whole, but the fact of the matter is that TV is a significant component of our society’s lifestyle. Those that say that TV is not as worthwhile as theatre are missing the point that TV is simply an evolution of the theatre-going impulse. As a society, we have a need to see our lives reflected back to us, either in the form of comedy or drama. This is no different than the citizens of Ancient Greece going to hear speeches, or those who live in Shakespeare’s time heading to the theatre for the latest play.

It’s all about entertainment, and TV had brought the message to the masses, instead of the masses – and usually the affluent – having to travel to the message itself. It’s no worse or better than its predecessor, and it certainly doesn’t prevent you from picking up a book or going to a play from time to time. In fact, critics of TV are just as myopic in their view as those who only watch TV. Being well-rounded in today’s world means having an appreciation for all media.

While people feel free to lump the good and the bad of Reality into one big pile, they don’t see the need to do the same for scripted shows. It’s unfair to quality Reality shows like The Amazing Race, which pays respect to the cultures and unique aspects of each country it visits, to lump it in with The Bachelor or Britney & Kevin’s mind-numbingly painful show. But to neglect the good shows simply because of the abundance of bad in the genre is akin to throwing out the CSI’s because of the existence of Walker, Texas Ranger. They’re both police shows, but I don’t hear anyone using Chuck Norris as their standard-bearer for the cop drama.

In fact, scripted TV is as bad – if not worse – than its Reality cousin when it comes to recycling the same idea. At least Reality understands that having a unique twist is the only way to carve a niche in the marketplace. Scripted TV sees the success of one show and then heads right away to the photocopier with the latest script. Take a turn around the dial and how many times will you see the same three or four types of shows? How many comedies follow the formula of “take one heavy guy, add one hot wife, throw in a precocious kid or two, shake and serve”?

Don’t forget the sheer volume created by the Law and Order and CSI franchises – the TV market is saturated with police, legal, and investigative copycats. Add to that the cookie-cutter medical dramas and the argument that scripted drama is more valid than Reality flies out the window.

But reality is in danger of falling into that same rut. The makeover show concept is spreading like cockroaches. You can’t turn to any station without seeing someone’s home, restaurant, or life getting remade. It seems that literally watching paint dry has become a viable option. But obviously there’s a market for this type of repetition, just like there is for recycled situation comedies and formulaic dramas.

Reality isn’t even reality. It’s a heavily-edited version of reality that is fed to us in small bites. True reality would be cutting a hole in the wall between you and your neighbour’s house so that you can watch each other sitting on the couch in your boxers. But that’s not the Reality that people want. They want everyday people put into extraordinary situations, they want conflict, and – most of all – they want to be entertained.

Different is the key in all genres. Desperate Housewives succeeded because it was so unique to what was on the networks. And, those of us with cable know there’s an entire world of programming out there to satisfy everyone’s taste.

And, most importantly, you have the ultimate power in what you watch. The remote is in your hand – no one’s forcing you to watch something you don’t want to watch. Change the channel, find something new.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Whither or Wither the CBC? Look to Quebec for Inspiration

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Black Monday has come and gone. The axe has swung and the jobs of 33 TV and radio public relations employees have been lopped off in its swath. Yet, this is clearly a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face, because the CBC’s problems run much deeper than ineffective public relations.

The Canadian Broadcasting Commission – its English wing — has been at a crossroads for years, ineffectively balancing the desire to be both an educator and an entertainer. But now it’s long past time to pick a lane and stick to it, because trying to be something to everyone has resulted in the CBC being nothing to most.

Oh, how it pains me to say this, but maybe it’s time for the CBC to stop presenting Canadian shows simply because they’re Canadian, and let the strong survive. OK, here we go: Canadian Content regulations are bad. They need to be stopped, and the CBC needs to be at the vanguard of this change.

Whew, that feels better. And I don’t feel less patriotic at all. The fact of the matter is that CanCon regulations encourage mediocrity. Why aspire to create a better show, or why try to make something entertaining when you’ll get your exposure and funding as long as you can show you’re from the Great White North?

The CBC and the CRTC’s CanCon regulations are intended to improve and support our Canadian artistic community. What they end up doing is providing it a crutch upon which to lean and, as such, so why would one learn how to walk on their own when there’s no need? Well, that’s if the CBC would actually show a Canadian drama.

Dr. Who ? Coronation Street? What, did we get recolonized? Is it part of the Commonwealth agreement that we have to show British shows each and every evening? Then, in Prime Time, we’re inundated with mini-series, movies, and the odd Canadian drama. What? Have we given up the fight already? Is the competition from the American networks, CTV, and Global so stiff that they give up already?

If that’s the case, why even keep up the pretense of being a viable commercial entity and simply go the route of PBS? And is there anything wrong with that? PBS has a dedicated, passionate viewership that actually invests itself into the station. If the CBC has given up the fight against its commercial brethren, would this not be a better alternative for our Public Broadcaster? Not everyone has to play on the same field. Let CTV and Global continue to brand themselves as nothing more than American extensions into the Great White North (even the most noted CanCon, the wildly – an inexplicably – popular Canadian Idol, is just a cheap knock-off of the American, and British, phenomenon) and the CBC can merrily go on its way and explore the best and brightest of Canadiana, without the pressures or expectations brought about by those middling ratings and advertising requirements.

In fact, we’re already there to a large extent. Some people wear the CBC like a badge of honour. They intersperse their conversations with references to the witticisms uttered on Radio One, or they giddily recount a skit presented on the Mercer Report – usually to an audience of blank stares. Maybe those CBC viewers can commiserate with their US counterparts who regale their colleagues with the latest discovery outlined on Nova to a less-than-enthusiastic response. It has become a niche broadcaster trying to appeal to a mass market.

But, better yet, why doesn’t CBC English try to compete against the commercial big boys? The CBC can turn its attention east and look to its French language sister station, Radio-Canada, for inspiration. They’ve actually developed buzz-worthy shows including: La Fureur, a karaoke-style competition that features noted Quebecois artists; Toute le Monde en Parle, an entertaining talk show that Ralph Benmergui and Alan Thicke could only dream of hosting; and Virginie, a soap opera that ISN’T imported from England!!!

The key thing that SRC has been able to do is encourage the development of a French-Canadian star system. Sure, at times it seems that every film, every TV show, and every radio drive-time show is filled with the same people, but these people are supported by the community. Their images are plastered all over the province’s entertainment magazines, and their shows and films are wildly successful.

And SRC doesn’t need no stinkin’ CRTC regulations. Even if the CanCon restrictions were lifted, that doesn’t mean that the airwaves would be flooded with imports from France. Quebec-produced shows would continue to survive and flourish because the viewers enjoy not only the stars involved in the show, but the quality and excitement of the shows.

It’s not a question of highbrow versus lowbrow, because SRC – and its sister news station RDI – also produce a tonne of exciting, dynamic, and informative news and magazine-style programs that appeal to an intellectually stimulated demographic. They truly do offer something for everyone and they’re not afraid to push the edges of the envelope. Whereas, the CBC seems to want to do anything it can to avoid offending the ex-pats or the conservative (small c, please) taxpayer.

The CBC needs to be effectively edgy, and by that I mean it needs to create shows and personalities that appeal to the targeted demographic. There are few things worse than seeing an advertisement aimed at today’s youth that just butchers the rap genre, simply because some stuffed suit decided that he or she could “get down with the kids,” and provide them with something “from the street.” Maybe if the street we’re talking about is Sussex Drive, but not when you’re trying to appeal to today’s media-savvy generation.

Commercial success for the CBC can be done – all they need to do is brush up on their French and tune in. Of course, even if they did make these changes for the better, who would be left to promote it?

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Sports Watching With my Wife

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Forget The Apprentice. If you want to see real wheeling and dealing at its finest, then look no further than the average household when the great debate is on. I’m not talking about politics or religion – no, the great debate in my house, and many others like it, revolves around one question – “Honey, can I watch the game tonight?”

To all you single men out there, please consider strongly any desire you may have to settle down if sports is really and truly a priority. Fortunately, I love my wife more than I love sports – but that doesn’t really make things any easier.

In my youth, I was the biggest sports fan around. I could rhyme of meaningless statistics, name the Stanley Cup winners from the past 50 years – in order, and talk insightfully about any number of sporting topics. My TV could have had only two channels, but as long as it picked up Hockey Night in Canada and TSN, I was a happy man.

Now, my TV has over 200 channels, we have time-shifting, and world broadcasts – yet it seems that somehow my wife has been able to install an S-chip without me even knowing it! I knew about V-chips that blocked violence from your screen, but I had no idea that there was a chip in development that eliminates even the hint of athleticism from the airwaves. At times, the most athletic activity that graces our screen is when the homeowners dash to their neighbours’ house in Trading Spaces…

I know there are other husbands just like me. In fact, I’ve seen them at work. When our single brethren ask us if we catch the game, our eyes shift about, we mumble something semi-coherent about being busy last night, and wonder to ourselves how it all came down to this. If we’re lucky, we’ll sneak a couple of minutes of highlights, or you’ll see us lingering in the TV section of the store on shopping excursions.

And this time of year is especially torturous. With Canadian and NFL football dominating the airwaves, basketball on its way, and hockey… well, during a normal year… we feel the same way as we do when we lose the car in a parking lot – we know what we’re looking for is nearby, but we can’t find our way to it! Like Tantalus, what we want is maddeningly close, but just out of reach.

I’ve tried to share my enthusiasm with sports with my wife, but she grew up in a household where organized sports weren’t a part of everyday life. So, try as I might, I can’t get her to see the joys of sport. “It’s just a bunch of overgrown man grabbing and hitting each other,” she’ll say.

I’ll try to explain the intricacies of football, or illustrate the speed and beauty of hockey, or get her to appreciate the athleticism of basketball players, but the response is the same. I suppose if the players went off and redesigned their dressing rooms between periods it would be a different story.

My favourite line of hers is, “Well, you watched sports today.” As if all manner of athletics can be lumped into one athletic stew to be ladled out judiciously. And I, like a modern-day Oliver Twist, must humbly hold up my remote saying, “Please ma’am, may I have some more?”

I am thankful to have two TVs, but that can be both a blessing and a curse. First, the bigger TV is never available for sports – I think it may be allergic to them. And when I ask why my wife won’t go in our bedroom to the smaller TV, the answer is invariably, “Well, that one doesn’t get all the channels.”

So, you may say, what’s the problem? Just get up and go to the other TV. Which is an option, but – as you may recall from a couple of paragraphs above – I do love my wife and enjoy spending time with her, so that’s not an option I’d really like to pursue.

Like an athlete in his older years, the game begins to get away from us. Yet, the joys of family far outstrip the pleasures derived from sports. Priorities change and the more important things in life come into focus as we mature. So, while I may look back fondly on my youthful engorgement in sports, I wouldn’t trade a moment of it for what I have today.

But the second she drops that remote…

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved