Auditions for Drama Institutions...

Well, its that time of the year again, the time that we can look forward to auditions for the performing arts courses all over Australia.

I was wondering how many people on the site have auditions coming up over the next few months/weeks for WAAPA or NIDA or VCA, or all of them as it may very well be.

My auditions are now only two weeks away for Musical theatre and Classical music at WAAPA.

NIDA has already had their auditions haven't they? How did people go?? I like to hear about these things... :)

C'mon people, share!! It's good therapy.

This isn't specifically an answer to your post, but I noticed today an advertisement for some school holiday drama workshops by a group which shall remain nameless.

Their advert said:
"Our highly experienced drama instructors draw their experience from film and TV, radio, channel 31, theatre and many are currently rehearsing for NAIDA (sic) auditions."


....Since when has REHEARSING FOR AN AUDITION been a qualification???


Seems to me to be an enormous delusion of grandeur, which just sounds pretentious. And if you're going to name-drop NIDA, at least get the name right!


Craig


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



Thy horse would trot as well were some of your brags dismounted!

Actors are an egotistical lot, Hannah. They don't like to admit when they've "failed". Lots of people I know auditioned for NIDA and have upcoming WAAPA auditions (and there have been one or two tears shed in my living room over the past week). The wounds are still very fresh and I don't think people will be ready to talk about them for a little while yet.

Personally I think that while training is valid, experience is worth more. If NIDA or WAAPA don't fit you into their (as far as I can see) fairly arbitrary selection criteria (I know one actor who was told two years in a row that while she was "brilliant" her weight put her out of the running), go the hell out there and do it yourself! Subit a play to the Blue Room, or to your local community theatre.

To paraphrase; "Those who arn't given the chance to learn; do."

PS. And remember that there's always the appallingly underrated and overlooked Curtain, which in my opinion rivals any of the majors particularly because it is mostly practically based and gives you an opportunity to do it yourselves. Some of the best and most innovative productions I've ever seen where entirely student written and produced Upstairs shows at the Hayman.

Hi Hannah,
My daughter auditioned for WAAPA about 3 years in a row and never had success with them. She is now in her last year at Curtin majoring in theatre arts and has absolutely loved her time there so always a very worhwhile alternative.

Hello Hannah
Amateur Theare groups are calling for one act play submissions for next year for new directors. Why not factor that into your learning and have a go. It will only cost you membership to the theatre group and your time(could be lots of time but). There are a lot of directors associated with amateur theatre that would mentor you to ensure that the show will work and with the drama festival following on after the local seasons it would be a good way to learn about theatre. You may even win the drama festival!

Leah Maher wrote:
-------------------------------
>>"Personally I think that while training is valid, experience is worth more."

That's all that training is, really. Those institutions are valuable mainly because you get several years of continuous experience, along with specific guidance on how to benefit the most from that experience.
But a degree course isn't the only place to get good training.


>>" And remember that there's always the appallingly underrated and overlooked Curtain, which in my opinion rivals any of the majors particularly because it is mostly practically based and gives you an opportunity to do it yourselves. Some of the best and most innovative productions I've ever seen were entirely student written and produced Upstairs shows at the Hayman."


Although I regrettably didn't complete the degree (well, only because it launched me straight into work in the industry!) I too have a lot of praise for the work done at Curtin. Whereas most theatre courses require intensive specialisation (you concentrate on being either an actor, a director, an SM, a lighting designer, etc, and that only), the Curtin course seemed much more broad and versatile. You can act, stage manage, rig lights, paint sets, operate sound...and more. (In fact I did all of these in the one production during my last year there, being equally divided at that stage as to whether I was an actor or a tech).

There are obvious advantages to specialist training, but the nature of the industry relies heavily on versatility, especially when you're trying to get a foot in the door. I got a year's contract with Acting Out (now Barking Gecko) largely because I had that practical multi-skill training from Curtin. And when we tour now I still often have to put up sets, operate sound equipment, focus lights, fix props, etc, before ever putting my costume on.

I'd also recommend getting involved with the people at the Blueroom, for the same reason. Practical, on the job experience with people who are out there getting things done.

Cheers,
Craig

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

Ay Guyz!

Dontcha reckon that those Drama Institutions we're talkin' about here, r pretty fuct???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Life is da best institution, so keep showing up in auditions as often as u can and if u don't get tired, the bigger chances r to experience something breathtaking cummin' up ya way!

