Taking Dramatic License

Cross posted from State of the Street

Many viewers have expressed concerns about the grooming storyline. Bethany's story has definitely been quite controversial. Some think it's gone too far. Some hate that a corrupt policeman has been added for dramatic effect, saying that it could stop someone going for help in "real life". But people know this is a fictional drama, and though these things happen in life, most of the police are not going to be corrupt. This kind of situation is nothing new. Pimps have been seducing vulnerable young women for centuries. Bethany might not have been forced to walk the streets for her clients but Nathan is pimping her out just the same. Even though the vast majority of the police are trustworthy and do an admirable job, there have also always been a few corrupt police officers so why not introduce one to the storyline? Surely people watching have the sense to understand that it's still fiction they're watching on the screen?

Mind you, I should know better than to say that. I used to process the email that came in through the Corrie.net website. Flaming Nora can back me up here. There would occasionally be an email from someone that didn't seem to understand that what they were watching was acting. I remember when Alma died of cancer. There were a half dozen or more emails from people who really thought the actress was dying and how brave was it of her to portray Alma's death on screen. When the storyline aired in Canada some months later, in popped a few more similar emails. I guess there really are some people that get far too involved and confuse fantasy with reality.

Would it really be possible for a mother to disappear without a trace for 7 years, leaving a 15 year old alone as Denise did with Daniel? The financial aspect alone would make it nearly impossible. She had a breakdown, allegedly, so how was she getting the money to put in the bank to pay the rent and bills? Yet apparently she did that. So why didn't Daniel trace her through the bank deposits? Why did not one neighbour or friend find it suspicious that she hadn't been seen for years? Why didn't Denise contact Ken and send Daniel to him if she wasn't going to be around? Daniel wasn't too keen on having his father in his life, as we saw during that last time Ken saw him but rather than leave your child alone, she had that option. Daniel could only lie and cover for her for so long before someone would start asking questions. We complain a bit but more or less accept the storyline as given because it's fiction.


I'm finding it a little difficult to accept that a man diagnosed with terminal cancer only bothered to try to find a guardian for his daughter almost before it was too late. He knew he didn't have much time left, he told that to Billy when he first appeared on the screen about a month ago. Surely if you have cancer, even if you don't know yet that it's terminal, you would scramble to get your house in order especially if you had the guardianship of a child to worry about, and especially knowing she'd either go into care or be given to your homophobic parents if you didn't make prior arrangements or at least write a will and express your wishes there. Social services might still get involved under those circumstances but surely they'd lean towards a big hearted gay vicar over a mean spirited homophobic grandmother.

I can't say yet if this story is going to interest me much but I will say this, if Billy and Todd do end up with Summer, they had better find somewhere to live. I'm pretty sure Eileen isn't going to go for having yet another mouth to feed.

David finally found out Shona's connection to his late wife, the fact that her child is the one that killed Kylie. Naturally he went ballistic, particularly because he was finding that he was attracted to her and it was mutual. She went and ran off but I'm sure she'll be back and in the time honoured tradition of soaps, they'll eventually get together though it's going to be weird that Kylie's kids' step-mother is the mother of the man that killed their mother. My head hurts already!

We all know that Eva's been in full on Bridezilla mode, trying to get Aidan to propose. She's been dropping hints like the flower girl drops rose petals up the church aisle. He's not picking them up. Deliberately. He likes having it both ways, a gorgeous blonde in his bed and another beauty on the side. He can continue to make promises to both of them and probably enjoys the danger zone. Eva took desperate measures and proposed to him in public so what could he do but say yes! Just to cement the deal, Eva is now pregnant though of course, she wouldn't have known that before the proposal I don't think. What I do think is that I wouldn't put it past her to have placed herself in that position of the possibility of getting pregnant because that would be her backup guarantee of a wedding.

Eva's always been full-on with relationships, pushing them into the next step before the fella was ready for it. I think that's why she kept getting engaged and then dumped. When we first met her, she was licking her wounds after a broken engagement and was there not something about when she was staying in France (when the actress was on maternity leave), that she wrote to Leanne that she met a guy and got engaged? When she returned, she was broken hearted again. Those relationships start up and zoom through to that huge commitment stage far too quickly and that's her fueling the zoom bit just like she's done with Aidan. First it was the push to get him to move in and recently it's been the proposal anticipation. But while she's told him about the baby, she's also going to be plotting his downfall while he continues to gleefully juggle both women, making empty promises to each.

 We suspend disbelief in most cases when dramatic license is taken. There's no harm in that. Tv, movies, books, fiction. Sometimes the writers need to throw in a twist or two that might be a bit over the top.

What bothers me is the nit-picky stuff, or if a character is written to do something that we know they would never, ever do. (i.e. when it was discovered that Betty Williams pilfered all those bar glasses) We also stand up and holler if Corrie history is blatantly rewritten (Annie Walker couldn't leave the pub to Betty because the brewery owned it and did until Bet Lynch left and the Duckies bought it from Newton and Ridley.) Would one small neighbourhood have that many people that have had anywhere between 4 and 6 spouses? Would one small neighbourhood have a building bursting into flame every year or two? Sometimes, you just roll your eyes and get on with it.

