It might be helpful to give a general indication of my criteria in assessing these plays. I try to visualise them on stage as I read - that is, sit myself down in the audience and see the play as a physical thing happening in front of me. There were some issues connected to a suitable set, the ease of translation onto a stage, time, lighting etc., but basically I wanted the play to grab my attention, hold it throughout and satisfy me by its end. I looked for a forward movement, a creation of tension and a good climax/resolution. Even though it’s only one act, the play’s characters had to be fairly well rounded, individualised and believable. The issue at the heart of the play had to be one with enough intellectual “meat” and yet have sufficient emotional colour. I also looked for dialogue that flowed, was natural and yet not excessive. All in all, the winning plays were the ones I was happiest with.

The top four plays were markedly superior to the rest and they would make an exciting evening in production on a stage. Any one of these four could have won as they were very close in worth. I had enormous difficulty in selecting one to get the Award and had to read them a number of times. Below are some comments (hopefully helpful) on the remainder of the plays.

Too many showed that little attention had been paid to the fact that a play script is, in fact, a practical set of instructions to a cast of actors, a director and a stage crew. That is, they ignored the physical translation of the play onto a stage. This might well have been the result of not being familiar with the workings of a stage. Many of the plays were conceived and written as literary pieces and simply could not be satisfyingly mounted onto a stage.

Almost all the plays (including several of the winners) were over-written. In a sense, there was too much dialogue and very little interpretative work for the director and actors to do. And too much explanation about the cast before the play had even begun, instead of ensuring that the play itself did that work. A lot of authors felt they needed to explain everything, often over and over again, so that when I came across a piece of masterful ambiguity, as I did in “Daddy’s Girl”, I was well pleased. The problem in explaining too much is that it leaves the audience with little to work out for themselves.

Most of the plays could have done with a third of the dialogue taken out of them.
Some of the plays wert the dangerous path of assaying monologue. Dangerous as the actor has to be sure of connecting quickly with the audience and keeping them involved or risk the onset of boredom.

There were several poetic plays but the same criticism can be levelled at them. A play must establish a sense of tension (usually arising from conflict or aroused expectancy) that drives it forward and keeps the audience wondering and guessing.

There were several plays I simply didn’t understand.

Lastly, a one act play must work towards a satisfying resolution, or climax. Many of the plays simply petered out to the final curtain.

BARNACLES (Winner)

An excellent play about a middle-aged woman facing the truth of her failure in relationships that should have sustained her life. Finely pitched dialogue, clearly felt tension and a powerful climax achieved through sound effects and movement. Easily translated to a stage.

I had a small problem with the last character, the stranger, as he seemed “tacked on” just to be the witness of the woman’s end and to magnify the horror through his reaction. He was the only character in the play “outside” her. I wonder if the power of the play might have been increased if he’d been made somewhat ambiguous - that is, moved a little “inside”. But, it’s a small criticism. Congratulations, a strong play - the winner - but only just (see below).

DADDY’S GIRL (SECOND)

This was very, very close to being the winner. I liked it very much. Almost old-fashioned and plot driven. It’s tight with plenty of forward movement and tension and a powerful, slightly ambiguous ending. It does walk a line close to melodrama, but doesn’t go over and I wonder if the issue of Brad’s drug taking is necessary (might as well make him the complete drop-kick?) But Wall is a powerful villain and Ellie the last word in silent suffering.
Congratulations — a great play that could be played or stage to tremendous effect.

I HEAR DEAD PEOPLE. THEY’RE ALWAYS COMPLAINING (SECOND)

The most original play in the bunch and very funny. Excellent on stage. There was some confusion over the gender of the character Wash (I’m unfamiliar with the film) and the reference to him/her as “Faye”. I sensed that you had a little trouble with the resolution of the characters’ “problems” and the one you provide is not altogether convincing in that it doesn’t seem to arise naturally from the action.
But a good play. Congratulations.

AFFECTIONATELY AMANDA (SECOND)

An almost perfect little play about the value of truth – and, sometimes, the value of lies. It has the best resolution/climax of all the plays with the possible exception of the winner. I’m always wary of blind people on stage but you handled it well and Trudy is a delight - a hard chocolate with a soft centre.
Great on stage. Congratulations.

Alan Mackay