From Only Fools and Horses to Hollyoaks: The disappearance of the working class in TV?

 

 

————————————

Pictured: Hollyoaks’ MqQueen family

Winter is the season associated with binge-watching shows and avoiding tasks that you know would only bring pain and suffering, such as cleaning your room and studying for exams — and considering how traumatic and terrifying 2016 was, this Christmas break was no different. But as I sat down with my cat, Ginny, to indulge in some omnibus action, I began to question exactly what I was watching and more importantly, who was I watching? If I did not feel like embracing Dorothy Gale’s southern charm and Wonka’s dodgy business practices for the nineteenth year running, the only television I could even vaguely relate to as a semi-realistic portrayal of contemporary life was Hollyoaks, a soap opera which has a murder rate higher than Ripper Street. As I flicked through my options, I began to notice the lack of depictions of working class people beyond TV3’s poverty-porn staples such as Benefits Street.

This has not always been the case. Up until the 90’s, it was a given to see some sort of televised class struggle going on; be it the Trotters in Only Fools and Horses grafting in order to find somewhere larger than their crowded council flat, or Ken Barlow in Coronation Street struggling with his family’s frugal lifestyle after winning a university scholarship. Despite calls from former BBC controller Danny Cohen for more ‘blue-collar’ sitcoms, the decline of working class culture on television has gone relatively unnoticed in the larger sphere — amongst critics and sociologists alike. However, there have been numerous papers published that discuss the specific relevance of television as a recreational activity amongst working class people, including a 1989 report by psychologists Karl Rosengren and Sven Windahl which concluded that working class boys watched TV more than their middle class counterparts. Which begs the question: isn’t it important to show all creeds and classes on national TV?

It is not easy for the working class to hold positions of influence in the television industry. John Sullivan, the man behind Only Fools and Horses, proved how difficult it was for the son of a plumber and house-cleaner to get a foot in the door. After leaving school at fifteen with no qualifications, Sullivan worked a variety of low-paid jobs for over fifteen years while continuously submitting scripts to the BBC. In November 1974, Sullivan realised that getting a job in the BBC was the way to make contacts in the television industry and rise up the ranks. He took a job in the props department. With this humble foothold, Sullivan had the opportunity to approach influential television producer Dennis Main Wilson with a script about a young Marxist. Citizen Smith (1977) was a success and, along with ITV shows based on the London lower classes such as Minder (2009), a window was opened for the south London working-class in the competitive creative industry. This opportunity would pave the way for Sullivan’s hit show Only Fools and Horses (1981). As Only Fools and Horses proved a success with a strong basis on John Sullivan’s own experiences, TV stations tried to capitalise on this achievement. Bridging the gap between the lower and upper class at this time was The Young Ones (1982) written by Ben Elton, Rik Mayall and Lise Mayer. Both Only Fools and Horses and The Young Ones are BBC originals depicting the residents of flats in London, but The Young Ones is clearly intended to be a slapstick comedy with the students almost proving a pastiche of the lower class while attending the fictional “Scumbag College” a constituent of University of  London. In hindsight, it serves as little more than a romanticised view of poverty. As the years went on and the TV executives and target audience of Only Fools and Horses aged, it became increasingly clear that any trace of the working class voice was primarily being written by a Young Ones style pen.

This decline of working class representation is characterised by the gentrification of characters and the exclusion of class issues from the main plot of many TV shows. The clearest example of this is in the progression of Phil Redmond’s Hollyoaks. Redmond claims Hollyoaks tells ‘ordinary stories’ but that hallmark has begun to fade.

Hollyoaks first aired on Channel 4 in 1995, as a soap revolving around the everyday lives of the residents of a fictional suburb to the city of Chester. While some of the families it focused on could be placed in the category of petit bourgeois, with Tony Hutchinson and Cindy Cunningham running from one business venture to the next, the introduction of the McQueen family in 2006 changed the class dimensions of the programme and thus the focus of the plot-lines. As the show matured, Redmond seemed to refocus on the class dimensions of Hollyoaks and the McQueens took on a growing central role.

The McQueen family brought common issues to the foreground, bringing heart to an otherwise ridiculous and arguably cursed neighbourhood. In 2014, the main plot for an entire week of episodes revolved around the McQueen’s precarious living situation. Three months behind in rent and facing eviction from the council, Myra and her extended family had the viewers in tears as they fought to make the money in time. It revealed an ugly truth in British and Irish society, that no matter how much you “look after your own” (the catchphrase that Nana McQueen repeated on a weekly basis), there is always a greater power that could bring you down. Through the McQueen family and their friends, Redmond made important but difficult issues accessible to its young audience — primarily those in their teens and early twenties — without dumbing them down. The most poignant of these revolved around the LGBTQ+ community, with Ste’s HIV diagnosis and Sally St. Claire opening up to her students about her transition. The character that has addressed the harrowing issues of today’s society, however, is undoubtedly John Paul McQueen. After eventually accepting and coming to terms with his sexuality, John Paul leaves the show with Craig Dean in 2008’s ‘sunset ending’. However, in 2012 John Paul McQueen returns heartbroken, and is raped by one of his students less than two years later. The difficulties he faced as a result — the reporting to the police, the stigma, and the harsh reality of how destructive these trials can be for the victim and their career — illustrates an exceptionally three dimensional focus on characters of working class background.

But these moments are becoming less frequent, and Hollyoaks appears to be reverting to its early days, at least if the last two series are anything to go by. The introduction of the achingly middle-class Nightingales make Nancy Osbourne’s kitsch clothing and finely maintained pixie bob seem modest. The well-groomed, well-dressed Nightingales waltzed into this troubled suburb in 2015 and within a few months had purchased The Dog in the Pond pub from the debt-riddled Osbournes. Marnie, the matriarch, eradicated the originality and earnestness of the pub by setting up a Wetherspoon’s more suited to Soho.

Now a major character in the show, Marnie’s main function is to remind her neighbours that they are beneath her. She is frequently seen making remarks about off-brand clothing and false insurance claims, many addressed to the McQueens in particular. The plot now seems to revolve around her offspring’s romantic tiffs and the Osbourne’s drug feuds, with the working-class McQueen’s reduced to minor characters who mainly have affairs and hunt for the latest scam. They remain as poor as they were when they were first introduced, but their financial situation is now only mentioned when they wish to have a holiday or throw a lavish wedding reception.

Some may argue that Hollyoaks is trying to depict the step-by-step process of gentrification, as soap operas attempt to be as current as possible in their storylines. That still is no excuse for the widely exaggerated stereotypes and slapstick adventures to which this once powerful and engaging family are now subjected. One clip of the latest McQueen addition, Goldie, and her “party-hard-and-look-after-my-children-I-had-when-I-was-underage-later” attitude is more than enough evidence that the depiction of the working class on TV has become nothing more than a caricature. No longer are they people with real feelings and issues, they are clowns for our amusement, fulfilling the needs of the middle and upper classes by asserting their social dominance on a regular basis.
Although John Sullivan was also part of this gentrification inadvertently when he accepted an OBE and an Honorary Fellowship from Goldsmiths University London, much of Sullivan’s material for the Only Fools and Horses scripts came from real-life experiences. This is why it resonated with so many people and became cherished by the British and Irish public. It was a reflection of a recognisable life being shown on the screen, but with added excitement, which Rosengren and Windahl cited as one of the main gratifications from this pastime. It was not a theatrical version of the working-class; the kind that can be seen in Hollyoaks today where the only thing evident of a working class family is the more material aspects such as accent and dress sense, which themselves are problematic and highly subjective. Hollyoaks is not innocent, but it should not be ignored as another piece of ‘trash TV’ as many critics may claim it to be. The class centred Hollyoaks and its subsequent shift towards the representation of the upper class defines the decline of working class culture in television. Neither will change unless greater diversity, and the McQueen heyday, is encouraged in television once again.