Jump to content

GH:: Tony Geary Interview


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I wonder if Claire Labine actually knew about the backstory of Luke raping Laura when she took the job as head writer of GH (after it had been announced that Luke and Laura were returning). I wonder if she would have accepted the position, if she had. Between SoapNet and YouTube, I've seen much of Ryan's Hope's run and nearly all of the material Labine wrote, and I don't think any character was ever raped. Certainly the rapist never would have "gotten the girl."

I could see her delving into the GH story history and having no idea what to do with Luke, l and I can't say I blame her. I think it's even harder to suspend disbelief as far as a rapist hero who saves the world from a mad scientist with a weather machine with his victim by his side than to accept merely the mad scientist with a weather machine part.

If Tony Geary and his "writing partner" actually wrote the first year or so or whatever of Luke and Laura's return, then I'll give them credit - it was the best material I've seen of the characters/couple, and I really liked them at the time. Unlike 90% of soaps in the 20 years since then, though, the story didn't exist in a vacuum...it resonated for a lot of other characters. I highlight doubt Geary helped create Mary Mae Ward or came up with the idea of "redeeming" Sonny or deserves credit for Bobbie questioning her own domesticated life (which indirectly led into BJ's death and all of that).

I would argue that the Luke of that era also wasn't any truer to the "real" Luke than anything else. I don't have any recollection of the rape being acknowledged until that Guza story in which it was revisited. It was completely glossed over.

I'll also go so far as to say that whatever credit Geary may or may not deserve for the story itself, Luke's return didn't win him a lot of critical acclaim for his performances. Not to say that he was panned, just that he didn't get a lot of attention. I think Luke and Laura returned in the same Emmy eligibility period in which both Michael Zaslow and Roger Howarth took home statues (for playing rapists). Daytime had "evolved" on the issue of rape by the early '90s at least to the extent that the rapist was considered the villain and, if he was presented in a sympathetic light, it was because of his frowing awareness and remorse over the horror he had committed. I can't help but think on some level Geary saw that and had a bit of a bruised ego and was jealous that he didn't get to play that type of material with Luke. In any event, if Geary did have a hand in how Luke was initially written when he returned, he's certainly changed his mind on a lot of that from the things he said since.

I'll also go as far as to wonder if Geary himself is somewhat conflicted about his "legacy." He became a pop cultural icon playing a glorified rapist, whom young women ambushed in public appearances screaming "rape me, Luke!" at a time when there was a strong backlash against the women's movement and all other kinds of rights. The ERA died on the vine, Phyllis Schlafly and the Moral Majority blamed women's gains (among other things) for all of society's ills, and Geary's greatest success as an actor was very much of that era. I don't blame him for wanting to believe that Luke was always presented as a flawed, downright loathsome character, but I don't think that's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think Geary wants very much for "Luke" to have a legacy. When the character of Ethan appeared, he said that Ethan being Luke's son gave Luke a stronger "legacy". However, I think Geary could care less about the "Luke & Laura" legacy. That appears to be an albatross around his neck.

For me, I just have a problem with how Geary sees things. He sees things that never happened onscreen and works it in his mind that it really did happen. I was reading an interview he did in 2009. Some of the things he said still astound me:

"Luke has been looking at life as if it were over, the best years gone. He's not kicking it with the relish that he used to. Ethan is reacquainting him with the reasons he loves life. They're so amazingly connected."



"But you know what? It doesn't make him love Laura any less. This is the way life is. I've always known that Luke has had women on the side."

On Luke's attraction to Holly: "He'll always have feelings for her", nods Geary. "She's a con woman. She seduces men to get their money. He loves that about her. It's a turn-on".

On what makes Luke and Tracy's marriage work: "She's his constant and is the best challenge Luke ever had," Geary remarks. "And I do believe that they have great, rough sex. I think they slap each other around and love it. Why do you think he calls her Spanky?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Very good post, Khan, but I feel you're too respectful of Geary's distortions and I say this as a former "Tony Geary is an acting god" fan club member who watched Luke since day one.

He insists he's been fighting to preserve Monty's version of Luke. But, Monty was clear the original characterization was a short-timer and only became truly compelling when written completely devastated by the rape. It was the post-rape Luke that become a multidimensional character driven by his demons, and a real conscience. The last years Geary gone out of his way to destroy Luke's conscience and that spits on Monty's legacy completely.

Geary also needs to get called out for contradicting his old interviews. In 1997, he made it crystal clear Luke would never cheat on Laura. Then suddenly a decade later with Ethan, he insists Luke was always cheating on her and Laura was cool with it. The press doesn't dare challenge this 180 because they are in awe of the great Geary. Genie should just cease bowing to him and stand up and say never happened, and he's rewriting history and their dynamic.

You nailed it about Geary is the one still trapped by the past. He's still obsessed that Bill Eckert failed. He's never accepted it wasn't just that fans wanted him as Luke but the Eckert character was dreary and panned even by L&L haters. Bill wasn't a likeable character. He's a lot like Luke is now really and I guess Geary finally got his wish to play a more despicable guy.

I'm also weary of Geary scapegoating others. He resents that fans didn't accept Bill, and wanted Luke. He bitterly resents he couldn't ever break free of being one half of Luke and Laura. Poor Geary, L&L made you a household name and millions, cry me a river... NOT! He's always going to be hyphenated and mature men accept the realities versus whine like teens.

I actually agree with some of his Labine era complaints, but his monumentally bad choices over the last years proved far more destructive than ANYTHING she ever wrote.

To listen to Tony, Claire trapped him for decades versus just 3 years. When Guza came on and took Tony & Genie's Cassadine suggestions for the Nikolas intro, Luke wasn't the fun-loving family guy anymore. A lot of his old anger issues and demons resurfaced and Guza took him dark again. Luke faced his son calling him a stinking rapist... and those were dark days indeed. I loved Rape Revisited precisely because Luke was back to tortured by his demons and feeling unworthy of forgiveness. That story was grown up L&L who still loved each other madly but filled with so much turmoil and many L&L fans like me were riveted. Geary deliberately ignores the fact he praised the fans who supported revisiting the rape.

Which brings me to the Luke of the last 6-7 years. This version feels NO SHAME whatsoever when he hurts those he claims to love. The Jake story just about destroyed Luke for me. He refused to admit he was drunk... he was unrepentant and acted like OOPS it was an accident. The whole Luke wanted to kill himself just never rang true. He wasn't written NOR acted TORTURED like he was over the rape. JJ was playing the same disillusioned DISGUST of Rape Revisited but Geary and the writing delivered a drunk, soul-less, DEFIANT to the end creature who feels no shame about being such a despicable being.

Geary has championed stripping Luke of ANY self-loathing whatsoever and that was the WORST destruction of all. Luke LIKES himself as a drunken, SHALLOW unrepentant loser and that's the opposite of Monty's legacy. Frankly, he should be ashamed of himself that his love/hate relationship with Luke has led him to help destroy what millions loved in him.

Sorry, Tony, Claire didn't gut the very core of the character, you did that. He can keep believing his love of Lunacy is what L&L fans resent, but it's not. Most just hate what Luke has become and are heart-broken Geary championed this wholesale destruction.

Khan, ITA the fans keep hoping Laura can once again find Luke's humanity. I saw a glimpse of it in the Corinth scenes when she reminded him yes he really didn't want to break a promise to Lulu, but alas it was too short, elusive glimmer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, thanks, Khan, for letting me rift off your post.

I dearly wish FV or RC would find the guts to tell Geary he's been slowly destroying Luke's once immense popularity the last years with non-L&L fans, too.

He really wants to scapegoat L&L fans for pushing back and I wish the press would call him out on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is about one of the only times in past, present or future history that TeamEric and I are completely in agreement. That post is spot-on. And I've said it before - Geary was bitter about Bill Eckert and has been trying to remake him via Luke since Wendy Riche left.

There are ways to fix Luke. But I have a feeling Geary fights it at every turn. Do you think they'll get to go back to Luke's alcoholism after that discussion was subverted by the polonium poisoning reveal? I doubt it. Someone has to nail the character (and the actor, in a way) down and admit that he loved life with his family, in that beautiful old house, that he loved it all. But no one gets to do that to Luke. They come close and then something always makes them back off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • It's been pretty well-known since that that BBG was offered a similar deal as Ken Howard (ie 4-6 episodes) and she told them to fudge off. With Jane Wyman, I don't doubt they were willing not to hold her to her contract, but in those early episodes where she appears, she's written sitting down or in a bed for a reason. Her health genuinely seemed in decline.
    • Agree, but I am talking more about the initial casting. Melissa might have only lasted a season if Ana Alicia hadn't impressed.
    • I'm not that impressed with the costuming, still very hit and miss,not much improvement and some of the outfits for Nikki in particular have been awful. Maybe Mariah's secret is she encountered Ian and killed him? That might work except for the fact that her mother has done the same thing.
    • Ana Alicia was far more dynamic and charismatic than McGeehan or Vernon though. Some of it due to the writing of course, but not all of it.
    • It actually felt like TM-G was a bit softer in her scenes with nu-Ted that kind of matched his meeker energy as Ted on Friday. I was very curious how she’d play off him and now I have my answer.
    • My thoughts exactly! Fantastic find @DRW50!  
    • That was interesting; thanks. Courtney looks tired and/or bored AF, LOL!
    • 5-12   Lord have mercy.   I'm not sure how I feel about it. Perhaps what I said last week or the week before last. If the highlight of a soap is what people are wearing and not the writing, that's not a good thing. And that was how I was feeling watching this. There was not anyone that I was interested in seeing in the episode outside of Daniel and Sally tbh. Because Daniel continues to be the only thing that humanizes Phyllis for me.    I could care less for the Billy/Sally scenes where he's woe is me. I could care less about Kyle/Claire since the writers took all the drama right out of the pairing. Humanized or not, I could care less for Giggly Heffa.    I barely care for Teriah. But for me, it's nice to see something going on with them. Though it seems so horribly contrived.    I liked the costume designer appears to be trying to find individual styles for some of the characters. For me, Tessa's with the boots stood out given her indie musician history. It seems like Claire's style is coming into its own with block colors. I like Kyle's wardrobe is loosening up somewhat. I even loved the striped dress that Phyllis had on.    But again...where is the writing?
    • It was reported that Jane Wyman absence in the final season was due to health (it's documented that Jane was diabetic) but I believe her episodes being cut was a budget mode move. Similar move Dallas pulled in 1990, it was reported that Barbara Bel Geddes retired due to health (it's documented that Barbara had a heart condition) but I say salary dump. Jane Wyman only acted once after Falcon Crest, a 1993 episode of Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman, but she lived another 14 years after that. Barbara Bel Geddes did not act again after her last episode of Dallas in 1990 but she lived another 15 years after that. The trifecta of suck at Lorimar was Les Moonves, Leonard Katzman, and Michael Filerman. It was a pattern across all three CBS primetime soaps in the off the rails plus budget mode era to salary dump the long-time female cast members and bring on sweet young things hired on the cheap. 
    • To be fair, more than half of them are dead now. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy