Size? Age? Beauty? Should it make a casting difference?

Stuff on the boards got me thinking.......

How important is it that a person be (for example) slender..... or physically attractive...... or age appropriate..... for a role?

How often should PHYSICAL APPEARANCE matter - in your opinion....?

as a aspiring actress i believe that neither should matter: age, beauty, size, race, etc. it all depends on the talent level a person posses.there is somewhat of a belief that casting directors pick the majority over the minority (according to a friend of mine who auditioned for a role) but i think its more of the level of talent a person has in their singing and acting. thats just my opinion because hey i admit i need to lose weight to be the "ideal" size for broadway to accept, because they mostly accept the slender people over the overweight people. thats how society is based on though unfortunately those aspects do matter, but i believe talent matters too

1) It's up to the playwright as to what "type" the character is. If they leave it open, or it is unclear, it is up to the casting director or director (but mostly producers) on what type they are looking for.

2) Rules are meant to be broken.

---

I wish I could say physical appearance doesn't matter, it's all about talent, but I just don't think it works that way. For example, Beauty in Beauty and the Beast really shouldn't be 52 and 100 lbs overweight. Ulla from The Producers is another example. The beauty of these characters are major plot points and the audience does have eyes and can see if the actor doesn't fit that. Conversely, Tracy from Hairspray is plump, Jan (I think that's her name) from Grease is usually presented as the least attractive of the Pink Ladies. If physical attributes of a character are mentioned, it is generally not a good idea to cast against that. However, I see no reason why a less than attractive Eponine wouldn't work, or a heavier Sally Bowles. Unfortunately, we live in an image obsessed world, and the people who put on these shows are no different.

Well, since the novel, the physical description of Eponine is that she's rather pretty. But, it's true, rules can be broken. We can't expect to find Lea Salonga everywhere we go. I don't think it's THAT important to Eponine to be pretty anyway.
HOWEVER, you may find me a little close-minded for saying this, but Eponine is dirt-poor, living on the streets, and starving. She would have to be at least a little bit on the slim side...does that make sense?

Sometimes it's needed, sometimes it's not.
Do I think there should be a "pretty" sterotype? Well, what I think is pretty, others think is ugly. What a producer/director might see in a girl they cast, I may go "What?? well..geez..she's not very attractive", and to them she may be the most beautiful girl on the stage.

It's tough.

---

I agree about size and beauty, but age? Let's get Chita Rivera to be in SPRING AWAKENING - hey, she's talented, right?

I'd love to see a black girl play Glinda (or even Nessarose), or an Asian play Elle Woods or something. It really wouldn't matter. But age is a major factor.

Bially, wow! Spoken like a true Julian Marsh!

Updated On: 6/23/07 at 12:22 PM

bially082 is right. I mean we all want to say that nothing should matter, the most talented people should get the roles, but thats not the world we live in.

No s!#$, OF COURSE it will always make a difference and it will never change. This is common knowledge.

But how important is it to you, personally, as an audience member?

And how important do you think it should be?

Would you accept a leading man shorter than his counterpart?

Or an overweight ingenue?

Or a balding heartthrob?

Etc.

I thnk it does matter to the story if the actors are appealing. You're right i don't want to see a bald, short, fat man play the heartthrob. But i don't think looks are really important in casting. I mean if you have the talent they're going to hire you unless you look like a complete troll. I've seen plenty of leads who aren't very attractive.

whatever is more widely appealing and suitable for the Box Office comes into play too

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.

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.