Sumayya Ali writes beautiful letter about COMET and the controversy — Page 2

I love how she stands by the producers as well

rosscoe(au) said: "I love how she stands by the producers as well"

Not to detract from anything she's said, but she'd be dumb to not stand behind the producers.

bdn223 said: "I kind of wonder if he was a nightmare in Hamilton as well/his reaction when Lin cut his song from the cast album...."

Hey you make a good point. I haven't seen any of the past/current Hamilton cast members supporting Oak's side...

I like to think I know Hamilton pretty well, but I'm pretty sure very little was cut from the cast recording that is in the show, and nothing that Mulligan or Madison (Onaodowan's characters) was in. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Updated On: 10/8/17 at 12:54 AM

There are two parts of Sumayya Ali's letter that caught my eye. The first is this one:

Planned trickery, blackmail and manipulation led to our controversy. Our cast, creative team, and producers were blindsided. I feel it's important to acknowledge this because Howard Kagan was used as a scapegoat in this particular incident.

Alas, Ali's comment includes no specifics of the planned trickery, blackmail, and manipulation. I can guess at some of what she might be talking about, but I don't know for sure, and I don't have any Broadway insider friends. (It's also been noted, and I think fairly, that cast members aren't always the best sources of information.) The defense of Kagan, on one level, is unsurprising. It's hard to say it's a bad career move for an ensemble member to praise a rich producer. But still, as someone who has been critical of Kagan myself, I take her words seriously. I don't think she's trying to do any apple polishing here. She seems genuinely bothered by what she sees as unfairness.

I do wish there were more specifics here, though.

But Ali's second main point is one that I strongly agree with, in part because I have banged this particular drum in comments about the whole mess on other threads. I'm a white male who was not involved with the show, but my concern was expressed far better by a woman of color who was in it:

In regard to the Great Comet, we must question and analyze the irresponsible, false, manipulative use of social media that fed off of the heightened racial tension of our country; yet we must also acknowledge the reality of racism as a disease deeply embedded in the fabric of America. We must investigate the sexist lens that would have the audacity to label our show racist or question the value of black actors when the original, barrier breaking, titular, leading lady of the show is black. To question the show's diversity is to make her and all of her accomplishments invisible. The fact that the temporary contract of one male actor that ended a couple of weeks early could negate the forward movement, awards and Tony Award nomination of Denee Benton is unfathomable- not to mention the seven additional cast members of African descent, three Asian Americans and five Latinos. To question the diversity and casting of the show is to assume we are all invisible. As a person/actor of color, it is very frustrating to see our struggle trivialized.

I don't think Ali is taking the position that Onaodowan, personally, is a sexist, and it's not mine. But all his talk about cultivating diversity and comparing himself to Colin Kaepernick - who actually is being blackballed from pursuing his profession, as opposed to getting hired to be in a TV show at what I'm sure is a good salary - simply ignores some of the most important achievements of Great Comet. Onaodowan's talk about the show's failure to cultivate diversity is about its decision to fire him. That's it.

I'm sure someone advised the producers and creatives that they really shouldn't have some unknown African-American actress play Natasha, a Russian countess who is the female lead. That's going to confuse the audience, as reports on this board suggested that it sometimes did. The show is a difficult sell as it is. Why make it harder? But Dave Malloy, director Rachel Chavkin, and the producers chose Benton anyway - and she was awesome. And why worry about diversity in the ensemble so much? Other Broadway shows aren't so preoccupied with it. They'll stick one African-American in the cast, or just the ensemble, and call it a day. Why listen to the concerns of people of color in the ensemble who raised diversity concerns when there were quick hires of white replacements? But that's what happened, according to a member of that ensemble.

My point is that Great Comet was a model of diversity, the worst target one could possibly choose for the attacks it got. And yet, a month after the show closed and during the same week he got hired for an exciting new job, Onaodowan was still making those attacks in a national magazine.

It's been fairly argued that we still don't know the whole story of how Onaodowan was treated. Even Malloy concedes that he missed how the "racial optics" of his replacement would be viewed, and I thought the press releases put out by the show were rather cringeworthy. It's been argued that someone who gets fired doesn't owe former colleagues, much less bosses, a thing. And it's been argued that white people, and I'm white, should pipe down when it comes to grievances expressed by African-Americans.

I'm sympathetic to all of that. This entire discussion has made me uncomfortable, some of the comments have either been unnecessarily nasty, arguably racist, or paranoid. How many times has someone been accused of being someone they're not, or having a dog in the fight when they pretty obviously don't? But the show, whatever its failings as musical theater and questionable production choices, deserved an honorable burial. Onaodowan seems determined to make sure it never gets that, which is why the Forbes interview is unintentionally revealing. "Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story," indeed.

I'll remember Great Comet as one of the most enjoyable, moving experiences on Broadway, a show that bent traditional boundaries in musical theater and showed a way forward that's exciting and inspirational - even if it did lose a lot of money for its investors.

Updated On: 10/8/17 at 01:50 AM

It's not that Oak is a sexist pig (although I do think he's a total narcissist), but he does seem to have kind of a sexist view of his situation and so do his defenders. There's just some sexist undertones to this controversy where Denee Benton, the Tony nominated leading lady, suddenly didn't seem to exist to anyone. Suddenly, only Oak, a black man who was scheduled to be with the show for a short time, was the only person that mattered and the only person able to "cultivate diversity." Not Denee, not Amber, not a single one of the numerous WoC who have been with the show for months, years even, seemed to matter here. It may not be obvious or clear sexism, but sexism was certainly present throughout this controversy. Oak was clearly just looking out for himself and he may not have any strong sexist feelings, but his dismissal of the his female costars was a bit sexist and his just general dismissal of his fellow castmates, crew members, and creatives was just a sign of his disrespect towards other artists and his own selfishness.

All in all, there was actually more sexism involved in this controversy than there was racism.

bear, you are correct about believing what we believe. The only thing I note is that it was reported that he was fired via email. I believe it was later suggested that he could come back (especially since Kagan said as much in a public statement) but that was after Mandy had pulled out. (And contractually, this would have been a firing since he had already been entitled to his liquidated damages.) I further note that this come back stuff seems weird under the circumstances and also discordant with the "he was terrible, he was unprepared, everyone hated him" zeitgeist we've been hearing about from so many.

george, yes there is a sexist component but that is a separate (and at least equally valid) matter. And regarding narcissism, this is the theatre; they abound at least as rampantly as a-holes, and you know what I said about avoiding the latter.

I think it’s very hard in this case to distinguish sexism, overt or subtle, from extreme self-interest. It is clear by now that the only diversity Oak wants to see cultivated is his presence in a cast, and he threw a great many people of all backgrounds under the bus in support of that.

Also, while Oak (and his supporters) have demonstrated terrible behavior in this situation, I think it’s unwise to use that to exonerate the other side. A lot of mistakes were made in how Oak’s termination was handled, and how the production overall was produced. While it’s admirable that Kagan was devoted to bringing the show to Broadway, he demonstrated a continued lack of savvy. Let’s not forget the show started off with his tremendously stupid fight with Ars Nova- a fight that, regardless of its outcome, would always be a losing one for him. He also built the show into a star vehicle before plunking the decidedly non-star Oak into it, and the resultant box office is what drove him to pull in Mandy. And it is also clear that Oak’s termination was handled without grace and without a mind on appearances.

Updated On: 10/8/17 at 10:45 AM

The offer for him to come back always seems like an attempt to save face. I think they knew he would never come back and it was an empty gesture. Especially since we know the producers were hoping to convince Patinkin to extend if possible.

I always wondered, would three weeks being in the red really be that much of a burden, especially since they presumably had another star ready to come in after oak original end date. So they could have rebounded.

For those questioning Sumayya putting kagan in a positive light and speculating she’s saying that so she doesn’t damage her career, if she really didn’t agree with kagan she wouldn’t have mentioned kagan at all, so it does show something that she did discuss kagan and especially in a positive manner.

bear88 said:

The circumstances surrounding Onaodowan's dismissal, and whether he was treated very shabbily or reasonably under the show's apparently dire financial circumstances, are murky to me

i think to Oak the point was that they were ending his run early and fairly abruptly and replacing him w Mandy - which made it shabby, period. How could it have been (to him) otherwise “reasonable”? What murkiness could be clarified that would let you decide it was shabby or alternatively reasonable. It seems very clear that to Oak it was shabby and we have all the facts that we need about that to form an opinion agreeing or disagreeing.

qolbinau said: "It is a heavy/controversialclaim to suggest that sexism is going on here. Do you really think if these other characters were male instead of female Oak would have been quiet about this issue? I think it is more likely he is simply annoyed at himself personally being replaced and has pulled the race card because of his own experience. Claiming there is a wider issue/higher cause of course makes him seem more noble even if if his primary interest is himself."

You may be right that if the other lead were a MAN of color, it wouldn't have mattered to Oak. But that's beside the point. The toned deaf sexism and general mendacity that reacted to Oak's leaving the show isn't so much about Oak's personal pain and outrage or his own reflections. Far from it. It's about those who were quick to sensationalize the controversy and jump on Oak's bandwagon and the little thought some of those folks gave to all the facts and all of their political implications, including how their rhetoric erased Denee Benton as the show's star and a woman of color playing a white-identified woman and the diversity of the Great Comet company in general.

Updated On: 10/9/17 at 07:57 AM