ratings Following the rape of Sheila Grant, Brookside's audience increased by 20 per cent. JANE WELLS asks why? RAPEIS usually used in films and television programmes to excite men, or to deliver crude moral judgements on women who are sexually active, independent, or who just go out too much on their own.
The recent treatment given to the issue in Brookside (the Channel Four soap set in Liverpool), was different.
The central character in this drama — the victim -— was Sheila Grant: a socialist, Catholic, middle aged, mother of four. Sheila moved with her family from a nearby council estate into Brookside Close and up in the world — and found an expanding circle of friends and new experiences. With her older children moving on and out of the Close, a new baby born and a bout of post-natal depression overcome, Sheila joined a local history class. An old family friend, Matty, joined too.
This might have been quite a straightforward and edifying experince. But, remember, this is soap. Matty teams up with a tellow-student, Mo, for a study project and ends up sleeping with her and leaving his wife. Sheila disapproves, finally precipitates their separation, and Matty starts a hate campaign against her. Sheila herself, meanwhile, has become the object of the (unsolicited and unwelcome) romatic ideals of her class tutor, Alan Jones. On top of all this, Sheila befriends another class mate —
married to a violent man - and encourages her to leave him and move into a refuge. The husband subsequently harrasses and threatens Sheila in his search for his estranged wife.
All this adds up to three men with a motive: two with straightforward hate, one with a misplaced passion bordering on an unhealthy obsession. A fourth man, Pat (a young resident of the close), joins the list of
suspects: he was roaming the area drunk after a violent row with his partner at the time of the rape. Sheila is attacked tollowing a violent argument in a pub with Alan Jones and Matty. The identity of the rapist is not revealed for some weeks.
The portrayal of the attack on Sheila and her subsequent reactions, and the behaviour of herfamily, friends and the policy, was
compelling television drama. It was also unusual. Rape is not a subject normally dealt with in programmes with a wide audience appeal broadcast during peak viewing hours. Neither is it generally dealt with in a way which reflects in some way women's experience of rape (as opposed to men's interest in it).
But the treatment of the rape in Brookside raises questions about men's power over, and often hatred of, women, centrally in the dramatisation (and in fact pointed to these factors as common elements in men's relationships to women — even in nonviolent' and 'non-sexual' relationships). Sheila was not blamed for staying from home on her own (and, recovering from the attack, Sheila expresses her determination to continue her studies).
It also looked at rape as a crime: what that means to women as victims of the crime, how the police deal with it, and what support is available to women. Discussions were held at the planning stage of production with various interested agencies - from the police to rape crisis centres - to get the details right, and to ensure that the treatment was responsible. Sensitive scriptwriting and strong acting meant that the twin traps of sensationalised or sanitised portrayal were avoided to a large extent.
At the same time Brookside reached a high in the ratings -— at number 47 in the 'National Top 100' programmes, with an audience of over six million.
This is by no means a huge audience for soaps — East enders regularly tops the national poll with well over 20 million
viewers tuning in each week. The other big
three in British soaps — Coronation Street,
Crossroads and Emmerdale Farm, regularly
attract, in that order of rank, a total of
another 30 million viewers. But for
Brookside the figure is significant even if
comparatively small. In January of this year
(about the time when the story-line for the
summer would be under discussion),
Brookside was at only 91 in the Top 100
ranking, with 5.10 million viewers —
narrowly beating the St Ive! Ice Gala, and
losing out to The Best of Birdwatch and Dot
and the Kangaroo by a tair margin.
Eastenders meanwhile, with Angie and
Den's marriage under some pressure, was
still at Number 1.
It is undoubtedly true (whether it was
included for this reason or not) that the rape
of Sheila Grant contributed to an increase of
nearly 20 per cent in Brookside's audience
figures.
This isn't so surprising. In a society which
makes a fetish of crime (especially of violent
crime, and particularly if the victim is a
woman) the portrayal of rape and its cffects
is sensational even when it is not
sensationalised. People want to watch it. The
highly intimate view which fiction affords
(contrasted to the anonymity accorded to
rape victims in real life), adds another
dimension to a prurient, or even genuine,
interest. Many women must have watched
the drama with horror, interest, sympathy,
anger. Some, undoubtedly, would have been 36 informed by it (some episodes were
accompanied by the transmission of contact numbers for rape crisis centres etc.). All programme-makers like to get good ratings because it shows that their product is popular, and some like to feel that they are covering an important issuc, well. Brookside's treatment of rape (as well as numerous other social issucs") has been, on the whole, responsible, as well as informative. 'the treatment of rape in Brookside raises questions about men's power over women' But there is another dimension. Ratings are particularly important for commercial (independent) tclevision programmes because they set the price for advertising space between the programmes - sold at varying costs per minute, depending on the number of viewers delivered to the advertisers. An increase in viewing figures therfore makes the product
more valuable and increases the broadcasters' profits. The fact that rapc, portrayed in any form, can be 'entertaining' and profitable is disturbing;
In thiscasc, allowing lo the male voyeur element in the audience, the fact that the programme which is watched by many more women than men) attracted so many more viewers during this period points to a strong interest from women vicwers. Clearly a powertul and informative portrayal of such a paintul experience is compelling--and many women may have no other means of exploring the issuc on this level, nor have easy access to information about support available cte.
But television is not a social service (though there are some minimal requirements placed on companies to 'inform and educate") —- so there are some 'brownie' points to be earned by this kind of programme. Most importantly though, there is moncy to be made, and this is why programmes like Brookside are made, and why audience grabbing storylines like rape are used. The very fact that high ratings bring greateradvertising revenue (high enough in oneepisode which fcatures the rapestoryline prominently to attract a tasteless advert for Samantha l'ox's latest single, "Touch Me'), means that women's bodies and experiences - already reduced to victims in a whodunnit puzzle, are, in effect, simply being sold for profit.
This isn't an argument to say that coverage of this sort is pornographic, or that it shouldn't be broadcast. But it does mean that in the struggle for socialism, women have to tight tor a new order of social relations where men's power over women, and its attendant sexual oppression and violence, areoverthrown. And part of that involves ensuring that 'social concern' doesn't have to come wrapped up in profit-making 'entertainment' which feeds off the exploitation of women to make that profit.
INTERNATIONAl No. 6. October/November 1986
international REVIEWS The verdict on KAL 007 Boeing 747 by Soviet fighters on 1 were relayed to ground control from the emergence of a political current that Marxism Today. Ralph Miliband has has used elements of Marxist ideas to polemicised very effectively against this which has down played the importance of attempts a similar, but more detailed anc
GRAHAM RICHARDS
R W Johnson,