EPISODE 223 – FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

POP CULTURE SPIRIT WOW

Everywhere in Los Angeles right now, you see billboards, the sides of buses and banners advertising shows that are not currently on the air. Many finished in May, but some even earlier, last December or March. And all have just three words of explanation: “For Your Consideration”.

I remember when I saw this phenomenon for the first time in the summer of 2011. I couldn’t figure it out. For whose consideration? If me, why now? The show’s not even on.

But these marketers were not interested in me, or 99.9% of the people here in LA. No, these ads were aimed at just fifteen thousand people, the members of the TV Academy. May and June are Emmy nomination season.

It seems like a lot of effort to connect to a small group. But Los Angeles is an industry town. For every person that can vote there are a hundred or more working (or desperately trying to get work) in the business. And there’s also something about it all that ends up feeling kind of festive. These signs are like our version of Christmas decorations, or New Year’s streamers.

++

Quirky LA anecdote: One of the many great parts about studying screenwriting at UCLA were the producing classes, where our teacher, some seasoned expert in the business, would bring in different similarly-talented people to talk about what they do for a living. So Ryan Murphy would come in and talk about being a TV creator, or a major film producer would come talk about how they think when developing a film. The conversations were fantastically interesting.

In one such class we got to spend an hour with the vice president of marketing at one of the most successful basic cable networks. Great lady, lots of experience, down to earth, wonderful stories. The kind of person you instinctively want to work for.

During the hour someone asked about show billboards, how they decide on the images they use, how they determine where to place the ads. And she told us, when it comes to billboards in Los Angeles, they’re less a marketing tool than an affirmation. At her network, they would make a point of renting billboard space in the areas where the lead actors (and perhaps creators) on the show lived, or on between their homes and the set. They wanted their stars to see the network hyping them, to feel supported and that the network was excited about the work they’d done.

Even as I’m typing this I’m wondering, did I hear her right? Because that sounds like a crazy way to spend money. Indulgent.

But I did. ICYMI, Hollywood is kind of crazy.

Also, kind of super savvy. Because that stuff works.

++

So I don’t know about you, but I’m already starting to see the think pieces about which shows should get nominated, which won’t, how the Academy decides. They’re sort of like the scouting guides at the beginning of sports seasons, although a little bit grosser, because a lot of the bottom line ends up being not what moved us or took chances but stuff like “Shows at the top and bottom of the alphabet tend to have a better chance because there are so many for voters to choose from, they tend to look to the top and bottom of lists” (true story) or “This show’s going to get nominated because the Academy is old and white and so is it”.

At the same time, I do have my own theories as to how it all works. Which I will now share with you, in the form of ridiculous names.

The Jon Hamm Clause: If a guy gets nominated every year and never gets the gong, you have to give it to him that last year, even if it wasn’t his best. (Although come on, what Hamm and company was doing every year on that show was outstanding.)

The Veep: if there’s enough buzz for a show it gets the win, regardless of merit. Don’t get me wrong, Veep is a fantastic show; but for me, its awards in the early years were more for the idea of it rather than its overall week to week execution. The last two seasons have I think demonstrated that show operating at full strength. (Selina stealing Gary’s story is one of the darkest moments on television I’ve seen in a long time. And naming her daughter’s baby in a press gaggle is a close second. At this point, she is pretty much a villain, and I love the show for going there.)

The Come at Me Bro: Once a show or actor reaches the top of the heap, they may very well stay there well beyond when they should, until something else is so completely dominant it literally rips it down. Though I think Modern Family still has some of the strongest comedic episodes on television (especially when it mixes in some drama), the conventional wisdom has been saying it’s long in the tooth for years. And yet it still won best comedy five years in a row, and was nominated again last year, and may well get another nod this year (though I think that would be a surprise).

Come at Me goes for nominations, too. Claire Danes has been dominated for her performance on Homeland every year; the show has been nominated four years out of five. Some of that is deserved, but some of it is just Academy inertia. If Rhea Seehorn doesn’t get nominated for the work she’s done on Better Call Saul....

