You’re all dressed up for your big night. For months now you’ve been the talk of the town. The critics love you; the audiences love you, the nominators love you. You already won the Drama Desk a few weeks back, and tonight your show is nominated for more Tony Awards than anything else in the season. Everyone your parents have ever talked to are watching. You deserve this. Truly, you do. And you look mah-velous! Finally, they get to your category. When the presenter says your name on the list of nominees, your date squeezes your hand — one last vote of confidence, “You got this, babe! I believe in you.” The envelope is torn. And…

… they call someone else’s name.  

I can tell you from personal experience: not winning is a miserable sensation. And it’s especially painful when everybody said you would. But, hey, that’s showbiz. Here are a couple of instances throughout Tony Awards history when people got robbed.

They deserved better. Here are their stories…

1. Best Musical: “Dreamgirls” vs. “Nine”, 1982

Of the four musicals nominated in 1982, only two actually deserved to win. Those were “Nine” and “Dreamgirls”. The also-rans that season were the cloyingly twee “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat” and the obscure honkytonk longshot “Pump Boys and Dinettes.” For the majority of that season, however, “Dreamgirls” had dominated the landscape. The show was a big hit for its producers, The Shubert Organization. Jennifer Holliday’s bombastic turn as Effie White was not to be missed. The show’s director and choreographer Michael Bennett (“A Chorus Line”)  had delivered a seamlessly slick production with an unrelenting drive. The show was dynamite.

Then, on the very last day of Tony eligibility, a new competitor arrived. The Nederlander Organization (longstanding rivals of the Shuberts) had opened “Nine”, an intimate musical based on the Frederico Fellini film “8 ½.” The show had practically materialized from thin air. But, man, was it was captivating… and styled with artful restraint by director Tommy Tune. To be frank, “Nine” was downright sexy. Those assets earned the show 12 Tony nominations. “Dreamgirls” earned 13.

On Tony night, the race was neck-and-neck going into the final lap. For Best Director, Tommy Tune (of “Nine”) beat Michael Bennett (of “Dreamgirls”). In an equitable turn, Bennett was consoled by beating Tune for Best Choreography. The presenter for the Best Musical category that year was Lena Horne. “I hope I can read this without my glasses,” she chuckled while tearing at the envelope. “The winner is… NINE!” The audience was SHOCKED. The next morning in The New York Times, columnist Carol Lawson said, “The producers of ‘’Nine’ were jubilant as their show beat out ‘Dreamgirls,’ the lavish musical unofficially based on the rise of the Supremes. For most of the season, which was a particularly weak one for musicals, ‘Dreamgirls’ had no strong competition for the year’s awards. But all that changed when ‘Nine’ opened a month ago…” In the end, “Dreamgirls” won 6 Tony Awards — including one for Jennifer Holliday — while “Nine” won five. But one of those five was Best Musical, and that’s really the one that matters.

PS: If you want to know more about this fascinating story, I highly recommend Michael Reidel’s book “Razzle Dazzle.” I couldn’t put it down!

2. Best Musical: “Two Gentlemen of Verona” vs. “Follies”, 1972

Look, a lot of people like to crap all over “Two Gentlemen of Verona.” But I’m here to tell you:  they’re wrong. Well, for the most part. No one can deny that the show has a catchy score; it’s tuneful and lively, full of sass and brass. The show’s composer Galt MacDermott (“HAIR”) said his inspiration for its sound was walking down Broadway on a nice day and hearing every kind of music pour out of open windows. The result was an eclecticism that warms like auditory sunshine.

Now, originally that production started out at Shakespeare in the Park. Then after receiving positive notices, it picked up its duds and legitimized itself on a Broadway stage. A STELLAR review from the Times established it as the one to see in 1972. Clive Barnes declared, “Love is in bloom and back in style. It has a surge of youth to it, at times an almost carnal intimation of sexuality, and a boisterous sense of love. It is precisely this that the new musical catches and makes its own.”

Meanwhile, it’s major competition wasn’t proving to be so accessible. Word around town pegged “Follies” as more of an accomplishment than an entertainment — sort of like a worthy experiment that mostly paid off, even if it was a chore to read the scientist’s findings. Critic Walter Kerr didn’t seem to know what to make of it. The first paragraph of his review called it “exhausting,” and “tedious.” But then by paragraph five he said it was a “huge entertainment.” Still, despite his indecision, the Tony nominations favored “Follies” with 12 and “Two Gentlemen” with only 9.

On the big night, “Follies” had nearly a clean sweep. It took home awards for direction, choreography, lighting, scenery, costumes, score, and for actress Alexis Smith. The only award “Two Gentlemen” won was for Best Book of a Musical (John Guare & Mel Shapiro). That’s why it was such a shock when “Two Gentlemen” took Best Musical. And what a night it must have been for its producer (and founder of the Public Theater), Joe Papp. Not only had Papp produced “Two Gentlemen” — that year’s Best Musical — but he had also produced that year’s Best Play — “Sticks and Bones” by David Rabe.

However, history seems to have revised this decision. Since losing the Tony, “Follies” has received two major revivals on Broadway. Meanwhile, any and all attempts at “Two Gentlemen” have fizzled in the rain.  

So, what were the factors that led to this upset? Well, for starters, the prior year “Company” had dominated the awards. “Follies” was another effort by the same collaborators as “Company”, Stephen Sondheim and Hal Prince. This year’s experiment yielded similar results and the voters wanted to support variety. Also, the other big Galt MacDermott show “HAIR” had been ahead of its time and, therefore, didn’t win in its respective year. So, it is possible that this award for “Two Gentlemen” was an act of self-validation by the voters. It was as if to say, “See, we’re with hip! We’re with it… now!”

Personally, though, I think voters were blinded by “Two Gentlemen’s” pure sunshine of a score. Anyway, it sure beats a lot better than “Follies” callused and withered heart.

3. Best Performance by a Leading Actress in a Musical: Idina Menzel vs. Tonya Pinkins, 2004

It’s not easy being green. In fact, according to Ben Brantley of The New York Times, it’s a lot easier being pink. At least it is when you’re Kristin Chenoweth (read: popular). Mind you, Brantley always has been a worshipper of KC. But his review for “Wicked” officially lit the candle at her altar. He even went so far as to declare her the show’s one saving grace. “Be grateful,” he said, “very grateful, that Ms. Chenoweth, who spent a brief exile in the land of sitcoms, has returned to the stage. She provides the essential helium in a bloated production that might otherwise spend close to three hours flapping its oversized wings without taking off… Yet it’s hard to avoid the impression that whenever Ms. Chenoweth leaves the stage, ‘Wicked’ loses its wit.”

Needless to say, he didn’t find Idina Menzel to be nearly as appealing. He barely got around to mentioning her before circling back to Kristen. As he put it, “The talented Ms. Menzel will no doubt dazzle audience members whose musical tastes run to soft-rock stations. But for aficionados of the American musical, it’s Ms. Chenoweth who’s the real thing, melding decades of performing traditions into something shiny and new. ‘Wicked’ does not, alas, speak hopefully for the future of the Broadway musical. Ms. Chenoweth, on the other hand, definitely does.”

To add insult to injury, it was ruled by the Tony nominating committee (who were likely solicited by the show’s producers) that both Idina and Kristen would be eligible to compete in the same category — Leading Actress in a Musical. When they were both nominated in that category, it was impossible to think their onstage rivalry didn’t bleed into the wings.

During the campaign, Menzel did have a slight advantage; Chenoweth had already won a Tony for “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown” and, let’s face it, Elphaba does way more heavy lifting in “Wicked”. Anyway, most voters thought that the two “Wicked” actresses would split the vote and, therefore, neither would win. That made the front-runner Tonya Pinkins. She was nominated for her breathtaking performance in “Caroline, or Change.” Pinkins had won previously in 1992 for “Jelly’s Last Jam” and a lot of people were saying she deserved it again. She was MESMERIZING as Caroline, the put-upon maid to a Jewish family in a haunting little show about race relations in the 1960s. Mark Swed of the Los Angeles Times wrote of Pinkins, “If you needed no other reason to see [‘Caroline, or Change’], Tonya Pinkins’ understated, nuanced performance would supply it. Hers will, I hope, one day be remembered as a Broadway classic for its ability to balance smoldering anger with radiance.”

Alas, come Tony night, it was Menzel took home the trophy — in which case Pinkins and Chenoweth were the ones turning green.

4. Best Musical: “Wicked” vs. “Avenue Q”, 2004

If there was an award to be given for “Biggest Tony Award Upset in History,” this would easily win. By the time the Tonys finally rolled around in 2004, the statues had practically been engraved for “Wicked.” And, why not? The show was unstoppable. It was a critic-proof juggernaut. Its word-of-mouth was golden, as were its ticket sales (then and in the 15+ years since). When an informal poll was given among Tony voters by The New York Times, the consensus was that “Wicked” would definitely win. But then some naughty puppets got in the way.

