belleboi80
|
No small roles/ only small actorsDo you think this saying is actually true?
|
The REAL Ciaron
|
Judi Dench (Shakespeare in Love) and Beatrice Straight (Network)
Proof that even small roles make a HUGE impact.
|
JemiBoe1981
|
This is very true. I have seen many a chorus member who was much more fun to watch than a principal. I was one. In Kiss Me, Kate, I was in the chorus and had a few solo lines, but I did do a splendid dance on a fire escape in Too Darn Hot and people said I was the most fun onstage.
So yes.
|
One Song Glory
|
As a small person, I totally believe it! I'm little under 5 feet, and I usually end up getting small, but important roles. I have gotten leads before, most notably when I was God in a one act play. But I've had plenty of noticable roles that weren't exactly leads and I still wound up stealing scenes and everything.  
|
Fontinau
|
No.
Because for every Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love, you get twenty Richard Golds and Hywel Simons in the same movie.
It's a nice sentiment, but a stupid one. Some parts are simply worthless no matter how much an actor is willing to invest in them.
|
The REAL Ciaron
|
| Fontinau wrote: | No.
Because for every Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love, you get twenty Richard Golds in the same movie.
It's a nice sentiment, but a stupid one. Some parts are simply worthless no matter how much an actor is willing to invest in them. |
No. Dench proves that a role can be tiny but a great actor can make it special.
I would say the same for Tilda Swinton in the otherwise forgettable "Vanilla Sky".
|
Fontinau
|
| The REAL Ciaron wrote: | | No. Dench proves that a role can be tiny but a great actor can make it special. |
So you're saying that the reason I couldn't tell you a damn thing about parts like "Servant One", "Second Boatman", and "Lord in Waiting" from that movie is because they didn't get a great enough actor to play them?
|
Caitlin (Pipes)
|
Are you talking small roles as in the size of a role, or small as in the impact of a role?
There are some roles which have minimal dialogue, but they can change the entire course of the plot.
|
The REAL Ciaron
|
| Fontinau wrote: | | The REAL Ciaron wrote: | | No. Dench proves that a role can be tiny but a great actor can make it special. |
So you're saying that the reason I couldn't tell you a damn thing about parts like "Servant One", "Second Boatman", and "Lord in Waiting" from that movie is because they didn't get a great enough actor to play them? |
No. I am, of course, speaking on a larger scale. My point is that even though a part might be small (and yes 9 min of screentime in a 130 min movie is a VERY small role) it can still make an impact if played right. Adrien Lennox proved that on Broadway last season in "Doubt". I think it takes a GREAT actor to make smaller roles stand out.
|
Fontinau
|
| The REAL Ciaron wrote: | | I think it takes a GREAT actor to make smaller roles stand out. |
Yeah, well, we agree about that.
But when you get away from that "larger scale", it's still silly to talk about roles that function as glorified props as if they were equally important as the lead parts. (Or even equally important as the 9 minutes in a 130 minute movie parts.) (Did you count or what?)
|
The REAL Ciaron
|
| Fontinau wrote: | | The REAL Ciaron wrote: | | I think it takes a GREAT actor to make smaller roles stand out. |
Yeah, well, we agree about that.
But when you get away from that "larger scale", it's still silly to talk about roles that function as glorified props as if they were equally important as the lead parts. (Or even equally important as the 9 minutes in a 130 minute movie parts.) (Did you count or what?) |
Beatrice Straight won the Oscar for "Network" with only 5 min and 40 sec on the actual film.
Dench won the Oscar for S.I.L. with only 8 min of actual film time.
That's pretty impressive
|
La Boheme
|
And the category they won in is called Best Supporting Actor/tress for a reason.
There are small parts. Small parts can be stunning, meaningful, and the best thing in a show.
They can also completely fade into the background, through no fault of the actor.
It would be a ridiculous choice for the Messenger, or the Maid, or the like character, to make a scene about them simply to prove their not a small actor.
I would rephrase the statement.
"There are small parts, and the actor who gets them should be grateful for the work and stop bitching or trying to make it more than it is."
A densely written small part is different than the one with 2 lines about the scenery in act 2.
|
B3TA07
|
Eh.
|
Desperado
|
I picked no.
|
bandcampgirl183
|
I agree with Caitlin about the difference between roles that are small in number of lines, vs. roles that are small in meaning. There ARE small parts. They may not be insignificant, but they are small. "There are no insignificant parts, only insignificant actors"? Yes, I can think (theoretically, I really can't quote movies, and can only quote the plays I've been in, the way we did them) of some parts that only have a few lines, but a lot of meaning. But there are some parts that are simply small, even if you have the audience laughing for all of your 2 minutes onstage. "Sir, here's your laundry" is probably not going to change the course of the play, and even if you do that line very well, it is still small. "The smaller your part, the more important it is for you to make the most of every moment." "A small role does not neccsesarily make a smaller impact on the audience than a large role." These I agree with. Maybe because I made them up. 
I was in a play with a girl who spent every day complaining that she only had 9 lines. She spent so much time complaining, that she never learned them. Literally. The day of the performance, I had to spend half an hour with her at rehearsal trying to get her to be able to remember them. We finally had to cut out half of them, so she was left with FOUR lines.
~rachel~
|
Annie
|
There's something about fulfillment for me.
I was really disappointed to be cast as Fruma-Sarah in Fiddler last year, in high school. A 3 minute role with a huge impact just didn't really cut it for me. Sure, it was fun to go on stage screaming my head off (although it set me back 2 months in vocal development, I'm sure), but I really wanted a better opportunity to show everyone what I could do up there, especially in my last year. I was unhappy with the tiny part, even though it was hugely important to the plot of the show.
|
JP
|
| La Boheme wrote: | | A densely written small part is different than the one with 2 lines about the scenery in act 2. |
What she said. There are small but pivotal roles - where you don't get to be onstage much, but when you are there you're important - e.g. General Cartwright in Guys and Dolls. Then there are small and completely non-pivotal roles - where you don't matter at all - like Martha the alto in the Salvation Army band, also in Guys and Dolls, who sings in "Follow the Fold" and fetches coffee for Arvide. Casting Judi Dench instead of someone off the street as General Cartwright would make a difference to the quality of the show as a whole; casting Judi Dench as Martha would not.
JP
|
Desperado
|
This just came to my mind.
My friend was in Rashomon. She was cast as the Mother. Pissed isn't the word to descrbe how she felt. She ended up not taking the part, rofl. Ego.
|
Salome
|
The saying is false.
its not the size of the role its the quality of the part. a lead role can be a total waste of an actors talent (roger in Rent, Polly in The Boyfriend) or a featured or supporting part could be the finest written role in a show (CARDINAL wOLSEY IN a mAN fOR aLL sEASONS).
of course a role like GUard #1 in King Lear..is a small role..no getting around that shit.
|
Aphrodite
|
I saw a production of ITW the other night where the steward was quite bland. He looked as if he didn't even want to be onstage.
In my production, my friend who played the steward played him completely flaming and animated. It was the most memorable part of the show by far.
|
