how do you evaluate a director's work?

I 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?

That is absolutely right Lisa. If the Director got it right no-one notices. Its a fact of life - if the Director gets it right, then the Actors get the credit. If it goes wrong, its the Director's fault. As a Director I completely accept this, and expect it to be no other way. It is only with experience and a lot of practice and analysis that you can begin to appreciate what the Director does. Of course, as an Actor you are familiar with what he/she does, but it is much more difficult to spot it in a production you are not involved in. Hell, I've been a Director for years AND spent a year adjudicating, and I still find it hard to define the Director's role. People not involved in Theatre ask me what directing involves, and I have a hard job describing it. It just sort of ..... happens. Or not, as the case may be!

What does a director do, well they choose the script, cast the actors, interpret the script, block the play, set the plays rhythm, plot the plays' shape, plot the plays highs, lows and plateaus, influence the set design, influence the lighting design, influence the sound design, influence the poster and programme design, bring out the confidence in the cast and crew, accept the limitations of cast, crew and themselves, accept any criticism and let the actors bask in the glory when it all goes right, apart from that, not a lot really.

As someone attempting to juggle directing three seperate productions at the moment, I feel like it has ruined me. I used to enjoy the story, now when I see a play I'm analysing the direction! My friend often quotes Andrew Hale, who told him that in any production the Director is 'ultimately responsible.' If it all falls to pieces, it's the Directors fault, no one learns their lines? The audience is bored? Bad reviews? Poor acting? Lackluster set? At the end of the day the Director has to pull it all together, or let it all fall apart. Cara Sutcliffe, one of the first Directors I ever worked with, used to say that the job of a Director is to take the actor to the next level. Look at where they want to go in the long term and where the actor is now, then get them that next little step. I've discovered this to be a frustrating and often painfully slow process since I've been on the audience side of the stage. I've worked with other directors who get the actors to good enough, then give up, never pushing us to our full potential...then I've worked with directors like Cara who have brought something from the actors that even they didn't know was lurking inside of them, one painful step at a time. A daunting task. Everything is your fault if it all goes wrong, everyone forgets about you if it all goes right. Well except maybe the other directors, who are busy thinking, 'Now why did they do that?' (Very interesting forum topic by the way)

I have worked with some directors who are brilliant - they know what they want, they're organised, they have a passion for what they're doing and have a concept of what they want to leave the audience to with, before they've even cast the show.... however, I personally know of three shows in the past year (in Perth) that the director has done bugger all directing (in one case, to the point where the cast had secret rehearsals without them) yet the show was considered a success obviously due entirely to the 'on-stage' talents. This is why I believe it very unfair to award any kind of Directors Award - Tonys, Oscars or ITA. And yes, I choose to remain anon...

Dammit we want names of shows!! We want vicious, scurillous gossip!! Actually we probably don't want those things, but I do agree that assessing direction is very difficult unless you see at least part of the directorial process.

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.

Good casting is the silver bullet of direction.

I've deffinitely been in productions where the cast have surpassed the director. I've worked with directors who understand the play, and cast actors who are capable of pulling off the characters with little or no director. As an actor I've always found that to be a little boring. Much more fun when I'm cast because the director can see 'potential' rather than because I already am the character. Any time when I've felt like I've truly sparkled on stage, it's been because a brilliant director has pushed me till I've reached what they wanted. It's not really 'acting' if I'm just being myself on stage--and conversely I've seen really terrible directors actually intefere with a good cast and place stumbling blocks in there way of pulling off a good performance. That's not to say that the actors don't hold an equal share, or responsibility towards quality of show, believe me I am not saying that. I always prefer to work collaboratively, and a good director inspires ownership in their cast. Sorry, didn't mean to put my two cents in, I'm just very excitied about this topic at the moment!

thanks for your comments, everyone, I'm finding lots of food for thought... yum!

You have made, in my view, a seriously important point . . . that actors have equal responsibilities towards the quality of show. And working collaboratively is a productive way of doing things. My only experience is in amateur theatre, which is made of people who have an affinity for things theatrical. Affinity, though, does not equate to competency (though it would help competency develop). So we all get things wrong from time to time. Our acting isn't perfect, nor is the lighting, nor the set construction . . . and nor is the directing. Does that give us licence to castigate the poor sod who has taken on the role of directing (for one reason or another, but often because no-one else will)? Not really. The collaborative approach says that we're all in this together, and if there's stuff that the director is doing that's not working, we work around it, or we help the director to make it work. We don't hang them out to dry (a bit like what they did to Queeg in The Caine Mutiny). And with luck, someone will come to our aid when we get stuck.

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>-/====\---------

...when he or she has been directed and directed well. You feel it...instinctively. Perhaps its up to the actors to be honest and say "This person guided my performance and shaped the play". I remember working with James Hough Neilson a couple of years ago at Garrick and being astonished at how intimately he knew the script, how he had the blocking pretty much worked out in his mind, what he wanted character-wise, how he wanted the set to look, etc, etc, etc. It really impressed me - it was one of the first times I truely believed that the director had a complete vision for the play. I really believed he milked the script for all it was worth and I learned a lot as an actor. Perhaps thats the director's reward - the complete trust and respect of his/her actors.

Interesting to read your paragraph above, Muzz, and relate it to another director I trust and respect, Grahame Gavin, former director of Barking Gecko. Pretty well the first time he directed me, in a play we called 'Dolphin Talk' which ended up being hugely successful and touring the world, I would also agree with your statement 'he guided my performance and shaped the play'...and yet because it was devised from scratch I would disagree with all your other examples: He couldn't know the script because there wasn't one; there was no real concept of blocking worked out and it constantly changed as the play evolved; character-wise he had no pre-conceptions and it largely came from the actors' research and improvisation; he had a vague idea of what he wanted for the set, but he was given one that was recycled from a previous show and only slightly resembled what he had in mind; he freely admitted his vision of the play was only part-formed around two narrative ideas he'd had, but didn't yet know how to marry them together. He'd often set us tasks to workshop and improvise without really knowing how or if they'd fit in, simply to see if it would inspire some new ideas for him. He hadn't even been responsible for casting me, and was not aware of some of the skills I would bring to the work which would strongly influence the eventual style of the play. And to top it off, we started with virtually no material yet knew we had an audience in 3 weeks, play ready or not. I imagine many of you might be relating these traits to all the terrible directors you've known in the past! And yet at no time did I ever feel like we had no Captain; I believed in the process because he believed in it and he inspired trust in us all; it was an exciting and challenging time which taught me an immense amount and influenced much of my subsequent career. The play toured to about eight festivals in three countries, was picked up by several other companies, and was revived several times over the next ten years. I ended up doing almost 200 performances, and directed a foreign production. More than that, I then had an 18 year association with Grahame over about 30 plays (some of which would gain similar success), where he continued to inspire me and earn my trust. THAT'S a good director. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

...that doesn't mean that the other directors I've worked with don't have my respect. I guess I used James as an example because he cast me and then immediately told me we had a lot of work to do to get the character to a point where his vision for same would be seen on stage. Until then I guess I felt comfortable that I could just lob up and do my thing and it would be accepted with little change. It was the first time I asked myself the question "Can I do this and achieve what the director wants?". That's a challenge as an actor and bless his heart he workshopped me until I gave him what he wanted.

I 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.

I am planning to direct again after a 12 year break from it very soon....so heres my five cents worth. In some productions it can be very hard to tell where the director has played their hand in a production, but there are signs. If the show is a shambolic mess and it appears that the director has completely missed the point of, or does not understand the play thats pretty hard to miss. You can also tell if the actors have directed themselves in spite of the director, because often the performances are not even or there clearly is no teamwork, merely a bunch of virtuoso performances that do not gel well. To me a director needs overall to have a sense of artistry, painting a living picture with actors, lighting, sound, bringing forth the authors intent, and having a full understanding and love of both the text and our wonderful language. They need to understand the processes of ALL the roles in a production,the actors the techs the SM the costume and set designers, costume and set makers, and an overall artistic vision of what they wish to acheive with the text they have chosen. They need negotiation skills, they need to ensure that all the actors understand their roles, (To me an actor that cannot see the overall picture of the show beyond their performance either needs to have this outlined by the director, or needs to do something else.) In terms of directing the actors, keeping an eye on blocking, diction, inflection, projection,pace, that characterisation does not overshadow good ensemble work, making sure each scene is played within context, that the themes of the production are correctly portrayed, and if the director wants to play around with the setting (time period or moving away from a traditional approach) that the way in which they have chosen to do the play still brings forth its message and is not promulgating the directors own peccadilloes to the dietriment of the authors intent.(Best to write your own play instead). It is the overall artistry of the director, that makes for that "wow" factor in a production. I personally dislike farce as a genre, however done well I can appreciate the effort the director has made, which makes seeing such a show worthwhile - they are winning me over to their production by the competence of their efforts. Most community theatre directors in Perth in my recent experience cover most but not all of these areas, crafting a play is not something that just happens, in the better productions I have seen over the last few years, the directors that cover all these areas and give them the right amount of attention are the ones that make the difference between an average night out; to a very good and on the odd occasion excellent evening out at the theatre. I also beleive that Directors, along with actors, need to have a certain degree of life experience,and need to undertake appropriate research where necessary. As an example, period piece plays, knowing the social and political and societal mores of the period concerned is necessary, how did people dress?...how did people view themselves and their lot in life?.A good director has done all this as part of the creative process. Direction, done well, is a very complex and intricate process, sometimes even with all that effort the show may not come off, but by doing so, it stands a better chance of success than the "that'll do" approach it appears some directors seem to take. MHO Cheers Robert

