|
Post by intoanewlife on Feb 5, 2021 15:49:43 GMT
It is not the role of a casting director to give someone a chance to change their unacceptable thinking. If the production team has known about her views and past behaviour, she would not have been considered for the role. She may not even have been considered for any role in the production. A production of a musical is just that. It does not exist to offer bigots a chance to reform. The only person who can decide to change their thinking is the bigot. She has clearly demonstrated no desire or willingness to change. If she had played the role 'straight' as she now apparently claims to have intended, then she would not have explored the piece properly to learn any of the lessons some claim might have been possible. She may yet have the capacity for change. But she has in no way demonstrated a willingness to even consider it. She could have rethought things after she hid rather than be associated with a Pride celebration. She didn't. She could have rethought things after her involvement with the previous production of TCP. She didn't. Is this a result of her upbringing? Almost certainly. But she is now an adult and has to take responsibility for her own actions. Her own choices. Many people grow up in a strict religious setting and decide to follow a different path once they reach adulthood. She hasn't rejected her upbringing. She has embraced it. Until she takes the decision to reject this pernicious form of hatred, she has to live with the consequences. The only person with a responsibility to bring about this necessary personal growth is her. Can I ask you a question... If you were involved in this court case (or any court case) and went to court to give evidence, what would you be asked to do just prior to giving your testimony?
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 5, 2021 16:27:47 GMT
I genuinely fail to see what that has to do with anything
|
|
18,786 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 5, 2021 17:28:53 GMT
You’re not required to swear on the bible when you go to court anyway. Haven’t had to for years. You can if you want to, that’s all.
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Feb 5, 2021 18:02:30 GMT
I genuinely fail to see what that has to do with anything It has a lot to do with it. The powers that be believe that people hold the biblical text of their religion to such a high standard that the best way to get them to tell the truth is to make them swear on it. That is how highly regarded biblical text is in our society, even in countries where church and state are supposedly separate. Now we can decline to do so, but we are offered it as a FIRST option which elevates it's importance even if we don't follow any sort of religion. Therefore I don't see how someone who quotes biblical text and agrees with it, can be seen as spreading hate speech. They are merely quoting and agreeing with a supposedly sacred piece of literature that is considered to be the apitomy of truth in society. Now...I hate religion and I personally don't believe in religious freedom for all the reasons discussed here. But I don't make the rules and if we allow it by law then we can't keep moving the goal posts. I don't see how we are ever going to deal with the differences between religion and an ever changing society unless we stop chastising people and instead try to start up a meaningful dialogue about the situation. Maybe instead of being hurt because she did not want to be in a Pride photo, that person could've taken her aside and asked her to please be involved and how much it would mean to her fellow workmates. Maybe then they'd have found out her reasons instead of just labelling her a hurtful nut job Christian. Maybe she didn't want her family to see her in a picture supporting the cause and couldn't bear dealing with the fallout or maybe she is just a devout Christian and didn't want to go against her beliefs, sorry but that is her decision to make not anyone else's. Either way she'd have at least known she might be hurting people and been able to apologise and explained why she chose to not do it instead of being labelled a horrible person.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Feb 5, 2021 19:19:30 GMT
Now we can decline to do so, but we are offered it as a FIRST option which elevates it's importance even if we don't follow any sort of religion. That isn't true - swearing or affirming are offered as equal options at the same time, you are asked your preference, not to just say if you don't want to use a Bible/reference God. Religious freedom is not absolute, it is a qualified human right the same as freedom of expression and many others That is the law, so no, it doesn't have any kind of preferential treatment - it is a balancing exercise. Nor should it have greater preference than other such rights. And I say that as someone who holds some level of religious belief. Also, chastising someone and having dialogue with them are not mutually exclusive - one can condemn someone for something and still choose to have a conversation with them. There is no requirement to condone or tolerate, all that is required in dialogue is for both sides to listen. Personal views do not have to be set aside or held in to do that.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 5, 2021 20:37:18 GMT
