The Original, the Revival, and You -

I hate when people say things like this, but I think they must not have watched the original show, and are simply repeating what some twit wrote about the original (not doing their homework).

The author is actually a long-time, loyal fan.

The author who bashed Jonathan Frid, Grayson Hall, and Alexandra's performances on the original is actually a fan of the show? Could have fooled me. I have been a fan of the original for about five years now and never once thought they were bad during their performances. The problem I have with the Revival series is still the stiffed acting. None of them are as great as the original actors. They come in, give their lines and walk out. At least in the original we saw them smiling or getting angry. We saw emotion, something you'll never get from the Revival series. If I would have seen the Revival series before the original, I don't think I would have gotten into the original series like I am now. I think I would have judged it like I do the Revival series and think it was a show with bad acting and writing. I really hope Dan leaves DS alone. Now a days, actors and actresses are awful. I see newcomers on Passions and All My Children and they aren't as great as the ones DS picked that were new to showbiz at the time. Shows right now go for the looks instead of the talent. I'm glad DS wasn't like that.

I bailed after an episode or so.   I think that "these days" (90s thru now) the result of Hollywood money tends to be ponderous, self-conscious, expensive scenes without freshness spontaneity or life to them.    Maybe once they have the money they start fixating on the money too much, and on the expensive aspects.    the result is cookie-cutter "serious" moody "gothic" productions... look at the American Dr Who movie on Fox in 1996.    A lot of "gothic" blue-and-gold visuals, mist, dry leaves.... it looked pretty similar considering it was an SF show about an alien in a time machine.

I remember the characters being, acting, and looking "harsh" and removed.    I hardly expect warmth and niceness from all DS characters, but icy detachment doesn't draw you in.

I hated the fact that they were taking us through the old story from 1967 all over again.   I saw it already.

I mean come on; Jonathan was scary, sexy, ominous, and sad. Most people felt sorry for his Barnabas. I really never felt sorry for Barnabas the way Ben Cross played him. As to Grayson Hall she was superb! Sometimes, yes, she was a bit over-the-top, but so what.  Barbara Steele didn't quite make it as Dr. Hoffman, but then she was sort of playing the Dr. Hoffman from the movie, who I also didn't like that much. There was never any chemistry between Steele's Julia and Cross' Barnabas either.

I agree, Jonathan's B was WAY better than Cross'.  His was just ridiculous.  I feel that Grayson deliberatley overacted, but it worked!    And she and Jon had some of the best 'buddy' chemistry going, unlike Cross and Steele who had zilch! 

The author who bashed Jonathan Frid, Grayson Hall, and Alexandra's performances on the original is actually a fan of the show? Could have fooled me. I have been a fan of the original for about five years now and never once thought they were bad during their performances.

Apparently I had a completely different interpretation of the comments in the DVD review.  (It's on the board mentioned above.)  I can't see that the author mentioned anything that hasn't been said many times here before, even in this topic-- Grayson Hall's Hoffman often dressed dowdily, directors demanded over-the-top performances, Victoria's character was dumbed down, Frid's vampire portrayal was scrutinized by the censors at the time, and the production values (not intellectual value) of the original series were sometimes cheesy.  But as I said before, I think that when you take words like "dummy," "cheesy," "over the top" and "[not] sexier" out of context they can initiate a knee jerk response in any fan, which is why I suggested a difficulty in not only extracting words out of context but also discussing comments that reside in a different section of the boards.

As for defending the writer's loyalty as a fan, that's best left to him. 

Apparently I had a completely different interpretation of the comments in the DVD review.  (It's on the board mentioned above.)  I can't see that the author mentioned anything that hasn't been said many times here before, even in this topic-- Grayson Hall's Hoffman often dressed dowdily, directors demanded over-the-top performances,

I never though GH outfits were particularly awful.  I've been told by stage dressers of that era that professional women frequently dressed "down" and not sexy so as to be taken more seriously.  Even as a straight woman, I can see where some men found find GH attractive and sexy, especially in Julia's more compassionate and vunerable moments.  She had a striking, almost handsome face and unfortunately if you have strong facial features and voice, it doesn't take much for you to sound over-the-top in a role.  You are already powerful to begin with just to look at or for the camera to look at.  I think calling her a drag queen is just plain mean but that's me.

