p 121
[Much] of the behavior of creative and performing artists in mass media setting can be viewed as work. They write, perform and produce in highly organized teams that demand coordination; they face routine work pressures, try to handle mistakes at work, control the activities of colleagues, and cope with the risks of personal failure. (Faulkner 1971:5)
As a form of industrialized cultural production in an advanced capitalist society, the serial format of Guiding Light entails a continuous work process. Work takes place in a hierarchically controlled organizational setting involving an elaborate division of labor and the use of complex technologies to generate scenes, acts, and episodes as part of the on-going storytelling. While each scene, act, and episode is unique and discrete, each is also standardized and part of a continuous product, a continuous potential for experience.
Using Woodward's typology of industrial productions, soaps entail a continuous process of unit and small batch production (1970). Phrased differently, soaps are industrially manufactured live performances for continuous consumption.
Many production practices can be described as aspects of roles. Important questions concerning how and why performances take the form they do entail looking at the work process and determining how individuals (and roles) adapt to the conditions of soap production. Issues regarding authority, autonomy, creativity, risk, work pressures, failure, and satisfactions all have consequences for performances. Viewing work as participation, what is the nature of that participation as various roles/individuals attempt to deal with the pressures, risks and rewards of making Guiding Light?
The complexity of the production process is reflected in the number and variety of roles., their organization and or-
****
p. 122
ganizational relationships (see Table 6-1). More than 100 people are directly involved in the daily production process. The process is particularly complex given the ongoing work on performances at various stages of realization. While an episode is taped each day, preparations are made for future episodes, some many weeks in the future. Every role is important to the successful realization of an episode, but I have concentrated on six roles shaping the performances. [16]
Initially in this chapter I describe the roles and relative power of the supervising and executive producer and the headwriter whose decisions affect long-term story, casting, ultimate realization of the programming, and budget. In the final section I discuss the activities of performers, directors, and line producers realizing or creating performances.
MAJOR DECISIONS AND MAJOR DECISION MAKERS
Three major roles concerned with all areas are the supervising producer, executive producer, and headwriter. Traditionally, the executive in charge of production at Procter and Gamble Productions oversees the making of all six soaps, while a supervising producer works directly with one or more soaps, riding herd on the shows' budget and costs, ratings, story creation and realization, and casting. The executive producer is also involved in all of these areas, but works more closely with the actual production process in the studio. The degree of involvement of the supervising producer for Guiding Light changed during the research period. Formerly, one supervising producer had responsibility for three shows. With that individual's promotion, one supervising producer was assigned to Guiding Light.
The executive producer participates in budget and story meetings and casting sessions, but also works on a daily basis with other phases of the work process. He works directly with the headwriter, discussing and making script changes and cuts, and with the line producers and production staff handling creative, logistical, and personnel problems. He is the immediate supervisor of the line producers at Guiding Light, who are even more involved in daily production activities.
The executive producer's degree of involvement in the rehearsal and taping process can vary considerably, although at the shows I observed the executive producers tended to leave decisions regarding how each episode was played and shot to others, particularly to directors and line producers.
******
p123
TABLE 6-1
THE ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION
Procter and Gamble Productions, Incorporated
Executive in charge of production
Supervising producerAdvertising Agency Personnel
Production Staff for Guiding Light
Executive producer - 1
Producers - 2 (line producers)
Associate producer - 1
Assistants to the producer - 2
Production assistants - 2
Casting director - 1
Assistant casting director - 1
Production office coordinators (secretaries) - 3Creative Staff/Talent
Headwriter - 1
Dialogue writers - 4-5
Actors - Contract actors (approximately 30-35)
Day players
Under-fives - hired on a daily basis
Extras (number varies)
Directors - 4# Technical Staff
2 technical director
2 video director
2 audio engineer
6 camera person
4 boom person
4 utility person
2 music cartridge operator
2 videotape editor
2 lighting director# Stage Crew
2+ electrician
2+ carpenter
2+ prop
2 studio supervisor
2 prod. supervisor
maintenanceAdvisors
1 legal
1 medical# Support Staff
2 Music supervisor
2 set designer
2 set decorator
2 stage manager
2 hairdresser
2 make-up
1 costume designer
1 assistant designer
3 wardrobe
+ Head plus assistants. Source: Compiled by the author.
******
p124
Traditionally, Procter and Gamble has given considerable authority to headwaiters, often more than to the executive producer. One individual with considerable experience in soap productions explained the conventional framework in the following way:
P & G historically has given all the power to the writers because they have had trouble finding writers. They have always hired producers they could control and manipulate. They have constantly gotten themselves in trouble with writers. They went into the business when the writer would own the show. Irna Philips owned the show. That was their training, their background. When the contract was up, Irna could damn well pull that show away from them. And the same people who now run P & G were trained in that milieu.
Their orientation to soap production has been one where the programming is primarily a vehicle for marketing. Creative decisions could be left to others as long as the programs were successful in reaching audiences as markets and potential markets.
The increased attention paid to daytime by various media, CBS's strong interest in increasing their profits from daytime, and the successes of the ABC shows had led Procter and Gamble to attempt to consolidate its control over its programming. One producer described the changes:
P & G has come up with quite a new concept They have put more power in the hands of the executive producers than they used to. For many years they placed the writers on a pedestal, and let the writers run the show. That's changing now.
He used an example of a decision he had fought. The show had recast the role of Dr. Ed Bauer, after the same performer, Mart Hulswit, had played the role for twelve years.
For instance, with this Mart Hulswit thing if this new system had been in effect at that time, they are saying I could have had the right to say, "No, this is my show and he doesn't go." And they would be willing to go
******
p125
out on a limb to tell CBS and everybody else who wanted to replace him that the producer has said no.
The authority of the headwaiter, for both Guiding Light and Edge of Night, was considerable. The work involved in story creation, realization, and other aspects of soap production is unique and considerable and helps account for the traditional pattern. Headwriters for both Edge of Night and Guiding Light spoke of the satisfactions of writing for daytime television because what they write is largely realized, as opposed to prime-time television where scripts undergo considerable change, particularly at the hands of producers.
There is a division of labor in soap writing, even for half-hour shows. The headwaiter, who is largely responsible for story, hires subwriters, dialogue writers, or associates, who are under contract to him. There were five dialogue writers for Guiding Light. They provided the appropriate dialogue for a particular episode, based upon an outline or breakdown of the episode prepared by the headwaiter. The scripts, in turn, are edited by the headwaiter.
Because soaps are a never-ending story, writers come and go. Guiding Light has been on the air since 1937. A headwriter, given an on-going program, has to consider past story, character development, and cast in creating stories. Past story, character history, performer's capabilities, and other elements are both resources and constraints, having implications for the stories that can be told.
The demands of soap writing are considerable and unique. There is overall responsibility for producing storylines, breakdowns or outlines, and editing or writing the scripts for five programs a week for 52 weeks of the year. A headwriter has to create about 250 scripts a year, which in the case of an hour long program adds up to about 17,500 pages of material. This work must be done while monitoring the program that is aired, participating in decision making, and remaining aware of and juggling a large number of variables.
