Actors Vs Directors

How much control should the director have in the the creative process of the bringing the character to life.

I have heard many actors complain about directors who don't give them space to create. Personally I prefer for the director to stay out of this process completley and just trust the actor.

What's your view?

Hmmmmmm
>
> I have heard many actors complain about directors who don't
> give them space to create.

Is this because the Director is trying to get them out of their comfort levels and make their performance better?

Personally I prefer for the
> director to stay out of this process completley and just
> trust the actor.
>
So...what does the Director do? make Coffee and tell you to stand where the light hits you?

[%sig%]

What I meant was I like to have the space to create rather than copy a director who is trying to be an actor.

I like to discover things for my self, don't get me wrong I believe the director is there to help they can push the actor but the shouldn't act the part.
I had a director who was a control freak, and the cast found him very overbearing to the point where it seemed the performance was just his and not the casts.

This is a very grey area to perfectly frank. It all depends on the Vision the director has for a performance. If they have a clear vision of what they hope to achieve then they will want to have more say in the development of a character. If however, they are looking for those rather special moments of creative improvisation, they will sit back and let the energy flow.

Both a clear vision and free-form style of directing have there place. Scripts sometimes work better in one style than the other.

I find it is not so much about the level of control the director exerts but the manner in which they exert their control. Either way, a director can be too ambiguous or too overbearing. A good director knows what he is looking for and is able to communicate this in a way that invites cooperation and in so doing commands respect as opposed to Demands respect.

This really comes down to personality, not direction.

Jeff Watkins

I think a good director will create a character in the actor's mind through the workshop/rehearsal process and then allow the actor to explore that character. I have been directed by people who think directing is all about telling actors how to say each line. Which is fine if the actor's emphasis is changing the meaning of that line, but not fine if the director is dictating the performance. It's frustrating, unproductive and leads to pretty crap shows.

I don't think directing is about telling actors where to stand, it's about creating an atmophere where the actors KNOW where they should stand already, when they should move, where to and most importantly, WHY.

A wonderful director, possiby the best I have ever worked with, once told me that directing is about picking a good cast, and then creating the world of the play. Showing the actors the boundaries of that world, then letting them play around inside it. I'll stick to that theory.

But then, what do I know; I'm an actor.

Leah M

>>But then, what do I know; I'm an actor.

Who better to know what makes a good director than those whom are directed.

Jeff "Directionless" Watkins

What a lot of wisdom there is out there! This is my first visit to the "greenroom" and I was delighted by the intelligent discussion that eminates from it - not like some green rooms I can think of!
I was fortunate to have been directed by Arne Neeme - a director that I and many others have great respect for, and remember him saying (though perhaps not word for word - it was a number of years ago) "I don't tell actors where to go and what to do once they are there, I just clear a path to make it easier for them".
From this I draw the conclusion that the amount of direction would then depend on how cluttered the path is in the first place. And what one deems to be the 'path'!!??
Shelley T

It is so heartwarming to be considered so avidly a proponent of intellectual discussion. Certainly, some Green Room discussions leave a rather dry and dull feeling.

I do not recall the clever and witty lines that director have said in my past theatrical pursuits. However, I have been on the receiving end of direction that has left me feeling uninspired.

I will not name names to protect the guilty.

I do not approve of Directors you belittle cast members by direct comparison to fellow actors. They sound very parental and manic. I have had one director that did this very thing and I was the one being compared with, not the recipient. Even I was rather embarassed by this.

On the other hand, in a completely different production and another director, I was again used as an example to follow but in such a way that no-one was "targeted" of "belittled" and I was "Put on a Stand" as such. Here, I admit to a feeling of pride.

On the surface, the actions are the same. It is the approach that differs and the effects speak for themselves......

Jeff "Proud Thespian" Watkins

Daz said: 'What I meant was I like to have the space to create rather than copy a director who is trying to be an actor.'

I think this discussion rests on a further question: what is the role of a director and what is the role of an actor?

Quite a few directors, and a number of actors, would argue that the artistic
side of the performance IS the job of the director (and writer, for that matter), whilst acting is the craft that gives it humanity. Of course, a lot of other actors disagree with that, and well I don't intend to try to settle the art v craft debate personally.

I don't think one can generalise readily on this point. Some actors need more direction than others. For example, I know actors who when reading a script will normally look for and find the thematic qualities as well as the human relationships, and will combine them without being told. Others wouldn't know a literary theme if it smacked them in the face - but are still good actors, because they can do their job of giving the characters truth and humanity - they just need to be told a bit more often where to modify their performance for the sake of the show as a whole. I also think that most of us have, at some stage, had the over-controlling director who can't let go of their exact mental picture, and ends up forcing a performance based on charactature and mimicry rather than emotion.

I can say, however, that there is an innate tendency in many actors, and I'm certainly not excluding myself from this criticism, to be predisposed towards the selfish, ie creating a character in a way that feels right for 'you' even if it detracts from the story as a whole, or from the thematic qualities of the script. Yes, theatre is about humanity and relationships, but many plays/films are ALSO about concepts that go beyond 'truth' of character. Take, for example, the film Apocalypse Now. Yes, the characters are well-played, but it would be just another war film, if they weren't played within the directorial constraints that allowed the film to talk not just about war, but about existentialism, nihilism and imperialism (and lots of other -isms that escape me right now). If actors were to have full control over their character, there is no way that scripts like that could be touched.

On a more practical note, sometimes the actor's prefered interpretation of a character may have to be sacrificed for things like pacing, or even the growth of other characters. Obviously, there's no point doing Hamlet unless you're willing to give the lead actor a lot of artistic freedom. But if 'third lord', or maybe even Laertes, was to insist on total artistic freedom it would damage not only the director's vision, but also the ability of the actor playing Hamlet to fully explore and develop the character.

And then there's film. Suffice to say, when over half the emotional content of a scene is being created by elements that aren't present on set (sound, lighting. camera angles - just watch Memento a few times, so much emotion in the character, so little of it given by Guy Pearce, not a criticism - he did what was needed), the actor can't possibly create the character with a solo effort.

To be fair, I have seen situations where the director wanted a picture of the character that wasn't 'real' and sometimes the actor is in a better position to realise that. And I think a lot of directors would benefit tremendously from asking 'does that feel right to you?' But you are never going to achieve your best performance by trying to create the character purely by yourself. I guess it partially depends on whether or not the director genuinely does have a great 'vision' for the play, or for that matter the type of script (sometimes 'workshopped' rather than 'directed' plays can work). But I think its very easy to lose sight of the fact that whilst as actors we may be in the best position to 'know' the character, the director is normally in a much better position to see how they relate to the script and to the play as a whole.

Just a rant,
Craig

Interesting discussion... one of the larger questions of our period in History, artistically speaking...

Speaking as an actor, I appreciate Directors that allow me to collaborate to some extent - but I *usually* have to 'earn' that right by being forthright enough to speak up (and have enough decent-ish ideas to grab the attention of my Director). BUT, I (try to) limit myself to the scenes / part of the play I am directly involved in and accept the umpires rulings - though there is nothing in the rulebook about not bringing the subject up again... ;o)

Converse is true as director - I really admire and court the FEW actors who will bring their 'vision' of the play to me without apology. The process of directing is so much more stimulating when both parties are really INVOLVED and COMMITTED to the play (even if on convergent pathways)!

'course, the play has to be worthy of the effort, but that's another discussion... ;o)

Jason

Hey Jason,

Do you have a copy of ITW 1997 at Playlovers?

Email me at backstagechick@hotmail.com if you do, thanks!

Christine

I watch "Minority Report" over the weekend and some of the Cast Interviews. Max Von Sydow made a very similar comment to some of those mentioned here when comparing SS to "Other" Directors.

Now I won't quote him exactly as I can't remember EXACTLY what he said. BAsically, he deplored directors that took such control over the production as to stifle the actor's every move.

SS on the other hand allowed the cast to "direct themselves" within the confines of the vision he had for the film.

Just an interesting addition.

Jeff

Woah! A discussion where the opinions are worth more than the average two cents!
What is happening on this page?

From experience on both sides of this puzzle, IÂ’ve come to believe that theatre is (or should be) a collaborative effort between ALL parties involved.
The way I like to look at it:
A director should be the guiding hand, they should be the one with all-encompassing vision of the project. It is their job to ensure that all the other little component parts are cohesive.
The actorÂ’s job is to breathe as much life into their roles as possible.

Even if a director has one hundred times the amount of concentration on the play than an individual actor, that actor still has more time to concentrate on their character, and therefore KNOW THEIR CHARACTER, than the director does.
The actor should be busy concentrating on their place in the scheme of things, the director should be concentrating on making sure that EVERYONE is finding their place in the SAME scheme of things.

A director should encourage and nurture their actors to finding and developing their own characters so they are, in the end, exactly where the director wanted them in the first place 
ItÂ’s a sleight of hand trick more than anything. ItÂ’s the old axiom that if a worker feels that they have some ownership of their process they will perform better than if the feel they are just a robot.

Two examples:

Scenario 1: A prominent local theatre group did a well-received production of a major musical some years ago. This show was impeccably produced, however it was also basically just a carbon copy of a carbon copy of the film, which was a carbon copy of the original broadway production. It was big, it was spectacular, it was COLD!
As one of the few dissenting voices about this production, I voiced my opinion, to which someone replied, Well, there is really only one way to do that show.
I made the point that I had seen three different performances of the same production of an opera (I think it was Don Giovanni), and even though the sets, costumes, moves, everything were all the same, they were actually three totally different productions. Because the performers were able to find their own road to the final result, and had brought with it slightly different interpretations.
MORAL FOR DIRECTORS: Let the actors think for themselves.
MORAL FOR ACTORS: DonÂ’t be afraid to find your own way to the required destination.

Scenario 2. Another prominent theatre group did a well-received production of a musical version of “Much Ado About Nothing”. I was cast in the role of Don John. I had a very definite idea of how I thought Don John should be played (dark, brooding, sinister, full of hatred to his brother because of… yadda yadda yadda… think Lord Voldemort from Harry Potter). The director (the wonderful Kim Martin) had a much different idea of how the character should be played (light, charming, evil because its FUN… think more Draco Malfoy). Every rehearsal we had battles over my portrayal. I was heading full on down a road that while still being viable for MY CHARACTER would have meant that I’d ended up in a totally different location than the rest of the play. Kim kept dragging me back, dragging me back, and in the end I found for myself the character that he wanted, and it worked a treat.
(Even though I did snap my cruciate ligament three weeks before going on so ended up doing the role with a walking stick and being just that little bit more Richard III anyway)
MORAL FOR DIRECTORS: Always make sure that the actors are heading for the same destination
MORAL FOR ACTORS: Just because youÂ’ve found A road doesnÂ’t mean that itÂ’s heading in the right direction, trust your director.

Hey PT, Wonderful examples and a fantastic moral lesson that I saw as well.

A successful production is where director and cast work TOGETHER in achieving the final result. The actor develops the character that slots into the vision of the director. The director develops the plot for the characters to move in.

Maybe this is a matter of boundaries and limits. Indeed, an actor who diliberately follows his own perception of the character that conflicts with the vision of the director is just as bad as the director who will not allow movement of the character for the actor. Now say that without taking a breath. ;-)

It's obvious really. Theatre is an environment of cooperation and team work. Each person has a role to play (not pun intended) and should really stick to it.

The Director has the Vision.
The Actor has the Character.
Props has the ... props.
The Stage Manager has the power tools.

Jeff "Team Player" Watkins

Yeah Paul.

Don't you hate it when the director is right all along. Dream seem to come to my mind.

Yeah Paul.

Don't you hate it when the director is right all along. Dream seem to come to my mind.

Yeah Paul.

Don't you hate it when the director is right all along. Dream seem to come to my mind.



Thou artless tickle-brained ratsbane!

Jeffrey Watkins wrote:
>
> I watch "Minority Report" over the weekend and some of the
> Cast Interviews. Max Von Sydow made a very similar comment to
> some of those mentioned here when comparing SS to "Other"
> Directors.
> Now I won't quote him exactly as I can't remember EXACTLY
> what he said. BAsically, he deplored directors that took such
> control over the production as to stifle the actor's every
> move.
> SS on the other hand allowed the cast to "direct themselves"
> within the confines of the vision he had for the film.
>



I've just been watching the special feature interviews on the 'Reservoir Dogs' DVD. Quentin comes across as a director who knew EXACTLY what he wanted, got exactly those performances and shot it exactly HIS way.

But I also DON'T get the feeling that any of the actors felt stifled by this amount of control.

Obviously it depends on the project, the group, and a whole lot of trust in the process and the ideas, whatever form or path they take.





Probably the biggest part of a director's job is getting the casting right; the biggest part of an actor's job is showing the director how good they were at casting.


Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

From the point of view of an actor, a Director with a clear vision and clear articulation of that vision can inspire their cast to perform to that vision.

Some of the hardest productions I've worked on have seen the director having very little vision and realying on the actors to "pull" the show together. NIGHTMARE!!!!

Then there are directors who obviously have a vision for the show but for one reason or another cannot or will not communicate effectively this view. The actors are working within bounderies they can't see. DISASTER!!!!

Maybe that's why I like comedies so much. A director's vision tends to be simply "Make it funny." ;-)

Jeff "Medicine Man" Watkins

Well we all know its about who stays the most sober at rehearsals...
Actors whinge,
Directors shout,
Thats what plays are all about.

Just try an keep it real.

Jones.

