<p>"There used to be a rumor that UK actors would spend a class learning 35 ways to take off a hat."</p>
<p>Haha I trained in the UK as an actor and I promise we do not do that. ;) The acting versus MT course query is an active one, also in the UK, hence I covered it in my book...I believe it depends on the individual but if you have music and dance skills you would be silly not to exploit and nurture them in today's very competitive performing arts business. The more strings you have to your bow, the better! Some agents in the UK now only take on clients who have song and dance skills as there is just not enough work around.</p>
<p>I thought that was probably an exaggeration, but it was usually used to illustrate a point, which was that the UK (or at least RADA) had a reputation for teaching actors how to change mannerisms, walk, vocal patterns, pitch, etc. in order to transform for roles. The term most in use was probably "technical" acting. The US, on the other hand, seems more enamored of method acting and "being yourself" and "using the unique you," so that transformation is rarely achieved (with some very notable exceptions).</p>
<p>I know that my own US training had some absolutely worthless lessons. One of my least favorite memories is lying supine in a classroom while an instructor walked around saying, "Breeeeaaaath through your aaaaa$$$$$$$$hoooollllleeee."</p>
<p>Boy, THAT made me a better actor, I can tell you. ;-)</p>
<p>Ah I see what you mean. I spoke to an actor who also teaches/auditions at RADA on and off and he told me of an observation, let me try and quote him as closely as I can...</p>
<p>"Americans auditioning for RADA try to make the text fit their acting style or their 'personality', while UK actors strive to put the text first and 'serve' the text, hence molding themselves to what is required in regards to what is written/the information given by the playwright." - which is what you are taught to do in the UK. As David Mamet says - "It's the writer's job to make the play interesting. It's the actors job to make the performance truthful." </p>
<p>An interesting observation I thought, I am not clued up enough though in terms of watching auditions at drama schools in the UK to judge as to whether this is true or not.</p>
<p>As for your own training - worthless lessons are sometimes not so worthless as you learn what NOT to do. ;)</p>
<p>Sorry, JIJane. If you don't learn Tarhunt's special breathing trechnique, you'll never make it as a US actor. Now I know why Adam Sandler is such a huge movie star.</p>
<p>Tarhunt's instructor reminds me of an architecture professor who raved about my friend's decision to glue dust balls from under her bed to her presentation board when she ran out of time. Coupled with a B.S. explanation of why she had done so, she completely enchanted him with her brilliant break with convention. Sometimes the phrase "Those who can't do, teach" is very true.</p>
<p>Yes, it is true that you can get shorted on acting technique at some MT programs - however, if you investigate and attend a worthwhile MT program, you will find excellent training across three disciplines of acting, singing, and dance. Here is a clue, at least at schools that have both an acting and a MT program - do the MT degree requirements include all (or at least most) of the acting requirements made of an acting major.</p>
<p>The other huge issue is - do you want a career in MT or in dramatic theatre? </p>
<p>Finally, there are scores performers who started out with MT degrees and then went on to other venues and other media, conversely, there are actors who have been employed in musicals. You need to follow your heart.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In my opinion, the Brits (and maybe the Irish, but I'm less familiar with them) just know how to train actors in a way that produces a better result (overall) that the US does.
