Jump to content

Y&R: Which Phyllis?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I have been watching some 1997 Y&R episodes, so I came to think about Michelle Stafford and Sandra Nelson. I really like MS. She can do borderline psycho, manipulative, tense very well and I have been enjoying her for years (until Phyllis was lobotomized). But, I think that Sandra Nelson is the ultimate Phyllis to me. I don't know why--she always seemed more fierce, stronger than MS's Phyllis.

This thread is not to bash either of the actresses, so please everyone keep that in mind. :)

I love them both, personally, it's just that I think I see SN more as Phyllis than MS. What do you guys think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There were two completely different interpretations of the role.

I think Stafford is much better with conveying the vulnerable side of Phyllis, where Nelson was better with the psycho stuff. In the end though, Stafford is Phyllis, it's really the writing that's killed the character over the years. Not to mention, Stafford has been incredibly lazy after the affair with Nick ended.

Stafford also has/had more of a sexy edge to her than Nelson, who well, wasn't sexy at all IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I haven't seen much of Bell's writing for MS's Phyllis, so maybe I can't really compare. Though I have to completely agree with you on Stafford's sexy edge, which Nelson didn't have. And, yeah, Nelson didn't do vulnerable all that well. But I guess she was perfect for what she was meant to do in that story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oh you definitely have to see early Bell written Phyllis with Stafford in the role. Did you know Bill Bell only intended to have Phyllis and Stafford on the show for 13 weeks, as a roadblock for Danny and Christine? But he was impressed with Stafford and the role that he decided to make the character a long-term fixture.

I loved how zany early Phyllis was, and it also helped that she hated 'The Bug' who I never could stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I will definitely keep an eye out for that. I have seen her in different scenes via YouTube, but that's not merely enough. And I had no idea that he wasn't planning to keep her around--but it doesn't surprise me that he did!

I absolutely loved the Phyllis/Christine hatred. But I do like Christine. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sandra Nelson was more subtle and played everything straight which made Phyllis more humorous and menacing at the same time. Similar to Jess Walton compared to Brenda Dickson, I could feel and believe all of the backstory and what situation Phyllis had gotten herself into. Stafford has completely lost it IMO. She's a complete cartoon and plays everything one note these days. I won't lie and say she wasn't great in her day, but she is laughable these days. I think she needs a break from Phyllis so she can explore other roles and come back when she and the writers are more devoted to the role.

It's a shame she's viewed as such an important presence because the characters day is truly done. She needs a break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

QUOTE (Chris B @ Sep 20 2008, 02:16 AM)
Sandra Nelson was more subtle and played everything straight which made Phyllis more humorous and menacing at the same time. Similar to Jess Walton compared to Brenda Dickson, I could feel and believe all of the backstory and what situation Phyllis had gotten herself into. Stafford has completely lost it IMO. She's a complete cartoon and plays everything one note these days. I won't lie and say she wasn't great in her day, but she is laughable these days. I think she needs a break from Phyllis so she can explore other roles and come back when she and the writers are more devoted to the role.

It's a shame she's viewed as such an important presence because the characters day is truly done. She needs a break.

Thank God someone said it! She really needed to be on for those 13 weeks and — gone! The most obnoxious character ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Michelle Stafford is the only Phyllis I enjoy watching .... even now. No one can change gears or work with ANYONE and make it work like "the Stafford". The character reminds me alot of Rachel from Another World, started out being the vixen and man strealer and over the years (like real people do) she has morphed into a classic character. I mean do you really expect Phyllis to be the same person at 40 that she was at 20??? I am not the same person, I have mellowed, why can't my soap opera character mellow with falling in love and becoming a true parent to both of her kids and step parent to Noah??? Phyllis still has her edge, we have seen some of it this past week. I don't think the problem is with Michelle as much as it is with the new writing regime, they just don't know how to write for Phyllis. I loved the Phyllis during the "Cassie dies/Hunt for Daniel and Lily/the trial and the aftermath. MS chewed up the screen and made some other characters look like cartoon characters...she has that ability. But when you are given crappy lines and scenes, what do you expect her to do.....re-write her dialogue????? Why blame MS for what she is give by the writers....maybe some of you should be blaming the writers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I quite enjoy Michelle Stafford as Phyllis, I cannot imagine anyone else in the role, Sandra Nelson was a good Phyllis when she was called to be the domanatrix Phyllis, I don't think she has the range that Michelle does. If written properly the Phyllis character dominates the scene, she is a force to be reckon with. Given the proper dialogue, there is no range of emotions that she cannot play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My problem with Stafford as Phyllis,initially,was the writing at the time.

The whole Danny has a one night stand and divorces Chris was so lame.Chris was supposed to be in contact with Danny at the time,and he was such a moral character that his breaking marriage vows wasn't believable.

Especially,when we didn't see it happening.

Phyllis came on as totally evil.There was no chemistry between her and Danny and she was annoying and one note in her pursuit. And let's face it,Danny was hardly the sexy rock star the show kept trying to push him as.

Stafford improved as the character developed.That said, I really liked Nelson as Phyllis.

One last thing - the name Phyllis. No offense to any posters with that name, but it conjures up visions of a matronly middle aged woman. a strange choice at the time for a sexy young vixen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Community Posts

    • I think I've heard of this before but I'd definitely like to know more, lol. Probably in the Classic thread if that's preferred by people. I've never been big on Cari Shayne's Karen. But yes, Carrie and Christie Clark have always had me. Like Kimberly as Robin on GH or Erin Torpey on OLTL, there is a core of lived experience with the actor evolving from child to adult and a quiet intelligence in their presence there that makes the character rise above any poor writing IMO.
    • I hear what your saying regarding Carrie Brady's place on the canvas. There is no arguing that. As I think I was saying poorly above, Karen was introduced during a transition period very early in Riche's run (as was Jagger). There were a lot of things that happened during that period that feel very against the soap opera grain. For example, David Langdon, Monica's ex and Dawn's father, arrives in Port Charles in a medical story where Monica inserts herself with the intention of telling David that Dawn was their daughter. David dies suddenly and Monica never reveals this information to David. This feels very untraditional. Similarly, the whole Joseph Adkins arc with Bobbie writing to a murderer and the women of Port Charles all fawning over his book is not something I felt was the type of story soaps in 1992 did. Similarly, introducing a character like Karen without any family ties and anchoring a younger part of the story with another outsider Jagger wasn't how things would typically work (effectively) on the soap.   I think my issue with the idea that Brenda had a direct goal is that is all there was to her. She had nothing to her outside of that in early 1993. Jagger had wanting to find his family. Karen was working to get into medical school. Brenda had Jagger, who only wanted her when he couldn't have Karen. Even Ruby called Jagger out on this. Brenda's point of view was so limited. The fact that she nearly gets bested by Jenny Eckert of all people in a confrontation in March, 1993, is pretty wild given how milquetoast Jenny is.  I can see why you would think Karen was taking a middle of the road approach to things. It might not have been presented well, but her pursuing her career and going to college was going to come first. Working at Kelly's and maintaining her grades was going to come before her romance with Jagger. With Rhonda around, meddling in her life, Karen definitely had more reason to be conflicted. Rhonda saw Karen's relationship with Jason as the key to Karen's success, both by marrying into a wealthy family and by building a network of connections in Karen's career field.  Having watched some of her "General Hospital" run, I would like to at the early years of Karen's run on "Port Charles" to see how that all this continues in terms of her characterization. I think Karen remains very passive romantically deferring to Courtney Kanelos, who was just a much stronger adversary for Karen than Brenda was based on where Brenda was in her journey given that Courtney had Neil which tied her to the entire Scanlon clan. I do remember Karen having some outbursts, but I vaguely think that Shayne's Karen could also be pushed to her limits and she would fire back. This just wasn't her modus operandi as it was for characters like Courtney and early Brenda.  In Brenda's defense, I think part of the issue was the underdevelopment of her character. I think there was an intent on either Levinson's (or Riche's) part to craft Brenda as a "poor little rich girl" type who had no moral compass because her father was a business tycoon who ignored her and had loved Julia's mother more than her mother. If this was true, and the intent to solicit sympathy, or least empathy, for Brenda, it wasn't played enough for this to be effective. Brenda rejected Julia both in terms of her role as a parental figure and any sisterly advice she gave.  I would even go further and say that the issues I have with the Brenda/Karen rivalry were inherit to Bill Levinson's writing. By comparison, if you look at what was being done in the other female rivalries, the issues were mostly consistent. Jenny and Julia, for example, had the potential to be interesting but Julia was so passive and Jenny was sound brash and unfeeling that there was no one to root for. Also, the rivalry between Tiffany and Bobbie took Tiffany into a very narrow view with her solely trying to secure custody of Lucas at the cost of everything else including her friendship with Bobbie and Tony as well as her marriage to Sean. I'd be curious to see if Levinson had similar issues when he was at "Loving," but I'm spacing at the moment.   
    • Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka talk new show, ‘Drag Me to Dinner’ l GMA  
    • Jimbo & Alexis Spill Tea on Heidi's Drama (Unaired)

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Do these tournaments still test for COVID? https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/65794974?xtor=AL-72-[partner]-[bbc.news.twitter]-[headline]-[news]-[bizdev]-[isapi]&at_link_origin=BBCWorld&at_medium=social&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_type=web_link&at_format=link&at_link_id=085D161A-01FB-11EE-91C3-39FFD772BE90&at_campaign_type=owned&at_bbc_team=editorial
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy