We're Getting Too Old For This Shit

Though wise men at their end know dark is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night.

Craig:

I think there’s another factor behind the unemployment of writers of a certain age group.

The Ability To Stay Relevant.

This is a sweeping generalization but for the most part, if I talk to a man or woman in their 60’s, they’re not gonna get or understand any pop culture reference that I make.

Whether we like it or not, most of the movies that are produced today are geared towards teenagers and kids, not adults. And while someone in their 50’s is capable of writing a great movie like The Incredible, I think it’s safe to say that they couldn’t write the Mean Girls and the Bring It On’s that are so popular today.

So maybe then this whole thing can be boiled down to content. If I’m an employer and I want Armaggedon but continue to recieve The Bridges of Madison County, I certainly don’t want to be forced into the latter.

Hmmm, I do believe I have seen seniors working the concession stands in theatres and the counter at Micky D’s, but I believe the fact that there are only really young people or really old people at those posts is largely a matter of the shitty pay, and no other reason. Teenagers live at home and just need an hourly job, even for minimum wage, and seniors either a)don’t need the money and only want something to do or b)can’t get any other job.

Being in New York (at least for the time being) I will let others argue the specifics of that lawsuit. I do wonder about a couple of things, though …

A) Do you believe ageism exists at all? Not just in Hollywood, but in other industries … .

B) Does discrimination exist in Hollywood? Certainly it did seem like it did at one point in time … it seemed that most television writers (and film) were white men, at one point, according to the books I’ve read, and while it certainly seems to have changed for the better now, can we safely say that discrimination does not exist?

That people aren’t given jobs for reasons other than merit?

If we can’t say that, it seems hard to argue that there isn’t at least SOMETHING behind this. Even a tiny bit.

One last interesting, if somewhat digressing note. I have a doctor friend in Chicago who also writes. He and another doctor collaborated on a project that was picked up by a major studio (it was, of course, a medical show) a few years back … the studio flew them out and put them up, the whole dog and pony show. My buddy went to meet the exec in charge and his job dropped. The guy, my friend told me, couldn’t be more than 22, 23 tops. I swear he wasn’t shaving yet, my friend said.

My friend, who is a very smart man, was astounded that such a big company would put so much responsibility to someone so young … he was nice enough, my doc buddy said, but he knew next to nothing about anything in the world, he was too young to understand what was behind hospital politics, world politics, literature, geography, anything other than being in Hollywood and it led to problems understanding the project (I cannot go into too much detail) and even communicating about it.

My doctor friend wasn’t old, he was the same age that you are now, Craig … Ultimately, my buddy made money but the project never happened, like so many others. Moral of the story? I dunno, but I suspect it would be … .

Relevancy is relative

As for myself, I’ve liked just about everyone I’ve met in Hollywood the few times I’ve been out there … but my Significant Other believes I’m an adolescent in arrested development, so that may have something to do with it ;)!

I worked in TV for a decade, and it’s a grind, like you describe. Worse than writing features, easily.

I walked away from a healthy TV career and transitioned into features in my 30s, because I wanted to spend time with my family. I’m not alone - many of my friends made the same move, or got out of entertainment entirely.

The frustrating thing is that now my friends and I are “proof” that ageism exists. Even though we voluntarily left, the fact that we worked in our 20s and 30s and will never go back to TV as we age into our 40s and 50s will be added into the lawsuit as statistical evidence of prejudice.

Dalton: Wade Garrett’s the best.

Tilghman: Wade Garrett’s gettin’ old.

Dalton: He’s still the best.

From that classic Swayze film ROADHOUSE. Some of you old fogies may not know it, being so cut off from pop culture everyone says ya are.

I appreciate your viewpoint and your passionate argument designed to get others to join your point of view. Yet, on this subject, your well-written dissertation falls short with me - not on deaf ears mind you. Your essay reminds me of the spin that comes out of this White House - very short on the facts (wink wink) and tall on ideology.

As a member of a visible minority slugging it out in this town for a number of years, I am intimately aware of the realities of this business. While “discrimination” might be on par with the N-Word - the D-Word if you will - these realities include non-consideration and non-selection for a variety of parameters including age.

Prejudice is pre-judgment - judgment after the fact is another matter altogether. I’m sure that you have been to many meetings and are keenly aware of how decisions are made and by whom in the world of writing. Such being the case, I believe that in your heart of hearts, despite your written argument, that you might be able to agree that these people have a case, as embarrassing a precedent that it may present.

William Monahan, writer of The Departed, is coming up on 50. Perhaps you will be up for your first Oscar by then.

I follow you for the most part, and I appreciate the overall tone of “let’s-look-in-the-mirror” accountability on the writers’ side. The only thing missing is applying the same accountability to the other side.

It’s not a secret that studios, agencies, etc. have stated outright for years, “If you’re over 40, we don’t want you.” They don’t even deny that they’ve said it; they insist they have a right to say it. And that, you have to admit, is random and ridiculous (and illegal) by any logical standard.

Writers make a living pretending to be other people. Someone was once quoted as saying, “I didn’t have to be a dog to write Lassie.” Is there something magical about 40, or 50, or 60 that makes writers incapable of understanding anything or anyone younger?

If writers should be called to the carpet for using ageism as a crutch or excuse, shouldn’t studios also be held accountable if they’ve operated by a policy of automatically excluding people based solely on age?

All they are asking is a fair shot at writing the same crappy, unoriginal sequels and remakes that are flooding the movie landscape.

Old folks smell funny! They should be banned from public streets as all they do is serve as walking, or rather creeping, reminders of our own mortality. Useless pack. What we need is the Carousel! Renew! Renew!! RENEWAL! REEENEEW!!!

I’ve worked in TV for over 20 years and after the last show got cancelled and the subsequent development deal ended, I felt the door shutting behind me. So I wrote a book (about the horrors of TV development—on spec—and got it published.) Then I made a movie with my own cash and we’re in 3 festivals and on the verge of some kind of distribution. I’m still knocking on the door of TV but I know 100 people around my age with similar credits all looking for the same 5 jobs. I have a couple friends doing a pilot. If it gets picked up, maybe they’ll hire me. As I would hire them. I’m still writing everything I can think of. I’ve heard older writers complain about ageism. And it probably exists to some degree. The problem is, however, they weren’t writing anything new to change the way they were perceived. Either it’s in your blood to write or it’s not. As for the system, yeah, older writers will occasionally have a tough time getting hired on staff, though on my last show the ages of the staff ranged from people in their 20’s to people in their 60’s. Men and women. Gay and straight. Single and married. And neither the studio nor the network had any say in who we hired. So get out your detector and play “find the discrimination.” The business is always tough. Tough to get in. Tough to stay in. If you’re out, write yourself back in. If you can’t then downsize, move away and plant a garden. As the man said: this is not a lawsuit. This is life. I’m 54 and I don’t give a fuck if some development twit in diapers thinks I’m too old.

Craig,

I agree with many (most?) of your points. I think a class action lawsuit will solve nothing, and will only prove a tedious distraction to much more important issues for writers. But I think you’re short-selling one reality of the industry, and I have just the anecdote to explain it.

A few years ago, I am having lunch with a producer. I’d written a script for her that never got made, but we remained friendly. I ask her what she’s working on, and she tells me about a book her company just bought. I tell her it sounds really interesting, which is only a half-lie.

And without any hesitation, she says, “We’re looking for a younger writer.”

I was thirty.

Now, I don’t think she was strictly talking about age. By “younger,” she meant less expensive. Less established. But on some level, she also meant younger. Newer. Fresher.

Hiring a writer at the early stages of his career is a gamble, but if the script turns out well, you look like a genius. You spotted talent at its nascent stage. Anyone can hire Scott Frank for $2 million. But getting Zach Helm for scale when no one’s heard of him? That’s exciting.

Or maybe Hollywood should look at the success of something like Pixar, which has won numerous Oscars and made billions at the box office. Shockingly, some are married with children and closing in on their 50’s!

How is that possible?! How can they write for both the young and old?! Do they even know how to operate a computer? It’s gotta be the 3D!

Can’t possibly have to do with talent. They’re too old for that.

A 50-year-old writer can certainly “understand” the problems and motivations of a 20-year-old character. We were all that age once. But as Kevin mentioned, unless you’ve stayed unnaturally plugged into youth culture during the intervening years, you’re likely to get tripped up by a lot of little details. Getting the slang wrong. Showing characters listening to music they’d never actually listen to. That kind of thing.

Not to say that it can’t be done, but getting it right will be as much a research project as, say, writing a story set in ancient Greece, with the added inconvenience that there aren’t nearly as many ancient Greeks hanging around waiting to cry bullshit the moment you get it wrong.

I’m not arguing that a 42-and-a-half-year-old-writer can only write stories for other 42-and-a-half-year-olds…but I am saying there’s an age range of people who are most likely to relate to your work. Let’s say it’s starts with people 15 years younger and ends with people 15 years older. (Just for the sake of argument—I’m pulling these numbers out of my ass, so feel free to pull different ones out of yours.)

But if we entertain my numbers for arguments’ sake, then at age 50, you’re pretty much finished writing for ad-supported television, because advertisers are most interested in reaching 18-to-34-year-olds, and the youngest people who like your stuff are now 35. Likewise if you tend to write in some primarily youth-oriented movie genre—the people spending most of the money on those kinds of movies are no longer members of “your” audience.

And at the same time, the people who are in your audience are becoming more selective about their entertainment. All the things Craig noted about having kids, needing to make mortgage payments, and so forth apply just as much to audiences as they do to writers. Simply put, older people spend less time watching crap, or even okay-but-not-great stuff. They just don’t have the free time for it anymore. When they do consume movies, for instance, they tend to gravitate toward things they’re already pretty sure they’ll like—movies that have won awards, movies that have gotten glowing reviews, movies made by big-name directors or actors whose taste they trust based on past experience, movies that have attracted (mostly younger) viewers for so many weeks and hung around in theaters for so long that they finally give in and say “What the hell, I’ll check this out too.”

In short, the quality bar that you have to clear to keep on attracting “your” audience gets much higher as they age. I don’t agree at all with Craig that the average person’s writing talents are already on the wane by age 40 or 50—if anything, I’d say they reach their peak during those years—but nonetheless, the skills that earned you a respectable living as a 20- or 30-something genre functionary may simply no longer be good enough to earn you any kind of living writing for your much more fickle 40- and 50-something contemporaries. Unless you’ve won an Oscar or had your script shot by Spielberg or written Titanic or Lord of the Rings, they just don’t have time for you anymore. It’s not age-ism, it’s taste-ism.

In the meantime, who’d like to join me in bringing suit against the porn industry? The age range of the actors and actresses they’re hiring is clearly not reflective of the age range of the adult population in general. Discrimination!

I’m 58 so I guess I have a dog in the fight.

If your (US) employer is mean to you for a reason that’s protected by law (religion, age, sex), then it’s illegal discrimination. But that has nothing to do with the industry rejecting spec scripts from us old farts.

I guess TV writers are employees. SAG actors and crew are usually employees. But I don’t think film writers are. Neither are producers. Not sure about directors, but I don’t think so.

If you aren’t an employee, you aren’t entitled to the proteciton that an employee has.

Rob wrote:

I believe that in your heart of hearts, despite your written argument, that you might be able to agree that these people have a case, as embarrassing a precedent that it may present. William Monahan, writer of The Departed, is coming up on 50. Perhaps you will be up for your first Oscar by then.

No, I gave you my heart of hearts in this one, and while I don’t think I’ll ever win an Oscar or even be up for one, I find it curious that you use the example of a man in a protected class winning an Oscar as support for your argument that writers in protected classes are being discriminated against.

Conk wrote:

It’s not a secret that studios, agencies, etc. have stated outright for years, “If you’re over 40, we don’t want you.”

Well, no one tell Warner Brothers, who just made a deal with writers who are almost entirely over the age of 40. No one tell David Koepp or Ted Elliott or Terry Rossio or Steve Zaillian or Scott Frank or The Wibberleys or Scott Rosenberg or just about every successful screenwriter I know.

I’m under 40, and no one’s ever said to me “Thank God you’re still under the hiring line.” It’s not a secret. It’s not true. At least, not in my line of work.

Ian:

Well said, and a great report from the frontline.

John wrote:

Anyone can hire Scott Frank for $2 million. But getting Zach Helm for scale when no one’s heard of him? That’s exciting.

Very true. And buried in my list of adjectives up there was a poorly-wrought phrase “willing to work for reasonable pay.” I should have written “willing to work for little pay.” It’s reasonable that you get paid what you get paid. It’s your market value, and people want to pay it, ergo…it’s reasonable.

Older writers who are having trouble making their quote often don’t get that the market is trying to correct their price downward to reflect demand. Maybe there were some bombs released. Maybe the writer crapped out on the last three projects. Or maybe the town is going through one of those “we need to spend less on R&D” phases. For whatever reason (except malicious ageism), the older writer’s quote is too high for the market…and in the absence of some personal economic reevaluation, recriminations about ageism can be seductive.

