Casting School Plays

[luvsJack]

DD's school is doing a dinner theater production this year for the first year.

One teacher is in charge--not sure who else and she is doing a great job apparently. Show Choir is hosting the "dinner" part of the production as a fund raiser so our members are not in the production, which was the point. The teacher wanted to give kids who are not otherwise involved in things to have a chance.

From what I understand, the parts were given on talent BUT, there were three students chosen for each major role. The show will be on three nights and each actor will do one show. She felt this gave the biggest chance for more students to be involved and made it easier on the parents too. Its for grades 4-8.

I don't see a thing in the world wrong for placing more than one student in a major role. Surely, there are two equally talented kids that can be Annie.

The teacher's thought process here, is that it will encourage the younger kids to get involved in things in jr. high and it will get some of the jr. high kids to feel more involved now and give them the confidence to get into the drama dept. in high school. She is also using students for lighting, sets, etc.

Sometimes the purposes for giving more than "the best" a trophy is more than just awarding everyone, sometimes its about encouragement. At these ages, encouragement to put themselves out there and get involved is the most important lesson to a kid.


BTW, even in show choir where we compete, the lead singing parts are not always just given to the best singer at the middle school level. A lot of directors try to spread it around to encourage all of the members to try and to give them experience for the next level.

 

[crashbb]

As much I hate it as an actor, sometimes as a director you need to precast or at least have someone who you know you can play the role especially on harder roles. Nothing is worse than trying to casting a entire show only to realize that you have no one to play a certain role. you either have to re-audition or having to recast a bunch of people so you dont have someone who cant act/sing/dance in a lead role...

There is a difference though between pre-casting where you know that Sally is going to get the role no matter who you see at auditions and making sure that you have some (Sally) who you know would be able to fill the role if you don't see someone better at the auditions.

If you are doing the first, then you should just not audition for the role. Doing the latter is totally understandable (and, in my experience, often done).

 

[sam_gordon]

I don't see a thing in the world wrong for placing more than one student in a major role. Surely, there are two equally talented kids that can be Annie.

While that's possible, it's no guarantee. I have no problem with "splitting the role", provided those chosen for the role can handle it.

The teacher's thought process here, is that it will encourage the younger kids to get involved in things in jr. high and it will get some of the jr. high kids to feel more involved now and give them the confidence to get into the drama dept. in high school. She is also using students for lighting, sets, etc.

I have no problem with kids trying out different things in jr. high. However, does that mean some child who has had no theater training (and it shows) should get a lead role?

Sometimes the purposes for giving more than "the best" a trophy is more than just awarding everyone, sometimes its about encouragement. At these ages, encouragement to put themselves out there and get involved is the most important lesson to a kid.

I agree with younger elementary (1-3) age, disagree with middle school (6-8), and feel those in between can be handled either way.

Pick two kids and some event (can be sports, theater, band, whatever). Kid A busts their behind, is there early for practice, stays late, asks the coach/director for extra help, etc. Kid B shows up for practice/rehearsal but isn't ready, starts looking at the clock an hour before things are supposed to stop, and in general just "goes through the motions". At the end of the season/show, both get the same ribbon. Kid B learns they can skate by and get the same "reward" as someone who tries hard. Kid A learns no matter how hard they try, they get the same reward as someone who doesn't. And this helps either kid how?

BTW, even in show choir where we compete, the lead singing parts are not always just given to the best singer at the middle school level. A lot of directors try to spread it around to encourage all of the members to try and to give them experience for the next level.

I'm guessing even the folks they "spread it around to" can handle the role, in which case that's fine (IMO).

 

[Andtototoo]

whoever is best for the role gets it. Period.

Except quite often that's not what happens in school drama programs. The kid getting the role is often not the best for it, but gets it for political reasons or because their parents are friends with the teacher, etc.


I think the big roles should rotate. (Assuming of course that the kid meets the requirements for the role -- shows up on time, works hard, etc.)

My answer is based upon my experience with school drama programs. I repeatedly saw teachers/coaches give the lead roles to kids they said were the best, but who were only best at sucking up or being able to parley their parents' friendship with the teacher into good roles.

