Members Carolyn1980 Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 They wrote the scene how they wanted it. And she was free to object, but when TPTB said that they weren't changing the scene, she was obligated to play it as written. And frankly...characters are re-written all the time in daytime. NO CHARACTER on any show can be said to be completely consistent through various writers. I actually think the actors who protest too much about how they're character would act/what they'd say (having a tantrum/screamfest rather than just voicing an opinion) are just a little too involved in their jobs. I always admired Robin Christopher because she always gave it her all, even if her character was doing something that I thought was "out of character" (like when Skye kept Alexis's baby from her). In other words, she didn't take her job home with her. Too many actors on daytime live vicariously through their characters, and aren't happy unless they can basically write their own story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members miajere Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 I think they could have offered the option of walking or deliver the lines and the actress probably would have delivered- there was no need to fire her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Doyen Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 Sorry, but after seeing today’s episode, I think Mauceri was totally on point. NuCarlotta’s reaction to seeing that book—and her staunch eagerness to accept Cristian being gay—did not ring true to the character. That wasn’t Carlotta at all. She came off more like Carlotta’s cooler, more liberal younger sister. Truth of the matter is, Carlotta would have had a much more pessimistic reaction. I don’t know why the writers insisted on writing the scene that way. The whole thing came off very plastic and disingenuous. What made it worse was when Layla remarked that her reaction was conspicuous, and brought up how religious Carlotta is. It’s like the writers were intentionally trying to have her go “against type” and played out all wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Carolyn1980 Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 From her own statements, it seems pretty clear to me she had no intention of reading the lines as written. She was willing to make some sort of "compromise," but the lines as written were not something she was going to do....and so she was let go. I'm fine with that, and legally, she doesn't have a leg on which to stand. I didn't see the show, but regardless......she doesn't write it, lol. And beyond offering her opinion, she has no right to refuse to play a scene as written. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members R Sinclair Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 And there you have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 Shall we speak frankly? Mauceri, in the referenced interview, acknowledges her own (and therefore her character's, she says) faith-based disagreement with the easy acceptance of homosexuality. So, the discussion here is mostly rational...some saying that as an actress (on recurring) she should have said her lines or expected to be replaced...others saying even an actor has a right to take a principled stand. We've had this discussion before this year, about another show. But the context here is very different. In today's TVGuide.ca, the head writer of OLTL is acknowledged as "openly gay". Moreover, the EP of OLTL has been alleged to be gay. (Other posters on SON have asserted this, although I find no interview or other source in which the EP has acknowedged this). If it is true, and your writer and producer are gay, and you do not have a contract, what do you EXPECT to happen when you say "I have a faith-based problem with the acceptance of homosexuality" and refuse to do a part of your job--as written--because of it. That would be like saying to a red-headed person "I have a faith-based problem with red hair". Beyond all the rational issues, THIS MAKES IT PERSONAL. And remember, Mauceri was not under contract. The show had no obligation to use her. Her tenure notwithstanding, she was a temporary employee. Who had (whether intentionally or not) insulted/expressed reservations about the lifestyle choices made by two of her bosses. Impolitic would be one word. Not strategic would be another. I congratulate the actress for her principled stand (whether I agree with it or not), but surely she was prepared to accept the consequences of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 It's funny. The same people saying actors should shut up and act will wax poetic about "history" and "continuity" and how the important thing about soaps is that we get to know these characters day in and day out and how its about the personal relationship we develop with them over the years. What a crock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 I don't know if I'm the one being identified as "history" and "continuity". I'm not saying Mauceri should shut up. I'm saying that if she chose not to (her right), and chose to transform that into an act of insubordination (refusing to act the script she was given), then she also probably knew there might be consequences. They're all grownups, and she has every right to make a principled stand if she can live with the consequences. I'm also saying that, if the EP and HW are gay, not only being insubordinate but expressing non-acceptance of the very lifestyle her bosses are living -- again a principled stand -- obviously wasn't the "politic" move. Which is fine. But she can't have been surprised that they chose, as is their right, not to continue working with her as a non-contracted employee. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Carolyn1980 Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 I don't remember ever waxing poetic about either of those topics. However, I do agree that for long-time viewers, history and continuity are comforting, and enrich the viewing experience. But that hasn't stopped all the re-writing of characters that has happened on all the shows in the last 20+ years during which we've had the headwriter-musical-chairs game. And I do think that the ultimate final word on situations like this has to be the EP or headwriter, whether I agree with their writing choices or not. Otherwise, you end up with a situation like that at GH, where the actors who are allowed to get away with it change dialogue and even story all the time because they are too involved in their fantasy character life, and want to be viewed a certain way by the audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 This is a beautiful summary. It is the perfect general statement that transcends any specific issue...sexuality, race, whatever. The boss has to be the boss, or the show becomes a chaotic improv session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bright Eyes Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 This screams of her just begging to get some sort of material to play and wanting to be in the limelight and when she refused to back down about it OLTL let her go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 This all seems like talking out of both sides of her mouth, frankly. "I was fired for my beliefs, I objected to Carlotta being gay-friendly - but oh, I didn't object to being in a gay storyline." What? She just doesn't want to get caught out in the public eye saying "I'm homophobic." She's dancing around it, and if I was her, I'd probably do the same. Bottom line, OLTL had no reason and in all probability no interest in firing a recurring veteran who they never had to pay to appear unless they wanted to. By contrast, Saundra Santiago, a longtime primetime vet, probably costs them a little more than PM. This is not about money or youth. It was about Mauceri refusing to play the scenes, and attempting to rewrite them herself which is a huge no-no. There have been rumors that Mauceri grew more conservative in the last decade, and if that's what this is, that's a shame. Because in my opinion, this tall tale of "I'm not homophobic, but despite having previously played a story where I adopted an HIV-positive boy who was subject to anti-gay slurs, I am so against just the idea of Carlotta not being upset about the possibility of her son being gay that I am willing to rewrite my scripts and leave the show over a two-day plot point...but I'm not homophobic?" Sorry, I don't buy it. It's a tortured logic and Mauceri is talking about everything at once, and making no sense. It's sad, because I absolutely adored her in the role. But I have no sympathy for her plight. ETA: I see that in the actual interview, Patricia admits she disagrees with homosexuality. That's sad, she's been working with these men (and many other gay people besides) for years. Anyway, my above points stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 Mark, my comment wasn't directed toward you (or Carolyn you either). If it were I would've responded to (either of) you directly. It was really meant as a general comment. You know my stance on nostalgia so it really pisses me off to see an actor burned for fighting for character continuity. I hate even more seeing all this "actors should do what's written" garbage, as if writers have some magical understanding. Is there a single soap writer who hasn't been burned in virtual effigy on this board at some point? Actually if its true that she rewrote the scene then I'm not remotely surprised she got fired. What I think is disgusting is that the show painted her position as homophobia instead of creative differences. That smacks of pettiness and a desire to boost the Kyle/Fish story at her expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alexisfan07 Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 Funny side note, she was credited for Carlotta and not Saundra today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members miajere Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 maybe she did, how would anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.