MovieChat Forums > Rhoda (1974) Discussion > Harper on 'Rhoda's divorce'

Harper on 'Rhoda's divorce'

posted 12 years ago by pvd295
33 replies | jump to latest

Just finished reading Harper's memoir, and she gives the details on Rhoda's divorce.

According to Harper:

In it's earliest stages, the format for 'Rhoda' was going to be very similar to 'MTM'. 'Rhoda' was going to move to Manhattan and take a job at a publishing house: similar to Mary in the newsroom. She was to remain single and dating, and have Brenda as her frumpy side-kick, with her meddlesome mother interfering from time to time (the 'Phyllis' role on the series?).

The producers (same team behind MTM for the first few seasons) then realized they weren't on a mission to recreate the MTM show, they were there to spin-off Harper and give her a different life. So they decided to marry her off rather quickly (in 8 weeks) and make her a business woman with her own design studio.

Harper says that unbeknown to her and the rest of the cast, the writers were struggling with good story-lines by the end of the first season. They didn't have to write for a 'married couple' before, and never realized how hard it was. They decided back then - before the end of the first season - that they would have to divorce Rhoda (again, none of this was told to the cast) so they could do what they dd best - write for a single woman in a big city.

Within the first few weeks of S2, the writers realized they had a problem - Rhoda was married, and she was no longer 'funny'. They could write much funnier lines for her as a single woman. They decided back then they had to make her single again. (Harper does say she noticed that quite a few of the storylines in S1 and S2 were focused on 'Brenda', since she was the single girl and the writers had no problem developing stories for her. She claims she didn't mind, since she wanted costar Julie Kavner to shine in her role, since she was a gifted actress). Again, the cast did not know what was going on 'behind the scense' in season 2. The problem was, how do they make her single again? Kill of Joe whom the audience loved...or have her get divorced?

Harper says:

"Rhoda was funnier and free-er without Joe. Rhoda's divorce literally rocked the land of television. There had been divorced characters on television before, but never the stars of a show.... It was a gutsy move by CBS." *

She then goes on to say Groh was completely taken aback by it...he had just bought a new home in Hollywood, feeling secure about his job on RHODA. She wished they never got rid of him, and she did everything she could to keep him in.

* Did you read that, gbennett? Goes back to Vivian Vance's character on TLS - and what I have been saying all along about a star of the show not being divorced until then (though Harper is mistaken since 'Fay' was divorced in 1975 on NBC).

"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand

[–] gbennett5 12 years ago

First of all, Harper isn't an authority on the history of TV - she
merely wrote her autobiography. I love her, but she is not a TV
historian, is she?

Second of all, I don't disagree that breaking up Rhoda and Joe shook
up the show. And, to me, it was a HUGE mistake (the notion that
Rhoda was "no longer funny" when married is absurd). The first two
seasons - while she was married - ARE UNDENIABLY SUPERIOR to the
last two. Fans would be hard-pressed to argue otherwise. The show
STANK when Joe left.

Certainly doesn't say much for the writers - or their self confidence -
if they couldn't "write" for a married couple, when THAT'S EXACTLY
WHAT THEY DID for two years. Ridiculous.

In the end, Groh had the last laugh.

And, sorry, it was much braver to have an already divorced co-star
in the power of Vivian Vance in 1962 than it was to have a divorced
star of a TV show in '75. CBS head James Aubrey okayed a much
bigger thing in the former. The world was a much different place
in '75 than it was in '62.

Cute that you felt checking out Harper's book from the library would
somehow sway your argument. It didn't sway me.

[–] pvd295 12 years ago

I didn't check out Harper's book from my library to sway my argument. I have much more important things in life right now than to sway an argument on IMBD. The fact is that I had Harper's book on request since she was first prmoting it back in January, and I was notified that my request was filled (and at my library, even with my being a staff member now, you have exactly five days to pick it up - otherwise it get's pulled for the next person). So Monday was the last day for me to pick it up, and I did...and I read it in two days since it's not a 'tough read'. Two chapters are devoted to her series 'Rhoda', and I found that particular passage relevant to what our discussion has been on the board.

I don't know if I would call Harper a TV historian or not, but I would say she is probably the best authority to go to when discussing the series/character 'Rhoda'. Being the character who 'rocked the world of television' in 1975-76, I would say I tend to believe what she says rather than anyone trying to make Vivian Vance's supporting character more important than what it actually was in the 1960s.

Speaking of Vance's character Vivian Bagley on 'The Lucy Show'... If I remember correctly, she also had a son on the show, so she was a divorced single mother, raising a child. By your calculation, this would make her the first starring character to be a divorced, single parent on TV. This means, all the obituaries on the late Bonnie Franklin, who was credited as being the first divorced character in a single-parent role, were obviously wrong? All the history written on that show since it's premiere in 1975 - that Norman Lear broke ground and gave us the first single, divorced mother to star in a show - is wrong? Absurd.

As far as the writers go, yes I do believe what she is saying - it was much easier for them to develop funnier story-lines and better scripts for a single woman in the big city, than it was to write for a married couple. It has nothing to do with self-confidence, but everything to do with experience.

They had a well-crafted experience writing for two single women in a big city by then ("Mary" and "Phyllis") and that was their 'specialty'. Writing for a married couple is more of a challenge, and has it's limitations...which the writers were not used to having. It's the same when producers bring in a child, and the writers don't know what to do with a couple and a newborn. The couple now has limitations, and they writers are not used to writing within those parameters (so they start giving better story-lines to the supporting cast, who do not have children).

I thought it interesting that because Joe was such a beloved character, they wouldn't kill him off and make Rhoda a widow....he still lived on in Manhattan somewhere. They did kill off John Amos' character 'James' in 'Good Times' that same year, though. 'Florida' became a widow. I guess he was not as 'beloved'.

"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand

[–] gbennett5 12 years ago

Look, YOU'RE the one who goaded ME ("Did you read that, Gbennett?"),
so, yeah, it kinda smacks of you grabbing the Harper book to sway
your point. True or not, you painted yourself as doing just that.

But WHAT exactly is your point? Our ORIGINAL argument (reread the posts,
friend) was my disputing that "Fay" was more "groundbreaking" in
starring a divorced character. It was 1975 and that was harldy
earth-shattering. You're trying to "split hairs" (once again) by
stating TLS was less groundbreaking because Ball got top-billing over
Vance.

I'm not buying it.

It was a bigger deal that Vance's Vivian Bagley was the co-star and
she was playing a divorced, single mother of an alert ten year-old
boy who saw his mom openly dating other men. THAT was groundbreaking.

Why you can't get that this is beyond me. It simply, quite factually
is. We had just come out of the world of "Donna Reed" and "Ozzie
and Harriet." "Fay" came AFTER "All in the Family", Vietnam and
the loss of the social movement to the Republican party (Nixon/Ford).
(for someone so hung up on politics, I can't believe you don't take
these and other social facts into consideration. You need to brush
up on your Shakespeare).

As for "One Day at a Time" (a show I loathe, but that's beside the
point), yeah, the obits may be TECHNICALLY correct - Franklin DID
get top-billing, but that show was hardly earth-shattering either.
It also wasn't a particularly great show and it has not aged well.

Like it or not, Vance's character was FIRST.

As for the writers of "Rhoda" (charlotte Brown, etc.), they can
pine about the difficulties in writing for "couples" forever. This
doesn't change the fact that the series' best years were WITH Joe,
not after. Harper seems to have a fuzzy memory here. I guess
it's been awhile since she's seen the painful image of Anne Meara
as her "stewardess" pal. Awful. Had the producers been smart, they
would've brought Joe back to the show for a couple of episodes at
the end. It would've brought in some ratings.

[–] pvd295 12 years ago

But WHAT exactly is your point? Our ORIGINAL argument (reread the posts,
friend) was my disputing that "Fay" was more "groundbreaking" in
starring a divorced character. It was 1975 and that was harldy
earth-shattering. You're trying to "split hairs" (once again) by
stating TLS was less groundbreaking because Ball got top-billing over
Vance.

