AMERICAN THEATRE: Directing is a lonely business. There was the time, long ago, when an actor-manager, also working as a member of the acting company, would take on the role of director. In recent history, and certainly in our current moment, the director is the auteur, an artist trained and expected to have a “vision,” a “concept,” an “approach” to a production. This vision, ideally, springs fully formed from the isolated brain many months before the show is cast.
9 comments:
Is co-direction really the best solution for Haj’s production collaboration needs? It makes sense that he would arrive at this, having come from an ensemble background. But if he’s looking for someone to help him grow as a director, is sharing his vision with someone else the best way for him to grow? If Haj is looking for someone to give feedback and suggestions on his work all the way through the process, to challenge his ideas, to be honest about how a scene comes across, then he really needs a dramaturg! That way, he could have the soundboard he seeks while maintaining his artistic autonomy.
There is value to having a close collaborator, such as he co-director spoken of in this article, in any process. I understand what Rachel is saying, maybe he is not using quite the right terminology for what he wants. Maybe a dramaturg would be a better candidate for what he is looking for. However, the overall message rings true. It's hard to practice any facet of the theatre alone. What we do has so much to do with dealing with other people, both on the team and in trying to get a certain reaction from the audience, that we often need to reassure ourselves that we are moving forward in the proper direction. This summer, there were two stage managers (myself and another person) working. Having that other person who understood what was going on and could provide insight to my issues, simply because they were seeing things in the same way, was invaluable. If you're lucky, this type of relationship is also possible to develop with an assistant.
I think Haj is truly underutilizing and overlooking the resources available to him. He acknowledges that in the months prior to a production being cast, he is already working with costumers and set designers - does he not realize that these people have invaluable artistic insights to give, in addition to actually physically crafting his vision? The designers, while clearly not directors, have to develop their own wealth of knowledge to create within the parameters Haj sets. While they may not be able to inform his directorial choices where elements such as blocking are concerned, the costume designer, for example, can inform *how* the actor moves in their costume. Designers and other members of the production staff do not look at a show or piece of work with the eyes of a director, and that may be exactly what Haj is looking for or needs.
I completely disagree with Haj I find his solution of co-direction to be an incorrect antidote for his struggle of growth. First off, Directing isn't an isolated craft. Sure you're the one driving the boat, but how many people do you have onboard to assist? It's not like the director is coming up with all the ideas, in terms of design and with the actors. And if the perception is that the director is the sole creator of these things, is an inability to engage with other artistic minds. I agree with Rachel about the use of a dramaturg. That was actually the first thing I thought of when he mentioned looking for someone who "continually interrogating the work all the way through, and it is a thrill to be able to work in the same room and share ideas, offer alternative ideas, propose alternative approaches, reflect to one another in real time what is and is not working." But there's also the assistant director? Instead of using them as a glorified notes taker and Starbucks monkey, why don't you take advantage of their young and unjaded mind? Also why don't you invite colleagues and collaborators BEFORE the show opens? What about the Artistic Director? There are so many ways you can find people to engage and further your work, looking to someone else is really just a copout.
I very much agree with Haj's point about how co-direction can help solve the problems that come with an isolated vision. When you are able to go back and forth between someone as involved in the production as yourself, you are able to see the same things differently. This is highly beneficial especially when it works out that your shortcomings are filled by your co-director's strong suits, and vice versa. However, this is not to say that such a collaboration is always the right option. If two visionaries are working against each others goals to meet their own, then this can only be detrimental to the production. Not only does it confuse the directors, it confuses every single person charged with creating what has become a completely dynamic 'vision'. In short, collaboration can be a wonderful thing, just make sure you are collaborating with constructive and understanding people.
This was a very interesting article! I’ve never really thought about it before, but it is true that a director does their job on their own. They do have assistant directors, and I’m not sure why they weren’t brought up in the article. Regardless, I really enjoyed reading about the challenge and benefits of co-directing. This would be very interesting from a stage manager’s perspective as well, since the intricacies of a director-SM relationship would be very different. I imagine it’d require a lot of flexibility, and I wonder if you’d need a second SM or ASM to keep track of both rehearsal rooms. Either way, I think it’d be a really fun challenge, and the benefits to the artistic process alone would make the more complex process worth it. I would definitely like to hear from a stage manager who has worked on a co-directed production done the way that Haj describes!
Having co-directors can either go really well or really bad. It is hard to tell before the process if the two directors will work well together. Sometimes people seem to get along and have similar ideas, but they cannot work together. There is a big risk of ideas clashing and personalities. There needs to be a lot of trust in each other to do things a little differently, but ultimately end up with the same end product. I've worked with co-directors a few times before and some times it work and others there was some conflict. There is often a power struggle and fighting when making decisions.
It was really interesting for me to read all of the comments that questioned the use of a co-director. I know I generally don't speak up unless I find it really necessary if I'm in a large group (alas, there goes my Hawk vs. Handsaw grade), but I still really enjoy collaborating very closely with people when it's on a closer level. It seems to me that a co-director holds a certain kind of relationship that is different than just an assistant or dramaturg -- he or she is someone who shares fully in the vision that you have and is your equal. You are very lucky if you find someone who thinks similarly and who you can bounce ideas off of to find better ones, and such collaborative work is a really great way to learn about the work you do as well as how other people think.
I admire the idea of co-direction, but I haven't found it as successful as Haj seems to think. I've co-written and co-directed a piece with one of my friends for a class, and though we work well together it can be very difficult to collaborate writing and thematic styles to make a cohesive piece. If you're going to collaborate, you probably need to find someone who has a similar style to yours; however, that might not make for a very interesting piece at all. My playwriting teacher told my friend and I that we had a decision to make before writing and directing our material: we had to choose whether we wanted it to sound to the audience as if it was from one person, or two completely separate people. I think success might come from the Director A and Director B model, to Haj's potential disappointment. Collaboration doesn't have to be halved; the director shares his ideas with tens to hundreds of people in the production to make it what it is. I disagree with Haj -- the director has perhaps the least solitary position. To be clichéd, the director is the glue that brings the show together; how then can they be so alone?
Post a Comment