Should Playwrights Direct Their Own Work?
Wed, 11 Nov 2009, 01:57 pmstinger29 posts in thread
Should Playwrights Direct Their Own Work?
Wed, 11 Nov 2009, 01:57 pmI have recently been involved in two plays where the playwright was also the director. In one case, the person concerned felt that he would sooner have someone else direct his plays, but he didn't like to impose on anyone. In the other case, the person concerned felt that he was the best person for the job since he had such a clear vision of how the play should be performed. Also, he could be on hand to do the inevitable rewrites as the rehearsals got under way. That person subsequently expressed amazement at how differently the lines were performed to how they had imagined them in the writing, even despite their own direction.
In my view, once the writing is finished, a playwright should be prepared to sever all ties with his or her brainchild (except for the royalties) and let it fly on its own merits. Also, a director should be prepared to go with the written word and not expect to be able to rewrite the script according to his or her whims or those of the actors.
I'm assuming I'm the second
Thu, 12 Nov 2009, 12:10 pmI'm assuming I'm the second of the two directors?
I think there are arguments for and against writers directing their own work. In the case of my scripts Degree Absolute and Serpentine, I expressly wanted another director to come in and direct the plays because I wanted someone else's creative input into the process. When you write and direct yourself, there's always the risk of limiting how far you can creatively explore the text.
In the case of Cry Havoc, I wanted to direct it because the project's origins were as something for me to direct - Julius Caesar. Even after I completely rewrote it into an original playscript, it still felt like a directorial project to me and I wanted to see it through to the end. Plus it was pretty heavy with political jargon and issues, and I figured it would be more efficient to direct it myself than explain a lot of the content to the director.
I'm not a very strict writer when it comes to how precisely actors deliver their lines. What's important to me is the idea or emotion that gets expressed, so if it's easier and more effective for actor to say it in a slightly rephrased manner, I'm generally happy to go with that. The only difference is when (a) it's a joke and rephrasing would ruin the joke, (b) there's a very deliberate rhythm or cadence to the line that's lost by rephrasing, or (c) rephrasing the line changes what it's actually saying.
Obviously if the play is one that's been performed before, or if the writer isn't around to personally give his or her consent for changes, then as an actor and director I think we need to go with precisely what's there on the page.
And I was surprised, delightfully, by how you guys delivered particular lines over the course of the season. Finding new angles, new emphases, different emotional inflections. It's part of the joy I think as a playwright to hand your script to an actor and see them find angles and facets to their character than you never intended, but that work wonderfully. I think that process of surprise and discovery is what appeals to me the most about directing - giving the actors tools and suggestions, and helping them to craft their performance towards the best character they can play.
- ···
- ···