University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A description of the development, administration, production process, and production environment of the public television dramatic series: "Hollywood Television Theater"

(USC Thesis Other)

A description of the development, administration, production process, and production environment of the public television dramatic series: "Hollywood Television Theater"

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT, ADMINISTRATION, PRODUCTION PROCESS, AND PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT OF THE PUBLIC TELEVISION DRAMATIC SERIES: ^ HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE > by Donel Wayland Price A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Communication) August 1976 Copyright 1976 by Do n eI Wayland Price UMI Number: DP22330 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI DP22330 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Dissertation Publishing Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 -1346 U N IV E R S IT Y O F S O U T H E R N C A L IF O R N IA T H E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L U N IV E R S IT Y P A R K LO S A N G E L E S , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by DONEL WAYLAND PRICE under the direction of hiM.... Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements of the degree of C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y ,\ Dean DISSERTATION COMMITTEE (D j/x. C t ( V # if4 f~ A, U h O Q u u . o . ^ PV>.IX CM ' 7 7 P^h5 A t ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks are extended to KCET President and General Manager, James Loper, and Vice-President for Programming, Charles Allen, for their time and assistance in the development of this study. Of particular value was their help in pointing out important events and issues in the history of Hollywood Television Theatre and in identifying individuals associated with the series who should be interviewed. The cooperation of all those indi viduals who agreed to be interviewed, thereby providing the basic data for the study, is gratefully acknowledged. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................. ii LIST OF TABLES . . .......................... vii LIST OF FIGURES • «•»•»*•».*•»•»• viii Chapter I. PROBLEM, METHOD, AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY................. 1 II. The Problem Definitions of Terms Used Assumptions and Limitations of the Study Method, Procedures, and Treatment of Data Organization of the Study REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................ 24 Need for Research about the Production Process in Public Broadcasting Literature Related to the Production Process in Television Drama III. Literature Related to the Production Environment in Television Drama Literature Related to Hollywood Television Theatre Summary of Relaited Literature ESTABLISHMENT AND ARTISTIC OBJECTIVES OF HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE . . 73 Faetors in the Establishment of the Series Sequence of Events in Formation of the Series Artistic Objectives of Hollywood Television Theatre Summary of Chapter iii Chapter Page IV. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE . . 110 Number and Length of Seasons Number and Length of Productions Dramatic Form, Subject Matter, and Themes of Plays Broadcast Broadcast Scheduling Practices Repeat Programming and Reruns Improvement of Production Facilities Changes in Funding Sources Transition between Executive Producers Uncertain Future of Hollywood Television Theatre Summary of Chapter V. ADMINISTRATION OF HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE . . . . . . . . 154 Organization of Station KCET and Hollywood Television Theatre Administrative Relationships between KCET and Hollywood Television Theatre Grant Procedures and Specifications Planning and Implementing Budgets Personnel Practices Summary of Chapter VI. THE PRODUCTION PROCESS OF HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE ................ 195 Selecting Dramatic Properties Adapting Plays Advance Scheduling of Facilities and Personnel Selection of Directors Casting and Selection of Other Personnel Preproduction Planning Dry Rehearsal and Blocking Recording the Play Postproduetion Editing Summary of Chapter iv Chapter Page VII. THE PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT OF HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE .... 270 Limitations of Facilities and Budget Experience and Abilities of Personnel KCET Management Practices Resolving Production Problems Freedom and Control in the Production Environment Summary of Chapter VIII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY . 309 Summary Findings Conclusions Recommendations for Further Study BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . .......................... 346 APPENDICES.................................. 355 A. LIST OF HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE PLAY TITLES, PRODUCERS, AND DIRECTORS........................ 356 B. LIST OF INTERVIEWEES................ 359 C. SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRES . . . 361 D. SAMPLE LETTER TO INTERVIEWEES .... 369 E. HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE PROGRAM LENGTHS, PRODUCTION SEASONS, AND AIR DATES........................ 371 F. DRAMATIC FORM, SUBJECT MATTER, AND THEMES OF HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE PLAYS TT"............... 375 G. HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE BUDGET FORM.............................. 380 v APPENDICES Page H. EXAMPLES OF HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE BUDGETS FOR 1tTHE ANDERSONVILLE TRIAL” AND "BIG FISH, LITTLE FISH"................ 385 I. PURCHASE AGREEMENT FORM FOR DRAMATIC PROPERTIES .............. . 390 J. REHEARSAL AND RECORDING SCHEDULE FOR "U.S.A.".......................... 397 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Number and Length of Hollywood Television Theatre Seasons ...................... 112 2. Number and Length of Hollywood Television Theatre Original Productions ........ 115 3. Dramatic Forms of Hollywood Television Theatre Plays ........................ 121 4. Sub.iect Matter of Hollywood Television Theatre Plays ........................ 124 5. Themes of Hollywood Television Theatre Plays............................ .. . 127 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Organization Chart of Station KCET, February 197S........................ 159 2. Organization Chart of Hollywood Television Theatre Supervised by Lewis Freedman...................... 162 3. Organization Chart of Hollywood Television Theatre Supervised by Norman Lloyd ........................ 163 viii CHAPTER I PROBLEM, METHOD, AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY Public broadcasting in the United States, by the early 1970's, had evolved into a comprehensive system of radio and television stations, program production organizations, and national and regional network arrangements. Although the terms "public broadcasting" and "public television" were not used until 1967 when coined by the Carnegie Commission on Educational Tele vision and formalized by Congress in the Public Broad casting Act, interest in the use of radio and television for noncommercial, educational purposes began to develop three decades earlier. In the 1930's educators were formulating plans for educational television, and one college was even experimenting with the transmission of instructional programs.* After the second World War several colleges and universities became interested in noncommercial broadcasting, and the establishment of reserved channels 1Richard B. Hull, "A Note on the History of ETV," Educational Television: The Next, Ten Years, edited by Wilbur Schramm (Stanford: The Institute for Communica tion Research, 1962), p. 334. 1 for educational use by the Federal Communications Com mission in 1952 provided additional incentives for these institutions to begin station operations. In the 1950's National Educational Television (NET) was acquir ing and producing public affairs and cultural programs for its affiliates, and by 1960 several state-wide educational television networks were in operation or being planned. By February 1975, when this study was under way, there were two hundred forty-six licensed noncommercial television stations operating on the reserved channels.** The nature of noncommercial programming changed substantially in the twenty year period following the reservation of educational channels in 1952. Because educational television emerged from colleges and universities, emphasis was first placed on instructional programs, either formally or informally in support of an academic curriculum. By 1961 two different types of educational television programming were being identified: ETV is of two principal kinds. One, known by such terms as "instructional television" or "in-school television," consists of lessons and courses regularly taught by television for credit **Anne W. Branseomb, "A Crisis of Identity: Public Broadcasting and the Law," Public Telecommunications Review, III, 1 (1975), 11. 2 in schools and colleges. The other, known as "adult programming" or "community television,1 1 consists of programs for the general public.3 Within another ten years the variety and amount of educational programming increased, encompassing three separately identifiable areas: cultural, public affairs, and instructional programs. In the early 1970*s the concept of public television was generally accepted, and descriptions of its programming gained more specificity: Serious drama, documentaries and news analyses, public-service programs and informative children's shows, as well as some rather innovative presenta tions considered too controversial for commercial television, are some of the types of broadcasts . which have found their way into public television. The public television series Hollywood Television Theatre represented the cultural programming area and, more specifically, the category of serious drama. Even though drama has been an important component of public television programming, the number of programs and series was at first limited because drama was expensive to produce. Originally, noncommercial sta tions relied on drama that was acquired from other The Ford Foundation, ETV: A Ford Foundation Pictorial Report (New York: The Ford Foundation, March, 1961), pp. 2, 4. ^Robert T. Bower, Television and the Public (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973), p. 50. 3 sources. In the 1950's National Educational Television was distributing television dramatic programs that had been produced by foreign agencies such as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC); in 1959 plays by Gorky, Shakespeare, and Ibsen were acquired from the BBC and 5 presented by NET stations. In 1965 the first play produced by NET, "A Sleep of Prisoners" by Christopher Fry, was presented. Since 1965 a variety of public and private funding sources has made possible an increase in original production by public television stations and agencies in the United States. NET Playhouse and the New York Television Theater were examples of dramatic series produced after 1965. Plays on Hollywood Television Theatre and Theater in America and such special series as The Adams Chronicles were being regularly produced and aired by public television stations in the United States in the early 1970's. The significance of drama on public television, and particularly of Hollywood Television Theatre, has 5National Educational Television and Radio Center, 1959: Year of Progress (New York: National Educational Television and Radio Center, 1959), p. IS. National Educational Television, National Educational Television: 1965 (New York: National Educational Television, 1965), p. 6. 4 been recognized in several ways. Writers have deplored the decline of anthology drama in commercial television programming schedules, even though the dramatic series in its adventure, mystery, and detective forms has continued to flourish. The appeal of anthology drama was in its form as a dramatic special concentrating on outstanding works of dramatic literature instead of a continuing story or set of characters; anthology drama was also preferred for its greater reliance on the techniques and equipment of electronic as contrasted with film television. One observer noted that "the days of regular, quality drama series such as Flayhouse 90 are gone. Today the Publie Broadcasting Service [the national network in publie television] is respon sible for more than half of what little is available in 7 topnotch television drama." Referring to Hollywood Television Theatre, another writer commented: "Tele vision drama, a nightly staple back in the 1950s, may O have become a sometime thing, but it is far from dead." Dramatic programs on public television have received various industry awards and have provided a 7Lisbeth R. Oliver, "Public TV Drama: Three Top Producers Assess the Outlook," Public Telecommunications Review, II, 4 (August, 1974), 4. Q Rowland Barber, "A Fine Madness at Fountain and Vine," TV Guide, August 7, 1971, p. 7. 5 base for attracting funds for the production of addi tional programs and series. In 1969 NET Playhouse received an Emmy from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences as the best weekly dramatic television series. "The Andersonvilie Trial" on Hollywood Tele vision Theatre received national Emrays in 1970 as the best single drama program and for the best drama adapta tion; Emmys also were awarded to the technical director and the cameramen. The George Foster Peabody Broadcast ing Award was presented for "The Andersonville Trial" in 1970. Jan Scott received a national Emmy in 1972 as the set designer for "The Scarecrow" on Hollywood Television Theatre. Public television drama has also received financial recognition; successful programs have generated additional funding, as occurred in the ease of Hollywood Television Theatre, making possible a later series, Visions. A total of ten million dollars was planned for Visions, to be provided by the Ford Foundation, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). It was reported that "KCET got the grants ... on the basis of their performance record with Hollywood Television Theatre and their proposal that Barbara Schultz ... 9 head the project." 9News item in ETV Newsletter, July 8, 1975, p. 5. Previous research studies, books, and articles have described various characteristics of television drama and investigated its importance. Many studies have concentrated on techniques of writing, producing, and directing television drama; other studies have presented case histories of particular programs or series. These accounts, however, have dealt with commercial, not public television. Some research has described in detail the production process and environ ment of television film series, but not in the medium of vide© tape. Some written accounts have been pub lished about Hollywood Television Theatre, but these usually were program previews and reviews, interviews with talent about a particular play, or descriptions of a single production element such as lighting and costuming. Because public television drama as a subject of research has been largely overlooked, and because no organized studies of Hollywood Television Theatre were found in the literature, an investigation of that series was deemed important. Further, Hollywood Television Theatre was an integral part of the development of drama in public television and contributed to the reservoir of new dramatic productions in television. In May 1970 Los Angeles public television Station KCET 7 (Channel 28), as the producing agency of the series, aired the first production of Hollywood Television Theatre: "The Andersonville Trial.” From that beginning, through the summer of 1976, forty-four plays were pro duced for the series and forty of them were aired 10 nationally by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). (See Appendix A for a complete list of these plays.) This study of Hollywood Television Theatre was designed to provide an analysis of one nationally recognized public television series of dramatic programs. The investigation explored the following factors: circumstances surrounding origination of the series; changes in artistic objectives, types of plays, schedul ing practices, and production procedures during the life of the series; administrative structure and management of the series; the environment in which plays were lO vOnly the forty plays actually produced by Hollywood Television Theatre between January 1970 and March 1^76 were used as a basis for study of the admin istration, production process, and production environ-, ment of the series. Six plays (”The Bread and Puppet Theatre,” "The Plot to Overthrow Christmas," "Day of Absence," "The Chicago Conspiracy Trial," "Shakespeare Wallah," and "Wanda") were not originally produced by Hollywood Television Theatre, but were considered as part of ihe historical development of the series. In addition, the four plays produced or planned for pro duction as of March 1976, but not aired ("The Last of Mrs. Lincoln," "Six Characters in Search of an Author," "Actor," and "The Master Builder"), were included as part of the historical development of the series only. 8 produced; and ways in which production problems were solved. THE PROBLEM Statement of the Purpose The purpose of this study was to provide scholars and producers of television drama with information about creating and implementing a public television anthology drama series, administrating and managing such a series, incorporating changes in production concepts and approaches, and dealing with the production processes and environment of a publie television series. Informa tion concerning the precise ways in which plays were produced; different approaches to their work among producers and directors in the production process; and how changes in artistic objectives, equipment capability, personnel availability, and production techniques occurred during the period of this study were believed to be of particular interest to individuals directly involved in program production. It was believed that scholars and administrators would find information about the sequence of events involved in creating and managing a dramatic anthology series of significant value. Statement of the Problem The problem of the study was to describe (1) factors in the establishment of Hollywood Television Theatre, including origination and implementation of the series idea; (2) the development of Hollywood Television Theatre from 1969 through the 1975-1976 season indicating periodic changes in the concept of the series; (3) the administrative structure and management of the series; (4) factors characterizing the production process of the series; and (5) factors characterizing the production environment of the series. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED Administrative structure was defined as the way in which Hollywood Television Theatre was organized: the kind of operating departments or offices, types of jobs or positions, and reporting lines of personnel. Educational television was defined as the use of television primarily to inform, instruct, or enlighten instead of to entertain. The Carnegie Commission on Educational Television described educa tional television as the system of noncommercial television in the United States with two separate functions: "instructional television, directed at students in the classroom . . • and what we shall 10 call Public Television, which is directed at the general community.1,11 Use of the term "educational television” gradually diminished after 1967; instead, references usually were made to one or the other of its components: instructional television or public television. This study was concerned with public television and referred to "educational television" only in its earlier, historical context. National Educational Television (NET), estab lished as a corporation in Illinois in 1952, was the primary program procurement and distribution agency for educational television stations until the establishment of the Public Broadcasting Service in 1969. Production environment was defined as the aggre gate of social and physical conditions that influenced the personnel in a television production situation during the creation and development of television programs. Production process was defined as the series of events and activities leading to the ultimate creation of a television program and usually involving four stages: planning, rehearsing, recording, and editing. 11 Carnegie Commission on Educational Television, Public Television: A Program for Action (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1967), p. 1. 11 Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), a private, nonprofit membership organization of United States public television stations, was established to select, schedule, distribute, and promote national programming. By 1975 it also represented public television licensees before the executive branch, Congress, the Corporation 12 for Public Broadcasting, and the public. Public television was defined as "all that is of human interest and importance which is not at the moment appropriate or available for support by advertising, and which is not arranged for formal instruction" (Carnegie Commission, p. 1), in differentiating it from both commercial and instructional television. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Assumptions It was assumed that persons who were involved in the production process, i.e., producers, directors, and technical crew, would be able to discuss meaningfully their roles in the production process and would remember events that occurred in that process. It was further 12 National Association of Educational Broad casters, NAEB Educational Telecommunications Directory Washington, D.C.: National Association of Educational Broadcasters, 1974), p. 13. 12 assumed that if general factors characterizing the production process and environment of Hollywood Tele vision Theatre were developed, they would reflect the true nature of events in the process. Limitations The study was limited to the period from June 1969, when the idea of the series was formulated, to the end of the 1975-1976 season. In a little over six years enough plays had been produced to provide a basis for analysis of the series. Excluded from investigation of the production process and environment were plays that were aired under the Hollywood Television Theatre series title, but were produced by other agencies. Because these plays were not a part of the regular production process of the series, they were only rele vant to the historical sections of this study. Some difficulties in arranging interviews were encountered. Meetings with several directors had to \ be postponed because of busy schedules; one director could not be contacted, so a substitution was made. Lewis Freedman, the original executive producer, was an important resource for the study, but locating him was a major problem. His permanent address and tele phone number in New York were provided by KCET manage ment. A letter was sent requesting an interview and 13 a follow-up telephone call was made. The investigator was referred, by recording, to a Los Angeles law office, which provided the information that Freedman was in Europe and would not return for one year. His address in Yugoslavia was provided; a letter was sent, but no answer was received. Freedman was traced to Athens, Greece and London, England, and additional letters were sent with no response. Repeated telephone calls were made to his home in New York and to the Los Angeles office of his lawyer. Members of KCET manage ment also attempted to reach Freedman through mutual friends, but all efforts met with no response. Finally, the President and General Manager of KCET learned that Freedman had become a resident of Turkey and would not be available for this study, so other resource persons associated with this series were substituted. METHOD, PROCEDURES, AND TREATMENT OF DATA Method The method of this study was descriptive. Data for the study were obtained from interviews and pub lished materials about Hollywood Television Theatre. Published articles concerning public television also provided data when relevant to the study. 14 Procedures The first procedure of this study was to develop a list of individuals to be interviewed. Preliminary discussions were held with James Loper, President and General Manager of KCET, and Charles Allen, Vice- President for Programming of the station, in order to identify potential areas of investigation and indi viduals who might be interviewed. As a result of these discussions a list of interviewees was developed (see Appendix B). Names of prospective interviewees were selected from those suggested by KCET management and by compiling the list of credits, including cast and crew, from productions which were printed in Gambit, the KCET Program Guide. After correspondence with the Ford Foundation, it was determined that one individual from that organization could provide the necessary information about its role in the establishment of the series. KCET management personnel who were identi fied as having relevant information about the series were the President and General Manager, Vice-President for Programming, Vice-President for Business Affairs, the production manager, two engineers, and an adminis trative assistant. Preliminary discussions also stressed the importance of the manner in which Hollywood Television Theatre was established, and this particular 15 was incorporated into the study. Because there were two separately identifiable production periods in the development of Hollywood Television Theatre, it was possible to select a repre sentative sample of directors to interview from each era. Four directors were selected who worked under Lewis Freedman, and three who directed plays for Norman Lloyd; one director was interviewed who had worked with both executive producers. Information was sought from persons directly involved in the production process, as in the case of directors, and those not directly involved, such as station management personnel. In addition, interviews were included with individuals who were associated with the series throughout its history. It was believed that actors would not provide information substantially different from directors and production crew members. Other individuals were selected for interviews according to their availability, their willingness to participate in the study, and the probability that they possessed significant information about the series. Engineering and other technical information about television equipment were included only when necessary for an understanding of the pro duction process and environment. 16 The second procedure was to formulate the inter view questionnaire. A pilot study was conducted by this writer in 1974 in order to develop a systematic design for analyzing the production process and environ- 13 raent of an educational television series. A question naire was developed for the pilot study, and based upon experience during interviews the questions were refined so that they could be applied to the study of a public television dramatic series. In addition, categories were developed so that questions could be organized in a meaningful design. For the study of Hollywood Tele vision Theatre a single master form containing questions for all participants was designed to use in every interview. After the first two interview sessions it was apparent that one form with some inapplicable questions was cumbersome; therefore, individual ques tionnaires were designed for categories of interviewees: executive producer and producers, directors, management personnel, and production personnel. (See Appendix C for two sample interview questionnaires.) The third procedure was to arrange for inter views. These were held from March 1975 through April *3Donel Price, MA Pilot Project to Develop a Systematic Design for the Study of the Educational Tele vision Production Environment” (research report pre sented to the Department of Telecommunications, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, July, 1974). 1976. In some cases interviews were set up by personal contact or by telephone; this technique obtained when the investigator already knew the individual to be interviewed. For others, a letter requesting an inter view was written, which included a list of proposed questions and a copy of the investigator’s resum6 in order to provide the interviewee with background information. (See Appendix D for a sample interview letter.) The investigator telephoned the prospective interviewee about a week after the letter was sent and an interview was arranged. The fourth procedure was to conduct interviews. In the contact letters interviewees had been forewarned that the sessions would be audio-tape recorded in the interest of accuracy. Most participants agreed to this technique, and the additional safeguard of stopping the tape recorder for off-the-reeord comments assisted in overcoming most resistance. Although a list of prepared questions was used during interviews in order to insure that no essential information was overlooked, provision was made to discuss unforeseen areas of concern that arose during interviews. Before each interview the investigator briefly described the purpose of the study and provided any additional information that was requested. During the interview additional questions 18 that had not been planned often came up and were pursued as long as the investigator believed relevant information was forthcoming. At an appropriate time the investigator returned to the original list of questions. At the conclusion of each session the interviewee was asked if there were additional comments he would like to make or if any significant information had been overlooked. The fifth procedure was to transcribe the audio tapes. Originally a typist was engaged for this work, but unfamiliarity with television terminology brought unsatisfactory results. The investigator then accom plished this task himself; tapes were at first tran scribed in their entirety, but later on portions con sidered unimportant to the study were disregarded. Approximately five hours were required to transcribe each interview. While the study was being written the investigator at times referred to the original tapes in order to clarify information. The sixth, and final, procedure was to organize data for writing the study. In the course of reviewing related literature some data were found in published sources that had a direct bearing upon the subject of the study; these data were combined, where appropriate, with information accumulated during the interviews. 19 Data from both printed sources and personal interviews were found to be related to the establishment and artistic objectives of Hollywood Television Theatre, changes in the development of the series between 1969 and 1976, the administrative structure and management of the series, and factors in the production process and environment of the series. Information that was accumulated from printed sources and personal inter views was separated into files according to these primary subdivisions in order to facilitate writing the study. In some instances a page of transcribed interview contained data that were applicable to more than one ehapter of the study; a coding system was developed and symbols were placed in the margins so that these pages could easily be identified and trans ferred to different files as required. Treatment of Data Although persons who were interviewed for the study were willing to discuss all aspects of their association and experiences with Hollywood Television Theatre and had no objection to interviews being recorded on audio tape, some interviewees occasionally requested that specific comments not be attributed to them. In these instances the investigator made a special written note or acknowledged the request so 20 that a verbal reminder was recorded on the tape. When ever these comments were used in the study, either in paraphrase or in direct quotation, they Were cited as anonymous sources. By using this technique it was possible to acquire information otherwise unobtainable, particularly when difficult situations or problems about the series were being discussed. Some quantitative data were presented in the findings of this study, but they were limited to a portion of the chapter describing the historical changes occurring in Hollywood Television Theatre. In order to show relationships among different periods in the history of the series it was necessary to present tabular material about the number and length of broad cast seasons and productions; tables showing the dramatic forms, subject matter, and themes of plays in the series also were required. The total numbers in different categories of data were relatively small: forty-two original productions, fifty plays that were aired, and seven complete seasons. Categories of data for this study were formulated from information gathered during interviews and from printed sources; each subdivision of the research problem dealt with a different aspect of Hollywood Television Theatre and so required a different set of 21 categories. The categories helped to explain problems and changes in the development of the series, and also clarified differences of opinion and recollection that emerged from interviews with various source persons. Insofar as possible, information provided by one source person also was solicited from other sources in the course of interviewing and without revealing the original source. Data reflected the opinions and recollections of persons who were interviewed, and the treatment of data involved matching and balancing these different points of view and recollections of facts and events. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY Chapter II presents a review of literature that is related to the production process and environment in television drama and to various features of Hollywood Television Theatre. Chapter III describes factors that contributed to the establishment of Hollywood Television Theatre and the sequence of events in the formation of the series. This chapter also includes an analysis of the artistic objectives of the series. Chapter IV presents an analysis of changes that occurred in the history of the series, identifying 22 basic information about the plays that were produced and broadcast. Chapter V is concerned with the administration and management of the series, concentrating on fiscal and personnel relationships between the series and Station KCET. Chapter VI describes the production process of Hollywood Television Theatre. The process included a sequence of events beginning with selection of dramatic properties, progressing through preplanning and rehearsal stages to recording and postproduction editing. Chapter VII presents an analysis of the pro duction environment of the series, indicating the importance of budget limitations, working relation ships, and the extent of work autonomy in determining the nature of the television production environment. Chapter VIII includes a summary of findings, conclusions, and recommendations for further study. 23 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Public television was formally organized in the United States in 1967; therefore, the search for pub lished materials related to public television began with that year. This study also was concerned with the related subject of dramatic television production, and so the search of general indexes and card catalogs began with earlier years. The search for literature related to the problem of this study concentrated on published information about the process of television production, the pro duction environment, and the production of dramatic programs in public television. A thorough search also was made for articles about Hollywood Television Theatre. The eard catalogs of the Los Angeles City Public Library and the libraries of the University of Southern California and California State University, Los Angeles, were searched for literature about the television pro duction process and environment, producing and directing television programs, dramatic television programs, public television, and Hollywood Television Theatre. General indexes were searched beginning with the first mention of "television” that could be found: 24 Readers Guide to Periodical Literature (1922-June, 1975), International Index (1924-1969), Social Sciences and Humanities Index (1969-1975). Other indexes searched were Topicator (1968-1974) and Journal of Broadcasting indexes (1956-1971 Index and annual indexes from 1972 to 1975). Dissertation Abstracts also was searched: Retrospective Index. Volumes I-XXIX (to 1969); annual indexes for Volumes XXX-XXXII (1970-1972); quarterly, bimonthly, and monthly indexes for Volumes XXXIII- Volurae XXXVI, Part 2 (1973-August 1975). Scholarly publications searched were Journal of Broadcasting, 1956 to 1975; Educational Broadcasting Review, 1967 to 1973, and its successor, Public Tele communications Review, 1973 to 1975. Issues of TV Guide from 1967 to 1975 were searched for articles about public television, tele vision production, and Hollywood Television Theatre. Issues of Gambit (KCET's Program Guide which was formerly titled KCET Program Guide) were searched from September 1969 (approximate date of Hollywood Television Theatre establishment) through 1975. The New York Times index from 1967 to 1973 and issues of ETV Newsletter for the same period were searched for background articles about public television at the time of the establishment 25 and early development of the series. The topic headings in the library card catalogs, journals, and publications that were searched included community television, drama, education, educational television, Hollywood, Hollywood Television Theatre, instructional television, KCET, networks, public tele vision, television broadcasting, television in education, television production and direction, television drama and television plays, television programs and programming, television stations, theater and television, and video tape. In Dissertation Abstracts topic headings searched were drama, dramatic, mass communication, programs, production, speech-theater, and television. NEED FOR RESEARCH ABOUT THE PRODUCTION PROCESS IN PUBLIC BROADCASTING Two authors commented on the need for research about the television production process and related environmental concerns. Smith indicated, in 1972, that "no scholarly studies of the organization; social, pro fessional, and artistic environment; and production process for a one hour weekly dramatic television series 1 were discovered . . . . " Elliott, in the same year, ^Wallace A. Smith, "A Description of the Organiza tion, Production Process, and Production Environment of a Dramatic Television Series" (unpublished Ph.D. dis sertation, University of Southern California, 1972), p. 5. wrote that "there have been few attempts to investigate the genesis of . . . [television] content. . . . There has been little academic debate about production for 2 the mass media." Finally, no complete studies about the production process and environment of dramatic programs in public television or specifically about Hollywood Television Theatre were found. LITERATURE RELATED TO THE PRODUCTION PROCESS IN TELEVISION DRAMA Studies and articles which were found contained limited consideration of the way in which programs were produced, but emphasized other features of television drama. Three studies presented the historical develop ment of various dramatic television series: Diskin described the origin of The United States Steel Hour, its historical development, and reasons for its decline; Sturcken analyzed a twenty-year period of Philip Elliott, The Making of a Television Series; A Case Study in the Sociology of Culture (New York: Hastings House Publishers, l¥72), p. 5. ^Marvin Diskin, MA Descriptive and Historical Analysis of the Live Television Anthology Drama Program, The United States Steel Hour, 1953-1963" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1968). 27 4 changes in network television drama; and Hawes pre- 5 sented a history of anthology television drama. Two ♦ studies concentrated upon the types of plays presented: 6 Shaw analyzed Armstrong Circle Theatre, and Jackson emphasized the quality of dramatic programs of the 7 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Elements of tele vision dramatic production were discussed in two studies: Currie investigated the influence of staging, camera techniques, decor, and editing upon dramatic television © themes; and Gumpert constructed a grammar of television theater, classifying elements of the television medium: 4 Francis Sturcken, "An Historical Analysis of Live Network Television Drama from 1938 to 1958" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1960). ^William Hawes, "A History of Anthology Tele vision Drama through 1958" (unpublished Ph.D. dis sertation, University of Michigan, 1960). g Myron Shaw, "A Descriptive Analysis of the Documentary Drama Television Program, the Armstrong Circle Theatre, 1955-1961" (unpublished Ph.D. dis- sertation, University of Michigan, 1962). 7 Roger Jackson, "An Historical and Analytical Study of the Origin, Development and Impact of the Dramatic Programs Produced for the English Language Networks of the CBC" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1966). ®Rolf H. Currie, "The Stylization of the Dramatic TV Image" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1962). 28 camera, editing, staging, personnel, and modes of 9 performance. One article was found that briefly described the practice, by station WOR in its Broadway TV Theater series, of repeating the same drama five nights a week live with no kinescope recording.**'® Another article described the early nse of video tape and its lack of flexibility at that time as compared 11 to film. None of these studies or articles pre sented a detailed analysis of the production process, and all were concerned with drama in commercial, not public, television. Studies and articles that contained closely related information about the production process were those that (1) described only generalized or typical production procedures, (2) described experiences in producing specific programs or series, and (3) pre sented an organized study of the production process. 9 Gary Gumpert, "Television Theatre as an Art Form” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1963). "^"One Week Stand," Newsweek, April 28, 1952, pp. 93-94. "^"Getting It Taped," Time, February 4, 1957, p. 45. 29 The Typical Production Process . As early as the 1950's writers were discussing elements of the production process. Differentiating television from stage directing in a 1951 article, Hart viewed the director as a translator of script into the television medium: It is the director's job, in working with actors primarily, to give the fullest variety and meaning to the words— to establish their impact in the most dramatic terms he can devise .... In directing for TV you use a number of cameras, usually three or four simultaneously . . . there fore, you face the problem of setting up the entire performance for an infinite number of prosceniums— the constantly changing camera eye's frame— the frame of each individual shot.12 In a work edited by Kaufman, in 1955, several television directors used their own experiences to describe procedures used in the directing process. Lumet, in his experience as director for Omnibus and The Elgin Theatre, discovered that reading the script, casting the show, holding set conferences, rehearsing, and blocking were procedures in the production process 13 for which the director was held responsible. Mann 12Walter Hart, "Directing for TV," Theatre Arts, XXXV, 2 (February, 1951), 51. 13Sidney Lumet, "Creating a 'Point of View,'" How to Direct for Television, edited by William I. Kaufman (New York: Hastings House Publishers, 1955), pp. 26-33. 30 director for Producer1s Showcase, similarly found that a director's typical schedule included script reading, casting, script revisions, production meetings, rehears- 14 als, blocking, and camera rehearsal. Explaining problems that confront a director Swope, in connection with Robert Montgomery Presents, touched upon two different approaches to television directing: I suppose the division between schools of directors can be broadly drawn between camera directors and staging directors. The former have their camera movements plotted first, and rehearse from that base. The latter read, stage, and then draw their final shots from the natural staging and movement of the cast although, of course, the cameras' basic positions are known in advance. Drawing upon his experience with The Colgate Theatre and The Philco Television Playhouse, Simpson concluded that a director should not try to polish a play too rapidly, but should have camera shots clearly in mind 16 and written on the script before production. 1 4 Delbert Mann, "No Retakes," How to Direct for Television, edited by William I. Kaufman TNew York: Hastings House Publishers, 1955), pp. 81-89. 15 Herbert Swope, Jr., "TV Direction: Challenge in a Tube," How to Direct for Television, edited by William I. Kaufman (New York: Hastings House Publishers, 1955), p. 43. 1 fi Garry Simpson, "Give It Content," How to Direct for Television, edited by William I. Kaufman (New York: Hastings House Publishers, 1955), pp. 21-22. 31 Igl&sis, in a 1960 artiele, provided a systematic description of the production-direetion process designed for the stage producer who might become involved in live 17 television drama. Dividing the process into the preparation, rehearsal, and production stages, Igldsis carried the process from set design, scripting, and casting to final live airing. The preparation stage was summarized by the author: Once you have the plan of your set, you prepare the shooting script. You work out on paper the positions of your cameras, you plot their movements from one set to another; at the preparation stage, this is the essence of your work *(Igl6sis, p. 328) Other elements in this part of the process were: arranging for recorded or live music, costumes, and props; and planning the production schedule. In the rehearsal stage the emphasis was placed upon how the produeer-director was to work with the actors: You settle, then, the movements of the actors, you give rhythm to their performance, light and shade to their interpretation, while specifying to the script girl the positions of the cameras, their movements and what they must take of the action; long shots, medium shots or close-ups < (Iglfcsis, p. 332) During dress rehearsals: 17 Roger Igldsis, "First Steps in Television for the Stage Producer," World Theatre, IX, 4 (Winter, 1960), 325-336. 32 Your role (in France, at least) is to select by- means of push buttons the right pictures at the right moment so that their sequence on the master screen will give you the play in its continuity. This first rehearsal at the control panel allows you to stop the performance, to start the scene again, and to correct a movement. At the end of the morning, you will thus have seen the whole play. In the afternoon there will be a dress rehearsal with make-up under the exact conditions of the transmission*(Iglfesis, p. 333) Iglfesis viewed the actual production period as a series of various problems that might occur instead of a sequence of events. Such dangers as microphones appearing on camera, actors forgetting lines, and cameras malfunctioning were listed (Iglfesis, p. 336); these examples were presented as warnings that the producer-director must react to immediately and find a solution so that the show might be as perfect as possible (Igl6sis, p. 336). In a 1971 practical reference book Efrein devoted several chapters to the preproduction and production process, although he did not specifically discuss tele- 1 f t vision drama. That part of the preproduction process centering around the producer was viewed in terms of his role as part of a team: 18 Joel L. Efrein, Video Tape Production and Communication Techniques (Blue Ridge Summit, " Pennsylvania: TAB Books, 1971). 33 The producer is the creator, catalyst, promoter and coordinator of a production. He conceptualizes a show idea, then focuses and forms it into a verbal presentation to prospective members of the production team. He not only needs the advice and cooperation of the talent and the director, but of the other members of the team as well: the set designer, graphics man, cameraman, etc. (Efrein, p. 181) The preproduction process was described as "the plan ning stage, the 'think' piece, the visualization and 'procreation' of a program before the actual work commences" (Efrein, p. 181). The remainder of the production process was presented in step-by-step pro cedures of taping a show. Efrein concluded that the following procedures were common in the production period: setting and lighting the show; assembling materials, such as props and graphics; doing a run- through of the show, making a test tape of the show opening; taping; and replaying tape for evaluation (Efrein, pp. 204-212). The Production Process in Specific Programs Articles by Freedley and Stuart, although con taining only brief references about elements of production, helped to explain the production process. Freedley, reflecting upon his personal experience as producer of Showtime U.S.A., viewed the process as a series of obstacles to be overcome: With cameramen, boom men, sound effects men, audio and video operators, technical directors, executive supervisors, assistant supervisors, assistants to the assistant supervisors, not to mention dear old Local No. 1, it is, to a neophyte like myself, a miracle that the show gets on at all.^® Stuart, executive producer of the Vaughn Monroe Show, concentrated upon requirements of musical production and an explanation of fundamental production techniques such as panning, dissolving, and cutting; however, in a list of preproduction planning steps he included develop ment of the set by the scene designer, arrangement for costumes and props, determination of lighting require ments, and arrangement of music.2® A personality feature in TV Guide about Kjellin, director of two Colombo segments, contained some informa tion about the production process used in film programs for commercial television. The system of blocking, important in planning shots, was described as follows: Kjellin had the script open on his desk and he was making rough sketches in a series of 21 rectangles he had drawn on a long yellow legal pad. He explained he did this for every day’ s shooting. Each rectangle was a drawing of a scene as he later would set it up, in sequence, for the camera. *®Vinton Freedley, ‘ 'Producing for TV," Theatre Arts, XXXV, 2 (February, 1951), 49. 2®William Stuart, "Shooting a Close-up," Radio and Television News, XLV (May, 1951), 39. pi Bill Davidson, "What Does a Director Do?" TV Guide, October 26, 1974, p. 14. 35 Throughout the article were details concerning the continuing activities of a director in the production process. The author established the following important elements: acquiring the script, storyboarding, searching for locations, casting, solving production problems, revising script, holding production conferences, inspecting sets and locations, and making last minute blocking changes (Davidson, pp. 11-16). An article in the New York Times Magazine focus ing on Sheldon Leonard concluded that the producer also became involved in details of the production process. After describing Leonard's own approach to producing the I Spy series, which included frequently starting with his own idea as well as supervising the entire production, the author briefly discussed the producer's role: While a producer may do little more than sign checks, delegating supervision of the show to others, in theory his responsibilities begin with obtaining a script and do not end until the taped show is edited and scored for music. In between the producer oversees revision of the script, decides casting, controls the budget and maintains liaison with the network, sponsors and ad men.22 The author returned to a description of Leonard's activities during a typical day: attending script 22Joan Barthel, "What a TV Producer Produces," New York Times Magazine, November 21, 1965, p. 38. 36 conferences, viewing rushes, attending production meet ings, and reviewing budgets (Barthel, p. 39). The author of Anatomy of a Television Play pro vided an explanation of procedures generally followed in the production of Great Britain's (ITA) dramatic series, The Armchair Theatre, as well as a highly 23 detailed account of the production of two plays. In summary form, the author described the production process of the series: An Armchair Theatre play has a "life cycle" of about five weeks from the time a director begins work on a production to the day of recording. The first three weeks are spent in casting and in pre paring set designs and camera and lighting plans; the last two weeks are taken up with what are known as "dry" rehearsals in a room roughly the same size as the studio. There the area of the sets is marked out on the floor with adhesive tape, and the actors work with odds and ends of props and furniture. The two days before recording are spent in the studio, where the actors make rapid adjustments to the real scenery and furnishings, "walk" their parts for the benefit of the camera men and other technicians. The studio staff must learn and master their various roles by lunchtime on the second day; the remaining afternoon is then used for uninterrupted dress rehearsals, culminating in the recording around six o'clock,(Taylor, p. 13) Taylor organized material in two sections, each a detailed analysis of the development and production of a play in the series. 23 John Russell Taylor, Anatomy of a Television Play (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson Limited, 1962). 37 "The Rose Affair" section was presented in the form of short essays by members of the production team and contained useful but somewhat disconnected informa tion about the production process. "The Rose Affair" director described his discussions with the playwright on interpreting the play, his efforts to visualize the play, and techniques of working with actors; he also gave several examples of problems that occurred during the actual production (Taylor, pp. 26-27). The "Afternoon of a Nymph" section, on the other hand, was organized chronologically with a subsection devoted to each part of the production process: playwright hired; script completed; playwright-director meetings; set design; technical conferences; casting; rehearsals, including problems with character interpre tation; prerecording; and recording the play. Detailed accounts of the process were related throughout. For example, technical conferences with the floor manager, chief cameraman, lighting director, and technical supervisors in attendance involved consideration of such problems as the following: In the party scene, . . . Ethe director] wanted to take reverse-angle shots of Janet Munro and Ian Hendry as they talked on the upper terrace of the patio— that is, to photograph them from both sides as they faced each other for an important piece of dialogue. A camera below could take the shots of Ian Hendry, but to eatch Janet Munro's face there 38 would have to be a camera above on the terrace as well. A suitable moment must be found, therefore, to raise a camera on the fork-lift-truck in time for this scene, and to lower it again afterwards so it could be used for subsequent scenes on the studio floor (Taylor, pp. 126-127). This kind of production problem occurred because of the continuous process used in video tape recording The Armchair Theatre series. Taylor pointed out that recording had several advantages, such as higher quality than kinescoping and greater production flexibility than live presentation; he reported, however, that the advantages of video tape were not fully used: . . . there is always a heavy demand on studios and recording facilities, so production timetables have to be tightly scheduled. Recordings are therefore treated as far as possible like a con tinuous live performance, which is stopped . . . only for the briefest periods. To achieve this continuity, sequences presenting special diffi culties are pre-recorded at some other time during the two days' studio rehearsal which is allowed a one-hour programme like Armchair Theatre, and these recordings are then inserted intothe main performance. Unscheduled editing, however, is done only in cases of dire necessity, since it is both difficult and expensive to cut electronic tape.(Taylor, p. 12) Organized Studies of the Production Process Several studies were found that described elements in the production of specific programs or series and also organized the elements into a general pattern. Three doctoral dissertations contained 39 information that was indirectly related to this study. Rider compared the role of the director in the pro duction of drama in the film and television media; he particularly noted similarities in blocking and camera 24 techniques. Deihl studied the role of George Schaefer as a producer-director of The Hallmark Hall of Fame, concentrating upon his influence on the series, but 25 analyzing some aspects of the production process. Savoie investigated the dramatic service of French television, dealing primarily with history and status of that service and on an analysis of plays. However, one chapter by Savoie was devoted to the process of dramatic production, the role of the director, and the problems of adaptation of plays. Lynch reported a chronological account of the production of one program in The United States Steel 24 Richard L. Rider, "A Comparative Analysis of Directing Television and Film Drama" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1958). O R Ernest R. Deihl, "George Schaefer and The Hallmark Hall of Fame: A Study of the Produeer-Direetor of a Live Television Drama Series" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1964). pg Norman R. Savoie, "French Television and Dramatic Literature" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1971). 40 27 Hour series from first reading to air performance. Although the process in this case applied to live television in 1955, many elements were found to be related to this study. Lynch reported several ways of blocking a script and found that the director of the production under investigation used a variety of block ing techniques: Every director has his own method of preplan ning. One may plan every shot, every movement of the actor and camera, every piece of business before he meets his actors, and then rarely deviate from his original plan. Another may plot only the major shots and actor groupings and then add the details and refinement as he goes along. A third may do little or no preplanning and rely on inspiration as he blocks his actors in early rehearsals. . . . Norman Felton combined all of these methods into one. He carefully planned every shot, movement, and piece of business before the first rehearsal; but he was willing to change and improve his planning at suggestion or sudden inspiration— a "system with flexibility." (Lynch, p. 85) As part of the production process, Lynch com mented on the role of the director in working with actors and production personnel. Of particular interest was a characterization of the techniques used by the director in getting the best from his cast: 27 James E. Lynch, "The Case History of a Live TV Drama," The Quarterly of Film, Radio and Television, XI, 1 (Fall, 1956), 83-93. 41 Again, without giving the appearance of being rushed, but by working steadily and surely, the director covered the entire show. Furthermore, he subtly began to inject his own ideas on inter pretation and characterization. Instead of gathering the actors around a table to discuss these points, he got them on their feet and kept them there. But, in the process, he also managed to suggest bits of business for each actor in his particular roleJ(Lynch, p. 87) The article also revealed differences between the television production process in 1955 and in 1975, reflecting advances in technology. No postproduction activities were reported because the program was aired live, before video tape was in use. A special rehearsal was required "of the final three scenes to give Mr. Karloff a chance to rehearse some fast costume changes” (Lynch, p. 91), an unnecessary requirement in edited video tape production. Smith conducted an intensive investigation of the production organization, process, and environment of the series Then Came Bronson, produced by Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer and aired by the National Broadcasting Company. Although the series was produced on film for commercial television, information about its production was considered relevant to this study. Focusing on four aspects of the production organization, Smith was interested in the extent to which NBC and MGM were creative organizations, employment practices and effects 42 upon personnel, and the distribution of authority in the production organization. He found that "creativity in the production of television programs was inhibited by the primacy of profits . . . and the commercial requirements of the television medium did not permit experimentation and potential failure" (Smith, p. 304). As a result, Smith concluded: There can be no experimentation with distinct art forms in television until the creative artists are permitted the freedom to experiment with new forms and styles of television drama in real broad cast situations. The networks are committed to the profit motive, the advertisers use television to increase their profits, and neither the networks nor the advertisers will tolerate the potential of failure which is essential to creative development* (Smith, pp. 315-316) Smith also concluded that the efficiency of the pro duction organization could be questioned because lines of authority and decision-making processes were very informal (Smith, p. 316). He found that "authority in the Bronson organization existed on three levels: the network, the studio, and the production unit" (Smith, p. 305), and further that "members of the production unit who did not have positions of power exercised their influence by not cooperating" (Smith, p. 306). Consideration of the production process of Then Came Bronson included: how the series idea was con ceived, developed, and maintained during production; 43 the decision by NBC to air Bronson; the role of audience and program research; and reasons why the series was not renewed. Smith found that "NBC did not cooperate with the producers ... in their attempt to develop a distinct art form for dramatic television programs (Smith, p. 313). He also found that although the producers innovated in program style and format, the audience and critics did not understand or respond to the innovation.(Smith, p. 321) Two recommendations for further study by Smith concerning the production process were related to this study: How, if at all, do different production organiza tions and networks provide for creativity in the production of television programs? Would fewer restrictions on time and budget significantly increase the artistic quality of television programs (Smith, p. 327)? LITERATURE RELATED TO THE PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT IN TELEVISION DRAMA Several articles were found that contained brief but related references to the production environ ment; they were related to the active, intense con ditions of television production and to the way in which personnel worked together in the production situation. In addition, studies by Cantor, Elliott, and Smith investigated the television production 44 environment in significant detail. Conditions of Television Production In an interview in Home Magazine producer Quinn Martin commented on "the bloody battlefield of tele- 28 vision production” in which the executive producer may participate. He continued: ”But the man who is a professional executive producer, as I am, sets the tone of a program and is, in effect, the controlling creative force” (Berges, p. 30). Referring to the production approach of Sheldon Leonard, a writer commented: ”A day on the lot with [him) is a nonstop exercise in decision making” (Barthel, p. 39). Another writer characterized George Schaefer's ability to get top performances from actors under tense conditions: ”To achieve the 'first night feeling' of a Broadway opening, he shoots the play in sequence. . . . Under Schaefer's hothouse 29 treatment, actors blossom.” In his discussion of the production of The United States Steel Hour, Lynch described one of the final rehearsals: Og Marshall Berges, "The Quinn Martins,” Los Angeles Times Home Magazine, July 27, 1975, p. 30. 29 "Organization Man," Time, November 26, 1965, p. 60. 45 At 5:00 [on the day of airingJ, another run- through got underway. . . . However, this proved to be the worst run-through to date. Actors dropped lines left and right, and two big blowups stopped the show completely. Apparently the uneasiness was due to the many recent line changes (Lynch, p. 92). A writer describing the Colombo series suggested that the lack of time contributed to adverse production conditions: With today's relentlessly short television- production schedules, a director, in effect, is like an army general preparing for battle— marshaling his troops. . . . Only about 12 of those 42 days are spent in actual filming. The rest is a grinding, backbreaking, mind-consuming hodgepodge of preparation.(Davidson, p. 11) Concern with the conditions of the production situation was evident even in the early experimental days of television broadcasting. An article in a 1943 issue of Radio News discussed the operations of DuMont's experimental station in New York City, W2XWV, including a description of the studio arrangement and how a typical production was conducted. The production atmosphere in the studio was described: Another thing is the confusion that attends a television show. Prior to the starting time, which is 8:30 for most programs, there is confusion plus in the tiny studio, control room, powder room, offices, and reception room. Operators are running through a film which will be included in the program, so as to know how to "shade" or monitor for satisfactory telecasting* An operator is trying out a new electrical transcription over the studio sound system. Out in the studio a pianist in shirt sleeves is coordinating his playing with 46 the comedienne who is headlining the evening program. The program director is dictating a few notes to be memorized by the announcer— you can't read a script in television, please notice. The girl announcer— she won the popu larity contest in the plant where she works— is doing her memorizing under considerable stress and strain; audibly so. Confusion plus. Yet a few minutes later, everything clicks with clock work precision. Such is the show business of which telecasting necessarily partakes for better or for worse.30 Personal and Professional Relationships In various ways the concept of producer control as one aspect of professional relationships in the production environment has been considered in the literature. In the context of a producer's responsi bilities, Robinson suggested that the producer must provide creative material by insisting "that the substance be fresh, the concept unique, the writing 31 crisp and painstaking, the direction truly creative." Disagreement between the producer and director over an actress' character interpretation was reported in the account of Britain's The Armchair Theatre series. In this case the producer prevailed by issuing an order 30»»TV Production at W2XWV, " Radio News, November, 1943, p. 116. "51 Hubbell Robinson, Jr., "The Producer's the Villain," Saturday Review, XLI (December 27, 1958), 23. 47 instead of making a suggestion, his usual method, but the director still maintained that "too much 'direction* of a player who is having difficulty with a part may inhibit the actress by making her feel inadequate, though he admits the danger of mistaking her needs'* (Taylor, p. 131). Quinn Martin also commented on the relationship between the producer and other members of the team: . . . If an executive producer lets it happen, a television show will be made by a committee. My toughest job is to discourage all parties involved from trying to turn horses into camels. If I fail to persuade them, everybody loses the race.(Berges, p . 31) Although another writer was referring to the area of television news, his comparison of the roles of television producer and newspaper editor illuminated the concept of control. This writer pointed out that, in addition to the "blending** function of overall super vision, the television producer usually maintained tight control on specific matters of production: . . . What newspaper editor, in addition to his overall blending function, would insist on accom panying a foreign correspondent on his trip, suggesting who were the right contacts to make here, who should be interviewed there and on what . . . and even proposing an occasional phrase as he sits at his typewriter?32 ^Robert Kee, "Look! No Hands!" Twentieth Century, CLXVI (November, 1959), 373. 48 Experiences in publie television also have illustrated characteristics of personal and professional relationships in the production environment. An uncommon situation in the production environment related to television drama was analyzed in great detail in Action, the publication of the Directors Guild of 33 America. Based upon the experiences of stage and camera directors in public television, Theater in America, the article explored the special problems inherent in the co-directing production system. The executive management of the series was convinced that using co-directors was essential to the objectives of the series: With the accent on first quality TV in the "live- on-tape" manner, the concept of directorial col laboration seemed very appropriate. As a television co-director would be equally engaged in re-conceiving and re-directing the stage production, we looked for directors with multi-camera-tape experience and in live stage productions as well.(Venza, p. 7) Two factors about interpersonal working rela tionships became evident in the co-directing situation: conflict between technical matters and dramatic content, and the ways in which responsibilities were divided. The stage directors were concerned that the techniques ^Jac Venza, "Theater in America: Can Directors Co-Direct?" Action, X (July-August, 1975), 6-18. 49 of* television production not interfere with the \ dramatic, theatrical aspects of the play. Alan Schneider (MThe Madness of God”) complained, ”... we'd seemingly spend precious hours on the technical stuff— camera placement, lights, boom movement. But no time to correct the performances, the actors, the play” (Venza, p. 9). Michael Langham (The School for Scandal”) suggested: Through some redesigning of the set and a more compact arrangement of furniture we could have— as we should have— made the viewer constantly aware of all four characters involved (two in hiding, two in the open) instead of energetically intercutting from one to another and dissipating the full, visual irony^(Venza, p. 12) The television directors were not unaware of this problem. Peter Levin ("The Madness of God”) and Schneider agreed that the production should not be merely a photographed play, but Levin had his contribu tion to make: "I did not want to reduce everything so that it could be 'shot' easily. I wanted the original shape of the production to force me to find other solutions than those I had used in the past" (Venza, pp. 10-11). The problem of dividing responsibilities between stage director and a television, or camera, director was also explored. Time pressures in the production of "The School for Scandal” meant that the co-directors 50 had to proceed on their own with different tasks. The stage director commented: Thus the partnership between the two directors temporarily split up: while I coped with the adaptation, Nick coped with the set designs, and insufficient correlation of purpose was sustained through this period. Had it been otherwise, had there been an all-embracing, joint visual con ception of, for example, the Screen Scene, we could have realized on camera all the essentials necessary to give this scene its fullest impact. (Venza, p. 12). In another production the television director pointed out that co-directing was really collaboration and that "directing it ain't. . . . one person directs a show— that is, makes final choices— about everything" (Venza, p. 15). Detailed Studies of the Production Environment Three researchers presented organized information about the television production environment that was related to this study. 34 Although an investigation by Cantor exhibited several basic differences from this study, its concern with work roles in television production was an impor tant part of the related literature. Cantor studied the arena of dramatic, continuing series produced on Muriel G. Cantor, The Hollywood Producer: His Work and His Audience (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1971) 51 film for commercial television, while this study was concerned with a dramatic anthology series produced on video tape for public television. Three problem areas in the production environment identified by Cantor were related to ways in which conflicts arose or were reconciled. Differences in the work situation appeared to influence means by which conflicts were resolved, as, for example, when produc ing functions were divided: . . . several series divided producing functions into two main areas: one concerned primarily with scripts, the other concerned with the other aspects of production. In most cases the second function (production and technology) is delegated to others trained in editing, dubbing, and set management, whether or not the authority remains with the producer.(Cantor, p. 98) Although Cantor found a significant amount of conflict in the production situation between producers and writers, such was not the case between producers and directors, even though the former were in control: The reasons for this become clear when one studies the way television films are made. First, because the director cannot change the scripts, he has limited power over the film making. . . . In addition, while producers are not in the least awed by the writer's work because most of them had been writers, most seem awed by the director's work. ... The directors of series are usually not under contract to the show but work on a free-lance basis (Cantor, pp. 106-107). Cantor also identified problem areas related to lack of freedom and controls imposed upon the work 52 situation. Although many producers admitted the necessity of compromise, "the major complaint about producing was the lack of political and artistic freedom (Cantor, p. 113). In the matter of control over television production, Cantor found that the net works usually censor in the areas of sex, politics, and raeial-ethnie matters (Cantor, p. 125), and also more informally through the supervision of liaison men at story conferences and in the selection of scripts (Cantor, pp. 127 ff.). In a book based upon research conducted during the production of a documentary television series for Associated Television in Great Britain, Elliott examined the production environment . . . by looking at programme-making as a social process, and by setting the programme-makers into a series of socio-cultural contexts: the work group, the organization, the medium oi* occupa tional milieu and the general socio-cultural system .(Elliott, p. 16) The resulting research identified basically two types of personnel structures operating within the pro duction environment: the organic and the mechanistic (Elliott, p. 127). The former was the production team, the creative individuals whose work was organized around the central goal of getting the program developed and produced, while the latter contained technical 53 personnel, the studio crew whose work centered on routine tasks rather than programs (Elliott, pp. 127- 129). This kind of structure was found to have an effect upon the nature of the production environment. Lack of involvement in program development meant that technical personnel had to be given detailed instruc tions (Elliott, p. 130), thereby increasing communica tion problems. Within the production team the loose definition of roles and flexibility of work assignments led to instances of tension (Elliott, p. 133). This was evident even on the highest levels of the team: Different executive producers vary widely in the way they interpret their role and in the relation ship they establish with the producer, leading the team. In some cases the executive producer may be closely involved, planning the programme and only leaving the producer the job of collecting the material.(Elliott, p. 136) In his study of the Then Came Bronson series, Smith analyzed the social, professional, and artistie environments in which the series was produced. Even though the audience and critics evidently did not respond to innovations in style and format of the series, it was found that the producers and directors did indeed innovate to a significant degree (Smith, p. 310). However, Smith also discovered that the production environment was so bad that there was no 54 way the series coaid have continued (Smith, p. 523). Several factors that created conflicts in the production environment were identified by Smith. In a possible reflection of the differences between creative and technical personnel, it was found that not all members of the production unit were committed to a common goal (Smith, pp. 311-312). It also was reported that producers did not tolerate the same degree of autonomy for other members of the team as they required (Smith, p. 312). Finally, the lead actor of the series demanded so much of himself and others that his ideas were in conflict with the business necessities of production (Smith, p. 313), and his unwillingness to compromise destroyed the series (Smith, p. 326). LITERATURE RELATED TO HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE No organized, substantial studies of the public television series Hollywood Television Theatre were found in the literature. A number of articles were discovered that dealt with various features of the series; these articles were related to the establishment, history, and purpose of the series, elements of the production process, and elements about the production environment. 55 Establishment, History, and Purpose The first reference to the establishment of the Hollywood Television Theatre project (under its original title) was found in the program guide of Station KGET-TV, Los Angeles: "The Greater Los Angeles Television Theater" is, for most of us, the most thrilling project in KCET's history. Under the direction of the Execu tive Producer, Lewis Freedman, Channel 28 will produce four plays by outstanding writers, and with casts of well known actors.35 This brief announcement was expanded the following month to include details of the grant and anticipated plans: Lewis Freedman, former PEL producer . . . has been named KCET executive producer of the newly created Greater Los Angeles Television Theater. Under an investigative grant from the Ford Founda tion, Freedman will look for original drama properties with the ultimate aim of producing several TV plays at KCET whieh will be distributed nationally. It is anticipated that major directors and star casts will complement the plays, according to Freedman, who emphasizes: "GLATT will be a source of entertainment first and an experiment second." • * • With this announcement comes the fortification that TV drama may indeed be alive and still living in Los Angeles.36 A New York Times article the following spring provided information about funding and used the series' 35„The Inner Tube," KCET Program Guide, October, 1969, p. 3. "Inside KCET," KCET Program Guide, November, 1969, p. 14. 56 ultimate title: . . . The largest of the grants, $356,000 [from the Ford Foundation], was made to the public television station KCET in Los Angeles to support production of a drama series entitled "Hollywood Television Theater," which will be shown over the country's 190 public TV stations this fall.37 Some brief references to historical developments of the series were located in two issues of Gambit. A special series airing plan for the 1973-1974 season was explained. Under the label Conflicts, nine one hour dramas chosen by Norman Lloyd were to be aired as part of the Hollywood Television Theatre series. "The title was early selected by someone else. At first it startled me," said Lloyd, "because when I set out to do this project I did not begin with "Conflicts" or any other specific thematic idea. I was looking for good material. That came first. I wanted weight and importance and struggled to fit it into an hour form. Now the more I think about the title, it's fine. It's apt, a happy result."39 Additional major two hour productions, including "Winesburg, Ohio," were planned in addition to the Conflicts airing schedule. ^Fred Ferretti, "Ford Grants of $832,432 to Aid 6 Public Broadcasting Projects," New York Times, March 12, 1970, p. 82. "The Season," Gambit, October, 1973, p. 6. 3^Ray Loynd, "'Conflicts': New Hollywood Tele vision Theatre Series Debuts," Gambit, November, 1973, p. 6. 57 Descriptions of the purpose and objectives of Hollywood Television Theatre also were found. In a book devoted to a review and future projections of public television, Macy commented on the series: . . . several production centers were encouraged to apply their own resources in dramatic pro ductions. An ambitious venture called Hollywood Television Theater was launched at KCET in Los Angeles, under the experienced direction of Lewis Freedman. Play scripts were adapted to the visual assets of television. Professional actors of the first rank performed for modest payment. The casts were kept small and the production setting simple. The results were most heartening. . . . The ultimate expectation was the formation of a well-funded continuing center for the regular production of TV dramas.40 In an issue of the KCET Program Guide Freedman had provided one perspective on the objectives of the series: The aim of the Hollywood Television Theater is to create moments like that [referring to the per formance of Jason Robards, Jr. in "The Iceman Cometh" for Play of the Week in I960]. It won't be a building with-a dark auditorium and actors on a stage. It won't be a movie house with a wide screen and the miraculous technology of film. But it will be a vivid place where the great playwrights and the great actors can speak directly to you, intimately, with great emotion, and with truth. I hope it will be your own theater, a private place^. where you will be regularly and richly entertained. 40 John Macy, Jr., To Irrigate a Wasteland (Berkeley: University of California Press, lW?4J, p. 61. 41 Lewis Freedman, "Like the 'Iceman,' the Hollywood Television Theater Cometh," KCET Program Guide, February, 1970, p. 9. 58 A subsequent issue revealed that Freedman envisioned the series as ’ ’ becoming a national 'showplace for plays that speak to the American people in their own idiom, 42 about their own lives, with vitality and with power.'" Writing in the Saturday Review, Shayon indicated that Freedman was planning original plays as well as classics and experimental ventures, and expressed his belief that American theater could be as creative as the Elizabethan: . . . change and corruption are the order of the day, just as in Shakespeare’s time, and the groundlings and the nobles are met together in a new electronic Globe Theatre. The fantasy persists in Mr. Freedman's vision— a theater not alone of museum pieces but with new playwrights rising from the excitement.43 An interview with Norman Lloyd in Gambit explained his own plans for the series in his role as the new executive producer. Indicating that he wanted to emphasize original material instead of classics, he reacted to the idea of a "national theater": I think the idea of a national theater on tele vision is a good one. If such a thing could be, we would like to be it. But primarily, our job is to 42 "Premiere: Hollywood Television Theatre," KCET Program Guide, April, 1970, p. 9. 43 Robert Lewis Shayon, "An Electronic Globe," Saturday Review, LIII (June 13, 1970), 40. 59 do first-class material in a first-class way. Too often organizations set themselves up as national theaters and build the buildings, but then don’t have anything to put in them. As a matter of fact there1s a charter for one in Washington that's been there for many years. And I think was supposed to be the national theater. But we’ve never really had a national theater of any kind. Here at KCET we have the tools, we have the tape, the machines and the cameras, so let's go out and get the actors and the best plays that we can and do them as well as we can. Then maybe something marvelous will come out of it and people will £ay, ’ ’ Hollywood Television Theatre is the national theater!”44 Elements in the Production Process All written accounts related to the production proeess of Hollywood Television Theatre were found in Gambit. Several articles contained scattered but relevant information about the selection of plays and personnel, video taping techniques, and various pro duction elements. One reference revealed how directors and talent were occasionally selected through personal contacts: Ralph Senensky, the director, is a very close friend and he was thinking of some other actress for the part who was the same age as I. He was telling someone about her and meant to say her name but mine came out instead. So he said, ”My gosh. I wonder if she'd do it?”45 44 "Tell Me, Norman Lloyd," Gambit, November, 1972, p. 25. 455 "Tell Me, Jean Peters," Gambit, March, 1973, p. 8. 60 Two brief references to video tape techniques revealed a preference for the "live tape" as opposed to "edited tape” process. A director for the series pointed out that "the actors are more alive and 46 spontaneous when they know there's no turning back.” The live tape recording technique was used for "The Andersonville Trial": What happened was spectacular: the first day on camera George blocked and rehearsed and taped 45 minutes of the first act in one straight uninterrupted run. We didn't have to do a second take or even have to do inserts.47 One article described the process of setting, lighting, and managing sound for Hollywood Television Theatre productions. The method of selecting sets for "Sty of the Blind Pig," "The Lady's Not for Burning," "Steam- bath," and "Nourish the Beast" was described. The author of the article indicated that lighting and sound problems were interrelated in the production of plays for the series, particularly in relation to boom and camera shadows.4® 46"Nail Biting Night on Stage A,” Gambit, February, 1972, p. 9. 47Lewis Freedman, "Andersonville," Gambit, February, 1971, p. 8. 48 "Lights, Set, Sound," Gambit, August-September, 1974, pp. 36-37. 61 Two articles provided analyses of the typical production process for the series. In "Shooting the Works" a chronological account was given of preproduc tion activities, blocking, rehearsal, production, and postproduction editing. The importance of preproduc tion planning was stressed because "the director has to select for editing as the shooting takes place, [andj he has to decide ahead of time how he wants the picture 49 to look as he is taping it." Although the blocking procedure was similar to that described in other litera ture, it was explained concisely: The director plots the shots by marking up his script to indicate which camera will take each one. These are then listed on cue sheets which go to each cameraman. The director decides which angles to use when watching rehearsals. By the time the production moves onto the stage, each shot is marked up in the book.("Shooting the Works," p. 14) Rehearsal and production procedures did not differ significantly from those generally followed in tele vision production. However, the practice of taping in sequences was described: The editing, again, is intrinsically different from that of motion pictures, as so much of the material is pre-edited during the actual taping. In video, we tape sequences, rather than set-ups, 49 "Shooting the Works," Gambit, December, 1974, 14. 62 and in Hollywood Television Theatre productions it is usual to shoot about 25 pages a day. A particular sequence may be done three or four times, but it is shot all the way through% (MShooting the Works,” p. 15) The process of postproduction editing was presented in some detail in the same article: The director, producer or editor selects material based on a time count on the tape itself. In eutting from Shot A to B to C, for example, the editor notes the time on the ”in” and "out” frames of each take and feeds it into the computer. Master tapes are played on monitors in the edit ing room and the information regarding the in and out frames of the successive shots is fed into the computer. Each take is then electronically selected and placed on a new master tape. In other words, selected takes are transferred in a predetermined order onto a single new tape which then becomes the master tape of the show. The time needed to do a final edit of a 90-minute or two-hour show on videotape is about one week. At the same time as the selection of takes is made, the computer prints out a paper tape containing the information. This tape is fed back into the com puter later, directing it to automatically search and record the selections in order*("Shooting the Works," p. 15) In an article by Norman Lloyd, executive pro ducer of the series, the particular concerns of the director and the directing process were discussed. Characterizing the major problem facing directors as "how to stop photographing dialogue and, instead, make 50 pictures," Lloyd indicated that solutions could be ejA Norman Lloyd, "Theatre to Tape: Getting Physical with 'Knuckle,'" Gambit, June, 1975, p. 9. 63 found in making a scene move visually and in clarifying the author's meaning. An analysis in the same article of planning camera movement included information common to many production situations. However, Lloyd described his own approach to the process: I try to hold a scene with one camera for as long as possible and try to keep camera work simple. Live television often uses the camera in a restless manner which can be very exciting, but coming from theatrical film as I did and having a point of view that comes from having worked with some of the great directors of motion picture history, I try never to move the camera unless the needs of the action call for it.(Lloyd, p. 9). Elements in the Production Environment Articles in various publications contained brief but related references to elements in the production environment of Hollywood Television Theatre. The effects of budget restrictions were briefly mentioned by an actress and a composer. In an interview ^or Gambit the actress indicated that although "there was no money at all in it for anyone . . . there was a 51 great insistence on quality." The composer tried to work at minimum cost for the series: "I am always very much aware of the budget problems. . . . That can be good too. Sometimes. Economic stringency makes you 51"Tell Me, Leslie Caron," Gambit, February, 1973, p. 9. 64 52 more creative." Several references were made to the tension present in the production situation. Describing the production of "Montserrat" in TV Guide, Barber indi cated that the actors, directors, and crewmen worked 53 for twenty-three hours straight. The production schedule of "Carola" appeared to be similarly strenuous. In an interview, Leslie Caron described it as a "feast of endurance": It's extremely hard going. Extremely hard. In fact, you're taping a full-length film in five days. The really hard part of it is that the technicians have to learn the script and all the cuts and camera angles. We had no stand-ins but would have two hours of standing and walking through our parts so the technicians could rehearse and learn the movements, then 15 minutes to give a performance. We worked many, many hours— about 12 to 14— bn the last days. But we made iti ("Tell Me, Leslie Caron," p. 9) The live production of two Chekhov plays also resulted in a tense studio environment, with such problems as having to change sets in a four-minute intermission ("Nail Biting Night," p. 9). Most references to the production environment of the series were related to the atmosphere of working 52"A Little Music, A Lot of Creativity," Gambit, May, 1975, p. 12. Rowland Barber, "A Fine Madness at Fountain and Vine," TV Guide, August 7, 1971, p. 4. 65 at KCET and for Hollywood Television Theatre. Both Lewis Freedman and Norman Lloyd were thought to have created especially pleasant and yet challenging working conditions. Susan Clark, who appeared in "Poet Game," indicated that Freedman created a wonderful atmosphere for working and commented: "It must be difficult to be tied to a TV series and not get a chance to do . . . social dramas which help people to understand some of 54 life's problems." In an interview, Richard Chamber- lain remarked that the executive producer and director were to be commended for providing enough rehearsal time and an atmosphere for people to work well 55 together. Jean Peters, of "Winesburg, Ohio," also commented on rehearsal time and other features of the KCET atmosphere: That's why working at KCET appealed to me— to be able to have rehearsal times, get to know other people, go over the scenes, know what words you're going to say. In the past, we didn't. We got a page in the morning and would shoot it half an hour later-^-or reshoot it 20 times three months later when they did retakes,("Tell Me, Jean Peters," p. 16) Norman Lloyd himself commented on the atmosphere he William Wilkins, "Hollywood Television Theatre Presents the World Premiere of 'Poet Game,'" Gambit, April, 1971, pp. 4-5. ^"Richard Chamberlain Talks About His Role in Hollywood TV Theatre's 'The Lady's Not for Burning,'" Gambit, November, 1974, p. 6. 66 tried to create: MI think that the fact that we get calls from prominent actors and writers, anxious to work for us for practically nothing, has unquestionably 56 bothered and influenced the commercial networks." Continuing a discussion of the tension in the production situation, Barber pointed out that even though tele vision production for the series was a hectic proposi tion, the actors worked for union scale and were excited about working on the series (Barber, p. 5). SUMMARY OF RELATED LITERATURE The findings of a sizable amount of scholarly research and other published materials were related to the problem of this study. A review of related studies revealed that management practices in television pro duction, factors in the production process, and char acteristics of the production environment were of concern to investigators in the literature related to television. Management Practices The most extensive discussion of management practices in television production was found in the Lisbeth R. Oliver, "Public TV Drama: Three Top Producers Assess the Outlook," Public Telecommunications Review, II, 4 (August, 1974), 5. 67 study of* Then Game Bronson by Smith. He concluded that production creativity and experimentation were inhibited by the commercial requirements of television, that informality in lines of authority and decision making led to inefficiencies in the production organization, and that lack of cooperation by some members of the production unit could not be controlled. Barthel and Efrein, in two separate published accounts of commercial television practices, suggested that responsibility for maintaining control of a series rested with the producer. No organized information was found about management practices related to Hollywood Television Theatre. Some scattered references were located concerning the efforts / of the executive producer to plan and organize the series unit; however, it remained for this study to explore its organization, the extent of autonomy granted personnel, and the nature of personnel practices. The Production Process Studies investigating the television production process dealt with preproduction planning, techniques of blocking television plays, resolving production problems, and techniques of recording with video tape. Some writers concentrated on the creative requirements of preproduetion planning, while others 68 were preoccupied with production management. Important planning elements included visualizing the script; working with actors in interpreting the script; deter mining production schedules; arranging for sets, costumes, music, and props; and holding production conferences. The only two references found relating to preproduction planning elements of Hollywood Tele vision Theatre were brief considerations of setting, lighting, and rehearsing arrangements. Descriptions of the television blocking process were provided in a TV Guide article and an in-depth analysis of a United States Steel Hour production. An article in Gambit, the program guide of Station KCET, provided an organized description of the typical blocking process used for Hollywood Television Theatre plays, but did not examine details of the entire preproduction process. Related studies dealt with techniques of solving problems in production and using video tape for record ing television programs. The production situation in a television studio was perceived as a series of obstacles to overcome, teeming with equipment failures and per sonnel confrontations that had to be solved quickly by a director. In the study of Then Came Bronson, Smith found that the pressures of commercial television would not permit experimentation or failure and that innova 69 tions in program style and format were unsuccessful. Although there were some reports about opportunities for creativity in the Hollywood Television Theatre project, no organized information was presented on resolving problems in the production of the series. Sporadic references to video tape techniques were found. Because of tight production schedules, video tape editing was used sparingly in the British series Armchair Theatre. The procedures of live tape record ing, without editing, and the highly complex system of computerized video tape editing were briefly reported in accounts of Hollywood Television Theatre. These accounts, however, did not explore relationships between video tape techniques and program quality. The Production Environment Characteristics of the production environment were not considered as extensively in the literature as elements of the production process. Various studies dealt with tension and relationships among personnel in the production environment, and with the effects of control and divided responsibilities in television production. References were made to the warlike, con fused atmosphere and often chaotic conditions of television production, causing short tempers and difficult working relationships. Disagreements over 70 artistic matters and confusion of work roles were also found to be contributing factors to tension in the production environment. In his exhaustive study of Then Came Bronson, Smith found that a television series could be destroyed by the inability of individuals to work together harmoniously and with mutual respect. The few references in the literature to working rela tionships and the nature of the production environment of Hollywood Television Theatre were fairly positive. Tension was present during productions, but individuals reacted positively to the challenging working conditions. Detailed analyses of budget limitations or experience of personnel were not present in related studies. Interference with creative freedom and control by people and forces external to the immediate production environment were matters considered in related litera ture. Cantor discovered that networks maintained informal censorship of script selection and development, and Smith described network controls over artistic decisions in producing television programs. A few studies mentioned problems in the production environment caused by improper division of responsibilities in a production situation. Cantor found that conflict increased when producers also served as writers on a given project; two published accounts found that 71 dividing directing responsibilities between a staging director and a camera director contributed to a diffi cult production atmosphere. No adequate analyses of control or methods of dividing responsibilities in the Hollywood Television Theatre project were discovered in the literature. CHAPTER III ESTABLISHMENT AND ARTISTIC OBJECTIVES OF HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE Several trends and events on the national public television scene in 1969, combined with the interests and efforts of dedicated and persistent individuals, influenced the establishment of Hollywood Television Theatre. Based on these developments in public tele vision it was possible to describe four factors that contributed to the establishment of the series. Begin ning in late spring of 1969, and continuing for about ten months, investigations and planning activities were conducted that culminated in the formation of a series organization; the sequence of events in this process was identified. Once the series was established certain artistic objectives were formulated; some of these objectives changed after a new executive producer was selected late in 1972, while other objectives remained relatively constant. FACTORS IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SERIES Four factors contributing to the establishment Hollywood Television Theatre were identified: (1) interest in public television to expand cultural pro gramming; (2) the common wish of the Ford Foundation 73 and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to expand support for major public television production centers, thereby diversifying production; (3) the constant search to attract quality personnel into public tele vision; and (4) the dedication of Lewis Freedman to continue and expand drama in public television. Expansion of Cultural Programming The programming responsibility of public tele vision was well defined by the time Hollywood Television Theatre was established in 1969. The Carnegie Commis sion on Educational Television described a wide range of programming areas for public television: community affairs, world affairs, cultural programs, instructional programs, programs for children, and contemporary affairs.^ Public television stations already were airing programs in all these areas. The retiring President of National Educational Television, John F. White, observed, however, that a significant percentage of programming, including drama, was acquired from other sources, and that public television needed to expand Carnegie Commission on Educational Television, Public Television: A Program for Action (the Report and Recommendations of the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television; New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1967), pp. 92-96. 74 2 its capability for original production. With funding from the Ford Foundation, the Public Broadcast Labora tory had contributed to the expansion of original production; PBL, however, terminated production in May 1969, and further, its programs were divided between cultural and public affairs and were not concentrated in the arts. The [1967 Ford Foundation] annual report noted that PBL had been created "to show how non commercial television, when backed by adequate funds for programing [sic], might produce superior cultural and public affairs programs for a nation wide audience.”3 With the termination of the Public Broadcast Laboratory representatives of the Ford Foundation and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the two primary national funding sources for public television at the time, began to investigate new programming directions. A previous Ford Foundation restriction on grants to public television, that 50 per cent of the programming 4 had to be in the area of public affairs, was dropped. John F. White, MRetiring President Reviews Decade of Growth," Educational Broadcasting Review, III, 3 (June, 1969), 18. ^"Ford Investment $22.7 Million," Broadcasting, February 19, 1968, p. 34. 4 Statement by David Davis, Program Officer for Public Television of the Ford Foundation, in a telephone interview, from Los Angeles, California, to New York City, June 25, 1975. 75 It was believed that full-length drama was then being neglected by commercial television and that public television could correct the deficiency. Some execu tives of the Foundation and CPB were successful in moving grant support away from public affairs toward cultural projects, a somewhat difficult maneuver because Fred Friendly, the Foundation's television consultant, had been interested primarily in journal istic enterprises.'* There were other indications of a greater interest in cultural programming. After a one-year interlude, New York Television Theater was funded for the 1969-1970 season by the Ford Foundation in the amount of $666,100. A "Sunday Night" series proposal, put forth by the eight largest public television 5 The source of this information requested that anonymity be maintained. All anonymous citations refer to authorities who were interviewed in the course of this study and who provided other information for which they received eredit. It was recognized that this was not common or proper research form, but main taining anonymity for certain statements enabled use of data otherwise unobtainable. Future references to these sources will be cited parenthetically as "anonymous." Jack Gould, "Major Programming Shake-up Hits Educational TV," New York Times, April 9, 1969, p. 95. 76 stations as a replacement for the Public Broadcast Laboratory, was designed to "place stronger emphasis on cultural presentations and reduce the proportion of 7 time accorded to news and public affairs." Although the series, when implemented, included a public affairs segment titled "The Advocates," and a cultural affairs segment titled "The Forsyte Saga," the latter was an acquisition from the British Broadcasting Corporation. The trend, however, was established, leading to ven tures in production of new dramatic programs and series. Diversifying Support for Production Until 1969 the primary source of program pro duction in public television was National Educational Television: "In identifying other elements within public broadcasting, let me particularly cite NET, the princi pal programming agency. It has been for a good many 8 years the national source for public television." Although NET had no production facilities of its own, using the studios of stations WNDT in New York, WGBH Jack Gould, "8 TV Stations Ask Replacement of P.B.L. by New Sunday Series," New York Times, March 9, 1969, p. 1. 8John W. Macy, Jr., "Toward a Philosophy for Public Television Programming," Educational Broadcasting Review, III, 5 (October, 1969), 5. 77 in Boston, and KCET in Los Angeles, among others, it was the prim ary coordinating agency for production. Many public television spokesmen believed that the existing highly centralized system needed expansion so that resources throughout the country would be used and diversity in production concepts achieved. The Carnegie Commission on Educational Television recom mended that at least two national production centers be established, and that additional programs be produced on a contract basis with a variety of agencies. The Commission members believed, in part, that Competition between two or more centers will act as a spur and will provide a basis for comparison” (Carnegie Commission, p. 43). The Ford Foundation and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting agreed with this recommendation and by 1969, with the termination of PBL, were search ing for ways to diversify public television production (Davis interview). Such projects as the MSunday Night” series and later, in 1969, Hollywood Television Theatre were seen as part of a transitional phase in the move to diversi fication. The intention was not to weaken the pro duction activities of NET, but to keep it relatively stable while increasing capability elsewhere (Davis interview). The "Sunday Night" series proposal was 78 viewed by the participating stations as a direct out growth of the Carnegie Commission recommendations (Gould, *'8 TV Stations," p. 63). It was reeognized, however, that increasing the capability of other pro duction centers would impinge upon the vested interests of NET, which had proclaimed itself "The Fourth Net work," and would mean the redistribution of large amounts of money (Anonymous). Search for Quality Personnel The Carnegie Commission also recommended that means be provided for the recruitment and training of technical, artistic, and specialized personnel for public television; it suggested, in addition, that stipends for senior fellows be established for "men and women of experience and distinction— to spend periods in residence" (Carnegie Commission, p. 66) at production centers and broadcast stations. Following up the Carnegie Commission recommenda tion, the Ford Foundation developed a distinguished broadcast fellowship program in cooperation with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The concept was created in discussions between Fred Friendly and David Davis of the Foundation and John W. Macy, Jr., President of CPB (Davis interview). In its continuing support of 79 public television, the Foundation realized ''that there needed to be some flexible fund which might pay all . • . or part of a salary to get the kind of people we're talking about" (Davis interview). The Foundation made a grant to the Corporation for a series of fellow ships, the first of which was to Lewis Freedman to investigate possibilities for drama on public tele vision. With the termination of the Public Broadcast Laboratory in mid-1969, there was some concern that the expertise of artistic and technical personnel of that project would be wasted. Gould hoped that "there still could be a role for many people now associated 9 with P.B.L." The editors of ETV Newsletter urged: "Perhaps the Foundation will find a way to make the PBL crew available to PTV stations to enhance their programming efforts and at the same time give them funds for their own productions. However, in August 1969, when the "Sunday Night" series proposal plans had been completed, no mention was made of prominent individuals who had been associated with PBL, although many were 9Jaek Gould, "TV: Blueprint for Change," New York Times, March 10, 1969, p. 91. 1°ETV Newsletter, March 24, 1969, p. 2. 80 11 known to be seeking other jobs. Lewis Freedman at this point was in communication with the Ford Foundation concerning his ideas for drama in public television; although the details of the Distinguished Fellowship award had not yet been worked out, he was essentially working under a preliminary arrangement with CPB and the Ford Foundation. Dedication of Lewis Freedman Described as "the Peter Pan of the drama world1 1 (Anonymous), Lewis Freedman created a number of signifi cant "never, never lands" in the form of television dramatic series. His work as a producer on The Play of the Week around 1960 was followed, in 1965, by his supervision of the series New York Television Theater as Vice-President for Programming of public television station WNDT, New York City. The seeds of Hollywood Television Theatre were 12 planted in its New York predecessor. Thirty-four separate productions were developed for New York 11 "3.6— Million Grant to Fund TV Series on Public Affairs," New York Times, August 18, 1969, p. 67. 12 Information from Glenn Jordan, director for Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, July 17, 1975. 81 Television Theater between October 1965 and December 1970, all produced by Glenn Jordan; Freedman supervised the series as executive producer for about eighteen months until he left WNDT. The two series had several similarities. The New York plays were a combination of contemporary and classic dramatic literature, from Chekhov and Shaw to Ionesco and Beckett. Although the Hollywood plays under Freedman concentrated on American drama, they also included those by Chekhov and Beckett and ranged from the early "The Scarecrow" to the con temporary "Enemies." Two of the same plays actually were produced by Freedman for both series: "Neighbors" by Arkady Leokum and "The Marriage Proposal" by Chekhov. In addition, actors who had worked on the New York series later appeared in Hollywood Television Theatre productions, including Fred Gwynne and Hurd Hatfield. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IN FORMATION OF THE SERIES Three phases in the establishment of Hollywood Television Theatre were identified: investigations by Lewis Freedman into potential for drama on public tele vision, May to August 1969; report to the Ford Founda tion and feasibility grant negotiations, August and September 1969; feasibility study and production grant 82 agreement for Hollywood Television Theatre, September 1969 to March 1970. Investigations by Lewis Freedman The common interests of the Ford Foundation and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in supporting drama for public television coincided with the experi ence, interests, and availability of Lewis Freedman at about the time the Public Broadcast Laboratory termi nated operations in May 1969. Freedman had been associated with Fred Friendly both at the Columbia Broadcasting System and during the two years of the PBL when Friendly, as the Ford Foundation television consultant, managed grant affairs for public television projects. It the PBL Freedman was initially Director of the Cultural Affairs Desk and later Cultural Affairs Correspondent. Discussions between Freedman and representatives of the Ford Foundation and the GPB resulted in funding for Freedman to visit three public television production centers "to explore whether or not the potential existed within public television as it stood then for a drama "PBL Shakedown Sees Changes in Set-up," Broadcasting, February 19, 1968, p. 34. 83 14 project of some kind.” Although this arrangement eventually was formalized into the first Distinguished Fellowship in Public Broadcasting, the plans for that official title did not coalesce for another six months. During the summer of 1969 Freedman visited National Educational Television in New York Gity, KQED in San Francisco, and KCET in Los Angeles. The pro duction capability in New York was found to be more than adequate, since the facilities of station WNDT were used by NET; the production environment, however, posed difficulties which were not conducive to a major drama project at that time. First, Freedman had left WNDT because of serious disagreements with the station President over one of the New York Television Theater productions, a rock opera titled ' ’ The Golden Screw,” and that individual was still President of WNDT in 1969 (Anonymous). Second, after ten years of contributing to the growth and development.of NET its President, John F. White, retired, leaving the organization in an interim leadership period. Finally, the funding and organization changes in public television which would 14 Information from Charles Allen, Vice-President for Programming, Station KCET, in personal interviews, Los Angeles, California, February 19 and December 3, 1975 and February 4, 1976. 84 remove substantial production activity from the New York area, combined with controversies between NET and WNDT regarding their respective roles, already were creating an environment of confusion: In New York, the duplication of plant facilities and staff, in a medium not overburdened by cash, borders on the shocking. . . . If reliable reports are a criterion, Channel 13 [WNDT] has a staff of approximately 170 persons and what they do all day remains something of a mystery. Across Columbus Circle [at NET], many of the same back-office functions are discharged by another sizable staff duplicating much of the work of Channel 13.IS Many of these difficulties would be resolved in mid- 1970 with the merger of NET and WNDT and the consequent change in the station call letters to WNET. At KQED in San Francisco the prospects were not much brighter. The General Manager of the station, James Day, was under consideration for the position of President of National Educational Television, and if he accepted (as he eventually did) the operational problems of a major new project at KQED would be com pounded with new station management. In addition, ’ ’the technical plant was a shambles . . . and no one else at KQED had the slightest interest in drama” (Anonymous). There was also the fact that the two 15Jack Gould, ”With So Many Cooks, Why Are We Hungry?” New York Times. December 7, 1969, Section II, p. 23. 85 major talent pools existed in New York and Los Angeles. As a participant in the "Sunday Night" series proposal, Station KCET had indicated its interest in expanded cultural programming in the spring of 1969. Although facilities at KCET were really not adequate for a major dramatic project (see Chapters VI and VII for descriptions of equipment and production problems), station executives were committed to expansion of its capabilities: Had everyone known what it really was going to cost, I doubt if the project would ever have been started. And that's where you're pleased to be naive and primitive . . . that sort of delicious . . . alcoholic euphoria of the beginning when everyone is attached to a dream and the receipts aren't coming in with drumbeats (Allen interview). Members of KCET top management were among Freedman's professional associates and had worked with him on several television projects. When informed of his visit in the summer of 1969 they were pleased and most willing to meet with him. The project had not yet taken real form, and the purpose of the visit had been described in a prior telephone call as an investigation of drama for public television that might lead to Ford Foundation funding if a viable project could be developed (Allen interview). The meeting lasted most of one day at the Bel Air Bay Club and involved Freedman, James Loper the 86 President of KCET, and Charles Allen the Vice-President for Programming of the station (Allen interview). The discussion was wide-ranging and included both the interest and production capabilities of the station. It had long been the desire of these station executives to be involved in producing significant television drama, drawing upon the pool of creative talent in the Hollywood area. In addition, as an ultra high frequency (UHF) station in a major very high frequency (VHF) television market, the potential of KCET as a national producing vehicle appeared to be a practical alternative to the continual problems of attracting a local audience. The meeting was an enormous success, with the partici pants "dreaming Hollywood Television Theatre . . . although it didn't have a name yet . . . as the sun [was] sinking in the Pacific, absolutely falling in love with the project" (Allen interview). Report to the Ford Foundation In August 1969 a report from Lewis Freedman was received by the Ford Foundation describing the results of his investigations (Davis interview). He indicated that although the experience with drama at KCET was limited and that problems might occur with facilities, a drama project was possible and KCET was clearly willing 87 to make it work (Allen interview). In his report Freedman stressed the importance of building audiences for public television, and argued that drama could have a significant role in that process. His premise was that drama on public tele vision could have a twofold effect: (1) it could restore to the widest possible audience the best plays that had been written, since these plays had been unavailable on a regular basis except for an occasional special; and (2) it could attract the part of the community to public television that otherwise might continue to ignore its existence (Davis interview). Negotiations were held in order to identify questions about such a project that remained to be answered and to agree upon a grant amount. Such information as availability of dramatic material, rights fees, and production costs was essential before the Foundation was willing to fund a major project. Finally, on September 19, 1969, a feasibility study grant of $44,000 was approved to accomplish this research; this first grant was not to include pro duction of plays (Davis interview). In further support of the project, the first Distinguished Fellowship in Public Broadcasting was awarded to Freedman by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and made public 88 on November 17, 1969. Although a feasibility study was required, it was generally understood by KCET management that the project would be established barring some unforeseen, disastrous circumstance. Feasibility Study Between mid-September 1969 and early March 1970 Freedman conducted his investigations, attempting to create the foundation for a television drama project. Station management became uneasy when tangible results of his feasibility study were not immediate (Anonymous). Freedman evidently was not as communicative as he became after the series was under way; in addition, he spent much of his time in New York consulting with literary agents when KCET executives had expected him to conduct most of his investigations in the Los Angeles area. He evidently found the intellectual atmosphere in Southern California different from New York and had difficulty contacting individuals with whom he needed to consult (Anonymous). Two interim reports were submitted by Freedman to the Foundation. In November he reported that the project appeared to be possible. On December 16, 1969, he indicated that the rights to "U.S.A.” had been acquired and that negotiations for "The Andersonville 89 Trial” and "Another Part of the Forest” were under way. It was during this period that the question of an appropriate name for the series was settled. The original working title, The Greater Los Angeles Tele vision Theater, reflected the premise of cultural affairs originating in the Southern California region. However, the acronym GLATT, which was actually used in the November 1969 issue of the KCET Program Guide, simply was unacceptable as an image for the series or the station. Some objections were raised at first for any attachment of the word "Hollywood” with the series title because of the commercial, show business connotations. Freedman himself was interested in the wider implications of a "National Television Theater," but finally the close association that was required between the station and dramatic sources of creative 1 g people resulted in Hollywood Television Theater. In his December 16, 1969 report to the Ford Foundation Freedman referred to the series by that title. Early in 1970 Freedman reported back to the Ford Foundation, and on March 6, 1970 the Foundation 1 g The spelling in the series title originally was "Theater" (KCET Program Guide, February, 1970, pp. 8-9), but was changed to "Theatre" by April, 1970. 90 made a grant of $356,000 to support the first year of the series. ARTISTIC OBJECTIVES OF HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE Some artistic objectives of Hollywood Television Theatre remained relatively constant throughout the six seasons from 1970 through 1975-1976. Other objectives changed after Norman Lloyd succeeded Lewis Freedman as executive producer; these changes were usually in emphasis or degree and not in basic philosophy. In addition, there were occasionally differences of opinion between the executive producer and KCET station management concerning artistic objectives of the series. Objectives Continuing Throughout the Series Objectives which were formulated early in the series and did not change with its development over the years included: (1) providing an alternative to commercial television drama programming; (2) providing an alternative to other public television drama; (3) serving as a vehicle for creative talent to produce within the public television system; (4) filling a need for anthology theater; (5) serving as a vehicle for video, as contrasted with film, television drama; and 91 (6) presenting a variety of dramatic forms and materials. Alternative to commercial television. Station management, both executive producers of the series, and creative personnel who were associated with the series agreed that an alternative to commercial tele vision drama programming was a desirable objective. Spokesmen for station management stressed the lack of full length, video dramatic series on commercial tele vision in 1969 and the years immediately following, indicating that the networks fluctuated in their 17 willingness to air those kinds of programs. Lewis Freedman, in an unpublished proposal for a "National Television Theatre," asserted that drama was particu larly suited to the medium of television, but was 18 "practically nonexistent on the commercial networks." 17 Information from James Loper, President and General Manager, Station KCET, in personal interviews, Los Angeles, California, November 22, 1974 and December 5, 1975; and Charles Allen, Fiee-President for Program ming, Station KCET, in personal interviews, Los Angeles, California, February 4, 1976. 18 Lewis Freedman, "Notes for a National Tele vision Theatre” (Los Angeles: Public Television Station KCET, n.d.), p. 2. (Typewritten.) Although this report was not dated, internal evidence indicated it was written after the series was established, but before many plays were produced; probably sometime in 1970. 92 In a Daily Variety interview, Norman Lloyd depicted the series as filling a void left by commercial tele- . • 19 vision. George Turpin, who served as a producer, asso ciate director, and supervisory producer for the series, argued that if Hollywood Television Theatre were not presenting regular dramatic programs, they 20 simply would not be available to the audience. Two directors for the series pointed out that even though some plays were, in their opinion, not among the best in dramatic literature, such as "Ladies of the Corri dor" and "The Chinese Prime Minister," still they were the kinds of plays that needed to be produced (Anonymous). Alternative to other public television drama. During the history of the series it was recognized that other public television drama projects existed, and that drama was not the exclusive province of any one agency. Station WQED in Pittsburgh had produced 19 Dave Kaufman, "HTT's Producer, Norman Lloyd, Calls His Own Programming Shots," Daily Variety, September 23, 1975, p. 6. 20 Statement by George Turpin, Supervisory Pro ducer for Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, April 21, 1975. 93 dramatic programs for many years, but not in a regular, continuing series (Allen interview). Although the artistic objectives of Hollywood Television Theatre were very similar to New York Television Theater, the New York series was in its last year of production in 1970 and so duplication was avoided. Theater in America, produced by public television Station WNET in New York (formerly WNDT), concentrated on "proven classics" (Turpin interview) and therefore was considered to have a different emphasis in dramatic material from Hollywood Television Theatre. In 1974 Station KCET was funded to produce an additional dramatic series, The New American Television Drama Project, retitled Visions. With one-half its financial support from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 25 per cent from the Ford Foundation, and 25 per cent from the National Endowment for the Arts (Loper inter view), Visions concentrated on producing original works by new, unknown authors and so was not regarded as duplicative of Hollywood Television Theatre. Vehicle for creative talent. Although a pro posal written by Lewis Freedman was for a National Television Theatre, many ideas that it contained were closely related to his practices regarding Hollywood 94 21 Television Theatre. Freedman was interested in providing a showcase for Broadway and Hollywood actors, playwrights, and directors (Freedman, pp. 1, 4). The Vice-President for Programming of KCET pointed out that the series was the first opportunity for major stars to be seen on public television in drama con ceived and produced within the system (Allen interview), instead of programs acquired from commercial or foreign sources. Two directors insisted that the type of dramatic material in the series provided opportunities for actors unavailable elsewhere. George Schaefer indi cated that "U.S.A.'' was the first real chance that John Davidson had to expand his acting career and that such performances as his and Julie Harris in ’ ’The Last 22 of Mrs. Lincoln” were worthy of preservation. Another 21 The authenticity of the document and its simi larity to Freedman's concept of Hollywood Television Theatre were verified in interviews with KCET executives and in articles about the series (e.g., Freedman indi cated that one purpose of Hollywood Television Theatre was to create a place for actors and playwrights io speak directly to an audience in "Like the 'Iceman,' The Hollywood Television Theater [sic] Cometh,” KCET Program Guide, February, 1970, p. 9. 22 Statements by George Schaefer, Director for Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, August 5, 1975. 95 director agreed that actors benefited from efforts like Hollywood Television Theatre, and charged: "I truly resent the waste that is going on. I resent it from the standpoint that this town has, I think, the greatest pool of talent . . . of anyplace in the world. Need for anthology theater. Hollywood Television Theatre was conceived as an anthology series. It did not engage repertory companies of actors, as was the case with Theater in America, but instead each play was cast as a separate production. It also was not a series with a continuing story or characters, but a collection of separate television presentations. The series, however, was not completely "dramatic" in the tradi tional sense. "The Standwells: About Love" and "The Bread and Puppet Theatre" were presentations with puppets. "The Plot to Overthrow Christmas" was pre sented as a reenactment of a radio play; and "Beginning to End," although dramatic in content, involved only one actor. Finally, "U.S.A." was a musical drama. Vehicle for video drama. One source of the study pointed out that the series had made possible the 2*5 Statement by Ralph Senensky, Director for Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, November 21, 1975. 96 development of an organization skilled in the pro duction of video, or electronic, dramatic television 24 programs. Resources of technical and creative talent in drama utilizing the medium of film were substantial, particularly in the Hollywood motion picture industry. However, organizations experienced in the techniques of producing drama on video tape were fewer in number. The source reported that, in recognition of these specialized skills, technical crew from Hollywood Television Theatre were in demand and had been hired for special projects in commercial television. Variety of dramatic forms, subject matter and themes. Lewis Freedman intended to develop a series reflecting a variety of dramatic forms and materials. In his proposal for a National Television Theatre he envisioned five different kinds of drama: works by established American playwrights; high quality plays by new, lesser-known playwrights; foreign plays; dramatic classics; and experimental drama (Freedman, pp. 4, 6). Although twenty original productions were supervised by Freedman as executive producer of 24 Statement by Douglas Norberg, then Senior Vice-President of KCET, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, April 1, 1975. 97 Hollywood Television Theatre, this wide variety was only partially achieved. Thirteen of the twenty plays dealt with American subjects, both contemporary and historical; only "The Standwells: About Love" could be described as relating to the experimental drama category. A KCET executive commented that Norman Lloyd had a keener sense of variety than Freedman and conse quently expanded the audience for the series (Anony mous). Certainly "Steambath," "The Carpenters," "Nourish the Beast," "For the Use of the Hall," "Knuckle," and "The Ashes of Mrs. Reasoner" revealed a significant amount of experimentation in theme and visual technique. The theme of "For the Use of the Hall," for example, involved a tragi-comic presentation of individuals who believed that success and wealth were the prerequisites of a happy life. The special effects of "Steambath," including the miracle sequence, made use of sophisticated electronic technology. The plays produced by Lloyd also reflected a more liberal attitude toward language and adult themes than plays produced by Freedman. God as a Puerto Rican bath attendant in "Steambath" and the references to bodily functions in that and other plays served as examples. Contrasted were the classic "Lady's Not for Burning," 93 and an adaptation of the traditional American "Winesburg, Ohio." The particularly effective transi tional devices used by Paul Bogart in "Double Solitaire" — still shots of a wedding years earlier to match the live action shots of the subsequent renewal of vows by the main characters— were also indicative of variety in form. These later explorations in form and content revealed a curious paradox in the artistic objectives of the series. Station executives did not perceive the series as necessarily pioneering new forms(Loper and Allen interviews). However, from the first Freedman wanted to "invent a variety of new forms to explore the world of drama (Freedman, p. 9). He also was trying to "encourage a kind of new voice, a new theatrical voice in television" with Hollywood Television Theatre (Jordan interview). Although Norman Lloyd did not set out to present experimental drama once he assumed supervision of the series, maintaining that he had no arbitrary, mechanical formulation for a 25 series purpose, he seemed to have achieved a greater variety than his predecessor. 25 Statement by Norman Lloyd, Executive Producer of Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal inter view, Los Angeles, California, April 11, 1975. 99 The early goals set by Freedman may have been too ambitions. The series occasionally was criticized for not having new, original plays (Allen interview). Three executives of KCET discussed the substantial problems of acquiring dramatic properties. Sometimes a preferred dramatic property that would have met one of the artistic objectives of the series for greater variety was not available. Changes in Artistic Objectives The change in executive producers from Lewis Freedman to Norman Lloyd brought about a gradual shift in emphasis of four artistic objectives: (1) the con cept of a formalized plan for the series shifted to the practice of letting the series evolve its own identifi cation, (2) the earlier emphasis on plays that contained social themes and ideologies changed to plays that exemplified a quality use of language, (3) an increased consideration of audience acceptance developed after the change in executive producers, and (4) dramatic material was modified for television to a greater extent after the change in executive producers. Change in plan for the seriesw The management of KCET was fully committed to Hollywood Television Theatre, but recognized that it would probably not last 100 indefinitely. Lewis Freedman, however, had a definite plan and foresaw the series as the foundation of a television theater for the nation: During its present first phase the accent is on contemporary American plays, speaking to an American audience in its own idiom about its own problems and pleasures. Eventually it will include less immediate plays, and ultimately it will be a showcase for the experimental as well as the conventional.(Freedman, p. 8) Norman Lloyd preferred to select plays on an individual basis and let the totality of the series reveal its own personality: . . . it isn't as though one could sit back and say, "We'll do this kind of play." One keeps searching and you feel like ... a prospector on the desert and you try to do a play that in some way relates to an audience, that reflects their life and . . . that communicates a vision. You try, again, to do it at a certain level. It has to have some importance, but I'm not arbitrary.