Some thoughts on type casting; actually, probably more about “image casting” since my friend (below) does image consulting and I was referring to how people see someone else for the 1st time– what category they imagine them to be in, etc. While type casting might happen almost as fast, it (hopefully) combines both initial visual and personality impressions (well if it’s done in person via just headshots).
So from a cog sci background, I personally believe that as people we are all constantly, quite naturally, and pretty much subconsciously trying to categorize our world… what’s good, bad, dangerous, useful, etc. In terms of society, and even primitive survival, it’s probably quite helpful to be able to quickly categorize something as bad or good, positive or negative, in order to promote faster exchange of the good stuff (to reduce energy expended) and protect ourselves from the “bad” (so we live longer). So IMO type casting is just a natural extension of that PLUS some of the business stuff mentioned below.
Possible CastingNotes™ ideas… do we all fit into a handful of basic “types” and, if so, would that be useful to know in terms of casting from headshots, where the agent/CD hasn’t met the talent yet? Would it be helpful or dangerous/limiting in terms of getting work? See something like Enneagram-based character generator at http://www.characterpro.com/characterpro/index.html. Note part of a performer’s type essence might also be more intuitively gleaned from their body of work-history, specifically what genres they play (which is one of the uses for CastingNotes™), but to experiment maybe I’ll incorporate the enneagram idea as an optional part of user profiles here (just to see how/if it works or doesn’t, or does/doesn’t match what roles we actually end up choosing).
—–Original Message—–
From: Kris Van Nest
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:45 AM
To: Jessica M
Subject: …Types, Image Consulting Author…
Groovy, let’s def do the café thing and we can swap whats-the-meaning-of-life-anyway and where do we go from here type posers… Ha, sorta kidding (ok, so I actually would be up for that, but maybe a bit heavy :).
Thanks for film/type feedback. It’ll make a great breakup film like something I show a girl if I want to break up… Geez, I really hope he cuts me out or never shows it at a festival or whatever ;-). Anyway I think you did great and hope to see your red bus vid sometime, too.
Hey thank [name] for nice words. Ya know I often thought about types and type casting stuff ‘cause I almost always look for patterns in life (prob because I like to use and/or break out of them) and even though people give ‘em a bad name I think like most stereotypes typecasting started as something pretty useful, namely narrowing down 500 headshots for 2 roles in a day kinda stuff. Plus typecasting IMO can be really useful for audiences since it’s like any name “brand” out there, people sorta know what they’re getting/what to expect even before they buy a ticket, so it can help keep people loyal to an actor (or director or any creative typecast) in that sense. ‘course it can also be taken too far and pigeon-hole people, but IMO pigeonholing is really just a creative opportunity/challenge for creatives to challenge ourselves to break out of if we want, like it actually gives us motivation to try new stuff/roles… Anway back to types, I’ve [sometimes] wondered what my “type” is, or more spec what other people think my type is at first, ya know? Like most of us I’ve done so many diff things in my life (mine is computer programming, ed tech, cog sci, philosophy, linguistics, teaching, adventure racing, whitewater raft guiding, pro off-road driving, expedition travel, snowboarding, rugby, uncle, etc) that I sorta find it hard to define my OWN [real] life when people ask? Back in the day our parent’s would say “baker” or “lawyer” but IMO our generation(s) are doing so much it’s hard to define w/ a word. So once in a while I really wonder how other people might categorize me at first glance… I mean we all change our thoughts about people the more/better we get to know them but it’s that “first thought” that makes me curious ‘cause in our biz that often means so much in terms of getting work or what kind of work we get.
OK well my point is that the whole type thing sorta goes nicely with your image consulting stuff, and since I often hear undiscovered actors… Or I imagine even established actors who are up for a role and want to quickly “get” a type they’re going to audition for… wondering about the whole “what’s the essence of their own/another type” that I imagine there might be a big need for type evaluations (and/or maybe “how to be a type” for specific roles) out there…
Right, enough rambling and apologies for long messg; kinda get carried away sometimes. Gotta jet and you can tell me how your acting and life stuff is going when we café it.
Best,
KV
________________________
Kris Van Nest
www.krisvannest.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

