Guiding Light discussion thread

[Khan]

Once upon a time, I compared Ross to the character of "Stage Manager" in Thornton Wilder's play, "Our Town." I think that pretty much sums up how I looked at him.

[DRW50]

I get why people hate Reva, and I get that a lot of her stories were awful. I just generally enjoyed Zimmer's work and how she never phoned it in, even when most actors did. Reva never should have been written as a dull heroine but I felt like Zimmer usually played against that anyway.

Most of my angst over GL occurred when the show was still on, during the years I had stopped watching. So now, while I still feel some angst, I was happy I got to say goodbye properly (which I didn't with ATWT, but I've already gone on about that) and can look back, especially at some of the material I didn't get to see the first time around.

Looking at the older (1979-80) clips of Holly, she seems so much more placid than what she was when MG returned in 1989. You usually see soap actresses, as they age, try to cling to some sort of parody of an ingenue. Garrett never did that, and it really breathed new life into Holly.

[~bl~]

That video was made in 1995. For me the rape is a factor in the relationship, but it isn't all there is. As you saw in the video, this wasn't forgotten or glamorized like with other shows.

The voices of the various actors on GL were so specific, you could almost just listen to the show and know who was on screen.

I was the same way when I first saw Chris Bernau, I was in shock at how wonderful he was.

In 1996, GL split the opening into two one was the "Reva" version and the other was the "Roger" version. I don't think Reva or Roger was the most popular character of all time when it comes to GL, but Bert.

In Roger's mind, Ross was a villain and originally the character was supposed to be only very short term (6-9 months) being bad. Everyone in town was able to forgive Ross and he became a respected part of the community, while Roger never could get over his past. Ed, who Roger always hated became Ross's best friend for example, and Ross was able to turn Blake against both Roger and Holly. Holly and Ross dealt with his part of what happened, and it was acknowledged with lines like how until Holly came back to town the only person who didn't like him was Alan. Another scene that touched upon this was after Ross/Holly had broken up and Vanessa was dealing with her attempted rape, Holly was telling Vanessa the importance of pressing charges on the guy who did this to her, while Ross looked on and the scene was just brimming with subtext.

[Y&RWorldTurner]

The show could have easily swept Roger & Holly away and thrown the into the forgotten box with other characters from the 70's, but I'm still amazed and grateful they chose to bring them back. Though their second stint, a whole new generation of fans got to see what was so dynamic and special about their relationship and each character as a separate entity.

Not that awards mean much of anything, but I still think it's a shame Garrett never won an Emmy for her contributions to GL. Then again, she never chewed scenery, yelled all of her lines, or went to the press to pimp herself or any hidden agenda, so it was easy to overlook her sometimes. She could convey so much emotion with one facial expression, which a lot of actors cannot do convincingly anymore.

I myself preferred the more confident and glamourized Holly that returned in '89 to the plain Jane version from the late 70's, though. There was something very sexy and sensual about Garrett's portrayal when she returned that I loved. It was the same old Holly, but both Garrett and character had blossomed and come in to their own.

[DRW50]

I think Roger might have always been a candidate for return, if Zaslow wanted to return, because he was so remembered (Schemering saying about his original run that "viewers would not let him die.") Today, they would never bring Holly back, they'd just have Roger with sweet young things. Holly was the key component to Roger as a character and I'm glad Calhoun (?) and Nancy Curlee and Pam Long knew this.

[Y&RWorldTurner]

I know Curlee mentioned a few years ago that Long had no idea who Roger and Holly were, but she [Curlee] and Ed Trach pushed for them to be brought back.

She had to convince Trach that Roger's death wasn't final though, so they spent hours scrutinizing the final scenes from his first stint.

[DRW50]

Can you imagine anyone on a soap today even caring about whether the death was real. Today they'd just wink and say "soapy goodness." True soap goodness was that era of GL.

[Khan]

Or worse, suggest there are two Roger Thorpes running amok in the world.

[Y&RWorldTurner]

Roger would've been reincarnated and played by Tom Pelphrey.

[Khan]

Actually, I thought he was...?

[~bl~]

If it wasn't for Zas, they wouldn't have brought Maureen's Holly back at all. He's the one who asked for her to at come to GL at least for a short run, and then Pam Long saw her and was sold.

[katie_9918]

In my mind, Roger and Holly is the most complex story a daytime drama has ever told. Nothing ever touched anything like it before, not even Luke and Laura, and though there were a few stories in the seventies, early 1980, and early nineties that could have touched them, I think nothing will ever touch anywhere near Roger and Holly ever again. No one cares enough anymore to take that kind of care that was taken with the continuing saga of Roger Thorpe and Holly Norris.

If Ron Carlivati thinks any of the laughable drops he's ever penned comes close to ANYTHING that the eighties and nineties gave us daytime viewers, then obviously he never actually watched daytime drama in the eighties and nineties, no matter what he has to say on the subject.

We have our memories and they are better than anything these hacks of today are churning out.

Edited October 14, 2012 by katie_9918

[Cat]

^^ And it's not like our memories are faulty -- YouTube, Hulu etc all confirm what we have known for a long time!

I feel moved by all your contributions to my post about Holly and Roger and GL. These were all very personal, sober and meaningful reflections on H & R that seem to mirror the depth and intensity of what I have seen in clips. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for giving me your assessment. I am so excited to have discovered an aspect of GL I previously knew little about. I am almost as breathless watching some of these episodes as perhaps some of you were when you first saw them screened. Having your input has allowed me to appreciate the show as a whole. I felt this way when I discovered AW via Ryan & Anne Heche's Vicky, and it opened up an entire world. The same is now true of GL -- like I discovered a whole new country which is so rich and lush.

But as always with these things, it is bittersweet to see all this promise and mastery squandered because of -- let's face it -- greed, incompetence and (possibly) internal politics. It is crazy to me that true writers and lovers of the genre like Nancy Curlee, Sheri Anderson, Claire Labine (Love of Life and GH, I'm thinking) and the man who wrote EON almost all through its run are nowhere to be found in Daytime. Like they were so good at their job in certain instances that some kind of latent jealousy meant they were tossed aside for mediocrity. Because TIIC felt we, the viewers, didn't deserve any better.

Re: Holly's return in 1990 -- I can see the difference between her in the 70s and 1980 and the later Holly, and I think it is organic. Holly took Chrissie to Switzerland, and she became more sophisticated and mature in some ways. She'd seen a little more of the world. She'd grown, evolved, she wasn't stuck in a 1980s mindset. I think I like her better as this Holly because of all the new edges, her wit, her newfound strength coupled with lingering vulnerabilites. She is so human. It is these kind of women on Daytime that were role models (for lack of a better word) for me. I wanted to be them when I grew up, minus the bouts of alcoholism or other terrible events that befell them.

Khan/CarlD, I made an offhand reference to Reva in the 1980s which came out too b&w. I have been enjoying Big Reva in the full episodes of GL I have chanced upon, but what I like is that she is one of many strong characters woven into the fabric of the show. In later years I found that GL became a bit The Reva Show. KZ has not always been my cup of tea (she ate up SB and hastened its cancellation IMO) but there is no denying her commitment to her roles.

Well, onward and upward in my belated viewing of classic GL!

[Soaplovers]

I totally agree that it makes sense for Holly to have changed during the 9 years she was off the show. From what I can read from old 1980 summaries, after Roger's fall, she stayed on the show for several months and seemed like she was a zombie during that time. From what I can tell, she basically fell for Ed again while feeling guilt about coming between him and Rita. Plus, it seemed like she had some doubts about her brother Andy when he first came back to town. Reading this, I can see why Maureen Garrett bailed from the show when her contract expired. 1978-April 1980 were very exciting times for the character.. and then to spend the next seven to eight months doing nothing would be such a whip-lash for any performer.

With that said, I think had the character not left in late 1980, I dont forsee her becoming the assertive, snarky character that she was when she returned back in circa 89/90. With that said, do you think the character could have found a place on canvas post 1980? Or do you think it was logical for Holly to leave town and start anew for several years?

[Khan]

I think the years away did Holly (and Maureen Garrett) a ton of good, although I doubt either would have returned, had it not been for Michael Zaslow and Nancy Curlee's efforts. By 1989, Roger and Holly were "ancient history" to GUIDING LIGHT.

At the risk of sounding again like a Marland apologist, though, I feel MG was a trifle impatient -- but, I must concede, not totally unjustified -- for leaving GL when she did. For one thing, Marland had said at the outset that he needed to beef up GL's younger set as well as introduce a blue-collar element (namely, the Reardon clan) onto the canvas. Was it unfortunate how some characters, including Holly, got lost in that shuffle (some more permanently than others)? Definitely. In fact, I can't recall the exact interview or quote, but I know I've read somewhere how Marland would have loved to have written more for all the existing characters. However, when P&G had tapped him to replace Bridget and Jerome Dobson, it was with a mandate that he'd make the show more competitive with GH, a show that, under Marland's own pen, had acquired a younger audience with faster-paced stories featuring younger characters. (And before anyone questions Marland's own veracity, bear in mind how P&G subsequently passed down similar mandates to Pam Long and Jeff Ryder, telling the two to de-emphasize the Bauers and Reardons, as well as many characters from Marland's term, and go after both GH and DALLAS/DYNASTY fans, as well as displaced TEXAS fans.)

Moreover, MG was coming off a major story and triangle (that of Holly/Roger/Ed) that had been front-burner for the past two years, if not longer. In fact, I'd argue how that story -- and in particular, MG's chemistry with MZ -- had come to define Holly's and MG's place within the show. With Roger and MZ gone, though, and the triangle kaput, where did that leave Holly, and MG? I wouldn't say Marland had no idea what to do with a Roger-less Holly. If anything, judging from actors who had benefitted from his work, I think MG was the sort of performer Marland loved writing for. But I do believe most HW's would need a little time to figure out what to do with a character who had been part of a huge story for such a long period of time. And who knows, once Marland had set up what he needed to, he might have come back to Holly, along with some others he had to neglect in the meantime. Of course, by that point, MG was long out the door (and over at RYAN'S HOPE), so now, we'll never know.