(Lloyd interview) Ideas and language in dramatic material. Although neither executive producer ignored the importance of both themes and quality writing in dramatic material, each placed different emphasis on these elements in the plays they produced. Freedman believed that drama was a powerful vehicle for ideas (Freedman, pp. 1-2). The themes of violence and rebellion in "Montserrat" and "Shadow of a Gunman" were indicative of this belief; according to one source, "he was convinced that Andersonville was the 101 Calley story in a form that every American could relate to” (Anonymous). Norman Lloyd searched for dramatic material that was well written and reflected a quality use of dramatic language. In addition to their bizarre themes both "The Carpenters” and "Nourish the Beast” contained dialogue of a contemporary, but occasionally poetic, nature; in the latter play the phrase "ameliorate the old man" was used to describe how one of the characters was to be treated. "The Lady's Not for Burning" and "Requiem for a Nun" also were selected, in part, for their use of language. Awareness of the audience. In a sense, Lewis Freedman believed that it was the responsibility of a series to present plays that an audience ought to see, while Norman Lloyd believed in presenting plays an * audience wanted to see. Both executive producers believed in leading the audience as well as reflecting its desires and preferences, but their choiees of plays emphasized one direction over another. Freedman explained: It is time to take the best American plays out of the vaults and produce them in terms that will both attract and command a contemporary audience. They will not only entertain, they will help us to understand ourselves through an understanding of the past.(Freedman, p. 4), 102 Norman Lloyd was concerned about how the audience might react to a production. He realized that "Steambath" and "Requiem for a Nun" would be abrasive to a southern audience, but attempted to balance these plays with plays having other types of theme and language. Modification of original material. Lewis Freedman, following his basic principle of bringing major dramatic works to television, preferred to transfer plays from the original source virtually intact (Schaefer interview). "The Andersonville Trial," "Montserrat," "The Scarecrow," and "Another Part of the Forest" were all presented without a significant amount of editing. It was Freedman's intention to produce "Winesburg, Ohio," in its original length, more than two hours. However, the new executive producer, Norman Lloyd, and the director preferred a shorter production. With his extensive background in motion pictures and television film, Norman Lloyd approached Hollywood Television Theatre plays very much like films: "He Pfi doesn't edit a show; he cuts a picture." This concept, combined with the increased sophistication of production 26 Statement by John Yingling, Production Manager, Station KCET, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, June 3, 1975. 103 and editing equipment available at KCET, made possible modifications of dramatic material, if appropriate. SUMMARY OF CHAPTER Establishment of the Series Hollywood Television Theatre was formed late in 1969 and began production early in 1970. Several trends and events on the national public television scene were influential in making the formation of the series practicable; four factors were identified that contributed to the establishment of the series. It also was possible to describe the sequence of events that occurred in creating the series, and to identify the artistic objectives of the series. Factors leading to establishment of the series. Four factors contributed to the establishment of the series: 1. A trend developed in public television toward an increase in cultural programming and an accompanying decrease in public affairs programming. The trend was sup ported by increased grants for programs in the arts and replacement of the public- affairs oriented Public Broadcast Laboratory 104 with a series giving more emphasis on cultural programs. 2. By 1969 many public television spokesmen believed that program production in the system should be decentralized, and that the number of agencies producing major series should be increased. The Hollywood Television Theatre series idea provided an opportunity for diversifying production and increasing the production capability of a public television station elsewhere than the East Coast. 3. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Ford Foundation were developing means by which artistic and technical personnel could be retained and attracted to public television. One result of these efforts was establishment of distinguished fellow ships in public broadcasting; Lewis Freedman, first executive producer of Hollywood Tele vision Theatre, was the recipient of the first fellowship. 4. The persistence and dedication of Lewis Freedman in finding a place for significant drama in public television created the 105 necessary impetus for funding a series of programs. Sequence of events in series establishment. Three phases in the formation of the series were iden tified: 1. Based upon discussions with Ford Foundation and Corporation for Public Broadcasting executives, Lewis Freedman was commissioned to investigate the potential for drama in public television during the summer of 1969. Freedman visited National Educational Tele vision and Station KQED, San Francisco, but found conditions unsatisfactory because of inadequate facilities or unsettled environ ment. A visit to Station KCET, Los Angeles, brought positive reactions and mutually agreeable arrangements. 2. In an August 1969 report to the Ford Founda tion, Lewis Freedman indicated that a major television drama project was possible and recommended that it be established at KCET. On September 19, 1969, a feasibility study grant was made to lay the foundation for the project. 106 3. Between September 1969 and March 1970 Freedman conducted investigations into the availability of dramatic material, rights fees, and production costs. He submitted two reports to the Foundation, and on March 6, 1970, the first production grant for a dramatic series was awarded. During this period the series title was officially changed from The Greater Los Angeles Tele vision Theater to Hollywood Television Theatre. Artistic Objectives of the Series Some artistic objectives were established early in the series and remained unchanged; others shifted in emphasis or degree when a change in executive pro- ducers occurred. Objectives continuing throughout the series. Six artistic objectives that remained unchanged were identified: 1. The intent of the series was to present significant television drama in a continuing form, thereby providing an alternative to commercial television programming. 107 2. The series was designed to complement other public television drama; exclusive concentra tion on classics or original works by new authors was avoided. 3. The series was intended to provide oppor tunities for the development of creative talent within the public television system. 4. The series was designed as anthology theater, without a continuing story or cast; plays with traditional dramatic forms were usually selected. 5. The series was designed to develop skilled technical and creative personnel in video, as contrasted with film, television drama. 6. Although the first executive producer did not realize the original objective of a series that presented a wide variety of dramatic forms, his successor helped to achieve this goal. Objectives changing during the series. Four artistic objectives underwent modifications or shifts in emphasis after Norman Lloyd succeeded Lewis Freedman as executive producer. 1. The first executive producer had a formal 108 plan for the series related to the kinds of plays to be presented; his successor pre ferred to search for plays that seemed appropriate at a particular time and let the series develop its own personality. 2. The first executive producer selected plays that contained social themes, and in which ideas were important; the second executive producer preferred plays that were notable for skillful use of language. 3. Both executive producers recognized the importance of relating play selection to the needs and values of the audience. However, Lewis Freedman tended to present plays an audience ought to see, while Norman Lloyd tended to present plays that he believed the audience wanted to see. 4. Lewis Freedman tended to produce plays as close to their original form as possible, while Norman Lloyd preferred to modify material as appropriate for adaptation to television. 109 CHAPTER IV HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE Between 1969, when Hollywood Television Theatre was established, and the end of the 1975-1976 season several modifications in series characteristics and practices were evident. Nine areas of change in the historical development of the series were identified: (1) number and length of seasons; (2) number and length of productions; (3) dramatic form, subject matter, and themes of plays; (4) broadcast scheduling practices; (5) repeat programming and reruns; (6) gradual improve ment of production facilities; (7) changes in funding sources; (8) change in executive producers; and (9) circumstances surrounding the uncertain future of the series. NUMBER AND LENGTH OF SEASONS Although the first Hollywood Television Theatre play, "The Andersonville Trial," was produced in the spring of 1970, the 1969-1970 broadcast year was not considered to be a complete season;'*' the second AIn an undated press release, issued prior to the Hollywood Television Theatre Retrospective, which 110 production, "Big Fish, Little Fish,” was not aired until January 1971. There were six complete broadcast seasons from 1970-1971 through 1975-1976, and the series was scheduled for a seventh season in 1976- 1977.2 Hollywood Television Theatre seasons generally coincided with those of commercial television series; however, they varied more in duration and started later in the year. Table 1 presents the number and length of seasons in the series through 1975-1976. Because funding was provided annually, and not on a continuing basis, there was uncertainty concerning how many seasons the series would last. Hollywood Television Theatre initially was regarded as an experi ment and not really a series at all. In the first announcement of Hollywood Television Theatre the pro- 3 duction of four plays was anticipated; however, this 1 (Continued) began airing in December 1975, executive producer Norman Lloyd indicated the series was then in its sixth season. 2 Information from Charles Allen, Vice-President of Programming, Station KCET, in personal interviews, Los Angeles, California, February 19 and December 3, 1975; February 4 and August 17, 1976. 3"The Inner Tube," KCET Program Guide, October, 1969, p. 3. Ill Table 1 Number and Length of Hollywood Television Theatre Seasons Season Number and Year Season Began Season Ended Number of Months 1-1970-1971 January 1971 May 1971 5 11-1971-1972 October 1971 May 1972 8 III— 1972-1973 October 1972 April 1973 7 IV— 1973-1974 November 1973 June 1974 8 V— 1974-1975 October 1974 June 1975 9 VI— 1975-1976 December 1975 April 1976 5 112 projection soon was modified to "the ultimate aim of 4 producing several plays at KCET." The experimental nature of the series was sub stantiated by the difficulties that were encountered in producing the first play, "The Andersonville Trial.” Although Lewis Freedman was organizing the series unit and searching for dramatic properties in late 1969, production did not begin until the spring of 1970. In addition to the administrative problems of hiring staff and arranging for suitable office space, Freedman encountered difficulties in getting a director and cast for "The Andersonville Trial" (Allen interview). Acquiring dramatic properties, directors, and talent continued to create obstacles to establishment of a regular production schedule with a concomitant influence upon the broadcast schedule of the series. The second play, "Big Fish, Little Fish," was not pro duced until December 1970, about nine months after "The Andersonville Trial." Other factors also con tributed to the amount of time required in order to get the production of a play under way. Lewis Freedman reportedly was inclined to postpone decisions as long 4"Inside KCET," KCET Program Guide, November, 1969, p. 14. 113 as possible (Anonymous), but the process of producing drama was made more difficult than usual by the unfamiliarity of talent agents with public television in general, and Hollywood Television Theatre in particular. Every discussion involved an in-depth explanation of the difference between public and com mercial television and the nature of the series (Allen interview). Agents often reacted negatively, primarily because of the minimum payments and commissions involved, at least until the series was well estab lished in its second and third years (Allen interview). NUMBER AND LENGTH OF PRODUCTIONS The number and length of Hollywood Television Theatre productions varied from year to year. A com parison of only those plays that were especially produced for the series by broadcast year, fall through spring, may be found in Table 2. Reflecting the artistic objective of Lewis Freedman to produce plays as close to their original form as possible the first five plays, representing the period of spring 1970 through spring 1971, were two hours or more in length (exact times for all but one program, which was not edited as of August 1976, are shown in Appendix E). Three productions— "The 114 Table 2 Number and Length of Hollywood Television Theatre Original Productions Broadcast Seasons Number of Productions Length of Productions Half Hour Hour One to Two Hours Two Hours Over Two Hours 1969-1970* 1 0 0 0 0 1 1970-1971 4 2 2 1971-1972 14 1 10 3 1972-1973 5 3 1 1 1973-1974 8 3 4 1 1974-1975 6 3 3 1975-1976 2 2 1976-1977 4 2 2 ♦Usually not counted as a season. H* H O I Andersonville Trial," "Big Fish, Little Fish," and "U.S.A."— were two and one-half hours long, while "Montserrat" and "Poet Game" were each two hours in length. The second complete season, in 1971-1972, was characterized by a special situation which changed the nature of the series that year and influenced the number and length of productions. As part of a local series titled Homewood, KCET had produced a one hour presentation of "The Plot to Overthrow Christmas," originally a 1938 radio script by Norman Corwin. Negotiations between Corwin and Station KCET resulted in the commissioning of additional scripts for a planned series, Twenty One by Corwin, with funding by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (Allen inter view). The scope of the projected series was subse quently limited to Thirteen by Corwin. However, the finished scripts were not acceptable to station management or the Corporation, and KCET decided not to produce the Corwin series. Instead, the Corporation was persuaded to allocate those funds to an expansion of Hollywood Television Theatre. Fifteen productions of one hour plays were planned to supplement the three 5 major plays for the 1971-1972 season. The major ^"Opening Week," Gambit, October, 1971, p. 5. 116 productions, each two hours in length, were completed: "The Scarecrow,” "Awake and Sing,” and "Invitation to a March.” Continuing difficulties with unanticipated costs, acquiring rights to properties, and finding directors and talent resulted in some modifications to plans for the short dramas. Only ten one hour plays were eventually produced. In order to complete the season commitment "The Bread and Puppet Theatre" and "Day of Absence," both of whieh had aired on the Public Broadcast Laboratory, were acquired from National Educational Television; "The Plot to Overthrow Christ mas" was rerun; and Lewis Freedman was able to get the approval of KCET and the Ford Foundation to pro duce "Lemonade" as a one-half hour play, but to air it twiee in the same hour. The 1971-1972 season, therefore, contained three major two hour plays, ten shorter one hour plays, two acquisitions, one rerun from another KCET series, and one half hour.play. The one hour plays in 1971-1972 were character ized by a small number of characters, relatively inexpensive sets, and lesser known plays with conse- 6 quent smaller rights fees. In spite of these economic f * Information from Douglas Norberg, then Senior Vice-President of KCET, in personal interviews, Los Angeles, California, March 25 and April 1, 1975. 117 factors costs were higher than anticipated, and in addition to cutting the total number of original pro ductions it was necessary to present the last one hour production, "Two by Chekhov," live instead of restaging it for edited tape production (Allen interview). The program, consisting of two plays titled "The Marriage Proposal” and "The Bear," was recorded during the live presentation and aired later the same week and again as a rerun in the 1972 summer season. Special funding for short plays did not con tinue, and the 1972-1973 season was characterized by a return to fewer plays. Because Lewis Freedman remained as executive producer until the production of "Shadow of a Gunman," the plays of this season con tinued to reflect his preference for longer productions. "Another Part of the Forest" was two and one-half hours in length; "Carola" was two hours; and "Shadow of a Gunman," "Winesburg, Ohio," and "Steambath" were each ninety minute presentations. The number of plays broadcast each season during 1973-1974 and 1974-1975 increased only slightly. The small increase was offset by an accompanying trend toward shorter plays in 1973-1974 presented as part of a speeial airing concept titled Conflicts; in that year three one hour, two seventy-five minute, two ninety 118 minute, and one play running slightly over two hours were aired. In 1974-1975 three ninety minute and three two hour plays were aired. Although six new, original plays were planned for the 1975-1976 broadcast season, only two were completed and aired ("The Ashes of Mrs. Reasoner" and "The Hemingway Play"), both ninety minute productions. "The Last of Mrs. Lincoln" and "Six Characters in Search of an Author" were recorded during the 1975-1976 season, but airing by the Public Broadcasting Service 7 was postponed until fall, 1976. Two additional plays, "Actor" and "The Master Builder," were originally scheduled for recording in 1975-1976, but budget over runs on previous productions and projected costs of these plays required a change in production plans for the remainder of the year (Anonymous). Two less expen sive plays were produced for airing in the fall of 1976: "The Fatal Weakness" and "Philemon." DRAMATIC FORM, SUBJECT MATTER, AND THEMES OF PLAYS BROADCAST Fifty plays in the Hollywood Television Theatre series, including original and acquired productions, 7 Cecil Smith, "Houseman Playing Himself— and Loving It," Los Angeles Times Calendar, February 22, 1976, p. 25. 119 were classified according to their dramatic form. 9 Standard dramatic literature categories were employed, and the number of plays in each category, divided into broadcast seasons, may be seen in Table 3. One-half of the plays were in two major cate gories: realistic-naturalistic drama and comedy. Plays in the realistic-naturalistic category ranged from the slice-of-life character of "Winesburg, Ohio” and "Gondola" to the stark realism of "Carola" and "Incident at Vichy." Comedies varied from the pure fun of "The c * The total number of plays broadcast included forty-six aired from 1970 through the end of the 1975- 1976 season and four plays planned for airing in the fall of 1976. It should be noted that "Actor" and "The Master Builder," originally planned as part of the series, were replaced by "Philemon" and "The Fatal Weakness" after data in this study were compiled. 9 Sylvan Barnet, Morton Berman, and William Burto, Aspects of the Drama: A Handbook (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 19^2), pp. 183-270. The meanings of historical drama, comedy, tragicomedy, and musical drama were thought to be self-evident. The authors of Aspects of the Drama defined realistic drama as the reproduction of life, dealing with ordinary men in ordinary situations; naturalistic drama was similar, only usually dealing with sordid situations. Domestic tragedy dealt with the misfortunes, especially within the family, of private citizens rather than those of high rank. Satire was applied to plays ridiculing aspects of human behavior and aroused contempt for the object of satire; farce was based on broadly humorous situations and emphasized physical action, not subtlety of character. Experimental theater was defined by Lewis Freedman, in his "Notes for a National Television Theatre," as dealing with new forms and new material, and often outspoken in subject matter. 120 Table 3 Dramatic Forms of Hollywood Television Theatre Plays Number of Plays by Broadcast Seasons Dramatic Form 1969-1970 and 1970-1971 1971- 1972 1972- 1973 1973- 1974 1974- 1975 - 1975- 1976 1976- 1977 Totals Historical 2 1 1 2 6 Realistic- Naturalistic Drama 4 1 4 4 1 14 Domestic Tragedy 1 1 2 2 1 7 Tragicomedy 1 1 1 3 Comedy 1 4 1 1 3 1 11 Satire-Farce 4 4 Musical Drama 1 1 Experimental 3 1 4 Totals 5 17 5 8 9 2 4 50 to H Ashes of Mrs. Reasoner" to the irony of "Steambath." The remaining plays were fairly evenly distributed among the other categories except that there was only one example of musical theater, "U.S.A.” Some differences in emphasis were evident in dramatic forms employed from year to year. In 1970 and 1971 $lays were divided with relative equality between drama of a serious nature and more humorous presentations. "The Andersonville Trial" and "Montserrat" were serious historical plays, and "The Poet Game" dealt with domestic discord, while one comedy and a musical drama balanced the season. The 1971-1972 season tended to emphasize comedy, with even the experimental efforts of puppet theater and "The Plot to Overthrow Christmas" characterized by humor. In the 1973-1974 broadcast season serious drama was emphasized, with only "Nourish the Beast" illustrating a lighter mood. Dramatic forms of other broadcast seasons were fairly equally divided between serious and comedic plays. Information about the subject matter of Holly wood Television Theatre plays was compiled from program listings and previews in Gambit, the monthly program of KCET. Subject matter categories were extracted from this information and the plays were organized by 122 season and shown in Table 4. ' The original plans of Lewis Freedman to empha size plays with American subject matter continued throughout the history of the series. Nearly two- thirds of the plays dealt with American past or present society, and over two-thirds of these plays concen trated on contemporary subject matter. American family life, for example, was explored in "Neighbors,” "Young Marrieds at Flay," "Another Part of the Forest," "Me," "The Carpenters," and "Double Solitaire." About one- fifth of the plays were concerned with foreign subject matter, both historical and present; two plays, "Carola" and "Incident at Vichy," were set in France during the second World War. Five plays, or one-tenth of the total, dealt with imaginative-fictitious subjects representing totally different settings of time and place. "The Police," for example, involved the obsolescence of law enforcement in a fictitious country that had perfected an absolute state of law and order. "Steambath" explored the dilemma of several people in a steambath slowly realizing they were in "limbo" and that the bath attendant was God. "Beginning to End" was a condensed version of an off-Broadway production featuring actor Jack MacGowran in selections from 123 Table 4 Subject Matter of Hollywood Television Theatre Plays Number of Plays by Broadcast Seasons Subject Matter 1969-1970 and 1970-1971 1971- 1972 1972- 1973 1973- 1974 1974- 1975 ■ 1975- 1976 1976- 1977 Totals American Scene— Past 2 2 2 1 1 2 10 American Scene— Present 1 8 6 6 1 22 Foreign Scene— Past 1 2 2 2 1 1 9 Foreign Scene— Present 1 1 2 Imaginative- Fictitious 3 1 1 5 Varied 2 2 Totals 5 17 5 8 9 2 4 50 H let Samuel Beckett plays. Two of the experimental productions involving puppets were not single, complete plays but contained a variety of subjects. "The Standwells: About Love" presented scenes from plays by Congreve, Saki, and Dumas; "The Bread and Puppet Theatre" presented three short plays on different subjects. General themes for Hollywood Television Theatre plays were derived from information contained in program listings and articles in Gambit, the program guide of KCET. A tally sheet was used to list the name of each play, to compile relevant information about the theme of each play, and to indicate the issue of Gambit in which the information appeared. After all data about themes of plays had been accumulated, the informa tion was analyzed, thematic statements of plays were compared, and generalized themes were devised. Thematic statements from two plays illustrate the process that was used. In a program synopsis, the following state ment was made about "Young Marrieds at Play": "As the evening progresses [the characters] learn not only how different their values and goals are, but realize how trapped they are in the realities of life and the necessity for compromise.In a subsequent issue ^"Young Marrieds at Play," Gambit, December, 1971, p. 13. 125 of Gambit thematic information about another play was discovered: "Steambath is a positive statement by [the playwrightj that life is too important to be over whelmed by trivia."'*'1 The thematic statements of "Young Marrieds at Play" and "Steambath" appeared to place more emphasis on conflict between characters and external influences than conflict among characters in the play. Conse quently, after these statements were compared with similar statements about other plays the general theme, "the search for meaning in life," was devised. In contrast, themes of plays that emphasized relationships among characters more than between characters and external influences were generalized as "interpersonal relationships." General themes, by broadcast season, are presented in Table 5. Seven general themes were identified in the fifty plays aired or planned for broadcast by Hollywood Television Theatre through March 1976. More than one- half of the plays, or twenty-six of fifty, were repre sented by two thematic elements: interpersonal relationships and the search for meaning in life. These two themes were closely related and were 11"Steambath," Gambit, April, 1973, p. 21. 126 Table 5 Themes of Hollywood Television Theatre Plays Number of Plays by Broadcast Seasons Theme 1969-1970 and 1970-1971 1971- 1972 1972- 1973 1973- 1974 1974- 1975 - 1975- 1976 1976- 1977 Totals Conscience, War, and Revolution 2 1 2 1 6 Interpersonal Relationships 1 4 1 1 2 9 Search for Meaning in Life 1 5 2 3 5 1 17 Civil Rights, Prejudice, Race Relations 3 2 2 7 Love 2 1 1 1 5 Greed and Ambition 1 1 1 3 Varied 1 2 3 Totals 5 17 5 8 9 2 4 50 H t o occasionally difficult to distinguish from each other; however, plays dealing with interpersonal relationships usually concentrated upon the conflicts and inter actions among characters, while those involving the search for meaning in life usually dealt with the problems of a major character or characters in over coming obstacles. In "Enemies,” a long-suffering waiter and a vindictive customer matched wits over their lives and status in society. In "Poet Game," an Irish poet battled self-doubt and personal problems in an attempt to redefine his goals. Two other related thematic elements were repre sented in about one-fourth of the plays: (1) the role of conscience in war and revolution; and (2) civil rights, prejudice, and race relations. Although "The Andersonville Trial" and "The Chicago Conspiracy Trial" both used a courtroom setting, the former explored the conflict between conscience and duty in a military context, while the latter dealt with the opposing concepts of freedom and justice in a civil context. The themes of "Carola" and "Incident at Vichy" were directly related to the issue of individual conscience and responsibility when confronted by fascism, while "Neighbors" and "Requiem for a Nun" dealt with the nature of prejudice and bigotry in racial situations. 128 Eight of the fifty plays were represented by two related thematic elements: (1) love, and (2) greed and ambition. "The Ashes of Mrs. Reasoner” presented the whimsical side of love, involving a husband return ing in spirit form to disrupt the life of his widow. In "Me," however, one kind of love was shown as parasitic and strangling to an entire family completely under the influence of a teenage son who feigned mental retardation. "Another Part of the Forest" and "Man of Destiny" explored the theme of greed and ambition, the former in a family setting and the latter in a military situation. Three of the fifty plays contained diversified themes. As a musical-dramatic revue, "U.S.A." portrayed a series of characters reflecting the uneasy maturity of America in the early twentieth century. "Beginning to End," consisting of selections from such Beckett plays as "End Game" and "Waiting for Godot," reflected the varied themes of the Theatre of the Absurd. Appendix F presents dramatic form, subject matter, and themes by play, listed in order of broadcast date. BROADCAST SCHEDULING PRACTICES Plays in the series were aired under several different labels in order to increase audience interest. 129 Although various additional superseries titles were used, the Hollywood Television Theatre identification always was included in program openings and closings so that the identity of the series was maintained. During the 1971-1972 broadcast season, after the special series of short one hour plays had been completed the first week in January, Hollywood Tele vision Theatre plays were aired under the lable PBS Special of the Week. Beginning with "The Scarecrow" that month, the additional new productions of "Awake and Sing" and "Invitation to a March," together with repeats of "U.S.A.," "The Andersonville Trial," and "Montserrat," were presented as Public Broadcasting Service specials until late June 1972. Other programs in cultural and public affairs were broadcast in the same time period to complete the PBS Special of the Week series. During the 1973-1974 broadcast season a new series of short plays was presented under the label Conflicts, in addition to airing of longer plays with the Hollywood Television Theatre title alone. At first the executive producer was uncertain about imposing a thematic idea on the series, but was able to acquire plays that conformed: 130 . . . when I set oat to do this project I did not begin with "Conflicts" or any other specific thematic idea. I was looking for good material. That came first. . . . Now the more I think about the title, it's fine.12 Plays were presented under the Conflicts label from November 1973 through January 1974: "Man of Destiny" and "Me" in Novembers "Incident at Vichy," "The Carpenters," and repeats of "Beginning to End" and "The Typists" in December; "Gondola," "Double Solitaire," and a repeat of "Birdbath" in January. In addition two new longer plays, "Sty of the Blind Pig" and "Nourish the Beast," together with repeats of "Winesburg, Ohio" and "Poet Game," completed the 1973- 1974 Hollywood Television Theatre season. Another method of packaging the plays was under taken during the 1975 summer season, from July through mid-September. Under the title Thursdays at Nine repeats of seven previously produced plays were aired, with three acquisitions to complete the season. The acquisitions consisted of "The Chicago Conspiracy Trial," "Shakespeare Wallah," and "Wanda," while the following plays had been original series productions: "The Chinese Prime Minister," "The Ladies of the Ray Loynd, "'Conflicts’: New Hollywood Tele vision Theatre Series Debuts," Gambit, November, 1973, p. 6. 131 Corridor,” "Nourish the Beast,” "The Lady's Not for Burning,” "Another Part of the Forest," "For the Use of the Hall," and "Incident at Vichy." "Steambath" also was repeated in August, but as a special during the membership drive week of KCET and not as part of the Thursdays at Nine package. From December 1975 through early March 1976 another collection of plays was aired as Hollywood Television Theatre Retrospective. One new play, "The Ashes of Mrs. Reasoner," and one acquisition, "The Chicago Conspiracy Trial," were included, with eight plays from previous seasons completing the package. One Hollywood Television Theatre production, "The Andersonville Trial," was included in another KCET series in 1973, Humanities Film Forum. Funded by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities, this series presented films of historical and fine arts importance, such as "Oliver Twist" and "Alexander Nevsky," with "The Andersonville Trial" representing the American scene. REPEAT PROGRAMMING AND RERUNS The practice of broadcasting a program more than once in the same week has been described as "repeat 132 13 programming." Multiple broadcasts of plays in the same week was a common practice with Hollywood Tele vision Theatre, and varying patterns of repeat program ming were evident during the broadcast seasons of the series. The network schedule of Hollywood Television Theatre was determined by the Public Broadcasting Service; it consisted of a first airing and usually one repeat the same week (Allen interview). Additional repeat showings each week were at the discretion of individual stations. As the originator of the series, KCET usually scheduled more repeats than were provided by the Public Broadcasting Service. The number of repeats per week on KCET generally decreased as the series continued from year to year. In 1970 and 1971 a large number of repeats was sched uled: "The Andersonville Trial” was first aired on a Sunday and repeated five times the same week, Monday through Friday; other plays broadcast that year received three or four repeats during the week. Two patterns of repeats were utilized in 1971-1972. The one hour productions were presented first on Thursdays 13 Warren S. Park, Jr., "Repeat Programming," Educational Broadcasting Review, II, 1 (February, 1968), 48-50. 133 but repeated only once, on the following Saturday. The longer plays were repeated two or three times in the same week. During 1972-1973 plays were repeated only once or twice. In 1973-1974 the number of repeats declined to once a week, except in four cases when no additional airings were scheduled. The 1974-1975 and 1975-1976 seasons were characterized by a slight increase in repeat showings; during these seasons, including a special summer season titled Thursdays at Nine, seventeen plays were repeated twice a week, thirteen were repeated once each week, and one play received no additional airings. The number of reruns on KCET, or encore showings of plays that had been produced or acquired in previous years, generally increased as the series continued. In 1970 and 1971 only "The Andersonville Trial" was rerun; it was shown again in the 1971-1972 season along with "U.S.A." as part of the PBS Special of the Week series. All of the one hour plays aired in the regular 1971-1972 season were rerun in the summer of 1972, except that "Montserrat" was substituted for an unseasonable play, "The Plot to Overthrow Christmas." Six plays that had been produced previously were rerun during 1972-1973, but three of the reruns involved special circumstances. Although "The Plot to Over- 134 throw Christmas" had been presented the year before, it was not originally produced for Hollywood Television Theatre. "Beginning to End" was rerun in March 1973 as a special memorial on the death of Jack MacGowran, who had starred in the play. "The Andersonville Trial" was rerun again as part of the Humanities Film Forum series. By 1973-1974 a library of plays had been estab lished which provided an increasing number and variety of productions that were available for reruns. During the regular season "The Andersonville Trial" received yet another rerun in a repeat of the Humanities Film Forum. In addition, six other plays from previous years were rerun. The 1974 summer season consisted of "Incident at Vichy" from the regular season and nine of the one hour plays from 1971-1972. The broadcast schedule included seven reruns during the 1974-1975 regular season and a mixture of plays from the previous three years in the summer of 1975. The 1975-1976 season, through April 1976, consisted almost entirely of reruns. Only "The Ashes of Mrs. Reasoner" and "The Hemingway Play" were new productions. Ten other plays produced during the previous two years supplemented the new plays. The practice of scheduling repeats on different days of the week at different times assisted KCET in 135 reaching portions of the audience that otherwise would not have been able to view Hollywood Television Theatre productions. Although reruns served that same purpose, they also were an important part of the original rights agreements negotiated for the series; the agreements between KCET and an author usually specified that a dramatic property could be broadcast four times within three years. IMPROVEMENT OF PRODUCTION FACILITIES When the studios of KCET were located at Fountain Avenue and Vine Street the facilities were found to be inadequate for major television drama; this was first evident during the production of "The Andersonville Trial.” In those times even the Vice-President for Programming of the station became involved in solving operational problems: The studio fell apart during "Andersonville.” . . . we had built a layer of stage over the [studio floor} and it squeaked and was being picked up by the microphones. So I walked as hard as I could— stomped around on the stage with a carpenter right behind me, and when it would squeak, he would throw in four or five nails^ (Allen interview) By February 1971 the problems with studio space and conditions had become critical. During the production of "Montserrat” it was discovered that plays with 136 elaborate sets and large casts created insurmountable problems with lack of sufficient space and inadequate air conditioning (Norberg interview). Relocating the station on Sunset Drive provided enough studio space so that most problems of that nature were solved. The new facilities housed "the two largest studios in 14 public television" at that time. The continual improvement of television equip ment by KCET made possible higher quality production for the series. Although some facilities problems continued temporarily at the Sunset Drive location, the acquisition of new equipment was instrumental in improving lighting, vide© control, and recording; 15 technical standards also were raised consistently. Increased sophistication of video tape editing equip ment allowed greater creative freedom in production, making possible "several takes or retakes of a scene or even part of a scene and then being able to choose even individual performances within those scenes and ■^Stephen Manes, "The Curse of Los Feliz," Gambit, November, 1971, p. 5. 15 Information from Everett Anderson, Chief Engineer, Station KCET, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, October 6, 1975. 137 16 pull them out and composite them together.M CHANGES IN FUNDING SOURCES Financial support for Hollywood Television Theatre was obtained from three primary sources: the Ford Foundation, the Corporation for Public Broadcast ing, and public television stations through the Station 17 Program Cooperative (SPC) system. In addition, Station KCET often supplemented the budgets of indi vidual plays with local production services when budget overruns occurred (Allen interview). With the exception of "Poet Game," the first group of plays was produced with grants from the Ford Foundation. "Poet Game" was recorded in London and some costs were assumed by the British Broadcasting Corporation. Although KCET provided some supplemental financial support, the production of "The Andersonville Trial," "Big Fish, Little Fish," "Montserrat," and "U.S.A." was underwritten by Ford Foundation funds (Norberg interview). An additional group of plays— 16 Statement by James Loper, President and General Manager, Station KCET, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, December 5, 1975. 17 Information about amounts and sources of fund ing for groups of plays was provided by the Office of the Budget Manager, Station KCET. 138 "Lemonade," "Birdbath," "Beginning to End," "Awake and Sing," "Invitation to a March," and "The Scarecrow"— was underwritten by grants from the Ford Foundation and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The total amount budgeted for the ten plays (excluding "Poet Game") to June 1972 was $1,566,635. Separate financial information for "Poet Game," "The Police," "Enemies," "Neighbors," "Young Marrieds at Play," "The Picture," "Two by Chekhov," and "The Standwells: About Love" was 18 not available. "Poet Game" was produced in 1970-1971, while the remaining plays in this list were produced in 1971-1972. With the second full year of the series (1971- 1972) grant years, production periods, and seasons when plays were aired began to diverge. Productions were delayed and grant monies carried over into succeeding years; plays were produced in one fiscal year and broadcast during the following year. Eight plays were underwritten by the Ford Founda tion and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in the grant year from July 1972 through June 1973. The Foundation supplied $500,000 and the Corporation 18 Letter from June Olivier, Budget Manager of Station KCET, March 4, 1976. 139 $1,080,000 for the production of "Another Part of the Forest," "Carola," "Shadow of a Gunman," "Steambath," "Winesburg, Ohio," "Double Solitaire," "Gondola," and "Me. " In the grant year July 1973 through June 1974 the Ford Foundation supplied all funding: $1,500,000 for the production of "The Carpenters," "Incident at Vichy," "The Lady's Not for Burning," "Man of Destiny," "Sty of the Blind Pig," and "Nourish the Beast." Beginning with the 1974-1975 fiscal year a new method of funding public television programs was intro duced, the Station Program Cooperative. Established by the Public Broadcasting Service, the Cooperative enabled member stations to determine a substantial amount of network programming by voting on programs they were willing to support financially. The process was accomplished in four steps: 1. Determination of program needs by surveys, audience research data, and consultation with stations and other agencies; 2. Solicitation of program proposals from station producers, based upon identified needs; 3. Establishment and distribution of a program proposal catalog; 140 4. Selection and purchase of programs by stations, involving several elimination rounds and resulting in a final list of programs which would cost no more than the 19 total amount of funding available. In 1974-1975, the first year of the Cooperative (SPC I), the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Ford Foundation provided a ten million dollar subsidy to the stations in order to increase their ability to purchase programs ("Guide to Station Program Cooperative," p. 21). However, by SPC III, three years later, the announced level of support had been reduced to two and one-half million dollars; in order to maintain the same level of programming, stations were 20 required to make up the difference. Hollywood Television Theatre received $800,000 from the Public Broadcasting Service under SPC I and $800,000 from the Ford Foundation during the 1974-1975 grant year. These funds supported the production of "The Chinese Prime Minister," "For the Use of the 1 Q "Guide to the Station Program Cooperative," Public Telecommunications Review, II, 4 (August, 1974), 21. PO ETV Newsletter, February 2, 1976, pp. 1-2. 141 Hall,” ’ ’ Requiem for a Nun,” ’ ’ The Ladies of the Corri dor,” ’ ’ Knuckle,” and ’ ’The Ashes of Mrs. Reasoner. ” An example of the divergence between grant years and air dates was evident in the last play. Although "The Ashes of Mrs. Reasoner” was funded before June 1975, it was not broadcast until January 1976. For the grant year from July 1975 through June r 1976 the amount of $800,000 was supplied by the Ford Foundation and only $400,000 by the Public Broadcast ing Service through SPC II. Five plays were planned. By March 1976 "Six Characters in Search of an Author,” "The Hemingway Play," and "The Last of Mrs. Lincoln" had been completed; "Actor" and "The Master Builder" were replaced in the production schedule by "Philemon" and "The Fatal Weakness" because of cost overruns on the other productions. TRANSITION BETWEEN EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS The transition from Lewis Freedman to Norman Lloyd as executive producer of Hollywood Television Theatre occurred gradually and with only minor stresses. Norman Lloyd had appeared in the cast of "The Scarecrow" for Freedman in the 1971-1972 season. He was then hired by Freedman as the series producer in the spring of 1972, with "Invitation to a March” as his first 142 assignment; Freedman then concentrated on his responsi bilities as executive producer. By the fall of 1972 Freedman was negotiating actively with the Columbia Broadcasting System, and KCET management was aware of his intention to leave Hollywood Television Theatre (Allen and Norberg interviews). Norman Lloyd continued as producer of "Another Part of the Forest" and "Shadow of a Gunman" in the fall of 1972. Lewis Freedman was still nominally the executive producer, but was not actively involved in the series once the latter play began rehearsal. The director of "Shadow of a Gunman" reported that he worked with Lloyd on the production and that Freedman "had nothing to do with casting, although he did come 21 in for one day of taping." Freedman evidently had difficulty finally sever ing his relationship with the series since he had established it and did not want to leave while some projects still were incomplete. "Winesburg, Ohio," which he had acquired, was yet to be produced, and "Shadow of a Gunman" was in the middle of production. Although no major crises developed during the transition, 21 Statement by Joseph Hardy, director of "Shadow of a Gunman" for Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, July 14, 1975. 143 it evidently was a difficult time for station and Hollywood Television Theatre executives and staff. Freedman wanted recognition for "Shadow of a Gunman"; however, because he was in the process of leaving there was some feeling that the new executive producer deserved the credit (Anonymous). Although Lewis Freedman resigned before "Shadow of a Gunman" was completed KCET management, recognizing his contribu tions to the series, retained his air credit as executive producer of the play. Norman Lloyd was formally publicized as the new executive producer in 22 December 1972, and received his first air credit in that position with "Carola," which he also produced and directed. After Freedman left there was a short period of stabilizing and settling in. Norman Lloyd began to search for new dramatic properties, and because there were air dates to meet he decided to proceed with the production of "Winesburg, Ohio" which Freedman had already acquired. UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE In August 1976 a final interview with the Vice- President for Programming of KCET revealed that *^"0n Screen/Off Screen," Gambit, December, 1972, p. 15. 144 additional funding would allow extension of the series for at least one more year. In a negotiated arrange ment between the Ford Foundation and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Si,700,000 was provided to complete the Visions series, to produce three addi tional plays for Hollywood Television Theatre during 1976-1977, and to conduct a study on the future of drama in public television (Allen interview). However, the future of the series beyond 1976- 1977 was uncertain, primarily for economic reasons. By 1975 plays were costing over 1200,000 each to pro duce. As production costs increased the ability of public television stations to support this level of production decreased so dramatically that funding available through the Station Program Cooperative dropped by 50 per cent from 1974-1975 to 1975-1976. Previously KCET had provided the series with production services to enable Hollywood Television Theatre to produce about the same number of plays each year; in addition, the station had some discretionary Ford Foundation funds that could be used. However, neither of these sources was available after 1975. The Board of Directors of KCET insisted, as policy, that local funds could not be used to supplement national program ming costs, and indeed desired that production of 145 projects for the Public Broadcasting Service should help support local programming (Allen interview). With these financial realities, the decision was made to continue the series only if additional funding became available. Hollywood Television Theatre had been established when public television was producing little drama. The management of KCET believed that by 1975 a sufficient quantity of drama was being provided and that new directions were required. Consequently, in place of Hollywood Television Theatre KCET offered a new series, American Musical Theatre, as part of SPC III, utilizing personnel and expertise from the existing production unit. Although public television stations reacted most favorably to the project, the anticipated cost of $1,600,000 for four productions was prohibitive. It was anticipated that Hollywood Television Theatre would remain inactive for a period of time after 1976-1977 and would resume production if funds became available. If not, it was expected that the station instead would pursue other projects, but would continue to rerun plays already produced as long as rights to properties were in effect. Although the uncertain future of the series was based on economic necessity, the possible termination of the series was 146 viewed as unfortunate: . . . the perfunetory talk about what an astute decision it is— that's not the same as seeing an empty studio and no Stacy Reach and no John Houseman and no Burt Lancaster coming to visit to talk about "The Master Builder." It's terrific to talk about the savings you are making, [but] . . . there will be an emotional bang in this place that will be unbelievable.(Allen interview) SUMMARY OF CHAPTER The historical development of Hollywood Tele vision Theatre was summarized in terras of five basic categories of information about the series, principal areas of change, and the circumstances surrounding the uncertain future of the series. Basic Information about the Series There were six complete seasons in the series between 1970 and 1976; the seasons generally coincided with those of commercial television but were shorter and started later in the year. The series began as an experiment with uncertainty surrounding the continua tion of funds. In addition, the executive producer encountered difficulties in producing the first two plays, resulting in the span of one year between establishment of the series and the second production. The number and length of productions varied from year to year. Reflecting the artistic objectives 147 of Lewis Freedman, who retained plays as close as possible to their original form, the first five plays were two hours or more in length. During the 1971-1972 season, however, an agreement with the Corporation for Publie Broadcasting resulted in the production of a larger number of plays, but of shorter length; fourteen plays were aired— three that were two hours in length, ten one hour productions, and one that was one-half hour long. In 1972-1973 Lewis Freedman returned to the concept of fewer plays of longer duration, pro ducing three ninety minute dramas and two longer plays. Eight plays were produced in 1973-1974 and six in 1974- 1975; Norman Lloyd had become executive producer and concentrated, for a time, on shorter plays. Only two of six plays that were planned for 1975-1976 were actually aired during that broadcast season. When classified by dramatic form, one-half of the plays were in two categories: realistic-naturalistic drama, and comedy. The emphasis on dramatic form varied from year to year, with some seasons concentrat ing on serious drama, others on comedy, and some seasons fairly equally divided. The original plans of Lewis Freedman to emphasize plays with American subject matter continued throughout the history of the series; almost two-thirds of the plays dealt with American 148 past or contemporary society. Seven general themes were identified in the fifty plays aired by Hollywood Television Theatre. Slightly over one-half of the plays were represented by the thematic elements of interpersonal relationships and the search for meaning in life5 about one-fourth of the plays dealt with themes involving the conscience in war and revolution and civil rights; eight of the fifty plays were repre sented by themes of love, greed, and ambition; three of the plays contained diversified themes. Although plays in the series were aired under several different labels to attract audience interest, the Hollywood Television Theatre title always was used in program openings and closings. In the latter half of the 1971-1972 season six plays were broadcast as part of the PBS Special of the Week series. In 1973- 1974 nine short plays were presented under the label Conflicts; four longer plays completed that broadcast season. During the 1975 summer season seven plays were combined with three acquisitions to form a Thursdays at Nine presentation. In the 1975-1976 season ten plays were broadcast under the label Hollywood Television Theatre Retrospective. Repeat programming, or multiple broadcasts of plays in the same week, was common practice with 149 Hollywood Television Theatre. Varying patterns of repeats were evident during the history of the series, but the general trend was toward fewer repeats per week as the series continued. In 1970 and 1971 the practice was to schedule a large number of repeats, as many as five in one week. Two repeat programming patterns were utilized in 1971-1972: the short, one hour productions received only one additional airing, while the major productions were repeated two or three times. In 1972-1973 the pattern of repeats was diverse, while in 1973-1974 the pattern of only one repeat for each production was followed. In 1974-1975 and 1975- 1976 a variety of repeat programming patterns was again r employed. There was also a variation in the scheduling of reruns, or encore showings of plays that had been pro duced or acquired in previous years. Reruns were minimal until 1973-1974, when a library of plays had been established, providing an increased number and variety of plays; during that year plays produced in three previous seasons were rerun. Plays from three previous seasons were also rerun during 1974-1975, and the 1975-1976 season consisted almost entirely of reruns. Scheduling repeats and reruns assisted KCET in reaching additional audiences for Hollywood 150 Television Theatre. The practice was also an economic necessity; agreements for the use of dramatic prop erties usually allowed four broadcasts in three years. Principal Changes in Hollywood Television Theatre Three principal changes occurred as Hollywood Television Theatre developed. The amount and quality of production facilities improved between 1969 and 1975 and was particularly evident when station KCET relocated its studios. Increased studio space, improved studio conditions, and new television equipment enhanced the quality of program production. The sources of funding the production of plays changed during the history of the series. The first group of plays was funded by the Ford Foundation, with KCET providing supplemental services. A second and third group of plays, produced during 1971, 1972, and 1973, was underwritten by grants from the Ford Founda tion and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. During the 1973-1974 fiscal year the Ford Foundation supplied all funding. Beginning in 1974-1975 a new method of funding was developed, the Station Program Cooperative through the Public Broadcasting Service; in that year Hollywood Television Theatre received 151 half its funds from the Cooperative and the other half from the Ford Foundation. In 1975-1976 the Ford Foundation maintained the same level of support, but funds from the Cooperative were reduced by one-half. Another change during the history of the series was evident in the transition between executive pro ducers. Although the transition occurred gradually, there were some minor stresses in the process. The original executive producer had difficulty in separat ing himself from the series, and there was some dis agreement about air credits during the transitional period. There was a brief stabilizing period after the first executive producer left, during which his successor had to make decisions about proceeding with dramatic properties that had already been acquired. Uncertain Future of the Series It was reported that, unless funding was found within a reasonable time, the series would terminate new production when funding allocated in 1976-1977 was depleted. The reasons for ending the series were primarily economic. Increased production costs, dis continuance of Ford Foundation funds, the strain on the local production budget of KCET, and decreasing funds available from the Station Program Cooperative 152 were factors in the economic realities of producing major television drama in public television. In addition, KCET management believed that the series had made major contributions in expanding the offer ings of television drama and that projects in other areas of programming might be equally effective. . 153 CHAPTER V ADMINISTRATION OF HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE Although Hollywood Television Theatre was a separately identifiable production unit, it was an integral, administrative part of public television Station KCET. In order to consider the administrative policies and practices in the management of the series it was necessary to describe (1) the organizational structure of KCET and the Hollywood Television Theatre unit, (2) administrative relationships between the station and the unit, (3) procedures and specifications of grants that supported Hollywood Television Theatre, (4) budget planning and implementation, and (5) per sonnel practices related to the series. ORGANIZATION OF STATION KCET AND HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE Organizational Structure of KCET Station KCET is a noncommercial educational television station licensed to Community Television of Southern California, a nonprofit corporation; the station operates on UHF Channel 28. The organizational structure of the station underwent frequent modifica- 154 tions during the period that Hollywood Television Theatre was in production, reflecting the changing nature of station operations and occasionally as a direct result of pressures and production requirements of the series unit. Individuals who held upper level management positions in the station were also officers in the Corporation.'*' Prior to 1971 the General Manager of the station, James Loper, was Executive Vice-President of the Corporation with three Vice-Presidents reporting directly to him: Vice-Presidents for Programming, Administration, and Engineering and Production Services. In the spring of 1971 the Executive Vice-President was advanced to President and General Manager; production services were transferred to the Vice-President for Administration, Douglas Norberg; and the senior engineering officer, Theodore Untiedt, became Vice- President for Engineering and Facilities. During this period the Vice-President for Programming, Charles Allen, supervised program acquisition activities, broadcast scheduling operations, grant acquisitions, "^Changes in upper management positions and titles were found in the listings of Community Tele vision of Southern California officers in eaeh issue of Gambit. Additional information about these changes was discovered in interviews as documented throughout the chapter. 155 and artistic supervision of all program production units, including Hollywood Television Theatre. Prior to the summer of 1971 Douglas Norherg was formally responsible for business and legal affairs; he also informally advised the General Manager about production procedures and engineering practices, even though the Vice-President for Engineering formally was responsible 2 for these matters. A major reorganization of KCET management occurred during the latter half of 1971. Douglas Norberg became the Senior Vice-President of the station and its chief operating officer, responsible for all activities except programming. Charles Allen, the Vice-President for Programming, continued to report to the President and General Manager. Douglas Norberg, as Senior Vice-President, was responsible for all business and accounting functions, labor and talent relations, program sales and distribution, production operations, and fund raising activities. The Vice-President for Engineering also reported to the Senior Vice-President on routine matters, but was still able to maintain communication with the President and General Manager O Information from Douglas Norberg, then Senior Vice-President, Station KCET, in personal interviews, Los Angeles, California, March 25, 1975 and April 1, 1975. 156 when required (Norberg interview). The reorganization in 1971 included establish ment of a production operations department, which previously had not existed. The director of production operations was responsible for coordinating the support personnel and services required in preparing programs for production: unit managers, directors for local programs, assistant directors and stage managers, stage hands, film production, facilities scheduling, graphics 3 and scenic artists, and scene construction. By late fall of 1972 the position of Vice- President for Engineering was eliminated when the individual serving in that position left the station. His replacement was designated chief engineer and con tinued to report to the Senior Vice-President. Although the resulting arrangement brought together two related activities, engineering and production operations, under one administrator, it also created a large and diverse unit when combined with business and legal affairs. In the spring of 1975 another major reorganiza tion of the station took place when Douglas Norberg, ^Information from John Yingling, Director of Production Operations, Station KCET, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, June 3, 1975. 157 Senior Vice-President, left the station. His replace ment was William Lamb, who was given the title Vice- President for Business Affairs; he was responsible for budget management, personnel services, accounting, and engineering. By the spring of 1976 most operational units of the station had been administratively shifted from 4 business affairs to programming. A chart showing KCET organization at this period is shown in Figure 1. The President and General Manager continued to report to a Board of Directors and, together with Charles Allen and William Lamb, served as an officer oh the Board. Also reporting to the President and General Manager were directors of development, publicity and promotion, public relations, auctions, volunteers, and membership services. Reporting to the Vice-President for Program ming were directors of educational projects, broadcast ing, program underwriting, and production operations; manager of broadcast operations; and executive pro ducers of dramatic units. Reporting to the Vice- President for Business Affairs were the director of engineering, budget manager, manager of personnel Information from Florence Parise, Administrative Assistant to the General Manager, Station KCET, in a telephone interview, Los Angeles, California, March 26, 1976. 158 Executive Producers Controller Director of Development Budget Manager Director of Volunteers Director of Engineering Director of Auctions President and General Manager Director of Broadcast ing______ Director, Program Underwrit ing_______ Director, Production Operations Manager, Broadcast Operations Manager, Personnel Services Director, Educational Projects Director, Publie Relations Director, Membership Services Vice- President Programming Vice- President Business Affairs Director, Publicity and Promotion H 01 CO Figure 1 Organization Chart of Station KCET, February 1976 services, and the controller. Qrganizational Strncture of Hollywood Television Theatre The size and organization of the series pro duction unit built up by Lewis Freedman, the first executive producer, was quite different from that which Norman Lloyd eventually administered after he became executive producer. By the time Freedman left the series, in late 1972, a staff of eighteen had been assembled; Norman Lloyd eventually reduced that perma nent staff to six. In 1969 and early 1970, before the series unit was completely organized, Lewis Freedman reported directly to the Ford Foundation on matters related to play acquisitions, while at the same time coordinating his efforts closely with KCET management. As soon as a core staff had been employed, consisting of the executive producer, an executive assistant, and a unit manager, Freedman officially began reporting to the Vice-President for Programming of KCET. This reporting line continued with Norman Lloyd, although both execu tive producers maintained close communication with the General Manager of the station (Norberg interview). In addition to the core staff, production assistants, and a secretarial staff, the permanent series staff under 160 Freedman eventually included a full time producer, two associate producers, an assistant to the producer, an executive supervisor, and a casting director. An organ ization chart of Hollywood Television Theatre under the supervision of Lewis Freedman is shown in Figure 2. After Norman Lloyd became executive producer, and the number of plays that were produced each year decreased, it was possible to operate the Hollywood Television Theatre unit with a small core staff and to hire required creative personnel on a per production basis. The permanent staff consisted of the executive producer, a supervisory producer, a director of public relations and station relations, a unit manager, and 5 two secretaries. An organization chart of Hollywood Television Theatre under the supervision of Norman Lloyd is shown in Figure 3. Personnel hired for indi vidual productions were the actors, director, casting director, seript reader, production assistants, costume designer, art director, lighting consultant, music director, makeup artist, and choreographer when required. Both Lewis Freedman and Norman Lloyd g Information from George Turpin, Supervisory Producer of Hollywood Television Theatre, in personal interview, Los Angeles, California, April 21, 1975. Information from Norman Lloyd, Executive Pro ducer of Hollywood Television Theatre, in personal inter view, Los Angeles, California, April 11, 1975. 161 Unit Manager Casting Director Producer Associate Producers Production Assistants Executive Supervisor Secretarial Staff Assistant to Producer Executive Assistant Executive Producer Figure 2 Organization Chart of Hollywood Television Theatre Supervised by Lewis Freedman H* 0> to Executive Producer Unit Manager Supervisory Producer Secretarial Staff Director of Public and Station Relations Figure 3 Organization Chart of Hollywood Television Theatre Supervised by Norman Lloyd depended upon KCET personnel for production crew, engineers, and associate directors. Under Lloyd the unit was more characteristic of an independent film company than a station or network production operation, "because in network you’ve got all of this organization built into the network staff; you don’t [for example} have the option of going out and hiring your lighting director" (Turpin interview). Throughout his tenure as executive producer Norman Lloyd retained the responsibilities as producer for all plays except "Double Solitaire," which was produced by Martin Manulis, and "The Last of Mrs. Lincoln," which George Schaefer produced and directed. The supervisory producer primarily was responsible for postproduction editing and routine decisions regarding expenditures, but was given air credit as producer for several plays. Even so, Lloyd maintained close super vision of those programs as well: For a while . . . I had a eertain structure ©f credits on the screen. George Turpin was in charge of postproduction and I gave him a producer credit, because . . . we went into the weekly series "Conflicts." Sometimes in a studio the individual in charge of postproduction gets a producer credit. (Lloyd interview) Throughout his career in television Lloyd had often combined the duties of executive producer and producer, and with Hollywood Television Theatre he made no 164 division or separation of responsibilities in his approach. As executive producer he acquired dramatic properties, made final budgetary decisions, and main tained overall artistic supervision; in his role as producer he personally worked with authors on script revisions, supervised casting, and selected directors. Under the direction of the supervisory producer the unit manager prepared program budgets and kept track of expenditures. The Director of Public Relations and Station Relations had special responsibilities in addition to standard press and publicity duties. When the member stations of the Public Broadcasting Service began to have a greater voiee in programming decisions, under the Station Program Cooperative, it was necessary for the Hollywood Television Theatre unit to provide more information about the series than previously required. The responsibility for compiling information and communicating with the other public television stations was given to the public relations and station relations staff member (Turpin interview). ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN KCET AND HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE Administrative relationships between KCET and Hollywood Television Theatre were evident in the extent of the autonomy of the series unit, contributions made 165 by the series to the growth of the station, the role of KCET in applying constraints and pressures upon the series, and the role of KCET in expediting series pro duction. Autonomy of the Series UniT Jurisdiction of Hollywood Television Theatre was officially maintained by KCET: funds in support of the series were administered by the station, the execu tive producer reported to station management, series production and business were conducted in studios and office space of the station, and series plays were publicized in program listings as presentations of KCET. Although not completely autonomous, it was "a major show; it [was] the show that in the past we have staked a reputation on; it has built a reputation for KCET" (Yingling interview). Further, in some cases plays were publicized as "produced by Hollywood Tele- 7 vision Theatre at KCET," as well as produced by the station. Both executive producers recognized that the series was not a separate entity from the station, but that there were different conditions of autonomy when ^"Tell Me, Leslie Caron," Gambit, February, 1973, p. 26. 166 each was in charge of the series. Lewis Freedman always was aggressive about being in control of the series, but he required an enormous amount of adminis trative support, particularly in getting projects started (Anonymous). Norman Lloyd viewed the series as a KCET activity, but under his tenure the technical and production personnel of the station believed their active participation in the series was less than under Lewis Freedman (Anonymous). The location of offices for the series also created a different atmosphere of autonomy. When Lewis Freedman was executive producer the station was housed in a single building at 1313 North Vine Street in Hollywood, California. At the new location of the station, 4400 Sunset Drive in Hollywood, the series unit was housed in separate bungalows, in a corner of the lot away from the main administrative offices of the station. Series Contributions to Station Growth Although funding of Hollywood Television Theatre remained an annual problem, continuation of the series after 1971 created demands for increased support opera tions and personnel. In addition, the production of other national public television programs and series, 167 such as Visions, contributed to the need for better facilities and more staff. In 1969 the station had a very small engineering staff, and personnel were required to work overtime in order to complete pro ductions; by 1975 the engineering staff had been increased to more than thirty employees in order to accommodate the workload (Norberg interview). It was then possible to lessen competition for the most skilled personnel among various programs produced by the station. The experience of middle and upper level manage ment also was improved by the continued presence of Hollywood Television Theatre. In both the programming and business affairs areas personnel learned the intricacies of acquiring rights to dramatic properties, budgeting for major television drama, dealing with talent and talent agencies, and mounting significantly more complex productions than had been attempted pre viously. The early naivet6 of management personnel 3 was replaced by increased expertise in these areas. There was one unexpected, and not altogether positive, side effect of growth in personnel and ^Information from Charles Allen, Vice-President for Programming, Station KCET, in personal interviews, Los Angeles, California, February 19 and December 3, 1975 and February 4, 1976. 168 facilities. As facilities were improved to meet demands of national productions such as Hollywood Television Theatre— computerized editing, higher quality color production equipment, for example— the operating costs also increased. At the same time, attracting and training personnel for more complicated productions required that salaries be raised. These high levels of operation required for large national production then had to be carried over to smaller, less complex local productions. Financial support did not exist for two separate levels of production: national and local; therefore, the cost of local production had to be raised: We've built up such a high level of expertise for the network programs that [personnel are unable to] pull themselves back down to the slightly less level that you need for two people on camera for a talk show, news program, something of that nature. Consequently, your local [produc tion] gets charged the same high rates that the national production does and . . . you have to gear for the highest quality production that you do.9 Station Pressures and Constraints Several kinds of administrative pressures and constraints upon Hollywood Television Theatre were Statement by James Loper, President and General Manager, Station KCET, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, December 5, 1975. 169 applied by KCET in order to insure that the series unit operated according to accepted management practices. On occasion it was necessary for KCET management to become involved in such activities as acquiring dramatic properties and making production arrangements in order that deadlines were met (Anonymous). Station manage ment also placed constraints upon how much time, facilities, personnel, and money could be expended for the series in order to prevent, or at least limit, budgetary overruns. These constraints occasionally created disputes among series personnel who desired the highest quality production, business affairs staff who were responsible for controlling expenditures, and programming personnel who were responsible for obtaining financial support for the series (Allen interview). The practice of final script review by the station was also a constraint upon the series, although usually pereeived by everyone as necessary for fiscal, not artistic, control. When the Vice-President for Programming reviewed a script his concern concentrated upon keeping within the budget: If we are three plays down in the season, with one to go or whatever the case, and the script would call.for four principals and thirty other speaking parts, one simply could not approve the purchase of that script'. (Allen interview) . 170 Station Assistance for the Series Acquiring equipment that satisfied requirements for production of television drama, and insuring that the equipment was in the best possible operating con dition, were continuing efforts of the station. Begin ning in 1973, once the facilities of the new station location had been relatively stabilized, substantial efforts were made to improve the capability for equip ment maintenance: We were penny wise and pound foolish for too many years in trying to keep such a very tight rein on the engineering department and not giving enough people, particularly in the maintenance area .... And now I think we're spending our money much more wisely; even though we're spending more, we're having fewer equipment breakdowns, fewer delays, simply because the quality of maintenance is better than it was,(Loper interview) Expediting the entire production process was also of vital concern to station management, not only for the purpose of keeping expenditures within reason able limits, but also to maintain high quality of plays that were produced. Although budgets usually were limited, several directors commented on the assistance given them by station personnel. Providing trained production crew and engineers, developing adequate scheduling procedures, and keeping series staff informed of distribution requirements of the Public Broadcasting Service were among the services rendered 171 by the station (Turpin interview). Providing an environment of artistic freedom for Hollywood Television Theatre, with as little inter ference as possible in creative matters, was perceived by station management as an important part of their role. From the first contact with Lewis Freedman regarding the series, management made clear that Mhe would have a working environment in which he could function effectively as a creative artist.Norman Lloyd, who also was given the widest freedom possible, recognized, however, that creative freedom was not absolute: I don't think you can give anyone total freedom in this business, no matter where you are. And there should always be that other "thing" that says, "Well, yes or no." Now, we have found that we have no complaints, let me put it that way. I have never felt that I was deprived of a property that I wanted to do. (Lloyd interview)- Lloyd was later quoted, in a Daily Variety column, as reporting that the series was not subject to censorship and that his freedom in public television was far greater than he experienced in commercial television.^ 10Statement by David Davis, in charge of the Office of Communications, Ford Foundation, in a tele phone interview, Los Angeles to New York, June 25, 1975. ■^Dave Kaufman, "HTT's Producer, Norman Lloyd, Calls His Own Programming Shots," Daily Variety, September 23, 1975, p. 6. 172 Even so, he recognized that discussions with station management were necessary in order to anticipate possible production problems, as might arise with the Public Broadcasting Service. The inauguration of the Station Program Coopera tive method of funding publie television programming created a constraint that bordered upon artistic control. The management of KCET was well aware that stations in certain areas of the country, or boards of directors with fixed points of view, would not purchase programs which were completely unacceptable in content. Conse quently, detailed scrutiny was given all scripts; however, ho instances of prior censorship were dis covered. Instead, series and station executives worked together cooperatively to insure both artistie freedom and the widest possible audience acceptance (Turpin interview). The dramatic content, language, and social themes of "Steambath,” ’ ’ Knuckle,” and ’ ’ Requiem for a Nun” indicated that station control over artistic matters was minimal, if present at all. GRANT PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATIONS The responsibility for submitting grant proposals for Hollywood Television Theatre resided with KCET management; the Vice-President for Programming was in 173 charge of coordinating grant application forms and supporting materials, with the Senior Vice-President of the station providing budget information. Specific data for proposals were accumulated in consultation with Hollywood Television Theatre personnel. Although « the executive producer made some visits to private corporations seeking funds for the series, this task usually was the responsibility of KCET management (Lloyd interview). Procedures for Obtaining Grants Procedures for obtaining grants for Hollywood Television Theatre under the Station Program Coopera tive plan were described in Chapter IV. Previously, when funding was secured from the Ford Foundation, there were four steps in the grant application process: 1. Compilation of program and budget informa tion; 2. Submission of grant proposal to the Ford Foundation; 3. Negotiations and clarification of the grant proposal; 4. Awarding of the grant and transmittal of checks. 174 During the first two grant years information required in the grant proposals was minimal and negotiations between KCET and the Ford Foundation were informal, occasionally to the point of being casual. Several telephone conversations and a letter of con firmation to the station were the usual procedure, followed by the grant check. In applying for the second grant KCET executives flew to New York for a meeting with Ford Foundation officials, but this meeting also was informal. Written correspondence was minimal (Allen interview). Eventually, however, particularly after some Internal Revenue Service audits, these procedures were expanded significantly. Information required in the grant proposal was made more detailed. Compiling information for grant proposals was accomplished under supervision of the executive pro ducer. Data concerning cost estimates for plays were collected by the unit manager in consultation with the offices of business affairs and production operations of the station (Lloyd and Turpin interviews). The executive producer also provided synopses of plays that were proposed for production. The grant application process was standardized and the total grant amount was issued in increments during the year, with a budget review at each stage. 175 An independent critic was hired on a consulting basis to evaluate the plays, and incremental checks were not issued until those evaluations were on file with the Ford Foundation (Allen interview). Grant Specifications Funds from both the Ford Foundation and the Public Broadcasting Service, through the Station Program Cooperative, were granted according to established policies and specified relationships between the grantee and the funding organization. Both systems of funding provided for general budget accounting and review. In reporting to the Ford Foundation an overall annual budget was submitted for Hollywood Television Theatre by KCET; the Foundation approved the budget in principle, and the station was "free to vary from that within the total for the given shows, because some shows cost more than other shows" (Davis interview). The Public Broadcasting Service also kept track of accounting and budgeting activities of series funded 12 under the Station Program Cooperative. The "favored nations" restriction, in which a set fee for the 12 "Inside the Program Cooperative: Interview with Hartford Gunn," Public Telecommunications Review, II, 4 (August, 1974), 22. 176 purchase of dramatic properties was established, con tinued under both funding systems as a guard against bidding among public television production agencies. The matter of artistic review and control changed when funding of the series was transferred from the Ford Foundation to the Station Program Coopera tive. The Foundation maintained a policy of absolute noninterference with such matters as selection of plays and their production (Davis interview). Although the Public Broadcasting Serviee did not officially impose restrictions upon artistic and production elements of the series, indirect controls were perceived through the nature of the cooperative system. It was necessary to produce plays that would satisfy member stations; ‘ •you have to provide something they want, maybe not with every show, but you can't shove dirt in their faces'* (Yingling interview). The Ford Foundation maintained a flexible policy regarding midyear changes in production plans. If expenditures were higher than anticipated it was possible for Hollywood Television Theatre to alter remaining plays substantially, produce completely different plays that were less expensive, or even decrease the total number of plays for the season. Under the Station Program Cooperative, however, the 177 planned obligation in number and selection of plays had to be met. The Publie Broadcasting Service allowed acquisitions as long as they were stipulated in the annual proposal; in addition, some flexibility was allowed in making minor modifications during the year, such as decreasing speaking roles and altering sets (Allen interview). PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING BUDGETS When Hollywood Television Theatre was established detailed budget planning and accounting procedures had not been developed. Lewis Freedman based original cost estimates for the series upon his experiences with producing Play of the Week and New York Television Theater and upon production costs in public television at that time, the late 1960's. Along with KCET manage ment, he assumed that creative talent and dramatic properties would be readily available for modest fees and that plays could be produced for $90,000 to $100,000 each. These early estimates were found to be unrealistic; for example, the total production cost of "The Andersonville Trial" in 1970 was $138,677, and by 1975 about $200,000 was being expended on each produc tion. Unfortunately the original low estimates were regarded as the norm and became fixed in the minds of 178 those controlling funding (Allen interview). The dif ference between available funding and rising costs grew larger throughout the history of the series, particu larly under the Station Program Cooperative when discretionary grants from the Ford Foundation had to be used to subsidize Hollywood Television Theatre instead of other programming. Seven plays were pro duced in 1973-1974 for a total of $1,500,000, or an average of about $200,000 for each production. In 1975-1976 the available funding dropped to $1,200,000. At the same time price increases were evident in all budget areas; the cost of materials and labor continued to rise, and the sets constructed for ’ ’ Ladies of the Corridor” and ”The Lady’s Not for Burning” were very expensive (Lloyd interview). In order to maintain the same level of production quality as in previous years the number of plays had to be decreased. Five were planned with funding available in 1975-1976. ^ As the series continued budget planning and accounting procedures were developed which kept the series as financially stable as possible. A method was established for determining how station costs were to be charged to the series grant. Policies and pro- cedures were developed for controlling expenditures. 179 Budget Planning and Accounting Procedures The budget form used for Hollywood Television Theatre productions, shown in Appendix G, provided space for estimating above-the-line and below-the-line costs; in addition, space was included for actual expenditures after production was complete. Above-the- line budget categories included costs for talent, rights fees, executive producer, producer, director, writer (if script revisions were necessary), associate pro ducer, casting director, casting secretary, production assistant and production trainee, art director; cost of logo for program opening and closing; legal fees; publicity; music fees; and miscellaneous expenses. Below-the-line categories included costs for scenery, props, wardrobe, makeup, graphic arts; lighting designer; special vide© and audio effects; production personnel in addition to regular crew; equipment rental, if any; KCET facilities costs for production and post production; and miscellaneous costs such as rehearsal halls and shipping. Generalized budget estimates were submitted with the annual proposal to funding agencies, but once the grant was approved and the preproduction process was under way for individual plays, more detailed budgets were developed (Lloyd interview). Some budget 180 elements such as rights fees for dramatic properties, director fees and occasionally talent fees, casting director fees, and costume design costs were known in advance and could be estimated closely. Other costs, usually in the below-the-line category, such as scenery and properties, wardrobe and makeup, and miscellaneous costs were not known in advance and often were much greater than estimated. The budget reports for HThe Andersonville Trial” and "Big Fish, Little Fish" are shown in Appendix H. In the case of "The Andersonville Trial" the final costs of rights fees, director fee, associate producer, casting, art, costume, lighting, and postproduction, among other categories, were very close to estimated costs. Talent fees, production assistants, music, scenery, wardrobe and makeup, pro duction, and miscellaneous costs were significantly higher than estimated. Even though a standardized format for estimating budgets had been adopted, no system existed for pro viding management and series executives with an up-to- date account of expenditures. The executive producer of the series was able to obtain only gross figures with an indication that there were funds available or that the budget was depleted (Turpin interview). In 1971-1972, when fourteen plays were produced, the 181 amount of production activity was so great and the extent of expensive practices such as late evening recording sessions was so common that, out of necessity, a cost accounting system was developed. Under super vision of the Vice-President for Administration, the budget format shown in Appendix G was designed. In addition, procedures were established to provide budget status information to series executives as quickly and in as complete form as possible. The Vice-President for Administration kept close contact with the unit manager of the series to guarantee that accurate cost estimates were made in all categories; all invoices were coded to the correct category, routed through the unit manager’s office to the KCET accounting department, and back to the unit manager (Norberg interview). Even this system was not able to provide daily information on a continual basis, often necessary when expenditures approached budget limits. A computerized accounting system for public television, Automated Management Planning and Control Systems, was funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Ford Foundation and began implementation at three stations, 13 including KCET, in 1973. It had not become functional 13 Douglas Norberg and Leonard S. Spilka, "An Approach to Meeting Management's Needs for Financial Information," Public Telecommunications Review, I, 1 (August, 1973), 30. 182 by 1975, however, and its benefits were not available for Hollywood Television Theatre use (Norberg inter view). The less sophisticated system provided a significant improvement in budget management, however, and made possible continuous monitoring of expenditures; the system devised by station management allowed computation of a "moving average”: if one play were over budget, the available funds were recomputed to arrive at an average amount that could be expended on remaining productions (Norberg interview). Station Charges to Series Budget Until February 1971 many expenses of Hollywood Television Theatre were charged to the operating budget of Station KCET. As part of the improved cost accounting system, and further to insure that the series paid its own way insofar as possible, these expenses began to be charged to the series grant. With the approval of station management and the series executive producer the following costs, originally absorbed by the station, were charged to Hollywood 14 Television Theatre: 14- Memorandum from Douglas Norberg, Senior Vice- President of KCET, to Lewis Freedman, James Loper, and others, February 22, 1971. (Typewritten.) 183 1. A charge of $375 per day, plus manpower costs, was made for each day required to light and strike the set; 2. A flat fee of $500 was established for use of a rehearsal area; 3. No charge was made for "down time" if equipment failure occurred; 4. Manpower was charged from time-in to time out, including reasonable period to set up and strike equipment; 5. Stage time during actual production was established at $322 per hour, not including time for one meal per day and any required engineering time; 6. The production operations department was responsible for insuring that assistant directors and stage managers took a reason able amount of time for meals in order to avoid penalties. Maintaining Control of Expenditures Until 1974 the responsibility for reviewing Hollywood Television Theatre budgets and expenditures resided with the Senior Vice-President of KCET in his role as supervisor of business affairs. This 184 responsibility was then transferred to the Vice- President for Programming, resulting in some disagree ments as to whieh executive area was appropriate for fiscal review. Although artistic considerations were of prime importance when the responsibility for review was with programming executives, budgets tended to be higher; on the other hand, with business affairs in control, series personnel had difficulty meeting artistic requirements of plays (Anonymous). For the most part, directors understood that limited funds were available and were willing to work within allocated budgets. The directors of six differ ent plays reported that there were no significant problems regarding budget changes that had to be made, and that they were consulted about the changes. None theless, one director pointed out that the cost account ing system was inadequate and that the situation occasionally reached a point where the series unit was 15 informed that there was no money left. One station executive criticized both executive producers of the series for spending more time, and consequently more funds, in postproduction editing than was necessary; 15 Information from Hick Bennewitz, Co-Director of MFor the Use of the Hall,” in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, July 16, 1975. 185 he also pointed out that the unit managers of the series for the first two years were not able to trans late creative ideas into budget realities, thereby widening the gap between budget estimates and final expenditures (Anonymous). PERSONNEL PRACTICES Several personnel practices related to the production of Hollywood Television Theatre plays were identified. In the production of four plays there were serious disputes between the executive producer and directors. The original directors of "Winesburg, Ohio" and "For the Use of the Hall" were replaced before actual production began, although in the latter case many decisions regarding sets and cast had already been made. In "Steambath" artistic disagreement over the final scene resulted in release of the director and editing of the play according to the executive producer's point of view. Serious disagreement between the executive producer and the director of "Requiem for a Nun" arose during the second week of rehearsal regarding interpretation of the script by both the director and the actors. The executive producer was out of town during the dry rehearsal period, and did 186 not return until camera rehearsals were under way. After observing part of a rehearsal he decided that the play was not being put together as he had envi sioned. He called the director aside and began to describe some problems, but a heated argument followed, tempers flared, and the director walked out. When the executive producer attempted to terminate the director officially, however, the production crew indicated that if the director were fired, they would also walk out. Discussions with KCET management resolved the situation only to the extent that the director would remain and the production would proceed. Communication between the executive producer and the director for the remainder of the production was practically nonexistent (Anonymous). Particular attention was paid to hiring the best qualified production crew available and to maintaining a permanent staff of sufficient number rather than relying upon per diem technicians. Crew assignments were made by consultation among the producer, the technical director, and the engineering manager for 1 6 production. Occasionally competition for the most 1 6 Information from Everett Anderson, Chief Engineer, Station KCET, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, October 6 , 1975. 187 skilled crew members occurred between Hollywood Tele vision Theatre and other productions. At first these competing requests were resolved by the Vice-Presidents for Programming and Engineering. Eventually, middle management personnel were required to confront and solve the problems. Unlike the larger station opera tion, the series maintained a minimal core staff for economic reasons and because most support services could be provided by the station. SUMMARY OF CHAPTER The administrative policies and practices of Hollywood Television Theatre were related to those of Station KCET and were described in terms of (1) the organizational structure of the series unit and the station, (2) administrative relationships between the two entities, (3) procedures and specifications of series grants, (4) budget planning and implementation, and (5) personnel practices related to the series. Organization of the Station and Series Unit Four principal changes in the organizational structure of KCET occurred between 1969, when Hollywood Television Theatre was established, and 1975, when the series was in its sixth season. Before the summer of 188 1971 production services, such as crew scheduling and production planning, were transferred from the Vice- President for Engineering to the Vice-President for Administration. Late in 1971 the Vice-President for Administration was designated the Senior Vice-President of the station and became responsible for all activ ities except programming. By late fall of 1972 the Vice-President for Engineering left the station and his replacement was designated Chief Engineer, report ing to the Senior Vice-President; as a result, all engineering and business affairs were under one chief administrator, creating a large and diverse responsi bility. In 1975 the Senior Vice-President left the station and that position was changed to Vice-President for Business Affairs; by 1976 most operational units of the station had been transferred to the Vice- President for Programming. The two executive producers created different organizational structures for the series unit. Lewis Freedman established a large permanent staff, eventually hired a producer for additional support, and made casting services a permanent part of the staff. Norman Lloyd reduced the permanent staff from eighteen to six, depending largely upon the station for production services and hiring creative personnel on a per 189 production basis Administrative Relationships between Station and Series Although Hollywood Television Theatre was officially a KCET activity, under fiscal and opera tional jurisdiction of the station, it was given almost complete autonomy in creative and artistic matters. Lewis Freedman was more aggressive than Norman Lloyd in requesting priority support for the series from the station. The presence of Hollywood Television Theatre contributed to the growth and development of KCET. The dramatic series generated other production work and grants, and allowed the station to increase the size of its engineering staff and to improve equipment. Upper and middle level management personnel gained experience in acquiring dramatic properties, dealing with talent and talent agencies, and budgeting for television drama. As facilities were improved, however, a concomitant increase in operating expenses occurred which affected the cost of loeal, as well as national, production. Station management exerted several kinds of pressures and constraints upon series personnel. It was sometimes necessary to expedite the process of 190 acquiring dramatic properties in order that deadlines were met. Constraints upon the amount of time, facilities, personnel, and money expended for the series also were imposed, but artistic control was minimal, usually related to final script review for fiscal purposes. The station did not serve totally as a restrain ing factor upon the series, hut actually provided an increasing amount of service to improve the quality of plays that were produced. Equipment was upgraded continually, personnel were trained, and maintenance of equipment was improved. Although absolute artistic freedom was recognized by both station and series executives as not possible, an environment was created at KCET for Hollywood Television Theatre that was as free from interference as possible. Only with the establishment of funding through the public television Station Program Cooperative system was a suggestion of artistic control introduced; greater attention to the requirements of member stations was required in order to gain acceptance and funding for the series. Grant Procedures and Specifications The management of KCET was responsible for seeking funds and applying for grants for the series 191 with support from staff members. Procedures of apply ing for and receiving grants from the Ford Foundation were at first very informal, but after two years became more extensive and detailed. The executive producer compiled information for grant proposals with assistance from station personnel, but station executives partici pated in negotiations with the Ford Foundation. Both the Ford Foundation and later the Public Broadcasting Service, through the Station Program Cooperative, maintained policies of reviewing Hollywood Television Theatre budgets; in addition, the "favored nations" restriction on purchasing rights of dramatic properties continued under both funding systems. Accompanying the change in funding was an indirect increase in the approval of nonfinancial series elements. Less flexibility was allowed in changing production plans midseason under the Station Program Cooperative. Series personnel believed that, because the public television stations voted on what projects to fund, it was necessary to propose plays that would be more acceptable to a diverse audience. Planning and Implementing Budgets The costs of producing television drama for public television were significantly underestimated 192 when the series was established. Throughout the history of the series the early estimates were con sidered to be the norm; consequently, grants had to be supplemented from other sources. A budget form was developed for Hollywood Tele vision Theatre that provided space for estimating above-the-line and below-the-line costs; in addition, the form allowed final cost figures to be added after production was complete. Some production costs were relatively fixed, and estimates were accurate; other costs, such as scenery and production, were usually higher than estimated. The budget form, combined with procedures established in 1971, significantly improved the kind and timeliness of budget status information that was available to station management and series staff. A planned computerized accounting system was not functional in time to benefit the series. Beginning in 1971 many expenses related to production of the series that had been absorbed by KCET were charged to the grant. In order to keep a true accounting of series expenditures and insure that the series paid its own way, facilities charges, crew manpower costs, lighting costs, and rehearsal area costs were charged to the grant. 193 Maintaining control of expenditures was a con- tinning concern of station management. Even though directors realized that limited funds were available for the series and were usually willing to work within the imposed limitations, there was some criticism about the lack of continual accounting of expenditures. There was some conflict between the programming and business affairs areas of station management regarding proper balance between fiscal responsibility and artistic requirements. Personnel Practices There were serious disputes between the execu tive producer and four directors. Two directors were replaced before production began, one director was released before editing had been completed, and com munication broke down completely between the executive producer and director during production of a fourth play. Particular attention was paid by station manage ment in hiring the most skilled technical personnel available; competition for crew members was not unusual and conflicting requests eventually were resolved by middle management personnel. 194 CHAPTER VI THE PRODUCTION PROCESS OF HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE The production process of Hollywood Television Theatre encompassed activities that occurred from the time a dramatic property'*' was selected through the postproduction editing of a play. The activities involved in the production process were: selecting dramatic properties, adapting plays, advance schedul ing of facilities and personnel, selecting directors, casting and selecting other personnel, preproduction planning, dry rehearsal and blocking, recording the play, and postproduction editing. SELECTING DRAMATIC PROPERTIES Responsibilities for selecting dramatic properties for Hollywood Television Theatre were shared between series executives and station manage ment. The executive producer, however, possessed extensive authority and freedom in the selection ^The single word "properties" was commonly employed by series and station personnel when refer ring to the selection of plays and was clearly differentiated in context from the other common use of that term, as stage piece or "prop." 195 process, with the Senior Vice-President and the Vice- President for Programming of KCET responsible for review and support functions. The process of selecting dramatic properties for the series included: (1) searching for properties that might be produced, (2) conducting preliminary discussions about potential properties, (3) outlining a production concept and preliminary budget, (4) submitting the concept and budget for station management review, and (5) negotiat ing for the property. Four factors that influenced the selection of dramatic properties were also identi fied: (1) awareness of series concept, (2) budgetary considerations, (3) availability of plays, and (4) pressures on the executive producer. Searching for Properties The search for dramatic properties was the continuing responsibility of the executive producer of Hollywood Television Theatre. In pursuit of potential plays, Lewis Freedman earlier and then Norman Lloyd used a variety of sources in order to locate dramatic material, in the form of plays, novels, and short stories, that could be adapted to television. Lewis Freedman had already begun discussions for rights to some properties before series production started 196 2 early in 1970. In an interim report to the Ford Foundation on December 16, 1969, Freedman revealed that he already had the rights to "U.S.A." and was in negotiations for "The Andersonville Trial" and "Another 3 Part of the Forest." After the series was under way a brief period of learning about properties and exploring for sources of properties was required; such sources as the New York Times and compilations of reviews of dramatic properties were consulted. Gradually, literary agents . . . began to become aware of Hollywood Television Theatre along the way and that became perhaps an even more fruitful source in terms of being able to sit down— and Lewis would do some of this— with the agents and^listen to what they have in their inventory. Although several methods of searching for dramatic properties were employed between 1970 and 1975, a frequent one was reading, analyzing, and 2 Statement by John Yingling, Production Manager, Station KCET, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, June 3, 1975. 3 Statement by David Davis, Program Officer for the Ford Foundation, in a telephone interview, Los Angeles, California to New York, June 25, 1975. 4 Statement by Douglas Norberg, then Senior Vice- President, Station KCET, in personal interviews, Los Angeles, California, March 25 and April 1, 1975. 197 recollecting plays by the executive producer. Lewis Freedman employed an interesting technique to facili tate the search for plays. The desk in his office was against a wall, on which . . . he had three-by-five index cards with titles and authors printed . . . on them and he would just stick them up there— eight, ten, twenty. If he bought them, he'd put a red star on them— that's bought. If it didn't sell, he'd turn the card over.(Yingling interview) Norman Lloyd referred to the searching process as selection "out of the library in my own mind of 5 plays." Arthur Miller's "Incident at Vichy" and Bernard Shaw's "Man of Destiny" were known to Lloyd; he had reread them while searching for plays to fit a one hour format, although "Incident at Vichy" was eventually ninety minutes in length. "Gondola" was originally a short story he had known for years (Lloyd interview). On occasion potential plays were suggested to the executive producer by other people. The Senior Vice-President of KCET stated that he became aware of properties in his conversations with literary agents (Norberg interview); the Vice-President for Programming of KCET reported that he brought "Stearabath" to the 5 Statement by Norman Lloyd, Executive Producer of Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal inter view, Los Angeles, California, April 11, 1975. 198 g executive producer's attention and this recollection was supported by Lloyd: "He just put the book on my desk, a little paperback; and I read it and said I'd like to do it" (Lloyd interview). The play "Carpenters" was submitted by an agent and later led to production of "Nourish the Beast" by the same author, while "Sty of the Blind Pig" was recommended by an actor (Lloyd interview). Production organizations often have commissioned scripts especially for television in order to avoid modifying an already written play to fit a different medium. In only one instance was a play commissioned for Hollywood Television Theatre: "Gondola" had been a short story and was adapted for television by the original author, whose background included motion picture credits. This method of acquiring plays for Hollywood Television Theatre was difficult because, as one station administrator observed, experienced, well known writers would demand more than the series budget allowed, and with untested writers "you don't g Statement by Charles Allen, Vice-President for Programming, Station KCET, in personal interviews, Los Angeles, California, February 19 and December 3, 1975. 7 Statement by George Turpin, Supervisory Pro ducer of Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, April 21, 1975. 199 know what the hell you're gonna get" (Anonymous). Conducting Preliminary Discussions Although the executive producer was responsible for finding properties, he necessarily was required to investigate questions of availability, terms of agree ments, and whether or not a play under consideration was appropriate for the series. Under Lewis Freedman an informal approach was followed; occasionally after several conversations with literary agents or authors firm commitments resulted (Norberg interview). Informal discussions also were held with KCET manage ment about potential properties, but Freedman's autonomy was extensive. After Norman Lloyd became executive producer a more formalized management review process was established without, however, infringing upon Lloyd's responsibilities. Lloyd also discussed potential properties with authors (Lloyd interview) and often with his supervisory producer (Turpin inter view) . Outlining Concept and Budget In order for the Senior Vice-President of KCET, who negotiated contracts for Hollywood Television Theatre properties until 1975, to know approximately 200 how high a fee could be afforded, a preliminary budget was required before negotiations began (Norberg inter view). The preliminary budget usually was based upon some kind of production concept or design. The responsibility for determining a preliminary production concept and budget was that of the executive producer, but as in the case of searching for properties, with the advice and assistance of colleagues and staff. The background and experience of both executive pro ducers enabled them to make rough estimates of produc tion costs merely by careful reading of a play (Norberg interview). However, because more precise budgetary information was required, the play was turned over to the series unit manager for a preliminary budget break down (Lloyd interview). At this point in the production process the play was not in final production script form, but may already have been modified from its original form and portions cut to meet series require ments. Although each play required its own production concept and budget, the supervisory producer had developed some sample budgets, in about 1972, for ninety minute and two hour program lengths, and these provided guidelines that had not previously been available. 201 The development of a preliminary budget was described in detail by the Senior Vice-President of KCET, indicating how the budget depended upon various production elements. Budgeting was . . . a function of the number of characters, the number of settings, interior versus exterior and the nature of the interiors. A play that takes place in the courtyard of an elaborate southern mansion as in ''Another Part of the Forest" has but one set— very elaborate. Other plays like "Ladies of the Corridor" have lots of rooms and lots of sets, none as elaborate, but the whole • thing was more expensive. The number of players makes a big difference: it will require longer rehearsal, require longer takes, more complex; a greater number of things can go wrong.(Norberg interview) Norman Lloyd described how the executive pro ducer could change the production concept to match available funds: . . . if you're over, you can cut it down. Usually this requires simplification of the set, because if the cast is too large to start with you don't go for the play. But if the cast is reasonable in its size . . • then you might go for the play even if the set is heavy, in the hope that you could cut down the set.(Lloyd interview) Developing preliminary budgets and concepts did not, however, always progress without difficulty. At the end of the season in which "Beginning to End" was produced, the annual budget was almost depleted and that was the only remaining play for which rights had been secured; to compound the problem, no production concept had yet been developed and Hollywood Television 202 Theatre was committed for one more production. With time running out and unable to work out a design, the executive producer . . . really out of exhaustion . . . took a drive in the desert and came back with that concept. We were to the wall; we couldn’t buy another play. That one was left and Jack MacGowran, working with Beckett, cut it so it would work on television. And then Lewis had ’ ’the realization in the desert.” He drove to the desert for a miracle and came back with one .... He was exhausted and just went on a desert drive one weekend because he was absolutely desperate.(Allen interview) The resulting production was a ”one-man" show with actor Jack MacGowran set against the rocky California desert just west of Death Valley in an interrelated series of monologues from works by Samuel Beckett. Reviewing Budget and Production Concept Maintaining a delicate balance between budgetary management and creative freedom was evidenced in gradual changes in the procedures of reviewing proposed plays and in how various participants perceived the review process. As the originator of the Hollywood Television Theatre idea and its first executive producer, Lewis Freedman was naturally active in all aspects of the project. One member of KCET indicated that Freedman ”was free to pick and choose and execute the purchase 203 of [aj property at will” (Norberg interview). However, KCET was the recipient of grant funds and was respon sible for overall supervision of the series, so that freedom was not absolute. Another member of KCET management contended that station approval did exist in the beginning, but Freedman maintained such rigorous control over the series that station approval of budgets and production concepts often was automatic. Freedman prevented serious problems from developing by his practice of constant communication with management: Lewis was and is a very open person who loves to talk about every aspect of anything he's involved with. So there were never any fears or any instances of clients not disclosed or what he hoped and dreamed to do.(Allen interview) By the time Freedman was preparing to leave the project it became evident that more formalized review procedures were required in order to resolve complicated situations that had developed. Rights had been pur chased for more plays than management believed could be produced, because the project was funded only on an annual basis with no guarantee of continuation. In addition, station personnel were not experienced in dealing with dramatic properties and station management had not developed a workable method of dividing respon sibilities among departments of the station. Whereas programming executives and staff of the station were 204 responsible for informal review of potential purchases, business personnel carried out negotiations for the properties. The absence of organized management pro cedures for dealing with dramatic properties caused difficulties with several plays. In the case of ’ ’ U.S.A.,” a series of oversights resulted in only one national airing instead of the four allowed in the three year license period (Allen interview). A review procedure was therefore established just prior to the changeover in executive producers giving final approval of scripts and budget to the Vice-President for Programming of KCET, and the pro cedure was included in the contract of the new executive producer (Norberg and Allen interviews). As had been the case previously, the review procedure remained relatively informal with a ’ ’ give and take” atmosphere. Station management wanted to insure that the total annual budget for the series did not exceed the grant; in addition, management needed a guarantee that scripts remaining unfinished at the time of negotiation could be completed. However, the series staff needed as much freedom of action as possible: You must leave it to their imagination; you can’t dictate from an office no matter how you design an organizational chart. The producer has to be enthusiastic, has to want to make it work. If you send a producer out with something 205 he does not want to do, you will receive an expensive lesson. And I think we've had none of that*(Allen interview) Neither station management nor series personnel evi dently had problems with the procedure. The super visory producer of the series indicated that when a potential property was identified it was sent to the Vice-President for Programming for review, and the succeeding discussions were fairly informal (Turpin interview). Comments by station management such as "you seem to be able to afford it and you know what you want to do with it” (Allen interview) were typical. Negotiating for Properties The Senior Vice-President of KCET was assigned the responsibility for negotiating purchase agreements for dramatic properties. After management and the executive producer agreed to acquire rights to a particular play it was a matter of negotiating a deal on the telephone or in person, and after the first few plays had been produced the Senior Vice-President became acquainted with most of the agents "and they all knew that when we came in for a property about what we were going to pay, and we'd just dicker over a few of the terras" (Norberg interview). The purchase agreement form used for Hollywood Television Theatre underwent changes between 1969 and 206 1975. Originally a letter of agreement was designed by a law firm that the station retained, but that firm had relatively little theatrical experience and the terms were not always advantageous to KCET. Another firm was retained; using that letter of agreement, along with some sample contracts from networks and studios, the purchase agreement form employed in 1975 was developed (see Appendix I). The form was kept as simple as possible because the fees being paid were very low and KCET wanted to avoid ’ ’ legal points that may be of little consequence” (Norberg interview). Two provisions of the agreement were of particular interest in the preproduction process. First, the station was given the right to make changes and revisions in a work in adapting it for television pro duction. Interpreting this provision became a signifi cant problem in the production of "Winesburg, Ohio.” Second, the starting date of the agreement was defined as the date of first release— with provision for an earlier or later date— which at least emphasized the concern experienced in ’ ’ U.S.A." that enough time would be available for airing a play after it was produced. Several problems in negotiating rights to dramatic properties were encountered. Originally Hollywood Television Theatre could afford only $5,000 207 for rights to a property; the total for United States and foreign rights had increased to only $7,500 by 1975 (Norberg interview). It was difficult to attract known writers at that price. However, the Vice- President for Programming of KCET pointed out that many writers welcomed the opportunity of having their works produced on Hollywood Television Theatre because the exposure could lead to larger money in commercial television (Allen interview). Occasionally problems also would occur in the negotiation of foreign rights. As described by the Senior Vice-President of KCET, the negotiations for "Another Part of the Forest” were among the more complex and involved in the history of the series to 1975. Preliminary investigation revealed that Music Corporation of America-Universal held the rights to the play and had made the motion picture. Although that agreement also gave Universal the rights to television performances of the motion picture, the rights regarding production of a tele vision play were vague. Negotiations were protracted as neither Lillian Heilman, the playwright, nor Universal was able to decide who could assign rights for a Hollywood Television Theatre production. Mean while, Miss Heilman lost a suit over similar rights for another play, "The Little Foxes," which Metro- 208 Goldwyn-Mayer had produced as a motion picture. She then referred all negotiations by KCET over "Another Part of the Forest" to Universal. As discussions 8 progressed, Universal deeided to require a quitclaim from the playwright. At first Miss Heilman refused, but after further negotiations a deal was worked out: KCET bought rights to the play from Miss Helman with a quitclaim against Universal, and from Universal with a quitclaim against Miss Heilman. Universal agreed to this arrangement only if they would be able to take the rights back when they desired. Further discussions took place. Finally, agreement was reached that if Universal wanted the rights back they would pay accord ing to the following schedule: 75 per cent of pro duction costs to KCET if the play had aired once, 50 per cent if aired twice, and 25 per cent after three runs. As of 1975 Universal had not requested the rights to be returned (Norberg interview). Awareness of Series Concept Underlying the process of selecting plays was a constant awareness by station and Hollywood Television Theatre personnel of the concept of the series, its 8A quitclaim in this case, briefly, is an acknowledgement by the playwright that the holder of the rights (Universal) may enter into another arrange ment for the property. 209 artistic objectives, what it was, and what it ought to be. The concept of the series changed when Norman Lloyd succeeded Lewis Freedman as executive producer, but both individuals selected plays according to their own artistie objectives for the series. The series not only reflected, to some extent, the personal taste of the executive producer, but also grew and changed in character as plays continued to be produced. As Norman Lloyd expressed it, "after awhile if you stand off and look at the plays they may have a certain kind of token personality" (Lloyd interview). Drama that stimulated the intellect and imagina tion of the audience, as well as drama with which the audience felt comfortable, was considered relevant for the series. "We do sometimes have an abrasive meeting with our audience" (Lloyd interview). Although every play did not necessarily meet all expectations for the level of material sought, presenting drama with a variety of themes, styles, and content was important (Allen interview). Hollywood Television Theatre also was striving for drama that "wouldn't necessarily come to the public attention but that we feel Cisj worth while and worthy of public attention" (Turpin inter view) ; drama that deserved to be produced. Maintaining and increasing "quality drama" without necessarily 210 pioneering new forms or attempting to be "experimental television" were significant aspects of what was 9 expected of the series. Finally, drama that was well written, "where the word is of prime importance as opposed to certain cinematic values" (Turpin interview), was believed appropriate for the series. Budgetary Considerations An awareness of restrictions in the budget of Hollywood Television Theatre was a factor in the process of play selection. The total annual budget for the series never exceeded one and a half to two million dollars (Norberg interview); approximately $100,000 to $200,000 was budgeted for each production (Yingling interview). The executive producer, there fore, worked within a relatively limited total annual budget. Even more restrictive was the "favored nations" policy in the purchase of dramatic properties that had been established when National Educational Television was the primary producing agency in public television; the policy was still maintained in 1975 by the Public Broadcasting Service. The policy required that (1) the 9 Statement by James Loper, President and General Manager of KCET, in personal interviews, Los Angeles, California, November 22, 1974 and December 5, 1975. 211 same price be paid for all dramatic properties; (2) if, in any given year, rates were increased, the difference between old and new rates had to be paid to all previous authors whose plays had been used by Hollywood Tele vision Theatre (Yingling interview); and (3) bidding against any other production organization for a property was forbidden (Allen interview). Although the series was restricted by a fixed annual budget and each production was allocated an amount within that budget, it was not possible to pro duce all plays in a given year for the same amount; some plays were found to have more expensive sets, others to require more extensive editing, and so forth. Therefore, when considering selection of plays, either for the entire year or during the year, if a potential property was encountered it was necessary to attain a budgetary mix: .several expensive productions had to be balanced by inexpensive ones (Yingling interview). Availability of Plays The extent to which properties were available influenced the selection process. In the opinion of station and series executives, scripts of acceptable quality were in short supply. Norman Lloyd contended that: 212 . . . writing, in my view today, is in a bad way; and therefore there isn’t that much good writing. Look at the New York theater. . . . Look at any theater in the country, and even look at the British theater. . . . So it isn't as though one could sit back and say "we'll do this kind of play". (Lloyd interview) An additional problem existed for Hollywood Television Theatre. Even when plays of acceptable quality could be located, often the price demanded by the author was prohibitive. As the production manager of KCET expressed it, "If I offered you $7,500 and the guy in the next office offered you $35,000 . . . unless you are very rich or very eccentric ... you're going to take the $35,000" (Yingling interview). Sometimes, according to the supervisory producer of the series, "you have to go with what you can get" (Turpin interview). Pressures on the Executive Producer Various kinds of pressures were evident that influenced the selection of plays. If negotiations for a property took an inordinate amount of time, as in the case of "Requiem for a Nun" and "The Lady's Not for Burning," then inevitably "due to the inexorable passage of time, there's more pressure on . . . the producer to get something; because you have to deliver a show to meet certain air dates" (Yingling 213 interview). Because KCET ultimately was responsible for the success of Hollywood Television Theatre, both in terms of staying within budget and completing programs, there was occasionally a certain amount of pressure applied by station management on series personnel, particularly if air dates approached with no properties having been purchased. One alternative to new production in the early years was airing a program previously produced for another series; "The Plot to Overthrow Christmas” was first produced for KCET's Homewood series, but aired on Hollywood Television Theatre also in order to meet air commitments (Yingling interview). By 1975, however, this practice was unacceptable, and station management maintained close communication with series personnel in order to insure that the selection of properties proceeded as rapidly as possible. ADAPTING PLAYS The written form of Hollywood Television Theatre plays varied at the time they were scheduled for pro duction. Some plays, as in the case of "The Scarecrow," were as published in anthologies; others were available in acting version forms for stage production or were submitted by writers in script form, but without 214 television staging indicated. The executive producer, usually working with the director and writer, made whatever modifications in the play were necessary for Hollywood Television Theatre production. The two executive producers used different approaches in adapting plays for Hollywood Television Theatre. Lewis Freedman tended to transfer plays from their original form to television without substantial deletions of action or dialogue,^ and even avoided discussing changes in dialogue for any reason with a writer (Allen interview). The directors of "U.S.A.,” "The Typists," and "The Scarecrow," all working under Freedman, confirmed that their plays were produced with very little change from the original. Norman Lloyd, on the other hand, preferred to adapt plays as required to suit the characteristics of television and the series. On occasion he would obtain several rewrites "until in his judgment the play was ready for production" (Allen interview). A difficult and frustrating situation developed in revising the script for "Winesburg, Ohio." Lewis Freedman acquired the property, intending to produce 10 Statement by George Schaefer, Director of "U.S.A." for Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, August 5, 1975. 215 it with few, if any, changes as a two or two and one- half hour program, following his usual practice. Included in the agreement for rights to the property, as reported by two persons connected with the project, was final script approval by the author. Before the play could be produced, however, Freedman left Hollywood Television Theatre and Norman Lloyd became the new executive producer. Because the rights had already been acquired, and for other reasons, Lloyd decided to proceed with production: We had to get on with it. We had our dates to meet so I just went ahead and activated "Winesburg, Ohio” which we had not decided we were going to do definitely . • . but I finally made the decision to do it.(Lloyd interview) Deciding that the script as submitted by the writer was too long and contained too much extraneous material, Lloyd set forth with the director to revise it. The process involved . . . pruning and condensing and tightening of a very rambling work, adapting it to the camera medium .... And not only that, but I had gone through Mr. Anderson's book very carefully and everything connected to it or anything that I could connect. There were things that I wanted to put back in.H When the revision was complete it was sent to the author Statement by Ralph Senensky, Director of "Winesburg, Ohio" for Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, November 21, 1975. 216 according to the agreement that had been made. The author, who had every reason to believe that he had final script approval (Allen interview), objected strenuously to the revision. His changes to the revision, however, were not returned until approxi mately ten days before taping and they were unaccept able to the executive producer and the director (Senensky interview). The differences still had not been settled by the taping date and so, to avoid later legal problems, a "cosmetic compromise" was performed: using their own revision, they would scene-by-scene reinsert as many of the author's changes as possible: Norman was sitting there in the booth and just before we'd start a scene, before we'd start a sequence, with two scripts . . . reinstating where he could . . . . He would put speeches back; it was cosmetic.(Senensky interview) The resulting production was unsatisfactory because, in the process of reinserting scenes and pieces of dialogue, the flow and continuity of the play were lost. Performances were not so seriously affected by this approach that the production became super ficial, but an overall disjointed appearance in the play was evident.(Senensky interview) 217 ADVANCE SCHEDULING OF FACILITIES AND PERSONNEL When Hollywood Television Theatre began pro cedures for scheduling space, facilities, and personnel had not been developed. Gradually, with experience, various ways were found to insure that the creative requirements of dramatic television production could be met without disruption of the operation of a broad cast television station. Process of Advance Annual Scheduling Advance scheduling of studios, facilities, and personnel for Hollywood Television Theatre was incor porated into the overall scheduling for the entire station. By early spring of every year the production manager of KCET was wkind of like a juggler; we're looking at calendars and a hundred different things" (Yingling interview) in developing the schedule for the following fiscal year (July 1 to June 30). Even though final approval of funding for the series usually was not known until the beginning of the fiscal year, advance scheduling was necessary in order to insure that all facilities requirements for the station were systematically considered. Facilities, space, and personnel also were required for production 218 — ------------- of local programs, maintaining the Public Broadcasting Service network feed operations for the West Coast and the on-air operations of KCET itself, and servicing Visions, the other major dramatic project of the station. The production manager began advance scheduling for Hollywood Television Theatre by verifying the number of productions planned for the following year with the executive producer. Then, based upon previous experience with the series, he blocked out appropriate dates on a master calendar. The series had developed the following pattern, based upon the production of five plays in a year with eight weeks allocated for each: three weeks in rehearsal, one week in production, approximately one week in postproduction editing, and three weeks to prepare scripts and plan for the next production (Tingling interview). Once these basic • requirements were scheduled several days would be blocked out in one or both studios prior to the start of each camera rehearsal period, which were Thursdays of the third week of rehearsal, for purposes of set construction. Hollywood Television Theatre productions were not scheduled for the period between Thanksgiving and Christmas because talent usually was not available at that time. 219 When the preliminary schedule was complete the executive producer was consulted in order to identify potential difficulties: ... I take my rough list over to Norman's office, sit down with him, with the calendar, go over each projection that I have made for tape dates. Then we comment on them, move them slightly— whatever is necessary to fit his needs (Yingling interview). Justification for Advance Scheduling Advance scheduling was required in order to avoid last minute chaotic conditions, ease competition for facilities and personnel among production projects at the station, and prevent unnecessary budgetary over runs. In 1974-1975, for example, an advance schedule was not developed. Consequently, the total time span ior pxay pjruuucCxuu tucit jcax » » c%^ abbreviated (Turpin interview). Aside from increasing the working pressures on all personnel, this condition meant that air dates were dangerously close before programs were complete (Allen interview), and that the production schedules of other projects needing the same facilities were delayed. The competition for personnel and facilities was another justification for advance scheduling. By late 1975 the problem of insufficient studio space 220 had been fairly well resolved* Although KCET had two studios, Stages A and B, only the latter had been fitted with the type of flooring necessary for dramatic production. With a new floor in Stage A it was pos- 12 sible to use both stages for major television drama. Competition for personnel, however, remained critical, particularly when the two major drama projects, Visions an<i Hollywood Television Theatre, were requesting the most skilled technical crew from a relatively limited permanent staff. Because recording sessions for dif ferent projects usually were not scheduled at the same time, there were few competing demands for production crew. Instead, competition for the most skilled personnel would occur when one project was in pro duction. while another was in the postproduction editing process. An experienced audio engineer or video tape operator might be in demand by both projects simultaneously• Although partial solutions were found by a limited increase of staff and development of a second complete, highly trained crew, budgetary limitations 12 Statement by Everett Anderson, Chief Engineer of KCET, in a personal interview October 6, 1975, and a telephone interview January 20, 1976, Los Angeles, California. 