Drama school is pointless.... (Oh - yes - it - is!)

I did a 12 month course at the Rep College in reading.

the course is run with the traditions of repatory theatre. we performed 14 different plays over the year (of which we had to audition for) in the traditional style of rep i.e. short rehearsal time, performances, next play. we performed to the paying public in many different venues big and small.

classes were rehearsals essentualy but with teaching going hand in hand with the directing. we were not always directed by the same person either.

we were also taught audition technique, agent interviews and how to present your CV and were assesd on these in role play auditions.

At the end of the year we did a showcase in london but this was an equity rate payed contract so we were able to get our equity card as soon as we finished!

you tell me how i could have got all that from a book!

I don't dispute that drama school isnt the be all and end all, it isnt. but to say its pointless and you dont learn anything is absolute rubbish!

Neill

• 14 years ago
• 81

Have to say that I had no desire to get involved in this debate up until this point, as, to be frank, whilst I didn't necessarily agree with Paul's way of phrasing things, I feel that his attitude towards drama schools holds some validity. Certainly, I do not feel that attending a drama school is what makes or breaks an actor, because the qualities any actor can bring to a role are essentially inherent and cannot be taught - inasmuch as acting is being, one can only ever learn to truly be oneself.

I also agree that there is, perhaps, an overwrought emphasis in recent years within the industry on the 'necessary evil' of becoming drama school trained. This appears to have emerged in the wake of the decline of industry standards elsewhere, the loss of the closed shop union, the collapse of rep and so forth - going to drama school is equated by many industry professionals with an easy 'rubberstamp' that winnows certain 'bona fide' casting possibilities from many that are 'not'. In many respects, it is a false dichotomy, because a great many actors throughout history have not formally 'trained' in their careers, or came to 'training' late after they had already established minor reputations. Nonetheless, the industry that many of these individuals flourished in is not comparable to today's industry, and being known to have gone to drama school can be a considerable advantage to the modern actor. Though there is also nothing wrong in recognising that for screen work particularly many casting directors couldn't care less, when push comes to shove, where somebody trained so long as they can provide the required performance - it is simply harder work to get seen initially if there are less 'bona fides' on your CV, and part of Paul's achievement is simply getting to be seen by the right people through dint of hard graft.

Drama school *does* teach technique, it is true, and this is especially useful for many of the highly specific skills bases that the British industry specialises in - such as large scale theatre and radio work. I do not believe that, even possessed of natural talent, a tremendous vocal timbre etc., an actor can grasp the intricacies of working in these facets of the industry without further training of some description - whether one has to go to drama school to get it is debateable, inasmuch as courses may run modules on such techniques but can really only scratch the surface of necessarily long term 'on the job' practice if one wishes to specialise in fields such as combat or voice over.

Splat, as ever, hit nails on the head for me when he mentioned that in the U.S., in his opinion, training focuses on nurturing actor individuality, whereas in Britain it is tailored towards generic technique. I think that this is a slightly old fashioned view, and that British schools are moving ever more towards Method practices, but it is true that they still teach and emphasise such training piecemeal, and offer it as one possible type of tool alongside e.g. drilling in Shakespearean delivery. Naturally, because screen acting has always dominated in the U.S. market, the nature of eliciting 'truthful' performances and crafting characters believably from the self - the ability, in essence, to be oneself - has been far more prominent in the USA than in Britain, and Splat is probably right that 'training' in the U.S. has far more weight and significance accorded to it than does 'training' in this country. Still, the essence of *all* training, it seems to me, is not the creation of a specific acting style, but rather the establishing within the actor of the confidence, bravery and self - awareness to learn how to use themselves to inform the characters that they portray. This is really what training is for. I would argue that on a purely personal level, drama school remains vital for many actors to attend because they wish to spend more time learning from outside voices how to gain more awareness of what they, the actor, offer to the profession and to strengthen their self belief and self control. It is certainly true that there will be always be actors who are certain enough of these factors in their own makeup that they feel no pressing need to spend money and time on gaining such bolstering. And, naturally, many actors of both types are good actors, regardless.

