Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Walford Web, the online home of EastEnders' discussion since 1997. We cover EastEnders news, discussion and spoilers. Join the discussion and make your voice heard! We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're wondering what EastEnders is, click here to see what all the fuss is about.

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
DTC: 'I refuse to tick boxes on race or sexuality'; + Major similarities between his family and the Carters
Topic Started: 3 Feb 2015, 03:01 (3,570 Views)
Leon
Member Avatar

If they don't introduce ethnic/disabled characters people accuse them of being prejudiced. If they do introduce ethnic/disabled characters then people accuse them of only hiring them to tick a box.

It's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Some people can be so pessimistic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jade
Member Avatar

This is a tough one for me as this isn't Emmerdale. Fact is where EE is the British whites would be the minority. I am not saying we need to tick boxes but it does seem each time we introduce a new family/character they almost always are white.
Is that to say there isn't lots of non white out of work actors out there? Your skin colour doesn't need to define you but picking from a pool of non whites would be nice a bit more often.

I don't mean tick boxes either but how far do we take it? I wouldn't want EE to be 95% males because that isn't representative. I am not expecting EE to be a white minority show that's a true representation that wont ever happen. But there is a small description when casting a character beforehand usually. IE Sam Womack would never have been cast as Heather.

So why not make EE a bit more diverse why pick white actors nearly all the time as new characters? Benedict Cumberbatch made a valid point about how the UK unlike the USA is not so good for non white actors. I am all up for picking the right actor for the job but I don't believe for a minute there isn't some talented non white actors who could be doing just as a good a job as some of the white actors they seems to almost always hire. My aunt read the article in the paper and she said there does seem to be a show which is really based around white characters only with the non whites as bit players. In an area which wouldn't be a white majority.
Imagine setting a show in India and making the cast nearly all white? People would scream racism. Just a thought.
Edited by Jade, 3 Feb 2015, 20:17.
Your approval is neither desired nor required.

Julia Smith "We decided to go for a realistic, fairly outspoken type of drama which could encompass stories about homosexuality, rape, unemployment, racial prejudice, etc., in a believable context. Above all, we wanted realism".

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Slater11
Member Avatar

planck
3 Feb 2015, 08:14
He says he doesn't tick boxes but then how does he explain Donna who has served absolutely no purpose since coming in like July?
Or Kush and Peter being pushed as the local hunks, but not having a girl as the local fit girl. Lauren could have done this, but she's self absorbed as usual:p.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ian
Member Avatar

From its very inception, EastEnders has always cast characters from minority groups. It was part of its original vision that the show appeal to a broad range of people, and this was a part of that. Far from ticking boxes, casting from a range of ethnic/cultural backgrounds is instrumental to broadening the programme's appeal, the range of storylines it can show and reflecting the so-called 'reality' it's meant to reflect.

DTC's right to resist tokenism, but I see nothing wrong with deliberately casting characters from minority groups in order to explore a wider range of issues, as long as said characters are well-rounded and strong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Leon
Member Avatar

To be honest, I think most of the time they don't specify skin colour, so it's down to whoever is the best actor and they get the job, which is how it should be. Unless the character needs to be black, for example, they shouldn't specifically pick a black person to play a character just because the ethnic representation in EastEnders isn't representative of real life, unless they are the best person suited to the role. If that results in a whole cast of white people, then so be it. I'd rather have a show full of well acted white people that isn't completely realistic than a show full of mediocre ethnic actors but a show that accurately depicts the ethnic diversity in London.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Terry
Member Avatar

The Local Butcher
3 Feb 2015, 16:45
"In order to reflect it's rural setting Emmerdale will now have an all white cast."

Anyone who'd actually argue the above would be shot on sight. It's a clear example of why basing how diverse a show should be based on it's setting doesn't work.
I sorry but what you have said is worse.

No one whatsoever should be shot on sight, Just because people say things that go against the PC bollocks we live in today doesn't make them evil.

