Using the GL evolution as an experiment

As a non-GL viewer, my reaction to GL's apparent passing is not emotional, but intellectual. I do view the loss of the oldest soap, one of the last Irna Phillips soaps, the only soap to make it from radio to the present, as a major symbolic loss for the genre. GL bordered on "sacred cow", so when we're ready to kill that one...

In this post, though, I want to focus on a more optimistic future, and some personal "brainstorming" I have been doing to think about what a next-generation GL might look like.

The rumors are that GL is looking for a new home. DaytimeConfidential suggests that the most serious talks are with the Lifetime Network.

Since Lifetime is "Television for Women", I don't watch that a lot...it seems to be the new home of women-in-peril movies (what we used to call "Movies of the Week" or "Sunday Night Movies"). In principle, such an emotional, women-oriented platform seems ideal for soaps.

But there is also a fundamental difference. The two-hour movie is self-contained. You get your emotional fix and then you move on, never again to revisit those characters. That is the antithesis of a soap.

So, how to graft the two together? My feeling is that the secret is to move in the direction of a telenovela...a self-contained story that is fixed in time. (I know this has been tried and failed...OLTL was reviled when Michael Malone played with short arcs, and Port Charles is no longer around -- a testament to the failure of that experiment. Indeed, some attribute GL's most recent fall to its lack of melodramatic and serial elements during the first year of the new production model).

So, what if Springfield/GL is used as the fictional universe (with all the history back there, but maybe not front and center), and a series of 13-week 30- or 60-minute ensemble dramas (set to play once a week...not daily) were set there?

For example, using the current buzzworthy tale, what if for 13 weeks Lifetime presented: "Otalia" (with, in smaller letters, at the bottom of the screen, "A Guiding Light/Springfield story").

Now, let's pretend that for the first 13-weeks, the "A" story of "Otalia" is about these two women becoming open and committed lovers (say the last episode of GL = Otalia getting married, so the new series picks up on their married life). As an ensemble show, there could be "B" and "C" stories anchored in Otalia (their co-workers, relatives, friends), but distinct. Some of those "B" and "C" stories could come from the rest of the GL universe--AS LONG AS THEY WERE THEMATICALLY TIED IN (e.g., Doris tries, finally, to open her heart to love while her daughter has a hard time coping; Frank tries to move on in the world, looking for a woman who can finally appreciate him for what he is).

At the end of the 13-week arc, Otalia would rest. Maybe it would come back "next season" (next year), or maybe not. That would depend on fan response.

Meanwhile, after the 13-week arc is over, another 13-week novel would begin. For example (don't roll your eyes...I'm trying to play to a Lifetime audience here): "Healing Hearts: The Story of Dinah and Shane". Again, at the bottom of the screen, it would be signalled as "A Guiding Light/Springfield Story".

As that couple plays out its 13-week drama, again supported by related "B" and "C" stories (I really think these shows have to be tighter and more contained...new viewers MUST be able to sample without getting lost), there could be weeks with "Special Guest Star Kim Zimmer" or "Special Guest Star Maeve Kinkead" (spelling fixed per comment below). At that could be the link to classic GL.

Soap opera towns and universes are fictional places that we love to return to over and over again. In the new financials and the evolving universe, where the patience and time for a daily experience may not longer exist, and where the "burden" of decades of history may actually serve as a turnoff for viewers, can GL pioneer (as it has before) the evolution of the form? Can Springfield and the 70 years of history that went before serve as the "franchise" in which self-contained short arc stories...featuring people we know and people we don't know...keep the town alive?

Maybe returning to Springfield and Guiding Light in a different way would be the method of achieving this "place to come home to" while building something that requires a little less commitment?

I note that the GH:Night Shift experiment did something very much like this. If anything, it was too tied to the "mothership", using too many characters from the daytime show (enough that discontinuities between the two series annoyed some fans). Night Shift I was a ratings success for Soapnet (but not a critical one). Night Shift II was a critical success but ratings failure. I know that a version of this experiment (ATWT's Eileen Fulton spinoff, Our Private World, penned in part by Bill Bell) did not succeed in the 1960s...but that was not so fully situated in the Oakdale universe. It was a true spinoff, and those are always risky.

Maybe Lifetime (or whomever is lucky enough to participate in the evolution of the GL franchise) can find a way to tell new stories rooted in Springfield. If lightning strikes, this new GL might satisfy both the commercial needs of the network, and storytelling needs of hungry fans, all of whom believe there is still life in the "old girl".

For all of them, I wish that the genre trailblazer continues to push soaps forward into the new media landscape.

Patrick Erwin's Domino hypothesis: Wacky?

Patrick blogged on his website today, reacting to a TVWeek columnist who apparently felt that Patrick's "domino thesis", expressed thusly

”Understand that if GL is canceled, it will start a domino effect. If/when GL and/or DAYS disappears, you can expect other shows to follow quickly in their footsteps.”

was "wacky".

Since I'm all about understanding causal factors and modeling them, this domino hypothesis (what some statisticians would call a Markov chain) is very intriguing to me? In the end, I do not believe that the proposition that the fall of GL will contribute to the fall of other soaps is a testable one. Intuitively, I think he has a point, though.

============

1. Per se, the cancellation of Guiding Light will have no necessary effect on any other soap. Just like canceling, say Jericho, had no effect for CBS on Criminal Minds or CSI:Everywhere, I don't think that cancelling GL will necessarily impact any other show.

============

2. Will cancellation lead to more or less promotion for other soaps? It really doesn't matter. The loss of GL, in principle, costs a promotion venue for other soaps, pitched at soap watchers. But the reality is that a daytime replacement (say Pyramid) could have soap promotions, and they might actually be more effective, because they might court new non-soap viewers. Moreover, with one recent exception (CBS' promotion of Y&R's Sudden Impact arc), there is no evidence AT ALL that promotion influences short-term ratings. In October 2007, for example, CBS bought ad time on other networks to promote its Y&R Out of the Ashes arc...and ratings actually went down.

============

3. It is the "taint of death" that may kill them all. I think there is much greater risk to the genre in further heightening the widespread understanding that daytime is a dying genre. Phil Rosenthal writes in today's Chicago Tribune that

The laws of physics don't change: Mass times acceleration still equals force. But with audiences splintering across an ever-widening spectrum of content, individual mass media outlets simply don't have as much mass as they used to, leaving acceleration to pick up the slack—and it's the speed with which word of that content travels rather than the content itself that creates the impact...."Light" has its own devoutly faithful followers, to be sure, although that number has declined. When it comes to daytime drama, people are far more likely to be talking about the latest blowup on ABC's "The View" which averages 4.25 million viewers.

Translation: "buzz" matters. And the cancellation of Guiding Light, he would argue, is in part because it was no longer buzzworthy. (That's wrong, by the way. Proof: Otalia).

But, in support of Patrick's thesis, the cancellation of Guiding Light produces a followup negative buzz. If "Grandma's soap" or "the oldest soap" or "the only soap to survive radio" dies, it doesn't take much for some cultural consumers to further understand that soaps are a dying genre. And that WILL influence their likelihood of sampling other soaps.

Case in point: "Disco Sucks":

Only by killing disco could rock affirm its threatened masculinity and restore the holy dyad of cold brew and undemanding sex partners. Disco bashing became a major preoccupation in 1977. At the moment when Saturday Night Fever and Studio 54 achieved zeitgeist status, rock rediscovered a rage it had been lacking since the '60s, but this time the enemy was a culture with "plastic" and "mindless" (read effeminate) musical tastes. Examined in light of the ensuing political backlash, it's clear that the slogan of this movement--"Disco Sucks!"--was the first cry of the angry white male. -- Peter Braunstein

The 'Disco Sucks' campaign was a white, macho reaction against gay liberation and black pride more than a musical reaction against drum machines. In England, in the same year as the 'Disco Sucks' demo in America, The Young Nationalist - a British National Party publication - told its readers: 'Disco and its melting pot pseudo-philosophy must be fought or Britain's streets will be full of black-worshipping soul boys.'...Then WLUP-DJ Steve Dahl is credited by many with singlehandedly ending the disco era. On July 12, 1979, after several smaller anti-disco events, Dahl's "Disco Demolition" between games of a twi-night doubleheader at old Comiskey park, ended up with the field completely trashed, and the White Sox forced to forfeit the second game.

It is this reinforcement of soaps as a dying genre ... in the minds of ad executives, network leaders, and cultural consumers that could, in effect, be a Donna-Summer-style-soap-killer.

============

4. But here's the thing: Soaps are dying. Short of holding on to GL as some kind of public/historical service, soaps are dying. My recent post with some new prediction models kind of illustrates that inescapable conclusion, I think (albeit, with a little hope thrown in).

In that sense, I really think it is important not to over-inflate the significance of the GL cancel.

Really, truly, rationally, we knew this was coming. Some of us thought it might wait till 2010, but Ellen Wheeler talked candidly about this with the GL bloggers late last year.

Moreover, as that figure above shows, most of us kind of know the pecking order of impending cancellations, and that hasn't changed since GL's cancellation. It is "foreordained" by the numbers and the trends...and the sad fact that for most of the population soaps are now as hopelessly out of date as disco and Lawrence Welk and manual typewriters.

Cultural obsolesence, coupled with changing daytime demographics and changing advertiser economics is what did this.

============

5. Whither soap opera? Maybe that is more correctly asked as "what is the future of the serial?"

The future is not in the daytime. The future is not melodramatic. The future is not necessarily woman-oriented. The future is not daily. The future is not on broadcast TV.

The evolution is being televised.

Friday Night Lights. ER. Brothers and Sisters. Lost. True Blood. Continuing themes in NCIS. The serial is really alive and well. Adult drama is live and well (well, thanks to Jay Leno on NBC...maybe not so well right now).

The soap -- a particular commercial form for women to "listen" to at home while ironing and cooking -- that is on the way out. For those of us who loved it, that is lamentable...but we can take comfort in all the contributions soaps have made for most of the 20th century and a smidgen of the 21st.

============

6. Wacky? Not at all. Not one bit. But the use of that word "wacky" is a fundamental one--and it displays the kind of cultural bias that soaps have had to work against from the beginning.

• Too commercial (e.g., James Thurber's "Anacinville")
• Too women-oriented (melodrama produces eye rolls in the network executive)
• Too emotional and relationship oriented (that's basically misogyny and, in more recent times, homophobia)
• Too old (When we call them "grandma's stories", we're basically buying into both ageism, and the prevailing belief that generations can't share popular culture)

Wacky is just the latest line of insults that soaps and their supporters have had to endure. So, as we have for the better part of a century, our best course of action is to ignore the insulters. Because they do not understand how these "worlds without end" have given us a sense of home and narrative throughline that runs through our lives. They cannot know what we will be missing, because they never had the joy of experiencing it for themselves in the first place.

Thank you, Guiding Light. A lesson taken from ER's goodbye

For fourteen of its fifteen years, I have been a loyal viewer of ER (the first year I lived overseas). I consider ER a "soap" (in the sense that it is a serial drama with an ensemble cast), but it was an innovative one stylistically and narratively. Although ratings fell over the years, and the format became less fresh, I found it an enjoyable run. You'd think I would have been choked up at the series finale, but it was done so lovingly (returning vets, going out with a full-blast sense of energy [this is not an ending...it's just that our time of being there with County General has passed], circle-of-life promises [oh look, there's Mark Greene's daughter!] and metaphors of death to help us through the ending [Earnest Borgnine's heart-breaking performance]), how can one do anything but say "Thanks for the memories".

As a "soap", ER defied a lot of the assumptions of today's disgruntled viewers. "Shaky cam" production model? Look--ER pioneered it. Departing vets? The show did fine on the backs of newbies...in the final seasons (not counting guest stints) not a single original starring/front-burner cast member remained. Still, even with a show that strong, there is something about this long-form that is stifling. By staying true to its identity, ER eventually became just a little stale. Which means, as good as it was, the numbers fell (in part because of what happened to broadcast TV in general, but even the relative position of ER on Thursdays at 10 pm was clearly no longer a 'juggernaut'). It was just a little less 'must see', because it was repeating itself.

However, there is no sense in which this 'series finale' was a failure! Indeed, in a move of utter beauty, the writers brought back Ernest Borgnine, who had to sit back and let his wife die. "Is there nothing we can do?" he implored. No, said the doctors. It is time. When the last monitor was switched off, his searching eyes asked "Is that it?". Yes. A complicated life (her daughter loved her, but her husband treasured her), well lived, had come to a timely conclusion. Everything has a lifespan, and our job is to treasure what came before death, and not to perseverate on the death itself. Ernest's character got to lay with his wife's body a few minutes longer, to say a proper goodbye. As we did, with ER.

And so I turn to Guiding Light. First, my sympathies to the millions of fans who still loved her. I was never a regular viewer, but I would feel the same grief -- the same hole in my life -- if my long-running soap (they're ALL long-running at this point) were to disappear. I also know that, in the minds of some viewers, Guiding Light is not dead. P&G's press release says they're trying to find a new home, and so forth. For those banking on these new options, I wish you best of luck, even as I confess that the failure to let go makes me a little uneasy.

I can't help but think that there is a lesson in dignity, fitting endings, letting go, and so forth, in what we experienced with ER.

72 years! My goodness, how can that be viewed as anything but a beautiful, excellent, never-to-be-repeated thing? I have read angry viewers saying "I'll never watch CBS again" or "How dare CBS do this?!?". This network gave 72 years of air time to this show (and made a lot of money doing so). Does the inevitable act of cancellation (the lifespan of no entity is infinite) negate the foregoing decades? Not for me....

The objective facts show that GL was at the bottom of the soap ratings for at least a decade, was experiencing a faster-than-other decline rate in the recent years, earned a lot of fan and critical disgruntlement for both its storytelling and production style (offset by a recent glorious resurgence in part of the canvas). Affiliates time shifted the show all over the map. In many ways, the fact that GL remained alive in 2009 was a miracle...a testament to the pluckiness of its EP, the resolve of the parent company and -- yes -- even the unusual patience of its network. In the end, especially in a depleted economy, CBS' patience could not be boundless. But bless them for giving it this long.

