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?
Mon, 14 May 2001, 12:14 pmWalter Plinge
Vive La Nepotisme!
(Excuse my French)
Yay! An interesting discussion!
Onya David!
Thanks to being a Libran, I can pretty much see the points that everyone has made in this discussion so farÂ…
Now for my two cents:
In the larger philosophical sense, I have to agree with David. Yes, an actor should share something with their character, something that they can use as a base point to develop from. Otherwise, how will they know where to go if they canÂ’t get there from here!
However, if an actor shares TOO MUCH similarity with their character, I donÂ’t think that they would be able to portray the character well at all. I think it would be much more difficult for an actor to MAINTAIN portraying someone almost themselves, but not quite, because it would be too easy to just keep slipping out of the character and back into themselves.
Yes, I agree that this path promotes Nepotism, but I disagree that this is necessarily a bad thing!
I have just finished playing Henry in ‘Cosi’. This role was the best thing I have yet done on the stage (not to sound too up myself, this opinion was formed both from my own point of view, and from comments by a couple of people whom I trust to tell me the TRUTH about my own acting).
I got this role because the Director was a very good friend of mine.
Yes, he asked me to audition.
Yes, I knew I pretty much had the role before auditions began.
And YES, I knew that if I gave a shite audition and someone else gave a better one, I would not have got the role.
On the surface, the role of Henry is one that is galaxies away from me, personally.
To one who knows both me and the character well, however, there are striking similarities of the ‘There, but for the Grace of God’ type.
The Director would not have known of these similarities if he had not known me well as a person.
The Director would certainly NOT have known of my capability to play this character if he had only known me from my previous work (mostly witty, sophisticated characters).
The Director could, possibly, have picked up some of this info from my audition, but that is where it comes down more to chance, luck and the skill of the Director.
In fact, when I look back on my so-called career in non-paid theatre, the parts of which I am most proud are, in fact, the parts for which I was invited to audition by friends.
As a director, I am not a fan of naturalism (as anyone who has seen the last x plays IÂ’ve directed will attest) and I think a lot of theatre people get caught up in one or other Universal Theory of Acting.
Saying, this is the ONLY way it should be doneÂ…
Not realising that a diverse range of theatrical styles needs a diverse range of theatrical techniques.
I would not, for example, like my actors to leave themselves in their dressing rooms if I was directing, for example, a play by Dario Fo or Tom Stoppard! I would like to think that my actors would keep enough control of themselves to cope with the pressures of the TEXT and not just the pressures of the CHARACTER!
I hope I havenÂ’t gone too far from the topic in my little rant.
Paul Still-sore-from-the-Unarmed-Combat-Workshop-on-Saturday Treasure
(Excuse my French)
Yay! An interesting discussion!
Onya David!
Thanks to being a Libran, I can pretty much see the points that everyone has made in this discussion so farÂ…
Now for my two cents:
In the larger philosophical sense, I have to agree with David. Yes, an actor should share something with their character, something that they can use as a base point to develop from. Otherwise, how will they know where to go if they canÂ’t get there from here!
However, if an actor shares TOO MUCH similarity with their character, I donÂ’t think that they would be able to portray the character well at all. I think it would be much more difficult for an actor to MAINTAIN portraying someone almost themselves, but not quite, because it would be too easy to just keep slipping out of the character and back into themselves.
Yes, I agree that this path promotes Nepotism, but I disagree that this is necessarily a bad thing!
I have just finished playing Henry in ‘Cosi’. This role was the best thing I have yet done on the stage (not to sound too up myself, this opinion was formed both from my own point of view, and from comments by a couple of people whom I trust to tell me the TRUTH about my own acting).
I got this role because the Director was a very good friend of mine.
Yes, he asked me to audition.
Yes, I knew I pretty much had the role before auditions began.
And YES, I knew that if I gave a shite audition and someone else gave a better one, I would not have got the role.
On the surface, the role of Henry is one that is galaxies away from me, personally.
To one who knows both me and the character well, however, there are striking similarities of the ‘There, but for the Grace of God’ type.
The Director would not have known of these similarities if he had not known me well as a person.
The Director would certainly NOT have known of my capability to play this character if he had only known me from my previous work (mostly witty, sophisticated characters).
The Director could, possibly, have picked up some of this info from my audition, but that is where it comes down more to chance, luck and the skill of the Director.
In fact, when I look back on my so-called career in non-paid theatre, the parts of which I am most proud are, in fact, the parts for which I was invited to audition by friends.
As a director, I am not a fan of naturalism (as anyone who has seen the last x plays IÂ’ve directed will attest) and I think a lot of theatre people get caught up in one or other Universal Theory of Acting.
Saying, this is the ONLY way it should be doneÂ…
Not realising that a diverse range of theatrical styles needs a diverse range of theatrical techniques.
I would not, for example, like my actors to leave themselves in their dressing rooms if I was directing, for example, a play by Dario Fo or Tom Stoppard! I would like to think that my actors would keep enough control of themselves to cope with the pressures of the TEXT and not just the pressures of the CHARACTER!
I hope I havenÂ’t gone too far from the topic in my little rant.
Paul Still-sore-from-the-Unarmed-Combat-Workshop-on-Saturday Treasure
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···