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?
Wed, 16 May 2001, 11:44 amWalter Plinge
Damn! I knew I should have kept my big trap shut!
Now I have to justify myselfÂ…
“It is SO easy to defend a system when you benefit from that system. SO easy to justify the perpetuation of a system when it's to your benefit.”
I think at this point I should quote an actor that I have just cast in my next play and have never directed before:
“I’m only against pre-casting if it doesn’t go in my favour.”
The same could be said for nepotism. It does have many, many advantages.
“It seems the only reason nepotism is profitable is because directors are incapable of spotting talent during auditions. Surely not! If directors are having trouble seeing talent, perhaps they could restructure their auditions?”
I donÂ’t know about other directorÂ’s, but I know that I have normally been thinking about directing a play for YEARS before it ever gets up and running. Every time I go to see a play it is a de facto casting call. Every time I audition to get in a play it is a de facto casting call. Every time I go to a party it is a de facto casting call. Every time I sleep with someoneÂ… [oops, may have gone too far there].
Sometimes in auditions I only need to hear the auditionee read three lines to know if they are perfect for the role, and if they are not, I normally will give them the benefit of the doubt and audition them a bit longer and harder before I decide that they donÂ’t have the right stuff (for THAT particular production).
Sometimes in auditions you just can’t find anyone who you think is right for the part, and the only thing you can do is call in a favour from someone else who, although also not being ‘right’ for the part can at least do a creditable job.
“Doesn't nepotism promote stagnancy? Fewer actors auditioning because they know they will never get a challenging role.”
Well, yes, if you only ever cast through nepotismÂ…
But if you get a good balance between people you have used before and people you have yet to use, then the newbies can refresh the oldies, and the oldies can guide the newbies through the foibles and peculiarities of the directorÂ…
“Doesn't nepotism stifle creativity? If you work with a more diverse group of actors, there's a greater opportunity for creativity.”
If you work with actors that you have worked with before, they know your foibles, they know how you operate, they know what you require from them. You can spend less time breaking them in and more time actually BEING creative.
With an actor that you have worked with before, you develop a sort of short-hand.
For example: someone who has worked with me before knows the difference between what I call a pause and what I call a silence. They know exactly what I mean when I say HIT a word or phrase. They even get to know the subtle differences between my various umms and intakes of breath, and what they mean. As well as which smile means IÂ’ve had a scathingly brilliant idea, or IÂ’m very happy with what theyÂ’ve done, or IÂ’ve just got a joke for the first time (an occupational hazard with directing Stoppard).
Also, you know when an actorÂ’s ideas are just frivolous or really mean something to them.
Also, if youÂ’ve worked with an actor before, you know whether or not you and the rest of the cast will get along with them. Believe me, NOTHING stifles creativity more than friction on set!
“Come on, be brave. Take the chance and cast people you DON'T know.”
I think my own track record is pretty good in this respect:
Currently directing Travesties - eight speaking parts:
2 x actors IÂ’ve directed before on more than one occasion
3 x actors IÂ’ve acted with on only one occasion before
1 x actor who did props on a play I was in before
1 x actor IÂ’ve seen in other shows, but never worked with before
1 x actor I didnÂ’t know from Adam before auditions
Mind you, that is also the pick of auditionees, not working to some kind of stupid quota.
Hey, letÂ’s be honest here, this is Perth! IÂ’ve been around for a few years now, what are the realistic chances that I would never have seen/heard of/acted with someone who auditions for me?
“Oh I dunno, maybe I should get off my soap box here...”
Hey, the more soapboxes the better, I think!
Up with intelligently polemical dialogue!
“I don't want to ostracize myself... You know what these nepotic systems are like. You only get one chance. If you blow it, you're out for life!”
Hey, IÂ’ve directed 12 different plays for five different clubs over ten years, and IÂ’ve only EVER black-listed two actors! One after directing them once and the other after acting with them once. How can I black-list you if I donÂ’t know you?
Come on, you be brave also, get out there and audition and show me exactly why I should cast you over someone that IÂ’ve worked with a number of times before.
Now I have to justify myselfÂ…
“It is SO easy to defend a system when you benefit from that system. SO easy to justify the perpetuation of a system when it's to your benefit.”
I think at this point I should quote an actor that I have just cast in my next play and have never directed before:
“I’m only against pre-casting if it doesn’t go in my favour.”
The same could be said for nepotism. It does have many, many advantages.
“It seems the only reason nepotism is profitable is because directors are incapable of spotting talent during auditions. Surely not! If directors are having trouble seeing talent, perhaps they could restructure their auditions?”
I donÂ’t know about other directorÂ’s, but I know that I have normally been thinking about directing a play for YEARS before it ever gets up and running. Every time I go to see a play it is a de facto casting call. Every time I audition to get in a play it is a de facto casting call. Every time I go to a party it is a de facto casting call. Every time I sleep with someoneÂ… [oops, may have gone too far there].
Sometimes in auditions I only need to hear the auditionee read three lines to know if they are perfect for the role, and if they are not, I normally will give them the benefit of the doubt and audition them a bit longer and harder before I decide that they donÂ’t have the right stuff (for THAT particular production).
Sometimes in auditions you just can’t find anyone who you think is right for the part, and the only thing you can do is call in a favour from someone else who, although also not being ‘right’ for the part can at least do a creditable job.
“Doesn't nepotism promote stagnancy? Fewer actors auditioning because they know they will never get a challenging role.”
Well, yes, if you only ever cast through nepotismÂ…
But if you get a good balance between people you have used before and people you have yet to use, then the newbies can refresh the oldies, and the oldies can guide the newbies through the foibles and peculiarities of the directorÂ…
“Doesn't nepotism stifle creativity? If you work with a more diverse group of actors, there's a greater opportunity for creativity.”
If you work with actors that you have worked with before, they know your foibles, they know how you operate, they know what you require from them. You can spend less time breaking them in and more time actually BEING creative.
With an actor that you have worked with before, you develop a sort of short-hand.
For example: someone who has worked with me before knows the difference between what I call a pause and what I call a silence. They know exactly what I mean when I say HIT a word or phrase. They even get to know the subtle differences between my various umms and intakes of breath, and what they mean. As well as which smile means IÂ’ve had a scathingly brilliant idea, or IÂ’m very happy with what theyÂ’ve done, or IÂ’ve just got a joke for the first time (an occupational hazard with directing Stoppard).
Also, you know when an actorÂ’s ideas are just frivolous or really mean something to them.
Also, if youÂ’ve worked with an actor before, you know whether or not you and the rest of the cast will get along with them. Believe me, NOTHING stifles creativity more than friction on set!
“Come on, be brave. Take the chance and cast people you DON'T know.”
I think my own track record is pretty good in this respect:
Currently directing Travesties - eight speaking parts:
2 x actors IÂ’ve directed before on more than one occasion
3 x actors IÂ’ve acted with on only one occasion before
1 x actor who did props on a play I was in before
1 x actor IÂ’ve seen in other shows, but never worked with before
1 x actor I didnÂ’t know from Adam before auditions
Mind you, that is also the pick of auditionees, not working to some kind of stupid quota.
Hey, letÂ’s be honest here, this is Perth! IÂ’ve been around for a few years now, what are the realistic chances that I would never have seen/heard of/acted with someone who auditions for me?
“Oh I dunno, maybe I should get off my soap box here...”
Hey, the more soapboxes the better, I think!
Up with intelligently polemical dialogue!
“I don't want to ostracize myself... You know what these nepotic systems are like. You only get one chance. If you blow it, you're out for life!”
Hey, IÂ’ve directed 12 different plays for five different clubs over ten years, and IÂ’ve only EVER black-listed two actors! One after directing them once and the other after acting with them once. How can I black-list you if I donÂ’t know you?
Come on, you be brave also, get out there and audition and show me exactly why I should cast you over someone that IÂ’ve worked with a number of times before.
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···