DAMAGE CONTROL: Guza Vs. Reality

Continuing our look at the various attempts at daytime damage control that are occuring lately, we come to Bob Guza, Jr.  For years, it has seemed that Guza is the Head Writer for Life at General Hospital.  No matter how low the ratings sink, or how loud fan dissatisfaction grows, Guza is gonna keep giving you shallow mob stories, keep giving you shootouts and explosions, keep focusing on the same few people, keep assassinating characters (literally and figuratively), and, of course, keep killing off Quartermaines.

But these days, Guza must be feeling some heat.  The ratings are at embarrassing all-time lows, the writers strike underscored how safe his job isn't, and the backlash in the wake of Michael's shooting has reached all-time highs.  The backlash was helped by an interview Guza gave to Entertainment Weekly where he claimed that Michael getting shot was his way of showing consequences for Michael carrying a gun.  While I don't think this was Guza's intention, it sounded as though he was saying that Michael had it coming for carrying a gun.  Guza was subsequently laughed into orbit.

Guza returned in the May 6^th edition of Soap Opera Weekly to try another attempt at spin.  In this interview, Guza attempts to clarify his thoughts and re-frame the story as an exercise in showing the terrible effects of the mob lifestyle.  Unfortunately, Guza barely gets two paragraphs into the interview before he steps on a rake while shooting himself in the foot. 

Guza is asked if the shooting Michael story was in the works before the strike:

GUZA: We knew we'd do it at some point.  Let me preface this by saying that this show has long been accused of being too violent, and of glorifying violence.  Let's take them separately, because they are different issues.  In terms of being too violent, that's fair.  But we are a show whose central characters are mobsters and have always been mobsters.  Tony Geary's character came on this show as Frank Smith's runner from the mob.  So this is not something that started with me.  Is it too violent?  Yeah, probably.  But it is the nature of the characters and the stories you have to tell.  But the question of glorifying it is a different issue, and you and I have talked about this a lot.  We work very hard around here to show the consequences of violence to our characters.  We want to say, ‘If you choose this lifestyle, it is going to come back to haunt you.'  Sonny is arguably one of the most haunted characters in all of daytime, precisely because he doesn't die but the people around him do.

WOW.  How did he cram all that graham?  How did he fit so much wrong into one paragraph?  Where to start?  Well, let's start with the easy ones first. 

General Hospital's central characters HAVE NOT always been mobsters.  You know who the central characters were?  HINT: Look at the title of the show.  That's right!  Doctors and nurses!  Yay!  You got it in one.  Honestly, if this show had always been about mobsters, would they have called it General Hospital? Wouldn't something like Bullets and Dames or City of Crime been more effective?

Next, notice how Guza says the show has always been about mobsters, and then immediately cites Tony Geary.  Repeat after me-General Hospital existed before Gloria Monty.  General Hospital existed before Gloria Monty.  General Hospital existed before Gloria Monty.

Notice too that, as Luke phased over from being a short-term villain to a full-fledged daytime hero, something happened.  What was it, oh, yes, HE GOT OUT OF THE MOB!  See, back in the ancient era that historians refer to as the 1980's, mobsters were bad.  Mobsters were treated as villains. 

And, contrary to Guza's spin, they weren't the main characters back then either.  At this point, GH had switched to cops and robbers fare, and it was the cops, the secret agents, and the all-around good guys who dominated the show.  Thus, any mobster that was deemed to have leading man value had to get out of the mob, because anything else could be seen as glorifying organized crime, and that would be wrong.  Oh, the eighties.  They were so quaint.

But the whole relentless focus on the mob?  The whole "let's take a clinically disturbed mobster and his brain-damaged henchman and make them heartthrobs and the focal point of the show"?  The whole dumbing down of law enforcement?  The whole thing where the mobster's family and friends are constantly put in danger, and the mobster pounds his fist and throws a water glass, and then goes right back to business as usual?  And we're still supposed to care about him?

That started with you, Guza.

Next, notice Guza's casual dismissal of the show's violence.  "Is the show too violent?  YEP!  But we're writing about mobsters, so it has to be!"  Huh?  Does he not understand what too violent means?  It means its...too violent.  As in, should be toned down.  As in, "You're absolutely right, GH viewers, some of our scenes have been unnecessarily violent, and we are going to make sure that doesn't happen."  Now, Guza could also go the other way and say, "I'm writing about mobsters.  Mobsters lead a violent lifestyle, so the violence we show is necessary and not gratuitous."  Of course, he wouldn't be able to keep a straight face, but it's a print interview, no one will see him laugh.  Instead, Guza finds middle ground where there is none, and says "Yes, we are entirely too violent, but really, we're not too violent at all, except when we are, which we aren't, so there!"

Finally, Guza brings home the crazy with his insistence that they don't glorify violence-in fact, that they work hard at GH to show the consequences of violence.  Wow, if this is them working hard, I'd hate to see them being lazy.  Again, having girlfriend no. 3 or henchman no. 5 get killed, and then going about your business as usual is not an effective way to show consequences of violence. 

Also, when Sonny's family is attacked by enemies, what does Sonny do?  He attacks them back, having them beat up or killed.  And Sonny's still standing and most of his foes aren't.  Take-away message: Violence works and he who is the most violent wins.  Sure, Sonny may suffer a casualty here or there, but we suffer casualties in wars, and as we all know GH is romance in wartime, according to Guza.  And while certain people may get killed, Sonny and his immediate circle have been shot multiple times, blown up, been in car crashes, etc, etc-and keep right on ticking like a Timex watch.  You can't talk about how you always show the consequences of violence, and then write stories where the main characters should have died five times over. 

Honestly, this is such a pathetic job of spin that I'm wondering if it's really spin at all.  Surely, if you were trying to pull a fast one on the viewers, you'd construct something better than this, right?  But, the only alternative is that Guza actually believes what he's saying, which is all the more frightening.

tags: general hospital  soap opera weekly