By the way...
For those of you who've been curious about Zen Noir (still available for purchase on our website!), you will I'm sure be delighted to know that it is at last available for rental on Netflix.
And just to make things extra-easy, here's a link straight to it. Because I'm nice that way, y'see.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Peas Blaze Significantly
Ignoring for the moment the other controversy surrounding the New York Times, I will note that last Sunday they published a piece asking the question "Is PBS Still Necessary?" Written by Charles McGrath, former editor of the Times's Book Review, the piece manages to mostly avoid the old conservatives-hate-PBS nonsense, and focuses instead on whether, in the cable era, PBS is still relevant. Okay, fair question. Let's look at it.
Ratings - McGrath writes,
But what he doesn't tell us is anything about how those ratings numbers change over time. Do they show a steady decline to this 1.4 million number? Or are there peaks and valleys? It's entirely possible that he has picked the lowest number of a valley and claimed it as representative of PBS's ratings--just as it's equally possible that he picked the highest number of a peak. There's no way to tell from this article. (And of course I'm altogether too lazy to go and find out.)
So on the question of ratings, I can only look at my own experience. Yes, there was a long period when I watched very little of what was on PBS. Cable channels had indeed stolen my attention away. But the funny thing is that lately, I've been finding my way back (which is probably why I chose to write this today). It wasn't a conscious decision--it just happened on its own. I would flip through channels looking for something interesting, and more and more it would be something on PBS. Not new shows, either, so I don't think it's a result of programming changes to attract bigger audiences, I think it's just that my own tastes have brought me back to what was always there. This is why I ask what the ratings trends are, since I clearly see in my own viewing habits just the sort of valley and peak I was talking about. And as far as I'm concerned, PBS is on the uptick.
Content - After a quick survey of PBS's involvement in the culture wars, McGrath writes,
Funny thing, though: "NewsHour" is one of the programs I've recently rediscovered. True enough, the program looks like a dinosaur in the modern visual age, with a complete absence of the sort of visual flair you can find on even mid-market local newscasts. But that's exactly why I've rediscovered it: I've been watching more news programming, what with the presidential campaign and all, and it took very little time for me to grow--well, disgusted is the only word I can use for network content. I used to be a big Peter Jennings fan but of course he's gone, and even on the best of the current crop, NBC's program with Brian Williams, the news floats by like that paper bag in American Beauty: beautiful in its strange little way, but as soon as the wind dies down it's just a scrap of trash again.
No, NewsHour, with musty old Jim Lehrer, is news for adults. It covers more in sixty minutes than CNN does in 24 hours, with no frills, just a whole lot of content. And on Fridays there is the best public-affairs program on television, Bill Moyers Journal. The other night, Moyers did an eye-opening interview with former NPR journalist Sarah Chayes on Afghanistan that would, if there was any justice at all, entirely change the conversation on what's happening over there. An overview, plus a complete transcript, can be found on the Journal's website, and is completely worth your time. Believe me: if you want to know what's actually going on in the world, Bill Moyers is your man. (Which is of course exactly why the conservatives in power hate him so much.)
McGrath also takes a potshot at what used to be called "Masterpiece Theatre" but is now simply "Masterpiece," writing that PBS is "so strapped for cash that ['Masterpiece'] has pretty much settled into an all-Jane Austen format." Which is, again, a cherry-picking of a single recent offering, a slate of Jane Austen adaptations, some new and some repeats like the fabulous Pride and Prejudice adaptation of ten years ago with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. But of course "Masterpiece" also ran, about a year ago, a brilliant BBC adaptation of Bleak House that in fact entirely undercuts McGrath's argument--because this Bleak House ran on PBS, not on its cable competitor BBC America, which you would think would be a natural conduit for BBC content such as this.
Similarly, just this past week I've been engrossed by Henry Louis Gates, Jr.'s African American Lives 2, which is not on BET or any other cable channel, but on PBS. I'm grateful to have it on any channel--but here, once again, is PBS bringing me something incredibly enriching that I didn't even know I wanted to see till I saw it.
