I made someone cry during auditions

I do have headshots... but I'm somewhat hesitant to post them online if I haven't cast them... you know what I mean? I can PM people, I don't know about publicly posting them.
 
never, never, never, cast based on the image of the character you have in your head. never! haha.

i'm overstating it, but my philosophy is to find great actors and tailor (aka "rewrite") the role to suit them. for example, a little known fact about HEART OF NOW is that the character was originally written as a young filipino girl. not joking. i mean, how many more stories about white people do we need? :)

but then i met Marion Kerr, auditioned her and I rewrote the part so I could capture that magical thing she had, that none of the other actors brought.
 
I think to cast someone just because they can cry is almost as bad of a reason as casting them just because they are attractive.

Honestly none of us can really tell you what to do. We weren't there, we didn't see the auditions, we don't know your script or the role. Is acting ability more important than looks? Usually. But if you're casting a cheerleader with just a few lines, then looks would probably supersede ability. It sounds like in your case acting ability is pretty important. Use your best judgement. Would she work well with your other actors?

Lots of things to consider. People have made good suggestions, but remember, this is your choice. Do what will make for the best film.
 
As the mom of a fairly new child actor (Zack in "The Five Worst Days in the Life of Bartholomew Saxton"), I have to say that your method you used during the audition is completely normal for actors to experience. My son has gone on a number of auditions here in LA recently and is always expected to show the emotion (if need be). His acting coach, manager, and agent call it "Method Acting" and he has been trained accordingly....to tap into a memory or make up a story that he can relate to that will take him to "that place". So don't feel bad.....if anything, she feels great about the audition because she was able to go to that place! It's not always easy! And it's not uncommon for an actor to hear that they delivered the lines perfect, but just didn't have that "look" that the director is looking for for THAT particular film, commercial, etc. Doesn't mean they won't be remembered, though, for future projects! So, don't feel bad!
 
Drew Ott said:
Acting ability > looks. IMO.
Click to expand...
Not in film.

Theater, yes, to a degree, because the suspension of disbelief is so high.

In theater it goes like this: (and by "looks" I mean looks right not looks hot necessarily)

  1. TRAINING/EXPERIENCE, TALENT and LOOKS
  2. TRAINING/EXPERIENCE and TALENT
  3. TALENT ONLY
  4. TRAINING/EXPERIENCE ONLY (this cane be neck and neck with #3 depending on the severity of the deficit in either and the demands of the role)
  5. LOOKS ONLY
In film it goes like this:

  1. TRAINING/EXPERIENCE, TALENT, LOOKS and "It Factor"
  2. TALENT, LOOKS and "It Factor"
  3. Talent and Looks
  4. Talent with out Looks, or Looks without talent = keep looking.
There is no option to cast someone who's not right for the role and who doesn't have talent - you have to have both in film.

No before someone says yeah but Robert Downey Jr. played a black guy, Ledger looked nothing like the joker, etc. Those rare rarified talents that are playing at a super human level, and in special circumstances.

Most of the time, for most of the movies we talk about and aspire to make, it just has to be real. So for the grocery store clerk you're casting, or even the lead, until you have access to Gary Oldman, cast against type at your own peril. This is one of the biggest tells in our DVXuser fests of amateurism.

In theater cast for looks onlt at your own peril.
In film cast against look at your own peril.

They've got to be right for it.
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
Not in film.

Theater, yes, to a degree, because the suspension of disbelief is so high.

In theater it goes like this: (and by "looks" I mean looks right not looks hot necessarily)

  1. TRAINING/EXPERIENCE, TALENT and LOOKS
  2. TRAINING/EXPERIENCE and TALENT
  3. TALENT ONLY
  4. TRAINING/EXPERIENCE ONLY (this cane be neck and neck with #3 depending on the severity of the deficit in either and the demands of the role)
  5. LOOKS ONLY
In film it goes like this:

  1. TRAINING/EXPERIENCE, TALENT, LOOKS and "It Factor"
  2. TALENT, LOOKS and "It Factor"
  3. Talent and Looks
  4. Talent with out Looks, or Looks without talent = keep looking.
There is no option to cast someone who's not right for the role and who doesn't have talent - you have to have both in film.

