Jack Thorne's MacTaggart lecture: why 'Best Person for the Job' isn't an answer

Jack Thorne is a UK film and TV powerhouse (too much to list here) and staunch ally of disabled creatives. At this year's Edinburgh TV Festival, a major industry event, he handled the much-coveted MacTaggart to deliver a damning indictment of how the industry has time and again failed disabled people. As an audience, as creators behind the camera and as performers in front of it. Go watch it and come back here after.

So, pretty tough listening isn't it? And sadly, all too true. Speaking as an autistic screenwriter, though I can't claim to speak for all disabled creators (running all the way from the physical to the mental, with each have its own traits and challenges), it's mind numbing how little progress has been made, and how the success stories have made no difference to how shows are made, or how talent is reared and supported. I even commend Thorne for admitting his own blindspots (though obviously he didn't have the final say on casting in Wonder, as one of several writers on a Fox movie, to be fair) and glad to see his partnering up with more disabled creators like Genevieve Barr and Ruth Madeley. 

While reception has been overwhelmingly positive, because this is about representation, there were the usual crabs-in-a-bucket with the same tired, boring, intellectually empty points: 'Acting is about pretending to be someone you're not', 'representation doesn't matter', 'best person for the job, background is irrelevant', 'meritocracy' and of course, splitting hairs about 'um ackshually, 20% of the UK population is not disabled because blah blah blah' from people who suddenly became expert data scientists. And next-to-none of whom are in the industry.

I've talked about representation in the past on here, as well as my experience on Cbeebies' Pablo, but this time I wanted to really zero in on why this attitude is a problem, the culture it creates, and where the audience has a role to play as well.

To begin, I get it: It's unrealistic to expect your average audience member to have the same in-depth knowledge of how film and TV works as an insider. From a certain POV, they shouldn't need to - fans are there to consume and talk about the content when its done, not engaging with broader production questions. The problem is the internet, and in particular social media, has broken down a lot of the walls. Now, talking to creators and companies has never been easier - the problem then becomes audiences are not used to a lot of industry chatter and so, wind up in discussions they, technically, have no business being involved. Big problems in the industry, whether it's the UK or US, Disney or BBC, relating to issues around outdated structures that artificially impede the career progression of people from a number of minority groups, seem like sudden changes to newcomers (even with multiple surveys and reports, like the ones Thorne cites in the lecture, showing how long this has been going on).

Because audiences don't have, or sadly in some cases, don't care, about all that background and don't understand when a creator is talking about issues with, say, more disabled characters in TV, it's easy to mistake a plea to fix a longstanding problem with some kind of sinister demand or entitlement. When you don't understand how hard it is for, say, a disabled writer to get the same shot, or at least the same amount of opporunity, as their able-bodied peer, it's easy to just say 'best person for the job' or 'I don't see disability, just the person'. How many times do you think these creators have been told that and not only not seen that sentiment lead to change, but now have it be used to tell them to, basically, 'shut up and be grateful' by people who don't even work in the arts at all?

And speaking of that, it's also tiring as a creator to see our achievements get blown aside in an instant when one of these types tries to tell our stories and royally bungles it. You may have heard of Sia's directorial debut, Music. The title refers to an Autistic girl, played by Maddie Ziegler, who is placed in the care of her drug dealer sister. With a premise like that, you can guess where it goes, but what's important is that A) Neither Sia nor Ziegler are autistic, B ) Autistic actors are not in the film, even in background roles, C) No Autistic expert or group was consulted during development, save for some brief interactions with the notoriously controversial Autism Speaks, widely condemned for treating Autism as a disease. As counter examples, Atypical and Pablo (Hey, that's a-me) all involved autistics in creative roles: yet, when Music became a hot topic, with discourse raging about its portrayal of the condition, were any of these shows mentioned? Did anyone cite that a show like Pablo, effectively, disproved both Sia's choice and, indeed, the very methodology of Music's development, treating actual autistic voices as tertiary? Nope. 105 episodes, airing on major channels, a worldwide fanbase and a much publicized selling point (a pretty good sign of a job well done. The BEST kind, if you will)... and it might as well have not existed.

However unintended, the message is clear: autistic creators are not to be given chances on larger projects, precisely the kind that can change the narrative, because a highly successful musician said so, and all the previous autistic movies and shows don't amount to a 'valid' counterargument. See how that applies to what Thorne is talking about here? How the disabled shows he was able to make were done on breadcrumbs, and even when they got acclaim, and he went on to work on big properties, still nothing changed. How broken is that metric where success doesn't equal 'make more'? The one thing that the film and TV industry can be reliably called on to do, and this is the exception? Because of that, I wrestle with creating autism-based scripts and often wonder if my mentioning it limits my job prospects. Why should it be like that though? Why should a script, that's been worked hard on, proofed, run by other peers and thought good quality, be arbitrarily denied a chance for something unrelated to merit?

As an additional point, I do also think there is a blind spot in Thorne's lecture: staffing. He alludes to Silent Witness and Liz Carr's battles, but I feel this needed more hammering home from a writer/director angle. It's not enough just to greenlight disabled stories, as vital as that is: it's about getting disabled creators the experience and credits needed to not just get those shows in front of commissioners, but also to pay their bills and put food on the table. Disabled artists don't just want to talk about themselves: they're fans of shows like you are. They have dream jobs too, whether that's Eastenders, Casualty, Hollyoaks, Doctor Who or Call the Midwife. We need to ensure they have the same shot as anyone else on getting on this shows, and not just for 'the disabled story' but because they are professionals who can tell good stories period. As long as just blindly parroting 'best person for the job' is seen as the default response, this will not happen because it others disabled people as somehow 'not the best'.

This is as personal as I've ever gotten on this blog, but I need to say it: I am tired of having to fight for my basic dignity, and I've seen plenty of other disabled people share the same: tired of justifying ourselves, tired of asking to be treated like the thinking, feeling adults we are. Tired of being written off or insulted by quacks, anti-vaxxers and religious hypocrites who claim we are a 'mistake', a 'problem' that needs to be fixed or cured. Tired of constantly having to deal with nonsense about 'diversity hires' and 'affirmative action' being the reasons why we achieve anything, instead of y'know, hard work and our pure determination. We are people. We are human.

And at the end of this, what I think we have is a tale of two faults: the industry and the audience. A wealth of great talent is there, ripe for picking, and through them, exciting, funny or stirring stories. If we want to move the needle, then every level needs to address how we treat creatives from backgrounds outside the standard. Commissioners who will fight for change, and audiences who will be willing to take a chance and have empathy, or if they like what has been made, demand more. Otherwise, the cycle continues and benefits no one. Not talent, not the audience and not culture, and if we got the Snyder Cut and redesigned Movie Sonic through pressure, why can't we get this?