<p>Early_college, “fish” has fans on CC and I am one. I believe she is a senior. As you mentioned, she has shared with us some research she’d done about expenses. </p>
<p>Current students in college acting programs are very busy and don’t have much time to post here. It’s wonderful when they share their insights and experiences.</p>
<p>I thought she graduated, but she could be a senior. Either way, she must be busy if she is still in a BFA or not. People should be glad when she responds though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, that’s a different Suzuki than Tadashi who first made the very thought of climbing stairs a painful experience for me all the way back in high school and whose ‘way’ is now taught in many places. 
I do think it’s a good point in this discussion, though. As an artist, you always want lots of possibilities and should remain a lifelong ‘beginner.’ The various techniques taught in a program are something to look into, but I think there might be a danger in focusing too much on “I must have this” or “I must not have that” in this context since most of such decisions can only be intellectual if you haven’t actually experienced what you’re talking about. Even if you have, at this phase you probably still don’t really even know which are ‘best’ for you. You’ll change a lot as an actor over your time in a good program as will a lot of your preconceptions. I mean, I had a good bit of training before I started, but the way I work now has very little to do with what I was up to then and I, to an extent, use some things that I had completely written off as unorthodox or even bogus at the time. I’m sure I’ll look back at how I work now in somewhat the same light ten years from now as well. Shoot, I already know of a couple of non-scholastic teachers I’d like to work with at some point after I finish school. It’s an ongoing, lifelong process and all these ‘techniques,’ ‘methods,’ and ‘ways’ are really like the Zen proverb of a finger pointing at the moon. The finger is not the moon and, in fact, must disappear. I’m sick as mud tonight and don’t have much patience for writing, but hopefully my point is somewhat clear … Basically, if it’s being taught in a reputable program, it has worked for somebody and is worth delving into. No way is necessarily ‘best.’</p>
<p>As for me … I have to admit I had to go to a friend’s Facebook pics to see which NCSA Studio IVite I would think was me if I only knew me though CC although that’s kind of impossible, I guess. LOL We all develop mental pictures of people on message boards that are usually completely inaccurate. I assure you, though, that you won’t be able to conclusively confirm any program since I’ve intentionally scrambled some things partially because of what early_college said plus my not wanting to be considered a spokesperson. I’m sure I’ve said some things over the years that neither the faculty nor some of my classmates would agree with, so I think it’s best to just talk in general. It’s kind of weird, really. This will be the last year I actually know people in other programs besides my own. Everybody has already graduated or will be finishing this year …</p>
<p>Thanks, fish, for sharing your wisdom (love the finger/moon proverb), even though you’re not feeling well (feel better soon, please!) and for relieving the discomfiture of all this conjecture about an invisible you.</p>
<p>When it comes to mental images…could I possibly have once seen a comment about an anticipation of edgy bimbo roles being somebody’s bread and butter for a while…?</p>
<p>Probably my memory is scrambled. In any event, when I once read that comment about somebody or other, it conjured in my mind a picture of a young actress with Bernadette Peters’ affect but an appearance more like Christina Ricci’s.</p>
<p>Okay, you can stop laughing now.</p>
<p>
No, I can’t stop laughing! Oh, my … LOL</p>
<p>I recently learned that on visitors day at the Boston University School of Theatre, there is a scheduled session where parents can ask questions of current freshmen in the program. </p>
<p>In addition, prospective performance students are permitted to observe movement and acting classes.</p>
<p>I don’t know how common it is for these two things to be offered on visitors days at theatre programs, but I was impressed.</p>
<p>Physical training is extremely important, but I would also pay close attention to the qauntity/qaulity of the speech and voice training. A good example of how important this is to an actor would be to look at the voice/speech requirements of some of the Australian conservatories - and then tote up the number of Australian actors you see working in this country these days.</p>
<p>Forrest, is voice/speech a specialty of Australian conservatories? </p>
<p>Are Australian conservatories generally more like British ones than US ones in their methods, or are there unique aspects to them?</p>
<p>From what I understand there is much more emphasis on technique in general than there is many American Conservatories. Even the British have gotten away somewhat from teaching technique as rigorously as in the past, in favor of methods. Most actors I know don’t subscribe to one particular method but pick and choose what works for them - and make up their own along the way. Having a mental process that works for you can be quite helpful. Technique will get you through four or five auditions/interviews in a day and allow you to do eight shows a week (and 16 hour shoot days) without losing your mind and health.</p>
<p>It is truly astounding the number of Australian actors working in American television and film.</p>
<p>I went to a performance last night of a physically based theatre company. Growtowski trained director and co-director. They spend a year developing the piece, then at least two years performing. Physically highly demanding. And what they said last night was “technique, discipline, those are the base from which we draw the performance. Without those, we would not be able to perform, and the show would change far too radically each time performed.”</p>
<p>Just found that interesting based on what forrest said. Call it what you want. In art school you learn to draw a circle and move from there. Technique, craft, etc. Those are the base. I long for the days of actors who could be heard without microphones and who could hit the same spot on the stage each night without spike tape.</p>
<p>Forrest speaks of technique as opposed to methods. Kjgc mentions the value of discipline and craft.</p>
<p>I think I have some idea of the difference between “technique” and “method,” but could somebody more knowledgeable please explain the difference?</p>
<p>With examples? :)</p>
<p>(At the Stella Adler Studio in New York, students take classes in “Adler Technique.” I would have thought that Adler Technique is more of a method than a discipline or a craft. But I could be wrong. It gets confusing…)</p>
<p>Semantics. I would argue that the term “method” is far too loaded to use in these instances. We think of things like “she’s a method actor.” Of course, this refers to the teachings of Stanislavsky. Of course, those teachings have been modified, refined, and outright changed by many acting teachers since that time. And several use the term “method” to describe their approach. </p>
<p>Technique and craft (in my case) are best described in terms of painting. Knowing color, form, line, etc. are part of the craft. Mastering those goes a long way in helping you create art. But, if I might paraphrase Picasso… “anyone can be taught to draw, no one can be taught to be an artist.” </p>
<p>As teachers in the art of theatre, the best we can do is help students master technique and help them find their own artistic voice. But it is vital that the craft (techniques) be as close to “mastered” as they can be by the time a student leaves us. </p>
<p>You might also think of it as learning scales. Necessary, important, vital, but not art. Being able to play those scales every day, without any change, and making certain they are perfect… that is discipline.</p>
<p>True that technique and method get muddled as concepts. What I mean by technique is phsyical and vocal training, period. What I mean by methods are Meisner, Strassberg, Alder, and all other systems that help you with the imaginative and emotional demands of being an actor.</p>
<p>So I guess the bottom line is that it’s good to seek a program that offers the most and best possible voice and physical training.</p>
<p>In addition, one should investigate whether the school emphasizes a single system of actor training, or whether they offer a “tool-box” approach where you can be exposed to elements of different systems and see what works best for you.</p>
<p>I understand that DePaul’s 4-hour audition includes a workshop where students get a taste of the system of actor training that they emphasize there, which is, I believe, called Spolin improv training. That seems like a good idea to me.</p>
<p>Exactly right NJTheatreMom. Toolbox. Good term.</p>
<p>You would think toolbox would be a good term, I asked one of my auditor’s if their acting training was like that and I got a snotty chuckle in return. Needless to say that school wasn’t interested in me but I just thought it was interesting because it’s a term that’s thrown around a lot on this website. Just don’t be surprised in the audition room if things like that happen. Most auditors are very warm and kind, even if they know they aren’t considering you (which they do from about a minute in, maybe even 30 seconds in) but there are some that treat you like you’re just another number whose audition fee pays for their room and coffee. Don’t sweat it though, if you get treated like that or pick up those vibes, chances are you wouldn’t have wanted to be there anywhere.</p>
<p>I am going way out on a limb here and am presently preparing for the slings and arrows that may be headed my way. </p>
<p>I would be mistrustful of any program that touts one method as better than another, or worse, teaches only one method. And I am talking about a four year college program here.
Every actor I have ever known picks and chooses what works for them. You should expose yourself to as many different ideas - with a completely open mind - as you possibly can. You will take to some, reject others - and sometimes, years later, come to embrace a concept that you thought foolish at one time. Being an actor is about being proficient - or better - physically and vocally, and having an imagination without boundries. Most methods will attempt to develop your imagination and explore your emotions, often in a very gut wrenching way. After all, if you don’t really know how you feel, how can you assess how a character might feel?</p>
<p>forrest… slings and arrows? Really? I don’t know of anyone who would think what you had to say should be chastised. I agree wholeheartedly. I think it is great advice to the undergrad.</p>
<p>Viewpoints training was mentioned earlier in this thread (posts # 7, 9, 16 and 17). I just learned, over Thanksgiving, that my son has been doing Viewpoints recently at college.</p>
<p>His descriptions of it are interesting. I’m going to try to get him to post about it over winter break. </p>
<p>My impression is that Boston University School of Theatre feels that it is good for its acting freshmen to be exposed to Viewpoints during the first semester of the program. </p>
<p>Next semester, my son and his classmates start learning Alexander Technique. I look forward to hearing about what that’s like. After this, they will have a one-semester Alexander Technique class every semester right up to graduation, expect during the semester they spend in the UK at LAMDA.</p>
<p>Viewpoints was first developed by Mary Overlie. She teaches in my D’s former studio at Tisch, the Experimental Theatre Wing, where my D has had her as a teacher, and advisor. Overlie was the founding teacher of ETW and directed the studio from 1989 to 1991. ETW teaches a wide range of techniques from which the actor can choose that best serve him/her.</p>