It's a mentality that will rip this country apart.

I am wil Dom on this one, quality before box ticking.
Tel
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Other Slater Cousin
Member Avatar

I agree about saying no to box ticking, but it is true that minority characters are often the least explored and thus can provide more originality. Case in point, Shabnam's secret baby wouldn't be as interesting if her faith and religious background didn't conflict with her maternal feelings.

Characters shouldn't be introduced just to represent an ethnicity or sexuality, but characters whose ethnicity or sexuality (etc) affect their stories and arc have a lot of story opportunity.
"I loved it in the Olden Days because you talked more. There’s more action now. You know, we would do scenes in the Rovers of me, Bet and Doris Speed with a cup of coffee each before we opened the pub, talking about absolute rubbish. But it was something, and it was what people do." - Betty Driver
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
*Betty*
Member Avatar


The Other Slater Cousin
3 Feb 2015, 20:28
I agree about saying no to box ticking, but it is true that minority characters are often the least explored and thus can provide more originality. Case in point, Shabnam's secret baby wouldn't be as interesting if her faith and religious background didn't conflict with her maternal feelings.

Characters shouldn't be introduced just to represent an ethnicity or sexuality, but characters whose ethnicity or sexuality (etc) affect their stories and arc have a lot of story opportunity.
This is how I feel. Shabnam is evidence that a bit of effort and decent writing can mean diversity can bring something special to the Square. I wish they'd make the effort as a team to create some more diverse characters because it could make stories more interesting. I'd like a somalian refugee.

But I agree with adding and removing to fit a quota is wrong. Very wrong, they should be solid characters and actors with stories to tell.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Local Butcher
Member Avatar

Terry
3 Feb 2015, 20:27
The Local Butcher
3 Feb 2015, 16:45
"In order to reflect it's rural setting Emmerdale will now have an all white cast."

Anyone who'd actually argue the above would be shot on sight. It's a clear example of why basing how diverse a show should be based on it's setting doesn't work.
I sorry but what you have said is worse.

No one whatsoever should be shot on sight, Just because people say things that go against the PC bollocks we live in today doesn't make them evil.

It's a mentality that will rip this country apart.

I am wil Dom on this one, quality before box ticking.
I was using a figure of speech. People aren't actually going to get shot but at the end of the day "we're reflecting a rural area that's almost exclusively white".
would never be an acceptable excuse for not having minority characters in a show like Emmerdale.

Here's what troubles me. People say Eastenders should reflect it's setting but if you apply that logic to everything a lot of shows would have very few to no minorities and others would be flooded with them. You'd end up with white shows for white people and minority shows for minorities. There's a place for those but anybody really like being pandered to?
Warning: Posts made by The Local Butcher may contain sarcasm, frustrated expressions of fatigue in the face of Eastenders' neverending insanity, desperate and ill-conceived attempts to be funny, controversial opinions and nuts. Not necessarily in that order.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know how many participants in this forum are of non-Caucasian ethnic origin or mixed race?

I can see what Dominic Treadwell-Collins is saying on one side of the coin, and I can see what Michelle Gayle is saying on the other - and I'm glad her interview hasn't been referenced or that she isn't receiving the sort of ignorant, patronising Raj-type abuse her comments are receiving on another forum.

Whatever the reality, an ethnic actress who was axed from the show some years ago, revealed that the show employed a quota system regarding ethnic actors. Maybe her words influenced thoughts, but it was easy to see the "one-out-one-in" rationale. Angela Wynter was axed and Don Gilet joined the cast. Shabnam I left, and when Syed arrived, Amira was close on his heels. Ray Dixon left and Sam arrived.

It's when characters are created and cast to tick boxes or for badly thought-out storylines that things begin to go askew. Take the infamous Ava, for example. The original storyline was going to be an insight into Cora's past - that she'd had a mixed-race baby in the mid-1960's when such a thing would have been scandalous. She had to give the child up. Years later, they found each other. This was only supposed to be a storyline, lasting two weeks, giving Cora a bit more depth than the drunken ASBO granny. Instead, the then-EP decided on the spot that she liked an actress auditioning so much - an actress who wasn't even mixed race - that she made her a permanent cast member on the spot - with as little thought and preparation as the Moon brothers had.

The result was we got a headteacher who was all and nothing. She never taught; instead, she spent the day, trawling the Square, drinking cups of tea in the cafe and grading papers from home. Totally and utterly unfounded and unrealistic. She made inappropriate comments to a parent about a child having difficulties settling in the school, without bothering to think that maybe his problem came from the fact that he was literally homeless? She had a high-end job in education, yet she lived on a sink estate. Really?

Her son was introduced and was immediately recognised for what he was - an offensive racial stereotype, which is what Arthur Chubb can be when he's in Fatboy mould, and what, even Kim can be sometimes as well.

And yet, when you think about Denise or Patrick or Masood, or even Tamwar and Shabnam this time around, or Kush - arguably one of the best characters introduced in recent years, and whose backstory is waiting too patiently to be explored whilst the Carters still hog centre stage - these are enormously popular characters, whose storylines transcend their ethnic background.

Denise has been an abused wife - psychologically by one husband and physically by another. The way Ian and the Beales, including the fragrant Jane, treated her at times bordered on being subtly racist. I still recall Denise, Libby and Patrick being ordered peremptorily from Ian's car at Lucy's funeral on the assumption a taxi would ferry them to the funeral, and the sad, poignant scene of them waiting all along. The moment wasn't lost on Libby, who was ready to call out the Beales on their racism, and it wasn't lost on me.

Patrick is an elderly man recovering from the effects of a stroke. That could happen to anyone, and in the absence of a real Square matriarch, Patrick has become the de facto patriarch of the Square. Who can forget his comforting of Jay in the days following the reveal of Jay's part in Heather's death?

Masood is a middle-aged man who feels that life is passing him by without him ever having attained any modicum of personal success or ever having done what he wanted to do. That transcends race as well. His eldest son came out as gay, married his boyfriend and prompty de-frauded the family of their savings. Hey, gay people do bad shit too. His youngest son is an uptight depressive, and he doesn't know his daughter.

If Shabnam were part of a Muslim family in real time, she may be shunned whenever she got around to telling her secret.

Kush is a widower, just trying to get on with his life.

That's the sort of real-life situations which surround these people and which haven't been sensationalised and which make for informative and entertaining viewing.

What DTC should be worried about is that such an important issue storyline as Linda's rape and the victim's means of coping with the situation in the aftermath has been lost amidst a welter of secret sons and mothers, euthanasia and assorted other diversions which have managed to trivialise that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Other Slater Cousin
Member Avatar

I come from a mixed race family and I have absolutely no issues with not being "represented". Michelle Gayles comments were stupid. I personally would find it offensive if I felt pandered to by a casting done simply to add a new colour to the cast.
"I loved it in the Olden Days because you talked more. There’s more action now. You know, we would do scenes in the Rovers of me, Bet and Doris Speed with a cup of coffee each before we opened the pub, talking about absolute rubbish. But it was something, and it was what people do." - Betty Driver
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MrJames
Member Avatar

I think Michelle and DTC are thinking of two different interpretations of 'ticking boxes'. Michelle thinks that the producers are suggesting that they won't tick boxes on ethnic minority characters because they feel it not be a worthy cause. But DTC clearly meant that they wouldn't want to reduce or undermine the quality of a character by having them there simply as a token or because they've been forced to meet a certain quota.

