<p>Dance 10; Looks 3…and I’m still on unemployment. Sorry!</p>
<p>This is certainly an interesting discussion. I would like to reiterate the point that your looks, and your type, are the things you are least able to change about yourself. Maybe it is good self-knowledge to have an idea of what type others see you as, or where you stand in the looks spectrum, but I’d like to think these kids won’t obsess about whether they have the “right” or “wrong” looks. </p>
<p>Just be who you are. I agree that the monologues you choose should be ones you can connect with; probably it stands to reason that they then will be appropriate “types” for you as well. Maybe in choosing a list of schools to apply to a student might feel that they do not fit in at some places - perhaps that has something to do with looks, style, or type, as it can for anyone choosing a college. </p>
<p>The only thing you can bring to an audition is who you are, and to show that to the best of your ability.</p>
<p>What Emmybet said about choosing monologues you truly connect with, thereby revealing your type, makes sense. </p>
<p>It is certainly not the case that ALL college audition coaches stress “type.”</p>
<p>I am only going to state my observations.
At each audition we went to, each school’s freshman class of helping students had a definite “theme” or type. It was pretty obvious at one college in particular.
And to add to that, one of the places my d was accepted, when she searched twitter to find other people who had maybe tweeted their acceptance, it was much like looking in the mirror at a bunch of hers.
But one thing you also have to remember; make up does wonders. There are cover models who look drastically different without make up. It’s more about bone structure and your overall “canvas” than a specific “look” I think. A director is looking at you like an artist looks at a canvas. He or she wants to know they can take and mold you into the part they envision for you. If you are a chameleon, someone who can change into a part easily in my opinion that will work better for you than if you are drop dead attractive. I hope that makes sense.
I do agree that even by 18, a student has an idea of the kind of actor they are; my daughter is decidedly a quirky, comedic type… Think Lucille Ball meets Jennifer Aniston. She’s pretty, but she’s not drop dead gorgeous unless she is in stage make up. But she is a chameleon; she can go from ugly duckling to swan just by forgoing make up and by what she wears, how she carries herself, etc. I don’t know if that translates to more “marketability” or not. Just using her as an example.</p>
<p>Type isn’t a big thing… It’s about YOU as a complete piece. I think they look at who you are and how GOOD of a potential you have to be a GREAT actor/actress. I’m sure as you go in college and train, ou will find certain parts to be more comfortable and fun to act than others. But, that’s not to say you can’t act other things. A good actor/actress should be the type for ALL.</p>
<p>You don’t have to be gorgeous but having something unique about you would really help!!</p>
<p>I live in Pittsburgh. I see lots of shows at CMU and Point Park. Both schools have a lot of typical good looking MTs and actors. PPU has more variety and frankly that isn’t a bad thing. Carnegie Mellon definitely goes for a look to go along with the high degree of talent. Not all gorgeous, I’d say “easy to look at” might be a better description. Obviously all very talented, hard working and hireable too. They have that luxury because of their well-earned reputation. They cultivate it. Josh Gad is the exception at CMU, not the norm, and I’d bet a dozen donuts he’s put on a good amount of weight since his college days. I definitely see more like him in the Point Park shows. Also, CMU will pass on a very talented, hard working and potentially hireable student if they have too many of his or her type already. They always seem to have a balance there. That’s the way they do it and it seems to work out pretty well for them. It’s also the way the business is to the tenth power, so the sooner aspiring actors, singers and dancers get used to it, I suppose, the better.</p>
<p>But always bear in mind that when you go to see a show, you are seeing what these people look like when they have had professional attention paid to their hair, makeup, costume, and lighting. In “real life” they may not look nearly as attractive.</p>
<p>I remember once being in a costume shop and seeing a box of unusual objects. It took me a while to figure out what they were, but it turned out they were basically fake boobies for actresses to wear under their costumes to make up for deficiencies in that department.</p>
<p>KEVP</p>
<p>[Heavy</a> Rain - The Casting - YouTube](<a href=“Heavy Rain - The Casting - YouTube”>Heavy Rain - The Casting - YouTube)
I kinda found the ending of this video to be horrible but partially true? I wonder if auditions are really done like this tho…</p>
