Idle Thoughts--"It's not the men in my life,

[Luciaphile]

it's the life in my men!" as the late Mae West put it so eloquently (with thanks to Steve for bringing her up).

Fashion notes first . . .

Millicent's short sleeved dress.  I liked this a lot.  The stripes, the details around the hem, etc.  It was appropriate to the character, the period, what the character was doing, etc.  On DS, this is a rare thing.  The fact that I, a woman whose idea of dressed up is  tailored, ironed slacks, a top that matches, and shoes; understands the function of the costume person better than the costume person on a professionally produced show, is truly scary.  

Mr. Mooney's wig.  As glad as I was to see Bob O'Connell (and hear him!, but more on that below), where did they get that wig?  It looked eerily like the thing Cary Grant wore for his stint in "I Was a Male War Bride."

Suki's clothes.  I would like to think that both choices and the order in which they were worn were made deliberately, but I'm inclined to think that they were happy accidents.  

The first ensemble was really on the plain side when you look at it closely.  I adored the necklace of cameos and the hat, but the dress wasn't all that remarkable.  This is not criticism; everything about it worked.  The dress let us know that either Suki Forbes was a respectable woman or that she knew how to appear respectable when it suited her.   The dialogue and the acting let us know all the rest of it.  Putting Jane Draper in something that wasn't overly distracting allowed us to focus on the character.  

As for her second outfit.  Wow.  That hat!  My first irreverent thought was that she would have to look carefully at the clearance signs on bridges.  My second was that her bonnet was something that the late Queen Mother (or Mae West) might have worn.  My third more serious thought was that again, this all worked so well!  It was all very much like a conscious parodying of Regency fashion and I loved it!

Josette's best of Orbach's nightwear--yawn.  What was with her eye makeup?  She looked like she could have done a drag show at one point.  

And did no one know how to tie Frid's cravat?  The purpose of such things was very much like a tie.  It wasn't meant to be a scarf.  There should not be inches of bare skin visible between the cravat and the shirt.  

Onto the show.

It's probably because I'm a practical, decisive person that I want to throw a brick through the tv when Barnabas and Josette are on the screen--I'll be charitable and say that now, so no one flames me  

The drama that is Barnabas and Josette.  Forgive me for not caring.  I listened to all of Josette's impassioned speeches (KLS has some nice moments during the series; this is not one of them) and all I could think was that this woman is either incredibly stupid or incredibly ill.  

Let's think about this for a moment: Before dying, your former fiance promises to come back to you.  Okay, I get the grief thing.  Terrible loss and grief.  Now.  Wanting your former lover to come back to you after he has died is perfectly understandable.  Expecting him (particularly in a way that is going to allow you to be together in a corporeal fashion) to do so is not.  

Okay.  So he comes back to you.  Get the joy.  Entirely get the eagerness.  But he's dead, sweetie.  You saw him die.  They fr*gging buried him.  He's back now.  He's not saying this is a hearts 'n' flowers existence.  Wouldn't it even occur to you to wonder?  Or to be not a little freaked?  A good Catholic girl, even a lapsed Catholic girl, would be hearing that little voice in the back of her head saying that something isn't quite right here.

I don't think it would have required much in the way of writing to handle this better than it was.  KLS is not the sort of actress who can make dross sound plausible (there are not a lot of people who can).

As for Barnabas.  MAKE UP YOUR MIND!  (I had no patience with Hamlet either).  Actually, better still, use your mind!  I get so bored with the endless soul-searching, particularly as it's all very much surface stuff.  I don't see this as existence of a conscience because this is very much how Barnabas acted pre-bite.

Again, I really think they could have done better with this whole part of the story.  What might have worked better was to have Barnabas tell Josette he was a vampire.  Explain what that entailed, and then to have her ask him to bite her--that would have been erotic (if stupid)--did they do this for the revival series?  I can't remember.  

Also, this really bothered me.  She goes to bed with all those candles burning.  Can we say fire hazard?  I knew we could.  Can we say not plausible?  I knew we could.  This is the beginning of the end of any attempt at realism for DS.  Characters will go into passages and rooms that have not seen human beings (live ones anyway) in generations and there will be torches blazing away.  Drives me nuts.

