In Rehearsal: Leadership and Team Spirit

Directing is an art that balances out different sets of antinomies: control and sensitivity, discipline and encouragement, structure and experimentation, management of temporary tensions but also appeasement of severe conflict within the group. Your involvement and passion are vital for keeping the company interested and feeding the expectation that everybody’s work will support a common vision. Mentally working in ideal circumstances, you are nonetheless expected to handle the demands of actual rehearsal with pragmatism. Because rehearsals are a private affair, ordinarily held sacred by all team members, most of what happens in the room will remain forever hidden from the public eye. Directors are “both inside and outside the experience of the play,” they are reflectors “of the actors’ impulses and the audience’s responses, and yet always something else, something allowing [them] a view from ‘elsewhere’” (Cole 1992, 64). As a surrogate audience, you are trained to anticipate the pulse of the house before the performance begins, and convey your insights to the company, making inspired choices. These, as we have already discussed, typically include the handling of casting, venue, blocking, movement, rhythm,  and design, all of them being fundamental aspects of staging.

For the most part, accomplished directors possess any of the following personality features:

• They are sensitive: they can gauge the actors’ strengths and weaknesses in rehearsal and performance.
• They are flexible: they adapt and adjust to the unique challenges of each project and process.
• They are patient: they are prepared to wait to see results.
• They are disciplined and firm: they know how and when to set boundaries.
• They are collaborative: they understand that the basis of creativity is shared ownership and participation. They have authority without being authoritarian.
• They are resourceful: they can come up with creative solutions, stepping in when things are at a standstill.
• They are confident and secure: they speak with conviction yet also take responsibility for their mistakes.
• They are reliable: they are always available for further feedback and dialogue, when appropriate.
• They are organized, economical, and practically minded.
• They are fully present and alert to everything that is going on in rehearsal.

All for Strategy

Before setting up a realistic, step-by-step plan for each project, most directors have already imagined, even if peripherally, the totality of performance. That often happens by “calculating restraints, challenges, and opportunities along the way, and calibrating and then recalibrating and designing and redesigning their strategic approach as the game evolves” (Genovese 2015, 20). And where the actor sees only the trees, the director is able to “envision the whole wood” (Roose-Evans 1968, 18) and make the necessary adjustments. As rehearsals progress, you will be fine-tuning different aspects of the concept—acting and design-wise—and building onto something that will soon start to resemble an actual performance. However, clear rehearsal targets should always be presented at the beginning of each session in the form of both practical and artistic notes and suggestions. They can either focus on something as specific as getting a special entrance to work or mark out a broader mission, such as improving the pacing of a sequence. Whatever the task, specificity is your most reliable ally, since ideas are best expressed in concrete images, and directions best put across in lucid, “actor-friendly” language. Too much intellectualizing and abstract language, rather than revealing your erudition and intelligence, will probably alienate actors, who are invariably trained in an action-centered discourse. It is crucial, therefore, that you monitor and harness, every step of the way, your tendency to fall into general talk.

In the best-case scenario, you will have already prepared a schedule detailing the timeline, from first rehearsal up to opening night. Even so, reality rarely meets the ideal, and next day’s meeting times are sometimes only decided on the spot. However, most performers appreciate the security structure provides, and so planning individual rehearsals and run-throughs should take into account, as much as possible, different combinations of needs—practical and other. You can keep things on track with the help of an SM (stage manager) and an AD (assistant director), who are responsible for drafting the rehearsal schedule and making sure that people’s time is spent efficiently.

For all intents and purposes, as a director, you will primarily oversee the process rather than impose on it. Interestingly, different systems of leadership in management (such as “autocratic,” “laissez-faire,” or “shared”) (Cooper 2008, 4–5) could easily apply to the reality of rehearsals, encapsulating various aspects of directorial methodology. After all, directors have invariably been labeled as “dictators,” “gurus,” or “coaches.” Needless to say, each style has its advantages and disadvantages. While autocratic directors may function better at times of crisis and are perhaps suitable for supporting an inexperienced company, “actors’ directors” are more inclined to give their performers initiative, an approach favored by mature and confident ensembles. According to the particulars of each project, a mixture of styles is also common. Whichever the case, it always works to lend an ear to your actors—their concerns are often question marks that can lead to significant discoveries.

In general, however, directors learn to respect the company’s need to bond, without interfering much. Part of the challenge is to put together an involved group and not merely a sum of talented individuals. Once the bond becomes tighter, you may have little choice but to step aside and let team synergy develop effortlessly. The dilemma whether to control or delegate often presents itself in the beginning stages of the directors’ careers when their rehearsal personality is not yet fully developed. That the notion of leadership has come to be identified with despotic behavior is erroneously based partly on the misconception of the director as an insensitive ruler unwilling to listen or empathize. For this reason, delegating responsibilities is important in keeping things in order and the company busy and engaged.

Naturally, in an ensemble of people who barely know each other, insecurity, impatience, and self-centeredness are to be expected. Trust time to relieve you of such hindrances; trust actors to reveal themselves to you; and finally, trust yourself to learn by trial and error. Simon Shepherd thinks that “the relationship between the leader and the led has to be dialectical […]. By agreeing to be observed and led, the directed allow the director to have existence. The facilitator is facilitated” (Shepherd 2012, 35). Such understanding is the basis for mutual trust. It is also valuable to know how each actor needs to be approached. Sometimes, subtle psychological manipulation will do where rigorous argumentation fails, and “one size fits all” is never a foolproof expedient. Be flexible, whether that concerns determining if it is best to have group or individual meetings after a run-through or giving more technical feedback.

Indeed, there are various tactics that directors can solicit to influence and motivate. Removing actors from a secure place by alternately complimenting and critiquing them is a strategy of maintaining focus and perspective, even if it does not always come across as a friendly act in convivial spirit. Yet, given how differently actors tend to handle instructions and criticism, conditioned by their disposition and training, you should be prepared to push a variety of buttons. You may, for instance, request physical images and coordinate improvisations for actors with a manifestly text-based approach; give initiative and elicit resourcefulness and drive from less experienced actors who wish to be told exactly what to do; or even, during select rehearsal exercises, grant protagonist’s status to actors with minor parts in the performance.

With all that in mind, be alert to what different people and personalities need and keep your preconceptions and common judgment errors in check. A solid training in “people management” or “amicable manipulation” can keep rehearsals efficient, appease actors’ insecurities, cajole producers into higher budgets, and quietly convince collaborators that their suggestions will be adopted, when in fact everyone knows they won’t. Finally, when things are tense, try to keep your cool. Many a great director has had to rely on a timely comment, a joke, or a witty icebreaker to rescue a situation that risked being marred by idleness and incompetence, malicious gossip, petty politics, or mere miscommunication. And did I mention reward? Don’t forget to offer praise when someone has had a breakthrough or a moment of revelation.

And a final word on leadership and power. Real authority, rooted in expertise but also charisma, is the ability to persuade and influence. Contrary to authoritativeness, sometimes prompted by an unhealthy release of insecurity, it is no alibi for bullying actors and the company but a sign of respect earned gradually, grounded on an awareness of individual value. Ultimately, you practice leadership and build loyalty by communicating the force of your own commitment.

WORKBOOK 3.2

• Create your inventory of the “ideal director’s” skills and talents. Then check yourself against the different items on this list. How well do you fare?
• On what aspects of the craft do you need to work more?
• Can you spot your strengths and weaknesses?
• How can you improve? How can your group help you?

Some general areas of competence include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Making decisions fast
• Being respectful and sensitive to the needs of others
• Being organized and disciplined
• Remaining calm during mishaps
• Being reliable
• Handling conflict with dignity and cool
• Being open to ideas and willing to experiment
• Having strong interpersonal skills
• Being able to take (self) criticism
• Being resourceful and ready to make adjustments.

Practice 1. The “Good Director” Guide

Containing fundamental directing aptitudes, the following list leads you through aspects of your method that deserve more attention.

Practice 2. The First Rehearsal Challenge

The following checklist prepares you for the (often dreaded) first rehearsal, where people may be new to each other, the particulars of the project still unknown, and the director’s method of working vague to most.

Here are a few things that directors commonly do during first rehearsals:

• They introduce themselves to the company.
• They introduce the cast and the team members (producer, designers, choreographer, stage manager, dramaturg, assistant director/s).
• They describe the project, elaborating on their reasons for taking it on, and briefly presenting their basic production concept.
• They talk about their method of work (table work, sharing research, physical improvisations, etc.) and discuss the intended style of the production.
• They explain why the play is necessary at this particular moment in time and what they expect to communicate to the audience.
• They invite the set designer to talk about the idea behind the set and present a model, if it is ready.
• They initiate a first reading of the play, with everyone present in the room.
• They allow for preliminary questions regarding interpretation and point of view.
• They give actors a detailed rehearsal schedule.
• They ask the SM to circulate a contact sheet with the company members’ contact details

Of Crisis and Failing

Once directorial intentions are set within a formal frame, nothing should feel random or neglected. Directing is about taking responsibility for every single choice onstage. However, the odd chance accident should also be encouraged—theatre appears sincere and believable when pitted against the contingencies of live performance. Uncertainty and chance can apply to anything, from a severely injured knee in rehearsal to an unexpected power cut on opening night, an actor arriving late for the performance, an ill-tempered spectator who refuses to turn his or her cell phone off. Much worse, to a playwright who threatens to sue the producer and bring the show down unless a director reconsiders staging a scene in a particular way or removing an interpolated line. Where you can, use such quandaries to your advantage. Rather than ignore, accept and endorse setbacks. After all, as Lev Dodin, Artistic Director of the Saint Petersburg Maly Drama Theatre, claims,

You have all sorts of inner doubts and you are drawing people in when you yourself do not know the road or where you will arrive. Yet, it seems that everyone must assume that you know both the road and the destination. If the road changes, then everyone has to see it as a discovery and not as a defeat.

(Qtd in Shevtsova and Innes 2009, 61)

The Right to Fail

Thought Grappling with chaos sometimes precipitates mental clarity and a bolder perspective. Mistakes are opportunities for improvement, sheltering discoveries that can develop your ideas further.

Failure, the (often necessary) interruption of an idea’s journey to completion, is an integral stage of creativity. Most of us tend to measure leaders by their ability to overcome crisis smoothly. Naturally, some obstacles are just impossible to get past, and the earlier you accept the fact and remain in control when they break out, the better. In practical terms, you should get comfortable with failure yourself, to be more credible when attempting to inspire faith and tenacity in your group. Try to resolve conflict before it develops into a full-blooded fight and be quick to respond in time to prevent mishaps over the course of rehearsal or performance. The elaborate challenges of interacting with a mosaic of complex personalities, appeasing discomfort and anxiety, mitigating the pressures of technical and dress rehearsals—not to mention the terror of the opening night—require timely reflexes, admirable cool, unwavering energy, and focus.

The Enemy of Literalness

If surprise is the heart and soul of the theatre, being literal, far from referencing accuracy and authenticity, is undoubtedly one of its worst enemies. Unfortunately, even the most experienced director may surrender to the sirens of fast, opportune analogy. Because theatre operates on suggestion and leaps of imagination, although clarity is a desirable property of storytelling, literalness can make the most compelling narrative seem reductive or irrelevant.

Thought Always try to look at a particular scene in less predictable ways. Give yourself and your actors a chance to experiment and permission to fail. In most cases, it will pay off.

Over-Rehearsed vs. Under-Rehearsed

As a director, you must keep an eye not just on the quality but also on the volume of rehearsing—has the production reached a point where it feels over-rehearsed? If so, you should perhaps step back and reevaluate your plan. Introduce minor changes in the blocking and give actors room to improvise generously, without, however, unsettling them to the point of confusion and invalidating their past discoveries. If on the other hand, a run-through seems under-rehearsed as a result of inadequate preparation, you need to roll up your sleeves and work with a renewed focus and greater attention to detail.

Thought Carefully reconsidered challenges can bring freshness to a work that feels a little too "orderly" or stale.

Dealing with Doubt

Sometimes, doubt sets in among company members who may feel uncomfortable with or uncertain about the way a project is shaping up. To restore trust lost along the way, you need to find ways to make things look and sound new and necessary: readdress and rethink the themes, concept, and actions of the play and refocus basic rehearsal targets.

Thought Directors are the actors' third eye, by-proxy spectators, who foresee what may or may not work in performance and make adjustments in rehearsal.

Facing Resistance and Lack of Motivation

There are perhaps few things more troublesome than a resistant performer or an exhausted company of actors. Resisting is another way of crying out for help, a circuitous, indirect plea for attention. There will be times, especially shortly after the first run-throughs, when the actors, tired and unmotivated, will feel stuck in one specific mode of performance. Other times, they may indulge in the immense relief that comes with having “conquered” the play, or at the very least blocked it. They will also get self-conscious and ask for constant reassurance, and their vulnerability is bound to escalate as they get closer to opening night. Brace yourself against even stronger resistance and crankiness in the last phase of rehearsals, and know that, as always, this too will pass.

Thought The more actors resist, the more you need to cultivate in them a sense of complicity, the understanding that they too are entitled to making choices. Break the cycle of opposition or reluctance by offering validation, where necessary.

In Love with Ideas

Overintellectualized, “precious” concepts may have you obsess over a specific outcome in performance, which, in turn, can prevent any improvements from flowing into the work. Hanging onto an idea for too long can be an offshoot of insecurity, further aggravated by lack of experience. In fact, learning from the work that develops in the company is essential. “The only thing that matters to me,” says John Collins, “is the process of making discoveries in rehearsal. If that’s happening, then I feel like I’m doing the right thing; if I’m learning things in rehearsal that I didn’t know or maybe couldn’t have known by just reading or thinking or writing” (interviewed by the author, 2016).

Thought Fixed ideas and predetermined objectives will remain protected within the private sphere of your vision unless they are exposed to the critical eye of the performer and the reality of actual embodied practice.

Self-Criticism

In times of high pressure, as is routinely the case during tech week, even the most coolheaded directors may have difficulties handlingtheir stress. In any phase of rehearsals, managing actors’ schedules, negotiating producers’ demands, or facing the technicians’ objections to a particular design idea, you too may lose your motivation and become dissociated from the process. Not least because, rather than practice the art of your profession, as you no doubt wish to do, you are constrained by the logistics of production.

Thought In the liminal space between creativity and work exertion you may waver in your dual role of artist and facilitator, buried under a mound of exacting, dreary duties. Don't beat yourself up and brave it out. Recognition and catharsis almost always follow a crisis, and that is not the unique perogative of Greek tragedy!

When to Compromise

Is there a time when you should just let go and try to meet the company halfway? How long can you keep defending your choices and adamantly holding on, against general disapproval and unease? Acknowleding hard-set limitations and accepting the obvious fact that there is only so much you can push is essential to moving on, mainly because pressure might build hard and immovable blocks, impossible to remove later on. In the long run, the main thing is to remain committed. Renew your vows to the company to eliminate accrued suspicion. This can be the first among a series of steps aimed to put the derailed production train back on track.

Thought When all else fails, when appealing to instinct and the senses won't do, you should communicate your leader status confidently, and keep the team proactive. While collaboration is a prerequisite to any success, at some point you will probably have to act as the voice of authority (Sidiropoulou 2017, 96).

WORKBOOK 3.3

Practice 1. Building an Ensemble Spirit

How can you get your actors to work in harmony and operate as an ensemble? The following exercise can be an enjoyable and stimulating means of bringing the company together. Actors will need to function as directors who are nonetheless expected to collaborate with each other, argue or defend their ideas, and negotiate a substantial (common) line of interpretation.

Break your actors into groups of three to five.

Present them with a situation that has strong dramatic value (a family argument, a shocking confession, a long-awaited apology, etc.), and ask them to stage it collaboratively.

Within the group, everyone should take turns analyzing their personal reading, but ultimately, the group members should all agree on one conceptual line of dramatization and of staging.

Ask each group to come up with clear choices about setting, movement, and sound, which will reflect a consistent line of interpretation.

Open up a dialogue about the challenges of working as an ensemble.

Practice 2. What Is Your Problem?

This is a technique for developing a degree of directorial self-awareness. You can better monitor your progress and handle specific flaws after you have acknowledged them in full honesty.

Whether you are an experienced professional or in the early stages of your career, there will surely be aspects of the directing art with which you feel particularly comfortable or uncomfortable. Make a checklist of those that are troublesome and be ready to address them in rehearsal. Think back to some of the major challenges you have had to face in your work, staging different plays of different styles and genres, in different theatre spaces and for different groups of audiences.

If necessary, you can set up specific targets for each rehearsal week. At the end of each week, you can review those goals and evaluate any progress made. Here are some things to watch out for:

• The overall concept—does the central metaphor you have chosen hold? Does it remain strong from scene to scene?
• Consistency in interpretation and style.
• Space—is it both aesthetic and functional? Do you make good use of it or do you sense that some dynamics remain unexplored? Does it feel too empty or too cluttered? Is there anything you can do to fix possible sightlines problems?
• Costumes—do they serve your vision of the world of the play? Do they communicate the period in which you have chosen to work? Are they surprising and original? Do they reflect less explicit sides of the characters? Do the actors look comfortable “in their skin”?
• Visual composition in each scene—can the audience read the image you are putting across? Is it theatrically viable? Does it communicate the tensions of the scene eloquently but also coherently?
• Rhythm—does your attention as audience member lag at any point? Do you get a sense of unbearable slowness or monotone? Reversely, does it feel as though the actors rush through their words and movements? Is there anything you could do to provide more variation in the rhythm and tempo?
• Delivery of text—do we understand what the actors are saying? Are we interested to find out more about their story? Are we surprised by the manner in which specific lines are uttered? If yes, is that a problem or does it stir our attention further?

Note

1 Part of my research on the role of the director as leader led to a chapter entitled “Directing and Leadership: Endorsing the Stage to Generate Collaboration and Creativity Within Corporate Contexts,” in Playing Offstage. The Theater as a Presence or Factor in Real Life. Ed. Homan Sidney. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2017: 87–100.