Striking a Nerve

Yesterday's blog post, about the shadiness of Prospect Park's efforts to "circumvent the unions" and bring ABC's recently cancelled shows to the web without having to deal with the bother of paying actors, camera operators, writers, wardrobe people, etc. fair wages,  obviously struck a chord with people. I've never received so many private messages, Tweets or Facebook comments about/links to a blog post as this one. Nor have any of my previous blog posts ever received so many hits in so short a time.

I know I didn't write The Great Gatsby, or say anything remotely original. In fact, I think the reason so many people have read that piece, and passed it along to others is that I didn't say anything revolutionary. I think a lot of people heard the news about Prospect Park considering bringing in an overseas partner and bypassing the unions and felt the same way I did: that this would be just plain wrong. It flies in the face of what so many people are fighting for, these days: workers' rights, basic benefits, the end of the huge inequity between the 1% and the 99%. I believe a lot  of people read about PP's on-going negotiations and thought, "This is wrong."

Interestingly enough, of all the communication I've had about this blog entry, only one party has come out in favor of Prospect Park, and the move to squash existing union rules. I won't name the party, because I'm not interested in giving free publicity to an outfit that supports union busting. what I will say is that it's a new media production company. I'll also say that their arguments in favor of PP's efforts are as "ridiculous" as they labelled my blog post.

According to this party, working within a new media should abolish baseline union standards that were developed for television. A new medium, according to this party, calls for a whole new set of rules. This party likens the unions involved to the unions that protects the person employed to raise the curtain at Broadway theaters - these days, the curtains are opened and closed electronically, yet union rules still call for a curtain raiser to be paid a full salary. Pretty ridiculous. I agree. But it's a comparison that makes no sense. This party argues that a new medium calls for new negotiations and new contracts. That's double speak for "we think it's ok to pay people less money and cut their benefits, if we want to, because this isn't tv, where budgets are big."  If this isn't One-Percent-Speak, I don't know what is.

This was never about having to pay a curtain man, even though the function had become automated.

Quite the opposite: it's about expecting the curtain man to show up and do his job, as usual,  but only get paid as if his job was mostly being done by a machine.

New media IS a different animal from television. That's why it was "ridiculous" for Prospect Park to promise the public the same production quality, the same casts, and the same frequency of programming. Since the media is new, what needs to be renegotiated first shouldn't be how much the actors or writers or crew earn. What needed to be negotiated from the very beginning was - HOW COULD THESE SHOWS BE CHANGED TO REALISTICALLY BE DEVELOPED FOR WEB VIEWING?  Instead, Prospect park thought backwards - they promised the whole enchilada, and then figured they could buy it at the rate of a questionable 99c Taco Bell taco.

The party that came out against my blog called it not only "ridiculous", but "unfair."

That's rich. Prospect Park is trying to bilk workers out of their hard-earned union rights, and I'm being unfair.

The Case For New Media 


In case anyone is wondering, I'm the last person to be against web-based programming. If anything, I'm excited by it. I think it's the future of entertainment. I think it's a shame that the most widely talked-about new media venture these days is Prospect Park's attempt to bring OLTL and AMC to the web, because it's a mess, and it's not representative of what new media can be. Neither are the ridiculous and unfair arguments made by the unnamed new media operation mentioned above.

Successful new media ventures have been the ones that haven't tried to simply lift a television or cinema model and stick it on the web. I'm not a fan of Venice: The Series, but at least the people who developed it had the presence of mind to create something that didn't require 15 elaborate sets. What I saw of the series used only two or three sets that were existing structures: restaurant scenes filmed in an actual restaurant. hotel room scenes filmed in a hotel room, living room scenes filmed in someone's living room. A lot of what I saw on Venice was a mess, but at least they got this right.

Tello Films produces original, successful programming that's been specifically developed for the web. No one-hour, daily shows with a cast of 30, and a 52-week schedule. Their programming works on the web because it was specifically developed, from the ground up, for the web. They don't promise or claim to recreate the television experience; they offer a new and different programming experience.

And this is the root of Prospect Park's debacle. They thought they could lift two established television programs that cost an enormous amount to produce, and just drop them, as they were, onto the internet. In their screwy, stupid and greedy minds they figured, "Same shows, same frequency, same amount of work...but if people are watching on smaller screens we can pay people less to make them."

Now THAT is ridiculous and unfair.

