Experiences seeing campus productions

College Majors Theater/Drama Majors
41

<p>KEVP, it sounds like the Corneille play you assistant directed was a fairly elaborate production that probably had ample rehearsal time and presumably drew in audiences from outside CCC. That’s great!</p>

<p>At many schools, there are all different levels of student productions. I happen to have seen the exact play that Emmybet was referring to, where the actors wore their own clothes. It was a very bare-bones production, with little in the way of a stage set. The students had been able to manage relatively few rehearsals, and the play was performed primarily for students and faculty in the program, with a few family members and other visitors added in. It did not resemble a professional theatre production, but that was just fine. It provided a great opportunity for the student actors and director, and the amount of “polish” was exactly appropriate to what it was.</p>

<p>Similarly, last year I saw a collection of student-directed one act plays at my son’s college. Twelve short plays were presented in one evening, with each one directed by one of the students in a junior year directing class. The directing students were collectively responsible for all aspects of the project. For example, a lighting committee consisting of some of the student directors was in charge of lighting for all the pieces, everyone helped with scene changes, etc.</p>

<p>The plays were presented in a small studio, and most of the audience consisted of people from the theatre program. My son was one of the directors, and from him I knew how much work had gone into these productions…it was a lot!! All of the plays were good, and two or three were really standouts. They represented a fantastic learning experience for the students. But they did not seem like professional productions. They weren’t supposed to.</p>

42

<p>I have never been a theatre undergraduate at any school except Columbia College Chicago, so I can’t comment on other programs.</p>

<p>CCC has an undergraduate directing program, and the typical graduate of that program (like me) will have directed FOUR plays by the time they graduate. One one-act, and three full length. This means that with all of these students directing all of these plays each semester there would be a HUGE number of productions.</p>

<p>Every student director is given full access to all of the school’s costume, lighting, set, and prop resources. Plus a very small budget to purchase other things needed (It was about $50.00 in the 90s). (You also have access to things like a professional quality fight choreographer, and the faculty movement and speech teachers, and so on)</p>

<p>These student directed plays are NOT advertised off campus, because they are just student projects. There is also a mainstage season, directed by faculty, that does draw in a local audience and is advertised in (in Chicago).</p>

<p>The Corneille play I assisted directed while at CCC (Kushner’s adaptation of The Illusion), was one of these “student directed” plays. But like A LOT of the student directed plays (yes, including some of mine) many said it was better than a mainstage show.</p>

<p>We all took these projects very seriously. As a director, I was sure to schedule all the time I needed for rehearsals (the rule of thumb is one hour for every minute of play length, so a two hour play would need 120 hours of rehearsal, usually 6 20 hour weeks). And all the cast and others involved in the show understood that they were committing themselves to this schedule. So we all put in 20 hours each week at rehearsals in addition to our full courseloads and also finding time to see all the other shows. And as soon as we finished one show we started rehearsals again with the next one. This is why we constantly said “Why do I have an apartment? I’m always here at school. They should just set out cots for the few hours we get to sleep!”</p>

<p>Nobody ever said “Well, this is just a student directed play. It’s only going to be seen by other students, our families, and faculty, so there is not point in putting in complete rehearsal time or working very hard.” That was the culture of CCC, at least in the late '90s when I was there. That’s why I chose CCC, because I could work on and then even direct these sorts of projects. I didn’t want to be involved with any “half-*ssed” productions.</p>

<p>For each show we made decisions about the production values. So although the costumes for The Illusion were quite elaborate (and period!) we decided to keep the set simple, almost bare. The plot is that a wealthy attorney is seeking for the son he threw out of his home many years earlier, so he goes to a cave where a wizard lives, and the wizard conjures up images that show what the son has been doing since leaving home. So all we needed was something to suggest the wizard’s cave, that was the whole set. But we did have some fairly elaborate special effects for all the magic. (At one point, I had to activate a firepot for an explosion. The instructions were something like “Okay, everyone needs to be at least five feet away when this explosion happens. KEVP, to make the explosion happen you need to step on this button three feet away from the firepot.”)</p>

