Rudin has his hand in a lot of theatre in NYC. A critic should not be maintaining any sort of relationship with him beyond the professional level. And clearly, gossiping and bitching about the top critic at your publication with a producer is remarkably unprofessional.
It's good casting and a great role for Onaodowan, who remains rather unknown.
The number of people who will be buying tickets because of this casting will be miniscule and that's hardly a stretch to say, but clearly the producers were aware of that when they cast him. Hopefully they are able to position the show itself as the reason to buy a ticket rather than its cast, which is the key to longevity.
Canadian Equity members can be seen at auditions alongside American Equity members; the unions were once one organization and now have reciprocal agreements for their members. If you are hired in an American Equity production, you would have to join American Equity (though at a discounted rated) and have the necessary visa or green card to be employed in America.
South Fl Marc said: "And I disagree 100% I'm glad he wrote the letter. It's a perfect response to a truly amateurish pile of PC crap masquerading as a review. Hopefully she won't be a regular reviewer."
I don't know. Even though they most likely share sentiments, Collins and Green produced very different reviews, with Green's far more nuanced and providing far more contextualization of the original novel- ultimately arguing that the show itself is poor adaptation. Collins arrives at a similar conclusion, certainly, but frames it in a far less effective way.
I agree that '74 version is probably closest to what the ideal musical adaptation of Candide should be, and I would love to see it revived under the direction of someone like Rachel Chavkin or Alex Timbers. However, it seems like when Candide is produced, it is some grander, larger version.
Has there ever been a show with a score that is so wonderful but also so completely inappropriate for what the show is trying to be?