What are peoples thoughts on a writer directing their own work?...from experience.

If anyone has worked with a writer that's directing the piece they've written, if you are a writer that prefers to direct their own stuff, or if you're a director that has encountered a writer that "wants to be more involved". Discuss. I really want some opinions. Pros and cons of writers directing their own work. RJ

I see there is already a poll on this topic...

More often than not, the writer cannot find someone willing to direct their work and is therefore forced to do it themselves, otherwise it will never see the light of day.

Is that something you've had to do Peter?

Pro's - the intention of the piece has the potential to be articulated to it's best ability, depending on the skills and experience of the writer as the director. Cons - the piece is mutated and changed endlessly as the writer/director progresses to new ideas, developments and starts to see the piece in a different light etc. I recently worked on a show that had the creator also staring in the show. This person was not the director, however the influence that this person had over any creative decisions was overwhelming. Parts of the script were cut, lines were revised, the intention of the show from opening night to finale shifted. It was hard to tell whether it was a good or bad thing, as a crew person of the show, I saw these changes every night. Admittedly, it was frustrating, because I would always have to make changes on my end of the show when I had only just come to a point where I was satisfied with my work up until that point. However it was also great to see that this new piece of theatre was being taken seriously and developed in order to achieve the best possible result. This wouldn't have happened had the director and writer/star-of-show not collaborated and shown they were not afraid to make changes. It was an interesting experience. My 2 cents

Yes.

Having seen, and been involved with a few writer/director shows, I'd have to agree with Labrug. Some have won awards, some have been dogs with fleas. www.meltheco.org.au

How does one tactfully inform a writer that diecting isn't working for them?

Hi Rebecca, I'll be honest, as an actor, I'm always a little cautious about writer/directors. If it's just a developmental read through or showing and the writer wants to steer the ship then that's probably reasonable. Not so keen on the writer directing the work as a season however. Good writers don't automatically make good directors and vice versa. Sometimes even in the face of dramatic and structural problems with a script, writers can often either be too blinded or protective of their work to allow it to be changed. Sometimes a desire to control the writing and direction can also leak into other aspects of the production eg. set design, sound, costumes etc etc. A desire to hold all the reins can only be detrimental to an artistic production and certainly not a sustainable or healthy situation for a single person to manage either. It's not a very motivating situation for a cast either if there is a feeling that one person has all the control and that no-one has any opportunity for creative input. Can anyone think of any great writers who have also directed their work to great success? Be interested to know. Tulipa

(walks in) (stares) ....................... Pinter. (stares for a bit longer, scratches nose) (walks out)

Nobody follows stage directions or set layouts from the script.

Ray Cooney

I've worked with RC! He's fantastic! Now there's a man who already knows what he wants before it starts. Wowsers. He was a directing a piece he'd written called Times Up AND it was a musical AND the MD was the composer. It was a weeks rehersal/workshop and a performance at the Garrick West End. Really nice gig. I got to work with actors who've been working in rep and with Ray for 30 years. Brilliant.

I direct my own writing (not that I place myself in the same category as the three aforementioned writers) and Tulipa I also tend to do my own lighting and sound design. I was a director, producer and LD long before I became a writer and I do not enter a rehearsal process assuming that my work is perfect. I choose my casts based at least partially on what I estimate is the likelihood of each of them bringing something of themselves to the production. Actually I do that even if I didn't write the play. I allow plenty of input from actors and certainly never assume that the way I have written a line is the only way that a line can be said. I agree that any production must be a collaborative process but also my shows are almost always profit share so if I do my own lighting and sound design I have less people to split the profits amongst. That way we all get more. Also I am a professional Lighting Designer who's work I trust. (For professional read paid for the work by real theatre companies.) Rebecca Jo, I do not follow the stage directions in other peoples scripts (although I write copious ones in my own scripts) but I certainly read and study set layouts and stage directions as they help open doors into the mind of the writer. On the other hand you really have to follow Pinter's pause directions it makes the play work really well. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

