Theatre Doesn't Need Type.

 

In my opinion, the concept of an acting "type" is restrictive at best and insidious at worst. I get that it's just the industry we live in, we have to play the system until we change the system, blah, blah, blah. But unless a script's plot or text specifically calls for someone to look a certain way in order for things to make sense, I think it's unnecessary to say someone is a better "fit" for a role based on things like their height, race, size, hair color...you know, factors that have nothing to do with acting ability. Especially when you factor in the elitism that is so pervasive in our industry--people who have an easier time paying for expensive training/programs/headshots/reels and have the time & freedom to spare also tend to look a certain way. And of course that's because of the intersections between racism, classism, ableism, sexism, homophobia/transphobia, colorism, etc.--all of which are not only served but bolstered by the concept of "type". 

I remember in one acting class, we spent an entire day picking apart different headshots and resumes to determine which were "good" and which were "bad". The point was to teach us that what casting prefers changes with the times (color v. black and white, type of paper, etc) and that your headshot(s) should communicate the "type" you're going for, but what I want to focus on is what that experience didn't teach. There was no discussion about what to do if you can't afford new headshots every few years, or how to proceed if your experience with the photographer is negative. There was no discussion (or even acknowledgement) about how to react to an audition where one might face an offensive comment, or what an actor in a wheelchair should do if the audition space turns out to be non-accessible. Perhaps worse, we then went around and had the class determine for each student what their "type" would be based on how they looked. Based on my physical privilege (I'm white, average height, able-bodied, thin, blonde and blue-eyed), I was given "girl next door." And my female classmates who didn't fit that stereotype? Some of them were and are undoubtedly more talented actors than I am, and could easily and beautifully pull off the "girl next door" type just as well or better than I ever could. But, because of factors like their body type or height or race, they were given other terms along the lines of "best friend" or "femme fatale." (Forgive me for not remembering the exact terms). 

I'm just saying, if we could dedicate a whole class period to resumes/headshots, we could probably afford an acknowledgement that the audition process is going to look different for some of us than others. If you're going to send us out into the world that you claim is so competitive and tough and cutthroat, perhaps addressing the ways in which that reality differs for certain actors would be beneficial. We could also call it wrong, because it is. We could also assure actors that even if the industry does adhere to superficial standards, that doesn't affect their acting ability. 

I'll never forget when auditions were coming up, and I found my friend crying in a classroom because a teacher had asked her to her face "do you really think you could be [lead role]?" I wasn't there for the conversation, but from the way the friend recounted the story, it was clear that she believed the reason the professor had said it was because she was shorter and bigger than some of the other girls auditioning for the same part. Whether the teacher meant that specifically, I don't know. Maybe she actually meant that the friend's "type" didn't match the conventional physicality for the role...but that doesn't make it any better, does it? Even if that teacher didn't think she was the right choice, wrecking her confidence before the audition (which my friend was REQUIRED to do based on program guidelines) was mean-spirited. What's more, the fact that my friend even assumed her height/weight was what the teacher was referring to shows that the program was perpetuating those conventions in a destructive manner, whether they meant to or not. So what of certain limitations may exist in parts of the professional acting world? This was an educational environment. Isn't the point of these environments to offer a space where any and all students have opportunities to grow and learn? Maybe I'm wrong, but to have a person pay thousands of dollars to make her the best actor she can be while simultaneously telling her it doesn't matter because she won't ever get this role or that role strictly because of how she looks is gross. 

This next grievance touches on a very nuanced topic. I hope I can communicate my thoughts appropriately, but in case I don't, feel free to comment. 

It's important as an actor to get out of your comfort zone and challenge yourself. I agree that there is always room to grow as an actor, and being uncomfortable is often part of that. But there's still a line somewhere, isn't there? Actors are vessels for a story, but they don't lose their humanity while portraying a character in that story. In fact, acting may be the time I am at my most human. 

In my opinion, the pressure to adhere to "type" in order to succeed professionally also perpetuates dangerous ideas about the actor's body and the lack of boundaries surrounding it. While there might be an artistic argument in favor of asking an actor to lose or gain a significant amount of weight, take up smoking or drinking, chemically straighten their naturally curly hair, or perform a rape scene onstage, there is also an artistic argument against it. People always say "they're an actor, it's not real, if they can't do it someone else will"--but are they doing so-and-so because they want to, or because they feel pressured to want to? I know I've done things for theatre that contributed to emotional and physical harm, and the general attitude in my experience was that suffering for art is not only worth it, it's the mark of a strong artist. If you react to harm, you're just weak. You're not fit for the industry. But if someone feels like they have to do something, is that really consent? And if they feel pressured to accept outside damage their bodies or their mental/emotional health, what does that say about our industry?

Combining this with the above discussion: what about actors who feel pressured to remove their hijabs to heighten their chances of getting cast? Whose choices for a role are either the harpish wife with two scenes and one monologue, or the sex worker with the best song in the show and a "controversial" finale where she gets murdered? Who have to buy their own foundation and do their own hair because hair & makeup doesn't have anything close to their shade and "don't know" how to work with their texture? What about actors who ignore their chronic pain because they don't want to get fired from a production for being "high maintenance"? Who have eating disorders because they know twenty "thin roles" pay better than one "fat role"? Who step into an audition, only to be the only person of color in the room again? Who watch time and time again as cisgender men make money and win Tonys for throwing on a dress and asking the audience to laugh, but constantly field invasive questions in about their own experience as a transwoman? Who have anxiety and depression from fighting to survive the unfairness of it all, but are told the remedy is to just work harder than everybody else? Actors take on more pain and damage for success (whether that means accolades, clout, work, money), and then are lied to that any resentment should be turned inward. "Personal responsibility! It was your choice! If you don't like it, don't be an actor!" 

Well, I believe everyone in the theatre industry is deserving of compassion. 

I think this is the main problem I have with the idea of "type". When assigning type, we are not placing actors in linear boxes that are of equal shape and size. Instead, we are arranging them into tiers, ones that place people who are already marginalized in every other area of life below the privileged once again.  Based on what? Not acting skill or talent or whatever you want to call it. But no one is safe, not even those on the top tier--the pressure to do anything, suffer anything, sacrifice anything causes physical and mental damage across the board. If you can't take it, either get out or pretend you can. The industry then turns around and say, "The arts are different, the arts expose our humanity." 

Perhaps the way the arts function now exposes our lack of humanity, as well.