What comes to my mind when I think of the similarities of these two characters is not only that they are both rapists. As children, they were both beaten by their fathers. In Todd’s case, it was his adoptive father. The similarities stop here.
Luke went on to be raised by his Aunt Ruby. She was a madam and his sister became a prostitute, but Aunt Ruby loved Bobbie and Luke. Todd’s adoptive mother tried to protect him, but never could. Peter Manning was brutal towards Todd as a boy. T odd grew up to be a tortured-soul. Luke had his demons and more when his character was new on GH, but as time went on, he became more of the adventurous hero. Todd was no hero, and RH wouldn’t permit his character to become one. Luke was tortured by his passion for Laura, who was married to Scotty. When he couldn’t have her, he raped her. Todd raped two women; Carol Swift and Marty. I don’t know the history between Carol and Todd, but I do know that Marty rejected Todd after they had slept together once. He instigated the awful gang rape of Marty.
In many ways both these men were like children who couldn’t get their way, but took what they wanted anyway. RH was on OLTL on and off for 10 years, and this incredible actor’s integrity was the backbone behind the audience never forgetting Todd was a rapist. He did not want to ever be considered a leading man. On the other hand, AG became quite the leading man on GH. I am not putting down AG’s integrity….I am just making a point about RH’s. Not until TSJ took over the role of Todd did this character become a leading man. Luke Spencer became a leading man after he and Laura ended up together and many times after Genie Frances left GH, he played opposite many different leading ladies. Luke was, and still is, a passionate and flirtatious man with the ladies. Todd (our Todd) had deep-seeded intimacy issues. He only loved two women, Blair & Tea, but his intimacy issues were never resolved. They were part of who he was part of what made him so tortured. Luke used to be somewhat of an intense character, but he developed more into an adventurous, free spirited type. When I think of Luke Spencer, I think of him as almost cartoon-like.
Roger’s Todd was and always will be intense and tormented. Both of these men can act. I don’t see the greatness in AG that I see in RH, though. Even though AG won six Outstanding Leading Actor Awards, I just never got it. I always liked Luke a lot, but never loved him. On the other hand, RH only won once for Outstanding Younger Actor. He should have won many Outstanding Actor awards for his role as Todd Manning for years following, but did not.
What do you all make of this and what are your thoughts on these two?
Ellenbay is a bookkeeper who runs her husband's mobile dog grooming business in California. She is a 30+ year fan of ABC soaps.
Ellen, thanks so much for being my third guest blogger. I enjoyed reading this entry from and often, I've thought about Luke and Todd and what they represent, and how both Anthony Geary and Roger Howarth were received by female viewers.
ReplyDeleteFirst, my thoughts have always been these two things: the ERAS in which they portrayed these characters. A huge issue is that there were almost 20 years between the two events - Luke raping Laura, and Todd leading the gang rape against Marty. Having seen both of these storylines at the time they were written, I can say with certainty that the TIMES were a huge piece in how they played out. Somehow, Luke's guilt was smooshed under the carpet by Gloria Monty and he became a hero almost instantaneously as he and Laura went on the run. We, the women of the time, pushed what he had done out of our minds to enjoy the adventure, the hype and the romance. I was quite young at the time, and I am sure that the times were different than the 90s when Todd's story came about.
In some ways, Todd's story was ABC's slap to its own face. Roger, committed to the idea that Todd should never be a "normal" guy - or a hero for that matter, created the most unique, believable and messed-up, gorgeous character in the history of soaps. And, Roger stuck to it. That is what we're applauding with our love for him, as much as his work and certainly more than his amazing looks. In a way, OLTL attempted, whether intentionally or not, to undo what GH did in romanticizing a rapist, and they succeeded with this until about 2003, when Roger left and they recast him. The travesty of that decision is that the audience has been at times tempted to forget, something Roger would never allow in his portrayal.
Two intriguing characters - but in my opinion, like you, Ellen, Roger outshines Tony lightyears as Tortured Todd.
@Kim, thanks so much for giving me this opportunity. I really enjoyed writing it!
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I agree with your theory on the era in which the stories were told being the way viewers percevied the 2 rapes. I think it was two things with GH. (1) Gloria Monty seeing a huge star potential with Tony (which you mentioned) and running with it. (2) I think Laura was such a beloved character that the female audience took their lead from her. If she went on despising Luke then the audience would do the same.
You are so right about Todd being ABC's slap in the face. Love that theory. And I think it was all RH's doing. OL would have made him a hero if they could have. They prooved that when they totally changed the character of Todd when TSJ took over.
@Ellen it's ok if you don't agree, that is what this stuff of blogging is about!!! I really feel that women's roles in relationships were much different during the 70s than they were in the 90s, and the awareness about date rape and acquaintance rape also heightened during the closer decades. I think people were more likely to accept Luke and Laura than ever to accept Marty and Todd, and a bit of it had to do with time periods....and a LOT of it had to do with circumstance (gang rape, etc). OLTL did public service announcements about rape and date rape, it was the "thing" in the 90s, whereas, nothing was said in the 70s, almost a time to gloss it over and move on. That is what I mean by a difference in the eras.
ReplyDeleteI know Gloria saw something in Tony Geary and she was RIGHT. However, we can't avoid the fact that he did what he did, yet the show never dealt with it until much later in their lives! Time does change things.....
I am SO GLAD you posted and gave us the opportunity to open this discussion!!! Check your mail for my response regarding another post you wrote me about blog traffic.....
*wink*
Here's my two cents on the Todd vs Luke debate. Let me just say first off that those idiots that post on the boards that "what was wrong with Tarty.....Luke and Laura were the biggest thing ever and he raped her?" are idiots!!!!!! LOL No comparison at all in my mind between LNL and Spring Fling....now that I got that off my chest here's my thoughts!! LOL
ReplyDeleteI loved Luke Spencer and TG, still do on some level. Luke did have a rough life but I don't think it was anything on the level of Todd.....Luke demons were never as deep as Todd's imo. His life was rough because they were poor and street kids so Luke learned to be a con artist......but Luke was never mean or nasty and always had a good heart. Being in the mob and doing what he had to do almost killed him.....that is what that night was all about when he raped Laura, he was at the end of his road, thought he was gonna die that night. And Laura did have this "thing" with Luke, not saying it wasn't rape, but Laura wasn't a total innocent in it either.....on some level she wanted Luke or she wouldn't have ended up with him a few weeks later. So yes the rape did happened but I don't think GH made a bad rapists into a hero.....I never saw Luke as a evil rapist like Todd was.....Spring Fling was just plain nasty and evil and the months that followed reinforced that Todd was evil too. It wasn't just a "bad night"......Todd was nasty for quite sometime.
So I don't see it as a difference in era's ......I just see it more as totally different stories and characters. That is why I get so irked when people try to say one is like the other.....did they watch both of the stories?? LOL
I do see Todd as a leading man though......just not your "average" leading man! LOL And I think both Todd's and Luke's stories turned out the right way and both in very large part to the great actors that played these characters....wouldn't want either of them changed.
@Juju, I love your post and your pov, I am glad you came by to post in! Love to hear more from you....!
ReplyDeleteI think Todd was a lot NASTIER than Luke was....I agree there. I think the whole idea that Laura was not innocent in what happened is kind of on the edge of what I was talking about....the idea that we can consider that, vs. Marty's situation, where even though she did what she did, she could never have been at fault.
As for TARTY - UGH. How nasty. He can't be Todd because Todd just would not go there.
@Bjuju, alot of what you are saying makes sense. And also I can not stand when people on other sites want a relationship between Todd and Marty. It is an awful thought. Where I disagree with you is that rape is rape. It doesn't matter that Laura had feelings for Luke, she still said no. There used to be more judges (still might be) that ruled against women in rape cases because she dressed a certain way. None of that matters, if a woman says no and a man forces her it's rape. Now GH is not real life and Luke & Laura turned in one of the most popular couples on daytime. My opinion is still that because Laura forgave Luke so did the viewers. And yes Todd was much more evil than Luke. With Luke viewers knew he would never rape again. Not the case with Todd.
ReplyDelete@Ellen, Todd was much sicker than Luke. He was much more tormented and abused than Luke. It made perfect sense that he was going to repeat that violence.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your "rape is rape" thing. And, I am not beating a dead horse, but maybe I am, audiences in the 90s would be less willing to accept what Luke did as seduction.
In the 70s when this went down, they coined afterward as Luke's SEDUCTION of Laura....not rape....that is what I was getting at....also the idea that if a woman leads a man on, it's her fault....that's old skool thinking as well, which goes with the times.
This is a great, historical discussion here and being a teacher of history, I like this kind of thing! So cool, thanks ladies.
Hope someone gets the Screen Mania right before 9:00!
@Kim, I didn't rememember that, that the rape of Laura started to be called Luke's seduction. Thanks for the memory. When I think of it like that, I must say you are right that it was a sign of the times.
ReplyDeleteso far I'm not too good at this Screen Mania thing.
@Ellen, you're welcome for the memory....don't worry about screen mania, just give it a try and....let's see what happens! If you happen to be right, you might win the round. :D I would like to play sometime....I have to talk to my buddies and see who's up to the challenge for the next round.
ReplyDelete@Ellen--Totally agree with you about the rape is rape thing.....that is why I always get into trouble when I talk about LNL!!!!!! I do think what happened that night at the disco was rape, BUT I do think that GH wrote the story a certain way with a certain outcome in mind so the word "rape" definitely became muddled. Immediatly after the rape Laura was lying for Luke and covering for him and then going back to work for him and then runs away with him.....that is my point I guess. The two stories were written totally different and Luke the rapist was nothing like Todd the rapist imo. But I agree that rape is rape.......to me GH is the one that muddle up the point because for years they twisted it and kinda changed it and they probably did that so the audience could buy into LNL easier.
ReplyDelete@Bjuju, I agree, the two stories were so different.You are right, GH muddled the rape of Laura and proceeded to make Laura fall in love with Luke. What I think started off as a rape story ended up to be the greatest couple in GH history. I think it came along unexpectdly.
ReplyDelete