<p>My son is 5'5" and is currently playing a leading role in a summerstock musical, which is great for just finishing freshman year of college. It depends on the role and the "type", as mtdog mentioned. My son is very aware that there are certain roles in which he will not ever be cast.</p>
<p>^^similarly, my S at 5'5" doesn't get cast as the romantic lead, although he's handsome, but gets readily cast for some of the more individualized roles: Puck, Speed in Shakespeare; and all kinds of comic/timing parts because he can do that.</p>
<p>Ericsmom and paying3tuitions, we need to get your sons together with my 4'10" daughter, lol!! She is often too short for roles, esp. when most of the men are almost 6 feet tall!</p>
<p>When I auditioned at CCM, they asked me how I planned on dealing with the fact that my height (I'm a male, 5'6) didn't match my voice (operatic baritone). I feel like they may have issues with shorter guys, but honestly, there are tons of famous short men. A few:</p>
<p>Frank Sinatra: 5'7
Gene Kelly: 5'7
Tom Cruise: 5'7
Mickey Rooney: 5'3
Jonathan Taylor Thomas: 5'6
Lucas Grabeel: 5'7
Donald O'Connor: 5'6
James Dean: 5'6
Daniel Radcliffe: 5'6</p>
<p>source: <a href="http://www.imdb.com%5B/url%5D">www.imdb.com</a></p>
<p>So yeah... don't let people get down on you for your height. Performers come in all shapes and sizes.</p>
<p>This is replying to the original post. It's your height, and well...you can't change it. The least you can do is embrace it, accept it, let it work for you. These programs are hard to get into and we don't need anything extra going against us!</p>
<p>PantheMan - there are tons more! What about Dustin Hoffman? He's 5'5". And Danny Devito, of course! And Al Pacino. The list goes on...
And there's a good friend of my d's who goes to school with you at CCM who is about 5'6, but he is so talented there is no doubt in my mind that he'll be on Broadway! [edited out additional personal potentially identifying information on someone else - Mod JEM]</p>
<p>In my opinion, I think that there's a place on Broadway for everyone, no matter what shape or size (sounds kind of cheesy but oh well). I would say never give up :)</p>
<p>I was thinking of this thread over the weekend. I saw two musicals at Stratford and, although I have to disagree that there's a place on Broadway for everyone, there were a few rather short actors in the shows I saw. They were all primarily trained as dancers, and I have found this to be true of the actors I know who are what some would call, unusually short. I'm not sure if this is coincidence or not.</p>
<p>always:</p>
<p>I don't think it's a pure coincidence. The smaller you are, the lower your center of gravity and, thus, the better your balance (all other neuro-muscular factors being equal). It makes sense that dancers might well be smaller, on average, than non-dancers. Certainly (as you know), a number of young ladies stop taking dance lessons when they realize they will be too large for the top companies.</p>
<p>Since some people are cast in musicals because high-level dancing skills are needed, then there may well be a place in musical theater for smaller dancers. Of course, the flip side to this is that most lead roles (there are exceptions) are not written for high-level dance skills. They don't hurt, but they generally count for less than singing skills.</p>
<p>Off topic, I know, but how were the productions at Stratford?</p>
<p>Tarhunt,</p>
<p>Stratford was wonderful, as always. :) We saw a few family friends in both productions we saw so that's always fun. My One & Only is a Gershwin show with which I was not familiar but I enjoyed it tremendously. Fabulous dancing, great acting, and a fun, if traditional, musical comedy book. The production of Oklahoma was very good, even though I have to admit that it is not one of my favorite shows. Stratford puts on some wonderful musical productions. One of my favorite musical theatre experiences anywhere was at Stratford a few years ago when they did Anything Goes. We're returning for a few days later in the summer to see Othello, King Lear, and To Kill a Mockingbird. </p>
<p>Next stop, Williamstown, later this week! :)</p>
<p>We went to Stratford the year of Anything Goes and MacBeth. Fabulous!!! Haven't been back, but plan to soon. What a great place</p>
<p>Hi Louisiana Mom,
I've been first ill and then busy and haven't posted in a long while, but gee whiz, Kristin Chenoweth isn't even 4'11", and other greats such as Bernadette Peters, Bebe Neuwerth, Stockard Channing and even Paul Newman are nowhere near six feet tall!</p>
<p>OK. I'm going to say this again (not that anyone will listen).</p>
<p>There are examples of 5' 7" guys playing in the NBA, but it's rare. There are examples of large, mesomorphs making it in cycling, distance running, and tennis, but it's rare. There are a few, normal sized women in Olympic-level gymnastics, but they are rare. There are no examples I know of a large man making it as a jockey, but I suppose it could happen if his skills were so great that they overcame the weight issue. I also know of no 6' tall prima ballerinas, but if there are a few, they must also be very rare.</p>
<p>Certain body types tend to do better at certain disciplines. That is a fact. It is possible for a small person to make it on stage, but it is much more difficult than it is for a large person. Size tends to attract the eye. A small person must work much harder than a large one to be seen.</p>
<p>Next, film is not stage. Film actors are not good examples. In film, your eyeball can be 10' tall regardless of your actual size. Film is also a director's medium, not an actor's medium. A director/editor can take a film actor's blank look into the camera, slot it into the right place, and make the actor look brilliant. A director can also have actors stand on boxes, if they must, to look taller. That's tough to do in the theater.</p>
<p>Is it possible to make it in theater as a small person? Of course! It's been done before, and it will be done again. Do the odds stack up more strongly against you if you are small? Of course. I know of more than one director who casts for size, and rarely casts anyone who is not of above average height (except in those roles that are specifically written for small people). </p>
<p>If you are of below-average height and you still want to go for a theater career because you can't be happy doing anything else, then go for it. But you might want to consider on-camera work, instead.</p>
<p>So what about a female who is 5'10 and 140 pounds?</p>
<p>Let's face it, in the theater business, any out-of-the-ordinary body type is going to be an issue when it comes to playing the romantic lead. However, there are many examples of actors/actresses who have made wonderful careers doing only character roles. The key is, accept what you can't change about yourself, and learn to love it.</p>
<p>Sarahsmom:</p>
<p>The best way I know how to answer your question is with an example of how casting decisions are made.</p>
<p>About three years or so ago, I was cast as Henry in "The Lion in Winter." I'm about 6' 2" and the woman cast as Eleanor was about 5'10" or maybe 5' 9", but she was both tall and heavy. I got to be good friends with the director during the rehearsal process, and he told me how he made his decision.</p>
<p>He had three women he thought could do Eleanor, but the 5' 10" woman was the best of the lot. Once he decided he wanted her, he cast around her as best he could. Of the four men being considered for Henry, I was the only one large enough and with a strong enough voice not to be physically overpowered by her on stage. So, I was cast.</p>
<p>Now, if I hadn't been there, the director would have, with great regret, cast another of the women in the role, because he simply didn't have a Henry who could match up with the "best" Eleanor. He told me he probably would have chosen a Henry at that point and then cast around him, choosing the Eleanor that seemed to make the best match.</p>
<p>What I'm trying to demonstrate is that the tall woman was at the mercy of luck. She was the best auditioner, but in order to be cast, she needed to have a male auditioner who was skilled enough to play Henry and was large enough to counterbalance her considerable stage presence and strength. As it turned out, there was only one auditioner who fit that profile (lucky me). If I hadn't shown up, she would not have been cast. (And if she hadn't shown up, maybe I wouldn't have been cast. One never knows, nor is it very important.)</p>
<p>Theoretically, I suppose one could do a series of statistical curves showing the "sweet spot" mode for any number of characteristics in available, professional roles. For women, the modes might be 25 to 35 years old, 5' 4" to 5' 6" tall, mezzo, proportional weight, etc. Ideally, I suppose, one would be within the mode in all those charts, if possible. Of course, age happens (tell me about it!)</p>
<p>It would be interesting to have other curves showing the number of available actors to fill those roles. It could be that the number of roles for various ages/body types/vocal ranges/etc. is proportional to the number of actors trying to fill those roles, but I doubt it. </p>
<p>I've rambled on, but the point I'm trying to make is that the person who does not fit the "mold" HAS to be better than those around him/her, and then has to be lucky in the casting. It's so much easier for directors to mix and match auditioners if they are of normal size.</p>
<p>onstage:</p>
<p>You are correct, of course. There are, and will always be, examples of people outside the normal, physical range who have good careers. What bothers me (and I know I've exchanged messages with some of you about this) is the way so many on this board treat this business. It reminds me of growing up playing basketball with all these kids who were going to make it in the NBA, despite their size and/or skills. </p>
<p>I think I'm right when I say that it's harder to get cast in a B'Way musical than to get a spot on an NBA team. I'm all for people following their dreams. I just wish there was a draft system like the professional sports teams use so that those who just aren't going to make it in that world know at a fairly young age.</p>
<p>Tarhunt: Of course you are right about the odds. They are not good even for the most physically perfect, let alone the non-average. Sure, it's important to share this information with young performers. I certainly try to be honest with my students. But so many of them think "Well, I'm going to be the exception to the rule." And in the end, I think some only "get it" through personal experience.</p>
<p>Further thoughts on that same theme -- of course we all want to spare our kids the pain of not seeing their dreams fulfilled; of being disappointed. But looking back on my own life (which at the moment seems R-E-A-L-L-Y long), I've learned a lot more from the failures than from the successes. You know -- "who understands.....why we all must die a bit before we grow again." So at some point we have to let them go out and try for themselves; cheer them on if they make it, and support them if they don't.</p>
<p>onstage:</p>
<p>The funny thing is, I agree with you about having to learn for yourself. That agreement is tempered by real world experience with extremely bright friends who are now struggling because they thought they could do what they couldn't do. At least, with professional sports, you know all along what your chances are. With performing arts, you never know.</p>