Casting — Page 2

I think we need a few more threads from Dave about casting in general and Les Miserables in particular. We haven't had enough of them. And I'm certain none of us understand.

No one is going to be able to see all the talent. For every role available there are hundreds if not thousands of people auditioning. MANY of them very very talented. I can understand a casting person wanting to go with a "known entity", but at some point everyone was unknown and it was because someone took a risk and gave them a shot that they are now known. There is also something to be said for a casting agent who discovers new talent rather than just going in their tool box and finding the recycled cog that fits the role they are looking for.

Updated On: 1/19/13 at 12:45 PM

"Who's to say that just because they auditioned 40 people, they wouldn't have come to the same exact choice?"

No one, why?

But at least they know what they are talking about then.
That's the whole point of casting isn't it? Comparing, finding the best person, even if all the candidates are big names.

"It's very easy to be indignant after the fact."

The only fact that I'm indignant about is the fact that they only auditioned 1 person. Not the fact that it turned out bad. That is their own fault and should be no surprise.

"Things don't always work out the way you hope."

It's not about what I hope. It's about the filmmakers hoping people will like the film and the performances. 95 % does not like Javert in the film.
So the point is, how do they get things to work out better next time? Maybe think of their choice a bit better? Maybe audition a few more people?

"It's too bad no one will be able to afford your casting process which sounds like it would cost an absolutely insane amount of money and take years to complete."

Even if you audition 10 big names for the role, 10 potential Javerts, if the studio forces you to take a big name for the role, you already have more knowledge, comparison and choice. It would take about a day to do such a casting. So no more lame excuses please.

Updated On: 1/19/13 at 04:05 PM

"Even if you audition 10 big names for the role, 10 potential Javerts, if the studio forces you to take a big name for the role, you already have more knowledge, comparison and choice. It would take about a day to do such a casting."

And how do you know they didn't? Because somebody said so to the press? FYI: there have been HUNDREDS of similar statements about "Oh, as soon as we saw her, we knew, we didn't see ANYONE else!" It's never actually TRUE, of course 9 out of 10 times many others were seen. It's just a nice thing to say.

---

Because Tom Hooper said so.

About Hugh and about Russel. There was only one person we asked to come in.

Cameron confirmed it.

Why would we doubt that? Is there some conspiracy theory that they are withholding all the other names and burning the casting tapes of their great auditions so the world cannot protest that I don't know of?

Updated On: 1/19/13 at 04:38 PM

I tend to believe the director and one of the producers over a gossip journalist, but either way, it seems unlikely that Paul was seriously considered, or would Crowe have outsung him?

Updated On: 1/19/13 at 04:42 PM

So the conclusion is "they are lying", because it's too crazy to be real that they only auditioned 1 person?

Let's stick with that. Then Cameron is not only known for hyperbole, but also for sucking up to filmmakers AND lying. By the way, the point of this lie is beyond me, because I don't think it has any positive effect on marketing if you only invite 1 person who is obviously no good, it only makes audiences more angry after seeing the performance, but, oh well......

And about the "sometimes auditions don't even take place for some projects"

I know, that's bad. But even the best organized audition can't win it from the incestuous bonds. They are just too strong.
When I start my casting agency I will give workshops called "Cut the navel cord and widen your horizon" for my employees.

Updated On: 1/19/13 at 05:27 PM

I will always give my clients a variety or a choice.
If producers are not open to it they can go after the actor they want themselves and start discussing their contract immediately. If they want options and good casting, with all it's aspects, they can come to me.

Being well informed, checking all the options and making a thought-out choice has never done any harm to a company.
Even you know what is more harmful for the film in the end. So don't be silly.

Updated On: 1/19/13 at 05:48 PM

Feel free to talk about any casting project you like in this thread.

"If producers are not open to it they can go after the actor they want themselves and start discussing their contract immediately. If they want options and good casting, with all it's aspects, they can come to me."

This is exactly what I described as happening in my first posting on this ridiculous thread, you obtuse nincompoop! I think you enjoy posting rhetorical musings and then taking umbrage at those who dare engage you in normal discourse. Shame on me for following you down this preposterous rabbit hole.

---

Neverandy, are you for real?

You agree with me, because you say they go for the star no matter what even while the whole world agrees that the performance is not good. Because the producers feel the need to push it through because of money and fear.

That is what I said in the beginning, and I even reacted on your post saying "that is true" twice.

The whole point of this thread is that that is the problem that causes 95% of the audience not liking the performance. But they still do it.

In case you still do not realize this after all these posts; We agree.

Dramamama also seems to be completely missing the point. Sad.

Updated On: 1/19/13 at 06:13 PM

Dave, I didn't think Russell Crowe was all THAT bad, so it's not true that "everyone" was appalled by him.

But I'd take with a grain of salt claims that "we only saw one person" for the role or that Anne Hathaway had to pull a shiv on Tom Hooper to get an audition. Such stories heighten the drama and are good fodder for actors who have to do 10,000 interviews.

It may be that they originally thought Hathaway was wrong for Fantine and she auditioned to convince them otherwise. Or it may just be an exaggeration to give journalists something to write.

Most star casting, stage or screen, is done without auditions, unless a star is asking to be seen for something that is a radical departure from what s/he has done before.

And you may think you'd audition hundreds of people for each role, but few casting directors have the time. If anything, they have assistants who weed out the candidates for the non-star roles and the director only sees the final candidates.

But if Russell Crowe and Hugh Jackman agree to do your high-budget musical, you probably check to see if they can sing the parts and then sign them before they change their minds.

I think you are talking about Ariel. Now you mention that, indeed, that is a "friendship" casting too.

I wast talking about Mary Costa as Aurora/Sleeping Beauty.

It happens all the time, and sometimes the result is great, but a lot of times it's bad. I really think that a lot of the necessary "objective vision" is going overboard because of this.

Updated On: 1/19/13 at 06:57 PM