<p>Tarhut, Can you give some examples of monologues that you think would be appropriate for a female college auditions? What would you consider to be out of the age range of say a 17 yr. old? Would you advise someone who was very small to play the part of a child and then maybe someone in their early twenties to show that they can play a range of ages as well as contrasting characters?
Oh, and by the way, didn't both Ringwald and Mathers speak out how losing their childhoods had a profoundly poor effect on their careers as well as their lives in general?</p>
<p>Sarah:</p>
<p>I'm not as good with female pieces as male ones, since I'm male. There are a number of Shakespearean roles that can be played by young people, but the exact range depends on the person. It's all about illusion. A 17-year-old that looks like a mid-20-year-old and has great sexual allure can play a version of Lady M that works quite well, but a 17-year-old who looks like Peter Pan can't really carry that off. Let me suggest the following book that is out of print, but which can be found for pennies on used book sites:</p>
<p>Auditions and Scenes from Shakespeare (Paperback)
by Richard O. Bell (Author), Joan K. Bell (Author) </p>
<p>This book is nothing short of amazing. It breaks down every Shakespearean audition piece by gender, age range, timing, etc. My own copy is very well worn.</p>
<p>Just off the top of my head, some female non-traditional-ingenue roles that would work for young people include: Imogen, Isabelle, Viola (overdone), Miranda, Rosalind (maybe), Cressida, one of the characters from Vanities, the woman from "The Play's the Thing," the dominatrix from "Communicating Doors," the young lady from "Proof" (though that's bound to be overdone these days), one of the women from "Who Will Carry the Word," the young lady from "Tartuffe," the young woman from "Last Night of Ballyhoo," the young woman from "Ring Round the Moon."</p>
<p>I think it's very rare that I would recommend a child role for a 17-year-old but, once again, it depends on the illusion. One thing I've always wanted to see but never have is some kid audition as both a cheerleader and grown woman from "Vanities." If you do that, get a great coach and trust him/her on whether it can be carried off. If it can be, I know it would impess the hell out of me.</p>
<p>As for Molly and Jerry, I don't really keep up with what they've said, but I think all child actors who are on-camera realize very soon that it's a JOB. And it's hard work. I'm sure that being child actors had detrimental effects on their careers, since the tricks they learned work OK for children but are horrible on adults. As for their lives, how could working your butt off from dawn to dusk from a young age not have a negative effect on your life?</p>
<p>Tarhut, Thanks! I'll see if I can get a copy! Good material is a life time in the collecting and I love your suggestions.
As for working your butt off from a very young age, I'd feel sorry for anyone who had to do so. I tell my kids regularly that they only get one childhood and that they should savor every last drop of it! I'm not saying that kids should not work very hard in school and that they should not have household responsibilites, but I DO think that working your butt off from a very young age can have ill effects on a persons development and happiness. Look at Michael Jackson!</p>
<p>Michael Jackson is a very good example.</p>
<p>Let me just clarify for anyone still reading this thread about where I stand, because I get the impression that some people have misunderstood me.</p>
<p>There are two general types of young people in the theater: Those seeking careers who want serious training, and those who simply want to piddle around and ham it up. Naturally, the piddlers and the serious ones mix at various high schools and other theaters. I object very strongly to having parents of the piddlers dictate training techniques and priorities. To me, it's akin to dumbing down an academic curriculum. If one is serious about training as a performance artist, one will have to learn how to use one's body and voice in very flexible ways to become eligible for a maximum number of roles.</p>
<p>Just my two cents:</p>
<p>Attending a precollege program is an excellent avenue for determining just how serious one is about acting/MT. The O P daughter may very well decide (after this experience) that serious acting is not for her or she may get through it, become a great actress and one day win a Tony (sorry Tarhunt). As for the O P, I feel her pain. It is hard to be miles away when your daughter is stressed.<br>
And I say Thank God for the less serious actors. While the serious actors are in New York, the less serious actors are cast in community shows, bringing theatre to small towns across the US.</p>
<p>NOLAMOM:</p>
<p>Why would I be "sorry" about someone winning a Tony? Que??</p>
<p>The thread grew quickly - referencing back, she may mistakenly have atrributed my comment to you :) I also am not averse to an actor winning a Tony. I believe my comment concerned kids making statements like "when I win my Tony". First for a 16-18 year old to say that, there is certainly a touch of arrogance, which may or may not be backed by ability. Also, with any award - the goal shouldn't be the award. The focus should be on doing your job to the best of your ability, in a way that can give you profound satisfaction. If someone else chooses to reward that with an award, lovely. But your value shouldn't depend on some outer nominating group - whether it's a Tony, or School Crossing Guard of the Year. If winning the Tony defines your success as an actor, you are much less likely to have a satisfying career in the theatre than someone who wants to continue to improve in their craft, and be able to support themselves while doing so.</p>
