ATWT Tribute Thread

[Paul Raven]

I think Goutman fought to keep the vets around, but probably on the condition they were rarely used.TPTB didn't want old folks on screen too much and if they were it would be too costly.

[DRW50]

I guess if P&G wanted to get the older actors out then that makes sense. I kind of wish they'd had it where Lisa had gone off contract at some points and at other points could return and have a solid story, but that is a fantasy, I realize.

I have another SOD from around the time of John Colenback's return I'm going to post a bit later.

[Paul Raven]

re Reilly and Colenback.When Irna returned in 72 she was not happy with Paul/Liz/Dan/Susan and all 4 actors were written off.I think the Soderbergs brought back Susan and Dan but Colenback didn't want to return? So Reilly was cast and proved to be popular. I think after his contract was up,he wanted out and by this time Colenback agreed to return.At the end of his contract the decision was made to kill Dan off.

Maybe other long time viewers could confirm or challenge this.

[DRW50]

So do you think Colenback wanted to leave in 79 or was he fired?

[Jay]

What is this from?

[Paul Raven]

I'm pretty sure he was fired. I have a SOD interview with him from 79 which I will dig out.He wasn't exactly a happy camper but expressed optimism for his role and the show.

[DRW50]

[DRW50]

THE OLD DAN IS BACK!

John Colenback: "I Always Knew if I Did Another Soap, it Would Be This One."

What could be more exciting than watching TV's "star-crossed" lovers - (Kim and Dan, As the World Turns) pose for our cover photo. They were so delightful together. How charming and gracious Kathryn Hays was. She had been at the studio since 7:30 AM and would remain until 8PM...yet her eyes sparkled, and she smiled that lovely, almost mysterious smile of hers...posed and moved with solid grace and ease...always calm and poised. We were sorry, when after the pictures had been taken, she left for rehearsal. John wasn't on that day, so we settled down for the promised interview.

John had left As the World Turns three years ago and, as always, when a performer leaves, is replaced, and then returns to his original role - there is a why and wherefore. Nothing is ever done without good reason. Whatever other problems there may have been - there was the question of time to act outside the daytime show. Now, three years later, John was ready - very willing to discuss what happened...what he's been doing in the past three years...and his hopes for the future.

John: Oh, yes, the outside stuff, we all have this, six week performance lave. I did maybe five outside things during the seven years, and each time it was World War III - to get to do it. Each time, you know, I was suddenly indispensable and I would have to compromise and do both. So I'd spend nights on buses and trains or planes, coming back from Boston, or Hartford or West Springfield Mass. where I was doing the kind of stage work I think is absolutely vital when you're under a long-term contract.

RG: So this problem has been cleared up now, I assume, since you're back on the show and everything is great.

JC: Well, so far, I think. At least they realize now there is the need for me, at least, and other people to do stage work, and the very nature of the 60 minute format allows them more time for a storyline, using other people. I think we'll get more time off, to use as we wish.

RG: Do you have anything scheduled for any outside work?

JC: Well, I did a new play by Mark Medoff, the guy who wrote When You Coming Back Red Rider? He's a brilliant young new playwright. Paul Hecht and I did a show with a wonderful actress, Brenda Curtis, in Huntington, Long Island. We tried it out last winter, February of '76, called The Halloween Bandit, and I assume they have plans to resurrect it, he's re-writing it. But that will, I think, probably be a New York situation or a place nearby, like Huntington, and it would not involve vast travel or intricate rehearsals necessarily, and I hope when it comes along, that we can work things out.

I don't live under the constant fear that when something happens - if I'm going to have to fight - I don't like to fight. I can just feel things are much better.

RG: In the 3 years that you were away from the show, aside from this work that we just discussed, what other things have you accomplished in your career?

JC: I did a play in New York at the Theatre DeLys downtown in the Village, a couple of years ago, called Four Friends - about four college guys who get together again after fifteen years and find out that things "ain't the same." But it was an interesting play and a very good company. I had a lot of fun doing it. It was a flop, and it sort of soured me on the whole thing, and I think how ironical life can be, if I'd been doing the soap, concurrent with that, if I'd been on a soap at the time, the nit's not that important, it doesn't come to be the be all and the end all, and I overreacted to the critical reviews, which is not personal and the whole thing went down the drain, and i said, "oh, the hell with it," and I went back to Rhode Island and sort of didn't do anything much, which didn't do me any good, certainly not professionally, and I'm very glad I'm back to work, and I'm very glad I'm back here. I always knew that if I did a soap again, and for a while there I vowed I never would - I guess I always knew in the back of my mind, if the opportunity ever came up where I could go back to Dan, I'd rather do that than say yes to some other soap, because at least here I know what I'm getting into or getting back into - I adore the cast, the people, and the direction people.

RG: The cast hasn't changed that much has it?

JC: No, but it got bigger...which again helps those who want to work outside, because there's simply more storylines to deal with you and you naturally have some breathing space. They can't work the way they used to work us with the 30 minute live thing because the human body cannot do that much. When you're on the show now, as you well know, it's morning, noon and night.

Well, my first week on the show I had three double-days in a row - and that's killing. The day itself one can adjust to, you have enough time to get off your feet, but it's going home at night, doing something about dinner and then having a double-day the next day, starting all over again, and having to learn the script. I'm a very quick study - thank goodness. I think you almost have to be, otherwise you don't do soaps, but it takes me four times as long to learn something when I can't concentrate from fatigue. It's not a matter of being sleepy and going to bed. I find that difficult too, because you get so tired you can't sleep, but it's just concentrating. I can learn a script very quickly.

RG: Were you on when it was live?

JC: Yes, we were taped only if we were pre-empted for assassinations or other - 90% of the time we were live.

RG: Wasn't that more difficult?

JC: In a sense, but at least you knew when you were going to get out of here. you knew at 2:00, you knew from 1:30 to 2:00 you had to do it, but here it's like 1:30 to 2:30, or 1 pm to 2:30 or 6:30-8:00, or you don't know if a machine is going to break down, or a set is going to collapse, or those things that have nothing to do with you getting up and doing, are going to affect the schedule, or how many times you have to do it over. I still am in the live format, mentally, and I know they would rather do it in one take, and rarely shoot it again, unless something technical goes wrong. But I've found that they will, if they have time, just do it again, to see if you were better. And you always have that added sense of security even if you know they're going to do one take, that it's not beaming out at that precise moment.

There is a certain spontaneity, I suppose, that's lost if you do not do it live, but, that's so difficult to judge or deal with. What you tend to worry about - is - "I hope I can get through this - I hope that door opens, etc."

RG: I don't think the average viewer notices the difference between today and the days when you did it live.

JC: No, unless something ghastly happens, like poor Helen Wagner ended up playing a scene on her hands and knees picking up some broken china service one day because the coffee table legs collapsed. I'm sure the scene went out the window. Helen is a very resourceful woman, and a wonderful actress, but that would kill anybody. It would distract anybody, let alone watching it.

RG: There are actors who look for cue cards - and if I'm watching a program, immediately I get distracted from the lines because you are taken out of the make-believe and you say, "they really just acted that part."

JC: We have the teleprompters, but I don't like them, and whenever you need them, they're never there...which is no one's fault. You may be too deep into the set, against the back walls, and you won't literally be able to see them, without as you say, being so obvious about it.

RG: Then you really have to memorize your lines.

JC: For me, it's not that difficult memorizing lines, and I can't imagine doing a show without it, you're always working with at least one other person - unless you're on the telephone, and for everybody's sake you've got to know what you're talking about, you've got to be able to listen.

RG: Do you have enough leeway if you're playing a scene with someone so that if the exact phrases skip your mind and you substitute, that she knows to take it up?

JC: You get to know each other's habits, you also get to know the mood the person is in doing the scene, if it's a very difficult scene in terms of story line, and you have to get certain names out, relationships - that's the thing that's thrown me a couple of times since I've come back, because I'm talking about people I don't know.

RG: You are a Libra, are you into horoscopes, do you believe that your life is governed by your sign?

JC: I have a very good friend who is a professional astrologer, and through knowing him, I picked up on it. I don't know how to do it. I couldn't chart someone's horoscope. I use it as a very positive guide, it's not a question of, "don't cross the street you'll be hit by a bus," it's never that detailed, but when the astrologer knows your interests and needs, and you can give him a full background, then he can really deal with you on the level at which it's important to you. "Don't worry about a bad period professionally, that you're not going to work for six months or something, because there are certain aspects coming up, you're going to get offers and opportunities and you can use this as a positive guide." And I very often have aspects that will say: "Keep your mouth shut, don't be argumentative - don't open your big mouth." And I've found that very helpful. I've been in situations that I can see coming. I've kept my mouth shut and it's been okay ,and it hasn't been a disaster and it's been much better than if I hadn't known it, I might very easily have said something that wouldn't help anything.

RG: People who are in the sign of Libra are supposed to be middle-of-the-road, and find it difficult to make decisions, is that one of your traits?

JC: I'll postpone decision making. I think it's less a question of finding it difficult to make decisions by just pure rationalization, than covering all bases, before you decide. It's like the Presidential thing, Carter is a Libra. If he is elected, you would certainly find, (I think all Presidents are like this), they will, or should accept all kinds of advice and then make up their minds. I think Carter will do this with more deliberation, and more overtly than other Presidents. Ford is a Cancer and that's July. There is tremendous variance within the sign; by the way my chart is aspected, I'm actually more of a Virgo than a Libra. Back to the decision making briefly, everybody says because the sign of Libra is the scales, that Librans are organized or well-balanced, or middle-of-the-road emotionally in terms of decisions. I think Librans cover all that, they strive for that, but very often I will find myself inadvertently upsetting the cart, doing something outrageous or harmful, or unnecessarily muddying the waters, so that I can upright the cart, make everything alright and very often I'll have to do one before I can do the other.

RG: I haven't seen any interviews with you in the last few years so I am not too familiar with your personal background. I would like to ask you if you have a marital status that you would care to discuss?

JC: I have a marital status - I am single. I almost got married when I was in college, which would have been an out and out disaster for good reasons that really had nothing to do with her. And since then I came to New York, was starting out, and that was not easy, and again marriage was out of the question for very good reasons, and although those reasons are no longer applicable, I don't really want to, I don't feel the need to, it's no problem, it's no big deal whether I do or not and I'd rather not. I suppose if it comes up if I meet someone who insists on it -

RG: In other words, you're not a confirmed bachelor?

JC: No, not at all. I like having someone around, it's very important - that's another Libra trait; always have to have a mate - but I'd like it on a pretty cool basis and I find so do they - otherwise you don't go out together very often, and then you just stop going out. I'm under no compulsion to have children. The divorce rate is so alarming that it's not very encouraging.

RG: It's so easy to go along without getting permanently entangled with anyone.

JC: Yes, and even if you don't live together, you can still have a very, very close, intense relationship without operating out of the same flat or house, and that's not important either. What is important, is what goes on when the two of you are together, or apart: it has nothing to do with having the key to the same door.

RG: This is a generation that has found an easier way of living and a more relaxed way of living. Today, people are more casual in every way, that's not to say all relationships are casual.

JC: I've never been one for casual relations, I guess what I'm saying is I like the advantages of a close relationship, like marriage can be, at its best, without just signing that contract which I always felt was sort of ridiculous - but without the added burden that you're under any pressure to maintain a relationship the way you would have to, if you were married. And I'm not just talking about fidelity. I rather admire fidelity, though as one gets older, one sees it's not necessarily admirable, but if you're faithful fine, but if it ever becomes a problem, then that's the problem.

RG: Yet to some people, unfaithfulness is the biggest taboo...it's the worst thing that could happen.

JC: I couldn't agree more that it's very unfortunate - I don't know if it's the worst thing, but I think I don't put down people who have a different attitude. I don't think any relationship is going to last if "everybody is going out the back door" or "coming in the front" all the time. Then what kind of a relationship do you have with that person?

RG: If in a marriage, someone is unfaithful, let's say, for awhile, then should it be held against them forever?

JC: No, I don't think it should be; however, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the marriage is through. I think it's [marriage] difficult enough...I think people should be honest with each other but you don't necessarily have to know everything or should know everything about the other person...but we're getting into a very sticky situation. I think striving for fidelity - working at it, is that it either happens naturally or it doesn't, and if you sit around and worry about being faithful, then you probably would have problems anyway. You've got enough to worry about getting along with each other in any close relationship, it's simpler if no one else is involved, on any level; but I can understand various outlets that one or another person will need; sometimes it ends up in bed, sometimes it doesn't.

RG: When people live together before marriage, does that make them surer about their feelings?

JC: Absolutely - but then again I think that if something is going to happen, you never know. It's like meeting the right girl, how do you know if the one you're with this year is the right one until another one comes along.

RG: Then I guess it's easier if you're not married.

