misconeptions of the director

One of the most popular misconceptions about the director's role is that they are mostly interested in visually shaping the production, and being mostly concerned with "staging." This is unfortunate because it has a major effect on how directing is taught in this country and how directors are perceived.

In my travels I have certainly encountered a director or two that actually operates this way. Directors who see their role as such tend to treat each rehearsal like a tech rehearsal. Their primary concern is how to manipulate the various pieces of the misc en scene including the actors. I have never seen a good production directed in this manner. This is not to say that it can't be successful, I suppose. I don't have all the answers, but there's something so unique about that approach that it alienates 95% of material a director might encounter over the course of their career.

Let’s start at the beginning. We've been talking a lot about the development process. I'm not a major fan myself of readings and "workshops" (still trying to figure out what that word really means outside of "super low resources"), but that fact of the matter is that they exist, and they almost always have directors attached to them.

Workshops are basically a production as far as I'm concerned. So we'll just talk about readings. I think it is a common misconception that the director's role in this process is some sort of fluid adviser to the playwright who collaborates with them to see what needs to stay, what needs to go, etc. Beyond that, the director's major role is to orchestrate how exactly the reading will be presented. If anyone will stand up, sit down, move....somewhere, etc.

What I have to say is that I've directed readings, plays, workshops, all that. And even though I am acutely aware of the forum I am working in, and the resources available, I approach them all with a similar set of ideas. What is the central dramatic question of this play? Who are these characters? What are their relationships? Why is the playwright telling this story? What do the actors need from me to bring this story to life. I never see myself as some sort of "page to stage liaison," who obviously has a much better idea of what works on stage than the playwright. That's ridiculous. to me.

In fact, to be honest I actually have a very difficult time, when working on new plays, approaching them from a perspective that entrenches me in the playwright's process. This might be because I was trained to direct plays by dead playwrights. I never questioned the text unless I absolutely had to. The mantra in my mind was "Justify." "Make it work." I take what I can from the play, filter it through my own lens of perception, and create a well-defined world to play inside of. When I approach a reading (unless I have almost zero rehearsal time), I approach it in the same way.

I recently participated in what was basically a big play development workshop (details withheld). We all sat in a small space, and rehearsed readings were performed, then smashingly critiqued by the audience. There was a lot of great writing in those readings. Meticulously-crafted and passionate works of art. And there were also a lot of problems, to be sure, but the biggest problem in the room on that day was that the actors, as skilled as they were, had absolutely no idea what sort of vessel they needed to be.

Because no matter how good the play is, if the actors are not playing relationships and playing their intentions, the work will simply not be heard. And any trained actor knows that they need to create a relationship with their scene partner, be present, know what they want. And sometimes, yes, the play may be lacking that and we need to take a look at that. But so much of the time, the intention; the justification was there in the text but was not being played. This is where the director comes in.

Acting is so very difficult. It is beyond difficult to be present with both yourself and your scene partner, understand the text, channel your homework, and then have to worry about being seen and heard. let alone the fact that you are bearing your soul in front of a live audience, which most actors never get over, which is completely natural and healthy. And they channel that fear/anxiety in different ways. Many actors barrel through the moments with a heightened delivery so they can be seen as confident and likable. Others are never able to grasp onto their intentions completely, and can never truly connect with their scene partner on the necessary level. Acting is difficult.

Not to sound overbearingly Stanislavskian, but the bottom line here is that no play can be heard if actors are not playing their objectives, dealing with their given circumstances, and communicating with their partner. This is the task of the actor, and it is the purpose of the director, to make sure that happens. It is not my play I'm directing, it is the playwright's play. I never "take ownership" of anything. It's not my ass on stage. The performers need to own it. And I need to help them to own it.

So even during something perceived so simple as a reading, it must be a primary concern of the director to make sure that the actors are connecting with each other and with the play because otherwise both the play’s faults and merits will not be heard. If you think it's easy to see when a play isn't working when the actors can't figure out what to do with a beat, imagine how glaring it will be when they actually make a strong choice with a weak beat in the script. It will stick out like a sore thumb.

The director is not synonymous with "stager," "presenter," etc. No matter what the New York Times wants you to believe.