So year after year, some truly dreadful performers got the lead roles under the guise that they were the "best" and therefore deserved it. Meanwhile kids who excelled were put in the back row of the chorus or cut from the show entirely. Total crap and the shows were laughably bad and got worse over time as the good actors and singers stopped participating in school drama and went to an outside program. Then the admin wondered why parental support for the drama program was dying. D'uh.

Therefore, I think the roles should rotate in the hopes that one time a kid who can actually act and/or sing gets a lead role.

 

[luvsJack]

While that's possible, it's no guarantee. I have no problem with "splitting the role", provided those chosen for the role can handle it.
I have no problem with kids trying out different things in jr. high. However, does that mean some child who has had no theater training (and it shows) should get a lead role?
I agree with younger elementary (1-3) age, disagree with middle school (6-8), and feel those in between can be handled either way.

Pick two kids and some event (can be sports, theater, band, whatever). Kid A busts their behind, is there early for practice, stays late, asks the coach/director for extra help, etc. Kid B shows up for practice/rehearsal but isn't ready, starts looking at the clock an hour before things are supposed to stop, and in general just "goes through the motions". At the end of the season/show, both get the same ribbon. Kid B learns they can skate by and get the same "reward" as someone who tries hard. Kid A learns no matter how hard they try, they get the same reward as someone who doesn't. And this helps either kid how?

I'm guessing even the folks they "spread it around to" can handle the role, in which case that's fine (IMO).

Well, having kids in quite a variety of different activities, I can tell you there are those that are very naturally talented and just go through the motions and get the ribbon. But there is another kid that is working his/her tail off doing all the things you described but just won't ever be quite up to the same level as the naturally talented kid. I don't necessarily think EVERY kid should get the reward. I just think that talent isn't the only thing that should be rewarded.

As to theater training, IMHO, a school event should give an opportunity to every child including those that have not had the good fortune of having theater training. That is what our teacher is trying to do. She is trying to bring something to the kids that haven't had those opportunities.

We have a small school, if she can find 3 kids equally able to play one part, I feel certain most larger schools can find two. One may be a bit better than the other but that doesn't mean the second child can't handle the role.

I am not sure why you don't think middle school kids need encouragement. These are the kids that need it the MOST. This is the age when it becomes increasingly harder to get them to try new things, the age they start feeling bad about themselves and what they can or cannot do.

And as far as all show choir soloist being able to handle the job, well some have better voices than others. I couldn't tell you why all soloist are picked but for some the only reason that can be assumed is to give them some experience, if you know what I mean.

 

[Reddy]

this thread reminds me cheerleader try outs
7th grade - I made the team
never did again
they changed the rules so the teachers had 2/3 of the vote instead of the judges having it all

I really think outside judges/casting personal should have to come in where they don't know who is BFF or rich & see who really gets the parts

 

[BrerMom]

Pick two kids and some event (can be sports, theater, band, whatever). Kid A busts their behind, is there early for practice, stays late, asks the coach/director for extra help, etc. Kid B shows up for practice/rehearsal but isn't ready, starts looking at the clock an hour before things are supposed to stop, and in general just "goes through the motions". At the end of the season/show, both get the same ribbon. Kid B learns they can skate by and get the same "reward" as someone who tries hard. Kid A learns no matter how hard they try, they get the same reward as someone who doesn't. And this helps either kid how?

 

[goofy4tink]

Except quite often that's not what happens in school drama programs. The kid getting the role is often not the best for it, but gets it for political reasons or because their parents are friends with the teacher, etc.


I think the big roles should rotate. (Assuming of course that the kid meets the requirements for the role -- shows up on time, works hard, etc.)

My answer is based upon my experience with school drama programs. I repeatedly saw teachers/coaches give the lead roles to kids they said were the best, but who were only best at sucking up or being able to parley their parents' friendship with the teacher into good roles.

So year after year, some truly dreadful performers got the lead roles under the guise that they were the "best" and therefore deserved it. Meanwhile kids who excelled were put in the back row of the chorus or cut from the show entirely. Total crap and the shows were laughably bad and got worse over time as the good actors and singers stopped participating in school drama and went to an outside program. Then the admin wondered why parental support for the drama program was dying. D'uh.

Therefore, I think the roles should rotate in the hopes that one time a kid who can actually act and/or sing gets a lead role.

