CONFESSION: I believe this is all b.s. (You know: the made-up kind.)

quote:

Originally posted by SaraEllen:
I'm sure this has been said before, but Ms. Mauceri WASN'T FIRED. The account I heard was that she was asked if she was willing to lose her job over her refusal to play the scenes as written and she voluntarily said she WAS prepared to walk. She CHOSE to leave, it was HER decision.

Well to me that sounds like either you play the scenes or we fire you, so yes, you can say she chose to be fired.

I actually thought Patricia Mauceri was a fine actress and is getting a bad rap here. I actually do agree with her. Just because Carlotta didn't say anything about pre-marital sex doesn't automatically mean she would be accepting of homosexuality. It happens all the time in the real world.

She's actually right, I don't think Carlotta would have reacted that way in those scenes that aired Friday. IMHO, OLTL was acting PG ONCE AGAIN in a rather good story. For instance, why couldn't Layla be more angry with Fish? and why does Carlotta have to be accepting right away? It's silly, and doesn't ring true.

Shut up and do your job sure. But when the character is being botched and nobody is speaking up then fans complain, why is he/she doing that. Maybe she could have just sucked it up and played those scenes as is, but in the grand scheme of things, I agree with her assessment on the character. Isn't it said that nobody knows their character better than the actor (Ie. take the LML fiasco).

Characters behave out of character all the time. It's the nature of soaps. It is the actor's job to make the inconsistencies work. Mauceri had no problem with the rewriting of Antonio's parentage which made no sense and would be an affront to her "deep Christian principles." She didn't speak up then. She only spoke up now because of her so-called religious principles. She probably didn't speak up during the Santi debacle because she was getting airtime and a larger paycheck. I'm not sure how Carlotta would have responded. Many conservatives will support (and not in the Cheney faux support way) their gay children, and some liberals will (initially) reject them. IT's not as predictable as we'd like to believe.

HBS spoke out about Nora sleeping with Sam, but she still did her job. She didn't rewrite scripts or play the religious martyr. Clint Ritchie hated being the homphobe in the Billy Douglas story, but he acted the role. Farah Fath hates the Stacy storyline, but she still shows up and does her job (the quality is another issue). Mauceri did not do that. She wants to be the victim.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Crystal,

I don't get the defenses of Mauceri based on the integrity of her character. As Crystal said, soap characters behave inconsistently all the time, but even more important than that argument is, why is it so unfathomable for Carlotta to be accepting? As I wrote before, most characters on soaps are Christian in some form or another, but we have no trouble with them accepting homosexuals. We see Carlotta so infrequently on the show that we have no basis whatsoever for objecting to this on character grounds, especially considering the questionable morality of her previous storylines.

If Carlotta were not a Catholic Latina, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. There's the assumption that by her very nature Carlotta should be closed-minded and traditional and reject homosexuals. Can anyone seriously argue that there are no Catholic Latina mothers who would readily accept a homosexual child? By writing this small, funny story development, Carlivati has said something important about Catholic Hispanics as well as gays; you can find acceptance in places you don't expect. This is not an unrealistic story development. It's simply a reality we're not accustomed to seeing.

While there's a definite machismo working in the culture, the Spanish culture (Spain) in particular is progressive when it comes to gay issues. Even Cuba which has not been known for being gay friendly (to put it mildly) is starting to enact a more progressive stance towards gays and lesbians. In particular, Mariela Castro has been a fantastic advocate for the LGBT community. Cuba now offers free sex-change operations, and MC continues to push publicly for same sex marriage and inheritance rights. I think we'll see Cuba adopt these types of legislation before the United States which should embarrass the United States.

On the other hand, they did a study that showed Cuban immigrants often become more conservative when they come to the United States. It's also one thing to be very catholic, but another to have a son or daughter who is gay. In my experience as a patient liasion, I would say the most supportive parents of gays are Jewish and spanish-speaking families. Conversely, it's the opposite for gay women. I've met very few supportive spanish-speaking and Jewish families of lesbians. This has nothing to do with OLTL, but I've wanted to use that statistic somewhere.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Crystal,

Either way put, I found the scenes to be highly contrived and ridiculous. I enjoy the new actress, but no way did I believe those scenes. Seriously folks, watch that scene and tell me that wasn't just a "F--k you" to the other actress. Very out of character.

People can bash the actress all they want, and although I hate her hiding behind her religious beliefs, I firmly agree with her from Carlotta's POV.

I know it seems stereotypical, but that doesn't mean it does not happen. It's nice to see that OLTL took a different approach, but it still rung false to me. I bet if Devon came out on Y&R and Neil was so understanding people would be singing a different tune.

I do think both sides could have handled the matter better though. IMO they pretty much forced her out.

I like gay stories just as much as anyone else, but this sensitivity that always comes up across the boards makes me care less about watching it unfold on daytime.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MTSRocks,

The scenes did not play as an "FU" to Patricia Mauceri. These were the scenes she objected to. How is it an "FU" to film them anyway?

If Devon came out and Neil was accepting, more power to both of them. I don't see why anyone would object to seeing Neil as accepting of a gay son. Better that than having Neil and Devon fight in a pseudo-incestuous love triangle for Tyra.

Again, saying it was out of character implies a strong basis for making that judgment. Carlotta is a recurring character used very infrequently, and when she has been featured, she has participated in storylines that can be considered morally questionable for a woman of strict Catholic faith. So there is no reason to assume she would be intolerant other than to rely on preconceived stereotypes, in the same way we should not assume Neil would be intolerant because he is black, which I believe is what you're suggesting, MTSRocks.

I find your last paragraph especially troubling. You made a point to strike out the word "gay" when you say you like stories, which I suppose is meant to convey the opposite in terms of gay stories. This "sensitivity" you describe is a response to a long history of cultural and political disenfranchisement. That can be quite an inconvenience to homophobic actors like Patricia Mauceri, but believe me MTSRocks, if you're tired of hearing about it, I'm even more tired of having to say it.

For that matter, the sensitivity in this case is being displayed not by the gay community and its supporters but by those like Patricia Mauceri, who object to such innocuous gay content as the scene she refused to play out.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 742,

Because once again the scenes were written by gay writer making viewers forced to show such sensative to gay people because if they do not they are horrible people.

I am willing to bet if OLTL had a white Southern military man like ATWT they'd be portraying him as villian. Its such typical bias writing and about perception and in this case they are showing the sweet, Latin woman who has solid Catholic beliefs to be standing against the Catholic church and thats not true to the character.

The Catholic church opposes gay marriage and I do not for one second believe they chose to showcase this character being so supportive in any way other then to show even solid Catholic can oppose church on this. Thats bias!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DLD,

Carlotta may be Catholic, but she certainly has not behaved as such, or to put on an unkind spin on it, she has acted like the stereotypical, hypocritical Catholic who sins and then does penance and wipes the slate clean. If someone wants to act in a way that supports their religious beliefs, soap operas are not the best vehicle for that. Soap opera characters tend to be extremely amoral, sleep around, lie, cheat, steal, kill, rape, etc. Mauceri never had any problem with that or Carlotte's involvement in a number of those. Yet she has a problem with a scene where her character supports her son being gay.

Let's recap. She acted in a film, I THINK I DO which was about a gay character meeting his true love years after they graduated from college. There is kissing. There is premarital sex. There is gay sex. She had no problem taking a paycheck and acting in the film. She had no problem acting in the Santi storyline where Carlotta did a complete 180. She was not the moral, religious Carlotta that Mauceri claims. She was your typical character who lied, cheated, and slept around. No objections. No rewriting. No objection on moral grounds. No speaking out about the awful writing. No outrage at the character assassination or the writers insulting the audience's intelligence. She said NOTHING. Somehow, the scenes with Carlotta, Cristian, and Layla were too much for her. It couldn't be the poor writing since that was never a problem for her. It couldn't be Carlotta's lack of strict adherence to the church since Mauceri was never bothered by that before. What could it be?? What could Mauceri have taken offense to?

Getting back to the whole Catholic mother thing. I'm reminded of the controversy within the Mormon church. Let's not forget that many Mormons have spoken out against church's stance on gays. They even spoke out against the yes on 8 campaign. They would consider themselves very religious and take their devotion to Mormonism seriously. They would be outraged if their faith were questioned. Marie Osmond--the poster woman for Mormons--came out in support of her lesbian daughter. If you read her interviews, her words sound extremely close to the dialogue spoken by Sauntiago. You never know how someone will react whether he/she is religious or not. Republican Sonny Bono accepted and supported Chastity Bono while Cher did not. That's the way life works. People are surprising.

