I agree 100% with Tristan.

 

That is all.

 

If you stick your shovel into Shakespeare, Arthur Miller, Chekhov, you can keep digging for miles and still come up with gold.  There's always something more to be found.

 

I once had a director spend an evening discussing the back stories of the characters in Arsenic and Old Lace.  That evening was a waste of time.  The motivations and relationships are all right there on the surface.  There is gold to be found in Harvey and Arsenic and Old Lace, but it's a finite amount and it's all near the top.  If you keep digging past the gold trying to find more where none exists, you just wear yourself out and look silly.

 

Decide what the characters want, why they want it and go from there.  Save your shovel for a bigger mine.

 

I was going to decry the whole idea of putting big spotlights on The Theme; but after twenty years of directing community theater I just started on my first non-equity professional show, Boston Marriage and I've been spending more time than usual on approach.

 

At the readthrough, I gave the actresses references that they wouldn't possibly be able to imitate in the show (nor would I want them to), but to give them character hooks.  Aside from the obvious note that Boston Marriage is a female mirror of the males in American Buffalo (two older people planning a scam who think they're smarter than their young, dim assistant -- and they're not), I also said, "Look at Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?  Anna - you're Martha.  Claire - you're George.  Catherine - you're Honey."  Or Chicago.  Anna is Roxie, Claire is Velma, Catherine is Amos.  I struck gold when, referring to the two older women who think they're intelligent, compared to the honest, helpfully dim maid, I said, "You're two Hardys and a Laurel."  The woman playing Catherine loved that because it gives her a handle on the character without dictating line readings -- honest, lovable, simple; but really slow on the uptake.

 

Using the Virginia Woolf reference gets us away from the "They're Lesbians!!!" aspect, which doesn't really enter into it.  The focus is not on two lesbians, it's on a bad marriage which happens to be between two women.

 

So yeah, I guess I think a lot about the focus of the show, and what hooks to give actors that will help them play it; I just tend to shy away from making that process a big deal.  I decide what I want from the show and go after it.

 

Originally posted by Popeye the Sailor I yam what I yam and tha's all I am.

 

Sometimes the part and/or the show speaks for itself.

 

Not to take this subject too lightly though, when I am acting I spend a lot of time in character analysis, relationship dynamics, historical and literary connections, backstory links, subtext, and even at times, the "spine" of the story and production.  I do this not only to prepare my character, but...it's a major part of what I enjoy about building a character.

 

As a director, I give the actors just enough to start the ball rolling (much as AMOS HART said, with references familiar enough to ring the bell) and primarily ask them for input as they begin to figure things out themselves (tailoring my reaction to their responses toward the path I wish them to proceed).  Too much analysis on the director's part, it seems to me, distracts the actors from doing their own job.

 

I think the first things you said about identifying the spine of Harvey are the exact kind of observations and conclusions you should be making. You do have to examine what every character is going through. When you do, you find commonalities. Those commonalities are the basis for your spine, or theme. To not search for those, and to disregard them, is an insult to the playwright who put them there for a reason. Any director who advises their actors not to bother with asking important character questions or devising backstories, shouldn't be directing. Those directors and actors are only concerned with the outward appearance of their characters. The character then has no inner life. The inner life of the character makes for a fuller, more honest, and better performance. I don't care what different school of acting you study, Stanislavsky, Meisner, Hagen, Strassberg, any acting teacher, book, director worth their salt will concur.

 

That said, one of the techniques I use is called from what...through what...to what. It works like this:

 

From what: When the play begins, how is the world of the play? From where is the beginning of the play coming? What happened just before the play began? Remember, every beginning of a story is just the middle or end of another story

 

Through what:What transpires during the course of the play? How is the established world changed or challenged? What events occur and what are their impact on the people in the story? (Notice I said people not characters)

 

To what: What is left at the end? How is the world of the play different? Are questions answered? Are new ones put forth? Where do the characters go from here?

 

Lastly, the other thing to identify is conflict. The heart of drama, and stories in general, is conflict. Identify these (yes there may be more than one) in terms of forces or concepts (ie., man vs. nature, passionate love vs. marriages of convenience, old age vs. youth, etc.) The identified spine and the from-thru-to will support the conflict.

 

Any director that doesn't do their homework, is a lazy director. Actors who don't do their homework are lazy as well. It doesn't matter if the audience thinks in those terms. The director and actors have to know more about the play and the characters than the audience. And believe me, the audience does perceive it on some level.

 

In reading some of the responses here, don't be swayed by the "don't make it so hard" comments. Directing is hard! No one ever said it should be easy. Even the most trvivial seeming play has a conflict. Do you need as deep and thorough an analysis of Grease as you do Death of a Salesman? Well maybe not. But you still need to flesh it out to a certain extent. Attention must be paid.   Good luck!