... wondering about the CBC and the Cultural Dividend

This week, faced with declining revenues from advertising, the CBC approached the government about getting a bridge loan, Since the CBC does not make cars, the government said no.

Yep, I think this is a bad thing as do a lot of other people.

Meanwhile there are others, like Prime Minister Harper, who think that the free market should dictate the CBC's fate. If times are tough and it cannot generate ad revenue, it should put its own house in order and the make entertainment that is more suited to general tastes i.e. more popular. He's not the first to claim this.

He's also not the first to completely miss a subtle point about the CBC: It's entertaining, but not entertainment. Big difference. The mandate of the CBC is work as a public service and help define a cultural identity. It's not there to find the next 24 (Zombie Jesus help us all). It's not supposed to be a commercial enterprise, and in fact is supposed to be immune from that so that it can actually seek out those things that pay a greater Cultural Dividend. The problem is that those in government, especially in this government, are bottom line people. You can't pay out a Cultural Dividend on the bottom line.

The Cultural Dividend the amount that the population gets back for its investment in the arts. These arts can be books, paintings, rock music, anything that is created as part of an artistic process. How this differs from other dividends paid is that the generation in question will likely never collect on it, while the one that follows will. I've argued about this before on The Luddite Times in regards to CanCon: you can say that it produced mediocre talents, but the real benefit of it is what effect is has on the next generation, the generation that grew up listening to it. Consider this: The Velvet Underground and Big Star sold a grand total of zero albums between them (adjusting for inflation). But if those bands had never existed, if there was no medium for them to ply their trade and people willing to underwrite them with no guarantee of getting their money back, then the state of rock music, well, it wouldn't exist today. Who was selling at that time? Bands like John Fred and his Playboy Band, the Lemon Pipers, and the Strawberry Alarm Clock. Which artists made more money, which ones paid a greater cultural dividend, and which would you rather listen to today?

There is also the populist angle to this in that people will point to waste and middling to poor end product and say that they don't want their tax dollars paid to support that. While some could argue that CBC Television has had a spotty track record of either making lacklustre programming or wasteful spending, the first truth remains: the CBC is not there to entertain you. CBC Radio, on the other hand, is quite good. I feel the big difference is advertising. Allowing advertising on CBC Television has made a camel out of the horse that the CBC is supposed to be, while the absence of it on radio has allowed the CBC evolve into what it was intended to be.

But I want to address one issue here: People who say they don't want their tax dollars to go to x, y, or z. This is an argument I am frankly tired of because it shows just how self-involved we are becoming. Tax dollars, no matter how they are collected, are like insurance: we all pay into a large pot for the common good so that services that we might require in the future will be there. Is there waste? Yes. It's called entropy and it happens in nature as well as bureaucracy. There are a lot of things I don't like the government spending money on: I'm a pacifist, so I rank military adventurism right up there. I don't like showy displays of patriotism, so big ceremonies and statues and single purpose museums really anger me. I think Don Cherry is a hate monger and a bigot, and don't like that my money could be subsidizing his salary.

What I do is vote for the party that best reflects how I would like the money to be spent, and I petition the members of that party and the government to hear my case. If they do, great. If they do not, it's unfortunate but I have to accept that I have to work to bring others over to my view point. It's one reason I have this blog. But to insist that everything that the government pays for (be it broadcasting, the military, health care) be something that I have 100% support for is crazy. There's a common good, and to quote George Costanza "We're living in a society here".

I believe in consensus, and compromise, and that people can give a little. I believe that sole purpose of anything is not to make a dollar and a cent and that it can generate a revenue that we cannot and will not be able to quantify. I also know that all those things mean that if I want everyone to be given a fair chance to pursue their bliss and make something of themselves, that means that I might have to live with some things that I don't agree with. And that's fine, because they have the exact same rights and privileges, and neither of us will ever know who is right.

That's why the CBC should not examined in terms of profit and loss. It has be looked at in terms of benefit and disadvantage. So long as we make sure that it's benefits to Canada outpace its disadvantages, then future generations will keep reaping the Cultural Dividend.

...kicking off the weekend, boy-eee

It's Friday. It's payday.

...defending his love of Phil Collins

There are very elaborate and complex reasons to explain why I fell madly in love with the music of Phil Collins in the mid to late 80s. A lot of them had to do with living in Barbados and scarcity of rock, let alone roll, and forging my own tastes. There was also the ubiquity of Collins in music at that time. Either way, there I was, a huge fan of the Human Cabbage Patch Doll from the equivalent of junior high until university. (Perhaps more of my falling off with Phil Collins had to do with the really horrible Both Sides albums as it did with me realizing what a, well, twerp he could be).