A corollary, The Hop on Board: A show that most people don’t know about gets nominated or even wins; the next year it’s everybody’s favorite everything. Mr. Robot will be an interesting test of this – the first season came out of nowhere and was absolutely fantastic. The second season was in my opinion kind of a disaster; first show I can remember where a TV episode’s length actually made me angry. It should probably not get many nods. But lead Remi Malek won last year.

The English Tea Party (more recently known as the Downton Abbey): for all our early bluster about independence, We Americans like our shows about British high society. We could not get enough of Downton Abbey. I suspect the same love will go to The Crown.

Also, The Boston Tea Party: Shows that connect to strong feelings and frustrations today (particularly political ones) can find themselves nominated in part for that I’d definitely expect The Handmaid’s Tale to get some big (and from the episodes I’ve seen well deserved) nominations this year. I think Mr. Robot, Veep and to some extent House of Cards all benefit from that as well.

Lastly, the one rule that to me makes the most sense, The Bravo. That’s when the Academy awards a show or actor that takes huge risks. Classic example, Game of Thrones. You can’t not nominate that show; the scale of what they’re doing is so far beyond anything anyone else is even considering, it doesn’t matter if all the pieces work perfectly. I like the show a lot, but I think part of what I love is not the work in any particular episode or with any one actor’s performance but the overall tapestry.

The CBS show The Good Wife is another good example of this. It’s nearly impossible today to generate 22 episodes of strong material. Many people these days say Netflix has trouble doing 13 (although I think that’s less to do with the number and more to do with the Netflix model of “one long story” rather than thirteen episodes. Can anyone really distinguish between middle episodes when it comes to House of Cards?)

But The Good Wife somehow produced 22 quality episodes year after year (until the last, which struggled there towards the end – what was with that party episode anyway?). The show never won best drama, but lead Julianna Marguiles won in the show’s second season, and then again in the show’s fifth, which was a shocker. And at that win she made a point of noting that her writers have to produce 22 episodes (unlike, ahem, others – i.e. everyone else).

I think you could apply the Bravo to Bryan Cranston or now Michael McKean as well. Nobody could have expected either of those guys to deliver the kinds of performances they have on Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. Cranston had made his name playing a dopey dad who seemed to always be wearing just underpants on Malcolm in the Middle. McKean’s done a lot of great work with Christopher Guest, but nothing like Saul. If he doesn’t win an Emmy for this year I’ll be shocked.

(I’d put Lisa Kudrow’s guest turn as Kimmy’s deadbeat rollercoaster-loving mom in the finale of last season’s The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt in this category, too. Such a great performance.)

++

But can we agree that these awards are kind of stupid? There are dozens of great, great shows right now. Really, dozens. Netflix alone seems to be putting out a major new show every week. No idea how that works from a business angle, but okay.

Ideally the Emmys should be about shining a light on stories that speak to our lives. It’s better as a celebration than as a contest.

++

This also came across my newsfeed today: Mark Zuckerberg says that Facebook can be your church.

Good old Facebook, always looking out for us. You know, except for when it’s mining all of our data to sell to advertisers and allowing a lot of nonsense to be presented as news and creating some pretty disturbing rules for what constitutes hate speech.

On the surface, it’s a pretty problematic idea to allow a for-profit business with a very mixed business history to insert itself as the context for our spiritual activity. Also, to imagine “church” and “connection” outside of the contact of actual human contact. We believe in the communion of saints, and I’d say that certainly extends to the community of believers, but a church without a physical element, without touch, is by definition a contradiction. Christians believe in a God who became flesh. Face to face human contact is part of that package.

(Coincidentally, National Catholic Reporter had a piece today about whether or not we should hold hands at the Our Father. I think there’s a case to be made for both sides; but one thing I can’t abide is a church where people won’t shake hands at the sign of peace. If you’re sick, I get it. Otherwise, get those hands out and say a hello.)

But parish attendance in the US is also decreasing in many places. And many of the people who have decided to stop going still say they believe in God, many that they’re Catholic. It seems like I read a lot of theories about how to “get them back”, but I don’t know. Maybe we should be thinking more about figuring out where people are going and being with them there.

