<p>I really would like to focus more on contemprary plays than Classical and Shakespere, what college programs have this focus? I know every BFA acting program will do both classical and contemporary, I would just really like to attend a school the explores the contemporary relm a bit more.</p>
<p>I was looking at BU and really liked what I saw, but then I read that they're main focus is Shakespere. Is this true? </p>
<p>I am also very interested in independent film, does anyone know of any schools where the acting students work very closely with the film students?</p>
<p>A raw, interesting, "edgy" acting experience is what I'm looking for and I desperatly want to be a part of cool, innovative, exciting plays. This is not to say that Classical plays can not be any of those things, I just feel as though contemporary holds more of my interest.</p>
<p>If anyone knows of a school like this, PLEASE share! I'm coming down to the wire with all this application/audition stuff and I'm kind of freaking out here!!!!</p>
<p>You do not talk about your academic profile, but if your academics are in range NYU may be worth exploring. You do your first couple of years in your primary studio but have the option to audition into a new studio in your second two years. Upper level studios include Stonestreet (film focused, I believe) and Experimental Theatre Wing.</p>
<p>If you are interested in Boston University, you should call and talk with somebody in the School of Theatre. </p>
<p>BU has a conservatory-type BFA acting program. Most such programs do devote time to the classics in the third year, so that their graduates will be well-rounded enough to act in any kind of play.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean the BU program’s main focus is Shakespeare. My son is a freshman there and I’ve never heard anybody say that. </p>
<p>Regarding film, I do know that some of his classmates have already performed in student films.</p>
<p>I would definitely say you would thrive at CalArts and your academics don’t matter there. Having been through the process all the way through my D being admitted and going to new student admissions, I have a good idea of what they program is like. They accepted a “slam poet” artist into the program and made him an amazing actor. They are definitely innovative and work a lot with the film program there.</p>
<p>SUNY Purchase!! Definitely…you still get trained in classical technique…but our overall aesthetic seems to be raw and contemporary in a lot of respects</p>
<p>Sounds like you need NYU. Not only is the film school the best in the country (and speaking from experience, the film students ALWAYS need you), but you’ll get top-notch training in the drama program. And even if you get placed in one of the older, traditional based acting technique studios you can transfer out by making enough noise within the first couple of weeks or just wait till you’ve finished your first two years and then move into a different studio. You sound like you’d probably want something like the ETW, Atlantic, or if you have any interest in eclecticity and don’t mind exploring other aspects of theatre, Playwrights.</p>
<p>Thanks for the feedback everyone! Purchase is for sure one of my top choices. Do acting students get involved with the film students?
Any additional information on CalArts and Cornish would be amazing.
I’ve never heard anything about Cornish, what’s it like?</p>
<p>At Cal Arts they promised my D that if she got her name out (in other words, responded to requests for auditions), she would have a full reel of both voice work (so that would be like cartoon voice over, etc.) and video (for film, television, etc.)</p>
<p>I don’t think you have too much to worry about this because Shakespeare is (sadly, for me) becoming less and less a part of training, even in the top conservatories. Please understand that I am not picking on you when I say this, because I have friends who feel just the way you do. It has just always been difficult for me to wrap my head around the idea that one would want to be an actor and yet not want to do Shakespeare. There are more great characters, more raw emotion to be played in Shakespeare than in most of modern drama. Also, for me Shakespeare teaches the actor a lot about storytelling. It can be done without sets, lights, effects or any other modern contrivances, because all those things are contained in the text. And I have yet to find a play of any genre or time period more “edgy” than Othello. I hope you can see your way clear not to exclude Shakespeare from your world. The very fact that you want to be a part of edgy, meaningful theater demonstrates that you have the need that most artists have - to challenge yourself. And, as an actor, you will find little more challenging than Shakespeare. Sorry for the rant. I wish you all the best, whatever path you take.</p>
<p>Forrest, you sound just like my d, who is just beginning her search. Can you say which programs you know of that are more rooted in classical/Shakespearian drama? That’s what she’s looking for and it’s hard to tell from poking around on web pages.</p>
<p>I see what you mean Forrest, and I see how I probably came off as ignorant in my first post. Shakespere is valueble for sure, the rich history and language shouldn’t be ignored or taken for granted. I personally prefer contemporary because to me it is easier to relate to and therefore more fun for me to play. My highschool director ONLY chose classical works (and cheesy musicals…) so I’m starving for some contemporary action in college. “Edgy” is a rather pretentious term I regret using, I understand that Shakespere can be just as edgy as any contemporary play, contemporay is just more my cup of tea.
In short, you are right, classical literature should keep its rightful place in college ciriculums.
In regards to the last poster, with all due respect, can you post that question on a seperate thread? It’s sort of the opposite of my oringinal question :)</p>
<p>Firstly billiyliar, you neither seemed nor did I think you ignorant in any way. </p>
<p>Now seemingly I am about to contradict myself, but I don’t think I really am. When I wrote of Shakespeare being less and less a part of programs I was referring to performing Shakespeare, not necessarliy studying it. Any program with solid voice, speech (and those, by the way are two very separate things) and movement training will prepare an actor technically for Shakespeare. The rest is interpretation, text analysis and imagination. I think one of the big reasons a great many people don’t like Shakespeare is having been forced at one time or another, to watch awful Shakespeare. Some think it is because the language is antiquated and inaccessable. I submit to you that is easily understood if the actor knows what he/she is saying. Sadly, many actors do not take the time to work out what the text actually means and then simply recite what is then - to them and their audience - a meaningless bunch of words.</p>
<p>Also, college programs do not exist in stasis. They are constantly changing. So to pick some over others would apply only to right now and not necessarily to next year. Train your body and your voice. If you are interested in Shakespeare you can read everything that is definitely known of him in about five minutes. You can read all the work attributed to him (whether or not he wrote any - or all of it) in a year just in your spare time. But read it to understand it. Do not gloss over anything you do not understand. A firm grasp of the meaning of the text is the key to being able to convey that text to others in a comprehensible way.</p>
<p>Forrest, could you explain the difference between voice and speech training? In the past, I have seen a few posts by people who thought that “voice” training in acting programs referred to singing.</p>
<p>I believe that voice training can benefit both the singing voice and the speaking voice, right? And speech training has to do with accents…but probably much, much more as well?</p>