Just Desserts - Isaiah Washington (Subtly) Blasts ABC For Homophobia Double-standard
UPDATED with links and slight correction. 9:51am 11-11-08
So, as word spread last week that noted character actress Brooke Smith had been suddenly and inexplicably fired from Grey's Anatomy, the conventional wisdom seemed to indicate that she had been let go because the execs at ABC were uncomfortable with her character conducting a lesbian relationship with another doctor.
I completely failed to do the math on this story last week, but I got a huge, hearty laugh when I finally put two and two together. If I were Isaiah Washington, I would be furious too, and I wouldn't be shy about saying as much. It's also smart of him to not come right out and say what is so hypocritical about the situation -- let the readers remember for themselves.
Aside from the unintentional hilarity of this update (and the possibility that Isaiah Washington may have some kind of wrongful termination suit on his hands), this brings up a disturbing question. Washington was fired a couple of seasons ago for allegedly using a homophobic slur while in heated exchanges with fellow actor Patrick Dempsey, in the apparent presence of TR Knight. Now the studio has stepped in and axed Brooke Smith allegedly because they were uncomfortable with the lesbian romantic subplot that had just developed. So, aside from the hypocrisy of firing an actor for expressing homophobia, then firing another actor as a result of apparent homophobia, why exactly do the execs at ABC insist on meddling with the show that, by itself, has become a huge smash hit and reaps tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of profit for the company?
Can you imagine if the ABC execs decided, for whatever reason, that Michael Emerson or Terry O'Quinn just weren't working for them and canned them from Lost? The fans would have a conniption, and rightly so. As far as I know, there has been no tinkering on this level with Lost or Desperate Housewives, so why does Grey's Anatomy constantly have its story lines altered at the whim of studio executives? It would be one thing if the show were in a creative and ratings tailspin (cough-Heroes-cough), but the show is still pulling strong ratings and seems to be doing okay artistically.
Almost as troubling as the homophobia and hypocrisy at work is the apparent lack of creative control that Shonda Rhimes seems to have over her own show. As a viewer, why would I bother investing my time in a show when the character arcs and story lines can be altered or nullified without the consent of the creative leaders?
-- Scott Mendelson
Follow Scott Mendelson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ScottMendelson
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Seriously, how do we know that she was let go because of a lesbian storyline? Has anyone credible actually confirmed this information? If so please post a link to their statements, because the only sources I've heard from are people outside the show and an actor who was fired. Besides, I can name three primetime ABC programs off the top of my head that depict gay and transgendered characters and relationships (Dirty Sexy Money, Desperate Housewives and Ugly Betty). I'm gay and I don't doubt that this is still an issue for networks. But let's not make assumptions based on hearsay.
honestly, i dont understand this. they write the character. why are they firing her for playing the role they have written for her?
Lesbians are not controversial, just boring. Mainly because it's been done already. Many times, already.
Gay men are controversial. But only used for comic relief (who can't get enough sassy assistant). I really do not care. I want my comedies funny and my dramas dramatic. I do not want gay characters forced into the script. We are a fabulous people, but not trophies.
I felt like I was done with GA after the Isiah Washington incident..
Now this: I think it's all BS. Why such a sudden and extreme action about a story line that was nothing more than boring, certainly no more offense than the many others out there already? To come out and have headlines that say "fired" to me, is indicative of other things happening that we are not yet privy to.
But in no way do I buy any such BS about storylines
And why blame, literally, the messenger? Should not the creative team pay the price? Hmmm, interesting though there, I think.
Something stinks at Seattle Grace and it's not just the morgue...
The last paragraph says it all as far as I'm concerned.
QUOTE:
Almost as troubling as the homophobia and hypocrisy at work is the apparent lack of creative control that Shonda Rhimes seems to have over her own show. As a viewer, why would I bother investing my time in a show when the character arcs and story lines can be altered or nullified without the consent of the creative leaders?
