Casting

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/18/13 at 6:12pm

For years I have been hearing stories about the way musicals or films were cast, and with the recent Les Miserables film and some of it's doubtful choices, I am getting really interested in the doubtful process that is the cause of this.

This thread is not about liking or disliking a certain person in a role, but about the director and casting directors.

Today I watched some Tom Hooper interviews in which he spoke about the film. When he talked about casting Javert and Valjean he said that there were no other people considered for the roles at all.

Russel and Hugh happened to be friends for a long time and so it happened. Tom Hooper watched the show and was introduced to the world of musical theatre and after seeing 1 person doing 1 audition, he "could not imagine this role being played by anyone else". Of course you can't if you refuse to see who else is out there! How on earth can you cast a role like that, without seeing each and every possible candidate in an elaborate audition first?
This tunnel vision, especially in casting makes me really mad.
God knows how many great opportunities they missed because of this. Imagine what Tom Hooper could have "imagined" after seeing 40 of those auditions. At least then he would have the right to make remarks like this. And I am absolutely sure that his mind would be blown after seeing some other people. People who have a much more natural effect in combining the singing with the acting. Especially in this relatively new way of filmmaking, comparing candidates is a very important way to see if what you are doing is actually the best way to go.

I often hear stories like this, one is a friend of the director and gets the part, one had a dinnerparty with an actor somewhere and the role was his, etc, etc. If you are a casting director and you think that your personal world is the whole world, you really have a problem.

Which brings me to the next point. Anne Hathaway said the casting directors/director refused to see her, even after constant insistence from her and her agent. She was not welcome. She kept on insisting and finally they said with a big sigh, ok, come on then, if you must......

Now this is a big deal to me. Those casting directors (and director) should get their asses kicked. It is the pinnacle of short-sighted if you think you can cast a project like this, with only the knowledge you have/people you have in mind before the auditions.
I would expect that at least someone like Anne would be ASKED to audition for a project of this size.

So what are those casting directors doing?

I have been working in the business for 15 years and right now I'm pursuing to be a casting director and I will make sure none of the above will happen at whatever project I'm working at.
I want to be able to make sure I can always say; "the search was intensive, we have seen and compared as many people as we could, and this is the result".

Do you have other stories or anecdotes like this?











Updated On: 1/18/13 at 06:12 PM

[Greatwhiteway3]

Posted: 1/18/13 at 7:20pm

Casting is very incestuous it seems.. Funny this post came up because I was just reading the cast of the upcoming Big Fish.. I was how "interesting" that Kate Baldwin and Bobby Steggart recently finished GIANT and now, out of ALL the actors and actresses milling around NY, the two of them end up in Big Fish. Not saying they aren't both very talented, but in the extremely competitive nature of theater I'd say there is more to this. Coincidence? Probably not. Maybe they were cast by the same person who has a relationship with them, Maybe they have the same agent who said, if you want one you have to take the other.. who knows, but its' something other than just talent and luck.. To add to it. Tally Sessions, who was in YANK with Steggart and who is NOT a Broadway A lister was cast as well...

Just check out the lists of actors who do the Encores series.. You will see many of the same names recycled over and over.. Again, not saying they aren't talented, but more than not its connections, or maybe lazy casting agents who find it easier to use a known quantity rather than give a new guy or gal a shot... Hard, cut throat business.

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/18/13 at 7:37pm

Interesting!

I think you are right when you say it is all about connections and quite incestuous.
It's a shame really, because a good casting director would look past that, and would want to see what he/she doesn't know yet.

I also remember stories of Walt Disney casting the daughter of a friend as the voice of Snowwhite, and a friend at a dinnerparty who happened to sing at the piano that evening as Aurora, etc.

Also, Eddie Redmayne said he has been friends with Tom Hooper for a long time, so maybe they had contact before Eddie sent the clip of himself singing to the agent?






Updated On: 1/18/13 at 07:37 PM

[Kelly2]

Posted: 1/18/13 at 8:23pm

You have to realize though, working with someone you know will deliver and who you can trust is incredibly important. An actress can be an unbelievable talent and still not get work because she is impossible to work with. Happens all the time. It is about much more than just raw talent and I think your view is fairly naive, no offense.

Also, $$$ and availability are much more of a factor than you're really considering. What if you find your perfect girl in terms of talent and she's already signed a contract to do something that conflicts? What if they just don't want the project? There are a million factors, it's much more complicated than you would imagine.

