This was a watchable episode, mainly because Pete Lawson wrote the thing, and his dialogue ability and timing are better than most of the writers the programme employs.
Shame about the characters, so few of them being likeable. That was what always kept me watching Eastenders - the fact that there were characters in whom one could invest emotionally; but I can't remember a time when I've liked characters less.
The best thing about this episode, and one which added to its watchability, was the fact that there was no Katshit, no odor of Katshit and no sign of Katshit altogether. And that was a good thing.
The biggest criticisms I had of this episode were twofold and were found within the younger generation of Eastenders'models actors - Joey and Lauren.
Really, Joey is no better than Tyler, and David Witts is no better than Tony Discipline - two underwear models who happened to be at the right place at the right time when the BBC's flagship programme opts for unknowns with no acting experience but lots of pects and who look good in a pair of briefs to feature as the principal boys in what's rapidly becoming a year-long pantomime.
The only thing which differentiates Joey from Tyler is that Joey bears a passing physical resemblance to Dennis Rickman and they've paired him with a likeable enough character whose presence is really nothing more than a rag, a bone and a hank of bleached-blonde hair.
I hope Joey and Lucy don't marry and procreate. Their child will have an enormous gaping mouth and a tongue that lolls. Seriously. Please, Eastenders, someone tell Hetti Bywater that open-mouthed pouting is not attractive at all; and all David Witts seems to do to look intimidating or sexy or sexy-intimidating is loll his mouth open and waggle his tongue back and forth from cheek to cheek. And as much as Tony Discipline needed diction lessons, Mr Witts could do with a few, himself.
I have a feeling that Witts has difficulty with the Cockney accent. I've heard him speak and he's really quite posh. So in order to hide this fact, he does a Beppe di Marco-Steve Owen whisper in rapid cadence, which makes it hard for anyone to understand him. I don't think we're meant to understand him anyway. He's beefcake, another stud in the image of Connor and Tyler, and it won't be that long before he's flashing his pects about. Eastenders morphing into the latter, terminal stages of Brookside.
As for Lauren, does Jacqueline Jossa still take acting lessons? Once again, this is not a silent movie, and she is not on stage. She doesn't have to exaggerate her vocal intonations or gurn for the audience to get the gist of what she's trying to impart. As is, Lauren is an unlikeable character at the best of times. If ever there were a reason for smacking a kid, Lauren's the living embodiment of that philosophy. She's rude, lazy, entitled and she should be baking now in some juvenile prison for attempted murder. She can walk away with Tanya whenever she leaves, and I'll not miss either of them.
Since when did the Masoods become the sitcom within Eastenders? In fact, there are two sitcoms within Eastenders - Life with the Masoods and Zainab and Denise Go Large. Does anyone not find it slightly disconcerting that all the comic elements in Eastenders seem to be focused around people of colour? Doesn't that scream "token" to people, or are people just too pigshit ignorant to be bothered about that?
I recall a regular commentator, one of the brighter and more intelligent ones, on the Walford Web Bullyfest, rosalie, who once remarked, quite rightly, that all of the ethnic characters on Eastenders were tokens and - to a great extent - stereotypes. I agree. Nina Wadia's character is an amalgamation of every Asian character she parodied on Goodness Gracious Me. Rudolph Walker's Patrick is the Love Thy Neighbour character forty years older. Kim certainly is a stereotype, and Ray has morphed into one also. Ray has turned into a slimmed-down version of Lenny Henry's Theophilus T Wildebeeste, and Kim ... well, once there was a great American comedian named Flip Wilson. Back in the Seventies, he'd dress up in drag to do a character called Geraldine Jones. I'm not saying that the writers fashioned Tameka Empson's character on Geraldine Jones (essentially a black man in drag parodying the stereotypical behaviour of black women of the time, but watch a clip of Geraldine and judge for yourself. You can easily picture "Kim" as "Geraldine."
If Tamwar's returning to college means he'll be leaving the fold and the show, I'm glad. I used to like Tamwar when Himesh Patel was delivering classic one-liners and proving an apt mimic with the Rude Masood website, but he's turned into a twenty-one year-old bitter and twisted elderly man, clinging to his mother's aphorisms, judging the rest of the world by her standards and generally turning into an old maid in britches. How to waste another character, yet another chapter in Bryan Kirkwood's ego book.
And as much as I love Nitin Ganatra's Masood, I somehow felt that, between his caricatured endeavours to tell his dominant wife that he was leaving the post office and getting a job in education and the sexual frustration jokes between Denise and Zainab at the Minute Mart, I was watching two British sitcoms from the Seventies, centering on stereotypical ethnic minorities.
I just realised that the majority of this episode contained and focused on the Brannings, arguably the biggest family (in size) in Eastenders history, and so cancerously increasing that the show is in danger of becomimg "Branningville."