As for anyone criticizing the appeal of the lead actors or Jonathan Frid, well, the argument falls flat if for no other reason here were are forty years after the fact talking about the show which has been in syndication since 1975.  The better looking men or traditional dream boats starred on daytime soaps but people still talk about Frid.  It couldn't just be the fangs; that was a novelty not able to sustain forty years of discussion.  There was much more to it, the original series and the actors involved.  Otherwise, the show would not have sustained syndication (which the tv studios paid through the nose for) for decades.

That's really proof enough of the show's validity.  No amount of negative reviews or opinions can change what the show has accomplished and the genre it opened up for TV audiences.  I guess my overall response to any such article is "who cares?"

Nancy

I wrote the DS Revival review in Videoscope Mag.
I contribute regularly to Videoscope & Scary Monsters Mags, plus three other publications.
I write about DS as often as I can, because I love it in ALL it's incarnations.
I also write truthfully, as I take my work quite seriously.

I'm 50 years old. 2006 marks 39 years since I first watched DS. I've watched the original series 4 times over.
I know of what I speak.
And I never bashed the original cast.

My first episode, in 1967, was Grayson running through the house screaming: "was it you Dave, was it??? WAS IT???"
Wonderfully camp, over the top episode.
Typical Grayson.
I LOVE Grayson.
She was a campy drag queen type, and this has been acknowledged by many.
She was not known for her onscreen sex appeal, which is EXACTLY what Barbara Steele was known for.
And that's the truth.

Frid?
Great classical actor.
He's in the mold of Gielgud/Olivier.
He played Barnabas as dark, brooding, sad & scary, and did so brilliantly.
I'm watching the B & W eps on DVD right now, and I still find his early appearences to be quite creepy.
But NOT sexy.
Because Frid did not play the role for sex appeal.
Ben Cross played the role with unabashed erotic fervor.
Frid, though handsome, was not that kind of actor, and could not have pulled that off.
But then, I don't think Cross could do Shakesperian monologues as well as Frid could.
Two different actors, each with their own unique abilities.
So where's the bashing?
Gimme a break!!!

Alexandra Moltke:
bet you younger fans don't know that she, too, was a stage trained actress.
According to John Willis' Theatre World, she worked on the New York stage until 1978.
I believe she studied at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts.
She herself complained about how poorly Victoria was written.
When asked to return to Dark Shadows in 1970, she declined.
BY HER OWN ADMISSION, she did not want to play a character that did nothing more that cry for help day after day.
Victoria needed spunk, which the 1960s writers refused to give her, an error corrected in the 1990s.
I think Maggie, as the Governess, was a much better character as written.
She had no qualms about running into the deserted Collinwood to face off with Quentin's ghost.
Carolyn was also a strong character, who gave Jason quite a run for his money.
But Victoria, as written, was a jellyfish, to Moltke's personal dismay.

So where's the bashing?

Now, folks, if you want to see the Dark Shadows franchise survive & expand, I suggest you stop acting like the 1960s version is the only version worth watching.
Watch & support all incarnations of the show, including book & CD versions, or eventually, you can kiss DS goodbye.

It's the SUPPORT of fans that caused Star Trek to become such a huge phenomenom.
"Trekkies" support ALL incarnations of Trek, not just the 60s original, and that's why they've had 10 feature films, five series and more than 100 books.
If we follow their example, we can have the same.

Peace and Love to All.