<p>So KEVP, you mean the young woman I saw play Mrs. Lovett in Sweeney Todd at CMU recently really doesn’t look like that when sh’e in class on a random Tuesday afternoon??? Whodathunkit. Just kidding.</p>
<p>Yes, looks do matter, but everything can be fixed. Well, most things. You don’t have to be gorgeous, or a size zero, or the “it” girl, but you do need to have an appealing look. Something that attracts them to you as an actor.</p>
<p>Sent from my DROID RAZR using CC</p>
<p>I find that with most programs like CMU, Juilliard, UNCSA… the kids all look DIFFERENT from one another. Like ChasieLooHoo said, you don’t have to be a type within yourself, just as long as you hold your own look amongst the other members of your company.</p>
<p>If you look at the showcase websites for most "top-tier acting programs generally most of the actors and actresses will be strikingly attractive. I believe this is for many reasons. Firstly, I think many attractive people do well in acting from a very young age and are cast in parts due to the fact that they are attractive. This gives them confidence, and an abundance of roles and opportunities. Secondly, this is a business. These programs look to train actors and actresses who will get jobs. In many cases, talent levels equal and casting can be based on looks. Of course they accept character actors too. I am by no means a chiseled averaged height leading man and I was accepted into acting programs. But if you look at television today, you do have your Josh Gads, but I find that the majority of actors, and particularly actresses on TV, are super attractive people. It’s just the way it is.</p>
<p>I just wanted to add observations about Northwestern University, where initial acceptance is based largely on academic credentials and resume. In-person auditions begin the first week of school and basically never stop after that, and by the end of the first quarter I did notice that extremely attractive (and of course insanely talented) kids were consistently getting great casting. It is also true that the incoming Theatre class overall was noticeably more attractive than other schools within NU (there is a reason that NU guys often visit the Theatre school to meet attractive girls), even though students were not pre-screened for appearance. </p>
<p>The reality is that if you are in a field that depends on people paying a lot to watch you work, you will find more work if you are fun to watch.</p>
<p>yup yup yup. agree with a lot with people so far, esp son of tranquil. it’s not that you have to look like model, but you have to be attractive in some way. even josh gad can be considered as attractive…there is something charismatic and compelling in his look. he is a character actor and looks good for a character man. it’s basically having some appeal in the look and type that you are. the actors who last are usually ones with unique and memorable faces, even no matter how beautiful they can be anyway. it’s more about being attractive but still interesting in your look more than anything i’d gather.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>A quick note in agreement with this. Have you ever seen a large poster or billboard advertisement featuring someone vaguely familiar, and after staring at it a few minutes realized it’s a famous actress airbrushed and Photoshopped into model-generic “perfection”? I find that experience to be a good reminder that what’s most enduringly attractive is something other than generic perfection.</p>
<p>^^^^ Agreed. I think “interesting” is really more the ticket than knock down drag out gorgeousity. And even gorgeousness has to have some kind of hook to it for the camera to find it interesting. I mean, yeah … Most of the women you see on TV are good looking, but all you have to do is take a stroll around Studio City or West Hollywood on a Saturday evening to see just how dime a dozen that is and that they really aren’t always among the most attractive in person because the camera just doesn’t see things like the human eye. It’s some other intangible. </p>
<p>Just check out some of the recent success stories coming out of these places. Like I remember seeing the website for the 2008 UNCSA showcase, took a look at Dane Dehaan and was like, “Wow, what an odd looking dude. What is he? Fifteen?” But my eye couldn’t stop going back to him amongst some of the extremely attractive people in his class (including a close friend from h/s) and look at all he’s done since. Monica Raymund who finished Juilliard the same year is clearly easy on the eyes, but still looked like a teenager when she graduated and is about as ethnically ambiguous as a human being can be. And Justine Lupe who just graduated last spring and had her guest star on “Harry’s Law” instantly turned into a series regular is certainly attractive, but it’s in a different kind of way than your average lingerie model. Take a picture of her in a lineup of those girls and I’ll bet you’ll still find yourself looking at her even though others will be more conventionally “perfect.” The camera just doesn’t find “perfect” nearly as interesting a subject. I guess there has to be a science to it, but I don’t think anyone has figured it out yet. Of course, actual talent plays in, too …</p>
