So how do you tell someone they haven't got a part?

I've just had to squeeze 40 actresses (30 of whom were excellent) into 8 roles and a couple of bit parts. Most of the rest have been offered chorus.

I've just got off the phone to one (possibly the first of many) who felt she auditioned really well and wants to know EXACTLY why she didn't get a part...and did I give the parts to my friends?

20 minutes later, and I've managed to convince her (I think) that she was on my shortlist (true) but that it just wasn't possible to cast everyone.

So why not her? she asks. I've explained about how it was so fantastic to have such a choice, that I was able to go more into the total overall picture, using heights, colouring, etc as I had such a choice.

I don't know how well she took it - she's going away to consider if she wants a chorus part or not (I do always ask them on their audition form to say whether or not they'd take chorus, stating that it won't affect my casting of principals).

Hmmm, hope all my day isn't going to turn out like that!

<_< <_< <_<

I always think if there's one thing that's going to split a society it's auditions. I don't think it's a coincidence that my drama group doesn't audition and is a very happy society.

As I'm sure you know, A-M, there's no easy way to let someone down. However consistency of message and privacy are two important things. My musical society posts a cast list to all interested parties and says that the decision of the casting committee (director, musical director, choreographer and two other members from the society) is final and NOT up for discussion.

If people feel that you have personal bias (which I'm sure isn't true!), have you considered protecting yourself by having a casting committee? I'm not normally in favour of ANY kind of committee but this is one kind that I think can work.

Also, anyone who has auditioned but not been successful gets first shot at the smaller character parts. Anyone who hasn't auditioned ISN'T considered until the "audition pot" has been exhausted.

But as many of us know.... there really isn't a magic answer.

Done it all Maureen!

After all, you can't have a show if you don't audition - that would be even more unfair, if you just picked people at random.

Secondly, I've cast around 50% of the principals from people I've never met before. I go on the strength of their audition - and we always hold completely open auditions. I'm still waiting for friends to call and ask why they haven't got parts....

Next, I don't post a cast list until every person who has been offered a part has accepted. Then everyone gets a full cast list once it's been tweaked as necessary.

I also had an 'audition panel' - although I cast the show personally - of MD, choreographer, production manager, technical director, plus me. Not that I need an audition panel of any sort, but in case of problems is why they're there. I cast my own shows because I'm damn good at it (if you'll excuse the expression).

I did consider phoning each person to discuss it, but I looked at the pile of s.a.e's they'd brought to the audition, considered my phone bill after calling over 70 people....and decided they could jolly well get a letter!

Actually, I'm not moaning, I'm just wondering how people cope with it. It happens every show (for "Forbidden Planet" I had to turn down 80 people that I couldn't use at all!) it's just one of those sides of directing I can't seem to get used to.

Never mind....

Oh, and the person in question is a complete outsider - not a current member of our society at all.

OK. Let me guess the scenario. Person X came to your society for the first time this year because said Person X has been around other groups in the area and has been consistently disappointed at not getting parts. A serial auditioner in fact.

But whatever, I'll lay odds that's the last you'll see of 'em...

Although I've not had the greatest amount of experience, I have casted 3 plays now. Turning people down, good people, is probably the hardest job in the entire life-cycle of a production. I am lucky the almost without exception, people have understood and excepted the decision. My rule is to be honest, to tell people that in my opinion the people that I ended up choosing were the best.

We also have open auditions and try to introduce as many new people as possible. However, you still have to choose established members of the group because that's what makes a group. A good balance is the ideal scenario.

For Whale Music there are 6 main characters and 3 are new and 3 are existing members. For Glengarry Glen Ross we have 1 new member, one member who has only been in one of our shows before and the other 5 have a few shows under their belts. It is a bit more difficult with the lads as other threads show it is difficult to attact men in vast numbers.

Therefore, be true to your beliefs, be honest and if people don't like it then it's their problem.

Just out of interest, I thought I'd let you know that it's a small principal cast so I'm double casting it,

Female roles went to 4 regulars, one peripheral member and three newcomers; male roles went to 2 regulars, one peripheral member and three newcomers. The bit parts (4 male, 4 female) all went to regular members.

The chorus are split about 50:50 (I've cast 30 in the chorus).

I'd say that for open auditions that's a pretty good split, considering I did it entirely on performance at audition.

Now I think about it I did pretty well actually. And I've directed dozens of musicals so I must be doing something right!

Ah well, we plough on....

Good analysis there Anne-Marie! Always remember to pat yourself on the back for what you've done. One criticism (from someone who may never have been satisfied anyway) does not mean that you are wrong.

I love your term "peripheral member" - is that someone who you always put to one side of the stage...?!!!

Peripheral is someone who pops in once every couple of years or so to audition, and occasionally does a front of house duty or similar. Most of the rest come forward for everything - from panto to choral singing to running jumble sales.

Thanks.

Chicken way out....

Just post on a web page those who got the parts and say sorry to those who didn't get a part...

*you've been super winked - deal with it*

I love being on the audition panel - I guess I'm a bit of a Simon Cowell/Nasty nigel when it comes to auditioning. Honesty is the best policy!

Another variation on the posting cast lists theme is one group I know where the director reads out a cast list on his home answerphone so you can ring in and find out whether or not you've got a part. Course if you also get one of those telephone numbers that make you money the more people who call you can make a fortune out of people like my friend who was so gobsmacked to get the lead in Singing in the Rain, the had to ring the answerphone 3 times!

Maureen, I totally love that idea!!! Next time....

I totally agree the whole answerphone thing saves a lot of time and money and gives the director a deadline to choose by!!!

whatever happened to just shouting 'next'. keeps actors in their places! no seriously, I understand how difficult it gets when you're trying to cast a production purely on ability and some of the actors think they know better. well, I've certainly learnt from experience not to worry about any decision that means not having to work with the sort of person that thinks they know better about the aims of your show than you. If they're going to phone you up and in any way tell you that your judgement is bad or that their skill outweighs someone elses, then be glad; you've made the right decision in casting someone else.

Just had another one of mine drop out of the chorus, following the readthrough last night, because they feel I cast people in principal roles who weren't as good as themselves!

Sounds like they had a touch of sour grapes.

We always have a couple of sing-throughs prior to the auditions, and there are always loads of people turn up. But if they don't get the part they want, they never show again. They don't seem interested in joining the fun of the chorus. I think they just go round all the societies, picking and choosing.

Claire

well for what it's worth...

I always stress that I cast for chemistry and interaction, which means I don't always cast the technically strongest person.

I'm upfront with people - I do want to keep a relationship with them, there are shows coming up in the future, spitting their dummy out over this one serves no-one. So far (fingers crossed) I haven't had a a problem.

Just to add a slightly different angle....

It was decided last night that our "Thelma" who we haven't seen for weeks, has not returned calls and is now incommunicado has been relieved of the part. Sadly this means, having just had to re-cast half the play, it will now not happen until February...which means myself and another male are also out!

I'm now totally convinced that "Pack of Lies" is jinxed....
Except in Leicesteshire that is...

We've had some new ladies turn up this last week or so and they have come back to rehearsals and read for people on holiday (I know, go on holiday and miss rehearsals so close to the production week...) and they do a good job of it. We tell them they could be in next production given that they stick around and help out foh or backstage with the one they've missed out on. We'll be reading again in November so if they want chance to act, it's up to them to attend meetings and prove this interest. You know who really are keen when you choose next play.

Regards turning people down, I haven't been in my current group long enough to witness this but I've seen circumstance where it should have happened. If we continue to have the same 4 men, we have a limited range of plays as director feels obliged to cast them all. We need more men in Yorkshire. Don't be shy.

Sorry about your play Eeyore. See I told you it was jinxed.

Turning someone down is always tough, especially if you've used the person before in another show. I teach in a high school in the States, so those actresses who have been langoring in the chorus for three years expect lead roles as 12th-graders (sixth formers to you lot). Unfortunately, not all of them are that great as chorus and definitely aren't cut out for anything better.

Although this is not my method, I might use it in the future. I read this technique in a thread somewhere else on this board:

This group has the actors bring a self-addressed, stamped envelope with them to the audition. After casting is over, they send out the results in the envelope. Then it's up to the actor to have to reach you to lodge a complaint. I assume they usually don't. But since you don't have to talk to them on the phone, they don't have a captive audience who is already feeling sorry they couldn't give them the part.

Also, I agree that you never discuss why you chose one person over another. But, I do think it's good to have one area someone can improve in when they ask "What could I have done better?" I usually write this at the bottom of their evaluation sheet.

What about the Simon Cowell school of directing

"Your cr*p "

Anyone tried it ? If so very curious as to what happened next ?

Is it on target for February?

Nick

A liberal soaking I suspect !

Never been quite that blunt, but I have told someone that they have no acting ability whatsoever, couldnt move, and were tone deaf. As she intended trying to go pro I thought it better that I did it that someone she didnt know . . .

I've never gotten over it..... *sniff sniff*

My cross-dressing days are over...

*sniff*

Tricky one, how did she take it ?

