|
First I want to answer a couple of questions about which we received multiple
messages. When we get several requests for the same information, we do our best
to find the answer and post it in the following issue. For quicker results, we
suggest the message boards at abc.com or the Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc--there's
a good chance you wouldn't even have to post a question, if it's already been
asked and answered:
Q: After one episode recently, GH ran a note in memoriam for
Marty Vagts. Who was he?
A: Marty Vagts was a long time coordinating producer on the show.
Q: What's that song they keep playing in the Sonny and Carly scenes?
A: If we're thinking of the same song you are, somebody on rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc
posted that the song was Sarah McLachlan's "Ice," from her album, "Fumbling
Towards Ecstacy."
And now a letter from one of our readers. We apologize to Sarah for forgetting
to include her note in the June issue!
To: General Hospital Review
From: Sarah
Date: May 20 2001
First off--a thank-you for all the hard work you all do to keep this site going.
I keep flirting with the idea of giving GH up, and sadly, it's places like
this and Soapzone that I'll miss more than the show itself!
I was excited to see that you were catching up on episodes, as I've been waiting
for the GH Review editors to weigh in again on Jacob Young and his portrayal
of "Lucky." In the beginning, most of you seemed to think he was doing
a good job, but I felt sure that some of you would have changed your minds by
now, LOL.
But I was shocked when I read the "Pieces of April" segment, thinking
that McAmy, as I came to know her from RATSA, had written this critique; in particular,
the part about "Lucky." I always thought of Amy as a Jonathan Jackson
fan. I realized after reading that another GH Review editor had written
it.
I'd still love to know what Amy and the other editors think of Jacob Young,
and what he has done to the role for which he was hired. But I couldn't let this
part of the commentary go by without firing up some Lucky-defense:
...but I think his intolerance of Liz's friendly relationship with Jason
(when it was only "friendly") and his lack of regard for her feelings
during the whole Face of Deception mess is quite consistent with the "old
Lucky's" inability to see beyond his own preconceived notions of how the
world and its inhabitants should behave. It's more of the same behavior he exhibited
toward his parents during the whole "rape revisited" storyline, when
he retreated to his fantasy boxcar, painted with idealized images of what a home
should be like, when things weren't going his way.
Yikes--it's not as if Lucky stayed in the boxcar forever. He lived there one
summer, left it, got an apartment, mended fences with his parents and started
to move on with his life.
If he and Elizabeth painted fantasy images of a home, then it was only to give
themselves something they felt they lacked at the time--a place that was safe
and warm and loving, a place they could live and breathe in.
And I'd hardly call Lucky's notions about home, or morals, conventional. But
he did live by a strict code, one that was ingrained in him by his father. One
that, in the end, he had to modify in order to go on with his life, in order to
forgive his father.
I'll leave aside the idea that post-rape, pre-fire Lucky ever exhibited anything
other than the utmost regard for Elizabeth's feelings--there is example after
example I could cite where he put her feelings and needs above his own. There
is no way that that Lucky would ever have railroaded her into the Face of Deception
disaster. Instead, I'll focus on the rape revisited.
It always puzzles me that people had such difficulty with Lucky's behavior
during that storyline. As I have said on many other forums (fora? LOL), I am in
my mid-thirties, and if I found out that my father had raped my mother, even forty
years ago, before they were married, I would have a VERY hard time dealing with
it. Because it would go against all my preconceived notions of the world, and
how its inhabitants should behave.
Lucky was 15/16 years old when he learned this news. He did not seek it out
on his own--it was revealed to him. He found out that his father, his idol, the
man who taught him how the world and its inhabitants should behave, the person
who had been counseling him through the aftermath of a close friend's rape, was
himself a rapist. That he had at one time raped his mother, a crime that Lucky
had been taught his whole life to condemn, a crime Luke had accused the Cassadines
of perpetrating, something he used to make Lucky hate them.
Lucky discovered that Luke had done the same thing. To Lucky's MOTHER.
How exactly should Lucky have reacted to this piece of information? If he hadn't
been shocked, appalled and angry, then I would have been.
I know there are specific instances, in the months that followed the revelation,
where Lucky treated his parents very poorly. And I can probably never persuade
you that his behavior was anything less than outrageous, even though that's not
the way I saw it. In my opinion, Lucky had every right to his anger, about the
original incident, and about the way his parents, especially Laura, reacted to
his reaction.
But the fact is that Lucky processed all this information, all these conflicting
emotions, in his own way and time--something he was taught to do by both his parents.
He was raised to survive on his own, to be an independent thinker, to call a spade
a spade, never to back down from something he believed in. Most of all, he was
raised to love and protect his family.
And in the end, he decided that's what was most important. He acknowledged,
to his parents, and to Elizabeth, that he had been cruel and heartless in his
treatment of Luke and Laura. He realized that what happened 20 years before was
not his battle to fight. He came home to his family.
The Lucky we saw then took us on that emotional journey with him--we were able
to understand his sense of betrayal and his anger, even if you didn't think he
was entitled to them. But most viewers had sympathy for Lucky, on some level,
because Jonathan Jackson could exhibit a range of emotions. Even when he was angry
with his parents, you could always see the love underneath.
The "Lucky" we see now on GH is barely capable of conveying
one emotion at a time. Folks say he can play angry, or psycho, but even on those
terms, he is unconvincing to me.
Old Lucky annoyed you; so does the new version, apparently.
But the old Lucky, the real Lucky, moved and amazed me. He made me become a
regular GH viewer again.
UnLucky? He's this close to making me check out of GH for good.
Sarah
Back to Front Page of Issue
Back to Top
|
