Because I want to talk about what I’m reading and what I’m thinking about what I’m reading, I give you reflections on a book I’ve read in the past few months to develop my craft.
I picked up this book for three reasons. First, I’m vetting books for use in my classroom as I develop a significant unit on beginning directing for my students. Second, I want to learn more about my craft and reading is the most convenient and flexible way to incorporate that learning into my busy schedule. Third, this book specifically is appealing in that it’s a short, articulate and concise read, and a synthesis of the ideas of two different artists who are both directors and teachers of directing. This book did not disappoint. I’m not exaggerating when I say this book is the foundation upon which I’m building this beginning directing curriculum.
There are a few other theater professionals I have a habit of giving books to. I’ve already passed the book on to a few of them.
Just a few key takeaways from this book:
- Solving the actor’s problem isn’t the same as solving the play’s problem.
- Space is a multi-use tool, it reinforces or undermines all the other elements.
- Text isn’t staging. I think it’s so much fun that text and staging can be aligned or communicate contradictory things!
A Soap-Box
I recently saw a show in which I found the staging to be highly disappointing. It only communicated the barest of essentials as listed in the text. There was nothing revealing about the staging. I’m sure that it was done in an attempt to craft a stage picture that was clean and clear. Maybe it was done because of time constraints and the rehearsal process needed to be focused on another element. I have the sneaking suspicion that it was done because the director’s approach to the show was specifically headed in a way that prohibited the imaginative and communicative use of staging. It was a real bummer. It made the story and character relationships less clear. Why did so-and-so exit? That character is supposed to be a scene partner here! Why is that character playing to the audience instead of their scene partner? It was a consistently applied stylistic choice but it left so much to be desired in developing relationships, revealing character objectives, and deploying character tactics to fight for what they want. The performance felt like a well-polished talent show instead of a narrative meant to carry the audience on an emotional journey.
I believe on a philosophical level that there is more than one way to create great art. I also think there’s value in entertainment without striving for deep artistic merit. However, there is a lot to be said for studying and employing technique and craft, especially the tried-and-true basics embedded in our modern theatrical heritage. Directing is more than telling people where to enter and exit and making sure everyone can be seen and heard. It can be so much more than mounting a production. It can, and in my opinion should, utilize the staging, space, and all visual and auditory elements to reinforce what the story is communicating.
Vent over.
