Search This Blog

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Murder In Hazard, Nebraska - Who Killed Mary?

I may have touched upon this before in a previous entry, but I have always loved songs that told a story. To me, the songs were just much better if you could follow along with the story as the lead singer belts out each lyric.

The latest entry in the Sunday Jukebox portion of the blog can definitely be classified as a story song. However, unlike most storytelling songs, this one never really had a resolution. The song was a big hit all over the world, and its accompanying music video only served to provide the listener with more questions than answers.



Set in a fictionalized version of a real life small town in the state of Nebraska, the lyrics of the song are haunting, powerful, and by the end of the song, you're left wondering what the solution to the mystery is. The song's lyrics have all the makings of a soap opera. It has affairs, it has childhood trauma, it has bullying...it even has murder. Somebody ends up dead during the song, and it is assumed that we're supposed to know who the murderer is. But do we?

So, I thought that what we would do today is take a look at this song, examine it in detail (maybe give some information on the singer who performed the song), and give some possible explanations as to what we think really happened in the song. And, after that, I'll open up the floor to your own theories. Doesn't that sound like fun?

So, here's the video for the song in question. Be sure to watch it very closely.



ARTIST: Richard Marx
SONG: Hazard
ALBUM: Rush Street
DATE RELEASED: January 28, 1992
PEAK POSITION ON THE BILLBOARD CHARTS: #9

Though, I should note that the song hit #1 on the Adult Contemporary Charts in May 1992.



First, we might as well talk about the artist who recorded the song. Richard Noel Marx, born September 16, 1963, got his start in the music business when he was just five! Having a father who worked in advertising writing commercial jingles, young Richard would sing on some of his father's jingles for such products as Nestle Crunch and Arm & Hammer.

In early 1981, when Marx was seventeen, he was living in Highland Park, Illinois sending out demo tapes, having decided that he wanted to get into the recording industry in some manner. Somehow, one of his demo tapes ended up in the hands of singer Lionel Richie, who liked what he heard so much that he recommended that Marx move to Los Angeles, in hopes of making his dream come true. Once Marx graduated high school, he boarded a plane to Los Angeles and quickly met up with Lionel Richie, who was in the process of recording his first solo album. Marx recalled that Richie was having a bit of trouble with the background harmony for a specific song, and Richie asked for his input on how it should sound by inviting him to sing it. Marx obliged, and as a result, he ended up providing background vocals on this Lionel Richie hit from early 1983.



And Lionel Richie wasn't the only singer who Richard Marx provided background vocals for. He also sang backing vocals on songs recorded by Whitney Houston, Madonna, and Luther Vandross, among others. He even got into the idea of writing songs for other artists. He penned hits for Kenny Rogers, Kim Carnes, Freddie Jackson, and rock band Chicago! Marx was only in his early twenties at the time he had all of these accomplishments, so that is definitely something to be commended.



Still though, as much success as he had behind the scenes, his real dream was to have his own record deal releasing solo albums and having his own success on the charts. It took Marx four years for his dream to become a reality, as almost every record label in Los Angeles rejected his demo tape. But in 1987, Bruce Lundvall, then head of EMI/Manhattan Records, took a chance on Marx, believing that he had the star power to make it huge in the world of music. In June of 1987, Marx released his self-titled debut, which skyrocketed up the music charts, as did his 1989 album 'Repeat Offender'. When Marx's first single, “Don't Mean Nothin'” was released, he was just a few months shy of turning twenty-four. His success with his first two albums was huge. He was nominated for two Grammy Awards between 1987 and 1990, having his first seven singles reach the Top 5 on the Billboard Music Charts (three of which were #1 hits), and his record sales and concert tours helped make him a household name.



By 1991, with the release of his third album, “Rush Street”, Marx's popularity on the main Billboard Charts was waning, but his performance on the Adult Contemporary Charts had grown, as it appeared as though Marx was taking a different direction with his music. A more mature direction.

Hence the creation of the song, “Hazard”, which was Marx's second single from “Rush Street”.

And what a song “Hazard” was. There's just as many things that by watching the video and listening to the lyrics that we know as fact. There are just as many unanswered questions though. First, as we would any murder mystery, we should state what we know.

FACT #1: A young woman is brutally murdered in the small community of Hazard, Nebraska. Her name is Mary. The cause of death is somewhat hazy, but based on the fact that she was found in the bottom of a river with a scarf tied around her neck, I think it's safe to say that Mary died of strangulation, and that her body was thrown into the river in an effort to hide the crime.

FACT #2: The main suspect in her murder is the character played by Richard Marx in the video (for argument's sake, let's refer to our unnamed man as Richard.

FACT #3: The scarf that was found around Mary's neck did belong to Richard. We know this because we saw Mary pulling on it when Richard was wearing it.

FACT #4: Richard was not very well liked in Hazard, even at an early age. He said that his mother moved to Hazard when he was just seven, and that the townspeople were quite judgmental in their assessment of him. They felt that there was something that was just not right with Richard.

FACT #5: At some point, three years before the murder took place, Mary and Richard meet, and they begin dating each other for a time.

FACT #6: The sheriff of the town of Hazard seems to have a lot of time on his hands, as he seems to view Richard and Mary as “cheap entertainment”, watching every single move they make. Which would have been fine if it were a reality television show, but in this case, it's just creepy.

FACT #7: At some point in the video, we see that Richard's parents split up when Richard was a young boy. His father left with another woman, and then Richard's mom appeared to have an affair of her own. Coincidentally, this brings us to...

FACT #8: Richard happens to come across a disturbing sight just hours before Mary breathed her last breath. He saw Mary cheating on him with another man.

So, it's pretty obvious what the solution is, right? You think you know who did the crime?

I admit that I thought I knew who it was too, but after doing a lot of research (which admittedly had me watching the video in a continuous loop for a 90-minute period), I realize that there are four possible scenarios that could have happened. Some of them are likelier than others, but the more I think of it, all four of them make sense.

We'll begin with tentative conclusion #1...



1 – RICHARD KILLED MARY

We heard him protest his innocence throughout the whole song. He swore he left her by the river. He swore he left her safe and sound. According to Richard, there was absolutely no way that he would kill the one person who actually gave a damn about him in the whole community of Hazard, Nebraska. But, the evidence spoke volumes. Mary was found with Richard's scarf around her neck. The sheriff knew that Mary had cheated on Richard with a new squeeze (because as we know, the sheriff somehow knew everything that had gone on), and cited a motive of jealousy in regards to Mary's death. And thanks to flashbacks, we know that Richard didn't take the fact that his mother was getting involved with a new man so soon after his father abandoned them. We even see a child version of Richard running out of a burning building with his mother and her man still inside, but what exactly this represents, we don't know. I suppose one guess might be that Richard set the fire, which presumably ended the lives of his mother and her boyfriend, which could possibly explain the town hatred towards him. Of course, that's just a wild theory.

Do I believe that this is how the crime took place though? No. The reason being that when Richard happened to spot Mary and the man she was with in that car, he took off running, his scarf getting tangled up in a bush. I suppose it could have been possible for him to come back later on, but given how upset he was at his mobile home, I don't see it happening. Anything is possible, but I don't believe Richard to be the guilty party. The only thing that I think he did lie about was when he told the sheriff that he didn't date her during the interrogation. It was pretty clear that there had to be SOMETHING between the two.



2 – MARY'S LOVER KILLED MARY

I only entertain this theory because of the fact that we do see him in the video. Just imagine that Mary has started seeing this new man. Suppose she KNEW that Richard had come up at that moment and saw her in the embrace of another man, and she felt very guilty about what had happened. So guilty that she abruptly ended the lovemaking session that she was partaking in to chase after Richard to explain what happened. She doesn't find him, but she does find the scarf. Picture her putting on the scarf and dissolving in tears knowing that she hurt him terribly (remember, we see Mary crying just before she dies). I suppose it's entirely possible that the real jealous one was Mary's new love, who may have been so angry over the fact that Mary was still hung up over the town outcast that he decided to take matters in his own hands. It is a possible scenario, and definitely one that makes sense. But, I also dismiss this as being what really happened, because if it did go the way it did, wouldn't you think that Mary's secondary love interest would have a much larger role in the video?



3 – THE SHERIFF KILLED MARY

Now we're getting into the real questions. Why was the sheriff so preoccupied with Mary and Richard so much? I mean it, he was everywhere they were. It even got to the point where the sheriff creeped Mary out so much that she literally ran away in fear every time the police car came near. But, why was that?

Well, the reason why I thought this was the case was because I believe that the sheriff killed Mary. And, here's the scenario that I have outlined to support this.

We know that the townspeople of Hazard hated Richard. I provided a couple of theories behind why this was the case earlier in this entry, but let's just say it was because they saw him as threatening to the community. He didn't think the way they thought, he didn't look the way they did. Richard was basically an island community of one within the Nebraska town. Part of me thinks that the sheriff was part of the problem. How do we know that he didn't start all of the rumours that were circulating around Richard? One thing we know for sure though. The sheriff's obsession with Richard grew the very day that he met Mary and started to hang around her. The more fun that Richard and Mary had, the more that the sheriff's obsession grew. He knew that he wanted nothing more than to see Richard run out of town for good...but with his relationship with Mary growing stronger and stronger, the sheriff's anger seemed to grow and grow. The sheriff knew that as long as Mary was around, Richard would be too. That's when his evil scheming began.

But how does he succeed? I bet I have the answer. I'm figuring that maybe he hired the man who cheated with Mary, courtesy of the taxpayers of Hazard, Nebraska. I'm thinking that he told the man to seduce Mary with the intention of Richard coming across the pair of them, and erupting in anger. In fact, I think that is what he was counting on (which I suppose if the theory that I coined does amount to being true, it makes the relationship breaker an accessory to murder, but let's move on from that thought). The point is that by doing this, our sheriff provided a motive for Richard. Let's face it, I doubt the man hired by the sheriff would squeal. He was likely paid for his silence, and if he broke it, he could have done jail time or worse. The idea that the sheriff blackmailed the man to participate in his evil scheme is a possibility. Maybe he had something on him, and promised to wipe the record clean if he did what the sheriff wanted. Think about it, it could make sense.

The fact that Richard lost his scarf was also a prime opportunity for the sheriff to commit the perfect crime. Because Mary was holding onto the scarf that Richard dropped at the time she died, the sheriff thought that it was a perfect murder weapon. After strangling Mary with the scarf, he dumped the body in the river, partly for show (the river was a significant place for Mary and Richard), but partly to destroy evidence (as the water would have likely erased any traces of fingerprint evidence left on the scarf. Oh, but, seeing as how fingerprint dust was shown during the video, we can safely also assume that the sheriff probably used it to frame Richard. Though, this is merely speculation.

The fact remains that by the end, it appeared that the sheriff got what he wanted. It didn't matter whether the evidence was enough to convict Richard or not of murder. The town hated him even more than ever, as evidence by the fact that some townspeople set his home ablaze. People shielded their children's eyes when Richard looked at them. Meanwhile, the sheriff was treated like a hero, and he delighted in the fact that he successfully got the 'cancer of the town of Hazard' removed.

And, besides, his smug smile throughout the whole video was presented in a way that we knew he was hiding information.

But, you know, Richard also stated through the lyrics of “Hazard” that he and Mary both were desperate to dream a way out of town. So, by that argument, we can suggest that the sheriff didn't even need to kill Mary. Richard and Mary were supposedly leaving by their own accord, and had plans to do exactly that. Of course, the sheriff of town did not want to have a happy ending for Richard, and I honestly do believe that Mary paid the price for the sheriff's judgmental opinions.

Of course, there's another possible theory that we could bring up, as unbelievable as it could be.



4 – MARY KILLED HERSELF

You know, I never once thought that this could be a possible theory until quite recently. But the more I think about it, the more I think it could have happened. The reason why isn't quite clear, but my guess is that she felt guilty over cheating on Richard and hurting him just like everyone else did in his childhood. She may possibly have seen herself as being no better than the very people in town she despised, and maybe decided to do herself in. She wrapped the scarf around her neck and quite possibly passed out, falling over the side of the bridge, and drowning. It's a crazy theory, I know, but for whatever reason, I can't really eliminate it from being a possibility.

