'Producing the Scene': the Evolution of the Director in British Theatre 1900-50

The role of the director as the individual who harnesses and controls resources to shape the theatrical product to a personal artistic vision, begins to emerge in British theatre in the early years of the twentieth century. What distinguishes the role from that of the actor-manager who had led the profession since the seventeenth century, is that it separates off from the leading actor in performance. The power and authority of the director (or producer as he or she tended to be known initially) is exercised in the pre-performance stage. In the first half of the century there were still old-style actor-managers—Donald Wolfit is a prime example—and many of the new directors had begun their careers as actors and some continued to act their in their own productions. But the perception of the function of the director began to change radically. In part this was linked to the early attempts to create a new model of producing company or ‘repertory’ theatre which required a different set of administrative as well as artistic skills to tackle the challenge of a short-run system of multiple play production. This became especially important in the developing network of regional repertory theatres which were established as autonomous, locally-specific institutions predicated on policies opposed to the dominant commercial ethos. The best-known of the early directors, most notably H.Granville Barker, confined their radical experiments to short-lived metropolitan experiments, or, as in the case of Terence Gray and J.B.Fagan, operated within the influential Oxbridge nexus. Others such as H.K.Ayliff, Herbert Prentice, William Armstrong and William Bridges-Adams remain comparatively obscure because of their long-term ‘provincial’ connections or, as in the case of Nugent Monck and Edy Craig because their creativity was largely channelled through amateur actors. This chapter will explore the evolving role of the director as both a necessary functionary and an artistic innovator within the changing structures of British theatre.

Teaching Rules or Teaching Creativity: a Paradigm Shift

Structure is everything in a screenplay we are told. If indeed there are any rules to screenwriting then this would be carved in tablets of stone. Within pedagogical frameworks we are diligent in our instruction of the three acts, advocating it as a paradigm. We pass on tools for the analysis of character that are gleaned from psychology. But I have seen students struggle with this toolbox. They feel constrained by concrete techniques. So often seeing principles as rules, structure as restriction. The stifling of free-form ideas is further compounded by the plethora of books that claim the path to glory lies only in structural devices. Some even purport to have a formula, a simple prescriptive model that will bestow almost certain success. Yet this is an industry that abhors formula, that hungers for the fresh and the new. Without bravado, imagination and experimentation with character and form, the best structured screenplay in the world is merely a typing exercise. As educators we have a duty to retain a balance between letting a student’s mind dance and keeping them to the tempo. This study will compare a variety of diverse structures, from Hegel to Alcoholics Anonymous, Kubler Ross to Jung. It will analyse recent journal articles, on both new techniques in teaching creativity and new approaches to the instruction of screenwriting, to suggest a model of how best to inform the application of structure to HE students and keep creativity uppermost. A structure of emotional truth. An equal appreciation of both the tools of our craft and an imaginative exploration of character and world that can unlock our originality and our artistry.