Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Maybe I'm overthinking this.

But hey, the day I don't overthink an audition, none of you will recognize me!

I'm being picky-choosy about auditions at the moment, between Elisir's slightly cockeyed and spread-out schedule; genuinely wanting to work on the Lizzie project; and a resolve to stick to things that truly sound interesting to do, preferably in the city and with groups that have a modicum of visibility. (Yes, I have become, kicking and screaming, a bit of an off-Loop snob. I now concede that it's necessary for self-preservation and accomplishing anything in one's career, and take back pretty much everything I've ever said about others with that attitude. Feel free to point and laugh.)

Said resolve is a little bit scary, as I've noted before. There's always going to be that little voice saying "Who do you think you are?? If you get all picky, you're just not going to get any work!" However, getting cast in the single show I most wanted in all of 2007 (of those within a bracket or two of my place in the Chicago theatre pecking order), and having it turn out to be pretty much everything I wanted and more, went a long way toward shutting that voice up. I want to keep doing shows like THAT, and settling for less will just make me crankier than not acting at all. (Also as previously stated, you are all deputized to kick me in the head if you catch me wavering on that point.)

With the above in mind, I made an appointment next Saturday to go out for Enchanted April at Circle Theatre. The scheduling is pretty ideal, Circle has a solid reputation, and what I know of the play sounds like something I could really get into, with at least two roles a potential fit. (One of which was originated on Broadway by Molly Ringwald, whom random strangers occasionally tell me I resemble. That would be amusing. Of course, it would also be the first time in my life I played someone my actual age, which in and of itself makes it less likely. Stop babbling, Val.) I downloaded the novel from Gutenberg and started reading it yesterday, and -- as always happens to me with these things -- am starting to get all interested. (Which means it probably won't happen, but as noted above, that assumption is starting to break down a teeny bit. Stop babbling, Val.)

My puzzlement, however, is the thing where they want a "classical" monologue. To me, as a standard thing, that says Shakespeare, Restoration, maybe Ibsen or Shaw but that's pushing it. But in this case... It's 1922. I don't think classical is actually what they mean. My hunch is that they just mean not the typical contemporary piece. (Which, as has been noted previously, is far from my default anyway.) But I'm still getting all wiggy about, if I pick something appropriate to the period and style of the play (which is a contemporary play by standard definitions) that isn't "classical" in the standard sense, I'll disqualify myself somehow.

Silly, I know. I need to just go through my library tonight and do exactly that -- give the right form, screw the label. But the wig will still be there... lurking...

*sigh* I generally think of myself as a levelheaded person who defies the stereotype of the neurotic actor. Too bad that can't be 100% without losing the perfectionism, without which there's not much point...


( 22 comments — Leave a comment )
Jan. 10th, 2008 06:22 pm (UTC)
Do something from Shaw - it qualifies as classical and still contemporary. Of course, having just seen the kick-ass production of Saint Joan here the other night may be influencing me, but really, I think Shaw would be a safe choice.
Jan. 10th, 2008 06:28 pm (UTC)
I was leaning that way anyway, so this helps! :-)

Now I have to see what I actually have on my shelf. Probably Pygmalion and nothing else. I see a library trip crammed into my already full evening of getting stuff together before workshop tomorrow (since workshop itself shoots my weekend)...

Jan. 10th, 2008 07:29 pm (UTC)
Depending on the role you're going for (I don't know the play), Saint Joan has some nice ones, as does Candida, to the best of my recollection.
Jan. 10th, 2008 07:44 pm (UTC)
From what I remember of it (not having read it since college), I'm thinking Candida is probably the best bet.

And the full text is available online. Yay public domain!
Jan. 10th, 2008 09:39 pm (UTC)
I saw Candida at APT last year. Yeah, it definitely has some good monologues.
Jan. 10th, 2008 06:28 pm (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can't be helpful with the puzzlement, except to say "go with your instincts." But I can totally wish you to break a leg!!!! you're going to knock 'em dead!
Jan. 10th, 2008 06:29 pm (UTC)
Thanks, hon! It would be WICKED COOL. Of course, I think that about pretty much any project once I start investigating it. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing...
Jan. 10th, 2008 08:30 pm (UTC)
I second the Shaw vote. And stop babbling! ;)
Jan. 10th, 2008 10:14 pm (UTC)
But I'm so good at it! %-}
Jan. 10th, 2008 08:46 pm (UTC)
Circle Theatre is my neck of the woods. :)
Jan. 10th, 2008 10:09 pm (UTC)
Then you would have no excuse! ;-D
Jan. 10th, 2008 09:03 pm (UTC)
Good book! And I liked the movie, too. Miranda Richardson as Rose in that one. I'm assuming you're going for Rose or ... shoot, can not remember the dizzy one's first name. I want to say Emily but I know that's not right.

I'd guess Shaw or Ibsen too, fwiw. Don't make yourself too crazed.
Jan. 10th, 2008 10:11 pm (UTC)
Rose is the one jumping out at me right off the bat. The names have changed slightly in the play (the film and the play being independently based on the novel, as I understand it). The "dizzy one" is Lotty Wilton; she's only Mrs. Wilkins as far as I've gotten in the novel thus far.
Jan. 10th, 2008 10:28 pm (UTC)
Lotty! yes. I liked both she and Rose, although I liked the movie version of Lady Catherine better than the book version.

*cheers on your discretionary strategic choosing of roles, instead of the jumping-on-everything*
Jan. 10th, 2008 09:18 pm (UTC)
Don't know the play at all, but I'd say you should be fine with almost anything written between 1890 and 1935. I suspect they're using "classical" to mean "language," i.e. words that you have to think about in order to make them work. :-)
Jan. 10th, 2008 10:12 pm (UTC)
*nods* That's pretty much what I'm thinking too.
Jan. 10th, 2008 10:07 pm (UTC)
A third vote here for Shaw -- or Oscard Wilde, who has wicked great language.
Jan. 10th, 2008 10:13 pm (UTC)
*nods* The little bit of a sense I have of this play, I'm thinking Shaw is the better fit. I do love Wilde, tho.
Jan. 11th, 2008 02:18 am (UTC)
"Classical" to me means Greco/Roman. ~g~ (I'm saying that because the disconnect made me smile, NOT because I think that's what they mean.)

Totally by coincidence, I had a phone conversation with my best friend from undergrad just this weekend about the movie version of Enchanted April, which is still not out on DVD, goodness knows why, and which we saw together in the auditorium of the student union building for a dollar.
Jan. 11th, 2008 10:22 am (UTC)
"Classical" to me means Greco/Roman.

Also a valid choice under the usual theatre definition. :-)

the movie version of Enchanted April, which is still not out on DVD, goodness knows why

Isn't that annoying? I discovered that when I went to try to put it on my NetFlix queue. Very strange.
Jan. 11th, 2008 03:03 pm (UTC)
I concur. Shaw.

Babble as much as you like. It's stress relief.

Break a leg!
Jan. 12th, 2008 10:40 am (UTC)
Babble as much as you like. It's stress relief.

You know me so well. :-D

( 22 comments — Leave a comment )


Valerie - Postmodern Pollyanna
WiliQueen's Woods

Latest Month

November 2016


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars