Casting School Plays

[Luv Bunnies]

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!

 

[sam_gordon]

My opinion... by the time you get to ~5th grade, the better kids should get the roles they deserve based on their skill set. This applies to athletics too. I doubt 3rd & 4th graders are really up for lead roles, so this basically applies for everyone.

As far as "double casting", I have no problem with it in this situation providing the following is met:
1) There are enough shows (minimum 4) to reasonably split between actors. The "better" actor gets the night performances and the "understudy" gets the matinee.
2) There is enough talent to double cast. It doesn't matter if 8 girls try out for Annie... if only one has the voice and skill for the part, she gets it for every show.

If parents don't like this, they are free to find another theater (perhaps a "community" theater?) where their snowflake can thrive.

The only athletics I see this not working for are "recreational"... everyone should get an equal amount of playing time.

 

[Luv Bunnies]

My opinion... by the time you get to ~5th grade, the better kids should get the roles they deserve based on their skill set. This applies to athletics too. I doubt 3rd & 4th graders are really up for lead roles, so this basically applies for everyone.

As far as "double casting", I have no problem with it in this situation providing the following is met:
1) There are enough shows (minimum 4) to reasonably split between actors. The "better" actor gets the night performances and the "understudy" gets the matinee.
2) There is enough talent to double cast. It doesn't matter if 8 girls try out for Annie... if only one has the voice and skill for the part, she gets it for every show. If parents don't like this, they are free to find another theater (perhaps a "community" theater?) where their snowflake can thrive.

The only athletics I see this not working for are "recreational"... everyone should get an equal amount of playing time.

I totally agree. I'd rather see a good, quality show. Last year, my son was double-cast as Lumiere in Beauty and the Beast. A girl really wanted the role, and her parents pulled her from the show when she didn't get it. This girl and her parents actually stared us down at a restaurant one night and whispered to each other. Really? It's not like we bribed the directors. That's just where the chips fell. Don't take out a contract on us because our son gets to be a candlestick!

 

[englishteacha]

Oh, the drama of drama. I run our middle school drama program, and it's a tough job. I hate casting a show! I have a few kids who are really good, and a few who are OK, and a few who make excellent stage hands. I hear muttering from some of the cast that "So and So" got a lead role "again," but if that person is the only person capable of doing that part, that's where I will put him/her! Last year I did a play that had lots of short scenes with lots of different parts. Everyone got a part the same size, and because of the size of the cast, I didn't have to cut anyone. That's just not possible every year!

I get frustrated with our local community theater because it's become very cliquey. Most shows have the same 4 or 5 people in them. We have an amazing wealth of talent in our community, and I'd love to see different people on stage. But if "Suzy" is auditioning, no one else stands a chance. It's not that Suzy is that much better than anyone else auditioning...she's just part of the clique.

 

[Luv Bunnies]

Oh, the drama of drama. I run our middle school drama program, and it's a tough job. I hate casting a show! I have a few kids who are really good, and a few who are OK, and a few who make excellent stage hands. I hear muttering from some of the cast that "So and So" got a lead role "again," but if that person is the only person capable of doing that part, that's where I will put him/her! Last year I did a play that had lots of short scenes with lots of different parts. Everyone got a part the same size, and because of the size of the cast, I didn't have to cut anyone. That's just not possible every year!

I get frustrated with our local community theater because it's become very cliquey. Most shows have the same 4 or 5 people in them. We have an amazing wealth of talent in our community, and I'd love to see different people on stage. But if "Suzy" is auditioning, no one else stands a chance. It's not that Suzy is that much better than anyone else auditioning...she's just part of the clique.

My co-worker does community theater and says the same thing. She went into an audition and it was clear that the lead roles had already been cast, even though some really good new people came in. Everyone thought one girl was a shoo-in for the lead, but the director had already promised it to the daughter of the theater director. They had even shot the cover for the program with the leads before they even had the auditions. Then they stuck the girl with the really good voice as a silent palace guard, so she wouldn't show up the lead. People were allowed to audition for the leads, even though they had no chance of getting them. If they were going to do that, they could have just put out a list of available roles so people would know what they had a chance of getting.

 

[erincon23]

All this drama is part of why I'm not fond of these big school-produced shows for elementary school kids. My kids are involved in theatre, and at the middle school level, things seem to be less drama-filled, but the elementary level? These kids aren't ready for this kind of pressure, this kind of time commitment, and the parents DEFINITELY aren't ready for it. When DS16 was in 4th and 5th, they did Music Man and Bugsy Malone, and the same kid got the leads in both shows -- and he just wasn't very good in either.