I'm loving this thread. x

I have directed my own work and have found I have to "let go" If it aint working cut it or take it home and talk to yourself about a rewrite. Ive been very lucky in that my casts have always been articulate and supportive but also have taken my direction where it matters. Lighting and sets...I have amazing people who do that , all I have to do is outline the concept. I wouldnt dare interfere with their expertise I have had several of my plays produced elsewhere and with utterly surprisng results...I love that! The different way that the work can be seen and performed by diverse performers/direction fascinates me and keeps me writing. I guess what I am saying is that if you write and direct the show you have to separate the two functions. As director if it aint working, go home and talk to your writer. As the writer, listen to your director and actors, write it, rewrite it so it works. IF a section is precious or you consider it essential,,,fight your corner with yourself. Remember, you are nothing without an audience, so it has to work for them. You get a much better play. Alan

I have no disagreements with you as far as I can see. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

I work in theatre for schools, as an actor mainly with writer directors, as a writer who's handed on to other directors,and as a writer director. Some of the directors I've worked under were a nightmare to work with. No final draft till opening night, constant direction, constant changes, every terrible line left in, no room for discussion or feedback. Having said that all of those shows had merit, and all of the directors had strengths. One was particularly collaborative and a pleasure to work with. As a writer, I've handed over to others to direct then stuck well away until the show opened. Usually this has been a very fulfilling experience and I've been happy with the outcome. As a director I have only directed my own work. I have a clear idea of what I want, but am also collaborative. Changes to the script are minimal once we start and only in direct response to feedback. I have a theory that if someone has a problem with a line, there is a problem with a line. Even if I don't like there solution I try to fix the issue. The biggest challenge I find as a writer/director is that after working with so many 'protective mother's' I am sensitive about whether or not my work is actually crap, and worry too much about what my actors think. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing because it leads to a real sense of ownership and group cohesiveness...but sometimes I reflect later that I should have stuck to my guns. At the end of the day, I've never worked on a 'perfect' script where every line was brilliant and the director did it exactly right from start to finish, even if they were directing someone elses work. At least when the director has written the work you can question the plot flaws, and maybe produce a better show for it.

I've performed in plenty of production where the stage directions have been followed to the letter - sometimes the writer puts them in there for a good reason!

A writer walks into a theatre... It's a really lovely space, in the art-deco style. He looks around and thinks that this is a place he can visit happily for the next few months. Armed with the latest copy of his play, he sits down in one of the comfortable seats as rehearsals begin of his play. He does this everyday, day after day, just sits there with all the attention in the world, and makes no comment at all - unless the Director asks for it on some rare occasion he sees fit or is just stuck and looking as a fool - as the Director goes about his work with the actors and the work this writer has written. After a while of this routine, he begins to slowly realize that the Director is not only misrepresenting this, tweaking that, but taking the play in another direction all together. Without his say-so. But wait, the Director is doing this, this he is doing, is changing this writer's play, because he doesn't have the gonads - or balls if you will - to fire the actors because they're just plain crap in this instance. These changes, now manifest in the play, are the result of a Director's best efforts to get the best possible out of these particular actors. Well, if that's all it takes to rehearse a play and prepare it for opening night, the writer says to himself and later the Director, taking his place in the errant spotlight beam being controlled by the pimply-faced kid working for Jack, above, "I quit this piece of amateur hour and I'm taking my play with me. You, Mr Director, can go screw yourself, you are nothing without me, I can do what you've done these last few weeks, which felt like years for me in my seat." The Producers, sitting seperately around the theatre get up and find each other's eye. A few moments pass. The Director gets flushed red in the face. Eventually, one Producer calls out to other, "We need a bloody Dramaturge, do we not?" Not knowing the answer to the question the Producers offer a round of blank stares toward one another. The writer, now standing in darkness, says to them, "Did I make mention I'm taking my play with me when I leave this theatre?" The Producers' eyes twinkle with understanding as the writer heads for the outward-opening doors. --- As a writer, with some bias I'm sure, is my personal offering to the discussion above. Take from it what you will, as I'm sure you will... --- As a writer, I'm sure I'm given the luxury of writing from experience, or not, in which case I'm still the writer and am afforded the benefit of the doubt, am I not, not what-not? Cheers, Daniel.

Read the thread about authors intent. We covered a lot of this stuff in that thread. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Got it, "Logos". Thought this was sounding all a little too familiar. Good.

I believe it all depends on the writer, on the director, on the production itself... If you're a writer, maybe you should "cast" the director so you get someone you trust your piece with. Just like a director would cast an actor they trust would interpret a role in-keeping with the director's vision. Also, there are directors who cast themselves in acting roles, so why not have the writer direct it? Another point: Is the dynamic changed if one of a pair of co-writers directs the show? There may be conflicting visions... (You could write a book on that). My experience on the subject is that I've been a writer/director on one production and been in another production where the writer was cast but someone else directed it. Both were relatively successful. (I know this hasn't really answered the question but I just wanted to add my two cents in case this stream gets turned into another 'Apocolypse Perth')

1. Are they a good director? 2. Are they a good writer? 3. Do they have a strong vision of what they intend to achieve? 3a Is this strong vision any good? 3b Are they willing to sacrifice/alter this vision, should better solutions become obvious? I become wary of writers taking part in or directing their own shows if I am not confident in their abilities in those areas. It may be better opened up to other collaborators who can provide fresh ideas and abilities. And of course I mean interpretations, but whenever I use that word people 'interpret' that to be a negative trait, so let's pretend this sentence doesn't exist and let the sentence before it mean a positive experience...! I am wary of writers who participate in their own shows if I am not confident that they can be open-minded and flexible about their writing, and that they are willing and able to allow changes on the fly as the work progresses and new solutions are discovered. And I am wary of writers who are excellent at what they do and know it...because they are probably least flexible to change or allowing fresh input. No matter how good their initial product, they should at least be open to LOOKING for better solutions...because otherwise how will they know whether they exist or not? And then, the director in them needs to be strong enough to make the right choices...whether to adapt, or to stick to the original plan. Having said all that, if a writer's sense of direction is strong, and they have a strong concept worth sticking to, then of course they ought to be able to direct it. I've seen examples where I wish someone else had collaborated because they were too close to the material and couldn't see that there were possibilities for improvement; and I've seen examples where the single writer/director combination has been exactly right and couldn't have worked better. The beauty of a good play is that it ought to be taken up and produced by many other companies and directors anyway, so that is always going to be an outcome. So why the hell not let the writer be one of those many directors, if they're up to it? It's only one version of what will hopefully be many. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Now there is an answer worthy of the subject matter. Thanks for producing it, Craig. All the best, Daniel.

In brief - and without getting too 'deep' - I directed a play (with music) that I wrote in 2006 and found the whole experience very rewarding. In all honesty I would say that had I not been an experienced director and performer I don't know that it would have been as easy as it was, thats not meant to sound up myself (!) - but in a practical sense it HAS to be an advantage. I also was fortunate to have the support of my theatre club, and seeing something that you've written come to life with the proper scenery and costuming that you've envisaged, rather than doing it on a shoestring budget myself was certainly a plus. As a director you often have to compromise with characterisations in amatuer theatre, and the hardest part of being a writer/director was probably in a couple of instances where the character was just not able to develop EXACTLY as I'd seen it when writing it, but at the same time I had to come to terms with the fact that should the play ever be taken up by someone else ("A Characteristic Quest" through TAZ Playwrights - plug plug)then that is likely to be the case anyway, as I would not be there to 'oversee' that particular production. Interpretations will always vary, and as an author you have a 'fondness' for your characters that is largely seen in your head anyway, no amount of stage directions in the script can totally express that in a tangible sense. My feeling is - go for it!

What a great thread this has turned out to be. Carole and Logos, I was interested to read your experiences as writer/directors. The budget considerations Logos pointed out do make sense. Interesting that Carole mentioned how it feels, as a writer, to experience another person interpreting their work differently and understanding that this will be a reality in future stagings of her work. A play script is a piece of literature. A performance is an interpretation of that literature. So it seems that the writer/director is not a rare breed. I would love to hear from some more writers about this. If you are a writer and want to, or have, directed your own work I would be interested to know WHY? Why did you choose to self direct rather than use another person? Tulipa

I have had about 10 plays performed (either original works or adaptations) and have so far directed my own writing once. I'm directing my own script again this October. In the first case it was a matter of being extremely close to the material and having a very specific idea of what I wanted to see on stage. In the upcoming case it's a matter of the project being a directorial project that got a bit out of hand in terms of editing the script - I wanted to present a new version of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, and the editing/dramaturgy got so out of hand it's now an entirely separate script that shares one line with its source material. Generally speaking, I *like* to see other people direct my writing. I've already given my perspective when I wrote the script. I'm subsequently keen to discover what facets and perspectives can be found by the director, designers and the cast. It's a significant part of why I work in theatre.

Are you the same Grant Watson that was at FTI and is now the general manager of RTR FM?

Aha that would be *Graeme* Watson, who is my older brother (although, confusingly, I also used to work at FTI).