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?

Theatre is probably the last bastion of discrimination. If you want a woman for a role, you can quite rightly reject men because of their anatomy. If you want a 12 year old, you're not going to cast a fifty-something matron of the company. As a director, it is firstly about "can you play the part?" If two people could do the job equally well, I will probably choose the one who physically fits the character best, and make no apologies for doing so. I want the character to be believable, and if that means I pick the fat bloke over the skinny bloke, then so be it. For "fat" and "skinny", you might insert tall, short, black, white, young or old. Having said that, there is almost always the possibility of altering the script to suit the physical characteristics of the actor. Indeed, in our recent one act season, the script called for a Jewish woman, instead a very talented young lady of Indian descent was cast, and the script altered to suit. If you are auditioning for period drawing room dramas, you will probably continue to be dissappointed. More modern pieces may allow more flexibility in their casting. Indeed, unless there is a direct reference to the heritage of the character, it really shouldn't matter. There's plenty of community theatre happening in Perth, so I'm sure there are roles out there for the fat, skinny, young, old, black and white. Selectivity in what you audition for may be the key. www.meltheco.org.au

You could also write your own plays and act in them. If something doesn't exist, create it.

Josie is quite right: most actors are creating their own shows for similar reasons (not interested in the types of plays other people are producing, not being accepted for roles they'd like to play, wanting to challenge themselves with roles they normally wouldn't land... etc etc) Puppets and patterns at Puppets in Melbourne

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>-/====\---------

There wouldn't be another reason why you find "Gwendoline" "easily acceptable", would there Mr crgwllms?

Is Craig seeing Whitney Richards? ;o)

I've commented on threads like this before and I'm actually quite disturbed by this. I have a friend who is short dark haired and generously proportioned. She always gets maids while tall willowy blondes get the leads. She is a brilliant actress and when working with me gets good roles. I recently saw the role of Christine in The Dolls House played very well by a young woman of Korean ethnicity. I don not believe that we need to be quite so fixated on physical and racial type. OK there will always be roles you will be completely unsuitable for and that is something you must accept but the first reason for that unsuitability should not be race. Physical type can be a bugger. I've sat there before now twisted up inside because the best actor who auditioned for the role was simply too tall, too short, too fat, too thin, too pretty , etc etc etc to be acceptable to the larger proportion of the audience. If someone is going to be greeted with laughter and it's not a comedy you can't cast them. Good luck Andie Jo keep going an eventually you will find a director who will cast you. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

. . . 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.

The general prevalence of historical plays compared to modern plays being put on in amateur theatre puts the non-caucasian actor at a disadvantage to start off with. As mentioned previously in another thread (by the young woman who played Christine in Logos' production of the Dolls House, I think), there is also a general assumption with modern plays that if the script does not specify ethnicity, the character is caucasian. To be considered, the non-caucasian actor will have to work hard to shift preconceived ideas. It may be an option for some to create their own shows...but amateur theatre is often a hobby, so it may not be an option for all.

I've just remembered something, both John Hurt and David Bowie played John Merrick(sp?) "The Elephant Man" on stage in London without makeup. I'm not sure quite what that proves but it certainly proves something. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

I may soon be faced with a similar problem. I've just recently gotten back into the theatre and am currently doing a play, in which my height has already been mentioned. Standing at 1.82m I'm not exactly 'average' height for a woman. Hopefully I might be blessed with roles requiring a tall woman, but I can see how this may also quickly become a curse.