Like – and this is a little bit nuts but still, try it out – what if a bunch of priests took shifts driving for Lyft? (Or Uber, I guess, except maybe let’s not?) I don’t mean deck out the car in crucifixes, have incense burning and lay on the “What sins have you come to confess my son?” Just be their driver and have whatever kind of conversation they want to have. It’s amazing the things people will talk about with complete strangers. What if we put ourselves in the middle of something like that and just see what happens.

Or, talking about Facebook, Jim Martin, S.J. has a public page where he offers little spiritual thoughts or images each day along with more hot-topic sorts of conversations. And basically he just posts stuff and then people do with it what they will. As long as there’s no nastiness, it’s mostly their place and page rather than his.

I interviewed Jim about this a couple years ago for some talks I was giving on social media and evangelization. And he said that he thinks of that site as a sort of parish. People can go there and receive some food for their own spiritual journeys. They get a lot of encouragement from the stories of others. (Often the most powerful part of his posts are the incredibly moving life experiences that people share in the comments.)

And, he emphasized, this is a place where people get to speak. Most Catholics get so few opportunities to voice their opinion about things going on either in the Church or even their church. Jim’s site gives them that opportunity. That’s empowering and also builds on what we believe, namely that the Holy Spirit dwells in each one of us and that as such each of has authority and insight and talent that the Church needs to be Church.

So I don’t know. Mark Zuckerberg is almost certainly more concerned with ways to strengthen and further monetize the Facebook brand than anything religious. But still, there’s a lot of people on Facebook, many open to spiritual experience or conversation. It’s interesting to consider ways the Church can continue to tap into that.

++

My oldest nephew Jim turned eighteen today. We’re all very excited while studiously trying to avoid what it says about us. (I think it’s important that my brother knows this means he is old. I don’t think there’s any need for our self-examination to go further than that, but in my opinion he really needs to know that. He is so old.)

Do you remember being eighteen? I do not. (Or 28, for that matter. *sigh*)

So I thought I’d ask Jim what it’s like for him and in that way maybe jog our memories.

How would you describe the first eighteen years of your life?
Exciting for sure. Lots of really cool and fortunate opportunities. Both geographically and even within the local towns I’ve been able to experience some things that other people haven’t been able to. Like going to Nationals,* which is pretty neat. So having those kinds of opportunities. Definitely exciting.

*Jim and both of his sisters have each been National champions in Speech events. Jim and his sister Molly have also been Illinois state winners. (Their sister Erin isn’t in high school yet.) –Awed, proud uncle.

How would you say your life now compares to what you imagined when you were ten? Wow. That’s a good question. I don’t know if it was when I was exactly ten, but I wanted to be an actor for like the longest time and totally saw myself doing that at this stage in my life. Ten was when acting started to pique my interest. It’s kind of interesting sometimes to remember that.*

*Wait until you’re older....

Even coming into high school that was what I wanted to do. And I’ve shifted so massively now, which is not a bad thing. I think it’s totally cool.

When you look ahead, what do you see in the next eighteen years?
Oof. Well, the first materialistic goal that I have is to make a million dollars by the end of college.* So hopefully that. Yeah, I know.

* In high school Jim got interested in developing apps. He helped his school begin a class that ran like a small business, building apps for different clients. In recent summers he was hired by a Chicago business to do app development for them. And he now has his own business.

I don’t know from making a million dollars. I have trouble balancing my checkbook. But if anyone could do it...

Just remember your poor uncle the priest and his starving religious order, is all I say.

Past that – Gosh I haven’t given that much thought to be honest. I guess it’s a lot easier to look back than to think about what you’re going to be in eighteen years. For me, I guess as long as I’m doing something that I love, that’s what’s really important, and I’ll be happy no matter where I end up. That’s probably where that goes for me.

As you look to the future, what are you most looking forward?
Definitely the people. People are my favorite. I find every subset of culture so interesting because people are so different. Sometimes they’re annoying, but for the most part they’re so interesting. For me the journey is a lot about the people who I’m going to have the opportunity to interact with.

Looking to the future what are you most concerned about?
There’s that normal fear I think of getting kind of pushed off the cliff, even moreso after college when it’s really like here’s the real world, go do it. But I know with the education I’ve had even to this point, the experiences I’ve had, that fear is probably unfounded. But still that fear is there.

When you look ahead, what do you hope and/or fear for the world?
That’s a tough one. There’s so much.

Maybe my hope and fear are the same. If you look at the election cycle this last year or two or whatever it was, there’s been no conversation about the environment. That is so frightening. Yeah, there’s more of a conversation globally, but current leaders here denying things is really tough. So for me the thing I would hope for is that we have more and more open-minded ways of thinking. Because we need it. For us to be so far ahead in terms of our global status and then to take a position on the environment that is far behind, it’s ludicrous.

From a less direct standpoint, that people in the country will be open-minded with each other about things.

James Doyle McDermott, ladies and gentlemen. He’s headed to Boston College in the fall. (When he came back from his visit, he couldn’t stop talking about how at BC you get to be a person for others.) Watch this space!

++ LINKS ++

In the vein of last week’s wonderful micro shortstory, I highly recommend Content Marketer gets Shipwrecked: “Day 1: Today was my first full shipwrecked day after our ship hit some sharp rocks a half mile offshore. What started out as a team-building trip to the Cook Islands has turned into a true nightmare. #OnlySurvivor #PleaseSendHelp #SurvivalSundays #HolisticRescueMarketing”

Michael Bond, the creator of Paddington Bear, died this week, and the BBC’s obituary made me wonder if we don’t need his beloved character more than ever today: “The seeds of the idea had taken root during the war when Bond saw newsreels of children being sent out from British cities to avoid German bombing. ‘I had memories of children being evacuated from London with a label around their necks and all their possessions in a suitcase, and this became part of Paddington as well,’ he said.

‘Paddington Bear was a refugee with a label - 'Please look after this bear. Thank you', and he had a little suitcase.’”

Everyone says that virtual reality is the future (except for my head, which can barely tolerate 3D glasses, so I don’t think I’ll be wearing a wraparound visor, thanks); but this review about experimenting with the New York Times new VR app points out the one teensy tiny little problem is that VR seems to eliminate any sense of empathy:

Many of the pieces on the app appear to be advocacy journalism, which you would expect to be very deliberate in directing readers’ attention. But the VR format makes me feel like I should ignore whatever they want to show me and indulge my limited amount of agency within the app instead....Sometimes proponents of VR tout its ability to encourage empathy by allowing viewers to see things through other people’s eyes. But the Times app makes immersion in other people’s experience feel more like sadism, as my willful indifference is superimposed on whatever encounter the filmmakers are trying to make me have. Every time I turn my head and look somewhere else for the hell of it, I feel as if I was overwriting and obviating the experience I am supposed to be sharing.

Lastly, There are solar power plants floating on top of lakes and reservoirs now, which is apparently the perfect idea because the plants block sunlight decreasing evaporation while the water keep the panels permanently cooled, and for this reason I think we should each get a lake.

If we wait long enough maybe my nephew will buy us each one.

++

As I’ve written all this I’ve kept coming back to that simple three word phrase from the beginning: “For Your Consideration.”

So much of what I find (and sometimes offer*) on social media and in the press of late is so aggressive and hostile.

(A confession: I got in an online battle yesterday with someone who called themselves “Doctor Doom” and liked to mock people for doing their job. I mocked the guy -- What kind of dope calls themselves Doctor Doom only to troll people about their grammar, ended up getting blocked and then tweeting that based on the results of our argument I had just trounced Doctor Doom and was now king of Latveria.

Not my best moment.)

(And yet I'm still proud enough of it to share.)

I wonder what our world could be like if we approached our public statements more along the lines of these TV networks in Emmy season. Not "HEY" or "No", but "Something I want to share. Something for your consideration.”