Purpose:
Intensive character development as a means of honest, collaborative expression between actor, writer, and director. The final product will be a continuous video document of the progression and development of the characters.
Methods:
Each character is developed separately, between writer, director and actor, through discussion, script, and improvisation. This process will begin with a character biography that the writer and actor will pass back and forth to develop together, starting with a blurb and a questionnaire.
Actors are strictly forbidden from talking about their characters to other actors. If two characters are supposed to have a relationship, that relationship will have to be made organically, in character, through improvisation and rehearsal.
All 'unessential' elements are removed from the world of the story, to allow for all focus to be placed on the two main characters.
The function of the camera will be to capture the development of the characters as unobtrusively as possible. An outline will act as a map for the story, and all scenes will be filmed sequentially, through the use of multiple takes, improvisation, looping, and filming when the actor is unaware he or she is being filmed. When on-set, actors will be strictly forbidden from being 'out of character' to anyone but the director, who may need to communicate direction to the actor. In other words, the atmosphere should be extremely focused on the work, and only the work during shooting. Actors should 'be' the characters until a previously scheduled wrap time.
At wrap-time each day of shooting, a 'decompression' session will take place, to bring the actors out of character and back to themselves. This part is very important. Doing something unrelated to the work for at least 30 minutes after wrap is highly necessary in making this process work.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
All Real Men Yearn
This is the day that you reinvent what it means to be an audience.
The audience inside of you. Your inner-self, your inner being.
It is the 'personal' audience that lives within all members of every 'personal' audience; and that 'personal 'audience, which is everything, is not everything.
These are the sounds of the blanket when rubbed upon by a foot, and these are also the sounds of a man screaming who lives inside the foot. Inside of that man is a community which also lives inside of his foot, which is also the man himself, who also lives inside his own community. He also has his own brain, and is also everything, which is not everything. Thus, he is everything and he is not everything, which also makes him everything, every time.
But he must know.
The people inside of him will never grow old, they will never grow young. They will only grow.
The audience inside of you. Your inner-self, your inner being.
It is the 'personal' audience that lives within all members of every 'personal' audience; and that 'personal 'audience, which is everything, is not everything.
These are the sounds of the blanket when rubbed upon by a foot, and these are also the sounds of a man screaming who lives inside the foot. Inside of that man is a community which also lives inside of his foot, which is also the man himself, who also lives inside his own community. He also has his own brain, and is also everything, which is not everything. Thus, he is everything and he is not everything, which also makes him everything, every time.
But he must know.
The people inside of him will never grow old, they will never grow young. They will only grow.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
the sleeper must awaken
an image is of itself- not necessarily connected to a sound. light passes, there are layers.
sounds can be taught to move, to be useful in telling a story, as wells as pleasing on the ear. bits of conversation, noises, tones, sent through different channels, slowly, quickly.
film pauses. overlaps. interuptions and tangents.
get as close to your experience as physically possible. look at your life, examine everything, be open to attempt and to be attempted.
when i go outside every day i see films, i see pictures. i hear soundtracks. they follow me, hounding me like ghosts. only when i hit record do i feel relief. i write this now so i won't forget it tomorrow. expressions and inspirations are ships that pass in the night. they come and go as they wish, and lead us where they will. it is important that they are sometimes let go, and sometimes captured, like different sizes of fish, so they can inspire us later when we return to them. record different conversations, or even scenes, separately, assign them to different channels, overlap them subtley. images all but disconnected from the sounds. give nothing to simbols, unless they occur within the natural makeup of the given day.
sounds can be taught to move, to be useful in telling a story, as wells as pleasing on the ear. bits of conversation, noises, tones, sent through different channels, slowly, quickly.
film pauses. overlaps. interuptions and tangents.
get as close to your experience as physically possible. look at your life, examine everything, be open to attempt and to be attempted.
when i go outside every day i see films, i see pictures. i hear soundtracks. they follow me, hounding me like ghosts. only when i hit record do i feel relief. i write this now so i won't forget it tomorrow. expressions and inspirations are ships that pass in the night. they come and go as they wish, and lead us where they will. it is important that they are sometimes let go, and sometimes captured, like different sizes of fish, so they can inspire us later when we return to them. record different conversations, or even scenes, separately, assign them to different channels, overlap them subtley. images all but disconnected from the sounds. give nothing to simbols, unless they occur within the natural makeup of the given day.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
interview w/shepherd express for cracks
SE: There are a lot of actors listed in the cast. Who plays what?
