[Velma94]

Do actors prefer to work with directors who have an acting background? I can think of many amazing directors (Trevor Nunn, Stephen Daldry, etc.) who had no proffesional acting credits before turning to directing, but I remember reading in an interview that many actors prefer it if the director used to act. It's obviously essential that the director has a full understanding of acting, yes, but does this neccesarily have to be through acting themselves? Also, is it easier to get into directing through acting?

Just wondering!

[Laughingmonsta]

Moved here as this is a good topic and question it would have been lost in the Working in Theatre area!

[Jan Brock]

Moved here as this is a good topic and question it would have been lost in the Working in Theatre area!

Not sure - I suspect it makes no difference. Let's list the notable "former actor" ones. Daniel Evans, Sam West, Greg Doran, Michael Grandage.

[armadillo]

Julia McKenzie

[Alexandra]

Jonathan Kent.

[Lynette]

Shakespeare.

[Trev]

Not sure - I suspect it makes no difference. Let's list the notable "former actor" ones. Daniel Evans, Sam West, Greg Doran, Michael Grandage.

Peter Gill. Alan Rickman

[armadillo]

Shakespeare.

Do we know he was a good actor? Or that he was a director at all? I possibly got this from historical novels but wasn't Burbage the actor-director? Or do we actually know who directed (would it say so in the paperwork?)

[Lynette]

He did act. Tradition has it that he acted the old guy in As You Like It and he is listed as an actor in other people's stuff. Maybe he wasn't that good, eh? So decided he could make more money writing. Did he direct in the modern sense? He must have put in his half penny's worth. Maybe the bit in Hamlet when Hamlet is telling the actors how to act is a joke against himself for the benefit of the company. I'd like to think so. I really only put him in as a bit of a joke. I actually think that actors direct well, from what I've seen.