Oh hi. This should have been done a few days ago. Sadly I had chicanery around the offices and I've been sabotaged by my own staff! Anyway, I only like a few characters from episodic television. Here's one....
At her best, the Tiffany Welles character was probably the most interesting one since Jill Munroe. The narrative, Welles, played by Shelley Hack, was from the East Coast, from Boston and had a father who was a police chief. As an oddity, the police chief knew Charlie, Tiffany did not. Welles character first appeared on the Season 3 two hour opening episode "Love Boat Angels." That was the episode where Bert Convy played the most altruistic jewel thief in the world. In that episode, Welles got a lot of cool scenes, especially the last one in the episode, the character of Tiffany Welles was basically all set in a matter of minutes.
Early on, the problems presented themselves. Reportedly, the folks at Charlie's Angels couldn't get off their duffs and write new episodes, they merely placed "Tiffany" in them without thoughts of her character and identity. Not surprisingly, when they did give it some thought, it did work. The Tiffany Welles character proved to be interesting due in part to Hack's likeability and wry, cerebral charm and great voice. During the middle of the season, Hack seemed to strike a nice balance with Welles being very odd and different yet not off putting. Episodes like "Angels on Campus," "Of Ghosts and Angels" and "Angels on the Street" were indications of where it could have gone, but didn't.
The problems were multiple and multi-layered. Charlie's Angels for the most part was a show in steep decline. To be honest, the show was never as good as it was on the magical first season.
The writing became more formulaic and by the end of the third season, it was uncomfortable to watch. Reportedly it was the double whammy of not receiving time off to do a movie (Kramer vs. Kramer) and the pain endured filming the craptastic, "Marathon Angels" is what set Kate Jackson over the edge. In this thinking, Charlie's Angels actually caught a second wind with Hack and by the end of the season, that was gone too. According to reports, the cast of Charlie's Angels were given valentine's to say that their services would be needed again for the next season. Shelley Hack didn't receive one. Frankly, that was awful.
.jpg)
24 comments:
great job....
Love the article and love Charlie's Angels!!! <3 But as with so many series, it can be difficult to keep up the magic after the first season.
That's very true Linda, I can't think of any who really did it--not even Miami Vice...
That first season of Charlie's Angels was great though. I don't think the second lineup had that great chemistry, probably because Kate Jackson hated Cheryl Ladd--and with the DVD's, etc, a viewer can see it. The first group? Totally loved one another, it was palpable.
Yes, and the first group probably also had a bit more of enthusiasm for the concept, it was new, fresh, full of promise still. I think it fell into a bit of a routine after that with cookiecutter episodes that followed the same pattern, but this time commercialized (i.e. not so unique as it started off as). Its easy to lose enthusiasm then, especially when faced with lots of changes.
That's true Linda. I did hear Kate Jackson was getting a bit antsy near the end of the 1st season (no, not Kate) especially when Barry Rosenzweig became the exec. producer. Not surprisingly I liked these ep's most of all.
For me, the bloom was off the rose w/ a lot of those Season 2 ep's, the ones I always liked the best were the ones Georg Sanford Brown directed, he had a good eye...
i was basically done with charlie's angels during season 3... the falling ratings actually indicated that was the general trend among the viewers... a new angel in season 4 brought me back... i didn't understand all that fuss about shelley's alleged lack of acting chops... once they got going in the 2nd half of the season, i thought she was really fine... i grew to love her actually! and for a while there, it even seemed like the show could survive without kate... with shelley there was a second wind for the show, indeed, but the producers and writers totally missed it... the result: a bland, wooden bikini-clad new angel (tanya)in a show that looked so tired and faded that the pathetic last season might have been produced pre-1st season!
Totally agree with all of that. Shelley really was fine, CA was very lucky to get her.And to be honest, Shelley was the only reason I watched Season 4. The other girls looked bored.
About the last season, I thought it was Tanya's fault but I saw her on an episode of Vegas and she could actually act (Jason falls out) But really, Julie Rogers was such a cynically written character, it was sad actually.
