Mona Kane Croft

Well thank you, vetsoapfan. I'm glad to know we agree on so many details regarding AW.

Hmm. Maybe I got my dates wrong, but I was referring to the Alice/Rachel scene at the end of Mac's funeral. That was at least several months after the 25th anniversary, but maybe still in 1989. Not sure. Anyway, that was Courtney's final scene on AW. But the 25th anniversary episodes definitely had both high points and low points. That much is for sure.

Totally agree. That final brief scene with Rachel, where they share a few words. Rachel scurries off, and the camera focuses on Alice. The look on her face said more than any words from a script. Thankfully somebody (I assume the director) allowed Jacquie to play Alice according to her instincts, and it worked perfectly -- even in 1989.

Well, I hope you don't think I am following you around, like a busy-body. And you do not need my comments to help you make sense. You make sense on your own. Sometimes I just have an insight to add. That's all. And if the nasty girls don't like it, well . . . being a good Christian woman, I just can't say it. (wiping a tear with my apron)

Wow, so great to see Courtney during her final weeks. Courtney is clearly not the focus of this scene (Marianne is the focus), but watch Courtney's detailed acting. The looks she gives her father, while Marianne speaks. And the way she strokes her niece's hair near the end of the scene. Now, imagine Susan Harney playing the same script. It would not have been terrible. In fact, Harney would have been quite acceptable in this scene. But none of Alice's subtext would have been exhibited. None of Jacquie Courtney's nuance. The scene would have been played rather flat, with Alice being a side character. History shows it is nearly impossible to successfully and permanently replace a TV soap opera ingenue. Think about efforts to replace the following: Alice Frame, Tara Martin, Nina Cortlandt, Penny Hughes, Marley Love Hudson, Lily Walsh, Lily Winters among others. And even Mary Ryan (who I hesitate to describe as an ingenue, but perhaps). For reasons I do not understand, soap opera ingenues seem almost impossible to replace.

Thank you for verifying this! Wow, i'm impressed. So you see my point -- similar situations may have been true for many of Irna's other creations. And your question about The Road of Life may be difficult to answer accurately.

Although P&G sponsored THE ROAD OF LIFE on television, and may have even produced it, that does not necessarily mean P&G owned the show. Here is why I say that: It is not well known, but in the early days of television soaps, P&G was the majority sponsor of some soaps without actually owning them. For example, there is evidence in writing (which I do not currently have) that Irna Phillips owned Another World for at least a few years, while P&G both produced it (for Irna) and was the majority sponsor. Eventually Irna sold AW outright to P&G Productions. So it is likely that Irna may have initially owned other TV soaps (and perhaps even radio soaps) that she had created, while P&G served as producer and sponsor. And later sold them to P&G Productions. Verifying this would require a very very dedicated researcher. And my research days are behind me. Agnes Nixon, Ted Corday, and Bill Bell took Irna's early practice even further by creating their own TV soaps, licensing them to a network, and then opening their own production companies to produce the shows. Then years later -- when their creations had been popular in the ratings -- sold their shows (either partially, or entirely) to the network or another production company. Claire Labine did exactly the same thing with Ryan's Hope. But of course, Labine had never worked for Ms. Phillips. As far as I know, Irna Phillips never owned her own production company. But research might prove otherwise.

No, not at all. The writers wasted most of Ada's death episodes by trying to make the whole thing funny. Dear God, back then soaps were obsessed with comedy -- they tried to make everything funny. Even the death of an important character and an iconic actress. "Let's make it funny!!!" It would have been great, if Jordon Charney had returned for a couple of days. Of course the only two characters Sam would have known were Rachel and Liz. But it still would have been great to see Ada's brother Sam. Maybe Sam could have flirted with Clarice.

Something folks who were not watching might not realize is that Susan Harney's Alice got a hell of a lot of screen time. Yes, upon Courtney's firing, Vicky Wyndham did become AW's female romantic lead. But Alice just moved down one notch really, to the show's second female romantic lead. So that's not bad at all for a recast. Lemay kept Alice very busy and the show was quite focused on Alice, even though Rachel had now become AW's primary focus. Having watched AW almost daily from 1972 until the early-80s, I've wondered why the audience (including myself) accepted Harney as Alice as easily as we did -- despite her acting challenges. And I've come to believe it was because we felt we had no choice. We loved the character, and certainly did not want to see Alice written off. And having watched Lenore, Mary, and Steve leave the show just a few months earlier, we knew Alice could just as easily disappear from the canvas altogether, if we didn't accept Courtney's replacement. Of course we knew very little of the situation in the studio, or the reasons behind the other characters' exits. And we certainly had none of the details we would discover a few years later in Lemay's book. But most of the fans were aware that Dwyer and Reinholt had been fired. And then that Courtney had been fired. I think we were unconsciously blackmailed into accepting Harney, because we knew what the alternative would be. Looking back 50-years later, Harney really was a rather bad replacement for Courtney. Luckily she had Courtney's blonde hair, but that was where any similarity stopped. Harney's casting gave Alice a complete personality transplant. And of course, Harney's acting range was quite limited -- especially when showing strong emotion was needed. Having said all that, I have a soft spot in my heart for Susan Harney. She took on a very tough job (an almost impossible situation), and I'm sure she took a difficult amount of criticism. But she did manage to keep the audience engaged with Alice, and she kept the character vital and alive for four more years. Now to your question about the writing for Alice after Harney was cast: Yes, the writing was definitely different than it had been previously. But Alice's entire focus for nearly a decade had been her romance with Steve. So now that Steve was dead, Alice needed something else to do. So at the time, I was more or less okay with the writing. The storyline with Sally was very compelling. And later, when Beatrice became involved with the same plot, Alice was once again in Rachel's orbit. So that caused some believable tension. I did find it unfortunate that Alice married Ray Gordon, mostly because he was such an obvious loser. And marrying Ray made Alice seem foolish. I think it would have been wiser to have her date Ray and get engaged to him -- then play out the story of him bankrupting Steve's company, but have Alice break the engagement just before the wedding. Then they could have brought on a new dynamic character for Alice to date, and create a new long-term romance. A character with charisma and chemistry similar to Steve or Mac -- but not another businessman. Perhaps a successful doctor or even and artist. Alice's romance with Willis could have worked, but it didn't seem Lemay's heart was really in it, because it was a very quick plot. It also pitted two good-girls against one another -- Alice and Angie. And I didn't want either of them to cross over to the dark-side, although it seemed Lemay was toying with that possibility. Alice's engagement to Dan Shearer seemed believable and acceptable at the time. But looking back, it was rather strange and incestuous since Susan was Alice's first cousin and one of her best friends. Plus Dan was not a particularly charismatic character and the actor (Brian Murray) was not leading man material in 1979. But frankly, I was so happy to tune in to AW and see Alice three times a week, I guess I just accepted the writing as I had accepted Susan Harney.

I agree. It seems all the firings of 1975 (including Courtney) were suggested by Lemay, but carried out by Rauch. Perhaps Rauch should have had the stones to say "no", at least to the firings of Courtney and Dwyer. Reinholt's dismissal was a lot more understandable, based on reports of his behavior in the studio. Still, even his firing was unfortunate and certainly hurt the show.

Your initial question is intriguing, and I really don't know the answer. As I was not watching AW regularly during that time. But I will speculate -- based on the viewers' reaction to Rachel's disclosure to Alice at the engagement party -- that the audience was NOT previously aware that Rachel's baby was fathered by Steve Frame. I think it is likely the audience found out at the exact same time a Alice got the news. Sounds like some great drama to me!! I suppose that scene is the holy-grail of Another World.

Thank you for your intelligent and thoughtful post. Although I disagree with you on several issues, it seems you take soaps very seriously, as do I. I'll respond to a few of your points below: I think whether certain families are deeply baked has less to do with how much time has passed, and more to do with how the audience feels about them. And the audience did love the Matthews family -- especially after Agnes Nixon joined the show and made the writing more compelling and more deeply woven than earlier writers. Not to mention, the severe ratings decline almost literally coincided with the decline of the Matthews family. There were obviously multiple reasons for the ratings decline, but there certainly was a correlation between lower ratings and fewer Matthews. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but still . . . And the exits of Bill, Missy, Lee, etc. are not particularly germane to the argument, because even the most ardent soap fans have no expectation that every single member of the core family will remain on the show forever. Some die, some move away, some return, while others are never mentioned again. All while the core family maintains its position as the center of the drama. I personally believe Bill Bell's ability to successfully introduce an almost entirely new cast of characters in the early-1980s had everything to do with him being the creator of the show. And to a slightly lesser degree, his talent as a writer. Had ANY other head-writer tried the same thing at Y&R, I feel certain the ratings would have tanked almost immediately. Of course, this is just my opinion. Not value them? They held most of them in contempt. They seemed to expect that popular soap opera actors would operate with little-to-no ego, while both Rauch and Lemay were almost completely driven by ego. That was a disaster waiting to happen. But I need to make clear -- I loved Lemay's character driven style. He knew how to write believable people and believable scenes and relationships. I do agree with you on this point. If Lemay (or any later head-writers) found a particular member of the Matthews family boring, I'm sure the audience would have supported giving that character a rest, while bringing back other members of the extended clan. Or even recasts, in some cases. As long as the matriarch and patriarch plus one or two of their kids remain, the rest of the family can rotate in and out as the years pass. Of course, the writing needs to be compelling as well. Again, I agree. The revolving door of actors/characters during Lemay's run was unprecedented, and it did harm to the show. I've joked many times that Lemay's favorite line of dialogue was, "I'm leaving Bay City." In 1979-80, Tom King made a horrible mistake by writing off so many of Lemay's characters. King seemed to have learned from Lemay, how to write for Lemay's characters. So he did well with Rachel, Iris, Mac, Ada, Dennis, and to a lesser degree Pat, Jamie, and Clarice. But the characters Tom King created were almost universally a poor-fit for Another World. Most were embarrassingly bad, really. So especially with Iris on her way out, King should have maintained as many of Lemay's characters as possible and played to his own strengths. And his own strength was writing for Lemay's characters.

You've written a very good analysis of the way many long-term fans felt about the Matthews family. When a soap opera has a middle-class core family and the writing is compelling, the fans tend to identify with members of that family. You might see yourself in a character, and see your grandmother, mother, father, brother, etc in other characters. And to to a large degree, the audience watches because of the characters, not the storylines. That was certainly the case on Another World during the Nixon, Cenedela, and Lemay years.

Did Dr Bob Rogers ever have a storyline? Or was he just a friend of Jo's and a doctor (when a doctor was needed)??

I'm pretty confident no footage of Beverlee McKenzie as Emma has surfaced. If and when it does, it will be heard around the world. LOL.

Wow, Dr Bob Rogers is back. Was this Carl Lowe's final appearance?

Does anyone else remember, back in the 1970s on AW, when often scenes would begin with one character alone on a set? The character would be doing whatever -- working, washing dishes, vacuuming, reading, watering plants, etc. -- and after 30-60 seconds, another character would ring the doorbell or enter from a nearby room or office, and begin a conversation. Although it sounds boring and perhaps a little silly, it really was a very good way to build character for the audience. After all, aren't we all most ourselves when we are alone? I don't think we ever see a character alone on soaps today. Today, scenes begin when the action begins.

Oh yes -- There were many scenes, during that period, with Susan expressing vaguely similar sentiments regarding her brother. And all that, along with the Iris/Giorgio stuff, fueled the fire that Bill was coming back. Soaps seldom dwell on a character who has been dead for 9-years, unless that character is returning. So unless Lemay was plotting Bill's return from the dead, what the Hell was up with all the scripted chatter about Bill? Certainly not some sort of incest thing between Susan and Bill??? Dear God in Heaven!!

