1776's Sara Porkalob Brutally Honest Vulture Article — Page 3

And now she's gone on a full Twitter rampage reiterating that it's not her job to give 100% and she must be doing something right if everyone hates her. Truly I'm beginning to wonder if she's trying to intentionally sabotage her career because that's about the only thing that explains this at this point.

smidge2 said: "Everyone working in live theater were out of jobs for almost 2 years. So, yes, it is deeply offensive to see an actor whining in the media about a directorial choice. It’s absolutely disgusting."



Are you an actor? If you are, and you’ve worked enough, then you have taken jobs that are career stepping stones and jobs. Like I said, for so many reasons, I don’t think I’d ever say the things Sara said here publicly, especially while still in a show. And for me, if she’s going to, she could have been a bit more tactful—for her own benefit! But at the same time? It’s kinda nice to see someone acknowledge that sometimes acting is a job and you show up to work and you’re grateful for the paycheck but not in love with the art.

"The people who hold the purse-strings will never hire you again." That's LITERALLY the point. - Sara Porkalob on Twitter.

That answers why she did it.

Alex Kulak2 said: "She couldn't have waited 3 months to do this interview?"

Let's be real and assume this board would come after Sara even if they waited said 3 months.

Furthermore, they sure came across as annoying and pretensions, but if the show wanted publicity then there it is.

Updated On: 10/15/22 at 12:36 AM

This is a truly fascinating article that gives a lot of candid opinions and has many great points to make. A lot of what was said was incredibly provocative, unwise, and foolhardy, but a lot was thought provoking and honest.

If she was using 1776 as a career stepping stone, this will surely cause her to fall into some pretty hot water. The foolhardy moments are really unfortunate, and may have earned her a a life away from Broadway; I can't say I would blame a director or producer if they chose to never cast her again.

Kudos to her honesty, though. I hope she finds whatever she was hoping to find after giving these very honest thoughts.

A Director said: "Jonathan Cohen said:

Elements of 1776 were progressive in it's time, but as an entire piece I don't think the musical holds up through a 2022 lens. They make up a lot of the facts, which is odd because the point of the piece was to make the founding fathers look human.


>MR COHEN, This is a link to a statement by Sherman Edwards and Peter Stone about writing 1776. https://americanrepertorytheater.org/media/historical-note-by-the-authors-of-1776/

As for you wanting a better song about Jefferson, his relationship with Sally Hemings happened after the time period of the show. A different song would not work in the context of the musical.

I would disagree with Edwards and Stone's assertion that they made no major changes to the real story. By switching the order of events, so that the vote to declare independence was held up by the language in the declaration of independence discussing slavery, it made it sound like there was a moment where this country might not be declared, because some of the states were willing to take a principled stand on the issue of slavery.

In truth, all 13 states agreed to declare independence, and what the question of slavery was actually holding up was more along the lines of a disagreement over what would go into the press release announcing what was already decided.

With Thomas Jefferson specifically, yes he called slavery a “moral depravity” and addressed slavery in some early version of the Declaration of Independence. But while Sally Hemings was 3 in 1776 and was never going to factor into this story, Jefferson had 600 slaves over the course of his life, and was a slave owner in 1776.

A song dealing with his hypocrisy of speaking out against slavery, yet never taking any action while he was alive to free his own slaves would have been far more dramatically interesting than a trivial song about his violin skills. "Cool, Cool, Considerate Men" holds up better than most of the songs because it points out the hypocrisy of the Northern States, but some characters from Southern states like Jefferson largely gets a pass in the musical.

Also this is a much more minor point, but John Adams being viewed as someone everyone found obnoxious was far more accurate when he was president than in this time period.










"

"

Jonathan Cohen said: "A Director said: "Jonathan Cohen said:

Elements of 1776 were progressive in it's time, but as an entire piece I don't think the musical holds up through a 2022 lens. They make up a lot of the facts, which is odd because the point of the piece was to make the founding fathers look human.


>MR COHEN, This is a link to a statement by Sherman Edwards and Peter Stone about writing 1776. https://americanrepertorytheater.org/media/historical-note-by-the-authors-of-1776/

As for you wanting a better song about Jefferson, his relationship with Sally Hemings happened after the time period of the show. A different song would not work in the context of the musical.

I would disagree with Edwards and Stone's assertion that they made no major changes to the real story. By switching the order of events, so that the vote to declare independence was held up by the language in the declaration of independence discussing slavery, it made it sound like there was a moment where this country might not be declared, because some of the states were willing to take a principled stand on the issue of slavery.

In truth, all 13 states agreed to declare independence, and what the question of slavery was actually holding up was more along the lines of a disagreement over what would go into the press release announcing what was already decided.

With Thomas Jefferson specifically, yes he calledslavery a “moral depravity” and addressed slavery in some early version of the Declaration of Independence. But while Sally Hemings was 3 in 1776 and was never going to factor into this story,Jefferson had 600 slaves over the course of his life, and was a slave owner in 1776.

A song dealing with his hypocrisy of speaking out against slavery, yet never taking any action while he was alive to free his own slaves would have been far more dramatically interesting than a trivial song about his violin skills."Cool, Cool, Considerate Men" holds up better than most of the songs because it points out the hypocrisy of the Northern States, but some characters from Southern states like Jefferson largely gets a pass in the musical.

Also this is a much more minor point, but John Adams being viewed as someone everyone found obnoxious was far more accurate when he was president than in this time period.













"

"

"

I think you’re referring to “molasses to rum” in terms of pointing out the north’s hypocrisy?


Also, there’s a pretty vicious and effective exchange that Rutledge has with Jefferson before the song where Jefferson is being all high and mighty about the abolishment of slavery, and Rutledge says “then see to your own wounds, Mr. Jefferson, for you are a practitioner, are you not?” No, it’s not a full song, but it’s another moment in the show where the writers continue to point out that the founding fathers were flawed, hypocritical, drunks, unlikable, rude, and bring them down from their pedestals we often hold them up on. Even the “hero” is - as you acknowledged - obnoxious and disliked!


He Plays the Violin comes at the mid point in the show where there’s a change of pace needed (we’ve been in a dry courtroom scene for a long period), and a lighter musical comedy section comes along (“not everyone’s from Boston, John!&rdquo, so sure, trivial I guess. The song and scene also helps to set up Yours, Yours, Yours for John and Abigail (coincidentally one of my favorite broadway duets).

At the end of the day, this show was extremely progressive for its time, especially in relation to what was going on at the time. It very much takes a whack at American exceptionalism. Is it in the same vein of progressivism as we see it today? Probably not, but it’s a 55 year old show. Things change.


What’s so evident from this production is how none of them seem to like and disrespect the material (this interview included). Which begs the question of why they’re doing it in the first place.


As for the interview itself, I absolutely applaud and appreciate the candor and honesty of parts of it, but it’s also extremely off-putting. If you’re not looking to ever be in “establishment theatre” again, then why ask to be a part of this? The “I’m better than this” mentality can’t be helpful to her colleagues and fellow cast-mates in the show. Oh to be a fly on the wall, indeed.

It’s clear she has no interest in playing the Broadway game and she explicitly says she’s doing this for the paycheck. And, honestly, good for her for being open about it. There is a broader social shift of workers realizing there’s no reason why they should be giving 100% of themselves all the time for their jobs, and actors have no reason to be excluded from that. Plenty of actors take jobs for the money and phone it in, even on Broadway, and most audiences won’t even notice.

The Broadway community facade deserves major cracks, given that its downsides include gatekeeping, concealed abuse, and more- something that its tight-knit, circled wagons approach has largely prevented any major reckoning on.


As for her cast mates- I don’t know, it seems like Porkalob isn’t someone who conceals their opinions, and it seems like the the process has been open and in discussion. Will this affect ticket sales? Likely not, unless this somehow blows up into a larger story covered widely. While Porkalob likely has no publicist (she alludes to not even having an agent), it’s highly unlikely that this interview happened and was published without sign off from Roundabout. But the only scandal here is that an actor spoke a rarely spoken truth.

Updated On: 10/15/22 at 10:10 AM

cougarnewtin said: "Something that not a lot of people are pointing out is the way she talks about 1776 as being a museum piece— Does everyone involved just hate the source material?? I can’t stand it being written off as some dusty thing about how all the Founding Fathers are perfect. Its progressive! It was banned at the White House! It was pretty explicitly written to call into question the ideas of American exceptionalism during the Vietnam War and Civil Rights movement!!"

Yes. Of all the offensive things she says in the interview what gauls me the most is she trashes the show itself --one of my favourite shows! So **** her

TaffyDavenport said: "https://twitter.com/sporkalob/status/1581182114145280000

"For the haters and math nerds here's a breakdown of what the 75% comment really meant:

75% = performing in 1776.

10% = sleeping

5% = eating

5%= pooping

5% = self care aka not devoting my entire life to being a Broadway star.""

Lol, her tweets about this article have been hilarious. I was a fan of:

”People are mad that I'm giving 75% when I get paid 75 cents on the dollar, smh.”

In reading the interview I don't think Porkalob is "publicly trashing" or "bashing the people she works with" at all. I do think that they are sharing specific, pointed critiques of discrete moments/directorial choices in the show. It's certainly unusual to see performers share those thoughts, but I'm in agreement with those who find this candor refreshing!

Also given statements they made like "I also think that they cast the best people for the roles" and "My favorite thing in the whole process is my cast", comments on this board painting this interview as trashing and bashing feel incorrect and possibly made in bath faith.

Porkalob does explicitly state that they hope to get a Tony nomination from this production and I do concede that this interview may put that at risk. But that's more so an indictment of the system/industry.