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

[Vee]

L&O isn't exactly hearts and flowers itself. Take SVU. I remember when the kid playing Starr's boyfriend Travis turned up there twice - first as a sixth-grader who raped and murdered an old woman, then as an Internet porn star who gets abducted, stripped and shackled to the bed by some perv. Or that Chad Lowe episode, God that was freaky. SVU is about getting eyeballs as well.

I think the police procedurals are burning out. They have done so much and there's nowhere left to go, just yet. But take my parents - they can barely stomach graphic violence in most things we watch when we're together, yet they watch CSI religiously.

I don't think the networks simply stopped caring about the soaps, though, yes, they did do that - I think the deterioration of how they viewed the characters came first in a race to the bottom because they picked up on what they perceived as a cultural shift in TV and real life and cable news and so on that they had to channel, and character be damned.

[DRW50]

So you think they believed the hype about people stopping their soap habits because of OJ and trashy talk shows? I think people lost interest in soaps for reasons beyond that, and the soaps or the networks just didn't get it. They got it before, when they managed to revive themselves in the mid/late 70s, but I guess times have changed. There's such a rigid and unpleasant backlash against women and against minorities in so much of entertainment, but I think it hurts the most with soaps because I remember seeing all those black or Latino characters on soaps regularly, in important stories. I truly never thought that we would return to the days where a token black person shows up for five seconds a month, like poor Bonnie on ATWT before they finally wrote her off for good.

And the trashy talk shows basically died off by the end of the 90s anyway. I used to get annoyed that even a few years ago you would see some people in the press blaming "Jerry Springer" for soap ratings woes.

I do think the original L&O, at least the first ten years, when I still watched, was restrained. SVU was a sicker show, but I think that genre was kicked off more when CSI took off.

[Vee]

The networks have always held soaps in a degree of contempt, and there's always been that pervasive resentment among a lot of the staff. But I think the latest round of sensationalism and crass objectification (how many WTD stories had such a focus on sperm, eggs, and lots of drugs or vagina-swapping before 1995?) began with the mid-late '90s and a rush to get in on the perceived media and cultural trends. The idea that almost nothing is forbidden or sacred led to a race to abandon everything they'd been doing.

[DeeeDee]

*cough*DOOL*cough*

[EricMontreal22]

I'm scared to ask, but what was the Chad Lowe episode of L&O SVU? It does always confound me how many peopel who wouldnever see a gory movie (stereotypically people like my parents, even grandparents) gobble up stuff like CSI. Then again most of them constantly read murder mysteries-- (from the Agatha Christie style less graphic ones to pretty harsh modern ones...)

Part of it (re the soaps) may be due too to a perception that with more working women, they have to grab any audience they can via sensationalism. Though again this isn't so new--I was shocked to read that NYTimes article from the mid 70s where a Proctor and Gamble exec says candidly (and anonymously) that the only rating their company really wants now is the women 16-34 (!) rating. I also foudn a number of great articles about other races on the soaps--and again in 1975 the soaps still weren't doing very well on that front (we are still doing better--though of course that's a ridiculous thing to pride our current situation on). The EP of ATWT actually defends the lack of any Blacks on his show saying he's visited cities in the midwestlike Oakdale and has seen no Blacks in the kinda of neighbourhoods the show reflects--so sure they'll bring in Black actors as extras in hospital scenes, but to be realistic (like he claims ATWT is, though this article seems to think it was the least real at the time) and honest they have to keep them off screen. (!!! EVen in 1975 I can't believe he said something so stupid to the NYTims--I hope he got in some sort of trouble). Another article from 1986 counts the number of minorities and again the P&G soaps are listed as doing particularly badly--(they also mention with dismay how OLTL seems to be firing their Black cast and not replacing them). The article mentions, like it's a new revelation, that apparently more non white people view soaps than white, and with worry about ratingsand budgets the shows might start reflecting this. So again, I wonder if SOME of it is rose tinted glasses. Still it's undeniable that we've gone at least a bit backwards as of late, when we shouldbe going far forwards.

[DRW50]

I don't think any of us would say that soaps had a great record on blacks in the 70s and 80s. A number of soaps had token blacks. OLTL had the Grays, at least until the mid-80s. AW had a strong black presence for about 2-3 years. Otherwise it was a drought. But a variety of soaps, even conservative P&G soaps, developed a strong black presence starting around 1989, 1990, and the future seemed to suggest there would be more and more inclusion and diversity. Instead, starting around 94-95, things really took a sharp turn and it's gotten shocking over the past five or the years.

When we talk about what soaps used to be in regards of race it's usually more about 10, 15, 20 years ago. But still, even going back further, I can't believe that Brian and Claudia were a stronger presence on GH than anything they've had for most of the past 10 years.

Speaking of P&G, they did make some efforts with blacks in supporting or minor roles on GL and AW in the mid/late 60s. AW had at least one black female character throughout the 60s and 70s. So I'm surprised that someone at ATWT would have said that "We've been to the Midwest and there are no blacks." I guess Agnes Nixon's influence stayed at GL and AW to some degree even after she went to ABC. I don't think she had that much at ATWT.

[quartermainefan]

I agree with the column. The deaths she is talking about are shot in a way where the audience gets to indulge in every last moment of desperation, and take whatever thrill from it they will. I felt bad years ago when Lyndsay's daughter died, almost stalked. It just seemed wrong. Years ago on GH the show chronicled the last moments of a desperate and petrified Chloe as her killer stalked her in a room. Death is fine, but these things the death is watched akin to the way you watch sex in a porn film. A couple of years back on GH Jerry stabbed Claudia in the gut and then kicked her into the river to drown as she bled to death. Her actual death I thought was a little more tasteful since we didn't actually see the point of impact.

There is a nihilism to TV soaps these days, just going crazy for the sake of it as the shows revel in death. Stacy's crimes were not those that warranted the death penalty. A little blackmail to get a guy? Isn't that was the soap villains are supposed to do? You can kill a villain to set up further story like a whodunit, but if the idea that Stacy deserved to die was really true, would Sheila from Y&R/B&B ever lasted, or Heather from GH? And then back to the sexism for a moment, it seems the men never deserve to die in such graphic detail. How does Stacy deserve to die so miserably but Todd or Mitch never seem to? On GH Jerry killed Alan, shot Robin, committed acts of terrorism, sold Sam into prostitution recently, held teenagers hostage, poisoned Nik, sold drugs, and eventually participated in the shooting of a 12 year old boy. The moral code than mandated Claudia or Stacy die doesn't seem to remain constant.

In defense of soaps, all TV is becoming crazy. The things that happen weekly on Spartacus were once the things you would find in Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I imagine a lot of the degeneration of TV writing stems from the fact that the newer generation learned how to write from TV and film, not books.

[EricMontreal22]

It was under Agnes of course that blacks came to GL and AW (though on AW P&G refused to let her black character be roomates with her best friend, a white character).

[EricMontreal22]

Agreed with your last point, full on.

Not with the rest exactly though. I get your point, but it should be pointed out Stacey died BY ACCIDENT. An accident that could really happen, no less. While I hate the whole story, from Carlivati's POV having her die also sets up WAY more interesting stories than if she were redeemed or sent to prison--with her daughter's custody, people getting over what she did, etc. I think her death is valid and not remotely due to misoygyny, honestly. Just curious, but did you watch the majority of the story? I'm just confused why we're getting such a different reading. The scene itself was even just seconds long--she stepped on the ice, or something, commercial, then she fell through and pretty soon Rex couldn't find her.

I think it's a bit dangerous to tell soap writers that such scenes shouldn't be allowed on soaps...

Certainly this isn't like when that woman on AW (blanking on thename) was tortured and killed. Like I said, if anything Mitch's shock torture and threats of incest to a different character are what the article shouldbe criticising. And Mitch was killed in at least as shocking a way as Stacey (whose death again I think was very quick and not focused on torture at all) though of course he rose from the dead.

Just had to get that off my chest--cuz I think there's a lot of truth about the problems of misogyny and violence in daytime--but I simply don'tthink Stacey's death was an example of it. (certainly it seems far less upsetting than when Irna Philips had Kathy Roberts killed by a driver after being pushedin her wheelchari into the streets by some mean kids, etc)

[DRW50]

I wasn't bothered by Stacy's death but I can see where it might be seen as overkill. The last few years have had so many women dying, and for no real reason. I still can't believe what happened with Talia. And Dr. Joplin, committed suicide, and yet Todd, who did so much more than she did, is lionized as the ideal man, a wonderful husband and father. And Janet, killed for no real reason, and then her death was turned into a joke with Tea doing her awful mugging. Pamela, killed for no real reason.

[JackPeyton]

Stacey & Claudia did both need to die. They never should have been brought on, shoved at us, propped up, etc... They were hated by most fans and their deaths actually set story off. Were the a bit much? Sure.

But why not write about what OLTL is doing to Jessica or GH is doing to Liz instead? Those are much greater examples of how soaps treat women, IMHO.

[EricMontreal22]

Carl, that, I can get behind and agree with. (I'm not really sure though why Jared had to be killed, Nash's body propped up, etc though either...)

JackP said:

"Stacey & Claudia did both need to die. They never should have been brought on, shoved at us, propped up, etc... They were hated by most fans and their deaths actually set story off. Were the a bit much? Sure.

But why not write about what OLTL is doing to Jessica or GH is doing to Liz instead? Those are much greater examples of how soaps treat women, IMHO. "

Exactly. I do think Claudia's death was much more extreme, and typical of GH than Stacey was for OLTL, but...

[quartermainefan]

The thing with Mitch is, he can die and die and die again, but he will be back. Just to compare once again, Stacy held back some DNA to blackmail Rex with or else the kid didn't get the surgery. She paid the price and order was restored. Mitch delivered Viki's daughter to Victor so he could basically rip her heart out for a transplant. That was years ago and Mitch only soap died, not died died. Anyway, this brings me back to my comment about nihilism, the basic rejection of all order, and no value on life. Mitch had Nash's rotting body propped up in a chair (something that also was once more suited for Texas Chainsaw Massacre). It isn't just sexism, but there is definitely a double standard.

Years ago, a comic book blogger and now writer wrote an essay titled "women in refrigerators" The title comes from an issue of GREEN LANTERN where he comes home to find that not only did the villain kill his girlfriend, but he shoved her into the fridge. That inspired her to take a look at violence towards women in comic books, and the list was immense.

http://www.unheardtaunts.com/wir/index.

It's just the culture, and society has always hated women even if no one will admit it (just look at how women were depicted in Film Noir). Graphic times calls for graphic deaths I guess.

[Juliajms]

That was horrible and something I definitely could have lived without. Much worse than Stacy's death. *shudders*

[EricMontreal22]

I know that site well (women in refrigerators) (and Perry Moore, the gay tv writer who wrote the decent gay superhero teen novel, Hero, which isbeing made into a Showtime drama, runs a site based on it about "Gays in refrigerators" showing how even recently in mainstream comics the gay males are killed off in much more extreme ways--usually after a good implied rape--than their straight counterparts. Not to confuse the issue of this thread, but the link to that is here http://perrymoorestories.com/content/hero.asp?id=superheroes).

I get your point. But I still don't see Stacey's *quick* accidental death as punishment really--it's just that having her dead creates far more story than having her just move away or arrested. IMHO--in this case I think it was justified and wasn't glorified.

I'm not as cynical to say society hates women, but you have a justified point. I do think though that it's a soap opera element that has needed fixing even before it was so graphic. I mean romance novels, another form of pulp fiction likesoaps aimed primarily at women, have been plagued with rape romance scenarios and these other problems for even longer. Part of it is (and there's some truth here) they feel that the female audience will react stronger to see it happen to other women than to the men (the reason for the deaths in slasher and horror being primarily female is different but not entirely--recently movie peoplehave been surprised that slasher movies often get much larger female audiences, than male...)