Examining Cindy Beale

Cindy Beale. This is where someone would predictably write the next line as, "love her or hate her" . . .  but that's not the topic examined here. The topic is how they have ruined this iconic character since returning her from the dead.

Cindy. One of the most iconic characters in all of EastEnders has had her legacy ruined since her return to the Square. How I yearn to know what it is you have to do to write for this show, and why the best and most prolific writers, (except for Simon Ashdown and Rob Gittins), have been replaced on the show that was delivering viewership in the millions.

From the first time we saw a teenage Cindy, played so artfully by Michelle Collins, selling tat on the market stall, it was sealed that she would be an EastEnders star. Her relationship and subsequent marriage to a young Ian Beale was breathtaking (17.5 million viewers). Mostly due to the abhorrent abuse she continued to receive under the hands of Ian Beale. Starting on her wedding day when he screamed abuse at her and walked out, and all throughout their short-lived farce of a marriage.

She had no choice but to end up with Ian, as "Wicksy" absolutely broke her heart after leading her on, then dumping her at the Queen Vic where they both worked. She really loved him but he just did not want to know. Ian screams at her and humiliates her on their wedding day and she is pregnant (with Wicksy's son from their one night stand), but Ian doesn't know or care. She always wanted and tried to do the right thing, but ended up getting hurt in the end. Cindy was a multidimensional character and fascinating to watch in the 1980s and 1990s.

The affair with the lifeguard Matt was absolutely warranted. Even a true saint would have ran into Matt's arms after the lonely and alienating marriage she has with Ian Beale, who treated her like garbage. She was lonely. She was bored. And someone was finally paying her some attention. Someone saw her and she felt wanted. It just happened and no one could blame her given the deplorable situation in her home life with Ian.

One of the very best storylines in EastEnders history was her love affair with Wicksy's brother, David Wicks, half-brother to Ian Beale.  He was the one that continually chased her, and he was utterly charming and so irresistible that it was impossible to run or hide from the attraction. Her own marriage was in tatters and Ian did not even see her as a human being. Unlike today where Cindy is painted as a manipulator and cheat, she was none of those things. Just a young girl trying to survive a horrific marriage and looking for real love so she could leave Ian and make a safe home with her three children. He was everything a woman could wish for in a romantic partner, and more. They both lit up the screen, attracting millions of viewers and a tantalizing storyline. Sadly, David let Cindy down badly and did not come through for her last minute, as she planned an escape with her children as far away as possible with David. He led her on and on and on, then let her down at the last minute when push came to shove and he had to step up. 

They should have left the story that unfolded there lay to rest, as it were. She fled alone without his help, with her three children in tow, and the twists and turns that were to follow, including the kidnap of her children was brilliant, with the Mitchell brothers getting "involved." 

But how many characters can you bring back from the dead after Kathy? At least that was off screen in a car crash in South Africa, s we could potentially suspend our disbelief. But we saw the trail of devastation after Cindy's death in prison. Ian was right there as Cindy's mother and sister were asked to identify the body at the morgue, and we saw the mother do that. So the writers are now asking us to suspend disbelief to the point that Cindy's mother didn't identify her daughter? We literally saw her do it! We are also asked to suspend disbelief that Cindy abandoned her young children and moved away to start a new family with George. I don't think so. Her kids, Lucy, Steven and Peter, as well as newborn Cindy Jr. were without a mum, as she had moved to Spain in a "witness protection program!" Utter nonsense. Who is approving this rubbish?

The writers had a tougher time coming up with an excuse as to why she did not return to Walford when her daughter Lucy was murdered. They concocted a dog and pony show featuring a weird flashback episode showing Cindy had indeed returned to Walford during that time, disguised in a weird black hoodie or veil and not revealing herself to Peter or her loved ones. What utter laughable nonsense! But this is the garbage you have to write when you resurrect a character who has been laid to rest on the show, not offscreen.

Putting all of that to one side, including the fact that George and her two daughters had permanently moved to the Square (with none other than Linda's mum--small world!) and she reappears to live on the very same Square with Ian . . .  putting ALL of that aside, let's examine how the new writers and producers did not understand Cindy's character or motivation and completely rewrote her in the wrong direction. They portrayed her as a cheater, a scammer and a harlot. Cindy was none of those things. Everything she did in the past before her death in prison was justified and she loved her children more than anything. She was used and abused by men who tricked her, then tossed out like a used toy. She was hurt again and again and her motivation was to keep the children away from Ian, including Steven, who was Wicksy's.

They had her pining for George while she was with Ian; they had her start a sordid affair with George's son; they had her sleep with Max on their first ever meeting, and on and on AND ON. They completely misunderstood the character and rewrote her in terms they understood. Through their cloudy lens, because they haven't followed the show and current producer Ben Wadey wasn't even born during the Cindy years. (The previous producer, Chris Clenshaw, was just born as Cindy was tying the knot with Ian Beale in 1989). They just pieced this affair from the 80s and that affair from the 90s together and rewrote her as a total slag with no morals and limited intelligence, when in essence, this is not who Cindy is. Her dire circumstances that trapped her with Ian led her to make unfortunate choices. The psychology of Cindy is what makes her a fascinating watch. No other character on EastEnders is so reviled, but Cindy always had sympathy and she played her roles as a young girl navigating life seamlessly.

Now, they have ruined her. The wedding to Max. The stupid one-liners to make her seem selfish and one dimensional. The silly solo wedding dance. Her iconic character completely wrecked and ruined. Even the guest stint from David Wicks couldn't save her storyline. She would never marry Max to start with. 

When Kathy was brought back from the dead, they didn't wreck her character. Kathy is still being Kathy, consistent, the same as we remember her. She is not written in a different direction and I wonder how much of that has to do with her say and star power in the show. 

They did the same to Zoe. Enticed her back to boost ratings and wrote the most diabolic and laughable storylines for her, when she just begged to be killed off the show permanantly, and I do not blame her/ They ruined Zoe. A conveyer belt of guest writers who do not understand characters, their legacy or nuance. And with the seasoned, well established writers all gone, this is what we get: iconic characters that made the show a must watch into a clenched teeth hate watch.