Some observations on the USC audition and admission process

<p>I don’t disagree with your main points, especially about lashing out. However,</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t agree with this. This is your opinion and your philosophy. It stems from the notion that talent is born.</p>

<p>I apologize if this offends, I don’t mean it to, but I think it is a philosophy that is snobbish and out of touch. And it is not true.</p>

<p>People that say that do it to put themselves in an elite category. They may have had to work, train, develop, and struggle, sure, but they “have it” – and you/they don’t, nah-nah-nah-nah-nah.</p>

<p>I genuinely think it is wrong.</p>

<p>Yes, it’s all a business and all to make money, but acting is an art form. Art requires the breadth of individuality and unique perspective by nature. This means that everyone “has it”, because everyone is human, and everyone acts in their daily life.</p>

<p>Does it mean everyone is commercially viable in terms of being able to be cast for a wide spectrum of roles? No. Does it mean everyone has the ability to learn and develop as an actor in the time that traditional BFA programs last? No. Does it even mean that everyone who does have something genuine and amazing to offer has even an iota of an idea of their potential – or how to unlock it (and without training!) by the time high school is over? No way.</p>

<p>But speaking strictly on the art of it, I firmly believe that everyone that wants to can develop the ability to bring out their soul and individuality in this craft. </p>

<p>Stella Adler once said that (and this isn’t a direct quote or anything, but) the first indicator of talent is wanting to be there – as in, training, watching, and analyzing theatre. I firmly believe this.</p>

<p>I’m just saying that using acceptances as some sort of sign or proof of some future commercial viability or potential for future development is really, really cynical.</p>

<p>No, not everyone can be Meryl Streep (who was an absolute star at Yale Drama) or Gene Hackman (who was kicked out of a drama school for not “being good enough”) – and I’m not remotely saying that there certainly aren’t types of people that are more suited to act and to LEARN to act than others. But that doesn’t mean someone can’t learn to bring their personality, individuality, and soul to this art form, and that is the ONLY point I’m trying to make.</p>

<p>I agree with acting you have to be trained and the same thing with dancing. You cannot be born and win dancing competitions without being trained. I think singing is something you are both win. You either have the voice or you don’t. You can’t be trained if you sing terrible, you can’t fix that. You need something to work with at least. Like I am so bad, singing lessons would be a waste of money.</p>

<p>I agree that to participate is wonderful, and one does act in real life. I am talking about the reality beyond college (or high school). College is a wonderful time of exploration and growth. And it is a time when a student explores different facets of their person. One can be trained to varying degrees of success. Again, my point is: If your success rate is a continium of mediocre…from high school, through college, through a few years of professional auditions you have some evaluations to do and not to blame others for the lack of success. Yes, there are some people who labor on the sidelines for 50 years for their art. But to blame others, be it the school, the process, the bigotry against the not so pretty (or the far too pretty) girl or boy is a detriment to the actor and the person involved.</p>

<p>Acting talent is an at least partially innate gift just like any other. As David Mamet has said, “Training doesn’t make you more talented. It makes you more trained.” It gives you techniques for using whatever talent you may possess, but the talent itself does not increase nor decrease. While it’s true that as a human being one has all the tangible assets one needs to be an actor, there is very much an intangible spark - “IT” if you will - that separates the artist from the average joe. I’ve seen it over and over and anyone who has been around the biz any length of time and doesn’t have a vested interest to the contrary will tell you the same. It’s “that thing” that makes it impossible to not focus your attention on that one person onstage in a cast of many and it has nothing to do with being a “pretty person” or whatever. I mean, I have ears and can play a few songs on a guitar. Does that mean I have musical talent? I have eyes and hands. Does that mean I can be a painter or a sculptor? People say I have great legs. Does that mean I have the gift of dance? Does someone telling me I have very little potential for significant growth in any one of those disciplines make them “snobbish and out of touch?” No. Absofreakinlutely not. It makes them honest. </p>

<p>I think part of the problem here is the intangible nature of artistic talent that makes it possible for people to make all kinds of sweet, populist statements that lead kids right down the primrose path. There’s a whole business out there whose financial survival is dependent on maintaining the myth that anyone can be an actor when it should be obvious to anyone with eyes that it’s just not true. However, dreams, delusions, parental pride, etc. often blind those eyes making for easy prey. I mean, nobody bats an eyelid when the coach tells the 5’7" 140 lb. boy who can’t run a forty yard dash in under five seconds that he could never play in the NFL no matter how much passion he has for the game. But, just let someone tell his nondescript looking 5’3" 140 pound sister with bad skin and a squeaky voice that she has little more than a zero percent chance of ever making a penny as an actress and let the lynch mob form … Who’s to say, right? :rolleyes: Of course, there are also varying degrees of talent that may not become apparent until maturity and talent itself isn’t necessarily an indicator of commerical viability, but that’s a bigger box than I’m willing to open right now … </p>

<p>I do agree that college BFA admissions are a very poor way of assessing one’s talent. If you’ll look at the kids in most of these top schools, you’ll find that the majority of them are the ones who’ve had all the advantages. Most are from big theatre centers with lots of opportunities, attended one of the better arts high schools, or they spent years attending one of the expensive camps. One school which is frequently discussed on here as being “top” had over half their freshman class coming from the same two arts high schools a couple of years ago! Kinda makes their claims on the website that they’re looking for “raw talent” ring a bit hollow … If you’re one of those kids and don’t get in anywhere without there being some major reason like sickness during auditions, etc., maybe it is time to reevaluate. Otherwise, it does seem to be a total crap shoot. How’s a kid from rural Mississippi who’s had none of those advantages to compete? </p>

<p>P.S. “Talking Meat?” Now I don’t feel so bad calling those people suit-schmoes and ***** peddlers! LMAO Have you checked out the crap they’ve been trying to sell us on TV lately? The “talking meat” they’ve chosen over others who could have probably brought something to those absurd plots and mundane scripts are only a small part of the problem … It’s no wonder “Reality” shows now dominate the ratings …</p>

<p>I’m glad you appreciated the Talking Meat comment. And, yes, casting tends to cast the same people over and over because it (forget TVQ) because it is hard to go out on a limb for new talent.</p>

<p>My daughter’s first audition was for a car commercial. It was deadly serious business. She had to wear a bathing suit to the callback. It took hours of pairing brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers in front of executives. Reading copy…hair up hair down…She booked the job. The final cut? Everyone was wearing flippers, facemasks with a breathing tube…(yes, and bathing suits) to get in and out of a car…with the only copy a voiceover extolling the virtues of the car. </p>

<p>And that is Hollywood…and New York…</p>

<p>Hi IMHopeful, I was wondering if you have any advice for my daughter…and for me, since you already went to the process. My daughter is a risng senior, she is actually in Thaca right now in a 3 weeks musical theatre pre-college program. I am very stressed out with the whole process. Can you give me an inside on how the whole process went? Where else did your daughter applied to? Did she find out why she didn’t get accepted? Where did she get in? I am very concern about how all this is going to work!</p>

<p>fishbowl, you wrote what I was thinking when I read the previous posts. I think training is important and it improves one’s skills in the craft. But in order to make it, one really needs what I call the “it factor” and you either have the “it” or you don’t. When someone is on stage, the audience is drawn to the person who has that “it factor” …stage presence…hard to describe. There is an element of natural talent (not skills). Not everyone with the “it factor” will succeed but I think it is harder to make it without the “it factor.”</p>

<p>I agree with another poster who said that one can’t assess talent or potential to make it as an artist based on the results of college admissions to audition based programs as most of these programs have very low acceptance rates which means that any one particular program has to turn away many who are qualified to get in. HOWEVER, I think if one has a balanced college list that is appropriate for themselves, and truly has the talent, they should get into at least one of their programs. If they are totally shut out of all programs, they either did not have an appropriate college list for themselves, or may not have the requisite talent.</p>

<p>Soozievt, any advice for a stressed mom and a rising junior that is preparing for musical theatre auditions? :=o</p>

<p>BroadwayMom, I have read some of your posts on other CC forums and I realize you are new to CC. What I think you should do is to visit the Musical Theater Forum on CC and read the many many threads and posts there as background reading to start. You will learn a great deal. This will take some time but it is a very good first step. Then, start a thread on a SPECIFIC question and there are plenty of experienced people who can help you. You will get more responses if you narrow the question to something specific rather than a general call for help and how to go about everything at once. There is a wealth of information on the MT Forum. The more you read, the more informed you will be and then you will likely have some questions you can raise. The forum also likes to try to keep each thread on topic and so your asking for help on how to go about the college admissions process for your D doesn’t work well in the context of a thread about USC. So, starting a new thread and being very specific will yield the best results on CC for you. </p>

<p>Here is the Musical Theater Forum:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/musical-theater-major/[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/musical-theater-major/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Isn’t your D a rising senior, not junior? That’s what I thought I read on your posts on some other CC forums.</p>

<p>I’m sorry, I just don’t believe it, and I think you all underestimate a person’s ability to learn.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Newsflash: Training and talent are mutually exclusive things. </p>

<p>It all depends on how one defines talent.</p>

<p>And as Michael Caine said, “I’m a trained actor. Whether or not I have talent is irrelevant.”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Again, I think this is pure elitist crockery. </p>

<p>Art is subjective. Not everyone has the same artistic potential, and CERTAINLY not everyone is “commercially viable”, but anyone can learn to act – and pretty well, I’d be willing to bet.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Stage presence is something that is learned, it’s just not really teachable. An actor has to figure it out for themselves. Stage presence stems from confidence, charisma, comfort in one’s own body, their physicality and physical choices, a willingness to “give” to an audience, and the emotional truth one is extolling on stage.</p>

<p>All of those things can be either learned, acquired, or grown into, I’m of the firm opinion of. Taught in a classroom? Not all of it. But much of it can be, believe it or not. That’s why a lot of actors make money teaching business types and lawyers and such how to improve their speaking abilities and presence.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course, if you don’t have the desire to improve your abilities in any of those areas, of course you don’t have “talent”.</p>

<p>Mozart was not born a genius. (Many of his starting works were very average.) John Mayer was not born with an ability to rock out the guitar. True “talent” is dedication, love, and sweat. It definitely takes longer for some than for others. If you want to define talent a measure of how QUICKLY one can learn to pick up the kinds of concepts in order to learn how to act, then I would agree with you, that is innate.</p>

<p>But acting is NOT modeling. Yes, in modeling, because it’s more about the natural look than those poses in the photographs, that’s just being born with it or not.</p>

<p>Acting is not that. Everyone can learn to act.</p>

<p>If we’re looking to agree that people have different roofs for artistic potential, then I’d agree with you. Of course.</p>

<p>But if you’re saying that only certain people have artistic potential at all, you are sorely mistaken.</p>

<p>Art is just about expressing one’s self in a certain form.</p>

<p>Soozievt,
Thanks I am going to check the MT forum. Hopefully I can see some “light”…My daughter is a senior now. She graduates HS in 6/2010.
Thanks again…</p>

<p>Good to see your freshman, haven’t seen you post anything in a while. I do agree that with acting there should be some talent, but it’s not like singing. You are born with a good or bad singing voice and there isn’t much one can do with a bad voice. You can train for dancing and acting. You do need talent, but not like a singer has to be born with a great voice. When people train, they become better actors. If you stink at singing, you’ll never be a good singer and lessons won’t help that.</p>