The producing office for “Avenue Q” waged an all-out war against its competition. They ran an ingenious campaign encouraging people to, “Vote Your Heart.” They took out full-page newspaper ads and held a pizza party for out-of-town voters. They even distributed CD’s with a new song titled “Rod’s Dilemma.” The song features the entire cast of the show all helping Rod determine how to cast his vote for the new Rotary Club president (“Why not vote for the person who deserves it?”). Promotional buttons for “Q” were distributed at the theater. They even decorated the box office like a campaign headquarters. In total, the effort cost producers around $300,000. And, believe it or not, it worked.

Over the course of the evening, “Avenue Q” won 3 Tony Awards: Best Book/Lyrics, Best Original Score, and Best Musical. These 3 awards are the trifecta; they’re the most important for a new musical to win. “Wicked”, on the other hand, won for Idina Menzel, Best Scenic Design, and Best Costumes. Consequently, “Wicked” director Joe Mantello also won that night, but for his work on “Assassins.”  

Still, if I had the retrospective choice between investing in “Avenue Q” and investing in “Wicked,” my green would be on green — Tonys be dammed. During its run at the Golden Theater before transferring Off-Broadway, “Avenue Q” took in a respectable cumulative gross of $121,918,918. Meanwhile, “Wicked” has earned $1,276,318,914 counting. Fly high, you wicked witches!

NOTE: Didn’t see your favorite listed here? Please stay tuned! This is a continuing series and more Tony Awards Upsets are on the way.

The post And The Winner ISN’T: The Biggest Tony Awards Upsets In History (PART ONE) appeared first on Theatre Nerds.

Ye olde critic for the New York Times Brooks Atkinson shared a similarly sentimental sentiment. As he put it in his review for the doomed 1958 musical “Portofino,” — “There is something pathetic about a musical show that is hopeless. For the hopeless ones require as much work as those that succeed. There are just as many carnival-colored costumes; there is just as much cheerful scenery. The light cues are just as intricate, and the orchestrations as ebullient. Just as many attractive young people dance their feet off and smile as pleasantly. Everybody has rehearsed just as loyally, as if he were bound to succeed. What makes a hopeless musical show pathetic is the fact that the medium is glamorous and gay.” From there, he went on to tear the show to shreds.

Even though we can all agree it’s a bummer to watch a show tank, there is admittedly something gleeful about reading bad reviews. Blame it on the schadenfreude, I guess (wow, I spelled “schadenfreude” all by myself! Thanks, “Avenue Q.”). Most of the time, the more scathing the review, the juicier it reads —  as long as it wasn’t written about you… THIS TIME!

Here’s a small sampling of some deliciously cringeworthy snark from theatrical reviews of seasons past. Enjoy — but try not to gloat… these shows have had it hard enough already.

1. LEGS DIAMOND (1988), 64 Performances

Frank Rich, The New York Times:

Far from being a source of ridiculous slap-happiness, ”Legs Diamond” is a sobering interlude of minimum-security imprisonment that may inspire you to pull out a pen and attend to long-neglected tasks, like finishing last Sunday’s crossword puzzle or balancing a checkbook.

The script is so confusing I lost its thread before the end of the first number. The unhelpful dialogue, which rarely falls trippingly from the company’s highly amplified tongues, sounds as if it had been translated from foreign-language comic books. A typical punchline? ”My girls don’t come cheap, and neither do sequins.” (Actually, these sequins look as if they do.) If there’s any mystery to ”Legs Diamond,” it is the one attending [the show’s star Peter] Allen, not the gangster he purports to play. Here is a performer with a single expression – a pop-eyed, I-dare-you-not-to-love-me grin – and a harsh singing voice as taut as his face. He delivers jokes as if he were a ”Hollywood Squares” second banana struggling with his cue cards, and his dancing amounts to a few Rockette-style high kicks and a lot of wiggling at the joints. As for Mr. Allen’s songs, they are so derivative they make Andrew Lloyd Webber’s scores sound idiosyncratic.

2. LENNON (2005), 49 Performances

Ben Brantley, The New York Times:

In the immortal words of Yoko Ono, “Aieeeee!” A fierce primal scream — of the kind Ms. Ono is famous for as a performance and recording artist — is surely the healthiest response to the agony of “Lennon,” the jerry-built musical shrine that opened last night at the Broadhurst Theater.

3. BRING BACK BIRDIE (1981), 4 Performances

Frank Rich, The New York Times:

If the first ”Birdie” was invigorating, the new one is depressing right up until that curtain call. Although its creators have done plenty of fine work since their first success, you’d never guess it from this mess. ”Bring Back Birdie” is not only far inferior to its predecessor, but it is also woefully tired – as if everyone involved had abandoned hope. Instead of doing ”Bring Back Birdie,” these people should have brought back ”Bye Bye Birdie.” Or maybe they should have left their and our fond memories in peace.

Though ”Bring Back Birdie” aspires to bring back everyone’s happy youth, it has sent its creators and audience alike crashing into a gloomy middle age.

4. THE CIVIL WAR (1998), 61 Performances

Ben Brantley, The New York Times:

In the wake of any war come questions, dazed, wondering questions. What, finally, did we gain from fighting? What did we learn? Why did this conflict have to happen in the first place?

Perhaps, then, it is appropriate that the new musical called ”The Civil War,” whose subject is nothing less than what its grand, stark title promises, should provoke a similar litany of questions. Why are we here at the St. James Theater? What is the point in remaining for more than two hours? Why would anyone stage a show that improbably drains the drama from what is still the most fraught and painful chapter in American history?

The show arranges its archetypal elements into confoundingly static patterns, laying out all its cards in its opening minutes and then failing to combine them in ways that would build to revelation or strong emotional response. Though the musical covers the full span of the war, with the names, dates and casualty counts of major battles projected in supertitles, you eventually come to feel that you have been watching the same rotating diorama.

5. TABOO (2003), 100 Performances

Peter Marks, The Washington Post:

Experiencing the stultifying “Taboo,” you feel as if you could be standing on a shaky pier on the edge of theaterland, waving the SS Broadway Musical goodbye.

This sort of sensation comes on those dispiriting nights when big, new, expensive shows bearing all the telltale signs of actual entertainment — starry names, busy choreography, lighting — reveal how far the musical has strayed from traditional craftsmanship. During these peculiar events, you find yourself questioning the entire institution of Broadway, wondering whether anyone will ever again levitate an audience with imaginative songs painstakingly woven into a story of bona fide human consequence.

The feeling will pass, of course, because the regenerative impulse in your psyche guides you to the memory of a recent success like “Avenue Q,” a witty, melodious sendup of urban mores and post-graduation angst. But still, Broadway continues to shelter hokum like “Taboo,” a production with such an acute case of meaning-deprivation that you almost forget what’s happening as it’s happening.

The wasted actors — as in misused — include the estimable Raul Esparza, playing a cross-dressing London club promoter who narrates this musical-in-flashback. Esparza is so fired-up here you want the stagehands to keep him away from matches; he’s a combustible presence, but if the performance were any more intense, it could embarrass even Mandy Patinkin.

6. THE STORY OF MY LIFE (2009), 5 Performances

Adam Feldman, Time Out New York:

“The Story of My Life” is a two-man musical with a dual personality. Half of Brian Hill and Neil Bartram’s well-meaning piece examines the tension between memory and fiction, as seen through the lives of two men with a knack for verbose self-reflection; the other half is a collage of cultural platitudes about butterflies, angels and snowflakes. The show can’t decide if it wants to be Stephen Sondheim or a gift shop in Topeka.

“The Story of My Life” needs fewer stories and more life. It is hard to imagine that this snowflake of a show will survive in the Broadway drift: It has wings, but it doesn’t have a prayer.

—

Ben Brantley, The New York Times:

In addition to jettisoning the usual excesses of tourist-trapping extravaganzas, they have tossed away such niceties as originality, credibility, tension and excitement. I don’t think it’s spoiling anything to tell you that [Malcolm] Gets’s character is dead when the show begins. So, for all practical purposes, is “The Story of My Life.”

And as directed by [Richard] Maltby, [actor Will] Chase (of “Lennon” and “High Fidelity”) and Mr. Gets (a Tony nominee for “Amour”) sing and act with winning (and, under the circumstances, merciful) restraint. It is to their infinite credit that even when they’re extolling the precious glories of snow angels and a butterfly’s wings, you don’t feel like punching them in the face.

7. CRY BABY (2008), 68 Performances

Ben Brantley, The New York Times:

There’s no delicate way of putting this. Cry-Baby is … tasteless. … When I said “tasteless,” I meant without flavor: sweet, sour, salty, putrid or otherwise. This show in search of an identity has all the saliva-stirring properties of week-old pre-chewed gum.

—

Clive Barnes, New York Post:

The music comes in two rocky flavors — cheery and droopy. It’s the kind of music that makes you wonder whether you’ve heard it before, just before you stop caring.

