Most innovative theatre directors

What directors, still working today would you see as the must innovative?

And what is it about their work that you find so fresh and groundbreaking?

For me I think right now my top may be Rachel Chavkin for her ability to take on the tiny details which working in an immersive space.

Others, of course Julie Taymor (I love when she uses primitive techniques)

Michael Arden, Mary Zimmerman, Marianne Elliott and John Tiffany also make my list

Michael Arden and Ivo Van Hove are at the top of my list for innovation!

"Innovative" is an interesting (not bad) word choice. Because I think there's a distinction between being "innovative," and being "creative." Plenty of directors are creative, but what does it mean to really innovate in that art form?

Julie Taymor is very creative, but as you said, she draws from old practices and forms. Although, I guess you could say that her use of technology in Spider-Man was innovative.

Ivo Van Hove is often described as "avant garde," which I guess means the same thing as "innovative," but he's been doing the same thing for decades, and many of the things that make him stand out in the US and UK are actually pretty common in European theatres.

John Tiffany and Michael Arden strike me as very creative, but not necessarily innovative. Love them both though!

I'd say Chavkin fits the bill, particularly in the way that she participates in the development process. With Comet, Hadestown, and Moby Dick, you really got the sense that her influence was deeply woven into the show from the ground up. This is pretty common with writer+directors, but less common with directors working with new material by other writers.

I also agree that Marianne Elliot is also pretty innovative in the way that she uses physical space and technology. I might say the same about Jamie Lloyd.

I would say that the folks at Then She Fell (Zach Morris, et al.) are also pretty innovative.

Lila Neugebauer is pretty traditional in a lot of ways - she doesn't necessarily push boundaries. But I think she has been at the forefront of the hyper-naturalism trend we've seen in recent years. She didn't start the trend, but she does it better than any other director IMO, and as a result, I think that she has helped to push it to new levels.

Simon McBurney, with Complicité, has done a lot of unique things with sound design in his direction. And I think we're starting to see some other directors employ some of the things he's known for - so in that sense, he's innovative too.

Updated On: 2/27/21 at 11:52 PM

re Ivo, I am curious what this "bag of tricks" and "same thing" is thought to consist of. I ask because, having been blown away by Streetcar and More Stately Mansions in the last century, I am wondering how the through line from that to his work in, say, the last decade or so is defined.

@Hogan, I never saw his Streetcar or his More Stately Mansions, so I can't speak to those specifically. However, I have seen 11 of his productions - the oldest of which was Roman Tragedies. I've said this many times before, but I believe that Ivo does his best work when he's directing material written originally for the stage, as opposed to the film/book adaptations that he's been doing more recently.

As for what, specifically, his "bag of tricks" consists of, here are a few that come to mind:

--mostly-barren stage, particularly with a lot of whites, grays, and off-whites.

--often a subdued, slightly sluggish pacing to his scene-work.

--making messes onstage

--live-feed camera work throughout the show, especially following actors backstage, and even outside the theatre.

This last one (camera work) is interesting, because it's arguable his most "innovative" trick, and we've seen it used quite a lot more frequently in recent years, especially in Europe and the UK (including by Robert Icke - mentioned above). And yet, he uses it so much, that it's also become his most stale schtick. Although I actually did like the way he used it in West Side Story - but again, that goes back to my first statement about his work on adaptations vs. revivals.

RE Robert Icke: I absolutely love his work - his Hamlet remains one of the best pieces of theatre I've ever seen. But again, I think a lot of his "innovations" really come from his colleagues and predecessors. The most unique thing I've ever seen Icke do was in "The Red Barn" at the National, where he used sliding black scrims to create tight "frames" onstage, resembling camera frames, without using any cameras.

I would agree with most of what you said, Hogan. I don't think being innovative is the most important thing, but that's what the thread is asking about!

And of course, there's a reason I keep going to see Ivo shows time and time again: not because he's doing anything new, but because each production allows us to see new material get "the Ivo treatment" - a new way into the material, as you said. And I agree that the "bag of tricks" so to speak, is a common trait among the best auteurs, Ivo included. The problem, for me, is simply that Ivo's adaptations rarely offer a new way in. He takes these films, and then adapts them to the stage with heavy reliance on cameras and screens - so what was the point of the new medium? With shows like The Damned, Network, All About Eve, The Fountainhead (based on a book, I know), etc. it really does feel like he's giving the material a stylistic overlay, rather than actually trying to offer a new way into the story. And that's when it feels like a "trick." But as I said, I haven't found that to be the case with his revivals - which I enjoy much more.

Updated On: 2/28/21 at 12:20 PM

I wasn't trying to imply that only auteurs had a bag of tricks - that comment was meant to illustrate my agreement with what you said; a "bag of tricks" isn't inherently a bad thing, and the fact that most of our best auteurs use an established "bag of tricks" is evidence of that.

And as for the "YMMV" - again, I agree, which is why I'm not rejecting Ivo or his tricks wholesale. But I feel as though, while he may have been innovative at a point, he isn't actively innovating anymore. But I think you and I are on the same page that "innovation" should not be equated with "quality" or even "creativity."

Simon Stone

Well, besides Rachel and Alex Timbers, and David Cromer, a lot of my favorite directors are a couple West End and fringe directors in the UK. Thom Sutherland of the Southwark, now of the Charring Cross is fantastic. Luke Sheppard. Jamie Lloyd.

The one directorial movement that I've seen in the last ten years that I'd call "innovative" would be the use of non-actors or mixing actors with non-actors or the directing of actors to strip away acting technique. Directors like Lear deBessonet, Richard Maxwell, Daniel Fish, in the UK, The Good Chance Theatre. I'm not particuarly in love with this focus but I'd definitley call it an innovative movement. The other directors listed here are mostly following established avant-garde traditions. And in the case of David Cromer, not innovative at all but a traditionalist and a damn fine one at that.

I would like to add Sarah Benson (Fairview and An Octoroon), Whitney White (Our Dear Dead Drug Lord, What to Send Up When it Goes Down) and Tina Landau (Spongebob, *Eclipsed) to the list



*I was wrong about Tina and Eclipsed. Please accept my apology

Updated On: 3/3/21 at 07:58 PM

It's way easier to spot innovative direction when it's attached to a revival. Jamie Lloyd has directed the best Urinetown and the best Assassins I've ever seen. I haven't seen that many productions of Betrayal, but his was my favorite Pinter ever.

Owen22 said: "It's way easier to spot innovative direction when it's attached to a revival."



Directing revivals with arresting concepts is how a director can make their name, yes. It's harder to get a sense of the technique of a director who works on new plays or musicals especially if that director is working to let the pieces speak in their own voice for themselves.