Tvor (Twitter @tvordlj)

---

Please read our advice for leaving comments on the Coronation Street Blog
All original work on Coronation Street Blog is covered by a Creative Commons License

Corrie A-Z: C is for Controversies

Like any other TV show, Coronation Street has endured much controversy over the years, be it involving characters, actors, producers or storylines. Sometimes the controversy proves to be a good thing but sometimes it brings a lot of negativity and backlash to the soap.

 

For many years now the press has been responsible for bringing a lot of publicity to soaps and they have been responsible for leaking storylines and production decisions that have sometimes led to public outcry and outrage and have forced the powers that be to rehash their ideas. And with them come controversies.

 

It has become a common occurrence for the last 15 years when a new producer arrives on the cobbles, the press go into overdrive wondering which characters will be getting the boot. While it was Brian Park back in 1997 that set the trend, there was a cull of characters back in 1964 when 29 year old Tim Aspinall was at the helm. Amongst the casualties back then were Frank Barlow, Florrie Lindley, Harry and Concepta Hewitt, Jerry and Myra Booth and of course Martha Longhurst. It was Martha’s departure that proved the most controversial: why get rid of such a popular character? There was a public outcry and the Corrie cast were also up in arms as well. Nevertheless, the axe was wielded and Martha died in the snug. The characters of Ken and Valerie Barlow, Albert Tatlock and Lucille Hewitt were also on the hit list but were spared at the last minute.

 

Thirty-three years passed before such a cull happened on the cobbles. Brian Park was appointed the new producer in 1997 and immediately set to clear out the deadwood characters and give the soap a younger vibe. The characters of Derek Wilton, Don Brennan, Andy McDonald, Maureen Elliott, Bill Webster, Billy Williams, Anne Malone and Joyce Smedley were axed to be replaced by the fresh faces of Natalie Horrocks, Chris Collins, Zoe Tattersall, Spider Nugent and a sexier Nick Tilsley. Long-serving writers Julian Roach, Barry Hill and Adele Rose left the show, angry with the changes. But the most controversial additions were the nightmarish family: the Battersbys. The reserved residents of the street were taken aback with the arrivals of Les, Janice, Leanne and Toyah as they wreaked havoc with their loud music and rudeness towards their neighbours. Their elderly next-door neighbour Percy Sugden left the street for pastures new to a retirement home, exasperated by his new neighbours (Bill Waddington, who played him, sensed there was too much sex scenes in the show and quit). Another veteran member of the cast, Thelma Barlow who had played Mavis Wilton since 1971, left the show. The myth has been that Barlow quit the soap after Peter Baldwin, who played her on-screen hubby Derek, was axed. But in a matter of fact, she had quit the role before Park’s axing of Derek. Park believed that without Mavis, Derek would be lost. What I don’t get is why they just didn’t write Derek and Mavis out together? Wouldn’t it have saved a lot of aggro?

 

Another thing that brings controversy is the sudden departure of a certain member of cast. Many have fallen into that category over the years. Jennifer Moss (Lucille Hewitt) was sacked in 1974 for her drink problem; Stephen Hancock (Ernest Bishop) quit the programme in 1977 when he had a dispute with producers over pay; Peter Dudley (Bert Tilsley) was involved in controversy in 1980 and 1983 and when he was summoned for a re-trial for indecent behaviour in 1983, he died of a stroke; Peter Adamson (Len Fairclough) was also involved in a case of indecent behaviour in 1983, but was actually sacked for breaching his contract (he’d also been previously suspended in 1969 for his drink problem); Doris Speed (Annie Walker) left the programme abruptly in 1983 after the press revealed her true age and she suffered a nervous breakdown; Chris Quinten (Brian Tilsley) quit the serial in 1988 when he decided to move to the USA; and Bruce Jones (Les Battersby) was sacked for breach of contract in 2007.

 

As for controversial storylines over the years they include: Valerie Barlow taken hostage by rapist Frank Riley in 1968; the reveal that Betty Turpin was Gordon Clegg’s mother and not his aunt in 1974; Deirdre Langton being attacked under the viaduct in 1977; the introduction of the first transsexual character in 1998 in Hayley Cropper; the case of ‘The Weatherfield One’ with Deirdre Rachid; and an illegal immigrant storyline in 2007 involving Joanne Jackson at the factory. Some storylines have occurred at the same time as a real-life occurrence: toddler Freddie Peacock went missing the same time as Madeline McCann in in 2007; while there was gun siege in Underworld when there was a siege at Cumbria.

 

And of course there’s that taboo of Michelle Collins/St. Ella’s accent!!

 

Do you remember any other controversies?

 

You can follow us on Twitter @CoroStreetBlog and Facebook: CoronationStreetBlog


All original work on the Coronation Street Blog is covered by a Creative Commons License