how do you evaluate a director's work?

G'day Mike. Yes, it sounds like we are probably on the same page, but have slightly different glossaries. In your Kubrick example, I'd suggest calling that a case of 'director anonymity' rather than 'invisibility'. You didn't know or care who it was, you didn't realise the films were by the same director...but you definitely recognised there WAS a director, for it to resonate so strongly with you. The 'totally permeating' touch you mention was obviously visible. A director's style often becomes a feature to observe by itself, as the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts. This doesn't have to detract from the rest of the film or play. If it's 'good' directing, it will co-exist and support the other elements. Good directing can be subtle, like I think most of you are promoting, but it can also be overt, which I am trying to establish a case for. 'Overt' doesn't necessarily mean 'distracting' or 'bad'. Again taking a filmmaker as an example, Quentin Tarantino has an overt directing style, which is like a trademark in his films. It is fully congruous with the content of his stories. (It helps that he is also often the writer). Whether you like his work or not is a secondary argument. His overtly visible directing style is deliberately part of the presentation that an audience sees and appreciates. Can I suggest we replace your terminology of a director being 'visible' and speak instead of a director 'intruding'. You used that word yourself to summarize your shop analogy, and I think it far better describes the concepts you are putting forward. When a director's touch 'intrudes', we probably find staging, blocking, character, or stylistic choices that stand out for no good reason, drawing attention to themselves but not supporting the other elements of the play. They distract us as an audience and make us think, 'What the hell was this director THINKING?'. I think that is really what you have been saying all along, when you talk about a director's ego grabbing your attention. It's only bad if it INTRUDES. While I've just said there is a case to be made for overt decisions, and I believe that all your directing choices are going to be visible, I've never been saying I think you need to be RADICAL. I expect that the fear of being too radical is scaring some of you and has promoted an idea that bold choices are likely to stand out as bad choices. (Hence the initial premise that it's better for the director's choices not to stand out.) I admit I DO have a personal preference for bold choices. I'd prefer to see calculated risks being taken, even if they don't necessarily fully work. To me an interesting idea that only partly succeeds is still an interesting idea, and I prefer all my theatre to be interesting (even if flawed) rather than predictable (trying to be 'perfect'). But I recognise that for many of the audiences you are trying to reach, there is a valid argument for making 'safe' choices. Safe, subtle, sensible choices are still perfectly visible. In summary: I don't think you can claim to be 'invisible' and think that that's a good thing. Your choices, subtle or not, are there for us all to see. 'Invisible' decisions are when NO decision has been made at all....and I'm afraid that is simply poor directing. Cheers, Craig P.S. Unfortunately, I think I've been IN that shop you described in your analogy...! ~<8>-/====\---------