how do you evaluate a director's work?

Lisa's original riddle was: "Just wondering - how do you evaluate a director's work? What are your thoughts on this, folks?" Being new here I can add my thoughts rashly and shelter behind the cloak of ignorance . . . so here goes . . . A director is a conduit between script and audience. Ultimately, a director's success is determined by the audience and their reaction to the production. Interestingly, I suggest that the most successful productions are those where, from the audience's perspective, the director is invisible. If members of the audience perceive the work of the director, then they are focussing on process, rather than content, and they have not been fully engaged with the performance. In the role of conduit, the director calls upon a number of elements: casting, cast, crew . . . all those things that Julia mentioned. These, like the audience, have to be fully engaged with the production. A director can't rely on creative genius or the authority inherent in the director's role to create a success (though this may be the fortuitous result). I think a successful director understands how people function and works with that knowledge. A successful director also has to know how to convert an idea into an actuality, and how to sell that idea to all the people involved. I note the comments made above where a cast achieved success despite, rather than because of, the director. Well, this happens sometimes. In a sense, this is little different to a workplace, where there are good and bad bosses. A cast's commitment to the project (like an employee's commitment to work) can sometimes overcome, or at least compensate for, the deficiencies in leadership.