Why Direct?

Over time, I have come to think of the actor as a shaman. Taking on a role, putting on another face, transforming oneself in order to instruct, dazzle, enchant, delight, terrify: this is all the sort of thing that would have brought the Inquisition knocking. And rightly so: it is also exactly what the shaman does in her work, opening doorways to another world, opening the eyes of her fellow humans, changing people and changing the world.

If the actor is a shaman, what, then, is the director? It is my belief that the director must also be an actor, fully trained in acting, singing, dance, combat, dialects, everything on the actor training menu (full design training would be nice, as well); with full command of all of the theatrical arts, a true director, ideally diversely adept, would also be a true Adept, a Magician, a Wizard, a Sorcerer.

I draw a distinction between shaman and Adept for the purposes of this discussion: in many minds, they are one and the same -- and who am I to say that this or that shaman is not also an Adept? -- but for the purposes of this discussion, an Adept can be seen as the master of many disciplines, while the shaman can be seen as the master of a subset thereof.

My early theatrical training, composed largely of my time at The Boston Conservatory in the mid-late 1990's, was made up almost entirely of the exact opposite philosophy: there is no such thing as magick, there is only Art. Focus on the Why in Art and you will have the key to any project. I want to make it clear that this was incredibly useful training and still is, to this day. I believe that it is important for undergraduates to develop calluses from walking on the shards of their shattered illusions -- thus enabling them to travel as far as their dreams can lead them.

My time in Boston was one of darkness wherein I lost my way and my connection to the mystical. It was only upon my return to California that I was able to find that part of my soul again -- but the discipline instilled in me from my undergraduate training gave me a new and potent approach to everything I do, particularly my pursuit of Adeptitude in both spiritual and theatrical work.

Since then, the shamanic and Adeptic nature of acting and directing have only increased in clarity; each project I take on presents new and powerful challenges from which I learn new and powerful lessons. What becomes startlingly clear to me are those other artists who simply do not understand these things, and whose approach to the work is thus hampered. This leads to hackneyed, theatrically deadly productions: a Dracula that is not scary, a musical comedy that is not funny, a season that is not interesting.

Unfortunately, one cannot simply walk up to another director and spout, "Wow, your work suffers because of your lack of understanding of the shamanic/adeptic connection to theatre!" I suspect that the initial, undergraduate training must be strict enough and strong enough that it forms an Adamantine skeleton supporting anything else layered on top of it. To be clear: I am not saying that a shamanic/adeptic approach to theatre is the only one. In my opinion, there is an undeniable connection, but it's anecdotal. This path will not work for everyone, and, frankly, each theatrical explorer must cut her own path into the forest of adventure; following another artist's trail only leads to ashes and shit.