TC
D

Dritan Arbana wrote:
-------------------------------
>>" Dontcha reckon that those Drama Institutions we're talkin' about here, r pretty fuct???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Life is da best institution, so keep showing up in auditions as often as u can and if u don't get tired, the bigger chances r to experience something breathtaking cummin' up ya way!"



Hi Dritan

Some people I've met in the world may argue that LIFE is pretty "fuct"...yet that obviously doesn't make it any less of a great learning experience.

Similarly, I don't think you can really support such a wild claim against Drama Intitutions. There are positive and negative aspects both to studying there, or to avoiding there; but all such choices are valid.

Continually showing up to auditions is good advice, so long as you are LEARNING something in the process, otherwise maybe you DO risk getting 'tired' and disheartened. Just turning up is no guarantee of landing "something breathtaking".

I expressed the view a few months ago that 'life' is only a good teacher if you are a consciencious student, and learn to turn your experience into technique.
...Something that Drama Institutions, for all their faults, are actually pretty good at.


Cheers,
Craig

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



That is too much presumption on thy part!

Despite the fact that they don't seem to want to know about me (rejected by NIDA and WAAPA theatre for the third time this year with nary a call back) I do not think that drama institutions are 'fuct', and maintain that I would still very much like to go to one (hurray for Music Theatre call back! How'd you go, Hannah?)

My only area of concern, and this is perhaps Dritan's motivation for the use of that enchanting adverb, is the seemingly arbitrary nature of who they do and do not accept. Furthermore, for those of us who do not get past the first round, why is there no way to get feedback? I refuse to accept that I am simply untalented, and unemployable as a performer, and will continue to pursue this career regardless. It would just be nice to have the luxury of three years unobstructed to concentrate on developing my craft.

Further, much of the information you receive is conflicting. I was told at drama school open days, at the age of 15, not to audition for the institutions once I left school as I would not get in, and to get another qualification under my belt first. This I dutifully did, and auditioned for the first time at the age of 21, Bachelor of Science (Occupational Therapy) under my belt, only to be pipped at post by several 18 year old school leavers (you know those kids on 'Drama School'? They were the ones that got in the first year I auditioned in 1999, and least two of them were 17).

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 (in addition to the 17 year olds).

Another of my queries is this: do they take notice of the experience written on their application forms? I would have thought that, as tertiary institutions, they would do better spending their money on moderately talented students who can demonstrate by their experience that they will work their proverbials off once accepted, rather than risking their money on hugely talented potentially loose cannons, who may have previously pulled out of drama schools, or have no experience and are auditioning on a whim. Granted, Mel Gibson was one of those loose cannons and he has since given them vast sums of money, but surely such people are few and far between?

I have seen many people get in who I have not thought much of, and people who I think very highly of as performers get knocked back in the first rounds. This, I am happy to accept, is only my opinion of people and the panel of auditioners know far more about talent and talent spotting that I do. I am just, yet again, in my annual perplexed, post audition mood, wondering, 'What the fuct to they want?!?'

Amanda Chesterton

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>-/====/------------

Seeing as I haven't really put in my two bob yet. My musical theatre audition is on Friday arvo, so I don't know how it's gone yet :) But I feel confident and all my pieces are ready so I can't do anything more. Only hope that the panels seemingly arbitrary decision method favours me that day. My audition for classical music is on Monday!! I did a grade 5 singing exam yesterday so I"m feeling primed.


I HAVE TO BE POSITIVE!!! :)


With regard to getting feedback, I know its hard if you get a callback and then don't have anything more to do with the panel until you find out you've gotten in or see them the following year, but if you are knocked out in the first round as I was with MTh last year, I just sat down and asked what it was that I needed to work on?/ why they didn't want me. And they told me. I think you've just got to ask and be prepared to accept the answer, although in hindsight, it might not be so accurate at least its something to chew on.


I think the whole audition process is really subjective as has already been said, I've seen people knocked back and for reasons that just don't stand up when they are compared to some people who do get in. It's all preference though.


Chookas to all.
I'll let you know how it goes, providing I can show my face in here after my auditions. I'm sure I'll be able to! POSITIVE!!!!

I recently spoke with John Clarke whilst he was here for the NIDA auditions and jokingly ribbed him about me not getting in. Now I know he has probably been told that by thousands of people and this is probably a prepared response by him, but nonetheless I think it is still valid. He made two points, one was that there are alot of wonderful actors out there who audition badly and two that Rachel Griffiths auditioned the same year as Cate Blanchett and didn't get in.

Anyway something to think about.