Occupy Your Conscience

Today, We Love Soaps announced that Prospect Park is still talking about picking up One Life To Live and All My Children and turn them into web-based programs. We all know - some of us always knew - that this is a financial impossibility, based on what it costs to produce each hour-long, daily show, 52 weeks a year. And that's what Prospect Park promised. When this whole, hair-brained plot was made public, PP wrote a check they couldn't cash: they promised to keep producing hour-long episodes, of the same production quality viewers were used to, with the same cast, to run every day, 52 weeks a year. Those of us who stopped to think about that for half a second knew it would never happen. We knew it COULD never happen. Not like that. Of course, we were taking for granted that "the same high production values" implied using the same, union labor. Last week, when Prospect park quietly let go of the idea of taking these shows online, there was a lot of talk of union negotiations having fallen apart.

Stop and think about this for a minute - if PP is saying that the only think keeping them from moving these long-running shows to the web was a union issue, what they're really saying is, "We wanted to cut people's salaries and benefits, but we expected the same amount of work, and the same caliber of work from them."

Over the last 10-15 years, budgets for daytime drama have plummeted. Everyone has taken massive pay cuts - even the most bankable actors. Production costs have been slashed to the bare bones, and we've all read about how actors no longer even have rehearsal time - too expensive! And PP wanted to move in an make further cuts?

If this weren't a television production we were discussing, but a construction project, how would you feel about this proposition? If I said to you, "I want to build a skyscraper, but I want to save money. I know the construction workers used to make $50 an hour, and that they've gone to $40 in the last few years, but I'm thinking I'll pay them $30 an hour. Maybe cut their lunch hour down to 30 minutes, and make them buy their own hammers and nails. And I'll expect them to put up a building as quickly and as well as I would have expected at full wage and with full benefits and the best equipment." - what would you think? If someone presented that proposition to me I'd think they were a cheap bastard looking to exploit labor, and I'd make a note to never go into their building, because I'd have some serious doubts about the quality of the construction.

Prospect Park's "negotiations" with the various trade unions are no different. Because of this, I was glad the announcement was made last week about the abandonment of this project. I would have liked to have seen these shows continue, but not at the expense of workers' rights.

Today, We Love Soaps announced that PP may well still be in discussions about their plan to bring OLTL and AMC to the web. Instead of dealing with the unions, though:

"Prospect Park is said to be considering bringing in an overseas firm to turn the shows into a co-production. That may or may not allow the shows to circumvent the unions, which couldn't come to terms with Prospect Park on compensation for talent on both sides of the camera."

Take that in: "may allow them to circumvent the unions."

Just to make sure we're on the same page, I'll spell this out for you: "circumventing the unions" is a nice way of saying "fuck the workers, fuck their union protection, fuck their minimum wage, fuck their benefits, fuck their job safety." It's a way of saying that, if trade unions won't fold and give up whatever protections they've fought long and hard to secure for their members, Prospect Park will gladly hire scabs who will do the work cheaper. It's even saying they'll be happy to pick up these projects and film them elsewhere, where union rules don't apply.

THIS IS NOT GOOD NEWS.
I don't care how much you love these shows,
THIS S NOT GOOD NEWS.
In an economy where the little guy is getting fucked over in every way possible,
THIS IS NOT GOOD NEWS.
For writers, actors, and technical crew people who deserve fair wages and benefits,
THIS IS NOT GOOD NEWS.

If someone came into your workplace and tried this, you'd be livid. And you should be. Because this is bullshit. I've loved soaps my whole life but, for the love of God, how can anyone think it is ok for the big, bad PP to muscle in and tell professionals that their services are worthless, that the employment rights they've fought for are meaningless, and that they can be easily replaced with cheap labor? Forget this is a tv show we're talking about. Think about it happening in a store, or a school, or a hospital, or any other workplace. This is the same shit that pisses people off about American corporations setting up shop in Thailand and paying pennies for labor that, under American union rules, would and should cost dollars. Forget these are tv shows - they're businesses. Workplaces. Forget these are writers and actors and camera operators and editors and makeup men. They're workers. Labor. They work, and they deserve a fair wage and benefits.

Check your conscience before being happy about this development. Is your love of soap operas really worth fucking over the concepts of fair compensation, workplace security, and union protection?

The Moment

I am five years old, sitting on the floor in front of my grandmother's couch. My mother and grandmother sit on the couch. I lean back on my mother's legs. We are all engrossed in what we see on the television in front of us: on the night before Philip Brent is to ship off to fight in Vietnam, he and Tara Martin have snuck into a church.