That is the point that I have made, and Harper makes in her book. Sure, there were other divorced characters on TV shows, but none of the characters were the star of a show, as Rhoda was. I know you see it differently, but Vance was a supporting player on TLS - she was not the star of the show.

Which makes me wonder....

Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz were probably the most famous divorced couple in the world at that time, since everyone watched them as a married couple for so long. By the time 'TLC' came around in 1962, the world 'accepted' the fact that Lucy was divorced (even though it was still a big taboo in the US) and moved on.

So why is it that in 'The Lucy Show', and years later in 'Here's Lucy', did she play a widow, and not a divorcee? Even in her last ill-fated sitcom 'Life With Lucy' (1986) she played a widowed grandmother, not a divorced grandmother. I wonder why? Can't be just a coincidence....

"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand

[–] gbennett5 12 years ago

There may have been divorced characters "on other shows", but NOT
before TLS.

Surely, you must realize that they could've made Vivian a widow as well.
And it would've worked. This would've bonded the charcters of Lucy
and Viv and made their situation warmer.

All I'm saying (over and over and over)is that - to my knowledge - no
other co-STAR in a situation comedy was divorced before Vivian Bagley.

And Lucy and Desi's divorce hardly affected this. TONS of TV/movie
stars divorced. Multiple splits/marriages have been part of Hollywood
history since the dawn of time.

And I'm not trying to give TLS more credit than it deserves. As I
wrote, I never cared for the show, although I think the first two
years were its best. Poor Lucy didn't know when to quit. She was
a comic pioneer in 1951 and totally out of touch with TV in 1971.
While MTM, "Family", "Bob Newhart", "Maude", etc. were doing fresh,
innovative shows, Lucy was doing her old, tired schtick. Lucy
was art in '51; a true cornball in '71. Sad, considering the legit
genius she was (there have been sitcoms as good as ILL, but no single
performer has come near her).

We should change our names to Siskel and Ebert. We can do our own
show and argue like they did!

YOU can be the fat one.

[–] SimplemindedSociety 12 years ago

I don't know if it's me, but I don't understand what the big-assed deal was about. Being married/single made that much of a difference with the writers?

They were writers,and only knew how to write for "single" women? If Mary Richards was married,there would still be plenty of story lines within her work enivonment. Lucy was funny without the need to be single,as other TV characters. Wasn't Maude,Emily Hartley and Gloria Stivic married?
Even back when this occured, I was getting tired of of hearing about the writers' big problem. Get new writers then.

re: Lucy

She was different by the time Here's Lucy came around; more subtle with only an occasional return to slapstick. I didn't see Lucy Carmichael and Lucy Carter as the same character at all. That is why I had to make myself watch Here's Lucy,as if to not miss anything funny--which I usually didn't. I don't equate TLS with Here's Lucy; the best moments went to obnoxious Gale Gordon, with Lucy seemingly going through the paces.

Also, Lucy was only in her mid 50's during TLS,so I didn't find it an embarassment or that she was to old for the show.

[–] gbennett5 12 years ago

For me, the art of Ball ends with "I Love Lucy." Even the Lucy/Desi
Comedy Hour was fairly terrible.

To each his own.

[–] SimplemindedSociety 12 years ago

'Even the Lucy/Desi
Comedy Hour was fairly terrible.'

--------------------
We are in 1/2 agreement; the Lucy-Desi Hour was unwatchable, but TLS was better with Ball winning Emmy's in 67',68',which I don't attribute to sentiment,especially since they could have awarded her for only one of those years.

[–] gbennett5 12 years ago

I don't feel Ball deserved those Emmy nominations, much less winning them.
But she carried a TON of power in the industry. She made a lot jobs, and
could fire a lot of people. So, we only agree that it wasn't sentiment.

Ball was nominated against Elizabeth Montgomery, Barbara Feldon and
Marlo Thomas, all three of whom were doing fresher work. Lucy, meanwhile,
was doing the same script every week: some movie star comes into the
bank and she somehow messes up their life, then performs with them in
some benefit at the end.

Yawn.

There was no nuance in Ball's work. She read her lines off cue cards,
then barked them at the audience. The genius that was evident in ILL
was so longer visible.

Have you ever read the notable book Desilu? It was published again
in '11 and goes into great detail about Ball's artistic decline, as
well as the writing. Arnaz himself told her she needed different
and fresher writers.

I am aware the ratings were still stong. Americans loved Lucy - good
or bad. She really didn't need to grow as a performer, and therefore
she didn't.

ILL is the most durable comedy in TV history. In L.A., it still
shows on local stations. Young people know Lucy Ricardo. Only old-time
fans know Lucy Carmichael and Lucy Carter. Because the latter
two are from shows that are products of their time. ILL is timeless.
And so is Ball's work.

[–] SimplemindedSociety 12 years ago

I don't know if you saw the specific episodes(whatever ones they were)in which Lucy won those 2 Emmy's for. And some were better than others;the episodes with John Waye/Milton Berle,for example, were superior to the ones with other guest-stars
Aside from guest-stars, did you see the ones where when she got drafted in the army by mistake, ended up in jail, or became "drunk" with sleeping pills?
I agree about reading lines off of cue-cards on Here's Lucy,where she seemed half-committed and bored, but not with TLS. I don't know if Lucy was even nominated for the rest of Here's Lucy's run.

Having not been a viewer,may I ask why Hope Lange won twice in the late 60's?
Is is because she combined dramatic elements along with comedy? And wouldn't she have needed to, since Lange,while a charming actress, is not really funny? Do you think it's fair for a comedy Emmy to be awarded because the performer showed range with dramatic acting in a situation comedy?

I wish Ball had ventured into dramatic Tv films(not 'Stone Pillow')like the ones Bette Davis was doing. Whether she would had been good as Davis is questionable ,but incidental.

[–] gbennett5 12 years ago

Just because an actress is nominated for Best Comedy doesn't mean she
has to be "funny." At least not to me. She can be the best "straight
man" in that comedy. To me, it's all about acting. Too many performers
are stand-up comics, who put no emotion into their work. They can't
create a character; they just shoot out one-liners. Sometimes I can
handle it if the writing is unique and there's a great supporting cast
("Seinfeld"). Other times, I can't (Ray Romano, who is a dreadful actor).
I also thought it was absurd that Don Adams won two (or was it three?)
Emmys for his shtick on "Get Smart." I love the show, but mainly due
to his interactions with Barbara Feldon and Ed Platt. Adams said the
same corny one-liners over and over. His performance was hardly an
acting performance. Dick York was nominated only once for BW, but lost
to Adams, who had already won. York was a great actor. He infused
"Darrin" with much feeling and his comic timing was brilliant. He
should've won that year.

As for Lange, I don't get why she won twice either. She was a great,
great actress and she was very charming on the now-forgotten "The
Ghost and Mrs. Muir"...but TWO Emmys???

[–] SimplemindedSociety 12 years ago

'As for Lange, I don't get why she won twice either. She was a great,
great actress and she was very charming on the now-forgotten "The
Ghost and Mrs. Muir"...but TWO Emmys???'

-----------------
Yes, in 69',70'
The era of the The Lucy Show from 1962-1968 consisted of Lucy winning 2,Shirley Booth,2,Mary Tyler Moore, 2.

'was absurd that Don Adams won two (or was it three?)' Emmys for his shtick on "Get Smart."
-------------
Funny you mention stand-up; Smart stated his career by being a stand-up,and was of the 1st to have their own series

Could Don Adams have done that certain something so unique which could have netted him the Emmy's? Consider his characterization(and the voice) as the "bumbling yet intrepid secret agent". Who does that sound like? Columbo? Even though Falk did more acting on his show,I have to admit that I didn't understand why Peter Falk won so many times,unless the bumbling yet intrepid characterization was a significant factor.

[–] pvd295 12 years ago

They were writers,and only knew how to write for "single" women? If Mary Richards was married,there would still be plenty of story lines within her work enivonment. Lucy was funny without the need to be single,as other TV characters. Wasn't Maude,Emily Hartley and Gloria Stivic married?
Even back when this occured, I was getting tired of of hearing about the writers' big problem. Get new writers then.

I can understand where they are coming from. They found single female characters to be 'freer' and 'less constricted' withing the boundaries of marriage, and that was their 'knack' in the industry. (Obviously, writing for such single women as Mary, Sue-Ann, Rhoda, Brenda, Phyllis opened more doors for them). It's much funnier to write about single Rhoda and the experiences of the different guys she dates (whether on MTM or her own show) then Rhoda and the experiences of the guy she's married to. The premise of her being single and always looking for Mr. Right is a never-ending formula that always works in sitcoms.

As for Gloria Stivic, don't forget - when CBS brought her 'character' back to primetime in her own show "Gloria" (1982), she was single, not married. Once again, the premise of looking for Mr. Right....

"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand

[–] gbennett5 12 years ago

And don't forget...like the last two years of "Rhoda", "Gloria" STANK.

[–] pvd295 12 years ago

"Gloria" was CBS' last hope to cling on to the success of 'All In The Family', long after the show was 'done'. They then tried once again with the horrible concept of '704 Hauser' in 1994 (they even had a grown up 'Joey Stivic' in that one!) - anyone recall that dud? Don't worry if you don't...I think it lasted only two eps before being axed.

"All In The Family" is another prime example of changing a character, and the top-notch writers not knowing how to write for a change in character.

The writers had no problems writing for the married Archie Bunker while he was on 'All In The Family'. But when he became a widow, they didn't know what to do with him any more. He was no longer funny. (Opposite of 'Rhoda' - she was funnier single than married). The writers had a much easier time writing for the married character (and his differences with his wife) than they did as a single character and 'meeting new women'. (And the network and Carroll O'Connor truly believed, according to interviews back in 1980, that by killing off Edith, that would open up another new door for Archie Bunker...to be out in the single's world, once again).

The writers just didn't have 'the knack'.

"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand

[–] gbennett5 12 years ago

Come on, the show had become ancient and tired LONG before Jean Stapeleton
left the series (the shows where they "adopt" Stephanie are pretty bad).

For my money, the show was done when Mike and Gloria moved next door.
The central conflict was gone once the four were no longer living under
the same roof. And, as usual, the writers had to "jump the shark" by
bringing in the baby element.

[–] SimplemindedSociety 12 years ago

'Gloria" was CBS' last hope to cling on to the success of 'All In The Family''
-----------------
and also Struther's?
She couldn't wait to leave AITF, then returns doing the same character in a tv series. (she had to decline on the lead in DAY OF THE LOCUST due to her AITF contract)

[–] pvd295 12 years ago

Come on, the show had become ancient and tired LONG before Jean Stapeleton
left the series (the shows where they "adopt" Stephanie are pretty bad).

That is why the character Archie Bunker was spun-off into his own series "Archie Bunker's Place", which is the show I'm talking about. And in 'ABP', it was decided to make him a widow (since Stapleton didn't want to spin-off into the show with him), and they had trouble writing for a single Archie Bunker, and introducing him into the 'dating world'.

As for his original series "All In The Family", indeed that ran it's course - and I agree that it truly ended when they moved into the Jefferson's house next door (1976). It slowly went down hill from there (and let's not remember the pregnancy).

"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand

[–] gbennett5 12 years ago

You've got it backwards. The show would NOT have been retitled "Archie
Bunker's Place" unless Stapleton was leaving. It was called "All in
The Family" and that's the theme they wanted to continue - which is
why they adopted Stephanie.

Stapleton decided to leave (a sinking ship) in '79 due to overt boredom.
They renamed the series AFTER this fact. Stephanie remained with
the show, and they added in some stupid, pointless female characters.
Once again, even Anne Meara came on board, in a desperate attempt
to bring some fresh humor. Like "Rhoda", it didn't work.

"Not this morning, Jerry." - Barbara Stanwyck, Clash By Night.

[–] SimplemindedSociety 12 years ago

Notice Stephanie's often long listening-camera shots?

[–] pvd295 12 years ago

You've got it backwards. The show would NOT have been retitled "Archie
Bunker's Place" unless Stapleton was leaving. It was called "All in
The Family" and that's the theme they wanted to continue - which is
why they adopted Stephanie.

I've got it backwards? Check your notes again.

'AITF' ended after the 1978-79 season, and 'ABP' was spun-off from the original 'AITF" series in September, 1979. CBS, Norman Lear, Carroll O'Connor and others realized the original format (dysfunctional family in domestic situations) had run it's course, but the character of 'Archie' was still vital, and could work in another setting. Hence, they "spun-off" his character (as they were akin to do with other characters from their successful CBS comedies) - with Stapleton reduced to a supporting role - into 'ABP'.

Stapleton decided to leave (a sinking ship) in '79 due to overt boredom.
They renamed the series AFTER this fact.

Stapleton did NOT opt out to leave until the premiere of Season 2 of ABP (Sept 80). She claimed there was not enough for her character to do on the new series, since the focus of the spin-off was no longer on the characters' domestic life as a married couple. Lear and O'Connor viewed her departure differently, and had said it was a 'mutual' decision for her to leave between Stapleton and the network, since this would give the writers more opportunities for Bunker to explore as a widowed business man.

Stephanie remained with the show, and they added in some stupid, pointless female characters. Once again, even Anne Meara came on board, in a desperate attempt to bring some fresh humor. Like "Rhoda", it didn't work.

This part of your posting is true.

Like on 'Rhoda', they brought in a number of characters for the widowed Bunker to "play off" with throughout the remaining three seasons of ABP. A black housekeeper, a wealthy widow (Celeste Holm, wasted in this role), a Jewish business partner (Martin Balsam, wasted in this role), and the very unfunny Anne Meara as an alcoholic cook. All of these characters came and went throughout the series - sort of like 'throwing spaghetti against the wall to see which noodles stick'. None of them really did.

As with 'Rhoda', the workplace changed as well - it went from a 'neighborhood bar' to a 'neighborhood restaurant' (maybe to appease the 'family hour' censors of CBS?) to show the patrons dining out, and not just drinking.

'ABP' finally ceded defeat, admitting it was not as easy to write a sitcom for a single Archie Bunker as it was for a married Archie Bunker (opposite of 'Rhoda'). The show ended in March, 1983.

Notice Stephanie's often long listening-camera shots?

Not sure what you mean by that.

"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand

[–] SimplemindedSociety 12 years ago

<Stapleton decided to leave (a sinking ship) in '79 due to overt They renamed the series AFTER this fact.>

"Stapleton did NOT opt out to leave until the premiere of Season 2 of ABP (Sept 80). She claimed there was not enough for her character to do on the new series"
-----------------------
Doesn't that translate into overt boredom?

<Notice Stephanie's often long listening-camera shots?>

"Not sure what you mean by that".
---------------------------
Relatively long takes of Bribnois gazing(listening)while people were talking to her

[–] gbennett5 12 years ago

Yes, Stapleton was bored and said so.

And, yes, I do remember those overlong cutsie pie closeup of Stephanie.

"Not this morning, Jerry." - Barbara Stanwyck, Clash By Night

[–] gbennett5 12 years ago

I checked it out and, yes, your notes are correct.

You were right.

Whadaya know...there's a first time for everything!! :)

"Not this morning, Jerry." - Barbara Stanwyck, Clash By Night.

[–] pvd295 12 years ago

I don't know if I agree it was 'overt boredom' on Stapleton's part, or the realization that she was being 'under-used' and the sense that she was no longer wanted on the show (since the network, writers and O'Connor wanted the character of Bunker to 'grow' on his series - couldn't do it with Edith).

"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand

[–] gbennett5 12 years ago

I agree - you don't know. Because Stapleton WAS bored, yet O'Connor,
having seen his "daughter" and "son-in-law" take off, wasn't thrilled
when jean signed off. O'Connor only had the highest regard for Stapleton
and would've preferred she stay on to ABP.

Gee, PVD...And you were doing so WELL.

"Not this morning, Jerry." - Barbara Stanwyck, Clash By Night.

[–] Ariane1998 11 years ago

The show was not the same after Edith "died". The audience did not want to see Archie with any other woman, either. They loved Edith too much.

[–] PrometheusTree64 8 years ago

I don't know if it's me, but I don't understand what the big-assed deal was about. Being married/single made that much of a difference with the writers?

They were writers,and only knew how to write for "single" women? If Mary Richards was married,there would still be plenty of story lines within her work enivonment. Lucy was funny without the need to be single,as other TV characters. Wasn't Maude,Emily Hartley and Gloria Stivic married?
Even back when this occured, I was getting tired of of hearing about the writers' big problem. Get new writers then.

Yes, and RHODA was never as carefully cast or written with the nuance as THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW was.

There was a sense that after a promising first season, there was less potential in RHODA than its parent series, probably because they weren't really writing for the characters (except maybe Brenda, as Harper stated) like they did on MARY.

So RHODA just got tired really fast. And the viewer could tell it around, just as Harper says, the end of the first year. They were already getting a wee bit dry and strained.

The speedy marriage to Joe (which I'd heard was requested by CBS' Fred Silverman so the wedding could take place during November sweeps) didn't work, but the divorce felt even more forced and it obviously was.

Also, the scripts for the first season of even MARY weren't always all that brilliant (and they're the same ones who ran RHODA, right?) but MARY's first season benefitted from perfect casting, and a certain newness that MARY represented, a freshness. RHODA never quite had that in the same way. So as MARY ran on and became more layered and funny on a character basis, RHODA didn't at all -- it merely lost its identity fast.

Did David Lloyd ever write for RHODA? He, along with others, kept MARY growing and funny in its latter seasons, but this just never happened for Valerie's spin-off. And turning RHODA into a show about a single girl navigating the hands of disco lizards didn't help one bit.

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA

[–] InherentlyYours 8 years ago

Funny, the 2nd season was my favorite.

[–] Countryford 11 years ago

Vivian Vance's character on TLS was already divorced when TLS started.
Rhoda started off as single, met Joe, fell in love, got married, enjoyed married life, and then got divorced from Joe; all during the run ot "Rhoda".
So TLS may be the first show to acutally have a main character(although not top billing, was a main character of the show) that is divorced, wasn't Rhoda the first show to actually have the main character get divorced during its run?

[–] Blueghost 11 years ago

More likely it was believed that the nation needed a television show to help single women, or recently divorced women, deal with breaking up with a man and living in a major metropolitan center.

I'm pretty sure it was engineered, and not as spontaneous as folks are led to believe.

[–] leybell 8 years ago

Hey I won't be a thorn, I hope. Thanks for your ideas. I would love to hear what the writers themselves thought decades later just because we all know people don't tell the real story while it's happening when they know future employers are listening. I myself if on the staff and I was ordered by my superiors to get 'em divorced, I would have gone the mutual-sick-of-each other route --just to maintain the levity. It would not have been very realistic (more like Noel Coward) but it wouldn't have been the sad situation we watched unfold. Look what writers did with Golden Girls' Dorothy's ex husband, Stan. Even Ethyl and Fred on I Love Lucy seemed ready to separate at any time. I think the writers (I am an armchair analyst as most of of us are) were caught up in the gritty realism of the 70s and were sick of both exemplary Donna Reed(an excellent show) and the unreal Bewitched, Jeannies, Gilligan's I, Munster's/Addams' Fam, Bev HIllbillies, Green Acres. etc. A sad, real, divorce with wounds would appeal to writer types.

[–] pvd295 8 years ago

I agree - you don't know. Because Stapleton WAS bored, yet O'Connor,
having seen his "daughter" and "son-in-law" take off, wasn't thrilled
when jean signed off. O'Connor only had the highest regard for Stapleton
and would've preferred she stay on to ABP.

Not exactly. An older interview with Stapleton has recently been added to Youtube in which she discusses why she departed the show.

"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16 