I was chatting with some friends in Glasgow recently and we were discussing how we were trained in performance. As always I was lamenting my school loans, loans that I took to complete both an undergraduate performance degree at Boston University and a masters degree in this city. I was saying that I regret going to school for acting and wish I’d just moved to Chicago or New York and learned as I went. Basically in America to be an actor most of your professional life is spent auditioning and while I learned a great deal in school I would have gained the same training in short courses at studios, workshops, and regular classes in movement, voice, dance, etc. The only thing I might not have learned was so much dramaturgical analysis, but then that tends to arrive with age and experience anyway.
But this wouldn’t have got me anywhere in the UK, it seems, where young actors are expected to have degrees in performance – some kind of certification that they have training. This surprises and disappoints me. In a way I understand why a casting director might require some kind of ‘stamp of approval’ – there are so many actors and they all tend to have the same level of skill, it would be easiest to weed out anyone who may not. But what if their lack of training is the reason they are so gifted? What if an actor who has natural ability didn’t go through the painful emotional experience and expense of being in drama school but picked up all the same skills and insight through practice – surely they’d be more valuable? But how many of them don’t even get in the door because they don’t have degrees?
Easy for me to say, I have two of them.
But I wonder, is this just TV and film who has this attitude, or does it extend to theatre casting directors and artistic directors? Are they punchy about who they let in the door also – looking first for performance degrees? I knew a lot of my fellow grads who were terrible but would they be in the casting room before some pals who are far more talented and committed? I fear that answer is that they would. What a pity not just for those young professionals who can’t get on the ladder but what a pity for projects that will be forced to employ the same tired faces and mediocre talent. I say that, but not everyone who gets formal training sucks. I just think it’s unfair to think they won’t suck just because of the degree.
I saw a performance last night from Glas(s) Theatre Company called “Generation.” I believe that the youngsters who performed in the show were untrained teens, and they were very compelling. They were doing all sorts of stuff that was very interesting to watch but without knowing it, they had a simplicity and a frank gaze that was totally compelling. Yes, they also twisted and straightened their clothes when their bodies shown, they also didn’t have full control of their voices or hands, and sometimes it was apparent that they weren’t present, that they were thinking about lines or timing or what the other ensemble members were doing – but that was all part of the charm of a show about youth transformed into adults. The production at large aside, these performances were really compelling. And they were untrained. Now, for training that is essential so they leave their clothes alone, let their arms and shoulders relax, relax their faces and their contorted emotional expression, they don’t need three or four years of full time education. No, I’d recommend for these clearly talented young people that they move to a bigger city and take classes, workshops, and short term training programmes – this lets them work in the real world (essential for any actor) and gives them flexibility to attend auditions.
But to hell with my advice if their lack of a degree won’t get them in the door. Then again, the kind of work they made and performed last night isn’t the sort of work that holds auditions. If they are becoming artists creating performance work then they really don’t need to go to school – they just need to remain ballsy, curious, and dynamic.
What a good actor is anyway.
