1776's Sara Porkalob Brutally Honest Vulture Article — Page 5

Well this article certainly spilled out the fresh grass for the drama llamas on this board.



Another BIPOC artist who clearly loved working with Diane Paulus!

Updated On: 10/15/22 at 05:21 PM

Kad said: " think that’s worse than anything Porkalob said, considering she made no personal attacks."

I agree! She came after their vision and work and they totally have the right to be pissed about that. But there is nothing she said that is comparable to him calling her "rotten to the core"

As far as the larger situation, she definitely has guts! Honestly, I agree with most of what she said and I wish that more people in the industry were willing to be honest about it. HOWEVER, you can't expect to trash talk the show you're currently performing in and relying on for your paycheck without any consequences. That's what the day after your show closes is for.

For example, I'm sure that we will slowly start to get a million different accounts of everything that happened this summer at Funny Girl once that show closes. But, for the time being, all we have is one "anonymous co-producer."

I'm old. What does SADH mean?

Does it mean, ahem...."Find someone in your travels to orally pleasure, you less-than-ideal prostitute"?

Updated On: 10/15/22 at 07:38 PM

"The actors are hired to perform the role, and yes, even be a team player is some regards. But not to sell tickets. That’s what the marketing team is for."

Maybe the cast and company are not hired "to sell tickets"...but they aren't supposed to undermine the marketing team (and the production) with interviews like this. This whole controversy is going to hurt the show (and its Tony chances).

I didn't like the production, and for some of the reasons Porkalob cites. I thought her "Molasses to Rum" was quite good, but I didn't like the rest of her performance (too one-note, and I couldn't understand the relentless smiling)...I'm glad I read her interview, but I wouldn't be happy with it if I were involved with the production at all.

pethian said: "

Ah, the old genius artist = crazy trope. I don't think so. Especially not in this case.

"

Not all geniuses are crazy, not all crazy leads to genius. But yes, a certain deranged ranting can be the sign of lotsa stuff worth expressing. I certainly am in no rush to hear another word out this person's mouth but i think HER intent is to attract attention so she can construct/make art, rather than begrudgingly appear in it.

This is the rare thread where I agree with nearly everyone—even the people who disagree with each other. There are a lot of good points being made on both sides, and I think this is a complex issue—that of an actor not being happy with the creative process or the work being performed, and saying so. For those saying they wonder how their fellow actors will respond to this, in fact they speak enthusiastically of the pleasure of working with such a talented group. I was surprised, having read the article after I read the comments, how little I found that was incindiary.

I will say I’m irritated by the perspective they share with the team behind the revival that the whole intent is “to remind the audience of the faces that were not considered during the Declarinton of Independence.” Those are their literal words in the article, and I don’t get how—in a show where the oppression of African Americans takes center stage in the debate—anyone who has actually read the script can make this claim. Nor does it work to transfer the criticism to women in general. The show is very clear—the war isn’t won if Abigail and her fellow women in Massachusets don’t provide the gun powder necessary. And just speaking reasonably, there’s no way these men weren’t thinking of their wives and daughters, just because women weren’t members of the Congress (they weren’t members of Parliament in England, either, or particiating in the governing of any other nation on the globe; that was wrong, sexist, blind, but it doesn’t mean that women were considered to be nothing and of no importance—the art and literature and memoirs of all continents speak to the importance of women). It’s just a frustrating misreading of a show whose whole point is that the supposed “Great Men” of our nation’s history were actually deeply flawed men, limited by their era, the general prejudices of the time and their own individual shortcomings. “What will posterity think we were? Demi-gods?” Franklin literally asks at one point. This is an amazing work, and to denigrate it because it doesn’t present a world identical to and in complete accord with the ideologies of 2022 is frustrating.

The other troubling issue is their saying they give only 75% at any given performance, except when performing their solo. And I don't accept the “How many times do you give more than 75% at your job?” defense. Most of us work jobs we don’t care about to put food on the table and to pay the rent. And yes, we phone it in quite a lot. But as someone who was an actor for over 20 years, let me say that working in the theater—or the visual arts, or dance, or music—is not “a job.” It’s a calling. Dedicating your life to the arts is not the equivalent of sitting in a cubicle or driving a truck or entering data in a computer or whatever. It is something you do because you have a passion for it. You do it because you cannot live doing anything else. You cannot expect to make a decent living at it, as very few do. The only reason to do it is because you love it more than life itself, and you give it your entire life, everything you have. It is not some dull 9-5 gig you suffer through just to make it through another day. With so many people desperate to work in the theater, to play even the smallest role in a show anywhere, let alone a featured role on Broadway, yes, their comment is wrong-headed and entitled.

But honestly, over all, I thought she made good points. As have pretty much all the commenters in this thread.

Updated On: 10/16/22 at 06:44 AM