The Guardian has an article, too, of course.

Is EastEnders the lifeblood of the BBC?

• Dan Sabbagh
• The Guardian, Monday 8 February 2010
• Article history

<span style="font-size:10.5pt;"><font face="Verdana">Almost exactly 25 years ago, three men burst on to our television screens by knocking down the door of Reg Cox's bedsit. They were Den Watts, Arthur Fowler and Ali Osman and they were making history in the very first episode of EastEnders. Cox, sadly, was dead, the first of many in the Walford drama that has so far claimed the lives of 78 of its characters.What is very much alive and kicking, however, is the popularity of the soap and its importance to the BBC. EastEnders represents the first time that prim "Auntie Beeb" produced a successful television soap to rival Coronation Street, Emmerdale Farm and the emerging Brookside. In doing so, Julia Smith and Tony Holland – the first producer and screenwriter – created a show that became a national institution, and, arguably, the saviour of the corporation and its licence fee-funded model. Not only is EastEnders the BBC's most consistent programme in terms of ratings, but it is the programme that reaches young and ethnic minority viewers that the national broadcaster otherwise struggles to woo.

Smith and Holland were already a successful partnership, having worked on Z Cars and the popular nursing drama Angels, when they were approached by BBC executives spooked by the success of Channel 4's Brookside in the early 1980s. They needed a soap opera that would connect with "middle Britain" and the project was eventually agreed by Michael Grade. The BBC had been scarred by several failures to create a popular soap, including the ill-fated ferry drama Triangle, which lasted three series.

Holland, from the East End of London, devised the show, drawing heavily on childhood experience. He died in 2007 aged 67, but John Yorke, the BBC's head of drama production, says: "I think EastEnders stems from a child's eye view, a world in which there were strong families, and a sense of community and adversity shaped by the second world war." Bomb damage was a feature of early Albert Square sets, as was an emphasis on struggling through adversity – while humour, used in northern soaps, was downplayed.

Strong women

The third critical element in the EastEnders formula was an emphasis on matriarchy, as epitomised by Wendy Richard's Pauline Fowler or Barbara Windsor's Peggy Mitchell, which attracted the female-dominated early evening audience. Yorke puts that down to Holland's "gay sensibility, which showed a love for strong woman", and in so doing helped created television that meant "BBC licence fee payers are actually getting what they want from the BBC". The first episode was watched by 17 million and an all-time record 30.5 million viewers tuned in on Christmas Day 1986 to watch the womanising Den Watts serve divorce papers on his alcoholic wife, Angie.

Such gritty peaktime soaps are an almost uniquely British phenomenon. US drama is far more aspirational, and other parts of the world more influenced by romantic telenovellas, rather than the daily diet of death, destruction and divorce that is a British soap. Mal Young, who was working on Brookside when EastEnders launched, and then ran the Walford soap between 1997 and 2004, says that EastEnders succeeded because it followed in an established British tradition. "It starts with the kitchen sink dramas, the Osborne plays that led to Coronation Street, Brookside and finally EastEnders. We are fascinated by the underbelly of society."

A long period of success followed. Johnathan Young, who worked as a show runner on the first episode and later became one of its directors, says what characterised it from the early stages was the "high volumes of feedback from the audience" – a show that captured the country's imagination before the days of reality TV shows and social networking sites.

Indeed, EastEnders has only been under serious threat once in its history. The emergence of the reality shows – Big Brother, Pop Idol and The X Factor – brought the soap to a crisis in the middle of the noughties. In September 2005, ratings slumped to 6.6 million and behind the scenes the production was in chaos, with scripts only written 48 hours before screening. EastEnders has recovered, helped initially by the return of the Mitchell brothers, but still has to fight against reality shows, and Young, now the head of drama at TalkbackThames, the producer of The Bill, worries that it is still the reality programmes with their "real-life soap opera storyline" that dominate the public imagination.

Today, the soap is going through a revival, helped by the build-up to the second wedding of the popular characters Ricky and Bianca as well as the Archie Mitchell whodunnit. The rogue, played by Larry Lamb, was killed on 25 December using the bust of Queen Vic, in Albert Square's pub – and the identity of his killer will be revealed in the first live episode on 19 February, the date of the 25th anniversary.

These storylines helped give EastEnders an average audience of 10.8 million in January, putting it ahead of Coronation Street, at 10.4 million, for the first time in more than three years. With the programme now on four times a week, costing a relatively modest £150,000 an episode, its success is critical to the performance of BBC1. The former BBC1 controller Lorraine Heggessey once said: "When EastEnders is going well, BBC1 is going well." The only time of the week the BBC believes it can launch a show is after an EastEnders episode, or possibly after Holby City.

Yet it is what underlies the ratings figures that is almost more important to the BBC hierarchy. BBC figures claim that 43% of black people and other ethnic minority groups watch EastEnders regularly – helped by the introduction of the Masood family in 2007. BBC executives recognise the programme reaches a part of the country – young, multi-ethnic – in a way that no other BBC output does.

Important issues

Mark Thompson, the BBC director general, argues that EastEnders embodies the values of the modern public service BBC, describing it as "a central part of national life" that is "fantastic entertainment" and has "at the same time raised awareness and tackled many important issues – from HIV and Aids, mental health, domestic violence, drug misuse and many others".

With the rise of much cheaper reality TV programmes, several TV executives fear that launches such as EastEnders belong to the past. The last big successful launch was in 1995 with Channel 4's Hollyoaks. Long-running shows benefit from the fact that people have grown up with them and retain a loyalty no longer available in the world of multichannel TV.

Peter Bazalgette, the former chief creative officer at Big Brother's producer, Endemol, observes: "Not only does EastEnders help justify the compulsory licence fee system, because of its popularity with mass audiences, but it looks like it might not be possible in today's climate to create a new soap if EastEnders ever needed to be replaced. That makes it all the more valuable to the BBC."

Or as Yorke puts it: "Can you imagine where the BBC would be today if it had not launched EastEnders?"

In a lather: EastEnders timeline

19 Feb 1985 First episode. Reg Cox is found dead. Viewers: 17 million. 26 Dec 1986 "Dirty" Den Watts hands Angie divorce papers. Viewers: 30.1 million – an all-time record. 23 Feb 1989 Dirty Den "murdered". Programme creators Julia Smith and Tony Holland leave amid a row over whether Den could return. Viewers: 20 million. 26 Dec 1991 Mark Fowler reveals he is HIV+. Sharon Watts marries Grant Mitchell. April 1994 Goes from two to three episodes a week. 1 March 2001 Who Shot Phil Mitchell? Viewers: 25 million. Show goes to four episodes a week. 5 April 2001 Uefa Cup match between Liverpool and Barcelona delayed so viewers can see it was ex-girlfriend Lisa Shaw who shot Phil. Viewers: 22 million. 29 Sep 2003: Dirty Den is back, with the words "Hello Princess". Viewers: 16 million. 18 Feb 2005: Dirty Den is murdered for sure on the show's 20th anniversary. Viewers: 13.7 million. 13 July 2006 Ratings fall to a low of 3.9 million after it loses out to Emmerdale. 25 Dec 2009 Archie Mitchell murdered. Viewers: 10.9 million. DS</font></span>

Edited February 8, 201015 yr by Sylph

The Mirror has an article about the stars who left Walford.

The social commentary and reflections of reality which had been present in early EastEnders and which, I have to be honest, were new to mainstream British soap opera were now replaced with extreme farce and absurd violence.

But EastEnders’ great crime is that it poses as an honest, open look at life in the 21st century, reflecting both the downside and the upside of what it is to live now.

Which I’d say is the real trouble with EastEnders. It has no heart.

I agree with all of this. I don't think the problem with Eastenders now is that it's too depressing as much as it's too empty. They use misery as a way to get around telling interesting stories. Like the absurdity of what they have done to Ronnie Mitchell -- a potentially fascinating character who has spent a year being about babies, babies, dead daughter, babies, babies. That's their solution for everything now. Baby obsession, mixed with yelling and stories that go nowhere. And the big returns which seem to be done for the flimsiest reason and often damage the characters involved, the most recent being Sam Mitchell.

I think the show was much better at comedy in some previous years than it is now. If you look at the earlier episodes, Ethel was a classic comedy character, and there were funny moments for many others. Later on, Nigel was a very funny character. The show now tends to be more likely to have people who are there specifically for comedy, and those characters are a burden (the worst being Minty and Heather).

The show was once so full of complex characters who could be good and bad, funny, sad, whereas now too much is caricature, and the show is too busy winking at itself. The Mitchell family, with their shrieking, their sense of entitlement, their recycled plotlines, have become the biggest symbol of what the show needs to improve. Roxy Mitchell is possibly the worst major character ever on the show.

Yet there is still so much good in the show. And certainly they have done something right to get viewers back over the past few years. I just don't agree with all the big overhype about how the show is its best ever or any of that.

The emergence of the reality shows – Big Brother, Pop Idol and The X Factor – brought the soap to a crisis in the middle of the noughties.

I think the show's own creative problems in 2003-2006 were more of a cause. When Pop Idol was on Eastenders had some of their highest ratings ever, and X Factor and Britain's Got Talent have not been serious threats to Eastenders.

I do agree that it's not likely new soaps will be created, which is a shame, because a lot of the reality shows over there are poorly put together and viewers are turning further and further away from them. The flop version of odious Nigel Lythgoe's dance show being the latest example.

I think the grimness and gloom are part of its identity. They always have been. The writers often exaggerate, give shock value and ultimately hollow stunts the front row seats, which is when it becomes too much.

It would be nice to see this show change and really represent what's going on in East End, at least a bit, but you would have to be quite a master to pull it off. Once in a lifetime kind of talent. So that can be scratched, it just won't work. People expect that "grittiness" – although I every time I see that noun – and too much of a change would drive them away.

As you rightly point out, if only they put a little more heart and honesty, things would be much better.

But even at its absolute worst, I love this show. Some of the episodes in those dreary periods are just pure magic. When it's good, the magical episodes are a staple. The show always had a kind of tightness to it and some its writers know drama and what a good script is.

Corrie has been overrated for a long time now, I really hope it gets better soon, but in the meantime, EastEnders should really be no. 1.

Those 20m viewers peaks EE achieved, even though they happened in 2001, seem like a distant memory. Perhaps never again.

Edited February 8, 201015 yr by Sylph

I don't know if someone posted it, but here is a spoiler:

There is set to be further violence in Albert Square in the coming months when a character is shot and left fighting for his life, according to reports. Warning: Spoiler Alert! Digital Spy reports that former copper Jack Branning, played by Scott Maslen, becomes involved in an incident with his nephew, Billie, and events spiral out of control leaving him fighting for his life.

A source is quoted as saying "Billie Jackson's back in Walford for a reason - and it soon becomes apparent that he's hiding a gun from his family. Could Billie be responsible? Is somebody else out for revenge? Or is it all an innocent mistake?"

The Daily Star on Sunday quotes a source as saying "During his time in the square he's made a number of enemies. But it could well be someone from his dodgy past that catches up with him. And then there's his love life. He's slept with sisters Ronnie and Roxy Mitchell, as well as their cousin Sam. So there's no reason why it couldn't be a crime of passion..."

An EastEnders spokesperson says they do not comment on future storylines.

http://www.rte.ie/arts/2010/0208/eastenders1.html

Edited February 8, 201015 yr by Sylph

I think the grimness and gloom are part of its identity. They always have been. The writers often exaggerate, give shock value and ultimately hollow stunts the front row seats, which is when it becomes too much.

It's not the grimness (compared to some earlier years it's not very grim) I mind as much as the laziness, repetition, lack of followthrough, poor plotting. So many stories of the past few years have had rushed starts and then long gaps where nothing happens. Syed/Christian, which should have been about a man caught between his faith and the man he loves, but instead comes across as a whiny brat throwing tantrums and making everyone miserable, all over some guy he has no believable connection with. Lucas as killer. I mean this story should be incredibly grim, yet instead it's just dull. Then you have stuff like Janine running Danielle over, which ended up with nothing more than Ronnie wanting babies and Janine being forgiven in about two episodes. When they have Janine joke about how she killed Danielle, it's supposed to show how wicked she is, but really just shows how poorly written her character has become. Or Danny Mitchell's arrival, where within a few days he was already close to Ronnie and Roxy and working at the pub. Why do they rush? They have so much time to fill up. Or stuff like Tanya burying Max alive and taking up with Jack, both of which damaged her character where she still hasn't recovered. It was supposed to all be a big shock, but if an event has no real meaning or impact, there's no shock. The same happened when Lauren ran over Max.

There are some moments where they are better, some individual episodes, and I think some of the stories, like Tony's abuse of Whitney, were strong, even if the aftermath hasn't been great.

If they could work on consistency, plotting, and not focusing so much on getting attention, I think the show would become even better.

Guess who's coming back?

"YOU AIN'T GOING BACK TO EASTENDERS!!"

"YES I AM!"

Edited February 9, 201015 yr by CarlD2

Thank the soap gods! While I always liked

Kat more than Alfie, I'd rather have them both together than apart. So in light of the fact that its already been announced that Alfie was to return I'm glad that Kat is too!

Deleted

Edited February 11, 201015 yr by dannigold

I'm ready for Archie's killer to be revealed already. Ugh. I don't know why people aren't checking into Glenda and her sudden reapparence with Archie's long lost son. She has guilty written all over her.

The police seem to just think arresting random people is the way to get results. That and aimlessly wandering around the Square. Like a lot of Santer stories, the scenes repeat and repeat.

^I know. I'm starting to not even care. It better not have been an unfortunate accident, either. I want a real killer. LOL Who I still think is Glenda. Haha.

OMG I am jumping for joy at that casting spoiler!

Can someone confirm whether Sarah Phelps is no longer with EastEnders?