Do you give people the script before they audition?

[Azmyth]

I've got ALOT of people interested in auditioning for my film. Like far more than I ever expected. I'm sure some of those are just "talk" but, I'm trying to figure out how to work auditions. We are having open auditions on two days in december. One for inital auditions, and then a 2nd callback.. and there may be a third depending on how many people we have to see.

Alot of potentials, have been asking about the script. And I was wondering how most of you do do this. Do you send them the script? Or only the parts for the characters they may be auditioning for? At this time the people asking about auditions don't know anything at all about the characters as I have not released breakdowns for them yet.

 

[KKeller]

I send out the first 1/4 of the script and a story synopsis. Unless it is a short, which I send out the entire script upon request.

 

[Chris Santucci]

If you're asking actors to work for nothing or for cheap, then they should get the whole script so they can determine if the project is worth getting involved with.

If the actors are getting paid a normal rate, then you can give them whatever you want.

The leads obviously should get the whole script in either case.

.

 

[Cassius]

For auditions I don't provide a full script, it's a turn off for most people. A couple of highlights, synopsis and the lines I want read are all they need. If they're interested in the project they'll ask for a script.

 

[El Director]

For auditions on "Leap", I had the possible actors come prepared with a monologue and ready to work out. If they didn't come with both, they were dismissed. Next the actors delievered their monologue on camera. If I liked them, they stuck around for a parkour boot camp (as my film is very physical) to see how quick they could pick up the pk. The ones I still liked, I had screentest with a scene or two, giving them just five minutes to prepare. If I wanted to offer them a part, then they got the whole script to take home and read, because, as someone else mentioned, when you're not paying anyone, they need to know what they're getting in to.

 

[vic777]

If they didn't come with both, they were dismissed.

you can lose a lot of good actors that way

The ones I still liked, I had screentest with a scene or two, giving them just five minutes to prepare.

Why give them just 5 minutes? What's your problem? Is it a race to make a movie? ... you will get rid of a lot of other good actors that might be much better if they had more time.


We can make all kinds of stupid useless rules to narrow the field down if we don't know what we're doing.

I try to get to know anyone who turns up ... if I can't use them now, I can use them later.

I've been asked a lot of stupid questions by Directors when I audition, Directors who have instant dismissal rules, I find they usually don't know what they're doing, and of course that becomes apparent in the finished piece ... if it gets finished.

 

[Huy Vu]

I've been asked a lot of stupid questions by Directors when I audition, Directors who have instant dismissal rules, I find they usually don't know what they're doing, and of course that becomes apparent in the finished piece ... if it gets finished.

The point is to see whether actors are willing and able to take direction. If you tell them in advance to come prepared and they don't then that says a lot for their level of commitment.

 

[Chamber005]

The point is to see whether actors are willing and able to take direction. If you tell them in advance to come prepared and they don't then that says a lot for their level of commitment.

This sounds accurate to me.

However most directors whose posts or interviews I've read on casting (and having hung out with theatre actors most of my life) usually like to work with the script or some interpretation of the script in the first, second, third casting rounds. A monolouge doesn't show you if someone is a good actor (e.g. can they exist in the moment via REaction), it only shows you that they can memorize lines and give a speech. Lots of people can give speeches with vigor and intention, but that says nothing to their ability to act.

Taking that one step further, most professionals also make sure to have another actor for the actor to read lines with, as nothing will decapitate an actor's performance more quickly than someone who is delivering them the opposing lines without real commitment and intent.

 

[Ted Spencer]

most professionals also make sure to have another actor for the actor to read lines with, as nothing will decapitate an actor's performance more quickly than someone who is delivering them the opposing lines without real commitment and intent.

I really wish that were more true. For some unknown reason there's a long tradition of 'brain dead' readers in auditions - people with either no acting ability or a belief that to read with any performance quality is a bad idea. I've never understood this...

I took a class with a very successful NYC casting director (with major film and TV series credits) who liked to do the readings himself, and every line was deliberately rushed through as if to throw the actor off as much as possible. And he was far from being an exception in my experience as a working actor.

I completely fail to see where this is productive. It'd be like interviewing someone for an executive job while they're getting their teeth cleaned...

 

[Ted Spencer]

Do you send them the script? Or only the parts for the characters they may be auditioning for? At this time the people asking about auditions don't know anything at all about the characters as I have not released breakdowns for them yet.

Well, IMHO the latter would be your first mistake.

As an experienced, working actor (but not rich or famous...yet) and aspiring filmmaker, I'd offer the following advice:

First, always call for actors with reasonably detailed breakdowns:

-Start with a brief plot synopsis. A sentence or two is enough, and you can mention things like notable past projects of yours, attached name actors, plans for marketing, festival entries, etc.

-Then character names: I'd recommend against using generic names like "man on bus". Name him something - anything - "Fred"...whatever, unless they're out-and-out background players (aka "extras"). Good actors (remember, those are the kind you want) are usually much happier (you want that too) playing somebodies rather than anonymous nobodies.

-Then character descriptions: gender, age, physical type, but avoid being too specific. Many's the role I got cast in after applying for a "heavyset" or "tall" role - I'm 5'7" and 130 lbs (I do point this fact out in my submissions though, in case the actor absolutely *must* be those things). Other good actors probably never submitted because they looked too much...like me (note that the original breakdown for Dustin Hoffman's career-making role in "The Graduate" was for a tall, athletic blonde guy). Then include a description of the role itself, like "Janet's boyfriend. Smart, confident, but unethical. He frames Rizzo for embezzling, then becomes the new CEO".

