Chapter 5: Tryin' to get away (into the night)

I watched the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson last night for the first time. Despite his accent, he does a good job hosting. He does seem to pattern himself after Letterman wuite a bit (and if you're going to pattern yourself after anybody, then he'd by the obvious choice,) but he has his own charms. He just needs a year or two to really hammer out a niche for himself.

It's been, at the very least, a nice couple of days. I feel upbeat and personable. I haven't felt the urge to lash out at anyone or sulk about anything. And although this is not an unusual occurrence, I've had a few laughs.

Yep, I must be writing.

I've already chronicled the writing of my Drama summative, but I must say I've found it unusual. Not necessarily because it's a group activity - trust me there's nothing to that - but it's just the first time I've ever had trouble trying to write what I was trying to. My best works - the ones I like best anyhow - "Half-Past" and "Sixteen" - pretty much wrote themselves. This time around I've just sort of... presented myself with a very difficult activity to undertake in writing, I guess. It's more difficult here to really get under the characters' skins, perhaps owing to the fact that it's really just a trilogy of dialogues, not anything driven remotely by a plot.

It's either one or the other: bad on paper/good in execution or good on paper/bad in execution. Probably the former. Rosser didn't like it. He didn't care much for the concept or the lack of traditional conflict and drama. "Drama is about chaos," he told us. I found this rich, because years ago with Mrs. Loft he co-directed "Sometimes I Wake Up in the Middle of the Night" which was not the same thing, but close enough.

He suggested we change the script; but I didn't care for his main suggestion, which was to get the characters together in a group session. I just don't see that working, as the character-types are too disconnected, too unrelated to make work. It's a different type of chaos, one that doesn't paly out well. The chaos, naturally, needs to be a type that is controlled.

And I do regret even using this idea. It's been so difficult to execute that it makes me question whether or not it will be worth it in the end.

Drama is supposed to be about chaos. Not quite so - drama is supposed to be about conflict. The conflict here is not of the traditional man vs. man variety. Here we give a nice man vs. self conflict in three different scenarios, which I think works well. But when you put three characters in a room that aren't supposed to be there together, it's not really drama - it's Farce. And this isn't a farce, it's a melodrama, which is highlighted by exaggerated emotions and whatnot. Well, I think it's a melodrama... I'll have to double-check on that, but it sounds right.

Who knows? It's probably something else altogether. I don't even particularly care for categories such as those, genre-rules to be adhered to, or edicts such as "drama is chaos." "Half-Past Eight PM" was almost completely devoid of chaos, paced like a brisk walk at its fastest points and a snail's crawl at its slowest, and it went gangbusters.

That's not to say Rosser didn't have some good points. I'd be a damned fool to write off most of what he said, since he was usually right. He made some good points about the inconsistent characterization of certain people in the play, and the big fact that it lacked something to really bring it together in the end. This was when Rosser brought up his wish that the characters be brought together - something with which we all vehemently disgareed.

I don't think Rosser likes my writing style. This is something that can really only hurt me since he is, after all, in control of my mark. I'd like to concede to him on at least a few points, not only because I think they would benefit our play, but also just to show him that we do listen to what he has to say. But he digs plays with chaotic action and I downright refuse to write that. Why? I really have no idea.

I expect that it's because I already write all those comics, which naturally get filled with off-the-wall comic book action, and I don't want that in my stage plays, so I go the other way. Yet, somewhere along the way, I might have fallen into a trap with my writing... the repetition is starting to really sink in.

It's decided then - this is going to be my last play of such a mundane nature. I would like to emphasize an actual plotline in the future, but I just felt like this is the play I had to write right now. It seemed right. It's my lame little "Seasons" thing. "Half-Past," "Sixteen" and "Maim" are Spring, Summer, and Fall, respectively, not only in terms of setting but also in mood. None of them are too plot-heavy. It just wasn't right to leave it without a Winter.

"Half-Past" was about new love. "Sixteen" was about boredom caused by excess. "Maim" is about death. This, "Night Sessions" is about isolation, about entropy; mental and moral decay. I know, I must be loopy (or a prick) to go about analyzing my own little plays and scripts, but if it didn't seem obvious at the time (and it wasn't, until "Sixteen" was completed,) it's just so obvious to me now, that I want everybody else to get it.

I've lived a very short life that has naturally more been spent thinking about things than doing things. The writing reflects that, simple as that. When I live a little more, I'll be able to write a little more focussed.

But I would honestly be surprised if we didn't get a great reaction for it in performance.

And wouldn't you know, I didn't intend for this entry to just be about this play, but here we are... that's all I seem to have the energy for today.

Keep on rockin'
Scott