This autumn, I directed a show. It’s something I’ve wanted to do again for a long time — there was a period in my life when I thought I wanted to be a director, and when I returned to grad school, I did so with the ultimately failed ambition to carry on doing creative as well as scholarly work. There were things about the process that, it turns out, are a lot like riding a bike: rehearsal, for one. Not that I’ve ever been, or am, an especially accomplished bicyclist; but I discovered that I could still stay upright without flailing too wildly. (It helps that working with actors and teaching aren’t completely unrelated activities.) That was a pleasant surprise. What I hadn’t anticipated, though, was how profoundly at odds my work as a director would be with my work as a critic. In fact, directing pretty much broke me as a critic, and I’m still on the mend.

First, there is the relationship with the audience. The show I worked on was conceived as a workshop production in the sense that we wanted to hear from each evening’s audience about what worked for them and what didn’t — the show will have a future life, and we wanted to try out what we had. So we got a lot of direct feedback in Q&As every night. As a critic, I’m quite comfortable arguing about productions — and I’m quite comfortable disagreeing with other critics and other audience members about what a show was trying to do, and whether or not it succeeded. That mode of discourse is what comes naturally to me now: you listen, you agree or disagree, you enlist arguments and evidence for your views, you persuade, you adjust your own views, you reason things out. As the director, sitting in front of an audience we had asked to voice their opinions, none of those strategies were available to me: sure, I could have told someone that they were wrong, that they had missed crucial points, that they hadn’t been paying attention — but to what end? To fail them? To persuade them that the show they saw wasn’t actually the show we put on? To ask them to reinvent the experience they’d had? What I was struggling to come to terms with is the difference between argumentation — where someone can be wrong, and can be shown to be wrong — and experience — where one can’t be wrong or right, or where being wrong or right doesn’t matter. It’s a truism (most of the things I will be saying in this post are truisms): any work of art, but especially a piece of theatre, has to stand on its own feet. It has to speak for itself. Go litel book go, and all that.

There is a gratifying side to this, too: when audiences absolutely got what we were trying to do. When someone seemed to recognize all the nuances. When moments I really wanted to land seemed to land, and were described as such during the Q&A. But that gratification was quite short-lived. How could it be that some people seemed so well-attuned to the show, and others, no less perceptive, no less intelligent, could not get on the same wavelength at all? It would be easy to say that those viewers just weren’t being attentive enough, but what if they were right? What if the others simply shared my own distorted perspective, whereas the people who criticized the show actually saw it for what it was? As a critic, I could have those discussions — I could offer alternative points of view, could draw on evidence, could make arguments for my interpretation. And perhaps I could persuade some spectators that how they saw the show wasn’t doing justice to the piece. But even so, I couldn’t change their experience of the evening. At most, I might be able to give them a sense of the experience they might have had if they had seen the performance I saw. But as a director, I had no arguments other than the show itself.

What I learned from this process is that there may be ways of tweaking a production to increase the likelihood that more audience members will get it, but that ultimately, there is no way to control the kind of experience people will have — that you can’t even come close to guaranteeing that people will see the show you want them to see, the show you think you’ve put on. I think I’ve learned that, anyway. But I don’t like it. I’ve realized that I have a hard time letting disagreements go. I know that it would be a perfectly fine response to say “I understand what kind of show you wanted to see — I’m sorry we weren’t interested in producing that kind of show.” Or “I’m sorry this aspect of the show overwhelmed everything else for you to such an extent that you weren’t able to see other, equally important aspect — but I can’t change that.” But I can’t quite do it. People will see what they can see, want to see, are ready to see — and they will respond in whatever ways their personal, local, specific circumstances make accessible to them on the night. I know all those things. And yet, I found the criticisms far more important, far more troubling, far more vexing, than I was comforted or thrilled by the positive perspectives, and not because I thought the critical voices were inevitably right; what kept me up, churning, what still has me waking in the middle of the night, are responses that I, as a critic, could have argued away but that I, as director, had to accept as an audience’s genuine experiences.

Coming to terms with how negligible the category of correctness is in the theatre: that was tough, and it remains a work in progress. It’s not that the critical viewers were right and I was wrong; it’s that their experience of the show was as authentic, in its own terms, as mine, and that I, as director, had no way of modifying after the fact the experience they undeniably had. If I’m having trouble accepting that, it’s not just because it seems like such a defeatist admission — it’s also that as an intellectual position, it’s so radically at odds with the work of the critic or the scholar. (And if thought through to its logical conclusion, also an utterly narcissistic perspective: if all responses are ultimately subjective, and all equally valid, then no director or performer has any kind of responsibility to the audience or the show at all and can do whatever he or she wants. And I don’t think that makes sense either.)

For me as a critic, this was a sobering experience for another reason, though: I’d always understood why theatre people might not want to hear negative responses to their work. Who does, after all? But I’d often been puzzled by muted reactions to positive reviews, to in-depth analyses, to detailed appraisals. Not anymore. What, after all, is there to say in response to someone who accurately describes what you were trying to do? And what is there to say in response to someone who missed what you were going for, but saw something else to get excited about in your work? It’s gratifying to hear such things — but beyond gratitude, what can one say in a format in which argument isn’t the currency?

Beyond all that, however, beyond the unbridgeable gap between my critic’s brain and my director’s brain, something happened to me as a critic as I sat through a public dress rehearsal and four consecutive performances of our show: the realization of yet another truism. It really is different every night. Of course I knew that. I’d experienced it with other shows I’d directed. Even in the decade or so that I’ve observed theatre almost exclusively from the audience side, I have obviously been aware that no performance is the same night after night. But what I hadn’t truly grasped is just how different different is. How much a single actor’s choice can change the tone of an entire evening. How much a deliberate or accidental shift of emphasis early on in the show affects everything that comes after — not (just) because the actor herself and/or the other performers are aware of it, but because of how the show as a whole looks and feels as a consequence. And how little any of this is under anyone’s control. I am certain that I would have written quite distinct reviews of the five performances I saw, and rightly so, as they were five quite distinct shows.

Now, I should hasten to say that this is not because the actors I was working with were unusually ill-prepared — far from it. There were hardly any textual slips (normal as those are). Every actor’s performance, broadly speaking, was fully in line with what we had worked on in rehearsal. But moment-to-moment, in details, they were differently nuanced every night; and in their sum, those nuances amounted to a very differently shaded picture every evening. The length of a hug, the length of a silence, the quality of a gaze, the speed of a cross, the placement of a hand on a knee, the loudness of a shout, the exact distance between two bodies, the intensity of a smile: worlds and worlds of difference. Like I said: a truism. But as I sat there, night after night, and responded differently, night after night, and then heard audiences respond similarly differently, night after night, my critic’s brain slowly despaired: what exactly are we writing about when we write about shows? Is there a there there at all? How do you argue about something when the something you’re talking about is in so many ways a different thing than the something your interlocutor saw on a different night?

The insight as such isn’t news. It’s trite, in fact. But experiencing that difference viscerally, over and over again? That was unsettling.

And then, another truism, also something I already thought I knew, but most unsettling of all: what happens to a show as it becomes a show. How much we gained and lost during rehearsal, how much detail we filled in and discarded, how often something seemed clear and settled only to disappear again, how many things remained unsaid and unexplored, how many decisions only were made on the home stretch, how much happened in the last few days before opening, despite an unusually long rehearsal process. How much the energy shifted as we got closer to the end of the process. How some long-established decisions were thrown out, more or less impulsively. How some things suddenly took on a dynamic of their own. How a number of huge choices only fell into place a day or two before the end. How clear it was to me what I would have changed if I had had a day or two longer — and how completely unavailable that clarity was to me a day or two earlier. How much developments in the process built on one another, and how unpredictable subsequent developments were. How wide a gap there was between interpretative perspectives or conceptual notions and detail-by-detail, beat-by-beat acting and staging choices. How much happened in the rehearsal room that never ended up on stage — and how crucial those vanished things were all the same. How much we forgot. How much we learned. How differently individual actors respond to the same challenges. How differently the same actors respond to the same challenges at different points in the process. How much I wanted to continue rehearsing. How arbitrary “opening” is as a cut-off point. How utterly necessary that cut-off point is.

Sounds great, right? Well, for me as a scholar, it’s a bit troubling. Because it makes the relationship between rehearsal and performance feel so… mushy. Ill-defined. Slippery. Where is intention in all of this? Design? Planning? Concept? Meaning? I am really dissatisfied with performance analysis as a standard mode of theatre scholarship, but given this state of affairs, where else is there to turn? Much as I love the rehearsal process, as an observer or a participant, what is there to talk about, if the relationship between rehearsal hall and stage is as profoundly chaotic as I am increasingly convinced it is? (I should say that I insisted a lot on actorly freedom in this project, which obviously left more room for change from day to day than may be permissible in the standard Canadian three-week rehearsal process; but even in more rigorously goal-driven rehearsals I have observed, I have often felt that the most exciting stuff happens before a show gets on stage — that building a performance often means levelling peaks and filling in valleys, but that that process therefore necessarily involves the reduction of excitement as well as of indifference.) Or perhaps rehearsal is the only thing we should talk about. If shows are different night after night anyway, why not focus on the private show that is the rehearsal? If coherence is established differently every night, if what holds a show together is a differently constituted assemblage of varying nuances, if everything is in flux all the time, then why not shift our attention to the moment in the performance process when that flux is not just acknowledged but positively embraced?

So, broken as I am as a critic, I’m trying to put the pieces back together. I imagine that once the visceral experience of the truth of all those truisms becomes a memory, and the realizations fade back into widely acknowledged clichés, I’ll go back to going about my business more or less as I did before. It is, after all, an art of transience, theatre. Right?

Tagged with:

4 Responses to Directing and the Impossibility of Criticism

  1. Bill says:

    An artist, any artist, cannot control how their work is received. The best they can do is put it out there, as true to their vision as it can possibly come, given all the constraints and compromises necessary in the development process.

    In that sense, the audience is not a passive consumer of art. There is an active interpretation process that in a real sense changes the experience. In the same way that training and experience can make someone a better actor, some people are “better” audience members than others, more able to follow the theatrical threads, more aware of the conventions and imagery of theatre, more in tune with the language. It goes beyond perception and intelligence. Audience members should see themselves on an artistic journey as well and share some of the responsibility for appreciating the art.

    So let it be with directing! The noble critic hath told you that the director was ambitious: if it were so, it was a grievous fault, but I say to you, it was just that he was human.

  2. David Ferry says:

    Sorry for the iPad corrected spelling above..and I sent before casting an copy-editorial eye. I meant to say in my last parenthesized statement: “since we have so LITTLE real theatre criticism in Canada”; also “WELL certainly it was seductive ” not “We’ll”..etc

  3. David Ferry says:

    Thanks for this post Holger. I wish more theatre critics (and the poor cousin, Theatre Reviewers) would occasionally attempt to practise the form they critique. As I wish more professional theatre practiononers would try other disciplines within the theatre discipline…actors should try directing, writing, producing, designing etc to experience the challenges of the fellow artists..directors/writers should do likewise. And practicing theatre artists should try writing a critique, once, before they pounce. I started workin professionally in a company that paid a lot attention to Frye’s Anatomy of Criticism as one of the backbones of the company’s theory of practise. And part of his thesis (and pardon the paraphrase from memory): a critic must first learn how to say WHAT something is. Only after getting pretty damn good at that can they venture a value judgement on whether it is good or bad.

    Frye’s theory holds true not just for the critic but for the artist. It seems to me that a lot of our theatre artists in Canada are not schooled nearly enough in the study of to read a play from the POV of “what it is” as opposed to a subjective emotional response to the material or worse (from an actor’s perspective ) for an emotional assumption about “my character.’ But that is a whole other discussion.

    I relate, as one who directs often, to your experience. But I also take solace from my experiences from a 50 year career of audience feedback. I remember playing a character who was a railway man in a play years ago…in a play that had a lot of story lines and themes in the air. The response about the production from a theatre academic was so different from that of other theatre practitioners (we used to do audience feedback sessions at Tarragon in those days after every preview..and there were more previews than now) and other audience members. However I remember talking to several railway men after one performance and everything for them was about how right or wrong we got the railway stuff…the whole story for them was through the eyes of a railway man. Also, I will never forget two reviews of a production of Henry IV part I played Prince Hal in at Stratford. The reviewers, Michael Billington from the Guardian and Henry Mankiewicz from the Toronto Star attended the same perfromance. I was thrilled when I read some gorgeous comments about my performance as Hal by Billington, at the time one of the most respected British critics. However Mankiewicz wrote (and per Diana Riggs “No Turn Un-Stoned” I remember only the exact words of the negative review) “Henry IV belongs to Hal….and he blows it.” So I had a dilemma . Who to believe? We’ll certainly it was seductive to believe the eminent British critic…but I soon came to realize that they could both be right/or wrong. And from that point, as a practiononer of Theatre, I decided that most criticisms (and by this I mean “reviews” since we have so much real theatre criticism in Canada) were good for cut lines in advertising. Hopefully the good ones can sell seats. But pay too much heed at your own peril.

  4. jettelamorey says:

    This is very interesting, Holger. You have a unique perspective and an obvious need to find objectivity in your experience. I am curious, though — what are your thoughts on the difference between the complex creative investment of the director vs the arms length outside eye of the critic? I mean that deeply personal artistic stake that is part of your soul. Is it even possible to engage in dialogue or argument on those grounds? Isn’t that the essential difference between the director and the critic? Cheers, Jeannette

Leave a Reply