I think it’s totally fair to not connect with a director’s work—everyone has their own taste. But I do think it’s worth asking for a little more specificity when the criticism is as broad as “she’s not a good director” or “I wish she wasn’t directing this.”
What, specifically, isn’t working for you? Is it pacing? Visual storytelling? Actor blocking? Tone? Concept? Those are the kinds of things that actually make a critique meaningful. It’s pretty easy to say you don’t like a performer and point to a vocal, a line reading, a lack of chemistry, etc. I think directing deserves that same level of thought.
The “she only succeeded because of Into the Woods” argument also feels a bit reductive. That production was a Sondheim musical at City Center Encores—which is literally built around casting high-profile, proven performers in concert stagings. Was it supposed to be a cast of unknowns? That’s the model. And are directors only supposed to work with actors who have the same number of credits or less?
If anything, if the performances were as strong as people say, that actually strengthens the case for the directing. Pulling a company into the same tone, rhythm, and storytelling language is the job. That doesn’t happen automatically just because a cast is talented.
And if the critique is that her work is “pedestrian” or “sparse,” that’s actually a great example of a useful, concrete criticism. Minimalist staging can either clarify a story or feel undercooked depending on execution—that’s something you can point to and debate.
I guess my main point is: by all means, dislike the work, but back it up. Otherwise, it starts to feel less like a critique and more like a reflex.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
