By Logan Snook
In the world of theater and cinema, casting plays a large part of whether the show or film will make it or break it. Not only are you looking for talent, but someone who embodies the traits needed to accurately portray the role at hand. This includes appearance. The appropriateness of one’s looks to a role could determine whether or not they’re cast, regardless of whether they are the most qualified for the role. This is where typecasting comes into play.
Typecasting occurs when someone is cast in a role based on their looks, gender, race, or other aspects of their appearance. This process is not aided when many aspects of leading female roles revolve around appearance and physical character attributes. Film producer Ross Putman has been in the media lately for his Twitter feed, @femscriptintros, which highlights intros for leading women in film scripts. Such beautifully crafted intros include:
Quite a well-developed series of characters, no? Sexism and typecasting are not only affecting film, but theater, musical theater, opera, and even large musical ensembles such as orchestras and wind ensembles. Many of these ensembles are incorporating the use of blind auditions to prevent gender and race from impeding any hiring decisions, but what happens when you are casting characters in a show? How much should an actress’/actors’ (it goes both ways!) appearance determine what role they are cast in? We are not aided in this problem when many roles available for women are lacking in substance and centered on one appearance – the ingénue, the diva, the power-hungry female, the beauty queen, the ditz – but when does ones talent and inner portrayal of a role become secondary to their likeness of bleak character description? What kind of aspirations are we encouraging when young women see the roles available to them are: “JANE, a 19 year old Bunny girl – honey-blonde farmland beauty queen?”