Longevity of screenwriters who win an academy award: longitudinal study
BMJ 2001; 323 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7327.1491 (Published 22 December 2001) Cite this as: BMJ 2001;323:1491
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Editor– Redelmeier and Singh assume that winning an Oscar defines
success for a scriptwriter.1 The validity of this assumption is central to
their conclusion that "The link between occupational achievement and
longevity is reversed in scriptwriters who win academy awards." It would
have been helpful if scriptwriters had been asked what they consider as
success in their profession – they may not have agreed with Redelmeier and
Singh. Also, writers and actors may perceive the value of an Oscar
differently, which could help to explain why winning an Oscar reduced
survival in writers but prolonged survival in actors.1,2
The authors argue that behavioural factors may explain why winning an
Oscar could actually harm a writer's survival. I would like to offer
another, perhaps more plausible explanation. The authors allude to this
explanation when they state that they selected screenwriters because "they
labour in anonymity, yet their work is renowned." If we extend this line
of thought we could imagine a scenario in which the writer's initial joy
at winning an Oscar soon disappears as it becomes abundantly clear that
the attention, adulation and credit are focused on the leading actors and
the directors. As Davey Smith explains in the accompanying editorial,
"Oscar ceremonies are largely about acting awards rather than writing
credits".3 Therefore, the academy awards ceremony has the potential to
exacerbate a scriptwriter's belief that they are not adequately recognized
for their work. This state of affairs could erode the writer's sense of
self-worth thereby reducing their psychological and physical health.
References
1. Redelmeier DA, Singh SM. Longevity of screenwriters who win an academy
award: a longitudinal study. BMJ 2001;323:1491-6.
2. Redelmeier DA, Singh SM. Survival in academy-award winning actors and
actresses. Ann Int Med 2001;134:955–62.
3. Davey Smith G. Death in Hollywood. BMJ 2001;323:1441–2.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Killed by high praise
Redelmeier and Singh demonstrate that Oscar-winning screenwriters
live approximately three years fewer than Oscar-nominated screenwriters.
We are also told that only members of the screenwriters' branch
(approximately 300) of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences can
nominate screenwriters for an Oscar but that all members of the academy
(approximately 6000) vote for one of the five most nominated screenwriters
to determine the winner.
Clearly, this presents an opportunity for screenwriters to (in a
statistical sense, not literally ... pun intended!)kill-off the
opposition: "I'll nominate her and then if the opportunity arises vote for
her to try to ensure that she wins so that she'll die earlier and then
I'll have a better chance of winning myself". It also offers members of
the other twelve branches of the academy the opportunity to inflict
revenge on screenwriters for perceived insults and slights: "If he hadn't
spitefully removed my major speech in such-and-such-a-film five years ago
I'd have won the best actor Oscar, so I'll try to shorten his life by
voting for him as best screenwriter now". And what if a group of academy
members all agreed to vote for one screenwriter in the hope of effecting
an earlier death, would they be guilty of conspiracy to murder?
On the other hand, concerned colleagues in the academy could do a
screenwriter-friend a favour (in the long run) by not voting for him/her.
Whether the screenwriter would consider this to be a favour would,
however, be questionable. Some people might happily trade-off three years
of life for an Oscar.
Now that this information has been discovered and is in the public
domain, will it influence the nominating and voting patterns of academy
members? Will it induce screenwriters not to vote for themselves? And will
it influence the lifestyles and/or mortality rates among Oscar-winning
screenwriters?
The behavioural, research and legal possibilities of Redelmeier and
Singh's findings are intriguing.
Competing interests: No competing interests