She missed the opportunity to say she was giving 76%. It was right. There.

@nicoletrudell2065

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for outlining the real controversy here.

@BKDAYZ

Жыл бұрын

I think there’s a big difference between someone becoming a surgeon let’s say and someone becoming a successful actor on Broadway. Becoming a doctor there’s a pretty clear path that one has to take. Because of that no one thinks as physicians as “ being lucky”. Becoming a successful actor on Broadway involves SO many factors that often are out of the control of the performer that it lends its self to the feeling of “being lucky” or being “the chosen one” . Because of this, it’s very easy to understand why people could think of her as ungrateful.

@TheGeoDaddy

Жыл бұрын

As if Broadway 🎭 isn’t having enuff problems getting back to filling theatres with a fraction of tourism and the fewer theatre having to go through a gauntlet of homeless and thugs in subways and Penn Station… The whole agenda to push WOKE politics is just another good reason for NORMAL people to NOT blow hundred$$$ to thousand$$$ going to NYC to see Soviet Democrat Party propaganda pushing Socialist, Secular, Egalitarian and Hedonistic talking-points. And - taking a Historic piece and casting it with anti-white tropes to appease the the WOKE (noting that Broadway could not have rebooted without Federal tax dollars ie 99% of people who do not go to Broadway having their hard earned income going to Party propaganda) I get “Hamilton” being pushed as an anti-white promotion of illegal immigration (currently clogging up NYC hotels) being cast “black” but the fact that none of the Founding Fathers were black is just an attack on the “Four Olds” (read Mao’s Cultural Revolution) as casting Period Pieces in England with Black Queens or Black female Vikings… there are more KZread discussions on the whole fetish of “blacken” History to eradicate History… when will Nelson Mandela be played by a ‘white’ ? Oh, yes, Critical Racist Theory (CRT) “only and all ‘white’ people are racist” (probably the most racist concept in Human History) What surprises me is that this young fellow usually reviews shows based on - musical - merits but this shows how propaganda trumps intellect (though True Believers regard their beliefs as a Religion not to be questioned) but the fact is that the show’s songs were written for the MALE voice and had to be transposed for the FEMALE range… same song? Years of Operatic Theatre say No! Just to have an alto soprano sing a sing written for a basso is like having a guy pretending to be a girl winning all the races (though WOKE propagandists have no problem eradicating “women’s sports”) My only question in NOT going up to see this production was - were Abigail and Martha played by MEN? Even Trans wouldn’t be faithful to the agenda??? As far as this “controversy” it all misses the point of the production - having been a massive FLOP that pissed away American Tax dollars - with some intestine squabble that only proves Cultural Marxism eventually runs outta tropes and “eats its own young” Economic reality will set in and the BILLION$$$ wasted on the WOKE agenda to translate the arts into Socialist propaganda will be regarded as the last sin of the West as we spent our way into financial oblivion… like Roman Circuses as the Empire collapsed (BTW the WOKE advocated sure don’t have a problem with factory slave labor in China making their iPhones or child slave labor in Africa digging up lithium for their EV cars… on scale that dwarfs the Colonial Europeans for any given year… 🧐 even before we mention tourist sex trafficking and drugs!)

This is definitely a case where if she had media training a lot of her answers could still be honest without unintentionally throwing fellow cast and crew under the bus

@paulamusik2509

Жыл бұрын

This! 👆

If a newly employed teacher were to criticise their principal in a widely-read publication it would be just as controversial within the teaching community. There’s a difference between having feelings and opinions about your job and venting them in such a public way. It will be interesting to see who should employ her after this.

@amandabenson1793

Жыл бұрын

Yeah…. I definitely don’t think the Tony nod is coming for this role now.

@jamesmason6695

Жыл бұрын

​@@amandabenson1793 Unless they all collectively envision a headline they were overlooked for being too outspoken, or alternatively, they just vote on merit.

I saw this production last week and mostly liked it. Sara was as memorable as many others on stage, and I cringe at the assumption that she is "the breakout star" from such an ensemble piece.

@squidthing

Жыл бұрын

Her saying that her 75% is better than other actors (unmatched!) when many reviews don't even mention her performance 😬

@DemKatie42

Жыл бұрын

When I saw it the understudy was playing Rutledge and she was great. I don't feel like I missed out.

One of my singing teachers once told me to try for 75% in every performance, no more. If some days it's 95%, great, if it's sometimes 65, no biggie. I now have a professional career in musical theatre and that has turned out to be one of the best pieces of advice i've ever received, especially as an overachiever. It's literally impossible to give 100% in every single performance and if I demand that from myself i'm gonna get burned out real fast. I believe everyone who actually works as an actor in musicals knows this. Every performance cannot be the same level, we are human beings and a trillion factors affect every performance we give.

@accountforwastingtime

Жыл бұрын

Every theatre actor knows what the 75% comment means for sure.

@frankdelorca

Жыл бұрын

Sounds like your singing teacher had about a 75% (or less) investment in your success.

@jescan4

Жыл бұрын

She probably could have communicated that more clearly for an interview for the general public that may not understand the nuances of being a musical theater performer.

@saraescobedo4278

Жыл бұрын

@@accountforwastingtime I have noticed ALOT of performers are understanding this sentiment (myself included) ; )

@chuckoneill2023

Жыл бұрын

Certainly, the basic fact that no two performances are identical is part of why we enjoy live theatre.

She’s absolutely within her rights to say those things, but doing so in such a way (especially when you’re effectively a no name) is gonna burn a lot of bridges and immediately count you out in the eyes of many producers. More power to her for saying those things, but she can’t be shocked or upset when people don’t want to work with her because of such comments - especially when she’s not a big name or a breakout talent.

@pepperminttree

Жыл бұрын

agree, she has the right to say it, but doesn't necessarily mean that it was the wisest thing to do

@tanwencooper6928

Жыл бұрын

Yes. Exactly. Also its one things to say something like taht afyer you've left a show, and when you say it on a show thats currently running, where your going to have to work with these people the next day.

@claire2088

Жыл бұрын

@@tanwencooper6928 or say it on a show where there's already leaks that not all is well on set, but if there's a good environment and everyone's getting on well then it's just not something that's sensible to say. I wonder how much of that she'd expressed to the people she was referring to, cause honestly if I had no idea that someone felt like that and then they throw that much shade I'd never want to work near them again.

The veracity of Sara's points aside, I do think this is a good example of why it's important not to (in the most delicate terms possible) crap where you eat. There are ways she could have communicated the same disagreements without dumping on their coworkers, and without coming off as though they felt they were above it all. I agree - this could have gone a lot better with some PR training.

@eringray1160

Жыл бұрын

Dude… that’s exactly how Sara was though. There was always a whiff of self righteousness.

I think giving an interview like this is threading a tricky needle and she really failed to thread it (and the Twitter threads after were not great). Ultimately I'm not outraged at her, but I just have to question the wisdom of doing this. She's potentially self sabotaging.

Her tweets didn’t sit well with me, particularly when she said how her giving 50% is better than other performers giving 100%. It comes across as very arrogant to me. I think she had interesting things to say, but this was not the time or place. I also think context matters: she was given this opportunity by the PR people at 1776 to promote the show, and instead she says that parts are “cringe” and it should have never been revised. She basically did the opposite of what was asked. I find this to be another example of why I hate brutal honesty. I think a lot of times, being tactful helps get the point across better. Her crass comments completely overshadow a lot of her points that were actual worth talking about.

@apatouros7572

Жыл бұрын

this entire interview comes across very arrogant, off-putting, and negative...

@LeBasfondMusic

Жыл бұрын

They had some valid things to say in the Vulture piece, but unfortunately, a lot of it was not the right place for it. Certainly their tweets did not help, either. I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt, but said "ew" out loud reading their tweets.

@laurensocha5210

Жыл бұрын

I saw the show when it was in previews. I wanted to say something about "The Egg." I interpreted it as a reflection of the Founding Father's being rebellious and how it's America's foundation for the need to speak up and fight for change. Adding in moments of white supremacy and Jan 6th riots would have felt like pro white supremacy so I don't agree with Sara on this topic. Showing (non-verbal) images of fighting for change so all people will be equal was a better choice then condemning those that oppress. It's about the birth of freedom and the optimism of that continuing in the future. Not about oppression. Also, I think its obvious she doesn't give her all in her performances. Her choice. But I honestly forgot about her until I heard the interview. I remember other performers vividly but not her. I keep trying to think back to her big number and I can't remember her performance that well. I know she was there, she sings it, but I remember the staging of it. And the song is about black slavery in America. And yes there were non white members of the cast portraying white slave owners but I personally think adding them into the number in the other way would have cheapen the controversy. And eliminating them would be awkward. It was about the correct balance of who should play who. Not an easy decision but I understand why the creative team would. It was supposed to make you uncomfortable. I don't think she should have spoken this candid while in the show and I kept thinking why did you take the job? It was your choice. If it was about money and a paycheck, I'm ok with that but leave it as that. If I was working on that show with her I would feel super unappreciated as a coworker right now. When you work with people you know don't want to be there, it hurts morale. And I feel like she doesn't want to be there and if I was casting a show in the future, I would think twice about hiring her because she's a pr risk. I think she really hurt herself speaking while still in the show. I agree. She should have waited until the show was done. Speaking up is important, but you need to think before speaking. I think this will have consequences she didn't consider. I do want to agree that the putting on the coats at the beginning and taking them off at the end was stupid. I sat there thinking why? Then to find out it represents non traditional casting taking up the story and to make sure the audience notices that these are the voices that were left out in the past. Or something like that. At the show I saw, the creative team had a half hour talk afterwards. It was hard to follow why. Unless I missed the point during the show or at the talk, It didn't make sense to me. It was just weird. I agree with her on that.

