i'm doing 1840...finally

[Midnite]

I haven't watched the episode in quite some time, but as I recall it, when David and Amy are exploring the West Wing in December of '68, they pass a portrait of a mutton-chopped gent of the 1860s and David solemnly informs his new friend that this is Thaddeus Collins, an ancestor who fought in the Civil War.  I realize I'm imputing WAY too much power of recall to the writers but I like to think of Thaddeus as the child Tad grown up and doing his bit during the War Between the States.

But in that original timeline, Spoiler:

Tad didn't live beyond 1840.

[arashi]

......which totally throws everything for a loop for if Tad survived past 1840, why would Edith's children inherit Collinwood?

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Perhaps after the changed events of 1840/41 Tad never had children, or perhaps his child(ren) died with Collinwood still passing to Gabriel and Edith's son's heir.

[arashi]

Good point!

[Joeytrom]

The Thaddeus Collins in the portrait may have been a son of Gabriel & Edith.  David said to Amy this Thaddeus was alive during the Civil War, perhaps he was the father of Judith, Edward, Quentin, & Carl.

[michael c]

a quick question.is the exterior of rose cottage also the house they used for angelique and sky rumson during the leviathan story?it looks similar.

there's something really sumptuous about the colors here.lush blues,purples,rusts,forest greens.

the character of roxanne drew is perhaps the most poorly developed ever on the show.in all three of her time periods(parallel-time,1970,1840)we're just supposed to accept that barnabas instantly falls in love with her the minute he sees her but we learn next to nothing about her.in parallel-time she spends half the time lying on a slab.in 1840 he's "in love" with her from minute one,then we don't see her for several episodes,then angelique show's up and all of a sudden it's this huge rivalry and she's out to destroy the woman barnabas is "in love" with.it's mentioned as an afterthought that they had been "seeing" each other but they didn't bother to actually write scenes of them together so this love affair has zero emotional impact for the viewer.poor lara parker tries to work herself into a jealous frenzy over this most unworthy opponent but without someone signifigant(like josette)to play against this whole plot plays completely flat.

with kathryn leigh scott out of the picture they needed b. to have the hots for someone else but they should have given this character some identifying characteristics.we don't see alot of josette but at least we know that she was the picture of virtue and innocence and thus b. carries around a torch for her for two hundred years and for similar reasons he goes for victoria but roxanne is too much of a blank page for the audience to care about.

[arashi]

I agree! They set up more in her scenes with Jerry Lacy than they did with Jonathan. All we ever really see of her character is that she despises the thought of marrying Trask!

[MagnusTrask]

I think we get to see Roxanne as a developed character through those scenes with Lamar, but when did Barnabas get a chance to? 

Roxanne is established as unusually independent, and sees through hypocritres and stuffed shirts pretty easily.    She's very verbal about all this, and we do get a chance to know her.    Barnabas is never there during those exchanges, though...

Barnabas's life doesn't exactly establish sense or logic or communication as ways of dealing with situations, or people.    His life has been filled with magic.    It figures, then, that he'd believe in love at first sight, fate, whatever....

[michael c]

to get into the supernatural element of d.s. one obviously has to suspend disbelief...

but i think on an emotional level it works better when the writing approached the characters in understandable human terms.

contrast barnabas' relationship with roxanne to the earlier storyline of his relationship with vicki.
they meet,they talk,they're interested in similar things,they forge a friendship and the whole plot develops over a period of several months and the viewer has the opportunity to become emotionally invested in how it plays out.

with roxanne we're just asked to accept it and care about it without any insight into why the attraction exists(other than roxanne being pretty)or any time for the relationship to develop.for me that's very hard to care about.the supernatural stuff works better when anchored by true human emotions.

again i think that's why barnabas' relationships with julia and angelique are much more interesting than the one he has with roxanne.

[Brandon Collins]

It wasn't Barnabas' fault that he fell in love with Roxanne. She pointed at HIM first!



...............sorry, couldn't resisit.

[michael c]

perhaps this is just me however...

i was home yesterday and on a lark watched several episodes from the 1897 storyline(which i haven't seen in years).

what i was struck by was how fresh and crisp and energized everyone seemed(including the writers).it seemed as if the show was in an "expansive" period.

to me the 1840 storyline seems like the show in decline.i can't really put my finger on why but it just feels sort of spent.the actors a bit tired.that's how i felt about the storylines after parallel-time and the brief trip to 1995.was everyone just plain exhausted after the movie and the constant change in time period that ran across the 1970 episodes?

jonathan and especially grayson seem really burned out after running aroung like chickens with their heads cut off for the last several months.there's not alot of nuance to their work here.it's like going through the motions...parallel-time was the last time i think grayson must have felt challenged by the scripts and did some of her finest work ever as hoffman...but when she's just screaming "barnabas!!!" all the time it's kind of boring.

without joan bennett in a pivotal role the period lacks for me as well.as the owner of rose cottage flora gets alot of mentions(much like liz late in the series)but not much screen time and little to do with what she got.

not to say that there isn't much to like here but my overall impression is that the whole thing is winding down and everyone knew it.