Well done, Scott. I'm asking myself this question quite a lot lately, especially where Grey's is concerned.
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
You're absolutely right, 'diablorobotico', about the exact details of the original Washington outburst. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I've corrected it accordingly.
Scott Mendelson
This is silly. You don't fire an actor because you are uncomfortable about her character's lesbian affair. It's not the actor's fault that the writers came up with this plot line.
Besides who has a problem about her affair with Callie? While I think Brooke Smith is a terrific actress, I also think that her character was poorly written and unbelievably annoying.
You took the words out of my mouth, totally. And yes, Smith's character was very annoying!
Amen. She was awful with not one redeeming quality. Even in the last show, she acted like a bitch and blamed Callie for her own behavior! Good riddance.
Let's be honest---if Grey's is going to fire actors for bad story lines, then the character of George should have been gone the first season.
See Adrienne Williams's Profile
I loved George, leave him along! :-)
Wrong for the following reasons:
1) Lesbian scenes have become commonplace in television to the point that it's now a desperation ploy for ratings.
2) ABC's Standards & Practices office (AKA "the censor") would never have let the story arc leave the writers' room if they'd really been against it.
3) GREY'S had featured two men kissing in an earlier episode. Even though one of them died from a brain tumor, Standards still let it air.
4) Three other current ABC shows have featured gay and even transgendered characters in romantic situations. Still no objections from Standards.
5) From a labor law and business standpoint, Isaiah violated the Civil Rights Act, created a hostile work environment, and was fired for cause accordingly. Brooke, however, was laid off without prejudice because her story arc--much like Kim Delaney's on CSI: MIAMI--wasn't going anywhere.
Just an FYI - If you mean Isaiah violated the Civil Rights Act (A federal Law) by showing prejudice among gays, that is incorrect. The Civil Rights Act does not protect sexual orientation (unfortunatly). Sexual Orientation is protected by the state laws (except Colarado..
The writers fired Brooke because they couldn't write for her character anymore. Or so they claimed.
Her character was meant to be a replacement for Burke - and there's just no replacement for Burke. I think the writers (especially Shonda) was trying to make that point by writing a completely horrible, unlikeable character who served no purpose other than complaining about everything to everyone.
All new Grey's characters know that in order to stay on the show, they must become friends with at least two original cast members. Ask McSteamy and Callie. :P
"for allegedly using a homophobic slur while in heated exchanges with fellow actor TR Knight"
Thank you for phrasing it that way. A lot of folks in the press phrase it differently, saying that he was fired for using a homophobic slur. But there is so much that is so fishy to the story. T.R. Knight and Patrick Dempsey have yet to even discuss what Isiah Washington said on Larry King after his firing. Shonda Rhimes hasn't discussed it either.
I just didn't like the way the whole thing was handled.
I stopped watching it after that, and I can't say that I am sad that the show has fallen on bad times.
Will you settle for Washington casually using the exact same homophobic slur on live television next to Shonda Rhimes directly to the cameras and in a room full of reporters after the Emmys -- and with a huge smile on his face?
If that's what he'll do with his boss present and the world as his witness, exactly what do you think he's capable of doing in the workplace when nobody from outside the set is watching?
Kudos to Knight and Dempsey for having enough sense and class not to stoop to Washington's level.
And, Mr. Mendleson, the heated exchange was with Dempsey in which Washington made the remark about Knight.
"Kudos to Knight and Dempsey for having enough sense and class not to stoop to Washington's level."
Knight and Dempsey haven't answered any questions about the matter. But they were allowed to fire off accusations? And you're good with that?
As for Washington at the EMMYS sayinf he didn't call Knight a homophobic slur, well, that was him saying what he DIDN'T say? And you believe you he said to Dempsey about Knight? He said he didn't say it? Dempsey NEVER answered any questions about it and always dodged it. And in the end, Isiah got fired. Again, I don't like the way the whole thing went down.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
