Soap Operas Essays - Television, Fiction, Social Realism, Soap Opera

Soap Operas What forms of pleasure can be found in viewing the continuous serial on TV? The continuous serial is more commonly known as the soap opera, and is peculiar in that each episode cannot be watched and understood on its own; the viewer must watch the episodes before and after to understand what is happening. According to Brown the soap opera has 8 typical characteristics (see appendix 1). Television is becoming an increasingly important part of society. We have more televisions in our homes, and on those televisions there are more soap operas for the viewing public e.g. EastEnders, Coronation Street, Emmerdale, Neighbours, Home and Away, Brookside, London Bridge, and HollyOaks. Individuals undoubtedly get a lot of pleasure from them, and although the soap opera is viewed as entertainment, there should be a cautious approach to this view, because television is an influential part of our society. In this essay I will look at the pleasures and the consequences. Escapism is one form of pleasure. The soap provides an outlet for an individual to escape the responsibilities of their own life. As soon as the familiar theme music begins the viewer is transported to another world, although Mike Clark poses the question (page 19) ?What sort of escape is it that constantly refers to the very issues that may be troubling the viewer?'. Another pleasure of soap operas ?is the continuity of the characters and settings' (Clark, page 19). The familiar settings give a sense of a stability and order to the viewer. Most people know the Rovers Return in Coronation Street or the Old Vic in EastEnders. The individual feels at home with a soap and its characters, of which there can be up to 40; all are old friends to the regular viewer. For the most part they do not set out to shock. Because the characters are ordinary and believable, Mike Clark states that the actors must be the same in their lives outside television. He tells us that: ?When Peter Adamson, who played Len Fairclough, was charged with sexually molesting a child and subsequently ?killed off' from the program, his crime was not that, precisely (he was acquitted), but rather one of deviating from the unexceptional norms of Coronation Street and of the viewers at home. Seeing someone who had been publicly associated with such an offence, and thinking ?I wonder what really happened', would be disruptive of the kind of low-key realism attempted by the program, therefore out he had to go.' I'm not sure that this argument would hold true today. His book was published in 1987 and since then I think the public has become more tolerant, and apart from that, Coronation Street has become more controversial in its storyline; these days generally any publicity is good for a soap. This leads to another pleasure derived from the soap opera. The private lives of the actors, reported in the press and on the television, provide an infinite source of pleasure for the viewing public. In the Evening Standard (Tuesday 3rd March 1998) there were three separate articles about three different actors from EastEnders: Barbara Windsor, Paul Bradley, and Patsy Palmer. However, such public interest can create a problem for the actors, in the form of admirers and stalkers and the public still perceiving them as their on screen character. Empathy with the characters can reduce the viewers' own problems as they realise that other people also suffer; another good reason to watch a soap. Bianca's abortion storyline, in EastEnders, may have helped people in similar situations think about the relevant issues before making their own decision. Regular soap opera viewers who have followed a particular soap for years, according to Clark ?acquire an expertise and a fund of archival knowledge, which enable them to experience the programs more fully, and more enjoyably'. So, they understand the personalities, strengths and weaknesses of the characters in the soap, and will often know exactly how a particular character would act in a particular situation. For them, this makes soaps more pleasurable. The romantic interest in the soap holds many viewers. Who will fall in love? Who will have an affair? Who will get married? At the time of writing, in Coronation Street the

Copenhagen by Michael Frayn

Copenhagen by Michael Frayn Why do we do the things we do? It’s a simple question. But sometimes there’s more than one answer. And that’s where it gets complicated. In Michael Frayn’s Copenhagen, a fictional account of an actual event during World War II, two physicists exchange heated words and profound ideas. One man, Werner Heisenberg, seeks to harness the power of the atom for Germany’s forces. The other scientist, Niels Bohr is devastated that his native Denmark has been occupied by the Third Reich. Historical Context In 1941, German physicist Heisenberg paid a visit to Bohr. The two spoke very briefly before Bohr angrily ended the conversation and Heisenberg left. Mystery and controversy have surrounded this historic exchange. About a decade after the war, Heisenberg maintained that he visited Bohr, his friend,  and father-figure, to discuss his own ethical concerns about nuclear weaponry. Bohr, however, remembers differently; he claims that Heisenberg seemed to have no moral qualms about creating atomic weapons for the Axis powers. Incorporating a healthy combination of research and imagination, playwright Michael Frayn contemplates the various motivations behind Heisenberg’s meeting with his former mentor, Niels Bohr. The Setting: a Vague Spirit World Copenhagen is set in an undisclosed location, with no mention of sets, props, costume, or scenic design. (In fact, the play does not offer a single stage direction – leaving the action completely up to the actors and the director.) The audience learns early on that all three characters (Heisenberg, Bohr, and Bohr’s wife Margrethe) have been dead for years. With their lives now over, their spirits turn to the past to try to make sense of the 1941 meeting. During their discussion, the talkative spirits touch upon other moments in their lives – skiing trips and boating accidents, laboratory experiments and long walks with friends. Quantum Mechanics on Stage You don’t have to be a physics buff to love this play, but it certainly helps. Much of the charm of Copenhagen comes from Bohrs and Heisenberg’s expressions of their devout love of science. There is poetry to be found in the workings of an atom, and Frayn’s dialogue is most eloquent when the characters make profound comparisons between the reactions of electrons and the choices of humans. Copenhagen was first performed in London as a â€Å"theater in the round.† The movements of the actors in that production - as they argue, tease, and intellectualize - reflected the sometimes combative interactions of atomic particles. The Role of Margrethe At first glance, Margrethe might seem the most trivial character of the three. After all, Bohr and Heisenberg are the scientists, each one having a profound impact on the way mankind understands quantum physics, the anatomy of the atom, and the capability of nuclear energy. However, Margrethe is essential to the play because she gives the scientist characters an excuse to express themselves in layman’s terms. Without the wife evaluating their conversation, sometimes even attacking Heisenberg and defending her often-passive husband, the play’s dialogue might devolve into various equations. These conversations might be compelling for a few mathematical geniuses, but would be otherwise boring for the rest of us! Margrethe keeps the characters grounded. She represents the audience’s perspective. Ethical Questions At times the play feels too cerebral for its own good. Yet, the play works best when ethic dilemmas are explored. Was Heisenberg immoral for trying to supply the Nazis with atomic energy?Were Bohr and the other allied scientists behaving unethically by creating the atomic bomb?Was Heisenberg visiting Bohr to seek moral guidance? Or was he simply flaunting his superior status?​Each of these and more are worthy questions to consider. The play doesn’t provide a definitive answer, but it does hint that Heisenberg was a compassionate scientist who loved his fatherland, yet did not approve of atomic weapons. Many historians would disagree with Frayn’s interpretation, of course. Yet that makes Copenhagen all the more enjoyable. It might not be the most exciting play, but it certainly stimulates debate.