Rapid Responses to:

APPEARANCES ARE DECEPTIVE: Donald A Redelmeier and Sheldon M Singh Longevity of screenwriters who win an academy award: longitudinal study BMJ 2001; 323: 1491-1496 [Abstract] [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Recognition may be more important than an Oscar

Max Lagnado   (28 December 2001)

Killed by high praise

Peter G Sainsbury   (18 January 2002)

Recognition may be more important than an Oscar 28 December 2001
Max Lagnado, Medical Director Park House, 111 Uxbridge Road, Ealing, London W5 5TL Send response to journal: Re: Recognition may be more important than an Oscar	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.
Killed by high praise 18 January 2002
Peter G Sainsbury, Director, Division of Population Health Central Sydney Area Health Service, Grose Street, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia Send response to journal: Re: 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.