In short
Acting has no equivalent of the barre or the scales: no common version of daily training has ever been fixed. Between two projects, every actor therefore builds their own routine, alone.
- Why the gap: the instrument cannot be separated from the person, and the craft was handed down by schools, each with its own vocabulary. Theatre standardised its training programmes, not its practice.
- What exists: workshops, drop-in classes, peer groups, and solitary work, the most regular part and the least visible.
- What a training is made of: three families come up everywhere, body, voice, text.
- How long: fifteen minutes a day as the realistic order of magnitude, an hour as the ideal one.
A dancer has her barre, the same every morning. A musician has his scales, more or less unchanged for two centuries. An actor has no equivalent, and it is nobody's fault: the profession never fixed a common version of its training. That gap does not stop actors from working alone. It forces them to improvise one.
Why does acting have no codified training?
Because the instrument cannot be separated from the person, and because the craft has always been handed down by schools, each with its own vocabulary. Dance and music standardised their daily exercises; theatre standardised its training programmes, not its daily practice. Once the diploma is in hand, training becomes a private matter.3
The contrast shows in the profession's own discourse. Drama schools and studios regularly publish pieces reminding their readers that no professional musician stops practising scales for lack of a booked concert, and that an actor would do well to follow suit. Bristol Old Vic Theatre School published one in the summer of 2026.1 That it needs saying so often tells you something: the profession's implicit norm is that training stops when you leave school and picks up again in rehearsal. In between, everyone improvises, with whatever the week allows.
What do actors do between two projects?
A patchwork: workshops, drop-in classes, peer groups, and solitary work. In France, actors on the intermittent status can lean on accredited workshops funded by the sector's training fund, the Afdas, to structure part of that time.2 For everyone else, it all rests on what is on offer locally and on what can be done in a bedroom.
Workshops are the most established form: a few days or a few weeks around one practice, screen acting, clown, a language, a repertoire, paid for by the sector's training fund where that status exists. Drop-in classes and weekly workshops take over in big cities, at a cost that adds up fast. Peer working groups, inherited from drama-school year groups, hold a real and fragile place: they last as long as the diaries do. And then there is working alone, the least visible part and the most regular: texts kept alive, scenes broken down, a voice and a body kept available. It is the part of the job that leaves no trace, no payslip, no set photo.
What is an actor's training made of?
Three families come up in every description, whatever the school: body, voice, text. Nearly every training programme names them that way, and the individual routines actors describe recombine those three blocks according to the week, the role in hand and the room in the flat where it is possible.
Body covers what dance would call warm-up and readiness: stretching, grounding, everything that makes acting physically possible. Voice runs from breath to diction, and it is the most standardised family of the three, because it draws on techniques shared with singing and dubbing. Text, finally, is the most daily part: learning, keeping alive what is already known, analysing what comes next. Public descriptions of routines, from schools and from actors alike, vary on everything else, the length, the order, the frequency. Fifteen minutes a day often comes up as the realistic order of magnitude, an hour as the ideal one, and the gap between the two says a lot about the life this profession organises.
What that landscape draws in negative: every actor ends up building a routine, alone, with no reference version to copy and no outside eye to correct it. The work between two projects exists everywhere. It has simply never been written up.
Yet it is what makes the rest possible. When a scene lands the night before for the next morning, it is not the night that makes the difference. It is what was kept alive during the weeks when nothing was urgent.
Sources
- Why Professional Actors Never Stop Training, Bristol Old Vic Theatre School, 16 July 2026
- Afdas, the French training fund for the cultural sector, schemes for performing-arts freelancers (intermittents du spectacle)
- Insertion professionnelle des jeunes comédiens : « On se dit que la passion suffira », L'Étudiant, 27 November 2023
Frequently asked questions
Why do actors have no codified daily training like dancers do?
Because the instrument cannot be separated from the person, and because the craft was handed down by schools, each with its own vocabulary. Dance and music standardised their daily exercises; theatre standardised its training programmes, not its practice. Once the diploma is in hand, training becomes a private matter.
What is an actor's training made of?
Three families that come up in every description: body (warm-up, stretching, grounding), voice (from breath to diction) and text (learning, keeping alive what is known, analysing what comes next). Every actor recombines them according to the week, the role in hand and the room available.
How long should an actor train each day?
Fifteen minutes a day comes up as the realistic order of magnitude, an hour as the ideal one. Regularity matters more than the length of a session: the work between two projects is what makes a last-minute preparation possible.
Read next
Follow what we publish: @join_acto on Instagram.