They are young.
They are in love.
In the darkness of an empty church, they privately exchange vows.
There is no priest.
This is their secret.
We are the only witnesses.

This is the moment that sets the scene for years of heartbreak, drama, tragedy and action in Pine Valley. It is the moment that will impact so many characters in the years to come. It is the moment that, years later, when Philip returns from Vietnam and finds Tara married to Chuck Tyler, he will bring us back to. It is the moment I first feel the power of the genre known as soap opera and fall in love with a particular kind of storytelling - storytelling that is about people and their histories, their secrets, their demons. Storytelling that is about people at their best and people at their worst, and all the shades of gray in between.

On hearing about the cancellation of All My Children and One Life To Live, I knew I'd have to write about what will truly be the end of an era for me, but I didn't know where to start. While exchanging emails with a group of friends who love soaps every bit as much as I do, and reminiscing about our favorite moments, it hit me like gangbusters: Philip and Tara. The church. Their secret. It is the first real story line I remember.

In my real life, I'd hear my parents talk about Vietnam. Howard K. Smith and Harry Reasoner talked about it on the news every night. It was part of the background noise as we ate dinner. But it was just a word to me. I had no idea what this Vietnam everyone spoke about really was, except that it was bad, and everyone had an opinion about it. My grandfather and father disagreed about it. A lot. And here, in the middle of the day, were Philip and Tara - two young, attractive characters who seemed like real people to me - talking about a war. About what it means for a young man to go off to war without any certainty that he'll come home, again. It is not an exaggeration to say that I figured out what Vietnam was - not through my parents or the news reports we watched every day - but  by watching Philip and Tara's drama unfold. It was a war! People had strong feelings about it, in part, because young men were going away for years and years, even though they didn't want to. Some of them never got back home. Some of them left home without ever having lived. Some of them left families behind, and people they loved.

For every crazy, stupid story line this genre has tackled - demonic possession, human cloning, time travel, a gorilla escaping from Central Park Zoo - there are so many human stories that really have made a difference in the way a lot of people live their lives. When Guiding Light aired frank and open story lines about domestic violence and breast cancer viewers paid attention - DV hotlines rang off the hook and women started booking appointments for mammograms in record numbers. Another World talked openly about abortion for the first time on television. As The World Turns revealed that a popular character was gay. Guiding Light tackled spousal rape for the first time on television. The Young and the Restless bravely introduced a story line about venereal disease in the mid 70s. Ryan's Hope broke tradition by featuring a Jewish character in the previously all Christian/ mostly Protestant daytime arena. And All My Children incorporated the Vietnam War - in real time, no less - with the Philip and Tara story line. And maybe this story line helped people talk about the war, or see it in a different light. I know it explained a lot about the war to me, as young as I was. But more. It made me notice story-telling. It made me pay attention to why characters did and said what they did and said. It made me notice that nothing exists in a vacuum, and that every action is followed by a reaction - even though I didn't have that language - and that these things are important to keep in mind if you want to tell a story that people will believe and want to listen to. Mostly, it made me want to make up and tell those stories, myself.

It is no small thing for me to think of All My Children being pulled off the air. Even though Tara and Philip are long gone, Agnes Nixon is no longer at the helm, and I haven't been a regular viewer for some time, that show is a little piece of home for me. It represents time shared with people who were important to me (my mother and grandmother), and a very specific moment in time when a big part of the person I am today was born.

It's no accident that people refer to their favorite soaps as their "stories," because that's what the genre has always been about - stories. Agnes Nixon wrote a story about Philip and Tara. Richard Hatch and Karen Lynn Gorney brought that story to life. That story made me fall in love with stories.

How The Internet Killed The Great American Serial

The Internet is a great thing. It has been, without a doubt, the most important technological breakthrough to occur in my lifetime. It makes possible seamless, real-time communication between people from all over the globe. Early this year, Astronauts sent the first Tweets and Twitpics from space, expanding even further the reach of Everyman. When people of my parents' generation talk about the assassination of JFK, their descriptions are of hearing the news on the radio, phone lines going down with so many people calling all over to share the sad news, and people gathering around television sets in hopes the reports were mistaken. When I think about the death of Princess Diana, I remember being logged into a chat room full of Australians and New Zealanders, all of us getting the news as it happened, directly from Internet-based wire services, the television playing in the background, the phone barely a consideration, and the radio nowhere in sight. The world had changed. How we got news had changed. How we shared collective sadness had changed.

