UKC

Went to see the new Brit Rock and me and my partner were particularly underwhelmed by the lack of representation. Four films, four sets of white men climbing. 

I'd love some insight in to why this might be if anyone has it.

Does Brit Rock commission the films?

Does anyone know if there were any attempts to include some different stories in the mix? 

Was it just a case of there not being a range of content to pick from?

Presumably there's a payment from Brit Rock and I'd much rather if my fee for attending was going to support climbers from different backgrounds and events that benefit the wider community. Something like the Women's Trad Fest film would have been a welcome replacement for Great Sheiks.

In reply to Idealstandard: 

Brit Rock isn't an organisation, as far as I can tell, it's just a collection of films made by Alastair Lee.

In reply to Idealstandard:

Why does everything have to become a debate on representation these days? Can you not just enjoy something?

Given that most climbers are white men, is it that hard to accept that in picking 4 films to show the probability of having 4 films of white men is really high?

Should films be shown for the quality of the film or for the race/gender of the participants?

In reply to geckoboy:

If we (generously) assume that 80% of climbers are white men, then the probability that the "main character" in every film is a white man is 0.8^4 = 0.41. Not what I would call "really high". You could also include the probability that almost every "supporting character" is a white man to get an even lower probability that the mix of characters in these films is so one-sided, but I can't be bothered (though I'm sure someone else will).

As a Straight White Man™ myself it's very easy for me to relate to all these characters, and I appreciate that Alistair Lee makes the films he's interested in making, and has made films about other demographics in the past. However, the tour would reach a wider audience if the films featured a more diverse cast. In turn, this would generate more revenue for Alistair and possibly get more people from these underrepresented demographics into climbing.

In reply to Idealstandard:

If you look back at previous Brit Rocks you'll see that things vary each year in terms of content so I wouldn't get too worked up it. 

In 2019 out of 4 films there were 2 about female climbers, one of whom had mental health problems and one about a blind climber (plus his female partner). In 2018 2/6 included female climbers. I think that's fairly inclusive.

In reply to Idealstandard:

Totally get where you're coming from, my response would be 'why does it need to be?' 

Some years it is some years it isn't, Not everything needs to be a political/representative/LGBT/environmental/inclusive show. 

Everything is important and I would argue that representation for minority groups is higher than ever, in this country.

I enjoyed Brit Rock for what it was, the same way I enjoyed Reel Rock as Black Ice was an awesome movie! 

In reply to Idealstandard:

I mean... another thread has already covered what an orientalist borefest the Great Sheiks was. So, it's not just that the film series "lacked diversity": there was an actively problematic aspect to the decisions about which stories to tell and why. I don't think we need, on the other hand, lots more films alternating hand-wringing with buoyant optimism, along the lines of "here is X excluded group who suffer from being marginalised... and here they are being represented - isn't that great!" What we need is film makers actually telling engaging stories - which, inevitably, means going beyond "man does hard climb" or "unreconstructed chauvinism goes on tour". That really shouldn't be so hard, because climbing is more diverse than ever.

In reply to Idealstandard:

I think having this pre-occupation and need to fill imaginary quotas, reducing people to characteristic like gender, race, religion is borderline illness. It's like people are trying to get away from being considered racist, sexist etc so much they are coming full circle and forcing themselves and others to always assess peoples validity through a lens of fundamentally not that important or interesting traits. I find people that are this pre-occupied a bit suspect actually, what are you trying to compensate for?

Shouldn't you just want to see interesting climbers accomplishing interesting things? If I apply this same sort of warped thinking to the recent movie I saw '14 Peaks: Nothing is Impossible', that was overwhelmingly featuring Nepalese male climbers. Should I write a letter to Nirmal Purja to castigate him for not including any female, black, white or transgender climbers in his team? Do I have to assume he is racist and sexist for his choices? 

I hate to break it to you, but if you look at a set of 4 movies and your primary concern is what race and sex everyone was, you might be the problem.

In reply to C Witter:

I'm sorry, I really really shouldn't laugh but this one line did make me chuckle.

In reply to foobar123:

I think this sums up how I feel about this. I don't think it's that Britrock *should* have had a more diverse set of people in the films this year.  But presumably filmakers like to hear from their audiences about how they felt about the films. I think the point that in other years the people featured have been more diverse is a good one.  For me, it is more about whether the films feel easier to relate to because that's my preference.  I'm not suggesting all climbing films should be about over-priviliged, white, middle-aged women who are constantly frustrated about their rubbish climbing, of course, even though I might find that the most 'relatable'.  But I find that I enjoy films that feel like they are more about the range of everyday people you find in climbing circles.  This particular collection had a bit less of that, although I thought most of the films were good and I did enjoy them.  But the lack of a range of different kinds of people in them did jump out at me too.  And I think if it were typical of how these kinds of collections of films are it would be more worrying. I think, to some extent, it jumped out at me because often things are more diverse these days.

In reply to TomD89:

... whoosh!

In reply to everyone:

It always amazes me how severely people react to words like 'representation'.

Amongst the complaints I've read, both on site and on social, the thing that almost everyone agrees upon is that the films featured within this year's Brit Rock Tour were all quite similar. Each focussed on a white male climber, climbing something hard and/or adventurous. There's no denying that this is quite tried and tested model, and will undoubtedly appeal to some, but equally has the potential to be quite off-putting to others.

This is the reason keeps coming up, because to those that don't feel represented - or are just bored with the same old stories being told over and over again - it's just not that interesting to watch. I don't think it's wrong for those to demand something different, because different is already out there - just look at what Kendal did at this year's festival and how well it was received.

