Scriptwriting Caucus
Emily Edwards, Chair
Script Caucus Minutes and 2011 Report
1. Script Caucus Chair Replacement for Edwards for 2011-2012
Michael Angelella –Towson University, mangelella@towson.edu
2. Report on Special Issue of the Journal of Film and Video on media writing
-December 1, 2011 Deadline
-Keep alert as you attend paper panels for good papers appropriate to this
issue and encourage authors to submit.
3. Report on Types of Script Scheduling/ Competition
A. Conference Reading Workshop –completed scripts for entry into conference
reading and workshop discussion --Blind jury review
B. Treatments and Works-in-progress –Treatments and incomplete or
unfinished scripts intended for conference workshop ---Not reviewed
C. Script Competition --completed scripts for entry into the UFVA script
competition. Submission to the conference does not automatically enter a script into the competition or vice versa. However, this year only six scripts entered into the competition were not entered into the conference.
Some data about the scripts for the conference: We had a total of 29 scripts submitted this year. Twenty-three total scripts entered into the conference for conference workshop. Three of these are graduate students. Twenty scripts entered into the faculty competition; this means the acceptance rate for those who place in the top three will be equivalent to the publication rate of a good academic journal. Of the competing scripts, six were entered only in the competition and not in the conference. Seven scripts entered the conference only without entering the competition.
Conference Scripts 24
Faculty Competition Scripts 20
Competition only –not entered into conference 6
Treatment Workshop 3
Graduate Student Conference Scripts 3
We have also had three treatments, which I scheduled together into a conference
treatment workshop. There are no protocols for jurying of treatment sections or
incomplete scripts in the conference. Members of Script Caucus are eager to continue having works-in-progress and script treatment sections.
4. Concerns and Blind Jurying of scripts
Process Significant because averaged scores determine:
1. Which scripts are scheduled into the conference and which are rejected
2. Which scripts are semifinalists in the competition
3. Jurying issues --jurors were writers from 2011 or past Script Caucus members.
(Some objection to the dual role, in that having a script entered into the conference could create prejudice in jurying process. However, at the 2011 Caucus, members felt that this was reasonable.)
4. Form returns –scripts sent to three readers, however not all jury forms were
returned; many returned late. In some cases only one form was returned out of three. (My solution was to use non-UFVA jurors to blind review. Writer friends who owe me favors or who were just willing to help and were wiling to read and score in a hurry.)
5. Other Concerns ---student actors from host school for script readings? One
member requested that friends not signed up for the conference be allowed to attend readings as actors. Security at Emerson made this not really workable.
6. Other Concerns: Greg B. raised the question of a promotion and tenure list of
associate or full professors of UFVA willing to serve as outside reviewers. Apparently, there was one at some point in UFVA history.
----------
7. Announcement: Special Thanks to Judges
Special thanks to the judges this year for scoring the semi-finalists:
Michael Angelella
Carol Keesee
Mary Lopez
Jeffrey Rider
Diane Walsh
Michael Green
Mark Kerins
------------------------------------------
Winners of this year’s contest not announced until Saturday morning. These were: The Finalists in this year’s competition were:
Third Place ---1912 by Heather Addison
Second Place ---A Long Winter Here by Chris Auer
First Place ---Bertolt Brecht Goes to Hollywood by Kyle Bergersen
Final note: Observation suggests that the script sessions for 2011 were better
attended than any time in UFVA history, with some sessions having more attendees than many screenings. Anecdotal evidence and direct comments suggests that Script Caucus members appreciated the detailed notes on expectations for writers and respondents. The custom of having two respondents per script and two scripts per session (where possible) should continue. Attendees to sessions appreciated that script sessions are interactive, with the possibility of being cast in a role and contributing to the development of a screenplay.
- Login to post comments
Comments
Scriptwriting Caucus - 2010 Report
You are receiving this email because you are either a current member of the UFVA Script Caucus or have been in the past (or gave me your email). Here are the change requests I received from various members regarding the draft documents about jurying of the conference scripts. If I don't hear any objections by October 20th, I will make the changes and submit the corrected documents to the UFVA board. Then we can begin implementing these procedures for the 2011 conference.
Feedback on the Script Caucus notes and the draft Juror Form
1. The deposit of scripts to the public website should be the writer’s choice for the security of intellectual work. Realistically, attendees to the conference won’t read these scripts ahead of time anyway.
2. Change jury form to make entry into the conference more challenging. A total score just above 15 is too low a total average to allow admittance to the conference. Raise the total so that scripts averaging below 50% of the total score may not be scheduled into the conference even if there is room in the schedule.
3. One suggestion was to change the jury form to include the element of “concept.” (Or does the “General Category” -- The script involved the reader with a memorable story, intriguing characters, and solid overall writing --cover the idea of concept sufficiently? Or should I change the word “General” to “concept”?)
4. Change the jury form under Format to remove the word “generally” and “producible” to read: “the script is a finished work. It follows the conventions of a professional screenplay and could be produced.”
5. Scripts submitted to the conference and the competition should be limited to unproduced work or screenplay not in production. Produced screenplays –unless they are going back into production--seem out of place here. Why not just submit the finished film to the juried screening?
6. Each writer would write and hand out to everyone attending the workshop a one-page synopsis of the script to quickly be read before the reading begins. A one pager is often employed in both film and TV in pitch meetings to development execs.
7. Each writer should be limited to submitting only the opening 15-20 pages of their script vs. selecting random 15-20 pages which is the current format. This will allow workshop attendees to address such questions i.e. What is the protagonist and his/her emotional life established clearly? What’s the setting of the story? Is the inciting incident present? Am I hooked yet?
8. Unless an author explicitly declines entry into the competition, all scripts entered into the conference are entered into the competition, with top scoring scripts earning first, second, and third place prizes.
Script caucus mechanics (Draft #1, August 16, 2010)
Some thoughts:
Script Caucus Workshops: If writer could bring a 'one-sheet synopsis' of the story to the workshops, I think many of the elementary questions will be answered, and the workshop can better serve what the WRITER is looking for in terms of input.
Lead Respondents: By having the writer provide a synopsis for the Juried critique, it would alleviate this task for the lead respondent.
Thanks....
Diane
jury form
Hi Phil:
Sorry to be 'almost' late .....
If there is a 'concept' category, I would suggest the following:
Concept: it is clear; a logline could be written for this script
You may also want to add a 'Genre' category as follows:
Genre: identifiable
Miss you!!!............Diane