Looks Matter??

<p>I just saw a series of short films (actually clips from a longer DVD) on youtube about students with disabilities who attend the schools of the Conservatoire for Dance and Drama. Although a couple of these had non-visible disabilities, the group also included a young man who had one glass eye who was attending RADA, and a young woman who was missing one forearm who had just graduated from LAMDA. These might be excellent examples of folks with slightly different appearances that managed to get into two of the finest acting programs in the world–clearly these programs were able to see beyond their differences in appearance and look primarily at their acting talents when considering them for admission.</p>

<p>Karl Paananen</p>

<p>One of my son’s friends is a junior at Tisch–she started out in acting but has since switched to writing. She is rather large and had a lot of acting talent but she has a brilliant mind and is a great writer. I have to think despite her acting talent, she has discovered her more creative (and probably more lucrative) niche. I don’t know if Tisch knew about this talent when they accepted her three years ago.</p>

<p>You’re right, KEVP. This happens in the US too, of course. People have posted here about a girl in a wheelchair in NYU’s MT program, and a young man with cerebral palsy at Boston University.</p>

<p>Obviously, looks matter. It’s part of the package. But beauty like talent is very subjective. And I don’t think all schools are looking for the most beautiful, perfect people. I do think it helps to be strongly something…pretty, cute, ethnic, tall, dark, & handsome, odd, fat, ugly, whatever…just something. Average is a tougher sell. They lack imagination.</p>

<p>I’m definitely not ugly, but I feel like my look is the “norm” these days…I am a black girl 5’2’’ and although I might have the “it” factor…I’m clearly not the rare asian. My top choice is CMU for next year, anyone know if they have anyone there my type…would it be harder for me to get accepted??</p>

<p>KEVP, you hit the nail on the head! </p>

<p>When my daughter was auditioning I reminded her that, yes, thousands may be auditioning, but how many, really, are well prepared and VERY talented? I bet way less than half.</p>

<p>With much respect KEVP, while most of the time the so called “cream” does rise to the top, often much less qualified people get into these programs because they have the certain look the school is looking for. I talked to a teacher of mine who works at a top notch bfa/mfa program and he made a point of telling me that recently they took a black women over a white women, simply because they needed a black women in their program. The white women was MUCH more qualified, but they gave the position to the black women, they needed her look to diversify their program. … He wasn’t particularly proud of it, but thats how the business is, and whether we like it or not, these programs ARE businesses.</p>

<p>I have to laugh at some of these comments. Of course, “looks” matter in acting. But the question is, what “look”? For some roles, it helps to be drop dead gorgeous. Others, it’s good to be quirky. And - looks change. I went to school with Dermot Mulroney back in the stone age and we all laughed when he dropped out to go to Hollywood. After all, he was so “goofy” looking and he had a cleft palate scar. And now, 30 years later - he’s a leading man! So you never can tell what people are looking for.</p>

<p>realkevp “it’s always the best and most talented applicants who get in” – I’m sorry, but I completely disagree with you and I can say outright you are mistaken. </p>

<p>Open your eyes. Do you honestly think that in School A, the absolute most talented people almost all happened to be 5’6" brunettes with blue eyes? And in School B, the absolute most talented people almost all happened to be minority races? And in School C, the most talented included a careful balance of “x race, y height,” z race, q weight"? And this is leaving aside the fact that the acceptance rate for men is FAR higher than for women (not to denigrate the very talented men who got in! Just statistically–I mean, at Mason Gross, there were literally about 40 girls to every ONE boy.) </p>

<p>Also, in many auditions, there was just ONE adjudicator. Come on. If looks were not a component, there is no way they would have just one adjudicator. One adjudicator means they are screening on pre-arranged categories. Even in Little League try outs - for 10 year olds - there are PANELS. If you want ONLY talent, you have to have panels. People need to discuss with each other their impressions, there needs to be give and take. (Professional auditions also always have panels too btw) A school could not possibly rely on a single person to decide in 2 minutes if they want a callback for a candidate for the next 4 years, if it were only about ‘talent.’ </p>

<p>You also imply that "talent’ is something that everyone agrees on. That is untrue. While there are some performers whom everyone can agree on as definite, MOST performers, even excellent ones, have some people who like them better than others. Think of your own taste in actors. THere is not this one thing, “Talent,” that you have in greater or greater quantities, particularly at 18. There is potential, sure. But it is impossible to judge ‘talent’ that way. And when they get to professional auditions, there will be reams of talented actors–many will be declined strictly because of looks and fit. That’s just how it is. </p>

<p>Definitely, 100%–yes, looks matter.</p>

<p>Since you can’t change your looks, then we’re back to the strategy: ‘audition at as many places as you think you’d like to go to.’ That increases your chances. Of course, concentrate on the audition, but I think that’s a given for most of the posters here in CC at least.</p>

<p>Great post, hoveringmom!</p>

<p>I actually really love that Carnegie Showcase for this discussion. I was expecting to go on to the website and see all perfect looking movie stars, and I don’t. I watched their video and, although their headshots do them justice, they are MUCH more interesting and unique in their video. The headshots are more glamorous, but I don’t find all of them ridiculously attractive, they just have a little something else- an edge or a flair.</p>

<p>Can we clarify something here? WHen we ask, “Do looks matter?” are we asking: “Do you have to be gorgeous?” Or are we asking, “Do looks - literally, your appearance, any looks - matter in casting/auditioning?” </p>

<p>It seems that some people are talking about the first and some the second. </p>

<p>If we’re talking about the first - “do you have to be gorgeous” - the answer is No. There are many different types and looks that are valued, both on stage and onscreen. Indeed, sometimes a very specific type, even overweight and unlovely, can have more casting success than a generic ‘attractive person.’ </p>

<p>If’ we’re talking about the second - 'are appearances a factor in casting" - the answer is Yes. 100%. Both in college auditions and naturally in productions. </p>

<p>In both cases it’s not purely about ‘talent.’</p>

<p>When I hold auditions for a production I am directing, I am essentially a panel of ONE. There are other people present (usually the producer, and someone from Stage Management) but they don’t pay as much attention to the auditions as I do. I can’t cast a play just from seeing a whole bunch of people’s short monologues, but I CAN tell from a short monologue whether to give someone a callback, which gives me more time to work with the person and see if they are right for the show. I am not really an “amateur” as I have been professionally trained, and I am particularly good at holding auditions and casting.</p>

<p>A professional director can tell within the first ten seconds of your monologue whether you will be getting a callback. Really.</p>

<p>Yes, I put people into categories by “type”. The most important of these is age and gender, so I have older women, younger women, older men, younger men. I might have more then two age categories, depending on the play. And there can be other factors that determine “type”.</p>

<p>An actor should know what their “type” is, and should choose audition material that is appropriate for their “type”. And that includes whether you are the more “romantic” type (say, “Romeo”) or more of a “character” type (say, “Richard III”). I am certainly more of a “character” type. But you don’t have to be completely gorgeous to be a “romantic” type. The director looks at you and can imagine what you will look like with the right costume, hair, makeup and lighting–all of which can make up for a heck of a lot of issues. A romantic type can be skinny or average or even a few pounds overweight (again, with the right costume), a romantic male can’t be TOO short, but apart from this as long as there isn’t anything TOO far out most folks can be romantic types.</p>

<p>You will be put in a “type” and you will only be competing with others of your type. So the best strategy is to be the best auditioner of that type. It’s not a lottery, they don’t choose randomly from the categories, in each case they pick the BEST of each type they need.</p>

<p>But even having said that, here are a couple of stories. I was directing a play in college–BENEFACTORS by Michael Frayn–which I considered to be a very “British” play and thought when I started auditions I would need a cast that could all play British characters well. But one actress who auditioned for me was a Polish woman. Her audition was so good that I wanted to cast her, so I looked again at the script to see if it was possible to change the character to be Polish (you couldn’t really tell this actress was Polish, just from her accent that she was a European who did not speak English as her native language.) And yes, this Polish woman got the part and did an incredible job. Similarly, I once auditioned for a play by a Michigan playwright that was a parody of murder mystery plays, with six characters–the “types” were leading man, leading lady, juvenile lead, ingenue, butler, and detective. I auditioned thinking that since I was a “character” type I had the best shot at the butler or the detective. But instead, since at the time I was a younger man, and since my audition was so much better then any of the other young men there, the director gave me the “juvenile lead” role, changing the role into a “character” type by making him more geeky and comic. The ingenue and I ended up playing our roles like George Burns & Gracie Allen. And was the first time I actually got to kiss an ingenue onstage!</p>

<p>So in both those cases, an actor giving an incredible audition made up for the fact that they were the wrong “type”.</p>

<p>I agree that auditioning for a lot of places is a good idea. But also make sure that your audition is INCREDIBLE. Make sure that your chosen monologues are right for your “type”, and that you have worked on them until they are absolutely perfect. If your audition doesn’t go well, work on doing better for your next audition, instead of just saying “oh, they didn’t take me because I have the wrong ‘look’”.</p>

<p>KEVP</p>

<p>I disagree that you should try to find a monologue that jibes with your type for college auditions. I think that applies more to auditioning for plays.</p>

<p>For college auditions, you should choose the freshest (not overdone) material possible, that you connect with very strongly, and that you can deliver very naturally. All of that is hard enough, without worrying about identifying your type and trying to play to that.</p>

<p>I agree with NJTheatreMom. I think the students are far too young and relatively unformed to be worried about ‘typing’ themselves, and I also question the point of it. I seriously question and/or disagree with many things KEVP is claiming.</p>

<p>I suspect part of the problem here is that TheRealKEVP is talking about his experiences casting community theater productions and everyone else is talking about college auditions.</p>

<p>One of the college-audition books we read (useful book, frequently recommended on this forum) definitely emphasizes the importance of knowing your type when applying to colleges. I agree with those of you who observe that it seems a bit early and limiting for high-school seniors to be labeling themselves with a type, but the argument is persuasive. It’d be interesting to hear more about this from the college reps…</p>

<p>I was just on a panel at a conference of faculty from auditioned college theatre programs. All mentioned that students auditioning for the programs should find material that is age and type appropriate, and that they connect to. Although type is likely a bit more flexible at this stage of the game. </p>

<p>There are some programs that ask you to prepare a piece that is against type, but that is a different exercise. :)</p>

<p>“Type” is a very big deal with college audition coaches. Material. Clothes. Headshots. All are carefully chosen to emphasize your type.</p>

<p>Looks matter. And they matter even more when every four years all of these students graduate and go out and compete for those four roles that they will compete for.</p>

<p>Looks matter more than where you went to school. They matter more than if you can sing or dance or anything else.</p>

<p>Nothing matters more than looks. Not even acting talent matters more than looks.</p>