The Cambridge Introduction to Theatre Directing by

Christopher Innes and Maria Shevtsova (review)

Joshua Robinson

Theatre Topics, Volume 25, Number 3, September 2015, pp. 309-310 (Review)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/tt.2015.0042

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/595553

Access provided at 8 Jan 2020 07:53 GMT from University of Cambridge


(45) and “[d]o you communicate with your creative team
any differently, regardless of whether you’re choreographing,
directing, or both?” (75). Cramer keeps the conversations
refreshingly balanced and practical, avoiding inquiries
that could have easily turned unproductively erudite. Her
casual yet respectful tone as interviewer encourages the
choreographers to offer humorous and intriguing antidotes
that concurrently entertain and reinforce the lessons they
are trying to teach. A few of the interviews even contain
harmless jabs at some of the icons of the dance world and a
playful lampoon of elements within the theatre, such as the
audition process, out-of-town tryouts, and so on. Cramer also
avoids dance jargon and interpolates explanations about each
artist within the interviews, making the book user-friendly to
those who do not have extensive musical theatre knowledge.
For the researcher, Cramer does ask questions that
critically explore every director/choreographer’s aesthetic
theories and praxis. The discussions of each artist’s early
mentors and how these influences have affected his or
her process stand out as noteworthy examples. Additional
significant dialogues include the artists’ explanations of
how a choreographer transitions from early choreographic
concepts to the rehearsal room, and how to best utilize the
rehearsal process. Cramer’s personal knowledge of musical
theatre dance seeps through the interviews in her ability to
ask highly individualized questions. For instance, she asks
how choreographers evolved from the theatre to other fields
like opera or film, or how an individual’s continued teaching
practice influences his or her ability to create choreography.
Nevertheless, the conversational tone of the book may
detract from the author’s implied claim that the interviews
are a form of qualitative research. While each interview
has a similar arch, the interviews do not have a uniform
interview protocol typically found in many formal qualitative
methodologies; the questions are not consistent throughout
the different chapters. The flow of each interview feels like an
organic conversation, which leads to fascinating digressions
and adds to the books accessibility, yet the inconsistency
of questions across the interviews may create unfortunate
gaps of information for researchers looking to extrapolate
themes and ideas for further study. This inconsistency does
not detract from Cramer’s intention to make the interviews
critical in nature; the directors and choreographers go well
beyond giving amusing stories and personal history—they
truly analyze and evaluate their art form.
Ultimately, Creating Music Theatre is a valuable
addition to musical theatre dance literature. Dance
enthusiasts can enjoy discovering more about those who
are creating today’s successful hits, and artists—particularly
dancers and choreographers—can glean much from the
practical advice and thoughtful examination of personal
process that these significant directors/choreographers offer.
For any musical theatre dance lover, this book provides
an intimate master class in both craft and artistry sure to
enlighten and inspire.
ROCKFORD SANSOM
American Musical and Dramatic Academy (NYC)
Book Reviews 309
The Cambridge Introduction to Theatre Directing.
By Christopher Innes and Maria Shevtsova. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2013; pp. 296.
The Cambridge Introduction to Theatre Directing
takes on the mammoth task of tracing the art of directing
and directing theory from antiquity to the present. The
book eschews a chronological structure in favor of a useful
thematic organization that groups directors and events into
stylistic and theoretical approaches to the practice of directing
and the execution of the theatrical art in general. Innes and
Shevtsova’s monograph serves three distinct functions. First, it
provides a succinct history of the emergence of the director in
the field of theatre, beginning with the “playwright-managers”
of antiquity through the “actor-managers” of the early modern
and modern theatres, leading to the present-day, amorphous
definition of the role of director. This historical context helps
to layer the “aesthetic and political” perspective that lays the
groundwork for the book’s larger emphasis on contemporary
practitioners (6). Second, it provides a thematic study in
directing theory, encompassing the earliest canonical texts
that define the purpose and aim of the theatre director to
more contemporaneous debates. Finally, it convincingly
serves a pragmatic function, acting as a practical handbook
for practitioners attempting to understand the processes and
procedures of notable directors in the Western tradition (2).
As such, The Cambridge Introduction to Theatre Directing
serves a large general audience of theatre historians, theorists,
and scholars, as well as practitioners and practice instructors
looking for a systematic study of the field.
The first two chapters chart the emergence of the
director. Chapter 1, “Traditional Staging and the Evolution
of the Director,” takes a largely historical approach, relying
heavily upon well-known comprehensive texts, such as
Brockett’s History of the Theatre, to chart the evolution of
the director in history, from Greek theatre “choreographers”
to medieval managers, through the playwright-managers of
the Renaissance to the actor-managers of the Enlightenment.
Emphasis is also placed on the evolving political and social
circumstances that made the need for a director inevitable.
The second chapter, “The Rise of the Modern Director,” also
seeks to historicize the emergence of the director by charting
the rise of Émile Zola and naturalism and contrasting it with
the growing importance of the symbolism movement. These
movements are traced back to Georg II and the Meiningen
players emerging out of the German Intendant system that
would provide the groundwork for the modern conception
of director (36). The chapter closes with a detailed account
of Stanislavsky’s methods of directing, a case study that is
referenced indirectly throughout the rest of the book. The
book’s consideration of the modern director’s emergence is
understandably East European/Russian–centric, focusing
the historiography on Western traditions to provide the
foundation for the remaining chapter’s thematic focus.
In chapter 3, “Directors of Theatricality,” the authors
begin to divide their work topically, charting the growing
importance of directors in history and connecting them to
the contemporary artists who continue their stylistic approach
in the present. In this chapter a line is drawn from Vsevolod
310 Theatre Topics
Meyerhold through Frank Castorf, Thomas Ostermeier, and
contemporary Eastern European directors working today.
These directors are grouped together by a theatricality defined
by “close collaboration with architects, designers, painters,
sculptors, and other practitioners beyond the theatre” (78).
Directors of theatricality are held in opposition to the more
explicitly political “Epic Theatre Directors” (chapter 4),
beginning with Brecht, through Reinhardt, and forward
toward Roberto Ciulli. Epic theatre is defined here as
“explicitly, indeed stridently, ideological,” and its ideological
nature is traced from the Intendant system of Germany, which
explicitly tied court theatre to the interests of the state (117).
By contrast, chapter 5, “Total Theatre: The Director
as Auteur,” focuses less on the political affiliations of directors
and more on the impact of particular directors utilizing an
all-encompassing approach, tracing a line from Gordon
Craig to contemporaries like Robert Wilson and Peter
Sellars. “Directors of Ensemble Theatre” is the focus of the
sixth chapter, encompassing a wide array of methodologies
and practitioners, stemming from Girgio Strehler and Peter
Brook to Katie Mitchell and Declan Donnellan. The final
and most ambitious chapter, “Directors, Collaboration and
Improvisation,” attempts to explore the role of directors in
collaborative environments where traditional structures and
leader roles may be difficult to ascertain. This chapter moves
through several groups, most notably Elizabeth LeCompte
and The Wooster Group, Jerzy Grotowski, and Eugenio
Barba. It impressively evades making generalizations regarding
the role of a director in a collaborative environment instead
focusing on the theoretical bases that extend from more active
directors, such as Grotowski, to so-called non-directors like
Grzegorz Bral (245).
The book features copious excerpts from the
writings of the directors it highlights, as well as hyperlinks to
production stills and design blueprints. Its thematic structure
is useful, although occasionally problematic as directors, such
as Craig, are cited as examples before they are thoroughly
profiled. As such, Innes and Shevtsova’s book may be more
useful as a companion rather than an introduction. The
authors also note that the book is largely concerned with
Western traditions, and that Asian theatre is the “missing
link” of their study (4). While a number of legitimate reasons
for this exclusion are cited, it is important to note that a
number of Asian artists are highlighted as influences on the
largely European directors profiled. And, while the book is
admittedly interested in the emergence of the director in the
Western tradition, it is noteworthy that Innes and Shevtsova
manage to evade a homogenized definition or description of
the director. The inclusion of collective-based theatre groups
and artists helps to trouble and upset more conservative
notions of the role of director within the theatrical realm.
The result is a fascinating mélange of possible journeys for
the director, erasing the strictures on what we define as the
artistic process and presenting a varied, diverse fabric from
which to arrive at our own definitions of the role of director.
JOSHUA ROBINSON
Indiana University