Ryan's Hope Discussion Thread

[j swift]

ya got me @NothinButAttitude, I've had a digital copy since October, I'll go read to tonight, and we can book club it out this week

Please register in order to view this content

[NothinButAttitude]

Yes! Please read it. I find it to be good and insightful. I sparingly would watch RH when it was on SoapNet, but I never could fully commit as I was in college at the time. I just know that it was a soap that my paternal grandmother adored (she loved ABC shows and DAYS). So reading this has been like an odd way to connect with her. 

[gimmetoo]

Not to mention Catherine Larson (Lizzie) and Jim Wlcek (Ben) were romantically involved off-screen during this time...

Throughout it all, I found Ben easier to root for than Johnno who became just another in a long line of sanctimonious Ryans.

[NothinButAttitude]

So I just finished the book tonight. 

Shockingly, a lot of the younger and newer cast were upset about the cancellation. I think many of the original cast that were still there were numb to the situation and not shocked by the news. 

I get the feeling that James Wleck, Ash Adams, and Brian McGovern would've stuck around had the show remained. At least that is what I get from their interviews. Chris Durham, Gerit Quealy, and Lois Robbins seem like they would've stuck around if given the option too.

I felt bad for Chris & Gerit, both of whom were heartbroken they weren't invited back for the finale. But both played characters that Claire did not care for. 

Dear God, they took Agnes Nixon and Loving to task. I don't think anyone spoke highly of the show--whether it was an actor or someone on the production side. Not even Ilene, who had a short stint. I am assuming maybe Bernie Barrow, if he were still alive might have a different opinion of Loving (as he won an EMMY on the show), but we'll never know. While I think Agnes had pull, I think their anger should be directed at ABC more than anyone. 

Another thing that kind of unnerved me was the constant mentioning of RH having "heart" but not the other soaps. I think all these shows have 'heart' (some more than others--I think P&G shows exuded 'heart' more than any other soaps, but that's my opinion). No one will deny that RH did kitchen sink drama like no other U.S. soap. But again, I think all the traditional soaps exude heart at the core. They lost it along the way... Overall, the book was great. I felt like it provided me with a history of the show and first-hand commentary. I hope more books on the genre come out. 

[j swift]

I also just finished.  I have notes, but I'll go back to read the postings of others who read it, so I am not redundant. 

My overall grade is 6/10, it needed a much better editor. There was some good gossip, and I'm glad I finally read it.

[j swift]

After a good night's sleep, here are my notes.

Overall, I wish it was more about the history of the show, taken from Tom Lisanti's interviews, rather than an oral history with several previously printed sources sprinkled into it.  I think the writing is the strongest when the author describes the plot within the context of the times.  For example, when explaining the murder of Michael Pavel was, in part, a reaction to Y&R changing time slots and the need to create an event to lure away viewers from CBS. 

The structure gets really tedious when he ends each chapter with a review of Daytime Emmy nominations and then a preview of what's to come.  I thought it really needed an editor when I read two separate people talk about Randal Edwards in an episode of Tales of the Unexpected with Carol Lynley.  I also began to skip the repetitive interviews about how nice they thought each other was when they first met.  There were also several spurious links between the scripted lines of the ABC promos implying how the executive really felt about the show.  For example, a commercial touting that Delia's back, did not necessarily mean that Jackie Smith supported her rehiring.  Similarly, Jon Michael Reed's take on the show is often confused with the audience response, despite a lack of established correlation. And I didn't need Richard Backus's three-page summary of his soap career, including the inevitable remark that he liked Beverly McKinsey when he was on AW. 

That being said, there are some hilarious moments.  The setup of three interviews shading Joe Hardy, and the surprise popup of Joe Hardy himself talking about joining the show, was the best use of the interview structure.  The cast is vicious about the perceived lack of talent of Michael Hennesy (Joe recast), Matthew Labine (Claire's son), and Catherine Larson (Lizzie).  And @NothinButAttitude's aforementioned discussion of Agnes Nixon was tea that I had never heard spilled, including that Nixon would ignore Labine at network and awards functions.  And, in turn, Labine's characterization of Gloria Monty's style of shorter scenes being “destructive” was wickedly fun.  Also, big meow to Catherine Hicks mentioning that she got cast for Jack Lemon's Tribute on Broadway over Kate Mulgrew, and then Kate announces Catherine's hiring to the RH cast, but doesn't show up to her goodbye party.

I thought there was also some relatable workplace drama that could occur anywhere from a sound stage in Brooklyn to an accounting office in Omaha.  For example, everyone gossips about Sarah Felder (Siobhan) being hard to work with and not traditionally beautiful for daytime.  Then, Art Rutter says that he never heard anyone mention she wasn't pretty, (implying that her firing was mostly due to her mercurial nature with her co-stars).  Louise Shaffer (Rae) admits to often not paying attention to BTS drama because she was focused on “paying off her mortgage.”  I also laughed that Louise would choose scenes for her Emmy reel because her hips looked good, rather than for their dramatic content.  And, multiple people made digs at Helen Gallagher (Maeve) for being cold toward new actors, despite her statement that Ryan's Hope had the reputation as the “most welcoming set in daytime.”  Finally, Taggart's story about network notes at the start of her tenure coming from an unknown source who just envisioned a woman in “a padded cell” as being another example of getting unhelpful interference, rather than resources and more promotion.

There was also a ton of information that was new to me.  I had forgotten about Michael Pavel's backstory with his mother and Tiso.  The idea to make Seneca suddenly gay, and Jackie Smith's retort that she discouraged “homosexual stories because they are not romantic to our viewers.”  James Wleck (Ben) dating Catherine Larson (Lizzie) and then Maria Portillo (Nancy Don), like Jon Hensley who couldn't keep it in his pants.  The fact that Kate Mulgrew (Mary) was only 20 when she started, the age difference between her and Michael Levin (Jack), and the idea that he was wearing a hairpiece the whole time.  Bernie Burrow (Johnny) negotiating an extra fee for appearing in the intro leading to all the actors temporarily being cut from the opening sequence.   And (Chaz) Brian McGovern's touching tale about calling Paul Meyer weekly for years, was heartwarming.

I also thought Nancy Addison (Jill) gets short shrift.  For example, she gets nominated in 1977, but there's no context for her story at the time.  There was an interesting idea about Delia being more popular with viewers than Jill or Mary, who are portrayed in the book as modern women, but strident and judgmental.  It made me think about how the production was often out of touch with the audience.  Yes, it was unique to have two professional, feminist, romantic leads of the show.  But, I could imagine why a woman at home in the mid-70s may not find it aspirational to be in the workforce, and being sympathetic toward a young mother like Delia.  Also, Claire Labine fights hard for stories about Mary, but when Jackie Smith is given more control the rating raise by 45%. 

There's also a ton that's missing.  For example, Millee Taggart was very upfront about her temporary falling out with Tom King at the end of their time on the show.  But, we never get the full story of what happened to the friendship between Paul and Claire after he quit in 1982 and she kept comming back.  Also, when Claire Labine comes back the second time, she insists that her former casting director returns, then that person leaves, and we never learn why or when.  Then there's the typical stuff about the show becoming Kirkland's Hope under PFS.  However, in this telling it doesn't seem fair because Labine created Hollis Kirkland, and each family member was tied to a Ryan.  So, the real story seems to be who was the one who leaked that complaint to the soap press, and how it became lore.  But, nobody seems willing to confess.  Finally, I really wanted stories about life as a soap actor in late 70s New York.  I want some Studio 54 stuff, a few tales about drug use, and there's no mention of any actor's sexuality during the sexual liberation period or during the height of the AIDS crisis. 

I'm glad I read it, thanks for the push @NothinButAttitude and I enjoyed your take @safe (also odd that a website has the RH bible, but not Paul Meyer's kids or the author of the book).  It is required reading for any soap fan who wants to round out their knowledge base of the show.  And, an excellent book club selection.  I recommend the digital/kindle version, because I found myself forgetting the characters played by certain actors, or the jobs of various production crew. So it was helpful to use the search function to reference their full title in their first interview.

Edited April 28, 2024 by j swift

[NothinButAttitude]

@j swift I love your review of the book. I don't think it could be summed up much better than this. Our viewpoints aligned on the book. There was a lot of tea spilled, BUT a lot of stuff went unanswered too. The drama backstage seemed to be juicier at times as to what was not being shown onscreen. And if I had to guess who the leaker was that you mentioned, I'd put my money on either Ron Hale or Michael Levin. Both of them gave the hint that they did not like being on the show after the first few years. 

I cracked up about Bernie wanting to be paid more to be shown in the opening credits. That makes sense why the last few years of the show, he only got one shot compared to Helen, who had about 2-3 shots in the intro. 

Oh, I forgot to mention last night that it boggled me that Cali didn't enjoy her time on AW as she did on RH. It all boiled down to how Paulina was written. IMO, she played Paulina at her best. Paulina was the vixen that she whined about wanting Maggie to be. That confused me b/c she constantly talked about how she hated Maggie losing her edge when she was paired with Dave. 

