|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 1, 2021 16:36:37 GMT
Given she had already appeared in a different role in a concert production, it is not credible to believe that she wasn't aware of the detail of the piece. Utterly ridiculous. She also seems to be arguing that the character isn't gay and doesn't have to be played as a gay character, so she should still have been allowed to do the role and play it her way. Slightly different point but equally strange. The press release this Christian Centre put out when she lost her appeal to have partisan expert evidence introduced is just bizarre. Given Alice Walker's intervention, there is no doubt about the sexuality the character she created.
|
|
|
Post by ThereWillBeSun on Feb 1, 2021 18:07:03 GMT
According to this report: www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/actor-sacked-homophobia-didnt-know-4952526, Omooba seems to be arguing - slightly bizarrely - that had she known the character was gay, she would not have accepted the role and had she appeared in the production, she would have refused to play the character as gay: which seems to completely justify the Curve's decision to dismiss her. Surely her only hope of winning is to argue that her personal beliefs here are irrelevant as long as she were able to put them to one side and not let them interfere with her ability to do the job she was hired to do? ... and it's a given that you would research the show you are auditioning for? That is TEXTBOOK.
|
|
|
Post by ThereWillBeSun on Feb 1, 2021 18:09:33 GMT
Given she had already appeared in a different role in a concert production, it is not credible to believe that she wasn't aware of the detail of the piece. Utterly ridiculous. She also seems to be arguing that the character isn't gay and doesn't have to be played as a gay character, so she should still have been allowed to do the role and play it her way. Slightly different point but equally strange. The press release this Christian Centre put out when she lost her appeal to have partisan expert evidence introduced is just bizarre. She can argue until she is blue in the face. Her views are bigoted, there is no place for them in society let alone the theatre industry and I can't believe how thick someone can be. There is no logic in her argument. Christian Centre can actually do one.
|
|
5,891 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Feb 1, 2021 18:29:42 GMT
She needs to shut up and go away.
She should know better.
|
|
1,124 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by sph on Feb 1, 2021 19:02:58 GMT
The way I view it is that the rights and protection of gay people must take priority over religion. Why? Because we can prove that gay people exist. Equal treatment of gay people is based on the fact that they are very real and have lives and families and marriages and children and jobs and mortgages etc. This can be proven and therefore can be passed into law based on evidence.
Religious beliefs, while you are entitled to hold them, are based on faith, not evidence. You cannot prove that God exists and so cannot be given legal priority over the rights of a gay person who demonstrably exists. Again, you can go into a church and believe what you want, I really don't care, but in a court of law you must work with facts and evidence.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 1, 2021 19:26:25 GMT
Given she had already appeared in a different role in a concert production, it is not credible to believe that she wasn't aware of the detail of the piece. Utterly ridiculous. She also seems to be arguing that the character isn't gay and doesn't have to be played as a gay character, so she should still have been allowed to do the role and play it her way. Slightly different point but equally strange. The press release this Christian Centre put out when she lost her appeal to have partisan expert evidence introduced is just bizarre. So she was totally miscast, and letting her go was a kindness. Why she is trying to argue otherwise is truly puzzling. Surely every actor has moments when they realise they are just not right for a role - learning when to say ‘this is not right for me’ is part of the expected professionalism of a professional actor.
|
|
5,891 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Feb 1, 2021 21:53:48 GMT
I trust she has a back up career, because she isn’t working in a theatre ever again.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 1, 2021 22:16:11 GMT
I trust she has a back up career, because she isn’t working in a theatre ever again. There is a market for church music andvI suspect her views would go down well in parts of the US But she has no future in musicals/theatre in the UK
|
|
5,053 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 1, 2021 22:56:35 GMT
I guess she can mount a decent legal challenge, as her costs will be met by others.
I have to say though that she comes across as being totally naive, working in the arts where sexuality isn’t an issue and applying to work in a musical that has homosexual themes, well I’m just saying it is a bit like someone who follows the Jewish faith or even myself being a non-meat eater applying to work in a bacon factory or a Jehovah Witness applying to be a phlebotomist.
Did she really want to work in that musical or was there something a bit more all along?
|
|
5,053 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 1, 2021 22:58:55 GMT
I trust she has a back up career, because she isn’t working in a theatre ever again. There is a market for church music andvI suspect her views would go down well in parts of the US But she has no future in musicals/theatre in the UK Oh those American churches that are anti-gay and anti abortion, but pro gun and anti universal healthcare. Praise the lo........
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 1, 2021 23:00:22 GMT
She had already been in a production before. Yes it was a concert version but she can't claim to not know what she was letting herself in for.
And as for a proper legal challenge.. she might have done better to engage a proper employment lawyer rather than her chosen counsel who appears to have no legal training.
She is the architect of her own misfortune. And until she moves away from her beliefs, she is not deserving of any sympathy.
|
|
2,859 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Feb 3, 2021 18:48:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2021 19:03:10 GMT
Maybe she should retrain in cyber.
|
|
8,152 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Feb 3, 2021 19:05:41 GMT
Oh please! I'm thick and even I figured it out the first time I saw the musical.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 3, 2021 21:07:22 GMT
If she is that dense, no other director would risk working with her every again.
They are going to laugh her out of court. I can't wait.
|
|
639 posts
|
Post by ncbears on Feb 3, 2021 21:23:48 GMT
According to this report: www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/actor-sacked-homophobia-didnt-know-4952526, Omooba seems to be arguing - slightly bizarrely - that had she known the character was gay, she would not have accepted the role and had she appeared in the production, she would have refused to play the character as gay: which seems to completely justify the Curve's decision to dismiss her. Surely her only hope of winning is to argue that her personal beliefs here are irrelevant as long as she were able to put them to one side and not let them interfere with her ability to do the job she was hired to do? ... and it's a given that you would research the show you are auditioning for? That is TEXTBOOK. Her counsel suggests that she watched the film version as her homework. And since Spielberg didn't portray Celie as a lesbian, then that is that. And ignore what Alice Walker or Marsha Norman wrote. Except Ms. Omooba wasn't hired to do the Spielberg film....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2021 21:28:52 GMT
An awful lot of people (and a lot of awful people) seem to believe they can be cagey with the truth in court, and so long as they scatter a few scraps of information that paint them in a good light nobody will look too deeply into the gaps in their tale. But courts are used to people who think they can get away with only telling the half of the story that makes them look good. They can spot someone carefully skirting around an issue a mile off and they'll home straight in on the things that are being held back.
|
|
|
Post by ThereWillBeSun on Feb 3, 2021 22:47:14 GMT
... and it's a given that you would research the show you are auditioning for? That is TEXTBOOK. Her counsel suggests that she watched the film version as her homework. And since Spielberg didn't portray Celie as a lesbian, then that is that. And ignore what Alice Walker or Marsha Norman wrote. Except Ms. Omooba wasn't hired to do the Spielberg film.... EXACTLY. Again. Do. Your. Homework. It’s a musical. It’s an adaptation. Even if you’re unsure. Research!!!!!!!!!! Cannot understand how someone who trained at drama school doesn’t have the knowledge to do the BASIC stuff? It’s what you’re always taught and even if you weren’t - I mean; it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to be on it and savvy. Clearly not in this case. Christian Concern are just so sheer tone deaf - it’s cringeworthy to even read their flawed rhetoric. It’s amateur. Waste of everyone’s time.
|
|
|
Post by ThereWillBeSun on Feb 3, 2021 22:47:50 GMT
Maybe she should retrain in cyber. I am FINISHED.
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Feb 4, 2021 9:14:56 GMT
... and it's a given that you would research the show you are auditioning for? That is TEXTBOOK. Her counsel suggests that she watched the film version as her homework. And since Spielberg didn't portray Celie as a lesbian, then that is that. And ignore what Alice Walker or Marsha Norman wrote. Except Ms. Omooba wasn't hired to do the Spielberg film.... I've not seen the film but isn't she still a lesbian in it? The Wikipedia plot summary suggests she is.
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Feb 4, 2021 12:06:31 GMT
Her counsel suggests that she watched the film version as her homework. And since Spielberg didn't portray Celie as a lesbian, then that is that. And ignore what Alice Walker or Marsha Norman wrote. Except Ms. Omooba wasn't hired to do the Spielberg film.... I've not seen the film but isn't she still a lesbian in it? The Wikipedia plot summary suggests she is. I have seen the movie countless times and endured the musical once so I am by no means an expert on the score. I don't know how different either are to the book, but there is no way I'd have ever said Celie was a lesbian, nor do I get the impression she was from Walkers statement. In both she had a single sexual encounter with a woman who showed her affection for the first time in her life and probably gave her a pretty good time in the process, but I don't see how that one encounter makes/made her a lesbian. She had her first enjoyable sexual encounter with a same sex partner like a lot of people have, I don't see how that automatically made her gay. I always assumed that Shug was meant to be the lesbian or bi-sexual character of the piece. I mean she never had another lover at all after her husband and Shug so maybe that is meant to imply she was and although she ends up leaving with Shug maaaaaaany years later, Shug is married to a man so I don't think their relationship went beyond friendship after that. Obviously there may be more in the book but if your only reference to the piece was the film and the musical I would never have taken away that she was a lesbian, so I don't think Seyi can be blamed for thinking the same.
|
|
4,179 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by HereForTheatre on Feb 4, 2021 12:11:52 GMT
She claimed that she wasn't on stage when the kiss happened in the previous production she was in, so she didn't know about it. It was then pointed out she WAS on stage at the time, to which she says she was at the side of the stage and "wasn't always looking" at what was going on.
So. Cast iron case she has there......
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Feb 4, 2021 12:23:53 GMT
She claimed that she wasn't on stage when the kiss happened in the previous production she was in, so she didn't know about it. It was then pointed out she WAS on stage at the time, to which she says she was at the side of the stage and "wasn't always looking" at what was going on. So. Cast iron case she has there...... Still, does a character having one same sex kiss in a show make them a lesbian? I am not getting this argument because it is pretty ambiguous in both of the mediums she watched it in.
|
|
19,774 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 4, 2021 12:32:46 GMT
In the unlikely event that she wins on the basis of whether a character is gay and whether everyone playing that character has to interpret them the same way, it doesn’t alter that facts of what she posted on Facebook which she’s never retracted. She’s entitled to hold those beliefs about homosexuality but equally people in the industry are entitled to not hire her, regardless of the outcome of the trial. If she doesn’t understand that it’s not just about winning the trial she must be a bit naive.
|
|
290 posts
|
Post by southstreet on Feb 4, 2021 12:33:18 GMT
The book makes it very clear she is attracted to women and not men, I can't remember the exact phrasing but she was saying that men were like frogs to her and that she found women much more attractive.
I first saw the Original Broadway Cast many years ago (I think I am up to 8 Celies I've seen live now) and I came out of that show with no doubt in my mind that Celie was attracted to women, reading the book later just confirmed that for me.
Just because they didn't show more than one kiss in the musical (which is closer to the book than the movie I believe, haven't watched the movie since I was a teen many, many moons go), doesn't mean that that is all it was. There are plenty of shows where you only see one kiss between a couple, does that mean you therefore think of them as celibate for the rest of their lives because they didn't show you several explicit scenes of making out on stage? Celie lives with Shug for a few years, so it was clearly a relationship?
I think Seyi is just clutching at straws in ways to try and make herself look less like a hypocrite, who took the job knowing full well what the role was and entailed.
|
|