Hi folks,
I'm currently looking at a variety of schools for acting training including Atlantic, Esper Studio, Circle in the Square, and the Neighborhood Playhouse as well as a couple across the pond -- LAMDA and Mountview, specifically.
I've heard and read for a while now that UK training is "the best"--creates better actors by giving them a grounded technique that lets them unlock a wider variety of performances. However, when I go to research the topic, I'm typically met with generalizations--"it's Shakespeare", or "it's the type of schooling they have in the U.K.", but nothing seems to hit the heart of the matter.
Does anyone have thoughts or theories on why this might be the case?
Thanks,
Ashton
1 person likes this
I did an extensive amount of research on universities in Europe with acting programs. You are correct they all seem to have a general verbiage that they use for their schools. To weed out the "weak", and I use that term EXTREMELY LOOSELY, I looked at their professional graduates that have succeeded.
In my opinion the reason it is this way is so that everyone seems like they offer the same thing but, in truth, the proof is in the pudding. The proof is in the success of their graduates. All these schools have a narrow margin of success and they know it.
Fascinating. So it's less about the technique, and more about the quality of the teachers and program as a whole, proven by post-graduate successes?
If you're looking in NYC I would go with Stella Adler, just my thoughts.
Thanks for the thoughts, James. What did you like about Adler?
1 person likes this
I think with any training you're going to get restrictions, but they really focused on me as an artist, and the technique makes me feel less in my head, and gets me into my body, where acting is meant to be. I also liked the wide range of classes they offered, it was a perfect fit for me.