How Burton’s DARK SHADOWS Could Be Great (But Won’t Be)

[loril54]

Everyone has things that they have conflicts about, in many different area's.

i hope the movie isn't campy, and I hope that they do it right.  It would sure
bring a new fandom. One of the things that I liked, a lot was left to your own
imagination. It was like the movies of the past, you could make up your own
idea of what really happened.

Because the show ended in the past, everyone can take it forward in the present.

[michael c]

i try not to get on a soap box here but the venomousness of "richard's" post is quite stunning and completely out of sync with the tone generally set here.

i'll assume richard since you're new you're somewhat unfamiliar with your surroundings but do you realize how many people you could have... and likely did...offend with your remarks?

i have a news bulletin: DS had and has a huge queer fanbase...present company very much included...and a large contingent at this board. so to throw someone's sexuality around in s sneering way or to use the words "gay" and "diseased" in the same sentence is totally out of line.

another bulletin. the new york based theater community had and has a large number of gays(try not to be too horrified!)many of whom made their way onto the series at some point or another so a significant gay subtext can be read into certain situations of one reads between the lines so to speak. i actually think an exploration of this topic would be fascinating(as a completely separate project from the burton/depp film)and i don't consider myself to be "stupid" or "diseased".

so please take that into consideration and be respectful with your remarks in the future.

"yours truly..."

[Taeylor Collins]

WORD to you MSCBRYK! I was getting ready to address this is you hadn't.  This is a great board and run by very gay friendly people so I find this all very insulting. We are a peaceful bunch who love one another for who they are.  And I know the mods will keep it that way!

I am GAY and loud and proud! I was actually asked the other day if I could take a pill to make me not gay if I would.  I said NO WAY!  I am proud of the person I am. I have worked hard to be accepted and to be comfortable with myself when many others were not. I am thankful to the generation that came before me and paved the way.  And I am hoping that the things I do and the things I have contributed to my community will pave the way for an even brighter future. 

 Now onto topic.  I am hoping for the best with the movie and that is really all one can do!

[Richard]

I'm sorry you feel that way, Richard. The article was not a put down; I'm a genuine fan of the show and in my opinion a candid look at how the show was made is a far more interesting story to tell than remaking Dark Shadows, again.

The themes and subtext I presented were the result of a lot of reading, watching and listening to a lot of interviews, email exchanges between myself and folks like Craig Hamrick, interviewing fans at several DS conventions over the last three years, and hearing stories from cast members - stories that aren't in the "official" books, but tales shared after hours in the lobby of hotels in Tarrytown and Brooklyn.  I know certain subjects are tip toed around out of courtesy within DS fandom, but my point is the full true story of the colorful cast of the show deserves proper preservation, and beyond that it's a story which deserves to be honored, and honored with the full truth.

My remarks about Frid's rocky first year are echoed in countless interviews with the man himself. I find something incredibly touching about Mr. Frid's long journey, and seeing him take the stage in 2007 was a truly transcendent moment. I was not advocating for any sort of hatchet piece, but was affectionately embracing the "stranger than fiction" nature of how the pieces of the puzzle came together. It's an amazing, crazy story, and more people should know about it!

The not-so-subtle subtle dig at my sexuality was uncalled for. I'm a married straight male, but that's irrelevant to your insult; imagine what folks like Joel Crothers or Louis Edmonds would think of you slinging homosexuality at another as an insult. Shameful stuff.

Let's not be hyper-sensitive nor project insults where none were made. I stand by my post, and I'm not ashamed of anything I said. No gay bashing was intended, stated, inferred, implied nor suggested by me. If it is more important to you to be offended than to be reasonable, suit yourself. I have worked with and employed gay collaborators my entire adult life, and no one has complained until now. I don't question your research or your sources, but I disagree with your narrow single-minded interpretation, and I think your idea of making a film about how the show was made is an awful idea. I firmly believe that the creative process among theater people and film people should remain contained among us, and should not be disseminated to the general public. It spoils the illusion of what we create, and calls into question our motives and decisions in the mind of the viewing public whether they realize it or not. I'm always opposed to movies about the movies, from Sunset Boulevard to Ed Wood. If this places me in the Old School, I'm happy to be there.

The creative minds behind Dark Shadows drew on classic literature to inspire the program. Shelly, Bronte, Stevenson, LeFanu, Stoker, James, Lovecraft, etc. Soap opera though it was, the classical underpinning has always interested me, and is a large reason for the program's popularity. That should be emphasized now. As Dan Curtis used to say, it's all about story, story, story. I don't believe Tim Burton is the man for the job, based on his previous work.

Richard

[Richard]

i try not to get on a soap box here but the venomousness of "richard's" post is quite stunning and completely out of sync with the tone generally set here.

i'll assume richard since you're new you're somewhat unfamiliar with your surroundings but do you realize how many people you could have... and likely did...offend with your remarks?

i have a news bulletin: DS had and has a huge queer fanbase...present company very much included...and a large contingent at this board. so to throw someone's sexuality around in s sneering way or to use the words "gay" and "diseased" in the same sentence is totally out of line.

another bulletin. the new york based theater community had and has a large number of gays(try not to be too horrified!)many of whom made their way onto the series at some point or another so a significant gay subtext can be read into certain situations of one reads between the lines so to speak. i actually think an exploration of this topic would be fascinating(as a completely separate project from the burton/depp film)and i don't consider myself to be "stupid" or "diseased".

so please take that into consideration and be respectful with your remarks in the future.

My remarks are not disrespectful, and there was no venom in my mind when I posted it. You are projecting the venom.

I did not know about the queer fanbase on this forum, no, but I don't see how it matters one way or another unless you are denying heterosexuals the right to enjoy the program, too. Anyone who thinks their orientation "owns" the program is just kidding themselves and needs to grow up.

In view of the fact that I was born and raised in NYC and studied drama and film there and got my first job in TV there before getting married and moving to California, I can't say that you're telling me anything I don't already know. But to suggest that Dark Shadows is a gay program for a gay audience is simple not true and not accurate. However, I would expect gay audiences to find as much to relate to and identify with in the program as heterosexual audiences did, and do. I do not think about it until someone makes an issue out of it. I don't like Phil Nobile's article, and I don't like his suggestion that the forthcoming film be turned into an expose of the gay members of the cast struggling over their orientations while doing the program. Dark Shadows is a horror story of the imagination from literary influences, not a gay biopic. Audiences should be shown the characters within the context of a narrative story; not the actors in their orientations. If you expose the creative process behind any program -- any program at all -- you will undermine the suspension of disbelief required to sustain it, and then you will kill it, as a bankable property, forever.

I'm reminded of the old controversy over Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle always insisted that Holmes and Watson were merely partners in the detection of crime. He became very irritated with people who insisted on finding a gay subtext where none was intended, inferred, implied, or stated consciously or unconsciously. Eventually he became offended by people who insisted he was lying, as if to tell him he does not know his own mind or his own orientation. As a rule, he did not write about sexuality. I think what Doyle failed to realize is that gay people are as free to relate to and identify with a literary work as heterosexuals are.  A literary or dramatic work invites audience participation. That is the function drama -- whether it be on TV, film, live theater, or charades in the living room -- has in our lives.


Richard

[Midnite]

Until a few days ago, I was not aware that the author of the piece was even a Forum visitor.  And so I'd like to extend my apologies to Phil for allowing another member to post insults and to thank him for not responding in kind.

MB and I were also bothered by the tone of Richard's original post and I am not guilty of projecting (and neither were Phil and mscbryk).  Saying that someone has their head up their ass IS disrespectful.  Debate is encouraged here, but calling a person's ideas "diseased" is taking disagreement to a negative extreme.  Personal attacks are not allowed per the Guidelines agreed to during registration.

[Taeylor Collins]

Thanks Midnite!

[Philippe Cordier]

I like what loril54 had to say:

i hope the movie isn't campy, and I hope that they do it right.

These are real concerns I have, too, and I'm glad to see that they've been raised by a couple of people in this discussion. Personally, neither the director or actor are "right" for me ... but millions disagree ...

Because the show ended in the past, everyone can take it forward in the present.

That's an intriguing idea. Doing something unique with the material could raise the film above the humdrum, same-old, "it's been done" syndrome. Phil's concept is certainly interesting although not necessarily what I would want to see, either.

Everyone has things that they have conflicts about, in many different area's.

When I was new to DS on the web many years ago, I read an article written with great feeling and earnestness about how DS was a metaphor for living in an alcoholic family. While I think there may be some subtle "homosexual subtext" in a few scenes with Willie and Jason McGuire, as well as Aristede and Petofi, I think a broader theme of the show is family secrets - whatever they may be.

I have been watching Collection 1 over the past few weeks and while Mr. Frid's nervousness was evident from time to time at first (just as it was with KLS and any number of other actors on the show), it wasn't as apparent for as long as Mr. Frid seemed to think it was - for an entire year! Poor man, I hope he didn't really mean it, because he certainly came into his own as a powerful presence at the point I'm viewing now, which is Vicki's disappearance from the hospital, soon to be followed by Barnabas' attempts to form her into a new Josette. I think Mr. Frid was very humbly overstating the case of his own nervousness (at least how visible it was) ... and it's a comment that I feel has been given too much ink. Unfortunately, when those unfamiliar with the show see remarks like this recast in print, it's all too easy for them to dismiss DS as laughable and bad.

[Nancy]

I thought the article was overly cynical though the writing itself was good.  I've talked with other fans over the past twenty years and many of the actors about the appeal of the show.  What was usually missing from those discussions was the notion of a gay subtext though certainly that could be read into aspects of the show.  Sure, struggling and fearful young gay kids could identify with Barn's big secret.  So could anyone with an all consuming addiction.  There were actors on the show who had or were struggling with addiction issues. 

