Lynching??? How many minorites have gone out and lynched a majority? How am I lynching Engen? That's a crazy word to use. Who has Perez strung up from a tree? Steve - I think you said it best. We are not going to agree. I'm ok with that!

It's an exhausting topic. My firends now hate me for typing on my blackberry all night. Glad someone understands my POV.

You have not lynched him in the literal sense but yes you have lynched him in the figurative sense. Lynching in it's basic form is convicting someone to death before you have the facts. That is the mentality of a lynch mob. They don't wait for the trial they go ahead and proclaim the person guilty and exact punishment.

That is what you did. That is what Perez did.

You guys heard the rumors and decided they were true even without the facts. You found him guilty based on gossip. And you went ahead an labeled him a homophobe. Not even an alleged homophobe.

I have no qualms whatsoever about Engen not wanting to kiss another man or play a gay character. I think he's 100% in his right to feel that way. My issue, and only issue, is that he walked out on a contract. That was an unprofessional no-no. If he ever works again, next time he should just be sure to stipulate what he will and won't do before signing the contract, and try to get an 'out' clause.

If Rafe were the town gay, then I'd also find the story more interesting, but he's a blip on the radar screen. Instead of a story about a character people know and understand being manipulated, it becomes about a character who was only created for this angle of Adam seducing a homosexual. The drama becomes about someone being so desperate that they will toy with someone of their own sex.

If the story is about using homosexuality as a way to get attention, or using homosexuality to show depravity, instead of about emotions or characters, then I think they're taking the wrong approach.

Well, that is insightful, and you're right. If this is a Sheffer-esque attempt to use Adam's abuse of Rafe for sensationalism/"hoot factor", that may be ill-timed.

Here is how I have reconciled it. In hurting Rafe, we will get to know Rafe. In other words, Adam's victimization of him will begin to define Rafe as someone we care about...someone deserving of a real relationship. And it is THEN that the real relationship with someone else will begin.

I'm sure most hate that idea, but that's where I think they might be going....

To me CBS has just flubbed the whole thing in the first place. As I said over at CBS the one show on CBS daytime that should definitely have gay characters is B&B and it is the one show that has never had a serious long term gay character. If they really wanted to be a friend to gays they would rectify that situation.

Someone said they recently saw a scene where someone grabbed Brandon Beemer's *ss (Jackie?), but his character, Owen, said something like "knock if off Clarke". Implying Clarke was actively bi or something.

I never saw that scene. But it may be that B&B has had its own GLBT character and we didn't even know it .

Homophobia comes in all shapes and sizes but when this big focal point goes on Chris Engen or on birdbrain Miss California, I wonder about what is going to be ignored because all the frenzy was already spent on these controversies Perez or Nelson helped whip up.

Yes. I think (under Perez) what I'm starting to worry about is McCarthyism. In the long run, if people react AGAINST Perez's mission, it will set back the very real movement of trying to tear down the walls of unacceptance and unequal rights. Sometimes, kid gloves are better.

I am Chris Engen talked out. He isn't coming back. He has been replaced by someone else. The only thing left is to see where he lands if anywhere at all.

Me too. Because CE is the one who left (for whatever reason) and has been replaced by someone who genuinely wants to be there (MM)...I'm truly kind of over it too. I liked CE, but now I'm eager to see what the new guy brings. More or less, "end of story".

Anyway, the second Maria saw where the story was going, she should have consulted with him about it. And not only because of the gay kiss aspect of it, but from a "How can I accurately portray this without this twist coming from left field" kind of standpoint. If she would have done that, we probably would have had NuAdam by now instead of having him jump in during the middle of a crucial story beat. We have heard so many actors complain about how they were completely blindsighted by a story twist. Yes, the difference between them and Engen is that they played the story, while he opted to leave with what he thought was his dignity. It's unprofessional, but at the same time, who wants to be held somewhere against their will?

I can't believe they DIDN'T tell Engen. In his interview with NB this week, Yani Gellman said he was told about the "gay twist" for his character as soon as it came to the writers.

Thus, I can't imagine they wouldn't have extended the same courtesy to Engen. Why wouldn't they?

You can't deny that's there's been a longstanding discussion from almost day one about the scattered writing for Adam. You've a situation here with an actor who needs to understand his actor because he wants to play him effectively playing a character that's been very poorly thought out and changed almost monthly. The only reason Adam has worked out at all and been kept viable to this point in Engen's performance. Now MM is taking over Adam at his real low villainous point and it appears that's how Adam will stay that way until he's presumably killed off. I'm sure MM will be great but he won't need to ask the question of who am I playing and how did I get here because Adam will already be fixed as nasty devil boy when MM starts.

You're right. Adam is now defined (as a low down snake), so MM will enter playing a clearly defined character. His job will be to find some sympathetic beats underneath that or -- you're right -- he's rapidly heading to the trash compactor.

That said, the son of Victor and Hope should not be a short-term villain, to be killed off at the end. He shouldn't even be sent to prison for 5 years, like Michael Baldwin. I hope the writing is clever enough to 'save' Adam. Maybe, now, if TPTB enjoy having MM around more than they did CE, they'll be more motivated to "save" the character.

That said, the son of Victor and Hope should not be a short-term villain, to be killed off at the end. He shouldn't even be sent to prison for 5 years, like Michael Baldwin. I hope the writing is clever enough to 'save' Adam. Maybe, now, if TPTB enjoy having MM around more than they did CE, they'll be more motivated to "save" the character.

But you can be gray or downright nasty and still be a viable longterm character. If they "redeem" him, they should at least keep his outsider sensibility in the Newman clan. I wouldn't want the character to be toally whitewashed.

But you can be gray or downright nasty and still be a viable longterm character. If they "redeem" him, they should at least keep his outsider sensibility in the Newman clan. I wouldn't want the character to be toally whitewashed.

Agreed.

This topic is getting old now. LOL!

I think I'm all Engen-ed out...

:lol:

You are so right!

Well, that is insightful, and you're right. If this is a Sheffer-esque attempt to use Adam's abuse of Rafe for sensationalism/"hoot factor", that may be ill-timed.

Here is how I have reconciled it. In hurting Rafe, we will get to know Rafe. In other words, Adam's victimization of him will begin to define Rafe as someone we care about...someone deserving of a real relationship. And it is THEN that the real relationship with someone else will begin.

I'm sure most hate that idea, but that's where I think they might be going....

I agee with your asessment. I don't think gay characters are somehow ABOVE being victimized. I just don't want the character to be a PROFESSIONAL victim (i.e, Lily) But one of Y&R's original characters.. Leslie, was developed in exactly the way you described, except she was victimized by the selfishness and jealousy of her sister. It was pretty good, and we got to know Leslie as someone who was fragile, but sweet and always wanting to do the right thing.

Should an actor on a soap be prepared to play WHATEVER beat is thrown at them (even if it is shocking, out of context, inexplicable based on the past...etc.).

Here is what two respected veterans, Heather Tom and Jack Wagner, have to say about it. (These are just excerpts from a Michael Fairman interview; the full interview is much more extensive and definitely worth the read, IMO).

TV SOAP:

Then, didn’t Nick take Katie away to an Island, and isn’t that where you ‘made love’?

HEATHER:

Unbeknownst to any of us… (She laughs)

JACK:

That never happened on-screen!

HEATHER:

We did some flashback stuff, and honestly we had no idea. I was not playing in those scenes that we had sex, just the complete opposite of that! Then all of a sudden, Brad Bell (executive producer and head writer, “B&B”) called me one day and said, “By the way, remember when you guys went to the islands?” And I go, “Well that kind of changes everything I have been playing for the last few

months!”

JACK:

It kind of goes to show as actors, that this was “off-camera sex”. I remember Heather and I going, “What are we going to do here?” And we kind of tracked in our minds, will it work or not? And it did work. We could have been ultimately covering the fact that they had been intimate. So, that is what worked and was justifiable, but it was backwards how it happened, so we shot it out of sequence.

TV SOAP:

On “B&B” it’s known that story direction can change quickly on a dime. How did you adjust your performances?

HEATHER:

I am not sure it would have made any difference on how I played it, because I wouldn’t have wanted to tip my hand, no matter what. As an actor, I do give myself secrets even if they don’t have anything to do with anything, but that would have been a fun secret to have. Even though I would not have wanted to play that for the audience, I think that pretty much changed how the audience perceived it. As an actor, I would have been playing more subtext, and on this show you have to be open to all of the twists and turns. It can always go off in some new direction.

TV SOAP:

When we last spoke, Jack, you referred to Nick as “The Seed Man” because he was sleeping with and/or impregnating almost every woman on the show.

JACK:

I just show up at work and say, “Hi, will you marry me?

elsewhere, in a different context, they say this:

TV SOAP:

Will you go to the producers with issues if there is something you don’t feel is right for the integrity of your character, or if there is something you feel completely ill at ease doing?

HEATHER:

I did take issue with the flashbacks and the pimples. Ultimately I lost, and I was wrong. They write the show and we do our jobs, and I have to trust what they write.

JACK:

Through experience, as far as acting, you get better as you get older with more life experience. For me, when something doesn’t work, I have to come in with an option. You can’t go in and just say, “This doesn’t work.” You have to go in with a “What if?” and some other idea or two. “For me…would you consider this?” I no longer do the type of thing where you would call Aaron Spelling and say this and that, and then have him say, “You know, we can find someone else to play that part!”

And finally, they talk about embracing the unknown:

TV SOAP:

Jack are you looking forward to the next chapter in Nick’s life?

JACK:

I always look forward to the next chapter. I embrace it. But, it’s hard not to take things personally because you really do get personal with these actors, and when they go in different directions it feels sad. I am sure Heather feels the same way. In your career you enjoy working with actors who do comedy, actors who can cry, and different storylines are fun. Some storylines are not so much fun. You embrace it and you have to learn to let it go.

Wonderful post, Cashton... I think I love you. That was the crux of my outrage as well, the idea that having to play a gay character is SO HORRIBLE that you have to break your contract over it. Where would his righteous indignation come from, anyway? From what I understand, Engen is living in sin and had a baby out of wedlock.... not exactly the catholic way. MAB has enough trouble trying to juggle everybody's wants and needs, for some pipsqueak newcomer to make demands is ridiculous, she has enough trouble trying to fight intereference from CBS when writing her show. She also has people like BRAEDEN that she has to placate, and I'm SURE, massage his ego. Engen is acting like a petulant child, and who needs to deal with that?

I love Cashton's posts too!!!! He makes it all sound simple and sensible. I totally agree with his POV.

Edited May 24, 200916 yr by Vanguardian

I don't think I have anything to add. I'm pretty much going to co-sign the posts of Vee and Cashton because they seem to be the most objective, thoughtful, rational, and reasonable posters in this thread (no hidden agendas, emotional outbursts, or avoiding the issue at hand) .

Hold up I will say one thing...why do people keep comparing a newbie actor to the likes of well-known and "respected" actors? Ie. A situation with Eric Braeden and Chris Engen is entirely different. For one, you can't expect someone who has years of work under their belt, to be treated the same as someone who is just beginning their acting career (and is at this point completely replaceable).

I have no qualms with Engen, and I'd like to think that the money he made on Y&R should keep him afloat for some time.

Edited May 24, 200916 yr by MTSRocks

Damn! I always arrive when a good topic has been chewed out.

For legality reasons, all I'll say is: It's happening.

What if he was a doctor and refused to see a patient because the paitent was gay and was fired because of it - would you say "he stood up for his beliefs"? Where is the line? That's what I want to know.

Why is it OK to not do your job because of your personal beliefs about homosexuality? Can other professions do this too? should that be OK? We're talking about a KISS, something the actor is paid to do. Sometimes you get to kiss Vail Bloom - score, sometimes you have to kiss Yani, bad day at work (for HIM, not me!). But it's a part of the job.

This a very simplistic view, Cashton. I'm surprised you can't see the difference between not wanting to work with someone because they're gay (the Dr./patient analogy), and someone who doesn't want to act out a gay scene. I get that either way, it's still fear, but one can be comfortable with the former, but uncomfortable with the latter - it all depends on the context.

IMO, if CE's problem was based on religious beliefs, then why wasn't he accommodated accordingly? Many actors are given an out if they are uncomfortable with a certain aspect of a story. TPTB normally consult an actor to make sure they're fine with the "controversial" story direction, and if they aren't, then it gets changed. Whether or not you agree with his reasons, is *not the point*; CE is human, just like the rest of us, and if he is uncomfortable with kissing a guy, then the story should be changed. He shouldn't have to suck it up, 'cause it's his job. Where's the consideration? I say this, because I've read many a time when actors have been consulted on the same/similar storyline issues, and have had their personal feelings taken into account.

Edited May 24, 200916 yr by Ben

This reminds me so much of 1975 when George Reinholt worked with Paul Rauch and Rauch told so many lies to the press about Reinholt's tirades on the set of Another World.

This is why I think all of us should refrain from condemning CE until the whole truth comes out. Everything we've heard has been from TPTB point of view and we know that they are unreliable. If/when Engen pulls a Mel Gibson and makes insulting comments about gays, I'll the be the first to condemn him.

Well, that is insightful, and you're right. If this is a Sheffer-esque attempt to use Adam's abuse of Rafe for sensationalism/"hoot factor", that may be ill-timed.

Here is how I have reconciled it. In hurting Rafe, we will get to know Rafe. In other words, Adam's victimization of him will begin to define Rafe as someone we care about...someone deserving of a real relationship. And it is THEN that the real relationship with someone else will begin.

I'm sure most hate that idea, but that's where I think they might be going....

MarkH, I fear this too and I think this absolutely paints Adam into a corner that's hard to come out of. If Adam doesn't care about anyone -- not Ashley, Victor, Heather, Rafe, or even himself. how can he be a long-term villain? That's why if TPTB are going to do Rafe/Adam, they should be doing it with the intention of Adam eventually having real feelings for Rafe. If Adam were genuinely bisexual, that would give the character plenty of material to be conflicted over and it give the Victor/Adam relationship plenty of issues. How does Victor cope with having a son who sleeps with men? That's an infinitely better story than homosexuality just being used for shock factor.

Edited May 24, 200916 yr by cara mia

This is why I think all of us should refrain from condemning CE until the whole truth comes out.

Well, that shot to sh!t, didn't it? Twenty pages of condemnations and defence all together!

And the truth will never come out.

I don't know if MAB has the writing skills, but characters have done far worse than Adam's juvenile antics, and are still shown today (Dorian Lord, Victor Newman) or live on as icons (Roger Thorpe, Asa Buchanan).