I keep trying to understand why the word "auteur" has such a derogatory connotation in Britain. I wonder if it is because of a subliminal resentment at having to borrow yet another word from the French. If we had our own term, maybe we would be happier with the concept.
Working on the premise that theatre is an art-form and directors are artists, I cannot fathom why it is accepted that an artist has their own signature style, but the idea of a theatre director having one is somehow proscribed.
It is this directorial signature that I seek out when I go to the theatre. I want to see productions that illuminate the original. I've seen Dido and Aeneas several times, having recently added Katie Mitchell and Wayne McGregor's extraordinary responses to the equally bold interpretations of Tim Carroll and Sasha Waltz in 2007. To call each of these exceptional directors auteurs is a form of the highest praise and respect for the creative risks they take. However, very often directors in Britain are chastised for daring to make the artistic experiments that keep our theatre practice forging forwards.
Theatre is a live art and there are very few playwrights – I can think only of Ben Jonson – who prefer to see their plays in print rather than in performance. Plays need to be animated, in the etymological sense of being given life and spirit, from page to stage. And this is where I cannot comprehend why the notion of auteur-ship is so incendiary. The playtext will always exist, so surely the stage is where these diverse and ephemeral interpretations should live?
When developing new plays, the director has the benefit of evolving the text with the writer in workshops and rehearsals. The author's presence throughout this process ensures the story they want to tell is told. When it comes to canonical classics, in the absence of the original authors, it is imperative that the director takes on their role. Each classic narrative relies on being revived and reinterpreted for each new generation; this is the Darwinian way that plays survive over the centuries.
In no production of a classic play, no matter how radical, is the playwright ever harmed, demoted or somehow killed off so that the director can reign supreme. I would wager that Buchner, Chekhov and Ibsen are relaxing up in playwright-heaven, rooting for directors to get the red pen out and be authorial in their absence in order to bring the play to life.
I suspect that, in time, British theatre will appropriate the auteur. We will take more pleasure in seeing our auteurs use their artistic vision to reveal our classics afresh. In the meantime, perhaps playbills should reassuringly state: "No playwright was harmed in the making of this production".
