: Criteria for a good screenplay I read a few screenplays and i am a bit confused how the quality of a screenplay is judged by the Osacar panel. It is not as obvious to judge the quality

Vote Up Vote Down

There are at least two ways to read a screenplay - as literature and as specification. Oscar reviewers, as peers in the movie industry, read for both.

The document must describe a filmable movie, using the correct technical language and perspective. I can write a script about oranges or plate tectonics but I can't make that filmable, any more than a blueprint of a Tipler time travel cylinder makes the thing actually buildable.

The screenplay must also give the director enough cues to tell a story without being overly specific - it needs to invite input from the director and department heads without being a connect-the-dots exercise or so overly specific that it would have to be taken apart and rebuilt to be filmable.

Once the technical criteria is met the aesthetic kicks in - is the screenplay interesting? Does it have a good story, compelling settings? Is the conflict and arc clear? Do the characters relate to each other believeably, no matter how fantastic the world? Can I read the screenplay and at the end understand the story before any images are recorded?

In summary - the screenplay is the functional specificaiton of a movie. It has to fill three prerequisites and the ones that surpass these by the most would, in a just world, be the Oscar candidates.

Can we read it?
Could we film it?
Do we want to make the effort?

(0)