I am constantly amazed by the attitude of actors to the role of directors. Especially those views that seem to stem from the British actors.
I should probably explain the lead up to this comment by explaining my activities of the day. Today I attended the season 2 launch for Metanoia. It looks like it will be an exciting season with a very eclectic mix of events. I was pleasantly surprised that the Metanoia production will include Sartre's 'No Exit'. I love that play and it definitely fits their style so it should be good. I am not so sure it will be innovative. There work so far has been 'actor purist'. I think by that I mean honest but dull.
Anyway, I got to talking to Lesley after the launch presentation and we got to talking about Mamet, because the Sartre will be double billed with a Mamet. It took us on to discussing 'Glengarry Glen Ross' which is a show I directed a couple of years ago, and which the MTC is presenting from next week. I am attending opening night next week and I mentioned that I will be interested to see what they would do with it, and was hoping they wouldn't just be producing the movie.
That got Lesley talking about how the director doesn't have to do anything with it. Just give the script to the actors and let it go. I pointed out that the problem is that the actor doesn't have the benefit of the outside eye, which led Lesley to say that the director should really just be designing the space and should leave the actors alone. He said this I what happens in England and that he hates how in Australia the director is always telling the actors what to do. I commented that I had read 'In The Company of Actors' and had got the distinct impression that there is a general cultural contempt for directors by actors in the UK,
I suggested that perhaps if in Australia we didn't have an almost exclusive career track into directing from acting that perhaps directors would focus more on staging and give the actors more space. Lesley didn't seem to like that so much, and insisted it should still be actors directing, but actors with visual and spatial understanding. It makes me wonder if now he is saying that actors are supposed to own not only their domain, and the domain of directors, but now also the domain of design. Greedy little blighters they are!
Anyway, then the discussion moved on to the idea that Australian theatre is transported from England and Europe so we should do it the way they do it. I pointed out that in the migration the priorities and modern histories change so the methods change. I used government as an example and he did seem to accept that. I also pointed out that the need for the outside eye of the director would also depend on the style of the production - for example, it might be more actor driven if it is a Chekhov, but would need the director's eye if it is a Brecht.
Well, that got him going. He then went on to say that everything Brecht wrote was just watching what Peter Lorrie was doing. I got excited at this point because I have just finished reading the writings of Brecht, and so I agreed although I thought it was the ensemble work of the Schifferdam Ensemble, so it was Lorrie and Weigel and the others, with Brecht writing and dramaturging rather than directing. The conversation went downhill from there. Lesley began with the authority of having spoken directly to someone who knew Peter but when I brought up the name Weigel and the Schifferdam Ensemble he didn't seem to be able to speak to any of it. So then I suggested that in a way it was ensemble work like Forced Entertainment...
At that point the conversation was ended because he had to leave.
In the end though, I just felt so disappointed with this attitude from actors about direction. I don't understand how they don't understand that they are one part of what is an integrated art form. You don't get this attitude from dancers, or singers, or musicians. They all know you need choreographers, conductors, etc. Why do actors have so much resistance to this? I always wonder if it is because it is the performance art form which generally requires the least personal and technical discipline. They don't need the discipline to apply their craft, so they have too much time and energy to think about other things....
I should clarify that I don't mean they shouldn't BE disciplined, or that the discipline doesn't exist. What I mean is that their is not the same level of audience expectation. The demands of perfection demanded by audiences from singers and dancers is phenomenal and people will pay for that perfection. I think actors resent the fact that in theatre what the audience pay for are the accoutrements, not technical acting excellence. They like it when they get it, but they can be satisfied when they get mediocrity because they are used to getting mediocrity.
Alright, I am going off in an altogether different tangent now, so I should stop now.
No comments:
Post a Comment