General Hospital - NEWS ROOM

Posted by cherrycola at Thursday, December 03 2009 05:38 PM

I see two inaccuracies in his thinking. First, he implies tht soaps are not considered legitimate entertainment. I think if 60+ years of soaps is plenty of legitimacy. Second, he insinuates that his is the only "real" face in a "made up world". All movies are "made up worlds" (unless they are documentaries or biographies), and all characters are actors with "real" faces. As a corollary, he implies that he is so recognized and well-known that he would disrupt the typical viewing matrix. Not true. Not everyone knows -- or cares -- who James Franco is or would bother to walk across the street to meet him. Seems that Franco the GH character and James Franco have much in common in that they seem to think very highly of themselves. I've sort of enjoyed his guest stint, but his comments in this interview have dampened my appreciation for what is essetially not that interesting a role.

Posted by Julian at Thursday, December 03 2009 09:50 PM

WOW...I really think that you need to read Mr. Franco's remarks a little more carefully.

Here is what he actually DOES say:

"My hope was for people to ask themselves if soap operas are really that far from entertainment that is considered critically legitimate. Whether they did was out of my hands."

What he is actually saying is that he hoped that people would start to question the typical Hollywood point of view, which has always been that soaps are not really a legitimate form of entertainment. He is most certainly not implying that soaps are an illegitimate genre; rather, he is stating exactly the opposite.

As for his other statement:

"I disrupted the audience's suspension of disbelief, because no matter how far I got into the character, I was going to be perceived as something that doesn't belong to the incredibly stylized world of soap operas. Everyone watching would see an actor they recognized, a real person in a made-up world. In performance art, the outcome is uncertain—and this was no exception."

Well, he actually DID disrupt our suspension of disbelief, didn't he? Just as when Elizabeth Taylor came on GH, we knew were watching Liz, rather than Helena Cassadine--and now we know we are watching James Franco, rather than the artist known as Franco. His comments about the make believe world of soaps is not offensive, because even though we know Steve Burton plays Jason and Maurice Benard plays Sonny, we still think of them as Jason and Sonny--whereas with James Franco, we think of him as James Franco rather than his character. I see nothing either offensive or conceited about that.

I read another interview with James Franco yesterday. If memory serves, it took place at some Hispanic themed fund-raiser and when he was asked about his time on GH, he said that he had a blast doing it.

Posted by Marin79 at Friday, December 04 2009 06:25 AM

Julian, I believe you're completely correct in your interpretation of his comments. In no way is he trashing GH or soaps in general, he's doing quite the opposite. Perhaps his intent of joining the show as "performance art" may seem unusual to people, but that doesn't mean that it's also condescending. If you read about Franco that type of motivation is completely in line with many of the choices he's made -films like Howl, getting his MFA at Columbia, selling a book of short stories. I personally respect that he makes unusual choices because they seem to make him happy. He's the complete antithesis of typical packaged Hollywood stars & it's refreshing.


And, cherrycola, *plenty* of people would bother to cross the street to meet him. Fortunately, he lives in NYC where most of us wouldn't bother him out of respect for his privacy, but trust me, most would want to. And I've been to a talk he did - he's not full of himself. He's very passionate and earnest about his interest in writing and art. Nothing about his demeanor suggested any condescension towards other. I believe you're being the judgmental one, not Franco.

Posted by Soapslady at Friday, December 04 2009 12:22 PM

I have no idea who this actor is outside of this role. Elizabeth Taylor had decades in films, etc. before appearing on GH. And who is to say what legitimizes any form of art? Is it ticket sales or popularity or something only to be understood by a few? Perhaps he is saying that he himself had never thought of soaps as being "critically legitimate." Having not read his complete article, I can't really tell if he believes he is deigning to grace us with his presence or if he merely sees this as a step in his need to express himself artistically in different ways. The fact that it appears in the WSJ online and not an entertainment rag might help explain the article's tone.

Posted by cherrycola at Friday, December 04 2009 07:16 PM

No...I think of them as Steve Burton playing the character Jason and "that guy everyone's swooning over who was in some Spiderman flick" playing...???. I've never been one to get the actor confused with the character.

I'm glad the rest of you are enjoying him, and I hope his presence boosts the ratings. I'm just saying I don't find him that big a deal and that the print articles I've seen haven't done anything to change my mind. Obviioulsy someone who is already a fan will come away with a more favorable opinion.

Marin, I'll take your word for it because you have heard him speak in person, which had to have been more nuanced and indicative of his demeanor than an edited print interview.

Posted by Julian at Sunday, December 06 2009 07:37 PM

That is my take on him, too, Marin, and I, too, respect an actor who makes unusual choices--rather than taking the usual Hollywood "super-star" route. In a way, James Franco reminds me a little of Richard Gere, back in the 80's when he became a break-out star after playing the lead role in American Gigolo. Richard was talented, sexy, and hot as hell (with all the girls and the women LOVING him) and after American Gigolo, he could have pretty much written his own ticket and could also have pretty much starred in any Hollywood blockbuster of his choice. What he did instead, for his very next project, was to shave his head in order to star in a play called Bent--in which he played a gay man, who was imprisoned in a German concentration camp during WWII. Now, THAT is what I call an interesting career choice and he has been making interesting choices ever since, and it seems that James Franco is following a similar career path--in other words, he prefers to be actor, rather than a "star." And I completely and totally respect that.

Posted by aleks at Thursday, December 17 2009 09:07 AM

franco is alittle to weird for me and i really wanna know why hes messing with my jason .jason is my fav on the show and franco is physcho only in soaps .but yes id like to see his finished piece of art .....unless it implements jason and his enforcer life......

Posted by cynical bill at Thursday, January 21 2010 09:49 AM

Frank and Doris Hursley are turning in their graves. Despite their daily credits, this is not the show they created. They created a great mdical drama, but the show has become mostly a mafia drama and Franco was about the worst of it. Just because an actor has been in some movies is no excuse to re-write the whole show for him and his unbeliveable character. Despite the undeniable charisma of many of its regular actors, this show is not what it used to be. Even though she was stuck with some mob characters, it has not been the same since Clare Labine left. Franco is just the latest nail in the quality coffin of what was once the best soap on television.

Posted by nancy marie at Thursday, January 21 2010 04:18 PM

It's all in the writing--not the actor.
Can you imagine what James Franco could have done if he had been given a better script? The best scene he had was the one where the camera panned to a close-up and his eyes looked blank--and he made the speech about "not feeling a thing"--self-recognition of who he really was--a sociopath.
But this scene alone does not a full character make.
At times, it looked like the writers were attempting to make him a mirror image of Jason--but for what purpose? To show that Jason was a "bad" character rather than a hero?
But no, in the next breath (scene) Jason was saying he "loved" Sam. You can't have it both ways, and the writers have "muddied the waters" by not having the courage to write Jason as the sociopath that they initially made him--incapable of feeling anything after the accident (brain injury)--feeling something only when he did, in his words, "what he was good at"--killing someone--taking the life of another human being.
Same with Sonny--he's a mobster; yet, he is loved by all the women and Carly and everyone else is always saying what a loving father he is. Bad writing--inconsistent characterization, romanticizing two killers instead of having the courage to write the "real character." That's what has the long-time viewers so continually upset. Bottom line--it's the bad writing, not the bad acting.
And, by the way, members of the audience of soaps, are "intelligent" enough to separate the actors from the roles they play--just like they do in the "movies" and on Broadway. A spurious argument--sometimes, unfortunately, made even by the actors--the "bite the hand that feeds them."

Posted by cherrycola at Friday, January 22 2010 06:24 PM

Well, no one can say he doesn't know how to milk the PR machine. I was willing to give him a benefit of the doubt before, but everything I'm seeing with his name on it just oozes arrogance. I enjoyed the storyline for what it was. It's over now. Next!