A. Floods of tears
B. Your only saying that because your jealous
C. I't because its a tuesday and i'm not at my best, wait till you see me do it next time
D. Thanks very much for your honesty
E. Perhaps if I use a different costume ?
F. I didnt want to be in this cr*ppy show anyway
G. Are you sure? The acoustics arent very good in here! and i've got a touch of flu?

Tricky being tactfully honest

Simon Cowell's approach does have one advantage in leaving no misunderstandings. Although theres a fair chance you'll be in hospital when the show opens.

You are of course missing the X Factor Star Idol stock response which is "but this is all I ever wanted to do" closely followed by the intriguing "I'll give you a 110%" which is often combined with options A, B, C, E, F and G.

sorry Nick- That's a VERY old post!

It didn't happen unfortunately and I haven't done anything with them since. (Nothing to do with above)

As it happens it's a group that Uncle Harvey is with (that's how we met)

I know how you feel. I'm just about to embark upon a third attempt to get a play on that suffered from disappearing cast members having to be relieved of their parts and has been in "postphoned" state since 2001. I think the best excuse after a 4 week absence was, "Oh you mean I have to turn up every Tuesday!"
But four years on and many more members, maybe it'll work out this time. Here's hoping...

She pretty much ignored me. She has however done nothing since (she really is thaaaat bad, not even chorus material in the worst of amdram hell . . . )


xx

Actually thats a lie, she auditioned for a production of pride and prejudice, and asked me to coach her for the audition. She hadnt read the book / seen the film or seen it on tv, had no idea what it was about, and was goddawful. Needless to say she didnt get cast. (She did however moan that i was too negative when helping her - which i wasnt.)

xx

It's the bit I hate having to do. Working with youth groups, we do get one or two who think they should be cast as they get older, but not necessarily any better. I've actually had this when a mum rang up to ask why her offspring (who was 20 years old) hadn't been cast! This person helps backstage, makes things and is an all round good egg, but isn't a major soloist. How I wish it were otherwise!

As others have said, we also get a sprinkling of people who turn up with one role in mind and then drop out if they don't get it. They aren't prepared to put the legwork into improving their standard, which is somehing we work hard on doing. Prima Donnas don't tend to last long with us, the other performers don't put up with it. I do wish people would realise that choruses need good singers too, and we do try hard to feature everyone if humanly possible, even if it's only one line.

Funny how many people come to auditions clutching their cough mixture! Also funny how many people that the part means so much to don't bother to prepare for it properly.

A couple of years ago I took over as auditioning convenor for a group. They had a tradition of phoning those who had been cast that night to tell them. No phone call means you didn't get the part. Personally, I thought that was rude. It's not as though there were hundreds to contact, and a friendly "Thanks for auditioning, but you didn't get the part" is well-appreciated.

A letter would be easier, but I can't stop the tradition of calling that night, so I make a point of calling everyone that night. (starting with the principals, etc) Nobody gets told about other parts until everyone has been contacted. As far as giving bad news, a bit of tact is necessary, but I find most people are understanding, especially as I try and give them a bit of advice for the next time they audition for anything (Although I try to keep "Don't bother" to a minimum). If I'm really stuck, then "Jane happened to come across as closer to what the director had in mind," can calm troubled waters.

One big problem this group has is that there is an abundance of well-padded ladies. No problem with that, but it can sometimes make it difficult to cast them in lead romantic roles. Theatre can be a bit harsh at times, and it's very difficult to tell someone they didn't get the part because they are fat and unbelievable in a role where the lead male falls in love from across a crowded room. It's especially difficult wehen you and the rejectee both know they can sing and act better than the person who got the role.

Another awkward moment is when calling a husband/wife household, and one has got a part and the other hasn't. I have been on the receiving end of these calls as well, but I must confess it is usually in my favour, Amdram being what it is and men being in somewhat short supply. A pity, as my wife can act me off the stage with little difficulty. ("And what can you bring to the role?" "A Y-chromosome.""Congratulations, you have the part.")

I would be interested to know people's thoughts on the following situation. We have two ladies who are a good standard, but one is almost always better than the other. They are of similar age, and go for similar roles. The one is almost always better in audition than the other, but they are both loyal club members. Do you go for the more talented one all the time, or do you try to give the other one a lead role occasionally to keep her happy, even if she isn't as good?

You give the talented one the part - every time. Theatre, whether amateur or professional is (or should be) about putting on the best show you can, within the constrictions that you have.

Can I ask what group your involved with Simon? (other than operating theatre) I know loads of people on the glasgow circuit - we probably know a lot of the same poeple. If you dont want to name and shame publicly can you pm me?

pamela
xx

I would agree, but i would also look very hard to see if there is a role where she might fit better. It can get difficult if everyone assumes you've already made up your mind because people who may be good might not audition. We had one situation where everyone thought the lead was a foregone conclusion, but those of us auditioning didn't really feel she was right for our interpretation. Trouble is, the people who should have been giving her a run for her money didn't prepare properly and so left us no choice. She was ok, but not what we wanted. I suspect the other girl would have been better but we'll never know.

Actually, while I agree that you should make the show the highest standard possible, I also believe you may never know what people are capable of unless you allow them to show you. I have seen a number of cases where some of the less able and less experienced group members have been given a part which was suspected to be above their ability, only to see them blossom under the responsiblity and give a performance that nobody - least of all themselves - thought they could ever deliver.

I would give her a lead role, not so much to keep her happy but because it would do wonders for her self esteem, her confidence and her standing in the group to be given a part in preference to her usual rival. And she may very well surprise you - none of us grows as a performer unless we are stretched.

Actually, that's a really good point, especally as she is likely to be more nervous than the one that usually gets it. It's important to try to keep an open mind.

Playing devils advocate, while i agree with all of the above in terms of the benefits to the person, if its at the detriment of the show, then I would disagree strongly. (Bearing in mind in the question one person was clearly and regularly stronger, and no other considerations were given) Why should the show, and therefore the company, its reputation, and the audience suffer in order to benefit one person's self esteem?

xx

I know what you mean, but that view can be a bit short term, especially if it means that other people don't apply because they think the parts are already decided and this can cause recruitment problems in the longer term. It can also cause problems in terms of morale, with other people feeling they have little incentive to work in the hope of getting better parts. I suppose it depends on how different in standard the two people are. No easy answers, are there?

Some interesting responses. I'll clarify a bit. The "less talented" one is still competent, and would not embarrass any club, it's just that the more talented one really is very good indeed.

I suppose it also depends on the club's ethos. We are a smallish group (about 60 members, of whom we can reliably expect 20-25 to wish to appear on stage for any one show). There is a bit of a debate raging just now- do we keep lead roles for our own members, or look for outside "ringers" to improve the standard of each show. It is a very social group, with a strong sense of membership. The two camps are, to put it in extreme terms, "best show at all costs" and "local show for local people".

There a number of "drama whores" in the area, who are extremely talented and go from group to group, cherrypicking lead roles that they fancy, but not otherwise contributing to the communal spirit. You may not see them again for another 5 years, or ever. They would undoubtedly enhance whatever show they appeared in, but is this short-termism, and would it lead to the breakdown of the social club atmosphere? I suppose there is a similar argument in professional sport- how many "foreigners" does it take to disrupt a team's collective spirit?

If you stick to loyal club members (it has been suggested by some that no-one may be given a lead role until they had been in the chorus, or been a member of the club for a period of time), presumably you give more members a chance to develop, and foster more of a comaraderie, but probably at the cost of decreasing the overall standard of your shows.

Now, in the question I posed earlier, both the actors in question are long term loyal members of the club, but I think it comes to the same decision- is the club for giving everyone a chance/fair go, or is it about the top possible quality of show?

In this case, we had selected the better actor, making a mental note that the other one should be given a slight preference the next time round. For very good reasons, the appointed actor had to withdraw and the other one was given the role- Unfortunately, it turned out to be one of their less successful outings, and they were perceived as a relative weakness. I don't think this should be taken as a lesson, I mention it merely to comlete the story for anyone who still has the patience to listen.

Whilst I am in Pamela's camp on this one - best person every time - there is one other factor that would be important to me. And that's attitude. If they are both capable of doing the part but one will work harder, be more reliable and contribute more in the course of the rehearsal period, no. 2 would be cast.

Being a bit of a "well padded lady" that has been passed over for roles once too often ... just a small vent from me:
I think that a role is always open to interpritation by the director and the actor and there are several female lead roles that could feasibly be played by a larger lady, especially if the relationship in question develops over time, good examples are Calamity Jane and Sarah Brown (Guys and Dolls).

So I'll vote for Talent over looks every time - especially when 70% of the time the lead man is no oil painting and usually won the role simply because he turned up ... and in some cases they didn't even turn up for the audition, they happened to be at home when the director called them to beg them to consider the role .... not that this would apply to ANY of the men who post here !

Also another point to Simon's casting dialemma .... as an audience member that reguarly attends performances of other societies I do get sick and tired of watching the same leading man and lady over and over, show after show after show, when they have a stage full of obviously talented supporting cast and chorus members that are always in the background ... I could name several societies that are guilty of this (but I won't) There is nothing wrong with giving someone their "Break" - isn't that the stuff of theatre dreams ??

and don't even get me started on "Drama Whores" .... I'm going to stop now before you all think I've returned in 2006 as a grumpy old woman !

Good debate - totaly agree that you should have the best person for the best part, but you do also want someone reliable and good to work with, and I totally agree with Groovey that you don't want to see the same performer over and over again - it bores audiences and will no doubt cause resentment within the group. Something a little unexpected in casting every now and then (so long as it's not to the detriment of the whole show) is good as it keeps everybody on their toes and can add a whole new dimension to a show.

Can I just say that when I'm turned down for a role I prefer a personal call or email - doesn't have to be long - I once was turned down by group email and really didn't like that. That's the thing with behind the scenes stuff - you're almost always wanted!

I think you as director are their to make the most balanced decision for the good of the show and the group.

The most important thing is the paying audience. They pay to be entertained and it had better be worth the price of the ticket or they wont come back. A few bad shows and then the group dwindles and dies 'through lack of support' ie. audience wont pay for rubbish each year.

But the stalwarts who make up the group if they see time after time being relegated to a minor role 'outsiders' or even for the same people for plum roles may loose heart and not bother, and your left with a luvvy darling clique that can only be stagnent

The biggest resource of any group is the people who volunteer to take the risk of looking stupid on stage. The director is there to make sure the audience get their money's worth and the cast dont look a bunch of plonkers. But also to try and encourage and see what potential there is.

From the sound of things the other lady would not embarass the show, why not discuss it with her ? could she accept the responsibility? It would certainly be a boost for her to know she's in the frame for the part and your prepared to take a risk. People are full of surprises

Of course one things for sure, whatever you decide they are all going to moan and criticise the director.

Alistair is right !! Us luvvies like nothing better than to have a good gossip and moan - you're never going to be able to keep everyone happy so the best advice is to not worry about it !

Well here's another thing we have tried, although I think it may go a bit too far down the road of trying to keep everyone happy. The audition panel consists of the Director, MD and Choreographer, as well as a preselected group of 3 club members (changed regularly for each show, and not up for parts themselves). Only the 3 club members get a vote, but they are expected to go by the recommendation of the production team. ie. it is usually the production team's choice, rubber stamped by the voting members.

The reason they are there is firstly, to provide the director with background information about the actors as well as a sounding board for discussion, and secondly, to have the power, if necessary, to make a decision for "club" reasons. For instance, someone has let the club down often in the past, or someone hasn't had a role in ages and really should be given a chance. So far it has worked reasonably well, but I wonder if it isn't a bit too "committee-intensive".

We did this after a number of complaints (as you all say, they will always come up), to be seen to be fair. The membership are happy...so far.

One thing I did find interesting is when an ex-cast member came over to assist with directing and got involved with auditions from the other side. She suddenly realised how difficult they job is, especially as some of her friends were involved. She didn't have to make the final decision, but obviously we listened to what she thought. I think she was actually quite relieved not to have to tell anyone no, and actually realised that we do take everyone seriously if they bother to audition. As to how, we split the cast and each of us phones the people who we are offering parts to and get a verbal acceptance. We then phone the ones who didn't get what they wanted, perhaps offering them a smaller role if we can. We finally ask everyone who accepts a part to confirm in writing their availability for rehearsals, and this year I want to add on get in and get out too. talent is great, but reliability and commitment have to count too. I suppose we have a different issue as both of my groups are youth groups - you have to look slightly ahead, knowing that the membership will change year on year so you can't rely on the old faithfuls to do it, you have to move the younger ones up to "grow them on". We also do concert performances to look at everyone who wants to as well.

This is a very emotive issue and one in which all the points so far made are very valid. I can only speak for our club but we try to strike a balance between established actors and the less experienced but keen ones. My wife is our most experienced director and personally directs most of our shows. Before choosing a play she will have in mind a potential cast, purely because if not enough members were available then the play wouldn't be viable anyway. However, the show is never pre-cast and she will make her decisions based on the quality of people's audition. We are a fairly small club and she knows how reliable or otherwise the various members are and this can colour her decision. Ultimately, the quality of the finished product is what counts though we are keen to encourage people to strive for more challenging roles and gain more experience. This is essential to prevent the club from stagnating.

Ah, so much I agree with here!

As for the "well padded" issue, I have seen several leading ladies round here who fall into this category. They tend to have exceptional singing ability - which is why I expect they were cast over their sylph-like counterparts - but the point is that they do leading parts completely credibly. As an audience member I have no problems with weight as long as they do the part well and they work well with their leading man. Similarly, I have no real problem with age. If the part is done well and the couple works, I'm happy to see older leads.