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, 10:31 pmWalter Plinge
Nath wrote:
> It is SO easy to defend a system when you benefit from that system.
Of course it is. It's called selfishness, and it's undeniable. But it's the same selfishness you indulge in when you decry it.
> It seems the only reason nepotism is profitable is because directors
> are incapable of spotting talent during auditions.
I don't have to cast every actor who auditions for me.
Every actor I have ever cast has auditioned for me. I don't cast off the shelf unless I absolutely have to. All of those actors were strangers to me at one point.
But whether I know them or not, I cast who I want. I do not have to fill a quota.
> Doesn't nepotism promote stagnancy?
If it does, someone had better tell Neil Armfield -- artistic director of Company B at the Belvoir Street Theatre (which spawned -- among others -- Geoffrey Rush, Cate Blanchett, Richard Roxburgh, and David Wenham). He uses the same people over and over again.
Why? Because rather than promote stagnancy, it promotes an actor/director short-hand. Why make the process hard when you can make it easy?
> Doesn't nepotism stifle creativity?
If it's based on casting friends whether they can act or not, yes. I don't do that.
> Come on, be brave. Take the chance and cast people you DON'T know.
All but one of the cast of "Doll" were -- acting wise -- total strangers to me. All but three of the seventeen strong cast of "R&J" were totally new to me. And a fully half of the ten-strong cast of my upcoming production -- "After Aida" -- were total strangers at the start of rehearsals.
> You only get one chance. If you blow it, you're out for life!
Nathan, you have had two chances with me. I look forward to the third. And the fourth. And the fifth.
Tough it out. I look forward to being able to offer you something.
peace,
D.M.
> It is SO easy to defend a system when you benefit from that system.
Of course it is. It's called selfishness, and it's undeniable. But it's the same selfishness you indulge in when you decry it.
> It seems the only reason nepotism is profitable is because directors
> are incapable of spotting talent during auditions.
I don't have to cast every actor who auditions for me.
Every actor I have ever cast has auditioned for me. I don't cast off the shelf unless I absolutely have to. All of those actors were strangers to me at one point.
But whether I know them or not, I cast who I want. I do not have to fill a quota.
> Doesn't nepotism promote stagnancy?
If it does, someone had better tell Neil Armfield -- artistic director of Company B at the Belvoir Street Theatre (which spawned -- among others -- Geoffrey Rush, Cate Blanchett, Richard Roxburgh, and David Wenham). He uses the same people over and over again.
Why? Because rather than promote stagnancy, it promotes an actor/director short-hand. Why make the process hard when you can make it easy?
> Doesn't nepotism stifle creativity?
If it's based on casting friends whether they can act or not, yes. I don't do that.
> Come on, be brave. Take the chance and cast people you DON'T know.
All but one of the cast of "Doll" were -- acting wise -- total strangers to me. All but three of the seventeen strong cast of "R&J" were totally new to me. And a fully half of the ten-strong cast of my upcoming production -- "After Aida" -- were total strangers at the start of rehearsals.
> You only get one chance. If you blow it, you're out for life!
Nathan, you have had two chances with me. I look forward to the third. And the fourth. And the fifth.
Tough it out. I look forward to being able to offer you something.
peace,
D.M.
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···