"The 12 Biggest Mistakes Directors Make" by Frank Hauser and Russell Reich co-authors of 'Notes on Directing'

[In] visible Identities: an examination of the role of the artistic director in applied theatre-making. Prologue The work is the work of an artisan, there is no place for false mystification, for spurious magical methods. The theatre is a craft. A director works and listens. [The director] helps the actors to work and listen. This is the guide. This is why a constantly changing process is not a process of confusion but one of growth. This is the key. This is the secret. As you see, there are no secrets (Brook, 1993: 119)

The general consensus over the years on the responsibility of the ‘Director’ in the theatre puts him at the helms of affairs in any play production process. However, the responsibilities and process of directing different plays take different shapes due to various reasons such as the directorial approach, concept, type of play, nature of audience, and the socio-economic milieu of the society. These factors have a lot to do with the process of packaging and directing any play production. This study takes a critical examination of the fact that, though the factors listed above could have effect on directing a play, the nature of the theatre itself has the greatest effect on the production process. ‘Nature’ in this context refers to the professionalism attributed to either the theatre troupe or the people involved in the play production process. Though the educational theatre ultimately produces the professionals in the theatre industry, the diversity in the directorial process involved in both theatres is a thing of interest in this study. This paper therefore examines the points of similarities and differences in the directorial approaches of both the professional and educational theatres. The paper mainly employs the literary method of gathering materials but with a background of performance analysis especially of directing in the two theatres. The paper critically examines the points of comparison in the two theatres in the bid to evaluate the directing in the professional or commercial theatre and educational theatre.

Theatre Arts as a discipline is the manifestation of any society with collaborators, working for its unity and sustainability. The theatre which broadens our intellectual horizon and possibilities also increases our awareness of our society and admiration of life in general. In recent time, there have been serious controversies and contentions of who the master artist of the theatre is. Could it be the actor, director or the playwright? This seminar provides a template for the discourse of the raging argument and arrogation of the supreme lordship of the theatre with its emphasis on the actor, director and the playwright. It is motivated by the inability of some scholars to sincerely and professionally juxtapose the issue, devoid of sentiments thus, overheating the system for budding academics in the theatre. A sampling of opinion in the theatre shows that many people out there do not fully understand the various positions and how they function. This seminar discusses the duties of the playwrights, director as well as the actor and carefully places them where they belong and finally validates the playwright as the master artist of the theatre. Keywords: theatre arts, playwriting, acting, director and god (master).

Theatre Arts as a discipline is the manifestation of any society with collaborators, working for its unity and sustainability. The theatre which broadens our intellectual horizon and possibilities also increases our awareness of our society and admiration of life in general. In

Theatre is a meeting place of actors and audiences. A theatre play is what happens between actors and audiences. The presence of both is necessary. There is no theatre play without an audience. But neither is there a theatre play without any actors. What is necessary is the contact between the two groups of living people, their immediate presence here, in the theatre or on stage, during a performance. If there is such a contact, it enables a dialogue, an exchange of energies, thoughts and emotions. An immediate, direct contact between actors and audiences is a quintessence of theatre, the feature which distinguishes it from other arts, film and television in particular. Regardless of the choice of content and form, regardless of the genre, or the type of stage space and auditorium, regardless of the acting technique, the type of actors' education, for an interaction between actors and audience it is always necessary that the meaning of the events presented onstage is understood. The actor is the centre of the action, the master of the plot, the convergence point of all stage signs, the spectator's guide through the development and course of dramatic performance. The actor has to be able to understand the meaning of what he/she is supposed to do on stage so that the same meaning can be readable to the spectator as well. Both the actor and the spectator need to grasp and accept the intention behind a certain scene, the entire performance as it is. It is impossible for a spectator to gain awareness of the director's concept unless the actor himself is aware of it. Therefore, the actor is not an unaware agent between the director and the spectator. The actor, with his entire being, including his psycho-physical individuality, affects the entirety of the spectator's being, his imagination, thoughts, emotions. Whether the theatre play has a narrative or not, characters of human beings, animals or plants, realistic or surrealistic, dreamlike or documentary events, it is always actors, and actors alone, that can, by their well thought out actions, affect spectators, and spectators can only respond to actors as kindred living beings on stage. It is resonance, recognition, sympathy. This contact and exchange between actors and spectators must, deeply and irreplaceably, be human and live. There is no object on the stage-set, costumes, props, lights-that can become alive without actors' action. Everything on the stage is made alive through a self-aware act of actors. But acting is made possible only in a joined presence of the actor and the spectator. The process of performing and the process of accepting are complementary processes of exchange.

Using historical-analytic method, this article examines the dynamics of directing for the stage and the screen. It argues that even though the process of directing is a tough one both on the stage and the screen, it can be very interesting and rewarding for the strong-willed, creative director (artist). It further posits that contemporary theatre is so sophisticated and highly technologically driven that a stage director must of necessity be artistically and technically savvy to be effective in play production in the theatre. As creative and interpretive artists, post-modern, multicultural and globalized directors constantly seek new means of creative exploration through a shared experience of experiments in multimedia, visual arts and cultural expressions of the performance theatrical traditions existing all over the world. This is the key link in the works of creative high concept directors such as LeCompte and those of text-interpreters and author-centred directors such as Max Stafford-Clark, Katie Mitchell and Declan Donnellan. Contemporary directors are seeking new ways of developing strong 'physically embodied theatre' and must continuously strive to work across the theatre/film/television divides, and feel be at home in the different media to bring their visions to bear on creative works beyond the confines of any single medium for the gratification of the ever 'hungry' audience.