Soap operas are a curious breed. In the states everything is big and over the top, wonderfully made fun of by the establishment in various ways; just check out the scenes of
Days Of Our Lives that appear in
Friends. Very tongue in cheek, but then that's what a soap opera really is in the States: high drama, high glamour.
Over here in the UK it's a very different animal. A soap opera can be warm, funny and more realistic;
Coronation Street is a good example of this. When something horrible goes wrong, it's a big event storyline because, usually, as in life, these things just don't normally happen on this show. A lesbian storyline, for example, like the one between Sophie and Sian on this show, takes time to develop, months even. It's a slow burner.
Other soaps are a strange mixture. For glamour and teen issues, see
Hollyoaks. For daytime,, easy-going stories, see
Doctors. But
EastEnders is by far the extreme on the spectrum. Not a day goes by without something miserable happening on this show. That's not necessarily a criticism either: it's just what
EastEnders is, what it has been from the outset. Its very first episode started with a death, and, if ever it happens, its very last one surely will too.
But recently, more attention has been placed around this pessimism than usual. A controversial storyline has shaken the country, if perhaps not dividing it, for everyone seems to wonder what the heck the writers on the show are playing at. What should have been a happy event takes place with a double birth - Kat (Jessie Wallace) and Ronnie (Samantha Womack) both giving birth on the same day. But this is
EastEnders. They don't understand the meaning of the word "happiness". Ronnie's baby dies tragically due to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (Sids); in desperation she swaps the babies around, leaving Kat and her partner Alfie with a tragic discovery in their happiness.
The writer of this blog does not watch
EastEnders regularly, and certainly commendments must be placed at the feet of Jessie Wallace and Shane Richie, whose perframces as Kat and Alfie truly brought home the pain and grief too many parents feel in the real world. However, what has happened with the addition to the story truly defines what we seem to think a soap opera now is: highly melodramatic unrealistic rubbish. To examine the effects of Sids is one thing; it is a subject that more awareness should be made of. But to then attempt to glamorise it with a "baby swap plot" is both offensive and stupid. Though the writers describe the events as the last straw for Ronnie, the very fact that the actress who plays her is leaving the show, if you believe the media, in protest of the storyline surely justifies the lack of common sense in this move.
A few years ago now,
Hollyoaks, known for sometimes hard-hitting issues done well, ran a Sids storyline that concentrated more on the consequences it had on the parents, Tony and Mandy, their combined grief ultimately destroying their marriage, as well as the effects it had overall on the two girls babysitting. Though it can be argued that this is still, in a sense, "glamming up" a hard-hitting storyline, there can be no denial that, compared to what has happened in Albert Square over the last months, that was pittance.
The
EastEnders plot is due to finish early at Easter, thanks to a record number of complaints from the public (at the last count: 8,400), and it can be safe to say that, for
EastEnders, they have finally reached the bottom of the misery barrel after 25 years.