2021: Cynthia Erivo calls out COLOR PURPLE producers for replacement casting communication — Page 3

WestEndGal said: "Yeah, I had to unfollow Debra Messing on social media because she’s become so insufferable!"

I did that the second Megan confirmed she was being bullied at work on Will & Grace. That is why the third season of that revival was so horrible, you can't really work besides people you hate so much it sucks all up all the oxygen in the room. She is incredibly awful.

Owen22 said: "I wouldn't exactly say there is a racist stench to most of these comments but at the very least try to understand being a black woman on Broadway who had almost singlehandedly (props to John Doyle as well) made an inferior piece of writing a hit in revival. The show was produced solely for her. The show was an off West End hit, but never transferred, but this producer, whom she chased down the hall HAD needed her to not only get the show up, but to win the awards. She may not have had any power, again, being a black actress on Broadway, no matter how big, she was misguided in thinking she did, but you can understand why she thought she might. How she FINALLY might. And how it must have hurt to once again find out she didn't. After going through two costars, maybe she thought she had earned a consultation. That much at least. At least wonder how many times in her young life this woman's pride had already been stomped on, no matter how amazingly talented she was."

I'm pretty sure that when Douglas Hodge came here with La Cage aux Folles, and Mark Rylance came here with Boeing-Boeing, despite the raves and the Tonys, they had no say in who they were working with. Should that be the way things work? No. But they were relative newbies to the American stage, so I'm sure when they came back to Broadway, they either had it worked into their contracts, or at the very least was at the producers' ear, and I'm sure whenever Cynthia makes her return to the stage, with the right agent, she'll have similar influence.

Dolly80 said: "Jennifer Holliday did TCP on Broadway? I don’t remember that!"

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "COMET was already on the road to closing. Remember, Mandy Patinkin was only going to do it for 3 weeks. After he left, the show would have stumbled again, and closed shortly thereafter;it's not the type of material that can be "stunt cast" easily. Without the controversy, it probably would have only run 2-3 more weeks."

So this is incorrect, Rainn Wilson, aka Dwight from The Office, was supposed to take over Pierre for a fall run. This explains why Mandy was being brought in for such a small window in hopes of prevent The Great Comet from bleeding the significant amount of money, which presales indicating it would. Great Comet's producers will go down as some of the most fiscally irresponsible in history considering they lost most of their entire investment despite averaging over 92% of their gross potential throughout its entire run. Come mid summer though all signs were pointing to the fact that they were finally getting costs under control and finding the right business model to make Great Comet a long running success.

Then Errivo's smear campaign happened, I don't think people outside of the Broadway community realize how successful it was. The fact it lead to not only Mandy, but Rainn dropping out as well. despite his name never being brought up in the first place speaks to how joining the production could be seen as a kiss of death to an actors career. The worst part of the whole situation though is the fact that after Mandy resigned in "solidarity", Oak refused to finish out his contract, which was why everyone was protesting in the first place. It very much proved that this was all about Oaks ego, and Erivo should of put her tail between her legs and called Oak out for that.

The fact that she refuses to eat even the smallest piece of humble pie, with each new story dropping about her oversized ego is quite concerning. Its a shame, as she is so talented and was a revelation in The Color Purple. The more I hear though the more I hope she knows she needs to start treating her coworkers like royalty, unless she wants to end up like Lea Michelle.

i can't pretend to know whether Erivo's involvement had anything to do with the actual impact on the show, or whether the gripes from Oak were sufficient- but its irrelevant. The very accusation that Oak was mistreated, let alone that he was mistreated because of his race, was false from the outset. Even setting aside all the information we have re his own behavior, his being replaced/cast aside for Mandy Patinkin was a purely rational, economic decision. "Names" that sell tickets are shoved into shows regardless of their race, and in Comet, even without Oak, that was one hell of a diverse cast.

This was always about Oak's ego, and his friends being hurt on his behalf, and then their egos. I think accusations of racism/discrimination should be taken seriously, but that demands we also call out blatantly false accusations of the kind.

“White people do not get to decide when black people are mistreated” is a pretty broad statement to make, and comparing being an actor in a Broadway show with incompetent producers to being a slave on a plantation is quite a stretch.

White people regarding every unhappy Black person as a victim in every situation is actually taking away the agency of Black people and just feeds into the white savior complex.

By all reports, Oak was not a very good employee. He was allegedly rude and disrespectful to his (female) director, and also disrespectful to the entire company of Great Comet by not coming to rehearsals as prepared as had been previously agreed upon. His temporary Hamilton fame wasn’t enough to sell tickets for the struggling show, so they bought out the remainder of his contract. I fail to see how he is a victim in this situation, and the fact that he is Black is completely irrelevant except to those who choose to create a reason for it to be.

Black Lives Matter. And Oak deserved to be fired for his behavior (and for economic reasons had to be replaced anyway). The those things can all simultaneously be true.

Updated On: 9/9/21 at 06:40 PM

HogansHero said: "

1. White people do not get to decide when black people are mistreated. I am not trying to create an equivalence to what you said but the original sin version of this is that slaves were well taken care of by their owners."

