Search For Tomorrow Discussion Thread

[TheyStartedOnSoaps]

These episodes Mitch S. is uploading. Numerous male actors performed their scenes without a shirt. While John Conboy started the trend, it seems that "Search" picked up where Conboy left off.

On another note, Louan Gideon seems to be on everyday in the episodes Mitch S. is uploading. It must have been a letdown when she had no storyline in the final months of "Search" after Jacquline Shultz became David Forsythe's new leading lady. Even Marcia McCabe had a storyline those final months. But Louan had nothing to do once Hogan was paired up with Patti.

[VelekaCarruthers]

The shirtless scenes increased under Nicholson as EP with Quinn, Hogan etc. They had focused on Steve Kendall under Joanna Lee in 1983 but not much bare skin on SFT overall.  Louanne was a terrible recast. And don't get me started on Pam Long's horrible final six months as head writer with the Ireland plot and the convoluted Judge Henderson plot. I watched it daily until the end and cannot summarize either plot.  

[DRW50]

The show seemed to burn through the Kendalls considering how many there were. How do you think the show handled them? Why did they tape off? Was it casting issues? How would you compare them to the McClearys? If the show had continued, would there have been a future for the family?

[Soaplovers]

From the episodes I've seen during the last few months of the shows run, the show wasn't in a perfect nor horrible place.  It was decent.

The highlight of the judge story was Ann Flood playing a completely 180 character from her Edge of Night days.  And Stu/Jo having good focus.

I think the Ireland story was an attempt to hop on the bandwagon of 80s location shoots.. and solidifying the McCleary's as the second major family outside the Stu/Jo combination family (though killing Suzi off was misguided.. especially considering Terri E had this likable everywoman element)

 

I also see that Tomlin came back to headwriting again in late September/early October 1985... and the first thing I noticed was the mask was off Sarah and the gloves were off with Wendy.  The two had good antagonistic chemistry.. and Tomlin was misguided killing her off and deep sixing the Sarah/Wendy/Quinn triangle.

The alternative for all three proposed by Tomlin didn't seem any better with Wendy being put in a Suzi/Warren redux situation except it was her mother Stephanie and her new boy toy Bela.  The move was plot driven and not character driven.

Meanwhile Sarah is killed off just as she figured out the weird Bela/Wendy vibe and threatening to go to Stephanie... and Quinn has this sudden fascination with working class Evie that made no sense.

 

As Marcia McCabe said during the Locher Room interview she had... she said each EP/headwriter would come in and remake the show and this done too often.   And seeing the episodes from 1983/1984/1985 posted... she's correct in that view.

For example, Wendy and Suzi's friendship was threatened by Warren and their mutual interest in him... but that seems to fall by the wayside due to the numerous Suzi recasts.

Then a random character Justine comes on.. and the show spends months building her up as the antagonist... establishing a potentially good rivalry with Wendy.  And in fact, Quinn/Justine are tested in the spring of 1985 before she leaves/is dropped.. and Sarah is introduced.  Sarah is a character with no history with Wendy... and the show spends weeks setting the foundation of a rivalry between former schemer Wendy and new schemer Sarah while fighting over Quinn.

Then just as the foundation has been laid down.. poof Sarah is killed off and Wendy is sleeping with the man her mother is seeing.

Typing all these whiplash changes makes me understand why viewers were confused/unattached the show.... and all I typed was Wendy's situation (we won't even go into the Liza and Sunny whiplashes during that same period of time).

 

[Contessa Donatella]

I don't know if this will be useful. If it's not please scroll on by. If it is, great!

This is Part 1 of 3. 

Search For Tomorrow. (1977). Daytime TV Library Series No. 7.

 

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.  It included a synopsis of the story from origin to that point, lots of pictures and a key item: What it took to make an episode of the show.

 

At the time, SFT was enjoying a revitalization after four years mediocre ratings.  The new producer, Mary-Ellis Bunim rose up the ranks from secretary to producer in late 1973.  Under her guidance, ratings jumped.  In the 1973-1974 ratings, “Search” placed 9th with a 7.7.  In the 1974-1975 season, it rose to a 4th with a 9.4.  At the time of this edition, it hovered around 5th with an 8.6 rating, winning its time period and coming in third of the five CBS soaps.

Some of the questions posed were:

            What did the title mean to the actors?

            What is your opinion about the Emmys?

            What character would they want to switch with?

            Did the actors feel there was a bias against acting on a soap?

            When did you start on the show?

            What motivates your character?

I will cover some here & some in other articles. Today I will cover how the show got on the air:

The Show On The Air – Step by step how SFT got on the air in 1976.

At the time, “Search for Tomorrow” was taped at the CBS Studio 51 & 54 on the lower West Side of Manhattan (probably the studio at W. 26th Street that was a later home to “Guiding Light”).

8:00 AM – The director of the day (there were three at the time), the production assistant and actors in the first act arrive.  Actors arrived based on the acts they were in between 8:00 AM and 9:45 AM and went to the rehearsal hall.

9:00 AM – Makeup artist and hair stylist arrive (there was one of each except for special episodes where full cast were part of the episode).

9:00 AM – Makeup artist and hair stylist arrive (there was one of each except for special episodes where full cast were part of the episode).

9:30 AM – Producer Mary-Ellis Bunim and Associate Producer Bob Getz arrive and go to their offices on the second floor.

9:45 AM – 10:15 AM – Director of the day checks sets in studio on the third floor. Actors begin make-up and hair sessions.

10:15 AM – 11:45 AM – This is the time for first rehearsal on set (called FAX) with cameras. Blocking and camera angles are perfected.

11:45 AM – 12:15 PM – First run-through in studio.  Producer and associate producer watch action in their office via CCTV.  Rough edges are smoothed out.

12:15 PM – 12:45 PM – Actors lunch break.  Notes made by producer and associate producer during run through are given to director in production office.

1:00 PM – 1:20 PM – Directors give notes to actors and studio personnel. Final touches to actors’ hair and make-up.

1:30 PM – 2:00 PM – Dress rehearsal.  Producers watch on CCTV and make final notes.

2:00 PM – 2:15 PM – Producers give final notes to directors in control room.

2:15 PM – 2:30 PM – Final notes given to actors and studio personnel by director. Notes on production elements (i.e., does liquor look real? Are props in assigned locations?) given by associate producer.

2:30 PM – 3:00 PM – Taping the episode. (SFT taped only two days before air).

3:00 PM – 3:15 PM – Tapes are checked.  If all is OK, cast is excused.

Thus, “Search for Tomorrow” put on a show in LESS than SEVEN AND A HALF HOURS!  This time does not include the homework the actors and directors have to do before arriving at the studio.  Directors stated it took eight to twelve hours of homework for every episode they direct.  The producer has to spend time reading rough drafts and editing scripts, making notes for the writer, working on long-term story and character development. The associate producer spends outside office hours, organizing all facets of production elements and making sure they are all intact.  On a daily basis, auditions are held, attendance at script consultations and going over the following day’s schedule.  With luck, the producer can leave the studio between 6:00 and 7:00 PM.

Written by DM James Fairbanks, Posted with permission. 

[Contessa Donatella]

This is Part 2 but I was wrong, there is no 3. 

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 a hundred actors over five shows (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.”

MILLIE 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.”

MILLIE 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?