MomCares

>> I wish someone from a school like Northwestern or NYU, both of which I believe do a lot of student-produced plays, would weigh in.


Our D is a Sophomore at Northwestern, so if you look back at my comments in this thread that's the program I'm usually referring to.

We've only been able to see a few shows so far (we live half a country away from NU), but with 60+ students productions on campus every year there is no doubt a huge range of production values for various shows. Some are heavily funded and professionally directed, while others are produced on a shoestring. Some feature the "serious" performers, while some strive to include non-performing theatre kids to give them the perspective of an actor. D was in one show last year where a major goal was to feature one performer from every college on campus, so the goal there was certainly not only to cast the strongest performers but rather to foster broad-based school spirit.

There are many student theatre organizations on campus that produce shows, and each has a unique budgeting and fundraising scheme, plus they offer varying levels of access to the school's extensive technical resources.

Hopefully others with more Northwestern experience will also chime in.

EmmyBet

When my D was in that play last spring - with minimal production effects and less rehearsal - all of the upperclassmen were simultaneously rehearsing mainstage shows, auditioning for summer work, and planning their post-graduation lives. While I might say it wasn't the most impressive student production I've ever seen, it was quite respectable and as I've said an excellent learning experience.

My D's school also is known for a higher emphasis on academics. There are many times they might have 20 hours/week in rehearsal (either performing or in tech), but they also have other commitments, and it is not constant, nor expected for every show.

This has ups and downs and is definitely a reason why people may or may not pick certain schools. Everyone has different things that matter to them. While my D's BFA certainly qualifies as intense, it is less so in terms of number of productions and hours of studio time per day. Instead, it is very focused on writing (papers in every class, including Voice and Movement), dedication to training (offstage and onstage), and off-campus activity (using NYC resources). It provides time for a minor, but not a second major - and lots of students also juggle jobs on top of everything else.

My D relishes her time in production - is never happier, as we say about most of these kids - but she also is glad for her down times, so she can study, work on her own technique more generally, see plays, go to readings, etc.

amtc

NJTheatreMom - As MomCares said, there are so many student produced plays/musicals at NU that it is hard to generalize on their funding, professionalism, etc. There is a real hierarchy in the different theatre student organizations and each has different goals and funding. I said earlier in this thread that the first time we looked at the NU program my daughter and I saw a show that is quite famous, all student done and very well funded and she thought it was just awful in almost every respect. It almost turned her off to the school.

She has been in quite a few student produced shows, both as an actor and as part of the production team and I have seen a fair number of them and still there is no generalization to be made; some are amazing, well-funded, well-produced, well-cast, well-written, everything, some the complete opposite, and everything in between.

My personal feeling is that everything is a learning experience and in some ways I prefer her to be in more student run and black box type of productions because that is a team effort far greater than a school produced version of whatever ("Into the Woods" or "Carousel" or "Tartuffe" or "Hair"). She will have plenty of opportunity to perform in more "traditional" productions once she graduates and she needs to be paid to support herself; that is when there will be much less opportunity for her to perform in these more experimental, unusual pieces. That is what college is for, IMHO.

NJTheatreMOM

I think some great points have been made on this thread about how important it is for theatre students to take risks and to learn, and how those things can very well occur in productions that are not necessarily polished to a high sheen.

By the way, probably the only way to tell how happy students are in a program is to talk to them one-on-one. So, Shacherry, the next time you and your son attend a performance at a school, I'd suggest trying to hang around and speak with some of the student actors afterwards, if at all possible.

Attending a rehearsal and/or sitting in on classes can be very informative too, but those things are not always so easy to arrange.

madbean

Finding out how happy students are in their program is tricky, since those participating in a play are more likely to be engaged and fully committed than those (who knows if there are some) who are not feeling the love, not getting involved to the fullest, whatever. If one happens upon a disaffected student, one gets a very skewed perspective. If one happens on a group of very involved students, the same. Unfortunately, it's tough to judge a school (or anything?) by first impressions and random samples. And this is such an important decision!