[Gothick]

MSC, I think you are right about the old-timers on the show being generally tired or at least in a state of discontent.  From things that have been shared here, I know Jonathan Frid was basically fed up with playing a vampire and doing "the fanging thing."  Grayson was feeling end-of-the-run blues, I think--they scheduled one of her shows in August on the same day she had just flown back from LA from doing Night Gallery and I don't think she was terribly thrilled with that, just for an example.   I have no idea what the story was with the writers but as 1840 goes on the shows become very repetitive--there are seemingly endless scenes of "Gerard" putting a spell on Daphne or somebody else and then the results of the spell.

Good things in the later part:  any scenes with Virginia Vestoff or Chris Pennock (unlike the others, Gabriel was very fresh material for him); Johnny Karlen's romantic bits with Nancy (aren't they just adorable together!), Julia's occasional scene with Angelique; ditto for Barn and Trask (I love a certain scene where Barn confronts Trask at a moment when the latter was in a state of abject terror).  But there's this period where Lee Beery and James Storm seem to be vying for the Fickle Finger of Fate award as to who can botch the most dialogue, and Humbert is pretty much wasted in the cookie-cutter role of Charles Dawson, Lawyer and Satanist.

My favorite Grayson moment from this period is when Julia is watching her counterpart in the Parallel Time room:  not only is it Grayson in Stereo, but Grayson gets more to do in five minutes as Aunt Julia Collins than she gets in weeks of regular time 1840.

G.

[michael c]

i agree that julia's scenes with angelique are nicely done.she has a few early scenes with gerard where he's questioning her true identity that are well played as well.

for me grayson is at ther best when her character is being coy or evasive or operating with some sort of self serving motivation.it brings out the best in her.she also needs a foil to play against which is why i love her opposite nancy barrett in 1967Spoiler:

(when carolyn was under barnabas' control)

or as hoffman in parallel-time when she plays against nearly everyone.she has some genius scenes in 1968 against nicholas blair as well.some duplicitousness on her part is nice.when she's just functioning as barnabas' assisitant it's not so interesting.

[buzz]

I agree that Grayson could be very good when playing against fellow actors such as Frid, Astredo or Parker. She does a very good job when she is intellligent, courageous and aware of the threats she is facing. When she goes into "hysterical" mode it becomes too over the top for me.

I've been slowly watching the return to 1970 stories as Spoiler:

the children slooooooooooooowly become possesed and have held on, barely, to continue watching. Every once in a while a good episode appears, usually involving THayer David. One moment involving Grayson was very good. David and Carrie were caught coming in the house at 1AM after having gone to the cemetary to stand on Gerards grave at midnight to see if the spirit was gone (or some such nonsense). Julia caught them coming in and David was coming up with some poor excuses (of course, in DS, two teens hanging out in the middle of the night would not elicit questions about sex!). Grayson's disbeliving looks and replies to David are underplayed and perfect.         

The only other interesting parts of this storyline was the introduction of another vampire. The silent ghosts are ok for a while but were drawn out, as was "the smell of lilacs" and Quentin's constantly calling on Daphne.

In another 10 episodes or so the children (who we see far too much of) will become possesed and Daphne will come to life.

Will I make it to 1840? Stay tuned.....

[MagnusTrask]

She does a very good job when she is intellligent, courageous and aware of the threats she is facing. When she goes into "hysterical" mode it becomes too over the top for me.

I agree.

mcsbryk-- I agree about 1897, not about 1840.    But then, by 1840 my expectations have been lowered.    After Leviathans and PT, and pre-1840 1970, which seem to be the most tired and apathetic periods, 1840 is always a big relief to me.   Of course, it's sort of a cynical grab-bag of elements that were popular in previous storylines, but the show seems to wake up and they seem to care to some extent.    All the Gabriel-Gerard sparring at the beginning is great.    Barnabas before his 1970 self pops in is great, too.    Old Ben too, but we lose him soon, and the storyline sags in the middle with all the Quentin-framing.    The Head is the best bit.   They introduce an incredible bit of music for it, too.    Once the Head takes over Gerard, I lose a lot of interest.  It picks up at the end, though.