It has been pointed out to me that a recent anonymous comment in response to my “Semi-relevance” post is such a thinly disguised reference to a specific audition that it essentially ‘disses a specific director and calls into question the casting of a specific actor under the guise of anonymity. As such, I have two responses to the comment.
--> If you are going to go after someone specifically, I think you should have the guts to say who you are. I don’t know which director you are accusing of being disingenuous, Anon, but I’m sure someone does. To throw a potshot like this without standing behind it is cowardly. I continue to allow anonymous posting on this blog but it’s comments like these that make me reconsider that policy.
--> In your comment you say, “There was a woman from out of town who got up to read for one of the leads. She was without a doubt the person that captured the role.” “Without a doubt?” As I’m sure you are aware, Anon, a role is not like a high score in a video game or a prisoner of war. It cannot be “captured” in any objective sense. What a director is looking for is completely subjective and based on dozens of factors. What look is he/she going for? How does one actor interact with another? How well do they take direction? Etc. etc. etc.
For a director to make the kind of speech you refer to, Anon, seems like a fairly forthright and proactive thing to do. Just because the resulting choice did not meet with your approval, I don’t think you have any basis for criticizing the sincerity of the director who made the speech. You can certainly question the wisdom of the choice that was made – but that will be borne out with the success or failure of the resulting production, not in the announcement of the cast list.