ArtsLab Shopfront's artists in residence

Not neater, but more precise

The words ‘neater’ and ‘precise’ are very close in definition, but they are a world apart in what they mean for the end of my script. Having met the deadline for the first complete draft of the show yesterday, I woke up today feeling a little less satisfied than I would care to be. The script ends, but it doesn’t end as crisply as I would like it to. I used to think that there was a million ways this story could be told, but I seemed to have woken up with the knowledge that there are only a few ways in which it can be told well.

As it stands, I don’t think anyone would understand what happens in the end. The problem is that there are about 6 story lines that need a conclusion. If they end concurrently, I run the risk of the audience not following the leaps of imagination. If they end in procession the script loses the sense of synchronicity from which it derives most of its momentum.

The only way I can think of fixing this is through a painstaking process of script analysis and ensuring all the character arcs are clear enough to withstand the leaps from one story to another. Which brings me back to the title of this post. The end will only work if the story lines conclude with a sense of realistic messiness, but with a precision gained from clear characters and motives. I know how I want the audience faces to look once the show’s over and by golly I’m gonna get there.

Comments are closed.