Lovers and Friends/For Richer For Poorer Discussion Thread

[DRW50]

From the February 1977 Digest.

[SFK]

That was fun Carl! And what's with the big Burberry-draped elephant in the room?

[DRW50]

Oh you mean the show being a flop?

Is it me or is that blouse and neck bib under the black coat one of the ugliest things you've ever seen. And when was gold lame ever "hot," unless Nancy wanted to be a Solid Gold dancer.

I think you talked some in some other threads about fur - I don't know if you saw it or not but in the Ryan's Hope thread I posted a spread of Nancy Addison from her father's fur shop.

[SFK]

LOL, I guess that too, but I meant that she's got the iconic Burberry plaid wrap, bag, and umbrella and they make no mention of Burberry whatsoever. Actually, maybe that's knockoff Burberry, but still.

You mean to say you don't like the multitude of cheetahs stalking on her artist's smock? Yeah, and gold lame, when was that ever not a punchline?

[DRW50]

You're right - I thought they mentioned it. Strange. I remember watching some thing last year about how Burberry had made a comeback among young people and young mothers in the UK, and people like Katie Price or Kerry Katona.

Is it me or do those smocks make her look pregnant?

I wish there was more out there about this. I have the recaps for the whole year (77) if anyone wants to see them. And an interview with Rauch and Lemay. I think I mostly want to see color photos.

[SFK]

Yeah, the Burberry stuff became very big with the logo whores in the late '90s and it's still going strong. She does look (miraculously ) pregnant in the blue, and the way the stalking cheetahs print is lined in the jacket she has open, it gives the illusion of her being preggo there too.

I'd love to read the Lemay/Rauch article if you ever get a chance.

[DRW50]

OK I will when I get my scanner going again. I might also post some old photos of Victoria Wyndham in her GL days, with that same quasi-flip Susan Seaforth had at the time, and with some of the old crutches of photos of this era (furs and guitars). Sometimes I think every other photo in these magazines was of a soap star on a guitar.

[dc11786]

I've never seen anything specifically stated about Marchand, but I assume she asked to leave. In the fall of 1977, "Lou Grant" premiered and she was a part of the cast. The show filmed on the West Coast so I would think it would be impossible for her to do both. It looks like she made the right choice.

A while back, I saw the premier of "For Richer, For Poorer" at the Museum of Television and Radio in New York as well as an early episode of "Lovers & Friends." "Lovers & Friends" was more fascinating despite the lack of action. In the episode of L&F, the Cushings were hosting an engagement party for Megan and Desmond. Megan was uncomfortable and dashed out to see the new neighbors. Megan and Rhett looked into each others eyes while Jason, Bentley, and Connie looked on. Josie and Sophia chatted in the Cushing kitchen. Edith tried to maintain her cool while Barbara, her husband's mistress, attended the festivities. Before leaving for the Saxtons, Megan found Austin drunk in an upstairs bedroom. Austin had a nice monologue about growing up in the Cushing home.

The premier of "For Richer, For Poorer" began with a fake out. The first scene opened with Megan and Rhett reciting their vows. It was only their rehersal. James E. Reilly would have been proud. Connie sat in her middle class abode with her dad, Ira, talking about how she had something that would change everything as she rubbed her stomach. Lester went on a job interview and his drinking was brought up. When he didn't get the job, Lester decided to get drunk. Amy and Austin were preparing to go to the wedding when Rachel Cory arrived and all three left to attend the wedding. There was a scene between Ellie and Josie as well, but it was mainly filler. The dialogue wasn't as rich as it was in L&F.

I think the problem with L&F was Harding Lemay presented a very cold vision. Neither Richard and Edith nor Josie and Lester had a marriage the characters would envy. Sophie admitted hers was a farce. Edith's ambitions were crushing her marriage to George. Rhett and Megan were to drawn to each other, but both were engaged to marry others. Megan's relationship with Desmond made sense; her parents were pressuring her to marry Desmond. With Rhett, Connie was sort of innocent about everything. She was getting punished for someone else's crimes.

With that said, I think the lack of clear vision also hurt. Megan was involved with Desmond, Jason, and Rhett. Laurie was involved with Jason, Desmond, and Austin. Jason was involved with Laurie and Megan, but also scheming with Connie which could have turned into something more. In their early days, soaps struggle to find their footing. Lemay and Backus talked about the trouble with casting Rhett which meant having story switch from Rhett to Jason. Even with the revamp, it's clear the Desmond / Laurie / Jason story seems to have gained much more prominence than it had in "Lovers and Friends."

Despite this, I'm fascinated when I read the synopses. I find Ellie's quest for prominence particularly engaging. You can see where Lemay was taking this story. George and Barbara would eventually engage in an affair. Edith would learn of the situation and keep mum in order to protect her own intersts; if Barbara was with George, she couldn't involve herself with Richard. A child might come into play since George lost his. Richard would eventually learn of the situation and reveal the truth out of jealousy. Ellie would be furious with Barbara and then equally furious with Edith for keeping her secret. Ellie would be forced to see the price of her social climbing and make an honest play for George or move on. Maybe Ellie would have become involved with Barbara's ex-husband, the one she spoke to George about in one of her previous situations.

