Auditions per cast Hollywood role?

Ted Spencer

Ted Spencer

Veteran
I'm in the middle of casting for a short film project here in NYC, and to my amazement have received about 1700 submissions for the four roles in the film (all of which are listed as paid, $100+). Most came via Breakdown Services (aka Actors Access on the actors' side), with 150 or so more through NYCastings. After combing through all the ones that had video clips (which was a great way to weed out actors with little evident ability), then inviting only the best 35 of those, I've held three audition sessions so far, and have seen all 35, or roughly 9-10 per role. Only a very few were really good.

I plan to hold additional casting sessions, but have been wondering what might be typical in terms of how many actors are seen (live, in person) per role in a Hollywood feature with a budget of, let's say, $30-60M. Anyone have an idea? What about a much lower budget film, say under $1M? Of course many films have actors attached in advance, but I'm not talking about that situation. Just the actors one must 'hunt' for...

There's a temptation to offer the roles to the best actors I've already found, a good argument to see a moderate number more, and another argument to see a *lot* more. So I'm curious how others might have decided where/when to draw a reasonable line, aside from 'whenever one decides to do so'. 10 auditioners per role? 50? 100? More? While I certainly want a great cast, I don't want the process to go on indefinitely. And, along with some casting associates and a videographer, I'm doing it myself - no dedicated casting director or outside assistance. And even just for the number I've seen so far, it's required a huge amount of effort.

Thanks in advance for any insights you might be able to share.
 
You are looking for an answer that doesn't exist. Casting is always a strange process, and there is no formula to doing it correctly. Some films go through thousands of auditions to cast one role (the Harry Potter films for instance, also supposedly Beasts of a Southern Wild), other films go after very specific actors for a role, and sometimes get the first actor they ask.

There will always be the question in this business of whether a decision is the optimal one or not. There will always be "what ifs". You just have to learn to weigh all the options, but ultimately trust your gut. If you truly believe you can make a great film with the actors you've seen already, then maybe it's not worth the additional effort. You also have to keep practical things in mind, such as actors availability. While you are taking more and more auditions, perhaps a certain actor you really like will become unavailable. The point i'm trying to make is, there is no perfect scenario with any film. You make the best of what you have, and ultimately you just need to get the film made. Don't spend months and months looking for something you might never find, when you can move forward and make a good film.
 
Ted Spencer said:
I'm in the middle of casting for a short film project here in NYC, and to my amazement have received about 1700 submissions for the four roles in the film (all of which are listed as paid, $100+). Most came via Breakdown Services (aka Actors Access on the actors' side), with 150 or so more through NYCastings. After combing through all the ones that had video clips (which was a great way to weed out actors with little evident ability), then inviting only the best 35 of those, I've held three audition sessions so far, and have seen all 35, or roughly 9-10 per role. Only a very few were really good.

I plan to hold additional casting sessions, but have been wondering what might be typical in terms of how many actors are seen (live, in person) per role in a Hollywood feature with a budget of, let's say, $30-60M. Anyone have an idea? What about a much lower budget film, say under $1M? Of course many films have actors attached in advance, but I'm not talking about that situation. Just the actors one must 'hunt' for...

There's a temptation to offer the roles to the best actors I've already found, a good argument to see a moderate number more, and another argument to see a *lot* more. So I'm curious how others might have decided where/when to draw a reasonable line, aside from 'whenever one decides to do so'. 10 auditioners per role? 50? 100? More? While I certainly want a great cast, I don't want the process to go on indefinitely. And, along with some casting associates and a videographer, I'm doing it myself - no dedicated casting director or outside assistance. And even just for the number I've seen so far, it's required a huge amount of effort.

Thanks in advance for any insights you might be able to share.
Click to expand...

I've found the filmmakers I work for have been almost always happiest when they have gone through a real casting director. Sifting through every actor who is responding is almost impossible, especially if it's an open call for anyone to apply. In fact, you may notice that big films do not do open calls for roles typically. You can't just be a joe-shmoe on the street and hear about an audition for the lead in Scorsese's new film. That won't happen. If you are already an actor who's been recognized, you will have an agent who will likely get notice from a casting director or perhaps the director or producers themselves. A casting director will know many agencies personally, have binders of top-actors, and a very indepth and professional insight of who would fit the roles and who won't. They will be able to really narrow it down quite fast and typically rather accurately to the appropriate choices for the role.

I used to think these jobs were just useless over-compartmentalized jobs in the industry, but as I get on bigger and bigger productions, it really is a great service to use if you have the money and pick the right person.

Point is, a good casting director can get almost a limitless amount of talent choices down to a much easier and smaller number.


If you don't spend money on a gardener, get ready to sort through all the weeds yourself. Ya know?
 
Last edited:
Ted Spencer said:
I'm in the middle of casting for a short film project here in NYC, and to my amazement have received about 1700 submissions for the four roles in the film (all of which are listed as paid, $100+). Most came via Breakdown Services (aka Actors Access on the actors' side), with 150 or so more through NYCastings. After combing through all the ones that had video clips (which was a great way to weed out actors with little evident ability), then inviting only the best 35 of those, I've held three audition sessions so far, and have seen all 35, or roughly 9-10 per role. Only a very few were really good.

I plan to hold additional casting sessions, but have been wondering what might be typical in terms of how many actors are seen (live, in person) per role in a Hollywood feature with a budget of, let's say, $30-60M. Anyone have an idea? What about a much lower budget film, say under $1M? Of course many films have actors attached in advance, but I'm not talking about that situation. Just the actors one must 'hunt' for...

There's a temptation to offer the roles to the best actors I've already found, a good argument to see a moderate number more, and another argument to see a *lot* more. So I'm curious how others might have decided where/when to draw a reasonable line, aside from 'whenever one decides to do so'. 10 auditioners per role? 50? 100? More? While I certainly want a great cast, I don't want the process to go on indefinitely. And, along with some casting associates and a videographer, I'm doing it myself - no dedicated casting director or outside assistance. And even just for the number I've seen so far, it's required a huge amount of effort.

Thanks in advance for any insights you might be able to share.
Click to expand...

The job is outsourced. And it's a tiring job. Fun in the beginning but quickly becomes a drag. Unless you're looking for a babe :) But the the motivation is something else.

I wittle it down by getting the chosen actors to perform together, to check chemistry.

For the big films you're talking about - it's a different process. People don't audition. Well, they do but the big stars undergo a different process.
 
Thanks for all the input, guys.

Outsourcing casting to professionals is not in the scope of this self-financed indie short. But it has clearly been an object lesson for me in the *very* hard work that these folks do to earn their keep. And of the value of the network of known actors these companies certainly develop, and which I am in the process of building on my own. I'm sure each project/casting effort, aside from issues of scale, will get easier as I see more and more actors audition. The good news is that living in Manhattan as I do, I have easy access to what is almost certainly the second largest talent pool in the US, after Hollywood. And huge it is - 1700 submissions for 4 roles in a low-paying short, about 350 of which had reels I could watch online (and I did, all 400+ of them). Wow...

I should add that I'm not a casting newbie - I was directly involved in casting a produced feature I co-wrote and acted in a while back. But I didn't have to do (almost) everything as I do now, and, frankly, the process was much less methodical despite my efforts to make it more so. The movie suffered greatly from that lack of care. But we sure did see a whole lot of actors...

So I'm currently planning on a second round of first-call auditions, for maybe 15 more actors, to make a total of almost 60 so far. Then maybe a third, but likelier a handful of others here and there at my studio. Then callbacks. I've already seen at least one really good candidate for each of the roles, so now it's just seeing if I can top those, or better ensure availability of one or another.

Thanks also for some of the data points - 1000 actors auditioned for one role on "Harry Potter"? Wow... that's hard core. But admirable. And those films were very well cast IMO.

Many say that great casting (almost) makes directing easy. I'm seeing this so vividly already - the difference between the actors who understand the subtext in the dialog/story and those who don't exactly is a vast chasm, particularly where humor is concerned. In Michael Shurtleff's great book "Audition" he made the observation that actors who have an innate (or otherwise well-developed) sense of comic timing are more often than not the better actors overall, even when the role/film isn't comedic. I'm finding this to be spot on. The best actor in one of the roles I've seen so far was also the only one (out of about a dozen) who obviously knew how to play the light comedy/banter of an early scene. While he wasn't the only one who played a later much more dramatic scene well, he was the best. One could just say it's because he's a better actor, and that might be correct. But I tend to agree with Shurtleff that it's the comedy DNA that made the difference in both cases. For one of the female roles, likewise. The actress who had the best comic timing was best overall as well.

Michael Shurtleff was, by the way, the guy who cast Dustin Hoffman, a short, dark-haired, nebbishy Jewish guy, in a role that called for a tall athletic blonde. The film was "The Graduate", and as they say, the rest is...
 
Last edited:
The other good thing about using a casting director is that they know the constellation of good actors that will work on your film for the budget you have. That makes a big difference. You can get some pretty good people for not a lot of dough but opening up to actor's access yourself instead of just the Breakdown Services through a casting director and so through agents really opens the flood gates. Still, it's great to get such a strong turn out. That's a big benefit of being in NY

I guess it depends on the role. Comedy chops translate more to an ability to perform thus better auditions for sure. I'm not sure that always translates into being true on set. If it's a comedy, or a role that requires comedy, then I would agree that you want to see that in an audition.
 
Yes I'm certain that for dramatic roles, many comedically challenged actors can do extremely well. But what's interesting is that the comedically-abled ones very often seem to be likewise able with the dramatic stuff. I think that was Shurtleff's point.

And it's certainly clear to me (as a reasonably funny guy, if I may say so myself), that actors who don't have the gift for playing comedic dialog pretty much can't be coached into it (insert the old actor-on-deathbed "comedy is hard" joke here). it's like musical talent - you've either got it, or not...

It's all good though, and I'm pretty darn sure I'm going to be able to assemble a fine cast. It's just a whale of an effort, which I believe will ultimately be well worth it. Without a great cast (and a great script) you really don't have anything, as far as I'm concerned...

As soon as any future project's budget allows it though, hello Casting Agency : )
 
Last edited:
Yep, it is not possible to get someone with no comic timing to learn it on set no matter how good a director you are. Knock 'em dead
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top