Game Over. Mark Wheeller

open exchange. Normally I interview “subjects” separately. This group interview was full of interaction, which proved helpful for the scripting of the play.

      Lorin concluded the day’s interviews by her telling me the dreadful details of the murder and her reaction to it. She must have been exhausted! I had a long drive home to process it all and knew (as if I didn’t before) I had an incredible and important tale to tell. I couldn’t wait to start the transcription process and did… the very next day!

      Ollie and Matt (real names) offered their stories on behalf of Breck’s friends. I conducted their interviews by phone… poor Ollie had to deal with my limited IT skills when I managed to wipe the recording as soon as he was off the phone. He generously gave me a second interview… and recorded that at the other end of the phone just in case!

      Finally, I interviewed Barry, Breck’s dad in his workplace. I was fascinated by his attitude to LD, and he requested that I make an effort to include this in the play. I knew how the verbatim genre would allow for this very easily.

      I blitzed the transcription of all the interviews.

      Lorin 25,556 words

      Triplets and Lorin: 8,915 words

      Matt 7,536 words

      Ollie 4,313 (shorter possibly because it was a second take) words

      Barry 8,376 words

      Total 54,696 words.

      There were a few other documents relating to Lewis Daynes’ emails and the secret recording to add to the total, which amounted to around 500 words.

      I had to reduce these 55,000 (approx.) words to a play I was contracted to deliver at about 8,000. It transpired to be just over 12,000. I wanted to tell the story with the detail I felt it deserved. With no particular (word) target in mind, I edited each interview to leave what I felt would prove useful for the play.

      I knew where I wanted it to begin.

      The triplets had talked about their thoughts on moving house and the way their schools had reacted to such a painful situation. I remember, during their interview, thinking, the play must begin with these “normal” events and then to launch into this horrifying context. I went with my gut feeling and pasted their words from this part of the edited interview to form the main body of this section and then edited them a little. I didn’t need to add anyone else’s accounts, because no one referred to these moments because they weren’t there! Simple.

      With the remainder of the play, I used the chronology of the story and took whoever said the main details of the story as the backbone, and introduced other accounts to it where they added a different perspective.

      As an afterthought, I decided to use the transcript (edited) of Lewis Daynes’ call reporting the murder, as a prologue to the play. It is the most horrifying start to any of my plays and lets the audience know instantly where this unstoppable juggernaut of a story is heading. I intercut the phone call with commentary from Breck’s parents, offering a key moment for Barry to highlight his views that I mentioned earlier.

      One other idea I had while interviewing Lorin was to divide her role into multiple Lorins. I remember her saying:

      ‘I don’t feel whole, missing parts and can’t function properly. Torn apart.’

      As she said this, I had the idea of dividing her part into six. This would have the advantages of:

      1. her being able to talk/fight with herself,

      2. illustrating how Breck might have felt (and certainly how LD perceived her to be), surrounding him with her opinions, love and frustration and

      3. preventing one character hogging the stage with long monologues that may lack movement.

      I made “Lorin” (without a number) the original Lorin from her time with Breck, prior to LD splitting her apart. With his arrival in her world, the other Lorins start to appear, becoming increasingly concerned… even paranoid about the situation as the number allocated to the character increases.

      I am aware that directors may wish to re-allocate these numbers (as happened in Beaumont School’s premiere production, where Lorin 5 & 6 have limited lines) and I am totally happy about that. Directors must make it work for them, but the Lorin’s must interact with each other and Breck/LD and never become standing narrators.

      This concept of the “torn apart Lorin” is, for me, the iconic stylistic feature of this play. I can’t wait to see the different ways it is interpreted as I see more productions.

      Lynsey Wallace, Beaumont School Head of Drama, is an experienced director and developed the premiere performance with no involvement from me. I was intrigued to see how they presented it, more so because this has only ever happened with three of my thirty plus plays, (Legal Weapon, The Gate Escape and Chequered Flags to Chequered Futures). Each of those productions exceeded my expectations, so I was optimistic!

      I couldn’t have been be happier with the public reaction to it. It was breathtaking. People even said I had “crafted it beautifully”. Not sure I’ve ever previously had that kind of comment about my use of peoples words. My CSE Grade 2 English Literature didn’t hold me back.

      Right from the off… they added a beautiful little movement piece with the Lorins bringing small symbolic stones onto the stage, then the ensemble (who were so disciplined and focussed on and off stage), going into the official opening sequence – gaming down the years. The gaming theme was cleverly carried through the production with each transition conducted in a gemlike manner and succeeding to place the actors in their correct position seamlessly. Outstanding.

      The six (there were actually only five) Lorins who completely achieved my aim of enabling a more interesting relationship with Breck who can be surrounded by “mother” and take him more by surprise, suddenly targeting at him from a different angle.

      What I hadn’t predicted… and this was utterly brilliant… was the relationship LD, the murderer, had with Breck’s parents! It was sinister, for example calmly fiddling with Breck’s father’s (Barry) tie knot at one point, unseen by Barry. This built to a horrifying climatic scene where he (Matt Sims – what a theatrical performance) lifted her, Lorin (Beth Macrae – a totally sustained and believable performance) in the air at the very moment she learns Breck has been killed. It was just awful, so wrong, like this awful, heinous crime. The performers were exceptional. All the lead roles were taken on with clarity, pace and ability.

      Some smaller roles sometimes stood out too. For example Jack Wathen as Sebastian (one of Breck’s siblings) who barely has any lines, but was on stage often, had to deal with the problems of not speaking a lot but reacting. It was never awkward. Fantastic performance!

      Ruari Spooner and Jamie Carrick as Ollie and Matt (Breck’s gaming friends) were also exceptional. Luke Nixon brought a wonderful maturity (and exceptional commanding posture) to the thoughtful words Barry (Breck’s dad) brings to the play.

      The highlight though for me was seeing Millie Moore and Hannah Hunter (who played Breck’s other two siblings excellently and so naturally) meeting, chatting and laughing with the Chole (who I had the honour of sitting next to for the most horrifying parts of the play – which had me on edge) and Carly Bednar (Breck’s real siblings) who had just been in the audience worrying me about how they might react to seeing these scenes brought to life. These moments of these young people (and others) just being teenagers together, enjoying each other’s company, offered for me the deeper possibilities of healing I believe this play has. It was simply “one of those moments”… and I was only half watching.

      The same applied to the Lorins all chatting away and laughing with the real Lorin LaFave. I hadn’t expected that… and how brave the real Lorin was to stand up as soon as the play ended and thank the cast!

      I am aware that some have suggested this story may be too shocking to share. The word “safeguarding” has been proffered to defend this view. I don’t agree and fear young people are in danger of being safeguarded to an extreme where they are denied the opportunity to witness the warnings