WT: Tim Chrapko: Alan, the observer
Jason Hames: Michael, the neighbor
Tracy Doyle: Ann, sister of Alan, falls prey to Michael
Everyone else: Book club/Cult members.
SE: The process outlined on the website appears to be pretty elaborate. With so much going on prior to the opening curtain, don’t you run the risk of putting in al lot of work that won’t be all that apparent to the audience? The design of the project aside, precisely how much different has the experience of this project been than others you have been involved with?
WT: I consider this project to be more of a theatrical experiment than a cohesive play. Cracks in the Floor was originally launched as part of Insurgent Theatre's Workshop- which has always been more about helping its actors grow than anything else - so from the beginning, the play has lent itself to being more about the 'process' and exploring a new way of working than the finished product itself. Because we choose to work a way that is radically different than traditional theatre, we hope the finished 'product' is something that hasn't been experienced before.
Most of my experience comes from directing film acting, which is more commonly naturalistic. But I prefer not to differentiate the two forms, because to me, acting is representation. In films, I like over the top acting, in theatre I like subtlety. But really I like both styles of acting in either medium. Actors are always representing human life in some shape or form, because they can't escape their own bodies. The main problem with theater is the stage. And the seats. And the lights. If I had my way it would all be done in living rooms or on the landing decks of aircraft carriers.
SE: The process of working with each actor individually on their respective characters sounds interesting. Could you tell me a bit more about this? Is this an attempt to get more organic characters appearing onstage?
WT: I love actors but I don't believe in the different 'styles' or 'schools' of acting (method, meisner, or otherwise)... We've studied these in the workshop, and I always found them impossible, and deceptive. Of course I let actors get to where they need to be- however they choose to get there- but I always stress that the more we conform to a pattern, the more we tend to lose life. People constantly contradict themselves in reality, so why not when they're acting? I want a character to break an actor's style, because if an actor ceases to lose his or herself, then the performance feels ingenuine. Emotions turn on a dime, which keeps the actor and the audience member in the present tense.
No one will want to work with me if I say this, but it seems absurd when an actor wants to make sure they understand everything in a piece, or when they want to rewrite something in order to better articulate a piece of improvised dialog better. The unknown can be difficult for some actors to deal with. We could revise what we say forever and still sound like we don't know who you are. Here I am, infinitely revising what I'm saying in this email. I want to see that struggle in my work because it exists. This play needs to be made without script, because I want to see the actors find their characters in that chaotic thought process. Acting is vulnerability, because the sensitive viewer is paying attention to the smallest movements that make up a person.
SE: In the story a voyeur gets drawn into the lives of the people living below him. This could potentially be an interesting social commentary. The culture emerging from new media and technology has us all becoming voyeurs. Pocket cameras have become ubiquitous as they have melded into mobile phones. The internet allows society greater access to peer into the lives of strangers. How are the bigger aspects of the themes being covered in CRACKS manifesting themselves in the production? How does the process inform on this theme?
WT: When I go to see a play, I am immediately turned off when I feel constantly reminded that what I am seeing is a performance. When you break down those performative elements, and put real people on the stage, the audience transforms into a crowd of eavesdroppers. As audience members, we are watching a person watch another 'play,' which the audience never sees. In the book club scene, almost all references to the actual book they have read are dropped, rendering the direction of their comments ambiguous and therefore potentially commenting on the play they are acting in.
While your last question is well thought out, I would prefer not to discuss the social implications of the play. I feel interpretation is always at the discretion of whomever is experiencing the piece. If twenty people see one of my plays, they see twenty different plays. I genuinely appreciate every interpretation, including yours.
WT: Tim Chrapko: Alan, the observer
Jason Hames: Michael, the neighbor
Tracy Doyle: Ann, sister of Alan, falls prey to Michael
Everyone else: Book club/Cult members.
SE: The process outlined on the website appears to be pretty elaborate. With so much going on prior to the opening curtain, don’t you run the risk of putting in al lot of work that won’t be all that apparent to the audience? The design of the project aside, precisely how much different has the experience of this project been than others you have been involved with?
WT: I consider this project to be more of a theatrical experiment than a cohesive play. Cracks in the Floor was originally launched as part of Insurgent Theatre's Workshop- which has always been more about helping its actors grow than anything else - so from the beginning, the play has lent itself to being more about the 'process' and exploring a new way of working than the finished product itself. Because we choose to work a way that is radically different than traditional theatre, we hope the finished 'product' is something that hasn't been experienced before.
Most of my experience comes from directing film acting, which is more commonly naturalistic. But I prefer not to differentiate the two forms, because to me, acting is representation. In films, I like over the top acting, in theatre I like subtlety. But really I like both styles of acting in either medium. Actors are always representing human life in some shape or form, because they can't escape their own bodies. The main problem with theater is the stage. And the seats. And the lights. If I had my way it would all be done in living rooms or on the landing decks of aircraft carriers.
SE: The process of working with each actor individually on their respective characters sounds interesting. Could you tell me a bit more about this? Is this an attempt to get more organic characters appearing onstage?
WT: I love actors but I don't believe in the different 'styles' or 'schools' of acting (method, meisner, or otherwise)... We've studied these in the workshop, and I always found them impossible, and deceptive. Of course I let actors get to where they need to be- however they choose to get there- but I always stress that the more we conform to a pattern, the more we tend to lose life. People constantly contradict themselves in reality, so why not when they're acting? I want a character to break an actor's style, because if an actor ceases to lose his or herself, then the performance feels ingenuine. Emotions turn on a dime, which keeps the actor and the audience member in the present tense.
No one will want to work with me if I say this, but it seems absurd when an actor wants to make sure they understand everything in a piece, or when they want to rewrite something in order to better articulate a piece of improvised dialog better. The unknown can be difficult for some actors to deal with. We could revise what we say forever and still sound like we don't know who you are. Here I am, infinitely revising what I'm saying in this email. I want to see that struggle in my work because it exists. This play needs to be made without script, because I want to see the actors find their characters in that chaotic thought process. Acting is vulnerability, because the sensitive viewer is paying attention to the smallest movements that make up a person.
SE: In the story a voyeur gets drawn into the lives of the people living below him. This could potentially be an interesting social commentary. The culture emerging from new media and technology has us all becoming voyeurs. Pocket cameras have become ubiquitous as they have melded into mobile phones. The internet allows society greater access to peer into the lives of strangers. How are the bigger aspects of the themes being covered in CRACKS manifesting themselves in the production? How does the process inform on this theme?
WT: When I go to see a play, I am immediately turned off when I feel constantly reminded that what I am seeing is a performance. When you break down those performative elements, and put real people on the stage, the audience transforms into a crowd of eavesdroppers. As audience members, we are watching a person watch another 'play,' which the audience never sees. In the book club scene, almost all references to the actual book they have read are dropped, rendering the direction of their comments ambiguous and therefore potentially commenting on the play they are acting in.
While your last question is well thought out, I would prefer not to discuss the social implications of the play. I feel interpretation is always at the discretion of whomever is experiencing the piece. If twenty people see one of my plays, they see twenty different plays. I genuinely appreciate every interpretation, including yours.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)