- This topic has 22 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It’s not my habit to listen during the week and to wait until the omnibus but I think I’ll give even that a miss this week. From what I hear on my Twitter timeline the Rob/Helen story took a horrifying turn. Lots are saying that an advisory should have been broadcast or at least information about organisations that can help or support, as you’d expect to see after a similar storyline on TV.
What do you think? My view is that I listen to The Archers to be entertained and diverted and, whilst endless cups of tea and flower shows would be totally unrealistic, I wouldn’t choose to read a book/watch a film knowing that this was the subject matter so I don’t really want it here. Appreciate I may be in the minority!
I think lots of people feel like you, so you are not alone. I’m not one of them, though. I genuinely think the Rob/Helen stuff has been brilliant. Horrifying at times, annoying at others, but life can be like that.
And art and drama should shock us sometimes, I think.
Also, I think that if you didn’t understand what was going on (young ears) for example, it would fly over your head. Like innuendo, if you are old enough to understand it, you’re old enough to “hear” it.
I’m extremely uncomfortable with the idea of “trigger” warnings: I get the idea & understand how the concept has come about but I’m not sure that because something may have happened to me in my life (both the Helen – and especially the current Kenton storyline – rings huge bells in my personal history) then it means we all need to be “warned” away from it. I worry about the “new censorship” I see around me.
I do understand it was a tough listen: but that’s what soaps should do, in my opinion.
In a sense I agree it was too far.
Rob was already a villain for various reasons and we’d already become aware of intimidation and bare-faced dishonesty (most of the time he opens his mouth), unethical behaviour (whatever he was doing with statistics and spreadsheets at Berrow Farm), unlawful violence (the hunt saboteur) and possibly worse (Culvertgate and whatever he did to silence Stefan). Now he’s gone beyond the pale.
I wasn’t giving Thursday’s episode my full attention at the end because I had started to mentally switch off as soon as I heard Rob and Helen, with him being as patronising and revolting as ever and her revealing just how emotionally damaged and needy she already is – and the fact she has insight into her own vulnerability which just made me shake my head until it almost fell off!
So I went back and listened to the last few minutes a few more times because I genuinely couldn’t work out what had happened: all I heard was Helen’s voice and some sound effects. But the following episode made it all too clear to me. From Helen’s reaction there didn’t seem to be anything consensual about the night before. So the continuity announcement that it was, “The morning after the night before” was flippant and inappropriate.
Whilst I think this plot development may have gone too far to make a point about domestic abuse, this was within a range of foreseeable outcomes. I didn’t want to be forewarned about it because that would take away the shock and lessen the impact of the drama. And for me, I don’t think it was as tough a listen as it was initially confusing. However, once I’d worked out on Friday what must have been obvious to everyone else on Thursday night, it wasn’t so much about what was said and acted out as what I was left to imagine that made it particularly horrible. As ever, it’s what happens next that’s going to prove equally interesting.
Since Thursday night I have been think of little else but about my own assault. That is a mild trigger.
I have been feeling a sense of shock and numbness.
I know that others have been Very Triggered by events.
And it is for some of those that I wish the BBC had bitten the bullet and had either a trigger warning and/or helplines at least after Friday if not Thursday.
I haven’t, thank god, been subjected to anything so awful myself. But I do think that there’s an inconsistency there. Even if they didn’t feel there was a need to pre-warn, I do think it would have been responsible to signpost organisations that could help if anyone was affected. You see that all the time after TV programmes, to the extent that sometimes I hear it said and I have to admit I’m not sure to which event they were referring. This situation, coming as it did after such a prolonged period (what – almost a year?) of emotional manipulation, must have been a dreadful trigger for some.
Ok, here’s my view. On the one hand, I think what we heard this week is the inevitable ‘next phase’ of Rob’s abuse. In some respects this plot development could be seen as a way to starkly show people that there is no doubt about the gaslighting, and that none of this is Helen’s fault or just in her head. It could be viewed as an admittedly very brutal way to show listeners the reality of the abuse that many people suffer.
However, it was VERY uncomfortable listening, and as such the lack of warning before the show, and information on helplines after was bordering on negligent IMHO. Certainly on an issue like this, triggering is a real thing. I know from my Twitter timeline today that some listeners have been left traumatised because a) it has triggered memories and emotions about things they have been through and b) there was no warning whatsoever.
This is the first time in a while I’ve not felt able to do the omnibus tweetalong due to the discomfort I felt knowing that people were going to be affected by it.
I have other thoughts too but will see what other people have to say for a bit.
I found the episode very hard to listen to – Helen’s neediness when she asked Rob is he loved her more than Jess, Rob getting her to drink more and more wine….and then Helen’s horrified realisation at the end of the episode. It was well written and a great piece of drama…but for some listeners it was a reminder of their own experience of sexual violence. I work with many women who have been subject to domestic and sexual violence, mostly at the hands of partners or men they have trusted. Sexual violence crosses all class, culture and racial divides. Sexual violence does not discriminate and the fact that it is Helen who is the victim rather than, say, Emma or Fallon is a shock to some. I wonder if the writers/producer spoke to any of the support organisations, like Womens Aid or Refuge? I suspect not – otherwise there might have been a helpline number or at least a comment from the continuity announcer about where to get help etc. I know some listeners might feel this is over the top and unnecessary as it’s only ‘drama’ but many victims who live with this kind of behaviour don’t see it for what it is through no fault of their own – and the provision of a website/phone number might just be the start of their journey out of the abuse.
It was very uncomfortable listening because it rang true. Great writing, fabulous acting and important topic. And surely this must be the starting point for Helen to begin to realise how she is being controlled and abused….the only thing that doesn’t ring true for me is that Helen would actually be desperate to have a child with Rob and bothered about how time was ticking…. But hats off to the writers and cast for fantastic drama
For months, if not years we have been waiting and willing Rob to make an evil move, whether it was hitting Helen (but that would show, and he’s too sneaky for that), terrifying Henry when alone with him, or this – that we, the listeners have interpreted as rape.
Whatever storyline path it went down, it would cause issues and might raise unease with some listeners who have been unfortunate to experience this in real life.
I think it was really well written, and it just shows what a great radio actor Timothy Watson is to make us dislike Rob so much; to convey his mood through speech/tone alone, without the ability to see facial expressions (although I do in my head) is a skill.
It was very uncomfortable listening and whilst I have not suffered anything like this I do think a trigger warning would have been very helpful. Reflections of traumatic times in real life can being back painful memories and perhaps we just need the choice of listening or not. I chose not to listen again to the omnibus because once was enough. I don’t think the storyline is too far and I think that letting us paint our own pictures is a great way of playing it out.
To Maggie C: I don’t hear Helen as being the one desperate for a child; she keeps saying “one day” and Rob is the one who keeps bringing it up – “now that we are legally bound.” and considering that having Henry could have killed her (pre-eclampsia), she’s right to be wary of having another.
To Sally A: totally agree on what a great voice actor he is. The words, as written, could indeed be very loving – I hear similar from DH – but it’s the delivery that is creepy.
To Maeve: apparently there was a piece on Woman’s Hour on this topic, so the Beeb clearly knows what’s what. We the listeners asked for a helpline a year ago, when it was only obvious to some, and the response was that it would take away the ambiguity. Well, there’s no ambiguity now, and I agree that it’s time for the continuity announcers do the “if you believe you or anyone you know is in this situation, call …”.
I’m not generally keen on trigger warnings, but any episode like Thursday’s deserves a “this episode contains some scenes that may not be suitable for sensitive listeners” after the strap-line. (That might have been useful before The Fall, too.) It ramps up the drama for some, while giving others the chance to switch off.
Of course, different people are triggered by different things so God help you if you have PTSD about lemon drizzle cake ?.TL:dr
Rob wants the baby, not Helen
Timothy Watson, great actor
Pre-episode warnings, sometimes
Post-episode contact info, definitelyAll very thoughtful responses (I expect nothing less from my fellow listeners/contributors). I agree that a pre-show warning and a post about helplines would have been appropriate and helpful, considering the serious nature of the plot line and the content of the shows.
The story may have taken a horrifying turn which is a step too far for some, however, if my recollection of domestic violence statistics for this jurisdiction (England and Wales) are correct (it’s some time since I had to go on any specific training) it can take something like 35 incidents of violence on average before a woman reports anything to the police. The rate of successful prosecutions for rape is less than 10% – so I imagine that for marital rape it’s going to be even less than that. More than half of the women who report incidents of serious sexual assault are attacked by their current or former partners. At the extreme end, about two women each week are killed by their current or former partner as a result of domestic violence.
Basically, statistically, women are more at risk of violence in their own home than anywhere else. Helen’s clearly at risk – and so is Henry. He’s at risk of emotional harm if he witnesses violence as well as being at risk of violence himself, especially if Helen cannot protect herself and cannot protect him.
Helen doesn’t seem to know what a healthy relationship looks like so I don’t know how she’s going to get out of this one.
If she doesn’t want to make some sort of disclosure to a family member, a friend or she feels she simply can’t bring herself to tell someone so close, Ambridge has a doctor, a vicar, a solicitor and a police officer – all of whom may have a professional interest in making sure she’s safe and gets the right help. There are national charities, obviously, too. Plus, less obviously there’s Kirsty – or even Jess.
If she doesn’t feel she can reach out, if she becomes expert at concealing the abuse or she still hasn’t recognised it, nevertheless there may ultimately be people who do notice.
These things can take time.
This story has some way to go yet …
Really interesting reading your thoughts, and those of people on twitter too.
I find myself quite conflicted on this. I don’t have a problem with a soap/series telling a story, so long as they can do it justice and handle it well. I do think given the time that the Archers goes out (although no watershed) that telling a story about sexual assault/rape is going to be difficult to do appropriately This is the first time I have listened to such a story on the Archers with children around who are old enough to pick up on the atmosphere and ask questions. (When Kathy was attacked, my eldest can only have been a baby at most) To be frank, I was not comfortable with listening with the children in earshot and I turned it off and listened again when I was on my own. Bearing in mind the repeat goes out at 2pm…
I won’t repeat too much of what I said in my call to DTD this week but I do think the production team were aware of this problem in telling a hard hitting story such as this given the circumstances. And I think that’s why we didn’t hear what had actually happened. I think this, though, rather than solving the problem of the subject matter being too graphic, also raised more problems. It meant that we as the audience were left wondering what had happened for a day and I don’t know, something about that bothered me too, not just from a storytelling point of view being unsatisfactory but from a responsibility to the audience point of view. It just didn’t sit right with me.
I know that the team would have spent time discussing this and I know they will have wanted to handle this sensitively. I think the writing was great. But I don’t know ultimately how I feel about the way it did actually come across to us at home. I know lots of people are upset by the subject matter, understandably so. I have every sympathy and understanding with why it became a step too far for many. However – is it a story TA should be telling? Maybe, yes, in my view.
My issue with it I think is I am not sure it was quite handled entirely appropriately for the time slot and for the programme itself. Jury’s out for me. I am still pondering on.
As an aside – I know warnings and helplines can be a contentious issue for broadcasters. But I can’t help thinking in this case it would have been justified. I know I would have found it helpful.
If she doesn’t want to make some sort of disclosure to a family member, a friend or she feels she simply can’t bring herself to tell someone so close, Ambridge has a doctor, a vicar, a solicitor and a police officer
Very good point, Miss MidCity. The problem with a village as small as Ambridge, as I see it, is that these professionals are also close. Everyone knows everyone. (Ambridge has a doctor? A silent character perhaps? Dr. Locke is in Borchester or somewhere. Though presumably Henry has regular pediatric visits somewhere, doubtless at the world-renowned Felpersham General.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.