It's possible the change from Marland to Nixon led to the change in Curtis. Come to think of it, Curtis is defanged even a bit under Marland when they pair him with Colby Cantrell, Rita Mae's niece who worked as a buyer for Burnell's. Curtis' pornographic past (he financed films when he was in Europe) came back to haunt him when model Sasha Hale came to town as she had started in one of his films. Colby didn't like this and she ended up involved with Jonathan Maitlane or Keith Lane. I can never remember which.
Watching the December, 1985, and January, 1986, material recently uploaded from around the wedding of Ava and Curtis, I get the sense that Ava was suppose to be the love of Curtis' life, in his eyes, but that he couldn't really tame her. Even at this point, Curtis is presented as slightly complicated as he has been chasing after and comforting his cousin's wife even though Jack and Stacey have run off to California to start a new life with little Johnny. By the time we get to Lottie, Curtis just seems more like watered down.
Regarding Shana and Leo, I appreciate the fact that they are two very different people with strong personalities. I can see the battle of the sexes element, but I don't think that it negates the fact that Leo is a male chauvinist, and I'm pretty sure this is stated onscreen. What I will say is that it is a true battle for the sexes; we aren't expected to agree with Leo's stance on things nor is Shana a perfect person. In pursuit of having a child, Shana has chosen Leo for his looks, despite his personality, because he's attractie and she wants good genes. While this is never directly addressed, Shana's pursuit of creating a perfect child, whether intentional or not on the part of the writers, ends up being disrupted by the possibility that Shana's baby might have developmental delays. I liked that Shana ended up having power over Leo when she co-signed the loan and he had only so many days to pay it back.
What I should have clarified was that while some of the attitudes that Guza may have had male characters exhibit later on General Hospital, the tone and plotting was quite different. I am always left feeling that Leo feels the way he does and that the writers do not share his vision. In addition, the women in peril genre was big in TV movies in the era and I've seen much more disturbing material on Levinson and Riche's General Hospital from the same period. Leo just being an egotistical jerk doesn't really hit the way the Quartermaine brothers slut shaming a childhood sex abuse survivor. Shana and Leo's material is never offensive me. Honestly, I found Ava's antics funny at times in this story, but trying a bit too hard at others.
While I hear what you are saying about changing perspectives, though I think, especially with what has come out about Joe Stuart and the general work environment in the 1980s in the Loving interviews from several years back, that examining some of the work through the lens of how gender is represented is not unwarranted. I would also agree with you that modern cancel culture does lead to dismissive attitudes towards material that may be less problematic than necessary. I think Leo's point of view is realistic, and I wish they had maintained it because characters with varying viewpoints is the natural source of drama.
By
dc11786 ·
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.