More Soap Opera Stuff

I had half-promised myself that I would not discuss soaps until the end of the year, but recent articles in Soap Opera Weekly have prompted a response.

In the September 23rd issue, Carolyn Hinsey mentioned coverage of prime time shows in the magazine's "Dueling Diva" column. I think SOW has gone too far with that. A reader whose letter was printed in the October 14th issue agrees. She said that she had stopped buying the magazine routinely because it had too much coverage of prime time shows. I haven't gone that far, but have let my subscription lapse more than once due to the changing focus of the mag. I can read about prime time shows in TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly. Daytime's coverage in the mainstream press is practically non-existent, so the magazines that are supposed to be covering it should do so without feeling an obligation to have sections on prime time. I recall both Sex and the City and <em>The Osbournes meriting cover stories on SOW in the not-so-distant past. Why couldn't Port Charles have received that kind of hype?

Like the letter writer, I too am a fan of Mimi Torchin and am happy to see her back in the fold at SOW. I have to think that Hinsey had something to do with Torchin's return, especially since she (Hinsey) is now editor at SOW. So, thank you, Carolyn for whatever role you played in getting Torchin back where she belongs. (I recently read that Hinsey is an IU grad, so she and I have something else in common besides a love of soap operas. No wonder she was bummed about the Hoosiers' fate in the NCAA's. I mean the basketball tournament, of course. In Indiana, there are no other NCAA's.)

In the October 7th issue of SOW, Hinsey and Michael Bruno, a talent manager for several daytime stars, dueled regarding recasts on soaps. I have discussed the topic before on Pila Posts, so won't go into it too much here. Hinsey thinks that ..."very few roles should ever be recast on a soap." I don't quite agree with that. (See the June and July archives). Hinsey argues that recasts usually are not that good and that soaps underestimate the connection that viewers make with actors. She has good points, but the examples she uses of poor recasts hardly suggest that the practice is always a bad idea. I believe that it is inevitable that actors will leave their shows. While recasting a role is not always the answer, sometimes it needs to be done. Having people fall off cliffs or disappear is not a good substitute. Soaps rely too heavily on the presumed deaths of exiting characters. That soap staple has been done to death--if only the practice really would die. Recasting, if done judiciously, makes sense. Why should a character disappear from the canvas simply because an actor wants to try his or her hand at other roles?