I'm new and I need help! I directed high school theater for six years, then got out to another school where I didn't have to run a drama program. I love theater, but I also teach English full time and the combination is exhausting.

      Well, long story short: there has been turnover at the school I work at now and another teacher and I ended up taking over the drama program and are now "co-directing" the fall play.

     We are having conflicts and she wins all the time because she is a very assertive and forceful, perhaps even overbearing person. There are a few things however that I am not sure I should give in on. So I need some expert advice.

       1. The set calls for a chair down right that several characters at various times sit in. Some pivotal conversations take place between someone in the chair and someone standing down right. My "co-director" insists on placing this chair so that whoever is sitting in it is in full profile to the audience. I think the chair needs to be angled out--cheated--so that the audience can see the actors faces better. Which is correct or better??

       2. If an actor is talking to someone upstage, the other director insists that he or she should stand either with their backs fully to the audience or in a 3/4 turn away from the audience even when saying the lines. I was taught somewhere along the way that profile or a 3/4 turn toward the audience is better so that the lines can better be heard. (And we have bad acoustics). Must actors always fully face whoever they are talking to?

     3. This woman directs by putting herself smack in the middle of the scenes, physically moving actors out of the way and reading lines or performing blocking, gesture etc...for them, then making them copy what she has done. Is there any professional reasoning I can use to get her off the stage? She's in the way; she's intimidating the students, and two nights ago she entirely freaked all of us out by showing (by doing it) a girl how to flirtatiously touch a boy.

     4. As we block, I have moved around our auditorium checking sight lines (as much as possible considering how much my very large co-director's body is in the way) and trying to correct it when they are bad. The other director insists that sight lines only matter from front and center and everyone else in the audience has to deal with what they can't see because they weren't smart enough to sit front and center. How do I answer that?

I would appreciate any advice that anyone has about these problems. ASAP if you can!!

1. frankly, which is 'correct or better' depends on which serves
the play best. I've blocked scenes with characters facing
completely UPstage during dialog. Though it's a good rule of
thumb that audiences should be able to see the actors LOL, it's
not always the best solution. However, I would ask her WHY
she feels this chair needs to be in profile. Pehaps she's looking
for a specific emotional response to it. I would approach the
situtation as whether the choice is effective, not whether it's
'correct.'

2. absolutely not. actors do NOT always have to face the
person they are speaking to. Acting is a reflection of life. How
many times do you have conversations with people and not
look at them?! On the other hand, actors also do not always
have to face the audience. If the actors are using good breath
and projection technique, they should be able to whisper in a
theatre and be heard.

3. I HATE puppet pulling. Either direct a play - or get a puppet
and pull strings. A good director does NOT act the play for
everybody. A good actor is NOT a mimic of somebody else.
One does not achieve emotional honesty by 'copying'
somebody else's responses and instincts. It doesn't bother me
that the teacher is helping somebody be flirtatious ... living
through an imaginary circumstance is what acting is. Would it
bother you if she showed somebody how to strangle somebody
on stage?

4. in this instance, you are 100% correct, and your codirector is
100% wrong. period. Unless she doesn't intend to have
audience members pay for seats other than orchestra center.

I agree with Linda - you do have to ask yourself if it's worth it. I
love theatre - I love working on theatre pieces - I
love collaborating on work. But I would never work under
the circumstances you have described.

"Wish I was an English muffin,          ;           ;           ;           ; 'bout to make the most out of a toaster . . ."

Oops, sorry about that, Punky's, just got carried away with your name there for a minute.

I could just say "I agree with everybody else", and it would be true, but what fun would that be?

As to what's right, Tristan has it right: whatever the director says, is right.  The problem is, there's two of you, and no clear line of authority.  That's why (as Linda says) this is not going to work.  Your "partner" has obviously taken over here, so fight with her all you want, but she's going to do it her way, so in front of the actors, smile and play the good AD for now.

As to the specific questions:

1.  Dunno.  Need to see the script, the set, etc.  Could be a very interesting choice, especially if the production is "stylized" generally.

2.  Of course they don't HAVE to face the people they're talking to.  But they might.  "Acting with the back" can be very powerful. 

3.  I get on stage with actors too, but NEVER to "perform" or give line readings.  Not nohow.  When I want to act, I audition.  And what kind of loon touches a minor in a flirtatious manner?  If this were a male teacher and a female student, somebody would have called the cops.  Stupid.  Anyway, a director doesn't "show" actors what to do for the same reason that artists don't buy paint-by-numbers kits.

4.  Not every seat has a perfect view, but hey, why stop there?  Don't project; after all, it's their own fault for not sitting in the front row.  Don't light the show; if the audience has poor night vision, whose fault is that?  In fact, why do the play at all?  If the audience members had any taste, they'd have seen this play already anyway.

I've had a lot of problems with "co-directing"- not that I've done it, but I've been in a decent number of shows where I've witnessed it go horribly wrong, so I understand where you're coming from.  What I've found is that either 1) both directors have strong ideas about where they want the show to go, and they're different, so there's a lot of fighting and wasted time and confusion, or 2) one director ends up working with the cast and the other works more on the technical side.  There is a third situation, where you have two directors both with great ideas and there isn't a personality clash, but I think that only happens in our dreams.

As far as the specific issues, I echo what other people have said: without knowing the script, I can't tell you what blocking is correct.  But, that being said, it generally is a good idea for actors to cheat out so that they can be heard and seen (I say generally because there are certain circumstances where it's dramatically necessary to break this rule).  Now, as far as cheating out goes, there's often this idea that the scene will look unnatural if actors don't face each other as they talk- but if it doesn't look right, give them some reason to not be looking at each other- give them some business to be doing.

And, as regards the director getting up on the stage, that certainly is a touchy aspect of directing in a student/ teacher situation, and not a good idea.  But, I certainly don't think that directors can't be on stage in general.  Some of my best directors have had specific ideas that are hard to get across verbally from the audience, and so they get up there and help you out.  I do that myself sometimes when I direct.  I think we're a little too afraid of "copying"- an intelligent actor will get the essence of a director's demonstration and make it his own.

"In my experience, most school age actor's mimic on stage
anyways, and as far as line readings and demonstrations by
the director, it is done by some of the best."

LOL - not to be contrary - but 'by some of the best' WHO? It is
not a very accepted way of directing a play in any educational
field that I know of. Frankly, school age actors (or any age
actors) will only mimic others if they're given something to
mimic). An educated, experienced director will guide and lead
an actor to a performance, not perform a one-man version of
the play and expect the cast to simply mimic him.

"Unless this is a performing art's school, no one is going to
make a big deal about the quality of the performers."

That's not really the issue when dealing with student
performers, is it? I agree - school audiences will overlook a
multitude of uneffective performing choices. But - especially in
a school envioronment - the point is to show the actor the
different choices available to him; explore the possibilties and
results of each choice; make the choice; examine the
effectiveness in the way the choice is being performed. How
are we teaching our students about acting if we're merely
requiring they be clever monkeys who imitate others?