<p>The Hamlet I saw at the National Theatre had no set and was done in rehearsal clothes. NOT because they didn’t have any money, or because they didn’t feel like working hard. The National Theatre has enough money to stage very elaborate productions, and it was clear from the performance that everyone had rehearsed the play intensively. They kept the sets and costumes simple because that was the correct artistic decision for that production. (Similarly the RSC Romeo and Juliet I mentioned before was quite elaborate–it just had a modern setting. Tybalt drove an Alpha Romeo, a couple characters (including Mercutio) had motorcycles, the Capulet mansion included a swimming pool, etc.)</p>

<p>We are ALWAYS managing scarce resources in the theatre world. This is why so many of us embrace concepts like Peter Brook’s statement that “Any Empty Space can be a Theatre” or we have adapted the principle of Chicago architecture that “Less is More”. But this doesn’t mean that our work is somehow half-*ssed.</p>

<p>I can’t speak for anybody else or make decisions for anybody else, but for me the work ethic of CCC in the late 90s was exactly what I was looking for, and would not then or now go to a school where the didn’t put full effort into EVERY production, even the student directed ones that don’t attract a crowd from outside the school.</p>

<p>KEVP</p>

43

<p>After my son and I saw his first college production, As You Like It at Mason Gross, this weekend I am left with feeling that seeing productions may not be as helpful as I hoped when gathering info on the quality of an acting education. </p>

<p>Maybe it is because my son and I have not seen many plays in general. The only thing we left with was subjective words like that was great, enjoyable interesting. Is liking something really enough to say that school should be high on a list? Is it jut an overall vibe thing we are all looking for?</p>

<p>I made several observations but have no idea what if anything these observations mean. Maybe you guys will be able to point me in the right direction in terms of keeping a critical eye the next time we see a school play. </p>

<p>Here is what I noticed:</p>

<p>The theater was full.</p>

<p>The audience was made up of the community at large, college students and family.</p>

<p>There was no real set but what props they used made it believable and interesting.</p>

<p>I thought using actors, as sheep in a few scenes was very creative.</p>

<p>The acting from the actors was uneven. I felt some actors were ready for Broadway while others were not.</p>

<p>There was no way to judge how happy the actors were in the program.</p>

<p>The actors all seemed to have a professional quality about them.</p>

44

<p>KEVP, that’s great that you were in a directing program with such fabulous resources. A lot of schools don’t have undergraduate directing programs and instead focus on performance training.</p>

<p>I’m sorry you feel that certain types of productions, such as a couple that have been described here, don’t represent a full effort on the part of the participants and are half-*ssed.</p>

<p>My son’s school has a graduate directing program, and the productions directed by the graduate students are full-fledged productions that I’m sure would meet your standards. So far as I know, the only productions directed by undergrads are the Director’s Project that I described above and the senior projects of the Theatre Arts students. So far, in addition to plays directed by faculty members and graduate students, I have attended one senior project at my son’s school (it was impressively full-fledged), and one Director’s Project – an evening of twelve one-acts plays presented in a small studio, which was more bare-bones.</p>

<p>I wish someone from a school like Northwestern or NYU, both of which I believe do a lot of student-produced plays, would weigh in. I’d really be interested to know about the amount of rehearsal time and production support that are available for plays that are directed by performance majors (as opposed to directing majors) at other schools.</p>

45

<p>Shacherry, I can’t really answer your questions, but since your son is going to be auditioning for theatre programs, I’d say it would be a great idea for him to attend as many theatrical productions, of as many different types…in as many different places (not just at schools with theatre programs, but at regional theatres, or off-broadway if you live close enough to NY for that to be possible, or whatever he can get to)…in the coming months, as he possibly can.</p>

<p>(I think it’s quite interesting that Rutgers, which is one of the top BFA programs in the country, staged a Shakespeare play with no real set. This observation might be relevant to the discussion on this thread about the production priorities that exist within undergraduate performance programs.)</p>

46

<br>

<br>

<p>Our D is a Sophomore at Northwestern, so if you look back at my comments in this thread that’s the program I’m usually referring to.</p>

