From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Directing Yourself
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 14:14:14 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <#4lm5bd.bprofane@netcom.com> bprofane@netcom.com (Gert Niewahr) writes:
>Look, folks, you're all addressing technical points about how to
>direct yourself while ignoring the more important question of
>whether you should do such a thing.

Which isn't the point at all.  He's directing himself whether he wants
to or not.  It's too late to back up and get somebody else to take
over either role.  He's in the situation, what to do now?  We're
discussing the points of how to do it because this specific individual
is in the process.

But I'll humour you....

>And the answer is: Stop, do
>not pass go.  Do NOT direct yourself.  There are very compelling
>technical and aesthetic reasons that the director should not act in
>the piece they are directing: You cannot, as a director, achieve
>the external perspective from which you can objectively analyse your
>show; You cannot, as an actor, maintain the focus necessary to do
>proper character development.  The are basic facts that every
>professional knows.  If you don't believe me (and I have an MFA in
>directing), go ask any professional director (one who works
>regularly in Equity houses) about self-direction.  

MFA in Directing or no, I disagree.  I agree that it's very difficult,
but I disagree that it cannot be done (and yes, I read your next
article on this subject but felt my comments related more to this one.)

Why do I say this?  Because I'm an actor.  How many times have we
actors been onstage, working with another actor, and knowing that the
scene is *not*working* and knowing *exactly*why* it isn't working?  My
own personal style of acting tells me that if an actor doesn't know
exactly what is going on with the scene, then he runs the risk of
having it "run away" with him.  Yes, there's something to be said for
being "in the moment," but the moment shouldn't carry the actor off
to areas unknown.  Take, for example, a performance of _Amadeus_ I was
in (where I was directed).  At the top of Act II, a light blew out on
the Stage Right area.  I had a scene with Salieri where I talk about
the "Man in Grey" that I've been seeing.  The scene starts off with me
sitting and me getting up at some point, I forget the exact line.  The
way the lights were focussed, the scene was lit fine as long as I
stayed seated.  I knew this when I walked onto the stage and got into
the scene.  However, the scene ran away with me and when I was
supposed to get up, I got up...despite the fact that I was telling
myself all the while not to stand up...I was "in the moment" and got
swept away.

When an actor is on stage, he has no choice but to direct himself to
some extent.  The purpose of a director is to provide the focus for
the entire show.  As my Script Analysis professor put it, the director
is looking at the big picture, the actor is looking at the small one.

So why can't a person do both?  If a person truly knows his script,
then that will be a big help if he has to direct himself.  How many
times have I seen an actor "not get it" over and over again?  How many
times have I thought it would be easier for the director to say,
"Here...do it this way" and then just get up on stage and show him?

An actor should have some idea of what the big picture is.  While I
agree that method acting has its benefits, I disagree with the lengths
to which it takes its ideas.  Personally, I am of the opinion that an
actor onstage is a split-personality.  One side is the actor who knows
the script and what is going to happen, the other is the character who
doesn't.  Yet, the scene has to be played so that what is supposed to
happen *will* happen *logically.*  Now, that doesn't mean that every
performance will be a carbon copy since that is impossible.  It means
that certain choices have been made as to what the scene is supposed to
be like.  Boundaries have been set and need to be stayed within.  If an
actor senses that the scene is about to "jump the fence," then it is up
to him to get it back inside...and that's directing.  It's the
director's job to set those boundaries in the first place.

Yes, it's damn hard to direct yourself.  Why?  You can't physically
see yourself, for one thing.  We all have subconscious things that we
do...habits that we have.  A classmate in my Musical Theatre Workshop
class has an incessant habit of leaning over on the ball of one foot
(so far that you think he might fall over) and singing with a fake
British accent.  He knows he does this and he's been trying to break
himself of the habit for over a year, but he still has it.  If you
don't know you're doing something, then it's very easy for that thing
to screw up the scene/play/whatever and you not know it.

But that's what other people are for.  I agree that it's essential to
have an "outside eye" take note of what you are doing, but can't other
actors do that?  When you're in a scene with another person, hopefully
he's paying attention to you.  Won't a video-tape recording of the
performance do that?  In essence, they become "assistant directors."

>Do you see any self-directed
>shows above the semi-professional level?  No.  It's axiomatic that
>in even the smallest Equity theatre there will no self-directed
>shows.  Why?  Because professionals know that that is the kind of
>ego-driven stunt that invariably results in a poor production.

What about Tommy Tune?  He's choreographed shows he's been in which is
about 15 degrees off from actual directing.  And hasn't he actually
been in shows he's directed? (Wasn't he in _Grand Hotel_?  Didn't he
direct the production of _Meet Me in St. Louis_ in Seattle that was
interrupted by the Tony Awards in '91?)

>Standing at a lectern, sitting in the audience in "Six
>Characters"...hanging from the rafters, even, it doesn't matter.
>Video cameras or putting mirrors up around the stage, it doesn't
>matter.  No technical tricks can allow you to be two people
>simultaneously.

I disagree...we are always many people simultaneously.  The trick is
to become aware of this without destroying it in the process.  It's
very hard to do.

Why did I direct myself?  Because I read the play and had a vision of
what the play would be like and of what a certain character would be
like.  Call it ego if you want, but why does anybody want to do a play?
If you're going to slap that label on me, then I'll retort with why
didn't I choose a one-man show?  If it was *really* just an attempt to
get myself on stage, why do I have all these other people in *very*
important roles?  And I *always* invited criticism from outsiders (I
even had people sit in on rehearsals so that I could get that
"impartial observer" point of view.  For _The Duck Variations,_ the
first read-through was great, the three of us (we had a character of
"The Duck" to act as the changer of scenes by flipping a flip-board
card over and stating the first line of the scene) felt the play was
hilarious.  Reharsals started, however, and something was missing...it
wasn't funny anymore.  I had somebody sit in on a rehearsal and he gave
me the reason it wasn't working:  We were letting the two characters
finish their sentences before the other spoke...a lot of the humour in
the play is in the fact that the two are talking right on top of each
other...two independent conversations held at the same time and
overlapping.)  However, I don't think it's "ego" to be the one to set
the boundaries of the production and letting the actors go at it while
being one of those actors yourself.  It would be "ego" if said person
never listened to anybody else...never listened to the other
actors...never realised that others don't think the way you do and had
a "damn everybody, this is my show and I'll do it my way" attitude.

So yes, it's "best" to have somebody on the outside looking in because
that's the easiest way to do it.  But that hardly makes it the "only"
way or that to do otherwise is "bad" or "ego" or "immature."

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary