 |
| Bridget Dobson in the '80s |
We’re
coming to the fifth part of my interview with Bridget Dobson. If you have
missed the previous parts, you can read them by clicking here. In this part she
is going to tell about her Hollywood-star system’s vision. A very vitriolic painting.
Then we will discuss the character of Sophia (Judith McConnell) and her disguise as Dominic in
particular (1984). She later will tell the
whole truth behind the famous earthquake that in 1984 killed John Perkins (Robert Alan Browne) and shocked
the audience and also the truth behind the frightening Carnation Killer’s storyline (Peter Flint - played by Stephen Meadows - systematically killed each blonde women he saw, thinking they were Kelly. After he murdered them, he left a white carnation by their side, thus becoming known as the Carnation Killer. His victims included Summer Blake and Veronica). She will paint for us a beautiful portrait dedicated to Robin Wright; we will
also discuss some soap operas clichés and she finally will tell us what she’s
watching on TV. Enjoy!
The identification with Mason is inevitable, I believe. But through which
indicators do you realize that a character does not work, so that the audience has
to struggle to identify with him? And how can you fix it?
Let's face it, there are those who have a gut instinct
for drama and those who do not. I count
myself (and my husband) among the “haves”, and I count all (almost) network
executives, studio heads, and sponsors as the “have-nots”. I understand the arrogance of that
statement. But, the simple truth is, I
know by my gut instinct when a character is working (the actor, the written
word, the production, the chemistry, the timing are all in sync). No problem. After all these years, I believe
I have “an ear” for such things. But the “have-nots” generally don't trust
that I know. They need focus groups and
ratings, they need graphs and charts, to clarify the dramatic answers and, to
be honest, the answers they come up with are often wrong.
I cannot say we have never made a mistake. Sometimes, it's a solution to recast, but
that entails a dramatic “bump” for the audience. Sometimes it is better to write out a
character for a period of time (when that character is not critical to the
immediate success of a storyline). Sometimes,
when it is clear to the haves that the character is a great one, it would be
easier to shoot the executive who is having doubts, but, as of this writing,
that hasn't happened, except in my fantasies.
I have a theory: successful
Hollywood suits haven't got a hope in Hell of having a trustworthy dramatic
instinct, because they are immune to the values that make continuing drama
work. Love, romance, family, humor,
caring, sensuality, morality, subtext, sexuality...those things, and many more,
elude them. In a nutshell, kindness, in Hollywood, is a sign of weakness. So
what is the solution? Bricklaying. Or plastics.
Or maybe they could disguise themselves as Dominic, if only they had a
soul. The character of Sophia is the one who makes use of disguise more than any
other on SB. She is introduced disguised as a man, Dominic. She is afraid of
Lionel Lockridge, her lover. Believed to be dead, she returns to Santa Barbara
disguised. But why as a man? I believe for two reasons: first, to protect
herself: men in our imagination are strong, determined, brave. But, by hiding
her female identity, Sophia gives up her motherhood and her chance to reunite
with her family. In fact the first time that you revealed to the audience
Sophia’s true face and identity, was during the earthquake, when Sophia was
buried under the rubble a few feet from her daughter, Kelly. Thanks to a long
monologue, Sophia finally expresses her desire to return to her family. The
desire for revenge gives way to love. Sophia can now stop presenting herself as
a strong, rigid male and express her motherhood. Through her weakness, Sophia
becomes stronger because her female side is not removed, but expressed. (Do not
forget an ancillary function of Sophia’s disguise: thanks to that almost no one
noticed the recast of the character - Judith McConnell replaces Rosemary
Forsyth). So can we say that “disguise” on SB is a powerful vehicle of dramatic
and psychological meanings? What was your intention?
Pierpaolo, you have correctly analyzed why we had
Sophia disguised as a man. (The fact
that the character needed to be recast during the time of the disguise worked
to our benefit, with little or no dramatic bump for the audience, but it was an
accident. It is rare to cast someone
with the intention of recasting!) I
would add to your analysis that the audience is so smart we had to go to great
lengths, gender changing, to hide Sophia - otherwise the audience would have
been on to us immediately. But the best
characters - and, indeed, human beings - use disguise frequently. Of course,
disguises are not always physical. For
example, a jocular “I hate you” may
be a disguise for “I love you”, if a
character doesn't want to reveal the extent of his or her feelings. The subtext, the meaning beneath the text, is
never a disguise. But the text often is. Subtext is not spoken, but the audience
understands it intuitively. My favorite
kind of writing involves subtext - but so many writers "spell out"
emotions directly. I think this prevents
the audience from “participating” and
understanding a character. It prevents the, “Aha! I know what he's really
thinking.” We all have huge
emotions that we withhold from blatant exposure. P&G taught us, early on,
to “play it, don't say it.” It's great advice.
The earthquake episode is OUTSTANDING. Nowadays, series like
“Desperate Housewives” have an episode with a disaster in every season. The
humor was an intrinsic part of it, as it was of everything you wrote. Good and
bad, light and dark, the sublime and the ridiculous in one throw of the dice.
Frank Salisbury told me that he often thinks how, in many ways, it presaged
9/11. What purpose do you think the quake served in the show?
Plotting the earthquake didn't take a great deal of
ingenuity or artistic skill. It was a
solution for a nasty problem. We had a
bunch of beautiful sets that were not properly built for 3-camera
video-photography. Being producers (and,
thus, thinking about the budget) as well as writers, an earthquake seemed a
two-pronged solution: it was a dramatic excuse to destroy expensive (but
relatively useless) sets. Such are the
practicalities of television. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Maybe now I could ask you to debunk a myth, or to confirm it, if you can.
Somewhere I read that the idea of the “Carnation Killer’s” storyline was born
as a solution to remove an excess of blonde actresses on the show. Do you
remember if this is true? And, in general, do you think that creating a
storyline to solve practical needs (such as unnecessary sets or a too large
cast) can stimulate creativity or vice versa constrain it?
Truth is, blondes are stamped out of a factory mold in
Hollywood, and we had accidentally cast too many. (How, you might ask, can you make a mistake
like that? Answer: when you are
frantically busy, mistakes are made despite the best efforts. ) They were too beautiful and similar. It was almost hard to distinguish between
them. So we found a solution (and had a few laughs) as we devised the Carnation
Killer storyline. Sorry to say, but
mistakes can be quite an impetus to creativity. It probably would have been
better had we done it right the first time, but you never know.
In this case I really believe that a mistake was an impetus to creativity,
as you said. The “Carnation Killer” storyline was pushed to the extreme: it made
Robin Wright’s Kelly the first tragic heroine of the show. Then events led to
the death of Joe Perkins and the main heroine of the show was replaced: ideally
Kelly passed the baton to Eden. While Marcy Walker stands out because her
strength, Wright conquered me with her natural weakness. You were the first to
believe in her talent, even though she was inexperienced. Do you remember what
struck you about her? Today what do you think about her path?
Robin Wright became a
wonderful asset for Santa Barbara. When we
first cast her, she was very young and inexperienced as an actress, but there
was a quality about her that indicated she had potential; she was more than
just another pretty face. She was
curious about her character and its motivations, and we (mostly Jerry) spent
many hours talking about individual scenes as well as the overall arc of
drama. We hired a drama coach to go over
lines with her. It was money well spent,
both for her, personally, and for the show. She quickly became a multidimensional
actress. I haven't followed her career closely, but when I have watched her on
the "big screen", I have been impressed. I think she was (and
probably still is) one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen.
 |
Fallon's abduction
on The Colbys |
Then she got the main role in “The Princess Bride”, a Rob Reiner movie. You
were very generous in allowing her to do this, especially considering that you
had to rewrite a good portion of the bible for that season. But again, what
could have been a huge loss, was transformed by you into one of the most
compelling storylines of the whole show: Kelly, accused of murder, escapes to
Switzerland for several weeks (this justifies the absence of Robin Wright) and
Gina has the videotape that exculpates Kelly… On the other shows generally, if
the star is not available, the character leaves for a vacation, or dies and
then resurrects, but rarely does his absence become the center of an entire
storyline. Which other soap - clichés have you tried to avoid on SB?
I cringe at the thought of hysterical pregnancies ( I've never written
that), rising from the dead (sometimes inevitable if the character is needed),
and aliens ( I don't get it). If the characters are strong, cliches are less offensive.
 |
| Chris Bernau as Alan Spaulding in 1978 |
That’s funny! Can I ask you to explain why you cringe at the thought of
inserting into a script hysterical pregnancies and aliens?
Storylines with hysterical pregnancies and alien beings are laughable and
so far fetched that no viewer can empathize.
The best stories and characters are those that are identifiable to
almost all of us, especially when we sense the "truth" of what is
dramatized on the screen. I have
sometimes been embarrassed by a poorly written script or an ungrammatical actor
who distorts the language of a script.
Occasionally, I have even hoped that no one I respected was
watching. But I am mortified to the core
for the writer who is so desperate to be “fresh” that he resorts to ridiculous
plots and characters.
Yesterday, Jerry went into Starbucks to buy coffee. He gave the checkout person $25.00. His change was $19.78. As he was given his change, the checkout
woman said, “Ah....1978. It was a good year for Alan Spaulding.” (Alan Spaulding was a character on GUIDING LIGHT in the l970s.) Jerry was stunned. “You
remember!” She said, “I will remember forever.”
I can only conclude that when a viewer truly experiences the emotions he
sees on the screen, it lasts in a meaningful way.
I have noticed on SB the lack of other clichés. I would like to discuss
with you a couple of these, one at a time: the so-called “Soap Opera Rapid
Aging Syndrome” (the practice of accelerating the aging of a television
character - usually a child or teenager - in conflict with the timeline of a
series). Maybe these guys are the result of hysterical pregnancies? How do you
feel about this "tactic"?
I don't admire the "rapid aging" that sometimes occurs on
soaps. I sincerely hope we didn't do it
on SB; I don't remember it if it
happened (it never happened on SB - Editor's Note). As you suggest, the off-spring
of hysterical pregnancies might be so misshapen they don't follow normal
developmental stages. What a lovely
idea! Would anybody watch?
I really do not know if anybody would watch. But nowadays people watch
almost anything, even the most improbable show. I was just wondering what you
watch on TV today and what are the shows that you like, if any…
I don't watch any dramatic television, nor any sit-coms. I haven't watched
one show, not even one, since we left Hollywood. I do watch news or history or biography. I like some documentaries. I go to movies and the theater. But NO dramatic television. I have written every situation (perhaps not
as well as it is done now, but that is irrelevant). I have been there, done that. I would rather dig ditches than watch
dramatic television. I have over-dosed
on it.
to be continued...
Reports Grahn, "They were hesitant about it. They worried that
the audience wouldn't like a deaf character or that a story line with a deaf
character would be boring or that it would be difficult to communicate the plot
points. All the typical things that someone who's never worked with deaf
performers might think. But I just didn't let up on them. It got to the point
that when Jill saw me coming down the hall, she'd lock her door, moaning,
'Shaddup, already. I don't want to hear about it any more." The determined actress even made her pitch to Brian Frons,
NBC's vice-president of daytime programming. Once victorious, Grahn applauded
the decision. "Hooray
for them for trying it. I didn't think it was risky, but for them, it was.
That's the one thing about 
