Love of Life Discussion Thread

[dc11786]

Please register in order to view this content

I don't think this has shown up here. This material appears to be from January 1980, but some of it may be earlier. It definitely seems to lead up to the final days.

 

This seems to come from Christopher Wyatt who played Joel Stratton, the young law student who was introduced as part of the younger set by Ann Marcus. It's all a nice tangent to the main story (Amy may be Bruce's daughter, Steve has romantic inclinations towards Vanessa). The dialogue is a bit stilted, but I adore the what they are building to in terms of story and character.

 

Anyway, it's a chance to see some of Dana Delany as the deceptive Amy Russell and to get a peek at what the end of "Love of Life" looked like.  

[mikelyons]

Wonderful! Thanks for sharing!!! :-) 

[DRW50]

Thanks for finding that. I'd never seen it. You can see how green Dana and Christopher Wyatt are and then how they grow in confidence as the clips pass. How did Amy's story end?

 

I'm trying to remember if that scene at the disco was shown in one of Dana's talk show appearances.

Edited June 13, 2018 by DRW50

[Soaplovers]

It's a shame the show was cancelled just as it appeared as if Ann Marcus was finally getting the show some focus and consistency.  She had introduced several new characters that were more modern and likable.. and were mixing them up with the veterans.  

 

Even though Dana is green, you couldn't help watching her and her acting partner either.  I do wonder how that story would have turned out (was she really Bruce's daughter, or was her mother in her diary mistaken).

[vetsoapfan]

 

Marcus had really helped revitalize SFT when she became that show's headwriter, so I hoped she would help raise the ratings for LoL in the same way. LoL had been plagued by atrocious writing for years, however, and I think many viewers had just become fed up and did not want to give the show any more chances.

[Khan]

 

You could say the same about GL.

[vetsoapfan]

 

Right. Aside from Millie Taggart's and Carolyn Cullitin's all-too-brief tenure at the show, TGL was abysmally written during its final 15 years or so. There are only so many chances even the die-hard fans will give any soap before we come to accept the inevitable.

Edited June 13, 2018 by vetsoapfan

[Khan]

I've often wondered, though, whether LOL's main problem was that the premise was too limited.  Just from reading about the show through the years, it seems like LOL began to suffer as they tried to expand from stories with Vanessa at the center.  (Of course, I've seen people say the same about SFT, but I feel like THAT show could have survived even if Mary Stuart had passed away or retired.)

 

Also, I've read somewhere that LOL's audience was largely older, and that they balked whenever the show even ATTEMPTED more progressive stories featuring younger characters.  Is that true?

Edited June 13, 2018 by Khan

[All My Shadows]

I think the Van/Meg angle could have been played for years and years as their families grew. Did Van ever have any children of her own? In another thread, there was talk about how not every female character needs to become a mother, but Van obviously should have become one at some point. Meg had Ben and Cal. It would have been interesting to see the dynamics between the Van's virtuous offspring and Meg's rougher kids and then to see that follow through to the next generation. All along, the sisters learning and getting wiser in their older years to the fact that family's all that you have, no matter how different. If anything, I think LOL is one soap that should have had no problem at all staying true to its day 1 premise. The fact that Meg was offscreen for so long is a shame.

I really like those new clips that have surfaced. I watched those episodes that CCH uploaded a few years ago just earlier this week, and across all of these, you can feel a sense of modernity growing. I don't know much about the Amy character, but you can tell that she was created as a response to something.Had the show continued, it could have made a nice, youthful image for itself while still retaining major characters like Van, Meg, and Bruce. I guess it wouldn't have made a difference for CBS since they offed LOL to expand Y&R (after moving LOL from its long-held morning timeslot). 

Edited June 13, 2018 by All My Shadows

[Soaplovers]

 

If you think about the same could have been asked about SFT.. which started as a story about Jo navigating life as a young widow with a young daughter... but the show had a rebirth in the mid 70s by expanding the scope of the canvas focusing on Jo's family, Stu's family, and a bunch of younger characters that were connected to both families either through blood or friendship.

 

LOL's biggest problem was always the time slot.  They were usually aired before 11 AM.. and even when the Labine's revived the show creatively (from what I hear Depriest maintained what the Labine's were doing)... it never reached higher then 8th or 9th place.. and even though Marcus was working her magic.. the show was moved to 4/3 PM so it was usually not aired by certain affiliates.. or were being killed by Edge of Night on ABC... (hence why I think Marcus tried adding younger characters to appeal to the afterschool crowd).

[Khan]

 

True -- and I guess that was my point in my last post.  SFT's focus DID expand over time, to the point where the show's mere survival didn't rest entirely on Mary Stuart's (and Larry Haines') shoulders.  Don't get me wrong, there were times when SFT was so bad that seeing Stu and Jo onscreen was the only thing keeping fans going.  However, if MS and/or LH had passed away or retired while SFT was still running -- yes, it would have been a blow, just like losing any original cast member is to any show -- but I feel like the show itself could have weathered the losses (with the right production team in place, of course) and carried on.

 

But could LOL have weathered losing Vanessa?  Again, going on what I have read about the show, I don't think so.  I think if Audrey Peters had died suddenly, or if she had chosen to leave the show for whatever reason, LOL would have been as good as gone -- which tells me that the show never evolved as much as it probably should have.

 

Am I wrong, or didn't Vanessa adopt a child at some point?

 

Actually, AMS, I would have developed Vanessa and Meg's offspring the other way around: Meg's kids would have been (more) virtuous and had more in common with their "Aunt Van," while Vanessa's own children would have ended up more like Meg.  But that's just coming from personal experience.

Please register in order to view this content

Edited June 13, 2018 by Khan

[Soaplovers]

 

Didn't the show kind of do that with Meg's daughter Cal?  She seemed more like Vanessa than Meg based on what I read in summaries.

[Khan]

 

You're right, she did.

 

Damn, I wish I knew more about this show.

[Paul Raven]

For whatever reasons, over the years Van did not have children. Was she unable?

 

Bruce's 2 children Alan and Barbara were like children to Van,but the decision was made to drop them and never bring them back. Their presence would have obviously provided story for Van and grandchildren etc.

 

It's always puzzling looking over past shows to wonder why some decisions were made.

 

Van took in a young girl Lynn in the mid 70's but again she was dropped and never returned.

[dc11786]

In the end, Amy Russell's story went unresolved. I don't think Bruce had learned Amy's secret yet. In December, Amy had sent Bruce a letter claiming he had ruined her mother, but I believe it was also revealed that Amy's mother was mentally ill. Amy managed to land an invite to Sarah and Timothy's holiday wedding by going with Steve Harbach.

 

I think the disco sequence may be from the final weeks. Chandler Harben Hill posted the scene on his channel with the last week and that sequence from July, 1979.

 

Saynotoursoap, who hasn't posted here in ages, said that Ann Marcus planned to reveal that Amy was NOT Bruce's daughter. Marcus had played a similar story on "Days of our Lives" about a year before with Don Craig and Donna where it was revealed the mother was lying before changing it again (or maybe another write changed Donna's paternity). This poster also revealed that Marcus planned to bring back both Barbara and Alan Sterling. Bruce mentioned his son and his daughter to Amy in conversation in the final month or two. I also heard a rumor that Peter Reckell had been hired at the time of the cancellation to play Hank Latimer, but I'm not sure if that is true or not.

 

"Love of Life" DID evolve though, didn't it? It went from Barrowsville to New York City to Rosehill and from Peggy McCay to Bonnie Bartlett to Audrey Peters. Also, there had been a "youth focus" since the mid 1960s with Bill / Tess / Jamie / Sally  and then later Betsy / Arlene / Ben / Cal / David. I do agree there seems to be a struggle maintaining a cohesive narrative thread as the show evolves. Often, it seems characters were not weaved in and out of the story in a natural manner. Characters like Barbara and Alan should have come back at some point even if they don't stay.

 

As mentioned, Van had stepchildren in Alan and Barbara Sterling. If the show was playing the long game with Amy's paternity, Alan's return could have really ruffled some feathers. Alan wasn't Bruce's biological son, but rather the product of an affair his wife had with another man. Imagine Amy learning that her 'father' Bruce had raised another man's child but not her? I've read that Vanessa miscarried a baby in the 1950s during her marriage to Paul Raven. Considering that she was looking to adopt Carol, the daughter Paul Raven didn't know was his, or wasn't his, I would assume that Vanessa suffered fertility issues. Later, Vanessa looked after Stacey Corby, Paul's stepdaughter when he suffered amnesia and believed he was Matt Corby. Also, Vanessa became involved with Lynn Henderson, a teen alcoholic. Vanessa went to see Lynn in April 1979 when Peters was off screen for several weeks. When Vanessa returned to Rosehill in May, she was offered the job at the university.

 

I agree "Love of Life" should have been able to maintain its focus with virtuous Vanessa vs. self centered Meg. We should also remember that Tudi Wiggins was set to depart the show early in 1980 even if the show hadn't been cancelled. I think that would have been a blow to the show as not only was Meg such a crucial piece to the story, but the Meg / Tom / Liane story reads as pretty strong with several emotional pay outs yet to be cashed in. It's interesting that Marcus had both Vanessa and Meg involved with younger men in very different situations. I would have liked to seen the reaction of each sister to the other's situation.

 

In terms of expanding, I have to wonder if the show was getting too big under Marcus to the point that characters would need to have been cut and story shifted. In the final week, the Kim / Tony / Bambi story seems to reach a natural conclusion without much conflict building. I guess the show could have done more with Bambi's relationship with Dr. Paul Graham, but even Paul seems extraneous on a show that already has doctors Tom, Liane, and Andrew. Wes Osborne, Mia's kid brother, finally got a story after a brief departure (maybe Woody Brown was away filming the "Flaming Road" telefilm?) with newcomers Kelly Wilson (Liane's sister who arrived to attend Rosehill University) and Cheryl Kingsfield (a coworker at the disco). With Alan and Barbara (and possibly Hank) set to return, some of the characters were going to need to go.