Auditions for Drama Institutions...

Hi Amanda

Lots of interesting questions. These are my answers, but I'm interested to hear what others think.


I would put these auditions in the same basket as the Eisteddfodd judging that was discussed a short while ago. It's maddening, but it's the nature of this industry that we all aspire to - so much of it is arbitrary, individual taste. And even though the institutions try to establish criteria as to 'what they want', it's up to the assessors' individual interpretation as to what that criteria really means and who fits it.
Some who deserve will miss out, others who don't may get in, and that seems to be the rule of thumb everywhere so we may as well accept it...it could work in our favour one day - from either perspective!

I was one of those who prepared a WAAPA audition upon leaving highschool, aged 16. The Dean at the time, Aarne Neeme, was very honest upfront: he said, "You're too young, we won't accept you yet. NOW, let's see your audition."
With the pressure suddenly off, I think I did my best possible audition, and he gave me some very good feedback and advice afterward. He was absolutely correct, as well. I was in no way ready. (As it turned out, he cast me years later, so the occasion was still beneficial).
He recommended getting "life experience", which I agree is a wonderful thing to study. Get a job, lose a job, find a lover, lose a lover, travel, struggle, live! That didn't necessarily mean getting another qualification (what use is being an architect if you really want to act?), but it did mean learning to capture and use that life experience as a resource onstage. And it's a relative thing. Some 18 year olds have learnt a lot more about life and how to build it into a character than I had at 25. So the age thing doesn't mean so much.

I'm sure that in the extensive callback process, experience on the application is carefully considered; but again, there are intangible qualities that can mean unproven 'loose cannons' will be chosen because of their apparent potential. Just because someone's hard-working doesn't necessarily make them a good performer, and just because someone is hugely talented doesn't mean they'll get through the course. The attrition rate in subsequent years attests to this, and is accepted as part of the whole intangible process.
(I'm certainly glad John Saunders took a punt on me when he offered me my first job at the Playhouse - I had no experience to speak of; I was a 'loose cannon' that he saw potential in. Everyone's got to start with some lucky break before they have the experience to back themselves up; why are the Drama Institutions different?)


When I was fortunate enough to start working professionally at 19, I considered re-auditioning for WAAPA. I was actually convinced not to, by someone tutoring there at the time who believed I was already achieving what I would gain by graduating...why spend 3 years studying only to come out and look for work that I was already being offered?
That's not to say I wouldn't have gained from the experience, particularly in learning text analysis, and the classics. But without those particular skills, I simply specialised in other types of performance. There are alternatives.
And yet I also know of someone who was regularly getting work like me, but who decided to make the sacrifice and left the industry for the three years' training. When he came out the other end, he had made some amazing discoveries, particularly in his vocal skills, and so went on to bigger and better things over east and overseas...


Getting feedback on failed auditions is a bit like the argument about being notified that you haven't been cast. It's a lovely ideal, but in practise it's very rare. Knowing how subjective the assessment process is, it's hard enough for the audition panel to concentrate on its shortlist, let alone following up those who get dropped off the list.
I agree, that does make it difficult to assess yourself and learn from the experience. All I can suggest is canvassing a wide opinion by doing your audition for other friends and tutors, and trying out any suggestions for improvement. (You may not have 'failed' through any flaw in your audition, but you can always try to improve and refine aspects of its performance, for next time).



>>"At the NIDA Open Programme, they said to take as many acting, voice and movement classes as you could to improve your chances of getting in. I heard mentioned subsequently by NIDA audition panels, that NIDA like you to be pliable, raw and untrained so that you don't bring any prejudices with you into the class room. In another turn around, they then accept people who have been working in the film and television industry for years prior to auditioning )."


It's maybe not quite such a contradiction, as there are good arguments for both points of view. Taking acting, voice and movement classes is always going to be of some benefit (but won't necessarily always help you pass the arbitrary selection process!).
And I don't think there's always a 'right' or a 'wrong' way of training, so you can't let any training you get give you rigid thinking. Being 'pliable' is a desirable trait in any actor, even after being trained at an institution. So I think it's possible to learn from classes, life experience, and industry experience, yet still remain 'pliable', not rigidly adherent to any one method of training. (including the training received at these institutions!) Eventually, you will take on board what suits you and develop your own individual style.


>>"I refuse to accept that I am simply untalented, and unemployable as a performer, and will continue to pursue this career regardless."

Good on ya. Me too. The only thing you need to prove you're employable, is to become employed. I don't know how to prove talent, so I've tried to just concentrate on the former.


Hang in there.

Craig



<8>-/====/------------