This whole situation is so weird. I've kind of followed it since the controversy began. I may have misremembered some of the details but I seem to recall that Seyi Omooba had only recently appeared in Regent's Park's 'Little Shop of Horrors', which is where she'd opted to sit out of a performance for Pride. But other than that, she was apparently friendly enough with the LGBT members of the cast - and had even exchanged friendly tweets with Vicky Vox - the drag queen who played Audrey II. It's hard to imagine she could have got through musical theatre training and appearing in musicals if she was openly homophobic. This is why I am convinced she was compartmentalising two conflicting aspects of her belief system. The two aspects being forced to meet triggered at first avoidant behaviour (hiding from the Pride video) and now doubling-down on one of them and claiming that there was no conflict to start with and that she was entirely innocent of how very gay musical theatre is. Possibly to placate her family and save face within her church. intoanewlife I simply don’t believe her when she says she was only familiar with the film. If you know anything about The Colour Purple you know that the film was controversial for omitting the lesbian aspect of the story, so ‘I only watched the film’ makes for a convenient excuse. She is a musical theatre actress, not a casual punter, we can safely assume a wide and deep interest in musicals. She is also black. There are a limited number of lead roles written for black musical theatre actresses. This is one of the most famous, and also one that recently won a Tony. The idea that she lacked the interest or curiosity to find out what it is about is weak to start with but once she has been in an actual production it’s ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Feb 5, 2021 22:55:02 GMT
This whole situation is so weird. I've kind of followed it since the controversy began. I may have misremembered some of the details but I seem to recall that Seyi Omooba had only recently appeared in Regent's Park's 'Little Shop of Horrors', which is where she'd opted to sit out of a performance for Pride. But other than that, she was apparently friendly enough with the LGBT members of the cast - and had even exchanged friendly tweets with Vicky Vox - the drag queen who played Audrey II. It's hard to imagine she could have got through musical theatre training and appearing in musicals if she was openly homophobic. intoanewlife I simply don’t believe her when she says she was only familiar with the film. If you know anything about The Colour Purple you know that the film was controversial for omitting the lesbian aspect of the story, so ‘I only watched the film’ makes for a convenient excuse. She is a musical theatre actress, not a casual punter, we can safely assume a wide and deep interest in musicals. She is also black. There are a limited number of lead roles written for black musical theatre actresses. This is one of the most famous, and also one that recently won a Tony. The idea that she lacked the interest or curiosity to find out what it is about is weak to start with but once she has been in an actual production it’s ludicrous. If she would not stand in a Pride photo what makes you think she would take the role? If she was familiar with the piece she would not have taken the role that is pretty obvious. She is 26, the film was released 10 years before she was even born so why would she be acquainted with the controversy surrounding it when it was released 35 years ago? There are 15 year olds on this planet who do not know who Madonna is, I know this because one of them is my nephew. Vanessa Vanjie did not know who Meryl Streep is and he is 29... The musical is not really that well known and has only played in London once in a tiny Off West End theatre for a few months and didn't even transfer to the West End. It then went to Broadway and had slightly more success, but I don't believe she lived in New York during that time. People are acting like she is Niki Minaj's baby sister or something. She is a brain washed fundamental Christian whose Father runs a ministry, do you really think she spends much of her time seeking cultural education or enlightenment even of her own race? Her first theatre role was in 2016, 2 years AFTER she made her Facebook comment. She went to theatre school and was no doubt surrounded by gay people and gay teachers and has since appeared along gay actors in different productions and been in a production with gay characters. Other than refusing to do a Pride photo shoot there doesn't seem to be any problems other than her comments online that offended her cast mates. She never said anything to any of them personally, so I do not see her as a major threat to the gay community. She is obviously totally oblivious to the fact that her comments are offensive to gay people, because no one probably ever said a word to her about it until this sh*tshow. Religious nutters are not very good at understanding hypocrisy or contradiction, if they were they'd have thrown their bibles away after their first read through. I would suggest some of you check out the Theroux Westborough Church programme and see what these people are actually like. The children are all as sweet as candy and giggling while informing him that he is going to hell. It is what they do, they blurt out stupid sh*t like robots and anyone who actually takes offence to it...well... She will lose the court case and her career and in 10 years time when she finally decides to breakaway from her nut job father will probably end up as a stripper at String-fellows and so can all go visit and point and laugh at her. In the meantime later this year Rupert Murdoch is starting a far right Fox News style channel in the UK. I think people attentions would be better served on stopping that from happening instead of persecuting a brain washed 26 year old woman of colour online for a comment she made 6 years ago.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 5, 2021 23:16:42 GMT
She ain’t exactly behaving in a rational way, you know?! This case is crackers. I’m providing a psychological explanation for her hypocrisy.