[/quote]
Is that really true or is it more that people in the UK grow up with the advantage of seeing a lot of great theatre while most Americans grow up watching bad acting on TV and in movies and don't know the difference? I think the training at most of the good American drama conservatories is text based. It seems to be the case, too, at the regular college Acting BFAs and schools that have MT AND Acting majors although the acting training at those seems less intensive for the sake of the MTs who must divide their time between it, music and dance. I have been told that some of those type schools can be good for developing a rock solid BASIC acting technique that will prepare one well for advanced training in graduate school. Has anyone heard otherwise? </p>
<p>Don't most actors in the UK start drama school when they are a few years older than 18? How much of a difference could that make? I think part of what I am asking is that is it really the training that is better or are the students being trained better prepared to receive it?</p>
<p>"Is that really true or is it more that people in the UK grow up with the advantage of seeing a lot of great theatre while most Americans grow up watching bad acting on TV and in movies and don't know the difference?"</p>
<p>No, I don't think that's true at all, plenty of bad TV in the UK believe me! </p>
<p>"...although the acting training at those seems less intensive for the sake of the MTs who must divide their time between it, music and dance..."</p>
<p>Interesting. In the UK I would say at schools that offer both acting and MT, both programmes get equal amount of acting classes and then the MT course has dance and singing, etc ON TOP of that, meaning they have more hours than the acting side generally speaking. But it depends on the school.</p>
<p>"Don't most actors in the UK start drama school when they are a few years older than 18?"</p>
<p>Not necessarily, it depends on the person. MT training usually starts a tad younger than acting and many schools recommend to NOT start training immediately at 18 to gain some perspective and maturity first. I however started at 18 (and wished I had waited, as I don't feel I was ready) and I know quite a few other who did/do. More about all that in my book...</p>
<p>This is a very VERY general opinion but the general conscensus I have found in the UK is - MT training is generally better in the US, acting training is generally better in the UK.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is a very VERY general opinion but the general conscensus I have found in the UK is - MT training is generally better in the US, acting training is generally better in the UK.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yep. I've always heard the same thing. I have no personal or even one-off experience with this, but it seems clear that both of us have heard the same general impression from the acting community on both sides of the pond.</p>
<p>Lysistrata:</p>
<p>As I said earlier on this thread, I have no firsthand information about why UK actors seem to be better actors, overall, than American ones. In the acting community, it was usually attributed to a different approach to training. My experience with acting classes in the US is that most of them focus on "feeling" one's way through a role, and have heard coaches many, many times say something like this: "Use who you are and what you are. That's all you have to work with. How would YOU respond in this instance, and use that, because YOU are unique, and you will have a unique response."</p>
<p>That's very simplified, of course, and very generalized. But as a simplified generalization, I do believe it represents my personal experience with acting coaches in the US (with some important and notable exceptions).</p>
<p>On an interesting note...I have a friend from the UK who graduated from a very prestigious acting programme in London 5 years ago. He has since done some work and is now trying his luck in LA after touring there with an English play and managing to get an agent, who in turn managed to get him a working VISA. His response has been - actors in the US are very much more focused on continous learning and keep improving their skills while English actors just want to learn through jobs once they have trained. My friend has been taking regular Meisner classes in LA and has been very complimentary about the training, saying the UK acting community needs to focus more on "keeping your skills and acting" fresh like their US counterparts. I don't know how the situation would be in NY and other parts of the country, however this is what he has been telling me about LA.</p>
<p>I thnk it's pretty much the same throughout the US, at least in the places I know. Part of the devotion to continuous training could be the simple realization that one does not really have the skills one needs to become the actor or actress one wants to be. One of the more notable examples in the on-camera world was Sally Field, who was talented enough, but limited to roles like "Gidget" and "The Flying Nun" by her training (or lack thereof). She took off three years (I believe) and trained hard, then came back looking like a different actress and won an Emmy for "Sybil" and an Oscar for "Norma Rae."</p>
<p>The observation about UK actors is fascinating. There are certain UK actors that I do not believe have grown substantially over the years. Jeremy Irons, for instance, is a fine actor, but he appears about the same to me now as he did long ago. Anthony Hopkins, on the other hand, appears to have improved a great deal. So did Olivier, but I have my reservations about Gielgud. I think Redgrave has grown, but I'm not as enamored of Dench as everyone else seems to be.</p>
<p>But perhaps that's just personal preference.</p>
<p>This might interest you. When talking to people about the difference between UK and US actors, I urge them to obtain a copy of "A Bridge Too Far" and check out the differences between the UK and US actors in that film. I ask them to decide which actors appear as though they might really be soldiers, and which seem to be "playing soldier."</p>
<p>This question is tangential to the above discussion. Lots of BFA acting programs emphasize the opportunities they provide to study abroad. I do not know how to ask the question, so bear with me as I get to it by walking around it.
I notice that many 'study abroad' experiences are not as great as advertised (students who study abroad in Australia report that they learn that they drink on week nights and study on the week ends). Sure, everyone should study abroad and jump out of their box for awhile - travel, etc., but a semester abroad is pretty delimiting. I say this as someone who was sent by my college a few springs ago to all the Scottish (fell in love with St. Andrews) and some English universities to establish close ties with their study abroad coordinators. They all lamented that a full year was required to optimize the experience.
That said, do BFA acting students really learn alot by studying acting in London or Glasgow for a semester. Sure, they get something from it - that's not the point - but should the presence of an established study-abroad program be an important criterion in choosing between BFA acting programs.</p>
<p>I think we, as Americans, sometimes have a rather romantic perception of English actors. We just love that British accent, and as soon as we hear it, automatically assume their vast superiority in the acting area! Of course I'm over-simplifying to make a point, which is -- there are good and bad actors (and training) on both sides of the Atlantic. </p>
<p>As far as training goes, methods vary because ACTORS vary. Personally, the HB method works better for me than Meisner or Stanislavsky. That doesn't mean that those methods are invalid, just different. The only thing that matters, really, is the end result.</p>
<p>Sorry for posting a link I was not allowed to post!</p>
<p>Briansteffy - as someone who never did a semester abroad at college age but spent countless years at different schools in different languages across the globe, I can say that I personally think any time abroad and away from what you usually do, especially as an actor where it is so vital to be able to step out of your comfort zone, can only be beneficial - as long as your place of training abroad has a high standard. I am sure that generally a year is better than a semester to gain more in depth insight, but maybe something is better than nothing? I know quite a few Americans who do summer programmes in the UK. And how about the option of doing an undergraduate in your home country and then a post graduate/masters abroad? Or vice versa maybe??</p>
<p>Tarhunt - I know some well known young UK actors who after gaining success in their career without formal training, end up going back to training at places like RADA, LAMDA etc to hone their skills and taking a year out for this. Some also do a few months in NY at places like Tisch....so there also seem to be some UK examples of the "Sally Field" variety.</p>
<p>I'm of two minds on this. I think that once one has learned solid acting technique, it's useful to builid on what one has learned by layering on new techniques and new ways of looking at things. For instance, a fencer who studies in one of the Eastern European countries is likely to learn programmed attacks and responses until she is a proficient fencer. At that point, it might be useful for her to learn a more creative, holistic approach that allows for instant creativity during a bout. But I have seen such fencers get very frustrated with trying to incorporate the holistic approach before the programmed response approach is thoroughly set.</p>
<p>Does it work the same way with acting? I'm not sure. My own early training was so uneven that I've trained and picked up techniques as I've gone along. It took a while for this pastiche to integrate into something useful. I wouldn't recommend it. I believe that a really good training program should have acting broken down into specific skills, ways to train for those skills, and means of evaluating actors based on mastery of well-defined skill sets. Introducing an entirely new way of training into that process could well set someone back, at least temporarily.</p>
<p>On the other hand, training programs that are not that rigorously thought out are probably not going to be interrupted by adding simply another technique.</p>
<p>I'm afraid I've come the long way round to "It depends."</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think we, as Americans, sometimes have a rather romantic perception of English actors. We just love that British accent, and as soon as we hear it, automatically assume their vast superiority in the acting area!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ahm, so what you're basically saying is that I'm unable to differentiate between degree of specificity, appropriate and inappropriate choices, mundane and brilliant choices, specific vocal and physical characteristics, play and actor arcs, energy, concentration, and the like because ...</p>