Is acting casting?

I 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.

I am just wondering how this topic is related to your being cast in the latest PTC show, David...? Is there something you're not telling us?

;)

Yours pot-stirringly,
Toby

In my opinion this is the inevitable outcome of Naturalism. Acting has become 'behaving'. So the obvious choice is to cast someone who 'naturally' behaves in the same way as the required character.

So much for Stanislavsky/Strassberg/Meisener...
Meyerhold on the other hand still insisted on 'The Actor' who 'acts'...

I disagree somewhat. It may be easier for your urbane, sophisticated actor to play an urbane sophisticated character, but who wants to play themselves (especially if you're urbane and sophisticated... Errrgh!)? The point of acting is you get an opportunity (excuse?) to be all the people you don't get to be in your "normal" life. I get a kick out of playing the "bad guy", because in real life I'm just so goddam nice. I think if the actor is capable she/he should be able to play any character they understand. If they undertand the character, they can be them.

I believe there is a difference between acting and casting.

Firstly, there's the way they're spelled.

The personal manner of an actor should have little to do with the stage persona of the character the actor plays. For instance, I've only spoken to Ben Sorgiovanni briefly in the past, but I don't believe he himself is as disturbed as the character he most recently played.

Does every actor who plays a role need to have the traits of said character? Is Willy Loman ONLY to be played by blinkered neurotic old men? Why can't the role of Lenny be played by someone with a PhD in Physics?

I think it is up to the skill and craft of the actor to demonstrate the character, as opposed to relying on "TYPE" to get a role. Although Tony Martin is now only ever offered hard-bitten cop roles, I trust the same doesn't hold true for Community Theatre; otherwise I'm stuck with "we need an eccentric emaciated Englishman- give El a bell!!"

Eliot (Chromedoe) McCann

Sorry, I forgot my own name there for a sec....

In answer to David's more poll-oriented question. I believe this happens, but it shouldn't. And a lot of times it doesn't- for instance, when an unknown actor auditions for a first time director.

Maybe it's the directors who need to look further than the obvious choices... granted, you can't always go out on a limb, but a bit of vision wouldn't hurt every now and then... sometimes just having vision is a start...

El the Chromedome dyslexic.

Toby Malone wrote:

> I am just wondering how this topic is related to your being cast in the
> latest PTC show, David...? Is there something you're not telling us?

There are lots of things I'm not telling.

I will tell you that some of my co-stars are giving me strange looks immediately after we run my scenes.


peace,
D.M.

Eliot McCann wrote:

> The personal manner of an actor should have little to do
> with the stage persona of the character the actor plays.

But who will be more believable in the role... the actor who shares personality traits with the character, or the one who doesn't?

> Is Willy Loman ONLY to be played by blinkered neurotic old men?

No. Maybe I was little broad in my definitions. I'm not talking about being _exactly_ like the character... rather, I'm talking about having something inherently in common with them.

Since Willy was your example, let's look at that role. Scenario: A director has to choose between two equally talented actors, either of whom could play Willy Loman brilliantly. One of them has an upright, confident, even urbane, bearing that -- while versatile enough to be malleable into any character -- is inherently at odds with the kind of physical person Willy is. He can do it, and seamlessly, but it will be an actor's device.

The other actor has an indefinable sadness about him... an innate manner of speaking and moving that reads as a kind of emotional weariness.

Both are brilliant. Both are committed. Both are perfectly valid choices. But who gets the job?

I know who I'd choose.

Why? Because it's one less thing to worry about. One thing the actor just _has_.

Amanda (Miss Chesty) could have made a great Juliet... there's no doubt she would have acted it brilliantly. But as far as I was concerned, she was always going to be Tybalt, because Amanda the person already possesses the kind of aggressive forthrightness that Tybalt the character needed.

She has other facets to her character that are poles apart from Tybalt, and (don't doubt it for a second) Amanda has the chops to play just about anything you gave her, but that one aspect of her personality made casting her as Tybalt a very easy decision.

> Why can't the role of Lenny be played by someone with a PhD in Physics?

It can. But can you picture Neil McDonald as Lenny?

He is too inherently quick and lively a physical and intellectual presence to carry off the lumbering enormousness of Lenny. I'm sure he could pull it off, just as he pulled off the stolid blokiness of Roo in "Doll". But as a director, I know that sometimes it's better -- if you have the choice -- to cast someone who will bring with them things that will make the process that little bit easier, whether it be wiry charm for Barney in "Doll", flamboyance (gay or otherwise) for Arnold in "Torch Song Trilogy", blunt earthiness for Major Steve in "Taking Sides", or calm intensity for Brian the drug dealer in "Shopping and F***ing".

> otherwise I'm stuck with "we need an eccentric emaciated Englishman -
> give El a bell!!"

There are any number of facets to you, Eliot, that would mark you as a valid choice for any number of roles. Not all of them are obvious or all-consuming... indeed, some of them could be seen as positively inconsequential. But they are there, and if the character needs them, you have an inherent head-start over someone who lacks them.

> Eliot (Chromedoe) McCann

Finally took the plunge, eh?


peace,
D.M.

David Meadows wrote:
-------------------------------
"Maybe I was little broad in my definitions. I'm not talking about being _exactly_ like the character... rather, I'm talking about having something inherently in common with them."

Ah HA!!! Now I gets ya! And I do agree with this consideration.

"Finally took the plunge, eh?"

Indeed- I'm now considering roles in "Buchenwald- The Musical" :-)

Eliot "Cueball" McCann

There is a big difference between acting and playing yourself. The character is not you, and should you have any of your own characteristics in it, then it is not a character. Look at any brilliant actor, and you will see that no two characters of theirs are the same, and yet every character is nothing like that.

Typecasting is done becuase it is easier and cheaper in the industry. but I'd rather a good actor any day as opposed to some one playing themselves reading lines.

Look at any great actor, such as Laurence Olivier or even Tom Hanks. Forrest Gump was a brilliant CHARACTER, and was nothing like Tom Hanks.Or even take Rowan Aitkenson. A brilliant physical comic, yet you see an interview with him, and he is like a Rhodes scholar.

Then look at someone like Arnold Schwartznigger (?) and tell me in the same breath that he is as good as Tom Hanks, and I'm talking ACTING, not box office!

It is comments like that that reinforce the difference between amateur productions, with a bunch of untrained PERSONALITIES, and professionals who are constanly in CHARACTER.

There is a difference between an ACTOR playing a CHARACTER, and a CHARACTER playing an ACTOR. Community theatre is where you'll find more of the latter. Support professional theatre and keep these "proper" actors employed. Leave it to the ones that know what they are doing, not the one who THINK they know what they are doing (and that they are brilliant at it)

I reckon you've got it wrong with the line:
"But who will be more believable in the role... the actor who shares personality traits with the character, or the one who doesn't?"
If the actor understands the character they're playing it shouldn't matter who the actor is, the actor should leave their own personality in the dressing room. If directors give good descriptions of their visions for characters during auditions, good actors should be able to provide a "believable" audition.
Besides, if you don't know the person auditioning how can you judge if they share personality traits with the character.
This concept breeds nepotism.

>Scenario: A director has to choose between two equally talented actors, either of
> whom could play Willy Loman brilliantly. One of them has an upright, confident, even
> urbane, bearing that -- while versatile enough to be malleable into any character -- is
> inherently at odds with the kind of physical person Willy is. He can do it, and
> seamlessly, but it will be an actor's device.
> The other actor has an indefinable sadness about him... an innate manner of speaking
> and moving that reads as a kind of emotional weariness.
> Both are brilliant. Both are committed. Both are perfectly valid choices. But who gets
> the job?
> I know who I'd choose.

What if, however, Actor 1 was better than Actor 2 (the one more like Willy)?

That is where it gets really annoying as directors will often go for Actor 2 anyway, in the mistaken belief that they will be able to carry off the role, by sheer virtue of the fact that they present as mopier and dumber than Actor 1.

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

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

Amanda 'Tired of Playing Aggressive Bitches/Sluts/Whores' Chesterton

Daniel said:"Support professional theatre and keep these "proper" actors employed. Leave it to the ones that know what they are doing, not the one who THINK they know what they are doing (and that they are brilliant at it)".

Daniel, I am curious as to what your definition of a "proper" actor is! One who is being paid? One who is trained? One who you personally enjoy the performances of? Please enlighten me.

> 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.

Nath wrote:

> the actor should leave their own personality in the dressing room.

Why?

> Besides, if you don't know the person auditioning how can you judge
> if they share personality traits with the character?

You don't have to know someone personally to recognize a "type".


peace,
D.M.

> 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.

> 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?

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

Including the audience?

Something to ponder:

Dustin Hoffman was offered Hannibal Lecter. He turned it down because he said he was "wrong" for the role.

Do you think he would have been as good in it as Anthony Hopkins? Or was Hopkins' natural demeanor of calm, elegant intensity one of Lecter's best attributes?

In other words, what did Hopkins _himself_ bring to the role that Hoffman wouldn't have?

There is no doubt Hoffman would have been a brilliant Lecter, had he taken the role. But it would have been an entirely different performance, because they are entirely different people.

> Amanda 'Tired of Playing Aggressive Bitches/Sluts/Whores' Chesterton

Fear not, milady... I have plans for you.


peace,
D.M.

Malcolm Crisp wrote:

> So much for Stanislavsky/Strassberg/Meisener...

Wasn't the point of Strasberg's method that the actor bring something of _themselves_ to the character?


peace,
D.M.

N:"the actor should leave their own personality in the dressing room."

D:"Why?"

N:"Perhaps it would be better to write. The actor should leave the aspects of their personality that are inappropriate to the character that they're playing. In my case it wouldn't be very useful to maintain my cheerful aspect if I was playing a dark and moody character... I guess we may be getting down to semantics here as this dark and moody character would actually be part of myself, just a part that would only been seen very rarely. It would also be this cheerful aspect that you would see during an audition. Bad luck for me if I wanted to play a dark and moody character, right?"


N:"Besides, if you don't know the person auditioning how can you judge if they share personality traits with the character?"

D:"You don't have to know someone personally to recognize a 'type'".

N:"Really? You've seen me, you don't "know" me, what type am I??? (Please ignore the statements I made above regarding who I am - and no foul language either, this site is G rated.)"

>> 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.

True, and more than a few so-called 'professionals' are untrained.

Find somewhere else to spout the virtues of professional theatre over amateur, Daniel. The only response you'll get here is a flaming.

Amanda Chesterton

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

Amanda's comments that she is always cast as the bitch/whore I found interesting....

Before my doctor put the nix on my directing Oleanna, Amanda had enquired about auditioning. Immediately I could see potential because I see in her a fragility and vulnerability (as well as internal strength).

Interesting how different directors see the same person.

When I am casting I look for aspects of the character within the actor....BUT often they are aspects of their personality that perhaps are rarely accessed or difficult to see. I think you do need to draw the character from within and then develop from there.

If there is nothing of the character in the actor at all, then I don't think you are going to get a good performance, no matter how talented they are.

There is such a thing as being simply wrong for a role.

Kim

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

>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.

Once again Amanda, as far as I am concerned you've hit it right on the head.

This may be a tangent but, my usual practice when I get a part is to sit down and try to find the character in myself, try to find that little bit of soldier, whore or school girl that is inside me and examine it. Then blow it up into a whole personality. If I can't find it, I try to find someone i know and understand who has the important elements and I borrow them. Almost every character you play is an extension of yourself, it's ACTING but it comes from somewhere.

I'm one of these unlucky people who defy type and as a result I'm hard to cast. Not pretty enough for romantic lead, not ugly enough for kooky best friend. If everyone was going to cast to type, I'd never set foot on a stage. It should be part of a directors job to have some imagination and see past the past interpretations of the character or the inital physical limitations of the actor, as long as they arn't insurmountable. However, many directors do not have that kind of imagination, and as I result I think David is right, most directors will cast to type. The best ones won't.

Vive La Nepotisme!?!
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.
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?
Doesn't nepotism promote stagnancy? Fewer actors auditioning because they know they will never get a challenging role.
Doesn't nepotism stifle creativity? If you work with a more diverse group of actors, there's a greater opportunity for creativity.

Come on, be brave. Take the chance and cast people you DON'T know.

Oh I dunno, maybe I should get off my soap box here... 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!

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.

Nath wrote:

> I guess we may be getting down to semantics here as this dark and moody
> character would actually be part of myself

Bingo! Consensus.

The discussion had veered from "sharing traits with", to "being identical to". Thank goodness we got back on track.

> You've seen me, you don't "know" me, what type am I???

The slender, athletic, pony-tailed type. ;o)

One of these days, I will be looking for a slender, athletic person with a pony-tail.

(of course, by then, you'll have had a haircut!)

Stick it out, boyo! Keep working on the skills-base, keep auditioning, and you'll get a break!


peace,
D.M.

