Objective and Critical
Richard,
how can you be objective, or critical about the scripts you read when you have so many to get through? I would think they all merge into a blur after you've read three or four? I find it difficult to believe that you can actually pick out a good script when having to read so many.
- Walter
There are times when it can feel a bit overwhelming, this is true, and it’s at that point that tea becomes necessary. However, it’s extremely rare that we ever have to read the volume of scripts that were attracted by the Ö÷²¥´óÐã Talent competition that I mentioned below. In that instance 3000 scripts had been budgeted for, and 5085 were received, which surprised everyone. However, having stated that we’d read every submission cover to cover for that particular scheme, that's what we did.
In the normal run of things, a group of three or four readers will meet once a month (and a second group meet later in the month), for a sift day. During this, we’ll read the first ten pages of every script that’s submitted to the writersroom. Most readers will get through thirty or forty scripts in a day. This may seem like a lot, but remember that at this stage we’re looking for a generally positive impression rather than the detailed critical analysis that we’ll aim for later, when those that we feel have potential will be taken home and read in their entirety.
Most readers take about eight to twelve scripts home, which they’ll write a report on: this is included in the letter back to the writer. Generally I’ll spread this reading over more than one day to help me to approach each script with a fresh eye. The department also receives a wide variety of scripts: one moment you could be in a feature-length historical epic, the next in a student flatshare sitcom. This helps stop everything becoming a big verbal mulch.
writersroom receives around 10,000 scripts a year, and as a public service broadcaster it’s important that the Ö÷²¥´óÐã considers all of these writers seriously. However, that’s a lot of scripts to get through, and we’ve ended up with the system that we think is fairest, and most useful for the Ö÷²¥´óÐã. As with any system that involves people, it’s not flawless, but we hope we’ve got it about right. Like any writer, when I’m reading another rejection letter it’s easy – and satisfying – to think that the system is wrong and that the reader just didn’t get it. It’s much harder to look again at what you’ve written and ask, how can this be better?
Comments