Casting philosophy

[lillibet]

I had a conversation yesterday with a group of local theatre folk, a couple of whom I was meeting for the first time. While I've written in the past about the many different considerations that go into casting, something new emerged that I hadn't realized explicitly.

When I'm casting (a process that takes into account each actor's performance in auditions, other work I've seen them do, whether they're good cast-members, whether they're new, whether they will increase our diversity, whether they are a good fit in the cast I'm putting together, etc.) I am usually asking on some level, "What will the actor learn in this role?"

When I said this, one of the other people said "But you wouldn't want a whole cast of people working outside their comfort zone," and I'm not sure of that. I think that in general I always want my actors to be working, to be reaching. I rarely cast people entirely against type--while I tend to find type-casting insipid, casting against type is tricky--but I do try to cast actors where they will be doing something at least a little new. This is harder with smaller, background roles, because there is less scope to many of them. I've made casting offers that basically say "I know this role would be easy for you, and therefore you may not want to take it, but I could really use your skills in it." But I've also not cast the obvious choice in roles because I thought that would be too easy and therefore not fun for the actor, and therefore not exciting for the audience.

And I wonder--do other directors recognize this? Do you do it explicitly, or not at all?

One of the many reasons I'm looking forward to Metamorphoses is that I think the nature of the script will require stretching from every member of the cast--and there are no small parts.

NB: I realize I'm posting here less. I would like to be writing more and I need to think more about why I'm not doing that and what changes I might make to re-focus.

Comments

[dpolicar]

As a director, I tend to be sufficiently overwhelmed by the many needs-in-tension of my own that I'm trying to satisfy that I rarely worry too much about meeting my cast's needs. I'm not proud of this, but there it is.

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I don't actually see it as meeting my actors' needs, but as "how can I get the best work out of this actor," which is very much in service of my own needs. Enlightened self-interest, perhaps.

There have been directors who've asked me how the heck I got such a good performance out of someone who they couldn't cast because the actor did so poorly in auditions and I haven't been sure how to answer that question--I'm thinking this might be part of it.

[desireearmfeldt]

I often recognize "this will be a stretch for this actor in XX way," and certainly with the bit-parts it's often the case that it won't be a stretch for anyone, but I also assume that everyone knows that and people willing to accept a bit part have their reasons for doing so.

I think the question more likely to be in my mind is, "how will this be fun/worthwhile for the actor?" That could mean a not-too-frustrating learning experience, but it could also mean giving them a role they really want and are suited for. Or giving a bit part to someone on the theory that they might want the fun of being part of the company even if they don't get to do much on stage.

[trowa-barton.livejournal.com]

Honestly, no. I ask myself if they can do the job.

[breakinglight11.livejournal.com]

That's fascinating. I tend toward some of this as well. I actually actively enjoy casting against type sometimes, but mostly I just go for that little extra bit of stretching that I hope will drive the actor to rise to the occasion.

I would love to have you direct me some day. I'd love to come out for Metamorphoses, but I'm afraid I just don't have the time to act lately. I will definitely come see the show, though.

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

I would be very interested in flipping roles with you one of these days! But yeah, Metamorphoses is going to be a big commitment from the actors. I've tried to be really explicit about that, because while I know it will depress audition turnout, I'm hopeful that those who do show up won't be surprised when I need them at most rehearsals.

[labingi.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your thoughts! I'm a long way from casting anything right now--and am usually working on a level where I'm lucky to get one good actor auditioning--but this is very interesting to bear in mind.

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

Always good to know I'm not the only person thinking about the things I think about :)

And yes, I am incredibly spoiled by the robust pool of actors in the Boston non-professional theatre scene--I'm currently talking myself out of being disappointed that I only have 35 people signed up at three weeks out. (It's not a hugely popular play, like Pride & Prejudice or R&G Are Dead; auditions are right after Thanksgiving, so there will be an even bigger than usual bump of sign-ups right at the end; and I'm being up front about this being a bigger than usual commitment from the actors, because of the ensemble nature of the show, so I was never going to get the 100+ actors I've gotten for my last couple of shows.)

[p-j-cleary.livejournal.com]

I try to cast a few roles that are real stretches for the actors that I cast for, but I do believe that there are times when actors really want to slip into a comfortable role (think of actors who play the same role in many different productions of the same play...there has to be an appeal for them in that), and those actors are great, because they can breeze through the play from day one, and it gives a structure to the play that makes it easier for the discomfort of stretching to happen.

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

Someone yesterday was remembering all the tricks the director pulled in the second season of Slings & Arrows (Have you watched that? Everyone in theatre should!) in order to jolt the actor playing Macbeth out of his ruts. Not that any director would admit to doing that in real life :P

[p-j-cleary.livejournal.com]

I did, and that would be cruel, HA!

[coraline]

I recently made a commitment to post here at least once a well this year and I'm really enjoying it so far :)

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

And I'm certainly enjoying hearing more about what's going on with you!

[galestorm.livejournal.com]

Gosh, your note about how you cast actors is great to read about. Can't say as I've ever thought about casting, with no reason to do so, but it's a treat to get little snippets of how or why those things happen.

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

Thanks. It's a process that most people find sort of mysterious--it continually surprises actors that simply being good isn't the only consideration. If auditions were simply a matter of finding the best actors in the pool, it would be much simpler for directors.

And of course, all of this is somewhat peculiar to T@F, where we have a pretty wide pool of non-famous, unpaid actors of a wide variety of training and background, so we're not usually constrained by the considerations that affect other kinds of theatre, but we have some of our own to take into account.