Audtions for Actors... and Why I Don't Think They Are Effective

Whenever you hear an interview from an actor or a casting director describing the audition process for a film you usually hear, "so and so did a read".  You'll hear about cold readings of a "side" (segment of a script).  Typically that's it.  I have a problem with this.

What does someone dramatically reading lines tell a director or anyone for that matter?  That the person is a good orator.  For that fact, I think lawyers and many politicians, including President Obama, should give acting a try.  If we're going to grade someone on a their expressive diction, correct annunciation of their words, etc than we are limiting both the performer and the potential of the film as a whole.

I remember once reading that many of Hollywood's A-list actors deal with stuttering problems.  And yet they perform such great performances?...  How can that be?  Because a performance is about more than verbal words but the raw, believable performance of an actor "becoming the character".

Many times, some of the "so-called great reads" appear more like performances of a soap opera (apology to all those who like watching soap operas, I had to relate it to performances in which actors are forced into creating some sort of believability out of something written and performed in haste).  What happens, in my opinion, is that two, maybe three or more actors read a scene together (sometimes it's also just a monologue) and the actors are trying to make the conversation sound "real".  What you get are performers trying to quickly "conjure up" emotions on the fly, that may or may not fit the character or circumstance at all.  But they try to appear professional and not stumble over the words.

Why do this?  Because it's the way it's always been done.


So, what do I do differently.  I try to find ways of seeing both how the actor speaks and how they react in the circumstance.  For  instance, in Awakening, I asked all the actors to act out four different scenarios in front of a camera and send me the audition tape via an online site like yousendit.com or upload it to youtube and send me the link.  I gave each performer breathing room to bring the character to life in each circumstance.  I also had them audition for things that we're in contrast with each other.

For The House, I had a few actresses I was interested in.  I requested that all of them audition for each part.  So they did do a reading.  But added to that I wanted them to speak certain one liners with different emotions and also had them write and perform a monologue of that character.  Forcing the actresses to speak for parts that they didn't even want helped me to see a different part of them that I wouldn't have seen otherwise.

In the past, when I did theater, I would do auditions like I was taught by a teacher in Pueblo, Colorado.  One of the things she would do would be something called, "in scene, out of scene".  Basically, she has you turn your back to her (or camera).  Then the actor would turn around, in character, of whatever they were told to be.  And they had to do this without any speaking or noises.  She wanted to see you facial expressions.  Your way of creatively showing your character without using your mouth as a crutch.

With the camera your eyes, the subtities of facial expressions can and usually are the most powerful tools an actor has.  Yet, auditions rely too much on your ability to read out loud.  Imagine the difficulty that someone with dyslexia would have doing an audition the "usual way".  Yet, there are problem some A-listers out there with dyslexia, amazing the audience with their performance.

What are your thoughts?


(At left is the obvious picture of Charlie Chaplin, the best actor of the silent era.  His ability to convey emotions with no words is a testament to the potential of human expression)