I agree with Mike's shop metaphor to a certain extent. Not just in terms of direction, but in all aspects of theatre (& other performing arts) I see, I often find it difficult to just experience the show, without thinking of all that goes into the production, ie) the actual work done by the actors, designers, backstage, and yes, even the directors :-) I guess that this is an occupational hazard for anyone involved in the performing arts, however a truly good production will transport me from the technical aspects onto a purely experiential level. Must say that doesn't happen all that often, but when it does, even for mere moments, it's magic.

The other obvious comparison which no-one has yet made, is to say that the Director is similar to the Conductor of an orchestra. Each member of the cast has to be looked after, know his own role and know where it fits in with all the others.(As well as all the other stuff) Ditto each musician. The Conductor interprets the music and brings it all together. Ditto the Director. ( As well as all the other stuff) The main difference is that the Conductor is highly visible to the audience as he/she ponces around waving the baton. The Director does all his/her poncing before the production opens, and then becomes invisible, silent (More or less), and trusts the cast to get it right.

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>-/====\---------

I think that Craig and I are actually in agreement, and that the differences are more of semantics than anything else. For example, my 'content' is really identical to Craig's 'presentation', i.e. the sum total of the combined efforts of cast and crew in realising a director's vision. My 'process' is the work that goes towards making this happen. Unless the process itself is explicitly part of the theatrical production, as an audience member I don't want to know about it (unless I am there specifically to observe how the production was put together). Returning to the shop analogy, I noted that the manager's influence is present everywhere in the shop, even though you may not ever get to see him or her. In that sense, even though the manager is physically invisible, the manifestations are observable if you look. But, restating, as a shopper, I'm not interested in these manifestations as such; I'm only interested in service. Imagine this. I enter the shop, to be greeted by the manager. "Good morning Mr Mike, welcome to our humble, but efficient, establishment. I'm sure your shopping experience will be most pleasant. You see, I welcome you personally. And look how nicely laid out these aisles are so that you browse in comfort. I've personally printed up these big price signs so that you can clearly see them. No fine print for you to squint, ha ha. Jenelle here will attend to you. She has many diplomas and is specially trained in customer service. She even knows how to use the EFTPOS system. You see how modern we are?" Me: "I only came in for change for the parking meter." Perhaps that's over the top, but I expect that there are many productions where director ego intrudes into the production. In my younger years, when I used to be a more frequent movie-goer, two films in particular stuck in my brain: "Clockwork Ornage" and "2001 A Space Odyssey". Some years later I enjoyed the cinematographic splendour of "Barry Lyndon". I didn't realise until many years later that they were Kubrick films. The Kubrick touch totally permeated these films, and resonated strongly with me. At the time I didn't know who he was, nor did I care. That's what I'm alluding to when I talk about 'director invisibility'.

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>-/====\---------

So I conclude that my 'content' is your 'presentation', and that my 'visibility' is your 'intrusion'. As a consequence, there is now no disagreement at all. I will further add that intrusion does not need to equate to boldness and risk-taking, and nor does invisibility or non-intrusion need to equate to conservatism and risk aversion.

Thankyou to everyone involved in this thread, its been wonderful to actually have a thread with some intelligent and thoughtful opinions. Cheers. Robert

You know, I have been thinking about what I have read. I have directed plays and musicals and opera in australia and in Europe, sometimes professionally, sometime for the love of community. And in each case, everything is different. I approach work as a vision. Firstly, I need to really love the written text. It needs to fill my mind with fantasy as to how I can create this on a stage. How I can use as many tricks as I know to deliver a work that is passionate to its audience. Because thats what its all about. I as a director, turn written text into sound, colour and movement. So how do you evaluate my work? Its not easy. In some cases, I make decisions that I know will jarr with the audience. I know some of the decisions I will make, will destroy the suspension of disbelief that I ask an audience to willingly agree to. An example is meta- theatre, where a director chooses to show the workings of a theatre, ie, he will lower the lighting bars so an audience will have to see the lights. This destroys the suspension of disbelief and can, if done the right way, create a new sense, perhaps of discomfort, perhaps of voyeurism, perhaps for some other reason altogether. Is this bad directing? Not if it makes you react. And, in my opinion, whatever reaction an audience or a single member chooses to have, is for me a delight. I know then that I have succeeded. If an audience leaves and thinks 'ho hum, this didnt make me laugh or cry, I wasnt angered or made happy, or I have nothing to think about', then, as a director, I have failed. If my cast fails, then I have failed. They are the instruments of my vision. If they let you down, its because I let you down. Directing accepts responsibility for everything and nothing. You see what we want you to see, but its everyone else who brings it to life every night. So ultimately, a good director is maybe just someone who will trust his cast and crew, and will earn the trust back, so that the people who give you a show, do so knowing that they are making something special. Together.

So you have directed in Europe and Australia professionaly and for Community Theatre...sounds a bit fishy!

Nothing fishy about it... Lived in Europe for a decade. Thats all:-) Adam

yes but to direct prof and com seems very strange

Why does that seem strange? I have also directed professionally and for community theatre both in Europe and here. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

so why community then if you are professional?

I would guess that it could be for the opportunity to take some risks that professional theatre is unwilling to take, do a play you've always wanted to direct, help others (maybe back at your "home" theatre), &/or to stretch in a new direction (no pun intended)... & I'm sure there's plenty more where those come from...

It's your statement that is strange...that you didn't think about it before posting. There's not a lot of professional work to go around for actors. Plenty of actors start with community theatre, may be lucky enough to get one or two paid gigs, and then zig zag back and forth between the two, in order to keep getting experience and continue treading the boards. If that's the case for actors, it must be much more so for directors. Every professional play might need several actors, but there'll only be the opening for ONE director. What are the other directors going to do to keep learning and growing? Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Adam said "some of the decisions I will make will destroy the suspension of disbelief that I ask an audience to willingly agree to." It's actually pretty difficult to DESTROY suspension of disbelief! Sure, we say that we're "asking" the audience to suspend it...but really, it's something they'll readily agree to and do regardless of whether you ask them or not, and whether you help them or hinder them. As an audience, we all KNOW that what we are seeing is not real. We walk deliberately into a theatre building. We pay for a ticket. We read the programme. We see people that we know are actors, who we've seen in other roles in previous shows. We often know exactly what the actor is going to say next, if we're familiar with the script. The whole time the drama is unfolding, we're aware that we are sitting in a chair with a whole lot of other observers. There is a hell of a lot of evidence constantly before us to prove that what we are seeing is not real life; we KNOW that everyone is pretending. No matter what setting or characters or action you put before us, we're hardly likely to believe that it's actually for real. We are therefore in a natural, logical state of DISBELIEF. So to allow ourselves to enjoy the story, to be transported into the world of the fantasy for an hour or so, we all AGREE to pretend. The actors pretend they are who they say they are, and the audience pretends to go along with it. It's not possible to actually believe, but for the sake of the show we all SUSPEND our disbelief. It's a game we all play, in order to enjoy this form of entertainment. This is why we can accept one actor playing multiple roles, or scenes when one moment it's day and the next moment it's night...we're very prepared to play by the rules as they are established before us. The good thing about this game is that if ever something goes wrong to distract us - if a prop breaks, or a line is missed, or a mobile phone goes off, etc etc - it's NOT THE END OF THE WORLD! It's incredibly easy to notice the distraction one moment and then go straight back to pretending the next moment. After all, we never really believed the fantasy in the first place! The sooner the distraction is dealt with, the sooner we can get back to suspending, but we can do this almost immediately! It's like when, as kids, we're playing out a fantasy in the garden, when Mum calls out to us...we can stop and answer her, and then without missing a beat get right back into the game where we left off. Suspension of disbelief is something we're all extremely good at. And the reason it's so easy is - we WANT to do it. The whole concept of theatre really only works if we all suspend our disbelief, and as we've deliberately paid money to enjoy a theatre experience, we're willing to do whatever we can to make it all worthwhile. We'll give you the benefit of our doubt..! It doesn't even have to be one continuous experience. It's something we are constantly doing, moment to moment, so if any of those moments doesn't quite work it doesn't spoil the overall experience...we simply pick up where we can and enjoy all the moments that DO work. And the other reason Suspension of Disbelief is hard to destroy is: we're NOT VERY GOOD AT IT!! Even when we've agreed to ignore our disbelief, and we try to get lost in the fantasy, it's pretty rare that this will actually happen! We're impressed by those theatre moments when we DO feel ourselves transported by the drama unfolding before us, but the reality is these moments are NOT the norm. Our awareness of the reality around us is too great, so in actual fact we are usually only PRETENDING to suspend our disbelief. Luckily, if we are engaged by this process of pretending, it works just as well. But it means that we are much more tolerant than you might think. We don't expect to truly get lost in the drama, so when things happen to remind us that we're actually an audience watching a play, it's no big shock and we cope with it extremely well. So this means we constantly have a critical faculty that isn't concerned about being absorbed in the fantasy, but can notice things like technique or stylistic choices...and it doesn't diminish the overall experience. So if the example is Brechtian technique, or Meta-Theatre, or anything else which calls attention to the theatricality itself, we can observe it AT THE SAME TIME as continung our process of pretending to suspend our disbelief. That process is never actually destroyed. We simply reallocate a portion of what our hugely multi-tasking brains are concentrating on at that particular moment. As a director or an actor, understanding this phenomenon properly gives you so much more freedom in your relationship with the audience. You can afford to push more boundaries, and not be afraid of taking risks. Once you realise that the audience is automatically pre-disposed to giving you the benefit of the doubt (literally), your job becomes far less about CONVINCING them...and far more about ENGAGING them. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

. . . "and far more about ENGAGING them" And this, I think, is what characterises great direction . . . the capacity to bring the whole audience along for the ride (where that ride can be any of the examples that Criag mentions). There may not be an easy way of measuring audience engagement, but that would be my starting point for evaluating director success.

i am yet to see a community production that is as polished as a prof production. It has nohing to do with budget but all to do with naive direction...I just cant imagine all these comm directors work professionaly accept maybe in their own minds!

I also have concerns with your (Plop) limited view that professional = polished. I've seen productions by professional companies with named professional actors that were nothing short of woeful. So - which community director has knocked you back lately? Herein lies the rub methinks. Lee Sheppard - Keeping it strictly amateur -

I wasn't going to Feed the trolls but; Walter Plop, have you ever tried to get a new and untried piece of theatre produced by a professional company. They have a necessity to at least try and make money. Sure it occasionally happens but not often. I will sometimes come across a play (not always my own) that the professionals won't even read. I have therefore worked with community theatre to get the thing on. Of course in Europe the lines are a little less defined than here. Pro's work in the amateur world without catching anything fatal and often use the amateur world to help move up in the pro world. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

what a load of rubbish...honestly...less defined...wow

You're not following your own logic. It's been established that 'good enough to direct professionally' can equate to 'finds opportunities for creative outlet in community theatre'. You're still trying to base your objections on 'does unpolished community theatre therefore can't work professionally'. The argument you're trying to impose has nothing to do with the initial premise established. If you're going to insist on being a troll, you really ought to be less easy to shoot down in flames. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Basically we understand you Walter. We know that you are simply trying to get a rise out of one of us or start a fight. It ain't gonna happen. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Just go on posting Mr Plop, so we all know you aren't thinking.....and showing your ignorance....and your limited understanding of things.

Applauds Paul. And writes another meaningless sentence and spaces it out so my picture fits in my posting box. Cheers Robert

I know what you mean, I've worked with directors who have the blocking already set before the rehearsal process, this is obviously necesary in certain productions, however, I have also worked with directors who work WITH the actors, finding the character and that's where blocking, motivation and relationships gro from. I definately prefer the latter. "On that line -sit" Why? I find it extremely paint by numbers and TV. Theatre is a chance to really direct, really analyse, really 'act' and really understand why you're doing something, who you are and what the character feels... I strongly believe rehearsal should be a process and a collaboration with the actors. The director has the final say but all input is important and useful in finding as much out as we can about the piece. (Big Stan fan) I think too many preconceived ideas block creativity. However, a director should obviously have done his research before the rehearsal process and be able to answer any questions the actor has about the technicalities like the era and any oher foundations or premises the piece is based around. RJ

I think the idea of the director as a collaborator is powerful, and is one way of engaging the cast and crew . . . securing their ownership of the success of, and work involved in, the project. And yes . . . preconceived ideas can limit creativity . . . if the preconception is accompanied by an inability to recognise opportunities for play improvement and development. But . . . There is a place for the visionary director . . . one who has a unique and unsual approach, and seeks to realise that vision . . . and brings with him or her a preconceived idea. The task for this director is to be able to sell that idea to the cast . . . to get them to buy into the idea in such a way that it can be actualised, and not derailed through 'rule by committee'.