OLTL: Patricia Mauceri speaks about her firing

[Marc]

For petesake R Sinclair, not everything has to be so extreme positive or extreme negative. No the only other possible reaction WASN'T for her Carlotta to go off on a tirade and insist that he goes into some kind if conversion therapy. No one is talking about disowning anyone. Sometimes there are shades of gray.

Let's say Cristian really was gay. Carlotta (if they were interested in being true to her character) would have reacted like a majority of mothers of gay children historically have when they found out. She would have been shocked…emotional…angst-ridden…in denial…and probably blame herself. Her devout catholic faith, meanwhile, would have just compounded her angst. She would have been stuck in between her maternal devotion and her religion/conservative values. Along the way I would imagine that there would have been some tense moments, some anger, some narrow judgement and yes perhaps even some naive hope that Cristian reaffirming his faith would deliver him from his homosexuality...but ultimately her love as a mother would win out and she would slowly come to embrace him (even if part of her always regretted that he wasn't straight.)

No she wouldn't have tossed him out in the cold or demand that he go to some camp to get fixed…but she certainly wouldn't have been ready to tack a PFLAG button on her apron and say that it was ok either. With Carlotta, there would have most definitely been "stages."

That's if Cristian was gay.

As far as those Friday scenes go…if Carlotta had been written in-character, when she saw that book she would have been startled and demanded to know what the meaning of his having such a book was. She would have more quickly believed him when he insisted that it was indeed for a friend, been visibly relieved…and then maybe even offered Cris some neutral/pragmatic advice on how to deal with this friend. And if Cristian had asked her how she'd have felt if he really was gay, I would imagine that her response wouldn't have been hateful, but not especially accepting either. It would have been something like "your my son and I'd always love you, but I wouldn't be thrilled or comfortable with it." Which would have been realistic and ring totally true to the character…even if it wasn't accepting enough for a bunch of shot gun sensitive viewers who have a "YOU'RE EITHER WITH US, OR AGAINST US…" attitude about people being gay-friendly.

As they were, those scenes were just heavy handed and plotted. By having her be so uber accepting, the writers were clearly trying to use Carlotta to create a deliberate contrast with the way Fish's parents are said to be. Unfortunately by doing that they proved that they care more about advancing their here-and-now storyline than they do about maintaining the continuity of a long running character.

Being gay myself, of course I don't agree with evil attitudes and propaganda against gay people…but there is a middle ground between Phelps and PFLAG. As a soap viewer, I don't want some plastic butt-kissing story. Cute as it was, I wasn't at all warmed by the instantly accepting way Carlotta dealt with faux-gay Cristian on Friday. I was annoyed because it rang phony and inaccurate. Anytime a character is deliberately rewritten to placate a story, the story becomes counterfeit.

[Vee]

It wasn't supposed to be some big PC moment. It was an easy gag and I didn't find it out of character for Carlotta, either way, who greeted both AIDS patients and openly gay family friends with ease in the past. There's been very little "PC" or sanitized about this storyline so far. Carlotta does have gay-friendly history. People want to erase it to accommodate Mauceri's bigotry, despite her having played these scenes long ago. Her prejudice is not my problem, or the show's, or finally, Carlotta's.

[R Sinclair]

Wow! Everyone else is reading way too much into story beat that didn't last an episode and was supposed to be lighthearted, so I figured I'd take a stab at it. Personally... PERSONALLY... I didn't care either way. Cristian isn't gay so there really is no reason for me to invest in Carlotta accepting or rejecting anything regarding his non-existent homosexuality. When all was said and done, it was a silly misunderstanding that, dare I say, actually put a kind and caring face to the stigmatized "devout, Church-going Catholic mother!" I don't understand the harm.

[Vee]

It has to be blown up into something bigger because some people are trying to make it a Chris Engen farce, where it becomes some referendum on the show when it's a clear-cut case of a bigoted performer, but instead of facing the bigotry head-on, people would rather go to the tired old wheeze about "evil scheming show takes down poor actor". That happens in the industry, sure. But it didn't happen here. In fact, Daytime Confidential (which has gotten the scoop on this right all along) says OLTL tried to work it out with PM on the story beat, but she wouldn't budge. We wouldn't excuse this kind of crap if it was racial or another form of prejudice, but when it comes down to the sudden surge of GLBT stories on soaps these last few years, suddenly we have to give every show a white glove test, and every self-styled religious martyr ample consideration, giving them as much room as they want to blame everyone else for their problems.

I'm not saying everyone who disagrees feels like the above, but Marc, who doesn't seem to be actively trying to excuse Mauceri's bigotry, is still off-base IMO; as we've discussed, Carlotta's character has a gay friendly and socially liberal history just as much as her puritan streak. Fifteen years in, Patricia Mauceri decides Carlotta must not care for the gays, even though she has before.

[ReddFoxx]

I figured all along that this was what her firing was really about, but some people still are bent on making Mauceri out to be some sort of bigot. She's right about the character, most older Catholics would not be that tolerant because of how they were raised and because of their belief system.

[DeliaIrisFan]

Ok, I feel kind of silly debating how a character would have reacted to something that wasn't true and that she quickly found out was not true, but to play devil's advocate, I think it's plausible that Carlotta's initial reaction could have been what we saw on Thursday and Friday - "you're my son and I love you and I'm fine with this" - followed by conflicted feelings of angst as it started to sink in. Carlotta has had experiences (like taking in Eli) that at very least could have exposed her to LGBT issues indirectly and made her reluctant to rush to judgment, even though the idea of this happening in her family might have freaked her out more than she initially let on. That was kind of how my mother reacted, who is a devout Catholic like Carlotta but had a history of socially progressive views and had enough exposure to gay people over the years that the Church's homophobic party line was not something she felt comfortable vocalizing, even though it eventually became apparent that some of it had gotten to her on some level.

Of course, because this was a subplot that was quickly resolved, there was not time to play those beats for Carlotta. But I think even in two days, there was room in the script for subtext. There was that line she had, "I can't believe you thought you needed a book to talk to me," which could have been delivered in several ways: The actress could have chosen to play it as though that were a safe thing for her to latch onto and express outrage about, rather than expressing what she was really frustrated about. She also could have played it as though she were uncomfortable, and the book was her excuse for putting the brakes on the conversation, because she was fine with it so there was nothing that they needed to talk about, and certainly no need to read some book about it. And when the misunderstanding was finally resolved and Carlotta was back to declaring that Cristian "just need to find the right woman," which echoed what she said at the beginning about how she hopes "Officer Fish will settle down with a nice woman," the actress could have delivered that line with a note of irony. As in, despite her claims of being so open-minded, Carlotta was and continued to be blissfully ignorant of the heterosexist assumptions she makes about all kinds of people, even those she barely knows, and the devastating consequences that those kind of pervasive expectations can have for people like Fish who aren't able to live up to them. And deep down, maybe Carlotta was relieved that this was all a misunderstanding. I don't know if the actress is capable of that kind of nuance (I only know her from her endless shrieking on Paul Rauch's GL, where nuance didn't happen so much) but in any case, stepping into this kind of sensitive subject matter in her first day in a role that's existed on-screen for 15 years didn't help. As it was, yes, she played the scenes as though she was auditioning for a P-FLAG infomercial. But I don't know that that connotation necessarily started on the page, or that the show set out to do something that went against the grain of the character. All the more reason that this sequence definitely should not have been undertaken without the original actress.

That said, I don't think debating whether or not this is out-of-character has anything to do with the subject of this thread. That Fox piece disproves any previous rationalizations that PM objected to these scenes because this turn was out of character. Did she really threaten to sue? Actors (especially actors without contracts) can't sue because they refuse to do scenes that they feel are out of character and they are subsequently replaced. (They can't sue for "discrimination" against their own homophobic beliefs either, which she'll soon learn.) And she went running to Fox News, of all places... I repeat, the public way this came to pass could have been avoided on the show's part, but I don't sympathize with the actress. And a two-day interlude that fell flat for a number of reasons is not going to derail a story that is bigger than Carlotta and that I think has been done really well, overall.

[R Sinclair]

The only reason this "out of character" debate is even happening is due to people trying to justify Mauceri's position -- which is cool. But, come on, people! Don't blow it way out of proportion as if this were some huge detour for a character to make. I bet if none of this ever happened with Mauceri, nobody would've given this a second notice. It would probably be a couple posts in the OLTL discussion thread and that's all.