Updated On: 1/18/13 at 08:23 PM

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 6:16am

Kelly, your vision is very naive.

Those factors you mention are definitely important, but they only come in after seeing all the candidates.

The problem I describe is about not knowing who else is out there and those persons might fulfill all of these factors. It's not like you can only have trust in an actor because you know him personally for years. Or because that person just falls into your lap through a mutual friend.

And because some people might have other contracts already, and all the other casting issues you mention, it is even more important to do an extensive search for each and every role.

Updated On: 1/19/13 at 06:16 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 7:29am

Kelly's naive???? What PROFESSSIONAL director has time to EACH AND EVERY possible candidate? How do you determine that? Every Tom, Dick and Harry that has an agent? What about the talented people without an agent. What you are suggesting would be like American Idol but for each and every role.

And this is no different than your previous thread ranting about the Casting of Les Mis.

When a diretor BELIEVES he or she has already found (in any way) the "right" person, they have no need to keep looking. Do you keep looking for your keys once you have found them?

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 7:39am

You know nothing about casting.

If Anne Hathaway did not insist to come and audition, they probably were sure they "found" the best Fantine in some other girl too.

And it is not about having every Tom and Dick and Harry on an audition, but at least 40 possible candidates. So you know what you are talking about, and you don't exclude wonderful possibilities and surprises. There are enough names out there that would blow Tom Hooper's mind, if they only got the chance. Luckily Anne Hathaway behaved like a stalker, otherwise the narrowminded casting directors would have completely ignored her.

Updated On: 1/19/13 at 07:39 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 8:01am

Oh, ok -- it's only part of my job.

And again, you don't want to DISCUSS it, you just want us to realize you are right.

Updated On: 1/19/13 at 08:01 AM

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 8:09am

Then I think it's a big drama that people like you work in the business.

Do you walk into a store and buy the first tv you see?
While there is another tv there that matches your needs much more and looks better in your home and is cheaper too? You just don't want to see it because it might ruin your first idea of what was good? You don't want to know any better?



Updated On: 1/19/13 at 08:09 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 8:34am

Personally, no. But there are people that do. Who's to say that THEY have made the wrong decision?

Again, PERSONALLY, I've never "pre-cast" a role. But I can understand how for OTHERS it's how they operate. It might not be 'fair', but it's nothing new, and very often it still produces wonderful results.

And likewise, there have been people that go through the auditioning process, get cast -- and are STILL a disappointment through rehearsal/performance. It's ART -- and therefore, imperfect. (AND it's a business.)

[mar6411]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 9:02am

Nice try again dramamama, but it's a waste of energy and reasoned discussion on your part. But I appreciate you for trying and not leaving his post unchallenged.

But Dave19 is just repeating the same thoughts over and over again. Looking forward to the next thread he starts with the same single minded "I'm right and you're wrong" diatribe once this one plays out.

:)

[Neverandy]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 10:31am

Thinking that what is said by someone in interviews during press junkets and award season interviews is representative of the actual casting process is what is actually naive.
The Studio needed names-Hugh Jackman has a Musical theater background and is a conventional "leading man". That is why he played Valjean. The altered Keys of the major songs is proof that they were willing to work around certain things (I have a history with the Cam-Mack production and no Valjean that I can recall ever got an altered key for "Who am I?").
Russel Crowe is an A-list star, and an Oscar Winner. He also sings in a band. Right or wrong (and I think it is universally accepted that he was a wrong choice), to the studio, casting him is a no-brainer.
What I'm saying is, these were choices that the studio brass made in order to be able to sleep at night knowing that they green-lit an expensive, period, through sung, movie musical. This movie would not have been made (at least on this scale) without these two people in these roles. Tom Hooper (and the Casting Director too for that matter) was not given a choice to make this movie with anyone else in those roles.
As far as Anne Hathaway-I'm sure that, considering the size of the part in terms of songs and actual screen time, the studio wasn't interested in getting a "name"(read-more expensive) actor to play Fantine. They were obviously initially looking to spend money on getting a young pop star for one of the other supporting roles (i.e. Taylor Swift) in order to, once again, make sure that the movie had an appeal outside its possibly limited core demographic.
To demonize the casting personnel for being close minded when their hands were tied by traditional Hollywood politics actually displays a limited knowledge of show-business in general.

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 10:48am

Dramamama:

"Personally, no. But there are people that do. Who's to say that THEY have made the wrong decision?"

95 % of the reactions about Russel Crowe speak for itself.

"It might not be 'fair', but it's nothing new, and very often it still produces wonderful results."

And often it doesn't.


Neverandy:

"The altered Keys of the major songs is proof that they were willing to work around certain things"

That is true.

"Right or wrong (and I think it is universally accepted that he was a wrong choice), to the studio, casting him is a no-brainer."

Also true, and very patronizing and disrespectful of the studio to think that way of the audience and the material.

Also, I think that with the star the show is, the star that Tom Hooper is, and Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman, they did not need Russel Crowe.
It's shame that so many filmmakers are kissing ass so much (because that is what you mean, right?) and don't have a backbone, because I know that Cameron and Tom could have made sure they got some changes if they really wanted to.

Or at least convince them that it is kind of important to have someone that can handle the material. And compare a few people.






Updated On: 1/19/13 at 10:48 AM

[Kelly2]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 10:52am

"Also, I think that with the star the show is, the star that Tom Hooper is, and Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman, they did not need Russel Crowe."

I wonder if, maybe, there's a reason you're waxing idiotic about a process you clearly know nothing about on a message board, instead of running your own casting company.

[mar6411]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 10:58am

Kelly,

You're missing the oft-repeated point that he's "in the business" and his oft-repeated point that everyone else is naive.

From above:
"I have been working in the business for 15 years and right now I'm pursuing to be a casting director and I will make sure none of the above will happen at whatever project I'm working at."

Once again, as his threads do, this one will explode with his righteous indignation and then finally die out - until we get the next thread of his.

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 10:58am

The only ones that know nothing about casting are the ones that think the only one they know is the best person for a role.

But you seem to be quite full of yourself and completely understand this method of casting.

Let me ask you, do you still think Russel Crowe was the best choice for this role? Even now, when you are aware of the fact that 95% of the reactions are negative?

Please explain.

And I don't know if you are aware of this, but a film is all about the believability of the story. All those millions of reactions and tweets about Crowe kicking them out of the story did not do the box office good. Even if someone like Anne Hathaway gave a great performance, if the next scene has such a quality drop it does not sustain the quality of the film. Therefore so many people come home with mixed feelings. That makes a film "reasonable" instead of "great".

Is that your aim? No? Then think twice before you validate disrespectful casting choices like this.

And yes, it's also about money and fear, but there are other big names that do have this quality. And there are only certain roles that can be cast that way. All that is a part of casting too.












Updated On: 1/19/13 at 10:58 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 11:52am

Very few are arguing that Crowe turned in a good performance (but there are many that DID like his performance). HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that ANY audition would have changed their minds. Who's to say that just because they auditioned 40 people, they wouldn't have come to the same exact choice?

It's very easy to be indignant after the fact.

Things don't always work out the way you hope.

[mar6411]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 11:58am

" . . . quite full of yourself.. . "

Dave - that's you. Get over yourself.

[rhdery]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 11:59am

I cast myself in a show I wrote and produced. Yes, I did have to sleep with myself to get the part, and I don't apologize. I was very naive and thought it was all about my talent, but it turned it was just about the sex plus the fact that i knew the director.

Updated On: 1/19/13 at 11:59 AM

[mar6411]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 12:05pm

I'm shocked. I must be so naive.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 12:12pm

Rhdery and mar6411 -- I think I love you. And I want to offer both of you parts in my next show. Even though I don't know what show it will yet be. Then we can go shopping together for the first tv we see.


And be naive.

[Kelly2]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 12:14pm

I wish you much luck in your "pursuing to be a casting director". It's too bad no one will be able to afford your casting process which sounds like it would cost an absolutely insane amount of money and take years to complete.

You do realize you are essentially spending money to see each person you audition, right? There is a reason the fat gets trimmed, you don't have sessions for 12 hours a day every day for months so you can see every actress between New York and Papua New Guinea who wants a chance. But I'm just being "naive", I guess.

[Kad]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 12:15pm

I'm not clear on what Dave's opinion on the casting of the Les Mis film is. I think I need to read about twenty more times.

[Johnnycantdecide]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 12:20pm

Dave just needed one mor thread to bitch about the casting in Les Miserables. Stop pretending you know about these subjects Dave because its painfully obvious that you have no idea.

You guys have to remember that Dave was the one who claimed BD Wong was a bigger name than Hugh Jackman. Updated On: 1/19/13 at 12:20 PM

[mar6411]

Posted: 1/19/13 at 12:24pm

dramamama, I accept your offer to be in your show that you haven't picked yet. And I like being naive with others.