Passions Soap Opera

[Barnababy]

Any viewers here, and opinions, especially in comparison with "Dark Shadows"?

[joe integlia]

ive watched it since day 1 and i love it. ive met just about the entire cast and discovered that jade harlow who plays jessica is a ds fan and attended the night of dark shadows 30th anniversary showing recently at the vista theatre in hollywood. they even played ds music on passions recently.

[TEStokes]

Passions.. ...I have seen it a couple times, though I really watch zero TV now. It seems very overwrought and childish to me...not particularly well done. With DS there's the allure of Barnabas's tortured character and intricate plot developments, but with Passions , well there is really nothing to gawk at, except for that sorry little Witch and her midget doll or whatever it is.

Frankly, I am offended when it is compared to DS -- they are nowhere in the same league.

[VAM]

Frankly, I am offended when it is compared to DS -- they are nowhere in the same league.

My work schedule does not allow me to watch Passions. However, I have seen it a couple of times  to see what all the talk was about. I agree that it is not in the "same league" as DS.

[Gerard]

Kinda along the same lines, anyone watch that vampire story on Port Charles which played out throughout last summer and autumn?  Some actor played a double role - twin brothers, one a vampire, the other a priest.  I watched it on and off, the vampire going after his version of Josette, the hero trying to go after the vampire, and some guy the vampire bit going back and forth between wanting to be a vampire and not wanting to be a vampire.  I wtached it on and off, and then just lost interest.  Anyone know what happened?

Gerard

[Raineypark]

I don't mean this to be a criticism of "Passions" in particular as I have only seen bits and pieces of it clicking around the cable......but I think "Passions" suffers from a problem that afflicts every other current Soap and most television these days: too many perfectly perky and pretty people.

Television has given up on what was once known as the "character actor".  Those were the people who played the smaller but pivotal roles that gave the leads a reason for doing whatever the storyline had them doing.  They never played the lead, usually because they weren't Star Quality handsome or beautiful, or they had aged out of the star's role into the character roles.

But they were vitally important to story lines, and frequently the best actors in the show.  They were also the ones who could get away with the witty or stupid, or wicked or passionate lines of dialoge that the leads would not have been given, but were neccessary to the story.

Try to picture DS without Thayer David, or Louis Edmunds, or Clarice Blackburn...and on and on...you get the picture.  They were all well trained actors of great talent and style.  They carried the weighty roles that supported the leads.  What did they have in common?  They were older.  And there's the problem.

Lately, Soaps, in particular, have been ditching their oldest and most beloved (by a certain segment of the audience) long-term characters in order to get and keep a younger audience.  I'm not naive...I understand that like most things in life, TV is all about money and money requires a specific audience make-up.

But in the pursuit of the right demographic, tv today has tossed overboard a very significant part of storytelling: The Character, who knows the secrets, tells the tale, provides the moral, remembers the past and already suspects the future.

This is not an old lady trashing the beautiful young people on TV today.....there are some extraordinarily talented and stunningly beautiful young people working out there right now that are going to be the Emmy and Oscar winners of tomorrow, and I wish them all Buona Fortuna....but I do believe that an unrelenting diet of pretty faces is no substitute for the banquet a show like DS provided: some beautiful, some not, some young, some not, some very talented....well, no comment (!) and all supporting one another in the common task of telling the tale.

Raineypark, who wanted to be Paddy Chayefsky when she grew up, but didn't have the talent.

[Bette]

I tried watching Passions after I heard that it was using DS music for one plotline, but the show is so slow-moving that it just did not keep my interest. I am happy for a soap that uses the supernatural and loved watching Robin Strasser when she was on the show, but I really wish they would speed up the pace a little. That double wedding must have taken up a solid month.

I don't watch any other soap, but as a kid in the 60s I was hooked on several, besides DS. I know DS' pace was brutal and that helped kill it, but my memory of the other soaps was that they were not as slow to tell a story as Passions is now. Anyone else remember if that is so? Also, do all the current soaps progress at a snail's pace as well?