No before someone says yeah but Robert Downey Jr. played a black guy, Ledger looked nothing like the joker, etc. Those rare rarified talents that are playing at a super human level, and in special circumstances.

Most of the time, for most of the movies we talk about and aspire to make, it just has to be real. So for the grocery store clerk you're casting, or even the lead, until you have access to Gary Oldman, cast against type at your own peril. This is one of the biggest tells in our DVXuser fests of amateurism.

In theater cast for looks onlt at your own peril.
In film cast against look at your own peril.

They've got to be right for it.
Click to expand...
How exactly did Bogart, Steve Buscemi, and countless others ever make it then?
 
Looks in terms of looking right for the role, not necessarily looks in terms of being attractive (unless you're talking about leading men or leading women roles). Buscemi has a great look...
 
Steve Buscemi has a great look but I can't remember the last time he played the lead in a romantic comedy. This is what JDS is saying, I think.
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
... (and by "looks" I mean looks right not looks hot necessarily)
...
Click to expand...

You can't cast the 19 year old down the hall in your dorm as the 65 year old head of the undergound super secret Soviet spy agency.

You don't cast Steve Buscemi as the lead in Gladiator.

You do cast Steve Buscemi in countless great character roles.

I said in my post that I was not talking about attractiveness but type.

You virtually always cast for type in film. You'd never pluck some random person off the street for a theater piece because they look right for something, but it happens in film all the time, especially with "local color" parts, because artifice i.e. pretending to be something your not, is less accepted and more readily exposed in film and buying into the lie, the makebelieve is part of theater. Film - get as close to the real thing as you can. Theater, is more about suspending your disbelief as an audience member. Film is more about making it so that the audience member doesn't have to suspend his disbelief.
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
You can't cast the 19 year old down the hall in your dorm as the 65 year old head of the undergound super secret Soviet spy agency.
Click to expand...
Before Tim Burton's Batman, I would have never, ever thought of Michael Keaton as Batman, because he certainly didn't look the part. He certainly pulled it off though, because he is a talented actor.
 
Yes he was an interesting choice.

Non traditional casting is done often. Michael Keaton was a more fleshed out, not overwhelmingly goodlooking Bruce Wayne that could easily be a millionaire. And he was also a leading man at that point in his career.

Do you think we should cast Steve Buscemi as the lead in gladiator?

You can cast who you want, but the point is to have a very good reason to go outside of type for film. And "so and so" is all we could get may be the harsh reality but it's not a good reason and won't make for a good film.

And lest you think I'm belittling actors abilities - I'm not. I'm a classically trained actor and theater director and I've directed over 35 fully staged productions, and I would never cast for type over talent or training any day, and I fully believe in the transformational power of the actor in that medium. You can't cast soley for type in film, but it should not be your default to say type doesn't matter so much if they can act. Not so in film.

Film is a different animal. We do the makebelieve for the audience. So if you can cast a 19 year old that can pull off a 65 year old russian spy then, hat's off to you. But if we see the seams, or the cracks, or behind the illusion for an instant, you're ruined. Not so in theater, the whole point is seeing the wires.
 
Capt Quirk said:
Before Tim Burton's Batman, I would have never, ever thought of Michael Keaton as Batman, because he certainly didn't look the part. He certainly pulled it off though, because he is a talented actor.
Click to expand...

Or how about Robert Downey Jr. as Ironman? People thought that was a mistake but he definitely pulled it off... did a great job even. AND he spent a lot of time in the gym to get prepared for the role. Downey is a great actor.
 
I always thought Downey was spot on for an eccentric hedonistic brilliant playboy.

But he's someone that I would cast in any roll he wanted in any project. Actors like that are few and far between and it might be a while before we have access to them.

So especially when you are working with friends, or semi-pro actors, it might be a good idea to cast them close to themselves ... but one day though ... hopefully, we can all work with the Downey's and Gary Oldmans out there.
 
Capt Quirk, if I seem extra grumpy - been up since Tuesday morning getting stuff ready for festival submission last minute. Probably taking some Without a Box angst out on you / venting through the argument. Sorry about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top