|
Trying to help young artists grow as a director challenges me more than anything I do.
It's problem enough to determine what directors do — let alone work to distill the elements of directing in such a way to help train folks in an understandable way. Generally theatre folk have a notion of what a director probably ought not to do. And we know when we're with a bad director. But how do we go about getting a good director?
And do we really need directors?
The mainline theatre structure in the USA depends on training actors to give someone else - usually directors — "what they want."
First, I realize that direction for the camera is different than direction for the theatre. In this instance I'm talking about the director in the theatre - not film or video.
In some ways it is difficult to describe a structural feature of a commonplace work environment. For example, to get out of the house in the morning, the occupant must first get the door opened. Talking about door opening and getting out of the house may seem rather silly at first. But as any teen or fire-trapped person will tell you, it can be important and beneficial to look at the question of house exiting from other angles.
In the USA, a director commonly is the "decision-maker" for a production - having decision authority over what the audience ultimately sees in the show. The director may work within boundaries set by producers and/or artistic directors. Nevertheless, particularly insofar as the individual actor is often concerned - the director is given the authority of the veto.
Our training and work environment promotes this structure of work. Again and again we hear such phrases as, "My job is to give the director what he [all too often the director is a he] wants," or "I need a director out front to tell me what I'm doing," or "Actors need a director to keep a rehearsal descending into chaos." It is true that there are individual, "name" actors who have a veto over the director. This situation, however, tends to be the exception rather than the rule for most actors. Moreover, if an actor departs from what is set by the director, the actor will likely be "corrected" by a stage manager and/or fellow actors. The social structure establishes directorial authority over the production.
The question is not whether this is good or evil in some existential philosophy. One figures that the method by which a play is mounted will have little influence on one's ultimate destination in some heaven or hell. Also, in some circumstances, this authority is assuredly beneficial. Getting ninety people on and off a thrust stage in a madcap version of The Unsinkable Molly Brown is simply a logistical issue that probably even the director wants to avoid. But, then, most people aren't directing large casts in our current environment.
Directors (including me - including being an Artistic Director for a theatre) say wonderful things. Directors say, "I *share* the creativity of the rehearsal with the actors." "I expect the actors to bring things into rehearsal." "I make my rehearsals as open as possible."
These directors should not be doubted for their good intent or good will. They expect, though, to have last word about their show - absent being replaced, in which case the new director will have authority. The structure remains constant, mostly, regardless of the individuals involved.
Generally this system seems to work fairly efficiently. Looking at structures from different angles, though, one wonders what another structure might look like? What is gained in efficiency that might be lost in other areas? The presence of a singular decision-making authority eases the pressure of working out contentious issues.
Our society respects order and dislikes chaos. Watching a city zoning board for all of five minutes teaches this lesson. What would it mean to take a step toward that chaos? What would it mean for groups of actors to work together on a play *without* a director? Would New York fall into the ocean? Would dogs and cats start living together? Would Republicans start kissing Acorn workers?
Luckily there are models for actors to use. Our fellow performers, the musicians, can work together without a director. A group of folks can get together in a garage and become a band. A quartet of string players can get together and play with a director leading them through the music. The unfortunate side of this type of work is that it's inefficient. The Beatles broke up. There are legendary stories about great string quartets getting into literal fist fights over an opening tempo. Violence is never something to be advocated, but what would it mean for an actor or a group of actors to work through the interpretive issues of a play and be personally responsible for those decisions without the presence of a larger authority? Would the chaos be too much?
And what word is there for the directors in this? Be wary of yourself. Authority can tend toward power. Power and dominance, for some reason, tend to be corrupting to humans. Power can be abused so easily. The result is always hurtful. Be wary of authority.
It's good to remember that no one gets to have their way all the time.
|
