Nightmare theater mom in training

I shouldn't have done it, because now I only have myself to blame whereas before it could have been anything, but knowing better I stayed to observe the boys' auditions for the summer kids' musical. Drake and Chase stubled through it, and I didn't really have my hopes up there. But Archer had the audience eating out of his hand. He nailed the singing and modulated his character perfectly for every part he read for. Does that mean that he got the lead? Of course not. Because naturally in the world of community theater, nepotism or some other unknown factor is involved in any and all incomprehensible casting decisions. The lead part went to some kid that the director (seeming to sense a need for making excuses for her decision somehow though I don't know who she was directing them toward) explained, before announcing who had what part, that physical characteristics were a large determining factor.

Now I can understand this. But my boys weren't exactly up for the lead of Prince Charming or anything. The play (called 'Honk') is a musical adaption of the Ugly Duckling story. The lead part "Ugly" went to a kid on the basis (explained the director, again, I don't know who she was defending herself to unless she sensed that there would be natural criticism of her decision) that his voice had changed.

Now this is totally bizarre, of course, because this is a CHILDREN'S VERSION of a Broadway musical. If it had been put on by some Middle School, there wouldn't be anyone available for the part, apparently. To me it even seemed a little sicko that among a bunch of 9-12 year old amateur actors a lone seventeen-year-old could swoop in to get the lead. This kid is going to look like he is among the Liliputians.

Of course that is where nepotism would come in. I am sure this person and his family have stubled through bit parts and costume sewing and stage manager positions so that this kid could have a musical someday built around his mediocre talent.

I know it seems like a horrible thing to say. But I am not exactly going to bat for the majority of my children. I would be the first one to throw tomatoes if someone had decided to give Drake or Chase a lead in a musical. But with Archer, you could tell that with whatever was going on onstage that everyone was watching him. Every line he delivered no matter what part he read for was believable and every joke's punch line found its way home.

And perhaps this is something I will never understand until I bear the responsibility of a theater director. But for some reason it seems particularly terrifying for them to cast the character parts with people who can't hack the extra 'ham it up' quality they call for. It seems like directors would rather have some vanilla average Joe spitting out lines in the lead like it was their first time reading them then have a comic relief number in the middle of the play go without someone who could pull it off well.

I remember during the church production of Fiddler last summer that the woman who played Golde was fairly good, but she was basically a place holder for the smaller parts that were more interesting. That's what Archer got, is the very typical show-stealing character comedy number about two thirds of the way through the play. But though unbiased opinions on the subject are most likely not to be found, he was seriously miscast, and it was an opportunity wasted in my obviously biased opinion to make something out of the other two thirds of the play that he is not going to be stealing away from the lead.