In my opinion, as usual, I accept it's different strokes for different folks, and this works for me.

• 14 years ago
• 82

Paul - according to an archived version of your website and your profile on castingnetwork, you've done all this training.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041019233530/paulkhanna.com/paul_khanna_resume.pdf

Training
Central School of Speech and Drama 2003 Fundamentals - Accredited British drama school est. 1906
Casting Film and Commercials workshop 2003 John Melainey - Hubbard Casting
Method Masterclass Series 2003 Marianna Hill - New York Actor's Studio


http://www.castingnetwork.co.uk/castactorcv.asp?actorid=-504251724&cdid=0

CSSD - 3 mth acting course 2004;
RADA - Shakespeare Course 2005
Actors Studio NY - Method Acting Masterclass Series 2005;
Actors Centre London - Acting Intensive 2007

Now you've removed every bit of training off your casting call pro profile and state that going to drama school is pointless. I think this is misleading.

Because I think some people think you are saying that you don't need to do ANY training - just get out there and act.

But that is something you can't be suggesting, as you've done quite a bit of training yourself, with some of the most prestigious acting schools in the world.

When you said "I'm not saying going to drama school is a bad idea. I'm saying it's not the only way, not by a long shot", that was a reasonable point. If you're CV is anything to go by, it looks like you've trained on and off over the years, doing workshops etc and getting real acting gigs at the same time to learn the craft.

But when you said "Drama school isn't necessary. Write it on your hand, tell the bus driver, or even call the Daily Mail.", it just sounds like you are saying you don't need to ANY training - just get out there and act. Which is just pi$$ing people off. Because anyone who spent 3 years at acting school doesn't want someone saying it was a waste of time.

Overall, by taking all your training off your CV, I think it's misleading people into thinking you've never done any training and you think all training is pointless.

Perhaps if you acknowledged the fine schools that you trained at over the years, people would see that what you are actually saying is "there's more than one way to skin a cat" when it comes to learning how to act.

Andrew

• 14 years ago
• 83

Obviously training is not "pointless!" I never said that....and Paul, well he has his reasons for saying that I guess?

Nobody has suggested learning to act from a book either...???? Although a great deal on the different playwrites can be got from a book..can't it?

My issue is the validity of taking three years with all the costs involved.. to do what one can easily learn within a year. ie: Tools to get started!

The course at Reading...14 plays under audition under a "real life" experience sounds a far better bet as a course than most I have ever heard of before.

As for learning to breath...C'mon folks ..regular vocal classes can certainly help you do that...plus you can easily develop this with on the job real life experience. I'm not denying some get it wrong......but Rocket science it ain't...and I also said MUSICAL THEATRE is an example of theatre when initial proper training is vital.

Many have said ....what they learned in the outside world is what counts...and they have been to Drama school...Hmmm!

I still remain needing to be convinced that a three year drama degree makes one a "better" actor!!

Debate still has plenty to be said....keep it constructive, or the CCP mafia will close it!!

Sorry Chris....just a joke?!

• 14 years ago
• 84

I agree with Blake on this. I feel that what is important is Training.

Personally I don't feel it's important whether you did a 3 yr degree at an accredited drama school or some other form of training elsewhere (I did a part-time course which meant I could work at the same time), but I don't believe it's possible to teach yourself all the skills you learn through some form of formal training. And I do feel that its these skills that enable us to sustain careers and keep developing.

Yes you can learn a lot on your own but how can you teach yourself what you don't know you don't know?

And I know what I'm going to say is perhaps more relevant to stage than to film but nevertheless its relevant to the job of an actor.

What training has given me is the ability to have a control over my voice and physicality so that I can recreate anything I discover through rehearsal/character developement. I can perform night after night/take after take without having to worry about hitting my mark/being heard or damaging my voice.
I can read a play and understand & perform it, not just because I can read (which I could do very successfully before training btw) but because I have an understanding of how acting and writing and people have changed over time. Could I have learnt these things myself? Only if I'd known what to look for and where to look.

