|
|
|
I had a hell of a time starting this. When I sit down to write, in the silence needed to gather my thoughts and maintain my concentration, the first couple of sentences are the hardest to get onto the computer screen. But within minutes and sometimes seconds they come, and then I’m off to the races. Writing under the glow of a single lamplight, the words and phrases and ideas begin to flow, tumbling out one over the other, sometimes way too fast, without regard to order, or logic, or how fast I can type. But eventually, after getting it all down and editing it repeatedly, I end up with another long (some would say way too long) critique of our beloved show, As the World Turns. But this week I sat at my desk staring at a blank computer screen, waiting for an idea or thought to mold itself into a beginning. What idea, what concept, would I use as the umbrella for this critique? I thought I might address change, how ATWT has in a matter of a few months gone from horrible to fantastic. I thought I might question how the impact of one person, in this case head writer Hogan Sheffer, could be so profound. I considered an essay on how Sheffer, coming into the daytime medium with no background in soap opera storytelling, has demonstrated a remarkable grasp of the serial formula. I considered questioning the quality of ATWT, not how good I’m finding it now, but rather if it really was as bad as I thought during former head writer Leah Laiman’s reign. Because if it was that bad. . .and my memory still serves me well and it WAS that bad. . .how could Sheffer turn things around so quickly, so neatly, using practically the same set of breakdown and dialogue writers Laiman used? Sheffer elevated the quality, the depth, the overall composition of ATWT with relative ease, as if erasing lines and scribbles off a blackboard and replacing it with a picture painted in beautiful multi-colored brushstrokes. But none of those ideas. . .try as I might to wring a paragraph out of a few sentences. . .none of those ideas jelled. Why now? Why now, when ATWT is so good and getting better and better, am I having trouble starting a critique? It’s not that I have less to say. It’s not that I don’t welcome the chance to praise my favorite show. In fact, the feeling I get from throwing kudos around goes beyond welcoming into something that’s a mixture of pride, excitement, and gratitude to Executive Producer Christopher Goutman and Hogan Sheffer. The only thing I can point to with any certainty is. . .contentment. In the past, it was easy to find a starting point because, in a way, I felt as if I had a mission. To put it at it’s most basic and crude, ATWT sucked! And I wanted, needed. . .demanded. . . change. We all did! And the only way I figured change would come was for me to speak out through words and to do so insistently and persistently. Now ATWT is riding a wave of excellence that is refreshing, exciting, and promising. I am watching with a renewed combination of anticipation and enthusiasm and hope that I not too long ago feared had been snuffed out like the flame of a candle between two moistened fingers. So I ask again: Why was I stuck in the figurative starting gate of composition this week, ready to write, wanting to write, but unable to begin? The urgency I had in times past, times of poorer quality and lackluster storytelling has been replaced by the contendedness that comes when you feel secure enough in something (or someone) to place your trust in his hands. I love praising As the World Turns, but unfortunately the call to write accolades does not quite carry with it the persistent (and often inspiring) call to action that occurs when things aren’t good and you’re desperate for change. The editor of Soap Opera Weekly has commented more than once that when the viewers are enjoying a show, or when a show is experiencing a prolonged resurgence in quality, the quantity of mail received by the magazine about that show drops. Conversely, discontentment breeds action, which fills up mailboxes, or, in our case, postings on Media Domain. I’m enjoying ATWT very much these days. So much so that I just want to sit back with a wide smile of optimism and enjoy watching quality programming, hoping it will continue indefinitely. I feel like we, the audience, deserve this after a year of story crap and drivel. And so what if I had trouble finding a starting point to begin telling you how good ATWT is! Hey, maybe that IS the starting point! ATWT is good. Very good. You can see the storylines unfolding on ATWT with an assuredness missing the past year. They’re unfolding slowly, perhaps too slowly for some, but not for me. Former head writer Leah Laiman’s writing lacked the character motivation and background