1,126 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Oct 1, 2019 20:16:51 GMT
I honestly decry the state of modern education that has led so many intelligent people to believe “freedom of speech” to mean the right to do and say absolutely anything you want without any consequences (or sometimes even without disagreement).
Omooba was fired first because she outspoken about a belief system that was diametrically opposed to the production’s core values (a bit like a vegan activist complaining about being fired from the Meat Marketing Board) and second - allegedly - because her comments in rehearsals created a hostile working environment for her co-workers. Freedom of speech simply does not come into it.
|
|
4,179 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by HereForTheatre on Oct 2, 2019 7:58:14 GMT
She was interviewed just now on The Today Programme and i was a bit aghast. She stood by everything she posted on facebook, was brazenly homophobic, bizarrely stated she didn't accept that Celie was an LGBT role and wasn't going to play her as such and then said she couldn't understand why she was removed from the production.....i mean....?
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Oct 2, 2019 8:08:25 GMT
She was interviewed just now on The Today Programme and i was a bit aghast. She stood by everything she posted on facebook, was brazenly homophobic, bizarrely stated she didn't accept that Celie was an LGBT role and wasn't going to play her as such and then said she couldn't understand why she was removed from the production.....i mean....? It distresses me that the bigot is getting such media coverage for this stunt. She is - by the sounds of it - making it worse for herself. But that is a side issue. She should not be given space to express these hateful views. They are not protected by law. The BBC should know better.
|
|
19,773 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 2, 2019 8:09:23 GMT
She was interviewed just now on The Today Programme and i was a bit aghast. She stood by everything she posted on facebook, was brazenly homophobic, bizarrely stated she didn't accept that Celie was an LGBT role and wasn't going to play her as such and then said she couldn't understand why she was removed from the production.....i mean....?
|
|
5,177 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Oct 2, 2019 10:24:22 GMT
I can't bring myself to listen to it. But if you've read the book or the musical, you SURELY can't deny it?
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Oct 2, 2019 10:26:35 GMT
She had also been in the concert version. So knew the show.
She is just lying to get money and attention
|
|
19,773 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 2, 2019 10:34:11 GMT
What line did Today take in response?
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 2, 2019 11:09:27 GMT
She can think whatever she wants - it's expressing those thoughts and acting on those thoughts that causes problems, when they are so at odds with the industry she wants to work in and the roles she wants to play. This has only come to light because of the things she said and did and the role she wanted to play. Or we'd all be none the wiser and she'd have kept the role. The truth is, if you have religious beliefs that run very counter to the rest of the industry you work in, it's wiser to keep them to yourself. Or find another industry. Truly 2019 is a confusing time to be alive. She's honest about her (dodgy) beliefs and is accused of hypocrisy for the line of work she's in - but being a hypocrite by lying about her (dodgy) beliefs and remaining employed would be totally fine? I just can't help but feel this was a wasted opportunity. Perhaps, by playing this character, she might have come to a deeper appreciation of people as individuals and an understanding of same-sex attraction (aka, well, just love, right?). Instead she was publicly challenged, predictably dug her heels in, and lost the opportunity. Imagine if the guy from Hamilton had instead spoken to her personally and at length. What might have happened? I've been listening to Alan Alda's podcast about communication a lot recently - so many examples of guests on there who used to preach hate or work with people who did/do, and the common thread among them all is 'people who were entitled to hate the people who hated them actually talked to them, listened to them, found common ground and changed them as a person'. I fear the chances of this happening via social media these days are vanishingly small. But it's to everyone's detriment. In principle I don't disagree with you at all - social change is all about persuading the people who disagree with you to change their minds, and the best way to do that is via dialogue and persuasion. I was initially very much in the 'benefit of the doubt' camp, thinking that taking the role may have indicated a potential change of heart. But sometimes social change also requires drawing a line in the sand and making it clear what is no longer acceptable, and now that we have reached the point of a court case, that is where we are on this one. You can't dialogue your way out of the fact that she believes she is perfectly entitled to play a gay character as not-gay because she thinks being gay is wrong, and was sacked because that made her a) actually unsuitable for the role b) created a hostile working environment for her co-workers. She apparently had a history of bringing her homophobic views into the workplace and had previously slid on by with the benefit of the doubt, but this situation reached the limit of that. We may not think that hypocrisy is a particularly admirable character trait, but when it comes to practical day-to-day life and work it is far preferable to be a hypocrite and keep one's personal views quiet in order to get on with your co-workers than to loudly proclaim one's views and commit a hate crime. Again: she didn't have to audition for the role. She didn't have to work in musical theatre. If your desired career conflicts that much with your core beliefs, you can either change your core beliefs, change your desired career, or be a hypocrite. Them's the breaks.
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Oct 2, 2019 11:28:51 GMT
She is also taking legal action against the Hippo and I read that she was offered a settlement but she doesn’t deem the situation to be about money so it is not clear in reports whether she accepted any cash or not?
|
|
731 posts
|
Post by sophie92 on Oct 2, 2019 11:33:08 GMT
The role is a great part regardless, so you can’t really blame someone for wanting to play it, but when the nature of the role is so against her beliefs (to the point that she evidently didn’t want to play it as written), you have to questions her motives for auditioning and accepting the role. I can’t help but wonder if it’s because of how it catapulted Cynthia Erivo to stardom.
|
|
19,773 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 2, 2019 11:39:34 GMT
I wonder if she was planning to tell the director of her plans to reinterpret the role.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Oct 2, 2019 11:43:24 GMT
You mean she might be ambitious AS WELL!!!?
|
|
19,773 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 2, 2019 11:47:30 GMT
I don’t think that trying to remove LGBT+ characters from literature can be classed as ambition.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Oct 2, 2019 11:52:12 GMT
Ouf.
|
|
4,179 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by HereForTheatre on Oct 2, 2019 13:38:45 GMT
What line did Today take in response? They had Matt Hemley from The Stage on afterwards who argued pretty much all the stuff we've said in here. So to be fair it was balanced.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Oct 2, 2019 13:55:57 GMT
She should never have been given the platform in the first place. Hate speech is hate speech - plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2019 14:18:35 GMT
In my mind saying that you don't agree with people who aren't hetrosexual is up there with having racist views or not agreeing with someone being of a different faith.
My other thoughts are why did she go for the role, if her beliefs are that strong then surely she would have felt uncomfortable having to kiss another woman on stage.
I honestly think she knows her career is effectively over so is trying to get some sort of pay out. I could see the Theatres fighting this and lots of LGBT supporters even offering to fund them.
|
|
639 posts
|
Post by ncbears on Oct 11, 2019 20:36:11 GMT
Alice Walker has a few things to say: (link is to a BWW article on the statement, which is reproduced in the article - I copied and pasted the statement below) Walker StatementTo whom it may concern: from Alice Walker ©2019 by Alice Walker I feel the most heartfelt compassion for actress Oluwaseyi Omooba. Celie, the character she would have played, is based on the life of my grandmother, Rachel, a kind and loving woman brutally abused by my grandfather, and whoever was in reality the father of her children, offspring none of the family ever saw. Thankfully, after these births, and the disappearance of her children, she was barren. It is safe to say, after a frightful life serving and obeying abusive men, who raped in place of "making love," my grandmother, like Celie, was not attracted to men. She was, in fact, very drawn to my grandfather's lover, a beautiful woman who was kind to her, the only grown person who ever seemed to notice how remarkable and creative she was. In giving Celie the love of this woman, in every way love can be expressed, I was clear in my intention to demonstrate that she too, like all of us, deserved to be seen, appreciated, and deeply loved by someone who saw her as whole and worthy. Because I believe, and know, that sexual love can be extraordinarily holy, whoever might be engaging in it, I felt I had been able to return a blessing of love to a grandmother who had always offered only blessing and love, when I was a child, to me. In much of my work I encourage the reader to question everything. I have been urging a questioning and reconsideration of all the so called "holy" books for over forty years. The Bible, like the Koran, like the Talmud, and others that claim to teach the best way for people to live, must be interrogated, questioned, and respectfully deconstructed. Love, however it may be expressed, is to be honored and welcomed into the light of our common survival as a consciously human, race. For a short introduction of what I teach in this regard, please see an essay: THE ONLY REASON YOU WANT TO GO TO HEAVEN IS YOU'VE BEEN DRIVEN OUT OF YOUR MIND...Off Your Land, and Out of Your Lover's Arms. Playing the role of "Celie" while not believing in her right to be loved, or to express her love in any way she chooses, would be a betrayal of women's right to be free. As an elder, I urge all of us to think carefully about what I am saying, even as you, Oluwaseyi Omooba, sue the theatre company for voiding your contract. This is just an episode in your life; your life, your work, and your growth, will continue, in the real world. A world we must make safe for women and children, female and male. And the greatest freedom of all is the freedom to be your authentic self. And with love to all of us! Alice Walker
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Oct 11, 2019 21:51:29 GMT
Powerful words - but I doubt they will have the desired effect
|
|
5,053 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Oct 11, 2019 23:10:18 GMT
Those words reminded me of the Colour Purple, which is one of the greatest story told, but didn’t realise it was semi-autobiography.
Didn’t the beginning of the Colour Purple speak of the church and why it’s an institution that I loathe, how the community were controlled and god fearing and yet one of the congregation committed some of the most egregious and perfidious acts a person can commit on another.
|
|
639 posts
|
Post by ncbears on Jan 3, 2020 19:23:05 GMT
|
|
19,773 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 29, 2021 12:46:31 GMT
|
|
4,179 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by HereForTheatre on Jan 29, 2021 15:33:32 GMT
As if Curve need this right now, honestly.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 29, 2021 17:02:52 GMT
She will lose and lose again. Costs will be awarded again her.
No-one needs the stress. But she is going to lose.
|
|
5,053 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jan 29, 2021 17:21:49 GMT
I didn’t know you could sue for spreading homophobia.
Not that in these heightened times, should the judiciary be concerning themselves with a trivial case.
|
|