|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 16:36:21 GMT
I wonder where the messages of support for her from her friends are . . . .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 16:39:33 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. You are really oversimplifying this. It takes time for legal teams to investigate and advise, and even if the Curve's legal team worked all weekend, which they probably did, then they will have to advise the directors of the theatre and the production company and any chosen course of action will need to be properly documented. There are more than two parties here so it's even more complicated, and the risk of being sued is so high that whatever solution is decided has to be watertight. And that's even without considering the fact that the actress may be refusing to pull out or holding out for some sort of compensation for effectively being forced to do so. I don't think the Curve can be criticised at all for their response so far - this is far from simple in legal terms.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 16:40:08 GMT
It seems obvious that she will get the boot at this point. If the talk of two cast members leaving at the expense of her, it would be in their best interest to get rid. Also, no one is coming to her defence really, that know her personally. I've seen a couple of people on twitter way "a friend of mine is friends with her" and going on to defend, but where are the actual people?
The reason it's taking so long is probably because there has to be some form of working out what is to happen. If she's fired or walks, they have to replace her. They have to keep peace with the other cast members. The Curve and Hippodrome have to negotiate what's going on. It's alot more complex. If there wasn't all this, I suspect they would of just said bye girl at the weekend to put a stop to all this backlash.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 16:43:36 GMT
Sierra Boggess to replace her?
(Did we already have that joke?)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 16:45:01 GMT
Who's talked of walking?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 16:47:08 GMT
Sierra Boggess to replace her? (Did we already have that joke?) Celie will need to be recast, no doubt about it. Someone let Sierra Boggess know.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 16:47:23 GMT
I don't think "if I were an actor, I wouldn't want to play a white supremacist" comparisons are quite right here; after all, it's widely enough accepted that white supremacy is bad, and perfectly nice actors play villains all the time. A closer comparison might be someone like Ricky Gervais playing, for instance, a priest. And yikes, now I say it, I honestly can't imagine him pulling it off, he's too convinced of his own rightness to play it in good faith and would almost certainly be approaching it sardonically. I understand some people choose to separate the art from the artist, and I don't think there's a right or a wrong answer to *that*, specifically, just what works for you personally, but when an artist makes their thoughts such an integral part of who they are, and are so open about it, and particularly when their thoughts are so detrimental to other people, wow it's so much harder to just ignore that and focus on their performance.
I agree with the idea that any perceived slowness from the Curve and the Hippodrome is because they want to make sure they get it RIGHT and there's no way they're just dragging their heels in the hopes that everyone will forget about it. People say there's no such thing as bad publicity, but I think the twenty-first century has more than proven that old maxim to no longer be true.
|
|
5,840 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 18, 2019 16:48:31 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. You are really oversimplifying this. It takes time for legal teams to investigate and advise, and even if the Curve's legal team worked all weekend, which they probably did, then they will have to advise the directors of the theatre and the production company and any chosen course of action will need to be properly documented. There are more than two parties here so it's even more complicated, and the risk of being sued is so high that whatever solution is decided has to be watertight. And that's even without considering the fact that the actress may be refusing to pull out or holding out for some sort of compensation for effectively being forced to do so. I don't think the Curve can be criticised at all for their response so far - this is far from simple in legal terms. I do have to disagree Things can be done very quickly where necessary. And by saying they were doing this 'as a matter of priority' - they were giving the impression of seeking to act very swiftly. They could have used a different form of words that would have bought them more time - but they didn't. This should have been resolved by now. It is not that complicated.
|
|
4,179 posts
|
Post by HereForTheatre on Mar 18, 2019 16:51:39 GMT
You are really oversimplifying this. It takes time for legal teams to investigate and advise, and even if the Curve's legal team worked all weekend, which they probably did, then they will have to advise the directors of the theatre and the production company and any chosen course of action will need to be properly documented. There are more than two parties here so it's even more complicated, and the risk of being sued is so high that whatever solution is decided has to be watertight. And that's even without considering the fact that the actress may be refusing to pull out or holding out for some sort of compensation for effectively being forced to do so. I don't think the Curve can be criticised at all for their response so far - this is far from simple in legal terms. I do have to disagree Things can be done very quickly where necessary. And by saying they were doing this 'as a matter of priority' - they were giving the impression of seeking to act very swiftly. They could have used a different form of words that would have bought them more time - but they didn't. This should have been resolved by now. It is not that complicated. If things could have been done quickly they would have been done quickly. You have no idea what's going on behind the scenes. They wouldn't want this to drag on and reflect badly on them if they could help it, so probably they can't help it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 16:53:14 GMT
So just to get a general consensus, are we all assuming she is done with the production and its the negotiation that is taking the time or do we think there is any way for her to still be in this production following all this?
|
|
5,840 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 18, 2019 16:55:48 GMT
I do have to disagree Things can be done very quickly where necessary. And by saying they were doing this 'as a matter of priority' - they were giving the impression of seeking to act very swiftly. They could have used a different form of words that would have bought them more time - but they didn't. This should have been resolved by now. It is not that complicated. If things could have been done quickly they would have been done quickly. You have no idea what's going on behind the scenes. They wouldn't want this to drag on and reflect badly on them if they could help it, so probably they can't help it. They have mismanaged expectations - that is my main gripe. Don't use language like 'priority' which gives a sense of very rapid progress - talk in terms of 'issuing a statement once the investigation has been concluded' I appreciate that they are dealing with this sort of issue for the first time- but they have not helped themselves today. For the sake of clarity, I don't believe they are dragging their heels in any hope of this going away - but I do not think they have managed this as effectively as they should have done.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 16:59:50 GMT
In defence of Curve and Hippodrome, they didn't see this coming at all, so I sympatise with them for the amount of crap they've had to deal with. It had to be called out though.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 17:00:27 GMT
Thanks @baemax thats a much better comparison than the rather extreme one I made. And oxfordsimon maybe Seyi is refusing to respond to Curve. As stated previously, we don't know whats going on behind the scenes...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 17:00:44 GMT
If things could have been done quickly they would have been done quickly. You have no idea what's going on behind the scenes. They wouldn't want this to drag on and reflect badly on them if they could help it, so probably they can't help it. They have mismanaged expectations - that is my main gripe. Don't use language like 'priority' which gives a sense of very rapid progress - talk in terms of 'issuing a statement once the investigation has been concluded' I appreciate that they are dealing with this sort of issue for the first time- but they have not helped themselves today. For the sake of clarity, I don't believe they are dragging their heels in any hope of this going away - but I do not think they have managed this as effectively as they should have done. To be fair to them, my guess would be that they meant "priority" as in "it'll be the thing that we concentrate on most before anything else" as opposed to "we'll get the statement out first thing on Monday morning".
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 17:03:31 GMT
So just to get a general consensus, are we all assuming she is done with the production and its the negotiation that is taking the time or do we think there is any way for her to still be in this production following all this? Sadly I wouldn't be so sure. I do hope she is done with the production and that the deliberations have all been to find the best and easiest way to make that happen BUT I also have a concern that the producers may find their hands are tied and if she is adamant that she isn't going anywhere, they could be stuck with her.
|
|
5,840 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 18, 2019 17:06:36 GMT
Does anyone have access to a standard Equity contract? Just wondering whether that might give us a clue as to industry standard clauses that might be in play at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 17:15:41 GMT
So just to get a general consensus, are we all assuming she is done with the production and its the negotiation that is taking the time or do we think there is any way for her to still be in this production following all this? Sadly I wouldn't be so sure. I do hope she is done with the production and that the deliberations have all been to find the best and easiest way to make that happen BUT I also have a concern that the producers may find their hands are tied and if she is adamant that she isn't going anywhere, they could be stuck with her. which really would signal the end because then everyone will be in uproar if she doesn't apologise and refuses to leave as well. Because then we know shes still homophobic and she doesn't care about the people she works with or the audience. If ever there was a Theatre Board trip, this should be it. We can sit front row and wear rainbow outfits and when she come on for her final bow we can let off confetti cannons and start making out with one another.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 17:20:35 GMT
You are really oversimplifying this. It takes time for legal teams to investigate and advise, and even if the Curve's legal team worked all weekend, which they probably did, then they will have to advise the directors of the theatre and the production company and any chosen course of action will need to be properly documented. There are more than two parties here so it's even more complicated, and the risk of being sued is so high that whatever solution is decided has to be watertight. And that's even without considering the fact that the actress may be refusing to pull out or holding out for some sort of compensation for effectively being forced to do so. I don't think the Curve can be criticised at all for their response so far - this is far from simple in legal terms. I do have to disagree Things can be done very quickly where necessary. And by saying they were doing this 'as a matter of priority' - they were giving the impression of seeking to act very swiftly. They could have used a different form of words that would have bought them more time - but they didn't. This should have been resolved by now. It is not that complicated. As someone with legal training I am talking from experience about how long it takes to deal with these type of things, so you can disagree all you like but it doesn't make "as a matter of priority" mean what you are implying it does - i.e. that something as complicated as this can be fully resolved in a matter of minutes. It certainly is "that complicated" from a legal perspective, whether you agree with that or not. This could and probably will take days to get to a point where an interim announcement can be made, and possibly weeks to fully sort out. And that is with the legal teams working around the clock as they more than likely are.