221 prevented a quick resolution (Anderson interview). Until the reservoir of skilled personnel increased, the executive producers of the projects involved were required to work out these problems with the production manager of KCET on a ease-by-case basis (Allen inter view) • The tight budget constraints, not only of Hollywood Television Theatre but of KCET as a public television station, also required scheduling to prevent serious financial problems. As the President and General Manager of KCET insisted: "there has to be a constraint, let's say, upon the creative soul relative to how much time, facilities, people, and manpower and money they can spend; otherwise, they'll just go on j p A i r t A W A T * ! ! {T T r t r ^ o v * i n f o p v r i l a u r ^ _ It took time and experience, however, to develop the procedures and to find qualified management per sonnel who were able to strike a balance between fiscal requirements and creative demands. In the early years of the series production coordination was divided among the Hollywood Television Theatre unit, KCET program department, and KCET engineering. There was no pro duction department, production planning meetings were not held, and there were instances of studios and personnel being scheduled for more than one activity 222 at a time (Yingling interview). It was necessary to devise both short-term solutions to daily problems and long-range systems at the same time to provide adequate services for production projects. SELECTION OF DIRECTORS The choice of directors for Hollywood Television Theatre was the responsibility of the executive pro ducer. Every effort was made to hire a director before other creative personnel so that he might participate in decisions regarding sets, lighting, and other pro duction elements. Although criteria for the selection of directors were not formally codified, station and series executives attempted to find directors with certain backgrounds and talents. Between 1969 and 1975 several difficulties developed in obtaining directors for the series. Bases for Selecting Directors Both executive producers attempted to hire directors with as much experience as possible; Hollywood Television Theatre never was intended to be a training ground (Loper interview). Such well known directors as George Schaefer, Lamont Johnson, Boris Sagal, Daniel Mann, Daniel Petrie, Paul Bogart, and Joseph Hardy have 223 all worked for Hollywood Television Theatre. An experienced director also was necessary in order to gain the confidence of the actors: . . . the stars . . . are willing to come to Hollywood Television Theatre eventually, but only if the conditions, and that includes the director, are such that they will not risk their future. In other words, they always fear that they will be handled amateurishly,(Allen interview) Directors who possessed a comprehensive under standing of the dramatic form were sought for Hollywood Television Theatre productions. A potential director not only had to be available and interested in doing the play, he also had to know what it was about: You see, the most important quality a director has, in my view, is the ability to make the actors believe that he does understand all facets of the play and that he, in fact, is in charge and that they should listen accent direction. NoWj ix you dun • t imvt; ilu mattci uOn* iuauj moonshots or whatever you've directed, those actors will destroy you. And they will ask you the same question in different ways, and if you vacillate on the answers they will start playing the role the variety of ways they think it was done and you may be absolutely out of control. (Allen interview) It also was important that directors had experi ence in the techniques of electronic, as contrasted with film, television. Although most of the Hollywood Television Theatre directors had come from motion pictures or theater (Turpin interview), the constant search was for the ideal director for this particular 224 series, with talents in video tape television drama. Such characteristics were described by station and series executives as an ability to control artistic development of a play, to bring out the performance of an actor, to handle the story, and above all to manage the technical manipulations required to cut a television program. The Difficult Search for Directors Experience with the expert directing ability of George C. Scott in the very first production of Hollywood Television Theatre tended to mislead station and series executives in terms of how difficult obtain ing directors would be. Before "The Andersonville Trial" Scott had not directed in the medium of tele vision with video tape, and yet he had "a perfect conception of the work and an ability to dominate and shape each performance" (Allen interview). A false sense of security, therefore, was created, and future difficulties were not foreseen. Directors often were engaged on other assign ments and were not available when contacted about working on the series. This was the case particularly with established, well known directors whose talents were in continual demand. George Schaefer, for example, 225 who directed "U.S.A." for the 1970-1971 season, was deeply involved in the production of "Potsdam" for David Susskind's company when contacted to direct "The Last of Mrs. Lincoln" for the 1975-1976 season; that production was postponed until he was available. Schaefer had been contacted quite regularly by Lewis Freedman about other plays and finally was able to clear his schedule (Schaefer interview). Boris Sagal was on location in San Francisco when contacted about directing "The Scarecrow" for the 1971-1972 season. Even when directors were available, they also had to consider the question of remuneration. Agree ment was reached early in the history of the series that, in order to avoid the astronomical payments for directors and talent which would not have been budg- etarily feasible, everyone would be paid union and guild scale (Norberg interview). Directors, therefore, had to be able to afford to take on a Hollywood Tele vision Theatre play. As Boris Sagal acknowledged, "KCET has to compete with the commercial networks and with the commercial salaries and it really has to be a labor of love." Obtaining directors who understood drama, could evoke performances from actors, also were experienced in the techniques of electronic television, and yet 226 were available and interested in the series was a difficult process. Consequently, directors with a variety of backgrounds were finally selected, and several different directing concepts were employed. Some directors, such as George Schaefer and Glenn Jordan, combined all ideal characteristics. In other cases the co-director system was used, as in "For the Use of the Hall," with Lee Grant directing the actors and Rick Bennewitz serving as camera director. Both the Vice-President for Programming and Norman Lloyd indicated that the co-director system was not satis factory (Allen and Lloyd interviews). Another varia tion was for directors with extensive stage or film experience to be assisted by a highly qualified technical director or, in some cases, by the close supervision of the executive producer and supervisory producer (Loper interview). Some directors, such as Joseph Hardy, had no previous experience with electronic television direct ing, but were quick to learn the required techniques. For "Shadow of a Gunman" a skilled technical director was assigned, and once Hardy "realized the kind of vertical staging and how the pictures are most easily 13 taken," there was no problem. Confirming this 13 Statement by Joseph Hardy, Director of "Shadow of a Gunman," "Man of Destiny," and "The Lady's Not 227 account, the series supervisory producer commented that Hardy had "the facility of being able to divide his attention; it doesn't bother him; he's very good in the booth" (Turpin interview). Special circumstances surrounded the selection of some directors. Occasionally actors would not appear in a production unless a specific director was hired (Loper interview). During the changeover period of executive producers Freedman had selected a director for one play, but the new executive producer preferred another director and eventually made the change. As part of his agreement to appear in "Man of Destiny" as an actor, Stacy Keach also was allowed to direct a later production, "Incident at Vichy"; management believed that the value in getting Reach's performance as Napoleon justified selecting him as a director for another play. CASTING AND SELECTION OF OTHER PERSONNEL By 1975 a fairly effective procedure had been devised for assembling the creative team required to produce a television drama for the series. The 13 (Continued) for Burning" for Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, July 14, 1975. 228 executive producer attempted first to build a core team for each production consisting of himself serving as producer, a director, and an art director. It was necessary for these individuals to consult early in the preproduction process about overall plans, particu larly for an exchange of ideas about the set. In some cases the director had an art director in mind (Turpin interview), while in others the pressures of time forced the executive producer to hire an art director who was available first in order to meet schedule deadlines for set construction (Lloyd interview). In the latter instance the director was given the oppor tunity to make changes in artistic and production design for the play. Once this three member team was assembled, decisions about other creative personnel were made. Casting and Negotiations for Talent Casting originally was conducted through an outside agency; however, Lewis Freedman and station management soon reached the conclusion that the work load justified a staff casting director. A position was approved, and the casting director also served as a script reader (Norberg interview). Justification was based partially on difficulties executives had 229 in the early years of the series explaining to agents that Hollywood Television Theatre was, indeed, a serious venture worthy of superior talent: "Lewis would spend a day explaining to an agent what public tele vision was and it would take another day to explain what HTT was" (Allen interview). Keeping a casting director on the permanent series staff continued until Norman Lloyd instituted the practice of hiring a casting director on a per production instead of a full time basis. Both executive producers were deeply involved in determining which actors would be cast for a par ticular production; however, they approached the process in slightly different ways. After discussions about artistic and set design, the executive producer and director met to discuss the cast. This meeting was essential because Lloyd never wanted "to impose on the director an actor whom he loathes; he has to work with the actor" (Lloyd interview). Whereas Freedman then tended to work completely through a casting director in all arrangements and follow-ups, Lloyd played a more active role, particularly if problems arose: Norman, you understand, if casting were going slowly or if people were not responding to offers for roles, would sit up with the director all 230 night and get omt his own black book from Universal and call agents, talent at home, on vacation, or anywhere in the world . . . (Allen interview) Two directors confirmed, however, that they received all the support in this regard from Freedman that was required for their individual productions. In his role as executive for legal and business affairs for KCET, the Senior Vice-President was responsible for negotiating Hollywood Television Theatre contracts. He assisted series personnel to interpret contracts, gave advice, insured that fees paid were according to station policy, and worked directly with the Directors Guild and the American Federation of Television and Kadio Artists in negotiating the details of contracts. It was agreed early in the history of the series that, like directors, talent and other creative personnel would be paid the same— public broadcasting scale for their individual category (Norberg interview). However, it became evident that after deduction of the talent agent's 10 per cent com mission, this amount was insufficient. Therefore, the fee was established at scale, plus 10 per cent (Norberg interview). Arrangement s for Other Personnel In maintaining a small permanent staff and hiring most creative, special services on a per 231 production basis, Hollywood Television Theatre, under the supervision of Norman Lloyd, resembled an inde pendent production unit more than a network series operation, where these services generally were part of the organization (Turpin interview). Casting directors, costume designers, set designers, lighting designers, music directors, makeup personnel, and even choreographers when required were hired from the experienced work force in the Hollywood film and tele vision industries. Lewis Freedman had included a casting director as part of his permanent staff. Quite often individuals were hired who had worked on the series before or whose work was well known to the executive producer, supervisory producer, or director. Two lighting designers were used rather consistently, and the art directors for "Carola" and "Steambath" had previously designed for the series (Turpin interview). Lighting personnel presented a special problem for the series. The union contract at KCET required the senior staff lighting man to be assigned as light ing director for station productions. However, the station was not able to afford the highly skilled kind of lighting designer required for major television dramatic productions. Consequently, two lighting personnel were assigned to each play. A lighting 232 designer was also hired on a consultant basis who "interprets the dramatic mood as expressed to him by the director as to the tone of the scene and not only lights every shot . . . but knows and senses the direc tor well enough to prelight all the options" (Allen interview). Occasional dissatisfactions were created by this dual arrangement, particularly when the outside consultant received the primary air credit and the staff lighting director received subordinate credit (Norberg interview). Although the station maintained a set construc tion shop with permanent staff, additional per diem carpenters, scenic artists, and set decorators usually were hired for Hollywood Television Theatre productions. In the early years of the series the station would con struct some sets on the studio lot and subcontract others; after Norman Lloyd became executive producer it was decided to build sets in-house, augmenting permanent staff when necessary (Norberg interview). All other technical support services— engineers, camera operators, audio personnel, stagehands, elec tricians, prop men, floor managers— were provided by the station. 233 PREPRODUCTION PLANNING Preproduction planning incorporated two differ ent kinds of activities: creative preparation, which centered around the producer and director; and technical and administrative preparation, which centered around KCET staff. Creative Preparation Conferences and discussions among the executive producer, the director, and the art director con stituted the first stages of preproduction planning. The purpose of these conferences was to enter into a "collaboration," as explained by Norman Lloyd, regard ing the concept of the play, casting, and artistic design. Although working together was essential, each member of the team was able to make significant contributions to development of the production. All directors who were interviewed participated in cast ing their plays. In the cases of "The Scarecrow" and "Shadow of a Gunman," only one or two members of the cast had been selected at the time the director was hired. George Schaefer was involved in all the cast ing for "U.S.A." The director of "Winesburg, Ohio" even arranged for Jean Peters to star in that play, 234 after her seventeen year absence from acting as the wife of Howard Hughes (Senensky interview). In some cases, as in "Shadow of a Gunman," the executive producer, director, and scene designer worked together in developing the set. Joseph Hardy indicated that: . . . you talk about it in concept. The designer comes back with something, which you then redo and talk about concepts more. And then you work on the ground plan and how it's best going to be . . . shot.(Hardy interview). In other cases the director and scene designer planned the set, with the executive producer giving occasional suggestions and then final approval. The director of "Winesburg, Ohio" rejected the first set as impractical because the designer "had the staircase way upstage across the back and . . . it just seemed like I was going to be locked in and not able to [get the proper shotsJ" (Senensky interview). Glenn Jordan, the director of "The Typists," talked to the scene designer several times from New York on long distance telephone before arriving on the scene in Los Angeles, then met with him before rehearsals began. In this case the executive producer was not directly involved in details, but gave his approval: It's my impression that Lewis looked at the sketch at some point. Lewis usually keeps out of things . . . if he knows the director and, 235 if it's a director he's worked with before, he stays out of it unless there is some reason for him to get involved. Preproduction planning of creative elements also involved the lighting design. The lighting designer worked with the producer and director, and in consultation with a video engineer from the station staff and the set designer. The basic concept of the play as seen by the producer and director had to be matched with the set designer's plans regarding color and the electronic characteristics and limitations of equipment (Allen interview). Technical and Administrative Preparation In order to insure that studios, equipment, and technical personnel for Hollywood Television Theatre productions were prepared adequately and on time, KCET staff completed a number of preproduction activities. By 1975 these activities had become fairly systematized. Ideally, preparations occurred three to four months before production; practically, because of delays in securing dramatic properties, the timing often was shorter (Yingling interview). Once the executive 14 Statement by Glenn Jordan, Director of "The Typists" for Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, July 17, 1975. 236 producer, director, and art director had agreed on the concept and design for a play, the production manager of the station scheduled the required number of studios for set construction, blocking out several days just prior to the first camera rehearsal. The carpentry supervisor estimated construction costs based upon plans provided by the art director; this cost was compared with the budget and any changes or refine ments were made. As soon as possible after the script and budget were in acceptable form, the production manager con ducted a two to three hour production meeting in order to identify exactly script requirements and to discuss potential production problems. In attendance were the producer (or the executive producer acting in that capacity), director, associate director, stage manager, unit manager, art director, lighting designer, and staging supervisor (Yingling interview). A very demanding, but necessarily thorough, procedure was employed by the production manager at this meeting: We'll have the script page by page and we'll read it out loud. Then, after each page, I'll look around and ask if anyone has any problem. . . . During this reading the people, if they have any questions or comments, say it: "There's a problem." (Yingling interview). Similar production meetings were held during the earlier time when Lewis Freedman was executive 237 producer, for basically the same purpose and with both technical and creative people present* These meetings evidently were less structured, more informal, and lasted from three to four hours; the director would explain what he was trying to achieve; the technical people would discuss how to handle problems of audio and video. An individual who worked on the series from its inception also perceived differences in the timing and subject matter of production meetings, comparing the early years to more recent periods. Freedman evidently scheduled these conferences earlier in the preproduction process, thereby allowing tech nical personnel a voice in overall concept and design 15 considerations. One director also recalled that these meetings contained considerable discussion about keeping within the budget, "as they ware doing it all on a shoestring'* (Schaefer interview). The information necessary to prepare studios, technical personnel, and equipment for the production was also derived from the production meeting. The unit manager developed a precise schedule for getting the production on stage with minimal conflict: how 15 Statement by Rick Bennewitz, Co-Director of "For the Use of the Hall" for Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, July 16, 1975. 238 many carpenters and scenic artists for how many days, the date for delivering props to the studio, when and where rehearsals were to be held, "making sure that you don't have stagehands scheduled to scrape a floor at the same time carpenters are scheduled to put the set up" (Yingling interview). The unit manager also was responsible for pro viding the engineering department of the station with information regarding crew skills required for produc tion. As soon as rehearsals were under way a technical director and other key crew members, including camera men, watched at least one rehearsal. On the basis of information acquired from the unit manager and crew members who attended rehearsals, the engineering manager for production, in consultation with the chief engineer, developed a crew manpower estimate (Anderson interview) from which specific crew assignments were made for the production. During the period that rehearsals were in progress the engineering department arranged for the rental of any special production equipment, such as large booms and cranes. During the week immediately prior to production (the last week of rehearsals) all in-house equipment was checked out and brought up to the highest performance level possible (Anderson 239 interview); such equipment included cameras, audio, video tape recorders, and intercommunication lines. On Friday of the third week of rehearsal a technical conference was held, followed by a complete run-through of the play in the studio with the cast in order to prepare the crew for production. Primary attention in these sessions was devoted to camera, audio, and switching (Yingling interview), although other crew members often were present. DRY REHEARSAL AND BLOCKING Changes in the pattern of rehearsing dramatic productions for television caused by the availability of video tape recording and editing equipment were evident in Hollywood Television Theatre productions. In 1956 Lynch described the rehearsal process for a production of The United States Steel Hour which was planned and aired as a live, not recorded, broadcast. The nine-day rehearsal period progressed sequentially from dry rehearsal to camera rehearsal to live broad- 1 fi cast. The development of video tape equipment, however, allowed for further refinements in rehearsing ^James E. Lynch, "The Case History of a Live TV Drama," The Quarterly of Film, Radio and Television, XI, 1 (FallTl956), 85-36. 240 as well as production by combining the traditional dry rehearsal period with the advantage of rehearsing scenes or entire acts separately just before they were recorded on tape. This stop-and-start procedure was common practice for Hollywood Television Theatre pro ductions. A description of the dry rehearsal and blocking process for the series included how the rehearsal period was organized, ways in which directors worked with actors to develop roles and performances, and how directors blocked plays and marked scripts. Organization of the Dry Rehearsal Period The dry rehearsal period for Hollywood Tele vision Theatre varied from about eight days to three weeks, and directors who were interviewed indicated that rehearsals lasted for about eight hours each day. By 1975 experience dictated that three weeks should be scheduled for rehearsal, moving from rehearsal hall to studio on Thursday of the third week. After the technical conference and run-through for crew the following day, the weekend of the third week could be used for rehearsing by the producer, director, and talent, without crew (Yingling interview). Actual recording usually began on Monday of the fourth week. 241 Locations of dry rehearsals varied. By 1975 most plays were rehearsed on the KCET lot in a regular rehearsal hall, unless scheduling conflicts occurred with other studio projects. In earlier years space was tented in locations external to KCET, such as the Goldwyn studios for "The Scarecrow" and for "The Typists," "a rehearsal studio on Third Street above a caterer's . . . near the Farmer's Market" (Jordan interview). Directors explained their various approaches to organizing the rehearsal period. There was general agreement among the directors who were interviewed about the fundamental procedures of a rehearsal; i.e., taping off the rehearsal floor to indicate placement of sets and concentrating first upon performances and the play, then upon visualization for television. Boris Sagal, director of "The Scarecrow," recalled that "for a whole week the show was simply ’played* without any concern for the visual aspects for tele- 17 vision." Joseph Hardy indicated that he staged the play as quickly as possible and then improved on it as he went along, and Ralph Senensky emphasized the need ■^Statement by Boris Sagal, Director of "The Scareerow" for Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, May 22, 1975. 242 to lay the whole structure out so the actors could start feeling their way. Comments of KCET executives about the ability of several directors to organize for rehearsal and production was borne out by the detailed rehearsal schedule that George Schaefer developed for "U.S.A.*’ (see Appendix J). The intricate schedule was due, in part, to the complexity of the play. The format of the Dos Passos novel was retained, consequently the numerous short scenes and newsreel segments required careful planning. The television play contained seventeen scenes and eleven newsreel sequences; some scenes had more than one part. The schedule developed by Schaefer and distributed to the actors revealed the following timing: First Day— Reading of play Second and Third Days— Blocking Fourth Day— Day off Fifth through Tenth Days— Rehearse individual scenes Eleventh Day— Day off Twelfth and Thirteenth Days— Rehearse sequences of scenes Fourteenth Day— Run through entire play, rehearse as needed and record headlines nA 7 Fifteenth Day— Rehearse as needed and second run-through of entire play Sixteenth Day— Block first third of play and rehearse scenes, stopping as required Seventeenth Day— Dress rehearsal and taping for first third of play; block and stop-and-go rehearsal for middle third of play Eighteenth Day— Dress rehearsal and taping for middle third of play; block and stop-and-go rehearsal for final third of play Nineteenth Day— Dress rehearsal and taping for final third of play; rehearse and tape first and last scenes The schedule also indicated which actors were required in each scene. Approaches to Working with Actors Various techniques were used by directors in working with the actors to develop an understanding of the play and of their roles. Boris Sagal and Joseph Hardy .emphasized the importance of making the actors feel comfortable and secure in their roles. 244 For the first week of dry rehearsal Sagal . . . would let them simply use the set as though it were their own living room or as though it were a stage with no concern for cameras. Very often they turn their backs to where a camera might be placed or were in positions that weren't photographic at all. But after a week of rehearsal they became so solid in their roles that I could then slowly start begin thinking of what a camera has to see.(Sagal interview) George Schaefer also indicated that he preferred actors to disregard technical matters during the early stages of dry rehearsal. The experience of Glenn Jordan in rehearsing with Eli Wallach and Anne Jackson for "The Typists" was somewhat different. Because the actors had per formed the play on the stage, they were already familiar with it. Consequently, emphasis during rehearsal was placed upon adapting it for the tele vision camera (Jordan interview). A different approach also was required for "For the Use of the Hall," in which Lee Grant, working with the actors, co-directed with a camera director. The interdependence of the two was apparent during rehearsals: Grant worked with the actors, blocking and staging, and then the camera director would attend a rehearsal to determine if the blocking was suitable for television (Bennewitz inter view) . Other directors suggested that important rehearsal techniques were being able to dig for values 245 in the script and explaining reasons for certain moves or staging to the actors, not only so that they under stood, but also to give them confidence. Blocking and Marking title Script Directors of Hollywood Television Theatre used various techniques in blocking a play for television and in marking the script of the play for production. One director compared blocking for television to staging for theater-in-the-round as opposed to the proscenium stage (Senensky interview). Another described how blocking was a method of translating the play for the television medium by thinking of "compo sition in turms of pictures that dramatize the action" (Sagal interview). Two directors, Glenn Jordan and Ralph Senensky, referred to "getting the play on its feet" and then solving problems of blocking as the rehearsal progressed. Senensky explained, "An idea will happen so you kind of steer it without trying to force it." Directors varied in the extent to which they marked scripts. Although no instances were discovered in which a pictorial storyboard was used, some directors made substantial notations on scripts. When directing as well as producing Hollywood Television 246 Theatre plays Norman Lloyd worked with an associate director in noting every shot and transition on the script (Turpin interview). Joseph Hardy had entered all shots on the script by the time of camera rehearsal, but so that they could be changed when necessary. George Schaefer indicated that although his rehearsal script was used to make detailed notations, by pro duction time he had visualized the play well enough so that only camera numbers and transitions were required on the script. Other important factors in preparing the script were mentioned. Several directors insisted that evening work by the director was imperative in order to make modifications necessary for the following day. Marking a script too early in the rehearsal was regarded as a mistake because scripts were subject to many changes. It was the practice of KCET to assign the technical director and, on some occasions, key camera operators to watch at least one dry rehearsal. This practice was required in order that the crew would be familiar with the play before the technical conference and run-through in the studio (Anderson interview). Early in the history of the series crew attendance usually occurred toward the end of the rehearsal 247 period. However, Norman Lloyd began requesting the presence of at least the technical director early in the rehearsal process: "He . . . considered the tech nical director position as a director of photography, and, therefore, should have some input into the picture taking side of the show" (Bennewitz interview). Joseph Hardy insisted that the presence of a technical director was vital for a director who had not previously directed electronic television. "Shadow of a Gunman" was his first experience "in the booth," and he was assigned both an assistant director and a technical director for the entire rehearsal period. After staging the whole first act in one day, Hardy "woke up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night," realizing he had blocked it all horizontally as for the theater and not vertically, or in depth, for tele vision. With the help of the technical director and the assistant director, it was reblocked the next day (Hardy interview). RECORDING THE PLAY All plays, except "The Standwells: About Love," that were produced especially for the series were recorded in color on video tape, although film inserts were used on rare occasions. All equipment, except 248 that which was rented for special purposes, was the property of Station KCET. Length of Recording Period Tor Productions The recording period for productions was scheduled beginning Monday after the third week of rehearsal, to be five days between the hours of nine in the morning to seven in the evening, with a lunch break from one to two in the afternoon (Yingling interview). Adhering to these limits was not always possible. Several directors reported that additional days were required to complete the recording. Extend ing production beyond the nine hour scheduled period occurred quite often. One recording session for ’ ’ Montserrat” lasted twenty-three hours, from nine in 18 the morning until eight the next morning. In the case of "Beginning to End," recorded on remote in the California desert, the . . . crew calls were from five o * clock in the morning until about eight or nine o'clock at night . . . for three straight days plus travel time. I think the total time ran eighty hours that week, each man.19 lO Rowland Barber, "A Fine Madness at Fountain and Vine," TV Guide, August 7, 1971, p. 4. 19 Statement by James Mead, then Engineering Supervisor of KCET, in a telephone interview from Los Angeles to Huntington Beach, California, October 8 , 1975. 249 Except for extremely long sessions, running overtime was considered less expensive than extending production to an additional day, which would mean setting up time for equipment. In order to avoid overtime KCET management attempted to devise realistic schedules and Hollywood Television Theatre directors, together with the executive producer, attempted to organize their time in the studio efficiently (Yingling interview). Boris Sagal advised that, with a limited amount of dollars, . . . don't try to do "Ben Hur"; it just doesn't work unless you have a very practical and realistic sense of what you're doing, whieh is always hard because you always intend to do more than you actually can. You're always shooting for a beautiful, big production.(Sagal interview) Procedures of Camera Rehearsal ancT Recording Through the use of video tape it was possible to integrate the camera rehearsal and recording processes. Although the complexity of individual plays and director preferences resulted in some modi fication of procedures, the process generally followed the pattern of rehearsing a scene with full crew and talent, recording it, rehearsing the next scene, recording that one, and so forth until the play was completely on video tape. The director of "The Scarecrow" explained that just before taping a sequence 250 he would walk through shots with each cameraman on the floor (Sagal interview); this procedure usually was incorporated into the run-through for crew on the Friday before recording, after that practice was estab lished. The combination of video tape recording and editing technology at KCET made possible the production of a play in very short segments. However, Hollywood Television Theatre directors preferred to record whole scenes or even acts without stopping, . . • because they are able to build and sustain emotion, which they are not basically able to do, I think, in the shorter takes. I think it depends a great deal on the background of the actor, too. . . . If you have primarily motion picture back ground, where they are used to short takes, then I think they might have some trouble in sustaining a long performance*(Loper interview) Extremely long takes, however, were rare. Although Joseph Hardy reported that the second take of Act II of "Shadow of a Gunman" lasted thirty-eight minutes without stopping (Hardy interview), the chief engineer of KCET estimated that the average take involved three or four pages of script (Anderson interview). Even when directors were able to record in relatively long takes, it sometimes was necessary to go back for piekups and reverses after a scene had been recorded. This procedure was described by the camera director of "For the Use of the Hall": 251 . . . we had a scene around a table. Barbara Barrie, with her back to us, had a great, long speech. A lot of it was played off the reactions of the people reacting to her speech, and that was basically the master shot. Then we went back and picked up the entire speech head-on to Barbara Barrie. . . . She was on the fourth wall of the set where the cameras were; in fact, we were shooting over her shoulder so we had to do a separate pickup„(Bennewitz interview) Retakes of a scene often were necessary when an acting or production error occurred; instead of record ing over the first take it was usually saved, so that the best parts of each take would be available during the editing process. Until programmed and computerized editing equipment was available, directors attempted to record the scenes of a play in sequence as much as possible; by 1975 directors were able to shoot out-of sequence if this technique were desired for production efficiency. Directors who were experienced in electronic television used standard control room procedures, setting up and calling their own shots. Associate directors usually were assigned by KCET to assist the director in timing and keeping track of the script. Whenever directors were employed whose backgrounds were in the theater or motion pictures, they usually were provided with a skilled associate director or technical director to assist them in the booth. On occasion, the supervisory producer was assigned to assist a director 252 who had particular difficulty in becoming accustomed to control room procedures (Turpin interview). During camera rehearsals and recording the engineering department of KCET was responsible for insuring that equipment functioned properly. A main tenance engineer was assigned to the production for this purpose. When KCET was located at Fountain Avenue and Vine Street in Hollywood, California, production equipment and facilities were more limited than in the Sunset Drive studios. Before the move, in 1971, Hollywood Television Theatre plays usually were pro duced in one studio with three cameras. By 1975 four cameras were used and two studios were available, if required. In addition, backup facilities were provided in case of equipment failure during recording (Anderson interview). Solving Production Problems Personnel participating in video tape recording sessions of Hollywood Television Theatre were required to confront and solve production problems on a regular basis. Many difficulties were prevented by careful set and lighting design and by discussion during production meetings, but others did not become evident until camera rehearsal and recording. 253 Audio problems were particularly frustrating. A common solution to microphone boom shadows was to use radio frequency microphones. However, with a characteristic limited dynamic range, these devices interfered with the quality of production by equalizing sound (Anderson interview). In "Nourish the Beast," for example, dialogue ranged in volume from conversa tional tone to shouting; sound in the finished program appeared to be delivered at the same intensity. In many productions radio frequency microphones were mandatory because sets were too big or had the type of ceilings where boom microphones could not be used. Costumes also created static interference with radio microphones; this occurred in "Montserrat" and was so pronounced in the dress worn by Judith Anderson in "The Chinese Prime Minister" that recording was inter rupted until a new dress could be purchased (Anderson interview). Sometimes the problem was solved by using a combination of microphones: burying them in set pieces, using booms where possible, and using radio microphones where required (Senensky interview). Staging problems were, on occasion, not dis covered until production. Both plays by Steve Tesich, "Nourish the Beast" and "Carpenters," employed com plicated, busy sets in order to communicate the warp 254 and corruption of themes and characters, which meant longer recording sessions while camera movement and angle problems were solved. In ' ’ Nourish the Beast" the set almost completely filled the studio, and the crew experienced difficulties maneuvering cameras through windows and down corridors (Yingling interview). Any set that required high camera shots also created problems. If this situation had been anticipated, cranes or hydraulic pedestals were rented; if not, cables had to be disconnected and cameras physically moved to the high location. In these cases additional time was always required to reset the cameras elec tronically (Anderson interview). The utilization of raeehanical and electronic effects created production problems. Before programmed and computerized editing equipment had been purchased more time had to be allocated in production to accom plish special effects. In "The Scarecrow" the transformation of a broomstick into a scarecrow and then into a human being on camera required some retakes, but more often the director and actors simply had to wait while a technical crew set up the effects (Sagal interview). In both "The Scarecrow" and "Montserrat" engineers had to plan carefully for explosions on camera so that camera tubes would not 255 be harmed (Anderson interview). By the time "Steam- bath" was produced in 1973 editing and special effects equipment were sufficient to create the miracle sequences without too much difficulty; however, creat ing realistic steam was a serious problem. It was intended originally that the set would be clouded with enough steam to make the nude scenes acceptable for television. Production and engineering staff experimented with several techniques, none of which was successful: steam machines, dropping oil on hot surfaces, or fogging camera lenses. Finally, the idea of real steam was dropped and the illusion of steam was created by using bath towels and moisture on the skin (Anderson and Bennewitz interviews). A completely unanticipated problem occurred during the taping of "Winesburg, Ohio.” Rain was required in two scenes and standard studio rain troughs had been installed. The water overflowed, actually into areas where cameras, cables, and other electronic equipment were located, creating a severe hazard. Cameras lost power and production was delayed while the water was removed. At ont point taping proceeded with only one camera (Bennewitz interview). Video tape recording outside the studio on remote locations created substantial production 256 problems. Two Hollywood Television Theatre plays, between 1969 and 1975, were recorded completely on location: "Lemonade" and "Beginning to End." The former play required a special drop from power lines and installation of a transformer station because no power was available at the remote location (Anderson interview). "Beginning to End," produced in 1971, was the first Hollywood Television Theatre play recorded entirely on location, and the experience was a chal lenge to the production capability of KCET. The engineering supervisor of the station, who reported to the chief engineer, supervised technical operations on the remote and gave a detailed account of the production (Mead interview). The location selected for the play was an isolated, rocky desert area west of Death Valley, California, called "The Pinnacles." Because the station did not have its own remote facilities at that time, it was necessary to locate and rent equipment that was portable enough to follow the action of the play in exterior, rough terrain and yet that met broadcast standards. The engineering supervisor located the appropriate equipment on the East Coast about one week before the recording date: two Norelco-Philips TCP-90 hand-held color cameras, 257 each with its own record-only Ampex VR-3000 video tape recorder. A step-van vehicle to use as a control point and two generators, one for lighting and the other for electronic equipment, also were rented. Both the nature of the play and the character istics of equipment required that action be recorded directly from each camera to its own video tape machine. No video switcher was used, and all editing took place in the postproduction period. The van remained in one central location and scenes were shot in all directions within nine hundred feet of the vehicle, the length of cable for each camera. The production required ten personnel on location: the director, a lighting director, the engineering supervisor, a combination technical director and video tape operator, a video shader, an audio operator, and two cameramen. In addition, two maintenance engineers accompanied the rented cameras and video tape recorders. Recording "Beginning to End" required three days, during which continual production problems were encountered. Every time the generators ran out of gasoline power was lost; after power was brought up again, all electronic equipment had to be realigned. The same realignments had to be made each time a scene was shot in a different place because power had to be 258 shut off and camera cable disconnected for the move, A wind storm created the most serious production problem, blowing sand into all the equipment and delay ing production for almost an entire day. Cameras and tape recorders had to be taken back to Los Angeles and cleaned out with dry nitrogen. After packing the equipment in protective plastic bags the engineering supervisor and crew members returned to the desert and, as the storm had subsided, were able to record for a short time late in the afternoon. Additional problems with color matching between these scenes and those recorded in the middle of the day were created by recording at sunset; these differences had to be cor rected during the postproduction process. The many difficulties that occurred in recording Hollywood Television Theatre productions were not viewed by the series executives as devastating or insurmountable, but as a normal part of the production process. The director of "U.S.A." had approximately one hundred different set areas to work with; the director of "The Lady's Not for Burning" often had many actors on stage at once, with the consequent problems of proper microphone coverage and blocking; the camera director of "For the Use of the Hall" had to search for two-shots in an excessively wide set in 259 which actors were often physically separated. The executive producer described the production process as a "collaboration" and the resolution of these problems by all participants, creative and technical, as part of the cooperative effort (Lloyd interview). POSTPRODUCTION EDITING The ability of KCET to provide increasingly sophisticated editing equipment and the production requirements of individual plays were two factors that determined the amount of postproduction editing. Between 1969 and the end of 1975 the station progressed through three stages of video tape editing capability, permitting a gradual increase in the technical quality and production flexibility of Hollywood Television Theatre plays. Improvement of Editing Equipment IH M k H M itaaM M IIM lllli When the series first started editing capability was limited to an Ampex Editec system which permitted editing accuracy only to within one or two seconds, and it was unusually time-consuming and expensive (Anderson interview). The Editec equipment required a "dubbing and editing" procedure in which scenes from originally recorded video tapes were rerecorded in proper sequence 260 on a new "edit-master" tape. Because tapes had to be continually loaded on and removed from video recorders as different scenes were needed, the procedure was time-consuming; the continuous use of quadruplex machines was expensive. In 1971 the station purchased a Datatron VTDICUE video tape editing control system which per mitted editing accuracy to one frame (one-thirtieth of a second) and allowed editing decisions to be made without using quadruplex machines. Through the use of helical video tape dubs and a synchronized coding system the producer and director were able to work with the Datatron programmer and a helical machine so that the quadruplex machines were released for other projects during preassembly time. However, this process still required presence of the producer and director during final assembly and involved the cumbersome task of loading and unloading two inch tapes during editing. Hollywood Television Theatre plays recorded from 1971 through most of 1974 used the Datatron postproduction system. In November 1974 a CMX Edipro 300 computer- assisted editing system was installed by KCET, and in February 1975 the system was completed with the addi tion of the CMX--50 system which permitted off-line 261 editing (Anderson interview). Editing was facilitated with computerized equipment through the use of an off line system; edit decisions could be seen visually on a video cassette recorder-editor while final choices were punched simultaneously on computer tape. This procedure did not require use of expensive quadruplex machines until the final edit process; more importantly, it improved the quality of the finished product by allowing minute corrections of audio and video errors. The postproduction time was considered extremely important to the creation of a program that was as technically perfect as possible, "because you have to clean up all the mistakes everyone else has made" (Allen interview). Extent of Editing Even though fairly sophisticated video tape editing capability was available beginning in 1971, directors continued to let the requirements of the individual play determine the extent of editing instead of consciously planning to edit. The camera director of "For the Use of the Hall," whose experience was totally in electronic television, indicated that he "shot the show in fairly long sequences; the editing was merely a tying together of those sequences" (Bennewitz interview). "Winesburg, Ohio" presented 262 more difficult editing in reinserting scenes required by the author, but did not involve insurmountable editing problems (Senensky interview). ’ ’The Lady's Not for Burning" required substantial editing after production was completed; it had not been planned to record it in short segments, however. Several scenes had to be cut because the play was longer than the established ninety minute length; negotiations with the Public Broadcasting Service by the executive pro ducer allowed all but one of the eliminated scenes to be replaced and the total program length increased (Hardy interview). SUMMARY OP CHAPTER The production process of Hollywood Television Theatre incorporated a series of activities that were essential to plan, develop, and create video taped dramatic programs for television. Although the activ ities were common to most television production situations, they differed in some significant respects from live and film television. Events in the produc tion process were: selecting dramatic properties, adapting plays, advance scheduling of facilities and personnel, selecting directors, casting and selecting other personnel, preproduction planning, dry rehearsal 263 and blocking, recording the play, and postproduction editing. Selecting Dramatic Properties Management of KCET and Hollywood Television Theatre executives shared responsibilities for acquir ing dramatic properties, but the executive producer of the series had extensive authority in the selection process. When the series was first established station and series personnel were inexperienced in locating dramatic properties, but gradually they developed means of identifying plays for potential production. The processes of developing production concepts and reviewing budgets were informal under the first execu tive producer, but under his successor became more formalized, with closer controls by station management. Negotiations with agents and writers were the responsi bility of the Senior Vice-President of KCET; some difficulties were encountered because of the limited funds available for rights fees and legal entanglements over contested rights to plays. Several factors influenced the selection of dramatic properties. An awareness of the series con cept and its artistie objectives was present when plays were under consideration; drama that was well 264 written and unavailable to an audience elsewhere was believed important. Budget restrictions, the limited availability of acceptable plays, and a policy requir ing equal payment for all plays also influenced the selection process. Finally, the pressures of time resulted in selection of plays that otherwise might not have been produced. Adapting Plays The written form of plays varied at the time they were scheduled for production from complete pub lished play to television script. Lewis Freedman, the first executive producer, preferred to transfer plays to television without substantial deletions or changes. His successor, Norman Lloyd, adapted plays as required to suit the unique characteristics of the television medium. Advance Scheduling Even though a decision to continue funding the series usually was not made until the beginning of each fiscal year, advance scheduling of personnel and facilities was required as early as sixteen months ahead. Because Station KCET had several production projects and also responsibilities as a Public Broad casting Service network delay center, advance scheduling 265 was required in order to avoid unnecessary competition among projects for facilities and personnel. At first KCET had not devised methods of scheduling; as Hollywood Television Theatre and other major projects continued a production operations department was established and station management gained experience in the scheduling of facilities and personnel. Selection of Directors and Other Personnel Directors were sought for Hollywood Television Theatre who understood the dramatic form and had experience in working with video tape. However, finding experienced directors was difficult because they often were working on other assignments and payment for the series was limited to guild scale. Similar difficulties were encountered in hiring actors for the series. Other creative personnel, such as set and costume designers, music directors, lighting designers, and choreographers, were hired on a per- production basis, while engineers and production crew were provided by station KCET. Preproduction Planning Preproduction planning consisted of creative preparation under supervision of the executive producer, and technical-administrative preparation centered 266 around activities of KCET staff. Creative planning included casting and designing sets and lighting con cepts; technical planning involved scheduling set construction, facilities, engineering staff, and pro duction crew. Preproduction planning was less organized under the first executive producer, but by 1975 had become systematized. Dry Rehearsal and Blocking The dry rehearsal process of Hollywood Television Theatre contained procedures similar to those used in live television production. However, the availability , of video tape recording and editing equipment allowed the total rehearsal period to be expanded and refined; with this equipment additional rehearsals in the studio were possible just before each scene or act was recorded. Dry rehearsals for the series varied from eight days to three weeks, with an average of eight hours each day. Directors used commonly accepted techniques in working with actors, but varied in the extent to which they actually marked scripts while blocking a play; some directors marked every shot and transition, while others only indicated camera numbers and transitions. 267 Recording the Play All plays originally produced for the series, with one exception, were recorded in color on video tape. Five days usually were scheduled for recording a play. Although this time sometimes was exceeded, station management more often allowed production sessions to extend into overtime, a less expensive practice than scheduling an additional day of pro duction. Camera rehearsals and actual recording sessions were combined; common practice was to rehearse a scene, record it, and proceed to the next scene. Even though directors attempted to record in long sequences to give continuity to performances, an average of three or four pages of script for each recording sequence usually was achieved. It was often necessary to go back for pickups and video inserts after a scene had been recorded and to tape the same scene more than once so that the best sequence could be selected for the final program. Control room procedures varied with the background of directors; if a director had no experience in setting up and calling shots he was assigned an experienced associate director to assist him. 268 Production problems were common while recording plays for the series, but were considered a normal part of the production process. Solving camera place ment and movement problems, audio difficulties, and special effects requirements was particularly trouble some, but these problems were generally resolved by cooperative efforts of the entire production team. Postproduction Editing The production process of Hollywood Television Theatre culminated in the postproduction editing of recorded plays. Station KCET was able to provide increasingly complex and sophisticated editing equip ment for Hollywood Television Theatre between 1969 and 1975. Before 1971 editing was difficult because of limitations in the "dubbing and editing" process. With the Datatron and then the CMX computer-assisted editing systems extreme refinements were possible in the postproduction process. The resulting improvement in quality of finished plays contributed to the con tinued success of the series, but also was a factor in the increasing costs of production. Budget limita tions, combined with additional problems related to management practices and personnel relationships, created some tensions and difficulties in the production of Hollywood Television Theatre plays. 269 CHAPTER VII THE PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT OF HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE The process of planning and producing Hollywood Television Theatre plays took place in a variety of locations and encompassed a number of separately identi fiable activities and events; the interactions of people in those places participating in those events were the production environment of the series. The facilities of public television Station KCET were the primary location for series activities, hut other places were involved as well: rehearsal halls located off the studio lot, homes and offices of directors and other creative personnel where planning work was done, and remote recording locations. Although most activ ities in the production environment transpired at KCET, such events as telephone discussions between creative staff about acquiring dramatic properties and planning scenic designs were also part of the production environ ment. People who interacted in the environment were members of KCET management, KCET technical staff, series staff, and creative personnel of individual productions. Several factors were identified that character ized the production environment of Hollywood Television 270 Theatre* Five general categories of information about the production environment were devised in order to describe these factors clearly: limitations of facili ties and budget, experience and abilities of personnel, KCET management practices, resolving production prob lems, and concepts of freedom and control in the production environment. LIMITATIONS OF FACILITIES AND BUDGET The production environment was characterized by three factors related to limitations of facilities and budget: (1) extent to which KCET originally was prepared to undertake the production of a television dramatic series, (2) restrictions of equipment and space, and (3) limitations of production operating budget and of time. Preparation for the Series by; KCET Although KCET, by 1969, had a significant pro duction capability with experience in producing many different kinds of television programs, including drama, Hollywood Television Theatre was its first dramatic anthology series. The magnitude of the project was far greater than anticipated and "caught the station totally unaware/' (Anonymous). The 271 situation was evident with the first production: "The Andersonville Trial" brought this huge cast, cleared out the development department com pletely for a dressing room, occupied the entire hall, down around the corner .... The wardrobe department was in the hall: ironing board, sewing machines. The guard out back was one of the extras; he was a member of AFTRA.1 Contributing to the chaotic conditions of pro ducing major dramatic productions were the demands of other programs also requiring facilities and time, maintaining an on-the-air station operation in the same physical space with production activities, lack of a proper system of scheduling, and a limited amount of space at the Fountain Avenue and Vine Street loca tion. Until these difficulties were resolved by experience, improved facilities, and establishment of management procedures, instances of colorful shouting matches and frayed tempers were not unusual. Dis organization led to overtime taping sessions and budgetary overruns, and the series "couldn't deliver the number of shows per year . . . and had to cut back."2 Information from Douglas Norberg, then Senior Vice-President of KCET, in personal interviews, Los Angeles, California, March 25 and April 1, 1975. 2 Statement by John Yingling, Production Manager, Station KCET, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, June 3, 1975. 272 In spite of these conditions "The Andersonville Trial" was produced within six months after establish ment of the series, and was the recipient of "Emmys" in four categories from the National Academy of Tele vision Arts and Sciences. The success of the first production was welcomed, but was also a surprise to personnel involved in the series and unexpectedly created a problem for the future. Expectations for the series were raised; an award-winning program was 3 expected with every production. The strain of attempting to produce a perfect program every time with budget and facilities limitations created con tinual problems for both series and station staffs. Restrictions of Equipment and Space The television equipment available for produc tion while KCET was still located at Fountain Avenue and Vine Street was limited in amount and type, causing delays in production. In addition, equipment failures were not uncommon. These difficulties con tinued for a brief period at the new Sunset Drive studios because of the time required to finish ^Information from Charles Allen, Vice-President for Programming, Station KCET, in personal interviews, Los Angeles, California, February 19 and December 3, 1975. 273 remodeling and installation of equipment after the move, and because not enough money had been budgeted 4 for maintenance. Three directors mentioned the limitations of editing equipment at the original studio location. Editing "The Scarecrow" only required electronically splicing scenes together because avail able equipment prevented more precise postproduction 5 work. The director of "U.S.A." remembered that the editing process contained numerous "technical head aches" because the main control room of the station had to be used for editing simultaneously with other station activities; he reported that, as a result, some of the editing was not perfect. The director of "The Typists" reported a serious mishap while editing: We edited the whole show and then I wanted to look at something and we played it back, which is something you don't necessarily do. And as we were playing it back we discovered that, due to Information from James Loper, President and General Manager, Station KCET, in personal interviews, Los Angeles, California, November 22, 1974 and December 5, 1975. 5 Information from Boris Sagal, Director for Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, May 22, 1975. Information from George Sehaefer, Director for Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, August 5, 1975. 274 some kind of patching mishap, we had recorded what was on the air into the show. And it was all the way through it, which meant we had to go back and . . . reedit the whole show.7 Because the play did not require very much editing the mistake was not disastrous, but it increased the cost of production and was annoying. Other equipment limitations interfered with production. The character of the Devil in "The Scarecrow" had to "pop into a scene as a very minute little figure . . . and he would sit on a book . . . or suddenly appear on the edge of a fire" (Sagal interview); this required a number of special elec tronic effects which were difficult to set up with the limited video equipment. Although zoom lenses were generally an improvement over the earlier turret lenses on television cameras, the director of "The Scarecrow" discovered they created problems by limiting . . . the kind of interesting compositions you can get. I couldn't get the split focus shots, for example, where you put somebody's head in the foreground who's talking right on the edge of the frame and see a figure in the back. . . . I had to compromise a lot of ray ideas about how the shots should be composed.(Sagal interview). There were difficulties with space for rehears ing and production that adversely affected working Statement by Glenn Jordan, Director for Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, July 17, 1975. 275 conditions of Hollywood Television Theatre. An ade quate rehearsal hall was not available at the Fountain and Vine studios, therefore dry rehearsals generally were held in rented space elsewhere. Even at the new KCET location, rehearsal space was not sufficient for extremely large and complex productions. The director of "Winesburg, Ohio" reported that the technical crew really was unable to get an adequate preview of staging and blocking by attending a dry rehearsal because the rehearsal area could not encompass the multiple set 8 areas for the play. Studio space at the Fountain and Vine studios was severely limited; one director com mented that he had never seen anything so tiny (Anonymous). Although the amount of studio space was suffi cient at the Sunset Drive studios, one director reported a serious problem with the configuration of space. Access to the studio floor from the control room was difficult; the two areas were on different levels and were separated by a long staircase. Although there was a microphone and speaker that allowed communication with everyone on the floor at Q Information from Ralph Senensky, Director for Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, November 21, 1975. 276 once from the control room, the director of "Winesburg, Ohio*’ could not discuss the fine points of an actor's performance over a public address system: I cannot talk to an actor over a mike. I just won't do it. . . . I just cannot boom out like God and start discussing character in front of everybody. . . . I feel that if you're going to ask an actor to do something, then only you and the actor should know what it is he1s doing so that when he tries it he is not on trial in front of a lot of people. . . . so - that those conversa tions to me always have been very private» (Senensky interview) As a result, this director was forced to make many trips a day up and down the staircase and he became'* physically exhausted in the process. Although some equipment difficulties, such as audio recording and matching sound levels in postpro duction editing, continued to confound the skilled engineering staff of KCET, the eventual completion of the Sunset Drive studios arrested many of the problems. Communication lines were established between the Hollywood Television Theatre staff and KCET management, through memoranda and personal discussions, to identify equipment failures early and prevent problems from 9 compounding. Meanwhile, when production sessions 9 Information from George Turpin, Supervisory Producer of Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, April 21, 1975. 277 continued into late night hours and equipment failures seemed to occur with ever-increasing frequency, an element of comic relief would be injected into the production environment. During the last night of recording "Winesburg, Ohio” equipment controlling water for a rain sequence failed and water flowed over the studio floor electrically shorting out cameras, creating a severe hazard, and intensifying t an already tense, exhausting production atmosphere. One of the actors who had worked with the director previously, and was a close friend, relieved the tension by relating a dream he insisted had occurred the previous night: . . . as he was driving to the studio he drove past a hospital and saw Norman Lloyd standing there and so he pulled up and said, "Norman, what are you doing here?" And CNormanJ said something to the effect that they were operating on one of the cameras and it looked like it was going to be terminal.(Senensky interview) According to the director, it was perhaps one of the few amusing things they could hold on to that last night of production in the face of incredible diffi culties. Limitations of Time and Operating Budget Although some difficulties arose when insuffi cient time was available for production of a play, 278 this was not perceived as an insurmountable limitation. Directors expressed the wish that there might have been more time for both dry and camera rehearsals, but one director pointed out that actors could get stale with 10 too much rehearsal time. Furthermore, the President and General Manager of KCET observed that, in tele vision production, it was not unusual for required production time to equal or exceed the scheduled time, that "if it's scheduled for seven days, it will take seven days" (Loper interview). The origination of Hollywood Television Theatre coincided with the establishment of KCET as a national production center for public television. The resulting increase in competition for facilities, combined with continuing requirements of local program production, brought about a decrease in the amount of time avail able for any single project and contributed to tension in the production environment. The understandable demands of Hollywood Television Theatre executives and creative personnel to develop high quality programs were often in direct conflict with station personnel, who were responsible for keeping within budget and for 10 Information from Joseph Hardy, Director for Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, July 14, 1975. 279 commitments to other projects (Anonymous). Because of the national significance of Hollywood Television Theatre, priority decisions were usually in its favor. Until a scheduling system had been developed for the station last minute changes were not uncommon, usually meaning that production of a local program was post poned or given a less desirable recording time. It also meant, as in "Montserrat,*1 extremely long pro- duction sessions and the increased costs associated with double time and meal penalties for production crew. By 1975, with a workable scheduling system, an increas ingly skilled crew and the experience of six seasons of dramatic production, these problems were increas ingly less severe.^ Hollywood Television Theatre budgets were limited, compared to similar commercial television productions (Norberg interview). In 1968, a year before Hollywood Television Theatre was established, program budgets for single episodes of such series as The Virginian and The Name of the Game were about 1 2 $275,000. The first two Hollywood Television Theatre ^Information from Everett Anderson, Chief Engineer of KCET, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, October 6 , 1975. ■^Erik Barnouw, The Image Empire: A History of Broadcasting in the United States, Volume III (New York: Oxford University Press, 1^70), p. 306. 280 plays were produced in 1970 at substantially less cost: "The Andersonville Trial," for slightly more than $138,000j and "Big Fish, Little Fish," for just over $100,000. During the six years of series production included in this study budgets for comparable dramatic production in commercial television remained higher than for Hollywood Television Theatre. Single episodes of the "Sunday Mystery Movie," for example, averaged $350,000 in 1973-1974,^ while Hollywood Television Theatre productions were averaging $150,000 to $200,000 during the same period. Directors accepted this restriction, however, and attempted to work within the allocated budget of a production. If budgetary prob lems occurred early enough in the production process they were discussed and resolved by altering some expenditure. These budgetary compromises could involve decreasing the number of costume changes for an actor, changing the set, or eliminating complicated lighting effects (Sagal interview). Unanticipated or unavoidable production problems created a strained production atmosphere and often resulted in increased production costs. The problem with rain in "Winesburg, Ohio," the difficulties with i3"The Dollar Figures for Production," Broadcasting, April 16, 1973, p. 36. 281 four-wall sets in "Nourish the Beast," and the sand storm delays in "Beginning to End" were situations that created tension and ultimately required additional expenditures. In "Young Marrieds at Play" one actor was so inexperienced that he could barely get through one line of dialogue and "it became probably one of the heaviest edited shows that we have ever done; because of this one actor, we had to stop and do his one line before we could go on" (Anonymous). EXPERIENCE AND ABILITIES OF PERSONNEL The background and experience of directors and production crew also were factors that characterized the production environment of the series. Background and Experience of Directors Finding directors who could control the artistic elements in television drama and, at the same time, had booth experience in electronic television were serious problems for Hollywood Television Theatre. Between 1969 and 1975 three kinds of directing situations developed, each creating its own production environment. For some productions it was possible to find directors who had substantial background working with actors and who had electronic television experience. When these 282 individuals were not available the usual practice was to hire directors who had worked with actors in theater or motion pictures and to assign a skilled associate director and technical director to the production. On occasion the executive producer experimented with the use of co-directors. Fewer production problems were experienced when directors were used whose backgrounds combined both artistic and technical skills (Loper interview). Glenn Jordan, director of "The Typists," had directed at Columbia Broadcasting System and for New York Television Theater on public television. Boris Sagal directed for Playhouse 90, Studio One, and The United States Steel Hour. George Schaefer was an established director with the Hallmark Hall of Fame series. Robert Stevens and Paul Bogart also possessed sub stantial experience in television directing. These directors were able to work with actors as well as the television medium, and created an atmosphere in which production personnel "knew exactly what we were going to do from the moment that we started until we finished. Statement by Rick Bennewitz, Co-Direetor for Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal interview, Los Angeles, California, July 16, 1975. 283 The production environment varied when directors with limited booth experience, but extensive theatrical background, were hired and then given technical assistance. Some directors of this type were able to learn control room techniques with relative ease and soon were setting up and calling shots during rehearsals and production; they were also able to control the complex communications systems between themselves and both creative and technical personnel. Norman Lloyd and Joseph Hardy adapted quickly to television direct ing. Before directing "Carola" Norman Lloyd had not worked with video tape to any great extent (Turpin interview); with an experienced associate director and technical director he was able to learn quickly, expanding his skill as director of other plays in later seasons. Joseph Hardy began with "Shadow of a Gunman" in the 1972-1973 season and directed one play a year for the following two seasons. Other situations involving the theatrical director-associate director system, however, were not as productive. The production time of "Another Part of the Forest” was increased because the director, with a background in motion pictures, had to com municate his creative thoughts through an associate director, who then called the shots. "It took . . . 284 a long time to do that show” (Turpin interview). One production in the 1973-1974 season was characterized by an unusual and confused directing situation. The director worked with the actors and staged the play in rehearsal very effectively, but had no experience directing electronic television. As no camera director had been assigned, the technical director read the shots from his marked script and called for whatever camera movement, such as dollys and pans, was required. The finished production was not really satisfactory because no one director remained in creative control (Anonymous). Experience with co-directing, i.e., officially assigning one director to work with the actors and another to direct in the control room, ranged "from disaster to at least they didn't hit each other” (Anonymous). In the play "Me,-” the camera director was experienced in variety and public affairs direct ing but not in television drama. The finished program contained some awkward camera angles and distracting camera movement (Anonymous). The camera director of "The Chinese Prime Minister" regretted not having been more forceful during rehearsals in convincing his co-director that some staging was difficult to shoot for television. However, the camera director 285 . . . wanted him to have free reign .... Ideally, I would have said, "No, you can't stage it there; you've got to do it here." But this is part of the give and take. In a sense, it would have been a better looking show if I had insisted.(Turpin interview) Directors were not only required to prepare actors during rehearsal but also had to be organized for production in order to achieve an untroubled production environment. Directors who were highly disciplined and in constant control of the many variables in the production environment of the series were relatively few (Anonymous). These variables included assessing the tasks to be accomplished, assigning the tasks to appropriate production person- nel, establishing a schedule for all rehearsal and production activities within the overall time limita tions, and being able to communicate effectively with production personnel regarding every production element from individual shots to the aims of the play. When directors were "not up to the job" delays would result, and production costs mounted (Allen interview). Background and Experience of Production Crew Producing major dramatic programs on a regular basis was a new experience for the KCET engineering and production crews. Before Hollywood Television Theatre the station had produced several programs 286 of a dramatic nature for National Educational Tele vision and the Public Broadcast Laboratory; a series titled Cancion de la Raza was also produced by KCET (Allen interview). However, the crew primarily was used to public affairs, instructional, and discussion formats. Lack of experience with television drama meant that additional production time was required and that some programs were artistically imperfect. Although the wind and sandstorm created the greatest production delays during the location recording of ’ ’ Beginning to End," the crew had never used that particular kind of remote equipment before and some familiarization time 15 was required. One of the first Hollywood Television Theatre directors observed that the idea of composition and framing for dramatic production was rather new to the crew, requiring extra time to perfect shots. He also pointed out that "a good cameraman will compensate for an actor making a move that’s a little off," thereby improving the quality of the production (Sagal interview). By the beginning of 1973 more than twenty plays had been produced, the technical crew had gained 1 5 Information from James Mead, then Engineering Supervisor of KCET, in a telephone interview from Los Angeles to Huntington Beach, California, October 8, experience with dramatic production, and the station had developed a system of assigning the most qualified personnel possible to major productions. The concept of developing a production team in order that indi vidual members of the crew would be able to work well together was an important factor in improving quality (Anderson interview). The ability of the crew to make creative contributions to production was noted by Joseph Hardy, who directed three plays for the series. KCET MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The way in which station executives dealt with management problems was also a factor in the production environment of the series. Disagreements arose periodically within KCET management regarding the proper balance between creative requirements and fiscal control; Hollywood Television Theatre became the focal point for some of these disputes because of its major role in station production activities (Anonymous). The natural inclination of creative and programming personnel was to strive for the highest quality production possible, which inevitably led to greater expenditures. The responsibility of business management personnel was to keep expenditures within budget, which usually led to direct confrontations 288 with creative personnel: the executive producer, directors, and scenic designers. In one instance the executive producer of the series believed he was entitled to a director's fee, in addition to his regular salary, for directing a production. After an initial negative response to this request discussions among station executives ensued, and the additional fee was paid. Another disagreement occurred over shooting an exterior scene in New York instead of Los Angeles. The setting of the play "Birdbath" was in New York, with almost all action taking place inside a run-down apartment and a beanery-type cafe, with one short exterior scene lasting a few minutes as the principal characters walked from one location to the other. The executive producer believed the actual location was essential for maintaining quality; financial management personnel insisted that many Los Angeles locations would be indistinguishable from those in New York for that short a scene. Station management decided in favor of the executive producer, and the trip cost approxi mately $10,000. The tendency of station management to render final decisions in favor of the executive producer contributed to the improved quality of the series, 289 but resulted in larger expenditures for individual plays. As the end of each fiscal year approached Hollywood Television Theatre usually found itself with insufficient funds to produce plays as originally planned. Production concepts often had to be altered in order to keep the entire series within its annual budget. In 1971-1972, for example, "Two by Chekhov" was broadcast live, thereby eliminating postproduction editing costs. Also in that year "Lemonade" was recorded as a half hour program, but broadcast twice in the regularly scheduled one hour time slot. "He had a contract for a one hour show and 'Lemonade* came out at a half hour and he filled it" (Anderson interview). Lengthy discussions between the executive producer and KCET management included consideration of other means to fill the time slot; expanding the play to a full hour, or searching for another dramatic property. Both alternatives were rejected because the series budget was unable to bear the increased production costs. The massive production effort required for Hollywood Television Theatre contributed to periodic difficulties between the programming and engineering departments of KCET. While the station was located at Fountain and Vine there were substantial equipment 290 limitations; before, during, and after the move to Sunset Drive the engineering staff was preoccupied with the new plant and facilities in addition to program production activities. Programming personnel of the station and Hollywood Television Theatre execu tives often believed that members of the engineering staff were not giving a high enough priority to requirements of the series, and blamed the engineering staff for all delays because of equipment failure. The engineering staff, on the other hand, believed that many problems were a result of inadequate planning and disregard for equipment limitations on the part of creative personnel. As one source described it, problems arose from "production people not making, or failing to make, decisions so we could get the shooting done" (Anonymous). Problems with equipment limitations and failures during production continued after the new studios were occupied in the fall of 1971. The operating budget and personnel resources of the station were not large enough for the engineering staff to install equipment in the new building and provide maximum technical support for production at the same time. The Vice- President for Engineering gave highest priority to equipment installation and check-out, which frustrated 291 production personnel in their efforts to create pro grams; the engineering staff, however, maintained that equipment had to be installed properly. The con flict continued for approximately one year, with pressures from both programming and engineering per sonnel for resolution of the problem. Progress in remodeling the new facility eased some difficulties, but continued conflicts between engineering and pro duction eventually required the resignation of the Vice-President for Engineering in the fall of 1972 (Anonymous). RESOLVING PRODUCTION PROBLEMS Production problems were a factor in the pro duction environment of the series and occurred with regularity during camera rehearsal and recording sessions in the studio. Two methods of resolving such problems gradually emerged: applying the concept of team effort, and accepting compromises. Although tension often mounted in the production environment of Hollywood Television Theatre as a result of production problems, it never became unmanageable. Resolving Problems by Team Effort The concept of "team effort” pervaded much of the Hollywood Television Theatre production environment. 292 In practice this concept often took the form of crew members rescuing other members of the team from diffi cult situations. All directors who were interviewed were complimentary of crew members; one director remarked that he could not recall "anybody ever saying, 'Look— we simply can't do that'" (Schaefer interview). The General Manager of KCET summarized the attitude as "almost a eode of professionalism" that team members worked together to prevent production disasters (Loper interview). Resolving Problems by Compromise Resolving production problems was often a matter of compromise. Sometimes the compromise was acceptable; at other times problems were not really satisfactorily resolved, but only endured. As the water overflowed on the studio floor during a rain scene in "Winesburg, Ohio," shorting out equipment until only one camera remained operating, it was necessary to record in shorter and shorter sequences. Although the finished scene was acceptable, the amount of postproduction editing was increased (Bennewitz interview). Technical compromises were required in order to satisfy the dramatic needs of individual plays. In "Shadow of a Gunman" the director wanted part of one 293 scene with only a candle burning to capture mood and atmosphere. Although the video noise level increased significantly, the engineering staff accepted the loss of technical quality: "Technically you don't accept it, but certainly for the mood they have to establish you can't shoot everything at two hundred fifty foot candles" (Anderson interview). Four-wall sets were used in "Gondola" and "Nourish the Beast," requiring production compromises. The sets were simple enough on "Gondola" so that two walls were removed while scenes were shot from one angle, then the other two walls were removed for recording at different angles. This film technique of shooting was successful, but about four hundred edits were required. In "Nourish the Beast" the walls could not be removed, and the cameramen were unable to get as creative camera shots as were desired (Bennewitz interview). Tension in the Production Environment Tension in the production environment was deplored, but somehow almost thought to be inevitable. The television production environment was described as . . . the most tense environment that you can work in, which involves on one hand the demands of the technical side, which are very specific, 294 . . . and the creative forces pulling in the other direction to . . . expand beyond what the technical people will always want,(Loper inter view) Almost every play had a different director and its own set of production problems. The constant change of creative personnel increased tension in the pro duction environment. Balanced against these negative circumstances, however, was the desire to accomplish high quality television programs in a pleasant working atmosphere. As one director commented: I always felt that everyone should enjoy what they were doing as well as doing good work, because they are more relaxed and can do better work. If there is a lot of tension then nobody can do their best work. What's the point? (Jordan interview) "Winesburg, Ohio" illustrated the way in which a pleasant preproduction environment degenerated into a disastrous production environment through no fault of those directly involved in recording the play. During the entire preproduction period, while revising the script, rehearsing, and blocking, the director reported an excellent relationship with the project and the executive producer: I remember saying to him, maybe half way through the preparation period, that I never want to leave this, it was just so nice to work with good material and to be kind of dedicated, and everything was going fine until this situation with [the author] came up. . . . All problems arise out of the fact that for me 295 that something is going to get in the way of doing as good . . . a piece of work as I would like to do.(Senensky interview) The positive atmosphere established during pre- production activities did not continue. ,A disagreement developed concerning the rights of the author to revise the script; the author believed he had final script approval, but his revisions were not acceptable to the executive producer or the director. Time did not allow resolution of the disagreement so the director and the executive producer had to work with two scripts— theirs, as the master version, and the author's, for additions and changes— reinserting scenes, parts of scenes, and even short segments of dialogue. This incredible situation, combined with equipment problems, the fatigue-inducing staircase between studio floor and control room, and the long production sessions, resulted in a pressure-filled, desperate experience (Senensky interview). In spite of these problems and tensions, production continued and the play was completed. / FREEDOM AND CONTROL IN THE PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT In most respects working on Hollywood Television Theatre productions was perceived as an opportunity not to be missed. Although some of those involved 296 in the series commented on instances of* interference with their work, a feeling of freedom to create and experiment generally was expressed. These character istics also were factors in the production environment and were related to the nonmonetary remunerations of working on the series, relationships between the executive producer and directors, nature of the executive producer's approach to personnel, and relationships between the executive producer and the station. Nonmonetary Remunerations The fee for directors, actors, and other creative personnel working on Hollywood Television Theatre was public broadcasting scale for their category, plus the 10 per cent agent's commission. Individuals who were under consideration for hiring, therefore, had to fit participation in the series between other assignments; however, they still accepted with pleasure whenever possible. Rewards other than salary were identified by creative personnel who worked on the series. Two kinds of rewards were mentioned: the opportunity to work in a noncommercially oriented atmosphere where "the right to fail occasionally" (Hardy interview) was acceptable, and the element of hard work combined 297 with the presence of dedicated personnel (Schaefer interview). An even more important inducement was the kind of dramatic material selected for Hollywood Television Theatre productions. The supervisory producer of the series explained that talented per sonnel simply would not work for the kind of money involved unless the dramatic material gave them a chance to accomplish something creative (Turpin inter view). The director of "The Scarecrow" commented: ^The material is so special; it's so marvelous to hear lines that are intelligent and beautiful; and the actors like it too, they are thrilled to be doing it? (Sagal interview). Even Ralph Senensky, whose experi ence with "Winesburg, Ohio" was far from pleasant, indicated that he would direct for the series again, provided the play was something he wanted to do (Senensky interview). Relationships between Executive Producer and Directors The two executive producers differed in the kind of control that was maintained over Hollywood Television Theatre productions. It was the custom of Lewis Freedman, the first executive producer, to avoid involvement in the details of recording once he was assured that all personnel understood the requirements 298 of a particular play. In the case of directors with substantial experience in electronic television or with whom he had previously worked, he would occa sionally visit a rehearsal or informally discuss the progress of a production with the director. He would be present in the control room during recording only if the director was inexperienced in electronic tele vision; usually he would watch the recording process from the client's booth and discuss any problems at a later time. He would sit at . . . another monitor in another room altogether, removed completely from the production where he could just concentrate on watching the show. And then he would give me notes, mostly on performance . . . occasionally on a camera angle that he thought was distracting. . . . But mostly he was concerned with getting the dramatic values of the show.(Sagal interview) Norman Lloyd, who became executive producer when Lewis Freedman left, was continually involved in all phases of the production process. Like his predecessor, Lloyd provided an atmosphere of freedom and autonomy to experienced directors; according to one director, "he is always constructive at the moment when you need it and never otherwise" (Hardy interview). Lloyd, however, exercised close super vision of the production environment and maintained overall artistic control of the series. It was his 299 practice to be present in the control room during recording of the plays. His artistic point of view prevailed when, upon occasion, there was a basic disagreement with the director that could not be resolved. In the final seene of "Steambath" the actor, Bill Bixby, delivered a lengthy monologue during which he came to terms with his fate. The director envisioned this scene as one long take, con centrating upon Bixby. The executive producer, however, believed that it was essential to show how Jose Perez, in the role of MGod,” was reacting to the monologue. The different dramatic interpretations of this scene could not be resolved; the director shot the scene his way, and later that same day the executive producer supervised the recording of reaction shots which were edited into the program (Anonymous). It was always understood that even though the director had his cut, the final decision remained with the executive producer (Turpin interview). Although there was some indication that Lloyd's artistic control of the series prevented directors from imprinting plays with their own individuality and resulted in a kind of sameness among productions, very little evidence was available to support any intimation of interference. On the contrary, 300 directors who were interviewed appreciated Lloyd’s suggestions and admitted that plays often were improved in the process. The director of "Winesburg, Ohio” was particularly thankful for Lloyd's assistance in staging certain scenes so they would work better for the actors (Senensky interview). The management of KCET regarded Lloyd as a highly efficient executive producer who "knew how to get out of an eight hour day what we had been spending twelve to fifteen hours on” (Allen interview). Relationships between Executive Producer and Personnel The personalities of the two executive producers revealed different approaches to their relationships with personnel in the production environment. Only one of the sources of this study described Lewis Freedman as having an outwardly calm and col lected appearance, and even that source thought "he was . . . like a very taut rubber band that was going to break at any given time" (Anonymous). Other sources described a range of personality character istics, from affectionate regard for his crew to colorful, flamboyant, and even occasionally violent. Some of his more extreme methods of dealing with people were perhaps due to the early problems of 301 establishing the series, while simultaneously produc ing major television drama. According to one source: Lewis broke from ground zero. He had many, many shoot-outs, violent shoot-outs, arguments, and fights in the corridor. In fact, that corridor is the Lewis Freedman Memorial Corridor. He would come around the corner pistols blazing and see who was standing at the end. So his approach was, "Do it; get it done quickly . . . full speed ahead.” But it worked.(Anonymous) Gn the other hand, Freedman was careful to explain fully what was required for a given production (Hardy interview) and created a feeling of together ness in production personnel (Bennewitz interview). He also was described as a very open person who loved to talk about every aspect of his projects (Allen interview). The approach of Norman Lloyd in his relation ships with personnel was perceived as less explosive than Freedman and characterized by a "constant push for an organized, professional response from all people" (Allen interview). Lloyd viewed the produc tion of television programs as a collaboration with all members of the team making a contribution, but not as a democratic environment: "Well, I make all the decisions. This sounds terribly arrogant but I have found that the more meetings you have and the larger number of persons that you have at the meetings, the 302 1 fi fewer things get done.” Lleyd developed a close working relationship with his supervisory producer and allowed him a significant amount of freedom in pro duction, particularly in postproduction editing; however, final creative decisions always were discussed (Turpin interview). Lloyd was described as maintaining an intense professional concern for all personnel. With his extensive background as an actor, he liked "to be in the thick of things" (Loper interview) and often dis cussed production problems with the crew. Although members of the crew might not have felt as much a part of the decision-making process as in earlier years of the series, many developed an intense and continuing regard for Hollywood Television Theatre: . . . the engineers get the plays and they read them and they sit at lunch and . . . talk about them. This is because they have contact with people like . . . the lighting designer, who will sit with them and discuss what "Steambath" really means and passes on all . . . that he has heard from meetings with the set designer, producer, director, and writer. They don't take this as a passive, "Let's go shoot this turkey," kind of attitude. They get very involved in those scripts. (Allen interview) 1 # 5 Statement by Norman Lloyd, Executive Producer Hollywood Television Theatre, in a personal inter view, Los Angeles, California, April 11, 1975. 303 Relationships between the Executive Producer and the Station Even though some individuals connected with Hollywood Television Theatre productions disagreed with artistic decisions of the executive producer, it was the policy of KCET management to support the executive producer in any such disputes: You cannot conduct a production organization, in my judgment, if you're giving approvals to some of the pleas from a director and at other times the producer. You must back the producer or dispense with that producer,(Allen interview) The executive producer naturally was the spokesman for Hollywood Television Theatre and its liaison with KCET; those who worked for either Lewis Freedman or Norman Lloyd and "who were not totally supportive of their stands . . . wouldn’t be here very long" (Yingling interview). SUMMARY OF CHAPTER The production environment of Hollywood Tele vision Theatre embodied the physical surroundings of public television Station KCET and other locations in which creative and technical personnel interacted with each other. Characteristics of the production environ ment were related to budget and facilities limitations, experience of personnel, management practices, pro duction problems, and the concepts of freedom and control. Budget and Facilities Limitations Although KCET had experience in producing tele vision dramatic programs, the magnitude of the Hollywood Television Theatre project caught personnel unaware and created conflicts with other station activities. Problems with television equipment created production delays and increased production costs, not only at the more limited original KCET studios but also at the Sunset Drive location until facilities had been installed properly. Studio space was inadequate at the original location; the Sunset Drive studios pro vided enough space for most needs, but certain arrange ments of space adversely affected working conditions. In spite of equipment problems, talent and crew often overcame difficulties with good humor. Until a system of scheduling personnel and facilities had been devised and implemented conflicts among various station activities existed, resulting in long production sessions and increased costs. Directors attempted to work within limited budgets, but compromises and changes in production plans were sometimes required. 305 Experience and Abilities of Personnel Fewer production problems occurred when Hollywood Television Theatre used directors whose background combined technical expertise in electronic television with experience in directing actors on the stage or in motion pictures. When directors who had only theatrical experience were hired the results varied. Some direc tors were able to adapt to television quickly while others could not, thereby increasing production time or decreasing the quality of programs. The practice of co-directing was unsuccessful because communication problems increased, difficulties were encountered in the interpretation of plays, and production delays occurred. Originally members of the KCET production crew were not experienced in television drama, and occa sionally were not able to generate the quality of work desired. By 1973 enough plays had been produced to enable the crew to make significant creative contribu tions to production. KCET Management Practices mmmmm mm mm * — uPwin i ■■■iu — ■■■ — ■■■ Disagreements between creative and business personnel over expenditures on individual programs generally were resolved in favor of creative personnel. 306 As a result costs increased, and had to be equalized by substantial alterations in plays that remained in that budget year. Periodic disagreements developed between pro gramming and engineering personnel over problems caused by equipment failures. The Vice-President for Engineering was replaced as a result of these dis agreements. Resolving Production Problems Production problems were not uncommon during camera rehearsals and recording sessions of Hollywood Television Theatre. Through team work and a willing ness to compromise directors and production crew were able to resolve problems without serious conflicts. Even when tension occurred, it was considered almost inevitable in the production environment and never resulted in permanent disruption of a production session. Freedom and Control in the Production Environment Even though fees for creative personnel, such as talent and directors, were limited to public broad casting scale, working on Hollywood Television Theatre was considered an opportunity not to be overlooked. 307 Reasons for participation included the opportunity to work with dedicated people and with dramatic material not usually produced in commercial television. The two executive producers differed in their relationships with directors. Lewis Freedman preferred to give directors extraordinary autonomy; Norman Lloyd exercised close supervision of production. The execu tive producers also differed in their relationships with other personnel. Lewis Freedman often was explosive in his dealings with people, but created an environment of fellowship. Norman Lloyd approached his relationships on a work oriented, professional level with high expectations of all personnel. Although disagreements over artistic control of the series developed from time to time, it was the policy of KCET management to support decisions of the execu tive producer. 308 CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY SUMMARY Through its concentration on cultural, informa tional, and instructional programs public television has provided an alternative to entertainment programming available on commercial television. Since the 1950's dramatic programs have been an important component of the cultural programming thrust of public television. Although stations originally depended upon drama pro duced in foreign countries, by the early 1970’s public television agencies in the United States were producing such series as NET Playhouse, New York Television Theater, Theater in America, and Hollywood Television Theatre. The significance of Hollywood Television Theatre as a contributor to the resources of public television drama was evident in several ways. The series was conceived as an experiment to test the feasibility of producing full-length anthology drama within public television, and its ability to endure and be successful was uncertain. However, the series was in production from 1970 through the 1975-1976 season and was funded 309 for at least one additional year. The television industry has recognized the series in the form of various awards: Hollywood Television Theatre received national Eknmys in 1970 and 1972 and the George Foster Peabody Broadcasting Award in 1970. Finally, the series was successful in attracting several million dollars for Visions, another public television drama project. In 1972 two authors, Wallace Smith and Philip Elliott, pointed out that little or no organized research about the production process and environment of dramatic television series had been conducted. A review of related literature revealed no organized studies about the history, administration, production process, or production environment of Hollywood Tele vision Theatre. Four writers presented substantive studies about the television production process and environment that were related to this study. Jac Venza, executive producer of Theater in America, found that when the practice of co-direeting was employed problems of divided responsibilities were created, and conflicts over production approach and interpretation of dramatic content occurred. In The Hollywood Producer: His Work and His Audience, Muriel Cantor found little conflict 310 between producers and directors in the commercial television film production environment, but discovered that producers were restrained by censorship and control by the production organization. Philip Elliott, in The Making of a Television Series: A Case Study in the Sociology of Culture, concluded that the presence of both creative and technical personnel structures in a production organization increased communication prob lems and created tension in the production environment. Wallace Smith, in his study of Then Came Bronson, found that divergent artistic goals among personnel, differ ences in the degree of autonomy allowed, and the unwillingness of the lead actor to compromise his ideas about the series created an intolerable production environment and prevented continuation of the series. The purpose of this study was to provide scholars and producers of television drama with information about creating and implementing a public television drama series, administering and managing such a series, and dealing with the production processes and environment of dramatic programs in public television. The problem of this study was to describe:^ (1) factors in the establishment of Hollywood Television Theatre, including organization and implementation of the series idea; (2) the development of Hollywood Television Theatre 311 from 1969 through the 1975-1976 broadcast season, indicating periodic changes in the concept of the series; (3) the administrative structure and management of the series; (4) factors characterizing the produc tion process of the series; and (5) factors character izing the production environment of the series. FINDINGS Findings of the study were related to the establishment, artistic objectives, fundamental changes, administration, production process, and production environment of Hollywood Television Theatre. Establishment of the series. Several public television organizations and agencies were willing to commit financial resources for the improvement of cultural programming, specifically for the production of drama for public television. The need for expanded television programming in cultural affairs had been stated by the Carnegie Commission on Educational Tele vision in 1967 and reiterated by representatives of National Educational Television and the Ford Foundation, a primary funding source for public television. Two years later funding was provided for several drama projects, among them Hollywood Television Theatre. Between 1969 and 1976 the Ford Foundation provided 312 over five million dollars for the series; the Corpora tion for Public Broadcasting supplied about one million dollars; and the public television stations, through the Station Program Cooperative, provided slightly over one million dollars. In addition, Station KCET supplied several hundred thousand dollars in production services and discretionary grant funds. Progress toward diversification of public tele vision production away from the existing centralized system was made when Station KCET was selected to implement Hollywood Television Theatre. The Carnegie Commission, along with many public television author ities, believed that competition in production was necessary to improve programming and provide a basis to compare program quality; and KCET was located in Los Angeles, in a different environment from the exist ing New York NET production organization. Although KCET had converted to color in 1969, and its facilities at that time had substantial limitations, investigations by Lewis Freedman, the first executive producer of Hollywood Television Theatre, indicated that the station was capable of implementing the drama project. The Ford Foundation and the Corporation for Public Broad casting concurred. Executive and creative personnel were available who could serve as continuing administrative staff 313 for the series. Following up a Carnegie Commission recommendation that artistic personnel should be recruited for public television, the Ford Foundation funded a distinguished broadcast fellowship program. Lewis Freedman was awarded the first fellowship and was also available for the Hollywood Television Theatre project. Other personnel to carry out casting, asso ciate producing, business management, unit management, and production supervision duties were either already available on the KCET staff or were hired from the television work force in the Hollywood area. Funding for these positions was included in grants for the series or was provided by KCET. Artistic objectives of the series. The series provided an alternative to entertainment programming on commercial television and to other dramatic program ming on public television. The management of KCET, series executives, and creative personnel associated with the establishment of Hollywood Television Theatre in 1969 were concerned that full-length drama in anthology form was not being broadcast by commercial television in a significant amount and believed that public television had a responsibility to provide this kind of programming. Other dramatic -series in public television concentrated on well known classics in 314 dramatic literature or new plays by unknown authors and were therefore not duplieative of Hollywood Tele vision Theatre, which used a variety of dramatic material, but from established playwrights. The series was only partially successful in providing a showcase for well known, experienced actors and directors. In order to produce high quality tele vision drama KCET and series executives attempted to hire experienced, well known acting and directing talent. Because the limited series budget precluded fees that were competitive with commercial television, some actors and directors were forced to decline offers to participate in the series for financial reasons. In many cases, however, these busy professionals were able to arrange Hollywood Television Theatre assign ments in between other higher paid work in commercial television. The series contributed to the continuation and improvement of video drama, as contrasted with film drama, in public television. Over forty plays were produced on video tape, using electronic television equipment and production techniques. Only one play was produced primarily on film; film inserts were used only occasionally in the remainder. Engineers and production crew, as well as creative personnel, 315 gained experience in producing video drama and thereby improved the production capability of Station KCET. Plays with a variety of dramatic form, subject matter, and themes were presented, fulfilling the original intent of the series. Over one-half the total plays broadcast by Hollywood Television Theatre were representative of two forms of dramatic literature, comedy and realistic-naturalistic drama. However, six other categories of dramatie form were represented in the series, including historical, domestic tragedy, tragi-comedy, satire-farce, musical drama, and experi mental drama. Although nearly two-thirds of the plays dealt with subject matter related to contemporary or past American society, the remaining plays illustrated past and present foreign subjects, imaginative- fictitious subjects, and several plays with varied subject matter. Seven categories of dramatic theme i were identified; more than one-half the total number of plays had themes dealing with internal and inter personal conflicts of character. Although Lewis Freedman, the first executive producer, intended to present a wide variety of dramatic material, he left the series before this objective was met. His suc cessor, Norman Lloyd, without formally intending to experiment with dramatic form and content, extended 316 the variety of dramatic form, subject matter, and themes. The management of KCET, Lewis Freedman, and Norman Lloyd had different perceptions concerning the fundamental purpose of the series. Station executives viewed Hollywood Television Theatre as a vehicle for producing television drama of superior quality and significance; the series, they believed, would build the station's reputation as a national public tele vision production center. Lewis Freedman was concerned with presenting plays by American authors on subjects that were relevant to American audiences. Norman Lloyd selected plays on the basis of their individual value and appeal, and preferred to let the series develop its own personality. Lewis Freedman and Norman Lloyd differed in their approaches to selecting dramatic material, aware ness of the audience, and the extent to which they modified plays for presentation on the series. Lewis Freedman searched for dramatic material that was a vehicle for ideas and that reflected social themes and issues, while Norman Lloyd selected plays that empha sized a quality use of language. Freedman wanted to produce plays he believed an audience ought to see; Lloyd was more concerned about how audiences would 317 react to plays that were produced. Freedman transferred plays from their original form to television with little modification; Lloyd preferred to adapt, edit, and change plays according to the requirements of the television medium. Fundamental changes in the series. Broadcast scheduling practices of the series changed from year to year and generally exhibited different character istics from commercial television. The series continued for six complete seasons between the 1970-1971 and 1975-1976 broadcast years, and its future beyond a seventh season in 1976-1977 was uncertain. Broadcast seasons from 1970 through 1975-1976 varied more in duration than in the case of commercial television, from five to nine months, and started later in the year, never earlier than October and as late as January. The number of Hollywood Television Theatre productions varied from year to year, from one in 1969- 1970 to fourteen in 1971-1972, but subsequently returning to about a half dozen productions each year after that. The length of productions also varied, from one-half hour to over two hours. Repeats, or multiple broadcasts of one play in the same week, were common with the series, unlike usual commercial tele vision practice; some plays were repeated on KCET as 318 many as five times a week and nationally at least once a week. Two practices were similar to those in com mercial television: airing plays under different labels, such as Conflicts and Thursdays at Nine, in order to attract audiences; and scheduling reruns of plays that had been produced in previous years. Public television Station KCET was able to improve continually its production capability for television drama. Most production problems related to insufficient studio space were solved when KCET moved to a new, larger facility in 1971. The quality and sophistication of television equipment was con tinually improved; in particular, computerized video tape editing capability increased flexibility of dramatie production and increased the quality of Hollywood Television Theatre plays. Because obtaining funds became increasingly difficult, continuation of series production beyond 1976-1977 was uncertain. The primary sources of funds £or Hollywood Television Theatre were the Ford Founda tion, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the public television stations through the Station Program Cooperative of the Public Broadcasting Service. KCET supplemented these funds by providing production services and from discretionary grant funds. As 319 funding gradually shifted from the Ford Foundation to the public television system, the amount of money available for the series decreased by about 20 per cent at the same time that production costs almost doubled. The Board of Directors of KCET also initiated a policy preventing the subsidy of national program production with local funds. These financial reasons, combined with the belief of station management that other public television projects were providing sufficient dramatic programming, contributed to the uncertain future of the series. It was anticipated that the series would continue to be broadcast as long as rights to plays already produced lasted. Administration of the series. Periodic changes in the organizational structure of KCET improved its ability to service series production requirements more efficiently, but rendered its obligation to control expenditures without restricting artistic freedom more difficult. By centralizing production services, such as scheduling, graphics, and other nonengineering support functions, first under a Vice-President for Administration in 1971 and then under a Vice-President for Programming, station management resolved conflicts between the series unit and other productions over facilities and personnel use. Responsibility for 320 budget review of the series was plaeed alternately in the administration-business affairs or programming areas of the station. When budget review was supervised by business affairs, costs were kept under control but series personnel had difficulties meeting artistic requirements of plays. When budget review was super vised by the programming area of the station, few problems with production requirements were encountered but expenditures were higher. Although KCET maintained official jurisdiction over the series, a substantial amount of autonomy was permitted series personnel in administrative and artistic matters. Both executive producers were allowed to control the size and composition of their administrative staffs. Lewis Freedman preferred a large staff which numbered eighteen when he left the series late in 1972, including many support and crea tive personnel; Norman Lloyd organized only a small core staff of six, hiring creative personnel on a per production basis. Administrative constraints and pressures, such as cost accounting controls and estab lishment of strict deadlines for acquisition and production of plays, were eventually applied by station management. However, controls were restricted to supervision of financial matters; the actual 321 selection of plays and creative personnel, artistic decisions in production and performance, and other creative matters were left to the executive producer. Although some restrictions upon the use of funds were imposed by agencies that provided grants for the series, there were only limited, indirect controls of artistic freedom. Both the Ford Foundation and later the Public Broadcasting Service, through the Station Program Cooperative, insisted on budget account ing and review and required standard fees for dramatic properties in order to prevent bidding among public television production agencies. The Ford Foundation maintained a strict policy of noninterference in artistic and production matters. Even though the Public Broadcasting Service did not officially impose artistie restrictions, indirect controls were perceived by Hollywood Television Theatre in the kind of plays stations would accept. KCET management avoided establishing formal procedures for dealing with personnel eonfliets related to the series; changes in personnel practices were made as required, with some resultant problems. Many administrative responsibilities were not trans ferred from the permanent series staff to the station at the time production activity began to decrease; 322 some duplication of effort existed, creating conflicts between series and station personnel, until a new executive producer was selected who agreed to transfer some administrative functions. In the early years of series production there also was severe competition between the series and other station production activ ities for the best qualified crew; eventually a policy was established in which middle management executives were given responsibility for resolving these conflicts. Serious disputes were reported between one executive producer and four of the directors. In two eases the directors were replaced before production started. The executive producer reedited the final scene of a third play after releasing the director, and in a fourth instance disagreements over performances of actors and interpretation of the script were never resolved. Production process of the series. Selecting dramatic properties required the intensive work and cooperative efforts of both series and station per sonnel; the process was not always accomplished without difficulty. Although the executive producer was responsible for finding and finally approving the selection of plays, members of KCET management and staff suggested ideas for plays, reviewed production 323 budgets and concepts, and negotiated with agents and writers for rights to dramatic properties. Negotiating rights was often a laborious process because of the low fees that had been established and occasional legal entanglements concerning ownership of a property. The kind of plays selected for the series was restricted by the limited budget available— an average of $150,000 for each production— and the limited number of plays that both executive producers believed was appropriate for the series. Station KCET had not established adequate pro cedures for scheduling and managing facilities and personnel when the series began, but was able to develop workable procedures as the series continued. The station had four primary functions, all involving substantial personnel and facilities support; local production, national production, on-the-air operations, and maintaining Public Broadcasting Service network feed operations. In the early years of the series conflicts over studio space, facilities use, and crew assignments occurred and had to be resolved on a case- by-case basis. Eventually, advance schedules were developed, indicating planned activities twelve to eighteen months ahead; skilled management personnel were hired and trained; a production operations 324 department was established to coordinate scheduling; systematic procedures, including regular production meetings, were established in order to determine exact production requirements of plays and to insure that all support activities, such as set construction and engineering, met required deadlines. These gradual improvements in production management eased chaotic conditions during taping and editing, helped solve competition for facilities, and prevented most unnecessary budget overruns. Finding experienced directors, actors, and other creative talent for the series was a difficult process. Ideal directors were those who understood the dramatic form, could work effectively with actors, and were experienced in the medium of video tape. Because such experienced individuals were few and often not available, directors with a variety of back grounds were selected. Most Hollywood Television Theatre directors had backgrounds in legitimate theater and motion pictures and were given associate and technical directors experienced in video drama. The process of finding experienced actors and other creative personnel, such as scene designers, was hindered by limited fees that were established and the extent to which individuals were available when needed. 325 The use of video tape recording, editing equip ment, and production techniques contributed to the technical and artistic quality of series plays, but also increased time and expense of production. The flexibility of video tape recording and editing allowed rehearsals to continue into the actual taping period providing actors, directors, and crew with oppor tunities to improve their performances. In addition, scenes could be rerecorded until acceptable, or parts of different takes could be utilized in the final editing process. The continual improvement of video tape editing equipment at KCET between 1970 and 1975 finally resulted in computerized editing capability and the development of high quality video tapes. Although many problems occurred during the production of plays for the series, these difficulties were not considered devastating or insurmountable but as a normal part of the production process. Many pro duction problems associated with an insufficient amount of space and equipment were solved by the move of Station KCET to larger studios. Problems with the control and quality of audio were never completely solved, although engineers found ways to use different kinds of microphones in combination in order to improve sound recording and complex editing equipment allowed 326 sound to be improved during the postproduction process. Camera and actor movement problems created by incorrect staging during rehearsal often were present; these difficulties were solved during actual production, but with increased time and expense. Several elements in the production process of the series differed under the supervision of executive producer Lewis Freedman and his successor, Norman Lloyd. The management of KCET maintained a more formal process of reviewing production concepts and budgets with Norman Lloyd than with Lewis Freedman. In the selection of actors Freedman worked almost entirely through a casting director, while Lloyd also contacted actors personally. Production meetings were less structured and generally longer, and occurred earlier in the production process under Freedman than under Lloyd. Technical crew attended dry rehearsals earlier under Lloyd than when Freedman supervised the series, in order to understand production requirements more fully. Production environment of the series. Condi tions in the production environment were adversely affected by limitations of facilities and budget. Station KCET was unprepared in terms of space, equip ment, personnel, and administrative procedures for 327 the chaotic conditions created by a project of such magnitude as Hollywood Television Theatre. These limitations resulted in production delays, increased expenditures, competition among production projects at the station, occasionally strained working relation ships, and, in some instances, a quality of production that was less than desirable. The extent to which the production environment of the series was orderly and without problems varied with the experience and abilities of personnel. When directors were employed whose background combined artistic and technical skills a well functioning atmosphere was created, due, primarily, to familiarity with electronic television production procedures. The efficiency of production varied when directors with limited booth experience, but extensive theatrical background, were hired; some learned control room techniques easily while others could not adapt, thereby increasing production time and costs. The practice of co-directing created disastrous situations and generally resulted in inferior program quality. The experience of KCET production crew with television drama improved significantly as the series continued, affecting posi tively the quality of programs. 328 The production environment of the series was adversely influenced by some of the management prac tices of KCET. Direct confrontations between business management personnel of the station and creative per sonnel of the series over expenditures usually were resolved in favor of creative personnel, resulting in increased expenditures which, in turn, caused major alterations of production plans for plays produced toward the end of each grant year. The failure of station management to resolve quickly disputes between programming and engineering personnel over problems of equipment failure and maintenance, and charges that creative personnel did not plan productions adequately, created unpleasant working conditions that lasted longer than necessary. Production problems during rehearsals and recording generally were resolved without major con flict or antagonism, resulting in a positive production atmosphere. The concept of ’ ’team effort” pervaded much of the Hollywood Television Theatre production environ ment, with director and crew working together to overcome obstacles and to create high quality programs. Compromises were not unusual in resolving production problems, and even when not completely satisfactory did not create crises. Tension in the production 329 environment was deplored, but believed to be almost inevitable. With few exceptions an atmosphere of freedom to create and experiment fully was present in the production environment of the series. Although direc tors, actors, and other creative personnel were paid only public broadcasting scale, the opportunity to work with significant dramatic material and the right to fail occasionally attracted participation in the series. Both executive producers provided the greatest possible freedom and autonomy to experienced directors. Norman Lloyd, however, maintained closer supervision and artistic control over production than did Lewis Freedman, a practice that led in a few instances to serious disputes with directors. There also was some indication that the greater control exercised by Lloyd prevented some directors from imprinting plays with their own individuality; however, station management supported all decisions of the executive producer. The two executive producers differed in their relationships with series and station personnel, but neither approach interfered with the creative environ ment of the series. Lewis Freedman was colorful, flamboyant, and even occasionally violent, but explained production requirements with care and created a feeling 330 of togetherness in production personnel. Norman Lloyd was less explosive in his relationships; he attempted to create a professional attitude in all personnel and had high expectations that members of his team would perform with efficiency. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the findings of the study, nine conclusions were formulated: 1. Public television organizations are likely to provide maximum opportunities for creativity and artistic freedom. Restrictions imposed on creative personnel by commercial television executives have been reported in studies by Cantor and Smith; producers and directors often were prevented from innovating in program content and format, and from implementing creative production concepts. In contrast, an atmos phere of artistic freedom prevailed at public tele vision Station KCET while Hollywood Television Theatre was in production. Station executives avoided involve ment in creative matters such as the selection of plays, directors, and cast; the executive producers of the series, with some exceptions, allowed directors and production personnel the widest latitude in inter preting dramatic materials; and resolution of production 331 problems by team effort was common practice. Excessive budgetary control is incompatible with.artistic freedom in television production. i . i « Tin ^ — Artistic freedom in television production is essential in order to insure that producers, directors, talent, production crew, and all creative personnel are able to perform at the highest level of their abilities. Unwarranted budgetary constraints and even well inten- tioned efforts to improve production efficiency can stifle creativity and interfere with development of a high quality product. The management of KCET was successful in providing artistic freedom for creative personnel, even though the budget of Hollywood Tele vision Theatre was limited. Budget review for the series usually was conducted by programming, not fiscal, executives of the station. Conflicts over expenditures generally were resolved in favor of the executive pro ducer and not the fiscal office of the station. These policies often resulted in serious fiscal difficulties: plays developed toward the end of a season had to be modified for less expensive production, the number of productions planned for a season had to be reduced, or KCET had to supplement series grant funds with other fluids that were needed for program production. However, by insisting on artistic integrity and maintaining 332 " I budgetary flexibility, means were found to continue production of the series. 3. Order and stability in the television pro duction environment depend upon the presence of experienced personnel and an atmosphere of freedom. A qualified director is essential to the success of television production, one who is not only experienced in the unique requirements of the electronic medium but who also understands dramatic material and can com municate that understanding to actors. When any single one of these qualities is missing in a director he tends to lose control of the situation, and the entire production environment deteriorates. Hollywood Tele vision Theatre utilized three different directing concepts: directors of drama who also were qualified in electronic television; directors of drama with little or no background in video techniques, but who were assisted by qualified associate or technical directors; and co-directors, one for staging and working with actors and the other as camera director. The first alternative was the most successful; the second worked reasonably well; the practice of co directing was disastrous, with divided responsibilities creating divergent production concepts. 333 With few exceptions, there was no interference in the freedom of creative artists participating in Hollywood Television Theatre. Arguments inevitably occurred and the production environment was disrupted when KCET management or the executive producer insisted on production changes; however, this seldom occurred. If directors, actors, television cameramen, and other personnel involved in the entire production of a tele vision program demand freedom to create, to experiment, and even to fail occasionally, they also must accept the concomitant requirement of conscientious effort, of giving their best at all times. 4. The American public television system has increased the variety of dramatic television program ming available to viewing audiences. The federal government (through regulations and guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission), television critics, educators, and industry leaders have viewed variety in broadcast matter as one criterion of ’ ’the public interest, convenience, or necessity.” A fundamental objective of Hollywood Television Theatre was to provide a wider variety of programming than was avail able at the time, to provide full-length anthology drama as an alternative to commercial dramatic tele vision series and other public television programming. 334 Commercial television was concentrating on serial drama in its adventure, mystery, and detective forms. Other public television series were specializing in one kind of drama: Theater in America presented tradi tional dramatic classics, and Visions produced original plays by new American authors. In contrast Hollywood Television Theatre presented plays with a variety of dramatic forms, subject matter, and themes. 5. Cooperation and compromise are essential elements in overcoming conflict in the television production environment. Working conditions in a television studio are commonly tense and chaotic, and a great deal of patience is required of all personnel in order to avoid serious conflict. In public tele vision, limitations of facilities and budget often contribute to conflict in the production environment. Public television Station KCET was not ade quately staffed or equipped when the Hollywood Tele vision Theatre production unit was established. In addition, it was apparent early in series production that no more than $100,000 to $200,000 would be avail able for each production. In the face of these adversities over forty plays were produced in six seasons, many of which were two hours or more in length. Creative and production personnel were 335 attracted to the series by opportunities for artistic freedom. They were able to overcome production prob lems in a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation; compromises were not unusual, and a positive production environment was the rule. Artistie people are notably self-eentered and temperamental, and such cooperation might not work in an environment of less creative freedom. 6. In the production of dramatic television programs establishment of a basic series concept probably is required in order to avoid irreconcilable disagreements about the selection of plays and the development of production concepts. Although a certain amount of flexibility of purpose is necessary as a television series continues and develops, consensus regarding a fundamental series concept is essential. Audience preferences change; creative and production personnel leave an organization and are replaced by individuals with different viewpoints; even executive producers leave, as in the case of Hollywood Television Theatre. Three divergent perceptions of the basic purpose of the series were evident. The management of KCET wanted the series to create a national reputation for the station as a public television production center; Lewis Freedman wanted to produce plays by 336 American authors, and plays that were relevant to American audiences; Norman Lloyd, who succeeded Freedman as executive producer, believed that the series should develop its own personality by the plays that were produced. Fortunately, these divergent viewpoints were possible in the atmosphere of artistic freedom that prevailed in public television and at KCET while Hollywood Television Theatre was in pro duction. Under more restrictive policies in other production environments, however, such differences could lead to serious conflict between executives of a production organization and creative personnel. 7. Television production managers and execu tives should establish formal procedures for dealing with personnel conflicts, should devise means for resolving personnel conflicts in a timely manner, and should maintain a detached relationship with creative people and technical staff in personnel matters. One ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • m b W m m m B M m m b B i k m m m b m m w b ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■M a M i M i M characteristic of the television production situation is the tendency of personnel to develop close personal and professional relationships in pursuit of a common goal, the creation of a television program. Often these relationships extend beyond individuals involved in the immediate production environment and include management personnel as well, and this tendency is even 337 more evident in the relatively unrestrained atmosphere of public television. Resolution of personnel con flicts in television production situations becomes difficult when executives must settle disputes between individuals who are respected and admired. Such conflicts occurred within KCET management and the series when Hollywood Television Theatre was in production. Difficulties among programming, financial, and engineering executives of the station adversely affected series production and eventually increased production costs; disputes between one executive producer and several directors delayed pro duction activities significantly. Several improvements in personnel practices would have prevented the pro duction delays, difficulties, and higher costs: establishment of formal personnel policies; quicker resolution of conflicts among personnel by middle and upper management of Station KCET; and more active, but constructive, involvement by management in all stages of production to identify potential problem areas before crises developed. 8. Television stations engaging in substantial production activities in addition to broadcast opera tions should establish an adequate system for managing elements in the production process. The numerous 338 activities of a television station include on-air operations, managing network feeds or syndicated program acquisitions, and regular local production such as news and public affairs. Adding a major pro duction effort to these activities creates an increased workload and can result in competition for facilities and personnel among projects. Efficient production management requires establishment of scheduling pro cedures for studios, equipment, production crew, and engineering staff; it also requires a workable system of communicating production requirements to all per sonnel. Station KCET had not designed adequate manage ment procedures before Hollywood Television Theatre began, but gradually instituted improvements which resulted in more effective production operations. Formal production management procedures prevent last minute chaotic conditions caused by lack of planning and the subsequent budget overruns that inevitably occur. 9. The electronic television system, using video tape, presents several advantages over film for creative artists. The less segmented production technique of electronic television which allows record- • ing of complete scenes and even acts, in contrast to individual set-ups as in film, is attractive to 339 directors and actors. Although no evidence was accumulated that showed video tape to be more economical than film or save production time, improvements in video tape recording and editing technology have made this kind of dramatic production refreshing to creative personnel. Mistakes can easily be corrected by imme diate rerecording; scenes and shots can be edited with the same precision as film, using computerized editing equipment; and creativity is enhanced by the avail ability of improved special effects technology. Holly wood Television Theatre contributed to renewed interest and improvement of the techniques of video production. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY This study concentrated on the establishment, history, administration, and production of Hollywood Television Theatre, a major public television dramatic series. The findings of the study suggested several additional areas of investigation. As discovered by earlier writers and further substantiated in the review of literature for this study, few organized investigations of the television production process and environment have been made. Additional studies in this field would provide more data about the complex processes of producing and 340 managing television programs. In public television investigations of such dramatic series as New York Television Theater, Theater in America, and Visions might include the following questions: 1. Do the artistic objectives of a series remain constant or change? 2. How are production concepts determined and implemented? 3. Are production management practices estab lished with consistency or are they allowed to develop in a random manner? 4. What kind of production environment prevails in different series? A growing need is evident for research that would consolidate findings of individual studies of the television production process and environment. Investigations to date in this field have concentrated on descriptions of single television series and have suggested how elements of television production might be more generally applied. Using the findings of these studies as a base, further research might develop hypotheses for testing and might ultimately establish some principles or theories of television production. This study presented information about several elements in the production process and environment in 341 public television. Further investigation of these elements as they occur in commercial television would, be valuable and might include these questions: 1. What supports or inhibits artistic freedom? 2. How do budgetary controls influence creativity? 3. What roles do cooperation, compromise, and team effort play in television production? 4. What kinds of personnel practices are employed in television production manage ment? 5. What kinds of management controls are placed on television production? Further inquiry into the television production process and environment might disclose elements that are unique to public television drama: 1. Does the dramatic material selected for production in public television attract a certain kind of creative person? 2. Do the working conditions in public tele vision differ significantly from commercial television? If so, what is the effect of this difference? Public television has experienced relative success in maintaining major production centers on 342 both the East and West Coasts. In contrast, commercial television has concentrated production efforts on the West Coast. A comparative study of the two approaches could focus on such questions as: 1. What is the relationship between geographic dispersal of television program production and diversity in program content and format? 2. To what extent can decentralization of television program production be accom plished without causing management inefficiencies and financial hardship? A substantial divergence of opinion exists concerning the purpose and objectives of public tele vision. Several questions regarding the intent of various public television agencies, including the Ford Foundation and the Corporation for Public Broad casting, need to be explored: 1. What is the future of drama in public television as related to the cultural programming objectives of public television? 2. What kinds of programs should be produced? 3. What kind of programming is financially feasible? 4. What kind of production capability is required? 343 In the decade between 1965 and 1975 public television in the United States produced a substantial amount of full-length anthology television drama, but the productions were seen only by the relatively limited public television audience. The possible impact of this programming on commercial television raises questions that might be investigated: 1. Why was anthology drama an important part of commercial television programming in the 1950's, but not in the 1960's or the first half of the 1970's? 2. How feasible is anthology drama in terms of commercial television production costs and audience viewing preferences? 3. What potential exists for experimental theater in commercial television? Is there a large enough audience for drama that is experimental or innovative in format and subject matter? 344 345 BIBLIOGRAPHY A. PRIMARY SOURCES Interviews Allen, Charles. Vice-President for Programming, Station KCET. Personal interviews, Los Angeles, California, February 19 and December 3, 1975 and February 4 and August 16, 1976. Anderson, Everett. Chief Engineer, Station KCET. Personal interview, Los Angeles, California, October 6 , 1975 and telephone interview, January 20, 1976. Bennewitz, Rick. Co-Director, Hollywood Television Theatre. Personal interview, Los Angeles, California, July 16, 1975. Davis, David. Program Officer, Ford Foundation. Telephone interview, Los Angeles, California to New York City, June 25, 1975. Hardy, Joseph. Director, Hollywood Television Theatre. Personal interview, Los Angeles, California, July 14, 1975. Jordan, Glenn. Director, Hollywood Television Theatre. Personal interview, Los Angeles, California, July 17, 1975. Lloyd, Norman. Executive Producer, Hollywood Tele vision Theatre. Personal interviews, Los Angeles, California, April 4 and April 11, 1975. Loper, James. President and General Manager, Station KCET. Personal and telephone interviews, Los Angeles, California, November 22, 1974, December 5, 1975, and March 26, 1976. MacKendrick, Hillary. Assistant to the Producer, Hollywood Television Theatre. Personal interview, Los Angeles, California, March 20, 1975. Mead, James. Video Engineer, Station KCET. Telephone interview, Los Angeles to Huntington Beach, California, October 8 , 1975. 346 Norberg, Douglas. Senior Vice-President, Station KCET. Personal interviews, Los Angeles, California, March 25 and April 1, 1975. Parise, Florence. Administrative Assistant to the General Manager, Station KCET. Telephone inter view, Los Angeles, California, March 26, 1976. Petrie, Daniel. Director, Hollywood Television Theatre. Personal interview, Los Angeles, California, April 9, 1976. Sagal, Boris. Director, Hollywood Television Theatre. Personal interview, Los Angeles, California, May 22, 1975. Schaefer, George. Director, Hollywood Television Theatre. Personal interview, Los Angeles, California, August 5, 1975. Senensky, Ralph. Director, Hollywood Television Theatre. Personal interview, Los Angeles, California, November 21, 1975. Turpin, George. Supervisory Producer, Hollywood Television Theatre. Personal interview, Los Angeles, California, April 21, 1975. Yingling, John. Production Manager, Station KCET. Personal interview, Los Angeles, California, June 3, 1975. 2. Unpublished Documents Freedman, Lewis. "Notes for a National Television Theatre.” Los Angeles: Public Television Station KCET, n.d. (Typewritten.) Hollywood Television Theatre. "Hollywood Television Theatre Retrospective." Press release, December, 1975. (Mimeographed.) Norberg, Douglas. Memorandum to Lewis Freedman, James Loper, and Others. Los Angeles: Public Television Station KCET, February 22, 1971. (Typewritten.) Olivier, June. Budget Manager, Station KCET. Letter dated March 4, 1976. 347 Priee, Donel. "A Pilot Project to Develop a Systematic Design for the Study of the Educational Television Production Environment." Los Angeles: University of Southern California, July, 1974. (Typewritten.) B. SECONDARY SOURCES 1. Books Barnet, Sylvan, Morton Berman, and William Burto. Aspects of the Drama: A Handbook. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1962. Barnouw, Erik. The Image Empire: A History of Broad casting in the United States. Volume III. New York: OxTord University Press, 1970. Bower, Robert T. Television and the Public. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973. Cantor, Muriel G. The Hollywood Producer: His Work and His Audience. New York: Basic Books, Inc., TW?r. --------------- Carnegie Commission on Educational Television. Public Television: A Program for Action. The Report and Recommendations of the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1967. Efrein, Joel L. Video Tape Production and Communica tion Techniques. Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania: TAB Books, 1971. Elliott, Philip. The Making of a Television Series; A Case Study in the Sociology of Culture. New York: Hastings House Publishers, 1972. Kaufman, William I. (editor). How to Direct for Television. New York: Hastings House Publishers, 1955. Macy, John, Jr. To Irrigate a Wasteland. Berkeley: University of "California Press, 19*74. Schramm, Wilbur (editor). Educational Television: The Next Ten Years. Stanford: The Institute for Com munication Research, 1962. 348 Taylor, John Russell. Anatomy of a Television Play. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson Limited, 1962. 2. Publications of Professional Organizations Ford Foundation, The. ETV: A Ford Foundation Pictorial Report. New York: The Ford Foundation, Mareh, 19&1. National Association of Educational Broadcasters. NAEB Educational Telecommunications Directory. Washington, D.C.: National Association of Educa tional Broadcasters, 1974. National Educational Television. National Educational Television: 1965. New York: National Educational Television, 1965. National Educational Television and Radio Center. 1959: Year of Progress. New York: National Educational Television and Radio Center, 1959. 3. Journal Articles Branscomb, Anne W. "A Crisis of Identity: Public Broadcasting and the Law,M Public Telecommunica tions Review. Ill, 1 (1975), 10-23. Freedley, Vinton. "Producing for TV," Theatre Arts, XXXV, 2 (February, 1951), 48-49. "Guide to the Station Program Cooperative," Public Telecommunications Review, II, 4 (August, 1974), 21. Hart, Walter. "Directing for TV," Theatre Arts, XXXV, 2 (February, 1951), 51-52. IglAsis, Roger. "First Steps in Television for the Stage Producer," World Theatre, IX, 4 (Winter, 1960), 325-336. "Inside the Program Cooperative: Interview with Hartford Gunn," Public Telecommunications Review, II, 4 (August, 1974), 16-27. Lynch, James E. "The Case History of a Live TV Drama," The Quarterly of Film, Radio and Television, XI, 1 XFall, 1956), 83-93. 349 Macy, John W., Jr. "Toward a Philosophy for Public Television Programming," Educational Broadcasting Review, III, 5 (October, 1969), 5-9. Norberg, Douglas, and Leonard S. Spilka. "An Approach to Meeting Management's Needs for Financial Information," Public Telecommunications Review, I, 1 (August, 1973), 30-34. Oliver, Lisbeth R. "Public TV Drama: Three Top Pro ducers Assess the Outlook," Public Telecommunica tions Review, II, 4 (August ,"TT57¥J, 4-5. Park, Warren S., Jr. "Repeat Programming," Educational Broadcasting Review, II, 1 (February, 1968), 48-50. White, John F. "Retiring President Reviews Decade of Growth," Educational Broadcasting Review, III, 3 (June, 1969), 14-19. 4. Magazine Articles Barber, Rowland. "A Fine Madness at Fountain and Vine," TV Guide, August 7, 1971, pp. 4-8. Davidson, Bill. "What Does a Director Do?" TV Guide, October 26, 1974, pp. 10-16. "Ford Investment $22.7 Million," Broadcasting, February 19, 1968, pp. 33-34. Freedman, Lewis. "Andersonville," Gambit, February, 1971, pp. 8-9. _______. "Like the ’Iceman,' the Hollywood Television Theater Cometh," KCET Program Guide, February, 1970, pp. 8-9. "Getting It Taped," Time, February 4, 1957, p. 45. "Inside KCET," KCET Program Guide, November, 1969, p. 14. Kee, Robert. "LookJ No HandsJ" Twentieth Century, CLXVI (November, 1959), 371-375. "Lights, Set, Sound," Gambit, August-September, 1974, pp. 36-37. 350 "A Little Music, A Lot of Creativity,” Gambit, May, 1975, pp. 12-13. Lloyd, Norman. ’ 'Theatre to Tape: Getting Physical with 'Knuckle,'” Gambit, June, 1975, pp. 8-9. Loynd, Ray. '"Conflicts': New Hollywood Television Theatre Series Debuts,” Gambit, November, 1973, pp. 6-7. Manes, Stephen. “The Curse of Los Feliz,” Gambit, November, 1971, pp. 4-5, 9. "Nail Biting Night on Stage A," Gambit, February, 1972, pp. 8-9. "On Screen/Off Screen," Gambit, December, 1972, p. 15. ''One Week Stand,” Newsweek, April 28, 1952, pp. 93-94. "Opening Week,” Gambit, October, 1971, pp. 5-6, 8. "Organization Man," Time, November 26, 1965, p. 60. "PBL Shakedown Sees Changes in Set-Up," Broadcasting, February 19, 1968, p. 34. "Premiere: Hollywood Television Theatre," KCET Program Guide, April, 1970, pp. 8-9. "Richard Chamberlain Talks about His Role in Hollywood TV Theatre's 'The Lady's Not for Burning,'” Gambit, November, 1974, pp. 6-7. Robinson, Hubbell, Jr. "The Producer's the Villain," Saturday Review, XLI (December 27, 1958), 23. Shayon, Robert Lewis. "An Electronic Globe,” Saturday Review, LIII (June 13, 1970), 40. "Shooting the Works," Gambit, December, 1974, pp. 14-15. "Steambath," Gambit, April, 1973, pp. 20-21. Stuart, William. "Shooting a Close-Up," Radio and Television News, XLV (May, 1951), 39, 132. "Tell Me, Jean Peters,” Gambit, March, 1973, pp. 8, 16, 21, 30. 351 "Tell Me, Leslie Caron," Gambit, February, 1973, pp. 7-9, 26. "Tell Me, Norman Lloyd," Gambit, November, 1972, pp. 9, 10-11, 25. "TV Production at W2XWV," Radio News, November, 1943, pp. 112, 116. "The Dollar Figures for Production," Broadcasting, April 16, 1973, p. 36. "The Inner Tube," KCET Program Guide, Oetober, 1969, p. 3. "The Season," Gambit, October, 1973, pp. 6-10. Venza, Jac. "Theater in America: Can Directors Co-Direct?" Action, X (July-August, 1975), pp. 6-18. Wilkins, William. "Hollywood Television Theatre Presents the World Premiere of ’Poet Game,'" Gambit, April, 1971, pp. 4-5. "Young Marrieds at Play," Gambit, December, 1971, p. 13. 5. Newspaper Articles Barthel, Joan. "What a TV Producer Produces," New York Times Magazine, November 21, 1965, pp. 38- 317“150-152. Berges, Marshall. "The Quinn Martins," Los Angeles Times Home Magazine, July 27, 1975, pp. 30-32. ETV Newsletter, March 24, 1969, July 8, 1975, February 2, 1976. Ferretti, Fred. "Ford Grants of $832,432 to Aid 6 Public Broadcasting Projects," New York Times, March 12, 1970, p. 82. Gould, Jack. "8 TV Stations Ask Replacement of P.B.L. by New Sunday Series," New York Times, March 9, 1969, pp. 1, 63. 352 _______. "Major Programming Shake-Up Hits Educational TV," New York Times, April 9, 1969, p. 95. "TV: Blueprint for Change," New York Times, March 10, 1969, p. 91. _______. "With So Many Cooks, Why Are We Hungry?" New York Times, December 7, 1969, Section II, p. 23. Kaufman, Dave. "HTT's Producer, Norman Lloyd, Calls His Own Programming Shots," Daily Variety;, September 23, 1975, p. 6. Smith, Cecil. "Houseman Playing Himself— and Loving It," Los Angeles Times Calendar, February 22, 1976, p. 25. M3.6-Million Grant to Fund TV Series on Public Affairs," New York Times, August 18, 1969, p. 67. 6. Scholarly Studies Currie, Rolf H. "The Stylization of the Dramatic TV Image." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1962. Deihl, Ernest R. "George Schaefer and the Hallmark Hall of Fame: A Study of the Producer-Director of a Live Television Drama Series." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1964. Diskin, Marvin. "A Descriptive and Historical Analysis of the Live Television Anthology Drama Program, The United States Steel Hour, 1953-1963." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1968. Gumpert, Gary. "Television Theatre as an Art Form." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1963. Hawes, William. "A History of Anthology Television Drama through 1958." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta tion, University of Michigan, 1960. Jackson, Roger. "An Historical and Analytical Study of the Origin, Development and Impact of the Dramatic Programs Produced for the English Language Networks of the CBC." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1966. 353 Rider, Richard L. "A Comparative Analysis of Directing Television and Film Drama* ” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1958. Savoie, Norman R. ‘ ’ French Television and Dramatic Literature.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1971. Shaw, Myron. “A Descriptive Analysis of the Docu mentary Drama Television Program, the Armstrong Circle Theatre, 1955-1961.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1962. Smith, Wallace A. ”A Description of the Organization, Production Process, and Production Environment of a Dramatic Television Series.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1972. Stureken, Francis. “An Historical Analysis of Live Network Television Drama from 1938 to 1958.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1960. 354 APPENDIX A LIST OF HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE PLAY TITLES, PRODUCERS, AND DIRECTORS 355 Play Title Executive Producer Producer Director The Andersonville Trial Lewis Freedman Lewis Freedman George C. Scott Big Fish, Little Fish Lewis Freedman Lewis Freedman Daniel Petrie Montserrat Lewis Freedman Lewis Freedman David Friedkin Poet Game Lewis Freedman Lewis Freedman Silvio Narizzano U.S.A. Lewis Freedman and Mark Shivas Lewis Freedman George Schaefer The Typists Lewis Freedman Lewis Freedman Glenn Jordan The Police Lewis Freedman Lewis Freedman Fielder Cook Lemonade Lewis Freedman Lewis Freedman Charles S. Dubin Birdbath Lewis Freedman Lewis Freedman Lamont Johnson Beginning to End Lewis Freedman Lewis Freedman Lewis Freedman Enemies Lewis Freedman Lewis Freedman Fielder Cook Neighbors Lewis Freedman Lewis Freedman Fielder Cook The Standwells: About Love Lewis Freedman Lewis Freedman Lewis Freedman Young Marrieds at Play Lewis Freedman Lewis Freedman Daniel Petrie The Picture Lewis Freedman Lewis Freedman Lucian Pintilie Two by Chekhov Lewis Freedman Lewis Freedman Robert Hopkins The Scarecrow Lewis Freedman Lewis Freedman Boris Sagal Awake and Sing Lewis Freedman Norman Lloyd Robert Hopkins Invitation to a March Lewis Freedman Norman Lloyd and Norman Lloyd Marvin Chomsky Another Part of the Forest Lewis Freedman Norman Lloyd Daniel Mann Shadow of a Gunman Lewis Freedman Norman Lloyd Joseph Hardy 356 (Continued) Executive Play Title___________ Producer________ Producer Director Carola Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd Winesburg, Ohio Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd Ralph Senensky Steambath Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd Burt Brinkerhoff Man of Destiny Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd Joseph Hardy Me Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd and Gardner McKay George Turpin and Allan Muir Incident at Vichy Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd Stacy Keach The Carpenters Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd and Norman Lloyd George Turpin Gondola Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd Paul Stanley Double Solitaire Norman Lloyd Martin Manulis Paul Bogart The Sty of the Blind Pig Norman Lloyd George Turpin Ivan Dixon Nourish the Beast Norman Lloyd George Turpin Norman Lloyd The Chinese Prime Minister Norman Lloyd George Turpin Brian Murray and George Turpin The Lady's Not for Burning Norman Lloyd George Turpin Joseph Hardy For the Use of the Hall Norman Lloyd George Turpin Lee Grant and Rick Bennewitz Requiem for a Nun Norman Lloyd George Turpin Larry Yust The Ladies of the Corridor Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd Robert Stevens Knuckle Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd The Ashes of Mrs. Reasoner Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd Peter Levin The Hemingway Play Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd Don Taylor The Last of Mrs. Lincoln Norman Lloyd George Schaefer George Schaefer Six Characters in Search of an Author Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd Stacy Keach The Fatal Weakness Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd Philemon Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd u 01 *4 APPENDIX B LIST OF INTERVIEWEES 358 Name Title and Organization Interview Date(s) James Loper President and General Manager, 11-22-74, 12-5-75, Station KCET and 3-26-76 Charles Allen Vice-President for Programming, 2-19-75, 12-3-75, Station KCET 2-4-76, and 8-16-76 Hillary MacKendrick Assistant to the Producer, Hollywood Television Theatre 3-20-75 Douglas Norberg Senior Vice-President, Station KCET 3-25-75 and 4-1-75 Norman Lloyd Executive Producer, Hollywood Television Theatre 4-4-75 and 4-11-75 George Turpin Supervisory Producer, Hollywood Television Theatre 4-21-75 Boris Sagal John Yingling Director 5-22-75 Production Manager, Station KCET 6-3-75 David Davis Program Officer, Office of Com munication, Ford Foundation 6-25-75 Joseph Hardy Director 7-14-75 Rick Bennewitz Crew Member and Co-Director 7-16-75 Glenn Jordan Director 7-17-75 George Schaefer Director 8-5-75 Everett Anderson Chief Engineer, Station KCET 10-6-75 and 1-20-76 James Mead Video Engineer, Station KCET 10-8-75 Ralph Senensky Director 11-21-75 Florence Parise Administrative Assistant to the General Manager, Station KCET 3-26-76 Daniel Petrie Director 0 4-9-76 U 1 <0 APPENDIX C SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRES 360 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS (Allen and Loper II— Based on Interviews to November 1, 1975) (L = Loper) A. Historical Development of HTT 1. Data needed from files: production dates and program lengths of all HTT plays; first air dates (KCET and/or PBS); missing producers and directors; audience analysis data; elipping- review file, 2. Referring to the chart of annual HTT airings and the list of plays, what "landmark" events can you describe that illustrate changes in organization, operation, budgeting, etc.? For example, the 1971-1972 season had many more plays than others, due primarily to use of acquisitions, production carry-overs from previous years, etc. 3. Comment on early problems of getting actors and directors to work for scale (Is HTT a telethon?). B. Administration/Organization of HTT (L) 1. Describe the grant submission and reporting procedure to Ford. What is included? As you can remember, how did these negotiations progress each year? 2. Describe any changes in obligations to Ford. For example, off-shelf or acquisitions (Christmas, Bread and Puppet Theater) were previously permissible in order to fill out a schedule. 3. Describe the problem with Ford Foundation in having to air/release in same fiscal year as production as related to grant funding. What kind of problem and how resolved? (L) 4. Describe change in funding for HTT (Ford to CPB/Ford to Station Coop). (L) 5. According to D. Davis, Ford Foundation checked the budget (especially in the early years) to insure compatibility with established NET 361 (L = Loper) policies on payments for properties, actors, etc. Any problems and how resolved? (e.g., some problems with cost accounting system.) (L) 6. How autonomous is HTT regarding expenditures? How do you guarantee that HTT will stay in budget (for the year)? How are budgetary disagreements resolved (e.g., Birdbath filming in NY)? What happens if overspending in some area (set on Ladies of the Corridor)? 7. In what form and in how much detail is budget information provided HTT after grant is awarded? Are station costs subtracted first and they get a "net" total for all other costs, or do other charge-backs develop during a given production or during the year? (L) 8. Have the continued requirements of HTT for extensive station support had any effect on station organization? (e.g., Senior Vice- President instead of Programming and Engineer ing to Loper.) (L) 9. From your knowledge, describe how any differ ences between HTT and station on expenditures have been resolved. 10. Describe the different distribution-packaging techniques used for HTT (e.g., "Conflicts*’— one hour plays plus other long specials that year). 11. Describe different arrangements regarding rights to plays (reruns) and renewals of rights (always four runs in three years). (L) 12. Describe any problems of distribution (station reactions to Steambath, for example— really two versions?); problems with PBS (cutting length of plays as in Lady's Not for Burning). How resolved? C. Elements in the Production Process 1. Describe your role, if any, in the selection of plays. Any differences of opinion with Lewis or Norman— how resolved? (L) 2. What is your analysis of the problems of acquir ing properties (e.g., availability of good scripts, budget limitations, differences between 362 (L = Loper) Lewis' and Norman's selection of types of plays— classic or experimental). (L) 3. Compare Lewis' and Norman’s approaches to tele vision production— latter from film ("cuts a picture"— feature film). What effect, if any, on facilities use? (L) 4. Describe the problem of using "theatrical" directors, co-directors, and directors experi enced in television (Use of the Hall, Me). (L) 5. How do you feel about the Executive Producer also acting as producer and sometimes even directing? Is this too much? What has been the result? _ 6. Can you compare how different directors have organized and planned to make most efficient use of time in studio? Or does this concept interfere with creativity? 7. Why has HTT used two lighting people— outside consultant-designer and station lighting director? D. Elements in the Production Environment 1. Philosophy and operational method of Executive Producer: (L) a. Can you comment on the apparent difference between Lewis' and Norman's approaches as Executive Producers: Lewis seemed to be "laissez faire," while Norman is more per sonally involved at every step. Difference in background (film vs TV)? Also differences in scheduling facilities in relation to other station needs. b. Expand on your comment that L.F. felt the art of producing was the art of postpone ment. c. Why the big delay between Andersonville and the next production? d. Describe the change over from L.F. to N.L. Was it a serious situation or not? Did L.F. "hang on?" Why didn't Norman want to do Winesburg? 363 (L = Loper) e. Compare Norman and Lewis regarding how they organized for production. Evidently some problems when run overtime— short turn around for crew (Montserrat); also budget overruns on one show and how that made up later. 2. Production Control (L) a. Comment on maintaining a balance between producer control and director autonomy- creativity. 3. Facilities-Studio Capability (L) a. How has equipment and studio capability affected production (particularly earlier on Vine)? Some examples: USA needed more space; editing error on Typists. Did HTT somehow take KCET unaware? 4. Personnel Matters (L) a. Evidently station personnel have gained much experience over the years and abil ities have improved so that production problems have decreased. Also able to hire more experienced personnel. Can you docu ment (verbally) instances of this? b. Comment on competition of "the best" crew among shows. c. What process is used to solve personnel problems? (Bill Walker-TD.) 5. Production Management Factors a. Comment on any production delays caused by delays in hearing about final grant budget and play selection or final deal on a play. b. Competition for studio space and facilities among shows. (L) 6. Define HTT E. Establishment of HTT (L) 1. I have documented the following reasons for establishment of HTT, or factors surrounding the establishment of HTT: 364 (L « (L) Loper) a. Lewis wanted to continue the WNET (WNDT) New York Television Theater project. b. Growing out of* Carnegie Report, Ford wanted to get more qualified people into PTV. c. Freedman was "available" (Davis). d. HTT was Freedman's original idea (Davis), as an idea to build PTV's audience (August, 1969 letter to Ford). e. Ford wanted to expand PTV's production facilities. Can you add or clarify or comment? 2. How did you attract Lewis to KCET? 3. Can you describe the sequence of events in getting HTT established (how idea was developed essentially between August 1969 and Winter 1970 when Andersonville was in production). 365 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS (Directors) Introduction A. Background and nature of study— unpublished doctoral dissertation; use audio tape; will maintain partial or complete anonymity— project is investigating establishment, develop ment , and production process and environment of Hollywood Television Theatre. B. Your present assignment, association, or title. Production Environment and Process 1. Briefly describe your background and experience in television (what you consider most important). 2. Describe how you were selected to direct for HTT (were you previously associated with it, etc.). 3. At what point did you enter the production process? What had already been established? (Budget, script, talent, erew.) 4. What elements did you determine? 5. What was the nature of your assignment? (Direct actors and from booth, call shots, etc.) What were your responsibilities? 6. Describe the production process you used (scheduling, planning, blocking, rehearsals, final production, editing, etc.). 7. Were there any unique production problems? How were they solved? 8. How did you perceive the responsibilities of others? (Freedman as producer, Parke Perine as Associate Director, Edith Hamlin as Executive Supervisor, production crew, KCET management.) 9. Job instructions: (1) What did you need to know about station policies, procedures, and opera tions in order to do your job properly? (2) Did you get that information? How? (3) If you did not get some necessary information, what happened? 366 10. Where did meetings or conferences to discuss elements of production take place? Why in that location? What was the nature of the meetings? 11. Describe the communication channels used in the production process (paper work, meetings, discussions). 12. How much autonomy did you have on your Job? 13. Were you ever not told "the real story" during the production of the program? 14. Do you believe that planning, preparation, and rehearsal time was adequate? If not, in what way? 15. Was there any aspect of the production that particularly pleased or annoyed you? and Management Describe the budgeting process for your pro duction. Was the budget adequate? What kinds of budgetary problems arose? How solved? Was there any change of staff during the pro duction that created or solved problems? Evaluation What is your personal evaluation of HTT: 1. As a project 2. Your particular programs 3. Specific practices Fiscal 1. 2. 3. 367 APPENDIX D SAMPLE LETTER TO INTERVIEWEES 368 4352 Vista Place La Canada California 91011 July 3, 1975 Mr. Ralph Senensky c/o International-Creative Management 9255 Sunset Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90069 Dear Mr. Senensky: Because you have been a director for Hollywood Tele vision Theatre, I would appreciate your assistance in my doctoral study on that subject. I am completing a Ph.D. in Communication at the University of Southern California and have been an administrator and producer- direetor in educational television for thirteen years. The idea for research about HTT emerged from two similar studies at U.S.C., on Then Came Bronson and "The Senator" segment of The Bold Ones. Jim Loper and the staffs of KCET and HTT are also being most supportive of the project. Briefly, my study will describe the establishment, development, and production process of Hollywood Tele vision Theatre. As the director of "Winesburg, Ohio*1 your knowledge and insights about the series will make the study more meaningful. Enclosed are some questions that I have developed. For your convenience, I will plan to telephone your office in about a week to set up an interview; I would need approximately an hour of your time. In the interest of accuracy, I have been audio taping all interviews, and will maintain partial or total anonymity at your request. Also enclosed is a copy of my academic and profes sional resume to provide you with information about my background. Your help in this project will be appreciated, as we all believe the study can be a valuable contribution to the literature of broadcasting. Sincerely, (signed) Donel W. Price 369 APPENDIX E HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE PROGRAM LENGTHS, PRODUCTION SEASONS, AND AIR DATES Year Play Title Program Length Production Season Air Date 1969-70 The Andersonville Trial 2:28:49 Spring 1970 May 1970 1970-71 Big Fish, Little Fish 2:29:24 Winter'70-71 January 1971 Montserrat 1:58:30 Winter'70-71 March 1971 Poet Game 1:58:02 Spring 1971 April 1971 U.S.A. 2:26:39 Spring 1971 May 1971 1971-72 The Typists 58:49 Fall 1971 October 1971 The Police 59:32 Fall 1971 Oetober 1971 Lemonade 29:26 Fall 1971 October 1971 Birdbath 58:42 Fall 1971 October 1971 Beginning to End 58:49 Fall 1971 November 1971 Enemies 58:45 Fall 1971 November 1971 Neighbors 58:44 Fall 1971 November 1971 The Standwells: About Love 57:39 Fall 1971 November 1971 Young Marrieds at Play 58:41 Fall 1971 December 1971 The Picture 58:43 Fall 1971 December 1971 Two by Chekhov 58:24 Winter'71-72 January 1972 The Scarecrow 1:58:55 Winter'71-72 January 1972 Awake and Sing 1:58:32 Winter'71-72 March 1972 Invitation to a March 1:58:54 Spring 1972 May 1972 371 (Continued) Year Play Title Program Length Production Season Air Date 1972-73 Another Part of the Forest 2:28:49 Spring 1972 October 1972 Shadow of a Gunman 1:28:58 Fall 1972 December 1972 Carola 1:59:06 Winter'72-73 February 1973 Winesburg, Ohio 1:29:25 Winter'72-73 March 1973 Steambath 1:28:40 Spring 1973 April 1973 1973-74 Man of Destiny 59:19 Fall 1973 November 1973 Me 58:45 Fall 1973 November 1973 Incident at Vichy 1:29:26 Fall 1973 December 1973 The Carpenters 1:14:00 Fall 1973 December 1973 Gondola 59:32 Winter'73-74 January 1974 Double Solitaire 1:15:00 Winter'73-74 January 1974 The Sty of the Blind Pig 1:29:18 Spring 1974 May 1974 Nourish the Beast 2:08:56 Spring 1974 June 1974 1974-75 The Chinese Prime Minister 1:29:09 Fall 1974 October 1974 The Lady’s Not for Burning 1:57:17 Fall 1974 November 1974 For the Use of the Hall 1:28:19 Winter’74-75 January 1975 Requiem for a Nun 1:28:42 Winter'74-75 February 1975 The Ladies of the Corridor 1:58:35 Spring 1975 April 1975 Knuckle 1:58:58 Spring 1975 June 1975 372 (Continued Program Production Length Season Air Date 28:48 29:00 59:12 1:28:30 1:54:05 (Approx. 90 minutes) Fall 1975 Fall 1975 Fall 1975 January 1976 March 1976 September 1976 Winter'75-76 September 1976 Spring 1976 September 1976 Spring 1976 October 1976 Year Play Title 1975-76 The Ashes of Mrs. Reasoner The Hemingway Play 1976-77 The Last of Mrs. Lincoln Six Characters in Search of an Author The Fatal Weakness Philemon w -vj c 4 APPENDIX F DRAMATIC FORM, SUBJECT MATTER, AND THEMES OF HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE PLAYS 374 Play Title Dramatic Form Subject Matter Theme The Andersonville Trial Historical American scene— past Conscience, war, and revolution Big Fish, Little Fish Comedy American scene— present Interpersonal relationships Montserrat Historical Foreign scene— past Conscience, war, and revolution Poet Game Domestic tragedy Foreign scene— present Search for mean ing in life U.S.A. Musical drama American scene— past Varied The Typists Comedy American scene— present Search for mean ing in life The Police Satire Imaginative- fictitious Conscience, war, and revolution Lemonade Naturalistic American scene— present Search for mean ing in life Birdbath Naturalistic American scene— present Interpersonal relationships Beginning to End Satire(Theatre of the Absurd) Imaginative- fictitious Varied Enemies Comedy American scene— present Interpersonal relationships Neighbors Naturalistic American scene— present Race relations 375 (Continued) 376 Play Title Dramatic Form Subject Matter Theme The Standwells: About Love Experimental Varied Love The Bread and Puppet Theatre Experimental Varied Interpersonal relationships Young Marrieds at Play Comedy American scene— present Search for mean ing in life The Picture Farce Foreign scene— past Search for mean ing in life The Plot to Overthrow Christinas Experimental Imaginative- fictitious Varied Day of Absence Satire American scene— present Civil rights, prejudice Two by Chekhov Realistic Foreign scene-past Interpersonal relationships The Scarecrow Tragicomedy American scene— past Love Awake and Sing Domestic tragedy American scene— past Prejudice Invitation to a March Comedy American scene— present Search for mean ing in life Another Part of the Forest Domestic tragedy American scene— past Greed and ambition Shadow of a Gunman Tragicomedy Foreign scene— past Conscience and revolution Carola Realistic Foreign scene— past Conscience and war (Continued) Play Title Dramatic Form Sub.iect Matter Theme Winesburg, Ohio Domestic tragedy American scene— past Search for mean ing in life Steambath Comedy Imaginative- fictitious Search for mean ing in life Man of Destiny Historical Foreign scene— past Greed and ambition Me Domestic tragedy American scene— present Love Incident at Vichy Realistic Foreign scene— past Conscience and war The Carpenters Domestic Tragedy American scene— present Search for mean ing in life Gondola Naturalistic American scene— present Civil rights, race relations Double Solitaire Realistic American scene— present Search for mean ing in life The Sty of the Blind Pig Realistic American scene— present Civil rights Nourish the Beast Comedy American scene— present Search for mean ing in life The Chinese Prime Minister Comedy American scene— present Search for mean ing in life The Lady's Not for Burning Comedy Foreign scene— past Search for mean ing in life 377 (Continued) Play Title Dramatic Form Subject Matter Theme For the Use of the Hall Comedy American scene— present Search for mean ing in life Requiem for a Nun Domestic tragedy American scene— present Civil rights, race relations The Ladies of the Corridor Tragicomedy American scene— past Search for mean ing in life Knuckle Realistic American scene— present Greed and ambition The Chicago Conspiracy Trial Realistic American scene— present Civil rights Shakespeare Wallah Realistic Foreign scene— present Interpersonal relationships Wanda Realistic American scene— present Searching for meaning in life The Ashes of Mrs. Reasoner Comedy American scene— present Love The Hemingway Play Historical American scene— past Interpersonal relationships The Last of Mrs. Lincoln Historical American scene— past Interpersonal relationships Six Characters in Search of an Author Experimental Imaginative- fictitious Search for mean ing in life Actor Historical American scene— past Interpersonal relationships w The Master Builder 'j 00 Naturalistic * Foreign scene— past Love APPENDIX G HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE BUDGET FORM 379 Production Date Number Executive Producer Producer Director ABOVE-THE-LINE Category Estimate TALENT: Cast Cast Buyout (U.S.) / Extras Pension and Welfare 6.5% Payroll Taxes Agent Commission 10% Per Diem RIGHTS EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: Assistant Payroll Taxes 8.7% PRODUCER: Secretary Payroll Taxes 8.7% DIRECTOR: P & W 6.5% Payroll Taxes 8.7% Agent Commission 10% Per Diem WRITER: Payroll Taxes 8.7% ASSOCIATE PRODUCER: Secretary Payroll Taxes 8.7% CASTING DIRECTOR: Expenses Payroll Taxes 8.7% Actual 380 Category Estimate Actual CASTING SECRETARY: Payroll Taxes 8.7% PRODUCTION ASSISTANT: Payroll Taxes 8.7% ART DIRECTOR: Assistant Art Director Payroll Taxes 8.7% COSTUME DESIGNER: PRODUCTION TRAINEE: Payroll Taxes 8.7% LOGO: LEGAL: PUBLICITY: MUSIC: Director Rights Arrangers Copyists Musicians Recording Facility P & W 6.5% Payroll Taxes 8.7% Music Expenses MISC: Expenses TOTAL: ABOVE-THE-LINE 381 Production Date Numb er____________ Executive Producer Pro due er__________ Director BELOW-THE-LINE Category Estimate SCENERY: Outside Construction Materials Rentals Labour Payroll Taxes 8.7% PROPS: Rental Buy Expenses Labour Payroll Taxes 8.7% WARDROBE: Rental Buy Expenses Labour Payroll Taxes 8.7% MAKE-UP: Rental Buy— Supplies Labour Payroll Taxes 8.7% GRAPHIC ARTS: Material Labour LIGHTING DESIGNER: Fee Expenses SPECIAL EFFECTS: AUDIO EFFECTS: Actual 382 Category Estimate Actual PRODUCTION PERSONNEL (Additional): Payroll Taxes 8.7% EQUIPMENT RENTAL: Camera and Audio Lighting PRODUCTION COST (KCET BILLING): POSTPRODUCTION COST (KCET BILLING): OTHER COSTS: Trucking Rehearsal Halls, Equipment * Coffee, Ete. Script Mimeo Film Cost Audio Dubs Temporary Secretary Shipping and Freight Messengers Catering Car Rentals Telephone Stationery and Printing Photography CONTINGENCY: 10% BELOW-THE-LINE TOTAL: ABOVE-THE-LINE TOTAL: GRAND TOTAL: 383 APPENDIX H EXAMPLES OF HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE BUDGETS FOR 'THE ANDERSONVILLE TRIAL” AND "BIG FISH, LITTLE FISH" 384 HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE PRODUCTION BUDGET REPORT ANDERSONVILLE TRIAL Budget Final Cost ABOVE-THE-LINE Talent including benefits, taxes, and agent fees $22,657 $25,446 Rights (Note 1) 3,500 3,500 Director including benefits, DGA fee, and agent fees taxes, 3,402 3,555 Per Diem 4 weeks @ $750, Air Fare Round Trip NYC 00 to 3,000 LA 374 3,000 375 Associate Producer 3,052 3,267 Casting Director 500 500 Production Assistants and Secretary- 999 3,668 Art Director Expenses 2,900 200 2,000 29 Costume Designer Expenses 1,160 200 1,000 - 0- Assistant Director 1,879 2,181 Opening Segment -0- 1,276 Legal - 0- 850 Music Director and Music 250 952 Expenses— All Other 1,000 3,687 TOTAL ABOVE-THE-LINE $45,073 $55,286 385 HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE PRODUCTION BUDGET REPORT ANDERSONVILLE TRIAL Budget Final Cost BELOW-THE-LINE Scenery Materials and Labor $ 5,000 $ 8,419 Props 600 863 Unit Prop Man and Expenses 796 -0- Wardrobe and Make-Up 1,700 6,719 Graphic Arts 100 269 Lighting Director 1,110 1,000 Sound Effects 300 -0- Production 34,058 37,759 Postproduetion 10,000 10,228 Other Costs: Trucking Rehearsal halls, coffee, etc. Script mimeo Shipping and Freight Car Rental Messengers Telephone Photography Contingency 750 200 300 200 500 100 300 500 5,079 292 31 406 181 876 60 1,019 111 -0- TOTAL BELOW-THE-LINE $61,593 $68,233 TOTAL ABOVE-THE-LINE 45,073 55,286 Overhead and rounding error (Note 2) 12,534 15,158 TOTAL COST $119,200 $138,677 Note 1. European Buy-out not paid— may be later date. paid at Note 2. Overhead is computed at 20 per cent on all above items excluding in-house production and postproduction charges. 386 HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE PRODUCTION BUDGET REPORT BIG FISH, LITTLE FISH Budget ABOVE-THE-LINE Talent including benefits, taxes, and agent fees $ 8,089 Final Cost $ 7,429 Rights 5,000 5,000 Director including benefits and agent fees 3,402 3,321 Associate Producer 8 weeks 4,274 4,752 Casting Director 500 500 Production Assistant and Secretary 833 3,146 Art Director 2,000 2,000 Costume Designer 1,000 1,000 Opening Segment -0- 1,001 Music 250 50 Expenses— All Other 1,000 1,089 TOTAL ABOVE-THE-LINE COSTS $26,348 $29,288 387 HOLLYWOOD TELEVISION THEATRE PRODUCTION BUDGET REPORT BIG FISH, LITTLE FISH Budget Final Cost BELOW-THE-LINE Scenery Materials and Labor $ 6,000 $ 7,691 Props and Prop Man 1,760 2,190 Wardrobe and Make-up 750 2,378 Graphic Arts 100 40 Lighting Director 1,000 1,082 Sound Effects -0- -0- Production 33,924 33,170 Postproduction 9,519 14,171 Other Costs: Trucking 200 134 Rehearsal halls, coffee, etc. 30 153 Script Mimeo 300 273 Film Cost— Motion Pics and Stills -0- -0- Shipping and Freight 200 29 Car Rental 257 515 Messengers 50 147 Telephone 100 391 Photography 500 177 Contingency 4,050 -0- TOTAL BELOW-THE-LINE $58,740 $62,541 TOTAL ABOVE-THE-LINE 26,348 29,288 Overhead 8,412 8,750 TOTAL COST $93,500 $100,579 388 APPENDIX I PURCHASE AGREEMENT FORM FOR DRAMATIC PROPERTIES 389 PURCHASE AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, dated this __ day of____________ , 19? , by and between (herein referred to as Owner" and COMMUNITY TELEVISION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a nonprofit corporation which operates Channel 28, Station KCET, Los Angeles, California (herein referred to as "Purchaser”). Owner is the sole owner throughout the world of all rights (except as herein expressly provided) in and to the literary work (herein called the "Work") described as follows: TITLEj_________________________________________ WRITTEN BYj________________________ ; ___________ • ' FIRST PUBLISHER: DATE AND PLACE OF FIRST PUBLICATION: U.S. COPYRIGHT REGISTRATIONj__________________ The parties hereto have agreed as folbws: 1. As used herein, the following terms shall have the meaning assigned: (a) The term "the Program" shall mean the tele vision production, including all pre recordings, broadcasts and recordings thereof, of the Work. (b) The term "performance of the play" and/or "pre-recording," "recording," or "record ings" shall include reproductions of the Program by means of electronic recording, motion picture film or any other means of permanently capturing the moving image of the Work and/or the Program for subsequent reproduction, but limited to the uses provided below. (c) A "use" or a "release” is defined as an unlimited number of broadcast and rebroad casts of the Program during a seven consecu tive day period on each non-commercial 390 public broadcasting station and educational station in the U.S., its territories and possessions. 2. Owner hereby grants to Purchaser the follow ing rights for the use of the Work: (a) The exclusive right and license to produce and record the Work, in whole or in part, for broadcast over facilities of KCET, to release the same, and to make or license others to make changes and revisions in the Work in order to adapt it for television production. In the event any person, firm or corporation makes unauthorized changes, Purchaser shall not be responsible therefor, but Owner may pursue his remedy against any such person direetly. (b) The right to release the Program four times during the "Term” which is defined as the period commencing from the date of the first release or from _________________ , 197___, whichever date shall be first, and expiring ___________________________________. (c) The right to produce one or more recordings of the Program, but only for use in the manner, for the period and by the means specified in this Agreement. (d) The right to use and to grant others the right to use the name of the Work, a synopsis thereof, the Owner's name and biography for the purpose of publicizing the Program. (e) The right for KCET to authorize, in direct connection with local television broadcast or rebroadcast, in school use over limited frequency broadcast and institutional closed circuit and instructional transmission sys tem for classroom teaching purposes only. (f) The right to publish and copyright the Program in the name of the Purchaser. 3. All right, title and interest in the Program shall vest solely and exclusively in Purchaser, and any or all such rights, licenses and properties may be used 391 by Purchaser simultaneously with or separately and apart from the exercise of any other of said rights, license and property. 4. Owner agrees not to exercise, authorize or permit broadcast or exhibition of the Work in any form or version over any other television station in the United States during the Term. 5. Other than as set forth herein, Owner reserves all its title and interest in the Work, with the right to use, license and dispose of same as Owner shall determine. From the date of this Agreement, Owner shall not grant a license for television outside the United States. 6. Owner shall be accorded visual credit on the Program as the author of the Work. No casual or inad vertent failure to afford such credit shall constitute a breach of this Agreement. 7. As full and complete consideration for all of the rights herein granted or assigned to Purchaser, and for the representation and warranties of the Owner hereunder, Purchaser agrees to pay to Owner, and Owner agrees to accept the following: (a) The sum of _________ (less any sums here tofore paid' to Owner""pursuant to the Option Agreement, if any) to purchase the rights to the Work granted hereunder, _______ of the sum being for the rights granted in paragraph 2 herein, and,__________ for the additional grant of the exclusive, unlimited right to sell, distribute, transmit, tele vise, broadcast or otherwise make use of the Program throughout the world outside the United States. 8 . Owner hereby represents and warrants that: (a) Owner is the sole owner of the Work and any and all rights therein (except as herein expressly provided otherwise), including, without limitation, all rights in the Work granted to Purchaser hereunder; and the Owner has full right, power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to grant to Purchaser all of the rights herein provided for. 392 (b) There are no claims pending or threatened which could in any way impair the rights herein granted. (c) Except as expressly provided herein, Work has not been published, copyrighted or registered for copyright. (d) The full use of the Work, or any part thereof, as herein granted, will not in any way violate or infringe upon any copyright (common law or statutory) belonging to any person, firm or corporation, or constitute libel or defamation of, or an invasion of the rights of privacy of, or otherwise violate any other rights whatsoever of any person, firm or corporation. Owner agrees to indemnify Purchaser and all persons who, pursuant to rights granted Purchaser under this Agreement are licensed or otherwise acquire the right to use or reuse the Work, against any liability, loss, cost, or expense, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from any judgment holding that Owner has breached the foregoing war ranties or representations. Purchaser shall indemnify Owner against any liability, loss, cost or expense, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from any judgment against Owner resulting from any material added to or supplied to the Work by Pur chaser or from any use of the Work by Purchaser or any licensee, successor or assignee not authorized or permitted here under. 9. Owner hereby grants Purchaser the right, but at Purchaser's own cost and expense, to institute in the name and on behalf of the Owner, Purchaser, or Owner and Purchaser jointly, any suit to enjoin any infringement, and hereby assigns to Purchaser any recoveries obtained in such action. 10. With respect to copyright in the Work, Owner agrees that: (a) Owner will prevent the Work, any revisions, translations, novelizations or dramatiza tions thereof, whether published or unpub lished, from vesting in the public domain. 393 (b) Owner will renew such copyright (or if not entitled to do so, Owner will cause same to be renewed), and any rights granted Pur chaser hereunder shall be deemed granted to Purchaser throughout the full period of such renewed copyright, without payment of additional consideration therefor, it being agreed that consideration payable to the Owner under this Agreement shall be deemed to include full and complete consideration for the grant of such rights to Purchaser. 11. Owner will duly execute, acknowledge and deliver to Purchaser or cause to be executed, acknowl edged, and delivered to Purchaser, in form approved by Purchaser, any further assignments or instruments which Purchaser may reasonably and lawfully deem necessary or proper to effectuate the purpose of this Agreement. 12. Nothing herein shall be construed to obligate Purchaser to produce, record or broadcast a Program, or otherwise make use of any rights, licenses or property herein granted to Purchaser. 13. Purchaser may assign and transfer this Agreement or all or any part of its rights hereunder to any person, firm or corporation without limitation, and this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors, representatives and assigns, forever; provided, how ever, that any assignment or transfer of this Agreement as a whole shall not relieve Purchaser of its obliga tions hereunder unless the assignee or transferee shall assume said obligations in writing and a copy of said executed assumption agreement is sent to Owner. 14. This Agreement, including all of the fore going provisions and all exhibits made a part hereof, expresses the entire understanding and agreement of the parties hereto and replaces any and all prior agree ments or understandings, whether written or oral, relating in any way to the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement cannot be modified, amended or supplemented except by a written instrument or instruments executed by each of the parties hereto. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California applicable to agreements entered into and to be fully performed therein. 394 15. ADDITIONAL CLAUSES. The additional clauses, if any, set forth below the signatures of the parties hereto are incorporated herein and are a part of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. PURCHASER: OWNER: COMMUNITY TELEVISION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (Channel 28, KCET) By _______________________ 4400 Sunset Drive Los Angeles, California 90027 ADDITIONAL CLAUSES 395 APPENDIX J REHEARSAL AND RECORDING SCHEDULE FOR “U.S.A." "U.S.A." KCET—-STUDIO B 1313 North Vine Street (at Fountain) 466-4212 SATURDAY, FEB. 20, 1971 3:00 - 6:30 READING OF PLAY Players A,B,C,D,E,F SUNDAY, FEB. 21, 1971 9:30 - 10:45 BLOCK "B" Players A,B,D,E,F 10:45 - 11:30 BLOCK "C" Players A,B,C,D,E,F 11:30 - 12:15 BLOCK "E" (part 2) Players B,C,D,E,F 12:15 - 1:30 BLOCK "F" Players B,C,D,£,F 1:30 - 2:30 LUNCH 2:30 — 3:45 BLOCK "J" Players A,B,C,D,E,F 3:45 - 4:30 BLOCK "D" Players A>B,C 4:30 - 5:30 BLOCK "G" Players A,B,C,E,F 397 "U.S.A." REHEARSAL SCHEDULE Page 2 KCET— STUDIO B 1313 North Vine Street ' (at Fountain) 466-4212 MONDAY, FEB. 22, 1971 9:30 - 10:15 BLOCK "M" Players A,B,C,D,E 10:15 - 11:30 BLOCK "P" Players A,B,C,D,E 11:30 - 1:00 BLOCK "H" Players A,B,C,D,E,F 1:00 - 2:00 LUNCH 2:00 - 3:00 BLOCK "QM Players A,B,C,D,E,F 3:00 - 3:15 BLOCK "K” Player D 3:15 - 4:00 BLOCK "0" Player F 4:00 - 4:45 BLOCK ”L,” "N” Player C 4:45 - 5:30 BLOCK »I" (and Debs) Players A,B TUESDAY, FEB. 23, 1971 DAY OFF 398 "U.S.A.” REHEARSAL SCHEDULE Page 3 KCET— STUDIO B 1313 North Vine Street (at Fountain) 466-4212 WEDNESDAY, FEB. 24, 1971 9:30 - 11:30 REHEARSE SCENE LINES LEARNED "B" Players A,F,E, and D,B 11:30 - 1:00 REHEARSE SCENE LINES LEARNED "D" Players A,B,C 1:00 - 2:00 LUNCH 2:00 - 3:15 REHEARSE SCENE LINES LEARNED "E" (part Players D,E,B,C, and F 3:15 - 5:30 REHEARSE »F" (part 2) LINES LEARNED - ____ Players F,D,B,C, and E 399 THURSDAY„ FEB. 25, 1971 9:30 - 11:00 11:00 - 1:00 1:00 - 2:00 2:00 - 3:30 3:30 - 5:00 5:00 - 6:00 ■ s a . w REHEARSAL* SCHEDULE Page 4 KCET— STUDIO B 1313 North Vine Street (at Fountain) 466-4212 REHEARSE SCENE "G" LINES LEARNED Players A,F,C,E, and B REHEARSE SCENE "J“ LINES LEARNED Players B,C,D,F,A, and E LUNCH REHEARSE SCENE "M" LINES LEARNED Players A,B,C,D,E REHEARSE SCENE "P" LINES LEARNED Players C,D,A,B, and E REHEARSE SCENE "Q" LINES LEARNED Players A,C,B,F,D, and E 400 FRIDAY, FEB. 26, 1971 9:30 - 10:30 10:30 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:00 1:00 - 2:00 2:00 - 3:00 3:00 - 4:00 4:00 - 4:15 4:15 - 4:45 4:45 - 6:00 "U.S.A." REHEARSAL SCHEDULE Page 5 KCET— STUDIO B 1313 North Vine Street (at Fountain) 466-4212 REHEARSE SCENE HCH LINES LEARNED Players A,B,C,D,E,F REHEARSE SCENE “H" LINES LEARNED Players AjB,C,D,E,F REHEARSE SCENE "B" LINES LEARNED Players A,B,C,D,E»F LUNCH REHEARSE SCENE ”0" Player F REHEARSE SCENE *'L,M "N," "F" (part 1-Camera Eye) Player C REHEARSE SCENE “K” Player D REHEARSE SCENE "I," "E“ (part 1 - D e b s ) ______ Player A DANCE REHEARSAL Players A,B,C,D,E,F 401 SATURDAY, FEB. 27, 1971 9:30 - 11:15 11:15 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:30 1:30 - 2:30 2:30 - 4:30 4:30 - 6:00 "U.S.A.” REHEARSAL SCHEDULE Page 6 KCET— STUDIO B 1313 North Vine Street (at Fountain) 466-4212 POLISH SCENE »B" Players A,F,E and D,B POLISH "D" Players A,B,C POLISH SCENE ”E» (part 2) Players D,E,B,C and F LUNCH POLISH SCENE "F” (part 2) Players F,D,B,C and E DANCE REHEARSAL Players A,B,C,D,E,F 402 "U.S.A." REHEARSAL SCHEDULE Page 7 KCET— STUDIO B 1313 North Vine Street (at Fountain) 466-4212 SUNDAY, FEB. 28, 1971 9:30 - 10:45 POLISH SCENE "G" Players A,F,C,E and B 10:45 - 12:30 POLISH "J" Players B,C,D,F,A and E 12:30 - 1:30 POLISH SCENE "M" Players A,B,C,D,E 1:30 - 2:30 LUNCH 2:30 - 3:45 POLISH SCENE "P" Players C,D,A,B and E £ 01 i 0) o o POLISH SCENE "Q" PLAYERS A,C,B,F,D and E 5:00 - 6:00 RUN ALL NEWSREELS (I thru XI) SPEECHES LEARNED Players A,B,C,D,E,F 403 MONDAY, MARCH 1, 1971 9:30 - 10:30 10:30 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:00 1:00 - 2:00 2:00 - 3:00 3:00 - 4:00 4:00 - 4:15 4:15 - 4:45 4:45 - 6:00 "U.S.A." REHEARSAL SCHEDULE Page 8 KCET— STUDIO B 1313 North Vine Street (at Fountain) 466-4212 POLISH SCENE "C" Players A,B,C,D,E,F POLISH SCENE "H" Players A,B,C,D,E,F POLISH SCENE "R" Players A,B,C,D,E,F LUNCH POLISH SCENE "0" Player F POLISH SCENES "L," "N,” & MF» part 1 (Camera Eye) LINES LEARNED________________ Player C POLISH SCENE "K" . LINES LEARNED Player D POLISH SCENES "I” & ME" part 1 (Debs) LINES LEARNED__________ Player A FINAL DANCE REHEARSAL Players A,B,C,D,E,F 404 "U.S.A." REHEARSAL SCHEDULE Page 9 KCET— STUDIO B 1313 North Vine Street (at Fountain) 466-4212 TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1971 DAY OFF WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 1971 9:30 - 1:00 WORK IN SEQUENCE SCENE "B" THRU NEWSREEL #3 1:00 - 2:00 2:00 - 6:00 Players A,B,C»D,E,F LUNCH WORK IN SEQUENCE SCENE "E" THRU "G" Players A,B,C,D,£,F THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1971 9:30 - 1:00 WORK IN SEQUENCE NEWSREEL #6 THRU SCENE "M" 1:00 - 2:00 2:00 - 6:00 Players A,B,C,D,E,F LUNCH WORK IN SEQUENCE NEWSREEL #10 THRU "R" Players A,B,C,D,E,F 405 "U.S.A.“ REHEARSAL SCHEDULE Page 10 KCET— STUDIO B 1313 North Vine Street (at Fountain) 466-4212 FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 1971 9:30 - 12:00 RUN THRU ENTIRE PLAY Players A,B,C,D,E,F 12:00 - 1:00 LUNCH 1:00 - 4:00 REHEARSAL AS NEEDED Players A,B,C,D,E,F 4:00 - 6:00 RECORDING OF HEADLINES SATURDAY, MARCH 6, 1971 9:30 - 1:00 REHEARSAL AS NEEDED Players A,B,C,D,E,F 1:00 - 2:00 LUNCH 2:00 - 3:00 REHEARSAL AS NEEDED Players A,B,C,D,E,F 3:00 - 5:30 RUN THRU OF ENTIRE PLAY Players A,B,C,D,E,F 406 ’ ’ U.S.A. ” REHEARSAL SCHEDULE Page 11 KCET— STUDIO A 1313 North Vine Street (at Fountain) 466-4212 NOTE: March 7 thru 10 will be on camera. Actual times will be set later in Rehearsal. SUNDAY, MARCH 7. 1971 Block and Stop-and-Go Rehearsal Scenes ”B,»"C."”D,””E.””F,"”G” Players A,B,C,D,E,F MONDAY, MARCH 8 , 1971 Dress Rehearsal and Tape Scenes ”B,””C,""D,"”E,””F,””GM Players A,B,C,D,E,F * * * ■ ♦ Block and Stop-and-Go Scenes ”H, ” ’ ’I, ” ” J, ” "K, M MLt t Players A,B,C,D,E,F TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1971 Dress Rehearsal and Tape Scenes "H,”"I,”"J,”"K,””L” Players A,B,C,D,E,F * * * * Block and Stop-and-Go Scenes ”M, ” ”N, » ”0, ” MP, " ”Q ” Players A,B,C,D,E,F WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1971 Dress Rehearsal and Tape Scenes ”M, " "N, * ”'0, ” "P, ” ”Q ” Players A,B,C,D,E,F * * ♦ * ’ Block Rehearse and Tape Scenes "A,” "R,” Newsreel Players A,B,C,D,E,F 407

