Drama schools? must be done/ maybe not?

I went to BOVTS and I found it a huge help when looking for theatre work in this country, in Australia it counts, in the US not really. For film and TV anywhere it doesn't really matter aside from the valuable experience, skills and professionalism you learn. You can still learn all that stuff on your own but it would probably take you much longer without a wise ol dame letting you know each time you slip up :)
Best of luck
L

• 15 years ago
• 41

I've just finished reading Mike Alfreds' fantastic book Different Every Night. In it he talks about the arrogance of actors, but in a different way to the usual arrogance we can lean toward. He points out that acting is almost the only profession where people thrive, and sometimes even pride themselves on a lack of training.

Dancers, sportsmen, musicians they all train very hard and it's throughout their careers. Some actors don't train at all, whereas others do their three years and then never do any training again. I thought it was a very valid point and one which made me question my own commitment to our craft. I now relish any opportunity to workshop or attend seminars course etc.

Not sure its overly relevant to the thread but thought I'd share.

• 15 years ago
• 42

I have to say, in answer to "Shiny thing's" question - I have been there, tried that, so I'll knock it.
I have been to NIDA and don't believe it was worth the money or think they gave me anything I wouldn't have gotten from, say, a well known successful Director running his own course (which I have also done)

As it has been said, it depends on what is going to work for you, this is an art form and different people take different routes to shine.

I do agree places like NIDA give you one type of starting platform if you choose to roll with it, but people like Mel Gibson and Cate Blanchett worked hard from there and it is not necessarily "NIDA" that made them as successful as they are today.... Toni Collette, dropped out of NIDA and check her out!

Work hard and be true to what you enjoy and find what works for you!

To answer the overall question, I say "Maybe not" - again it depends on what gets the best out of you as an actor.

• 15 years ago
• 43

In response:

Drama school is in my opinion important but I also have to say that an accredited course is NOT the be all and the end al.

James, in defence of Luke, I have to say that iwth no accreditation and not being from a big drama school, he is working with me in a show this christmas!!! he is a working actor!!!!!

I totally agree that actors must have TRAINING but the elitism of only a accredited school is pure tosh and I sincerely say that this is something you will see when you get out of drama school and you eneter the working world of many jobbing actors. Its tough.

I will also say that when I have done voice coaching, many of the most difficult actors I ahve coached are those who have come from accredietd schools- they are arrogant and look down on anyone esle. I have also found from my eight years of experience and having done some good roles that new grads are usually the WORST people to work with if they are arrogant and cocky.

Thr irony is that many directors dont care how talented you are if they cant WORK with you.
Might I suggest that you are only at the beginnig of your training once you finish drama school and have still LOADS to learn.

• 15 years ago
• 44

Just to expand upon some earlier comments. I think it is well worth remembering, in the middle of all this debate, why 'accreditation' is considered useful in the first place. Essentially, it is a tool that the industry is now using to try and 'guarantee' the professionalism of the actors applying for jobs within a very overcrowded market.

Of course, it is not a reflection on the fact that great actors emerge into the market with no training at all, and actors get formally trained who prove completely incapable of making their mark. What it is a guarantee of, to the casting professionals who care about it, is that the COURSE, and the TUTORS running the course, have been certified as worthwhile.

Don't underestimate casting directors, directors, agents etc. All of them who have any claim to be leaders in their own industries make it their daily work to keep an eye on who they consider is doing worthwhile work within the industry and who isn't. They know the value of those who run accredited courses and the value of the training received on those courses themselves, and they also know the establishments whose products they rate but which lack accreditation. They are far more savvy about the fact that such and such a place produces actors of an undeniably high calibre even though it isn't accredited because the course is too new/or the establishment has some axe to grind with the CDS/or it doesn't fit formal criteria to be classed as an 'academic' discipline etc. etc. At the same time, they also know which establishments are run by wannabes and nohopers, hoping to make money from enthusiatic actors, and giving them training which is hardly worth the paper it's written on.

From the point of view of those who want to train, the most important thing is simply that they do their research into these issues as much as they can before they pay money into the hands of an institution. Joining a course with accreditation will (probably) do more for your immediate prospects post drama school than joining one without - but be aware that there are non-accredited courses still held in high esteem (those at The Poor School, The Courtyard, Actors Company, Bretton Hall etc.) which can bolster career prospects, too. It is really the industry perception of the quality of the training offered by the institution that matters - not accreditation as such, which is just an academic confirmation.

Eventually, none of this really matters, because if you work for long enough, the right people in the industry begin to know and respect your work, and this in turn generates new work for you. However, as getting seen in the first few years is the greatest obstacle your career initially faces, anything that can help with a foot in the door is important, and this is why, if you train (itself a way of heightening your industry profile), you should train at an institution that commands respect, whether the course itself was accredited or not.

• 15 years ago
• 45

A more mature way of putting what I was trying to say! It was never my intention to be rude to people and I'm sorry if this is how it came across!! Best wishes to all

• 15 years ago
• 46

I think the best training comes with the job. Undeniably. Think of all the directors you work with who have different visions, and will want you to perform in different ways. I think training is brilliant, but that doesn't necessarily mean a 1/2/3 year acting course, I think that means 'working the muscle to keep it supple' and there are plenty of places that you can do that - The Actor's Centre, to name one - where you can practice sight-reading, improv, screen acting, diff. theatre practitioners such as Meisner etc to see what works for you. Train, train, always train, I'm telling you (and I am primarily a screen actress myself) - actors in America train every single day, going to class, auditioning etc, is like a full-time occupation! It is SO important to train, for the benefits of finding your style, your voice, working with different people (how much can you learn being stuck with the same people / tutors every day for 3 years, regardless of how 'good' they are - surely people will settle into their own style and you won't have the added benefit of picking up new tips, tricks, throwing things into the mix, the element of surprise that you get on a film set or theatre show when you first rock up, that you have to adapt to? This is why I, personally, think learning on the job is FAR more important than any drama school). However. A HUGE however.

Getting a job in this industry is more than how good you are. Even if you are a phenomenal actor, it will not guarantee you a job over another 'quite good' actor if you haven't had a spring board to get a damn good agent who really works for you and gets you those castings, or if you are a relative 'unknown' in the field. I think this is where drama school helps, like many of you have said - giving you that springboard to make people really sit up and notice you. You meet SO many people that you would NEVER meet otherwise. People at LAMDA have Dallas Smith coming to see their shows and offering them representation in THEIR FIRST YEAR, and I know people at RADA who have workshops with the likes of Mike Leigh every thursday.....Jealous!! This is almost what you are paying for, the exposure, the brand.

I went to Cambridge, did English and Drama there, and I'm afraid if I go to drama school I'll be 26 or 27 when I get out. How many roles will I have missed out on? It is such as risk, a big question mark, and I honestly think everyone will have a different route to take. I think that if you are making contacts, and working on your skills as an actor as much as possible, then whichever way you get to do that (through private classes and workshops or training) then great - but everyone is different and will have a completely unique experience.

Seriously, let's be lifting each other up! It's SUCH a tiring, overwhelming, elusive industry, I just want to give everyone a big pat on the back for sticking with it, drama school or no, and believe that if you KEEP GOING, you will find perhaps there are less 'crap' people about the older you get! Who knows.

• 15 years ago
• 47

It is in most actors' mentality to think that the grass is greeener on the other side. Whatever reason we think we're not getting castings, we assume it's better for the other lot, be it untrained actors against the trained, "character" actors against "leading actor" faces. Those with accents against those without.
We all make assumptions about why we aren't getting work and make assumptions about others in the process.
It just comes down to luck, pure and simple. There seems to be a tendancy to presume that if you plug away long enough and you have talent, that will be enough. It isn't enough because there are too many of us. Many of us will get absolutely nowhere and it is often out of our hands, no matter how much some people say it isn't. When things go right, it's talent that got us there, of course. I'm sure that I would think the same if I got a good job tomorrow. Talent is a side issue. Getting work is a lottery dependant on how many other people fill a particular criteria. Some people's odds are better than others but that's life.
The only thing we can do is have faith and a little hope. And wish others well on the good fortune when it comes for them.
From someone who apparently has "had my chance" I'm not giving up lightly.

• 15 years ago
• 48

Let's get one thing straight here.
You've had some work, that's great. You've obviously got some talent to get the jobs that are available. Wonderful.
When I occasionally cast for fringe projects that I put on myself do you know how many applicants I get for the male roles advertised? About three or four. Do you know how many I get for the female roles? Over fourty.
The odds are vastly stacked against females of a certain age and no amount of training or talent will change that. Pretty bad luck, isn't it?
At drama school, I got leading roles in every single final year production. I was one of the few that were almost expected to succeed.
Hardly any agents turned up to see those fantastic shows. They all came to see the final showcase (well, the ones that battled through the tube strike that was on that particular day). That was it there, wasn't it? My big moment. When all those agents that had bothered to hang around after the first half hour should have seen me for the acting genius that I was. But I must have blown it, mustn't I? Even though there were only about five agents left when I stepped out, they all should have been chasing me, shouldn't they? Not one CV was taken that day. Bad luck? Or bad acting?
At first, the choices of who the agents took on that day were slightly baffling. But you come to realise quite quickly that, who needs another twenty something actress? There's plenty. Who haven't we got yet? They look interesting. We'll have him/her.
Then, once you are agent-less you are on the same footing as every other unrepresented actor, trained or untrained. I worked constantly in the work that I could get, which in the days before internet sites like this, restricted to the profit share stuff in PCR.
It took me over a decade to get agents to even consider me and now I'm with a small agent who is struggling to get me seen for paid work as my CV is filled with small scale stuff that is disregarded by many in the casting profession.
Before this self-obsessed sob story gets any more long-winded- OK, You can think what you like of me, that I'm talentless, or just don't try. I know in myself what I am.
I've not had any paid castings this year. I've done a few student films and I'm busy writing something for next year which is something. Maybe if I got seen for castings each month and consistantly didn't get anything then maybe I should question why I'm in this profession. I don't get seen for the big stuff any more than anyone else.
I'm just looking for a way in and sadly I've found that NCDT training didn't give it to me. (Unfortunately, the top ten agents hold the power and Lady Luck). What it did give me was three great, creative years, good technique, unwavering self-belief, a respect for other people and an attidude that had evolved beyond am-dram back-biting.
I hope your luck continues.

• 15 years ago
• 49

Yes Luke, we do seem to have strayed from the original point!
I think the question opened up a quite a few festering sores on boths sides. Some of us (including me)have been guilty here of summing up people without a lot of consideration.
To sum up, I think that, as I said in an earlier post, that there will always be barriers to work, and each of us will have a different one. That won't change.
All you can do is equip yourself and hope for the best. Training, preferably NCDT training in my opinion is still essential, others find a different path which I personally don't agree with but there you are. We're all different. There are talented, untrained people out there as much as there are, actually talented, trained people as well.
We do all make our own luck as much as we can but have to be realistic that it still is a brutal, unfair place to be.
Don't make any enemies and keep smiling!

• 15 years ago
• 50

Luke I must also add, that your audition with 50 other guys you went for, you may simply have not gotten the job cos you were not right for it- as you know is part of our profession.

Dont let yourself be dismissed by actors0 I have worked with actors who WILL do that if you let them. I am non negotiable that you must have TRAINING but where that training is done is an open field.

James is right that people must have training, but then what about those who trained overseas, or at Juilliard in NYC, or South Africa like me? Or at a school like Luke's? I know many NCDS students who are NOT good performers.

• 15 years ago
• 51

Fair point, Blake,

But can we all please remember that good people that come out of NCDT schools too?
I know it's not your intention to dismiss these types of school, Blake, you're far too sensible for that, but I'm not sure that they are getting a fair hearing here.

• 15 years ago
• 52

Oh, no, they are fabulous schools. Totally. But Im just making a point on the other side, but if you CAN go and afford them you MUST.

Me, sensible? well...... hahahahaahahahahahahahahahaha

• 15 years ago
• 53

I think Im actually a nutter. :P

• 15 years ago
• 54

Well, a sensible nutter then.
One that talks to themselves on the tube, but at least it's about Chekhov...

• 15 years ago
• 55

Youre just jealous cos the voices talk to me but not you........ :P

• 15 years ago
• 56

To drag the topic back to the original posting, now that the topic of finance has been mentioned, I think it's worth pointing out that if you are lucky enough, like I was, to be offered a place at one of the drama schools that is a constituent member of the Conservatoire of Dance and Drama, then a) you get your fees paid for you by the govt - minus the mandatory student contribution - and b) you become eligible for student loans.

In fat, because I was a mature student on a low income with a child to support, I had the entirety of my fees paid for me.

I simply wouldn't have been able to go to drama school otherwise.

So it's worth remembering that there is a HUGE practical advantage to winning a place at one of these schools (I think the number of Conservatoire schools is growing): it's more financially viable; the equation that NCDT necessarily equals more expensive is not the case.

Hugh x

• 15 years ago
• 57

Ah Hugh after finally getting to the end of this long long thread I was just about to add my bit, when I see you have kind of done it for me.

There seems to be this big idea that going to an accredited school is more expensive. This is rarely the case anymore providing it is a degree course. Practically all the NCDT degrees are now state funded. I know there are still a few expections, GSA I think and I am not sure where else.

It tends to actually be the non-accredited schools such as the Poor School, and also the performing arts colleges, which are more expensive as they are diplomas which are not state funded, and neither can you get a student loan for them.

Of course post graduates and MA's are a different story, but just the same as in any profession. So please don't be put off by the cost, nowadays its just like going to uni.

Steph
x

• 15 years ago
• 58

Really good point guys-
As it was (ahem) a little while ago that I got my grant I wasn't sure of the rules these days.
I was probably luckier back then as they had grants, not loans, but at least you don't have to fight your council tooth and nail any more (it took me another year to get funding after getting my place!)
Still, amazing how much debt you rack up! It seems to be the norm now... be thankful it's not a law degree!

• 15 years ago
• 59

I already have over £20000 worth of debth from blimmin university! Not sure how much more I can take! But, just to throw this in the mix - would you say it is more necessary to go to drama school if you are aiming more to act for stage, not screen? I say this because on most drama school courses, you do one module or term on film and TV, which is not enough. My (screen) acting coach claims that drama school 'f***s you up' in terms of screen acting, and she has a hard time training those in film and tv when they went to drama school than those that didn't. Also, classes you do such as voice, movement, physical theatre, mime etc, are mainly aspects found in the realm of theatre, are they not? So whilst it's great to have the basics, in case you every needed them for a film or TV show (nothing that a few weeks of intensive training before a job couldn't cover, or at least allow you to get a grasp of), I am not sure it's worth all the time and the money to become 'trained' in these areas (and let's face it, all those who went to drama school, how many of you are still practicing your skills on a daily basis? Surely many of you have forgotten all or neglected those skills you were once more adept in, and even if you gain these skills at drama school, often, unless you go on to do additional dance or mime training for example, you are only given the basics in, anyway).

So who knows.....I honestly think it's up to the individual, and I think I would never knock anyone who has put the time and money into going to drama school, but it doesn't make people 'better' - I think it gives you a certain type of training with label attached, as opposed to individual training with no established label. Once again, it's back to the old 'label' that established training brings.

• 15 years ago
• 60