Headwriters will monitor the realization of the scripts, analyzing and evaluating the performances. Changes in a number of areas may be suggested through this feedback, as well as from feedback from other sources. Continuing interaction with the programming influences the storytelling, particularly through the interaction of headwaiter and performer as the headwaiter shapes character and story to fit his reading of the performer's characterization of the part and his or her personal mannerisms, strengths, and weaknesses.
******
p126
Many factors have to be considered in story development and writing specific episodes. Budget considerations affect the number of contract performers hired or retained; the number and character of the noncontract players (day players, under-fives and extras) hired; the number, size, and quality of the sets and props used each day; the quality and quantity of costumes; the support personnel including hairdressers and costume designers, technical facilities and crews, administrative and/or production staff and directors available; and whether location shooting can occur. The complexity of the production process the requirement of producing five programs a week, within budget and time limitations, and the continuing dependence upon a number of individuals or roles all affect the storytelling.
Additional factors include what are considered appropriate stories for daytime, given past successes or failures, perceptions of the audience, sponsor or network taboos, concern for corporate image, demographics of the audience as market or desired potential market, current programming successes or failures on competing shows, as well as the resources dependent on budget, along with the historicity of the show.
Briefly elaborating on the constraints, for example, much of the action occurs indoors. The writer has to write basically for an indoor world embodied in a limited number of sets. Budgetary and space limitations control the number, variety, types, and size of settings that can be used in general, or on any specific day. In terms of contractual agreements, all actors have contracts which guarantee how many times they are to appear on the show in a 13-week period. If they are not used that guaranteed number of times, which does happen, they are still paid as if they had been used. And again, because there is a continuing dependency on a large complex production organization and because there is a short period between the time shows are taped and aired, illnesses, accidents, or other contingencies such as the pregnancy of a performer might require changes in scripts and storylines.
There was a continual process of interaction between the headwriter and the executive producer, as well as the supervising producer and network representative. One executive distinguished three types of story conferences. There is a more formal meeting where long-term story is discussed.
Those major conferences tend to solidify direction of the story--what the company wants (P & G), what the network will accept and the writer gets a
feel for what he can and cannot do, given the story he has created.
******
p127
Other meetings are semiformal, often with fewer people present where we talk about questions we have about where the story is going, what do you think of going in this direction and sometimes talking about more specific steps of a given story. Finally, there are more informal meetings at the writer's house, for example, where ideas are presented that will 'work their way back into the other meetings or into the long-term story.
There is also a continual monitoring of the story by Procter and Gamble and CBS in terms of its fidelity to the original conception and the more specific realization in the scripts and performances. A producer gave an example of a script change that was made as a result of the monitoring:
We just made a change in the script. It came in a breakdown. We want Tony to be a strong, virile guy, to be his own man. And continually we were getting things where he was strong until Vanessa opens her jacket and then he can't help himself. We have done it two or three times in the past. We said, no, no more, so we had him change that. The writer could not see that this makes the guy weak; it doesn't work if you want to make him a hero.
There is daily contact between the headwaiter and the production personnel, particularly if cuts have to be made in episodes that are too long or if there are questions about continuity or realization that will affect later episodes. The executive producer, and less frequently, the line producer will call the headwaiter about cuts. Suggested cuts are ideally identified early to help in the process.
We'll take the script, if one comes in 75 pages, we know we are going to be five minutes long. I'll look through it, call Doug and say, We are looking like we are going to be five minutes long. There are three minutes' worth of cuts I'd like to talk about before we go into production. . . . Sometimes he'll say, No, I'd like to leave that in because such-and-such is going to happen and link back to next week. And then after the fact we have cuts. We do it through him since he's really the only one who knows where we are going and what's important.
******
p128
The on-going storytelling process also has implications for the contracts that are offered performers. For example, the guarantees offered performers are linked to how important they will be in future story. Guarantees refers to the number of times performers are guaranteed work during a 13- or 26-week period. If they appear less than that total, they still are paid according to the guarantee. They are also paid for additional performances.
For instance, I'm talking with Nola's righthand-girl--Gracie--she has not been a contract player. She came on for one or two shots. It worked so well she stayed on. And now we'd like to make sure she sticks around, so we are going into a contract. He says, "Let's do it, but don't guarantee her more than one a week. She'll probably work more, but hold the guarantee down." That affects the money we pay her.
A number of unexpected incidents affected the story and the realization. One example was the pregnancy of the perform playing Amanda, a character who had recently suffered greatly. The headwaiter noted the strategy adopted to handle the problem.
We were forced into finding a way to get her out for a period without losing the character completely. We have her a recluse. She was in a perfect mental
state to do that, and we used Chet's death (her uncle) as the final blow that she couldn't deal with. We pretaped a lot of scenes, which will feed in
through the summer while she is having her own baby. We were forced to come up with it.
The use of videotape and the ease of editing made it possible to insert scenes of Amanda, secluded in her room dressed like a child, playing the piano throughout the actress's pregnancy. On another occasion, the actor playing an important romantic lead part, Kelly, broke his arm. This was handled by simply injecting lines into the script that conveyed the news that Kelly had been hurt at home.
The creation of story entails making use of characters: who have a history (as well as performers who have various strengths and weaknesses as actors), something that was spoken of by an advertising executive as a character franchise. Characters are resources; therefore story direction and char-
******
p129
acter changes are approached very carefully. For instance, a major character with great appeal to the audience, Alan Spaulding, was transformed from an evil, power-hungry business magnate into a loving person through his love for his wife Hope and her love for him. His redemption through love meant that he had continuing use for the storytelling because he was no longer so evil that he had to be "killed off." But even though he was transformed, he still had to be punished for his crimes. His punishment, a brief prison term, was made to coincide with the vacation and break the actor wanted to take from the role. Scenes were pretaped of his kidnapping while he was in prison so that he not only appeared in the show during his vacation but was a central figure who was in jeopardy.
At times characters will be given an extended life, particularly if they are played by extremely popular actors. This was the case with Michael Zaslow, who played the part of evil Roger Thorpe.
M.I.: Did you want to get more mileage out of the performer/character so you had him come back again?
Producer: It was working and the ratings indicated it. We all had a good feeling about it, we sensed this was something good we had going. Could we indeed find a way of carrying him on.
M.I.: What was the way you did it?
P : Well, Holly was going to shoot him and he was going to die. Really at the last moment we made this decision -- a week or so to go. . . . We had him (Roger) in the hospital. He called Alan Spaulding and said, "I won't tell on you if you get me out of this hospital. Get me off to recuperate." . . . Alan had this clinic down in Puerto Rico so they shipped him down to Puerto Rico.
Then we, of course, had the scene where his father went in, talked with him and he seemed to be O.K. His father went off for ~ cup of coffee and came back, and they were making up his bed. He said, "What's the matter?" They said, "We're sorry." He just sneaked away.
******
p130
The performer himself needed the time off . . . so we had him disappear and the audience knew darn well he probably wasn't dead.
The casting of characters and the way performers realize a particular character is considered extremely important in soap production since audiences have to identify with or care about the characters if a story is to work. There is an interactive process involving the relationships between a performer/character, the writer, and the audience that in turn affects story creation and realization.
