Sample Script Analysis / Evaluation / CritiqueP2-4 The first monologue has many unnecessary facts and comments about characters who are not part of the play.
Instead of immediately starting the play with the main conflict, first let the audience bond with the main character on a feelings level and then introduce the main conflict. P8 The audience is missing Stephanie's emotional life, and therefore, they are not connecting as deeply as they could with her. P12 This monologue is pure exposition and is a vehicle used to inform the audience. Any relevant facts and comments are better presented through unfolding action. P17 Something tumultuous occurred. The characters would not act as though nothing happened. An opportunity for strong conflict is missed. Many facts presented do not serve the play and could be eliminated. Example: the audience does not need to know that John Arnold, a man we never meet, was born in Florida and holds a PhD in AstroPhysics. Those two facts hold no significance to any part of the play. Every word in the play must drive the action forward to the end of the play. Eliminate all superfluous words. P20-22 Most of Stephanie’s questions are not necessary. 3-4 sentences about what happened at the river would eliminate 3 pages of dialogue. The audience has already experienced what happened at the river. Having it all retold stops the forward moving action. By this time, the audience should know what the protagonist wants. That is still not clear. P26 Bart and Hank would not have shared such intimate details about their lives at this early stage. There was nothing threatening that made them confess as they did. P27 Hank's withholding has become tedious. The repetitiousness of this type of action is now anticipated by the audience. Surprise us with another side to Hank's personality. P26-28 So many facts, dates, and names of characters who will never enter the script. This can be overwhelming for the audience. P37 The monologue-dialogue is unnatural and would have been interrupted. Thus far, the play is fast-paced, but these suddenly long responses are weighing down the pace of the script. P44 The professor sent Stephanie a few letters which only Stephanie has read. Not having read the letters, how could her sister use the letters to proof that Stephanie and the professor are a couple? P47 The audience knows 100% that Stephanie is not leaving, so why does she pack her clothes? P52 There is just too much going on. The audience will get lost in unnecessary details which are not pertinent to the story and which cause the rising arc to falter. P56 Hank's character-voice has been inconsistent throughout the script. At times he sounds well-educated and then uneducated. P59 Stephanie suddenly became very ill and is in bed. Her sister visits and doesn’t ask why she is in bed at 3pm, something unusual for this early-bird riser. Instead, she begins chatting, Why doesn't she see how ill Stephanie is? P68 Confused about the ending. Why is Stephanie living in the same house, which she had to leave by Christmas. It is the following spring. There were times, towards the end of the play, when the writer's voice broke through the characters. The confrontation scene is a primary example of what appeared to be the writer's agenda coming through as character dialogue. What was said was necessary, but needs to come through the action in a realistic way. The relationship between Hank, Bart and Stephanie tends to flat-line at times, with mounting tension alleviated through a lot of laughter and unwarranted humor. Suggest you cut out the humor at crucial times when the stakes are high. Three scenes go by before the reader really meets any of the characters. Instead we are inundated with facts which are very hard to retain since the names related to the facts are meaningless at this point. Character-arcs for Hank and Bart are incomplete. Hank's desire to leave the town is left hanging. Bart's wants are never fully expressed. Act I The building arc is steady. The problem is that at the end of Act I, the stakes are not high enough. Nothing much happened after that. Act II sounds more like a beautiful story than a play. There is very little action and conflict. A lot of telling instead of showing. The arc builds in Act I, rises a bit in Act II, falls, remains flat, rises, and then falls again. This happens several times and then the play ends. Rate on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 as best: The characters are well developed 3 The story is well developed 3 The play has strong dialogue 3 The action moves the story forward 3 The tone of the play is clear 4 I care what happens to these characters 4 TOTAL SCORE: 20 DOES THE SCRIPT HAVE A DISCERNABLE ARC? YES, but the stakes are not high enough at the end of Act I. The arc wavers in Act II. IS THIS PLAY READY FOR A READING: NO. The script needs a rewrite to bring clarity to some of the dialogue, to deal with the wavering arc, and to further develop the relationship between characters. Act I needs to end on higher stakes. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: There is a big let-down for the reader who emotionally invests in Stephanie, but then sees her give 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 producer will most likely find the budget too large to handle. |
