|
First, a quick note to answer a reader's musical question:
Q: What music was that at the end of the August 15th episode? It sounded
classical or operatic?
A: Judy writes that it's the "Funeral March" from Beethoven's
seventh symphony, the second movement. She notes, "Actually, there were no
lyrics or singing when Beethoven wrote the piece. It wasn't until his ninth symphony
that he included a choir, though I really liked this vocal adaptation of the melody
from his seventh. I wonder who the artists are? Wonderful choice of music, and,
obviously, very appropriate!"
In addition, we had a lovely, thought provoking note from a new reader this
month concerning the state of General Hospital. Arda speaks for us in response
(with some help from Judy).
To: GHR
Subject: A Great Site
From: Denise Davis
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001
To the Editors--
My name is Denise Davis, and I have been a loyal viewer of General Hospital
for five years now. I used to watch GH when I was younger, but I stopped
watching for a while and returned at the end of 1995. Since then, GH has
become my favorite soap. However, it has had its ups and downs in recent years.
I think your site is great in that it recognizes what's good about GH and
yet what's bad. I've been looking for a review like this for sometime, and I think
I will definitely check out next month's issue.
I just have a couple of comments and questions. As I said before, I am a loyal
viewer. I became hooked at the culmination of the Stone/AIDS story line, and the
drama continually infolding between Sonny and Brenda. I was amazed at the compelling
characters and story lines. But, for me, GH began to take a down turn at
the beginning of 1997. I am by no means an expert, but it seemed that after Bob
Guza left and some interim writers took over, GH lost the passion, the
heart, and the adventure it's been known for. I don't think it's really recovered
from that. There has also been a lot of backstage drama going on, with writers
as well as actors coming and going. My questions to you are this:
1. Do you think it is primarily the writing that has caused GH to suffer,
or the backstage goings-on, or a combination of both?
2. Do you think GH can be saved?
Thank you very much for your time. Please continue reviewing GH.
Denise Davis
Dear Denise,
Thank you for your comments. I'm responding to you on behalf of the editors
of General Hospital Review. I think the other editors would generally agree
with my statements, but may not necessarily concur with everything I say.
I share your disappointment in General Hospital. I've been watching
it for over 12 years and I've never disliked it more than I do now. Before I specifically
address your questions, I'd like to respond to your comment that General Hospital
took a down turn in early 1997 from which it has never recovered.
I agree with you that there was a down turn in the show after Bob Guza left
the first time in late 1996, but I don't agree that the current awfulness can
be traced to that point. Guza's first stint as head writer invigorated the show
with his "Return of the Cassadines" story line. After he left, the show
badly deteriorated under Richard Culliton and a duo of temporary head writers.
But I do think things improved again after Guza returned in December 1997. We
had, for example, the powerful stories of Elizabeth's rape and the revisit of
Luke's rape of Laura in 1998. There were blunders, too. I think the story of Baby
Michael's paternity dragged too long and the mixed marriage tale (of Ned and Chloe
and Jax and Alexis) held great promise but flopped miserably.
I would trace the show's current problems to the rumored conflicts between
Guza and former executive producer Wendy Riche. Clearly Riche liked Guza enough
to rehire him in late 1997. But by the time Guza's departure was announced in
the fall of 2000 and Wendy Riche left at the end of 2000, something seemed to
be off in their relationship. I must add though, that while there were problems
in the last two years or so of the Riche/Guza regime, I think the show has been
an unmitigated disaster under Jill Farren Phelps and Megan McTavish. I think we've
had the proverbial "from the frying pan into the fire" transition from
Riche/Guza to Phelps/McTavish.
My fellow editor Judy thinks that the decline of General Hospital is
at least partly due to "kowtowing to divas (be they actors or studio execs)."
Judy adds:
"To be sure, it's not the soap world's only problem, and I'm certain Jill
Farren Phelps and Megan McTavish are from blameless in this matter, but General
Hospital's decline can't be laid entirely at their feet. It was headed downhill
for years prior to their taking the reins. I place the start of the slide about
the time Stefan and Katherine were paired for no good reason other than to bring
in Days of Our Lives viewers. That was the first really blatant shoehorning
of a major character into an uncharacteristic role in order to suit an outside
fancy (perhaps Mary Beth Evans or an ABC marketing exec?) that I can recall. And
we've had many other examples since then: the boy bands at Luke's, the 'all-teens,
all-the-time'summers, etc. I understand the networks have to have some say in
what they put on the air, but they're slitting their own throats by not allowing
'real' (as in 'good') writers do the writing. With all the outside demands (networks,
actors, etc.), the real writing talent is getting fed up and leaving (I miss Patrick
Mulcahey!) and we're left with the folks whose main qualification is that they're
willing to be manipulated."
On to your questions:
First question: "Do you think it is primarily the writing that has caused
GH to suffer, or the backstage goings-on, or a combination of both?"
None of us at General Hospital Review have any direct knowledge of backstage
turmoil or politics. Based on rumors, under Riche/Guza, the conflict seemed to
center around the vision of those two, with actors taking sides. Rumors of current
conflicts pit the team of Phelps and McTavish against the actors. Indications
are that Jill Farren Phelps and Megan McTavish are close and in agreement in their
vision of General Hospital.
Ironically, while problems under Riche/Guza may have been due to their differences,
I think the problems under Phelps/McTavish may be due to their lack of differences.
For me, General Hospital was still palatable before McTavish took over
as head writer. Yes, Phelps was already at the helm as executive producer, but
I imagine her vision was checked and curbed by old guards Michelle Val Jean and
Elizabeth Korte. However, once McTavish joined General Hospital, the show
quickly degenerated from a show with problems to one that is --borrowing Felicia
Minei Behr's description for One Life to Live under Jill Farren Phelps--"unwatchable."
For a show to succeed, a variety of factors must coincide. The writing has
to be good, the production/direction has to be good, and the acting has to be
good. Of these factors, I believe the writing is the most critical. The most exciting
sets and interesting camera angles won't overcome a badly written show. Good acting
can transcend an occasional bad script, but even the best acting can't transcend
material that's consistently poor episode after episode.
I would place the blame for the current unfortunate state of General Hospital
on writing that is shallow and overly focused on constant conflict and mayhem.
Each episode is packed with one head-spinning event after another, without any
attention to character development or relationships. I also dislike the shift
from realistic, plausible stories to the campy and cartoonish stories of Stavros
and Helena in search of world domination.
I'm not quite so concerned about the influx of new characters and actors. That
isn't to say that I like them all, but that I don't see the influx as extraordinary.
I couldn't care less whether an actor is a friend of Jill's (FOJ) or not. As long
as they're good actors and their characters fit in with existing Port Charles
characters, I'll accept them.
Second question: "Do you think GH can be saved?"
Yes, I do. As I said at the beginning, I do think General Hospital is
currently the worst I've ever seen it, but that isn't to say that there haven't
been bad months or years before. When you consider the longevity of the show--over
38 years--it's unrealistic to expect it to be consistently good.
I think it's safe to say the show can be saved, but I don't think that will
happen under Phelps/McTavish. I think the show may be OK under Phelps with another
head writer, but the combination of Phelps and McTavish is lethal to the show.
It would be best, however, to start over with a new team, the sooner the better.
Of course, it's easy to say that things will get better (especially when it's
hard to imagine the show being any worse than it is now). The much more difficult
thing would be for a new (or oldie but goodie) producer/writer team to infuse
substance and heart back into General Hospital.
Thanks for your note,
Arda
Back to Front Page of Issue
Back to Top
|
