Typecasting and "Stock Characters"

Actress Ingrid Bergman

A debate which I have been having throughout my study is that of "typecasting":
"Is typecasting essential for the casting process & for actors to be aware of theirs... Or is it a faulty society that is leading us all to believe we have to 'fit in a box', and typecasting we see on screen is fueling these impressions within society?"

Typecasting combines a wide range of "stock characters" within the screen and theatre world and which we, as actors and audiences, are exposed to. Stock characters were originally outlined by commedia dell'arte (an early form of Italian professional theatre popular in Europe from 16th - 18th century). I studied the technique and various characters included in commedia dell'arte during my training at drama school.  Some of these characters (although there are more) include:

• Zanni - the "clown" - the comedy character

• Pantalone - the older, wealthy man

• Il Dottare - "doctor" - the male Head of the Household

• Columbina - the perky maid / servant (generally female)

• Il Capitano - the "loner", an older man boasting of having once been a "captain" although doubtful he ever had that title

• Innamorati - the "lovers" - young, beautiful romantics. Of a high class status - also known as the "innocent"

 These are brief descriptions of the most basic of characters. It is important to note that all of the above characters have strong character traits - including appearance, physical stance and status which solidify their role within performances. They have stood the test of time. Since the 16th century - through means of theatre right through to screen and TV series - we have seen clear examples of these stock characters. Buddy the Elf played by Will Ferrell in the movie Elf is a perfect example of a modern day Zanni. Dimitri Godman (Aleksey Serebvakov) head of the powerful Godman family in the TV series McMafia is a current Pantalone. Actress Martine McCutcheon plays a strikingly apt Columbina character as Natalie in Love Actually (right down to her East-End London accent in the movie). MacKenzie Mauzy and Billy Magnussen's representations of Rapunzel and Rapunzel's Prince in Disney's 2014 Into the Woods are matched as present day Innamorati.
These are only a few examples of which I could go on and on... (Feel free to comment any correlations you have made between 16th - 18th century stock characters and modern day TV & film characters.) It just cements the notion that we can't seem to escape the idea of stock characters within screen writing.

Furthermore, I read a really interesting view on typecasting from the Golden Age director Michael Curtiz (Casablanca, Mildred Pierce).

"It was Mr. Curtiz who spoke to me about the idea of typecasting. I knew it was the way, but I hadn't understood how difficult it would be to fight it. He explained I couldn't go totally against the way audiences saw me without wrecking my career." (Bergman, quoted by Chandler 2007 p.83)

This piece of advice / opinion shared with Bergman from the well-respected Curtiz was perhaps shattering for her as an actress. Her response was initially "No, no, no, no, no, no." and she admits she was "thinking how she could get around it" (Bergman, quoted by Chandler, 2007 p.83). But how could a young, undeniably attractive actress like Bergman, who fit so perfectly in the role of an Innamorati, get away with passing as a stock character such as Il Captinao (a character of lower status)? Even if you take gender out of the equation and make the stock characters gender-neutral - they still possess innate character and physical traits which, on paper, suit only a certain type of actor.
Furthermore, Curtiz goes on to explain:

"Ingrid, you are beautiful... They [the audience] do not want to see you play a girl with a harelip... Your audience wants to see you, to recognize you, to see you looking beautiful, wearing beautiful clothes, dresses, and accessories they would like to wear. They like to see you on screen in parts in which they recognize you. In other words, you have to play Ingrid Bergman. This will not tax you too much, it will make your audience happy, and it will make a big career."

If we are going by Curtiz' opinion - society want typecasting (at least in the Golden Age they did - and I'm still not sure have we progressed as a society that much since then). They want to see actors placed in the box they expect to see them in. If that was the recipe for a successful actor at that time - why wouldn't she play into her typecast in order to be acknowledged as a great actress? Even though she evidently struggled with the concept of typecast as she believed her creativity and capability as an actress should not be inhibited by typecast. In my lifetime as an actress -  I would love to play a variety of exciting and testing roles. Whether or not typecast will allow me to do this is another thing...
Now, for me, the question is the following:
Is the acting industry playing into the hands of what society wants; or is society falling into the trap of viewing what they see on screen / on stage as "the norm"? Either way, it appears to me that typecasting continues to happen over and over again. I don't know whether to view this as a good or bad thing or simply just a factor within the acting industry, cemented by a history of stock characters - neither good nor bad.

Whatever the fact of the matter is: it certainly appears that, for a lot of people, "Typecasting is everything." (Curtiz, quoted by Chandler, 2007 p. 83)


Chandler, Charlotte (2007) Ingrid (Ingrid Bergman, A Personal Biography), Applause Theatre & Cinema Books
Rudlin, John (1994) Commedia Dell-Arte: An Actor's Handbook, Routledge

Director Michael Curtiz' views on the idea of "typecasting" (Bergman, quoted by Chandler, 2007 p.83)