|
“…….The creation of a theatre performance
as a complete theatrical event and as a syncretic act is a complex
artistic process. It is a collective artistic act in which many
arts, artistic disciplines, skills and crafts are included. But,
when we speak about theatre today, we are often referring to Stanislavsky's
theatre, Meyerhold's theatre, Brecht's theatre, Brook's theatre,
Grotowski's theatre and/or Artaud's theatre. These are the names,
all of them directors, who stand side by side behind their diverse
ideas of theatre, and with which 20th century theatre is identified
most readily. Their theatrical ideas and theoretical concepts, especially
as embodied in their productions, have played a major role in the
shaping and/or redefining of the theatrical event. They are also
largely responsible for the (re)emergence in this century of the
director as the dominant force in contemporary theatre…..
…..While the directorial function has always
been fulfilled, the idea of the director personalized in a single
artist, and along with that the idea of directing as a creative
art, is a relatively new phenomenon in the history of the theatre.
Indeed, it was not until the twentieth century that directing was
recognized as an individual art and that the director was considered
to be a significant artistic force in his own right. It was also
not until World War II that a body of significant theatrical work
began to appear as evidence of the need in theatre to develop an
aesthetic of the director's role, meaning and function. Even today
relatively few books have been written about the meaning, role and
function of the director in the theatre, and most of those deal
with the technical crafts of staging a play. In fact, it was only
in the last twenty-five years that a definition of the director's
poetic position was developed within the broader theatrical context.
How does this newly emerging directorial power
relate to the many artists and technicians whose combined talents
make theatre possible?
There are many views of what a director does and
how he or she should go about doing it; but there is little agreement
on what directing is! What, if any, is the essence of directing?
What is the meaning, role and function of the director in the theatre
today? What is the specific nature of the director's controversial
art? Is it possible to develop and formulate a poetics of theatre
directing that can be applicable to all forms of theatre? Evidently,
there is a need to develop such a poetics of theatre directing and
to address these questions and issues from both a theoretical and
a practical perspective.
This study grows out of my work as an active director
in professional European theatre for almost two decades. Working
on various artistic problems and issues of directing, both on a
practical and theoretical level, I have examined the idea of the
director as a complete imaginative creator of the theatrical event
and the idea of directing as a powerful expression of the director's
individuality, imagination, and fantasy. Under this paradigm, the
director is considered to be a theatre artist par excellence, uniting
and harmonizing in his individuality the poet, the actor, and the
audience. In that manner, the director as a powerful artist unites
other arts in his work and creates his specific artistic world.
Since directing is not only about the words, that is, about what
is said in the theatre, but is also more about the deeds, that is,
about what is done on the stage, the director creates a whole net
of deeds, signs and meanings in his working process. Out of this
the director creates an artistic world which strongly affects the
world in which he or she lives and acts. Therefore, the director
is not only a core of the theatre, an artist who gives form to his
or her imaginative world presented on the stage as his or her performance,
but is also an artist who expresses his or her individual world-view
by giving form to the world that he or she inhabits. In that sense,
I believe that directing must be recognized as an authorial art
and act, promoting the director, the true poet of the theatre. In
fact, he or she is the Alpha and the Omega of the theatre.
In my theoretical and practical work as a director
I have been trying to give some relevant meaning and theoretical
definition to my ideas about the nature and essence of directing
in the hope of formulating one possible poetics of stage direction.
At the same time, I have also been trying to find relevant answers
to the fundamental question of our existence, that is, “what
a piece of work is a man?” On a personal and individual level
this work is a quest to find out who I am, and what is my identity
as an artist and human being.” |