....the Director's choice of words might be quite blunt, but she is being honest about what the needs are for the actors. Why is that a problem?

ETA: Woolf is a intense play, solely reliant on the "lightening bolts" between the characters. Not for the faint hearted or for the inexperienced actor. It's full on, flat out and requires a very high skill level to do it justice. I suspect Sue just wants to make sure that no one's time is wasted or anyone's hopes are raised if they are just not up to the task. There's just no room for flexibility or time to nurture along an inexperienced or less confident actor in a 4 hander like this one.

PS. I suspect Sue will have them turning up in droves for an opportunity to do this play.

I'm sorry if my choice of words offends or hurts you Walter Plingette - you obviously don't know me. As MusicalMum says my words are blunt and honest....just like me. She is quite right, I won't have time to help actors take 'baby steps' along the way in this play, so I decided to be completely upfront about that from the outset. If my wording of the audition notice upsets you then it is probably best you don't come because, for sure, I'll upset you too. Oh, and judging by the response I've already had, I don't think I'm going to have too much worry about no-one turning up!
Can't really win in this game! We're condemned if we DON'T say exactly what we want, and we're condemned if we DO.
Ah well, that's showbiz!
Cheers, Sue.

merely responded to it. As to why a Director might want to limit the auditionees, well I guess that's an 'each to their own' moment. You are entitled to an opinion that it is "foolhardy & arrogant" which is no more or less valid than my opinion that it is neither and that it is in fact realistic, practical and sound, not to mention fairer & more respectful of both those who are potentially suitable for a role and those who are not.

And whilst I respect your view that there may be that person who against all evidence to the contrary has the ability to play the role, I put it to you that it is almost never the case. And faced with the prospect of spending multiple hours or days allowing for that possibility is simply not always a luxury every Director can "afford".

In any event, the notion of limiting auditionee numbers being 'foolhardy and arrogant' is really a bit of a foolhardy one in itself. Auditionee numbers are limited every single time an audition is held in some way, shape or form - by gender, by age range, by skill set, sometimes by race, by vocal type, etc, etc, etc...........

So despite your claim you want to see "EVERYONE", that is not actually true. You don't want to see them if they are the wrong gender or if they cannot sing & you're casting a singing role or they're a child and you need a mature adult with life experience, or a non-dancer for 42nd Street chorus, now do you? So I think it's pretty rich you asserting the idea as foolhardy or arrogant.

Sue's audition is a great example. Really complex, challenging & difficult show. Consequently she is going for an audition process where needs to spend considerable time with the auditionees; a work-shopping type situation. Now, if she just says, "come one, come all" and ends up with enormous numbers of people there, she will not be able to work with them in the way she needs to. She might have to go through multiple numbers of 'sifting' sessions in order to get to the people who are true contenders.

It's all very self-righteous and politically correct to say that that is what she would do. But back on earth where she has a life beyond her unpaid commitment to community theatre, I think it is entirely reasonable to forewarn people of the level of skill and where they are expected to be in their development as actors in order to give people a way to make an informed choice as to whether this is an audition they want to do. In fact given that Sue is taking the focus off age and look, it is even more crucial for her to give some sort of 'criteria' for people to use when deciding whether or not to audition.

And going back to my original comment. I still believe that if anyone was so put off by the wording of Sue's notice then I seriously doubt them being a good fit for this particular work and vice versa.

Cheers!

Plenty of room for you in Perth Tony. How exciting can Adelaide be anyhow?

www.meltheco.org.au

... we do have the Adelaide Festival and the Fringe Festival. Second biggest in the world. Although the last Fringe nearly killed me.

Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing.
www.tonymoore.id.au

I'm absolutely fascinated by all this. It appears I had motives and unexpressed reasons of all sorts that I was completely unaware of when I worded my audition notice the way I did!
For the record. It was NEVER my intention to use my wording as a means of limiting the number of auditionees - I'm always happy to give anyone and everyone a go. I was merely stating facts - if you find it difficult to express emotion on stage, then you will not be much use to me. I didn't say that they will have to emote all over the place and have tantrums and produce floods of believable tears in a roomful of total strangers. They won't. And to be honest, anyone who thinks that doing so will impress me can think again.

People have read a great deal more into my words than they were meant to contain - yet another example of how intention and interpretation of the written word can be misconstrued.

Would everyone please settle down. I will gladly audition everyone who turns up. But only four roles are available, and I will select the four people whom I consider are best suited to those roles. They will be four people who can demonstrate - to my satisfaction - that they can show the sort of 'real emotion' on stage that I am looking for.
If that is arrogant Garreth, then yes, I'm an arrogant Director. To do otherwise would be just plain stupid in my opinion, and I hope I'm not that.
Cheers, Sue.

If you expected your actors to turn it on and off like a lightswitch, that would be arrogant. That is what I said... So are you saying you do expect them to switch it on and off like a light switch?

Maybe I'm just afraid of living life without false illusions?

Anyway, there's not much point in continuing this on, all I wanted to do was to jump up and suggest that maybe "plingette" has a point. I stand by that.

 This is all like virgin on the rediculious.

 Great Audition publicity Sue! 

Not even I would be that devious Daniel.
Please don't start another mad argument - this has all got way out of proportion.

All I want is four really good actors to play four great, and very difficult, roles in one of the best plays ever written (IMHO of course). I have wanted to direct this play for a long time, and now that I have been given the opportunity I am determined to do my absolute best to do justice to Albee's magnificent script.

That's all. I have no hidden agenda. I'm just a funny little old fat woman who loves the challenge of doing something difficult. This play is definitely going to be difficult - for me, and for the actors. I'm looking for four actors who feel the same way about it.

Now can we end all this nonsense? Please?
Oh, and thank you to all the people on this string who have wished me well. I appreciate it.
Sue.