19 July 2007

Directing -- Oh Ye Gods and Little Fishes, What Am I Thinking?

I'll be having auditions for "Glass Menagerie" in about 4 weeks. I've just realized this will be the 12th show I've directed for South Bend Civic in the past 11 years. I've acted in 6 others, and done tech work only for 8 more. Apparently, I like this theatre thing.

Casting is the most important part of a show, and it's the part I hate doing the most. I've been on the other side -- wanting to be cast, wanting to be loved, wanting *not* to be rejected. The thing is, there are only so many roles in a play (though I've been known to add a few extra people here and there), and only so many actors you need. So I empathize with what the auditioners are going through, I really do. And I hate having to tell some very good actors that I just can't use them -- this time. I try to emphasize the "this time" part, because I often have to turn down people I'd love to work with, and I want them to know that even though I can't use them in this play, I really want to be able to cast them somewhere down the road.

So what does a director look for in an audition? What do *I* look for in an audition?

I dunno.

No, really, I don't. It changes from show to show. In general, though, I want somebody who's not too stupid (though I can think of exceptions. I've know a couple of actors who where thicker than bricks, but who were utterly convincing on stage as whatever character they were playing. No clue how they managed to pull it off, either). But how does an actor be "not stupid" for me?

It hardly ever has to do with how well they read the script in the audition. Some people aren't good sight readers, but they're wonderful actors.

It rarely has to do with whether or not someone makes witty jokes or engages me in philosophical discussion during the audition process. In fact, I'd really rather they didn't, I'm too easily distracted.

It never has to do with whether or not the actor is a friend of mine (though all my friends are, by definition, intelligent people. And they have good taste, too ). I have cast friends in the past, and in a community theatre, I don't see any way around that. I'll undoubtedly cast friends in the future -- I don't think it's "wrong" to do so. But being my friend ahead of time has nothing to do with getting cast in one of my shows. At least I don't think it does. Some days I think I only cast people I like, which means being a friend would be a plus, right? But other days I think I'm harder on my friends than on other actors, just so I don't give the appearance of being biased in their favor. So I don't know if friendship is a plus or a minus when it comes to casting. I'd like to think it has no real bearing one way or another, but I could be lying to myself.

When I cast "Zombies From the Beyond," I got way out of my comfort zone. I was casting singers and dancers as well as actors, and I had to rely on my musical director, vocal coach, and choreographers to steer me in the right directions. There were a couple of people I cast in the show that I would normally never have considered at all -- except that one or more of my production team went to bat for them. And they were absolutely right -- "Zombies" was probably the best cast I've ever worked with, and I have Richard, Rick, Steve, and Ralph to thank for that -- they saw things in certain auditioners that I couldn't.

Some actors in Zombies were easy to cast -- Ed, Mike, and Nathan, for example. I totally lucked out on all of them, because they were perfect for their roles, and they all agreed to do the show. Frankly, I could have cast Ed in any of the three roles (Rick, Trenton, or Billy) and been perfectly happy -- but Mike was a great choice for Trenton, and Nathan simply was Billy -- finding out he could tap dance (because what the hell do I know about dancers or singers in this town?) was just icing on the cake. Poor Ed kind of ended up as Rick by default. He was great, he was terrific -- but I've never cast a role by default before, and it felt weird to me, almost as if I were shortchanging him. I keep telling myself he couldn't have played all *three* parts, so it worked out fine -- but I still feel that little niggle of obligation towards Ed, like I owe him a bigger role, or at least a different role, in something else, Someday, Somewhere, Somehow -- but I'm not directing West Side Story any time soon (I hope).

Kathleen was a pretty easy choice for me too -- there was another actress that I had really *expected* (before auditions) to cast as Charlene, but it just didn't happen. I *remembered* Kathleen's singing voice, which is rare for me -- I tend to remember acting, not singing or dancing -- so when we were kicking around potential "Charlenes", her name kept coming up from all of us. The decision to cast her wasn't difficult. And now of course I'm patting myself on the back for casting her, because she was a real standout in the show. No matter what she does after this, I fully intend to tell everyone I "discovered" her . Hey, I'll take my strokes where I can.

Melanie was a different story. I *didn't* remember her singing audition, at all, nor her dancing. She would have flown under my radar altogether except for Richard and Ralph -- they both looked at me like I was insane when I said, "Gee, I'm not sure we have any strong candidates for Mary", and almost in unison said, "What about Melanie?" It wasn't that I thought she auditioned poorly, she was actually really good. But there were a lot of really good ingenues there that night, and I simply didn't recognize her abilities -- or maybe I didn't recognize the *totality* of her abilities; I knew she could act, and I thought she was "good enough" or at least "ok" as a singer and dancer (because remember, I know squat about singing and dancing -- how could I know she was as good at them as she was at acting?). Directors can be morons sometimes, and just not see the obvious. Happens to me all the time . Really, the thing that made the difference, ultimately, was that she introduced herself to me before the audition -- just a quick "hello, I'm Melanie" and a handshake. Not much, but it gave me a taste of her personality, and that self-intro was the one tiny thing that convinced me to give her the part. Go figure.

Hey, I never said I was *good* at casting -- just lucky.

So anyway, "Zombies" turned out well. Just wish I could take more of the credit for it, but I can't. Not to say I won't try .

Back to "Menagerie." What do I want from actors who audition for Menagerie?

The only thing I know for sure I that I'm not sure. For awhile, I thought I had a handle on these characters -- I thought I wanted an older Laura, maybe in her 30s or even early 40s, because that just points up the tragedy of her situation (and helps me work through some personal issues of my own ). And whatever age Laura is, Tom is just a bit younger and the Gentleman Caller is just a bit older, and Amanda's -- old enough to be Laura's mother.

Of course, Tom is the narrator, and he's looking back on the story from a point in his own future, so the actor playing Tom can be as old as Amanda, really, or even older. Or, as a friend pointed out, it's possible to cast *two* Toms -- an older one to do the narration that bookends the acts, and a younger one to act out the scenes with Laura and Amanda. Intriguing idea. And I've always felt it was Tom's play, though I don't want the actors playing Laura or Amanda to agree with me, of course.

But there's nothing wrong with a cast that's more traditional, either -- I can see the point in having a Laura who's just 20 or 21, with a mother who still truly believes Laura can someday take care of herself and gain some independence. The contrast of that hope and the reality of Laura's fate (Williams' sister ended up institutionalized) is part of what gives the play its poignancy.

I think I'm going to be looking for actors who can help me make up my mind. I'd like to see people coming in and making definite choices about these characters. Hell, I'd *really* like to see a knock-down drag out fight between actors trying to pull the scene in different directions based on their interpretations of the characters. That would be exciting. No fisticuffs, please, but strong wills in opposition to each other? Sure!

At the same time, of course, I want *some* flexibility -- they can't be so sold on their own interpretations that they refuse to adjust to the actors around them, or to my suggestions.

I want people who are hungry for this experience, and who show me how hungry they are when they audition. I don't want to work with actors who're just looking for an impressive line on their resume, I want actors who know this play and love it -- maybe even need it in some dark and twisted way (hey, it's Tennessee Williams, and if you can't get dark and twisted about TW, who can you get dark and twisted about?). Theatre as Group Therapy -- a concept I strongly support .

So I guess I'm saying what I want from actors is strength and passion. Yeah. I'm not asking for much, just sign your soul away on the dotted line here, and try not to smear the bloody drips from the pen . . .


I'm going to go away and beat my head against a wall for awhile. Talk to you later.

1 comment:

Korean Celt said...

Well, shucks. I'll tell everyone you discovered me, too. :-)