Deep Soap: Lauralee Bell Returns to ‘Y&R’

by | June 4, 2010 at 7:34 AM | Deep Soap

Lauralee Bell in 2009 (Jason Merritt/Getty Images)

Lauralee Bell in 2009 (Jason Merritt/Getty Images)

Welcome Back, Christine

Y&R’s Cricket Blair was my childhood nemesis.  The teen model was everything I was not: blonde, popular, constantly praised for her beauty and goodness.  Every single male in her age range was instantly smitten with her.  She was also beloved for being a huge prude and a teacher’s pet.  Based on my personal experience, this was not the way to win friends and influence people.  So I was Team Nina all the way.  The grown up Christine, who occasionally made mistakes and decided to postpone motherhood so she could devote herself to building her law practice, was far more likable. So I was pleased to read that Lauralee Bell will be returning to Y&R July 15th for a limited run.  First of all, it will give the criminally underused Tricia Cast more to do.  I wish Nina had decided to reignite her rivalry with Jill by making a play for Tucker because I suspect Cast and Stephen Nichols could generate enough electricity to power a major metropolitan area.  Second, the largely off-camera romance between Paul (Doug Davidson) and Nina screamed for Christine’s involvement.  Her best friend is dating her ex-husband that she still has feelings for.  She should have a lot to say about that.  She should have been back for Phillip’s (Thom Bierdz) return from the dead, given that he was her first love.  It would have been priceless to watch her learn that actually, she was his beard not the love of his life. Third, Christine will “reunite with Paul and Nina — and harbor some secrets that will impact them and their children.”   Hmmm…. dare I hope that we will finally find out what became of the child that Rose DeVille stole from Nina when she was a teenager?  It has to be the longest running unresolved storyline in daytime, and it practically writes itself.  If the show really wants to keep Ryder (Wilson Bethel) around, he looks like he’s about the right age.  Just saying.  So hurry on back to the G.C., Christine Blair.  As long as every single man on the canvas does not instantly fall in love with you, I will enjoy seeing you again.

The Word You Can’t Say on Daytime

There are a few things that are just too shocking for daytime: a glimpse of side cleavage during a sex scene, actual romance, and, apparently, M&Ms. Thursday’s episode of ‘One Life To Live‘ was dedicated to the wacky mishaps leading up to Bo and Nora’s wedding. It veered between moments that were actually funny (Destiny’s epic smackdown of Dani and Nate) and moments that tried really, really hard to be funny (Nora’s green hair).  I’ll admit I laughed out loud at the montage of Natalie and Roxie donning safety glasses to mix up the magic North Korean hair dye that would turn Nora’s (Hillary Smith) cheap Halloween wig back into her actual hair. Daytime does not use enough Erlenmeyer flasks as props.  But one exchange stopped me cold and took me out of the scene.  John (Michael Easton) had just persuaded Blair (Kassie DePaiva) to sing at the wedding.

Blair: Ok. I’ll do it. But I’ll need lots of honey and lots of tea.
John: All right.
Blair: And a little bowl — actually, a large bowl filled with those multicolored candies.
Kelly: Because those are so good for your voice.
Blair: No green ones, please.

My thought process went: Aren’t 99% of candies multicolored?  What?  Wait, she said no green ones.  That’s got to be M&Ms. Blair is referencing the infamous Van Halen concert rider which stipulated that all the brown M&Ms be removed from the bowls in their dressing rooms.  That would be a decent joke — I’ll assume Blair wanted the green ones removed to prevent becoming horny in the presence of John — if the word M&Ms were included. Without it, it does not make sense.  The show that shilled Campbell’s soup and Prego spaghetti sauce, manages to slip in a lengthy clip of the movie ‘Nine‘ and just had Kelly carrying around a Lion King bag,will not allow the use of the word M&Ms? Can there be no reference to brand names that weren’t paid for, even if they are essential to a line of dialogue? That is ridiculous.  Lighten up, standards and practices.