Amazingly in this internet age it’s quite easy to find out about things happening in America and before you were born. You can find clips of the Tony Awards on YouTube. There’s also this thing called wikipedia. You just have to be motivated. Any musical theatre actress has reason to be motivated to find out about the role that wins A Tony.
As for the argument that she didn’t realise what she said was offensive - which is very silly, you can’t live in modern Britain and not know that - she had the opportunity to retract her statement and apologise, or even just to take the pay off and slink away quietly. It is her own choice not to do so.
She is not being persecuted - if anyone is being persecuted here it is The Curve! We are merely discussing her actions and the details of the case.
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Feb 5, 2021 23:43:20 GMT
She ain’t exactly behaving in a rational way, you know?! This case is crackers. I’m providing a psychological explanation for her hypocrisy. Amazingly in this internet age it’s quite easy to find out about things happening in America and before you were born. You can find clips of the Tony Awards on YouTube. There’s also this thing called wikipedia. You just have to be motivated. Any musical theatre actress has reason to be motivated to find out about the role that wins A Tony. As for the argument that she didn’t realise what she said was offensive - which is very silly, you can’t live in modern Britain and not know that - she had the opportunity to retract her statement and apologise, or even just to take the pay off and slink away quietly. It is her own choice not to do so. She is not being persecuted - if anyone is being persecuted here it is The Curve! We are merely discussing her actions and the details of the case. As I said earlier I don't think anything she has done since she was booted is even remotely sane in any way, so why is anyone thinking she was sane BEFORE it happened? It's crazy town with these people and nothing a normal person would do or even comprehend. There is no way a fundamental Christian is looking on Wiki or the internet to do research on anything, just not gonna happen. God and his word is ALL they care about. That's it, there is nothing else. You or I may do that, but they aren't gonna it's that simple. As I said, watch the Theroux documentary. They just throw this sh*t out there and are totally oblivious to the fact it may offend others. They don't care, it is just meaningless robotic babble spurted out to fill the air. I'm sorry but she is being persecuted in this thread, there is some very nasty stuff said about her. I can understand why people are upset, but being just as awful or worse as retaliation just make us no better than them. Personally I am not saying anymore on the subject now, I have made my points. I think the whole original sin here is all probably a massive series of misunderstandings on both side that lead to what it is now. I think we should actually wait until we get all the info from the trial evidence before any more criticism is thrown at her, it is all a pile of conflicting accusations that aren't helping anybody at this point.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 5, 2021 23:52:35 GMT
She ain’t exactly behaving in a rational way, you know?! This case is crackers. I’m providing a psychological explanation for her hypocrisy. Amazingly in this internet age it’s quite easy to find out about things happening in America and before you were born. You can find clips of the Tony Awards on YouTube. There’s also this thing called wikipedia. You just have to be motivated. Any musical theatre actress has reason to be motivated to find out about the role that wins A Tony. As for the argument that she didn’t realise what she said was offensive - which is very silly, you can’t live in modern Britain and not know that - she had the opportunity to retract her statement and apologise, or even just to take the pay off and slink away quietly. It is her own choice not to do so. She is not being persecuted - if anyone is being persecuted here it is The Curve! We are merely discussing her actions and the details of the case. As I said earlier I don't think anything she has done since she was booted is even remotely sane in any way, so why is anyone thinking she was sane BEFORE it happened? It's crazy town with these people and nothing a normal person would do or even comprehend. There is no way a fundamental Christian is looking on Wiki or the internet to do research on anything, just not gonna happen. God and his word is ALL they care about. That's it, there is nothing