DRW50

When they replaced Granger (I think it was Granger) in late 1993, they blamed the low ratings and said they'd spent a lot of money on and promoting the Universal remote, and it hadn't gotten the result they expected. I never knew why they would think some tacky remote focusing on annoying Faison would get a big ratings boost.

December 1986 Digest - John Kelly Genovese Loving review. In 1983, the soap business was a creative wasteland. The GH Luke and Laura craze was so fresh in producers' mind that virtually all the established soaps engaged in a tawdry game of one-upmanship. Every show had to have a sexy signature couple embroiled in some god-awful adventure plot. Anyone over age 40 either turned detective in order to fit into this mess, or was reduced to one script a week. Just as it seemed the soaps were doomed to a rock-video mentality forever, LOVING quietly crept upon the scene as the embodiment of what soaps could and should be. Except for ratings, this show had everything going for it. The people were perfectly balanced in terms of age groups and backgrounds. They were also, for the most part, believable. There were the wealthy Aldens - not eccentric or neurotic or persnickety as the soap opera rich tend to be, but fiercely protective of their family unity and public image. There were also the Donovans who were "real people." Unlike most major families, they were prone to loud but loving arguments. These two families intermingled with the orphaned but upwardly mobile Vocheks, the southern Bristows, and the secretive, gothic Slaters to produce some of the most compelling stories ever attempted in daytime. The Slater family incest story line; the Vietnam-based torment of Mike Donovan (James Kiberd); the confusion of Father Jim Vochek (Peter Davies) over his love for illegitimate Alden, Shana Sloane (Susan Keith); and the identity crisis of straight-arrow Jack Forbes (Perry Stephens) upon learning of his dubious origins, kept LOVING hopping for two years. Well, as the song goes, "Those were the days, my friend." Backstage reshuffling is usually the rule when a show has bumped along for two years with low numbers, and LOVING was no exception. What had been a mature, intuitive, suspenseful, often daring piece of television with low ratings, has been transformed into a plodding, predictable, cliche-ridden, archly traditional, ho-hum soap opera with low ratings. For the past few years, the romance turned fragile friendship of Jim and Shana has been LOVING's centerpiece. Jim's ultimate decision to retain his frock in the face of Shana's passionate pleas, was a heartbreaker. The audience cared about these two tremendously and were well aware of the subtext of their ensuing platonic bond. However, the latest Jim/Shana twist borders on the absurd. At this writing, the padre has been bopped on the head an has amnesia. Via this convenient device, Jim has lost ten years of his life and is back to the days when Shana, not the priesthood, was the object of his devotion. If only today's serial writers would so conveniently forget amnesia. LOVING's major teen love story involves wealthy Trisha Alden (Noelle Beck) and struggling Steve Sowolsky (John R. Johnston). They are an appealing young pair of performers, playing out what was initially a promising classical love story. Steve had to live down the reputation of his homicidal father, slimy Harry Sowolsky (Edward J. Moore), and Trisha had to contend with manipulative, snobbish mama Gwyneth (the delightful Christine Tudor). Unfortunately, the romance has dragged for so long that it is dragging other characters down in the process .Harry Sowolsky has been turned into a comic anti-hero in a silly triangle with Gwyneth and her sister-in-law Ann Forbes (Callan White). And are we really expected to blindly accept Harry as a sympathetic character after his early psychotic attempts to kill Jim and Shana? The latest twist is the introduction of evil casino owner Nick Dinatos (Jeff Gendelman) as Trisha's sexual downfall and a possible depository for the seven million dollars Harry recently won in a lottery. From Dinatos's introduction, his function was obvious. The story was laid out one-two-three. Ditto Steve's dead-end, rebound marriage to dumb Cecelia (Colleen Dion). Thank goodness the audience is rid of another seemingly interminable piece of business: the triangle of Jack, Stacey (Lauren-Marie Taylor) and Harry's grasping niece Ava Rescott (Roya Megnot). Ava's second marriage to Jack's cousin, Curtis Alden (Linden Ashby), was so much fun that it ended all too soon. Ava's current "Taming of the Shrew" relationship with no-bull Judd Beecham (Neil Zevnik), as well as Curtis's intriguing friendship with illiterate Lotty Bates (Judith Hoag), would have been far more appealing if Curtis and Ava were still married. To see this spoiled rich boy and selfish poor girl emerge strong and mature together would have made for a jewel of a story. Instead, LOVING perpetuated the idea that marriage is a throwaway - an idea contrary to the show's title. There is one other major story on LOVING. It involves children and is a major yawn. Lorna Forbes (now played by O'Hara Parker) has to win over Zach Conway's (John Gabriel) bad-seed daughter Kelly (Kathleen Fisk) who is being manipulated by her aunt, Zack's torch-carrying sister-in-law, Jane Kincaid (Deborah Allison) if she is to find happiness with her man. Lorna has undergone a sudden and weakly motivated transformation. Once a conniving spitfire, she is now inching closer to becoming Lawrence Welk's next champagne lady. If the Lorna originally played by Susan Walters had encountered a little snot like Kelly, the kid would have rotting in reform school within seconds. Especially unfortunate is the show's treatment of its two founding families. The Donovans have all been wiped out except for Stacey, creating the same void which plagues most other soaps - lack of identifiable, middle-class character. The Aldens, though still prominent, have lost most of their dimension. There probably was never as human or as commanding a patriarch as Cabot Alden, so supremely portrayed by Wesley Addy. His word was law, but his innate fairness and respect for others' character (rather than their social strata) were also much in evidence. Today's Cabot is a bellicose, one-dimensional, snobbish tyrant. Wife Isabelle (Augusta Dabney), whose role of the family buffer was so intrinsic to the show's initial concept, is now reduced to sighing, "Oh, Cabot." Oh, what a misuse of talent. There are other annoyances. Episodes often lack the essentials: stories which flow into each other, scenes that have a clear intent and shape, cliffhanger tags. Little stuff like that. And some of the dialogue sets soaps back thirty years. Turn the sound off, however, and one can more fully appreciate Boyd Dumrose's sets and Robert Anton's costumes. Smashing, Robert Scinto and Peter Brinckerhoff are also brilliant in their capacities as LOVING's directors. Given what they are handed daily to bring to life, these gentlemen are making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Had LOVING followed through on its original commitment to humanness and innovation, it would most likely have built the audience it so hoped to attain. Instead, it "wimped out." It began by showing its elder companions "how it's done," only to be doing what all soaps have done before, time and time again. Wake up, LOVING.

I wonder sometimes if Debbi ever asked for any creative control upon agreeing to return to ABC, as she left on very bad terms in 1989 and didn't seem likely to ever go back. I think Brown and Esensten do well when they have a specific story outline to build up to - without that they flounder.

Thanks. I'd never read that. Nice to hear more stories about the early days. I never knew Sandy Duncan was on the show.

Blair's interview was from 1984 - the Marlena column was something else from the late 80's. I guess reading up on Loving's early stories I wonder where they would have gone. Some of them do seem to have potential, but stories like the affair/romance between Merrill and Roger is the type of thing which is likely to just tick soap fans off. Perhaps they were trying for something like Jill/Frank on Ryan's Hope. I also wonder what plans they had for Lily if the story hadn't been truncated.

Thanks. It's interesting how the review leaves the impression that the show collapsed without Marland, when some other comments have given a much different picture.

This is from SOD. I have a review from 1986 where Genovese isn't exactly as enthusiastic. I will try to type it up tonight or tomorrow. I've wondered sometimes if the early ideas for Loving were good stories, short-term, to make a statement, but if there was little long-term story plan.

That's an odd Marlena column. I don't quite agree with some of her one word descriptions, but beyond that, Roya Megnot had been off Loving for a year or so before Savage arrived. I didn't know Pamela Blair was in A Chorus Line. Does anyone know what was so unhappy about her time there? She and Tom Ligon seem so out of step with the tone of Loving, even in the early days. I really wonder what they were like.

Who was EP then? When did Judy Lewis write for the show?

I'd forgotten how much random, raspy shouting Dimitri did. Those stories really did a number on him. I wish I'd seen more of his first few years.

I'd forgotten there was a quick Lily recast before Leven. (and randomly, if you Google Shayna's name there's a closeup of some woman's rear end in a skort thing - don't quite get that). I wish I had never heard about Leven's offscreen antics because I thought she did a great job as Lily yet it always colors my opinion of her work.

I know people had said she was in it as a temp but didn't remember her. I guess that's her. Not to go by a stereotype of autism but did she just play her like any random child, and they then threw in a few lines about her being autistic?

A few years ago this was uploaded - it takes place not too long after the episode where John died. Susan Harney reminds me of Loretta Swit. It's too bad they struggled so much with how to write Alice or her place on the canvas. She would have been a better foil to Rachel than trying to recreate Iris in Miranda. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uagni1Bt3TA

Can anyone tell me who is playing Lily in this episode? I guess I should look for some cast list in the episodes around this time. I had forgotten how they tried to avoid Trevor saying anything really really nasty about Michael. Instead it was awkward things like "same-sex club." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XGUBccWOTs

I wonder who that AW story was about. Gail Brown? Vicky Wyndham? Susan Keith?

Did you know that no one who is poor EVER works? How sad that this blatant ignorance could get someone elected President. Kicking the poor when he's not gorging on Tiffany rings. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-1202-gingrich-child-labor-20111202,0,439006.story

When Larry Lau joined as Jamie, SOD talked about how he'd be Brittany's doctor or implied a relationship would form. Did that happen? Wasn't Brittany on the way out at this time?

Was there anything about Bramm or his ex, Krynauw, who somehow became a bisexual psychopath murderer? That's one of the most WTF things I've ever read about a soap.

RIP. Sorry to hear this. She also played Laura's foster mother on GH. Quite a life she led.

I didn't know Todd Curtis played the trumpet. No cue cards? No wonder so many of their young actors struggled early on. I only saw the episodes where Lizbeth slept with Jordy and Thomas broke up with her. It's kind of sad reading the article knowing what would happen. I didn't know they'd had Thomas try and fail to correct his handicap. That's rare on soaps.

I've never seen that story. It sounds...odd. It's too bad they couldn't have had Nancy as one of the people fighting back.