how do you evaluate a director's work?
Thu, 26 Mar 2009, 05:59 pmLisa Skryp49 posts in thread
how do you evaluate a director's work?
Thu, 26 Mar 2009, 05:59 pmI have been reflecting on my reactions to theatre that I see.
As an actor who has yet to tackle directing, I realise I generally look at things from that point of view. My observations re: lighting/set design/sound are generally minimal - unless it is particularly amazing or dreadful. Sad I know, but true.
As to the direction of a show, it is a similar thing for me; unless someone makes some very different thematic/interpretive/stylistic departure from the expected, I don't tend to notice & the lucky actors get all the credit for a great show.
To me it would seem that if a director has done a good job, no one will really notice, as the show will flow smoothly, tell the tale effectively & captivate as it should.
Just wondering - how do you evaluate a director's work? What are your thoughts on this, folks?
yes but
Mon, 6 Apr 2009, 05:15 pmI agree with just about everything that Craig observed a couple of posts earlier. But I am not so sure about this: "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."
I think it's a bit heroic to suggest that invisible directors are getting by without making glaring errors, or their direction is bland and unexciting.
Invisibility can be a synonym for safeness and unadventurousness, and the consequence can be bland, error-free porridge. But it's not always a synonym for these things.
When I'm talking about director invisibility, I need to note that this is only from the perspective of the audience, and I also note again that I would prefer the audience be seduced by the content, not the process.
I have seen quite a few movies with computer-generated special effects. These effects are often breathtaking in their brilliance. But on too many occasions I have seen movies that seem to exist only as a vehicle for these effects. Plot? Character? These seem to be largely trivial. While it might be a film director's intent to shock and awe the audience with effects (and indeed, some audiences would prefer this to having to think), I kind of think that movies should engage the audience on more than just the viceral level.
And so it is with stage productions.
If I go into a shop to buy something, I don't see the retail equivalent of a director, i.e. the manager or whoever. What I do see are the influences of the manager; the demeanor of the staff, the level of service they provide, the layout of the shop and its merchandise, the window displays and so on.
I may not be consciously aware of these things, but the influence is there. As a shopper, I don't really care about the manager. I do care that I can find what I want and get excellent service. If the manager is not good at the task of managing, I could well be greeted by unfriendly, unhelpful staff and a dirty shop.