::glee::
It's amazing how the
red letter news of one's next show can cheer one up. One being me. Ah, the life of an actor. Of course, it also helps I'm almost over The Death Cold while still keeping preggo nausea at bay. The only thing I don't have back yet is my appetite. But I'm not complaining; I'll be eating plenty in the next six and a half months to make up for it.
So yeah- a SHOW! WOOT! SO excited! I had previously announced I would be part of the REP Company (a local theatre troupe of about 50 called upon throughout the year to participate in a 10-production season). The REP has come a long way in the near twenty years it's been around. It's definitely the kind of environment where you pay your dues, but it's also an environment where you work with nothing but supremely-talented people and every experience is one where you grow as an artist. And at this point, that's vital for me.
The audition consisted of a singing round and a lengthy cold reading callback, and I was offered a spot in the REP the next day. I've worked with them before, both as a REP member nearly 10 years ago and as a step-in last year in Death of a Salesman (just a feature role). I met some great new people during that experience, and that plus the level of talent I saw made me decide to go for it this time.
The REP is run by a great gal (not only a terrific director and artist but also a sharp businesswoman) with two extremely talented daughters who, much to some people's dislike, play alot of lead roles in the productions. This kind of "favoritism" (no, NOT my word) used to bother me (as in during my first time in the REP 10 years ago) until I sucked it up and saw how consistently top-notch their performances (and the quality of the shows overall) were. It's the kind of politics that happens at every theatre in every city, period. Yep, it's the business. But what the REP also does is consistently bring in new talent each year and work those people up to to great roles (much like the way many equity houses do) in great productions. That's the business, too. Take it or leave it.
I know I've bitched on here about theatre politics (it happens, everywhere, in some form or fashion), and sure sometimes certain equity (and certainly non-equity) houses in the Big D have made casting decisions based on "who they know", and the production suffered thus. But is this the norm? Gosh, no. Not at all. Especially in the more reputable professional companies. Usually the director knows what they're doing, knows their people and the material, and the production value shows it. Sure, the director has a "vision", the director has a "plan" to make all the puzzle pieces "fit".
What they also have, in most cases, is choices. Alot of choices. Choices between someone the director has worked with before who can play the role in fitting with their vision, as well as someone they have never met who could do the same.
Who do they choose?
Well, who would you choose?
(And let me say, politics are inevitable in theatre (especially community theatre), as is casting for physical type (well, that's everywhere). And anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial. Just the way it is. Not every decision is based on what's best for the production value. Most, but not all. Politics are present, and they're not all bad. And hell, I know there are roles I've missed out on because I'm not a size 6, hello?!?)
Anyway, the answer to the above: the director casts the person they've worked with before in the lead role and gives the "new" talented person a smaller role where they can prove themselves. This happened to me (me being the "new" person) at an equity house recently, and it ended up being one the best theatre experiences I've ever had. It's the business, and if you're willing and able to "pay your dues" the big roles will come your way. Not every time of course, and it's not an end all be all, but your chances are definitely better.
And when, asin most cases, the director knows what they're doing (and doing it for the right reasons) the productions doesn't suffer. And guess what? Everyone involved will have a learning, growing experience as an artist, working with nothing but top-notch people.
This is an ideal scenario, of course, but one I've been part of and privy to. And I've talked to alot of directors I've worked with, equity and non-equity. I've heard point-blank reasons why certain people get cast in certain roles. Some are good reasons, some not so much.
Good reasons:
- "I've seen her play the role before, and I know she can do it."
- "I know his work ethic, and I like it. He'll get the job done."
- "She gave the best audition, and I can count on her."
- "She's exactly what I envisioned for the role."
Not-so-good reasons:
- "She's helped out alot behind the scenes on other shows."
- "It's just her turn."
- "He may not be quite right for the role, but he paid his dues."
- "She's such a nice person and done so much for the community."
UGH. I've heard those not-so-good reasons so many times and in many cases either been in or at least seen the productions associated with them. Less-than-great productions that could have been better. Because of me? NO, people. I'm not that vain. But WOW, I know alot people, especially in community theatre, that wouldn't have gotten half the roles they got if it wasn't for some well-placed ass-kissing and well-done volunteer work painting sets, or it was just "their turn".
These kind of things have alot to do with my level of patience and tolerance doing certain roles with certain theatres. When I see a community theatre director cast a show five years ago with a certain group of people, and then this year cast a similar show with the same base group of people, it makes me raise an eyebrow. And, quite frankly, lower an opinion.
"Well, that's community theatre".
Yes. It is. And that's all it is, and putting on productions based even partly on such things will eventually limit the production quality. And for someone looking to grow, looking to get better, looking for challenges, that environment just won't cut it. And if I'm judged for that, so be it. Do I look petty to some? Probably.
Eh. Small price to pay.
I've been doing theatre since I was eight. My complete resume tops out at over one hundred productions, and the vast MINORITY of these roles are leads. I'd like to believe the (relatively) few I've gotten I deserved. The meat (and often the best) of my experience lies in supporting roles (Anita in
West Side Story, Ado Annie in
Oklahoma, Erma in
Anything Goes, Mama Morton in
Chicago- that one was during college) and featured roles (Tess in
Crazy For You, Mrs Mayor in
Seussical, Miss Flannery in
Thoroughly Modern Millie). I love doing them, but the older and more experienced I get, the more choosy I become about WHERE I do them.
The same goes for roles I've played before and the "slutty" roles, a category I seem to be typecast in
.- Will I learn and grow and be challenged by the experience?
- Will I be working with a cast where everyone is at least or more talented than me?
- Is the director and theatre reputable?
- Is it an equity house production?
For where I am in my experience and life, these are fair questions. I'm at a point where I lack patience for decisions that drag productions down for the sake of "community", for the sake of "everyone getting along".
I want to be challenged, I want to grow.
ANYWAY, now that I've gotten off my unintentional soapbox, I'm THRILLED to be part of Broadway's Best, the REP's annual Broadway revue to kick off the new season. It's also apparently a "second" audition for the rest of the season, kind of "prove yourself" kind of thing. Ought to be fun, so stay tuned!