Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy- Page 9

[darquegk]

Posted: 9/1/17 at 3:04pm

Even an old, non-canon Pierre like Patinkin would come off less "dirty old man" than "harmlessly young at heart." I liken the character very much to lovable loser Pete Martell from the original run of "Twin Peaks." Jack Nance's lovable old guy may have nursed a crush on every woman in Twin Peaks (his evil wife included), but everyone knew he'd never hurt a fly, even when he asked Audrey Horne on a chivalrous almost-date in one of the last two episodes before his character's death.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 9/1/17 at 3:10pm

Call_me_jorge said: "If two people love each other why can't they be together? Isn't that the argument for gay marriage? Why can't people just accept love for what it is?I've never seen the show, but from what I can tell from the album natasha has at least a little bit of admiration for Pierre. I think if Mandy were to have been Pierre it would have been perfectly fine."

Agreed. I'm a little disappointed with the ageism in this thread. To me, saying that the actor playing Pierre has to be close in age to the one playing Natasha is not very different from saying that they also need to be of the same race. (I do recognize that racism has historically resulted in much more evil than ageism, but they're qualitatively similar forms of irrationality.)

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 9/1/17 at 3:43pm

I don't think it's ageism so much as a reaction to the inherent sexism that is often behind casting a young actress and an older male actor to play her love interest.  

Edit: I want to clarify that I don't find this particular casting decision sexist, but I think it's hard to view it without that framework given how prevalent it is. 

Updated On: 9/1/17 at 03:43 PM

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 9/1/17 at 3:46pm

Didn't you just say you wouldn't want to see an older natasha?

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 9/1/17 at 3:50pm

I'm not being inconsistent. I want a young Natasha and a young Pierre. I don't like casting older actors in either role (as I said before about Pierre).

[hmph]

Posted: 9/1/17 at 4:30pm

HogansHero said: "JayElle said: "Wow, Hogan. The Kagan's strike again. The theater was on 42nd St..American Airline maybe?


no, it was what is now the Lyric which I think was the Foxwoods at that time."

I believe it was the Foxwoods until a few months before On the Town came in, so it was the Lyric throughout its run. If you couldn't tell by my avatar, I was a huge fan!

[bear88]

Posted: 9/1/17 at 4:47pm

HogansHero said: "@bear88 re zeitgeist (perhaps a euphemism for word of mouth). Let's not forget that in most cases it has to be manufactured. That's producing. I think CFA was close to an exception but I suspect even there that it was well lubricated. Comet had zeitgeist at Ars Nova, and it continued downtown. The uptown tent never really sustained that feeling and then the Broadway engagement could never decide what it was selling. To me the show was about a special and (I hate this word but...) unique I experience and the message was "you gotta get in this space." But on Broadway it became the Josh Groban show (until it literally turned its back on him, and then what?) As we have rehearsed it is highly unlikely it could have done enough at the Imperial but it had a window and they let it close."

The appeal of Great Comet, for me, was that it was the sort of musical that broke with convention and offered a special theatrical experience. I read enough about the show beforehand to think I would at least enjoy it. I didn't know anyone in the cast, even Josh Groban. 

I think one of the show's problems was that it tried to split the difference. Casting Groban was a blessing because it attracted his fans, but anyone expecting to see The Josh Groban Show would have left disappointed. There are long stretches when he's not doing much, and he only becomes the star in his two first act solos and in the final 25 minutes. That did muddy the waters in terms of promotion. Are you seeing a cool, totally different musical that you really have to experience, or are you seeing the very mainstream Groban in his first Broadway show? (This is not meant as a criticism of Groban in the musical. I thought he was terrific.)

The idea of Circle and a scaled-down production seems like it might have had a better chance to keep the focus on the show as the star. I am increasingly convinced that this wouldn't have worked either, because Great Comet just didn't have the mainstream appeal that other, unusual shows have. Plus, I'm not sure it opens without Groban. The musical had too many quirks that seemed to turn off many theatergoers, and its immersive nature repelled as many people as it attracted. It bugged me when a woman I sat next to at a San Francisco show a few weeks ago dismissed Great Comet, without prompting, as a 'weird' musical she disliked strongly. But that has been many people's reaction. The show elicits strong responses, positive and negative. There just weren't enough people who loved it.

That said, I am grateful that Howard Kagan and the other producers threw caution and common sense to the wind for this particular project. Great Comet was a long shot that didn't beat the odds and is ending with financial losses and ugly recriminations. But for me, the show was an entertaining and unexpectedly moving experience. So I'm not complaining.

 

[JayElle]

Posted: 9/2/17 at 1:34am

Agree Bear88 that GC repelled and attracted folks.  Tonight, the audience just about blew the roof off.  Folks next to me loved it, but complained along the lines I've heard too many times before: couldn't understand the lyrics b/c the music was so loud.

I've been in various seats on the stage. The lower tavern next to the bar has terrible acoustics compared to the bleachers (banquets) and tables.   And several whined that telecharge didn't warn them about the 3 minutes of strobes and "weeeee had to shut our eyeeeesss."   

Opera goers know the plot of shows they see and many speak the various languages (german, italian, etc). Too much to ask of Bway tourists.  For ultimate enjoyment, I found it necessary to know the GC story and hear the music w/lyrics several times prior.

This show may go on tour and off/Bway, but I'm glad I got to see the OC intact who were simply great. And I didn't hesitate to whisper that to them if they happened to sit or perform near me.

So theater grad students, how about a graduate thesis on "how not to produce & screw up a show" and call it the "Great Comet of 2017 Crashed & Burned," though many enjoyed its glory.

An aside, actor sighting at Friday nite's show: Bebe Neurwith and John Laroquette, tho not together.

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 9/2/17 at 7:58am

"Shuffle Along, or The Making of The Great Comet of 2017 And All That Followed"

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 9/2/17 at 8:49am

I think it would "Natasha Pierre and the great comet of 1812 or the great casting controversy of 2017 and all that followed"

[David10086]

Posted: 9/2/17 at 9:06am

To think just one week in July doomed this show forever. I'm glad I saw it when I got the chance. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/2/17 at 9:56am

David10086 said: "To think just one week in July doomed this show forever. "

well, to think that is to reveal how little you understand, but whatever...

[JustAnotherNewYorker]

Posted: 9/2/17 at 10:35am

HogansHero said: "David10086 said: "To think just one week in July doomed this show forever. "

well, to think that is to reveal how little you understand, but whatever..."

I agree with Hogan on this (not that Hogan cares). The seeds of this failure were planted when they made it about stunt casting (although unclear to me what other choice they had with this wonderful but odd production). They sealed their fate when they didn't have a signed contract in hand for the eventual Groban replacement before Josh left. The events with Mandy might have moved the close date by a few weeks, but the show was unfortunately dead in the water long before that. The "celebrity interested" was a hail Mary--maybe it would have worked, but they should have locked someone in long before Oak started.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/2/17 at 10:50am

Hogan cares.

even more than CBS cares. 

[PaulWom]

Posted: 9/2/17 at 12:55pm

JustAnotherNewYorker said: "HogansHero said: "David10086 said: "To think just one week in July doomed this show forever. "

well, to think that is to reveal how little you understand, but whatever..."

I agree with Hogan on this (not that Hogan cares). The seeds of this failure were planted when they made it about stunt casting (although unclear to me what other choice they had with this wonderful but odd production). They sealed their fate when they didn't have a signed contract in hand for the eventual Groban replacement before Josh left. The events with Mandy might have moved the close date by a few weeks, but the show was unfortunately dead in the water long before that. The "celebrity interested" was a hail Mary--maybe it would have worked, but they should have locked someone in long before Oak started."

We've debated for a long time  about the show's financial recoupment ability, but you simply cannot tell me that this show would've closed Sept 3rd anyway (which, by the way, seems like an awfully convienent excuse that the Oak apologists are using), and not, say, in January- especially because they had a TV star lined up after Mandy. After that, who knows-- but don't be naive enough to fall for the "would've closed September 3rd anyway" line. People would still be employed if not for Oak, IMO- for how much longer, who knows, but even a few months can make a difference in someone's life.

Remember, HogansHero, you denied that Oak had any wrongdoing in the earlier thread about "Poison Oak". Now you seemed to have shifted your argument to the false "well, it doesn't matter anyway." 

Updated On: 9/2/17 at 12:55 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/2/17 at 1:24pm

PaulWom said: "We've debated for a long time about the show's financial recoupment ability, but you simply cannot tell me that this show would've closed Sept 3rd anyway (which, by the way, seems like an awfully convienent excuse that the Oak apologists are using), and not, say, in January- especially because they had a TV star lined up after Mandy.After that, who knows-- but don't be naive enough to fall for the "would've closed September 3rd anyway" line. People would still be employed if not for Oak, IMO- for how much longer, who knows, but even a few months can make a difference in someone's life.

Remember, HogansHero, you denied that Oak had any wrongdoing in the earlier thread about "Poison Oak". Now you seemed to have shifted your argument to the false "well, it doesn't matter anyway.""

First of all, I have not shifted my argument. Some folks, myself included, don't think Oak did anything wrong; others, like you, do. But as to what we are discussing now, that is logically irrelevant. The other thing I have been saying since 2016 is that the show was doomed to failed from the get-go. And that is why it is ridiculous to pin that failure on "one week in July [2017]." That is delusional. 

We have no way of knowing if there was someone actually coming in 9/3, whether that person was actually a "star" in the sense they could have sold a significant number of tickets, when the show would have closed or anything else. But it does not matter. Nothing was going to make this show a success. Perhaps the greatest delusion in your thinking is that you actually believe that you are entitled to have a show continue to run because you like it, and that cast and crew are entitled to continue to be employed because it is bad to be unemployed, and that the investors don't matter. As I said before, that's just crazy talk. If you want to have an intelligent conversation about this show, great, but I see no evidence you do: you want to continue wandering around in fantasy land. 

[schubox]

Posted: 9/2/17 at 1:51pm

I think most people, myself included, wouldn't argue the show was doomed to close sometime soon. But several people have pointed out that all this stuff with Oak almost certainly accelerated that time line. I've yet to see you acknowledge that. Do you honestly think all of the controversy had 0 effect on the production and when it closed?

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 9/2/17 at 2:17pm

^right?! If the controversy didn't happen, the show could have still made through January. Which is what I think is terrible about the whole ordeal. It didn't need to close now.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/2/17 at 3:22pm

schubox said: "I think most people, myself included, wouldn't argue the show was doomed to close sometime soon. But several people have pointed out that all this stuff with Oak almost certainly accelerated that time line. I've yet to see you acknowledge that. Do you honestly think all of the controversy had 0 effect on the production and when it closed?"

I am not arguing about the "when" because it is not germane to my point, and also because I don't know, and you don't know and they don't know. The Oak stuff certainly had an effect but we don't know what it was. The only thing we know for a fact is what Malloy said, which is that the show had no advance and that Mandy was going to provide 3 weeks of good advances. That's what I would acknowledge. But it astonishes me that there are people who think that Oak was to blame for not choosing to shed his dignity and help a show that had just fired him. 

 

[bear88]

Posted: 9/2/17 at 4:57pm

This debate is starting to get smaller. Now the question is whether the show would have closed Sept. 3 or limped along to the end of the year?

I can only go by reported facts, statements by people with fewer reasons to lie, and reasonable deductions (which obviously include a little opinion and speculation):

Last year - Josh Groban hired to play Pierre, show to open at Imperial with major interior redesign. Groban, who I admit I didn't know much about at the time, is a bestselling music star. But his audience is decidedly mainstream and more conservative. He's an odd fit for an avant garde show like Great Comet, and he changes expectations for the show. It's now seen by many people as a star vehicle, because Groban is a star. 

