Darryl 'Brax' Braxton - Steve Peacocke

[Red Ranger 1]

I should probably shut this computer down, go to bed and have a think before posting but...I'm here now.I feel I probably qualify as one of the "holier than thou" types of whom john speaks but, right to reply. I have spent the last few months following the talk in the Australian Discussion section and there's been talk of how the consistent portrayal of crime without punishment or consequence sends out the wrong message.And it seems people have grabbed that message with both hands:"If you're poor, crime is an acceptable lifestyle choice."Maybe I'm being simplistic and maybe those who have a balanced view of Brax are overcompensating to answer the other extreme.But it frustrates me when even storylines that have nothing to do with Brax are held up as evidence that he's somehow in the right, where Romeo failing his exams to impress a girl, dropping out of school, playing at being a businessman without making any money and entering a marriage he is not financially or emotionally ready for is suggested as the only alternative to getting a gang of street thugs together and growing marijuana.Did Brax come from a poor background?Yes.But if I believed his choice was the best or only one for someone from his background, I'd throw myself off a cliff.Maybe it's naive of me to think we live in a world where a man can support his family without breaking the law but I'll carry on believing it anyway.

A few posts back, DocZed suggested the moral "If a good girl gets involved with a bad boy, she'll die a violent death."That seems pretty accurate.Perhaps less obviously we might have "Violence breeds violence" or "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."It's implied with Brax, and shown with Charlie, that breaking a little law to help those you love can seem like an acceptable choice at the time.But a few more steps along that road and you're mired into a world of crime and violence and revenge and there's no way out, however much you might want to convince yourself it can all stop.

If we are not meant to view Brax as a criminal, why do we see him react in such a matter of fact way to Angelo being left with life-threatening injuries as a result of his activities?Why do we see him ordering Liam beaten up for crossing his family?Why do we see him purchasing a gun with the expressed intention of murdering a man he sees as a danger to him?Why do we see him declaring he'll "deal with" Romeo if he objects to being used as a drugs courier?A criminal is how we are meant to see him.Is he "just" a criminal?No, he's a son, a brother, a boyfriend and even a legitimate businessman at times.But none of that stops him being a criminal and nothing ever will.A man who sees nothing wrong with planting evidence on a man who did him no harm because it's the most convenient thing to do.A man for whom "grief" is just another reason to wave a gun about.

Did Brax love Charlie?Yes.And her death was the result of that love.Have Heath and Casey really been helped by being exposed to gang culture or has it left all three Braxton brothers irreparably damaged with regards their moral and psyche?How often can you justify your behaviour by saying "I did it for my family" before you stop and look at what that family has become?

It seems as though the show and the fans are very restrictive about how "compassion" is implied.Is Jake Pirovic deserving of compassion for losing someone he loved or is he just to be viewed as a criminal to be locked up and kept away from society?Is Dean O'Mara, the perpetrator of an indefensible crime, to be given allowances for his disadvantaged background or is he just to be quietly shunted off to prison in a congratulatory manner?The only difference between Brax and any other criminal in Summer Bay is the amount of screen time he's given.If the story was told from someone else's point of view, we could have a very different image of him.

[John]

I should probably shut this computer down, go to bed and have a think before posting but...I'm here now.I feel I probably qualify as one of the "holier than thou" types of whom john speaks but, right to reply. I have spent the last few months following the talk in the Australian Discussion section and there's been talk of how the consistent portrayal of crime without punishment or consequence sends out the wrong message.And it seems people have grabbed that message with both hands:"If you're poor, crime is an acceptable lifestyle choice."Maybe I'm being simplistic and maybe those who have a balanced view of Brax are overcompensating to answer the other extreme.But it frustrates me when even storylines that have nothing to do with Brax are held up as evidence that he's somehow in the right, where Romeo failing his exams to impress a girl, dropping out of school, playing at being a businessman without making any money and entering a marriage he is not financially or emotionally ready for is suggested as the only alternative to getting a gang of street thugs together and growing marijuana.Did Brax come from a poor background?Yes.But if I believed his choice was the best or only one for someone from his background, I'd throw myself off a cliff.Maybe it's naive of me to think we live in a world where a man can support his family without breaking the law but I'll carry on believing it anyway.