So, I guess after presenting my opinions, what do YOU think?

In Richard Marx's song “Hazard”, who do YOU think killed Mary? Richard? The Sheriff? Mary's lover? One of the Hazard citizens? Someone else unaccounted for? I'd like to hear your views, and if you can, how you came to that conclusion.

The one final question I have to bring up is Mary's final line in the video. “You know, everyone thinks I should be afraid of you, but I'm not.”

Who do you think Mary said this to?

I'll end this piece right here, and turn over discussion to you!

Saturday, March 10, 2012

On Tiny Toon Adventures Get A Dose Of Comedy!

Before I kick off today’s blog entry, I thought I should post a couple of important tidbits that you should probably know.

First things first, if you live in Canada and 49 of the 50 states of the USA (excluding Arizona), it is time for the Daylight Savings Time weekend.  This time around we are springing ahead.  If you happen to be still up at two o’clock in the morning on Sunday, March 11, 2012, then you need to turn your clock ahead one hour.  In short, there will be no two o’clock in the morning on the date of March 11, 2012.  Consider it lost in the clothes dryer of time and space.  If you are in bed at 2am though, don’t sweat it...just set your clock one hour ahead before you turn in. 

So, just as another reminder, don’t forget to set your clocks AHEAD one hour the weekend of March 10 and 11.

Secondly, I am writing this blog entry under the influence of cold medicine and a prescription for a sinus infection, so if I start sounding a bit lucid or trail off into tangents during this piece, all I can say is that it’s the drugs talking.  I normally try to let colds and illnesses peter out on their own, but this is one case where I readily admit to being a wimp, and I took the easy way out.

(When you consider that I work at a job where I am repeatedly in and out of the cold, it’s understandable.)

So, now that we have those two little things out of the way, we can jump right into the bulk of the blog entry for today, which is a cartoon show based on a series of popular classic cartoons...only different.

A few weeks ago, I was talking about how cartoons of the late 1980s/early 1990s used a technique known as the ‘juniorization effect’, where the subject was on “The New Archies”.  Well, today’s cartoon feature also happens to have elements of juniorization in it, but with a twist.

While it is very much true that the main stars of the cartoon are younger versions of the classic cartoon characters of the 1930s and 1940s, they all had their own distinct personalities, looks, and names.  Meanwhile, the very cartoons that these main characters were based off of also appeared in the series as teachers and mentors to these younger spinoff counterparts.


Today’s blog entry is all about the Steven Spielberg/Warner Brothers collaboration, “Tiny Toon Adventures”, a cartoon that was created by Tom Ruegger.



“Tiny Toon Adventures” debuted on September 14, 1990.  The pilot episode aired on CBS, and was syndicated on various cable channels over the next five years.  Ninety-eight episodes were produced, plus a direct-to-video movie, and two television specials.  The cartoon also spawned various merchandising opportunities including toys, books, school supplies, and video games.

At first glance, “Tiny Toon Adventures” looked like it was a reimagining of the classic Warner Brothers cartoons starring Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Elmer Fudd, and Porky Pig.  And, in many cases, it was exactly that.  A lot of the characters of “Tiny Toon Adventures” were junior versions of the classic cartoons.  They were given different looks, and were given different names, but they were essentially near carbon copies of the original versions.

Below, you can see a picture of most of the cast of the show. 


And, here were the names of some of these characters, as well as the original Bugs Bunny characters that they stemmed from.

BUSTER BUNNY – Bugs Bunny

BABS BUNNY – possibly Honey Bunny

PLUCKY DUCK – Daffy Duck

HAMTON J. PIG – Porky Pig

FURRBALL – Sylvester

SWEETIE PIE – Tweety

ELMYRA DUFF – Elmer Fudd

MONTANA MAX – Yosemite Sam

SHIRLEY McLOON – None, but she is based off of Shirley Maclaine.

GOGO DODO – Wackyland Dodo Bird

DIZZY DEVIL – The Tasmanian Devil

CALAMITY COYOTE – Wile E. Coyote

FIFI LA FUME – Pepe Le Pew

FOWLMOUTH – Foghorn Leghorn

LITTLE BEEPER – The Roadrunner

MARCIA THE MARTIAN – Marvin the Martian


TRIVIA:  There was originally supposed to be a character based off of Speedy Gonzalez known as Lightning Rodriguez, but it was scrapped.  You can see him make a couple of non-speaking appearances though.

Now, many of these characters acted a lot like the characters that they were based off of.  Furrball, like Sylvester, very rarely had any good luck happen to him, and ended up getting hurt almost every episode.  Dizzy Devil was just as spin-crazy and hard to understand as his adult counterpart.  And, Plucky Duck was almost an exact replica of Daffy Duck, only he was bright green in colour, as opposed to Daffy’s black feathers.


Notable differences involved the female characters mostly.  In Looney Tunes cartoons, Elmer Fudd’s motto was “kill da wabbit”, but Elmyra’s motto was “love the rabbit, hug the rabbit, squeeze the living daylights out of the rabbit”.  And, Fifi La Fume was in a gender swapped role, where she often chased after the male cats (Furrball being the object of Fifi’s affection most often).


And, just like Bugs Bunny, Buster was the star of the show.  Unlike Bugs, Buster shared the spotlight with Babs.

So, I know what you’re thinking.  “Tiny Toon Adventures” was a watered down version of previously established characters that lacked the warmth and hilarity of the original series.

Only, it didn’t.

You see, one perk of “Tiny Toon Adventures” was the idea that the show took place in the fictional community of Acme Acres.  One of the main buildings in the community was Acme Looniversity, which was a school for young cartoon characters to learn how to become funny, and become cartoon legends.

And who better to teach the students of Acme Looniversity than a faculty of cartoon legends?


Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Wile E. Coyote, Elmer Fudd, Sylvester...all of these classic cartoon characters were professors and teachers at the school.  We ended up getting a nice mix between the old characters and the new characters.  Certainly, most of the episodes of “Tiny Toon Adventures” focused on the students of Acme Looniversity, but it was nice to see the link to the past.  It was really an ingenious idea when you look at it...the past teaching the present to become the future.  I thought it was cool, anyway.

