more submissions, more "thank-you but no's", more "you've made it past the first reading's".  there are really so many solid pieces that it is getting a lot harder to choose what goes through and what doesn't. right now, i've got (give or take) about a hundred submissions. only ten of them (at the most) will eventually be produced. that means the majority of them are going to be passed. however, that doesn't mean the majority of them aren't any good. on the contrary, almost all of them will have some merit and a lot of them (including ones that don't make it through) will actually be quite good. its just that i've only got a budget (and enough sanity) to produce about ten of them.

at this point, its hard to say what makes one submission "pop" more than another. for the pieces i've read, i usually ask myself two basic things: 1) can the playwright actually write? and 2) is the piece theaterically challenging for directors and actors? for the vast majority of submissions, the answer to my first question is a resounding "yes". the playwrights have (at the very least) a strong sense of how to tell a story, how to construct meaningful dialogue, how to get to a point in approximately ten minutes.  what sets those submissions i've reccommended for round two apart from those i haven't is the question of theatricality.

i have had the pleasure of reading a superb monologue which i ultimately passed for because i didn't feel it presented a strong theatrical challenge to a director or actor. in my opinion, the piece told a strong story and would (with a little work) make an excellent short story.  in my opinion, though, it was too expository to work as a piece seen onstage. it didn't really allow any room for a director or an actor to go push beyond what was written. if produced, i feel this piece would too strongly reflect only the playwright's voice. some would argue (quite vehemently, i'm sure) that it should be so. however, as a producer, i'm more inclined towards works which benefit and challenge  (if you'll pardon my medievalism here) the three "mansions" of theater: the playwright, the director, and the actor (yes, yes, there should be a bit more than three as we do need techs, designers and most importantly an AUDIENCE, but i'm trying <vainly! poorly!> to make a point here).

any piece that will eventually get produced in this festival needs to challenge how a director can interpret it and it needs to provide actors with characters who have emotional nuance (or at the very least extremely interesting things to say). if i'm faced with two pieces that are equally well-written, i will most likely err towards the piece with either the most unique situation or with the least superfluous characters. and that's just getting through round one. which is where i'll leave it now, as i'm certain i've just annoyed (at the least) a great number of playwrights and at least a friend or two.

can a piece like the monologue reference above benefit from being produced? yes.

can a director and/or actor, taking a well-written piece, subsequently make it seem less than it actually is? oh yes they can (but that's always the risk for any production, isn't it?)

can i in good conscience, say "yes" to a piece that is well-written but less theatrical than a piece which is its equal in writing but more theatrically rounded when i have only ten spots to fill?

unfortunately, no.