At the end of the day, EastEnders is a fictional drama first and foremost, and a depiction of 'real life' second. Are they going to start axing the Mitchells, the Beales, the Brannings, the Slater/Moons, the Jacksons and the Cottons because they don't fit the current day demographic? DTC's emphasis on authenticity rather than realism is something that I find really quite interesting and explains it well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

MrJames
7 Feb 2015, 01:34
I think Michelle and DTC are thinking of two different interpretations of 'ticking boxes'. Michelle thinks that the producers are suggesting that they won't tick boxes on ethnic minority characters because they feel it not be a worthy cause. But DTC clearly meant that they wouldn't want to reduce or undermine the quality of a character by having them there simply as a token or because they've been forced to meet a certain quota.

Isn't what you said just two sides of the same coin, and by extension, isn't what Mrs Mark Bright and Dominic Treadwell-Collins said, pretty much the same thing? Gayle asserts that TPTB ticking boxes to fit a quota (when it's less-than-tacitly been asserted, and under Santer's watch, that a quota system on ethnic characters exists) is window-dressing; Treadwell-Collins says much the same thing, but uses different words.

Having a window dressing character, as a token, does, indeed, undermine the quality of a character. Look no further than Dexter, or the abysmal Ferreiras. Or the DiMarcos. Or the Irish Beales.

However much they may deny it, there are quotas for ethnics. It was leaked that Kate Harwood was thinking about axing Patrick and Yolande, not because they were Afro-Caribbean, but because she felt that as an elderly couple with no children, they contributed nothing to the Square per se. It was only when this story was leaked that the media called attention to the fact that, with Patrick and Yolande gone, there would be no ethnic representation on the Square. Louise Berridge was "instructed" to introduce an Asian family, but she was uncertain which sort of Asians the top-level wanted. She asked Alan Yentob if he wanted a Muslim family, a Hindu family or Anglo-Indians and got no response. We got the Ferreiras - Christian dad, Hindu children, and a Muslim friend who spent the better part of two years canoodling and snogging the sister before it was revealed that he was their half-brother and had known it all along, and no one in that family batted an eyelid about what had been going on between siblings.

The truth is that most of the people who think up these ethnic characters are well-educated, white professionals who have had little contact with the sort of working class ethnic - or even working class whatever - for whom they write. Consequently, we get people like Dexter, who was really an offensive racial stereotype, or the Irish Beales, whose depiction of Ireland was totally offensive to Irish viewers.

Quote:
 
At the end of the day, EastEnders is a fictional drama first and foremost, and a depiction of 'real life' second.


That was never in its original remit. In fact, Brookside and EastEnders broke the mould in their time for depicting drama within everyday reality. When Brookside went for tits, arse, sieges and helicopter crashes, the show, itself, crashed and burned.

Quote:
 
Are they going to start axing the Mitchells, the Beales, the Brannings, the Slater/Moons, the Jacksons and the Cottons because they don't fit the current day demographic?


No one's saying that they should and they aren't about to do so. although some of these families will wax and wane into virtual non-existence. The Mitchells are probably the most successful and long-running families in the show, and they work best with Sharon, Den's daughter, in amongst their midst; but where are the Butchers? They're represented by their weakest link (Liam) played by an even weaker actor. The Beales are a diminishing gaggle of aspiring social climbers, fronted by the most Oedipal patriarch in soap history. I'm glad the Fowlers are getting representation again with the return of Martin, but the Brannings were touted, not five years ago, as the new force on the Square, and now they're depleted to consist of Max and Abi, with Lauren's departure. There is one Jackson, who's really a Branning and whose daughter is married into a family she regularly trash-mouths and whose boots she's not fit to wipe. The people who live with Carol are remnants/tangents of established families and Whitney. Carol would be better off looking after Max and Co. The Cottons were absorbed into the Brannings - well, Dot was - and since we don't know what's going to transpire after Nick's death in relation to Charlie and Yvonne, we can't say what will happen to whatever Cottons are around. Apart from Stacey and Big Mo, Alfie and Kat are spent anyway, and need to go. The Slaters were another conquering family hailed as the next big thing, and within five years, they were virtually defunct.

They do very well in diminishing themselves, these families, especially with the number of people within their dynamics, who've been responsible, willingly or otherwise, for the death of another person, especially those who've gone unpunished.

Quote:
 
DTC's emphasis on authenticity rather than realism is something that I find really quite interesting and explains it well.


Authenticity and realism, again, are two sides of the same coin.

In the early days of the programme, the remit was the authenticity of the traditional EastEnd (Lou Beale and her family, the Jewish characters like Dr Legge and Uncle) with the burgeoning reality of the newer version (the Asian shopkeepers, the yuppie couple etc). Lisa Shaw was originally a Jewish girl - she couldn't eat the meal Phil prepared for her on their first date because she kept kosher and couldn't eat prawns as they were shellfish. Somewhere along the line, that was forgotten. No one, not even Michelle Gayle, is saying the show should reflect what the EastEnd is today; in fact one of the most popular families introduced in recent years have been the Masoods, who are Asian Muslims, so realistic depictions of ethnic characters is achievable as long as the writers - aye, there's the rub - don't descend into ethnic stereotypes, which then brand the characters as "token."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Carter
Member Avatar

I do to a certain degree *shock horror* agree with what Mrs Peel is saying. Yes, the show should always strive to keep the show as interesting and dynamic as possible with believable characters played by capable actors, however, there also comes a point where you might need to "tick boxes" in order to highlight a realistic dipiction of what the ethos of the show is really about - which is the everyday lives of working class people at the heart of the East End. It does kind of say something about the show, when there were actually more ethnic varieties within the show in the 80's and early 90's than there are now and I always wonder, if Julia Smith was still around now how the landscape of the show would have been very different. Ultimately I don't think they should introduce an ethnic character as a "token" but they can work towards achieving an overall realistic dipiction of the East End with characters who are not neccessarily stereotypes. They can be authentic and real.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Local Butcher
Member Avatar

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the notion that Dexter is an offensive racist stereotype. He's most certainly a stereotype but stereotypes even those which can be perceived as negative are not in themselves offensive. A stereotypes is only offensive when it's simply not true. The stereotype Dexter is based on very much based in reality. Of course there's a whole lot more to black youth than this particular stereotype but that doesn't change that fact that you can find black boys with a chip on their shoulder thinking they da man on every street corner.

It's perfectly understandable that the black community doesn't want to be associated with what they'll see as a negative portrayal but negative portrayals are just as valid positive ones. You can't label something as offensive just because you don't want to face an uncomfortable part of the truth. Dexter is not based on a lie. He is out there and it's perfectly valid to portray that. Do we need more positive portrayals of black young men? Of course we do, there aren't nearly enough but there's no point in going down a road where a politically correct portrayal is the only acceptable one whilst pretending the other side of the coin doesn't exist.

Where will we end up if we're going to limit the portrayal of every stereotype we don't like. Actively trying to avoid stereotypes is ultimately just as offensive. I'm already seeing this in the recent portrayals of gays. Time was most gays on television were effeminate and promiscuous, this then led to a backlash that not all gays were like that which slowly we saw an influx of more "normal" people who just so happen to be gay. On the whole this was a positive development but now effeminate gays are much more rarely portrayed because nobody wants to be accused of perpetuating an offensive stereotype despite the fact that a significant portion of gay men is effeminate and deserves to be seen just as much as the more socially acceptable gays.

The notion that we should shy away from certain portrayels just because we find them to be problematic is perhaps paradoxically in itself problematic. If we only ever see the negative stereotype than that is problematic but the stereotype itself provided there are alternative portrayels is perfectly valid.
Edited by The Local Butcher, 7 Feb 2015, 12:27.
Warning: Posts made by The Local Butcher may contain sarcasm, frustrated expressions of fatigue in the face of Eastenders' neverending insanity, desperate and ill-conceived attempts to be funny, controversial opinions and nuts. Not necessarily in that order.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Desdemona
Member Avatar

The Local Butcher
7 Feb 2015, 12:21
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the notion that Dexter is an offensive racist stereotype. He's most certainly a stereotype but stereotypes even those which can be perceived as negative are not in themselves offensive. A stereotypes is only offensive when it's simply not true. The stereotype Dexter is based on very much based in reality. Of course there's a whole lot more to black youth than this particular stereotype but that doesn't change that fact that you can find black boys with a chip on their shoulder thinking they da man on every street corner.

It's perfectly understandable that the black community doesn't want to be associated with what they'll see as a negative portrayal but negative portrayals are just as valid positive ones. You can't label something as offensive just because you don't want to face an uncomfortable part of the truth. Dexter is not based on a lie. He is out there and it's perfectly valid to portray that. Do we need more positive portrayals of black young men? Of course we do, there aren't nearly enough but there's no point in going down a road where a politically correct portrayal is the only acceptable one whilst pretending the other side of the coin doesn't exist.

Where will we end up if we're going to limit the portrayal of every stereotype we don't like. Actively trying to avoid stereotypes is ultimately just as offensive. I'm already seeing this in the recent portrayals of gays. Time was most gays on television were effeminate and promiscuous, this then led to a backlash that not all gays were like that which slowly we saw an influx of more "normal" people who just so happen to be gay. On the whole this was a positive development but now effeminate gays are much more rarely portrayed because nobody wants to be accused of perpetuating an offensive stereotype despite the fact that a significant portion of gay men is effeminate and deserves to be seen just as much as the more socially acceptable gays.

The notion that we should shy away from certain portrayels just because we find them to be problematic is perhaps paradoxically in itself problematic. If we only ever see the negative stereotype than that is problematic but the stereotype itself provided there are alternative portrayels is perfectly valid.
When it comes to media representation and soap in particular, stereotyping is inevitable and as you point out, it is not by definition negative or pejorative in itself, particularly if there is diversity in stereotypes (several types of black masculinity, gay identity, femininity...) and if the writers and actors are aware of working with stereotypes.
The problem with minorities (sexual, ethnic, cultural) is that there is only a handful of representative characters over a long period of time, putting a heavy burden on one single character (or at best, two) to represent a social group. That happened to Dexter and I'd say it is also the case for the odd gay/lesbian character in EE
Edited by Desdemona, 7 Feb 2015, 13:10.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

Dexter was introduced as the son of a well-educated professional, yet he became the ultimate assumed stereotype of a black, street-suss youth, whose life would have been a world away from the sort of life such a mother as Ava would have envisioned for him. She, herself, when she arrived, spoke warmly of having been brought up in the leafy suburbs by loving parents who paid handsomely for her to have an expensive education, yet in the next frame we are supposed to believe she spent her twenties (when she should have been teaching) living in a squat in Croydon with a feckless boyfriend, before she had her child in her late twenties?

Arthur Chubb is the son of a bank manager and took his driving test in his mother's Merc, but exists by doing a bad impression of a dated Ali G sketch.

Libby Fox, whose mother really did come from poor, working-class roots, is an Oxford research assistant, getting her Master's degree.

Spot the stereotypes. They are as offensive as the dirty, bedraggled, uncouth, brutal and drunken Irish peasants, living alongside pigs, whose streets were mud-heaps, which were presented as fact by the show in the 1990s, when introducing Pauline's Irish relatives.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs B
Member Avatar

The Other Slater Cousin
7 Feb 2015, 01:20
I come from a mixed race family and I have absolutely no issues with not being "represented". Michelle Gayles comments were stupid. I personally would find it offensive if I felt pandered to by a casting done simply to add a new colour to the cast.
Completely agree with this. I am also mixed race, my Indian mother is an avid fan of the show and it doesn't occur to either of us about representation. She just wants great drama, writing and acting.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
luisgarcia
Member Avatar

I'm of Indian descent, in answer to your earlier question, Mrs Peel.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · EastEnders Current & Future · Next Topic »
Add Reply