<p>We’ve only been able to see a few shows so far (we live half a country away from NU), but with 60+ students productions on campus every year there is no doubt a huge range of production values for various shows. Some are heavily funded and professionally directed, while others are produced on a shoestring. Some feature the “serious” performers, while some strive to include non-performing theatre kids to give them the perspective of an actor. D was in one show last year where a major goal was to feature one performer from every college on campus, so the goal there was certainly not only to cast the strongest performers but rather to foster broad-based school spirit.</p>

<p>There are many student theatre organizations on campus that produce shows, and each has a unique budgeting and fundraising scheme, plus they offer varying levels of access to the school’s extensive technical resources.</p>

<p>Hopefully others with more Northwestern experience will also chime in.</p>

47

<p>When my D was in that play last spring - with minimal production effects and less rehearsal - all of the upperclassmen were simultaneously rehearsing mainstage shows, auditioning for summer work, and planning their post-graduation lives. While I might say it wasn’t the most impressive student production I’ve ever seen, it was quite respectable and as I’ve said an excellent learning experience. </p>

<p>My D’s school also is known for a higher emphasis on academics. There are many times they might have 20 hours/week in rehearsal (either performing or in tech), but they also have other commitments, and it is not constant, nor expected for every show. </p>

<p>This has ups and downs and is definitely a reason why people may or may not pick certain schools. Everyone has different things that matter to them. While my D’s BFA certainly qualifies as intense, it is less so in terms of number of productions and hours of studio time per day. Instead, it is very focused on writing (papers in every class, including Voice and Movement), dedication to training (offstage and onstage), and off-campus activity (using NYC resources). It provides time for a minor, but not a second major - and lots of students also juggle jobs on top of everything else. </p>

<p>My D relishes her time in production - is never happier, as we say about most of these kids - but she also is glad for her down times, so she can study, work on her own technique more generally, see plays, go to readings, etc.</p>

48

<p>NJTheatreMom - As MomCares said, there are so many student produced plays/musicals at NU that it is hard to generalize on their funding, professionalism, etc. There is a real hierarchy in the different theatre student organizations and each has different goals and funding. I said earlier in this thread that the first time we looked at the NU program my daughter and I saw a show that is quite famous, all student done and very well funded and she thought it was just awful in almost every respect. It almost turned her off to the school.</p>

<p>She has been in quite a few student produced shows, both as an actor and as part of the production team and I have seen a fair number of them and still there is no generalization to be made; some are amazing, well-funded, well-produced, well-cast, well-written, everything, some the complete opposite, and everything in between.</p>

<p>My personal feeling is that everything is a learning experience and in some ways I prefer her to be in more student run and black box type of productions because that is a team effort far greater than a school produced version of whatever (“Into the Woods” or “Carousel” or “Tartuffe” or “Hair”). She will have plenty of opportunity to perform in more “traditional” productions once she graduates and she needs to be paid to support herself; that is when there will be much less opportunity for her to perform in these more experimental, unusual pieces. That is what college is for, IMHO.</p>

49

<p>I think some great points have been made on this thread about how important it is for theatre students to take risks and to learn, and how those things can very well occur in productions that are not necessarily polished to a high sheen.</p>

<p>By the way, probably the only way to tell how happy students are in a program is to talk to them one-on-one. So, Shacherry, the next time you and your son attend a performance at a school, I’d suggest trying to hang around and speak with some of the student actors afterwards, if at all possible.</p>

<p>Attending a rehearsal and/or sitting in on classes can be very informative too, but those things are not always so easy to arrange.</p>

50

<p>Finding out how happy students are in their program is tricky, since those participating in a play are more likely to be engaged and fully committed than those (who knows if there are some) who are not feeling the love, not getting involved to the fullest, whatever. If one happens upon a disaffected student, one gets a very skewed perspective. If one happens on a group of very involved students, the same. Unfortunately, it’s tough to judge a school (or anything?) by first impressions and random samples. And this is such an important decision!</p>

<p>I went to a quite unknown state university and majored in theatre and those of us who got very involved LOVED it. Really, not a well known program at all, but theatre kids tend to find their own and have so much in common. From my cohort, two of us became writers in Hollywood, one is the voice-acting star of “The Simpsons”, and another a well established character actor. There may be more I’m not in touch with, but no one would have directed any of us to this program way back then as a sure path to an entertainment career. Perhaps in some of the lesser programs, there is more room for fish to grow into big fish? lol. Just a few random thoughts.</p>

