What is a creative product?

 

                The creative product is a product that is novel.  It is a product that is completely original or changes an old one.  A creative product is one that changes that way we are whether it is across the world or in a community.  The creative product is a mirror image of the inventor.

                Hilgard (1959, p.162) speaks about the importance of products and the creative problem solving process.   He Stated:

                “The capacity to create useful or beautiful products and to find ways of

                resolving perplexity is not limited to the highly gifted person, but is the 

                birthright of every  person of average talent.   Because I believe these

                symposia to be concerned primarily with ways of bringing the best out of

                people, I have chosen to consider how we might best encourage creativity and

                problem solving approach among those with whom we deal, whether they be

                children in our homes, students in our classes, or workers in our factories,

                offices, and laboratories”.

                (Iskaksen, Dorval, &Treffinger, 1994, p. 8) “Creative products can be found in the arts, sciences, the humanities, and in any discipline or domain of human endeavor.  They can be the result of the efforts of individuals or groups.  They may be varying degrees of novelty and usefulness”.

               With this papers I will refer to a specific type of creative product.  This product is film.  It is important to look at creative product (film). It is just as important to look at assessment of creative product (film review).

               Kael (1963) spoke about how Sturgis’ movies are creative.   Antonioni movies are complex.   Both movies are creative in their own way.

Assessment of The Creative Product

 

             In assessing the creative product or reviewing the film, the assessor or critic, has the ability to shape the thinking of the theater goer.

            Altshuler and Janaro states (1967, p. 9):

                 “ Nonetheless, a glance through the amusement pages of the local newspaper                                 reveals movies as by far the most popular form of theater-going available. Nor        

                 is it unrealistic to expect an expect an exciting, rewarding experience at the

                 movies.  With a careful selection of films, based on the reputation of the

                 moviemaker, the opinion of a discriminating critic, or our own previous  

                experience, we may be attending a screen drama that will someday be read        

                 and  analyzed as the great live plays of are now  preserved and studied”.

           Altshuler and Janaro point out the importantance of a good critique.  A bad critique leaves the reader or viewer confused.

           McCreadie states (1983, p. 67-8)

                “ In a “10 Best” piece for the New York Herald Tribune written in December

                1964, Judith Crist, like many others, liked director Stanley Kubricks’s Dr.

                Strangelove, or How I learned to stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.  She calls

                it a masterpiece of movie making of a very American Kind.” But Crist doesn’t

                explain what an “American Kind” means. Too, The Script, performances, and

                cinematic techniques are “ superb”, but we don’t find out why.”

           Altshuler, Janaro, and McCreadie point out the importance of clear and concise information. This information leads to a good review and a happy moviegoer.

            I have brought together three tools in order to create a more accurate movie review. These tools are:

             A: ALU

             B: CPSS or Creative Product Semantic Scale

             C: Evaluation Matrix

For an example I have chosen to use the film “ Dazed and Confused”.

ALU

           The ALU is a tool that was designed by Isaksen and Treffinger in 1985.   This tool looks at  the advantages, limitations, and unique qualities of a problem.

Advantages:

·         Tells people about life in 1976

·         very simplistic. fun too watch

·         characters are amusing

·         great music

·         every scene flows into the next

 

Limitations:

·        some of the actors are okay at best

·        person who plays Michael is a real bad actor

 

Unique Qualities:

·        timing of music and scenes flow very good (music matches action)

 

Creative Problem Semantic Scale

             Besemer and O’Quinn (1989) created a model to look at a products novelty, resolution, and elaboration and synthesis

Novelty

Original     over used -  fresh   predictable –  novel     usual – unusual unique -  ordinary original –  conventional

Surprising   stale –   startling   customary – surprising astonishing –  commonplace shocking   -  old-fashioned astounding –  common

Germinal   warmed over – trendsending revolutionary –  average radical –  old hat uninfluential –  influential   pioneering – unprogressive

Resolution

Valuable worthless –  valuable   important - unimportant   significant – insignificant unessential –  essential unnecessary –  necessary

Logical   illogical –  logical   makes sense – senseless irrelevant  -  relevant   appropriate – inappropriate   adequate – inadequate

Useful ineffective –  effective   functional – non functional              operable – inoperable   useful – useless   workable – unworkable

