Why did Katzman decree that DALLAS go "campy" in its closing years ?

[TaranofPrydain]

But most of all - the TV industry in the late 80s was creatively dead - it was all sitcoms and self-contained shows.

Twin peaks started to take us out of these dire years.

Oh, there were some other new dramas in the late 80s that were trying something a bit loftier: LA Law, thirtysomething, China Beach, Beauty and the Beast, Midnight Caller. But, LA Law aside, they didn't get high Nielsen ratings, so few outside of the Emmy committee really noticed what they were bringing to the table.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The Paulsen Effect has been mentioned several times in several threads throughout the years. What was it that he had license to do that, for example, Art Lewis didn’t? What creative input do we know of that we can we definitively attribute to Paulsen?

Paulsen was particularly good at structure.

When he left DALLAS in Spring 1988 to go produce DYNASTY, it was said in the media that "a DALLAS head honcho" was taking over its rival soap.

My initial thoughts were: why bother at this point?, and I assumed he was just being brought in to take the blame for DYNASTY's imminent cancellation. (And some did).

I'd seen his name before many times on several shows, mostly DALLAS (and KNOTS' Season 7). But when I saw the very first episode of Season 9 of DYNASTY that November 1988, it was clear this was indeed the same writer-producer who'd so impacted DALLAS' best post-'WSJR?' years.

And he was.

Katzman apparently recognized Paulsen's structural skill near the latter part of the 80/81 season of DALLAS when Katzman had assembled a group of staff (and non-staff, I think) writers who had worked on the show in order to brainstorm their way out of a corner they'd written their way into. And, Paulsen being Paulsen, did it. And from that point on, Paulsen had a lot of influence.

 

[Laurie Marr]

I think Paulsen's modesty may have something to do with this. In the interviews I have read where he discuses the show (the most extended interview, of course, being the one conducted by our own dear James FL) Paulsen gives a lot of the credit to Katzman for the disciplined planning of Dallas and for effectively teaching him how to write a tightly structured show. And, yes, Paulsen's lamentably short tenure as Dynasty showrunner demonstrated his credentials admirably. But I do think there was a productive synergy with Katzman (Lewis to a lesser extent) that is to both men's credit and maybe there's a temptation to overlook Katzman's equally vital contribution to the success of Dallas's glory years when looked at from the perspective of the later years.

Anyway, Paulsen still gets the prize for the pithiest summary of why Dallas at its best was so good: "DALLAS was about a dining room table."

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

maybe there's a temptation to overlook Katzman's equally vital contribution to the success of Dallas's glory

I dunno. I think Katzman gets lots of credit. Most folks seemed unaware of who Paulsen even was and his contribution until Art Swift, James from London, and Garry von Roy from DallasFanzine interviewed him.

The people attached to DALLAS or DYNASTY still seem clueless, frankly. When one of the interviewers (I can't remember which) was told by Paulsen to say "hi" to Larry -- and they did -- Larry sniffed dismissively that, "Well, Leonard Katzman was the brains of the show" (or words to that effect).

Pearls. Swine. May the swine choke on them.

And don't even get me started on Michael Filerman.

 

[Rove]

Anyway, Paulsen still gets the prize for the pithiest summary of why Dallas at its best was so good: "DALLAS was about a dining room table."

I've never heard that attributed to David before but it explains why we had such great scenes with the Ewing family at Southfork. David - like most original fans of Dallas - possibly grew up with the family seated around the dinner table engaged in animated conversation, especially so when teenagers, becoming young adults, would express an opinion different to their parents.

TNT Dallas didn't understand this as much. But then that horrid layout of new Southfork didn't lend itself for moving conversations unlike Lorimar Dallas days. In those days the conversation flowed from the living room to the dining room or vice-versa with the staircase often becoming the showcase for drama.

The writers didn't just put pen to paper but understood how to use a house and furnishings to great effect.

 

[WarriorsFan]

Oh, there were some other new dramas in the late 80s that were trying something a bit loftier: LA Law, thirtysomething, China Beach, Beauty and the Beast, Midnight Caller. But, LA Law aside, they didn't get high Nielsen ratings, so few outside of the Emmy committee really noticed what they were bringing to the table.

LA Law never finished in the seasonal Top 10, it's peak was #12 in 1987/1988.

There was a dearth in dramas from 1987, when Dallas was no longer a Top 10 show, until 1994, when ER premiered.

ER was the first drama since Dallas to have three seasons as the #1 show, but ER success did not spur dramas making a comeback the way that The Cosby Show success spurred sitcoms making a comeback a decade earlier. ER was to the second half of the 1990s what Dallas was to the first half of the 1980s.

