Nancy Curlee and Stephen Demorest interview

[Soapsuds]

He was asked several times and he gave the same answer. 

[soapfan770]

 

It’s interesting indeed. Demorest along with Addie Walsh and Mel Brez had initially tried to get ATWT refocused after the disastrous Stern & Black run. Their effort started out decent with Holden’s return, Emily’s rape, and who shot Diego mystery bringing in the ratings with ATWT even hitting a 5.0+ for a few weeks there. Unfortunately it was pretty uneven as the trio were the ones to bring back James, let the Diego mystery go off the rails, and had the Molly retcon story.   They were demoted after about 6-7 months in favor of Jessica Klein but then promoted again for a short time after to refocus the show again after Klein’s stint quickly escalated into a dumpster fire. Then Broderick came on as HW and that was it. 
 

Of course Demorest, Walsh etc can’t be solely blamed for this era being messy as by that point MADD was in charge of P&G and her interference was heavy not to mention FMB’s own mistakes. Later he came back for Sheffer’s first year as a script writer/associate HW under Sheffer and Carolyn Culliton but of course Sheffer gets all the credit for that 2000 revival of the show. 
 

I’m not surprised he may have blocked out a lot of it as he may have not had a hand in much of the decision making but certainly bringing back Holden & James and introducing Jack, Molly, and David would have lasting effects for the rest of the show’s run. 

[Faulkner]

Watching now. They just seem like warm, lovely people.

[Faulkner]

Oof. Alan. Can’t with him stepping on people’s stories.

 

While she’s clearly complimentary towards Jill (and they are still in touch), there’s a lot of subtext to Nancy’s comment about her and Jill being ambitious and “emotions running high.” 
 

Love Nancy’s story about Harding Lemay telling them to go read Middlemarch. These people really had such respect for the genre.

 

Stephen’s comment about a pebble dropping in a pond rippling over to the other side of town… love that.

 

They also have such love for their creations. Nancy dramatizing Eleni and Alan-Michael’s meet-cute really showed her affection for their characters.

 

I feel like Nancy was going somewhere with her story about Maureen’s death and what happens to the canvas when you “blow the heart out,” but Alan just had to interject.

Edited July 2, 2021 by Faulkner

[BetterForgotten]

I hope @Dan gets to see this and add his view.

[LoveMyDaytimeSoaps]

I'm definitely going to have to watch this interview! These were writers at their best. This is what soaps lack now, writing with heart, writing that makes sense, and writers that know how to build stories that have long lasting affects, feels, emotions, incorporates old and new characters, and builds new history while building on the old. They knew how to create and develop characters as well as enhance the characters already on the show. So I am excited to listen to this later on. I feel this way about writers like Sheri Anderson (Days of Our Lives) and Donna Swajeski (Another World, 1988-1992). There are many other writers who I feel got it right and understood without a doubt how to write great, entertaining soap opera. I hope he does some more interviews with other past writers who really understood the craft and genre!

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by LoveMyDaytimeSoaps

[wonderwoman1951]

because that’s what he does, though that said, i have to say, this was one of his more revelatory interviews.

 

i mentioned in the jfp interview thread, that like nancy, i love those conversations between characters that contextualize the relationship, but do nothing to move the plot. 

 

re maureen: amazing that almost 30 years later, there’s still so much to unpack. i loved nancy’s idea that roger should have rescued maureen, getting her off the canvas alive. great idea, but it could have been even better. 

 

i could understand why a focus group might not have found maureen a riveting character — and the fall out from ed and lillian’s affair was nothing if not riveting. but it seemed to me that rather than kill maureen, she could have turned to roger for comfort — maybe an underlying sexual tension, maybe not — either way, it would have been enough to push ed off the wagon into a bottle of scotch. that, combined with ed and maureen dealing with michelle, not to mention  the emotional impact on lillian, holly, vanessa, blake… well, you get the idea.

 

but the fact that jfp never considered anything other than killing maureen makes me think that the buzz at the time — that killing maureen freed up parker’s salary so jp had enough money to hire justin deas, who wasn’t going to come cheap (and yes, the pun was intended), was indeed the case.

