<p>nicksmtmom–kind of a bummer, that your good-loooking son is just one of many! I hope his talents will help him stand out. Good luck to him!</p>
<p>^mommusic… sorry if that came across as tacky mommy-bragging, I only included that p.s. to make a point. The question I heard from BRbway was: “Is the current bway culture too hung up on the “sex appeal” thing to the point of hiring only bland good looks” and, by following the logic, as a parent I am asking, “is that what schools are looking for/training to?” </p>
<p>As it happens, my son plays and enjoys the character parts more than anything else, and I do think he is very talented in that area. And, as you know, when you play those types of parts, many times you are all but unrecognizable. (He is rarely cast as the leading man–that part goes to another guy at our school.) </p>
<p>But in “real life” he is tall and handsome, and even tho he prefers the more off-beat parts, I’m not sure that’s what the auditioners got to see from his audition. I’m sure the fact that he has “the look” did not hurt him one bit. It is good to know that in your experience with CCM, that their auditioners also “get” that they need all kinds. I think bway is served by that also.</p>
<p>I think the other posters are “right on”! Charisma, Joire de Vive…whatever…that’s what makes a successful actor in any form! Good luck to all of our kids in capturing the education that allows THEIR OWN light to shine.</p>
<p>I always have to laugh when a program claims not to put out “cookie cutter” performers and claims that other programs do just that, but they don’t. My D auditioned for programs in 2007-2008 (she is now a sophomore in college at a BFA program) and it was unusual for program reps not to, in their presentations before auditions, etc., accuse other programs of churning out “cookie cutter performers” and claim that THEY don’t do that: they look for the unique in each individual. :)</p>
<p>nicksmom–I didn’t think you were bragging, just stating facts! It’s just sort of depressing that you can have great looks and it’s almost a liability because it’s so common in SOME circles. :/</p>
<p>NotMamaRose, I agree completely in that I don’t know of a single program that ISN’T looking for the unique in each individual. (On a personal note, it is absolutely rewarding to watch these students find the uniqueness in themselves.)<br>
I think some prospective students are concerned about the “cookie cutter” issue - I know I have been asked about it many times so that perception of MT programs is out there and must be addressed. If you look at the current students in just about any program, the range in appearance is pretty wide.</p>
<p>Every program has a style. Rarely developed (if ever) consciously. But based on the fact that faculty by and large stays the same it stands to reason that the students will have similarities. That is simple math. No offense to any program whatsoever, but there are a handful that I can tell where they’ve trained based on their auditions. Not to say the audition isn’t good, it just has a style and sense about it that says “I’m from program A.” </p>
<p>My original comment stands. Sex appeal is a dreadful term. It suggests the only path to success is Barbie and Ken good looks. I completely disagree. I think interesting is good. I think talent is fantastic. I think there are many successful performers who, if you met them on the street, you wouldn’t say “wow there goes a sexy man/woman.”</p>
<p>We are accepting 18 year old students to train to enter a profession that is not modeling. And if the faculty can’t recognize that the path to success isn’t sex, than I have issues. Maybe it was a slip of the tongue. I’ve not met anyone who believes that sex appeal is one of the tops on the list of things you need to be successful. So, I took issue with the term.</p>
<p>I’m glad that kgbc pointed out the comment about “sex appeal”. This made me uncomfortable too. It’s highly subjective, and while students are in training- the focus should be perfecting their craft and growing as an actor and a person.
Not to say that’s it’s not important to be aware of one’s type as a young actor attempts to get cast in the “real World” but college should be for training first and foremost-not trying to fit a standard that it may not be possible for one to fit.</p>
<p>I am inclined to think he didn’t literally mean “sex appeal” in the sense of cultivating that “come hither” look.</p>
<p>We do use terms like “sex it up” to mean make a report or document more interesting, vibrant, illustrated, and so forth. Make it something to be desired.</p>
<p>Well, the tricky question is if “charisma” is something one just has, or if it can be developed by being fully committed to the character you are playing, etc. .<br>
It was a good article, but there was something about his attitude I didn’t quite care for-can’t put my finger on what it is I don’t like though!</p>
<p>maybe it was the advice about not falling in love (entanglements) and not trusting your own intuition (inhibitions) that rubbed me a little the wrong way. It is true that it’s tough to balance career and personal life, and it’s good for everyone to move past their comfort zone in order to grow- but maybe it was just the way it was written it made me feel a little uneasy, especially with the comments about sex appeal. It does look like a wonderful program though.</p>
<p>From Webster’s Dictionary - sex appeal: the physical attractiveness and erotic charm that attract members of the opposite sex.</p>
<p>What does that have to do with training young people to be actors? Honestly, haven’t we all seen enough performers (stage and screen) who were clearly cast for their looks, not their talent? I want to see actors who can bring the character to life for me, who make me think, who move me in some way.</p>
<p>here here!</p>
<p>I believe that “sex appeal” was probably the wrong choice of words and that Mr. Berg was probably trying to get across that performers need charisma and personality.</p>
<p>It seems to me from actually reading the article that Dr. Berg meant exactly what he said about sex appeal. What he didn’t say that everyone here seems to be responding to was “only sex appeal.” Of course you need talent and the rest as well. It is one of ten critical things on his list. You may not like it, but it’s a cruel reality that some aspiring entertainer out there is waiting tables or driving a taxi today because someone else at the final callback with nearly identical talent (charisma), luck, etc. had measurably more sex appeal.</p>
<p>^^Exactly.
