EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH THOM RACINA (SB CO-HEAD WRITER AND SCRIPT WRITER 91-93) - PART ONE

Today I propose to you the first part of the interview that Thom Racina has released exclusively to "Santa Barbara Blog". Racina was Co-Head Writer of SB in 1991 season and later he became Script Writer from 1992 until the cancellation of SB. In addition to SB, Racina (Emmy nominee) also wrote numerous other soaps, including Another Wolrd, Days of our Lives, General Hospital, Search for Tomorrow, Generations and The Young and the Restless.

During this interview we will examine the daytime soap operas and especially "Santa Barbara". Your  soaps came in Italy in 80’s. The most successful it were Capitol, Loving, Santa Barbara, B & B and Guiding Light. In Italy all the others soaps have been resounding failures and it aired briefly. Capitol, Loving and SB aired until their last episode. B&B and GL still airing here. How can you explain these differences between our raiting and yours?

Well, to be honest, who the hell knows?  Why has Jerry Lewis been so overwhelmingly popular in France but is rather unloved in America where his career is based?  Why did Generations, a soap that struggled for the 2 years it was on NBC here, succeed brilliantly in Poland?  Local tastes, a different appeal, better competition?  I honestly don’t know, and I’m not sure anybody does.  I can understand the popularity (worldwide) of Santa Barbara.  The cast was magnificent, the stories classic, the setting alluring (the real city of SB is one of the most beautiful in California).  I understand that Guiding Light and Bold & Beautiful would both also do well in Italy, but Loving?  And Capitol?  Go figure.

You worked on SB in 1991 as co-Head Writer and in 1992 as a breakdown writer. 1991 was a very important year for Santa Barbara while Marcy Walker left the show, the Dobsons returned, after a legal battle that saw them winning against New World Television, the distributor of the show. The show was sailing in troubled waters and the cancellation was just around the corner. You came so in a very delicate moment. By whom were you hired? What was your mood?

Truth is, I didn’t want to work real hard.  I was winding down from a long long run starting in 1981, and I had agreed to do One Life to Live, but at the last minute, the deal fell through and I was not sure what I wanted to do.  I was considering leaving the business for a while and returning to writing novels (which I eventually did a few years later).  I was enjoying some time off, letting my brain recover.  Then the Dobsons called.  They’d followed my career and were interested in bringing me to Santa Barbara, they said, as part of their triumphant return package.  Jerome came to my house to interview me—never had that happen before—and we found that we shared a lot of common ground, like wanting to tell stories the way we believed in them (screw the network!), we wanted to be risky (as I’d proven I could be by doing basic science fiction years before on General Hospital with the snow in the summer on Port Charles from a weather machine), it felt like a good fit to me, even though I thought he was a bit of an odd duck (more on that later).  I planned to go to the studio the next day to meet Bridget, but Jerry called me that night and told me I was hired.  I did go to their mansion in Bel Air or Holmby Hills or wherever it was a few days later to meet her, and it seemed a good fit.  I rather liked her a lot.  So it was the Dobsons who brought me in, and the network and everyone else seemed glad to have me.

You worked closely with Dobsons. Can you tell us how were the relations between the network and them? There was a lot of tension? These tensions had an effect on your work? How?

The Dobsons

It was a battle.  I mean, in a way it always is—the network hires you, I’ve always said, because you’re a great storyteller, then they never let you tell a story.  Paul Rauch, a wonderful producer stated, “The network is not there to tell the writers what to do.  The network is there to encourage the writers.”  The Dobsons had returned to save the show, and what the network should have done was let them have free reign, let them do anything they wanted to do—why not?  What did they have to lose?  We were heading toward cancellation anyway.  But the network, acting out of fear, kept second guessing everything the Dobsons wanted to do, which made for even more tension.  On top of that, there was a strange kind of brittle tension between Bridget and Jerome at that time that you could cut with a knife.  The door to their office would suddenly close and we’d hear yelling and screaming, big arguments coming from behind it.  It wasn’t pretty.  And of course it had an effect on the work, how could it not have?  I think none of us did our best because there was such turmoil around us.

On your website you talk about Dobsons defining them"loony." Can you explain what you mean? I've always found them brilliant. Especially I liked them because they were not afraid to take risks. But I obviously do not know them.  Can you make for us a professional and human portrait of Dobsons? Do you have any anecdotes?

Yes, they were risk takers, and they were not afraid to tell a story that they believed in, they were true artists.  I had—and still have—a lot of respect for them.  But at the same time, I always found Jerry distant, a little “off,” though I don’t know how to really portray that in words—he just seemed a little loony, slightly spacey.  And because I was there at a time when the pressures probably were really getting to them (hence, all the fighting), I was perhaps not the best observer to judge them.  I honestly didn’t know them well; I wanted to do my work and stay removed to a certain extent, something I’d never done in my career.  Before SB, it was 24 hours a day, every day.  I lived and breathed every character, I ate with them, slept with them (not literally!), plotted their next moves, the next words coming out of their mouths.  I wanted not to have the responsibility I’d had before, and so I stayed a bit distant from the swamp in which the Dobsons were sinking.  I loved the show, loved the characters and wanted to write good story, but I didn’t much like the atmosphere of the workplace.

