As a member of Group 33, I was privileged to be in the last second-year acting class that Eve Shapiro taught at Juilliard, before she left the Drama Division to devote herself to directing for the Juilliard Opera Center. Her last production with the Juilliard Drama Division was Richard II in 2001, with Group 30; her most recent productions include the opera Susannah for Juilliard and The Taming of the Shrew for the Acting Company. Next month, she will direct Juilliard's production of Eugene Onegin.

Ms. Shapiro has had a varied and prolific career. Born in South Africa to a family of musicians, she moved to England as a young adult and trained at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, where she began her directing and teaching career. She directed at various repertory theaters before becoming co-director if the Theatre Royal York. In 1976 she was invited to join the Juilliard faculty. Earlier this year, Ms. Shapiro was formally elected an Associate of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art.

I recently sat down with Ms. Shapiro to discuss teaching, theater, directing, and opera. The following is excerpted from our conversation.

Eve Shapiro.

GJ: How did you get into directing?

ES: I started off wanting to be an actress. When I was 19, I was asked to direct a one-act play. Had a great time doing it, and it won an award for the best production of the year. Somebody who was a great influence on me, an actress, said I really should be a director. Then, because of the award, I was asked to do other things, and that's how I started. I didn't formally study directing; at the Royal Academy, I did a course on stage management, but they had no stage-directing course. I worked with very good directors and I learned from observation, as I went along.

GJ: Is directing is something you learn primarily through observation and trial-and-error, or can it be taught?

ES: You learn by doing. Of course, when you're doing it, you realize all the things you don't know about—lighting, design. But if you have an aptitude for those things, you learn them. So I found out what I needed to know. I've always been that kind of person: when I know need something, that's when I learn it!

GJ: How did you get into teaching?

ES: At the end of my training at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (RADA), I asked if they would ever allow me to direct something. John Fernald, then the principal of RADA, said they had three one-act plays RADA was sending to Basil in Switzerland. He was doing one, another man quite well-known was doing the other, and would I like to be third? I was very lucky; I had people who had faith in me and gave me a chance. It was Shaw's Village Wooing, and it was very successful, so I started to direct at RADA... and then they asked me to teach. In a way, when you direct, you're teaching as well. When you're working on a play, you are guiding people, and while you are doing so, I think they're learning. I so love working with young people; they really have nothing to lose, so they try everything. They're very open to direction, whereas professionals have a reputation and they know what works for them, and they're scared not to do what they know works.

GJ: Did you feel that teaching helped you when you directed professional actors—because you knew more about actors?

ES: I was more aware of a process because of teaching, but I had to learn how to guide people without appearing to be intrusive. I must have done that with the professionals, because they liked working with me. But I always felt they could have done it without me. With young actors, you know that maybe they couldn't have done it without you. It's not that you give people talent, but you are able to sense the deep resources within people and find a way to make them feel they can do anything. That means understanding them, and having faith and, I think, humanity.

GJ: So how did you come to the States?

Eve Shapiro speaking to a group of drama students during the 1995-96 school year. (Photo by Jessica Katz)

ES: RADA had a summer school not just for young people, but also for teachers at various universities and colleges. I always taught the teaching group, and they kept saying to me, "Why don't you come to the States?" Then one morning I woke up and thought, "Why don't I go?" I looked up Liz Smith, who worked at Juilliard then, because she used to teach at RADA as well. Margot Harley, who was the Drama Division's administrator at the time, asked if I would like to come and direct something and I said yes. Then when Alan Schneider took over the department in 1976, he was in London and phoned me because Margot had suggested we meet. He liked me very much, so I came over to do Richard III. I was meant to come and go, and I was like the Sheridan Whiteside character in The Man Who Came To Dinner—I never left. For a while, I was working at both Juilliard and at RADA; the best of both worlds, in a way. When Michael Langham took over in 1979, he wanted someone who would be at Juilliard full-time, so I made the decision to stay. I enjoy being with Americans; they're much more outgoing. It was a big step; I never thought I would be here full-time. And now I know that I would go back to London for holiday, but I wouldn't live there!