 

speaking of buzz. they talked about that famous scene of harley not finding buzz’s name on the vietnam memorial (don’t recall frank being there). i already knew from the soap media that deas was coming to gl as buzz, so i knew harley wasn’t going to find her father’s name. but ,  it was how i knew that took me out of the scene. had it been revealed to the audience that buzz was alive, i would have remained emotionally engaged in the scenes at the wall. 

[NothinButAttitude]

 

What is stopping her now?!

 

Nancy and Stephen's style of writing would be critically acclaimed in primetime or streaming platform. 

 

I miss their writing so much.

[DramatistDreamer]

 

I also feel as if she wanted to extrapolate on her "alternate" denouement to the Maureen story, where Roger secrets her onto a private plane, but felt that she might not have had the time to give more precise details about the mechanisms on how that proceeds and what the implications of those actions will be.

 

 

For the last decade and a half, I've suspected that these writers don't even outline their story projections, as though they are just adding and filling in as they go along. That's how it plays out onscreen to me.

I don't necessarily like writing outlines, but I appreciate how important they can be in order to create coherent stories, and when you are doing more than one storyline, as most television dramas and sitcoms require, it becomes critical, or you end up with a muddled mess, or something middling and insipid

 

 

I'm not sure how many people have participated in a focus group. I have and the ones I have participated in, the environment is rife with group think. It's similar to a sequestered jury that wants to make sure there is no dissenters that will keep them from reaching a verdict so they can collect their things and go home.

 

 

In short, the business. The natur of how it works and how writers have to present their work. For women, in particular, when you leave, you can more often than not, lose your "place". I'm not saying it's impossible, bit that it becomes especially challenging and she has to be 'up to' the fight.

Also, the unfortunate reality is that the work of a writer whose resume focused on daytime dramas is not likely to be regarded in the same way as a writer who wrote for Grey's Anatomy, even though, at heart, both are soaps. It's a savage reality of the business. It would be good if it changed.

If she has some primetime credentials, that might make a bigger difference.

[Faulkner]

I’d like to hear more about balancing general outlines and longterm story with allowing for serendipity and the ability to change direction when you see two unexpected characters spark. I know novelists have spoken about that (outlining vs “pantsing”), but there are so many moving parts on a soap (demands from the network, cast, and producers; actor contracts and departures; etc.).

I feel like soaps these days are the worst of both worlds. Longterm story feels nebulous at best, yet the writers seem beholden to sticking with failed or uninspired pairings, etc. I’m sure a lot of that’s down to not even having the freedom to shift direction.

[Faulkner]

I also want to hear about the unproduced romantic-comedy screenplays Nancy wrote. She mentioned taking meetings with Nancy Meyers (she of the upscale older white women movies). 

[amybrickwallace]

Much as I love to see actors on these chats, it is utterly fascinating to see writers and producers. I could listen to Curlee/Demorest all day!

[Dan]

Appreciate the shout out. I still try to lurk on here when I can. I got about 30 minutes in and had to stop for time but what I did see was really quite great even with Alan's numerous interruptions.

It's amazing to me just how much she "got" that show and knew what it was supposed to be about when soo many people over the last 20 years of its life didn't. And the soaps still on today have a wonderful opportunity with pared down sets and casts to bring daytime back to the domestic dramas they used to be. Simple but still with rich subtext. But they want it both ways and want to still pretend it's the 80s. Oh well. 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on the Roger/Maureen stuff. As much as I appreciated their friendship, that kind of exit would not have worked out. I'm torn about Maureen's death because longterm it was a bust. But the immediate material made for wonderful and the dialogue, my God.

 

This is making me mourn the loss of Bandstand Mike's channel even more. Damn you YouTube. 

[Soaplovers]

Only thing I didn't agree with was her dislike of Roger Thorpe as Adam Malik.  It was a good story and it fit with the character.

They seem earnest and are talented...but they needed someone with energy and quirkiness to balance them out.  It was she and Pam Long were good as co head writers...and why having Jim Reilly with them helped.

[Faulkner]

Speaking of which, Alan hasn’t interviewed Pam, has he?