What does a theater director do?
At least he directs the actors, helps them as best he can and tries to make the Actors act as well and as freely as possible.
A good director knows exactly the talents of the actors, recognizes the different personalities, understands the roles and creates a space for them to act safely and naturally. A space where you are allowed to shine.
In addition, the theater director must of course have an overall vision of what kind of play is being made. The director is responsible for the artistic end result.
But ultimately the Actors create the play. The audience only sees the director from the manual program – or sometimes after the play on stage receiving flowers and applause.
What should a theater director not do?
It’s never a good idea to suppress the personality, creativity and expressiveness of the actors. Without them, the show loses everything.
That’s what I thought about when I followed the deciding matches of the opening round of the hockey SM league playoffs this week.
In particular, attention was drawn to the dispute between Oulu’s Kärppie and Koovola’s KooKoo.
Kärppie’s disc theater is the largest in Finland in terms of money. About four million euros were invested in the main stars, i.e. the players, this season. You’d think that with such an amount, you’d be able to create a performance that will immerse the audience!
But no. The play of the flies didn’t go down well with anyone. It was a total failure. The season ended with an embarrassing loss.
If I were a theater critic, I would write a review of Kärppie’s performance, in which I would tell you how bad the direction of the play was. In criticism, I would ask: why wasn’t any of the actors liberated on stage, why was the whole performance a constant, painful compulsion?
It was embarrassing, downright painful, to see how many stars of the Dwarves were in plaster.
They seemed to understand what they were supposed to do in the play, but no lines came out of anyone’s mouth. They certainly knew what kind of lines should be filtered, but the audience got the impression that they didn’t trust the script and the director’s vision.
It was worrying to notice from the actors’ body language that for some reason they were not allowed to throw themselves fully into the play.
Kärppie instructor, head coach Lauri Marjamäki in turn, did not seem to trust the performers, their personal abilities. To abilities that at their best would have made the stars sparkle on stage, charm the audience.
In all its torment, the play exuded over-direction.
Unfortunately, Finnish hockey has often been like that. The director, i.e. the head coach, draws the exact compartments for the players, i.e. the actors. And underlines that there is no room for even a little improvisation or bringing out the personality. You do exactly as I say. Point.
Coach focus. That’s one of the biggest original sins in ice hockey.
And what’s the scariest thing, the directors of the puddle play have largely graduated from the same hockey college in Vierumäkeli.
If you don’t guide our way, you don’t belong. The “kässer” in the armpit, the playbook expressed in hockey parlance, should be the same for everyone, regardless of the actors and the play. If you don’t see a slavish playbook, you’re not the right director.
Fortunately, this tradition, which limits the sport in many ways, seems to be breaking now. It has to break. Therefore, the Kärppi’s failure must even be considered a favor to Finnish ice hockey. An almost similar service was also done by the Turku Palloseura, which fell off in a rude way during its 100th anniversary season.
If you don’t believe what I’m trying to explain here, you can ask the players of Kärppie and TPS what they thought of this season’s performances. I have already heard several answers. They absolutely hated both the script and the direction. I bet the audience repeats the same words.
The players felt that they were forced to act in a way that they do not sign. In a way that shackles and kills creativity. And as we saw, the end result in Oulu and Turku was exactly that.
The game must be given to the players. The play must be given to the actors.
Of course, that does not mean that a director is not needed. Of course it is needed. The director creates the framework for the performance, he is responsible for the whole. To some extent from the artistic interpretation as well.
But the most important thing is to frame the show so that the performers can shine. An actor gets suffocated if the director forces him into too tight a mold. The director’s most important task is to prepare the Actors to give the audience what the Actors do best.
The director should never be the main star of the play.
Fortunately, there is more than just a bunch of turkish guidance among hockey coaches these days. A good example of this is Lahti Pelicans, one of the sensations of this season. There, the main stars get freedom both in the play and in rehearsals. Tommi Niemelä has admirably taken care of freedom, which also produces responsibility when the game is in the hands of the players.
It would be fruitless and pointless to blame Marjamäki alone for the miserable performance of Kärppie. And it’s not worth pointing out the TPS festive season stomach bill Jussi from Ahoka.
It’s not about one or two coaches. It’s about a much bigger thing. About the culture that has prevailed in Finland for far too long.
The focus on coaches, the overemphasized role of instructors, must now be gotten rid of in hockey.
All energy and attention must be focused on how to make the main stars shine in the future in a way that benefits everyone.
A lousy play where the performers are unwilling and unwilling on stage is of no interest to anyone.