51

<p>These programs are all very different, and, yes, from what people are saying here, you can get some idea of the differences by seeing productions at the school.</p>

<p>Shacherry says she hasn’t seen enough theatre to be able to evaluate a show. But you are still, as you say, able to get a “vibe” that contributes to your overall idea of the school. If you enjoyed it, they must have been doing something right. Obviously, there was nothing that jumped out at you and said “whoever directed this didn’t know what they were doing”. And nothing that jumped out at you and said “those actors don’t seem to be enjoying themselves.” Believe it or not, it is possible to see a show where it is clear to ANYONE that it’s a bad play and the actors aren’t enjoying themselves. Michael Green in his book “The Art of Coarse Acting” remarks that this is the kind of play where the traditional roles of audience and actors are reversed. The actors are just stuck on stage being themselves, while the audience has to play a part and pretend to enjoy a play they really aren’t enjoying. (Also note that Shakespeare wrote ALL of his plays to be performed with “no real set”. When all of his plays were first performed (including “As You Like It”) they were performed with “no real set”.)</p>

<p>When I was at CCC in the late 90’s, everyone was also “simultaneously rehearsing mainstage shows, auditioning for summer work, and planning their post-graduation lives” just like the school EmmyBet is describing. And since it was a BA program, we also had academic courses to take. And many were also getting professional work outside of CCC. But none of this would have been accepted as a reason to slack off on any of our projects, not even the student directed ones. That was just the culture of CCC.</p>

<p>And yes, that’s why I picked that particular theatre program, even though then as now CCC is considered a “desperation school” that people apply to only if they can’t get in anywhere else. I was at a point where the only way that I could learn more about directing was by getting practical hands on experience, and this was the program where I could get that experience. I was very excited when I first called CCC and talked to the assistant chair of the theatre department when I found out that even as an undergraduate I would be directing FOUR plays and given full access to the school’s resources (and a small budget for additional stuff), and that these would be “real” plays that everyone was encouraged to work hard on. That’s exactly what I was looking for, but I understand some folks are looking for something different. There was even another directing student at CCC who said to me once “I didn’t know it would be like this! I didn’t know we would have to direct plays! I thought we would just sit in a classroom and someone would tell us how to direct plays!” He was in the wrong program!</p>

<p>KEVP</p>

52

<p>KEVP, I am made uncomfortable by your use of the words “slack off” to describe the work of students at schools other than the one you attended.</p>

<p>Saying that the productions you worked on were “real plays” – implying that other types of productions at other schools are not real plays --also strikes me as rather insulting.</p>

53

<p>I have a very hard time thinking of the show EmmyBet describes as “with minimal production effects and less rehearsal” as a “real play”. Not because of the production effects, but because of the “less rehearsal”. This means less actual working on the play. Which sounds like “slacking off” to me.</p>

<p>But this discussion just makes it clear to me how different the “cultures” of these schools are, and how people are obviously looking for different things. CCC in the late 90s’ was exactly what I was looking for. But obviously it doesn’t seem to be what everyone is looking for. As I consider returning for graduate school, I would personally hope to find a similar culture to the one I experienced at CCC. But that is just what I am looking for. Nobody else has to be looking for such a thing.</p>

54

<p>Maybe it’s splitting hairs, but “slacking off” to me means “falling short, because of failing to adhere to established standards.”</p>

<p>I’m sure that the play that Emmybet was talking about fully adhered to the established standards for a senior capstone production at that school.</p>

<p>You are correct that students need to investigate programs carefully to determine if what they are looking for is available.</p>

<p>If you attend a graduate school program, KEVP, I hope you’ll share your experiences with us.</p>

55

<p>

Ah! I was wondering why you were hanging out here on CC with all us old parents and young students. Looking forward to hearing more about your grad school plans and exploits.</p>

56

<br>

<br>

<p>I doubt that the term “slack off” often applies to kids at most reputable BFA programs, and I know for sure it rarely fits any student at Northwestern. ;-D </p>

