Is acting casting?

David Meadows wrote:
-------------------------------
>> What if, however, Actor 1 was better than Actor 2?
> My example stands on the assumption that he is not, and so the question is irrelevant.

Which is why I inserted the 'however'. What if Actor 1's personality was completely at odds with Willy but he had more experience/talent/relevant skills/training, and had proved that he was versatile enough to pull off the part? And then Actor 2 was /still/ cast as Willy because he looked/presented more like Willy? It does happen, and it drives me (as an audience member, knowing there was another actor more capable) NUTS!!!

>> Actor 2 may have been cast for the 147th time as a tragic loser purely
>> because of their outward presentation.

> So if he's sick of it, why is he auditioning for Willy Loman?

What if he was auditioning for Biff? And he /still/ got cast as the sad loser? I'm sorry to bring in a personal example, but auditioning for a play, I once had the choice of auditioning for an aggressive slut role versus a gentler character, and I told the director I would rather not be cast than have the aggressive slut role for the umpteenth time in a row. I was offered the aggressive slut (which I turned down). I went to see the show only to see a wet week, half-arsed performance by someone who was personally closer to the character I originally preferenced, but did not have the confidence, knowledge of the play, or imagination to do something interesting with it. Casting to type in this case backfired, and left audiences squirming or yawning.

>> As far as I'm concerned, casting on the basis of personality is a
>> raw deal for all concerned.

> Including the audience?

Definitely. See above. I would much rather see a skillful, imaginitive actor on stage, than a personality type.



If the shoe was on the other foot, however, and Hoffman was given the role over Hopkins, our whole perception of the character would probably be different and we may otherwise have been appalled at an urbane Englishman playing a cannibalistic serial killer. Real life example (and not mine this time): Judi Dench was originally cast as Grizabella in Cats (the one that sings the belter standard 'Memory'). Three weeks before the show went up, she snapped an achillies and Elaine Page stepped in, and the rest is history. Our perception of the role now is as a pathetic tear-jerking belter, and it has been played this way ever since. Can you imagine Judi doing the role now? Probably not, even though she would doubtless be amazing. Basically what I'm saying, is that it is hard to give a 'what if X had been cast instead of Y' when Y has already imprinted their interpretation indelibly on us.

A more personality-oriented example: there was a bit of surprise in the ballet community when showy Oz Ballet principal Sian Stokes was cast as Odette/Odile in Swan Lake. Known for her teriffic interpretations of gutsy, slut roles, she didn't seem to be the right choice for the fragile, vulnerable Swan Princess. Because of her strength of interpretation and new, un-stereotyped qualities she brought to the role (and probably relief at not being cast as a tart again - I'm with you, sister) she now stands as one of the best interpreters of the role in the Australian Ballet's illustrious history.

I stand by my original statement that casting on the basis of personality is a raw deal for all concerned. And add, that if a director casts /against/ personality type he may well reveal a new and fascinating interpretation of the character, which we (as AUDIENCES) may otherwise have been denied.

Gee, my fingers are tired, now.

Amanda Chesterton