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

[PintersPint]

how to act? I mean obviously you can be taught to a degree as otherwise drama schools wouldn't exist.

What I mean is 'if you have someone with no natural talent at all, can you teach a person like that to be a good actor'?

To get into a drama school in the first place, you need to audition. So I'm assuming that their starting crop have a degree of natural talent to start with.

Do you think it's possible to teach someone with no natural talent to act? and if you do think that, what kind of things would form the basis of the teaching?

Where would you recommend someone go/what kind of things to do/ to learn the basic building blocks? Private tutor (how do you find a good one?) or group classes (where?)

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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

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.

@mondaynity thank you for your reply that's very helpful.

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.

This makes a lot of sense.

So what are the basic building blocks for acting then? Particularly for emotional expression?

What would you suggest as a starting point for learning in terms of teaching? Courses or to start with private tutors? (how would you find a good one). I'm guessing , can't get onto a course without doing an audition, and if you have no basic skill talent or learning, then the audition will be a fail. So how to start?

To go back to the piano example, some children when they start playing the piano have a natural affinity for it (maybe natural talent wasn't the right phrase now I think of it) whether that's because they are naturally more musical or because they like it so engage in practice more easily, progress more quickly and so on. Some children really don't like it, struggle to learn, hate practice and so on. In theory you could get someone with no natural affinity to a good level but in reality it just isn't likely because the lack of affinity would turn them off practice. I suppose an exception might be if you had an adult who tried as a child and didn't like it but as an adult decided this was what they wanted to do and was highly motivated out of bloody minded determination to crack their childhood nemisis.

That natural affinity (or what I was calling natural talent) in reality is very difficult to over come because it feeds into everything - motivation is easier if you are doing well and praised as you learn, interest is higher if you like it and so on. Is acting the same such that those with no natural affinity/talent will never be able to get very good?

Is acting the same such that those with no natural affinity/talent will never be able to get very good?

this is quite a complicated question, because “good” is such a subjective thing when it comes to the arts. And what is your benchmark? Getting a role in a community play? Making a living from acting? Getting a good review? Winning an Olivier award?

I think it’s unlikely that anyone with no affinity for acting would be sufficiently motivated to try to see if they could become “good”.

I believe anyone motivated enough to try probably already has an affinity, and could certainly learn enough technique to at least become an am dram performer.

Professional acting has so many other factors (e.g. charisma, personality, attractiveness, prevailing fashions in the performing arts, luck, resilience), that there aren’t many useful benchmarks for “good”.

It is a spectrum, not a case of 'no talent' vs 'talent'.

No talent / <.....................................the vast majority.......................................> / talent.

Almost everyone is in that middle section, and it applies to all endeavours really.

Local theatres will often run courses
like this

Just like anything you can learn skills. Even once you are an established actor you might read around your character, or if a modern day one spend time with someone similar Tom Holland spent time in an American High School before playing Spiderman etc.

I think you need a huge amount of natural talent to succeed as an actor. Unless you are happy to act for pleasure rather than as a career I wouldn’t bother trying to learn.

Unless you are happy to act for pleasure rather than as a career I wouldn’t bother trying to learn

Quite a shame to have this attitude, so can much be learned from even basic acting training that can be valuable in many areas of a professional, or in one's personal, life.

That’s beside the point @Onlyhereforthebatshitneighbours Had the OP said they wanted to learn to act for more general purposes my answer would have been different.

Or have the right look and be lucky

Absolutely @ViolinsPlayGentlyOn

I know exactly what you mean. It's like asking whether you can teach someone how to have charisma.

I was on a night out with friends several years ago in the middle of Liverpool. All of a sudden a young couple next to our table started to have a huge fight, yelling at each other and shouting. A lot of people moved away from them. What I found really odd was that although they sounded believable, I just didn't believe them. I grew up in a household with domestic violence and I am very well used to my physical reactions when there is sudden violence and shouting. I didn't experience any of those reactions at all that night. Other people clearly did and when I checked with my friends none of them had grown up with any kind of violence. They had all believed the couple. It turned out the couple were acting students and did this sort of thing quite a lot. They were kicked out that night and had been kicked out before. 🤣

I am certain there are actors good enough to make my skin prickle if they raise their voices. Although these two that night seemed technically fine, there was that little thing missing, similar to charisma, that I think you just can't teach.

I doubt it myself. That's why top drama schools take 28 or so every year from say 4000 applicants. They not only need natural talent but also the ability to learn and apply the learning, to let themselves be extremely vulnerable, to know themselves, and to know their body.

I think with a really good actress it's more about what they teach themselves and what they learn by watching than what someone teaches them.

My question wasn't about 'succeeding professionally as an actor'. It is whether it is a skill that can be achieved to a good level by teaching from a low/lack of natural instinct starting point.

The best top flight actors have an ability to really make you believe they are experiencing something and you just engage with them and forget for a moment they are acting. @healthybychristmas your example is very interesting - I wonder though if it was in a bar that the majority who bought into it just weren't observing closely enough if they were drinking and failing to pick up the 'acting' cues that you registered subconsciously.

In the theatre I have experienced this sense of actor acting as totally believable reality as an audience member maybe 3 times in my life all of which featured really well known and highly regarded actors giving exceptional performances. That is the sort of exceptionally high level that is on a par with being good enough to win a noble prize for literature or something comparable. (I wouldn't say an Oscar as that is very political and about commercial lobbying).

I'm not talking about getting to that level - more at a 'good' level so people who are performing well, would not be criticised by the public or critics as giving a 'bad' performance but better than average so regularly turning out performances in a 60 to 70% scoring bracket by analogy.

I’m sorry @PintersPint Because of the way you are framing your questions I had assumed you meant training to act professionally. In all honesty I am unclear what your point is now. Actors are not a homogeneous group of people who train the same way, use the same methods and have the same impact on people. It’s an art not a science and can’t be measured by percentages. I know some critic sites try to do this but the thing about how you respond to a performance is so individual and personal. If you are thinking of having a go just go for it and concentrate on enjoying yourself. Chances are if you have a good time the audience will too.

I think lots of people do Am Dram for the enjoyment not because they are amazing actors, if you enjoy it and want to have a go then I’d get into the chorus of the production, you’d learn a lot by watching others.

They’re asking questions about motivation. Like any good actor.😀