|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 4:37:10 GMT
From the drummer...yikes.
|
|
4,004 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by d'James on Aug 9, 2017 8:03:22 GMT
It seems like a situation that could've been handled a whole lot better, but throw in a few egos and it's become a mess. I bet some people are happy with this outcome thinking it might change things in future. It probably will, but maybe not for the better.
|
|
641 posts
|
Post by AddisonMizner on Aug 9, 2017 8:06:38 GMT
Will this closing jeopardise the chances of a West End transfer (if this was ever on the cards)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 8:18:34 GMT
Will this closing jeopardise the chances of a West End transfer (if this was ever on the cards)? I know there was talk of one a while ago but at this point I think it would be a small fringe version like they did it off-Broadway. I would be surprised if it never came over in some form though. |
|
642 posts
|
Post by Stasia on Aug 9, 2017 9:23:52 GMT
Huge shame. Can't remember a recent instance in which a show this good ran less than 12 months. I would probably be more upset but I've been expecting it for weeks. Not going to comment on the backstage stuff as I don't think we've been given the whole story at all judging by this Facebook post of an ensemble member: I'll quote it in case she deletes it: 'I won't address the specifics of the situation because I don't know them, save to say that of what I have seen within the building over the last week or so, it's my opinion and instinct that what has happened is a very different picture than the one that has been narrated for the public. We have this special thing in this country called Freedom of Speech and with that comes great responsibility. Words affect and are affecting. Words like "racist" should be reserved for those who truly are that, or the word loses weight and gravitas for when it's really needed and warranted. Using it carelessly has harmful and hurtful repercussions. To those in the forefront or the periphery of the recent events, whose actions propelled the show to close sooner than it would have, and certainly under more negative circumstances than it would have, I wonder if you ultimately got what you wanted. And I wonder that if you did, whether getting it at the expense of an entire building of people's hearts and livelihoods feels worth it.'I don't understand how people can blame all the Erivos who commented on social media and not the producers and other people in charge who actually are responsible for doing good promos, hiring proper actors and all the other stuff that helps to carry on a show. For me that sounds a bit like "the girl was wearing a shirt dress and went out alone so she was looking for trouble". I am not supporting all the things Cynthia Erivo posted but I am pretty sure that the show would've still closed in September even without all this controversy. |
|
2,702 posts
|
Post by viserys on Aug 9, 2017 9:26:48 GMT
Will this closing jeopardise the chances of a West End transfer (if this was ever on the cards)? I know there was talk of one a while ago but at this point I think it would be a small fringe version like they did it off-Broadway. I would be surprised if it never came over in some form though. To be honest, I think that's better anyway. It's now fairly clear that Comet only survived on Broadway due to starry casting like Groban and Ingrid Michaelson. I'd rather have a show be a quirky little Off-Broadway success than a semi-flop on Broadway. For me "Here lies love" was one of the best theatrical experiences I've seen in a long time, but the limited Dorfman run was IMO perfect for it - it would have died a death in the West End. Perhaps they could bring the original tent structure over and plonk it down somewhere like they did for the shows in King's Cross? |
|
642 posts
|
Post by Stasia on Aug 9, 2017 9:30:28 GMT
It seems like a situation that could've been handled a whole lot better, but throw in a few egos and it's become a mess. I bet some people are happy with this outcome thinking it might change things in future. It probably will, but maybe not for the better. I feel like it was the producers job to handle it, not the actors/people who commented on social media. This article, trying to blame Oak and point out that he was problematic and unprofessional, gives a few clues the producers were unprofessionally behaving as well: "she insisted he play it as written, reminding him repeatedly that he was a “replacement.”
"after what sources describe as a “heated” phone call with Chavkin, he believed she didn’t want him back."nypost.com/2017/08/08/its-official-great-comet-will-close-sept-3/Of course we won't know the "truth" but I have a strong feeling that it is not Oak's/Patinkin's/ Erivo's personal fault in show's closing, but the producers/creators: In a tweet justifying Patinkin’s hiring, Malloy wrote, “The show was in desperate shape; sales … were catastrophically low.”
That tweet “killed us,” says an investor.This tweet created more damage than all the Oak's statements and Erivo's tweets, to my opinion |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 9:56:19 GMT
I think a temporary theatre or the NT are best bets for this. Personally I'd LOVE the NT to throw a sh*t-tonne of their resources at it for a limited but mad run. It's the kind of theatrical experiment that does deserve to be run/seen but won't ever be a commercial commodity. La Groban was keen to come to London and I'd imagine the NT would defiantly lure him, and they'd bite his hand off I'm sure. That said I'd love it in a tent again.
And blame for this debacle lies firmly at the feet of the producers- Mandy and Oak both acted in good faith based on what they'd been told/asked and in Oak's case responded with dignity to what must have been a really awful position to be in. Such a shame it has to go out like this, they could have quietly ended the run with Malloy back in the role- not much fanfare but a dignified end to a decent run for a show that was never a bankable thing. (FWIW I think a limited run with Groban would have been a better option but hey, that's why I'm not a producer eh?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 13:34:47 GMT
Eh...I'm not blaming Chavkin for being unwilling to make alterations if it's true he was turning up to rehearsals completely unprepared. I don't think that's problematic at all, they already had to delay a week with no alterations made so presumably it would be longer with them.
And I completely disagree about Dave's tweet, it wasn't perhaps the most polished response but it was the only thing that managed to calm the backlash down at that point, otherwise it would have just raged on. I think people needed a bit of humanity rather than a PR response to understand the depth of the situation.
The producers are definitely at fault for the first half of this story, but I don't think Oak and social media are blameless in how they handled the second half. It's not (pardon the wording) a black and white issue I don't think.
|
|
642 posts
|
Post by Stasia on Aug 9, 2017 14:17:54 GMT
Eh...I'm not blaming Chavkin for being unwilling to make alterations if it's true he was turning up to rehearsals completely unprepared. I don't think that's problematic at all, they already had to delay a week with no alterations made so presumably it would be longer with them. And I completely disagree about Dave's tweet, it wasn't perhaps the most polished response but it was the only thing that managed to calm the backlash down at that point, otherwise it would have just raged on. I think people needed a bit of humanity rather than a PR response to understand the depth of the situation. The producers are definitely at fault for the first half of this story, but I don't think Oak and social media are blameless in how they handled the second half. It's not (pardon the wording) a black and white issue I don't think. The thing is we have no idea IF it's true about any of the things mentioned online (such as heated discussion, Oak being unprepared and so on), but there are 2 moments that look questionable to me 1) there much more nasty things the producers are saying about Oak than vice versa. And that looks like they are trying to cover themselves blaming one person, which is very childish. Grown-ups taking the risks and responsibilities. 2) If you are an employer it is your duty to make sure the employee starts the work prepared. I can't believe that professionally trained actor would behave like described if he is not a lunatic with selfharm ideas. I would easily believe in some mistakes people in charge done while setting the timings, providing the materials and so on. Just because they already f*cked up with handling the situation we are currently discussing. And because it was their mistake in hiring the (as they say) unsuitable performer. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 15:41:11 GMT
I think when there are multiple members of the ensemble and band saying that it's true in public then there must be some truth to it, this isn't your typical Riedel article that he's made up from a bunch of scraps I don't think. As well as the fact that it has been strongly rumoured since his debut got delayed that it's because he wasn't prepared. Oak is probably trying to salvage his career but I'm sure he's having his own words about others involved privately.
As to your second point maybe so, but that doesn't take all the blame off the performer. Nothing like this happened with Groban or Ingrid Michaelson etc. Even if he's unsuitable he can still turn up knowing his lines. I just don't think this is a situation that is 100% one person's or one group of people's fault.
|
|
642 posts
|
Post by Stasia on Aug 10, 2017 6:51:28 GMT
I think when there are multiple members of the ensemble and band saying that it's true in public then there must be some truth to it, this isn't your typical Riedel article that he's made up from a bunch of scraps I don't think. As well as the fact that it has been strongly rumoured since his debut got delayed that it's because he wasn't prepared. Oak is probably trying to salvage his career but I'm sure he's having his own words about others involved privately. As to your second point maybe so, but that doesn't take all the blame off the performer. Nothing like this happened with Groban or Ingrid Michaelson etc. Even if he's unsuitable he can still turn up knowing his lines. I just don't think this is a situation that is 100% one person's or one group of people's fault. Even If I assume the actor was really THAT unprepared for the rehearsal I still see it as producer's fault. Learning how to play an instrument (or even 2) takes some time, it is the situation where 9 women can't give girth in 1 month, and if the actor has not been given enough time to train, it is the management issue. If he's been given enough time but was not able to learn the instruments in the set period, it is also the management issue - why hire someone who is unprepared for a part? Lots of shows close because they are not selling well. And I am sure Great Comet would've close in September even without all the controversy. Btw, if anyone has more links to what actors and band are saying, please share, I'd love to read and speculate  |
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Aug 10, 2017 6:57:52 GMT
It's all about managing people, isn't it. And that's the producer's job. Even if Oak was out of line (which he wasn't), even if the narrative was hijacked by Cynthia and Rafael (which I didn't think it was), it's still up to producers to manage and control. There was a clear level of miscommunication, lack public training from members of the company as well as a huge information vacuum. It's the producer who should have baby-sat all of the people involved and controlled it.
Before my current job, I have worked for Marketing and Comms for years. We weren't producing for Broadway, but we were definitely looking out for the organization and its members best interest by controlling the messages and whatever goes out in public. That includes personal accounts of members of the organization who would Tweet/Instagram about matters related to work.
|
|
642 posts
|
Post by Stasia on Aug 10, 2017 7:01:23 GMT
It's all about managing people, isn't it. And that's the producer's job. Even if Oak was out of line (which he wasn't), even if the narrative was hijacked by Cynthia and Rafael (which I didn't think it was), it's still up to producers to manage and control. There was a clear level of miscommunication, public training from members of the company as well as a huge information vacuum. It's the producer who should have baby-sat all of the people involved and controlled it. Before my current job, I have worked for Marketing and Comms for years. We weren't producing for Broadway, but we were definitely looking out for the organization and its members best interest by controlling the messages and whatever goes out in public. That includes personal accounts of members of the organization who would Tweet/Instagram about matters related to work. Can I triple-like this post please? Couldn't agree more, ali973! I seriously just can't get how all these employees are allowed to comment and how it will influence their own careers (I guess Oak's career might really struggle after that story) |
|
|
|
Post by welsh_tenor on Aug 10, 2017 7:46:27 GMT
As much as I hate having no backstage/insider information from big shows like Wicked, you can tell it's because they tightly manage any communications, including what the cast and crew are allowed to tweet about the show!
Frustrating for fans but good business sense!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2017 9:09:11 GMT
I think when there are multiple members of the ensemble and band saying that it's true in public then there must be some truth to it, this isn't your typical Riedel article that he's made up from a bunch of scraps I don't think. As well as the fact that it has been strongly rumoured since his debut got delayed that it's because he wasn't prepared. Oak is probably trying to salvage his career but I'm sure he's having his own words about others involved privately. As to your second point maybe so, but that doesn't take all the blame off the performer. Nothing like this happened with Groban or Ingrid Michaelson etc. Even if he's unsuitable he can still turn up knowing his lines. I just don't think this is a situation that is 100% one person's or one group of people's fault. Even If I assume the actor was really THAT unprepared for the rehearsal I still see it as producer's fault. Learning how to play an instrument (or even 2) takes some time, it is the situation where 9 women can't give girth in 1 month, and if the actor has not been given enough time to train, it is the management issue. If he's been given enough time but was not able to learn the instruments in the set period, it is also the management issue - why hire someone who is unprepared for a part? Lots of shows close because they are not selling well. And I am sure Great Comet would've close in September even without all the controversy. Btw, if anyone has more links to what actors and band are saying, please share, I'd love to read and speculate I agree with you on the instrument aspect but the article also stated he didn't know his lines, something that Oak as an experienced actor should know how to learn to a deadline. I don't believe for one second that he wasn't provided with his lines on time, considering he was meant to start the same day as Ingrid Michaelson who was ready to go. There's management but it's impossible to ensure people are learning their lines when it's happening at home. I just think it's incredibly easy to place all the blame on the (for most of us) faceless producers who are often seen as greedy and in this case, corrupt thanks to their Ars Nova case and project complete innocence onto an actor who we may have seen on stage and loved or follow on Twitter etc. In reality, I don't think either are totally innocent or guilty here. I don't think it would have closed in September without the controversy, I think they would have been able to find someone else to come in. And even if it had closed, at least it wouldn't be under such negative circumstances. I can't imagine the cast are finding it fun performing their last few weeks in such an atmosphere. I don't know, it's a nuanced issue. |
|
642 posts
|
Post by Stasia on Aug 10, 2017 12:50:45 GMT
Even If I assume the actor was really THAT unprepared for the rehearsal I still see it as producer's fault. Learning how to play an instrument (or even 2) takes some time, it is the situation where 9 women can't give girth in 1 month, and if the actor has not been given enough time to train, it is the management issue. If he's been given enough time but was not able to learn the instruments in the set period, it is also the management issue - why hire someone who is unprepared for a part? Lots of shows close because they are not selling well. And I am sure Great Comet would've close in September even without all the controversy. Btw, if anyone has more links to what actors and band are saying, please share, I'd love to read and speculate I agree with you on the instrument aspect but the article also stated he didn't know his lines, something that Oak as an experienced actor should know how to learn to a deadline. I don't believe for one second that he wasn't provided with his lines on time, considering he was meant to start the same day as Ingrid Michaelson who was ready to go. There's management but it's impossible to ensure people are learning their lines when it's happening at home. I just think it's incredibly easy to place all the blame on the (for most of us) faceless producers who are often seen as greedy and in this case, corrupt thanks to their Ars Nova case and project complete innocence onto an actor who we may have seen on stage and loved or follow on Twitter etc. In reality, I don't think either are totally innocent or guilty here. I don't think it would have closed in September without the controversy, I think they would have been able to find someone else to come in. And even if it had closed, at least it wouldn't be under such negative circumstances. I can't imagine the cast are finding it fun performing their last few weeks in such an atmosphere. I don't know, it's a nuanced issue. It is of course a very nuanced one. But I still can't imagine a professionally trained and experienced actor to be THAT irresponsible and to not learn the lines. (He already managed that for his Hamilton job so he definitely can do that. )I could easily imagine the management trying to cover up their mistakes with blaming an employee, which I find much more unacceptable. Btw I've never seen Oak on stage and only know him from the cast recording, so I guess that is not making me biased. |
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Aug 10, 2017 14:38:46 GMT
I agree with you on the instrument aspect but the article also stated he didn't know his lines, something that Oak as an experienced actor should know how to learn to a deadline. I don't believe for one second that he wasn't provided with his lines on time, considering he was meant to start the same day as Ingrid Michaelson who was ready to go. There's management but it's impossible to ensure people are learning their lines when it's happening at home. I just think it's incredibly easy to place all the blame on the (for most of us) faceless producers who are often seen as greedy and in this case, corrupt thanks to their Ars Nova case and project complete innocence onto an actor who we may have seen on stage and loved or follow on Twitter etc. In reality, I don't think either are totally innocent or guilty here. I don't think it would have closed in September without the controversy, I think they would have been able to find someone else to come in. And even if it had closed, at least it wouldn't be under such negative circumstances. I can't imagine the cast are finding it fun performing their last few weeks in such an atmosphere. I don't know, it's a nuanced issue. But whether he knew his lines, was or wasn't prepared, had any conflict with the director is completely irrelevant isn't it? Oak wasn't replaced due to behavioral issues, internal conflict or lack of professional conduct. The case for replacement was purely a business/sales call and not due to interpersonal differences. Heck, they were even happy to offer him the role back in the winter. So let's not confuse things. The fact that his supposed mis-conduct is shared for public consumption now is sort of petty and seems to be an effort to divert attention so that producers wouldn't have to take full responsibility for their actions. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2017 15:16:55 GMT
Well it's not just his unpreparedness that I disagree with (and I believe he didn't learn his lines but if I get proven wrong so be it) but it's all just a matter of opinion of right and wrong. If other things are true, such as him agreeing to one thing one moment and then ignoring producers the next, it's unprofessionalism at a time of high stress for everyone involved. I certainly think this would have all gone down slightly differently if they hadn't have already been unhappy with him. Not that it's an excuse for bad producing, just think it would have been handled more sensitively like it was for Brittain Ashford.
I do at least agree that Oak should have his say too and producers can try to get people to absolve them of any blame, but thats not what I'm doing at least. They have a big part in this, perhaps the primary part, but for me not the only part. Others can disagree, but none of us really even know, so debating it is kind of pointless. We make our own decisions based off of the evidence given. I'm sure Oak will speak out in some form when he is out of the show.
|
|
8 posts
|
Post by msdynamite on Aug 10, 2017 16:32:22 GMT
I agree with you on the instrument aspect but the article also stated he didn't know his lines, something that Oak as an experienced actor should know how to learn to a deadline. I don't believe for one second that he wasn't provided with his lines on time, considering he was meant to start the same day as Ingrid Michaelson who was ready to go. There's management but it's impossible to ensure people are learning their lines when it's happening at home. I just think it's incredibly easy to place all the blame on the (for most of us) faceless producers who are often seen as greedy and in this case, corrupt thanks to their Ars Nova case and project complete innocence onto an actor who we may have seen on stage and loved or follow on Twitter etc. In reality, I don't think either are totally innocent or guilty here. I don't think it would have closed in September without the controversy, I think they would have been able to find someone else to come in. And even if it had closed, at least it wouldn't be under such negative circumstances. I can't imagine the cast are finding it fun performing their last few weeks in such an atmosphere. I don't know, it's a nuanced issue. But whether he knew his lines, was or wasn't prepared, had any conflict with the director is completely irrelevant isn't it? Oak wasn't replaced due to behavioral issues, internal conflict or lack of professional conduct. The case for replacement was purely a business/sales call and not due to interpersonal differences. Heck, they were even happy to offer him the role back in the winter. So let's not confuse things. The fact that his supposed mis-conduct is shared for public consumption now is sort of petty and seems to be an effort to divert attention so that producers wouldn't have to take full responsibility for their actions. In the court of public opinion the initial argument came down to the producers being painted as racist. Is Oak being called unprofessionally as a rebuttal really any worse? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 9:15:30 GMT
In an intellectual sense, answering just the question of racist producer vs unprofessional performer and not wanting to sound like I'm having a solid opinion about Great Comet, I'd say yes, it's worse. If a man accused of sexual assault can be voted president of the United States, then a producer labelled as racist can probably continue producing. As a producer, you can probably work around the accusations. Find people to work with who don't really care what Twitter is saying, purposefully produce works with hyper-diverse casts, continue to apologise and work with POC to show your commitment to getting better. But an unprofessional performer? Pfft. Kick 'em to the curb, hire someone else. There'll always be more Broadway-standard performers available than roles for them all, why bother casting someone who's working under a cloud of unprofessionalism when you can get someone who's just as talented but without the baggage? I would rather be labelled unprofessional than racist, but also I think it'd be easier to come back from being a tainted producer than a tainted performer.
|
|
642 posts
|
Post by Stasia on Aug 11, 2017 12:07:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2017 10:42:51 GMT
Well. Controversy aside, it's a terrific show. Bonkers but terrific.
Do you think he's called Oak because he's so wooden? He's outclassed by everyone else in the company but Lucas Steele is just something else. OMGosh, it's a truly sensational performance. There aren't words to describe it, there's generally a LOT going on around the stage but your eyes are always drawn to him whether he's checking himself out in the mirror or lounging around like a cat. Thank you also to the costume designer who put him in the snuggest pair of trousers on Broadway but that voice? It's insane. IN-SANE! It'll be interesting to hear what he does next.
Clever how they go for different musical styles throughout the show. Sometimes during the same song which is . . interesting. The Abduction is the absolute crowd-pleasing moment but while it's all strangely a bit of a mess, it completely works perfectly.
The opening number is a great introduction to everyone and if you ever loved the song 'The Court of King Caractacus' as a child (Rolf Harris aside) then it'll bring back happy memories (not of Harris obvs).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2017 18:23:21 GMT
Thanks for that review, glad to hear something positive. In much agreement about Lucas.
|
|
527 posts
|
Post by Hamilton Addict on Aug 17, 2017 14:34:09 GMT
Saw Cynthia, Oak & The Great Casting Controversy of 2017 Natasha, Pierre & The Great Comet of 1812 on Tuesday night and I am pleased to report that it was absolutely phenomenal! I was extremely struck by the creativeness of the show. I have truly never seen anything like it. Every aspect of the show was perfect; cast, music, set, lighting, costumes, choreography, it's all stunning! Scott Stangland was performing as Pierre and he was brilliant. His nailed every aspect of the performance, he was faultless! It's a tragedy that this is closing, it deserves to keep on running and running. Fingers crossed for a West End transfer!
|
|