That said, Kendal and Brit Rock are very different. The former curates a wide range of content from independent filmmakers and speakers, the latter is largely on Al Lee's shoulders. Producing four films a year is no mean feat either and is a LOT of work (something that can't be understated). It has no doubt been a challenging year through which to film too, with travel restrictions and the suchlike making matters much more difficult than in an ordinary year. It's also worth mentioning that he has, as other's have suggested, produced a more diverse array in previous years too.

That said, if people didn't provide feedback how would Al, Kendal, or ourselves know what direction to go in for next year? I for one would like to see a more diverse set of stories told, because - at least in my eyes - it makes for more interesting reading and watching compared to seeing the same thing repeated over and over again.

For those curious about what happened at Kendal, here's a link to the report I wrote: https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2021/11/kendal_mountain_festival_2021_repor...

In reply to Euan McKendrick:

It was meant to inspire a chuckle, tbh

In reply to TomD89:

Why do you think asking for more representation is an inherently bad thing?

Suppose all four films were about exactly the same route being climbed, even by wildly different parties. Wouldn't you feel justified asking for a bit more variety in the films? Now suppose the route was one which you're not as interested in - a different style of climbing that you don't enjoy, for example, and when you raise this other people have a go at you because they personally love it, and can really relate to all four films, and cannot understand why you don't like it. "If you look at a set of four movies and your primary concern is that they're all about the same bouldering problem, you might be the problem."

I enjoy watching a hard route get sent as much as the next person, but I also enjoy watching a variety of approaches, and perspectives, and problems, and a diversity of people makes it more likely that there will be diversity in the films, making it a more enjoyable experience.

Maybe the above metaphor does nothing for you, maybe you see a hole in it immediately. But at least try and understand that when someone asks for more representation they're not necessarily doing so maliciously, and they're not trying to attack the thing in question - they're suggesting a way to make it better.

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

I'd certainly like for future movies to consider is how they reflect on climate change. I thought the Great Sheiks was totally tone deaf in the context of Cop26. Two privileged white men travel half way around the world to climb some (not even that good) rock with their petrol-guzzling 4x4's in a questionable country... no mention of offsetting their carbon footprint (even if that's a cop-out) or any other climate considerations. Does anyone else care about this stuff being projected on the big screen or is it just me? Or is it just business as usual?

In reply to TomD89:

Women, people of colour, people who are differently-abled, etc. are all under-represented in our sport compared to society as a whole. Why are they under-represented? Because there aren't enough of them doing it. Why aren't there enough of them doing it? Because they're under-represented. 

Actively pushing for representation, whether you feel it is justified or not, is not a bad thing. Hopefully it will get us to a place in future where organisers don't have to think things like 'gah, I need to do a film with a not-white person in' because a not-white person will be out there kicking arse (for example).

In reply to foobar123:

Let's assume 10% are female - probability for them is 0.0001

Let's assume 5% are black - probability for them is 0.00000625

Let's assume 2% are disabled - probability for them is 0.00000016

It might not be 'really high', but it's way higher than the probability of other types of climber doing that. Or you could say the probability of a female/black/disabled climber being the main character in just one film is between 8&40% - not very high. The 2018 and 2019 years over-represented them massively if we're talking about the makeup of the climbing population, and if we wanted true representation we'd expect to see a disabled climber in one film once every 12 years!.

In reply to Fractral:

I don't. Forcing representation to appease this weird subset of people that only, or predominantly, enjoy things based race, gender etc would be a bad thing though.

All the things you mention are actually related to the sport of climbing and the interest therein. Nothing to do with what gender, race or what sexual orientation they are, which is borderline irrelevant. Are you really suggesting you can't enjoy something unless there are a minimum amount of representation? E11 Lexicon was boring, but you'd be interested if Neil Gresham was replaced by say a black, female or other inherited trait? Being generous, that's an incredibly wacky way to think; being ungenerous, it's straight up racist. That you'd expect a filmmaker, out there putting in the time and effort to co-ordinate all this in real time and film these moments for our entertainment to start thinking in a discriminatory manner to cater to these weird racial and gender preferences is quite delusional.

I can't recall the last time I saw a film about an openly gay climber. Guess I can't enjoy climbing films until I know that representation is fulfilled. I hope the next repeat of Silence comes from a black woman, because so far I've only experienced the white male perspective on 9c.

I've enjoyed watching Hazel Findlay, Margo Hayes, Janja Garnbret achieve amazing and inspiring things well beyond my capabilities. I really enjoyed watching their feats. But actually now, thinking like you, there's not much asian or black representation, and the films didn't even mention their sexual preferences. Now I don't know how to feel about it.

Asking a filmmaker to look specifically for climbers of certain backgrounds to appease your own angst is restrictive, impractical and artistically bereft. When it happens naturally, because the climber, route, surrounding story is interesting, then it's a joy to behold.

Same, but I don't think if only Daniel Woods was a black man I'd enjoy the next V16 send so much more, that's f*cked up dude.

If the way you suggest making something better is adding or removing participants based on race, gender etc then that simply isn't right, that's racism.

In reply to TomD89:

No, they appear borderline irrelevant to you because you are (I assume) part of the majority demographic and therefore never experience any of the additional challenges experienced by minority groups in climbing. 
That aside, the metaphor was not meant to be perfect! My intention was to try and make where the original poster is coming from easier to understand by presenting it in a way that doesn't invoke an immediate strong emotional response in the way that diversity always does.

Like I said originally: I enjoy watching a hard route get sent as much as the next person. Why are you trying to misrepresent me?

Again. The filmmaker can make the films he likes, and in the past has been good about catering to minority perspectives. Feedback is being given that we liked the diversity in previous years, and we'd like to see it come back.
That aside, weird preferences? How is it weird to want to see people on screen who are similar to me? How is it strange, perverse, for me to want to watch a film about someone experiencing similar issues to me? I don't think someone wanting to see anyone other than a white man climbing is necessarily motivated by some, to quote you, "f*cked up" desire.

How on earth did you get that from anything that I wrote? In fact, you've done this a lot - suggested that I have some strange and incomprehensible desire to only see people of colour, or women, or other minority groups in the sport represented in climbing. I said nothing of the sort, and I want nothing like that, so why did you jump straight to that conclusion? 

If the status quo is tilted heavily in favour of one group, asking for it to be equalized is not discrimination. 

In reply to TomD89:

Decades of under-representation?

I say that slightly tongue-in-cheek, and I get where you're coming from regarding quotas, but given there was very little representation of minorities on our screens for decades and those that were represented were often in stereotypical, borderline offensive characterisations (actually, sometimes not even borderline) I'm not sure it's bad thing that there's a bit of a drive redress that balance right now and show minorities in more realistic depictions. 

This isn't aimed at Brit Rock btw (not familiar with their work), just the film/television/advertising industries in general. 

In reply to TomD89:

I think you're missing the point entirely. If you put someone from a minority group into this scenario then it wouldn't be a like-for-like replacement and the film would be very different. There would be a lifetime of shit that person would have to have put up with to get to that position and the story wouldn't simply be 'person climbs hard thing'.

It's like Climbing Blind. That wasn't a film about just some bloke climbing a relatively modest grade. It was a story of the difficulties they had to overcome that a typical, able-bodied, white chap does not. 

Have you seen the film Black Ice? It's about a bunch of poor, (mostly/entirely?) black kids from a southern city in US going ice climbing and getting an opportunity that most in their situation could never imagine possible. Would you be interested if those kids came from affluent, white families? I f*cking wouldn't.

In reply to Idealstandard:

I was brought up to believe that skin colour doesn't matter but now it seems that everything is about race. It's strange that people can say that films are too white and that isn't considered racist. 

In reply to Red Rover:

I think you probably need to look up 'racism' in a dictionary.

In reply to TomD89:

Asking for more diversity in storytelling isn't saying individual stories/films/books/articles will be better, it's saying the collective will be. It's not asking specifically for stories about gender or race, it's asking for the people in the films to be more representative of society at large. Sometimes their identity will form a large part of the story, sometimes it won't. At the moment it often does, for a variety of reasons, not least that these are often wider talking points outside our sport.

It's entirely normal to expect your media to be representative, and none of this happens naturally. Even with the best will in the world the stories you're aware of, the people you know and the framework for the stories you want to tell will not be representative on their own, it needs other people to bring different perspectives, and it is the job of the media to seek those people out.

In reply to john arran:

My test of something like that is to replace the word white with another colour and see how it sounds, for example in the OP's criticism of the collection being" Four films, four sets of white men climbing."

Seriously though we do seem to have gone from an era of 'race doesn't matter' to 'race is everything'. 

In reply to Red Rover:

That's a dumb way to look at it because society is not anywhere near equal. 

In reply to PaulJepson:

I wasn't really talking about equality I was talking about how I think it is odd that race is not supposed to matter but over the past few years this has been revoked.

And you're right, society is very unequal but I would say that the big divide in England at least is class. Without the right connections, accent and 'polish' it can be hard to get ahead. But that's for another thread! 

In reply to TomD89:

Well you do, because you've decided that it's a "weird subset of people" who "only, or predominantly, enjoy things based [on] race, gender etc[.]" and that's a strawman you seem to have dreamed up.

In reply to TomD89

When you were enjoying Janja Garnbret achieving amazing things did you turn away from the screen when Miho Nonaka and Akiyo Noguchi were climbing because watching them would have been weird and racist?

Or maybe they just didn't register in your narrow field of vision.

In reply to Red Rover:

Maybe I'm making a massive presumption here, but I'm guessing that you're not Black or of any other UK visible ethnic minority? It might not matter to you but if you look at the long list of racists murders and attacks in the UK, along with usages of either direct racism or racist tropes by politicians and the media - over many decades - we can go back at least to the Battle of Cable Street for example - it clearly matters a lot to some people. 

In reply to TobyA:

I'm white and I'm not saying racism isn't a problem. I'm not 'woke bashing' or whatever it's called. All I was saying is that I was brought up thinking that the colour of the skin of people doesn't matter so now it seems odd that films can be criticised for being too white. Does the cast of every film have to match the percentages of each race in the general population? 

I suppose a good question is, is climbing mainly white because minorities are not interested in going climbing, in which case who cares, or do minorities want to go climbing but they are put off by the current body of climbers? 

In reply to Red Rover:

If you get the chance (and if like mountain biking) I recommend watching After the storm with Aneela McKenna which reflects on some of the points you raise from someone who has been a victim of racism. (Saw it at kendal mountain festival) 

Essentially the film is about how inclusivity matters, although many of us don't see it society is deeply racist and there are barriers for minorities getting into outdoor sports. 

In reply to Red Rover:

Oft debated here in past, although I suspect it's both at the same time.

My point kinda remains though, it doesn't really matter how you or I were brought up to think about race, when race clearly is massively important in people's lives. In fact I'm sure you can see why it's actually worse than that in some respects, if white liberals go around telling ourselves "race doesn't matter" how can we ever take seriously the prejudices and problems that BAME people face? This seems to come up in all of these discussions in the 'outdoor community' - but it becomes rather "mansplain-y", basically white people telling ethnic minorities that they can't face an real barriers to going hillwalking or climbing or mountain biking etc. because I, as a white bloke, would never treat them them in a bad way when I'm climbing/hiking/biking/etc. 

In reply to Red Rover:

But when opportunities are not equal due to (deliberate or unintentional) racism, the colour of people's skin very much does matter. That's the whole point, and it's in no way racist to be alert to the possibility of that being the case in this or in any other situation. That way the right questions are asked and, hopefully, perfectly reasonable, fair and non-racist explanations emerge.

As it happens, it seems likely that this years line-up may well have a white male bias purely by accident, given Alastair's record of other recent years, but that doesn't mean that it's in any way wrong to point out an apparent bias that in other circumstances may well have turned out to be a case of racist bias.

In reply to Idealstandard:

It's all a cunning ploy, a distraction... you get muppets like Jeremy vine(very well paid) trumpeting diversity daily, Chancellors(doing quite nicely) renaming buildings or lecture theatres... the public looks for the next event to quota to fill, to rename some award so on. The real damaging equality is wealth, the rich get richer, even the moderately wealthy like Vine comment and encourage it, the proles keeping fighting amongst themselves and the real division is ignored. 

Who is the uk's highest earning women, the owner of a betting company making hundreds of millions annually from the poorest in society.

In reply to summo:

Good point. In my own experience of living in England one of the main divides is 'are your parents going to help you get a house or are you stuck renting forever'.

In reply to Idealstandard:

Wow, some absolutely honking takes in the replies here.

I hadn't even considered the lack of representation for other groups, given I pretty much fit the same demographic as all those on show in the film.

This in itself is the exact reason that we shouldn't have 100% of the films with very similar protagonists.

It's not about ridiculous 'proportional' or mathematical fag-packet 'calculations' about how many minutes you should devote to a black climber, or a female climber etc, but acknowledging there was ZERO female representation and ZERO representation of a huge number of (albeit minority) other groups, and this in pretty unjustifiable in 2021.

The mental gymnastics in this thread are incredibly enlightening on the backwards way predominantly white men think about the whole issue of fair and positive representation. Proper fragile cry-babies.

In reply to Red Rover:

Maybe a good start might be uni students being more concerned that they are both a commodity and client, the ceo of their uni (chancellors) are making what £0.5m a year whilst the students accrue debt, renaming the 'Churchill' Library with a women's name isn't going to impact their lot in life. 

In reply to Red Rover:

There was a time when saying race doesn't matter was an attempt at moving beyond racism. Unfortunately not everyone was on board with that and race continued to matter, particularly for people who experienced racism.

People's cultural heritage is often tied to race and so now there is recognition that saying we are all the same is to negate that. This suggests that there is no value in other people's culture.

I expect Tom is trying hard not to be racist, but his views seem out dated now. Not seeing race isn't the current way as it can mean ignoring people, and the issues they face, and leaving them out.

In reply to Red Rover:

Class hasn't really been relevant in climbing since the post-war boom of working-class heroes though. No one sees climbing and thinks 'oh, I'm too working-class for that'. Different classes are probably quite well represented in climbing, and a lot of top climbers were and are (either by force or choice) working class / poor. It may divide society in general but it's not quite on the same level as golf, is it.  

With gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. there is a real lack of representation and I can imagine it being quite daunting and off-putting for anyone other than a pale, stale male to get into. It's difficult for you and I to get our heads around because we're white men; it's simply never factored into our thinking. It's why we have a hard time understanding the BLM movement in the past couple of years because we don't have the slightest clue if or why it's harder for people of colour to get jobs for example. 

Perhaps a big factor in there being a lot more strong male outdoor climbers than women is due to representation in the wider climbing media. And how many black kids are thinking 'wow, I want to get into climbing!'. I refuse to believe that anyone is genetically pre-disposed because of their race, gender or anything else to just not be in to the possibility of climbing. You need visible role-models to encourage it. 

If there are more films about women climbing, more women will climb. You'd struggle to argue with that. 

Society is historically set up for these people to not do as well, and we need to actively push back against it to address the imbalance. 

In reply to summo:

If that sort of thing didn't matter to anybody surely it would just have been called The Library in the first place.

In reply to OrangeBob:

It's more a case if you waste time and energy trying to find inequality where it doesn't exist, or only existed 100plus years ago, then you'll miss the real division. 

The music awards where they've dropped best male or female, only best now... they have to make sure a higher proportion of women win next year otherwise a small but vocal portion of society are going to have a meltdown. 

I think in a new progressively equal world, society is still finding its feet, and whilst we eliminate every ism it's just a harsh relatity of being a living species sometimes life is $hit, harsh, unfair, tough.... 

In reply to Ramon Marin:

So considering that 99.99% of those travelling to another continent do so by plane and not sailing boat, are you against all films which fit that criteria? 

In reply to summo:

It's great that they've got you then to tell them that the inequality they're finding isn't real. It's obviously going to save folk a lot of time.

In reply to summo:

Inequality doesn't care that you think there's only one 'real' manifestation of it fyi.

In reply to TobyA:

There's masses of inequality, renaming streets and building won't fix any of it. Neither will quota filling. 

Back to op, if women are out there doing the routes and filming, I'm sure they'll be included.. it's happened before in 'old days' with say Arlie Anderson.

In reply to summo:

I don’t think anyone is under the impression that taking down some statues and renaming some streets is going to end the inequalities that exist in our society, that’s going to take decades, however a street name can be changed overnight…

What these actions are, are symbolic markers to show that we as a society are moving forward towards the place where we want to be, and as a symptom of that we’re no longer going to tolerate statutes of slave traders or streets named after them.

In reply to matt1984:

I just think we are chasing down soft targets, some imaginary, or are offended on others behalf, the big problems, the elephants in the room are ignored. Let's just rename some buildings, appoint some extra women to balance out a committee etc.. and all feel good we've done something.

The problems are cultural, embedded into society, from the youngest ages at school. his and her uniforms, his and her sports lessons and on it goes, by the time kids leave school it's set. Then add in work place culture, jobs for girls job for boys, maternity and paternity leave, hey presto it's passed onto another generation.

In reply to Iamgregp:

We aren't and weren't responsible for events 100, 200, 300 years ago, we shouldn't obviously celebrate them, but we shouldn't be erasing them either? 

It's curious because many youngsters will talk about governments wanting to observe and control society 1984 style, but it's the so called woke folk who are trying to rewrite history, non platform anyone who doesn't conform or even remove words from use they don't like.

In reply to Ramon Marin:

I drove to watch the brit rock films, so no I'm really not that bothered about the climate change  considerations, I wouldn't have gone if I did. I enjoyed Great Sheiks, it reminded me about what it must have been like to be Layton Kor discovering all of those wonderful sandstone towers in the desert, albeit with a white privileged male twist, but then again I am one and I like top gear. Al Lee is getting an awful lot of unwarranted stick here and on the other thread in my opinion, climbing is not a climate change friendly pursuit whichever way you chose to look at it. If we were serious about it we would all cycle to the crag like colin kirkus, I don't see that happening very often (but hats off if you do).

In reply to Dave Ferguson:

I don't think the stick is directed at him really? In fact, a few people have gone out of their way to say he's usually pretty good on it. 

Some people think that it could have been more diverse and some white blokes are worried that they're going to lose their place at the table.  

In reply to matt1984:

 Proper fragile cry-babies.

This kind of attitude isn't helpful because it dismisses and ridicules people's lived experience. I'll give you an example.....

my lad is a student...he was telling me the other day about an argument in his house about 'white male privelage'. One of his female house mates... who drives a range rover and who's parents live in Dubai was quoting this....probably all drink fuelled, however, she is a very well off student with a lot of advantages.

my lads best mate has lived with his disabled nan a lot in his life as her carer and also looks after his younger brother. His mum is dead from drug use and his dad in prison. He hasn't done well at school despite being bright, he won't get to university, he has had a lot of trauma in life.

he is white and male but doesn't have privelage, he has a tough hard life of responsibility from a very early age. He...and others like him feel disenfranchised, have few opportunities....but hear about their alleged privelage frequently.

the trouble with your generalisations and sneering is dismissive of lads like this. History is full of groups feeling marginalised and there is no gender or race monopoly on this...

In reply to summo:

You’re absolutely right here, but I think this feeds in to why we raise statues of people, or name buildings after them. We do this to celebrate them, to literally put them up on a plinth as great examples of our society, to serve as an inspiration, celebration and education to others.

By all means don’t destroy them, but let’s put them somewhere such as a museum or exhibition so we can present a balanced view and concentrate just on the education, but without the celebration.

Fair point that, o be honest!  I’d quibble that people want to rewrite history, more present a balanced view that reflects the whole story, including the uncomfortable truths rather than just the comfortable ones.

In reply to abr1966:

It’s worth noting that privilege, an white privilege are two totally different facets…

Privelege is the wealth, the Range Rover, the trust fund etc…

White privilege just means that on top of all the issues that we may or may not have in our lives (such as the issues faced by your lads mate) a white person doesn’t have to also  deal with the challenges that come with being a person of colour.

Someone can be black and incredibly privileged, but not have white privilege, or white and have none at all but still have white privilege. 

I think it a bit of a silly term for a very real thing to be honest. It’d be better if it was just called “lack of having to suffer racism on top of all your other shit”!
 

In reply to Idealstandard:

Well, looking at the dislikes. It seems most people disagree with you.

I can't argue with them, the people have spoken. 

Can't say I've ever watched a film and was concerned about what you have been. 

In reply to Idealstandard:

https://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/en_US/athletes/?tag=all

https://montane.com/pages/view-all-athletes

https://www.wildcountry.com/en-gb/our-athletes

https://www.petzl.com/INT/en/Sport/Petzl-teamm

White. 

In reply to abr1966:

Why? Was the lad in one of the climbing films? I'm not really trying to be trite, but you seem to be bringing in something completely different here.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Yep, because the people who most often rewrite history are historians who think they've understood what happened in the past better than previous historians. It would just be odd wouldn't it if we got angry with "people rewriting science" when new scientists come along and, in the best Popperian tradition, falsify what went before.

In reply to abr1966:

I think you're attributing my description to someone I wouldn't use it to describe.

If you want to see who I'm talking about go and look at the 20,000 comments on every 'anti-woke' Joe Rogan instagram post.

In reply to Idealstandard:

It's interesting that this opening post got 76 dislikes, I'd love to know why that is and if people are offended by someone starting this topic. Films are inherently part of the stories that we tell about something, and those stories matter, so criticizing the stories that are being told about the climbing community (that I consider myself to be a part of) is something that I believe should be open for conversation. 

I'm not at all surprised that there are people who will get offended by the concept of representation or the feeling that they are being attacked when there is a question made about the status quo, and in general the back and forth so far has been some quite reasoned sharing of viewpoints, which is great.

Just to go back to my original point, which is that we didn't enjoy attending Brit Rock because we didn't like the films, in large part because of the limited way it represented the many engaging stories that can be told about climbing and the people that climb. My partner (a woman) just didn't enjoy being there, and didn't feel like there were any parts of the films that spoke to her apart from Fall Factor which touched on some really nice themes of youth, local identity and relationships. For myself as a white man, I had the privilege of being represented in each film, but even then I found the first three films unengaging and slightly tone deaf to current mores.

I was reflecting a bit more on this today, and I think that one of the things that added to the feeling is that there is a sense from the way Brit Rock is communicated that it is talking about British climbing and claims to represent it.

"The Brit Rock Film Tour is back for 2021 with a stunning lineup of films representing the best of UK climbing and adventure stories."

I just don't feel like that's true. At least not for the climbing community that I know, which at the very least is made up of a lot of rad women (all the time, not just last year when there were a couple of films about them). The gyms I know are full of people of all colours and backgrounds, and the outdoors could be too if more people could see themselves in those spaces.

The idea of 'the best' is also a funny one here because the stories are evidently not chosen specifically to show the objective 'best' achievements they're just stories about some climbing. We already have 'the ticklist' which is a list of all the objective greatest achievements in climbing and that's great, but there's far more to climbing and the people in it than that. 

In reply to abr1966:

Personally, I think the concept of "privilege" is a pretty clumsy tool. But, the point of identifying and acknowledging oppression is to build solidarity, not to detract from or dismiss people's experiences.

There are Tories like Ben Bradley who go on about how "woke culture leaves poor white kids behind." In the next breath, he is telling us that they shouldn't get free school meals or that their family shouldn't retain the benefits top up, because "they'll spend it on cigarettes, booze and brothels." Obviously, the people advancing this narrative about "woke culture doing in left-behind white kids" are only doing so to advance their own £80,000+ salary careers.

Meanwhile, the people arguing for better wages and working conditions; better welfare and support; an end to the war on disabled people; an overhaul of the police and the carceral system; an education system for all, rather than one that further entrenches social inequality; better mental health support services, etc. (i.e., all things that would have benefitted the lad in your story) are precisely those also calling for racial justice: because people of colour disproportionately suffer from these same issues.

Now, of course young people like the woman in this story are going to shoot their mouths off. They're young people, excited by new ideas they barely understand. But, what this lad doesn't get is shouted at in the street: "Go home, P**i!" And he's probably content to walk down the street late at night, without fearing he's going to be attacked and raped. So, maybe she has a point, despite her Chelsea Tractor and her wealthy parents. Either way, her opinion is not the decisive source of oppression in this lad's life.

In reply to Idealstandard:

That seems to be a critique of the films themselves, which would be fair if you didn't tie that primarily with race and gender. Your partner having a preference for stories containing themes of youth, local identity and relationships seems totally valid and makes sense. IMO she's totally entitled to be bored stiff by any movie containing predominantly white men, but to pass this off as some virtuous stance is too much for me.

Take one of the Brit Rock films she didn't enjoy of the four because "of the limited way it represented the many engaging stories that can be told about climbing and the people that climb". If you kept that one in the set, and replaced the other 3 with female stories, would she now enjoy the one primarily from a 'male perspective' because there was a more perceived balance overall? You would hope most would say no, I didn't like the movie because of the themes, content etc, but the way you speak suggests that actually, if there is now a greater variety of races/genders on aggregate that somehow changes the entertainment value of the film about a white male climber specifically. 

I hope to be way off in my understanding because that sounds like a pretty wretched way to enjoy films/art/life in general. Again though, your welcome to that way of thinking, just don't pass it off as some social virtue we should all adopt.

In reply to TomD89:

You might like the last track of a new album, when heard as part of a diverse mix, but if you're listening to it right after the very samey rest of the album, it's unlikely to sound as good.

We don't perceive or appreciate things in a vacuum. 

In reply to Idealstandard:

I saw the Brit Rock films in Edinburgh last night and I have to admit that the lack of diversity simply wouldn't have registered with me if it had not been pointed out to me. I am more likely to have noticed the overrepresentation of headpointing and lack of representation of bouldering, though I wouldn't have been bothered by it.

But then I am a privileged straight white male.........

I feel a bit sorry for Alastair Lee that discussion seems to have centred on this issue rather than the quality and entertainment value the films. The organiser even came on stage in the interval and made a sort of apology about it.

I enjoyed all four films with the Franco Cookson one being easily the standout both for the outrageous climbing/falling and because it had an appealing story to it.

As for the Saudi Arabia film, I am a bit surprised how much hate it seems to have received. Yes, they hammed it up a bit Top Gear style with the driving and did the standard touristy bit with the camels but I would hardly describe it as colonising (or whatever the term these days is). In the end it was just a short film showing some climbers excitedly enjoying a trip with some impressive exploratory climbing. One could argue all day about whether travel to Saudi Arabia is morallly acceptable (as people have been doing in the other thread). Likewise the whether flying and driving 4x4's round the desert is morally acceptable (certainly not many people I know show much sign of giving up on their dream climbing trips anyway).

But then some of the best climbing trips I have had in recent years have involved flying and then driving a 4x4 around in the desert, sitting round a campfire under the stars and doing some great adventurous climbing. And I like Top Gear (or at least I did during the Clarkson era). Maybe I am just a bad person.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It sounds to me like making any kind of media these days is just a massive minefield and you're better off not bothering!

In reply to Red Rover:

"oooooooooaaaah ya can't say anything these days"

In reply to PaulJepson:

"These days you get arrested and thrown in jail if you say you're English"

In reply to PaulJepson:

Nice to see the usual BS that's used to shut down any debate. I suppose it's much easier to say something stupid like that, or build some straw man to make somebody look like a Daily Mail reader than it is to look at what's actually happening.

Somebody who has made brilliant climbing films for a long time but with the latest batch the organiser is forced to go on stage and apologise for not having the correct racial balance. A film is criticised for showing 4x4s driving through the desert. It sounds like a letter to the DM but this is worrying stuff, how far will it go? Do you think this is healthy for the creative industries? Little by little the screws are tightening on the arts.

In reply to Red Rover:

It's literally what you said!

These days, you can't even write racial abuse in excrement on someone's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat.

In reply to Red Rover:

Yes, it sometimes seems that we are not allowed to enjoy stuff just for what it is without seeing it dissected for its diversity acceptability (at least on UKC).

Nothing wrong with promoting diversity obviously, but I do wonder whether there is a danger of people being alienated by the continuous apparent requirement to see everything through this prism. A sort of diversity fatigue. I sense it amongst pupils at school sometimes (it was gender diversity week last week, LGBTQ+ week this week, BLM week next week...... which means it is probably neurodiversity or whatever the week after that........ ). Sort of too much of a good thing.

In reply to PaulJepson:

Another strawman. I didn't say you couldn't say anything I said it was a minefield which seems to be true. I didn't write any racial abuse or condone racism (sounds like you are using the "anyone who disagrees with me is racist" approach) . Or is defending these films not allowed? Is opposing racial quotas not acceptable?

In reply to PaulJepson:I thought climbing blind was brilliant in showing how someone with such a challenging disability managed to overcome it by pure determination and support: Similarly I doubt anyone would want to see a film about my own struggles in climbing my 5000th new route whilst trying to overcome my own challenges of hVING NO feeling in either hand due to a failed operation on a trapped ulna nerve and having a right sided blood clot to the right side of my brain (a stroke) leaving me with no sensation in either had but absolute respect to the blind climber, who’s name I forgotten, for climb the Old Man of Hoy

In reply to mark s:

Aye, but then a majority of people voted for Trump and Brexit, so...

In reply to Robert Durran:

Exactly. I'm all for diversity and inclusion and I have suffered very minor racist abuse myself (been called a white bastard, white scum etc.) so I can only imagine how bad it is to be on the receiving end of the real thing. However, overdoing it just causes more resentment. School kids know when something is overdone.

In reply to Gary Gibson:

I'd want to see that Gary!  That's one person at least...

In reply to Red Rover:

It's not BS. It's good stuff and they're good kids. But anyone can get a sort of ennui if too much of  a good thing thrust at them.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Sorry I meant that but the overdoing of it is BS. I've edited it to make it clearer.

In reply to Red Rover:

It's actually a Stewart Lee quote (in response to lamgregp, who had also quoted him) from his 'bit' about political correctness. Obvious hyperbole. 

“The kind of people that say “political correctness gone mad” are usually using that phrase as a kind of cover action to attack minorities or people that they disagree with. [...] And I’m sick, I’m really sick– 84% of you in this room that have agreed with this phrase, you’re like those people who turn around and go, “you know who the most oppressed minorities in Britain are? White, middle-class men.” You’re a bunch of idiots.”

In reply to Red Rover:

I don't see Alistair Lee having much to regret in his overall portfolio. I wish he had put some context on that Saudi film though, to distance his work from a state that is actively sports washing.

We don't need quotas but telling interesting stories about different role models in climbing can really help. People won't know if they enjoy climbing if they don't try it; and having people like them involved in representation can help. Alistair's film about Jesse is out on the progressive limits of that.... ability rather than disability.

One of the biggest under-represented sectors I worry about these days is the inner city school age introductions to climbing, which was quite good in the 90s in my city but seems to have dropped significantly due to council, school and youth centre budget cuts. The local walls still try really hard to help. There have been some great US films on this subject in recent years. Such films inevitably end up very diverse.

In reply to PaulJepson:

OK but the problem is that any time somebody questions anything in the way that I have done they are immediately tarred with the brush of 'angry middle aged white man who reads the DM and thinks they are the victim while secretly being racist'. Your Stuart Lee quote is pretty much that and you wouldn't have typed it out if it wasn't aimed at me somewhat. This kind of thing is unhealthy as it shuts down any debate. I can't be arsed any more, I gave up UKC politics years ago and should have stayed out of it.

In reply to Offwidth:

I agree. One thing bothers me though, should it be our mission to get people who don't like climbing, to change their minds and like it? It's one thing to make it obvious that not being white doesn't mean climbing isn't for you but if somebody doesn't want to do it then who cares. It seems to be the attitude of a missionary wanting to go and save people. A majority of people of all races and backgrounds think climbing is not for them.

In reply to Iamgregp:

I did approach Alistair about filming it in order that I could perhaps take it to the Kendal Film festival as I though 5,000 new routes was in important achievement ( perhaps a narcissistic view?) but, sadly, it never came to pass: I can certainly confirm that it was a very challenging experience for me, like climbing a 6a+, as it seems it was, in a pair of  ski gloves or. Boxing gloves but it never came to pass: for me now it is just a case of hope and patience..a word that is not in my vocabulary that one day the sensation in both hands will return one day 🤞🤞

In reply to Red Rover:

There's a lot of interesting articles about why so many black people in The US can't swim. I won't bother linking them but they're not hard to find and they draw a parallel. 

Yeah loads of people decide that climbing is not for them, but a lot of minorities have it decided for them by the community at large. 

I'd wager that in the next decade or so we are going to see a massive uplift in both the amount and quality of women playing football, due to the fact that it is now being shown on TV and there are people like Alex Scott showing that women can have a voice in football. Yes a lot of the women who are now turning up as pundits, presenters, etc. are very qualified but it's the first time they're being given a chance. Is it a bad thing if the BBC say 'listen, we need a woman on the FA Cup coverage'? Course it bloody isn't. Match of the Day used to be a load of white blokes, then they started having a few black presenters, and now they're also having women. I'm sure all of those decisions weren't colour/gender blind. Minorities (and women) have been held back forever and a certain amount of correction is required. Look at the amount of stick people like that first female linesman in the PL and the aforementioned Scott got when they got the jobs. 

In reply to Gary Gibson:

Shame that film didn't get made, I think it's a very important achievement and a hell of a story too!

Perhaps some talented film maker will tell your story sometime yet, and I'm sure there will be more new routes to come!

In reply to Offwidth:I agree but this ‘woke’ society issue seems to be spreading beyond its original intension but for it to be conveyed in such an environment as climbing/mountaineering environment is a worrying trait? I spent a lot of my life in work as a TU representative challenging issues of discrimination under the equalities act, as well as bullying, but this equality issue, whilst extremely important, shouldn’t be taken too far?

In reply to PaulJepson:

I agree, I'm not against seeing diverse media I'm against the idea that a film is bad if it isn't racially diverse. I wouldn't think a film about black people climbing was bad because it was about black people, and I wouldn't think a film about white people climbing was bad because it was all white. You are allowed to make more than one film. Despite some poster's insinuations that I'm a secretly racist DM reader, I'm only really saying two things: it's wrong to criticise a film because of it's racial makeup and that this kind of thing is not healthy for the arts as it becomes more risky to make something in case you have put a foot wrong in the ever changing ethical maze that is being created.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Ha! Fair point...

I agree with the wider point you're making but let's not get swayed by right wing/brexiters hubris... 

Trump lost the popular vote when he was elected, and the majority of people didn't vote for Brexit -  17.4 million people voted for it, so that leaves a further 48.4 million who either voted against it (16.1M), or didn't express an opinion one way or the other!

In reply to Iamgregp:

Was also going to point out Andrew's mistakes here, being a geeky politics teacher and all that! But we shouldn't mock the American system too much, after all wasn't it 2015 when the SNP won 50 odd seats from about 1.5 million votes, when UKIP got one seat from about 3.5 million votes?

In reply to Idealstandard:

When I'm at an athletics meeting, I find that the percentage of white sprinters, particularly for the British team, is far below that of the main population.

Do you therefore think that we should have a campaign to limit the number of black/coloured/ whatever we're supposed to call it athletes that are allowed, so as to even out things for white sprinters ?? And then of course there's always the limited number of Asians. And how do we categorise those from a mixed background.

Furthermore, I have no knowledge as to whether any of the athletes are straight/gay/binary/celibate. Should there be a compulsory question for them to fill out so that each category can be given their fair share of team places.

And then of course there's the split between different religions, or none ....

etc., etc., etc..

If anyone is more interested in the sex/race/religion/sexual preference of persons in a film about an activity than they are in the activity itself, then maybe that's where any problem might lie.

Anyway, I've just sent some info to one fellow Official who is English/Iraqi, and I'm next going to deal with some info for another who is Afro-Caribbean. (Or as far as I'm concerned, Yasmine and Kenny - yes, one's even female !)

In reply to Red Rover:

Maybe because most of my most prolific climbing years were in a Uni club where diversity was much more similar to the UK population: so I've never been convinced there are big differences in potential interest but there were in the UK in exposure to the activity. As for proselytising... I'd always say it needs care in a risk sport but why wouldn't we want others to try something in controlled conditions that we and our friends find captivating.

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm talking about people in general, all races: if somebody chooses not to go climbing, not because they think they won't be accepted but because the aren't intersted, then why should we push it? Climbing is great for us and really gives meaning to some people's lives (and f*cks up others), but lots of people get meaning from other things. It seems to me that we are assuming that everybody needs climbing and they would be better off if only they could see that, like missionaries assuming that the people living in the darkness need to see the great light.

Caving is a great sport and has given me my best friendships and happiest friendships. A lot of people on here aren't arsed for it, but if only they would give it a go they would see the truth and have a great time!

In reply to Red Rover:

I got to try both, and other adventure activities, on a week long school trip as a kid (with others mostly from fairly poor families). We were pushed and what's so wrong with that?

I found caving enticing as a kid but we didn't have any other than boring culverts, so I climbed trees. I left my Uni caving club after nearly getting into a fight with an over- privileged t*sspot who decided my clean spare clothes on the bus were for him. In the end I jointly started a Unicycle club as I was already good at that and it gave my co-conspirator parking benefits. My climbing reboot was in my PhD

One of my humourous contributions to the climbing guidebooks I worked on were various "troglodytes tours". The Burbage valley one was most fun, explored with a big team on a showery day.

In reply to Red Rover:

It's not about evangelising. It's simply about providing opportunities.

In reply to Red Rover:

Fk off! The Tories defunded the arts over the last 10 years; defunded public services, galleries and museums; defunded libraries; reorganised HE in a way that marginalises the arts and critical social sciences; and have had a stifling effect on what can be said and done on TV and radio. And you think the problem is people asking for the actual diversity of our communities to be represented? What an ignorant tool.

In reply to C Witter:

The arts can be attacked by more than one thing, identity politics and the Tories. Have I spoken in favour of the Tories at all? Another straw man: they disagree with me so I'll insinuate they are a Tory. People asking for diversity isn't a problem. An event host having to go on stage to apologise for an incorrect racial makeup of the films is a problem. I can see this is pointless as it's just personal attacks: just by saying that a film shouldn't be criticised for being too while I've been labelled a secretly racist ignorant tool of a middle aged Tory DM reader! However, there are three times more dislikes on the original post than there are likes so are there lots of people who silently agree with me but don't want to stick their head above the parapet?

In reply to C Witter:

I remember when the Tories cancelled Uk Film Council literally right after they came to power. An early indication of their commitment to the arts.

In reply to Iamgregp:

There's some irony in that story! (According to Wikipedia) the UKFC lobbied for there to only be one public body for film and that the BFI should be abolished. The Government agreed that there should only be one body (bonfire of the quangos) but abolished UKFC and had BFI take over most of its functions. 

In reply to Iamgregp:there will certainly 

In reply to summo:

The Woke Folk like the Victorians who went around renaming streets, buildings and even towns to reflect what they valued?

It's not a new thing. In fact what is new is this idea that history and its manifestations should be preserved in aspic forever because it is so sacrosanct. I say bollocks, change the names of stuff if a new name better reflects the goals of society. Especially when the old names are pretty much irrelevant or objectionable. As long as your not changing the names of everything there will be enough 'history' around in the environment. Personally I find out about history from books, video, etc. rarely by googling building names.

In reply to Iamgregp:

But surely the Tories ARE committed to the Arts, or at least the good ones such as Covent Garden.

And they are fully committed to the Universities as well - both of them.

In reply to fred99:

Ha! Very good!

You can imagine the conversations that had “What’s this? Government money going to a load of lefty progressives to make films about kids on council estates?!  They can forget that!”