To think school production role allocation is unfair?

[guaranteess]

Dd school production this week, and during the interval i overheard the teacher talk to the lead role's mum, telling her that her son was chosen to be the lead before they even did auditions, based on his personality. Meaning the children that were auditioning for the lead were just wasting their time, as they had already chose the lead. The child wasn't even going to audition for that role, until the teacher asked his mum to encourage him to. I don't think it's very fair, they should either allocate roles based on auditions or to scrap auditions and allocate just on the child's personality, which is practically what they are doing anyway.

Aibu to think it isn't really fair?

So much so my DD and half the cast once walked out of a school production as they were so fed up with the drama teacher always picking her favourites,

Were the drama teacher’s favourites by any chance the best at acting, singing and dancing? That’s not favourites, it’s fairness.

Tantrictwist. What an unpleasant story. I feel very sorry for both the lead and the teacher.

The teacher was actually quite a rude unpleasant character so the DC didn't actually want to be in the play for that reason as well as not being given parts they were promised.

Some parents children won't audition for anything if they don't think they could be 'the star'. Keeping it undecided until afterwards means that all the kids who wanted a chance audition and they could do something that shows they'd be brilliant as another character. For example, whilst one might audition as Nancy in Oliver, they might have a personality/vocal range or quality that shows that they'd be brilliant as Fagin or the Artful Dodger (no reason why a girl couldn't do either, I've seen it happen, and not in a single sex school - there weren't enough boys that were strong enough singers or performers to carry off the roles).

In a similar way, some kids need encouraging because they are perfect for a part but think so-and-so is better (or so-and-so has said they want it), so don't even try.

Mind you, some of the 'obvious choice' kids turn out to be crap at audition/don't have the vocal range/mumble their way through an absolute belter/throw a strop because they wanted to be a different character. Getting them to audition means this comes out early.

Treating it as a separate thing also helps parents know it's not just bumbling around in classrooms and hopefully makes them slightly less likely to decide to go out for a family meal on the night of the show and not tell anybody until the tenth phone call. Yes, that's happened.

In any case, auditioning is a good experience. It might be the first time they've shown their 'stage' personality, compared to the one in class when they're part of a crowd, in secondary, it's a lot harder for kids to stand out when there's 1400 others in the place and the older ones who 'get all the big parts' have most likely done their time in the small roles and proven themselves over the previous five years to be reliable and able to cope with the demands of the roles.

No sadly the favourites were not the best as dancing, singing and acting although they were very very good but many others were just as good just never given the chance by her.

Interestingly on the last week being of being at the School each DC could go on stage and do a song or dance etc of their own and many parents were blown away by some of the DC singing or comic abilities who had never been given a chance in the School productions.

I hasten to add the teacher in question had been on maternity leave so did not contribute to this final stage event

So in this situation the teacher has actively supported a child who doesn't normally do acting/performing and encouraged him to audition for something outside of his comfort zone because they see something good in that child?
And people are whining?

If the lead had been a strong singer then people would complain because it's favouritism for the choir.
If they selected the lead as the child with most acting experience who is always having big parts in stagecoach shows, people would complain it's elitism because not everyone can afford to (or wants to) do hours of performing arts a week.
If the big narrator part went to the most confident reader who reads with expression, people would complain that it's picking the bright kids and neglecting others.
School gives 4 lead parts to quiet children who mumble when giving answers in class, parents will complain that they can't hear.

Literally, whatever a school does someone is going to whine (often because it's not their child).

P.s. I do think there are occasions of favouritism at times but on MN it seems like the school show casting is always read with some sort of conspiracy subtext when it's really 'staff do a nice show and try to make it as good as possible'.

It's a nightmare from the teachers side too. We go about 80% based on auditions but absolutely take into account children's behaviour over the year.
If a child has been badly behaved all year that is definitely taken into account.

So, if a child whose chance to shine in their (perhaps) one and only talent is denied that opportunity, are people also happy for the school football team to only have kids who are a bit shite at football playing in the schools' league? You know, what with it not being "fay-er" to choose the same kids regularly?

I don't think the point was to chose the best person for the role, but holding auditions despite already knowing who would do what.

"Who would do what?" One child. And that was probably one person showing off their supposed psychic powers.
As if school plays aren't hard enough to sit through at the best of times, without casting children who are wooden and shy in the main parts.

"one person" being the teacher who was mouthing off.

Surely you can't be surprised that a teacher has a child in mind for a particular role?

Over the year, they get to know who has a flair for drama, who will commit to learning the lines, who can pull off a comic line or gesture.

You hold auditions so that children can show off what they can do. Sometimes the child you had in mind is awful, and you have to admit you were wrong. Sometimes a previously overlooked child pulls it out of the bag and is amazing. It isn't set in stone.

It's not dissimilar to holding trials for a football tournament or a running race. You already have a good idea of the best player or the fastest runner, but you double check by holding trials that anyone can enter.

Personally I think there's something very unpleasant about parents who are happy to snipe away at another person's child for having the temerity to be chosen. They have been chosen for a reason. They are talented, they are committed, they are in need of a confidence boost, they have shit going on at home that you will never know about. Pushing your less deserving child forward at the expense of another, complaining and bitching about it is hideous behaviour IMO.

Although I realise this will be unpopular, because your little darlings are super talented and only overlooked because the teacher is a cow, has favourites, wouldn't recognise talent if it smacked her in the face etc.

Do parents really want to sit through plays where the main parts mumble inaudibly, cry with anxiety, forget their lines and don't even know when to come on stage? Not to mention how much longer the rehearsals take if you've chosen all the children who aren't very good at it to be 'fair'.

It's a chance for the children who are good at drama to shine. Just the same as sports day is a day for sporty children to shine. People who whinge about this sort of thing would never be able to stage a play themselves. It's a lot of hard work!

Well said hellodarkness. I agree with all of that.

If the teacher had not let the cat out of the bag, so to speak, none of this would be an issue. That was the mistake.

I don't think the point was to chose the best person for the role, but holding auditions despite already knowing who would do what
Or they held auditions and had encouraged someone who they knew probably wasn't going to put themselves forward to audition because they saw something good in them and turned out the wild card was actually really good (and as the OP says has continued to be good and it wad a good decision).

There will be other parts. It's not lead part or a plant pot at the back.

What should the teacher have done, seen potential in a child who wouldn't normally do acting and not encourage them to get outside their comfort zone in case other people got annoyed it didn't go to their child?

o parents really want to sit through plays where the main parts mumble inaudibly, cry with anxiety, forget their lines and don't even know when to come on stage?

to be fair, most parents would love to NOT sit through plays at all

As someone who has both been in productions and produced shows it is very short-sighted to cast a child (or anyone) before an audition. Being loud and a show off doesn't equal a great actor, sometimes those people fall apart on stage as they can't be anyone else but themselves so can't inhibit a role. Having said that it sounds like this child did audition and proved the teachers right. I think as long as everyone has an equal crack at it then it is fair.

Where does it say that the child was loud or a show off?

Agree hellodarkness

In my experience, it's often the same kids picked over and over again for readings, presentations, assemblies, and the same kids are picked for end of year school play lead roles. The children in question feel more confident because they are often chosen; the other children feel less confident and don't believe in themselves.

I have one of each - DS1 who always puts his hand up, speaks loudly, is a bit of a show off, and was picked for a good role in end of year play. DS2 is more quiet but far better behaved and a much better 'actor' and can remember lines very easily and despite that, he was never, ever, ever picked for anything.

Speaking in my own experience, it's not fair and I often feel that teachers (sorry teachers) will pick the same children and they don't see the actual damage this has on the kids who are not picked.

The quieter kids never have a 'chance to shine'.

It's laziness on the part of some teachers - they opt for the easy option - a kid already brimming with confidence is less work. Even though, school should be about encouraging confidence in all kids.

DD lives performing but has always been sidelined because there's a (lovely) girl in the same year who has been given the leading role in every production every year. She's a smashing kid from a nice family but she didn't need to be the star every year. Neither she nor her Mum are remotely pushy so I think it's teachery copping out.

And before I'm accused of teacher-bashing, I used to be one and have been there when "Araminta" is selected for the nth year running for the school production.

The mother should have kept it to herself, she might have guessed the reaction she would receive - or not receive as it's usually whispers behind back.

I daresay the teachers concerned in the decision knew this child would be able to perform the role well, they can usually pick out who can who cannot.

Our school don’t even bother with auditions. The music teachers favourites are always picked for the lead roles and you can tell by year 1 who will get the parts for every show until the year group leave. It’s so repetitive. There are some really talented singers/performers at the school, but if they aren’t among the favourites why won’t be getting a part.

@arethereanyleftatall I didn't mean this particular child was loud or a show off but I have seen first hand that sometimes children are given roles without audition based on this and it is upsetting for other children and their parents. I have no idea about this child, "charisma" is an interesting phrase for a child and he obviously proved the teacher correct!