The television component consists of a weekly ½ hour, divided into two distinct but definitely related parts: The first half of each program will consist of a short (approximately 10-15 minutes) animated segment, a legitimate documentary exploring some aspect, principle, or episode in the history of the constitution. Embracing the spirit of the Disney informational films of the 1950s, this segment, briefly and trenchantly introduced by Dr. Bruin, would comprise an affectionate parody of the Ken Burns documentary style. It will be, as much as allowed by historical and factual integrity, both a valid informational film and a very funny animated political cartoon.
Bruin’s narration, aided by the onscreen action of an assortment of the bear’s animal and human colleagues, will absorbingly and irreverently dramatize, explain and enliven the history and content of the Constitution.
In the second (roughly) quarter-hour, the television property takes on a new and remarkable turn. This portion consists of a round-table discussion, populated by some of the more respectable members of the current pundit circuit (for example, but not limited to: David Gergen, Jonathan Turley, Doris Kearns Goodwin, etc.); popular historians such as David McCullough, and one or two distinguished young scholars selected on a revolving basis from among the nation’s schools. The panel discussion might take place in what might be best and most succinctly described as a “woodland studio,” or perhaps simply a studio panel setting similar to that of “Washington Week in Review” and others; the panel will be moderated by William Jennings Bruin himself, always vigilant to keep the facts straight and in service to objective truth against the leanings of one or the other political bent. Dr. Bruin will keep the discussion focused, and will not accept sophistry, platitudes or bromides in the place of substantive discourse and valid argument.
The animated segment for the first half will be done with traditional cel animation; Bruin himself will be rendered digitally, to allow him to more convincingly occupy the same space as flesh-and-blood humans.
Taping will take place using the individual who provides the Constitutional authority, as well as (hopefully) the voice and physical personality of Dr. Bruin (it is conceivable that WJB could be a composite of some of the more accomplished Constitutional thinkers now practicing, with voice and physical presence substituted for the physical person in post-production), and therefore would be shot much like any videotaped panel discussion that populates the weekend airwaves. Dr. Bruin will be added digitally later.
At first glance, this might look prohibitively expensive; but in actuality, once the digital wire-frames and models for Bruin have been established, the animation can be achieved simply, expressively, quickly and inexpensively. Once the format has been set and the crew has become comfortable with it, it will be quite feasible for WJB to deal with current affairs in the manner of late-breaking news, with state-of-the-art animation that can be done both economically and in virtually “real time.” It would be entirely reasonable to expect that within a few months after his initial appearances on webcasts, Bruin could appear for interviews dealing with current events pertaining to the Constitution on newscasts such as The Situation Room,The News Hour, Meet the Press or Washington Week in Review.
The humor and visual dynamic of cartoon animation will hold the kids and adults alike, while the information will attract return viewings by the adults, especially when it becomes known that there is now a tool for the general public to receive comprehensible explanations of issues that are invoked, then generally glossed over in most of the news media. A highly desirable demographic, adults 18-35, and particularly parents, would have educational programming from which they can actually benefit and enjoy, alongside their children.
NOTE: This is a nonpartisan program whose goal is to familiarize the American Public with the meaning of the U. S. Constitution. While it will exercise the prerogatives of satire wherever there’s an opportunity to do so, it will subscribe to no political agenda. It will not further sanctify the framers; neither will it advocate an overhaul of the document, though it will consistently examine both the “living document” and “originalist” arguments. Within the landscape of A More Perfect Union, facts, veracity, historical accuracy and contextual integrity are the sine qua non.