It's all about the look or talent?!

I have just recently gotten back into acting after working in media in Sydney. I am finding it a little frustrating to find suitable plays and short films I can audition for in Perth. I am Australian born with Indian, European and Indigenous heritage. Alot of the roles I have auditioned for lately have been set in 18th Century England so my look is probably not appropriate (which I was told by one honest director). I don't really like it when the director thinks I am only suitable for the role of the "maid". But heck I'll happily play that role if it's offered. I am seriously just happy to have a chance to practice auditioning and just be judged on the acting. I kinda figure if I get my face out there then directors know I exist, so when the right role comes along I'm top of mind. Can someone please point me in the right direction here? How can I get more acting experience in Perth when there is a lack of roles for me to audition for in amateur theatre?

I think Jeff is quite right about the way theatre condones discrimination. But I think film & TV are actually the last bastion. Screen acting is far more concerned with the appearance of reality than theatre is. Screen casting directors are extremely specific and it's rarer to cast against type. For instance, if a character starts as a young person and then ages 20 years in the show, film will usually cast two different actors of the correct ages. However there are many plays where the one actor can play a character from a child to a geriatric, and achieve this simply through characterisation - not even needing to bother with make up effects. The nature of theatre, and its suspension of disbelief, means we are happy to accept this as part of the storytelling if the storytelling is clear. And so there is often no real need to cast within type in theatre. A character is believable if you MAKE it believable, and this is less about how the actor looks than to do with the skill of the actor and of the director. And I don't believe this can ONLY be done by altering the script. I don't know the play you refer to, but I would hazard a guess that the Indian woman you mention could've played the role of a Jewish woman as written, and the audience would've largely accepted this. I'm sorry to risk bringing up a play I'm involved in YET AGAIN (!), but by way of example...in our period drawing room comedy of Earnest, the role of the high society Londoner, Gwendoline Fairfax, was played by an actor of Filipino descent who naturally has a slightly American accent. To my observation, her portrayal was easily acceptable. If it was too much of a leap for anyone to accept that she was Lady Bracknell's daughter (given that you were already accepting that Lady Bracknell was played by a man in drag), maybe you'd have rather seen a film than a play. But from the reports so far, no one has been too concerned over that aspect. Jeff says that 'more modern pieces may allow more flexibility in their casting', and this is true. But I'd also add that more modern ideas of directing would expand this flexibility even further. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

It's more to do with the directors than the roles, though

Thread (13 posts)