The New York Times: The young, flamboyant and unusually diverse collective of actors and musicians who brought “Natasha, Pierre & the Great Comet of 1812” to Broadway enjoyed the giddy highs of theater’s most glamorous perch — a run at the grand Imperial Theater, a season-topping 12 Tony nominations, a spotlight shared with the pop star Josh Groban.
For most of the performers, it was their first time on a Broadway stage. Costumed as punkified peasants and aristocrats in a bold musical adaptation of Tolstoy, they danced down the aisles, handing out pierogies and creating an unusually immersive musical experience.
7 comments:
I've known about this issue for a while, having lived in the city and been close friends with someone very passionate about this show. My personal take, having seen the musical before the Tony awards, is that while this casting problem was terribly handled and did contribute to the show developing a negative image, is not the sole reason (as this article alleges) that Great Comet had to close so soon after the Tonys. The musical is flashy and big, well designed, and has many catchy songs and lines, but after I saw it what I remember most is the strange timing and dramatic swings in tone, songs drawn out for too long or odd moments that were unnecessary. The shows quirkiness and unusual nature in and of itself isn't to blame for it's lack of success without a star - shows like Urinetown and avenue Q got incredible acclaim without stars being just as strange and rebellious towards the norms of theater - so it's important to keep in mind, or at least consider, that Great Comet was going to close anyways because of its writing and not just because of the bungling of their casting decisions.
It's important to consider not only the replacement of a black actor with a white one but also the fact that most tickets were purchased by tourists when discussing why "Great Comet" fell apart. In such a politically charged country, it's easy to conclude that the failure of the show was caused by protesters, outraged by potential racism, but there are always multiple sides to the story.
When season two of "The Get Down," a Netflix original, was canceled, it was easy for me to blame Netflix for cancelling a showfor a couple of reasons: the vast majority of the cast wasn't white, all the white characters were slimy or evil, and the show told the story of the origins of hip hop and race relations in the US in the late 70's. While I never believed that this was the entire reason the show got cancelled, after doing some research I learned that Baz Luhrmann (Director) had other projects going on that interfered with his involvement in the show, the show was one of Netflix's most expensive projects to date, and it didn't pull the audience it expected. I still believe the racial aspects of the show had something to do with it getting cancelled, for it wasn't advertised nearly as much as other shows that have been produced. I honestly believe this caused the audience to be so small, and could have been either an intentional or subconscious decision based on racist tendencies. However, there were definitely other reasons why the show was cancelled, too. Everyone taking a stand on this topic needs all the background information to be able to decide for themselves if racism had to do with the failure of the production, and the same goes for "Natasha, Pierre, & The Great Comet of 1812."
I am simply confused by the way in which the producers have conducted their casting decisions throughout the course of this production. From the outside looking in it seems that they keep making the same decision to find the biggest name they can regardless of the consequences. While it is not unusual for Broadway shows to chase after stars for financial reasons the manner in which they approached their casting throughout much of the process seems to have been blinded by the search for another star. I was surprised that Mandy was even asked to play Pierre as personally he seemed too old for the role until I read an interview with Mandy as he was resigning following the uprising on social media. Before he was offered the role he had mentioned elsewhere that he would love to play Pierre. It was when then that they pushed out Oak for Mandy. once again seeking the big star to save the show. Oak might have not been meeting to their satisfaction but the way in which they approached his release and the racially charged nature of our society especially following events this summer seemed to have culminated and amplified the problem.
I love this show with all my heart. In a time where specific musicals take over the mainstream spotlight, I feel that Great Comet is incredibly underrated. I agree with Sarah, that there are parts that the show is weird and strange, but that's what makes is so beautiful. I listen to this show all the time, and every time I do, there's some new sound or tone that I hadn't noticed before that adds to the story. Seeing the show in person adds even more – you see actions and reactions, and notice little acting choices that really create characters. The show is a beautiful story told in the most beautiful of ways. I followed the show as it went through its casting controversy, and my interpretation is that the show ultimately failed because of financials. It wasn't pulling in enough ticket sales because from the outside it is a weird show, and, like Truly said, tourists weren't drawn to it. Comet is an acquired taste style of art is just not being appreciated by enough people, especially because other shows on Broadway like Hamilton and Dear Evan Hansen cast a shadow over it. It was nominated for Tony's because its a magnificent piece of art, and had such a low yield of at the end of the awards show because it is so different. I do not blame the producers for trying to get more celebrities involved because it is something that brings in more of the "tourists" that buy so many tickets, but unfortunately, that's what sparked the diversity controversy, and it propelled the end of the run even faster than it already was going to.
Well, this sounds like a mess. Even when Broadway produces more interesting, more artistically satisfying work, we can’t forget that, at its core, it’s just a big ol’ business. The producer is responsible to her or his investors and to returning their investment. Though the scramble for a bigger name and the communication that followed was a bit shoddy (and does not *seem* to be, in this case, racially motivated on the producer’s part – though I don’t doubt that is a common experience black actors and performers have to experience,) I think the decision was ultimately understandable, if artistically distasteful. Personally, I’m not thrilled with the idea that the producer had to make, in my opinion, an artistically shallow decision in an attempt to keep the show open, but that’s one of the reasons I’m not interested in working in Broadway theatre.
Though I don’t know a lot about this production and haven’t seen it myself, I can see how its unconventionality likely led to lower ticket sales. The producer likely knew that and saw the show’s immanent closure coming, but was bound to exhaust all available options in returning the investors money. Even if Mandy Patinkin had only kept the show open for two months longer, it would have meant investors that much more of their money back.
Everything that has happened with The Great Comet is really unfortunate because a lot of people lost their jobs. A lot of those people were also people of color, which is interesting because the whole controversy started because people were mad that a white man was replacing an African American man. I think that the situation was escalated because the public was not given the whole truth in the beginning. Possibly if the producers said that they needed the star power of Mandy Patinkin and that Oak was not prepared for the role and not getting along with the director Rachel Chavkin, people would not have reacted the way they did. Without all the facts it looked very bad that a white man was replacing an African American man after diversity has been a huge focus for theatre especially in a show like The Great Comet. All of the bad press caused ticket sales to get even worse than they were before without a star. This is an example of how big of an impact social media and press have on the entertainment industry, especially theatre.
This entire process sounds like it was chaotic and painful. Not only for the names in the headlines, but for everyone who worked on this show and had to continue working on it while these stories went viral. I'm sure it consumed a lot of the conversations around them, and I imagine it got very tiring. I also imagine it was frustrating to those who simply wanted to continue their work and livelihood to be caught up in something so negative and attention grabbing. That those involved went through "bewildering" events is just as disconcerting; you'd think at this level people would have their stuff together. Optics and PR have to be a consideration, and I can't imagine how those involved with making and announcing this casting change did not think of the negative backlash and the message they were sending to the world. I've noticed many people involved with the show called it "something special" and I find that especially heartbreaking as not only will the show close, but its history will be mired with this scandal as well. Of course Broadway is a for-profit enterprise and they hoped that Mandy's addition would at least recoup some of their money, but they didn't spend enough time considering the human aspects of this casting change and what message they were saying.
Post a Comment