Should Rita Lesley have been a singer?

[Spooky Owl!]

I know Linda doesn't sing (and claims to have "a rotten voice", although she was well-dubbed in THE GAMBLER 2) but should Rita Lesley have been a singer instead of "uh actress"?

I'm picturing a Connie Francis or Ann-Margret kind of thing. Sammy Jo is in a Manhattan piano bar and hears Rita warbling "Where the Boys Are" or something... Or maybe a country singer, with that red hair -- singing Patsy Cline's "Crazy"??

 

[Ked]

Nope.

 

[Spooky Owl!]

Linda is actually kind of funny as Rita -- as long as Rita still has her red hair and in New York. But once she's in Denver and all dolled up as "Krystle," she and Krystle act almost the very same.

They should have had "Krystle" adopt a short, pixy hairstyle. And instead of plastic surgery, she just tells Blake that her nose bump is a result of the massacre in Moldavia.

On the sad side, Rita asks Joel (George Hamilton) what if her cosmetic surgeon botched the job and makes a mess out of her face.



Krystle and Rita:

 

[GillesDenver]

Ironically, what you described as "spasminess" seems to work perfectly with Rita (not with Krystle of course).

VS

(sorry it's in french, I couldn't find the videos in english)

 

[Ked]

What was up with the blonde in the background? The one in blue and white. I don't know, there's just something very odd about her to me... she looks like a walking mannequin...

They should have had "Krystle" adopt a short, pixy hairstyle.

I remember a scene where they're trying to make Rita look like Krystle, only Sammy Jo complains that everything looks wrong. I would have taken that aspect and gone further: Sammy Jo further says that Rita looked more like Krystle when she had red hair and her own makeup style. This gives Joel a realization: Rita can't be done up exactly like Krystle, otherwise everyone will tell right away she's a fake. So therefore, Sammy Jo takes her aunt to the salon for a "girl's day out" and convinces Krystle to try a new hairstyle - one identical to a new one Rita got.

So they had to make Krystle look like Rita as well in order for the plan to be pulled off.

 

[Spooky Owl!]

I've long come to the conclusion that the Static Acting Directive, evident from the first episode of S3 (but not admitted to until Leann Hunley revealed it in 1988 when he left the show, even though it had lessened by that point) -- and the effect it had especially on Linda's performance -- was the single most destructive creative decision the producers ever made.

Yes, the writing routinely had major problems from S3 thru S8, and they spent far too much screen time with fleeting story arcs which were barely fleshed-out while the characters endlessly queried each other about their "feelings" and then told each other they were wrong to feel that way. But a lot of shows had problematic scripting yet their actors found a way to "sell" it... But on DYNASTY, this wasn't permitted. Even when the occasional scene actually made narrative sense, there is still almost always a feeling that there's just something wrong with the scene. And that comes from the nervous stiffness that S.A.D. created.

But particularly with Krystle, the sole character who was needed to ground the series, the static acting directive not only prevented her from doing so, she wound up becoming arguably the major problem.

The only thing worse than unwarranted nervousness, or stiffness, is nervous stiffness.

 

[Ked]

until Leann Hunley revealed it in 1988 when he left the show

She.

 

[Spooky Owl!]

She.

Don't you know gender is now a social construct? Especially on DYNASTY where everyone is a drag queen or hag king.

 

[Richard Channing]

Yes, let's not jump to conclusions. We wouldn't want to misgender Leann.

 

[Artur]

Linda Evans looks very concerned and absent in thoughts in the clothing store scene as Rita (as if she forgot she plays the part of Rita). I checked the episode details and I discovered it was shot between september 27 and october 9 in 1985, the week when Rock Hudson died.

 

[Spooky Owl!]

Watching these episodes and this plotline in reruns and especially in a marathon capacity, it certainly is easier to sit through -- not only does it go by much faster (obviously) but, not taking the show anymore seriously than I tried to 30 years ago, one can see how it could have worked, outrageous as it is, if the rest of the series' surrounding stories were more solid than they were.

With no such grounding, however, it's just abject silliness.

Originally, I was totally against it. And I suppose I still am on principle. But I wonder how the Rita plot might have originally felt if the show itself were stronger at the time, and Krystle's hostage situation was shorter (maybe 4 episodes instead of 10).

 

[Monzo]

Did you know that, as an homage to Dynasty, Days of our Lives introduced a (somewhat bizarre) character named Rita Lesley in 2024?

https://daysofourlives.fandom.com/wiki/Rita_Lesley

I watch the dailysoap, and I have to say that, apart from the name, the two Rita Lesleys have nothing in common—neither in terms of character nor appearance. The Days Rita is quite cunning, whereas the one in Dynasty... well, you know that for yourselves.

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

while the characters endlessly queried each other about their "feelings" and then told each other they were wrong to feel that way.

It's when the opinion itself becomes the topic of conversation, while in reality the Dynasty characters stopped having opinions.
A catty insult doesn't mean much if we don't know how much they hate each other.
Of course it's easier to write an opinion of the new stepmother (season 1 and 2) than to say something about Rita. But Knots Landing would not take the easy way out, even if would (unintentionally) emphasize how ridiculously soapy a storyline is.
That's why Claudia's strongly opinionated behaviour in season 6 looks so disproportionately refreshing. It doesn't matter if it makes perfect sense or not, it simply adds an exciting perspective to the soap's status quo.
It makes us less certain of what we're watching, and that's far more thrilling than physical events like car crashes and doppelgangers.
Maybe that's why I like the dynamics in THE COLBYS and NEW DALLAS so much (ha, I knew there was a connection!)
Early years Blake Carrington had an opinion of homosexuals, it was dark and ugly but it was something and that "something" put the other characters in an uncomfortable position.

I believe that the beginning of the prime time soap renaissance (even if PEYTON PLACE was the only series that came before it) was strongly intertwined with the popularity of the mini-series of the 1970s which actually were not called "mini-series" at the time of the original broadcasts.
They were "television events" or even "an X hour motion picture" as a way to distinguish between regular TV episodes (e.g. sitcoms, westerns, police adventures) and the more ambitious and cinematic productions (e.g. Roots, Centennial, Rich Man Poor Man).
I'm not saying that this connection was intentional since KNOTS LANDING was supposed to be the first one, and DALLAS just feels more inherently eventful.
Looking at the early years of DALLAS, DYNASTY and FALCON CREST I find it very noticeable that there are no "what if" scenarios. The things that need to happen play out in a way that has a very "live" feel to it. The stories unfold in a very organic way.
Fast-forward to the mid-eighties and what we see in these soaps is the Potential Problem being introduced, with the unspoken question "what IF it's going to affect the characters".
It's when the theory of the TV eventfulness becomes more important than the event itself, and that's how you end up with Moldavia nonsense.
When Blake killed Ted Dinard there was no time to think about that, it happened and they simply had to deal with it.

The soapy doppelganger impostor is a preposterous plot device but still there was something organic in the way RITA happened (and started to happen).
There was not much time to think about Sammy Jo's luck to meet a person who reminded her of auntie Krystle, it just happened, and then the devious plot sort of spontaneously came into existence.
I'm not sure if they made the most of it, but there is something intriguing about the other characters not knowing who they're dealing with (especially Alexis when she sees her opinion of the "trashy two-faced Krystle" validated. Actually this is not how she really feels about Krystle, it's how she wants to feel about Krystle - but that's a different topic altogether).
At the same time we're watching Rita trying to keep up appearances while Sammy Jo sees her evil plot getting hijacked by Joel Abrigore who - as we all unanimously agree - should have been played by Anthony Perkins.
Meanwhile, the real Krystle watches the literal identity theft on live television in horror and bewilderment.

Maybe that's why Dominique's fabulous dark secret is the worst Dynasty plot ever written. Because strong opinions were not allowed, and everything about Dominique came to an abrupt standstill, except for a few half-baked conflicts with Alexis who - to make matters worse - always looked kinda bored.
To Dominique's credit, she never stopped taking herself extremely seriously and many of her scenes are embarrassingly funny.

imho.

 

[Spooky Owl!]

BTW: miniseries were indeed called "miniseries" during the late-'70s. At least, over here.

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

BTW: miniseries were indeed called "miniseries" during the late-'70s. At least, over here.

You should know better than I do, but I've watched several of the original promos on youtube and the word mini-series is never used (despite the fact that the uploader has titled the video as "mini-series promo").
When "mini-series" did became a thing - possibly influenced by the soaps, both television events but in different formats - it's possible that the 1970s series were rerun and advertised as "mini-series". And then it would still take some time before the format was introduced in other parts of the world.
The way I see it, ROOTS was originally considered a movie.

 

[Spooky Owl!]

You should know better than I do, but I've watched several of the original promos on youtube and the word mini-series is never used (despite the fact that the uploader has titled the video as "mini-series promo").
When "mini-series" did became a thing - possibly influenced by the soaps, both television events but in different formats - it's possible that the 1970s series were rerun and advertised as "mini-series". And then it would still take some time before the format was introduced in other parts of the world.
The way I see it, ROOTS was originally considered a movie.

But.... but.... but... they called them that here. In the '70s.

Remember: I'm very, very old-ish.

 

[Daniel Avery]

Yeah, I can back him up on this. He may be old-ish, but I'm downright prehistoric.

The Emmys awarded "Best Miniseries" trophies to various productions since 1972, changing the term to "limited series" at some point in the recent past because some productions aired more than the established "eight episodes or less" that the Emmy people expected a "miniseries" to last. But the original term was indeed "miniseries".