I just returned from directing Waiting for Godot at one of Australia’s leading actor training programs, the Queensland University of Technology (QUT).
Under the astute leadership of Mark Radvan, QUT provides on-camera training unlike any other I’ve encountered. Student actors learn the ins and outs of performing for the camera from industry professionals possessing a wealth of experience directing and/or casting for film and television. As a result, students finish the program skilled in the language and practice of on-camera acting, a goal exemplified by custom-made “show reels” documenting their work. During my residency, we were visited by one of Sydney’s premiere talent agents who confirmed that QUT actors were especially accomplished in this area of their craft.
While QUT’s on-camera training is unquestionably excellent, their offerings in voice and movement for the stage are somewhat underdeveloped.
Given the limitations of time and scheduling that any acting program undergoes, it stands to reason that resources in one element of training might be compromised while focusing on another. My own experience at the now defunct MFA program at the University of Delaware demonstrated as much, insofar as we were exclusively trained for classical theatre without any time dedicated to on-camera acting. After graduation I found it very difficult to act in film and television because I simply wasn’t prepared for it. Are training actors for the stage—especially the classical stageand preparing them to work in film and television pedagogically antithetical? Is there a way to do both effectively? How does the limitation of resources such as time and money factor into such a proposition?
KU students today are lucky to have the expertise, experience and excellent teaching skills of Laura Kirk in her acting for camera course. As an undergrad in a much-previous decade, my KU training was similar to yours, Peter. All emphasis was on stage work. When I got to NYC I sought additional training through an on-camera class. I also gained skills at auditioning on camera because of the plethora of audition opportunities. Acting students should be prepared by their institutions to achieve financial and artistic success in all mediums–perhaps not as a requirement for graduation but as an option available to those who desire the extra training and experience.
Thank you, for your thoughtful comment, Janice. Your insights make a lot of sense. Cheers, Peter
Thanks Janice! As someone who still works in front of the camera and behind as a producer I would encourage our program to keep the class cross-listed so film and theater students keep working together. Both schools benefit. Most actors move between the mediums during their career. The camera work insured my family and gave me my pension. It’s growing in Kansas City. The fundamentals are the same – the rhythms of the day and preparation is quite different. One has rehearsals and a live audience. The other has little to no rehearsal and a lot of equipment and crew to block out so the reality is delivered. The camera never blinks. Close ups don’t lie. Why not practice in the safety of a classroom before trying to gain employment?
Thank you, Laura, for sharing your thoughts. You speak from experience as someone who has made her living doing film, yet is also a fine stage actor. As you state, the two mediums require different—if related—skill sets and therefore it stands to reason that there should be some degree of crossover between film and theatre students whenever possible.