Another plus to “Tiny Toon Adventures” was the wide array of talent and experience that the voice cast had.  Reportedly, voice director Andrea Romano auditioned over twelve hundred actors in the casting process of the show!  When the cast was finally assembled in early 1990, the amount of experience amongst the cast was nothing short of outstanding. 

Most of the cast already had previous experience in voice work.  Charlie Adler, who played Buster, voiced the role of Eric Raymond on “Jem and the Holograms”, amongst other roles.  Joe Alaskey was cast as Plucky Duck, who worked on the series alongside his role on “Out of This World”.  Tress MacNeille, who has done voice work on hundreds of cartoon series was cast as Babs Bunny.  If Hamton’s voice sounded familiar, it’s probably because the actor who played him (the late Don Messick) was the voice of a little character known as Scooby-Doo for nearly three decades before his death in 1997).  Other voice actors in the series included Cree Summer, Maurice LaMarche, Rob Paulsen, Kath Soucie, Frank Welker, and Danny Cooksey (who some might remember as the little boy playing Sam on “Diff’rent Strokes”).

The show was also quite expensive to produce.  Made with a higher production value than most other animated programs at the time, it used more than double the animation cels used in comparison to other shows, giving it a cleaner and polished look where the characters moved more fluidly.  The show also boasted a full orchestra when it came to musical pieces, undoubtedly influenced by the background music of the classic Looney Tunes cartoons.

And, one final point...a lot of the episodes of “Tiny Toon Adventures” were fun to watch!  Many of them were spoofs of pop culture references from movies, television programs, even music videos.  There were even some episodes that were quite contemporary and daring for the 1990s, and also taught children morals and life lessons in ways the original Looney Tunes cartoons did not.


One of the first episodes of “Tiny Toon Adventures” I can recall vividly is the one that they did about Life in the 1990s.  Although the show is hopelessly outdated by two decades, the cartoons made could very well fit in with life in 2012.  The final part of that episode had to deal with the idea of smokers in non-smoking sections (a topic that is still getting a lot of attention twenty years later), and in the plot, Babs (having won a free treat at a trendy, expensive dessert spot) tries hard to enjoy her sundae but can’t because of a couple of rude smokers blowing their smoke in her face.  The episode was quite funny, but it also provided a social commentary as well, which was subtle, but important.  But, why should I tell you about it when you can watch it yourselves?  The episode is titled “Butt Out”, and clicking HERE will take you to the video.


Another topic that the show dealt with was the topic of alcohol consumption, which was very, very daring for a children’s cartoon.  It was so daring that the show only aired once in the United States before being banned in 1991.  But, I managed to find the episode online, and I don’t think it’s nearly as bad as censors thought.  It actually provided a great message.  The episode was called “One Beer”, and if you like, watch it HERE.

But, I think my all time favourite episode is THIS ONE.  It’s an episode titled “Sawdust and Toonsil”, which originally aired on November 5, 1990.  In the episode, we get a chance to have an episode centered on Gogo Dodo (who admittedly was one of my all time favourite characters on “Tiny Toon Adventures”) and his friends from Wackyland.  In the show, Gogo and his friends are kidnapped by a greedy circus owner who wants to exploit them.  The problem is that if the toons from Wackyland stay away too long, they’ll begin to fade away from existence.  So, Buster, Babs, and Plucky come up with a rescue mission to save Gogo and his friends before it is too late.  The ending is especially good.  Worth a look, as far as I’m concerned.

And that concludes our look back on Tiny Toon Adventures.  And now our song is done!

Friday, March 09, 2012

Knots Landing: The Desperate Housewives of the 1980s


Have you ever noticed how many television spinoffs fail after one season or less?



You see it all the time in the world of prime time television. You have a long-running sitcom that has done incredibly well in the ratings that producers seem to feel as though they could strike gold twice by taking one or more characters from the television show to create a similar one with a similar formula.



And, a lot of them end up failing. You know how successful the sitcom “Friends” was? Producers came up with the idea to give Matt LeBlanc his own spinoff based on the character he played named “Joey”. But somehow, the idea of only watching one 'Friend' didn't resonate well with viewers, and it was promptly cancelled. When “The Golden Girls” wrapped up production, the producers thought they could have another hit on their hands. After all, if it weren't for “The Golden Girls”, we wouldn't have had the sitcoms “Nurses” or “Empty Nest”. But, when producers tried to make a new sitcom after Bea Arthur's departure called “The Golden Palace”, it just didn't work as well. Not even a guest appearance by Bea could stop the sinking ship.



And that seems to be the case with a lot of spinoff programs. The original program in which the spin-off was based on would often be incredibly successful. But, take one of the characters from the original and put them in a brand new show with a brand new cast with minimal chemistry, and you have a recipe for disaster.



There are some exceptions though. After all, we have had one NCIS spinoff, two CSI spinoffs, and three Law & Order spinoffs, all of which lasted much longer than one season.



But, have you ever heard of such a situation where the spinoff program lasted LONGER than the original program? Seriously, think back throughout the 70 years or so that television has been around. Can you think of one example in which a spinoff has lasted longer than the original program that the spinoff was based off of?



I can. Although, I admit that I was a bit young to remember much of the program (hence why I ended up doing a ton of research on it by watching old clips and reading old episode summaries on TV.com), I guess the best way that I could best describe the program would be that it was a precursor to the popular ABC drama “Desperate Housewives”.



(And, no, Desperate Housewives was NOT the program that was a spinoff, although strangely enough, both shows had one actress in common.)



Like Desperate Housewives (which is set in a residential neighbourhood known as Wisteria Lane), this program takes place in a residential cul-de-sac called Seaview Circle. The main action took place on this cul-de-sac at five different houses on the street. It was your typical primetime soap opera filled with affairs, scandal, kidnapping, and murder, amongst other things. In a lot of cases, I suppose you could call the women of Seaview Circle the 'Desperate Housewives of the 1980s', because throughout the show's run, the women all got involved in almost every dangerous situation imaginable, all because they wanted to find happiness in suburbia.



