There's a regular poster on Digital Spy, who may agree with a lot of what I say, but who borrows freely without giving credit where it's due. I'm generous with my opinions, but I'm not too pleased when someone appropriates, sometimes word-for-word, such thoughts revealed in this blog.
Fine, if you agree with me. Just use your own words or give whatever original premise I've posited some sort of oblique reference or recognition.
That said, she - herself - has shown some original thought, with which I don't fully agree, so I'm citing her points quotationally and answering them with my divergent opinion herein.
If Cora wants to lecture Tanya about people in the EastEnd looking after their own, perhaps she wants to spare a few words for Lola as well. Lola stole and stole consistently and regularly from vendors in the Square since the getgo, some of whom were even her relatives. She demolished Ian Beale's shop window with a car from Max Branning's lot, she stole from Roxy at the Salon. Even tagged, she's stolen many times from Janine. All of these people, bar Max, have shown a modicum of compassion toward this unlikeable, little bitch, repaying her misdeeds with employment opportunities.
Jonnie Allen once told a tale about how his old man beat his ass for stealing an apple from Albert Beale's stall, saying one didn't steal from one's own. Big Mo gently castigated Rosie Miller for doing the same, and Stacey got ripped a new asshole for having stolen from Yolande. Yet Lola gets a pass from all of this because she's a single teenaged mum? These writers and viewers who don't remember should maybe search clips on YouTube of Mary Smith from the 80s.
Punk Mary was the ultimate teenaged mum with her little girl Annie, and she was treated like a piece of shit by people on the Square and accorded no leeway or favour.
As for the social worker, whose characterisation is as bad in a different way as Lola's, once again, EastEnders has an epic fail. The papers are filled daily with tales of social workers who overlook children in distress and those who are overzealous in their job.
Trish Barnes is looking after the welfare of an infant who was born into a "family" with a three-generational history of being in care. The great-grandfather in question was a victim of child abuse and was, himself, an abuser and ex-drug dealer. He is a known thief who cannot hold a job. Lola's father was a convicted thief as well. They are living in a basement squat. Billy lies about his employment status, and Lola has been known to squander money on frivolities rather than buying goods for her child. When the kid had a nappy rash, instead of consulting the local GP, she steals bum cream from her wealthy employer. Whenever the social worker calls, the place is a tip. How often, as well, has Lola run out of nappies when the child is in need of one? As someone else pointed out, Lola is an undisciplined, rude and chavvy little bitch. She doesn't respond to discipline,so how can she be expected to raise Lexie responsibly?
Seriously, what mother doesn't want better for her child than what she had? Tanya's being no different in this respect, snob or no snob. It's a given that education is a pathway to upward professional and social mobility. At the moment or until recently, Abi wanted to be a vet. That's a highly specialised and lucrative professional career. Of course, she will move in different social circles, and at uni and sixth form, she may meet a better calibre of person, socially, than either Lola or Jay. And, nice as they may be, Lola is a liar, a thief and a person with violent tendancies and no morals whatsoever; and whilst Jay may have a moral compass, he can often be rude and disdainful and isn't adverse to breaking the law. In fact, he's awaiting sentencing at this very moment.
In point of fact, Tanya is behaving no differently than Denise and Zainab did when Libby was accepted at Oxford and when Zainab thought Tamwar was. And both made no secret of the fact that they thought their children were better than the rifraf of Walford. And both of those women, at times, have been abysmal parents - Denise constantly making excuses for the lazy, ineffectual Chelsea, even allowing an innocent man to be imprisoned for her lies; and Zainab was the woman who bullied her gay son into making a sham of a marriage and then disowned him for the better part of a year because of his lifestyle.
Lorraine Newman, however, is supposed to be "old" EastEnders, having been with the show for some 20 years. I'm a bit dubious about her as far as her reluctance to change some certain things instigated and created by Kirkwood, but even she wouldn't underestimate the intelligence of the long-term viewer. Almost exactly one year ago, it was stated on-screen that Tanya only met Derek for the first time at her own wedding to Max, some five months after Lauren was born. If they build a storyline around Lauren and Priapic Penis-boy being siblings, the show will well and truly have jumped the shark, and they may as well bring Kathy, Dennis Rickman, Pauline Fowler, Den Watts, Kevin Wicks, Pat Evans and Lou Beale out of witness protection and away from those 'orrible SoufAfrican gangstas.
The redemption of Lola is as ludicrous as Kat's redemption. Lola will always be a pejorative, stereotypical chav character; and Kat has been recreated, irretrievably, via Kirkwood's imagination, as a skank.