comments...
Following up on above, I decided to build a new section called “CastingTypes… Character” that just uses the “character breakdown” info members already add to the database to indicate what they might be successful at in the future. Benefits are that:
- It’s fast, because members have already entered their individual character information in their CastingNotes™ (just re-using that data),
- Seems like a much more objective way… basically using our past performance to guide future results.
Plus, it also allows performers to feel creative in pursuing new character types. But I’ll also leave the experimental personality section up in case that provides additional guidance.

comments...
An interesting/related article on Now Casting indirectly supporting the use of CastingTypes in casting (bolding is mine, and note CastingTypes as described above includes “looks” as a necessary but not sufficient aspect):
PB: A face that falls into a category that I see in scripts. The more specific an actor is in his look or type, the better because I can immediately categorize him in my mind and know where to place him. When an actor is too generic or too versatile looking, they don’t make as strong an impression in my mind. Specific types are memorable. They might not be versatile, but you remember them – and that’s half the battle, I think.
So IMO it’s not that performers (or any creatives) shouldn’t feel free to be creative and experiment– of course we should! But this is, after all, showbusiness, and part of any business is saving time and money… being able to quickly and accurately convey to casting how we fit into a production can do both (time=$) and, therefor, eventually get us more work. And as we progress in our careers, we can always still try out for new/different roles and character types to experiment and expand our repertoire.

comments...
Chalk one more up for CastingTypes™ being relevant vs. negative; Bob Fraser just posted an article called “Against Type” in which he states:
…my point about UCP [Unique Character Presentation] is that it’s simply a way of framing the natural ‘typing’ that happens on the other side of the casting table – whether you like it or not. And to frame it in a way that helps you become more successful, sooner…
Note his article mainly addresses the business side of acting vs. strictly the art– terms which IMO are definitely compatible but not synonomous. And as a reminder to creative types, we also address that and the suggestion for performers to always feel creative on our CastingTypes page footer here.
Job Title - Primary
Actor
Job Title - Secondary
Television Host
Age Range
30s
Union Status
NON-UNION
Height (feet)
5
Height (inches)
8
Physique
athletic
41% castings
13% callbacks
63% auditions
26% submissions
13% mailings
- October, 2008 (1)
- September, 2008 (2)
- August, 2008 (2)
- July, 2008 (3)
- June, 2008 (11)
LEAD (105), SUPPORTING (74), FEATURED (16), EXTRA (11), GUEST STAR (1), PRNC/REC (1), DAYPLAYER (1), UNDER 5 (1), TV HOST (16), STUDENT (10), SELF (9)
FEATURE FILM (10), FILM (21), IMPROV (1), INDIE FILM (10), ONE-ACT (2), PLAY (19), READING (14), SHORT FILM (69), TELEVISION (14), THEATRE (8), TV COMMERCIAL (40), TV INDUSTRIAL (4), TV REALITY (2), TV SERIES (19), CONCERT (4), LIVE (4), WEB_VIDEO (6), MUSIC VIDEO (2), PRINT (16), TRAINING (12)






comments...
For lack of a better term (read above), I might call this whole “use your past successes to guide future submissions” thing CastingTypes– sounds better than “type casting” because, actually, it hopefully is better because it relies more on [objective] past-work history vs. only [subjective] personal opinion (but might later also incorporate look, personality, special skills, and other unique performer traits to form a more complete image with subjective elements).
And if CastingTypes are somehow found to enhance the casting process from both sides– i.e., make the job of casting easier/more accurate and get performers more work through better matching personalities to roles– by extension, it might be interesting to add CastingTypes™ to actual breakdowns/casting notices themselves, thereby allowing both industry and performer to (optionally) assess a role’s appropriateness from both sides.