After being suspended inversely from a Neolithic tree, attempting to calibrate the vision, while gazing into gloomy introspection contemplating this complex issue of the ‘Hot sock’ & the ‘split in the skirt’?
It all comes down to the SM &/or Techies that really make the difference - In the end!
Joe

difficult, difficult, difficult. i guess all i want to add to this is that sometimes the director can be too removed from character development. i find it hard sometimes to evaluate how my characters are percieved from the other side and when i don't get helpfull feedback on this, i get quite frustrated and sometimes very insecure. i guess in that is the director's job to have the overall vision, they need to let their cast members know if they are fitting in or not:) i't's all about communication!!

Fully agree with Joe, actors are plentiful but "Support Staff" and as one I feel very qualified to speak!! are as rare as hen's teeth.
By support staff I include front of house, publicity people, box-office people, and all!

Thou fobbing clapper-clawed wagtail!

Thanks Norma!!!
I apologise not including the very important support Staff & FOHÂ’s.
But my falsies keep falling out - I definitely need new tail feathers!

Bree Hartley wrote:
>i't's all about communication!!

Indeed it is as in any strongly bond team. Every team needs a captain and that's the director. A team needs players (actors) and not to forget the support staff too.

Jeff "Sporty" Watkins

What about the coach?
Is that the President?

Jones.

[What about the coach? - Is that the President?]

As long as it can transport Costumes, Sets, Lights & 10 warm props comfortably?
It really does not matter about the model or make!

Ok, to make the analogy more relevant to the current descriptive dialogue,

The coach would be the director as he rarely plays himself.
The Captain and Start Players would be the lead and primary cast members. The rest of the team would make up the supporting cast. The sideline support crew (bucket boy, etc) would be the supernumeraries (extras). The members of the club council would be equivalent to the Stage manager and backstage crew.

and so on and so forth.

Moral of this long-winded and verbose description?

Teamwork, cooperation and communication are the cornerstone of any good performance be it on stage or in the field.

Relate the success of certain sporting teams and you may find (like I did) comparative similarities to theatre.

Aspects that make a successful footty, cricket, soccer or rugby team (to name a few) are very much those of a theatrical production team, don't ya think?

Jeff "Maybe thinking too much" Watkins

Well there are alot of similarities between sport and theatre...

People like a rub down before hand..
You can get injured doing both...(depends on the lead female)
Theres a half time...
Theres a hefty amount of criticism afterward behind your back. if you play badly...
Theres always trophies involved...
Training sessions can be brutal...

and the most important....
The best player always seem to attract the female or male (whatever the case maybe)

Jones.

Guys!!!!
you have cracked IT - We could have "League of our own!Â’
There are a number of Fields of action [Theatres] adequate to cover the playing fixtures.
We cover all ages no matter what ability or disability - A truly Universal Game! - played by anyone!!!!
It does not matter which type you prefer or support - ItÂ’s all catered for in the one league!
Yes!!! We cover all the ‘Pre-requisites’ to apply for ‘Sporting Grants & Sponsorships’
Even Tobacco adds - wow!
Just think inclusion every week in the "Sports PagesÂ’ TV coverage "Match of the day" - The possibilities are endless.
Chookas guys
Joe

Interesting topic, thought I would add my two cents.
I believe that a directors greatest skill should be the art of communication. There are many languages spoken in the process of putting a show together. The language of the actor, the designer, the writer, the language of light, sound, colour and composition, the language of costuming, stage management and lets not forget the language of administration. It is the directors duty to learn these languages and to speak them fluently. ( don't misunderstand me - this is not the work of one or two shows, but the study of a lifetime.) It is my experience that when an artist, be it anyone from actor to stage manager, is pursuing their own course separate from my own direction it is because I have not communicated my ideas clearly in a language that they understand or I am not hearing the relevance of their ideas because my understanding of their language is not adequate. How does a director learn to speak actor or designer or administrator fluently? Get in and have a go! A director who has never been on stage or lit a show can never have a full understanding of the pressures, the limitations, the skills required or indeed the joys of that particular role in the creative team. Differences in the creative vision of the piece also arise from lack of communication. Directors need to explain the artistic vision to the key creative personel from day one. An actor should leave the audition with a clear understanding of where the director would like to head with the production, and if they don't they NEED to ask. Remember actors you are auditioning a director just as much as they are auditioning you. A director who cannot explain what they would like to do with a show or seems to you to have misunderstood the script is perhaps a director you should decline working with, rather than trying to fight it throughout the rehearsal process - this is a fruitless excercise.
WOW - I have been going on havn't I
I'm going to shut up now.
INDI