Eliminate the Director
I posted a message in the Rhapsodypatrons e-group, my local group of theatre enthusiasts, that I'd like to see directors eliminated all together.
Of course, I was asked what I meant by that. After all, the Director is an integral part of a theatrical production, so why eliminate him?
I thought I'd post my reply here too, since I think "Eliminate the Director" is a global need, and not just in theatre either.
When I say “eliminate the director” I mean it on the lines of “If You See the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him!”
This means, once the seeker has reached a particular point of development, a teacher is more likely to lead him astray than to guide him. After that point, the seeker must create his own road and, if he sees a teacher on that road, must eliminate him.
What I also mean by “Director” is the “Auteur Director.” This is the kind of director most people are used to, someone who carves every bit of the play, telling actors what they must do, how they must do it and how they must say their lines. This is how film directors (at least, 99% of them) still direct movies.
On stage, however, that is stifling for the actor. Granted, in school productions, actors are too young to be able to interpret roles on their own. The Teacher Director must tell them exactly how each line is to be said, the actions they must perform while saying the lines, how they must move from point A to point B, etc.
If this form of direction continues later in life, however, the actor isn’t allowed to grow. True development of the personality occurs when the actor learns to look at the role in the context of the scene and the scene in the context of the play and thus, the character in the context of the whole cast. It occurs when the actor gains the confidence to be able to “play with” the character, trying out different interpretations, inserting intellectual input into a creative endeavour.
There is, of course, a kind of director who cannot be eliminated, try as we might. This is the director who forms the “eye of the audience” during rehearsals. This director has a vision of the play and ensures that the actors portray that vision. If an actor misinterprets a role, this director must step in and guide him. However, he cannot do this UNTIL the actor interprets the role, however wrongly.
“Eliminating the Director” is like the quest for perfection; it can never be attained. Similarly, the director cannot actually be eliminated. However, I think it is necessary to work towards that elimination.
Deepak
Of course, I was asked what I meant by that. After all, the Director is an integral part of a theatrical production, so why eliminate him?
I thought I'd post my reply here too, since I think "Eliminate the Director" is a global need, and not just in theatre either.
When I say “eliminate the director” I mean it on the lines of “If You See the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him!”
This means, once the seeker has reached a particular point of development, a teacher is more likely to lead him astray than to guide him. After that point, the seeker must create his own road and, if he sees a teacher on that road, must eliminate him.
What I also mean by “Director” is the “Auteur Director.” This is the kind of director most people are used to, someone who carves every bit of the play, telling actors what they must do, how they must do it and how they must say their lines. This is how film directors (at least, 99% of them) still direct movies.
On stage, however, that is stifling for the actor. Granted, in school productions, actors are too young to be able to interpret roles on their own. The Teacher Director must tell them exactly how each line is to be said, the actions they must perform while saying the lines, how they must move from point A to point B, etc.
If this form of direction continues later in life, however, the actor isn’t allowed to grow. True development of the personality occurs when the actor learns to look at the role in the context of the scene and the scene in the context of the play and thus, the character in the context of the whole cast. It occurs when the actor gains the confidence to be able to “play with” the character, trying out different interpretations, inserting intellectual input into a creative endeavour.
There is, of course, a kind of director who cannot be eliminated, try as we might. This is the director who forms the “eye of the audience” during rehearsals. This director has a vision of the play and ensures that the actors portray that vision. If an actor misinterprets a role, this director must step in and guide him. However, he cannot do this UNTIL the actor interprets the role, however wrongly.
“Eliminating the Director” is like the quest for perfection; it can never be attained. Similarly, the director cannot actually be eliminated. However, I think it is necessary to work towards that elimination.
Deepak
posted by Deepak Morris at 12:39 AM
1 Comments:
I agree whole heartedly with your view.....And this is probably the reason Indian Cinema(Read Bollywood) is remaining stagnant....'Bollywood'..How i hate that name..You type that name and a small underline appears meaning you have typed the spelling wrong,I click on this line so that i may correct it and what comes....Hollywood...Hee heh..Life is strange eh?
Post a Comment
<< Home