Friday, November 1, 2013

Right for the Type vs. Right for the Role



Tom:  Today we want to talk about auditioning with material that shows off your skills as opposed to what’s more right for the part.  

Austin:  And more specifically, knowing or showcasing your “type” versus your range.

Tom:  This is an interesting one, and let me ask you this: Why is this on your mind?  

Austin:  I guess because I’m doing some auditioning these days—

Tom:  More power to you.

Austin:  …and I can’t help but think how to apply my life lessons to training.

Tom:  Cool.  Well let me start with the obvious.

Austin:  Please do.

Tom:  I’ve often thought that when you’re first starting out in a market, you should play your strength.  Get in the door, get recognized, get those first roles doing what you do best, and THEN you can start exploring range.  What do you think?  Do you agree?  

Austin: Well, this is something I’ve often thought about – do I try to showcase my strengths across the board or do I focus on what the business is going to “see” me as?  I think all actors want to go into every audition and do the most WOW-factor work.  

Tom:  Absolutely.

Austin:  We want to give the director or casting director a full range of our potential.  But is that the best approach?

Tom:  This makes me think of fishing.  I remember once I was on this stream fishing a big school of fish and I was having absolutely no luck.  And this guy came up, stood a moment, watched the pool, made a couple of specific casts, and pulled out a nice rainbow trout.  As he walked away, he said to me, “Fish the fish, not the school.”  The meaning being, if we try to do it all, if we try to go for EVERYTHING, we end up being general and not successful at ANYTHING.  

Austin:  I love that story!  Fish the fish, not the school.  It’s kinda like in poker: play the man not the hand.  

Tom:  Great analogy, and it explains why I’m so terrible at poker. 

Austin:  So let me ask this.  I’m a firm believer in transformational acting and that actors need training that gives them the tools to play any number of roles, but are we muddying the waters?  By training “proper” or “classically” trained actors, are we developing too many actors who are TOO good at playing everything and will inevitably fall through the cracks?

Tom:  My answer is No, and here’s why: classical training is just good training.  Period.  It broadens range, and even if an actor favors contemporary material over Shakespeare, that so-called classical training will make him/her BETTER at the contemporary stuff because the classical training gives range.  

Austin:  Okay.

Tom:  The “problem” with classical training is if the actors believe too much in the training and forget they’re supposed to be interesting, dynamic, living, breathing characters.  Too often, the “classically trained” actor is too focused on showing off their training.  They play their training, not their character.

Austin:  Great point, and I think the studio is a place where an actor SHOULD play off type and experiment.  For example, if you’re a shy, reserved actor, then maybe you should tackle Henry V or Lady Macbeth.  But if you’re going to a general audition, do you think it’s inadvisable to break out this work?

Tom:  That’s such a tough question because I think there are so many variables involved.  For one, how good are you at this other work?  If you’re good, you can do any role in the world and people will sit up and take notice.  You can do awful monologues and it won’t matter - if you’re good.  But if you’re only so-so, it’s better to stick with your strength.  Don’t you think?

Austin:  Well, once again we’re back to trusting that if the work is done specifically and diligently then the folks on the other side of the table will sit up and take notice.  I like to believe this, but too often I worry that they’re questioning the thought process behind the choice of material.  

Tom:  I see what you’re saying.

Austin:  I’m definitely in the school of thought that if you can do something – and really shine in it – then you should go for it and challenge another’s way of thinking, their imagination. 

Tom:  I agree.

Austin:  But I think that takes even more courage and even MORE work to be successful.  

Tom:  I agree.  It takes A LOT of courage.

Austin:  I also think this comes down to being honest about the training you want to pursue.  Do you think this has a difference with film and television?  For instance, if you’re going for a career in film and television, then should your focus be more on perfecting your type and the truth of “you” as an actor?

Tom:  I’m on the fence about the difference between film/TV vs. stage.  I think good acting is good acting is good acting.  

Austin:  Hear, hear!

Tom:  Now camera work needs a different scale than stage, no question, but it needs just as much “truth” as stage.  A different kind of truth perhaps, but still truth.  I think when it comes to type, actors have to help agents and casting directors out (and directors and producers), by doing material that is “appropriate” for them.  I think the problem comes when we’re trying to please that other side of the table.  Instead, the more we can put our focus on “the target,” the more truthful and interesting and engaging we’ll be … and we’ll get cast.  Don’t you think?

Austin:  Of course, and I’m playing devil’s advocate here because I believe it’s important to understand all angles.  And one that comes up for me is if an actor only wants to act within a specific range of their experiences – then I think the idea of staying close to home or type starts to be a factor.  “Why should I try those choices because in real life I wouldn’t do that?” or “I’m never going to be cast in that role so why should I try?”  That sorta thing...which I think is lazy, to be quite frank.