Yes, people-watching to enable us to put on the part of other people is important and yes, to an extent that can be done without any sort of formal training & yes I can walk and breathe all on my own. But that's not going to help me when I'm performing a piece of stylised Restoration theatre. I don't know anyone who still walks/dresses/speaks in the manner they did then. I don't naturally know how to use a fan or move corseted in the way the women of the time did. That's something I needed to learn. (The same can be said for any period or stylised work really).

It's interesting to me that in the States, performers are constantly encouraged to take classes in all different things from voice to writing to improv to scene-work regardless of how long they've been in the industry, or what type of course they did before. Actors, on the whole, are expected to continue their learning and developement and I think it's a shame we don't have the same kind of view over here. Just because you've trained for 3 yrs, 2yrs, 1 yr etc doesn't mean you know everything or that there are aren't areas you don't need to develop in.

I do however also agree that a lot of training happens on the job, you can't teach what it's like to tour or be on a busy film set but there are so many things that can be taught, whether people are prepared to learn though is really another matter.

Anyway just my thoughts.

D x

• 14 years ago
• 85

I shall contribute nothing to this debate, except levity.

Sir Ian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43sbtkQM6zc&fmt=18

• 14 years ago
• 86

And Paul, from the hilltop, gazed down on the huddled masses beneath him. He raised his arm and spake ... " I have seen the light .... I will show you the way " .. and the people fell to their knees and prayed.

• 14 years ago
• 87

Absolutely brilliant!

(They did teach us this at drama school...)

Interesting debate this one! I couldn't quite resist joining in!

Many thanks to Jenna for illuminating Paul's corner with intelligence, humour and eloquence.

I didn't enter the profession until I was in my forties. I had always wanted to act, but had been gently pushed in an academic direction by my parents and wandered a little aimlessly from moderately interesting job to moderately interesting job until finally taking the plunge into what I had always wanted to do. I worked on the fringes of the profession before going to drama school with some very occasional and modest successes - none of which are worth shouting about, though I learned something useful from all of them. I thought that training, though desirable, was beyond me both financially and practically as I was bringing up two children. It wasn't until my son went to drama school that I considered doing so too. I could only consider one year (for practical and financial reasons) and needed a DaDA as I had already had funding for a degree in the dim and distant past. So far, so much not very interesting history.

I went to drama school because I thought it might open some doors and give me some useful contacts. I did already think I could act, but I thought an accredited school and showcase and contacts would give me things I didn't have and open some doors. I knew I had plenty to learn of course, I wasn't so arrogant that I didn't think there was progress to be made, but I had NO IDEA how much I didn't know. I came out from drama school knowing that I had huge amounts still to learn to improve my craft but that I had a really useful tool box at my disposal. Some tools I use all the time. Some tools I already had. Some were rusty through lack of care and use and some were new tools which I still use rather clumsily (and there are one or two bizarre ones which I truly don't think I'll ever need - but I suppose you never know!).

I did get useful contacts. I did get a showcase. I did get some interesting insights into the profession. I did get an agent (though not from the showcase!). None of these things was anywhere near as important as I had thought. It was finding out what I never knew I never knew (didn't Pocahontas say that? - good ol' Disney) that was the most valuable part of drama school. I discovered bad habits, strengths, weaknesses, got to practise every day for almost a year, watched others learning, learned from their successes and their mistakes and came out with the confidence that I was on the right path and heading in the right direction.

I have worked with terrific actors who have trained at drama school and terrific actors who have not. Whenever I have worked for proper industry rates I have worked with actors who have trained at drama school or older actors who came through the Rep system. This may just be a coincidence and statistically not particularly significant as I haven't had all that much work at proper industry rates!! I suspect it isn't a coincidence, perhaps time will tell.

Most of the people I have worked with have been really delightful. Hard-working, talented, funny, interesting. We've all worked hard on the job in hand, and although we might compare notes and experiences, none of us would have dreamed of belittling another's journey to where we met up. For the record, I have also worked once or twice with complete prats who have not trained at drama school - not on the paid jobs. I also know (but have not worked with) some complete prats who have trained at drama school: neither camp is devoid of prats unfortunately.