Moving from "The Monk" meets "Mysteries of Udolpho" portion of the show to the "Clarissa" meets "Vanity Fair" section.

I love the sofa antics of Nathan and Millicent.  They were more pronounced earlier in the week, but that competitive scooting from one spot to the other had me roaring with laughter.  

It's rather interesting watching ditzy Millicent trying to come into her own as it were.  Overcoming her fears of contagion, listening intently, providing a supportive shoulder, "thinking", and all--almost as if she is trying to assume a station befitting that of a married woman.  Poor Millicent, she picked the wrong family to try it on.  The writing and Barrett's stellar acting really shines through.  

Suki Forbes.  I have a feeling that she and Jason McGuire would get on swimmingly.  I really, really liked Jane Draper's performance.  IMDB only lists DS as acting credits for her; does anyone know anything about her?

Was pleased to hear and see Bob O'Connell (what was with the name change though?--Rooney wasn't good enough?)  I don't think the man ever had that much dialogue before.

Joel Crothers and Jane Draper were wonderful together.  The look on his face more than once was priceless.  And then to throw Nancy Barrett into the mix--wow.  They made it well worth having to sit through all that angst.  

Knowing what is coming still makes me ask the question: what exactly is Nathan intending?  He seems to feel something for Millicent that is genuine; even if it's just lust and some amusement, he does feel them.  Is he thinking of a future that involves living off her money and just having a good time?  When do those plans change?

One of the things that I found so frustrating and addicting about DS is that in the midst of the insanity,  every so often something or someone comes along and it's wonderful and true and well done and TPTB don't recognize it when it happens by.  

Yeah, they were laughing all the way to the bank just by getting by, but I really have no respect for the writers and producers who can't be bothered to expend the effort to try to do better.  

They could have done something more with Draper; why didn't they?  Crothers has this one turn as Nathan and then it's back to good, old Joe.  Such a waste.

Luciaphil

[MikeS]

Luciaphil, I totally agree with your comment about Joel Crothers.  His portrayal of Nathan finally gave us a chance to see what a versatile actor he was.  Quite a change from the likable but rather plain Joe.  If only his talents had been better utilized, perhaps he would have remained with the series longer.

[Nancy]

One of the things that I found so frustrating and addicting about DS is that in the midst of the insanity,  every so often something or someone comes along and it's wonderful and true and well done and TPTB don't recognize it when it happens by.  

Yeah, they were laughing all the way to the bank just by getting by, but I really have no respect for the writers and producers who can't be bothered to expend the effort to try to do better.  

They could have done something more with Draper; why didn't they?  Crothers has this one turn as Nathan and then it's back to good, old Joe.  Such a waste.

Luciaphil

We have the luxury of seeing the series over and over again and inspecting every single detail as often as we wish (if we so choose).   When this series aired, it was done catch-as-catch can and was not even done with the same standards as other soaps in terms of editing, etc.  The producers and writers didn't remember what happened yesterday on the series; according to the directors and some producers on DS, production was always chaotic.  They didn't sit and study the series to my knowledge otherwise they would have retained some consistency in scripts and characters.  Instead, they relied on a very basic method for finding out who viewers were tuning in to watch.  

Mail.  Back then (and even now) that was the guage that the use to making cast decisions is how much mail an actor/character gets.  Obviously, if they get a lot of mail praising an actor/actress, they are going to keep that person on as the audience will continue to watch.  (Some modern soaps have cut themselves in the throat re-casting a character or killing off a popular character so the producers could do more with the story and try other things.  "Another World" and "Guiding Light" are two examples.  "Another World" wound up being cancelled, Guiding Light ran the danger of cancellation for a year, and it's ratings are still trying to recover from the producer's decision to get rid of popular characters and try something else.)

If any character (or actor) winds up being cut out of a story (in those days anyway) it's because most of people watching were not interested in him/her.   There isn't any other reason I can think of that the producers on DS would just not bring someone back if they could.  The actors played many roles on the show so the audience would indeed more attuned as to the actors they liked rather than the character.  

