Directors come up a lot on blogs, a lot of talk, what they do or don't do or should do. I've directed a decent amount with my company Working Group and have recently begun "helming" at regional theaters under co-production status with my company. So, I have a little experience with it. I've also acted a lot and been a playwright a lot and have enjoyed some and hated others.
I was in a rehearsal recently (professional LORT contract theater) and noticed the director giving solely negative notes. I asked an actor later about it and he said "well, either we're doing poorly or she just trusts if we don't get a note than we can assume it's working."
I then asked him if he thought it was working and he stopped for a second.
"No one's asked me that, but, I mean I think it's ok. I guess."
The fact the director had never asked him this was shocking to me. Let me say one thing I truly believe to all the aspiring directors out there: "No" is not a direction, or, telling someone what isn't working is not directing. A "direction" in the sense of staging creates a PATH. It points the way into a story and its bends and winds for an actor to navigate. No puts an end to a path. If you tell me the bridge is closed in scene two then I can't go over the bridge can I? That path has been closed and so the journey has been cut off without alternatives being laid. If you drove on this road you'd get frustrated. This is what rehearsals now become for these actors.
Watching the director I noticed one thing that mainly gets danced around. Many (not all. for you reactionists) directors think they are in charge of the production. But... is there a boss in a collaborative effort? Is some one in charge- it's an honest question. Obviously, decisions must be made and not everyone can be right. As well skill sets vary widely. I've been in succesful collaborations where the director was clearly in the leadership position and others where the director was less of a controlling presence. In the second the actors took much responsibility on themselves- and pressured themselves and those around them to be honest and true with the story they were presenting. One Actor ended up watching a problematic scene that neither the players nor director could figure out and gave a note that quite literally changed the show around. A recipe for disaster in other situations but a savior here.
I've just heard too many directors say- "oh that actor or that playwright, they're really difficult, they don't know how to collaborate." Which often means that actor or playwright doesn't know how to give in ... everyone needs to fight and everyone needs to give in. Without ego. What's forgotten is we are all servants to the play and to the audience- playwrights, directors and actors included- and as Faulkner said "you must kill your darlings, man" (He didn't say the man part but the idea is- that idea you thought was brillaint maybe- but it also might screw up the fragile group of people you have right now- so cut that fucker's throat). Nothing must be set in stone - because we are, after all, hoping to re-capture life... and how much dictation and control do you have over yours? How often do you surprise yourself with your "brillaince" versus being amazed by someone around you.
I think everyone in the theater wants to be a genius. I've never really met a theater artist who thought people were better than them at their particular field. I've met the best director in the world 20-30 times, the best playwright twice as oftena and the best actor? I meet him everyday. And even those of us who are humble, deep down have a belief that what we personally do is "true art" it's "real theater" and so in the rehearsal room we believe it should be respected. So, you often end up with a room of people who think they know more than the others around them and are saying "prove it to me, that you're so good" in every note session.
This is the mentality we need to get rid of... we point in the theater so often at other people and miss our own faults. We don't even listen to ourselves and yet we pretend we're listening to other people. This is my fight towards making great work and I posit it to you. You're not fucking Peter Brook, and you over there you aren't Edward Albee, and you ain't Brando! (And if you are- then good luck because I hear those guys are miserable- well ,except Brook he seems jovial enough. So we'll say you're not Richard Foreman instead).
You're on your own path young artist and you're gonna learn by three things: doing, listening and saying yes.
The rest is bullshit. Now, could you cheat out a little? We're losing your face.
Comments (5)
And I thought most actors wanted to get out of the service industry? No wonder LORT actors make such good waiters.
But in all seriousness, is this kind of service to the play/audience talk really the best we can do? Doesn't the "service" theater get the audience it deserves for the very reason that it caters instead of challenges? What if "no" is not just a buzz kill to your path, but the best obstacle you've managed to find all week? Sometimes it feels like this whole nonprofit theater biz is trying awful hard to be a politically correct office culture. I would have liked it better back when we knew we were all whores and getting in the audience's pants or pockets was an obstacle worthy of the effort.
Posted by wowzer | June 17, 2007 2:52 AM
Posted on June 17, 2007 02:52
I like this weird response. The idea of doing a play, collaborating truly and just doing good work seen as "politically correct."
And how easy it is to attack LORT theaters and the like- the blogs are entertaining, not really discussions so much as posts and then "fuck you" responses, oh how we push the art form forward.
What is the "serivce" theater besides a buzz word you've created? You've given no examples. Do you have solutions? What do you do again?
And "LORT Actor"? Is that on someone's resume? You mention "is this the best we can do" and offer no better- very helpful! Have a sandwich!
Oh the bitchiness opens up! Let's have some snow cones!