the stories needed for foundational support. Sheffer and Goutman are putting it in place retroactively and that takes time. Nonetheless, you can feel ATWT moving forward, each component of story tying into another or leading a plot in a new direction. Nothing seems done without a reason. People aren’t just thrown together without story to see if they click. For example, there’s a reason Katie has been woven into Craig’s world beyond their fraternal connection and in time, it will be revealed. Ben and Isaac are slowly working their way to each other, even if they're not sure how to go about it. "Why you two act so weird around each other?" Curtis asked Ben on Friday, underscoring what was playing out on screen. There is purpose in each pairing or grouping of characters on the show. A function is being served beyond the story. Many of Laiman's pairings failed (e.g., Chris/Abigail, Jake/Julia, Isaac/Camille) not because she didn't have the acting talent to bring the story to life. It was that there was *no* story for the actors to breathe life into. So you've got two angry brothers, Ben and Isaac. Well, what brings them together? And what makes them want to come together? You gotta have story, big and small, to support each character interaction, and Sheffer is providing it. Better writing and quality story require something from the viewer: attention and patience. In the past, I could tune out some or most of a scene and not worry about missing much. The dialogue was often repetitive, there was lots of shouting and cutesy banter, and there was no character development. Now, you can’t do that. Character development and motivation often need time to set up and show. Therefore, you won’t have wham, bam action and lots of movement every day of the week. Good writing requires interaction and discussion and that is what is happening on ATWT now. After the initial exhileration of seeing Sheffer pick up Laiman’s stories and breathe new life into them (climaxing the Lily/Simon island story and setting it on its next arc and also climaxing Katie’s plot to destroy Molly) the show has settled nicely into providing daily episodes of good dialogue, steady plot movement, and character development. It’s a sad comment to have to state that this type of quality, solid storytelling is a big risk in a world where instant gratification rules. Practically gone are the days where a storyline has a one or two year arc. Now soap executives think in terms of 3 month or 6 month story arcs and “hooks” to hold the viewers’ interest so that the hand never touches the remote. Sheffer is boldly stating that ATWT will be different. He will take his time. Sheffer will script wonderfully sweet and simple scenes such as Ben showing Curtis on Friday how to create a vacuum with a hard boiled egg, a match, and an empty milk carton, because through these scenes grow characters and their relationships. It also bonds the audience to the characters even as they bond among themselves. The Tuesday and Wednesday episodes were similarly structured. Almost every scene involved two people. (Tuesday: Lily/Simon; Emily/Chris; David/Julia; Rose/Holden. Wednesday: Julia/David; Emily/Chris; Emily/Molly; Molly/Jake; Isaac/Denise; Katie/Craig) Both days also featured basically one conversation between the various pairs stretched out over three or more scenes. Am I complaining? Not yet, and here’s why. The quality of writing can sustain this type of storytelling as long as it doesn’t become the norm. Yes. we need movement and multiple character interactions, and as long as the majority of days provide that, Sheffer’s style can easily accommodate shows where the interaction is done in couples. While it is a known fact that I detest episodes where one conversation is dragged out over five scenes, there’s a difference in Sheffer’s approach here as well. First of all, the conversation is not dragged down by repetitive and/or throwaway dialogue. I’ve yet to see one scene that is total filler or a throwaway. Each scene reveals a new component of the conversation, whether it be Isaac trying to convince Denise that Andy is faking his paralysis on Wednesday, or Craig testing the limits of Katie’s loyalty. Listen, and you’ll hear great insights into character and motivation. Isaac to Denise on Wednesday: “You like Andy’s money. You like his family. You like his life. The good life.” David to Julia on Wednesday when she asked why he was terrorizing her again. “Because I get off on it, Julia! Knowing you’ll do anything I say because of your deep-seeded desperation to hold on to a good man like Jack.” That’s good writing, folks, and excellent insight into character while continually defining and redefining it. In a sophisticated approach to plotting, Sheffer has reached into the past to embellish every unfolding story. For example, before Jake can move on with Molly, he must first revisit the past (his trip to Lassiter) while Molly waits for perhaps her first chance at real love and Emily, blond and beautiful, stands at the periphery waiting for an opportunity. Friday's episode featured a wonderful monologue as Jake spoke from the heart. The dialogue was significant not only for how beautifully it was written, but for the silences it held. Like former head writer Lorraine Broderick, Sheffer understands the power of a pause, of silence, of simplicity. And Tom Eplin approached his scenes with matching simplicity and gave perhaps his finest performance yet. The most moving moment? When Jake said he was having trouble saying goodbye, but "I'm learning to say hello." I also liked that the writers stayed away, at least for a while, from cliche. When Jake asked Vicky for "a sign", none came. Yet Friday's show ended rather bizarrely, and if the moving swing and misty voice of Vicky are a prelude of things to come, it's the only thing Sheffer has scripted so far that has me a little worried. Let’s explore another example in more detail. David was brought back to help bind and tie the loose ends of the horribly constructed Carly in Hong Kong story. In a terrific twist, it was revealed that Julia was directly involved in helping Winston locate Carly. Sheffer is slowly changing Julia’s character, or at the very least altering the accepted perception of her as a flawed heroine. On Friday, with Jack holding a towel covered in blood in front of her, Julia still tried to avoid total honesty with an explanation flavored with half truths, half lies. Clinging to Jack -- Don't ever let me go -- Julia was holding on, literally and figuratively, for dear life. That's the Sheffer difference and one that overwhelmingly makes for great story and character development: Sheffer shows and tells us the cause of every character’s actions. He doesn’t telegraph it in loudspeaker shouts of the obvious, so you have to watch and pay attention. But motivation is there and it’s repeated. Julia’s continuing insecurities about Jack’s love and Carly’s presence, even with that wedding ring on her finger and the accompanying name change, are consistently on display. The best example was on Monday. As Julia and Jack were about to leave the restaurant, Jack still transfixed on Carly, Julia held out her hand for Jack to take. Jack left the restaurant without even noticing, leaving Julia standing there alone, her hand outstretched. Julia even vocalized her insecurities earlier after Jack got the phone call summoning him to work. Julia to Jack: “Well, that’s okay. I’ve been alone most of the night anyway.” Jack and Julia’s Las Vegas wedding, with its wacky Elvis-inspired comical overtones, had a cloud of sadness hanging over it, a cloud that has contracted and remained over Julia ever since. Julia may have gotten what she wanted, but none of it is the way she wanted it. Credit Sheffer and the writers for that subtlety and trust them to provide a solid story, no matter what direction it goes. And what about those scenes between Julia and David on Tuesday and Wednesday? They should have been rewritten and reworked into fewer segments, even if those segments ran longer. It’s very difficult to sustain the moods of menace and intimidation throughout scene after scene involving emotions such as anger and fear. There was too much of David grabbing Julia roughly by the arm and Julia making half-hearted attempts to escape. A little of the emotional impact was lost, a little of the menance reduced, things that could have been avoided with fewer scenes more tightly scripted. However, Keith Coulouris and the exotically beautiful Annie Parisse were both very good. In fact, this two-day episode of scenes was a story arc within a story. It resulted in a small climax on Wednesday as Julia symbolically scrubbed out a spot of blood after returning home (a slight not to Shakespeare), so emotionally overwrought that she ended up sprawled on the floor crying, an excellent finale to that harrowing joyride of scenes. Iva has been woven into the Rose/Lily/Holden/Simon story. Now this plot, which for so long was about a diamond and not much else, is being centered in Snyder and Walsh history and the unfolding romantic yearnings. Lily told Simon on Tuesday that she needed to get away from Oakdale for a while so she could decide about her future. “Some people would say that you already know the answer,” Simon responded. “All you need now is the courage to follow your heart.” Sheffer never forgets that each story should, at its core, come from the heart. It’s fascinating watching all of this