19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 18, 2019 15:04:25 GMT
Let’s not turn on each other here please. I know a lot of this is contentious and feelings run high but please be tolerant of the different opinions and beliefs of members.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 15:05:25 GMT
As it stands, her presence in the show will harm the production, and she should recognise that and resign. She absolutely should do that. Firing her will make her the "victim" in all of this and that will be even worse. I'd prefer that she came on stage and was met by half empty houses and deafening silences after her big number and at the curtain call.
|
|
848 posts
|
Post by duncan on Mar 18, 2019 15:08:40 GMT
There seems to be an awful lot of bigotry and hatred towards religion in this thread about bigotry and hatred. Hating unfounded hatred is a good thing. Are you confused by the difference? No, HATE is HATE.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 18, 2019 15:11:57 GMT
When someone uses their religion as the basis for hate, then it is only right to call it out for what it is. That is not hate against a religion - that is legitimate criticism.
People chose whether or not to follow a certain religion - so they must be held accountable for their choices.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Mar 18, 2019 15:13:24 GMT
As it stands, her presence in the show will harm the production, and she should recognise that and resign. She absolutely should do that. Firing her will make her the "victim" in all of this and that will be even worse. I'd prefer that she came on stage and was met by half empty houses and deafening silences after her big number and at the curtain call. I'd prefer her to show that she thoroughly repudiates and regrets her previously-expressed views. That would be the best outcome. I'd rather see hearts and minds changed than broken. Second best choice is for her to recognise that her views make her a pariah in the musical theatre community, and for that to prompt her resignation and a period of reflection on her beliefs and how they fit with her chosen career. A poor third choice is for her to go on to empty, silent, houses. The worst possible outcome is the one that makes her a victim of the LGBT community and undermines the freedoms they themselves rely on when facing discrimination - because this is a highly unusual situation, and it's still far more likely that LGBT people will be in jobs where they could be discriminated against for expressing their private views than homophobic bigots will.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 15:13:50 GMT
I've had a good old read of this thread, and nowhere has anyone come close to saying 'all Christians hate gays' or 'All religious people are terrible'
In fact the only person (still) who has made a sweeping and hateful statement about a group of people is the actress in question.
Actors aren't paid to be role models, but it crosses my mind how damaging it would be for a young person to see the show, be inspired, perhaps have some revelation about their sexuality and then google her.
Also the morality of how it was exposed, granted it dubious in some respects, but she put it out there, and it's been shared in the public domain now and that can't be undone. It could be mediated if she renounced those views, though personally i'd still have some discomfort, but clearly she's not going to do that so the point still stands...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 15:15:01 GMT
I've just made a call to the box office asking what will happen if they make the choice for her to continue and whether we will be able to see an alternate or whether they will honour refunds. They've said obviously they won't be able to say anything until an official statement is released, but they've had a number of calls today regarding the situation and they will be putting all concerns forward to the team making decisions. She sounded very much supportive and understanding of my feelings toward it. You must be bored aren’t you? You go to see a SHOW not to hear her speak about her views regarding the LGBTQ+ community. Sad you want to ruin somebody else’s career because you don’t align yourself to her views. are you serious? You think I have nothing better to do than attempt to bring down this woman's career when she's already digging that hole for herself. Maybe I didn't clarify correctly I rang up and simply said "I just wanted to know, because of recent issues that have occurred involving the casting of The Color Purple, I have no intention of seeing this actress if she is in the role, so is there going to be the offer of a alternate in the role or if you will offer refunds if we are uncomfortable with the outcome of the decision? Because myself and several friends have concerns" and the woman was very understanding of these concerns because she said she has had many calls this morning about this same issue. I am perfectly in my right, as a potential audience member, to voice my concern on these kind of issues, because it is important and the Curve and Hippodrome run the risk of alienating a large amount of their regular theatre audiences should they not listen to these concerns. this actress has brought all these problems on herself as she was the one who made the initial posts, and she was the one who made previous people she worked with uncomfortable as recent as less than a year ago.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 18, 2019 15:15:58 GMT
