The producers of television programmes use a set of codes and conventions to communicate with their audience. These codes and conventions help to reinforce the myths’ about British society. Semiotics or the study of signs, demonstrates that when anything is represented, it acquires additional meanings.
Whether these additional meanings are deliberately used to signify others or not is irrespective, the fact that these meanings can be contributed to a sign holds the importance. Using an episode of the British soap-opera, “Eastenders” as an example, this reading will identify these additional meanings and show credence to their existence. The main area that will be concentrated upon will be power and the stereotype of the British villain and the myths that are associated with it.
Throughout the years, film and television have often used the stereotype of the British villain to add credence to a dubious character. Fifties and sixties fashions often reinforce this, the use of dark-coloured suits, slick hair styles and loyalty to family members can all be interpreted by the audience as attributes of the British villain. Although the characters portrayed in the programme are often a far cry away from the images of The Kray Twins and other legends from the history of British crime, the similarities visible when the tokens are identified are more obvious.
Steve Owen, the businessman who owns the local nightclub in Albert Square, is portrayed as a typical British villain; he is an icon to this image. His clothes are a connotative signifier to this belief. The sharp, dark suits which he wears evoke a mental image of power. He is male, strong and tall, the suit that he wears accentuates this, giving him the aura of all things powerful and masculine. Not only do his clothes signify power but also wealth. He is a businessman, and will only portray himself as a successful one.
As Marx suggested, “what makes them representative of the petit-bourgeois class, is that their minds, their consciousnesses do not extend beyond the limits which this class has set to its activities” (1852). If the producers were to make him walk the streets, for just one scene, in ordinary jeans and t-shirt, the reaction from the audience would be considerable. This example would only serve to show Steve’s decline into an ordinary life, far from the shady, intriguing life that the audience has become accustomed to.
His hair also serves as a connotative signifier. He is almost always shown with his jet-black hair slicked back, reminiscent of the old images of real villains from the past. This significant style conjures this image into the conscious of the viewer. Although it is obvious that he puts a lot of effort into his appearance, never is he pictured in front of a mirror, preening himself. This image would further confuse the viewer. Why would this man who is so concerned with his masculine persona, waste his time on such feminine traits?
But to look how he does must involve this kind of effort; it is the job of the programme producers to eliminate these signs of femininity and to only concentrate on how to use signifiers to the advantage of the character. Steve Owen’s strong regional accent also complements this image. It is evident that throughout the show’s history the stronger the character is supposed to be, the stronger the East-End accent. This accent is unmistakably related to masculinity, even when it is used by female characters it suggests strength and power.
Notice how Peggy Mitchell’s accent fluctuates from the calm, flat-accent when serving behind the bar to the intense East-End fury when confronted or disobeyed. Throughout history this accent has been used to suggest power. Looking back at plays such as Dickens’ “Oliver Twist”, the power that this gives to the menacing Bill Sykes, the way it instantly suggests which socio-economic group Nancy the young prostitute belongs and how from the moment that Mr. Brownlow speaks, the audience is assured of his virtue and high caliber.
Phil Mitchell is another character who is portrayed as a powerful villain in the show, but with subtle differences compared to Steve Owen. While Steve is concentrating on his aspiration to the bourgeois, though his means are anything but, Phil is slightly different. His principle concern is not wholly financial but that of pride, honour and family values. Phil does not walk around in expensive suits nor does he slick back his hair, but his image of power is as simple for the audience to appreciate as Steve’s. Phil’s power comes from the threat of violence.
It is not as if Phil isn’t wealthy, he does after all own stakes in many businesses and ventures around the local area but the way that he acquired them all stems from violence rather than shrewd business sense. If his financial assets haven’t been acquired legitimately, chances are they have been gained from illegal gambling, blackmail or extortion. However, as previously mentioned, he does not dress like a wealthy man. He is often un-shaven, wearing jeans and overalls, with what little hair he has cropped short. This gives the audience the instant impression that Phil is more of a brute than the successful Steve Owen.
This bestial representation also conjures the image of power to the viewer. He is seen as powerful in the more primitive sense; he is physically strong and is therefore a force to be reckoned with. Phil’s East-End accent is perhaps the strongest of all the characters. When he is portrayed as angry his gruff voice, coupled with the increased accent is often bordering on comedic. He is the epitome of power and strength, ruling by force to gain financial success. The characters of Steve Owen and Phil Mitchell are both portrayed with aspirations to becoming successful through their different approaches to crime.
They are also extremely competitive and hostile towards each other; Barthes wrote, “The petit-bourgeois is a man unable to imagine the Other. If he comes face to face with him, he blinds himself, ignores and denies him, or else transforms him into himself. “(1993, p151). Both of these men are concerned with wealth to illustrate their power and strength, although they have different methods of obtaining it, they are in essence, both aspiring to the same goal. Looking at this from a different point of view, Steve and Phil are portrayed as opposites regardless of the goal being the same.
They are never shown to experience either good or bad luck at the same time. One will inevitably loose something precious whilst the other gains something more precious at the same time, and although the characters are menacing at times, this predictability becomes apparent to the audience and thus takes away the strange appeal that many criminals have. Barthes suggests, “We find again here the figure of the scales: reality is first reduced to analogues: then it is weighed; finally, equality having been ascertained, it is got rid of.
Here also there is magical behaviour: both parties are dismissed because it is embarrassing to choose between them; one flees from an intolerable reality, reducing it to two opposites which balance each other only insomuch as they are purely formal, relieved of all their specific weight. ” (1993, p153) In conclusion, “Eastenders” gives a perfect example of how the codes and conventions used by the programme producers can reinforce myths about British life. The codes and conventions which have been illustrated in this reading are amongst many others used in all aspects of the characters’ lives on the programme.
The points covered previously show that from the mere image of the character Steve Owen and Phil Mitchell, an abundance of information can be gathered not only about them as characters but also of British culture as a whole. East-End accents do not by any means guarantee a criminal background but if this accent is put into context, used by a tall, dark-haired man, wearing an expensive dark suit, the conclusions that an audience might jump to are often not far from the truth from the stereotypes, images and myths that have been in our culture for a very long time.