Speaking of Dave, I am shocked Scott Holmes didn't contribute. But I am guessing he wanted to put that behind him and knew his character wasn't liked much on RH. 

[Sallyinlondon]

I've also read the book and enjoyed it.

 

My main note is that I felt it was a bit too heavy on the years that aren't available on Youtube, so any newer fans don't know who a lot of the characters were (obviously the target market is mainly those who saw it in the 80s, but i felt it skipped too quickly through the years that are currently available to watch).

I was interested to learn about the way they initally shot it.  I thought Ilene Kristen gave loads of great material to the book and really pulls it all together.

I would have liked to hear more about Nancy Addison whom I find fascinating.  I'm glad Tom got to speak to Michael Levin and Malachy McCourt before they died.

I found Catherine Hicks fabulously bitchy, i was amused how she made a point of saying how successful she was afterwards- especially as I've not seen her in anything else again (i grew up in 90s/00s UK). 

I liked the personal photos that were included, overall an enjoyable read

[kalbir]

As we saw in the 1980s ratings thread, June 1981 to May 1982 Ryan's Hope was competitive vs. Y&R, even winning the time slot in some weeks. The tide shifted June 1982 when Y&R rebounded from their post-expansion slump and Ryan's Hope began to fall. 1983 Y&R blew up and the rest is history.

Did Tichina Arnold contribute anything or was she mentioned? In past interviews she spoke positively of Michael Levin and she posted a memoriam to him on social media.

[j swift]

She didn't contribute, but the book details the character's arc and Michael Levin spoke positively of her talents.

[NothinButAttitude]

She was mentioned in the book, but she did not interview at all. Everyone who discussed her said the same--that they saw star potential in her from the start. Michael Levin said he loved the Zena story but didn't care for Jack's parent arc. 

 

[kalbir]

Thank you for the answers @j swift and @NothinButAttitude.

[j swift]

Agreed Ilene Kristen's stories about how Ryan's Hope was filmed straight through versus how One Life to Live filmed in blocks according to which set was used, was fascinating.  Especially, in light of recent discussions about DAYS and contemporary soap production schedules.  They filmed each episode in 40 minutes, and actors who couldn't keep up were dropped (like Frank Latimore aka Ed Coleridge).

She later starred in many prime-time series including 7th Heaven which ran for 10 seasons, so she was very successful (and a little bitchy).

[NothinButAttitude]

@j swift I saw we responded again at the same time with similar responses. 

Please register in order to view this content

But Catherine was in a somewhat successul family drama here in the U.S. called 7th Heaven that ran for 11 seasons. She played the matriarch on the show, so she had moderate success post-show.

But I found her anger the same as most--that Claire only cared about Kate Mulgrew and the character of Mary.

I understood their frustration as the show is meant to be an ensemble and yes, the Ryans are supposed to be front and center, but what about the rest?

And not all the Ryans seemed to get much content unless you were Mary, Maeve, or Siobhan.

Frank seems to have gotten a lot, but it seems (from reading) it was always about chasing Jill or battling Delia.

Poor Pat never got tossed a real bone post-marriage with Delia. I understood Malcolm Groome's frustration and him leaving numerous times; his character lacked layers. I did like that Malcolm dropped that gem that Pat was supposed to be a lothario in I guess Claire's bible or summation but it changed. I think they should've played that as Pat would've been a contrast to Frank like Siobhan was to be to Mary. Making all the Ryans be righteous would not have gone over well with audiences and the 90s onward where gray characters are preferred. 

That's a good question--had RH made it past 89, do you all think it would've lasted as long as Loving/The City? Where do you all think the show would've went? 

[j swift]

It seems like a structural issue that the next generation (i.e., Ryan and Johnno) were written more superficially, and with less regard to lasting character traits than their aunts and uncles.  It was an inspired idea to age them when they did.  But, having watched at the time, neither character would've inspired me to follow them regardless of plot, like Maggie, Jill, and Roger.  I mean, Maggie could've slept with an endless array of patch-eyed megalomaniacs and I would've watched.  Which is why I was so pleased that the book quoted her triumphant line to Dave about never liking pastrami any way.

It is ironic in retrospect that Claire Labine was critical of the “Murder Week” plot when interviewed by the New York Times about the next WGA strike in 1988.  I understand her point, and like "Kirkland's Hope" it became lore.  But those scabs may have bought the show more time by demonstrating that it could compete against Y&R.

That sort of context made me appreciate the book, because it wasn't just filled with POV's that we've read before.  Except, of course, when the book republished articles filed with POV's that we've read before.

Please register in order to view this content

Edited May 2, 2024 by j swift