Fubs 4
I didn't get the part, and I'm sort of happy about that. I talked to Pam (the director) about the character today, and the dynamic I tried to bring to him with his father. She said she wanted the kid who got the part to have that dynamic, but he didn't. So naturally, I was all, "WHUH" and she explained that I would have gotten the part if I looked more like the guy cast as the father. I could have left it there. I didn't get the part, and she gave me a fairly acceptable reason as to why.
But here's what bothered me. She went on to say that what the other kid brought was satisfactory because NATHAN DIDN'T NEED TO HAVE MUCH OF A CONNECTION TO HIS FATHER aside from the occasional identical mannerism. That's it. The character didn't matter.
Buh?
Well, fine. Thanks for telling me this before I spent three hours preparing for an audition I obviously wasn't going to pass when I could have been writing my English paper instead.
Oh, and by the way, I WAS BEING SARCASTIC (well, duh).
If you got the reference, great job. We are now friends if we weren't before.
But you know, it's pretty cool that the upper-classmen were saying I deserved the part (they still don't know I didn't get it). They came up to me to say this. That's really neat, isn't it?
Well, this is upsetting. They also said that Pam often makes shallow casting choices because it means less time will be needed to give the audience a show. That astounds me. You would sacrifice the process of a character's creation just so you can have a show ready in time? It's okay if (here comes the purist in me) the actors lie to the audience? Am I alone here? Does anybody else think that a director shouldn't cut corners like this?
So, there it is. My faith in this field has taken a huge hit.
And I've been cast as the understudy for the part. Shit, here we go.
Friends coming back tonight! "Ass"-"suck"-sins opening tonight!
Last note: People may wonder why I antagonize Assassins so much. In all seriousness, it isn't horrible. We have some talented people working on it, and they're often a joy to watch. Some songs are fun and dynamically written. It's just that as a whole, the show is simply not THAT good. Bill's direction is jagged and superficial. He is the most detached director I've ever worked with. The set and stage are painted the color of vomit (Really. You'll see), and its use of space is abrasive. Not even in an artistic sort of way. Of course not. The book itself has clumsy dialogue and half-baked characters. It doesn't have half as much to say as it claims to. If you like the show, fine. Just don't think I'm only complaining because I'm grumpy about having to be involved. I mean, I am grumpy about it, but I've really been trying to like this thing. I can't do it. Even with some of the best talent around, we haven't done much to improve a decent but unremarkable show. I don't think anyone could. Sorry if you're involved and you take this the wrong way. Try not to.
But here's what bothered me. She went on to say that what the other kid brought was satisfactory because NATHAN DIDN'T NEED TO HAVE MUCH OF A CONNECTION TO HIS FATHER aside from the occasional identical mannerism. That's it. The character didn't matter.
Buh?
Well, fine. Thanks for telling me this before I spent three hours preparing for an audition I obviously wasn't going to pass when I could have been writing my English paper instead.
Oh, and by the way, I WAS BEING SARCASTIC (well, duh).
If you got the reference, great job. We are now friends if we weren't before.
But you know, it's pretty cool that the upper-classmen were saying I deserved the part (they still don't know I didn't get it). They came up to me to say this. That's really neat, isn't it?
Well, this is upsetting. They also said that Pam often makes shallow casting choices because it means less time will be needed to give the audience a show. That astounds me. You would sacrifice the process of a character's creation just so you can have a show ready in time? It's okay if (here comes the purist in me) the actors lie to the audience? Am I alone here? Does anybody else think that a director shouldn't cut corners like this?
So, there it is. My faith in this field has taken a huge hit.
And I've been cast as the understudy for the part. Shit, here we go.
Friends coming back tonight! "Ass"-"suck"-sins opening tonight!
Last note: People may wonder why I antagonize Assassins so much. In all seriousness, it isn't horrible. We have some talented people working on it, and they're often a joy to watch. Some songs are fun and dynamically written. It's just that as a whole, the show is simply not THAT good. Bill's direction is jagged and superficial. He is the most detached director I've ever worked with. The set and stage are painted the color of vomit (Really. You'll see), and its use of space is abrasive. Not even in an artistic sort of way. Of course not. The book itself has clumsy dialogue and half-baked characters. It doesn't have half as much to say as it claims to. If you like the show, fine. Just don't think I'm only complaining because I'm grumpy about having to be involved. I mean, I am grumpy about it, but I've really been trying to like this thing. I can't do it. Even with some of the best talent around, we haven't done much to improve a decent but unremarkable show. I don't think anyone could. Sorry if you're involved and you take this the wrong way. Try not to.