David N 

this topic always seems to get sticky so i'll take myself out of it except to add this...because you know the d.s. costuming is a subject that i can never shut up about.

i really never saw grayson hall as dowdy.back when the show was filmed people dressed differently from the way they do today in two profound ways.

a.)in general people dressed more formally.

b.)they dressed in an 'age-appropriate' way.

so we didn't have people who run around in sweatpants.and middle-aged women(like ms.hall)didn't try to show up their teenage daughters with fake tans,breast enhancements and "juicy couture" track suits.

what was she supposed to wear?i always think that julia's cloths(with a few exceptions)look expensive and chic.
well-tailored suits,coats and dresses(which by the end of the show's run get quite short)finished with a proper handbag and gloves.what's not to love?

I started with the original DS series late in the show.  I was in high school and heard about this soap opera from a friend.  She insisted I would love it and all I could think about is "It's a soap opera.  Blah  "  But she insisted I see it and I did.  Well, let history speak for itself.  After it went off the air, I thought I'd never see Dark Shadows and my favorite characters again.  Never knew it went into syndication in the mid 70's or had festivals every year; never knew it was on the Sci-fi Channel until 2002!!  I was channel surfing and BOOM!! There were familiar characters.  I couldn't believe it and thought it was just one episode so I ignored it.  I was wrong, found out a few months later they were running the entire series so I tuned in and have been hooked again.

When I heard about the 1991 DS revival, I personally boycotted it because IMO Barnabas could only be played by Jonathan Frid.  He WAS "Barnabas".  I was very narrowminded back then about DS so I didn't watch any of the revival.  After I found the original on the Sci-Fi channel, and newsgroups online where people were ... believe it or not... talking about it, I decided it was time to take a look at the revival.  I've seen the first seven episodes and I feel lukewarm about it.  It has it's good points I guess.  Some of the actors are very good but I continue to compare it with the original.  I know that's not fair but I have a hard time ignoring the series' storylines and the revival just rehashing the old story of Barnabas' arrive and Vicki's trip to the past.  IMO the original series did a superb job on the "evil" Barnabas and the trip to the past, 1795 storyline.  They can't improve among it!!!

Now a few comments about JF's portrayal of Barnabas.  He didn't play this character as sexy but making a vampire seem vulnerable and "sorry" for his actions, makes him sexy to many people.  Having good looks isn't the only quality that makes a man sexy.  

Oh and one P.S., as far as campy and some actors overacting, i.e. Grayson Hall.  Well, I have two words for why she and others "overacted".  SOAP OPERA... it was suppose to be that way.  Exaggeration, overempathize ... just look at John Karlen.  The director asked him to "ham"it up!  I'm guessing they asked GH also.  If not, they didn't stop her so it must have been what they were looking for.

Now, folks, if you want to see the Dark Shadows franchise survive & expand, I suggest you stop acting like the 1960s version is the only version worth watching.
Watch & support all incarnations of the show, including book & CD versions, or eventually, you can kiss DS goodbye.

In my thinking, by saying that there can only be one interpretation of Dark Shadows is analogous to stating that we can no longer have new productions of Shakespere plays.  After all, there was only one true Lord Chamberlain's Men that provided the correct interpretation of all Shakespere plays.  New editions, new thoughts, new actors could and would have no meaning whatsoever and should be forever banned.  Of course, in reality, this is not the case.  Thus, it should be the same case with Dark Shadows.  Each actor, production or new situation giving their unique perspective to the vehicle. 

I address that "camp" argument on another thread.  I doubt Julia would have been written and acted as "camp" while the rest was done seriously, which it was.     They had GH go through a period of exaggerated fear, weakening the character and making her look silly, probably out of sexism.    The backhanded compliment of calling DS or bits of DS "camp" counts as "bashing" to me.

what was she supposed to wear?i always think that julia's cloths(with a few exceptions)look expensive and chic.  Well-tailored suits,coats and dresses(which by the end of the show's run get quite short)finished with a proper handbag and gloves.what's not to love?

I agree whole-heartedly!  I saw nothing wrong w/the clothes Grayson wore as Julia, or any other character she played.  I especially loved the suit she wore in 1968 that was, I think, blue crushed velvet w/the large ascotty like thing, she sorta looked like a female Austin Powers in that suit, and all the outfits she wore in 1897.    And the hand-bag and gloves?  THOSE were her 'trademark'! 

