Some Thoughts on the Rev. Trask

[Raineypark]

Never having watched this storyline before, I was unaware of a very interesting achievement on the part of Mr. Curtis and Company.  I had no idea that, at this point in his ongoing narrative, Dan Curtis would produce his first truly terrifying character.

Certainly, up till now, we've had a plethora of storybook bogeymen to entertain us.  The Vampire, The Monster, The Werewolf and now even The Zombie, are all standard props in the repertoire of horror stories.  At some point, they even slip over the edge and become comic book shadows of the original creatures with which we love to scare ourselves witless.

But now we have on the scene a creature that we CANNOT laugh at, because, unlike the others, he is not a figment of overwrought imagination.  Instead, he is that most horrific thing, the Human Monster, who lives and breathes like the rest of us, but is, in fact, the closest to pure evil any of us can fathom.

Watching today's episode for the very first time, I immediately wondered if, were he producing this series today, Dan Curtis would create this personification of evil: a man who claims to represent God, but instead, represents all that is loathsome, degenerate, cruel and unholy.

I found Jerry Lacy's portrayal brilliant¢â‚¬¦.to the point of being unbearable to watch.  The unmistakable innuendo of sexual abuse, physical cruelty and psychological torture was more than I ever would have imagined being portrayed on a daytime soap opera.  I was frankly astonished by it.

But, after turning it off, and thinking about it at some length, it occurred to me that these are different times, and this was produced 35 years ago.  We were more innocent then.  Or more oblivious.  A story like this would have been viewed (in 1967) as a Victorian melodrama¢â‚¬¦..the sort of thing that "doesn't  happen in this day and age"¢â‚¬¦..except, of course, that it did¢â‚¬¦¢â‚¬¦and does¢â‚¬¦..and almost certainly will continue to.

Given what we are forced to acknowledge of life today,  I very much doubt Gregory Trask would exist in a modern version of this series.  The original Rev. Trask was an archetype of hypocricy and self-importance, narrow-minded enough to believe in Satanism.  He was easy to watch, as he made a fool of himself and paid the price.  

But not THIS Rev. Trask.   He strikes too close to home¢â‚¬¦..he's too immediate and real¢â‚¬¦..the likes of him haunt us in our waking hours, not in our dreams¢â‚¬¦¢â‚¬¦and, for me, at least, he's too despicable to be entertainment.

Raineypark

[Cassandra Blair]

Yeah, he is a really chilling character.  Almost reminds me of a priest character from a Canadian movie I saw 7 or 8 years back called "The Boys of St. Vincent's." It's a good, but not enjoyable film. Trask is just vile and so slimy, but he really works for me as a character and I do enjoy watching him, though I hate him and everything he stands for.

In retrospect, perhaps the late '60s were a more innocent time, and maybe the smarmy innuendo of Gregory Trask's less savory side passed over the heads of middle America.  Priests/ministers were no doubt seen as more trustworthy in general back then. But there is also a long history of individuals who abused the trust ascribed to these positions, going back hundreds of years.  I mean, Lucretia Borgia's father was the POPE, for Chrissakes! And he encouraged her brother to kill at least one of her husbands. In my own personal life, I remember that around the same time these episodes originally aired (late 60's), my parents quit going to the church they were then attending when the minister ran off with somebody else's wife and a whole lot of other people's money!

Don't get me wrong, I think that there are/were wonderful people in the ministry then and now. It just seems a larger than life story when someone (like Trask) who is supposed to be a paragon of virtue has feet of clay.  And the character seems all the worse because you can't laugh at him, it's someone you actually could run into in real life, unlike the vampire or the wolfman. Human monsters are both sad and scary.

For me the Trask characters function as a foil to the more conventional 'monsters.'  Barnabas and Quentin, though they start out as the heavies, eventually become (for some of us at least) the leading men, the anti-heros of the story if you will. Trask is an interesting counterpoint to this - illustrating that sometimes the real evil doesn't come from the supernatural. Sometimes it comes from a place much more banal and closer to what we consider 'reality.' Trask, though fully human, becomes the true villain. Current shows like 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' and 'Angel' have shown us characters like this recently.  

I think a character like Trask might be even more apropos today, when we are forced (sometime unwillingly) to acknowledge that such archetypal paternalistic authority figures such as priests, ministers, rabbis, imams, etc. aren't always deserving of trust. A 2002 model Trask might even be seen as a cliche.

That's my two cents anyway!  

[Gerard]

The most horrifying monsters are the human ones.  That's why Psycho can still terrify to this day.  We may all get spooked in a fun way by watching undead things or creepy-crawlies from other worlds stalking us, but when all is said and done, they exist only in our imaginations.  But the human monster, the mortal one of flesh and blood, can live across town, across the street, or even in our own homes.

