 |
| A sadly blurry photo of the 2018 Screenplay Winners. |
I do not know how many scripts the competition receives every year. However, the second reader judges, who are all respected members of the Maryland film community, are each given three feature scripts, and sometimes also three short scripts, to evaluate. These scripts were the ones deemed the best by the first set of judges. Our best selections are later handed to the final judges. In 2018, those judges included producer Nina Noble (“The Deuce,” “Treme,” “The Wire”), director Sheldon Candis (“Baltimore Boys,” “LUV,” “Young Cesar”), documentary filmmaker Annette Porter and writer/producer B. A. Parker (“The American Life”).
Who wouldn't want their script evaluated by Nina Noble? I know I would! (She also did a great Q&A at the festival.)
So how does the whole judging thing work?
The first year I helped with the competition, all of the second reader judges got together at a trendy eatery on North Avenue to discuss how to evaluate the entries. We already knew the basics. The Baltimore Film Office gave us a standard evaluation form. We were supposed to rate the Premise, Story Line/Plot, Characters, Dialogue and Production Value as either Poor, Fair, Good or Excellent. Then we were supposed to assign a numerical value from one to eight (with one being the worst) regarding the Premise, Originality, Characters, Plot/Structure, Dialogue, Visual Quality and Writing Skill. Finally, we were given a comments section to express our thoughts on the scripts.
(BTW. The entrants would be given our evaluation forms so we all resolved to be encouraging whenever possible.)
The question we judges debated among ourselves was whether to evaluate our assigned scripts subjectively or objectively. In other words, were we comparing the scripts against professional scripts, or simply against the other entrants. For example, Paul Attanasio's pilot episode for the television series Homicide: Life on the Streets was perhaps the best script I have ever read myself. Obviously, if that script had been entered into the competition, I would have given it eights and excellents across the board. Our question was whether it would be fair to compare all of the contest entries against that objective professional standard. Our answer was no. We decided it would be fairer to rank our assigned scripts subjectively against each other. That meant we would have to read all of our scripts before deciding upon the relative value of the rankings in each category. Still, even judging the scripts subjectively, I confess I remained stingy with my eights and excellents. I only gave those ratings to scripts I felt had risen to professional quality in the given category.
So how were the scripts?
Some years they are better than others.
This assignment allowed me to a experience the frustration that I am sure every development person must feel. Some scripts would have wonderful, lively dialogue but a tedious or badly-structured plot. Or an interesting plot with unimaginative characters. There were other scripts that I didn't feel worked at all but gave me an interesting new perspective on life. It was maddeningly difficult to find a script that worked from start to finish in every category. The best script I read this year was a stoner comedy, which, although I would probably enjoy watching as a movie, I knew would be immediately shot down in Hollywood because "the stakes weren't high enough." I hate being the type of guy who would say something like that!
My most frustrating experience involved a haunted house mystery for kids. It was the best script I ever read in the competition. I had no doubt it would sell with minimal changes, but it didn't do well in our contest. Why? Because that year we had an additional category. We had to rank scripts based on the use of local locations. Sadly, the script had absolutely no connection to Baltimore, which forced me to give it a one in that category. That lowered its overall ranking and effectively knocked it out of the running.
I am mentioning that incident to reassure people who are upset about losing a competition. You might well have had the best script, but the criterion of the contest might have worked against you.
BTW, when it comes to this specific contest, I am a consistent loser. I had previously entered two scripts in the competition and lost both times. The first script was the true story behind one of the most famous restaurants in Baltimore. It scored very high in the individual categories, but it was knocked out because the evaluator deemed the May/December romance between the two owners at the center of the TRUE story "unbelievable!" Huh? May I repeat: It was a true story! Believe it or not! The second script was a horror film set in a local cemetery. Talk about being Baltimore oriented! I should have racked up an instant eight points right there! Once again, I scored very high in the individual categories, but the script was eliminated by the evaluator for being "needlessly violent." Hello, it was a horror movie, not a Nicholas Sparks romance. The violence was necessary for the genre!
