Lecture 30 - Summing Up

We've come to the end of the semester and to the final lecture for this television series. So, today, I'm going to do a kind of summing up. I'm going to talk about where we have been this semester, what I hope that some things that you might have learned, what I hope will be some things that maybe you will do in the future. We started this semester talking about what is art and what is the art of drama, and how the art of drama may indeed be received through television, through film (the movies), and also in the theater. We developed those three forms and a great deal of time. Much of what we have said this semester is applicable to all three forms. By all three and many way operate the same, although also of course, their technology differs one from the other and the means by which we view them differs one from the other. But most of what we have said one can find true then through any one of those three media forms. Two words have reoccurred throughout the semester, from the first lecture on. Those are imagination and creativity. And it's somewhere in this particular semester, I hope that you stopped to ask yourself, how am I imaginative? How am I creative? You know, it's unfortunate that many of us at some point or the other close off our imagination. We all have imagination as children, and we use our imagination there. But at some point along the way, through the education process or whatever it is, we begin to discover that, no, perhaps we shouldn't have an active imagination, maybe we shouldn't use it. But what I hope during the semester is that you've learned some ways in which maybe you can open that door again. In fact, one of the things that we have certainly stressed throughout this particular semester, is that in order to be a part of the theatre event, that you indeed have to enter actively into and use your imagination. That in fact, the theatre experience requires that you become an imaginative partner in creating that event. So, to get the most from the theatre, to get the most from the event, then you need to come, you need to open your imagination, you need to enter. And again, the word that we use so often is "you enter" that fictive world, that point where, in that moment, where in the performer is creating for you, leading you on stage, bringing you into the fictive world, and you open yourself up to it, and then you come into it. This is very definitely a use of your imagination. You may not think of it that way, but that is indeed part of and certainly a very valid use of your imagination. Many of the individuals that we interviewed during the semester spoke of getting in touch with their creativity, how they used their creativity, how their creativity then helped them as they sought their way into the art form, as they sought, in some way or the other, to find the particular way in which they could be an enhancement and a part of the totality of bringing that particular experience to you. We heard the actors talk about, in their approach to roles, their use of their creativity in those approaches. We heard the directors talk about how, in reading a script, that they visualize the process, that the script becomes the basis then for which they open up their creativity; they use their imagination, they open up their creativity, and they begin visualizing the script. They begin to see the script as indeed an outline of actions, but not only actions, but they begin to see the human beings who are involved in that. Action! Those human beings then begin to move in the mind of the director. They begin to take form in the mall, in the mind of the director. And so, when the director comes to the casting, to the finding and selecting of the cast members who are now going to play in this particular script, then at this point the director begins to imagine. The director begins to match those people who are available to him with what he or she has already previously worked on. And then, at that point, somewhere or the other, the director must begin to find some way and know that there are never going to be perfect matches. But there's never going to be the perfect person who is going to be exactly the way that the director may have imagined the character to be. And then, once they go into the rehearsal process, then at that point, the director and the actor who has now begun to match their imaginations and use their creativity each to find a way into the script, each to find a way then to begin to move that script from - and the stock phrase always is - from page to stage. To find a way now of moving it in such a way, of putting it on stage, so that then when you come in as an audience member, bringing with you your imagination, then at this point, what you are seeing and what you are viewing begins to fuse with you and the creation of the theater takes place. Howard Gardner, an educator and philosopher at Harvard University, has developed an interesting theory about how we as individuals are imaginative, how we are intelligent. And he says that we traditionally measure individuals by their intelligent quotient, what we used to call the IQ. But what Gardner points out is that not all people are smart the same way. That instead of only measuring the intelligence of a particular individual, we need to find the individual's creativity quotient, the CQ. The basketball player has his or her own special set of smarts. The hours that that basketball player spends in practicing hone the talents that the individual has. The basketball player begins to use those talents of body control, of instantaneous muscular reaction, of thinking on their feet. And these then become skills which are ingrained into that particular player. This particular training then enhances the special intelligences of that particular player. And yes, that player is being creative, instantaneously creative, as they move up and down the floor. As he or she instantly makes decisions about what to do, how to do it, how to react, what action to take, what move to take, what to do. That is imagination, that is creativity. We each have different ways in which we find our way into our imagination and into our creativity. Gardner, through the years, has compiled a list of what he has called the creativity quotient, in other words, how can we measure or by what means should we measure people's smarts? How should we look at them? At the present time, the list has eight ways of doing this. The first one is called linguistics - word smart. And what we may think of here is that indeed, one who uses words adeptly, who thinks in terms of words. And certainly, then we can begin to think here in terms of writers, in terms of people who use words. People who use words then as the means by which they express their creativity in some way or another. Certainly, we can see in this category that we're going to have the novelist, the writer of any kind, the dramatist, the comic strip writer, and that's a very interesting one, because that person is... Probably in some way or another, the person is going to end up using two of these particular intelligences. The person has to be smart with words but also has to have a visual sense. That is the visual-spatial intelligence, which is the ability to think visually, see things visually, and create things visually. But also, at the same time, to think in terms of spatial relationships. What we begin to find here unquestionably is the visual artist who sees the world in those terms and then creates visual art. We also begin to find the dancer who sees the world in terms of the moves that are made and expresses those moves through their body in a performance space. So we see the second visual-spatial intelligence. The third intelligence is musical, which seems fairly self-apparent. But we also need to think of the person who hears and perceives the world in sounds. This person thinks of the world in terms of sound intelligence. The fourth intelligence is the person who reacts and thinks in terms of body kinesthetic. This person is high-energy and we find the actor who thinks in terms of moving, finding, and creating a character that moves in space. The fifth intelligence is math logic, problem-solving. This is someone whose intelligence lies in the ability to see the world in logical and mathematical terms, understanding the world in a highly organized way. The sixth intelligence is interpersonal skills, people smart. This is about people who enjoy working with others, who are sensitive to the feelings of other individuals, and who wish to be caregivers and reach out to others. The seventh intelligence is intrapersonal, self-smart. This is a person who is much more intuitive, who finds the world centered in themselves and is frequently drawn inward. They may not reach easily out to other people. The eighth intelligence is naturalistic. This is a person who finds themselves most at ease with nature, who works best in the natural world, and whose endeavors are combined with mother nature. Now, go back and think about these eight categories. Think about yourself. Do you belong to any of them? Do you see yourself fitting into one of these categories? Maybe at this point, you really don't know. Maybe you haven't focused yourself yet or haven't decided what is most important in your life. But you do need to find some way of discovering how you fit into this. In touch with your creativity, how can you focus your talents in some way? How can you take your talents now? How can you take your creativity and work with it to create the best conditions for you? Find the best position available for you that will allow you to use your special creativity, talents, and abilities. This will be true regardless of where one may be or what the particular position may be. It can be used openly and creatively. Did you ever stop to think if you are in a restaurant, and the waiter seems to be giving you particularly good service? And then you may be in another restaurant, or even the same restaurant, but another waiter doesn't give you the same kind of service that you receive from the other one. Why is one waiter better than the other? Well, maybe one is simply trying harder. That's certainly one way of looking at it. But why is it that one waiter is trying harder than the other waiter? Well, maybe in some way, the waiter is finding that what is happening here in the restaurant is enjoyable. The enjoyment comes from serving the individual, meeting people, and bringing them the food of the particular restaurant. So, in one way or another, perhaps this particular waiter is channeling their interpersonal skills into making a good job of waiting on you and letting you have greater enjoyment while you are in the restaurant. It's often joked about, but where would the restaurants in New York City be if those thousands of actors who are looking for jobs weren't there working in the restaurant? And yes, as an actor, the actor is certainly going to be highly aware of the body and the kinesthetic response. But now, in this case, the actor needs to reach and utilize analytical thinking to reach interpersonal skills needed to be a waiter. At least, this can be one way of keeping in touch with creativity. It may not be the one that the individual has the greatest desire to be, like the actor being on stage acting, but at least the actor is trying to find some way of being creative and being in touch with themselves. Throughout this semester, we have talked about actors, but they are only one part of theatrical creation. The theatre production is a result of collaboration. In fact, it may be one of the most complex artistic collaborations. A symphony orchestra may be made up of sixty or more musicians, who have a conductor and rehearsals, and then deliver a musical composition to the audience. They come from similar backgrounds, have been trained, and have musical skills and talents. The theatre, however, is different. It is made up of individuals who do not always come from similar backgrounds. They bring different talents together to work on creating the production. Therefore, in the theatre, we bring together actors. The actors, who embody the characters both physically and mentally. The director, who