"The real debate about the difference between British and American training always comes back to the "inside out" or "outside in" debate; that is, do you train actors in diction, voice, deportment, dance, etc., and let them craft a role based on these external skills, or do you ask them to transform themselves through a use of consciousness, sense, and memory, a la Strasberg's interpretation of Stanislavski? . . . Certainly in the twentieth century it was traditional for American acting mentors either to hold up English training as the paradigm of a disciplined, skill-oriented approach, or to vilify it as mechanically exacting but essentially soulless. The second opinion was probably the more generally accepted one for most of the century, but that has changed somewhat as American performance forms have become less naturalistic."(Allworth Press | Interview with Nicole Potter)
:: note :: . . . something for the theater student . . . especially those trapped within monolithic acting departments dedicated to a preserving some sort of deadly theater . . .