Skip to comments.Soap Actress Says She Was Fired Because of Religious Beliefs
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 ...
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!”
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.
Probably. But when her character was created, her "television family" were supposed to be hard-working, religious Latins who didn't go in for a lot of the nonsense and depravity going on around them, a throwback to the earlier days of the soaps. That was a long time ago, though, and the soaps were a lot tamer then. I don't know when she came on board.
Incorrect. Lorne Greene owned Ben Cartwright far more than Melvin Klutnick, the accountant in Boston who decided what NBC should spend on "Bonanza." And the network didn't pay Jennifer Aniston a mill an episode because they could get another Rachel at any bus stop.
However, I speak in the aesthetic, not the legal, sense.
And your analogy to assembly-line automobiles illustrates a basic conflict between labor and capital that has existed at least since the Industrial Revolution. The owners of the factory can fire the worker who refuses to paint the car, but unless they can find someone who IS willing to paint it the "hideous" color of green, either they will have to paint it themselves (and presumably poorly) or they will have to acquiesce to the workers' refusal.
In effect, the worker DOES "own" some part of the fruit of his labor.