I didn't find the piece to be very flattering of Frid but that isn't the first or last time that happens.

[Phil]

It wasn't meant as a flattery piece, but certainly I'm a fan of Mr. Frid. Again, I am simply taking him at his word when he talks of his early difficulties, but I'm not suggesting the show would have been anything but canceled without the man. And he kept viewers entranced for four years, so I think his contribution speaks for itself. But to me his journey isn't as compelling without the tenuous nature of its beginnings. A good story is a good story, "print the legend" and all that. And in the "making of" movie in my head, the story about Josette (which he tells Vicki and Caroline during the storm) is a moment of triumph for the actor, conquering his live-to-tape demons and knocking it out of the park.

And while I think the gay subtext is there, I feel it's being focused on a little too much, to the exclusion of all the other compelling anecdotes about the show's production. And really, that's where my own passion lies - in the PRODUCTION of the original show.  In its cast, its crew, in the circumstances in which it was created, and in which it became such a phenomenon.  I know the 1991 series has its fans, and I know we all enjoy the movies to varying degrees (I watched NODS again two nights ago), but to me the phenomenon- that intangible connection between the entertainment and the audience - is for whatever reason restricted to the original series. And the article was really just a thinking out loud of why that might be, and whether an exploration of that magic might not be more interesting than retelling the story again. I happen to think it would.

You can argue that exposing the creative process kills an illusion, but years of the stars telling these stories at conventions, in books, on DVD extras, would suggest otherwise. And you'd have to have your head in the sand to think that the "illusion" created in Dark Shadows wasn't in constant danger of being destroyed, simply due to the limitations of the production. And yet - and yet! - the show endured, and endures today. That's what fascinates me, and that's what I was exploring.

I don't think anyone should feel threatened by exploring these ideas, and as a borderline OCD fan of certain properties, I've always come at my beloved obsessions from all angles, including and especially the "making of" aspect.  And I embrace them not cynically or with ill intention, but clear-eyed and inclusive of everything.

[Taeylor Collins]

Great post Phil!   I think it would be great to have a behind the scenes movie as well; nevertheless I am one who is rooting for the Deep Shadows. The phenomenon does lie around the original for sure although I would PROBABLY not be here if it wasn't for the new show.  In fact, I can almost say I WOULD'NT be here if it wasn't for the 1991 show.  So I thank God for it because it brought me to the original and it brought me to so many amazing friends.  That is really the "jewel" in the crown for me. All the beautiful people I have met in fandom.  My best friend is from fandom. That is personally what I am hoping for with the new movie.  That it will inject fandom with fresh blood. PUN intended!  However, I totally see where YOU are coming from!

[Mysterious Benefactor]

while I think the gay subtext is there, I feel it's being focused on a little too much, to the exclusion of all the other compelling anecdotes about the show's production. And really, that's where my own passion lies - in the PRODUCTION of the original show.

Quite honestly, that's what I took away from reading your article. To me it seemed as if you were advocating a behind the scenes look at how all the actors and production people came together and were able to create a unique show while not necessarily being completely aware at the time that they were creating something very special, and even that some of their creativity may have happened completely by accident. That notion is why I said in the post that introduces this topic that I thought your idea was possibly a great one.

And simply as a clarification, when I referenced that certain behind the scenes realities of DS are glossed over in the "official" version of the show, I wasn't even thinking about how some of the actors were gay or about any sort of gay subtext. I'm pretty sure that anyone who has read my posts through the years readily knows which sorts of realities I was referring to, so I won't rehash them all over again. But for the sake of not leaving others in the dark, let's just say that behind the scenes things didn't always run as smoothly and relationships weren't always as rosy as some would have us all believe. One of my all-time favorite Fest moments occurred after a particular actor had waxed on rhapsodically, as they always seem to, about how wonderful everything was behind the scenes at DS, and Joan Bennett turned to them and asked what show they were on?    And yet it's that rhapsodic waxing that has become the "official" history.  

[Nancy]

I love this, MB!  Too funny!

[Robot_Quentin]

Perhaps when the new movie comes out on DVD, there will be a new documentary on the history of the original show. Granted, there's been some pretty good ones done already, but they could get some new interviews from the surviving cast members about their first reaction when asked to do a cameo in the new JD/TB film. Hmmmmmmmm??

I'm still wondering about what will be used for Collinwood... The finishing touches are probably being put on that big giant blue colored wall at Pinewood. JD will be standing in front it of giving a speech as the CG computer geeks insert the generic gothic mansion in the background at a later date.

[Taeylor Collins]

I love that quote by Joan!   Always makes me smile.  And yes their are certain actors and one in particualr who loves to gloss! And I will leave it at that....