Me: "It seems the only reason nepotism is profitable is because directors are incapable of spotting talent during auditions."
You: "I don't have to cast every actor who auditions for me...."
I think you took that sentence out of context. I was implying that the only argument Paul had offered in favour of nepotism was that "directors are incapable of spotting talent during auditions."
(see what you've done? Now it's me vs you...)

I'm not particularly convinced by your "nepotism not making things stagnant" argument either... Hell, they may have all left because things WERE nepotic there. Essays could be written on whether nepotism is a cause of stagnancy! Anyone got time to do a PhD??

I'm glad to hear you don't indulge in nepotism and do cast strangers, but the big question is... When will you do a play that has roles for 30 year olds??

This seems to have drifted way off track from your original theory. Suffice to say I think I can play more than just long-haired nice people. Despite my urbane sophistication I can grovel in the muck with the worst of them (and I love it!).

> Hell, they may have all left because things WERE nepotic there.

I doubt it. Geoffrey Rush left because he can get $3m per film in Hollywood. Cate Blanchett's probably getting the same.

Actors keep coming back to Armfield because he's a great director. And if he's found great actors that he gets along with, and with whom he communicates easily, then more power to him.

> When will you do a play that has roles for 30 year olds??

I am always making plans. Stay tuned.

> I think I can play more than just long-haired nice people.

I've no doubt of it.


peace,
D.M.

Nath wrote:
-------------------------------

Come on, be brave. Take the chance and cast people you DON'T know.


I did.

A few I knew, some I knew of, but the majority were a complete revelation. Individually they are all very good. Collectively - they are turning into dynamite!

Even Eliot - who has cast off the shackles of an eccentric-Englishman and become a clumsy Italian composer, with ink on his fingers, who would toy with adultery and blackmail women. ;)

LouiseCC

Just to add some frivolity to this discussion - I'm tired of being cast as either a dotty old lady or a bossy director, and before someone thinks of it I've heard ALL the comments, mostly several times over!! (No remarks Stuart please)

Well, just out of spite... I will get a haircut.

Why don't we challenge those in favour of Davids theory to an "Act-off" then?? They can give actors a character to play (presumably "inappropriate") and then the actors will show them how wrong they are...
We'll need some rules though. Ideas??
Perhaps we could run it like an experiment. Each actor gets several roles. One or two that are deemed "appropriate" and some that aren't.
I dunno perhaps people don't have time for this kind of sensless frivolity.

LouiseCC lasciviously scrawled:

Even Eliot - who has cast off the shackles of an eccentric-Englishman and become a clumsy Italian composer, with ink on his fingers, who would toy with adultery and blackmail women. ;)

Abso-freaking-lutely! Who wouldn't, given the opportunity???

One day, when my lust is subdued, I shall return to the one true music- until then... Ah-hahahahahahahahahahaha (in Italian)

Eliot

If you must comment on subjects obviously beyond your intellectuall grasp, please do it elsewhere you foolish little man.

your comments fell well short of being at all reasonable, and were completely devoid of factuality... you deserve the scorn im sure will be given freely by others.... i have better things to do

you are a git

Kam

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.

I'm sometimes facinated by the casting process in terms of how a Director sees me:what sort of person I am,what makes me tick,and the the assumption that I may be chosen for a role because I am so like the character!The perceptions are often far from the reality.Is that how I appear to people? How many people?
The other syndrome I find mildly disturbing is the "I can see you playing this role" number.For that I read Iv'e SEEN you play that role;sort of,bring it out,dust it off,and do it again!I would imagine most Characters we play differ in major ways from ones we have already played and the "regurgitation" notion diminishes the new work being done by the actor. So there!

So, really you don't indulge in nepotism at all, or not very much? That's good to hear!
I guess there are arguments both ways and blah blah blah... Am I too proud to admit I'm wrong?? I don't know. Maybe I just need more convincing.
As for showing you what I can do I haven't been acting long, only about a year, so I don't actually know who you are! Seen any of the following plays/performances?
Moral Guerillas - Fringe Fest. 2000
Cosi - Stirling Players, last August
Weatherwise - Stirling Players, last October
Wyrd Sisters - Arena, during April
If so you'll, have seen some of what I can do. And I do audition for lots of things... Even things I know I'm not going to get into!

“So, really you don't indulge in nepotism at all, or not very much?”

Hmm… How about calling it ‘Selective Nepotism’?
I have been known to choose plays because a mate would be fantastic in one of the roles, and then fill in the rest as it comesÂ…
Although, often when I do this it’s not so much a case of “so and so could do that role on their head” as “ooh, that’s something so and so could really get their teeth stuck into”

“Am I too proud to admit I'm wrong??”

You are an actor, you cannot have too much pride!!
The Gods know that none of us have any dignity left, so we may as well hold onto our pride with every last fibre of our being!?

“…so I don't actually know who you are!”

Oh! The anonymity! How can I bear this, someone who knows not who I amÂ…
[Maybe that’s just as well, someone who won’t run screaming in the other direction as I enter the room – no comments please, Kyla!]
OK, last eighteen months only
Much Ado About Nothing: The Musical – Roleystone
Lady Windermere’s Fan – Marloo (director)
Bang! You’re Dead! – Roleystone
Sourcery – Blak Yak
Elizabeth: Almost By Chance a Woman – Marloo (director)
Cosi – Roleystone
And soon Travesties – Roleystone (director)

“Seen any of the following plays/performances?
Moral Guerillas - Fringe Fest. 2000
Cosi - Stirling Players, last August
Weatherwise - Stirling Players, last October
Wyrd Sisters - Arena, during April”

ummÂ… only Wyrd Sisters
WhoÂ’d you play?
I played Vitoller for Blak Yak a couple of years backÂ…

WhoÂ’d you play in Cosi?
Missed that one as I didnÂ’t want to be influenced by anyone elseÂ’s Henry before RoleystoneÂ’s was up and runningÂ…

Well, isn't that an unusual twist of fate??
I was Vitoller in Wyrd Sisters too! I won't ask you what you thought though. I think it's always hard for actors to judge other actors who play roles they themselves have played. Well, I do anyway!
I played Doug in Cosi... Muah ha ha haaaa!!!! He was fun.

LouiseCC wrote:
-----------------------------
I did.

A few I knew, some I knew of, but the majority were a complete revelation. Individually they are all very good. Collectively - they are turning into dynamite!


YEAH! I am good aren't I Louise? standing around on stage doing nothing - but in a good way!
put antonio salieri into a Google search and find a piccie - he's UGLY! (no offense eliot)
at least mozart was cute in is younger years!

Amanda. :-)

"Well, isn't that an unusual twist of fate?? I was Vitoller in Wyrd Sisters too!"

Aah! Now I can put a face to a name!!

"I won't ask you what you thought though. I think it's always hard for actors to judge other actors who play roles they themselves have played. Well, I do anyway!"

No, not really. I just always assume that I was ten times better than they were, and then worry that maybe they were ten times better than I was and I'm just kidding myself... ; )
Ah, the insecurity of being an actor, isn't it great!

In all sincerity - well done that man!

"I played Doug in Cosi... Muah ha ha haaaa!!!! He was fun."

Yeah, our Doug reckoned it was great as well, Henry, on the other hand, was a totally satisfying role to play, but very, very taxing... I was knackered after every performance.
I just think it weird that after all the musicals I've done in the last x years, the first show I do where I REALLY get to sing is a PLAY!

Never from your real friends Norma

I gotta say I disagree with you on this one bud. I've only been doing this for a couple of years, and to be honest I TEND to get cast as the wimpy snag types (read: Laurie Laurence - Little Women). However, I recently had a would-be director say to me "I can see you playing (censored-because-I-don't-want-to-let-the-cat-out-of-the-bag-about-the-production) in (and again),". I have never played a role like this one.

When someone says "I can see you playing this character," I take it to mean that they think I might be capable of doing this, despite what they've seen me in, and would like me to audition so they can test the theory out. The director in question has seen me play an Orang-utan and a Queen's toy-boy, so if they're using that as some sort of benchmark then quite frankly I'm disturbed at their vision for the production.

No aggro, it's just that I feel that these comments are what you make of them.

Troy Hall wrote:
-------------------------------
"The director in question has seen me play an Orang-utan and a Queen's toy-boy, so if they're using that as some sort of benchmark then quite frankly I'm disturbed at their vision for the production."

To clear something up here...
The Queen in question was a reigning monarch of the female type, and NOT the director of said show...
The director of said show saw enough of Troy just on stage, thank you very much...

Paul Treasure