Jump to content

OLTL: Patricia Mauceri speaks about her firing


Recommended Posts

  • Members

It's about a grudge, Mark. Homophobia can be ignored and apologized for as long as we get the grudge on. I'd say there's a lack of courage for one's convictions involved, but clearly there isn't. It's just the wrong set of convictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

No grudge. I just think they're all petty and moronic and not living in any sense of reality. Mauceri is a homophobe who stepped over the line and then ran to Fox News for back-up when she was fired for not doing her job, and Valentini is an egotistical, arrogant megalomaniacal ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The only person that was done wrong in this equation was me for watching that drivel. It was horrible, over the top, out of character, the recast actress looked out of place and I don't even have the history with the show or the character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In what sense? I mean, are you saying that in relation to the Mauceri situation, or in another / others? I ask for that clarification because (1) that's popped up as if it were relevant or absolving for Mauceri and (2) I see other posters on here seeming to sing Mauceri's praises simply because they - for whatever reasons - can't stand Frank Valentini...

There shouldn't be an implied impression that hating-on-gays is "okay" because of some sentiment that the EP is a jerk. You understand where I'm coming from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I haven't always liked FV's actions or statements, in fact I was offended by some of his moves during the Higley era, but this is a case-by-case basis, and I'm with the above post. I'm not going to handwave homophobia just because someone in the production team may not be a nice person, and FV or RC's good or bad moves or choices with the show do not justify anything Patricia Mauceri's done, or the choices she chose to make. They aren't the homophobes who couldn't play tolerant material. It's show business, not auditioning for prom queen. Nobody worked to force Mauceri out, in fact they tried to work with her. She just couldn't do it.

Saying "well, I hate what they've done with the show so PM must've been right to be a homophobe" is not a valid excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I strongly believe the homophobia and Carlotta Out of Character arguments were definitely off-topic. People all across the soap board universe have been using that argument in defense of Mauceri. "She was FIRED for her personal beliefs!" No, she wasn't. "OMG! LOOK at that horrible out of character reaction! Mauceri was right!" Who cares? That wasn't the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes that was more about my general dislike of the ABC boys club. And as for what Valentini and Carlivati have or have not done wrong, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Valentini has no credibility with me on anything and IMO Carlivati wasn't true to the character. Mauceri may have her head up her ass but that doesn't mean that she wasn't right on that one point. Ron screwed the character of Carlotta. If its not okay to "hate on gays" because of a dislike for the EP then let's not give bad writing a free pass because we like the backstage politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But most people on this board and others say it was no big deal, that he didn't "screw the character of Carlotta" at all. It's not like there's been some groundswell of people claiming, "oh, I totally understand now!" Far from it. They're saying "that was it?" And they're right. And as has been demonstrated, it's not out of character for Carlotta to be understanding about homosexuality, because that material is in her past. I'm not giving "bad writing" a pass, because I don't feel the scene was bad writing; it's in Carlotta's history to be accepting of as many people as she's been judgmental against, including and specifically homosexuals, going back to the '90s. If you want to disagree, that's fine. But you happen to be wrong.

I don't think anyone "likes the backstage politics." What I really don't like, however, is an actor hiding behind a character's faith to try and be professionally closedminded, even though that faith has never stopped the character from being open-minded where the actor is not. And what I dislike just as much is people trying to exploit the issue to make another arbitrary attack on a production team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I totally agree. This one action hasn't ruined, screwed or drastically changed the Carlotta character in a negative fashion forever. It was a small thing the actress, foolishly, thought she had a chance at winning if she fought against it... and has turned into this huge thing that's been over done with for almost a week, already. People are just using it to either express their ignorance with homosexuality or their hatred with ABCD executives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

