What does using history mean to you?

[titan1978]

While ranting about Ron Carlivati on another thread I started thinking what does the use of history really mean to us on a soap?

For me, it’s not bringing long gone characters or locations or plots back in name only.  Or name dropping famous events or characters discussing history like a fact sheet. It’s deeper than that.  And I think the actors bring it out more than we give them credit for.

Its the warmth and camaraderie we see in scenes with Robert/Felicia/Anna on GH.  It’s Laura having anguish on her face when talking about Nikolas and his failures as a parent. It’s Liz remarking that she worked at Kelly’s when she was Cameron’s age. It’s Maggie on DAYS helping Lucas with his addiction.  Sami reverting to her darker side when pressed. And family ties matter- who is related, how they know each other.

What I hate are people just reciting facts or bringing things up for a joke.  Not every detail in the history of a character needs to be brought up in every conversation.

[Melroser]

History needs to be appreciated. I've always hated it when former rivals suddenly become friends or characters return to town with a completely different career. 

For examples, on AW the rivalry of Vicky and Paulina. They hated each other in the beginning when both wanted Grant. Paulina let Vicky's whole family be suspected of shooting Jake. Paulina even ran down Vicky's son, Kirkland, when high on pills. However, they were friends at the end. 

When Larry Lau arrived as Jamie he was suddenly a doctor. After having been in the publishing business and written a novel, he is suddenly a doctor. When did he accomplish all the schooling? Why did he suddenly want a career change? 

These kinds of continuity issues have always bugged me. You can easily have characters change/grow up, but it should be shown over time. 

[titan1978]

I prefer rivals not be besties unless they have earned it. On GH I can buy Liz and Carly getting along at times because they have earned it, their kids were involved and they are not presented as being all that close.  Sam and Liz I do not get, they should not be on good terms overall.  Jill and Katherine on Y&R should never have been friendly for long stretches of time.  Laura and Bobbie were excellent examples of rivals that had matured, but still had an edge as they were different people.  Especially when Laura was still connected to Luke.  Now that relationship is gone, and Bobbie and Laura act more like family and I am fine with that.  Without Luke there is no heat for Bobbie to get mad at Laura kicking him out, etc.

And with Jamie changing careers between actors, it’s so easy for the show to handle things like that!  Once casting has begun have Rachel receive a letter from Jamie from medical school, saying he might be coming home for part of his residency.  It still doesn’t cover the time needed, but at least the audience is aware that he has made the change and spend a year finishing up his medical schooling on the show.  But instead they always want to hit the ground running!

[Taoboi]

I love this.

 

That's what I was touching on last week on Y&R when Phyllis was coming undone in front of the whole town and had a moment with Danny. They don't usually play their history much even when they are both in town, but it was brief but you just felt the history between MD and MS regardless. 

[AMCHistory]

Like anything, I do not think that there are hard and fast rules about using history. There are just good examples and bad examples.  

A bad example, a long lost child created from an impossible timeline. For example, on AMC Adam had a son with the maid and Tad has a son with Hillary, all during times when we saw the characters on canvas? It was even more insulting because both characters were so inconsequential. 
 

A good example, when a shared history brings two unrelated characters together. On GH, it was Laura who helped Liz through her rape…decades after her own ordeal. 
 

A bad example, a cameo by a vet for cameo’s sake. On DAYS, Mike Horton’s return did nothing for the story. B&B used to role out Jake just to look pretty. (And he does look pretty)

 

A good example, is a cameo that drives a story forward and has a lasting impact on the canvas. AMC did this so smartly with Mark. He came back for Travis/Erica’s second wedding and met the father that had abandoned him. He came back for Mona’s funeral and for New Years, leading to one of the most honestly performance moments from Susan Lucci (Erica crying into Dimitri’s arms after Mark shared his memories of Mona in a series of flashbacks. Susan was clearly crying in real life and hid her face is Michael Nader’s arms). Erica’s intervention, where his acceptance of Kendall mirrored the turning tides in the Kane family. 
 

A bad example is when characters forget their relationships. On AMC it broken my heart when a grow up JR called Joe by his first name or Dr. Martin. He was ALWAYS grandpa Joe, from when JR first learned to talk. Maxie doesn’t call Bobbie Aunt Bobbie anymore, despite the fact she grew up in her home with Bobbie as a second mother figure. These seem minor, but they are indicators to the audience about characters shared histories, and the nuances of an interaction. 
 

….and when the writers forget characters have met and should recognise each other. AMC was so guilty of this in their later years. Opal did not recognise Bobby Warner, despite living in the same home! Joe did not not recognise Frankie Hubbard, despite growing up and working together! 

[kalbir]

delete

Edited April 4, 2023 by kalbir

[titan1978]

I have to think the worse use of history on AMC was the un-abortion.

Even though I wasn’t watching during the original story, when Liza returned and we got to see the pull she and Tad still had towards each other, which ultimately was not good for either of them, was great.  They didn’t have to just run down their own greatest story hits together- it looked and felt lived.

[Forever8]

Most recently with Leanna Love on Y&R, I wished for a small moment they would've acknowledged the reason Ashley despised her, including a small flashback between her and Leanna from thirty-five years ago regarding Leanna's obsession with Ashley's first husband, Dr. Steven Lassiter, and Ruthless. And when Leanna was in scenes with Danny and Gina, I was hoping a small nod would've been made about Rex since Leanna and he were good friends and once paired together romantically too, I believe.

[victoria foxton]

When David Stewart passed away. Both Bob and Kim mentioned their deceased spouses Nick and Jennifer. To convey that they knew what Ellen was going through. Details like that are very important.

[AMCHistory]

For Leanna's recent Y&R cameos, I would have used her as the town narrator at the gala. I would have paired her with a town newbie, like Audra. And every time someone has a visceral reaction to her (e.g., Ashley, Nikki, Jack), Leanna can whisper to Audra their conflict and other town gossip about the person leading to a short flashback montage.

This would have been a good balance of history, while solidifying Audra as the new town pot-stirrer. 

[titan1978]

And this would have been fun too- something the show is desperately lacking in.

I would have loved a small moment of them talking about Rex and Katherine, with Leanna adding something like your dad was a great man.

[Forever8]

There you go! 

[Soaplovers]

For me, I understand moving characters into different orbits...but I wish that subtle nods to history were consistent when they did interact.

AW: Rachel/Alice after 1975 didn't always share the same story...but you sensed tensions from 1975 to 1979 when they did interact.  In 1984 to 1985...they were too friendly with one another while in 1989, the two had an understanding with underlying tension

[Planet Soap]

Y&R is especially bad at using history. For them it's here and now, no looking back. 

Was Dina ever discussed between Mamie and Jack in 2023? Did Mamie mention Dru's name at all? Did Abby or Ashley ever bring up spermgate which would add some layer and foundation for the current drama with Devon?

Using history sometimes gives basis as to why characters might act or react the way they do when the certain situations arise. History even adds context for why a certain story even is significant. For example when Nikki shot JT, it would've been interesting for her to deal with him being the 4th person she killed (JT and Diane later revealed to be alive). Little details like that go a long way.

Edited April 5, 2023 by ironlion

[Faulkner]

They talked a little bit about Dina (that he was just now getting over her death, thanks to Diane) and she, I recall, told Lily that she was just like her mother (gag).

What bugs me is the erasure of Dru’s death, which I know is partly political. When Lily was making up with Devon and reminding him of all the losses and tragedies they survived together, she started with HILLARY’s death. I’m like, hello, you guys lost your MOTHER in a freak accident due to Phyllis and her schemes. 

Devon and Lily should have had more issues with Phyllis over the years. How hypocritical was it for GT Phyllis to attack Lily for her part in Hillary’s death at the funeral, when Phyllis herself played a part in Dru’s death? And Lily/Daniel just behave like Daniel’s mother and her past actions are water under the bridge.

Of course, this show fetishizes Neil’s death, which… I KNOW… is partly due to how beloved KSJ was behind the scenes, how much press KSJ’s death gave the show, and some recency bias. (Even though Y&R treated him like [!@#$%^&*].) But as much as Neil is brought up, you’d think Devon and Lily would at least mention that they’ve been essentially “orphaned.”