In the recent National Television Awards, Emmerdale, as usual, trailed behind Coronation Street and EastEnders. I’m not surprised.
I don’t think that the acting or plots are any worse than the others. They’re all out of touch with reality, and that might be part of the reason for their appeal to so many.
In a world in which the forces of recession are closing pubs, it must be great to live in a society where social bonds are so close that the whole neighbourhood meet in the pub, and the only things that can close it are fires, aeroplanes trains falling out of the sky and lightning storms. However, Emmerdale exceeds all excesses of unreality. In EastEnders, for instance, apart from the ethnic minorities (common in large cities), everyone has a Cockney accent. Similarly, in Coronation Street, the overwhelming majority of the characters could be taken as natives of Manchester. In Emmerdale, however, in a rural community, of all places, where populations tend to be stable for generations, we have a constant influx of Geordies, Cockneys, and whatever. There’s even been an Australian accent, and now, of all things, in the person of Robert Vaughn, we’re going to get an American import from Hustle.
Improbable happenings are commonplace in soaps, but this variety of populace is unnatural, artificial and contrived. Is that why Emmerdale is never a dominant force amongst the soaps?
TONY SCHOFIELD, Pudsey
* At the National Television Awards several winners mentioned in their speeches work colleagues who they referred to as “people whose names I don’t know”.
Are these “celebrities” (yawn) really so full of their self-aggrandising importance that they can’t be bothered to learn the names of people I imagine they have to rely on considerably?
Oh, and I counted at least 17 uses of the adjective “amazing” from people who you would think have more than one adjective in their vocabulary.
Richard KIMBLE, Leeds 5