Louise Berridge (new EE Executive Producer) Interview


By Larry Jaffee


British TV veteran Louise Berridge is on her second stint working on EastEnders, to which she returned in January 2002. In May she was promoted to executive producer, succeeding John Yorke, her old EastEnders production team colleague who actually reported to her in the mid-1990s when she was series story editor.

The Walford Gazette caught up with her last summer via a transatlantic telephone call. In the last issue (No. 39) we provided a snippet of what she has in store for our favourite programme. Now we have a chance to hear her observations regarding the first two months on the job, covering such topics as the workflow process, what makes EastEnders special, where it needs to be careful and what she thinks of American television.

In a pre-interview e-mail, Louise congratulated me on the Walford Gazette’s 10th anniversary. “We’ll have to do something special,” she wrote. When we finally spoke, I recounted for her the early days of the Gazette, which her predecessors had viewed only with suspicion and at best as a nuisance.

I explained to her how I was essentially banned from the set. But that’s all ancient history, thanks to Corinne Hollingworth, the executive producer who lifted the ban in 1996, and our relationship with EastEnders has only improved in the ensuing years.

Louise pledged continued support and appreciation for the way the Gazette is helping to keep EastEnders alive in the colonies. This, of course, was music to my ears.

She also expressed interest and empathy in the trials and tribulations that stateside fans are currently going through regarding the continued threats of cancellation, both from public TV stations and BBC America. When I told her of BBC America’s June plans to air EastEnders only on Fridays at 3 p.m., Louise responded, “Oh no.” Of course, that plan has since been switched, but the executive producer concurred that the time slot was not exactly conducive to working fans who would rather not have to program their VCRs to catch it. “They missed a chunk [of the potential audience],” she said, appreciative of finding out to what extent her show is exposed across the Atlantic.

I also took the liberty of bending her ear on the Gazette’s long quest to get the BBC to make available official EastEnders videos and t-shirts.



WG: In your first tenure with EastEnders, how did you make your mark?

LB: As story editor, the first big story I did was ‘Sharongate’.

WG: That’s one of my as well other Gazette readers’ favourite storylines. We did a survey, and it was in the Top Three.

LB: That’s great. John Yorke was there as well.

WG: Who was the executive producer then?

LB: Barbara Emile, and then Corinne Hollingworth.

WG: Corinne, by the way, was the first executive producer to lift the ban in 1996 on the Walford Gazette.

LB: There was a ban? I did not know that.

WG: Here’s the story. In our second issue, we published a series of photos from a subscriber who somehow managed to talk her way onto the set under a cheeky headline, ‘ALBERT SQUARE TRESPASSED.’ The EastEnders powers-that-be at the time apparently saw no humour in us poking fun at what they considered to be a serious security lapse. Even though I had high ranking people at the BBC and cast members like Gretchen Franklin (Ethel), who was very active on the show at the time—arguing on my behalf for entry, the producers said, ‘No, he’s not allowed, and that’s the end of the story’.

LB: [sympathetically] Oh...

WG: So several years of that position went on. Finally, Corinne came in, and I asked again to visit the set. Thankfully, she responded, ‘Of course, you may. What’s the big deal?’

LB: That’s good. And there’s been a good relationship ever since?

WG: Absolutely. [Hollingworth’s successors] Matthew Robinson, John Yorke and [BBC drama controller] Mal Young (see page 3) have all been very supportive. It’s been wonderful. Are there any particular challenges these days?

LB: Since going four times a week, we’re working on so many stories at the same time we have to make sure the characters aren’t involved in too many at once. We’ll be needing them at the Vic for the love triangle story, but we’ll also need them on the lot for another little comic story about a budgie (Editor’s note, Brit word for parakeet). It’s tricky.

WG: We just saw the budgie episode (in July) on BBC America.

LB: The one going up the vacuum? (Jim Branning is cleaning his pet’s cage and inadvertently sucks it up.)

WG: Yes, I thought it was one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen. I’m also a big Monty Python fan. It’s been suggested on the AOL chat group that you should have the two pet store clerks as permanent characters.

LB: That was a Tony Jordan script. He created those characters. They were wonderful. That’s one of the things he does best as a writer—when you have to do those mechanical plot devices. When something like that happens, you could have Jim just buy another budgie, or whatever. But Tony will never leave it like that. He’ll always make the story device the most interesting thing in the episode, like the two guys in the pet shop. But we had a number of complaints about the budgie story.

WG: From animal rights activists?

LB: I think so. They thought we were being cruel to an actual budgie.

WG: It wasn’t a real bird, right?

LB: Right.

WG: In your e-mail to me, you mentioned that you found interesting an article we ran that asked whether EastEnders is too violent. At times, do you think it might be?

LB: It’s difficult because it depends on your definition of violence.

WG: I didn’t think the budgie scene was violent. If anything, it was left to the mind like Hitchcock. You didn’t see the budgie actually go up.

LB: You see a blur of feathers, which did the job. But it isn’t that kind of thing. The Trevor/Little Mo storyline (spousal abuse, aired on BBC America) caused a lot of controversy. But it does force us to examine whether we were too violent. The only complaint that was upheld against us was an episode that transmitted in the U.K. on Christmas Day, which is the one when Trevor pushes Little Mo’s face down in the plate. Did you see that?

WG: Yes, I did.

LB: It’s not in itself violent like Phil Mitchell punching someone in the face in the Vic. But it was very distressing, shocking, and it upset a lot of people. It’s that which provokes the complaints. The audiences have become more sophisticated now. In the old days [TV producers] used to think that if you didn’t actually show the physical act of violence, it’s all right, it’s acceptable. You don’t show the knife going in, the broken bottle, it was acceptable. It isn’t anymore. The audience isn’t reacting to what you’re showing them in actual detail. They’re reacting to the emotional reality of the scene. The problem is that a show like EastEnders has to go to that emotional depth to stay real. How do you do it without unduly shocking people, because we transmit here before 9 o’clock in the evening, before the watershed? What time of the day does it transmit in the U.S.?

WG: It’s actually all over the map. There are two different tiers of viewing. The BBC America episodes, which are two weeks behind the U.K., used to be on at Friday afternoons at 3 p.m. for two hours of four back-to-back episodes. That Omnibus had been repeated at 11 a.m. on Sunday mornings, but that has been switched to Saturdays at 1 p.m. BBC America started about three years ago and is available by digital cable in parts of the country and by satellite services nationally. Meanwhile, EastEnders is currently on 20 public television stations in major cities like New York, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, Miami, and Houston. They air it at different times and different days, but generally after 10 p.m. Those episodes are two to three years behind the U.K. When the series launched in the U.S. in late 1987 there were about 80 stations. What bothers me about BBC America is their failure to recognise EastEnders’ potential to repeat its U.K. popularity in the U.S., where there are demonstrated pockets of real interest, and how they don’t anything to promote it on other time slots to gain new viewers.

LB: It doesn’t make a lot of sense, really. Does the time gap between BBC America and the public TV broadcasts mean that you’ve missed whole chunks of stories?

WG: Yes it does. I never saw the whole Bianca/Dan storyline, for example. I started receiving BBC America in May 2001. Half the cast was completely new to me, characters like Steve Owen and the Slater family. Some of those new characters like Steve, Melanie, Lisa, Jamie and Billy—have shown up on my public TV station episodes only in the last month (June). Someone has actually put together a guide of who’s who guide for other public TV fans who started watching EastEnders on BBC America. I have to be careful how much I reveal.

LB: How do you deal with this in the Gazette?

WG: I walk a very thin line. Three quarters of my readership still watch via public TV and only a quarter watch via BBC America. I once ran the Christmas cast photo that the BBC distribute to the press, and received a letter from a reader who enquired why Dot Cotton wasn’t in the photo—had she left the show?

LB: It’s a danger for us as well. You read in the Walford Gazette about a character being very popular, but whom we already killed off. You think a character isn’t working out well and maybe kill him or her off. And then you read the Walford Gazette where they’re three years behind and they’ve just seen the character and think “this one’s amazing, fantastic,” and we’ve already killed them off.

WG: I still won’t generally reveal major U.K. developments, but I made an exception in the last issue when I ran the story that Mark Fowler was leaving the Square because I felt he was such an important character, and besides he’ll be on public TV episodes for at least another three years. Why did you originally leave EastEnders?

LB: When I left EastEnders in 1995 I wanted to take a different path. I wanted to do film drama for a while. Now I’ve come home.

WG: When you came in as series producer this past January, did you know all along that you would be made executive producer?

LB: It was always intended, a kind of an elaborate hand-over period. The show is bigger than any of us. The danger is when you bring in a new executive producer, it becomes like a new reign—change everything. The thing is, it works. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. So we thought we’ll just work together for a few months, really get to see it a bit. And then gradually ease in and take over the job. In a way, nobody has even noticed.

WG: I think it’s interesting that most of the past executive producers had previously worked on the series in other capacities.

LB: I think it’s always happened like that. People always come back to the show. It’s like home. The cast often feel the same. They’ll go away for a bit and do other things. And even though they may be really successful in other shows, they’ll still feel the urge to come back here. It’s something about the history of it. What it is, the way I see it, is that in 1985 somebody put in the coal, set up the engine and set the train going. And the train hasn’t stopped. In all that time, it has never stopped. You go away and do other things, but the train is still going. It’s not like the programme ceases to exist because you’re not there. Sooner or later you are drawn to it. You can’t help watching it. The characters on the screen—they’re part of your family. I just talked to Sid Owen who plays Ricky, who has just come back after a long break. He said, “It feels like coming home.” But if you don’t feel that about the show, it’s very difficult to work on it in any very meaningful way. You have to love it, care about it, be prepared to argue passionately about these people. You have to dream about it.

WG: Do you?

LB: Yes I do.

WG: Could you tell me what the dreams are about and would you incorporate them into the show?

LB: That would be giving away far too much, but sometimes storylines turn out that way.

WG: I imagine Tony Jordan dreams about the show too.

LB: I know he used to, but I haven’t had that conversation with him recently. He once said, “I dreamt of Pauline all last night. What does that say about me?”

WG: One of the things I’ve been in conversations with the BBC in New York is to do some kind of EastEnders video series. The two-handers I think would work extremely well as stand-alones.

LB: I would think that they’d do really well.

WG: My understanding is that the issue is tied up in rights issues. Is that something you’re involved in?

LB: Tangentially, yes. Are there any particular two-handers you’re interested in?

WG: I have a whole list. The Christmas shows, Ethel and Dot reminiscing about the war—that type of thing. Kathy confronting her rapist, Willmott-Brown. These are episodes where a viewer wouldn’t need any prior knowledge of EastEnders to be immediately caught up in the drama.

LB: Yes, standalone drama. They are looking more favourably on that kind of thing. We did that video on the Mitchells. We’re doing a new one on the Slaters. Releasing special episodes, I don’t know why we don’t do that. I would think there would be a huge market over here as well. It’s a good idea, and I’ll keep checking on those t-shirts as well.

WG: Did John Yorke give you any advice before passing on the baton?

LB: It’s a difficult one. When we worked together the first time I was actually John’s boss. I was series script editor, and John was a script editor. When I left I promoted him and made him my succesor. What John always said was that I taught him everything that he knew. He usually says that when I’ve done something unusually devious. This time he said, “Just remember to enjoy yourself.” It was good advice actually.

WG: Are there any American TV shows that you particularly like?

LB: ER, of course. Everybody does over here. We learn a lot from that. At story conferences, writers will often ask, “Did you see that episode of ER?” We’re very influenced by that kind of storytelling. 24, of course, at the moment. And obviously Friends, all the unusual, quirky, exciting things. The problem is that anyone who works on EastEnders doesn’t have time to watch much television.

WG: What was it like to work with Patsy Palmer (Bianca) away from EastEnders on McCready & Daughter?

LB: I love Patsy Palmer, and I think that Bianca has been her finest hour. I only worked on the pilot McCready & Daughter.

WG: What else have you done recently?

LB: The last thing was a show called Messiah, a co-production with Paramount, the first time I’ve worked with American television directly. The difference was interesting to work on. I gave a talk to a bunch of students from Syracuse University. They came to London. It was fascinating getting their reactions to watching EastEnders, and the difference between American television and British television. They were awestruck about how unglamorous it was—that we show ordinary-looking people, which is something I noticed again working with Paramount. That we like things to go really real, not necessarily pretty but real. I don’t want to make a big generalization, but would you say that’s a big difference?

WG: That is the reason why I’m attracted to EastEnders—that it represents real life. There has never been a serious show on American television that covers contemporary working class people. Also, Americans regard EastEnders as a drama, not a soap.

LB: So do we.

WG: Which is why I took umbrage to the British Film Institute three years ago leaving EastEnders off its list of the Top 100 British TV shows. I asked how could it win the Best Drama BAFTA award the year before and not show up at all.

LB: What was their explanation?

WG: They admitted everybody sort of takes it for granted, that it’s a wall-to-wall tabloid phenomenon.

LB: Interesting. I should like to have a discussion with them.

WG: Meanwhile, Coronation Street showed up at No. 40.

LB: Oh no. We’re far more like drama than Coronation Street. That’s a different area. At the same time, I don’t knock soaps because there are things you can do in soap that you can’t do in any other drama. That’s one of the reasons I wanted to come back. Drama is like edited highlights of things. You have an explosion, somebody comes in and shoots somebody, a big moment of infidelity, fall in love and get married. What we can do is all the interesting stuff that happens after the end credits start rolling—when you really deal with character, what really happens after somebody beat up somebody or something like that. You can follow that through. And when somebody in EastEnders gets shot, that’s not just a character you’ve known for 45 minutes of a movie. It’s a character you’ve known for years, everything about him and you care that much more. You can’t do that in drama. That’s the difference.




Back to Latest Articles