Audience

Without doubt the audience is the most important aspect of any entertainment enterprise. Surprisingly it has two opposite connotations; the first is the most obvious, performers and/or performances must have appeal in order to attract an audience; the second is more subtle, a location will attract performers/ performances in direct proportion to the size of audience made available.

Some would submit that audience translates into gate receipts but this is not always the case. Eventually it is the goal of all performers/ producers to attract a paying audience and get rich and famous as a result but on the way up and on the way down performers will often sacrifice gate receipts for the chance to perform.

Unlike a business enterprise where the leverage of power over business operations is the value determinant, performances are directly affected by the appeal they have in attracting an audience. When one sees the size of the audience Lady Gaga, Madonna, the late Michael Jackson, and a few others of exceptional star quality are able to attract, it is evident that the popularity they have achieved, although incrementally, is not accidental or attributable to luck. It never has been, not for all of the thousands of seekers of stardom. It is, however, the result of a series of organized marketing and production activities that are focused on creating an image that all at the same time entertains, amuses, shocks, and, most of all, allows a large number of people to vicariously participate in the success.

The star becomes the central product of an enterprise comprised of many people in various roles to assure success; much like any other business enterprise. Although it may seem to be an entrourage, it is an organization devoted to the marketing and production of the star performance.

Some attain stardom and lose one or more of the above product attributes and flame out like a comet streaking through the upper atmosphere. Others maintain an appeal for a number of years until finally reaching the end of a product life cycle. That product life cycle may be measured in increments starting at fifteen minutes (everyone’s) of fame and lasting for days, months, years, and even a lifetime. There are durable entertainment stars who remain stars into their eighties, and longer, as did George Burns who lived to be 99 and was booked to do his 100th birthday on stage when he died.

The fact of the matter is that careers have to be managed to produce the results that are desired. These can be measured in terms of fame, riches, acclaim, awards, and perhaps other terms that are important to the careerist. It doesn’t happen by chance.

Who manages a career? The careerist up to a point and then he/she is approached by the next other who sees some possibilities and takes over the management and then another, and another until the big league is reached. Then much of what happens is the result of this management and the success or failure is keyed directly to it. The performer has, by this time, demonstrated some skill and ability in performing and has the potential, desire, and capability to adapt to the demanding requirements of fame.

Acting requires an ability to assume a role so completely that the actor can become that character, saying the lines of the script but living the situation he is in as the character being portrayed. There is no separation between the actor and the character; the actor so completely assumes the role that even his ad lib conversation during the sublimation is as the character and not as the actor.

Is it possible for me, at this late date, to set out on a career path that would approach fame and fortune? "Nothing is impossible," "One cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear," two relevant statements. Often I am too objective in my thinking, too pragmatic for my own good.

I have always had a set of unrealistically high ideals and tried to perform to those ideals. Until now my performances have been in business management and training. I’ve done well but objectively feel that I have performed at the mid level. I O W there are no large audiences following me around paying to see me perform; my business star has faded and become a black hole as far as anyone else is concerned. My training star never made it over the horizon. There is nothing unique, wonderful, different, appealing, or noteworthy about what I think, say, and do in front of an audience. Why is that?

Sometimes I think that G’s mirror is in play, in a way. G’s mirror, as you may recall, is seeing in others what you see in yourself. And when you come across as seeing yourself as having a lack of ability and capability in front of an audience you are discounted, tolerated but dismissed for future consideration.

It could be that if I could see myself as able, capable, engaging, and fully assimilated into the role I am playing; I would attract the attention necessary to create a demand for my performance. It would have to be at the deepest most profound level of my being and not a consciously assumed set of attributes.

As there have been in golf, pool, and riding, moments of euphoric experience when the ball arcs toward the target, the holy grail of pool is achieved—even once, or when the horse and I were as one going over the fences, so too have there been performances that are noteworthy. One for example was a video made at the shipyard to welcome a new IBM executive. I stood in front of the Dorothy and delivered in one exceptional take.

All of these experiences indicate that I have what it takes. What I seem to be missing is repeating the performance consistently and without fail, in other words, professionally. Actually, I have repeated performances on stage more consistently than in any other endeavor. This is what gives me the idea that I can be a stage/film performer.

It is daunting that I have so far to go and I’m starting at such a late date. I was on a roll at Tenneco and it was interrupted in 1988 when the company went into decline. I didn’t have enough self-confidence/ image to reassume a corporate career; in fact, I didn’t know what that was at the time. Then a lack of knowing the business of training caused me to get out of the Executrain franchise. Now I am unsure of what others think of my performances on stage and platform. What to do?

How Long Should I Stay

A foursome finishes their round of golf and heads into the clubhouse where they sit in each other’s company for a while, usually drinking something, and shooting the breeze; then there comes a point when the meeting is over. This is the subject of today.

There seems to inevitably come a point when further association is no longer useful or desirable. This is true in almost every encounter, be it a business meeting or a retail sale. There is nothing further to be gained from continuing to be in each other’s company so the parties part ways. Staying beyond this point can have undesirable consequences for the relationship.

This is a phenomenon of which I am only recently becoming aware but as I reflect on it, it rings true almost to the point of being a postulate. People create opportunities to get into the presence of others by setting appointments, having routines that put them in contact with others, such as breakfast in the same diner, or lunch at a variety of same places, or simply go to public places where they see others as in a business center, mall, or park. There must be something about seeing familiar faces even though not necessarily interacting with them, that is reassuring.

But there is a point beyond which remaining in the presence of or in the location of others becomes uncomfortable and we must move on. In a business situation it approximately an hour, in a social situation it is measured in minutes.

 Almost anyone can recall the social situation where one was in casual conversation with another and it just went on too long or it became obvious that there was nothing left to say but there didn’t seem to be a graceful way out. It happens in business too but the parties seem to shrug and part ways, often without even saying goodbye.

It is quite different when the association is for a purpose, then the parties remain in each other’s presence as long as it is necessary to accomplish the purpose at hand. This is true in competitive situations where a game has duration and the players remain until it is over.

 Even in these situations there are times when play is suspended because further interaction is futile but more often than not the players see it through to the end, regardless. It is true in work situations where people are cooperating in order to achieve a common purpose. They remain together, often using the time together for other purposes as well.

The Gin Game, a play by D.L. Coburn, uses this social phenomenon to explore the feelings of two people who are in the throes of lonely later years, each in denial but the truth is evident to the other. It is a game that requires them to remain in each other’s presence longer than the optimum and this leads to hidden feelings being revealed each to the other, feelings come out even though the people don’t want them to.

In a 4th Way sense, there are personae who have to get it out there for others to comment on in order to better deal with it; yet there are personae who don’t want to reveal their feelings, who are afraid, or at least reluctant to become intimate.

Perhaps this is an underlying purpose of being with others. There may be personae in the Being that need to reveal unrequited feelings but because we are comprised of discrete personae the Being may not even be aware of it. Yet he knows that by interacting with others, socializing, the opportunity to reconcile the discomfiture will arise and be settled.

This is an insight: for some time the definition or identification of “Director” has eluded me but now it can be seen that Director is the persona that allows others to be in control of the brain-body when that is necessary or desirable; he will now be identified as Being because he has an even larger role to play.

Being is he who is engaged in achieving permanence. In order to progress towards that aim he has to deal with/ cope with all that this lifetime of associations and experiences brings his way. He creates personae as needed and uses them, sometimes the same one over and over for the same, or similar experiences. Used frequently enough, personae become part of the “personality” of the brain-body and are recognized by others.

 He recognizes that personae may have loose ends, or unfinished business, or unrequited needs that resulted from interrupted activities but may not know the precise personae that need attention. He, therefore, puts the brain-body in play, so to speak, by getting among others and allowing those personae with needs to be satisfied.

Then too there is the possibility that Being is aware of more than is cognitive to the brain-body. An example of this and only one of many, happened last Monday at the film shoot. I was sitting in the shade with Carola without any need to move when I got up and walked around to the other side of the Boat Club building. I mean I simply arose and started walking without questioning myself as to why and without having any destination in mind. As I rounded the building I heard my name, it was my agent saying she was trying to get in touch with me about a film shoot on Wednesday.

There are more ways that Being uses to attain aim than of which brain-body is aware. We have invented computers, networks, and the internet to allow us to communicate. It has long been evident to me that this same capability exists innately in the brain-body and it is used by the Being for his purposes, in his pursuit of aim.

Being is not unique to this brain-body and many, not necessarily all, brain-bodies have Being. It is quite a leap to realize that Beings communicate without the brain-body even being aware of it.