"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

Anthology

On the small screen, daytime soaps are quickly becoming an endangered species - Guiding Light is no more, As The World Turns is on its last legs, OLTL and DOOL seem to be living on borrowed time. Even the once-mighty General Hospital feels the sting. All My Children? It's so bad that it probably should be cancelled, but it would seem ABC is trying to breathe new life into it with a move to the west coast. Only The Young and the Restless, maintains a solid hold on a substantial chunk of daytime viewers who come for great writing, acting and production values. People are lazy about changing the channel - that can be the only reasonable explanation for the success of The Bold and The Beautiful: a hot mess lucky enough to air on CBS and keep most of the audience that tunes in for Y&R. Soaps as we know them are in danger of disappearing, entirely. How are the people who make their living in daytime drama reacting to what would seem to be pretty clear writing on the wall?

The Birth of the Web-Based Serial Drama

There's an announcement almost every day about a soap actor's plans to launch his or her own web-based series. Melody Thomas Scott has announced plans for such a show. Martha Byrne has secured a deal with Nicole Miller, filmed her first season of Gotham, edited it, and announced a premiere date and a free-to-view format. Crystal Chappell has filmed her first season of Venice, released a series of high-quality publicity stills, and promises an unlikely launch in November (unlikley because it's already November, the Venice website still looks like the amateur hour, there's no sponsorship, and no payment scheme has been announced, yet.) GL's Remy, Lawrence Saint Victor, quietly wrote, starred in and produced a relationship-focused comedy series which launched yesterday. Noel Coward has nothing to worry about, but Wed-Locked isn't anywhere near as bad as I thought it would be.

Guiding Light, it would seem, brought out the worst in Saint Victor: Remy was among the worst and most dull characters to grace daytime, and Saint Victor's performance was laughable. In fairness to him, he had crap to work with. The first segment of Wed-Locked doesn't make me think Saint Lawrence is the new Brando, but it does make me think he has the potential to eventually become a solid writer of light romantic comedy. It also makes me think that network television has ignored a completely viable alternative to game shows and "reality" shows, such as Judge Judy, Judge Mathis, or any of the other small claims court programs: the anthology series.

From 1969 until 1974, ABC aired an enormously popular anthology series called Love, American Style. LAS was an hour-long, night time series. Each episode consisted of three or four vignettes - light-hearted, self-contained, little movies that usually focused on the trials and tribulations of romance. From time to time, these vignettes would revolve around other subject matter - family love, for instance. Gary Marshall's phenomenally successful television show, Happy Days, started out as an LAS vignette in much the same way The Simpsons started out as a regular skit on The Tracy Ullman Show. LAS had a core of regular actors who would play different characters in different situations every week, as well as guest stars who did one-off appearances.

The first segment of Lawrence Saint Victor's Wed-Locked immediately made me think of Love, American Style. It isn't so much hilarious or witty as light-hearted, inoffensive, and good-natured. I honestly don't think there's enough there to sustain a full-blown series. I also don't believe it will gain enough popularity online to garner funding from sponsors or convince viewers to pay to view it. I can't imagine people will rush out to buy Wed-Locked merchandise. I do, however, think Saint Victor has successfully produced something we haven't seen in a long time: a light-hearted, self-contained, little movie about the ups and downs of romantic love. He's produced a classic Love, American Style vignette, and the television networks should sit up and pay attention.

Studies show that our attention spans are shorter than they used to be. Americans are more likely to sit down and pay attention to 8-10 minute bytes than we are to 30 minute or hour-long episodes. The time for the light-hearted anthology program may well be here, once again.

Why Do It?