I hate debating with you two, but y'all are going down.

quote:

The scenes did not play as an "FU" to Patricia Mauceri. These were the scenes she objected to. How is it an "FU" to film them anyway?

Sorry I was just typing what was going on in my head there. What I meant is that those scenes felt like Carlivati trying to justify why PM was fired, by playing them so campy and viewer-friendly. This way the audience is left going, "What a silly reason for the actress to walk away."

quote:

If Devon came out and Neil was accepting, more power to both of them. I don't see why anyone would object to seeing Neil as accepting of a gay son. Better that than having Neil and Devon fight in a pseudo-incestuous love triangle for Tyra.

Again, because it's PG. Sure it may be stereotypical to have the black male get all upset, but I would expect that reaction. Never have I met/known a gay black person who came out to their parents and wasn't scrutinized or bible thumped to some degree. That doesn't mean Neil couldn't be accepting of it later on, but an immediate reaction (I KNOW I'm generalizing) would be something of anger. Hence, why you see so many "downlo" man. Yes, it will display a positive message for Neil to be accepting of his son right away, but quite frankly, also misleading and false.

quote:

Again, saying it was out of character implies a strong basis for making that judgment. Carlotta is a recurring character used very infrequently, and when she has been featured, she has participated in storylines that can be considered morally questionable for a woman of strict Catholic faith. So there is no reason to assume she would be intolerant other than to rely on preconceived stereotypes, in the same way we should not assume Neil would be intolerant because he is black, which I believe is what you're suggesting, MTSRocks.[/b]

I think what people are not realizing here is that everyone is a hypocrite. I would have loved to see Carlotta object to the thought of Christian being gay, and then someone else throwing her very own religion back at her. IMO that would have worked for both sides, and been much more authentic.

[quote]I find your last paragraph especially troubling. You made a point to strike out the word "gay" when you say you like stories, which I suppose is meant to convey the opposite in terms of gay stories. This "sensitivity" you describe is a response to a long history of cultural and political disenfranchisement. That can be quite an inconvenience to homophobic actors like Patricia Mauceri, but believe me MTSRocks, if you're tired of hearing about it, I'm even more tired of having to say it.

Come on, I like you but there's nothing troubling here. No, I won't insert that cliche line of being a bisexual male here, LoL, but seriously my purpose for striking out the word "gay," is because I'd rather it just be a story. It gets annoying seeing the press pimp out another "gay story" rather than just stating a story. I don't like defining characters by their sexuality. When I say sensitivity, I mean having gay characters treated with preferential treatment. I loved when we THOUGHT Adam would be a bisexual whack job, but that story completely went off the rails. I want to see every character with flaws regardless of their sexuality.

quote:

For that matter, the sensitivity in this case is being displayed not by the gay community and its supporters but by those like Patricia Mauceri, who object to such innocuous gay content as the scene she refused to play out.

I understand, and I do not agree with her personal views on homosexuality, but in the context of OLTL I with her.

quote:

Originally posted by DLD:
Because once again the scenes were written by gay writer making viewers forced to show such sensative to gay people because if they do not they are horrible people.

I am willing to bet if OLTL had a white Southern military man like ATWT they'd be portraying him as villian. Its such typical bias writing and about perception and in this case they are showing the sweet, Latin woman who has solid Catholic beliefs to be standing against the Catholic church and thats not true to the character.

The Catholic church opposes gay marriage and I do not for one second believe they chose to showcase this character being so supportive in any way other then to show even solid Catholic can oppose church on this. Thats bias!

I agree with parts of this, with a little more niceness.

quote:

Originally posted by MTSRocks:
I hate debating with you two, but y'all are going down.

Sorry I was just typing what was going on in my head there. What I meant is that those scenes felt like Carlivati trying to justify why PM was fired, by playing them so campy and viewer-friendly. This way the audience is left going, "What a silly reason for the actress to walk away."

MTSROCKS, you're really debating with 742. You're not debating with me unless I've missed a post of yours. I don't recall you responding to something I've written. I may be wrong. I'll go back and look.

I do disagree with you about the above because the scenes were described as humorous, silly, and inconsequential when news of her departure broke. That's why people were initially so shocked at her leaving. I don't think Carlivati rewrote those scenes, and I've seen nothing that indicates otherwise unless you have insider info I'm not privy to.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Crystal,

Some of you keep on bringing up the characters past to justify her going against the church. Wrong, I say; its irrelevant because for the past 7 or even longer all they have done in regards to this charcater is shown her to be a hard worker, a medaling mother, and extremely religious person. Thats all the writers at OLTL have done in regards to this character and to now have her prop up the gay couple is bias writing and so inconsistent with the character.

It would be just as bad if they had her supporting an abortion.

What if the writer was straight and we had gay charcater portrayed as sexual predator would this board be up and arms over sl like that?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DLD,

quote:

Originally posted by MTSRocks:

quote:

If Devon came out and Neil was accepting, more power to both of them. I don't see why anyone would object to seeing Neil as accepting of a gay son. Better that than having Neil and Devon fight in a pseudo-incestuous love triangle for Tyra.

Again, because it's PG. Sure it may be stereotypical to have the black male get all upset, but I would expect that reaction. Never have I met/known a gay black person who came out to their parents and wasn't scrutinized or bible thumped to some degree. That doesn't mean Neil couldn't be accepting of it later on, but an immediate reaction (I KNOW I'm generalizing) would be something of anger. Hence, why you see so many "downlo" man. Yes, it will display a positive message for Neil to be accepting of his son right away, but quite frankly, also misleading and false.

That would be a great surprise to my black father, who has complained about widespread homophobia in the black community and has called me over the years to discuss gay themes in "Brokeback Mountain" and "Doubt." He must have missed the memo where he's supposed to be angry about homosexuality first, but thanks. I'll relay that to him.

Making blanket generalizations about the feelings of members of certain social, ethnic, or religious groups is the very definition of stereotyping. The idea that you don't believe a depiction of certain minority groups as immediately accepting of homosexuals is like saying it would be unrealistic to show black Republicans, or Hispanic atheists, or devout Christian gays. The varieties of human experience are so vast that to claim the authority to reject the portrayal of a Catholic Latina who loves homosexuals is preposterous.

When you've conclusively determined that 100% of devout Catholic Hispanics would reject their children for being gay, then we can start a discussion about whether it's realistic or not.

quote:

When I say sensitivity, I mean having gay characters treated with preferential treatment.

When daytime advances to the point where gays are treated equally, then we'll talk. I'll settle for a day when gay sex and romance are treated just like straight sex and romance. When they're allowed to kiss and have love scenes as openly and often as their straight counterparts. When there are more than half a dozen prominent gay characters in all of daytime (that number goes down when GL is cancelled in two weeks). When accepting and loving people isn't considered a political agenda. Then maybe we can talk about the preferential treatment of gay characters.

Are Ron Carlivati and Frank Valentini biased? I suppose if you consider tolerance a bias then yes they are. But to accuse them of political propaganda on the basis of that little comic scene reminds me of when Jerry Falwell ascribed a gay agenda to the Teletubbies.

I've read over this several times before clicking "Post Now." That I even have to argue these things feels bizarre. I realize that neither MTSRocks nor DLD will be convinced, and all I could do from there is repeat the same crucial points, I suppose, with more exclamation points and italics. So this will be the last I'll say on the matter and refer instead to Louis Armstrong, who provided the quote I've added under my nickname.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 742,

LoL, I'm done. 742 you're taking this way too personally, and now I feel like you're speaking for me. I acknowledged everything in my post, yet you seem to be very bitter like I am belittling homosexuals when I'm not. I'm speaking from me personal experiences and I said I KNOW I am generalizing. I understand your emotions, but stop making such negative assumptions on those who choose to agree with PM. Honestly, re-read your posts because you seem to be coming off very arrogant. And stop with this political propaganda ****. I don't give a f--ck about politics. BTW did I agree with Chris Engen bolting from his role on Y&R? No. So again, stop speaking like you know me.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MTSRocks,

quote:

Originally posted by syrus80:
A source tells soapcentral.com that there's more to Mauceri's ouster than just a bit part in a gay storyline. Mauceri has reportedly been unhappy for more than a year.

"Patricia has been bitter ever since they changed the name of the Vega diner to the Bon Jour Café," the source says. "She felt like it insulted Carlotta's history with the show and even encouraged fans to write in to protest the name change."

I don't blame her, and I believe some people here were even saying the same things.