Bette

[Mark Rainey]

I watched Passions a few times and threw up my hands in disgust. I think Raineypark summed up its major flaws from an objective viewpoint. On a more subjective level, it struck me as dimwitted and superficial; a pale shadow of the obvious source(s) that inspired it--not the least of which is the typical, mundane soap opera. Not that one should expect artistry from soaps, but something resembling integrity in characterization and storytelling never hurts.

Ah, for the old days of John Colicos (Baltar from Battlestar Galactica) scheming to use his freeze ray device on Port Charles in General Hospital.

Mark

[MikeS]

I started watching Passions at the very beginning, and although I initially enjoyed it, the storylines have become too drawn out with no resolution, causing me to lose interest.

As far as comparing it to Dark Shadows, it doesn't even come close!

[Luciaphile]

I've been watching Passions off and on since its inception.  It's been the latest sacrifice on my list of pleasurable things as my semester swings into high gear, but I've no doubt I'll go back to watching it again.

There are some parallels to DS (all the dimwitted idiots "who just can't understand what's going on") and some superficial similarities (wealthy New England family who owns a cannery), but I don't think it's meant to be compared to DS.

DS took itself seriously.  Passions doesn't.  Passions is intended as camp.  You only have to watch Ben Marsters playing Julian Crane to see that.    The heroes are as white hattish as they come and boring as Wonderbread and the villains are kind of on the scale of something that you might have seen on the old Batman show.  

Tawdry and tacky, yes, but it's such tawdry and tacky fun  

Luciaphil

[Gerard]

Raineypark wrote:

>>a problem that afflicts every other current Soap and most television these days: too many perfectly perky and pretty people...Lately, Soaps, in particular, have been ditching their oldest and most beloved (by a certain segment of the audience) long-term characters in order to get and keep a younger audience.  I'm not naive...I understand that like most things in life, TV is all about money and money requires a specific audience make-up.  But in the pursuit of the right demographic, tv today has tossed overboard a very significant part of storytelling: The Character, who knows the secrets, tells the tale, provides the moral, remembers the past and already suspects the future.....there are some extraordinarily talented and stunningly beautiful young people working out there right ....but I do believe that an unrelenting diet of pretty faces is no substitute for the banquet a show like DS provided: some beautiful, some not, some young, some not, some very talented....well, no comment (!) and all supporting one another in the common task of telling the tale.<<

You're so right, Raineypark!  Of course, soaps (and all TV dramas/sitcoms) are fantasy, even if some try to throw in "realism", done for entertainment, and being fantasy they are populated by performers who look "more than normal".  Yet, facts and figures prove that something is just not working, despite efforts by TV corporate execs to please that "demographic".  The ratings are low.  The Young and the Restless is today the highest rated TV soap and it can't command six million viewers.  Naturally, things like cable options have cut deeply into the major networks, but I believe that the attempt to make everyone who appears in a show one of the "beautiful people" does not work.  With everyone looking like some Vogue or GQ model, there is no variety - soon they all begin to look alike.  So what would be a draw?

Let's be honest about DS - it was populated by "normal people" just like us.  We all know there were some knock-outs, especially among the female cast, but what viewers cared about were characters, not cut-outs.  Today, DS is the only soap which survives in syndication, still commanding millions of viewers, both old and new.  Other than on the Soap Channel, can we find ANY of the other soaps, both retired and recent, re-airing anywhere on TV?  All those beautiful people, and no one is interested in seeing them in their roles again.  That says something.

Gerard

[Raineypark]

Thanks Gerard....I thought I might be a voice crying in the wilderness on this pet peeve of mine.

If anyone doubts the appeal of "characters" just look at two very popular and very acclaimed shows like "West Wing" and "The Sopranos".....

The casts are SO diverse as to age and looks....old people, young people, gorgeous people, homely people...I mean really....has there been a more indelible character portrayed recently than Nancy Marchand's Olivia Soprano?  Would anyone have believed that an actor who looks like James Gandolfini could be the superstar he is today?  What about John Spencer, who brings a lifetime of acting skills to his portrayal of Leo McGarry on "West Wing"  

My own DS fave John Karlen went on to play The Character in movies and TV shows....to my eternal gratitude and joy....but how many of the others never really had that chance?