As I look at the impressive "petitions" devised to save GL (over 3,600 signatures in 24 hours, for the one I saw), the comments are stunning. "I'm the sixth generation to watch this show". "I watched with my grandmother and mother, and now my daughter watches with me." "I remember Roger Thorpe", "I remember Beverley McKinsey". On and on it goes, a beautiful river of nostalgia.

But there's the rub. Almost nothing in those comments says "Oh, I sure miss the Manny supercouple" or "I really most love Grady and Cyrus". The sadness is for a GL that used to be, not one that exists today.

There are exceptions. Phillip Spaulding's return has clearly energized the show, and Otalia (the budding lesbian romance) has genuinely touched hearts. Are these stories a case of "too little, too late"? Not in my mind. Hell No! Instead, they are a remarkable gift to the fans: GL has a chance of going out on a high note! What a wonderful thing!

My wish, for the fans of GL, is that we get an ER-style send off. Someone, tipping the hat to the cultural institution GL was and all the money that it once made, should let the stories return to the veterans, bring back all the loved ones from the past (like ER) for a final goodbye. If we are left with the sense that Springfield will keep on going, and only that our (the viewers') sojourn through the fields has passed, that can be quite satisfying. Because then the show can live on in our imaginations. (That is why P&G/Telenext should move no GL characters to ATWT!! Let GL pass with dignity!)

There is something to be said for letting this dear old girl go out with smiles and fanfare and happiness and "thanks for the memories".

One of my favorite songs is "From Where I Stand" by Amanda McBroom. How about, as we say farewell to one of the last of Irna Phillips' grand shows, we honor the spirit of these words?

From where I stand
I see the bridges burning
From where I stand
Our love is goin' down

So close your eyes,
it isn't worth the cryin'
The sun will rise
and dry your tears away
And no, there's no hard feelings
I wish you all the best
Just leave behind your memory,
the devil take the rest.
And I watch you turn and walk away
I find there's nothin' left to say
I can't go back to yesterday
I'll never find the way.
From where I stand.

A little Nuke and the world explodes

Well, I realize this is a post that is happening a week after Luke and Noah had sex on ATWT. In my defense, I have been away at a family funeral. In addition, though, I really wanted to let the event gestate a bit. There has been so much written about it (hence the explosion of the title), and so much of it was contrary to what I thought I saw, I needed to let it all percolate. If you missed it, here is what I'm talking about:

In the end, my thoughts about the event are positive, and in line with Nelson Branco's quote from Sri Rao (writer of Night Shift 2): “Good for them. One small step for Nuke, one giant leap for daytime...”

Rao should know. He accomplished, with Night Shift 2, what daytime had failed to do: tender conversations between two men who really got to know each other, were confident in their sexuality (for the most part), and for whom a kiss was not a huge deal, but just beautifully tender and arousing to almost anyone who saw it. If you missed it, I mean this.

For me, Nuke sex was beautiful because (a) of the passion we got see leading up to it, (b) because NO LONGER can it be denied that Luke (scion of a core family) is a sexual being who -- yup -- has actually seen his love naked and actually related to him in a sexual way. (Make no mistake about it...there was contingent out there that thought Luke's celibacy was an 'appropriate' response to his 'wrong' attractions), and (c) because it is almost like the "last wall" has fallen (More on that below).

Most importantly, we're past it now. If Nuke ever has sex again, it won't be such a big deal (nor should it be). The big obstacle has been jumped. And for those who don't like Nuke, well, now the way has been paved for a couple you might like more. Never again will a gay male couple have to go through all this nonsense to merely kiss on daytime. That is a victory.

To be clear, All My Children accomplished the same thing for lesbian sexuality years ago, with Bianca. To see the remarkable intimacy of Reese and Bianca now, it is easy to forget how difficult it was for Bianca to be given on-screen kisses with Lena or Maggie years ago. But, those "outrages" perpetrated, Reese and Bianca are now free to be more openly loving.

The gay male sexuality was an extra hurdle. Make no mistake about it, when Brian Frons says "our lesbians are cuter", he is reflecting the fact that woman-on-woman sex is simply not as taboo anymore. Of course, this plays into the whole straight-male-porn-fantasy. Straight women never seemed to have a parallel enjoyment of gay porn in the mainstream, even though Carrie Bradshaw and the Sex and the City girls seemed to like it.

Indeed, Michael Moore suggested, tongue-in-cheek, in Mike's Election Guide 2008 that if the gay marriage amendments had been about lesbians, they would have readily passed. Showing a picture of two brides-in-veils with interlinked tongues, Moore wrote (pp. 35-36)

I am told that no one is opposed to watching two women kiss. Men love it, women love it, and the women doing it love it -- something for everybody! I don't think it is female-on-female love that has so many people (men) discombobulated. I think when they say they are against gay marriage, what they really mean is that they are against this:

(picture of two men kissing)

Now that is disgusting! Guys going all borkeback on each other--gimme a break! The state can't sanction that!

So, as a sociopolitical act of activism, I honestly believe Nuke is so, so important! Not because it is the first mainstream depiction of gay male sexuality, but maybe because it is the last important one! Let me expand on this by addressing some of the many critiques I have read about the story these last weeks.

This was not a "first". Indeed the whole story shows how locked in a conservative past soaps are.

The core premise, for me, is what Kay Alden meant when she said "Soaps are not an avante garde medium". (She said this at Sam Ford's MIT symposium, in relation to his Masters defense).

Another way I viewed the Nuke sex, specifically, was as "My heavens! There are boinking on homo-sect-choo-als on Aunt Mildred's STORIES!!! On ATWT!!! On one of the two oldest daytime shows! On a show that debuted in the Eisenhower era! On a show with a median viewer age in excess of 60 years! "

Much of the negative commentary about the "innovativeness" of this relates to the fact that Dynasty and Melrose Place and Brothers and Sisters and Hollyoaks and what have you all did it before.

True, that! And AMC has to continue to get credit for really having a core gay character first. (The history is longer, as you can see here).

So, why am I celebrating so much?

ATWT's gay male sex is not necessary the FIRST shoe to drop. Instead, I think Nuke may be interesting because it is the LAST shoe to drop. If we take the conservative, staid, stuck-in-the-past, pander-to-the-mainstream, do-not-inflame soap genre (I don't actually think it is all like that), and THEY have homo-sect-choo-als kissing and more...it is a true marker of culture change.

But in the end, my connection to this tale is more emotional, and it all goes back, again, to the fact that these are Aunt Mildred's STORIES! And now, with the wavy-whisps of an old-school flashback, I'm drawn back into the past... I am sorry this is a ramble, but it shows you that I'm not responding intellectually to this tale....

... what a difference might it have made to young men 30 years ago, if Nuke had been around then. Back in the day when soaps were more truly intergenerational? To show that gay men were decent, loving, respectworthy members of core families. That their mothers and grandmothers and neighbors still loved them, even though they were attracted to the 'wrong' sex. How many doors of healthy conversation and attitude change might it have opened?