 

[Laurie Marr]

As an addendum to the Paulsen stuff: he was very clear that 'campy' was not the way to go. I think I recall him sating in an interview that Dallas could never be 'jokey' and that writers new to the show (especially when they were writing for JR) made this error which then had to be rectified in rewrites.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

As an addendum to the Paulsen stuff: he was very clear that 'campy' was not the way to go. I think I recall him sating in an interview that Dallas could never be 'jokey' and that writers new to the show (especially when they were writing for JR) made this error which then had to be rectified in rewrites.

And yet Paulsen acknowledged that Katzman saw DALLAS as a cartoon (and one of the reasons Katzman hated Bradford May's artsy camera work in Season 7 -- although the audience, which didn't want DALLAS to be a cartoon, very much liked May's visuals .... Like Katzman, Aaron Spelling wanted bland flat-lighting, too).

 

[kenneth]

If I have to sit through the sanitarium one more time I will need a sanitarium.

 

[Laurie Marr]

And here is a somewhat contentious view: despite making his name in 'I Dream of Jeanie,' I never found Hagman to be very accomplished at comedy. His performances were mostly too knowing and too mannered - in fact, yes, even 'cartoonish.' Hence, the 'double-take' being a ubiquitous Hagmanism.

 

[DallasFanForever]

And here is a somewhat contentious view: despite making his name in 'I Dream of Jeanie,' I never found Hagman to be very accomplished at comedy. His performances were mostly too knowing and too mannered - in fact, yes, even 'cartoonish.' Hence, the 'double-take' being a ubiquitous Hagmanism.

I always felt he was better at subtle comedy more than he was the style of comedy on IDOJ or the later years of Dallas. Sarcastic, fast thinking witty one liners were more his thing in my opinion. Just an observation.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

And I just tend to assume Paulsen has a Scorpio Rising -- the creative clarity, and the fact they never want to give you their birth times.

And here is a somewhat contentious view: despite making his name in 'I Dream of Jeanie,' I never found Hagman to be very accomplished at comedy. His performances were mostly too knowing and too mannered - in fact, yes, even 'cartoonish.' Hence, the 'double-take' being a ubiquitous Hagmanism.

I thought Larry was a good physical comedian. But his line delivery in both IDOJ and DALLAS is pretty much the same -- and he keeps each of his lady partners in a bottle.

 

[Rove]

and he keeps each of his lady partners in a bottle

...what a great observation. Brilliant.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

And did Katzman sabotage Paulsen to protect Katzman's own long-term goals?

Paulsen says that when Duffy, Katzman and Art Lewis all left DALLAS in the spring of 1985, Katzman told Paulsen something like, "I guess it's your show now" (or words to that effect).

I always get a little chill at that exchange. Katzman clearly had plans to return to "his show," DALLAS, later. And Katzman certainly knew how good Paulsen was as a constructionist, because Katzman was the one who gave Paulsen increasing influence over the plots, a few months after 'Who Shot JR?' and through Bobby's death five years later... But if Paulsen had then inherited Katzman's line-producer/show-runner position during Season 9 (DVD) when Bobby was dead, DALLAS might not have gotten into the creative problems it did that year with an outsider, Peter Dunne from KNOTS, taking over the parent series and bringing his presumptuous agenda to 'reform' DALLAS --- and so the need for Katzman's return (with a little political help from Larry) might become unnecessary.

Paulsen was then told by Philip Capice that he could stay on with DALLAS in his position as story editor, but he would be in subservience to newcomer Peter Dunne (who would undoubtedly not appreciate Paulsen's skills as Katzman did) so Paulsen left... Paulsen then received a fateful offer from DYNASTY to become a second string writer-producer there, just post-Moldavian massacre, but Paulsen would have been in the same boat, his work overridden (by, no doubt, the tone deaf Pollocks), but when he requested creative carte blanche in order to join DYNASTY, Aaron Spelling and Esther Shapiro made the foolish decision to say 'no' (understandably, perhaps, not wanting to place their then-Number 1 program into the hands of an outsider like Paulsen).

So Paulsen then accepted the offer from his old buddy David Jacobs to become the supervising producer of KNOTS LANDING, effectively replacing Dunne who'd just gone over to DALLAS. But there was a political situation on KNOTS, too, and a married writing couple did not want him there (and it sounds like they manipulated to pressure him out of the cul-de-sac).