Raineypark

[RingoCollins]

I watched Passions a few times and threw up my hands in disgust. I think Raineypark summed up

I also tried it for a while in my apparent terminal unemployment...

mark - ditto
Raineypark - ditto

like a really bad comic book, whereas DS is like a really good comic book [so was 'Dallas' probably my fave soap since DS!]

[Nancy]

Raineypark and Ringo make excellent points about character actors.  They are usually more interesting than the leads and also the parts many actors prefer playing because of the "meat" in the role.  On DS, some of the actors played older.   Louis Edmonds played older as did Thayer David.  

The actors who came from vast experience in the theater included Edmonds, Karlen, Frid, Hall and Blackburn had some good stage experience under her belt for working on TV.  Of all the actors on DS, with the possibly exception of Joan Bennett, the least experienced on TV of the older actors was Frid. He had next to no experience in TV, and obviously didn't care enough for the experience to do more work in that medium.  

 Look at the birth years of key DS actors on right now:

Louis Edmonds - 1923
Jonathan Frid - 1924
John Karlen - 1933
Thayer David - 1927
Clarice Blackburn - 1921
Joan Bennett - 1910
Nancy Barrett - 1943
Lara Parker - 1942
Kathryn Leigh Scott - 1945
Grayson Hall - 1921
Jerry Lacy -1936
Alexandra Moltke 1945
Anthony George - 1925
Joel Crothers - 1945
David Ford - 1929

All the actors born in the 1920s are dead except for Frid.  Interestingly enough, Frid was cast alternately as the leading man and a character actor in the theater.  He got cast as a leading man but preferred character work since he plays at least a dozen characters in each of his one man shows on stage.   The other actors seemed to have been cast more along the lines of either character roles OR leads.

John Karlen had been working on TV and state for over a decade before doing DS.  He probably had the most TV experience of all the actors.

There's no real point in sharing all this information other than being interested in how actors were cast for the show and in 1795 which I'm seeing for the first time in about fifteen years.

I can't comment much about the casting of soaps today since I don't watch them, but I've seen enough to know young and pretty is cast over talent all too often.

Nancy
(who loves researching things on the IMDB)

[Nancy]

Thanks Gerard....I thought I might be a voice crying in the wilderness on this pet peeve of mine.

If anyone doubts the appeal of "characters" just look at two very popular and very acclaimed shows like "West Wing" and "The Sopranos".....

The casts are SO diverse as to age and looks....old people, young people, gorgeous people, homely people...I mean really....has there been a more indelible character portrayed recently than Nancy Marchand's Olivia Soprano?  Would anyone have believed that an actor who looks like James Gandolfini could be the superstar he is today?  What about John Spencer, who brings a lifetime of acting skills to his portrayal of Leo McGarry on "West Wing"  

My own DS fave John Karlen went on to play The Character in movies and TV shows....to my eternal gratitude and joy....but how many of the others never really had that chance?

Raineypark

Many of my favorite actors are not traditionally handsome; their appeal lies elsewhere and it's unmistakable when people obviously talk about them endlessly.  James Gandolfini is an excellent example (though I think he has a nice face). People will remember The Sopranos and he will be one of the key reasons.  Nancy Marchand was brilliant in almost everything she did.  

I get annoyed when I see DS now because it was done in such a substandard way because ABC was so cash strapped.  Other soaps had the chance to shoot and reshoot (usually)scenes since most actors only had a day to memorize a full script. Even theater trained actors in stock had at least a week to memorize their role.  It's a shame that DS could not have been accorded the same professional standards other productions of its kind were; the actors had to work most of the time in a substandard situation.  I don't know how they kept their sanity especially when the demand for interviews and personal appearances came about when the cast became famous.

But after DS, for example, Louis Edmonds could not get arrested.  If you read the biography Craig Hamrick wrote on Mr. Edmonds, you can see how hard a time he had of things until ALL MY CHILDREN came along.   At that time, very rarely did any actor who worked in soaps find significant work in prime time TV or even films.  John Karlen and David Selby did manage to break through that barrier over time.  Frid left the business a few years after DS because he wanted to do his own thing, and the other actors seemed to just work wherever they could.  

Funny, I wonder what someone would prefer: not being part of a "cult" show and working consistently or being remembered for a role decades afterwards, but not working in your field all that much?

Ranting Nancy