The glaring omissison - I can't quote what he gets most wrong, because he simply never touches on it at all, even though it remains PBS's greatest, most enduring strength: Sesame Street is simply not mentioned. Which I think speaks for itself.
On the other hand - McGrath also notes,
Added, ten minutes later - Just as I finished revising this entry, my iTunes library (which has almost 9,000 tracks) randomly chose to play "The Prince of Denmark's March" by Jeremiah Clarke, which of course happens to be the music used as the intro for "Masterpiece Theatre." Weird.
Ratings - McGrath writes,
The average PBS show on prime time now scores about a 1.4 Nielsen rating, or roughly what the wrestling show “Friday Night Smackdown” gets.
But what he doesn't tell us is anything about how those ratings numbers change over time. Do they show a steady decline to this 1.4 million number? Or are there peaks and valleys? It's entirely possible that he has picked the lowest number of a valley and claimed it as representative of PBS's ratings--just as it's equally possible that he picked the highest number of a peak. There's no way to tell from this article. (And of course I'm altogether too lazy to go and find out.)
So on the question of ratings, I can only look at my own experience. Yes, there was a long period when I watched very little of what was on PBS. Cable channels had indeed stolen my attention away. But the funny thing is that lately, I've been finding my way back (which is probably why I chose to write this today). It wasn't a conscious decision--it just happened on its own. I would flip through channels looking for something interesting, and more and more it would be something on PBS. Not new shows, either, so I don't think it's a result of programming changes to attract bigger audiences, I think it's just that my own tastes have brought me back to what was always there. This is why I ask what the ratings trends are, since I clearly see in my own viewing habits just the sort of valley and peak I was talking about. And as far as I'm concerned, PBS is on the uptick.
Content - After a quick survey of PBS's involvement in the culture wars, McGrath writes,
Scanning the PBS lineup, in fact, it’s hard to detect much of a bias toward anything at all, except possibly mustiness. Except for “Antiques Roadshow,” all the prime-time stalwarts — “The NewsHour,” “Nova,” “Nature,” “Masterpiece” — are into their third or fourth decade, and they look it.
Funny thing, though: "NewsHour" is one of the programs I've recently rediscovered. True enough, the program looks like a dinosaur in the modern visual age, with a complete absence of the sort of visual flair you can find on even mid-market local newscasts. But that's exactly why I've rediscovered it: I've been watching more news programming, what with the presidential campaign and all, and it took very little time for me to grow--well, disgusted is the only word I can use for network content. I used to be a big Peter Jennings fan but of course he's gone, and even on the best of the current crop, NBC's program with Brian Williams, the news floats by like that paper bag in American Beauty: beautiful in its strange little way, but as soon as the wind dies down it's just a scrap of trash again.
No, NewsHour, with musty old Jim Lehrer, is news for adults. It covers more in sixty minutes than CNN does in 24 hours, with no frills, just a whole lot of content. And on Fridays there is the best public-affairs program on television, Bill Moyers Journal. The other night, Moyers did an eye-opening interview with former NPR journalist Sarah Chayes on Afghanistan that would, if there was any justice at all, entirely change the conversation on what's happening over there. An overview, plus a complete transcript, can be found on the Journal's website, and is completely worth your time. Believe me: if you want to know what's actually going on in the world, Bill Moyers is your man. (Which is of course exactly why the conservatives in power hate him so much.)
McGrath also takes a potshot at what used to be called "Masterpiece Theatre" but is now simply "Masterpiece," writing that PBS is "so strapped for cash that ['Masterpiece'] has pretty much settled into an all-Jane Austen format." Which is, again, a cherry-picking of a single recent offering, a slate of Jane Austen adaptations, some new and some repeats like the fabulous Pride and Prejudice adaptation of ten years ago with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. But of course "Masterpiece" also ran, about a year ago, a brilliant BBC adaptation of Bleak House that in fact entirely undercuts McGrath's argument--because this Bleak House ran on PBS, not on its cable competitor BBC America, which you would think would be a natural conduit for BBC content such as this.
Similarly, just this past week I've been engrossed by Henry Louis Gates, Jr.'s African American Lives 2, which is not on BET or any other cable channel, but on PBS. I'm grateful to have it on any channel--but here, once again, is PBS bringing me something incredibly enriching that I didn't even know I wanted to see till I saw it.
The glaring omissison - I can't quote what he gets most wrong, because he simply never touches on it at all, even though it remains PBS's greatest, most enduring strength: Sesame Street is simply not mentioned. Which I think speaks for itself.
On the other hand - McGrath also notes,
"...and that’s not to mention pledge programs, the fund-raising equivalent of water-boarding."Granted. No argument from me there.
Added, ten minutes later - Just as I finished revising this entry, my iTunes library (which has almost 9,000 tracks) randomly chose to play "The Prince of Denmark's March" by Jeremiah Clarke, which of course happens to be the music used as the intro for "Masterpiece Theatre." Weird.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Well, Yay
So the strike is over. Pardon me while I quietly stand for a moment and say: "Yippee."
The terms aren't ideal, but on a macro level, the most important elements of the deal were resolved in the writers' favor. As an example, if I'm reading this correctly, a formula was created for internet content whereby writers will receive a percentage of distributor's gross revenue--something about which the producers definitely had their backs up. What it means, in brief, is that money generated by a program on the internet will get split with its writers--money that is usually generated mostly through advertising. The producers kept claiming that writers have never taken a direct share of advertising money before (that point is arguable--depends on how you define revenues from commercials) and that they shouldn't now; but it appears the producers caved on that point.
The overriding thing is this: everybody went back to work today. Jon Stewart should have his writers improving his show as soon as tonight (and he needs them...), CBS has already announced return dates for 14 of their shows, and I'm sure that every production company in town has been buried under phone calls. We've got some calls to make ourselves... to see whether any of the people we were talking to before the strike are still employed. (We already know of a couple who were fired, meaning we're basically back to square one with those companies. So it goes.)
The Screen Actors Guild is next, with a contract expiration date of June 30th. Some A-list talent (George Clooney, Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep and so forth) are already agitating for early negotiations with the producers, in hopes of getting all the issues resolved way in advance without any risk of work slowdowns. (It's been standard practice for months now to make sure that any production will be done by June 30th.)
I figure that SAG will indeed get their issues resolved pretty quickly, or at least well in advance of June 30th. Between the DGA and WGA deals, there's already a fair consensus over what the new numbers look like in Hollywood. There shouldn't be too much left for the actors to have to wrangle over.
So there we are. Something very like success for my dear writer friends, and now everyone leaps back to work with a vengeance. Well, yay.
The terms aren't ideal, but on a macro level, the most important elements of the deal were resolved in the writers' favor. As an example, if I'm reading this correctly, a formula was created for internet content whereby writers will receive a percentage of distributor's gross revenue--something about which the producers definitely had their backs up. What it means, in brief, is that money generated by a program on the internet will get split with its writers--money that is usually generated mostly through advertising. The producers kept claiming that writers have never taken a direct share of advertising money before (that point is arguable--depends on how you define revenues from commercials) and that they shouldn't now; but it appears the producers caved on that point.
The overriding thing is this: everybody went back to work today. Jon Stewart should have his writers improving his show as soon as tonight (and he needs them...), CBS has already announced return dates for 14 of their shows, and I'm sure that every production company in town has been buried under phone calls. We've got some calls to make ourselves... to see whether any of the people we were talking to before the strike are still employed. (We already know of a couple who were fired, meaning we're basically back to square one with those companies. So it goes.)
