OK ! Befroe the posts digrees too much (well, probably too late for that) here's a new topic: This is one we put on Millsy's ill-fated blog the first time, but most all of you didn't chime in there. It's one that I, and obviously a few others, feel very strongly about:
Which is more important in the hiring of a Theatre professor in a University program: professional experience and union affiliation OR teaching / classroom experience and the ability to work well with students?
Go nuts...but be warned- it may get ugly! Allthough it CAN'T possibly get uglier than a naked Harvey Keitel!
15 points for the reference!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Ooops...I meant DIGRESS in the post! Whoopsie!
Personally, I'm not sure you can seperate them. You can be the greatest professional in the world but if you can't convey that knowledge and experience in pragmatic terms to a student, what good is it?
My own feeling is that a University Theatre Department's goal should be to train professionals going out in the world to ply their trade. I think students study theatre to DO theatre. If a theatre department's focus is purely on academic aesthetics, it's missing the point.
Therefore I think it essential that your professors have professional experience. At least some of them. I know during my time at UK, most of the professors went out and did summer stock of some ilk. Either directing, acting, or in the technical fields. At one point, UK had its own professional summer stock theatre where students worked with professionals booked in for the summer. It was called Centennial Theatre.
I know I'm a knowledgeable professional, but for the most part I regard myself as a lousy teacher...though there have been a significant number who have disagreed with that jaundiced assessment.
But I think I'm a great guest lecturer or short-term instructor. I can get up in front of class and tell war stories and bullshit and answer questions, but while illuminating in its way, that only goes so far.
I can also take the work of students and critiqued it and help them to tweak it and show them tricks of the trade, but again that's not necessarily going to get you through a semester of anything.
But mostly I don't have the patience to teach or to cope with the academic lifestyle. The scholarly lifestyle I quite enjoy, but not the academic trappings and boundaries that surround it....lesson plans, grades, people being late on assignments, etc.
Nor am I really a nurturer. I believe if one can be discouraged in the business, they should be. My style of critiquing does not differ for a seasoned veteran or someone just starting out. I judge everything by one professional criteria.
These may be more personal failings (or perhaps just quirks), but I suspect they are not suited for the academic milieu.
Inexplicably, given my few forays into academia (all mercifully short) I still have people coming up to me all the time, telling me how much they learned from me.
I think actually where I pass on knowledge the best has been on a screenwriting posting site I used to visit all the time, where I would just respond to newbie and wannabe screenwriters' posts and pontificate on my own experiences and ideas on how it should be done.
But, of course, I also believe with director Nicholas Ray who apparently used to say, "I don't care what anyone says, you can't teaching film-making."
I know you can't teach talent. As a graduate from the old seat of the pants school of theatre, I still believe the best teacher is experience...just getting up and doing it.
I learned as much or more from Charles Dickens about theatre, art, life, and acting during his six-martini lunches at the late-lamented Saratoga in Chevy Chase(now Buddies) or while he was directing me in a show as I did in the class-room.
And my best teachers were old 30's/40's movies or books about the Barrymores or Olivier or Gielgud...finding out how the pros did it.
"Contacts and Equity do not inspire students. Teachers do"
Awesome point, D$.
I think Rick is also correct in that it all boils down to the institution. Yes, professional work is important and yes a teacher should always make the effort to work in their (lol) "spare time"- BUT- I can name a dozen or so instances that I know of personally involving folks with flashy professional resumes getting the nod over folks with good academic records. And guess what? In every case those individuals had almost no idea of how to teach, how to connect with students and how to put up with, as Charles put it,"the academic lifestyle". Teaching is a skill learned through practice: just because you've held a spear for Joe Papp does not mean you will automatically be able to inspire in the classroom. If schools would hire teachers first, I believe they would see better results. And once again- not talking YALE- I understand they have a reputation to keep up.....but I've seen friggin JUNIOR COLLEGES in podunk Georgia advertise for professors who can teach acting, directing, design, costuming, theatre history and , Oh Yeah, have a PHD and UNION affiliation! Who the fuck can POSSIBLY fill that bill, and ask yourself this: Why the hell do they want to work at a Jr college in BF Georgia???
I also think it depends on whether you are talking about a conservatory approach or a liberal arts approach. Remember, those liberal arts professors will have to deal with potentially TONS of non-majors who don't know unions from shinola. Think all of Jane Doe's Russian conservatory training and Equity work are gonna prepare her for that lions den? No way in hell!
Perhaps I am too close to this subject to comment effectively, but for all my lack of union affiliation, like D $, I'm a darned good teacher. Guess that'll have to be it's own reward....
With regard to hiring teachers first, there can be a drawback. Teachers who sole credentials in theatre are through the academic ranks tend to end up teaching teachers.
Just as Tim suggests those spear-carriers who ended up getting an Equity card are not necessarily qualified to become teachers over those who may never have set foot in New York (only time I was in New York was at the World's Fair in 1962...it did not preclude me from having either a 30-odd...still continuing... career or holding Unions cards in SAG, AFTRA, EQUITY, WGA [as a board member for 4 years], and the Dramatists Guild), there are also those theatre professors who never venture outside the cozy cocoon of their complacent, insular academic life (where they may be adored) and don't have a clue about the real world of professional theatre.
I'm a great believer in aesthetics but if you ultimately can't practically apply those aesthetics to real experience or creative work then it merely becomes another form of academic mummification.
We don't need more arm-chair theatre professors with doctorates writing obscure, never-read treatsies on Kabuki theatre, the Astor Place Riots, or the Meyerhold Method, thank you very much.
We don't need anymore self-help, how-to books on how to direct, act, audition, or write a screenplay by people who have usually done none of those things successfully or done them in small, safe, in-bred, often academic, venues which really provided no challenge or threat to the theories and instruction being expounded.
An example: When we were in the theatre department at UK, we had several supposed theatre majors or minors which were referred to as N.D.s -- non-descripts...because you simply never saw them, except maybe in an orientation to theatre class or theatre history class or maybe the odd acting class. They rarely auditioned, rarely teched or worked crews (unless it was a course requirement).
One of these N.D. was getting a double-major in theatre and teaching. When he did his practice teaching in some education class, one of our cronies was in it. She said he chose to teach a theatre orientation class and, in his lecture, promptly got up and named all the parts of the stage...stage left, stage right, upstage, downstage...all ass- backwards. In six months time, this person was going out to teach high schoolers theatre. Even high schoolers don't deserve this.
So, as I said before, it really is hard to seperate the two...hopefully a good teacher will be balanced with good professional experience. Neither the pro devoid of teaching prowess with no clue of academia nor the professor with head stuck far up the academic fundament and blind to a professional perspective are going to be much use to a hungry student.
As for the Union affliation thing, while I agree with Steve, union is good, I don't think it a crucial requirement for a good teacher. Once I got my Union performing cards, I didn't become a better actor. Once I got my WGA card, I didn't become a better writer. I could just command more money and have my working conditions better protected.
I know plenty of Equity actors who couldn't teach their way out of wet cardboard box; in fact, I know plenty of Equity actors who couldn't ACT their way out of wet cardboard box and you wonder how they got a card in the first place.
It all boils down to one thing...as it always does...the individual.
Hope that post was "Pogueian" enough, Rick!
The other side of the "Union card" cachet is the "degree" cachet.
My Theatre Arts degree, such as it is, has never, ever gotten me a job. But what I learned while acquiring that degree has contributed to every job I've had through a very lengthy career.
The degree is worthless; the knowledge is priceless.
I have a pretty simple thought on this. I taught at the University of KY part-time. I have my BFA and was hired as a "professional in my field." I am not Equity. I have taught at theatres for 13 years, at a middle and high school for 8, and at the University level for 2.
However, I lost my job at the University because of my lack of MFA when the administration changed. It wasn't because of my teaching...my class numbers were even growing because students WANTED to take my class.
So, I agree with many of your points. I think it depends on the program as Rick said. I also think it depends on what you are teaching. I taught acting for non-majors and I think I was a great pof for folks who had little or no experience...
It DOES depend on your ability to TEACH. You can have all the experience or degrees in the world...but if you can't explain it, get folks passionate and engaged in the subject and be able to manage your program....well then...what is the point?
Geez. Make a man scroll like a Jew to see if he can find... .38 Special "Teacher, Teacher". (Had to get that before McElheney showed up.)
I don't teach in a University. But, I was a student under a few guys who had little experience in real-world acting work. They had been "institutionalized" for a long damn time and had little or no reference for doling out advice to students who actually wanted to *work* in this. Their students came away with ridiculous notions of how real theatres worked and little more than textbook definitions for a guide.
If I'm gonna get my liver replaced, I want a practiced surgeon. If I'm gonna learn, give me a master. In my book, that means "résumé".
Don't know if that answers anything as to the original question, but there it is.
Follow-up... That is not to say that all actors with a good résumé make good teachers. Nay! Teaching definitely is a skill and I respect the hell out of those who are good at it and give a damn about their students. Some of my profs were very conscientious and were "good teachers". But, they were clueless about life outside of collegiate circles. Their audition workshops were laughable as a result. The best advice I got from a former theatre student there was to do what he did... drop out and go to work.
Mamet, anyone?
Okay, you all make good points towards people who are "institutionalized"...these types are, imho, just as rotten as the Spear carriers/ AEA actors I mentioned earlier. I do believe that there are happy mediums. I myself, along with many of my cronies (D$, Diva Master, Darren VM, etc) have all done AND continue to do, a good bit of outside work, we all belong to professional organizations (SETC, ACTF, etc) and we all encourage our students to gain professional employment, and hopefully we are able to mentor our students in a way that is benificial to them. To me, this qualifies us as "good at what we do"...the problem is, most of our collective experience isn't in NYC , nor is it union affiliated, thus someone along the way has decreed that it is "unworthy" to be considered in the halls of higher ed, and that it automatically means we can't find upstage right with both hands and a map! I say BULLSHIT to that. WHy is it more valuable to have done "off-off-Broadway" productions in someone's basement in Hackensack, NJ" (My that Rick 8 can turn a phrase!) than to have played Hamlet at the Kentucky Shakes fest (something that, btw, I have not done- I merely make the example)?
But Jeesh- this could turn into a whole other discussion...we should've just kept talking about naked guys on film...btw- to my above mentioned cronies, I apologize if I speak out of turn...and remember as always, the views of the management of this blog don't necessarily represent those of the posters...or something like that...
Lightmyfart, GA?
Isn't that where Scott McElheney lives now?
tim, there are plenty of bad Hamlets out there too...just as bad as the that off-off-Broadway production in someone's basement....Just because someone has played a big role in a small pond doesn't make them any more qualified than someone who played a small role in a small production in a Big Pond. Both could have been great; both could have been lousy; one or the other could have been great or lousy.
Though there are many educational institutions of higher learning that love to self-perpetuate their academic aura by hiring people with credentials from "prestige" arenas, I would venture a guess that the vetting process is a bit more complex than just "Oh, this guy has an MFA from a great university and four off-off-Broadway productions to his credit." I'm sure someone like Rick did not get the AGL gig purely from a glance of his resume...they met him, talked to him, sounded him out to see if he was a proper fit for where they wanted to go with the theatre. As Rick says, competition for these jobs is fierce.
Doing off-off-Broadway theatre in somebody's basement may be better than doing Hamlet at the Ky. Shakes Fest. It may not.
Again, depends on the production...and, as said before, the individual.
Tenure has killed some profs faster than video killed the radio star. Well... you know what I mean. I've had profs who never even bothered to read a script until the day of auditions, couldn't construct a decent rehearsal schedule if their budget depended on it (and I'm not talking about a fancy color-coded one, just a plain piece of friggin' paper), and spent more time in rehearsals flirting than paying any damn attention to what was happening. And, I've seen entire productions fall completely apart because of it.
I understand the purpose of tenure, I think. I just cringe when I see a lazy bastard get it.
You'll never get it without an Equity card! Lightmyfart is UNION ALL THE WAY!!!
Just joking, Scotty...you know how much I love "the Georgia rain on that Jasper County Clay..."
Post a Comment