Contessa Donatella

Written by DM James Fairbanks More from the Daytime TV Library Series: Search for Tomorrow Between 1975 and 1977, Daytime TV Magazine, the leading publication dedicated to US daytime programs, began a series of special editions dedicated specifically to one serial. In early 1977, they released issue #7 which focused on the longest running serial at that time, “Search for Tomorrow”. The publication contained interviews with key cast members and productions staff, such as the producers, directors, writer and costume designer. Today we are going review one of the questions: “What are your thoughts on the validity of the Daytime Emmy Awards?” At this time, there was a lot of negative feelings about the awards, from the politics, the nomination process and even, where should they be held. MARY STUART: “No, comment. No, I really think it’s silly. It’s only an award for one particular performance, too. It’s ridiculous.” CARL LOW: “I understand they’re trying to change the format of selection, because a one-shot performance does not reflect a year’s work. Who can remember that one particular performance?” MARY STUART: “You’re supposed to save it. Three years in a row my tapes were erased. So I’m ineligible? One of the other sponsors said they didn’t want anyone on a P&G show nominated. Does that make sense? And the people who really hold the industry together never have any juicy scenes. People like Charita Bauer and Carl Low. I wish it were not a national game, but instead, a peer activity. I would believe in it if it were presented by our peers and it were private, within the industry from people who really care. Then it means something.” Mary made some very valid points. Until 1976, except for her nomination in the first year, no actor for a P&G show was nominated in the first two years of the awards. So, 1974 one nominee & 1975 zero nominees. That means only one out of about 120 actors over six shows (SOM, SFT, EON, GL, ATWT and AW) were not nominated. LARRY HAINES: “I don’t think there should be fewer categories in daytime than there are in nighttime awards. If there is one for best performer, there has got to be one for best supporting performer, because nobody plays in a vacuum. It’s not a one person effort. The categories are voted on by a completely unbiased panel.” BILLIE LOU WATTS: “I agreed to be a judge last year. But I was not allowed to vote for best actor because we had two for our cast were nominees – Larry (Haines) and Michael (Nouri). I might be biased toward them. I also could not vote in best actress, since Mary (Stuart) was nominated. I could only vote in categories where I had no personal attachments. The only problem about the daytime awards is that the great test of a performer on a daytime show is how well he performs all year long. You can’t judge that unless you have someone who monitors it every week. They have increased it from judging just one scene to three, but…” VAL DUFOUR: “I resent the Daytime Emmy Awards and will have anything to do with them, as long as were presented in the daytime, with stuffed animals, instead of at night. I’m a member of AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists), Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and Equity (the theater union) and I want the work I do represented with other member of my profession. As far as I am concerned, they are an insult to the actor. Number one, they (Academy members) don’t even begin to understand how to decide or judge, to say nothing of the fact the whole premise is phony, because it’s a bought, political thing. If you can get together 25 votes, then they’ll nominate you. They have advised us not to put up any actor, unless he or she’s known for anything else, because we’ll be wasting our votes! Now how do you like that!? Another thing, where does he good performer come in? It’s a different thing if you have a 2 ½ hour picture and you’re discussing this actor and only that performance – how can you do this on a soap? The worst actor in the world can be brilliant in one scene – it has to be looked at in a broader scope; you have to get a continuity of an actor’s performance on a soap. The Daytime Emmy’s are a raunchy, cheap marketplace that has nothing to do with the honor that should be placed on a beautiful performance.” MORGAN FAIRCHILD: “I’m very apolitical and consider the whole thing very political. And I think anybody on the soaps realizes this.” MICHAEL NOURI: “I have mixed feelings about it. Having been nominated for one was very flattering and having been nominated, I like that part. But there’s something farcical about it: the Academy Awards, all awards. People are judged on the basis of one performance, which says nothing about somebody’s overall character portrayal. I have seen some people come in for just a one-short. I can sense how really good they are, but because of their nervousness, they’re just not relaxed enough to get to what they have to offer. So the criterion for the awards is off-base, I think.” TOM KLUNIS: “In a way I think it’s good and gives recognition to the actor and the medium. I think possibly it’s commercially necessary…” MARIE (MAREE) CHEATHAM: “That’s not high on my list of feelings. How can you judge…If a performer is consistently fine and does something very interesting with very little material…that’s the trick in daytime.” LEWIS ARLT: “No comment.” MILLEE TAGGART: “I think the award for the male performer who won last year’s award was the most valid award ever given. I can’t judge for any others, but Larry is a wonderful, wonderful actor-he’s the best that I’ve ever known.” JOHN CUNNINGHAM: All such awards are really invalid because the only way could really judge whose better for that year, would be if everybody contesting then played the same part. Because to say an apple is better than an orange is crazy. You just can’t do that. That’s why George C. Scott was right to turn down his Oscar. Somebody has to stand up every so often and say it’s a lot of crap.” MILLEE TAGGART: “You can have a wonderful story one year, while someone else is vacuuming…” JOEL HIGGINS: “It’s a very loaded question at this time because there is a furor raging between L.A. and New York about the whole thing and when it gets to the point, it’s silly. You’re no longer awarding someone because they’re the best…You’re awarding them because they live in L.A. or New York. I’m sure anyone who has ever won is talented. But I think there are so many talented people-how you can possibly say this person’s better than that? It depends on the character, what they get to play…a million things. Stack the Emmy’s up against the Pulitzer Prize, where it’s not a group of nominees and only one winner. They say, “We’re going to give 12 of them this year, because these were all good achievements.”” PETER SIMON: “Ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous.” COURTNEY SHERMAN: “I hate the idea. Talk about various aspects of the business, the daytime drama is definitely a field unto itself; there really is a repertory company feeling here. I don’t think it is ever to any one’s advantage to have competition for awards. As dignified as everyone may act about it, I think it’s destructive and silly. It’s different with a play or movie-they’re entities unto themselves, but I find the Emmys offensive. PETER SIMON: “The process of selection is all done on the number of friends you have for votes. And this ridiculous competition now between the two coasts, as to where the Emmys are going to be handed out. I mean, what are they talking about? In a soap, where does the performance end? There are certain people in the shows who have all the gravy and other really fine actors who do nothing but the drudgery. The categories in soaps should be best recap, best getting through a scene without fainting…” COURTNEY SHERMAN: “Not that you can’t be a fine actor sitting and drinking coffee, but is that the scene you’re going to give to the board of judges?” Obviously a lot about the Emmys have changed since 1976. But a lot has stayed the same as well. Too many fine actors, both in Daytime and Primetime have NEVER been nominated. Whole shows are ignored while others are nominated year after year. Love of Life was only nominated for ONE acting award, and that was for Shepperd Strudwick, who has previously been nominated. This year in primetime, Ted Lasso (an excellent show) got many nominations as it has every year, but Ghosts has been ignored again. Different shows, but both excellent. What is your opinion?