There are various categories of roles that are cast in differing ways. "Extras, the smallest part and the least paying, have no lines to speak and typically play background roles such as a disco crowd or traffic around the nurses' station in Cedars Hospital. Under-fives have fewer than five speaking lines. A bartender, for example, might be an under-five if he simply asks one or two people what they would like to drink. These categories of parts are handled primarily by the assistant casting director.
The highly competitive nature of acting as work and the large number of actors without work was evident from the many postcards the assistant casting director received each week. She estimated she received between 250 and 350 cards each week from actors seeking work as extras or under-fives. The cards were piled on her desk or in the box for mail in the production office. They served as a reminder of the scarcity of work for actors. The cards typically consisted of a photograph of the performer on one side of the card, with name, phone number, and union memberships. They generally read as follows:
Please keep me in mind when you are casting.
Please keep me in mind for work on Guiding Light. I have worked steadily for [name of G.L. director] and I am always looking for more.
Hi' Just a quick note to remind you of my availability. Have a good summers
Need anyone for an under-five? I'm ready. I hope we meet again soon.
"Day players" are hired by the day, have no regular contract, but are important to the story. A detective investigating a case, for example, might be involved in several episodes. Contract players are given contracts that guarantee
******
p131
a certain number of performances for a 26-week period, but their contracts can be canceled in 13 weeks in the case of the less important or less powerful performers. There are about 35 contract players on a one-hour show at any one time. The casting director auditions the day and contract part performers and calls them back if they pass the first screening. The performers are then taped to determine how they come across on camera and so that the headwriter and supervising producer, who may not be in the studio, can judge the performer's suitability.
The casting process entails filling a part with a performer who comes across in a way that is appropriate to the characterization. The interactive process is such that the headwriter and producers may see something in the performer's playing of the character and interaction with other performers/characters that is utilized in the future. Gracie, in the example given above, worked well so she was given more of a role. The auditions are taped, and it is then that a determination is often made about the appropriateness of the fit between performer/ character. Again, the major decision makers make the ultimate decisions, although the writer's desires often are paramount since he or she has to write for the performer. If there is a conflict or a dislike of the performer's acting, the headwriter can use them poorly or not use them dramatically very often, and ultimately write them out.
Performers who are taped are often considered for parts other than the one they auditioned for. They also may affect story, especially if they have what is called the right "chemistry" with a particular performer. Chemistry refers to the experiencing of performers in relationships, particularly romantic relationships. Production personnel discuss performers in these terms, using their reactions to the ways the performers come across to them. The term implies a strong emotional involvement between performers.
If we see a chemistry there, then that is a good person to go with, if the chemistry is there already in the audition material. It has happened we liked a performer, but somehow we don't see the chemistry between the two and we know they are two people we ultimately bring together, so we don't go in that direction. We might go with another performer.
Occasionally, chemistry will be noticed between two performers who were not originally considered as working together in the same story.
******
p132
When we brought on Leslie Dalton, she played a scene with Mike Bauer and we immediately saw chemistry there, so we began to slant the story in that direction.
At times, a series of performers may be brought on for a day or two to see how they work with a character. Most time, however, the writer does not have that option. The show was looking for a performer to play a friend of Morgan, the young female romantic lead. The headwaiter commented on the strategy he employed:
Headwriter: I brought in three or four girls at the high school until I found the one I felt was going to do the job for me.
M.I.: One at a time?
H: Yes, there's no point of going into a contract with somebody if it is not going to work. It wasn't that I needed her immediately for major story. I needed her for a confidant of Morgan, and eventually a love interest for Tim. As I said, I'll just keep writing in certain friends from school, cast them, and when we see one we like we'll get a contract. It's a much safer way of casting when you have that kind of flexibility. You don't always have it.
In various episodes a new performer/character will be introduced to the other characters. This strategy serves two purposes--seeing how particular combinations work and getting the character accepted by the audience.
You bring on a Josh--we know where we want him to end up ultimately, but in order to get his face known, yes, we throw him with everybody we can on the show so the audience gets to know he knows all these people. That's the quickest way to get him accepted, as part of the group.
Initial casting decisions are quite important, as I indicated. When auditions are taped general reactions are gotten from anyone who cares to comment on the performance--although the producers and the headwriter are the primary decision makers. The fit between the actor and the way their
******
p133
character is to be perceived and experienced is most important. The headwaiter commented on one casting error he made when he let himself be swayed by the reactions of the people in the studio. Usually he based his decisions on what he saw on a television screen.
Once we were casting a part who shall be nameless for a sensual male character. I only judge what I see on my television screen when I look at the
tapes of the audition. Once I was told, Oh, the secretaries are crazy about him. They think he is the sexiest. . . . I let that influence me once, and I said maybe I'm missing something. Went with the actor. Total washout.
One producer commented that, while initial casting decisions are important, they are still uncertain since the audience's response to a performer/character is what ultimately counts.
If you are looking for somebody to play a sympathetic character, somebody the audience is going to identify with, then that's the kind of quality you have to
look for in the performer who comes in to audition. You can take an exceptionally fine actress who is supposed to be sympathetic, you just take one
look--her eyes--it's a physical thing she has going for her that would be wrong for that character. You have to use your reactions to anticipate what the
audience may say, or how they are going to react if that particular actress gets the part. . .
You have to have an awareness of what the writer hopes the character will portray and how your audience may respond to that particular performer
playing that character. You have to prejudge it, no two ways about it, you are guessing.
Casting is also affected by the look of the show. One performer who was considered overweight and neither young nor dashing enough was replaced with another performer who appeared if not younger, at least thinner. The performer seemed to have become a symbol of the look that the producers were trying to change. Some personnel spoke of a "Procter and Gamble look" because of the predominance of beauti-
******
p134
ful/handsome, largely "WASPISH" performers. The issue of look surfaced when the producers avoided casting too many blondes," for example, which they felt might create a sameness to the look of the show. Recasting does occur, sometimes to temporarily replace a performer who is having a child, for example. Recasting is done quite carefully. One part was recast only after the character disappeared for a while and was not featured on the program. After a period of months, a new performer was hired.
A major recast was, as I mentioned, for the part of Dr. Ed Bauer, which had been played by one performer for 12 years. Although the recast was fought by the executive producer, the change was made. There was a very negative reaction from the audience, protesting the change, and it took several months for the mail to stop coming in complaining of the major recast. Recasting of major characters is approached extremely carefully.
There are various strategies, which I discuss in the following section, that performers adopt to handle their vulnerability to being fired or replaced. But it is important to note that while performers can attempt to assert more authority if they have been on a show for a long period, they still can be replaced. Popular performers, performers who are closely identified with a character, are replaced only if absolutely necessary. For example, one performer who played Morgan, a teenage heroine in an important major storyline, was replaced because she continually disrupted and slowed down the work process by being late, disappearing from the set when she was needed, and not knowing her lines. Actors and directors were very vocal in their complaints so that she had to be fired, or as one producer said, "We would have had a revolt on our hands."
Soap stars generally cannot come to have the power that a prime-time or film star can. Actors know this. As part of their knowledge of the business, the firing of two major popular performers on Another World (LeMay 1981) established a precedent. During prime-time the close association of a particular performer and a program, such as the Mary Tyler Moore Show, means that, in a sense, without the performer there is no program. This is not true of daytime, even though the production company might be very reluctant to make a change. As I mentioned, the part of Ed Bauer was recast, despite the popularity of the previous actor.
The roles of supervising producer, executive producer, and headwriter clearly make the major decisions within the production organization. The process is even more of an interactive one than my description of the work process indicates. These three roles also monitor the episodes that
******
p135
are taped and aired. This can have a direct impact on the daily production process, particularly as their observations are communicated to the line producer who oversees each day's taping.
The relative authority of the writer and executive producer is particularly important in shaping performances. Since, as a writer put it, "they always need you tomorrow," and the show is dependent on a writer's knowledge of future story (which may not be revealed to the other executives), writers have tended to garner a great deal of power. The hour-length format, the need to coordinate and control the complex process of production, and the assertion or reassertion of Procter and Gamble's control over programming have led to increased authority for the executive producer. Ultimate authority rests with Procter and Gamble Productions, and while headwriters are scarce and valuable, they can be replaced. It is largely producers who remain and writers who come and go.
The role of CBS and its programming division in the production process had increased. Their role was limited, however, because they did not own the show and it would be difficult to dislodge Procter and Gamble from their production power given Procter and Gamble's major role in television advertising. It is also very costly and takes a good deal of time to create a new and successful show. The three major roles also indicate the fusion of creative and business interests and the way Procter and Gamble has traditionally looked at the content of the shows as a vehicle for marketing.
STORY REALIZATION: PERFORMERS, DIRECTORS, AND PRODUCERS
The daily work process involves producers, directors, and actors, as well as the other skilled and technical personnel. It occurs within the confines of the resources provided, including the story and its embodiment in scripts for each episode. The supervision of the results of the collaboration or work of directors and actors is in the hands of the line producer who represents management.
Taping an episode depends on a number of previous events. To mention only a few, scripts have to be typed and delivered to the performers, directors and producers, the technicians must know what equipment will be needed, the sets must be constructed or erected, costumes purchased, and all personnel informed of the production schedule for the day.
The production day for Guiding Light is divided into two segments. There is a morning taping in one studio - Studio
******
p136
51 - and there is usually an afternoon taping session in Studio 54, on another floor of the building. The scheduling of the various activities is handled by the assistants to the producer. The considerations that go into scheduling are apparent in this statement by an assistant to the producer. I have related much of her statement, since she is explicit about the decision making.
When we do determine the schedules, we do tape in a film style (taped out of sequence compared to the way the scenes are ordered in the final program). We tape about 60-40; 60 percent in the morning, 40 percent in the afternoon, and we try to make the combination of pieces, sets, and pages come out to that amount. That's one of the things we take into consideration. The first priority is to leave sets standing where they were standing before, so any existing set we want to leave in the same studio if at all possible.We then try to minimize the numbers of actors who have to double--in other words, working in both studios on the same day.Obviously, the continuity, or the dramatic content of a program is something to consider. Generally, we try to put the heavier dramatic stuff in the morning when people are fresher. Fifty-one happens to be a little more technically sound--it has a higher grid, voice seems to be better. There are a number of technical reasons why we do it that way. We have then to consider a few oddities, like a few sets, only a few sets at this point only fit well in 51. Cars can only go in 51. When we have actors with problems, a pregnant woman who is much fresher in the morning, loses her stuff before four in the afternoon. Those are the main variables. The most costly thing--most of the priorities are based on money, although at times we throw those considerations out of the window if the dramatic quality is particularly outstanding. Like the time we flip-flopped two days because of the shoot out--rather than have the same director do that two days in a row--both days there were 16 pieces, we flip-flopped so we
******
p137
had him do one of the shows, then had a different director come in and do a different show, which was not supposed to be in that sequence. Then we had him come in for the Friday. In other words, we flip-flopped the Thursday/Friday shows so there was a day's rest for the director and the actors. Occasionally a day like that comes out where we go out of the way to accommodate the dramatic material.
The most costly thing by far is studio time. So moving sets we try to minimize that. Actor's overtime is not so much of a consideration at this time; financially at this time, it's more a consideration in terms of the fatigue of your cast. The third cost variable is the director's payments. If you move things around, do pre- and posttaping-directors have to be paid extra. That's a cost variable. Running over in studios--if the day is very heavy and the following day is not, it is better to take some pieces from one day so that they are both medium, so that both get out on schedule and they don't have to go into overtime.
The primary considerations are economic. Minimizing the amount of time working with sets, keeping the production process within scheduled time limits, and controlling the amount of pretaping and posttaping to avoid extra payments to the directors are major considerations. The fatigue of performers and directors are lesser considerations. Scheduling may also be affected if a performer has a conflict because of another commitment or requires special consideration. An actress who was pregnant, for example, was accommodated by having all the scenes she appeared in scheduled for the morning.
One relatively recent practice affecting production has been the use of location shooting--the taping or filming of scenes out of the studio. Location shooting has a major impact on the continuing production process in the studio.
One of the problems we face in getting out of the studio is that we are pretty lightly staffed anyway in the studio. When you start to take people out--staff and actors--you are suddenly dealing with a skeleton group somewhere. Time is of essence; you usually don't take more than a week.
******
p138
The overall costs for studio production as opposed to location shooting apparently are not much different, but a major concern is the scheduling problems location shooting generates.
There is a pretty good indication that when you do something in the studio and give it an exterior look it runs into a lot of time and a lot of money in
terms of sets. Probably the biggest effect location shooting has on cost is the overall scheduling. You have to really rework the schedule for a couple of weeks--plus the toll it takes on people.
The daily rehearsal and taping process can vary considerably given the number of factors that have to be considered. The most frequent schedule, however, is a morning and early afternoon rehearsal and taping, and an afternoon, early evening rehearsal and taping.
The first rehearsal is dry rehearsal and takes place in the rehearsal hall, a large room with chairs and tables. It usually begins at seven in the morning. The performers needed for the morning taping, the director, associate director, and production assistant are present. Performers and director come prepared with ideas about how the scenes can be played. A major responsibility of the director is a plan for shooting the episode.
Taping usually begins at 10:00 a.m. and continues until 2:00 p.m. If the morning schedule is not completed, there may be more taping after the lunch break at 3:00 p.m. A similar sequence is repeated for the afternoon taping on a regularly scheduled day, that taping often lasting until eight or nine in the evening.
The rehearsal sequence and taping of the scenes can vary. The director will block the scene on the set while technicians, particularly boom and camerapersons, observe the movements of the performers and get directions on how the scene is to be shot. Dress rehearsal will be taped and used if a scene is simple and has gone well or if there is a great deal of pressure to meet a deadline. Another way time and money are saved is by taping consecutively scenes that are continuous, with only a brief "dip to black" between the end of one scene and the beginning of the next scene.
Directors (there are four for Guiding Light) are responsible for blocking the movements of the actors, for the dramatic interpretation of the episodes, as well as for the way the episodes are registered on tape. Directors attempt to orchestrate a fit between the actions and presentations of the
******
p139
performers and the way in which the performances are framed by the studio cameras. Some directors will come prepared with quite specific plans for the framing of each shot; others will develop and alter their plans throughout the day. It is the associate director's job to note the shots required and to relay them to the camerapersons before the shots are taken.
The styles of the directors are ultimately similar in that the taped episodes must be compatible. This entails more than questions of continuity or tracking, which virtually everyone pays attention to, particularly the producer and the production assistant who times the programming and takes notes from the producer for the director. The pressures of meeting production deadlines and the need to rely upon conventional understanding of how soaps are made produces a similar, or compatible, style. Also, footage directed by two different directors may have to be utilized in the same episode, again creating pressures toward uniformity.
Directors largely determine how each episode is to be shot, but the line producers may suggest or demand changes if they do not approve of the director's choices. At times the producer's comments are based on knowledge of how past episodes have been handled and how the current episode fits into the long-range storyline. Overt conflict was very rare.
The producer will often give the director notes or comments about the quality of a scene after each stage of the rehearsal on the studio floor. Whether and how the director gives the notes to the performers is an area in which the director has some leeway. Directors pride themselves on getting good results quickly, which at times means letting the producer feel he or she influenced the performance or that it was the actor's choices that made the scene. At times the director will not pass a note on, or he or she will interpret the note depending on the capabilities and attitudes of each performer. One director gave an example of the shorthand necessary to get results quickly.
A producer might give me seven notes about individual things, usually the cause, what is behind the notes, is that the attack of the scene is not as it should be. Many times it is as simple as passing actress X and saying, "You are shining a bit." That means, as I understand how she responds to that statement, she pulls back, she divorces herself emotionally. I know what she is going to do with it. It is a shorthand that has evolved over the years.
******
p140
Another capability that directors emphasized was not only getting results quickly, but leading the performers to feel their idea or choice was involved.
Example number two. An actor who is no longer on the show would always overact and feel sorry for himself. You'd do the same trick over and over again and say you had no notes. Once you got into notes with him you were there for over an hour. He used to call me the director of little note. And I would say to him, then I would step back, turn away, and say, 'By the way, I want to compliment you on what you are doing. This script is so
self-indulgent, self-pitying, any other actor would have fallen into that trap. Not you, I appreciate that. That's exactly what he was doing, blamed it on the script, congratulated him on it, doing this, telling him I had no notes whatsoever, to get him to kneel to propose. You would never get him to kneel to propose to this girl. I know he always wants to feel big and to help people, so I got the girl seated, said it was the wrong angle, too high. They were by the fireplace, I blocked her, he said, "Why don't I just stoop down there?"
One director indicated that some of the work involved in directing went on over the phone or over lunch. Interpretations and cuts were typically discussed, again because of the limited rehearsal time in the studio.
Two differences in directors' styles had to do with whether they relied upon one camera for capturing a performance instead of using two or three and intercutting, typically from head to head, action to reaction. Another difference concerned how closely scenes were shot. As I note later on, there is a dominant pattern of using close-ups or extreme close-ups and cutting from one head to another. One younger director attempted to use one camera much more and also to frame scenes visually in such a way that performers were shot from farther away and more foreground and/or background appeared in the frame. The younger director felt the overreliance on close-ups was a matter of laziness, but a more experienced director felt the younger director used one camera more since that director didn't have the timing down on shots and couldn't call them quickly enough.
******
p141
Director: The basic requirement, as much as I don't like to say it, for a soap is speed. You have to meet the schedule because that's the dollars and cents. If you don't meet the schedule, you are out, period. They might coddle somebody for a year or so, but ultimately you are out of the business.
There are certain things I would do on the outside that I can't afford to do here. For instance, when you're shooting something--the reason the style of soaps have evolved as they are, they started back in the early days when everything was shot in close-ups. Everybody talks about the glorious days--which makes me sick. It is all bullshit. They had a week to do everything. The screens at that time were so small that they shot waist up. The ultimate shot, the most interesting shots are those where you get depth, and depth of field and foreground.
Everytime I attempt to do that, maybe I will, maybe one show, one favorite scene, it takes me at least half an hour to chase the boom shadows. I don't have the luxury of a ten-day rehearsal as in the old days. A lot of the close-up, even though it is not as necessary now as it was then, purely cuts out the background and the shadows. It is as simple as that.
The establishment of close-ups in the field is totally due to a lack of time.
M.I.: There could be more visual variety?
D: Absolutely. There is nothing more boring than going, "Take One, Take Three.
Relief from boredom was evident in scenes that departed from the routine. Overt fantasy scenes, such as Nola's film-based fantasies, were literally treated as fun to do.
A major limitation on directors is that they must adhere to the intent of the scenes, which is, in a sense, the property of the writer and ultimately Procter and Gamble. One director referred to a director who had been fired.
D: If you start going outside the intent, they object. It affects storylines. That's one of the reasons that (deleted) isn't working for the show anymore.
******
p142
M.I.: What happened?
D: He wanted to experiment. He did some beautiful things. I think he was one of the best directors the show ever had. He expanded on things and sometimes the outer boundaries of that expansion infringed on what the writer wanted to do later on. He had to pull back . . . he was terribly creative and when you can't accept what the writer has and want to expand on it, especially on soaps. . . . It's different on an hour-and-a-half special because there you can take that kind of license without having to worry about anything down the line.
The same director noted that as a result of a writers' strike he missed knowing the story even only two weeks in advance since it limited him even more than usual.
One director justified the work he did by saying that he had to remind himself that viewers saw the show only once. In general, getting the show done on time, within the limits of the formula and the expectations of Procter and Gamble and the on-site people, oriented and justified what had to be done.
The pressures on directors are considerable since they are responsible for getting the episode on tape, which entails the contributions of many individuals, and they have' to do it within a time schedule. One performer spoke of a good director as having endurance, being able to work with performers and being able to use the cameras well.
A good director for a soap has to have a lot of endurance. They have to have not too much ego because in some of the shows they are relegated to being camera pushers. A couple of our directors are wonderful in that they can not only swallow the inequities, being pushed around, they are also good directors of actors. They know what a scene needs and what to do with it. And not get the cameras pushed around but get them pushed around artistically so the camera speaks as well, which is a big part of any visual medium. What you see is the director's job--a picture makes a comment, a shot makes a comment. I don't think the director in soaps has the authority he really should have. I think we
******
p143
would have much higher quality work if they were given their proper place.
Another performer viewed the director's role in the following way:
It is a complicated mixture of things that are required . . . awful lot of patience, sensitivity, knowledge of saying something or not saying something, how to deal with a specific actor. . . . In many ways the most efficient thing to do is to make sure you've got the shots and see what the performers want to do within that framework, if you can accommodate them.
Directors often rely a great deal on performers, and as this performer noted, a director's primary concern can become visually capturing the performer's choices. Some performers often resent the lack of direction. They would like more elaborate planning and involved discussion of scenes. On the other hand, some actors appreciate that they can more actively participate in the work process by bringing their own interpretation to a scene or episode. As a technical director noted, the number of elements that have to be satisfied are considerable.
There are so many elements. You have to satisfy the P & G people in Cincinnati; you have to satisfy the on-site people; you have to satisfy the formulas. . . . Time is a big factor because time is money.
From the producer's viewpoint a good director is one who is creative and inventive and yet conforms to story or production requirements.
Well, someone who is creative and inventive without taking that script off onto a tangent. We let one director go because that was a problem because in his efforts to be creative, too often he would take license with the script and move off into other directions . . . once a director does that then the next director comes in the next day . . . how do you get back to where you have to go today?
Directors are generally not involved in the editing and tend to rely on their associate director, who called the
******
p144
shots for the taping and has noted how scenes are to be presented. Directors will edit their own shows when it is shot film style or when location footage has to be integrated into the episode.
Much of the editing process involves inserting corrections or "pick up edits" after an error has been made. Editors, with the associate director, assemble the program. During the taping of the show, many of the important editing decisions are made, particularly through the camera takes or cuts that the director calls and that comprise each scene. The way the episodes are shot must meet the approval of the line producer and very much depends on the degree to which the producer is involved in the daily production process. As I indicated, the authority of the line producer is itself delegated by the executive producer. The actual overseeing of the day-to-day production process in the studio is the responsibility of the line producer--whether holding the rank of producer or associate producer. In the case of the hour programs, with a continuous, long-run story, there is a need for an organizing overview or viewpoint. Directors, for example, may tape only three shows every two weeks, and even on those days they will not be familiar with edited versions of what they directed since they are very rarely involved in the editing process. It is the line producer's responsibility to deal with continuity of interpretation and dramatic development on a day-by-day, firsthand basis.
One performer described the producer's role as that of a "traffic cop."
Joe is worried about what the bold print says here, are you going against what the intent of the writer is? He is very worried about that, and he is very worried about, is that too graphic, am I going to get into trouble from Program Practices? How many "gods" have we said today, how many "gods," how many "damns." . . . A lot of time Joe is really structured by those two worries. He really gets excited when they have done something that will advance what the bold print says and make it better. That's when he gets to do his job; I'd say he gets to do that two or three times a day . . . the rest of the time he is traffic cop.
Monitoring what the director and performers do with a particular script, as well as monitoring inconsistencies and heading off potentially time (and money) consuming problems
******
p145
with Program Practices limits the creative involvement of a producer.
For both directors and performers, who traditionally work closely together, one of the frustrations is the authority of producers who often are better versed in the business as opposed to the creative side of the performances. The trend in recruitment at Guiding Light appeared to be one in which individuals moved from the position of producer's assistant, who handles scheduling and coordinating production, to associate producer or producer. The route to the role of director entailed experience as production assistant, then associate director and finally director. This career pattern seemed to reinforce a separation of business as opposed to creative or craft experience.
There can be considerable pressure on performers since they may have to learn their lines for several scenes the night preceding the taping of an episode. Occasionally a script was only available the day before it was to be shot. Actors must also perform with consistency so that production is not delayed, come to terms with the commercial and melodramatic nature of the writing if they wish to keep their job, and be able to make last-minute changes in their parts under the close scrutiny of the television camera. Even though shows are now taped, which takes some of the pressure off performers, there still is an expectation that performances should be gotten right the first time. When it is impossible to edit a brief segment, as in disco scenes with live music and considerable movement, there is even greater pressure to accomplish the scene without error.
For many reasons, working on soaps is attractive to performers, despite the limitations and pressures of the work. [17] Work on soaps pays well and can be very steady compared to the generally short-run work in theatre, film, or other forms of dramatic television. Because Guiding Light is taped in New York, performers can pursue other career interests, including work in commercials. Female performers, however, are considerably limited by contractual agreements since Procter and Gamble does not allow soap performers to appear in competitive commercials for products they make, nor are they allowed to appear in Procter and Gamble commercials. Work on soaps was looked on and justified by some younger or newer performers as a way of learning to work on television. Several referred to work on soaps as the "summer stock of television." Finally, prestige is associated with soaps. They are increasingly seen as legitimate work, and, accordingly, provide a potential basis through the visibility and prestige for work in other media, particularly theatre and film. Many performers return to work in soap opera after a period in Hollywood.
******
p146
Most performers will only read the scenes they appear in an episode. They all speak of making choices about how their parts were to be played, and discussions between directors and performers were usually very brief. There is little time for disagreement. What is extraordinary is the degree to which collective or routinized understandings are at work in realizing a scene when performers and directors do not know the ultimate meanings of an episode or performance in relation to long-term story.
One of the ways performers' ambivalence toward the work and the pressure they are under surfaces is during rehearsal hall. Rehearsal hall occasions a good deal of joking on everyone's part, but particularly for performers and directors. Performers will make fun of the parts, language, and conventions of soaps. For example, one performer would mockingly throw back her head and put her forearm to her head and exclaim, "I think I'm going to have a 'flashback.'" Asked about the joking, performers responded:
That's to release the tensions, get the garbage out of the scenes.
The morning is a good time to lighten things up before you hit the floor, so they don't get too tight. You do have to go through with this. It gets it out of your system, plus it helps you edit--I have to hear it first.
Personally, you need to. Sometimes there is a serious scene and you really need to work on it. But so much of it you really can't take seriously. I had a coach who worked like that. He directed, and he was a private coach. All of a sudden he would say, "Do everything wrong." What does that mean? "just do everything wrong." So you'd wind up . . . it pushed you so far in certain directions that there was a freedom that came about, any self-consciousness about the lines would kind of evaporate because you had been so ridiculous with them that when you pulled them in it was like a whole new insight.
It's a defense mechanism in the morning, to cover embarrassment and because you are so
******
p147
sIeepy-eyed, how can you be passionate and upset. It is such a loose rehearsal in the morning. I think you need the freedom in the morning to get rid of all the silliness in the morning without bitching about it. It's a way to face that stuff without complaining, bitching' and moaning. . . . Then most of the time when we get upstairs it's nice most of the time to get down to business. There are situations up there where you do fool around. It's a way to not get bogged by the incredible pace and all the nerves--it's a release. It's almost our own comedy relief, we have our own built-in gesture.
When you don't feel comfortable with the writing or you think the scene is silly. . . . or you think you have done it for the fourth week in a row.
The joking is not derogatory toward the stuff; it's only to get you to where you have to go.
Frustration with the material led Guiding Light staff members to make a take-off of the show called "Guiding Plight," which satirized soap conventions and content, as well as commercials associated with soaps. One scene in "Guiding Plight" involved the use of voice-overs whereby viewers are made aware of the internal thought process of a character. The scene was humorous because every character in the frame could hear the thought process, not just the individual having the thoughts or the viewers. Another humorous theme satirized the use of euphemisms in soaps. When a female character says she has "been with" a male, the woman she is speaking to, a revered matriarchal figure is puzzled. "Been with?" she asks. The reply: "Yes, you know, humped.'
Performers often attempt to exert some control over their work, both as a matter of integrity and as a way of attempting to keep their job. A producer described the process.
What happens after a performer has been on six months or so is that they begin to feel that they are the guardian of their character, and they really aren't. It still is in the hands of the writer, but actors do get to
******
p148
that point. You hear, "I would never say this," or "The character would never say this." We have that problem continually.
During a writer's strike, when the scripts were being ghost written, performers were particularly vocal about lines they thought were repetitive, didn't 'track," or were out of character. A producer noted the occasional legitimacy of their complaints.
Yes, sometimes it can get lost, because the scripts can be passed around to writers that haven't been on that long. It is true they are funneled through the headwaiter, and he should catch these, but sometimes he misses. You do get inconsistencies.
The relationship between performer and character, in terms of what the performer feels is consistent with a character's past, can also partake of how the performer feels the audience views his character. One performer who was particularly protective of his character, and was very vocal about what he felt were compromises for the sake of plot, was ultimately replaced by another performer.
One reason performers attempt to protect their character is that they rely on their personal characteristics to play their parts. Several spoke of "playing yourself."
M.I.: Do you feel responsible for the part you are playing?
Performer: Of course I do; she is me. She is what I make her. Yes. I've got words to work with, but nobody but ------- is playing Trish Lewis.
Another actress commented:
I think most of us have a line delineating between who the characters are and who we are, except these characters are basically built on our personalities and what we do. Even if you are playing a "bad guy" like I did at one time, you
use, within the framework of that, your bad feelings or your animosities. There is a part of us in any of those characters so that consequently, when anything gets changed, it is like something
******
p149
in your life is being threatened. There is a very fine line.
The variety of approaches to the work and underlying dynamics were spelled out by one actress:
M.I.: Do the longer-term actors take a stronger interest in how the character develops?
Actress: Not necessarily. I think it is probably the newcomers and some old-timers. Everybody is pretty gung-ho in the beginning, as people stay on they sort of give up or stop fighting so hard-- phone a lot of stuff in" [don't invest in their acting] or they just ride with the tide or in some cases they are very protective as in ---'s case--although I think now he has cooled it in fighting for character, although I don't do as many scenes with him so I don't really know. I don't think it is necessarily that way--there are a lot of people that have been on the show a long time now, and I never really hear them speak about it. I got less protective as I knew that I was not going to be with the character that much longer. I've been getting ready to leave for some time and also because you see the frustration . . . that those who, like --- who would be beside himself trying to have a new writer or different writer changing things slightly. He would come to work and be frothing by the end of the day. It can be frustrating trying to keep it in a mode that is your idea. It is very frustrating and then spend hours rewriting. It got to be a thing with me where I said, it's not really my function to do this, to rewrite or to change in terms of my interpretation of the character, even if I know best. You do get new writers or subwriters who don't know the character development as well.
If I was doing a Broadway show I wouldn't have any say with Tennessee Williams about how to do his play, and everybody is a potential Williams in their eyes I'm sure. I think there is a point where you have to resign
******
p150
yourself to the fact that you are going to be frustrated most of the time, unless you decide to write the show yourself or resign yourself to the fact that you are an actor and you are here to read the script and do your best with it.
Headwriters were critical of this tendency of actors protecting their character and of actors not liking what their character was scripted to do. I mentioned one romantic male lead who found himself becoming a grandfather on the show.
I'm sure he hates it. . . . That's his problem. He's paid to act.
I don't think that actors are necessarily the best judges of what story is good for them anyway. Certain actors who have been on the show a long time--you never find it with new actors--after they are on a long time, they decide their image is such and such. They become image conscious in terms of what their character is to the audience--an image, a self-image which is very destructive.
Actors are very aware of where they think their character is "going." Protecting their character is protecting their job. One major fear is that they will be simply written out of the show. The casting director explained dynamic in the following way.
I don't want my character going this way. I don't want my character going that way. It scares people if they think their character is going to go off, "go upstairs' to get a cup of coffee and never come down again.
Some performers try to keep from being written out, particularly if they think they are becoming an irredeemable evil character, by playing against the way the part is scripted.
Performer: I've been on the show eight months and not really giving them and constantly changing the way the character thinks to remain evasive so they don't trap you--if you are too good at being good they can't make you bad, if you're too bad they can't
******
p151
save you--therefore, you paint yourself into a corner and they fire you. Or kill you off. So the actor's job is one of playing a master psychologist in trying to figure out how to maneuver as if the writer's job is to paint a tapestry in which the character can maneuver.
M.I.: Do most performers approach it with your awareness?
P: The ability is important in order to survive.
Another performer made a similar observation:
I saved myself, I think, from getting fired. It is always good if you are playing a villain to find all the moments you can--I mean these lines are so simple, they realize you are a villain--but find the vulnerability, find a moment somewhere to bring in humor or sympathy for your character.I always play opposites. If you are real good, find something nasty to snap at somebody. If you are being real bad, like I say, find those moments of humor and softness and balance it out. Oftentimes you can manipulate the writer's mind.
The degree to which performers actually influence story is problematic. There is an interaction between writer-character-performer as I just noted, but at times performers may exaggerate their influence. One writer commented on this tendency:
We are amused, sometimes infuriated, to read the stories of how they personally took over the character and turned it into a brilliant thing when the writers didn't know quite what to do.
Writers, however, will pick up on the mannerisms, personality, and special skills of a performer and write them into a part. A performer with skills in karate and another with skills in fencing had scenes written for them in which they could employ those skills. Personal mannerisms or interpretations of a scene may be written into future scenes. This contributes to a sense of participation in the work
******
p152
process as does the opportunity to change language, larger, in a paraphrase.
One of the latent consequences of a successful scene on paraphrase is that performers may have to repeat themselves.
Steve and I were talking this morning, "Here we are; we are going to do this scene again." That's one flaw or drawback of doing a scene well, because if you do it well and the writer likes it, you'll see it again.
You get a lot of paraphrased scenes [from the writer] and that's not a knock at the writer. And something that you do well, they'll also latch onto that. It's odd. Different kinds of frustration set in when you are doing a long run.
There are limits, however, regarding paraphrasing with some performers allowed greater leeway. One general rule that could not be broken was that tags, the final lines in a scene, had to be played as written. Tags are important for the director in calling the camera takes as well as for dramatic content.
Lately the tag line has been sacrosanct . . . it is a bridge to the next scene and usually the whole intent of a future storyline will depend on someone's reaction to what's been said. The golden rule is you can get away with screwin' around with a lot of stuff, but not those tags.
You always have to say what is written for a tag. . . . The actors hate it because you have to sustain something when it might be really close to nothing [sustain last shot of scene], for a lot of moments while they cut across and get back to you. That's why they call it "egg." They are hard to pull off, and the best thing to do is absolutely nothing.
One of the risks or vulnerabilities for soap performer is ending up with "egg on their face." The convention of long, close-up final shots, particularly for emotionally ink tense, melodramatic reactions augmented with music, was one. of the occupational hazards. As a performer noted, they are at the mercy of the director/camera as the shots are called another noted the dependence of performers on the technician
******
p153
and overall technical process because they could either "make you look bad or look good."
The vulnerability for performers derives from the fact that it is their presence, their face on the screen that a viewer sees. There is a complex division of labor, work process, and authority structure behind the performances that performers must come to terms with, but it is their performance that viewers see. They are the only part of the work process that is visible to the audience.
You are dealing with a creative situation. Actors are creative people, writers are creative people, they all have their opinion. In the whole entertainment business and theatre, everybody is important, but the bottom line is . . . your ass. We are the one on the screen. We are the ones, more than anyone else in the industry, who have less continuity in employment. The dime a dozen theory. It is not that we are subjected to it maliciously. There are a lot of people who are willing to, who want to be performers. Casting and directing people have a huge choice. You may have a problem with the script or with the way you want your image to come across; certainly if your work is to sustain a career in daytime and develop a strong audience, it is absolutely valid you should have some input about it.
Another frustration is the repetition, particularly "recap"--a recapitulation of what has occurred earlier so that viewers who might have missed some episodes can be brought up to date on story:
You find yourself doing the same scene over and over and over again. That's another thing that's hard . . . it's out of sequence so you feel, you have to get over the feeling it is pointless. If you do the same scene in a Broadway show it has a build within the whole context; you don't have that disjointed empty feeling. But if you come and do that same tiny fragment again and again, it is very hard to find any kind of justification in reality for it.
******
p154
One of the consequences of the fragmentation of the performances as scenes are shot out of order, and the never-ending story, is a lack of a sense of closure,completeness.
In an actor's training in the theatre you are always dealing with scenes that have a beginning, middle, and an end. You are always dealing with what is the general thrust of a scene. We have nothing like that--it started in 1952. You are doing bits and pieces.
One frustration of it, what I miss from having done so much theatre--I miss a beginning, a middle, and an end. Soap opera is all middle. A storyline will end, but the soap opera never ends. It's peculiar to the acting world in that regard--it just keeps going on.
Finally, another frustration followed from the close camerawork and restricted movements of soap performers.
The movement is very confining, very simple. You walk in the door, you sit down, you walk around the couch, you pour a drink.
The problem with this kind of acting is you get very small, and it gets to the point of restraint where you feel you can't move. Your voice gets tiny.
Performers have to orient their movements and speaking to the cameras and booms. It is incorrect to consider the visual realization of a soap as solely a matter of camera conventions. Actors, particularly those with only stage or film training or experience, have to learn how to work with the camera. Actors must learn to restrict the range and pace of their movements, to restrain the projection associated with stage performance. They also have to work with two or three cameras at one time in an uninterrupted performance. This contrasts with film production in which one camera is used, lighting is adjusted for each shot, and where there are continual stops and starts and repositioning of actors, cameras, lights, and other equipment. Teleprompters are available for the performers if they need to rely upon them. They provide dialogue and ideally are exactly synchronized with the actors' deliveries. However, they tend to be used very rarely. It is risky for performers to rely on the teleprompter because any shift in their gaze from the focus
******
p155
of concentration or attention in a scene is readily picked up by the cameras. Given the close-range and intimacy of the shots, particularly the emphasis on the eyes of performers, there is a danger of breaking the dramatic focus of a scene. One rule for camerapersons is to always keep the eyes in focus, even in an extreme close-up. As one cameraman put it, the nose can be out of focus, but the focus on the eyes has to be maintained. One type of scene where it is less risky to use a teleprompter is one in which a person is using the phone and not looking at anyone. A person talking on a phone might look in any direction while he or she listened to the speaker on the other end of the line. This is particularly true in scenes shot with a "limbo." Such sets are minimal and starkly representative of a setting. Phone booths, office desks with a small backdrop, the interior of a car are typical limbos.
One of the rules that characterize soap acting, and television acting in general, is that actors make slow moves. One cameraperson spoke of the "T.V. sit," referring to the appropriate way for performers to sit; that is, gradually and smoothly. Rapid or jerky movements created problems for the camerapersons framing the action and following performers' movements. One actress was particularly prone to very rapid, small movements; such movements seemed spastic in the context of the conventional manner of moving.
Adaptations to the pressures and risks of the work, efforts to garner some control over their work, and the opportunity to express their values or creative convictions varied. But there was a generally shared conception of what it meant to be professional. Professionalism meant meeting work and organizational requirements. Performers spoke of:
"doing your homework" and "being prepared to perform when it comes time to deliver the goods.'
"being on time for rehearsal or taping."
"being there for your partner [another actor] if they need you--some people like to 'run lines' a lot."
"you think about things to make things run more smoothly. So when they start a dress rehearsal you are already where you are going to be cued from. You are in position. The stage director doesn't have to usher you there. You try to anticipate."
******
p156
The pressures of time, which are related to organizational pressures to keep costs down and produce material on a fixed schedule, are evident in what performers identify as being professional. Anticipation, the precise coordination of activity so that the work process flows smoothly was also noted, for example, in what is considered professionalism for camerapersons and in the skills of other occupations, such as the coordination of music.
One of the ways performers are limited in their assertion of autonomy or control over their work was that knowledge of future story was largely withheld from performers. Several reasons are given for this practice of producers ant the writer. The headwriter gave the following justifications for not revealing future story for more than three or four weeks into the future.
I think there is a tendency sometimes to play the result much earlier than you should arrive there.
The story could change. It could change drastically. They have it in their head they are going to play one thing, and for some reason or another it can change.
From the writer's viewpoint, the actor's conception of character might work against the direction the story will move in. Another justification for not revealing future story was that just as in real life we do not know what is going to happen tomorrow, so soap characters also wouldn't know! There also is concern that, if future story is revealed, suspense and the audience's desire or need to "tune in tomorrow" would be undermined. This is particularly the case with mystery stories. Guiding Light taped four different endings to one mystery story so that the production staff would not know "who murdered Diane." Future story is also the life or death of a character, and because it is often unknown, actors feel vulnerable. The limited creative control performers have was reflected in comments by one performer who had been with the show for 32 years. Only once in all those years had she been asked for her opinion about future story.
While actors may voice concerns about the parts they are asked to play, and minor changes can be made, it is the intent of the story, the direction the story is designed to move in, that dictates what a character will or will not do, and the intent of the story remains the property of Procter and Gamble. If there are questions, the performer and exec-
******
p157
utive producer will discuss them so that differences do not hinder production.
The work process reflects its hierarchical and collective nature and the importance of costs and profits. Major roles, whose decisions may affect every detail of the process, are those of the supervising producer, the executive producer, and headwaiter. Budget, casting, story, and its realization are their direct or indirect concern. The executive producer works directly with the headwaiter; the line producer directly oversees the daily production process. The changing relationship between CBS and Procter and Gamble led to greater authority for the executive producer and the assignment of one supervising producer to Guiding Light.
Directors and actors are limited
by the authority structure, pace, and nature of the work. Their
exclusion from story conferences, their limited knowledge of future
story, and the breakneck production schedule generate a great
deal of frustration and pressure. Having to work very quickly
with often less than satisfying material that had to meet the
approval of the production hierarchy (and audience) limits the
variability and innovativeness of performances. Professionalism
largely means meeting organizational requirements. It also, importantly,
means that "form" again takes precedence over "content."
Proceed to Chapter 7