Gerard

[jennifer]

tottally agree with above and believe that Gregory is the worst of The Trasks because he is pure evil!
i also can only take him in little doses but Jerry lacey does do a brilliant job with this role!

jennifer

[kuanyin]

I have to agree with you, it is quite the performance and the abuse of the children is chilling to the bone. And what horrifies me is that I'm afraid many school masters were actually like that. One of my favorite authors, C.S. Lewis and his brother were sent off to a boarding school for several years before the headmaster was permanently committed to a psychiatric hospital. All of the students knew there was no point in trying to tell their parents what went on there, it wouldn't have been believed and they probably would have been punished at home and school.

For the main part, I think the hypocritical man of God has been WAYYY overdone and is quite cliche (though it probably wasn't then). But Jerry Lacey makes it work and gives his villain role a complexity that is fascinating to watch.

[Cassandra]

The most horrifying monsters are the human ones.  That's why Psycho can still terrify to this day.  We may all get spooked in a fun way by watching undead things or creepy-crawlies from other worlds stalking us, but when all is said and done, they exist only in our imaginations.  But the human monster, the mortal one of flesh and blood, can live across town, across the street, or even in our own homes.

Gerard

Good point Gerard.  My father always says to me:
"It's not the dead you should be afraid of, it's the living!!" ;-)

[RingoCollins]

 But the human monster, the mortal one of flesh and blood, can live across town, across the street, or even in our own homes.
Gerard

Yep, thats why I like Frankensteen, Dracula, Mummy, Wolfman [Q-man?] movies - but don't eeeeeeven watch those 'reality' shows.

I think the writers really got 'inside' the scenes with all the Tra$k's roles.  Lacy is great at them tho, Love to hate those hip-o-creatins!

[Dr. Eric Lang]

Watching today's episode for the very first time, I immediately wondered if, were he producing this series today, Dan Curtis would create this personification of evil: a man who claims to represent God, but instead, represents all that is loathsome, degenerate, cruel and unholy.

Yes, I believe Dan Curtis would include such a character today - although we can't be sure how much responsibility Curtis himself can be assigned in regards to this character's creation.

However, in the 1991 revival series, the Rev. Trask of 1790 was more like Gregory Trask of 1897 than the original Trask in the 1795 TV episodes. He was a boozer who took young women down into his dungeon on the pretense of "exorcising" them, and what that entailed can be speculated on by the fact that the one we saw was unclothed.

I'd wager an incarnation of Gregory Trask today would be even more lurid and loathesome than what Curtis & Co. were allowed to get away with in the 60's.

[Gerard]

Yes, I believe Dan Curtis would include such a character today - although we can't be sure how much responsibility Curtis himself can be assigned in regards to this character's creation.

However, in the 1991 revival series, the Rev. Trask of 1790 was more like Gregory Trask of 1897 than the original Trask in the 1795 TV episodes. He was a boozer who took young women down into his dungeon on the pretense of "exorcising" them, and what that entailed can be speculated on by the fact that the one we saw was unclothed.

I'd wager an incarnation of Gregory Trask today would be even more lurid and loathesome than what Curtis & Co. were allowed to get away with in the 60's.

My memory may be foggy, but didn't they state in the '91 revival that Trask was actually excommunicated from his denomination and was a vagabond "minister"?

Gerard

[Dr. Eric Lang]

My memory may be foggy, but didn't they state in the '91 revival that Trask was actually excommunicated from his denomination and was a vagabond "minister"?

Gerard

Yes - but that was also the case with 1795 Trask in the original daytime series. Upon his arrival at Collinwood, being questioned by Barnabas, Trask admits he has no affiliation with any legitimate, established church, but rather has his "own" congregation.

[ProfStokes]

Rainey, I must say how much I enjoyed reading your post.  You covered the issue perfectly!

The Reverend Gregory Trask is, IMHO, the most repulsive villain on the show.  A remorseless, depraved, greedy, child abusing (most likely child molesting) attempted murderer would be terrible enough, but to have him pose as a man of God doubles the offense.  Watching him, I sometimes feel the need to scrub with disinfectant; the character is that disgusting.  Scenes like the one where Trask was talking about Rachel's hair (and an upcoming episode featurning a conversation with Dorcas Trilling) make my skin crawl and my stomach turn.  None of Lacy's other characters have that effect on me; it's a combination of the writing and the way that he portrays the lecherous, so-called reverend.  Disturbing as Trask and his actions are though, it is worth it to stick around, first-time viewers.  It does pay off in the end.

Of all the dastardly characters on this show, it does appear that the humans (mainly Gregory, but I would also nominate Nathan Forbes and Gabriel Collins) are the worst monsters of all.  Vampires, warlocks, etc. are traditionally expected to do evil things after all, but as usual, it's a shock to recognize just what some people can actually be capable of doing.

ProfStokes