What was Soul Survivors about?

I wish more of his GL run was out there. I have loved what I've seen of that. You've seen the Machinations clip set with Diane Ballard's downfall, haven't you? It's some of the best soap I've ever seen. I just loved it.

I haven't-the main stuff of his GL I've seen is a lot of Nola stuff--the fantasies, etc. Tomorrow I'll type out the article/interview with him when he started at GL--it's much shorter (half of it is about Knots Landing's premier and the influence primetime soaps have on daytime)

All I remember reading about Soul Survivors was it had quite a young cast--and CBS decided they had no room for it.

You're right, Marland's run did become overrated. His ATWT was "my" ATWT so I have rose colored glasses. I appreciate that some here pointed out the flaws in the storytelling. It's good to have some balance. Like years ago with GL I felt like I was the only person who wasn't a fan of the Millee Taggart run at GL, minus a few strong stories.

What was Soul Survivors about?

I wish more of his GL run was out there. I have loved what I've seen of that. You've seen the Machinations clip set with Diane Ballard's downfall, haven't you? It's some of the best soap I've ever seen. I just loved it.

Maybe overrated in hindsight, but all the greats are: Bill Bell, Agnes Nixon, Irna Phillips, Claire Labine, Harding Lemay, Henry Slesar. They all had their share of story missteps, too. The difference is the audience was more forgiving then. There weren't such unrealistic expectations that every day must be gold the way it is now. The key point is that Doug new HOW to tell story. HOW to build story. GET the emotional beats. Be true to the characters. SHOW motivation. INVOLVE the audience. Make us CARE. Look at the mess OLTL is today. Ron C. doesn't make us feel anything with his over the top, sensationalistic writing. It's one shocking plot point after another. Writers like RC will never be in the same league as Marland or Bell or Nixon.

Interesting read. Thanks for posting, Eric. There was always something cold and emotionally removed about Marland's writing at ATWT. I think Harding Lemay may have alluded to this in an interview, and I totally agree. Just not a lot of warmth or sentiment, which I love about soaps.

That is really my only criticism or Marland, his writing was very, very, "waspy," cold. ALL his characters, even the so called "passionate," ones were controlled and cold. Even the Snyders, who are supposed to be this salt of the earth family with tight bonds, were cold. Its interesting that they mention the death of Chris Hughes, as it was typical Marland...it was well written, honoring history, involved the entire cast and spent the appropriate amount of time on it(unlike Bert Bauers memorial which was like two days of shows, they brought no one back for it, and then everyone moved on like there was no Bert) but it was still cold. Nancy was never allowed to show any real grief over her husband dying, which is appropriate as Nancy was never the warmest of matriachs, but others werent allowed to, like Bob and Frannie (had a couple of scenes where she says, "Oh I could just cry," and they cut it off.) Sex was like that with Marland too, it was almost too "messy," to deal with, so the only way characters were allowed to show emotions were when they were in therapy, with Lynn Michaels (Marland must have overdone therapy in the 70s as all his shows had a prominent shrink in it.)

However, no one beat Marland out on respect for history,character, the audience intelligence and no one was more meticulous and disciplined then he was..you may not like a story but it will have some kind of pay off which will ripple through the canvas.

I agree with you that I LOVE schmaltz and warmth, probably why I was always more into Guiding Light, (at least until 1997,) which had messy emotions, hot sex and people who were occassionally rude to one another (I cant imagine what Marland would do with Reva.. send her to a sex therapist I am sure.) I have said it before here that my dream team would have been Marland and Pam Long, Marland would handle the story structure, history and keep the core intact, while Long would infuse the show with emotions, schmaltz and sex. They would have killed each other for sure but what an interesting show that would be.

I haven't-the main stuff of his GL I've seen is a lot of Nola stuff--the fantasies, etc.

Here's part 1. There are about 29 clips. It heavily involves old backstory but I think they're still accessible even if you don't know all the details. Some of the clips are hard to hear though.

This is probably my favorite clip, superb acting from Sofia Landon, when Diane learns that the man she loves so dearly would sleep with even town slut Rita Bauer over her:

There was something very campy about Marland's GL that I liked from what I've seen, but it wasn't mundane or stupidly campy, it was highly entertaining and very emotional and character driven. GL was always a more "wilder " show than ATWT, which might explain why he approached both shows so differently, though there were some similarities.

I agree with you that I LOVE schmaltz and warmth, probably why I was always more into Guiding Light, (at least until 1997,) which had messy emotions, hot sex and people who were occassionally rude to one another (I cant imagine what Marland would do with Reva.. send her to a sex therapist I am sure.) I have said it before here that my dream team would have been Marland and Pam Long, Marland would handle the story structure, history and keep the core intact, while Long would infuse the show with emotions, schmaltz and sex. They would have killed each other for sure but what an interesting show that would be.

I think Nancy Curlee's writing style was like a mixture of Marland and Long's, though it was probably more Marland-infused. I thought her GL was very much a mixture of those styles though.

Edited February 20, 201015 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

When do you think GL became a wilder show? Or was it always? I suppose maybe--when it was still 15 mins it was known for faster plots and shorter scenes of course than the languid pace of ATWT.

Thanks Carl for posting that!

There was something very campy about Marland's GL that I liked from what I've seen, but it wasn't mundane or stupidly campy, it was highly entertaining and very emotional and character driven. GL was always a more "wilder " show than ATWT, which might explain why he approached both shows so differently, though there were some similarities.

I think Marland's real flourish was in writing out of control women, often with a drink in one hand and a nasty quip loaded for bear. He infused these women onto the Oakdale canvas but it was always a little more of a balancing act -- they also had to have heart. GL was a much more natural home for these types of women, because Springfield had had a lot of good/bad women at center stage (Bert, Holly, Robin, Rita, among others) over the years, and the show also needed a ton of new fresh blood on the female side, as longstanding characters like Rita, Elizabeth, and Jackie were on their way out. Marland kept the tradition alive, and after his departure this continued on with Reva, Blake, Mindy, Alex, India, Holly's return, Bridget, Nadine, Dinah, et al. I really believe that the good/bad woman made GL stand out and was one of the reasons GL was so addictive and lasted for so long.

His Springfield does have sweet female characters, ingenues, and I never get the sense that he disliked writing for them, but I think the true passion comes out in scenes with Carrie, Diane, Nola, Helena, and of course Vanessa, who was such a divine bitch goddess pot-stirrer.

Here's a great clip of Carrie's other personality shocking Alan and Ross with her catty comments about Amanda.

Here's a very WTF moment of nutso Vanessa in huge Rhonda Weiss sunglasses badgering mousy Eve McFarren through an apartment door.

And Vanessa and Josh doing karate...seriously.

Edited February 20, 201015 yr by CarlD2

(Marland must have overdone therapy in the 70s as all his shows had a prominent shrink in it.)

Hasn't Harding Lemay in one of those audio interviews said how Doug (that's how he called him) was a person with a much darker, pessimistic outlook on life (than he was)?

Edited February 20, 201015 yr by Sylph

I think one reason they're mixed is simply that Marland's ATWT has become perhaps kinda overated... Meaning it's a bit ofa backlash against the unending praise it gets--from some. I haven't seen too much of it, but I know I would have loved it.

Wasn't Marland workin on Soul Survivors around then?

I have another article but have to type it out--about the rise in primetime soaps (just after Knots Landing premiered) that spends the second half of the article talking about Marland startign work at Guiding Light after P&G hired him as a consultant when he left GH (I guess that's why he was at ATWT for all of 2 seconds back then). It's interesting tocompare his comments, I'll try to get it done sometime this week lol).

I still wish I could hear him talk more about his Loving experience, not to mention New Day in Eden.

Eric, you are amazing finding all of these articles. I am like in love with you ;-)

There are a mix of feelings regaring Marland's ATWT and agree with you about the issue of backlash. One of the main problems, for me, was that he made the show a bit too warm and fuzzy for my taste. Always felt that his main themes were honesty and self-improvment. I can't remember couples splitting over little white lies and some of the bitch characters loosing their edge. All and all, I grew up on Marland's World and was, in many ways, shaped by it. I probably learned a little bit about morality, too.

I feels as if Marland tried to please everyone, including himself: He kept all of the families, aside from the McCall's; he brought the Hughes' back front and center; maintained the Stewarts; expanded the Walsh family; added the Snyder clan. The show almost became bloated during his time--too many characters and not enough canvus. I am wondering if doing something a bit more radical such as putting an end to a few families might have boosted ratings and made things easier for future writers. Sad but true that the rating didn't budge much during his tenure.

They would have killed each other for sure but what an interesting show that would be.

You know something? I don't think so. In fact, if Marland had worked with Pam Long, or even Nancy Curlee, I'd bet theirs would have been one of the most productive and healthy collaborations in daytime. Marland would have "upped his game," so to speak; and each would have done his or her utmost to move the other emotionally. However, it all would have been done in the name of producing the most heart-rending, gratifying drama possible.

It was never clear how much input Agnes had in early Loving, but it felt more like a Nixon show than a Marland show. I know Agnes has spoken well of him, but I wonder what their working relationship was like. I have the feeling that it was a total pissing contest between them.

Not so much a "pissing contest," I would say, than just a difference of opinion what kind of show LOVING needed to be. IMO, Nixon wanted LOVING to be more like AMC, while Marland preferred to let the show have an identity of its own.

However, no one beat Marland out on respect for history,character, the audience intelligence and no one was more meticulous and disciplined then he was..you may not like a story but it will have some kind of pay off which will ripple through the canvas.

Exactly. I appreciated Agnes Nixon's (and by extension, Wisner Washam's) sense of humor, and Bill Bell's ability to mount suspense over a long period of time, but if you were to ask me who elevated soap opera to that of an artform, I'd have to go w/ Douglas Marland.

Maybe overrated in hindsight, but all the greats are: Bill Bell, Agnes Nixon, Irna Phillips, Claire Labine, Harding Lemay, Henry Slesar.

Except that I never ever on this board saw anyone criticise Agnes Nixon, considered a holy cow of daytime, it seems.

Bill Bell? Check.

Irna Phillips? Check.

Claire Labine? Check.

Harding Lemay? Check. (One person.)

Henry Slesar? Check.

Agnes Nixon? Nope. I must have missed it somewhere...

Do I think she should be? Do I think she shouldn't be? Irrelevant.

but if you were to ask me who elevated soap opera to that of an artform, I'd have to go w/ Douglas Marland.

I'd have to go with Harding Lemay.

Hasn't Harding Lemay in one of those audio interviews said how Doug (that's how he called him) was a person with a much darker, pessimistic outlook on life (than he was)?

Which I, for one, find extremely hard to believe. I'd say Lemay's just about as pessimistic when it comes to the human condition as Marland was. I mean, you can't write something as psychologically twisted as the Mac/Rachel/Iris triangle w/o having a somewhat dim view on father/daughter relationships.

I'd have to go with Harding Lemay.

No arguments here. Lemay and Marland would have been my dream team.

Which I, for one, find extremely hard to believe. I'd say Lemay's just about as pessimistic when it comes to the human condition as Marland was. I mean, you can't write something as psychologically twisted as the Mac/Rachel/Iris triangle w/o having a somewhat dim view on father/daughter relationships.

I distinctly remember him saying that. I can't write down the words exactly, but it was something like this: (In a really sweet tone, remembering his good friend) Oh, Doug, Doug was great! But Doug was a person with a much darker view of the world than I. And then I can't remember what he said next!

I think that... Yes, there were times when Lemay had his darker moments, but he wouldn't have, for surrre, went through all that he did go through if he didn't have, and still has, a much more optimistic attitude and strength.

No arguments here. Lemay and Marland would have been my dream team.

I think those two are absolutely in a class of their own. Above Nixon & Bell certainly. Lemay's place up there might be problematic because people will say But he only wrote one show!, but I don't think it's an issue.

Edited February 20, 201015 yr by Sylph