She absolutely should do that. Firing her will make her the "victim" in all of this and that will be even worse. I'd prefer that she came on stage and was met by half empty houses and deafening silences after her big number and at the curtain call. I'd prefer her to show that she thoroughly repudiates and regrets her previously-expressed views. That would be the best outcome. I'd rather see hearts and minds changed than broken. Second best choice is for her to recognise that her views make her a pariah in the musical theatre community, and for that to prompt her resignation and a period of reflection on her beliefs and how they fit with her chosen career. A poor third choice is for her to go on to empty, silent, houses. The worst possible outcome is the one that makes her a victim of the LGBT community and undermines the freedoms they themselves rely on when facing discrimination - because this is a highly unusual situation, and it's still far more likely that LGBT people will be in jobs where they could be discriminated against for expressing their private views than homophobic bigots will. It is far more likely that LGBT+ people will be in jobs where they could be discriminated against for being LGBT+... no matter what the law might currently say.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Mar 18, 2019 15:20:37 GMT
That's why it's important to stand by the principle. It's counter-productive in the long term not to - even though it would feel satisfying in the short-term.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 18, 2019 15:31:08 GMT
I fin This was a privately-expressed view, as far as I am aware. We don't know that. Her profile was set to private this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 15:36:30 GMT
I fin This was a privately-expressed view, as far as I am aware. We don't know that. Her profile was set to private this weekend. You can see from the screenshot of her post that it was originally visible to friends AND friends of friends. So not so private.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 15:38:25 GMT
There seems to be an awful lot of bigotry and hatred towards religion in this thread about bigotry and hatred. Hating unfounded hatred is a good thing. Are you confused by the difference? I think the point is more that there have been a lot of sweeping generalisations about religion in this thread. Yes, the extreme conservative Christian views this performer holds are undoubtedly bigoted in any sense of the word, but not all of us who have a faith hold the same views or are like that at all, and any generalisation that all religion is bad is just as narrow-minded and offensive. I'm not saying everyone on here is doing that, far from it - most people completely get the delineations and are keeping the discussion respectful. However, some comments have gone a little too far in my opinion.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 18, 2019 15:46:04 GMT
I've had a good old read of this thread, and nowhere has anyone come close to saying 'all Christians hate gays' or 'All religious people are terrible' In fact the only person (still) who has made a sweeping and hateful statement about a group of people is the actress in question. I completely agree. And that should stay the main focus.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 15:48:06 GMT
There seems to be an awful lot of bigotry and hatred towards religion in this thread about bigotry and hatred. Hating unfounded hatred is a good thing. Are you confused by the difference? I’ve always used the phrase “intolerant of intolerance.” It’s also important to look at where the power lies. So in the matter of Christianity (centuries old institution of power, influence and money) vs LGBT+ rights (nascent with little protection) I think it’s important to speak up on the side without the power. Power + predjudice = racism/sexism/homophobia/islamophobia, otherwise it’s just plain old prejudice and unlikely to cause lasting harm.
|
|
367 posts
|
Post by raider80 on Mar 18, 2019 15:57:56 GMT
Maybe they already tried to buy her out but she is playing stubborn. I just hope she understands she might be blacklisted for a few years.
I fear this is going to tarnish the whole production, every review or notice about the show is going to mention this scandal and it is going to leave a black mark over the whole production even if it’s better then Doyle’s from a few years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 16:01:50 GMT
The more I read the comments on here about how odd it is she took the role, the more I agree.
So;
Did she not know the role was a gay role? Did she know it was a gay role but the combination of the money and exposure made it too enticing? Is she gay and using it as a way to come out? Is she on a journey to understanding the world and how her faith fits into it and the role will help her do that?
