<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: That I can tell you in a word&#8230; Tradition!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thedirectorsector.com/2008/04/01/that-i-can-tell-you-in-a-word-tradition/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thedirectorsector.com/2008/04/01/that-i-can-tell-you-in-a-word-tradition/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:24:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Broadway Mouth</title>
		<link>http://thedirectorsector.com/2008/04/01/that-i-can-tell-you-in-a-word-tradition/comment-page-1/#comment-96</link>
		<dc:creator>Broadway Mouth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:13:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedirectorsector.com/2008/04/01/that-i-can-tell-you-in-a-word-tradition/#comment-96</guid>
		<description>My theory is that the vision comes from your interpretation of the material.  I'm not great when it comes to strong visual re-imagining of things, but I think it is essential that a director has a strong interpretation of the work rooted in the playwright's intentions and the text.

When I directed the final scene of A DOLL'S HOUSE (which was my college directing project), my interpretation was that Torvald wasn't a villain.  Instead, he and Nora had fallen into a pattern of living, a pattern that Nora allowed to happen until she realized the truth.  It wasn't a revloutionary interpretation, but that's what guided me as I directed.

FYI, never do A DOLL'S HOUSE for a directing class because they characters' dialogue is actually large paragraphs, which is very hard for actors to keep straight unless you have lots and lots of time for rehearsal.  Mine went well, but my Torvald did have a "You foolish child" line in his back pocket to buy him time.  He used it once.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My theory is that the vision comes from your interpretation of the material.  I&#8217;m not great when it comes to strong visual re-imagining of things, but I think it is essential that a director has a strong interpretation of the work rooted in the playwright&#8217;s intentions and the text.</p>
<p>When I directed the final scene of A DOLL&#8217;S HOUSE (which was my college directing project), my interpretation was that Torvald wasn&#8217;t a villain.  Instead, he and Nora had fallen into a pattern of living, a pattern that Nora allowed to happen until she realized the truth.  It wasn&#8217;t a revloutionary interpretation, but that&#8217;s what guided me as I directed.</p>
<p>FYI, never do A DOLL&#8217;S HOUSE for a directing class because they characters&#8217; dialogue is actually large paragraphs, which is very hard for actors to keep straight unless you have lots and lots of time for rehearsal.  Mine went well, but my Torvald did have a &#8220;You foolish child&#8221; line in his back pocket to buy him time.  He used it once.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: director</title>
		<link>http://thedirectorsector.com/2008/04/01/that-i-can-tell-you-in-a-word-tradition/comment-page-1/#comment-76</link>
		<dc:creator>director</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:05:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedirectorsector.com/2008/04/01/that-i-can-tell-you-in-a-word-tradition/#comment-76</guid>
		<description>That's what I think.  It's kinda like... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  There's tons of ways to do something in a traditional way, but still make it my own vision.  I just feel like maybe I'm not impressing the interviewers.  Oh well.  Thanks for the comment!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s what I think.  It&#8217;s kinda like&#8230; if it ain&#8217;t broke, don&#8217;t fix it.  There&#8217;s tons of ways to do something in a traditional way, but still make it my own vision.  I just feel like maybe I&#8217;m not impressing the interviewers.  Oh well.  Thanks for the comment!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: her every cent count</title>
		<link>http://thedirectorsector.com/2008/04/01/that-i-can-tell-you-in-a-word-tradition/comment-page-1/#comment-75</link>
		<dc:creator>her every cent count</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:53:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedirectorsector.com/2008/04/01/that-i-can-tell-you-in-a-word-tradition/#comment-75</guid>
		<description>I don't think that's a bad thing. I think on a lot of shows, especially the classics, sometimes the best way to approach them is to piece together what has worked from other productions done before and allow the originality to be how you chose to put the ideas together instead of coming up with something out there. There's not one right way to do a show, of course, but sometimes it's been done the same way for years over and over again for a reason.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s a bad thing. I think on a lot of shows, especially the classics, sometimes the best way to approach them is to piece together what has worked from other productions done before and allow the originality to be how you chose to put the ideas together instead of coming up with something out there. There&#8217;s not one right way to do a show, of course, but sometimes it&#8217;s been done the same way for years over and over again for a reason.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
