In Praise of O'Connor's new EastEnders

In a year were the very real world seems to be doing coke every week and then dealing with the consequences by doing some more; you’d be forgiven for not noticing a change in the world of television.

‘Eastenders’ is an icon of British television. It’s not the longest soap on television but it’s a staple none the less. We all know that anything that has been on for as long as it has, will inevitably have peaks and troves. Just as the noughties came to an end, it entered a prolonged slump. First came a baby swap storyline which caused such controversy that the actress at the centre of the plot, Samantha Womack, departed the series. The role of executive producer became like a revolving door as several writers tried and failed to revive the magic. Attempts became more desperate as legendary characters like Pat Butcher were killed off and suddenly the show seemed like a terrible ‘Hollyoaks’ wannabe.

And so, like all good heroes, Dominic Treadwell-Collins entered the fray at just the right moment. Even if you haven’t watched a single episode, you probably know that Danny Dyer plays the landlord of the Queen Vic unbelievably well. The epic ‘Who Killed Lucy Beale’ saga was ingrained in the fabric of British culture for most of 2014 building up to a week of live episodes. Regulars noticed an uptake in the amount of older characters being portrayed and though not devoid of pretty people or love triangles, they were no longer the sum total of the show. After successfully rebuilding the brand, Treadwell-Collins left his position earlier this year – paralleled by the onscreen departure of Peggy Mitchell.

This brings us to the present with Sean O’Connor taking up the reins for the latter part of this year. He came over from leading an incredibly well received storyline about domestic violence on the radio serial ‘The Archers’. That serial is an institution in its own right, broadcasting for well over half a century but it’s far slower paced than the soaps we’re used to on our television screens. Stakes are often far lower and the usual expectations of murders or big revelations at Christmas are not quite the same.

You’d have to be totally obtuse not to have noticed a tonal switch since O’Connor took over. The show has taken a breath and the break neck speed at which Treadwell-Collins liked to deliver twists has stopped so that not every episode has to have a big reveal at the end. I’m not going to lie, it definitely took a bit of getting used to. For example, a recurring plot has been a bin collections crisis leading to black bin bags cluttering the square. I mean it’s hard to get excited about that. Then again, it does have its bonuses. As great as Treadwell-Collins was, the need for constant surprises did lead to some ridiculous plot developments. Hard as I try to forget, I think I’m permanently scarred from Vincent being delivered a pig’s head.

O’Connor has also made an impact through cast changes with a large amount of fan favourites departing. The entire Masood family has been written out with Roxy and Ronnie being written out in the New Year. Not to mention bringing back Michelle Fowler, a decision which has been panned already even though she’s been on TV for all of an episode. Though people are critical of her being recast, I can’t see the issue given that she was last on the show twenty years ago.

Personally, the decision to write out a pack of older characters was the most worrying decision. Whilst Pam and Les may not have been around as long as characters like Masood, they seemed to have far more mileage left in them. Not to mention that when the show slumped before, a large part of that was the older generation was being forgotten.

Then again, I don’t think that the show is going to suffer all that badly. O’Connor is being bold because he’s not only changing up the cast like most producers do, he’s also changing the tone and challenging the audience. He could attempt to compete with the big twists and turns of ‘Emmerdale’ or ‘Coronation Street’ as many other producers have tried to do but when you compete for the sake of competing, that’s often when you deliver the most half-baked, short sighted plots.  

People have been having a go at the most boring Christmas special of ‘Eastenders’ ever. But if he’d given in to that need for a big twist then he’d most likely have killed off Phil Mitchell. Yes, it would have made for an excellent episode and it would have got a lot of press but it would have been a terrible choice for the show. Steve McFadden is one of the strongest actors on the serial at the moment with his portrayal of Phil’s long standing addiction to alcohol winning him much deserved acclaim. His death would have created an unnecessary vacuum which they’d end up desperately trying to fill with characters that were inevitably less relatable.

The show on Christmas Eve was also a belter with Dot being put front and centre. O’Connor has been quietly and consistently building on what Treadwell-Collins got so very right about ‘Eastenders’. It flourishes when it deals with issues around community, friendship and family. Realistic portrayals of important social issues were some of the highlights of Treadwell-Collins tenure including exploring the issue of rape and the repercussions of it on victims; especially when justice isn’t provided by the legal system. As O’Connor has taken over he has continued to explore social issues with extensive tact and sensitivity.

Under the radar, he has crafted an elegant portrayal of the best and worst of gentrification in which Dot Branning has been front and centre. In one brilliant episode, he focused on homophobia and how it had changed over time. A gay character, Paul is the victim of a homophobic attack and as his wake is taking place, Dot has to confront her own prejudices over same sex marriage. The writing makes clear that Dot isn’t in any way on a level with the deeply homophobic attackers but does have a younger generation question her values. In doing so, the changing dynamic of London’s East end into a more accepting area is praised but a darker side of generation exists and as an older character, Dot is also subjected to that.

Dot has been the manageress of the laundrette for almost as long as she has been in the square but gentrification leads to its closure. When she hosts a closing party, no one attends showing a lack of community. However during the Christmas special, a power cut forces the residents of Albert Square to abandon their individual plans and gather in the Vic. We may yawn and complain that the show was boring this year but that probably says more about us than O’Connor. It was a welcome surprise to have a special focus on community, especially at this time of the year.

Hillary, History and The Wizard of Oz

You’ve probably heard the old saying that history repeats itself. As overused and clichéd as that may sound, it does have a high degree of truth to it. This most recent election cycle has been described correctly as remarkable and historic but also unparalleled and unprecedented. These latter two are incorrect, showing up our predisposition to favour a past which we feel is tangible. The further we travel away, the more we forget. However, the election of 1896 is incredible in its parallel to our most recent one.

The Gilded Age was coming to a climax and was a period that had been characterised by economic upheaval, political corruption and industrialisation which was creating a divide between urban and rural communities. Tensions were high throughout the country which led to the proliferation of smaller parties, though they never broke the dominance of the Republicans and the Democrats as the two main parties. One main difference between then and now was that the Democrats were seen as the party which favoured conservative, right wing policies more so than the Republicans.

This would change when the Democrats nominated a progressive as their candidate for the 1896 election. Nomination processes were very different compared to now and the voting process at the convention had more importance than today. Before the convention, it seemed that the establishment candidate would win but during it, an impassioned speech by a young man changed the course of history dramatically.

William J. Bryan made ‘The Cross of Gold’ speech which was received so well that he won the nomination. At that time, the issue of currency was an important one, especially in Southern states. After the civil war, both parties backed the gold standard as a currency and wished to eliminate silver being used as well. Farmers wanted this because they believed it would increase inflation which would in turn make getting credit easier and thus allow them to invest in their farms. Bryan departed from this in his speech thus drawing the support of the agrarian North and thus stopping the momentum of smaller parties which were formed on the issue of silver. Therefore, the first parallel between that election and this one is that the Democrats choose to pick an outsider to lead their party rather than an establishment character in the form of Hilary.

Though the second parallel is that whilst The Republican’s choose an establishment figure, William McKinley, to face Bryan they would ultimately win the election thus ending the currency issue. Thirdly and most interestingly is the comparison that can be made between Bryan and Trump. Both candidates were populists, appealing to the issues which were seen to be most important to the common man. Perhaps, the reason that Trump succeeded when Bryan failed was because trust in political elites was higher than now. The temptation to go against the grain was less strong when people believed their politicians were working in their interest, at least in the main. Not to mention the confidence to believe in ideals that weren't endorsed by elites was probably harder without the ability to connect, through social media, with people who shared your ideas.

It has often been said that ‘The Wonderful Wizard of Oz’ by L. Frank Baum is a political allegory for the situation that America found itself as it entered the twentieth century. The city of Oz which housed the Wizard represents the political elites unaware of the suffering going on outside the city. Baum appears sympathetic to Bryan but casts him as the cowardly lion, a man with valuable ideas who did not have the bravery to push his ideas through.

Baum is however curtailed by an attempt to create in his narrative a simple divide between good and evil. The scarecrow, without a brain, represents farmers who are unable to fight the industrial revolution because they are not able to out manoeuvre larger corporations. The tin man represents industrial workers who are being used as assets rather than people by their employers who do not care for their safety. These two characters unite along with the lion to help Dorothy end the reign of the wicked witch. This fiction is happier than the reality in which the farmers of the South do not realise that they have a lot in common with the working class in the industrial North and therefore do not unite behind Bryan. The truth is that the working man in Texas did not see that they shared the same concerns as the working man in New York. Again, the similarity of those in this election dependant on health insurance voting for a candidate seeking to repeal it is startling when compared to those workers dependent on credit voting against Bryan.

‘The Wonderful Wizard of Oz’ allegory can expand to 2016 though in this reality, we face an even grimmer end. Glinda is gone and – true to the revisionist tendencies of our generation – our narrative follows more closely to ‘Wicked’. Hillary is Elphaba, the wicked witch, who has been painted as evil by Donald, the wizard purposefully working against the good of his citizens. The city of Oz is representative of a media so obsessed with colourful nonsense that they add to the vilification of Elphaba, a woman by no means perfect but who genuinely wanted the best for her fellow citizens. We can only hope that the election result was not the end of our story but the beginning and that our heroine, Dorothy is on the way.

Praise the Gay: Christianity and its relationship with Gays on film

Christianity and sexuality aren’t always the best coupling in films. More often than not, Christians are painted as a one dimensional, homogeneous character. They are the bogeyman in which no sense can be argued and are stuck in their backward ways; using scripture to back up their bigotry.  For sure, some Christians can act like this and the teachings of some churches indulge prejudges against homosexuality but it isn’t fair to paint every Christian in this way.

This is a concept truly understood by the film maker Stephen Cone. The son of a Baptist minister, he has a strong understanding of how faith and people actually interact with each other, especially in young people as they discover themselves. This is the principle theme of two of his films, The Wise Kids (2011) and Henry Gamble’s Birthday Party (2015).

The Wise Kids deals almost exclusively with characters who are Christians. It focuses on the burgeoning sexuality of the main character, Tim. In an astute decision Tim doesn’t begin the story as a religious zealot who has to leave this behind to embrace his sexuality. He is never completely at a loss over his homosexuality and his faith is a constant within the film. Though one of his friends Laura is conflicted over this; she doesn’t scream and shout but rather their friendship quietly parts away. It is tragic in its quiet truth as Cone skilfully shows that the friction that it can cause without overdramatic fireworks.

In both films, Cone decides to remove the tired dramatic trope of the main character’s parent rejecting their child for their sexuality. It’s not that this doesn’t happen, parents can be incredibly destructive to their child’s mentality but more it’s a decision made often for easy drama that comes off insensitive and untrue to people who really have had their parents react dreadfully to them coming out.

One film which does capture this well is Prayers for Bobby (2009). Sigourney Weaver plays Mary, the mother of Bobby Griffith. It is based on a true story and the truth of the situation abounds in the film. Whilst Mary never fully disowns Bobby, she makes it clear that she doesn’t want to know him if he embraces his sexuality. This broken disengagement pains Bobby more than the dramatic equivalent in which all contact is broken by a completely evil parent precisely because the promise of reunion is there, if only he can change his lifestyle. This complex dichotomy of love and rejection is far more difficult to depict on camera than the easy binary of good and evil. Mary comes to understand that her treatment of Bobby was not okay, regardless of scripture. In the process she finds a Church which takes a liberal interpretation of the bible and is accepting of homosexuality however this only occurs after her son takes his own life.

Cone explores the relationship and interplay between the secular and religious communities in Henry Gamble’s Birthday Party.  Henry is, as the title suggests, is celebrating his birthday and the party acts as the setting for the film which plays out not unlike a theatre script. The writing is phenomenal and again paints religious people as the complex people that they are. For example, in one scene, Henry’s sister who goes to a private Christian college feels the need to defend how they teach biology whilst also adhering to the idea of creationism in part. She is able to embrace It is in this scene in particular that I was struck by his willingness to question the treatment of the Christians by the atheists; I sensed a subtle acknowledgement of the level of hostility which has been reached by the two communities and a questioning of where this unwillingness to communicate will go.

Then again, though he might question the treatment of Christians he is in no way an apologist for the faith. Both of his films quietly and sensitively critique the negativity that the passivity of Christian communities on sensitive social issues. For example, a character in Henry Gamble’s Birthday Party suffers a mental breakdown when he becomes locked in the bathroom. Though this sounds like a rather on the nose depiction of the damage caused by being trapped in the closet; it works extremely well. It is compounded by the fact that throughout the film he was marginalized through silence rather than distinct ostractisation thus suggesting that even if the prejudices aren’t articulated, they can still be dangerous.

The party allows for an exploration of different generations as well as different belief systems. This is dealt with deftly when one character is confronted on their implicit homophobia when they are in a mixed race relationship. She believes that sexuality is a choice in a way that race is not. It shows that tolerance within the younger generation of people with faith is growing. It’s a realistic picture articulating the path that faith is taking for most young people in which a personal relationship is embraced with God. It is more about a dialogue between the individual and Him rather than adhering to a set of instructions decreed by someone else.

This is also explored in a cheesy though thoughtful film, Pass the Light (2015) which weirdly parallels the recent Presidential election except that in this film, the extremist running for congress loses. Essentially a high school student, Steve Bellafiore, decides to run against a congressional candidate, Franklin Baumann. He does this because he is a strong Christian who does not agree with the divisive message being spread by Baumann – supposedly in the name of the Lord. The film criticises the message of hate carried by many on the extreme right, especially in relation to sexual morality. It suggests that people with a genuine faith are being misled into a misunderstanding which will benefit the pursuits of the powerful.

The exploration of Christianity and how it deals with social issues is not something new to film. However, being portrayed as three dimensional people with complex emotions and understandings of their relation to faith is new. For too long, they have fallen into two categories, either they are entirely pious and the film holds their simple morality up on high or they are treated as simple minded sheep spouting beliefs they neither understand or agree with. This recent movement in the last decade to have films which critique faith and its social beliefs without villainising it is refreshing.

Trump is President

Democracy. 

I imagine my relationship with that concept  is a lot like someone going through a really rough patch with their childhood sweetheart. They met in primary school, across a loud and hectic classroom. In that moment, they were destined to be together forever. They go through everything together; get married, buy a house, have a couple of kids. Everything is great. Then the roof falls in. 

For the second time in a year, I feel cheated. The EU referendum shocked and saddened me. It felt like we were throwing our hands up in the air and saying that the problems of the world were too large and too scary and that we wanted out. We were shutting up shop and didn't care all that much about what happened to anyone else.

Leaving the Glasgow count, the writing was already on the wall and my heart genuinely felt like it was breaking. I am unashamedly a Europhile, I think that we gained a lot from being in the EU. But on two counts, I found some relief. Firstly, Scotland had decided to stay in. 

Secondly, this was a referendum on the EU. It is too simplistic and completely unfair on those that voted out to call them bigots. People had genuine concerns about the decisions their country could make and thought that more sovereignty could help them. I accepted that democracy will sometimes result in a very decision you don't like. 

You can't throw the dummy out the pram when it doesn't go your way. You accept that the majority were convinced by the other side. 

I was ready to make it work with democracy, I'd been taking him for granted. I didn't realise how much hard work he'd been putting in. He had other responsibilities and they felt he'd been ignoring them for me and my pals. I got that. We'd agreed to both try harder.

Then last night happened and I just don't know. I still believe in democracy. The people went out and they voted and a decision was made. Though importantly in this case the majority of voters cast their ballot for Hillary. That doesn't matter though. America has its very own special flavour of democracy which means that the candidate most people wanted might not always become President. The last time that happened Bush bet out Gore for the Oval Office and we all know how well that went.

But even that doesn't matter. Lots of democracies have systems that aren't exactly proportional and we respect them. The point is that in the system chosen, a candidate was chosen in a free and fair election.

I still believe in the result of the election but it is hard. It's harder than the EU referendum because though I completely disagree, I can see the merits for leaving. They don't seem alien to me. 

Cards on the table. The very notion of a Trump Presidency is alien to me. I accept that he won and that he now becomes the commander in chief of America but I don't understand it.

And it's because, if you were on the Trump train, I think you have to accept him whole. You voted for a man that is literally on tape talking about grabbing the genitalia of women. For a man that is accused by many of sexual assault. Innocent until proven guilty, absolutely but it's still frightening. Of course, voting or supporting the policies of Trump does not make you a sexist. It does though, at the very least mean that you're apathetic to that; thinking it's just not as important.  

A long time ago, in a fantasy world, a very wise man told a young guy that with great power comes great responsibility. For too long, we've talked about the power of voting without the responsibility. 

A vote for Trump was also a vote for his vice president, Governor Pence. Pence, in 2000, publicly came out in favour of gay conversion therapy. He thinks that resources and public money should be used to help change the sexual orientation of people. In the debates, Trump was highly critical of abortion and signaled support for overturning Roe vs. Wade. If you support these then good for you, you’ve voted for a candidate that will put them into practice. 

However, if you don’t then it’s not as easy to simply say well I voted for him because he’s going to get manufacturing back and so I don’t have anything to do with what happens to social issues. It doesn’t work like that. If you voted for Trump – no matter your logic for doing it – you’ve given a mandate to a man that holds views that will push the rights of minorities and women back. Remember that time Trump said a judge had a conflict of interest because of his Mexican heritage.

I support democracy. That means supporting the decision of the democratic vote. And we all have to do that. But we also have to accept responsibility for our decisions.