OT: WLS's Claire Labine Interview

SOURCE: We Love Soaps
Monday, November 02, 2009
WLS: Claire Labine Interview
by Damon L. Jacobs

_{Photo from ryansbaronline.tripod.com}

Claire Labine’s accomplishments in the soap opera world are what legends are made of: She authored the Ryan family’s struggles on RYAN'S HOPE, Delia’s manipulative antics, Maxie receiving B.J. heart on GH, Robin testing HIV positive, and Dorian literally confronting and killing her family demons on OLTL, among many other memorable and groundbreaking storylines. She has also won seven Emmys [yes, that is the number “7”, plus two if you include Ryan’s Hope winning Outstanding Drama Series twice].

What isn’t well known are the stories behind the stories: The struggles, the fights, the times she battled, the times she gave up. In this rare and revealing interview, the amazing storyteller Claire Labine reveals the process behind her eloquent and wonderful craft. She’ll share her career highs and lows, and why you will never want to count her down and out.

In Part One, Claire discusses her writing process, reflections on her early career, and how mothering contributed to her understanding of soaps,

We Love Soaps: I am such an admirer of your work, I can’t wait to talk with you!
Claire Labine: Great, let’s do that.

We Love Soaps: We’re going to go over the shows specifically that you have written. But I’d like to start with a general question about your craft. How would you describe, “The Claire Labine writing style?”
Claire Labine: What I’ve always done was approach stories and subjects that delighted or moved me. Or seemed to me to have within them something of real value emotionally. I think daytime had, and I use that in the past tense, the capacity to illuminate emotional conflicts that people face in real life. And I think it was helpful. We certainly didn’t set out to preach or to make a character a role model of emotional honesty. That wasn’t the primary thrust. But the better characters we came up with did do that. You draw on everything when you write soap opera. The plots of great dramatists, your family and no friend is safe. Family and friends did find their way in [the shows]. It was fun.

We tried to get at the things that were motivating us to write what we would write. Paul [Avila Mayer] always wanted to be a member of a big family, and I’m referring now to Ryan’s Hope. I was an only child, and longed for it upon occasion. But I had a sensational grandmother and a wonderful mother. Maeve Ryan embodied for me elements of both of them. I think Mary Ryan, especially as played by Kate Mulgrew in the early years, was sort of the gal I liked to be, and the woman that Paul would like to hang out with.

Continue reading...

Claire Labine: (continued) There are two different disciplines, writing for an established show and creating a new reality. When you go into a show already established you have to try to respect the creator’s concepts for these characters and the basic relationships within the show and you really only have freedom to create characters when you bring in someone new to interact with the established folks. It is really hard, especially with a show that’s been on the air a long time, to capture the essence of the character as presented, so you’re not totally betraying the audience. And you have to make the established characters behave in a way that is familiar to the audience in an emotional situation with a new character. So you have to design a new character who can emotionally relate to established characters. It’s really very difficult to do.

We Love Soaps: Were you ever taught these concepts? Or did you learn them as you went along?
Claire Labine: We didn’t know anything about writing soaps! The only thing the two of us [Paul and Claire] knew about serials was that I was a great fan of LOVE OF LIFE. It’s because when I was nursing my babies—they were too big to nurse and hold a book at the same time. It just didn’t work. So LOVE OF LIFE was at 12 O’ clock, the same time as midday nursing. And I would sit down for a half an hour and watch television. I watched LOVE OF LIFE grow from 15 minutes to half an hour. I loved Van and Bruce and everything that was going on on Rosehill. Then my agent fortuitously got me an audition for three writing scripts on LOVE OF LIFE. That helped me to get in over someone who didn’t know what the show was about. I could make Van and Bruce sound like Van and Bruce.

We Love Soaps: And tell me about beginning on WHERE THE HEART IS.
Claire Labine: I loved the cast on WHERE THE HEART IS. Jim Mitchell played Diana Van der Vlis’ brother and Diana became a very close friend over the years. She was a marvelous actress and a great comedian. That cast also had Louise Shaffer who I have always admired vitally, not only for her acting ability, but for her writing skills. James Mitchell had such a great musical comedy career before his daytime gigs. I think he went to Palmer on ALL MY CHILDREN after WHERE THE HEART IS was canceled.

We Love Soaps: Also you had Rue McClanahan, Marsha Mason, Joseph Mascolo, Bernard Barrow, Brenda Benet...
Claire Labine: Yes it was an amazing cast. And in those days the backbone of acting on soaps was the theater. We always tried to accommodate actors who had stage gigs. It fed them, so they would come back with more adrenaline than they had to begin with. That had long been the tradition. You make it possible for someone to exercise their talent in as many ways as they can.

Claire Labine: Then on LOVE OF LIFE we had the invenerable Van and Bruce [played by Ron Tomme and Audrey Peters]. Trudi Wiggins came back to play Meg, who was Vanessa’ s wicked and wonderful sister. And we had Christopher Reeves in his first role, right after he came out of Julliard. He was a sterling individual as everyone now knows. But he was so earnest about it. He worked at acting, he had to work at acting, because he wasn’t that good when he started. But he was so good looking and as Mary Munisteri said, “It doesn’t matter, he’s so good looking, he’ll learn. I just want to turn on the television set and look at him!” And on top of that he was so sweet.

We Love Soaps: Now let’s talk RYAN'S HOPE. What in your mind made it such a success in it’s time, and still so beloved today?
Claire Labine: I think it’s the relationships in the Ryan family. We were trying to write the brothers and the sisters that wished we had had. It was easy to get into the fantasy of the big brother who sometimes is his own worst enemy. And Mary and her relationship to Maeve and Johnny. Initially Michael Brockman was the Vice-President of daytime and he got it, and he left us alone. After a few initial attempts to guide us in casting directions, we really said, “Listen Michael, we really want this to be a new reality and we don’t want anyone who has been on other soaps. [Laughs] Except Diana [Van der Vlis] and Michael Fairman [currently playing Murphy on Y&R], he had been on Love of Life and we loved his work. And Bernie Barrow had been around forever.

The actors were no small part of it. We were so lucky. They were so generous to the show, and they worked so hard. Helen [Gallagher] sort of set the bar. We had kids to who never been in a studio in their lives and had very little experience even on the stage. Then we had our old timers who were a little bit cynical and who had been around the track a few times. And Helen walked in with her two Tony’s and the respect of everybody in the building and said, “Okay, I’m a song and dance girl and I’m here to do the job.” She came every morning prepared. She was fearsome to the kids that were not. Anyone who had a scene with Helen really paid attention. And that was a gift to us. She is a gift to the world.

We didn’t cast for looks. We did cast for a certain familial style and appearance. I mean Kate [Mulgrew] could have been Helen’s daughter, they had the same sort of style. Siobhan could have been Bernie Barrow’s daughter. We lucked out with two directors Jerry Evans, and Lela Swift, who got it. They understood what we were trying to do.

We Love Soaps: And you were trying to do...
Claire Labine: We were trying to do the best kind of work that Paul and I could do. We were trying to write this thing with honesty and a deep commitment and a desire to get this right. And the whole concept of family is irresistible. The Ryan’s really did stand together. Every now and then there would be a run of six or seven shows that just dazzled us. Everyone had given their best and it all just came together. Daily drama is hard to write. It’s hard to sustain, it’s hard to invest in sometimes, you get exhausted. And you run out of ideas.

We Love Soaps: You mentioned you’re an only child. How did you understand the complexities between the sibling rivalries and competition amongst the Ryan children?
Claire Labine: It’s not real hard to imagine. Because I was an only child I loved being the center of attention. It was easy for me to imagine what it would be like if that weren’t the case [laughs]. But I wish Kate could have stayed, and Sarah Felder would have stayed as Siobhan. We could have gotten so much mileage out of the two of them. But Kate had to go. I said to her, “You have to go, you have to see what else is out there.” But it was a blow.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Please come back for Part Two in which Labine shares her struggles fighting with ABC, defending the cast of RYAN'S HOPE against the network, and how her understanding of Psychology contributed to the Ryan’s family struggles.

Soap's Hope: The Claire Labine Interview, Part Two

Tuesday, November 03, 2009 Posted by Damon L. Jacobs
In Part One of our interview with legendary soap writer Claire Labine, Ms. Labine shared her writing process, reflections on her early career, and how mothering contributed to her understanding of soaps

In Part Two, Ms. Labine discusses her battles with ABC, struggles with recasts, and the psychological underpinnings of the Ryan family.

We Love Soaps: You mentioned how strong the cast [of RYAN'S HOPE] was, yet three years into the show [1978] there were many people who left around the same time [Kate Mulgrew, Justin Deas, Ilene Kristen, Malcolm Groome, Catherine Hicks].
Claire Labine: When the first row of contracts were up, they did [leave]. Part of it was the network. Michael Brockman was no longer the vice president of daytime. There was no longer the hands-off policy. It was hard to protect the actors with the kind of pressure we were under, but we did the best we could, not always successfully. If they wanted someone replaced... the Frank situation was just ridiculous. He had to be recast so many times. I loved Andy Robinson as Frank [1976-1978]. He’s a marvelous actor, he can play anything!

We Love Soaps: Did the network want you to replace him?
Claire Labine: Oh yeah, that was a real knockdown, drag-out fight. They really put on as much pressure as they could. I think they were smarting a bit because of our “hands-off” policy. We weren’t very subtle about that. We weren’t good at network management.

Continue reading...

We Love Soaps: Why do you say that?
Claire Labine: There are people in the business whom I really respect who know how to do it without being confrontational. Paul [Avila Mayer] was pretty feisty. I tried to be diplomatic but I would get mad. “Why do you want to mess with this? If you want to write it, you write it. If you want us to write, let us write it.”

We Love Soaps: Who else did they want to replace?
Claire Labine: To this day, they had a fit about Ilene Kristen gaining weight, which she hadn’t. But she was on some meds, some steroids that was occasionally reflected in her face being fuller, but she hadn’t really gained weight. That was an ongoing battle, trying to protect Ilene from it, which we really couldn’t do. She had a telephone, and they could call her. There was Andy, who we really fought for, and lost. Siobhan, Sarah Felder, that was generated by the network.

We Love Soaps: That is a surprise to me. She really was one of the best performers that I’ve ever seen on soaps.
Claire Labine: She was absolutely wonderful. They started talking about her appearance. She wasn’t glamorous. I mean Marg Helgenberger managed to be both glamorous and Siobhan but that’s because she’s Marg. The original Faith, Faith Catlan, was our first struggle. She really embodied Faith the way we had envisioned her. Not incredibly glamorous, not traditionally beautiful. She was an intellectual living in her head until she had to admit to the fact that she had fallen in love with Pat [Ryan]. That was a hideous battle, but we ended up with Cathy Hicks who turned out to be such a charmer. And then Karen Morris Gowdy, who was a Christopher Reeves situation, except she learned so quickly and grew into the part. The first four weeks were very difficult. And then the penny dropped for her. I think working with Helen [Gallagher] helped. She gave up nerves, she gave up self-consciousness and became Faith. Then she left for personal reasons.

We were lucky, but it was a lot of recasting. The audience had to put up with a great deal. But they seemed to withstand the different Marys and the different Franks. And I think that was because the emotional structure of the family was at the core of it. The cast sort of became the Ryans. They all identified with their characters, quite fiercely. I don’t want to be specific, but a lot of the dramas that were on screen were being played out in the dressing rooms too. But that happens frequently on a soap. When two characters are antagonistic, the actors kind of ease toward that in their personal relationships.

We Love Soaps: In all of shows I have seen you do from RYAN'S HOPE onward, there is a consistent thread of Freudian themes in your work. Did you study Psychology?
Claire Labine: I was in analysis. I still am, actually. But Freud and the Greeks really had it right. I didn’t start with Freud. I started with the Greeks. And I’m still dazzled by the psychological insights of all of them. Talk about psychological insights into the worst in family relationships!

We Love Soaps: Did you ever actually have a class in Psychology?
Claire Labine: I think I had a basic class at the University of Kentucky. But Paul was a real Freudian. He had had a Freudian analysis. After RYAN'S HOPE was canceled, he just got fed up with whole business and went back to school at [age] 56, got his M.A. in Psychology, became a Social Worker, then trained some more in modern analysis, and finally became a psychiatrist. He was 56 when he started this, and was still working with patients when he died [on 7/10/09]. He loved it. And I learned tons from him. Freud had it so right about early childhood. My mother, who was about as Un-Freudian in training as you could possibly be, said, “They are who they are by the time they’re four years old.”

We Love Soaps: Did you ever study criteria for specific diagnoses?
Claire Labine: No.

We Love Soaps: It’s very interesting to me that your writing for the character of Delia in the 1970s was exactly the clinical criteria for what would later become classified as Borderline Personality Disorder.
Claire Labine: Oh, we knew Delia was Borderline.

We Love Soaps: And yet that diagnostic category was published until 1980, well after Ilene Kristen’s first portrayal of Delia had passed.
Claire Labine: It wasn’t in the manuals. But Paul’s mother was Borderline. The first time I ever heard the word was in reference to Paul’s mother. I can’t remember when he started using that phrase, but it struck me that was always how she had been. I’m surprised by the date of when this was considered an actual neurosis, that’s interesting.

We didn’t realize this about Delia until after we had been writing for her awhile. Even Paul didn’t realize that Delia was Borderline until after we had been writing her awhile. So many stories had been short-circuited from how we planned them originally by the fact that the network wanted Frank [Ryan] to live instead of to die [as originally written in the pilot]. So that changed a lot. But Delia’s stuff was fairly consistent. In her wanting to be a Ryan, she did terrible devious behaviors, and the next minute was all charm and light. I always felt Delia had manipulation forged into fine art. I had a phrase that we used, “manipulative candor.” Even when she spoke the truth she was speaking the truth for a reason because she knew what the effect would be. I love that character. She was so... so convenient! Because she could do almost anything. The audience was so marvelous about it because they hated her, and they loved her. It could have been, “Oh did you see poor Delia today? She had to put the baby in the oven and smothered it. Poor Delia!” We had a number of friends who thought Delia was based on them. And how they go to that I will never know because none of them were Borderline. She reflected the good and the bad in everybody!

EDITOR'S NOTE: Please come back for Part Three to read Claire Labine’s lessons learned from the cancellation of RYAN'S HOPE. We also discuss Prince Albert the Gorilla, Terry the Tumor, and the controversial killing of Edmund Coleridge.

Damon L. Jacobs is a Marriage Family Therapist practicing in New York City, and the author of "Absolutely Should-less: The Secret to Living the Stress-Free Life You Deserve". He has started blogging again at www.shouldless.com.

Soap's Hope: The Claire Labine Interview, Part Three
Thursday, November 05, 2009 Posted by Damon L. Jacobs

In Part One of my interview with legendary soap writer Claire Labine, Ms. Labine shared her writing process, reflections on her early career, and how mothering contributed to her understanding of soaps In Part Two, the Emmy winner discussed her battles with ABC, struggles with recasts, and the psychological underpinnings of the Ryan family.

Every great talent looks back at their career with some modicum of regret. But changing stories about gorillas isn’t always one of them! Please enjoy Part Three of the interview in which Claire Labine discusses controversial storyline choices on RYAN'S HOPE and GENERAL HOSPITAL, and her reaction to the criticism that her work is “too depressing.”

We Love Soaps: Looking back, in your words, what happened to RYAN'S HOPE? How did it go from being this cherished and protected...
Claire Labine: It wasn’t though. It was never cherished or protected. After 1980, we had the George Steinbrenner New York Yankees relationship with the network which was, “You’re fired. Oh, you’re hired! Oh we quit. Oh, please come back. No. Then we’re glad we fired you the first time. Please come back...” That went on for quite some time.

I would say network interference and pressure from other shows that wanted the time slot [is what happened to it]. And the loyalty of the network to those other shows and rightly so. Ms. Nixon had made that network so much money you couldn’t even begin to count it. When she wanted something she generally got it. And what she wanted was the time slot [for LOVING]. That made a difference. And the writing changed to a considerable degree. I knew when Eleanor [Labine] and I went back in 1987 it was going to be canceled. I knew from people highly placed in the network who were fond of me. They said, “Don’t get messed up in that again. It’s going down. It’s inevitable it’s going down.” And that actually was my motivation. I didn’t want it to go off the air in the condition it was in.

Continue reading...

We Love Soaps: Knowing what you know now, is there anything you would have done differently on RYAN'S HOPE?
Claire Labine: I would have done thousands of things differently.

We Love Soaps: Can you tell me what some of those are?
Claire Labine: I would have been much more tactful with the network. I would have tried to have handled that better, and not been so confrontational. I tell you what would have really have helped. In about 1980, when we sold it [to ABC], if they had said, “Take a year off. Come back in a year. We’ll handle it,” I could have gotten that, I think. But I was afraid to let go of it because I felt like the sharks were circling. But that would have helped, because I was bone tired. And I think I would have been more collaborative, which I later learned to do with Matthew and Eleanor [Labine]. They would call me on it, and they would say, “Mom, you can’t do it all, you shouldn’t do it all, and if you think we’re competent then let us fill in the blanks.” That really worked on GENERAL HOSPITAL. You’ve got to let the people working with you feel it’s theirs too. Paul and I did not initially do that, except with Mary Munisteri.

We Love Soaps: How about creatively on screen? Anything you would do differently?
Claire Labine: In terms of story? Yes. What we referred to as “Terry The Tumor,” which was Tom McGreevy’s character Tom’s departure from the show. I would have done that differently. It was far-fetched. Also, everyone always sites Prince Albert the Ape story as a mistake. But I’d do that again! I loved those scenes. It was a story about alienation. It was Delia relating to the one persona that she could relate to at that point. We were quite fascinated by all the ape research that was in the era when that was first being explored. We were really interested in that. So I’d probably try to do that again.

We Love Soaps: What about the killing of Baby Edmund Coleridge?
Claire Labine: Yes, I would do it again, though maybe differently. Though we swore we never kill another baby because people were so outraged. But Nancy Addison in the drug story that came off of it did some of the best acting of her whole life. She was unbelievably good. And there was some reason why we didn’t want the baby, and I can’t remember what it was. It was a practical reason, but I can’t remember. We had Little John on the show, that was certainly an argument for keeping him alive. If the show had been on the air as long as some of the others he could have come in very handy as a rival to Little John. We would seriously examine the concept of not killing him had I to do it all over again. But I still think weighing everything we still would have done it again.

We Love Soaps: When you came back to write for GENERAL HOSPITAL, was ABC supportive this time?
Claire Labine: Oh my God they were wonderful. Mickey Dwyer-Dobbin was the head of daytime. And she and Wendy [Riche, EP of General Hospital] agreed to turn us loose and not to interfere. And Wendy backed us up. If we said we wanted it, she would stand in front of a truck and get it for us. And we loved working on that show.

I loved that cast. There wasn’t a bad apple there. The whole Lois/Ned thing just delighted us. When we took on forays into melodrama Wendy produced the hell out of it. I was talking to someone last night about the heart transplant story and the impact that had with the Organ Donor Association. There were a huge number of volunteers after that story ran. We were so happy to do that story. Monica’s breast cancer story was another one. We got an award from the Susan G. Komen program [in 1995] that does breast cancer research. They had a big award thing in Dallas. Lucy Baines Johnson presented me with the award for that story. Her mother had just recovered from breast cancer. And she said to me on stage, “I said to my mother ‘you have to come watch this’.” They watched the story together. And [Lucy] said, “I sat there and watched my mother cry.” And I said, “I don’t want to make Lady Bird cry, I love Lady Bird Johnson!” That meant a great deal to me.

And then the AIDS story. That was before the cocktail. That came up at the very end of it [before the current medications were available]. So I couldn’t bare to watch it. I don’t know how they handled it with Robin. I couldn’t. It was too painful. We really had invested in those characters and it’s hard to go back and not know what they’re up to. It feels like abandoning your children. I didn’t watch after I left, and I don’t know how they played it out with Robin. It was certainly there to be used. We left it there to be used in an ongoing honest way.

We Love Soaps: You certainly made your mark on the show, and I mean that in the best way possible. Those years you wrote for GENERAL HOSPITAL are some of the best in my 38 years of soap viewing. You did use the daytime genre to illuminate not only the social issues, but the psychological issues that underpinned their motivations.
Claire Labine: We tried.

We Love Soaps: But many at the time were very critical of you, and considered the show to be “too depressing.” What do you think of that criticism?
Claire Labine: That’s ridiculous. If they were paying attention, Wally and Rena [Ned and Lois] were turning in some of the most complex and lovely character work which we desperately tried to make entertaining and funny. Ditto Kevin and Mac and Lucy. Hello out there? There was comedy going on!

But I’ve been hideously criticized. I love the audience, I respect the audience. but I’m not writing for audience, I’m writing for me. I’m writing what I want to see those characters do. And if the audience loves it, that’s great. I’m only doing what I can do. I can’t write in response to reactions to the story. And the bloggers, I mean, with all due respect, I love the fact that people get so involved and they have this whole huge network of commentary and criticism. That’s the way it should be. But don’t expect me to write in response to it. Because I can’t. It’s physically impossible since everything is laid out so far and in advance and you don’t go shifting pieces. Or you do, but it’s at your own peril. Besides which if it’s not in my psyche, I can’t write something I’m not feeling.

We Love Soaps: I never understood that criticism either. I always thought your work was balanced not only by the comedic aspects you mentioned, but all of the stories that we’ve talked about always had an inspirational message behind them.
Claire Labine: They did! We tried to. The degree of ignorance of AIDS in that era was stunning! People really thought you could catch it by shaking hands. I did feel impassioned about that story. I got the fastest approval for that story ever. We were at a retreat with Pat [Fili-Krushel, head of ABC daytime from 1993-2000]. We were at breakfast and Wendy said, “What we really need is a Romeo and Juliet story.” And it just came to me: “Stone is HIV positive and he and Robin become lovers and she’s infected.” Pat looked at me and said, “Can you really make a story out of that?” And I said, “You bet we can.” And she said, “Approved!” And she let us do it!

At the very end, just before Robin’s diagnosis, Pat called and asked, “Does she really really have to be HIV positive?” And I said, “Well, if she isn’t the whole story is pointless.” She said, “Alright, but this is breaking my heart.” I said, “Good! That what it’s intended to do!” So if it depressed people, I’m sorry. Was it what we intended to do? You bet!

EDITOR'S NOTE: Come back for Part Four where Ms. Labine dishes about life at GENERAL HOSPITAL, the pressures of continuing the Luke and Laura legacy, inventing Sonny and Brenda, and why Jason Quartermaine was given amnesia.

Damon L. Jacobs is a Marriage Family Therapist practicing in New York City, and the author of "Absolutely Should-less: The Secret to Living the Stress-Free Life You Deserve". He has started blogging again at www.shouldless.com.

This paragraph fascinates me. At what point should the audience reaction weigh in on the writing when storylines fail to ignite the audience? Or should a writer get to know their audience?

I loved, loved Claire Labine's years at OLTL. I think she is a writer that likes the dark --which works in small doses. Her stories on GH were dark AND well-written --but not enough light.

I think there is a fine line for writers --they must write from the heart and be true to character and story --and sell the book, the script and make people tune in for the next episode (of course the actors and producers play a huge role). If a writer is dictated by the whims of the audience or critics the story suffers and we get what we have in our politicians. Story must be planned with consequences and results in advance --I think Labine did this, RC not so much.

On the other side --the writing may be lousy or badly conceived and plotted. The writer may be misguided or not really be talented. I think this is where the producer must be aware --of problems and solutions. Work as a team.

There does come a point, however, when audience dissatisfaction MUST be taken into account, especially on a soap. Lose the audience, no show.

For me, if they write well for my favorite: all is well. Labine gave me Mel Hayes and Dorian Lord, one of the best couples ever in any soap or any show. I think she cared about Dorian; she explored her psyche, her reason for acting the way she did. I think the story, actually, should have been darker and crueler -the way it was, mom forces older sibling to hurt younger really did not work for me. Dorian fighting so hard to keep others from finding out required a darker and more meaningful reveal. JPF is ultimately responsible for the ending I think --the lead up was awesome -ending should have been more shocking and violent.

I would love for this woman to come back --if only to pen stories for Dorian.

I am dying to know what Labine actually had planned as an ending for Dorian's story before it was rushed to it's end by JFP. I think the writer needs to be a writer and the producer needs to be mindful of what's working with the audience to guide the writer if something is turning into a colossal failure.

Soap's Hope: The Claire Labine Interview, Part Four

Friday, November 06, 2009 Posted by Damon L. Jacobs
In Part One of my interview with legendary soap writer Claire Labine, Ms. Labine shared her writing process, reflections on her early career, and how mothering contributed to her understanding of soaps In Part Two, the Emmy winner discussed her battles with ABC, struggles with recasts, and the psychological underpinnings of the Ryan family. iN Part Three, Ms. Labine discusses controversial storyline choices on RYAN'S HOPE and GENERAL HOSPITAL, and her reaction to the criticism that her work is “too depressing.”

In Part Four, Ms. Labine dishes about life at GENERAL HOSPITAL, the pressures of continuing the Luke and Laura legacy, inventing Sonny and Brenda, and why Jason Quartermaine was given amnesia.

We Love Soaps: I have always said that I know I’m watching a Claire Labine show because the IQ points of all the characters go up, but the life expectancy of all the children go down.
Claire Labine: [Laughs] I like that.

We Love Soaps: The adults sound smarter but the children had better watch out. What is that about?
Claire Labine: Part of it is you end up having to recast, except for Jadrien [Steele, Little John on RYAN'S HOPE] who soldiered through until they decided to turn him into a teenager. You get into dreadful casting problems. The babies are not reliable as far as when they’re going to be screaming and when they’re not. A great example are the titles [of RYAN'S HOPE] with Maeve and Johnny in Central Park with Little John, swinging him around and holding him into a sunburst. And as you will note, Little John is positioned with his head turned away fro the camera. That was because he was red in the face screaming his head off! So here’s the idyllic scene, with Maeve and Johnny beaming at this child who is having a tantrum, holding him in mid air. So it’s the unpredictables like that. There was no editing in that day, and of course we used to inflict dogs on the cast too which is the ultimate horror. Dogs and children in the same scene is enough to give a producer a nervous breakdown.

When we killed off Edmund, we were in the studio. And [producer] Ellen Barrett said to me, “I want to show you something that they presented me with this morning.” Paul and I were there, and she leads us across the studio floor to the beach house set. And there, pinned up to side wall of the set, is a silhouette of a flying baby who clearly was blown through the wall when the explosion occurred. [Laughs] She shrieked when she saw it! Of course that was never on air. They had a rather grizzly sense of humor.

Continue reading...

We Love Soaps: Now back to GENERAL HOSPITAL. You were hired in 1993, then given the blessing and the burden of continuing the infamous Luke and Laura story.
Claire Labine: It was a blessing and a burden. I adore Tony Geary! That man is a fabulous actor, and I wish he would take the time to do some stage work. I saw him in one production in Los Angeles and he broke your heart and repelled you and made you love him all at once. And that’s of course his gift as Luke. He deplored what I did with Luke. But I thought there was great value in seeing the action hero try to be domesticated and try to live a normal life with wife and dog and child. And it just wouldn’t work because he’s Luke. But we couldn’t go off in wild fantasy again, because I don’t know how to do that. He loved the action adventure stuff. Wendy [Riche] would send me downstairs to talk to him when we had something she anticipated he wouldn’t like very much. I had to go into the lion’s den. And he was so gracious to me, he really was. I’m a great fan and admirer.

Eleanor [Labine] and I were standing on a street corner in New York before we took over the story. A bus went by that had a sign, “The Return of Luke and Laura.” and Eleanor [screamed], “It’s on busses! What are we going to do?” We hadn't laid it all out by that point. It was intimidating. I had always wanted to almost send someone over a waterfall, in terms of the old time movie serials which I adored as a child. The train was always approaching the heroine tied to the tracks and they were always threatened by going over waterfall. Wendy produced the hell out of that. It was great for that, and I think the audience really liked it too.

We Love Soaps: What was Genie Francis like to work with?
Claire Labine: She’s a gifted actress, particularly in that role. Genie Francis owned Laura in a way that few actresses have owned a character. She understood that character inside and out.

We Love Soaps: You also created the role of Sonny Corinthos.
Claire Labine: I didn’t create it actually. He had been on the show for about four weeks when we took over. I found the thrust for the character really detestable. I hated the stripper story. He was supposed to be feeding Karen drugs in order to get her to do it. By the end of the first week we had her throw the drugs in his face and then turn around and walk out. I can’t stand what I call Dickinsonian heroines who are dominated by someone else or fate, and fall down on the floor and swoon when things aren’t going well. I can’t stand it! We got that going and the Brenda thing was magical. After we saw them on the Valentine’s Day show, each buying a car, we knew that was pay dirt. We had a number of writers who really invested as well. It went well.

We Love Soaps: Since your leaving the show, Sonny has become the focal point of all the stories going on on the show. Was it ever your intention to make him such a leading man?
Claire Labine: No. He was the lead in his own story, but for better or for worse we tried to keep Luke and Laura at the center of all of it. We kept them connected to the Quartermaines, which as I understand have been dismantled.

We Love Soaps: Most of the Quartermaines have been killed.
Claire Labine: I didn’t know that. I am sorry about that.

We Love Soaps: You also wrote the original story about Jason Quartermaine’s amnesia, when A.J. crashed the car and Jason became brain damaged. What was your intention, where did you want that to go?
Claire Labine: I don’t remember. We just needed to shake Jason up a little bit, and that seemed like a good way to do it.

We Love Soaps: Was the actor [Steve Burton] asking for that?
Claire Labine: No. That actor is lovely. He was very non-demanding, and played wonderfully everything he was given.

We Love Soaps: Carly Roberts came on right before you left the show. Was she your creation or a different writer’s?
Claire Labine: She was ours. We left them really well set up. We really tried to leave the show with takeoff points. The next writer could choose the direction, but they had good springboards. And Carly was part of that, and so was Jax. I thought he was going to be a lot of fun. We left after his first few episodes. There was a lot set up for Mary Mae Ward’s family as well, but they chose not to take that path. That story with Mary Mae was one of my favorites. Rosalind Cash was one of my favorite performers. We had so much fun with that.

We also set up the Nurse’s Ball. The first one went over so well we realized we wanted to do it every year. The goal of the Nurse’s Ball was to get Lucy in her skivvies in a rational way by the end. We did three of them and I’m so glad I didn’t have to do a fourth, I don’t think we could have milked it any farther. But we all looked forward to that. We did Mary Mae as Gladys and the Pips, with Luke, his son, and Justus as the Pips backing her up. We would sit back and be so entertained!

We Love Soaps: Knowing what you know now, were there any stories on screen that you would have told differently or not at all?
Claire Labine: No.

We Love Soaps: Everything played out the way you wanted it to?
Claire Labine: Yes. We had so much fun doing it. When you can have that much fun and you really are appreciating the talents you have to work with and then you see it on there on screen, it’s really hard not to give them the best you can everyday.

We Love Soaps: Then why did you leave?

EDITOR'S NOTE: Stay tuned for Part Five in which Claire Labine describes why she left GENERAL HOSPITAL and her less enjoyable stint writing at ONE LIFE TO LIVE.

Damon L. Jacobs is a Marriage Family Therapist practicing in New York City, and the author of "Absolutely Should-less: The Secret to Living the Stress-Free Life You Deserve". He has started blogging again at www.shouldless.com.

I wonder what was so unpleasant about her time at OLTL. I adored much of her work --it was during her stewardship that I was engrossed --the magic of Mel and Dorian, exploring Dorian's past --I loved it.

As I recall, she never wanted to work for OLTL at all. She was under contract with ABC and was assigned there because they were in need of a head writer.

Wow, I didn't know that --I hope she liked writing for RS and Dorian --because I think she gave her some of the best story.

Soap's Hope: The Claire Labine Interview, Part Five
Saturday, November 07, 2009 Posted by Damon L. Jacobs

In Part One of my interview with legendary soap writer Claire Labine, Ms. Labine shared her writing process, reflections on her early career, and how mothering contributed to her understanding of soaps In Part Two, the Emmy winner discussed her battles with ABC, struggles with recasts, and the psychological underpinnings of the Ryan family. In Part Three, Ms. Labine discusses controversial storyline choices on RYAN'S HOPE and GENERAL HOSPITAL, and her reaction to the criticism that her work is “too depressing.” In Part Four, Ms. Labine dished about life at GENERAL HOSPITAL, the pressures of continuing the Luke and Laura legacy, inventing Sonny and Brenda, and why Jason Quartermaine was given amnesia.

Claire Labine won seven Emmy’s for her work on RYAN'S HOSPITAL and GENERAL HOSPITAL. So what happened when she went to work on ONE LIFE TO LIVE and GUIDING LIGHT? We begin to find the answers in Part Five of the interview.

We Love Soaps: So working on GENERAL HOSPITAL was such a positive experience for you and the viewers. Why did you leave in early 1996?
Claire Labine: We had a show in development and NBC was interested in it. We left in order to pursue the development with NBC. And then we discovered that it was not exactly their plan, and they were going with, what was that weird show? SUNSET BEACH. So that was it. We took it back to ABC and they were really, really interested. I had done a first version of it for Michael Brockman when he came back after I had left RYAN'S HOPE. He was about to greenlight it when he got replaced, rather summarily, to my great regret. And then new management was not really ready to think about a new show at that point. Pat [Fili-Krushel] was really interested in it but it was difficult to get her to take the leap. The show was set in Brooklyn, and Matthew [Labine] had this absolutely marvelous insight to tie Lois and Ned into the show because they weren’t using Ned [Wally Kurth] and [Rena Sofer] was gone at that point. But they decided to go instead with PORT CHARLES from Wendy Riche.

Continue reading...

We Love Soaps: Then you went to write for ONE LIFE TO LIVE instead.
Claire Labine: Yes. Loved the cast. Loved working there. Loved the control room. The cast loved us. Management did not, and had other plans. The ratings didn’t move. There was a great deal of network input which I felt was appropriate given the fact that they owned it.

We Love Soaps: You thought it was appropriate?
Claire Labine: Yes, it was appropriate. They owned the show.

We Love Soaps: But they owned GENERAL HOSPITAL too and they left you alone for that.
Claire Labine: They did! That was the difference. And the fact that Wendy so went to bat for us. She truly truly did. And she truly had the balls of a brass monkey. She would stand up to anybody if she wanted something and at that period of time she wanted it for us. She saw it was working, and she knew I had Mickey’s [Dwyer-Dobbin] backing.

We Love Soaps: As I mentioned earlier, one of the things I admire are the pervasive Freudian themes in your work. This was particularly present in your story telling of Dorian Lord.
Claire Labine: I loved that. It was gothic. It was baroque. And I loved Mel and Dorian right from the beginning. There was supposed to be conflict over him between Erika [Slezak] and Dorian, but that didn’t work from one of the performer’s points of views. So we thought, let’s just concentrate on Dorian and Mel. I found him to be an enormously satisfying character. I really loved bringing Dorothy [Mel’s daughter, played by Elisabeth Röhm] in. And I loved bringing Helen [Gallagher] in as his mother. It was such typical Helen! Elisabeth Röhm was a lovely girl, straight out of school. During the first day Helen was there in the studio, [Laughs] I saw Elisabeth coming down the hall. Helen’s dressing room door flings open and this arm reaches out and literally grabs her by the shirt. She said, “Come in here, we are going to rehearse!” It was as if an actor had been given the hook on stage, Elisabeth just disappeared! That was how she met Helen. That was very Helen, “We’re going to do this, we’re going to work at it.” She is a force of nature.

We Love Soaps: Were there stories you wanted to tell but didn’t get to tell on ONE LIFE TO LIVE?
Claire Labine: I could have gone on with Dorian and Mel forever. And Dorothy and that whole element of the show. Yes, there was a lot. Anyone in that cast could have had a wonderful story. One of the things I truly loved was writing for Roger [Howarth] and the one he offered the million dollars to.

We Love Soaps: Florencia Lozano?
Claire Labine: Yes, Florencia, who I think is brilliant. And I think Roger is totally amazing. There is so much talent connected with these things. You’re just in awe with what you are given.

We Love Soaps: Yes, the acting is great, but it has to be a mix of good writing too. I mean, your story about Todd giving Tea five million dollars to marry him in 1997 is still being played out, it was just mentioned this past week.
Claire Labine: Is it? That’s interesting. One of the things I remember most is Todd and the parrot. We relished that parrot. We loved him. We loved the idea of Todd having a parrot to talk to. There was one show where we were trying to get Todd into her bedroom. The parrot did a hop up the staircase, and her door was open, the parrot pushed the door farther open, jumped up on the bed, and spread his wings. She woke up to a silhouette of a bird of a prey standing over her bed and screamed her head off. Todd came barreling in, and there was all this sexual tension. Then there was the time the bird answered the telephone and someone was asking Todd for money. The bird just squawked, “Yes, yes.” It was totally outrageous, but really was fun. I could have gone on with the parrot for a long time too.

We Love Soaps: And GUIDING LIGHT?
Claire Labine: I’m not good at network politics. I’m terrible at it. There was a lot going on that I had no idea of. We were just trying to do it the best we could. And having to fight the good fight and then they fired us. Then they couldn’t get anybody to replace us and were they embarrassed! They had announced it. Mickey called me and said, “We are in a real mess. The people that we had lined up aren’t going to work. Would you consider extending?” I said, “Sure, I’m not going to leave you in the lurch, for heaven’s sake.” So we stuck around and they left us absolutely alone for a cycle. And on the last day of our stuff the ratings were the highest they had been in three or four years. By that time we were really invested in it because they left us alone and were having such a great time. We made it work. I loved it. I was really surprised [when we were fired again] because they hadn’t let on that they were looking or training or anything. I should have realized that if they were leaving us alone that they were really pursuing it. And that was the deal. We were only supposed to be holding on until they could find somebody.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Stay tuned for Part Six in which Claire Labine reflects on the highs and lows of writing for GUIDING LIGHT, the stories she loved, her experience with Paul Rauch, her feelings about Crystal Chappell, and the battles against focus groups.

Damon L. Jacobs is a Marriage Family Therapist practicing in New York City, and the author of "Absolutely Should-less: The Secret to Living the Stress-Free Life You Deserve". He has started blogging again at www.shouldless.com.