|
|
1,933 posts
|
Post by LaLuPone on Mar 18, 2019 17:22:00 GMT
Sadly I wouldn't be so sure. I do hope she is done with the production and that the deliberations have all been to find the best and easiest way to make that happen BUT I also have a concern that the producers may find their hands are tied and if she is adamant that she isn't going anywhere, they could be stuck with her. which really would signal the end because then everyone will be in uproar if she doesn't apologise and refuses to leave as well. Because then we know shes still homophobic and she doesn't care about the people she works with or the audience. If ever there was a Theatre Board trip, this should be it. We can sit front row and wear rainbow outfits and when she come on for her final bow we can let off confetti cannons and start making out with one another. Sounds like a pretty fun day out to be honest!
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Mar 18, 2019 17:22:05 GMT
Things can be done very quickly where necessary. And by saying they were doing this 'as a matter of priority' - they were giving the impression of seeking to act very swiftly. They could have used a different form of words that would have bought them more time - but they didn't. This should have been resolved by now. It is not that complicated.
If they want the situation to be resolved in a way that won't come back to bite them later, perhaps it is that complicated. Even if there's some kind of clause in Ms. Omooba's contract about bringing the production or the theatres into disrepute, the way this came to light complicates the situation. It's not like she said this stuff this week in an interview with the Leicester Mercury. The controversy is based on a social media post that's a few years old, that another actor - who is not working on this production - chose to make public. Her public response, so far, has been silence. I'm not defending any of the opinions she expressed in that post, but I imagine the producers need legal advice before they take definitive action, and good legal advice doesn't always arrive instantly. A knee-jerk response from the producers could easily open the door to legal action later: it's not difficult to see scenarios in which this could lead to her suing for wrongful/constructive dismissal.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 17:23:48 GMT
Don't use language like 'priority' which gives a sense of very rapid progress Very rapid progress on complicated legal matters like this is measured in days, not minutes or hours. And you have to factor in the weekend, when people simply will be more difficult to get hold of even if the key people are working round the clock. Especially when as here multiple parties are involved. The issue here is your unrealistic expectations on timing, not the Curve being slow.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 17:25:14 GMT
And let's not forget what someone else said earlier in the thread, this is a pretty unusual case. How often does the daughter of a man who advocates in favour of conversion therapy - a daughter who agrees with his close-minded views on homosexuality - get cast in a fairly famous gay role in a major regional production of a musical anyway? Given how much of legal practice seems to be spent finding precedents for things, I would have been more surprised if they *had* popped up this morning with a tidy resolution.
|
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 18, 2019 17:50:23 GMT
The very fact that’s she’s clearly not going to retract it suggests significant complications. If she’s adamant about making a point here, and not back down then her arguments could be: 1. My religious beliefs are from the bible, a religious doctrine that our legal system is built on. 2. They do not impact on my ability to perform the role. 3. I am an actor, I am trained to represent the character of people I am not similar to. 4. If a heterosexual can’t perform the role of a gay person whose motives they don’t sympathise with, why can a gay person perform the role of a heterosexual.
It only leaves the ‘bringing the theatre into disrepute’ thing to go on, and her own morals of course. It sounds SUPER-complicated to me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 17:55:30 GMT
The very fact that’s she’s clearly not going to retract it suggests significant complications. If she’s adamant about making a point here, and not back down then her arguments could be: 1. My religious beliefs are from the bible, a religious doctrine that our legal system is built on. 2. They do not impact on my ability to perform the role. 3. I am an actor, I am trained to represent the character of people I am not similar to. 4. If a heterosexual can’t perform the role of a gay person whose motives they don’t sympathise with, why can a gay person perform the role of a heterosexual. It only leaves the ‘bringing the theatre into disrepute’ thing to go on, and her own morals of course. It sounds SUPER-complicated to me. I get what you're saying, and I have no doubt this could be an arguement she is attempting to present. But the difference is that what she is doing is being disrespectful and hateful toward gay people and not respecting them. I have many Christian friends who say that they don't give a damn about sexuality because Jesus loves everyone, it's just this warped sensibility. And I get it, she was brought up on it, her Dad's an asshole etc, but she should know better, especially being in this industry. Because no one will cast her now, especially with the growing amount of LGBT+ creative teams.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 18:16:44 GMT
Because no one will cast her now, especially with the growing amount of LGBT+ creative teams. There will always be people who will cast her, just as there will be people who will still work with her and people who will still go to see shows that she is in, whether because they agree with her or they just don't give a fig. Some people are just apathetic and memories are short. Just ask Mel Gibson.
|
|