Why “Dark Shadows?”

ABC's "Dark Shadows" - File Photos

The Cast of “Dark Shadows”

Reflections on the Show After Having Made it Through all 1,245 Episodes

I was a huge fan of Dark Shadows as a kid, so I was excited to find DVDs of it a few years ago in a bookstore in Boston. I’ve been on a nostalgia kick since hitting middle age, so I relished the prospect of immersing myself again in that virtual Gothic world that had enthralled me as a child.

The experience wasn’t what I expected, though. Only a few minutes into the first show I thought to myself, “Oh my, this isn’t good.” There wasn’t much of a plot, the dialogue was completely implausible and the acting was extremely uneven. Worse, Jonathan Frid, who played Barnabas Collins, the protagonist, I guess you would say, of the series had conspicuous difficulty remembering his lines and nearly as much difficulty, apparently, locating the tele-prompters.

I was devastated. I remembered the show as compelling, mesmerizing. Could my taste have been so bad? The thing is, I wasn’t the only child, or indeed, the only person to find the show compelling and mesmerizing. It was astronomically successful. Even the actors, who appeared as guests at the height of the show’s popularity, on programs such as Merv Griffin and Mike Douglas, seem perplexed by the show’s popularity.

The idea for the show was sound enough. The writing was at its best when it appropriated plots from Gothic masterpieces such as The Turn of the Screw and Frankenstein. On top of the challenges, however, of uneven writing, gratuitously fantastical storylines, and uneven acting, was the fact that in those days soaps were effectively broadcast live. I say “effectively” because they weren’t actually broadcast live, but the production process was such that they had no opportunity to correct mistakes. So flubbed or forgotten lines, cameramen appearing on the fringes of a scene, and bits of scenery falling over or otherwise behaving in ways that exposed that they were not what they were supposed to be were common occurrences.

So why was the show so popular? People in the televisions and motion picture industries have labored for years under the mistaken impression that it was the story, and or the characters; hence the remake of the series with Ben Cross in 1991 and the recent Dark Shadows movie starring Johnny Depp. It clearly wasn’t either the story or the characters, though, that made the series so popular or these remakes would have been more successful. So what was it?

That’s a difficult question to answer. Despite my disappointment with the first few episodes when I first began watching the series again as an adult, I continued to watch it. Maybe it was just nostalgia that made me do it. I don’t know. I became increasingly caught up in it, however, the more I watched, and it wasn’t because of the cliff-hanger endings of each episode. That is, I wasn’t driven to find out what happened next. It was more that I enjoyed the experience of the production, the company of the actors.

I think the show’s success was the result of a complex combination of things. First, while some of the acting was pretty bad, much of it was superb. It took transcendently good actors to make that dialogue convincing and yet many of the Dark Shadows cast did just that. Second, the amateurish feel the show sometimes had because of the issues mentioned above gave it the feeling of a backyard production put on by one’s neighbors, or one’s neighbors’ children, and because it wasn’t unrelentingly bad but often quite good, it encouraged the viewer to root for the actors, to will them to succeed. “Will they pull it off today?” one would wonder with a mixture of hope and anxiety before the beginning of each episode.

There’s more to the show’s popularity, though. The reason for the uneven quality of the acting may well have been, at least indirectly, part of the show’s success. Dan Curtis, the originator, producer, and occasional director of the show, said in an interview included in the DVD collection of the series, that he selected people for roles because he liked them, not because they could act. He spent time with them; took them to dinner; etc. Many of the actors attest to the camaraderie that existed among the cast, and my sense is that that camaraderie gives the show an intangibly positive dynamic, a warmth that underlies the chill of the repeated curses and hauntings and thwarted love affairs that make up the story line.

This camaraderie was likely also enhanced by what several of the actors describe in interviews as the unique “energy” the show had as a result of the fact that the actors had little time to rehearse, that many were so nearsighted they couldn’t read the tele-prompters, and that there was no opportunity to edit out mistakes. So the show had an “energy” generated by anxiety on the part of the actors, and then an energy beneath the energy in terms of the affection the actors had for one another.

And then there is the fact that the show deals with the supernatural, with magic. It’s sometimes classed as science fiction, but its engagement with the fantastical is much broader. It includes not merely time travel and diabolical scientists, but ghosts and witches and crazed religious reformers.

The hegemony of scientism (the view that all of reality can be explained by natural science) in the latter part of the twentieth and this first part of the twenty-first century is oppressive. People know there is more to reality than is captured by natural science. Few people have the time or opportunity, however, to engage with scientism on a level that would enable them to definitively refute it. So instead of confronting it directly, they evade it by escaping into more emotionally satisfying alternative worlds, worlds where the bad things that happen to good people aren’t simply the result of chance, or a cold and unfeeling universe, but of malevolent forces, worlds that hold out hope that these forces can be defeated by cunning and will, worlds where love transcends time, where the dead are not gone forever, where families stay together, and where home always looks the same.

It was this combination of things, I believe, that explain the success of Dark Shadows. Each one is critical to what made the show great, and it was great, despite being occasionally pretty bad. It wasn’t the narrative, so much, that was compelling as it was the larger fictional world in which the events unfolded and the actors and the dynamic between them, the energy, that made the show great.

Some of the actors so inhabited their characters that it would be impossible to have anyone else ever play them. No one but Lara Parker could ever be Angelique; no one but David Selby could ever be Quentin; no one but Jonathan Frid could ever be Barnabas Collins; no one but Nancy Barrett could ever be Carolyn Stoddard, and no one but John Karlen could ever be Willie Loomis.

That’s why you can’t remake the show according to any traditional conception of a remake. What you could do, and what I think someone should do, is make a continuation of it. Several of the actors, notably, Lara Parker, David Selby, Nancy Barrett, Kathryn Leigh Scott, and Kate Jackson are still professionally active. A Dark Shadows that recreated the same set as the original and that cast Parker, Selby, Barrett, Scott, and Jackson in their original, but now more mature roles, but which also included new characters, could, I believe be a blockbuster success. New characters were always appearing on the old Dark Shadows after all and were taken to heart by the fans because there was still the continuity of the old characters.

There’s an enormous number of fans of the original series out there, some of them too young to have seen the show when it was first broadcast. In fact, these fans gather every year for an annual “Dark Shadows Festival.” Every one of them would tune in to watch this new series.

I like to imagine this new show sometimes. Jon Hamm would make a perfect Barnabas because he is adept at playing a character with a secret. Of course he couldn’t actually be Barnabas since only Jonathan Frid will ever be Barnabas. He could be Barnabas II, though, the illegitimate child of Angelique and Barnabas from their affair in Martinique when they first met. The child whose existence Angelique kept secret for years, the child she later “adopts” who thus now has a double secret: he is a vampire like his father (because of Angelique’s curse on Barnabas’ descendants), and he is Angelique’s (and Barnabas’) real not merely adoptive child.

The plot line of this new series could be driven by the mystery of what happened to the first Barnabas, a mystery his son would be determined to solve in order to escape his own unendurable fate. As a vampire, after all, Barnabus shouldn’t be dead. And yet Frid is dead, so Barnabas would need to be as well. How did that happen? Was it because Angelique removed the curse (which for some reason she cannot remove from her own son), or was it because Julia Hoffman, Barnabas’ personal physician succeeded, finally, in curing him?

I’m uncertain, though, how to recreate the “energy” of the original now that the production process of television series’ has become so sophisticated that anything can be redone, any mistake fixed. Perhaps that was part of the charm of the original series. It was much more like real life with all its blemishes, so when it managed to be great, the magnitude of the achievement was more conspicuous. It was great in the way the real human beings are occasionally great, genuinely great –– without the benefit of a retake.

4 responses

  1. Hello MG,
    I used to hurry home to watch this show when I was a kid, like most of the kids in America. I recently re watched most of it online, I plan to borrow the DVD’s from my local library to watch the rest that Amazon is charging extra for. I didn’t get to see the entire series as a kid. Looking at it as an adult, it’s just SO 60’s! Lots of people smoked, they frequently poured themselves a sherry or a brandy, people hung out frequently at the local bar, “shift” style dresses were popular, bright green and orange were popular fashion colors, women never wore pants (I wasn’t allowed to wear them to school until high school) and everyone owned a gun, even Barnabas (when he wasn’t a vampire). You wouldn’t see these things on TV today, except maybe on a show like Mad Men, which of course was about the 60’s, and the writers on that show really nailed it!

    Young women like Caroline were under a lot of pressure to get married, your mother and everyone else, it seemed, thought it was the ultimate answer to all your problems in life. Never mind that she and Joe were a huge mismatch. She was rich, she could have done anything-gone to college, traveled the world, started a business, written books, anything-but her mother thought that the answer to her being bored living in a gloomy old house was to get married. They never mentioned any other options.

    I still remember all the photos of the girls in my high school yearbook with the caption underneath that said “marriage”(what their post high school plans were) Mine said “college” but I felt the pressure too. I didn’t feel like my life had really fallen into place until I married at age 27 in late 1982. I only delayed this long due to circumstances, not choice, to be perfectly honest about it. I managed to finish college with a degree in biology and teaching credentials, but there were very few job openings in RI, so I worked in the medical lab field for a number of years, while raising two kids. I finally went to grad school in my late 40’s and got my M.Ed, then taught science at a private special ed school. Now I’m substitute teaching until I officially retire in a few more years, then I plan to write historical fiction based on real ancestors of my husband that we found as a result of genealogical research that he did.

    I have to give you a lot of credit for your accomplishments in your education and career. My daughter (in her thirties) has her doctorate degree in pharmacy and teaches at the college level in this field. In her generation, this isn’t such a big deal any more, in yours and mine, it was.
    It was a real challenge for women in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s to get past all the societal and familial pressure that tried to hold us back. Her generation is really the first to have true choices about all aspects of their lives.

    I also read your posts about ice skating, and twenty years ago, my daughter and I were really into it. She took lessons from ages 9-13 and was on a precision skating team that made it to Nationals and took first place. I took lessons starting at age 37 and was an anomaly-nobody really encourages adult skaters very much. True, it does require a young body and many years of practice to get to the level you see on TV, it’s just so difficult a sport to master. But even at a basic level, it’s great exercise and stress relief. When I skated, it was better than meditation to me, I’d be happy and forget all my problems. Too bad it’s not promoted to adults as such. Like you, though, it did get to be too expensive to continue with the lessons, ice time, and travel. I kept doing it for fun alone, until arthritis set in. Oh well. It was a childhood dream to do it and I did what I could with it.

    I’m glad I found your blog (thru a Dark Shadows fan website) and I’ll keep reading, so blog on!

    • Thanks so much for this lovely, long comment. It seems like we have a lot in common! I have to agree with pretty much everything you say about the ’60s. I did want to add, though, that it is possible to skate right up into your ’90s. I’m still skating and you are right, it is better than meditation. There are actually a lot of adults doing it now, many more than there were twenty years ago. I don’t know where you live, but in both the Philadelphia area and the Boston area, there are probably as many adults skating as kids. There are even competitions for them now. You should consider taking it up again. I’ll bet it would even help your arthritis!

  2. Thanks, MG,
    I live in RI, we have several nice ice rinks in the area, I still have my two pair of (expensive) skates, regular and dance skates. I recently cut back to four workdays a week, so I could go there on one of their midday public sessions when the kids are in school. These places are zoos on the weekends and school vacations, and I’m so out of practice by now that I’d want to go when the place is deserted, for safety’s sake. It’s probably like riding a bike, I’d expect. I’m going to give it a try!

  3. Great! I bet you will find a few other adults at the midday public session. I used to skate the midday session at the University of Pennsylvania rink because it is right behind my office. There were very few people on that session and they were all adults. There were two other Drexel professors (both men). One chemistry professor and the other a business professor. There was also a librarian from U Penn.

    I STILL don’t like skating the crowded public sessions, or the figure skating sessions with the kids, and I’ve been skating more or less constantly for about fifteen years. I didn’t skate today for that reason. It’s a holiday, so I knew there would be a lot of kids today.

    Several skating clubs in this area have “adult-only” sessions. Check out your local figure skating club. They may have such a session. Even if they don’t, you could suggest they do. We are spoiled in this area, though, because there are three skating clubs that own their own rinks. Nearly all the ice time is club time, so they can afford to set aside time for adults only. It is harder for a club that uses a commercial rink to do that.

    Let me know how it goes!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: