Y&R: Shocking Role Recast

[SteveFrame]

I agree with you on that. I do think Nelson is a journalist who likes to entertain though. He tries to be both and he really needs to stick with one or the other. If he wants to be a journalist trying to break stories and be taken seriously then he needs to cut down on the entertainment part. That is another reason I have a hard time buying into this because as much as I love Nelson and defend him due to his entertainment level I cannot accept him as a reliable source.

And if Vee is right and Errol or Toups or someone know something I wish they would say something. Right now I fully don't understand why they are allowing stuff to happen on the board right now that they woudl never allow before. It looks hyprocritical when they shut down gossip threads and allow this to stay open.

[SteveFrame]

He has always seemed to be gay friendly but he was lambasted by his joking remarks he made in teh commentary to the movie where he kissed Van Der Beek. He was a homosexual in that movie. And had a sequence where he dreamed of havign sex with Van Der Beek.

He was really upset over the things said and done to him after the DVD came out and his remarks got out.

It was really sad because he seems like a genuinely good guy.

[Cashton]

Ian Someralder's comments from Rules of Attraction DVD (taken from wikipedia):

The Rules of Attraction commentary

In the film The Rules of Attraction, Somerhalder plays bisexual student Paul Denton who falls in love with the character Sean, played by James Van Der Beek. In one scene, Paul fantasizes, while masturbating behind a pillow, of seducing Sean. On one of the DVD's commentary tracks, Somerhalder discusses the scene while it is shown:

Oh yeah, doing a press junket of 62 intervays[sic]--interviews a day, and everyone asking about this one scene, which will probably haunt me and James--not haunt us, what am I talking about... It's actually quite funny. But I gotta say, [referring to the beer he is holding in the scene] that's real beer in there, buddy. It's gotta be one of the most uncomfortable things on the face of the planet that you could possibly do, is kiss a guy. I have the most profound respect for women now. --[Referring to a pimple-like bump on Van Der Beek's forehead] What is that thing in the middle of James's head?-- So, I gotta say, I never understood how painful it could possibly be. And I remember in the winter, seeing my girlfriend's face, it was a little red and scratchy... And I thought, ah, that must suck. Put two guys together? It's disgusting. It's like, [!@#$%^&*] velcro, ok? There's something inherently wrong, with that. But it was really funny. It was quite funny. *laughs* And it's in all seriousness. But I-I have to say, that, after doing this, you feel... a bunch of liberties--not sexually, but just a lot of liberties where you sort of push... everything you could possibly push... and you just finish your day of work and you have a beer and you laugh about it... But what's really funny is, no one knows whose fantasy this is? I kiss James and he stops me, and then once it [sic] more, how funny is that? It's--I, I, I just, yeah. Mmm. It's just, uh... I-eh-I've seen this--No, there was no tongue! There was NO tongue. That was the one thing, that James and I talked about, --It was the first thing, we said it simultaneously: "Don't stick your [!@#$%^&*] tongue in my mouth." But it looks like it... Eh, what did someone say? Someone said in an interview, "So it was like, ki"--So they said "What do you do?" And I said "well you open your mouth, [voice changes to re-enact the experience] like this, and you don't stick your tongue in their mouth." And they said, "So it's like, sucking on a pipe." *laughs* I said, "...I guess so. I haven't really sucked on a pipe but I guess it would sort of be like a pipe." 'Cause if you've ever kissed a girl, with your mouth open, and her tongue didn't come outta her mouth? It was kind of annoying. And it was sorta like kissing a pipe.

[CSF]

I know what you mean about people believing gossip. You're right, it's sad when people believe whatever they hear without any credibility behind it.

That's why I believe that for an actor to be successful, they need to do what the script calls for and not care, because the minute they start caring and second guessing things, they might as well just shoot themselves in the foot with a 9mm. In show business you can't care. You just gotta do, what ya gotta do. Kiss a man, hug a land mine, etc, that's the part you play. It can help make you a star or not, but the point is, an actor has to embrace themselves in the role. They have to step out of who they are and become who that character is for those scenes. When the day is done and it's all been shot and aired, they are back to themselves. If controversy breaks out and people start running around calling Engen a "homo" because he kissed Rafe, well that's when he has to address the public that "he" didn't kiss Rafe, Adam kissed Rafe. The two are separate.

What I find sad in all of this is that Engen quit a role that I enjoyed him in. I don't care about his personal beliefs. He can hate gays for all I care, it's no skin off my nose or anyone else's for that matter. But he totally f*ucked himself over if he quit for what we've been told thus far. Just because I believe in equality doesn't mean everyone else has to and I can deal with that because at the same time, I have views that other's may hate, but one thing I won't do, is let them get in the way with how successful I want to be in life. Chris shouldn't either for that matter.

[cara mia]

Nitpick. Lucid spells CE's name wrong on the first post, though CE's last name is misspelled all the time. Egan is Irish. Engan is Scandanavian. Engen is German. None of them are the same name! Minor error I guess, but as a comp. lit major stuff like that irritates me.

It's not show morals, it's show business. Any actor, regardless of their personal beliefs or hang-ups, "deserves" to work if the producer/director thinks they will add value to the final product. CE's "alleged" refusal to kiss a man is minor compared to the CRIMES committed by many actors. I also believe that actors grow & evolve. There are things they wouldn't do today that will be willing to do a year from now. I don't buy the argument that just because there are so many actors out there that the ones with hang-ups (whatever they might be) are therefore unemployable. It always comes down to the project. Now, I would never want to work with Mel Gibson because I find his many ridiculous statements (about gays, women, Jews, non-Catholics) to be insane but if some director wanted him for some project because he thought MG could add some value to the project, then so be it.

Isiah Washington insulted one co-star and physically attacked another. So no, not in the same ballpark as CE's alleged actions.

Speaking of Grey's Anatomy, why the hell are the press/media given Shonda Rhimes a free pass for the SHAMEFUL way she has treated TR Knight? Why is that he gets insulted, outed on a timetable not his own, and then he has to be backburnered so much that he finally requests to be released from his contract? Am I the only one who see TR being punished for the sins of Isiah?

[SteveFrame]

Very good post.

I see more and more each year why some actors and actresses are so secretive many times or afraid to say things. It is hard to be yourself without being on guard for what you say or how you say it or what you do. It can end up being a situation where no matter what you do or say you can end up being wrong.

I was thinking of something funny about how far we have come. Years ago actors like Rock Hudson worried about playing gay because of fear that it would ruin their careers. Now they have to worry if they don't play gay and even like it that it will ruin their careers.

As the old cigarette company aimed at woman used to say: "We've come a long way baby."

[cara mia]

Steve, times have changed. I remember when I was kid, I happened on a radio interview with conservative douchebag extraordinaire Bob Grant and Bill Bell. I missed the first few minutes but of course listened to the whole thing when I realized who Bob was talking to. You gotta to wonder what the Ghost of Bill Bell thinks of all of this. Bob Grant and his uber-conservative listeners would not have back then (or today) had anything nice to say about the gay storyline at all. And yet Bell saw this group of people as his audience. Then again, Bell didn't cotton to bratty actors either.

Times like this, you want a oujia board.

[DeeeDee]

[SteveFrame]

For those that say he shouldn't work because he refused to kiss a man and this is show business and he should play whatever is thrown at him.

What about all the scenarios that have been thrown out:

Robert Milli and his refusal to play a Nazi - should he have never worked again?

The guy that played Peter Benton didn't like the thing with Corday - for reasons of his own - should he work again?

What about actors like Michael Douglas and Harrison Ford who refused the movie Making Love due to the subject matter. Should they have worked again?

What about Native American actors who have refused to play Indians in movies and TV shows where the Indian was not portrayed in a manner they deemed fit?

Or what about black actors who have been criticized by their fellow actors for playing slaves in movies or servants in movies. Poor Hattie McDaniel was criticized big time for her role in Gone With The Wind and many black actors refused to play that part. Hattie McDaniel was even told that she hated her race for playing that role. I remember even reading some black person say in our local paper where it was brought up that the first African American to win an Oscar was her. They wrote back and said no that it was Sidney Poitier that as far as she was concerned Hattie McDaniel was not black.

How far do we take it? Just how far outside of ones comfort zone should a person go? How far do we want to take that statement of that an actor should play whatever is thrown at him?

I personally hold to the statement that an actor should have principles and I applaud him for those principles. Or is just that certain principles are more important than others? Or does it come down to the fact that if we believe in the same principle that it is okay for that person to refuse to do it?

I was watching a rerun of Law & Order earlier tonight. In it James Earl Jones plays a black lawyer who is hired to defend a guy who has murdered several black people simply because they were black - no other reason. I remember reading that the episode received a lot of criticism from people in the black community who said that no self-respecting black lawyer would do that even though James Earl Jones said in the show as his character that he was just doing his job.

I have taken and listened to and read everything you guys have said. And I have weighed it all. I am just trying to figure how far we take it. What principles do we throw out and what do we hold to.

We all have to make up our minds and do what is best for us in our daily lives. Whehter it be us or an actor or a politician. We have to do what we feel is right. I don't know why Engen did what he did. I really want to know why he did, and I want to be given the opportunity to try to understand why he did it. If it is because he hates gays I will hate it and I will be the first to tell him that is wrong. If it for some other reason I hope it is at least important enough to him to do what he did and to possibly ruin his career over it.

I personally at least want to give him a chance to set the record straight before I throw him to the wolves.

[KLN]

Completely random question, but is that one of the characters from MTV's Oddities?

[All My Shadows]

No, boy, that's Aaahhh Real Monsters! Nickelodeon, circa 1996.

[CSF]

Mel Gibson has an established career, Chris Engen does not. I think if the roles were reversed and if Mel Gibson starred on Y&R x amount of years ago and pissed off Bill Bell, MG would not be working today. Bell would have gotten him blacklisted like he blacklisted Brenda Dickson.

I don't agree with a lot of what Mel Gibson says, and that's a whole different topic but I can tell you one thing, I'm almost positive Mel Gibson wouldn't care about what any of us think. That's the point I was trying to make is that CE comes off as he cares about what people think. When you act, you can't care because you're gonna get all hung up over things that are such immaterial and that's going to hinder your success. There has to be a separation between your work life and your personal life.