Interesting. I bet it was RS who put the kabosh on any conflict between the three --thank God --that is the one aspect of Mel -his relationship with Viki, that in many ways messed with my love of this couple --perhaps that is why I prefer Ray. I would NOT have liked that type of conflict.

I wish we knew what the real intent was for Dorian's story.

ABC needs to re-hire Claire Labine. We are talking about the last years of soaps. RC started out with Labine. He could truly use her help. FV should be advocating for her return, as well.

Soap's Hope: The Claire Labine Interview, Part Six
Monday, November 09, 2009 Posted by Damon L. Jacobs

In Part One of my interview with legendary soap writer Claire Labine, Ms. Labine shared her writing process, reflections on her early career, and how mothering contributed to her understanding of soaps In Part Two, she discussed her battles with ABC, struggles with recasts, and the psychological underpinnings of the Ryan family. In Part Three, Ms. Labine discusses controversial storyline choices on RYAN'S HOPE and GENERAL HOSPITAL, and her reaction to the criticism that her work is “too depressing.” In Part Four, the Emmy winner dished about life at GENERAL HOSPITAL, the pressures of continuing the Luke and Laura legacy, inventing Sonny and Brenda, and why Jason Quartermaine was given amnesia. In Part Five, she reflected on her stints on ONE LIFE TO LIVE and GUIDING LIGHT.

In Part Six, Claire Labine shares more about her struggles with GUIDING LIGHT and Paul Rauch, plus the absurdities of focus groups.

We Love Soaps: What were your favorite stories from writing GUIDING LIGHT?
Claire Labine: What I totally loved was giving some dimension to the bad prince, who was a wonderful actor [Edmund, played by David Andrew MacDonald]. And getting him connected to the little girl [Susan], the one whose father got crisped saving the baby [Jim], Edmund had totally understood her bouts of teenage rebellion, and totally won her over. She settled down under his influence. Then his wooing of Beth was so much fun. And I adored Harley. We kept trying to do a story between Justin [Deas], Maureen [Garrett], and the actor who played the brother...tall guy with dark hair who had a troubled history with the show.

We Love Soaps: Jordan Clarke?
Claire Labine: Yes. And they didn’t want to do it. The screen just came alive when we had Jordan and Justin facing off over Maureen. It was terrific! And nobody wanted to touch it.

Continue reading...

We Love Soaps: Why not?
Claire Labine: I don’t know! Because they were nuts! Because it was gangbusters. We couldn’t resist, we would just throw these scenes in to fill because we just wanted to see them all together because the chemistry was marvelous. And we had the profound satisfaction of sitting in on a focus session. I hate focus sessions. I said to Mickey [Dwyer-Dobbin], “Okay - one ear, that’s all.” It had one of those scenes at the tail end of another scene. It was one of those [focus] sessions where the audience has a button at the end of the arm of their seat. And they would press it and we could see whether they were interested. If the little line went up gradually, that meant there was growing interest in what was going on. If it went up dramatically, that meant there was a lot of interest in what was going on. We had pretty good averages for this show. Maureen was in the bar but not the focus. Justin was there. Jordan walked in and Justin gave him a look and this little graph shot straight to the top! It was the highest recognition of interest we had all day. But that “didn’t count.” The tester knew what she was supposed to say. She was smart enough to read where the network’s interests were and she was reinforcing them. It just made me kind of ill.

We Love Soaps: So even when they use focus groups, and those focus groups convey that they want to see an actor of a certain age, they’ll spin it...
Claire Labine: If the network is against it, forget about it. If the network has something in their head in the other direction, they’re going to do the other direction. I was tired of beating my head against a wall by that time.

We Love Soaps: What was it like to work with Justin Deas after so many years [Justin left RYAN'S HOPE in 1978].
Claire Labine: Oh, it was wonderful. I adore him. He’s just one of the best actors in the whole world. You could give him the phone book and he would make it work. If he decided it was going to be funny, it would be funny. And if he decided it was going to be a tragic phone book, then it would be a tragic phone book.

We Love Soaps: You were also reunited working with Maureen Garrett, who had been on RYAN'S HOPE [1981-82].
Claire Labine: She’s one of my all time favorites. I think she is a great human being and a wonderful actress. I would love to write for Maureen again. She has a farm in Central America! Somewhere. She’s spent a lot of time down there. I really would love to talk with her about that.

We Love Soaps: Your disputes with Paul Rauch were well discussed at that time.
Claire Labine: Were they? I didn’t know that. I was trying to be so discrete!

We Love Soaps: This was also when the internet community started discussing these things. What were the points of contention between you and Paul Rauch?
Claire Labine: Well, they weren’t fights. Paul is enormously charming. It was just disparate points of view. That’s really what it was. It was all about the material. It wasn’t personal at all.

We Love Soaps: Do you remember a specific example?
Claire Labine: Yes, the two princes, Jeffrey and Edmund. That was a bone of contention. But they had played that story for so long, there were no new beats in it, and I couldn’t figure out where to go with it without staying on that island [San Cristobel] forever. The whole thing baffled me. When there are too many cooks I get addled. If I can stay straight with an idea that has touched me and made sense to me... where I get in trouble is when people start changing it and I lose my direction. We go back to [the point made in Part Three] you have to write for yourself. You have to believe in what you’re writing if it’s going to have any resonance with the audience at all. That’s basically it for the Paul Rauch business.

We Love Soaps: You wrote for Crystal Chappell on ONE LIFE TO LIVE and GUIDING LIGHT.
Claire Labine: What a peach. What a peach! I think we succeeded in making that character [Olivia] more complex instead of just a bad girl with fangs. I loved her, and I loved the way Crystal played her. What an actress.

We Love Soaps: She is. In its last year, GUIDING LIGHT actually told a wonderful story of Olivia falling in love with another woman.
Claire Labine: Really? That’s neat.

We Love Soaps: And they actually ended up living happily ever after at the end.
Claire Labine: That’s lovely!

We Love Soaps: How about working with Kim Zimmer?
Claire Labine: She was a peach. She was a real trooper. She’s awfully nice, and she played to the hilt everything that came her way.

We Love Soaps: As you know GUIDING LIGHT went off the air a little over a month ago.
Claire Labine: Yes, that’s very sad. You hate it when a show is canceled. It really is a tremendous loss. I was totally detached from GUIDING LIGHT by that point but I really felt a pang and felt so sorry for them. It’s such a bunch of troopers. It’s sort of tragic. The idea of Irna’s first brilliant beautiful baby coming to an end, that’s tough.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Stay tuned for the final part of my interview with Claire Labine, where we discuss her life after Guiding Light, more details about the development that was turned down in favor of Sunset Beach and Port Charles. Plus she answers the question: Would you come back to daytime? You may be surprised by the answer!