I went to a quite unknown state university and majored in theatre and those of us who got very involved LOVED it. Really, not a well known program at all, but theatre kids tend to find their own and have so much in common. From my cohort, two of us became writers in Hollywood, one is the voice-acting star of "The Simpsons", and another a well established character actor. There may be more I'm not in touch with, but no one would have directed any of us to this program way back then as a sure path to an entertainment career. Perhaps in some of the lesser programs, there is more room for fish to grow into big fish? lol. Just a few random thoughts.

TheRealKEVP

These programs are all very different, and, yes, from what people are saying here, you can get some idea of the differences by seeing productions at the school.

Shacherry says she hasn't seen enough theatre to be able to evaluate a show. But you are still, as you say, able to get a "vibe" that contributes to your overall idea of the school. If you enjoyed it, they must have been doing something right. Obviously, there was nothing that jumped out at you and said "whoever directed this didn't know what they were doing". And nothing that jumped out at you and said "those actors don't seem to be enjoying themselves." Believe it or not, it is possible to see a show where it is clear to ANYONE that it's a bad play and the actors aren't enjoying themselves. Michael Green in his book "The Art of Coarse Acting" remarks that this is the kind of play where the traditional roles of audience and actors are reversed. The actors are just stuck on stage being themselves, while the audience has to play a part and pretend to enjoy a play they really aren't enjoying. (Also note that Shakespeare wrote ALL of his plays to be performed with "no real set". When all of his plays were first performed (including "As You Like It") they were performed with "no real set".)

When I was at CCC in the late 90's, everyone was also "simultaneously rehearsing mainstage shows, auditioning for summer work, and planning their post-graduation lives" just like the school EmmyBet is describing. And since it was a BA program, we also had academic courses to take. And many were also getting professional work outside of CCC. But none of this would have been accepted as a reason to slack off on any of our projects, not even the student directed ones. That was just the culture of CCC.

And yes, that's why I picked that particular theatre program, even though then as now CCC is considered a "desperation school" that people apply to only if they can't get in anywhere else. I was at a point where the only way that I could learn more about directing was by getting practical hands on experience, and this was the program where I could get that experience. I was very excited when I first called CCC and talked to the assistant chair of the theatre department when I found out that even as an undergraduate I would be directing FOUR plays and given full access to the school's resources (and a small budget for additional stuff), and that these would be "real" plays that everyone was encouraged to work hard on. That's exactly what I was looking for, but I understand some folks are looking for something different. There was even another directing student at CCC who said to me once "I didn't know it would be like this! I didn't know we would have to direct plays! I thought we would just sit in a classroom and someone would tell us how to direct plays!" He was in the wrong program!

KEVP

NJTheatreMOM

KEVP, I am made uncomfortable by your use of the words "slack off" to describe the work of students at schools other than the one you attended.

Saying that the productions you worked on were "real plays" -- implying that other types of productions at other schools are not real plays --also strikes me as rather insulting.

TheRealKEVP

I have a very hard time thinking of the show EmmyBet describes as "with minimal production effects and less rehearsal" as a "real play". Not because of the production effects, but because of the "less rehearsal". This means less actual working on the play. Which sounds like "slacking off" to me.

But this discussion just makes it clear to me how different the "cultures" of these schools are, and how people are obviously looking for different things. CCC in the late 90s' was exactly what I was looking for. But obviously it doesn't seem to be what everyone is looking for. As I consider returning for graduate school, I would personally hope to find a similar culture to the one I experienced at CCC. But that is just what I am looking for. Nobody else has to be looking for such a thing.

NJTheatreMOM

Maybe it's splitting hairs, but "slacking off" to me means "falling short, because of failing to adhere to established standards."

I'm sure that the play that Emmybet was talking about fully adhered to the established standards for a senior capstone production at that school.

You are correct that students need to investigate programs carefully to determine if what they are looking for is available.

If you attend a graduate school program, KEVP, I hope you'll share your experiences with us.

glassharmonica

Ah! I was wondering why you were hanging out here on CC with all us old parents and young students. Looking forward to hearing more about your grad school plans and exploits.

