What is the best method for auditioning actors?

[Filmkid2003]

Hey everyone. I'm getting ready to hold an audition. I was just wondering what others feel is the best way to hold an audition. Do you have the actors do a cold read for the part they are auditioning for or just have them do their own monologue? Do you send them a page of the script to go over before they come to the audition? Any suggestions? Thanks.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I'd suggest a cold read.

No preparation other than about 5 to 10 minutes while waiting.

A professional actor will have no problems with a cold read.

 

[El Director]

I do a monolouge first, then, if I like them, I do some cold reads. The monolouge helps me see if they can follow basic directions, as I ask the actors to come prepared with one. If they don't, I don't give them a chance. Then, when they do the cold read, even if I liked how they did it, I'll give them a direction to do it differently. Again, I want to see if they can follow directions.

 

[Paul Hudson]

I like to just talk with the actor for a few minutes to see if we are even remotely compatible. For example, see if they answer your questions directly and smartly and with a degree of creativity and interest. This is hugely important part of the casting process for me. Secondly, I have them read a script that they have had for the time they have waited to enter the casting room. I want them to have had no more time with the script than that. If they are good that is all they will need. This shows two things. The first is their ability to act, not memorize, and the second is their ability to react to any script changes should they arise. Lastly, I look at their past experience. This is important but not nearly as important as the first two tests, unless you are casting the film for star power.

 

[Ted Spencer]

As an actor, I generally will decline offers to audition for unpaid student or short films when sides are not offered in advance. Taking two hours out of my day to audition sight unseen for a non-paying role that turns out to be a one-worder or reads like it was written by that mythical chimpanzee/typewriter combo is not my idea of a good time. Thankfully, most filmmakers are willing to email at least the character's sides, and often an entire short script. If the script is well written and the role is to my liking I'll happily risk part of my afternoon or evening to audition for a free role. Like I said though, failing that I just won't go. The exception is an unpaid feature, where there's quite simply a much better chance of the work being something interesting, and of the film itself actually amounting to more than just a filmmaker's demo, which is all shorts/student films ever really are.

From the other side of the casting table, regarding cold reads in general, I take pretty much the same position - I strongly advocate giving sides to all actors at least a few days in advance. I don't believe in the approach of 'let's see what they do after 5 minutes with the text', and I don't understand what that supposedly accomplishes aside from saving a little effort for the casting director. I say give the actor plenty of time to work on the role before the audition, then let them do it their way initially. If the read is awful, it's over. If it looks promising, then offer them some direction (even if you think they nailed it - the ability to quickly take direction varies wildly in actors - some can barely do it at all). If they do well initially, take direction well, and are well suited otherwise, then you have a candidate for a callback. Of that group, choose the best and call them back for round two.

Regarding monologues, I think they're largely useless for film work. They're hand picked by the actor, memorized, and quite possibly coached, thus playing almost totally into their strength (= 0% challenge). It's the polar opposite of a cold read (= 100% challenge), but equally useless IMO, for the opposite reason. Why these two approaches often go together is beyond me, like:

"Let's see how you do walking a high wire on a windy day blindfolded"

and then:

"Ok, now let's see how you do with untying and retying your shoelaces"

Which of these applies to the real situation? (none)

Where's the middle ground in this? (nowhere)

Then there's casting irrelevancy #3: Improv. It can be interesting, but calls for something of a 'writer's head' that is largely irrelevant for acting in general. Many outstanding actors have very little ability as writers. And IMHO, improv is only really well suited for comedy in narrative filmmaking. Improvisational comedians are a breed unto themselves, and can add hugely to funny movies as actors/realtime writers.

IMHO, the best films are made by talented, well prepared actors who approach the writing and the director's input in a deeply creative and respectful way, and who in turn receive the full respect and collaborative intentions/efforts of the director. I see no productive reason to conduct an audition any differently.

My $.02

 

[Zblock]

I do a monolouge first, then, if I like them, I do some cold reads. The monolouge helps me see if they can follow basic directions, as I ask the actors to come prepared with one. If they don't, I don't give them a chance. Then, when they do the cold read, even if I liked how they did it, I'll give them a direction to do it differently. Again, I want to see if they can follow directions.

Yeah you;re always supposed to change it up a bit to see how the actor follows your directions. As an actor I appreciate it when I'm given my sides. You could be reading for something really unexpected and that might not be easy to get into character in 15-30 min with a bunch of other people around.
Casting: Same, unless the script is just really standard stuff why not give your actors a few days with it to see what they come up with. If they show up and arn't prepared....NEXT. But they'd have that much time and more to deliver the real deal so keep it consistent.