[For those who do not believe that the generational experience of coming out is a whole different thing, compare Saul and Kevin on Brothers and Sisters. That is a totally authentic representation of how things have changed.]

Young gay men probably look at Nuke and say "come on! No big deal! We've been here and queer forever! The timidity and forcedness of the Nuke story is so in contrast with our lives".

Maybe.

But man oh man oh man has the world changed!

Someone from my genereation looks at Luke Snyder in AWE! The world has CHANGED! Imagine if, 37 years ago, Phil Brent had been a young gay man on AMC, and the triangle involving Chuck and Tara had been because Phil wanted Chuck! What a different world that would have been!

Even as the world moved along, soaps just DIDN'T. Not in major or significant ways (although that link above shows that some brave souls TRIED).

Now, finally, the "soap train" has arrived at the station. That is a big deal. (The "station", by the way, is the acceptance of gay male sexuality...as I posted earlier...for women it has been futher along).

When I look back on my nearly 44 years (damn, I feel old on this board), I simply cannot tell you how stunning Nuke is. It is truly akin (I know you'll accuse me of aggrandizing) how I imagine some African Americans felt when Obama became president. The world has changed!

All the feelings of things you could never achieve when you were younger...well that ceiling suddenly opens up...and you almost get a feeling of vertigo....imagine if the world had always been thus! How different might life have been?

Thirty years ago, there was NO ROLE MODEL, certainly not on soaps. Think about what Luke IS! He's the white-bread scion of a countrified-citified Oakdale...middle America...no crazy hair or dress or lifestyle. And average fella, he probably shops at malls instead of Soho thrift shops, not "loud and proud"...just a typical guy. (Yes, I know he is a Grimaldi...but I am ignoring that). To SEE THAT EVERY DAY!! EVERY DAY!!! Wow!

That changes the world! At least mine!

From the perspective of "jaded youth" that is well past all of this, I can see how Nuke is nothing special. From the perspective of someone who NEVER THOUGHT this day would come EVER....it is very special indeed.

For me, this is as fundamental as Uhura-Kirk. That interracial kiss was subversive, IMO, not because it was 'first', but because it infiltrated the white-male bastion of SciFi. If you were going to show that kind of 'miscegnation' to THAT audience....well...you had pushed the audience very far. ATWT is a very similar bastion....with a mainstream audience of older, homebound women....mothers of sons who live in environments where it still may not be acceptable to be gay. (You know...Prop 8 voters). Now, every day, even here, they cannot deny the existence of this reality. Maybe, if they don't tune out, they'll see that Luke and Noah are decent and regular. Not perverts or pedophiles or sluts. Just striped-shirt wearing doofuses who go to college. Maybe they will recognize their sons...and judge less harshly, having had their attitudes adjusted, if they sons turn out to be gay too. For all of you who are 'way past' a society that does not accept gay male sexuality, I'm here to remind you that the MAJORITY of people in many areas are NOT 'way past' the issue. ATWT and its ilk can be fundamental tools in the cultural evolution. (That is also why it is important to not yet p*ss those people off and show them sweaty thrusting in a bed. Get them ready in baby steps. That day will come...)

The story was lousy. Nuke was a terrible insta-couple.

This critique points to the origins of the story where, it seems, Luke's unreciprocated attraction to Noah was a little rushed. The basis for the mutual attraction was never firmly established, so -- other than the fact that these are two gay men -- we don't really know why they are together at this point.

I think this is a broader critique of ATWT's writing, and so it is not specific to Nuke. Also, at this point, I really don't think it is fair to call them an "insta-couple". After over two years? INSTACOUPLE?? That just is no longer true. The FOUNDATIONS of the union may be shaky...and I'm not saying this is terrific writing. But honestly, they've earned the right with enough shared history to be more than an insta-couple.

The whole thing was rushed, shoehorned into a single episode. It was almost like "let's get this over with".

The point is that a gay man, who is a member of a core family, whom the audience has been allowed -- more or less -- to see grow up has also been allowed to become a fully embodied sexual being on his show. And that is major. Within the context of this single episode, it was also a good soapy setup -- from the fight in Midtown to the feverish kissing and locking of doors, to the post-coital tenderness. Since ATWT is trying to get us to view the show in a more "episodic" way, this was a good episode vis-a-vis Nuke.

Sex on this particular day made little sense

This is Tom Casiello's point. This love scene didn't get the build-up of some "losing virginity" stories on other shows. Given how long this couple has been denying themselves, why on this random January Monday?

I don't know. I can't defend that choice in particular. But in the real world, people have sex. They don't schedule it for particular days or plan it or announce it with weeks of foreshadowing. They just "throw down". Nuke could no longer deny it.

I actually think it was a beautiful breakthrough for the precipitant of Noah's passion to be Luke's admonition that "You're selfish with your feelings". Finally, finally, Noah had an epiphany. And the forceful way that he kissed Luke was both hot and completely appropriate for the heated conversation that preceded it. So, for me, watching this episode (I confess!) in isolation...it made perfect sense. It seemed like a classic moment of anger-dissolving-into-passion. Indeed, the utter "prototypicality" of that kiss made me happy...Nuke was getting treated like just about every other soap couple. That's all we can ask for.

The scene should have been comparable to what we see with het couples, otherwise gay men are on the "back of the bus"

This "back of the bus" comment showed up on both Usenet, and in a comment to Tom Casiello's piece on this topic.

So, the activist in me says...sure...sweaty naked men kissing all over each other in bed MIGHT WELL have been the more appropriate soap template to use. Except Luke and Noah are young, and soaps typically use a more chaste approach for young sex.

Second, can we remind ourselves of the national realities here? Gay marriage amendments were turned down by the MAJORITY of voters in three states in November 2008. For us to ignore the context in which this story plays out is ... naive. I suspect there is a lot of overlap, for example, between the population that voted against gay marriage and the population that watches P&G soaps.

In addition, P&G/CBS received vociferous protest against Nuke kissing (thank you, Rev. Wildmon)! A scant year ago, there was even a visible kissing ban! P&G/Televest/Telenext/whatever was sufficiently scared that they ran a PHONE POLL to help them decide whether to continue the Nuke tale!

In light of the extreme caution that has been taken so far, why would we now want to engage in a sudden act of sensory 'flooding' and show hot sweaty sex? Baby steps is the key....

I may have a different opinion here. I believe that a softer, more "lamb-like" approach is the right one to take here, given that the majority of Americans is still not comfortable with gay male sexuality.

Let's face it. If I want to watch sex -- gay or straight -- I can find lots of porn on this here old internet.

So, soap sex is ... well ... usually hokey. At its WORST, it is arched backs and sweaty brows and treacly music.

I'm not saying, sometimes, that can't be remarkable to see, but for the most part, I'll pass.

Most of soap sex is off screen. Every married couple on soaps gets to have their sex off screen. And that's fine. I really don't need to to see ATWT's Tom and Margo grunting away fortnightly, or however often they do it .

This was Nuke's FIRST sex. It may get "hotter" as time passes. For me, what is important is that the threshold has been crossed.