Hi Guys!!

I'm sorry to see that u took my message so seriously, because I was a bit drunk when I wrote it and I was just messing around.
I am a acting student myself and there is nothing I would appreciate more than a good acting teacher, especially those areas that require hard and continuous work, rather than talent, such as voice and movement.
But however, I got reasons to believe that no matter how capable an auditioning jury is, the judgement is very much likely going to be subjective and relative when a huge number of people audition, because it is almost certain that a much larger number of people than those who win are as talented as them and for many talented people it can be fatal.
I came to Australia 2 years ago from Europe, and I don't know if u are aware of the fact that European show business(mostly cinema) is conquered by amateurs, and I'm pretty sure u recognize the fact that Europe still remains the substance of World Art in general and the place where most of what we call "excellence" generates. And do u know why this happens?! Because the "myths" in Europe are not as strong as here, speaking of which, NIDA is obviously one of them. No wonder why theatre & film in this country is led by some of the crappiest actors in the planet, because they have simply a piece of paper from NIDA or VCA, that is in fact worth heaps more than the talent of many other actors that never get the chance to do something decent.

Take Care
D

It is with great distaste that I announce that Hayman Theatre at Curtin University has fallen under the spell of the corporate mogul that the university has now become.

Higher powers within the hierachy of our Communication & Cultural Studies school has decided that HAYMAN THEATRE will now be renamed to CURTIN THEATRE.

Just thought I'd let all our ex-Hayman student know of this demise. You also might be sad to hear that Barbara Dennis has now retired, Tony Nicholls has gone on long service leave until next year's Pantomime (announced recently to be Humpty Dumpty and the Eggs-Files - go figure.).

It'll be interesting to see how 'Curtin' Theatre will turn out in 2002.


Crispy.

> It is with great distaste that I announce that Hayman Theatre at Curtin University
> has fallen under the spell of the corporate mogul that the university has now become.

That, or the powers-that-be have just grown well tired of the hymen gags...

Amanda Chesterton

P.S. LAST NIGHT OF BRITANNICUS TONIGHT!! (And that means YOU Crispy!)

I have fond memories of the Hayman - the students, the pantos, the full frontal nudity in The Royal Hunt for the Sun......


....what was I saying?

Well,

I once read actor's although adaptable are not great ones for change.

I say: "So what? Who needs change?"

I find it difficult to understand why the need for a name change when Hayman has suited us all perfectly for years on end. I also find it pathetic that curtin needs to use the theatre as a toy as a cat would, rolling it here and there under its tiny paws and sharp claws to see what can be done with this seemingly unwanted portion of the communications and cultural studies department.

From threats to turn it into a lecture hall to the closing of the theatre all together, where are the brains of these "educated" people? Can they not see what Curtin's theatre course needs are more people like Barbara Dennis and Tony Nichols and lets not forget the trusty secretary behind his computer - the god of the theatre himself, to develop an already fantastic theatre course into something more. Curtin could rival the other schools in Australia (And I ain't gonna have a bitch session about them right now cos I am impressed by some of the shortlisted people I have heard about cos you're all damn fine actors) and that is evident through the fact soo many of the curtin students and graduates are being selected for these other courses. But the university should see that with development, these students wouldn't need to go onto further study if they only gave the course the time of day and financial support it requires.

We could have our own little CPAA or Curtin Performing Arts Academy and be producing even more talented people in Perth, perhaps enhancing the community theatre in general for doing so.

Thats the other thing. So many Curtin students are involved in community theatre, if the course is to plunge, what is to happen to their chance of learning? of developing their skills? Are we to sit back and watch as this struggling but worthwhile course succumbs to the commercial schools like WAAPA and NIDA. Maybe we should do a Drama School series on Curtin and see how they like that. (Just an idea)

Okay, Curtin theatre may not be closing, but with all the rumours, who can blame me for getting carried away? When I first went to curtin, I was not one to fit into it all easily. I had problems with some things, how they were handled, the politics, but after finishing my degree and hopefully passing an honours degree and working with some absolutely fantasticly talented people who deserve better than to be shoved out into the cold with no where to go and no one to teach them. And I must say without Barbara Dennis, a much loved and respected lecturer at Curtin and Tony Nichols, a man beyond description with his pantomimes and Both for their wealth of knowledge and experience, and I know it is not entirely the universitys fault for their decisions, but perhaps with more support and more lecturers like these two, Curtin theatre could be looked upon as a true source of education for the people who aspire to be on stage.

