I'm wondering how much as directors you need to understand about the techie side. Do you bother to gain an understanding about lighting, sound and staging or do you just leave (blindly) it to the backstage crew? If they say it cant' be done do you believe them?

If someone were to offer you the chance of an "introduction to...." course what would it be?

But which hat would I wear Martin??

I would like to go on any form of basic introduction and I say basic because my skills are fairly limited.

I am not a director myself but I am sure that a "Basic Techinical Introduction" would benefit more than just directors!

I might be wrong but I would certainly be interested so I can get a more overall grasp of technical things!

I would imagine that the Director is to some extent a customer with specific needs. The key ideally would be to clearly communicate the needs (required outcomes) to the techies who would then worry about the practical solutions/technology required to make it happen. Of course, a Director would definitely benefit from some understanding at least to the extent where they know what is possible, but it's often good sometimes to not know and set the challenge.

My wife knows nothing about web design and what's possible. She's great at specifying what she thinks would look good. frustrating as I find it trying to figure out how to make it work, she often makes me stretch my skills which ultimately I develop from.

I feel - as a director - that to get a good all-round idea of you how you want your show to look you need to know as much as possible about the technical side.

I expect to make my own decisions on where I want hard or soft masking flats, my lighting areas and colours, and my own mic plot. But I wouldn't dream of telling the LD which lights to put on, or tell the SM how to call cues. That's their job.

I think it helps to have some experience of the technical side. Before I directed my first show I'd stage managed, operated lighting and sound and built about 30 sets.

Is this unusual? Are most directors from a pure acting background without any technical experience? I would find this very difficult. I think a director should know what is possible both in general and in their own theatre. This is essential right from the script selection stage.

What background do other directors out there come from. How did you start directing in amateur theatre?

My Ian has directed for many years and, like you, had a techie background first. Interestingly, it was only AFTER he had directed that he set foot on stage as an actor.

I do think that a director with as strong a techie background as Ian is a real plus but a director with an acting background too is just like God!

A short reply. I've only directed 3 shows but so far I've had a good idea of what I want how it will look and come across. I explain this to my set, lighting and sound people. They come up with ideas and I say whether I like it or not and then they work out exactly how they are going to do it.

I acted for about 18 years, stage managed, prompt, props, spotlight operator, producer and ASM before directing my first show. I had no experience of sound or lighting op/design, having had no opportunity to learn.

Now I would say I'm pretty up on what I want re both lighting and sound, and I understand a lot of the lighting side although have no experience of designing. Sound is way beyond me, though! I have attended several sound and lighting courses which have been very beneficial, especially as they've been aimed at directors with an interest in the subject!

Like any profession, you keep on learning.

But I do feel my productions have vastly improved due to my newly acquired insight into the dark side!

Having been a techie for 30 years I decided 4 years ago to have a go at putting something back into the theatre from the experience gained.Together with my wife, an actor type, we first produced a pantomime followed by three more and a fully sung stage musical in 4 years. We find that the two disciplines, acting and tech combined makes for an excellent production paring. It also helps that we think telepathically especially on the odd occasion she isn't speaking to me!!

We prepare our production leaving only the odd corrective action as the need asises when things don't quite work the way we plan but when this happens we both work from our own specialst field to reach an ideal solution for the show.

Here's a couple of books that are available that might help those new to the "Directors Chair".

https://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0...2660119-5557463

Hope this helps some of you.

it's certainly been an advantage having techied.

I'm currently directing 'Confusions' by Alan Ayckbourn (with live music during the intervals - yes, I'm singing too) and have directed some in the past.

I find the easiest approach, for me personally, is to have a vision of what you want the production to look like and/or represent - make it very original/individual to the group. For instance, 'Confusions' is a set of 1 act plays so I've tried to give each short play a very different look. I've then farmed out the idea and requirements to the lighting, sound, stage build guys for them to come back to me with suggestions. There are books available that give an outline of all things technical for directors - professional and amateur. I've found these to be a good starting point.

Hope that helps.

Fiona

I have run a course designed for actors and directors to learn something of what goes on with sound and lighting. There were only about 15 people attended the course from throughout the Cheshire area, some of which were really techies in disguise.

It would be of great assistance for everyone to understand the 'dark' arts, especially the director who change the lighting at the last minute dismissing the protests with "you only need to flick a switch", or adds a sound effect and wants to know why it has not been included in the run through 10 minutes later.

I have had to stop directors from being asssinated on the spot for this type of action.

Everyone has their part to play and none should be valued less than another.

Our theatre ran a good course a couple of years back. It was attended by about 30 people (the maximum we could manage) and they were split into three groups. They were all actors, directors or general backstage crew.

Each group had an hour with one of the techies who taught them how to lay out a props table, fold black tabs for storage, carry stage weights, fly bars in and out, call 'the book', stretch a cyc, etc.

Then they swapped around for an hour with the sound man, where they had a brief look at how a desk works, and the differences between CD and Minidisc, reverb, sound effects including trying out lots of fun ones from the library. They tried out different types of mic, how to set up mic stands and so on.

And the last visit was to the lighting man, who had a bar laid out on the stage with a selection of basic lights. Everyone learned about which light produces what sort of beam and intensity, tried out gobos and gels, learned the difference between spots and washes, etc. This of course was in our pre-moving light days!

At the end, everyone got together with a script (a 10-minute excerpt from the Railway Children if I remember) and took it in turns to act the roles, call the show, run the lights, sound, set changes etc, under the supervision of the 3 techies.

It was enormous fun, and as an observer I have seen many of those directors use a lot of what they learned that day. And many of the actors who were there have FINALLY learned the trick of finding their light!!!

A really good idea and it was lots of fun, as I've already said.

Hmmm you don't need to be techie but it helps I spose...

In my Society a few years ago it was real jack of all trades stuff...

For a particularly short handed play I was stage-manager, lighting man (luckily it was an on off job on the night )... I designed the set, helped to construct it , designed the lighting for it oh and operated sound fx (all two of them )... and that wasn't our most shorthanded play... we once pout a play on with 4 cast 1 SM and 1 lighting man... that was it.

My backstage crew consisted of one other person... prior to that I had acted and done lights/sound/sm seperately...

I learnt a myriad of stuff from that production... mainly that I am the worst set designer EVER!!!

But I did learn what was and wasn't possible on our stage...

So in my case it has been very very useful but I have known fantastic directors who only know what they want to see they haven't a clue how it would be done ... doesn't affect theire direction one iota.

Definately, absolutely! Is the answer. With out a shadow of a doubt.

A director needs to be able to communicate with every memebr of the team, not just the actors. So often it is forgotten that all members of the team need direction.

LIGHTING
Is complicated at its extreme. But that is not to see you can't understand the basics. It doesn't mean you have to understand how the board works, or what patching is, or bla, bla, bla. It does mean you need to be able to communicate with them. If you don't understand something for God's sake tell your Lighting Designer that. Ask him, what do you mean, or if you are lucky, can you show me? Or draw it?

A professional Lighting Designer will always consult with the director. If you can talk about warm and cold lighting, etc, it all helps.

At at tech-rehearsal, you need to be communicating solidly with your LD. Lighting is there to enhance and support the production and should never be sidelined.

STAGE MANAGEMENT
SMs are brilliant if used effectively. Often cast will ask a SM what do you do? The director has to make it clear that they are a part of the team, and again are never sidelined.

Understand them, and find out what contribution they would like to make to the production other than set shifting or sweeping up. A good SM, will have an invaluable knowledge of theatre and will tell you what will work and what won't. Give them your time and support always.

As directors we absoultely must never disregard any of the team. We direct them all. A poor knowledge of any area of the theatre makes a bad director. Unless you are Grotowski and not bothering with any of it. I think it really is all down to communication, and a good working relationship. Always find out what they can offer before you tell them what you want. They will probably know their field much better than you do, and let them use their creativity on the production. Let their suggestions enhance the show. If you have a very clear vision, then invite them to tell you how they can achieve that. In the same way that a director should never tell actors what they should be thinking, doing, etc, he should wait for offers and suggestions, and build a performacne out of that. It always works better.

Sorry to jump into this one quite so long after it started, but I cannot stress how important it is for a director to appreciate what actually goes on for lighting or sound. Please excuse the long and whining comments, but from experience, this is important and needs to be appreciated properly for a production to work! If I seem harsh with my comments, it is only due to past experience with directors who will not listen and then accuse the techies of ruining the show.

Directors appear generally to be more aware of stage management issues as they are often from an acting background ? thus have seen what goes on, but this is not to say that they actually appreciate what goes on there either. However I will not dwell on this area any more.

Starting with lighting, an area which I do not have much practical experience with. Until 2-3 years ago, the society I am involved with had a twin scene preset 27 way lighting board - in directors language, a set of 27 lighting dimmer switches which can be preset to form two scenes (acts or effects) (twin scene) and then faded between one to the other (switching one set on and the other off smoothly or quickly as required). When any lighting changes are required, usually some, if not all 27 faders require resetting completely to gain the effect, which whilst is in operation then requires the 27 faders to be set which were on previously, and so on for each cue. When you have upwards of 60 cues to do in a 1 1/2 hour performance, you are obviously keeping busy resetting all the time. Fast changes obviously pressurise this procedure often resulting in cock-ups to occur by missing a setting out on one or more dimmers etc. Computerised boards are generally much easier to use, but still require significant time to program lights, program fades, chase sequences etc, but allowing an easier time to operate during the performance, usually pressing one button only. The replacement system we use is a 48 channel computerised system and works a treat, but not without it?s little gremlins which appear from time to time. Both systems can go wrong just as easily however.

This is only the operation side however, before you can do any of this, all of the lights need to be rigged, aimed, focused and coloured to produce the correct light on the actors and stage. This must also co-ordinate with furniture and costumery on set, otherwise an actor can simply vanish leaving a head, 2 hands and feet showing due to the colour bleaching out. Lighting can take hours if not days to successfully work out, plot, aim, focus and colour properly. The lighting techie can and usually does work miracles for the director, unless you treat them badly.

If a lighting techie says it can?t be done, generally they are right, and in any case, they know their subject better than you as a director know lighting. If you ignore the comments that they make, then you will get what you deserve. The Laws of Physics cannot easily be changed for your production. If you watch it a performance and it does not work as you wanted, remember the lighting engineer telling you it wouldn?t work. If it is adjudicated, the lighting engineer will get the blame anyway on the write-up, although everyone else behind the scenes will know why!

Sound is my particular area. When you ask for effects, please tell the sound techie exactly what you want. Vague descriptions give you what you deserve, precise descriptions get the right results. We are not mind readers.

Your description of the effect required will dictate wholly what you get in the end. There are limited sound effects available, and most people use a well publicised set of library CD?s, tapes or records to achieve them. If computers are available to process sound, then more adventurous effects can be achieved. If not, then manual mixing has to occur. Whatever the processing used, it can take hours. For a current play we are doing, I was asked to produce ethereal voices and sounds to overlay a live keyboard sound. Sounds easy enough, but it does not exist from pre-recorded sources that I have access to. As a result, I spent about 2 or 3 hours extracting bits of eerie music from my own collection, then processing together for another 3 hours to produce a weird sort of musical and vocal effect which was appropriate for the piece and I was happy with. Other plays require combinations of sounds which cannot be made from existing sources. Cars for example, you can access plenty of door slams, engine starts, stops, skids etc, but if you need a particular noise such as a car approaching, stopping, applying handbrake, blip throttle twice, accelerate quickly away with bit of wheel spin, then fade into the distance (Devil at Midnight), it simply will not happen. All the bits exist, but if you put them together you will end up with something sounding like a cartoon if you are lucky, a disaster if you are not.

You also have to bear in mind what equipment the Theatre is using, quick sound effects can only occur if there is sufficient sources (CD, Minidisc, Tape, Record, PC etc) to achieve it. Fastest and easiest to use is the Minidisc, however, if you require effects from different places within seconds of each other, the engineer needs time to adjust settings to get the right result. CD?s are quick, but take time to get from track to track ? i.e. delays between effects. PC?s are great so long as they don?t crash, although I have not yet used a PC to perform effects on the night. Microphones can be good for smaller kids, but they produce a nightmare when it comes to feedback unless the system is properly trimmed and adjusted. If people using mics stray from the area they should be using, feedback is possible and of course the favourite not switching it off when off stage, you would be surprised what can be heard in the theatre if your actors forget to turn them off and the sound techie is busy with another effect.

As with for lighting, you will only get good results if you are precise, specific and detailed in your requirements. If the play needs many effects in super-short time, make sure it is possible on the system you are using and for the engineer to achieve it. If it isn?t, don?t pull a face, accept it, if you subsequently expect it, then you will be disappointed when you don?t get it.

At the end of the day, everyone is in Amateur Theatre for one reason ? to enjoy it! Everyone will generally do their utmost to achieve what you as a Director want, however, if it is impossible to achieve, then it will not happen. It is the Directors responsibility to ask for what is wanted, the techie?s may offer suggestions, listen to them and consider if they would work as an alternative. Mess with your techies or wind them up badly enough and you may get premature power failures - i.e. no lights, no sound! Try at your peril!!!!!

Most of the time, if anything goes wrong with a performance, it is usually the techies who get the blame, although from experience it is usually from a variety of sources.

Have Fun!

Excellent response Steve - and who the hell cares how long after the start of the topic you respond!

At the risk of inflaming all those techies out there, one thing I will say is that the expectation always seems to be on the director to tell the techie what is wanted. And as we all know, many directors don't KNOW what they want because they don't speak techie! Wouldn't it be nice if techies could take a little of the onus upon themselves to be proactive and to actually come to early rehearsals, see what's happening, get to know the script, the cast and get an idea of how things are being plotted. Then they can make suggestions from their wide experience and knowledge. Instead of trying to make sense of director garbage.

I couldn't agree more, however, in the theatre I belong to, the techies (lighting, sound and stage management) are also the some of the ones building the sets, fitting doors, creating novel ways to achieve effects, decorating the set, painting anywhere not decorated, trying to get the actors on stage asap to practice blocking and access around the set, finding furniture etc.....

Usual problem of everyone available is required to achieve a finished set, so no spare time for that. Lighting engineer is retired, so has some more time to attend sunday rehearsals, however, I need weekends to recharge for work and then get to the theatre 3 nights a week from 7.30 to midnight... I need a 30 hour day!!!

I'm planning on putting in for a 40 hour day.....

We too are a small company with much doubling up. My partner, for example, has been known to direct, act, design the lighting, source the music and sound effects and build sets - all in one production!

Another company I perform with, however, has lighting and sound "specialists" who only turn up for the technical rehearsal - never before. So much time is wasted because they've never even seen the production let alone have any clues about what they're supposed to be doing....

I fully sympathise with Maureen's (any everyone elses comments here)

as a tech who dabbles a fair bit in lighting I like to take the following approach.

Early on in the production - normally before rehearsals start I like to meet with the general production team - at the least to include Director, SM set designer musical director (if there is one) and sound. Why sound? Well everything that you do in the theatre affects everyone else and sound might want speaker and mic placements that could affect where I put lights -.

From the off I like to see and discuss the set design then get the directors overview of a show. As an LD I believe it's my role to decipher the directors vision and translate that into a working rig to enable the director to get the look and the effect they want.

I always start with a blank bit of paper where anything is possible and try to cajole ideas and looks from the director. If the director really doesn't have a clue apart from wanting some light then I suggest ideas and looks that may enhance the production - if the director has preset ideas then I subject them to polite discussion too. Obviously certain effects can cost money or may be limited by time and venue constrainst - again it's up for discussion and if it really can't be done well then I try to dissuade them from that path. After all it's my name in the program and I won't do something that can't be done well and would distract from the performance.

After that I like to check out the venue and keep in with the stage team especially those building the set - in case there's a conflict. If this happens we come up with a solution normally I'll move lights to solve the problem.

From then on I just quietly work away - although I make sure I'm seen at rehearsals etc. Even if I'm not actually working on the production at the time - it's good to be seen as it inspires confidence from the director, lets them feel that I've got the job in hand and eases the pressure and worry on them.

Before the get in I sit them down and let them know what's going to happen and what I'll be doing and whats expected from them. If at the get in it all turns to a pile of disallowed word I try to inspire confidence in front of the director to keep them calm.

So what do I require of directors? A clear idea in there mind of the look they want for the show also ideas of scene by scene changes (in a musical this is where the MD comes in) I need a stage plan, props list and nearer the time like to see costumes. if possible I like to see a costume rehearsal a couple of weeks prior to the show. I also need to know of set changes and blocking changes - a good SM will communicate this. But most importantly during the lighting plotting - the undivided attention of the director - it's no good the director going away, leaving the programming and look to the LD and complaining later.

Personally during the plot I like general comments for lighting - like brighter/warmer/darker etc rather than the director calling channels and intensitys as it's my job to mix the pallet and arrange the look to their requirements. I also like to be provided with cast members to stand in the right place when required - preferable in costume

One tip for directors when setting your states leave all your face light till last, that is set your colours and backlighting first to the level you want then add the face light. That way you won't end up with constantly over bright stages.

Techs who just turn up for the tech and dress are kidding themselves and do more damage to a production than good

What a lot of super advice...... Can I add just one thought and a couple of comments on what has been said.

IMHO, it has to be horses for courses on both lighting and sound. If doing a one 'simple scene' play with musical interludes it can be acceptable, having attended just a couple of reheasals and discussed it with the director, to turn up on the night, rig it, run it real time and get out in one go. I know, I've just done it with three tripods, three packs, and 2x 18ch desk. The same applies to local talent type events. These have to run real time because in most cases you will not know what is coming next! However, if it's a bigger event with several scenes, larger venue, effects, etc. etc, then there is absolutely no way this is an appropriate way of working whoever you are. These productions need the director to lead the team right the way through from conception to the get out.

Getting the right balance of planning, thinking and prep vs 'Just getting on with it' has to be down to the lighting and sound techs making a judgement based on what they are being asked to do against their own knowledge of their abilities.

A successful production is no different to a successful project.

Directors should bring forward the vision. (Project Initiation)
Tech's, SM's and actors should refine the vision in discussion with the director and the rest of the team and agree the plan. (Feasibility Study and Plan)
All team members must then deliver their individual part of the plan at the appropriate time under the direction of and with tracking against plan by the director aka. Project Manager. (Analysis, build, refine, integrate)
This all get pulled together and fine tuned in the tech and dress rehearsals. (Test, tune)
Curtain Up (Implementation / Go-live)
End of Production Party. (Post Implementation Review for actors & directors!)
Get out. ( Post Implementation Review for techies!)

Robin

As a director, I like to set aside a full run through about 2 weeks before the get-in, when I sit at my usual table out front. I will have the sound and lighting designers sat either side of me.

The cast are made aware that a lot of talking will be going on, and to ignore us. I leave running the scenes to the prompt/production manager/choreographer.

I will spend the entire rehearsal pointing out markers, lines, gestures, etc, as I want them lit. I will suggest colours, the LD will make remarks (some bad!), and the sound guy will ask whether some bits would be better miked, will suggest occasional extra effects and so on. The Stage Manager usually joins us.

Before this, I will have had several production meetings with LD, SM and sound, both jointly and separately, and they will have popped in and out of rehearsals on a regular basis.

I feel it is VERY important for the sound guy to know the cast well in advance, especially if he is to be involved in shoving mic packs into girls' clothing!

I'll usually have another meeting with each of them before the get-in.

I don't think you can have too much contact, and they really do need to see the show in action before they instal speakers, spots and so on. They will often see a lot that I don't, from an observer's point of view.