Question Details	Asked By	Asked On
Screen tests	denberg	01/25/04
In Hollywood must the top stars of blockbusters usually do a screen test before being offered a lead role? I think this used to be the case years ago but is it still the case today?
Answered By		Answered On
voiceguy2000		01/25/04
The only real rule nowadays is that there are no rules. The casting process for feature films is just incredibly complicated, and there is no specific process that applies so consistently that you can point to it as an invarying procedure. First off, I believe that the true "screen test" was a creature of the studio system of the 30s and 40s, in which places like MGM would recruit young actors and use such tests to determine whether to place them under contract. The theory seemed to be to bring people in who had a certain radiance or star quality, without specifically knowing what kind of roles they would be cast for. Those days are long gone. Nowadays, most features are separate projects that are put together from disparate elements that are gathered piece by piece. In many cases, the films are "packaged" by producers who start with a script and then "attach" a director and maybe one or more lead players, in order to have something that is ready to finance. Whether the attached talent had to read for these roles really depends on the confidence level of the producer and/or director. Also, while some A-list actors are cooperative, easy to schedule, and perfectly willing to read for parts, others take the position that their work is well-known enough that they should not have to read for the part. (Of course, they may still get called in to read with candidates as co-stars, to make sure the chemistry works. But that is different.) With experienced directors, an actor may be cast based on an in-person interview, and maybe some reading of the script. The director looks for certain qualities in the actor, as well as the actor's reaction to the script and the ideas that the actor brings to the role. Film is such an intimate medium that the director can generally tell what the camera is going to see by interacting with the actor in a room. To the extent anything is being recorded, it is usually on videotape, which can be shown to investors or distributors. Again, however, it is more likely to be supporting cast and co-stars on tape, more so than, say, Tom Cruise or Anthony Hopkins or Harrison Ford. (The tape is particularly helpful if a lot of roles are being cast in a hurry, to help people remember who did what.) As mentioned, the casting process is complicated and involves many considerations beyond sheer acting talent. One actor may often be chosen in preference to another because of the perception that the chosen actor will be far more successful in overseas release (this makes it harder for newcomers to break in). One actor may be chosen over another simply because of his or her availability at the time of principal photography, or because that actor's fee is more affordable in relation to the overall production budget. One actor may be chosen over another because a star insists on it, or because the star refuses to work with a certain person, or because of other political considerations. When such non-acting issues are significant, the challenge for the producer and director becomes more, "Can we fit the film to this actor?" rather than, "Can this actor do justice to the role?" I would say that screen-test-like practices are far more prevalent in network television series, where even after the producers have reached casting decisions, a huge committee of network executives, sponsors, and various others must all sign off on the choices. In that sense, a TV pilot can be viewed as a program-length screen test, and before the pilot is shot, there is no doubt that many people will have looked at videotape of the proposed cast members. By comparison, casting for feature films is a lot less nerve-wracking for both the actors and the producers. Now, getting back to feature films, let us suppose that an A-list actor gets hold of a script and falls in love with the role, but would not be an obvious casting choice. That actor probably would have to read for the producer and director in order to demonstrate that he or she really should be considered for that role. In that case, however, the shoe is on the other foot: The actor wants to sell himself or herself to the people making the film. I guess the best overall answer to your question, then, is: It all depends. If the producers badly want a "name" actor and are fairly confident of that actor's ability to handle the role, there may be no formal reading. On the other hand, if it is a major property with a top-drawer director that involves an extremely difficult role, there may be no alternative to having the big guns read for that role. The reading probably would not be called a "screen test" even though it will likely be recorded on video, because the term "test" implies that there is some issue about whether the person is suitable to be a film actor in the first place. Hope that helps.

Additional Options and ratings are only visible when you login!