JC: I don't enter into a relationship expecting or wondering what to do when you're faced with getting out of it. The whole problem of being faithful, or is this going to last forever, is a waste of time to worry about. I definitely feel, however, that if you get married there's a definite commitment, call it a moral commitment or what you will, but I think if one gets married you have a very real commitment, on every level to make with that person. That's probably why I'm not married.

When I was in high school, quite literally I went with two girls, not at the same time; one for three years and one for two years which extended into college. She was the girl I was talking about; in-between that, there was a purely physical fling, and it was very nice and it lasted very briefly, and it was very good for me, and then I went right back and found the second girl whom I was with for nearly three years before we parted. I couldn't get married, didn't want to, and she went on and got married - but you get over it. But I've never been one to "play the field." I can't deal with that. If I like someone I want to be with them.

RG: If someone you were really attracted to was an actress would it be a problem as far as having two careers that were running parallel and yet not parallel?

JC: I think it's difficult because the competition can become very severe even if you're not obviously up for the same parts. I think you compete, a man and a woman, or business partners - there are natural areas of competition between any two human beings, who have any kind of close relationship. I think if you're both in the same profession that only exasperates a basically, very difficult but unavoidable situation. I don't look to avoid that. I don't not go out with an actress but I think it's interesting if the other person does something else.

RG: I'm wondering if you're in a position now that you've returned to ATWT - as Dan, to say if your romance with Kim, is still going to be as "star-crossed lovers?"

JC: I don't know. I don't think they know. I don't listen to the rumors I hear about where the plots are going, because sometimes they never happen. And the less I know about what's going on, the happier I am. It can affect the way you play scenes.

RG: On the whole, I can tell you're happy to be back here. This is the soap that you've done the most.

JC: Yes, I've only done one other, called, From These Roots, in the early 60's, my first show, and that's sort of just a memory. I'm delighted to be back.

RG: I'm sure your fans are happy to see you.

[Paul Raven]

Great interview, in that they discuss the show, the switch to tape etc rather than the 'I love to travel' puff pieces that 70's SOD usually produced.

Was Colenback gay? The old 'marriage is not for me' stuff always gets the antennae up!

I found the 79 interview. Unlike Carl,I am too lazy to type out the whole thing, but will highlight pertinent comments.

He admits to a past drinking problem and said that when he went on Mike Douglas ,he wanted to address this and not just tell jokes and be affable.

'...he is distressed by the many abrupt changes being made by the powers that be. He does not agree the changes are for the best.

"I am very distressed about the way the show is going", he said candidly,"They think they are competing and it's simply not going to work. There are no scenes to play. I feel like i am doing promos. There's nothing but facts and plot now. It's bothering me a lot and I will be amazed if it helps the ratings. But the old audience ain't buying the soap!"he lamented.

He said that during his early Summer California trip, he heard the head of CBS daytime give a speech about the daytime audience today. At the end of the speech, John came to the conclusion that the real trouble is that they don't know WHO daytime TV's audience is.

He was still involved in getting plays off the ground and could not live and work in LA. Interestingly, it says because of the soap's schedule he can not get involved with plays that require too much time commitment- a gripe had back in 76.

"I feel OK about the show,but I'm worried about the direction it's moving in, which doesn't seem to have any purpose.Firing good actors just to have sexy bodies."

Not that he has anything against sexy bodies, but he does believe the first qualification for a performer should be his or her ability to act. He hates to see long time colleagues summarily dismissed from the show.

"When old timers leave, i feel terrible. I feel there but for the grace of God. When Dee was dismissed-the girl had been losing weight,she looked wonderful-but they never gave her a chance to be sexy. They never wrote her sexy"

i guess his gripes about the show wouldn't have endeared him to P&G execs,so maybe it was a mutual decision to leave.

Is her referring to the change in writing style where scenes were broken up.rather than played from beginning to end?

I wonder who he is referring to talking about dismissal of long time performers. At this point all of the vets were still there.He mentions Dee-well she was a young actress,who had only been around a few years. Kevin had recently been killed off but again,he was not a veteran actor.

[DRW50]

Schemering mentions "long-running characters were written out" and "parts were recast" at this time, but doesn't specify. He says it was still the Soderbergs when the scenes were cut down and "bedroom antics increased." Fairly long-running cast-members who left around 78 or 79, not sure whether it was their choice or not, were C David Colson (Tom), Barbara Rucker (Sandy McGuire), Marie Masters (Susan Stewart - I guess she was still there before this interview though, I assume). I assume he wasn't talking about the actors who played Alma or Judge Lowell, since their age and illness were the reason for departures. Martina Deignan (Annie) left but she was only on from 76-79.

Those Mike Douglas episodes are still around, right? I wish we could see them. He seemed to interview a lot of soap actors.

I did think the interview was interesting, although the astrology stuff kind of made me glaze over, but I thought the whole thing should be put to kind of show the era of the interview. I'm impressed you made it through all the wall of words though. You were probably right to summarize the 79 interview. It sounds great.

He was 100% right with that.

[Mitch]

I do believe that Gautman is responsible for keeping the vets on contract...look at GL..Wheeler let JVD go to recurring and beyond that, they really didnt have any vets left....Dusay and the Alan actor, Deas, even Dicipolous I wouldnt really consider vets in ATWT terms, maybe O'leary and Aleksander could be considered vets.

Also, look at Bob and Kim, they are still in the action and really, are the center of town, not as much as Marland days I think that has more to do with the philosophy the idiots have in charge (not having a strong center, thats "too old fashioned," to have everyone end up in Bob and Kim's living room..) then casting them aside.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a steady diet of Bob/Kim/Lisa/Lucinda/Susan over Janet and whateverthefreak her daughter's name is..but I also look back on the say 30 years ago, where Nancy and Chris were pushed into a closet, never seen, never heard from and certainly not seen as vital and contributing as Bob and Kim are today.

As for the vets having a solid story...there is only so much you can do with them and not make them look ridiculous. Look at GL, Zimmer screamed that she had to have an A story all the time so they had to clone her, send her through a painting, make her psychic, hook her up with JON, maker her preggers well past her time, and despite what her crazed fans say that she could make anything work, it ruined the character, who would have been just fine in a support role now and again. I think that a heavy rotation of the vets in support roles is totally appropriate and needed. In other words, I dont think Lisa needs to get married, kidnapped etc to give her a story but she is more then needed to tutor and mentor Carly and Molly, kick Babs in the ass once in a while, trade barbs with Lucinda and Emily, etc.

I dont know what the thing they have with Fulton is, I do agree it just seems like they dont like her much, as opposed to not liking Lisa that much. The Paley center thing: the body language of both CG and JP say it all when Fulton speaks. I do think she was the prototype for Zimmer..she was always complaining if she wasnt the center of things, even back in the day when she was the center of things (the Dobson built an entire family around her and she still left..) and I think she probably was a big pain to this day. The sad thing is, Bob and Kim are getting their due respect, Lucinda is getting one last time to be the manipultor, Nancy will have her homage, but poor Lisa is treated as an after thought, and she really wasnt just important to the show, but to soaps, as the first uber bitch before Erica or any of the others, that really (in addition to other things) helped the show be number one for 20 years.

Colenbeck not being the marrying kind is code for "I am a big ole homo," back in the day!! Oh, and I love Kim's croched (sp?) sweater vest in that romantic shot of them!

[DRW50]

I also wonder why they never give Susan anything to do. I can't remember the last episode she was in. I am about a month and a half behind in viewing so perhaps she's had great stuff I have missed but I wonder if she will even be in the show again before it ends

[Y&RWorldTurner]

The show had so many months to prepare for the finale storylines, and they wasted almost all of that time. Right now, everything just feels thrown together and very badly executed. They should all be ashamed of themselves.

[Mitch]

Very true, GL sucked that way in the end too..doing everything all in the last two weeks when they should have played out for the last six months. Instead we were treated a stupid murder mystery, and Cyrus, the chippendales dancer really being Jenna's kid...uh okay, that WAS exciting. However, I give them a little leeway, in that the cancellation notice came at the last minute. ATWT has had more then enough time to get their act together.

And at least GL brought back Ed, Holly, Fletcher, Mindy, etc.even if it was for five minutes, they still returned and we knew their stories turned out fine.

I dont get it either I would think that this is the time (after cancellation) that TPTB can do pretty much what they want..the network doesnt care anymore, so if Gautman wanted it, he could have the vets on everyday (I think..) Instead we get Janet and her boring daughter????

[Jay]

Janet WHO? Frankie Brady WHO? Some guy who used to be on GENERAL HOSPITAL kissing Lily WHO?