On directing

[breakinglight11]

Due to my recent theatrical experiences and some conversations I've had, I have been musing on what it is to direct a show. Despite all the stress and the enormity of the undertaking, I really enjoyed actually putting together the play, and I think I had some aptitude for it. I certainly learned a lot, and I have come to some conclusions as to what makes a good director.

I have a couple of rules as a director that I settled on based on my experience of director-actor interaction, not just involving myself, but what I have observed of others in that situation as well. The major one for me is that a director tells an actor what to do, not how to do it. The director has to describe what they want the action or the final effect is supposed to be, and the actor is supposed to figure out the way to achieve that. To take away that freedom to interpret, I feel, is to devalue and take agency from the actor. Of course there can be some debate as to whether the actor has legitimately interpreted the instruction, especially if the director does not feel it achieves the desired effect, but the contribution of an actor to a play is not being the puppet through which the director speaks. This ties in to another of my rules, to never ask the actor to imitate you. This I avoided at all costs. I think it's extremely disrespectful to the actor to take away their personal interpretation of your direction by making them basically do what you would do if you were the actor, whether it's a physical action or a way of reading a line. It pisses me off as an actor when this happens to me, so I never want to do it to anyone in a show of mine.

I was a very micromanaging director, I freely admit that. I gave very detailed instruction on pretty much every small aspect of blocking. However, I feel I balanced this level of, well, bossiness, with being completely willing to hear suggestions from the actors and try to come up with something different if something I told them didn't feel right to them. Jared had serious problems with some aspects of my original plan for the final scene of Hamlet, and the scene was very much improved when we addressed them and changed things to make things feel more playable to him. This is the kind of director I personally feel like I do the best work with, and I feel I do the best work as a director in this way.

I think I learned a lot about how to direct by being an actor. It's purely an experiential thing. You learn in the course of being in plays so many things about how a theatrical production should work-- how rehearsals are run, the conventions of stage composition, what sort of direction actors respond best to, all sorts of things like that. You learn what makes a good show in the course of being in shows and seeing what works and what doesn't. Having never really been in any theatrical context besides actor, I don't know what it would be like to enter direction from, say, a techie's perspective, but I know I learned so much about what to do with directing based on being an actor.

Of course, it may be my particular status as an actor that helped me. One thing Frances told me once was that when she was directing, a lot of the time her first instinct was to block scenes and give instructions based on what she would do if it were her playing the role. She found this often did not work because the actor she was giving direction to was not her and did not have the same capabilities as she did, whether it meant their strengths lay in other places, or if it meant they just weren't as strong. Jared also has a knack for figuring out what a performance needs or is missing, but his way of achieving it doesn't necessarily work for actors who don't have his talent.

But Frances and Jared are great actors. I, by contrast, am a good actor, not a great one. And I think that gives me an edge as a director. I am skilled enough that I understand the techniques of giving a good portrayal on the stage, but because I'm not so talented that I don't know how less gifted people have to work. There's a lot of "great athletics make lousy coaches" at work there. I think a great actor has a harder time helping others because they understand acting in terms of drawing on their deeper abilities, and it's hard to figure out how others who don't have those same abilities work.

I am beginning to suspect I may be better suited to directing than acting, and have more potential to be great there.

Comments

[meamcat.livejournal.com]

a director tells an actor what to do, not how to do it.
You're totally right.
Also, "good actor, not great"? Pshaw. You're fabulous.

I'm sure you can guess who I am

[(Anonymous)]

So, for a while I have been off and on perusing your entries, and I must say that I am honoured and intrigued by your various references to me. Not to mention flattered and endeared. Tonight I made narcissistic use of your tags to read all of the notes in which I am mentioned. And then I read all of the Hamlet notes. And I'm leaving my comment here because I found this note particularly interesting. To begin with, I very much agree with what you express in the second paragraph : as tempting as it can be for a director to simply ask an actor to mimic one's own intonation or movement, it is also something akin to a moral failure or transgression (I'm using the word "moral" loosely here, more as pertaining to aesthetics (My distinction between aesthetics and morality is sometimes rather fuzzy...I consider it a fairy-like characteristic. :P). ). Of course, my own directorial caution in avoiding this probably approached such an excessive degree of paranoia that it became an impediment . . . I admire that you manage to avoid such offenses without impeding your efficiency: you do indeed strike a balance between "bossiness" and flexibility that allows you to be executive without being annoying. That balance requires a certain kind of charmed "maturity" -- a compatible charisma, if you will -- that is very strong in you. Indeed, I find that this quality is evident even in your non-directorial interactions with people ... with me, at least. In certain respects, you are probably one of the most mature people I know. And i do not mean "mature" in the "boring grown-up" sense. I mean that you tackle potentially awkward situations with an impressive finesse. To begin with, you don't offend my aesthetic by going about creating lots of unnecessary awkwardness or uncomfortableness or generally offensive annoyance over stupid things little things: that entails a degree of maturity. And with some people it stops at that: they are only mature insofar as they point-blank refuse to engage with any situation that they deem potentially awkward or difficult or uncomfortable. You, on the other hand . . . it may be that you simply know how to deal with a greater variety of situations than do most, but in my limited experience you don't tend to shy away from broaching potentially difficult conversations if they also happen to be important. You have a certain adeptness in dealing with things that others would either awkwardly blunder their way through or avoid completely so as to spare themselves the pain of blundering :P. And that, to my mind, is the same quality that makes you a good director (if you will pardon my long-windedness).