There's a lot of talk about "type" in the acting world. Some say to ignore it and let directors decide, while others say it's an important factor to know about yourself. No matter which camp you agree with, the concept of "type" is particularly confusing if you've been acting before, during and after attending a university.
The characters I played when college was a glistening dream on the horizon may not be the ones I can continue to play at the ripe-old age of 21. I needed to have age appropriate pieces for auditions and now that I've lost my baby fat, that monologue about being a ridiculed high-schooler needs to be chucked off the jetty.
But what about the college years? I took advanced acting classes, why surely I found some new monologues for my new looks! Not if you were my "type".
My type at my university was the strong, powerful woman. The number of monologues, roles and scenes I did where the character was the age of 30? Countless.
Will I be cast as a 40 year old after school? No way in hell. So now I've got a bunch of pieces I can use in about 15 years time.
Future me is so lucky.
I don't dislike the stereotyping I got in school. It certainly made for some challenging, and interesting work. But this was one "type" in one place.
On one visit to KCACTF (an American college theater festival), I took a great Shakespeare workshop. When the class was officially over, the teacher gave each student characters to look into for appropriate monologues. The names she suggested to me were a huge shock.
"Desdemona. Juliet. Ophelia." And so on.
I was coming from a school that pegged me as basically "the bitch" and here was an experienced Shakespearean teacher/director telling me I could play other than that. It was great to hear, but it also made me skeptical of the subjectivity of "type".
"Type" is entirely dependent upon where you are, what is needed and who's casting you.
My school had a good number of innocent waifs, but powerful women was what they needed. So I got shoved in that corner.
Now, I don't let "type" stop me.
Age and ethnicity (and even those have wiggle room) are the only characteristics that prevent me from approaching a part. My own range of skill is also a consideration, but I don't let stereotypes dictate what I can or cannot play.
It's easy for me to not care about type. I'm one of the lucky actors who has relatively versatile looks. I'm also lucky as a woman because I'm thin-ish (granted, I workout to maintain it). My face is attractive enough to play a "beauty" (especially at a good distance away from an audience), but also odd enough to be put in a character role (my favorite).
I have no idea what it's like for actors who need to have a certain physique or look to even be considered for the roles they want.
A small, thin man will most likely be passed up for the role of Stanley in Streetcar and equally a huge, muscular man has limited options when auditioning.
And don't even get me started on what female actors have to go through.
I'm one of the lucky few. Or so I think now. Once I'm out auditioning regularly my thoughts may totally flip. I may find myself unlucky due to being too versatile. I'll find out sooner or later.
But for now, screw "type" and do what pushes you. Otherwise, you'll end up the master of one kind of role and be lost when it comes to anything else.
No comments:
Post a Comment