In a few months' time, it was announced that Duffy and Katzman were returning to DALLAS (with Paulsen in tow). But once they were reunited on Southfork, Katzman brought in a new supervising producer, Calvin Clements Jr. (who, given his title, must have had brief seniority over Paulsen, credited as "producer"). And when Clements left after one year (when Pam exited), Katzman brought back Arthur Bernard Lewis as supervising producer, again over Paulsen.

Paulsen said he'd already wanted to leave DALLAS before taking over Season 9 of DYNASTY in 1988 -- was it simply because Katzman intended to turn DALLAS more toward parody, or did Paulsen feel a little undermined by Katzman? Or maybe both? Even during Paulsen's one season tenure on DYNASTY, Katzman hired the actor, J. Eddie Peck, to play a pointless crazy guy (Tommy McKay) in order to diminish the mystery of his long-dead character (and who's killer was unrevealed), Roger Grimes, on DYNASTY. As if Katzman was tweaking Paulsen in some way for defecting to the rival soap.

Paulsen said he had no desire to go back to DALLAS once DYNASTY had folded in 1989, so it sounds like he might have been asked by Lenny. (Their relationship was apparently okay, because they produced a late-night female detective show together for CBS called DANGEROUS CURVES a year or so after DALLAS ended).

Was Katzman as contemptuous of his talented protege (whom he needed) as he'd arguably become of his audience (whom he needed)? Perhaps because of how talented Paulsen was, wanting to clip his wings just ever-so-much?

Obviously, I can't back this theory up. Just as I can't prove my conspiracy scenario that droolingly malevolent Eileen Pollock set up -- and got fired -- DYNASTY's line producer Ed Ledding after the end of sparkling Season 2. (And the tonal shift between the last episode of Season 2 and the very first episode of Season 3 was pronounced -- and Ledding was the only key DYNASTY staffer gone). And that she did so because he was a good producer and, hence, wanted him out the way.

Pearls. Swine. Etcetera.

 

[Crimson]

Was Katzman as contemptuous of his talented protege (whom he needed) as he'd arguably become of his audience (whom he needed)? Perhaps because of how talented Paulsen was, wanting to clip his wings just ever-so-much?

Obviously, I can't back this theory up.

As I began reading through this discussion, the word that sprang to mind was "contempt" -- contempt for the audience, contempt for the genre, contempt for the show itself, and above all contempt for JR. DALLAS had nicely reflected the two earlier eras that it crossed, the austerity and decadence of the late 70s and the tacky opulence of the mid-80s. Sure the show needed to evolve again. Its most prominent characteristics to the casual observer, promiscuity and Reaganesque greed, were falling out of favor by the end of the decade. The show could have become more incisive and self-critical of its earlier excesses -- JR's downfall could have been tragically epic -- but everyone involved in the later seasons seemed bored or embarrassed.

I have not watched the last few seasons since they first aired and I admit my memories are getting blurred, but YT clips reinforce my impressions. For instance, I had no recollection of the scene in this compilation that starts around 5:15; an argument between JR & Cally. Watching it, I was immediately annoyed. Larry's performances by then were so lazy; there's no sign of JR Ewing on screen, this is just Larry Hagman looking like he's reading off a cue card. On the other end of the spectrum, there's Cathy Podewell giving a cornpone performance so over-the-top the producers of HEE HAW! would have told her to tone it down. As the scene progressed, I had a sinking feeling of what was going to occur. But no!; surely DALLAS never sunk so low as to resort to a pie-in-the-face.

That is absolute contempt.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

As I began reading through this discussion, the word that sprang to mind was "contempt" -- contempt for the audience, contempt for the genre, contempt for the show itself, and above all contempt for JR. DALLAS had nicely reflected the two earlier eras that it crossed, the austerity and decadence of the late 70s and the tacky opulence of the mid-80s. Sure the show needed to evolve again. Its most prominent characteristics to the casual observer, promiscuity and Reaganesque greed, were falling out of favor by the end of the decade. The show could have become more incisive and self-critical of its earlier excesses -- JR's downfall could have been tragically epic -- but everyone involved in the later seasons seemed bored or embarrassed.

Excellent description.

It always makes me think of an unhealthy personal relationship where the more un-loving partner becomes even less loving because the other partner loves him or her "too much." The colder partner may enjoy the control and fawning but assumes, like the old Groucho joke, that any club that would have them (let alone, enthusiastically) as a member must be of innate low value.

And then there's the weird co-dependent flip side of that dynamic, where the rejected, more affectionate partner becomes even more affectionate because they make the same Groucho joke assumption, only from the opposite perspective. (An attitude unlikely to be reproduced in a television audience, one would think, outside of Tellytalk -- the viewers don't become more needy, they just tune out and don't come back).