writing about directing

Mike from nytheatre.com brings up a very interesting issue on his blog this morning. That being the issue of writing critically about a director's work in the medium of a review.

Mike's first post on this subject features a good response to the issue by Isaac.

I think this is a very difficult thing to do. But it can be improved.

The best way for me to start discussion is quoting Mike:

As a reviewer, there’s really no way of knowing who came up with that piece of blocking, or whose decision it was to make the set do that cool little thing, without actually being in the rehearsal room. I can only draw conclusions based on what’s on stage. By that time, it should all theoretically be flowing into one seamless whole.

Let me first note that all claims I make are specific to my directing process. Which undoubtedly differ from others.

The first major point that should be made with regards to this is that no matter who "came up with" a piece of blocking, or a piece of anything, for that matter, it is the director's choice. I will explain.

Just as the actor is a choice maker, so is the director. In a general sense, every detail of the production you see on stage as the spectator is a choice by the director, whether they directly confronted it during the process or not. Not saying something is a choice as well. In the end, the director has the final say on what works and what does not. This does not mean they are non-collaborating dictators. But at a certain point, you yield to the director's choices, informed by his/her collaborators, because that is what you hired them to do.

That out of the way, a couple of other things that can help when writing about a director's work:

As Isaac notes on Mike's blog, "briskly directed," doesn't make sense. I see it a lot in theatre reviews and can take it only to mean that the evening moved along swiftly, was not clunky, and was generally not overly boring. But these conclusions are not specific enough for me, as a reader, to really understand what that phrase means in relation to how the reviewer experienced the play

Linking off of this is the commonly held idea that pacing is the most important job of the director, and the only one you can physically see as a spectator. This is important, yes, but there are many more important things a director does, of which pacing is only a part.

One of the best ways you can critique a director is how they solve problems. This is tricky, and it is also why it is a good idea for theatre reviewers to have practical theatre experience (we often bitch about the Times folks not having this, for example). Because you have to know how a play works, and what moments present difficulties that others might not. In this sense, blocking is a means to an end, not the ends. We use blocking on a stage to solve problems ('problems' not in a critical sense, but like a math problem that you must solve).

For example, there might be a moment on stage where the relationship needs to be made clear between two characters and the status made more transparent (these are basic needs of any moment, but the example will serve). Process-wise, this relationship will begin to be developed and find its roots in the actors process. I, as the director, work with them to help them come to terms with the text and become comfortable in the skin of their characters. Sometimes that includes experimental blocking and physical relationship to get there.

But in the end, that moment has a specific question of problem at its core that we must solve, and blocking is a means to that end. The difficult thing here is being able to, as a critic, recognize which moments in the play offer specific challenges, and then analyzing how the director chose to solve those problems. The extra difficult thing is the idea of "what works," which is what you always want, and must be the basis of critique. But it is a thing difficult to describe.

So in this example, you might identify this moment as a particularly challenging one, describe what the director's choice was, and then your gut reaction to it. Did it feel awkward or stodgy? Was the relationship not made clear? Did the blocking feel out of joint with the rules of the play as laid out in the rest of the production? Was it 'beautiful?'

Difficult lines to tread.

Another thing to look at is if there is a tightness to the production. Do all the elements (acting, sound, lighting, interpretation) all line up? Is there a unity in the production which holds it together in the same way that a good essay might convincingly prove a thesis?

Another difficult thing is to assess which problems are problems of the play, and which are problems of the production. This takes a lot of practice. And it's incredibly difficult. A very good director exposes the play to the point that you can see the text so clearly that you have a basis for critique of the actual text. Unless that happens, it can be dangerous to jump to critiquing the playwright.

So that begs the question, how do you know you are watching a very good director?

Let me state once again that this is just my opinion and I don't mean to sound, in saying this, that I am the world's greatest director because I know what a good director's work looks like, nothing of the sort. Just my opinion based on my own personal experience.

So what are some guideposts that you are watching a good director at work. Some of the things I look for are:

1. Great performances - Not to take any credit away from the actor, it's them on stage, they're doing the work, a director is only as good as his/her's cast. That said, even the best actors, working with a bad director, can give less than par performances. There are a lot of factors here. Some of it is the negotiation of personalities in the room, there's also casting the play in a way that promotes chemistry between actors. And, first and foremost, it's creating an atmosphere in the rehearsal room that encourages actors to play and feel free to commit to their roles, and be excited about the play. That makes a great performance.
2. World - So much of what a director does, and what we often oddly call a "vision," is in creating the world of the play. What are the rules of this world, and how can we physically represent them in symbol and metaphor (the bedrock of theatre)? What tones are suggested, what moods are invoked? And, most importantly, what central question does this play ask and how do all of the elements of the production work towards answering it?
3. Conflict and Question - Building off of the last point, is there a clear question at the heart of the play and a central conflict? Do the characters and their relationships to each other and their environment help solve the problem at the play's core?
4. Storytelling - In some ways, the primary function of the director, and encompasses all of the things I've already talked about. Solving problems, creating a world, showing character relationship and status, blocking, etc. are all means to the end of storytelling. Brecht used to make his actors do his entire plays with just the blocking in silence and submitted that the directing was not doing its job if you couldn't tell what the story was just from the blocking.
5. Audience Treatment - How a direct chooses to treat their audience is crucial. And the justification must be specific, justified, and strong, just like any other choice. A good director, to me, treats their audience with respect. Whether they are trying to make them feel comfortable or uncomfortable, respect is key, as is specificity.

There are many more of course. But these 5 things are things that you can physically recognize on stage, and they are things that a reviewer can pinpoint and critique in their review at some level. And it involves at least a basic understanding of process, because when we get muddied up in the "invisible director" argument, we misplace an understanding of the director's job in unspecific discourse. Since everything on the stage is, ultimately, the director's choice, there's nothing invisible about it.

Hopefully that's a good start to the discussion of how to help deal with this problem.