Thus, it should be the same case with Dark Shadows.  Each actor, production or new situation giving their unique perspective to the vehicle. 

I will admit, although I did *not* like the '91 revival--mostly because it rehashed the original and HODS--the second time I watched it, I pretended that the original and HODS did not exist, and as such, because I wasn't comparing it to the original, I liked it better.  On it's own, w/nothing to compare it too, it wasn't that bad.  But, since it did rip off the original and HODS, scene by scene, line by line, it's not something I'll buy on DVD.  But I'll keep my original tapes from when it was aired.

The author who bashed Jonathan Frid, Grayson Hall, and Alexandra's performances on the original is actually a fan of the show? Could have fooled me. I have been a fan of the original for about five years now and never once thought they were bad during their performances. The problem I have with the Revival series is still the stiffed acting. None of them are as great as the original actors. They come in, give their lines and walk out. At least in the original we saw them smiling or getting angry. We saw emotion, something you'll never get from the Revival series. If I would have seen the Revival series before the original, I don't think I would have gotten into the original series like I am now. I think I would have judged it like I do the Revival series and think it was a show with bad acting and writing. I really hope Dan leaves DS alone. Now a days, actors and actresses are awful. I see newcomers on Passions and All My Children and they aren't as great as the ones DS picked that were new to showbiz at the time. Shows right now go for the looks instead of the talent. I'm glad DS wasn't like that.

This is a great post that i somehow managed to ignore the first time around.     Now those Goths worshipping Satan don't seem so dumb after all!

Ben Cross performance as Barnabas I felt was a little more powerful and his character a bit more emotional than that of Frid's.

I couldn't disagree more. Cross did okay as Barnabas but I think it's way too much of a stretch to say he was a better Barnabas than Frid considering Cross portrayed Barnabas for only twelve episodes whereas Frid played the role for four years and had more time and opportunities to make Barnabas a fully complex and fascinating character.

So I am more of a fan of the original and lukewarm towards the revival. Not saying the newer show didn't have its good points (I thought Jean Simmons and Joanna Going in particular were excellent) but all in all I will always have a preference to the original show.

Well, I've got some new thoughts on the revival series. The first time I tried to watch it was when the DVD set came out. I think I made it to the seance episode when Vicki disappears into 1790, but I was so displeased by so much of it, and so bored with the whole thing that I didn't make it any further. It's too bad, because after giving it another go and making it all the way through this time, I've realized that a couple of episodes into 1790 is when the revival really kicks into gear and starts getting pretty good.

So, some thoughts on the cast -

Ben Cross: He was ok as Barnabas, merely competent.

Joanna Going: Ever since I tried to watch this the first time, I've wondered why she was so highly praised. I think that's because I hadn't seen her as Josette yet. She was fine as Vicki, but excellent as Josette. And (SPOILER) Victoria and Josette meeting face to face? Fantastic. One of my favorite moments in the series.

Barbara Steele: I liked her as Julia, she played her pretty straight, and played her well. She was even better as Natalie du Pres (a bit of Magda in there?)

Jim Fyfe: Fyfe's Willie Loomis was one of my biggest issues the first time around. Willie Loomis is a complex, sympathetic character. Fyfe played him as a partially-retarded buffoon. A truly cringe-worthy performance, and probably the worst directorial misstep of the revival. But, he was tolerable as Ben Loomis. Actually, he was pretty good as Ben, I liked that character.

Lysette Anthony: Lysette was a good-looking woman, but Angelique should have been drop-dead gorgeous. But she did a good enough job, there were a couple of scenes where she impressed me.

Roy Thinnes:  His Roger was bland, but he was absolutely killer as Trask. Probably the best reinterpretation of the revival series.  The eyebrows were a great touch.

Nothing will ever replace the classic series. But watching the revival was pretty fun, I might do it again sometime.