As the old joke about Hollywood careers goes:

“Who’s John August?” “Get me John August!” “Get me a young John August!” “Who’s John August?”

You’re right to think “get me a young…” really means “Get me someone good and cheap.”

Denmaley wrote:

I guess TV writers are employees. SAG actors and crew are usually employees. But I don’t think film writers are. Neither are producers. Not sure about directors, but I don’t think so.

Film writers, and directors are employees. Some producers are, some aren’t.

“A 50-year-old writer can certainly “understand” the problems and motivations of a 20-year-old character. We were all that age once. But as Kevin mentioned, unless you’ve stayed unnaturally plugged into youth culture during the intervening years, you’re likely to get tripped up by a lot of little details. Getting the slang wrong. Showing characters listening to music they’d never actually listen to. That kind of thing.”

Though I’m only 35 rather than 50, I would say I’m more aware of youth culture now than I was when I was actually a part of the youth culture. A big part of this is having to make the effort to keep up with my teenaged kids.

Now, when I’m 50, my sons will be 33 and 28, so I won’t be able to count on them to help keep me relevant, which is the entire reaon I impregnated my wife late last year - to start the process anew.

And if that doesn’t work, I’ll get me one of those trophy wives I’ve heard so much about.

Ted brings some interesting statistics to the table…

From the 2006 Hollywood Writers Report, commissioned by the WGAw…

the over-40 share of television staffing remained largely unchanged between the 2004-5 and 2005-6 TV season (45.5 percent versus 46 percent)

So…there’s a lawsuit alleging that writers over 40 are being discriminated against…and they hold nearly half of the jobs in television? Huh???

For those interesting in wading through stats regarding the employment of writers broken down by age, gender and race, here’s a link to the report.

http://www.wga.org/uploadedFiles/newsandevents/press_release/2006HWRpre.pdf

Here’s another stat from that one:

Older writers are more than twice as likely as younger writers to be showrunners.

Damn ageism! They’re giving our showrunning jobs to those young little…oh. Wait.

1. And the only real quibble I have is with some of your argument - the alleged absence of old farts in screenwriting (And when I look around me, all I see are cats my age and older, but that’s purely anecdotal) is NOT the same as the absence of old farts at McDonald’s.

Working at McDonald’s isn’t a career one works towards. It’s reasonably axiomatic that if you’re over 30 and working at McDonald’s you’ve failed at something. If you’re over 30 and working as a screenwriter, it means you’re doing something RIGHT.

Re: WGA report…

Is that true? 46% in TV over 40 and there’s a lawsuit?

Anyone involved have an answer for that?

[QUOTE]In the case of writing, it’s true that the large bulk of writing is done by people between the ages of 25 and 50. After 50, the numbers start to dwindle. After 60, they really start to shrink, and once you get into the 70’s and 80’s, you’re talking about a very select (and hardy) group.[/QUOTE] Isn’t this true of most professions? My father was a surgeon and retired (later than some) at 60. My judge Aunt retired at 55. My lawyer grandfather worked until about 80 because he never saved money, but people hired him out of pity to do easy stuff, and he wasn’t paid well. Just because us writers WANT to work forever doesn’t mean it should be required by law. The expression Hollywood is a young man’s game isn’t just metaphorical—no one hires models later than their 30s (and that’s pushing it) and you don’t see pro athletes suing that their contract wasn’t renewed when they hit 40. There are certain professions that everyone knows are different. It’s the nature of the game we all voluntarily got into. It’s a sucky fact, but a fact nonetheless. Everyone in Hollywood who is subject to the subjective hiring process here goes through this. Talk to some talented actors one of these days and ask them why they didn’t get their last few auditions—I’ll bet their height, weight, age, shape of their nose, or something equally asinine certainly played a part.

The WGA released a similar report in 2005 (here’s the link http://www.wga.org/uploadedFiles/whoweare/HWR_Exec.pdf). Here’s what it says:

Since the last WGAw report [1998], older writers have more than held their ground in terms of overall industry employment — from 50 percent of all writers in 1998 to 51.8 percent in 2004. Indeed, writers aged 51-60 enjoyed a 6-percentage-point jump in their share of employment after 1996 (from 12.4 percent to 18.4 percent), the largest of any age groups.

-

Case dismissed.

Let’s talk about how to get those smelly old geezers off our streets…

Ryan—

Dammit, that’s brilliant. Congratulations on your impending re-relevance.

At the very least, you’ve ensured a steady supply of people who will be able to tell you, to several decimal places, exactly how not cool you are anymore….

And you’re right—in an age of Viagra, no-fault divorce, and surrogate motherhood, there’s no excuse for anyone not to keep landing work on Nickelodeon and the CW into their 70s and beyond…..

And more, this time from the 2005 Hollywood Writers Report, also prepared by the WGA:

Over the long term, over-40 television writers increased their share of industry employment by more than 7 percentage points, from 49.4 percent in 1982 to 56.5 percent in 2003. By contrast, the share of 40-and-under television writers fell by the same amount, from 50.6 percent in 1982 to 43.5 percent in 2003. But most of the employment gains enjoyed by the over-40 writers occurred between 1989 and 1996 (5.4 percentage points). Since 1996, the over-40 and under-40 shares of television employment have remained largely unchanged.

When more discreet age categories are considered (i.e., under 31, 31 to 40, 41 to 50, 51 to 60, 61 to 70, 71 to 80, and over 81), it is clear that most of the over-40 gains can be attributed to gains in the 41-to-50 age category. This category of television writers registered a 12.4 percentage point increase over the 22-year period, from 22.8 percent of all television writers in 1982 to 35.2 percent in 2003.

While the 31-40 age category constituted by far the largest share of television writers among the age groups in 1982 (38.4 percent), by 2003 this group’s share was comparable to the share claimed by writers in the 41-50 category (36.3 percent and 35.2 percent, respectively).>/blockquote>

Meanwhile, the under-31 share of television employment declined by nearly 5 percentage points over the period, from 12.1 percent in 1982 to 7.2 percent in 2003. It should also be noted that only writers in the 51-60 age category enjoyed a significant jump in their share of television employment after 1996 (6 percentage points), suggesting that older writers are continuing to hold their own on the television employment front.

I’m not going to bother with the link this time, ‘cause somethings screwing ‘em up.

-

Maybe my own proximity to aged mo-fo status has me opposing your premise — but if we follow your logic of skills suddenly diminishing with age there would be no airline pilots over 40, no heart surgeons, no nobel prize winners over that line.

It’s also unfortunate that you use baseball players for so many of your examples. The hard truth about baseball is that most guys who play see their stats go South in their 20’s, merely as a result of other teams beginning to read what they’re going to do in a particular situation and countering those predictable moves.

Maybe Hollywood doesn’t want writers over 40 because they’ve seen what we can do and suspect we’re are more willing to fall back on what worked in the past instead of what might excite a new audience.

Personally, I always figured Hollywood didn’t like writers over 40 because they don’t fall for as much of the BS.

I remember seeing a list of the names initiating this civil grey-haired suit once.

One name I unfortunately knew and had a horrendous experience(s) with him. And at the time, I thought he should know better because of his grey hair.

I saw that name on the list and thought, “That makes sense.”

The focus, seems to me, should be about producing more/new material or re-inventing ones self if nothing is bearing fruit.

This is just my opinion, but in many (not all) but many cases, I feel that lawsuits are for losers.

This suit has nothing to do with age. Good spin, though.

Mark

I’m a 58 year old screenwriter ‘wanabee’ and there was a time I feared, dreaded, even expected ageism to be the way of life in Hollywierd. No more.

When I write a spec, I don’t put my age on the title sheet. Nor my birthdate. When a producer, agent, or manager reads said script they only know one thing—is the script any good. Has the author told a great story, and most importantly—can I sell this?

As for relevancy? I use the great equalizer—research! If I wanted to write a movie aimed at the twenty-something crowd I would ask my children what’s relevant. I would interview young whiper-snappers and get their input. I would scour the internet for slang, hip songs, etc. Then I would write, write, write. If I’ve done my job well, any one reading my screenplay would BELIEVE I was a ‘young person’.

Finally, age never stops me from learning something new everyday, trying new things, and wanting to have a career as a screenwriter.

Regards, One of those smelly old geezers on the street

Really interesting post. I agree with everything you said…and then I stop and ask myself this question:

I’m showrunning my new show. We all know how hard it is to get a show on the air, and here I’m the exec producer and creator and everything rides on whether I deliver episodes that get ratings. My multi-million dollar paycheque rides on it. My next jobs and my Emmy ride on it. And so I’m about to start hiring writers, and this is where I know I simply want the best writers I can get. Turning out interesting stories and characters is challenging! I want someone who delivers. Someone creative and original. Yes, they need to have energy and commitment—and in theory those attributes can decline with age, but that’s certainly not always the case. I suppose, my own age bracket might come into it too, as I might prefer to be around like-minded people for those long days and nights cranking out a show. But in the end I MUST hire the 50-year old writer who’s lsat over the 25-year old writer who’s not quite as good. Like I said, my show is the only thing that matters at this point.

Last point: while I agree that all of Craig’s theories might contribute to the issue of why older writers’ careers fizzle out, I think that the case of directors shows a flaw in the logic. As Craig states, directors are often hired well into their 50s and 60s. And having done both writing and directing myself, I don’t for a second believe that directing requires any less “stamina.” A director must have her “finger on the pulse of the youth of America” just as much as any good screenwriter. Directing is a demanding, exhausting job, requiring tremendous mental acuity and all the things that Craig lists as necessary attributes for television writers (humility, drive, energy, ambition, etc.). Which brings me full circle to something I’ve come to firmly believe: it’s easier to recognize talent in a moving image than it is to recognize talent on the printed page.

It’s hard to know who can write. Networks don’t always get it. Producers don’t always get it. Fine writing can be elusive. And subjective. Ephemeral even? We know it really works AFTER it’s been shot and directed. Quel surpise. Assessing writing demands more of the “audience” (i.e, the reader) in terms of ability to imagine. It demands that the reader have enough creativity to recognize the potential. But execs and producers probably aren’t necessarly THAT creative…or else they’d be writers and directors too.

But you’re the network or the guy holding the bag of money and you still have to decide who gets hired and it’s way easier to hire based on the illusion of a great writer (the right look, the “image,” one which is highly cultivated in Hollywood and does include looking like a teenager, sent to you gift-wrapped straight from CAA). The 50-year old writer doesn’t fit the image we’ve created. And reading his latest spec feature…well it has a lot of pages in it and you don’t have a lot of time. But you’ll watch that director’s reel and your eyes pop out of your head because it looks so cool—that 50-year old director has IT.

Helen

“A director must have her “finger on the pulse of the youth of America” just as much as any good screenwriter. “

Um….. respetfully, no.

To write a scene in which two twenty-somethings hook up on MySpace over their mutual love of TV On The Radio, a writer must know that twenty-somethings actually DO hook up on MySpace over their mutual love of TV On The Radio. To direct that scene, all my grandfather needs to know is that it’s in the script.

Helen:

Unfortunately, Josh has a point. Director’s really don’t need to stay relevant. We just need to work with a good crew that is. Writer’s don’t have a crew.

Just a computer.

And porn to have masturbation breaks.

I just signed up with a big ole movie star to write, direct, and produce television and I know a lot has to do with the fact that I’m under 30 (okay, just barely, I’m 29). I’m confident in my skills and proud of what I can do but I’m aware of the fact that my youth played a large part in the deal. It may sound shitty but I’m pretty sure that a 55 year old wouldn’t have come up with the show ideas that I did.

On a side note, if you guys haven’t read Ian Gurvitz’s book yet—you don’t deserve to live. Hello Lied The Agent is on par with Adventures in the Screen Trade for its voice, humor, originality, and information. Great, great book.

Unfortunately, Josh has a point.

Ooo, Kevin, that hadda sting a bit, didn’t it - LOL!

But I’d like to second Kev’s endorsement of Ian’s book … and also mention he’s a great guy, to boot.

It’s all about staying plugged in. Slang changes every fifteen minutes and the older you get, the further away you move from the neighborhoods where singles live, the less likely you are to relate. There’s an easy solution.

Sit in a high school classroom for a few days. Substitute teach. Hell, if anybody wants to sit in my class in South Central for a week or so to learn how kids these day interact I’d be more than happy to have you. And protect you.

It’s just like any other subject you’d have to research. Maybe older people don’t feel like they should because they used to be there.

Isn’t it illegal for these folks to go trolling about in WGA members’ medical records? HIPAA privacy laws would seem to forbid such a thing.

http://www.healthprivacy.org/info-urlnocat2303/info-urlnocatshow.htm?docid=173435

The proposed discovery requests include not just demographics but also access to health records, details about financial deals - they’re incredibly intrusive.

Another problem is that many WGA members seem to be discarding the objection letters unread. If WGA members can’t be bothered to oject to the proposed intrusions, the judge may grant the request for them.

Kevin: Thanks for the flattering book recommendation. Very kind.

As far as the whole staffing thing, I’ve done it 3 times. Here’s what happens:

Your show gets picked up. You’re deluged with agent calls and calls from friends. Spec scripts begin showing up by the truckload. The agents all inform you that they represent the hottest young writing team in town and everyone wants them. You ask if they’ve ever worked on a show. The agents say “no.” So you ask what makes the team so hot. They say: ‘cause they wrote a great spec. You say send it over. The agents for your friends who consulted on the pilot call, saying “let’s make a deal.” You know how good they are. But they just had a kid so they only want to consult for a day or two. For 10 grand a week. You say you’ll think about it. Meanwhile, you get a budget from the studio. From that budget you need to hire upper level writer/producers first. People you trust can help you get through the week. And cover the room while you’re on stage, or vice versa. Or edit. Or give notes on an outline. By definition, these people will be experienced; i.e. older. You pick the 2 or 3 writers you want and try to make deals. One goes through. The others fall apart. You keep looking. And reading specs. Particularly the ones by the hottest young teams in town. Sometimes they’re great. Sometimes they blow. You meet with the hottest young hot team. Great meeting. You try to hire them. They take a job on a show that’s hotter than yours.

You have more meetings. Sometimes 5/6 a day. Everyone’s nice. And smart. Some people you know. Some you’ve heard of. Some you never met and sometimes until the meeting, you have no idea how old they are, or even what ethnicity. Sometimes what sex. I once had a meeting set up from a great spec and was expecting a guy. It was a woman. I offered her a job. She took a job on another show.

Meanwhile, pre-production is starting soon. You need to make deals. You start down the road with a few other people. Some work out. Some don’t. You keep meeting, reading, and dealing. Sometimes you respond to material, but the meeting is dull. Sometimes an agent convinces you to meet someone, even though the script was average, and they’re hilarious in the room. So you try to hire them. Eventually, you cobble together some version of a staff with people at various levels. Usually, the co-execs will be older, the story editors younger.

But through the entire process, age is usually irrelevant. You hire people you know. People you trust, either because you’ve worked with them or they’ve worked with other people you trust. Mostly that works out. Sometimes it doesn’t. And you hire people who make you laugh in the room. That usually works out great.

It’s an intense, complicated, mostly democratic process that, in the end, requires a few leaps of faith. You consider many factors including material, money, experience and personal recommendations. You just hire the best combination of people you can. Good story people. Good joke people. Young people. Older people…

Just no ugly people.

So refreshing to hear directors take a back seat to the writer’s contributions. I like it. But still don’t agree that directors have to be any more or less in tune with the 2000’s than writers. I’m not even saying writers have to be. Alice Munro continues to write stories that just get better and better, and she’s in her 70s. I don’t think she cares about MySpace, and her writing makes me cry.

I really don’t think that just because a writer wrote a great scene about people meeting on MySpace means it will direct itself. Michael Mann (64!!) is going to make it so damn hip and cool, he’d put every 22-year old MySpace lovin’ filmmaker to shame. Need I mention Scorsese (64)? The Departed seemed pretty cool to me. Did it feel like a grampa directed that?

Michael Mann (64!!) is going to make it so damn hip and cool, he’d put every 22-year old MySpace lovin’ filmmaker to shame. Need I mention Scorsese (64)? The Departed seemed pretty cool to me. Did it feel like a grampa directed that?

Do you have some evidence that Michael Mann and Martin Scorsese are just as much in tune with (to use your words) “the youth of America” as the average 25-year-old writer?

Just to clarify: you don’t have to be in tune with young people to write or direct a good movie, but that doesn’t mean that producers aren’t looking for content that will especially connect with a young demographic. They always have, and they always will.

This is FASCINATING. Have to say I come down on Craig’s side. I am a writer, I’m nearing 40, I’m a woman, I’m African-American (so arguably I could scream discrimination three times over), and I’m a laywer (the relevance of which will become clear in a moment). A quick tangent. The reason the lawsuit alleges discrimination against people over 40 is because that’s the age at which the legally protected category known as “age” kicks in. Chances are that the lawyers put in “over 40” with the idea that they would refine their argument when they actually go to trial (it’s classic lawyering — you cast your net broadly so that you don’t narrow yourself before youv’e had a chance to look at all the evidene, case law, etc). Now, here’s the problem with alleging discrimination in a business like ours. If you comparing two salesman, one 25 and one 55, and they both have the same sales numbers, then it’s easy to say that the 55 year old could be being passed over for the job in favor of the 25 year old because of his age (though even here there are subjective criteria, like whether he plays nicely with others). But when it comes to writers, it is impossible to do this kind of one-to-one comparison. By definition, every writer is unique. It’s impossible to say that two writers have the exact same set of skills, strenghts, insights, etc… And, therefore, it’s going to be extremely diffiult to prove that a given writer was passed over for a job because of their age (unless you’re the brilliant and very young-looking John August and they tell you to your face).

Older writers and younger writers are not comparable.

Older writers are generally more expensive. If they’re feature writers, they have to do someone to justify the added expense — like being truly original, consistently good; in other words, special in some way. Here’s an analogy. I don’t know how many people were in my law school class, but et’s say 100. Of those 100, 99 had jobs upon graduating (I went to a fancy school, so that was a no brainer). Most of those people are probably still employed in the law, but only some of them made partner at their law firm, and even fewer will end up on the Supreme Court. Being a $2M a project feature writer is the film equivalent of being on the Supreme Court. It’s not going to happen to most people, and that’s not discrimination.

If the older writer is a TV writer, he/she is more likely to be in a more senior position on the writing staff, and there are fewer of those. There may be 10 staff writers, or whatever the number is, but there aren’t 10 showrunners, or Co-Exeutive Produers or Supervisors Producers, or whatever. There’s less room at the top. A writer who doesn’t either get hired for a show-runner job (or succeed in getting his own show on the air) can’t just go back to the staff writer level anymore than someone who fails tenth grade can go back to kindergarden. Either you graduate to the next level or you don’t.

So here’s the deal. As you get older it gets harder. This isn’t discrimination. It’s life. No one’s entitled to anything in this business. This isn’t the post office. We have to earn our success in this business, again and again. If your writing assignments are drying up, write a new spec, and another. You will be rewarded for your work, not for your experience. And if you are penalized, it will be for your work and not for your age. Eric Roth is working. Has he been passed over for a project because they wanted someone younger? I doubt it, but who knows, maybe he has. But it doesn’t matter, because for everyone who would turn him down, there’s someone else who would hire him in a minute. Why? Because he’s got something special, as a writer and as an adult who is willing to take responsibility for his own life and career.

Here’s where my lawyer/writer analogy breaks down. The legal profession has lots of places where you can put-out to pasture if you don’t make partner at the law firm (you can get an in-house counsel job, a judgeship, go work for the U.S. attorney’s office, etc). In the film business, if you don’t make the cut, you have to make your own second act.

It’s a harsh reality, but few people in any field are good enough to reach the top. Of those, only some will succeed in staying there. I think that what passes for ageism in hollywood is the natural culling process. It’s not unlike the culling practice at a big Manhattan law firm. In my law school class, almost everyone who wanted a job as a 1st year associate at a prestigious law firm got one. But only some of those people went on to become partners. This is how life is.

Alice Munro continues to write stories that just get better and better, and she’s in her 70s. I don’t think she cares about MySpace, and her writing makes me cry”

Novelists don’t exactly operate within the same universe that screenwriters do.

Michael Mann (64!!) is going to make it so damn hip and cool, he’d put every 22-year old MySpace lovin’ filmmaker to shame. Need I mention Scorsese (64)? The Departed seemed pretty cool to me. Did it feel like a grampa directed that?

Here’s the thing. We directors have an entire crew to work with on a movie or television show. Writers don’t. Environment and Experience are gonna influence a writer’s work.

How could they not?

I admit I’m making generalizations but c’mon, are you gonna tell me that a 64 year old can relate to a 17 year old with a voice that rings true?

But just as much as that is true, an older more experienced director/writer is gonna run circles around me in their element. Can you imagine what it would be like if you read an epic movie written by Akiva Goldsman and then another one written by me? You’d be on the toilet using my script to wipe your ass with as you intently read his.

I can’t believe this hasn’t already been said, but I don’t see it mentioned anywhere above.

Dude, the kids are just too frickin’ young. Seriously.

I read/hear/discuss the work of 18-25 year olds all the time, and it would make Bud Schulberg bleed out of the eyeballs. These are writers who’ve never had their heart broken (or maybe just once, by someone special that they idealize beyond all reason.) They’ve never been chewed out by a superior they wanted desperately to please. They’ve never been denied their heart’s fondest hhope, never screwed up so royally they wished they were dead.

And as a result, their writing is a flat as cardboard and just as flavorful. Don’t even get me started on their total inability to take feedback like a rational adult.

Seriously, if you hire a writer under 30, you are taking a massive, massive gamble. Yes, a handful (I hope myself among them) manage to scrape together enough life experience to produce decent work, but not much more than that.

Harriet:

These are writers who’ve never had their heart broken (or maybe just once, by someone special that they idealize beyond all reason.) They’ve never been chewed out by a superior they wanted desperately to please. They’ve never been denied their heart’s fondest hhope, never screwed up so royally they wished they were dead.

Seriously, if you hire a writer under 30, you are taking a massive, massive gamble. Yes, a handful (I hope myself among them) manage to scrape together enough life experience to produce decent work, but not much more than that.

Wait, what?

Harriet, I’m not sure how or where you grew up but if you haven’t experienced those things by 25 years old, I think it’s time to move out of the cave.

By 24 I was already married and divorced. And I’m not exactly in the minority.

Hmm, I’m just not sure where you’d get that…

I was married at 18 and divorced before I turned 22.

And I’ve wished I was dead since I was about 8.

Harriet:

“I read/hear/discuss the work of 18-25 year olds all the time, and it would make Bud Schulberg bleed out of the eyeballs. These are writers who?ve never had their heart broken (or maybe just once, by someone special that they idealize beyond all reason.) They?ve never been chewed out by a superior they wanted desperately to please. They?ve never been denied their heart?s fondest hhope, never screwed up so royally they wished they were dead.”

I experienced every one of those to at least some extent prior to my 16th birthday. If you learn how to write a great story, and get accustomed to observing and learning from human behavior and everything around you, you can write about anything you want.

But if you’re simply not that good, you could experience those things a million times over and it might not make a bit of difference.

I believe you’re miss diagnosing the problems with the majority of those 18-25 year olds’ scripts.

Not that long ago, I was meeting with a manager at a very prominent management company. She was very solicitous in our first meeting, loved my writing, was eager to seal a deal. After talking to her higher ups, we had a very different follow-up meeting. She told me their company is only interested in one of two types. The “stars” — writers who walk through the door already earning respectable mid-six; and the kids fresh out of film school with a highly saleable spec. I was 43. I appreciated her honesty.

I don’t believe that younger writers are any more in touch than older writers. Youth can be shallow and solopsistic. I don’t believe older writers are necessarily better than younger writers; comfort can be salt peter to creativity. I believe the creative peaks are an individual thing. But that’s too sophisticated a view for a town like Hollywood, which cares more about perception than substance. The sad part is when writers accept that perception, or get tired beating their head against that particular wall, and walk away. Because then we all may be deprived of what might be the best work of that writer’s life, and because we had the opportunity to be a little wiser, and passed it by.

In the end, talent and ability (and being enjoyable to work with) wins out over almost any factor. I don’t think any across-the-board rule can really apply. I think of J.J. Abrams, who was touted at a wunderkind in ‘91 (when he was plain old Jeffrey Abrams). His first films out of the gate were boring duds. Add a few years to him and he turns into a prolific writer with his finger on some kind of pulse because he makes compelling television at least. (And television that immediately goes downhill fter he leaves the show.)

Age can sharpen your skills. It can add to your bag of tricks. If you stay on it and make the effort to constantly improve and challenge yourself, there’s no limit to what you can pull off creatively. But that has to be the goal. If it’s simply landing a cushy deal or selling your next script for another million more, then your ability will follow suit and either pretend to be “with it” or deliver the same old, same old. Stasis and calcification can happen at any age. I see no substantive difference between a writer in his 50s or 60s who’s cranking out the same kind of script they’ve been rehashing for the last twenty, thirty years and one in their early or mid-twenties who is convinced that they have the juice because they’re young. Both mindsets rest on a self-induced presumption and that, more than anything, is destructive to the creative process. Ability dissolves if you let it (barring any physical impediment that might come along due to age or bad behavior). But it can happen whether you’re 22 or 55. Keep challenging yourself, do the research, keep honing that gift and you’ll do all right.

As for staying current with slang, I like the example of Daniel Waters, who decided it was too hard to stay current and invented his own slang for HEATHERS. Maybe Waters’ career isn’t to be emulated entirely, but that impulse ended up creating dialogue that has planted that film securely in cult status. Soemtimes doing the opposite of what’s expected can have great results. Assuming you’re creative and have a good ear for a great line.

And, Kevin, I appreciate your point, but I can honestly say I’d be much more excited to read your next script- regardless of the subject- than anything by Goldsman. Just personal bias, maybe, but some writers are lame at any age.

