Kudos to Bing cache for allowing me to re-create this thread I originally posted in July. One of my favorite DYNASTY scenes is certainly Curtis Harrington's (1926-2007) beautifully directed (and beautifully scored) midnight mansion hallway scene in the season 4 episode 'Tracy' (4x07) when Adam Carrington arrives home late in an attempt to avoid speaking to his father and Blake confronts him. The unusual manner in which the camera pans across an empty hallway helps create suspense and the viewer is left genuinely surprised when we see Blake who had emerged while the camera was focusing on the front door, helping us experience the same surprise as Adam. Imagine my delight when I found several paragraphs on the scene and Harrington's experience with DYNASTY in an interview with the director in The Dynasty Years, a 1995 book by the Norwegian author Jostein Gripsrud, which is filled with lots of interesting behind the scenes information regarding the production of the series. Here's how Harrington explained how he created suspense and ambience for the scene. Perhaps surprisingly, he also said he was happy he was allowed to make such creative decisions as that wasn't the norm in Hollywood where a 'standard way of doing things' was preferred. @James from London responded: "The space for directorial difference is still so small normally that it is almost impossible to distinguish between the 'styles' of different directors." My (limited) understanding is that that was also the case with Hollywood movies under the studio system. Directors, like actors, were under contract and had no say in what films they were assigned or who was cast in them (at least in theory). They were regarded as guns for hire. Movies weren't considered a director's medium until French cinema obsessives in the sixties detected tropes and themes that certain Hollywood studio directors had managed to deploy in their films in spite of the constraints placed on them (John Ford's tendency to frame several actors in a single shot for long periods is the one example I remember) and so the idea of the director-as-auteur (the author of a film) was born. (To be honest, I'm not quite sure where people like Hitchcock and Sirk fit in. Maybe the Hitchockian and Sirkian styles had previously existed but no one noticed until the 60s? Dunno.) Anyway, I guess the same thing applied to television directors in the 80s (and beyond). The one 80s soap director whose style I can immediately recognise is Larry Elikann. I can usually detect his "in your face" camera style just from from a "next week on ..." preview of KNOTS, FLAMINGO ROAD or FALCON CREST. It's an interesting article, thanks for posting it, Gabriel. It reminds me of what Barney Thingummy, the producer/creator of CAGNEY AND LACEY said in his autobiography -- that the demands of television are (or were) such that one could only realistically hope to create one or two minutes of truly quality television per day (or was it per episode?). The rest was just filler. To me, that tension between the striving for quality, for artistry if you like, and the factory-like demands for product is one of the things that's so interesting about soap opera, then and now. It's a compromise but out of that very compromise, interesting things emerge -- intentional tropes and unintentional tropes, inventiveness out of necessity and complete accidents. The thing about censorship is interesting too. That's partly why I've never been comfortable writing off showrunners, producers, etc., as two-dimensional baddies with no creative integrity. Until one has experienced working in that environment, under those pressures, with those demands, one can't really know what it was like or what they were up against. (I'm not saying I know any more than anyone else.) * Cahier du Cinema, nouvelle vague and Truffant would all be terms to drop at this point if I actually knew what I was talking about. SnarkyOracle said: Some directors turn out consistently impressive work and some producers turn out consistently unimpressive work. So some people are able to navigate that tension more effectively. In a way, I'm almost not surprised that Harrington felt a certain freedom on DYNASTY because, despite Spelling's usual flat lighting policy, the inconsistency of DYNASTY's style (like the excellent execution of the first episode of S4 versus the stuff that followed) suggest the top brass weren't anti-art per se as much as deadeningly uninspired when left to their own devices. And that just underscores how important a line producer/show-runner is (convincing me further that Ed Ledding had a lot to do with S2's panache). BTW: I think the only letter I ever wrote to the "Dynasty" office was during Season 4, telling them that Curtis Harrington was their best episodic director by far. He also added: I remember reading an article in the mid-'80s with, I think, bit part actors who had worked on both DALLAS and DYNASTY, contrasting the approach to production on the sets of both shows. Despite Katzman's anti-art policy (and his absurd dislike for Harrington's directorial work elsewhere) there was a willingness to do a scene over and over until they got it right on DALLAS. But DYNASTY (though not resistant to Harrington's talent) was much sloppier about just getting it "in the can" and moving on. And the viewer could certainly feel that watching the two programs. But then Katzman, for all his flaws, was known for being preternaturally organized. The DALLAS actors praised him for the production being so tight that they often drove home while the sun was still up -- almost unheard of for series TV. The extra time created by that kind of organzation must allow for a greater amount of polishing in terms of the performances, etc... Indeed, the word "organization" is the one I often see when casts and crews talk about film sets where everything seems to work, including artistically, as opposed to ones where it doesn't. The Shapiros described DYNASTY as "very organized" too, but I'm assuming that referred to things which didn't affect the quality of the scene -- at least during its middle years. If they had a very good director like Harrington who could do his shtick in proper time, it could go well. Otherwise, though, we got the usual clunkier stuff which tended to feel so amateurish. George Hamilton gave an interview where he said the producers seemed only concerned with wardrobe and the "look" of the actors, and his questions to them about character "motivation" and how to play a scene fell on deaf ears. Not that I've ever really seen Hamilton play anything differently from role to role. lol DALLAS' Leonard Katzman, of course, hated Harrington's work and told him so. Finally, Snarky posted this documentary: A week later, I added this post: Last night I saw the first of 5 episodes of THE COLBYS Curtis Harrington directed (102, "Conspiracy of Silence"). In addition to being beautifully directed, I thought the episode had several fine director's touches, such as the closing scene. As Jeff gives Fallon back the jewelry she was forced to pawn Miles appears for a brief second in the background and hastily exits. Jeff himself then exits the room blissfully looking at Fallon one last time, the audience expecting him to come face to face with Miles. On the other side, neither Jeff in his state of bliss nor the audience can yet see Miles and the mellow score (by Angela Morley) gives no indication of trouble. Then the camera steps backwards to reveal Miles (whom Jeff still can't see for a brief second) and the score turns ominous. I also loved the closing section of Morley's score (which was savagely butchered in German dubbing) giving the conflict the tone of an honorable duel between the two men.