Do Soaps Represent ‘real’ life? Essay

Soap operas are viewed by millions of our population every day; on average Eastenders has a viewing coverage of approximately 13million. There are a number of reasons as to why soap operas appeal to such a large and diverse audience. In this essay I will be examining these reasons with reference to my own attraction to soaps, and seeing how the soap stories fit into the everyday lives of the millions who watch them. Furthermore, I will investigate the way in which the construction and conventions of a soap opera relates to ‘real’ life. My discussion will include different aspects of a range of the most popular British soaps, for example, Crossroads, Coronation Street, Hollyoaks and Eastenders. It is hard to prove that soaps represent real life. Surely if they were truly reflective, we would all have fallen tragically into at least one coma by now. And we would have come out of it, too, with better hair and a new contract. It is true that the murder rate in Britain is at a record high. But if soaps were to be believed, it would be a whole lot closer to Colombia’s murder rate. You’re no one on the small screen until you’ve been whacked. The incidence of animal-print evening wear has also skyrocketed in this country. But it could never reach soap-opera Bet Lynch proportions. Similarly, the use of the phrase â€Å"If you ever come back here again† has peaked on soap operas at a level impossible to sustain in real life without a face like Phil from Eastenders and the gravelly, ‘I-will-whack-you’ voice to go with it. There are, also, many illegitimate children born in Britain today. About 40 per cent of all births are now â€Å"out of wedlock†. But if the soaps were anything to go by, that number currently would be nudging something much higher. The fact that approximately twenty years ago, ten to twelve soap operas were shown daily, each an hour or half an hour long would support this notion. The first went on at 10am and the last at 3:30pm, (the hours during which the majority of women were at home). There was an obvious pattern running through these soaps, they were generally set in small towns, involved two or three families connected with one another. Families were often composed of several generations from a range of classes on the social scale, although most identifiably middle – class. Men and women worked outside the home, usually in professions such as law and medicine. However, the focus of the programmes was on people discussing personal and domestic crises. Occasionally controversial social problems such as rape and murder were included and were for the most part, handled in a sensitive manner. However, in spite of the fact that soaps contained more references to social problems than any other form of entertainment at the time, critics tended to fault them heavily for their lack of realism. The fans and audience (the women) would insist on the soap operas lifelikeness, but the fact that blacks and other minorities were almost completely excluded as well as other underlying problems and exclusions would suggest that these soaps were no more ‘real’ than a fictional story. Some people may suggest that soap operas have moved on much further from the days of the early Crossroads, I mean just look at the ‘modernised’ Crossroads. There are many men and women portrayed in the storylines that come from a variation of ethnic minorities, Asians, Nigerians, Indians, the list goes on. And it’s not only Crossroads that has these kinds of ethnic minorities, it is Eastenders and Hollyoaks and Coronation Street also. If you are a keen supporter of either Hollyoaks or Eastenders, you may even notice that the most recent additions to each cast were families from ethnic minorities and both have taken on quite bold storylines as they have entered their respective programmes. For example, the current ‘Ronnie’ storyline in Eastenders is a gripping one and the fights and feuds in Hollyoaks attempt to show that families from ethnic minorities can live in a dominantly white society just as normally as a white family can. However, what we must ask ourselves is, just because there are a few characters from ethnic minorities dotted around these soap operas, does it mean they are directly and accurately representing ‘real’ life? My answer to that question would be no and my reasoning is this; although Eastenders contains at least nine characters that I can name that are from an ethic minority, there are only two families in the soap. Also, although nine may sound like a reasonably large number, it is not relative to the programme that is being shown and the area that it is set in. I can assure you that if you were to visit the East End of London as a white person you would be far outnumbered by the number of people from varying ethnic minorities, therefore I would like to suggest that Eastenders is not a true representation of ‘real’ life. This statement explicitly suggests that the soaps may have been a little unrealistic years ago but they have progressed to a state where they are representative of ‘social realism’. In support to this idea, it can be noted that contemporary soaps now employ a number of standard conventions, and many researchers have attempted to list some of the typical characteristics. For example, Sonia Livingstone believes the common soap opera features include: ‘transmission at regular, frequent times, often daily; predominantly aimed at female viewers , occupying day-time/early evening slots; use of fairly constant and large cast, over many years, and a faithful audience; cheap production costs, regarded as low prestige entertainment; concern with daily activities, centred on a small community and/or large family; simulation of real time and realistic events; interwoven narratives, with overlapping resolutions; ‘cliff-hangers’ to ensure committed viewing; focus on female characters and ‘feminine’ or domestic concerns. ‘