Director/Actor Choices
Printed From: Community Theater Green Room
Category: Producing Theater
Forum Name: Directing
Forum Discription: For questions about handling shows, actors, crew, board members, children ...or do we repeat ourselves?
URL: http://www.communitytheater.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4951
Printed Date: 11/23/24 at 2:07pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 8.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Director/Actor Choices
Posted By: SeanReidLaw
Subject: Director/Actor Choices
Date Posted: 2/01/11 at 1:07pm
This may not be an easy one to answer. Out of curiosity, I was wondering where others draw the line between what is director's choice in a show and what is the actor's choice. (Such as defining a relationship with another character) I know this can run the spectrum from a director making essentially every choice to a director that makes choices only when absolutely necessary.
What are your general guidelines/boundaries as a director as to who gets to make which choice?
|
Replies:
Posted By: Majicwrench
Date Posted: 2/01/11 at 1:42pm
|
Easy question for me. The director has the last word. Always. That is not to say that the actors don't have input, I encourage that. But the bottom line is the director.
|
Posted By: SeanReidLaw
Date Posted: 2/01/11 at 1:54pm
|
I completely agree that the director has last word. I'm more curious as to who you give the first word to.
|
Posted By: Amos Hart
Date Posted: 2/01/11 at 2:26pm
|
As a director, it's always my choice. However:
1. I try to cast people who are already on the same page as me. It saves arguments.
2. I'm certainly open to trying things their way, if they have a different idea. But I get to say "no" and it sticks.
3. Defining relationships? Defining anything -- that's my job.
If the play is a beach and you can roam anywhere in the sand that you feel like it, regardless of what the other actors are doing, there's no focus. I provide the sandbox. I want you to be as creative as you can possibly be, but within the boundaries I set.
|
Posted By: edh915
Date Posted: 2/01/11 at 11:06pm
It's the director's call. Period.
First of all, I'll cast actors who I'm pretty sure can fill the requirements I have for the role. Then, during first read-thru we (the entire cast) discuss each scene and what the cast thinks is going on between the characters. I listen and sometimes learn from these talks, but I also guide them with remarks of my own. During blocking a great deal of motivation is made clear just by the characters' relationships to each other on stage and their actions and reactions - stand, turn away, move forward, step back, etc. The actors work with the movements I give them and work toward an understanding of the character. They ask questions. I give recommendations. I try to stay away from line readings, but I will tell them the emotion I want them to convey - which leads into working with the concept that more often than not "less is more." I want my actors to contribute as much as they can to the character's development so it will be "their" character. But the final determination will always, always, always be mine.
(Needless to say, we don't have to take this careful an approach with a Neil Simon show.)
I was doing a show once wherein an actress had decided that her character and another character in the show had had an affair - with no shred of evidence in the text or the action of the play. I told her "No. No affair. Not even a kiss. It would totally destroy the balance of the show and completely undermine one of the leads - not to mention the audience's satisfaction in having the lead return to her estranged husband." She screamed that I was stifling her artistic soul and quit the show 5 days before opening. I replaced her with a marvelous actress who understood what I was looking for and gave it to me. Actress #2 was wonderful, and actress #1 was not missed at all.
|
Posted By: Majicwrench
Date Posted: 2/02/11 at 1:50pm
|
Intersting about the actress wanting and "affair" that kind a thing comes up a lot, actors/actresses want to flirt with other actors on stage even when it is totally not called for.
|
Posted By: NDTENOR
Date Posted: 2/02/11 at 2:18pm
Well now that some directors have spoken I will speak more from the actors perspective.
Certainly it is most important to be "on the same page" or share the philosophy of the director with regard to characters. And good directors usually do this by discussing characters and philosophy of the show in the early stages of rehearsal or even in auditions. In some of my most favorite shows I have spent a significant amount of time in these types of character and philosophy discussions. And these people were very good directors.
However, there is an old joke that goes something like this : What do you call the medical student that graduates LAST in his class: Answer..... Doctor.
The analogy is that there are some good directors and some that are not so good. There are some directors that spend a lot of time analyzing the characters of the show and some that don't .
Let me give two examples from my personal experience. A few years ago I auditioned for and got the "lead" in a very well know musical being done by a community theater. In the rehearsal schedule it was decided to work on the dance and music first for the first three or four weeks and then start blocking scenes . The director was someone I had worked with before as an actor but not as a director. Well one things leads to another and the actual blocking really doesn't start until the fifth week. About the time we start blocking I receive a curious e-mail from the director saying that because "the show will run too long" that some of the dialog of the show is being cut. As it turns out most of the lines that were cut were my characters lines which amounts to to, at most, 4 or 5 minutes of spoken dialog but a significant part of the "heart and soul" of the character. I , of course, protested and many grounds through a very long e-mail addressing my concerns. My e-mail was answered with a trite two line response saying that the lines were cut .