else. You or I may do that, but they aren't gonna it's that simple. As I said, watch the Theroux documentary. They just throw this sh*t out there and are totally oblivious to the fact it may offend others. They don't care, it is just meaningless robotic babble spurted out to fill the air. I'm sorry but she is being persecuted in this thread, there is some very nasty stuff said about her. I can understand why people are upset, but being just as awful or worse as retaliation just make us no better than them. Personally I am not saying anymore on the subject now, I have made my points. I think the whole original sin here is all probably a massive series of misunderstandings on both side that lead to what it is now. I think we should actually wait until we get all the info from the trial evidence before any more criticism is thrown at her, it is all a pile of conflicting accusations that aren't helping anybody at this point. I don't understand why you are seeking to excuse her quite so doggedly. I am not going to seek to persuade you of my perspective on all this. But I will not stop calling out hate speech and intolerance where I see it. Her beliefs are a choice. She has to live with the consequences of expressing herself in the way she did and continues to do.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 5, 2021 23:56:51 GMT
I think intoanewlife you are mistaking the behaviour of an extreme cult for the behaviour of church members. The Westboro Baptist Church isn’t really a church - it’s an extended family. Even then there are children who have left it as adults, which just goes to show that it is possible to change even after the most extreme brainwashing. And of course she uses the internet - she uses Twitter and Facebook! Not sure why you are so intent on finding excuses for her that you are going further and further down a rabbit hole to absolve her of all responsibility for her actions.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 6, 2021 0:23:08 GMT
You’re not required to swear on the bible when you go to court anyway. Haven’t had to for years. You can if you want to, that’s all. When I did jury service and the defendant was a pastor and the members of his church who gave evidence, guess what that all did including a pastor? Naturally being god fearing and believing in the bible, they all affirmed.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 6, 2021 0:27:03 GMT
The Tony Award actress being the powerhouse and marvellous Cynthia Erivo, who won the Tony for playing Celie. She is also a Christian and had no such issue playing that role.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Feb 6, 2021 2:55:14 GMT
The Tony Award actress being the powerhouse and marvellous Cynthia Erivo, who won the Tony for playing Celie. She is also a Christian and had no such issue playing that role. And the same, I believe, also applies to LaChanze, who originally won the Tony for the role.
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Feb 6, 2021 3:09:52 GMT
There is no way a fundamental Christian is looking on Wiki or the internet to do research on anything, just not gonna happen. God and his word is ALL they care about. That's it, there is nothing else. But that isn’t Seyi. It’s some fundies, sure, but not her. She’s an ambitious career woman who has spent years pursuing a career as an actress, and who clearly cares/cared deeply about achieving success in a pretty secular and non-Christian career. At the very minimum she obviously researched information on how to apply to drama schools and how to prepare for auditions, presumably online. You’re acting like she’s one of the Kimmy Schmidt mole women who was just rescued from a cult bunker. She’s not an escapee from Waco, she’s an ordinary British woman who’s spent years focusing on a secular career, was allowed/encouraged to study and work outside her faith, spent years studying and working with people who are not only not Christians but likely people whose very existence went against what she’d been taught, who voluntarily worked on stage productions that promote ‘non Christian ideals’, and clearly had strong interests and ambitions which have nothing to do with Christianity. I watched the Louis Theroux docu and it’s both sad and interesting, but those people - the ones who have “nothing else” except robotically parroting the Bible - they’re about as likely to apply to (or be allowed to apply to) drama schools in London as they are change their names to Hail Satan.
|
|
|
Post by sph on Feb 6, 2021 21:39:49 GMT
When I look back on my catholic school days, as an adult they strike me as just... bizarre.