Now, EVERY TIME we see those men on screen, America will know that they have seen each other naked, in a lustful way. That new reality suffuses every scene. That is DIFFERENT. That is ground breaking. That is what Monday opened. Two men who are explicitly sexual with each other, on the front burner. Now, when they touch, we will know it is a "knowing" touch...and like Tom and Margo or -- heck -- most days Brad and Katie -- we know they'll follow up on the "touch" later. No longer is this denied.

Once the conservatives catch their breath and stop their puking (men having SEX! how AWFUL!), the next sex scene (whenever it happens) could well be shirtless in bed together kissing. Who knows? Who cares? Again, if we want to see two men in flagrante delicto....well...there are other sites for that.

This is commercial TV! It plays to all kinds of sensibilities. How often are African American characters (the few who exist) given those arched-back scenes? How often are characters over 40 given those scenes? There are all kinds of racist, sexist, ageist and homophobic sensibilities that are being 'considered' as these soaps get put out...that's the reality of an advertiser-supported medium that needs to appeal to the "minivan majority" (ugh).

The fact remains....we KNOW, and we cannot deny, that two men now exist in Oakdale who related to one another fully as loving and sexual beings. That is ENORMOUS. I cannot believe people aren't just jaw-droppingly astounded at how ENORMOUS this is.

There should have been advance publicity

When she was still at SOD/SOW, Carolyn Hinsey expressed this point regarding Nuke's first kiss. Recently, I have seen this opinion expressed -- say -- via the Marlena Delacroix site.

I could not disagree more. I think this publicity is working EXACTLY as it should. Why?

First, again, let us not deny the hordes of protesters. Let us not forget the early 90s, when Thirtysomething lost all advertisers for an episode because two gay men were simply shown in bed together. Why give them an advance warning to get organized?

Second, let us not forget that the method-of-the-day is viral. I defy you, in the modern era, to show me many examples of where advance publicity has had ANY effect on ratings! Genie Francis' returns to General Hospital have been promoted...and there was scarcely a ratings blip. The sole exception to the "benefits of publicity" that I can recall was during the "Sudden Impact" arc on Young and Restless (8/6/2008). There, clever banner ads and some out-of-daypart-and-off-network TV ads did convince lapsed viewers to come back to see the newly re-energized Y&R.

But, for the most part, publicity is irrelevant now.

Instead, Roger Newcomb reports that over 300,000 have watched the Nuke sex on Youtube alone. Who knows how many more people saw it on Fancast or CBS.com, etc.

Those who proclaim the need for publicity are LOCKED IN AN OLD WORLD, where the only way to watch a soap was on TV. "Set your VCR" is an outdated phraseology, even if you substitute the word "DVR". If you miss a show, you can catch it (legally) online, and the network gets to count both the "hit" and the advertising revenue!

Indeed, the lack of advance publicity is BRILLIANT. It teaches viewers they HAVE TO WATCH, or they'll miss it. That avoids a one-day ratings spike (useless), and might encourage return viewership.

Viral, viral, viral, viral.

Whenever you want to complain about a lack of publicity, just remember these phrases: "TV is dead" and "Viral is in". ATWT is playing well to the modern world!

And for those who feel the lack of publicity was "defensive", as in "The network was chicken, and afraid to stir up protest"...well....when everyone is out to get you it is OKAY to be defensive. When you're going to stir up a hornet's nest, it is okay to wear protective gear! That's not cowardly...that's smart!

Sharing ice cream with grandma, post-coitally, was icky and diminished the moment

Yeah, Lucinda coming in the house was a bit icky...but remember that Nuke had sex in a house that they share with half of Oakdale. In that context, given the fracture that occurred between Luke and Lucinda over Brian's hidden sexuality, it was a moment of rapprochement that actually felt very good in light of the preceding tension between them.

MOREOVER, think how radical the scene was!!! Luke and Noah had just exchanged bodily fluids!! They had actively had sex. Even if Lucinda didn't know it, these now fully-embodied sexual young men were sitting next to her, in a moment of healing, eating ice cream. In other words, Luke and Noah's sexuality didn't distinguish them or ostracize them. They could simply co-exist, do normal things, have nice family scenes. Yes, a little post-coital languishing might have been nice...but the normalization and routineness of the Oakdale scene was nice, too.

It reinforced that gay male sexuality did not lead to the end of the World. Indeed, it kept on turning like always. What a terrific message!

Go for classic, not for fad

GL, you cannot know how much I am pulling for you to succeed. I truly feel you are the canary in the coal mine. You've perfected, in my opinion, the production model. Now, bring the writing along!

I wasn't planning to write this, but I stumbled on this item. I don't usually mention Perez Hilton here, but in this case...

In a pst today, the gossip blogger writes:

Viewership for The Hills is down.

Way down!

Original episodes have tumbled 26% in the coveted 12-34 y.o. viewer demographic in the fourth quarter, compared with the same period last year.

Okay, now...sigh...

This is actually a lesson soaps (should have) learned after Gloria Monty elevated General Hospital to all-time highs. As Roger Newcomb's blog reminds us today, the viewers attracted for a pop culture phenom were not the "foundational" audience that stays with a show for decades. Two years after the Ice Princess, GH was in freefall.

The lesson then, as now, is that you have to program for mom and grandma, but do it in such a compelling way that they suck their daughters (and sometimes sons) into watching too. That is not the MTV model. But it is how soaps are built.

So how is this relevant to GL? Remember this article about GL?

The villain in this piece is the reality show. When veteran soap-opera producer Mary-Ellis Bunim created The Real World for MTV in 1992, soap opera’s exclusive grip on emotionally manipulative programming began to loosen.

Notice the Laguna Beach mention in the next quote. That is, ahem, the progenitor of that falling morass mentioned by Perez, The Hills!

Where other daytime producers are amping up the supernatural plots and onscreen text messaging to attract viewers, Wheeler has given her show an extreme makeover, reality-show style. For the first time, fans can see the actual streets of Springfield, a midwestern town in an undisclosed state—which look suspiciously like the streets in Peapack, New Jersey, where one-fifth of the scenes are being shot, all with handheld cameras. “We finally get to come into their world,” says Wheeler, who was inspired by shows like Laguna Beach and Friday Night Lights.

The elusive quest for 12 year olds....

With its face-lift, Guiding Light is banking on pulling in a whole new generation of viewers. “I do think if you were flipping through the channels you wouldn’t say, ‘Oh, this is a soap opera, I’m not going to stop,’ ” says Wheeler. “You wouldn’t know what it was.”

...leaves 39 year olds behind...

When the “new” show debuted on February 29, there was the expected backlash. Fans immediately hit CBS with online complaints about the artsy flourishes (producers have toned them down). “These shows are created to be romantic fantasy and fantastical adventure,” says TV Guide’s soap columnist, Michael Logan. “We don’t want reality when we’re watching a soap. We want a ‘Calgon, take me away’ moment.”

I wasn't planning it, but I think this blog post serves as a kind of companion for the other one I wrote today.

I deeply believe that Ellen Wheeler/GL's production model can and should work. It produces a cheaper show to make, and it looks pretty darn good on my (computer) screen. I applaud the show for conducting the experiment! Michael Bruno said (in last week's SOD) that GL is actually making money! So, by that metric, GL is a success. And these shows have to make money to survive! (If you don't like conceding to the commercial demands of television, go to some art house film or an experimental theater).

GL has exemplars that show it can be a storytelling success too, even with this lower-cost production model. We know there are pop culture hits (critically and/or box office) that use a similar style, it can work! It is now time to invest, though, in some writers of immense vision. Don't let the inspiration be MTV's Real World. Even if you draw in 12 year old viewers...they won't stick around. It doesn't work that way anymore. Let your models be Cloverfield or the Office or both. Those things entertain.

The secret is to stay away from the pedestrian (e.g., a routine conversation in an autumnal field), and give us the exciting. Give us big stakes that are in our face. Let the narrative make use of the intimacy and immediacy of the form, and the shaky anxiety of its hand-held cams, and write to that!

Form and Function

Check out these clips, and tell me what they have in common?










Cloverfield. Blair Witch. Friday Night Lights. The Office. By my reckoning, each one has powerful similarities to GL's new production model. Admittedly, each of these shows has much higher budgets, but at the core, it is the use of digital video, intimate hand held cameras. In the case of all four clips/shows, the production model conveys a "you are there" feeling that is actually quite remarkable, and contributes to the power of the show.

For Cloverfield and Blair Witch, the limited perspective was actually used to create suspense and confusion, so that we were suffering through the un-named horror with the same lack of information as the protagonists. This made the film far more effective. The intimacy, limited perspective, shakiness all worked together to ramp up the tension.

In a strange way, The Office works the same way. The Office is all about the cringeworthy moments that emerge from people caged like rats...too closely spaced, too different, yet thrown together every day. So, again, the "you are here" feeling really works. We hide our faces when Michael Scott does something especially boorish, because he is in our faces.

Now, Friday Night Lights, which I have watched with less frequency, uses the same quality in a more traditional drama. Again, it is effective. When characters are having conversations in cars or homes, we are there with them. In the locker room, we're in the middle of disputes and conversations. And on the field, we are pacing with coaches or privy to heated exchanges. Since football is fundamentally action, and the characters are mostly the action-filled young players and the people in their lives, all that movement works to give us a feeling of verisimilitude that simply makes us feel more involved.

The production model, which I am not the first to point out, is pretty similar to what Ellen Wheeler and her team are trying to accomplish at Guiding Light. Yet, pretty widely, many viewers and critics seem to feel that the model just isn't working for GL.

Notice the common theme for each of the foregoing examples. Action, tension, suspense, nervousness. In each example case above, the production model works perfectly with the writing, almost a kind of "partner" to create the tone and atmosphere that supports the narrative goals of the piece.

Now, at GL, we have something different. We see an attempt to use the technique for very pedestrian scenes with very little tension--conversations for the most part. The scenes are not narratively filled with high emotion or unrelenting energy, so there is a mismatch between this potentially effective style and underlying story and tone.

Imagine if GL had been revamped not just in production style, but if the narrative style had been shift to more nervous, high energy, anxious, high stakes. It would have been an abrupt departure from classic GL...from classic daytime in general...but it could have worked. Indeed, with a constant level of anxiety and stress and speed and movement, the show could have been edgy and could have attracted the attention of those young viewers everyone wants.

I think a mistake that GL has made is that they are patterning themselves after a reality show...but reality can often be boring. Their production model lends itself perfectly for high-stakes adrenaline storytelling...and I think that could have attracted an audience.

It all comes back to the same point: form should follow function. If GL sought to remake itself, it should have remade its narrative structure too. Storytelling at GL seems to have taken a backseat to the production model. In this next critical year, it is time for nothing less than a wholesale reinvention of the script writing, probably with the help of a fresh eye. Imagine if some hotshot young auteur were matched with a senior consultant who knows the story bones of GL (think Nancy Curlee or even Pam Long). That could be something. If the show played a more constant state of emotional tension and intimate high stakes, with that very fresh and modern production model, I think we might actually not be able to stay away!

Wow! GL and the blogosphere!

I'll get back to J. Bernard Jones one more time in my next post.

But, in the meantime, have you been following the blogosphere?

Michael Fairman and Sara Bibel and Patrick Erwin and Roger Newcomb and Soaps.com's Matt Purvis have all been invited to Peapack, NJ to have a whole set of in depth encounters with the GL creative team from top to bottom.

Regardless, it was only recently that Tom Casiello reminded us of the SuperFan (my word), and the use of social networking and devoted fans to "spread the word" about media properties. Sam Ford (sample blog here) has often talked about this whole area of "convergence culture", and is basically single-handedly introducing the concept to "thinking fans" who care about soaps.

There can be no clearer sign that the GL team remains committed to moving the show into the new world. I give much credit to that team. Even though I don't know how long the GL experiment can last in this economy, and I'm not sure they're doing everything right, I want to kiss them all for trying. I can't wait to hear the many insights that will flow from this.

Sara Bibel mentions that it is daring and innovative (I think that was her phrase) for GL to invite all these bloggers. True. Bloggers are a fiercely independent lot, and surely not part of the publicist-controlled media.

More importantly, I think it speaks volumes about the declining (last gasp?) influence of the soap opera magazines. As Roger Newcomb has railed for a while now, GL can't even get a COVER of SOD. So, how clever for GL to bypass the old media, and go straight to the new! This can not only help GL...it further helps establish the legitimacy of this newer form of disseminating information and publicity.

Bravo to the whole lot of you!

GL is the new low

Earlier this week I reported that ATWT, with its 30% loss of viewers (between the maximum and minimum of the calendar year) was the biggest proportional loser of viewers in 2008.

Well, ratings released today at SON show GL hit a new household low rating of 1.4. With that, GL takes the "biggest loser" slot, with a loss of 31%.

I am not a regular viewer of GL, so I cannot comment on the show's creative state. Casual readers of the soap fan networks reveals that many long time viewers do not like GL's new production model, but more importantly, they feel the show has little narrative connection to its' history. Most fan favorites are gone or rarely seen, and some claim there are few intersecting stories with long-term payoff. I don't know if any of that is true.

I know that constant doom-filled signs for GL bring me no joy. Daytime's most venerable soap should not fade out like this. For a long time it has not been helped by less than 100% clearances on CBS and a wide array of timeslots (e.g, 10 am in New York).

At the point, with the clearly faster-rate-of-decline than other shows (ominous since the show was already at the bottom of the heap), it seems clear that fans have not accepted the new writing style or production model. While I applaud the experiment (I have in another post), if this were a drug trial, it would be time to say "stop--the experimental drug is killing the patient".

In contrast, two of the other bottom soaps (OLTL, AMC) have experienced much less proportional decline this year...and lately there are some hints of rebound

Now what, for GL?

There are signs that GL is trying some repair. Heralded returns of Grant Alexander, David Andrew McDonald might...just might...suggest that the show realizes it needs some anchor in popular legacy characters.

At the same time, the history of daytime soaps shows that when fans leave, they don't come back, and new viewers do not replace them (Jack Peyton axiom).

