They all meet challenges, reversals and opposition from someone or something along the way. Every character wants to be successful and do a generally good job. Likewise, in an elimination reality show, everyone is together in a group doing generally the same thing.  They all want to be successful and do a good job which, in the case of a reality show, means lasting long enough to win the big money prize by avoiding eviction.

Whether you are writing a scripted drama or producing an unscripted reality show, you have the same character problem: How do you differentiate each character and make each one a unique and compelling individual? The key is why characters do what they do, how they define doing a good job or a successful strategy and how they approach challenges, obstacles, work or what they love.

CELEBRITY CHEFS

In preparing for a recent consulting job, I wanted to illustrate the Character Types with real life individuals who are clearly defined characters in their own right and who each embody very different approach to life and work. The subjects had to have an international reputation since I was working with producers from a variety of different countries.

Celebrity chefs turned to be an effective example. Each person is doing approximately the same thing (discussing and/or demonstrating food, cooking or dining), they all want to be successful and generally do a good job.  How they define that job, for themselves, is vastly different.  Here’s how analyzing real people can help in creating a scripted drama or an unscripted reality show. The Character Types are the same whether applied to celebrity personalities or fictional characters.

Here is how the Character Types line up and my observations on each kind of real life Food Personality:

POWER OF CONSCIENCE

Jamie Oliver is a Power of Conscience character. He is a food crusader, his mission is to teach people the right things to eat and the proper, healthy approach to planning and cooking meals.  The name of his show is Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution: Campaign for Healthy Eating.  Here is what his American website has to say:

This food revolution is about saving America’s health by changing the way you eat. It’s not just a TV show, it’s a movement for you, your family and your community.

Oliver’s UK website is sub-headed “The Ministry of Food”.  He is not afraid to impose his views on others and has ignited a real row over the food served in schools in the UK.  Some mothers have reacted in protest.

Two angry mums are mocking Jamie Oliver’s healthy eating campaign by running a junk food service for school children.

Julie Critchlow and Sam Walker say youngsters are snubbing overpriced “low fat rubbish” dished up at school lunchtime.

So, using an old supermarket trolley, they are running daily deliveries of fish and chip lunches, pies, burgers and fizzy drinks, passing the food through a gap in a fence…

…(A)s environmental health officials and council chiefs were called in a bid to ban the mums Sam, 41, hit back: “This is all down to Jamie. I just don’t like him and what he stands for. He’s forcing our kids to become more picky about their food.

“Who does he think he is, all high and mighty? He can feed whatever he wants to his children but he should realise that other parents think differently.”  - The Daily Mirror

Power of Conscience characters believe they know instinctively if something is wrong, unjust, unfair, improper, corrupt or out of line. Their judgment and response is swift and immutable. They are propelled forward by personal outrage and moral indignation, usually on another’s behalf.

These characters believe they are their brother’s keeper. They feel responsible for the greater good and for doing good.   Jamie Oliver is believes food choices have serious moral implications for health and social responsibility.  When he is criticized, it is for a too strident, judgmental or preachy attitude.

POWER OF IDEALISM

Alain Ducasse has a very different approach to food.  He is a Power of Idealism character and a food artist.  Ducasse has had more Michelin stars awarded to his restaurants than any other chef in history.  His approach to cooking embodies the pursuit of opulence, excellence and the truly extraordinary so valued by Power of Idealism Character Types.

Ducasse uses only the finest ingredients to create the most refined and exquisite dishes possible.  The presentation of each dish must border on being a work of art.  Health concerns, meeting proper dietary requirements or moral issues about animal products, like foie gras, don’t enter into his thinking.  Here is the preamble to an article about one of Ducasse’s restaurants:

A three-star restaurant in Europe, so rated by the Michelin guide to denote the achievement of the highest level of culinary success by a European chef, has for many years been the setting for extraordinary expectations, bordering on perfection. The clients who step into these fine rooms gladly pay dearly for the honor of being served practically flawless dishes in the most exquisite environment imaginable. – Restaurant Insider

Power of Idealism characters have high standards and seek excellence in whatever they do. They appreciate the finer things in life and special luxuries large and small. They strive for aesthetic perfection in all areas. They abhor anything they consider to be coarse, gross, common, ordinary, mediocre, inelegant or ungallant.

These characters believe that what is perfect but unavailable or unattainable is infinitely more desirable than what is flawed but possible or achievable. They are always reaching for the unreachable star.  Ducasse seeks the extraordinary, the refined and the exquisite.  When he is criticized, is for being too fussy, too pretentious or too mannered with food.

POWER OF EXCITEMENT

Anthony Bourdain takes a completely different approach to food presenting.  He is a Power of Excitement character.  He values exotic adventure, trying anything new, experimenting with the outrageous and outlandish while having a great sense of humor about facing the whole experience.  He is a food explorer.

In his television series, No Reservations, Bourdain seeks out exciting culinary adventures in some of the darkest corners, least accessible or dangerous  places on the map.  He and his television crew once had to be evacuated by the military from Beruit.  An interview with Bourdain reports:

(Eating) the warthog anus was the worst and yes it did make him very sick. But it’s also his philosophy that you can’t refuse. This is all the food the hunters of the warthog have and they are giving it to you, how can you say no?  There’s no corner of the globe too remote. No dish too disgusting to try 
 just once. No drink with too great an after burn.  - Av Club Website

Power of Excitement characters believe life is a playground and a grand adventure. They are innovators, explorers and merry pranksters. In whatever role these characters play, they are good humored, a bit reckless, endlessly optimistic and great fun.  Bourdain seeks out the strange, the unusual or anything off the beaten track for no other reason than to try something different.  When he is criticized it is for being too extreme and experimental in choosing food to present.

POWER OF LOVE

Nigella Lawson is a Power of Love character.  She is a food seducer.  Cooking is a sensual pleasure and the opportunity to nurture for her.  She is  often described as being “sexy and flirty” while working with or presenting food.  She celebrates her own voluptuous curves and says she takes her greatest joy in “feeding others”.  Here is how she describes her philosophy in one of her books:

The trouble with much modern cooking is not that the food it produces is not good, but that the mood it induces in the cook is one of skin-of-the-teeth efficiency, all briskness and little pleasure. Sometimes that’s the best we can manage, but to others we want to feel not like a postmodern, post feminist, overstretched modern woman but, rather, a domestic goddess, trailing nutmeggy fumes of baking pie in our languorous wake. So what I’m talking about is not being a domestic goddess, exactly, but feeling like one. – Domestic Goddess

Lawson’s culinary efforts have been described as decadent, succulent, passionate, luscious and lavish.

Lawson’s sexy roundness mixed with her speed-demon technique makes cooking dinner with Nigella look like a prelude to an orgy.  - The New York TImes

Her appeal is further described here:

Women like her, she says, “because I’m not thin”, while men who lack the domestic skills to unwrap a chip supper can watch her licking a fingerful of her signature Slut Red Raspberries in Chardonnay Jelly and wonder what they have been missing.  - The Telegraph

Power of Love characters, regardless of what they look like are innately sensual and sexy.  They are Earth Mothers or Nurturers regardless of their gender.  In her many television shows like Nigella Bites and Forever Summer with Nigella, Lawson presents food as a comfort, a pleasure and the abiding warmth of true sustenance.  Cooking is her way of giving pleasure to others.  When she is criticized it is for creating a kind of “Food Porn” that is a too voluptuous or over-stuffed feast for the senses.

POWER OF WILL

Gordon Ramsey is a Power of Will character.  He is a food bully.  His show, Hell’s Kitchen (US) and Kitchen Nightmares (UK), takes aim at underperforming restaurants which he, often in screaming drill sergeant manner, tries whips into shape.  He is an ex-trial-field footballer who has a a big, bold, explosive personality.  He is described here:

Ramsay bounds in, an aspirant Popeye with muscles bulging out of a blue T-shirt. He was named as television’s scariest personality in a recent Radio Times poll because of his talent for turning big men into trembling cry babies. – Waitrose.com

Here Ramsey is described in a review of an episode of his television show:

For the viewers it was just another example of the host’s bullish bluster – the sort of bad-mouthed, bare-knuckled assault that draws millions of viewers to Gordon Ramsay, turning him into one of the most famous people in America (and the UK).

Power of Will characters take what they want, fight for every inch of turf, refuse to show any weakness themselves and pounce decisively on the weakness of others. They have a kill or be killed mental framework for everything. They subscribe absolutely to the Law of the Jungle.  They believe it is better to be feared than to be loved. They never want to be seen as “soft” or vulnerable. They show no mercy and they expect none.

Gordon Ramsey sees food preparation as a battle on his television shows.  Only the strong survive and thrive.  When he is criticized, it is for being an arrogant bully who is insulting, abusive and humiliating toward others.

POWER OF REASON

Julia Child takes a completely different view of food and food presenting than all the other chefs above.  She is a Power of Reason character.  Her approach to cooking is a practical, feet-on-the-ground (in sensible shoes) mastering of basic techniques.  She famously demystified and simplified the intricacies of French cooking for millions of readers and viewers in the 1960s.  Child cataloged French cooking methods in her 700+ page encyclopedic Mastering the Art of French Cooking.   She was a serious cook of good solid food and disdained Julie Powell’s yearlong Julie and Julia project.

Publisher’s Weekly spoke to Judith Jones, Senior Editor and Vice President at Alfred A. Knopf, and Julia Child’s editor and confidante, who shared her recollection of Child’s feelings on Julie Powell’s blog:

Jones says Child did not approve of Powell’s cook-every-recipe-in-one-year project. The editor and author read Powell’s blog together (Julie and Julia, the book, was published a year after Child’s 2004 death). Julia said, “I don’t think she’s a serious cook.”  Jones thinks there was a generational difference between Powell and Child. “Flinging around four-letter words when cooking isn’t attractive, to me or Julia. She didn’t want to endorse it. What came through on the blog was somebody who was doing it almost for the sake of a stunt. She would never really describe the end results, how delicious it was, and what she learned. Julia didn’t like what she called ‘the flimsies.’ She didn’t suffer fools, if you know what I mean.”

Like all Power of Reason characters, Child used a precise scientific method to test, analyze and catalog French recipes that could be duplicated by amateur chefs.  Child respected French tradition while carefully explaining and making French technique accessible and understandable to the average cook.

She was extremely private and protective of her name.  She valued her objectivity and refused to endorse any products during her lifetime.  Child came to cooking very late and admitted to having no natural talent for the subject.  But she was willing to put in the work to acquire her skill.

Power of Reason characters see the world as a series of intellectual, practical or scientific problems, dilemmas or puzzles to be solved. They believe anything and everything can be explained rationally or solved logically. They examine the situation carefully, consult other expert opinions or past experiences and put their minds to the issue in a thorough and objective fashion.  Child was a beloved figure but if she was parodied or mocked it was for her personal and physical awkwardness, also a hallmark of Power of Reason characters.

POWER OF TRUTH

Michael Pollan is another entirely different food personality.  He is a Power of Truth character and a food investigator.  Pollan is a professor of science and environmental journalism at University of California, Berkeley and the author of The Botany of Desire, The Omnivore’s Dilemma and In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto.  He is a frequent television guest and interview subject.

The Omnivore’s Dilemma, his most famous book, is described as follows:

Pollan follows each of the food chains that sustain us— industrial food, organic or alternative food, and food we forage ourselves— from the source to a final meal, and in the process develops a definitive account of the American way of eating. – Michael Pollan Website

(F)or Pollan, the final outcome is less important than the meal’s journey from the soil to the plate. His super-meticulous reporting is the book’s strength— you’re not likely to get a better explanation of exactly where your food comes from. In fact, the first quarter of the book is devoted to a shocking, page-turning exposĂ© of the secret life of that most seemingly innocent and benign of American crops, corn. – NY Times Book Review

Power of Truth characters believe the world is filled with potential hidden dangers and concealed pitfalls. This character’s philosophy might be stated: “Things are never what they seem.” “Question everything.” “Watch out for secret agendas and hidden pitfalls.”

These characters ask: “What does society demand, expect or value?” and then often set out to debunk or disprove the answer. They are compelled to uncover the concealed nature or (often rotten) underbelly of things.  When Pollan is criticized is for being too suspicious of and employing scare tactics about typical foods.

POWER OF AMBITION

Rachel Ray is a food entrepreneur and pitch-woman.  She is a Power of Ambition character. She has a can-do spirit, high energy level, relentlessly promotes her personal brand  and endorses everything from dog food to fast food sandwiches and coffee.  Although most chefs have endorsement contracts, Ray has taken her promotional activities to another level entirely.

Her approach to food is populist– sloppy, loud, cheerful and accessible.   Ray’s common-touch persona is a multimillion dollar enterprise with four hit Food Network shows, 12 million copies of her 13 bestselling cookbooks, a self-titled monthly magazine and an Emmy-winning daily talk show and a vast array of branded kitchen and home products. Her technique is described:

Rachael cuts corners and uses boxed ingredients. She abhors specialty ingredients. Her dishes only use what she can find at the local supermarket. She has received a lot of bad press for this, from the media as well as chefs.

In Rachael’s defense, this is reality for most Americans. As much as we’d like to whip up a gourmet meal every night, we simply don’t have the time. – About.com

Power of Ambition characters value popularity, achievement and financial success.  They are opportunists and naturally gravitate toward anything that will advance their personal agenda, enhance their popularity or further their desired aims.  They are adept at cutting corners, taking short-curts and doing things the quick and easy way.  When Ray is criticized it is for the relentless commercialization of herself and her cheap, fast and cheerful approach to food, some say she brings cooking down to the lowest common denominator.

POWER OF IMAGINATION

Benjamin Christie is a Food Ambassador.  He is a Power of Imagination character.  In the biography section on his website he explains he didn’t like the heat, pressure and conflict in a commercial restaurant kitchen.  His approach to food involves bringing the generally undervalued cuisine of Australia and its indigenous ingredients to the attention of world markets.  Here is how he explains the purpose of his organization on his website:

The Chefs Network is a food media news portal blog platform… working together for the best interests of the culinary industry, supporting those that choose to follow in our footsteps. The Chefs Network is a network of Chefs of all culinary styles & cultures. and offers networking opportunities, an inside link to professionals in the culinary industry, insight and information to foster increased culinary development, excellent opportunities for professional and personal development and lasting relationships with colleagues in the culinary industry.

Christie has a genial, supportive and non-judgemental persona.  He is a simple man with simple tastes.  When asked on his website what his favorite restaurants are and if people get nervous cooking for him he says:

I like a seafood restaurant which offers a simple grilled fish or prawns.  I’ve had people paranoid about cooking for me because I am a chef, but it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. (I’m) never critical.

Power of Imagination characters  dislike and avoid conflict, confrontation and aggressive behavior.  They hate to argue, row or fight.  These characters prefer to bring others together in working toward a unifying goal.  They naturally collect diverse individuals who share a common purpose despite significant outward differences and even conflicting agendas or opposing points of view.

These characters are patient, understanding and appreciative of those who tend to be overlooked, ignored or dismissed.  They are extremely tolerant and inclusive.  If Christie is criticized, it probably for not having a specific point of view or a more critical sensibility.

NINE CHARACTER TYPES

The Nine Character Types demonstrate how it is possible to engage in the same profession, have the same general interests and do very similar things in a very personally distinctive manner.  The most interesting dramas and the most compelling reality shows feature individuals with clear, sharply defined points of view and a very specific philosophy concerning how and why they do what the do.  Each character should approach life, love and work in a very individual way.

I am not particularly a fan of The Bachelor but I was struck by this article on the current season.  It’s such an apt description of the Power of Love character.

These Character Types are the ultimate seducers.  They believe if they make themselves indispensable and/or irresistible, the other person will need them and will be obliged to love them.

On a paper valentine it says simply, firmly and powerfully “Be Mine.” Possessiveness and passive/aggressive domination are the hallmarks of these characters.

They manipulate by focusing the attention on the other person or love interest.  Power of Love characters lavish their attention and affection on others in order to exercise control, prevail or gain dominance.

That’s what it sounds like Brad Womack’s seduction strategy is as discussed in the article below:

Ratings for Brad Womack’s comeback season on The Bachelor are down, and he’s been scorned as a featureless, psychobabbling Ken doll. But beneath his boring exterior lies a highly skilled (even brilliant) Romeo…

…According to Robert Greene, author of The Art of Seduction, Womack is the modern equivalent of Benjamin Disraeli, one of the greatest seducers of all time. It was Disraeli, after all, who as prime minister of England in the late 1800s seduced the socks off Queen Victoria by appealing to the stodgy royal’s femininity and deeply buried sexuality.

Disraeli affectionately (and with irreverence that shocked everyone but la reine) referred to Victoria as the “Faery Queen.” He sent her political reports that were essentially love notes, filled with juicy gossip about her enemies (one of whom was wittily described as having “the sagacity of the elephant, as well as its form”). But the essence of Disraeli’s genius as a courtier was his ability to make it all about her.  (And thus gain control of the relationship.)

Enter Womack, who constantly deflects attention from himself to focus on the needs and whimsies of his potential brides. On his first date with Jackie, a 27-year-old artist who lives in New York, he brings her to a luxurious day spa. “Can I help you with this?” he says as he gallantly helps her into a robe. He then tells the camera how excited he is that the date “solely centers on pampering Jackie.”

Later on, when he whisks Jackie off to a private dinner and concert at the Hollywood Bowl, he toasts his by now totally smitten date by saying: “Here is to what I hope is as close to a perfect day as possible for you. I’m glad it’s you.” And throughout the night, which concludes with a private Train concert, he frequently murmurs, “I hope you’re happy.”


…The only time Womack ever seems flustered is when a woman disrupts his flood of attention and turns the focus back to him. Womack clams up and is visibly thrown off his game.  (When the attention is on him he loses the advantage and can’t control and manipulate the person or the situation.)

The rest of the article is here:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-20/bachelor-brad-womacks-hidden-brilliance/?cid=hp:mainpromo6

Here is a post from a wonderful blogger Jan O’Hara writing on Tartitude.  She was thinking about Sherlock Holmes and asked if I thought he was a Power of Reason Character.  My answer was:  Sherlock Holmes is indeed a Power of Reason character– Everything can be explained/deduced rationally and logically. “It’s elementary, my dear Watson.” Power of Reason characters care more that something makes sense or is practical and less that it is moral or kind. Moving from a cold clinical analysis toward a more human evaluation (which takes into consideration connection, caring and a real valuing of others) is their journey toward greatness.

Here is Jan’s review of the new BBC re-envisioning of Sherlock Holmes in a modern day setting.  Looks interesting.

1. Have you seen BBC’s Sherlock Holmes? Thus far it’s a three-episode series set in contemporary London, and to podge a British term, it’s brill. Smart, fast-paced, relying more on intellect and issues about character than on the stars’ appearance, it won thumbs up from all four members of my family.

What they do well, IMHO:

a. Respectful blending of past with present: Watson is a recovering war vet, wounded from a tour as a physician in Afghanistan. He’s a blogger!  Despite modernization, though, the essence of the series feels true to the original books.

b. Technology is important in the sleuthing process, but not the focus. This is not a series about gadgets.

c. There’s a fascinating and believable relationship between Watson and Holmes in which each make the other bigger. Without Holmes, Watson would be limping in a half-existence,  devoid of the risk and stimulation which is his life’s blood. Watson, on the other hand, both grounds Holmes and validates him.

d. The writers have set up a central question about Sherlock, articulated by Lestrade in this quote: “He’s a great man. if we’re very lucky, one day he might be a good one.”

Will Sherlock cross from brilliance into psychopathy, perhaps out of sheer boredom? Will he learn to engage emotion and vulnerability along with his impressive intellect, particularly around the female sex? These are great questions to have a viewer asking within a few moments of beginning a series.

What a character wants is a clear and simple ego-driven goal.   It is something he or she can physically have or obtain.  It is clear.  It is simple. It is concrete.  It is specific– The booze, the drugs, the girl, the party invitation.  The want is a finite object of a character’s personal desire.  It is something tangible that would gratify or benefit a character personally and immediately.

What a character needs is an inner ache or yearning that a character is unaware of, denies, suppresses or ignores.  It is a deeper, more abstract or intangible basic human longing.  It is not physical or concrete. It is an emotional satisfaction that enriches the character more deeply– to be accepted for who you are, to be intimate with someone in a meaningful way, to find joy or to connect with someone in a true and authentic manner.

To embrace the need, a character must abandon specific selfish or self-centered goals and address more fundamental and far-reaching human concerns. Every great story ever told since the beginning of time is about the war between the things of the world (the satisfaction of the ego by obtaining worldly trophies, prizes or thrills) and the things of the heart, the soul and the spirit (the deeper satisfaction of embracing our essential humanity).

What is the cost of obtaining the want or object of desire?  What is the cost of embracing the need and living up to one’s highest, truest, most authentic values?  Which price is a character willing to pay?  What is a character willing to sacrifice or surrender to obtain the want or embrace the need?  The tougher the choice is, the better the story.  If choices isn’t expensive– if there are no expensive consequences– a character’s actions seem episodic and gratuitous.

Comment below or on my FaceBook Page

David Carr writing in the Business and Media section of the New York Times put it this way:

Now that MTV is back on its heels, you will hear arguments that “Skins” merely describes the world that we already live in. There’s something to that. MTV didn’t invent “friends with benefits,” oral sex as the new kiss or stripper chic as a teenage fashion aspiration. And MTV didn’t employ the teenage star that posed semi-nude in Vanity Fair; the Disney Channel is the one in business with Miley Cyrus.

But when you hear talk about how innovative and daring “Skins” is — and you will —that argument is no more credible than the one made by the stoned teenager out after curfew. “Skins” is pretty much a frame-by-frame capture of a British hit. “Kids,” the film by director Larry Clark, plowed the same seamy ground back in 1995. (And films, at least, are more regulated: “Kids” initially received an NC-17 rating, which meant that some of the youngsters who were in the film could not legally see it.)

“Skins” is nothing new, only a corporate effort to clone a provocative drama that will make MTV less dependent on reality shows and add to the bottom line. True, MTV is not alone. Abercrombie & Fitch built a brand out of writhing, half-naked teenagers, as Calvin Klein once did.

But since its inception, MTV has pushed this boundary as hard as any major media company ever has and may have finally crossed a line that will be hard to scramble back across. The self-described “Guidos” and “Guidettes” of “Jersey Shore,” MTV’s breakout hit, have probably already set some kind of record for meaningless sex.

(More questionably, MTV exported the show to some countries with the tagline, “Get Juiced,” a clear reference to the obvious steroid use on the show.)

But while Snooki & Co. may act like children, they can legally drink alcohol and give consent to what might ensue: the age of 21 may seem like an arbitrary distinction but it’s an important one and, besides, it’s the law.

Even in the most scripted reality programming, the waterfall of poor personal choices is interrupted by comeuppance. People get painful hangovers, the heartbreaks are real if overly dramatic and the cast members have to live with their decisions.

Not so on “Skins,” where a girl who overdoses and is rushed to the hospital wakes up to laughter when the stolen S.U.V. taking her there slams to a halt. Teenagers show children how to roll blunts, bottles of vodka are traded on merry go-rounds, and youngsters shrug off being molested and threatened by a drug dealer. And when the driver of the stolen S.U.V. gets distracted and half a dozen adolescents go rolling into a river, the car is lost but everyone bobs to the surface with a smile at the wonder of it all.

Any adults on “Skins” are of the Charlie Brown variety, feckless beings who are mostly heard off-screen making bummer noises. MTV leaves it to real-life parents to explain that sometimes, when a car goes underwater, nobody survives and that a quick hookup with cute boy at the party may deliver a sexually transmitted disease along with a momentary thrill.

Read the full article here:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/business/media/24carr.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=Skins%20+%20MTV&st=cse

Mad Men won 2010 Emmy Awards for Outstanding Drama Series and Outstanding Writing in a Drama Series. The show is about the world of advertising; a world of illusion, sleight of hand and outright deception. It is a quintessential Power of Truth story and is anchored by a wonderful Power of Truth protagonist, Don Draper/Dick Whitman (Jon Hamm). Surface laughter, glamour and the sophisticated tinkle of ice in a cut-glass tumbler of scotch obscures the dark and tangled subterranean underpinnings of both the man and the profession.

The show follows Don, a man with a shadowy past who stole another soldier’s identity at the end of the Korean War. He is an ad man, a slick master of mis-direction in an industry that thrives on selling half-truths and the manipulation of perceptions: “What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.”  He is adept at deception (and self-deception), twisting words and images to suit clients’ sales pitches. This is especially true with main client Lucky Strikes.  He and his client both know the product is poisonous but Don finds a way to make it attractive: “Advertising is based on one thing: happiness. And do you know what happiness is? Happiness is the smell of a new car. It’s freedom from fear. It’s a billboard on the side of a road that screams with reassurance that whatever you’re doing is OK. You are OK.”  Don, himself, is anything but OK.

He has trouble coming to terms with the truth about himself, his failed marriage and even one of his target markets: ”What if women want something else? Inside. Some mystery wish that we’re ignoring?” He is acutely aware that more lies beneath the surface of things than he understands or is willing to inspect.  When the new firm Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce brings in a female psychologist and focus group expert, Dr. Faye Miller (Cara Buono), to help determine what exactly women want, Don is hostile.  He refuses to participate in her work or answer any of her survey questions.  He rejects her notion that people’s childhoods are a predictor of who they are and what will influence or inspire them. Dr. Faye defends her research and says she can’t change the truth: “That Glo-Coat ad came from someone’s childhood.” Don cannot afford the truth. His entire life is based on the desire to make something true that isn’t, and vice versa.

In addition to issues of perception, illusion and deception, Power of Truth stories are also about issues of loyalty and betrayal. They ask: What exactly is loyalty? What is betrayal? How do we betray ourselves? How do we betray others? Can you be loyal to someone and betray them at the same time? When should you let go of old loyalties and move on?  How is the ground shifting beneath you?  Who or what can you trust? When does loyalty look like betrayal?  When does betrayal look like loyalty?

These themes are especially relevant to Don’s evolving relationship with Peggy Olson (Elizabeth Moss).  Their relationship is quite similar to one in another Power of Truth story, Million Dollar Baby.  Frank Dunn (Clint Eastwood) and Maggie Fitzgerald (Hillary Swank) also have a powerful mentor/protege bond.  Frank is a Power of Truth protagonist who is hiding from his past as well.  His parish priest observes: “Frank, I’ve seen you at Mass almost every day for 23 years. The only person comes to church that much is the kind who can’t forgive himself for something.”

Initially, both Frank and Don are skeptical about a woman being able to “do the job” no matter how hard she works.  But both grudgingly admire the tenacity and raw talent they see in their young protege.  They want to toughen her up but yet somehow protect her.  They berate her and insult her but genuinely care for her.  Neither man is able to show affection that doesn’t also include harsh words (or hard truths).  Their relationships have a Father/Daughter dynamic that is profoundly meaningful to them both.  In making Peggy into a brilliant advertising executive Don could almost be following the advice of Eddie Scrap-Iron Durpis (Morgan Freeman) as he describes Frank’s coaching techniques:

Eddie Scrap-Iron Dupris: “To make a fighter you gotta strip them down to bare wood: you can’t just tell ‘em to forget everything they know, you gotta make ‘em forget even in their bones… make ‘em so tired they only listen to you, only hear your voice, only do what you say and nothing else… show ‘em how to keep their balance and take it away from the other guy… how to generate momentum off their right toe and how to flex your knees when you fire a jab… how to fight backin’ up so that the other guy doesn’t want to come after you. Then you gotta show ‘em all over again. Over and over and over… till they think they’re born that way.”

The technique works on Peggy, who says to Don after a particularly rough exchange: “You know something. We are all here because of you. All we want to do is please you.”  Those words are truest of her.  Peggy only really hears (or cares about) Don’s voice.  But Peggy is no push-over and that is what will make her great in her own right someday.  Eddie describes that quality: “All fighters are pig-headed some way or another: some part of them always thinks they know better than you about something. Truth is: even if they’re wrong, even if that one thing is going to be the ruin of them, if you can beat that last bit out of them… they ain’t fighters at all.”

Peggy has her own stubborn streak and sense of independence and fairness.  She confronts Don over her lack of credit on the Glo-Coat ad, talks back to him, refuses to get him coffee and is the only one who seems able to see and accept him for who he is.  She is the only one Don trusts enough to share bits of his past.

Peggy would rather be at work with Don than doing anything else. His world is the only world that truly interests her. It is the only thing she really wants: “I know what I’m supposed to want but it never feels right or as important as what happens in this office.”  Maggie Fitzgerald (Hillary Swank) says basically the same thing to Frank Dunn: “Problem is, this the only thing I ever felt good doing. If I’m too old for this, then I got nothing. That enough truth to suit you?”

Here is a wonderful montage of clips that clearly delineate Power of Conscience character Peggy Olson.  Notice how many times the issues for her are fairness (or unfairness) (”I don’t know if you read in the paper, but they passed a law that women who do the same work as men get paid the same thing.  Equal pay.”); integrity (”Pete, just tell the truth. Don’t worry about the outcome.  People  respect that.”); propriety (”I’m from Bayridge, we have manners”); judgement (”I know what people think of you.  That you’re looking for a husband and you’re fun.  And not in that order.”)

Peggy is a good girl who sometimes does bad things. She is definitely the moral compass of the show. She even goes so far as to confront Don and demand that he hire the smarmy kid whose tag line Don drunkenly misappropriated for a Life Cereal campaign.

http://www.nerve.com/entertainment/2010/08/31/the-evolution-of-mad-men

Hillary Swank is a Power of Idealism character.  She is much more passionate than Peggy and much more willing to bet everything on a single glorious moment. Peggy is more grounded and controlled even when she is acting out or being rebellious.  When she strips to call a lazy unctuous creative director’s bluff, it is about doing the work (and her work ethic) not being seductive.  Her sense of morality may be the one thing that Don can’t beat out of her.  Even if it is the ruin of her it is also what will make her great.

.

.

TO THE WRITERS OF THE UNIT

GREETINGS.

AS WE LEARN HOW TO WRITE THIS SHOW, A RECURRING PROBLEM BECOMES CLEAR.

THE PROBLEM IS THIS: TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN *DRAMA* AND NON-DRAMA. LET ME BREAK-IT-DOWN-NOW.

EVERYONE IN CREATION IS SCREAMING AT US TO MAKE THE SHOW CLEAR. WE ARE TASKED WITH, IT SEEMS, CRAMMING A SHITLOAD OF *INFORMATION* INTO A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

OUR FRIENDS. THE PENGUINS, THINK THAT WE, THEREFORE, ARE EMPLOYED TO COMMUNICATE *INFORMATION* — AND, SO, AT TIMES, IT SEEMS TO US.

BUT NOTE: THE AUDIENCE WILL NOT TUNE IN TO WATCH INFORMATION. YOU WOULDN’T, I WOULDN’T. NO ONE WOULD OR WILL. THE AUDIENCE WILL ONLY TUNE IN AND STAY TUNED TO WATCH DRAMA.

QUESTION: WHAT IS DRAMA? DRAMA, AGAIN, IS THE QUEST OF THE HERO TO OVERCOME THOSE THINGS WHICH PREVENT HIM FROM ACHIEVING A SPECIFIC, *ACUTE* GOAL.

SO: WE, THE WRITERS, MUST ASK OURSELVES *OF EVERY SCENE* THESE THREE QUESTIONS.

1) WHO WANTS WHAT?

2) WHAT HAPPENS IF HER DON’T GET IT?

3) WHY NOW?

THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE LITMUS PAPER. APPLY THEM, AND THEIR ANSWER WILL TELL YOU IF THE SCENE IS DRAMATIC OR NOT.

IF THE SCENE IS NOT DRAMATICALLY WRITTEN, IT WILL NOT BE DRAMATICALLY ACTED.

THERE IS NO MAGIC FAIRY DUST WHICH WILL MAKE A BORING, USELESS, REDUNDANT, OR MERELY INFORMATIVE SCENE AFTER IT LEAVES YOUR TYPEWRITER. *YOU* THE WRITERS, ARE IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE *EVERY* SCENE IS DRAMATIC.

THIS MEANS ALL THE “LITTLE” EXPOSITIONAL SCENES OF TWO PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD. THIS BUSHWAH (AND WE ALL TEND TO WRITE IT ON THE FIRST DRAFT) IS LESS THAN USELESS, SHOULD IT FINALLY, GOD FORBID, GET FILMED.

IF THE SCENE BORES YOU WHEN YOU READ IT, REST ASSURED IT *WILL* BORE THE ACTORS, AND WILL, THEN, BORE THE AUDIENCE, AND WE’RE ALL GOING TO BE BACK IN THE BREADLINE.

SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE THE SCENE DRAMATIC. IT IS NOT THE ACTORS JOB (THE ACTORS JOB IS TO BE TRUTHFUL). IT IS NOT THE DIRECTORS JOB. HIS OR HER JOB IS TO FILM IT STRAIGHTFORWARDLY AND REMIND THE ACTORS TO TALK FAST. IT IS *YOUR* JOB.

EVERY SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. THAT MEANS: THE MAIN CHARACTER MUST HAVE A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, PRESSING NEED WHICH IMPELS HIM OR HER TO SHOW UP IN THE SCENE.

THIS NEED IS WHY THEY *CAME*. IT IS WHAT THE SCENE IS ABOUT. THEIR ATTEMPT TO GET THIS NEED MET *WILL* LEAD, AT THE END OF THE SCENE,TO *FAILURE* –  THIS IS HOW THE SCENE IS *OVER*.  IT, THIS FAILURE, WILL, THEN, OF NECESSITY, PROPEL US INTO THE *NEXT* SCENE.

ALL THESE ATTEMPTS, TAKEN TOGETHER, WILL, OVER THE COURSE OF THE EPISODE, CONSTITUTE THE *PLOT*.

ANY SCENE, THUS, WHICH DOES NOT BOTH ADVANCE THE PLOT, AND STANDALONE (THAT IS, DRAMATICALLY, BY ITSELF, ON ITS OWN MERITS) IS EITHER SUPERFLUOUS, OR INCORRECTLY WRITTEN.

YES BUT YES BUT YES BUT, YOU SAY: WHAT ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF WRITING IN ALL THAT “INFORMATION?”

AND I RESPOND “*FIGURE IT OUT*” ANY DICKHEAD WITH A BLUESUIT CAN BE (AND IS) TAUGHT TO SAY “MAKE IT CLEARER”, AND “I WANT TO KNOW MORE *ABOUT* HIM”.

WHEN YOU’VE MADE IT SO CLEAR THAT EVEN THIS BLUESUITED PENGUIN IS HAPPY, BOTH YOU AND HE OR SHE *WILL* BE OUT OF A JOB.

THE JOB OF THE DRAMATIST IS TO MAKE THE AUDIENCE WONDER WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. *NOT* TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT JUST HAPPENED, OR TO*SUGGEST* TO THEM WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

ANY DICKHEAD, AS ABOVE, CAN WRITE, “BUT, JIM, IF WE DON’T ASSASSINATE THE PRIME MINISTER IN THE NEXT SCENE, ALL EUROPE WILL BE ENGULFED IN FLAME”

WE ARE NOT GETTING PAID TO *REALIZE* THAT THE AUDIENCE NEEDS THIS INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THE NEXT SCENE, BUT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WRITE THE SCENE BEFORE US SUCH THAT THE AUDIENCE WILL BE INTERESTED IN WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

YES BUT, YES BUT YES *BUT* YOU REITERATE.

AND I RESPOND *FIGURE IT OUT*.

*HOW* DOES ONE STRIKE THE BALANCE BETWEEN WITHHOLDING AND VOUCHSAFING INFORMATION? *THAT* IS THE ESSENTIAL TASK OF THE DRAMATIST. AND THE ABILITY TO *DO* THAT IS WHAT SEPARATES YOU FROM THE LESSER SPECIES IN THEIR BLUE SUITS.

FIGURE IT OUT.

START, EVERY TIME, WITH THIS INVIOLABLE RULE: THE *SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC*.  IT MUST START BECAUSE THE HERO HAS A PROBLEM, AND IT MUST CULMINATE WITH THE HERO FINDING HIM OR HERSELF EITHER THWARTED OR EDUCATED THAT ANOTHER WAY EXISTS.

LOOK AT YOUR LOG LINES. ANY LOGLINE READING “BOB AND SUE DISCUSS
” IS NOT DESCRIBING A DRAMATIC SCENE.

PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR OUTLINES ARE, GENERALLY, SPECTACULAR. THE DRAMA FLOWS OUT BETWEEN THE OUTLINE AND THE FIRST DRAFT.

THINK LIKE A FILMMAKER RATHER THAN A FUNCTIONARY, BECAUSE, IN TRUTH, *YOU* ARE MAKING THE FILM. WHAT YOU WRITE, THEY WILL SHOOT.

HERE ARE THE DANGER SIGNALS.  ANY TIME TWO CHARACTERS ARE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.

ANY TIME ANY CHARACTER IS SAYING TO ANOTHER “AS YOU KNOW”, THAT IS, TELLING ANOTHER CHARACTER WHAT YOU, THE WRITER, NEED THE AUDIENCE TO KNOW, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.

DO *NOT* WRITE A CROCK OF SHIT. WRITE A RIPPING THREE, FOUR, SEVEN MINUTE SCENE WHICH MOVES THE STORY ALONG, AND YOU CAN, VERY SOON, BUY A HOUSE IN BEL AIR *AND* HIRE SOMEONE TO LIVE THERE FOR YOU.

REMEMBER YOU ARE WRITING FOR A VISUAL MEDIUM. *MOST* TELEVISION WRITING, OURS INCLUDED, SOUNDS LIKE *RADIO*.  THE *CAMERA* CAN DO THE EXPLAINING FOR YOU. *LET* IT. WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERS *DOING* -*LITERALLY*. WHAT ARE THEY HANDLING, WHAT ARE THEY READING. WHAT ARE THEY WATCHING ON TELEVISION, WHAT ARE THEY *SEEING*.

IF YOU PRETEND THE CHARACTERS CANT SPEAK, AND WRITE A SILENT MOVIE, YOU WILL BE WRITING GREAT DRAMA.

IF YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF OF THE CRUTCH OF NARRATION, EXPOSITION,INDEED, OF *SPEECH*. YOU WILL BE FORGED TO WORK IN A NEW MEDIUM – TELLING THE STORY IN PICTURES (ALSO KNOWN AS SCREENWRITING)

THIS IS A NEW SKILL. NO ONE DOES IT NATURALLY. YOU CAN TRAIN YOURSELVES TO DO IT, BUT YOU NEED TO *START*.

I CLOSE WITH THE ONE THOUGHT: LOOK AT THE *SCENE* AND ASK YOURSELF “IS IT DRAMATIC? IS IT *ESSENTIAL*? DOES IT ADVANCE THE PLOT?

ANSWER TRUTHFULLY.

IF THE ANSWER IS “NO” WRITE IT AGAIN OR THROW IT OUT. IF YOU’VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS, CALL ME UP.

LOVE, DAVE MAMET

SANTA MONICA 19 OCTOBER 05

(IT IS *NOT* YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW THE ANSWERS, BUT IT IS YOUR, AND MY, RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW AND TO *ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS* OVER AND OVER. UNTIL IT BECOMES SECOND NATURE. I BELIEVE THEY ARE LISTED ABOVE.)

The future is arriving faster that anyone expected.  It is playing out in the biggest pay-TV provider, Comcast’s  takeover of NBC and Rupert Murdock’s battle with Time Warner cable.   Here’s an interesting article from the Hollywood Reporter on how the TV business model is unravelling in front of our very eyes.

For more than 60 years, TV stations have broadcast news, sports and entertainment for free and made their money by showing commercials. That might not work much longer.

The business model is unraveling at ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox and the local stations that carry the networks’ programming. Cable TV and the Web have fractured the audience for free TV and siphoned its ad dollars. The recession has squeezed advertising further, forcing broadcasters to accelerate their push for new revenue to pay for programming.

That will play out in living rooms across the country. The changes could mean higher cable or satellite TV bills, as the networks and local stations squeeze more fees from pay-TV providers such as Comcast and DirecTV for the right to show broadcast TV channels in their lineups. The networks might even ditch free broadcast signals in the next few years. Instead, they could operate as cable channels — a move that could spell the end of free TV as Americans have known it since the 1940s.

Full article here

Jazz musician Bill Cunliffe loves television — but he doesn’t watch it on a TV set.

“I can watch anything I want, any time I want,” he said, “on my bottom-of-the-line Mac PowerBook.”

Cunliffe, 53, is one of a growing number of TV viewers who get all their programs via the Internet.

For reasons that include saving money, convenience, personal choice and a hatred of commercials, these viewers are cutting the cord from cable, satellite and telephone suppliers of TV service, and even throwing away the rabbit ears and other antennas that brought in over-the-air broadcasts.

“The idea that you come home and your entertainment choices are dictated on what some entertainment channel decides is not for me,” said video game producer Chris Codding, whose Venice apartment has a 52-inch Sony television that’s used only for video games and viewing DVDs.

“I really like the concept of having something in your mind that you want to watch,” Codding said, “and then going to the computer and watching it.”

There have been no mainstream studies on just how many people have cut the cord to established TV program suppliers, and the percentage of viewers who have done it is probably small. But there’s plenty of evidence that the number of people who are watching TV shows online is growing.

Read the whole article here:  http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-notv26-2009oct26,0,3559474.story

For all those who are having a hard time being heard above the fray–

Dear WGAW members –

I am delighted to let you know that the Writer Access Project is returning. Inaugurated last season, this project is designed to identify excellent diverse writers with television experience and to bring these writers’ scripts to the attention of showrunners, creative executives and agents for consideration during staffing season. Writers with previous television writing experience are invited to submit a spec script and spec pilot in one of five categories: minority writers; writers with disabilities; women writers; writers over age 55; and gay and lesbian writers.

Last year twenty-eight writers or writing teams were selected as Writer Access Project “winners” and their work was made available to showrunners, network and production company executives, and agents. In addition the group was offered a fascinating talk from an experienced showrunner about how best to promote oneself in a meeting. We received 160 submissions and 150 producer-level writers served as judges in two rounds of judging. The overall response to the project, based on surveys of participants and judges, was extremely encouraging.  We intend to continue to build the program with increased publicity and promotion to the entertainment community when this year’s winners are selected.

We have made some improvements to the program based on input from last year’s participants:

1. The deadline for submission will be November 30, allowing greater time for preparation of the required materials.

2.  Current active and Post-current active members are eligible to submit (see more details in the Guidelines).

3.  We intend to announce the winners of this year’s project earlier (by mid-March) to allow more time for showrunners to read the work of WAP winners.

There are some additional changes in the Guidelines and requirements for submission, so please review them carefully.  The Guidelines and Application can be found at:  http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=3436

Please contact the WGAW Diversity Department if you have any questions: diversity@wga.org or 323-782-4589.

We hope many of you will submit your material for consideration as part of this program and that you will benefit from the experience.

Best,

Kimberly Myers

Director of Diversity

Writers Guild of America, West

7000 West Third Street

Los Angeles, CA 90048

“I was asked to address you this morning with my observations on the present as well as the future state of Independent Production.

But before I begin, I have to relate the story of a close friend of mine, who’s a leading heart surgeon.

He said he’d recently been involved in a very trying and emotional six hour piece of open heart surgery where he and a team of people fought valiantly but unsuccessfully to save a patient.

Afterwards, my friend entered the Doctor’s locker room where one of his colleagues was staring absently into the void, clearly spent from the ordeal. He tried to cheer him up but the colleague turned to him and asked why he was not more distraught.

My friend answered with a smile:

At least we weren’t asked to save Independent Production.

Well, the truth be told, we may not be heart patients but we aren’t that far away. We have too many insignificant movies clogging our distribution channels. Tightening economic conditions are sending sharp pains through our systems. Our blood supply from heretofore vibrant markets such as DVD and TV seemingly have evaporated in front of our eyes.

The question we must ask is if the condition is fatal.

In all candor I would say only to some.

Those who ignore the warning signs. Who don’t adjust to the threatening conditions. Those producers and distributors who pretend there is nothing wrong.

Nine years ago, I was a healthy and occasionally happy studio executive. I had taken Fox over a 7 year period from a doormat to the #1 studio and before that had spent 9 years at Disney building a then-dormant minor player into a muscular and, for the first time in its history, a real force in the studio world. I left Fox with 5 of the Top 10 films in history and departed Disney with 19 of the Top 20 Videos ever and as the #1 International distributor.

I had fought with Rupert Murdoch over my desire to create a business for Fox in the world of animation. He felt no one could compete with Disney. Nevertheless I started up Fox Animation. ANASTASIA was a start, it made money. TITAN AE a misstep, and lost. Even though that is the nature of the business, that not everything works, he didn’t want to wait for ICE AGE to finish production. I didn’t have a foot out of the door before Fox tried to sell off the film. Luckily for them, they couldn’t get a deal done.

At the same time, Peter Chernin thought I was taking too much of a chance with X MEN. He called it my $70mm art film, since everyone knew that not only were comic book movies dead but you certainly couldn’t start one in a concentration camp. That wasn’t comic book fun. Maybe not, but most comic books are dark, so it was a question of being relevant, of being grounded.

Ironically, both films have lasted longer at Fox than I did and are now the most valuable franchises in the history of that studio, throwing off billions of dollars of profit.

But they also were, along with FIGHT CLUB, the leading reasons I was shown the door. My bosses couldn’t deal with the unconventional choices like those and others such as BRAVEHEART and THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY because the films weren’t pre-sold and thus seemed less predictable. This despite the fact that these unconventional movies guided Fox to the 5 best years in its history.

When I left, a few of the other Majors called to see if I were interested in running their shops. I thought instead it was time to do things on my own, to not work for companies that no longer wanted to be in the film business, that no longer thought enough about the future to not gum it up. Easier to raise money and worry only about making good movies which could make money.

Needless to say I was naïve. I thought raising money would be easy. I didn’t exactly foresee such things as the Silicon Valley bubble bursting, or the economic meltdown, or the Madof scandal. But then I guess the Captain of the Titanic thought the Atlantic was smooth sailing. And Batman thought the Joker would be a laugh.

When I first made the decision to go off on my own, Larry Gordon said to me something that I’ve never forgotten. He said running a studio is a great job but a terrible life. Producing is a great life but a terrible job.

9 years as an independent producer provides a great perspective. It also cause heart palpitations.

Here’s the one key thing I’ve learned: there is no such thing as an independent producer. There are only dependent producers.

Dependent on distributors, financiers, and bankers, and distribution channels that understand the needs of the market even less than the corporations that own the studios.

Which makes a truly independent producer even more truly dependent because the alternatives to the studio system are in many ways more difficult, not easier.

Perhaps even more than the studios, those with the controls over whether or not a movie gets made independent of the studios do so almost with less attention to the movie itself.

Part of that is due to outsiders who always seem to come into the business believing they can do better and yet rarely have an idea of what they are doing. Attorneys and financial analysts picking movies is a recipe for disaster. They can tell you all day long what hasn’t recently worked, but in truth, haven’t the experience or the knowledge to do anything different than has already been done.

That’s been the oddest lesson of this period for me. That the independent world, which should be aiming to do things better and different from the Studios, doesn’t have that as a mandate at all. If anything, the only thing that independent distributors and financiers look for is the SAME. Maybe costing a little less than the Majors, but they want what the Studios want, or in FIGHT CLUB speak, they want copies of a copy.

I now understand that unconventional choices like X MEN and ICE AGE would barely have a prayer getting made independently. Why? Because at the time, they didn’t look like anything else.

It’s disrespectful if not downright dumb to think audiences can’t tell the difference between the original, which occasionally might even have some fresh faces, and the copy, which almost always is populated with retreads. It’s like thinking you can sell yesterday’s news under a different banner.

The exception to the rule is DISTRICT 9, which didn’t try to compete with the Majors with special effects or stars or plot. Instead of feeling recycled, it was fresh and is now one of the year’s best and most successful pictures. But lot of credit has to go to Peter Jackson since it was undoubtedly his clout that got the film made.

Following the lead of the Majors, presumes that they know what they want. It presumes they have a fix on their audiences.

I would say that’s anything but true. Admissions are down over the past few years and, perhaps most troubling, the audience that Hollywood spends the majority of time focusing on, the under 25’s, are the ones finding other things to do.

Take a look at this shift over the past decade. While use of the internet and video games have dominated leisure time activities, movie consumption is down or flat over the same period. And, more to the point, you can see that there is a 21% drop in film going amongst the core target audience and a 24% drop in the next key category, 25-39 year olds.

And yes, these charts beg another question: if the audiences are shifting, why isn’t the product shifting as well. Name 5 mainstream films this year that successfully targeted an over-30 year audience.

In that way, Hollywood in the broadest sense of the word is much like Detroit. It’s a manufacturer’s mentality that reigns, seemingly indifferent to the consumers it serves. Ignore whether the consumer likes our product as long as they buy it.

Market it and they will come.

And don’t worry if they don’t come back. Accept 60% drop off rates as the norm, saying it’s all about wide openings.

Three years ago the Lakers all-but sold out every game even though they had a lousy team. Since Jerry Buss is a smart owner, he knew if he didn’t fix things, no shows would eventually turn into season ticket non-renewals. He did what he needed to do to make it the hottest ticket in town again and a no-show today is a no-no.

When was the last time you heard anyone either from a studio or an independent talking about improving their product, of creating positive buzz and expanding the audience?

Here’s one basic question to ask yourself: If the most popular film in history was TITANIC and it did so by weaving together interest in all demographic pockets as well as pulling in non-film goers, why in the last 12 years has no attempted to do the same?

TITANIC was #1 at the box office for 15 consecutive weeks. It not only spurred on record year in theatrical attendance, and had the biggest video in history, but also generated the biggest Oscar telecast in years. A good movie, like a good team in sports, makes everything around it better.

An independent couldn’t and shouldn’t make movies of that scale but it should make movies as individualistic and compelling. Certainly there are good examples among some of the smaller independent films—-SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE being an easy choice — that actually do stand out and succeed because of their quality and their uniqueness.

But as you can see from these next few charts, the independent world was no more concerned with the consumer than the studios. With the influx of hedge fund money, the past decade saw a glutting of product, again most of it with no idea of who it was for or how it could be sold. Whether some of these movies had artistic integrity or not, there is no question there was no audience appeal.

From the low water mark of 1990, there has been a 50% increase in the number of pictures and even since 2000, nearly a 25% increase. And most of the influx came from non-Majors, rising from 150 in 1990 to 450 in 2008. That, my friends, is insanity.

Remember that through this entire period, the only growth at the box office has been inflationary, which means more films were fighting for a share of a flat box office. Over approximately this same period, the biggest hits took even a greater share of the box office pie, meaning the independents, even with a vastly greater number of releases, are taking a dramatically smaller percentage of the available money.

Let me get out the rest of the bad news, though I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know. The next 2-3 years will be even worse, not because of the flood of new releases, since that is already abating, but rather due to the effect the over saturation has had combined with the economic downturn.

New money is going to be hard, if not impossible to find. Ad sales are down, so TV networks around the world, other than cable, aren’t buying. Add in a confused video market, and it’s going to be tough.

To my mind, the next few years will be about survival.

If it’s any consolation, it will be harder on the Studios than the independents. Not only is it harder for big companies to change, to adapt, but there are legacy issues in terms of personnel. And within the next few years, their big market advantage, the bricks and mortar of their distribution operations, will become a disadvantage in the democratic age of digital. I would assume at least 2 of the Majors to be sold or consolidated by the middle of the decade.

Before I turn to why I don’t think this is all fatal — and in fact, might be a boon — let me address one more item, video. I get asked a lot if the problems are systemic. My answer is not necessarily. That we would reach a point of maturation in DVD is natural and logical, but too much of the downturn is completely self-imposed.

Like much of the bad decision making that has helped take a lot of the profit out of the business, the air was let out of the tires by the studios themselves. No top management of a studio really cared what was going on over the past few years other than was their budget being met.

No one asked whether their units should be pushing Blu-Ray in the face of an economic melt-down or even whether or not Blu-Ray was going to be the next big ap to the general consumer. They simply accepted the idea that they could resell their libraries at higher prices.

So no one asked what impact dropping the price on their existing DVD’s would have. I mean if I can buy TITANIC for under $5 in some stores, why am I so eager then to rush out to pay $30 or so when it’s released on Blu Ray? Is the quality difference that great? How many formats are yet to come?

No one asked what buying great movies at cheap prices would do to new releases, which may not be as great. Give a consumer with less expendable dollars a choice between LEGALLY BLONDE for $5 or ALL ABOUT STEVE for $20 or $30, which do I want to buy?

Simply said, the studios have destroyed the price-value relationship in video, particularly when low priced rental alternatives have sprung up everywhere.

And then add in the absolute flooding of TV product from the beginning of time into the market, and you have the conditions that have absolutely killed video as the key profit center of new movies.

Ok, so in the face of all this, why can I say this is all good news? Because a lot of waste is going to be cleared from the marketplace. Excess product will go away, the people who don’t take the business seriously will go away. Hopefully those who make crummy movies will also go away, but that may just be a personal wish.

In 1984, I went with Michael Eisner and Jeffrey Katzenberg to Disney as perhaps the 4th employee of the new regime. Disney at the time was barely a film producer much less a major distributor. Before we could execute the plans to transform that company into one of the Majors, I was asked to prepare the presentation to the Board of Directors. A lot of capital was at stake.

The numbers, like some of those we’ve discussed today, were overwhelmingly negative. In truth, the film business has never been an easy one to master. More companies fail than succeed. But what I presented, and this is still one of the absolute truths of the industry, was that it was only a bad business on average. If you expect to be an average performer in this world, you can expect to fail.

Those without the ambition or the brains to figure their way through these tough economic conditions are going to be the heart patients who cannot be saved. No one has a birthright in this business.

It is a game for winners. And those who win today will win to an even greater extent than at almost any point in the past. The flattening of the box office is only true on a macro level. For the individual film, the sky is the limit. Even though there’s more piracy of the hit picture than any other, it’s still that same hit picture that can score giant revenues in all the ancillary streams.

Those who will win will be smart about what they make and how they sell their films. They will hopefully make good films but perhaps even more key they will make unique films that stand out, which means they will not have to compete against the bulk of the films for talent. They won’t look like all the other films so they won’t have to spend as much money marketing them.

It’s not that the buyers aren’t there. Consumers, TV outlets, Retailers and, yes, even Pirates want what works.

Don’t believe me? Ask Summit about TWILIGHT. Ask Searchlight about SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. Ask Screen Gems about DISTRICT 9. Ask Focus about CORALINE.

Let me conclude by saying that the challenges are great. Technological innovations often hurt before they help, it takes resources to fight the sense of entitlement that breeds piracy, it takes skill and experience to know what FDR really meant when he said: We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”