OLTL and GH: Watching Sadism for Thrills; Soaps Are Not Snuff Films

[EricMontreal22]

That makes sense--although the job thing was a bit later I think. One New York Times article from 1975 charts how many women on a soap have a job--ATWT at the time had *2* (OLTL had nearly all of them). In the 1968 ATWT article it mentions none of the women on the show currently seem to be employed.

It is funny that one charge against soaps through to the mid 70s is that the men are (unless villains) an afterthough, weak and emasculated. Definitely it seems soaps have gone to the other extreme.

I think your point about point of view is a great one--that's something we've lost too with the sopas abandoning those scenes of friends just sitting and talking about their feelings to each other, etc.

My point I guess is Devil's Advocate--I DO think the overall misogyny is bad and needs to be pointed out. I'm not convinced it's entirely a new thing though (just like rape/redemptions have been a soap opera staple since before they could say rape--does it mean we need to still use them as a lazy plot device? no, but often people seem to act like it's a new thing that didn't happen in the "good old days of soaps"--or on a more technical level the ridiculous fact that a writer can nearly destroy one soap and be hired on another soap was just as prevalent, if not more on soaps in the 70s--it's just we remember the great writing teams that offset this, and maybe are missing in the current era). I think it just can be a bit too easy tolook back on the past with rose coloured glasses.

[DeeeDee]

It's not like they were murdered, molested, dismembered & buried under a horse stable.

Or Ashley, or Nikki, or Katherine, or Jill, or Victoria & every other woman.

[Vee]

Eric's right. Let's not forget that on DAYS, in its glory years under the Bells, Bill raped Laura and they remained a supercouple.

[DRW50]

I think the main difference in rape then and now is presentation. Women were raped back then but we got to see their pain and their attempts to rebuild their lives. There were very few, if any, stories which tried to muddy the waters. There was Rita/Roger on GL, but the actors were unhappy and that was rectified later on. And there was the shameful Luke/Laura thing but that was somewhat unique, as no one knew they were going to become so huge.

Today you have stuff like Tarty where the man is written as the victim, or scenes where a man holds a woman at gunpoint and says her boyfriend will die if she doesn't agree to sex, yet even this is sold as something of a love story. Or GH where Emily was raped and the story became about how Nikolas was so sad because he couldn't get laid, so he had to go find a new piece. And Y&R with that wrong, wrong Paul/Christine "rough sex" storyline.

That's true. There was also that story where Susan was out of her mind and then remembered having sex with a man in the park. I don't know how that played onscreen but what kind of guy sleeps with a crazy woman he doesn't know?

But then a few years later, at Y&R, Bill Bell started telling stories which were much more specific in saying rape is a crime against a woman and destroys her life.

[Vee]

I think Tarty should never have been done, but initially afterwards the identification was very much with Marty - they had the climax, and her amazing scenes with Nora at the hospital and so on. Later they muddied the waters; they didn't know how to salvage Todd, they hadn't thought that far ahead so they just focused on how sad and emo he was. Then, yes, once he was in jail, he became the victim.

[DeeeDee]

[DRW50]

I guess MAB was right after all, she really was just following Bill Bell's spirit.

So July should involve Sharon having fuzzy memories of a very, very long day at a welcome home bash at the park's 4th of July picnic...

[EricMontreal22]

I dunno, I can think of more "rape/love" storylines than just Luke/Laura though they maybe weren't that shockingly clear before. I do agree, and I said this above too, that a big part ofthe problem is lack of any follow through--that's something soaps are lacking in general that I guess makes these stories seem less sensationalistic and more identifiable--the endless discussion about them by the victim, etc. But if you look back, things like having the women die in much more agonizing (and prolonged ways) than the men, etc, is a soap traidtion fo sorts-- It doesn't by any means make it right, I just think it's very easy to look back on soaps with rose tinted glasses.

[DRW50]

Women dying in a more prolonged way might be more of a tradition, but this being presented in a sleazy, perverted way which almost seems designed to get someone off, I think that's new. Stuff like Frankie's murder on AW, or Grace's death, it seems to be in a category beyond someone falling up the stairs or getting run over or having a soap illness.

[EricMontreal22]

Well yeah, that's also a problem with the fact that they can get away with showing a lot more on tv than they could. I mean the way (primarily) women victims are shown and treated on stuff like Criminal Minds is DEGREES further than the way they would have been on a 60s cop show. Again I'm not excusing it--and maybe (probably) this means the writers should be even more careful with how they handle such things, but I suspect some of the soap writers (not, probably, the classic eras for shows we hold near and dear) would have tried such stunts in the name of ratings if they could have in the 70s, etc.

[Vee]

I don't believe in pulling a punch; I think if there's a story behind the brutality, something of merit and value, like with Marty's gang rape, then yes, do it and push the envelope to explore an issue or peel away some layer of a character that has only been hinted at. That's why I didn't mind when, say, in 2003, TSJ's Todd raised his hand to hit Blair after she exposed his "Walker" ruse and threw Kevin Buchanan in his face - it was a real reaction, and Todd was supposed to come off as feral and twisted in those scenes, barely sane. The problem is that in general, daytime has only assimilated part of the lesson of better cable TV and films - they pull the punch less and less in terms of physicality, but fail to connect on the emotional or character purpose of such violence.

[DRW50]

I think a show like Criminal Minds is a specialized program, it works in its own universe. I had to stop watching the show, because I just couldn't take anymore of it, but I know that type of sadism is very potent. The problem is that soaps are not a medium of sadism. It's a medium of survival and strength, growth and change, while core values remain the same. Even someone as crazy in the head and at times shockingly callous as Irna Phillips seemed to deep down want to follow some basic tent of this format. She fought for interracial relationships. She fought for the right to tell stories about a woman giving her child up for adoption, for stories about a woman who wanted to bring her child up without a man.

The people who run soaps now often seem to have contempt for the soap format and contempt for everyone who does not fit the image of being an angry, emotionally stunted, straight white man. There's such a heartlessness. When I started watching soaps it was for the heart. I don't want to see people brutalized just for the hell of it.

[EricMontreal22]

That all makes sense, though I still stand by some of my argument--that if we knew the soaps better of the 60s and 70s we could probably come up with examples that, while less graphic, would seem pretty shocking even now. (I'm not sure Irna is an example of one of the more twisted writers out there though--lol--and after listening to Agnes talk about her in that recent interview I think that even less--even if she did like to punish her [primarily female] characters)

There is a big problem with the people involved in soaps not liking the genre and wanting to be something else, though I think this has existed at least since Gloria Monty's "I hate soaps so let's change them" time. But I do think the increased level of casual sadism in shows like Criminal Minds (which may exist in its own universe--though I know tons of peopel who seem to think it's very realistic--but is hardly unique on the primetime network docket) helps give soap makers the thought that they need to stay true to some of that.

[Vee]

I think it depends on the creative personnel. I believe people like Rauch, Frons, Guza, even Sheffer who I have some appreciation for have genuine issues with gender roles and sex and so on on television, coupled with Guza's huge resentment for not working outside of daytime in ages. With people like Maria Bell, or the GL/AMC team, or Gary Tomlin or Brad Bell, or even Ron Carlivati in his lesser hours, I wonder how much of it is either the network or, again, learned behavior. Many of these people have been in the industry forever, and have seen the internal attitudes and storytelling trends shift and change. Valentini and Carlivati [!@#$%^&*] up a lot, but I don't believe that as a rule they love angry, abusive men (though I think they are blind on Todd) or hold women in contempt - so why do they showcase assholes, and why do many of the women get [!@#$%^&*] on lately? I don't believe Maria Bell believes her gender are just fit to be sperm receptacles and punching bags - so why does she write them that way?

Again, much of this male focus is likely the higher execs like Frons, but often I also think the laziness for people like, say, the creative team at OLTL who keep taking it comes from a general shift in daytime's collective mentality towards a belief that they have to operate in character extremes, and that they've been told again and again that this is what their audience expects and wants to see - he-men and women reduced to prey or functionality. I think OLTL tries to go against the grain, but the same old attitudes are also very much in place. I think it has something to do with the way the culture went in the last decade and a little longer; like, enough storytelling and risk-taking, the President got caught getting a blowjob, OJ got off and we're in an illegal war, this is all we as a medium or our viewers can aspire to. We are dealing in base fiction and base elements. And shame on you for writing for Viki. The implication becomes Todd's not so bad, he's just a symptom of the ongoing nervous breakdown.

I must be high.

[DRW50]

I think it's down less to wanting to ape these shows and more down to people settling for daytime. They want to prove themselves. JFP and Guza both seem very heavy on this front. They have both been working in daytime for decades so they want to show people they are better than that. The actual soap format is something they remember and something they may very well be ashamed of.

Some people, like Linda Gottlieb and Wendy Riche, who did not have that past baggage, embraced the positives of soap storytelling once they got their head around what soaps are like.

I agree that Criminal Minds isn't unique, although it does go out there on a very long limb. I think the first of this genre was CSI. I remember seeing the first episode where they had this scene of Lady Jane Jacks listening to a recording of her husband being forced to kill himself. They showed her horror and shock and I kept thinking why do we need to see this? I definitely knew I wasn't watching L&O.

I think that the people who are tired of this type of stuff are probably one of the reasons why NCIS, which is a much more old school, restrained procedural, has blown up over the past few years.

I also think if someone came up with a traditional, quality daytime soap, it might build in ratings and turn a decent profit.

Vee, I agree with everything you said. That's all very true. I guess the question becomes when will this ever change and how far does the rot go, and WHY did the networks stop caring about their soaps?