—

Mary Carol McCauley, The Baltimore Sun:

Opportunity knocked last night at the door of the Marquis Theatre, where Cry-Baby is making its Broadway debut. But nobody answered.

8. LEAP OF FAITH (2012), 19 Performances

David Cote, Time Out New York:

Want to make a ton of money? Peddle God to fools. Want to lose a ton of money? Invest in a Broadway turkey. You can’t have it both ways. It’s perfectly fine—even desirable—if your religion is crude and nonsensical, but a show as bland and confused as “Leap of Faith” is not going to make rich men of its producers (among whom are actual church leaders). The fake cash distributed by actors to audience members—so we may place it in the offertory baskets at Jonas Nightingale’s revivalist hoedowns—is all the green this wanly tacky production is likely to see.

9. LESTAT (2006), 39 Performances

Ben Brantley, The New York Times:

A promising new contender has arrived in a crowded pharmaceutical field. Joining the ranks of Ambien, Lunesta, Sonata and other prescription lullaby drugs is “Lestat,” the musical sleeping pill that opened last night at the Palace Theater. Dare to look upon “Lestat” and keep your eyelids from growing heavier and heavier.

10. HURRY, HARRY (1972), 2 Performances

Clive Barnes, The New York Times:

Muggings, massage parlors and disasters such as “Hurry, Harry” have all conspired to give Broadway a bad name. It is so feeble that even its opening is I suppose worthy of congratulation — lesser men would have given up in the face of the inevitable. But the producer, Peter Grad, and the three people who wrote the book, the man who wrote the music, and the man who wrote the lyrics fought on in spite of everything.

It is sad when this kind of thing happens– sad for the backers, sad for the people who worked for it, sad for the critics forced to pan it. The critic in such circumstances is a particular innocent. Halfway through he is tempted in a paranoid fashion to wonder: “What did I ever do to you guys that you have to give me such a rotten night?’ Oh, well!”

11. GOOD VIBRATIONS (2005), 94 Performances

Ben Brantley, The New York Times:

Even those who believe everything on this planet is here for a purpose may at first have trouble justifying the existence of “Good Vibrations,” the singing headache that opened last night at the Eugene O’Neill Theater.

But audience members strong enough to sit through this rickety jukebox of a show, which manages to purge all catchiness from the surpassingly catchy hits of the Beach Boys, will discover that the production does have a reason to be, and a noble one: “Good Vibrations” sacrifices itself, night after night and with considerable anguish, to make all other musicals on Broadway look good.

12. MARILYN: AN AMERICAN FABLE (1983), 17 Performances

Frank Rich, The New York Times:

If you read all the fine print in the Playbill for ”Marilyn: An American Fable,” you’ll discover that the new musical at the Minskoff has 16 producers and 10 songwriters. If you mistakenly look up from the Playbill to watch the show itself, you may wonder whether those 26 persons were ever in the same rehearsal room – or even the same city – at the same time. On top of its many other failings, ”Marilyn” is incoherent to the point of being loony. I defy anyone to explain – just for starters – why 10 chorus boys dressed in pink plumbers’ costumes sing a song about bubble baths at the climax of Act II.

The post 12 Times The Critics Were Absolutely Savage (But Not Necessarily Wrong) appeared first on Theatre Nerds.

Today, the director has many responsibilities. Some are microscopic, and some are monumental. Chiefly, the director must guide the team in defining the artistic shape of the production. They must set the parameters of the world that is being created. This earns them the right to have an opinion on everything (whether or not that opinion is voiced and/or heeded). And while most people would jump at the chance to be in charge, it is important to remember that with great power comes great responsibility. To be a director, you have to prove yourself a leader worth following.

Here’s how…

1. Do Your Research

via GIPHY

Are you allergic to homework? Do book reports make you drowsy? Would you rather be dead than go to the library? Then, buddy, this is NOT the job for you. Like the genre itself, directing starts on the page. Before your first rehearsal, you’ll need to have a general understanding of the show’s historical context, references and themes. Even looking up the reviews of the original production might influence your interpretation. Granted, this doesn’t mean you have to know EVERYTHING… but if you intend to be a leader worth following, being a smarty-pants surely doesn’t hurt.

2. Be Organized & Stay Organized

The quickest and easiest way to have people turn against you is to waste their time. So, make a schedule and STICK TO IT. After all, you can’t earn respect unless you offer it. Don’t run over in a session (“Oh, just another 10 minutes!”), don’t be late (“Sorry to keep you all waiting!”) and don’t skip breaks (“You can just push through, right?!”). And be realistic with your expectations; you know you’re not going to get a production number staged in 45 minutes. Also, know what pages you are staging in that session; be familiar with them and have them handy. No one wants to work with a fumbling doofus.  

3. Don’t Over-Plan

I know what you’re thinking: “Wait… didn’t you just tell me to research until my eyes bleed and schedule every time I’ll need to pee?” Well, yeah… BUT — this is where you have to show a little restraint. Remember: you’re the director, not the dictator; if you have an answer for every question, you’re not only doing your job, you’re doing everyone else’s. And that’s ANNOYING. Giving actors line-readings (performing the role for them instead of coaching them to find a performance) invalidates their creative input. As much as you can, allow for happy accidents. Encourage people to make their own discoveries by answering questions with more questions. When they find the answer “independently”, there is a sense of ownership that will really show in the work.

4. Collaborate

via GIPHY

The best idea in the room doesn’t have to be your own. You’ve assembled a room full of talented and creative people. So… LET THEM BE TALENTED AND CREATIVE! Learn to listen; listen to learn.  

5. Study Art

Staging is HARD. Composition is one of the most difficult concepts for young directors to grasp. There are lots of little rules: actors should stand in triangles, people need to “cheat out” to see faces, asymmetry is your friend, etc. An easy way to develop your eye is to study the Old Masters (basically any painter working before 1800… or anyone with the same name as a Ninja Turtle). Find paintings of crowd scenes in particular. Take note of how the artist places his/her subjects to achieve peak visibility and drama. See how you can adapt their work. After all, the proscenium stage is modeled after the frame of a painting.   

6. Steal Creatively

Nobody likes a thief (especially not Javert…). It doesn’t matter that you saw the original production 50 times; as the director, it’s your job to figure out how the story will be told anew. Copying another production’s staging/choreography is THEFT. That work is/was someone else’s intellectual property. You can let their work influence you, sure — there’s a reason the show was successful in the first place. But steal creatively. When you see a show, take note of elements you admire. But don’t be dumb about it. You’d be surprised how inconspicuously the end of the first act of “Sunday in the Park with George” fits into the chorale of “The Pirates of Penzance.” And the audience (and critics) will be none-the-wiser. And if they are? Well, just call it an homage…

7. Don’t Be a Jerk

via GIPHY

This one sounds like a no-brainer, but… ugh, you’d be surprised. A lot of what a director does is to encourage other artists to deliver their best work. That’s not going to happen when people are scared of you. You can be tough and challenging, for sure. But don’t be a bully! Like, never ever. Behaving like a tyrant is sabotage to the creative process. And be brave enough to apologize when you have to; it doesn’t make you weak to say you’re sorry when it’s due. It’s like your mother always said: treat others the way you want to be treated.

8. Find the Humanity

Theater is magic. To breathe the same air as artists while they create for you in real-time — it’s an experience that is unparalleled. Simply put: there is no other form that can so closely replicate real life. Those are the moments to strive for, those moments of truth. One way to emphasize this is to ask yourself constantly while watching, “Does this feed my sense of truth?” If not, consider what changes can be made or notes can be given. But remember: the sense of truth shifts from show to show. The reality of “Mamma Mia!” is very different from that of “A Little Night Music.” Always aim for truth within the construct of the reality you are creating.

9. Know Your Audience

via GIPHY

Directing a show for kids? Then maybe your actors need to keep their pants on… The point is: always remain aware of the intended audience for your work. For example, the church-going crowd doesn’t like vulgarity. Even if you [BLEEP]-ing love swears, you may have to find ways to tone things down the product to meet the audience’s ethical standards without compromising your artistic integrity OR the integrity of the work as written (no one said this job was going to be easy…) After all, the audience is the reason you have a job in the first place. Respect them and they’ll respect you.

10. Honor the Playwright

The most important person in the rehearsal room is always the playwright; it doesn’t matter if they’ve been dead for 2,400 years (here’s looking at you, Aristophanes…). It was the playwright’s idea that brought everyone together. Therefore, it is your primary responsibility as director to tell the story as they intended. Have a crazy concept for a show? Cool. Before you try to cram it into your new-fangled box, ask yourself, “Does this idea serve the play as written?” If not, you’re editorializing. In the theater, the playwright is God. The director just gets to spread the blessed word.

The post AGAIN, FROM THE TOP: 10 Tips For Young Directors appeared first on Theatre Nerds.