One of the best things about the soap opera format has to be its scope for exploring characters and stories over an extended period of time. When done wrong, stories can feel dragged-out and characters can become easily tired. However, when done right, we become witnesses to some of the finest character development on television. Perhaps the one of the best examples of this comes in the form of David Wicks; arguably one of the best characters in EastEnders history. He’s certainly my all-time favourite and this post is going to explore exactly how he made such a large impact on the programme within the mere space that his original 3-year stint allowed. And importantly, just what can his characterisation can teach us about crafting a popular character out of someone who, on paper, is slippery, sleazy and less-than-sympathetic?
Let me preface this post slightly: I’ve been a fan of David for a few years now, but recently I decided to put aside some time and watch his whole original arc on the show, in order, and I’m not lying when I say that I enjoyed every single minute of it. And it seems I’m not the only one who holds him in high favour. Take a gander into any online soap forum, and you won’t need to look very hard to find a post either congratulating his fabulous storylines or wishing desperately for his return. Considering he’s one of a rare crop of short-lived 90s characters who have made returns in recent years (Mandy Salter is another), the fact that he is still wanted back on the show by many is a real testament to his success. So, without further ado, let’s explore why.
One of the many unwritten rules of soap seems to be that new characters work best when introduced as part of a pre-existing family. Indeed, this was the case with David; the result of Pete Beale’s first marriage to Pat Wicks, and the older brother of the also popular Simon Wicks, David already had established roots in the show’s history, and had been referenced to as far back as 1985. When David turned up on Pat’s doorstep in January 1994, he slotted perfectly into the already great dynamic that Pat and Frank’s marriage had created. Whoever decided to create the hilarious, petty rivalry between step-brothers David and Ricky deserves an award.
David also had family in the likes of his half-brother Ian, the Fowlers, and of course, Bianca (not that neither he nor she initially knew this). With David’s arrival came a sudden wave of untapped potential which was fulfilled perfectly during his stay on the Square. We saw his bitterness at being excluded from Pete’s family, his grudge against Pat for being a neglectful and abusive mother, and his discovery that Bianca was his daughter and the ramifications of this.
Furthermore, within only a few episodes, it was revealed that David had a family whom he had abandoned; thus paving the way for later, fantastic stories. The pacing with David’s stories was sublime: nothing was rushed, nor dragged-out. That’s something we don’t see much of on the soaps these days.
Perhaps the reason for David’s initial success before he was even given a storyline was his enigmatic, mysterious personality. In fact, Michael French himself touched upon this, stating in 1994 that ‘part of David’s success as a character is that people don’t know whether to believe him or not’.
A magazine scan of an interview with Michael French, source unknown.
For the record, I 100% agree. When David first joined the show, he gave Pat a number of questionable excuses for his return, from running out of money, to sleeping with a 15-year-old and then to being kicked out by his nightmarish, materialistic wife. When David’s wife, Lorraine, eventually arrives two years later, we discover this to be rather untrue, but we are still in the dark about his other reasons. Funnily enough, his son, Joe, does the same upon his arrival and makes up stories about Lorraine being promiscuous and neglectful as being the reason for him tracking down David.
Back to French’s comment, I think he hits the nail on the head with his observation. Clearly, he put some time and thought into David’s characterisation, and that really shows on screen. Not only that, but French seems to take acting beyond just saying lines and basic blocking. It’s almost guaranteed that, in every scene he appears in, David is always fidgeting with something- his tie, his keys, or even a piece of toast. It may not seem like much, but it’s something a lot of people remember him for, and it adds a touch of realism and seals David as a smooth, on-the-go business man. Not only that, but it makes him engaging to watch. It gives the sense that he’s always got something in the back of his mind, and reinforces his restless personality. All-in-all, these little touches and character examination by French have undoubtedly helped to seal David’s popular status as a truly captivating and natural character.