All the drama school trained actors I know are well aware that the profession is tough and that their training does not give them any right to work over someone who has not trained.

I have worked in the profession without drama school training and with it. I certainly know which has made me feel more confident and better prepared. Not everyone will need this, or be able to get it, but I do not believe you can say drama school is pointless unless you have tried it. If you try it, and still think it's pointless, come back and let us know.

• 14 years ago
• 88

I feel at the moment it is difficult just to get decent auditions. Most people, whether trained or untrained, are probably experiencing the same thing and not even getting the chance to demonstrate their talent!
I am not sure how this problem can be overcome other than getting a better agent? But even so it is just the sheer amount of competition that is the problem and this is unlikely to change.

• 14 years ago
• 89

'If you want to act, and can't get to drama school, take voice classes and learn to fence'. (Terry Hands)

• 14 years ago
• 90

Hi all,

I've tried to read all of this thread, but time permitting and wanting to contribute, I write without reading all posts fully and I apologise now for treading on anyone's toes. It will not be intentional!! AND it is late! :0)

I trained at drama school for three years (gasp!!!). I trained pretty late in terms of the age factor, but wanted to do that - my choice and not without a lot of prejudice either so a tough decision and a pretty scary one to make for me personally. I guess that is what propelled me to write here just now. Paul, if nothing else, your post has created debate which is what you wanted I guess. So well done!

I'm not sure that the showcase part was the be all and end all of my decision even but, Splatcat, I get where you are coming from :0) I just felt it was right for me, you know... Yes I got an equity card and I'm grateful for being accepted and given the funds to train. I wanted to collect as many tools as I could and learn more along the way. Infact my time there was filled with learning and not just about acting. It was just an experience in itself.

To be able to communicate with others, to tell a story, to convincingly show an aspect of life that someone may not have seen, known, or considered is one that brings joy/reflection/sadness/ questions/disgust/admiration/fear... I could go on....!!. You don't need drama school training for that, correct. Just a complete lack of arrogance and being open to everything. An open vessel to accept other possibilities and tell someone else's story. It will serve anyone well not to be arrogant in this business. Successful or not, people can smell it a mile off and most don't appreciate it, or welcome it.

Creating a captive story... a journey to an audience that will make them leave a theatre/film/show/programme/documentary feeling different, to think..., be moved..... Isn't that what we'd all like to do? I've been moved by other people's portrayals in this way. I'd just be happy with that. It's not really about "seeing you at the Oscars". That's ego and certainly not something I was taught at drama school.

Nightey nite!
xxx

• 14 years ago
• 91

Seems to me, "some" Drama school grads are saying you can't possibly know until you have been….and I would answer that by saying you can't possibly know BECAUSE you have been?! It's not a good enough argument to me.

So isn't this a case of there are no rules…it's a 50/50 debate? Because most actors have been to drama school in one way or another…..majority rule must be correct…….Nonsense!

You say Paul has patronised your degrees/diplomas….well equally I'm not happy being patronised by Drama students telling me how I cannot act as well as them, or even at all, because I haven't trained! The only difference being…I simply smile at the naivety "some of you" have displayed on here.

What's good for one actor/person…might not be good for the other…that's seems to be the case.

My LONG post earlier gave a middle line view I thought…a financial and business like approach….but most of you have overlooked that, and jumped at Paul who has done nothing other than sparked an interesting debate and just wound you up good and proper!!

He put the bate out…and many of you snapped it up!
Try looking at this calmly (good coming from me I know!!) ignore Paul's youth, naivety or arrogance if that's what it is…he'll be the one that suffers if that is the case……….and just look at this "objectively!"

I think the debate is interesting….but its not something to be WON or LOST. We all act in our own way, we all have our own way of approaching the business and dealing with our roles…..nobody is RIGHT and nobody is WRONG.

