am i a nerd?

[Philippe Cordier]

Excellent commentary by Prof. Stokes.  Much better than that salon essay, I might add.  And I agree with what everyone else has said.  Very telling observations.  At the same time ...

I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but when the acting was bad (as DarkShadows' brother has noticed), it was really bad.  Worse, in fact, than just about anything else I've ever seen, including nonprofessional theater.  I know many wouldn't agree and might feel like pouring boiling oil on me for saying that, but that's my opinion.

At one point in the series, I was ready to toss in the towel when I felt everything -- from the acting to the writing to the direction to the stage hands -- had devolved to a point where the show had become a joke.  If I hadn't cared so deeply about DS, and if it hadn't been a part of me from childhood, I wouldn't have cared.  I would have written it off like DarkShadows' brother does.  Instead, I posted a rather over-the-top rant about my feelings, and fortunately, a couple of people encouraged me to persevere.  I'm grateful for those posters.  I'm thankful that I didn't give up on the show because the rewards that it ended up giving me have been wonderful.  

DS continues to spark my imagination on many levels, and I'm constantly amazed at the depth and level of intelligence and creativity of both writers and actors overall.  I've also learned not to take all of the series' shortcomings quite as seriously as I used to.

-Vlad

[Stuart]

Very true Vlad -- soaps are weird beasts by their nature, trying to create a consistent product in a medium that's inconsistent by its day-to-day nature.

If we're being honest, they are very few truly amazing episodes of "Dark Shadows" -- I'd say that most of the time, only about 50% of what's attempted comes off.  It's hardly ever quite as polished, dramatic, witty or well acted as it could be.  What I think really engages the viewer, however, is the show's complete all-or-nothing approach -- that sense of incredible ambition in the face of zero resources and time.  

The best elements of "Dark Shadows" are not the product of considered thought and diligent preparation -- instead it's a sort of good natured "let's put on a show!" vibe.  And most of the time, that enthusiasm and sense of adrenaline is all that's needed to make the show enjoyable.

[Ben]

As for the acting, it may not have been Oscar caliber, but it wasn't that bad.  In fact, with a few exceptions, I've found the DS players to be extremely skilled.  Given the circumstances under which they had to work, they had to put so much more energy into each performance than modern TV actors.  Their efforts had to transcend the cramped sets and the sometimes-questionable scripts, and they didn't have a very large time frame in which to make it all work.  With all of that in mind, it makes the numerous exceptional performances (read the "Favorite Scenes" topic) that much more admirable.  I'd like to see Tom Cruise or Jennifer Aniston try to strut their stuff in that environment.  

I don't think even we devoted DS fans can truly appreciate the stifling, limiting conditions the actors had to endure and be expected to pull it off.  For the most part, DS was one take, and that was it.  No director yelling, "Cut!  And this time, Jennifer, do it with more feeling!"  And then somebody yelling, "Take 31!"

In the modern age, whenever an actor blows a line, it's a great source of entertainment for the other actors and the studio audience, which gets to see the scene reshot.  None of that nonsense on DS, where the actors had to recover and keep going.  I would love to know how bad things had to get to warrant reshooting a scene.

As much as I enjoy the bloopers and other imperfections today, I specifically remember as a kid being all-too-willing to overlook them.  Somehow, I knew this was television, and they were trying to tell a story.  Perhaps it was a matter of feeling comfortable suspending reality and absorbing myself in the story.  

I wonder how many Oscar-winning performances were captured on the first take.

Ben

[deron]

I think the bottom line is that if you take all these things we talk about such as the bloopers and the messed up lines and combine it with actors who do look like real people and act like real people, and mix that in with a revolutionary approach to daytime TV, it is just plain fun.