We used to study and read bible stories as though they were historical events. We'd pray three times a day apologising for our sins. God was a real person and that was stated as fact, to not believe that was inherently wrong. When we asked what happened when non-believers went to heaven we were told that they would "get there and be pleasantly surprised that God was there all along". Being gay was never mentioned. Ever. We also went to church a lot and did after-school religious studies in advance of our communion, confession, confirmation etc. School assemblies were about bible stories and singing hymns. If the priest popped in to visit, the teachers would almost kneel before him - in fact I remember a lot of particularly over-zealous middle-aged women fluttering around the priest like he was some sort of idol.
Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a "fire and brimstone" school with nuns beating children and all that sort of thing, but it was just so strange how it was so devoutly religious, to the point that nothing else in the world seemed like it could exist outside of that particular viewpoint.
I stopped believing rather young - I'd always questioned it. Then one day we were studying Ancient Egyptian Gods and I asked the teacher how we know that those Gods were "wrong" and our one was "right". The teacher explained to me, for the first time ever, that religion is based on personal belief and we don't know which one is right or wrong. I immediately stopped believing because the things I'd been taught as "fact", and doubted, I finally found out were not necessarily facts at all.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 7, 2021 20:05:05 GMT
I have just re-watched the films, after reading the book and obviously seen the musical. It isn’t a feel good story (well not until the end,) it is a feel everything story because of the strong themes and is an uncomfortable watch/read especially the first half. As I said earlier it is one of the greatest stories ever told, by a great author Alice Walker.
Re-watching the film it occurred to me, the story has strong themes such as rape, incest, paedophilia, domestic abuse and forced separation. If I was a Christian I would find these themes more abhorrent and a better reason to withdraw from the production.
|
|
|
Post by stagebyte on Feb 8, 2021 17:51:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ThereWillBeSun on Feb 8, 2021 18:45:51 GMT
When I look back on my catholic school days, as an adult they strike me as just... bizarre. We used to study and read bible stories as though they were historical events. We'd pray three times a day apologising for our sins. God was a real person and that was stated as fact, to not believe that was inherently wrong. When we asked what happened when non-believers went to heaven we were told that they would "get there and be pleasantly surprised that God was there all along". Being gay was never mentioned. Ever. We also went to church a lot and did after-school religious studies in advance of our communion, confession, confirmation etc. School assemblies were about bible stories and singing hymns. If the priest popped in to visit, the teachers would almost kneel before him - in fact I remember a lot of particularly over-zealous middle-aged women fluttering around the priest like he was some sort of idol. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a "fire and brimstone" school with nuns beating children and all that sort of thing, but it was just so strange how it was so devoutly religious, to the point that nothing else in the world seemed like it could exist outside of that particular viewpoint. I stopped believing rather young - I'd always questioned it. Then one day we were studying Ancient Egyptian Gods and I asked the teacher how we know that those Gods were "wrong" and our one was "right". The teacher explained to me, for the first time ever, that religion is based on personal belief and we don't know which one is right or wrong. I immediately stopped believing because the things I'd been taught as "fact", and doubted, I finally found out were not necessarily facts at all. Former Catholic School pupil here and I am deeply traumatized. I actually hate nuns.
|
|
153 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 17, 2021 8:41:27 GMT
|
|
1,445 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Feb 17, 2021 8:49:01 GMT
Thank “God” for that
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 17, 2021 8:54:13 GMT
It boggles the mind that Omooba thought any other result was possible.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2021 8:54:51 GMT
"Author of her own misfortune" is a fair statement. Glad it's concluded fairly and can move forward. Shudder to think how much this has cost the Curve in time and legal expenses though.
|
|
153 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 17, 2021 9:01:52 GMT
It boggles the mind that Omooba thought any other result was possible. I actually got a video link and watched the final day of proceedings. I thought she did just have a sliver of a chance of success. As far as I can tell, she only came out and said that playing gay was a non-negotiable red line for her, after she'd been dismissed. (Her agents knew beforehand but the theatre didn't.) And I suppose that in that case, her admission that she would have refused to play the role as directed could have been ruled irrelevant as things didn't actually get that far. In which case, she could have won on the basis that although her views are obnoxious and offensive to many people, they are not illegal and are indeed mainstream in fundamentalist Christianity. So whilst it's true that the Curve and the production would have suffered negative publicity, they still didn't have the right to fire her. She was, after all, fired because she refused to retract or denounce the Facebook post, not because she refused to interpret Celie as gay. (I am relieved it didn't go this way, but I think it's at least conceivable that it could have.)
|
|
153 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 17, 2021 9:02:24 GMT
"Author of her own misfortune" is a fair statement. Glad it's concluded fairly and can move forward. Shudder to think how much this has cost the Curve in time and legal expenses though. I wonder if Christian Concern will have to pay the Curve's legal fees.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 17, 2021 9:18:19 GMT
It boggles the mind that Omooba thought any other result was possible. I actually got a video link and watched the final day of proceedings. I thought she did just have a sliver of a chance of success. As far as I can tell, she only came out and said that playing gay was a non-negotiable red line for her, after she'd been dismissed. (Her agents knew beforehand but the theatre didn't.) And I suppose that in that case, her admission that she would have refused to play the role as directed could have been ruled irrelevant as things didn't actually get that far. In which case, she could have won on the basis that although her views are obnoxious and offensive to many people, they are not illegal and are indeed mainstream in fundamentalist Christianity. So whilst it's true that the Curve and the production would have suffered negative publicity, they still didn't have the right to fire her. She was, after all, fired because she refused to retract or denounce the Facebook post, not because she refused to interpret Celie as gay. (I am relieved it didn't go this way, but I think it's at least conceivable that it could have.) The law doesn’t work like that. It’s not the legality of her views at question, it’s whether the Curve were justified in dismissing her as not being suitable for the job. As she would not have been able to perform the role at all, they were entirely justified in firing her. The post and her response to the post being publicised was ample basis for them to draw the conclusion that she wasn’t suitable for the role, the fact that she hadn’t prepared properly for the role showed that her competence was lacking to perform it, the fact she admitted she would have quit the production anyway made it conclusive. What’s remarkable is that she brought the case knowing she would have quit the production anyway. That’s almost as hard to believe as the fact that she didn’t know the nature of the role when she auditioned. If that is true, it’s mind boggling. There’s always the possibility that she is fibbing about some of this stuff though!
|
|
153 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 17, 2021 9:23:11 GMT
What’s remarkable is that she brought the case knowing she would have quit the production anyway. That’s almost as hard to believe as the fact that she didn’t know the nature of the role when she auditioned. If that is true, it’s mind boggling. There’s always the possibility that she is fibbing about some of this stuff though! Which would be supremely ironic - and indeed hypocritical - given that it was a legal tribunal - and therefore she presumably swore an oath on the Bible to tell the truth!!
|
|
153 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 17, 2021 9:27:47 GMT
What’s remarkable is that she brought the case knowing she would have quit the production anyway. That’s almost as hard to believe as the fact that she didn’t know the nature of the role when she auditioned. I'm inclined to agree with Leicester Curve's statement. I think it's likely that Christian Concern and her father decided to make a fuss in order to stir up some more headlines about Christians being discriminated against and being penalised for their religious views. It's an expensive way to do it, though.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 17, 2021 9:35:12 GMT
What’s remarkable is that she brought the case knowing she would have quit the production anyway. That’s almost as hard to believe as the fact that she didn’t know the nature of the role when she auditioned. If that is true, it’s mind boggling. There’s always the possibility that she is fibbing about some of this stuff though! Which would be supremely ironic - and indeed hypocritical - given that it was a legal tribunal - and therefore she presumably swore an oath on the Bible to tell the truth!! Yes, it would be - but then that’s entirely consistent with her being hypocritical enough to think she could express anti-gay sentiments publicly and play gay characters. Sometimes people really are hypocrites!
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Feb 17, 2021 9:36:21 GMT
Full statement from The Curve:
|
|