Snark Weighs In: Episode Twenty-One

SNARK WEIGHS IN: Episode Twenty-One

--Originally published November 27, 2000

THE DEVIL YOU KNOW IS STILL A DEVIL

Should I be happy that JFP is leaving OLTL?

This question continues to be raised on various message boards, NOT by people who've enjoyed JFP's stint on OLTL, but by many who haven't. Why? Because things MAY get worse. Gary Tomlin is a relatively unknown player, and what we do know of him is mixed. Hey, he did produce Sunset Beach after all. And under JFP, the demos are up! (Well, the ranking is up, the rest is just smoke and mirrors.) Could Tomlin end up being as bad or worse than JFP? Yes. Should this end any happiness we feel about JFP leaving OLTL? No. In fact, I'm going to indulge myself in a moment of pure euphoria right now.

WOO-HOO! YEAH! SHE IS GONE! GO JILL GO! HOP ON YOUR BROOMSTICK AND ZOOM TO PORT CHARLES!

*Ahem!* A couple of weeks ago, an unknown poster (I still say a scared GH fan) posted a "gloom and doom" message on Media Domain's OLTL board, on how everyone should be scared if JFP were to leave, because there is no new talent out there, and JFP was the best of the worst, etc, etc. I said then that I don't believe in choosing the lesser of evils, nor do I miss evil when it is gone. Some smart ass then asked if I preferred the "morer" (her word) of two evils. I was going to give a lengthy explanation of what I meant, but realized it would be wasted on her. Since you are infinitely more intelligent (you are my readers, after all), I will share it with you.

When I think about the good old days of a soap, that's precisely what I think about. The good old days. Not the days that were bad, but slightly more tolerable than today. When I think about OLTL, I remember the last time the show was truly must see for me. I don't look back, and say, "Gee, I miss Leah Laiman. Her characterization was thin, and her stories had less depth than a romance novel, but she wasn't into wholesale character assassination." Or "Claire Labine had no sense of timing, and she couldn't tell the difference between a storyline and an anecdote, but that dialogue was sharp!" I say, "I miss Michael Malone. He took risks. He had characters and stories you could sink your teeth into. He tackled issues. He had warmth and humor." When I think about OLTL's past, I dwell on the truly golden years, not the awful-but-not quite horrid years.

What I can't fathom is how anyone could feel apprehensive about losing a woman who pushed OLTL off the cliff anyway. Do you truly believe it could get much worse? But, that's beside the point. It doesn't matter what Gary Tomlin ends up doing. Jill Farren Phelps is the one whose been gutting OLTL for three years in pursuit of cultivating a certain demographic. Phelps has been gutting years of history and characterization for Emmy nominations. Phelps is the one that has ignored OLTL's long-term audience. Phelps is the one who has bent all logic and thrown good storytelling out the window for cheap ratings spikes. Phelps is the one who engages in endless double-speak. Phelps is the one who thinks constant audience frustration is a good thing. Can you really see yourself looking back in a year, and saying, "Gee, I wish Phelps were still here." Do you see yourself dropping OLTL to watch a Phelps-produced GH?

I can't imagine that Tomlin is worse than Phelps, but if he is, so be it. It's time to stop being scared of what might happen. It's time to stop hoping for the lesser of two evils. It's time to ask for genuine improvements. It's time to demand that OLTL live up to the potential its capable of achieving. If Gary Tomlin is not the man to make those changes, then we'll nail him. But suddenly wanting Phelps to stay is beyond senseless. We have no idea what Tomlin will do. We know all too well what Phelps will do. It's time to move forward.

If you still think things would be safer if JFP stuck around, ask yourself: "Has OLTL gotten progressively better over the past three years OR progressively worse?" Just because JFP stays doesn't mean OLTL has leveled out. Ask GL fans if Paul Rauch seemed better three years ago than he does now. Even though Rauch has been the only EP for years, the show has gotten progressively worse. The same could easily happen under JFP.

If you're nervous, I understand. I am too. Not about losing JFP, but about whether Tomlin can get the job done. I don't know. But I know JFP can't. And I know as long as she's at OLTL, no one will have the chance. So she must go. She absolutely must.

Now excuse me while I pop a cork.

HERE'S YOUR HAT, WHAT'S YOUR HURRY?

In other news, (Yes! There's other news in Soapland!), Claire Labine and her two kids are staying at Guiding Light. In a statement originally posted on the Guiding Light Fan Club website, Mary Alice Dwyer-Dobbin (MADD) announced that she had "taken a recount", and the votes "were still there for Labine."  MADD was impressed with Labine's material "that week", and noted "ratings had rebounded" (to a 3.3).

Yeah, I thought it was a joke too. It's not. The statement was real, and the Labines are staying. There are three lessons to be learned from this reverse decision:

MADD should never do topical humor. Ever.
Always wait 2 weeks before offering thoughtful, in-depth analysis of any decision regarding a P&G soap.
WHO CARES WHAT NUMBER 3 IS!!!! THIS IS FREAKIN NUTS! GUIDING LIGHT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A PROFESSIONALLY RUN TELEVISION SHOW, NOT A (radio edit) THREE-RING CIRCUS!!

Guiding Light is the longest-running soap opera, period. They'll have been on the air for 64 years come January. How many employees do you think have been hired and fired in that time? Thousands? Tens of thousands? So why are all GL's personnel decisions coming back to bite them on the ass of late!? Actors and writers quitting or getting fired always gets a lot of ink; but it happens. A certain amount of turnover is the nature of the business. So, why can't GL get it together? First, Maeve Kinkead decides to quit, and gives statements to the press with lines big enough to fall between; next, the Beth Ehlers/Paul Rauch power play; then, the Patti D' Arbanville fiasco; Anthony Addabo and the GL staff put on a riotous production of "Who's Zoomin Who?"; Sandra Santiago proves she's an even bigger diva than Carmen Santos in her exit interview, accusing Labine of jerking her around; and then Labine herself goes. When news first broke of the Labine exit, it was stated that it was a mutual agreement. What happened? Did things really change that drastically in a week? Why did the Labines and their bosses want to terminate their agreement in the first place? Were they really upset with the level of work being turned out, or was it just a lovers' quarrel?

"Claire, what happened?"
"I don't know, MADD. I thought it would work out, but it just didn't."
"You know, Claire, I know we announced that we're separated, but..."
"Yes!"
"I really don't want to break up! What can I do to make things up to you?"
"Well, it's just...I don't feel special with you anymore. Remember when I first got here, and you used to send me flowers everyday?"
"Is that all? I just didn't want you to feel awkward and singled out!"
"So, it's not my work?"
"No! Did you see this week's ratings? They're back up to a 3.3! Oh, Claire, will you stay?"
"Let me think about it. I've thought about it. Okay!"
"Great! Let's announce that we're back together-for the next few months, at least."

Certainly no more far-fetched than anything else coming out of GL these days. Although, to be fair, a mutual agreement to end the working relationship would require approval from both parties involved, yes? Yet, check what Claire Labine had to say on her "return": "We are happy to acquiese to the will of the majority", Labine said. "Matt, Eleanor, and I were delighted to join Guiding Light in June and even though we never left the building, we're delighted to come back in December."

Does Claire Labine sound like someone who agreed to quit or someone who was fired? Bottom line: We're back to square one. No one at GL knows whose minding the store, and routine decisions are turning into public relations nightmares. And the lack of clear authority off-screen is paralleling the lack of focus on-screen.

AMC, WHERE THE "C" ISN'T FOR CREDIBILITY

It's time for All My Children to make up its' mind. Does it want to be the soap it was from 1970 until a few years ago? That is, does it want to be a soap that mixed familial, romantic, and social issues with warmth, understanding, a dash of humor, and, most importantly, respect? Or does it want to be completely shallow and have no credibility whatsoever a la Passions? The genre may support one or another, but not both.

If you pay any attention to the soap world at large, you must know that All My Children recently took a big risk in revealing that Erica Kane's teenage daughter, Bianca, is a lesbian. In the past AMC's socially relevant storylines have raised eyebrows and gotten quite a bit of publicity. Yet, so far, the Bianca storyline has done little of either. Is it because the story is in its infancy stage, and hasn't played out yet? Perhaps. I'd like to offer a different theory: No one takes AMC seriously anymore.

Think about it. You're a lesbian or a friend of a lesbian or the mother of a lesbian, etc, etc. You learn that AMC is doing a storyline about a teenager dealing with being a lesbian. You decide to watch. Perhaps you'll get some insight into what these teens deal with, and what makes them tick.

What are you greeted with, instead? People running around a yacht hopped up on Super-sized Viagra. That's right. In a plot twist that defies words, nearly every storyline on the show converged on a yacht party thrown by that dot com genius Ryan Lavery. Meanwhile, Dr. David Hayward invaded the party with hopes of slipping Libidozone (the souped-up Viagra) into Tad Martin's drink, in hopes that he would sleep with David's lawyer, Leslie Coulson, so he could have access to Tad's wife, Dixie. Instead, David accidentally spills this stuff into the entire punch bowl. Hijinks ensue.

It's worth noting that there was one storyline that did not transfer to the yacht. It's the one in which Brooke English becomes romantically attracted to the Rev. Elliot Freeman, only to learn that he's the man who ran over her young daughter twelve years ago.

How are viewers supposed to take seriously ANY social message from a show that puts on storylines as moronic and offensive as these? Is a viewer who tunes in to see what's going on with Bianca really going to stick around after instead viewing plots lifted from TV-movies and porn flicks? The one thing that you must say about NBC soaps is that they rarely try to do important social issues. (That doesn't let them off the hook, BTW.) AMC, however, has the gall to pretend that they are a relevant, serious drama, when they continue to spend most of their airtime on absurd and offensive plots easily the caliber of an NBC show. Who cares if the Bianca storyline is well written and acted? No one's going to see it or even want to see it when it's adrift in a sea of Libidozone and other drivel.

I don't mind camp. I don't mind soaps that don't try to tackle relevant issues. I do mind when a soap tries to have it both ways. I abhor when a soap wants the ratings that come with shallow storytelling AND the prestige that comes with social issue storytelling. AMC absolutely should not be trying to have it both ways. It's damaging their credibility and their ratings.

CRITICAL CONDITION

No, this isn't a critique of Marlena DeLacroix's column. It's time to talk about Port Charles. No, this isn't another diatribe against their new head writers, the Sultans of Suck, James Harmon Brown and Barbara Esensten. Even the most talented of head writers would have a hard time saving this patient.

I'm already on record as saying that PC will be canceled by the end of 2001. But let's pretend that I think they still have a shot. ABC is certainly talking a good game. In a recent TV Guide piece, ABC Daytime head honcho Angela Shapiro declared that no one at the network wants to see PC fail, and how tons of new cash is being pumped into the lowest-rated soap. (We all know big spending works; just ask the folks at The City.)

Beyond that, ABC is going full-force with their plans to turn PC into a telenovela. Telenovelas are soap operas aimed at Spanish-speaking audiences. The big difference between a telenovela and an American soap (besides telenovelas' prime-time slots and huge ratings) is that a telenovela is only on for a limited time. (Usually, six months to a year.) At the end of that time, every storyline is wrapped up, and the show ends. In the PC interpretation, the show will focus largely on one storyline that will wrap up every twelve weeks. The storyline will focus on 4 or 5 of the major players, while the rest will mainly window dress.

So, in order to get their disgustingly low ratings up, PC will stick most of its' cast on the backburner, and focus on one storyline with a few players, hoping that that story goes over like hotcakes. If it doesn't, much of the already small audience will tune out for 3 months at a time.

There's one word for this strategy. I won't tell you what it is, but it ain't genius. Once again, ABC has come up with another marketing gimmick that seems destined to fail. But, it is apparently far easier to come up with dubious marketing gimmicks than good storytelling.