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

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 10/7/17 at 6:43pm

I love how she stands by the producers as well

[CorkySt.Clair]

Posted: 10/7/17 at 7:00pm

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

Definitely. I was one who unwisely blamed the Kagans when everything was going down, but without them I never would have gotten to know one of my favorite shows. I hope that their getting scapegoated does not deter future producers from helping offbeat and potentially risky shows. We need more shows like Comet on Broadway!

[trpguyy]

Posted: 10/7/17 at 7:26pm

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]

Posted: 10/7/17 at 10:16pm

PaulWom said: "Damn, when Hamilton cast members start coming out of the woodworkhttps://twitter.com/AntLeeMe123/status/916784061972144128"

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

[Deedee23]

Posted: 10/7/17 at 10:28pm

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...

[James2]

Posted: 10/7/17 at 10:54pm

bdn223 said: "PaulWom said: "Damn, when Hamilton cast members start coming out of the woodworkhttps://twitter.com/AntLeeMe123/status/916784061972144128"

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

What was cut out?

 

[bear88]

Posted: 10/8/17 at 12:54am

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

[binau]

Posted: 10/8/17 at 12:58am

It is a heavy/controversial claim 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. 

Updated On: 10/8/17 at 12:58 AM

[bear88]

Posted: 10/8/17 at 1:50am

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

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/8/17 at 2:04am

bear, you consistently write better and more thoughtfully than anyone else on here. thank you for that. 

one comment, and not meaning to beat a dead horse, but the comments about Kagan seem blind to what he actually did. He DID handle this terribly (and of course it was not the only thing he did terribly). and he DID fire Oak as if he were a fungible employee like a bean counter at a hedge fund. How any actor can view that disrespect as "didn't do anything wrong" as beyond me. I'll chalk it up to a reaction to the situation, staying on the good side of a rich producer (though one who is going to have a hard time finding sane compadres in the future). 

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 10/8/17 at 2:11am

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.

[bear88]

Posted: 10/8/17 at 2:51am

HogansHero,

There are things I write with some confidence, usually because they are just my own opinion or can be supported by news articles with quoted-by-name people, and then's there's the gray area.

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. Dave Malloy, the person who has always seemed the most candid about the situation, said he wasn't around when that happened. There have been plenty of rumors, some of which suggest that an agreement had been reached that would allow Patinkin to come in for three weeks, with Onaodowan given the face-saving option to return later. Maybe there was never such a deal (Onaodowan denied in the New York Times story that there was any offer for him to come back). Maybe he changed his mind, despite pleas from the cast. I have my doubts that we will ever get a definitive, agreed-upon tick-tock of how it all went down. 

That leaves everyone believing what they are already predisposed to believe.

Updated On: 10/8/17 at 02:51 AM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/8/17 at 9:54am

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.

[PaulWom]

Posted: 10/8/17 at 10:40am

HogansHero, where is your source that he was fired from an email? And what "damages" do you speak of? He was being paid in full for the rest of his contract 

[Kad]

Posted: 10/8/17 at 10:45am

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

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/8/17 at 12:55pm

PaulWom said: "HogansHero, where is your source that he was fired from an email? And what "damages" do you speak of? He was being paid in full for the rest of his contract"

It was in an online report. I'm not interested in searching for it but you can take a shot at it if you are. 

Liquidated damages is a term that refers to the fact that, when one is paid out under the contract, one waives any other damages to which one might be entitled. There are a multitude of potential damages that one might claim otherwise in the event of a breach of a contract. For instance, if one can prove an opportunity cost, one could sue for that. One might also make a claim based on damage to one's reputation or brand. (I'm not suggesting any of that applies here. I am just explaining the term.)

[schubox]

Posted: 10/8/17 at 1:41pm

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. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/8/17 at 1:50pm

It also makes zero sense in light of the reason he was asked to leave in the first place. (Or any of the manifold other reasons folks here have volunteered.)

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 10/8/17 at 1:57pm

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. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/8/17 at 2:07pm

"would three weeks being in the red really be that much of a burden" 

I don't know. Would you put another million or more into something that you've already lost $11mil on? It's awfully easy to spend OPM.

[Mediamaven2]

Posted: 10/8/17 at 2:11pm

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. 

[hmph]

Posted: 10/9/17 at 1:30am

I was looking at Sumayya's Facebook and she has spoken out on a smaller scale before. 

7/29: "For the record, The Great Comet was diverse before Oak and The Great Comet will be diverse after Oak. The truth is not always as it appears."

9/2: "There is a spinning wheel in my heart that revolves stronger with an inexplicable enigma and weight. It is not of me. It is based in love and gratitude. It grows heavier as we come to the end of this Great Comet journey. Looking back, I ask myself what have we just done?! We have completely shattered the frame of what theater is, what theater can be and who should be in it. I laugh at the ridiculous, uninformed claims of outsiders questioning our diversity. We have Asians, African Americans, Latinos and white people telling a story set in Russia. While that is admirable; that is not what makes our show revolutionary. Our show is diversity amalgamated and squared. Sometimes you can have four strong women lead in a show that make decisions for themselves and not based off of what men think. Sometimes, Being black on Broadway doesn't mean you have to roll your neck and belt. Sometimes being black on Broadway can mean you are Russian aristocracy who floats sweet tones or sometimes being black on Broadway can mean you are playing the violin, singing and kicking your face. We will leave our sweat, guts and hearts on that stage three more times. May we all continue to shatter cognitive frames."

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 10/9/17 at 7:57am

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

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 10/9/17 at 9:01am

I remember telling my mom about all of this, and her first reaction was, “why didn’t they replace him with another actor of color?” Her immediate suggestion was Denzel Washington which I kind of scoffed at. Though, I thought that was an interesting idea. Would oak still have the same problems with the show if he were replaced by another actor of color?