Minor Branning Story: Jack reprising the Leonardo di Caprio scene from "Catch Me If You Can" revealing that he'd spent the night with not one, but two airline stewardesses, complete with uniforms. Jack in a threesome, whoda thunk it? Of course, we'll have it eventually revealed that this is all an adverse reaction to Ronnie's divorce and his losing custody of Amy, which will all be compensated by the arrival of Sharon. Really, gong or no gong, Lorraine Newman should have the balls to finish Scott Maslen's character. Sharon should not be used as a vehicle with which to establish the Brannings' credibility as characters.
Mediocre Branning Story: The ever-decreasing circular one of Derek and his children. Let's just cut to the quick - Derek and Joey are both cut from the same cloth. When they're not thinking about their own narcissism, or when they are focusing on Alice, they'll get along; but when it's pointed out how similar they are, then they'll both storm off to their corners of the field like petulant bulls. We know that there will be an epiphany. It's not rocket science, because we've all been there before. And these characters need to stop being force-fed us by the writers.
Yet another trick lunch connived by Alice, this time at another house, with a view to uniting Joey and Derek. Where will the next one take place? Jack's flat? Perhaps she can get Jack to line up a couple of floozies they can share. Really, I've heard of repetition for emphasis, but this is too much.
Mildly Interesting Branning Story: Max needs money, and he needs money because of something Derek knows about. My guess is that Max is married. I think that Derek was involved in "importing" women from Eastern Europe (Non-EU Eastern Europe) with a view to setting them up as sex workers. Perhaps one was in danger of being deported, so Max, who was with Derek at the time, married her. He needs money and he wanted an address. Maybe he hopes to buy the woman's silence. Watch this space.
After all of the above, I'd say the suspects for Shaggergate are now narrowed down to two - Ray and Derek. And because of the propensity of the writers to involve the Brannings in every conceivable storyline, I would say that Derek is the Shagger.
Lola the Chav: Billy's left holding the baby. Anyone surprised? Lola doesn't like changing nappies. Lola was forced into holding Little Wotsit, and suddenly smiled at the baby. That doesn't mean she'll like changing shitty nappies or wiping baby puke off her fragrant shoulder. Like I said, Billy's left holding the baby. Still hate the little bitch. Still think the actress is the shits.
Cora Cora Cora: The Great Missing Daughter Mystery. For what it's worth, I think Cora was involved, when she was very young with a black man. This would have been during the early Sixties, when people of her generation and the previous one, were not as enlightened as they are today. I think her child was mixed race, and that she was forced to give her up for adoption.
Cora's daughter is not Sharon. If Cora's daughter be not mixed race and if she be anyone on the Square at all, she's far more likely to be Shirley than Sharon.
Let's see how the fragrant hypocrite Tanya would deal with that.
Watchable episode. Not great, but watchable.
Shame about the characters, so few of them being likeable. That was what always kept me watching Eastenders - the fact that there were characters in whom one could invest emotionally; but I can't remember a time when I've liked characters less.
The best thing about this episode, and one which added to its watchability, was the fact that there was no Katshit, no odor of Katshit and no sign of Katshit altogether. And that was a good thing.
The biggest criticisms I had of this episode were twofold and were found within the younger generation of Eastenders'
Really, Joey is no better than Tyler, and David Witts is no better than Tony Discipline - two underwear models who happened to be at the right place at the right time when the BBC's flagship programme opts for unknowns with no acting experience but lots of pects and who look good in a pair of briefs to feature as the principal boys in what's rapidly becoming a year-long pantomime.
The only thing which differentiates Joey from Tyler is that Joey bears a passing physical resemblance to Dennis Rickman and they've paired him with a likeable enough character whose presence is really nothing more than a rag, a bone and a hank of bleached-blonde hair.
I hope Joey and Lucy don't marry and procreate. Their child will have an enormous gaping mouth and a tongue that lolls. Seriously. Please, Eastenders, someone tell Hetti Bywater that open-mouthed pouting is not attractive at all; and all David Witts seems to do to look intimidating or sexy or sexy-intimidating is loll his mouth open and waggle his tongue back and forth from cheek to cheek. And as much as Tony Discipline needed diction lessons, Mr Witts could do with a few, himself.
I have a feeling that Witts has difficulty with the Cockney accent. I've heard him speak and he's really quite posh. So in order to hide this fact, he does a Beppe di Marco-Steve Owen whisper in rapid cadence, which makes it hard for anyone to understand him. I don't think we're meant to understand him anyway. He's beefcake, another stud in the image of Connor and Tyler, and it won't be that long before he's flashing his pects about. Eastenders morphing into the latter, terminal stages of Brookside.
As for Lauren, does Jacqueline Jossa still take acting lessons? Once again, this is not a silent movie, and she is not on stage. She doesn't have to exaggerate her vocal intonations or gurn for the audience to get the gist of what she's trying to impart. As is, Lauren is an unlikeable character at the best of times. If ever there were a reason for smacking a kid, Lauren's the living embodiment of that philosophy. She's rude, lazy, entitled and she should be baking now in some juvenile prison for attempted murder. She can walk away with Tanya whenever she leaves, and I'll not miss either of them.
