GH in Review: And Another Thing About August...
by Arda Darakjian Clark
The best description of the current state of General Hospital came ironically
from one of its characters. When Luke first discovered Helena's lab and encountered
Stavros, he referred to the spectacle as a "two-bit horror show." Sadly,
that's just what this once superb soap opera has been reduced to. I still tape
and watch it daily, but I no longer look forward to it. I no longer rewind the
tape to hear again a fabulous bit of dialogue or to see again a meaningful glance.
I watch it with fading hope that things will get better.
Here are the major problems as I see them:
1) The show is almost entirely plot driven. Every day we're shown another shocking
confrontation, another twist, another bit of mayhem. The Powers That Be seem to
have forgotten that what makes viewers tune in day after day is not a silly plot
with gasp-inducing twists and turns, but fully-sketched characters who respond
to and learn from their circumstances. The power of a soap opera resides in its
history, in its characters and their relationships. Viewers will not continue
to make the investment of time, commitment, and emotion to a daily show just to
see cartoon-like characters go from one contrived plot to another.
2) The dialogue is trite, repetitious, and sometimes plain stupid. Consider
the following statement from Angel to Sonny regarding her father: "My love
for him didn't really die until he hurt you." We've been told that Sorel
had killed Donny Ellis, Angel's husband. Are we supposed to believe that Angel
didn't hate her father for her husband's murder but that she was inspired to hate
him after he hurt someone she didn't even know?
Did I hear Angel right? Did she really tell Sonny "You taught me your
technique for chopping celery"? I haven't found this line in the transcripts,
though it may have been in a July episode. Or perhaps I just read it as a spoof
on a message board. Or perhaps I had a bad dream. But I could have sworn I heard
her say that.
And just how many times do we need to hear Elizabeth tell Lucky that their
love will keep them safe and protect him from Helena? Lately, Elizabeth seems
to have only two lines: the one to Lucky about their love and the one to all others
entreating them to help her save Lucky. Aside from the concerns about repetitious
dialogue, I'm bothered that this young woman is now seen only vis-à-vis
her relationship with Lucky. We never see her working at Kelly's, we never see
her in her studio, we never see her utter anything to anyone except as it relates
to Lucky.
3) The time element is mishandled. This is an issue I addressed at length in
my review of May 2001. My frustration continues to mount with the inexplicable
insistence on having days that last over several episodes. In August, 23 episodes
were used to cover four days, the last of which continued into September. There
were no gaps between days, but in early September we had characters referring
to events that happened "weeks ago" which had happened two or three
days ago. And, while some characters seemed to change their clothes several times
in one day, others, and most noticeably, Carly, wore the same blue and pink outfit
for two days, for a span of 15 episodes.
4) Lack of romance. No one who knows me well would describe me as particularly
romantic. I'm not the sentimental "hearts and lace" type. I would not
enjoy a soap opera that primarily emphasized romance. But the complete lack of
romance on General Hospital is disheartening. Luke and Laura have divorced.
Felicia is disgusted with Luke and has left town. Alan and Monica are fighting.
Emily and Zander have been forced apart. Sonny and Carly have separated. Alexis
and Ned are apart. Gia and Nikolas have split up. Lucky's love of Elizabeth has
been erased from his mind. The only current romances are the renewed relationships
of Scott and Laura and of Roy and Melissa. With Laura gone the entire month of
August, the single Scott/Laura related scene was a small one at the auction where
Scott bought a painting for Laura. Roy and Melissa continued to become close again,
but I found myself caring not a whit. I like both A Martinez and Jensen Buchanan
and I had hoped to enjoy this pairing. Unfortunately, many of their scenes are
contrived, hackneyed, and plain boring. In addition, this couple suffers from
the same problem that seems to plague couples with an off-screen past history.
