Q&A With Director Wes Tank

On April 18th, Insurgent Theatre opens its short drama Cracks In The Floor as part of a double feature with Alchemist Theatre. Developed in the Insurgent Theatre Workshop, Cracks In The Floor has had a very experimental trip to the stage, which is outlined on Insurgent’s Website. As detailed as that information is, it still left some questions that I forwarded off to Director Wes Tank.

There are a lot of actors listed in the cast. Who plays what?

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.

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 a lot of work that won't be all that apparent to the audience?

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.

The design of the project aside, precisely how much different has the experience of this project been than others you have been involved with?

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.

Here is a trailer for the feature I wrote and have been directing for the past year:

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?

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.

Here is a small chunk of the play, edited from 5 different rehearsals:



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.

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?

… 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.

Cracks In The Floor runs Through May 4th.

TOMORROW: Q&A with Aaron Kopec, Director of 31--Alchemist Theatre's end of the double feature with Insurgent.