And I also have to agree about the show looking tired, ha. I'm paraphrasing what someone said about that last season but it was like CA became the show it never was. Such a pitiful exit. I'm glad it was a strike shortened season.
shelley hack grew on me... but tanya, i was actually looking forward to seein' her on the show... i saw that vegas ep (on b/w tv) and thought maybe she could be groomed into an angels-type actress... you can imagine how horrified i was when i finally saw her on angels, she was truly awful inspite of all that hype about being supposedly better, sexier... watchin' that vegas ep again now (on color tv), i felt tanya was just so-so... she was probably good enough as part of a supporting cast but no, just never had the star appeal or acting chops to take on a lead part... michelle phillips made more impact than tanya on that vegas ep, and michelle caught a well-deserved break on knots landing years later... that was the big mistake that charlie's angels committed: putting tanya in the center stage where she was not really qualified or prepared for... julie rogers was a serviceable guest character but as a regular lead character, she was boring and uninteresting and tanya herself was never able to breathe life into this supposedly street smart, cynical, jaded free spirit (sexually liberated?) that the writers/producers hoped for... note to bit players hoping to hit mainstream, bigtime biz projects: on or off your body, your bikini cannot do the acting for you! (and that's me trying to be funny and sarcastic ala-tiffany welles)
Thanks for that. I agree. I just saw the Vegas ep and I liked it, thought Tanya did ok in it. Flash up to the work on Charlie's Angels and it's a different story. The Julie Rogers character wasn't that interesting and neither was the back story.
I don't think Tanya had that much chemistry w/ the show either. She might have made the writers and
producers go ga-ga but it needed to translate on to the screen. In retrospect, she should have been a cop--but that made too much sense.
In a way CA always sold itself short. While looking at scantily clad women never hurts, what a lot of people liked about the show was the strong women and interesting characters. That's why I liked Sabrina and Tiffany so much. I don't think they thought Julie Rogers through--and on top of a show as tired as CA was--it's awful combination.
it was obvious the producers thought it was sex that sold the show and nothing else... they were actually trying to replace kate with claudia jennings (so that they would have three actresses who can get in and out of a bikini alternately or together week after week after week)... horrors, tiffany welles could have been something like a high society slut if they had their way! they were still reaching for the same with tanya... it seems to me that they really envisioned julie rogers as some sort of a call girl but stopped short of calling her a prostitute, using instead "street model" to describe her which made it, uh, a bit ambiguous and safe...and tanya was was just too happy to do their bidding... her first scene on the show, with jaclyn, was just so utterly lacking in magic or chemistry that one could easily tell the show was dead... you could actually almost see tanya's thought balloon saying "i'm goin to be a big star now" but you don't see julie... tanya's crying scenes were laughable... and she was jiggling her jiggle already in the next hour, happily displaying her physical attributes in a teeny-weeny bikini, totally unaware that she was so sadly out of character... very little went into fleshing out julie rogers as someone with a chip on her shoulder, and it was obvious tanya thought all she needed to do was fit into a bikini... now, that would have been forgivable coz the character was new to tanya afterall... but shelley had a good grasp of tiffany from the get-go (even when the writers themselves were clueless during the 1st half of the season)... her characterization of tiffany was consistent throughout the season... so the problem was not with her acting, the problem was the writers/producers' narrow understanding of the show's appeal
I'm so glad to have stumbled upon this blog. You hit the nail on the head when you said that Tiffany was a "future-forward" character. I actually liked the way Shelley fleshed her out, from the nonplussed look to the affected way of speaking to the dry sense of humor and secret insecurity underneath the glamorous package. Too bad the writers were so bereft of ideas with which to tell interesting stories using that character. I think Shelley and Tiffany would have been great in later shows like Dynasty, Moonlighting and LA Law which had more creative writers. (M. Emmanuel)
I agree Anonymous from Dec 12th. Got to agree with that tacit wink and nod CA seemed to give Tanya Roberts character. She didn't only seem streetwise--she did seem a bit "out there."
I don't know how Claudia Jennings got in the mix really. There were a lot of women in that era who could have been angels, Jayne Kennedy, Shelley Smith, etc. I remember Jennings from B movies, there were better choices to be sure...
Oh yeah by the time Tanya Roberts showed up, the show was done. The season was shortened by the strike--both Jaclyn and Cheryl looked bored, the chemistry of that lineup: None.
Got to agree with what you said about Tiffany, she seemed to get it--when the writers didn't but she really did play that character extremely well. In a way, that character was the most interesting in Season 4.
Thanks for the kind words M. Emmanuel. Totally agree with what you said. Hack is fun to watch anyway with her expressions, inflection and energy. Oddly enough I think Tiffany might have been an interesting spin off series, such a cool and unique character.
I guess by Season 4, CA didn't want any character growth because Kris and Kelly progressed even less. And yep I think Shelley would have been great in all of those shows you mentioned...
i think claudia jennings got the producers' attention because she was one hot tamale in her b-movies... pretty much why they chose tanya who had done some flesh baring in exploitation films before angels (and after)... shows us what little regard s/g actually had for cheryl, they thought another girl willing to exploit her physical attributes was all the show needed to keep afloat... claudia jennings would probably be a better choice for julie rogers than tanya, though... an e! true hollywood stories showed pix of claudia whee she looked exactly like farrah fawcett! in other shots, she was a dead ringer for shelley hack!! physically at least, claudia seems to come from the same farrah-cheryl-shelley mold
jason, thank you so much for the article, it is like looking in a mirror reading your views,i have posted over 200 blogs at charliesangels.org and i say the same things as you do, i was ripped because i'm a tiffany welles fan and speak the truth about what and why things went down, another blogger directed me herebecause i told off one of their socalled experts who kept dogging me and ripping me for my preferance of tiff over tanya,i have followed shelley's fabulous career since she was 15 yrs old,i'm originally from her home state and have done alot of research on her and the ill fated season four which wasnot her fault at all, i hope to be welcomed here and contribute anything shelley hack related,keep up the wonderful site you have started
Thanks for that Anonymous from January 17, 2014. I had to check out Claudia Jennings and wow she could look really pretty. Yep about the B movie background...
I think she probably wouldn't have worked out, seemed a bit too "intense" in a way. Who knows, I bet if her career trajectory hadn't taken a turn towards the exploitative, it might have been possible.
Thanks for those kind words Anthony and the invitation!
And nope, it wasn't Shelley's fault at all, I really think the producer had it out for her. I never did like his attitude about the whole deal to be honest.
Shelly did extremely well with the material that was given to her. And really, if she wasn't in Season 4? I'd never watch it....
i think it was hypocritical for abc to reject claudia jennings based on her exoloitation,b-movie background... because the next season, they allowed s/g to hire tanya who had the very same shady background!!! of course, like you i also perhaps didn't think claudia would've worked out... i still maintain that shelley hack was the perfect choice for tiffany wells... but the julie rogers character might have benefited from claudia's "intensity" which the anemic and pneumatic tanya never had... claudia had those sad eyes, she was pretty but she looked kinda jaded, burdened perhaps by her wrong career choices... those characteristics might have been useful for the julie rogers role, giving it a more dramatic texture... and yep, me too, i would have already stopped watching charlie's angels if shelley did come aboard in year 4... as most of us know already, production was in shambles the 1st half of the season but for those who stayed with the show for the 2nd half, the pay off was great in seeing shelley come into her own and prove tiffany to be an effective, adorable, beautiful angel!
oooops, that should read "if shelley did NOT come aboard in year 4"... jason, were you talking about ed lakso's attitude over the whole deal of hiring shelley? according to reports, they have not even started production and lakso was already saying she was wrong for the show... he obviously wanted a bimbo type like claudia jennings, barbara bach or tanya so he could cover up his weak scripts... he surely did not have the creativity to service a modern, sophisticated character like tiffany wells... they should've fired him middle of the 4th season and never allowed near the angels set ever again!
just want to share this article, which i think is among the most fair and objective where shelley's stint in "charlie's angels" was concerned:
http://articles.mcall.com/1986-10-26/entertainment/2553636_1_charlie-s-angels-night-court-smith-college
my favorite quote has to be:
"It was a wonderful show for what it was, but I don't think it was really about acting very much. It always seemed to me you could attack 'Charlie's Angels' for being a fluffy show, and that was OK. But it was really hard to attack someone for not acting in 'Charlie's Angels' because that seemed to be an oxymoron to me."
well said, dear shelley!!!
I love SEX and I cannot Lie
Hello everyone. Thank you for visiting my blog. When i started this blog it was supposed to be something therapeutic. Pen down my life happenings and drama, something to laugh about and
Hi
Tanya was absolutely horrid - definitely not an actress! - she really did the show in and a fun show became painful to watch with her on board
magnolia jeanette, I've got to agree, the character was a no-win too, very undefined, just there in episodes after her CA debut.
Post a Comment