Well Eve, since it was MY comment to an actor whom I was directing, let me clarify (as I partially did) in my response to someone's chastisement for saying that.  This actor was trouble from the get-go.  I auditioned him, I cast him, it was MY choice, I had to work with him BECAUSE he was good enough and gave me what I needed to see in auditions.  However, do directors EVER know what they're getting UNTIL the process is underway?  ONLY if they're psychic or have worked with the person before.  MY response to him was after many weeks of leading him by the hand (something I didn't think I'd have to do at the outset but graciously TRIED to do throughout).  He was disruptive part of the time, highly arrogant and insistant about things that took away a LOT of precious time and energy from the entire process, he alienated other cast members and was a problem case in the extreme.  MY remark came out of frustration because he didn't feel the need to sit and listen to notes (and this was days away from opening) after a rehearsal - he thought HE was above that.  So he did everything he could to be the proverbial thorn.  When that question was asked, it was one of wanting to know his motivation over the most trivial of issues that - by the way - had ALREADY been addressed before numerous times and I simply decided that it was nothing more than a ploy by him to further decay the process both in time and energy.  So perhaps my response was curt and pointed, I DID then go on to say that he simply would just have to trust me that what he was doing was what I wanted and that his "need" for motivation was unnecessary and designed solely to waste time and everyone else in the cast knew it too - but were leaving it to ME as director to do my job and address it.

As I said, he went on to do the show, doing what was asked of him and when his excellence showed, believe me, I gave him his strokes too just like the rest of the cast.  But as I said, AT THE TIME it was what he NEEDED TO HEAR to get him off his high-horse and moving forward.  Ultimately, he excelled in his job and he was pleased, the audience was pleased, and I was over it.  But I STILL HAD to be that forceful at the time to get past the issue that was inane, foolish, and a waste of time.  I really had no animosity toward him - beyond simply wanting him to do his job and to trust me as director (something he often tried to subvert from the beginning).  The rest of the cast - on numerous occasions - came to me with complaints about him too, but in my effort to keep his talents for the good of the show, I had to be diplomatic enough to tolerate and try to direct the energy of his problems into the work and make it better for the good of the show.

I'm sure I rub some people the wrong way.  I'm direct, to the point, I call them as I see them, and I don't mince words. Some people like that, some people don't.  There is far too little time for walking-on-eggshells doing this stuff and regardless of it being community theater or not, people know when I'm directing a show (and should accept it as a given part of doing theater in general) that they come into it with the knowledge that it's going to be conducted as well as possible but that their committment IS A COMMITTMENT.  And while it should be fun - it CAN BE and usually IS a concerted effort toward the highest quality that can be achieved under whatever circumstances with which we have to work...and the people involved.  I know these community theater venues are VOLUNTEER - but often that's the case for me too as a director.  And if I can commit and give 1000% then surely everyone else can give their 100% (I'm no better than they - I just work relentlessly).  And I'm sick and tired of people using the "excuse" that "this is a volunteer theater" to give LESS THAN THEIR BEST.  And as I've already said, had I NOT been on both sides of the issue, I would have little to say.  But I'm an actor too as well as a director and I've been subjected to some things that were much more stringent than even I do and in some cases far less.  But I have always tried to "strike a balance" and realizing that it IS a volunteer situation, I have to make "some" concessions.  Though I don't make many.  And when actors who commit to a project, making whatever efforts they need to in order to GET cast, but then disrupt the whole process, that's when I draw the lines.  Thus the nature of MY remark to that actor.

So now you know.  I haven't had to do that too many times thankfully.  But I don't shy away from it - I am NOT afraid to fire anyone if need be and if it's for the good of the show and everyone involved. Nor am I afraid to "call them" on their disruptive, or ego-based issues if it's making everyone else uncomfortable.

I really didn't want to have to defend my position.  As I stated earlier (and I'm sure at least ONE person thinks I'm being arrogant and egotistic) but I HAVE been at this game for nearly 50 years and I've had a lot of experiences and time in the game to figure out what works in general and what works for me.  And there are enough people who are of like mind that they DO want to work FOR me as well as WITH me on projects in which I involve myself.  But then this all sounds arrogant and like I'm blowing my own horn.  Sorry about that.  I can't change history.  Maybe I don't need to be part of this forum. But I thought I COULD contribute - yet some feel compelled by whatever authority - to redress me for my opinions based on my experience and involvement in theater.  So I'm still considering my option to leave as easily as I came into this group.  And maybe that would make those who think I'm just being egotistical, happy as mud-hens.  If so, I might have to accommodate them.  But we'll see.

TonyDi

Every director has their own style and preferred method of working.   I believe my job as a director is not to PROVIDE my actors with their motivations, but help them DISCOVER their motivations during the rehearsal process.   However, changes and compromises are often made depending on the situation.

I was hired to direct a summer-stock show and, because of the limited rehearsal period (eight days total!) I warned my actors in advance that there wouldn't be much time for "discovery."  In fact, it was a very large cast (14-15 characters) so I had already pre-blocked the show before the first rehearsal to establish traffic patterns and stage pictures that needed to move the story along.

After the first read-thru we moved immediately into blocking and I was simply telling actors things like "You enter and go left"  "You must get to the couch by the end of this line"  "You wait for her to clear before starting your cross" etc, etc, etc.

Often the actors were mystified as to why they were moving where and at what time.  But, much to their credit, they did as they were told and it was only during the next rehearsal, after the play was completely blocked and we could start actually rehearsing individual scenes that questions arosed as to motivations.

Whenever an actor asked "what's my motivation?" rather than provide them with answers, I often countered with "what do you think?" forcing them to come up with a workable solution.  Sometimes, I had an answer in my head and was merely trying to guide them there, other times the actor came up with a completely convincing and workable alternative to my solution.  And -- truth be told -- sometimes because we were just trying to get the show on its feet, I hadn't a CLUE (and was merely getting one actor out of the way to make room for another actor coming through the door two lines later), hoping the actor would get there on his own. 

Left to their own devices, the actors eventually learned to stop asking and started thinking for themselves (Actors who THINK!?) Sometimes, the blocking changed as a result, but, more often than not, the actors found solutions and it wasn't until day five or six when we started running the show where I could actually sit back and watch the story unfold that I began to question THEM.  "What's your motivation here?"  Their answers were varied -- "I'm embarrassed by what they're saying so I'm moving over here to be away from them" (Great!)  or "I need to get the laundry put away" (workable)  or "I'm tired and need to sit" (boring). 

On the less desirable choices, we'd work together to come up with more actable and interesting motivations.

Finally, during a run-thru we came to a scene that had lots of chaos and movement.  I noticed one actor (our romantic leading man) simply cross through the action and leave the scene.  It seemed odd and unmotivated, so I  quickly checked my notes and discovered, yes, I told him to do that.  Why?  I had no idea.

Later, during notes when I asked him what his motivation was for entering and leaving such a dramatic scene, he could have easily said "because YOU told me to" (and been perfectly right), but instead he said "It's been a while, I figured my character needed to go find the bathroom."

Somehow, that seemed less than heroic, so I asked him "Is Sally [his romantic opposite] in this scene?" 

"No," he replied. 

"Is there a lot of chaos and action here?" 

"Ye-e-e-s-s-s," he thought until finally "Oh!  I'm looking for Sally!  I'm concerned about her safety!"

Much better!  Suddenly his cross through was dramatic, with purpose, completely in character and added another level to the scene.

So, long story short -- (too late!).    It is up to the actors to make choices and for the director to shape them.  An actor who constantly asks "what's my motivation?" is neither thinking for himself nor thinking as the character.  If you have SEVERAL actors doing that, it's enough to try ANY director's patience.  The answers will be revealed, but only if you look for them. 

Anyway, getting back to what this threads about, I agree totally that "motivation" is the actors responsibility and an actor who must constantly ask for it is either lazy or just not that good. However there have certainly been times where I've just been stumped on a line, it just doesn't seem to make sense in the scene for whatever reason, and I didn't think there was anything wrong with saying to the director "I don't understand why I say this" , and to me it's part of the directors job to help the actor figure it out.

Great post, Topper!  You are absolutely right.  Sometimes the best way for a director to answer a question is with a question.  If nothing else, it give the actor ownership of his blocking or character or costume....makes him feel like the blocking (character, costume) wouldn't exist without him.

The actress/ comedienne/ writer Elaine May has been quoted as saying the actor's business is to justify.  Justification is really a synomyn for motivation.

In thinking back, I have rarely been asked about motivation.  Maybe its because, when blocking (or working a scene for the emotional context), I try to give reasons for the move.  The reason may be as mundane as "I need to clear the door for another entrance" or "the scene has been fairly static up to now" or intrinsic to the plot like "I want you close enough to physically threaten her".  The actors I generally work with are good enough to use this as a basis to justify the move.  And frankly, if the actor and I can't come up with a good, plausible, playable reason to move (or react, or enter, or exit), I need to go back to the drawing board and find an earlier time to effect the cross out of the doorway.  Its a beautiful thing when you and the actor make a good choice as your justification.  And if your first choice isn't working.....make another choice....and another, until you hit upon one that works.  When I begin my script anaylsis work I follow my tag line "investigate, imagine, choose" and then, as Topper says above, the levels of character begin to revel themselves.  I like to think of it like peeling the layers of an onion.

A director friend of mine who has directed numerous professional and CT productions always says that the secret of good directing is proper casting.  90% of the work is already done if you've got the right actors in the right roles.

Incidentally, whenever he's asked (in a professional theater) "what's my motivation?"  he typically responds "Your paycheck!"