Idle Thoughts--Tea & Strumpets (4/11 & 4/12)

[Luciaphile]

To those who have inquired after me, sorry, week from hell and all sorts of nasty papers and presentations were due (and it's only going to get worse until May 3rd  ), but I'm okay and have not fallen under a bus or anything . . .

Fashion notes first . . .

These were rather lean episodes for fashion commentary.  Poor Joan Bennett had a rather bad makeup day--her lipstick wasn't completely on and it drove me nuts.  Then Nathan's seemed to be missing an epaulet and that was bugging me too . . .

Collinsport's newest import to the oldest profession is another story and my sole grist for the fashion mill.  The dress was great.  I do love those stripes and she looked suitably tarty.  I wish they had made a greater effort to match up her wig with her real hair, but you can't have everything.  I also liked her mobcap, although I believe that was more suited to indoor use, but Maude being what she was, I guess we can cut her some slack.

Onto the show . . .

The trial.   Forgive me for not caring.  It's not entirely Roger Davis' fault.  He wasn't the turkey(s) writing this schlock.  Although I've noticed he's begun his trademark "let's toss and manhandle my co-star around as much as possible."  How the actresses he worked with on the show stood it, I don't know.  I would have clocked him.

I am mystified at the approach good ol' Peter "I learned the law from working at the gaol" Bradford took in the end.  Good grief, even Vicki questioned him!  

And then they were surprised when she got convicted!  Dumb and dumber, personified--I'll leave it to you all to decide which is Vicki and which is Peter.  I suppose it's tacky of me to pick on these too idiots, but I can't help it.  I get the feeling that if God himself came down and pronounced Vicki innocent, she and her dork of an attorney would find a way to muck it up.  Frankly, I am ready to shoot the two of them myself.

Where are Art Wallace and Francis Swann when you need them?  They did not write dumb women.  

Yeah, it was a soap and nobody on it thought that anyone would remember these things, but I'm sorry, I don't buy it.  Viewers remember this stuff.  On AMC, I vividly remember a story that took place at least five (probably more than that) years ago the Tuesday cliffhanger, Brooke was in a car with Derrick and they were racing to rescue Edmund from a certain death at the hands of an unscrupulous realtor (who was planning to drown Edmund in quicksand  ).
Then on Wednesday, Brooke, who is still in the same car with the same guy, and still on the way to Willow Lake, now had a completely different hairstyle and color that must have represented at least three hours of work in the salon.  Well, my point is that it's still with me.  I don't think I'm alone on this either.

And while I'm talking about AMC, let me just say that they have done Erica Kane stories with more realism to them than this trial crap (and yes, that includes the beautifully cut prison uniforms La Lucci wore for months).

Okay, I'm calmer now.

Liked the scene between Trask and Naomi.  Bennett's makeup may have been awful, but she was on target, as was he.  Bennett and Lacy always did click together (as we will see when they do the 1897 episodes).

Brief pause while I say that I love the black & white.  The color on DS often seemed very garish to me.  The beauty of the B&W was that it gave the show more of an edge and a definite creepiness to it.

And then along came Craig Slocum  .  I don't think much of his acting, but he did bring a certain seediness to his roles.   Like John, I agree there's a definite gay subtext to his interaction with Nathan, that certainly makes everything a bit more interesting, particularly in light of Nathan's rather complicated character.

He's (Nathan) intriguing me.  We're now firmly into tragedy territory here, but he's still not a cardboard cutout villain.  He may make villainous choices, but he does have a conscience of sorts.  If he'd been kept in the Regency farce they started him out with, he'd be one likable rogue, a Mr. Wickham as it were, but now he's approaching deeper, darker waters.

I absolutely adored the scenes between Ben and Maude and then Ben and Noah.  I suspect that Thayer David tinkered with his dialogue a bit, because in light of the abysmal writing we're getting with the trial, well, it makes sense.  

Was rather bored with the moral righteousness of Barnabas.  He alternates between psychotic rage and structured psychotic rage.  I am taking into light Nancy's thoughts on the subject, but the character's all over the place emotionally and mentally and it drives me nuts to watch it.  