BTW, Harriet, I did not attemp to change your name to “Miss Diagnosing” last night.

I agree with both, L.B. and Chris.

When I was about 21 I had a 60 year old supervisor that made some observations about me and the people I hung out with that still amaze me. He was a very talented man. That talent is the most important thing in this writing thing. I believe if that man was a fiction writer, he could “keep in touch” by frequently observing the little things (no pun intended) all around him here and there. Of course, unless they still hang around the youth, the less talented will suffer in this aspect as they get older. Most writers just aren’t that talented. Ultimatly, the scripts are what decide all this shit.

I have always thought about this in the context of aging rock bands. It is very rare that a rock band produces 3 great albums. In most cases there is the first great album (the breakthrough), then they rush out a 2nd album which is often great as well, and then they usually have run out of that SOMETHING that made them inspired and great. Some can stay longer (U2, Stones, Led Zep, The Who, Beatles, etc) but for the most part rock groups top out at 2 or 3 great albums and then its over. I think that rockers are looking for money, fame, and acceptance. Once they gain those things the inspiration is gone. In most cases even if they lose all those things they still can’t make it back (some exceptions exist e.g. aerosmith).

I’m not saying the same is true of screenwriters, but it’s something to think about.

I think I’m going to write a romcom set in a retirement home where all the residents are inexplicably in tune with the pulse of youth culture. I’ll call it “My Milkshake’s Gone Sour.”

Kevin & Ryan: I didn’t mean to offend you—I did say that there were exceptions to the rule. I pray I am an exception as well.

But if you think I’m kidding or exaggerating, think again. Maybe I’ve got the diagnosis wrong, but the symptoms are unmistakable. Lots of stories about alternate realities, with quasi- or super-human protagonists, and generally an absence of any real reason to care about the story you’re reading.

I have a theory, of course. A few years ago, I started seeing parents standing next to me in line at the registrar’s office. My own parents were thousands of miles away, having dropped me off at the airport several days earlier. Then I heard that parents were calling my professors and complaining about grades.

Now, magically, I’m finding that a slew of people my own age have no idea how to create believable characters. My suspicion is that they’ve been so protected from life, they can’t simulate a reasonable facsimile on the page.

sincerely,

Miss Diagnosis

Could it be perhaps that they enjoy film for the escapist elements and don’t necessarily have dreams of changing the world with high art? Not every writer needs to use film to mend his tortured soul, because not every writer has a tortured soul. Some just like going to the movies and have a sense for what they would want to see on the screen, and there’s certainly a place for that in the film industry.

Harriet:

You didn’t offend me, I just know that you’re way off. And I’m not just using myself as an example to predicate the exception to the rule. Most of our iconic directors and writers have created masterpieces before they were 30.

Look it up.

Steven Spielberg did Jaws before 30. George Lucas did American Graffiti before 30. James Cameron did The Terminator before 30. Spike Jonze did Being John Malkovich before 30. William Goldman published a book in his 20’s. Billy Wilder had like 25 screenplays produced before he was 30.

Ted Elliott wrote Aladdin when he was 30.

Just think of a writer or director that you really like. More than likely they started their career before 30.

Now, magically, I’m finding that a slew of people my own age have no idea how to create believable characters. My suspicion is that they’ve been so protected from life, they can’t simulate a reasonable facsimile on the page.”

Here’s where I think you’re confused. I think it’s just more likely that the people you’re interacting with are the 97% of writers that aren’t employed. Which is good. It’s supposed to be that way. This business is extremely difficult and it’s not for everyone. I’d be shocked if most of the people you encountered could tell a great story.

Now on the flip side, most of the working writers and directors started before they were 30. It’s been that way since the 1940’s.

As I get older, I don’t find my writing is less creative but I do find it’s emotionally deeper.

I’m an older newbie who has switched from fiction to screenplays after a long time-out from writing to raise kids, etc.

For the hell of it, I decided to adapt an unfinished novel I had put aside in my mid-20s.

I hadn’t read the thing for many years and what I found was my 20-something self was creating a story from a place of frustration with relationships. However, at the time I was still unaware of what causes the various issues between men and women.

Anyway, as I adapted the novel for screen I now had the life experience to put in layers which I couldn’t do at 25 because I was clueless.

My dialogue-writing skills were lightyears better, after years of observing people & learning how they reveal themselves through dialogue.

Although this script is more Indie fare — being a smaller story, more of an an edgy rom-com/drama — it’s been well received as a writing sample.

Add to that the 20-somethings who have read it have idenified with the characters. Of course I never tell anyone the basic storyline was written 20 years ago.

If age or generational factors made stories obsolete, no one would find value in Shakespeare. No one would find value in re-imagining Romeo & Juliet. Human issues are timeless.

With that said - a writer can be a shallow hack at any age.

“Kevin & Ryan: I didn’t mean to offend you—I did say that there were exceptions to the rule. I pray I am an exception as well.”

Didn’t offend me. For one thing, I’m closer to the old fogey person now (at age 35), and I didn’t really start writing until I was 30, so who knows if I could’ve done anything worth a damn prior to that.

Good post. The moth-like lawyers just love to sue Hollywood, because it’s one of the industries that likes to flaunt it’s wealth like a big porch-zapper. Old people gotta move aside some day!

There’s no way that any writer over 40 could have written the “My Humps” joke in “Blades of Glory”….

…not sure if that’s really a bad thing.

I think the generation gap is narrowing. The internet and our ability to embrace computers and electronics keep folks more plugged-in than they used to be. Perhaps it will be easier to remain fresh. Perhaps I’m a naive fool.

Thomas:

Here’s the good news. You’re not a fool.

But the generation gap isn’t narrowing. The generation gap will never narrow. Newer technology may seem like it’s bringing us closer together but just because a 15 year old and a 50 year old both have IPod’s doesn’t mean they’re listening to the same music, so to speak.

I can vividly remember being a teenager, it was only just a decade ago but I also realized this…I fucking hate teenagers.

Seriously.

When my son turns 13 I’m gonna lock him away in some dungeon, fit him with a big iron mask, and release him at 20. I’ll deal with the consequences later.

When I see a teenager behind the register at a department store, a little tear forms in my right eye. I’d rather see anything else than a teenager behind the register. I’d rather watch Mr. T rape my parents than a 16 year old who can’t find the button for shirt. And I know a lot of adults feel the same way.

Maybe not the rape part.

If you’re an older writer looking to stay relevant with “the youth,” I have an idea. Get a protege!

My screenwriting partner is more than twice my age, so when our 20-year-old protagonist has something to say, I do most of that. However, I’m learning tons about stuff about structure and making the stage descriptions as interesting as the dialogue and so on and so forth.

I read/hear/discuss the work of 18-25 year olds all the time, and it would make Bud Schulberg bleed out of the eyeballs. These are writers who’ve never had their heart broken (or maybe just once, by someone special that they idealize beyond all reason.) They’ve never been chewed out by a superior they wanted desperately to please. They’ve never been denied their heart’s fondest hhope, never screwed up so royally they wished they were dead.

Harriet, I’m not sure how or where you grew up but if you haven’t experienced those things by 25 years old, I think it’s time to move out of the cave. By 24 I was already married and divorced. And I’m not exactly in the minority

I was married at 18 and divorced before I turned 22. And I’ve wished I was dead since I was about 8.

Writing out the dysfunctions and weirdnesses of early experience in a way that connects to audiences is one of the peculiar traits of extraordinary writers. The ability to use the emotion every experience in one’s own life and make extrapolations based on characters’ age, sex, socioeconomic condition and somehow make it feel true. Empathy is a common trait of truly great writers; empathy on meth. These are the writers whose early work engages and later work devastates.

But I agree with Harriet, for the majority, the merely good, mediocre or (dear god) bad writer (so clearly this paragraph applies to no one on these pages) experience can be the making of them. It’s true that it’s possible to have the experiences she described at an early age. What is missing when writing from that perspective is perspective. What comes next?

Sure you can write about things and be a good writer in the 18-25, but let’s face it at that age we’re still distracted by any number of left over adolescent biological, parental and emotional issues which impede our ability to observe the world outside ourselves. We can write about our own angst, sure. But even the angst is so much more finely drawn once it gains a little historical perspective.

And yes, you can get divorced at a young age, but due respect to the pain involved at 20-25; divorce is an event which reaches operatic proportions after 10 or 15 years of mortgages and orthodontist bills, receding hairlines and bills and ballet lessons. The of a person who has asked ‘What comes next?’ from that perspective is writing from a far more interesting place.

But if they’re tryin’ to be writers for televsion and their writing talents make them better suited for being a greeter at Wal-Mart all the perspective in the world won’t make them ‘relevant’.

And Kev, I too hate teenagers; have ever since age 14.

Sheesh…and my post is what happens when you don’t think to edit until after hitting ‘post’. But hopefully you catch my drift.

And yes, you can get divorced at a young age, but due respect to the pain involved at 20-25; divorce is an event which reaches operatic proportions after 10 or 15 years of mortgages and orthodontist bills, receding hairlines and bills and ballet lessons. The of a person who has asked ‘What comes next?’ from that perspective is writing from a far more interesting place.”

Essentially you’re correct about the younger crowd not quite understanding what’s going on in the mind of a 50 year old but generally speaking, these aren’t the movies that studios flock to get made. Studios want to make movies about a weird little clown puppet that tortures people while Cary Elwes saws off his leg.

Then again, I’m getting the feeling that we’ve all kind of drifted away from Craig’s original point.

I think it had something to do with George Harrison getting old or something.

Why is it when a guy in his fifties does Jewish jokes it’s considered “old hat,” but when a writer for “Family Guy” does those them it’s considered “edgy?”

To me, it’s not that hard to stay in touch when every script is littered with pop culture references from the eighties that we all lived through.

By the way, anyone bought tickets for “Xanadu” on Broadway?

All throwing a bunch of pop culture drivel into a script will do is damage it’s library potential. No shelf-life = fewer TV sales and DVD/HD/HB/VOD-whatever-else-the-future-holds sales down the road. Or did I miss the BREAKIN II: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO “director’s cut” blu-ray release?

It all comes down to story. No one’s going to walk away from a great story because it doesn’t have enough “My Humps” jokes (FYI, already stale. Sorry Alanis). If you’re telling a story about a 17-year-old white trash mall idiot and you need to throw some of that stuff in, ask your fat niece (because cool kids haven’t listened to BEP since the first LP). Research it. I mean I don’t have to be a cop to write movies about cops, right? Because I’m not a cop. And those “impersonating an officer” charges were nothing but a big misunderstanding.

If you really feel the need to stay current, date someone half your age. By the way, Dan Waters is a personal hero.

I tried dating someone half my age when I turned thirty. Trust me, there are repercussions.

The idea that age alone would kill you as a writer because you’re no longer “naturally hip” is highly amusing to me — maybe screenwriters are different, but many writers were not the coolest person in the room when they were young. Their relative isolation and their feeling of detachment were precisely why they became writers.

Slang changes from school to school and group to group; good writing is never about pure transcription anyway.

I’m glad that Frank McCourt didn’t decide that there was no point in writing a memoir at 66.

Why didn’t he start earlier? He had to take a grinding day job and possibly he wasn’t emotionally or technically ready. Did starting to write seriously only after retiring as a N.Y.C. Public Schools teacher make him any less good? I don’t think so.

Is every older person who decides to write going to be a Frank McCourt? Of course not. But would you want to live in a world without Angela’s Ashes?

I’m now going to sing a song called Novelists and Screenwriters Are Not The Same.

And I’m going to respond with the refrain:

People have been writing poems, plays, and novels for hundreds of years, but they’ve only been writing scripts for about a hundred, and people are living longer, so why don’t we try to approach things with an open mind?

Anonymous:

Open mind?! It’s the movie business!:)

But seriously…it’s the movie business.

Kevin,

Is it possible for you to post without tooting your own fucking horn? Seriously. Every time I check the comments on this site you’re talking about all the big, big things you’re doing.

Kevin can say whatever the hell he wants as long as he makes at least one obscene Mr. T reference. It’s in the Rulebook.

I got yer back, yo.

Just to step back from the writing edge of things…

If a group of senior citizens filed a class action suit against the leading strip clubs of America for discrimination in employment we’d all roll over and laugh to high heavens.

Meanwhile, these strip clubs are all perfectly legal and legitimate (as far as stripping is concerned), so what separates these two cases as being plausible and laughable?

Not that I’m looking, but there are plenty of mature magazines behind those black flaps you keep wanting to peek behind. So there is some demand.

Would marginalizing this type of employment just be too silly? Because “silly“‘s really the only way to separate these cases. And I don’t think that’s a legal term.

In an accurate judicial system, both of those cases would fall under the same verdict… yet in an accurate society, only one of them would even make it to court.

Sounds pretty silly to me.

This post is full of so much total bullshit that it’s going to take a steamshovel to get through it.

As a writer well over the age of 40 who still works, I can tell you for a fact that none of your reasons why the guillotine falls on your 40th birthday is accurate. Sorry, you’re as fullof shit as any 30-nothing is (as I was back when I was a 30-nothing.)

The truth is, older writers get better as they get older. Being a good writer means being a good observer of life and - sorry! - no kid like you knows as much about life as anyone older than you. I’ll let you in on a secret: it’s at about 40 that you get the “key to the bathroom of life.” Things that used to puzzle you about how and why people do the things they do suddenly start to make sense, because you’ve been dealing with them long enough to finally have a fucking clue. (In other words, you finally have “character motivation” down cold!) I can write any teenage angst movie you want, because I’ve been a teenager and I know that angst, and I also know much better now how to express it, explain it and detail it. No Generation Y-bother semiliterate can do that about a guy facing a midlife crisis. They don’t have a clue.

The truth is that age discrimination does exist. I can tell you that when the smartest guy in the room isn’t just some motherfucking goddamned writer but is also old enough to bring up all their unresolved parent-child issues, when you’re dealing with the typical Hollywood Rocket Scientist, that’s going to be a problem, and it’s not going to end up with you working there. This is not just writers. I have a good friend, a really excellent 1st AD, a guy I would hire in a heartbeat to backstop me if anyone was ever crazy enough to let me direct something I’ve written, and he has retired and left the State because the little halfwits from the University of Spoiled Children are afraid he might show them up on the set by actually knowing enough to keep them from fucking the pooch unknowlingly, and their delicate little “aren’t you just wonderful my little Brandon-boy” egos can’t stand the thought. Never mind that he learned back when they were still in plastic pants that you don’t do it that way. All the kiddies are too afraid someone will see them for the talentless halfwits most of them are, and point that out. They live in abject fear of that (almost all creative people have this fear, most needlessly, but we all know which kind of pampered moron I am talking about here).

The truth is, when I get hired to write a script, they could shoot what I turn in as the “First Draft” because it’s actually the 25th draft (and it was written within 45 days, max), since I have been around long enough to know what a “good draft” is, unlike the kids who turn in 120 pages of beautiful toiletpaper-substitute requiring someone like me to come in and rewrite it in English, turn Caricatures into Characters, and remember that the word “movie” is a contraction of the word “moving picture,” the medium by which the story is told (most “screenwriters” have no clue how to do that, they think they’re writing fucking “literature” rather than blueprints).

I just did a rewrite of an adaptation of a Great American 19th Century Novel, in which it was perfectly obvious that DorkBoy, the original writer, had no clue about anything, since his “education” was limited to talking about TV shows he’d grown up on and movies the failure he had as a professor loved(that’s the truth, folks, “perfessers of movie-making” at your big-time expensive movie schools are FAILURES - if they had any talent, any skill, any real ability, do you think they would be wasting their fucking time on you in that classroom when they could be raking in the Big Buckaroos in Hollywierd???)

My writing mentor was the late Wendell Mayes. Go look him up in the IMDb and tell me he couldn’t write “after 40.” He died at age 78, six weeks after turning in the final draft of the last script he was paid to write. There’s none of us - not even you, Craig - who are going to have careers like his, and it hasn’t got squat to do with our lacking any of the things you listed.

As far as my health goes, I am in better health than I was when I came here. I stopped smoking 20 years ago, cut down on the booze, haven’t done any drugs, and I walk (admittedly a strange thing in L.A.) a good 3-4 miles a day. I can write for 8 hours at a clip, and my general “goal” in a day is 5-6 pages of completely new stuff, with the rework as necessary of the pages preceeding. I was a “write-fast” when I came here, and I still am. The difference being now that I am a “write-fast-right.” And that comes from experience.

Sorry, Craig my friend - this one’s a gutter ball.

Better luck on your next post.

Oh, and as regards “popular culture references,” one doesn’t even need to go teach in south-central. You want to know how MySpace works and what they do on it and what they say there? Put “www.myspace.com” in your browser and go spend some time there. It’s called research.

Slang is slang is slang. You can learn it.

C’mon, if you people aren’t smart enough to figure this out without some Auld Phart pointing it out to you, how the hell do you call yourselves writers????

TCinLA is not wrong.

Go back and read my post, and then read his. See if you can connect the dots.

Miss D

TCinLA,

I guess you won’t agree if I say there are probably dozens of screenwriters half your age out there way more talented than you’ll ever be?

Your comment was no less Bullshit than the ones motivating you to write it. Why does everything have to be either black or fucking white? Such superficial crap is the reason there’s such a lack of good storytelling, even with the amount of souls out there doing this.

Tragically, Craig, I think you are horribly, horribly unimformed and suffering from the proverbial 20/30 something “White Male Supremacist Attitude” that plagues Hollywood so pervasively over the last 20 years. Which is exactly what is wrong with this whole business of showbusiness.

I know the discrimination is “REAL”, especially for women. Why? Because I’ve had the doors slammed in my face too many times to count — and sometimes by women themselves. I’ve been told to write out female characters in my scripts because women aren’t marketable in film, etc. And the list goes on and on.

I know because I lived in LA for five years pounding the pavement after earning my MFA in screenwriting in 2001. I know because there were no female Oscar contenders this year. And I know because of the paltry statistics of the number of female writers and directors in film and television — readily available to men such as yourself. If you apprised yourself of these statistics and looked more closely, you will know that discrimination is alive and well in La La land. And that is WRONG, IMMORAL AND ILLEGAL!

The closest I’ve come to success is being selected as a 2006 Sundance Feature Film finalist contender for my first screenplay Red Fury. I didn’t win one of the 12 coveted spots, but at least I got READ! And that’s a feat in itself for a 54 yr. old Boomer Girl with three degrees in the arts these days!

And I know, Craig, because of all of the “B” rated films produced and marketed only to male adolescents these days, that leave out the other half of humanity — the adult world!

Ah, how I long for the films of the 30’s, 40s and the 50s and I’ll throw in the 60s as well. At least, they had something to say with “REAL FLESH AND BLOOD CHARACTERS” to say it, which is all but non existent in films today.

BILLY WILDER and ZOE AKINS where are you!

Linda Dallas, Texas

but linda, your story is EXACTLY the same as thousands upon thousands of men. so why do you think that in your case it’s because of your gender?

and men, too, are told to write female characters out. and told to write to people who actually buy product - young people, mostly young men.

directing is not readily available to anyone, male or female, unless they do it themselves with their own money and resources. hollywood chooses who is going to make money. not who is male or female, young or old.

if you want to do things outside of the narrow confines of hollywood - which is a business, not a person with feelings, grudges, isms, etc - start looking to 4gm.

sorry, but of all the posts on this thread, yours is the one that is purely sour grapes. it is the post of someone who hasn’t written something that sets the money makers on fire and so blames their lack of success anywhere but their script.

having art degrees - no matter how many - doesn’t make you good at creating something other people want.

I really enjoyed TCinLA’s comment, and would note that, to me, Craig’s argument breaks down as thus:

There is not ageism in Hollywood screenwriting because it is strictly a merit-based system.

Which, even to my New York eyes, seems a bit of a challenge to prove … while I cannot attest to the ageism thing, I can say that I have witnessed several instances where work was given out to people without regard to their merit.

So first we have to prove that screenwriting is ONLY a merit-based system … certainly there are those who value merit and quality, (and I would add that in my opinion, Scott Frank is worth more than 2 million, he should be a 20 million guy) … it has seemed, only with what I have seen and heard about, that there are also many who care more about things that have nothing to do with merit.

So therefore we cannot really state, not completely, that this ageism case doesn’t work becuz Hollywood is strictly a merit system.

That doesn’t mean the ageism cannot be disproven in other ways, of course.

I’d also like to address the novelist / movie-writing thing brought up before. Writing is writing, one can either do it really well or not … the only difference between a novel and a screenplay is the role the audience plays.

William Goldman (no youngster himself) has done both, as has Micheal Crighton and others.

The living writer with the most screen credits to his name is none other than Stephen King.

Dear Unorthodox:

There probably are. And your pissy little point is………..

joshua -

i don’t see anyone saying that hollywood screen writing is ALL on merit. so your comments about lack of merit have no merit.

HAH!

Okay … I thought that was Craig’s argument … wasn’t it?

no. that’s an extreme interpretation of craig’s argument.

he’s not entirely correct, that’s true.

but he didn’t say - nor has anyone else that i can see - that all scripts and assignments are merit based.

in fact, if you look at the history of what craig has said, it’s always been along the lines of “hollywood is basically a meritocracy, but obviously not always.”

we all (i think) know there are places where it’s not.

but that’s more to do with cronyism and nepotism than other ageism or sexism.

ugh, i meant “either” not “other”

i’ve just noticed that my earlier post says “hollywood chooses who is going to make money”

i can see that in text (rather than general speech) that this may be misinterpreted, so i’ll say this:

it is probably better said “hollywood chooses those who they think are going to make money for them”.

lest anyone think i meant that hollywood was choosing who would make money.

in that, hollywood cares only about profit, rather than gender, age, etc.

my example of CM’s argument is less an extreme version and more a simplistic one.

I agree that hollywood cares more about profit than anything else, but that doesn’t mean ageism doesn’t happen as a result … other corporations are the same and in the past have used that argument to fire pregnant woman (maternity leave costs them money) and older applicants (health costs, older people get sick more)until it was pointed out that this violates civil rights …

I’m not saying this suit is the same, just that your argument doesn’t disprove it.

Wait…what was Craig’s point again?

I’m not sure the last 30 posts are anywhere close.

I would add, Tim, that there are those on this very thread who have pointed out that old people just aren’t as good as writing movies as younger people (Craig himself hints as much, saying that after he turns 40 and he feels he’s not good anymore, he’ll just quit) and where, I ask, is the empirical evidence supporting the idea that old writers aren’t at least as good as young writers? Does this mean that when Scott Frank is 50 he’ll be done?

But don’t you admit that there exists the idea that at a certain age, you cease to be relevant as a writer when it comes to film and television writing? Whether it’s true or not, don’t more than a few folks believe this, and isn’t that the theme of Craig’s post?

To which I’d ask, where is the evidence that a great writer loses his relevancy after a certain age?

your first sentence there, “my example of CM’s argument is less an extreme version and more a simplistic one.” actually made my head tilt.

don’t be offended, but i’m more used to americans arguing extreme than simplistic.

… although the two do intersect … but that’s a whole other website!

so:

“corporations in the past have used that argument to fire pregnant woman (maternity leave costs them money) and older applicants (health costs, older people get sick more)until it was pointed out that this violates civil rights”

arguments in one sphere are not the same as reality of business in another sphere. this is something i’ll come back to.

“I’m not saying this suit is the same, just that your argument doesn’t disprove it.”

i never said my argument disproves the point. i was talking about what you said.

here’s the basic problem (the thing i said i was going to come back to) - when you become a doctor or a lawyer or similar profession, there is a mandated test you must pass. then you must keep up with the changes, or you can be struck off and not be allowed to practice any more.

some people view a screenwriting degree as being the same. they have passed a test, so they feel owed a job.

but we don’t work in an industry like that. people who have no degree sometimes outdo those who do and vice versa.

trying to claim ageism or sexism or whatever in this situation is silly, because we don’t work in a strictly regulated business as doctors and lawyers and accountants and many other people do.

Actually, we agree on more points than might meet the eye … it’s unregulated, compared to other industries, which means that discrimination does happen … because simply that’s what people do, whether it be because someone is too old, too muslim or too fat … it happens.

And you’re right, there is no test to take to guarantee a job … tho’ if one has multiple credits on the resume and then told “we want someone younger” as was told to John August earlier, than what’s the response to that?

I’m not arguing for the suit, I’m simply stating I believe Craig’s argument has a number of flaws. And that, if we agree ageism exists (something I asked in my first post) than why wouldn’t it be in this industry if it exists in all the others?

As I pointed out, many people on this thread believe older writers aren’t as good as younger writers when it comes to movies, and Craig hints as much in his post.

Our industry, except that it is unregulated (somewhat) isn’t THAT different from other corporations, is it really? Not at the corporate level.

Anyway, we are kinda going in circles, but what fun circles they be … cheers mate!

TCinLA,

This thread mainly consists of people that believe older writers can no longer write something “cool”, or those who believe young writers can’t write something as profound as the older ones. I think it’s ignorant to believe either one. That was my point.

“there are those on this very thread who have pointed out that old people just aren’t as good as writing movies as younger people”

pointed out? bollox. they’ve stated an opinion, not pointed out or proved anything. they’ve just stated an opinion, just like you and i. there are likewise people who have ‘pointed out’ that older people are better writers and they’re just spouting opinion as well.

“Craig himself hints as much, saying that after he turns 40 and he feels he’s not good anymore, he’ll just quit”

hints. there we go. hints? or what you want to think he means? does he say ‘at 40, i’ll quit!’? or does he say he thinks he may not be as good in the future as he is now?

“and where, I ask, is the empirical evidence supporting the idea that old writers aren’t at least as good as young writers?”

in the same place where the empirical evidence supporting the idea that young writers aren’t at least as good as old writers.

nowhere.

that’s not what i’m arguing.

“Does this mean that when Scott Frank is 50 he’ll be done?”

but this is the stupidity of the argument - who’s to say he won’t run out of steam?

people do.

that’s why sitcom writers rooms are often staffed with youngsters - they have the energy to keep going.

who’s to say that scott frank will even want to keep writing? maybe he’ll be satisfied with his body of work and go off to do something else. it’s happened many times before.

“But don’t you admit that there exists the idea that at a certain age, you cease to be relevant as a writer when it comes to film and television writing?”

the idea as you say it? i don’t know - i don’t work in the industry.

from an outsiders point of view, i think it is maybe to do with young execs wanting to hire people their own age, PLUS older writers not wanting to be enslaved to young execs. whenever i’ve been put in charge of people older than me, i’ve seen resentment. i’d imagine it’s the same for writers.

“To which I’d ask, where is the evidence that a great writer loses his relevancy after a certain age?”

ahh, but we’re not talking about great writers, are we? we’re talking about work-a-day, industry writers.

you must surely recognize that there is a huge difference.

p.s. i’m off for easter now, so i won’t be replying for a bit.

kevin:

no, the last 30 posts have not been close. but they’ve been fun.

at least for me.

joshua:

yeah, we’re mostly on the same page, with some point arguing.

cheers indeed! :D

tim

Strippers, please. Let’s keep on topic.

Also, I don’t think I’ve ever used the word “crotchety” before, but Mr. LA might’ve just broadened my vocabulary. Lets keep the language clean, folks.

As I pointed out, many people on this thread believe older writers aren’t as good as younger writers when it comes to movies, and Craig hints as much in his post.”

Wait, that’s not exactly it. I’m not sure anyone believes that older writers aren’t as good as younger writers (but if that’s how my posts read, that’s my fault). What I’m saying is this…writer’s start out with a certain level of talent. Let’s make this writer 20 years old. And for the sake of argument, let’s just say that he’s good. Now as he gets older and hits 30, he’ll be even better. And let’s just say that he just got first writing gig. His experience and skills will reflect in his writing. Now the writer hits 40 and he’ll be even better. He’s got a decade of work behind him and his work is solid.

Now the writer hits 50.

That’s 20 years of bullshit. He’s put up with all the crap, the being replaced for no reason, and a lot of that passion he had when he was 30 is gone. A lot of the executives are younger than him and they keep saying that they want more mindless drivel on screen. He wrote a classic 10 years earlier and executives are telling him that they want a prequel to Dude Where’s My Car? The words, Fuck You scroll in a continuous loop.

5 years later, the reality of age starts to set in because well…he’s a human being. He’s just not the same writer he was when he was 40. Now he’s 60. Of course he can still write, it’s not like he’s Robert DeNiro in Awakenings. But he’s just not the same writer he was 20 years ago. Most of the passion is gone. He’s fed up. And no one wants to hear the stories he wants to tell.

Okay, so that’s a scenario. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule but if you talk to a writer at 30 and a writer at 50, 9 times out of 10 they’re gonna mirror that writer I just wrote about.

And more importantly, everyone needs to go see Grindhouse tomorrow.

“Obviously there are exceptions to the rule…”

NO!!!

What makes this entire thread so utterly moronic, is that there are no rules! There are talented and successful writers older than 40… and there are talented and succesful writers under 40.

• gasp ! -

Everybody’s career is different. And any attempt to generalize or find some common denominator or a universal, all-encompassing theory is totally, and utterly, pointless. As is this argument.

Kudos to you, Johnny.

Johnny:

You’re confusing the crazy life of Hollywood and basic statistics.

While it’s really cool to say and even cooler to shout out, Hollywood does have rules. It always has. Sure, everybody is different but the path I described HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. And we’re not talking about 40 year olds. We’re talking about 50 and 60 year olds.

There are a lot of things that are totally and completely universal in this business. Age, whether we like it or not, is one of them.

And a lot of time, in Hollywood as well as New York, someone maintains ONE thing and then in the next breath maintains the complete opposite view … which is why Goldman’s famous phrase “No one knows anything” tickles so many people.

But it is a zen riddle in and of itself, because if it were truly TRUE and NO ONE KNOWS ANYTHING, why are we listening to Goldman? He doesn’t know anything!

Bill’s best joke on Hollywood is that phrase.

It’s no question in my mind that screenwriters get better with experience (age) — screenwriting is a difficult skill to master and takes quite a lot of time for most people. But it’s impossible to make generalizations about young writers vs. old writers (“young writers’ work has more relevancy for today´s young audiences”) — everything (aside from experience) depends on the talent of the individual writer and how he or she is perceived by the industry.

Last year I went to a talk that was given by a screenwriter (Canadian born but works mostly in Hollywood) and all I can remember is an offhand remark of his, that the Hollywood industry is not really script-driven, it’s concept-driven.

If this is true (and I’m sure a lot of people would agree this is true) then it follows that great screenwriting skills is not neccessarily the asset that’s most valued or sought after. Paradoxically (perhaps not so paradoxically) the industry is very dependent on skilful screenwriters.

Ted posted:

“Meanwhile, the under-31 share of television employment declined by nearly 5 percentage points over the period, from 12.1 percent in 1982 to 7.2 percent in 2003. It should also be noted that only writers in the 51-60 age category enjoyed a significant jump in their share of television employment after 1996 (6 percentage points), suggesting that older writers are continuing to hold their own on the television employment front.”

That sums it up for me.

Linda:

“Tragically, Craig, I think you are horribly, horribly unimformed and suffering from the proverbial 20/30 something “White Male Supremacist Attitude” that plagues Hollywood so pervasively over the last 20 years.”

Maybe if you weren’t so focused on being a sexist race-baiter you’d have found more success yourself.

“Empathy is a common trait of truly great writers; empathy on meth.”

I would also add sympathy and compassion - but I don’t think you need an iota of empathy, sympathy, or compassion to do comedy.

And so much writing for youth is comedy which lacks depth or sympathy or compassion -

You need those qualities for adult drama, but not necessarily for horror or comedy.

I’m not going to delete any of the above comments, probably because the most uncivil of them is directed at me, but please folks, let’s remember our basic decorum whilst we assault each other.

TCinLA, it’s possible that you’re right. I don’t know. I’m only 36. I’m a “kid,” I guess. What does that make the Citizen Kane era Orson Welles? A baby?

I reject any notion that you necessarily get better or worse as you get older. No one necessarily gets anything as they age.

What I’m talking about are basic trends. The last thing I’d do is argue a topic like this in absolutes.

Linda:

While sexism surely exists in Hollywood, I don’t think you can draw the conclusion that this is why you have failed. It’s quite possible—probable, even—almost a certainty, come to think of it—that you’re just not good enough to be a professional screenwriter.

(Your self-appraisal and screenwriting degree notwithstanding)

Sorry for being blunt, but that’s how we White Supremacist Whippersnappers roll.

Craig,

Orsen Welles was truly a talent, and made two really great movies and acted well in a few others.

John Ford, William Wyler, Howard Hawkes, Frank Capra all made many more than two and many while they are far and above the age of 30 …

Joshua:

John Ford, William Wyler, Howard Hawkes, Frank Capra all made many more than two and many while they are far and above the age of 30 …”

They were all hacks.

You want genius? Ever hear of Uwe Boll? He’s made some of the greatest films since the invention of film. I hear he’s doing White Chicks 2: The Rise of Hasselhoff.. I smell a Blockbuster Video Award…

Uwe Boll gets in the ring with me, he’s in trouble, he can’t handle leg kicks … tell ya that much right now.

He! Your watching too much MMA, Joshua. scratch that - You can never watch too much MMA.

*You’re.

That’s right! And I wouldn’t be wearing those soft gloves Uwe had on, neither.

Linda may be onto something, even if it wasn’t her point -

I think there were more good roles for women back when more movies were written for adults.

TV and home video make it so easy for adults to just stay home, so, they usually do.

But come to think of it, surely Hollywood must have been even much more top to bottom male-dominated “back in the day” - even in the 70s and 80s - regardless of how many actual roles were written for adult women.

Another point: maybe I’ve only spent a few months of my life on sets, but I’d have to say that invariably, most of the crew is men.

It could be that some male writers are making the necessary connections as they work in crews as PAs or DPs or Grips or whatever.

And don’t forget: we men tend to be bolder about tooting our own horns than women are.

I still remember 1st grade in the 70s being one of those “OOH! OOH!” kids demanding the teacher let us talk (it was never the girls: they were too well mannered, nice, or meek). In that vein…

I once taught English in Korea for 3 months, years after the military stationed me in Japan, and I saw another side of Asia: its kids.

Not just even, but especially at a VERY YOUNG AGE the boys were much much more assertive and brave in class than the girls. Later on, not as much.

What was interesting was: the boys weren’t any smarter. They were just a lot more confident.

They were bolder - they took more risks: they were more contentious and difficult.

But sometimes that screwed them up.

I once devised a little treasure hunt game for the adult classes: I divided them into men and women, just as an experiment.

You just needed to translate the English to go from place to place - the men would invariably solve the first two clues, and start arguing at Point # 2 and go no further.

To my great amusement.

The women (who I initially thought were not as bright as the male students since they were so unconfident in class) always finished the whole damn 12 steps, because they cooperated better.

Can that be applied to America, or LA?

Probably not - but whether it’s due to nature or nurture, there really are differences in the way men and women think and perform.

Linda,

If you want to write lesbian women, go see Stephen Jarchow (pronounced Jar-co) at Regent Entertainment. They have offices in Dallas. His company’s focus has mostly been making Lifetime-type movies, though they’ve moved more toward movies gay content recently (and they own one of the gay cable channels).

At any rate, that’s a guy who has, in my experience, been willing to meet with writers with no previous credits and read their work. And they’re a company that has, in the past, looked for scripts with female leads.

And they’re in Dallas.

Old shit, or too old to shit, it all smells about the same.

C’mon folks, this is Hollywood we’re talking about here. Where is the creativity? Where is that innate ability to turn a turd into a fairy tale? Let’s take this smelly lemon and turn it into Jager-ade.

I for one am starting a talent agency… for people with actual talent of course. What’s our hook? Talent and the fact that every one of our writers shows for meetings in monkey suits (the gorilla variety – not business suit). Everyone, from the pimply-faced savant, to Aunt Lisa (who’s only 20 and is smoking hot!), and yes, even smelly old grandpa. Won’t the voice give them away you ask – got that – we’ve selected the Stephen Hawking voice simulator. Smelly old guy – way ahead of you – monkey suit with super sonic pheromones.

Who’s in that monkey suit they ask? We say, “A man or woman, of unknown ethnicity, and of undetermined age, who is the next Charlie Kaufman, u dumb bastard! The monkey’s got another meeting in five, so we godda go – call me.”

You want a brilliant writing sample? Great, it’s on its way. You want a face to face –great the monkey will be there in an hour.

The secondary brilliance (if I must say so myself) is in addition to the writer being viewed strictly on “talent,” they’ve no need to shave, fix their hair, and worry about their looks, their crows’ feet, or their lack of style. Nudity is not only acceptable but highly recommended (we don’t discriminate but we do get bored).

The way I figure it, anyone willing to wear a real honest to goodness monkey suit, to sell his or her ability, has got what it takes to make it in Hollywood.

Maybe it’s because the studio people figure that if their average demographic of movie goer is 18, than the further away from 18 the writer is, the less touch he has in writing stuff that they think would interest them… in one hand they have a mediocre script written by a 22 year old, in the other a great one by a 54 year old, the age trumps

just a theory that I hope is not accurate

All I know is TCinLA’s post gave me a nipple hard-on, whereas most of the Gen-XYZ’ers here seem to have trouble stringing together their half-baked thoughts into a decent paragraph. I believe the kids today — with their MTV videogames — would declare y’all “PWN3D.”

Isn’t it amazing when you tell the truth that all the FEMALE BASHERS come out in droves!?? For the record, I’m not a lesbian, but if I were, the slurs made against me proves my case in gender discrimination in Hollywood.

As far as my script Red Fury is concerned, any one who knows anything about the Sundance film festival knows what a political zoo Sundance has become, even to Robert Redford’s Chagrin. And for your info, my script Red Fury, and I consider myelf a very, very lucky gitl, was read by Frank Yablans, the former CEO of both Paramount and MGM (Serpico, Mommie Dearest), whom I did my internship with. He and another famous producer wanted my first screenplay, but I refused to write out the female characters because the storyline would have completely fallen apart if I had, literally. And for the record, it had two male leads and was a social/politcal drama based on a true story set in Waco, Texsa in 1921 — no a lesbo story at all — and the guys loved it! And so did the girls!

Sorry, boys, I’m afraid my writing was and is good enough. But thank you for calling me a LESBIAN, YOU MAKE MY DAY and for proving my gender discrimination point so wonderfully well, especially whenever any CRITICISM is aimed of the so called Hollywood Boy Wonder Wannabes! Tah, Tah!

