<p>I'm a little hesitant to chime in here (as I havent read the entire thread) but I was just wondering which of the MT programs beside CMU would qualify as fine acting schools in the eyes of those who are questioning the acting training in MT programs. While most of the curricula that I see in MT programs is theatrical do some inlude on camera training as well.</p>
<p>Oh come on, Tarhunt -- you're taking offense where none was meant. Not only did I say "sometimes", not "always", I also said I was "oversimplifying to make a point". It was meant to be slightly humorous. I guess it was a little too slight!</p>
<p>onstage:</p>
<p>Hey, you're welcome to criticize my opinion that a curve of UK actors' skills would be to the right of a curve of US actors' skills. I can't prove it. It's just my personal observation and opinion. And you're welcome to criticize my opinion in any way you like, including (but not limited to) the idea that it's the British accent that makes me (and others, I presume) think the way we do.</p>
<p>I'm not offended by your approach. I'm just a bit taken aback.</p>
<p>I'm reading this thread with interest and it is my observation that British accents make people smarter, better looking and better actors.</p>
<p>Well, I agree about smarter and better looking.</p>
<p>Are you serious?? Lol.</p>
<p>Loved your comment, Cartera!</p>
<p>Tarhunt -- I have to repeat again -- my comments were meant lightly, and not specifically aimed at you. Clearly you are an educated actor and would not make a snap judgement based on someone's accent. If the comment doesn't apply to you, you shouldn't be offended by it. </p>
<p>But why should you be taken aback? Many Americans are Anglophiles, particularly in the theater industry; I think it's not uncommon for people to assume that British actors are superior simply because they are British. I've been in the business for many years (I'm guessing we're about the same age), and I've often observed that attitude. Can you honestly say you haven't?</p>
<p>If you look at my original post, I never criticized your opinion about the UK vs. USA curve. You may well be right. My only point is there is also good training and acting to be found in this country.</p>
<p>I am serious Jane - maybe not about the acting part, but I am no expert in acting so I can't say an accent doesn't sway my opinion there too. I asked my daughter what would improve Paris Hilton's rep at one point and she said, "a British accent." A drama student somewhere should do a study where they have the same actor with an English accent and an American accent performing the same monologue and have Americans rate the talent. I'll bet the English accent would win among many of the common and not so common folk.</p>
<p>Yes but you forget one thing...most British actors' accents don't sound anything like Judi Dench, Anthony Hopkins, etc. ;)</p>
<p>I have been stuck in my house since June, having to spend most of the day watching TV (while blogging). I confess that I watched Jude Law in The Holiday most everyday. It kept my spirits up, but I also had a 'crush' on the guy, and I am heterosexual. If he had an American accent, I wouldn't have bothered. I would have watched Meg Ryan movies. This British thing must be part of our collective psychopathology.</p>
<p>Oh but Jane - I am a bigger fan of Eddie Izzard and Ricky Gervais. Love that humor.</p>
<p>onstage, I agrre with you on the anglophile point. I have heard it identified as cultural imperialism. Has anyone ever wondered why it is that in many film involving the Roman Empire, the romans very often speak with British accents? I find that amusing. Also, how about directors who coach there american performers to speak with high British accents when they are doing a production of "Phantom of the Opera" - isn't that set in France?</p>
<p>I just got back from my d's audition at Uarts. I thought of CC when she mentioned that her acting audition was with an English sounding Professor. I looked up his bio and it seems he has acted w/the Royal Shakespeare Co. & National Theater. He also has made 3 West End appearances and 2 on Broadway. He said that he teaches mostly seniors and that so many of his students are Musical Theater kids. He loves them. He thinks that it is a well rounded program and pretty difficult. So, I guess if I put this together with all the info from CC, Uarts must be doing something right??!!?? I guess you can't do better than a well rounded program with a British acting professor. HAHAHA!!!</p>
<p>This has now become a yearly topic! LOL</p>
