Natasha, Pierre, and the Great Casting Controversy of 2017

Okieriete "Oak" Onaodowan as Pierre in Natasha, Pierre, and the Great Comet of 1812.

What a mess. That's about the only way to describe the brouhaha that has arisen over what initially seemed like a fairly innocuous piece of replacement casting for the Tony-nominated production of Natasha, Pierre, and the Great Comet of 1812. For those who may have missed it, on Wednesday the producers of Dave Malloy's musical fantasia announced that Mandy Patinkin would step into the role of Pierre for a limited 3 week engagement starting August 15th. It was quite a get for the production, as the beloved Tony-winner hasn't been seen on Broadway since his concert evening with Patti LuPone in 2011, and hasn't tackled a role in a musical since originating Burrs in Michael John LaChiusa's The Wild Party all the way back in 2000.

But shortly thereafter, a vocal segment of Twitter cried foul, as Patinkin's surprise Broadway return meant that the production's current Pierre, Okieriete "Oak" Onaodowan, would be cutting his run in the role short barely a month after taking over for original leading man Josh Groban. Many questioned if there was a racial motivation behind asking a black actor to step aside for a white performer, and Onaodowan for his part made it clear that he was turning down the producers' invitation to return to the show after Patinkin finished his run. Although nothing was explicitly said, one gets the impression there's some bad blood between Onaodowan and the producers over the way this was handled, and that Onaodowan's departure wasn't the mutual agreement it was made out to be in the initial press release. The famously principled Patinkin subsequently withdrew from the production on Friday, stating that he would never knowingly take a job that would harm another actor.

Now, a couple of clarifications. I don't think Onaodowan is out of line to be a bit perturbed by the way this was handled, and I admire Patinkin's integrity in withdrawing from the show as a public rebuke to the producers. But the cries of this casting being in any way racially motivated strike me as bullshit, and I think those arguing otherwise are doing a huge disservice to the important and necessary conversation around diversity in the theatre. 

Let's not forget that the producers of The Great Comet have gone out of their way to cast ethnically diverse actors from day one (they've even won awards for it). The lead role of Natasha has been very pointedly *not* white from the start, being originated by Chinese-American actress Phillipa Soo Off-Broadway before the beautifully dark-skinned Denee Benton took over for the show's Broadway transfer. The producers also had no problem casting Amber Grey to play the sister of the very Aryan Lucas Steele, and the ensemble is full wonderfully diverse performers that many casting directors would argue have no business being in a show set in 17th century Russia. These are all conscious choices that show the producers obviously care about representation; it makes no sense for them to suddenly decide ethnic performers can't lead their show.

What happened here is simply a case of needing a name to drive ticket sales. As composer Dave Malloy admitted on Twitter Friday, the show's advance sales have taken a nosedive since multiplatinum recording star Groban departed the show earlier this month. Well known singer-songwriter Ingrid Michaelson was brought in to play the key supporting role of Sonya the day after Groban left to help boost ticket sales, a move that seems to have worked in the short term. (It should be noted that Michaelson's casting resulting in another performer taking a leave of absence from the show and no one batted an eyelash.) Patinkin's scheduled start date the day after Michaelson's departure was an obvious attempt to keep the show running with ticket sales high.

It is a classic example of the problem with star casting, as shows built around a particular performer have difficulty sustaining interest once said performer leaves. (For an extreme example, the smash hit revival of Hello, Dolly! lost over $1 million in ticket sales when Bette Midler went on vacation earlier this month.) Great Comet was sold from day one as a Josh Groban vehicle, perhaps understandably so. Can anyone imagine the oddball, immersive show securing a prime theatre like the Imperial and running for months at near capacity without a big name to put butts in seats? The producers' gamble clearly worked. 

What they realized too late was that they had no idea how to sell the daring, somewhat divisive show without a star who has a huge, devoted fanbase willing to spend big bucks to see him or her. Patinkin's wide exposure thanks to roles on high profile television shows like Homeland and Criminal Minds - not to mention a beloved supporting turn in the movie The Princess Bride - gives him significantly box office draw than a talented but little known performer like Onaodowan. (Yes, Onaodowan was in Hamilton, but he didn't star in Hamilton, and the Pultizer Prize-winning musical's continued sold out status proves that for that production the show is the draw more than any individual actor.) A white actor with a similar resume would have found himself in the exact same position of being "asked" to step aside the moment Patinkin's schedule opened up.

And that is the reason why this mess still feels icky, despite the lack of racial motivation. Onaodowan was only scheduled to be with the show for 2 months to begin with, and he was unceremoniously dumped the second a bigger star came along. Further, the producers clearly fudged the truth when presenting the idea to Patinkin, making it appear as if Onaodowan had agreed to take a leave of absence rather than being forced out. What they didn't count on was the true story making its way to Patinkin, and the Tony winner changing his mind when he found out his new gig was forcibly taking a job from another actor who had already been promised a set number of performances.

So feel free to condemn the producers of Great Comet for this situation, but leave the accusations of racism out of it. It is dangerous to raise the specter of racism in a case where that clearly wasn't the intent. Crying wolf on a matter as important as the treatment of black performers will make it that much more difficult to get people to pay attention when true injustices occur. It will be easier to discount complaints about mistreatment as fabrications, and it could well discourage other productions from going after diverse casts if they feel it is a "no win" situation. We need to encourage and educate our allies, not dismiss them after one unintentional misstep. 

Will It Recoup? Winter 2012 Edition

The past couple of months have brought with them a flurry of new shows hoping to take advantage of the influx of tourists clogging the streets of Times Square during the holidays.  And while some of these shows may do quite well for themselves, the sad fact is that most shows, even if they are brilliant, will never recoup their initial investment.  Here’s a look at the next 5 musicals opening this season, and my personal analysis of their money-making potential.

An Evening with Patti LuPone and Mandy Patinkin

The former Evita costars finally return to the Great White Way in this combination concert/vanity project.  The pair (expectedly) leans heavily on the work of Stephen Sondheim, and offers up a couple of dynamite renditions of songs from the show that made them famous.  They also perform abridged versions of Rodgers & Hammerstein’s Carousel and South Pacific, despite both actors being far too old for the romantic leads  (LuPone in particular strains credibility as Nellie Forbrush and Julie Jordan).

Will It Recoup?  Hard to say, although my gut tells me “no.”  Working in the show’s favor is its small size, with only two performers and two musicians on the payroll.  Given their genuine love of the theatre and one another, I wouldn’t even be surprised to learn LuPone and Patinkin had agreed to relatively modest salaries for this endeavor.  But the unfortunate box office reality is that theatre stars – and make no mistake, these are two legitimate Broadway stars who make the newer generation look woefully untalented by comparison – rarely draw the same size audiences that Hollywood celebrities do.  LuPone and Patinkin’s fans definitely skew older, which will limit their box office appeal, but there is an upside to that:  older audiences tend to pay full price.

On a Clear Day, You Can See Forever

I’m just going to say it: I have no idea why this show is being revived, let alone on Broadway.  For the past decade, most musical revivals have employed some combination of a well-respected property, one or more big name stars, and a well-regarded “tryout” production, be it in the West End or at a regional theatre.  Clear Day has such a notoriously problematic book that the show is rarely performed, and its big name star (Harry Connick, Jr.) is playing way outside his comfort zone.  Director Michael Mayer has completely reconceived the show, rewriting so much of the show’s book he considers it more of a new musical than a revival.

Will It Recoup?  I’m going out on a limb and saying that not only will this musical not recoup, it will be one of the biggest flops of the season.  Star Harry Connick, Jr. won’t be able to rely on his innate charm like he did in The Pajama Game, and those who do show up specifically to see the crooner may be thrown for a loop by the show’s downbeat tone.  And the last time director Michael Mayer was this heavily involved in a show’s actual script, we got American Idiot, a misguided musical that failed to ignite the box office despite having massively popular Green Day songs for its score.  Mayer’s retooling of the show’s already bizarre plot now centers on the love triangle between a therapist (Connick, Jr.), his gay male patient, and that gay patient’s past self as a female longue singer.  It's as if Mayer was actively trying to alienate both the show’s existing fans and the matinee ladies who typically drive the success of these types of shows!  This has disaster written all over it.

Lysistrata Jones
After a successful Off-Broadway run earlier this year, Lysistrata Jones (loosely based on the Greek comedy Lysistrata) arrives on Broadway as one of the more interesting new musicals of the season.  The titular heroine, a transfer student to fictional Athens University, convinces the school’s cheerleaders to withhold sex from their basketball-playing boyfriends until the team breaks its long running losing streak.  It all sounds like an entertaining if lightweight evening of theatre, but I worry if the small scale show might be better suited to smaller scale Off-Broadway venues like the one that birthed it (the previous New York production took place in an actual gymnasium).

Will It Recoup?  I would like to say yes, because it would be nice to see new musicals continue to flourish, but my heart tells me no.  I’m just not convinced the show is strong enough to endure all the pressure that comes with being a Broadway musical.  And book writer Douglas Carter Beane remains on my shitlist after the atrocity that was the book to last season’s Sister Act.  But from a financial standpoint, the greatest problem with this show is its absolutely abysmal grosses during previews.  The show has yet to break $200,000 a week, and while preview grosses are always lower due to discounted or comped tickets intended to fill seats and spread word of mouth, I doubt the producers can even pay their bills on that amount.  The show needs some kind of turnaround, and I’m not sure the mixed to positive reviews it received will be enough to cause one.

The Gershwin’s Porgy and Bess

She’s back.  After four long years in Hollywood, Audra McDonald is back on Broadway in a true American classic – assuming Diane Paulus’ production hasn’t strayed so far from the famed opera by the brothers Gershwin that it’s unrecognizable.  Paulus and her new book writer Suzan-Lori Parks incurred the wrath of God (well, Stephen Sondheim, but in musical theatre they’re practically the same thing) when word got out they were toying with new scenes and a new ending during the show’s out of town tryout.  But the latest info says these changes were nixed in favor of a less radical reinterpretation of the piece, and no matter what, you can bet that McDonald will be sensational as Bess.

Will It Recoup?  This show is well poised for financial success.  Audra McDonald is Broadway royalty, and may well have picked up even more fans after four years on a hit TV show.  Theatre folk will turn out in droves to see McDonald play this role, and Sondheim’s nasty editorial in the Times probably garnered a huge amount of free publicity.  Ben Brantley raved about McDonald out of town, and I have a feeling Paulus and her team are smart enough to have actually used the time since then to bring the rest of the show up to that level.  And by setting the show up as a limited run, the producers have shifted to a business model that by necessity will make the show more cost effective, as they now have less time to actually make back their money.

Once

Well, you certainly can’t accuse the producers of Once of lacking faith in their show.  Before it even opened Off-Broadway, they announced a transfer for this stage adaptation of the Oscar-winning indie film.  And why not?  The show had already garnered strong buzz during previews, including lots of positive word of mouth.  While the reviews that greeted the show could have been stronger, they were certainly encouraging, and Once could end up as one of the season’s sleeper hits.

Will It Recoup?  Although I wouldn’t call Once a sure thing, it is certainly well positioned to make back its investment costs.  Strong ticket sales helped prompt the Broadway transfer in the first place, so the show definitely has an audience.  Although there won’t be much time for rewrites between its Off-Broadway closing and Broadway opening, there will be plenty of time for the performers to become more comfortable in their roles and find the nuances that could propel the show into greatness.  With the lack of strong competition among this season’s new musicals, the show may end up being the best option for a lot of theatre goers, and could prove a strong contender for Tony Awards in the spring.  And if the small cast show receives the box office bump that comes with a Best Musical win, I’m almost certain it will make back its money by the end of next year.

Review: An Evening With Patti LuPone and Mandy Patinkin

An Evening with Patti LuPone and Mandy Patinkin, the limited engagement concert featuring the two Tony-winning Broadway legends, is a difficult show to review.  The pair has stated their intention was to create a show that breaks away from the “he sings, she sings” mold often utilized by such ventures, and in that, Evening succeeds.  But while viewing the show, especially the problematic first act, it’s hard not to wish for something a little closer to that tried and true format.

LuPone and Patinkin perform the entire evening in character, or possibly characters, as there is never a distinct break between the various segments.  There is no between song banter or fourth-wall breaking, although there are several scenes interspersed among the 35 songs which make up the concert’s two acts.  This requires the audience to provide a great deal of the songs’ context, and also ends up distancing the pair from the audience.  If you’re going to spend An Evening with someone, it would be nice if you left feeling like you’d gotten to know them, especially if they have famously outsized personalities like LuPone and Patinkin.

Both actors are in fine form vocally, although their particular vocal quirks seem to be more pronounced than in the past.  They sing plenty of Sondheim, which is to be expected, but also a surprisingly large amount of Rodgers and Hammerstein.  Come prepared to see condensed versions of the entirety of Carousel and South Pacific, as the pair performs all the standards from both shows and a fair amount of the book scenes which connect them. 

After a first act dominated by medleys and truncated songs (LuPone performs just enough of “Getting Married Today” from Sondheim’s Company to make you want to see the whole thing, and Patinkin pulls a similar trick with “Loving You” from Passion), you would be forgiven for feeling a bit disappointed.  But then Act II rolls around, and is so thoroughly enjoyable that it almost succeeds in washing the first half’s bad taste out of your mouth.  Ironically, it adheres much closer to the traditional “he sings, she sings” format, and is stronger for it.

Act II contains all the material you were likely hoping for when the show began, with the performers recreating their greatest career triumphs.  LuPone starts things off with a rousing rendition of “Some People” from her Tony-winning work in Gypsy, followed by a strong if somewhat manic rendition of Follies’ “The God-Why-Don’t-You-Love-Me Blues” by Patinkin.

And then the pair gets to the show that catapulted each of them to fame (and respective Tony Awards).  After a welcome breaking of the fourth wall to remind the audience they met and became friends doing a little skit called Evita, each actor reprises one of their iconic songs from that show.  Patinkin offers up a bone-rattling performance of “Oh What a Circus,” showcasing his best vocals and acting moments of the entire night.  After his well-deserved standing ovation, LuPone brings the house down with her searing “Don’t Cry for Me, Argentina.”  Watching these two performances reminds everyone that these two masters earned their fame through sheer talent, and reiterates the high standards the upcoming Evita revival will need to meet.

While playing Rose in Gypsy, LuPone sang “you either got it, or you ain’t.”  Despite some missteps along the way, LuPone and Patinkin have most certainly got it, and they are proving it with this concert.  Fans of either performer owe it to themselves to catch this Evening, and those who have not had the pleasure of seeing these two legends onstage should make the effort to see them now.  After all, better late than never.