I think they'd be doing a better job getting kids involved if they double-cast all lead roles (as long as there are enough boys and girls to fill them), and not worry so much about the BEST voice getting all the performances. There are other outlets for that. But in my mind, the function of these shows is to give the kids some exposure to performance, some taste of what it's like, and it's too early to be producing stars and slotting kids in chorus. I'm in the camp that thinks if a kid has a lead one year, someone else gets it the next. When I go to a high school show, I expect to see the best actors, but in grade school, I want to see kids having fun, even if the acting and singing isn't terrific.

 

[Magic Mom]

For a school play (even if it isn't just a "cute cafeteria play"), I don't see the issue with letting more kids try the real parts. It's just a school play.

 

[sam_gordon]

Look at the age groups though... 3rd through 8th. Around here, 6th-8th is middle school. I slide 5th graders (10 year olds) into the same category. I don't think a 3rd or 4th grader would beat out a middle schooler for a lead role.

I totally agree from 1st-4th/5th, rotate the roles. No problem there. It's when you include middle schoolers I think "real life" needs to take over (ie: the best person gets the part).

 

[Que_Sarah_Sarah]

When you have only young kids in a show (3rd through 5th ish) I don't mind splitting roles so that everyone has an equal piece (3 narrators throughout the entire show, etc).

Once you get towards middle school, we have to stop giving everyone a trophy. As a theatre educator, I find that is important to expose children to as much of the "reality" of theatre as you can. My high school did a poor job of training us in that respect and many of us struggled after high school to function in non-school productions. EVERY EXTRA CURRICULAR IS ABOUT LEARNING. If that means learning the social skill of not being "first" then so be it.

 

[luvmy3]

All this drama is part of why I'm not fond of these big school-produced shows for elementary school kids. My kids are involved in theatre, and at the middle school level, things seem to be less drama-filled, but the elementary level?

Here the opposite is true, much more drama at the middle school level than there is at the elementary one.

For a school play (even if it isn't just a "cute cafeteria play"), I don't see the issue with letting more kids try the real parts. It's just a school play.

That is like blasphemy here
Our district seems to pride itself in the arts, a little too much for my taste, but its not bad enough where I'm going to move.
I was almost ostracized for suggesting that we have 2 shows a year, one that was a musical and one that focused on more dramatic acting. There are some very talented kids here who don't get showcased because they lack singing ability. (Unless of course you are related the PTA president, or BFFs with their child, etc, etc ).
We've given up on performing arts, but thankfully the HS has a wonderful fine art dept too and my dd is much more interested in that.

 

[Coconut36]

For a school play (even if it isn't just a "cute cafeteria play"), I don't see the issue with letting more kids try the real parts. It's just a school play.

Why? If they are not able to cut it why should they get the role? If they can't sing/dance/act why should they be given a role that they are not qualified for. I don't think anyone thinks they have to be Broadway stars but when you have limited spaces/roles you must have people try out and those that do well get the parts..those that don't get lesser parts or no part. That is the reality of life. We have to qualify and work for what we get. I don't subscribe to the "everyone wins" mentality. Some win, some lose. Some get the part, some don't. Such is life and a valuable lesson even in 5th grade and most certainly by 7th or 8th grade.

 

[Magic Mom]

Why? If they are not able to cut it why should they get the role? If they can't sing/dance/act why should they be given a role that they are not qualified for. I don't think anyone thinks they have to be Broadway stars but when you have limited spaces/roles you must have people try out and those that do well get the parts..those that don't get lesser parts or no part. That is the reality of life. We have to qualify and work for what we get. I don't subscribe to the "everyone wins" mentality. Some win, some lose. Some get the part, some don't. Such is life and a valuable lesson even in 5th grade and most certainly by 7th or 8th grade.

Because having the opportunity to actually act in a roll (and not just play a boulder) can give the kids an insight to whether they want to do more of this type of thing in the future.

I don't see it the same as trying out for a sports team or being (first or second string). YMMV.

 

[Coconut36]

Because having the opportunity to actually act in a roll (and not just play a boulder) can give the kids an insight to whether they want to do more of this type of thing in the future.

I don't see it the same as trying out for a sports team or being (first or second string). YMMV.

I disagree personally and view them exactly the same. You either have the skill or ability or you don't. You either make the cut for a role/the play or the team or you don't. Same thing.