November - The show opens to mostly positive reviews. Groban is a draw, but producer Howard Kagan has trouble filling the seats whenever he's out. One Riedel report has him essentially begging disappointed Groban fans to give the show a chance. (I'm not a big fan of Riedel, but I have little reason to think he was making up this anecdote.)

December - Dear Evan Hansen opens to very positive reviews, especially for Ben Platt. The show, with its modern-day setting and teenage protagonist, is perfectly pitched to its audience (which includes parents of teenagers) and becomes an immediate hit. Opinion: At that moment, and in the two months that followed, it should have been clear that a Best Musical Tony was probably unlikely. And that's not counting any surprises from the spring shows. And there was one, in the form of Come From Away. 

February - With great fanfare, Kagan announces the hiring of Onaodowan, who is known to the public only for his dual role as Mulligan and Madison in the original cast of Hamilton. According to the Paulson story, director Rachel Chavkin recommended him based on their previous experience working together. I remember thinking at the time, long before seeing the show or knowing that I would, that it seemed like a strange choice. Outside of Hamilton, he's an unknown, and nobody saw Hamilton for Onaodowan even if they liked him. He's only hired for a couple of months anyway, making me think he's some sort of placeholder for a bigger box office draw. Main point: Kagan didn't hire a star to replace Groban as Pierre, either because he couldn't find one, or because he was too confident in his show's prospects.

May - Tony nominations announced. But in the reporting, it's clear that the Best Musical race is between Dear Evan Hansen and Come From Away, as has been obvious for a while. Great Comet, aside from getting the most nominations, is a total afterthought. In June, it doesn't win, and gets shut out of everything but the technical categories.

July - Groban leaves the show, and everything goes to hell. In the midst of the whole Patinkin/Onoaodowan flap, creator Dave Malloy says the Patinkin move was being made because the show's advance sales were dreadful after pop star Ingrid Michaelson left her brief run in mid-August and that the show was in danger of closing and might not have a future anyway.  Aside from defending himself against allegations of racism, why would Malloy lie about that? 

Further, Patinkin was going to be a short-term solution. He would have been in the show for three weeks. Even if his three weeks sold as well as Groban's final three weeks in the show, how would that have helped the show after Labor Day? Some people would have come out to see Patinkin, and a percentage would have decided they liked the show too, but that's it.

There is no reason to think the producers would have been so desperate to get Patinkin for three weeks if they had a box office draw coming in after Labor Day. The show could have survived three bad weeks. And if they waited until July to try to find a star, when they knew for months that the show wasn't getting the only Tony that mattered and wasn't even the second-biggest new musical of the season, that would be extremely irresponsible. No wonder the investors want an audit.

For the sake of this discussion, I'm leaving out the actions of Onaodowan. Some of it is backstage gossip that no one would have heard or cared about if the public relations disaster hadn't happened. I have my own personal views on some of the public statements made, but none of this would have mattered so much if the musical wasn't so vulnerable. 

I agree that the show almost certainly wouldn't be closing Sept. 3 without the whole mess. But how much longer would it have lasted, given its high expenses? How impatient would the investors have been if the show started losing money again, when they only had gotten 15 percent back in the first place? The controversy appears to have helped the box office during Onaodowan's last week, and it's certainly helping now, as people come out to see a much-lauded show that's closing (or to revisit it). But if Onaodowan was still in the show, and nothing had happened, Malloy tells us the box office was going to fall off a cliff. And that was a crisis, because the show had no savior who was running to its rescue. The "TV star" was clearly not going to be a magic solution or the producers wouldn't have panicked. Kagan admits in the Times story, and Malloy has said on Twitter, that Great Comet needs a star to succeed, to even survive.

They didn't have a star, and Great Comet wasn't a word-of-mouth hit. That's why the show is closing.

Updated On: 9/2/17 at 04:57 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/2/17 at 6:47pm

@bear88 very comprehensive and thoughtful. I would just add the Ars Nova kerfluffle to the early chronology. 

[chernjam]

Posted: 9/2/17 at 8:15pm

bear88 - thanks for the thorough chronology and I think you're spot on here.  Have to admit, I've rarely paid as much attention to something I've never seen/nor had interest to see as I have with this which is very perplexing to me.  

I was intrigued by the story - and when I heard Josh Groban was going to be in it, having been a fan of his (and hoping he would have starred in a Lloyd Webber musical for some time) I was interested.  But what stopped me from curiosity to actually buying a ticket and going?  The music.  Nothing of what I heard or saw piqued my interest.  I'm not disparaging those who are huge fans of the show.  We all have different tastes and all.  

But it's interesting - to me that even when the producers wen through the great expense of producing the music videos from the show, for example the ballad "Sonya Alone" - I was absolutely bored with it.  Watched it four times to see if I missed something or if it grabbed me and it didn't.  The point is that this is a niche show.  You either have real fans that it clicks for - or you need a real name to grab people's interest and get their butts in the seats in the theatre.

bear is spot on - when they announced Groban's replacement, with great fanfare, my first thought was "who is Oak?" and when it was pointed out "the guy from Hamilton" my second thought was "no one went to see Hamilton because of Oak... this is going to be bad".  For what it's worth, my Mom was excited when she heard Mandy Pantinkin was "coming back to broadway" - as was my non-theatre going brother who's a huge Homeland fan.  That might have gotten the three of us to go in (me out of family pressure, with hopes that my hesitation was unfounded)  

As piss poor as Oak has been with all this - what's even more pathetic is the amateur producers who couldn't have figured out they needed a much better post-Groban plan than they did

[schubox]

Posted: 9/2/17 at 10:46pm

Yeah like I said, no sane person blames the closing solely on Oak, but, like you said, it did have a negative effect. And why would he speak up to save a show that just fired him? How about future employability. You think he's very hireable right now after 1. Not selling tickets and 2. Being in the center of a huge twitter cluster****. Coupled with tales of being unprepared and going back on his word?

[Notreallysilent 2]

Posted: 9/2/17 at 11:36pm

What I'm wondering is was this next person going to join right away? Maybe thays why they wanted to bring in Mandy, as possibly the new person couldn't have come in until later in September or October. This would have allowed them to get three strong weeks. It definitely would have helped boost the box office if Mandy came in, but maybe another part is just that he could only do those three weeks. They found someone famous to make his return to broadway in the show (as it seems he kept returning to see the show), and they tried to bring him In. The thing is I think oak not speaking made it worse for him his future employment. If he spoke up and turned down the rumors about race (which he even realized wasn't even true), he wouldn't seem as such a bad guy now. Though with the rumors that he met with these people and tried to get them to stir things, obviously he didn't want to talk, he wanted to let things continue.

[JustAnotherNewYorker]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 12:00am

Notreallysilent 2 said: "What I'm wondering is was this next person going to join right away? Maybe thays why they wanted to bring in Mandy, as possibly the new person couldn't have come in until later in September or October. This would have allowed them to get three strong weeks. It definitely would have helped boost the box office if Mandy came in, but maybe another part is just that he could only do those three weeks. They found someone famous to make his return to broadway in the show (as it seems he kept returning to see the show), and they tried to bring him In. The thing is I think oak not speaking made it worse for him his future employment. If he spoke up and turned down the rumors about race (which he even realizedwasn't even true), he wouldn't seem as such a bad guy now. Though with the rumors that he met with these people and tried to get them to stir things, obviously he didn't want to talk, he wanted to let things continue."

If so, they would have asked Oak to come back in September WHEN they first told him about the three weeks, not afterwards as damage control, Being "fired" but paid for 3 weeks looks bad, being asked to take a short break to allow a Broadway legend to slot in and then return (while being paid for the entire thing) looks much better.