Thank you for outlining the real controversy here.

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.

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 KZfaq 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! 👆

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

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

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

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.

@@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.

I disagree, were talking about her.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

100%!!

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?

​​@@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

@@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.

yes

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.

@@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 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.

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.

Classic Sara Porkalob

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!!!

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

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.

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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

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 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.

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).

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.

@@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?

@@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.

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.

@@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.

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.

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

@@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.

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.

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

@@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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Actors owe producers nothing.

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

@@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

@@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.

@@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."

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.

You won't ever move there because it isn't. Acting isn't "a job." MickyJo is a great content creator, but on this subject, he's wrong. It isn't labor you do for financial compensation because we all have to make money. It's like being a painter, dancer, musician, poet. It's the pursuit of an art. It's a calling. The only reason to do it is because you must and you can't be happy doing anything else. And that means if you give it everything you've got every chance you get. Yes, every performer gets tired. Everyone gives different energy levels depending on what they have on a given day. Everyone has off days. But that isn't what she's talking about. She's saying--by choice--she won't EVER give this show or this role 100%. And that's spitting in the eye of the production that hired you.

Standing O

@@christophersmith3341 art IS labor though. ESPECIALLY THEATRE. If you ever DO theatre, it’s is HARD. I’m making two musicals and I can tell you IT IS LABOR!! And yes, you do get ACTUAL money for this job. That’s why people get rich on Broadway. But that’s also why people are poor on the other spectrum, which is a different topic. But yes, the fact that you say that art isn’t labor is just silly to me. Don’t mean to offend you, but I just disagree with you. ☺️

@@Benni777 I never, never said it wasn't hard. You think painting, dance, poetry, which I made it analogous to, is easy? It is very hard, very demanding work. No question. Which is why resolutely refusing to give more than 70% for most of a show--and saying you'd do the same in any show--is so deeply offensive and wrong-headed.

I think (at least in part) the reason that a lot of people expect Broadway actors, movie stars, etc. to be extremely grateful for their opportunities is because so many others would kill to be in that position. Mickey Jo mentioned working at Tesco as an opposite example, and the perceived difference is that most people generally don’t work/practice/train/whatever their entire lives to work at a grocery store, but they do for things like Broadway and Hollywood. In my personal case, it’s like when predents and applicants trying for the third time hear dental students complaining and wishing they had gone to med school. Those people want nothing more than to be in that small percentage that has “made it”, but some of the members who are already in that group don’t appear to recognize the opportunity they have. It doesn’t even seem like the candid remarks are causing the issue here, because we’re all human and have bad days, our own opinions, etc.; it’s that Sara is appearing to just be bashing the majority of this production without recognizing that, even statistically, it really is an opportunity to be cast in that role. Edit: We also shouldn’t be invalidating people who feel hurt by some of her remarks.

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.

@@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!

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.

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

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.

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

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%"

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

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

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

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.

@@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.

I love artists. They suck at commercial theater because they don't understand it's a game where you sell the image of "Let's put on a show!" "We love each other!" "THIS IS MY BEST WORK!"

Theater (meaning the institutional theaters of Broadway) is becoming increasingly massively irrelevant in the US. I graduated from a top 10 theater school and the playwrights I know are telling people to go directly to Hollywood, especially BIPOC and other diverse folk. Theater is old, rich and white and it's really not interested in meaningfully telling the stories of people who don't look like the old guard. And they can't sustain that change. I've gone so far as to recommend to folks in the high school theater programs that they focus on content production rather than running a theater club and producing shows. It's a more useful skill that the students will return to. There are more technology grants in some places.

Exactly