It seems wrong to give a queer role to someone who has stated such homophobic views, regardless of if the basis for the views is reglious or just plain old stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 16:09:17 GMT
Did she not know the role was a gay role? Hard to believe that one no? She's been in a concert version of the show previously and one presumes that she read a script? Hell, I've neither performed in a concert version of 'The Color Purple' nor am I friends with Cynthia Erivo but even I know there's a touch of the goings on of a lesbian variety in the show. She's not Helen Keller, I can't believe it completely passed her by so my assumption will be that she saw what the role did for Cynthia Erivo's career and she decided that she wanted a part of that herself. Plus she may also have wanted an Emmy for turning up to a breakfast TV show like Cynthia.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 16:10:36 GMT
The more I read the comments on here about how odd it is she took the role, the more I agree. So; Did she not know the role was a gay role? Did she know it was a gay role but the combination of the money and exposure made it too enticing? Is she gay and using it as a way to come out? Is she on a journey to understanding the world and how her faith fits into it and the role will help her do that? It seems wrong to give a queer role to someone who has stated such homophobic views, regardless of if the basis for the views is reglious or just plain old stupidity. to answer the general question, yeah she knew, she did the concert version as Nettie however she may not be fully aware of what is asked if her as there was no kissing or anything in the concert version. If you ask me, I honestly think she just took as the role, as I've said before, because she knows it's an iconic role for a black woman, with one of the most famous musical numbers, so who wouldn't say no. But it seems very odd that she would say yes, I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 16:11:41 GMT
What I'm struggling to understand here (and hoping the press statement and any comments from Seyi will clarify) is how someone with such demonstrated deeply rooted beliefs could accept a role such as Celie in the first place. Having worked on the piece previously at the Cadogan Hall concert, you would expect her to have some comprehension of the material and its contextual meaning. I'm not questioning her beliefs, but more the morals behind them. If she has vocally abstained from previous pro-LGBT events, whats the difference here, other than getting paid for it and the exposure? Either there is a genuine lack of understanding of the material (which in itself is concerning) or she's willing to put her religious beliefs in a box for the matter of money. As an atheist I can't put myself into her shoes, but, if I was an actor and had been offered the leading role of a white supremacist I'm not sure I could take it on in good conciseness. That said, I've not been in that position so can't say for sure.
Or am I showing a lack of understanding?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 16:13:42 GMT
Aha, @happysooz has made the same point as me whilst I was typing. So I'm not alone then...
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 18, 2019 16:24:28 GMT
I do have to question what the Curve management believe by 'a matter of priority' - they have been keeping people waiting since 11.48am without any further comment.
This is something that is damaging their reputation - the longer they leave it, the greater the damage. This should have been resolved over the weekend - it should never have got to Monday without a resolution.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 16:28:10 GMT
I do have to question what the Curve management believe by 'a matter of priority' - they have been keeping people waiting since 11.48am without any further comment. This is something that is damaging their reputation - the longer they leave it, the greater the damage. This should have been resolved over the weekend - it should never have got to Monday without a resolution. Theres quite a few similar responses on Twitter of the same ilk. The issue came to light Friday late afternoon/evening. It was Saturday by the time it had gained traction. You try getting a legal team together and met with two theatre management teams and then the person(s) in questions, all from different cities, over the weekend. On top of their other jobs. Granted this is high priority, but it is only Monday afternoon. I doubt they've been treating this casually.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 16:30:13 GMT
I do have to question what the Curve management believe by 'a matter of priority' - they have been keeping people waiting since 11.48am without any further comment. This is something that is damaging their reputation - the longer they leave it, the greater the damage. This should have been resolved over the weekend - it should never have got to Monday without a resolution. Perhaps they are in negotiations with Joseph at the Palladium, and she’ll be announced as our titular hero and the spotlight will move to another thread.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 16:30:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 16:33:23 GMT
I was being a bit glib with the ‘she didn’t know’ option.
I’m more interested in the ‘if she did know, then why?’ line of thought.
|
|