<p>Just my observation ... I think that probably the biggest difference in UK and American training is that when one goes to drama school in the UK, he/she is there to learn the craft of acting pure and simple. There's none of this business of hedging bets and minoring/double majoring in something to "fall back on," pursuing other interests or spending energy on general education classes. There's no time for that as they average something like forty contact hours a week. There are only a small handful of American BFAs and a maybe a few more MFA programs that offer that kind of focused training. </p>
<p>As far as content goes, I disagree that the US schools are enamored with method acting, "being yourself," etc. That's certainly not what I've been up to nor any other American conservatory student I know. In my program, there is some sense memory work first year, but it's not a major point of emphasis. Actually, I think the only American school where you can focus on "method" is NYU in the Strasberg or Adler studios. On the other hand, there is at least one highly regarded British school - Drama Centre London - that teaches Strasberg technique.</p>
<p>Overall, though, I think some of the more high intensity American drama conservatories have pretty much caught up with the Brits although there's no denying that there was a big gap in the past. If there is still a gap, I'll hypothesize that it comes more from the hundreds of years of rich theatre tradition they have on that side of the pond than through significant differences in the current quality of training.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One of my least favorite memories is lying supine in a classroom while an instructor walked around saying, "Breeeeaaaath through your aaaaa$$$$$$$$hoooollllleeee."
[/quote]
How much did you pay for that one? LMAO</p>
<p>I'm not getting into the MT vs. Acting. Or the American vs. British training. </p>
<p>I do have one comment on something you brought up fish...
and that is the liberal arts courses that are part of a BFA program here in the US. You mentioned those courses in terms of hedging bets and minoring or double majoring in something else or to have another career to "fall back on" and so forth. Yes, I have read of folks who see those courses as "fall backs." However, that is not how I see the liberal arts courses in a BFA and I know my daughter doesn't see it that way either. MT is her career focus....any aspect of it. Another major is not her intentions. Any such "fallback" are careers related to her MT performing as she actually loves and is skilled at other aspects of MT, be it writing shows, composing music, music directing, accompanying, etc. But that aside....she (as well as I) sees the liberal arts courses as breadth and as developing her knowledge and intellect which not only serves her well in life (and I dont mean for some other career) but in turn, influences her work in theater. The knowledge learned in the non-studio classes informs her work in the theater. As well, at her school, she has to do a lot of Theater Studies and this background in the theater also impacts her work as an actor. So, while I understand some think of the liberal arts classes as "I need a fallback!", she doesn't. The liberal arts classes are part of her training to enter a career in the theater.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The liberal arts classes are part of her training to enter a career in the theater.
[/quote]
That's certainly the party line in much of American training. :)</p>
<p>It may be the "party line" but I happen to think that worldly knowledge impacts you as a person (no matter the career) and impacts one's work in theater as well. I didn't buy into any party line. I believe this myself. I know my kid WANTED a school that had SOME liberal arts. She loves learning on top of training. Some don't. That's cool. She does. She doesn't do it because it is required. She WANTS to learn things on top of training and NOT for another career but for herself and for her chosen theater career.</p>
<p>Believe that all you want, but I think the now somewhat mutated subject of this discussion is why the UK schools have a history of turning out better actors. They apparently don't see it that way.</p>
<p>Soozievt - It's gratifying to know that somehow your daughter has managed to overcome the liabilities and limitations of her liberal arts education to achieve the remarkable successes as a performer that she has to date. ;)</p>
<p>Fishbowl: You are right that the mutated subject is the UK training programs vs. American ones for acting. I chose not to comment on that. I chose not to comment on MT vs. Acting here either. I was only commenting on the comment on taking liberal arts classes as part of a theater degree and not all think of those classes as 'fallbacks' for ANOTHER career. That's ALL I was discussing. I understand my comments were out of context and only responding to that one point, and not the entirety of the post vis a vis UK schools.</p>