There are many reasons the networks should consider this model, including:

• No one really wants another game show or courtroom show.
• There is nothing even remotely like this on television, today.
• An anthology series would be significantly less expensive to shoot than a daily soap.
• Unlike soaps, an anthology series would not require 250+ episodes a year. Such a series could be produced just as night time series are filmed: a 13 week cycle, followed by a hiatus, during which reruns air.
• Such a show going into perpetual syndication is a realistic possibility. Ka-ching!
• A small core of contract actors, and a revolving door of guest stars, who would be basically day players, would mean spending only a fraction of the amount of money networks now spend on large casts consisting of contract actors.
• Daytime viewers like and are used to continuity - employing familiar soap actors and former soap actors would draw an audience.
• The anthology model lends itself to wide cultural diversity.
• An anthology series could include comedy, drama, tragedy, action - the sky's the limit.
• Sets for such a series could be relatively simple and inexpensive: the segment of Wed-Locked took place in a very plain room that was meant to be a counselor's office.
• There could be countless opportunities for product placement - very attractive to sponsors.
• An anthology series could serve as a testing ground for concepts for tv series. In much the way Love, American Style launched Happy Days, a new anthology series could be a vehicle by which ideas are tested on the public - a lot cheaper and more efficient than shooting and airing full pilots.
• Unlike soaps, which require a certain amount of long-term investment, anyone could start watching an anthology series at any time. Soaps are usually all or nothing: if viewers can't watch five days a week, they don't watch, at all. Not so for an anthology series.

But, What About Soaps?

I do believe that the web is where the future of serial drama lives. I'm looking forward to finding out what Gotham is all about, and I'll be happy to give Venice a go. I watched season one of Empire: The Series, and thought it showed great promise - the premise is a great one, but it needs better writing and some money poured into sets and, in most cases, stronger actors. But the folks putting it together really understand soap opera structure, and it shows. I hope Empire gets some backing, because it represents the most significant and complete attempt at capturing the flavor of old-school soap opera for the web.

I also think day time television is left with a gap - a gap that an anthology series could easily fill. Someone at CBS needs to give Lawrence Saint Victor a call and give him a chance at this sort of programming. It may well be his calling, both as an actor and a writer.

The Genoa City Conventions

The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties and three additional protocols that set the standards in international law for humanitarian treatment of the victims of war. The treaties of 1949 have been ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 194 countries.

We have rules for war, and I say it's high time we had similar rules for daytime soap writers. If the executives of all three major networks would just agree to a set of rules designed to minimize the amount of pain inflicted on the viewing audience, wouldn't we all be a lot happier?

The Genoa City Conventions

1. Seeing as daytime soaps are somewhat formulaic, it's to be expected that plot lines and twists will be dusted off and re-used from time to time. The Genoa City Conventions state that no hackneyed plot may be used on one soap during the same period of time it is being used by another soap, even a soap on another network. There shall be a minimum waiting period of three months before resurrecting such a plot twist. Case in point: Y&R is now running a baby swtich story line (first made generally popular by OLTL during the early 1980s.) According to the Conventions, no other daytime drama may run a baby switch story line until three months after Y&R's baby switch initially took place.

2. The Genoa City Conventions put an end, once and for all, to storylines that involve blood relatives engaging in sexual activity. A character's ignorance about his or her identity cannot be used as an excuse: if two characters are related by blood, there will be NO intimacy of the romantic variety. You hear that, Devon and Tyra?

3. Soap writers are bound, by the Genoa City Conventions, to provide all gay characters with adult relationships, complete with physical intimacy and sex. These do not have to be healthy relationships, and the characters do not have to be likable. But they have to be involved in semi- realistic relationships that provide on-screen equity with heterosexual characters.

4. The Genoa City Conventions ban the use of the supernatural as a plot device. No more demonic posessions, no more Ouija boards, no more "Opal has a bad feeling about all of this." These shows started out about people in realistic, even mundane, situations - the Conventions demand a return to this. Good, well-written stories about relationships, children, friendship, and business will always trump spooky music, crappy special effects, and Diedre Hall wearing red contact lenses. This rule also bans the use of time travel as a plot device.

5. The Conventions clearly state that, in order for soap writers to embark upon a murder mystery plot, they must verify that viewers will actually care "who done it."

6. The Conventions forbid soap writers from writing off major/legacy characters without explanation or reasonable on-screen fanfare and farewells. This rule shall henceforth be known as The Brooke English Provision.

7. The Conventions require soap writers acknowledge race and ethnicity, especially when casting babies and children. This rule (The Baby Castillo Ruling) addresses a disturbing pandemic: white character marries hispanic character and they give birth to a blonde, blue-eyed baby. "Never again," say the Genoa City Conventions.

8. The Genoa City Conventions place a strict limit on the number of secret children any soap character may have. No character shall have any more than three people come foreward and be proven to be his or her secret love children.

9. No character shall return from the dead more than twice. In the event a character has died and his or her dead body has actually been seen, there shall be no ressurection, at all.

10. The Genoa City Conventions strictly forbid the use of giant, talking rodents, in any capacity.

© 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

We've Come A Long Way, Baby?

I'm just old enough to remember a time when cigarette ads still aired on television. I'm also just old enough to remember when the phrase "women's lib" became mainstream enough for advertisers to pick up on it and recognize the "liberated woman" as a potential demographic for certain products that had traditionally been considered to be the domain of male consumers. One ad campaign that stands out in my mind is the one for Virginia Slims cigarettes.

The premise of the Virginia Slims ads - both the tv commercials and the print ad campaign - was that, among the freedoms newly liberated women could and should enjoy, was the freedom to smoke cigarettes. The print ads would feature two photos. The first photo would be a b&W or sepia-tone image, depicting an "old time" scene of a Victorian woman having to hide to enjoy a good smoke, and invariably being found out and publicly humiliated. The second photo would be a color image of a gorgeous, hip, fashionable, modern woman (usually a super model, such as Cheryl Tiegs or Christina Ferrari) openly enjoying a drag on a long, glamorous Virginia Slims cigarette. The campaign slogan? "You've come a long way, baby!"

A novel concept: consuming carcinogens and buying into the tobacco industry's big lie as a feminst statement! Was this really what the Women's Liberation Movement was all about? According to Madison Avenue, it certainly was.

Note: A whole montage of Virginia Slims TV commercials is available for free viewing and download. A must for anyone interested in advertising trends, marketing directed at women, and the media's tendency to get the whole point of feminism wrong every, single time.

Another Liberation Movement

On the weekend of October 11/12, tens of thousands of gays and lesbians descended on our nation's capitol to protest blatant, government sanctioned discrimination and make a profound statement: ENOUGH. We have had enough of waiting, enough of having to hide, enough of hearing about young queers whose shame has driven them to suicide, enough of gay-bashing, enough of paying our taxes and serving in the military and contributing to society and still being denied our civil rights.

Ever since the Stonewall riot, gays and lesbians in America have been staging a liberation movement. The march on Washington D.C. in early October was the loudest, proudest organized gathering of queers the nation has seen. It received widespread media coverage. A-list celebrities were on hand not just for photo ops, but to vocalize their support. America's gay rights movement has evolved from a handful of pissed off patrons of a local gay bar to a national phenomena. In this respect, we really have come a long way, and Madison Avenue started courting the Pink Dollar long ago. What, though, is the struggle all about? What freedoms are we really fighting for?

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

Gays and lesbians have the attention of the mainstream media. If ever America were poised to hear what we have to say, and what freedoms we demand, that time is now. But what are these freedoms? As someone who identifies as both a lesbian and a feminist I know the freedoms I place the highest value on are about full inclusion and representation, official and significant recognition of my relationship, and protection under the law. I also place great value on the freedom to be out and proud, without fear of violence or recrimination.

I've known enough chauvinistic dykes to know that not all lesbians are feminists. I know it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. When I see the little bit of freedom and visibility the lesbian community has managed to secure being squandered on desperate challenges to a soap opera star to pose in her underwear, it kills me a little bit inside. Is this really what being an out and proud lesbian in 2009 is about? Begging a heterosexual woman to send a tweet, show some skin, play along and pretend she's a team player for just a little bit longer? Is this in any way different from the sleazy guy who shoves a dollar bill in the g-string of some down-and-out single mom, and reckons it buys him the right to cop a feel? If so, if this is what gay liberation is all about, then the only conclusion I can draw is that the Women's Liberation Movement and the Gay Rights Movement are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist.

I refuse to believe this.

