THE COLOR PURPLE actress: “homosexuality isn’t right” — Page 4

Fetus said: "Miles2Go2 said: "Fetus said: "I wonder if she was genuinely unaware of the LGBT themes in the piece, the film and musical aremore vague onCelie's sexuality which could be missed by someone as ignorant asOmooba appears to be. Someone who locked herself in a room to avoid being seen in a pride video doesn't strike me as one to audition to play a lesbian, but ignorance can often surprise."

I remember seeing the movie in the theater right after it opened. That kiss was pretty shocking for me who as a still closeted young gay manat that point hadn’t really seen any depictions (that I can recall) of same sex attraction. Now it seems pretty tame, but it wasn’t at the time. I don’t think there’s any way this actress didn’t know what she was signing up for.

By the way, whatever controversies and flaws remain with the film, it remains one of my all time favorites.

"

Fair point, the movie was before my time so I wasn't aware of the original reactions, just Alice Walker having a somewhat difficult relationshipwith Spielberg for glossing over manyelements she wanted included. It's a phenomenal film and Whoopi's performance was robbed of an Oscar, but the book is a completely elevated experience that I cannot recommend enough.

As for the stage production I missed the original production and only knew it from the cast album, but after seeing the revival back in 2016Erivo and Headley's performances have stayed with me since (I consider myself lucky missing Hudson by a week from what I've heard).The book's admittedly bad, but the score invokes themes that were neglected in the film in a beautiful way."

 

I didn't care for the film or Goldberg (or Winfrey); very overrated.  I think Spielberg was wrong for it.  He had no feel for the material, made it too slick by half and took out the grittiness of the book by making the film look more like 'Show Boat" than like 'Sounder' (great 1972 film).  As for the original production of the musical, I was pleasantly surprised by it.  The actors were terrific, the production design was superb and the score deserved the Tony.  I agree with Fetus that more themes from the book were effectively invoked in the musical version.

qolbinau said: "The legal labour laws in the UK are very strict. I could imagine this being a little bit of a gray area that would need to be battled and argued in courts, but the organisation would definitely need to tread carefully around this area and I imagine are very carefully seeking legal advice right now about their options (hence the delay of any statement or action). Very very tricky situation."

The law in question would be the Equality Act of 2010, Actors and models in the film, television and fashion industries are exempt. I admit, though, it isn't clear if they are exempt from only certain provisions of the law, or if they are outright exempt.

The U.S. has a “bona fide” occupational qualification (BFOQ) exemption to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but really only age and sex would qualify as an exemption under BFOQ. However, casting directors get around it because they have a right to exclude persons based on protected characteristics if they choose to hire someone because of their “appearance” and “physical characteristics” matching their creative “vision.” I believe accents, speech patterns, foreign language abilities, etc. are all considered physical attributes that are permitted in discriminating in casting decisions. Its semantics, but legally allowable.

devonian.t said: "In the UK most Equity contracts contain a clause along the lines: "the artist will not disclose any material relating to the production on social media without permission from the producers. The artist will not bring the production into disrepute via social media activities"- some variation on that.

Whether the clause is enforceable if brought into conflict with religious beliefs, I do not know. Whether stating a religious belief constitutes bringing a production into disrepute is one for the law courts to decide."

In the not-so-distant past, a number of individuals (including actors) were "let go" from their jobs simply because they had been accused (not convicted) of sexual assault. Presumably this was because their employers felt they were a PR liability for the business; how is this woman's case different?

Glad to see her go.

TheGingerBreadMan said: "Glad to see her go."

i agree completely this had to happen, but i'm not sure "glad" would be my go-to word here. no one grows when there's no opportunity for growth. i understand fully that we don't live in a world where that's possible, but i struggle with the notion that this latest manifestation of such a shortcoming is an occasion for glee.

Updated On: 3/21/19 at 06:40 PM

A "Frozen"?

TheGingerBreadMan said: "Until she shows growth, I will remain very glad."

i agree completely that growth is required here. but,speaking hypothetically for all of seven seconds (because -- again -- i also agree that termination was the correct result), given where she's landed walk me through how she or any of her supporters have a reasonable prospect of achieving said growth? because frankly i don't see it; which means that *outside* the echo chamber the cause is advanced by precisely nil.

maybe something just a tick south of "glee" suits this outcome a bit better?

My take on her without knowing anything about her, just from reading her Tweet or whatever it was from 2014, was that there she seemed young or childish, and that she seemed like someone whose mind had been colonized by someone else, a parent or cult leader — like she was reciting dogma, not expressing her own views. With no awareness thathis was where she was coming from, just this is wrong etc.

Then recently I see that her dad is some kind of minister/leader type. I think he’s been knighted for something. IF she’s still operating like a cult member who Must Think Only Certain Things, it’s sad and she may just stay that way. I would think that if it were otherwise, she would have by now been able to come up with sincere evidence of altered thinking. I’ve met people who grew up in doctrine-heavy families, who talk interestingly about growing past it all. 

 

"The audition process, as ever, was conducted professionally and rigorously, led by an exceptional casting director with actors who are evaluated on what they present in the audition room. We do not operate a social media screening process in the casting of actors."

So...

- She demonstrated that she possesses the talent and skills to be selected for the role over any other actor, during a professional and rigorous casting process.

- Her employers do not/did not find any value in conducting, or operating a social media screening process as part of the requisition of/for her employment. Apparently, whatever social media presence she had at the time of being cast did not matter to them. Additionally, whatever statements she made on social media regarding her beliefs were not inflammatory, abusive or oppressive enough to be noticed by the general public. If she were not called out by a SINGLE actor, on a few tweets she posted YEARS ago, would anyone (including her employers/castmates) have known - or even cared?

- Although she was publicly called out with a demand that she respond "immediately", she did not take the bait. At this point, she has not even responded regarding her being let go from the production.

If the expression of her religious beliefs was so inflammatory, or harmful to the LGBTQ community, wouldn't there be, or have been some kind of repercussion within the past 5 years?

She was hired to perform a role. She was hired based solely on her talents and abilities to perform that role. At the time of her hiring, her tweets (specifically, those regarding her religious views on homosexuality) were not important enough to her employers, the authors, or Theatrical Rights Worldwide (an interesting company name, considering the current situation) to be a consideration, or a part of the hiring process.

I don't agree with what she tweeted 5 years ago. Not. At. All. But it has not had ANY effect on my life as a Gay man, nor on my LGBTQ friends' lives (many of whom aren't even aware of this so-called "scandal", nor on the Broadway community --- well except for one actor with an axe to grind.

I don't agree with her --- but I defend her right to peacefully express her view.

As for how the "uniquely identifying brand of The Color Purple" has been impacted? No factual way of knowing. She's been let go before she even went into rehearsal. I can say that I will forever have a negative view of TRW. But (as is true regarding my opinion of Ms Omooba's tweets) - WHO CARES.

Fire her because of creative differences.

TheatreFan4 said: "I mean... I'm all for people denouncing the production due to her comments, but... like Alice Walker was outted as an Anti-Semite a few months ago... if you're going to denounce it for this you really should have already denounced it for that..."

Man, I didn't want this to be true, but you are right. She even recommended a conspiracy interview by Alex Jones, ugh. While Walker really didn't do much for the musical besides give the inspiration for it, it still leave a really sour taste in my mouth knowing how she thinks 

Edit: Forgot a good article talking about this https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/12/20/18146628/alice-walker-david-icke-anti-semitic-new-york-times

Updated On: 3/22/19 at 10:56 PM