Posted on 09/09/2009 8:13:09 AM PDT by Maelstorm
If you tuned in to the soap "One Life to Live" this week, you may have noticed there's been a change of character. One character in particular.
Actress Patricia Mauceri says she was fired and abruptly replaced for objecting to a gay storyline because of her religious beliefs.
Mauceri played the recurring role of Carlotta Vega on "OLTL" for the last 14 years. But when she objected to how the writers wanted her deeply religious character, a Latina mother, to handle a storyline involving homosexuality, she objected. And for that she claims she was fired.
Mauceri, 59, a devout Christian, told FOX News that character Vega's gay-friendly dialogue was not in line with the character she helped create by drawing on her own faith.
"I did not object to being in a gay storyline. I objected to speaking the truth of what that person, how that person would live and breathe and act in that storyline," she said. "And this goes against everything I am, my belief system, and what I know the character's belief system is aligned to."
Mauceri said she was replaced despite offering changes to the script and hoping for a compromise.
An ABC spokesperson said they were not aware of any such claims by Mauceri, adding such claims "would be frivolous."
When asked why Mauceri is no longer playing Carlotta Vega, the spokesperson said the show does not comment on personnel matters. The scene in question was scheduled to air Friday afternoon.
Mauceri told FOX News she is exploring her legal options. AFTRA, the actors union that represents her, did not respond to a request for comment.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Let’s start the phone calling and letter writing- some tel #s and addresses please!
“I know there is religious discrimination, but this isn’t it.”
I agree with most of what you’ve said, but I’m not convinced that there isn’t religious discrimination here. If this actress was treated differently from others, I think the case could be made that this was due to her religious orientation. If, for example, the soap opera person (director?) insisted on portraying this particular character in a way that would be offensive to the actress - and this was atypical behavior, then I think the case can be made. I also think it would be very hard to establish that.
Drama draws from life, and there's nothing wrong with taking part in art that portrays man as sinful. He is. Your message as you do so, however, is crucial. For instance, on soaps, no one endorses drunkenness and adultery per se. These things happen, they're often considered understandable or forgivable if the character is likable or good-looking, but they're considered bad in themselves—especially if they're not working to your personal benefit.
This bit of ideological enforcement on the show concerning sodomy is special, because it sounds as if this devout Roman Catholic character is supposed to wind up accepting, endorsing, and encouraging homosexual sodomy. Promoting a sin is sinful in itself—especially in a serious matter. Remember Matthew 18:6: "[H]e that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea."
Now consider that the Church teaches that homosexuality is one of the "Four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance." The other three are willful murder, depriving the workman of his just wages, and oppressing the poor. Promoting homosexuality (as opposed to acknowledging its existence or portraying it) is deadly stuff.
I'm not saying this is a First Amendment issue. But it definitely could be a union issue, and she's right to give the show a black eye over it. More power to her.
Bravo! You said it so much better than I did.
Elia Kazan is the one I was thinking of. I believe he suffered greatly because of his cooperation. This “tolerance” door definitely doesn’t swing both ways.
And I find it very interesting that there was a great deal of sympathy for Hitler and crew during that time. If Americans knew the slightest bit of history - even recent history - they might be able to understand a little bit of what’s happening right in front of them.
“Mauceri excelled in being the “wise Latina woman” of great moral depth and compassion.”
We’re still talking about a Soap Opera , correct?
Denzel Washington is a devout Christian, yet did you see the things his character did in Training Day? Mel Gibson was pretty devout, yet not long prior to The Passion of the Christ he was playing a criminal in Payback.
;)
The characters an actor creates are as much a product of his or her labors as those of the writers, and certainly more than those of the network producers. That’s why series that replace a known actor with another in the same role rarely succeed. So this actress “owns” this character as much as some PC bean-counter does. And if she has principled objections to a script, the powers that be would be well advised, though not legally obligated, to heed her input.
It might well be a terrible decisions by the producers, both artistically (if that word can be applied to a soap opera) and commercially, but they had every right to make that choice.
Writers, producers and directors decide what the characters say, the actor’s job is to say what is in the script.
They owe her what the contract says they owe her. They may be foolish, stupid, immoral, whatever - but if she won’t accept the scripts written for her, she can be fired.
If her contract gives her script control, that’s a different matter, but that’s pretty unusual unless she’s a star.
I disagree that the actress “owns” the character. The owners of the program own the character. If they want to replace the writers who write her words, they can do it. If they want to turn her from a devout Catholic to an atheist prostitute, they have that right, too.
It might be stupid to replace an actress, or have a character do something totally out of character, but the owners of the show get to make that call.
The actress no more “owns the character” than an assembly line worker owns the product he makes. He can’t say, “That shade of green is hideous! I don’t care what the bosses say, I’m painting these cars blue!”
Well said.
But you said it faster!
I agree, it would be very hard to establish that this was different than any other contract violation, or that the change was made to get rid of her. I suspect that writers and directors write things that are offensive to people who are religious or of good morals all the time.
An analogy - an orthodox Jew plays an orthodox Jewish character; the script calls for a bacon eating scene. Should she refuse to play the scene (not actually eat the bacon, just play the scene and appear to eat it)? Should she have the right to retain her job despite refusing to do the scene? How about a Jehovah's witness playing a patient who receives a blood transfusion?
Actors and actresses get let go frequently because their characters are not popular enough, storyline changes, etc. I doubt her contract gives her script control. And if she doesn't have script control, it's no surprise she'd be fired for refusing to follow the script.
They aren’t in control. They are only in control because we allow ourselves to be silenced. It isn’t difficult, speak out on global warming and the tide turns. When we speak out and stand against deviancy they lose nearly every time the people have a vote. We need to reshape the landscape. There are more of us than them. We need to stop accepting it because social liberalism is the cause not the result of fiscal liberalism. Once you begin accepting all kinds of fuzzy ideas about make believe self centered perversions you will accept anything.
I agree. The best tack is to use the system liberals help build against them.
“An analogy - an orthodox Jew plays an orthodox Jewish character; the script calls for a bacon eating scene. Should she refuse to play the scene (not actually eat the bacon, just play the scene and appear to eat it)? Should she have the right to retain her job despite refusing to do the scene? How about a Jehovah’s witness playing a patient who receives a blood transfusion?”
I’ve never had the slightest desire to be on stage, but I have thought about these things. Would it be morally appropriate to promote ideas I do not support? That’s what it comes down to, really. Whether the storyline overtly endorses a subject or not, if it’s portrayed sympathetically that’s tacit endorsement - and on a wide scale. In fact, there’s the element of perception regardless of how the director intends the message to be received. Acting is a tricky business, I think. And subjective. I believe you’re right that ostensibly there’s no difference between being fired for professing faith and being fired for “creative differences.” I do believe the industry has a bias against people of faith, but, on the other hand, that bias exists in the “real world” as well.
God bless this woman, but I fear her union is about to throw her under the bus.
“...Once you begin accepting all kinds of fuzzy ideas about make believe self centered perversions you will accept anything.”
This woman is finished in the business. Watch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.