True success or whatever you wish to call it, is longevity in the business. We are all only as good as the Job we are doing at the time, or past work done maybe……you can be trained as you like, or as good as you like…..but none of it is worth a bean if you can't get paid work!!!

I respect you all trained and otherwise…Peace everyone…and have a lovely weekend!

• 14 years ago
• 92

Excellent Shannon - you've summed up what acting means to me certainly and it's not about fame and accolade - although that would be lovely - that's not the goal.

• 14 years ago
• 93

Having re-read this thread through, I have come to the conclusion: what an arrogant .. selfish lot we are !!! A world in crisis, soldiers being killed daily, criminals openly allowed into our Country, Gaols full to capacity, our laws, off the cuff, made in Brussels..... and all we can talk about is; should a piece of wood be cut by hand saw.. or by machine !!!.
Do you honestly think that the designer gives a rats ass about how it was cut ? all he wants is the piece so he can finish his chair, or sideboard .. or , in our situation, his Cast !!.
Let's put this thread back, from whence it came ... back in the bin !!!.

• 14 years ago
• 94

Well this thread seems to be merging with the Harry Potter one, but I agree that money is a big issue as regards training, luckily, I was the last year to get a grant, otherwise there was no way I could have gone to Rose Bruford. These days, I don't know how people afford it, but if they do they are showing a commitment to the profession they wish to enter, by stumping up the cash and training for three years. Also, the NCDT schools have to provide you with skills that are recognised and required by the industry, so, yes, it is also a way in. Re Mr Khanna, he has shown a commitment in getting off hius backside and writing 200 letters and by furthermore, refusing to take no for an answer- he should be applauded for that. And also, being a speaking role in a Harry Potter movie, is a big deal, so well done, sir. I think one should be able to trumpet one's successes sometimes, also. Right , on the downside, this successs does not qualify a person to become judgemental or give them the right to make sweeping generalisations, particularly when it offends people who have scrimped and saved for three years to train for something that is important to them. Free speech is fine, but it should go ought hand in glove with forethought and sensitivity. Some of the best, known actors have great humility and remember, be nice to those you meet on the way up because...(add your own appropriate truism or cliche here). Enough wittering!

• 14 years ago
• 95

I have little or nothing to add to this debate that hasnt been said elsewhere, however I felt the need to make one very simple observation...

Jenna essentially echoed Paul's views but did so in a much more eloquent and humble manner...and no-one has since deemed it necessary to make any 'personal' remarks about Jenna or her turn of phrase.
I would like to think that, if nothing else, Paul might learn something from this debate about the proper way to conduct oneself in a conversation such as this without coming accross as arrogant, condesending, self-aggrandising and ultimately something of a figure of ridicule...or would 'learning a lesson' be a little too much like 'training' for your liking??

Ok, back to work - lines dont learn themselves unfortunately!! (that's something they definitely didnt teach me at drama school...!)

• 14 years ago
• 96

Mm Paul,

Im not really sure what you are trying to achieve here.

I hate to mention Harry Potter,but I noticed comments made by yourself in another posting,something about not needing training to be an actor.

But now to have started a second debate regarding training,seems to suggest your trying to convince yourself not us that training is not required to get ahead in this industry.




I myself have trained and consider myself lucky to have had the chance to do so.

Yes people can have natural abilities,and I have worked with a few.But many people need guidance in how best to improve their skills as an actor.

Of course you cannot teach someone to act,only develope what is already in that person.

But as others have stated in this forum,the tools gained from attending drama school are worth the effort to aquire.

You can aquire many skills outside drama school,but in what space of time?

The odd course here and there?

I have met many people who do the odd course,who have never and will never take the final step to going to Drama school.

I think they do the odd course to keep the romance alive,that perhaps one day theyll shine despite their lack of experience.

But the reality is that for many many people drama school is the right way to go.It gives you as much or as little as you want it to.

Yes of course it does give you contacts for the future,but it isnt the only key to opening the doors to heaven.

Hard work and an ability to get on with everyone around you counts for a great deal as well.