@Toups Please cancel this as I made it in the wrong spot.

The last book I finished was Call Me Anne. Anne Heche was 98% finished with it at the time of her tragic death Aug. 11, 2022. Her BFF & podcast partner Heather wrote a final chapter beautifully, taking care of any loose threads. Not only does Anne tell about her life, in every chapter she includes positive life-affirming advice or how-to. Brilliant idea!

I finally watched Everything Everywhere All At Once & I loved it so much that I watched it again. I read a user review of Carol where the person said the worst thing had happened to them, they had seen Cate Blanchett naked. So I rewatched it. Such a beautiful movie & you get to love Carol & Therese & NYC of that era There's a documentary on Wham on Netflix that was good. . Besides catching every new episode of Outlander Season 7 I'm going back & watching Season 5 that I missed. Every day I post & watch a 1980s Classic DAYS YouTube video with most of them RoMar episodes but also some Bope & some Kimberly.

Okay, you brought this up & I'm not gonna let an opportunity pass to give a Minority Rapport on the topic. There are plenty people who came here & had hideous experiences, were bullied & were run off. In all of those anecdotal accounts it's always a handful of posters who are bullies, who are trolls, who are cruel. Some of the people who relate this, it was 10 years ago, some last year. So just as much as many wonderful things accrue to @Errol and @Toups so does the responsibility for it being a place with that reputation & where such things are allowed to happen. Now that's not to say that twitter isn't toxic, boy, I agree with that!

@Paul Raven "Bolen claimed that doubling the time slot more than doubled the budget, but the substantial increases in ad rates across this period made it worth the network's while." Elana Levine. (2020). Her Stories: Daytime Soap Opera & US Television History. Duke University Press. p.94.

I wasn't watching when he was on so it was a lovely surprise.

Just recently in the AW Topic we were discussing some of the very popular stuff in the 80s & the fact that the ratings just sat there, flat, dead in the water, no bumps or anything. Discussion of times like that when ratings did not seem to reflect either quality or popularity. Quizzical.

