There’s been a lot of talk about the fate of American playwrights lately, especially centering around the publication of the study “Outrageous Fortune: The Life and Times of the American Play.” Very interesting, very healthy debate and all that. Even closer to my heart perhaps is the fate of American directors, which is just as depressing as that of playwrights. Among the many difficulties they face, one is that it’s dauntingly difficult for directors to rise up the ranks. That someone as good as Anne Kauffman, for instance, still hasn’t had a gig at one of the big non-profits (save for one with LCT3, the arm of Lincoln Center Theater focusing on emerging writers) by now is just pathetic. And while things are slowly improving for female playwrights (except on Broadway), female directors seem to be held to a higher standard than men. One strike and you’re out, while Joe Mantello is like the killer in horror movies — no flop can keep him down for long.

This post was prompted by the news that the National Theatre in London has just awarded its first Quercus Award, which went to Róisín McBrinn. The prize “was conceived by the National Theatre Studio and the director Marianne Elliott as a response to the lack of opportunities currently available to directors at this early stage in their careers.” You don’t say.

In Britain, there’s also the JMK Trust Award, which has been around for about a dozen years and gives its prize to directors under 30. (Thea Sharrock, whose “Equus” came to Broadway, won in 2000.) The 12 winners so far are evenly divided among men and women. Am I wrong in thinking that the situation for female directors is markedly better in the UK than in America — especially when it comes to commercial theater? Or is my view made rosy by distance?