On another note, I think the statement he made about making Trask feel remorse was particularly telling.  All along, it seems Trask has either been underestimated or misunderstood.  Remorse is something that Nathan might feel--Nathan after all knows that he's done something wrong.  Trask wholeheartedly believes that Vicki is a witch.  It's not hypocrisy as witness Trask's reaction to the mind fanging (the hand bit comes from "The Beast with Five Fingers").  The witch is doing this to him; he doesn't believe it's punishment at all.  What, after all, is he guilty of?  He is on God's side.

You have to wonder what makes someone like that.  Fear maybe?

Maude .  What a piece of work  .  From the accent that totally did not fit the supposed New Bedford origins, to her higher standards, to her chi chi abode "above the feedstore" (I laughed for like five minutes after Thayer David delivered that) she was a hoot and a half.  

Thayer David was marvelous with this stuff.  While Slocum was going gamely on about needing work and wanting to be a gardener???, there's Thayer David talking about running away to sea, because, "I never get enough tea."    

Luciaphil

[Josette]

(Thank you for adding the dates! )

In general their strategy for the trial seems to be "dumb and dumber" as you said.  Especially when even Vicki felt that way!!  However, as Peter pointed out, she seemed to be doomed, anyway.  So, it would seem they had nothing to lose, and just in case the book was convincing enough, just maybe it would do the trick.

However, what got me, was that Vicki proved herself to be just that dumb once again.  They seemed to be believing her and then Trask asked about the details of what was happening prior to her "trip" and - - - she tells the truth!  How honorable, given that she's under oath!  There would be no way for any of them to check her story.  Why on earth did she say it was a seance?!!!  She's already indicated that she fainted and is as mystified as anyone else.  So, why not say that they were just all there talking and she knows no more?!!  By this time she must have realized what the word seance would do to Trask!!  She clearly tried to avoid it in the beginning and still hesitated in her answer.  She must have known what she was doing to herself!!!
 

[Raineypark]

Honestly, Luciaphil!!

After I get through reading your Idle Thoughts, I sometimes feel as though I should slap myself for having watched such dreck in the first place!!  But then I start giggling at one comment or another..... and I remember this is NOT serious stuff....and why we love it anyway!!

I never paid much attention to Nathan Forbes....but I have to admit I REALLY enjoyed listening to him toy with Trask when he visited Trask in his room.  His comments were so politely sarcastic!

This is a man who appears not believe in witches, ghosts, or, apparently, righteous reverends!!  He obviously thinks Trask is a pompous arse...and a CRAZY pompous arse to boot!

One other thing.....the first time around (lo,these many years ago!) I resented the hell out of Ben Stokes and Thayer David because I was sure the character was originally intended to be Mr. Loomis/Karlen (except that he was doing Theatre out in the 'burbs).

Now, watching this performance, I'm soooo impressed at the character and how he was played.  Ben Stokes was an uneducated man...but a man of principle and character...unlike Willie who never met a bad idea he wouldn't try.

Ben Stokes really IS the moral center of this story...more so than Willie was ever allowed to be.  Kudos to the late Mr. David...especially if he had to ad lib his own dialogue in addition to performing it!!

Thanks for taking time out from your "more important" writing to entertain us!  

Raineypark

[Gothick]

Wonderful comments as always, Luciaphil.  I haven't watched these shows in several years, so I won't add any of my own comments--the memories are far too vague.

I'd be surprised if Ben Stokes were ever intended as a John Karlen role.  In the 1970s fan gathering interview Nancy so kindly posted, Karlen mentioned that DC had plans for a big story arc involving Willie in '67 when Karlen had to opt out of the series due to another commitment (not at all sure what that was).

He was presumably brought back in 1968 due to deluges of fan mail demanding the return of Willie.  I can't think of anything else that would make DC interested in having him come back. It's interesting how closely they read the fan mail back in those days, given that today's TV shows seem to completely ignore fannish reactions.   Don Briscoe was brought back as a regular due to the fan mail response.  I have even heard one fan who was around in the old days recalling a fan picket line demanding the return of the actor to the series back in 1968!

Gothick

[Raineypark]

Gothick, John Karlen was doing theatre in 1967.....that's one fact about him I know for certain because I saw him onstage in November, 1967, in the role of the son in the play "The Subject was Roses".  And he already knew he was returning to Dark Shadows at the time.....one of my friends asked him if he was coming back and he said yes, and tried to give us an idea of how long it would be before he reappeared on the show.

Raineypark

[Gothick]

Thanks for that info, Raineypark.  I've never had the chance to research Karlen's career, so I was unaware that he was doing "Roses" at that point in '67.  Do you remember much about his performance? Makes one long for the existence of a time machine (or at least a videotape!).

It's always a treat watching Karlen.  His scenes with Grayson were a special highlight during the final "PT 1841" storyline (which otherwise I found rather heavy going).  Fascinating that he already knew in Nov. of 1967 that he was going to be returning to DS.  Glad to hear that they let him know that the welcome mat was still out.

Any news of Karlen's current activities?  He's such a great guy.  I wish him nothing  but the best.

Steve

[Raineypark]

Sorry, Gothick, I have no idea what Mr. Karlen does with his time these days.

About the performance......
Well, it was 35 years ago (gawd, I'm old) and I was 14 at the time.  It was the first live theatre I'd ever seen in my life.  I don't think I breathed for the entire play.  

He was a treat to watch on TV, but something altogether different live.  He was so intense (it's a very intense play) I felt I had to lean forward to catch every inflection of every word.  Live theatre is so much more demanding of an actor than movies or television, where they get to do it again if they mess up (well, maybe not on DS!!).  But it all flowed so smoothly it appeared to be a real family living their lives up there on that stage, a bitter father, an unhappy mother and a tormented son, in their shabby apartment, .....not actors playing roles.

At one point, the father slaps his son's face.  On stage, it's a real slap.  I can still hear the intake of audience breath (there must have been MANY Willie Loomis fans there that night!!) and the shocked silence that followed.

Needless to say, I'm lucky I remember any part of this at all, since I was 14 and already stupid over the man.  When we met him at the stage door afterward my friends did all the talking (I wasn't breathing, remember) but he was very, very sweet to us.

Now that you've got me thinking about it, I'll have to get a copy of "The Subject was Roses" by Frank D.Gilroy and re-read it.
Raineypark

[Gothick]

Thanks for sharing these memories, Raineypark. I surely hope others enjoyed them as much as I did.  I'm glad it gave you pleasure to recount them!

Wish Sharon Gless could finagle a role for John Karlen on Queer as folk!  Maybe he could play a friendly cousin of her character and her brother's.

Steve

[Dr. Eric Lang]

Hi Luciaphil; are you an AMC fan? I watched that show since its debut in 1971 up until about 1995. Somewhere in the mid-90's the daytime drama industry decided en masse that their new target demographic was young girls aged 12-18 and ever since then virtually all soaps have become such teeny-bopper fare I've given them up. AMC was one of the worst offenders IMO - if I tuned into that show today I wouldn't recognize a single character.

I liked the B&W eps of DS too - the sets looked more realistic.

[Luciaphile]

Hi Luciaphil; are you an AMC fan? I watched that show since its debut in 1971 up until about 1995. Somewhere in the mid-90's the daytime drama industry decided en masse that their new target demographic was young girls aged 12-18 and ever since then virtually all soaps have become such teeny-bopper fare I've given them up. AMC was one of the worst offenders IMO - if I tuned into that show today I wouldn't recognize a single character.

You might be surprised.  Erica's still around.  So's Brooke, Tad, Liza, Adam/Stuart, Jackson.  They trot out poor Ruth Warrick occasionally.  They've got a couple of teen characters, but it's not quite a teen spirit free for all.

Yes, I watch AMC.  I used to watch GL, but gave it up after they destroyed most of the continuity and characters I liked and then had the blizzard in the Caribbean, well, that was the final straw, lol.

Luciaphil