SON Community: cara mia - Viewing Profile

The New York Times' Bob Herbert has a terrific op-ed "Women at Risk" that's a must read. From his piece:

Quote

Herbert also distills clearly what defines misogyny:

Quote

There have been plenty of posts on this board about how misogynistic the soaps are, especially GH and Y&R. My question is why is misogyny considered entertainment? Can anyone explain this to me? The great Hollywood movies from the 30s and 40s showed women as strong, confident and equal to men. Why is that in 2009 we seem more backwards than we were in 1939?

Are the declining soap ratings a result of female viewers sick of misogynistic stories? Or is misogyny a "winning" formula for ratings?

Are soap writers simply a reflection of the culture we live in? It just seems like everything has devolved. Erica Kane could always take care of herself (Bears, beware!) but her daughter needs to be rescued by Zach & Ryan. Todd Manning gets to "evolve" from gang rapist/serial rapist to romantic leading man with two gorgeous women fighting over him. Sonny Corinthos shot his wife in the head and it was all good. Victor Newman tortured a man who crossed him but his son is torturing an innocent woman, killed her baby and burned the fetus, because she's a woman & therefore a "soft target". In a genre chock full of misogyny, that probably takes the cake for the most explicitly misogynistic "story" ever.

Is misogyny endemic to the genre? Do women want to see this sort of thing? If so, why?

I know you're busy and enjoying your well earned golden years. So please forgive the intrusion, Ms. Nixon, on your leisure.

We know that these are the last days of soaps. Guiding Light has been dispatched. ATWT will likely follow next year. Within ten years, they will all fall, one by one, until nothing is left. If we fans see this, then you, one of the total greats of the genre, see it, too. Still, I must object that the stewardship of your crown jewel has been left to the sublimely untalented Charles Pratt, Jr. I ask you to think of your legacy. Should the final days of All My Children be so very wretched? Should this show, once so thoughtful and socially relevant, end as cheap knock-off of the worst of Melrose Place?

I grew up watching All My Children. You cannot begin to understand the impact Erica Kane had on my formative years. She was better than Barbie because we saw her face every adversity and triumph. She may have been tiny but no one could fill her shoes! Big moments like Bianca coming out moved me to my very soul, but so did small moments like the happy times of the blended family of Tad, Dixie, JR and Jamie that reflected a situation many of us were going through at the time. I cried and cried when Jesse "died". I laughed at the rivalry between Adam & Palmer. Most of all, I cared about these characters, this town, and the world you created.

Now the show is written by a true Hack. The Hack of Hacks, if you will. Mr. Pratt clearly has no love for the genre, the characters, or the fans. AMC is a shell of itself. This is not your show, and this is not your vision. If you have any influence whatsoever with Brian Frons, I implore you to consider your legacy. Do not let the final years of AMC go down the drain this way.

I was originally going to reply in the why do soaps suck thread but I think this topic should get its own thread, especially because some of you might be quite happy with your soaps.

I've done a lot of reading & listening to podcasts about writing and writing for tv. Bill Prady, a co-creator of the Big Bang Theory, talked about how tv series need to ask a central question that keeps viewers coming back. I am vaguely aware of the other writers saying similar things so it's undoubtedly a classic concept. It seems to me though that what's true for prime-time show is also true for daytime.

An example of a central question for a sitcom would be "How do two such different people make a marriage work when they want different things" on I Love Lucy. Or for drama, "Can an ambitious & passionate woman achieve professional success & romantic fulfillment?" on Grey's Anatomy.

I believe the reason why soaps suck right now is because most, if not all, soaps have strayed from their own central question. Without a clear brand, each soap loses its distinctive voice and its particular pull for viewers.

As an AMC fan, the confused state of the show is especially egregious. The theme of the show is stated by Agnes Nixon:

Quote

.

If the characters are all His children, then the characters are all brothers & sisters, an extended family. The central question for AMC is how does this close-knit town, that functions as an extended family, meet contemporary societal issues and challenges and find a way to keep the "family" intact? The Vietnam war, Erica's abortion, Cindy's struggle with AIDS, slow Stuart, Bianca's coming out, Lily's autism, Zarf (I didn't like the story but I got why AMC did it), and the challenges faced by Brot/Taylor/Frankie as Iraq war vets are all VERY much in the spirit of what AMC purports to be about. Whenever AMC got away from it's humanity, the show has faltered. Tad killing Dr. Madden was real nadir for the show, as was the horrible writing for Reese, the "confused" bisexual/lesbian.

I am not sure what Y&R's central question is or was, but I know what I think it should be Who will triumph in the contest between the status quo and the usurper? I always saw Jack vs. Victor and Jill vs. Kay as the central stories of the show. And they are basically the same story. The outsider from common roots (Victor, Jill) upends the life of the old guard (Jack, Kay). Very much in the vein of the Magnificent Ambersons or Richard II, though there a countless classics devoted to this theme. Even the Phyllis vs. Sharon rivalry fits this theme with Sharon as the fair cheerleader and Phyllis as the bad girl in leather. And I weep for the great lost rivalry between Dru, who turned herself into one of the "haves", against bad girl Phyllis. The great thing about them is that the came from the same tough place but Dru had happily transformed herself into a lady while Phyllis was still Phyllis, and still able to draw out Dru's inner bitch. IMO, that's why the Scoobies and so much of the show just seems like a side dish and not like an integral part of the show. IMO, MAB has made a huge mistake by focusing so much on sibling rivalry (Billy vs. Cane, Adam vs. the Newman kids). That's not part of the classic Y&R formula, especially compared to other soaps. She should have developed rivalries between Colleen & Victoria, Adam & Billy, Nick & Neil, Chloe & Jill, and hoped that one of them developed into another Jack vs. Victor.

DAYS is an interesting case because the show has changed so much over the years, with a long detour into wild camp. Sami has definitely become the dominant character on the show and the central question is probably "Which man should Sami choose?" While that's fine for now, I guess, DOOL needs a deeper and more inclusive central hook. Not sure what it should be though.

Would love to know if you think there's any merit to this way of looking at shows or if soaps are too specialized & unique to follow the rules of prime time shows?