Mandy Patinkin to join THE GREAT COMET as Pierre for 3 week run! — Page 8

Makes me dislike Patinkin more than I already do.

I can't imagine Oak would want to return, nor would I blame him.

spidernight, I totally agree. If someone like nonwhite like Audra McDonald had been available and interested I'm sure they would've cast her (especially in a usually slow-ish time period like now). It seems pretty clear that Patinkin's legend status and ability to bring in sales really prompted this, rather than anything regarding Oak's race or performance. Still, I really hope him the best and that his next role is one that really puts him in the spotlight.

I agree with everyone that has been saying this is a disappointment for Oak. I saw him this weekend and thought he was amazing.

On the other hand, Broadway is a business and if Great Comet isn't making enough money to survive, it doesn't matter how great Oak is because they need to do what's best for the business. I'm not sure if I'm the only one who wondered why they would have to bring in Ingrid right when Oak started, but looking at the situation I'm willing to bet sales were down before they announced her. Mandy Patinkin is a huge name and if business isn't doing well, they need to take the opportunity while they can. Does it suck that it fell during the end of Oak's run? Definitely. But clearly they needed this financially. I'm sure a lot of people heard the name and went to buy tickets. I certainly didn't want to miss my chance.

bdn223 said: "I am also somewhat happy that they are returning to an older Pierre (Arhough Patinkin is definitely much older then I expected for a Pierre) as the story looses some of it umfph when Pierre isn't seen as the diametrical opposite of the rest of the characters. At this point in the story he is seen as somewhat a father figure to Natasha, not a romantic interest until arguably the final moments of the show/ if at all. Thus I also thought Groban read both to pretty and young for the role, but he did bring in ticket sales. I wonder if the producers thought Oak in the end read to young on stage considering there is only a 5 year age difference between him and Detton.

Sidenote***In my opinion your casting director failed if you have to make an actor/actress uglier/fatter to fit a role, unless it is either a tradition of the role (Edna Turnblad) or they are being brought in for sales purposes. To follow a similar train of thought, it would be like casting Philla Soo as Tracy Turnblad and making her wear a fat suit. That seems to be the case here, except Oak didn't bring in ticket sales, that they thought he would.




They were pretty damned stupid if they thought he would. I would bet that 75% of the people who saw him in Hamilton would not even recognize his name (unless because it is so unusual). As anecdotal thoughts: I have access to two touring cities, Tampa in the winter and Boston in the summer. I have seen some excellent performances on the road. I thought the Lola I saw in Boston was better that Billy Porter (who I saw twice and thought deserved the Tony), yet i have no idea what the person's name is. Nor do I remember the name of virtually any other performer I see on the road. They aren't around long enough to get publicity that would help to stamp the name in the memory bank.

Now let's talk replacements or understudies in NYC. I am more than a casual theatre attendee...when I lived in NYC, I saw everything, just like a lot of posters on this site. Even then, I rarely remembered the name of a replacement I saw, unless they gave such a strong performance that I went out of my way to remember the name. And, minus being reinforced with lots of publicity about the person, i have only occasionally remembered the name of the person I saw in the role. I think that is just reality. The point: he was never going to sell tickets.

henrikegerman said: "Patinkin is way too old.
And many seem to be taking the "old man" lyric from Great Comet far too literally.


Two things:

-- On the subject of age, we always make allowances in the theatre. Remember when ego many posters were opining that DHP was too young to be Bette's Horace...the actor would have had to be about 90 (I have always thought of Horace as being 15 - 20 years older than Dolly) to be age appropriate. I haven't heard anything about that since the first preview. And how come Gypsy is always being played by women in their late 50s, carting around 10 year old daughters for much of the first act? People are more than willing to suspend belief for a terrific performance.

-- i think there are a lot of people out there who have seen and loved TGC who couldn't give an intelligible synopsis of it, based on one viewing. I have to admit that I have only seen it once, and was only somewhat familiar with the cast recording when I attended. I could have told people about the incredible production, that there was some excellent music (and some not so), some excellent performances, that it was visual stunning, that I hated the Tony Award winning lighting, etc. NOT BEING FAMILIAR WITH W&P (shame on me, i just never read it), I doubt that any age difference would have made a big impression in the first place, since TGC story was not that clear, and that -- minus some lyrics that I might have missed -- it was not so obvious from one viewing how much of his interest was in protecting an innocent girl's reputation vs. secretly loving her vs. lusting after her vs. lots of other scenarios.

While I don't ultimately disagree that Patinkin is a little old, I don't think it will matter to first time viewers, many of whom won't be entirely sure about the relationship in any circumstance. For those more familiar with this production, if Patinkin is good, it won't matter.

Boy, Cynthia Erivo really blew up her Twitter about this.

