I can definitely see why people would be offended by the concept of the show, but to impune the character of the host based on the show's content is flat out lunacy to me. If you want to impune the character of the person who invented the concept or the executives who developed it or whoever, fine, but the host is the host and a job's a job. As an actor, I've performed works whose "message," if you want to call it that, is repellent to me, Mamet's Oleanna for one. If I want to work, I simply don't have the luxury of turning down a role because I am disgusted by it or in deep disagreement with the role or the overall project. Maybe Meryl Streep can do that, but even Ms. Streep has spoken out about the lack of jobs available for women, and she undoubtedly gets the cream of the crop. All I can do is try to perform my role in a way that sort of brings out my own viewpoint as far as the structure allows, or brings a positive energy to counteract the author's unsettling vision. And I think that's what Ms. Hughes did, also, she did her best to bring as much positivity, empathy, and warmth to an unsetting concept.
What I'm trying to say is, you don't have to agree with something in order to accept a job, you just have to try and make the best of it. I think it really says something about this negative campaign that they seem to be targeting the talent, who, unless her producton company produced the show, has little or no responsiblity for the set up, moreso than even FOX, Rupert Murdoch, the VP in charge of programming, the executive producer, etc. People who have said they're not even aware of her work have been sent her to trash her, as if it's her fault. That's unconscionable to me. Is it Roger Howorth's fault that OLTL decided to turn his rapist character into a hero? Sure, he was deeply conflicted about it and eventually quit, but he ended up returning time and time again. Yes, actors do have consciences, but we need to work, too, and if we turn down or quit a job, the show won't go off the air, so what's the point? Someone else will just be hired, and the show will go on with the same morally repugnant decisions being made. It's not up to actors to starve and refuse to take any jobs unless they're kosher, it's up to the public to reward high quality projects with high ratings.
Gene Hackman recieved a lot of criticism for Mississippi Burning, because civil rights leaders were upset that the movie focused, ahistorically, on white FBI agents as heroes and basically ignored the role of African Americans in the South. These criticisms were certainly valid (a movie about civil rights without even one African American lead actor???), but it wasn't Hackman's fault, he didn't write the script, he didn't greenlight the project, he didn't produce or cast the movie, all these decisions were made before they got to him. As he said, "I'm sorry that...[people]...don't like this movie, but as an actor you're given a script, and your job is to perform it the best you can." He felt sincerely sorry about it, but he couldn't legitimately be held responsible for it. (And yes, I realize this is a hosting job, not an acting job, but to me the principle's the same.)
Posted on Jan 4, 2005, 10:07 PM from IP address 209.240.205.63