Oy Vey.
I am looking forward to being a judge again.
I think I like it better than being an entrant!
Now you can judge my writing. If you haven't gotten it already, feel free to pick up my memoir The Promise, or the Pros and Cons of Talking with God published by TouchPoint Press. If you like it, please review it on Amazon. If you don't like it, try to be like me or one of my fellow judges and find something encouraging to say about it!So how does the whole judging thing work?
The first year I helped with the competition, all of the second reader judges got together at a trendy eatery on North Avenue to discuss how to evaluate the entries. We already knew the basics. The Baltimore Film Office gave us a standard evaluation form. We were supposed to rate the Premise, Story Line/Plot, Characters, Dialogue and Production Value as either Poor, Fair, Good or Excellent. Then we were supposed to assign a numerical value from one to eight (with one being the worst) regarding the Premise, Originality, Characters, Plot/Structure, Dialogue, Visual Quality and Writing Skill. Finally, we were given a comments section to express our thoughts on the scripts.
(BTW. The entrants would be given our evaluation forms so we all resolved to be encouraging whenever possible.)
The question we judges debated among ourselves was whether to evaluate our assigned scripts subjectively or objectively. In other words, were we comparing the scripts against professional scripts, or simply against the other entrants. For example, Paul Attanasio's pilot episode for the television series Homicide: Life on the Streets was perhaps the best script I have ever read myself. Obviously, if that script had been entered into the competition, I would have given it eights and excellents across the board. Our question was whether it would be fair to compare all of the contest entries against that objective professional standard. Our answer was no. We decided it would be fairer to rank our assigned scripts subjectively against each other. That meant we would have to read all of our scripts before deciding upon the relative value of the rankings in each category. Still, even judging the scripts subjectively, I confess I remained stingy with my eights and excellents. I only gave those ratings to scripts I felt had risen to professional quality in the given category.
So how were the scripts?
Some years they are better than others.
This assignment allowed me to a experience the frustration that I am sure every development person must feel. Some scripts would have wonderful, lively dialogue but a tedious or badly-structured plot. Or an interesting plot with unimaginative characters. There were other scripts that I didn't feel worked at all but gave me an interesting new perspective on life. It was maddeningly difficult to find a script that worked from start to finish in every category. The best script I read this year was a stoner comedy, which, although I would probably enjoy watching as a movie, I knew would be immediately shot down in Hollywood because "the stakes weren't high enough." I hate being the type of guy who would say something like that!
My most frustrating experience involved a haunted house mystery for kids. It was the best script I ever read in the competition. I had no doubt it would sell with minimal changes, but it didn't do well in our contest. Why? Because that year we had an additional category. We had to rank scripts based on the use of local locations. Sadly, the script had absolutely no connection to Baltimore, which forced me to give it a one in that category. That lowered its overall ranking and effectively knocked it out of the running.
I am mentioning that incident to reassure people who are upset about losing a competition. You might well have had the best script, but the criterion of the contest might have worked against you.
BTW, when it comes to this specific contest, I am a consistent loser. I had previously entered two scripts in the competition and lost both times. The first script was the true story behind one of the most famous restaurants in Baltimore. It scored very high in the individual categories, but it was knocked out because the evaluator deemed the May/December romance between the two owners at the center of the TRUE story "unbelievable!" Huh? May I repeat: It was a true story! Believe it or not! The second script was a horror film set in a local cemetery. Talk about being Baltimore oriented! I should have racked up an instant eight points right there! Once again, I scored very high in the individual categories, but the script was eliminated by the evaluator for being "needlessly violent." Hello, it was a horror movie, not a Nicholas Sparks romance. The violence was necessary for the genre!
Oy Vey.
I am looking forward to being a judge again.
I think I like it better than being an entrant!
General Filmmaking Blogs:
No comments:
Post a Comment