<p>Also - going back a bit - I totally agree with NMR and others - in regard to whether our kids grow up too soon, or not enough. While some parents push kids into certain situations younger and younger, it is without giving them the tools to function at those levels. So, they need to stay involved to a degree that isn't good for the parent or the kids. Also, at least in the case of some stage mammas I've seen (and I'm sure the same applies to baseball fathers, or football youth league coaches, etc.), I think too many people are trying to live out their dreams through their children - so it becomes the issue of "we auditioned", or "we won the game with that last inning hit", or even "we got into Harvard." With that attitude, of course parents feel like they have to be involved - because they see the end result as a shared one - not a victory for their child. And if "we" got accepted into Harvard, then I guess "we" have to make sure all goes well once there. Sad....</p>
<p>MusTheCC, I agree with your comments about parents using the pronoung "we" in regard to relating what their children have done. Brings to mind a conversation I overheard/witnessed at my D's school at an event. A classmate's mother was relating her daughter's involvement in community theater and the mom said to an acquaintance "We began auditioning for shows when Susie Q was only 6, and have never stopped." The acquaintance, completely serious, said "How cool! So you and your husband are in shows with your daughter?" The woman in questin said "Um, no! Only Susie Q is." I cringed. I do understand that, in the case of college admissions in MT and other very challenging endeavors, parents often do help their children quite a bit with organization, planning and so on, and that involvement often seems to result in parents reporting that "we" applied to NYU, OCU, etc. But it always jars me to see/hear that.</p>
<p>NMR, I feel the same as you do about the way "we" is used, definitely cringe-worthy! I've seen it used often here at CC, and I, too, have had similar experiences to the story you relate in post #88 about Susie Q. I'm on the board of a theatre company and often assist during the audition process for our shows. One of the productions we do every year is a concert performance involving high school actors from far and wide. We generally have about 300 kids audition, and it is a wonderful experience, but we always seem to get a certain percentage of truly obnoxious stage moms and dads (who, in my experience can be far worse), who unfortunately detract from the enjoyment of the many days of auditions. It has been my experience that, not all but, most kids of this type of parent are also difficult, and not kids that you would want to cast.</p>
<p>Just a word to go back to Tarhunt's recommendation about the Bells' book, Auditions and Scenes from Shakespeare. It truly is an essential for any serious actor's collection. A dear family friend who died recently gave my D one of his copies when she was leaving for college several years ago. It is one of her prized possessions. He spent most of his professional acting career doing Shakespeare and is widely thought to have been one of the best Shakespearean actors in the world. He 'retired' from the stage two years ago at age 85 after, once again, playing Prospero at Stratford but had scheduled a return this year before his health worsened. I've seen thousands of actors on stages around the world in my life but have never seen anyone else who could mesmerize an audience, and seemingly so effortlessly, as he could. I hope that some of you, and your kids, had the opportunity to see William Hutt during his long and illustrious career. The theatre world will miss him.</p>
<p>Thanks Tarhunt for the book recommendation (and the endorsement alwaysamom). I was able to find it used on Amazon. It looks like there are a few copies left if anyone wants to save time and gas hunting it down :)</p>
<p>Tarhut, could you add the book recommendation post (copy it) to the Books & Other Resources thread at the top of the MT Forum? That way it'll be handy for the kids.</p>
<p>Where on Amazon are any copies of the book. When I did a search yesterday, it appeared it was out of stock and unknown if any other copies would be obtained.</p>
<p>There is a used copy of the book available on eBay at the "buy it now" price of $10.12, including shipping.</p>
<p>Thank you!</p>
<p>MichaelNKat,</p>
<p>There WERE a few copies available on Amazon but it appears that they're gone now. I had checked, too, when I made my post #89 yesterday and saw them there. I just checked half.com and they have a copy available for $5.00.</p>
<p>Thanks. Grabbed the one on ebay about a half hour ago. Seems available copies are going fast!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thanks. Grabbed the one on ebay about a half hour ago. Seems available copies are going fast!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, the power of the CollegeConfidential boards!</p>
<p>I got mine for 94-cents! Chose the cheapest possible copy (will cost more than the price of the book to ship it!) moments after tarhunt posted the suggestion. Thanks, Tarhunt! My D was excited about the book when I told her about it. Yes, thus is the power of CC!! :)</p>
<p>I got the last two copies yesterday on Amazon for $5.00 a piece. One for my D and one for her best friend. Sorry guys.</p>
<p>It's funny, the cost of shipping was almost as much as the book. Still a deal at $10 total for the 1994 edition.</p>