<p>Now here are the extant showcase sites for the schools listed on the Hollywood Reporter “Top 25” list.<br>
[2012</a> Master of Fine Arts Program Showcase - American Conservatory Theater](<a href=“http://www.act-sf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=conservatory_showcase]2012”>http://www.act-sf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=conservatory_showcase)
<a href=“https://www.pace.edu/dyson/sites/pace.edu.dyson/files/media/files/pdf/actors-studio-drama-school/2012_Industry_Showcase.pdf[/url]”>https://www.pace.edu/dyson/sites/pace.edu.dyson/files/media/files/pdf/actors-studio-drama-school/2012_Industry_Showcase.pdf</a>
[CalArts</a> Actors Showcase](<a href=“http://www.calartsactorsshowcase.com/]CalArts”>http://www.calartsactorsshowcase.com/)
[FSU/Asolo</a> Conservatory Showcases in New York City | FSU CVATD News & Information](<a href=“http://info.cvatd.fsu.edu/2012/04/fsuasolo-conservatory-showcases-in-new-york-city/]FSU/Asolo”>http://info.cvatd.fsu.edu/2012/04/fsuasolo-conservatory-showcases-in-new-york-city/)
[Guildhall</a> School of Music & Drama:Third year actors 2011-12](<a href=“http://www.gsmd.ac.uk/acting/final_year_actors/third_year_actors_2011_12/]Guildhall”>http://www.gsmd.ac.uk/acting/final_year_actors/third_year_actors_2011_12/)
[Group</a> 41](<a href=“http://www.juilliard.edu/degrees-programs/drama/4yr/]Group”>http://www.juilliard.edu/degrees-programs/drama/4yr/)
[LAMDA</a> - Three Year Acting Course - 2012](<a href=“http://www.lamda.org.uk/drama/students/2012/c/index.htm]LAMDA”>http://www.lamda.org.uk/drama/students/2012/c/index.htm)
[New</a> York Showcase Students, School of Communication, Northwestern University](<a href=“http://www.communication.northwestern.edu/departments/theatre/students/showcase/new_york_showcase_students.php]New”>http://www.communication.northwestern.edu/departments/theatre/students/showcase/new_york_showcase_students.php)
[NYU</a> Tisch Grad Acting 2012 - The Class](<a href=“http://nyugradacting2012.com/class/index.html]NYU”>http://nyugradacting2012.com/class/index.html)
[Profiles[/url</a>]
[url=<a href=“http://www.rutgersbfaactors2012.com/Rutgersbfaactors2012.com/Home.html]Home[/url”>http://www.rutgersbfaactors2012.com/Rutgersbfaactors2012.com/Home.html]Home[/url</a>]
[url=<a href=“http://www.purchaseactors2012.com/]2012”>http://www.purchaseactors2012.com/]2012</a> BFA Acting Showcase - Purchase College, SUNY - Conservatory of Theatre Arts](<a href=“Student & graduate profiles — RADA”>Student & graduate profiles — RADA)
[Syracuse</a> Showcase 2012](<a href=“http://syracuseshowcase.com/]Syracuse”>http://syracuseshowcase.com/)
[2012</a> Industry Showcase | UCLA MFA Actors 2012](<a href=“http://www.uclamfa2012.com/showcase]2012”>http://www.uclamfa2012.com/showcase)
[UNCSA</a> Class of 2012](<a href=“http://uncsaclassof2012.com/]UNCSA”>http://uncsaclassof2012.com/)
[UCSD</a> MFA 2012 Fundraising](<a href=“http://www.showcase2012.com/]UCSD”>http://www.showcase2012.com/)
<a href=“http://theatre.usc.edu/senioractingshowcase/Variety_BFA_Ad_12_10x13_Color_FNL.pdf[/url]”>http://theatre.usc.edu/senioractingshowcase/Variety_BFA_Ad_12_10x13_Color_FNL.pdf</a>
[UW</a> Professional Actor Training Program - Showcase 2011](<a href=“http://depts.washington.edu/uwdrama/showcase/Showcase-2012/]UW”>http://depts.washington.edu/uwdrama/showcase/Showcase-2012/)
[Yale</a> School of Drama | The Showcase of the Class of 2012](<a href=“http://drama.yale.edu/showcase/]Yale”>http://drama.yale.edu/showcase/)</p>
<p>That’s 370 actors about to be pumped out on the market. Maybe I’m getting jaded and overstepping by playing God (or casting director ;)), but really only 60-70 of them “pop” to me as having serious on-camera looks and they aren’t necessarily the most gorgeous ones in the mix. In fact, I’d consider a good number of the ones that do pop as being more character and “everyperson” types.</p>
<p>I think where we are heading here is towards saying that a certain amount of “charisma” or “presence” is essential. I certainly agree. And that is definitely something I look at when I hold auditions. “Charisma” or “presence” can make someone seem attractive, when perhaps maybe they really aren’t more attractive.</p>
<p>The next question is how do we cultivate “charisma” or “presence” and I am not sure I know. A certain amount of confidence certainly helps, for a start.</p>
<p>KEVP</p>
<p>We’ve always referred to that as “the sparkle factor” or IT. It’s that intangible quality that some just HAVE. I believe that this is why some kids do better auditioning in person rather than with prescreens or DVDs. The sparkle factor or IT doesn’t translate as well sometimes in a 2 minute blurb.</p>
<p>So, with all this being discussed, which schools are more prone to accepting quirkier candidates?</p>