Before naturalism in the late nineteenth century, the director’s role had often been taken on by an acting company member, an actor-manager or producer figure, or the playwright. However similar their work might have been in practice to that of the director we know today, the role was not recognised as a discrete one with its own expertise or responsibilities and did not share the dominant position in theatre hierarchy that directing has today.
Whether the director’s task is the interpretation of play texts, the construction of a performance through a devising process or the creation of a visual theatre environment according to the model of director-auteurs such as Robert Wilson or Robert LePage, directing usually evolves from extensive planning into a rehearsal process. Some directors work repeatedly with particular individuals in a collaboration that is central to their vision; others cast for each production.
Directors need to find a dramaturgical or structural shape to their work, a well-formulated and articulate rhythmical pattern, to cultivate focused performers and a sense of shared purpose among the company, and to build a staging or spatial environment that is consistent with their material and the acting style. The role is organisational as much as it is artistic, but too much organisation of the performances can stifle the performers’ creativity. Subsequently, most directors do not have a strict methodology that they apply to all texts or concepts but are rather more pragmatic and serendipitous, the primary virtue of a good director perhaps being his or her ability to adapt to the particular conditions and given resources of each production. Some directors cross over between the stage and television and film, building a reputation through the wider reception that these formats bring. From the RCTP
Image: Eugenio Barba. Courtesy of Odin Teatret Archives