The fact is, the advent of the Internet has changed the playing field, for all of us, forever. Some - in my opinion, most - of these changes have been positive. There are, however, drawbacks to having access to all kinds of information almost all of the time.

How It Used To Be

If Mr. Peabody were to take you on a trip in the Wayback Machine to witness the impact the Internet has had on entertainment, specifically serial drama, he might choose as a destination Pine Valley. Here, he would show you star-crossed lovers Jeff Martin and Mary Kennicott, who have overcome hurdle after hurdle and finally found their way to one another after years of struggle. They are newly married and in the process of adopting a young foundling named Tad. Yes, that Tad. It is an afternoon in 1975 and you are watching All My Children.

All seems normal. Mary arrives home from the grocers and finds two intruders in the house. She has stumbled upon burglars who have no intention of letting any eye-witnesses survive. When little Tad enters the apartment and finds his adoptive mother in the clutches of armed robbers, Mary causes a distraction that gives the boy just enough time to escape. Tad makes it out but Mary is shot dead by the intruders. It is a heart-breaking moment, and a shocking one. Mary is a major character, and a much beloved one. No one could have seen this coming. Every AMC fan sits still in shock, horror and sadness. It is, after all, 1975. The word "spoiler" isn't even a part of the television viewing lexicon.

The Tide Turns

The Internet has broken down many barriers to communication. In the process it has made secrets almost impossible to keep. In 1975 there was really only one game in town, when it came to getting news about soap operas: a new magazine called Soap Opera Digest. For the most part, SOD consisted of re-caps and interviews. The recaps were mainly aimed at women who, for whatever reason, had missed their soaps and wanted to catch up. Remember, this was before VCRs, let alone TIVO, Youtube or Soapnet. You'd buy a copy of SOD to find out what had happened on your favorite show last month, and to read an interview with Susan Lucci or Robin Strasser. Actors who were interviewed never gave away any upcoming story lines. Instead, Lucci might talk about what it was like when fans saw her at the airport and made comments about Erica's latest evil-doings. Back then, the closest you'd come to a spoiler would be an announcement about someone joining the cast of a soap and, really, announcements like this were only made when it came to known entities. When George Reinholt and Jaqueline Courtney, who had been incredibly popular on Another World joined the cast of One Life To Live, it was news, at least for soap viewers. And soap news was most definitely not mainstream news. Again, this was before Luke and Laura broke through that  fourth wall. In 1975 - and for many years after - soap opera viewers were an almost negligible niche market. What's more, television viewing was a strictly passive activity. In 1975, we sat back and watched. This isn't to say that we didn't react to what happened on the screen - of course we did. If something was sad, we might get teary. If something was funny, we laughed. Soap viewers, especially, have always been heavily invested. A habit I still have today is that of talking to the television: "Oh, Erica, shut up." "It serves you, right, Nikki, for thinking Victor is anything but a control freak, after all these years."

Today, television viewers don't just react to what happens on the screen - they gather to dissect it, they write blogs and articles and even university level papers that critique it, and they mobilize to shape it. The Internet and its capabilities as a powerful networking tool has turned television viewing into an interactive experience. Viewers are no longer content to just watch what happens. Fans of a specific show can hold virtual screening parties online and discuss the action in real time. Your favorite character has been killed off? You don't have to accept this - why not start a global Internet campaign to bring him back from the dead? Sick of reading other people's opinions about your favorite show? Start a blog or an online forum. After all, what makes the people who write Soap Opera Digest any better at watching television and forming opinions than you are?

There's The Rub

So, we now have a community of television viewers who are also self-proclaimed know-it-alls/critics/reporters. And, no, I don't exempt myself from this group because: hey - most of what I've written about on this blog during the last year has had to do with television. (Superhero Lunchbox used to be a very different blog, but older content has been deleted.) In addition, the Internet makes it possible for people such as myself to communicate not only with other television viewers from around the globe, but with television actors, writers, casting directors, and journalists. In many ways, the barriers that once existed between television viewing and television production no longer exist. If you don't think this is true, think about this: in the grand scheme of things I am nobody - just someone who likes to watch television and happens to enjoy the Internet. This is unremarkable. It describes about 90% of the people I know. I do not hold a degree in television production or broadcasting. I have never worked for a television network or motion picture producer. I am not an actor. The writing I've had published has had absolutely nothing to do with television or entertainment, at all. I don't have an uncle in the business. I am just someone who likes to watch television and dissect it. Big deal. In 1975, this would have earned me a seat on the couch and a subscription to TV Guide. In 2010, it means I interact (mainly via Internet and telephone) with television actors, writers, casting directors, and journalists. And this isn't remarkable. Anyone with a Facebook or Twitter account can reach out and start a conversation - there's no guarantee anyone will respond, but my experience tells me that lots of people do. Let's put it this way: if I can get interviews with actors, have long talks with writers and get casting directors to read my email and follow up with phone calls, anyone with a PC and an Internet connection can.

Television is no longer just a spectator sport.

Monster in a Box

With this shift in paradigm comes some problems. If the Internet makes it possible, in theory, for everyone to share information, it also means the chances of keeping anything a secret are next to nil.

In 2009, as Guiding Light was winding down, I was privy to some information about the show that some of the TPTB wanted to keep under wraps. Again, there is nothing exceptional about me as a television viewer or as a blogger. The moment I got wind of this information I thought to myself, "If someone connected to the show sees fit to tell me about this it means there are lots of others - people with actual credentials - who know about it, and probably have for a long while." One of these bits of information was Maureen Garrett's return to the GL set in the role of Holly. It was presented to me as something GL wanted to keep under wraps - a bit of a gift to the loyal viewers. I remember getting this information, being really excited that my favorite GL actor would be back, and thinking, "I won't leak this, but this secret won't keep for long." Two weeks after I learned of it, news of Garrett's return to GL was all over the Internet. Some people were happy to have gotten the "scoop." I thought it was kind of sad that die-hard GL fans were deprived of what could have been a pretty cool surprise. But, as I said - I knew that if I had been told, many, many others had also been told, and at least one person was going to let the cat out of the bag. It was inevitable.

Now, I'm not naive enough to believe that every leak is accidental. Planting stories and planning leaks is the bread-and-butter of entertainment PR. But I do know there was at least some desire to end the show with a few surprises, and that just was not ever going to happen. So strong was the desire to keep certain details under wraps, that one of the interviews I conducted for The Guiding Light Project was granted only under the condition that a P&G representative be present to make sure there was no specific discussion of the final episodes, and that the actor didn't inadvertently slip up and tell me more than I was supposed to know. This effort turned out to be moot, as well: the specific details that the P&G exec took such pains to guard became common knowledge when a cameraman posted still photos of the final days of shooting on Twitter.

Fallout

Last week, One Life to Live aired what (while badly executed, IMO) was clearly intended to be a Mary Kennicott moment: the big reveal about Tea still being alive. Is there a single viewer who was genuinely shocked? Did anyone believe, for even a minute, that she was dead? Stories about Florencia Lozano's being let go from OLTL, only to be rehired (thanks, in part, to noise made by fans) had been circulating for months. We knew Tea might be gone for a little while, but we also knew she wasn't really dead. What could have and should have been a classic, "OHMYGOD, TEA'S ALIVE!" moment fell flat. Hear that sound? It's the sound of crickets chirping. And here's the thing - while soap viewers love continuity and familiarity, we also love waiting to see what happens next. As serial dramas, they're meant to carry over from one episode to the next with some semblance of suspense.  And we really love a good shocker. Remember when AMC's Cliff, heartbroken that Nina had perished in a plane crash, stood in front of an elevator whose doors opened to reveal...Nina - alive and well!?!?! Or the wedding where "Adam"'s mask was pulled off to reveal GL's Roger, back from the dead? Or every, single time James Stenbeck shocked the hell out of Barbara by showing up, again? Those were true shockers. Those were scenes with which to end a Friday episode...scenes that guaranteed viewers would be back on Monday. That element of surprise no longer exists. Nothing about the big reveal regarding Tea compelled me to go back for more on Monday.

There can be no more Mary Kennicott, Nina Warner, Roger Thorpe or James Stenbeck moments. In a world where your favorite soap writer is your pen pal, and your favorite actor is part of your Mafia Wars family, the air of mystery is all but gone. The monster is out of the box, and he's got no plans to crawl back in.

"Save This Soap" Challenge

A few months back, after reading a piece I wrote about what I would have done to try and save Guiding Light, had I been in charge, a poster challenged me to lay out plans for how I'd try to save All My Children. Robert was only kidding when he posed the challenge, but it's been on my mind, ever since. After all, I grew up watching All My Children. In fact, I actually watched the very first episode of AMC, right next to my grandmother, who was my caretaker, and who loved a good story.

For starters, let me lay this on the line: All My Children, as it exists today, is virtually unwatchable. It's a mess. If my grandmother were alive today it would break her heart to see the train wreck this show has become. And, really, there's no good reason for it. They still seem to have a decent budget. There are still several legacy characters around. In fact, they've even brought back some classic characters in the last few years, only to waste the actors' talents. Yes, I'm talking about Angie and Jessie. A great deal of noise was made about the return of Debbi Morgan and Darnell Williams, and the first two weeks they were back were great fun. It's now two years later, and there really is no evidence that bringing back these key characters was anything but a publicity stunt. Debbi Morgan is, perhaps, the most under-used actress on daytime television. Even the long-suffering Colleen Zenk Pinter (Barbara, ATWT), who is tragically under-appreciated, gets more to do than Debbi Morgan. But, I digress. This is supposed to be about how I'd try and save the sinking ship, so I'll get on with it.

History, History, History

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: soap fans know their history. People who have watched AMC for ten or 20 or 30 years know who is who, what happened when, and why their favorite characters behave in certain ways. If something's broken, it might be a good idea to visit a time when things were running smoothly, and examine how things have changed. The answer probably lies in the show's history.

It's all well and good to bring back characters such as Jessie and Angie, but only if they're connected to other characters we care about, and only if there are interesting, engaging story lines in place in which to involve them. Looking at the current AMC character list, three names jump out at me as Pine Valley indispensibles:

Adam Chandler
Erica Kane
Tad Martin

These three are lynchpins. Drama tends to revolve around them. Stories develop around their work, their relationships, their family lives. If you can stand to watch AMC today, though, there's very little going on in any of their lives to really bother caring about. The whole "Stuart has been murdered!" thing has been a huge failure. For one thing, no one wanted sweet, inocuous, comic-relief-on-legs Stuart to die. Stuart gave David Canary some balance on the show. Fans resent the fact that the character has been killed off, and the so-called murder mystery was never even an interesting one. Erica? Well, really, who the hell cares what she's doing? She's been relegated to being a bit-player in The Further Stupid and Pointless Adventures of Kendall and Zach. And don't get me started on Tad. Seriously...I do NOT want to go there.

What these characters - Adam, Erica and Tad - need is a good dose of... (drumroll, please) - Brooke English.

Yeah, I said it. Brooke fucking English.

I freely admit it; Brooke was always one of my favorite AMC characters. She had chutzpuh. She was the only woman who ever gave Erica Kane a real run for her money. She was also the only woman who ever tamed Adam Chandler for longer than ten minutes, and the first to ever make him show himself as anything other than a monster. And it was Brooke who basically ushered Tad from bad boy status to responsible adult. In my opinion, AMC was never better than during the golden era of Brooke and Erica at each other's throats, Brooke and Adam wrestling with their passion, and Brooke and Tad forging a friendship that would withstand a bad marriage, a child, and all sorts of adversity.

When Brooke English was written off of All My Children, and her exit made so uneventful that if you blinked you missed it, a big piece of an already-weary animal died.

Push The Freaking Envelope, Why Don't You?

Let's say you've got a burning building. Flames have overtaken the structure. Smoke is everywhere. There's no water source in sight. The only thing at your disposal is a dumpster full of soil. You could sit around, do nothing and wait for the flames to completely destroy the building, or you could dump the soil on the fire and hope it will put out the flames. Does soil put out fire? I have no idea. But I do know that trying something beats a blank. And, really, if you were to pour soil on the fire and the fire continued to burn, it wouldn't be as if you made matters any worse - it would have burned down th house, anyhow. Throwing soil on that fire would be a win-win situation; if the fire is extinguished, you're a hero for saving the day, if it continues to burn, at least you know you've made every effort to avert complete disaaster.

As I've said, AMC is unwatchable. The show is in deep trouble and, at this point, I think drastic measures need to be taken to save it. The show can't really get much worse (unless they start filming in Peapack) so why not try something that's never really been done before? Something that television has almost completely shied away from? Why not take a chance, push the envelope, go out on the proverbial limb? (Okay, I'll stop it with the inspirational cliches.) The worst that can happen is that the show gets cancelled which, as it exists at this moment, would be no great loss.

If I were the woman in charge at AMC, as it exists right now, I'd throw away all conventions and tackle a subject that's one of daytime's last tabboos: domestic violence with a female batterer and a male victim.

The Story

AMC has already paired Adam and Annie, and even married them off in a quickie ceremony. I don't paticularly like Annie as a character, but she's already there, and I'm assuming I'd have to make use of the tools I've been given. Adam is known to be ruthless and brutal, but he has never been physically abusive. I don't see Adam as someone who'd ever raise a hand against a woman - he'll tear Erica to shreds in the boardroom, humiliate Brooke or Eliza in public, but he wouldn't hit them. It's not his style and, believe or not, Adam has a certain code of ethics. I don't see physical violence against a woman fitting into his code. Annie, on the other hand, seems to be a woman with no such code. I can believe an Annie who would become violent against her husband...an Annie who is capable of losing her temper at the drop of a hat and becoming physically abusive. I can also see Adam Chandler as someone who would let shame and humiliation keep him from making his plight public and getting the help he needs and is entitled to in such a situation.

I'm not talking about an isolated incident, or a little slap. I'm talking about developing a story line around a relationship that is built on full-on, blatant, unprovoked violence perpetrated by a woman against a powerful man.

Such a story line would be nothing short of groundbreaking for daytime television. It would enable the writers to explore a whole new side of Adam Chander. How does a man such as Adam Chandler handle himself in the world of business when, at home, he's being victimized? How does he deal with his children? How does he explain his injuries? Do people assume he's been drinking, or that he's entered the early stages of dementia and become clumsy? If he's too ashamed to get help or tell anyone his terrible secret, does he end up taking out his anger on others? Who? And, finally, who will come into Adam's life and recognize that something is not right?

Enter Brooke English

Who knows Adam better than Brooke? It's not difficult to imagine that Brooke, after having been gone for a few years, would come back and recognize, right away, that something is very, very wrong with Adam...and that he's clearly hiding something. If there's one true thing about Brooke English it's this: she never, ever minds her own business. When it comes to Adam, especially, she's virtually incapabale of butting out. What better way to bring back an audience favorite than with a completely fresh, new, challenging story line, a plot that hasn't been used to death, and which revolves around a character she would naturally gravitate to?

Not only would a DV story with Adam as the victim provide David Canary with a chance to stretch his thespian wings further, and add depth to Adam; it would provide Julia Barr's Brooke with a meaty plot to become engaged in as Brooke returned to Pine Valley. It would also naturally involve other characters, especially legacy characters, in a variety of ways:

Erica - By turns Adams best friend and his worst enemy, she'd want to help him, especially if it meant getting back at Annie

Tad - Brooke's ex-husband and dear friend...he hates Adam, but he has a strong sense of justice

J.R. - Shares a love/hate relationship with his dad - does he seize the opportunity to pounce on Adam's weakness and take over his business dealings?
Scott - Has feelings for Annie, but loves his uncle
Angie - The doctor most likely to notice Adam's physical symptoms
Jessie - Like Tad, he hates Adam, but he's a cop with strong convictions about right and wrong



Nothing To Lose
If I were in charge at AMC, I'd not only go foreward with this story line, I'd go full steam ahead. No holds barred. There is nothing to lose at this point, and everything to gain. As with any big "issue" story line on a soap, the ripple effect would be palpible. We've all seen how a story line about alcoholism or cancer or child abuse has far-reaching effects. When soaps have tackled these difficult but important topics in the past, viewers have been forced to sit up and notice. AMC did this successfully years ago, when Cindy (played beautifully by none other than Ellen Wheeler) lived with and eventually died of AIDS.
Adam is the perfect character to for this story line. It's a a tabboo subject that should be assigned to a character who seems to be the most unlikely for it to involve, a character who seems completely in control of his life, and in control of the lives of others. Some people might not like this story line but I can guarantee it would not be boring. Daytime television has not seen this before, and it could just be the shot int he arm AMC needs to get back on track.

It's a sinking ship, All My Children. Toss it a couple of life lines, ABC: start with Julia Barr, and keep going with a story line that pushes boundaries, provokes discussion, and forces people to tune in for something completely different.

© 2009 Lana M. Nieves

Limited Licensing: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the Creative Commons Attribution license, granting distribution of my copyrighted work without making changes, with mandatory attribution to Lana M. Nieves and for non-commercial purposes only. - Lana M. Nieves