DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '26 I => Current Talk '10 II => Topic started by: Mysterious Benefactor on December 15, 2010, 04:44:54 PM
-
Fewer gaffes in this piece than most (though, of course, one popular misconception is once again referenced [santa_rolleyes]), and his idea for a sort of behind the scenes DS movie is a very interesting one, possibly even a great one. However, that's a story that isn't very likely to ever be made into a film so long as certain behind the scenes realities are glossed over in the "official" version of the show's history. [santa_cheesy]
That being said, though, the fact that the Depp/DS film will not be a behind the scenes look at DS and rather another retelling of Barnabas' initial story does in no way mean that the film hasn't got the potential to be great. [santa_angry] But, of course, the author is hardly the first to have a less than optimistic view of how the Depp/DS film will turn out - and he'll hardly be the last...
Terror Tuesday: How Burton’s DARK SHADOWS Could Be Great (But Won’t Be) (http://www.badassdigest.com/2010/12/14/terror-tuesday-how-burtons-dark-shadows-could-be-great-but-wont-be)
-
Interesting. Thanks for the link.
G.
-
how accurate is this guy? I can imagine who did the lsd, but some of the other stuff is just wacky. seems he was putting the show down.
-
I like the title of this thread.
-
It only has the title that it does because it's the title of the article. I almost always title topics that link to articles with the title of the article. The titles don't necessarily reflect what I think or what many of the forum's members might think. [santa_wink]
-
I didn't mean to be negative. I still like it. Not reading article... eyes you know.
-
From whats been said by JD and TB I do have a bad feeling that the movie is going to be somewhat comedic and not true to the real DS. It will be good as most of JDs films are but it won't be superior. If the demographics are 13 - 17 year olds, how much horror can they really have in it afterall! [santa_sad]
-
I'm often surprised by how much blood, gore and violence is in a PG-13 film (but then, the MPAA is much more fainthearted when it comes to sexuality than they are with violence - but don't even get me started on that). However, 13 - 17-year-olds can still see an R film - they just have to be accompanied by someone who's 18 or older - not something that was ever very hard to arrange when I was 13 - 17. [santa_wink]
-
i thought the article was an interesting spin on things.
it's sort of a loaded thing. for actors who find themselves involved in any sort of "cult" thing while they may not achieve fame and fortune in the traditional sense(which of course can be fleeting anyways)but something else. something that takes on a life of it's own.
i guess it's sort of a trade-off. one has to make the decision to embrace it or try and distance oneself from it. interesting most of the surviving DS cast chooses to participate in it in some way. crappy,out of the way airport hotels. lousy food. the festival circuit is not glamorous but many choose to be engaged.
-
This would certainly be an interesting take. In a way, I'd almost prefer this. I just have a feeling that another re-telling of the Barnabas story might be a little tired (as much as I love that story). A behind-the-scenes, 'Ed Wood'-type film could spark much more interest to the original series. It would have to be done lovingly though, and not in a way which makes fun of the show. Since Depp and Burton are both big fans of the classic series, I'm sure they'll push to do it right no matter the direction they take. I'm more worried about the studio system sticking their noses in.
~Penny~
-
Heaven knows why but a behind the scenes storyline brought up visions of the 'The French Lieutenant's Woman' for me. I haven't seen the movie in years. I'm not opposed to a storyline along those lines. Just thinking about JD wearing a ring similar to Barnabas's made me feel emotional for some reason. Perhaps because now it seems almost 100% certain that JD is really into Barnabas's character. Similar feelings occurred to me when I saw the latest Star Trek movie and the actor who played Mr Spock. A yearning for the old days perhaps. [reindeer]
-
Okay, I've read the article by Phil Nobile Jr linked in the initial post. It's quite a put-down. He certainly takes a cynical and eccentric view of the program. If he thinks confusion and stage fright are all that Frid's performance amounts to, he doesn't recognize acting when he sees it. And if he thinks a homosexual secret is what the character of Barnabas Collins is about, I suspect Nobile Jr is really talking about himself. The only valid interpretation of Dark Shadows is the superficial one: Barnabas is a vampire because he is the victim of a supernatural curse. Vampirism is not a metaphor for homosexuality in Dark Shadows. The writers are telling a straightforward story about vampires, ghosts, witches and werewolves, and they provide motivations and conflicts for the characters which draw on emotional states and which prompt an emotional response like every drama is supposed to. That's all the program is about, that's why it was a hit, and that's why it remains popular. Audiences did not know or care if some of the actors were gay nor did they perceive a gay subtext in the program. There was no gay subtext in either the writing or the performing of Dark Shadows.Forgive my language, but Nobile Jr has his head stuck up his ass.
Further, the notion of making a Dark Shadows movie as a gay expose of the cast at work on the set and the uncomprehending dumbness of its audience is not only a bad idea, it is diseased, and a profoundly stupid proposition not worth a pixel of cyber space.
yours truly,
Richard
(edited by admin)
-
Petofi and Aristede had a gay subtext. But, as a whole, i don't think that the show was one big gay metaphor.
But, I don't thiink that Julia would have had a problem with carpets, though. [ChristmaS11]
-
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.
To others in the thread, thanks for reading the article; I feel many of you "got" what I was advocating. Happy New Year!
-
I don't want to get this oft topic. However, I identified with Barnabas as a young gay man because he like I had a huge secret that could ruin his life. So for me it was comfort to have Barnabas (although it was the 1991 show at first) to help me through the awkward years when I knew who I was but was very afraid of the outcome and what my family would think. I personally look forward to the movie and I am not going to say it's good or bad until I walk about out the theatre
-
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.
-
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..."
-
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!
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
Thanks Midnite!
-
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.
-
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.;)
-
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.
-
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!
-
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? [santa_grin] And yet it's that rhapsodic waxing that has become the "official" history. [santa_undecided]
-
I love this, MB! Too funny!
-
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.
-
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....
-
My thought after reading the article was, “I’ll bet the writer is a lurker on these boards,” so I was pleased to find out I was right, sort of. Only “sort of” because nearly 150 posts makes him something more than a lurker. Hi, Phil!
Some moments I'd like to see in the movie as Phil envisions it:
Kathryn Leigh Scott volunteering to help the crew out by playing Josette’s ghost in 1966.
Diana Millay and the costume person (Ramse Mostoller, I assume) working together to conceal her pregnancy in 1967.
And a wild, all-singing, all-dancing, all-everything extravaganza of a musical number for the Sam and Grayson Hall characters when Grayson gets hired on Dark Shadows so that they can afford to stay in New York instead of moving to Sam's hometown in (oh, the horror of it!) Ohio.
-
Phil, thanks for the amplification on your article. And a belated welcome to the board! [santa_smiley]
-
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.
i was asked by a film producer when the Grayson bio came out if I thought there was a film in the "bio" and is said well it could be the jumping off point for at least 3 films--(1) the typical story of an actress trying to make it & totally reinventing herself; (2) another of the Iguana experience and (3rd)...the major one is what really happened in the making of Dark Shadows..i always have thought a behind the scenes story could be compelling, dramatic and comical, and meaty for all the actors.