I generally respect your voice around here, but this is wildly off base. I don't get to "decide when ANYONE is mistreated" on one level, yes, but i also get to comment based on the evidence in front of me. Oak was asked to step aside for someone (they thought, rightly or not) would sell tickets. Oak doesn't get to declare that completely normal, routine event as "racist" and then expect all white people to simply accept that fact. There is something very unseemly about insisting everyone defer to the claims of any minority no matter how ridiculous; its infantilizing. And suggesting it is not racist to replace a Black actor with a (Tony winning, relatively famous) white actor is not akin--by ANY stretch-- to someone arguing slaves were treated well by their owners. Thats just a stupendously outrageous comparison.

2. Replacing the lead in a show is not the same as diversity down the line.

I couldn't agree more! Now, are you pretending that Comet was insufficiently diverse? I saw it once (and didnt love it) but I remember two of the Russians played by women of color. I remember a very diverse cast. And MOST importantly, I don't remember Oak or Ms Erivo having ANY qualms about the diversity of the cast so long as HE was in it!

3. It is a bedrock principle of Equity contracts that an actor cannot be asked to relinquish a cast role so someone else can play it.


I know nothing about this, and if thats true, Oak had a solid LEGAL ACTION TO BRING and I would have wished him all the best! He didn't. He accused the producers/creatives of racist intent because Mandy Patinkin is more famous than he is. He embarrassed himself (and hurt what I think was a very promising career in theater--i'm a fan of his and Erivo's talent, for what its worth).


4. Oak was not fired for cause. We know this because the dumb as dirt producer of this show said he could come back once Mandy finished his planned "substitution."

I don't see how this is relevant to his gripe-- no one aired the dirty laundry of his lack of professionalism until after he and his friends made a stink.

5. Rainn Wilson was never going to sell enough tickets to keep the show afloat.
The whole thing is unfortunate, obviously, but all of the blame belongs at the feet of the lame producing couple."

I don't understand: do you mean the demise of the show is the fault of the producers who marketed it terribly, put it in an ENORMOUS theater, and mismanaged the whole thing? Yes. Is it the producers' fault they wanted to bring in Mandy Patinkin or Rainn Wilson or Lisa Rinna or Mel B or June Squibb to try and sell tickets? No. And I think Mandy Patinkin would have gotten some butts in some seats at least for a short while. We'll never know. But those poor decisions by the producers were, again, not what Oak was complaining about. He accused them of racial animus and turned his own disappointing ability to sell tickets into something ugly. There is no excuse for that--and it totally dilutes and does a disservice to the real issues that need correcting on Bway in that arena.

Alexander Lamar said: "I don’t remember….did it HAVE to move from that Off-Broadway space or did they specifically close to make the move?"



There was a considerable gap in time between the Off-Broadway closing and the Boston opening (the Boston run being a try-out for Broadway). It was almost a 2 year gap.- even longer if you're measuring the time until the Broadway opening. It doesn't seem likely that they would have needed to close the show that early if it was just to make the move. I'm sure Chavkin and Malloy needed some time to make their changes, but not THAT much time.

HogansHero, I’m going to go out on a limb and make two assumptions about you if that’s okay:

1. You’re white but consider yourself “one of the good guys” and very much want to make sure others agree with your self-image.

2. You have a lot of free time on your hands.

Updated On: 9/9/21 at 09:27 PM

Ill only respond to these two points, briefly, and ignore your rather lame attempt to make it seem like I can't follow the ins/outs of this rather basic conversation.

HogansHero said: "
***First, that's not what I said but no, white people don't have license to dismiss a feeling of racism that is based on something they have never experienced. You can question, you can discuss, but you can't dismiss, anymore than (as I said) men have license to control a woman's body. This does not seem controversial to me. Second, for the third time, I expressly did not make the comparison I am being lambasted for."

You seem to be anointing yourself as the Arbiter of what is Dismissal and what is Discussion, but on this we can just disagree: when Oak/Erivo accuse the producers/team at Comet of racism, its my job to listen and not dismiss, and it is then my job to weigh their argument with my own brain. It is rather obvious to me (and I think, if you're being honest, to you) that Oak wasn't asked to step aside for Mandy Patinkin because of his race. That accusation was false (knowingly!) and odious. If you think I can't come to that conclusion because once Oak as a POC says it, It Must Be So, then yes, we disagree.

And without getting into my own racial background, the notion that a POC may not be challenged/questioned/disputed is infantilizing to the point of offensive. All that said, you're not unique in thinking this, I hear it all the time unfortunately. Happy to leave it there.


"***Huh?no, that's not what I said. Maybe read more carefully what you quoted that you inexplicably say you agree with and then take me to task over. What I was saying is that diversity in general does not validate the elimination of diversity at the top. Amazon's diversity in its lower ranks does not address a lack of diversity at the top echelons. Again, this does not strike me as controversial."

This one is harder for me to stomach and suggests that YOU are not actually capable of following evidence-based argument, or are being purposefully disingenuous. Of course diversity does not validate the elimination of diversity at the top. But what does that have to do with Oak/Comet? He was happy to be part of the production, regardless of whether it was sufficiently diverse at the bottom, top or middle. Bringing in Mandy Patinkin has nothing to do with any of that, and it was THAT decision that caused the faux outrage from Oak, Erivo, Casal. Your Amazon analogy is really neither here nor there: if Oak took issue with the diversity at "The Top" of Comet (as opposed to other shows? as opposed to his current TV gig?), that would be an entirely different story having little to do with his own ego. We both know that he had no such issue until he got his feelings hurt because Mandy Patinkin is a bigger draw than he is.