It really is like watching cancer ravage a loved one, and nothing can stop it. There comes a place when you pray for euthansia or merciful release. As a long-time viewer of another soap (Y&R), a piece of my soul -- really, I'm not being melodramatic -- will be lost forever when that show dies. But at some point I'd rather see that than what seems to be happening to GL now.

Applauding the experiments

It has become quite conventional to deride and complain about ... well ...everything on soaps. For me, though, this past year has also been a time of optimism and hope. The powers in charge are NOT giving up. Indeed, they are doing the opposite. They are still experimenting, and seeking new ways of making soaps viable in the modern era. I think this is laudable. Here, I want to briefly give thanks for some of the many innovations from this year...and the past...that I think we could look at as "glass half full".

Soapnet still broadcasts soaps in primetime



Many have decried the fact that cheap reality shows and old reruns (90210!) and bad TV movies proliferate at the modern Soapnet. Gone are classic soaps (Port Charles doesn't count, and is anyone waking up at 5 am to see Ryan's Hope?). Reduced are weekend marathons.

But here's the thing: From 7 pm - midnight, PRIMETIME, we still see same day soaps. These are timeslots that help soaps flourish in many other countries in the world. Soapnet has remained committed to them.

We cannot fault the network for the fact that soaps have proven, in the main, unprofitable. It is to their credit that they are being flexible, adapting the brand to bring eyeballs to the network (and stay solvent). Indeed, if they succeed, their promotions may bring eyeballs back to the "mothership", the daytime brand. I do not understand all this Soapnet anger. It seems people WANT the network to be unprofitable.

Night Shift



I haven't been a regular GH viewer since the mid 1980s. But here I am...now struggling to stay awake every Tuesday at 11 pm. Night Shift is a revelation. Emotional stories, intergenerational canvas, veterans, guest stars with high relevance to a daytime audience (Kathleen Noone!). Is it perfect? No. But it is a much more watchable GH than the "love in wartime" carnage on in the daytime.

I personally think Night Shift is one of the paths to the future. Our soaps won't survive...not daily...not in daytime. If we can hold on to their core, shrink them down, make them less frequent, get them in primetime (when the audience is home)...some remnants may survive. Bravo to Lisa Hesser, Sri Rao and team for showing us that it can be done.

Promotion off network and out of the daypart

Sudden Impact, Y&R's August umbrella story, had boffo ratings. The story was good enough (and killed off characters/stories the viewers hated), but the promotion is what did it! CBS spent serious coin to run primetime ads on E! and their own network. I saw banner ads for the show everywhere. (In the same time frame, ATWT bought "Perez Hilton" ad space for a day). It worked! Hype, well placed, backed up by an exciting story...it worked.

Thus, I'm kind of sad that CBS hasn't kept at it a little while, to rebuild the brand.



It is a marked contrast to the failure of the 'Out of the Ashes' promotion during LML's Y&R era. That failed, I think, because it relied heavily on print (e.g., TV Guide), and was not backed up with a story most viewers wanted to see. Indeed, numbers were LOWER during that story.
Bravo too to ABC, for including soap stars in the Fall network promos, and for planning an expensive promotion aimed at luring back lapsed viewers.

Indeed, even CBS and NBC announced that they would be placing soap stars on primetime shows...to attract lapsed eyeballs. Bravo! Maybe they finally realize that investing back into the soap brand might have some benefits.

Peapack, NJ and the new production model at GL

Let's face it...Canadian TV Guide has all but told us this: GL is in its' final months. But, rather than view that as failure, I think GL got 12 months more than it would have otherwise.
They are going down TRYING. They cheapened the production costs (and some of it looks pretty dang good). They tried to build a new audience. Sadly, it is a failure (GL experienced the largest and most consistent declines during 2008...something the last-ranked show could scarcely afford to do). But I view it akin to someone dying in a motor vehicle crash donating their organs to science. The show was dying, so they used it to explore/experiment with new ways of making soaps.

The experiment was doomed to fail...it should have been done with a NEW soap. You can't dress a 70 year old lady in a teenage tart's clothes and hope that people will find her young and sexy. She is STILL 70! But they tried! They bought a year! They refined a production model! Hopefully, when CBS cancels the show, they will use what they learned to make a new soap, for new audiences, using the best of GL's waning days.

A three-day work week



EP Chris Goutman says the audience doesn't have patience for "this" show more than 3 days a week. I think he is right. I think most people don't have time for a 5-day a week daytime habit.
I think Night Shift is the model. (Wasn't Peyton Place on 2-3 days a week in primetime?). I think CBS should explore Chris' model. Take the current ATWT down to 3 days a week. Use the other two days to do all or some of the following:

- classic reruns
- classic reruns packaged as weekly clip shows ("Let's look at the best of Lucinda's marriage to John Dixon")
- Night-Shift style spinoffs that run, in the daypart, once a week. This latter would be a way to explore building the new brand. The spinoff could be truly continuing, or it could be more 13-week telenovela style. If the latter, it means that new ATWT "spinoffs" could be explored, once a week, every 13 weeks or so. Using the ATWT crew and sets (that is working less due to the reduced ATWT main schedule), it ensures that a fairly low incremental-cost product is produced, and few lose their jobs.

Change is not the enemy. Experimentation proves that you're not willing to let the genre go.

Ratings and gas prices: Two demonstrations of the same phenomenon

In my continuing attempt to clarify why weekly fluctuations in US ratings are meaningless, I tried to lay out this example at SON:

Weekly fluctuations in ratings are random...or at least due to forces unrelated to the shows.

A good parallel right now is gas prices. They have moved in a steadily upward direction (the opposite of soaps), and their current (national, US) mean is about $4.00 (give or take).

But then a wide variety of forces (not all random, but local/specific/one-time) cause those prices to fluctuate. Sometimes, they are $3.81, sometimes they are $4.25. It really depends on lots of factors.

Now, let's say you need a good idea of gas prices for PLANNING PURPOSES. For example, how much should you budget for gas? You can't do anything with that fluctuation information, because that just introduces uncertainty.

So, what you try to do is figure out the current value of the moving average (say $4) and plan for that. If the price fluctuates between $3.81 and $4.25, you can cope, because your current-average is a decent estimate. Now, if tomorrow the price goes to $4.50, your estimate is way bad. Even then, if it stays at $4.50 for one day, and then goes back to $4.18...well, it's a shock but not a meaningful one. But, if it goes to $4.50 and then starts to stay between $4.40 and $4.60...you know your moving average has shifted...and it is time to revise your budget projections.

So, in this case, there are two values that are informative: The average (the usual price of gas) and the maximum (the most you have to be prepared to spend).

How does this translate to soaps? Well, first, the week-to-week fluctuations are "random"...or at least due to local and basically non-systematic factors that we can't use to explain future ratings. Second, if you're a network or an advertiser, what you want to know is (a) the new value of the moving average, and (cool.gif the new value of the MINIMUM...the smallest number of viewers you can count on to see an ad.

So, if I were an advertiser making plans, I would first ask "What have the ratings been for this quarter?" and "What have the maxima and minima been?" Those would give me a sense of how many eyeballs I'm delivering. As an advertiser, I would NEVER care about the weekly or daily ratings...they are too unreliable. (Except...ratings seem to be higher on Tuesday and Wednesday--week after week--so I might pay attention to that in terms of "best days to advertise").

That is why I pay particular attention to SON’s Toups' flags "new low" and especially "ties low". Because when a show ties its' low for several weeks, that tells me the average...and certainly the "envelope of fluctuation" has trended down again.

In the last few weeks, two examples are germane: Y&R seems to be holding at that 3.5 average. This week it might have been up .1, last week down .1...but basically the new HH for that show is 3.5 (and, per the Jack Peyton axiom, it will NEVER come back).

The other germane example is GL. Now, GL is interesting because (a) it hit a new low; (b) it maintained that low for two weeks running, and (c) it kept that low EVEN WHEN every other show bounced up.

So, now my eye is on GL...unless they show fluctuations back up in the next few weeks, I'll start to assume that GL has hit its new lower plateau on the moving average.

I'm sorry, folks, when I go on like this. It is an obsession and I seem unable to control my fingers.

Planning the funeral for Guiding Light

After last week's ratings, where GL hit its all time low, SON poster LoyaltoAMC said:

Ouch to GL. I think most of us can agree that it's time to pull the plug.

Well, let's talk about this for a minute.

Couldn't that be a fan campaign? An unprecedented one? "The campaign for a dignified mercy killing for GL"?

Right now, it has only been renewed till 2009, right? So, it seems likely we're going to see it die anyway.

But, to help TPTB make the right decision (and not protract the suffering further), a fan campaign to AFFIRM that the show should be allowed to sleep could be waged.

Now, the campaign should have a PURPOSE. What? Well, I don't have personal information here, since I never really watched, but the fans could lobby for the return of Nancy Curlee to usher the show to her death.

For such a specific request, for such a delimited purpose, and for such a noble and important task (to give the show a good end), Curlee might actually agree. There would need to be SOME budget to bring back some favorites to close out stories and to "bring the family home at the end". I'm talking about folks like Grant Alexander...but also others who are not tied to other shows. CBS might agree to do this, so as not to risk eternal fan enmity for the rest of its daypart.

The show could actually plan a dignified death. Indeed, though it is a bit out there, I'd have a real wish (since this is Guiding LIGHT). I'd be inspired by the terrific little Canadian film starring Don McKellar and Sandra Oh. Taglines for that movie included "It's not the end of the world... there's still six hours left", "Party like there is no tomorrow...because there isn't!", and "It's your last night on earth. Go out in style." Basically, though never stated explicitly, the Sun was about to go supernova...and everyone was planning for the big explosion at the end.

So, for Guiding Light, what could be more appropriate than the Light going out? It would be a brief nod to bad stories of the past (Clone Reva; Magical Painting), but mostly to set up a situation where everyone gathers round and says goodbye.

It is the very final image that haunts me. Focus on the sun...bright...looking rather like a...beacon. And then it strobes. And the light reaches out to cover the entire screen, maybe with a little whoosh sound (like there used to be when the lighthouse beams circled round-and-round in the GL opening). Fade to white.

I'm no scriptwriter...but I'd rather see the show plan a decent, heartwarming end than what it is offering now.

===

Well, this seems to have inspired SON poster Khan, who wrote:

Include a final montage beforehand (set to this song) which features all the characters, both veterans and newbies, reconciling, forging new friendships and alliances, and generally moving forward with their lives, and you have a deal.

For those who can't be bothered to follow the link, he is referring to The Eagles and their song I Wish You Peace from the album One of These Nights (1975). Reading the lyrics, that is a perfect suggestion. It shows that an ending can be not just sad, but beautiful.

I wish you peace when the cold winds blow
Warmed by the fire's glow
I wish you comfort in the, the lonely time
And arms to hold you when you ache inside

I wish you hope when things are going bad
Kind words when times are sad
I wish you shelter from the, the raging wind
Cooling waters at the fever's end

I wish you peace when times are hard
The light to guide you through the dark
And when storms are high and your, your dreams are low

I wish you the strength to let love grow on,
I wish you the strength to let love flow,

I wish you peace when times are hard
A light to guide you through the dark
And when storms are high and your, you dreams are low
I wish you the strength to let let grown on,
I wish you the strength to let love flow,
I wish you the strength to let love glow on
I wish you the strength to let love go on.

Soapnet's unwinnable battle: Part II

And another thing :-)...

As I write this, I am reading "Worlds Without End", the museum book on the history of soap operas.

Right now I'm reading James Thurber's 1940s New Yorker articles about radio soaps.

In one of his articles, he talks about the cliches that had already come to proliferate. Among them:

- sudden (often temporary) blindness
- sudden (often temporary) paralysis
- sudden (usually temporary) amnesia
- he also talked about the archetypes of the "noble woman" (who was the problem solver), and the "troubled women" who gravitated to her tohelp dealing with life dilemmas

- of course, there were other form cliches (introductory recaps, questions like "Will Polly find true happiness?", organ music), some of which persist or have been re-implemented

Soapy at soaphunks.net has created a list of 100 of these:

http://soaphunks.net/cliches.php

(He also has the 100 "best moments", and I like a lot of them:

http://soaphunks.net/100moments.php)

And herein lies, I think, the other part of the doomsday scenario.

Traditional soap is PLAYED. It is mired in cliche. This has earned the form derision FROM THE BEGINNING. It has made the genre the source of countless lampoons ("As the Stomach Turns").

But, when soaps try to innovate and modify the genre--from Gloria Monty at GH to LML at Y&R--fans raise hue and cry. To this day, articulate people say Monty helped destroy daytime by introducing "filmic" elements. And legions of stalwart Y&R fans, the show that had maintained the most loyal fan base (in absolute numbers) are now abandoning the show in droves, as it trends (more rapidly than the rest of the genre) to a 3.5 or 3.0 household rating.

Rock meet hard place.

ATWT tries to add a beautiful story of coming out. The American Family Institute (or whatever it is called) and its ilk start foaming at the mouth. So, suddenly we see the story cast as a "classic" soap tale with lots of obstacles and no kissing. (I'm simplifying). The result: The viewers "on the right" hate it because it shows open-mouthed homosexuals. The viewers "on the left" hate it because it does not show reality and it seems timid. NO ONE IS HAPPY. The young-male ratings bump that ATWT got from their Nuke romance is rapidly attriting.

I honestly think this daytime form, which I love, has reached the end of its adaptive capacity in the current environment. A powerful set of forces is poised to halt its evolution...and unfortunately the rule of the jungle is "evolve or die". (Did I just characterize myself as a lefty, anti-creationist by saying that?).

The bravest show right now, in terms of evolution, is GL. Although I believe attempts to say that it is in "swan dive" are false (its decline is no faster than others), absent a small uptick in the youngest viewers, I see no evidence that the evolution is succeeding. The only thing that was accomplished, I suspect, is cost savings sufficient to buy the show another year.

I do believe ABC is being brave in its attempts to broaden the base (a nighttime cable network), creating new content to draw new audiences (GH Night Shift), and including modern production values (like CGI--even filmlook, though I hate that). But watch the ratings and the demos.

IT DOESN'T MATTER.

The genre is played out.