I agree...sort of. Here's my perspective after more than 45 years in community theater and the past 4 years of high school theater with my senior dd. The best person does not always get the part...they should, but they don't. In community theater, sometimes roles are precast. As long as you know that going in, fine. No issue. But to have 20 people audition for a role that has been precast is a waste of time and talent. Why take up a casting boards time, as well as auditionees time, allowing people to audition for roles they just can't get? I'm on the casting board for our theater groups year this year and next year...a dubious distinction at best. If we get person A, someone we have never seen, and their audition is an 8 out of 10, and we get person B, a club member who has been around, and their audition is a 7 out of 10, then more than likely we will give the role to person B.
Same with our children's theater group...one of 'our' kids comes along but doesn't do quite as good a job, well...we will probably give the role to them rather than to a child we have never seen. As long as the auditions are pretty close.

But high school theater??? Oh man. My poor dd is 5'11'', with beautiful red hair. She is a decent actress, has a wonderful voice and is an above average dancer...has incredible stage presence. BUT...due to her height, she seldom gets lead roles, and that is something she is going to have to learn to live with. She wanted a particular role in the musical this year...she wasn't even allowed to audition for it...simply because of her height. And that's wrong. She should have been given the chance to prove herself. She ended up with a smaller part, while her best friend got the role dd wanted, even though her friend didn't want the role and isn't doing the best possible job with it. And the lead??? Oh, that went to a young lady who is good friends with the musical director/choral director in the school. And she's not right for the part...but that's life in the theater.

There shouldn't be all this 'drama' in elementary school. I have a hard time believing that these little kids are learning the dialogue and dances, as well as the songs. Yes, some kids can do it, but they are few and far between. Most kids in elementary school do well to remember their phone numbers!!! So, if the director feels that their are enough talented kids to put on a big musical, then fine. Go with auditions. Then place kids according to ability. But, do not give out roles to kids that they can't handle...it's unfair to the rest of the group and it's unfair to that child. They are going to think they are 'all that and a bag of chips' as they go through life. And they are in for a big letdown when they get out of their nice little town and into the big mean world. I've seen it so many times. Kids that were led to believe they were the next Barrymore...but when they got to college found that they are really the 3rd soprano from the left in the ensemble!! Not denigrating that particular position..it's my personal favorite place to be on stage!!! It's just that not everyone should be getting lead roles, or even supporting roles.
I have tried to teach my dd this. I keep telling her that her acting skills are not as good as they could be, and that she needs to learn to read music. She just never took the time or effort to learn to read music. So, when she auditioned to get to districts for chorus, she got hugely high scores for vocal quality, pitch, etc., but when it came to sight reading...well, out of a possible 5, she got a 1..on all counts. They gave her 1's for showing up!!! She missed making districts by 5 pts.....if she had done what needed to be done for sight reading, she would have gone to districts and probably states. But, she's lazy.

Not everyone deserves to get roles. That's life. If you're going to have a drama program, at least be fair about who gets what roles.

 

[sam_gordon]

Well, having kids in quite a variety of different activities, I can tell you there are those that are very naturally talented and just go through the motions and get the ribbon. But there is another kid that is working his/her tail off doing all the things you described but just won't ever be quite up to the same level as the naturally talented kid. I don't necessarily think EVERY kid should get the reward. I just think that talent isn't the only thing that should be rewarded.

I agree with everything above. There are ways to "reward" those who deserve it without rewarding everyone.

As to theater training, IMHO, a school event should give an opportunity to every child including those that have not had the good fortune of having theater training. That is what our teacher is trying to do. She is trying to bring something to the kids that haven't had those opportunities.

Depends on your definition of "opportunity". Allowing everyone to tryout is giving them an "opportunity". But as you mentioned above, there are some kids who just don't "qualify". Should they get the lead roles/starting positions just to be "fair"? I'm sorry, I feel when you get to middle school, it's time to start educating kids about life, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

I am not sure why you don't think middle school kids need encouragement. These are the kids that need it the MOST. This is the age when it becomes increasingly harder to get them to try new things, the age they start feeling bad about themselves and what they can or cannot do.

I never said ANY kid doesn't need encouragement. But is handing out a "participant" ribbon REALLY "encouragement"?

And as far as all show choir soloist being able to handle the job, well some have better voices than others. I couldn't tell you why all soloist are picked but for some the only reason that can be assumed is to give them some experience, if you know what I mean.

And I've said before, I have no problem with role "sharing" provided both members can handle the role. It's the "sharing" simply to be "fair", regardless of talent, that I have a problem with.

 

[luvsJack]

I agree with everything above. There are ways to "reward" those who deserve it without rewarding everyone.
Depends on your definition of "opportunity". Allowing everyone to tryout is giving them an "opportunity". But as you mentioned above, there are some kids who just don't "qualify". Should they get the lead roles/starting positions just to be "fair"? I'm sorry, I feel when you get to middle school, it's time to start educating kids about life, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

I never said ANY kid doesn't need encouragement. But is handing out a "participant" ribbon REALLY "encouragement"?

And I've said before, I have no problem with role "sharing" provided both members can handle the role. It's the "sharing" simply to be "fair", regardless of talent, that I have a problem with.

I don't think everyone deserves a trophy, as in every kid in a soccer league gets a trophy just for being on the field. I do think think that kids should be rewarded for hard work. The difference being in an "award" and a "reward".

The teacher at our school wanted to do a play and wanted to involve as many kids as possible and to make sure it wasn't just the "select few" who have had the opportunity to have acting or music lessons, be in community theater groups, etc. Are some of the kids in lead roles those that have had those opportunities? I am sure there are. But she didn't just find "the best" she found the top three for each role.

She wasn't going just for talent. She wanted kids who were willing to work hard, practice, and give of their time to make this play a success. The kids that were willing to do those things were "rewarded" with a role in the play or another job in the production of the play that fit for them.

In Show Choir, most of the kids have to audition if they want a solo. Not all want to audition. All that audition do not have the same level of talent. If one kid is more talented than all the others, should that kid get every solo? No. So one kid may sing a solo in one song and blow everyone away with his/her talented voice, the next soloist may make you cringe a little when they hit the wrong note. In some show choirs, every kid that auditions for a solo may get one simply based on the number of solos in the show and the number of kids that audition.

Sometimes, its about trying to be fair, but sometimes these things are about letting more than one or two kids have the experience. That is what most our play director/teacher is trying to make it about--the experience.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

You cast based on talent, period. Parents who can't handle that shouldn't bother.

In fact, it should probably be a 5 - 8 drama club. Let the little kids do a class play.

Also I would consider asking your school district to hire an in-house drama director (ie, one of the existing teachers) and skip the $120 fee. That's ridiculous.

 

[ccgirl]

Our school's spring musical cast list was just announced and we're having the same drama as we did last year. This is a K-8 school. Kids in 3rd-8th are eligible to participate. Parents pay a $120 enrollment fee, and all rehearsals are held after school. The school hires an outside childrens' arts group. The staff includes a professional choreographer, music director and show director. The sets and costumes are provided by the arts group. They rent a high school theater complete with microphones, lighting, etc. and they charge $10 admission for the shows. It's definitely done on a much larger scale than a cute little school play performed on the cafeteria stage. The kids who participate get a real theater experience.

Now on to the drama and the questions. Some parents feel that the lead roles should be rotated from year-to-year. If their child was in the chorus last year, they expect them to have a lead role this year. They feel that kids who are doing the play for the first time need "pay their dues in the chorus" before getting a lead role. They also feel that every lead role should be double-cast (two actors assigned to the same role, each performing in two of the four shows), regardless of skills or "type." For example, they're doing Annie this year. The lead female roles were all double-cast because so many girls auditioned. The lead male roles were single cast because they just didn't have enough boys to fill them twice. One parent wanted her daughter to have a chance to play Rooster (usually a tall man with a deep voice). The directors decided they had one boy who could pull off Rooster, so he got it for all four shows. Daddy Warbucks is also doing all four shows. They will cast girls in boys roles if they have to, but only if there aren't any boys who fit the roles.

So, should the directors "rotate" the large roles among all of the kids, or should they cast the kids who have the skills for each role (even if the same kids get leads every year)? Should they double-cast every role, regardless of whether the kids fit the roles? Or, should they only double-cast if they have two kids who can do a credible job with the role? This is my son's 4th show, and I've learned to have him meet me at the car after rehearsal rather than standing around and waiting with the other parents. I don't want to get involved in those kinds of discussions. Too much drama!

Haven't read all the replies but I'm not a fan at all of the everyone gets to participate/everyone gets a trophy mentality. If it was a play that the kids put on in drama class then everyone should get some sort of part. I wholeheartedly believe in auditions. Just like job interviews. You are not always going to get every part. You are not always going to be the best. Parents really need to teach kids how to deal with disappointment.

I do not feel the directors should rotate anything. I think there should be a lead and an understudy. Just my two cents.

 

[SaraJayne]

I can't get past the fact that you have to pay $120 in a public elementary school to be in a play.

And you can't be in the play unless you pay the fee? Ridiculous.

MagicMom, I completely agree with everything you've said.

 

[marcyinPA]

My boys are both theatre rookies this year- but both have been singing in our church choir for years. My DS16 has an incredible voice, but no acting experience. DS12 hasn't had a voice change yet, but still has a really sweet voice and sings on pitch. They both just wanted to be a part of the show- they didn't try out for leads. In fact, my DS12 didn't even want a lead! He just wanted to be in the chorus!

They were both cast in principal character roles in their respective musicals. Oh, the gasping and talking occurred for sure. My DS12 is thick skinned and couldn't care less. My DS16 took a lot of what he heard to heart, and actually started to believe he didn't deserve his part!

I reminded them both that the directors know what they are doing. They have years of experience, and they saw something in each of them that made them cast them in those roles. They should never listen to what other people say- mostly out of jealousy. And finally- go out there and kick butt and prove them all wrong! (in case you were wondering, DS12 was cast as Chip in Beauty & the Beast, and DS16 was cast as Thenardier in Les Mis)

We had a situation last year in the high school theatre- the director auditioned and casted for Singing in the Rain. My DS16 had auditioned and made the company. Some parent got their panties in a wad because their obviously most talented daughter didn't get a lead role. The director couldn't take the heat and QUIT. Well- the school scrambled for a new director, and the choral director took the job. She changed the show to How to Succeed.... and re-auditioned. My DS16, along with several other kids, didn't get cast AT ALL. It was heartbreaking. All because of some stupid parent who felt that they could call the shots.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

I can't get past the fact that you have to pay $120 in a public elementary school to be in a play.

Our neice's elementary school is the same way. The play is run by an outside group, she has to sell ad space in the program, sell hoagies, pay a registration fee (not that much though) and must buy a sweatshirt.

It reminds me of my child's dance school, before they quit.

This isn't the school district, it's a local community group that uses the school. Still, it's lame.

 

[SaraJayne]

Our neice's elementary school is the same way. They plan is run by an outside group, she has to sell ad space in the program, sell hoagies, pay a registration fee (not that much though) and must buy a sweatshirt.

It reminds me of my child's dance school, before they quit.

This isn't the school district, it's a local community group that uses the school. Still, it's lame.

I'm so glad our district is nothing like that. You want a part in the school play? You've got one, for free.

You want a lead part? You try out for it and if you don't make it in that role, you're put somewhere else.

 

[Coconut36]

I'm so glad our district is nothing like that. You want a part in the school play? You've got one, for free.

You want a lead part? You try out for it and if you don't make it in that role, you're put somewhere else.

Unfortunately the reality of some of the budget cuts/lack of funding to schools has resulted in this being a necessity. I know for sports schools have considered fees (and some might have implemented them). There is cost involved in having these events and if the school doesn't have the money they can have nothing or have it with a fee.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Unfortunately the reality of some of the budget cuts/lack of funding to schools has resulted in this being a necessity.

I disagree. I know from experience that you don't need thousands of dollars to put on a middle school play. You only need that much if you want to do some Broadway level musical, but why is that necessary?

 

[SaraJayne]

Unfortunately the reality of some of the budget cuts/lack of funding to schools has resulted in this being a necessity. I know for sports schools have considered fees (and some might have implemented them). There is cost involved in having these events and if the school doesn't have the money they can have nothing or have it with a fee.

I live in Wisconsin. I'm well aware of what budget cuts/lack of funding do to schools.

A $120 fee for an elementary play is ridiculous.

 

[luvsJack]

I disagree. I know from experience that you don't need thousands of dollars to put on a middle school play. You only need that much if you want to do some Broadway level musical, but why is that necessary?

I agree. The kids participating in our dinner theater are paying nothing.