Playwrights Directing Their Own Works

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 11/14/09 at 1:18pm

Maybe it's just me, but this seems to be like a trend this season. First, Kenneth Lonergan directs his play "The Starry Messenger," then Alan Ayckbourn directs his new play "My Wonderful Day," and now David Mamet directs his new play "Race." I'm sure there are more examples, but those are the three I can think of. I've seen the first two, and while I enjoyed "My Wonderful Day," I think they both would have benefited from another director. What do you guys think about a playwright directing their own work?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/14/09 at 1:22pm

I think it really depends on the writer. I've seen it work incredibly well, and I've seen it fail abysmally. No matter how well you know your own work or your own intentions, directing is still a skill that, in a lot of ways, is rather separate from writing. It's a different mode of telling a story, and some writers may be great at what they do, but that doesn't make them good directors. The up side is that they can create exactly what they envisioned in writing the story, but... I don't know that it's always a good idea. I'm seeing Race tomorrow, and am very curious to see how that works out.

[A Director]

Posted: 11/14/09 at 1:37pm

Beginning in 1928, George S. Kaufman directed all of his plays. He did fine.
George Abbott directed some of his own shows. He did fine.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 11/14/09 at 2:12pm

I guess I've yet to see a playwright direct his own work and really feel like blown away by it. I feel like a better director could have ironed out some of the problems with The Starry Messenger. It takes a good playwright to know his own faults and weaknesses, and I don't think Lonergan is willing to make the right cuts.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/14/09 at 2:57pm

I'm a playwright and I'm a director. I'm generally not in favor of a writer directing his own work, at least for the initial production. I think after months or perhaps years working on the writing, its really essential to bring other creative people into the process- a producer and director especially who can help take it to the next level.

[vodkastinger]

Posted: 11/14/09 at 4:10pm

I both write and direct, and personally think it's a mistake to do both on the same project. Playwriting is a skill that draws largely from personal experience. This is often something that blocks a writer from being able to honestly dig into the motivations of the characters he has written. I think it's always better to bring in someone who can really help the actors dig out the subconscious of the characters, which is often interrelated to the subconscious of the writer.

Also, for a first production, you need people who can push back on both the writer and on the director about creative choices, cuts, etc. It becomes very hard to push upon a writer/director, which is perhaps why so many people try to do it.

[NeoNormal]

Posted: 11/14/09 at 5:21pm

I've directed some community works, and working at a MFA in Pedagogy at VCU down here in Richmond. I did one show I co-wrote called Persephone (about the myth)and I directed it.

If you have a good vision about your work, I say go ahead with it, but otherwise if you don't have a solid foundation about it (i.e. set designs, staging, costumes), I'd let some else direct it. Thats just my opinion.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 11/14/09 at 6:05pm

I agree with those that feel that the playwright should not direct his own work, at least for a first production. The playwright could well feel defensive about making changes and cuts and simply not make them, to the detriment of the production.

For me a classic example was the musical NICK & NORA(from the early 1990's), written and directed by Arthur Laurents. But there was so much wrong with the material that even a different director would probably not have been able to salvage things.

Even with the much lauded LuPone GYPSY, written and directed by Laurents, I think the director tinkered too much with a few portions of the book: eliminating the "rape scene" in the hotel in Act One and dis-allowing the reprise of "Small World" in Tessie's dressing room in Act Two. And the changes in the ending are problematic for me. I prefer the original ending where Rose and Louise go off into the wings arm in arm, showing their ability to get along after all.

[Brick]

Posted: 11/14/09 at 9:37pm

I'm a playwright and I'm a director. And I disagree with a hard and fast rule on the subject.

Some playwright/directors are better at it than others and some projects are more suitable for it than others.

For a second mounting or beyond, I think it is less important. For a premiere, you definitely need more than one eye looking at it, to shape and develop the piece. And even then, it's more grey than black and white. Even the presence of a gifted dramaturg or an asssistant can make all the difference: at the end of the day, the director and writer each need someone to talk to.

Also, the style of theatre can greatly influence whether or not the writer should direct. Some artists create pieces using text as a foundation for their work and build the evening from it (be it with dance, movement, etc) such as artists like Richard Foreman or Robert Wilson.

Personally, the pieces I've directed of my own work were very physical, with movement a major component in the work. The ones where I don't NEED to direct, NEED to continue creating the piece through movement and production, I insist someone else direct.

I find for every example of it being a bad idea, there is an example of it being the opposite.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 11/15/09 at 5:13am

I would agree. I was just bringing up the case because I've noticed it a lot lately. Richard Foreman is another great example, but I think his style of theater is different. I'm sure on paper his pieces don't come across as much so he's needed to fulfill his vision.

I'm curious to know why Mamet decided to direct his new piece instead of letting someone else do it?