Middle-aged White Men
That's who write British films, according to the latest research conducted by the UK Film Council
They took a random sample of 40 films certified as British in 2004 and 2005 and theatrically released in the UK, and talked to the 63 credited screenwriters to find out a bit about who they were.
So, sure, I was kind of expecting that the majority of them would be older white men. It's unfortunately a fact that people who aren't white men are under-represented in a lot of places.
But, come on: 98% of these writers were white? 82.5% male? That's more than a little bit rubbish.
I mean, these figures would be all right if 98 out of every hundred people in the UK were white. And only 2 in 5 of us were female. But I'm pretty sure that isn't the case.
No-one can tell from a script what colour your skin is or whether you happen to wear your genitals on the inside.
So, please: Write. Rewrite. Make sure it's as good as it can be. And then send us your script.
The only thing we care about is the quality of your writing.
Comments
Wait, what's the definition of 'middle-aged'?
Anyone older than us, isn't it?
2/3 of the writers in the sample were over 45.
What pc-contaminated thinking to assume that talent (or anything else) is evenly distributed in a society. Or that it manifests itself in representative samples in all spheres of endeavor - including scriptwriting.
It is a generalization based on false assumptions. I'm sure there is no 'fair' representation of colour or gender amongst anthropologists (say) - so why script writers?
This doesn't mean they are being discriminated against - merely that, like most people, they exercise a free choice and preference in how they express themselves according to their inclinations.
What would be the benefit of an increase in the numbers of disabled writers (say), or younger writers or any other minority if they wrote about the mainstream sorts of subjects as older white males?
In fact, they do. They live in the same world and have the same concerns - they are not obsessed with their gender, their race or their (dis)abilities however much the BBC would like to encourage them to do so in an attempt to seem more 'representational'.
What would be the benefit of such cultural engineering?
This issue isn't about employment or creativity, but a misguided and mistaken notion that if there were a 'fair' representation of all classes and colours in all endeavors that ... what? The world would be a better place? Society would be fairer? Television would be better?
Such notions merely confirm the ignorance and universality of prejudice, not the benefits of universal brotherhood.
Were there greater representation of minorities among writers television would not be more representative - because in society as a whole some groups are marginalised in the way reflected by their non-representation on television.
That, too is representative.
It is the quality of the work being produced that is important, not the ethnicity - or any other characteristic - of the creator.
If you believe that quality can be improved by education programmes then argue for better and more universal education - not some mistaken notion of fairness or an equally absurd suggestion that gender or ethnic manipulation will result in - what? Better television?
Television output isn't controlled by creators but by BBC producers. The only way its output could become any 'dumber' were if we had an equitable representation of gender or race amongst those contributing to it arguing a sectarian perspective rather than a common, collective one.
What is generally lacking is quality. Can it really be argued that a more equitable social representation of writers will result in it?
There may be a social argument to say that it will - but does it really matter artistically?
When you choose your priorities you also choose your arguments - which is more important to the viewers: the social and gender mix of the writers and producers or the quality of the output?
The more intriguing argument here is - what is 'quality'? Is it a representation of the traditional standards and values or is it something organically derived, like culture, and therefore it should be free to express itself as it is and be loved regardless?
Just because every woman thinks her own baby is beautiful doesn't mean the end of ugliness.
Or, on television, cultural rubbish.
Subjective standards and values have merit when they temper an argument, but they become absurd when such values replace reason with emotion.
More women writers - yes. More writers of ethnic origin - why not. But according to strict pc quotas?!
Misguided arguments have daft and unintended consequences. If it goes on trying to please the mainstream viewer it will become even more like radio - a background source of noise against which most people live their daily lives.
Is this what we need?
.
If the only thing you care about is the quality of the writing then why comment on the gender and ethnicity of those who are lucky enough to get screenplays commissioned? These things are outside their control. As an aspiring writer who also happens to be white and just coming up to middle aged I would expect the quality of my writing to be all that matters as I'm sure would a black woman in her 20s. It sort of goes with the territory, or at least one would hope and assume so otherwise we might as well all give up now.
Woo hoo!
What gets me more riled than the specifics of the writers is the overwhelming majority of protagonists in fiction/drama/everything being white males. Why do we only ever get to see the world through this one view? It's many years now since Laura Mulvey commented on the male gaze, but we still have such a dearth of good, interesting female protagonists who aren't fetishized sex-pots. 52% of the population is female, yet drama is still written assuming a male audience who want male heroes bashing out the same gender cliches. Boys - write us like we're real, girls - get that pen to paper!
There is a problem and though I loathe political correctness there is an imbalance. Even films and shows which seem aimed more at a female audience are written by men. Whenever critics hail great screenwriters they talk of Paul Abbott, Steven Moffatt, Russel T Davis. Where are the women? Hollywood - Ted Elliot and Terry Russio, Richard Curtis, Steve Kloves...I can't even think off the top of my head of a female writer.
What? Are your kidding me? Talk about insincere and groveling.
You know, I have to agree with some of the commenters here.
If others are under-represented it is without a doubt because of the choices these people have made in their own lives and not because of the rascism of 'middle-aged white men' (no doubt fat, bald, stupid, and ugly too) as this blog post so clearly implies.
I tell you, this clever modern new sycophantic and pandering means of rascism is at least every bit and even more so rascist then that of the traditional sort of rascism which I've always so enjoyed. I could never be so hip as to be in your clique.
It has always been surprising to me though that women have always seemed to be under-represented in writing because in my experience I've met a lot more women who have said they aspire to be writers then men. The only reason then why they aren't better represented that I can fathom is they are writing too eagerly to please others and to make the right impression. Writing to social climb is bound to fail. Boring! Women, write to please yourself and with fewer inhibitions, as JK Rowling did in a traditionally hobgloblin type male dominated area of writing no less, and you'll on average become at least as sucessful as the men.
Could it be, Piers? That despite protests to the contrary the 'middle-aged white men' are, in truth, more empathetic than these other demographic groups?
Certainly that is implied if you look at the demographics of all our service professions. Particularly politicians pandering for votes.
My woo hoo got rather misplaced there, apologies.