Perhaps the only real insight we get into David’s psyche is during scenes of great emotional distress. A couple spring to mind, the first being when David calls the Samaritans as he struggles to cope with and interpret his feelings for Bianca. It’s not often that us soap fans are treated to finding out exactly what a character is thinking, and straight from the horse’s mouth! This storyline provides another example of how David is, on paper, extremely unlikeable, but completely endearing on-screen. If any other character confessed to having incestuous thoughts towards his long-lost daughter, they would be perceived as disgusting and irredeemable. Yet, David’s own disgust at himself and confusion as he struggles to know how to act around a daughter he knew nothing about, provides a fascinating and sympathetic turmoil that not only provides an unusual storyline, but also shows a different take on the ‘long lost family’ storylines in soap that can often become repetitive.
This also offers a good insight into David’s shambolic parenting skills. Maybe I’m being too harsh, but even David himself admits, time and time again, that he’s a bad father. In fact, it’s about the only thing he is openly honest about, which is thought-provoking in itself. What’s great (for want of a better word) about this, is this isn’t just any old character flaw, but one which makes complete sense and impacts everybody around him. We know that David had a turbulent childhood, with an alcoholic, violent mother who left his father when he was only 3. Not only was David abandoned by Pete, but he also had to grow up knowing that Pete had remarried and had another son, whom he’d stayed with. It’s odd that David doesn’t seem to harbour any sort of resentment towards Ian, although it’s clear that all of that still gave him a grudge against the Beales. It’s bizarre to think that David would have been called David Beale until Brian adopted him. It doesn’t quite sound right!
Clearly, David had terrible role models for parents, so it’s somewhat understandable that he was such an inept parent himself. To be fair to him, he did try hard to bond with Bianca and to get Joe on track, but all of that didn’t change his desire to escape any sort of undesirable situation or commitment. It also doesn’t help that David’s childhood was cut short, what with watching Pat delve into prostitution in his own home, and getting Carol Branning pregnant at the age of 14. It’s not surprising that David didn’t exactly know how to nurture a child. All of that, added to the fact that David and Bianca openly flirted before either of them knew who the other was, creates an intricate explanation as to why David struggled so much to convert overly-friendly feelings to fatherly ones when it came to Bianca. Perhaps that’s what makes David such a captivating and forgivable character: all of his actions make sense, even if we don’t always know his full motivations. The writers at the time clearly thought long and hard about building up David’s backstory, and it shows.
The other scene in which I feel we really get a full understanding of David’s thoughts and feelings is when he leaves Walford. After almost three years on-screen, it is only in David’s final week that we see him fully break down and cry, again, because of one of his children. Joe’s worsening mental health and attempts to isolate David by breaking his landline and begging him to stay in the flat, drives David to despair as he realises that he can’t do anything to help his son. When David explains to Lorraine that he’s leaving, he says it’s because he thinks that his presence is stopping Joe from getting better. Whether it’s because of this, or rather because David can no longer deal with the situation, is hard to tell. But, what is undeniable is that the whole scenario is breaking his heart.
I think the fact that David rarely shows his feelings, along with his inability to deal with stressful family problems and face up to his mistakes is something we can all relate to. It’s certainly a contributing factor as to why he makes such an interesting and well-liked character. No matter how awful his actions are, there’s still a human motivation behind it which we can all understand and, perhaps, we live vicariously through David as we often wish that we could also run away from our problems.
You could apply the same theory to David’s affair with Cindy. As viewers, we should naturally condemn a man who sleeps with his half-brother’s wife and helps her to leave the country and kidnap her children. However, we can’t help but fall for the same charm that Cindy fell for (also, with Ian as a husband, who can blame her?). David has this irresistible, smooth-talking suave and that, coupled with his classic good looks, only helps his cause. I think the fact that he was rarely seen in anything but suits during his first stint in the show added a great touch of glamour to the show. You could also argue that this is all part of David’s façade of living a better life than everyone else on the Square. He even admits that he thinks he is better than others, when he explains to Cindy that he wants more from his life than what those in Walford aim for. Although David does a good job in upkeeping his image as a successful, independent man, he is quite the opposite. His immature side is often evident- such as around in the scene beginning at 7:55 in this clip:
I love the irony of this scene: David is polishing his fancy suit shoes ready for another day of going to work and keeping up appearances; yet Pat has to baby him throughout the scene as he can’t help but get polish on his nice shirt. Carol even tells David at one point that he hasn’t changed since he was a teenager. One the one hand, this immaturity is somewhat endearing and is a fun character trait which many can relate to. However, it is also rather sad to consider that this is undoubtedly a characteristic of David’s which has roots in his turbulent childhood, where he was unable to live a carefree life as all children should.
Further to that, it also forms the basis of David’s problems during his original tenure on the show: he can’t seem to face up to any responsibility, and, strikingly, can’t seem to form genuine adult relationships. David has a history of fearing commitment, both to women and to his children. The fact that he seems to get over the news of his 13-year-old daughter Karen’s death rather quickly is another consequence of this emotional immaturity; both because he likely failed to form a deep relationship with her, and also because, if he did care more than he let on, he obviously felt a bizarre need to hide it and pretend her death never happened. Some online soap fans have questioned whether David displays sociopathic tendencies due to his apparent apathy towards Karen’s death, amongst other things.
Whilst this could be a possibility, I interpret his behaviour as more indicative of deep, repressed emotions due to his fear of attachment and commitment stemming from his unstable childhood. He was obviously deeply upset to hear of her passing, but forced himself to become nonchalant about the whole subject. This conforms with his usual behaviour when confronted with upsetting situations, such as with the aforementioned bottling-up of his emotions surrounding Joe’s worsening mental state.
Here is David’s initial reaction:
And his measured, considered behaviour surrounding the subject:
David certainly seems to see emotions as a weakness, and harbours certain insecurities about himself which he fails to deal with. Such insecurities are evident in his reluctance to form close relationships which require people needing him on an emotional level. Arguably, the reason he was so keen to get to know Bianca was because she had already grown up without him, and only really required financial support from her father. Whereas, when it came to Joe’s troubles, there was nothing that David could conceivably do to help him, besides offer emotional support. David even admits this himself in yet another interesting piece of self-explained character exposition which is so rare in soap:
Yet, even though this is clear, the mastery of David’s character is that, when it comes to his first exit from the show in 1996, we are still left questioning whether David is leaving because he knows Joe needs to be independent from him, or because he can’t handle the situation and sees escape as the only option. It’s with crucial turning points like this that any potential exposition is never realised, and we are yet again left wondering what David’s really thinking.
Some fans have mentioned that David shares many similarities to Den Watts. Indeed, I have to say that I see these similarities too- both are good-looking, youngish womanisers with drive and intelligence to boot. As well as that, they seem to have explosive, dysfunctional relationships with most of the people in their lives, and they also have similar mannerisms and smart, humorous quips. I don’t need to explain just how successful Den was as a character, so let’s just conclude by saying that the similarities between these two characters means that it was almost inevitable that David would become as popular as he did.
In conclusion, David Wicks is perhaps one of the most underrated icons in EastEnders history. Whilst he is loved and fondly remembered by more hardcore fans, the casual fan base would perhaps struggle to recall him. Maybe this is due to the fact that he did not require huge, blockbuster storylines to be successful. Even stories such as him teaching Bianca to drive were greatly done and captivating to watch. Michael French so effortlessly portrays him in a great, subtle manner, that perhaps his character is not particularly memorable amongst soap behemoths such as Grant Mitchell, Pauline Fowler and Ian Beale, but this is besides the point. His success comes in his subtlety and down-to-earth, relatable characterisation. He’s shady, secretive and snarky, but also utterly relatable and forces us as viewers to confront our own rather unlikeable sides.
Yet, even when he is unlikeable, he is still a joy to watch and, most importantly, there is always a character-driven motivation behind his actions. His behaviour in certain situations always makes sense and feels human and natural - from his desire to detach himself from Cindy, right down to his tendency to fidget with every possible object in sight. All in all, soap writers and the public alike can learn a lot from the brilliantly-written, endlessly-layered and ever-charismatic David Wicks.
-ASIS
Comments