by David Dower
Over at Parabasis a whole raft of questions just surfaced that I'm happy to respond to here in case anyone else is wondering about any of this stuff. You can read the whole post there, but I'll restate the questions. (The blogospheric equivalent of doing post-show talk backs-- you always repeat the question so everyone in the audience can hear...)
1) Are the readers and screeners a subset of the panelists or distinct from the panelists?
Readers/Screeners are distinct from the Panelists. For those not familiar with how we're using those terms:
--READERS read the plays submitted in the category of OUTSTANDING NEW AMERICAN PLAY.
--SCREENERS read the materials submitted for the DISTINGUISHED NEW PLAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT category.
There is a separate panel for each category. There are six panelists for the OUTSTANDING category, and seven for the DISTINGUISHED category. Their names are made public at the end of the whole process. No Panelists repeat and no Readers or Screeners are Panelists.
2) Harder to summarize the question but it boils down to a concern about whether applications to the OUTSTANDING category were at a disadvantage if they were focused on a play that was in an early developmental stage. The Readers read 'blind', as I've said, so they didn't have the information about who wrote it, what organization was supporting its premiere, or about what development path for the play was intended.
This was quite intentional and I think it's actually worked quite well. The Panelists for this category were given instructions to, first, review the list of all applicants and the scores the assigned Readers gave the projects to see if any of the applications not automatically forwarded for further consideration seemed to have been overlooked or disadvantaged by the 'blind reading' process. And they were given the Readers' reports for all applications so they can understand what's behind the Readers' scores. So they have enough information and autonomy now to be able to consider any of the applications they wish that were not included in the auto-advanced group.
As to whether a script at an earlier stage of development might have simply fallen out of consideration by the OUTSTANDING panel because of its rawness, I can only say that among the auto-advanced group is an application that focuses on a play that has only one of its three acts fully written, the other two are summarized. And another forwarded application revolves around excerpts of six different plays that the applicant organization would ultimately choose from on their own. There are a whole range of approaches to the development/premiere process represented in the batch that is forwarded to panel, so I think the Readers understood the guidelines and the process sufficiently to be open to everything thrown at them. It is impossible to predict how the panel will handle the applications that 'color outside the lines', but the Readers were sufficiently impressed (and impressive) that they felt the material they were given hinted at a play with significant potential to be one of the Outstanding New American Plays at the end of this selection process.
3) Another hard one to summarize, so go read it for yourself, but I'll boil it down this way: If the Readers have the scripts and no other information about the writer, organization, or process and then the Panel has the Readers scores and the rest of the information but not the play, how can the process expect to get at its core intention of selecting the best integration of play to development process and playwright to organization? I think I got that right, Isaac, but let me know if you think I've misconstrued you here...
The Panel is reading all the forwarded applications, all the scripts associated with those applications, all the Readers' reports for those scripts, and all the supporting materials (recommendations, budgets, and work samples) for those applications.
They are also scouring the list of applications that weren't auto-forwarded to see if there is something overlooked. For that part they have the application and the readers reports. So they can see whether an application stumbled based on a lack of sufficient information in the 'blind reads'. And if they feel that way, they will forward the play-- and every panelist will get the complete set of materials and script for that application as well.
It's a lot of reading. Which is why I say we should all be ready to thank them for their efforts at the end of their service.
Clear as mud?
As to the final point there about there being a lot of applications for a few spots in the winners circle: your blog to the funding gods ears! There are many more worthy and compelling projects in this pool than can be funded. And there were many more that submitted Intents to Apply but didn't get their application together in time-- lots of them. And yes, it's Round 1. So let's everyone visualize greater capacity in this program in the future!
Recent Comments