Young People

With the large numbers of young people now using this site, I felt none should miss out on a post which is now some way down the board (buried by Mr Gambles incessant ramblings, I'm kidding, the boy has now seen the error of his ways). After a lengthy debate about audiences and their leaving in interval, a debate which should remain buried, the following emerged:

'As a rule, we avoid employing the services of anyone younger than 18, simply because people of that age, while enthusiastic, are not usually able to be committed to one project for several months at a time, due to studies, personal relations and the general "finding themselves" issues. We do, however, have an average age of between 25 and 35. An ideal age as such people have well and truly found themselves, and are in theatre for the sake of theatre, and not just for the sake of something to do.

I'm not saying all younger people are unreliable, but I have to say this rule was introduced because there had not been a past production where at least one person of that age didn't decide to quit a show midway because of a relationship breakup! No joke! '


Thought I'd get some other opinions on this.

Melissa

I've directed 3 full length plays and 4 one acts, and in that time I've only had to replace 2 actors. Unfortunately, both of them were under the age of 20. In both cases, it was due to unreliability. I don't believe there was anything else involved other than having different priorities.
However, having said that, I have still cast young people in all of my shows and probably still will. I've worked with many teenagers (I teach them, too), and find the majority of them dedicated and talented, with heaps of potential.

I try to judge each person on their own merits, not on a generalisation because of their age.

dingdong diligently declared:
------------------------------------
I try to judge each person on their own merits, not on a generalisation because of their age.

Indeed- some of the most committed and driven people I've come across in Community Theatre have been under 18. And some over 18 I wouldn't give houseroom because they have not proved themselves dependable.

Eliot

Generally the most passionate people in live theatre are the teenagers. By comparison, the older members of a group will appear jaded. If the passion of the younger members can be harnessed, great things can happen. Unfortunately, that passion is hindered by very nature of the teen years, which is their educational commitments and their need to explore various skills and ideals - which makes it extremely hard for such people to ground themselves in one area (ie: theatre). There is nothing wrong with an individual dabbling in different things, but unfortunately it is financially and creatively detrimental to a single project where total commitment from beginning to end is necessary.

Long term members of a group are often former "younger" members who have proved to be reliable in the past and have grounded their interests in theatre (I'm one of them!). But the majority of past young members have long since left theatre to pursue other interests. So the group is left with the dedicated members, anyway.

There are certainly older individuals in theatre who are very unreliable, but the advantage with older members who have been involved in the same group for several years is that usually a producer KNOWS which of those older people are unreliable and can immediately choose not to work with them if they feel they will harm the production. This doesn't apply to younger people who are relative newcomers to the group, and it is impossible for a producer to judge whether such members are going to prove reliable or not.

This may not be an issue for school productions or government-funded projects, but in a production that is reliant on a solid box-office return for its survival (such as self-funded amateur groups), the producer cannot afford to take such risks.

Yes, it is a generalisation, and exceptions are made on occasion. A compromise that is made, is the placement of a younger member in an expendable role (ie: assistant stage-manager) which won't greatly affect the quality of the production if that member abandons the show. But if that person proves to be reliable in that role, then they will be considered for a more substantial role in a future production. This procedure also applies to all new members regardless of their age.

It is not a prejudice against young people that forces a group to exclude them from productions, but the unfortunate need to be as sure as possible from the very beginning that every means has been taken to ensure a successful production. This is why the older members often are seen as the "staid, boring, stifling old establishment". They have realised that enthusiasm and talent is not enough. At some point, the boring reality of commerce has to be considered, and it is the "boring establisment" that is forced to make those unpopular "prejudicial" choices.

It's not always the young people that aren't committed, as it has been said numerous times above.
I was working with a particular company with a group of very committed young people about a year and a bit ago when we were all told that (as we'd finished devising the piece) in two weeks, once the final script had been written, we'd all be given a call. I still haven't heard anything. Rumour has it that our teacher had left the country...

Another reason there aren't too many younger people in theatre is that there isnt such a large variety of "meaty" parts for us. Thankfully I'm 18 soon. so hopefully this will change. :)

-Bec

Being in a musical where the age restriction is under thirty and over 13 i think it is, I know why these age restrictions have occured. A few people have pulled out, but then again, its not just 18 and under who have time restrictions or study or even "Finding Themselves" (Which I'm sure is not the touchy feely sense of the word). I think you really just have to accept the fact that someone may pull out of a show. So if you're putting on a show, be prepared to have to pull someone in at the last minute.

PS: (Mel, do you consider an 18 yr old as a boy? I like to think of it more as the legal yet maturity developmental age.)

Jason

I'm 19, and its because of rules like this, coupled with the difficulty of getting parts at my age, that I'm starting a youth theatre group in Perth. We're a non-profit organisation, run by young people for young people.
I'm aiming the group at people between about 12 and 25, to try to combat the very problems being discussed here.
So, if anyone is interested in finding out more, you're welcome to email me or call me on 0402 312 213.

--Rhiannon

If there's any assistance I can render Rhiannon, just let me know.

This restriction in age actually affected the upper end of the age scale rather than the lower. As the second eldest in the cast at the ripe old age of 24 i have to admit that it is and interesting place to be. That is if you can stop the massage lines on stage in the middle of a dance rehearsal.

I have to admit that working with such a young cast is very difficult and I feel that alot of the kids (and i mean that in the nicest way possible) are able to put more in at rehearsals because they have more time. Or is that because most of the people over 18 are also involved with the production team ( all of the choreographers and one of the directors).

Who knows, but it is going to be .........interesting anyway.

Just a quick question.

If you are only considered a youth until the age of 25, and in some places you are not considered and adult until you are at least 30, what are you in between?

Please help as i am nearly no longer a youth and i would like to know what the void has to offer me.

As in Tolkein, a Tweenager?

I'm interested!

ther's nothing wrong with young people!
some work better then most old people would any day -but some others don't.

from 15-year-old,
Amanda T.

My name's Patrick, and I'm a 12 yr old actor in the making. I think you shouldn't not let kids into a production because they might be unreasonable or unattentative. I have been in three productions at once, (without pulling out), handles 113 lines and a solo song in one of them, been a replacement for any leads, never been late or missed a rehearsal or been unattentive. I agree some people (including older people) can talk too much or play around, but some are some of the most responsible actors you can find. See how they are during the audition process with their peers. If they play around too much, but do really well, t's up to you. But if they play around and are a relatively average actor, consider saying no. That's my theory.

I agree 100%. My first role was when I was 12, and I landed the lead role. Mind you, this was a junior workshop, but it helped to show that you must be dedicated if you are to make it anywhere. I live in the Jandakot area and I travel for 25 minutes to Roleystone 3 times a week just to do what I love - that must tell you something. I have not once pulled out of a show, and only once have I pulled out of a drama class, and that was purely for distance and financial reasons. For me, shows are hard to come by so whatever I get I take for granted, and I will definately not let go or let anything stand in the way. If someone has an attitude like that, then they must be dedicated. I think that if you are dedicated enough to attend the audition, you are dedicated enough to see teh show through.

Alan Gill

One thing to take into account when casting young people, and deciding how reliable they are going to be, is that you are often working with two people: the youth in question, and also a parent. There are many times when the parent need to be the reliable one, and I think that can be what lets some young people down, not getting lifts when needed and so on.

I can see you were aiming that one at me Kris, and I swear I didn't start it that time!

Hi,

Interesting little debate we've got here. Thought I'd add my five cents.

Personally, I have never encountered an age restriction rule (the obvious exception being youth theatre)- actually I have experienced quite the opposite with people usually being extremely supportive of any move I've made in theatre in my part of WA (though often you can sense the doubt about my age somehow affecting my level of experience)... However I would be a little freaked out by an age rule because many of the best, most experienced and enthusiastic actors and directors I have worked with have been quite young, though I've also worked with great older actors and directors.
Really though, age shouldn't be a factor when one decides who one is going to work with - it's quite a surface consideration really (actually I find it quite nastily discriminatory). Funky (and reliable) people come in all ages. To me, all that should matter is that you're working with people who you create good work with and thay you can enjoy creating said work with them.

Is creating a youth theatre company the best way to work around this though? Youth theatre companies are good, but by working in a youth theatre environment, you are kind of taking away your opportunities to learn skills from people who have been around the industry/scene for yonks. At the same time I suppose it has it's advantages though 'cos you get to throw yourself in the deep end... but it depends on the way you prefer to learn, if it's from other people or from trying to figure it out yourself. Good luck anyway...

Tom Ford - 18 (if that's important to you at all :P)

Tomas Ford wrote:
-------------------------------
I have never encountered an age restriction rule

- and i dont think that there should be age restrictions - except if tour or school(for a young person) gets in the way.

actors - should be able to act any person of any sex, any age, and any personality. there shouldn't be (well actually there isn't) any restrictions.

Amanda T.

Regards to Broadway has an age restriction on it so that we can prove to the OLDER members of the committee that the youth are dependable and talented and perfectly capable of producing a show as such. Also, those people who have been in theatre for yonks tend to go for the older actors, say 30's and 40's as opposed to what is on offer from the "mature" teens and 20 yo people. I am actually 14, and I have done my lot of junior workshops. I can only 3 at the Roleystone Theatre, and having one every year, and that being the only form of acting that I do most years, I have virtualy hit a hole in the road. One you have done your 3, there is nothing for the youth to do in the theatre until they reach 25 or so, when they are "supposively" reliable enough to be taken in as actors. In the workshop programme they say that they are interested in the youth and want to keep us going in the theatre, but by having one of the directors in the junior productions casting 25+, we have nothing left to continue on with. In Broadway, the directors are absolutely marvellous. As I've said earlier, I live, like, next to the freeway and travel 25 minutes to the theatre 3 times a week. At least once a week either Nicola, Stephen or Troy (Babar) drive me home. They are the people that are looking out for the youth and doing everything to make sure that the show is successful and that we get as much out of it as possible.
There aren't any age restrictions as such, but there is a very biased opinion towards the 25 and over actors.
Hats off to the kind people involved with Broadway.

Cheers,
Alan Gill

Troy

I was not aiming it at you. I know you didn't start it that time.

But it is still frustrating and the older people should know better and stop it happening again before you have a not so pretty bunny on your hands.

It's hard enough as it is.

Kris