A few posts back, DocZed suggested the moral "If a good girl gets involved with a bad boy, she'll die a violent death."That seems pretty accurate.Perhaps less obviously we might have "Violence breeds violence" or "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."It's implied with Brax, and shown with Charlie, that breaking a little law to help those you love can seem like an acceptable choice at the time.But a few more steps along that road and you're mired into a world of crime and violence and revenge and there's no way out, however much you might want to convince yourself it can all stop.

If we are not meant to view Brax as a criminal, why do we see him react in such a matter of fact way to Angelo being left with life-threatening injuries as a result of his activities?Why do we see him ordering Liam beaten up for crossing his family?Why do we see him purchasing a gun with the expressed intention of murdering a man he sees as a danger to him?Why do we see him declaring he'll "deal with" Romeo if he objects to being used as a drugs courier?A criminal is how we are meant to see him.Is he "just" a criminal?No, he's a son, a brother, a boyfriend and even a legitimate businessman at times.But none of that stops him being a criminal and nothing ever will.A man who sees nothing wrong with planting evidence on a man who did him no harm because it's the most convenient thing to do.A man for whom "grief" is just another reason to wave a gun about.

Did Brax love Charlie?Yes.And her death was the result of that love.Have Heath and Casey really been helped by being exposed to gang culture or has it left all three Braxton brothers irreparably damaged with regards their moral and psyche?How often can you justify your behaviour by saying "I did it for my family" before you stop and look at what that family has become?

It seems as though the show and the fans are very restrictive about how "compassion" is implied.Is Jake Pirovic deserving of compassion for losing someone he loved or is he just to be viewed as a criminal to be locked up and kept away from society?Is Dean O'Mara, the perpetrator of an indefensible crime, to be given allowances for his disadvantaged background or is he just to be quietly shunted off to prison in a congratulatory manner?The only difference between Brax and any other criminal in Summer Bay is the amount of screen time he's given.If the story was told from someone else's point of view, we could have a very different image of him.

What a thought provoking post and just the sort I was hoping would be part of this discussion. That's not to say I agree with it all.

Just to clarify my thoughts;

1. I agree that Brax has been involved in criminal activity and that the River Boys are a gang involved in criminal activity.

2. I know that not all people from poor socio economic backgrounds resort to criminal behaviour but statistically, in Australia anyway, people from those poor backgrounds are over represented in our jail population.

3. I am not trying to promote Brax as some sort of Robin Hood figure who should be excused from the consequences of his wrongdoing.

My point was one of effective dramatic presentation of the human cost of criminal activity particularly that associated with drugs and gang activity.

It is my view that the ongoing saga of the River Boys, the death of Charlie ( and others) and its effects on Brax, Jake, the other gang members, Ruby, Casey and all members of the Summer Bay community needed to be explored at some length and in some depth for the "human suffering" message to be effectively presented. That message is still being presented in the pain and suffering of those left behind.

The portrayal of a swift implementation of justice and winding up of the storyline without portraying the suffering would not have been as effective either as drama or in portraying the human cost.

Edited February 15, 2012 by john003au

[b2sb09]

3. I am not trying to promote Brax as some sort of Robin Hood figure who should be excused from the consequences of his wrongdoing.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening. I’ve read so many posts on other forums from viewers who don’t think Brax has really done anything wrong because he's had a hard life, he’s doing it for family or because he’s had no choice as he’s forced by others into doing these things – it’s never his fault he has to break the law. Everything he’s done is always excused in some way yet when Stu, Jake, Hammer and others do exactly what Brax has done, the same people justifying Brax’s actions want these others punished. And because his motives are for family and he loved Charlie, it all makes him this amazing guy who some admire and even think he’d be a wonderful father figure for Ruby, even though he shoves his brothers around and is both physically and verbally abusive toward Heath. Is this how we’re supposed to view someone who has used sex, drugs and violence to get what he wants, who is prepared to hurt people, even murder people to achieve the happy life he wants to make for him and his family? Because that’s the message some people are getting, that because he wants a better life for himself and his family, then what he's done isn't so bad.

