How different was this show for its Era? I'm not sure what political interest creator Linda Bloodworth had in making this show. I know she is a liberal and friends of the Clintons. At first, my guess was this show was to portray the "New South", and how far we have come since Reconstruction. But I thought later that was too simplistic a theory. I thought it might be an aim at having all lead female cast on a sit com. Not sure that was ever done before, except with "The Facts Of Life". Did anyone think it was different from your typical 1980's sit com? Several things date it quite a bit, but it does bring back that nostalgic feeling for a simpler time.
When you hear Linda Bloodworth-Thomason or some of the cast talk about 'Designing Women' now you would think it was the most groundbreaking show on TV. The blunt truth is, it actually wasn't. 'Maude' in the 1970's had opened up way more ground than 'Designing Women' ever did.
There actually wasn't any kind of 'magic' or big story behind 'Designing Women's creation. As it's been stated by Jarrod, Linda Bloodworth had previously created and written a Dallas spoof called 'Filthy Rich' which featured Delta and Dixie. She had also written a series called 'Lime Street' in 1985. In one particular episode of 'Lime Street', Jean Smart and Annie Potts had played criminal (comic) sisters. Bloodworth-Thomason had previously noted Delta and Dixie's chemistry (on Filthy Rich) and then saw the same with Annie and Jean on 'Lime Street'. She suddenly recognized the enormous potential of putting these four actresses in a room together and allowing them to talk. Bloodworth-Thomas then just went to the network and said she wanted to do a show with Carter, Burke, Potts and Smart. She had no premise or no characters. When asked by the network what these women would do Bloodworth-Thomason said "They could be designers?" and from here the descriptive 'Designing Women' appeared as a short cut.
Interestingly, what 'Designing Women' did create was the 'four woman' discussion. Today, this is used as a device on 'The View' and 'The Talk'. However, women on TV (in a collective group of differing opinions) had never (previously) been given a chance to just sit there and say stuff. It was very much Linda Bloodworth-Thomason who had wanted to see this on TV and knew those four cast members could pull it off.
Designing Women worked so well, because initially Linda Bloodworth-Thomason was writing scripts about all kinds of subjects that touched the characters in varying ways. For example, the early episode which featured Charlene being diagnosed with early signs of breast cancer was absolutely outstanding. It's been completely over shadowed by the AIDS episode, but this particular cancer storyline would have been unbelievably important to how women viewers dealt with cancer checks. Back in the 1980's more women (than today - where it still happens), were not being screened for breast cancer early enough. Why Linda Bloodworth-Thomason scripts were different (to other sit-coms) was due to the high amount of facts and statistics she would include in dialogue. Audiences were being fed accurate information via these women's comments.
As I have stated in other posts, Linda Bloodworth-Thomason later went on to abuse this creative freedom (somewhat) when she wanted her friend Bill Clinton elected. She begun allowing scripts (usually that did not have her name on), to be filmed that knocked republicans or made the democrats seem like saints. I was incredibly uncomfortable with the episode 'The Strange Case of Clarence and Anita'. This whole script was just out and out wrong. To take an official and legal matter and churn it up with such bias and then serve for public consumption, should not have been cleared for transmission.
Shows like 'Murphy Brown' had the delicate task of actually needing to wade into current affairs, simply because this was a news based sit-com. However, when 'Designing Women' did it (in the later years) it started to appear messy and foolish. The earlier scripts had tackled 'subjects' as opposed to news related matters.
reply
share
jarrodmcdonald-1
10 years ago
Good post. Another thing that fails with the Clarence and Anita episode is that it is so preachy it sort of forgets that the show is a comedy, or at least a satire. It is 25 minutes (not counting commecials) of pure soapbox. Linda does use the character of Alison as a counterpoint in the on-going debate, but Alison is often written (and performed by Julia Duffy) as a cartoon. And she is so extremely right-wing as opposed to being a moderate Republican that anytime she makes an argument the other characters and by extension the audience just rolls their eyes at her and doesn't take her opposing viewpoint seriously at all. So we can definitely say this is one of the most unbalanced and unfunny (yet topical) episodes of the entire series.
Going back to the original topic, how is Designing Women different for its time-- I would suggest that Linda (and husband Harry Thomason) did consciously make this program different from others of its era by using film (instead of videotape). If you compare Designing Women to most sitcoms from the 80s and early 90s, you will see it has a glossier, more polished presentation and the lighting is very flattering (shows that use videotape tend to have a yellowed, washed out look where you can see the performers' facial blemishes quite severely). But Designing Women looks beautiful and feels expensive, and it is obvious that a lot of money and care was put into its sets and costumes. Hearts Afire has the same sort of sparkle and so does Evening Shade. When you see these shows, the Bloodworth-Thomason trademarks are there-- from the writing and casting down to the smallest visual details and atmosphere.
reply
share
RoyalAllure
10 years ago
I actually think 'DW' is incredibly underrated, looking back. It dealt with almost EVERYTHING, it was a brave show. Seasons 1-5 are pretty much fantastic, with only a few bud episodes in each season.
You, a salty water ocean wave.
Knock, me down and kiss my face.
reply
share
ginda2000
10 years ago
Going back to the original topic, how is Designing Women different for its time-- I would suggest that Linda (and husband Harry Thomason) did consciously make this program different from others of its era by using film (instead of videotape). If you compare Designing Women to most sitcoms from the 80s and early 90s, you will see it has a glossier, more polished presentation and the lighting is very flattering (shows that use videotape tend to have a yellowed, washed out look where you can see the performers' facial blemishes quite severely). But Designing Women looks beautiful and feels expensive, and it is obvious that a lot of money and care was put into its sets and costumes. Hearts Afire has the same sort of sparkle and so does Evening Shade. When you see these shows, the Bloodworth-Thomason trademarks are there-- from the writing and casting down to the smallest visual details and atmosphere.
Actually they changed the taping format toward the end of Season 2, from the episode 'High Rollers' onwards it went onto film, prior to this the filming had been in the traditional style as was of the time.
Designing Women also had one of the most elaborate sets of any TV show. The Sugarbaker house (interior set) was designed by a very elderly man who had worked on some real life impressive architecture projects in the earlier part of the 1900's.
reply
share