By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 18:18:50 +0000

As actors we are always being told that we are too tall (short, hairy, blonde, etc) for a particular role, so why shouldn’t perceived femininity/masculinity fall under that category, too? Directors want the actor they think will do the best job playing the parts they have, and sometimes those directors will have specific ideas about the physical type they are looking for. Those ideas may actually prevent them from hiring the best actor for the part, but since it’s the directors “vision” of what a play or movie should be like, shouldn’t they be allowed to have those ideas? Very few directors are going to want a mincing, slight of build actor to play Stanley Kowalski, so why suggest that a director should hire one for the purposes of fairness? If I’m sitting behind the casting desk, I don’t care how moving the actor’s audition was, I’m unlikely to hire a 6’3″ muscle-bound hulk to play Truman Capote, but I’d sure as hell consider him for my upcoming production of Streetcar.
I think that blind casting of any type is an admirable goal but has its limits. Sure, Vladamir & Estragon can be any colour or physical or sexual type (heck, even gender isn’t all that important for those roles), but who’s going to believe a black woman playing the Grand Dragon of the KKK? In very specific contexts that could work, but as a general casting choice, it’s poor and doesn’t serve the art. And when it comes down to it, shouldn’t the casting serve the art?

Comments on: Where are we in terms of sexuality blind casting?

By: Steve