how do you evaluate a director's work?

There's a theatre platitude that goes along the lines of 'if you don't notice the lighting, it means the lighting designer did a good job'. There's a spot of truth in it (pun intended) in that if you're distracted by the lighting then it's a bad thing. But I don't actually agree with the statement, because good lighting can often be noteworthy and yet not distract from the play. Rather than simply illuminate the stage discreetly, lighting design can often be a feature that fully contributes and is worth noticing. I think the same is true for direction. Those who have suggested that 'good direction is where you don't really notice it' are really only seeing half the picture...or rather, your directors are simply getting by without making glaring errors. Unfortunately this probably means the direction is bland and not particularly exciting. Yes, I agree that casting well can be the biggest task of a director, and if they then sit back and let the cast figure it out it will probably turn out alright. But I've also seen shows where the acting really didn't impress me, but the show was saved by good direction. In both the cases above, we obviously want to avoid BAD. Bad lighting or directing can stand out and distract us, and rather spoil the show. But please don't assume that just because you're not BAD, that it means you must be GOOD. A good director gets everyone working on the same page. There has to be a vision of style and presentation, and even if it's fairly obvious and straightforward, the cast and design need to be following the same blueprint. With many creative individuals all bringing their own opinions and odd choices, this task is pretty big just by itself and this might be where the responsibility for the play falls on the head of the director. The ship needs a captain. The director is responsible for steering the audience's focus. Blocking, staging, and the dynamic of the action should all be designed to keep the audience focussed on what they should be. Sometimes this is like a magician doing coin tricks...you watch the left hand and don't notice the right. Sometimes this is much more inventive and utilises many theatrical techniques - the manner of actors addressing each other or the audience, whether it is played naturalistically or stylistically, how the lighting can influence what and how the audience sees, the use of physical or abstract imagery and metaphor...all this determines whether the audience remains engaged, and even surprised...even if it's a script they already know. Some of this is to do with pacing. The director is responsible for the overall rhythm of the piece, knowing how much to throw at the audience, and knowing when the moments of stillness have been earned. Only the words are dictated by the script. The pacing and level of their delivery and what goes on in between, while being the actor's domain, is monitored and steered by the director. Scene transitions in particular can evoke a style and express a director's vision, rather than being simply functional. And the director is largely responsible for interpretation. The script is a blueprint, the actors will interpret their characters, but the overall interpretation of the piece is the director's contract with the audience. Guiding the actors through dialogue, character, and physical choices will give this particular production it's own life. The use of sound, as well as influencing pacing, will add an emotional content to the interpretation. Sometimes the verbal, physical, and emotional content is best served by being synchronous, other times a strong statement is made by the juxtaposition of clashing elements. Overall the director is responsible for what is conveyed to the audience between the lines. Not all shows need strong directorship; or rather, it's a task that can often be made from within by aware performers. Sometimes the director is a cast member, which doesn't necessarily make it better or worse, but comes with its own limitations. The general practice and belief is that directors are pretty necessary, to view the play from the audience's perspective, with their desired reaction in mind. I don't know that I can necessarily pin down exactly what makes 'good' direction, as it is such a variable from show to show, and is such an interpretive medium. But I do believe I can distinguish the above factors from what I'd consider actor's choices. That's the part that I credit to directing. Starting with the text and giving it (via the performers and the technical components) guidance; pointing it along its way; steering the ship; giving it DIRECTION toward the audience. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------