Members dragonflies Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,546720,00.html??test=faces 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 Wow--it appears that all that NB reported was absolutely correct in this instance...from the religious beliefs to the offer to rescript dialogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rhinohide Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 Except nowhere does she say she refused to play the role as scripted. She simply voiced her objection that Carlotta, a character she created over the last 14 years would not respond the way it was written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members R Sinclair Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 Cry me a river. This is how typical employer/employee relationships go: You're hired to do a specific job. You refuse to do it. You're fired! End of story. She refused to do the work. She wasn't fired for her personal beliefs. Call yourself a Christian yet live by the Old Testament all you want. Let everyone at your job know it. It's your business. It's your right! But if you tell your boss that you refuse to do your work for which you've been hired because of those beliefs, then you're outta there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dragonflies Posted September 4, 2009 Author Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 They fired her for that I've seen many actors object to things like "my character wouldn't say or do this" and things like that Sounds like ABC was looking for any excuse to get rid of her Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members R Sinclair Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 Then what does "despite offering changes to the script" mean to you? If you're not refusing to play it as scripted, why would you offer changes to the script? That's more than voicing an objection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MichaelGL Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 Well many people have stayed in a role when their characters have done something out of character. This isn't brand new and they simply went along with it and did their job. I think she should have played along and did her job, if she wanted to keep it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dragonflies Posted September 4, 2009 Author Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 Sorry I don't agree with that mentality. I think actors should speak out when they KNOW it's something their character wouldn't do(or say) No one knows the characters than the actors playing them-not even the writers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 I've never understood why being tolerant of her gay son would be out of character for Carlotta. I've never seen or heard Carlotta mention gay issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members R Sinclair Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 That's a crock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JinxxAvery Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 PM never had a problem with Carlotta being a cafeteria Catholic when it came to her character cheerleading Cris and Antonio fornicating without the benefit of marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Carolyn1980 Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 Actors are paid to act, period. They may voice their opinons about what they think their character might or might not do or say, but ultimately, they have to speak the words as written. That's their job. If she refused to play the scene as written, they had every right to "fire" her. (I put "fire" in quotes, because technically, she wasn't even on contract. She was a recurring player who was used and paid as needed. In other words, unlike contract players, she could've turned it down when they called her). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dragonflies Posted September 4, 2009 Author Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 Yeah they are paid to act, but they have every right to voice their opinion if they know it's something their character isn't going to do. I remember a few years ago reading about Michael E. Knight from AMC going to the producers and being FURIOUS about something that was written that he knew his character would never do. David Canary objected to Adam leaving a pregnant Krystal alone and in labor on the floor and they changed it slightly. I don't see why they couldn't change one stupid line. It's not like it would have harmed the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 LOD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Faulkner Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 Louise Sorel and Victoria Rowell did it, too. But they were legendary stars who had power they could leverage. Was PM even on contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.