Members Vee Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 This is not about "fighting for character continuity." Mauceri openly admits that she doesn't care for homosexuality, and so doesn't believe Carlotta should either. The show has not painted it this way, or made any allegations against her. Journalists reported it, and Patricia Mauceri confirmed it herself. And her comments about Carlotta's views don't wash - she looks like a hypocrite for playing other open-minded stories like the Eli Traeger subplot in the past, under Claire Labine. Here's how it works. If Alicia Minshew or Trevor St. John or Kelly Monaco (or Leslie Charleson) got up one day and said, "Hey, you know what, guys? I'm not going to play this scene with Bianca (or Kyle, or Lucas Jones), because I've decided Kendall/Todd/Sam hates fags." Are the writers then supposed to kowtow to that and say, okay, you know your long-running role better than us, we will support your choice of bigotry by writing it into the text? If they don't embrace this bigotry are they then supposed to be stifling the actor's creativity? Is this anything like how Tony Geary thinks we're supposed to be okay with him claiming Luke visited whores during his marriage and fucked Holly Sutton on the side during the '90s? Fact is, actors can and should have input into the character, but as the Geary case (and now Patricia Mauceri) prove, they can also have their heads up their asses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 That's actually a really good point. The ultimate reason for dismissal was creative differences...and the underlying root of it is...more immaterial. I will agree that the Mauceri departure was INSTANTLY leaked to NB...which does seem to smack of an attempt to skew public opinion. Carlivati's interview with NB today makes it clear (not surprisingly) that Kish is a story that he loves. Good for him...every writer should have something like that that inspires him. It is therefore even more unfortunate that Mauceri chose to have creative differences in a story that was so close to the HW's heart. It does make it seem quite unwinnable for her. All of this begs the question. If Erica Slezak had refused to play what was written (on this, or any other topic), would the same fate have befallen her? Or was Mauceri especially disadvantaged in this fight by her recurring status? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Doyen Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 IMO, Mauceri's religious beliefs and Carlivati/Valentini's sexual orientations are below secondary. No matter who the producers and writers are, no matter what their orientations or beliefs are, they should have enough impartiality to seek to keep the characters true to form. I don't think PM should have had to tapdance for Valentini and Carlivati if she saw something in her script that contradicted the character she has played for fifteen years so much that she had to take a pause. They should have at least listened to her, and considered what she had to say. Even if PM's religious convictions added resistance to her refusing to play out the scenes as written, the more important thing to me is that she was right about this not being how the character would react in this scenario. The attitude that she should just shut up and act, IMO, is callous. Sure, employees should primarily do their job as instructed by their bosses. However, if there is an employee who has been at the company for fifteen years, and in all that time has done their job well, the employer should give them enough credit to be able to voice an opinion and to take it seriously when they have a gripe about something. I think the whole Carlotta-momentarily-thinks-Cristian-is-gay thing should have been totally cut out. Not only did Carlotta's reaction contradict the personality of the character, but the whole scenario made little sense (why would Carlotta even think Cris was gay, just because she saw a book? That was stupid on her part) and didn't advance anything. In the end, it looked as though they replaced her just to send the message that they could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 First of all, I doubt Erika would have refused to play anything; she is the ultimate professional and seems to take the good with the bad, and then only complain years later (such as with the Elliott Durbin story, or Dena Higley). Also, she played the Sloan Carpenter/AIDS quilt/Billy Douglas story in '92 with great gusto, or so it appeared onscreen anyway. But if for some insane reason ES had refused to play something with Kish, they probably would have moved her out of it. She's the matriarch, the center of the show, and on contract. Patricia Mauceri is recurring, and would not budge. She was unprofessional, she brought her personal issues to the workplace, and she lost. As I said, she's been working with gay people for years; this was a ridiculous, tiny bit of business to raise such a stink over, but I guess her views have calcified in recent years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 But, see, we don't know if what you say didn't happen. Maybe they did listen to her. Maybe they did try to reason with her. ("This is only a two-day thing...hold your nose, and then we'll try to be more responsive to this Catholic perspective