Size? Age? Beauty? Should it make a casting difference?- Page 2

[bwaygal1]

Posted: 6/23/07 at 3:54pm

For certain roles, appearance is a HUGE factor-When you're playing real people, appearance is a really big issue, IMO. The audience will most likely (some if not all audience members) have seen pictures of the individual. They need to believe the person on the stage is the one they've seen.
Just my two cents.
Also-casting is largely about a 'type' and if you don't fit that type, you can be as 'talented' (that's a relative term) as you want, you won't get the role.

Posted: 6/23/07 at 3:58pm

Broadway isn't a talent show - it's a business. "Most talented" is an opinion. For most productions, the talent pool is deep enough that they can cast on looks as well as talent.

Exactly. I don't think there's a clear-cut answer for this question simply because there are so many factors that go into a decision such as this one. Most of the time, I'd say casting the person who has the most talent with the least amount of strikes, so to speak, against him or her (e.g. doesn't physically look the part, isn't the right age) probably makes the most sense. If that means occasionally hiring someone with slightly less talent because he or she physically fits the part perfectly, I'm all for it. In all honesty, I think watching a completely unattractive woman attempt to play a character like Mimi in Rent simply because she had the best voice (and maybe even acting) would be distracting enough to negate the advantage she had over someone who physically fit the part while still being a good performer. Maybe harsh, but true, at least in my view.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 6/23/07 at 4:12pm

I have never seen anyone "airbrushed" on Broadway. Besides playing green people or animals, people looks very real, even with makeup, wigs, et al.

They're not necessarily looking for drop-dead-gorgeous sexy people. As someone said earlier, they at the very least look for healthy people. Every director has a different image in his head for a role, and that's what you have to fit.

Most acting books I've read (ie The Practical Handbook, Mamet's Heresy) say that an actor should have a "supple body that is pleasing to look at". That way they can meet the demands of a story. Sure...these may be opinions...but I'd say they're pretty plausible.

Age is a factor that strongly depends on the show. In a show like Spring Awakening, which needs real youth because of the realism of the characters, they need real young people. Plus, they have a huge contrast with the adults in the show.

In other shows, age does not matter, because if you can at least play it and they can make you look like a different age, they will do it.

Here are some examples: Sally Murphy played an 18 year old in FIDDLER despite being in her early 40s. I thought it was pretty believable.

LaChanze is in her early 40s, and played Celie from a young age to adulthood. I'd say her Tony award alludes to success. Also, take a look at photos of her from the show...pretty convincing.

And baldness...that doesn't matter as you can wear a wig.
-----

For the record, yes, it would be nice to see a non-white Glinda, however, the creative team has deamed that it is the only race-specific role in the show, as they feel it should embody a stereotype (or so I infer from the way they direct their actresses/wrote the part).

Updated On: 6/23/07 at 04:12 PM

[mustard]

Posted: 6/23/07 at 8:21pm

Everyone looks airbrushed to me, for example these people:





And what about all those people creaming over Ashley and Austin in the silly Grease competition? To me, that would have been a travesty. They did NOT look like Danny and Sandy to me, they looked plastic. And now everyone is bitching that Max isn't pretty enough... yeah maybe for a tv Danny but I think he'll look great onstage.

Just my opinion. I don't think everyone has to be "hot." I don't like that, it's weird. But these days I'm sure I'm in the minority.

I'm not saying to cast against type, I just don't think they should take someone slightly less talented in exchange for slightly better looks.

[SweetQintheLights]

Posted: 6/23/07 at 8:36pm

To make a long story short, for one of my classes, there was a study done and many employers (in general) hire differently when they are blinded.
Specifically done for: nurses, directors of a college production, supermarket cashier, and hotel attendant.

People who were hired while the employers where blinded where better equipped for the job while those who were hired when the employers were not blinded were "more attractive" but were not as equipped with the skills needed for the position.

This is sadly how things work out.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 6/23/07 at 10:40pm

That is also why orchestra auditions are behind a screen - so that the talent is what the judges focus on, rather than race, sex or age. But theater is a visual art and how a person looks is going to play a major part (no pun intended) in matching that person to a particular role.

[evadiva]

Posted: 6/23/07 at 11:01pm

Now we're talking - this is becoming a great thread discussion.

[MerMaggieGalinda]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 1:50am

Of course talent is the number one thing, but you have to look at least somewhat appealing if you're going to be playing a big hearthrob character or ingenue. When I saw Phantom of the Opera last year Rebecca Pitcher was on as Christine and she isn't exactly youthful looking, even with her big Christine wig and tons of make-up, she still looked like she was pushing 40 when she was playing a character who was in her late teens/early twenties. She also did a horrible performance on top of that, vibrato overload and hardly no acting at all. And that really sucked-she didn't look the part at all and wasn't very talented.

[grnsmwhr]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 3:55am

Someone used the word "appealing" upthread. Someone with a nice body, T&A, or someone with conventional good looks are not always "appealing" in the sense that you'd want to watch them onstage for a couple of hours. There has to be something more, some inner quality that connects with the audience. The talent has to be there, the looks become secondary.

Posted: 6/24/07 at 4:16am

Basically, it should come down to whether or not all of those traits are going to interfere with the character, and make him/her not believable.

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 4:17am

Go get yourself a copy of Til the Fat Girl Sings, read it, recognize reality, and take your spot in the back of the line.

[evadiva]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 10:22am

Trust me, Ourtime, I am anything BUT fat.

And a comment like that is OFFENSIVE.

You're rude and nasty.

[singingwendy]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 11:04am

There will always be a certain "type" cast for certain roles because the shows are almost always written with a certain "type" in mind. Take for example the typical singing ranges in a musical......the female lead is a soprano, the male lead is a tenor, the supporting female is an alto, and the supporting male is a bass. Also, altos and tenors tend to be the older characters in the shows.

I have a friend who says she's "waiting to grow into her voice", since she's a very low alto, and there are very few roles written for a younger person with that voice type.
Personally, I'm starting to deal with the "growing out of my voice", since I"m a legit soprano, and those roles usually go to the 18-25 crowd.

Every once in a while, you'll see casting that isn't "the norm" but until shows are written that include "different" characters, I think we'll see the same choices being made.

[StephanietheStar]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 11:16am

I'm an aspiring actress as well, and need to work on my image for sure, but I will tell you this.


Image IS important to casting directors and the like. That will never change. So if you want to be in the business YOU are the one that's gonna need to change. It's as simple as that.


You may find a few roles you can do as an overweight person, or an ugly person, but you open yourself to many more possibilities as a thin and at least slightly attractive person. It's the nature of business and it's what you have to take with all the good. You are judged not only by talent, but by appearance.

[ahmelie]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 12:07pm

There are too many fantastic and talented people in this business. Directors don't have to cast a person in a role if they don't look it, there's going to be someone else just as talented who does look the part.

As a curvy girl, I've accepted that and I'm losing weight to put all the odds in my favor.

I don't think it's unfair at all.

[Weez]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 12:50pm

Trust me, Ourtime, I am anything BUT fat.

And a comment like that is OFFENSIVE.

You're rude and nasty.

And you're ridiculously over-sensitive. 'Til The Fat Girl Sings' is a legitimate theatre biography written by a woman who has been earning a living onstage for more than a few years despite the fact she's not this perfect, thin, beautiful ideal that some people would like. I'd say it's a pretty good read for anyone who fancies making a go out of acting as a career, especially (but not exclusively) if they also don't necessarily fit the perfect, thin, beautiful ideal (even though she's more writing about overcoming personal adversity than backstage shenanigans). Stop being whiny. (And you're allowed to take offence at me calling you whiny if you like, because I did mean it... well, not harshly, as such, but certainly as an admonishment. :P)

Updated On: 6/24/07 at 12:50 PM

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 1:19pm

I think that when age/size/appearance is instrumental to the role, it does have to be considered. For instance, having a 6 foot tall man play "Annie" in a regular production would be extremely weird. Casting a very heavy person to play a starving waif just wouldn't work.

Other than that, though, I wish casting agents, directors and producers would expand their horizons a little. I saw a production of POTO in another country where the Christine was slightly overweight. She was the best Christine I've ever seen, and the fact that she was considered conventionally "heavy" didn't make a lick of difference to her performance. Kathleen Turner in "The Graduate" would also be considered a little big by Hollywood standards, and she brought down the house and was a bombshell onstage. Barbara Streisand and Bette Midler probably aren't considered conventionally beautiful, but they sell out concert halls.

So why not have a Belle in B&B that's heavy? Why does beauty have to be confined to one specific narrow definition? I don't think it does, and I applaud any CDs or producers that see that. Those actors and actresses that are brave enough to be themselves--whatever "themselves" might be--instead of trying to be cookie-cutter clones of everyone else at AEA, are usually the ones that are the most interesting onstage.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 1:27pm

Well, Belle is an example of the kind of role that DOES have to be cast based on looks as well as talent. Although beauty does come in all shapes and sizes (and I personally prefer girls with a little meat on 'em), Belle is supposed to embody a certain archetype. That said, she doesn't need to be rail-thin either.

[EdmundOG]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 1:33pm

"Casting a very heavy person to play a starving waif just wouldn't work. "

Except in opera. Which lends credit to your favorite Christine.

[Evan Almighty]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 1:34pm

Could a white boy from Texas play Angel in RENT?

I think it'd be a fun role.

Angel never specifically states that he's Hispanic, does he? Just like Collins never specifically states that he's African American.

I think the only two race specific characters are Mimi and Mark, right? But Mark doesn't have to be 100% Jewish, does he? He can be interractial, right?. Jewish mother/father, and a black/Hispanic/Arab mother/father. No?

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 10:35pm

>>Trust me, Ourtime, I am anything BUT fat.
>>And a comment like that is OFFENSIVE.
>>You're rude and nasty.

Boy, are you over-sensitive or what? I wasn't calling you fat, nor did I mean to be rude or nasty. Maybe it was late and I didn't choose my words well, but the point of my post (which I hope would be clear to anyone who's read the book), is that this is an insanely competitive business. It is more than just wishful thinking to debate a world in which appearances don't matter, but they do. On the other hand, there are plenty of parts out there for talented, hard-working actors that don't fit the leading lady/man mold. That's the whole point of Sharon Wheatley's book.

All I meant by my post is, the reality is that appearances matter in the theatre. If you can accept that reality ("recognize reality") and learn to work within that system ("take your spot in the back of the line"), you can probably carve out a great career no matter what you look like. And by "you," I mean "a person."

I wasn't attacking you personally. Of course, your comment to me was a personal attack, but I understand you felt assaulted. I apologize for that.

And for the record, I'm an overweight guy who chose a long time ago not to pursue a performing career in part because I doubted if I could be competitive. I don't blame the industry for it and I don't whine that the world would be a better place if people could see past my weight and recognize some star quality underneath it. Instead I chose to take my place in the line, play the parts I'm right for, and get on with my life.
Updated On: 6/24/07 at 10:35 PM

[EdmundOG]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 11:01pm

"But Mark doesn't have to be 100% Jewish, does he?"

Well, his mom, though acting obscenely Jewish, DOES say "We'll miss you tomorrow" on Christmas eve, thus implying that there's some kind of Christmas gathering in the family.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 11:35pm

Plus Mark tends to be cast with very WASPy-looking guys.

[tinkerbell30]

Posted: 7/7/07 at 11:16pm

Just a note to add to this discussion I have been peforming for 34 years in theate or something close to it anyway and I have found on one hand theater has always been discriminitory against most people when it comes to getting a part. I am 4'8" tall 80lbs and have never gotten the lead role because the male lead always towers over me so it doesn't matter how good I may be I will always get stuck in the chorus and sometimes I don't even fit there but no offense intended. I have always enjoyed my chorus roles too and do sometimes get secondary roles as well. The problem is directors have to have a certain look,personality and talent in mind when they go into an audition or it would take them forever to sift through everyone they like so they take the ones that come closest to what they are looking for and go from there. That's showbiz folks. Those things should not matter but sometimes they do because sometimes they have to. The trick is to find the shows and roles that are right for you and stick to those. It can take a while but you learn as you go. Some are meant to be stars and some will always be stars in training but think about all the wonderful talented people who never make it and be glad to get the work if it is decent and pays your bills. A wise friend once told me corny as it may sound What is important is not getting the part you want but getting a part at all so you can get the experience of being in a show and God willing the pay not to mention the people you meet and friends you make along the way. I have never forgotten that and am much happier for it

[SweetQintheLights]

Posted: 7/7/07 at 11:36pm

"I am 4'8" tall 80lbs and have never gotten the lead role because..."

80 pounds?
Although 4'8" is kind of short, isn't 80 pounds very underweight?