I was addressing (addressing, already I sound pretentious) a group of actors who were going to be performing my work.
I'd let them direct themselves, because I wanted to see what would happen when you remove a director from the theatrical experience.
I should mention that I don't hate directors, I just wanted to use this particular show as an experiment.
What would actors do if left to direct themselves?
It's not like it's the first time an actor's directed themselves, but it's not often that an actor gets to direct themselves performing a brand new piece of work that was written for them while the playwright looks on and chews on his fingernails.
(It all sounds sort of sideshow-ish, doesn't it?)
Overall, I was very pleased with the direction most of the performers took their pieces in, and it was helpful for me as a writer to see the actors' instincts at work.
The one that jumped at me more than once, however, was this sense that one of my least favorite words was making its way into the equation:
Vision.
The word "vision" in the context of art, especially theater, usually causes me to break out into hives.
I loathe that word.
Somewhere, once upon a time, some grand art master told everybody who wanted to pursue a career in the arts, especially directors, that they needed to always have a bold, bright vision and to protect that vision like a newborn babe, never allowing it to grow or shift or flex.
As soon as I see a vision at work, I panic.
And for good reason--at least, in my opinion.
If you've read anything else I've written, then you know that I watch a lot of Food Network. And one of the patterns you see on any number of food shows is that someone is known for making a particular type of food or they have an idea of what they want to do before they're even given a challenge, and they stick to their idea regardless of how poorly it works with the criteria they've been given.
It's so bad that in some instances, a chef has been told specifically not to do something like serve a cold dish, and they did it anyway, because they thought "it would work."
Do you know what "I thought it would work" means?
It means they had an idea, and they didn't want to give it up or try adapting it to the rules in play, so they just said screw it and did what they wanted.
Chefs, in many ways, are like directors. They think if the end product is good, all else will be forgiven. That might be true in food, but I don't often find that I let it slide in the theater.
Nothing irritates me more than hearing a director talk about what interests them and how they're going to integrate their interests into a particular play.
I see this all the time with classical plays, because, you know, the playwright's dead, so who's going to complain?
A director decides to do The Seagull and have it be about fire. Or they do Once in a Lifetime and have all the characters but one be played by puppets. Streetcar where Blanche is actually the villain and Stanley is misunderstood, and Stella is deaf and blind.
This needs to stop.
You don't bring a vision to a text, you find the vision in the text.
If you can come up with a reason for why The Seagull is about fire, then great. But if you just happen to think it'll look cool to set Nina aflame at the end of the show, then find a show that fits your interests.
There are a million plays out there; there's no reason to force a concept on a play that doesn't need it. If I have to see another production of The Taming of the Shrew where Kate's final speech is done tongue-in-cheek because otherwise it's misogynistic.
Look, I don't like that it's misogynistic, but I accept that it's what the play is. If you don't like it, don't do the play. In fact, please don't do the play. Do any other play.
I'm not saying abandon vision altogether, just independent visions that aren't tied to anything. A vision has to go hand-in-hand with a piece of work.
You can't go into the challenge of directing a play already sure of exactly how it's going to play out.
Let's fact it, even if that worked, it would take all the fun out of doing theater in the first place.
Theater's all about the crazy problems that arise and how you deal with them.
Tunnel vision is the last thing you want, and usually, at the end of that tunnel, is a director with a vision still held tightly in his hands.
I'd let them direct themselves, because I wanted to see what would happen when you remove a director from the theatrical experience.
I should mention that I don't hate directors, I just wanted to use this particular show as an experiment.
What would actors do if left to direct themselves?
It's not like it's the first time an actor's directed themselves, but it's not often that an actor gets to direct themselves performing a brand new piece of work that was written for them while the playwright looks on and chews on his fingernails.
(It all sounds sort of sideshow-ish, doesn't it?)
Overall, I was very pleased with the direction most of the performers took their pieces in, and it was helpful for me as a writer to see the actors' instincts at work.
The one that jumped at me more than once, however, was this sense that one of my least favorite words was making its way into the equation:
Vision.
The word "vision" in the context of art, especially theater, usually causes me to break out into hives.
I loathe that word.
Somewhere, once upon a time, some grand art master told everybody who wanted to pursue a career in the arts, especially directors, that they needed to always have a bold, bright vision and to protect that vision like a newborn babe, never allowing it to grow or shift or flex.
As soon as I see a vision at work, I panic.
And for good reason--at least, in my opinion.
If you've read anything else I've written, then you know that I watch a lot of Food Network. And one of the patterns you see on any number of food shows is that someone is known for making a particular type of food or they have an idea of what they want to do before they're even given a challenge, and they stick to their idea regardless of how poorly it works with the criteria they've been given.
It's so bad that in some instances, a chef has been told specifically not to do something like serve a cold dish, and they did it anyway, because they thought "it would work."
Do you know what "I thought it would work" means?
It means they had an idea, and they didn't want to give it up or try adapting it to the rules in play, so they just said screw it and did what they wanted.
Chefs, in many ways, are like directors. They think if the end product is good, all else will be forgiven. That might be true in food, but I don't often find that I let it slide in the theater.
Nothing irritates me more than hearing a director talk about what interests them and how they're going to integrate their interests into a particular play.
I see this all the time with classical plays, because, you know, the playwright's dead, so who's going to complain?
A director decides to do The Seagull and have it be about fire. Or they do Once in a Lifetime and have all the characters but one be played by puppets. Streetcar where Blanche is actually the villain and Stanley is misunderstood, and Stella is deaf and blind.
This needs to stop.
You don't bring a vision to a text, you find the vision in the text.
If you can come up with a reason for why The Seagull is about fire, then great. But if you just happen to think it'll look cool to set Nina aflame at the end of the show, then find a show that fits your interests.
There are a million plays out there; there's no reason to force a concept on a play that doesn't need it. If I have to see another production of The Taming of the Shrew where Kate's final speech is done tongue-in-cheek because otherwise it's misogynistic.
Look, I don't like that it's misogynistic, but I accept that it's what the play is. If you don't like it, don't do the play. In fact, please don't do the play. Do any other play.
I'm not saying abandon vision altogether, just independent visions that aren't tied to anything. A vision has to go hand-in-hand with a piece of work.
You can't go into the challenge of directing a play already sure of exactly how it's going to play out.
Let's fact it, even if that worked, it would take all the fun out of doing theater in the first place.
Theater's all about the crazy problems that arise and how you deal with them.
Tunnel vision is the last thing you want, and usually, at the end of that tunnel, is a director with a vision still held tightly in his hands.
Comments
Post a Comment