SPECIAL: Another look at Dynasty

Filmed April/May and October/November 1980

Thirty-nine years ago from right now I was ‘in-between’.

Why am I revisiting DYNASTY now? From this distance almost 4 decades since I directed the project my perspective on what I filmed has broadened. I have some thoughts about what happened in the 213 episodes filmed after I left that center mostly on the 3 characters in the pilot I found the most unique. -– Blake, Stephen and Fallon Carrington.

BLAKE CARRINGTON: It is pretty much accepted that the whopping success 2 years earlier of the television series DALLAS had an effect on DYNASTY. Consider a similarity: the unscrupulous J.R. Ewing, an oil baron in Texas of the earlier series, and DYNASTY’s Blake Carrington, an oil baron in Denver. George Peppard, the first Blake Carrington was properly unscrupulous, but he lacked the fascinating evil charm that Larry Hagman brought to his baron. John Forsythe brought power to his baron sans the unscrupulousness

play-sharp-fill

Blake was just as forceful, but with cunning charm in this scene with his fiancée Krystle as they fly back to Denver after having flown earlier to San Francisco to have dinner in Chinatown.

play-sharp-fill

Probably the most unusual love scene I ever directed!

From something I’ve recently learned from an 8-year old television interview by Richard Shapiro, co-creator of DYNASTY, John had brought unexpected positive elements to his characterization of Blake Carrington. In the pilot, in a scene following the wedding of Blake and Krystle, an enraged Walter Lankershim, a wildcatter friend of Matthew Blaisdel, armed with a gun comes to the Carrington mansion because of an accident at their oil derrick.

In the interview Richard stated, “…and the script says ‘Blake puts the dogs on him’, and John Forsythe said, “I’m not putting any dogs on anyone.” …when we got into the editing room…there was a shot of John standing on the porch and he just moved his eyes to the left and I said “that’s it, that’s the signal”

I had staged the scene unaware of any of that conversation and unaware of what occurred after I turned in my director’s cut. It was true. John had brought dignity, decency and integrity to his man of power.

STEPHEN CARRINGTON: In 1963 in the opening scene of THE BULL ROARER, an episode of BREAKING POINT, Lou Antonio as Paul, a confused young man seeking psychiatric help, uttered the word “homosexual” for what I believe was the first time in an American television drama. Films dealing with homosexual relationships began to appear in the 1970s, but the pilot of DYNASTY approached the subject differently. It did not deal with a sexual relationship. It focused on the volatile relationship of a young man and his father.

play-sharp-fill

And now we can return for the ending of the explosive confrontation between Stephen and his father.

play-sharp-fill

FALLON CARRINGTON: Blake and Stephen were unique interpretations of recognizable characters. I thought Fallon, Blake’s daughter, was an original creation …

play-sharp-fill

… but Pamela Sue Martin’s Fallon was much more than a rich, spoiled, sexy young lady!

play-sharp-fill

She was a bright ambitious young woman very aware of the current unwritten law at the Carrington upper management level of no Blacks, no Jews, no Eskimos – and no Women.

You’ve just met the 3 Carringtons as they appeared in the pilot.

I had been contracted to direct OIL’s 2-hour pilot and 4 episodes if the pilot sold and became a series; since the pilot extended to 3 hours that covered my directing one Episode. I was scheduled to direct Episode 3, but I requested not to do it because I was involved in editing the pilot. I directed Episode 5.

play-sharp-fill

Thirty-four years later in November 2014 when I completed the 9 DYNASTY posts on RALPH’S CINEMA TREK (http://senensky.com/oil/) it was another 4 months until I did a post on Episode 5. Why the delay? I was even more certain of what I sensed while directing that episode — the series was changing direction, there was a shift of tone. When I was signed to direct OIL, along with the script I was given the series ‘Bible’, a document with many more pages than were in the 2-hour script. It contained the background history of the story and complete detailed biographical information of all of the leading characters. This was the usual procedure for any project that was a possible series. I had ‘lived with’ the Carringtons for almost 10 months. I felt I knew them intimately and as currently being scripted they were not acting as they had in the pilot. It was as if a new ‘Bible’ had been created for the series.