Frank being a major douchebag comes way before this. I obviously can't tell any behind-the-scenes stories but yeah, he's a major jerk. So instead, I'll use an example from the Daytime Emmys which I thought was low. When OLTL won the directing emmy, he, of all people accepts the award, when it should've been Larry Carpenter. In 2008, Larry directed 65 epsidoes and Frank directed only 10 (the least amount of any OLTL director). Also, Larry directed the episode that won them the Emmy. If Frank was gracious, he would've let Larry speak, but of course not....it had to be about Frank. This is only a minor situation compared to other stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't see how Valentini being an ass is relevant in this situation either. Mauceri had problems with the writing for the character she played, she didn't want to play what was written, so they recast a role that wasn't even a contract role. Not like that hasn't been done a million times before with other recurring characters, not necessarily those who refused to play a role as written, but it is pretty standard.

The show was pretty set with the way they wanted the character to act, they didn't want to go back and rewrite scenes for a totally minor recurring character, which is understandable. Because really, how often is Carlotta on, and is she even an essential character to be getting all this attention? Whether those scenes were believable or not for the character is to be debated, but in the context of everything and the overall story, Carlotta isn't very essential anyway.

That said, Valentini does rub me the wrong way and I do not like the way he comes off in interviews, and what he did at the Emmy's was eye roll worthy. But if I were an EP and a recurring actress that likely isn't on for more than 10 episodes a year refused to play what was written, I wouldn't order rewrites for such a small part, I'd gladly recast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

PM totally messed up but Valentini clearly wanted to screw her while building buzz for Kish with an Engen-style scandal. And that all goes back to Brimike's post: "...they're all petty and moronic and not living in any sense of reality. Mauceri is a homophobe who stepped over the line and then ran to Fox News for back-up when she was fired for not doing her job, and Valentini is an egotistical, arrogant megalomaniacal ass." Valentini being an ass is relevant because this could've been managed much more professionally.

And for the record, Toups or anyone else should be able to express their dislike and/or distrust for Valentini without being accused of giving homophobia a free pass. The fact that he was is a perfect example of the "with us or against us" thinking that will screw this story. Valentini is as much a part of this as Mauceri.

Also I submit that while she isn't essential,Carlotta does mean a lot to a certain segment of viewers. The same way RJ and Hank aren't essential yet mean something to a certain segment of viewers. I could easily draw corollaries between RC's treatment of Hank's recent return and his treatment of Carlotta in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • When Anita read Barbara's letter, it started out with the viewers hearing it in Barbara's voice as Anita read silently. And then Anita saying the next portion aloud while Barbara's voice continued simultaneously. And then ending with Anita alone saying the last part aloud. Excerpt from interview  (link to full interview) The rest may be spoilerish -- Only the nonspoiler part here: I love the idea of reading that letter,” shares Tunie. “And at one point in the script, I think it said that my voice joined her, and [Anita] started reciting the letter from memory because [she] memorized this letter. I suggested to Steve Williford, our director, ‘What if it’s like that moment in Hamilton when Hamilton is writing the resignation letter to George Washington, and then he starts saying it too, and then Hamilton’s voice fades away, and then it’s all George. What if we do something like that?’ And he was like, ‘Oh, my God! I just got chills. Let’s do it!’ So, we did it.” I understood that it worked really well, so I’m really happy about that.”  
    • I think MVJ and Guza made a good team in the launching of the soap, and I'm hoping that the rotation of all stories and characters is maintained once he officially departs from the credits. And so far, Ron C's breakdowns have been decent... but they pop only when he's paired with a good script writer like Jazmin.   I hope once Guza leaves officially... that MVJ is able to reign in Ron C and the dread Jamey G.
    • I read that, but my interpretation was that she is uncredited because it is in a non-production capacity.  In others words, she's not secretly producing, as some had speculated prior to the confirmation.  I assume we agree on this?
    • Errol already confirmed she is back at Y&R and in a non-producing role; this alludes to she is not credited for the role she has.
    • I don't think Lisa served a purpose after the serial killer storyline. The writers never gave her anything to do but be Vicky's nemesis. Joanna Going deserved better. Another example of a character taking over the show and then the writers not having a longterm plan for the character.  Exhibit B: Sally Spencer. Such a missed opportunity. It really angers me how they misused her. She could sing and act and they just threw her away in that sexist nonsense storyline. Once the story was over, they wrote her off. The McKinnons should have lasted for years. I will give the show credit for how they introduced Sandra Ferguson as Amanda. I thought it was expertly done. She comes in and she immediately connected to RKK's Sam. She has chemistry with Matthew and she has realistic conversations with MAc and Rachel. That's how it is done. 
    • Great points, and it has not completely vanished. Leslie on Beyond the Gates fits the trope (she's still not over that Ted lovin' two decades later), though I will say there does seem to be an effort to make her more complex.
    • I understand why people speculate, but I have to say it doesn’t sound very plausible that Jill Farren Phelps would be working at Y&R in any uncredited role. CBS daytime shows are tightly bound by union contracts and corporate oversight, and that kind of informal arrangement would be a major liability in 2025. Before the mergers of SAG-AFTRA and the two WGA branches, it may have been easier to hire someone quietly or off the books. But those days are behind us. With digital payroll, tighter pension tracking, and increased scrutiny from legal and compliance departments, it’s just not the kind of thing anyone can get away with anymore. Most union members, especially producers nearing retirement, would not risk their eligibility or benefits to take an uncredited role. The Producers Guild of America is also very clear about crediting. To even receive the PGA mark, a producer has to be verified through a formal review process. According to their credit certification guidelines (source), "only individuals who performed a majority of the producing functions on a motion picture or television production" are eligible for credit, and those credits must be official and recorded. If someone is functioning in that capacity, they are not supposed to be uncredited. Studios that are union signatories, like CBS and Sony, know better than to skirt those rules. If anyone has a legitimate, primary source confirming that CBS is hiring someone like Phelps in an uncredited production role, I’d honestly be curious to read it. But without that, this just feels like rumor—not reality.
    • I keep thinking about the persistent trend of eroticizing mental illness on Guiding Light. Sonni and Annie were never more compelling, or more attractive to the show, than when they were manic. It played into a recurring theme: strong women undone by their unhinged reaction to sex. The writers were likely inspired by Basic Instinct and the broader wave of neo-noir films in the late '80s and early '90s, where female sexuality was often equated with instability. The result was a crude portrayal, not just of mental illness, but of womanhood itself. Both Sonni and Annie were introduced as sharp, capable women, brought in specifically as formidable antagonists to Reva. They were logical and composed, standing in contrast to Reva’s emotional volatility. That difference made them threatening, but not especially “sexy”—until desire became their undoing. In a very male fantasy, their strength unraveled the moment they slept with Joshua. As soon as they got a taste of Lewis lovin’, they spiraled into scheming lunatics, willing to torch everything to hold on to him. It was part of a larger trend in the culture. Fatal Attraction, Single White Female, and The Hand That Rocks the Cradle all traded on the idea that female desire was dangerous, barely held in check, and always teetering on the edge of madness. Looking back, it's a pretty grim trope. And while it's not completely vanished, I'm grateful we don't see it quite as often today.
    • Elements of it were silly, but it was a small price to pay to get Zas back. I should say there's a difference between in town and out of town returns. It's understandable for Roger to skulk around town in a bad wig and clown suit when he's in Springfield and running the risk of bumping in to people he knows.  Taking us out of town to find someone always has a short shelf life. Then it usually becomes about another character knowing X is alive but determined to keep them out of Springfield. Like Alan discovering Amish Reva. I don't know how long it went on, but it was probably twice as long as necessary.
    • Elizabeth Dennehy complained on the Locher Room about how ridiculous so much of the writing was for Roger's return. She laughed at so much of Roger's antics and how it was hard for her to take them seriously. Probably another reason she was fired as she didn't play the game.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy