Last week we started to look at how pre-selectors and judges rate your work in festivals and competitions. I had a lot to say on the subject, and here is part two.

Why don’t we get more than the standard: “Unfortunately, due to the high volume of applications, we're not able to give more detailed feedback at this stage.”

Fundamentally, this is because the pre-selecting and/or judging is outsourced to volunteers. Festivals and competitions do their very best to ensure that everyone reviewing submissions has a level of understanding and experience but not everyone can give constructive feedback. It would take a huge amount of curating to ensure that all feedback was useful, kind, and above all informed.

Trust me. I’ve been at the sharp end of the stick with a judge who had zero bed side manner or insight into the processes of a writer… and the organiser was mortified they hadn’t QA’d it before sending out.

And if they pay their volunteers, guess who is asked to make up the shortfall? Yes, you.

Consider originality over polish. Of course you want your script or film to be the best it can possibly be, but don’t sacrifice the story in favour of production value or style.

I’ve watched plenty of beautifully shot, high-budget short films that ultimately had very little substance underneath them.

Genre matters too. A lot of submissions share crossover themes. Grief is a huge one. There are many films about death, dying, loss, and mourning. Still write them as they matter. They really do.

But find a fresh angle. Tell us the same emotional truth from a perspective we haven’t seen before. Make it stand out against the other fifteen submissions also exploring the untimely death of dad.

I genuinely cannot emphasise this enough. Research the festivals and competitions you are spending your money on. Just like you would research if a restuarant that you’re about to blow a days wages on has good reviews and serves the food you like.

Sometimes it may genuinely be more beneficial to spend your entry fee attending the festival itself and meeting people, especially if you feel you’re not quite at that festivals level… yet.

Look at previous winners. What kinds of films or scripts tend to place highly? Where does your work sit within that landscape?

And if you write or make short films, watch short films. If you don’t, it’s a bit like asking somebody to make a croquembouche when they’ve never tasted one, never watched one being made, and barely know what it looks like.

There are countless platforms out there showcasing short-form work now. I won’t list them all here, but a quick Google search will open up a whole world of reference points and inspiration. Or ask people for recommendations. This often speaks volumes, and gets a conversation going too.

How are you ranking them? What are you responding to emotionally? And how are you deciding which one deserves to win?

Let me know what you watched!

As you read above, I watch these entries twice. Most competitions barely wash their faces in terms of income and rely heavily on volunteers. And I have been given anywhere between 10 and 80 films/scripts to watch/read over around three months. All varying in length from 5 minutes to 40.

Learn how to write shorts - they are NOT the same as features, or scenes, or episodes! They are a craft in and of their own.

I must confess, I get fatigue when I see so many films over 20mins. That’s an awful lot of viewing. And I will usually only give those one watch unless they’ve really stood out as justified in that length.

The last festival I pre-selected had over 26 hours of films to watch. Which doesn’t sound like a lot but when you realise that is around 80 separate films and only 3 months to watch them, it averages about 20 mins per film. Which is a lot.

I’ve known pre-selectors and judges who give the first page or the first few minutes their time before moving on. I even know some who just read the premise and if the opening scenes don’t match up; NEXT!

It’s worth thinking about making your short as short as it can be without losing the story. More time equals more budget, more logistics, and more chance of it not being ranked properly unless it is a stand out.

The sweet spot is around 10 minutes. Or less 👏 your pre-selectors thank you!

I’ve shortlisted for competitions and festivals of very different sizes, and I can say with absolute certainty that when submission numbers are low, sometimes a winning script is simply the best of a bad bunch. You still need a winner.

Even if, privately, you wouldn’t champion that piece particularly strongly elsewhere.

I know that sounds harsh, but I often see writers posting about rejections whilst simultaneously arguing that because their script won a smaller competition, the BBC or Channel 4 must somehow be wrong for passing on them.

You do not need to pay to play.

I’ve been criticised before for having this outlook. Mostly because it takes away the success writers feel when they place in a competition. Which of course is not my intention. Credit where credit is due. I try to find other ways to demonstrate the impact of my writing and to validate my work, especially if money is tight. It’s horses for courses; if you have the money and the energy for these, do not take to heart my point of view.

Just remember:

You got a laurel. Congratulations. Truly. But it isn’t necessarily a golden seal of approval that your story is ready to compete in every arena or across every medium. The BBC aren’t obligued to select you for Open Call just because you won an unheard of festival in North America.

Take it as a win. Keep it in your pocket for when you need encouragement. Then get back to work.

Screenwriting is not one-and-done.

Hopefully this gives you a broader understanding of just how difficult it can be to pre-select or judge creative work fairly and consistently. And perhaps also a more generous understanding of the people sitting on the other side of the table.

How do you feel about these insights? Useful? Or do you have something to add? Hit reply, let’s discuss!

Helen

Next up… The Fuck It Button