Hi all, it's been a while.

Alright, this is in regards to what my professor told me I should do this summer. She said that I should try to find what type I am. Now, I am a very ambitious guy who's finally finding his own path. I know type is like which characters you would be cast as like the innocent, the dick, the macho man.

However, there are actors out there who are never nailed down as a type. Billy Crudup, Patrick Wilson, Dustin Hoffman, Al Pacino back in the day, Paul Newman, Meryl Streep, Susan Sarandon etc etc. Billy Crudup has been described as a character actor in a leading man's body. That's how I'd like to be.

I know it takes a shit ton more work to be able to as chameleonistic as those fine actors are.

My question finally is is how do you know what your range is? I wouldn't be playing King Lear anytime soon, or Willy Loman, but that's because of something I can't control, my age and life experiences.

I hope this isn't too confusing for anyone.

Hi P,
I understand your concern (I believe that everyone on these boards worries about the same thing, at least to some extent...I know I do too).
My question to you is: Why worry about what your range is if you're going to be/become one of those "no-range" actors like the ones you mention?????
Then just learn as much as possible and become as good as you can....but be realistic and don't go for parts of a black guy or an indian if you're white, know what I mean?

On the other hand, I'm not quite sure I agree that all these actors and others are chameleons or "no-range" actors...or character actors. I don't believe in that bullshit. Look at Meryl Streep, no doubt she IS great but in all or most of her movies she has the same facial mannerisms because it's HER, Meryl Streep's face...understand what I'm trying to say?? You CANNOT become another character unless you're a schizo and in that case you need to go to the doctor.
I read an interview with Anthony Hopkins in Backstage many years ago and I hope we can agree that he is also one of the great actors and he said in that interview: "There's no such thing as character"!!!!!!

So don't worry too much about it, ok (this is so much easier said than done, I know, I worry myself!)

/Foreigner

I know what you mean, but I don't know if you're looking at it the right way.

Sure, it's good to understand your strengths and weaknesses. It's also good to understand your physical type. But I don't think you should consider them as limitations. You should use that information to focus on your strengths and improve on your weaknesses.

My attitude is this: I will audition for anything anyone will let me audition for. It's not my job to determine whether or not I'm right for a part. And there are already enough people that will pigeonhole me into a "type".

The key is, understand yourself... but don't limit yourself.

Thank you. Both of you. Those were very simple, very direct answers. I really appreciate it.

Bonnie Gillespie, in her column "The Actor's Voice" on Actorsaccess, talks about type quite frequently.

This column is particularly good on WHY you want to know your type. (There are many other columns on determining your type.)

http://more.showfax.com/column...archives/000917.html

I think your teacher is trying to point you in an important direction.

To know your base type, you really need to rely on the impressions of others and not your own self-perception because it's often not who you really are, but what others THINK you are on first impression. From having assisted at my school's auditions, it seems that many young, untrained actors are kind of clueless about the kinds of pieces/roles that are appropriate for them or have a greatly exaggerated sense of their range as it stands. It also seems that a lot of young actors in the 'real world' waste a lot of their own time and the time of others by submitting for roles for which they're completely wrong. It's one thing to take a calculated risk for a role that really turns you on, but quite another to just blindly submit for anything and everything. Seems like you could really tick some people off to the point that they won't even take you seriously when they DO see you for something that might be appropriate.

There is a method for determining your type that I've seen recommended that covers three very basic types that most under-25 actors and roles fall into. It relies on the actor's primary 'center' which is essentially one's dominant physical energy center that leads all other movement. You have to find a way to ask about this followed by your second and third ranked centers to those whom you've just met and/or you know will be objective and completely honest with you. You also have to ask enough people to make for a good sampling, so good luck if you want to give it a try. At any rate ...

Head-centered implies intellectuality and basically equates to the brain, the geek, the wisecracker, or the outcast. Heavy-set actors and those with some abnormal asymetrical facial feature also tend to get lumped into this category. This is most typically a sidekick, but there are leading roles for this type -even romantic leads - although they often tend to be in either comedies or are somewhat off the beaten path. It's good stuff when it happens, though. Think roles that might be inhabited by younger versions of Edward Norton, Jason Biggs, Spike Lee, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Adrian Brody, Matthew Perry, Forrest Whittaker, Alyson Hannigan, Jeannine Garofalo and Thora Birch.

Chest-centered implies emotion and sensuality. This is the ingenue or the stereotypical young romantic lead. He/she is typically the 'love interest' whose main obstacles involve relations with the opposite sex. This type is usually quite attractive and tends to have an aura of innocence. Think young Ben Affleck, Orlando Bloom, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jude Law, Hugh Grant, Anne Hathaway, Mischa Barton, Keira Knightley, Halle Berry, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Reese Witherspoon.

Hip/pelvis-centered implies sexuality and/or dominance. This is the badass, the bad boy, the player, the aggressor, the femme fatale, the bitch. "Dangerous." Fun stuff ... Brangelina were the poster children for this type earlier in their careers. Also think young versions of Sean Penn, Christian Slater, Matt Dillon, Mark Wahlberg, any number or rapper/actors, Sharon Stone, Kim Catrall, Milla Jovovich, and Uma Thurman.

I rarely watch TV and mostly make it a point to watch films with actors who are old enough to have earned the right to transcend type, so feel free to add more to each list of 'typed' actors if you'd like. I've watched so little TV the past few years that I really don't even know who the current under-25s are. I guess I need to work on that ...

That's an interesting quote from Sir Anthony in the second post on this thread. No such thing as character? I'm wondering about the context of that one since Hopkins' body of work is one of the better arguments to the contrary. I mean, watch his interview on 'Inside the Actors' Studio' and tell me his type based on that. (It's on YouTube) Looks like an aging Welsh working stiff to me. If he were unknown and posted a headshot on this forum, he'd probably get a lot of 'mechanic,' 'plumber,' 'carpenter,' 'truck driver,' 'old cop,' etc. ... but look what he can do! LOL Then do the same for Cate Blanchett and Ralph Fiennes who happen to be two of my favorite 'chameleons.' I think you should take a closer look at Meryl Streep as well. Most recently, she has become something of 'the Meryl,' but check out some of her earlier work when she was gaining that reputation like 'Sophie's Choice,' 'Out of Africa,' and 'Postcards from the Edge.' There's a lot more going on there than just her mastery of dialects. Her entire physicality changes. I think the misconception Sir Anthony must have been addressing is that some seem to believe you can actually BECOME another character. However, you can certainly affect the appearance that you have done so and this is usually accomplished through years of intensive, hardcore training of the voice, the body, and myriad acting techniques.

At any rate, here's a definition of character from my world based on bioenergetics as food for thought...

quote:

Character: a fixed pattern of behavior, the typical way an individual handles his striving for pleasure. It is structured in the body in the form of chronologically and generally unconcious musular tensions that block or limit impulses to reach out. It is also a physical attitude which is buttressed by a system of ideals, rationalizations, and projections and geared to an ego-ideal that affirms its value.

You can definitely work with that without being 'schizo' ...

Hope this helps someone!

quote:

Originally posted by PaulyWally:

My attitude is this: I will audition for anything anyone will let me audition for. It's not my job to determine whether or not I'm right for a part. And there are already enough people that will pigeonhole me into a "type".

This is probably one of the wisest things I've ever read on this board.

Personally - and this is coming from a 25 year old hot shot who thinks he knows everything - I've taken on the philosophy that I know nothing. I find that when you approach anything with the attitude of "I don't know but I'll try my best and experiment" you tend to be much more successful.

quote:

Originally posted by foreigner:
On the other hand, I'm not quite sure I agree that all these actors and others are chameleons or "no-range" actors...or character actors. I don't believe in that bullshit. Look at Meryl Streep, no doubt she IS great but in all or most of her movies she has the same facial mannerisms because it's HER, Meryl Streep's face...understand what I'm trying to say?? You CANNOT become another character unless you're a schizo and in that case you need to go to the doctor.
I read an interview with Anthony Hopkins in Backstage many years ago and I hope we can agree that he is also one of the great actors and he said in that interview: "There's no such thing as character"!!!!!!

I agree.

I think in any great performance the actor is revealing a part of himself to the audience. There is a lot you can do like changing the way your body moves, and changing your dialect, but even with all that stuff going on you have to make sure you're being yourself and not putting on some "mask" while you're rehearsing/performing.