I had good and bad times at Drama school where I wondered about its worth.
And I had some excellent teachers and some dreadfull ones.

But my first professional Panto dispelled any doubt from my mind regarding my chosen path.

I used all the lessons I had learnt from drama school to great effect.And recieved a warm review fo my efforts.

Of course I wish you luck and perhaps you will become a big star,but dont knock it if you havent tried it.

If your confident enough to feel you dont need to attend drama school then why even bring the subject up in the first place.

• 14 years ago
• 97

From the original casting call...Just for your information!


quote
Company: DDDCo Ltd.
Producer: David Heyman & David Barron
Director: David Yates
Casting Director: Fiona Weir
Dates (Shooting, Rehearsal, etc.): A week's work in October and a few possible days over the summer.
Role: Deatheater
Description: We are looking for men and women of vivd physical types aged between 45 and 55 yrs to be members of the evil Lord Voldemort's army of Deatheaters.

Although the roles are non-speaking, they will involve acting opposite actors such as Ralph Fiennes and Alan Rickman.
unquote

• 14 years ago
• 98

PK, there's a lot of actors on this site who are very skilled and knowledgable. It's great that you got Harry Potter, but there's no guarantees that your next role will be better. It can come in blips and blops. Some actors may have a good run in a mainstream TV show, but then back to where they were before. But I know that feeling when you do get a good part; you feel so good, like you could conquer the world.
Wish everyone the best of luck with their endeavours x

• 14 years ago
• 99

Can we stick to the debate please as opposed to focusing on Paul's credibility as an actor? I am guessing the majority of you have not even seen him act anyway...

Mark you make some very good points, the cost/benefit ratio of drama school doesn't seem to add up for me personally. I am interested in learning about the various different techniques and approaches but I am MORE interested in finding the approach that best suits me and I think I did that through trial and error (well I still am and probably always will be) whilst gaining experience.

Splat you are right. The real skill is not what you learn but how you use and apply that knowledge to your acting.

For example one drama school say:

"You're learning the skills to cope with anything the professional world may put your way, and you will gradually see how you can adapt your core skills to embrace any style of acting."

That sounds great doesn't it? But it is a process that is harder than it sounds and very difficult to measure. I doubt your final grade is based on your ability to adapt, I doubt they even assess it. How can they?

Notice how they use the word YOU. They can teach you the skills but you have to do the rest. It's the old Oxfam metaphor as I like to call it. Give people the tools so they can help themselves :) Your ability to do this can be very dependant on internal characteristics such as your intelligence, your learning style, how you process information and your ability to make connections and associations. Even your personality and how well you listen and communicate with others or what kind of experiences you had when growing up. Essentially we are dealing with the nature vs. nurture debate. How much of ourselves and our behaviour is genetic/predisposed and how much is environmental/ learnt?

I am going to give a practical example now which probably explains my philosophy on this debate. I used to work for the police evaluating training and more importantly how well officers were utilizing this training on the job…

It was clear that many of the officers knew in theory how to deal with a scenario but when that scenario presented itself in real life there were other variables they hadn't factored in or learnt on their course (usually people behaving unpredictably or offences that weren't quite like the ones illustrated in the text books). Some just couldn't adapt what they learnt in the classroom or even on practical exercises and role-plays. When they actually go out and do policing for real that is when they will be learning to be a better police officer because they are experiencing things that cannot always be predicted or taught.

Those that performed better tended to be the officers that perhaps had more life experience with which to draw from (not necessarily because they were older) as they were less shocked by what they saw on the streets. Yes policing is different in that you must do the classroom training but for some people they couldn't grasp what it was like to be a police officer until they were actually out being one. Similarly you can know everything about the theory and mechanics of a car but this won't make you a better driver and you can't know what it is like to drive a car… until you drive one!

At least now I feel I know enough about me and my acting to know where my strengths and weaknesses lie. So now I could select the training or courses that I think would benefit me the most.

(Thanks for the compliments about my super long post. It was obviously a flash of wisdom and I doubt I will get another one for until 2010!)

• 14 years ago
• 100