No actor is above recast in this day and age. There are millions of people working tables in NYC and LA waiting for their big break. Anyone can play the role that CE played on Y&R. MAB obviously found another actor who is eager to do what her scripts are calling for and that's that. Clearly CE was not that person if he couldn't abide by his contract. From what we know, he let his refusal to kiss another man get in the way of his career. Now he's unemployed. What' next? What if he gets another job and he is to play the part of a character who's involved with a girl who gets an abortion and he CE is pro-life (just speculation)? Does he walk out and quit again?

As for producers and directors wanting particular actors for certain things, no producer or director will ever want to cast an actor who walked off set and quit over a storyline issue.

[CSF]

Good points, Steve. I too wish that he would just come out and say something about what really happened.

Also, I think what the issue here is that, no one is holding a gun to your head and it all depends on who you are and your resume.

If you are an established actor who's starred in many successful movies and shows and have been nominated many times and you're a HUGE star and you refuse to play a role because it's against your beliefs, clearly you are not the "right" actor for that part. You are already financially set and have a name for yourself already established. The producers will find who they feel is the "right" actor and since this is related to casting, the public will most likely not even know who is being considered for such a role. Now, I'm stating this in regard to starring in a movie, not a soap.

In a soap, it's much more rigid. You are playing a character and therefore, that does not make you, the actor, above recast. You are contractually bound to the show and are to do as the script calls, whether you believe in that or not. Again, no one is holding a gun to your head so if you disagree with the producers, directors and writers and decide to walk out in the middle of your contract, you need to be prepared for the repercussions.

This is why I believe, once again, actor's cannot show that they care or let their personal feelings get in the way of becoming a star. It's all about taking that chance. You're given a storyline that's rather taboo, who knows what the outcome may be? Who knows how you will walk away from it. Whether it will be the best thing you've ever done or the worst, you don't know until you've done it and that's part of the job. I think showing refusal is far worse than the storyline turing into being a huge flop. You gotta play your heart out and give it your all. An actor has to show they can tackle anything that's thrown at them, whether they hate it or not.

Now on thing came to mind and that is, Dixie Carter is a registered republican (now she can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, the republican's of 40 years ago, or a conservative as we know them today), but her character on Designing Women, Julia Sugarbaker was very, very liberal. I don't know her personally, nor do I know what her political viewers were 20 years ago, but I'm just going to say, out of speculation, if she let her party affiliation get in the way with her role on Designing Women (which was one of her most famous roles), she would have never been Julia Sugarbaker who many fans of the show loved. This shows that you have to separate your personal feelings and beliefs from what you have to do at work.

[SteveFrame]

I agree with you CSF and a lot of actors do. I think it comes down to personalities. Some people can easily separate work from personal life while others can't.

I am not afraid to admit that I am the opposite. In all the years I worked in management especially I never could leave my work at work. It was part of my life at all times. I brought the problems of work home with me, and my ex-wife hated that.

Alot of people are the opposite and I am proud of them and people like Dixie Carter who can. Others also in the industry use their jobs to get their political message across too. The writers of Designing Women in particular did. They were very liberal and they used Designing Women to attack, and that was their right to do so.

I remember Ruth Warrick being very angry about the writing for her character on All My Children in 1970. She was anti-war while Phoebe was pro-war. She decided that she would make Phoebe look like a ditz to make her seem stupid and no one would take what she said to heart. She didn't want anyone to fall for what Pheobe was saying because it was totally against what she believed. Agnes Nixon threatened to fire her if she didn't play the role as it was written. She straightened up although she was never happy with that part of Phoebe and glad when it was done away with.

I know that the longer you are in the business it entitles you to a little more prestige and a little more leeway, but I brought the question up because some have been so adamant about if you are an actor you play what is given to you. Or that if you are an actor that is your job and you just do it no matter what.

My fear is that this has been made such a deal of and so many venues have reported it and talked about it - just like the news channel I mentioned earlier who had it as part of their round table discussion on the weeks biggest entertainment stories. My fear is that we may see more actors pushing for stipulations in their contracts about what they will and won't do and it may limit further what kind of stories can or will be done. They are going to want to avoid something like this happening to them. Newcomers won't be able to get those things but some others will be able too I'm sure. I mean look at the grandmother clause that Eileen Fulton got that kept Tom from being able to have a child for years on the show. There is still debate about when that ended and many still blame Fulton for Margo's miscarriage early on even though Fulton swears the clause was gone long before that.

I will be anxious to see what affect this might have on the industry as a whole.

[marceline]

I believe Nelson thinks of himself as a journalist and an entertainer. The problem is, IMO, that he expects the rest of us to follow him as he veers between those two roles when and how he sees fit. So my question is which NB broke the Engen story, the journalist or the entertainer? If it was the entertainer then the journalists out there did a real disservice by repeating it and if it was the journalist then it didn't meet even the basic standards of high school newspaper reporting.

Either way, one bad article by a gossip monger with a known tendency toward grudges has been given far too much weight.