The word is that the RSC is not only planning to do some Russian plays, but that these will also be directed by as of yet unnamed Russian directors. I must say that this is a prospect that fills me with a certain dread, not because of the plays as such - whichever they turn out to be - but at the thought that they might end up being directed by directors with a limited grasp of English.

In theory, any director should be able to direct a production in any language of a play that they know well, but as someone who lives abroad I've seen more than a few such productions fall flat because of the disconnect that this causes between the director and the actors, especially when they have to work though the services of a translator. And why does the RSC feel the need to bring in people from Russia for these plays, aren’t there enough talented directors in England?

I've seen productions of Shakespeare end up in a turgid heap, even though any director worth his salt knows his Bard full well, whatever his/her nationality. Why is this? I think it is because even though they know the play, once directors can't tell with certainty what words an actor chooses to emphasise they lose control of the play as a whole – and since word order isn't the same in even closely related languages they can't really tell what the actors are doing.

Here in Sweden, where I live, I've suffered through the occasional Strindberg classic or two (not to mention Shakespeare) as directed by a visiting director, who surely knows the play well, but due to their lack of knowledge of the local language can't properly tune in to and control what the actors put across to the audience. Will this also be a problem for the RSC's visiting Russian directors? I hope not, but I'm quite worried.

//Jenny

When the non-English speaking Yuir Lubymov directed an English-speaking cast he famously conducted rehearsals by standing in the stalls flashing a torch at the cast when he wanted them to go quicker. It only works when a director is unconcerned about the text and characterisation but only with visuals/movement (ie. like Katie Mitchell's style).

It does feel that directors working outwith their first language tend to create pieces of director's theatre. While this can lead to interesting takes on productions, the attention to text can go out of the window. It's not only limited to foreign directors coming here, look at Tim Supple's Dream. A recent example for me was Class Enemy at the Edinburgh International Festival. The director Haris Pasovic, admittedly working in his and the cast's own language, completely bludgeoned Nigel Williams' English play. Subtlety was nowhere to be seen, his political vision overriding. I reckon it'll be even more of a problem for the RSC to have British actors directed by Russian directors. Far better off with a British director, or even with Russian actors, like the work Cheek By Jowl have done. Whether this would attract any more audience members is another matter.

http://theseeingplace.blogspot.com/

Ah yes, Supple's abominable Dream, I'd almost managed to blot that one out from my memory, but it perfectly illustrates why it's a problem when the director doesn't understand the language that the play is performed in, regardless of knowing the original text to the last dot.

Irregardless? So... it is not without regard? ... aka with regard?

That's what happens when you first decide to use one word and then change your mind as you write and choose a different word, forgetting to delete the start of the word that you began with. I'll edit it.

See, I'm actually all for adopting "irregardless" as a valid part of the English language. Only I want it to mean what it *should* mean, not how it is commonly used.

It's funny how no one really uses "irrespective" anymore.

Funny you should mention that, as that was the very word that I was first going to use, but decided that it sounded a bit too pompous.

"Why does the RSC feel the need to bring in people from Russia for these plays, aren’t there enough talented directors in England?"

Am slightly concerned about the racial prejudice in your message, Jenny.

In answer to the first part of that question: maybe the Russian director(s) the RSC has in mind are actually quite good and don't deserve to be doubted by you just because you have occasional experience of other directors with communication difficulties.

In answer to the second part: this isn't the Empire any more. Given that huge numbers of our directors work all over the world (think Sam Mendes, Declan Donnellan), it's kinda reasonable that HM Customs let the occasional person from abroad through our gates to direct plays here, you know...

Seeing as Michael Boyd did a lot of his early directing in Russia, it's not exactly illogical for him, now he is in a position to do so, to invite Russian directors to England. Whatever happened to "don't knock it until you've tried it", anyway?

I trust you had your tongue firmly in your cheek, Theatresquirrel. I know exactly what Jenny means.

I'll never forget the production of The Merchant of Venice at the Barbican which was directed by an American.
They had three huge coffins for the caskets....ludicrous and crass...it took me weeks to understand then it dawned on me that in American , a casket is a coffin.

If you've actually read what I've posted on this thread, I think that you'll find that it's the problem of having a director who doesn't understand the language that the play is performed in that is the problem. Regarding the quote above, it merely expressed my surprise as to why the RSC feels it is necessary to go looking abroad for talent, and I deeply resent your accusation.

What on earth are you raving about? And btw, the reasoning about the language barrier problem also applies to English speaking directors working in other countries, as exampled by Tim Supple's MND.


The Empire? You do know that I'm not English, don't you? Not even British.

Yes, but the Swedes had an Empire at one time too ? Maybe Thetresquirrel was referring to that, or maybe, because he earns a meagre crust from the Guardian, he felt the need to adopt their house style here.

1) Supple's Dream was one of the finest pieces of theatre I have seen in a long long time (in fact notching up 3 seperate visits by me), if it is an advertisment for why the RSC is welcoming foreign directors then roll on Russian season next year. The language barrier was broken down during the Complete Works and I for one am glad the RSC are moving out of the UK to look for new directors.

2) The RSC has used non-English directors in the past to varying degress of sucess I grant, however Silviu Pescarte's Macbett last year was more than worth its weight in gold.

3) Don't forget this is only rumour, we have heard no founded truth in this yet or who they are.

4) Surely a Russian working on a Russian play is better than another foreign nationality working on the same play?

Jenny, please have my assurance that I did "actually" read what you wrote, and took care to quote precisely the line I was concerned about. You said:

"Why does the RSC feel the need to bring in people from Russia for these plays, aren’t there enough talented directors in England?"

I absolutely stand by my concern about this expression. I'm not sure what you think the Royal Shakespeare Company is for, but it isn't an exclusive job centre for the English. By that rationale should Hollywood only employ American actors, directors and craftsmen? Should La Scala only use Italian musicians? Surely the RSC's mission is to stage what it believes to be the very best theatre it can, and let's hope the talent they source comes from the very widest international pool because frankly if there are people who direct brilliantly on this earth, I don't care what country they come from, I want to see their work.

As I said, you may well have had some very reasonable disappointments from individual international directors who didn't communicate the language of the play they were working in, but I personally wouldn't question a whole nation's capabilities or right to be here because of that.

No, obviously you didn't read it properly, as you don't seem to understand even the line that you quote above, instead only focusing on the topic title, which due to the limited space available had to be rather short and reasonably descriptive, if not entirely covering what the actual post was about.

Where did I ever say that the RSC should only employ English people? The phrasing of it could have been clearer I suppose, but I was talking about people already working in England (many of which are of countless other nationalities), which one would assume would mean that they had a good enough grasp of English, which is precisely the point I was concerned about and was raising above.

I was somewhat annoyed by your earlier accusation, but I'm now incensed by your continual insistence to deliberately misrepresent what I wrote. Tell me, do you often go about trolling in this manner?

Hi Jenny,

I’m sorry you feel so indignant. Thanks for clarifying that you exempt people of any nationality already working in England. This wasn’t clear to me. I can assure you I’ve read your post carefully several times over now. While from the very outset I’ve appreciated your very fair desire to have clarity in the theatre, I still think it’s a somewhat prohibitive attitude to question foreign visitors’ right to be invited to direct at the RSC. If the RSC has faith in them, I would welcome any Russian director to work for the organisation whether they have previously worked in this country or not. I would then judge them individually on the merits of their own work and not generalise about them based on a few examples of work I’d seen by entirely other people from abroad.

OK - let's try it this way Andy old son- name a single successful play which has been staged in UK, in English, by a director who didn't speak English ? I can think of a few attempts but none were a success.

Personally I think it is quite reasonable that UK taxpayers money should go to UK directors, unless of course they can find a few Polish directors who would do the job cheaper.

Squirrel's right about this. Even when you backtracked from your orginal statement, Jenny, you said this (and presumably you'd thought about what you were saying carefully by this time, if not at the beginning):

"it merely expressed my surprise as to why the RSC feels it is necessary to go looking abroad for talent"

Why on earth shouldn't the RSC employ directors from overseas? (I doubt they had to "go looking", given Boyd's knowledge of Russian theatre). Such attitudes are not only hide-bound, but illegal. Oh, and is a talented director from Scotland acceptable? Wales? Australia?

If you meant "Why does the RSC feel it necessary to employ directors who can't speak English" then that is what you should have said. But of course, you have no idea what linguistic talents these Russian directors might have.

Personally, I'm very interested by the idea and will applaud Boyd for imaginative programming, if it happens.

It seems utterly pointless to try to clarify my opinion to people who actively choose to misunderstand it, but I'l explain it one last time:

This was always about language, and the ability or inability of a director to speak and/or understand the language that any play is to be performed in, with all the implications that brings when it comes to communicating with the actors and controlling how the text is conveyed.

That may be your main point, Jenny, but you went a lot further and if you make sweeping statements about employing non-English directors then you must expect people to demur.

Exactly so. Because there are people who can't for the life of them accept that a point is being made about differences between nationalities - which is open to genuine debate - without lazily crying 'racism!' to close it down, as has happened to Jenny.

I remember hearing an American who had lived in the UK for some years before she became aware that the word "quite" has almost opposing meanings in UK English.. as in, "Jenny is quite right" meaning 'perfectly', or "Jenny is quite tall" meaning 'fairly'. Just one maybe atypical example but there will be many others because of the subtleties of our language, especially as deployed by playwrights. So I have no problem with her view that, "the ability or inability of a director to speak and/or understand the language that any play is to be performed in, with all the implications that brings when it comes to communicating with the actors and controlling how the text is conveyed."

Jenny makes a valid point... whether it holds true in every conceivable case is another matter but I can't see why she's being pilloried for making it. I agree with her.

She isn't being pilloried for making that point. If I say I'm tired of seeing plays about the Holocaust, that's a point for discussion. If I say I'm tired of seeing plays about the Holocaust and anyway I don't understand why the RSC is using Jewish directors when there are plenty of non-Jewish ones around, that's unacceptable.

Yes, that's unacceptable, because being Jewish has no effect on how well somebody is able to do the job. However, if you're directing a play in an unfamiliar language, it creates barriers in rehearsal, and is likely to have a negative effect on the production.

Jenny's phrasing in the first instance was slightly dubious, but now she has made her point of view very clear, several times, and yet people continue to suggest that she's racist. Which is utterly ridiculous, and patently wrong.

Jenny didn't limit her remark about not understanding why the RSC would employ directors from abroad, either when she said this in the first or in the second instance, to directors who couldn't speak good English. Nor has she withdrawn it, or even said it was a mistake.

Actually Jenny's very first paragraph makes this crystal clear :-
"I must say that this is a prospect that fills me with a certain dread, not because of the plays as such - whichever they turn out to be - but at the thought that they might end up being directed by directors with a limited grasp of English."

Also the very title of this thread is Foreign Directors and The Language Barrier
How much clearer do want it?

You know what Alexandra, I refuse to be bullied by you into some kind of submission. You've succeeded in doing that to other people on this board, but I refuse to back down simply because you like spoiling for a fight.

Let us have a look at what I initially posted:



How is it not clear that this relates to the ability to speak the English language? The offhand remark about wondering why the RSC is bringing in people from abroad is part of the same paragraph as the point about what happens when the director has to communicate with his/her [lest I be accused of being sexist as well!] cast through a translator, so how can it not be abundantly clear that this is a thought that follows from the sentence preceeding it, regarding language barriers?

The rest of the post went like this:



I would think that only someone that is either overly-PC, or someone who for other reasons is looking for something to pick a fight about, could ever fail to see that this is a language issue, not anything to do with ethnicity or nationality. And if you genuinely got me wrong from that opening post, well that only really proves my point, doesn't it? I would say that I'm fluent in English, though it's not my first language, and yet I apparently failed to put my view across, so imagine the possibilities for misunderstandings when a director who speaks no or limited English tries to explain his vision to a cast using this language.

Boy oh boy! What a war of words has started here!

I guess I'm to blame.

I did say that Jenny's desire for clarity in the theatre is just; it was some of the ancillary remarks that I was challenging, and when Jenny substantially explained her thoughts, I shut up.

But I didn't set out purely to pick a fight, and though I don't know Alexandra from Adam, I don't think she did either. That's too easy a riposte to throw at people who post so enthusiastically about theatre on this site.

Whatever Jenny did or didn't imply in the various sentiments of her initial post, she did certainly challenge the RSC's action and I suppose that I - and presumably Alexandra - just decided to defend their action. I realise what I should have more coolly said from the outset was this:

Jenny, please don't 'dread' this news. Have faith in the RSC's judgement, see the shows, and then, if they're at fault, share your concerns about the individuals involved with us. By all means. But I don't think any of us should be dismissing people before we even know who they are or what their work is like.

Shanti.

Oh really, is that what you were trying to say? Then you should perhaps have said so, instead of accusing me of being a racist for bringing this subject up - that's what totally infuriated me, and it's no casual accusation to make as far as I'm concerned. Nor have you in any way apologised for that incredibly malicious accusation, not even in this latest post, and simply deciding to "shut up" as you put it is no way near sufficient after making such an allegation against someone. I won't forget this, rest assured of that.

I agree with Jenny that, rather than shutting up', it might have been appriopriate to apologise for accusing Jenny of racial prejudice once you realised you had misunderstood her original post. Just a thought.

Oh Jenny, I didn't 'accuse you of being a racist for bringing this subject up'. What I did say is that I was 'concerned about the racial prejudice in your message'. And I quoted the single line I was explicitly referring to. I then reiterated in my next post - while clearly saying that I empathised with your overall point about clarity - that it was this quoted expression I was concerned by. I know you're not a racist, neither am I, but sometimes we can all make remarks that don't quite convey what we mean, or leave us rather exposed to question, however much thought we put into them. What you said about Russians shocked me. Even in context, which I read several times over, I was still shocked. I am sorry I've upset you therefore. Your opening remarks upset me. To me, you were being prejudice about the work that will be done by some people who the RSC has hired and, because you have no idea who the people even are, your prejudice seemed based upon their nationality. I know this wasn't what you meant to convey but it's what I sensed. I'm sorry that I and somebody else on here misintepreted that. I hope you and I both understand now this was purely a breakdown of communication between us, and nothing I've written - I assure you - was written in malice.

We didn't misintepret those very clear statements; there's backtracking going on. But I didn't think they were particularly racist, just crass ("dubious", as someone put it, if you like). And people should be called on such remarks.

So squirrel, your point of view is that saying that someone has "racial prejudice" isn't the same as calling them a "racist"? Interesting distinction. You didn't by any chance happen to go to the Bill Clinton School of Semantics, did you?

What is interesting is that the last time the RSC employed a non-English-speaking director (to direct Shakepeare) he came up with a production that Jenny would have hated (because it failed to respect or clarify the text) but TheatreSquirrel would have loved because it featured a cascade of sand falling down from the Gods.


[This post has had a minor alteration by a moderator]

Richard II had a cascade of sand. Which productions are you talking about?

:lol I think Jan means the Ninagawa Lear. But that was from the roof of the stage, not from the gods. Or perhaps you mean from the Gods? (as, in fact, you wrote) - is that where it was supposed to come from? I remember some rather large rocks too.

O those rocks! One of those head in the hands moments , no?

Yes. Pity one of them didn't land on the head of that Japanese "Fool" and render him unconscious.

Oh dear ! It seems you can call someone a racist here (accuse them of a potentailly criminal act) with no intervention at all from a moderator, but if you guess someones real name then the long arm of the law is applied. David Hare should write a play about it.

For me the good thing about bad productions is that I never remember the production.
I did see the Ninagawa King Lear at Stratford but have forgotten everything about it.

Alnoor