unfold, from Rose’s desperate attempts to reconnect with Holden (from the heart again), to Lucinda’s desire to reunite a fractured family (from the heart yet again). Anyone doubting that Sheffer has turned down the faucets of emotion even a quarter-turn need only recall Iva’s scenes last week (wonderfully played by Lisa Brown) as she learned she gave birth to twins. This week it was Lily’s turn to be rubbed emotionally raw, though it was mostly anger and an exasperated frustration that exploded from her. And if you really think about it, who can blame her? Sheffer has meticulously delineated all of Lily’s confusion and her disappointments. She returns to Oakdale to find her husband having lived with an imposter, her mother now allowing the imposter to live with her, and no one - husband, friends, family - realizing she had been gone for months. No wonder Lily feels so adrift. No wonder she clings to Simon as her lifeline. No wonder Lily wants to wash her hands of Rose. It’s too easy to dismiss Lily as spoiled or selfish, and Martha Byrne’s incredulous and strong performances as Lily play determinedly against it. Talk about rocking your world! Sheffer has turned Lily’s life upside down and inside out and the result has been a fascinating (if not far-fetched) look at family dynamics and intimacy I’m loving the pairing of Lily and Simon. Does that mean I’m no longer a Holden and Lily fan? Of course not! But I’m now also a Lily and Simon fan and I trust Sheffer and Goutman enough to let them take all these characters and explore them and build story around them. I don’t want to put preconceived roadblocks in front of our writers’ creativity. The brilliant Martha Byrne and the ever-sexy Paul Leyden have chemistry to spare. Their kisses have the hungry urgency of unconsumated passion. Stripped shirtless or covered in motor oil, Leyden is stud perfect for daytime. The writers must now move Leyden around the canvas of Oakdale. I know, I know! I say this in every critique. And I’m going to keep saying it until it happens. Integrating Simon into Oakdale doesn’t mean moving him out of the Lily/Holden/Rose/Simon story. That would be suicidal anyway. It doesn’t mean moving Simon away from Lily. At this juncture, that would be suicide attempt number two and would result in the loss of a lot of good future story. But Simon needs more of a connection to Oakdale than Lily Synder, and having him stuck in his hotel room is no different than having him stuck on that island. Simon needs activity, or else the character will become stagnant, even with solid and strong writing supporting this storyline. 1. I love the tug-of-war Craig and Lucinda are having over Bryant. Work at Worldwide in the mailroom? Work as a bartendar at Java Underground? What I'm waiting to see is the work Bryant will do to pit one against the other. 2. Sheffer’s main strength so far - and he has many - is character development. A few examples: --Under Sheffer, Lucinda has been reborn. Vital, powerful, forthright Lucinda has returned with a vengeance. And it's not all talk and no action this time. Sheffer finally has given Elizabeth Hubbard material that backs up all the words, words that in the past were merely posturing and empty threats. --Craig, played by the incomparable Hunt Block, is also another mountain of power. Block’s performance infuses Craig with strength and intimidation, alternatively bemused and dead serious at the goings on around him. Block has presence. He fills the room and draws your attention to him. He's the best addition to ATWT since Nick Kokotakis' sensitive gigolo Brad. --For the first time, I’m starting to warm up to Katie. Whether her evolvement is forward, or regression to her ways of the past -- that's Sheffer’s decision. But his pen has made the character infinitely more entertaining and mature. --Denise is better defined, as Sheffer has combined the street-tough of the past with her life in the present. Gone is the doormat rag doll that ping-ponged between Ben and Andy. 3. Who would have thought that the unlikely pairing of Emily and Chris would be so charming and sweet? It was inspired. Kelley Menighan-Hensley and Paul Korver have a gentle fluidity in their scenes, and they play off each other well. Korver’s solid, quiet, and boyish manner as Chris contrasts wonderfully with Menighan-Hensley’s brash, hard as a brick Emily. Emily finally has someone in her corner, someone she can truly trust, and it’s that undercurrent of trust and respect that ignites this pair. I still love Emily being inserted in the Jake and Molly romance, especially as she sometimes reminds Jake of Vicky. Let’s just say that Sheffer has an embarrassment of riches here with lots of directions to go.
Grade for the Week: A-
|
|
|