Posted by Anonymous | June 17, 2007 4:38 AM
Posted on June 17, 2007 04:38
Willfull misreading (politically correct? please.) and purposeful ignorance of the superior bitchiness of the main post's complaints about process aside (and all us "geniuses"), my post wasn't a fuck you. If Sean wants to typecast those of us who prefer the "no" as hacks and even worse non-travellers on the mystic actor's path, then it seems fair to characterize "many (not all. for you reactionists)" of the actors who are looking for the way around instead of over the obstacle as service actors. And yes, the insult is meant quite directly. If you find the questions about service intolerable then you're welcome to fling your positivist poo but if you were under the illusion this here internet was anything more than an aggregator of personal agendas then you have no further to look than Sean's admonition to "aspiring" directors. If he didn't want people to respond, well he wouldn't have posted would he? That you see my questions about his specific use of the word "service" and ignore the clearly pointed out humor as not worthy is your problem isn't it? My admonition? My contribution? You have no idea really what that might be and don't care so why bother...
Let's just say that I disagree with the characterization that our job is to service the play or the audience. I also happen to disagree that "collaborating truly" has a definite relationship to "doing good work" necessarily. But next time I'll just ignore it when people post things I disagree with because wow, we wouldn't want to upset anyone would we? Good luck with your sandwich or ice cream or whatever shop.
Posted by wowzer | June 17, 2007 12:59 PM
Posted on June 17, 2007 12:59
One thing I really like about posting is that it really lets you work out thoughts, and it demands you be specific (something I'm sure most of us were pushed to be since we started studying acting/directing etc). Here, especially, it's exciting because the moment you post any one can and will respond and they'll take what you say seriously and often point out generalities and non-specific speech you never noticed. It's really interesting.
I guess I realize now why so many blogs I read usually find the writer amending their original post for clarity of what they meant or from a new understanding the conversation they've created has gained. But at least it's a conversation.
So I guess the main point I fell short on was the idea of "no." I guess I believe that saying "no" alone is not a direction. If you say no and lead an actor to an oasis through that- then fantastic- but, I believe great theater comes from options, freedom, exploration, confidence. An director who only says "no" I believe inhibits this.
I should also say "service" is not meant as "pander." The work of my own company is not in line with most LORT theaters- we've been very lucky to gain the little support we have- we're not producing ARSENIC AND OLD LACE- but, darker shows that experiment in form and structure. By "service the play" i mean we seek to explore every avenue of it's storytelling: physical, linguistic, imagistic in order to present to the audience (our "service" to them) a play that is at the very least exciting, unpredictable and alive.
This is our pursuit, not everyone's. And I'm not sure, though curious, for people who aren't interested in exploring and presenting a play tot he best of their abilities that pushes an audience- what is your focus? For what I'm (we, really, in our company) trying to create, I stand by my post- it's the work I believe in- a lot of other work I don't (and I suppose it must be stated my ideas are pretty useless to them). The work I believe in demands humility and honesty. And collaborators I trust- which is why I work in a company- where there is better avenue in which to say "yes" and trust the creativity of those around you.
I should point out I'm not really into mysticism or an actor's path- the talk of such always makes me cringe. I'm into practicality: How to make the best product? How to feel fulfilled? More and more I'm figuring out how to get people to come... all the same questions over and over. I also called no one "hacks." (Though "aspiring" directors may have been a bit condescending)
And I actually am interested in what people do- contributions? The like...
(But you're absolutely right the actor overcoming the obstacle of "no" is important and it is too easy to simply blame the director in the situation- but that seems like a whole other post).
The dialogue is fun, though. And I like sandwiches.
Game on!
Posted by Sean C Lewis | June 17, 2007 1:59 PM
Posted on June 17, 2007 13:59
Not for nothing but that "no" seemed to do okay.
I take issue with talk about process which focuses on nurturing and not on the vigorous exchange and discipline of ideas. Do I wish my collaborations were easy? No. I think collaboration without compromise is hard. And in my experience, leading someone to the water gently is often less satisfying in terms of results and yes "product" (if you have to call it that) than dumping them in the woods and making them find it themselves.
Ever see "My Dinner with Andre"?
Or "My Best Fiend"?
Optimism versus pessimism. I think it comes down to someone's basic impulse to make things in the first place. For me, I'm sorry to say, it comes from anger, disgust and misanthropy as a result of chronic utopic delusions. Works quite well, thank you.
I have no idea how that fits into your work, because I don't know your work. But this isn't about the work. It's about writing about the work. Which is hard to do and even less fun than collaboration in most cases.
ps....that bit about "for people who aren't interested in exploring and presenting a play to the best of their abilities that pushes an audience- what is your focus?" Um, huh? Who are those people? Surely not the people who say "no" or the knights who say "Ni?"
And post-post-whatevers to your humor-detector-challenged anonymous defender, it's not the job of someone who responds to a post on a blog to provide the solution to the problem, big P. Or to be helpful. Or to tell you "what I do". Or jeebus thanks to agree. The comment can be ignored or not. To think that what we say here can or should "push the art form forward" or hell even be constructive 99% of the time is just silly. We both know that.
If I waited until I had the answer, then we'd be here a long fucking time. Aren't you glad I'm not Harry Reid? Oh wait...
Posted by wowzer | June 18, 2007 12:34 AM
Posted on June 18, 2007 00:34