How much infulence do PRODUCERS have on the final outcome of a show?

It depends on the producer. Some are nothing but money men; some essentially direct the show from under the nose of the actual director. Cameron Mackintosh, for instance, is notorious for being a director in all but name, as documented in a recent UK TV series about the fraught production process behind his revival of BARNUM at the Chichester Festival Theatre. Of course, Hal Prince used to be both producer and director!

I think it would be very difficult to know for certain which shows are directed from the production office without direct evidence; the director's importance, both actual and perceived, to the creative process means that this is not something people will readily admit to!

The fact is that the person(s) bankrolling the production can do whatever they want, like any employer. The smart ones surround themselves with those whose visions they trust and let them do their job. Of course they'll chime in with (often helpful) suggestions, but they won't usurp the director's power. Again, I'm talking about the smart ones like Manny Azenberg, Daryl Roth, Oscar Eustis et al.

The producers have the final say. They may not have had a hand in the actual creation of a show, but they have to give the OK to everything involved.

---

thanks, givemevoice!

Read The Abominable Showman about David Merrick. He would run his shows with an iron hand. He would fire (or threaten) to fire) anyone at will. He would turn collaborators against each other or flatter shamelessly- whatever worked.

If you've got a well-known, successful director and lots of producers, my understanding is that it's not uncommon for the director to take notes from one or two of the lead producers, who are expected to act as a buffer between the director and the other producers. Otherwise the director could waste a lot of time being pulled in different directions.

Updated On: 3/17/14 at 09:39 PM