Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2014 March 5

= March 5 =

Casting for live theater plays
Whenever I attend a live theater play, it is often the case that one actor will play several different roles (perhaps two, maybe even three or more). They are usually – but not always – the more minor roles, or even background roles. Or, sometimes, a combination of major/minor roles. Nonetheless, it is usually very obvious; the directors (or producers or whoever) certainly don't make any efforts to try to hide the fact (through the use of make-up, shadows, lighting, disguises, costumes, obstructed views, etc.). My question is: why is this a common theater convention? Is it simply more economical (paying less salaries to fewer actors)? Or is there more to it? Is there some other theatrical/performance/acting reason behind all this? Some labor/union issue? Now, in Shakespeare's day, he only had a limited number of actors at his disposal (whatever actors were in his acting troupe at the time). They did not hire any extra actors, outside of that troupe (if I understand correctly). In fact, knowing this, Shakespeare probably wrote the plays and divvied up the parts with this exact thought in mind. (In other words, when he wrote the play, he would specifically not have any scenes where character A and character B appear together. since he knew the same actor would perform both the A and the B role.) But, that is not the case nowadays. We don't use acting troupes, nor are we limited to a certain number of actors within the labor market. So, what gives? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To clarify the premises of my question: yes, indeed, I am referring to professional theater ... not amateur or college or high school or such.  I saw Shakespeare's The Winter's Tale (yesterday), performed by the highly esteemed Royal Shakespeare Company.  The roles of Mamillius and Perdita were played by the same actress; many, many, many other minor roles (lords, ladies, guests at the sheep shearing festival, etc. etc. etc.) were played by the same actors doubling or tripling up.  I was also informed that it is somewhat common practice that the same actress play both Perdita and Hermione (two major roles, with only one shared scene).     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Shakespeare is in a class by itself. Professional theatre works in ways that are dictated by the amount of people and money that can be brought together.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you make a number of assumptions before your questions so the answers may not satisfy what you already believe and I can't know what level of theatre you are watching and observing this so it may not be how all productions are handled. From my own experience when an actor is playing a secondary role, it is generally because the production simply has a specific history of such and is a directors choice, not a writers. In the production The Rocky Horror Show. The character of Eddie is doubled by the same performer that portrays the uncle "Dr. Scott". In many production of "A Christmas Carol" actors traditionally double up on the various characters Scrooge interacts with and often done in a manner to parallel the characters they are playing. The answer is pretty simple, either it is just the traditions imposed by the originating director choices, remembered and honored in subsequent productions or it is a matter of a limited amount of money. Even in professional theatre, money is limited and cost cutting is easily done by casting an actor already in the production. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. During the rehearsal period of one production I was volunteering on, I was cast in a "bit part" because the actor already cast could not make the costume change. He was not portraying any specific character and was just doubling up on roles. But since it was not convenient the role had to be cast separately. I was an unpaid volunteer who, of course, jumped at the chance to share the stage with the legends of Broadway in that production. But if I wasn't free....I am sure they would have simply cut the costume change. Luckily for me, at the production meeting when it was being discussed one of the producers pointed out that I was the same size as the dancer that couldn't make the change and would fit the costume with no alterations. So, to answer your question...sometime its just a matter of logistics.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We have an article Dual role, which has a brief "Theatre" section. Deor (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That isn't exactly the same thing.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why do you say that "that is not exactly the same thing"? Isn't that dual role article describing exactly what we are discussing above?  How not so?  I am confused ... ?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A dual role is one that's intentionally written that way, as in many Peter Sellers movies, not one that just happens to be played by the same person for non-dramatic reasons. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Makes sense.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Apologies, I could have been more clear.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The OP is on to something when he mentions union rules. In the USA, that would be the Actors' Equity Association, but there are similar unions elsewhere. In many countries, everyone who appears on stage for even a brief moment has to be credited and paid a minimum living wage as an actor as well as other benefits (see here for an example ). This can get very expensive for some of those old-timey plays with a ton of characters, many of which barely flash by in one scene; directors will go around this by having one actor play multiple parts, or by modifying the play to write out some of those extra characters (this can not be done for every play without raising howls of protests however). Having a single actor play a bevy of minor characters is rarely a question of artistic choice when it involves minor roles; it is artistic choice if one actor plays two important parts, but that's a lot rarer. Live theater productions are very expensive, so controlling costs are a must. In fact, modern plays tend to have a lot fewer characters than used to be the case in Shakespeare's time, e.g.: if the author cares about seeing his play staged professionally, he will write it in a way that it can be staged without breaking the bank. These are observations from a regular theater-goer. --Xuxl (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. Sorry. I have NEVER seen a director make a choice in casting that wasn't artistic based in some way. Also...there is this thing called an Equity waiver. You do not have to be in the union or even be paid. I wasn't and didn't care.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Xuxl's hit on the main reason this happens when not intended by the writer. We should have an article on acting troop. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that actors' egos play a part here. Many actors believe they can successfully play multiple roles in the one production. Directors are usually (ex-) actors themselves. It's simply part of the culture of theatre. HiLo48 (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps actors have egos...who doesn't, but they don't cast themselves.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But directors, who are often ex-actors, do. It's a cultural tradition. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In community theatre maybe....but I have never seen a director cast his own show out of a tradition of egotism. Directors are all kinds of things, actors, dancers and even old prop designers. If ego is put before the show...it will close very quickly.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Per Medeis request for an article, I think we have one (for which redirects need to be created) at Playing company. -- Jayron  32  20:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, that's what I meant, a troop that plays together, doing more than one production, often at many different theaters. I am reminded of Heston and Dench's company in Branagh's Hamlet.  I have created acting troop and acting company as redirects. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Can someone please also create a redirect for "acting TROUPE" (different spelling)? I don't know how.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Never seen the "troop" spelling, btw.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Nor I. Thanks for creating the redirect.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Academy Awards winners and nominees
It is pretty clear how the Academy selects its Oscar winners from the list of five (or whatever number of) nominees. But, how are the nominees themselves selected? Let's use Best Actor as an example. From the list of five nominees, the members of AMPAS (or perhaps just the Acting Branch of AMPAS) votes on those five names; I assume the person with the highest total votes gets named the Oscar winner for Best Actor. But, where exactly did that list of five nominees (five actors) come from? The only thing I can think of is that members of AMPAS (or perhaps just the Acting Branch members) nominate actors; and the top five selections are the five nominees. But, if that's the case, it would seem that – just from the numbers of raw votes for nominees – we would see a pretty consistent proportion of votes for the winner. So, in other words, once we know who the top nominee is, then we pretty much know who the final winner will (ultimately) be. But, that process doesn't strike me as being correct. If that were the case, why go through two voting rounds? They could just go through one vote (and get the same results). Does anyone know how this all works? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Go straight to the source. The nominees are chosen by those within their category (e.g. actors for actors), then the entire Academy gets to vote to decide the winner. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A-ha! OK, makes sense.  Before reading your reply, I had thought that only actors nominated the five nominee actors; and then only actors voted from the five for the final winning actor.  (And so forth with other categories.)  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A related question, however, just came to mind. Let's stick with the Best Actor example.  When selecting the top five nominees, I assume it is simply a matter of the highest five vote recipients, yes?  But, in all these 86 years ... there has never once been a tie?  You never see six nominees for Best Actor; it is always five, no matter what.  (In modern times, ignoring the idiosyncrasies of the first few years of Oscars.)  Although rare, there have been ties for actual Oscar winners.   Just as a matter of statistics (and common sense), there must have been some cases in the past 86 years where there were ties in the nomination process, such that – at least, every once in a blue moon – we'd expect to see six Best Actor nominees.  No?   Any thoughts?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It would either have to be a 6-way tie (or multiple ties in the top) or a tie for 5th for this to be an issue. A tie for any other amount of nominations can be safely ignored. Not saying it's impossible, but it would be even less likely. Mingmingla (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, correct. I had not thought that through fully.  If there was indeed a (2-way) tie for first place, then they would just select the next three nominees (instead of four) to round out the needed five.  And, a tie in fifth place does seem rather unlikely.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * But it does put into perspective the occasional complaint of "The movie won Best Picture but the director wasn't even nominated", "snubbed by the Academy", etc. If the movie was that good, it's impossible to believe that none of the other directors voted for the director at the nomination stage, and it may be that he was just pipped for 5th spot by a handful of votes.  Had the rules allowed for more than 5 nominees, he'd have been in like Flynn.  They obviously need to draw the line somewhere rather than allowing 100+ nominations in each category (imagine the length of the show...), and someone's always going to be the victim of that unavoidable arbitrariness.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, Jack, that is right. And your comments actually made me think of yet another follow-up question to all this.  We have established above that the Acting Branch members nominate the actors for spots in the top five nominees (for Best Actor).  Now, let's say that I am in the Acting Branch of AMPAS.  When I nominate actors for Best Actor, do I submit a list of only one name?  Or five?  Or as many as I want?  Is there some set number that I can nominate?  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If I understand this article, for films, voters choose and rank between five and ten films. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting article, thanks. Hmmmmmmmm. That only relates to "Best Picture" (or perhaps, other film categories as well).  I suspect that it must be different for "individual people" categories (like Best Actor).  But, I have no idea.  Any one have any thoughts?   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The Academy Awards rules can be found at the Academy's web site. My understanding is that the vote to determine the nominees in most categories is done by a preferential (ranked) ballot, which presumably reduces the chances of a tie that would require the category to go to six nominees instead of five. But in the Best Makeup category, where nominations are limited to three nominees (rather than five), there were four nominees (instead of three) for 1999. The most plausible explanation for this was that there was a tie, although I haven't found an official explanation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Song lyrics question
I once watched a cartoon TV show or film where one of the songs contained the lyric "I bet you're really glad we're at the end of the show", spoken quite fast. Which song, and which TV show or film was it? J I P &#124; Talk 19:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dooh....on the tip of my tongue....someone...HELP!--Mark Miller (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Googling that exact phrase in quotes gives exactly one hit: this very question. Taking quotes out gives a multitude of obviously wrong results. I suspect that you're misremembering the quote, perhaps just slightly, and that if you remember the exact phrasing you'll have better luck. Another option is to keep punching in variations into Google (in quotes) to see if anything useful comes up. Matt Deres (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh man,I can almost see it.I think it was a big glossy musical about touring a show and maybe Donald O'Connor was in it doing a soft shoe shuffle with a straw boater..Hotclaws (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)