The 'don't give a line reading' is primarily because line reading denotes character. You want the actor to come up with his/her own approach to the part, and having a line interpreted one way versus another delves into that.

 

There have been times when I've given a line read when I know I want the character to go in a certain direction and other approaches (i.e., talks with the actor as to what result I'm hoping for) fail.

  NO set rules as far as I am concerned. THis is theatre, not math.

 I give line reading to actors at times and see nothing wrong with it.

 Your fellow amateur,

           Keith

 

As for the "rule" it is as also previously stated, to allow the actor to make his own choices. The problem I sometimes have with that is that, dependent on the actor's skill sets (face it, most all of us are amateur) he may not be able to find that emotion without example.   OR I am not able to get what I need from them by explaining, all I'm left with is example.  Unfortunately, to often when I try to "leave it with the actor" I don't get the feel I need for my vision.  So yes, I do, from time to time, give line reads.  Just like, after several other attempts, I will get on stage and show the movement I want or show a piece of business that is just not going right.  

 

My bottom line, at least at this point, is that I acknowledge the "rule" and realize that it comes from the professional theater.  I try to follow it, but I am tired of not getting what I want and will often still give line reads .... I know, I should be ashamed...

 

SORRY that's hogwash.  I am the one as director who comes up with the concept, the vision if you will, the entire and complete understanding of the script, the author's intention, and my own viewpoints on what I'd like to see - taking into account what an audience might like to see and what actors might like to sink their teeth into.  I'm the one who hears in my head how I think a line should be delivered and when I don't hear it (bear in mind it's an experience issue as well) but when I don't hear it the way I want to hear it or think it should be delivered IN CONTEXT, in good taste taking into account the action, the dialogue, the style, the author's intent (in MY opinion) - then it's UP TO ME AS DIRECTOR to get the actor to say it like I think it should be said.

 

NOW THEN here's where my contention takes over.  I'm told that as a director (again academia talking) that I should use analogies, metaphors, imagry, concepts, ideas and so forth and allow the ACTOR to figure out what the hell I'm talking about until I can get him or her to deliver the line like I expect to hear it.  WHAT A FREAKIN' GIGANTIC WASTE OF TIME!! I simply do NOT have that much time to waste when I'm directing a show.  Partly that's because I usually wind up wearing more than one hat and time is always a commodity that cannot be wasted.  Therefore, I WARN all my casts that I DO give line readings.  That is based, I tell them, on the fact that it is simply easier to demonstrate by giving the line reading how I want them to deliver it - and I AM open to discussion and ideas about it - but how I want them to deliver a line rather than waste time trying to make them understand through some other voodoo means - what I'm trying to get them to do.  Sorry - but I simply am too direct and too busy to waste time trying to find the analogy or metaphor that will allow THEM to "discover" how the line should be delivered to satisfy MY concept.  I warn them I do it - IF NECESSARY. And surprisingly I really never have to do THAT much to get the lines delivered as I see it.  I emphasize that it's not that I don't trust their judgement or their abilities - it's just how I see it and frankly when my name is on the top - I want it like I want it. And I don't waste my or their time leading them by the hand using less direct methods to deliver a line(s) like I want to hear them.  And again it comes from experience of acting, directing and being IN THEIR SHOES.  I detest ambiguity. Partly that's why my responses and posts are so long-winded. I hate leaving anything out.  And I know more rhetoric often causes ambiguity (why I don't know) I still maintain that I say it all so there is nothing left out.  AND when I direct - yes, I give line readings and see absolutely NO problem with it - and no actor that I know of has ever questioned my doing that.  They might sometimes disagree but I've always been open with my casts in that, I allow them the freedom to disagree - at which point we discuss it and share the reasons why I want things said a certain way.  Sometimes I concede.  But I do tell them in the end, it's MY choice and more often than not, it's worked quite well.

 

I just get a little sick and tired of so much garbage being taught in academia that is so unlike and so unnecessary or ridiculous in the real world of doing theater.  NOT that I'm opposed to learning, being taught. It's just the content that gets or worse, doesn't get taught in schools. 