DAYS has always had a heavy-duty need for the willing suspension of disbelief! There's nothing new about that. Geographically, they always seemed situated with regard to Chicago. Realistically, impossible. Agree that it's a river. I only wanted to say about yesterday's show, ... arduous, just damned hard work for the viewer to slog through the heavy oppressive Abe story stuff. It's gone on too long. And the fun stuff ran out days ago. Thank God for Black Patch & Chicago to LA planes & buses & interrogating Jerry! Didn't get much off of Kayla & Marlena & the discovery that Whitley had been a DevilDoc patient. Very late in the game to offer motive for Whitley. Oh, yeah, I nominate Lani's ankle bracelet as the most frustrating thing about current DAYS. They could have tracked her by it the whole time!

Per Scott McKinsey, Dir., DAYS does 8 episodes per week. He posted that last week in answer to a question. Also indicated that there's no way they could get more than that. So, what you're saying, Yeah, right. More about content: I've discovered some posters who do a permanent status or topic "STFU". Clever & fitting. Currently GH STFUs apply to Portia, Gladys, Dr. Montague, Mason stays in it. Finn & Gregory are frequently in. All as you would expect. Lately, I've taken to posting "Liz, run!" and there's a pic out from the show where she looks like Finn's prisoner. Ick.

Nothing I read on the subject considered the cost of 2 half hour soaps since that would not be a perspective that a soap in question would be considering. Like other factors it was a perspective from the network view. And here again the benefit accrued not to the show itself, but to the network. However, once the concept had been introduced & attempted successfully, of course, the show would gain an indirect benefit because they would be more attractive to a network or sponsor, etc. to get them &/or to keep them.

When they pushed the network expansion on the shows they knew a few things. (1) It would cost more than twice as much to do it. (2) Have to hire & keep in employ more actors. (3) Need more space for sets & stuff. (4) It would increase revenue for the networks only. So there is the lousy deal they made. Lin Bolen sold AW on it & everything Lemay dreamed of getting out of it creatively did not happen & he became disenchanted. Nixon was completely against it but ABC gave her more studio space, etc. so they used the carrot. Bell was just as against it & he refused to bend any amount so they used the stick. CBS said they were going to one hour with him or without him, he could choose. Labine was just as against it & she & Paul Avila Mayer just did not do it. But the other point is that starting up a new soap is the most terrifying business decision because of the record of all the failures.

Thank you for your analysis. I began thinking about gross numbers of soaps & specifically remembering when we had 19 soaps & later when we had 14 soaps. Of course the network expansion made a huge difference, although I'm not sure it was a good difference. That's when I think the first grievous error in canceling was made. I think 5 NY soaps should still be on the air - AW, ATWT, GL, AMC & OLTL. Of course, they'd be very different. And it was predictable that viewership would fall & it fell in primetime, too. The only hope was that the soaps would do something to make a difference in the predictability, like reinventing themselves, again. My criticisms of the 2 soaps I watch are all in the Writing, although one is their use of personnel but you could call it all about story-telling.

Both excellent ideas, theories, etc. The first more of the micro-managing that's gone on for so danged long but today possibly even more chicken sh*t! And the latter, when I think that fans could so ourselves in, it makes me grind my teeth, which I ain't supposed to do! You're right, though, the path is not to go back. The past offers only nostalgia.

53 yrs ago, in 1970, there were 19 soaps on the air. 1976 there were 15. 1989 there were 12. 2005 there were 9. 2007 there were 8. 2009 there were 7. 2010 there were 6. 2011 there were 5. 2012 there were 4. That's what happened. That's where we are. I think many soap fans would agree that there's something seriously wrong with soaps today. I think it's that the stakes are so incredibly high. Enough wrong decisions & another one could be canceled. I think our soap leadership is terrified. I can hardly imagine that they would not be. So, who is the most courageous? Josh Griffith? Bradley Bell? Frank Valentini? Ken Corday?

And, we have Rocky, Leo & Baby Ace! Plus, we had an adult named Franco! An evil but very serious man was named Cesar.

Okay. Much better than Barney Rubble's lady.

I've thought about it. I think she was very nervous. They'd colored her hair. They'd straightened her hair. She was probably wondering wth about her was right & didn't have to be changed, ... If it was nerves we'll see her get better probably pretty quick. I'm gonna be watching hoping ...

My mind automatically went to The Flintstones!! Oy. I'm a Jonny Quest girl.

I read this as "talking to my phone" at first, did a double take & read what it really says. Talk about laugh. 🤔🙄😲🙃

Seeming doesn't make it so.

Yes, if it is, then I think it was performed in 1978 & she won in the awards presentation in 1979. So, if it had been in this combo clip it would have been the last half hour. Liz was in, off & on, the whole clip.