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An analysis of the effects of controls imposed on the production environment of a dramatic television series, "The Senator"

PDF

A Description Of The Organization, Production Process, And Production Environment Of A Dramatic Television Series

PDF

A descriptive study of the dramatic function and significance of the clown during Hopi Indian public ceremony

PDF

An analytical study of the dramatic criticism of Joseph Wood Krutch as published in "The Nation", 1924-1952

PDF

Children's understanding of television advertising: The impact of host-selling.

PDF

Children's judgments of the similarity of television series and the similarity of gratifications associated with television series

PDF

An interpretive communication study of images and roles of women in selected situation comedies from 1950-1975

PDF

A historical and analytical study of the advent and development of cinema and motion picture production in Iran (1900 -1965)

PDF

Canaries in the coal mine: Perceptions of threat and media system dependency relations.

PDF

A critical analysis of the society comedies of Henry Churchill De Mille and their contribution to the American theater

PDF

Correlates of children's responses to an affective television and print package designed to reduce sex-role stereotyping

PDF

A study of the "eastern" writer in Hollywood in the 1930's

PDF

A critical study of the screwball comedy film, 1934-1941

PDF

A social cognitive approach to the nature of input processes in reception of nonverbal messages

PDF

A model of the witness communication process

PDF

A structural equivalence and contingency theory perspective on media usage and communication performance: The case of voice messaging

PDF

A historical-critical study of the films of Richard Brooks: With special attention to his problems of achieving and maintaining final decision-control

PDF

A historical study of the stage directing theory and practice of David Belasco

PDF

A critical analysis of the Pennsylvania State University instructional film research program

PDF

Construction validation of the Vocal Behavior Inventory

Asset Metadata

Creator Price, Donel Wayland (author)

Core Title A description of the development, administration, production process, and production environment of the public television dramatic series: "Hollywood Television Theater"

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Communication

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag mass communications,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Smith, Donald (committee chair), [illegible] (committee member), Smith, Wallace A. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-692700

Unique identifier UC11342798

Identifier DP22330.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-692700 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP22330.pdf

Dmrecord 692700

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Price, Donel Wayland

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA