As The World Turns Discussion Thread

[DRW50]

I think he was fired both times, but didn't he want to leave the first time? I can't remember.

[DRW50]

Rita McLaughlin in the feminine hygeine product ad around 4 minutes in (or a bit later).

Dorothy Stinnette in another one later in the clip.

Who is the black woman in the ad right after Rita's? She looks familiar.

[slick jones]

Joan Pringle Dr. Mason the OGBYN and Elizabeth Jackson from the Bradley Ward trial on GH and Ruth Potter Marshall on Generations. Also, the White Shadow.

[DRW50]

Thanks! I knew she looked familiar.

[amybrickwallace]

I guess the reason why he originally left depends on whose version you believe. This 1976 article states that Irna Phillips fired him:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19761017&id=9O4vAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wvoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4883,5013667&hl=en

According to this 1978 article, he left to try his luck in Hollywood:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=19781104&id=EIYsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rs0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6032,824585&hl=en

[DRW50]

[P.J.]

I didn't even really realize Colenback was Dan for such a long period of time. I was very young in the '70's, so I don't have memories of Dan per se, but any time I think of Dan, it's John Reilly's face flashing in my mind.

[DRW50]

I was reading about the 6 weeks (I think) Eileen Fulton was off in 1980, as she had hepatitis. What storyline did this affect? Was it the triangle with Grant and Joyce?

And apparently, from a tabloid I found from around early 1981 or late 1980, Barbara Rodell was fired on her birthday. Ouch.

[Paul Raven]

Two interviews with the late John Colenback (thanks Carl)

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 notgo 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.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Paul Raven

[amybrickwallace]

Carl (or anyone), would you be able to post any Liz Hubbard features from her time on ATWT? I have the first part of an interview from the 6/20/1995 SOD, but not the rest. Then there was the big article about Lucinda's return in the 8/17/1999 issue (which I used to have but accidentally wound up with the recycling out on the curb one day long ago). Anything from the 80s and 90s would especially be appreciated. I do have the interview SOD did with her in the 6/15/2010 issue. Thanks in advance!!!

[DRW50]

TV Yearbook circa 1969.

Edited June 29, 2015 by DRW50

[Paul Raven]

I have never seen Garson De Bremenlo (!?) listed as playing Paul Stewart. Does anyone know about this??

[DRW50]

That is, I think, one of the 2-3-4 different names Michael Hawkins had during his soap career.

[TimWil]

I have a feeling that's a name he had to give himself after losing out on a bet!

[amybrickwallace]

Kind of like Steve Fletcher aka Steve Blizzard, right? LOL