This seems to be what I read many years ago, which led me to believe TPTB originally wanted Gallison and Roux to star on Somerset. And it provides the rationale for the decision to kill off Bill Matthews, requiring Missy to spin-off to Somerset as a young widow. So, thank you for posting this.

Well, he is certainly a handsome man. But I still prefer his current hair style on GH. Long-ish and parted in the middle. Oh Lordy . . . Like most things, it all just a matter of taste. So neither of us is wrong.

OMG, I love Adam Harrington's haircut. He is beautiful. So much sexier than all these high-and-tights, fades, and buzz-cuts most of the men younger than 70 seem to have these days. Gimme some long-ish hair parted in the middle. I apologize for gushing . . .

Interesting you mention this. Were you watching AW in 1978-79? There is an apocryphal story (which I saw and almost believed at the time) that Lemay was planning to bring back Bill. Even though the viewers knew Lemay did not like that sort of drama and that it was unlikely, many fans were convinced it was happening. You may already know this but -- around the time Iris found out she was adopted and left Bay City for a lengthy period, Susan Matthews returned to town and announced she had divorced Dan Shearer. She and Liz seemed to have unusually frequent conversations about Bill -- especially since Bill had seldom been mentioned since Irene Dailey assumed the role of Liz around 1973. After a few weeks, Iris was reintroduced while vacationing with her wealthy friend Millie Marbury at Millie's house in St Tropez. Millie's boyfriend was a younger man, a gigolo named Giorgio. Iris detested Giorgio, thought he was taking advantage of Millie, and ridiculed him behind his back. Giorgio's background was a mystery. Meanwhile back in Bay City, Liz and Susan (among others in the Matthews clan) continued to bring Bill into conversations. And many fans were beginning to believe there was a connection between Bill Matthews and Giorgio. Everything seemed too coincidental. That much is all true, because I remember it well. Here comes the apocryphal part: So it may or may not be true. Some fans remember a scene in which Liz Matthews calls Iris at Millie's house in France. Iris, Millie, Giorgio, and Millie's maid are on the terrace overlooking the ocean. Liz's call comes through, and the maid answers the phone. After a few seconds the maid announces something like the following, "There's a call for Mrs Bancroft. It's a Mrs Matthews calling from Bay City." The camera catches Giorgio's reaction, and the look on his face indicates something strange. Does he recognize the name?? That's the end. Nothing ever came of it, and obviously Bill never came back from the dead. Iris returned to Bay City, and the Matthews clan stopped discussing Bill. I want to make clear that Eddie from the AWHP has most of the scripts from this period, and he has not been able to find a scene in which this happens. I do not directly remember watching this supposed scene, although I have heard and read the story so many times, sometimes I think I do remember it. But even if that apocryphal scene never occurred, there is still some evidence that Lemay had something cooking for Bill Matthews. Sadly, we do not know what. Did he really have plans to bring back Bill, and then changed his mind at the last minute? Remember, just a few months earlier, Lemay had been encouraged to write the Sven storyline (even thought he did not want to engage in that sort of drama), and it had brought AW to the top of the ratings. Was he being pressured to do something over the top again?? Or was he simply planning to use memories of Bill in some other plot, but still decided against doing it? We will probably never know. Sorry for the lengthy post. But your mention of bringing Bill back from the dead made me remember all that stuff from 1978-79. Crazy, huh?

If that is correct, then that would be the reason he didn't return to the role.

I understand Bill was killed off because in 1970, Joe Gallison was not interested in returning. TPTB wanted to center AW's new spin-off, Somerset, on Bill and Missy. But when Gallison refused the offer, they killed off Bill and sent Missy to Somerset as a young widow. So at least there was a reasonable cause for killing off Bill. The decision wasn't made thoughtlessly.

I watched daily during the entire Lemay era, and I don't remember anyone ever mentioning Lee during those years (although she may have been mentioned and I simply don't remember it). It seems strange, since Lemay often liked to refer to the show's past. Same for Janet Matthews. I don't recall her name being mentioned during Lemay's run either. Not even when Mary died, and they were notifying the family. But oddly, Mitchell Dru was referenced at least one time in a Lemay episode.