The Traitors: Faithful Representation on our screens

BBC One’s The Traitors has just wrapped its triumphant second season with a dramatic finale that kept 6.9 million viewers on the edge of their seats. 

[SPOILER ALERT] In the end it was the traitors who walked away with the prize pot, after ‘OG’ traitor Harry leveraged his close relationship with faithful finalist Mollie to banish his last real challenger, Jaz - aka Jazatha Christie.

While I don’t typically condone lying, cheating and gas-lighting, it was an outstanding game played by Harry, aged 22 (one of the youngest players). From day one, he was able to fool his fellow contestants with his youthful charm, carefully-planted deceits and sheer delight at  throwing his traitorous comrades under the bus. 

Together with the inventive challenges, the plausible but inaccurate traitor theories and the frequent curve-balls and plot-twists, it was more than enough to keep us going through January. But it wasn’t the subterfuge, mindgames or Claudia Winkleman’s fringe that impressed us most at Gritty HQ  - something else stood out as a real testament to the quality of the production. 

Representation is not an easy thing to get right and almost impossible to get perfect, but within the format and context of the show, the showrunners did a pretty outstanding job. 

First and foremost, how satisfying was it to see an authentically diverse group of contestants living their best lives on primetime? When we consider the key protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 along with broadcaster targets, The Traitors season 2 weaved a clever thread across many different groups and identities, but without it feeling worthy, tokenistic or tick-box.

Contestants aged 22 to 67, from all over the nation; representation of multiple ethnicities, the LGBTQ+ community and different disabilities (visible and non-visible); contestants from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds and a healthy gender balance. Arguably most important, there were contestants who embodied the intersections between these characteristics. They represented real life.

It was how the show represented many different/nuanced identities both authentically and incidentally which won us over, and most importantly now paves the way for other productions to learn and draw best-practice from. 

Let me explain. The danger of industry targets for on and off-screen roles is that casting or hiring becomes a tick-box exercise. But the point of good representation and positive action recruitment isn’t to tick commissioner boxes - it’s to ensure that as many people watching can see a bit of themselves in the content. Off-screen - it's knowing that your voice has been represented when creative leaders decide which perspectives to amplify, and which narratives to tell.

Representation on-screen didn’t look or feel tokenistic on the Traitors. The diversity of the group wasn’t laboured, or worn like a badge (or shield) of honour. The only time we’re given any information about ‘protected characteristics’ is when the contestants themselves are telling us a bit about their backgrounds and motivations. It just felt normal, natural and an integral part of the format that you’d be delivered a range of different, exciting and unique characters. 

You could argue there were no apparent trans or non-binary contestants, or any perceivable representation for East and South-East Asian communities, who make up 1.1% and 0.34% of the UK population, respectively - but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. It’s possible that this information simply wasn’t divulged to the audience, challenging our own understanding of diversity - what we perceive versus what it is. 

We also don’t know what the off-screen representation was like on this production. Hopefully the production heads spent as much time curating a really diverse and inclusive team, who could relate to the cast and bring the best ideas and storylines to the (round table). 

From a slightly less positive lens, the narratives that played out in front of us did reveal unconscious biases that affect people from under-represented groups, which bubbled to the surface as the game played out.

Let’s look at the traitors themselves. It started with Harry, Paul and Ash - the latter of whom was the first to be conspired against by her fellow (male) traitors and the only female traitor throughout the season. After that, whenever a ‘recruitment’ took place it was a man who was selected. Gender was never presented as a reason, but Claudia Winkleman clocked it. (Bravo by the way to the producers for keeping that observation in the edit. It would have been easy to nip it out and let the gender bias pervade silently.)   

Further questions are raised when you pair this with the facts that the ‘murder’ victims were disproportionately older women (a fact that Claudia went on to acknowledge as ‘problematic’). On one occasion, Harry reasoned that Diane, aged 62 and mother of fellow contestant Ross, was getting ‘too brave’ and ‘needed to put in her place’... a harmless jibe on the surface, but contextually a somewhat concerning choice of language. 

Other examples include Zack's adamant and disproved theory that Jasmine was a traitor. What started as a plausible theory became more of a judgement of her character. After continuous accusations, Jasmine became more convicted in her rebuttals, which led to Zack saying she was ‘too emotional and raw’ in her defence and therefore must be a traitor. Contextualised by the historical discrimination black women have faced and the trope of the ‘angry black woman’, compounded with the fact that no one else’s defence was described this way, his choice of words and reasoning give way to criticism. Anthony was similarly labelled as being angry and aggressive. Just a coincidence, or an outworking of racial bias?

Representation is incredibly hard to perfect once you enter the territory of granular detail, and aside from the arguable bias within the traitors themselves, there were a couple of details that mildly irked me -  the most prominent being finalist Mollie Pearce being described as a ‘disability model’. 

As a non-disabled person I won’t dispute terminology, but (applying the social model of disability) I would like to think that Mollie is a model who happens to have a disability. A greenlight from Mollie herself, an oversight on the showrunners part or an attempt at clearer diversity? It’s hard to say, but it feels like it contrasts to the rest of the show's exemplary grasp on representation.

And exemplary it was! A great format, with a great cast that united the nation in excitement, three nights a week for the glummest month of the year - bring on season 3.

Our challenge for next year’s show-runners: make your off-screen talent choices with as much candour and inclusiveness. The difference will shine through!

[Featured image credit: BBC/Studio Lambert Associates]