MomCares

>> But none of this would have been accepted as a reason to slack off on any of our projects, not even the student directed ones.


I doubt that the term "slack off" often applies to kids at most reputable BFA programs, and I know for sure it rarely fits any student at Northwestern. ;-D

I think some of the most important life lessons that kids in top theatre schools should learn are how to prioritize, how to take creative risks, and how to recognize talented production teams. Learning all of these things means that not every production you'll be involved with will be stellar, and folks visiting campuses and seeing shows as part of their school evaluation would do well to keep that in mind.

In my opinion, schools that place students primarily in fine-tuned "quality" productions designed to impress audiences amounts to giving them fish rather than teaching them to fish. I hope my kid learns to fish, and cutting bait can be messy. ;-D

TheRealKEVP

Well, yes, NJTheatreMom, that is what I mean by "slacking off". Because there are "established standards" of the theatre profession, and there are standards that I set for myself. When I was a theatre undergrad I found a program that would let me work to those standards. I am now thinking about finding a graduate program that will let me again work to those standards.

KEVP

EmmyBet

I wish you all the best, KEVP. I do want to insert a touch of reality here, though. Really - were every single one of the productions you worked on in college up to the absolute highest standards of quality? Did everyone put "100%" into every show, even when they had classwork, jobs, internships, other productions, etc.? I love high standards, but really you can't expect everyone to be at their maximum all the time. Usually it's just not physically possible.

I've seen quite a bit of theatre, and I'd love to know what these "established standards" are, since I don't think I've been able to figure it out - whether at school, community, professional, award-winning, etc. productions. It always varies, and often I wonder just what people were thinking, or what the heck did they DO with all that time and money? Or I see that just plain meaning - aside from "production values" or how much time they seemed to rehearse - trumps everything. Sometimes it's just for a moment, sometimes through much of a play; rarely, I'd say, for every single minute.

When I was in college, I had similar expectations to yours, in a different area. I went to a school renowned for the highest possible intellectual intensity, and I wasn't disappointed. But every professor wasn't perfectly brilliant, every class session wasn't the height of inspiration, and I definitely didn't write every paper flawlessly. I am very proud of my work (and did extremely well there), but the best I can say is that overall I had a terrific experience.

Nowadays I am a performer - I strive for excellence there, too, of course, but I can't always rehearse as much as I want, my conditions aren't always what I want, my colleagues for sure aren't going to do exactly what I want (or feel the way I feel), and I just can't adhere to every standard of quality all the time. Should I stop performing? Honestly my first rule of being a musician is to get meaning (and also fun, honestly) out of the experience. I think that's what my audience senses, and from what I hear, appreciates most.

What's the saying, that the forest would be very quiet if only the birds sang who sang best?

I guess it's good that you are a director. Many of our kids who are performers just aren't in charge of the productions they are in, overall. They have to take what they can get sometimes. Learning to find meaning, regardless, is a wonderful skill - whether on stage, off stage, or in the audience.

TheRealKEVP

This was just the culture of CCC in the late 90s when I was an undergrad there. I don't know if it is still like that today. I don't know full details about how other programs' "cultures" are similar or different. But yes, we were expected to put 100% into all our projects. Even though we had classwork, jobs, internships, and other productions. I always put in 100%, and my cast knew I expected the same from them. And they did. (I learned how at auditions to ask about an auditioner's schedule. If they had too much stuff that would make it impossible to give 100%, then I didn't cast them).

I remember there was a directing student who was an underclassman to me (i.e. "behind" me in the program) who at one point felt he couldn't do everything. His family told him "you should go to your job, because that pays you money." So he did. Instead of the project he was working on at school. But then (If I remember correctly) he was called out for this by the department chair, and pretty much embarrassed in front of the rest of us.

I've seen plays where, like you, I wonder what they DID with all their time and money. And then I have seen plays where I can see clearly what they did with all their time and money. And I want to work on the latter, not the former.

As a director, really I am now someone who is able to look at resources available (which includes the people involved, whether they are paid or volunteer) and say "Okay, what INCREDIBLE work of art can we make with these resources." These days, I usually get it right.