Who called you a lesbian?

So the problem with your career is that you’re a woman, you’re outspoken, Hollywood is a Boy Wonder Club, Sundance is political, everyone really loves your script, but someone wanted you to ruin it to satisfy his hatred of women…

…come on.

This is a joke, right?

You’re kidding. I call shenanigans.

Hey, Unorthodox:

We’re probably closer to agreeing than you think. I have a nice little political blog (got a Koufax nomination for Best new Blog of 2005 and came in second to Glenn Greenwald, which still impresses the hell out of me!). My partner on it is 24, a Harvard grad. He’s young enough to be my youngest son, but I think of him as a contemporary. My only complaint is the poor boy is a victim of American public miseducation of the 1980s/90s, when he got dropped in the slime pit of “Whole Language” so I have to copy-edit him to make sure his use of the language comes across as intelligently in use as it does in content. But he’s good. If I’m as healthy as the VA is telling me I am (weight proportionate to height, blood pressure 118/63, cholesterol 167, thank you very much SWMBO for turning me vegetarian four years ago - those would be great numbers if I was your age, Unorthodox), I expect to live to see the lad elected to Major political office.

My point is Talent doesn’t know an age. Combine talent with experience, and you have a leg up. But without talent, all the experience in the world will buy you nada. On this point, I am sure you and I agree.

I’m fine with not coming in first in the race. But I thoroughly dislike not even being allowed to run to begin with for bullshit reasons. I think you’d agree with that, too.

I’d just like to say here that the contributor here whose posts I have found most informative is Linda, who very obviously is not a lesbian.

I don’t know how many of you know this, but when my old comrade Dan O’Bannon first wrote “Alien,” Ripley was a man. It wasn’t until Ridley Scott couldn’t find anyone among the actors sent over who interested him that his old friend (and friend of mine) Brian Tufano, the cinematographer, mentioned to him that he had recently seen an actress who blew him away. So Ridley called her in, she did a screen test, and the rest - as they say - is history.

Think about Ridley as a man. Would it be half as interesting? “All drama is conflict.” Put a woman in any situation where she has to be taken seriously if things are to work out successfully, and you have just multiplied the conflict by 100. Plus, when it comes to the solution in third act, an M-60 with 500 rounds of full metal jacket isn’t going to cut it. She has to use her brains. I don’t know about you, but brains are interesting to me.

I made the professional mistake back during the Great Writer’s Strike of 1988 of taking this political thriller I had written that everyone liked and no one would do, and switched the two leads - made the woman the action lead. I was operating on the theory that guys who could get it made got 50 similar scripts a week, while women who could get it made got none in a year. It really changed everything in the script, for the better. It got optioned within a week of the strike being over by a Major Actress after a weekend read. Unfortunately, it didn’t get made. I ended up for a few years with the reputation of the guy who wrote great female action roles. They all got optioned and none got made. I finally stopped beating my head against the brick wall and went back to writing the usual male dominated crap, which sold, a few of which managed to tunnel out beneath the wire and present their forged documents and get released, but still…

Every time I sit down and start a new spec script, my first thought - since it’s my script and it has to interest me enough to do it - is to write a female lead. I really really wish the halfwitted little morons who are afraid of their wives and girlfriends, who are the shitbirds I have to deal with, weren’t there.

And I also notice from my friends who are writers, that anyone who says a woman can’t write or direct action has their head up their ass. Because they’re women, they’ll make the smart choices, the interesting choices. Look at how much series science fiction on cable is written by women and I rest my case.

So Linda, don’t stop.

All I said was that if she wanted to write lesbian women, there’s a producer in Dallas who produces movies who she might want to talk to. I mentioned the lesbian part because the production company has more recently focused on gay and lesbian content.

Just as one doesn’t need to be 16 to write 16 year-olds. One doesn’t need to be a lesbian to write lesbians. I just mentioned a potentially viable avenue to sell a script to a company that won’t make you write out the female parts.

I apologize for attempting to give someone a lead to potentially sell a script. I didn’t know that would piss that person off.

I’ll know better in the future.

“All I said was that if she wanted to write lesbian women”

And by this I mean, if she was willing to write lesbian women. Having not read her previous work (and I assume I never will if she gets mad if someone tries to give her a lead), I don’t know if that’s an avenue Linda is interested in. I just know that’s what Regent has been looking for recently.

Linda:

If you had managed to flip up the lenses on your angry-goggles for the twenty seconds or so that it would have taken you to read the whole thing, you might have noticed that the post with the word “lesbian” in it was not in fact a bash against you (Is that still considered a “bash,” by the way? Where?), but was posted by a guy trying, apparently out of the goodness of his heart, to suggest a place he knew of—local to you, no less—where you might be able to get your script read by a friendly, non-sexist eye and perhaps even find some work.

The fact that you were so busy anticipating prejudice, abuse and martyrdom that you couldn’t even discern this fairly obvious fact about Ryan’s message should tell you everything (but almost certainly won’t) about why you’ve failed in the past and will continue to do so in the future, in spite of all your manifest talents.

Your script may well be as good as you say it is, but that’s only half the equation. Purchasing a script also means purchasing a writer, and if what you’ve shown here is a valid sampling of your personality, then no one in their right mind would want to work with you. People who go through life in a state of unfocused, uninterrupted rage are simply not the kind of people most of us want to be around for the duration of a long-term, high-stress undertaking like making a movie. They aren’t the kinds of people you tend to refer to your friends, either, at least not if you want to keep them.

Why would you expect anyone to bother going to bat for you when it’s clear that sooner or later—smart money being on “sooner”—you and your toxic personality will find a way to fuck it up anyway?

(And for the record, this isn’t a gender bash. Trust me, you’d be every bit as insufferable if you were a man. You’d just have one less thing other than yourself to blame your problems on.)

Okay, I guess Ryan already said most of that.

Such are the hazards of being a slow typist….

I think you said it better than I did, E.e.

TCinLA:

By VA - Did you mean Veterans Affairs? I was a bluejacket for 5 years.

Well, I’m a “mad writer”.

Being an “angry writer” is not a bad thing. And unfortunately you 20-nothing halfwits prove you “don’t get it” with your posts. Wait ten years till you get the on/off switch for your brains.

Being an angry anything is a bad thing.

Plus, I have my suspicions that Linda’s posts aren’t real.

Linda:

In my experience, at least 50% of a screenwriting career hinges on how you are in a room.

Based on your above screeds, I can understand why you have failed so miserablly.

“the slurs made against me proves my case in gender discrimination in Hollywood.”

How could you possibly infer that this forum represents Hollywood?

And when I look back at the greats… Twain, for example… I don’t recall any CAPSLOCKS proving his points. What was it he used again? Oh, right, an understanding of the language.

Whoever blasted the youths for using “PWN3D” should actually go back and read how Their Brave Soldiers have been making their points: with flagrant abuse of exclamation marks and capslocks. That’s a fistfight, not a conversation.

PWN3D.

Huck: tom u trikked evry1 n2 whitewashin teh fence 4 u LOL!!!!1

Tom: PWN3D.

In what way would that not have been great…?

Unorthodox:

Yeppers, the Veterans Administration. The best socialized government-run healthcare there is. A perfect example of what we need to have once we get the Republican’ts back under their rocks. I used to have WGA Health Insurance when it was not only good but probably the best healthcare you could buy in Hollywood (which it sure as hell ain’t now), and this is BETTER.

My 18 months in hell now finally pay off.

Unorthodox:

Forgot to mention - also USN. As was my writing mentor, Wendell Mayes. You go back and look at his war movies (particularly The Enemy Below), and in them everyone is scared, and they still do their jobs. That’s from his experience as a Fighter Direction Officer on the USS Essex at Okinawa, guiding the fighter pilots to intercept the kamikazes. As he said “everybody was scared, they were scared there wouldn’t be a deck to land back on, but you couldn’t let it show in your voice.” As anyone who’s been in knows, being a “hero” is being scared to death and doing your job anyway.

The kids nowadays who come to Hollywood will never come with backgrounds like that, and more’s the pity.

This is ridiculous. Bravo for everything, TCinLA. Bravo.

New theory: Perhaps the people in charge suffer from some bizarre, irrational fear that older writers might, at the slightest provocation, begin to drone on endlessly about their health care, their buddies from their glory days, and how superior everything and everyone in the world was back then, compared with the uniformly lackluster things and people that are the rule today.

Perhaps these decision-makers even think to themselves, “Oh, Christ, does this mean I’ll end up listening to too-clever cutesy nicknames for every political, social and/or demographic group under the sun, each and every time such a group comes up in the course of a conversation?”

Why do people cling to these absurd misconceptions? Simple: because they’re prejudiced. Well, that and the fact that they come from a weak generation that never learned how to take a punch. But most of all, because they’re just too dumb to realize what shitstained little punks they all are.

Mystery solved.

A thought:

Ok, older, female, or nonwhite writers, let’s say that in face to face meetings, you’ve encountered prejudice from some people.

I won’t gainsay you: it happens, and it sucks.

But you’re not an actor: you’re a writer.

Have you ever tried submitting your work under a pen name? Say, a Waspy or Jewish sounding name like Wes Anderson or Josh Friedman?

If not, why not?

Why not try it as an experiment?

Words on paper have no color, no sex, no race.

English words are all black and white and neuter.

And to TC’s off-topic point:

Speaking of VA Hospitals -

After I resigned a salaried job (and my health insurance) and moved to LA, there came a point when I wanted to see a Doctor - but my $ was low -

Bush Junior changed VA eligibility rules to include all veterans, not just active duty or retirees, so I was able to hit their hospitals for dirt cheap care when I needed it.

That socialized medicine has helped a lot of vets.

But of course, now the hospitals are under strain from all the returning war wounded. (I’m not a fan of Bush Jr. or his Forever War of Wishful Thinking by the way.) My care at the VAs has been erratic - from fast and great, to indifferent and slow.

I think Schwarzenegger has a good idea when he says that since we’re paying for the uninsured anyway, why not figure out a way to get everyone covered, just for the cost sensibility.

(Not to mention for decency’s sake.)

What’s really more important: the right to a doctor or the right to a lawyer?

They’re called MEETINGS and you have to have them if you wish to work in film or television.

I think you’ve nailed, Craig. But it’s not just physical age, it’s also a state of mind.

When I worked for a network, we got a script from a writer. No need to tell us his age, because his script clearly indicated his best years were behind him. What might have been fresh and edgy in 1970, was hackneyed and misogynistic thirty years later. This was from a one-time name writer. Times changed, politics changed, society changed, but he didn’t.

On the other hand, there are writers who are much older than me, and much hipper, because they stay on top of things. They’re involved in the world around them, and they have access to children or grand-children, who keep them hip.

And I’ve noticed, as I get older, I’m more interested in experiencing life, and spending time with my family. So, while the quality of my output has increased, the speed of my output has vastly diminished. And this business is all about how fast you can churn material out.

Ok, right - you’re going to have to have meetings - especially in television -

But I still wonder if a “pen name experiment” might prove or disprove whether someone is either able or unable to garner interest in their writing, and offers to have meetings, or not.

I mean, Hell, taking all the time we want to get our work just right and remaining anonymous are two unique advantages writers can choose to have: so why not use them?

Travis:

I’m still trying to figure out if you’re joking or not.

If you aren’t…what the hell are you talking about?

No, I wasn’t joking - I was just musing.

People ghost-wrote under the blacklist after all. (But maybe they all previously sold: I dunno.)

The Bronte sisters sold books under pen names (although I think their publishers knew).

Maybe it’s too impractical to bother submitting under a pen name - I’ve just wondered.

Hell, when I’m ready, I might try submitting a script as “Jacob Zimmerman” (an actual family name which isn’t Jewish as far as I know) for kicks.

It wouldn’t make much sense for you to try it, since you’ve got an agent, are sold, and known, so why send out your work in a way that would reduce the chances of it being taken seriously?

But if an unknown non-WASP, non-Jewish non-male were send out their masterpiece under a pen name, and they got a ton of interest, but saw it vanish once they took meetings, obviously that would strengthen an argument for prejudice.

I wonder if women or minorities sometimes show up for their meeting with their hot script - their script sells - but prejudice leads to the writer being cut out of development/rewrites.

Craig - what have you done with the papers we got sent on this lawsuit? Did you toss ‘em? File an objection? I’ve been vacillating between ignoring them and filing an objection. Looking for advice, oh sage one.

I filed an objection. I really don’t care for my family’s private medical info to be used as a football in a lawsuit that has a fart-in-the-wind’s chance of changing anything for the better.

Maybe I’m too much of a newbie to have experienced enough of ANYTHING to include this rampant discrimination against women that’s come up, but I haven’t found it. I write comedies—not romantic comedies, not chick flicks—comedies. When I first started sending queries, sure, people saw my name and expected cheesy romance and menstrual jokes and it was very very tough to get read. But once I got a foot in the door, people couldn’t have cared less that I was a woman, except that they seemed to love it because they could say “Look! We’re reading a woman writer!” Never mind that I primarily write male-dominated scripts. It’s what you write that really matters. Am I selling out my sisters because I’ve never written the line “You go girl!”? Maybe. But it’s never interested me. The agents, managers, producers I’m working with and reading me don’t care what I look like, they care if my script is sellable. Sometimes that’s painful, actually. I want to write something profound and they want more fart jokes. But you know what? If it’s a funny fart joke, I’m all for it. Get it sold. I’ll win a Lifetime Acheivement Award when I’m an old fart and can’t get in on the class action ageism suit.

Very interesting debate. I’m a senior film exec at a talent driven production company who also writes (but a novel not a script).

All I can say is write what you want to write. If the marketplace doesn’t want it there is nothing you can do about it. Trying to predict what will sell is crazy. I’m a black woman in Hollywood over 30. Last year I finally realized being bitter is not healthy. Nobody told me I had to work in this crazy town.

The business is getting tougher. The middle range of writers, actors, etc. is getting squeezed out. Either the studios pay a big quote for the A-list writers or take a chance on a baby writer who is dirt cheap.

All the writers who are doing okay during their 20s/30s are going to be in for a rude awakening in a few years when their quotes will be too high and the newer baby execs won’t want to pay them. It’s good to have a plan B and keep your overhead low.

Tiny Fey wrote Mean Girls and she was not a teenager. The Hollywood obession with age is ridiculous. It’s either on the page or it isn’t.

Travis Fields asked:

“I wonder if women or minorities sometimes show up for their meeting with their hot script - their script sells - but prejudice leads to the writer being cut out of development/rewrites.”

I’m neither a woman nor a minority, and I have had the exact situation happen you ask about. The reason? They thought it needed to “skew young” and believed it needed a “young writer.” (Even said so in those words).

The point of this discussion is not what happens to women and minorities. It’s about what happens to writers. I know most of you younger victims of American Miseducation when it came to learning how to read and write in the past 25 years (and therefore to think and reason) may have trouble with this, but that happens to be the point in discussion.

I hate deleting comments. Honestly. But I will continue to delete them (TCinLA, this means you) if you cannot follow the simple rule of keeping the tone civil.

There are countless places on the internet where you can call people blithering idiots and morons. Go spend your time there if you can’t restrain yourself.

I know most of you younger victims of American Miseducation when it came to learning how to read and write in the past 25 years (and therefore to think and reason) may have trouble with this, but that happens to be the point in discussion.

Frankly, I’m having enough trouble parsing the construction of your sentence here. There’s an obvious danger in berating the education and intelligence of large groups of people—your own might fall under scrutiny.

Let’s try and take the debate out of the realm of the personal.

How Old is Too Old to Be a Screenwriter? by D.B. Gilles

Raymond Chandler wrote his first screenplay at 56. He didn’t even publish his first novel until he was 51. For the record, he wrote the original screenplays for ‘Double Indemnity’ and ‘Strangers On A Train.’

In 1939, after F. Scott Fitzgerald’s career as a novelist had faltered, he needed money fast. He went to Hollywood and found work as a screenwriter. He was 43 years old. William Faulkner wrote his first screenplay at 48. Joseph Mankiewitz (who, incidentally, rewrote Fitzgerald) was well over 35 when he wrote ‘All About Eve.’

As for contemporary screenwriters: William Goldman is pushing 70; David Mamet is 53; the Coen brothers are over 35. Academy Award®-winning authors of ‘Shakespeare In Love,’ Tom Stoppard and Marc Norman, are no spring chickens. Norman is closer to 60 than 50, and Stoppard turns 64 this year. But these guys all fall under the category of ‘established’ screenwriters. They’ve been around awhile, i.e. since they fell under the category of ‘young’ screenwriters. So maybe the rules don’t count for them. There’s nothing like a track record to get a pitch meeting, a script read and a deal.

So, the more relevant question has to do not with the plight of established screenwriters, but with the new screenwriter with a few miles on him or her? And when I use the term ‘new,’ I don’t limit that to the ‘older’ person who starts his first screenplay tomorrow. I’m also including that huge pool of hearty souls who’ve been writing screenplays for years and years (or decades) without getting so much as a foot in the door. It’s getting that foot in that door that leads me to the two things older screenwriters have going against them. The Big A’s: Ageism and Access.

The Ageism factor is pretty easy to understand. Somehow, older (and presumably wiser) isn’t necessarily better or smarter. In Hollywood think, a 23-year-old will write a more commercially viable script than a 43-year-old or 53-year-old. They might be right, if the plot has to do with high school or college kids (‘American Pie,’ ‘Road Trip’ or any Freddy Prinze Jr. movie). But when it comes to stories with depth and weight, I think it’s fair to say that age and life experience will supercede youth and inexperience.

Not that screenwriters over 35 aren’t capable of writing dumb, inane and just plain awful scripts. And don’t assume for one second that there aren’t young screenwriters who’ve written wonderful, complex, smart, wise-beyond-their-years scripts.

This happens more often than you might think. I’ve experienced it firsthand. I’ve been teaching screenwriting at New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts in The Department of Dramatic Writing and Film & Television Department since 1988. I’ve taught well over a thousand students, most of them undergraduates. I’ve taught at other places and have been a script consultant on hundreds of screenplays.

There’s a moment in ‘Finding Forrester’ in which Sean Connery reacts in awe upon learning that the gifted young writer played by Rob Brown is only 16. I know that feeling. On more than one occasion, I’ve been blown away by the work of several of the young writers who’ve studied with me.

But the fact remains, the older a screenwriter (or any writer) gets, the better he or she gets. The same applies to professional athletes, lawyers, chefs, actors or blacksmiths. Energy and enthusiasm are replaced by skill. Guessing at what life is like is replaced by living it.

Why shouldn’t someone who starts writing screenplays at 37 be given the benefit of the doubt that she will write a good one?

The age thing is a problem for the new, but not youthful screenwriter. And it’s exacerbated by the second obstacle: Access. Or lack thereof.

If you’re young (and I’ll qualify that as being 27 or under), or if you’re youngish (say 28-35), you have a better shot at gaining access largely because of physical appearance. Younger screenwriters don’t have to be afraid of meetings with producers and even agents.

But as an older screenwriter, by virtue of a few (or a considerable amount of) gray hairs, crows feet and a mid-life bulge, you risk turning potential deal makers off simply because you’ll be perceived as old. There’s a peculiar kind of thinking in Hollywood that if you’re older and haven’t sold a script nor had one made, that somehow you can’t possibly be any good.

And with so many universities and colleges offering Screenwriting Programs, more and more high school students are enrolling in them and coming out with BA’s in Screenwriting. If a student goes to the right school, he will be pursued by agents and producers before he even graduates.

Let’s get back to the person who decides to write his or her first script at 37? Or 46? Or 58? If you’re a young 37 and can pass for say, 30, no problem. If you’re a youthful 46, in good shape and with a full head of hair, again, no problem. But if you’re out of shape and balding and have bad skin and are an overall physical wreck, you may have problems. Not with someone reading your script. But when you’re called for a meeting.

This is when it can get uncomfortable.

I’ve talked to agents about their policies of taking on clients, and to producers about screenwriters with whom they may want to work. They will all say that age isn’t an issue. All that matters is a good script with good writing and a good story (which is why it’s to your advantage to get an agent first.) She will send out your script, and nobody will have to know that you have children in college or that you’re about to become a grandmother.

But try not to meet the agent in person before she has read your script if you’re a high-end baby boomer not in the best of shape. There will be a predisposition to judge you as being too out of touch to have written anything commercial. And with regard to those screenwriters in their 30s and 40s who’ve been at it for a long time, there’s always that little inclination of people in the industry to assume that if you were any good you would’ve made it by now.

On the other hand, let’s say you manage to get an agent to read your screenplay, and she loves it enough to want to represent you, and then she meets you. Your age might not be a factor if she thinks she can sell your work. It’ll only become a factor if, as a result of having your script sent out to production companies and studios, people want to meet you.

If they liked your script enough to overlook the fact that you’re not a 21-year-old junior in UCLA’s Screenwriting Program, they too may overlook your age. Or, if your script is soooooo good and fresh and original. Or if they like you and your attitude and personality and general disposition. Or if they are your age. Or older. To a producer in his early 30s, a screenwriter in his late 40s might be a threat. Without getting too psychological, there might be a father figure or older brother thing going on. But to a producer in his 60s, if you’re 45 you’re still semi-young to him.

The fact is, no matter how old you are, it’s still what’s between the covers of your script. If you’re 38 or 59 and you’ve written a 118-page turd, your age has nothing to do with it. Plain and simple, you’ve written a turd. And if some 22-year-old clerk at Blockbuster with zits who still lives with his parents has written a great screenplay that sells for a million bucks, so be it.

Is it better to be young and starting a career as a screenwriter? Yes. Is it maddening if you started writing screenplays when you were young, and ten years have gone by without anything happening? Yes. Are the odds against you if you’re over 35 and writing your first screenplay? Absolutely.

But that’s all the more reason to try. Why? Because you’re a writer, so you know that the best stories are always the ones when your hero triumphs over insurmountable odds.

D.B. Gilles is the author of ‘The Screenwriter Within: How To Turn The Movie In Your Head Into A Salable Screenplay’ and co-author of ‘W. The First 100 Days. A White House Journal.’ He teaches Screenwriting and Comedy Writing at New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts in The Department of Dramatic Writing and Film & Television Department. Contact him at Dbgilles47@aol.com.

The simple truth of the matter is that Hollywood executives need young writers who can reach their target audience. Their target audience consists of 12-year-olds.

You don’t need talent to write for 12-year-olds because 12-year olds will watch shit and like it.

Young writers are better able to write the shit that 12-year-olds will pay for because it wasn’t that long ago since they were 12.

Older writers, who actually might have something to say, will appeal to more intelligent (read: older) audiences, who tend to stay away from movies in droves, because movies are written for 12-year-olds.

→ PODCAST CHANNEL ← | articles | statistics | forum | shop | job-board

→ Movies By Women.com: CELLULOID CEILING 2005

STATISTICS ON WOMEN DIRECTORS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Celluloid Ceiling:

Behind-the-Scenes Employment of Women in the Top 250 Films of 2005

Martha M. Lauzen, Ph.D., School of Communication, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, 619.594.6301

Copyright © 2006 — All rights reserved.

Over the last four years, the percentage of women working as directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors on the top 250 domestic grossing films has declined from 19% in 2001 to 16% in 2004.

In 2005, women comprised 17% of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors working on the top 250 domestic grossing films. This is the same percentage of women employed in these roles in 1998.

Women accounted for 7% of directors in 2005. This represents an increase of two percentage points over 2004. However, this is less than the recent historical high of 11% recorded in 2000.

The following summary provides employment figures for behind-the-scenes women working on the top 250 domestic grossing films of 2005. It also provides a historical perspective on the employment of behind-the-scenes women, comparing 2005 figures with those from the last 8 years.

Findings:

• This study analyzed behind-the-scenes employment of 2,488 individuals working on the top 250 domestic grossing films (foreign films omitted) of 2005 with combined domestic box office grosses of approximately $8.3 billion.

• Women comprised 17% of all executive producers, producers, directors, writers, cinematographers, and editors working on the top 250 grossing films of 2005. This is the same percentage of women working in these roles in 1998 (see Figure 1).

• Nineteen percent (19%) of the films released in 2005 employed no women directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, or editors. Only one film (.5%) failed to employ a man in at least one of these roles.

• A historical comparison of women’s employment on the top 250 films in 2005 and 1998 reveals that the percentages of women directors, writers, executive producers, editors, and cinematographers have declined, whereas the percentage of women producers has increased (see Figure 2).

• Women comprised 16% of all executive producers working on the top 250 films of 2005 (see Figure 3). Sixty four percent (64%) of the films had no female executive producers.

• Women accounted for 26% of all producers working on the top 250 films of 2005. Thirty seven percent (37%) of the films had no female producers.

• Women comprised 7% of all directors working on the top 250 films of 2005. Ninety three percent (93%) of the films had no female directors.

• Women accounted for 11% of writers working on the top 250 films of 2005. Eighty four percent (84%) of the films had no female writers.

• Women accounted for 16% of all editors working on the top 250 films of 2005. Eighty one percent (81%) of the films had no female editors.

• Women comprised 3% of all cinematographers working on the top 250 films of 2005. Ninety seven percent (97%) of the films had no female cinematographers.

• By genre, women were most likely to work on documentaries and romantic comedies and least likely to work on horror, action, and animated features. Women comprised 29% of individuals working on documentaries, followed by 27% on romantic comedies, 23% on romantic dramas, 20% on comedy/dramas, 19% on dramas, 14% on comedies and science fiction/fantasy features, 13% on action and animated features, and 8% on horror features.

→ Figure 1. Historical Comparison of Percentages of Women Employed in Key Behind-the-Scenes Roles (includes directors, writers, executive producers, producers, editors, and cinematographers)

→ Figure 2. Historical Comparison of Percentage of Women Employed Behind the Scenes on Top 250 Films by Role