If city is getting just one tree, let it be shiny
New York would be green with envy of our silver holiday icon
A tree grows in Palos. Heights. Fifty-six feet later, it has been chosen as the city's Christmas tree.
In an effort to chop the reported $300,000 cost of having a 90-foot-high tree made of 113 trees, the city is going with just the one tree. This will reportedly cost about half as much -- and when you factor in $100,000 from a corporate sponsor, we're looking at a $50,000 tree instead of a $300,000 tree.
Fifty grand? The late Aaron Spelling probably spent more than that on imported snow and decorations for his Beverly Hills mansion every Christmas.
That said, I have another way for the city to save money on the annual cost of the Big Tree.
Go silver.
With the help of a sponsor, the city of Chicago can commission some artist to create a giant, old-school, retro-1960s-hipster, aluminum Christmas tree.
Why are we turning to New York for advice on a mini-version of the Rockefeller Center tree? Why not forge our own, controversial, possibly tacky, but definitely original X-mas identity?
And just think: every year, the city can take down the tree and put it in the world's largest cardboard box, to be used again.
And again. And again.
When a multi-multi-multi-millionaire such as Jay Leno talks about employment opportunities for others in his industry, you know he's treading in tricky territory and he's going to take some heat.
In an interview with Broadcasting & Cable magazine, Leno was asked about the perception that his show's move to prime time resulted in a loss of jobs for writers of scripted dramas.
Leno said, "I say to the people who write the dramas: If I weren't doing this, it would be 'Dateline' five nights a week or reality shows. ... There is enough work out there, so people shouldn't necessarily be mad at me for taking the 10 o'clock spot."
He's got a point. It's not as if NBC or any of the other networks weren't already relying heavily on unscripted programming even before the startling move of Leno's show to five nights a week in prime time.
A couple of comments from a message board on Nikki Finke's site:
" 'Enough work out there,' my ass."
"As a TV worker who's been unemployed for almost eight months: F--- you, Jay. If you think you're not putting people out of work by taking five time slots off the table, you're delusional."
Sorry for that person's situation, but that view is simplistic. Leno employs 22 writers and dozens of other employees; if he refused to take the show to prime time, which would be insane, wouldn't he be putting his own staff out of work in the name of "creating" jobs for the five mythical scripted shows that NBC would air?
It's true that 20 or even 10 years ago, there were more scripted shows on the Big Three (or Big Four if you count Fox) networks than there are in 2009. But let's list just some titles of scripted shows, many of which have garnered multiple Emmy nominations and wins:
"Mad Men." "The Closer." "Entourage." "Weeds." "Rescue Me." "Dexter." "Curb Your Enthusiasm." "Breaking Bad." "Flight of the Conchords." "The Vampire Diaries."
"Monk." "In Treatment." "Saving Grace." "Damages." "Californication." "True Blood." "The Tudors."
Cable shows, one and all. Multi-character, scripted shows, with first-rate production elements and (in most cases) outstanding casts.
Lots of jobs there. (And let's not forget scripted comedy programs such as "The Colbert Report" and "The Daily Show.")
Granted, some cable channels have been around for a generation -- but even the stalwarts such as HBO weren't doing nearly as much original programming back in the day as they're producing now. And many other channels are relative newcomers.
Yes, there are a fewer scripted shows on NBC, ABC, CBS. But if you look at the total number of scripted shows on broadcast channels, premium and basic cable in 2009 compared with the number of such programs in 1989 or 1969, seems like there are actually more opportunities today.