As a director, I’ve never put much stock in monologues as a way of judging an actor’s capabilities. My approach is more hands on, closer to a workshop than an audition. The main thing I’m interested in is can an actor take direction. Are they open minded, adventurous? Do they have a solid work ethic? Can I stand to be in a rehearsal hall or on a shoot with them for hours at a time? Watching an actor do two one-minute monologues yields none of this information?
Truth be told, I think most people in casting feel the same way I do. However, they really do want to see all of the available talent. Unfortunately, they have limited time in which to do this. Monologues let them see a lot of people in a short amount of time. On the downside, monologues yield very little information about any given actor unless… that actor does a really killer performance.
When I arrived in Chicago in the late 70s the standard for monologue auditions was two, three-minute monologues. By the late 80s it was two, two-minute monologues. Late 90s, two, one-minute monologues. Recently I’ve even heard of two, thirty-second monologues. The reason the timeframe keeps getting shorter is to limit the torture of watching bad (not killer) monologues.
This tells the whole story. Years ago, I asked the casting director of the Goodman Theatre here in Chicago how many actors a day she saw in general auditions (monologues). She replied, “ 75 to 85 actors.” I asked, “Out of those 75 to 85 how many performances really stand out?” She said, “On a good day 3 or 4. On a bad day, none.”
I think that says it all. Most monologues seen in auditions are acceptably mediocre but they don’t leave much of an impression. If they don’t break through, what’s the point?
Next… what the casting professional sees when they watch your monologue.
Labels: audition monologue casting director