Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Hollywood Oscars and Life Expectancy
- Mel Bartley (21 December 2001)
|
|
|||
|
Mel Bartley, Professor of Medical Sociology University College London, WC1E 6BT
Send response to journal:
|
It may be that the different effect on life expectancy of an Oscar for acting versus one for screen-writing can be explained by a combination of material factors and 'effort-reward imbalance'. The simple fact is that screenwriters, no matter how distinguished, earn a great deal less than actors. However, they live in the same environment and aspire to similar standards of living and conspicuous consumption. The income of a screen writer does not easily admit the maintenance of similarly lavish consumption levels to their acting peers, who are generally a great deal less well educated, and attain high income far earlier in the life course. Garbo, for example, used the money she made as an actor in a highly intelligent series of investments in fine art. As most people know, she retired at 30 and never had to perform in public again, living to over 80 'healthy life years', spending her time walking in the mountains and sailing. Many of the original 'Hollywood greats' of the 1940s led similar lives. Such a career is seldom seen in screen-writers. This produces a mis -match between qualifications, effort and perceived reward, which is combined with the material problems and associated anxieties of living above one's means. Another consideration to be borne in mind is that the screen writers of the generation that would contribute many of the deaths observed would have suffered under MacCarthyism. Writers of enormous talent such as Dalton Trumbo and Ring Lardner had to endure years working under pseudonyms, not having any public recognition for their work at all. |
|||