"Everyone works every class": and what's wrong with that

This is a promise which many acting teachers make. But let's consider the implications of it for a moment.

This from a prominent LA acting teacher's site:

quote:

Because class size is restricted to 12-14 actors, each actor works in every class.

Let's say that the classes being described meet for three hours a week. Assuming two person scenes, that is 6-7 scenes that have to be presented in class every week. Let's suppose 6. Let's also assume that there is no time in class spent on any other issues, and that each pair uses no time to get their scene set up or change into their rehearsal clothes, and that there is no break for the whole three hours. That these assumptions would all hold seems a bit improbable, but let's assume them to be the case for now. Then each pair gets 30 minutes. Assuming it takes at least five minutes to set up and present (again, probably optimistic), then that leaves twenty-five minutes of work from the teacher for each scene. Given that we are talking about a two person scene, that means each actor gets about twelve and a half minutes worth of attention from the teacher when they get up.

This, to my mind, is woefully inadequate. And anyone who thinks that it is adequate is seriously kidding themselves about what it takes to change habits. Because that is what we are talking about when we are getting people to develop as actors. And not just habits, but habits which are often unconsciously held: we don't even know that we have the habit in question. The habit can be a way of looking at the scene, or a character, or acting itself, or a way of moving, speaking, or breathing, or of dealing with the physical life of a scene. Habits are notoriously difficult to change. Just ask anyone you know who has tried to quit smoking. Then think of changing a habit that you haven't even noticed that you have. It probably takes some work to even get the actor to recognize something she is doing reflexively is, in fact, a habit.

In acting class at the Drama School at Yale, we saw maybe two scenes in a three hour class. That's because these teachers were not only concerned with our work in the scene, but also with our process in arriving at that work, and our way of thinking about the work. All of this takes time to tease out. There is just no way that you are going to bring anyone to a fundamentally new understanding of anything in twelve and a half minutes.

And it didn't bother me that we didn't get up more, because it was eye=opening to watch the teachers work the the other students. Now, I can understand that in a class in which the teacher is offering nothing particularly revelatory, it would be a drag to have to watch that teacher coach a lot of other people, and only occasionally get up to work. But that was not the case in my classes at the Drama School: Earl Gister and Evan Yionoulis are profoundly gifted teachers who regularly provided insights which were nothing short of electrifying. Their passion for the plays we worked on and for the art of acting itself was a constant source of inspiration. And in watching them work with other students, we gained perspective about the technique we were learning which we could not have gotten when we were up doing a scene, as invaluable as that was.

The time to delve deeply into a scene and into an actor's way of approaching the scene is, to my mind, indispensable. This is the only way that the clenched fingers of habit can be peeled back, and real growth can occur. Twelve and a half minutes is barely enough time for a teacher to initiate a dialogue with the student about the scene and the character. Getting to the root of anything takes a lot more than that.

So why do teachers make this everyone-works-every-class promise? Because they perceive that that is what the students want, that is what gets the proverbial asses in the seats. And maybe many students want that, or think they do. And why do they want it? Well, if I had to guess, I would say that it has to do with impatience and the culture of instant gratification. Rather than wait for a longer, more satisfying session with the instructor, the student wants to get up and get a little feedback each week, not too much, just a little bit, nothing that would be too challenging to address. The truth is that the students, in my classes, as in many others, are expected to meet outside class to rehearse their scene. So it's not that they are not getting to WORK if they don't get up in class each week. It's that they are not getting the opportunity to be in front of the rest of the class and the instructor, in the spotlight, as it were. It may be harsh to say this, but I think it's the truth. It is the students who recognize the value of sustained investment in their own rehearsal process over time, with periodic and thorough review from the instructor, that really grow. Anyone looking for a twelve-and-a-half-minute-a-week fix is basically looking for a fairy godmother to wave her magic wand. And fairy godmothers are not as frequently sighted in this day and age as they once were.

Andrew Utter
MFA, Directing, Yale School of Drama
Mother of Invention Acting School
http://www.utteracting.com/

Man I'm glad that people are different and learn and work different ways!

I would <U>NEVER</U> pay for a class in which I did not work every session. I don't go to class to watch, I go to class to do. And classes these days are expensive, to shell out cash like that to just watch... not gonna happen!

I have a TV for watching.

A better question, what the hell are "rehearsal clothes" and why would they not wear them to class?

And why does the writer of the article, Andrew Utter, thinks actors need five minutes (optimistically) to set up? Any class I have ever been in basically call the actor's names and they rearrange a couple and chairs and MAYBE a table. Five minutes that does not take. But yes, there usually is a break at some point (on that he was right). And to divide the acting time between the pair of students who are on stage at one time by two is not accurate, or honest, perhaps it's fair to divide the notes portion, but not the performance part!

In conclusion, Andrew Utter is utterly ridiculace and clearly wrote the article in an attempt to justify not having students work every session.

If you can learn from watching, more power to you, and you are a very lucky person because there is a lot to watch out there, but me, I think I’ll keep taking classes tin which I actually work.

Just standing around watching is precisely why my son gave up on one particular class that he excelled in. He didn't get anything out of the class by just watching, he needed to participate. It was important since he was using the class to develop a character for an upcoming play where he needed feedback and a partner that he could play off of.

You might as well watch a video instead of paying for a class if all you do is sit and watch.

I am gonna have to side with Andrew, because what if someone has been doing something similar to what you've been doing? Then, you can take that back with you to your rehearsel, and then apply it, and that way when you come back to the class to do the scene, the teacher won't have to go over the same, damn thing every time.

Now, I am speaking from my experience in college. I understand the real world is a significantly different place.

Uta Hagen says on her video series to watch a scene and try to see what is going on and see if you fall into the same traps as the actors up there, instead of saying that you like their stuff, or you don't like it. That way, when she gave them criticism, she can simultaneously help you out also.

There are certainly things to be learned from other actors' work. And personally I enjoy watching other actors.

But I can do that on TV. I can do it in films.

If I go to a class, I want a chance to make MY mistakes and get comments on them. Last night in improv class I made one of the errors I've been called on a few times - only I hadn't made them for a while, so I fell back into them.

Certainly, you can learn both ways. But it seems to me very important that part of an actor's training includw getting up and working. So maybe someone would be glad, say, to study with Howard Fine (I hear you NEVER get up to work every week in his classes) and also taking an improv class.

But one thing I want to know about a class is, yes, that I would get to work every week. This said, I wouldn't depend on a teacher's ad to find that out. I don't find teachers through ads, but through other people's work (asking who they trained with) and generally talking to other actors. And of course you want to be sure you're learning in many ways, not just one.

But if I were only going to learn by watching, I'd go out and rent movies with Marcia Gay Harden, Ed Harris, Patricia Clarkson, Jeff Bridges, Ellen Burstyn, etc and watch very carefully what they do.

I don't need a class for that.

I'm actually going to side with Andrew on this one. I have been in a variety of classes. Some good, some bad. Some where I work every class. Some where I don't

The class that I'm currently in is with a well known teacher, and it lasts about six hours. It's probably the best class I've ever been in and talent-wise it's the most talented group of actors I've ever worked with.

This is the way that it's organized: for the first thirty/forty-five minutes we do theater exercises together as a group (mainly they are designed to get you out of your head and into your body). The teacher will watch and give you feedback as the exercise goes on so everyone *technically* does work in every class. The rest of the class is spent doing scenes. Usually about four. Five at absolute most, and then the class runs about an hour late.

The teacher will literally spend an hour with each scene. And I can't begin to tell you how big of a difference it's made to my acting, to spend an hour on a scene twice a month as opposed to 15-20 minutes per week. There's so many important things you'll never go into if you spend only 15 minutes.

And Iceman, where you said it only took a minute to set up chairs - an important part of your training is learning how to work with props and the set. In TV it's not so important, but in theatre and film, a big part of the performance lies in how you work with the set and props. Example: if the character is an alcoholic and the set is a kitchen he might look around the cupboards for a bottle of whiskey. It adds a dimension to the character, and you can't do that effectively without a set.

Thanks Jon K, for your excellent point on the importance of the actor developing a keen awareness of the scene environment. A class where setup of a scene involves arranging a couple of chairs is one in which significant aspects of the physical life of the scene are not beeing given full attention. A scene environment that has been properly examined and explored is chock full of opportunitie for the actor to discover a rich and textured phsycial life. An actor who spends time thinking about and creating an environment for his or her scene work is going to have a much sharper awareness of the opportunities afforded by an envirnment when eh or she walk onto a set for a film or a television show than one who has never explored such things. Good for you having found a class that foregrounds such aspects of the rehearsal process.

Actors should learn to set up for scenes - by going out and doing small parts in theaters or even volunteering to do tech work for a bit.

When you're paying to learn acting technique and get practice on particular points, I think it's a screaming waste of time. I've never been in a class where that was an issue but I doubt I'd stay very long.

I don't think we can overlook one simple financial fact here - a teacher who has more students can make more money per class, but will also have less time to spend on each student. So there is, consciously or not, a certain incentive to justify students' not working every week.

I regard this a bit as therapists who say it's actually good for you to pay for therapy because you get more out of it - when the one actual study I've seen on the subject suggests that people get better results when it's FREE.

I doubt you'll see many therapists quoting that study.

Really, this is all a bit of a sidetrack, to my mind. I think anyone looking for a teacher would do best to audit classes and generally see how comfortable they are in a variety of them (don't stop at two or three) and also make an effort to see other actors work, whether in small theaters or (brrr) workshops. When you see someone who seems to make stronger, more affecting choices, try to talk to them about how they were trained.

When the same names keep coming up, there's your list.

For me, ultimately, that's what would make the big difference. But I really think actors should be getting up and working - somehow, somewhere - as often as they can. As I've mentioned before, many of the actors I know who work regularly in TV do small theater, for instance, pretty steadily.

I must also add another note to this: some teachers just like to TALK. A predictable result of someone who gravitates towards the stage now having a captive audience. The classes I've been in where we didn't work every week weren't necessarily that big; it's just that the teacher would go on and on after each scene. And not necessarily on topic.

Yes, I've learned things (notably from the wonderful Bill Hickey), but what I learned was buried in anecdote and commentary. I've never stuck with such teachers long.

One advantage of having frequent shifts in scenes is that the teachers themselves tend to stay focused.

quote:

Originally posted by JimChevallier:
Actors should learn to set up for scenes - by going out and doing small parts in theaters or even volunteering to do tech work for a bit.

What I was talking about has nothing to do with setting up a scene. It has to do with making good use of your set as an actor.

It's more than a little ironic, JimChevalier, that you mentioned Patricia Clarkson as someone you attempt to emulate, as she attended the Yale School of Drama and had some of the same teachers I did, teachers who see only one or two scenes per class.

When we watch actors in films or on TV, we are watching the results of their process. We are not seeing them in the process of developing their performance. It can be instructive to watch the preszentations of skilled performers, certainly, but part of the difficulty is that if they are very good, they make things look effortless. You don't see all that it took to get to that point. Watching a skilled and insightful teacher interrogate an actor's assumptions about his or her role, the other characters with whom he or she is interacting, the circumstances, the pursuit of the cahracters needs, etc., and then illuminate the relationship between those assumptions and what is manifested in the scene, affords the opportunity for insights of a completely different kind than watching an actor present the product of his or her creative process.

Getting up and working is clearly important, no two ways abut it. But there is a limit to that as well. At the Drama School, I often saw actors who were attending classes, acting in one or two School or Rep shows, and doing a cabaret show after hours. They felt, because they were DOING so much, that they must be developing. However, a situation like this often means that people default to their habits and take no time to reflect on how they go about their work. It is in the alternation between working and watching others at work that the real learning takes place. When an actor is working in class, there is always some ego involved, and this can interfere with "getting it". Those watching are setached from the situation, and can often see things much more clearly than the person who is in the thick of it.

Another poster has already spoken eloquently about the value of being able to work in class for an hour or more, so I won't revisit that.

Regarding the financial motive you describe: it cuts both ways. There are some people who won't consider a class in which they don't get to work every class, and I lose them as potential customers, and take a financial hit as a result. But I am running the classes in the way I believe to be the most effective, and one of the consequencess is that the format won't be for everyone.

You say that switching scenes a lot may keep teachers focused, but the truth is an unfocussd te4acher is a problem no matter how many scenes they see per week. There is nothing that says that a teacher who sees a smaller number of scenes for a longer time MUST be unfocused.

A teacher who talks too much or gets off topic or tells irrelevant stories is going to be unsatisfying no matter what, but there is no necessary link between these characteristics and how many scenes they see in a given class. There is a real advantage to spending an hour on a scene, really unpacking the relationships, the stakes, the circumstances, etc, and then givng segments of the scene enough time and attention that real leaps forward can be made.

Really this is all a bit of minor issue, no?

I've already listed my main criteria for teachers and, for me at least, they never involve looking at teachers' ads.

If you've audited a teacher's class and get a good feeling from it, whether you feel they talk a lot or not, then, if you also have reason to believe that their students do good work out in the real world, maybe they're the one for you.

Personally, I've always gotten frustrated in classes where I didn't get to work every week, even though I probably take more interest in other people's work than most. But if everything else is a go, it might be a minor consideration.

The fact is, though, I think anyone who thinks it IS a problem can find excellent training with teachers who - whether their ads state it or not - make sure everyone gets up and works every week. I don't see any down side to it at all when the teacher has the other needed qualities.

A teacher, on the other hand, who thinks time spent on each scene should be longer, also has another option: accept less students per class, so that everybody gets long critiques AND gets to work every class.

But that of course would mean making less money, wouldn't it?

At Stella Adler you don't work every single class, but nearly. I never felt, nor did others, that we didn't get enough chances to work. The classes aren't very big either, they are two hours and I always felt I got a fair amount of time.

There would never be more than one class in a row where you didn't work.

I hate sitting and love doing and learn that way best but as I said, it was always a fair deal and I got plenty to time allocated to me.

They know what they are doing over there.

quote:

A teacher, on the other hand, who thinks time spent on each scene should be longer, also has another option: accept less students per class, so that everybody gets long critiques AND gets to work every class.

But that of course would mean making less money, wouldn't it?

That option only exists if a teacher were able to reduce the size of the class to the point where everyone were able to get up each week and have a session that was long enough to be meaningful, AND that the economics of the situation did not make the situation untenable. I see two or at most three scenes in a three hour session, so that would mean I could have six students in my class at the very most if I wanted to guarantee that everyone works every session. Which would make no sense whatsoever from the point of view of making a living. More than half of my revenue would go to covering my overhead, unless, ofcourse, I were to increase the price of the class substanially. So I have to make a choice: get everyone up weekly, or get a few people up weekly and have longer sessions for those that do get up. I choose to follow the precedent of my teachers at Yale and opt for the option I find most pedagogically sound.

Since you seem determined to maintain that decisions about how to structure the class are based primarily on maximizing profits, I'll point out a couple of things:

First, I charge $380 for ten three hour sessions, weekly, as my website states. Very competitive by LA standards. I have yet to offer a class in LA with more than 10 students. I also run my class on a pay-as-you-go basis, so students pay for the last three sessions of the course to register, and then pay $38 weekly a they attend, through week 7. This makes paying for the class very manageable for the student, and it also means that if people drop out, I lose out financially, compared to a setup where people had to pay in full at the first class. So I don't think I can be accused of making the kind of calculation that you propose ("How can I structure my class to make the most possible money?")

Second, at the Drama School, instructors were under no financial pressure, as they were on salary from Yale, and they still saw fit to see only a few students per class. As a director, I got up less frequently than the actors, but I think the actors probably got up once every other week at best. These instructors had no considerations beyond what will serve the students most, and they chose to run the classes in this way. And for an awful lot of people who were trained at the School, it has worked out very well.

Acting teachers are no more or less greedy than anyone else. A good many of us do it because it's what we love, and we want to make a living doing what we love. There are shysters and charlatans and snake-oil salesmen, for sure, but to assume that decisions about how to run a class are driven by first and foremost by moneylust is, franklu, to do us a disservice.

I don't think acting teachers are greedy. And I'm sure most teachers in most fields find themselves compromising between the time they'd like to spend and what economics and other considerations allow.

Where we differ is in thinking that the ONLY solution is to have actors get up less - or risk getting less than the best teaching:

quote:

This, to my mind, is woefully inadequate. And anyone who thinks that it is adequate is seriously kidding themselves about what it takes to change habits. Because that is what we are talking about when we are getting people to develop as actors. And not just habits, but habits which are often unconsciously held: we don't even know that we have the habit in question.

It's this kind of blanket assertion that makes me sense a self-interest.

Are there some excellent teachers whose students don't get up every week? Well, people love Howard Fine and he's notorious for that. I stuck with Bill Hickey for a session because he was... well, Bill Hickey, and I'll always treasure the experience - even if I couldn't have stood it for a year straight.

BUT... there are excellent teachers whose students DO get up every week, and those students get excellent training.

I studied with Gene Frankel, whose studio was well-known in New York and who trained a number of well-known actors (he used to have one in each month to talk.) We got up every week.

I studied with Phil Gushee, who had previously taught Meisner at the Neighborhood Playhouse. We got up every week.

I still treasure the training I got from Joe Daley at HB: precise, kindly, intuitive. We got up every week.

Etc.

Suggesting that NOT getting up every week is somehow better - that is, effectively, that it is the ONLY meaningful way to train - is ludicrous. That may not be what you meant to suggest, but that is what the words above say, more or less plainly.

Personally, when a teacher gets categorical about an approach that just happens to be their own, and which just happens to be better for them financially, I sniff self-interest.

Maybe that's unfair. So be it.

The really important point here is different teachers teach different ways, and choosing one should be based on a variety of criteria, not just one bullet point in (or absent from) an ad.

quote:

Originally posted by JimChevallier:


Where we differ is in thinking that the ONLY solution is to have actors get up less - or risk getting less than the best teaching:

quote:

This, to my mind, is woefully inadequate. And anyone who thinks that it is adequate is seriously kidding themselves about what it takes to change habits. Because that is what we are talking about when we are getting people to develop as actors. And not just habits, but habits which are often unconsciously held: we don't even know that we have the habit in question.

It's this kind of blanket assertion that makes me sense a self-interest.

This too was my own turn-off with the original post.

I would have preferred and been far more open to a non-biased review that wasn't written with the intention of putting another teacher or class down. The entire first paragraph of that post is all about other classes and what they are doing wrong. Hardly any way to promote what should be a positive environment for an actor to grow and develop.

The "that place sucks and we are better" kind of vernacular always puts me right off.

It would have served the OP well to simply state what they do at the school in a positive way, discuss the methods used and so on- and leave people to make their own comparisons.

I know I should heed this old and sage advice myself more often but here it is- "When you put people down, your only put yourself down."

Sense a self-interest? Absolutely, I am arguing that the way I run my classes is the best way to do it. If I thought another way were better, I would run my classes in that other way. And since I disclosed my relationship to my school, I don't see the problem. If I were on here advocating the way we do things at my school without disclosing my affiliation, that would be another matter.

I did not say that my way is the only way, only that an arrangement that provides feedback and work sessions in twelve and a half minute blocks on a weekly basis is not dedicated to transforming anyone, or at least I can't see how it can be. But perhaps there are teachers who know how to do just that. Forgive me if I say: color me skeptical.

And JimChevalier, that's a straw man characterization of my position. ("the ONLY solution is to have actors get up less") What I am saying is necessary is engaging with actors in DEPTH. In my experience, depth requires time. Taking time has the consequence that getting everyone up every week is often impractical.

I grant that I stated my position very insistently. It often feels to me like "everyone works every class" gets so much play in the promotion of acting classes that it starts to seem like it is perceived to be the ONLY way to run a class. Hence I argued my case very vigorously, probably more than was needed. I actually posted this post on my blog a while back, and at the time I thought it might be greeted with hostility here and so I didn't post it here. I came across it again recently and decided it was worth posting here, but probably could have rewritten it so that I didn't strike such a confrontational stance.

quote:

Originally posted by MotherOfInvention:

And JimChevalier, that's a straw man characterization of my position. ("the ONLY solution is to have actors get up less")

Hardly. It's pretty much what you say next:

quote:

What I am saying is necessary is engaging with actors in DEPTH. In my experience, depth requires time. Taking time has the consequence that getting everyone up every week is often impractical.

It follows - if you're using common linear logic - that: "the ONLY solution is to have actors get up less" (If you really want to be precise: "OFTEN the only solution is to have actors get up less" - since you did qualify your assertion by that much.)

Which, yes, is what you essentially say in what I posted originally, and what you then proceed to lay out, in a nice neat linear progression, right after you claim it's not really what you said.

The fact is, cut it any way you will, lots of excellent teachers manage to have all their students work every night. But others don't.

It simply makes no sense to be categorical about this point. Nor, for that matter, most other aspects of acting training.

No, I agreed with you upthread that acting teachers can do what you proposed and keep classes small enough so that people can get up every session AND have get up for a long period of time-- provided that econmically it makes sense, which might require other unpleasant outcome, like increasing the price of the class.

But in my original post, I was speaking specifically about an arrangement in which students get up for twelve and a hlaf minutes a week.

And you characterize me as advocating that actors "get up less", but more precisely, there is a difference between the question of how much time they should be up and how often they should be up. I in no way advocate for less time, only that the time up be allocated in larger increments that allow for depth and thoroughness.

If "Twelve and a half minute feedback/work sessions are too short for deep and thorough examination of an actor's work on a scene" is too categorical for you, well, I beg your pardon. I disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by MotherOfInvention:
And you characterize me as advocating that actors "get up less",

Meaning, "less often", not less total number of minutes.

Otherwise, what I've done is QUOTED you.

Those words are yours. People can make of them what they will.