New show auditions

well, the audition information has been posted on-line. Auditions will be January 9th and 10th. Because of the nature of the show, I can cast multiple people in the show or very few people. That makes it nice, but also challenging. This show also lends itself to slapstick and improv so the auditions need to be more than cold readings.

Cold readings are auditions where the actors come in and read from the script only.

So this next week I'll be figuring out some improv games to use as well as marking a few readings.

Auditions are terrible for actors because they always wonder why they didn't get the part or if they do get the part they try to second guess the director as to why they were chosen for the role. We all know that two people can be equally talented, trained, experienced but what it really comes down to is does the person look the part. People can be too old, too fat, too short etc. They will not be cast.

Auditions are terrible for directors too. You hope that you've cast the best person in the part. You worry that what you saw during auditions isn't a true picture of what they can do. Maybe that was as good as they are. Maybe you got them confused with someone else and you thought they were the person you really liked. Thank God for digital cameras - I can see exactly who is who when I get done. In the past I used to write notes to help me remember. Casting a non-equity show - especially a community show, where you're a new director and don't know who's a diva, who's husband is sleeping with someone else in your cast, who's auditioning only to have a showmance makes casting a minefield. I worked on a show once where one of the leading actors was dating the ex-wife of another lead while chasing another woman in the cast. The ex-husband told the ex-wife - fireworks. I worked another show where one of the women had dated 3 of the men in the cast - tense.

Ahhh...auditions - love them, hate them. They are a rite of passage in theatre.

Book Review Sonora Sundown by Janet Dailey

These books were much more enjoyable when I was younger. This book's contrived plot line is highly unbelievable. I guess when I was 16, wearing rose colored glasses, a 20-year-old woman with a 34-year-old man was romantic. Now, I think it's slightly perverted.
20-year-old Brandy, gets lost in the desert and stumbles into the camp of a 34-year-old possible cattle rustler, who turns out to be a famous actor.
I have to remember these books were written in the late 70s. Strong, domineering men were the romantic ideal. But today I wonder, what would a 34-year-old man see in a 20-year-old naive, virgin. More so, what would she see in him? There are 12 years between myself and my husband. We were 44 and 56 when we were married. Our children were grown. He had grandchildren and I find that our ages are somewhat of a block. He grew up on Leave to Beaver and I was a Sesame Street kid.
The other thing that I didn't really like was the abrupt ending. They were not really seeing eye to eye, but she loves him - for no other reason than he saved her. He is annoyed with her jealousy, but he walks in at the end and tells her they are getting married in August. He kisses her and the book ends. Really? What about her parents? What about the wedding plans.
A side note, these books probably should be written in the order they were written because LaRaine who was a minor character in Dangerous Masquerade showed up in these book. If you didn't know the back story on LaRaine some of the comments wouldn't make sense.