Oak Speaks out on great comet controversy — Page 4

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "@ladypresent, I want to sympathize with your viewpoint, but I find your whole post to be confusing to read and not sure what your point is. How is the casting of Joshua Henry as Billy Bigelow more of a gimmick than hiring Oak in Natasha, Pierre, etc. using your logic? How hasn't the Great Comet cultivated a culture of diversity? I'm asking the latter question of someone who is familiar with the trend of false appearances of diversity in the corporate worldfor PR reasons that lack substance.

I tried sympathizing with Oak throughout this ordeal, but he comes off badly here."

I felt the same way reading ladypresent's post.

I have no idea why anyone would consider the casting of Mr. Henry as Billy Bigelow as a mere gimmick.

But, giving due consideration to this premise (which, if I'm following this correctly, is ladypresent's interpretation of what Oak is now saying.... is that right?) , if Josh's Billy could possibly be regarded as a mere gimmick, rather than a serious, thoughtful, and artistic casting choice which also promotes diversity (isn't promoting diversity while casting well a plus? if not what did I miss?), then why exactly should the casting of Oak as Pierre be regarded as anything different?

ladypresent said: "Evreyone calm down...his point is this:

there is a difference of putting a black man into a white role and making a show about black or minorities.
ie: carousel is using a "gimmick" (oak's words) by casting a black man in the role of billy bigelow. That is the gimmick and selling point of the show. There is almost no other reason to cast a black man in this role than the gimmick and the selling of tix and Scott Rudin knows this.

Um... what? You wanna try that again?

Also, you are severely overestimating how much nontraditional casting sells tickets.

Like several of his Hamilton cast mates, I did not see him working in theater much again anyway. But, doing a bizarre article in a magazine like Forbes? I just don't get it, and I happen to really like his work. This was not necessary in any capacity, and I think everyone else has moved on. Time for him to do the same.

Okay, well the point of the article was some dumb Forbes "30 Under 30"....just a way to brand and get publicity for the publication...kind of like US News does their "best colleges" etc

I think it must have been a very good agent or a very good connection that got Oak there (to this 30 Under 30 thing). Or perhaps they tried to get others from Hamilton's original cast but he was the only one under 30 who was POC/biggest lead from OBC!!! That must have been it ! (Daveed, Lin, Leslie, too old!) That is the point of the dumb badly written article, featuring the honorees/apparently he is one and was at the 'summit' they held to get more brand publicity.

I don't work in marketing I'm just surmising this from the article etc.

He was not smart about this whole implosion in Comet (by refusing to have his agent work out some joint statement as per the NYT article in late August) and he is not smart now by talking such stupid crap about it. It is a big mistake to try and make this into some noble higher issue when it was all about your ego back then in July/August, and it still is all about your ego.

I agree with posters above very strongly re: Denee Benton. It is so sexist: It is like she doesn't even exist. (I couldn't help but wonder what Denee thought during the casting controversy in the summer...as a star, as a POC, as a woman who was ignored as if she didn't exist....)

Yes the producers made a big mistake in hiring him but no doubt Rachel cast a vote for him too - and she made a big mistake. And let's not forget Rachel's role as director: how about adding that to the whole "DIVERSITY" question. It's not just representing POC on stage, or is it? Diversity is / should be a very broad thing.

I think when Oak says that diversity has to be "cultivated", he is talking about himself in the role of Pierre in the Great Comet. I.e.: HE should have been cultivated, given time, etc etc. ie. as others have noted, IT IS ALL ABOUT HIM.

I also echo others in that I do not think he will ever work again in a supporting or lead role in a broadway production. I mean, honestly, what producer or director would hire him? Very thin skinned. Does not play ball. Is talented, yes, but so are many people. Unless you are a proven superstar you cannot be a diva. That's just reality. It is reality for white people too. It is also reality in the non-arts /corporate world.

So I also agree with people wondering what reality he is living in.

I love how the very bad article makes it sound like he was some big part of the address to Pence! He just stood there. That was SMART and brave Lin Miranda who wrote it, and SMART and brave Brandon Victor Dixon who delivered it so well. Notice how they and many others like them who aren't part of the Comet production kept their mouths shut publicly about the controversy, unlike some others..... Like I said, they are smart.

Updated On: 10/4/17 at 06:27 PM

QueenAlice said: "Just in case some of you don’t know this...

Thelast revival of Carousel in 1994 was completely multicultural in its casting - and there were black actors who understudied and went on many times as Billy in both London and New York. It was hardly a selling point then and I doubt it is now."

Looks like some Musical Comedy Mavens don't know theatre history. Audra played Carrie 1994 Carousel. She won a Tony!

Oak is beyond ridiculous. I'm all for equality and giving poc actors as much a chance of white ones, but I have to say, this entire situation has made him so deluded in his imaginary race wonderland that I'm actually worried for him.

Updated On: 10/4/17 at 08:37 PM

I don't know the reason why the producers of the latest Carousel revival picked Joshua Henry as Billy, but I can think of one really good one: He is an extremely talented actor and singer.

Many people have seen him on Broadway in one show or another. I saw him in a comparatively small role in Shuffle Along.

But people in Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles have gotten the pleasure of seeing him as Aaron Burr in the Hamilton tour. He is as good as Leslie Odom Jr., who deservedly won a Tony for the role. His acting is extraordinary, his singing top-notch, his stage presence compelling.

One of the things that galls me about Onaodowan fiasco is that it will discourage producers from 'colorblind' casting, that they will worry about possible controversy. Given the issues some people have with Carousel, I suspect there will be consternation among some people to have a wife-beater played by a black man when the wife is white. The idea that Henry's casting is a marketing gimmick seems foolish.

But here we are, having that conversation, months before the show opens. And yes, I know Audra McDonald won a Tony. It was her first win. She wasn't a star back then.

The "author" of the article looks like she's all of nineteen. And writes like it, too, although I'm sure there are actually talented nineteen-year-old writers.

In the article, Onaodowan doesn't specifically address the "Comet" controversy surrounding his leaving, and he doesn't clarify or expand on what he means by "there is more to diversity than just existing, it must be nurtured--and that's where The Great Comet failed" - and similar brief comments. It might be nice to hear him go further and specifically explain what he sees as Comet's failure. Maybe he did, and the writer elected not to use her allotted space. We don't know. Maybe if we had more complete info, then at that point it would be a more appropriate time to crucify him??

I was not a fan of his reported handling of the big controversy, but he also doesn't strike me as a moron (from past interviews he has done), so I would like to hear him go more in depth. Or at least spell it out in simple terms leaving no ambiguity as to what he means. In the end, we might still disagree with his point of view, but it would be nice if we fully understood it before running him out of town.

Pauly3 said: "In the article, Onaodowan doesn't specifically address the "Comet" controversy surrounding his leaving, and he doesn't clarify or expand on what he means by "there is more to diversity than just existing, it must be nurtured--and that's whereThe Great Cometfailed" - and similar brief comments. It might be nice to hear him go further and specifically explain what he sees as Comet's failure. Maybe he did, andthe writer elected not to use her allotted space. We don't know. Maybe if we had more complete info, then at that point it would be a more appropriate time to crucify him??

I was not a fan of his reported handling of the big controversy, but he also doesn't strike me as a moron (from past interviews he has done), so I would like to hear him go more in depth. Or at least spell it out in simple terms leaving no ambiguity as to what he means. In the end, we might still disagree with his point of view, but it would be nice if we fully understood it before running him out of town."

Even without context, I still just think he's flat-out wrong about Comet not nurturing diversity. Every iteration of the show has featured a diverse cast, not just racially but in terms of gender and queerness and body type, and all of this is built into the show. If I'm remembering correctly, someone noted a while back that the swings covered both male and female ensemble tracks regardless of their own gender, and there were also members of the ensemble who were presenting as visibly queer (along with moments like the kiss between Marya and Helene in the second act). Many of the performers who have been involved with the show have praised Rachel Chavkin and Dave Malloy for their conscious efforts toward building the most diverse ensemble they could, and the group of performers they assembled for Broadway was one of the most interesting and unique I've ever seen in a musical. The fact that the female lead in the show has been played by women of several different races by itself makes the piece unique.

Broadway could and should be doing more to make every ensemble look like Great Comet's. Which is why I fail to understand and also disagree with this point in basically any context in which it could have occurred.

perfectlymarvelous said, in part: "Broadway could and should be doing more to make every ensemble look like Great Comet's. Which is why I fail to understand and also disagree with this point in basically any context in which it could have occurred."

OK, but if an actual dialog amongst those with opposing view points could be had, maybe some common ground could be found. Oak seems to be willing to talk now. Maybe some understanding on Oak's part that doesn't exist now could come of it. Or, maybe something else.

Lots of racism in this thread. Why should an actor be fired for not selling tickets? Was it in his contract? Furthermore, weekly grosses were near $1 million while he was in the show. The problem was that they had no advanced sales in the fall. Not Oak's fault though and he was scheduled to leave in a few weeks anyway. Just because the cast was diverse doesn't mean there isn't racism at foot here, esp from some in this thread. It's like when people say they're not racist because they have a black friend.

Speed said: "Why should an actor be fired for not selling tickets? Was it in his contract? Furthermore, weekly grosses were near $1 million while he was in the show. The problem was that they had no advanced sales in the fall. Not Oak's fault though and he was scheduled to leave in a few weeks anyway."

This has been discussed pretty much ad nauseum. Them's the breaks when you're in show business, ~$900k gross was mainly due to Ingrid, weekly costs were high, etc.

I'm still wondering why the cast/creatives, especially people who have been with the show from the beginning, were pretty much ignored in all this for people like Rafael Casal and now Oak. Seems to me like Oak's not as much interested in a real discussion as he is in covering for his lack of ticket sales. Azudi's comments come to mind when I think of real perspective and thoughtful responses.