Tom:  I don’t disagree.  And from a training point of view, yes, all actors should be stretched as much as possible.  I was assigned the role of Big Daddy in an acting class once.  Now, you know me; I’m no Big Daddy – even after all the pasta I’ve eaten this year.  But it did help stretch me as an actor - no pun intended - and find a sense of largeness.  But I don’t find fault with actors who play a more limited range … as long as they play it well.  Some cobblers make the same types of shoes their whole life and are brilliant at it, and good for them.  And some make different types of shoes, and good for them as well.

Austin:  This is exactly where I was hoping this conversation was going to go today.  I think that it is amazing you were assigned Big Daddy, because THAT is what acting is all about.  And that is what training SHOULD be about.  The process and the growth of each actor’s skills.  I think that the “type” recognition almost plays into some of our previous chats about craft vs. career, so I once again find myself thinking about that dualist quality an actor has to embody.  

Tom:  You’re right.  And by the way, I was dreadful as Big Daddy.  But… you’re right.  For training purposes, it was great.  But I want to go back to that phrase we used earlier: proper training.  I think this is where actors get into trouble.  Classical training and proper training can - if the actor isn’t careful - lead an actor to trying to show off, trying to please others (casting directors, audiences, etc.), as opposed to being a living, breathing, interesting character.  This is the primary BALANCE in a training program - learning the work … and then hiding it.

Austin:  You know, I always think of an old classmate from drama school who was such a technician that you could see the work – but it wasn’t the work of an actor, it was the work of a character.  I was always so impressed with her commitment. 

Tom:  I know what you’re saying.

Austin:  Something I’ve been thinking about since I suggested this topic is the level of work that is necessary for an actor to play “against” type.  Obviously, the industry is going to see you as who you are – your race, your sex, your coloring, your size, your personality – and they’re going to place you based on those factors.  BUT!  When you use the training that a “proper” acting studio offers you, then you have the tools to truly show them something different.  Do you think so?

Tom:  I wish I did.  But I’m not convinced that every actor graduating from every acting studio will have the tools to play a wide variety of roles.  That would be nice, of course, but I don’t think it’s the case.  And frankly, I don’t think that’s terrible.  As an audience member, I’m really not looking to see an actor’s range, I’m looking to see if they’re good in that TV show or that film or that play.  And if I see them again and they’re playing a similar role, well, if it serves that project, fine.  I think it’s exciting when actors can play a variety of roles, but I don’t hold it against actors whose range is more limited.  And I don’t think every acting studio can possibly make every actor have incredible range.  It’s a great goal, but I just don’t think it’s possible.  Am I cynical?

Austin:  I don’t think so.  Obviously, I’m optimistic and an advocate of range because that’s the kind of actor I aspire to be.  Is that the right fit for EVERY actor?  No.  But I still believe that actors should push their limits, but be honest with their type.  

Tom:  Exactly – I like the way you put that.

Austin:  And you’re right, as audience members we shouldn’t be looking for ridiculous range.  We should be captivated by a character’s story.  I just think that the better an actor can facilitate that goal, the greater the contribution they can offer.

Tom:  I could break it down into two categories: training and career.  For training, absolutely, stretch like crazy.  Go against type.  Push the boundaries.  Absolutely.  But when it comes to the career, I think it can/should evolve.  Find your type.  Explore it, perfect it.  If you get tired playing that type, stretch it.  Go another way.  But I do get nervous when actors early on in their careers are desperate to show “how good they are” and how “versatile” they are because then they’re not being true to the material; they’re trying to please.  They’re fishing the school, not the fish.

Austin:  Exactly.  An actor’s ego is a wicked, wicked adversary!  It’s the thing that will bring an actor down no matter WHAT type they are! 

Tom:  Amen.

Austin:  I was listening to a casting director the other week talk about how actors all want to come in and SHOW them how good they are.  They tap dance to get a glass of water.  Sometimes – and this goes back to doing the work and then hiding it – we have to remember to have FAITH in the work.  

Tom:  I love that story.  And I think it goes back to other variables, too, like whether it’s a general audition or whether you’re auditioning for a specific role.  But even if you’re auditioning for a specific role of a certain type, there are a lot of ways to play any given role.  And casting directors talk about seeing hundreds of actors do the same role in the same way and when an actor comes in and does something a little bit different, presto!  That gets their attention.  So it’s playing true to the role, and using your imagination.  And letting type take care of itself.

Austin:  Yeah, because like it or not...you are who you are.

Tom:  Absolutely!

Austin:  It’s interesting how all our conversations tend to melt and morph into so many of the same things.  Either that or we’re really boiling acting down to a few very simple rules!

Tom:  Now THAT’S interesting – and maybe a future topic:  If there are a few simple rules for acting, what are they?  And let me just add, you and I have played father/son before, so the next time I’m offered Big Daddy, I’m going to insist you play Brick.  Deal?

Austin:  I already got the gingerness covered!  Deal!