amda- Page 2

[SamIAm]

Posted: 8/27/04 at 9:26pm

Just as AMDA, Julliard, the New School, the New England Conservatory of Music, etc. are not for everyone, neither is a traditional academic environment.

Don't apply your preferences to other people. Let them gather information and make the decision that is right for them without making them feel like a loser for choosing a certain school. There are some great people that graduated from AMDA and other 'trade schools' (liberal arts and academia aside)

[TheOneAndOnly]

Posted: 8/27/04 at 10:18pm

This is what it comes down to...

a-You are going to get cast if you are talented enough regardless of where you went to school.

b-It's less about the quality of training you personally received, and more about the reputation that your school has; how it looks in the eyes of casting directors, agents, etc.

c-AMDA *generally* is looked down upon compared to other schools, ESPECIALLY some of the top ones such as Michigan, CCM, CMU, even NYU....

And there ya go.

[marge2033]

Posted: 8/28/04 at 1:37pm

Have YOU gone to AMDA? I think not. Once again another arrogant theater snob! Any school is what you make of it. I know a few people that went to Carnegie Mellon and transferred because they felt it was not what it was cracked up to be. I have auditioned many so-called actors from many prestigious schools and yes they were smart in other areas, however not the most talented!

[SanchoPanza1996]

Posted: 8/28/04 at 3:52pm

I'm sorry but one thing all of you seem to have missed in whatever school or program you attended is maturity. I have worked around the country and you meet lots of people with different paths and stories and you learn not to be so judgmental and you realize that there are no "right" or "wrong" paths...just "different" ones. I have worked with people who have been on Broadway and who went to school to be accountants. You all need to relax and stop putting each other down...after all the theatre is a small community and that will get you no where!

[voidiflostorstolen]

Posted: 8/28/04 at 4:02pm

Kiddies kiddies calm down.
The truth of the matter is you will always have people who say:
"OMG the only people who hate AMDA got kicked out! It is what you make of it! Without AMDA I would not be able to play the mouse at Chuck-e cheese!"
And you will always have to people who say:
"AMDA is a rip off! they take any loser who can hum zippideedodah as long as you are willing to dish out 23,000 a year"
But the truth of the matter is, in the industry the school you went to doesn't mean a thing. What matters most are talent,stage presence,dependability,good looks,and who you are screwing!

[temms]

Posted: 8/28/04 at 5:18pm

How you use the training is infinitely more important than where it came from. Any casting person knows that there are good people who came out of AMDA, and not-so-good people. And the same goes for University of Michigan - some of the best performer's I've met have come from there, and I've worked with some Michigan grads that I would never in a million years hire again.

If anything, knowing where someone went to school tells me a bit about their work style. I'm often going to assume that someone who graduated from Carnegie Mellon is potentially going to be a better actor than one from Michigan, for instance, since I find CMU has superior acting training. But in the end it's all down to the individual and what they do in the audition room - where someone went to school has never, as far as I'm aware, been a dealbreaker.

There is an advantage to a place like Michigan simply in that the alumni are active and well-organized, and you have a support system in place should you care to take advantage of it. But if you're good, you're good, and no director who wants to hire you will decline to simply because they don't "approve" of where you went to school. It's just another piece of information about you.

Go where you feel you'll be getting the best training for you and what you want to do. Then look at reputation. Too many people choose schools they don't like because of their reputation and that serves nobody.


ETA - Perhaps I shouldn't say "better" actor, just different. You just learn to get a sense of what a typical Michigan performer is like, or what an NYU performer is like, etc. It's sort of indefinable, but each program does have its own identity. Each actor is unique, but you start to notice similarities between people from various programs. Updated On: 8/28/04 at 05:18 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 8/28/04 at 5:30pm

It's absolutely true that AMDA does not have a good rep in the theater/film community. Casting directors, directors, and producers are less than impressed with it as a training ground. And I know this because I spent a lot of years working in the business with those casting directors, directors, and producers. Not to mention agents and managers. So before you get all defensive about your school, do your homework, so to speak.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 8/28/04 at 6:50pm

I have no stake in convincing anyone to go to my alma matre. And it's not that I question the veracity of your statement Rath when you say that you worked with casting directors et al that had no fondness for the school. But I did go there and I know a lot of people who were successful coming out of the school.

As a matter of fact, the school you go to when applied to ANY profession only counts when you have NO experience and even then only a bit. If you blow them away in an audition, they could care less. Go to the school of your choice, and soak up what you can...then go work your butt off and learn from the school of life...in any profession that will get you far.

[notsovirginmary]

Posted: 8/28/04 at 6:52pm

Rathnait-

In your experience has the fact that CDs, Directors, etc are not so impressed with the training AMDA gives had any bearing on whether people are cast?(edited to add: Yikes! run on sentence)
I'm curious as I'll be looking into schools before to long, and AMDA is definitely on my "check out" list. I'll admit that it's mostly due to its location, but there are other reasons that it appeals to me. I have heard many positive things about it, but just as many negative.

Updated On: 8/28/04 at 06:52 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 8/28/04 at 7:09pm

Notso, it's all part of a bigger picture, and it's going to count more when you're just out of school and don't have credits yet than as the years go on, obviously.

[Mr. Tuttle]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 1:12pm

Yes..every school will have its good and bad. That's not the point of this thread.

The point of this thread is the quality of teaching you get at AMDA. The quality is very low and not anywhere near standards that would help develop a performer into a successful working MT performer.

And anyone who thinks AMDA is respected in the theaterical industry is kidding themselves. I know directors who would not even consider auditioing an AMDA student just based on the name. And if it is such a great place, why are AMDA graduates leaving it off their resume? I did a show with a truly horrid actress and read her bio. I noticed a school she attended and when we were talking I learned that she had spent only a semester at this school but had done all her training at AMDA. When I asked why that wasn't in her bio, she replied that she didn't want anyone to know she went there.

The grads speak for themselves. And if we're pumping that Marissa went there, perhaps one needs to read a bio of hers and learn that she had extensive training before SCAMDA.

As said: save your money. Go to a real school.

[temms]

Posted: 8/29/04 at 1:52pm

I disagree - there are some very good teachers at AMDA and there are features about the program that I think are very well handled. The core of the AMDA program gives a good foundation in history and repertoire, and the acting philosophy is solid and well-taught.

What brings the school down is their non-restrictive admission policy and their non-tracking of students. I have had dealings with the school, and am disappointed that they don't have a "Professional Track" and a second-tier track. Some exceptionally talented students have gone through there, but they are stuck in a class with people whose talent and drive leave quite a bit to be desired. Were the talented kids grouped, I imagine the quality of the instruction would improve.

But as it is, it's a solid program taught by a lot of working professionals. You can get a good sense of the realities of the industry at AMDA, and a lot of the teachers are very, very good.

You are right that there is a bit of a stigma attached, but I find that it's easing up as the program gets better. It's not the right choice for everybody, but especially if you're getting a good financial aid package, it's worth considering as a means of studying in NYC.