I think my main problem with Brax is the portrayal and the way he and the River Boys were promoted in such a way they’re seen as more sexy and exciting than the others and that no matter what Brax does, he always stays this amazing guy and is excused of his crimes while others are condemned. When he bashes people, he has a reason, usually Heath deserved to be punched, slapped or head butted by his own brother, when he lied and used Charlie, he had a reason and he loved her, so that was ok, when he had Liam bashed, he was just protecting his brother, so that was ok, when he was trafficking in drugs, it was for a better life for Casey regardless of the pain and suffering he inflicted on others along the way, so that was ok and it’s always everyone else’s fault Brax is forced to do these thigns. Now that Charlie has died, it’s all about poor Brax, he didn’t deserve this because he deserved happiness and now it’s all about his grief being an excuse for doing the same things he did last year. I don’t think it helps that they had a cop fall in love with him, then act like he hasn’t done anything that he should be jailed for; Heath deserved to be in jail, but not Brax. And if he had murdered Jake in revenge, he’d be seen as some avenging hero while Jake is condemned as the bad guy for avenging his own brother’s death. I just don’t see how it’s ok for Brax to do what he does and be seen the way he does, yet others guilty of the same are seen as bad guys. I thought violence was wrong regardless of who does it. Poor Stu had a violent home life yet I didn’t see any excuses for his behaviour and people seemed happy for Sid to beat the crap out of him which was wrong of Sid to do, but when he flipped after seeing his daughter hurt, he was arrested, yet when Brax flips and beats up Jake in front of a bunch of cops, he’s not even charged, they then let this dangerous criminal they’ve been after go after waving a gun around and endangering everyone around him. When I look at Brax, I don’t see his actions or motivations as justifiable in any way, nor do I see any difference between him and Jake or the others.

Heath was supposed to go to jail but because he’s hot and popular, they signed him up as a regular instead and let him get away with selling drugs to kids. What’s the message there? That it’s more important to have a hot guy on a family show than to actually punish them? I don’t see the point in putting them into situations where the cops have the evidence against them and then just find a way to let them get away with it. Throw in the smug arrogance both Brax and Heath display toward the police and when they get away with their crimes and it just seems to enhance their reputations as hot bad guys who make the show exciting. I also think that they’ve been allowed to get away with far too much without justice eventually catching up to them but I have little faith it ever will. Yes, people are put into situations in which they break the law but that doesn’t make it right and it’s just my personal opinion, but I don’t think violence and drugs should be excused in anyway, especially in a family show, yet it seems that is exactly what is happening and when you see the way Brax is seen as this amazing guy who’s every crime is justified and even seen as a father figure to some and man to admire, then I don’t think the right message is being sent. Maybe it's just me, but I find violence a turn off and the way he treats and speaks to Heath, his own brother, just disgusts me, which is why I don't like Brax at all and don't understand how some people think he's this great guy and are so willing to overlook all of his crimes.

[ebrett84]

I think the problem Home and Away runs into with stories like this is that they continually try and have it both ways. It seems like they want to write Brax as a jerk because having a guy in the main cast who acts like a jerk to other characters creates drama, but at the same time they want us to like him enough so that we'll ship his relationship with Charlie and cheer on as her character is completely assassinated into becoming nothing more than his doormat. All they end up doing is perpetuating the myth (sorry girls, it is a myth) of the utter jerk boyfriend who treats his girl like a queen. Of course all that winds up happening is her jerk boyfriend ends up making her permanently miserable because he inevitably treats her as badly as he does everyone else (see also: Aden and Belle, Kane and Kirsty). They really need to pick one direction and stick with it. Either introduce a character as a bad guy and redeem him so that I cheer when he gets the girl or has something else good happen to him, or keep him a jerk and actually show the consequences of his actions. As RR points out, this could have been the latter and there is a really good story buried in this mess somewhere. Brax falls in love with Charlie, corrupts her and she pays the ultimate price for it. But the emphasis on the consequences is all wrong. Instead of feeling sad that Charlie has thrown her life away by getting involved with Brax, I get the feeling that Brax is the one I'm supposed to be feeling sorry for despite the fact that he's arguably the least sympathetic character in the show's history. And anyone who points out that Charlie would have been far better off without him is immediately forced to apologise to poor, poor Brax.

