It seems to me that directors cast fewer actors than they used to. In decades past, it seemed far less common to have actors playing multiple roles--- and tiny parts like messenger and spear-carrier were considered sort of rites-of-passage for rookie actors. In addition, it also seemed less common to see characters cut from the script. As a (very) part-time producer, I can understand why cutting characters and asking actors to double up is an economic necessity in these post-recession times. With more theaters paying stipends, it makes sense not to have large casts expecting a guaranteed wage. And perhaps younger directors than me now do this for artistic reasons. Still, I wonder if were losing something by doing it that way. Years ago, I directed a community theater production of THE WOMEN and deliberately cast as close to a 1:1 character/actor ratio as I could. My thinking was simple: more actors, more families and friends coming to the show. Plus, I was giving some newcomers a chance. (It was at least partly on the mark because that show was credited with having the largest turnout in the theaters history.) So my questions are: Have you cut characters and/or cast multiple roles and, if so, did you do it for practical (economic or turnout) reasons or artistic ones? What are the pros and cons of a 1:1 character/actor ratio in your opinion? And are we losing out by not getting people more involved when they show up at auditions or are we maintaining standards of excellence? Are we forsaking the character actors who fit into small niches in our pursuit of the theatrical multitask-ers? (This is the first time Ive posted on this page, so I apologize if this has been discussed before.)
Posted on: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 18:46:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015