 

Simply - line readings save time, gets it said and expressed without wasting time trying to get someone to deliver a line a certain way by some less direct means and finally gets it done after which we can move ahead to less involved things.  I see no problem at all.  Don't ALWAYS believe everything someone tells you, or tries to teach you when you hear that "it's always been done that way"......including what I'M TELLING YOU.  Don't believe me - just develop your own methods and experience and time will teach you more than anything.

 

And MartyW - NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED OF giving line readings - I mean WHY WASTE YOURS AND EVERYONE ELSE'S TIME going the voodoo route so the actor can feel he or she created this role from their own vast storehouse of knowledge and experience.............when often they have NEITHER!!! Experienced actors don't require it as much but they too have "ideas" that don't gel with YOUR concept as a director.  The mark of a good actor is to deliver what the director wants without question.....IF you have a director that knows what they're doing.  I say you CAN question anything and hopefully you can come to an agreement favorably in the best interests of the show. There have been some directors I've worked with who were tyrannical. NO changes, alterations, actor involvement. NOT my style believe me. I can learn too - and have which is why I do things the way I do them now.  Experience and mistakes have been there - I learn from it all.  Bear in mind a good director will NOT make his actors look bad. And in the end - whose name is at the top?  The DIRECTOR's!! He has to take the hits too - sometimes at the expense of the actors but if something is stupid - at least the actors can say - "that's what the director told me to do"!! If something stupid gets done, the director has nobody to blame but him/her self!!

 

BACK IN THE CAVE TONY!!

 

 

TonyDi

As the Dirctor everything on that stage reflects on me; the acting, the set, the dressing, the lighting.  This is my vision and if someone is not delivering the line in the way my "vision" wants, then it is my job to help them get there.  If this means I have to say "because I'm the mommy and I say so" then so be it. 

But then I have also been accused of being a caveman as well.

 

 

I promise I will NOT go on at length - my posts are always too long.  ALAS, Ed I really AGREE with everything you've said.  I too, allow the actors to "find" their character. Actually I spend a GREAT DEAL of time developing the characters, discussing them, working individually even with actors if and when they need it - ESPECIALLY in shows that are not always comedic or musicals - although those are, in MY opinion, to be dealt with in the same way to make the characters more believable. BUT in dramatic or even lighter scripts I do like to dig deeply and talk about the characters with the actors - guiding them as I go along with what I want in mind for them to do.  The key is - that when it comes to hearing things a particualr way, to me it's much more expedient to simply give the line reading as the example rather than waste time beating around the bush. Time is always our enemy in community theater or even in professional theater as well.

 

I agree like you actors when you're a director are insane. Directors when you're an actor are insane. The key is to go with the flow. HOWEVER as in one blatant case I can recall - as a director, I had an actor who was inherently VERY GOOD.  But he was a case and a task to work with. A bit cosmic, a bit taken with himself - HATED having notes at the end of rehearsals. Asked me very inane and often goading questions most of the time.  Asked me after rolling his eyes many times during notes, "what is my motivation in such and such a scene".  My response - "BECAUSE I EFFIN' TOLD YOU TO DO IT"!!! BAD response on my part. But he got the point.  Directors - I've had a few who choreographed every step, gesture, quarter-turn, etc., etc. WORST director I ever dealt with.

 

BUT I said all that to say this - I just have learned to "deal with it" and do the best I possibly can in either role - actor or director. And if line readings were the only fault I have as a director, well I'd be doing great.  I'm not an end-all, but when as I said, my name is at the top, I want what I want and "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line" - so line readings - for which I apologize - are given to save time. And knowing I do that from the outset - most of the people who have worked for me get over.  I always tell them - if they're going to exhibit any - to leave their egos at the door. And if there is ANY ego at all - it will come from me - ALWAYS ON THEIR BEHALF!!

 

But yes, I agree with everything you said - in theory. It's such a subjective, experience based thing that makes what I do, what you or anyone else do, different for each of us. And if it works for you, by all means I support that. And I really DO try different things, different approaches to see what works best.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose but you keeping pressing on regardless.

 

As an old British friend of mine used to say - using the slogan of the RAF - the Royal British Air Force - "PER ARDUA, AD ASTRA"....."BY LABOR TO THE STARS".  That puts things into perspective for me quite often. Fruits of the labors - as you indicate - anonymity without the need for the recognition - EXCEPT for the ACTORS who put it all out there and make you proud.

 

Thanks for your comments - and again this is too long.  Sorry.

 

 

TonyDi

 

  Love your posts, yes they do get a little long. But just wondering, above you state "So line readings-for which I apologize..." are you apologizing to us, or to the actor you are giving lines too??  As I wrote earlier, I give line reading to actors, and have gotten them from directors, and I don't see any reason to apologize. Like you said, time is the enemy, and I am a "Get 'er Done" kinda person. Thank God I never had any training, so I never have to worry about all the "Rules"

 

Well Majic, the short answer - were I to ever be short - is YES!!   I make an apology to the actors up front when we get started in rehearsals although AFTER we do a complete read-through first so I can hear them and sort of see where they MIGHT go with things.  It's an apology of sorts in that - I DO tell them briefly that I DO give line readings and I explain why that is, apologizing generally but primarily for those actors who think they don't need it, in order to diminish their aversion to that. And as they are then aware, I don't bring it up again but rather SUGGEST that they deliver a line here and there as I demonstrate. They don't always match me - but I like the idea that they do go ahead and try knowing it's what I want.  And again not that I'm a know-it-all either by ANY stretch - but I have been at this a very long time, I know what I am doing and I know what I want when I direct. I TOO like those "aha" moments when an actor comes up with stuff I didn't think of.  I TRY to let them all know I AM a collaborator but that in the end I have the last word.  Mainly you realize THEY cannot see what they're doing and what's going on onstage - I have the "removed" viewpoint and I've learned the lessons well over the years to know what likely will work and what likely will not.  It only took most of the 50 years to learn it - but I think I have some semblance of understanding in that regard.

 

Anyway I AM also apologizing to the members of this board as well because I know opinions vary, techniques vary from director to director. And while anything I usually EVER express is nothing more than opinion, I try not to be disagreeable when someone expresses theirs, right or wrong in MY opinion.  Whatever gets the job done, butts in the seats and dollars in the till - I'm kind'a good with that for sure. 

 

But thank you for your words and kind support - long winded my posts are or not.  I TRY really hard not to be - but if we were sitting down and talking all this would take moments to say - plus I can type really, really fast so it's like I'm talking in moments. SO I will apologize for the long-windedness as well. Brevity is not my strong suit.

 

TonyDi

 

Keep up the good work,

   Keith

 

 

Hey Ed,

 

Nope I don't live near Chicago - it's about 7 hours away. And it's too cold, windy and dangerous. But thank you for your kind words. As for the knowledge and hard work, well first of all as I've said before, I've been doing this stuff almost 50 years and I DO work harder than many to get things done. I have to because I have to compensate for my lack in so many things. But that's just a work ethic I grew into quite early learning from my hard working Mother who I admired and respected. Let's put it this way, hey...I'm a FUN GUY!! Sometimes!! I CAN be a royal pain in the rear...so I'm told. But I try not to be.

 

I'm not sure I could work with Tony, he might talk too much...

 

And MAJIC - I know, I know I talk too much. But I've said this before too - I HATE to leave anything out or unsaid that would or could cause confusion or ambiguity.  Though I REALIZE FULLY that too much can easily confuse things too. Though I try my level best to be lucid in what I say and complete if NOT concise (which I am not). Sorry I'll try to do better!! HAHA!!

 

TonyDi

 

TheactorDavid - the "otherwise part" above is precisely what David Mamet says in his book TRUE AND FALSE - but again, he's coming from a standpoint as playwright and hard-ass director type. HE'd just as soon the actors learn the lines without interpretation, go out on stage deliver them and then get the hell off the stage leaving the audience to interpret in their own minds what just was said or what happened.  Far too risky with even the most seasoned professional actors. But could be a take on the whole thing - often worthy of consideration in many cases!! HAHA!!

 

TonyDi

 

P.S.

 

I like some of Mamet's comments but he does go off once in a while. And I don't recommend it be done this way but it's a way nonetheless.