Here’s another early scene from the pilot.

play-sharp-fill

In the short time covered by the 3 episodes between the pilot and the Episode 5 I was directing, Fallon had married Jeff Colby exactly as her father had wanted her to do.

play-sharp-fill

Angry because his daughter did exactly what he had wanted her to do! That was a chipping away of the formidable Blake Carrington. He was furious and I felt showing an unexpected defensive insecurity. Here’s another side of the ‘new Bible’ Blake:

play-sharp-fill

Actually there are 2 more minutes in that scene, so let me say right out, I didn’t like the scene. That wasn’t the Blake Carrington of the pilot. That Blake seemed more like Robert Young in FATHER KNOWS BEST, and I don’t mean to denigrate Robert Young or his series. I thought the folksy tone of the scene was an attempt to humanize Blake, to make him more like everyone else, more like everyday people. But people like Blake Carrington aren’t like everyday people. They’re larger than life and they’re very rare.

In Episode 5 Stephen was invited to his boss and friend, Matthew Blaisdel’s house for dinner. He met Matthew’s wife Claudia and daughter Lindsay. After dinner when Matthew left to help his daughter with homework Stephen had a scene with Claudia.

play-sharp-fill

That scene too set off an alarm bell. It wasn’t as loud as the alarm bells for the previous scenes, but decisions had obviously been made at some level (upper management or network) that things were going to change. For example: there were 4 sexual encounters in the 3-hour pilot; there were 5 sexual encounters in the 1-hour Episode 5. And there was much plot activity on the way. Stephen’s ex-boyfriend Ted had returned to town in Episode 4. (The letter with the photos Stephen opened in the clip above was from Ted.) Stephen and Ted are soon seeing each other again. Stephen and Claudia start an affair. In Episode 10 Ted is accidentally killed by Blake in a fit of rage; in Episode 11 Blake goes on trial and in Episode 12 (the final episode of the 1st season) a veiled surprise witness appears to testify. At the start of Season 2 the veil and sunglasses are removed to reveal Alexis, Blake’s revengeful ex-wife. (The bold italics are deliberate.) I think there had always been a desire for this series to have a villainous J.R. Ewing character. It now had its J.R., and it was a WOMAN!

DYNASTY ran for 9 seasons. An executive in the Spelling organization pointed out that during its run, DYNASTY explored issues like rape, homosexuality and racial integration, and put middle-aged women in the forefront. Acknowledging that the show is, however, primarily entertaining, he said, ” Careful calculations are made. We walk a fine line, just this side of camp.” At one time it was the #1 show in the United States. I concede, YOU CAN’T ARGUE WITH SUCCES.

I have seen an interview with Esther Shapiro, the other co-creator, who said in 1985, “We wanted to do something that would be fun, an American fantasy. We thought people had seen enough stories where families fell apart. We wanted a strong, nineteenth-century sort of family where people were in conflict but loved each other in spite of everything.” She lamented in the season one DVD commentary, “Had the series been left to us, and been a less huge hit, I think we would have seen these characters realized pretty much the way they are (in the pilot).” Would I have liked to see the series remain faithful to the Shapiro’s original intent? Of course I would.

Television had brought a new face to theatre. From the time of the Greeks, people
desiring entertainment had to leave their homes to go to a theatre – an indoor
structure, an outdoor amphitheater or even a tent where they would view live
performers. Early in the 20th century there was an entertainment addition
available – Nickelodeons where the performers were no longer live. Within in a few
years Nickelodeons evolved into movie theatres. First there were Silent Films; then
came the Talkies. But again people had to leave their homes to see them. Television
changed that. For the first time it brought theatre right into the home, and when it
came to those weekly series with the same characters, I believe it changed
audiences reaction to what they viewed. It became more personal. They got to
know the people in the stories. They liked them. They empathized with them. It has
been amazing for me to realize through this website the degree of affection that
audiences developed for Captain Kirk, Spock, Doc, Lucy, Perry Mason, John Boy
Walton, Kimble the Fugitive, GUNSKOKE’S Marshall Dillon, Doctors Kildare and Casey,
the list is endless. Television had become a force

I stated above: YOU CAN’T ARGUE WITH SUCCESS. You also can’t rewrite history,
but it certainly can be discussed. I think the Shapiro’s script for OIL (the original
title of DYNASTY) was almost prescient (having or showing knowledge of events
before they take place). I say almost because the script didn’t predict the future,
but it anticipated 3 separate roads that could have been traveled by the 3
characters in the pilot I found the most unique.

What is the ratio of powerful men like Blake Carrington in society to men like J.R. Ewing? I don’t have the answer, but it is certainly a question worthy of being asked today. I’m afraid the Ewings might be outnumbering them. In the future of the prescient pilot Blake’s role might not always be the center of attention as it was during the 1st season trial. But for that event, Blake became a victim. I would prefer to keep him powerful. Ruthless when necessary but not unscrupulous! Quiet strong characters can be fascinating — Atticus Finch in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD!

We have seen many changes in the road Stephen Carrington would travel if he maintained his assertion to his father.

play-sharp-fill

It could be a difficult journey, but it didn’t have to be a hopeless one. A young man from Indiana, gay like Stephen, born 2 years after DYNASTY went into production, is today running for the presidency of the United States.

Then there is the 3rd road, the road Fallon will travel! Here the Shapiro’s might have been most prescient when they created the Fallon in the pilot.

play-sharp-fill

What if Fallon didn’t marry the nephew! What if Fallon married the uncle and there is no merger! There would be no need for an Alexis. Fallon becomes the series J.R. Ewing. She is not a traditional villain. She is still the beloved daughter. She takes a role in ColbyCo Oil. Some time in season 2 or 3 Cecil Colby dies and it is Fallon who takes charge of running ColbyCo Oil rather than Alexis. The father-daughter relationship during all of this is fraught with extraordinarily unfamiliar possibilities.

And time has proved that such a road for a woman since 1980 could be traveled. This year 2019 is the 100-year anniversary of Congress giving women the right to vote. Next year will be the 100-year anniversary of the year women voted for the first time and 6 women are currently running for the presidency of the United States.

The journey continues

This entry was posted in Dynasty, Special. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to SPECIAL: Another look at Dynasty

  1. Jim says:

    Fascinating re-look at this series and characters Ralph. You didn’t mention it, but am sure you were thinking it; we have a Steven-like character running for President, hoping to win the election from a JR/Alexis character currently inhabiting the Oval Office…

    The Shapiros and Aaron Spelling couldn’t have scripted it better…

    • Ralph says:

      But indeed I did think of it,
      A young man from Indiana, gay like Stephen, born 2 years after DYNASTY went into production, is today running for the presidency of the United States.
      That was one of the reasons I did the post. The other was:
      And time has proved that such a road for a woman since 1980 could be traveled. This year 2019 is the 100-year anniversary of Congress giving women the right to vote. Next year will be the 100-year anniversary of the year women voted for the first time and 6 women are currently running for the presidency of the United States.

      • Jim says:

        I understand now Ralph – thank you. Here’s hoping the current Alexis/JR-like occupant of the White House receives his comeuppance.

  2. Tom Donahue says:

    Excellent post (as always), Ralph. Great work on the Dynasty pilot. Beautifully done. It left a big impression on me when I was a kid. I should not have been surprised when I found are you directed it.

  3. Kim Messick says:

    Hi Ralph— Dropped in for another visit and was delighted to see you are still posting and updating the site. There is such a wealth of information here, and such a spirit of generosity and humanity. It’s always a pleasure listening to your stories.

    I was wondering if you could speak to a question that’s been on my mind for a while: How does a director cope when the script he’s given is simply not up to snuff? Given the pace of most television productions, I assume there isn’t time for extensive rewriting at that point. Do you look for the strengths in the script and try to emphasize those, or look for ways to deemphasize the weaker elements in the story, or (c) all of the above?

    I ask because I’ve been (re)watching a lot of ’70s TV recently, shows I saw as a kid when they were originally broadcast, and many of them strike me as painfully thin where story is concerned. This is especially the case with shows like “McCloud” and “McMillian and Wife,” which ran for two hours but almost always feel flabby and padded out. I get the feeling the episodes would have been much better in the standard 60-minute format; the writers just didn’t seem able to construct stories strong enough to fill two hours of screen time. This is the case even with a show like “The Rockford Files,” which was normally one of the best-written shows on TV at the time but flagged a bit when it expanded to 90 or 120 minutes.

    Anyway, I’d be interested to hear any thoughts you might have to offer on the topic. Again, please keep posting and allowing the rest of us to share your journey. Thanks!

    • Ralph says:

      Hi Kim: What an interesting question! I don’t know if I have the answers. I start by saying, if you asked that of 35 directors, you would get 35 different responses. So I am not responding as an authority on television. My response is totally personal, as someone who was, as I have stated, a foot soldier on the television battleground. To start with, maybe you should start watching 60’s television instead of 70’s! As I’ve stated I found a drop-off in the quality of scripts as we progressed from the 60’s to the 70’s, (with the wonderful exception of Earl’ Hamner’s THE WALTONS!) The problem was that a series had to have a NEW script every 6 or 7 work days. In 1961 when I was on the production staff of DR. KILDARE, the number of scripts for the season was (as I remember) 32. That number slowly receded to (again as I remember) 24. Not all of the writers writing those scripts were exceptionally talented. Not all of the series had someone to rewrite and fix those scripts like Earl Hamner (THE WALTONS). Gene Coon (THE WILD WILD WEST & STAR TREK), Alan Armer and his staff of writers (THE FUGITIVE). What did a director do when confronted with an inadequate script? I can only answer for what I did. I read the script for the story and then envisioned the story I would want to tell. I would make copious notes (Andy White, producer of THE WALTONS said I would drive the producer crazy) and get (most of the time) the changes I wanted. I’m sure I wasn’t the only director doing that. Television then was an infant industry. We were in it because we loved what we were doing. We certainly weren’t in to make a financial killing!

  4. Kim Messick says:

    Thanks for the quick reply, Ralph. Now that you mention it, I do recall your remark about script quality falling off from the ’60s to the ’70s. And that jibes with my general impressions as a viewer— albeit a very young one, reacting naively to what he saw on the screen. I will take your advice and try to leaven my ’70s viewing with some ’60s fare. Take care!

  5. M. Kirby says:

    Hello Ralph.

    Thank you very much for your website – It’s a true goldmine of information.

    This is the sort of material that I seek (often in vain) in “Making Of TV Show” books and the Television academy interviews.

    As someone who always read TV credits, it is always fascinating to put not only a face to a name, but also a point of view.

    Your writing is fluid, fascinating (even if I haven’t seen the show/episode in question), and very very addictive – even on rereads.

    I note that Kim’ s shows that he discusses above are all Universal shows.

    You have commented in your articles about your disappointment with Universal and its factory environment.

    TV Shows of the 60’s and 70’s generally had the same DOP’s, Art Directors, Set Decorators, a couple of editors, a couple of Assistant Directors etc for most of the season, even Producers.
    This enabled a show to help establish a unique look.

    Universal on the other hand used different people for every episode, which too often resulted in a sameness – starting with those Wayne Fitzgerald credits (Christian name aligned right on top of surname)

    (The only other studio who seemed to use different people in similar style often was Warner Brothers in the late 50’s early 60’s).

    My understanding is that Universal’s budgets were much tighter, resulting in less setups.

    So the longer you extend a scene of some people in conversation, the less the costs. This can result in the flabbiness and padding suggested.

    My impression is that there were a lot of good TV writers in the 1970’s (e.g. Quinn Martin shows rarely disappointed, even though they may not not deliver an A1 script everytime).

    But it was the system which had it in for the writers.

    Ageism appeared to preside over creativity.

    Sadly, many of the best TV comedy writers of the 60’s ended up working at Hanna Barbera
    (and you never knew which scripts they had written due to one set of credits displayed for the entire season)

    The Dukes Of Hazzard (Warner Brothers) had some great writers as producers, especially Marty Roth.
    But the scripts for that show were not good, because the Executive Producer (and perhaps others) stymied creativity.

    As for Universal, the best example of how they treated writers was Rod Serling.
    Night Gallery was certainly no Twilight Zone, thanks to their tampering.

    I hope you are in good health and invigorated Ralph.
    Thank you once again for this site, and all your lucid pearls of experience and recollections.

    M. Kirby
    Hobart Tasmania

  6. Joe says:

    Ralph –

    For some reason I decided to check on Ralph & was pleasantly surprised that you still update your site. This a great update about a show I watched. I was 17 when the show premiered and I thought Pamela Sue Martin was amazing and later on Heather Locklear caught my fancy. What can I say I was a teenage boy. LOL!!! Anyway, even I could tell the dramatic shift from Season 1 to Season 2. Season 1 was less soap and more drama whereas Season 2 was all soap. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing but the tone was so different. Pamela Sue Martin didn’t need the furs and the gowns to explain who she was. She played the character of Fallon so strong that she stood out. It’s a shame she left because I would have loved to see her grow even more. I remember she quit Nancy Drew as well. She just seemed restless and weary about television and expected or wanted more. Keep up the good work.

  7. Linda Kimmelman says:

    I just found your site last night. I’m still reading it this morning. I just realized that you are almost as important to my formative years as my parents. I grew up in New Jersey and I was one of those kids raised by TV.

    Thank you for doing all of this.

  8. Lamont Sanford says:

    Dear Mr. S –
    May you live another 97 years, so that you can continue sharing these amazing stories! (I admit it, I’m selfish.)

    Your pal,
    Lamont Sanford

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *