Stage | The Guardian: Formal three-year drama school courses are a waste of time and money for "the majority of actors", according to the artistic director of the UK's leading youth theatre.
Paul Roseby, who has been at the helm of the National Youth Theatre (NYT) since 2004, told a conference that most actors wouldn't benefit from three years of vocational training and would be better served with more focus on how to sell themselves in the industry.
21 comments:
I think that this article brings up some very good points, and my overall conclusion is that it definitely boils down to the individual actor. Each actor or actress is going to have their very own style of learning, experiencing, and moving forward in their world. Whether that requires them to receive a formal drama education for 3-4 years, or various spread-out sessions over the course of time. It is ultimately up to the individual and cannot be determined by someone else who thinks that they know better.
Initially this struck me as really sad. It's more important and effective just to learn how to sell yourself? Nothing more? And honestly, that can probably be said for any field. Why bother going to school when if you just sell yourself well, you don't even need to worry about it? Well…I see where that's coming from, and for a moment lets push aside the issues of outrageous school costs, etc. To me, school isn't just about learning your field. In the actors case, they are learning more than just acting skills. They are learning the history of acting, the philosophy and theories behind acting, and the art of it. Isn't it important to learn to respect your craft and become your craft rather than just trying to make it big? I really think you first have to learn all the rules, learn the history, learn the basics, then break away from them and find your personal take on things. There are definitely times when school is not the answer, but there is also a depth to something that, at least I think, schools teach to their students, especially when going into higher education. That being said, people are still successful without school to back them, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that! If you have a passion and are able to delve into that passion without school, that's completely fine! I just don't think someone should just throw away the notion of school and only embrace the idea of "learning how to sell yourself" -- I think, and hope, that there's more to it than that.
I am so conflicted with agreeing with this man and yet smacking him with frustrated disagreement. I do agree that marketing and learning how to "sell yourself" is extremely important in a business where connections go just as far if not further than talent. I also support that people don't need to go to school to do something they love and are passionate about pursuing, but I only support this because I know that school isn't for everyone, and that education can come in forms different that your basic in a classroom setting where teacher speaks and you listen. I also support that a huge part of success in our industry is actually working in the industry and having professional experience. However as many actors without work can attest, getting a professional gig is a struggle. And you know how you get a job when you're first starting out? Connections. And where can you get connections? School. Not always of course, for there are many people from our program (though not many) who are unemployed. However getting insights, education, and connections from people who are working successfully in the industry is not a bad way to invest yourself. And formal training is nothing to turn your nose up to either. When I first came to Carnegie Mellon, I thought it was insane that actors didn't act in non classroom productions until their junior year. I thought, "Man these kids are deprived". But after getting to know the program I see the skills that our students develop, hone, and then use in production and as a result produce quality work. So I don't know how the UK is handing their education, but Purnell seems to be producing amazingly skilled performers no problem.
I always wondered about why people go to college in general, not just theatre school. Seriously, most of the most successful people in the world never went to or completed college. So why do people go to college? Well most of us need a little more to go on then a spectacular idea and an insane amount of innate knowledge. College is a place to get more knowledge and experience, and especially for actors that can be a big improvement. Although there are many actors who did not go to theatre school, the majority of working actors did. They can prove that they have training and references, which help greatly with a professional carrer.
I can agree and disagree with Roseby. I agree with his marketing comment, and I think every drama student should learn how to market themselves to the commercial world. I disagree with his comment: "You can either act or you can't." Yes, you may be a "good" (whatever that means) designer or an actor, but why limit yourself to just what you know? I stay in college because so far I have learned how to expand my mind and tear down certain limitations I had before. Just by seeing what my classmates and teachers can do, just by listening to new ideas, just by learning how to think, I have thought of things and created things that I never even thought were possible. I know this article was mainly talking about actors, but I think designers really need to go to school. Yes, you may know how to market yourself, and yes, you may have really great connections in the industry. You may have all of that, but your work can still look like garbage or something that is old and boring. Even though I complain a lot, I am so grateful for the things that CMU Drama has taught me, and I am so grateful that I am starting to see and hear things in the world.
Now from reading this article, I can tell that this was a statement out of many that the director would have made. I would love to have heard the entire conversation before I can cast judgement. Each person must choose/take a different path in life, whether it is via school or embarking on the audition hustle in order to reach a goal. I have even questioned three year programs at times, because sometimes you think that some things can be achieved in one or two years. However, then the personal growth that students gain over the years along with academic knowledge is also credible. There is no right or wrong when it comes to this topic, it just depends on what each individual wants.
No matter what you are studying, or not studying, what you put into it is what you get out of it. So, yes, this guy makes a point that it's important to sell yourself--but you would learn that as part of your integrated training in an arts program. The costs of theatrical training are on par with other training programs (medical, legal, technical, agricultural, etc...). And arguably, the entertainment business is easier to get into than say a steady paying job in the political in arena...would you say you need three year training in how to run a campaign? About as much as you need three years of training to score a call back at an audition...
Also, it is my experience that it's who you know that gets you a job, and what you know that keeps you there. Training is an integral part of that.
I must disagree with a majority of this article. I know that I have only been at CMU for roughly a year and a half and that CMU is a 4 year program, but even within my year and a half, I have seen growth in all of our performers and production based persons, even though this article is geared more toward performers. I feel that the people stating this argument don't actually know what is happening in drama schools and are just ignorant people saying that it's a waste of time because of their successes or what have you. Yes taking workshops is good for learning techniques and all, but what Roseby is saying by having performers learn how to market themselves in school instead of learning techniques makes him look ignorant. Not every drama school is just teaching acting skills, they teach how to market, and how to go out in the world and audition and get jobs.
I do not agree with this article very much, no matter what you are you going to school for an education is important. I think that even an actor needs to go through schooling and get an education. Having a start from a solid educational institution is a benefit for people to have especially in acting. Starting at school gives you a chance to learn to be professional and allows you to start making connections in the industry.
I suppose I understand why people bash drama schools and call them "useless" along with a variety of other adorable names. It makes sense that people think that all drama school involves is playing around all day and it doesn't actually take any work and the reasons why people are there are completely subjective and all that crap that people told me when I applied. I personally think that the reason this is what most people think drama school is, is because they just don't get it. Yes, it's possible to be successful in the industry without formal training, but it's also possible to be successful at ANYTHING without formal training. Saying that learning to sell yourself in the industry is the only important thing to know is like saying that the only skill anyone actually needs is conversation and charm. While those are important skills, there's also a lot that we learn at drama school that doesn't necessarily involve acting or design. A large portion of our classes focus, yes on presentation, but also on opening our minds to new forms of thinking and creative processes. We learn how to tell stories and make things interesting regardless of what it is. Drama school isn't necessarily just for someone who wants to be in theater. There's a reason why large cooperations look for people with drama backgrounds. It's because we learn about deadlines, and presentation, and how to function on little sleep, we learn how to take care of ourselves and the healthy way to do things. We learn empathy. Aside from the basic skills we learn (like drawing, organization, how to create paperwork, and the actors learning to dance, learning to sing, learning to speak in different accents, and learning a plethora of other things that I can't even fathom) we learn how to be people. It's sad that there are people out there who think that we are wasting our time by trying to pursue drama in school, but I just tell them that I'm sorry they don't understand and at least when I graduate my degree will allow me to do something that I can never be bored with. Sitting in an office behind a computer and waiting for my boss to come by and tell me that I've gotten that big promotion I've been waiting for is something that my school has taught me that I don't have to settle for. Theater is more than just selling yourself and it's about way more than charm. Sorry you don't understand.
Assuming that this article is referring to drama schools being a waste for actors specifically, I’m not sure if it is or not. I wouldn’t say that a higher education in theatre design and production is a waste. Let’s put that aside for now.
But how useful is it for actors? I really have no idea. Similar to music, I feel that somebody who has no natural talent can get a grasp of drama, and perhaps even go on to be an okay actor, but probably just an “okay” actor. I think it takes real natural talent to be able to pursue a career in drama. Drama training received in higher education (specifically) only harnesses and channels that talent, it doesn’t generate it. I’m not sure how useful the raw talent is to a performer trying to make a career. I can best think of it in terms of power:
An incandescent light bulb is very simple, it has a filament in gas filled bulb that burns when electricity is passed through it. Only about 1-3% of the energy is effectively turned into light.
An LED style has significantly more circuitry and engineering that goes into it. As a result of this sophistication, its efficiency is much higher, around 15-20%.
Ignoring this terrible comparison, an actor who has significant drama training is able to use their raw talent more efficiently than the other actor who (all other things being equal) has no formal training.
Practically speaking: actors are needed, essentially as “supplies” for those of use who are a design or production discipline of drama.
I can see how drama school could be a waste of money in some circumstances, more so for actors than for those in the technical side of things, but I still think it is a good idea to at least begin at school before going on to the professional world. I agree with Nick that it definitely changes from person to person, that everyone needs to make a decision based on their preferences and personality. On the other hand, I think that people should not rule out the possibility of theatre school simply because there have been many actors and actresses who have gone on to be successful without going to school first.
The most disturbing part of this comment was that it was made by such a leader in the theatre industry. That being said, I feel like he is coming at it from a very different vantage point. IF you are looking to have a limited range career, yes, learning to market yourself is probably all you need. We talk in Acting all the time about “type” and how performers that have been accepted in to CMU could go to LA or NYC and book a part in a show or television series. While it is possible to start your career directly out of high school, most professionals who do end up being a one-trick pony. They will be an excellent villain, and yes, may have some acclaim in that role, but it is the only role they will ever play. Carnegie Mellon teaches the discipline, understanding and creativity necessary to have more than just a “role” in theatre, but rather a rewarding career. Similarly, there is a creative cycle naturally within any artist. As time goes by, a vision or choice will accumulate. This will happen regardless of training. Yet training demands constant creativity, collaboration, and re-envisioning. Having constant deadlines and multiple projects in the air cultivates a more efficient and enriching creative process. This discipline is why we go to school, why we study, and ultimately, why we will have a much more rewarding careers than those who are untrained.
Whoa, whoa, let's not bash theater school too much. That being said, he raises some good points. Your ability to sell yourself is just as important as your actual competency. However, I think that there is valuable to theatrical training. There are some things that are just well suited for a classroom environment. Every artist and actor has their own path to success, but just because some succeed without schooling doesn't mean it isn't right for everyone.
I don't think that a person can make these general claims about all actors. Yes, there are some actors out there that are exceptionally talented and don't exactly need 3 years of formal training but those actors are a rarity. There is always growth and change in any art form and an academic environments allows that growth to happen in a safe environment. Not only that but drama school also gives actors the opportunity to develop the skills they need to sell theme selves in the industry and make connections so they are better off when they have graduated. It is sad to think that some would write off higher education so quickly. A naturally talented painter grows better with training, why should we look at an actor any different.
Our point of view is a little different because we are not studying acting, but I still feel that this article does not observe closely enough the great differences between individuals and the types of education that are available for the performing arts. I feel that when people choose to study acting in college they already have a specific idea of where they want their education to take them. Actors who finish a four year degree granting program are prepared for all types of roles and situations. Talent is inherent, but skill and technique come with time and training. I think, also, an acting school like CMU provides not only training, but a network to fall back onto once alums are in the field. Yes, it costs an absurd amount of money to attend a school like CMU, or NYU, or Juilliard, but in the end I think the young adults who leave these programs are more prepared for a life as an actor than any other performer.
I think this article bring up some interesting points but i would disagree as a whole from my experience. First, i know many actors who have greatly sharpened their skills through acting classes. I acknowledge that there is a certain amount of innate ability but i think that structured instruction can make anyone better. To address a second point that they made about preparing for auditions and things, most quality acting programs include a strong emphasis on that and also have connections with in the industry like cmu does so that when the actors finish the program, they are highly skilled because of their training, they are well versed in how to approach an audition, and they are presented with good opportunities because of their connections in the industry.
I don't agree with this article at all. I think that training of any kind can help you get better. I have seen actors mature at CMU and gain their own voice and style and just become better actors over their 4 years here. I guess it's hard to say if they would have done this not being in school but I stand by the fact that you can't just be thrown into being in front of an audience you have to have some tools at your disposable that you can work with, these don't need to be taught in school necessarily but they do need to be acquired. Also I don't think acting is an intrinsic skill, you can practice and get better at it. Additionally, I think a good acting school will teach you the skills you need to market yourself in the real world and teach you tools to make you a better actor. The two should not be completely separate.
In agreement with what most people said above, I think that it's sad that such an influential person would make an off-the-cuff comment like this which, as the director of RADA said, makes theatre seem like a soft skill that anyone could do. Sure, there will always be those people that have a lucky break when they're kids or teenagers, and so have a steady career in the business without going to school. However, how many famous actors and actresses have gone on Broadway and gotten slammed in reviews because of their acting (hint: it's a lot). Sure, being able to sell yourself is a HUGE part of the business now, and having the right manager and the right agent and the right connections can make or break you. However, I don't agree with Roseby's assertion that skills that you suddenly need can just be learned on the fly or in one-off classes. Sure, those can help, but there are other skills that can be learned in drama school that are much harder to just pick up.
I'm going to out right disagree with this guy entirely. I've been studying at CMU for a little more than half a semester now, and I can say that I have learned more in that period of time than I think I would have if I was working out in the real world. This is because the courses here are challenging me in ways I would never be challenged. Thus preparing me for anything that is thrown at me. I also feel that my training is making me more confident in myself.
I can't say that I know too much about the actor curriculum at CMU, but I believe that it is as beneficial to them as the DP curriculum is.
I really don't believe that "you either know how to act or you don't" The world doesn't work like that at all. For instance, take the 10,000 hour rule. To be really good at something you have to spend 10,000 hours practicing it. Even if you are super talented, you have to put in that time to be great.
So in my opinion, even if you are very talented, drama school could only benefit you and help you get more experience. I don't see why it is a waste of time.
Post a Comment