livininabox wrote:even if some of them are a little obscure for my taste...
Try watching A Level Drama - when son explained it to me it all became clear but really odd
And it gets 10 times worse at uni. I remember in my first year we had to go and watch and then srite a crit on two plays chosen from a selection that were being performed by touring companies at the universities theatre. I tried to choose the ones that looked the least wierd. One was called 'Anatomy of Two Exiles'. Withthe word anatomy in the title I should have known.
My first date with my now dh was taking him to see Berkoff's Metamorphosis when I was in 6th form!
You know, thats why i love good ole LAMDA....cos i understand the pieces and what they're on about! Saying that we're only grade 4....maybe that gets more confusing too!!
Sort of. I'm trying to help a girl choose Grade 6 pieces at the moment. From Grade 6 onwards you have to find them yourself, not from the anthology, they have to be from contrasting time periods and you have to have read the whole play. Its really hard finding something that is of sufficient challenge/interest but that we all feel comfortable with in terms of language and content. I had Keeping Tom Nice recommended but I feel that she is maybe just a year or so too young for it.
Nothing very exciting has changed - apart from language. Syllabus now becomes specification, and from this September, all exam boards and all qualifications sit on a new framework, so when you flit from board to board on the net, you'll now find quite common terminology, layout and language which is designed to make things easy.
The poster is exactly what it seems to be - it's just a guide as to what drama is about. If you read it with drama in your head , rather than Acting - it makes sense - certainly for 14-16 year olds.
I note the poster has a comment from a teacher - as it happens I know him, and the school quite well and they have a good reputation.
Schools don't teach acting for GCSE, well, not in the way we perhaps assume they do. The GCSE spec is pretty geared to the subject areas covered on that poster, it expands a bit going into Level 3 - but it's still more drama than acting. At Level 3 they might, depending on the course, be looking at Stanislavski, Brecht and maybe Artaud, so then they'll be moving away from the rather generic explanations on the Key Stage 3 poster.
What is taught in the 18+ drama schools starts from scratch - because everyone has different amounts and ranges of background - so there might be a degree of 'unlearning', but the drama schools always do it 'their way' anyway.
If you saw good stuff at the school, that's the best guide. As part of the new framework, all the qualifications now have a kind of novice guide right at the front which tries to explain what it's about and what the kids will be doing.
Pg this is quite a timely post for me as I am finding some differences between school and theatre school for my ds (14). My ds trains with leading professional Broadway and West End theatre performers on a weekly basis and has also worked with theatre and TV companies. I had a conversation with his drama teacher about the lessons in school because they wanted him to be pushy and lead all the time when the opposite is true in professional work. Whilst one shouldn't hide their light under a bushell so to speak there seems to be a view outside the professionals that being loud is required when in fact many acting roles are the opposite. Also in our experience of school there seems to be less emphasis on team work and more on pushing yourself forward. My ds finds this uncomfortable as he feels that in the acting world that he has experienced so far it is about the production being bigger than the indivudual actors. If a part demands that he is loud/brash then he is able to do that but I am glad that he is able to realise the difference between simple self-promotion and being flexible for a particular acting role. He will be following the advice of his teachers at theatre school whilst adapting when necessary for school work. He intends to take Performing Arts next year so it could be interesting.
My ds had difficulties in drama classes in school. He was a little frustrated by some people messing about, but I think he accepted it as inevitable and on the whole he got on with what he needed to do with other pupils who were as interested as he was. He didn't always do the written work very well or thoroughly and was quite rightly criticised for this. What he had more problem with, oddly, was being singled out as "good". Unfortunately he was held up as an "example" and it caused him no end of difficulties! It always struck me as an example of poor teaching and ended up with this being the only class my ds was ever in trouble in for "bad" behaviour as he tried to counteract the unsought "hero" status he was sometimes given by the teacher. It definitely wasn't something he wanted. There were quite a lot of things I felt were dubious in the way the classes were taught by one particular teacher, including a rather worrying tendency for celebrity worship, but a public forum probably isn't the right place to air them. He had hoped that drama lessons would be some of the most enjoyable but they became something of a trial.
I sympathise with your son, though it sounds to me as though he has a very balanced view of it all! It's hard, though, I think, for students to have to plough on in the way they think is right if it's in opposition to the way they are being taught.
My DD was also criticsed for not being outgoing and lively enough by her school Drama teacher. In several parents evenings I was told she lacked confidence ( even though she was used to singing solos in our local theatre that setas 500 people!!). Because she was a more reflective and thoughtful performer this was interpreted as lacking confidence. In her classes the loud and outgoing "dramatypes" tended to dominate. Would love to hear what her teacher would say about where she is now
The highway's jammed with broken heroes on a last chance power drive.
The funny thing is that my ds is extravert in personality and the teachers do hold him up as a good example but they want him to take every leading role in group work and this is where he disagrees. He is a singer and dancer too regularly singing solos and having lead/main parts. I think it might be because he doesn't go to the lunch time drama club (choosing music instead). It is very interesting to hear everybody else's experiences. My dd has had the opposite with her school with one teacher telling her that she can't audition to sing in the carol concert becasue her voice is too good and she shines too much outside of school. A couple of other children were also told the same thing. Whilst my dd didn't mind not singing (she understood that others wanted to do it) she did object to the teacher thinking she just waltzed through auditions and disregarded all the hard work that goes into the achievements of performing. I must admit this gave us all a bit of a laugh. Thankfully it was just one teacher in the school and the rest are very supportive. However, imagine saying that to a sporty child!
Exactly! 'Oh no, Johnny, you can't be in the team, as you also play for County' It just wouldn't happen. It riles me that kids who are good at Maths/Languages get masterclasses free, but if you're into music /drama no-one is interested.
My dd loves her drama teacher this year and does get a lot of main roles, but she's also been praised for the way she works with and inspires the rest of her group. I think this reflects the way her teacher uses able children to encourage others, and bring shyer children into the activities.
It is interesting to hear about everyone else's experiences. My ds was only too happy to take on a role of any size in performance (though there were very few performance opportunities at the school when he was there, which was what led him and his mates to set up their own theatre company, because there was no school production of any kind planned), it was the fact that his teacher seemed to be saying in lessons: "do it like M because he knows what he's doing" (and by implication therefore "you don't"). You can imagine why my ds felt uncomfortable with that! The problem was that there seemed to be no subtlety in the teacher's approach and my ds really loathed being "teacher's pet". Consequently I think he ended up being this particular teacher's nightmare so she should perhaps have my sympathies rather than my criticism! His attitude towards her was so unlike his attitude to any other member of staff.
As you say igloobabe, a teacher who can enlist the help of able pupils to encourage others is a good thing and I think he would have been very happy to be a leader in group activities when required - just as long as it didn't involve belittling others.
Still, all that's behind him now!
There's a theme coming through here - what the teachers are looking for is not developed conventional acting skills at all. A 'thoughtful' performance will quite possibly be viewed by a stranger as something else - because advanced acting skills are not expected to be there, so when they're trying to judge if they are 'engaged' - there's a danger it will be misinterpreted.
It's a bit like some maths and physics questions where the Degree level answer is different from the ones taught at school. Constants become variables and it gets much, much deeper. Give a degree answer in the GCSE and I'd bet you'd NOT get the A, because the mark scheme doesn't cater for this happening. Music students do the same. My own son, when doing his music GCSE was internally marked quite badly on one piece of coursework by his teacher. A 3 minute composition on any chosen instrument. He chose drums and the teacher couldn't read it, so assumed it was rubbish/doodles/taking the mickey. When I pointed out that it was advanced professional drum notation the work got remarked. The GCSE spec assumes simple melody and maybe a bit of harmony - so weird drum stuff just doesn't really work.
As I've said - acting is not really taught in schools - just drama.
pg and iglobabe I totally agree about teachers inspiring. My ds's music teacher has encouraged him to set up his own band and to lead others without making him feel that he has to be centre stage all the time. Ds has taken up drumming as a hobby and is largely teaching himself and he is using the band to drum rather than sing this time so that he gets a different experience. Of course he is now nagging me for drumming lessons but as he already does ballroom, latin, hip hop dancing, choir and theatre school there isn't the money or time left to fit it in. paulears I agree that GCSE sometimes (in any subject) can't accomodate the kids already performing at a higher level. Infact sometimes original writers, speakers, thinkers, do worse in exams because they don't follow the formula and take risks. I saw an article sometime back about this being the case in A-levels. My eldest son is taking the IB (and it is many years since I took mine) so I can't really comment on it from my own experience. I did an MA (different subject) a few years back and at this level you have to have original ideas but frame them in the reference of other researchers. At PHD level is when you really get the chance to go out on a limb.
I am a Drama Teacher- I have to say, IMO there are as many teaching styles as there are Drama teachers. Drama is not on the National Curriculum, and as such there is no standard core content.
Individual exam boards of course define what is taught through their assessment matrices, however, there is much freedom within these to teach everything from Brecht to Bollywood.
As in everything at school, much depends on on the skills, experience and charisma of the teacher themselves. Sadly, there are many non-specialists teachng Drama, and Drama students do suffer as a result. I can't imagine seeing a non-specialist trying to take on maths or geography, but somehow Drama seems fair game for anyone. (its to do with not being on the National Curriculum again)
Many schools are freezing our Arts subjects in favour of "core curriculum" subjects (English, Maths, Sciences).
IMO, "Natural Talent" is all very well, but it takes a good teacher to spot it and develop it- otherwise the naturally talented tend to stagnate at the level they entered
Mastery of the form does require study, which a well qualified and experienced teacher can structure for the student
Just recently attended my DS options evening. His Drama teacher informed us that they had drawn up a list of students who would be accepted on to the GCSE Drama course. Due to budget cuts and what not, the school will only be accepting 8 pupils - and my DS was top of the list! The reason for so few pupils is so that they will be more able to offer trips to the West End, Backstage Workshops, LAMDA exams etc... No Time Wasters accepted!
That is the daftest bit of budget-fudgery I've ever heard. The way funding works is that smaller classes are vastly more expensive to run - a group of 20 is cost effective and a group of 8 just wrecks the system - especially if visits are anticipated. On top of this, 8 people is insufficient for many of the popular works designed for young people - they're written with bigger groups in mind. With 8 - having 2 kids off sick wrecks everything - so you waste precious time. Believe it or not, they take teacher cost, room cost (based on the floor area) and running costs in terms of books materials and equipment. Drama, being practical doesn't cost much in the BME department - but it does use lots of space - so the usual solution is fill the room up a bit, because the teacher cost is fixed.
If the school are only going to take 8 people, this will cost them, so they have another reason. Being a suspicious type, I wonder if the idea is to generate a class of realy top grade kids that will fill some kind of hole league tables wise. Selecting 8 talented kids will cost them dearly, so the only benefit to them must be guaranteed final grades.
I'm not certain they've been entirely honest. We've all seen the pressure on them to increase class sizes for exactly this reason. 30 kids doing maths costs far, far less than 10 kids doing dance - so something is adrift.
