tikka wrote:
Is it a good idea to try and do any of the short courses, like 'prep for audition day' at Rose Bruford, or the LAMDA 2 week audition course, or are they really aimed at students who are studying other subjects at A level, rather than those doing acting courses - or should you take all the help you can get regardless, or is it better to be more natural and not be too well prepared?????
I think this depends on the applicant really. Personally, I am in no doubt at all that an applicant should do their speeches in front of a reasonably knowledgeable and honest person before they go to an audition. The reason for this is (as son of pg said in a post on this subject

) that you can't be certain as an actor how you are coming across - this is one of the reasons shows need directors! Even if it is someone who can just tell you "did you know you sigh a lot?" or "you shift your weight from foot to foot" this will be of some help. Better still will be someone who can help the actor "explore" and give them confidence.
I don't think there's any
need to do a course (plenty of actors get places without attending a course) but I expect some of the things learned would be helpful.
I do think you need to be natural, yes. Without wanting to sound too pretentious (probably failed already

), I don't think being well prepared need stop you being natural. In fact, if you are
really well prepared you should be able to relax and put any "training" or practice out of your head completely (trusting that it is there for you) and then go in and be bold and take risks and yet be vulnerable and open. (told you I'd fail

)
I think being well prepared doesn't mean practising your speeches all the time, it's broader (and more useful) than that. To be honest, a lot of the NAPM applicants
will be well prepared in the way I think of it. It's going to the theatre, watching and learning, reading plays, performing whenever there's an opportunity - that kind of thing.