And when the show debuted on CBS in the last few days of 1979, viewers immediately recognized a couple of familiar faces. Moving into 16966 Seaview Circle were Gary and Valene Ewing (who were portrayed by Ted Shackleford and Joan Van Ark), who had moved to California from the state of Texas.



Dallas, Texas, to be exact.



Yes, today's featured television show is a spinoff of the classic CBS show, “Dallas”. And, as some of you might know, “Dallas” ended up having a successful run on the network, running for thirteen seasons between 1978 and 1991.



Now, what if I told you that the sitcom that Gary and Valene Ewing moved to lasted longer than “Dallas”? Would you believe me then? Because, it happens to be true.



Today we're going to take a look back at the television show “Knots Landing”. The show debuted on December 27, 1979, and ran until May 13, 1993. That's a grand total of fourteen seasons, one more than the show it came from! It's currently tied for third place for the longest running prime-time dramatic series, right behind “Gunsmoke” and “Law & Order”. There aren't a whole lot of spinoffs that can boast that accomplishment.



And certainly, one of the main reasons why the show worked so well was because of the connection to “Dallas”...well, at least in the earliest seasons. At first, the show was a direct parallel of “Dallas”, with Gary and Val being updated on the happenings over at Southfork Ranch involving J.R., Bobby, Pam, Cliff, Sue Ellen, and Lucy (Gary and Val's daughter who stayed behind on “Dallas”). But after the wacky dream season of “Dallas”, “Knots Landing” took off in a completely different direction and became its own distinct identity (which might explain why it seemed to have a bit more staying power).



Now, here's an interesting point about the creation of “Knots Landing”. Initially, it wasn't designed to be a spinoff of “Dallas”. In fact, David Jacobs, the creator of both “Knots Landing” and “Dallas” actually created “Knots Landing” BEFORE “Dallas”. He came up with the idea for “Knots Landing” two years prior to the show debuting on television, and tried to pitch it to CBS, but the network passed on it, saying that they wanted something more saga-like. So, Jacobs went back to the drawing board and penned out the pilot script for “Dallas”, which was a project that CBS greenlighted for a 1978 release. Once “Dallas” had hit the airwaves, Jacobs went back to the “Knots Landing” script, retooled it to make it a spinoff of “Dallas”, submitted it to the network, and the show was picked up as a mid-season replacement for the 1979/1980 season.



At first, the show struggled in the ratings, especially against “Dallas”. It made sense, when you consider that the very season “Knots Landing” debuted was the same season of “Dallas” in which J.R. Ewing was shot. But, by the show's fourth season, the show increased in popularity, and by season six, it was in the Top 10 of most viewed programs. The show got so huge that it eventually out performed its parent show beginning around 1988.



So, why did the show do so well in the ratings?



Well, for one, I think it helped that “Knots Landing” didn't have such a thing as a plot device where an entire season was a dream! No such shower scenes on that show.



I think part of it could have been the fact that the show tackled a lot of serious issues. Drug abuse, mental illness, domestic abuse...the show tackled all of these issues and more during its 14-year run. And, based on the episodes that I have seen, the show didn't use kid gloves either. Take a look at a clip of an episode where the character of Olivia Cunningham is dealing with a drug addiction, and takes out her rage on her mother, Abby.



And, that was just a taste of what the show had to offer.



But, if you want my honest opinion as to why I thought the show worked, I think it had to do with the strength and chemistry that the cast shared with each other.



Specifically, the women of Knots Landing.



That's not to say that the men had their own impact on the show. Gary Ewing was involved in a lot of storylines over the series run, as were Greg Sumner (William Devane), Mack MacKenzie (Kevin Dobson), and Sid Fairgate (Don Murray). Heck, even Alec Baldwin got his big break on “Knots Landing”, playing a rather psychotic character who met a crazy end.



But, I think in the case of “Knots Landing”, the female cast members really brought the drama and the action, and the romance. Every single actress who appeared on the show had their own distinct personalities. Some were heroines. Some were trashy. Some were victims. And, some were just plain crazy. But, all of them worked on the program during the time that they appeared, and each one brought forth something that made “Knots Landing” a hit.



So, I thought that for our look back on “Knots Landing”, we'd take a look at the “Desperate Housewives of Seaview Circle”, to see who they were, who they were married to, and what their main storylines were. And, as you'll see, not everyone ended up leaving the show alive...



So, let's begin with the only cast member to appear in EVERY episode of “Knots Landing” ever made.



CHARACTER: Karen Cooper Fairgate MacKenzie
ACTRESS: Michele Lee
DURATION: 1979-1993
MARRIAGES: Sid Fairgate, Mack MacKenzie



Karen Cooper Fairgate was the first person who befriended Valene and Gary Ewing when they first moved to Seaview Circle, and she is the only character who has been in all 344 episodes of the series. She was a community activist, and a shrewd businesswoman, but also had her share of pain and heartache. Her first husband, Sid, was killed in an automobile accident, and she had a rather prickly relationship with her daughter Diana through the years. She was also shot, kidnapped, and stalked by one of the producers of the talk show that she hosted in the later seasons of the show. But, Karen was also one of the most grounded people on the show, and most of the residents of Seaview Circle saw her as a good friend and confidant. She also managed to find love once again with Mack MacKenzie.



CHARACTER: Valene “Val” Clements Ewing Ewing Gibson Waleska Ewing
ACTRESS: Joan Van Ark
DURATION: 1979-1992, 1993
MARRIAGES: Gary Ewing, Ben Gibson, Danny Waleska



Valene Ewing was also a huge character on “Knots Landing”. After all, Val was one of two characters that provided a link to “Dallas”. And, Val has been central to some of the biggest storylines that the show has ever featured.