For whatever reason, the mail or soap viewing public must not have been that interested in Joel Crothers.  I think that's too bad, but there you are.  If they were, why would he have not been used more? Instead,they continued to bring in new actors.  The only thing we can surmise is that Mr. Crothers didn't rake in the mail, though I know he had his fan base.  It must not have been large enough to be heard by the producers.  I just can't think of a reason to drop a popular actor.  I agree with you it is a shame.

A case in point: Luciaphil, I know you don't get the appeal of Barnabas but he was probably the most popular character of the series.   I certainly don't know that for sure but those who market DS merchandise obviously gear it towards what most people are attracted to which is why you see Barnabas' face all over the place on DS merchandise.  There's gotta be a reason for it.  DS had other monsters o  they could have marketed if the monster thing was indeed the only attraction about the character, but evidently it wasn't. IIRC, Barnabas did not bite all that often (except for this time period) and he wasn't always a vampire.

What I love about cable network television (such as HBO) is that producers are given a chance to cast against type, to try and flesh out a character in the first few episodes and an entire series will even be given a lot of time to get off the ground.  They can take risks.  They can even try an actor they like.  The reason they can take risks is because they do not have advertisers to please or report to in terms of a show's rating health.

Speaking of giving a series a chance - DS would have been much better if they had just allowed for editing, but I guess ABC didn't think it's popular daytime show would never been seen again for anyone to find fault with the repeated sloppiness.  I imagine if they had any inkling of the show surviving for decades on TV, ABC's decision about editing might have been a different one.

This is just my rambling opinion anyway, not that you asked for it.

Nancy

[Luciaphile]

For whatever reason, the mail or soap viewing public must not have been that interested in Joel Crothers.  I think that's too bad, but there you are.  If they were, why would he have not been used more? Instead,they continued to bring in new actors.  The only thing we can surmise is that Mr. Crothers didn't rake in the mail, though I know he had his fan base.  It must not have been large enough to be heard by the producers.  I just can't think of a reason to drop a popular actor.  I agree with you it is a shame.

My understanding of Crothers' situation was that he eventually left the series under his own steam.  I don't know the show's history as well as some of the others here, of course, but if they lost the guy because they weren't willing to give him a little room to stretch his acting wings, than it's a damn stupid move.  This was a guy who'd proved he was capable of more, after all.

I agree that shows rely on viewer input for many of their decisions, but most programs allow certain plots or actors a little time before deciding to axe them.  During the latter half of 1897, they were putting Quentin with anyone and everyone apparently on a biweekly basis--that's simply not enough time.  

I watch soaps and I'm very familiar with how they work, but even on some of the poorest, they give a pairing or a plot at least a little time to see if it works or not.  

Not expecting Brechtian drama here, but some evidence of forethought would have been nice.

I'm also familiar with no-budget productions.  But you know, there were an awful lot of films put together on shoestrings that still managed to surpass some of the A pictures--they did that because the production people cared enough to try.  Heck, look at a lot of regional theater.  I've seen some productions that were put together with a spit and a prayer and yet, they were really quite wonderful.

A case in point: Luciaphil, I know you don't get the appeal of Barnabas but he was probably the most popular character of the series.   I certainly don't know that for sure but those who market DS merchandise obviously gear it towards what most people are attracted to which is why you see Barnabas' face all over the place on DS merchandise.  There's gotta be a reason for it.  DS had other monsters o  they could have marketed if the monster thing was indeed the only attraction about the character, but evidently it wasn't. IIRC, Barnabas did not bite all that often (except for this time period) and wasn't always a vampire.

Oh, I get the appeal of Barnabas.  I don't personally feel it   but I get it.  I just wish they had tried to capitalize on it with some more creativity and with some better supporting material and players.  You go with what brings in the bucks, but the question is are you in it for the short haul or the long one?

This is just my opinion anyway, not that you asked for it.
Nancy

Always glad to hear it

Luciaphil

[Nancy]

My understanding of Crothers' situation was that he eventually left the series under his own steam.  I don't know the show's history as well as some of the others here, of course, but if they lost the guy because they weren't willing to give him a little room to stretch his acting wings, than it's a damn stupid move.  This was a guy who'd proved he was capable of more, after all.
Luciaphil

I agree with you he was  capable of more.  I know they were very concerned about how many actors they had under contract at one time, how many were used in a day - so this and other factors were involved. But you can see for yourself that thinking things through was not a noted trait for the folks on the production end of DS.

I agree that shows rely on viewer input for many of their decisions, but most programs allow certain plots or actors a little time before deciding to axe them.  During the latter half of 1897, they were putting Quentin with anyone and everyone apparently on a biweekly basis--that's simply not enough time.  

You are right, no question about it, but again this may have to do with a concern about how many actors to keep on hand.  

I'm also familiar with no-budget productions.  But you know, there were an awful lot of films put together on shoestrings that still managed to surpass some of the A pictures--they did that because the production people cared enough to try.  Heck, look at a lot of regional theater.  I've seen some productions that were put together with a spit and a prayer and yet, they were really quite wonderful.

Yes, lol, I know tha too.  I produced numerous cabaret shows and other productions and the money came out of my own pocket, hoping I would at least get it back.  I usually did and then some. I have seen some good shows produced under crappy circumstances.

In terms of independent movies on a shoestring budget, The Blair Witch Project comes to mind. It was made on $40,000 and was a good movie.

I have heard many people involved with production of DS complain it was Dan Curtis who drove the show hard in terms of having constant "cliff hangers" and "something always new" and maybe this feeds into your complaint the best.  

Oh, I get the appeal of Barnabas.  I don't personally feel it   but I get it.  I just wish they had tried to capitalize on it with some more creativity and with some better supporting material and players.  You go with what brings in the bucks, but the question is are you in it for the short haul or the long one?

Good question. The irony in the above paragraph is that the writers took on the decision to make more out of the Barnabas character from the beginning.  Curtis envisioned BC being a ratings spite for the next 13 week cycle.  It didn't occur to him that investing some good writing and development into such a character might be a good long term thing to aim for, since it was an unusual character.  The writers, however, saw the potential for the character being a long term character and started working on it.  I think once the show became popular, the focus shifted from creativity to more more more now now now.  In many ways, the writers and producers wound up painting the continued success of DS into a corner by eventually focusing mostly on Barnabas.  Even then the development of that character ceased and he became a reactionary character.  As you pointed out, better material and more supporting players (who were as good as some of the ones already there) might have painted a different picture for how long the series could have lasted.  


Nancy

[Minja]

Suki Forbes.  I have a feeling that she and Jason McGuire would get on swimmingly.  

Ohhhh, Yes, Yes, YES!!! Ohhh, just picturing the two of them together is totally priceless!

[shadow=teal,left,300]Always, Minja[/shadow]

[VAM]

Oh, I get the appeal of Barnabas.  I don't personally feel it   but I get it.  I just wish they had tried to capitalize on it with some more creativity and with some better supporting material and players.  You go with what brings in the bucks, but the question is are you in it for the short haul or the long one?




Luciaphil

Maybe he did not have good supporting material but that was not true with regards to supporting players. I think others will agree with this comment.

[Luciaphile]

Maybe he did not have good supporting material but that was not true with regards to supporting players. I think others will agree with this comment.

Perhaps I should have been more specific--better, more complicated supporting characters.  The Willie and Stokes characters were great, exceptions to the rule, largely because the actors were so very talented, but how do I put this . . .

Okay, the crushes/infatuations that Barnabas would experience were done largely to move plot.  There wasn't a lot of development or spade work done.  One minute he fell in love; the next minute someone (usually Angelique) or something (ghost/monster, whatever) was menacing the love interest.  This is fine, but it gets old when it's done over and over again.

What might have worked better would have been to allow him a "honeymoon" period with his love interest, thus increasing audience investment/interest in the pairing and then to work a bit more on the opposing forces.  

Audiences like to have someone to identify with--someone to root for or commiserate with.  Typically the writers on soaps build up the character/relationships and then once that's set or is getting old, then work on other characters, often the opposing forces.  