The Screen Actors Guild is next, with a contract expiration date of June 30th. Some A-list talent (George Clooney, Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep and so forth) are already agitating for early negotiations with the producers, in hopes of getting all the issues resolved way in advance without any risk of work slowdowns. (It's been standard practice for months now to make sure that any production will be done by June 30th.)
I figure that SAG will indeed get their issues resolved pretty quickly, or at least well in advance of June 30th. Between the DGA and WGA deals, there's already a fair consensus over what the new numbers look like in Hollywood. There shouldn't be too much left for the actors to have to wrangle over.
So there we are. Something very like success for my dear writer friends, and now everyone leaps back to work with a vengeance. Well, yay.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
No Electioneering Within 100 Feet of This Blog
I've always been an early-morning voter. Just seems the sort of thing that, when it comes around, I like to get under my belt first thing. Makes the rest of the day seem a little brighter, at least until the actual results come in and then, you know, generally cloudy skies and thunderbolts.
And see, the whole problem with front-loading the primary schedule is that I didn't get to vote for the guy I actually wanted to vote for. John Edwards pulled out last week, to my great surprise and disappointment. And since, in a two-way contest, I have a clear preference for Obama over Clinton, and since the polls have it so very close between them, this didn't seem the right occasion to be casting symbolic votes. Therefore I voted Obama, and am happy to have done so--but would have been even happier to have voted for Edwards.
My polling place is in a National Guard station, with a big, I don't know, a howitzer or something stationed outside and, inside, a lovely picture of weapons of war shooting at each other. (Which is okay, because of course that's what these guys do--but there were no pictures of people anywhere, nothing human on display.) (Although there was a vending machine where you could buy Fresca, so there you go.)
Some arcane rule seems to have been put in place, the intent of which was to allow independents to vote Democrat if they wish. But the result was pure confusion: there were booths set aside for independent voters, clearly marked as such; but every time someone went into one of them, a poll worker had to pop out of her chair and pull them out, telling them to go into one of the marked "DEM" booths. I predict stories will soon emerge about large numbers of spoiled independent ballots.
What this meant was that independents and Democrats had to line up to wait for a free DEM booth--and this neighborhood being what it is, the whole notion of an equal number of REP and DEM booths is simply absurd. The booths for Republicans stood empty the whole time I was there, and Democrats stood in line. Pure silliness.
Still, I've done my bit. Got my sticker, and now it's off to the rest of my bright, bright day.
And see, the whole problem with front-loading the primary schedule is that I didn't get to vote for the guy I actually wanted to vote for. John Edwards pulled out last week, to my great surprise and disappointment. And since, in a two-way contest, I have a clear preference for Obama over Clinton, and since the polls have it so very close between them, this didn't seem the right occasion to be casting symbolic votes. Therefore I voted Obama, and am happy to have done so--but would have been even happier to have voted for Edwards.
My polling place is in a National Guard station, with a big, I don't know, a howitzer or something stationed outside and, inside, a lovely picture of weapons of war shooting at each other. (Which is okay, because of course that's what these guys do--but there were no pictures of people anywhere, nothing human on display.) (Although there was a vending machine where you could buy Fresca, so there you go.)
Some arcane rule seems to have been put in place, the intent of which was to allow independents to vote Democrat if they wish. But the result was pure confusion: there were booths set aside for independent voters, clearly marked as such; but every time someone went into one of them, a poll worker had to pop out of her chair and pull them out, telling them to go into one of the marked "DEM" booths. I predict stories will soon emerge about large numbers of spoiled independent ballots.
What this meant was that independents and Democrats had to line up to wait for a free DEM booth--and this neighborhood being what it is, the whole notion of an equal number of REP and DEM booths is simply absurd. The booths for Republicans stood empty the whole time I was there, and Democrats stood in line. Pure silliness.
Still, I've done my bit. Got my sticker, and now it's off to the rest of my bright, bright day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)