<p>Hi all,</p>
<p>I'm looking at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts and the Neighborhood Playhouse for their conservatory programs. On their websites, both seem impressive and as serious as I am about acting.
Can anyone give me some feedback and comparisons on them, either from what you've heard or from firsthand experiences? Also, if you know of any other very good, strong, intensive acting conservatory programs, do let me know. (Three-year programs are fine, too.)</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>Neighborhood Playhouse is all Meisner which is great in my opinion… The professors there are great as well from what I have heard… Haven’t heard as much about aada.</p>
<p>How good do you feel the Meisner technique is compared to others (like a mix of techniques)? Do you lose out if a curriculum is, as you say, “all Meisner”?</p>
<p>^ Every actor is different, so that depends on you. Some do best focusing on one specific technique to start while others are more suited to an eclectic approach. The problem there is that there is no way to tell until you’ve had some basic training and have developed a grasp of your own strengths and weaknesses because each ‘technique’ emphasizes different things. Also, in reading up on the different techniques, beware of the iconoclasm and dogma associated with some of the old school teachers’ approaches - especially the Americans who emerged from the Group Theatre. All offer things that can be useful, but all also have their weaknesses and they sometimes had a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater in their blustery, semi-sibling-rivalry-like attempts to discredit each other. I mean, try telling Al Pacino that Lee Strasberg wasn’t a good teacher and that affective memory is worthless and gain the affective memory of having your head bitten off by Al Pacino … ;)</p>
<p>That being said, if I were going to study Meisner Technique in New York, I’d probably go with the Esper Studio over the Neighborhood Playhouse although I’d make it a point to audit some classes and choose a specific teacher I related to best. The teacher can often be more important than the actual technique being taught. Some other non-scholastic places you might want to look into are Circle in the Square, Atlantic Theatre School, HB Studio, Adler Studio and the Jason Bennett Workshop. I’ve heard very mixed reviews of AADA although you at least get the option of coming out of there with a degree.</p>
<p>In evaluating these places, you should also remember that ‘acting technique’ is really only around a third of the equation and pay A LOT of attention to what is offered in the areas of voice and movement as well as the qualifications of those teaching them. </p>
<p>Hope this helps!</p>
<p>Thanks fishbowl, you definitely helped. And you struck a chord there with the Al Pacino thing! He’s one of the actors I like because he really really knows his art. Those are the type of actors I prefer, as opposed to the ones who are “stars” just because they have the looks and charisma. Which isn’t wrong, but I just personally love the ART of acting and making a character come to life… really not so much into marketing <em>your</em> own image. Ya know what I mean. =3 Which school did Pacino go to, by the way?</p>
<p>Right now I’m looking at the Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute. [Lee</a> Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute](<a href=“http://www.strasberg.com/]Lee”>http://www.strasberg.com/) Since you seem more knowledgeable that me, would you mind having a look too and telling me what you think? I’m going to check out all the ones you suggested, too.</p>
<p>What are some of those “mixed reviews” of AADA that you’ve heard?</p>
<p>Thanks for your advice and pointers. :)</p>
<p>ADD/EDIT: And how do you mean “audition some classes and choose a specific teacher”? Like, after you join a school, or during campus visits, or… what? I didn’t know you could choose your teachers. Sorry, I don’t know very much about this stuff yet. ^^‘’</p>
<p>Pacino was one of Lee Strasberg’s students and is now President of The Actors’ Studio where they emphasize that technique. I mentioned him because Meisner, Adler et al used to bag on Strasberg and his emphasis on affective memory as do their descendants. With the career he’s had with that as his primary approach, I imagine Pacino would have some choice words for those people … LOL </p>
<p>By auditing a class, I mean sitting in on one and watching what’s going on to see if it’s for you. Most of the non-scholastic studios will let you do that although some will charge you a fee for it. </p>
<p>As for what I’ve ‘heard,’ it’s just that … what I’ve heard. I’ve not attended AADA and don’t know anybody who has, but my understanding is that it’s not particularly well-respected in either New York or LA acting circles although there are some parents of students on this group who say their kids have had a good experience there. I won’t even go there with Strasberg outside the NYU program, but do go over to the Backstage.com message board and search out what some people who have either studied or audited classes there have to say about it … Then do the same for AADA. They don’t … errr … mince words over there like we do here … 
Really, if you want to discuss the various non-degree granting studios, that’s a better forum than here because there are a lot of people who actually attended them. This is COLLEGE Confidential, after all …</p>
<p>Gracias, lots of helpful pointers once again. I’ll head over to backstage.com =)
So if you say Meisner and Adler used to bag on Strasberg, would it be right to say that their techniques have grown out of Strasberg’s, and thus incorporate at least some of his core teachings? Are they then “better” than his, since they’ve used parts of his method and developed them further?</p>
<p>You need to do some reading on this for yourself, but all three were essentially different takes on Stanislavsky’s system. But, who’s to say that even Stanislavsky provided an all-time end-all be-all panacea for all actors? As you go, you’ll find that there are many, many, many different ways to skin this acting cat and you’ll always be coming across things you can use that may even seem to contradict some of the earlier teachings you’ve had. It’s a lifelong process of exploration and discovery that differs for everyone and is not an exact science. No way is necessarily better. It’s what works.</p>
<p>I get a little emotional on this one since my own earliest training included strong influences from Meisner and David Mamet. I accepted their dogma with semi-religious fervor and, as the result, really resisted any teachings I later received that did indeed include some of the affective and sense memory work that they so heartily denigrate. I’m glad I finally gave in and just went with it since the way I work now doesn’t include affective memory work per se, but that work rather served as a kind of a gateway to it. Well … at least partially, but that’s a book I won’t write until the time comes when I decide to hang out a shingle and start teaching many years from now … ;)</p>
<p>In general, though, the best advice I can give is that when you’re taking a class, do what the teacher says and keep what works for you while remaining open to other things. Some say discard what doesn’t work, but I say file it away for a time when you might find it useful. </p>
<p>P.S. Why hasn’t anyone else jumped in on this in the past week?</p>