I have a theory: that acting is casting.

If a character in a play is urbane and sophisticated, then you cast an urbane and sophisticated actor. If the character is neurotic, you cast a neurotic actor. That kind of thing.

If, instead of asking a loose-hipped type to play a starched collar, or an intellectual to play an ignorant, uneducated type, a director were to cast actors who are as close as possible to type, how different do you think it would make the process of working and playing the piece?

How many actors can actually play anything? And how many are only good within a limited range of roles? And can a director justify casting their play entirely with "types", who match -- IRL -- some or all of the characteristics of the people they're playing?

I had thought of making this a poll, but I think it's better served in this forum, where lengthy dissertations -- in either direction -- can be offered.

I look forward to a substantial, thought-provoking debate,

peace,

David M.

previous forum topic | next forum topic | email this forum topic | 901 reads