The Gay Rights Movement I'm a part of isn't any more about defending the rights of lesbians to act like twelve year old boys in their objectification of heterosexual women than the Women's Liberation Movement was about defending the right to become unwitting victims of the tobacco industry. Madison Avenue, Hollywood and network television will almost certainly cheapen whatever strides the gay and lesbian community makes. The idea that factions of the lesbian community seem more than willing to help them in this sickens me. The idea that factions of the lesbian community are so comfortable behaving in ways that the Women's Liberation Movement has rallied against makes my blood boil. This is true: people have died defending the rights of both women and homosexuals. To what end?

If this is what Stonewall has ultimately resulted in, have we really come a long way, baby?

Superhero Lunchbox Shop

Superhero Lunchbox gear is now available

A Sign Of The Times

Several Y&R cast members were asked their opinions about the recent turn of events involving Eric Braeden, and resulting in his walking away from the pivotal role of Victor Newman. The comments were posted yesterday on soap website Daytime Confidential. For the most part, there were few surprises: long time cast member (and constant gentleman) Kristoff St. John exhibiting a fair balance of class and diplomacy, respectful newbie Daniel Goddard walking on eggshells so as not to rock the boat, fan favorite Sharon Chase providing a sane, rational assessment of the situation, recognizing that budget cuts do, indeed, need to be made, but stressing that they should be made wisely. The one truly shocking statement came from the most unlikely source, the cast member who is quite possibly the least qualified to pass judgement on another actor: Adrienne Frantz, who plays the role of Amber.

Here is what Frantz has to say:

"They are cutting contracts all around. I mean everybody has to bite the bullet. It’s not like anyone gets special treatment. If you don’t want to play fair with everyone, then don’t play. If you want to step out…. everybody is dealing with the same stuff. So if anybody thinks they are better than anyone else, then they should leave if they want to. It’s a cast. We are all working together. We are all working our hardest to make it go, and if you don’t want to work with everyone than you are not helping."

Really, Adrienne? Really?

Paying Your Dues

It's clear that Frantz has, in a fit of misplaced hubris, imagined herself on par with Eric Braeden. She clearly sees herself as his equal in terms of the effort she has put in to make Y&R a success, and overall importance in the show's #1 status. Someone give this self-important, delusional idiot a bang on the head with the Reality Stick. Better yet, sit her down and make her watch a few clips of Eric Braeden in action, followed by a few clips of her own "work", as she awkwardly stumbles over lines, muddles through ridiculous story lines that no one cares about, and generally ruins the landscape of Genoa City.

Even if Adrienne Frantz were the finest of young actors - say, an Elizabeth Hendrickson (Chloe) - comments such as these would be way out of line. In most work places seniority carries a certain amount of significance, and it's not because of age, but because of experience. The new guy on the assembly line would be remiss to try and tell the veteran how to do his job or how to talk to the foreman. The rookie cop, if he has any sense and decorum, doesn't walk into the squad room and criticize his commanding officer's attitude. The young soap actor - even the best young actor - does not walk onto the set of the #1 show and pass judgement on the veteran cast member who has fairly carried the show for over 20 years, and imply that she is his equal. Even the best young actor hasn't paid her dues and earned to right to pass such judgement in so public a fashion. If Jeanne Cooper wanted to make such a comment about Eric Braeden? Fair enough. Of course, fans of Cooper know that she is too much of a class act, too much of a professional, to even go there. But she could, if she wanted to. She's more than paid her dues and put in her time. Jeanne Cooper truly is Eric Braeden's peer.

Adrienne Frantz is no Jeanne Cooper. Adrienne Frantz is no Elizabeth Hendrickson. Adrienne Frantz is no Sharon Chase or Kristoff St. John. Adrienne Frantz isn't even a Daniel Goddard. Adrienne Frantz isn't much of anything. She's daytime's answer to Pia Zadora. Adrienne Frantz is a talentless, boring, annoying woman who has the screen presence of a test pattern and is about as compelling to watch as a PSA from The Emergency Broadcasting System. In fact, her voice and mannerisms are about as grating on the ears and eyes as the high-pitched EBS hum. Frantz' character on Y&R is an insult to women - a blonde bimbo throwback to the days when such stereotypes were acceptable. Her audacious comments about Eric Braeden shed light on how she even landed the role: she's clearly not acting like a crass, dopey, immature fool, she is one.

