This page contains: 1) Comments from contest playwrights about the quality of the Evaluations 2) A Sample Evaluation of a Script
COMMENTS ABOUT EVALUATIONS FROM CONTEST PLAYWRIGHTS First Prize… Ruby’s Story by Ron Osborne "The script evaluations are extremely well done, in fact superior to those provided by other competitions... At times I've wondered why I've chosen to be a playwright ... your thoughts provided a powerful, inspiring answer -- thank you.” 2003 (a tie)
Submission... Fenced In by Jeff Elwell "One of the most in-depth, explicit evaluations I have received as a writer and most helpful regarding rewriting the script." 2003 First Prize… A Human Shield by Robert L. Kinast “I was especially struck by the contest’s mission statement criteria which emphasize plays that address social and cultural issues in a positive way… the goal of the contest was a primary motivating factor for me as I worked on A Human Shield.” 2007 First Prize… Conversations with a Kleagle by Rudy Gray “I have rewritten the second act based on the contest comment sheets; it is much stronger because of this.” 2004 Submission… Pandora’s Committee by Munroe Scott "Many thoughtful and useful points were made, and were presented with a direct candor that is much appreciated. Be assured I will pay close attention to his/her [evaluator’s] comments." 2007 |
Finalist… Indignity Let Us Go by Kim Slack “Thanks for your very insightful comments. You focused on what I’ve found most challenging in writing about Africa—how to give audiences a sense of the complexity without confusing them. I now have some very concrete descriptions of the problems in the play that I think I can address… Thanks again for your support.” 2004 Submission… According to Kubark by Laura Camaione "The critique was very helpful, particularly with character development. The subsequent revisions have made it a much stronger play." 2008 Submission… Saviour by Mary Anne Pope "These evaluations are excellent." 2005 First Prize… King Christina by Martha Kearns “I am thrilled and I thank you so much for your sensitivity to the work's values… I sincerely appreciate you Sandra for helping the work of unknown playwrights become known.” 2003 (a tie)
Honorable Mention… Lowenstein by Henry Meyerson “I am extremely impressed by the level of professionalism of the procedure and the script evaluations of the critics. I thank you for the opportunity to receive the feedback. Yours is obviously a unique organization.” 2004
Submission… Snapdragon by Gretchen O'Halloran "The evaluation comments were both enlightening and workable. Thank you!" 2007 |
|
A SAMPLE EVALUATION OF A SCRIPT SCRIPT TITLE _________SCRIPT #: _____ READER’S NAME: _________DATE: _____ PLAYWRIGHT & CONTACT INFO _______________ SETTING: ____________ WHAT GENRE IS THE PLAY? ____________ CHARACTER BREAKDOWN ___________ WHAT IS THE PLOT? _____________ WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS OF THE PLAY? The best parts of this play by far were those in which there was a high level of interaction and real communication between characters. Interestingly, some of the best moments were those in which the main conflict was not even addressed at all. These sections of dialogue (such as a few between Stephanie and John) really stand out. By Page 23 it is very clear that the issues are very complex, from government, to peer recognition, raiders, failing crops, missing equipment, varying religious beliefs, money to be made from exporting diamonds, class differences, extreme heat, disease, many lies being told, budget cuts, etc. The conflict between the two soldiers heightens the tension and the stakes. Their ability to help each other out in the face of grave danger is a testament to man’s humanity. The play idealizes standing for what you believe in, amongst addressing other issues that are prevalent in the world today. Bart and Hank are strong and inspiring. WHAT ARE THE WEAKNESSES OF THE PLAY? The beginning hits too hard with the matter at hand- instead of falling for the characters and feeling the plight through them, the audience is hit up front with the conflict, and is tempted to bring their own prejudices to the table before the main action of the play begins. Would have been stronger as “real time” conversation. Three scenes go by before the reader really meets any of the characters. P8 This top paragraph is such a tough read that its important message is lost. Its message needs to be easily understood so it will be remembered. Presently, the audience will struggle to understand it (I read it ten times before understanding it). Suggest it be broken into dialogue between them. That should also bring clarity to what is being conveyed. P8 How does Stephanie feel about what Jack has just told her in the top