any professional actors about? Do you think you can be taught

I've been thinking a lot about this recently, because I'm working on setting up a multi-nationality community arts / theatre project, and I believe these things are more vital than ever in our current age. Community arts projects require people physically coming together to work as a group to achieve a shared goal, for arts' sake (i.e. not to pay the bills), which is a rare thing in this online, isolated world. Acting also requires a great deal of courage, so learning to do it could help with the anxiety issues so many experience from being so online.

In terms of courses, what age are we talking about and approximately where do they live?

I really don't think this is true. I teach people and some could spend their whole lives on something and never master it to average population level let alone professional level or top 10% level.

But you don't know that really do you? You know they likely wouldn't want to put that effort in, but the fact is it's a very hard theory to disprove really. Because unless that person actually did it for an insane amount of hours will gusto, you just don't know?

Yes, with much training and practice, people can become experts and extremely good in what they do, but acting is a performing art.

Anyhow, we have digressed from the OP's original question, so I shall bow out of the conversation about acting training as my field of expertise lies elsewhere. 🙂

I really don't think this is true. I teach people and some could spend their whole lives on something and never master it to average population level let alone professional level or top 10% level.

I think it's true of some things, but I don't think the average person could be a professional footballer or brain surgeon or astronaut for example. Many kids (who have the most time to spend on what they love, have narrower lives, are more optimistic and supported vs adults) spend thousands of hours at academies and the majority don't make it into any kind of pro football. But I guess there's often distinction between learning how to do something and learning how to be great at something.

And I also agree with this! Which is why I was uncertain about her use of the term "no natural talent". Community theatre is life changing.

I think any skill is a mixture of natural talent and teaching/practice and I don't see why acting would be any different. Everyone has different potential for various skills, but we could probably all improve on our starting ability at most things, with a good tutor and some effort.
I coach a sport. You can see from an early age that some children have more natural aptitude than others. A lot of that is down to physique of course but there are other factors too.There are definitely those who just "get it" and learn quickly and those who don't. However there are also those who don't show a lot of natural ability but are very determined and work really hard until they eventually master the skills and they can go on to become very competent in due course. They may never get to be as good as the naturally talented kids, assuming both make a similar amount of effort, but those with less intrinsic ability can certainly learn and in fact could overtake someone with oodles of potential but who can't be bothered to train. I'd think it is probably similar for acting and many other things.

You're being very cryptic about your reasons for asking OP, but I'll bite!

I'm one, now a theatre director and a tutor at one of the conservatoires (name changed).

Your initial question is flawed, in my view, as you seem to be certain that this hypothetical person (you? Your child?) has "no natural talent". I'm not quite sure what you mean by this or how you can discern that?

For example, using your example of piano playing. You teach the child the skills and techniques until they can play a tune to a recognisable standard. At this stage, they can take that work and practice and add their own emotion, play with dynamics, expression, pace, etc and inject "soul" and it becomes emotive to listen to. Or they might just get stuck at the recognisable standard but lack any flair.

Either way you're not going to know if they'll bring that expression or flair or whatever you want to call it until they know how to bash out the tune.

Acting is exactly the same. There are indeed building blocks - some of which a pp has named. You would never just dive into Ophelia in the way you describe. Before that you must read the script, know it, analyse it in a huge and laborious amount of detail, answer questions about it, know what's happened before, after, in between scenes, off text, and what your character is saying about everything and what's been said about them, their objectives, their actioning and more. You're a detective finding answers. Then you can explore the character physically and use techniques like the ones that have been mentioned. And this is before any actual rehearsing of any scenes begins.

Also for a run of performances the work gets layered and complex - doing the same night after night 8 shows a week in front of different live audiences, but needing to find ways to keep it fresh. Also screen acting a totally different skill.

Acting isn't just something you turn up and do. Someone may be engaging or have charm, or be able to deliver a speech or a joke in a beguiling way, but can they maintain a role to this depth over a long run of a year, or internalise the characters emotions and remain so focussed that their face can communicate the subtlest of emotions through a camera even when the room is full of 50 crew members staring at them.

So once a person has the building blocks, (through training) that's when they start to reveal the kind of actor they are visible of being.

The reality is that unless you have a natural talent for something, you could practice all day every day for decades and still never reach that point where proficiency becomes artistry.

This theory disagrees, because how could you prove your theory? How many people actually practice something everyday for decades to prove if they are an artist or not? Of course some people would have natural talent and likely get there faster, but the theory believes that there is a number of hours every person could do to get to expert level in anything, but that number is likely higher than most people would get near to doing.

Not saying I agree with it, and I keep calling it 'the theory' because I can't actually remember the study or the name, but I remember the discussion distinctly because I found the concept interesting. But I appreciate it's not something to just believe from a random post on MN

I live in a city and the main theatre we have (it's on the national circuit so not amateur) does classes for adults. Maybe you have an option for this near you?

I really don't know why so many on this thread are being so snooty about OP's query—acting is a good, fun thing for anyone to do, they don't have to be aiming to be Meryl bloody Streep.

I'm a huge advocate of am dram and community theatre—just like school plays, they can be absolutely life-changing and life-affirming projects to get involved in.

The reality is that unless you have a natural talent for something, you could practice all day every day for decades and still never reach that point where proficiency becomes artistry.

No idea about courses, I would look to see if there are evening classes or something at a local arts college maybe? Learning to act isn't really a solo, DIY project, because you need at least one other person—actor, director, dramaturg, whatever—to work with to do it right.

Also depends if you're talking about stage or film acting, as they're quite different techniques. I've assumed stage, as TV and film is not something amateurs can readily do.

@PintersPint no, I don't think he works any more. That story happened close to 40 years ago - like I said, back in the dark ages.

There is a theory that anyone can be taught anything if they put in enough effort, I went to some (very boring leadership) training and it was said there. The example used was concert pianist, if everyone put in X amount of hours (I assume those hours would change depending on the person, but it was a specific, and very high, number) but essentially if you put the time and effort it, you'd learn. The reality is not many people want to spend thousands of hours perfecting a skill.

I would say that the basic answer is yes, you can teach someone with no natural talent to play a part, to pretend to be someone else. There is a big but though. If that person doesn't have much imagination it's hard for them to be convincing. Acting is about connecting the thought to the action. There is a technical part of that- voice, movement both of which can be taught. But the thought part can't be taught- the empathy.

I speak as a 'failed' actor who went to drama school. I've also taught acting at a drama school and to young adults who want to go to drama school. In my experience there has to be some natural ability, but it has to be emotional ability.

There are all kinds of techniques. For amateurs, I like to do exercises involving "actioning" the text, and physical demonstration of feeling and emotion.

I recommend reading An Actor Prepares by Stanislavski, and Notes on Directing by Frank Hauser for ideas.

Hauser's Mary Had A Little Lamb exercise is a really good one.

Vocal technique is vital, and is all about practice and building blocks—as Hauser says, the first job of an actor is to be heard (I wish some of the mumblecore practitioners would heed this...).

Many of the subsidised / Arts Council supported theatres run excellent youth theatres.

It’s harder once you are older. But I see some of the drama schools are running summer schools and short courses for adults.

Or you can gain experience with an amateur theatre group.

Google Acting workshops for adults , Drama workshops for adults, and short acting courses for adults.

Sylvia Young school runs adult classes, Theatre Royal Stratford East has an adult drama group. For example.

There are multiple schools of thought on this. Things like Stanislavski, Meisner, method, etc. are all systems by which these basics are taught.

The similarity is that each of these systems convey the basics of acting in terms of preparation and rehearsal technique, in the same way as music.

"Because someone with no natural talent is interested in learning HOW to act and I was asking whether it would be possible to learn. Why does it matter?"

How do you/they know they have no natural talent?

It matters because it depends on whether this person has 'no natural talent' and knows that because they've tried and been crap at it, or whether they have simply never done any acting at all, so don't know whether they might be any good or not.

For instance you could teach someone how to dance, but it would be a darn sight more difficult to teach someone to a passable standard if they have two left feet, and no sense of rhythm or co-ordination. I mention dance because I know more about that than I do about acting.

So someone with no natural talent , although they will never be a concert pianist, could be taught to play the piano to a good standard with lessons and practice and discipline.

It’s very similar in some ways. Music is more than playing the right notes in the right order. A bit like acting is more than saying the right words in the right order.