I was thinking about this the other day when talking to a friend about the music we liked when we were in school. They were defending their love of some pop group and found it odd that not only did I once love Phil Collins, but that I would even admit to it, especially considering my current musical tastes (best defined as "Not Phil Collins. In fact, quite the opposite.")

"Ah," I said, "see there is a straight line between much of what I like and my love of Phil Collins." To wit:

• Phil Collins led me to discover Genesis. Even if it only was Invisible Touch, that album still had some mildly progressive moments.
• That led to exploring Peter Gabriel, even in his solo incarnation. He was using a lot of African rhythms, which got me listening more closely to Paul Simon, which meant I was listening more to albums than singles. That's a big jump right there.
• My love of Phil Collins led a friend of mine to lend me a copy of Genesis Live, which was way above what I could enjoy at that time, but I knew I liked it. So of course he started lending me a lot of other stuff.
• The more I read about Phil Collins, the more I got interested in him drum kit and they way he set it up. That got me interested in how music was made, both in the studio and on stage.
• Getting interested in how music was made in the studio led me to listen to a lot of the later work of The Beatles.
• Yeah, this them took me to Floyd, and Yes, and a couple of years listening to Kansas. I was loving the prog rock, and still did, but I wanted something out of it that was much heavier: enter King Crimson.
• At the same time, Phil Collins was doing a lot of collaborations with Eric Clapton. So yeah, got into Clapton, and then started listening to the old stuff. Well that opened the doors to everyone CLAPTON collaborated with. (see: every English band of the late 1960s and early 1970s)
  
• So I'm liking blues, progressive rock, and Beatles, and so my music is taking on darker tones. Enter techno via Depeche Mode and New Order, which then takes us to Joy Division.

Pretty much the only two popular musical branches that I listen to on a regular basis that aren't represented there are hip-hop and punk, and I COULD argue, if I wanted, that I got into those because I had been listening to so much other stuff.

So yeah, I could feel bad about liking the male Celine Dion, but I prefer to think that without him, I'd be going to see reunion shows of bands well past their prime, instead of being the lovable music snob that I am now!

...(updating and ) totally not bragging about his Oscar picks. Not one little bit.

So I only missed out on one of the categories I picked earlier this week. Pretty good considering I was going mostly on gut and hadn't seen a lot of the movies. Mind you, for most them I WAS picking the favourite, so there's no real science there. I do like to think that picking Milk to win best original screenplay was a bit of stretch considering this is a category where often anything can happen, which bode well for picking Wall-E and In Bruges.

However, further down the ticket was one that I thought was such a lock that I didn't even bother to discuss it: Best Foreign Language Film was won by Departures over the favourite Waltz with Bashir. Now, FLF is one category where they are often HUGE upsets (Amelie lost to No Man's Land, Pan's Labyrinth lost to The Lives of Others, all great films but still considered upsets) but this one did surprise me. I wonder if the recent situation in Israel made some of the "soft" supporters of the film vote for something else. We'll never know.

Here's what I loved and didn't love about the show:

Loved

Hugh Jackman I was a little surprised when he was named host, since I know him more as a song and dance man despite his action movie creds. But this worked out since they made a lot of the set reminiscent of the early days of cinema. Then again, I also loved Steve Martin as host.

I do have one question though: Why do the Oscars even NEED a host? The Grammys did well without one, and the Golden Globes do fairly well without a host. You don't really need someone to move it along anymore like you used to. You could trim about 10 minutes from the show right there.

Actually entertaining speeches The winner for Animated Short actually tossing in "Domo Arigato, Mr Roboto" as if to say "Yes, I know you all want that", the corny but still fun one for speech for Man on Wire, and Sean Penn's self depreciation was very well received. (By the way, the shortest speech in Oscar history: Joe Pesci for Goodfellas "It's my privilege. Thank you". Also, in my opinion the best was Steven Soderberg for Traffic, which is a template I wish more people used: "I'm going to thank everyone I need to thank individually and in person later.")

Did not love:

Multiple presenters for the acting awards While I normally like nods to history, this lengthened the show, and felt like a Catholic Mass, especially the Prayers for the Faithful: "And for Penelope Cruz, who shows us that you can recover after dating batshit crazy, we pray." This also cost me my second favourite part of the ceremony: Oscar clips! If they took this out and went the traditional route (last year's opposite sex winner presenting), they would have come in on time.

People with no Academy Cred wasting my oxygen I get it, everyone loves Beyonce. Her robotic efficiency is second only to that of David Fincher. However, I don't really think her connection to the film industry or the Academy Awards is strong enough to mean that she gets a place of honour on the stage that night. Nor does Jennifer Aniston, Sandra Bullock, and even my beloved Tina Fey. I know they need to pull a rating, but at the same time you don't see Brad Pitt singing Proud Mary at the Grammys.

Edited to add: Someone asked what I thought of Jack Black's Pixar vs Dreamworks comment. These things are so tightly scripted that I don't think his comment was unexpected, or even unplanned. It's stating a truth: Pixar tends to win the award a lot. It's not much different than people joking about Streep, or even when they used to openly pick on the Weinsteins. I LIKE to think that it's a nice shot at how useless the animated feature category has become: three nominees, and at least two of them are poorly chosen. I think it's time to retire this category for good.

The In Memoriam section Another one of my faves, but they way they shot it I had to squint a lot of the time to see who they were actually honouring. Not all of us have HDTV.

Edited to add: The clothing

I normally don't pay a lot of attention to this, but having said that this year there wasn't too much to complain about really (having said that, I didn't look at any best/worst list). I think Tilda Swinton had the worst outfit, BUT she's Tilda Swinton so she gets a pass. It's like complaining about early Bowie: they are their own person and live in their own worlds. Same as Rourke. 

Miley Cyrus also looked like someone her age: not able to really tell what actually works, same with Vanessa Hudgens. 

I have no idea what Bill Maher was wearing, and will always insist it was a leather tux!

And some general notes

Cattiest moment at home:

"Whatever Seth Rogan is on to loose weight, order two for Phillip Seymour Hoffman".

How you know you've married the right person, movie nerd edition:

Me: I love Frank Langella's voice. That was the best thing about The Ninth GatI.

Her: And he was great in The American President.

Me: Mm hm....wait, you mean Dave?

Her: Yes, yes I do.

Me: God, I loved both.

Her: Me too.

The greatest moment of the Oscars was actually only seen in Canada:

On the red carpet, Ben Mulroney was interviewing Melissa Leo about Frozen River. After first trying to get her to admit a Canadian connection that she either was unaware of or that he was completely wrong about (he actually seemed to be talking about a part of the filming that did not involve her), he then mentioned how she was the only professional actor in the film. Cue about 30 seconds of righteous indignation as she corrected him, pointing out the fact that all the actors in it were professional, had done a lot of great work before and basically saying to him "Do your homework before you spout off, Chin Boy, and remember that just because they're not on the cover of Ass Kiss Weekly does not mean they are not professional." Then her publicist leaned in and told her to wrap it up. So yummy!

...thinking of joining the fan club of every band he likes

Kings of Leon tickets go on sale at 12:00 noon.

At 12:00:03 I'm logged into the site and selecting "best available".

At 12:00:05 it's telling me the best available tickets are at the other end of the Arena. It's almost like we're on a straight line. At least we're in the lower bowl.

We've also been fans of KoL for a while. If the crowd at the last KoL show we went to is any indication, we're going to be surrounded by a lot of tourists who are gonna be all "WOOOOO SEX ON FIRE!!!" and girls macking on their dudes during Use Somebody, and then wondering what the long quiet song about a pregnant girlfriend is about. I have no problem with being new to a band, I just don't like people who only listen for the hits.

This is why I think I'm going to join the fan club of any band I'm even remotely interested in. Our membership to the Ten Club (Pearl Jam fan club) has helped us get decent tickets to every show we've gone to since we've joined. Additionally, we've been surrounded by other true believers and actually made a few friends (well, acquaintances: "Look Dawn, it's the guy who went to the Beacon Club show." "Oh man, is Ramones Shirt gonna be at EVERY concert?").

Here's g valentino's handy-dandy guide to telling fans at a concert:

1. True Believer: Tthey start to cheer when the guitarist is tuning his guitar because the key tells them what song is going to be next. They also NEVER sing along.
2. Pretty Hardcore: Can tell the song by the drum fill used during an extended introduction
3. Fan: Cheer when the singer sings the first words of a song that's towards the end of the album
4. Tourist: "WOOOOOOO I LOVE THIS SONG THEY PLAYED IT WHEN THEY INTERVIEWED THEM ON THE EDGE ON THE DRIVE OVER!!!!! THIS SEX IS ON FIIIIIRRREEEEE" right in your ear, all night long.

Oh well, we have our tickets, and The Walkmen are opening, so this is going to be a choice night.

... believing in anything.

Here we go, Friday morning. It's been a long week for some, like my snowbound comrades on the East Coast, or my wife who has started a new shift at the Gilead Cafe.

Here's something nice, loud, and cathartic. Enjoy.

... picking Oscar winners

Over on the The Luddite Times I wrote a bit of a silly but earnest post about how you could figure out which movies were NOT going to get nominated based on some analysis of trends in past-Oscar races. The full post is here, but let's just say for the sake of brevity that movies fall into a certain number of categories, and the more of those categories it meets the better chance it has of being nominated.

I also promised my Oscar picks, which I'm going to post here, because I won't be applying as rigorous an analytical model for this part.

One thing to keep in mind: In any secret ballot situation (from the Oscars to a general election) I reject the idea that 'The Academy picked this film because..." or "The voters sent a message of.." because people don't vote that way. Think of any time you've voted: do you remember a meeting saying "Okay, you vote this way, I'll vote this way, and these people will vote this other way and that will indicate that our intentions are thus". It does not happen. So anytime you see something like "The Academy may vote for this movie because they want to...", just say no, run away and tell someone you love. Doubly so when it comes to elections.

And away we go:

Best Picture: This is going to come down to two movies, and what's funny is that a few months ago not many people would have picked either: Slumdog Millionaire and The Reader (what?).

The Curious case of Benjamin Button is more admired than liked, Frost/Nixon has not gained traction, and Milk is considered more of an actor's piece. Most of the press has been about Slumdog Millionaire being the feel-good story and has distanced itself from the others. Plus, when the race started it had a lot of momentum. it had the greatest Oscar "bounce".

So why The Reader? Most critics hated the reader, and I can't think of any other movie that met with a more of a "why is that there?" in recent memory. The Reader is in the mix precisely because of that. It's getting a lot of press, people are talking about it, and there is the chance that people may vote for it based simply on name recognition. A similar thing happened with Crash a few years ago: it looked good on paper, was getting some name recognition, and I'm sure a couple of voters thought that it looked like the sensible, safe choice.

Our pick, though, is Slumdog Millionaire. It started with a lot of momentum, and has gained over the past few weeks, and has dodged every controversy thrown at it.

Best Actor: This comes down to Sean Penn or Mickey Rourke. Each has a compelling story: Penn took the biographical route, Rourke took the comeback route. Both have probably alienated as many people as they have won over with their roles. 

There was actually a similar setup when Penn won: Penn vs Bill Murray vs Johnny Depp. That time the focused method actor won over the hard working curmudgeon. I think the opposite is going to happen this time also. But it will be close. Our pick: Rourke. The movie is close to his life, and his dog just died.

Best Actress: Kate Winslet. Call this the Ricky Gervais award: As he wrote for Winslet in Extras all you have to do is hang around long enough, do a Holocaust film, and then win an Oscar. She's due, and is generally well liked. I think Streep just gets nominated by default (Don't believe me? She was nominated for Music of Heart....MUSIC OF THE HEART, people! Sally Field would have turned that one down in the early 80s.)

Best Supporting Actor:  Heath Leger. I believe he would have won even if he hadn't passed away. This is a lock.

Best Supporting Actress: Oh this is going to be hard. My heart says Viola Davis because she came in with so much momentum, and she has the small role but everything hinges on her performance. My head says Penelope Cruz, partly because of the Exes-of-Tom-Cruise rule. I think I'm going to go with my head here and say Cruz, but I fully admit that if this is the area where you need the most hope for your Oscar pool, then you might want to look elsewhere.

Best Director: Okay. Rant time:

Do you know who an overrated director is? David Fincher. Disagree? You're wrong. Think I'm being harsh? Start your own blog.

I like Fight Club, don't get me wrong. I also enjoyed Zodiac. I also think that there are a lot of fanboys who have just convinced themselves that they like David Fincher without really examining it: it's a knee jerk reaction that they haven't outgrown.  I still like Fine Young Cannibals for the same reason.

The more of his work I see, the more he reminds me of another director. He's Steven Spielberg, but without the heart. I find I more admire the craftsmanship and structure of the movies than the actual content of them, which normally leaves me cold. I feel more connected to people and stories in P.T. Anderson, Stephen Sorderberg, and yes Danny Boyle films than I do in his. He'll win an Oscar one day, I'm certain, but it's not now, and he's going to have get a little heart or he'll just be another Kubrick as opposed to Scorsese. I'm not saying he has to be sentimental, he has to be human.

So, Danny Boyle wins this, just for keeping all the balls in the air while filming Slumdog Millionaire. And also being a great director.

Screenplay awards are always fun, and I think original is going to go to Milk and adapted will go to Slumdog Millionaire. Normally Wall-E would win the original screenplay category, but the uselessness that is the Animated Oscar (I'll rant on that later) has made that point moot.

Now, off to the bookies and office pools with you.

... welcoming everyone to the show that never ends

So I've been running my own dog and pony show over at The Luddite Times for a few weeks now. It's been a trip, and I've loved every minute of it. And I'm going to keep doing it.

People who know me and come to accept me as I am know that I don't just rant about technology. They know that I am a complex man, with many subtle notes an interests. Like a good Bordeaux blend, I hint around different concepts and ideas before my true nature comes out. By that point you're hooked, you've put your money down and said "Yes, I'm in. What else have you got?"

This is what g valentino is random is going to be. My personal blog,with observations, stories, and some personal information. I hope you like it. I know I will.