Let's begin with the idea that Val had a total of four marriages on during the show's run. Her original marriage to Gary ended after he had an affair with another Seaview Circle resident (who is featured a little bit later in the blog entry). She ended up remarrying him a total of twice during the series, but in between she had a couple of other marriages. Her marriage to photojournalist Ben Gibson (Douglas Sheehan) was sweet, but ended when Ben disappeared in South America following a forced plot in which he plotted the murder of Greg Sumner. And, then there was her marriage to Danny Waleska (Sam Behrens), which was a disaster in the making, as he raped his previous wife, and ended up becoming a rather scary character.



As if Val didn't have enough to worry about, she had gotten pregnant with twins, and was lead to believe that her twins had died in childbirth. Ironically enough, the woman who had an affair with her husband was the very one who discovered that the children had survived, and was a key player in helping Val reunite with her son and daughter, Bobby and Betsy. She also had to deal with a colleague of Mack's who tried to drive her crazy and kill her, as well as suffering from a minor brain injury following a fall from a horse. She also was reunited with her estranged mother, Lilimae (Julie Harris), who abandoned her to become a country singer. At some point during the show's final season, Val was believed to have died in a car explosion. But by the show's final episode, it became clear that Val's death was not to be believed.



CHARACTER: Abby Fairgate Cunningham Ewing Sumner
ACTRESS: Donna Mills
DURATION: 1980-1989, 1993
MARRIAGES: Jeff Cunningham, Gary Ewing, Greg Sumner



Remember how I told you that the reason why Gary and Val divorced on "Knots Landing" the first time was because of an affair he had with a resident of Seaview Circle? Abby was the reason. This cunning and sly woman was trouble with a capital T, and she was an expert in sucking her claws into people and spitting them back out once she was finished. She was one of the main villainesses of the whole show, and she had a lot of enemies. Although she was the sister of Sid Fairgate, she never could get along with Sid's wife, Karen. After Sid's death, the relationship between Abby and Karen remained frosty. I think it's also safe to say that there was no love lost between Abby and Val either for obvious reasons. Although Abby did show that she did have SOME good in her, as Abby was the one who helped Val get her children back.



But as bad as Abby was on the show, she did have some challenges to overcome. In particular with her daughter Olivia, who developed a severe drug addiction. Abby left the series in 1989 following the bust-up of her marriage to Greg Sumner, but returned for the series finale.



But, just to show just how much of an edgy character Abby was, here's a clip above of her featuring her feud with Val Ewing.



CHARACTER: Paige Matheson
ACTRESS: Nicollette Sheridan
DURATION: 1986-1993
MARRIAGES: None, but several relationships including one with Greg Sumner



Nicollette Sheridan is the only cast member of "Knots Landing" to also have a regular role on "Desperate Housewives" (which if you've been following the news, you know that Sheridan's role on Desperate Housewives did NOT end well), but on "Knots Landing", she was the daughter of Mack MacKenzie. And, as it turned out, Paige came onto Seaview Circle with a whole lot of secrets. For one, Karen discovered that "Paige Matheson" was actually dead, but Paige told the MacKenzie's that she faked her death in order to flee her grandparents. Paige's mother, Anne (Michelle Phillips) followed suit, and Anne was just as devious as her offspring. Paige's main rival in the series was Abby, who wanted Paige to pay after she framed her daughter for the death of Peter Hollister (Hunt Block) Paige's most well-known relationship was with Greg Sumner, which kicked off after Greg's wife passed away.



CHARACTER: Laura Avery Sumner
ACTRESS: Constance McCashin
DURATION: 1979-1987
MARRIAGES: Richard Avery, Greg Sumner

Laura Avery was one of the original characters of "Knots Landing", and comparing her to such characters as Abby, Val, and Karen, Laura was a lot more plain. With good reason too. She was in a very unhappy marriage with her husband, Richard (John Pleshette). Early in the series, Laura embarked on an affair with her boss, and when Richard found out, he got violent. Complicating matters was the fact that Laura had gotten pregnant, and this prevented Laura from leaving Richard right away. She gave birth to their son, Daniel, and she tried to make the marriage work, even though Richard had suffered a nervous breakdown and attempted suicide.




Richard recovered, and opened up a restaurant named after their son, and a singer was hired to sing at the location, a young woman named Ciji (Lisa Hartman). Ciji and Laura immediately became best friends, which irked Richard, as he believed that they were having a lesbian affair. But when Ciji was murdered, Laura and Richard broke up for good after Laura refused to forgive him for his meanness towards her. Laura thought that Richard killed Ciji, but the real killer was Chip Roberts. Laura then got involved in a relationship with Greg Sumner, and she and Greg lived together relatively happy despite Ben's plot to kill Greg. Sadly, Laura ended up passing away from cancer, leaving Greg heartbroken.



TRIVIA: Lisa Hartman Black played two characters on the show...Ciji, and Cathy Geary.



CHARACTER: Jill Bennett
ACTRESS: Teri Austin
DURATION: 1985-1989




Jill Bennett started off as a sweet, if not flawed character. She was a former colleague of Mack's, and she eventually became romantically involved with Gary. Problem was that Gary was with Val after reconciling with her following Ben's disappearance. Little by little, Jill began to lose her grip on reality, and the more she lost touch, the more she wanted Val dead. The feud between Jill and Val grew quite heated and twisted with each passing moment. See what I mean below.




Jill attempted to kill Val by kidnapping her and forcing her to down an entire bottle of sleeping pills at gunpoint. At first, Jill seemed to have an alibi, but when Mack and Gary poked holes through it, a desperate Jill tried to get revenge by tying herself up inside the trunk of Gary's car, so that it would look like he tried to kill her. Unfortunately for Jill, she really DID die, and Gary was almost arrested for killing her, but he eventually was cleared of all charges.




And, those are just a FEW of the characters on this show!



You know, "Desperate Housewives" is slated to air its final episode sometime in April or May 2012 after eight seasons, and while I'm sure that a lot of people are sad to see it go (though not me as I haven't seen one episode), not even it ran as long as "Knots Landing".



Because while "Knots Landing" may have been a show that started off as a spinoff, the show was a force to be reckoned with all on its own. For fourteen years, the trials and tribulations of Seaview Circle were fascinating material to watch.



I mean, compared to all the messes that they had to go through, our lives had to be better, right?

Thursday, March 08, 2012

The Cost Of Free Speech



Free speech.

