Mike Souska
Sure is a lot of controversy here, but I can't help noticing that the good reviews seem to be logical and coherent, and to mostly come from professionals, some who give their names; but the bad reviews seem to come from a bunch of bitter, angry, frustrated people, who find each other's bitter, angry, frustrated feelings helpful, and to be generally peppered with poor spelling, punctuation, and grammar.
Personally, I took Patterson's introductory class more than once, as I wasn't able to commit to the time involved in taking his full class. However, I learned more about acting in the six weeks I spent there the first time through, than I learned in 4 years at another well known studio whose name I won't mention. It probably has something to do with the fact that Robert Patterson actually studied with Sanford Meisner, unlike most other 'Meisner teachers'.
As far as these goofy claims that Patterson is only interested in making money, doesn't it make sense that if that were true, he'd be charging much higher rates like most of the other major acting studios in NY? Granted, he's a very intense and dynamic individual, and some people obviously aren't able to handle that, but you won't find anyone in the business more dedicated to teaching, or to advancing the craft of acting to another level. If that weren't the case, I doubt he'd have been teaching at the same location for almost 40 years.
Bear in mind, a lot of people hated Sanford Meisner while he was teaching, but would that stop you from wanting to study with him if he were still around? If it would, you may not be cut out for classical acting, but you can still work on soaps or in many other mediums. If you turn on your TV, you'll see a lot of people who aren't classically trained, and a lot of people who are, and with a little training and observation, it's pretty easy to spot the difference. Which kind of actor do you want to be?
like
Report