From 2008: What's to like? And what have we lost?

I wrote the following piece as a follow-up to my first essay (first post, below), in 2008. Then, I promptly forgot about it. I just found it again, this morning. I'm posting it now because I think it sums up why the soap opera, as a genre, is an important one, and why its "death" is such a loss, as far as I am concerned.

The conclusion I came to in 2008 is, alas, no longer applicable, ironically.

From 2008:

Confessions of a Soap-Opera Addict, Part II: What’s to Like?

               So, if the flaws of the dramatic serial are so painfully obvious to everyone--especially to those who don't watch them--then why are they still on the air, some even enjoying their 40^th anniversaries? Why did the genre not die out once television writing gained a certain level of sophistication and integrity? Do people only watch nowadays for the chance to mock derisively at the screen?  Are the only people who actually watch these things either hopelessly deluded, live in a fantasy world, or have decidedly low-brow tastes?

               The answer to the first two questions is that as the overall writing for television improved significantly during the 90s and the 2000s, daytime dramas enjoyed a concurrent improvement.  Prime time television shows learned a great deal about how to exploit the episodic nature of television by figuring out that a character’s development does not have to happen in a single episode. Nay, it could actually take time, develop gradually, and that development can be shown over a handful of episodes, even seasons.  A “thread” from an earlier episode—a throw-away thought or random detail—can be further developed later on during the season, and that development can be followed up in later episodes. I saw this most clearly while being a devoted fan of Star Trek: The Next Generation, whose writers virtually defined what is now known in the business as a “character arc.” Then they also discovered that they can take the same concept and apply it to circumstances—consequences of a single action or decision can ripple through multiple episodes, multiple seasons.  The daytime writers of the 2000s must have been 14-year-old Star Trek fans in the 1990s who learned this lesson and applied it to their own genre, for this appears more and more, in more and more complicated ways, in soap operas today. This technique not only gives dramas a certain level of sophistication (and demand a certain level of viewer sophistication as well),  but it also makes them more and more like real life and less and less like life in another dimension.

               Although life in another dimension is not always a bad thing.  You must remember that most soap operas have casts of about 30-35 at any given moment during the year.  They are often set in small towns that are suburbs of larger, more recognizable cities. “All My Children” is in “Pine Valley,” and “One Life to Live” is in “Llanview,” both of which are described as suburbs of Philadelphia, which is also close enough to New York City that the characters often make trips to The City. Lately, the characters on “One Life” have also made many trips to Atlantic City (and back again, several times a day!).  All soap opera characters mention that theirs is a “small town,”  a comment usually made to explain how and why past loves cannot realistically be avoided.  But the main consequence of all this “small-town-ness” is that so many things happen to so few people.  Soap Opera Land is a very small universe, where all things happen to all people. In real life, all things happen, but not to all people.  Yes, some people lose their homes to a hurricane. But not all of them do. Yes, some people’s marriages are damaged by infidelity (lots of them, actually)—but not all of them. Some people tragically lose loved ones to accidents, murder, disease, or abandonment.  But not all people. But in Soap Opera Land, everyone experiences these things, sooner or later, at one time or another, especially if they stay on the show long enough. Soap Opera Land is Real Life, but concentrated. Yes, Erica Kane has been married 11 times and had 10 husbands. She represents, though, that portion of the general population who have experienced multiple marriages.  To be exactly right, she probably should be married a few more times before retirement!

               And here’s the main two benefits of this peculiar set of circumstances:  First, because Soap Opera Land is both so concentrated and so protracted over time, we as viewers have the extraordinary opportunity to witness the development of a single actor’s acting skills.  Although this may not always happen (there have been some notable exceptions of actors who were wretched at the beginning, and even more wretched on their last day), most of them have the time and the opportunity to learn their craft through practice and exigency. Front-burner storyline actors (those in featured storylines) must memorize up to 50 pages of dialogue a day. This is extremely difficult, all by itself. Added to that is the necessity of delivering those lines with sincerity and in a way that is consistent with the character’s personality and history.  The ones not up to the task, mercifully, leave, allowing their roles to be either re-cast or written off. That usually leaves the door open for those with true talent, and with true dedication to their craft, to rise to the occasion.  This past May, I saw some of the finest acting I've ever seen on daytime television when Rex (played by John-Paul Lavoisier) and Adriana (played by  Melissa Fumero) on “One Life to Live” broke up.  With understated, restrained, painfully honest acting, both of these actors gave the performances of their lives. I would not have believed either of them capable of such acting when they first came on the show, Lavoisier 6 years ago, and Fumero 5 years before. Both of them have had lots of time and multiple front-burner storylines in order to learn their business, and it paid off in a stunning sequence of scenes which were very unlike the histrionic melodrama that soap operas have been blamed for in the past.

               The second benefit of this circumstance is that the writers have fantastic opportunities to take on controversial and sometimes shocking storylines.  Rape, rape resulting in pregnancy, transgender issues, anorexia, and homosexuality  have all been  explored with  great sensitivity on “All My Children.”  On “One Life to Live,” mental illness, abusive childhoods, gang rape, prostitution, and issues of social class have all been intertwined into major storylines that have not only educated people on many of these conditions or issues, but also on how difficult they are to confront and resolve.   They often come back to “haunt” the characters, in a way that lets the viewer know that many of these issues can never be fully resolved in a human lifetime.

               So even though there is a lot of justifiable criticism aimed at the genre, as a genre, it has been able to grow, adapt, change, and learn from its own successes and its own mistakes, providing us, the viewers, with a model for how that possibility exists for us—always.   Their continued existence seems to suggest that we, also, can endure.

Lawsuits and the Death of My Soap Opera Addiction

No News is Bad News

The news is not good for fans of formerly-ABC-property-but-sold-to-Prospect- Park-and-re-booted soaps, One Life to Life and All My Children. 

In a real-life story line more entangled and convoluted than anything a soap writer could come up with, the production company that purchased the rights to produce and broadcast the two long-lived soaps has thrown in the towel.

I totally blame the greedy bastards at ABC for the
entire situation.

So, first, ABC cancels the two longest-running daytime shows in ABC's history. Then, they sell the licensing rights to Prospect Park. They effectively washed their hands of the two shows they owned, produced, and broadcast for years.

Prospect Park, happy to have bought the right to produce and broadcast two shows with established audiences, took its sweet time getting the shows up and running. They had to line up the actors, crews, and writers; find studio space and set up the sets, get the scripts written, hire the camera men and set decorators and all that (must have been enormously complex); and arrange to have the two shows shown on Hulu. This must have been a logistical nightmare, so they can be forgiven for taking months to get it all done. But they did it.

(While we were all patiently waiting, I couldn't help but scope out the CBS shows, The Young and the Restless and The Bold and the Beautiful, where, to my surprise, several AMC and OLTL actors found temp jobs, playing short-lived roles. People gotta eat, after all.)

Looking back, the casual observer--not even an "industry insider" or someone who watches media trends for a living--could have seen the signs that there was Big Trouble in Soap Opera Land.  First, both shows went from 1 hour (really 42 minutes, with 18 minutes of commercials, on broadcast TV) to less than half an hour. Even though there were only three commercial breaks that lasted less than 3 minutes each, that still only gave us 23 to 25 minutes of show. Furthermore, they were only being broadcast 4 days a week, rather than the traditional 5 (and for the record, I never watched that filler-nonsense called "More" that they showed on Fridays. Truly awful.)

Then, they went from being broadcast 4 days a week, to twice a week, alternating (Mondays and Wednesdays were for AMC; Tuesdays and Thursdays for OLTL). Then, they removed the day restriction, and two episodes of both shows were made available for watching every Monday.  This all lasted about 6 months. Then, both shows announced that they had reached the ends of their "first seasons."

Prospect had announced early in the summer that they were being sued by ABC, but they assured the viewers that it would all get straightened out by the end of the summer, and we would see no interruption of the shows, since they had enough filmed and ready to last through the end of the summer, and surely the lawsuit would be settled by then. Well, not so much.

I remember thinking at the time, What in the world? Why is ABC suing PP? Didn't they sell the rights to the shows to PP? Aren't they done with them? Why are they suing? There were no answers to these questions--at least, none that ABC would own up to.

And now, Prospect Park, at the end of its rope, apparently, is counter-suing ABC, for a whopping $125 mil. Here's the latest story:

http://www.deadline.com/2013/11/prospect-park-now-seeking-125m-in-abc-soap-lawsuit/

All the comments on the two shows' Facebook pages are suggesting that PP has chosen to cancel the two shows, and if they win the lawsuit, they will pocket the money they get out of it, putting it in the kitty for new or just different shows--perhaps original programming that no one else claims to "own."  After all, they have had previous success with Royal Pains (a pretty good show). So, why not?

I, like many others devoted to the shows, have been patiently waiting since September for the two media entities to work it out.  I had waited months for the re-boots; I could wait some more. If anything, my commitment to the characters and stories of both shows had been reaffirmed and solidified by the long wait, followed by the excellent production values of the re-boots. I was really looking forward to developing a new routine: I even bought a Roku box for the TV in the front bedroom, and was still trying to find my rhythm for when to watch and how to work the new format (at first, I thought I couldn't fast forward through the commercials--but then, I found out that I could, and was ready to try it, when ...). The whole thing just fell apart.

I blame ABC for the entire situation. I think they sold the rights to PP, believing that they would either never get them off the ground (knowing how difficult and expensive it is to launch TV shows), or that the re-boots would be rejected by the fans, or that it wouldn't work to show them on Hulu. Whatever. They were, obviously, dead wrong in that belief. Once PP actually got the shows up and running, Hulu was actually broadcasting them, and fans were actually watching, then, all of sudden, ABC must have said, "Oh, crap. They succeeded, dammit! How can we stop this?" And the lawsuit appeared, and they stubbornly dug in their heels, refused to compromise or negotiate, until PP had no choice but retaliate.  How churlish and mean-spirited can they be? They are setting new lows in an industry already known for its lowest-common-denominator philosophy and unrestrained greed.

The bottom line is that fans of the two shows are left out in the cold, and know have no other choice but to develop a taste for General Hospital (on ABC, which I really want to boycott), or switch to CBS' Y&R/B&B.

Looks like Genoa City and Victor Newman's nasal snarl are in my future.  What else is a Soap Addict to do?

The More Things Change ...

Apparently, all is not well in Soap Opera Land! 

Less than 3 months into their new lives on The Online Network, production has stopped on "All My Children" and "One Life to Live" due to a labor dispute.  I guess they are still working out some of the "bugs" of a new medium. Or something.

However, they also announced that they have enough episodes already filmed to last through the rest of the summer, and that the dispute will be resolved by then, and production can resume. I hope that actually turns out to be the case, because in spite of a few random issues, I'm really, really enjoying getting reacquainted with my old friends in Soap Opera Land. 

It was also announced recently that "swear words" would no longer be spilling from the mouths of our beloved characters. I haven't decided yet how I feel about  this issue. It was a little shocking at first to hear characters freely busting out with the s-word, but that is only from years of conditioning provided by network Standards and Practices committees that have completely controlled script content for years and years--since television's inception. 

The fact that they have decided to eliminate swearing, after a rather short period of free-range dialogue, suggests a strong backlash from viewers. Lots of people, like me, I guess, were shocked/surprised/taken aback. Unlike me, they expressed their views--probably loudly--to the producers, and perhaps even on their Facebook pages or something. 

I must admit to having mixed emotions about this. On the one hand, we certainly don't need any more crudeness in our American society. We have plenty of that already. But on the other hand, people talk like that everyday. If the show is supposed to be reflective of reality, then crude/coarse language should be included, especially among the youngsters. 

The whole issue brings up the chicken-or-the-egg dilemma of popular culture. Do TV and movies reflect reality? Or is reality influenced by TV and movies? I personally believe it to be a reciprocal relationship, marked by the fluid exchange of one reality for another. I think the river flows both ways, at once. The only way to remove oneself from its influence is to live apart from society--to become a hermit, living in a cave on a hillside, or on a deserted island or something. And even then, I'm not sure that total isolation can even be accomplished. 

So since control is out of the question, I can only observe. I observe that America is a heavily prudish culture, on one hand, while also being outrageously permissive. We exoticize that which we abhor, which makes it impossible to ignore. 

In the meantime, Billy Clyde Tuggle still can't act, Jesse Hubbard still makes the world's worst decisions in stressful situations, JR Chandler is still an addict and a liar, and the feud between Dorian and Viki has found new life. Profanity, either its existence or its absence, does not change the basic foundational aspects of the storylines, the characterizations, or life as we know it in Soap Opera Land. 

In Soap Opera Land, even the Soaps themselves never die!

How weird is it, to have two cancelled shows back, after an extended absence? And not just any shows, either, but shows I had followed faithfully for over 30 years? Weird it is, but in some ways, it's like riding a bicycle--sort of.

First of all, the production quality of both All My Children and One Life to Live is very high. There is virtually no difference between the sets, the direction, or the acting from the original shows, with a few minor exceptions. Quibbles, really.

These are quibbles from All My Children:

Quibble #1:

For one thing, it is bothering me that in most of the sets, the exterior doors--doors that supposedly open to the outdoors--open OUT. Everybody knows that doors open IN to a room, especially those that open your home to the outdoors. Why in the world doesn't anybody notice this? Or maybe they have, but they can't afford to re-hang all the doors in all the sets?

This quibble applies to both shows, which means that the same set of construction designers and crews are working on both shows. Surely, someone with enough training to know how to hang a door also knows that they are hanging them wrong. Surely.

Quibble #2:

The sets are very limited in number, and we see the same ones, over and over again. For example: Obviously, after Marissa (on AMC) died in JR's drunken assault (5 years previously), and JR ended up in a coma after David shot him (for killing Marissa), JR and Marissa's son, AJ, moved into Adam's house. This is appropriate, as Adam is his grandfather and lives in a giant mansion, and AJ can be well-cared for by nannies and housemaids. His other grandfather, David Hayward, is unavailable--going to prison and all.

All that is fine, and perfectly reasonable. But where in the world does Miranda live? Doesn't she have her own home, with her mother, Bianca?  The only place we ever see her interacting with AJ is in AJ's room. That's OK, and understandable. But Miranda, interacting with her mother, Bianca? In AJ's room at the Chandler mansion? Really?

I'd like to see a set that is Bianca's house. And Miranda's room. With doors that open IN.  Is that too much to ask?

Quibble #3:

I understand the need for aging the kids--they needed a new generation of youngsters. But AJ and Miranda, acting like "young lovers"? If Marissa had not died, AJ and Miranda would have been raised in the same house, they would have been raised as pseudo-siblings. Eeeewww.

At least they did actually address this last week, with Bianca reminding Miranda of their closeness, and how it would have been different.

But still . . .

And finally, Quibble #4:

Billy Clyde Tuggle? Really? After all this time, he still can't act. You'd think he would have taken some acting lessons while he was stuck in Soap Opera AfterLife Limbo (nobody every really dies in Soap Opera Land). And this actor looks really, really bad. Bad. Like he's had a really hard, hard life after he lost his soap gig 20 years ago. But here we go again with him. Forced to endure his bad, bad acting in a lame storyline. Some things never change, I guess.

And now, my quibbles about the new One Life to Live:

Quibble #1:

The re-cast of Destiny Evans is extremely upsetting. A girl who was once short and round (not unpleasantly so) is suddenly, now, a foot taller, and somehow lost about 50 pounds after having a child at 18. Plus, this girl cannot act at all. Plus, when little Drew was born (during the final week of the ABC broadcast era), and his father, Matthew, actually delivered him, it was a terrifically emotional moment. Matthew, it was strongly suggested, had a change of heart after delivering his own baby. He tearfully named his child after his deceased half-brother, and seemed to immediately bond with the baby.

Now, he's heartlessly neglectful, and rude to Destiny, making time with some mystery Facebook chicky, and flirting dangerously with Dani. In the meantime, everyone in his family, and even some that aren't family, have embraced his baby with love and unconditional support. Ugh. I'm hating this storyline, already.

And while we're on the subject of Destiny and the baby: She's going to school, raising a child, refusing any help from the Buchanans, and working at night at the Banner. But she has time and energy to go out clubbing with Natalie?  And since when is Natalie all chummy with Destiny, who is 10-12 years younger? Really?

Quibble #2:

When did Natalie move back to Llanview with Liam, from London, where she presumably ran away to after receiving the pictures of John kissing Sam in Port Charles (from good old Uncle Todd, always the trader of secrets)? And didn't she and John get married, in the final episode of the ABC broadcast? Why is her babysitter calling her "Mrs. Banks"?  And why is she living in some tiny apartment, apparently forced to live on her measly salary as a Forensic Tech in the Llanview PD? Was she disinherited by Viki and Clint, or something?

And I guess Uncle Bo conveniently forgot about her history of tampering with evidence in the past, and hired her anyway?