Just amy two cents and I have a habit of babbling so I'll shut up now.

Anthony

Hear Hear, it is a real shame . Well said Anthony,goodluck in the future.

....can we all take our seats please?

Is the theatre that we now know as the Hayman Theatre changing its name to Curtin Theatre?
No and yes. It was actually the Curtin Theatre Company before it was Hayman Theatre Company. So, yes we are considering changing back to the Curtin Theatre Company.

..the demise of the Hayman Theatre...?
Renovations are being planned for our ageing foyer. So I don't think an investment like that is going to be made on just another lecture theatre.

The future of the degree course in performance at Curtin.
Yes, Barbara Dennis not teaching the course is a great loss to new and current students, but she is going to be replaced by professionals in the field. This happens to most drama schools. As much as I, personally, will miss Barbara, I am also excited about the new staff and the possibilities that fresh people bring. Now I do understand the anxiety some students have felt due to no information or misinformation about the future here, but with the 2002 production schedule locked in, new staff and students and judging by the enthusiasm of the first year students working on the current pantomime, I think the theatre here, under whatever name, will continue to do what it has been doing for years, teach and provide good theatre.

I could go on but interval is about thirty seconds away. So yes, there are no guarantees in life, but I think we're going to be okay and the toilets are to the left madam.

Gotta go.
Leigh at the theatre formerly known as......

what a shame.

those of old enough to remember will look back with fond memories of the hayman.

sleeping in the upstairs theatre so we could be at uni after a late rehearsal.


many friends and faces. but it is with renewed excitement to see what we can make of the hayman as curtin theatre company.



hopefully those ex students or even if u remember who i am will give it a go.

Sorry, but from a marketing point of view the proposed name change /reversal is pathetic.
Sounds like the usual Curtin Uni decision made by the almighty powers that be with no reference to the real world.
It looks uncommomly like _if_ any marketing expertise was sought, then either it's being disregarded or the people consulted were told what their advice should be.

"The Hayman' is a name that rolls easily off the tongue, is easily remembered and can/ has engendered over the years a fond regard from both performers & patrons.

Curtin THeatre will have to remain just that - Curtin Theatre, to distinguish it from Curtin Uni.
Besides, I'm afraid "The Curtin" does not have that same ring to it,
*it sounds cold & clinical
*it will raise doubt as to whether the writer can actually spell ("maybe they meant the theatre curtain???")
*people will think it's the Uni being referred to & the theatre will lose it's unique recognition factor.

Why the push to shoot themselves in the foot?
Or is this the first stage in a plan to reduce public recognition, see ticket sales fall, rationalise losses by reducing facilities & reducing/eliminating public performances.
(**Even lecture theatres get their foyers refurbished**)

Cultural courses/facilities have always been regarded with some scpticism/suspicion by the "Tech Heads" at Curtin.

BarbZ

I don't see anything wrong with the name change, but then I'd never heard of either until recently having only just moved to Perth. Iguess there's history behind it all that I'm ignorant of, but it sounds like a done deal, hopefully the standard of productions won't drop, and new blood brings new and exciting ideas. (etc, etc)

The only thing to do now it seems is to get behind the new and current students and build a course, theatre and university to be proud of.

BarbZ bleated:
-------------------
*Sorry, but from a marketing point of view the proposed name change /reversal is pathetic.
*people will think it's the Uni being referred to & the theatre will lose it's unique recognition factor.
*Why the push to shoot themselves in the foot....

Just a slightly cynical thought....

Maybe, JUST maybe, the theatre would attract more funding if its Uni affiliations are clearer.

Ultimately, the NAME of the THEATRE itself doesn't mean jack-@!#$. Does the "Dolphin" automatically connotate a Greenpeace demonstration? No, it doesn't.

The important thing to pay attention to is the standard of work performed by the COMPANY- the THEATRE is only the vessel for the Art. It is not the Art itself.

Something to mull over at 4 in the morning, Barb... :-p

Eliot

I must say I'm with Eliot on this one...the name change from Hayman doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the course itself, surely? However, if we are going to go into semantics:

Yes, the term 'Hayman' did set the theatre apart, and that was exactly what I thought of it when I was a Curtin Student - it was an elitist and separatist theatre company ONLY for those crazy/lucky/wealthy enough to be studying theatre. Those of us in other courses at Curtin had absolutely no opportunity to be involved in the Hayman productions, in any capacity, but particularly not on stage. As I was told to 'get a real job' before pursuing acting seriously, I did a professional course, and thus had no electives while I was at uni so couldn't even study one theatre unit to qualify me to audition for Hayman shows. Out of protest, I never attended a Hayman production while I was there. Hooray for UDS! (The Dolphin's a better venue anyway...humph).

The fact that it was called 'Hayman' I found misleading - this suggested that it was a theatre company not bound to Curtin in any way, apart from its location, meaning there were no criteria to become involved. Not so. The name change to Curtin Theatre, I think, will clarify this (i.e. shortened form of 'Curtin Theatre Students Only'). If a name change is going to herald changes, for the love of Mike, please institute at least one open production per year! I can't be the only student thespian in history who stupidly followed other people's advice when choosing my university course! It's bloody harsh for a Curtin student to make it over the Narrows to a UDS rehearsal in peak hour traffic, but at present, that's just about the only student-theatre option open to people not studying theatre at Curtin.

Amanda Chesterton

'ello,
Just thought I'd say my piece about this years (and previous) NIDA/WAAPA auditions.
For the second consecutive year I have auditioned for the above institutions only to be rejected once again.
For the second consecutive year John Clark has taken me aside after the audition and told me that although I am very talented I will not gain entry this year because I am too young.
OK.....Granted - I am only 18 years old. I have a baby face and am only 5ft 2 which consequently leaves me looking more like a 15 year old.
Despite the fact that I thouroughly understand that they are looking for someone with broad life experience, maturity and self awareness I find it difficult to accept that they can possibly see the products of your life in the time it takes you to perform 2 short monologues that you've quickly memorised the night before because while you were out "gaining life experience" ( ie - work your ass off just so that you can eat and pay your bills) you couldn't find the time to learn your pieces.
I believe that I have more life experience than most of the 30 year olds that auditioned alongside me.
When I questioned John Clark as to what he thought would be valuable life experience (so that perhaps when I audition next year I will suddenly have become a wealth of experience and will suddenly be deemed "old enough") he replied that I should get out of Perth, experience the world, move out of my parents home, get parts in productions, struggle with life, discover love, go out and get a job,go to uni.
Well rather than be rude to the man I smiled sweetly and said "I'll see you next year"
What I really wanted to say was - I have toured the UK with a proffessional choir and as a soloist, I have lived away from "my parents home" for the past 2 years, I have had parts in both amatuer and proffessional productions, I have struggled all my life with a house burning down, extreme financial hardship, sickness, the death of my partners mother etc etc, I have had many loves and have met the love of my life to whom I am engaged, I have had a part time job to support my self since I was 16, I have started 2 unfullfilling uni degrees.
These are only small facets of my life experience that John Clarke failed to recognise at my NIDA audition.
His words of encouragement were great however I do believe they were misguided. He should look beyond (and I quote) "the very pretty and very talented little girl" and see the "extraordinary woman" that he seems to be waiting for me to suddenly morph into.
Please reply as I would like tto hear from anyone else if they have had this experience or if they have any pearls of wisdom to share.

Cheerio - Pip :)

Hi Pip,

I can't help but wondering if the people who run these auditions have stock answers for those auditionees who, for whatever reason, do not get accepted into the course and bother to ask why.

A guy I know, who is an incredible vocalist, who was not called back for the final (dance) audition for Music Theatre at WAAPA. When he phoned and asked 'why' he was told that it was because he had limited dance training/experience. Surely if they thought the other aspects of his audition were completely without fault they would have at least given him the opportunity to show them if he had any natural flair for dance.

It seems quite common that young people get the stock reply "you're too young, get some life experience", more mature people get "it's a bit late now isn't it" or something to that effect and everybody else gets "your dancing/singing/acting/Shakespeare is not strong enough" and yet many people have graduated from such courses who are weak in one or all of the required areas.

This business is pretty much all about auditioning and getting knocked back and never really knowing why. A few years back I auditioned in Perth for the 10th anniversary production of Les Mis and was one of only four people (2m, 2f) from here to be flown to Melbourne for the third round of auditions. Katie (the other girl) and I were both asked to sing more than just our original audition piece (which we both thought was a good sign) but were then told "thank you very much".

They had paid for us to be flown to Melbourne and they put us up in a very swanky hotel for the night but we were out of the running within ten minutes or so without explanation. My rejection letter said "we think you are an exceptionally talented singer/actor" so I was none the wiser. (Maybe that was their stock rejection letter!)

These courses certainly don't equal guaranteed work. Why not go out and do it on your own?

Good Luck,
Gill