monologue? P10 For clarity use “sometimes” when stating that they go to the mountains in spring. P13 There’s no reason to target the children. Why not?. P17 Why is Robert the only character affected by what just happened? The others would not sit idly by as though nothing occurred. P20 & 21 Most of Stephanie’s questions are not necessary. John just could have made a 3-4 sentence statement about what happened at the river. -By this time what the protagonist wants should be clear and it is not clear. P26 Bart and Hank would not have shared such intimate details about their lives at this early stage. There has not been anything threatening that could have made them want to confess as they did. P27 Hank needs to talk about the other men at this point, and not skirt the issue. The withholding has become tedious at this point. P27 In the character description Sterphanie is 24 years old, but on P8 she says she was 12 when she fell out of the boat and it is now 14 years later, which makes her 26, not 24. However, on this page, her mother says she had her in 1981 and it is 2009, which makes her 28. P26-28 Confusing. Too many circumstances and situations known to writer, but the reader can get lost in taking in too much info so quickly. P31 Stephanie discusses being lonely; John discusses insincerity. This needs to be rewritten. Confusing. No tie in. -The addition of the three characters does not move the plot forward. Unless they offer something significant to the script, I suggest they be eliminated. Possibly combine them into one character, if at all possible. P33 “If there are no riches … “ This sentence does not make sense. P35 Bart tells Stephanie that he must first tell her about medicinal procedures before telling her a story. Then he tells a story and does not make reference to medical procedures. P39 Why would the government withhold food from everyone; why not just withhold it from those who stole? P44 Reference to “Mr. Welles” is unclear. Don’t know if audience knows that Mr. Welles is Bart. With so many facts, they may have forgotten what was said in the beginning of the play. P44 The professor sent Stephanie a few letters. Her sister’s reaction to this is not believable. She jumps to a conclusion that they are a couple because Stephanie received some letters from the Professor. They could have been business letters. P45 Why would Stephanie tell Hank that John took the sack of food from the bin? That would put John in jeopardy. Had she not said anything, the name of the person who took the food would not have been discovered. P47 Her sister is packing Stephanie’s things. It is very clear that Stephanie is not going to leave with her. Why would she pack those clothes? P52 Not clear why Stephanie is uncertain about who took the food when she told Hank, on P45, that John took the food. P56 There is just too much going on. The audience will get lost in all the details, some of which are never referred to again in the script. They are not pertinent to the story and cause the rising arc to falter. P59 Stephanie is ill in bed. Her sister comes in and doesn’t ask why Stephanie is in bed at 3pm. She just starts talking to her. P60 Stephanie: “I wondered where his glasses came from.” Whose glasses? P74 Confused about the ending. Why is Stephanie still living in the same house? She said she had to leave by Christmas and it is nearly the following spring. -The relationship between Hank, Bart and Stephanie tends to flatline at times, with mounting tension alleviated through unwarranted humor. Suggest you cut out the humor at those times that are crucial to keeping the stakes high because when their relationship flatlines, so does the rising arc. Rate on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 as best: The characters are well developed 3 The story is well developed 4 The play has strong dialogue 3 The action moves the story forward 3 The tone of the play is clear 5 I care what happens to these characters 4 TOTAL SCORE: 22 DOES THE SCRIPT HAVE A DISCERNABLE ARC? YES, and although the arc waivers at times, it recovers nicely. The script would be much stronger if the arc rose in a steady manner. DO YOU THINK THIS PLAY IS READY FOR A READING: (If not, why not) NO. It needs another rewrite to work on punching up the dialogue, dealing with the waivering arc, and further developing the relationship between the characters. COMMENTS: It is truly a let-down for the reader who finally invests in Stephanie to see that she gives up in the final moments of the play. The settings will make it difficult to stage the play in a small venue, which will limit the production capability of the piece. The play requires a large venue, and with eleven actors, a producing theater will most likely find the budget too large to handle.
|
||