Quibble #3:

It bugs me that nobody has even mentioned Jessica and her baby, Ryder.  Usually, we at least get some word of explanation in casual conversation. But so far, nothing. I miss them, and I want to know where they are and what's happening with them.

For both shows: There are characters I miss. In Pine Valley, Tad and of course Erica. In Llanview, besides Jessica, I also miss Brody, Rex and Gigi, Cristian, even Sean.

It's also a bit weird that we have gone from an hour-long show to less than a half-hour. It also seems to me that if I'm paying for HuluPlus, why do I still have to sit through commercials? And there's no way to fast-forward on Hulu, so I'm stuck watching commercials.

But like I said, these are quibbles, really. Mainly, I'm just really, really happy to have my shows back!

Ah, Soap Opera Land. I have missed you, my friend!

Trying to Explain is a Waste of Time

My Soap Opera Addiction

            “You sound like my father.” That was enough to shut him up. My husband hates being compared to my father.  But really, he sounded just like him. Dad’s favorite thing to say to me when I sit down to watch my soaps is, “How can an educated, intelligent woman sit still for such tripe?” Shawn had just said much the same thing to me.  My usual response is, “Because I like them.”

            And that’s what it all comes down to, basically. I’ve tried explaining that they are like novels that never end and that continually introduce new characters.  I’ve tried explaining that they make me laugh with their ridiculousness at times. I’ve tried explaining that they are my “down time” during the day, when I can just be mindless and I don’t have to be smart or “on” (that one never works because everyone who knows me knows that I expend a great deal of mental energy analyzing the storylines and character development. And since I’ve published before on the soaps, that argument doesn’t usually go over very well.) After nearly 40 years of watching these perpetual novels, though, I have given up trying to explain it to those around me who do not understand. I now simply say, “I’m watching. Deal with it.”

            I know all the marks against them. I know that their storylines can be downright ridiculous. I know that the characters are often baffling, and that the acting is sometimes really bad. I once made a list of those things that drive away the Disbelievers, those unschooled in and/or unaccepting of the vagaries of Soap Opera Land, or those who simply reject the basic premise of the genre:

• Convenient attacks of amnesia, and recoveries timed to coincide with ratings “sweeps” periods;
• Melodramatic death scenes, often that are over-the-top; also, many, many (some would say too many) instances of characters who disappear after an accident, are declared dead, and return later (usually after Pilot Season in Los Angeles is over);
• Convenient moments of eavesdropping,  hearing the absolute wrong thing, and then acting on misinformation that often leads to misunderstandings (at best) or tragedy (at worst);
• Dramatic pauses, timed for commercial breaks or weekends;
• Weddings interrupted at the altar with last-minute confessions;
• Constant paternity questions; often, on a single soap, there might be no child ever born who was conceived of two parents, AFTER marriage, who loved each other and were in an exclusive, loving, supportive relationship;
• Constant near-confessions, followed by , first, a commercial break, then an interruption (phone, doorbell, whatever), then, a change of heart and lame-sounding (to everyone except the person on the screen listening) excuse to cover up and mislead;
•  Lies, lies, and more lies (no one in Soap Opera Land every tells the truth the first time);
•  Character who “die,” only to return later (no one ever really dies in Soap Opera Land). This is separate from the annoyance described above about unrecovered bodies because when the story was actually written, the character really dies; many years and change of head writers later, though, and the character is mysteriously brought back to life for another round of shenanigans;
•  And time that stretches and changes to accommodate a storyline; for example, a pregnancy that lasts for months, or a school year that begins in October (this one was famously spoofed by that wonderful satire from the late 70s/early 80s, Soap).

My friend Robin and I began calling it Soap Opera Land to distinguish it from reality. Things happen there that are not possible in Real Life. Soap Opera Land is a place where the Physical Properties of the Universe Hold No Sway.  (We did the same thing for watching “Star Trek,” only we called it “Definitions,” such as,  a “Class M planet” means: “Looks like California.”)  In order to watch and actually enjoy soap operas, therefore, one must have no qualms or hesitations about indulging in a healthy dose of what Samuel Taylor Coleridge called the “willing suspension of disbelief.” Men in general (who are represented here by my husband and my father) and all those other non-believers out there are missing this key ingredient, without which it is impossible to enjoy the genre. 

Next time: My evaluation of the re-booted ABC soaps, All My Children and One Life to Life, in their new incarnations as online-only shows.