It’s often noticed how those in the top jobs of British theatre routinely hail from Oxbridge; the current artistic director of the National Theatre Nick Hytner and each of his three predecessors Peter Hall, Richard Eyre and Trevor Nunn all went to Cambridge.
The same, of course, is true of my own tribe, namely theatre critics: as I previously noticed a few years ago on one first night of a play set in an Oxbridge college, over half of those of 14 of us seated on the centre aisle that night went to Oxbridge ourselves.
Some of those I named are no longer reviewing (Benedict Nightingale, Alistair Macaulay and the late Sheridan Morley), but they’ve merely been replaced by others who did go to Oxbridge - Libby Purves, Ian Shuttleworth (who shares the first string role with Sarah Hemming) and Simon Edge (who shares first night responsibilities with Julie Carpenter).
Perusing the programme for the Donmar Warehouse’s new production of Richard II on Tuesday night, I noticed another interesting fact: that of the cast of 15, five are RADA trained, 2 from Bristol Old Vic and 2 from Guildhall. (There’s also a graduate from LAMDA and another from Mountview).
That does, of course, confirm the worth of such training; but then the exceptions, as always, also prove the rule: Michael Grandage, whose final production at the helm of the Donmar Warehouse this was, didn’t go to Oxbridge (but did go to drama school, in his case Central, where he originally trained as an actor) and Eddie Redmayne, who played the title role, didn’t go to drama school (but did go to Cambridge!).
But the bigger picture is that the best schools still often lead to the best opportunities. And perhaps it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: they get the best students, so it’s only understandable that those are then the ones who go on to achieve. As one person wrote on Twitter, “Good schools attract the best pupils & then stretch them as much as possible. That’s why I’m grateful to Oxford.”
And another posed the question, “Why do you think it’s surprising that 9 members of the cast are graduates of 3 of the UK’s top drama schools?” But it doesn’t mean it’s a closed shop, though one casting director wondered aloud if it was: “I would love to know how many actors are seen for plays who are not trained by these institutions? It’s the same with musical theatre sometimes.” And an actor also asked: “Personally feel its a bit of a clique. Can’t get seen to save my life at my favourite theatre.”
On the other hand, another aspiring director replied, “The exceptions are the ones that inspire me! I could never have gotten into Oxbridge, but I won’t let that stop me!” That’s more like it: yes, you’re ahead of the game if you’ve been there, but then you started ahead by going there in the first place. But it doesn’t mean that you’re automatically excluded by not doing so.
It doesn't surprise me that a high proportion of successful stage actors trained at drama schools, where they were presumably accepted on their courses for their talent, determination and aptitude. Actors are trained not just to act but to fully engage in a wide range of rehearsal methods.
However, the disproportionate success of theatre directors from Oxbridge is worth examining because their well-supported university experience is essentially amateur when compared with the training received by their peers in Theatre departments at other academic institutions.
Also, the success of the Oxbridge route seems worrying because of the inequality of access to Oxbridge, and I doubt that suitability for theatre directing is usually a major factor in admissions policy.
Film and television exist in America to allow those without a posh university on their resume or any drama school background, to still have careers.
Don't moan over what is so good about theatre in the UK. So many well trained AND talented actors.
It would be lovely to think an actor who has not had the privilege of an Oxbridge education is entitled to the same open doors in a casting situation. I am saddened to say that in harsh reality- we are not.
As a dancer who could always sing, the natural progression for me was to move into musical theatre.
When I began my career 15 years ago, reality TV wasn't as prevalent and auditions truly were "open". Sometimes up to 2000 auditionees in one day would compete for roles and all would be judged on what they could do "in the room" regardless of their background or training.
My training was in no way formal - certainly not in the drama department but that being said, after much experience in live theatre my strongest discipline is most definitely acting. These days however it's easier to win the lottery than get a casting for a play.
I too am inspired and encouraged by the open minded exceptions to the rule and no it doesn't mean you are automatically excluded if you aren't in the elite circle. But until more directors, casting directors and producers think along these lines, I fear (and I have seen) many talented actors fall off the radar simply because they didn't have the same opportunities/connections.
Talent is talent. If you can deliver, you get my vote.