Unpopular Theatre Opinions

Hi everyone. I'm in a ranting mood these days and I think lack of social interaction has ruined my personality so here goes.

Spiderman: Turn Off the Dark was good. 

To borrow a phrase from Perrie Edwards, "I liked it, I don't care." (Also Jennifer Damiano sounds fantastic on the OBC recording.)

You shouldn't have to put your weight on your acting resume. 

First of all, the number means literally nothing. A hundred different people with the same weight can carry that weight a hundred different ways...which casting departments seem completely aware of, as if you are cast you typically get your measurements taken by the costume department anyway. Secondly, does anyone really care if your leading lady weighs exactly, say, 140 lbs? Will there be an ASM manning a scale at the audition ready to turn away anyone who ate lunch beforehand and so clocks in at 142 lbs? (If the answer is yes, I pray no one shows up to your casting call). 

If there is a concern about the actor needing to be within a certain range because they're being flown around as Peter Pan or Mary Poppins or something, wouldn't it make more sense to just add a range or limit to the casting call instead? That is the only satiation I can think of where weight would be a necessary detail to know for an acting audition, but correct me if I'm wrong. And before someone brings up Hairspray, I refer you to my earlier point: Tracy could very well weigh the same as Amber depending on how each of their bodies carry that number of pounds. Also, I believe we should stop with the fatphobia and make a habit of casting fat girls in all roles (leading and otherwise) regardless of whether the actor "has to be" fat, but that's a rant for a different day. 

Push me off my soapbox if you want, but I believe that forcing actors to disclose their weight on their resumes (which I highly doubt is accurate for most anyway) is a humiliation tactic, triggering for anyone with an eating disorder or body image issues, and a symptom of one of the most harmful aspects of the industry: the obsession with appearance/aesthetic.  

It's time to let "The Music Man", "The Producers", "Thoroughly Modern Millie", and yes, even "South Pacific" go. 

Some productions were considered magical or groundbreaking for the time they were written, and yes, they absolutely carry nostalgia for patrons and are therefore almost guaranteed successes. These shows also have problematic takes on issues or have characters, songs, and/or storylines that are racist, ableist, homophobic, misogynistic, etc. I'm still shocked that The Producers has found what appears to be a loophole for actual blackface onstage (the "loophole" being allegedly "comedy" and "well, the joke is that it IS offensive, so obviously we're not condoning it!!!"). There's probably a million other examples of productions we should let remain in the Golden Age, to be honest, but these were the first that came to mind for me. And while there is something to be said for turning a modern lens onto older works, I have to ask if it is worth restructuring a script riddled with offensive jokes and stereotypes when there are new plays constantly being written that address what it is to be human with fresh eyes and nonviolent language. 

Too many students are being let down by college theatre programs. 

There is a major dearth of support for students interested in tech, meaning they are often forced to take on way more productions than their acting counterparts every semester (and therefore have a harder time balancing classes, work, extracurriculars, health, etc). Additionally, schools often have limited opportunities for technical students to grow and develop their craft(s) or explore other fields within the arts. While this does mean many of these students end up with a specialized set of skills and a robust resume, it often comes at the expense of their creativity & mental health, and sometimes it prevents them from exploring other avenues that interest them because the tech department relies on them to continue filling a certain role. 

From an acting standpoint, I think schools that require auditions for the acting program are doing themselves a disservice. I went to a college that did not require this, and I can't tell you how much more fun it is to have acting classes that were inclusive of other majors/people who had never acted before. Oftentimes they had just as much talent (or sometimes more) as those of us who had declared the theatre major. Maybe it's because they approached the situation from a creative/enjoyment perspective as opposed to a competitive mindset; maybe it was their lack of insecurity because they were doing it for fun. Whatever the case, I found the experience largely beneficial and I believe others would as well if it became the norm. 

Lastly, I want to address what I find to be a major problem theatre arts programs in education: not casting students equally. I understand the tendency to cast the best of the best as much as possible, but I can't tell you how many acting-focused students I have seen graduate (from a wide range of schools) having never been cast. Not only is their confidence shot, but they have been prevented from doing the one thing theatre programs are supposed to do: develop and improve their skills. If you get better at acting by doing it, how are you supposed to improve if you are never given the chance? 

"Well, that's how auditions work," they say. "We're preparing them for the way the industry really is." To that I say, this is an educational situation, not the industry. They paid you tens of thousands of dollars to learn how to be a better actor, and taking their money and then saying 'you're just not good enough sorry' isn't education. Regardless of what it takes, in my opinion there is no reason a student with a passion for acting cannot be cast at least once before they enter the "industry". If educational institutions are sending them out unprepared and inexperienced, the student is not the failure, the educational institution is. 

Is the problem that there aren't enough acting opportunities for every student? Financial issues? Scheduling conflicts? If so, there are solutions: doing shows with large ensembles, allowing more blackbox works, increasing the frequency and size of casts for staged readings or workshops, connecting students who need more experience with improv clubs, the filmmaking department, or public speaking/debate programs; even employing the use of understudies (something I rarely see colleges do and I cannot for the life of me understand why). If there is an issue with their audition skills, maybe an audition workshop or personal mentorship is needed. Also, let's not pretend that there aren't other factors at play here--if you have five male students of varying commitment/interest versus fifty female students with high levels of passion and talent, and every show that semester has four male-presenting roles and two female-presenting roles, we all know who is more likely to end the semester without an opportunity. That's not even touching on the struggles for students who are nonbinary or genderfluid, nonwhite, visibly disabled, or don't have the "look" typically attributed to the characters being cast.

I understand the intent behind running a theatre program as close to a professional theatre institution as possible. But if it is at the detriment to the newest generation of actors, some of whom could grow and flourish immeasurably if the playing field was finally fair, what's the harm in removing obstacles that could prevent that growth? 

(Okay, I better stop here before I get myself into trouble. Wishing you all well and sending love your way <3)