At this point I gave serious consideration to quitting the show but at this point we were about 4 to 5 weeks from opening and there were some other people in the show who I really enjoyed working with so I decided not to leave.
Then, during the course of the rest of the blocking of the show there were times when I was directed by this director to perform in such a way which I felt was at odds with the true nature of the character. And there were other aspects and scenes of the production which were at odds with what was the true nature of the production. To make a long story short.... I did my scenes MY way. Although I dropped the lines the director wanted me to cut I played the character in rehearsals during the production according to what I felt was the true nature of the character. Although I'm sure the director wanted to get rid of me she couldn't.... it was a sizable role that I sang well and it would have been pretty hard to find anybody else ... but I'm sure they sent out a few e-mails trying to find someone.
Oh,yes, by the way, the director has the FINAL say. I'm sure she would never cast me again but there is obviously no way I would ever want to work with this director again.
My second example is much briefer and to the point. Again I was cast in a "lead" in a well know musical being done by a community theater. At the first rehearsal I was give a photocopy of the script which contained numerous deletions, changes , and additions to my dialog and to other characters. By chanced I also was able to check and at that point this particular group had not been officially been granted production rites for the show. Both the changes to the script and the possibility that the group had not, as yet, received production rites were a concern to me and I sent an e-mail to the director ( nicely ) expressing these concerns.
The e-mail response was that I was "fired". Oh, well. There's always another show.
So, yes..... the director always gets the last word..... but sometimes it's better that your not even around to hear them.
|
Posted By: SeanReidLaw
Date Posted: 2/02/11 at 6:38pm
Thanks everyone for the comments. The responses are very interesting. I've worked with directors who seem to want to stand back and let the actors go and only step in when there is an issue that needs to be resolved. I've also worked with directors who seemed to stop just short of giving line readings. (every movement was blocked by the director down to a shrug.)
As an actor, I have worked with directors that literally wanted everything to be done in a specific way. Which has led to cast members being uncomfortable on stage and moments that could be great being mediocre. (These consequences are not just my opinion but the opinion of other audience members and critics.)
As a director, I can't really explain where i think my line is. It varies based on the show. But I tend to give actors a lot of room to work under the condition that they know they have to sell me on their choices. Because if i dont buy it the audience wont. This has lead to some great moments on stage that i had nothing to do with, but was praised highly for later. (Isn't being a director fun?)
|
Posted By: NDTENOR
Date Posted: 2/02/11 at 7:07pm
Read an article recently having to do with Clint Eastwood and his "style" of directing as described by Matt Damon.
I don't know the exact language of the quotation but it was something very close to this:
" As a director I try to do my job, let the actors do theirs, and then sit back and relax and just let it all happen."
If it's good enough for Clint Eastwood it's good enough for me.
|
Posted By: Majicwrench
Date Posted: 2/03/11 at 1:21pm
|
NDTENOR, Not that you ever will, but should you ever get the chance to audition for something I am directing or producing, please let us know before the audition that you are not going to do things my way, and we can then part friends and save us both a lot of headaches.
Keith
|
Posted By: NDTENOR
Date Posted: 2/03/11 at 6:51pm
No..... don't worry about it..... I'm sure you are someone that I will stay FAR away from.
|
Posted By: Majicwrench
Date Posted: 2/03/11 at 7:27pm
|
No need to stay far away, I sincerely meant what I said about parting friends. I have deep respect for people who can express their ideas and motives up front. Like I said, it saves a lot of headache. Nothing worse than somebody telling me what they think I want to hear and not meaning it. So please don't take offense, I can appreciate your honesty.
Keith
|
Posted By: NDTENOR
Date Posted: 2/03/11 at 9:37pm
Well... you see Majicwrench old chap .... you and I really would have no special differences of opinions if , as a director, you decide to do it the AUTHORS way. Not MY way or YOUR way. The AUTHORS way.
You see when you "lease" the rights to a production you are , in a real sense, leasing a work of art. That does not mean that you can do or exhibit the work any way you choose. You are "leasing" the right to exhibit the work of art in a way that the author intended it to be exhibited. Not some bastardized version that you made up. But, in a very real sense, how the author would have wanted it exhibited.
I'm sure that if you do your homework and really study and pay attention to the characters of the production and really understand them and present them as the author would have wanted them presented them presented then you and I would have no difference of opinion.
Sorry.... but I do my "homework". Some directors don't.
|
Posted By: edh915
Date Posted: 2/03/11 at 10:44pm
So, NDTENOR, if I'm understanding your remarks to Majicwrench correctly, if it should happen that you audition for a production of, let's say, "As You Like It" by William Shakespeare being directed by Majicwrench, you, by virtue of your "homework" will have been able to discover exactly how the play should be done because you will have determined to the nth degree exactly how Mr. Shakespeare would have wanted to direct and present that particular show; and any "homework" that Majicwrench will have done with the same end result in mind will be disregardable if it doesn't match up exactly with you have determined to be Shakespeare's "truth".
Well, that's just a load of bollocks, isn't it?
You might have a leg to stand on if you were working with something by G.B. Shaw or Arthur Miller, for example, because those guys wrote scads of detail into their stage directions. And even with their works, all any director can do is interpret. All "you" can do is interpret. It's all anyone can do. A good director will be searching for the "truth" of the production he/she is directing. However, there is no one, except the author himself, who is qualified to judge whether or not that "truth" has been adequately represented. But the director, by virtue of his position, "is" the final word on his interpretation of any production he directs.
|
Posted By: NDTENOR
Date Posted: 2/04/11 at 12:14am
Wonderful question edh915.
I do musicals. American musicals ( and your "British -American authors like Andrew Lloyd Webber ) for which there is a wealth of historical information available from both the author and other sources. Some even have their own web sites. A wealth of information is available.
Oh, yes, a lot of people have written about "The Bard" too, critically, by the way.
I read a lot before I do a show. And do a lot of research.
It's most surprising how how many directors do not seem to. And how much I agree with the ones that have seemed to do their homework.
And you are quite right... If I would happen to work with someone who was directing their own work ... like my fellow Chicagogan David Mamet I would take what he would direct as God's truth. After all... it is HIS show.. he knows what he wants.
But another director..??? Not his ( or her ) show? I would have to think about that.
|
Posted By: TonyDi
Date Posted: 2/04/11 at 7:00am
|
Just another example on here of...............oh never mind. I'm sick of this. Whatever I say will most certainly be taken the wrong way....not that I intend that what I say will please anybody. It just amazes me how "smart" some people think they are....or are not. Aw, fuhgedaboudit!! I give up. Why bother anymore. Too bad - just callin' 'em as I see 'em.
TonyDi
-------------
"Almost famous"
|
Posted By: Rorgg
Date Posted: 2/04/11 at 1:44pm
|
Actually, there IS a position for "The Writer" in the show's interpretation. If the playwright himself isn't available, that's the job of the dramaturge. S/he works with the director, representing the writer's intent. Now, most productions don't have a dramaturge, so that job is incorporated into the director. Someone has to make the final choice when it comes down to it. And who that is is pretty clear, unless one fancies oneself a divo/a.
|
Posted By: SamD
Date Posted: 2/04/11 at 8:07pm
|
A director should direct. Otherwise, what would be the point?
|
Posted By: edh915
Date Posted: 2/04/11 at 10:19pm
|
SamD: Hear, hear! From your mouth to the pseudo-intellectuals' ears.
|
Posted By: KEB54
Date Posted: 2/08/11 at 2:20am
|
I view it as a collaboration. I as director have a vision that I am working toward. But I also view the actor as an artist that draws from his own experiences. I feel it behoves me to take advantage of that. Actors also need to interACT with other actors. I am there to guide and direct. Hopefully it is done with respect.
I welcome and encourage trying new things. However, I view myself as the eyes and ears of the actors, afterall they cannot see nor hear themselves from the audience, and they need to have trust in me and listen to what I have to say. I am there so that no one on stage will look bad. I have the final say and the actors must realize that it is done with the best interest of the production in mind.
On a couple of posts now I have seen NDTENOR (I believe) make comments about things being done via email - things like actor/director interactions, script changes, rehearsal notes, etc. I guess that I am apalled at such things. It would never even occur to me! I use email to document rehearsal schedules, but that is about the extent of it. i don't see how it is possible to be effective using email for the other things. We are talking about live theatre, where personal, live interactions are everything! I wouldn't even want to do such things over the phone.
I don't get it! How can you effectively communicate about live productions where your face, your posture, your mannerisms, your voice, your expressions, and all other physical things provide the media through an email? I am amazed by even the concept.
-------------
KEB
|
Posted By: Majicwrench
Date Posted: 2/08/11 at 1:23pm
|
KEB54, interesting your thoughts on email. I use email a LOT and love it, I can cover a lot of things with individual actors without the rest of the crew just hanging out. As you so well noted however, there are some things that are much better handled face to face. But email, I love it, and it saves me and the cast a lot of time.
|
Posted By: KEB54
Date Posted: 2/08/11 at 8:00pm
Originally posted by Majicwrench
KEB54, interesting your thoughts on email. I use email a LOT and love it, I can cover a lot of things with individual actors without the rest of the crew just hanging out. As you so well noted however, there are some things that are much better handled face to face. But email, I love it, and it saves me and the cast a lot of time. |
I guess. I certainly respect others' approaches. If it works for you that's great. I'll try to be more open about its use. For me with things like notes to one actor may have an effect on another and may actually "domino" through the production. A note to one actor may bring up questions from another. I feel note giving is dynamic and synergistic and therefore best done in a group setting rather than individually. But that's how I do it.
-------------
KEB
|
Posted By: Loki
Date Posted: 2/26/11 at 9:54pm
Just my view here, as I'm a relative newbie: As an a performer, I always have found that doing my best work in rehearsals gains the trust of any director, which in turn gives me more of a voice when wanting to try new things. Using that approach, I've never had issues with any director, ever.
|
Posted By: MusicManD
Date Posted: 3/21/11 at 12:29pm
I've worked with many kinds of directors, which has shaped my own directing style. When I was growing up in community theatre, we had a director who tweaked tirelessly. If he wasn't satisfied with your "Sigh and lean against the lamppost," we'd rehearse "sigh and lean against the lamppost" until you got it right. After working with him for several years, I got to the point where I just did it the way he wanted from the beginning.
I've also been involved with directors who were totally hands off. I did "Joseph" with a summer theatre group a few years ago, and the director gave almost no direction other than "okay, stand here at the beginning of the scene," "Now move here on this line," "Okay, now move back." 70-80% of the blocking was "evolved" by the cast, and at least 90% of the characterization (such as it is in Joseph) came from the actors. The result was surprisingly good, but there remained a lot of improvised lines and actions that seemed inappropriate to me. And of course, on the final performance, since the cast got to make most of the decisions anyway, there were ridiculous and obvious pranks, jokes, and showboating occurring that I never would have allowed.
My directing style (especially since I work primarily with high school students) is to be right up on stage with the actors, guiding them through blocking, providing examples of how lines might be read or physical actions might be performed. I try to help them to understand WHY I want it done in that fashion, and help them to develop a general sense of who their character is.
Once that is done, I tend to hand the reins on the subtlety over to the students. My notes change from, "Be appalled here" to "React however your character would." If something isn't working, I will certainly speak up, but in my experience as an actor, the fun comes when the audience is looking at the other side of the stage.
In my (albeit limited) experience, it's the actors who have to make the direction work, regardless of what the director says or thinks. Good direction can still look bad if the actors don't do their job, and bad or insufficient direction can still look fine if the actors work together to sell it.
|
Posted By: NDTENOR
Date Posted: 3/24/11 at 12:06am
Well, my only comment about "working with him" would be to say after one show " I wouldn't be working with him". You have a brain..... you can think.... you can make decisions about your character. I have never tolerated tyrants... and I never will.
BUT.....There is no excuse for " showboating" and "pranks" in a production. That is not professional and really is NOT the fault of the director. But there is also no excuse for a director inhibiting personal thinking and true character developement.
There is a BIG difference between CONTROL and CREATIVITY. Please understand the difference.
|
Posted By: MusicManD
Date Posted: 3/24/11 at 12:30am
Originally posted by NDTENOR
Well, my only comment about "working with him" would be to say after one show " I wouldn't be working with him". You have a brain..... you can think.... you can make decisions about your character. I have never tolerated tyrants... and I never will.
|
I misrepresented him, I fear. He was an ex-Broadway actor who started our community theatre. I did my first show with him when I was eight years old, and moved away after my twelfth when I was fourteen. He taught a lot of us that there was a RIGHT way to do things... and "almost good enough" was never good enough. Fantastic patience for a whole slew of children who needed to do simple things thirty times in order to get it right.
He did have a clear vision of how it needed to be, but he never came across as a tyrant.
|
|