The story of multiple personalities of Eden was very controversial. Many people criticized. Marcy Walker was not too excited about this. Who had the idea and who developed it? What do you remember and what do you think?

I honestly don’t know the answer to this one, though I would guess the idea was something the Dobsons had had stuffed down their throats, perhaps by NBC.  Or was story done before they came back?  I remember that storyline and how negative the reception was, but I don’t remember writing it—did we do this while I was there?  I think not.  I can only say that I recall thinking the story of Eden having multiple personalities rather unbelievable for the character of Eden—after all she’d been through, this is something we are just discovering?  Things like don’t seem organic to me, they seem “writerish.”  Ugh.

Which storylines you're most proud of? And which ones you did not love and would not have wanted to write? There was a character you loved more than others?

I know that a lot of critics feel that Pam Long’s introduction of new characters helped sink the show (and that may well be true), but I loved working with her and loved the entire BJ storyline.  I thought it had depth and romance, and writing it was a delight.  Writing the Capwells, any of them, was fun, plus I’d write for Robin Mattson any day, no matter what part she’s playing.  And I liked Nancy Grahn’s character too, it was one I loved sinking my teeth into.

C.Garland

In 1991 the Dobsons  decided to replace Carrington Garland with an older actress (Eileen Davidson) in the role of Kelly Capwell. They thought so to attract the Davidson’s audience. In my opinion, It was a dramatic mistake. Eileen Davidson, although a great actress, had nothing to do with Kelly. What u think about it?

I agree with you completely!




Then the Dobsons once again left the show in 1992. What happened? Were they fired, or they decided to go and why? I do not understand: they did everything to get back. In 1992 you became breakdown writer . Why? What role do you prefer?

They were fired.  The end was near and NBC wanted to see if some new blood would save the show, so they dumped the Dobsons (yet again) because the tension between them and the network was overwhelmingly poisonous.  That’s when NBC brought Pam and Paul in.  Bridget.  She decided one day, after they had returned to SB, that she wanted to be the story editor.  Paul tried to talk her out of it, too much time and effort, let the capable person who had that job continue with it, Bridget should just head write along with Jerry.  But she demanded it, that they fire the editor and let her take on the responsibility.  So New World did.  A few weeks later, she demanded another $7500 a week for doing that, and they told her to shove it.  She went home and stayed there for 3 weeks, while Jerome came to the studio and never mentioned her.  Talk about oddballs!  She finally returned, but that incident possibly was the last straw for New World, for when the window of opportunity for them to fire her came up, they did it and hired Pam.  I remember how strange it was that she just didn't show up for 3 weeks.

The Walkers

In 1992 you became breakdown writer . Why? What role do you prefer?In the same year Pam Long was the new Head Writer. It was she who introduced the Walker family and it was she who decided to use less characters like Gina (Robin Mattson) and Lionel (Nicolas Coster). It was part of the pursuit of audience?

Pam, as delightful as she was, had a big ego, and I think I recall that if the show wanted her, she wouldn’t share the title of Head Writer.  It was fine by me because of the tension of the workplace; as I said before, I wanted to go home at night and sleep, not have nightmares about the show, which is something all head writers have (deservedly so; they are paid not to sleep well).  I gladly accepted the change in title (and it didn’t mean I’d make less money), and though I didn’t know Pam at first, we came to enjoy one another greatly, and she relied on me for the same kind of input I’d given the Dobsons.  So it was a joint venture, but she had the responsibility…and the pressure…and the eventual she had to take some blame for the end.  I don’t know why she chose to use Gina and Lionel less, but you’re right, it was a conscious decision, although I remember Pam being a big fan of Robin’s.  We loved the Walker family and really felt that some new blood would be good for the show, though in retrospect, we probably should have given equal or more time to the Capwells and characters who had been there from the start.  That’s why Y&R (which I wrote for a while 2 years ago) is doing so well in the ratings; it focuses on the beloved long term characters.

Sydney Penny

I think one of the best storylines of 1992 was the one about the sexual abuse suffered by BJ in her childhood by a family friend played by Nicholas Walker. That was a hot topic for daytime, but it was discussed in a very delicate way, thanks to the superb interpretation of Sydney Penny. What do you think about it?

I loved it, and I’m proud of it.  Sydney was utterly wonderful, and so was Eric.  I’d created the childhood abuse story for Kimberly on DAYS a few years before so this was very much up my alley.  Funny thing I just thought of: do you remember the scene where BJ was going to drown herself?  We shot that at my pool at my house in Los Feliz because the show was so low on money that we couldn’t afford to really do it on a location we had to pay for!  I remember I had to turn the pool heater on high so she wouldn’t freeze between all the takes (which made the water steam in the cool Los Angeles night), and because it was a huge black-bottom pool, 20 feet by 40 feet and 9 feet deep at the diving end, it cost me a week’s salary to pay the gas bill just for that shot!  I thought it worked wonderfully though.

to be continued