Damon L. Jacobs is a Marriage Family Therapist practicing in New York City, and the author of "Absolutely Should-less: The Secret to Living the Stress-Free Life You Deserve". He has started blogging again at www.shouldless.com.

Soap's Hope: The Claire Labine Interview, Part Seven
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 Posted by Damon L. Jacobs

In Part One of my interview with legendary soap writer Claire Labine, Ms. Labine shared her writing process, reflections on her early career, and how mothering contributed to her understanding of soaps In Part Two, she discussed her battles with ABC, struggles with recasts, and the psychological underpinnings of the Ryan family. In Part Three, Ms. Labine discusses controversial storyline choices on RYAN'S HOPE and GENERAL HOSPITAL, and her reaction to the criticism that her work is “too depressing.” In Part Four, the Emmy winner dished about life at GENERAL HOSPITAL, the pressures of continuing the Luke and Laura legacy, inventing Sonny and Brenda, and why Jason Quartermaine was given amnesia. In Part Five, she reflected on her stints on ONE LIFE TO LIVE and GUIDING LIGHT. In Part Six, Ms. Labine shares more about her struggles with GUIDING LIGHT and Paul Rauch, plus the absurdities of focus groups.

In the final part of our interview, Ms. Labine discuss her life after GUIDING LIGHT, and offers more details about the development deal that was turned down in favor of SUNSET BEACH and PORT CHARLES.

We Love Soaps: How is your health?
Claire Labine: It’s improving rapidly. I had a period in which all hell broke loose. I think I was just overtired. But it’s all coming together now. And the physical therapy, while really draining, has been startling. I am astonished by how much better things are. I trust they will continue to be. It’s sobering to all of a sudden have physical limitations and think, “Oh my God, what’s going on here?” Whatever it is, I know I won’t be able to stay awake all night anymore just because I’m interested in what I do. [Laughs] No more all-nighters.

We Love Soaps: After GUIDING LIGHT, what did you do professionally?
Claire Labine: Matthew and I worked on a lot of stuff. I took some time off. At that point, I thought I'd never want to do this again.

Continue reading...

We Love Soaps: Because?
Claire Labine: It was just too frustrating. If I couldn’t start a show... I had given up on the idea of being able to help a show that was up and running. I just didn’t know how to do it.

We Love Soaps: Because of your experiences with ONE LIFE TO LIVE and GUIDING LIGHT?
Claire Labine: Yes. I clearly was doing something wrong and I don’t know what it was. You get tired after awhile. If you say, “This is what we want to write and this is why we want to write it, and this is why we think it’s good,” and then there isn’t a positive reception, why beat your head against a wall? That’s basically where I am with the whole thing. We did a couple of developments that I love but nothing has happened so far. There’s one that has some life in it I believe, but we’ll see.

We Love Soaps: Can you tell me about that one?
Claire Labine: No. I’m sorry.

We Love Soaps: Okay. Can you tell me more about the show that you and Matthew were developing at the time you left GENERAL HOSPITAL?
Claire Labine: It was about two families in Brooklyn, a white family and a black family. The black family was a family of musicians based loosely on the Marsalis family, all of whom were jazz musicians in one way or another. Then there was a madcap radio talk show host who fell in love with one of the daughters of the entertaining family. It basically was about the common wall between the brownstones, how to preserve it as a symbol of why-can’t-we-all-just-get-along, and how these families came together. They liked each other, they respected each other, but there were real problems. It was fun playing the complexities. We laid out three years of story. It was called UNION PLACE. I still love it. I believe it would speak to the mood of the country right now. I regret that we didn’t get to write it a lot. Every time Matt and I look at it, it’s just alive for us. I doubt anyone will do it. But I love that one.

We Love Soaps: There are seven shows left on daytime television. If someone came to you now and said, “Okay, Claire, we may only have a year left on the air but for however long we have you write, you control it, you steer it.” Would that hold any interest for you at this point?
Claire Labine: Sure! Absolutely! But honey, that isn’t going to happen. [Laughs] That isn’t in the cards.

We Love Soaps: The hope that myself and many soap fans are holding out is that the internet is introducing a whole new wave of storytelling. Crystal Chappell, Martha Byrne, and Tristan Rogers are spearheading open-ended continuing stories and using the internet to tell them. It seems to be an opportunity for the writers to get back to telling the stories they want to tell. Have you ever considered writing for an internet show?
Claire Labine: Yes, we have. But that’s about it. Budget is a consideration. Production values are a consideration, although nothing really matters except the actors in a scene. Preferably there are two of them, and preferably it’s high emotional stakes. And you don’t need a lot of sets and stuff for that. You just need two good actors and good material. I think that would really be fascinating. I don’t know how to go about it, but I think it would really be cool.

We Love Soaps: Have you considered creating any of the projects we’ve talked about as web series instead of for television?
Claire Labine: No, we haven’t gotten into it. Although we may. There are so many things we can do, it’s mind boggling. It’s just getting enough energy and getting in contact with the right people to make it happen. And I think I’m about ready to attempt to something else. We’ll see.

We Love Soaps: Claire, I cannot thank you enough for your time.
Claire Labine: I’ve really enjoyed this so much.

We Love Soaps: I have always said as a person who loves soaps, and as a therapist, that soaps have the ability to do more to promote mental health and healing than any other art form.
Claire Labine: You’re so right! I think you are so dead-on right. And it’s so easy to do, because you get such good drama out of it.

We Love Soaps: You go to a movie for two hours and you watch someone go through something. But then you see Bobbie Spencer or Dorian Lord or Delia Reid go through something, people you’ve been with for years...
Claire Labine: And the pieces begin to fit together. I think people are capable of change and are capable of applying it. I think the best way to promote mental health is to give people role models, emotionally sound role models.

We Love Soaps: And hope. Not to be cliché but you have given so many, including myself, so much hope with your characters and your storytelling.
Claire Labine: That’s the nicest thing anyone could possibly say.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This concludes my interview with the legendary Ms. Labine. I can’t tell you what a privilege it was to talk wtih Ms. Labine, and bring her unique voice back to the readers of this column. I want to thank all of you for you comments and feedback. Please keep them coming.

Damon L. Jacobs is a Marriage Family Therapist practicing in New York City, and the author of "Absolutely Should-less: The Secret to Living the Stress-Free Life You Deserve". He has started blogging again at www.shouldless.com.