@eringray1160

Жыл бұрын

I love seeing people say this about Sara. This was exactly the vibe she gave off in college.

Could you imagine what would have happened to her if Jerome Robbins or Bob Fosse were directing? She would have been out the stage door so fast that her head wouldn't have even had a chance to spin. Bottom line: If you want to trash the show you are in, and if you want everyone to know that you are God's gift to Broadway, wait until the show closes or be a humane being and save it for your autobiography.

@andrewabrams2515

Жыл бұрын

100%!!

@Junkyboyniichan

Жыл бұрын

Why is that a good thing? Why clamor for the era of draconian authoritarian on the part of directors, ready to drop the hammer if an actor steps even slightly out of place?

@NairAthul

Жыл бұрын

​​@@Junkyboyniichan expecting employees to NOT trash a product (bc that's what a Broadway show is , a product that they sell for money) in a PR piece (bc let's face it she's not Idina Menzel or Audra McDonald, this was def an opportunity to speak procured by the producers) isn't really "draconian". if she's not happy with the vision of the show, let someonelse who is replace her...they have the talent pool and again, the show isn't centered around her

@Junkyboyniichan

Жыл бұрын

@@NairAthul The fact that broadway has become a pop-theater product factory is exactly why I don't give a shit if someone wants to critique it from the inside. I'm not impressed by the "she's an employee" argument. Preventing employees from talking about their experiences on the job (and implying that you will fire them if you do) IS draconian. Unless she was being paid to read a script, she can say whatever the hell she wants, and if the consequence for that is that she is fired, then at least we're doing away with the myth that Broadway is about art. Which is actually worth it.

@josharagon4618

Жыл бұрын

yes

This is the kind of interview i want for ALW Cinderella from Carrie

@katesonell4239

Жыл бұрын

THIS. Carrie has been really open after the fact that she was pressured by the Heathers producers to perform while seriously ill and far from her best.

@accountforwastingtime

Жыл бұрын

@@katesonell4239 when people question the 100% thing, this is what musical theatres actors mean when they say that! (besides the whole it not being their entire lives things) I thought exactly of Carrie in Heathers and why you, as a human being, cannot realistically give 100% of yourself to a show 8-10 times a week, long-term.

I feel that it's not so much that they acknowledged that acting and performing are, at the end of the day, jobs just like any other job. It rubs me the wrong way that they felt the need to be so very negative, so publicly, so fully, and frankly unnecessarily at times (it's really a bad look to tear down the work of the director that you are currently under). I realize that I have to face my own bias and remember that actors aren't all starry-eyed starving artists willing to work for beans, but this just felt very thorough and veered into being a bit mean. So ot's overall a mixed bag. Maybe just a matter of saying things more tactfully; I back their sentiments, but it was gone about in the complete wrong way.

I think it's reasonable for someone to not always give 100%, because how are you going to make it through 8 shows a week if you give 100% to every show? It is definitely brave of them to say that outright, and I do think they maybe shouldn't have critiqued the direction so publicly, (unless, of course, Sara has already brought these critiques up with the directing team, and their thoughts have been dismissed, in which case 🤷‍♀️), but overall I would so love to see Sara in this. This casting take is nothing new, though -- I played Rutledge in an all-female production in Seattle back in 2015, and we started our production process before Hamilton had even come out on Broadway. And honestly, in a show like 1776, unless it's your moment, you kind of don't give 100% - there's a lot of sitting around onstage, drinking tea, chatting, playing cards, etc, as you're listening to other people do their thing.

Personally, the 75% comment isn't the problem with this interview. Especially as someone who has written, directed and performed their own work; Sara's definition of 100% is going to be different to other people's. I don't believe Broadway performers should have to eat sleep and breath their role in order to be giving an excellent performance, and personally I think that that's what Sara is referring to. BUT context is key, and making that statement at the end of an interview where they kinda trash the show and admit that they don't really want to be there makes it sound worse than it might have otherwise. As you mentioned, the timing of this is huge, as is the fact that this interview was most likely organised by the PR team of the show itself. It's not Sara's own personal interview, it's work. Part of her job in this interview was to generate excited for the show, and calling parts of it 'f**king cringe' is not doing that. It's also incredibly disrespectful to the creative team - there's a way to say you don't think the message comes across without being rude. Of course as someone who has been a director Sara is going to have differing opinions on choices made, and that's a super interesting thing to talk about, but they took this role on as an actor and it's important to remember that. They're clearly a very intelligent and insightful person, but this smacks of the 'I'm just being honest, if you're offended it's your problem' attitude. Lastly, while I'm all for acknowledging the reality of being a performer, relating this to working at Tesco is a misleading comparison. You describe people dreaming of working at Tesco because times are hard and the job market sucks - that may be true, but they're simply dreaming of having A job. If anything, that further highlights that performers ARE lucky to be making a living doing what they love (as is anyone who can live off a job that brings them real joy, regardless of what it is). That's not to say there won't be bad days or days where you just want to stay in bed, but it's still a pretty amazing position to be in. It's not about treating actors as 'better than', or acting itself as a vocation or something, but to not be able to say anything good about the experience beyond the pay and the social aspect does feel pretty... not ungrateful, then at least lacking grace and perspective.

@saraescobedo4278

Жыл бұрын

I agree..the job comparison wasn't fair. There ARE hundreds of people who WOULD take this role (happily) and yeah...you are WORKING. Sorry, but complaining about it is hard to digest. We know it's a lot to deal with.....HENCE THE PAYCHECK. People wanting jobs now is because they need....THE PAYCHECK. They want to survive and are just doing the best they can.

I really appreciated this nuanced response and discussion around Sara’s interview.

I think it worked heavily against their favor that this wasn’t all said during a video interview. So much room for painting their comments worse than they might have meant to come off as

I have no issues with the 75% comment. 8 shows a week at 100% is impossible. You can't sprint a marathon. I do believe, however, that many of their other statements were inappropriate. They can have their own opinions, but unless there is whistleblower-level harm, these comments should be private. There is a difference between criticizing directing choices between your friends and family and doing so in a public interview. If I criticized my job in an interview, I would be fired.

I definitely inhaled through my teeth a few times during the article especially with how she talked about the directing process. Now giving her the benefit of the doubt that these are things she’s discussed with the director and creative team it may not be as bad, but still feels a bit…..”oof”. Was she wrong to voice her opinions? No! Was she wrong with her criticism? Not necessarily (as someone who hasn’t seen the show)! She brings up topics that id be interest to hear her talk more about. However she’s walking a very thin line between voicing opinions and potentially stepping on toes. Especially when she’s working with these people still. I don’t think giving 75% is a bad thing at all. It’s honest and fair when you’re performing constantly and consistently. I think in the context of the interview it comes across a bit flippant when paired with her other comments of this just being a job when there are so many people who would kill for the chance she has. It does come across as if she’s disregarding some of her cast and crew and creative members and that’s going to leave a bad taste in people’s mouths. And it may affect who wants to work with her going forward. But she’s a grown woman and a professional so I’m sure she was aware of that. She definitely would’ve benefited from this being a video interview I think. To maybe get her points across when we could see her face and body language.

I question her motives for taking the job in the first place. She doing this to get a paycheck, A Tony award and more instagram followers. The paycheck part I can understand, as a former actor, I took quite a few jobs, just to keep food on the table, but I still gave it my best effort. To do anything less than your best effort is being disrespectful to the rest of the cast and the audience. As far as a Tony, she better look for another show. You don't get a Tony for playing Rutledge. "Molasses to Rum" is your only featured song and you only have and handful of lines in each act. John Dickenson from Pennsylvania is a better character than Rutledge. As far as more instagram followers, I just find that to be shallow. While many have said they admire her honesty, there is a time and a place for that honesty. By saying all this while the show is still running shows a lack of professionalism that could possibly hurt her in her career. If she is so unhappy with the production she could always get out of her contract, there is always a way to break a contract. I took offense at the 75% remark. I wonder how she would feel if she gives 75% then she only gets 75% of her paycheck?

i just want to say i am extremely Not up to date on all things theatre in the last few years but every once in a while i like to watch videos like this to hear about what's going on these days. basically i just want to thank you for giving some context/background explanation every time you introduce a new topic it really helps clueless people like me lol

Two thoughts: it's odd that a person who claims to put her art first and foremost in importance shows so little respect for her fellow artists -- namely the "two dudes" responsible for creating 1776 in the first place -- artists that I suspect were every bit as passionate and committed to creating their work of art. Their names are Sherman Edwards and Peter Stone. Secondly, I can understand becoming involved the development in a show at a regional non-profit theater like ART for any of a variety of reasons -- particularly if you are developing musicals of your own that could benefit from what you learn from that experience. But, when that production transfers to Broadway for a purely commercial run, I can't understand why you'd want to continue to be involved if you have so many misgivings about production itself and the "job" of appearing on Broadway. Why not turn that role over to another actor and allow them to benefit? And commit yourself, instead, to making the art that you consider your priority?

@williamsquier7267

Жыл бұрын

@@AKoooooooo Sure. Then, why undermine your efforts by giving an interview that's likely to make it difficult to achieve those goals? That doesn't seem terribly smart. Because you feel It's "honest?" Or is it merely cynical?

@williamsquier7267

Жыл бұрын

@@AKoooooooo I have no doubt. It just seemed counterproductive when she simply could've leveraged her appearance at ART into promoting her own projects. NY is filled with actors who would've happily stepped into the role and played it as well. It's actually a role I've never seen fail to land -- having experienced multiple productions of 1776 and appeared in one a little over a year ago -- owing to how well "Molasses to Rum" written and placed dramatically, the build up to it in the libretto and turn the plot takes just after the song -- when the entire delegation from the South walks out, dooming passage of the Declaration. It's a plumb showcase role for any actor.

its 100% valid to allocate your energy to different facets of your life. they couldve made a really good conversation about how many people forget that actors are people and at the end of the day they go home and have to do laundry and make dinner and plan dates with their partners and spend time with kids. but the convo that did happen ends up making people feel like they are saying they are half assing a role that is coveted and many people would give up a lot to have and that lands very sour. i dont think many bosses would appreciate any of us publicly insinuating that we're half-assing our jobs

For context - 1776 was the worlds introduction to Queen Betty Buckley on Broadway as Martha Jefferson, yes it was her debut!

OMG Hey! I had the opportunity to see the 1776 production on Oct 7th. I sat between one young gentleman who applauded & yelled his approval loudly. The lady to my right, after she asked my thoughts, simply said "I could have skipped this." Let me say I like the original 1776; it's fun, irreverent and a different take on the Founding Fathers. But the theme of it is the discussions on independence. The new 1776 changes the focus to "Look what hypocrites we are." I thought Sara did a very good job... great? No. Did I care for the all female cast? No. Did it come across as gimmicky? Definitely. Will this play evenbe around by Tony Award evening? I'd be surprised. It's okay, at best. Glad I saw it, but I wouldn't make more of it than it was an interesting perspective.

I think she promotes herself as a writer/director here, but she's going to make angels and casting think twice about contracting somebody so outspoken and the liability that she might bring.

@saraescobedo4278

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, they sound exhausting to me & I wouldn't want to cast them. There is enough drama in the creation of art. I'm not going to solicit it.

I just can't get past how arrogant she sounds and I think that is absolutely intentional. Even the slightest bit of humility for the opportunity would mean so much. But to write it off as "I just want attention" is just kind of gross to me.

@HartleyBurns

Жыл бұрын

That's honestly how I feel, especially after seeing her Tweets after all this. They made very valid points and not every actor should have to give 100% to everything they do because they are human. It takes a toll on you and take this from an actor who did this and subconsciously continues to. I did a show last December as part of the ensemble and gave it my all despite me not having the largest passion for the material as it was my first ever show and mentally and physically, it drained me so, this actor saying that during moments they may not be the centre of the show they only give 75% is fine personally however, it is the rest of what she said that makes me dislike her. Of course, Broadway is work at the end of the day and you may not enjoy every role you get however, they have an entitlement to them that I can't seem to shake as someone who is attempting to get into the industry. They act like getting on Broadway, something so many people fight for and dedicate their life working towards to maybe never get, is only a stepping stone and that they are above it in some way. Their feelings on their work are valid, you don't have to worship every role you get but I feel like doing it during the run of a show with a cast of many people making their Broadway debuts in a way that could very much affect them in their next field of employment and their crew is someone selfish and something that could have been done after the run. It may just be their wording, they may be the nicest person in the world, I don't know them personally but the read of entitlement I got from them during their controversy doesn't make me favour them too much and just because they have good values and beliefs, it doesn't make them a good person.

@eringray1160

Жыл бұрын

Classic Sara Porkalob

I'm guessing there are quite a few professional performers who feel similarly but dont say anything. There are plenty of shows where the actors dont agree with every decision but they do as directed because they are professionals, have a contract and bills to pay. I think the entertainment industry also has a history of banishing anyone who speaks up against potential toxic behaviour or doesnt protect the perfect image the industry tries to portray - gotta sell those tickets. I would only really have an issue with the 75% effort is if I've spent good money for a ticket and the actors on stage are clearly just phoning it in. Of course that would suggest they are giving much less then 75%. One of the worst shows I saw, the 'big name' in the show was very clearly not remotely invested in giving a good performance. No doubt times can be challenging for performers and so when things are slow you jump on an opportunity but like at least pretend to care about more then the paycheck. I can understand having a rough day at work but still doing your best - I've seen some performances like that too but I rooted for them because they were putting forth the effort. I also love when this happens and the rest of the cast really support them and help them.

As a general guide for transparency... ensemble minimum a week is around 2.5k USD. As a performer that has worked for 16 years nonunion, I've never made that amount in my life. So to hear this sort of response as a professional who hasn't touched a Broadway stage because that is the "end all be all" in most people's eyes when I ENVY those kind of contracts... it makes her sound spoiled and entitled the way she phrases things. This is why, especially in an industry where all of us were JOBLESS until live theater (not film or television) went back, this is a joke and mockery of the good training we have had. It doesn't happen once... it happens every moment. This isn't film.

@andresfelipe619

Жыл бұрын

To be more direct about why I put that here... if you're in it for the money and the job then you represent your job in a way that is highlighted for the better, not the worst for your own again. You do that AFTER you've taken the money and run. I wouldn't want to support anything they do after this production (excuse my misuse of pronouns in the previous comment).

I was fed so many toxic messages in middle and high school about how acting had to be a "calling" and I had to be prepared to give 100% of my life to it, be prepared to lose friends amd family who wouldn't understand the dedication. That I would have to be prepared to give up holidays off. I was told "moving" stories about actors perfirming while injured, seriously ill, or while loved ones were in the hospital. Now as a working class actor who has been in a number of service jobs, gone into work sick, worked outside in snow on Christmas Eve, I know ANY job is capable of demanding this of you, and how irresponsible it was for adults to glamorize the giving of my entire self. Theatre isn't special. In a profit-based world, it often IS just another job. I applaud Sara for all what she's said, for taking this risk when she has everything to lose. Theatre goers and the industry need to have a reckoning with what is expected of performers.

@katesonell4239

Жыл бұрын

Also I think a LOT of the directors is putting the role and their creative vision up on a pedestal. There are many theatre makers like Sara who do not want to be cornered into a single creative role in the fueld, and who are and have been for DECADES working to make the art form more collaborative. It is long past time directors learned to take criticism from people they are actively working with, not just post mortems.

I think the catch here boils down to one thing - no matter the perceived honesty here, the admission is that the job was not taken in good faith, and the job itself is looked down upon by the artist. That automatically colors the tone in which this is received. Beyond that point, there is discussion of the rehearsal room and rehearsal process, none of which seems to be painted as intentionally bad, and the sanctity of the safe and vulnerable space is being violated. The rest, I won't touch here because that continues into the deep complexities, but those simple matters are, for me and many others, the chief markers.

@jr5599

Жыл бұрын

I had the exact same impression when I read the article. Even If I agreed with some of her points, the whole thing came off as "grandstanding" and she doesn't seem to care that she was the one that violated the safe-space the creative team were trying to establish.

@katesonell4239

Жыл бұрын

I think it becomes clear readimg this article that the rehearsal room wasn't that safe. If it had been, Sara may have been able to share these criticisms openly in that space. Instead, she actively references having to bite her tongue.

@jr5599

Жыл бұрын

@@katesonell4239 but we are only hearing her side of the story and no one else's. At the very least, she could have went to Diane Pawlus in private and said something. Diane hired her without an audition, so there was an element of trust there.

@katesonell4239

Жыл бұрын

@@jr5599 As an actor, if I didn't feel safe/able to speak up in a rehearsal room, I would in no way shape or form feel comfortable speaking privately to the director in charge of that space.

@jr5599

Жыл бұрын

@@katesonell4239 First of all there were two co-directors. She has already stated she had no problem with any of the other actors, so maybe the problem was the other director, but we don't really know because she doesn't say and there are other avenues to voice her concern other than the directors. No one else has spoken out about this and believe me, they would have if the rehearsal room was an unsafe space. It really seems to me her objections were more "artistic differences" than anything else. I was an actor at one time too and I know what a volatile rehearsal space can be like. It just doesn't sound like this was one. At no point in the article does it sound like she was threatened and she obviously felt safe enough to continue with the show and not leave.

I am coming upon this video very late. I saw this production of 1776. I’ve been a fan of the original cast recording and the revival recording for years and have seen the movie, so am very familiar with it. I found this production honestly baffling. There were so many moments during the show that didn’t work, or I couldn’t fathom what decisions were going on behind the scenes. I did a lot of googling afterwards and reading interviews with directors and coming across their explanation of things in the show that just didn’t come across at all. (Oh, I was meant to know that one actor with no lines that walked on stage once was Sally Hemings’ brother? How was I meant to know that?) So when I read the Porkalob interview-so much yes. The moment that she was describing as cringe? It really was. There was a moment where they brought up the houselights for what they thought would be a big audience cheer (think an “Immigrants, they get the job done,” moment) and crickets. So you can quibble about whether she should have said what she said when she said it, but she really was not at all wrong about this show. I cheered for her through the whole interview.

So unprofessional to publicly trash a production while you’re appearing in it.

@showbuzz2674

Жыл бұрын

AMEN!.....wait till after the show closes or you have left the show. Work ethic vs "the work on broadway" and "history" are all different subjects and they are very muddled here w/arrogant effect. I bet backstage at Roundabout is pretty tense. I hope she hired someone to taste her food and drink. Like Murder On The Orient Express....11 stab wounds and no suspects!!!

@elizabeth5985

Жыл бұрын

@@showbuzz2674 hahahaha "hired someone to taste her food and drink" 😂

I noticed while I designed sound and ran the sound board that actors tended to think more about their performances than about those who made their performance possible. They may acknowledge that other cast members exist but can't quite extend their thinking beyond the one or two person dressing rooms. I don't think that's just in the cities where I practiced my craft Because the lead made me want to puke 8 times a week is no reason for me to do less than my best. I do think that her 75% trip is understandable when they note that "1776" takes up 75% of their life. Preparing for a show took up a lot of time in my life, too. There's a difference between thunders...not just whether it is near or far, but the intensity of the storm, how dramatic it sounds. I always assumed that my contribution to the show was valid and created part of the atmosphere of the show. My engineer and I spent about 2 hours before I was happy with the sound of the Kennedy assassination rifle sound. There's a lot that's similar to a certain former president's unwarranted view of himself and what other people should do for him and Porkalob's insistence that they get a Tony nomination because they're all that. And how would they feel when it comes to gender-free Tonys? Plus, to me, "Mama, look sharp" is the better song.

the six comment confused me slightly, as far as I know there's only two asian performers as Boleyn (discounting the fact Amanda has just left)? The purpose of Six's casting is that it avoids type casting whilst still providing diversity, hence why all six queens have been played by a number of ethnically and racially diverse performers both in principal status and by alternates. Considering the range of performers playing Boleyn at the moment, I'm not entirely sure how the casting has been reduced to the 'asian girl' especially with the implication of Boleyn performers being east asian when Andrea on broadway is literally south asian ?? idk feels like a redundant example all things considered

@callalily3994

Жыл бұрын

The two most high-profile productions both had Asian women playing her at the same time, but when looking at all the casts overall, I don't think that there's really much of a pattern with it. I think there have been Asian principals playing everyone except Aragon and Cleves? I might be misremembering.

@cymbelinesgf

Жыл бұрын

@@callalily3994 YES, that's sort of what got me. I think Jasmine Shen and Chloe Zuel for Aragon but definitely I think Cleves is the only exception. I just think it's more of a coincidental casting with Amanda and Andrea rather than the casting team purposefully looking for asian performers, considering Andrea was cast even before Courtney Bowman who is biracial- so it's not like her and Amanda were cast at the same time with explicit demand for asian identity in mind? maybe i'm reaching but it feels like a presumptuous statement to characterize Boleyn as that 'asian girl' when Boleyn has probably had some of the most diverse castings of the lot. Idk it's minor detail but I feel like it's frustrating when I think SiX has done a decent job at preventing complete and blatant type casting which is something I feel like is widely appreciated amongst its fans/general audiences.

@jkl674

Жыл бұрын

I mean she also had an issue with the black actors being prioritized when dealing with the slave auction scene…you know, something that actually effected their ancestors. She just wants to center herself, everyone else be damned. Would def never hire her.

As a fan of science fiction (as well as musicals!) there have been instances of serious actors who taken roles "for the money" whilst sneering at the genre. Fine, perhaps, if the production is generally regarded as a turkey but not if it's generally being well received; that's disrespecting the team involved and the fans. There are ways of articulating these points much better. Actors have highlighted their desires to multi-hyphenate, to explore directing or producing or fashion models aiming to act or design, without disparaging the current role and those around you. Yes, it is a job but it is also a privileged one. Some humility and gratitude is required, even if you want voice that there is progress still to be made. There are so many talented people in the world who never get their big, breakout role and the recognition. I think we all accept the tacit understanding that our wait staff or supermarket cashier is not usually in that role because it's their vocation. In the same way there is a tacit understanding that yes, performers want to be stars, celebrated and awarded. In this case the inference being made from the interview (rightly or wrongly) was 'I'm better than this. I took this crap job for the money, to advance my own career and ... basically just phoned it in'. It's permissable to be honest ( nowadays to speak your truth, without regard) but there's a time, a place and the right way of doing it, and its not whilst still in the role, working with the cast and still taking money from people buying tickets.

i know I dont give 100% every day at my job. I can definitely understand that. However I wouldn't be brave enough to say it publicly knowing that my bosses could see it. I would wait till after I finished working there lol

Very thoughtful, as always. Thank you.

I have 2 friends who work on Broadway quite a bit. A few months ago we were talking about the industry and they talked about the fact that, while they love the work, Broadway isn't the glamorous job it's made out to be. And one of them had just been through a long, drawn-out negotiation with the producers of a show they're currently performing in. Sometimes it IS just going to work. I, for one, am sick and tired of the idea that actors should be stupidly grateful for any work we get.

@jr5599

Жыл бұрын

I don't know anyone on either side of the footlights who think it's a glamorous job. It's hard work. And with so many people vying for the same part and even if you get it, no guarantee that the show will run, I think most performer ARE grateful when they are working.

Ending last night with your Livestream and starting my morning with this video 😃 I see you more often than my friends 😉

thing is, when I go to the supermarket I don't expect the checkout assistant to be wildly enthusiastic and all in on their job, if they're half-assing it that's fine, as long as they put everything though and aren't too miserable I'm happy enough. But when if I go to a show the performers performance matters. If they're not interested and it just feels like work to them, then maybe get a different job where you're not disappointing a room full of people every day of the week? Idk, at points it sounded like Sara dislikes the show? I don't think it's humanly possible to give 100% all the time anyway, but if it had been phrased in comparison to her previous show (one woman, self written) then they could have said something like I'm playing a 250 year old dead white man written by someone else rather than portraying a character that was born from my own imagination, when I'm on stage I'm performing but it's a job to do well, rather than an all consuming person who lives in my mind and I obviously can't give as much of myself to the part because of that. If she dislikes it that much maybe she should have stepped away from the project? I can't imagine anyone wanting to work with them in the future given that they'll happily air any disagreements they has publicly. There's always going to be mismatched artistic visions because everyone has a unique perspective. The stuff about representation is an important point, but mixed in with all the other fairly negative feedback it just seemed like more anger at the production. There are ways to express frustration without making it about lashing out at the people you're collaborating with and working with - saying that it's challenging to go from a one person self written show where you have all the creative control to working collaboratively. That you're having to adjust to fulfilling multiple artistic visions and finding that restrictive and frustrating but that it's an important career stepping stone for you would cover a lot of what she said and be true without throwing everyone under the bus. It seems like she wants the exposure so that she can get enough of a name that she can pursue her own work- rather than just wanting to be instagram famous so I wish she'd said that The whole interview just seems thoughtless, and like they're not really good at collaborating with people. Some of that I'm sure are legitimate grievances but it just came across like they thought they knew best and were happy to tell everyone publicly how terrible the rest of the production was in comparison. And she's thrown a lot of shade alllll over- it was pretty clear she thought Six was beneath her and I wonder how the Six cast members would feel about what she said.

I find it really interesting the reactions to this. On r/Broadway, people were truly offended and angered. Meanwhile, on Opera Facebook, it was almost universally agreed with and praised for its honesty. I'm not sure whether to attribute that to the different genres or differences between the performer and audience perspective, but it is something to chew on.

There’s a difference between pacing yourself and not giving all you can for any performance. Obviously that will be different on every night. The sentiment behind giving 75% could have been put more politically: I don’t want to burn out and want to give the audience as much as I can each night, so I pace myself so I can give the best performance possible to make the show as great as it can possibly be. I’m going to give all I can because I want to share this story with the audience. There are parts of it that I find cringy, but we’re (collective we) working on it. It’s an old show and we’re breathing new life into it. Hopefully, we can dust it off and shed new light on it.

@patrickgomes2213

Жыл бұрын

Even if it’s a lie or stretching the truth, it’s a political lie. Theater is a collective so you want people to want to work with you.

huh, I never thought about how I see a role on Broadway. I think you're right, I definitely hold it to a different standard than other jobs

When it comes to the 75% thing, sure you have to pace yourself. It takes a ton of stamina to keep up with an 8 show a week schedule for a long run. But Sara is new to the global theater scene, and regardless of their confidence in their own artistry, doesn't have the level of reputation and credibility to be this critical of a show they are actively performing in. They are putting the production in a really awkward position and it's really going to color perception of the show. It only just opened a month ago and hasn't really had a chance to grow an audience. To say "I have a lot of problems with this show but I expect it to make me a star and get me an agent and a lot of awards" and then go back and perform it every night is a lot. People will think twice about hiring them if this is how they promote the show they're in.

@HartleyBurns

Жыл бұрын

An artist having confidence in themself isn't a bad thing however, I feel like Sara is crossing the line between arrogant and egotistical although I honestly want to see how the Broadway community responds to her after this regarding casting and a possible platform for them in the future.

I’m not entirely confident about it being said publicly but I do think there is something to be said for questioning a director’s choices under very certain circumstances. I was in a production of Footloose a few years back and at the end, the director tried to have Ren and Chuck shake hands, forgetting that Chuck literally used those hands on his then girlfriend like half an hour of show ago. It got around what the cast thought and was changed. So yeah you can have some loyalty to your creatives but that doesn’t mean you have to defend all of their decisions.

@mollymcdade4031

Жыл бұрын

Oh definitely there’s ways of communicating a disagreement with a director’s choices - but to do so in a public interview feels quite catty and ‘well *I* wouldn’t have done this’ rather than a mutual conversation between a cast and a director

Thank you for the breakdown! It's great to see a fair summary and discussion about such a charged topic. I like how the world is moving towards being honest that a job is not the reason for living, even when you love the job. Clearly, not everyone is ready to hear that, but it's important.

I'm going to try to make this not so long, but as a retired actress of color, I've got things to say. First off, I applaud their honesty. Acting is a dream come true for some people but that doesn't mean there aren't things to complain about. Just because it is imagined to be this amazing profession doesn't mean it's wrong when someone speaks out about the downsides. I'm glad they are focusing on self care as well. I believe that is where the generational gap arguments comes in. The older generation has a 'shut up and deal with it' way of looking at things. The younger generations put themselves first. If that means not going full out in a role, then that's fine. If it means admitting that a show is a stepping stone to bigger things, that makes sense too. Because that's what a lot of actors are doing. They just don't talk about it. Disagreeing with the creative team is where I take a step back. If there are issues, speak with the team. The only unprofessional aspect of this interview was pointing out the creative team's short comings. Best to leave that until after you end the working relationship. Acting is a job. It's a job that also has a lot of issues with representation. As a BIPOC actress, I agree with asking for more money for certain race specific roles. The only reason I played a slave so much was for the money and I'll admit I didn't give it my all because those shows weren't my passion or my end goal. I believe this backlash has to do with race and the generational gap more than anything else. But self care and honesty shouldn't be attacked just because others are used to working themselves to the bone and keeping quiet about issues.

So insightful and your analysis of the controversy is excellent 👍🙏

I feel like Sara is someone young, who has been never faced serious rejection, or a real setback in their career so far. The sense of entitlement, of 'I'm amazing and the world will acknowledge it' it is the kind of self-assurance that can sweep you to stardom, or bite you in the a$$. So far, it's kept them on an upward trajectory but this may be where it changes. I bet one day she'll look back on the interview as at the least carelessly immature, at worst, career ending. The honest critiques she had were fine, but that's a critic's job. You don't criticize your own show while you're in it. And the 75 percent thing was maybe saying the quiet part out loud, but there's a reason it should be quiet. This may be a common sentiment with performers but there's a different nuance than in a public declaration. Those of us who work in offices or restaurants or drive buses or do a myriad of jobs that are neither creative, interesting, or pay very well--If you're not giving 100 of yourself while onstage (which is the traditional answer), then what are you even doing there?

@sassycatz4470

Жыл бұрын

I never want to pay over a hundred dollars for a seat to a show where a performer is giving 75%. Just quit. I don't need to pay for that.

I suspect that at least some of the indignant outrage that seems to be coming from my generation (born in 1980) probably arises from our resentment and regret that we didn’t have the courage and/or encouragement to stand up for ourselves like “the millennials” have been and are. Similar to the anti-college-debt-forgiveness protest that “if we had to pay, they should have to pay”, people appear to have a hard time with the idea that our goal as a society should be to make things *better* for future generations, not the same or worse. So when someone comes along and openly says “this is my job, not necessarily my whole life, and I don’t automatically agree with everything I do/say in the course of earning my paycheck” when so many of the older people gritted their teeth (to varying degrees) and did the “good worker bee” thing, the first gut reaction is resentment at the unfairness of it all. What SHOULD be happening though, is for people to acknowledge that reaction, then work on moving past it in pursuit of a better world than the one with which we were presented. (Also, 1776 didn’t need to be resurrected with a performatively woke coat of paint. There’s a whole world of new art out there - maybe it’s time to let the problematic classics become part of history, instead of insisting they still be involved in the conversation. Kind of like most of Congress, come to think of it 🤔)

Sara sounds like a typical "The world revolves around me" type of person. If she wants complete control do a one woman show. By the way love your around the town trips with Aeron. Do more please. Love the channel

This topic triggered lots of thoughts & emotions: 1) As a Latinx creative, I'm disappointed by how few Latinas have been cast as the Spanish royal Catherine of Aragon in SIX. 2.) I've done long runs and the goal is to have the audience FEEL that you're giving 100% -- without burning yourself out. Theater is an illusion. 3.) Sara Porkalob's honesty in print may inform us as to why her acting is so lauded and powerful: honesty. 4.) Great show, MickeyJo!

@pearlpearl3806

Жыл бұрын

Why do you think more latinas should be cast specifically as Catherine of Aragon when Catherine of Aragon wasn't latina? Not seeing your reasoning there

@pinkpinkitypink

Жыл бұрын

@@pearlpearl3806 well I don’t know about op however as a indigenous Latina myself and knowing our history it’s mostly because Spaniards colonized our people and it’s a similar situation of black people getting the roles of white slave owners. However that is my own opinion.

Her doing the math on the “100%” thing is so condescending, we know full well you’re eating and sleeping, that is not what she meant, that’s just her trying to cover her ass. She’s saying, of the 100% that she could give, she’s choosing not to give that to the show, as she clearly sees it as a lesser show, based on her comments as a whole.

I saw 1776 on Sunday! Almost considered trying to catch something else before I left NY (mainly because of the meh reviews rather than Sara's comments, but also some of the controversy and in particular Jeffrey Page's response in particular was also rubbing me the wrong way). However I think with lowered expectations I ended up enjoying it a lot more than I thought I would. I'd always been curious to see 1776 having been such a big Hamilton fan back in the day and I agree that it both wouldn't and probably shouldn't be done with a non-diverse cast so it was very interesting to watch. Part of what made it fun was analysing what did and didn't work as modern commentary, at which I would say it was definitely nowhere near as successful as say the Oklahoma revival, but it was still a very enjoyable show to me and one I'm glad I ended up sticking with. There were a lot of great performances throughout the cast including Sara's - it doesn't come across like she's giving any less than her fellow castmates however I'd also say that she doesn't necessarily stand out as a breakout performance amongst a very talented cast. I think she has definitely helped put this show in the spotlight though, but I can't really imagine her getting a Tony nomination following her comments especially with this revival being a limited run long finished ahead of Tony season. Thanks as always for a great and nuanced deep dive!

@christophersmith3341

Жыл бұрын

I'd be curious to know--the production sounds to me actively hostile to the actual material, the script and songs. Did you get this impression watching it? One of the things that's so great about Hamilton is that, by filling those roles with actors of color and setting the story to a hip-hop score, it gives ownership of American history, and the lessons of American enterprise, to all races in our society. When Hamilton sings "I'm not going to miss my shot," that is (besides the irony that he will not miss that shot of the bullet that kills him) a moment of the show saying "Americans don't pass up the opportunity to succeed and _all people of color are Americans, too, and must not to give up their shot at success, either_." It's a powerful, enthusiastic message. I get the impression 1776 is being mounted more in the spirit of attacking the Founding Fathers, not seeing their story as an analogy for the struggles of women and other minorities. Hamilton revitalizes a monument. This production of 1776 seems bent on dismantling one, as if the Founding Fathers are the equivalent of the Confederacy.

So interesting and it absolutely didn't pop up in my insta-bubble so thank you for spilling the tea! Also agree with a lot of the folks here, eben though she might be "just" honest there's better ways to communicate this. What was her intention anyway?

Wow.... thanks for the breakdown. It's the timing of this interview that gets me - as a promotion of the new show? this is everything wrong. Once the show is closed? Sure, be honest and say what's on your mind. I can't see them getting cast in anything after this. the 75% thing seems to be confusing two different things. the Maths working out seems like they mean "75% of my life is in the show" - and that is more than fair. But then "Giving 90% for the solo" - that seems to be giving energy during the performance. But in the bigger picture, doing your job, I've always been trying for 90% perfection. 90% is good enough, in my freelance industry you could aim for 100% and put hours and hours into each piece and earn pennies. Or you settle for 90%, small imperfections that you as the maker see, but you let it go at "good enough". You gotta know when to stop. Very good point about Vocation, and dream jobs meaning performers are put through such inhumane conditions - there's a whole lot of valid points made in this interview, no question! but bringing them all up at the start of the run of that show, career suicide.

Is there a video of this interview? I feel like hearing HOW she said it would help guide. It's hard to read tone on a page

I think they said very interesting things in the article, but some of it was not great. I think that unlike a regular job, they should know that their statement is going to impact the sales for the show they are in, that is like going to a restaurant and having the chef or waiter tell you the food isn't really that good. Okay, thanks, I'll go elsewhere. You are of course allowed to not being fulfilled and you shouldn't be expected to be giving all your life for your job, but it makes sense that the creative team will have issues with it. And about the 75% comment, I think their twitter clarification is BS. The interview didn't make it sound like 75% was in order to have a proper life-work balance (which I think no one would have issues with). It made it sound like the project wasn't worth her 100%, the same way six wouldn't be worth their 100%, but it was left to infer that other projects where worth it. I know actors can't physically give 100% every night, and the right thing to do is to pace yourself, that's expected. To me this is just Sara saying "Don't bother coming to see me here, this is not my best work"

The 75% comment makes me think a lot about "quiet quitting" and the number of people who feel outraged that people want to just to do their job instead of kill themselves for it. The answer could still could have been phrased better, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that Sara's answer was specific to the question, even if that question was prompted by something said earlier in the interview. I do think there is a difference between if Sara said this as an offshoot of another question (which to me, feels a lot more like deliberate shit-stirring) vs something they were asked directly and answered honestly. I don't know if being this blunt was the right thing to do, but I must admit that it feels refreshing to see someone talk about their job in a way that I think a lot of us *wish* that we could.

Top notch as usual, MJ. I'm wondering if they 100% said everything that is claimed that they said or if things might have been tweaked by the journalist to be more incendiary? But at any rate, the honesty was a bit of fresh air? I've read interviews where the director / producer / actor / writer or whatever is gushing about everything and they are, let us be honest, rather dull. I think Sara is picking up on important points and putting them forward in a really rather interesting way! And yes, saying some of these things while in a show is...unusual? Risky? But what exactly is the risk? I liked what you said about that some of the things that they said are the sort of things that you as a theatre critic would be expected to say. And indeed, a lot of the gossip / insider info that goes on in the theatre world is because someone on the inside isn't happy but is absolutely expected to keep their mouth shut and carry on. And that is sort of weird. I wonder if her fellow actors in the play are uncomfortable with what she is saying or if she is just saying, with her name to it, what might have come out anyway? And if folk really are saying that she is expected to keep her mouth shut or rephrase, well, the whole discussion of tone policing and respectability politics came to the UK from the US: sometimes you just have to throw that in the fire. I like her honesty of 75%. She is a writer and director, too. If she gives 100% not only does her family etc not get a bit of her, but all her other projects are put on the backburner, and surely there are lots of people on stage who have, or want to have, several strings to their bow and need to actively put the time and energy aside? I am just loving the honesty, I really am. A last point because I don't know how this works: do actors themselves actually have access to the PR folk that the show has? Because I wonder if that isn't sort of part of a duty of care that a show should be offering to its cast, if it doesn't already, but which would be a fairly large cost, which makes me think they probably skip it? I mean, if the producer (or whoever is responsible for getting and paying the PR person / team) says before the show opens, hey, here is the PR team, here are their numbers, if you get any interview requests or start getting social media hassle or whatever, you can get in touch with them. If an interview, then you can contact them beforehand, you can have them there during the interview, you can have them organise the interview, don't worry, we are covering the costs, because this is our show. If actors or their agents have to pay for the PR you'll be less likely to do it if you are paying, no? And she does seem to be fishing for an agent, so they won't have one from that angle. And so any actor in a show might not see the pitfalls or might not have the connections and need PR but not realise or have access or be able to justify the costs? But perhaps that is a question for Aeron. And Sara might have been answering one thing with her actor hat on and then the next question with her director hat on and the journalist hasn't really asked back to see how exactly she is answering? Apologies, I am not going to watch all the (Bad) Cinderella vids again, but was info not coming from the actor side of things there, just via less official paths? Is the sneaky way the honourable way to do it in theatre and folk are just annoyed that Sara was upfront about it? Too long a comment (and questions). Thanks again MickeyJo

Great analysis!

I love the musical 1776. I saw the movie when I was younger, the revival in the 1998 and the more recent version. I apricate her candor but she should have waited till her part was done. I thought vocally she was great, but her performance was look at me and very showy. No real acting involved. The previous 2 actors who played this role on Broadway received a Tony for featured actor. The first is in the movie. It will be interesting if she gets a nomination. It will be a very crowed season on Broadway. I did hate the coat looking at the audience thing. Not necessary. Great video MJ.

@christophersmith3341

Жыл бұрын

Actually, John Cullen who was in the film was the third actor to play Rutledge on Broadway, and he didn't win a Tony for it (he won four Tony nominations throughout his career, but I don't think he ever won one). Neither did Clifford David, the original Rutledge. It was Ronald Holgate as Richard Henry Lee who won the Tony for Best Supporting Actor for the original production.

iVE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS VIDEO CAUSE IVE BEEN SO LOST

@accountforwastingtime

Жыл бұрын

Me: not understanding theatre news or drama at all Me: it's ok MJT will explain it to me

I think Sara made interesting points and I respect their honesty. I think one of the big issues with her phrasing things so bluntly, though, is that what she treated like passing comments are now overshadowing her main points. I could be wrong, but I feel like she went into the interview wanting to talk about some qualms with direction; in the end, it was her "75% comment" that ended up blowing up the most. I also think, had her thoughts on the direction been worded differently, it could've been received less harshly while still getting her feelings out to the public. I feel like their directness unfortunately worked against them (unless their goal was just to get people generally talking about the show... but I doubt that).

If I spoke like this about my job in such a public setting I would be fired so quickly

I think this might be the earliest I’ve ever been to a video haha

@chocolatesouljah

Жыл бұрын

Same! 😉

I think there's an undercutting icky attitude in this article...one where Art is elitist and untouchable, one where "commercially successful" endeavours can't also be considered artistic or are considered less than other endeavours. If you caught #kidneygate, which rocked the literary fiction world last year, Sonya exhibited a similar attitude, arguing the letter she stole "wasn't art" so it didn't matter, placing being a good artist above being a good person. I think there's another conversation under the surface here - which is questioning that value system :) I mean, honestly, we take everything so seriously. Probably too seriously! Sure, art is important but it's also not that important (just as, say, accounting is important but also not that important). We can absolutely debate the merits of a show or whatever - but who is to say what is good art and what isn't? (which is, of course, different from whether the treatment of the artists is moral or immoral and whether the art effectively represents its community etc...) "Am I really a better person for having wandered around art museums, and having sat through symphonies, and having read a few classics? Does spending an afternoon staring at Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus" give me character and depth? Or does it just make me feel superior to the people who prefer Archie comics and video games?"

Thanks for a very balanced explanation of what appears to be a provocative interview. I wonder if Sara Porkalob is simply saying what others are merely thinking. How many times have we heard performers, after an event (sometimes years after) criticise a production they were in and exclaim that they didn't give 100%? I await with hope and bated breath for a discussion about Lillias White reprimanding an audience member with hearing loss during a recent production of “Hadestown”, and Patti Lupone's subsequent resignation from Equity. Please...!?

I don't necessarily have a huge issue with any individual comment made by Sara, despite thinking many of them are incredibly inappropriate comments about your job to share with a widely-circulated publication, but the image that the entire collective interview paints of Sara in my mind is not a flattering one. They come across as the most arrogant, self-obsessed, entitled, expectant, misguided, delusional person working in the theatre - and that is saying something.

I'm torn, because while I don't disagree with what she said per se, I think it would have been better to wait until the show was over to say your peace. Whether she intended to or not she threw her cast under the bus in the article and these are people depending on her and also that she still needs to work with. I also think it will be hard for her to find work moving forward over this.

Oooof to me this clearly is an issue of lack of media training for Sara. There is nothing wrong with being honest even if your opinions are controversial. On the contrary when put out correctly people love candid interviews and it could've been a very good way for Sara to gain sympathy points as a new Broadway talent that is refreshingly honest. However if you aren't trained in how to handle the media things like these can get out of hand pretty easily and cause backlash such as in this case. Because here it doesn't come across as honest but as arrogant and as ungrateful.

@sassycatz4470

Жыл бұрын

Or maybe you should just have good manners and not shit all over a job you accepted and didn't need YOU specifically.

It is a tricky one. As someone who works in the industry (albeit film & television) there are often disparity waivers that won't let you speak like this. But something I learned, even as a low-level TV director, was that you don't criticise other directors work to peers. Even if I'm no one, and I'm talking about, say, James Cameron - there's ZERO chance of it getting back to him - it's still a professional courtesy and it would be considered very rude to slam him. Privately, I am hugely critical of many pieces of media. I'll rag on to my FRIENDS about a bad film I watched. Professionally? Never. And it's been SUPREMELY hard to learn to be like that!!! I wish I could talk like this actor. But you have to play the game - to some extent. You don't have to silence bad behaviour, you don't have to be endlessly gushy about everything you're involved in. But as professional courtesy, you smile and wave 🫠

She doesn't have to be grateful at 13:36, but she shouldn't be hypocritical. Sounds like she hates the show, thinks it sends the wrong message, but is perfectly happy to take home the paycheck. How about get a job in a different show that you like, and let someone else have this job? I feel she comes off as incredibly arrogant. (And yes, I'm going with the theme that actors shouldn't have to be grateful to have a job, it's just a job, etc., etc. Okay, so go get a different job instead of accepting this one and then trashing it in the press!) And it isn't the same as working as a checkout at a store and not being fulfilled. If you're in a job where you are responsible for the PR you should not be trashing the company (not a checkout girl, that is apples and oranges, it would be more like a Vice President of the company going to the media to trash the company and then saying "But come and buy our product!") She isn't just saying she's unfulfilled, she's saying that there are serious problems with the play and she wouldn't have directed it. If she felt so strongly about the message of this play she shouldn't have accepted the job. I'm not going to go work for Monsanto or some company that represents something I disagree with "just for the paycheck" and that is what I take offense to here. Take their money and then trash them in the press.

A lot of the outrage over the 75% remark is overblown, but it also seems really predictable. I think it probably was intended as a way for them to say they were trying to conserve their energy and maintain balance. But the way it's phrased, it's easy to understand why some people interpret it as phoning it in and not trying. And the context of the interview, where there is a lot of criticism of the piece and the creative team, makes it easier to read that way. Whatever your thoughts are on the merits of Sara's points, this interview was a bold choice. But it feels like a textbook example of what not to do if you want a Tony nom.

I'm probably doing the wrong thing by responding immediately without hearing the whole context but I have to say, knowing _1776_ as closely as I do, the idea of singing "The Egg" while projecting the BLOODY INSURRECTION OF RACIST, AUTOCRAT-FETISHIZING MURDERERS would be sending such a perverse and damaging message. I -- Jesus, I can't even fathom the mindset that would think this was a good idea or a "missed opportunity." No, what it would have done was say, "Look! These would-be lynchers.... these racist, sexist, murdering traitors.... were just like the Revolutionaries in 1776! How noble and just their cause was! Yay to the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers and MAGA psychos!" Christ Jesus. The show wasn't about "humanizing" them, which implies that the script wanted to turn extremely flawed people into sympathetic icons. Quite the opposite. The script explicitly states that these weren't demigods, they were flawed men making painful compromises (most notably/painfully having to strike out the references to slavery in the Declaration) in order to do what they had to secure the severance of the States from England. Franklin says, somberly, that first they must get freedom for the colonies as a whole; without that, nothing else has a hope of changing. (Which admittedly is ironic since in about fifty years, England would end slave commerce before the U.S. did, but Franklin didn't know that.) Anyway. Just ass-backwards reasoning, wanting to lump the Jan6 insurrection with the Revolution. It falls right into the narrative Trump is trying to sell. I just can't believe they don't see what a mistake this would be. I just. Can't.

@nancydrewfan7890

Жыл бұрын

I know this comment is old, but anyway, I agree with you. I feel the issue with this production of 1776 is that the creators and directors did like a surface level analysis of the original show, but didn't bother to do any additional digging into the intentions of the creators. For example, like you said, the founding fathers are not humanized. Adams is a jerk, Franklin is definitely a bit egotistical, Jefferson a little clueless, etc. The fact that this production's crew missed that speaks volumes as to their sincerity of trying to make a point. I get it's hip to write off "old white guys" nowadays because of their usually dated views. But in this instance, that wasn't a good idea.

I think Sara Porkalob is a very passionate but a very young artist and as such, she has a naive approach to this collaborative art form. Some of the things she said were dismissive of other performers. Knowing the Broadway community as I do, this interview has ensured she'll not win a Tony and it may impact her ability for future work on Broadway. Important to realize is that you don't publicly denigrate your employer.

@drumandeebass797

Жыл бұрын

She's 32. She is not very young and naive.

@Kristine_202

Жыл бұрын

@@drumandeebass797 I agree with the second part of the OP's comment. I haven't seen the show, so I don't know if it's a Tony-worthy performance, but she's not going to win one and she might not work on Broadway again after this. Rather than "young and naive," the term I would use is immature. You can be immature at any age. Her tweets read like a bratty teenager. "Google me, hoes." Really? Zero professionalism.

@pcssc2634

Жыл бұрын

And IF her opportunities dwindle she’ll blame everyone but herself. Yes there is freedom of speech BUT there are always consequences to those actions. Only time will tell.

She will never be cast in another major show. A show spends thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars promoting it having someone undermine that cost way too much for a producer to ever take a risk on casting her again. Even if she is brilliant. She could have said what she did after she was done with the production when it wouldn't result in damaging the investment that's a producers put into the show. Why would a money person invest in a show starring someone who doesn't respect your investment

@katesonell4239

Жыл бұрын

Actors owe producers nothing.

@kellyokeefe6823

Жыл бұрын

An actors loyalty is not to the producers it’s to the script

@bruceblock8676

Жыл бұрын

@@katesonell4239 that's just not true. An actor signs a contract with the producers with a huge list of things that they owe the producers if they plan on receiving a paycheck. One of those almost always is how you conduct yourself and what is said about the production while you are performing in it

@bruceblock8676

Жыл бұрын

@@kellyokeefe6823 that sounds nice but actually isn't true. The producers are the ones that have paid and received the rights from the copyright holders of the script. On the level of a Broadway show the copyright holder approves what the producer's vision of the show is. The actors are able to interpret their part in the show but within the parameters that the producers and directors and creative team has set for. This is just legally how it works it's what the contract is between the copyright holders and the producers. And the contract between the Actors and The Producers.

@katesonell4239

Жыл бұрын

@@bruceblock8676 Is there a reason you're invested in people kowtowing to sticking with a theatrical world in which producers hold creative control instead of speaking up for a more egalitarian way of of creating theatre? Not being able to speak up about issues with a show while its happening has led to everything from job dissatisfaction to being unable to be honest about abuse. I for one, as an actor, am not willing to sit on "the way things are."

Does anyone know which in publication the Karen Olivio interview ran?

Do you have a link to the article?

First of all this is very well done response to the issue

Oh WOW! No idea why I didn't see this vlog when it first came out. One normally builds bridges, before one decides to burn them - or indeed that is my perception. As a production stage manager, I can openly and honestly say that I've never known an actor deliberately go out there to give only 75%, but there are (as you so rightly say) shows in the week where not everyone does give their all - but I doubt anyone makes that choice. We all have bad days. But what the F happened in that rehearsal room.... and what about creating a toxic work place environment.

People pay a lot of money to see Broadway shows they expect 100% from the cast

I like how you broke this down. I do find it interesting how many others do not even acknowledge their experience or intelligence.

I'm sure I'm in the wrong here some how... but I feel like she comes off just straight up arrogant. I get that being authentic and real is important and great, but her bold honesty comes across as someone who knows they are all that and they don't have to play anyone's games. Maybe that's how it should be but just to me I don't like it. My opinion means nothing i know.

I was taught to always talk a show up when we were involved in it. So, this annoys me. If there is any sort of abuse, that is, of course, an exception to this rule. Sara does end up sounding arrogant. Which is unfortunate. While she was being honest about her feelings, I think there was a lot that did not need to be said. I hope she has a long and lucrative career. But she may have pissed off enough people that her proposed Tony award will go up in smoke.

Around 14:20 you make a point about how people talk about acting as dream job and we don’t hold other jobs - and I honestly think America’s struggling relationship with capitalism (for lack of a better way to phrase that) colored this controversy. At my last job I had managers acting like I should be just gushingly grateful at all times for the privilege of *checks notes* cutting fruit for a grocery store. We have a really toxic attitude about labor and jobs here :/ This seems to be a situation where too much honesty has put people off, and I understand both perspectives. Where does “professionalism” become dishonesty, and where does honesty get in the way of professionalism are not simple subjects to unpack. But people getting mad at the 75% comment are ridiculous - I think if you gave 100% for 8 shows a week you might die. I’m not an actor but I have a lot of friends who do stage acting, and actually knowing how to keep yourself from giving too much and thus burning out is part of it ime.

She seems very full of herself. It's not as if she's curing cancer.

Being rude, arrogant and ungrateful won't get you far in this biz. People have long memories. This won't do her any favours.

@accountforwastingtime

Жыл бұрын

@@AKoooooooo right lmao I was thinking gee Lea Michelle has made a whole dang career out of being like that. And many, many many others too!

Is this 'Bite the Hand Thad Feeds You' Week .. and no one let me know? First La LuPone, and now this. She honestly seems to HATE the show (as many reviews said Paulus seemed to also) - so why do it? I had never heard of her before this, and now she's on everyone's lips, so bravo for getting your name know - but seriously? get another gig...

Working at a small restaurant or café, I think me leaving a bad review on tripadvisor would be enough for some serious problems at work. Anyone working on any project has a responsibility to protect that project’s interests, and if you can’t keep your mouth shut then you should leave. I honestly thought there were clauses in their contracts for this, especially in this day and age. I think Carrie Hope Fletcher once mentioned how her production checked their performers’ instagram following and limiting/dictating what was to be said and shown surrounding the show.

@wandaengqvist9066

Жыл бұрын

Saying that, I do understand their points but, as you said, they could’ve waited until after they left the show

This was brilliant commentary and I loved every minute of it! I especially appreciated your points that a lot of the objections people have to the interview stem from her pragmaticism, the reality behind the 75% comment, and most of all, that she needs PR training. I’ve obsessed over the interview as you have. One of her Tweets hit my stream without my knowing anything and she came across as mean and nasty spirited, but I was curious and did what she suggested by Googling her. She’s branded herself as a hyphenate (true) who’s written musical dramas (not so true). I watched some of her Dragon cycle here on KZread and what became clear to me is she she hasn’t written musicals. She’s written one-woman shows or mono-dramas or monologue shows and she sings a capella - singing songs mainly written by old white dudes. 1776 has long been called a play with music or a piece that blurs the lines separating a play with music and a true musical. She comes from a background doing dramas with few songs. I was struck in the interview by how much insecurity and desperation there was-to be taken seriously as a hyphenate who could garner representation as a hyphenate. It also seems naïve. If she gets the show’s biggest number (I haven’t seen it) and does a great job, that suggests a musical theatre star might be born, not a dramatic actor/writer/director. Thanks for the video. I’ll be thinking of all your comments when I continue to obsess over this.

How would Sara respond if one of her Dragon Cycle cast members publically admitted to only giving 75%. Would they be allowed to keep their job?

@oliviahamilton8654

10 ай бұрын

I know Sara. If a cast members 75% was what Sara's is she would be fine with that. 75% was her self assessment. At no point did people who saw 1776 go "The show was great, but I'm pretty sure that one could have given approximately 25% more...". I perform for a living. That means I am working 7 days a week. Rehearsing durning the day and performing at night. I always give 100% of what I have available to give at any given moment. Which is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that I am always giving somewhere between 60% - 100%, if we look at me at the top of my game in peak health and concentration with no muscle soreness, sinus issues, drowsiness, physical or mental fatigue etc as "100%"

I have performed professionally since I was 4 yrs old. I must say that her statements about giving 75% is honest and reality. No actor can give 100% to a performance for 10 shows a week and survive. Audiences really can't know the difference. As to the speaking of artistic disagreements I must say that I think they are better spoken of after your run in the show is over. Especially as you are representing the show and fellow cast members in the press and it can affect box office. I would also bet money she has shot herself in the foot when it comes to a Tony nomination, because politics in theatre is a very real thing.

Honestly, this read to me as a really quite thoughtful series of responses from someone who has incredible talent, good taste, and high standards.Obviously when you say some of these things it can come off as quite haughty. So, you better be able to back it up, but all the reviews of their performance seem to suggest they can.

I don’t know who this girl is or what 1776 is, but after watching this video, I don’t think she said anything wrong?

Firstly, I love the colour of your jumper. On Sara's comments, I think she has every right to express her thoughts, but if I was in the cast or crew with her I would probably be quite annoyed. It just comes across as a bit rude to everyone involved in 1776. And yes, she sounds arrogant. But lots of stars sound arrogant, it's what drives them to be stars. As for the 75%. My boss has a different saying which is similar. She says that "we can't always have "A Days", sometimes a B is enough, sometimes it's a bad day so it's a C". As long as we are at B then she has no complaints. And I have to admit that since she said that to me, my overall productivity is better. I don't get to the end of the week completely exhausted, and I don't beat myself up if a day isn't perfect.

@scribbly2983

Жыл бұрын

I think the important distinction is she absolutely has the right to express these thoughts, but that doesn't mean she won't face consequences for them, including being fired from the production.

@wwozanewmusical

Жыл бұрын

@@scribbly2983 When I said this on Facebook a person said that they wouldn't dare fire a person of color who's also in the lagbtq plus community, that would be seaside, and I said its a job that she is in if she wants to treat it as just a job, than she needs to respect her bosses, and fellow co workers who are depending on ticket sales and good promotions since this is the job choice she is deciding to take in her life, not like working at fast food restaurants or other regular jobs, Working on Broadway or the West End is the same as being an athlete and working the big jobs. Also if your getting equity pay and audiences are paying 100 plus for their tickets they de34serve to get a performance that's top of your game eight nights a week unless you have a cild, cause the audience purchasing tickets doses pay for the actors salaries once the show opens, so Patti screaming you don't pay my salary, yes the audience do pay your salary once the show has opened and producers and directors go off to do other shows.

There was an interview I heard a couple years ago from Andrew Barth Feldman about learning to do a show at different percentages because you CAN’T give 100% all the time. It made so much sense to me. He didn’t catch any flack for it. To me, this is the same idea.

@christophersmith3341

Жыл бұрын

But she's not saying she can't. She's saying she WON'T. Because she doesn't respect the material or production enough to do so (which is why she said she'd give no more to Six, either). That's where the trouble comes in. She wasn't talking about the need for a performer to pace themselves to get through weekly performances while maintaining a certain level of quality.

Hmm. After this diatribe, I doubt (a) that many directors will be keen to employ Ms Porkalob as an actor, nor (b) that many actors and other collaborators would wish to work with her as their director. Neither do I think many directors or producers would be too happy to take on any of her written work, if this is typical of the way she criticises other production staff. Look out for her name once '1776' closes - I think you might have to peer very hard indeed!

Also re: the 75%. I think that is SO valid. Their 75% is worth 100% your ticket. At the end of the day, when you are that highly trained and highly skilled (at the level of being a Broadway performer), your 75% is the average person's 750,000%. So f it, no need to work to the bone for a role - when you are that good, no one can tell the difference between 75 and 100.

I feel like this is an issue of someone just out of college being just a bit too honest, in the absolutely wrong forum, at the absolutely wrong time. There’s some youthful arrogance in there, and Jeffrey Page’s point that they haven’t done the time is very on point- they haven’t done the time, so they don’t quite get workplace politics. Honestly, if they hadn’t gone after specific creative decisions, I’d be ok with it while cringing a little at the percentage thing and wincing at the bit about seeing a dream-come-true job for a lot of people as being the equivalent of a 9 to 5. All in all, I tend to think that it is Not A Good Look for Sarah, and, honestly, might get in the way of one of their stated goals- God knows that I wouldn’t want to touch them if I was an agent, at least not for another year or two, when they had grown up a bit.

@callalily3994

Жыл бұрын

But they're not just out of college -- they're 31, and has written and directed professional shows before.

@venidium1141

Жыл бұрын

These comments crack me up. You can clearly see how people are quick to judge by one article. They have actually done workshops for the students at most of the major colleges in the USA on acting and more, including for Harvard…Lmao

@sumrakdievca

Жыл бұрын

@@callalily3994 never mind then, that makes the situation WORSE, because they should be better about understanding timing and phrasing things carefully.

@christophersmith3341

Жыл бұрын

Agree. This is a very young person. Very intense. Maybe she will always be intense, but I think had this interview occurred 10-15 years later, she would have answered the questions in a more mature manner.

@sumrakdievca

Жыл бұрын

@@venidium1141 Fair criticism. The fact they’re older makes it WORSE- they have the knowledge and real world experience to understand that saying this sort of thing could be dicey, and and she’s not doing it carefully. Great. Now I REALLY wouldn’t want to be her agent.