-For any actor you've picked from their submissions to invite for an audition, you should provide what is called "audition sides" - a copy of the scene(s) you plan to use in the audition so the actors can decide whether they actually want to audition in the first place (the writing is unbelievably bad in certain areas, especially student films, and I've declined many an audition right off the bat for that reason). If they want to go for it, the sides will give them all they need to prepare. In the age of email there is no excuse not to do this. It's also required, a week in advance of the audition, for SAG actors, which even if you're not hiring any, tells you how important it is from the actor's side. Many filmmakers insist on giving actors sides only at the audition (if at all!), but I think this is unfair, and I've bailed on audition calls on several occasions under those circumstances. Giving up 2-3 hours of my day to schlep out and back to an audition only to find that it's a one-word role (in, let's say, a student film), or the script might as well have been written by a typewriter-whacking chimp is not my idea of a great time...

-Monologues are debatable. I don't believe they're particularly useful because in this case (which is a reversal of the brain-dead reader thing I mentioned in my previous post), you're playing right *into* the actor's strength. They get to hand-pick something they've got down cold, that is ideally suited to their ability, that they may have been extensively coached on, etc. etc... You might be very impressed, only to find out later that they haven't got anywhere near the firepower for *your* role. I'm not saying monologues are useless - certainly a bad one almost certainly warrants a thumbs-down - but good ones can be very misleading.

 

[Chamber005]

Well, IMHO the latter would be your first mistake.

As an experienced, working actor (but not rich or famous...yet) and aspiring filmmaker, I'd offer the following advice:

First, always call for actors with reasonably detailed breakdowns:

-Start with a brief plot synopsis. A sentence or two is enough, and you can mention things like notable past projects of yours, attached name actors, plans for marketing, festival entries, etc.

-Then character names: I'd recommend against using generic names like "man on bus". Name him something - anything - "Fred"...whatever, unless they're out-and-out background players (aka "extras"). Good actors (remember, those are the kind you want) are usually much happier (you want that too) playing somebodies rather than anonymous nobodies.

-Then character descriptions: gender, age, physical type, but avoid being too specific. Many's the role I got cast in after applying for a "heavyset" or "tall" role - I'm 5'7" and 130 lbs. Other good actors probably never submitted because they looked too much...like me (note that the original breakdown for Dustin Hoffman's career-making role in "The Graduate" was for a tall, athletic blonde guy). Then include a description of the role itself, like "Janet's boyfriend. Smart, confident, but unethical. He frames Rizzo for embezzling, then becomes the new CEO".

-For any actor you've picked from their submissions to invite for an audition, you should provide what is called "audition sides" - a copy of the scene(s) you plan to use in the audition so the actors can decide whether they actually want to audition in the first place (the writing is unbelievably bad in certain areas, especially student films, and I've declined many an audition right off the bat for that reason). If they want to go for it, the sides will give them all they need to prepare. In the age of email there is no excuse not to do this. It's also required, a week in advance of the audition, for SAG actors, which even if you're not hiring any, tells you how important it is from the actor's side. Many filmmakers insist on giving actors sides only at the audition (if at all!), but I think this is unfair, and I've bailed on audition calls on several occasions under those circumstances. Giving up 2-3 hours of my day to schlep out and back to an audition only to find that it's a one-word role (in, let's say, a student film), or the script might as well have been written by a typewriter-whacking chimp is not my idea of a great time...

-Monologues are debatable. I don't believe they're particularly useful because in this case (which is a reversal of the brain-dead reader thing I mentioned in my previous post), you're playing right *into* the actor's strength. They get to hand-pick something they've got down cold, that is ideally suited to their ability, that they may have been extensively coached on, etc. etc... You might be very impressed, only to find out later that they haven't got anywhere near the firepower for *your* role. I'm not saying monologues are useless - certainly a bad one almost certainly warrants a thumbs-down - but good ones can be very misleading.

Again, to your last point, I agree completely. Monologues only matter in the first round of theatre production because monologues show the actor's ability to project and perform to an audience. Monologues as any basis on a person's ability to act (e.g. REacte) are almost useless and more than anything are a traditional staple in theatre because of the way plays used to be written, with tiresomely long monologues, sonnets, chorus, poems, etc.

To me someone who is basing any (film) casting decisions on monologues is probably actually basing said casting progression on a person's look, but instead says that they're basing it on a monologue to appear less superficial in their casting process.

 

[El Director]

but good ones can be very misleading

Hence the additional casting. The monolouges just get rid of ones that have no chance by showing me if people can follow directiuons

 

[rsbush]

While I haven't used monolouges as a part of my film/video audition process, I have used them for theater productions. They are far from a useless antiquated exercise. A few things that can be gleaned from them are:

The actors taste in material.

How they view themselves as actors (what roles they think they're suitable for or capable of).

Their level of relaxation with prepared material.

The depth of the reality they can create.

The quality of the choices they make and their level of commitment to those choices.

If they fall into speech patterns with prepared material.

How physical/intellectual the actor's playing is.

Almost everything if you know what you're looking at.


About the only things you can't tell are:

How well the actor listens and how they well they play with others.

How long they worked on it and how much they were coached.

What I like to do is give the actor a slight adjustment to make with the monolouge and see what results. If they can't make the adjustment, I know that at the very least they are a little unmaleable once they've made their choices. And if they can make the adjustment it really doesn't matter how long or how much help they've had, they are at least maleable.

 

[Ted Spencer]

^I think these are all good points...