Should Playwrights Direct Their Own Work?

Wed, 11 Nov 2009, 01:57 pm

stinger29 posts in thread

I 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.

Thread (29 posts)

Threaded Flat

stingerWed, 11 Nov 2009, 01:57 pm

mackidee19Wed, 11 Nov 2009, 02:10 pm

I totally agree! I am

I totally agree! I am acting for a short film that is going to be entered into Tropfest at the moment. The Director choose to write his own script but wants us to act it EXACTLY how he imagined the character saying it. He wants emphasis on certain words which i can understand, but he wants it emphasised by me 'going up about half an octave' for each of the words he wants emphasised. I have done this is it just sounds sooo cheesy! Maybe this is what he wants but it just feels sooooo non-naturalistic! It's a great script, I just feel its not being used to it's full potential.

LogosWed, 11 Nov 2009, 02:15 pm

Oooh Stinger

What an amazing can of worms. I usually direct my own work. Lots of reasons for this, the first is that it is very difficult to find other people to do my work. Its very difficult to find people to do new work at all in this state let alone mine. I also feel that as I was a Director long before I became a writer I can be objective about it. As for leaving the written work as you find it. Well, as a Director of new work, not just my own but others as well, a play that is going into it's first detailed rehearsal period will still need rewrites. I bet Pinter rewrote during the rehearsal period (and incidently he directed many of his own plays in their first productions). No matter how many readings and workshops you've done (and frankly you can get to the point where another reading or workshop is simply intellectual masturbation) the work will still have flaws which only become obvious when you start a real rehearsal period with detailed exploration of the themes and characters. Stuff that somehow all the workshops in the world don't seem to turn up. Some of these flaws of course will still be there on opening night and you will only see them in front of an audience. That's just bad luck, fix em later. Once that first production is finished and the Director and playwright are satisfied that the show is as good as it's gonna get then I agree with you. Directors should treat it with respect, it's the playwrights idea and plot. if you want to say it in a different way or address a different message write your own play. We, if I remember correctly, had quite a spirited discussion along these lines early this year. I don't mean you and I Stinger I mean the site in general. As a writer I'm not particularly precious about my words but I am about my message and intent. I write plays for a reason generally and that's why I want them put on so please don't change them. It's a contravention of copyright to make unauthorised changes or cuts to scripts anyway. EDIT: I missed one of your points. Hell yes, actors often find hidden depths in my work that I wasn't aware of either as director or writer. I use my actors as a creative part of the team that puts on my play. Although in the end if there is an unresolvable difference it's done my way if I am directing. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

LabrugWed, 11 Nov 2009, 02:26 pm

Why not?

I personally do not see why not. Alan Ayckbourne is a classic example of a Playwright and Director, and he makes it work.

I don't think a playwright should be excluded from direction as long as they have the skills and the understanding of what it takes to direct. Having said that, I personally believe that a playwright who wants to direct should cut their teeth (so to speak) on someone else's work before they tackle their own.

Speaking for myself, not as a playwright but as an actor who now directs, I am constantly surprised (and energised) by the exciting and unexpected twists a play may take. I had a rather specific vision for the show I am currently directing however due in large by the people I had turn up to auditions and eventually take on certain roles, my vision has altered and shifted dramatically several times, and it continues to grow and evolve. However, I have maintained the very central essence of the play.

If I can see the shift in concept from vision to production, then that would only be amplified from a playwright's point of view. Just as I cannot be too precious about how I saw the show upon reading the script, a playwright will need to be equally able to let go of their pre-conceptions if they plan to direct their own work. One of the comments above highlights this very point: "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."

This is the nature of the beast really. You cannot expect to have a specific vision maintained when you start to throw other people with their own points of view and experiences into the mix. You can maintain the core of the vision, the very essence, but the colours and details may fall a little differently.

I had seen one of my characters as being rather stern, conservative and even bookish. However, a young lass turned up to auditions who presented me with a character that would have made for a far more interesting and watchable performance so I let the bookish girl go. She is still stern, just with a whole new attitude. She nows adds a different hue to a scene which previously may have gone under the audience radar a little.

Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)

Jeff Watkins
SN Profile
Photographer

Daniel MWed, 11 Nov 2009, 02:42 pm

The weary but satisfying work of a writer.