Yet, in For Richer, For Poorer, Ellie and George were the couple struggling to conceive. The twist that George was responsibile for their infertility was neat, but to negate the situation Lemay set up seems criminal. Ellie's fascination with Billy (Connie and Bill's son) worked, but didn't develop into anything. Similarly, Edith seemed defanged as she was hosting Megan and Bill's wedding in the opening episode having gotten over her class issues from the previous series. Barbara was still around, but not as prominent.

I always thought the show could have been a hit if it premiered a couple years later during the big business era of Dallas and Dynasty. All the inner workings of Cushing & Sons seems ripe for an 80s audience. Jason seemed very J.R.-esque.

[DRW50]

Have you read all the synopses from Digest then (on L&F)? If not let me know and I'll post them.

I wonder if the show might have been better off embracing a certain trashiness. Was it too clinical? What if they had tried to advertise to non-soap viewers? Wasn't this around the time of Interiors? This sounds like an Interiors-type of show.

Thanks for sharing the episode details with us. What you mentioned sounds fascinating, especially L&F. I wish more of Lemay's work was available.

What I have wondered about more than once is why they pulled it off the air so fast the first time around. Was the show just too expensive? Was this because Lemay was burnt out and they felt the show couldn't go on in its present state without him? I know the ratings were bad but hadn't other shows started out with poor ratings?

[dc11786]

Years ago, Matt Smith posted them on a site. I would love to read them again if you get a chance. I think you have two of them already up. “Lovers & Friends” is a good read.

I know Lemay said he didn’t write much of “For Richer, For Poorer,” but I get the feeling he worked on the concept for FRFP. Characters like Ira Ferguson, Viola Brewster, and Roger Hamilton were introduced, but given little to do (barring Viola). The presence of the brokerage firm is important in the first month or so and then abandoned again quickly. Roger Hamilton was Edith’s true love. I cannot imagine how someone would bring him on and not make a decent go of it between Edith and Roger. Richard was dead and this was Edith’s true shot at happiness. The presence of Viola Brewster seems to fulfill that rich b*tch role Edith had in the beginning, but I think a Viola / Richard / Edith triangle could have been fascinating. Viola was a member of their circle and was desperate to maintain her image. Why not marry Roger?

I wonder if “Lovers & Friends” would have worked better if Lester and Josie were brother and sister rather than husband and wife. Sort of Sam and Ada of the “Lovers & Friends” set. Lester could have been Amy’s father who ran his wife away with his drinking. Lester could still be a surrogate father figure to the Saxton kids while opening Josie up for a relationship with an honest man who could stabilize her role as the mother figure for her clan.

I don’t know why “Lovers & Friends” was pulled. Rhett Saxton was such a critical role. One of the only things I remember Lemay mentioning in his book about L&F is how early on they knew the original actor wasn’t going to work out. Without strong actors to pull off the central romance, the show was doomed from the start.

A lot of complaints were leveled at the show for delving too much into characterization without constructing much plot. From what I saw, it seemed fair, only if you leveled the opposite at “For Richer, For Poorer.” Sometimes the plot seemed to forsake the characterization. I cannot imagine the Austin of “Lovers & Friends” being happy with life as president of Cushing & Sons or Lester falling off the wagon so easily.

In terms of fixing L&F, I think “Lovers & Friends” should have been allowed to run its course. I wouldn’t have placed so much emphasis on Rhett/Bill and Megan and slowly built up the stronger parts of the canvas. Ellie could have caused drama for years as could have Jason. If they had held out long enough, Vicky Dawson would have been a strong ingénue. She was well liked later on as Eileen Perrini on AW. I think Abbott might have worked too. After everything else was working, I would have written Rhett/Bill out by killing him off or shipping him out of town. Megan could mourn and move on, while everything else was in place to keep the story moving

[Paul Raven]

Yes,it is odd that L&F was pulled so quickly as most new soaps work out their kinks on air,for better or worse- by recasting, changing story and character emphasis. Starting all over again and making odd changes eg character names, hardly seems a recipe for success.

[SFK]

Fascinating stuff dc11786. I will definitely watch those episodes upon my next visit to the Paley Center. Carl, your Interiors reference sounds spot on, that sense of 1970s upper middle/upper class values and psychology, the type of characters who kvetched to their analysts, the type of characters Lemay excelled at. I recall a fan at WoST saying that the characters would have been right at home with Frasier and Niles Crane.

[SFK]

ITA, it sounds confusing, but worse, irksome.

[DRW50]

Some of these have been transcribed in the past but I decided to include all the scans I have even if they've been typed up before.

This is March and April 1977.

Edited March 1, 2011 by CarlD2

[DRW50]

May and June.