BackStage Utah

What things are important to you in an audition notice, the get your interest in a show?

For me, some of the most important are:

1. The Show: Either I'm familiar with it, or it sounds intriguing. I think an unfamiliar show should get as specific as it can in the details of the play. This means story, characters and themes, not "this is exiting and new and it's going to be a great experience for everyone involved!"

2. Director: I won't even consider auditioning for a play if I don't have some idea of who the director is.

3. Character Descriptions: A clear idea of who the characters are, and if specific types are mind for specific roles. "Roles for 6 men and 3 women" is not sufficient, even if it says "ages 25-60".

gem2477 wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 8:36am:



Good point. Most of those are things that I kind of take for granted, but I have seen some notices which are missing that kind of information, and certainly those are absolute musts. I don't see a lot that list when callbacks will be, but now that you mention it, it's an awfully good idea.

Rosie Poppins wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 8:48am:


Wow. Showing up to callbacks uninvited is not a good way to make a good impression.... Maybe only putting the date of callbacks in instances where you are going to call everyone back (like small city productions or little community theaters) would be a better idea.

I dunno. I think that kinda takes balls.

Silent Knight wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2010 at 8:09am:


Good point. I think in this type of situation, it can be a combination of foolhardiness and the person not knowing the proceedure of auditions, and just showing up. This might be the case if their experience consinsits of very small amateur community or city productions where they have always gone to call backs.

Morgan wrote on Apr 27^th, 2010 at 12:41am:


I think this opens up the question of what exactly constitutes "pre-casting". I see a lot of accusations of this being made anytime a director casts someone they've worked with before. I believe that it's only truly "pre-casting" if you've made a more or less concrete decision that, not matter what, a certain person will play a certain role. In that case, the role isn't open, and I absolutely agree it should be announced.

But I also think it's natural for a director to go into a casting session with some ideas. If they don't, I suspect they are more ill-prepared than they are open-minded. Furthermore, I feel it needs to be remembered that it's rare (at least in my experience) for a director to have autonomy on casting. Imagine the following scenario: The director has a specific person they think is perfect for a certain role, but the producer doesn't see it. Therefore, though the direction is certain what he/she wants to do, the part can't be officially pre-cast because the producer hasn't signed off on it. When the auditions come, the producer ends up feeling the director was right, and the role is cast the way the director intended all along. In this case, I don't think either party has acted unfairly.


Myself, I do always go into a casting session with some ideas of what I think might work, but I very frequently end up going in a different direction because of apossiility that opened up in the audition (and I always find myself giving someone else serious consideration for any role I have ideas about). Andy, yes, I always announce it if someone is flat out lined up for a role.

Sorry, I know I've gone off on a little bit of a tengent, when what you're suggesting is absolutely right in a cut and dired case of unnanounced pre-casting. I'm just saying that one of the big reasons pre-casting is such a touchy subject is because it's rarely as simple as it appears to be.

gem2477 wrote on Apr 27^th, 2010 at 8:50am:



Thank you. I don't have any problem with "asking someone to be a lead without auditioning" IF it is announced. I reject the notion many people have of auditions as an athletic competition where who is best on that day is all that matters. And, if it turns out that the director and producers legitmately gave others the chance to show what they can do but they felt what they saw wasn't as good as what the other person would give them (I should point out that this has worked against me but never for me), I think that's perfectly fine. But, again, that presupposes the others were given a fair chance.

I have said before that i reject the notion that it all comes down to who was best at the audition. An audition is not the Olympics. You're not giving an award for who was best that day, you're casting a show. And many factors play into a decision.

Silent Knight wrote on Apr 27^th, 2010 at 9:28am:


you weren't being disagreeable! Good point- we tend to forget that things aren't what they seem when we are on the outside of things.

kitchensinger wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 10:26am:


Totally agree. There is a difference between having someone in the back of your mind that you want to fill the part and precasting - but if you don't give anyone else a chance, it is.

Silent Knight wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 1:05pm:

Or what if the director did call people back for a role that they had someone in mind for, but wanted to see if there was anybody else that they liked better, just in case--you know, wanted to give other people the benefit of the doubt.  And then, didn't see anybody they liked better and went ahead and cast the person they had in mind all along.  People may perceive it as precasting, but it's not.

Precasting is often in the eye of the beholder.

And to be on topic: I don't think anyone should have to say on an audition notice: I already have someone in mind for Role X, so if you're interested in that role, you better bring your A game.  On second thought, maybe people should start saying that.

spiker wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 1:15pm:


I wouldn't consider it precasting if a director had an actor in mind, called back others for the same role, and still cast the original actor.� But as I mentioned in my original post, I would consider it precasting if talent was shut-out at the first audition to reserve the role for "the actor in mind."� When people invest time and energy into a first audition with the understanding that all roles are open, they need to have a fair shot at a callback.� I really appreciate the honesty of theatres who are upfront about their intentions with precasted parts; especially given the fact that they know less talent will turn out to auditions since the precasted role isn't available.�

And to answer your question, Dark Knight:� Unfortunately I have seen evidence of precasting.� I've heard it from the mouth of a director.� And even more alarming was that fact that I was the only one who seemed disturbed that the precasted role wasn't posted.� I suppose the director felt comfortable enough to announce at callbacks that this certain role had been precast because *drumroll* there was no one at callbacks for that role because they had all been shut-out at the first audition.�

OK, kids, we've all covered this before.

Do a search for pre-casting on the site, you'll get a bahjillion opinions and most of them can be summed in the following dialog

Actor: Don't pre-cast
Director: Unless absolutely necessary
Actor: Just tell us so we don't waste our time at auditions.
Director: Fair enough.

The 'Actor' from this dialog now can now focus on improving his stage skills instead of trying to get inside the Director's head.
The Director knows to just announce a pre-cast role, and if she doesn't, she can go to the special hell reserved for child molesters and people who talk at the theater.

I deleted some posts as they were just repetitive. If you start a new topic about pre-casting, please ensure you have something new to say.

Thank you,
Your Moderator�

Back to the thread about audition notices...