For the first time in my short career, I am not at a staging of a play I have directed. The play in question, Project S.T.R.I.P. is performing in Kolkata; and I, am lying in bed in Mumbai staring at the ceiling, thanks to a dodgy back.
How important really is the presence of the director at a performance?
In the Western context, the director never stays with the production. An assistant is in charge of the day-to-day running and quality of the show. The director runs the initial rehearsals, the technical week and the opening night before heading off to the next assignment. Even understudy rehearsals are entrusted to an assistant.
In the Indian context, this is not quite the case. The director is usually the glue that binds the team. Since money is scarce in Indian theatre, actors work partly out of a commitment to a particular director, rather than the show or production house. This is usually not a problem, since in most shows the director is part of the cast or operating the lights, or some such connected task. Or if s/he is truly dispensable to the production, then performances happen so few and far between that the director is available to be at every show.
I remember working on a show once with an Israeli director. Once the show was up and running, he left to continue his travels across India. The cast felt a true sense of abandonment and were not motivated to continue or as receptive to the assistant’s feedback.
Similarly one of my own shows refused to perform while I was unavailable; although both the necessary elements (actor and the lighting operator) were available.
Things are changing though. The sudden burst of regular performances has necessitated that “the show must go on” even if the director is not around. Rahul da Cunha is now a rare visitor at his own shows, Alyque Padamsee doesn’t always travel out of town with Broken Images and Mohit Takalkar hardly ever makes it to his up and running shows.
Part of this phenomenon is due to the maturity of the cast and the commitment of the group. But most importantly it is because of the development of incredible stage managers who are able to recreate the director’s vision in every new venue. This dependability allows for more flexibility in the shows. A director can work simultaneously on multiple productions and not necessarily be running from rehearsal to show. S/he can work on each play independently.
But as I lie in bed, staring at the ceiling, I can’t help but feel that there is something incredibly impersonal about not being at every show. I live to see the plays perform. Unlike painters, sculptors or even film makers, there is nothing tangible about a theatrical performance. It exists exactly for the performance time. No more, no less. Its actual creation is completed only once it is exposed to the audience. How can one not be witness to its creation or re-creation?
It’s now a quarter to showtime. And although the play is happening at the other end of the country, I can feel the familiar knot in my stomach, the churning, and even the dryness in my mouth. On most of the plays I direct, I have nothing to do with the running of the show. Then why should I feel like this? Maybe because I am the voodoo doll that absorbs all the tension of the performance, liberating them to be uninhibited on stage?
Or maybe I am just a control freak who can’t let go. But then I wouldn’t be a director in the first place, would I?