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, 12:01 amWalter Plinge
> There is a big difference between acting and playing yourself.
And there is a big difference between playing yourself, and having something in common with the character.
> The character is not you, and should you have any of your own
> characteristics in it, then it is not a character.
Rubbish. A character is words on a page. It is how well the actor interprets these words that determines their skill as an actor, not how far away from their own persona they can journey.
> Look at any brilliant actor, and you will see that no two characters
> of theirs are the same
I regard Robert DeNiro as a brilliant actor, and yet many of his performances are very much the same. The same with other of my favourites... Dustin Hoffman, Ed Harris, Kevin Kline, Geoffrey Rush...
> I'd rather a good actor any day as opposed to some one playing themselves.
You assume that the two are mutually exclusive.
> Look at any great actor, such as Laurence Olivier or even Tom Hanks.
I have. Olivier's "Hamlet" was identical to his "Henry V", and Hanks' performances in "Saving Private Ryan" and "Castaway" were equally so.
> Then look at someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger and tell me in the
> same breath that he is as good as Tom Hanks
I had thought of dismissing this troll-like inanity, but no...
It's horses for courses. True... Schwarzenegger couldn't have done "Saving Private Ryan" or "Forrest Gump", but then could you see Hanks doing "The Terminator", or "Commando"?
> It is comments like that that reinforce the difference between amateur
> productions, with a bunch of untrained PERSONALITIES
More than a few of us are trained, Daniel.
> and professionals who are constantly in CHARACTER.
Okay, this has to be a joke.
> There is a difference between an ACTOR playing a CHARACTER, and
> a CHARACTER playing an ACTOR.
Nifty phrase-making there. Shame it doesn't make any sense.
> Support professional theatre and keep these "proper" actors employed.
Troll... I'm outta here!
peace,
D.M.
And there is a big difference between playing yourself, and having something in common with the character.
> The character is not you, and should you have any of your own
> characteristics in it, then it is not a character.
Rubbish. A character is words on a page. It is how well the actor interprets these words that determines their skill as an actor, not how far away from their own persona they can journey.
> Look at any brilliant actor, and you will see that no two characters
> of theirs are the same
I regard Robert DeNiro as a brilliant actor, and yet many of his performances are very much the same. The same with other of my favourites... Dustin Hoffman, Ed Harris, Kevin Kline, Geoffrey Rush...
> I'd rather a good actor any day as opposed to some one playing themselves.
You assume that the two are mutually exclusive.
> Look at any great actor, such as Laurence Olivier or even Tom Hanks.
I have. Olivier's "Hamlet" was identical to his "Henry V", and Hanks' performances in "Saving Private Ryan" and "Castaway" were equally so.
> Then look at someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger and tell me in the
> same breath that he is as good as Tom Hanks
I had thought of dismissing this troll-like inanity, but no...
It's horses for courses. True... Schwarzenegger couldn't have done "Saving Private Ryan" or "Forrest Gump", but then could you see Hanks doing "The Terminator", or "Commando"?
> It is comments like that that reinforce the difference between amateur
> productions, with a bunch of untrained PERSONALITIES
More than a few of us are trained, Daniel.
> and professionals who are constantly in CHARACTER.
Okay, this has to be a joke.
> There is a difference between an ACTOR playing a CHARACTER, and
> a CHARACTER playing an ACTOR.
Nifty phrase-making there. Shame it doesn't make any sense.
> Support professional theatre and keep these "proper" actors employed.
Troll... I'm outta here!
peace,
D.M.
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···