Tag Archives: colin cook
Where Are We Now? (or 'How Do You Solve A Problem Like Career?') – part one
LAMDA at Tower House
I first moved to London in 1995, when I won a place on the Three-Year Acting course at the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art (LAMDA). During those next three years, I got to know West London pretty well. Earls Court, High Street Kensington, Hammersmith – my fellow students and I owned those mean streets. We strode down Chiswick High Road in our baggy dance trousers and character shoes, talking too loudly about David Mamet and Alexander Technique, confident in the belief that in just a couple of years, we would be far too famous to get around without security and a smoked-glass Range Rover.
But there was one place we got to know better than anywhere else. From our first audition to the very last performance, all the most significant events of our time at LAMDA took place at the MacOwan Theatre. If I walked through those doors today – the scene of so many pivotal moments in our young lives – I could still confidently give you a comprehensive tour of the place.
LAMDA's MacOwan Theatre
Except, of course, I couldn't. The MacOwan Theatre no longer exists. LAMDA moved from Earls Court to its current location in Baron's Court in 2003, and finally sold the MacOwan in 2011. The bulldozers moved in, and now its place has been taken by the usual block of West London luxury flats (Logan House). Which no actor could ever hope to afford.
When I read about this a few months ago, it set off a little chain reaction of nostalgic explosions in my mind, so it seemed like a good time to track down my fellow Old LAMDArians, and try to find out what we all feel about our time there – and the years since.
LAMDA class of 1998 in 'Hair'
As is inevitable with any year group, we have scattered far and wide in the years since we graduated – Wales, Mallorca, New York and – yes – LA. A few still cling on in London, while many have succumbed to the verdant charms of The Regions. There were 29 of us when we left LAMDA in 1998 – now, a quick survey of Spotlight shows that 15 have kept up our subscriptions. Not too bad a showing, I suppose, but I wanted to dig a little deeper to understand the forces that have either kept us in the profession, or driven us out. So, I sent off a list of questions.
Not everyone responded, but in the end I heard back from more than half – 15 in total, and they were all very honest and frank – on the promise of anonymity.
I started at the very beginning, and asked why they had wanted to act in the first place…
When we started at LAMDA, we ranged in age from 18 to 26 – some fresh from school, some straight from University. I was 23.
Your author at LAMDA in 'Hair'
I look back on our LAMDA years with great fondness. I felt I was at the centre of everything I wanted to be part of, and I spent those three years feeling stimulated and challenged. Inevitably, when I asked my friends what their own feelings are about that time, it elicited a range of responses, some very positive:
– It was the first time that I really learned 'how to learn'.
– I met some wonderful people who have stayed in my life for a long time.
– I was as happy as a pig in shit. Sooooo happy to be there. One of the most profound and rich experiences of my life.
Some of the LAMDA class of 1998
Some less so:
– I found it quite tough… I found their methods for the most part to be very undermining.
– I don't think I was rated particularly highly by the staff, and as such often felt somewhat overlooked and neglected at times.
It certainly seemed to be the case that the squeaky wheels got the most attention.
Some felt they hadn't taken full advantage of their time at LAMDA:
– I didn't make the most of it. I was very young – first time away from home.
– I could have gotten so much more out of it if I hadn't let my self-doubt and lack of confidence get in the way.
– I do regret not making more of the opportunity.
I asked what they valued most about the training they received:
– The opportunity to work continuously on productions for a year is something outside of the RSC or NT you rarely have the opportunity to do.
– LAMDA allowed me to love what I do. In a messy, imperfect but deeply passionate way they put me on the track to my profession.
– It was a celebration of one's idiosyncrasies.
– The cleverness of people. The humour. The importance and value of work. As Colin Cook said (this is my working mantra to this day) 'Work is your armour'. And above all I think – my friends. It doesn't matter where we are or where we go – I would do anything for any of those people that I shared those three years with.
More of the class of 1998…
This is a view I share. It seemed to me that LAMDA encouraged us to be ourselves – we had all heard about the schools that 'break you down to build you up again', and LAMDA didn't feel like that at all to me. But others disagree:–
– I don't feel I was ever encouraged to keep the quirks that I entered with.
– I do not honestly know whether the whole "take you apart to put you back together" approach is now being over-exaggerated in my memory, but I did find it quite tough at times, and not particularly productive.
I asked what they felt the training lacked:
– Screen acting for a start.
– Vocal technique
– Weirdly, lack of acting classes.
– I can think of two teachers that had their favourites. It was frustrating to watch them fawn!
– I don't think it lacked anything, actually. Like, how much more could we have actually done in three years?
The rest of the class of 1998.
It seems that much has changed since we left the Academy. Our screen acting training felt cursory at best, although I did learn that it was best not to volunteer to smoke in a scene, unless you wanted to work your way through a whole pack. These days, to quote from the current LAMDA prospectus:
'All students who graduate from LAMDA's BA (Hons) Professional Acting leave with a professionally-shot show reel and a voice reel.'
It's very important to bear in mind that this was all nearly 20 years ago. LAMDA is a different school now, with a different Principal, mostly different teaching staff and in a completely different location. It still calls itself LAMDA, but much like Trigger's broom, all the significant parts have changed…
Even the qualification you graduate with is different: the three-year acting course is now a BA (Hons) degree course, whereas we left with a diploma. In a perverse way, I'm rather glad it was that way round, as it gave our training a kind of rarity, a refinement if you like, whereas a degree just seems rather everyday. And I already had one anyway, for all the good it ever did me. But I am aware that the 'employment landscape', as we must call it, has altered a lot since those bygone days, and a BA degree must help when the graduates are propelled blinking into the light of the Real World. Because there is a big difference between the idealised world of a drama training and the harsh realities of an actor's life.
I asked if they felt prepared for an acting career by the time we graduated – and perhaps unsurprisingly, most did not:
-No I didn't feel prepared
-NO NO NO NO NO. It does not teach you how to survive as an unemployed actor, how to see yourself as a product
– I question now if I would have done better not to have pursued what I was already doing.
-Definitely not! We spent 3 years in a bubble.
-Noooooooooo!
-yes and no..because it destroyed my confidence… but i learnt a lot of tools that then helped me to be able to direct
– business wise no. As an artist, yes. I wasn't – but that was to do with me.
Pages from an ancient artefact: our LAMDA Prospectus
There is a distinction here, to be sure. Those of us who were lucky enough to land work straight away were able to apply all the skills that were fresh in our minds. I went straight into a nice TV job, and despite my sketchy experience in front of a camera, I felt very comfortable and understood what was required of me. But I was pretty clueless about how to generate work.
– I was prepared for the jobs I got eventually – yes. There is only so much they can do at drama school – after that it comes down to practical experience.
-for an acting career, yes. For the non-acting part, no.
-Well, no. But I think that's more to do with where I was, personally, Not because of anything that they hadn't done.
-Yes, apart from the business side
-In many ways, yes.
-On the whole, yes.
We were part of a different generation to today's drama school graduates, with no significant social media element to our lives; the internet played a much smaller role, and we didn't even all have mobile phones yet. Some of us had pagers, for heaven's sake. Off we went into the world, clutching our A-Z's.
Significantly, almost all of my respondents did not feel supported by LAMDA after graduation:
– Not at all.
– No. Once you leave you are on your own. They are happy to bask in the glory of actors who do well and have a glittering career, but for all the thousands of unemployed actors that they helped produce there is nothing.
– Honestly no. I think they were interested in the people who got famous quickly and could be used to raise funds. Sorry that's cynical but that's how it felt.
-Not really, no.
-No. There was kindness and love, but not enough rigour.
Although others felt differently:
– Yes I do. I worked in the reception there for a while and I helped around for a bit of extra cash – they were very good to me like that.
– I haven't had any support, but I haven't been in contact, so it's just as much my fault. In my first year after leaving they supported me by giving me temp secretary work.
– Not really … but then, I never asked for support. I'm sure they would have been there had I asked.
– I did not feel that it was the school's role to support me once I had graduated.
Another groovy scene from 'Hair'.
Inevitably, this raises the question of just how much responsibility institutions like LAMDA have to their students once they have completed training. No drama school can predict which student is going to 'make it' – as William Goldman's useful maxim goes, 'Nobody knows anything' – but they could confidently surmise that a good half of any yearly intake will never make a living in the profession.
At no point do I remember any staff member sitting us down and saying, 'Most of you will never work'. Of course, it would have been a bummer of positively cosmic proportions if they had. But maybe it would have been a necessary reality check.
Actors have often proposed a cull of their own number – I imagine Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Coleman on the rooftops of Wardour Street, armed with high-velocity rifles, picking off the weakest:
But should Ben and Liv train their sights on the institutions, rather than their fellow thesps? One of my respondents thought so:
'I feel they have a responsibility not to churn out so many actors in a market that cannot cater for them.'
Mind you, success as an actor is so random that perhaps the only sensible attitude is a scattershot one – throw out as many young hopefuls as you can, in the hope that at least a few will stick.
This being the case, drama schools surely have a duty of care to the students they send out into an unforgiving profession.
It does seem that colleges are doing much more these days to incorporate an element of career counselling – RADA has what it calls its 'Buddy' scheme, where graduates are paired up with alumni who are established in the profession to offer guidance and support, and I spoke recently to Rodney Cottier, Head of Drama School at LAMDA, who told me about their own new Mentor scheme, which will be launched at the end of June 2017, and which, like RADA's initiative, will offer support for its students, 'for the last 6 months of their training, and the first 6 months when they're out there. It is the beginning and we have received funding for it from the Genesis Foundation, so hopefully this will really work.'
Rodney Cottier
The Academy also has an industry liaison in the form of casting director, Laura Dickens, who is responsible for the final year professional preparation, as well as its own 'Buddy' system, although unlike RADA's, this one is for new students rather than graduates. Rodney explained:
'When people are offered a place, they are buddied up with somebody who is already at LAMDA so they can pick their brains – ask them any questions before they arrive, rather than feeling completely terrified on day one. So we're servicing both ends…'
I think we would have benefited from this sort of scheme; ideally, it would stretch beyond the first six months and further into a career. It's so easy to feel alone and powerless in this job.