And let me add, homophobia isn't being afraid of homosexuals. It's a fear of accepting/tolerating homosexuality as a true and real part of life.

[You're Soaking in it]

I read a comment or two here expressing concern that people are trying "to make Mauceri out to be a bigot."

No, it's the other way around. Her interview alone, short as it was, clearly states HER objection to homosexuality. Yet there are still people rationalizing, in the most straw-grasping ways, that it's not bigotry, not anti-gay - that on the contrary, it's just about her having some deep commitment to the Carlotta character, that it comes from her faith (which, I guess, is supposed to make it "something nice?") and so on and so on...

Coming from Prop 8 Land, it reminds me of SO many people who said prior to the election, "oh, Prop 8 isn't about being against Gay people, we just want to PROTECT marriage." Then after they narrowly won, they all felt comfortable enough to drop the facade and claim the win was a public condemnation of homosexuals. It's like the election results, to the proponents, validated bigotry.

It's the same deal here with Mauceri. You can put all the rose-colored gels, and all the wool fabric in the world in front of her on this, and anyone with subpar vision can even see that she has a problem. It is what it is. I'm not sure if people dressing it up as something "nice" (and trying to make PM seem like a victim) is an attempt to spin it positive for OTHERS, or spin it positive to one's self. I thought Saundra Santiago's performance was fine - different than Mauceri for sure, but given the circumstances, I welcome the change (I feel the reference to religion in the dialog may have been a revision, DESERVEDLY, aimed at the PM situation). To be honest, knowing what we know now, I would have even welcomed Lucy Ricardo as Cristian's mom.

[R Sinclair]

Awesome!

[Pine Charles]

Fox News will probably give her her own show.

ha!!

[R Sinclair]

ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING MY ASS OFF!

Either that, or she'll be a special correspondent with the 700 Club. Talking about how the evil homosexuals tried to get her to go against her beliefs. They tricked her! She thought getting a job on a soap opera would be clean entertainment -- hence the name Soap Opera. The show told stories of good clean fun, such as racial discrimination, teenage pregnancy, extramarital affairs, unwed fornication. Things like that. But then the evil gay mafia blindsided her with telling a son her character thought was gay that she loved him! She knew right then that that was impossible. How dare the writers and producers expect her to pretend that she's something that she isn't? That's not what acting is about!

She can roll around in the hay with Elisabeth Hasslebeck for all I care.

[Vee]

YurSoaking's quite right. As has been said ad nauseum, the problem with the argument that "it's just commitment to Carlotta's character" is twofold: Number one, Carlotta Vega as a character has been portrayed as gay-friendly in the past, going back to the mid-'90s and a specific series of scenes surrounding a national day of awareness. She also stood against bigotry and prejudice many times, such as with Eli or Marcie. So saying Carlotta must be anti-gay because she spouts a lot of "Gracias Dios!" and crosses herself when her boys sleep with the wrong women is a crock. Number two, and most important, Mauceri has admitted to "disagreeing with homosexuality." That right there is all you need to know about her objections to what was a very slight story beat to begin with, and one which OLTL tried to work with her on. If she couldn't take it, she shouldn't have played Carlotta as an open and accepting character for over a decade.

It's frankly difficult at times for me to discuss this because I can remember Carlotta as this character, whose faith was not a bludgeon against others but a wellspring of understanding, even when she was a busybody or puritanical about her kids' sexual peccadillos; even if she Bible-thumped to her children about the ladies in their lives, Carlotta was always, always there to comfort the less fortunate or the outcasts. And yet all my memories of that Carlotta who I held very dear are of Patricia Mauceri, who simply can't tolerate these things. It's real cognitive dissonance, and it's sad. Carlotta was a real source of comfort to me as a young viewer.

[You're Soaking in it]

Poor Mauceri can't seem to shake gay-themed scenes now, can she?

[Southofnowhere]

Did u watch the clip? She clearing states that she doesn't like gay people.

[You're Soaking in it]

Let me clarify before any of PM's supporters pounce all over this: She says it (homosexuality, one's being gay) is against her belief system. Now that may or may not be the same thing as not liking gay people. And who could blame anyone for perceiving it that way? Appearing on FOX News, well, let's just say I don't think her next move is an HRC membership.

I know, it's a hair-split, but I thought I'd do the splitting first.