GJ: The rep company is a phenomenon that doesn't really exist in America. Is it very beneficial in the training of an actor?

ES: When I was working in rep, a graduating student from any of the drama schools in England had to work for 42 weeks in rep before they got their Equity card. They couldn't leave school and go into a show on the West End; they wouldn't get the Equity card to do so. Rep was wonderful training, because you would graduate and get a small role in something and work. Years ago, people didn't necessarily go to drama school at all. There are very famous actors who never went; they simply joined a company and learned that way. It's not a bad way of learning...except now, it's not an option. I think if you don't go to drama school now, it isn't possible to get work.

GJ: Do you think the classics are being done less in America?

ES: They're not done a lot here, or in Europe. And one really longs for new plays. Interestingly, when I was working in England, I always did American plays. I loved them. Williams, O'Neill, Miller; I even did Picnic. I was always the person who did American plays.

GJ: Did you have to do a lot of research? Was there was something different about American plays?

ES: Well, yes, but I got it from the play. I had a great connection with those plays. I love psychology. I did do research, because I like to—especially for Streetcar Named Desire. I read a great deal about understanding the mind of the South. When I did The House of Bernarda Alba, I had never been to Spain, but I read a great deal so I could understand the way people think and their society.

GJ: How do you feel about the current state of Broadway-the quality of the work being done and the quality of productions?

ES: Well, there are many musicals, aren't there? One would love to see in America a company like the National Theater, where you have actors who've become a company and are able to do a lot of things. I know that in England now, people don't want to join companies because they want to be free to do television and films; nobody wants to tie themselves down. But I think the theater was better when people were doing it not just for money.

GJ: Is the theater community smaller and more closely connected in England?

ES: I would say so. When I was living in England, actors had wonderful opportunities, more than they do here. The sad thing here is that there's not enough work for actors. How do you learn except by doing? You learn by playing to an audience and realizing what they're getting and not getting.

GJ: Do you worry about theater audiences getting older?

ES: Yes, I do. We need a young audience. That's why I was so pleased when The Acting Company did The Taming of the Shrew in New York. We had very young audience—I don't mean school children—and they were most appreciative.

GJ: Is proper marketing the way to accomplish that—or decreased ticket prices? Is the audience is out there and just not aware of it?

ES: It's important to make people aware of what the theater has to offer. I felt that, in England, people didn't go to the theater because it was "the thing to do" and provided good conversation at dinner parties, but because their lives in some way were changed. They came straight from work; they didn't bother to change and dress up. But they actually needed the theater. I don't feel that theater is as necessary in people's lives as I would like it to be. That is why I love to see school children come into the theater and enjoy it. You have to find a way to reach them without bringing everything down to the lowest level.

GJ: When was the first time you directed an opera?

ES: Joseph Polisi asked me to do The Crucible in 1988. He has given me wonderful opportunities at Juilliard and has been so supportive all through my career here.

GJ: What are the different demands that opera places on you as a director?

ES: Opera singers formerly didn't place so much importance on acting; singing was the most important thing. But now, opera has changed; a good artist does it all. You can't separate singing from acting. The challenge is getting people to move more freely onstage and to inhabit the role, not just demonstrate who you are.

GJ: Are there greater time constraints as an opera director because you have to worry about music?

ES: Singers learn the music first, so they come to rehearsal knowing the score. That's not what I deal with. I concentrate on how you bring it to life and at the same time make it possible for them to still be able to sing. You can't ask them to do everything one might ask an actor to do, because it could make singing very difficult.

GJ: Do you find that opera singers have an understanding of text work and character and objective, or do you have to guide them through the rehearsal process to come to those things?

ES: They analyze the music, and in the same way, you make them aware of understanding a human being. I suppose maybe they don't go as deeply as they might; they don't necessarily transform as much. But they are capable of doing it. When you think about it, you realize how difficult it is to stand up and sing.