Of course, as Rodney points out, ultimately most of the responsibility to develop a career lies with the individual:
'There are a lot of things you cannot prepare people for – I occasionally have to throw in the statistics when somebody is late for yet another voice class.'
A LAMDA voice class with Gregory De Polnay
But no matter how well-prepared you may be, Real Life has a way of complicating things, as we will see in Part Two…
This entry was posted in Musings, Theatre History and tagged a-z, acting, actor's life, actors, alexander technique, baron's court, bedknobs and broomsticks, benedict cumberbatch, career, chiswick, colin cook, david mamet, drama school, drama training, e.t., earls court, fame, genesis foundation, hair musical, hammersmith, high street kensington, LAMDA, LAMDA Class of 1998, laura dickens, logan house, london, london academy of music and dramatic art, macowan theatre, mother goose, national theatre, nt, olivia coleman, only fools and horses, range rover, rodney cottier, royal shakespeare company, rsc, screen acting, spotlight, the hobbit, three-year acting, tower house, trigger, voice, wardour street, william goldman on June 10, 2017 by chrisjnayloractor.
Use it or lose it?
What was that statistic about the Beatles? Oh yes – Malcolm Gladwell, in his book 'Outliers', posited the theory that one of the reasons the Beatles were able to reach such a pinnacle of fame and success was the amount of time they spent in preparation:
'The Beatles ended up travelling to Hamburg five times between 1960 and the end of 1962. On the first trip, they played 106 nights, of five or more hours a night. Their second trip they played 92 times. Their third trip they played 48 times, for a total of 172 hours on stage. The last two Hamburg stints, in November and December 1962, involved another 90 hours of performing. All told, they performed for 270 nights in just over a year and a half. By the time they had their first burst of success in 1964, they had performed live an estimated 1,200 times, which is extraordinary. Most bands today don't perform 1,200 times in their entire careers. The Hamburg crucible is what set the Beatles apart.'
Gladwell is careful not to suggest that it is experience alone that leads to success, but setting talent aside, he does imply that such intensive practise is what separates the merely 'good' from the 'best'.
Of course the Beatles also had that most vital attribute, the confidence of youth – something shared by many young actors. Early on at drama school, I can remember a time in the pub – after a heavy day's cavorting – when I asked some fellow students who they thought was the best actor in our year. Most people umm-ed and aah-ed and gave a few names, until the final chap, who said, 'I think I'm probably the best.' The rest of us were suitably outraged of course, but perhaps he was being more honest than we were – after all, no actor can hope to succeed, even in a small way, without a hefty shovelful of self-confidence. Underneath our rather British reserve and self-deprecation, there burnt in all of us a white hot little core of ego and pride.
Whenever people would talk of how difficult a profession it is, and how many actors are unemployed at any one time, I can always remember thinking, 'Yes, but I'll be all right. Once they see how brilliant I am, I'll never look back.'
But that early blithe confidence is all too easily eroded if it isn't shored up with a bit of outside validation, in the form of some faith invested in you by a director. When someone places their confidence in you, it gives you more confidence in your own abilities. In order to develop and progress, we all need someone to say 'Yes' to us.
It is a wonderful thing to discover that you are able to do something you thought you couldn't. I can remember being terrified at the idea of improvisation classes when I started drama school, but then discovering that I was actually quite good at it, and more importantly, that I really enjoyed it.
In the same way, sometimes the only way to discover that you can play a particular part is when someone casts you in it. Perhaps they can see something in you that you hadn't seen yourself, and a door will open to a whole new range of parts, or a set of abilities you hadn't previously used.
Those actors who are cast in large, challenging roles will be stretched and exercised, and will meet an array of opportunities they hadn't previously encountered. After any big part, you bound into the next audition radiating fearlessness and with slightly less to prove to yourself. And of course this makes you a much more attractive proposition to a director than an actor who hasn't worked for six months.
If our confidence – and therefore, our ability – can grow and grow with experience, it's probably also true that these things can diminish with inactivity. Most of us would love to play Hamlet or Medea but few will get the chance; I'm sure the profession is full of great classical actors or film stars manqué. We all know talented actors who just didn't seem to achieve the heights we thought they would, simply because they were never given the opportunity to discover what they were really capable of.
After any stretch of time without working, it does feel that the acting muscles become flabby – that first audition after a gap can be surprisingly daunting. It's very easy to feel one's momentum slowing – the question is, can you build that momentum up again?
This entry was posted in Musings and tagged actors, alison hinds, annabel capper, audition, ayesha mirza, colin cook, confidence, director, drama school, emma bernbach, fame, greg jarvis, gregory de polnay, hamburg, hamlet, improvisation, jack tarlton, joanna van kampen, LAMDA, malcolm gladwell, mali tudno jones, medea, outliers, richard morrison, robert wallace, sandra paternostro, talent, the beatles on March 23, 2015 by chrisjnayloractor.