I think it's virtually impossible for an audience to care for a couple that
didn't come together on screen. It's hard to get away from the fake manufactured
air when we're suddenly asked to accept a new character as the long-ago love of
an established character. I'm thinking of the flat pairing of Miranda with Jax
several years ago and the current, equally flat attempt to pair Angel with Jax
with implications of some shared past. The only successful off-screen romance
I recall accepting is the "island romance" of Laura and Stefan. I know
that many viewers were vehemently opposed to pairing Laura with Stefan, but that
very vehemence speaks to the plausibility of that pairing. What made Laura and
Stefan believable as a couple were the "flashbacks" created to take
the audience back to the "island" as well as the gap in time between
Laura's disappearance in the fog shortly after her wedding to Luke and her return
to the mayor's mansion two years later. In the current attempts to sell the audience
on a relationship between Roy and Melissa and between Angel and Jax, no attempt
has been made to make the pairings seem remotely plausible. I preferred the implication
at the time Melissa was introduced that she might be psychotic or inclined to
avenge her brother's death. It doesn't make much sense that this woman would not
only forgive Roy for his betrayal, but that she would want to have a relationship
with him again. As to Angel and Jax: Based on the majority of opinions on message
boards, I know I'm not alone in my opinion of Angel as a complete fiasco. The
prospect of the poorly sketched and poorly portrayed Angel being with either Jax
or Sonny (or what's worse, being wooed by both suitors) is most unappealing. Even
if she had been a likable character, it would have been wiser to take the time
to flesh her out a bit before pairing her with Jax, who himself has been gone
for an entire year.
5) General Hospital's rich history is ignored. I was annoyed recently
in an exchange between Roy and Melissa where he prepared to tell her that it was
Sorel who ordered her brother's murder. Melissa stated that she understood Roy's
hatred of Sorel since he had held Carly hostage in the penthouse. Roy replied
that he had another reason to hate Sorel: Leo's murder. How about the fact that
Sorel kidnapped Bobbie about a year and a half ago? And for that matter, if Roy
knew Sorel from Chicago at the time of Leo's murder, why was there no indication
that the two men knew each other until very recently?
I've also been irritated by the switch in Alexis's age at the time her mother
was murdered. As I recall, when Luke first told Alexis of Kristen and Natasha,
Alexis was described as having been four years old. Recently, Alexis described
herself as having been about seven. Even more recently, at the time of the introduction
of Kristina as her sister, Alexis was described as having been ten years old.
6) The quality of acting has deteriorated. I've watched General Hospital
since early 1989. In that time, there have been periods of bad plots, bad writing,
bad wardrobe, bad lighting, bad sets. The one element that has seemed consistently
good has been the acting. Some veteran actors still do an admirable job, but I
frequently wince through the scenes of Angel Boris, Tamara Braun, and Robert Kelker-Kelly.
I know that Boris and Braun are newcomers to soaps, but I'm mystified by the popularity
of Kelker-Kelly. Three months after he first appeared on General Hospital, I still
don't know how to react to his character. I recognize that he's supposed to be
a villain, but I don't know what to make of the camp qualities in acting. I have
read on message boards that he has been instructed to play the role in a camp
manner, but I fail to understand why that would be. Soaps are supposed to be serious
dramas. This isn't to say that I object to humorous scenes or light dialogue or
moments of farce. I don't even object to camp when it's appropriate, such as in
the character of Elton. But the character of Stavros, as played by Kelker-Kelly,
is simply distasteful. As Luke said of Stavros: "Where did you find him,
off Broadway? Way, way, way off?" This is not intended as a comment about
Kelker-Kelly as a human being. I know nothing about him as a person nor am I familiar
with any of his other work. I think the only thing that I as a viewer can fairly
criticize in an actor is the acting job he does. And I think he's absolutely dreadful
as Stavros.
On a positive note, I have thus far enjoyed the work of newcomer Jaime Ray
Neuman, who portrays Kristina.
Below is a synopsis of major stories and developments in August. I've tried
to keep the synopsis itself neutral, with my comments separate. I have organized
the stories into days as presented on the show. There were four days depicted
in August, with no gaps between the days. The last day began on August 29 and
continued into early September. I will cover that day in next month's review.
Continue to Next Page of Review
Back to Front Page of Issue
Back to Top
|