That way you get more of your audience interested and engaged.  Not everyone responds to the same facets of a program.  A multi-faceted show is going to draw in a larger audience.

I don't think they used Barnabas as effectively as they might have as the show continued.    As Nancy put it, "he became a reactionary character."  I don't know that they used Angelique as effectively as they could have either.

I don't often have nice things to say about Lara Parker, but I do think the way she played Angelique in the beginning worked rather well.  She approached the character as being in the right--a villain who didn't see herself as a villain; either she was trying to get what she wanted or she was trying to get just revenge, but she saw her actions as justified (they weren't but it all worked).  It gave the story some depth; the writing then went to support that and it was a happy thing.

There comes a certain point (1897) and her motivations cease to make sense.  It's not the actress' fault; it's simply sloppy writing.  And it's a rather a waste.  

There are other examples.  Maggie.  They separate the character from any kind of family.  Throw her into a completely improbable situation as governess of Collinwood.  Removed the character's spine and mind.  I have a good idea why it was done, but it doesn't keep me from lamenting it.  Think how much stronger it could have been to do something with her and then throw her into situations that would have been interesting and worked better.

I'm tired and I'm not sure how much sense this all makes . . .

Luciaphil

[VAM]

So what you are saying is that the writers were at fault more than the actresses/actors. Someone said on another post that Ron Sproat created the Angelique character. My guess is after he departed the others did not know how to handle this character with the exception of Violet Wells.

[Raineypark]

I haven't watched this entire series since it aired the first time around....and I'm no scholar on the history of the prodution...but I would like to make one observation about it that I believe bears on this topic.

Dark Shadows was filmed in New York....and like most Soaps filmed in New York ("As the World Turns" comes to mind) most of the people involved had their hearts in the Theatre.

We know many of the actors came and went on a non-stop basis....and I think it was most likely because they had the chance to work on stage and wanted to take it.

Perhaps the rest of the production staff was equally anxious to keep one foot on the stage, and took opportunites as they came.  This would go a long way towards explaining the disjointedness of the writing and the lack of long-term story arc.  If they were constantly handing the scriptwriting, and directing off to one another like a less-than-important chore, no wonder the whole thing suffered.  

Perhaps it was less a lack of talent and craft, and really only a lack of dedication to this one particular project on the part of too many involved?

But that's just my opinion....
Raineypark

[Gothick]

Darling Luciaphil, thanks for these wonderful notes.  I love how you write about the series, and you always bring out details and observations that elude me.

I've never been a fan of Barnabas/Josette, and I think you are explaining why.  It's certainly not because of lack of skill and depth on the part of either Jonathan or Katie.  

Fascinating to read your exchanges with Nancy.  You both make such interesting points about the production.  I personally think it is a miracle that DS is as good as it is.  And there is no doubt that at many points through the history of the series, DS touched the stars in a way that was unique in television history.  I was watching an episode of the Count Petofi storyline of 1897.  Violet Welles wrote such marvelous dialogue for him, Thayer David delivered it all with such superb relish and wonderful bits of business.  All the other actors, Jonathan, David Selby, David H, Nini, were all spot on.  Fabulous.  Comparing this with the episodes of Days of Our Lives from 1966 I have seen--there IS no comparison.  

I think the biggest problem of DS overall was the fact that Dan Curtis was the de factor Head Writer.  So, whenever the writers attempted to bring some consistency into the storylines, DC would throw a spanner into the works with some kooky idea.  And then a lot of them he wasn't even around (which in my opinion was a good thing) because he was off pursuing some other project.  My personal opinion is that DS was axed because DC was finding it too much of a distraction and he wanted to spend more time with feature films, as he began to do immediately after it left the air.

Anyhow, great notes!  I look forward very much to the next installment.

Your fan,

Steve

[Nancy]

I'm tired and I'm not sure how much sense this all makes . . .

Luciaphil

It makes lots of sense, Luciaphil.  There was a reason I started losing interest in the show after 1897 and eventually stopped watching it altogether.  Nothing was making any sense as they kept doing things for the sake of action rather than content or making sense.

