Should Artistic Directors Act in the Plays They Programme?
Here goes folks. I'm entering blogland.
Why you may ask?
Well, communicating directly with Arts Leaders can sometimes feel like a closed shop. So, this is a bid to put that OPEN sign out and ensure you have easy access for those burning questions.
So, whether you're a passionate practitioner, curious observer, or a general theatre lover, start firing some thoughts my way. You might want to know about programming, casting, directing, what it is an Artistic Director actually does, or you may have inspiring insight into the world of theatre today, whatever the theatre thought - let's go....
I am going to endeavour to write once a week. Could be a Monday, could be a Sunday....it will all depend on the course the week takes. Theatreland is an unpredicable beast.
I went into rehearsals today for Outside Mullingar by John Patrick Shanley which triggered my first blog question - should Artistic Directors act in the plays they programme?
This question is certainly not going to pertain to all Artistic Directors. Some A.D's have one primary skill; directing, acting, playwriting or designing etc, but in my instance I happen to be both an actor and a director.
My current Artistic Director contract requires me to direct four productions a year. That's a considerable amount given we produce seven Mainstage shows a year and there are many talented directors in need of work locally, and nationally, so it makes sense to tread the boards in lieu of a directing gig to provide a valuable opportunity to someone else.
When I am either directing or acting I do not get paid over and above my Artistic Director wage. That is all factored in together and quite carefully calculated, so we know where budgetary savings can be made in advance of a season. Acting in a production saves more money than directing (four weeks directing as opposed to seven or eight weeks in a season) - so that can be seen as a bonus.
Artistic Director-ship aside, I happen to belive it is important for a director to act once and a while, to remind ourselves what it is we're asking our actors to do on a daily basis. Acting requires a vulnerability that is very different from the creative vulnerability you have as a director.
At the end of day (where have I heard that phrase before?), regardless of the reasons mentioned above, the role should be cast for the right reason - the reason that I am right for the role, and am going to serve the writer, the director and the production, in the best possible way. But do I have the best judgement when it comes to that? I guess I can only rely on the reviews, peers and perhaps the Board, to keep me true.
It is inifitely harder to act as an Artistic Director than it is to direct as one. The main reason being time. Rehearsals are fulltime daily Mon - Sat so A.D duties still have to be worked around that, then once the show is open you're looking at working days and nights. This doen't include research, preparation, line learning and director delegated homework either.
Speaking of homework, Lisa Warrington who is directing Outside Mullingar, has given me some good research to attack tonight. Finding out what my farm is like in Killucan (just outside Mullingar, Ireland), singing (NOT my strength), and a slew of questions regarding varying relationships within the play.
I'd love to know your thoughts as to whether Artistic Directors should act in the plays they programme and more importantly receive your burning questions so I can best serve you in this blog.
Lara Macgregor
Artistic Director
