100 Blogs: Auditions, part 3

It would be very useful and salutory for each and every member of an amateur musical and/or dramatic society to sit on an audition panel at least once. The view is so different, and it would do us all good.

Generally our audition panel will be Director, Musical Director and musical committee member who isn't auditioning. Sometimes a choreographer too. It can be useful, especially when the Director and MD are not members of the society, or not regulars with that society, to have someone who knows their fellow members and can point out things that may not show up at an audition—like, this person is incapable of remembering the words, this person misses more rehearsals than should be allowed, this one is a pain in the arse, that kind of thing. I've been on audition panels both as a representative of the Company, and as the Director.

We generally work in one of two possible modes: closed, or open. At a closed audition, the candidates all assemble in the Green Room and are called one at a time to perform their bit for the panel. In an open audition, everyone gets to watch everyone else's auditions, except where they are competing for the same role, in which case those yet to have their turn wait in the Green Room. I think there's a lot to be said for the open model. Not least among its advantages is that when everyone has witnessed the audition (at least, the first one—there may, of course, be callbacks) everyone has a fair idea why this person was cast and that person was not. It helps a lot with avoiding the post-audition speculation about how so-and-so only got the part because "the director likes her", etc.

Yes, well. From behind that table, you see things differently. For starters, you can tell almost at once if someone's voice is good enough for them to do the role. We could tell half the people to stop after eight bars, seriously. And that, sometimes, would be a lot kinder to our ears than letting them get through the entire number. On reflection, you can tell almost at once if the person auditioning is just not up to the part. If they're not great, it takes a little longer.

It's also fascinating to see just how much difference it makes when someone has really prepared. Not just learned the words, but figured out appropriate movements and expressions. It's not absolutely necessary—at least not at our auditions, where some people do clutch their lib in a trembling grasp—but it's really helpful to the production team. It's just so much easier to see someone's potential when they take the trouble to show it to you—which ought to be a good enough incentive for everyone auditioning to do their homework. (An aside: it's such a shame when people audition for roles they really aren't suited to. Young lads going for the middle-aged leader-of-men role; middle-aged women trying for the ingenue; people who just don't fit the basic requirements—I'm not talking about the talent level, here, because it's damn difficult to assess your own abilities, but it's not so very hard to assess the role.)

Sometimes the decision is really easy—of the three candidates, one came out and shone. But I've never been on an audition panel that did not discuss each and every candidate for a role, even when the decision was blindingly obvious. Can we use this person somewhere else? Is there a minor role in this show that they'd be right for? The directing team is always, in my experience, careful and fair in discussing candidates, even when it is glaringly obvious that a candidate cannot be cast in the role he or she wants to play.

As I said in my previous post, sometimes people do do a great audition but still don't get the part. From behind the table, you have to consider the balance of the cast. Relative ages, appearances, chemistry (if you have a chance to assess it). Experience. I remember two prospective leading men for a musical, one of whom could really sing and could act about as well as a tree trunk, the other of whom could just about sing but was a convincing romantic lead. We went with the latter—his singing improved, and in any case he was believable within the story, which the first one simply would not have been. You just have to pick the best option. Sometimes you get it wrong. I remember another difficult choice, where I think we probably did get it wrong, not least because the one we didn't choose had established some, hmm, personality quirks that the directing team did not want to have to deal with. See, it's worth being a good team player—one day it might get you the role you want!

Because those opinions on why people get cast? Mostly way off mark. Directors and MDs may have their own little quirks, but by and large what they want is a quality cast, a quality show. They aren't looking to cast their 'pets' in the teeth of awesome opposition—it's just that the people directors cast tend to be, well, the best ones available, and that's why they get cast again and again. Of course, directors are just as human as the rest of us, with quirks great and small, and sometimes they do make inexplicable decisions. That's showbusiness, I guess.

Yes, indeed, experiencing the audition from the other side of the table would be useful for everyone. It'd reduce the post-audition griping. It'd give cast members a better appreciation for how and why the cast was chosen the way it was. And I suspect it would improve the quality of auditions...

And now, something completely different. Really.

( Cut for talk of sex toys. I hope. )