<p>I just saw this page. Good to see you soov too haven’t seen you on this forum as well in a while. I think I agree with everyone, lol. I can see where everyone is coming from and it all makes sense. You do need some “it factor” and it also depends on someones personality. I have a friend who is a great actress and can sing, act and dance, but is not the one who takes rejection good. It takes more than having the it factor to succeed.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What? This isn’t true. Were you the poster that was talking about how you weren’t going to take lessons because you were convinced you had a bad singing voice?</p>

<p>Using your voice is a skill. Just because you can’t train yourself to have a 3 octave range doesn’t mean lessons can’t improve your ability to carry a tune, be on key, use proper technique, and learn to sing.</p>

<p>I believe you can learn to be a better singer, actor, or dancer. These are skills and training will hone those skills. I was not talking about the skill of acting, however. I’m talking of an entirely OTHER element. For a musical theater performer, for example, one can learn to sing, act, and dance. But there is a fourth factor and that factor really can’t be taught and is more natural. The “it” factor. It is not really a skill. It is a presence. It’s a spark on stage. I don’t think you can teach the “it factor.” But certainly someone can have potential to be very good at acting, singing or dancing. But I think the most successful theater artists are ones that have that other quality, the “it factor.” It is a quality, not a skill. Some see it in a person from a young age. Someone can have excellent talent and skill at acting, singing and dancing but still be missing that “it factor.”</p>

<p>I 100% agree that you are born a good singer! If you watched You Think You Can Dance, Nigel even said with dancing you can come back after you did some training. He also said with Idol, it is not that way because you either have the voice or you don’t. Also, I’m not “convinced” that I cannot sing I know it! How would you like it if people started at you in Chorus in middle school, my own Chorus teacher told other students how bad I was. You can learn to be a better singer, but you have to have something to work with. I am def. not the one who could work in the music industry, I got 20’s on sight reading and I can never understand it. I also cannot carry a tone at all and I think I actually can, but others tell me I cannot. I have been told I cannot sing since the age of 5. I think I do have the “it factor” and many will tell you that since I was the age of 5. Though, I will never be a good singer and would be a waste of money to get singing lessons when I could get more acting training.</p>

<p>I’m not talking about the same thing as early_college. He is talking about a skill (singing). I’m talking about what fishbowlfreshman was referring to…a quality, not a skill. Again, a successful MT performer will have skill at singing, dancing, and acting (all of which are trainable) but ALSO have the “it factor” which is not a skill and not as defined. It’s a spark on stage that draws the audience to them. You can have a person who is a better singer or actor but who doesn’t have the “it factor” and a person who is less skilled but does have the “it factor” and you will be drawn to watch the one with the “it factor.”</p>

<p>I agree with soov, you do need some “it factor”. Though, someone may have the it factor and may not have any skills in singing.</p>

<p>Many skills can be taught. Teaching a young actor to research a role and access their emotions (at least intellectually) can be taught. BUT to access these emotions, put them out there and to have an audience want to watch you (and sometimes ONLY you) cannot be taught. Sure, the little boy stage left can yell louder than the other boys…But is he annoying or compelling? Funny or obnoxious? </p>

<p>Incidentally there is “Theater Acting” versus “Television Acting”, and a separate skill. (Television acting is less broad.) Again, something the students who audition for college programs won’t have any idea what that school is looking for at that moment.</p>

<p>I know this will place and date me but I went to the same high school with a man who later won an Oscar for Best Actor. (He graduated a number of years before me so this story was told by the acting teacher.) In fairness this is a school that has/had many people who’s parents were in the industry and sent many people into the industry. (Please note: This was a time…long, long ago when the body mike hadn’t been invented.) The acting teacher’s favorite mantra was to “PROJECT!!!” (so that we could be heard in the balcony.) This young man couldn’t/wouldn’t project. He would, in fact lower his voice to the audience had to listen to him…and only him.</p>

<p>His first review? He was praised for his “intimate television style that drew the audience in.” You can’t teach that.</p>