has a visual and spatial mindset, especially focused on spatial elements. Then we have the designers, who are visually and spatially inclined, and think in terms of visual outcomes. They create the visual elements that we see on stage. One designer that we have not mentioned yet is the sound designer. This role has become increasingly important in theater over the past 30 or 40 years. The sound designer thinks not only in musical terms but specifically in terms of the sound of the production. The sound designer's work includes creating sound effects and various noises that need to be heard during the performance. For example, if a car drives up and a door slams, the sound designer must create those sounds for the audience. This enhances the overall experience of the performance. The sound designer also thinks about music, particularly in films and television. In movies and TV shows, composers create scores to enhance the emotional moments and offer insight to the audience. Sometimes, the best music is the one we barely notice, but subconsciously guides us and enhances the moment. The composer's work is crucial in helping us understand and connect with the story. So we should not overlook the sound designer, who brings the musical elements to the theater, film, or television production. They are a key part of the team, alongside the actors, director, and designers. All of these individuals take their inspiration from the playwright, who has a talent for words and creates the original script. The playwright hears the characters' voices and visualizes their actions, which leads to the words being put on the page. The playwright's role is to start the story and give us the foundation for the production. In summary, we have a collaboration of actors, director, designers, sound designer, and playwright, all working together to bring a production to life. Each person has their unique role, but they are connected through the playwright's words and vision. Then, become the guide for actor, director, and the designers. Now, all of this has got to be held together somewhere, the other that is all of these disparate people with these different kinds of talents, with these different kinds of impulses. All of these people have to be brought together, and the person who brings them together, the person who is the catalyst for all of this, is the producer. The producer then has got to be unquestionably interpersonal, has got to be people smart. This producer has got to be very sensitive to all of these individuals and realize that these individuals are artists, and yes, artists have temperaments. And yes, artists have special temperaments, especially when their creativity and their talents are at work. And so, the producer must constantly be aware of this. The producer must move back and forth among these various individuals, be sure they are communicating with each other, be sure they are all understanding each other because it is the producer then who is going somehow or the other to help to see that this final product, which we in the audience are going to view, that this final product is all unified, that this is all a totality, and that all of these elements which each individual has created, that each of these elements comes and fits together in some way to give us that totality. And then, of course, you know, just to help make the headache even more, can sometimes throw in, depending on the kind of production, but we may also throw in composers, musicians, and dancers into this equation of people being creative, of people creating a production. And all of these diverse talents must come together. They must learn to work together. They must learn not just to work but to create. And this is a highly volatile situation in which each of these individuals is using his or her creativity, his or her imagination, to create the production which becomes the performance that we, the audience, are going to see. Much of this semester, we have talked about and we have spent on these various artists, how they create, what they contribute to their experience, what they bring to it. And we've heard a number of these artists. We've heard actors. We've heard directors. We've heard producers. We've heard designers talk about what they do. I hope that from this, you have gained some idea of how each of these individuals works. Each of each one is going to work differently one from the other. Each of us has our own way of creating. Each of us has our way of personal way into our imagination. But for the theater, and this is this complex situation that I talked about, this complex situation brings all of these people together to work together, to collaborate. And this is something that must never be forgotten. Then, as one watches the one experiences the theater or watches film or television, and that is, this is a collaboration. This is a collaboration of many different artists. We have also, when we certainly cannot forget, that what that we have covered theater, film, and television, and that all of these represent business. All of these are commerce. This cannot be left out. We must always remember that yes, these artists have come together. Yes, they have worked together as artists. Yes, they have used their talents. But what are they doing? They are creating an artwork that is going to become a product. Which is going to become something that can be sold. Something that we, audience members, will be willing to pay money for. To put down money at the box office. To buy a ticket, which we then will go in and take part in the experience. So one of the things that we've also looked at during the semester is who has the money? Who controls the money? And we've talked about the producer as being that particular individual. But we also need to realize that there is a kind of in. Each of these forms, there is a power structure, and it's a rather interesting phenomenon. We've sort of hinted at it a little bit as we have gone through the various interviews, but the interesting phenomenon is how the power shifts and changes as we move from theater to film to television. Now, in the theater, the playwright and the script are held in reverence. Now, it doesn't mean it can't be changed, it doesn't mean that it frequently isn't, but in the theater, the script is held as the starting point. What we need is, insofar as possible, what information can we gain from the playwright as to what the playwright wanted with this particular script? Yes, a director and actors may well make changes within the script, and sometimes there are cuts that are made. There are lots of kinds of things that may happen to the script, but they always do it with the idea that what is being retained is a means of making clearer to the audience what the playwright created at the beginning, what was found in the script. If one is working on a new script, and if the playwright is available, then yes, frequently the playwright can, in some way or another, give some indication of this. Although, you heard in some of the playwrights that we had conversations with that they really preferred not to interfere with what was going on there. They felt that it was important to see what this particular set of artists would do with this particular script that the playwright had written. So the playwrights recognize that what they are creating, what the playwright has written down here, is an unfinished artwork. Now, the difference lies here in that when one has a novel, then when the novelist finishes it, it goes directly to the reader. There's no intervening agent here. When an artist finishes a painting, it's hung on the wall. At that point, the viewer comes and views it, and it's a direct experience: painting, viewer. There's no intervening agent. In the theater, however, there is certainly the intervening agent, the agent, the agents of actors, directors, and all the other people that we have talked about here. But all of them, in the theater, work with revering the script and trying to get across to the audience what they found in the script that the playwright created. Now, this kind of reverence does not exist, especially in the Hollywood film or in film period. Because what we find there is that, in fact, the writer, the scriptwriter, is called the scriptwriter. And that is W-R-I-T-E-R. Now, I'm spelling that out because I want to indicate to you that in the theater, the person who writes the script is called the playwright. P-L-A-Y-W-R-I-G-H-T. Not W-R-I-T-E-R. Yes, they sound the same, but they mean something quite different. "Right" comes from a word that we no longer use actively in our vocabulary. It is an obsolete word, but it means "what one or the act of creation." So "write" the W-R-I-T-E is one who creates. Therefore, playwright. And if anything, that is an indication of where the playwright is in the power structure. That person is regarded as the one who created it. However, you get to film, and what is this person called? The person is a scriptwriter. W-R-I-T-E-R. Therefore, the one who wrote it down. And in film, it's exactly that. It is the beginning point, but it is held in little reference, or I should say in slight reverence, in most cases and therefore the director and the actors and almost anyone else working on the film, feel quite free to make changes to adapt the script however they want. In fact, once the wider finish it, in most film contracts, at that point the writer is finished with it. The writer has no more control over what happens to it. So, therefore, in the power structure in film, what we find then is the scriptwriter is indeed the low man on the totem pole. Now, what is rather interesting here is an occurrence that has begun to happen in television. That is, there is a change of status here for the writer that has occurred in television, especially in the last, oh maybe, well as they move toward the end of the 20th century and on into the 21st century. That is, the writer here in television is frequently also the creator. Or maybe I should turn that around and say the person who gets the idea for a commercial television script, which may eventually become some kind of a series, that this creator also is usually and frequently the chief writer. So, the person creates the idea, the person develops and writes it down into a television script. We now have this person who is the creator who becomes the writer. Now, what frequently happens in present-day television, which is very interesting, is that the creator/writer moves into another status. That is, that person also becomes the executive producer. Now we're using this word producer again, meaning the person who, among other things, usually controls the purse strings, who usually is responsible for the budget. So what we find then is that this one individual, yes, is wearing three hats. The original creator who pitched the idea, the writer who wrote the script down, and now the executive producer. As an executive producer, obviously, the individual now can protect what he or she wrote. So there is this whole change in television in the power structure, which is a very interesting kind of shift. What also happens here, it's one of the reasons why the writing level of television has risen considerably in the last few years, is that there are some excellent writers writing for present-day television. One can certainly begin to think in terms of David E. Kelley, Steven Bochco, and Dick Wolf, among others. But there are many others, and because these writers are also producers, they, in turn, have reverence for, or at least certainly have respect (that's a better word), for other writers. They certainly have respect for other writers and, therefore, go out and, if they themselves are not going to be the writer of a particular script, they still are going to try to find the best writer possible to write a television script. So, therefore, yes, they may be the creator and, yes, they may be the executive producer, but somebody else may be writing the script. But they still have a very direct interest in what that person is writing. And that is as the person who originally came up with it and the person who is now overseeing the production of it. So, therefore, the respect for the writer and what the writer can do has indeed led in recent years to some highly literate scripts. Some of the early scripts, for example, that David E. Kelley wrote for The Practice. When Jack offered, when we did the interview conversation with Jack offered, he specifically referred to those early episodes of The Practice. In fact, Jack appeared as a guest actor on those first five episodes of The Practice, all five of which David E. Kelley had created the series. David E. Kelley was the executive producer for the series, and David E. Kelley wrote all five of those first five scripts that set the tone for what The Practice would be. I remember after I had seen those five episodes, I called Jack and told him to be glad that he had appeared in those five episodes, that he would seldom get writing of that caliber, and to be exceedingly proud that he had been a part of the creative. Team who had produced those five scripts of the practice. We also spent some time during this semester talking about musical theatre. Not only because, as I pointed out, it is the most popular choice for theatre attendance today, but also because it was originally an American form of theater that we developed. It is our contribution to the world of theater and American musicals today are produced all over the world. One can find them produced not only in Europe but also in Asia and Africa. They are widely known and enjoyed by people of all nationalities. In this viewing and reception around the world, it means that there are many creators from many different nations who today are also creating their own form of the musical. Therefore, the musical is no longer an American form, it is indeed now a worldwide form that is greatly enjoyed. But it is the form that we created, we were the original ones to create the musical and we are now inspiring many creators around the world to do the same. We also looked at during the semester that theatre can be a public affair. It can be a catalyst for discussion and debate. It can indeed be a source of controversy. But it can also, as we pointed out, be a source for diversity, for exposing us to cultures that we might never know otherwise. It is perhaps somewhat unfortunate that in this country, we have never learned or don't hold the same value for the Arts that many other industrial affluent countries of the world do. Our government supports arts less than any other government of an industrialized affluent country. From a study at the end of the 20th century, here is a comparison of just a few countries, showing you what the governments in those particular countries spent per person per year. This is an indication of the government support for the Arts per person per year. In this particular country, one of the highest in the world, is the very small Scandinavian country of Finland. $91 per year is spent per person on support for the Arts. In Germany, it's $85 per person per year. In France, it's $57. In Sweden, also $57. In the Netherlands, $46. In Canada, our neighbor to the north, also $46. In the United Kingdom, it's $36. In Australia, $25. In the small country of Ireland, it's $9 per person per year of government support. The United States doesn't even rate in the dollar category. Our support is 32 cents per person per year, a government support for the Arts. And there are certainly many people, many politicians who, if they had their way, they would cut that. I can only hope that in this course, I have somewhere or the other exposed you to the value of the Arts. That I have somewhere or the other encouraged you to take part in all kinds of artistic experiences. Not only to go to the theatre, not only to see a play, but hey, how about visiting a museum or gallery? You're aware that here in Springfield, there is an activity that happens almost 12 months around the year. On the first Friday of each month, there is what is called the gallery walk. You can go to downtown Springfield and you can go to four, five, six different galleries on Friday evening. They're open and they're there, and they're all within easy walking distance of each other. You can see the particular show that is up for that particular month. You can walk around, look at, and take part in the crowd that is there in the gallery and listen to those people and their reactions. And you know what? You might even try taking one other step while you're at it, and that is to find a work of art that you really like. See if you can buy it, bring it home, and place it in your own personal abode. Let it become a part of your environment, let it be a part of your artistic experience. And yes, there are many other ways in which you can have art. Go to a concert, any kind of concert, and in that moment, become a member of a live audience. And of course, I always hope that you will find some way of going to the theater, of attending a performance. I want to come now to the last thing, and that is, let's finish the semester with a part of the writing of someone I referred to earlier, and a writer that I like very much, the philosopher Suzanne Langer. And let's sum up the semester this way: the criterion of good art is its power to command one's contemplation and reveal a feeling that one recognizes as real. All the forms of feeling are important, and the joyous pulse of life needs to be made apparent quite as much as the involved passions if we are to value it. Art is a public possession because the formulation of felt life is the heart of any culture, and molds the objective world for the people. It is their school of feeling and their defense against outer and inner chaos. It is only when nature is organized in imagination along lines congruent with the forms of feeling that we can understand it. Then, intellect and emotion are unopposed. Life is symbolized by its setting, and the world seems important and beautiful and is intuitively grasped. I can only encourage you to go out, take part in art, make it a part of you, make it a part of your everyday life, and indeed find here that you are grasping at that which is part of our intuition, that which is our felt life.