Nancy

[Nancy]

I haven't watched this entire series since it aired the first time around....and I'm no scholar on the history of the prodution...but I would like to make one observation about it that I believe bears on this topic.

Dark Shadows was filmed in New York....and like most Soaps filmed in New York ("As the World Turns" comes to mind) most of the people involved had their hearts in the Theatre.

We know many of the actors came and went on a non-stop basis....and I think it was most likely because they had the chance to work on stage and wanted to take it.

Perhaps the rest of the production staff was equally anxious to keep one foot on the stage, and took opportunites as they came.  This would go a long way towards explaining the disjointedness of the writing and the lack of long-term story arc.  If they were constantly handing the scriptwriting, and directing off to one another like a less-than-important chore, no wonder the whole thing suffered.  

Perhaps it was less a lack of talent and craft, and really only a lack of dedication to this one particular project on the part of too many involved?

But that's just my opinion....
Raineypark

I think it's wonderful that someone is giving them the benefit of the doubt, RaineyPark! I had the opporturnity to meet and speak with Ron Sproat and Peter Miner (a director/producer later in the series) in New York (in nonDS capacities) and both of them made it quite clear that it was the "chaos" on the set that making working on DS so difficult for them.  Mr. Sproat seems to be a very honorable sort of person, and he did not elaborate further; the same with Peter Miner though he did say the actors were wonderful to work with - it was behind the scenes that was hell.

A point about the writers and other production personnel: I have come to assume that it was nothing sort of miraclous DS came off even as well as it has.    We need to remember that from one day to the next back when the series was on, you were watching the action and would not remember (or even see) some of the bloopers that some fans pour over now.   In other words, the inconsistencies were not so obvious then because there was no going back and reviewing video over and over again. Sure, some people noticed it I'm sure, but I bet most did not nnotice all the things that went wrong.  Viewers also saw many live productions on TV with the flubs etc. at that time.  

But I digress.  The writers and production people were under the gun all of the time by Dan Curtis.  While being able to work under pressure comes hand in hand with production-oriented positions and certainly writing a soap, there is still a breaking point when you can't think anymore or do anything right if the pressure is relentless.  Sam Hall has admitted in interviews that he never understood the Leviathan storyline though he participated in it.  Everything was about more more more now now now and not about development or follow through, never mind someone keeping a log outline about what had already been done with the show!

I'm not making excuses for these people.  But I am sure that there is not anyone here who has not worked under pressure and accepted that fact, but knew very well when the demands were exceeded any logical chance of things coming out with quality.

Nancy

[Nancy]

Darling
I think the biggest problem of DS overall was the fact that Dan Curtis was the de factor Head Writer.  So, whenever the writers attempted to bring some consistency into the storylines, DC would throw a spanner into the works with some kooky idea.  And then a lot of them he wasn't even around (which in my opinion was a good thing) because he was off pursuing some other project.  My personal opinion is that DS was axed because DC was finding it too much of a distraction and he wanted to spend more time with feature films, as he began to do immediately after it left the air.

Anyhow, great notes!  I look forward very much to the next installment.

Your fan,

Steve

I think you are right, Steve, about DC.  I believe that the reason House of Dark Shadows was so bloody and violent is that Curtis resented the big "kiddie and teenage" audience DS had, and wanted to show he could do adult things on that theme.  That's why  HODS was so different than the series, IMO.  Curtis wanted to shoot for the adult prime time audience who also went to the movies.  Just  my opinion, of course.

Nancy

[Dr. Eric Lang]

Millicent's short sleeved dress.  I liked this a lot.  The stripes, the details around the hem, etc.  It was appropriate to the character, the period, what the character was doing, etc.  

Hello Luciaphil! I'm new here and just discovered your "columns." Wonderful stuff! You and Robin are both very talented.

About Millicent's dress - this is the same dress Carolyn wore when she dressed up as Millicent in the present day and went to the costume party at the Old House. Although that episode was in black and white, I went back and inspected it. At least the costumers had SOME consistency!

Looking forward to more of your writing!