quote:

Originally posted by Jon_K:
Michael,

Although it's extremely tempting because you come across as very arrogant, I'm not going to insult you.

However, I will say that I've talked with some very successful film actors who have told me that you need to study with great teachers - IN AN ACTING CLASS. Most movie stars are members of the Actor's Studio which is a free acting class located in New York or LA. Most working movie stars today were trained by either Strasburg, Meisner, or Adler.

And it's true. A few people are born with an innate gift, and they don't need training to make a living off acting. Most people, on the other hand, need a lot of training.

I don't know why I come across arrogant...I'm not at all arrogant. I'm totally down to earth and humble.

How am I arrogant? Because I write as if I know what I'm talking about? Because I'm comfortable with my level of skill at the moment? Because I feel I don't need classes right now?

It makes no sense.

Also, please can I say this again, I never ever said people don't need training. If you read back at my posts, you'll see that I said there is a time for classes, and there is a time for working.

I feel like you guys skim my posts...because if you would really read, you'd see I've said that many times. I don't get it.

I find it funny, how I can be attacked for no reason at all...completely insulted openly, yet those that are insulting are ignored, and I'm called 'arrogant.'

Odd.

Wow. This is back? LOL
M1chae1,

quote:

But you still absolutely assumed about what years I've been working on stage. And you still patronize me about not being, how should I put it, 'long' enough on theater to give accurate or worthy bits of advice.

Seemed reasonable to me since it says you were born in 1976 and all but three listed credits are from high school and college. I also don't see how saying I'm long on theatre is patronizing you at all. I am. I didn't say anything about you in that context. I do plead total noobdom on the TV and film side although I've had a little dumb luck in the arena to start. Again, the only reason I participated on this thread in the first place was because of the OPs assertion that he "would be the happiest person in the world to do repertory theatre for the rest of my life." I know a little about what that takes and decided to speak up. I believe your first comment was, "Excellent post. Wonderful wealth of information and things an actor should learn/know." I'll stand on content.

Evey actor must decide 'what it takes' for them.

What you define as necessary to succeed in any venue does not refer to me or any other actor. It only defines what you think YOU need.

There are plenty of actors with very little training in classical works and no MFA who are wonderful actors in that genre.

There is no such thing as the 'right' training or the 'right' teacher or the 'right' method of doing anything.

Worry about what works for you. Blanket statements about 'what it takes' is based soley on your opinion of what works for you. I believe actors do need training. But KNOWING yourself as an actor and as a person is what is most important. Knowing everything about yourself, what method works for you, how your emotions are set off, etc. is best.

At the end of the day we don't care where Al Pacino care. We only care about the product. Al found what works for him. As do we all.

No one is the same. And once you embrace your individuality, you can become a unique artist. No matter what a teacher, school or fellow actors think. Picasso found his own style. He found his own voice. How much training dis he have? Did he go to the 'right' school? Did he paint the way he was told to paint by instructors? Maybe at first, but eventually he went his own way. We all find our own way of working. It's not fair to state what people need. We only know what works for us. And that is not just in acting. That is in life. We are all unique. Embrace it and create something new.

Sorry for the typos. I was going too fast. I meant to say, we don't care where Al Pacino studied. We only really care about the product. That is true of all art forms. When you watch a ballet, we watch the dancers. We don't look at their resumes.

Don't worry about the typos. You're talking to the Queen of the run-on sentence, here. I think most of us are just dashing off our thoughts while we have our coffee or whatever and don't have a lot of time for editing. We sometimes leave out words like "usually," as well. Like what it "usually" takes. Really, I probably should have said what actors in that area of theatre usually HAVE which is a period immersive training at some point in their backgrounds. When this was a big question for me a few years ago, I literally poured over all the company bios and programs for every major regional theatre I knew about where company members make their living playing the classics and it wasn't just a lot. It was a huge majority. Otherwise, I pretty much agree with everything you've said. Wasn't it Picasso who said something to the effect of, "I can teach anyone to draw, but I cannot teach anyone to be an artist?" That seems to apply as well.

I'm not trying to disagree with the training aspect. I think every artist needs the basic building blocks. But how long one studies or where one trains does not matter as much as WHAT is done with that training and especially in how that artist has found his own 'voice' and uniqueness.

I also like to see where people have studied. But I also know to not compare myself with any other person on my planet. My uniqeness and skills are individual and I embrace that. That is also why I question every method and every teacher and ask myself 'does this work for me?'

At the end of the day, we all have a toolbox and we must learn to keep what works and what doesn't for us. As a therapist once told me "how much training is enough training?" Only we ourselves can answer that question. No one else has the authority or the right.

Well said Amo.

One thing I was recently cautioned on from a very succesful stage actor was to be aware of academia.
I live in Colorado right now, and he suggested some possible local schools for MFA's...
His basic rule was to avoid schools that have programs where instructors have been mired in academia most of their lives. Find a place where the instructors are accomplished actors. They don't have to be DeNiro's or Hoffmans or Dench's but someone who has been in the business, struggled, survived, and lived the nitty gritty because they are the ones that can REALLY teach you to become a better actor, and help you even in life....

^ True dat. Some other things one might find important in choosing this kind of training program are ...

Part of or closely tied to a respected professional theatre. Not only can you learn a lot from hobnobbing with the graybeards, you can become Equity eligible. Some programs apparently guarantee the points.

Outside professional directors working with students on inside projects. You can learn some amazing things from them plus they will remember it if they liked working with you. It can't hurt to have some well-known directors beside some of the big roles on your resume, either.

Alumni network / "Mafia." This isn't related to the training itself, but some programs have alumni entrenched in virtually every corner of the business who will bend over backwards to help you out if you play your cards right. There are never any guarantees and it seems to have a shelf life of around two years, but it can't hurt your prospects to emerge from your immersion already fairly well-connected.

A well-attended showcase. No guarantees with this, either, but it can't hurt.

My opinion is that the biggest enemy in this kind of training is taking on a lot of debt for it. I've seen some mad talented people have to pack it up because of that ...

Hey, you guys can insult each other all you want...I don't care! But don't insult Horror films..they are awesome! And the main reason I entered the industry in the first place!

I'm not really going to pick a side in all of this. Both sides are right. It all comes down to the person and how their emotions and brains work. Really nothing to argue about it.

The one thing that NEVER seems to come up in discussions like this, is actors exist to fulfill a directors vision. Weather you are the lead or one of 900 extras, you are fulfilling a directors vision. Its your personailty, your level of talent (with or without training), and your interpretation of the material at an audition that fits or doesn't fit with the directors vision. We are all violin players in their orchestra...

I have found in my observing and experience, that the best ensembles come from a variety of backrounds. Say, for example, one actor is classically trained, one os hardcore meisner, one its their first movie and one is a former child star making a comeback. Throw in a few day players from equally diverse backrounds...and you have a GREAT ensemble. The playing off each other will be great, because the patterns of each player will not be the same. All kinds of stuff in your soup so to speak...

Anyway, hope that makes sense to all of you. To put myself in perspective, I went to college and have a BFA in filmmaking. Maybe thats where my auteur heavy interpretation of film comes from... I have no formal actor training, but seeking it out with my next burst of money (probably going to take one improv workshop and one acting workshop after doing some audits and whatnot...) But, without training, I have been acting on and off for about 10 years with considerable experience. A ton of indie films, some of which are cult favorites, a ton of shorts and some television. No theater except for for improv sketch comedy. Did I make the right choices and follow the right path? Impossible to tell, but seems to be working so far, so I'm guessing "yes" for me.