Since when did the Masoods become the sitcom within Eastenders? In fact, there are two sitcoms within Eastenders - Life with the Masoods and Zainab and Denise Go Large. Does anyone not find it slightly disconcerting that all the comic elements in Eastenders seem to be focused around people of colour? Doesn't that scream "token" to people, or are people just too pigshit ignorant to be bothered about that?
I recall a regular commentator, one of the brighter and more intelligent ones, on the Walford Web Bullyfest, rosalie, who once remarked, quite rightly, that all of the ethnic characters on Eastenders were tokens and - to a great extent - stereotypes. I agree. Nina Wadia's character is an amalgamation of every Asian character she parodied on Goodness Gracious Me. Rudolph Walker's Patrick is the Love Thy Neighbour character forty years older. Kim certainly is a stereotype, and Ray has morphed into one also. Ray has turned into a slimmed-down version of Lenny Henry's Theophilus T Wildebeeste, and Kim ... well, once there was a great American comedian named Flip Wilson. Back in the Seventies, he'd dress up in drag to do a character called Geraldine Jones. I'm not saying that the writers fashioned Tameka Empson's character on Geraldine Jones (essentially a black man in drag parodying the stereotypical behaviour of black women of the time, but watch a clip of Geraldine and judge for yourself. You can easily picture "Kim" as "Geraldine."
If Tamwar's returning to college means he'll be leaving the fold and the show, I'm glad. I used to like Tamwar when Himesh Patel was delivering classic one-liners and proving an apt mimic with the Rude Masood website, but he's turned into a twenty-one year-old bitter and twisted elderly man, clinging to his mother's aphorisms, judging the rest of the world by her standards and generally turning into an old maid in britches. How to waste another character, yet another chapter in Bryan Kirkwood's ego book.
And as much as I love Nitin Ganatra's Masood, I somehow felt that, between his caricatured endeavours to tell his dominant wife that he was leaving the post office and getting a job in education and the sexual frustration jokes between Denise and Zainab at the Minute Mart, I was watching two British sitcoms from the Seventies, centering on stereotypical ethnic minorities.
I just realised that the majority of this episode contained and focused on the Brannings, arguably the biggest family (in size) in Eastenders history, and so cancerously increasing that the show is in danger of becomimg "Branningville."
Minor Branning Story: Jack reprising the Leonardo di Caprio scene from "Catch Me If You Can" revealing that he'd spent the night with not one, but two airline stewardesses, complete with uniforms. Jack in a threesome, whoda thunk it? Of course, we'll have it eventually revealed that this is all an adverse reaction to Ronnie's divorce and his losing custody of Amy, which will all be compensated by the arrival of Sharon. Really, gong or no gong, Lorraine Newman should have the balls to finish Scott Maslen's character. Sharon should not be used as a vehicle with which to establish the Brannings' credibility as characters.
Mediocre Branning Story: The ever-decreasing circular one of Derek and his children. Let's just cut to the quick - Derek and Joey are both cut from the same cloth. When they're not thinking about their own narcissism, or when they are focusing on Alice, they'll get along; but when it's pointed out how similar they are, then they'll both storm off to their corners of the field like petulant bulls. We know that there will be an epiphany. It's not rocket science, because we've all been there before. And these characters need to stop being force-fed us by the writers.
Yet another trick lunch connived by Alice, this time at another house, with a view to uniting Joey and Derek. Where will the next one take place? Jack's flat? Perhaps she can get Jack to line up a couple of floozies they can share. Really, I've heard of repetition for emphasis, but this is too much.
Mildly Interesting Branning Story: Max needs money, and he needs money because of something Derek knows about. My guess is that Max is married. I think that Derek was involved in "importing" women from Eastern Europe (Non-EU Eastern Europe) with a view to setting them up as sex workers. Perhaps one was in danger of being deported, so Max, who was with Derek at the time, married her. He needs money and he wanted an address. Maybe he hopes to buy the woman's silence. Watch this space.
After all of the above, I'd say the suspects for Shaggergate are now narrowed down to two - Ray and Derek. And because of the propensity of the writers to involve the Brannings in every conceivable storyline, I would say that Derek is the Shagger.
Lola the Chav: Billy's left holding the baby. Anyone surprised? Lola doesn't like changing nappies. Lola was forced into holding Little Wotsit, and suddenly smiled at the baby. That doesn't mean she'll like changing shitty nappies or wiping baby puke off her fragrant shoulder. Like I said, Billy's left holding the baby. Still hate the little bitch. Still think the actress is the shits.
Cora Cora Cora: The Great Missing Daughter Mystery. For what it's worth, I think Cora was involved, when she was very young with a black man. This would have been during the early Sixties, when people of her generation and the previous one, were not as enlightened as they are today. I think her child was mixed race, and that she was forced to give her up for adoption.
Cora's daughter is not Sharon. If Cora's daughter be not mixed race and if she be anyone on the Square at all, she's far more likely to be Shirley than Sharon.
Let's see how the fragrant hypocrite Tanya would deal with that.
Watchable episode. Not great, but watchable.
No comments:
Post a Comment