<p>I think some of the most important life lessons that kids in top theatre schools should learn are how to prioritize, how to take creative risks, and how to recognize talented production teams. Learning all of these things means that not every production you’ll be involved with will be stellar, and folks visiting campuses and seeing shows as part of their school evaluation would do well to keep that in mind.</p>

<p>In my opinion, schools that place students primarily in fine-tuned “quality” productions designed to impress audiences amounts to giving them fish rather than teaching them to fish. I hope my kid learns to fish, and cutting bait can be messy. ;-D</p>

57

<p>Well, yes, NJTheatreMom, that is what I mean by “slacking off”. Because there are “established standards” of the theatre profession, and there are standards that I set for myself. When I was a theatre undergrad I found a program that would let me work to those standards. I am now thinking about finding a graduate program that will let me again work to those standards.</p>

<p>KEVP</p>

58

<p>I wish you all the best, KEVP. I do want to insert a touch of reality here, though. Really - were every single one of the productions you worked on in college up to the absolute highest standards of quality? Did everyone put “100%” into every show, even when they had classwork, jobs, internships, other productions, etc.? I love high standards, but really you can’t expect everyone to be at their maximum all the time. Usually it’s just not physically possible.</p>

<p>I’ve seen quite a bit of theatre, and I’d love to know what these “established standards” are, since I don’t think I’ve been able to figure it out - whether at school, community, professional, award-winning, etc. productions. It always varies, and often I wonder just what people were thinking, or what the heck did they DO with all that time and money? Or I see that just plain meaning - aside from “production values” or how much time they seemed to rehearse - trumps everything. Sometimes it’s just for a moment, sometimes through much of a play; rarely, I’d say, for every single minute.</p>

<p>When I was in college, I had similar expectations to yours, in a different area. I went to a school renowned for the highest possible intellectual intensity, and I wasn’t disappointed. But every professor wasn’t perfectly brilliant, every class session wasn’t the height of inspiration, and I definitely didn’t write every paper flawlessly. I am very proud of my work (and did extremely well there), but the best I can say is that overall I had a terrific experience.</p>

<p>Nowadays I am a performer - I strive for excellence there, too, of course, but I can’t always rehearse as much as I want, my conditions aren’t always what I want, my colleagues for sure aren’t going to do exactly what I want (or feel the way I feel), and I just can’t adhere to every standard of quality all the time. Should I stop performing? Honestly my first rule of being a musician is to get meaning (and also fun, honestly) out of the experience. I think that’s what my audience senses, and from what I hear, appreciates most.</p>

<p>What’s the saying, that the forest would be very quiet if only the birds sang who sang best?</p>

<p>I guess it’s good that you are a director. Many of our kids who are performers just aren’t in charge of the productions they are in, overall. They have to take what they can get sometimes. Learning to find meaning, regardless, is a wonderful skill - whether on stage, off stage, or in the audience.</p>

59

<p>This was just the culture of CCC in the late 90s when I was an undergrad there. I don’t know if it is still like that today. I don’t know full details about how other programs’ “cultures” are similar or different. But yes, we were expected to put 100% into all our projects. Even though we had classwork, jobs, internships, and other productions. I always put in 100%, and my cast knew I expected the same from them. And they did. (I learned how at auditions to ask about an auditioner’s schedule. If they had too much stuff that would make it impossible to give 100%, then I didn’t cast them).</p>

<p>I remember there was a directing student who was an underclassman to me (i.e. “behind” me in the program) who at one point felt he couldn’t do everything. His family told him “you should go to your job, because that pays you money.” So he did. Instead of the project he was working on at school. But then (If I remember correctly) he was called out for this by the department chair, and pretty much embarrassed in front of the rest of us.</p>

<p>I’ve seen plays where, like you, I wonder what they DID with all their time and money. And then I have seen plays where I can see clearly what they did with all their time and money. And I want to work on the latter, not the former.</p>

<p>As a director, really I am now someone who is able to look at resources available (which includes the people involved, whether they are paid or volunteer) and say “Okay, what INCREDIBLE work of art can we make with these resources.” These days, I usually get it right.</p>