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?

. . . trying to deal with being inclusive and the new taboos*, while at the same time trying not to twist yourself or the script in knots in doing so. The plays we stage come from different times and cultures, during which different societal expectations existed. When dragging those scripts into this century and its societal expectations, it can be challenging, from both the casting and script perspectives. Only a few decades ago no-one would have given a second thought to smoking. These days it is different (as we have seen in another thread). These cultural riddles confront us with casting as well. A couple of important questions spring to mind were I to be faced with an auditionee that does not conform to my idea (which may be culturally-driven, but is not necessarily a whim; it may be a sound interpretation of the script)of what is required for the part: 1 Does the auditionee impress me more than others in acting ability? 2 Can I adjust my ideas about the play and script by considering this person, and will those adjustments leave the integrity of the play intact? * Ruth Wajnryb, in "Language Most Foul", traces the evolution of swearing, profanity and bad language in general over time, noting its correlation to taboos of the time. For example, when societies were more spiritual, disrespect of deities caused shock, horror and outrage (e.g. expletives such as 'God!' or 'Damn'. These barely raise an eyebrow these days. In Victorian times, swearing shifted broadly from religious to sexual themes. Again, these don't cause nearly as much consternation these days as they did some twenty years ago. Wajnryb observes that contemporary taboos predominate in 'isms'; racism, sexism, ageism and so on . . . and you can get into enormous trouble by stepping over the line with these. For example, calling someone a 'black bastard' half a century ago would have got you into trouble for the 'bastard'. These days you will get into trouble for the 'black'. This is the dilemma we face: trying to contemporise our thoughts about a play that has written when life was quite different. This goes across cultures as well; not just across time.

It's a tricky situation . . .

Thread (13 posts)