Right now, my favourite TV show is Breaking Bad, which features a character called Walter White not totally dissimilar to Brax. A genius but underachieving high school chemistry teacher dying of cancer, who upon receiving his diagnosis, uses his chemistry skills to cook potent crystal meth with one of his former students so he can pay for his medical bills and provide for his family when he dies. In some ways he's completely different to Brax, but in terms of "guy breaks the law for a good reason" he's pretty similar. So why do I love this show and hate Chax, Adelle and KK? Because Breaking Bad is crystal clear in it's vision that Walter White is the bad guy. He started out about as well intentioned and "good" as a meth creator can be but the deeper he got in the more he enjoyed it. He's given chance after chance to get out and stop cooking, but he refuses out of stubbornness, ego and pride. He continues to delude himself that he's doing it "for his family" when it's actually causing massive problems to his family and he's obviously really doing it because it lets him feel powerful and smarter than everyone else. His actions result in his cop brother in law being shot, broke up his family, and causes numerous physical and emotional problems for his surrogate son / partner in crime. But the show never tells us that we should feel sorry for Walter. It is obvious that he has brought all this on himself by selling his soul and yet it never really feels like a morality play either. Even though the show is about a guy who is now pretty much an irredeemable bastard, it remains interesting because it's interesting to watch a guy who basically started out "good" make a conscious decision to be bad and to see how far he'll go and to see what horrible fate awaits him in the end. I feel like Home and Away are trying to create a Walter White / Tony Soprano character with Brax, but instead of being the bad guy people are instead supposed to feel sorry for him and ignore all his crimes because, um well, he's kind of hot. As b2sb09 points out, there is no point in having a character repeatedly break the law when you know the cops are just going to turn a blind eye for no other reason than that he's part of the main cast. They did this with Kane and Aden and they're doing it with Brax. I know the writers think this creates "drama" but it does just the opposite.

[Red Ranger 1]

I'm not sure how we're meant to view Brax at times.It feels like we're meant to see him as likeable but then he does so many things that are unlikeable.We get an episode where Bianca recoils in horror on seeing what the Braxtons get up to and makes some telling points about the corrupting influence Brax has on those around them, then a week later we get one where he's playing around in the sea with Charlie while soft music plays as though he's the romantic hero.It feels at times as though half the people involved in the show think he's a bad guy and the other half think he's a good guy and so we switch between him being portrayed as both.Maybe we're meant to view him as a complex character but I think it's kind of gone beyond that.I look at characters like Heath and Stu and can see they're at a kind of crossroads;they have good and bad in them and could go either way.Whereas with Brax it feels like it's not a choice anymore, he's become a person who has both good and bad in him and will stay that way, who can have a friendly phone conversation with Charlie in the middle of harvesting a drug crop without any change of behaviour.He's the sort of person who could go out, shoot a man in cold blood and then come home and read his children a bedtime story.

I agree that the whole issue of having a "Get out of jail free" card for the main cast is becoming ridiculous.The writers seem to assume that if someone is main cast the viewer and the other characters will automatically be on their side, regardless of whether they have any reason to be or whatever the person has done.I thought the list of things Aden got away with was bad enough but he wasn't anywhere near Brax's league.We're two episodes into the 2012 season here in the UK and in both of them there's been a lengthy scene in the middle where Brax commits a serious crime without any thought of anything but what he wants in front of the police and they basically pat him on the back and send him on his way.And then everyone's expected to feel sorry for him as he mopes over Charlie, rather than seeing it as poetic justice that his actions have finally had consequences.The terminology seems completely ingrained in the series:Sid's speech about why Brax shouldn't pay for his crime was almost identical to the one he made about April a few months previous.It seems at times the people who are punished are those least deserving of it.

At the risk of going completely off topic, I watched Todd Lasance in Crownies recently and he was basically playing Bevan Lee's version of Aden and probably the one he wanted to play:A character who was a complete jerkass but who was still likeable because the show knew where the moral line was and didn't have him cross it by beating someone to a pulp and because, crucially, the other characters recognised what he was like and didn't insist that he was a wonderful person and boyfriend.

Looking at john's last post, I find I agree with him quite a bit but I don't have the same faith in the show as he did.I think perhaps the closest anologue to Brax is Hugo, a character who was shown to have got too deeply into the criminal world to get out, in a storyline which showed the human suffering on all sides that such a life caused.But instead of following through on that storyline, they had the characters treat him too sympathetically, allowed him to escape justice and had him profit from that suffering, all of it portrayed as a happy ending.A story can only really be judged once it's finished and, while Charlie's storyline has finished in the appropriate manner, Brax's is still going on.Will it properly explore the consequences of the events we've witnessed?Or will he simply move to New Zealand in a year or two with the whole thing unresolved?

[alice93]

I'm not exactly one of Brax's 'fan-girls' who think he could do no wrong. Yes, I see that he is a morally corrupt criminal, and am not excusing the crimes he has commited one little bit. In fact, I wish both Brax and Heath would get their comeupence. However, I am not beyond feeling compassion for him. I do not believe he is a 'bad' person per say, but extremely misguided and he's got himself in too deep and can't get out. Home & Away is, after all, a soap opera, and we all know they would be nothing without drama. I personally feel that my conflicting feelings toward Brax, the disgust at his illegal activities and how he gets away with them, and the fact that I actually like the small part of him that isn't a criminal, just adds to the drama.

That being said, I am not looking forward to watching Brax snap at Leah tomorrow. If I were Leah I would stay away from him, all he ever seems to do is cause her more pain. I can understand how smelling Charlie's perfume would be upsetting for him, but he needs to stop being so self-centered and see that other people are suffering.

[mizziette]

From the beginning I've noticed that Brax holds certain morals when it comes to family and friendship. He's a very family first guy but his morals have certain limitations and exceptions depending on the situation. Any one hurts his family and they will get their comeuppance with no boundaries but the river boys have a no tolerance policy on certain behaviour which for crime oriented group, I find interesting. They have their own law and Brax doesn't tolerate any slighting of his beliefs. There times when his world is black and white and times when it's in shades of gray.

The cast only has a get out jail free card because they are people/actors with jobs and contracts and behind the scenes logistics sometimes have to be considered. If they get rid of a character because of a storyline, they'll do it sparingly or Summer Bay will be a very quiet place. If Steve didn't want to leave so early into his job, and if he had plenty of storyline opportunities, it would have been silly to get rid of him for the sake of justice. Swift justice isn't realistic, in my opinion and it would have been way too easy to put him in jail and never see what becomes of Darryl Braxton. Every time someone goes to jail in Home and away, their lives cease to exist and their story never gets to be told which is a shame. I doubt anyone's thought about Jake since his all too quick arrest. Not even the characters.

Every one has a likeable side, for some you have to look deeper than others, but it's there. I don't condone Brax' actions and don't believe he's done nothing wrong, he has a criminal past and might turn to it out of desperation in the future again but your actions don't determine who you are. It determines how others perceive you but not your character. i find that sometimes peple judge Brax too quickly just because of his criminal activities and don't look any deeper. You could be a murderer on death row and still love your parents. If every one was good all the time it wouldn't be realistic. I thiink that's what I love about Brax, that he has so many dimensions to him; he's violent, he's proud, he's independent, loves his family yet Brax doesn't understand how to handle his emotions, how to accept help and/or coexist in a legal community oriented setting. He has a lot of growing to do and i only beginning to grasp it. on the opposite spectrum, he can turn to violence and makes a myriad of poor decisions most of which are criminal in nature but he knows how to love even though his love is sometimes misguided. Brax has a heart just like every one else and just because his heart and his experience and ability to love is a little less developed than some of Summer Bay's other residents doesn't mean it should be disregarded.

[Red Ranger 1]

At the risk of dominating this thread and turning into a broken record, I think it's probably giving Brax too much credit to say he's not a bad person.When his bad points outweigh the good, I think that's exactly what he is.The main good point people seem to come up with is that he loves his family but it's not a healthy love and doesn't seem to do them, him or anyone else much good.When love tends to manifest itself as a desire to hurt or kill people, you begin to wonder how much of a good point it is.

We all know if an actor's under contract for two years their character's not going to go to jail in the first six months.(Well, unless they really annoy someone.)But if that's the case, you don't have them do something that makes the audience want them to go to jail in the first six months.Or at least, if you do, you make sure they go to jail for it at the end of the two years.If it happens, there's no comeback and the audience are expected to just forget about it, that's not swift justice or slow justice, it's no justice.Yes, you can force yourself to like a character, you can search really hard for any redeeming features they might have.But why should you?It's the writers' job to make the audience like the characters they intend to me sympathetic, if the audience have to do the work for them then they're not doing their job. Personally I don't see why I should make the effort to find Brax likeable, I'd rather enjoy watching the characters I can like without trying.

[John]

Mmmm.

I don't necessarily like or dislike Brax but I do find him a worthwhile and complex character. He's not all black or all white, like most people. There are times you can like him and at other times you will loathe him. I'd say I appreciate his character as a study rather than like or dislike him.

[Dingo x]

Steve Peacocke and Dan Ewing have been on Aussie screens for a year today!! (:

Lincoln Younes a year tomorrow.