Grow the fuck up, Adrienne Frantz. What Eric Braeden expects and asks for isn't "special treatment." He wants and expects to be treated in a way anyone who has put in his dues deserves to be treated. If you think he's acting like a star, you're mistaken: he's not acting. He is a star. People tune in to watch Victor Newman - to find out what he'll do next. How many tune in and wait with bated breath to find out what Amber has up her sleeve? How many years have you lead Y&R to the number one ratings spot? And, if you think you win because you're still on the cast, while Braeden has walked away, you're an even bigger fool than I'd imagined. You're still around because you're cheap labor, and Sony has clearly decided to do away with the hand-crafted model of production, and move towards the unskilled-labor-in-a-sweatshop model of production. Eric Braeden is a skilled journeyman. You're some guy they picked up at a Home Depot parking lot who's working under the table.

For your viewing pleasure - the woman who will carry CBS' The Young and the Restless, once Eric Braeden is gone. Soak it in, and remind yourself that she's "working her hardest to make it go..."

Mad Men, Mad Times: Art Imitates Life

"It's makes me wonder about civil rights. Maybe it's not supposed to happen right now."

On tonight's episode of Mad Men, this was Betty's comment to Carla, the black house servant. They were discussing the 1963 bombing of a church in Birmingham that left four little girls dead. Four murdered children, and Betty's response wasn't about finding the murderer or drawing a line once and for all on hate crime and racism. Betty, an ultra-privileged white woman living the American Dream instead questioned if the time was right for "negroes" to get a little bit of equity. Maybe, the implication was, black America should just wait.

If this business of suggesting that the disenfranchised not make so much noise and piss off their oppressors sounds like a deja vu it might be because serendipity called for Mad Men to air on the night of the day that tens of thousands of gays and lesbians marched on Washington to demand their basic civil rights. It's also the day after our president, Barack Obama, made a speech before the Human Rights Campaign in which he spoke vaguely and without commitment about his intention to champion equal rights for gays and lesbians in the United States.

If you're anything like me, you found Betsy's "Maybe it's not supposed to happen right now" appalling, and all too familiar. By her twisted, privileged logic, those four little girls from Birmingham died not because of the murderous act of a cowardly bigot, but because of the black community's impatience. Betty believes in desegregation in theory but, really, how dare they expect equity a mere 100 years after the civil war!

This is exactly the sentiment Barak Obama puts forth every time he talks about his deep and abiding belief, in theory, in equal rights for gays and lesbians: sure, you queers deserve some satisfaction, but not right now...and the more you hem and haw about it, the more problems you're going to cause for yourselves.

When Obama says that he intends to do away with the military's Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy, but wriggles his way out of committing to a time line he's echoing Betty Draper's half-assed, not-in-my neighborhood brand of liberalism. In 2009, looking back at this logic in action in 1962 on a fictional television drama is appalling. Seeing it in action today, in real life, and from the leader of the most powerful nation in the world? Unacceptable.

© 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

Thank you to FlyingPeanuts for use of her photo.

Y&R part 2: What the hell are you doing?

In Y&R, CBS has the top-rated daytime drama, a huge and loyal following, an amazing cast, and writers who truly understand the genre and it's compexities. Writing for a show that airs five days a week, 52 weeks a year is vastly different than writing for the big screen, or for a weekly series. The pace is different. The level of relationship fans form with their favorite characters is different. In many ways, the daytime serial is as close to real time as drama can ever be. The writers of Y&R get all of this, and they mostly do a great job. At the moment, they're writing some of the best stuff seen on daytime in well over ten years.

So, what do you do when you've got a certified hit on your hands? A show that no one can even come close to, in terms of ratings or quality? Most people would pay attention to this success, try and figure out what the strongest assets are, and make use of them. CBS? CBS decides to mess with a good thing.

All Roads Lead To Victor

I know there are some people who disagree with me, but here's my take on Y&R: It's all about Victor Newman. Every relevant character, every story line worth watching right now, is connected to Victor. Take Victor out of the mix, and everything good about Y&R falls apart. Without Victor, there is no reason for Nikki to even exist. Without Victor, not one bit of Adam's story line means a thing and, in fact, Adam, himself, becomes irrelevant. Jack's sole reason for existing is his rivalry with Victor. Without Victor, Jack has no foil, Ashley has no great, star-crossed love, and Kay has no peer. Without Victor, Newman Industries becomes an empty shell, and Jabot, which only really exists to compete against Newman, becomes a ghost town. Without Victor, Michael doesn't have a client anyone gives a damn about, making both him and Lauren obsolete. Without Victor, Jack and Nick don't really have any differences, and are left with civility between them. Without Victor, Gloria has no one to grovel to, Paul has no one to constantly be suspicious of/work for. Without Victor, CBS' The Young and the Restless becomes a show where the main stories are Amber/Daniel/Kevin and some annoying art heist, Lily and Cain's boring marriage, Jill still acting like a petulant child around Kay, and Nick singing the 70s hit, "Torn Between Two Lovers.". That's it. Thats what's left if Victor leaves Genoa City.

I have no problem admitting that I love Victor Newman. He's the perfect soap opera character: a man who does terrible things, all the while believing he's being perfectly fair and just. He's a tyrant. He's a charmer. He's a controlling, egotistical son-of-a-bitch. I love him. He's been described as "the man every woman wants and every man wants to be." I don't know how true that is, but I do know that Victor Newman is the draw for many Y&R fans, including heterosexual men.

Soaps have long been the domain of women and gay men, but Victor Newman long ago made it perfectly acceptable for straight men to watch daytime television. I read a story, years ago, in Sports Illustrated, about a-day-in-the-life of the average NFL player. An integral part of the day for many NFL players, it turns out, is the hour set aside to watch Y&R. Players interviewed for the article pointed to Victor Newman as the reason Y&R was the show for them. Professional athletes who are fans of Y&R and Victor Newman include: Football players Boss and Champ Bailey, and Brett Favre, basketball player Patrick Ewing, and baseball players Dave Roberts, and Jim Rice.

Victor Newman is, in many ways, the glue that holds Genoa City together. And Eric Braeden is Victor Newman.

Daytime Suicide

If you had a certified hit on your hands, and there was good reason to believe that one actor was responsible for a significant amount of that show's success, wouldn't you treat that actor well, keep him happy, and do what needed to be done to keep him around? I would. CBS, however, doesn't seem to think this is the best tactic. What they've chosen to do, instead, is invoke a clause which allows them to renegotiate an actor's contract every 26 weeks, and insist Braeden take a significant pay cut. Is this legal? Definitely. Is it a respectful way to treat an actor who has made the network tens of millions of dollars over the years? No. Is it good business? Definitely not: where he was clearly expected to timidly agree to terms posed by CBS, Braeden has instead chosen to hold his own and walk away from Y&R and Genoa City.

If CBS was trying to force their strongest link to to break, they've failed miserably. Eric Braeden, it turns out, is a lot more like Victor Newman than anyone at CBS thought he was. This isn't some 20 year old cupcake with no talent, no experience, and nothing to fall back on. This is an actor who has made sure he's remained recognizable to a wide range of viewers through television and film work spanning nearly 50 years. His recent interview with TV Guide makes it clear that he is not afraid to speak out, and that paying him so little respect has clearly been a mistake on the part of CBS.

What the hell are you doing?

Seriously, who makes these decisions at CBS, and what the hell are they doing? Someone get this guy a noose or a bottle of pills - faster is better, when it comes to suicide. Whoever you are, making all these crappy decisions, I have a message for you: If you need to save some money, why not cut fat, instead of meat? Instead of fixing what isn't broken, why not look at some of the weak links at Y&R? What if, instead of demanding Braeden take a pay cut mid-contract, you just wrap up the art heist crapfest, and have Kevin, Amber, Daniel and Kevin's annoying wife leave town for good? Surely, getting rid of four younger actors that no one cares about or follows makes more sense than gutting the core of Genoa City by forcing the hand of the actor that so many viewers enjoy, and doing away with the character who serves as a crucial linchpin to so many stories that viewers do care about and follow. But, wait - why would you consider this logical move? You're the same guys who decided to destroy every ounce of good will Guiding Light created with the LGBT community - a significant demographic with tons of spending power - by neutering Otalia. It's clear that idiots are running the show at CBS.

FUCBS Redux

Fans of Guiding Light spent the summer repeating this mantra: FUCBS. It would seem the network is hell-bent on pissing off as many viewers as possible. Not satisfied with canceling the lowest rated soap - a show with a loyal following and a significant place in television history - they've aimed for a loftier goal: pissing off viewers of the top rated daytime drama. Well done - especially since CBS has ranked 8th in a list of major American corporations at risk of falling into bankruptcy. CBS, of course, vehemently denies they are in financial trouble. Why, then, would they even consider invoking the 26 week rule with their most popular daytime actor? Bankruptcy is clearly looming overhead, and no one in a position of power seems to have an ounce of common sense.

Unless there are further developments in the near future, Eric Braeden's final scenes air in early November. I've been a fan of Y&R since the 70s. After Braeden takes a bow, and it becomes the full-blown Amber Show (despite the fact that I have yet to meet a single Y&R viewer who can even stomach this character) I won't be watching, anymore.

Once again: FUCBS.

NOTE: As has been pointed out by a sharp reader, this should really be a FU to Sony, who owns Y&R and who Braeden, himself names as the corporation that has treated him so poorly. So, yes, FU SONY. But FUCBS, anyhow.

Next - Y&R part 3: Where are the strong black characters? Bring back Dru!

Y&R Part 1: This is How You Do It

This will be short and sweet (as opposed to part 2, which will be long and bitter), because the clip speaks for itself.

For a gazillion years, The Young and the Restless has held the top ratings spot for daytime. It's an excellent show with great acting, wonderful writing, great sets, fine production values, and a healthy respect for history and continuity. As I've written in the past, every episode of Y&R is like a mini movie. The sets, the camera work, the blocking, the high def, the sound track, the acting and writing - they're a winning combination.

Anyone who watched October 5th's episode was treated to a little taste of classic soap opera - soap opera the way it used to be, when soaps were truly great. Picture it: evil Victor Newman about to receive a heart transplant from the virtuous, young Colleen Carlton, whose death he is partially responsible for. Every major character in Genoa City is present. Three generations of Newmans and Abbotts. Kay Chancellor. Nikki Reade. Emotions run high. As the episode winds down to the last few moments, the old school Y&R theme begins to play. No dialogue. This is what a hospital set should look like. This is what tight editing looks like. This is what an umbrella story line is all about. This, people, is how it's done.

Next time - Y&R part 2: What the hell are you doing?

On Same-Sex Marriage: An Open Letter to Rosa Parks

Court dismisses suit by lesbian who couldn’t see dying partner at Hospital

Rosa Louise McCauley Parks (February 4, 1913 – October 24, 2005) was an African American civil rights activist whom the U.S. Congress eventually called the "Mother of the Modern-Day Civil Rights Movement". On December 1, 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks refused to obey bus driver James Blake's order that she give up her seat to make room for a white passenger.

In 1960 four black freshmen from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College in Greensboro strolled into the F. W. Woolworth store and quietly sat down at the "whites only" lunch counter. They were not served, but they stayed until closing time.

Dear Miss Parks:

Didn't anyone tell you that the seats in the back of the bus are identical to the ones in the front? That they're made of the same fiberglass and vinyl? That seats in the front have old pieces of chewing gum stuck underneath them, just like the seats in the back? That neither seat is particularly comfortable for your back after a long day's work?

Didn't anyone every tell you these things, Miss Parks? Didn't you know?

Someone must have mentioned it, but there you were, pushing your uppity self onto the bus and sitting right down in the front. In a seat that wasn't meant for you. In a seat that was meant for someone else. Someone who had a right to it. What could you have been thinking, Miss Parks?

And there's another thing, Miss Parks. While we're at it, I feel compelled to point out that the food served at the Woolworth's lunch counter was not all that, Miss Parks. Maybe, in fact, probably, there was some negro restaurant right there in Selma or Mobile or Montgomery that served better food than anything they ever even thought to serve at the Woolworth's counter. And I bet a person could get a better milkshake, too. Didn't anyone tell those young people that making a big stink over those seats at the counter was a waste of time? That there was perfectly good food to be had in the colored section of town? Why, then? Why sit down and demand to be served? What did they have to gain?

President Obama opposes same-sex marriage, but supports the idea of civil unions that provide same-sex couples with the same rights as marriage. Let's ignore the fact that civil unions do not, in fact, provide same-sex couples with the immigration protections and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy, or that a little something called Social Security is a federal program which does not recognize civil unions. Let's not even get into the 1,100+ federal programs that pertain only to male/female couples who are legally married, and not to people in civil unions. Let's ignore the lie about civil unions being almost exactly like marriage in every way. Because, you know what? Even if that were true, "almost" is not good enough, anyhow.

Let's instead, think about another right. Maybe voting. How would it be if one group (I don't know, white men, maybe) had always been denied the right to vote ? And then, as a concession, the new president stated that he felt white men should have all the same basic rights as everyone else, except, techincally, for the right to vote. Let's pretend that, instead, the new president would like to set it up where white men could "opinionate" on election day. In other words, when all the rest of the world was voting, white men could stand on line to "opinionate." Their votes wouldn't really count, in terms of really swaying anything. And the rest of the world would still be the only ones allowed to actually vote. In all other ways, though - standing in line, getting into a booth, having confidentiality - in those ways, voting and "opinionating" would be exactly the same. And when white men had kids, if their kids were boys, they'd have to tell them that, one day, when they were old enough, they could, of course, "opinionate", but not vote. Because voting was for everyone else. For girls. And black people. And Hispanics. God, after all, wants it that way, they'd have to explain. And, really, "opinionating" is almost exactly like voting. Would that feel very nice? Would it be fair? Would that tiny difference in rights seem irrelevant and insignificant? Would it be fair to say that the little white male child who has just found out he can never vote still has all the same opportunities as every other child? That he can still dream and hope for the same things?

I don't think so.

The minute a person - child or adult - finds out that there are very real limits, due to discrimination, to what he or she can actually hope to achieve in life, things change.

I did not grow up dreaming about marriage. Lots of people do, though. And they should be allowed that dream. Even if they're queer. Liberal straight people, who don't want to find fault with the presidential candidate they fawned over in so many shows of political correctness, liberal straight people who are still basking in the self-congratulatory afterglow of the inauguration love to spew the neat, little lie that civil unions are exactly the same as marriage, and every bit as good. And then most of them run out and get married. Funny that!

And really, how dare anyone say it's not a big deal, or that civil unions are almost exactly the same as marriage, or that gays are making a big deal over something irrelevant. Especially a mixed race president - the product of a marriage that, not so long ago in American history, would have been illegal.

How dare anyone who enjoys a privilege take it for granted in such a cavalier way, when others hope and pray for that same, basic privilege to be theirs before they die. When thinking about why the right to marry is important to same sex couples in America, think about Miss Rosa Parks. Civil rights pioneer. Warrior. Stroppy woman.

On December 1, 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks refused to obey bus driver James Blake's order that she give up her seat to make room for a white passenger. Later, recognized as the mother of the American civil rights movement, she noted,

"People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day.....the only tired I was, was tired of giving in."

Getting a seat on the bus was not what the greater civil rights movement was about in America. Getting a husband or wife isn't really what the gay rights movement is about. Miss Rosa Parks didn't care about that seat on the bus - that front seat that was almost exactly like the back seats. She saw the bus rules as a festering symptom of a greater systemic injustice.

Those seats in the front of the bus were not all that comfortable, and they were made of the same stuff as the seats on the back of the bus, but you sure as hell wouldn't tell that to Miss Rosa Parks. Nor should any of us have the audacity.

© 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