Posted: 8/9/17 at 12:34am
Ever since his "I've done other things than Hamilton" phrase on his playbill bio, I've known Oak was rude and, generally speaking, disrespectful. I hope this story gets out to more people and it gets recognized, let's try to see the Oak apologists play the victim card now.
Posted: 8/9/17 at 12:35am
Cassata is not a source for anything other than his own opinions and biases, which he is as entitled to as much as everyone else in the mess. And I learned one thing decades ago: people in shows are the worst at knowing what's going on in their shows. Starting in this case with the truth about the shows prognosis: you know, what the guy who created it said that's pissed off some investor. Cassata is not privy to the (non-existent) advance. Cassata is not privy to the people who had already said no. Cassata is not privy to the unliklihood of those imaginary people making a silk purse out of a sow's ear, long before this controversy was borne.
Posted: 8/9/17 at 12:37am
HogansHero... really? Sure, Cassata may not be privy to what investors think, but do you REALLY think he's not there in rehearsals? Or in the building (where he plays every night?)
Posted: 8/9/17 at 12:37am
I never thought I'd say this...but Riedel is correct here. Per people connected to the production.
Posted: 8/9/17 at 12:38am
HogansHero, if anything, based on my interactions w you, I'd say you were Oak's agent or something... You'll defend him at any cost! Give it up, hon.
Posted: 8/9/17 at 12:41am
I will say that if the article is all true, it's disappointing that Chavkin may have acted in that manner. Of course, it depends on what alterations Oak wanted to make to the role, because if he really was not prepared who knows what those alterations were, but still. I love Chavkin's work and had heard nothing but great things about her previously, so this seems strange and out of what I'd heard was her character.
Posted: 8/9/17 at 12:42am
Paul, I've never met him; Cassata knows 100% about his own opinions and biases; he does not speak for all. But if you think you've worked this out for your purposes, great. I sense a lot of anger in this thread, some of it misdirected and some of it (not yours) ugly.
Posted: 8/9/17 at 12:43am
pupscotch said: "I will say that if the article is all true, it's disappointing that Chavkin may have acted in that manner. Of course, it depends on what alterations Oak wanted to make to the role, because if he really was not prepared who knows what those alterations were, but still. I love Chavkin's work and had heard nothing but great things about her previously, so this seems strange and out of what I'd heard was her character."
If Oak was coming into rehearsals unprepared and without doing what he said he would do then I think she has the right to stand up to no alterations.
Posted: 8/9/17 at 12:44am
Rafael (oops- sorry. HogansHero), I think your previous posts and inability to accept any rumors that Oak did this, and inability to accept anything other than your narrative, points to where you stand. I know actors like Oak, with huge egos who don't care about the people around them, and if there are people backing that up... then so be it. People don't just "start late" in a role, for one thing
Posted: 8/9/17 at 12:48am
I'm not saying that Cassata is wrong but what about Azudi's lengthy essay defending Oak that Denee co signed on? Azudi and Cassata were both in the building so to speak but they seem to have very different ideas of what really happened
Posted: 8/9/17 at 12:49am
Perhaps Azudi would think differently now that Oak has refused to make a statement.
Posted: 8/9/17 at 12:50am
I do think it's kind of bizarre to expect someone you fired to call up their replacement and ask them to come back.
It doesn't help Oak to remove the race situation bc it's the only thing that makes him sympathetic. For every 100 people who understand that it was financially motivated there will be 10 who completely swallow the victim narrative. He needs those 10 people to keep his career going. I guess if I was him, I might not care about helping the people who fired me succeed.
The Malloy tweet seems like it's more hurtful to acquiring actors bc it puts a lot of weight on them to deliver. I don't know how much it'd hurt the sales bc the average person doesn't know about it and people who follow it already have access to box office tallies.
Posted: 8/9/17 at 12:50am
From a Facebook post by Celia Mei Rubin, the show's assistant dance captain:
"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."
Updated On: 8/9/17 at 12:50 AM
Posted: 8/9/17 at 12:50am
Let's do a simple calculation here: which is easier for an actor in a production (especially one who is still working with him) to do? Tweeting a defense of a hamilton star or throwing him under the bus?
Posted: 8/9/17 at 12:50am
GeorgeandDot said: "Riedel is correct and this story has been confirmed to me by someone in the production.
"
Same here. By two people actually.
Posted: 8/9/17 at 12:52am
I think it's crazy unprofessional of Oak to come into rehearsals unprepared. Especially being cast so far in advance. It's not like it's a huge part. And you knew the requirements when you signed on, hence being cast so far in advance. Just silly.
Posted: 8/9/17 at 12:52am
PaulWom said: "Let's do a simple calculation here: which is easier for an actor in a production (especially one who is still working with him) to do? Tweeting a defense of a hamilton star or throwing him under the bus?
"
Before or after they went out after the show and got rip roarin' drunk and tweet? lol
Posted: 8/9/17 at 12:54am
PaulWom said: "Rafael (oops- sorry. HogansHero), I think your previous posts and inability to accept any rumors that Oak did this, and inability to accept anything other than your narrative, points to where you stand. I know actors like Oak, with huge egos who don't care about the people around them, and if there are people backing that up... then so be it. People don't just "start late" in a role, for one thing
"
From what he's posted, I infer that he's saying Oak is getting too much credit and the producers need to be getting the majority of the blame for being idiots who were going to fail even if this never happened.
Imo, The whole thing was a blessing for them bc now they can deflect attention from their missteps and ride the "if only" train to their next venture.
Posted: 8/9/17 at 12:58am
My issue w HogansHero is that , from my perspective , the only way he'll believe that Oak did this is if Oak says it himself. Look at Cassata , and look at Celia Mei Rubin's post where she said "things didn't play out the way they were portrayed in the press". If you don't admit that something is up, you're in denial.
Posted: 8/9/17 at 1:08am
HogansHero said: "as usual, Riedel is half right and half wrong. "
Then why don't you tell us, All-Knowing-One, which half is right and which half is wrong?
Posted: 8/9/17 at 1:10am
The allegation that Oak was behind a lot of the social media outrage that helped doom the show, specifically Rafael Casal's twitter storm
Posted: 8/9/17 at 1:11am
PaulWom said: "My issue w HogansHero is that , from my perspective , the only way he'll believe that Oak did this is if Oak says it himself. Look at Cassata , and look at Celia Mei Rubin's post where she said "things didn't play out the way they were portrayed in the press". If you don't admit that something is up, you're in denial.
"
I think in the short term, u can definitely blame Oak but when history analyzes the situation, it will be seen differently.
I think the people who aren't putting the majority of the stuff on Oak are the ones who know it was doomed anyway and this situation was a godsend in some ways bc it takes heat off them.
I can see where the cast truly believes that Oak took away their jobs but we don't know what lies go on behind the scenes. It's still a workplace and gossip and drama can explode in uncertain times Where Hogan is right in saying it's opinion is that maybe they were in denial about the fact that their jobs were going to be gone anyway or believing that the guy with the small part in Hamilton was going to pull Groban numbers.
There is more we need to know such as who was coming into the role after Mandy? If it's true that someone major was coming then the Oak shade is more valid.
Posted: 8/9/17 at 1:16am
We can debate all day who might have been coming in (and perhaps that's for a different thread). But regardless, even IF the show was closing, Oak could have allowed for an elegant, beautiful end. Instead, he chose this.
Posted: 8/9/17 at 1:20am
^^^ agreed and they hate him which has to suck so that's something!
