by Guest Blogger: Amanda Grillo • Jan 3, 2017
A big part of show business is typecasting. There are 'types' that people fall into. These can be based around age, race, gender, and personality. Some people this as an opportunity to play to their strengths. I once participated in a workshop where the instructor told us to 'know our types'. He then began to call people out one by one: 'You're a Fierstein. Try looking at Edna Turnblad or Tevye.' 'You're a Broderick. Look at his roles.' 'Streisand. You have a lot of options for material.' He compared us to already well known household names in the theatre world. What about embracing who you naturally are? Why be the next insert celebrity here , when you can make a name for yourself and be original? There are stock characters that people naturally gravitate towards with ease whether it be by look or by personality, but if people get locked into these types it begins to be all they are seen as. To some people, these types can be seen as limiting. There's not much variety in roles if they play the same kind of part over and over. Actors should try to expand their range of roles when possible. The popular belief of what is attractive doesn't necessarily need to be the leading players driving the action, but just because someone who isn't conventionally attractive drives the story doesn't mean it is an ugly duckling tale. Dramaturgy also comes into play if a character description is explicitly influencing the script. That being said, I've seen several productions where the characters look phenomenal. They are a perfect depiction of how the story describes, but the talent was subpar. It was very clear that a different person was a much better fit, though they might not have been the perfect image. This idea got me thinking: Just because you look the part, does that mean you deserve it?
