Double Dreams

Last night I had two dreams. In both instances I was grabbed from behind by a stranger on the street. In the first instance I managed to fight my way free and ran over to some security guards who were sitting in a corner. They did not stand up, only began leisurely questioning the stranger and I had to run on my own. In the second instance, after I freed myself from his hold he began following me and yelling. I called the police and the officer's response was "boys will be boys".

Clearly not an expert at any sort of dream analysis, I turned to the layman's favorite tool for misinformation - the Internet - where I was told that dreaming of being attacked means that you have stress or uncertainty in your waking life. Really? Is that the best they can do? Anti-climactic is the theme for the day. I think the thing that surprised me the most was that the dreams took place one right after the other, and practically mirrored each other. In both instances I was grabbed from behind. In both instances I wrestled myself away. And in both instances I sought help from a higher authority who did nothing.

How does this link to my writing? I'm not certain, but I feel like the connection is there. Maybe after several hours of wakefulness (and copious amounts of caffeine) I will be able to find a use for my overactive subconscious.

Penning Correspondence

I wish people still wrote letters.  More to the point, I wish I still wrote letters.  To friends, to family.  I feel like my life has been fast-tracked by technology, especially of late.  Thanks to Facebook and Twitter (both of which I admittedly use religiously) people know the news far before they'd receive a letter.  To the point where the effort to open the letter could almost count as an archeological expedition due to how ancient the news is by the time the letter is received.

That doesn't stop me from wishing there was a way to reintroduce the art of letter writing back into my life.  Anyone need a pen-pal?

Secrets

Less is More

This is the philosophy I'm trying to force myself to adapt in my writing, and more importantly in my pitching. Clearly I'm a rambler, so I will have to force myself to bit my tongue.

My big question is - should I give away the ending of the story? Or just leave them hanging?

In the spirit of less is more (and because I haven't had any coffee yet) that is all I have to say at the moment.

Phase 1: Registration - COMPLETE.

So today we secured our pitching spot for the Crazy 8's Film Festival. The only problem is that I've never pitched before. Currently I'm working on revising the script. I'm filing away all the little promising tidbits I can think of, and trying to capture the feeling of the film as I write. I want the pitch to be dynamic, but not cheesy. Derek is looking after the technical aspect of the pitch and fielding any questions regarding the visuals or equipment, so I am focusing on the story, which will take up the bulk of the time.

I'm struggling between having the main character narrate for himself, or having an omnipotent narrator in manner of Anthony Hopkins. I'm leaning towards the first option as the story centers around the fantasy that the main character creates for himself, and the isolation he experiences because of this. It would seem like a conflict of the point to allow an omnipotent narrator inside his head, privy to the very thing he keeps secret, that separates him from everything else.

While I'm wrestling with the story does anybody have any pitch suggestions for me?

The American Coming-of-Age Story

Having recently watched Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist I got to thinking about the typical American coming-of-age story. I was a little disappointed that this particular film centered around high-school students, as I felt that the dialogue, actions and awareness portrayed by the characters was more typical of an early 20's character. It seems unrealistic to me that high school students would be allowed to traipse around NYC all night, driving, going to clubs, playing in bands, barfing in bus stations, without so much as an ID check from a bouncer, or a phone call from a frantic parental unit. I was reflecting on why this choice was made when it dawned on me that if they were to give these characters 20+ status it would interfere with the whole formula for the American Coming-Of-Age Story. The formula is precise. High school student nears graduation and faces minor or major crisis of identity and life focus. Student must decide what college to attend, and deal with current relationship and living situation in attempt to ready themselves for the roller coaster ride of dorm living collegiate existance. If you were to make a character over 20, still living with their parents, the message you send is that they have no ambition and will not succeed without attending college.

When did this highschool-college-career formula become so prevalent in American cinema? Is it still valid, considering the current economic forecast? Not to mention the amount of post secondary graduates who don't even use their degree in their career, the amount of students who have to work to save money before attending college, and the technology available today that teaches some kids certain things that a computer science grad from 3 years ago couldn't speak to. All this being said, will the coming-of-age story ever see the end of its reign? Or perhaps it is just too close to the hearts of so many to be knocked down a peg or two by the cruel mistress of reality.

The Nature Of Things. Without Suzuki.

I've had several recent conversations with friends lately regarding the nature of happiness. I may have previously blogged about this, feel free to move on with your surfing if this is the case. In my experience, one of the most popular answers to the question "what do you want out of life?" has always been some form of the word "happiness". I'd say it's consistency level is right up there with "world peace" at the Miss America pageant. This answer, I think, is borne out of a severe misunderstanding of the nature of happiness. Happiness, as a feeling, is fleeting by nature. I feel happy when I have my first cup of coffee in the morning. I feel happy when I get to go to the movies with Derek. I feel happy when my family comes to visit. Sometimes I even wake up in the morning feeling happy, in general (this is rare, as the mornings and I don't tend to get along). I think many people define happiness the way I define contentment or satisfaction. Further to this, they expect it to be constant. They request that happiness be a permanent fixture. I really don't think this is possible. How can we demand that something which is an emotion and therefore fleeting by nature, to be constant? And what would we do if it was constant? If happiness was permanently experienced, would it not become the status quo? What would we want to feel on a good day, if we were happy even through the worst day?

I really and truly believe that we were not designed to be happy. We are designed to strive for our goals, experience success, failure, pain, love, hope and a whole other gamut of crap, none of which lasts forever. Joy, however, which by nature can be experienced at the same time as pain, failure and anger, is a different matter. Maybe if we can bridge the definition gap between joy and happiness, we won't feel so off kilter when we're on an extended hiatus from our fleeting friend. When happiness eludes us, there is still something to fall back on.