I don't believe we do children any favors by making them think they should "win" everything. They don't. It's set an entire generation up for misery and failure (if you are in any way curious there is a great book on this topic called Generation Me ).

I am reading this as something kids seek out..this is not everyone in class being given a part but rather people choosing this (just like a sports team). They already know if they are interested in being in a play or not. If they were not they wouldn't be trying out. They don't need the lead role to be given to them if they don't have the ability to decide to pursue it or not.

 

[mjkacmom]

For kids community theater here, the younger kids tend to be the chorus, and older kids get the lead roles, and it's based on talent. My kids had leads this year, but when they were younger, they were in the chorus. A lot of the same kids get leads for several years, because they're talented. Some kids just can't act, dance, or sing, and will never get more than supporting roles, at best. This is life. Now, in elementary, for musicales, they rotate roles and solos, no talent required.

 

[Coconut36]

For kids community theater here, the younger kids tend to be the chorus, and older kids get the lead roles, and it's based on talent. My kids had leads this year, but when they were younger, they were in the chorus. A lot of the same kids get leads for several years, because they're talented. Some kids just can't act, dance, or sing, and will never get more than supporting roles, at best. This is life. Now, in elementary, for musicales, they rotate roles and solos, no talent required.

I was in ballet growing up and later in the school that feeds into the professional ballet company in my state. That is exactly how things worked..when you are younger you get the "chorus" type roles..as you advance and build your skills you are given more advance parts. You participated in a manner appropriate for your talent and abilities..you weren't just given a lead role for the sake of "seeing if you like it". You were given a lead role because you had the skill and ability to perform that role.

I would feel differently about rotating the roles if this was something where everyone participated regardless of ability (like each year the entire school put on a play and all kids were in it)..but when a parent is paying $120 fee for the child to participate it is a competitive event not a class play and thus roles/solos should be based on age and ability not rotated.

 

[smitch425]

I have been in Annie twice, so I'll chime in here. I was cast as Molly (the youngest orphan) in our high school's production when I was in the 1st grade. I had already had 3 years of dance classes (started at age 3) and I could sing the best out of the girls my age that tried out. Being in a musical is NOT a "let everyone try it out to see if they like it" type of thing. It is a LOT of hard work, and if you don't have voice/dance training you could get swallowed up and exhausted pretty quickly. Kids should get the lead roles based on talent. Simple as that.

Now, for a non musical, I could see letting others have a turn, but nonmusicals are not nearly as difficult to produce and direct.

 

[Magic Mom]

For kids community theater here, the younger kids tend to be the chorus, and older kids get the lead roles, and it's based on talent. My kids had leads this year, but when they were younger, they were in the chorus. A lot of the same kids get leads for several years, because they're talented. Some kids just can't act, dance, or sing, and will never get more than supporting roles, at best. This is life. Now, in elementary, for musicales, they rotate roles and solos, no talent required.

For community theater, that sounds right to me.

 

[mjkacmom]

For community theater, that sounds right to me.

Well, it ours sounds similar to the OP - just children, no adults, everyone gets in, you have to live in town. Now, my kids have also performed in "real" community theater - people auditioning who live up to 1/2 hour from the theater, if not further, limited number of roles, and only those who are cast get in (as in, most don't, not usually because of lack of talent, but lack of an appropriate role).

In the first instance, many of the leads have had acting/dance/voice training, and in the later, pretty much all of them (with headshots and resumes).

 

[sam_gordon]

Because having the opportunity to actually act in a roll (and not just play a boulder) can give the kids an insight to whether they want to do more of this type of thing in the future.

I would think continually NOT getting a lead role would give the kids an insight to whether they want to do more... either they didn't get the role because they weren't good enough or they didn't get the role because whoever cast the show was playing "favorites". Guess what? That's going to happen ALL through life, ESPECIALLY in theater. At what age should kids learn this? Remember, we're talking middle schoolers here.

I don't see it the same as trying out for a sports team or being (first or second string). YMMV.

I'm curious what you see the differences are? I'm referring to 'select'/travel/school ball.

 

[Magic Mom]

I'm curious what you see the differences are? I'm referring to 'select'/travel/school ball.

A school play doesn't compete against other school plays and therefore doesn't require the very best participants in order to "win." A school show choir or band does compete, so a select group would be needed. A school play could add showings in order to give more children the chance to participate while a soccer game is played once.

I "get" that I am in the minority in my viewpoint on this topic. That's OK with me.