</p>
<p>Another “cruel reality” is that someone who is more flexible as to location and timing (perhaps because of personal attachments) will have an edge over someone who isn’t. He’s just stating the facts as he sees them. YMMV.</p>
<p>I think the cruelest reality is luck. Luck doesn’t trump preparation or talent or looks so I think it’s best to ingnore it and hopefully ones good luck and bad luck will balance out in the end. As for appearance, attractiveness has always provided advantages to those who posess it and in a tight labor market, with so many dedicated, talented and well trained students, some will have sex appeal and have individuality, training and natural talent. Looks and talent aren’t mutually exclusive any more than being a naturally talented singer means your going to have two left feet and be a poor dancer. Being attractive doesn’t mean you will be less quirky or more likely to be wooden on stage. The odds of being born with all these gifts aren’t high but neither is being born rich and some people are. The good thing about appearance is it can be improved and it begins with a toned body with good posture. Did anybody see Miley Cyrus slouchy posture at the Academy Awards. Now that was ugly!</p>
<p>Thank goodness someone else noticed it – i thought I was the only one!</p>
<p>And I agree with the rest of your comments, checkbook. We may not like the fact that our kids are involved in a business where sex appeal is important; that doesn’t change the fact that it is. No, it’s not the only thing that matters – but it does come into play and it’s foolish to deny that it does.</p>
<p>A lot of people confuse beauty with talent.</p>
<p>Same goes for money/talent.</p>
<p>That’s why People magazine has such a wide circulation. And shows such as “Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous.”</p>
<p>
True dat. Just be glad your kids are channeling their energies towards MT instead of the on-camera world where sex appeal plus staying around ten pounds underweight are at a premium. I’ve already publicly offered up my body to the first geek who can come up with a camera that doesn’t add ten pounds to a girl’s frame so I can enjoy the occasional pint of ale without having to worry about spending extra time on the treadmill … ;)</p>
<p>Seriously, though, here’s a link to this year’s CCM showcase site … [Musical</a> Theatre Showcases](<a href=“http://www.ccm.uc.edu/musical_theatre/showcases.htm]Musical”>http://www.ccm.uc.edu/musical_theatre/showcases.htm)</p>
<p>There are certainly some hotties in the mix, but no more so than what I’ve seen from some of the other “top” schools’ showcase sites. I also see some who seem to be going for the quirky, comic character roles based on their headshots although there is a complete dearth of endomorphs. </p>
<p>Just hypothesizing, but it seems to me that what Berg finds “sexy” is a young MT performer who in his judgment and long experience stands a good chance of having a sustained career with proper training and, yes, that includes a combination of talent and looks. I wish I could find the post, but there was a father of a CCM grad posting on here a few years ago who indicated that something like eighty percent of his daughter’s classmates were still actively working in the business five years after graduation. That’s unheard of - especially considering the tiny percentage of work available in MT compared to the greater worlds of straight theatre, tv, film and commercials. I’m about to graduate from one of the “top” acting schools and it’s pretty well understood that if half of us are still “‘in the game” five years from now and a quarter in ten, the class will have been a roaring success. </p>
<p>Think what you want about Berg and the way he runs his program, but I don’t think you can reasonably argue with his results!</p>
<p>He does make another statement in that interview with which I completely disagree, but there are two schools of thought on it and I’m going to leave it alone for fear of it’s corollaries sparking a fierce, off-topic debate that’s taken place several times on here in the past. Here’s a link to a (long) interview video with Scott Sedita who has an equal amount of experience in another part of the business where the important part of my primary disagreement is covered … [Judy</a> Kerr: Interviews with Industry Insiders: Scott Sedita](<a href=“http://judykerr.com/vid-scottsedita-book.html]Judy”>http://judykerr.com/vid-scottsedita-book.html) Most of it is more related to “‘what it takes” in the TV & Film scene I‘m about to step into, but I think a good bit of what he says is relevant to MT performers as well.</p>