It's fun to see these characters going through these storylines whether they are bad or good.  All these elements allow people like me and everyone on this board to talk about the show and have fun.  I don't see that happening with very many shows these days.  If Dark Shadows wasn't intriguing or entertaining Sci-Fi wouldn't be showing it over 30 years later and we wouldn't have a forum like this.  I think the fact that fans are still this enthused about a show that has been off the air this long is a testimony of it's appeal.

deron

[Philippe Cordier]

I don't think even we devoted DS fans can truly appreciate the stifling, limiting conditions the actors had to endure and be expected to pull it off.  For the most part, DS was one take, and that was it.  No director yelling, "Cut!  And this time, Jennifer, do it with more feeling!"  And then somebody yelling, "Take 31!"

Having been an extra in a few movies, I can testify to the length of time involved to do a single scene for the movies ... for example, the greater part of a day to shoot one scene that lasts a couple of minutes in the finished product.  However, the majority of that time is background work with lighting, camera angles, etc., and doesn't involve the actors.  That's the difference between location work and filming in a studio, like DS.

I was also a stand-in a few times, which means you replace the actor while the technical people make their adjustments; the actors really only work a few minutes, usually under an hour.  But it was my experience that the actors had to be right-on from the first take.  One of them was an Academy Award winner, Linda Hunt, so that's not surprising.  Many of the actors in the scenes I was in were not that well-known, but they were just as professional.  Conditions for filming movies are not necessarily any cushier than they were with a show like DS -- things are often hot, stifling, crowded, etc.  Not to mention all the crew and people who are only a few feet away when an actor needs to be portraying a character.

I wonder how many Oscar-winning performances were captured on the first take.

An actress friend of ours who did a lot of TV work in the '50s mentioned to me once that Vivien Leigh wasn't much of an actress -- onstage.  I was shocked, as I thought Miss Leigh was one of the most highly regarded actresses of all time, and I certainly admired her performances.  Our friend said it was all in the camera work and doing retake after retake; she often dismissed acting for film and TV as "instant acting, like instant oatmeal" (she much preferred the stage).  But "instant" acting, especially without the liberty of doing retakes, requires its own special skill.  Several DS actors, like Nancy Barrett, Louis Edmonds, John Karlen, Thayer David, seem to have gotten it down to a science. DS does, however, seem to have cast a remarkable number of people at various times during its run who were rather lacking in that ability.

[Dawn]

There have been a miriad of wonderful comments concerning the show in this discussion and I have to agree that many of us 'old timers' who watched the show in the beginning were caught up in the stories and the drama of such an original piece of work.  Our affections originated then and have persisted to today.  We were more tolerant of the flubs and flaws because it was an occurance that was well known from live tv.  As for bad acting...well...some such as our dear Dr. Lang were classic 1950's style horror impersonations.   I often wonder if Dan Curtis didn't actually request that kind of persona.  No matter what, we are all devoted to keeping DS alive.  If you are a nerd, welcome to the club.    Dawn

[Cassandra]

Perhaps a lot of people have never been to a live stage play. It is quite a different experience than watching a movie or TV show and in many ways much more enjoyable. That's what watching DS is like - it's like watching a play. Yes, there are flubbed lines, but most of these are forgiveable. In real life people stumble over their own words, they don't deliver perfectly rehearsed dialogues, so in some ways it seems even more "real" because of the flubs.

Well said Chris! That's what I love about DS. The verbal mistakes all just seem to natural to me, as in real life. We all make mistakes sometimes while we are conversing with people and I think that DS did a great job with what little they had to work with. With some of these shows today, the dialogue all seems so superficial. Alot of these actors and actresses don't speak too clearly either. If I didn't have close caption on my TV, I wouldn't know what the heck they were saying.

[elizabeth]

Hi,

We went, last year, to the DS Convention at the Marriott WTC in NYC.

In it they ran one of Louis Edmonds' last interviews. In it he said that for a while there was pressure from the Network to keep topping whatever story had come before. That pressure resulted in those paralell time stories. He also said that the stories during this period became so complicated and far out that the cast itself did not understand what was going on. Remember TV shoots out of sequence to save on set changes, so the cast did not even do the scenes in order, first all the drawing room scenes, next all the Old House scenes etc.. Then he said that for  a while they just walked through their parts until the storyline settled back down. It was all too confusing for the cast to get a handle on the charcterizations.
:-/
(Comment by Louis Janet/Elizabeth's husband who introduced her to DS. If you disagree with me, do not yell at her. She is in the shower and knows not of my response! ).

[Midnite]

(Comment by Louis Janet/Elizabeth's husband who introduced her to DS. If you disagree with me, do not yell at her. She is in the shower and knows not of my response! ).

Hi, Louis!  Thanks for your comments-- We promise to not tell her you were here.

[Luciaphile]

I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but when the acting was bad (as DarkShadows' brother has noticed), it was really bad.  Worse, in fact, than just about anything else I've ever seen, including nonprofessional theater.  I know many wouldn't agree and might feel like pouring boiling oil on me for saying that, but that's my opinion.

I join you in it.  There were performers on DS who were excellent, some consistently so.  But for every Nancy Barrett or Thayer David, there's someone who should never have been allowed a union card, let alone let loose on national TV.  I know it's not a popular opinion to say this, but there was a lot of really really sucky acting, directing, and writing on DS.  I'm sorry to say it, but I can't write it all off to lack of budget or the times . . . I've seen more than my share of community theater done on a shoestring with not a lot of rehearsal or even liveable space (my friend worked at a theatre where when it rained outside, it rained inside) and an awful lot of that surpasses what DS did.  Sometimes there's simply no excuse.  

At one point in the series, I was ready to toss in the towel when I felt everything -- from the acting to the writing to the direction to the stage hands -- had devolved to a point where the show had become a joke.  If I hadn't cared so deeply about DS, and if it hadn't been a part of me from childhood, I wouldn't have cared.  I would have written it off like DarkShadows' brother does.  Instead, I posted a rather over-the-top rant about my feelings, and fortunately, a couple of people encouraged me to persevere.  I'm grateful for those posters.  I'm thankful that I didn't give up on the show because the rewards that it ended up giving me have been wonderful.  

I remember that.  I'm glad you stayed  And I'll remember that when we get into certain parts of the show

Luciaphil

[Nancy]

I join you in it.  There were performers on DS who were excellent, some consistently so.  But for every Nancy Barrett or Thayer David, there's someone who should never have been allowed a union card, let alone let loose on national TV.  I know it's not a popular opinion to say this, but there was a lot of really really sucky acting, directing, and writing on DS.  I'm sorry to say it, but I can't write it all off to lack of budget or the times . . . I've seen more than my share of community theater done on a shoestring with not a lot of rehearsal or even liveable space (my friend worked at a theatre where when it rained outside, it rained inside) and an awful lot of that surpasses what DS did.  Sometimes there's simply no excuse.  
l

A key difference between soaps down in the 1960s (and even in the early 70s) and community theater is that in community theater, you are not likely to be given new material to memorize shortly before the performance.  You also have the freedom to decide when and how much rehearsal you are going to need.   If you give a bad performance one evening for whatever reason, you have the next night to redeem yourself (unless it was review night, lol, but even then you can still give a better performance).  Every mistake you ever make on stage is not captured on video and sold some thirty years later for everyone to see and pick apart.   If you look at something over and over again you will not only see very single mistake and hear bumbled dialogue repeatedly, it becomes really annoying.   It is not a coincidence that many of the DS performers who rarely make mistakes have quite a bit pr previous TV or film experience behind them.  John Karlen, for example, had a decade's worth of TV experience under his belt and most of that was one-take stuff.  He was marvelous.  He had his days too as does everyone no matter how good they are.  Another example, Frid is a very talented stage actor (if you want to see wide range, see his one man shows) but the extent of that talent didn't translate on DS.   He had very little TV experience before DS and no film experience.   There is a world of difference between working in front of an audience and working in front of a camera.  The experiences do not compare in any way, shape or form and I know this because I have done both.   I've seen some marvelous stage actors in limited film and TV roles and they were awful. And that even after being able to do more than one take.  The talent didn't translate on the camera.  Likewise, I have seen actors who cut their teeth on film and TV who are horrible on stage.  There are actors who are good at both - God Bless them!   What makes one actor good at one medium and not another - who knows.  

Nancy

[Maria_Merriweather]

Nancy wrote

Every mistake you ever make on stage is not captured on video and sold some thirty years later for everyone to see and pick apart.  

and

It is not a coincidence that many of the DS performers who rarely make mistakes have quite a bit pr previous TV or film experience behind them

These are excellent points (and there were many others on this thread ).  I continue to find DS amazingly creative and entertaining. Darkshadows--if you are a nerd you are in good company!

[Philippe Cordier]

It is not a coincidence that many of the DS performers who rarely make mistakes have quite a bit of previous TV or film experience behind them.  John Karlen, for example, had a decade's worth of TV experience under his belt

That's exactly one problem I've had at certain times with the selection of some of the actors.  With a tremendous pool of experienced, professional television actors available, why did the producers/directors so often rely on untested novices?  In the case of some, like KLS, who had great training but no TV experience, things worked out beautifully.  But it seems like taking an awful chance doing that on a regular basis.

There is a world of difference between working in front of an audience and working in front of a camera.  The experiences do not compare in any way, shape or form and I know this because I have done both.  

Yes, that is exactly what my "veteran actress" friend meant when she referred to film work as "instant acting" and  "piecemeal" acting.  That obviously was her own take on it, but to provide a tiny bit of context, her own resume began as a child actor on the radio, headlining on Broadway in the '40s and '50s, television work throughout the '50s and '60s, plus film and continuing stage work -- plus she does a mean impersonation of Ethel Merman and Carol Channing in the most unexpected places!    She was the first to explain to me the difference among the various mediums, and why her own preference is for the stage, which allows the actor to present a character in its entirety, in a single two-hour span, live, before an audience ...

She also never shied away from calling a spade a spade when we've watched movies, discussed various actors, etc.  There are horseshit actors who do horseshit work (her term, not mine   ).  Whether some of them ever appeared on DS or not is something that will, perhaps, remain a point of disagreement among fans.

*  *  *  *

Speaking of "live" performances, I need to start wrapping things up on the computer here so I can catch magician David Blaine's live stunt on TV tonight ... His hero is Houdini, who was also mine at an early age ...  

[Stuart]

Re: The novices thing...

Bear in mind that "Dark Shadows", especially in the early days, was an underfunded soap from a producer with no track record, on a network firmly entrenched in third place...  For those reasons, it was rarely able to offer much reward for an actor, either financially or career-wise.  For this reason, the majority of the young cast were relatively inexperienced, simply because those with proven track records were usually getting better offers and salaries elsewhere.  

Kudos to those involved, however, for assembling a cast of the quality they acheived under those circumstances, because it was frequently far better than they really could have expected.  

Fore example, it's common knowledge that Grayson Hall did the show initially because she had bills to pay and a family to support, and if we're being honest, looking over her resume prior to the show, the work was beneath her to a certain degree.  However, for the experienced performers in the cast, there was the enticement of the wide range of character roles the series offered, and I guess that's what ultimately attracted so many talented individuals to the show's ranks.

[Luciaphile]

Re: The novices thing...

Bear in mind that "Dark Shadows", especially in the early days, was an underfunded soap from a producer with no track record, on a network firmly entrenched in third place...  For those reasons, it was rarely able to offer much reward for an actor, either financially or career-wise.  For this reason, the majority of the young cast were relatively inexperienced, simply because those with proven track records were usually getting better offers and salaries elsewhere.  

My objection to this is that NYC is teeming with poor, talented actors.  I have struggling actor friends, who trust me, do not have the luxury of picking and choosing roles in television shows from networks third rated or no.  I cannot believe that the situation in NYC in the late sixties was any different than it is today.

Some of the people on DS were incredibly talented.  No question.  Others . . . well, I won't go there since I've already been critical enough for one day

Luciaphil