What SHOULD Directors Do?

This is the second part of my exploration of what directors do/should do. Yesterday’s blog seems to have upset some and rallied others. I am myself a director, and am planning to direct . My issue is not really whether directors should exist or not, but instead whether they are useful or not. If they are useful, they should be utilised to the advantage of the play and the players. If they are not useful, they should be banned from going anywhere near an actor.

Directors can be useful. It is good to have an intellectual in the room with do-ers, IF they are used to their strengths. That’s not saying that actors can’t be intellectuals and I’m certainly not saying they aren’t intelligent, it’s just that most director’s backgrounds lend themselves better to the issues of interpretation and analysis.

To my mind the director’s job, if anything at all, is to help guide and steer the cast to the best possible understanding of what they are going to need to do in performance. This is best served if the director and actors share the same grammar. This is often not the case since directors tend to speak a language derived from the inside of their hand and actors tends to want to answer the question ‘what shall I do now?’  If the director can bend their intellect to answer this question, then they are very helpful indeed. They can assist the cast in discovering the very actable parts of the script, assist them with exploring and uncovering anything that should affect how these parts of the script are approach. In other words, my main criteria for a director is that they can help the actors translate page to stage, turn words into action. This is not magic, it requires the director to think in a way that can allow them to help the actor. Unfortunately, most directors learn their craft on the job, and are never taught the rudiments of acting. Few actors seem to have them either, even after 3 or 4 years of training and years of work.

So, Part One: of the director’s job, help the cast understand the play/script in such a way that they are able to take action for it.

Part Two: Help the cast to stage the action of the play, so that it remains faithful to the play, is performed to the height of the actor’s abilities and in such as way that the story of the play is communicated to the audeience. Again, this doesn’t require a grand design or vision. Directors too often are given creative reign to piss all over the writer’s work, as if the writer were some buffoon capable only of making lovely words join up, but requiring a special kind of artistic person to bring them to life. (the director thinks they are that person, I argue, that person is the actor and a third party is only required if the actors struggle to do this by themselves).

Part Three: Give the cast helpful notes, feedback that is practicable. In my classes, feedback from other students is only allowed if it is practicable – capable of being put to use. If the advice is impracticable, the actor will note it, placate the speaker and then worry about how to make it work OR ignore it. The director giving notes, must gives notes that can be actioned.

Part Four: Get OUT of the actor’s way.

Part Five: Attribute the success of the show to the actors.

So, these are my beliefs on what the director should do. And when I take a show to the Edinburgh Festival Fringe this year, this is how I will be working on it. I hope you’ll come and judge me on my work and the actors on theirs.