The Rise of Los Angeles

In a recent blog post, I lamented the state of The Young and the Restless, and I referred to The Bold and The Beautiful as my "also-ran" soap. I'm not alone. If you track the ratings, media attention (anything, really, but the international appeal), B&B never quite has seemed to measure up to Y&R.



At the same time, in the last few years, the dynamic has changed. B&B has won the "Best Show" Emmy (in a shrinking field) for the last three years. While I hold my nose at this (not because the show is bad, but because Brad Bell and his team have scripted VERY SPECIFIC "Emmy shows", usually involving Susan Flannery and Betty White), it's hard to miss the fact that the dynamic of B&B has changed.




For those of us who are William Bell acolytes, it is also hard to miss that most of his proteges (folks who brought Y&R to Number One status with him)--Kay Alden, Jack Smith, David Shaughnessy, Ed Scott--toil on B&B in one way or another. Many of B&B's most interesting cast members these days also are those who were jettisoned by Y&R (Sony) in recent cost-cutting regimes.

So, I'm still ambivalent about proclaiming B&B as my #1 soap. B&B still does infuriating things that are simply eye-rolling. Examples: Steffy declares the much-older Bill Spencer Jr as her soulmate--but when he dumps her (in a great, heartwrenching arc), she turns her attentions to his son THE VERY NEXT DAY. After decades together, on the SUSPICION that his wife Brooke might have had berry-fueled sex with his son Thomas, Ridge dumps her--has a wedding with ex-wife Taylor the same WEEK--and dumps Taylor at the altar and returns to Brooke THAT NIGHT once the truth is revealed.




So, why can I forgive B&B, which has made a habit of these sudden story jumps (and of hiring top-notch soap performers from other shows, but dropping them within one or two contract cycles )? I think it has to do with the fact that B&B embraces its identity as classic soap.

Take the example of the Steffy tale, mentioned above. In the current story, Steffy now lusts after Liam (Bill's son). Liam wants to be engaged to the virginal Hope. Steffy's lust for Liam makes sense--he's BILL'S son, and he's in love with a LOGAN (the family she blames for all her troubles). Liam also saved her life recently--a bonding experience. In this triangle, we have three core families (The Taylor-Forresters, the Logans, and the Spencers) all mixed up. Liam's lust makes sense...he's a horny young guy and he's been veeeeeerrrrry patient with Hope. Hope's sexual reticence makes sense--she seen how her mother's "Slut from the Valley" ways have often caused mayhem. Bill Spencer Jr. will be torn with jealousy if his son takes up with the woman (Steffy) he was recently about to leave his wife for. The downstream stuff will be even better. Fighting for their daughters will pit Brooke versus Taylor against each other again...but for once not over Ridge!

I've often complained about Hunter Tylo's Taylor...who was once the sanctified oncologist/psychiatrist...but who really WAS the voice of sense on B&B. In recent years (since her second return from the dead), Taylor's been off the rails -- alcoholic, vehicular manslaughter, sleeping with Brooke's son, sanctimonious...endless. Taylor is now a spastic, hypocritical, controlling and sanctimonious (I use that word again because it is DEFINITIONAL) controlling mother.



Now, positioning Taylor as the show's evil mother is BRILLIANT. Evil mothers used to be the stock in trade of the best soaps! (think Phoebe Tyler and Enid Nelson on All My Children; think Vanessa Prentiss on Young and Restless). With Susan Flannery being open about wanting to retire (and her character having Stage IV Lung Cancer), the show needs a new "bad momma". Hunter Tylo is now perfectly positioned for that (living through her children because her own life is bereft; using her children to fight old battles).

The beauty of B&B is that the throughline of characters is not forgotten. Rick has ALWAYS hated Ridge (as the man who chased his daddy--Eric--away). Thomas grew to hate Rick (after Rick slept with both of his sisters AND his mother AND took a certain primacy at Forrester Creations). It was enough that Thomas tried to scare/hurt Rick twice. Amber, the needy social climber BRILLIANTLY played by Adrienne Frantz (much missed, by me, on Y&R), took BOTH of their virginities. Word that Jacob Young is returning in the role of Rick makes me think that a Rick-Amber-Thomas triangle is automatically going to unfold...and how amazing will that be? The triangle makes sense, the actors are capable, and we can already predict every reasonable beat in the story.

In the end, that's the thing about B&B that makes it best. It embraces classy soap storytelling. (Friday's cliffhanger was a very public proposal from Liam to Hope--and she was clearly ambivalent about it), it follows core families and doesn't mostly kill them off. Actions from decades ago are remembered and fuel today's characters. The show almost never veers into crime-drama or science fiction...so that one knows one is going to get good domestic/romantic/business stories. Even now, the show is setting up a Bill Spencer/Nick Marone alliance to bring down the House of Forrester (again)...and the story will be leavened with decades of justifiable personal resentments. The alliance is also on shaky ground, because both Bill and Nick have strong emotional connections to Bill's wife (and Nick's ex-paramour) Katie Logan. However this story goes, it will force Forresters, Logans, and Spencers (all intertwined already) to pick sides. That's how you write a soap!

Genoa City Lost

Readers of daytimeconfidential can discern the truth of Jamey Giddens' recent critique of Y&R. The state of the show is appalling...but it is also curious. All the elements -- from production to writing to acting -- are THERE...so why is the show so bad?

In short, the problem is the absence of heart...of emotion, nostalgia, or sincere feeling. Even remarkable actors who have bled on the stage for us in the past are clearly not connecting to the rushed, plotty show they're putting on.

My credentials: I have watched Y&R since 1973 (I was a wee 8 year old, but mom put it on). Y&R is so ingrained in the narrative of my life that I view it not from a "technical" perspective, but as someone who knows intuitively when the show is true to its nature. Or when -- as now -- it is not.

Right now, we have a canvas filled with original or veteran faces (Kay, Victor, Jack, Paul, Phyllis, Nick, Sharon, Ashley, Kevin) and characters we saw born on this show (Billy, Victoria, Chloe, Ronan)...but it all feels so flat. Characters are doing things they'd NEVER do (Kay annulling her son's marriage out of spite, Victor throwing a woman out of an ambulance and taking a son away from his father).

This happened once before. After a promising start, Lynn Latham's second year got seriously off the rails, as Nikki (Nikki!) ran for Senate and the entire town clustered around some rural village that was being turned into a resort (Clear Springs). Little made sense. Ratings began to decline precipitously during this period, and continued to do so well into Maria Bell's "rescue regime".

It is curious that Maria Bell's Y&R feels so off right now. We know she's capable of heart. Her nadir-story was "the death of Kay". Kay's funeral and eventual reunion were the ultimate of "heart", as a touching romance bloomed with Murphy, old friends and rivals reunited at Kay's funeral, and Marge got a touching "ghostly farewell" to the tune of Perry Como's "Papa Loves Mambo". Greatness!

But then the Silver Chipmunk happened. It is fair to say that, since then, Y&R has progressively devolved back into a crime riddled (Richard Hightower! Skye's multiple deaths! Patty's reign of terror! Corporate shenanigans!, Diane's murder! Baby stealing! Over-the-top Australian mobsters!) mess. Not only do these stories not elicit feeling or emotion...emotion is decisively left out. Examples:

Diane -- a character with a thirty year tie to Jack -- gets nary a tear (except, maybe, from the terrific Christian Leblanc's Michael). Adam is betrayed by Sharon, and embarks on a spree of revenge (thank heavens Michael Muhney -- and his eyes!! -- work against the malevolence of the tale). Three touching couples are made -- well -- not touching.

- Billy and Victoria: The story here would have been to see them stay together -- fight together -- against obstacles. Instead, they folded as soon as the first marital assault hit them. Where's the rooting value in that?
- Nick and Phyllis: Apparently they're sex buddies again. Okay. The actors still FIRE UP the room in every scene when they're together. So why is there no emotion or tenderness or motivation in their scenes?
- Lily and Daniel: (Controversial here--I know Cane/Lily have major fans). There's something beautifully touching in a pair that damaged their union through youthful mistakes rediscovering each other from a grown up perspective. Daniel feels he doesn't want to be a father (shadows of his own damaged childhood and paternity/maternity issues??)...but could Lily make him feel secure in his nurturing skills, so that he would be a good stepdad to her kids...and even dad to his own Lucy?

There WERE promising emotional stories.

The Lear-esque "Fall of the House of Newman" was especially good...and it really made the most out of Marcy Rylan/Eric Braeden's terrific chemistry. The family was fractured. This promised YEARS of rivalry and reconciliation. Instead...it is over. Forgotten. Done. Huh?

Phyllis -- inexplicably -- tried to pull baby Lucy from the secure loving parents who were raising her. (I guess I get it...it has to do with making up for her own previous shortcomings as a mom). Everyone picked sides. It was an agonizing story. Then...Phyllis got Lucy, was ostracized for week, then Nick and Michael seemed to mostly forgive her...and it's over. Forgotten. Done. Huh?

The Y&R canvas is OVER-STUFFED. The show seems to have little motivation to write for Tricia Cast/Doug Davidson, Kristoff St. John ... Yet the show also refuses to decisively clean house, and to commit to protracted story arcs we can invest in.

These days, I find little compelling material to draw me to the show. There are a few very capable actors (Muhney, Leblanc, Rylan, Thomas-Scott, E. Davidson) who are still finding emotion in every scene they do. There are a few others who rise to the occasion when they can connect with the material (Bergman, Braeden, Heinle, D. Davidson, Stafford). Still others seem utterly emotionally disconnected from this plotty show...even actors who have given us AMAZING performances in the past.

I still check in every day, but more and more reluctantly. My thoughts stray to cable (Breaking Bad, Torchwood, True Blood, Big C, Weeds). B&B (that's another blog post) --always my also-ran soap--has become my first soap of choice!. I guess I'm waiting for Genoa City to welcome me back to a big, nostalgic, sloppy, feel-good-or-feel-bad-BUT-FEEL-SOMETHING homecoming.

Hope springs eternal (confessions of a fanboi)

As the free world knows, EW "broke", and a Twitter trend confirms, Genie Francis is coming to The Young and the Restless as Cane's mom.

I know to be cynical. For all the high-powered infusions of outside soap stars to Y&R in recent years, some show signs of being amazing (especially when written for): Jeff Branson, Elizabeth Hendrickson, Tristan Rogers, Maura West, Marcy Rylan; some have been shoehorned into the most awful, unlikeable character-actor combinations (shocking because the stars are so good): Eden Riegel, Stephen Nichols, John Driscoll; and some are criminally ignored (Judith Chapman; jury is still out on Kin Shriner's Jeff Bardwell).

The casting also sends chills regarding a luminous cast of contract and recurring vine who are already dying on the vine or have had long story droughts (Melody Thomas Scott, Jess Walton, Jeanne Cooper, Michael Fairman, Kristoff St. John, Bryton McClure, Tracey Bregman, Doug Davidson, Tricia Cast, Tricia Cast, Peter Bergman, Eileen Davidson ... and I'm adding Beth Maitland because I mss the heck out of her).

But even as the thinking part of my brain thinks these dark thoughts, the fanboi in me can't stop this silly smile of delight. GENIE FRANCIS! The likeable part of the Luke&Laura story (and the REAL reason we all loved it). The chance to see her reunited with some of her best General Hospital co-stars is just extra icing on the cake...but she brings such a deep likeability to all her roles, I can't wait to see how this plays out.

Y&R is playing some good tales these days...Newman corporate/family drama, Nikki drinking. I'm even finally interested in a Neil-Sophia-Leslie triangle because we finally have three people with some chemistry. I deplored the Lily-Cane union, but the current beat (haunting/gaslighting of Lily, hints of relationship rejuvation for the chemistry-in-spades Daniel-Lily...echoes of their youthful love-on-the-run) has me remembering why I liked all these characters. Michelle Stafford and Michael Muhney have found a mojo with each other that they've largely lacked in other recent pairings (though Muhney's yearing for Sharon Case's character is always superb). No scene chilled me more recently than when Victor INSISTED his new wife Diane wear her diamond necklace everywhere--his mark of ownership confirming that it was really a "diamond dog collar". The luminous Maura West played her discomfort beautifully--but then one episode later played genuine delight in her husbands growing financial fortune--it is wonderful to finally see that Emmy-winning actress worthy of her. I'm going to think that Y&R is on an upswing...and that Genie's casting helps that alone.

We'll always have Paris! The Bold and the Beautiful

B&B is on a creative high these days, in part by fully embracing its identity. It plays adults (and senior adults) more than kids. It does bit of socially relevant stuff. It centers on the never ending drama of Brooke Logan and her Ridge. It knows that camp, vague incestuousness, vague perversity, and constant partner switching is its RECIPE...and it's doing it just fine. This week, the luminous Heather Tom's Katie is in the midst of (I think) a re-awakening triangle with ex-lover Nick (who is also the ex-husband of her sister and her niece) and Bill Spencer Jr. (my fave, Don Diamont). Ridge and Brooke--a "destiny/westiny" couple according to her son Rick--had an ultimate over-the-top moment in Paris (see image at top)...and then seconds later Brooke undermined her reunion with husband Ridge by having a flirtatious Skype session with his drop-dead-gorgeous son Thomas. We won't even mention the fact that my favorite, Amber, is in a three-way-who's-the-daddy tale (and I don't think she realizes her baby is going to be African American!). The show is firing on all cylinders.

the bold and the beautiful brooke and ridge by forrestersabrina

Why are its ratings not good? Why are its demos so awful? Oh well...even if B&B is not long for the world, we'll always have Paris!

Doppelgangers: Without comment

On Y&R, we recently saw Daniel Goddard's "Cane" gunned down. He died in one of the most gruesome daytime deaths in a long time...and in his wife's arms. Lest there be any doubt, we saw his cold cold body on a morgue slab for some time, and we've seen (I think) his ghost. In the scope of soap deaths, Cane is dead-dead. No? (Hard to tell. After B&B had an open-casket funeral for Taylor Hayes...who also died on screen...we later learned her body had been replaced by a wax doll, and that she'd been saved by her sheikh benefactor, Prince Omar).



Well, yesterday we saw this smirking guy, looking at Lily from an elevator. It can't be Cane, as Cane would have stared at her with a look of love or longing or pain...or he would have run to be with her. We're supposed to think it's Lily's delusion/hallucination, but I'm inclined to believe (as are many others), that this is a double hired by Cane's daddy (the sublime Tristan Rogers as "Colin") to create the impression of Lily's incompetence. If he can get Lily ruled an unfit mother, then as the blood relative of her twins, he may be able to abscond somehow with her twins.

Some folks on Twitter (e.g., @kate4lane) have taken to calling this new guy "Bane". Twitter user @unlimitedjason further says this stands for "Bullshit Cane". Sigh and double sigh. While I'm thrilled to see Mr. Goddard have a chance to essay a darker character, does Y&R need another doppelganger? Twitter user @jdracoules suggests that Y&R may now be in the running with Dark Shadows for the biggest number of dual roles in daytime. The wordle at the top of this page is presented without further comment.

Thanks also to Twitter users @_PhilParis, @Scott_Novick, @Robansuefarm, @berry198 for making sure my list of doppelgangers was complete.

Coming Soon

Friends, thanks to those who have emailed and wondered if I abandoned blogging. No. Four things have kept me away: (a) Work, work and more work, (b) A spate of family illnesses and deaths, (c) I made an email switch, and thus missed many of your comments (they should have been forwarded, but were not), and (d) I felt like I was beginning to repeat myself. So, it felt like a good time to let things gestate. The advantage of doing a blog simply as a diary of my own thoughts, rather than as a job or on an externally imposed deadline is that the timing of things can be more natural and organic to the writer.

I have a few things to talk about though, in the next little while:

1. Soapnet ratings, and Soapnet critical response, and Soapnet's new deal for internet distribution of DOOL.

2. The gathering storm over Guiding Light.

3. The new role of the Internet, with a specific reference to the Jess Walton/Y&R situation.

4. My growing love for Nelson Branco at Canadian TV Guide, and why I think he is good for soaps. Also, an ever-growing appreciation for what Roger Newcomb is catalyzing -- both with his site, and with the new blogger coalition he is a part of.

5. SciFi becoming SyFy...yes, I think there is a soap tie-in here.

6. Damon Jacobs and "Shouldless". That is only tangentially related to soaps, and yet I really think he has an awful lot to tell us all.

In the meantime, I find that soap operas are flourishing on the internet (in terms of what is being written and talked about), and that is a very enjoyable way to extend the soap opera experience for those of us who don't get enough from our daily fix.

Now, if only Snark would weigh in again!

On credentials in the new media

Who the hell am I, asks a "commenter" in one of my Carolyn Hinsey blogs from a few weeks back.

Who indeed? What are my credentials? None. I am, proudly, a nobody.

Let me explain that. There are terrific bloggers out there with bona fide credentials in the soap industry. First and foremost we have Tom Casiello (thank you for the recent shout out...I am humbled) and Sara Bibel. These two have real street cred as people who know the industry, and many of the players still in it. They have taken different post-strike approaches (Tom seems to blog out of sheer sense of community...his voice is so passionate and ardent that sometimes my eyes get teary at his love of the genre...but he is not making any money off it; Sara seems to be transforming into a soap journalist, with a combination of interviews, editorials, and historical insights), but both have become must-read because (at least for me) you feel a little smarter and more insightful after reading their words.

Then we have the once-published journalists (Marlena Delacroix and Lynn Liccardo), who offer the insights of long time fans with historical insight, knowledge of the industry. The gang at Daytime Confidential produces a product that simply trumps every soap publication left for breaking new and outstanding (podcast) interviews. The Canadian TV Guide Online has filled the void left behind after the US TV Guide Online essentially abandoned soaps...with a voice that is best described as "Perez Hilton for Daytime".

Then we have Roger Newcomb, who is pioneering fan-written (radio!) soaps (and whose Manhattanites independent film is eagerly awaited by many of us). Roger's "We Love Soaps" blog initially functioned as a consolidator of headlines. This is amazing. I do not know what kind of RSS feeds Roger has figured out, but literally no soap item (even regarding ex-soap actors) breaks, even in some podunk farm village, without Roger finding it and posting a link to it. Lately, Roger has been bringing more of his own "voice" to his blog, as recent pieces of fan advocacy for ATWT's Nuke or an insightful analysis of the impact of men/older viewers on rating shows.

In the ranks of such luminaries, what am I? Nothing...just a fan for all my days, but with no particular expertise.

Moreover, if you take my show (Y&R), there are 5 million people like me. And more than a few of us have blogs.

Yet, I think, that is where I have something unique to contribute. My voice (and the other 4,999,999 voices) are the outsiders, the consumers. Each of us views the soaps from a unique lens. Mine is as a 40-something guy with a lifelong attachment to soaps, and with some schooling (behavioral science, gerontology, statistics) that gives me a particular take on what is happening to the industry. Someone else--say, a mother of four who works at home--has a different lens (how the show fits into her busy life, why she makes time for it, how it resonates with the reality of her life...or maybe how it represents a 'Take me Away' part of her day).

The blogosphere is very different than old media. Access to "publishing" is no longer limited. The good part is that, in the beautiful anarchy that results, a much broader mix of voices can be heard. I suspect that the soap industry would be wise to sample this more than they apparently do. (Indeed, ATWT's Christopher Goutman has espoused the belief that internet fans are a trivial minority....I suspect he does this at his own risk).

On the other hand, it means that blowhards like me can espouse opinions that have very little backing. They are not "industry-savvy". I may lack experience, history, insight, etc. Yet, because I have carved out a "place" on the internet, some may feel that I am claiming myself to be an "authority" (which I am not).

For me, as a reader, I think the new media is an exciting way to get real time information and analysis that is less filtered, less polished. I think each of us adds interesting perspectives which, taken in their whole, represent a real resource for criticism and opinion. But a fair disclaimer: Opinions are worth what you pay for them.

Why am I doing this blog? Doctor Who?

Right now this blog is mostly just an archive of thoughts I've had or things I have posted here or on usenet. I'm trying to figure out why I'm doing it...and mostly it is to archive some things that I'm "chewing on". I'm collecting facts and refining my opinions. But what conclusion am I trying to reach for?

Unlike many educated soap fans, I am not a student of drama or literature, and I couldn't tell you which writer gives better dialogue or long-story...

I am someone with training in behavioral science, quantitative methods, and gerontology. For me, soaps are a more personal adventure. It is something I was brought to by my grandmother. It is a genre that is about as old as the oldest grandparent. And, like those grandparents, it is slowly dying out.

For me, my quest is to understand the rise and fall, and how it ties to the particular generation that lived throughout the 20th century. I seek to find out what social forces have killed the soap, and whether there is hope for a resurgence. I'm trying to find out what made soaps so perfect for the pre-war era (on radio) and the post-war era (on TV), and why they have been declining ever since.

In another part of my life, I have become a rabid fan of Dr. Who (the new series, with Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant). The early Doctor Who had a kind of a serial format (more telenovela I guess...lots of 2-7 part stories). It had truly the cheapest, cheapest production values, and it was not aimed at the mainstream but a marginalized audience (children, sci fi fans).

And like the soaps, Doctor Who fell off in popularity, until it was finally shuttered.

During the resting period, the hunger for it grew.

When BBC America finally brought it back, they did some interesting things. First, they gave the new version a budget....for a real prime time show. Second, they decided on limited exposure (13-week runs once a year...like HBO). Third, they hired a leading and innovative show runner (Russell T. Davies, Queer As Folk) with a love for the classic show (he knew it), but also a unique vision of how to modernize it. Fourth, they cast the role of Doctor Who with top, known talent (esp. Christopher Eccleston in Season One of the rejuvenated show).

And the thing is an EXPLOSIVE hit. I can't wait, every week, to see new episodes. The franchise has been fully refreshed. With its innovative casting and high production values, it has been made appealing to a new generation that could not sit still for "grandpa's old version".

It is this, I believe, that is the path to rebirth for American soaps. So a big part of my internal dialogue about these shows is trying to understand how we can make them relevant and appealing for the next generation. But there is already one piece of evidence that suggests my thinking that "Dr. Who is the paradigm" may be wrong: I consider the failure of primetime Dark Shadows in the 80s or 90s a worrisome sign that soaps may not be amenable to transformation. In that case, they become like the Western...a lost relic of a past century.