Like a lot of people, (I think), I'm not crazy about auditions.
D'd'y'ever notice that when Directors/Auters become established, that they often like to use the same actors again and again? I'm thinkin' of the Coen brothers but there's also Jimmy Stuart and Hitchcock, Mel Brooks (and loads of others that I'll Google in a minute).
I used to think that this was because they'd just become mates on whatever film that they were working on and so just wanted to see each other again,- but now I'm not so sure.
I've started to come 'round to the idea that maybe people like to use the same actors before because, having worked with them; they now know what they can do: and that this is invaluable because this is something that you don't get from auditions.
I think, that what you learn from auditions, is how good people are at auditions.
Now, I'm, pontificating as per, about something that I'm enthusiastic about as opposed to something I'm knowledgable about:
This is all the plays I've ever been in, in my entire existence:
0. Charlie and the Chocolate factory. (oompa-loompa)
2.{EDIT}Mr Rush's gripping courtroom drama. (short, lazy, precocious smartarse)
2. The Plough and the Stars. (Uncle Peter)
3.{EDIT} A complete and Utter waste of time. (Art student)
3. A murder mystery I cant remember the name of (Detective)
4. Sexual perversity in Chicago (Danny)
5. Double Cross (Bracken/Lord Haw-Haw)
6. Sox (a bloke)
7. Rough for Theatre 1 (The Blind Man)
8. The Old Neighborhood (Bobby Gould)
9. Broken Glass (Phil Gellburg)
10.Fahrenheit 451 (Prof. Faber)
11.One For the Road (Nicholas)
12.Faustus (Satan and others)
13.Dreamgirl (David Thewlis)
14.Oleanna (John)
15.Misery (Paul Sheldon)
16.The Threepenny Opera (Matt of the Mint)
17.Engame (Bloke in the Bin)
18.Happy days (Willie)
19.Midsummer nights Dream (Wall)
20.At A Loss (Man with useless wagon for a wife)
Now, that, as far as I can remember, is everything I've ever been in on stage.
The plays in bold are the ones I had to audition for.So what do I know from auditions already? Not much but enough to know I hates 'em.
The arrogance that comes from not having to do too many of them is part of it. I dunno, there is an air of 'Dance Monkey- Dance for us!' and the more amateur the crowd holding them are, the more 'ego-trippy X-factor judges panel' they are about it, or such has been my experience. I have actually been to more auditions than the above chart suggests, it's just that auditions, for me, almost never result in parts. That could be why I hate them or because I hate them; take your pick.
'Anyroad' (as they say in the Coronation St. of my memory) tonight I went to an 'audition' a production I would love to be in. I can safely say I was well-prepared; I had the opening speech memorised and to perfection, in no less than two accents.
Life being life, the director didn't want to see us all do the same bit, he wanted us just to read through the play, changing parts as we went along, and life being life, he gave the opening speech to someone else. Which sounds like a total balls but actually was more much more 'fair' and made me feel less of a total swot.
Besides, I'm already in this five kinds of silence caper, with a fantastic part; so I shouldn't be greedy I spose.
Still.
Heck-o Dazza,not only actors but a lot of directors also end up using the same crew over and over, though i suppose its not as obvious if Scorcese has the same prediliction for the repeatedly using same the dolly-grip as he does for using DeNiro or (WHY?)Dicaprio.
ReplyDeleteAs you have pointed out the repeated use of certain actors by a director does not make for a chummy chummy as you like it buddy buddy movie making experience, just ask Werner Herzog and Klaus Kinski next time they pop into the local.
Aye, for some directors its the lack of availibility of other valid candidates that keep them coming back to the same actors.
In the main I'd agree with you, i figure that directors like to build up a troupe to work with because it just saves so much time. Yes, you know what the actors are capable of and you also know how they work together, so, thats got to be handy for a director.
On a more superficial level i also think that it has become one of the marks of an 'autuer' director to boast a troupe of regulars, though strange to say, i think this works better in the theatre than it does in the cinema.
Now, saying all of that, Adam Sandler always insists that Rob Schneider gets a part in any of his movies, auteur chic or sheer bloody minded perversity?
Schneidah has the negatives, I reckon.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what it is about oul' Roy that nobody likes him?
Ah, me thinks you forget the zeroth production for stage in which you appeared: how soon the high and mighty forget their humble origins.
ReplyDeleteThat was, as I recall, a stunning debut performance for both of us, although, my debut was also my finale, curtain call if you will, since I haven't appeared in anything since (apart from once being offered the lead in 'Fiddler on the Roof' which I doubt counts).
Anyhow, you need to add this to your curriculum vitae, or what every you "tee-ay-ter" types call your equivalent:
0. A short sketch in which a school kid gets arraigned for not doing his home work (Jason). Mr Rush Productions.
For the record - I played a very stodgy judge, and you were the school kid/criminal. Type casting all round?
Flann.
Yeah...um... I left out 'Lowry', 'Smurfs as Gaeilge' and 'Scotland' (in the play about the EEC)as they didn't actually count. But that particular gem I had just forgotten about...
ReplyDeleteWasn't it Rush who, as part of his variety productions had girls in Primary do a kind of Strippery/Cabaret show and the boys perform 'summertime' in black-face with pillows up their jumpers to simulate pregnancy?