in future story beats") Maybe she was the inflexible one. At this level, we'll never know. At this level, therefore, we can't villify either side. That's where marceline has it right. The only thing we know for sure is "creative differences". And if that is true, then it was the right time for a parting of the ways anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 How do we know they didn't? But the fact is, her objections are bullshit. Why? Because Carlotta has a long history of being progressive in social issue storylines, including stuff with other gay/trans characters, and with Eli, her own adopted son, who was a pariah because of his HIV status back in an era when HIV was still equated with "gay." These men have been at the show for years; they know that Carlotta has this background as well as I do. The difference is in Patricia Mauceri, between now and then. Well, sorry, but an actor can't decide to wake up one day and make your character become as closedminded as you choose to be. Whether or not the scenes work, the seeds for Carlotta to be accepting of "her gay son" are well-rooted in the character's history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 She was definitely disadvantaged and not just by her recurring status. Kyle and Fish are Ron's creations. The Vegas are...someone else's. He already tried to replace the Vegas with the Montezes. That didn't work but it was a clear signal that he had no love for that family. PM picked the wrong fight at the wrong time. I have to say I wish she'd been able to talk to someone other than Fox News. I'd have second thoughts about Martin Luther King, Jr. if he appeared on Fox. Unfortunately, who else could she talk to? The general entertainment press doesn't care about soaps and there's very few people in the soap press who are truly unbiased. I were her I'd take my story to the Latino media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 What will you say if the likes of Glenn Beck starts touting her case? "Well, it's a shame, but the homosexual cabal clearly left her no choice!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 LOL about Fox News. As for the Vegas...you are of course right. Is Christian the only one left (outside of recurring Carlotta)? Single...not tied to any family at this point...possible romance with another islanded character.... I wonder how much longer he'll be around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 I've highlighted the word that I think is most important here: should. The writer should respect the actor. The actor should be able to express their opinion when they've played a character for 15 years. There should be mutual respect and creative input. The audience should be able to expect longtime characters to behave in consistent ways. Yes all these things SHOULD be true but obviously they aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 I know you ignore my posts because I'm just another militant homosexual, marceline, but I'll just have to repost my comments above in response to your inane defense. Perhaps you'll read it before it's time to "go back in the shadows" after you lose your temper and say something impolitic again. Carlotta as a character has a long, progressive history. 15+ years in, Mauceri suddenly decided that needed to change. And that's bullshit. And unless you can address that, you have no argument and I must conclude you're simply tired of the gays being all forceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 Ick! Don't get me started on Cristian. The only hope for that character is a recast. The only reason he's still around is Frons' mancrush. What's the excuse for keeping DF? That all the TRULY talented Latino men in NYC are on Broadway in West Side Story and In The Heights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Toups Posted September 4, 2009 Administrator Share Posted September 4, 2009 I don't get the mentality of "play what you're told - you're an actor, so act!" If you have objections, why not go to TPTB and say something, especially if you know the character. What do people think of Louise Sorel going to the Dobsons because she didn't what was written? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MichaelGL Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 Carlotta having taken in a HIV positive teenager would totally be against homosexuality, because she is that judgmental and unaccepting. Yeah.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 I thought about that too. But "gay" and "HIV" aren't the same thing and I don't like making them one and the same. However that was a wonderful example of Carlotta standing up for her beliefs at a time when they might've been unpopular. It was done seriously, not as a big joke. I can't remember how Cris and Antonio reacted to Eli. Can someone refresh my memory? Wouldn't it have been great if the show hadn't erased Eli and Cris had a foster brother to talk to about all this stuff? Like hatred and bigotry and the idiotic paranoia of zealots? What a shame Andrew Carpenter couldn't be here for this story but Robert Krimmer had the sense to get out of the business and who can blame him? That said Carlotta has always been a bit of a prudish busybody. That's the character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.