Is acting casting?
Sat, 12 May 2001, 01:53 amWalter Plinge44 posts in thread
Is acting casting?
Sat, 12 May 2001, 01:53 amI have a theory: that acting is casting.
If a character in a play is urbane and sophisticated, then you cast an urbane and sophisticated actor. If the character is neurotic, you cast a neurotic actor. That kind of thing.
If, instead of asking a loose-hipped type to play a starched collar, or an intellectual to play an ignorant, uneducated type, a director were to cast actors who are as close as possible to type, how different do you think it would make the process of working and playing the piece?
How many actors can actually play anything? And how many are only good within a limited range of roles? And can a director justify casting their play entirely with "types", who match -- IRL -- some or all of the characteristics of the people they're playing?
I had thought of making this a poll, but I think it's better served in this forum, where lengthy dissertations -- in either direction -- can be offered.
I look forward to a substantial, thought-provoking debate,
peace,
David M.
If a character in a play is urbane and sophisticated, then you cast an urbane and sophisticated actor. If the character is neurotic, you cast a neurotic actor. That kind of thing.
If, instead of asking a loose-hipped type to play a starched collar, or an intellectual to play an ignorant, uneducated type, a director were to cast actors who are as close as possible to type, how different do you think it would make the process of working and playing the piece?
How many actors can actually play anything? And how many are only good within a limited range of roles? And can a director justify casting their play entirely with "types", who match -- IRL -- some or all of the characteristics of the people they're playing?
I had thought of making this a poll, but I think it's better served in this forum, where lengthy dissertations -- in either direction -- can be offered.
I look forward to a substantial, thought-provoking debate,
peace,
David M.
RE: Is acting casting?
Sat, 12 May 2001, 06:07 pmWalter Plinge
Eliot McCann wrote:
> The personal manner of an actor should have little to do
> with the stage persona of the character the actor plays.
But who will be more believable in the role... the actor who shares personality traits with the character, or the one who doesn't?
> Is Willy Loman ONLY to be played by blinkered neurotic old men?
No. Maybe I was little broad in my definitions. I'm not talking about being _exactly_ like the character... rather, I'm talking about having something inherently in common with them.
Since Willy was your example, let's look at that role. Scenario: A director has to choose between two equally talented actors, either of whom could play Willy Loman brilliantly. One of them has an upright, confident, even urbane, bearing that -- while versatile enough to be malleable into any character -- is inherently at odds with the kind of physical person Willy is. He can do it, and seamlessly, but it will be an actor's device.
The other actor has an indefinable sadness about him... an innate manner of speaking and moving that reads as a kind of emotional weariness.
Both are brilliant. Both are committed. Both are perfectly valid choices. But who gets the job?
I know who I'd choose.
Why? Because it's one less thing to worry about. One thing the actor just _has_.
Amanda (Miss Chesty) could have made a great Juliet... there's no doubt she would have acted it brilliantly. But as far as I was concerned, she was always going to be Tybalt, because Amanda the person already possesses the kind of aggressive forthrightness that Tybalt the character needed.
She has other facets to her character that are poles apart from Tybalt, and (don't doubt it for a second) Amanda has the chops to play just about anything you gave her, but that one aspect of her personality made casting her as Tybalt a very easy decision.
> Why can't the role of Lenny be played by someone with a PhD in Physics?
It can. But can you picture Neil McDonald as Lenny?
He is too inherently quick and lively a physical and intellectual presence to carry off the lumbering enormousness of Lenny. I'm sure he could pull it off, just as he pulled off the stolid blokiness of Roo in "Doll". But as a director, I know that sometimes it's better -- if you have the choice -- to cast someone who will bring with them things that will make the process that little bit easier, whether it be wiry charm for Barney in "Doll", flamboyance (gay or otherwise) for Arnold in "Torch Song Trilogy", blunt earthiness for Major Steve in "Taking Sides", or calm intensity for Brian the drug dealer in "Shopping and F***ing".
> otherwise I'm stuck with "we need an eccentric emaciated Englishman -
> give El a bell!!"
There are any number of facets to you, Eliot, that would mark you as a valid choice for any number of roles. Not all of them are obvious or all-consuming... indeed, some of them could be seen as positively inconsequential. But they are there, and if the character needs them, you have an inherent head-start over someone who lacks them.
> Eliot (Chromedoe) McCann
Finally took the plunge, eh?
peace,
D.M.
> The personal manner of an actor should have little to do
> with the stage persona of the character the actor plays.
But who will be more believable in the role... the actor who shares personality traits with the character, or the one who doesn't?
> Is Willy Loman ONLY to be played by blinkered neurotic old men?
No. Maybe I was little broad in my definitions. I'm not talking about being _exactly_ like the character... rather, I'm talking about having something inherently in common with them.
Since Willy was your example, let's look at that role. Scenario: A director has to choose between two equally talented actors, either of whom could play Willy Loman brilliantly. One of them has an upright, confident, even urbane, bearing that -- while versatile enough to be malleable into any character -- is inherently at odds with the kind of physical person Willy is. He can do it, and seamlessly, but it will be an actor's device.
The other actor has an indefinable sadness about him... an innate manner of speaking and moving that reads as a kind of emotional weariness.
Both are brilliant. Both are committed. Both are perfectly valid choices. But who gets the job?
I know who I'd choose.
Why? Because it's one less thing to worry about. One thing the actor just _has_.
Amanda (Miss Chesty) could have made a great Juliet... there's no doubt she would have acted it brilliantly. But as far as I was concerned, she was always going to be Tybalt, because Amanda the person already possesses the kind of aggressive forthrightness that Tybalt the character needed.
She has other facets to her character that are poles apart from Tybalt, and (don't doubt it for a second) Amanda has the chops to play just about anything you gave her, but that one aspect of her personality made casting her as Tybalt a very easy decision.
> Why can't the role of Lenny be played by someone with a PhD in Physics?
It can. But can you picture Neil McDonald as Lenny?
He is too inherently quick and lively a physical and intellectual presence to carry off the lumbering enormousness of Lenny. I'm sure he could pull it off, just as he pulled off the stolid blokiness of Roo in "Doll". But as a director, I know that sometimes it's better -- if you have the choice -- to cast someone who will bring with them things that will make the process that little bit easier, whether it be wiry charm for Barney in "Doll", flamboyance (gay or otherwise) for Arnold in "Torch Song Trilogy", blunt earthiness for Major Steve in "Taking Sides", or calm intensity for Brian the drug dealer in "Shopping and F***ing".
> otherwise I'm stuck with "we need an eccentric emaciated Englishman -
> give El a bell!!"
There are any number of facets to you, Eliot, that would mark you as a valid choice for any number of roles. Not all of them are obvious or all-consuming... indeed, some of them could be seen as positively inconsequential. But they are there, and if the character needs them, you have an inherent head-start over someone who lacks them.
> Eliot (Chromedoe) McCann
Finally took the plunge, eh?
peace,
D.M.
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···