I wrote the following some time ago, regarding this same matter. Hope it assists the discussion in some way. -- A writer walks into a theatre... It's a really lovely space, in the art-deco style. He looks around and thinks that this is a place he can visit happily for the next few months. Armed with the latest copy of his play, he sits down in one of the comfortable seats as rehearsals begin of his play. He does this everyday, day after day, just sits there with all the attention in the world, and makes no comment at all -unless the Director asks for it on some rare occasion he sees fit or is just stuck and looking as a fool - as the Director goes about his work with the actors and the work this writer has written. After a while of this routine, he begins to slowly realize that the Director is not only misrepresenting this, tweaking that, but taking the play in another direction all together. Without his say-so. But wait, the Director is doing this, this he is doing, is changing this writer's play, because he doesn't have the gonads - or balls if you will - to fire the actors because they're just plain crap in this instance. These changes, now manifest in the play, are the result of a Director's best efforts to get the best possible out of these particular actors. Well, if that's all it takes to rehearse a play and prepare it for opening night, the writer says to himself and later the Director, taking his place in the errant spotlight beam being controlled by the pimply-faced kid working for Jack, above, "I quit this piece of amateur hour and I'm taking my play with me. You, Mr Director, can go screw yourself, you are nothing without me, I can do what you've done these last few weeks, which felt like years for me in my seat." The Producers, sitting seperately around the theatre get up and find each other's eye. A few moments pass. The Director gets flushed red in the face. Eventually, one Producer calls out to other, "We need a bloody Dramaturge, do we not?" Not knowing the answer to the question the Producers offer a round of blank stares toward one another. The writer, now standing in darkness, says to them, "Did I make mention I'm taking my play with me when I leave this theatre?" The Producers' eyes twinkle with understanding as the writer heads for the outward-opening doors. -- Cheers, Daniel M. (A writer with adequate bias.)

MusicalMumWed, 11 Nov 2009, 03:38 pm

Personally I don't feel

Personally I don't feel this is a 'one rule fits all' situation. Far from it. A bit part of it is down to the level of skill, experience and maturity of the actors, the director and the playwright. I also feel the age and 'maturity' of the piece itself is a factor. Really good work comes from hitting upon the right formula for that particular piece. Some pieces that are a true collaboration of the actors, director and writer are absolutely transformational for not just the audience but for the participants also. And then of course those of us who have been around long enough have also experienced the disastrous case of 'too many cooks spoiling the broth.' Add to to all of that the need for most work to be commercially viable and successful and the issue of what is most practical, economical and logistically possible looms heavily over any other creative or artistic values and beliefs. The key ingredient is for all involved to have the wisdom to know what will best do justice to the work. And sadly no player in the process is immune to the danger of getting 'too close' and thus not being able to see what the best path to take might be. Writers are perhaps the most susceptible to this, as it is their 'baby' at the very beginning in most cases. So I - in a very long winded manner! - would say - It depends!

Noel ChristianWed, 11 Nov 2009, 06:50 pm

The best of all possible bad worlds

I have regularly directed my own scripts, and have also had others direct for me. It is always possible to get the wrong director for the script in question, and sometimes that can be the playwright. The only rule of thumb I can offer is that no one directing their own script should go into the rehearsal room thinking as a writer, only as a director. This works for me. I can easily imagine it failing for others.

These days, I write, direct and perform my own work. I also produce it, market it, manage it and pay for it. It keeps me honest, but may not be a good road for everybody.

I believe that Pinter - a regular director of his own work - admitted to having made only one change in all his career, and that was to do with a price increase.

The killer in any production is not the conflict between the playwright and the director, but preciosity - and any one of us can be guilty of that. (In my case, far too often.)

Noel

grantwatsonThu, 12 Nov 2009, 12:10 pm

I'm assuming I'm the second

I'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.

grantwatsonThu, 12 Nov 2009, 12:13 pm

I honestly believe that

I honestly believe that saying that "90% of directing is done in casting". Get the right actors in the right parts and most of your work is done. (Which isn't to say you still don't have lots and lots of work to do as a director, just that if you get it right at the casting stage things are subsequently so much easier!)

grantwatsonThu, 12 Nov 2009, 12:14 pm

I personally think that's

I personally think that's bad direction. A director should trust her or his actors to deliver the line in the best way possible.

LogosThu, 12 Nov 2009, 12:42 pm

Me too!

And that is speaking as both Director and writer. There will be times when you need to work with an actor who perhaps doesn't initially understand what you mean or what sub text you are looking for but that shouldn't mean dictating exact how they say the line. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

LogosThu, 12 Nov 2009, 12:47 pm

Me too!

This is interesting, I'm agreeing with the same person twice on one thread, I must be mellowing. There is nothing worse than struggling through a rehearsal period with the wrong actor in a role. This is one reason why I pre cast, I will often read a play and immediately think "hey, Freddy would be great in that part." I also hold auditions because I sometimes have no idea who is going to be best opposite Freddy. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Daniel MThu, 12 Nov 2009, 12:53 pm

3rd place isn't necessarily out of the placings.

You are the third, Grant. Wrong assumption. If you missed my work, it was taken from experience, but the hat was not obvious in it - granted that's true. Anyway, you're the third. Cheers, Daniel M.

grantwatsonThu, 12 Nov 2009, 01:06 pm

I have honestly no idea

I have honestly no idea what you are talking about.

Daniel MThu, 12 Nov 2009, 01:08 pm

...Strange?

Did you not state you were the second of two directors? Therefore offering a view with your director's hat on this string? Maybe I'm wrong...

grantwatsonThu, 12 Nov 2009, 01:15 pm

Ah. I meant I was the

Ah. I meant I was the second of the two directors Stinger referenced in the actual post. I just finished directing him in Cry Havoc at the Blue Room Theatre.

Daniel MThu, 12 Nov 2009, 01:27 pm

My bad.

My apologies, Grant.

Daniel MThu, 12 Nov 2009, 01:29 pm

The rocking West.

Perth and the West in general, is rocking with theatre. Pity, me, Easterner - is so misunderstood on this West-originating site. Never mind. Look at all those words down there, Kooka Hesse! Cheers, Daniel M.

crgwllmsThu, 12 Nov 2009, 08:08 pm

Jack of All Trades

An individual can be the playwright and direct their own work - if they're any good at at it. There's a good chance they won't be. Even if they are a good writer, and/or a good director, once the two hats are worn by the one head, the brain strain is often too much and something suffers. But there are people who can do it, and the work doesn't suffer. Sure, their script would be approached differently by a different director, and that would be a good process, but what's wrong with seeing how they'd direct their own work? And having said the risk is greater, it's all a learning process... so if you want to write and direct your own work you have to start somewhere. So why not? Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

pma82Thu, 12 Nov 2009, 10:02 pm

Ditto to that!

I agree Grant. I've recently found out a Perth Theatre Co. have picked my first script up and have asked me to direct for a season next year - a huge punt on their behalf but I know their faith will be repaid.

The script I've written is merely a foundation, nothing more, nothing less. I can't wait to have the actors look over the script and share their thoughts and craft the characters as the way they visualise it. That's when the real creation starts.

Call me greedy, but I get the best of both worlds - the very personal, solitary process of writing this piece and then being able to share it with actors and be part of the process of staging it!

Half the things that people do not succeed in are through fear of making the attempt. James Northcote

Daniel MFri, 13 Nov 2009, 11:17 am

Amen!

Amen to that. You might even find you're one of the few success stories. RoCG, Daniel M.

stingerFri, 13 Nov 2009, 02:32 pm

So why not?

Seeing as Grant has outed himself as one of the two persons I was talking about, I should say that there are exceptions to my generally stated view and 'Cry Havoc' was one of them. Having said that however, I would also love to have a go at directing that particular play myself someday - especially seeing as how I just can't seem to write anything worth performing apart from comedy sketches, monologues and bush poetry - and if I could, I'd probably HAVE to direct it myself :( Ssstinger>>>

LogosFri, 13 Nov 2009, 02:42 pm

and of course

in the final analysis the only people who are really able to judge are the punters whose response to the show is all that really matters. And by punters I mean all those from the general public right through all of us. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

grantwatsonFri, 13 Nov 2009, 04:17 pm

You are absolutely and

You are absolutely and always welcome to direct any of my scripts, just so ya know! :)

mike raineFri, 13 Nov 2009, 09:08 pm

should?

I have read the assorted responses. In my view, the original question, "Should playwrights direct their own work?" is not a question that needed to be asked; it is not a matter of 'should' or 'should not'. A playwright's decision to direct or not direct is theirs to make, and not anyone else's. We may debate the topic for a bit of fun and excitement, but the debate can only be academic.

Walter PlingeThu, 25 Feb 2010, 05:49 am

Is this stuff about Grant Malcolm true?

What is all this stuff about Grant Malcolm being a under investigation for having child porn true?

LogosThu, 25 Feb 2010, 10:00 am

As a closing comment

This is a review I received for my play in the 2010 Adelaide Fringe Adelaide Fringe review: Jane was 16 Yesterday! â€¢ Ewart Shaw â€¢ From: The Advertiser â€¢ February 19, 2010 12:55PM JANE (Joanna Webb), is a 16-year-old girl waking from a coma to find she's 40. Psychologist Susan (Maxine Grubel) tries to help her bridge the gap of years. Webb is effective, especially as she's confined to a wheelchair and Grubel is highly competent in support. The potential drama is undercut by some shallow writing and, at under 50 minutes, this piece has room for development. Tony Moore is both writer and director. Another director might have shaped and paced the play differently. Jah'z Lounge, until March 6 ** Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

crgwllmsThu, 25 Feb 2010, 07:12 pm

Fence chair?

>Another director might have shaped and paced the play differently. Is that a compliment or a criticism? Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

LogosFri, 26 Feb 2010, 09:08 am

Now I'm not sure

Being over-sensitive and thin skinned I took it as criticism. After all it came with only 2 stars. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

← Back to Green Room Gossip