Elaboration and Synthesis

Organic   ordered - disordered   arranged – disarranged   organized – disorganized formless  -  formed incomplete –  complete	Elegant   graceful – awkward repelling –  charming coarse –  elegant   attractive – unattractive retained –  busy	Complex intricate –  straightforward   simple - complex plain –  ornate   complicated - uncomplicated       boring –  interesting
Well Crafted   skilled – bungling   well made – botched crude –  well crafted   meticulous – sloppy careless –  careful		Understandable   meaningful – meaningless mystifying  -  understandable   intelligible - unintelligible   clear – ambiguous unexplained –  self explanatory

 

Evaluation Matrix

               Dorval, Isaksen, and Treffinger (1994) created a model to compare problem and criteria. This model is the evaluation matrix.  Below are the areas that the film will be reviewed on

            Plot

            Premise

            Acting

            Language

            Nudity

            Violence

            F/X

            Length

            Adult Content

 

Plot: Storyline of film          = Good story line from                    beginning to end             O = Like Ragu “It’s in there”             O = What storyline	Language: Profanity       O = Many words that cannot be                      repeated    = A little word here or there       O = No profanity	F/X: Is there any special effects       O = Fully loaded with F/X       O = It has some    = No F/X
Premise: Underlying idea of film         = Underlying idea is great          O = It’s the usual piece          O = We were making a film	Nudity: Is there any nudity and to what                degree       O = Lengthy scenes       O = brief nudity     = No nudity	Length: How long is the movie       O = Within 1hr 30 min      = Within 2 hrs       O = Over 2 hrs
Acting: Talent of actors          O = academy award winners        = Not that bad          O = Cannot act way out of paper bag	Violence: To what degree of violence is there       O = This movie is or should be                   an action film     = Something here or there       O = No Violence	Adult Content: Adult orientated subjects     = Talk of sexual actions     = Drugs       O = Clear of Adult content

 

In Conclusion

 

            I feel that CPSS & the ALU can be looked at together in order to write the perfect review.  The ALU makes you look at good, bad, and unique aspects of the film.  CPSS is a paper and pencil test that makes you really sit down and think about the movie.  The CPSS brings about some key words that can help you the reviewer to write a much deeper ALU.   This could then be used for a column in a paper or tv movie review show.  This information along with the Evaluation Matrix could be used to create a better informed viewer.  People could get better ideas about that film they are not sure about. 

            I feel that my learnings from this project were very important.  When I researched the topic, I didn’t think anything in film critique would have anything to with creativity.  Then I found this: Borwell states (1989,p.29-30).

                    Four problems confronts the critic

1)                            Don’t be afraid to review pieces outside of the norm. ( ex. Trailers, home 

                  movies, documentaries, etc)

2)                            Use of appropriate and understandable language

3)                            Sufficient novelty in critique

4)                            Persuasiveness of article

 

      This section of the book was referred to as “ problem solving”. I was very happy with the information I gathered on film critique.  This information justified my thoughts on the ambiguity of film reviewers.  Bordwell has pointed out the need for Creative Problem Solving in Film review.   In speaking about film and tv, Gianetti states

(1995, p.vii) “we watch them uncritically, passivly, allowing them to wash over us, rarely analyzing how they work on us, how they shape our values.”   It is time as reviewers we drop the passiveness and the ambiguity and write clear and concise reviews.

   

References

Altshuler, T. & Janaro, R. P. (1967). Responses to drama. Mass: Houghton Mifflin.

Anderson, H. (ED.). (1959). Creativity and it’s cultivation. Hilgard, E. “Creativityand problem solving. New York: Harper and Row.

 

Besemer, S. P. & O’Quinn, K. (1989). The development, reliability, and validity of the revised creative problem semantic scale. Creative Research Journal. (2) p. 267-278.

 

Bordwell, D. (1989). Making meaning: Inference and rhetoric in the interpretation of cinema. London, Eng: Harvard University Press.

 

Dorval, K. B., Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (1994). Creative approaches to problem solving. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/ Hunt.

 

Gianetti, L. (1993). Understanding movies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 

Isaksen, S. G. & Trffinger, D. J. (1985). Creative problem solving: The basic course. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.

 

Kael, P. (speaker). (1963) Film criticism: Squares and circles. (casette recording no. BB4991). Los Angeles, CA: Pacifica Radio Archive.

 

McCreadie, M. (1983). Women on film: The critical eye. New York: Praeger.

 

Neufedlt, V. E. (Editor). (1988). Websters new world dictionary. New York: Simon and Schuster.

 

 

Biography