Rated Xmas

I don't know if you're aware of it, but there's become a whole subculture of TV Christmas movies. Okay, "subculture" isn't really the word for it: in our modern world, we have so many entertainment choices that there can be an entertainment trend that exists on its own and has ardent followers, but much of the public remains oblivious, like Amish Romance. Well that's what has developed here; several specialty channels will be showing nothing but Christmas movies all through November and December. But it's just a few channels, and mostly during the day, so you may not know about them at all. But there are so many - with more being cranked out ever year - that there's apparently a great appetite for them. Apparently the Hallmark Channel in the U.S. is making most of them, and here in Canada they've been picked up by several channels with compatible programming. Mainly that's the W Network. Hey, remember when that started and everyone expected it was going to be radical feminism 24/7? Innocent times.

Generally, these are laid-back romantic-comedies, though there isn't even the pretence of going after the bro market, so the stories are very focused on the female character, and not a hint of slap-stick or gross humour. And there's a theme of people finding themselves, finding their love of Christmas, or, a new appreciation for their small town.

Interestingly, they seem to be mostly made in Canada. For one thing, we've become the cheap film capital of the world, and we have snow.  And that leads to something interesting: The stars of these movies are either soap stars, or people who used to be on sitcoms. But most of the supporting cast are Canadian actors. Even if you don't know them, you've seen them in commercials. But the mainly American audience for these movies wouldn't know this, they'd just wonder why the same few people keep popping up in one movie after another, and assume that these folks have somehow decided to specialize in just holiday-related roles.

I've complained in the past about the ubiquity of Christmas, and how long we celebrate it, so you'd think that I'd be really annoyed by these movies. And yet, I'm not. For one thing, I don't hate Christmas, I just hate having it shoved down my throat non-stop. I find that it's quite pleasant having Christmas in nice little parcels that I can take or leave, even if they start early and schmaltzy.

My only complaint is that, as I said, these movies are all variations on a theme, and it would be nice if other networks concentrating on different genres would offer their own Christmas movies. That could be difficult. Like say, there have been only a few Christmas horror movies. And there aren't really any sci-fi Christmas movies beyond Santa Claus Conquers The Martians. And twenty-eight Doctor Who specials. 

Of course, there's a discussion every Christmas about whether Die Hard counts as a Christmas movie, since it doesn't have much in the way of Christmas themes, but does take place on Christmas Eve. I always thought that argument was kind of silly, but perhaps I'm being too harsh. It's just the first of a new wave of Christmas action movies. The next one should be along any time now.

All About That Bass, No Pressure

At a recent hockey game, a commentator was discussing the scoring slump of Max Pacioretty, the winger for Las Vegas who was acquired in an off-season trade. The commentator said that he had asked a local reporter if he was under any pressure because of the lack of scoring. That reporter just said, of course not, it's Vegas. After all, hockey teams don't get nearly the media exposure in the US, even in markets where the sport is popular. The subtext is that Pacioretty had previously played his whole career in Montreal, where players are constantly in the spotlight. Had he started the season this slowly there, it would have been the only thing the city was talking about for a week.

And that's a concern that comes up a lot in Canada. Our hockey teams have never been great at attracting free-agents. Sure, the Leafs signed John Tavares this summer, but generally we haven’t made big splashy signings, and we'd like a better idea of why. Some say it's higher taxes, some say it's the cold winters. But if that were true, northern blue states would have the same problem, but it doesn’t work out that way. So many wonder if it's the media fishbowl that we put our hockey players in.

It’s great if you’re a successful hockey player in Canada; you’ll be treated like a god. But there will be a lot of pressure too. The unfortunate aspect of this is that it’s a negative with little upside. In most sports, being under the media microscope comes with more money or a better chance or winning. That’s why people love to sign with Barcelona or the Yankees. But the NHL’s salary cap means that you get the same money wherever you sign. And with that, the chance of winning is no different for Canada’s hockey teams, and the evidence is that they have even less chance. It seems that all things being equal, players would rather not have the pressure than risk it to get extra fame.

I've heard a lot of people over the years discuss this price of fame outside the context of sports. Is it worth the fame and fortune if you can't go about your life in peace and privacy? I remember a DJ once hypothesizing that bassists have the best life of any musicians. They get the same share of the money, as well as the cheers and whatever happens backstage and in the hotel. But once that’s over, they can go about their lives in peace with no one recognizing them.

But being a hockey star in the US is a similar perfect balance. Mostly, you go about your life unbothered. But then every few days you get to spend a few hours surrounded by adoring fans cheering you on. Within the arena, people know who you are and care about you, but once the game is over you go back to anonymity.

I know it's sacrilege to say, but the Americans have it right, in their own way. They care just enough about hockey, but not too much. Indeed, that’s how the whole world should work: We have this big event where everyone is really excited and has a good time, but when it’s over, we put it aside and stop worrying about it, and treat the participants like normal people. Yes, we should all learn from American hockey fans. When they show up.

This Here Gerenuk

Google is making a marketing push for the various incarnations of the Google Assistant. That includes an ad showing people narrating videos with obvious errors, like misidentifying the Eiffel Tower. Every time I watch that one, it seems quite unbelievable. Not that people would misidentify the Eiffel Tower - I totally buy that. I just can't believe the ad is going to win anyone over.

As I mentioned in one of my first posts, the internet allows you to cure your ignorance almost instantly, yet so many people just don't use the opportunity. And one of the defining characteristics of our age is that despite being a time of abundant information, so many people don't care whether or not they are correct. In a world where anonymous social media sources are more esteemed than experts, it's hard to imagine anyone caring whether they've correctly identified some animal at the zoo.

To be clear, I'm not putting down people who lack knowledge, but come on, if you can't recognize giraffes or the Eiffel Tower, you've probably been hiding from learning most of your life. Or to look at it another way: If you have a great lack of knowledge, surely you would get used to the idea that you’re often wrong about things, and thus you’d learn not to make over-confident statements about things you know little about. But if you persist in making authoritative statements anyway, you presumably care more about sounding smart than being smart, so you're not going to change just because you can ask your phone. After all, you've always been able to ask the person next to you, you just don't want to.

Indeed, the second half of the ad is the fakest-sounding, with the same people reacting to being informed by Google. They all take it quite well, humbly accepting the correction in a way that’s completely alien to anyone on twenty-first-century planet Earth. Come on Google, your business is built around knowing the Internet, yet you haven’t noticed that people don’t react politely to being challenged in public? I hate to play the Silicon-Valley-is-out-of-touch card, since that seems to be the explanation for all shortcomings of technology today; but that seems to be the case here. Google is assuming that the public is crying out for more information, and valuing facts above all else.