Hi, guys - I've been commissioned to write a stageplay _base_d on a true story, that will be going into production later this year.  The project is very low-budget, and (as usual) our highest priority is paring the story & characters down for as small a cast as possible. While we hope to utilize only about six actors, there are really about NINE characters that are important to the telling of the story.  For accuracy's sake, some of these characters would have to be introduced at odd, unfeasible times (like showing up for only 5 minutes of Act 1, or the last scene of Act 2, etc) - Get the picture? This leads me to my question:  Which trick do you prefer to see used in this circumstance - either: 1.  COMBINING the smaller characters into larger FICTIONAL characters so that each actor only plays one role each night, OR... 2.  Leaving each character SEPARATE as in the real-life events, and casting actors who will DOUBLE-UP after intermission to play a completely different character in the second act? The problem we have with #1 is that we're fairly interested in making the story as ACCURATE to the true events as possible, and this suffers when you combine real people to fit the dramatic thrust.  I know that first and foremost an audience wants to see a STRONG STORY, and that real facts get dramatized, finnagled & shuffled around on stage, TV and film all the time.  But we're working closely with the people involved in the real incidents, and it might be upsetting for some of them to see themselves morphed into a completely non-existent person.  We also want to avoid any kind of critical backlash if it's deemed we strayed too far from truth for the sake of dramatic punch, and that we've told a or fluff version of the story. But the problem with #2 is that I personally feel when the same actor shows up in Act 2 as a completely different character, whatever trick is used to facilitate this (be it his/her talent, make-up, costumes, etc) calls attention to itself and pulls the audience out of the story.  And while it's nice to have that ooh, how clever effect when the trick is done well, I still think it sacrifices the audience's ability to really identify with a strong, single character throughout the full evening. I'm reminded of the twin trick in Love, Valour, Compassion, which I found rather gimmicky - it pulled me out of the story and forced me to notice the technical aspects of how the play was being staged, rather than just stay caught up in the world of the story.  However, if done well, this trick could afford us a much more accurate and engaging look at all the different characters in the true story that we wouldn't have if we just blended the smaller parts together into fictional roles. Comments?  Suggestions?  Thanks for your time!

But the problem with #2 is that I personally feel when the same actor shows up in Act 2 as a completely different character, whatever trick is used to facilitate this (be it his/her talent, make-up, costumes, etc) calls attention to itself and pulls the audience out of the story.  However, if done well, this trick could afford us a much more accurate and engaging look at all the different characters in the true story. The secret is to *expand* your cast list.  You need a minimum of nine characters to tell the story.  Could you tell it clearly with twelve? Fifteen?  Eighteen?  Twenty-Five?  (Including crowd or extra parts.)  If so, the multiple casting becomes part of the fabric of the piece, and therefore people will notice it the first time and ignore it after that. This is particularly effective if the doubled roles can be thematically _link_ed

PJP is spot on here. I really doubt anyone going to a low-budget, fringe type, production would be put off by doubling.    -**** Posted from RemarQ, http://www.remarq.com/?a ****-  Search and Read Usenet Discussions in your Browser - FREE -

But the problem with #2 is that I personally feel when the same actor shows up in Act 2 as a completely different character, whatever trick is used to facilitate this (be it his/her talent, make-up, costumes, etc) calls attention to itself and pulls the audience out of the story.  And while it's nice to have that ooh, how clever effect when the trick is done well, I still think it sacrifices the audience's ability to really identify with a strong, single character throughout the full evening. I played multiple small roles in The Killing of Michael Malloy   By changing my physicality as well as my costume, few people noticed I was the same actor.  In fact, bumping into a theatre goer at the bar next door, she told me flat out I could not have played the mafia thug because he was HUGE .  Yet it was me, and I didn't wear lifts.   I had the pleasure of working on a lost show called Dangerous Music a number of years ago.  It featured Donna Murphy playing several different roles throughout the show.  The transformation was amazing - even in techs, with no costumes or make-up whatsoever, it was hard to recognize her form one role to the next.  It was like the muscle attachments in her body *shifted*, or her bones changed shape.   So one actor playing multiple characters CAN work, but you can't guarantee results from one production to the next

~ ~ But the problem with #2 is that I personally feel when the same actor shows up ~ in Act 2 as a completely different character, whatever trick is used to ~ facilitate this (be it his/her talent, make-up, costumes, etc) calls attention ~ to itself and pulls the audience out of the story.  And while it's nice to have ~ that ooh, how clever effect when the trick is done well, I still think it ~ sacrifices the audience's ability to really identify with a strong, single ~ character throughout the full evening. Some plays hinge on this very feature.  I think Paula Vogel's Baltimore Waltz is a perfect example of one of these changing characters.  The third man in this play is constantly changing: first a doctor, then the bell hop, then a dutch boy, then a French waiter, then a spy

Doubling does not need to be a gimmick, if you do not make it into a stunt. I would suggest looking at Steven Dietz's God's Country or Moises Kauffman's Gross Indecency. These are two documentary plays that use small casts to suggest large social canvases. The multiple roles are handled with simplicity so  that the focus is always on what the characters say and do, and not on the virtuosity of the actor.