Two simple words that pack a powerful punch. Almost every single one of us believes in the idea of having free speech, but some of us don't quite understand what that right exactly is. And, don't worry, I'll be explaining that little statement a little later.

In recent events, the debates surrounding free speech have only intensified after a series of events regarding some people in the talk radio and celebrity world.



I'm sure by now we have heard all about what happened on Rush Limbaugh's radio show just recently. A woman by the name of Sandra Fluke, a law student from Georgetown University, testified before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee in support of mandated health coverage for contraceptives. Now, there are some out there who are reading that previous sentence and believing that Ms. Fluke's crusade might not be something that you would support. Some might think that it is the absolute worst idea that was ever coined. And that's fine, because the power of free speech allows us to say and think that. But there's a huge difference between disagreeing on an issue at hand and doing what Rush Limbaugh did on his radio show.



On February 29, 2012, Limbaugh heard about Sandra Fluke's tale, and immediate went on the airwaves to issue his thoughts on the matter, and let's just say that it wasn't pretty. I don't even want to repost his exact tirade on this blog because I myself find his comments to be quite vile. Though, I really don't need to, as they've been broadcast all over various media sources. If you really want to know what he said, just enter Limbaugh and Fluke in on a Google search. All should be revealed then.

But here's where the debate over free speech comes into play. Certainly, free speech is a right that many of us in the world have. If you happen to live in the United States, it is a constitutional right to have the power of free speech. And many people seem to hold onto that right the same way that a child holds on to their favourite blanket. They squeeze onto it so tightly, and are willing to fight to the death to keep that right. In most cases, I find it to be absolutely admirable. However, there is a fine line between being honourable with free speech and being shameful and hurtful. And my honest opinion is that Limbaugh was being very hurtful and very shameful, and not only crossed that line, but attached a set of explosives to that line and blew it apart into a billion pieces.

And, this leads to my tenth Thursday Confession...and it's a long and complex one.



THURSDAY CONFESSION #10: I am a firm believer in the power of free speech, and I believe that we all have the right to make our ideas and thoughts known. I also believe in using the power of free speech to challenge the ideas of others in a diplomatic and calm manner. However, I do NOT believe in using the power of free speech as an excuse to tear someone else down or make hurtful comments because I don't believe that hiding behind the phrase 'free speech' entitles anybody to act like a jerk.

Quite complex, no?

It is how I feel though. I'll try to explain my thoughts the best way that I can using the Rush Limbaugh incident.

Rush Limbaugh having a radio show allows him to have a slew of opinions. Anybody who has ever hosted a radio program such as Howard Stern, Sean Hannity, or even Rick Dees have used their programming to bring forth certain ideas and beliefs that they have. I don't have a problem with this for the most part. I might not necessarily agree with the thoughts that they have (and in the case of Limbaugh, as a largely liberal thinker, it's hard for me to find a whole lot of common ground between myself and Limbaugh), but the fact that he has them is nothing that I can change. And if Rush didn't agree with the ideas that Sandra Fluke was bringing forth to the table (which obviously he did not), all he had to do was say so. He might still have gotten some flak for having an opinion that went against what others believed, but at least it would not have caused such a kerfuffle. He could have come up with a list of facts and figures and blended it with his strong opinions to come up with a rebuttal that could have made people at least think about it in a logical way. Instead, he took the cowardly way out and responded to Fluke's plan with vulgarity and hostility.



And what did it get him in the end? It got his name being lambasted in the media, his show being dropped from some talk radio stations, and many of his advertisers pulling their sponsorship for the program. I certainly hope his comments were worth it for him in the long run.

Oh, I should also add that Limbaugh did apologize for his comments towards Fluke just a few days after saying them...but for many people, it was too little, too late. While I was never really a fan of Limbaugh in the first place, this incident kind of paints him in an even worse colour in my mind.

With Rush Limbaugh, it wasn't his strong opinions that I had a problem with. It was the way he presented them. Period.

I mean, certainly we all have had our experiences in which the opinions that we have sometimes come across the wrong way, and it ends up getting us in trouble. I've been on both sides of that. But, it's a lesson learned the hard way, and we move on. It certainly isn't the first time Limbaugh has come under fire for his opinions, and as long as his radio show is allowed to continue, it probably won't be the last.



Another person who has come under fire recently for his strong opinions is former child star, Kirk Cameron. Kirk Cameron is probably best known for his role as eldest Seaver child, Mike, on the long-running sitcom 'Growing Pains'. These days, he has become an active Christian evangelist who has starred in the various films associated with the “Left Behind” book series.

And this has lead to Cameron being on the receiving end of some controversy as well.



Certainly controversy over Kirk's beliefs seemed to begin when he was still on 'Growing Pains'. While it was never really confirmed as being true or false, reportedly he was the one who was behind the ouster of 'Growing Pains' recurring character Julie Costello (played by Julie McCullough) when he objected to her posing nude for Playboy magazine (she was the February 1986 centerfold, just in case you were wondering). But, Kirk did apologize to the other Growing Pains cast members for that time, citing a lack of maturity on his part. After all, he himself was in his late teens when the incident took place, and we all make a lot of bad judgment calls when we are teenagers. Not making excuses for him by far, but at least it seemed as though he was learning from his mistakes (although McCullough refuses to forgive Cameron for what transpired).

FUN FACT:  Kirk Cameron apparently spent the first seventeen years of his life as an atheist!



But then Cameron appeared as a guest on The Piers Morgan Show earlier this month, and once again, the concept of free speech was highly debated.

It all started when Piers Morgan asked Kirk Cameron a question about the subject of gay marriage and homosexuality. Kirk answered the question honestly, stating that according to him, homosexuality was something that he did not agree with, stating that he felt it was “unnatural, detrimental, and ultimately destructive to foundations of civilization.”

Wow. Where to start with this?

First things first, my thoughts. I have to strongly disagree with Cameron's thoughts. I don't think there is anything wrong with a person being gay, straight, bi-sexual, asexual. Not a thing wrong with it whatsoever. I am sorry that some religious people feel that homosexuality is bad, because I'm sure that a lot of people feel the same way about closed-minded religious people who claim to love everyone except when they feel the Bible informs them differently.

(Not implying that Kirk Cameron is one of those people, of course...just speaking in a general sense.)

But, do I feel that Kirk Cameron's opinions should be censored? No. Kirk Cameron can believe whatever Kirk Cameron wants to because Kirk Cameron knows what is best for Kirk Cameron and not anybody else.

Wow, how many times can I type the words Kirk Cameron in a single sentence?

I guess my feelings for Kirk Cameron's thoughts are eerily similar to Piers Morgan's. Piers commended Cameron for sticking to his beliefs and not sugar coating them (and, reluctantly, I have to agree with this because as much as I disagree with what Cameron is saying, at least he is owning up to it). Even better, Kirk Cameron, to his credit, worded and phrased his beliefs in a way that didn't have the name calling and distaste that Rush Limbaugh used in his own scandal (even though I still feel that his beliefs are very much closed-minded and not very well thought out). But, make no mistake, Piers Morgan did not agree with Kirk's opinion, and made it quite clear. I don't particularly like what Kirk had to say myself...but I'm not going to deny him the right to state what might be an unpopular opinion. Nobody has the right to do that.

Besides, if anything, Kirk Cameron's appearance on Piers Morgan beautifully illustrates the second part of my confession. I believe that we all have the right to use our power of free speech in a way to challenge the ideas put out by other people, especially if the ideas contradict or conflict with our own belief systems...provided that the forum for the conflict resolution is diplomatic and calm.

I often joke that whenever I have an opinion that is controversial and I make it public, it often ends up with all of us holding hands in a circle singing “Kumbaya”. That's because in a lot of cases, it happens to be true. My group of friends and I are such that we listen to all points of view very clearly and respectfully before forming opinions. And, yes, sometimes our opinions can clash, and we argue about it. By the end though, we manage to reach a common ground, and we 'hug it out', or something to that nature. That's not to say that we're automatically going to change our minds radically to suit the other person and vice versa...but if it means that we understand each other a lot better, I'd call it a victory. No yelling. No swearing. Just calm and rational debate. The way it should be.

Unfortunately, some people seem to believe that the right to free speech means that they are right, everyone else is wrong, and if they scream loud enough and say the most obnoxious things, they'll eventually sway people over to their side. But, in many cases, this is not the right way to go. If anything, it just makes the opposition to their cause grow even stronger. (For further reference of this point, Google the term 'Westboro Baptist Church'.)



And, in regards to Kirk Cameron's case, the reception has been about fifty-fifty. For every person who has condemned Cameron for his opinions and his thoughts on homosexuality, there's another person who has supported Cameron for standing by his own beliefs. In Cameron's case, there is a fine line that exists between tasteful and tasteless, and the way I picture it, depending on the side of the arena you are sitting on, Cameron could lean towards one way or the other. We all have the right to see it the way we want to see it. It might not be the same way somebody else views it, but as long as we hold on to our own point of view, there's nothing wrong with that.

Now picture people on both sides arming themselves with bags of rocks...and having people on both sides tossing rocks at Kirk Cameron on that tightrope, hoping to make him fall off the rope onto the side that they feel best describes him. But in the melee, the rocks that one side throws ends up striking people on the other side of the arena, hurting them. Their friends retaliate by throwing their rocks twice as hard. But instead of throwing them at Cameron, they throw the rocks at the people on the other side, and before you know it, both sides are so busy stoning the other that they have completely forgotten about the man on the tightrope dangling for dear life.

The above situation best describes some of the Internet forums and celebrity interviews that I've come across in light of the Kirk Cameron scandal, as well as some of the responses given by the general public.

Certainly in the media, there have been celebrities who have taken to Twitter to make their thoughts known about Cameron. “Modern Family” star Jesse Tyler Ferguson, “Glee” star Jane Lynch, and even two of Cameron's “Growing Pains” co-stars (Alan Thicke and Tracey Gold) have all spoke out against Cameron's comments, stating that his beliefs do not reflect theirs in any way. Cameron's comments sparked a huge on-air battle between two panelists on “The View” as the uber-conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck and the uber-liberal Joy Behar squared off against each other on the subject of free speech.

And, of course, everybody on the Internet has an opinion about what was said. But, it's how those opinions are expressed that is the issue, not the opinions themselves. Because much like the tightrope scenario that I outlined, some people use their platform of free speech to launch a few personal attacks to tear apart other people's opinions rather than strengthening their own argument. I mean, let's say that Poster A takes Kirk's argument and uses it to call him every vile name in the universe. Poster B who is opposed to such language might respond to Poster A stating that the message that Poster A is worded too strongly, and to cool it. Poster A responds to Poster B with even more venom, and suddenly Posters C and D who are on the same side as Poster A tag-teams Poster B. Then Poster E posts a generic post wondering why nobody can get along, and suddenly, Poster E is the enemy. Before long, everyone is so busy fighting and one-upping each other that they have completely forgotten what the original argument was about.

Doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun, does it?

I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that when it comes to free speech, I am definitely not a huge advocate of people who try to hide behind the argument of free speech as an excuse to act like a complete and total jerk towards others. Just because one has the right to SAY whatever they want doesn't necessarily mean that people SHOULD say whatever they want. In some cases, people really should be minding their P's and Q's a lot more than perhaps they have been. Because while there is a slim chance that people might not agree with your thoughts and beliefs, there's an even bigger chance that people won't like it if you're a complete and total jerk when it comes to defending those beliefs.  While some people might do things that you might consider to be arrogant and jerky...I just don't think that we should act the same way when defending our own opinions.  You've heard the saying two wrongs don't make a right?  It's a saying that I try to live by most of the time.  It's admittedly hard to do depending on the person and the day, but I do my best, as most seem to do.  Because as much as we all believe in free speech, sometimes free speech can be quite costly.

The jury is still out on whether or not Kirk Cameron's thoughts will have any effect on him. But in the case of Rush Limbaugh, I think he's starting to understand that even something as simple as free speech can have dire consequences if it happens to be abused or taken for granted.

Just some food for thought this Thursday morning.