---

I preface this by admitting ignorance of the mysterious dynamics of show business on Broadway. I also don't know how much business Mandy Patinkin will bring in during what seems like an awfully brief run as Pierre, but that won't stop me...

- Great Comet was always going to enter a dangerous time once Josh Groban left in early July and then much of the original cast leaves this fall. The show didn't win any major Tony awards, and its only "win" that evening as for the best performance on the telecast. But the show was not a runaway hit even with Groban. Getting excellent seats was easy a week before the show when I went in April. It was available on TKTS if I had wanted to go that route.

- Okieriete Onaodowan was never going to sell many tickets. Yes, he was part of the original cast of Hamilton, which certainly made him more familiar to many people, but I agree with Jarethan that he's simply not enough of a name to inspire many people to attend who wouldn't have gone anyway. Not zero people, certainly, but not enough when he was following a major recording star with a big following. It didn't matter if he was terrific, as many people say he's been. If the producers were counting on Oak to bring in Groban numbers, that seems quite stupid.

- The show, for some reasons that are obvious and others that are less clear to me, is expensive. I gather it's not losing money yet, or one of you would have mentioned it, but a $900K week - seemingly healthy - is actually ominous because that's happening during the summer. By the fall, with other shows opening and the weather getting colder, things could get awfully grim. Best case, the show is able to limp along, taking years to recoup, unless something changes to bring in more people. Is this correct? It seems that the producers believe so.

- The Mandy Patinkin move feels like a desperate ploy. I knows he has an impressive Broadway pedigree, and is more famous to average people now than he was then due to success in films and television. But what are the producers hoping for? Best case, they'll get numbers comparable to the end of Groban's run. (I doubt it.) But they'll have to pay him, and pay Oak for not showing up, and it will be over before it starts. Labor Day is coming, and who will play Pierre then?

- Yes, I agree that most people will overlook the fact that Patinkin is much too old to play Pierre. The character's age is a bit murky in the musical, and he's often removed from the others. I don't know whether he can play the piano, and assume he can't play the accordion, but that can just be ignored. Patinkin ought to be able to sing the part, and that will be good enough for many people who want to see him.

- The bad feelings about Oak getting dumped isn't that a black actor was replaced by a white actor. It was that the black actor was ousted, three weeks early, from a job he seemed to be handling well during his two weeks on the job. It's show business, but it's not irrelevant when black Broadway stars express outrage at how things were handled. It makes the Great Comet producers look bad, creating a public relations problem. That may not be fair, especially for a diverse show that features a black lead actress in an adaptation of War and Peace, but life isn't fair - especially when the producer's public statements are disingenuous at best. (I agree with dramarama611 that this tempest won't affect future casting decisions.)

- What's clear at this point is that Great Comet has a very doubtful future unless they bring in names big enough to draw people to the show who have resisted it until now. Tourists will want to see the best new musical, Dear Evan Hansen, or Bette Midler in Hello, Dolly, long-running shows for families, or new, adult-oriented musicials like The Band's Visit. I loved Comet, and would see it multiple times if I lived near New York City, but there apparently aren't enough people like me. The musical has a loyal following, of course, but not enough of one without awards, stars, or a large fan base. And soon enough, the original cast will start drifting away to other projects as contracts expire, casting further doubt on the show's viability. Won't that also make it difficult to attract those "big stars" the producers seem to need? Who wants to join a dying show?

Updated On: 7/26/17 at 09:21 PM

I think the only disgrace is all these people bashing a show that has taken greater strides towards diversity than pretty much any other this season.

Pity that Oak got booted, yes. But he's a nobody. And those bringing race into it, I just can't even.

---

I really agree with you here, Mr. Nowack.

chernjam said: "OK - I've not seen Great Comet and wasn't planning on it during Grobans run, when Oak took over -and certainly not with Patinkin (had I really wanted to, I would've seen it with Groban)

2 - I wonder if Oak has a few "sick days" coming up? If he was fired - and he's not talking... taking a day or two off for a whole host of mysterious illnesses will only add to the intrigue and be a way of saying how un happy he was with this situation


"

Implying he won't behave professionally these next few weeks? (Just trying to make sure I understand). That really wouldn't reflect well on him. He's not fired, he's on paid leave. He had a contract, so they have to pay him.

He likely hasn't accrued any sick days yet, anyway.

---

^ They don't know their history. I heard someone suggest Patti LuPone as a replacement for Marya D, and someone asked "Can she belt?". Apparently if you're not Idina Menzel or Ben Platt, you're a nobody.

---

I also get the feeling that a lot of these online commenters had no clue that Oak's run was limited to begin with. It's not like he signed a year's contract and was "tossed to the curb." It was the general consensus that he was a filler until someone bigger came along.

I get that it's unfortunate for him and a bit shady on the producers' part but the outcry is just not warranted.

---