It’s rare for the person on the design team who allows us to “see” the production to be tapped to guide the entire operation. Theaters looking for new directors generally do not recruit from the ranks of lighting, costume, set or sound designers. Actors and choreographers sometimes shift into the director’s seat, but the skills of other specialists seem not to be considered so easily transferrable.
10 comments:
I think it makes a lot of sense for designers to become directors, and vice versa. A lot of people in theater transition from one department to another over the course of their career, and it speaks to the flexibility of these roles as part of one artistic team looking to tell a story together, each with their different sets of tools. In non-traditional, "experimental" theater it's even more common for collaborators to not have roles that are clearly defined by departments or areas. It's interesting to think that a long time ago, when theater was nothing like what it is today, there weren't nearly as many design areas, and that the line between director and scenic/lighting/costume designers were very blurred, with one or two people taking on all these roles. As theater as developed as an industry, and more and more positions in the areas of production, sound and media have been added, the compartmentalization of theater has become the norm. And now, a lot of projects and companies are reverting to a model that veers from tradition.
I think this article really hits on an emotional dichotomy that exists in most lighting designers: The battle between “I don’t want to talk to the actors, I don’t want to have to coddle them or provide motivation, I just want them to find their light and do their thing” and “oh god does this director know anything about staging or stage composition, man this would be so much easier if I could just tell the actors where to go.” I think the artistic insight into staging that lighting designers are required to have can provide them with many good insights as to how to be a good director, but I don’t think many are as ready for the role as choreographer or actors or even dramaturges are. It’s a different set of responsibilities and motivations. I can easily see how the statement “The lighting design can only be as good as the staging or the scenic design” could come from a lighting designer who has more artistic vision than the rest of the team put together. At a certain point, it would be nice if we just let the most capable person drive the bus, regardless of what they cared about.
"Letting the most capable person drive the bus" to quote Chris Norville, is something I think theater has an interesting duality of opinion on. In design, direction, management, and especially in performance, the presence of ego plays such a huge part in both assigning and interpreting direction, which can make the metaphorical bus a poorly-steered wreck in no time flat. The first group of voices, upon observing the wildly careening, possibly flaming bus/production, will take the spectacle in stride, with an "it's theater, after all" mindset, and will find or take an explanation for any questionable directing/design/management/performance choices. The second camp of opinion will observe this self-destructing bus, and not accepting the explanation that the bus's progressive lack of function is in fact a conscious and deliberate choice to convey a deeper meaning, seek to immediately rectify the situation. This is not to say that this renders the bus fixed or even functional, but an attempt to return the bus to a preconceived notion of what a bus is in fact supposed to be is made.
Now, the parameters I have drawn are not concrete by any means complete. There are those who will contest that the bus is not truly a bus until at least 13 more moving lights and someone with a royally conveyed British honorific before their name have been added to the bus. There are those those who say that the best driving is done with a junkyard VW bus refurbished and driven entirely by hungry 20-somethings on narcotic concoctions that would make Aldous Huxley's head whirl. There are even those that drive wagons, and like snobby Amish glitterati, look down on all the automobiles with the misplaced faith that they alone will thus be carried to theatrical heaven.
As easy as it is to get wrapped up in this bus business, there is one thing to remember; we're all along for a ride.
Directors are a weird link in theatre between the cast and the crew. They are the guide for both sides of the artistic vision of a show. Reading this article made me question that role and the way directors are typically trained for that role a little bit. Traditionally, and here at Carnegie Mellon for sure Directors train intensively with the actors for all four years. This makes sense because the director directly influences what is seen onstage through those actors. However, the Director also guides the design team. Interestingly though we never actually get to work with the directors in a classroom setting. I would be fascinated to see the effects of a program where directors took the basic design classes that design students did or even the same storytelling classes that we take sophomore year here. I know having a director that has a truly deep understanding of design is a fantastic experience but it seems like we just expect that of them without any of the training we go through to learn it.
I think, quite frankly, every role in theater can turn into the role of a director. This statement comes with the caveat that all people are trained to analyze plays they work on through a dramaturgical lens. At the very least, I think all designers have the skills to direct if they choose. What makes MacDevitt's situation interesting is that he has waited until fairly late in his career to direct. Clearly, based on his interview in this article, MacDevitt has always had an urge to direct in theatre. I wonder why it has taken him this long to finally do it. My theory is that MacDevitt built his lighting design career up so much that he was highly known and regarded across the industry, making him an easy choice for a theater company to hire as a director. If MacDevitt had tried getting the same directing job when he was first starting out with his lighting design career, I bet he wouldn't have had the same outcome.
This article also makes me wonder an opposite switch: If a highly respected director switched to design. I can't think of many instances where this has happened at a well known theater company, but I think it is an important idea for all of us to keep in mind. We are going into a highly specialized, niche industry. Maybe by dabbling and educating ourselves in multiple jobs within that industry will make us more marketable.
Before somewhat recently, directing had never even crossed my mind as something I could do. I have dabbled in writing, acting, design, but the role of a director was a vague and blurry notion that didn't seem to mesh with my own skills and interests. After attending the Prague Quadrennial, however, I find my opinion somewhat changed. Rather than looking at design and direction as two entirely different skill sets, it truly seems as though these two tasks actually work hand in hand. Instead seeing both jobs as their nuts and bolts, it is far more interesting to see both as the task of creating worlds.
I think Julie Taymor is an ideal example of an artist who builds worlds without being restricted by title. If a director can look at a show with a designers eye, and incorporate a broader theme into their implementation of visuals, I see no reason the positions could not be switched.
I think it is so important to have cross-disciplinary artists, especially in the theatre community. Theatre is such a collaborative art that having such rigid roles as director, designer, actor, etc. can actually be damaging. Theatre is a place where people can explore their passions and express themselves in any way they see fit. Now, that’s not to say they will be good at it at first. Each of these disciplines requires a base level of training to be mildly successful. But theatre is a lot about learning by doing, and sometimes just watching other artists work allows you to better comprehend their art. I think this kind of cross disciplinary mindset is really important, especially at CMU. It’s one of the things that makes CMU’s program stand out. They allow a greater range of cross disciplinary work, including opening classes to non-majors, and events like Playground; where anyone can be anything they want. This kind of environment can really lead to an amazing community of artists who understand each other.
I think that this is great. I love seeing people pushing out of their normal roles in the theatre. It never really made sense to me that designers don’t switch over to directing as much as actors or playwrights. We all learn the art of storytelling, and have most likely been around enough rehearsals to at least know what is going on. Yes, each of us would probably bring focus to the areas we know best, but trained directors do that as well. Each different possible director would be able to put his or her spin on the play. I think that taking the opportunity to direct would be a great opportunity for anyone in the theatre; it could help expand the horizons on people’s creativity and open up the possibilities within the world of theatre.
Going to CMU Drama school you get to be very close with other disciplines, like directors. Seeing the curriculum they go through leads me to believe that it would be very hard to just switch gears and move over into that world. Now that doesn’t mean I don’t think it can be done. I would say that if you have worked in the business for a very long time you could pick up a certain amount of the ticks that directors have. Another part of the equation, I think, is that element of personality. I think in order to be a director you have to be somewhat of a people person and have the ability to socialize with a variant of people. This is not something that you directly learn for CMU, I think that is something that you will pick up over time, and once you have it the likelihood of you being a better director would go up drastically.
I think that make sense and I think anyone can shift from one carreer to another, either within or out of the initial fields. It happens all the time, so many singers and musicians move into management, management moves to directing , designers move to directing. I think all these as long as you are a decent one always have potential to bring in some interesting change. That's why we now have media heavy show, that's why we have sound design based performance, all the device pieces, non-traditional fancy avant garde Shakespeare interpretations happening nowadays. I don't even think majority of the world population will be sticking to their first career fields they laid on anyways. I don't thunk anyone should even have to force themselves to commit to the job their degree represented but rather explore and try everything too find out who you are and what you really like
Post a Comment