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

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.

---

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

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.

---

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

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

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

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

>>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

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

"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?

---