how do you evaluate a director's work?

Mike said " I would prefer the audience be seduced by the content, not the process." I think I would rather the audience was seduced by the whole PRESENTATION. This is more than just the CONTENT. It's the whole package. (I too don't care about them knowing the process, that's largely irrelevant to them). The presentation is what makes it a theatre experience. Otherwise I might as well just read the script and make all my judgements from that. If you only rely on the content to impress your audience, there would be little point in them coming to see a new production of a show they already know (Hamlet, for instance). Yes, there is obviously value in seeing what each new actor brings to the part, but eventually it would be like seeing understudies take over in the same production. For me, the pleasure of seeing a live theatre performance is not just to be absorbed by a story and some characters, but by the fact that it's theatre. That all the elements of actor, story, place, effects and style have been presented to me in a live environment at that particular time to affect me in some way and hold my attention. To me, this presentation is inextricably linked to the influence of the director. I'm not convinced your movie metaphor helps your argument. CGI effects are only a component of a movie, as are plot and character. The fact that you are noticing that some movies don't seem balanced in those departments, is to admit that you are thinking in terms of the visible influence of the director. [As a side-argument, I don't believe we can make value judgements based on whether an audience is engaged by special effects, as opposed to being engaged by plot and character. The only thing that matters is that they are engaged! If you're not so engaged by special effects, this may be due to your personal preference for stronger plot & character. But movies are made for all sorts of reasons and sometimes, as you note, a director's choices are visual, not intellectual. Have you ever seen films like 'Baraka'? There's an example of an intellectual movie with NO plot OR character! It relies on cinematography, music, and juxtaposition, and basically draws the directing process to the forefront. It is no less a work of art for that. ] I DO like your metaphor about the shop, and I think it only supports my point. We're not talking about seeing the actual director, but seeing the director's influence. And that influence is crucial to whether all the other elements work together or not. So I don't really believe it's possible to walk out from the theatre and NOT have noticed the quality of the experience. I'm not really intending to attack your argument as such, as I find all your points valid. I'm simply trying to support my argument, which you expressed doubts about. The original premise was that 'good direction is invisible', and my argument remains to disagree with that statement. I think good direction is quite visible, as is poor direction. I'm not convinced there IS such a thing as invisible direction. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------