Fine, if you agree with me. Just use your own words or give whatever original premise I've posited some sort of oblique reference or recognition.
That said, she - herself - has shown some original thought, with which I don't fully agree, so I'm citing her points quotationally and answering them with my divergent opinion herein.
I'm finding it slightly difficult to get into the drama regarding Lexi. Yes, Lola's nowhere near the bad parent that scary Mary social worker is making her out to be, however EastEnders recent tactic of playing with the truth in regard to how a social services process would work, is parodying the roles of those in this storyline somewhat particularly the social worker and Lola. I don't like how they seem to be going down the 'gobby chav' route with Lola even in this storyline - her best scenes are often when her character's far more understated, and emotional. The gobby side of personality, is so 'been there, done that' especially for EE. Still, she's a more sympathetic character than she used to be.Lola's not a dire parent, but she's not a great one either, and - like most of the resident females now in EastEnders, she's all too quick to abscond any responsibility for her actions and inappropriate behaviour, instead preferring to cast herself as a victim. She vandalises the car lot and is arrested - not fair (according to her and Billy) because she's fifteen and pregnant. She lies and steals and is consistently rude to people, inadvertantly. In the ensuing melee after the police were called when she fought the girl gang, she bit the social worker on the hand. That is assault and a very serious crime. Yet, she's "just a kid."
If Cora wants to lecture Tanya about people in the EastEnd looking after their own, perhaps she wants to spare a few words for Lola as well. Lola stole and stole consistently and regularly from vendors in the Square since the getgo, some of whom were even her relatives. She demolished Ian Beale's shop window with a car from Max Branning's lot, she stole from Roxy at the Salon. Even tagged, she's stolen many times from Janine. All of these people, bar Max, have shown a modicum of compassion toward this unlikeable, little bitch, repaying her misdeeds with employment opportunities.
Jonnie Allen once told a tale about how his old man beat his ass for stealing an apple from Albert Beale's stall, saying one didn't steal from one's own. Big Mo gently castigated Rosie Miller for doing the same, and Stacey got ripped a new asshole for having stolen from Yolande. Yet Lola gets a pass from all of this because she's a single teenaged mum? These writers and viewers who don't remember should maybe search clips on YouTube of Mary Smith from the 80s.
Punk Mary was the ultimate teenaged mum with her little girl Annie, and she was treated like a piece of shit by people on the Square and accorded no leeway or favour.
As for the social worker, whose characterisation is as bad in a different way as Lola's, once again, EastEnders has an epic fail. The papers are filled daily with tales of social workers who overlook children in distress and those who are overzealous in their job.
Trish Barnes is looking after the welfare of an infant who was born into a "family" with a three-generational history of being in care. The great-grandfather in question was a victim of child abuse and was, himself, an abuser and ex-drug dealer. He is a known thief who cannot hold a job. Lola's father was a convicted thief as well. They are living in a basement squat. Billy lies about his employment status, and Lola has been known to squander money on frivolities rather than buying goods for her child. When the kid had a nappy rash, instead of consulting the local GP, she steals bum cream from her wealthy employer. Whenever the social worker calls, the place is a tip. How often, as well, has Lola run out of nappies when the child is in need of one? As someone else pointed out, Lola is an undisciplined, rude and chavvy little bitch. She doesn't respond to discipline,so how can she be expected to raise Lexie responsibly?
I'm unsure of how to take EastEnders recognising Tanya's...well...a snob, basically. Whether it's a build-up to more of her 'secrets' coming out at Xmas, or whether it's to prop Cora up as Walford's fairy godmother. Either way Tanya's hypocrisy is astounding. I really don't buy the obvious defence of Tanya, which is that she wants Abi to do well. Its clear Tanya wants Abi to move into a higher social class, and that's it. Tanya wants Abi to go to a good university, so that she interacts with people of a higher class, because Tanya thinks these people will be better for Abi.I am not the biggest Tanya fan, as you know. In fact, I can't abide the woman and have disliked her and pegged her as the hypocrite's hypocrite from day one; but, oddly enough, and as a mother, myself, I'm Team Tanya on this one.
Seriously, what mother doesn't want better for her child than what she had? Tanya's being no different in this respect, snob or no snob. It's a given that education is a pathway to upward professional and social mobility. At the moment or until recently, Abi wanted to be a vet. That's a highly specialised and lucrative professional career. Of course, she will move in different social circles, and at uni and sixth form, she may meet a better calibre of person, socially, than either Lola or Jay. And, nice as they may be, Lola is a liar, a thief and a person with violent tendancies and no morals whatsoever; and whilst Jay may have a moral compass, he can often be rude and disdainful and isn't adverse to breaking the law. In fact, he's awaiting sentencing at this very moment.
In point of fact, Tanya is behaving no differently than Denise and Zainab did when Libby was accepted at Oxford and when Zainab thought Tamwar was. And both made no secret of the fact that they thought their children were better than the rifraf of Walford. And both of those women, at times, have been abysmal parents - Denise constantly making excuses for the lazy, ineffectual Chelsea, even allowing an innocent man to be imprisoned for her lies; and Zainab was the woman who bullied her gay son into making a sham of a marriage and then disowned him for the better part of a year because of his lifestyle.
This really isn't about morals. We all know that Tanya is as amoral as Max, but she refuses to acknowledge this, as evidenced in the second bout of home truths thrown at her last night by Cora. This is about Abi bettering herself, academically and professionally - making a successful life for herself away from Walford. Amorality and/or immorality exist at all levels of society, but Jay and Lola would seek to hinder Abi intellectually and academically. Neither one gave a rat's ass about school, and even though Jay was encouraging to further her studies in May, he was bullying her into an engagement and an elopement in June. When Libby stayed in further education, she outgrew Darren intellectually, and the same will happen to Abi, who's just about stupid enough to eschew any of the actual positive encouragement she's received from her parents, just to hang out with her new-found "family." Silly girl.Surely, looking at our society over the last couple of years, regarding those within the British establishment would tell you, a higher social class doesn't mean a thing for morals. Tanya herself is an example of someone masquerading as a middle-class woman who really, despite her 'class' is just as bad in terms of moral as the people often at the receiving end of her criticism. Considering the way Tanya's behaved with her own children, trying to kill their father, bringing a succession of men into her home after the divorce with Max amongst other things, I'm surprised Lauren and Abi aren't in care. Furthermore, Tanya shouldn't be so uppity about her parenting standards, considering Lauren's already an attempted murderer and alky aged eighteen.
Tanya’s as bad as Phil Mitchell when it comes to parenting.
There's also the Tanya/Derek interaction, which really is making me think EastEnders are building up to a BranningincestXmas, with Derek as Lauren's dad, and the whole Lauren/Joey thing. I do not put it past the TPTB to retcon events only established last year.TPTB aim to please the least discerning, lowest level of intelligent viewer. When you have people like vaslav37 proclaiming that TPTB can virtually do what they want because they can, and people such as he wouldn't give a damn about changing a character's history to please the plebs, the demographic the show aims to please is a given. However, I don't think even this lot of production people would be that stupid. Kirkwood was Kirkwood, with no previous history regarding the show other than as a viewer. He was like the proverbial kid with a new toy, recreating the programme in his own bratty image and Julia Smith be damned.
Lorraine Newman, however, is supposed to be "old" EastEnders, having been with the show for some 20 years. I'm a bit dubious about her as far as her reluctance to change some certain things instigated and created by Kirkwood, but even she wouldn't underestimate the intelligence of the long-term viewer. Almost exactly one year ago, it was stated on-screen that Tanya only met Derek for the first time at her own wedding to Max, some five months after Lauren was born. If they build a storyline around Lauren and Priapic Penis-boy being siblings, the show will well and truly have jumped the shark, and they may as well bring Kathy, Dennis Rickman, Pauline Fowler, Den Watts, Kevin Wicks, Pat Evans and Lou Beale out of witness protection and away from those 'orrible SoufAfrican gangstas.
The Kat/Derek thing is also, err interesting I guess - I wonder what they are doing with that? I'm still not buying these obvious redeeming attempts at Kat. Whilst Lola has time to be redeemed, given she never had the kind of arc Kat did in the first place, Kat has been destroyed, a no amount of 'aww, bless Kat' scenes will change that.Derek shagged Kat over the course of a few months. She's blown him and now she's blown him off. Nothing interesting about that, except it's something that was easily discernible to most perspicacious viewers when the storyline started. This was never going to end as a romantic love story, and I don't think Kirkwood intended it as a vehicle for Kat's redemption. Rather, I think Newman has been specifically ordered to redeem Kat through this storyline, incorporating it into the great Branningapalooza that Christmas is going to be, at the expense of Alfie's integrity and Roxy's future characterisation.
The redemption of Lola is as ludicrous as Kat's redemption. Lola will always be a pejorative, stereotypical chav character; and Kat has been recreated, irretrievably, via Kirkwood's imagination, as a skank.
No comments:
Post a Comment