This show is no longer EastEnders. How I long for the days of Tony Jordan or Tony McHale, who wrote well and wrote indiscriminately for all major characters. I long for the days when there were no token characters who come across as stereotypes, when people weren't afraid of referencing race or gender or lifestyle prejudices.
Watching this programme tonight was just another eye-opener, when I didn't think that, after watching the show for almost twenty-eight years, that my eyes couldn't be opened anymore. Well, they have been, but they've been opened to a sight I didn't want to see: - the show has been turned - by Simon Ashdown and his inveterate obsession with a dysfunctional, dystopian, amoral and arrogant bunch of a jumped-up white trash family called the Brannings.
In the beginning were the interrelated Beales and Fowlers. Now only Ian exists. Bianca is a Beale, but this is never emphasized or referenced. She realises that she's a first cousin to Lauren the GurnGirl, but not to GurnGirl's BFF Bag o'Bones Beale. Bianca identifies as a Branning, even though, for the most part, they treat her as an afterthought, casting lefovers from their table, along with cheap wine which isn't amenable to what they consider to be their cultured palate. Bianca works as a cleaner on minimum wage for Jack's girlfriend, and he doesn't blink an eyelid. She works for Tanya, her aunt-by-marriage, for tips. At least her paternal uncle, Ian Beale, paid her.
In the beginning were the Watts, holding court at the Vic. Now only their daughter Sharon remains, about to have the life sucked from her lungs and heart by the Branning takeover, in a cheap and snide attempt by Ashdown to validate his creations as the first family of Walford.
The Brannings are now international, with Jack's spawn inhabiting two European countries. They are also multi-racial now, as evidenced by the little cock Dexter, their latest satellite, who appeared on the Square yesterday, yet another mouthy, self-assured youth with which we have to contend clogging up the air time on the programme.
Derek is dead, but his children live on, doubling his presence, and everything about tonight's Branning-centric episode was all about ending Derek and moving on. Because life is cheap to the Brannings. They finish with one person and grind on after their own personal ends. Selfishness rules their roost.
Derek is dead. No use crying over spilt milk. Jack wants a party. Derek's dead, now let's pay attention to Jack wanting to marry Sharon. Jack, who's head is now so far up his arse that he cannot see that Sharon is all kinds of reluctant to marry him. Any man who sees his "fiancee" won't put his engagement ring on her finger might just be worried that she doesn't want to marry him? Not Jack. He'ts Jack Branning. Max wants his cake and wants to eat it too. Tanya manages to make every incident that occurs in the Square all about her. Her skanky older daughter is the same. Shove aside the fact that your uncle died suddenly and his children are grieving, Lauren can't understand why her fuck-buddy cousin doesn't want to party down. After all, Lauren reckons, give it a couple of weeks, and everything will be back to normal.
Why are people so surprised she said that? Tonight showed exactly that that mindset is what propels this ugly, ugly, bunch of amoral hypocrites.
Christ on a bike! How the hell did the Wrath of Dot get mixed up with these bozos?
Here's what I learned tonight:-
Sister Act.
Diane Parish deserves better, and I really hope that two of the casualties of 2013, are Kim and Ray. Tameka Empson is seriously unfunny, and together, she and Chuckie Venn are in danger of becoming the chattering classes typical assumption of a racial stereotype.
I find it hard to fathom that someone like Kim exists, someone who thinks so highly of herself in every way that she doesn't realise when she's been taken for a fool.
Ray, for one brief second tonight, was honest with Denise. He doesn't love Kim. His affection for Kim doesn't go beyond what she has to offer in bed. He's been complaining about her to anyone who'd listen since before Christmas, and we know now that he's intrinsically a coward.
Maybe, in that respect, he's like Max, hating confrontation with a woman who now bores him, so he's willing to distance himself physically from the former object of his affections in order to avoid a conflict. Didn't Sasha remark how his ex, her mother, hated him? Wasn't his list of former sexual encounters legions long?
Actually, Denise is being kind in alluding to the kiss she shared with Ray as a drunken kiss. Denise was anything but drunk that evening, and neither was Ray; and if Denise had shown willing afterward, he would have pursued her. But she rose above Kim's petty vendetta and was willing to take the blame for the incident, in an effort to make the peace with Kim, who was having none of it. A lesser person would have called Ray out on his lie; Denise was right - Kim and Ray deserve each other.
Things I Learned:- I learned how much I bloody love Patrick, and how - rather than seeing a ready-made matriarch or Dot playing nursemaid to the egos of the Brannings - I'd rather see a Walford patriarch in the form of Patrick, In that one brief scene he shared with Kim and Ray at the B and B tonight, when he caught that look on Ray's face, he reminded me so much of Pat in that instant. Pat had a way of connecting with a guilty person through a look and shaming them. Patrick's silence and the stone-cold look he gave Ray left him in no doubt that he knew there was a massive lie being told here. He shamed Ray so much that Ray couldn't stand to remain in Kim's company for one moment longer.
And considering the fact that Denise responded to a come-on by her sister's man, I'm wondering why no one's knives are out amongst the flotsam and jetsam on the fora about Denise being one step shy of being a slut for even responding to Ray's advance.
Incidentally, I had a trip back down memory lane, and caught this brilliant scene from EastEnders in the 80s, concerning Tony and Kevin Carpenter and their run-in with the local constabulary. Listen to the dialogue and watch these wonderful characters in action. Ray, as the angry black man, when EastEnders did their civic duty in illustrating the injustice of Stop and Search came across as a prat. Watch this and tell me which characterisation is the more realistic - then or now?
Money Money Money - Michael Moon and Phil.
Michael Moon has Derek's dodgy money. Oo-er. So he proposes a bit of money-laundering in league with Phil, who's listening. Phil pushes the whiffy notes via the R and R, and Michael does his bit via the boxing club, Jack be damned.
The funny thing about this, is that Michael showed the counterfeit twenty to Jack, and he'll be passing them right under Jack's up-turned nose. I have a very funny feeling that Phil may use this in some way against Jack. The dodgy money will be discovered in a transaction at the R and R and be traced somehow back to the boxing club, just in time for Sharon to get a whiff about what a putrid little wankspittle she's about to marry.
I'm not the biggest shipper of Michael Moon. In fact I don't like the guy, but at the moment, he's functioning well in the role of one-man Greek chorus - Luddites, please, Google "Greek chorus" and you'll see the function Michael's playing at the moment. It was illustrated brilliantly in two brief scenes tonight - the first when Roxy announces to Alfie that she's magnanimously offered Bianca and Kat a job cleaning in the pub, so Kat will be in the Vic every day scrubbing (something she's used to doing in the Vic) - curiously, much to the joy of Alfie.
Michael is stood at the bar, taking all of this in.
Michael to Roxy: So, you've just offered a job to your boyfriend's ex, which means she'll be right in here every day. That's bloody brilliant, that is. (Greek chorus social commentary).
And then at the very end of the episode, when Jack the Peg made his cheesy announcement of his engagement to Sharon. Here's the clip of the second half of tonight's episode. Look at the 12:30ish mark and mind Michael's face at the announcement.
Things I Learned:- This vignette provided us with the most brilliant scene of the night - the scene of Phil Mitchell and Michael Moon, sat with baby Lexi and baby Scarlett in a paediatric clinic, getting the babies weighed. As they waited, their conversation veered from what each man was feeding his grandaughter/daughter to money-laundering. You couldn't make it up. Great dialogue too:-
Michael: What's she on?
Phil: Milk
Michael: Formula? From a bottle?
Phil: Well, where else do ya think I'm gonna get milk?
Who Do You Love? Sharon the Wimp - Oh How I Hate Her.
Tonight, I realised that I no longer liked Sharon - at least, not when she's being a Branning satellite.
Somewhere between Bryan Kirkwood and Lorraine Newman, this not-so-dynamic duo has managed to rip apart the most iconic female character from the past decade (Kat), her counterpart from the Nineties (Bianca) and, now, the most iconic of all, from the Eighties (Sharon). As a commentator on both Digital Spy and Walford Web remarked last night, there was something poetically and sadly symbolic of the scene in the toilets of the R and R with Kat, Sharon and Bianca interacting. I seriously don't think the increasingly numptyish and obstreperous Newan even realised she was putting together three of the most brilliant EastEnders' female characters, on whose destruction she'd acquiesced.
I'm clearly at a loss as to why Sharon's even with Jack. Most long-term viewers would agree that one thing Sharon would never do is bonk a man she'd met only hours before. This is the woman who lost her virginity at eighteen to Simon Wicks, and that, after a long build-up of a courtship. This was the girl who played hard to get, simply because she was still grieving her father, when Grant pursued her. She was even reluctant, at first, to acknowledge her feeling for Dennis.
Sharon simply doesn't do one night stands or casual sex. And as someone originally presented as an overprotective mother, you'd think she'd be wary of accepting the offer of a bed for the night from a stranger and a man, at that.
Sharon was also independent. If she had a job and the means to support herself, a move from the B and B would entail finding a flat to rent for her and her son, not prostituting herself to Jack for a free room.
The plain fact is, as we could see tonight, Sharon doesn't love Jack. She doesn't want to be with him. She is still drawn to Phil - otherwise, why would she be so adamant that Jack not say anything about the engagement until she'd told Phil?
Then there's the matter of the engagement ring. When Sharon and Phil had their faux engagement, she wore the ring around the house - so much so, that it annoyed Jack. Now, she won't even wear his. Any man who'd given a woman an engagement ring would be seriously concerned at her reluctance to wear it.
Before New Year's, Sharon was on a real downer with Jack. In the beginning, I suppose, when she wanted the free bed and fringe benefits, she played the part of Miss Piggy on heat, tossing the hair, moue-ing the lips, using the silly sultry voice. Then when she began to see the real Branning side of Jack - the issuing of orders, the controlling aspects, the ultimata (Jack gave her an ultimatum, remember, he never really proposed), the way the Branning men treat their women as sex objects who are really nothing more than inferior chattel and baby-machines.
When Jack forbade her to see Phil, she shot back that he didn't get off telling her what to do and went to see Phil anyway. She wouldn't even commit to a full day of a Branning Christmas, preferring, instead, to start the day off with Phil and the remnants of his family. She is drawn to Phil because he is familiar and a part of her past who has always been there for her. The Mitchells were created for Sharon; she doesn't fit the dysfunctionally selfish anathema that defines the Brannings. Nor does Dot, really, and it would be interesting to see how long June Brown cares to remain a part of that set-up.
The only thing which swayed marriage in Jack's favour was the embarrassing scene of Scott Maslen trying to weep at James's grave. Sharon has agreed to marry Jack out of pity, which is never good, and now - in the cold light of day - she realises she's been hoodwinked.
Several weeks ago, Phil reminded her that she knew very little of Jack Branning. I wanted Phil to scream out tonight that Phil's sister Sam, Sharon's ex-sister-in-law, was one of Jack's babymammas. She doesn't know that. To hear Jack describe his little family as consisting of Sharon, Denny and Amy (when he didn't even mention Amy or see her on Christmas Day) was totally putrid. Jack has two children abroad whom he never sees. One is a toddler now, and he's not seen him since he was born.
Where's Sharon's backbone? She looked anything but happy at the R and R when confronted with both Phil's and Lola's thunderous faces. Well, she needs her Knight in Shining Armour Phil now to extricate her from this pityfuckfest in which she's entwined herself. Sharon wants to remember that when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Sharon is not Tanya:-
Actually, the words of this song would apply to any of the Branning brothers (and didn't Kat get up with fleas? Well, bedbugs).
Things I Learned:- That I want to knock the living shit out of whoever decided to lobotomise Sharon, extricate her backbone and make her a wimp. So I imagine that means I want to punch Simon Ashdown and knock those silly glasses off Numptie Newman's smug face. Spare me.
Also ... that I really didn't mind Lola tonight. In fact, I actually like the way she's bonding with Sharon, almost as if she views her as a mother figure, or at least a good female role model. She sees Sharon as the one person who can make Phil see sense. Sharon went to the Arches, expressly to tell Phil about her engagement. She wanted him to hear it from her, but knew better than to broach the subject when he was having problems with Lola over Lexi. Now Lola feels betrayed by Sharon. If Phil wanted to be devious, he could use that as emotional blackmail, but he really needn't do that. Speaking of which, I wouldn't put it past Jack at all to feed Sharon's addiction in order to get her emotionally dependent on him.
'Tis a Pity She's a Whore, or ... Poor Kat the Martyr Does Penance by Assuming the Lowest Jobs, Asking No Help from Anyone.
Kat and Alfie run into each other, as you do. Alfie's concerned that Kat's not coping financially. What is this, that she's not accepting financial support from Alfie for Tommy? Tommy is Alfie's son. He shouldn't need to offer, that should just be accepted as a fact, yet Kat turns it down.
Pardon me, but Kat did the sinning here. Fair enough, if she wants to be seen by all and sundry to do a weird sort of penance and take the lowliest of jobs, scrub her face free of slap and dress modestly. Fair enough if she wants to suffer for her sins, but her son is an innocent, and he shouldn't be made to go hungry because of something that really is her nascent pride.
Kat can do all the penance she wants, she still has refused to accept responsibility for her actions. Until she stands in front of Alfie, explains to him truthfully why she encouraged and continued a liaision with Derek Branning and apologises unreservedly for having hurt him and destroyed their marriage, she can take a running jump. She is still acting the victim, and - thanks to Numptie and Ashdown - they are preying on the viewers' sympathies.
And it's working! Scores of less perspicacious viewers, as evidenced by the fanbois' brigade on Walford Web Kindergarten and several Luddites on Digital Spy, that people are thinking that her redemption comes from being away from Alfie, as if Alfie made her cheat on him continuously.
Granted, from 2010, Alfie and Kat were written badly. He was written exclusively as a doormat-crossed-with an exuberant manchild, but she was written as a complete and total bitch. We knew Alfie was and could be hard and had a dark side from his first stint. We saw as much. But now we, and the actors who play Alfie and Kat, were repeatedly told by the Kirkwood regime that the public love to see Alfie and Kat miserable with each other.
Not true.
Alfie and Kat were the feel-good couple, the one pairing the viewers felt had a chance of making it all the way. For what it's worth to the newly-emerged ghost of a troll on Walford Web, Kat knew about Alfie's imprisonment. Alfie and Kat scammed their criminal employers in Spain in order to obtain money for IVF treatment. Kat knew and approved. What happened was their employer torched the pub they ran for him, making it look as though Alfie had done this deliberately for insurance purposes. Alfie gave Kat the scam money before he was arrested (and he knew he would be) and sent her to Michael.
There was the ubiquitous one night stand, Michael awoke the next day and Kat was gone. Yes, of course, this was retconned to another full-fledged affair in the Moon family flat in Spain, in Alfie's bedroom during the Christmas showdowns, but retcon is a daily occurrence now in BranningVille.
What's obvious is that Alfie still has feelings for Kat - no matter how much he tries to mask them to Roxy with concern for Tommy. The shock of Alfie's discovery and the ensuing break-up is still too raw with him. He turned to Roxy because she offered him love and affection and comfort. She genuinely loves him; and, although I think Alfie may be fond of Roxy, I don't think he loves her. She is, however, what he needs at the moment, but the feelings for Kat are still rampant.
Well, we know this is all kabuki theatre, and that Roxy will be sacrificed at the altar of St Vanessa, patron saint of rebounds, for the benefit of Holy Mother Kat.
This would be really, really big in Japan ...
I'm glad she's playing them at their own game, especially that prize hypocritical whore Tanya, who was never the brightest lightbulb in the pack. She thought she was the Big I Am when she handed Kirsty that money, when Kirsty took it and she saw her leaving in a cab. Never ASSUME, Tanya .. It only makes an ass out of u and me.
Without a doubt, the best scene of the night was the scene in the R and R toilet, when Tanya smugly remarked that Kirsty didn't know Max the way Tanya knew him,and Kirsty recited back a litany of things about Max, which had taken Tanya 18 years to understand and which Kirsty had sussed in a matter of months. Tanya's face was a picture. Also priceless was the fact that, as she left the restroom area, Kirsty flipped twenty quid back at Tanya as change from the money she'd given her and with which she'd bought a frock. Also priceless was the fact that Michael had brought Kirsty to the party - hence, Michael's "plans" to which he alluded when speaking to Jack earlier.
Michael and Phil in league ... Jack had better watch out. The Brannings are losers. And so is Tanya.
What I Learned:- How stupid TPTB are in assuming that this is a "great" family. They've totally dominated this show, exclusively, for a month and have been expanding forever. The "greatness" started with Max and stopped when Bradley died. Now that DelBoy's in an urn and Yummy Mummy is about to be ridden out of town on a rail, I hope more follow ... like Jack. And Lauren. And Joey.
Joey is still unintelligble.
Lauren: You cheered up quick.
Joey: Yaah ... Aaa-aasss arrgha aarwrrigharrragh.
Whatever. It was obvious that the reason Joey was in a better mood was down to Alice and not Unlikeable Lauren.
Cora's Seven Drunken Nights.
Unlikeable Lauren starts hammering them back again next week, but I'm confused as to who's drinking more, Lauren or the old gray hag, Cora the Bora. She's been lit since Christmas.
She was lit in the Branning kitchen this morning, wobbling about in her chair and pondering Derek's ashes, especially after that drunken ramble on the day of his funeral. She stopped by the pub to imbibe with Patrick, so she'd be truly primed when she arrived at the BranningFest in the club.
And she was three sheets to the wind and pissing when she told the bested Tanya that she needed to "up her game" with Kirsty. How, exactly? You see, that's Cora the Bora's signature tune - she's always handy with advice, but never has a way to achieve an end. And whenever she actually suggests a means of action, it all falls apart ... reference: telling Lola to bang down Social Services until she got her baby back? All she got was a bad reputation and report. That achieved a lot. Or telling Abi that her first priorities weren't her studies, but to asswipe her single mother chav friend Lola.
"Upping her game" for Cora the Bora would mean Tanya threatening Kirsty, which is something Cora the Bora has already done. Tanya's bribed her, and she didn't bite. At the moment, as Kirsty says - and this is true, so, Luddites of Digital Spy, pay attention: the only woman fighting for Max to look desperate at the moment is Tanya. That's why she got Max out of Walford for that break, which wasn't a success, from the look of thunder on her face when she returned. And Kirsty knew it was an epic fail.
Cora the Bora's life in song:-
Kirsty's got the leverage. At the end of the day, she's Max's wife. She knows him better than Tanya.
Maybe Tanya and Kirsty could do a duet to Max:-
You gotta laugh - otherwise, you'd cry in anger at the shitstorm of Brannings Numptie's allowed to infest the programme. Like nits growing into lice.
Final Thoughts: Bianca spending a day's wages on an outfit to wear to the party, rather than put it aside for gas, electric or food and clothing for her children. Same old same old there. She really is the Billy Mitchell of the Brannings. The scene when she's in her scrubber's gear at the club when Jack prances in and arrogantly asks that she leave him and Sharon alone, especially after Bianca reminding him of their familial status. Bianca is more of an embarrassment to the jumped-up poor white Brannings than she ever was to her Beale relations.
Watching this programme tonight was just another eye-opener, when I didn't think that, after watching the show for almost twenty-eight years, that my eyes couldn't be opened anymore. Well, they have been, but they've been opened to a sight I didn't want to see: - the show has been turned - by Simon Ashdown and his inveterate obsession with a dysfunctional, dystopian, amoral and arrogant bunch of a jumped-up white trash family called the Brannings.
In the beginning were the interrelated Beales and Fowlers. Now only Ian exists. Bianca is a Beale, but this is never emphasized or referenced. She realises that she's a first cousin to Lauren the GurnGirl, but not to GurnGirl's BFF Bag o'Bones Beale. Bianca identifies as a Branning, even though, for the most part, they treat her as an afterthought, casting lefovers from their table, along with cheap wine which isn't amenable to what they consider to be their cultured palate. Bianca works as a cleaner on minimum wage for Jack's girlfriend, and he doesn't blink an eyelid. She works for Tanya, her aunt-by-marriage, for tips. At least her paternal uncle, Ian Beale, paid her.
In the beginning were the Watts, holding court at the Vic. Now only their daughter Sharon remains, about to have the life sucked from her lungs and heart by the Branning takeover, in a cheap and snide attempt by Ashdown to validate his creations as the first family of Walford.
The Brannings are now international, with Jack's spawn inhabiting two European countries. They are also multi-racial now, as evidenced by the little cock Dexter, their latest satellite, who appeared on the Square yesterday, yet another mouthy, self-assured youth with which we have to contend clogging up the air time on the programme.
Derek is dead, but his children live on, doubling his presence, and everything about tonight's Branning-centric episode was all about ending Derek and moving on. Because life is cheap to the Brannings. They finish with one person and grind on after their own personal ends. Selfishness rules their roost.
Derek is dead. No use crying over spilt milk. Jack wants a party. Derek's dead, now let's pay attention to Jack wanting to marry Sharon. Jack, who's head is now so far up his arse that he cannot see that Sharon is all kinds of reluctant to marry him. Any man who sees his "fiancee" won't put his engagement ring on her finger might just be worried that she doesn't want to marry him? Not Jack. He'ts Jack Branning. Max wants his cake and wants to eat it too. Tanya manages to make every incident that occurs in the Square all about her. Her skanky older daughter is the same. Shove aside the fact that your uncle died suddenly and his children are grieving, Lauren can't understand why her fuck-buddy cousin doesn't want to party down. After all, Lauren reckons, give it a couple of weeks, and everything will be back to normal.
Why are people so surprised she said that? Tonight showed exactly that that mindset is what propels this ugly, ugly, bunch of amoral hypocrites.
Christ on a bike! How the hell did the Wrath of Dot get mixed up with these bozos?
Here's what I learned tonight:-
Sister Act.
Diane Parish deserves better, and I really hope that two of the casualties of 2013, are Kim and Ray. Tameka Empson is seriously unfunny, and together, she and Chuckie Venn are in danger of becoming the chattering classes typical assumption of a racial stereotype.
I find it hard to fathom that someone like Kim exists, someone who thinks so highly of herself in every way that she doesn't realise when she's been taken for a fool.
Ray, for one brief second tonight, was honest with Denise. He doesn't love Kim. His affection for Kim doesn't go beyond what she has to offer in bed. He's been complaining about her to anyone who'd listen since before Christmas, and we know now that he's intrinsically a coward.
Maybe, in that respect, he's like Max, hating confrontation with a woman who now bores him, so he's willing to distance himself physically from the former object of his affections in order to avoid a conflict. Didn't Sasha remark how his ex, her mother, hated him? Wasn't his list of former sexual encounters legions long?
Actually, Denise is being kind in alluding to the kiss she shared with Ray as a drunken kiss. Denise was anything but drunk that evening, and neither was Ray; and if Denise had shown willing afterward, he would have pursued her. But she rose above Kim's petty vendetta and was willing to take the blame for the incident, in an effort to make the peace with Kim, who was having none of it. A lesser person would have called Ray out on his lie; Denise was right - Kim and Ray deserve each other.
Things I Learned:- I learned how much I bloody love Patrick, and how - rather than seeing a ready-made matriarch or Dot playing nursemaid to the egos of the Brannings - I'd rather see a Walford patriarch in the form of Patrick, In that one brief scene he shared with Kim and Ray at the B and B tonight, when he caught that look on Ray's face, he reminded me so much of Pat in that instant. Pat had a way of connecting with a guilty person through a look and shaming them. Patrick's silence and the stone-cold look he gave Ray left him in no doubt that he knew there was a massive lie being told here. He shamed Ray so much that Ray couldn't stand to remain in Kim's company for one moment longer.
And considering the fact that Denise responded to a come-on by her sister's man, I'm wondering why no one's knives are out amongst the flotsam and jetsam on the fora about Denise being one step shy of being a slut for even responding to Ray's advance.
Incidentally, I had a trip back down memory lane, and caught this brilliant scene from EastEnders in the 80s, concerning Tony and Kevin Carpenter and their run-in with the local constabulary. Listen to the dialogue and watch these wonderful characters in action. Ray, as the angry black man, when EastEnders did their civic duty in illustrating the injustice of Stop and Search came across as a prat. Watch this and tell me which characterisation is the more realistic - then or now?
Money Money Money - Michael Moon and Phil.
Michael Moon has Derek's dodgy money. Oo-er. So he proposes a bit of money-laundering in league with Phil, who's listening. Phil pushes the whiffy notes via the R and R, and Michael does his bit via the boxing club, Jack be damned.
The funny thing about this, is that Michael showed the counterfeit twenty to Jack, and he'll be passing them right under Jack's up-turned nose. I have a very funny feeling that Phil may use this in some way against Jack. The dodgy money will be discovered in a transaction at the R and R and be traced somehow back to the boxing club, just in time for Sharon to get a whiff about what a putrid little wankspittle she's about to marry.
I'm not the biggest shipper of Michael Moon. In fact I don't like the guy, but at the moment, he's functioning well in the role of one-man Greek chorus - Luddites, please, Google "Greek chorus" and you'll see the function Michael's playing at the moment. It was illustrated brilliantly in two brief scenes tonight - the first when Roxy announces to Alfie that she's magnanimously offered Bianca and Kat a job cleaning in the pub, so Kat will be in the Vic every day scrubbing (something she's used to doing in the Vic) - curiously, much to the joy of Alfie.
Michael is stood at the bar, taking all of this in.
Michael to Roxy: So, you've just offered a job to your boyfriend's ex, which means she'll be right in here every day. That's bloody brilliant, that is. (Greek chorus social commentary).
And then at the very end of the episode, when Jack the Peg made his cheesy announcement of his engagement to Sharon. Here's the clip of the second half of tonight's episode. Look at the 12:30ish mark and mind Michael's face at the announcement.
Things I Learned:- This vignette provided us with the most brilliant scene of the night - the scene of Phil Mitchell and Michael Moon, sat with baby Lexi and baby Scarlett in a paediatric clinic, getting the babies weighed. As they waited, their conversation veered from what each man was feeding his grandaughter/daughter to money-laundering. You couldn't make it up. Great dialogue too:-
Michael: What's she on?
Phil: Milk
Michael: Formula? From a bottle?
Phil: Well, where else do ya think I'm gonna get milk?
Who Do You Love? Sharon the Wimp - Oh How I Hate Her.
Somewhere between Bryan Kirkwood and Lorraine Newman, this not-so-dynamic duo has managed to rip apart the most iconic female character from the past decade (Kat), her counterpart from the Nineties (Bianca) and, now, the most iconic of all, from the Eighties (Sharon). As a commentator on both Digital Spy and Walford Web remarked last night, there was something poetically and sadly symbolic of the scene in the toilets of the R and R with Kat, Sharon and Bianca interacting. I seriously don't think the increasingly numptyish and obstreperous Newan even realised she was putting together three of the most brilliant EastEnders' female characters, on whose destruction she'd acquiesced.
I'm clearly at a loss as to why Sharon's even with Jack. Most long-term viewers would agree that one thing Sharon would never do is bonk a man she'd met only hours before. This is the woman who lost her virginity at eighteen to Simon Wicks, and that, after a long build-up of a courtship. This was the girl who played hard to get, simply because she was still grieving her father, when Grant pursued her. She was even reluctant, at first, to acknowledge her feeling for Dennis.
Sharon simply doesn't do one night stands or casual sex. And as someone originally presented as an overprotective mother, you'd think she'd be wary of accepting the offer of a bed for the night from a stranger and a man, at that.
Sharon was also independent. If she had a job and the means to support herself, a move from the B and B would entail finding a flat to rent for her and her son, not prostituting herself to Jack for a free room.
The plain fact is, as we could see tonight, Sharon doesn't love Jack. She doesn't want to be with him. She is still drawn to Phil - otherwise, why would she be so adamant that Jack not say anything about the engagement until she'd told Phil?
Then there's the matter of the engagement ring. When Sharon and Phil had their faux engagement, she wore the ring around the house - so much so, that it annoyed Jack. Now, she won't even wear his. Any man who'd given a woman an engagement ring would be seriously concerned at her reluctance to wear it.
Before New Year's, Sharon was on a real downer with Jack. In the beginning, I suppose, when she wanted the free bed and fringe benefits, she played the part of Miss Piggy on heat, tossing the hair, moue-ing the lips, using the silly sultry voice. Then when she began to see the real Branning side of Jack - the issuing of orders, the controlling aspects, the ultimata (Jack gave her an ultimatum, remember, he never really proposed), the way the Branning men treat their women as sex objects who are really nothing more than inferior chattel and baby-machines.
When Jack forbade her to see Phil, she shot back that he didn't get off telling her what to do and went to see Phil anyway. She wouldn't even commit to a full day of a Branning Christmas, preferring, instead, to start the day off with Phil and the remnants of his family. She is drawn to Phil because he is familiar and a part of her past who has always been there for her. The Mitchells were created for Sharon; she doesn't fit the dysfunctionally selfish anathema that defines the Brannings. Nor does Dot, really, and it would be interesting to see how long June Brown cares to remain a part of that set-up.
The only thing which swayed marriage in Jack's favour was the embarrassing scene of Scott Maslen trying to weep at James's grave. Sharon has agreed to marry Jack out of pity, which is never good, and now - in the cold light of day - she realises she's been hoodwinked.
Several weeks ago, Phil reminded her that she knew very little of Jack Branning. I wanted Phil to scream out tonight that Phil's sister Sam, Sharon's ex-sister-in-law, was one of Jack's babymammas. She doesn't know that. To hear Jack describe his little family as consisting of Sharon, Denny and Amy (when he didn't even mention Amy or see her on Christmas Day) was totally putrid. Jack has two children abroad whom he never sees. One is a toddler now, and he's not seen him since he was born.
Where's Sharon's backbone? She looked anything but happy at the R and R when confronted with both Phil's and Lola's thunderous faces. Well, she needs her Knight in Shining Armour Phil now to extricate her from this pityfuckfest in which she's entwined herself. Sharon wants to remember that when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Sharon is not Tanya:-
Actually, the words of this song would apply to any of the Branning brothers (and didn't Kat get up with fleas? Well, bedbugs).
Things I Learned:- That I want to knock the living shit out of whoever decided to lobotomise Sharon, extricate her backbone and make her a wimp. So I imagine that means I want to punch Simon Ashdown and knock those silly glasses off Numptie Newman's smug face. Spare me.
Also ... that I really didn't mind Lola tonight. In fact, I actually like the way she's bonding with Sharon, almost as if she views her as a mother figure, or at least a good female role model. She sees Sharon as the one person who can make Phil see sense. Sharon went to the Arches, expressly to tell Phil about her engagement. She wanted him to hear it from her, but knew better than to broach the subject when he was having problems with Lola over Lexi. Now Lola feels betrayed by Sharon. If Phil wanted to be devious, he could use that as emotional blackmail, but he really needn't do that. Speaking of which, I wouldn't put it past Jack at all to feed Sharon's addiction in order to get her emotionally dependent on him.
'Tis a Pity She's a Whore, or ... Poor Kat the Martyr Does Penance by Assuming the Lowest Jobs, Asking No Help from Anyone.
Kat and Alfie run into each other, as you do. Alfie's concerned that Kat's not coping financially. What is this, that she's not accepting financial support from Alfie for Tommy? Tommy is Alfie's son. He shouldn't need to offer, that should just be accepted as a fact, yet Kat turns it down.
Pardon me, but Kat did the sinning here. Fair enough, if she wants to be seen by all and sundry to do a weird sort of penance and take the lowliest of jobs, scrub her face free of slap and dress modestly. Fair enough if she wants to suffer for her sins, but her son is an innocent, and he shouldn't be made to go hungry because of something that really is her nascent pride.
Kat can do all the penance she wants, she still has refused to accept responsibility for her actions. Until she stands in front of Alfie, explains to him truthfully why she encouraged and continued a liaision with Derek Branning and apologises unreservedly for having hurt him and destroyed their marriage, she can take a running jump. She is still acting the victim, and - thanks to Numptie and Ashdown - they are preying on the viewers' sympathies.
And it's working! Scores of less perspicacious viewers, as evidenced by the fanbois' brigade on Walford Web Kindergarten and several Luddites on Digital Spy, that people are thinking that her redemption comes from being away from Alfie, as if Alfie made her cheat on him continuously.
Granted, from 2010, Alfie and Kat were written badly. He was written exclusively as a doormat-crossed-with an exuberant manchild, but she was written as a complete and total bitch. We knew Alfie was and could be hard and had a dark side from his first stint. We saw as much. But now we, and the actors who play Alfie and Kat, were repeatedly told by the Kirkwood regime that the public love to see Alfie and Kat miserable with each other.
Not true.
Alfie and Kat were the feel-good couple, the one pairing the viewers felt had a chance of making it all the way. For what it's worth to the newly-emerged ghost of a troll on Walford Web, Kat knew about Alfie's imprisonment. Alfie and Kat scammed their criminal employers in Spain in order to obtain money for IVF treatment. Kat knew and approved. What happened was their employer torched the pub they ran for him, making it look as though Alfie had done this deliberately for insurance purposes. Alfie gave Kat the scam money before he was arrested (and he knew he would be) and sent her to Michael.
There was the ubiquitous one night stand, Michael awoke the next day and Kat was gone. Yes, of course, this was retconned to another full-fledged affair in the Moon family flat in Spain, in Alfie's bedroom during the Christmas showdowns, but retcon is a daily occurrence now in BranningVille.
What's obvious is that Alfie still has feelings for Kat - no matter how much he tries to mask them to Roxy with concern for Tommy. The shock of Alfie's discovery and the ensuing break-up is still too raw with him. He turned to Roxy because she offered him love and affection and comfort. She genuinely loves him; and, although I think Alfie may be fond of Roxy, I don't think he loves her. She is, however, what he needs at the moment, but the feelings for Kat are still rampant.
Well, we know this is all kabuki theatre, and that Roxy will be sacrificed at the altar of St Vanessa, patron saint of rebounds, for the benefit of Holy Mother Kat.
This would be really, really big in Japan ...
Alfie, Kat and Roxy as Kabuki
BranningVille Is Spooked by Kirsty.
In Memory of Derek:-
It should be "Poor DUD Is Dead."
Jack drives a swank new Alfa Romeo with personalised plates, and he buys Sharon a Skoda? Now I know why she doesn't want to marry him.
Tonight's episode showed the Brannings in all their pre-supposed arrogance. Every damned one of them exuded it. Grieving for a brother who died suddenly and without any previous health warning? Hey, it's been two weeks; mourning is officially over, move on. Thus declareth Jack, easily, after Tanya and her gurning sprog Unlikeable Lauren, the most selfish one of the lot.
Of all the BRANNINGS (and how many times were the BRANNINGS emphasized tonight?) at that horrendous do at the R and R, only Alice reflected unease at even celebrating an engagement to a woman Jack barely knows and only wants because Phil Mitchell's in love with her, so soon after a death.
They are just tacky. Tacky. Tacky. Tacky. Tacky. Such a sad incongruity to have Jack return with Derek's ashes and no one even know where or how he would want them scattered. Why even scatter them? Why not use his dodgy money or Jack's money to buy a burial plot and bury them? Tanya's self-obsession to the forefront, not giving a hoot where the ashes are put, except in her kitchen. The sheer tactlessness in saying this in front of Derek's brothers was mind-boggling. That woman's head is so far up her arse, it isn't funny.
It also amazes me that Tanya thinks Max or any of them have the right and the power to threaten Kirsty out of Walford. This is a free country, and Kirsty can go where she wants. She married Max in good faith, and he abandoned her. For all the Tanya-shippers who've never been in a relationship and who think that any wife who is inexplicably abandoned by her husband will just blandly accept that a marriage is over, especially if she discovers another woman is involved, and roll over (to use a Shirley expression), well, you're just too stupid for words.
Kirsty, first of all, wanted an explanation from Max, face-to-face. That he wasn't able to convince her of the fact that he still didn't harbour feelings for her gives her hope. That's why she's being so tenacious.
Tanya can comfort herself all she wants with the fact that Kirsty's marriage was just a name on a piece of paper. I suppose she comforted herself with the fact that Max's first wife refused to let him see Bradley as being no fault of hers. She should know, after eighteen years, that Max avoids conflict. Rachel did Max a favour in witholding visiting privileges. It meant that Max could walk away from the conflict. Out of sight is out of mind to Max, whose prime fault on this occasion was to put his trust in Derek to sort his separation from Kirsty out. She hears nothing until a year after her marriage, and then receives an envelope full of money with divorce papers to sign. No explanation?
Pardon me, a marriage isn't over just because one half wants out. He or she has to have grounds - like Alfie or Greg, with Kat's and Tanya's instances of adultery. What grounds does Max have for divorcing Kirsty? She has more grounds for divorcing him.
I'm glad she's playing them at their own game, especially that prize hypocritical whore Tanya, who was never the brightest lightbulb in the pack. She thought she was the Big I Am when she handed Kirsty that money, when Kirsty took it and she saw her leaving in a cab. Never ASSUME, Tanya .. It only makes an ass out of u and me.
Without a doubt, the best scene of the night was the scene in the R and R toilet, when Tanya smugly remarked that Kirsty didn't know Max the way Tanya knew him,and Kirsty recited back a litany of things about Max, which had taken Tanya 18 years to understand and which Kirsty had sussed in a matter of months. Tanya's face was a picture. Also priceless was the fact that, as she left the restroom area, Kirsty flipped twenty quid back at Tanya as change from the money she'd given her and with which she'd bought a frock. Also priceless was the fact that Michael had brought Kirsty to the party - hence, Michael's "plans" to which he alluded when speaking to Jack earlier.
Michael and Phil in league ... Jack had better watch out. The Brannings are losers. And so is Tanya.
What I Learned:- How stupid TPTB are in assuming that this is a "great" family. They've totally dominated this show, exclusively, for a month and have been expanding forever. The "greatness" started with Max and stopped when Bradley died. Now that DelBoy's in an urn and Yummy Mummy is about to be ridden out of town on a rail, I hope more follow ... like Jack. And Lauren. And Joey.
Joey is still unintelligble.
Lauren: You cheered up quick.
Joey: Yaah ... Aaa-aasss arrgha aarwrrigharrragh.
Whatever. It was obvious that the reason Joey was in a better mood was down to Alice and not Unlikeable Lauren.
Cora's Seven Drunken Nights.
Unlikeable Lauren starts hammering them back again next week, but I'm confused as to who's drinking more, Lauren or the old gray hag, Cora the Bora. She's been lit since Christmas.
She was lit in the Branning kitchen this morning, wobbling about in her chair and pondering Derek's ashes, especially after that drunken ramble on the day of his funeral. She stopped by the pub to imbibe with Patrick, so she'd be truly primed when she arrived at the BranningFest in the club.
And she was three sheets to the wind and pissing when she told the bested Tanya that she needed to "up her game" with Kirsty. How, exactly? You see, that's Cora the Bora's signature tune - she's always handy with advice, but never has a way to achieve an end. And whenever she actually suggests a means of action, it all falls apart ... reference: telling Lola to bang down Social Services until she got her baby back? All she got was a bad reputation and report. That achieved a lot. Or telling Abi that her first priorities weren't her studies, but to asswipe her single mother chav friend Lola.
"Upping her game" for Cora the Bora would mean Tanya threatening Kirsty, which is something Cora the Bora has already done. Tanya's bribed her, and she didn't bite. At the moment, as Kirsty says - and this is true, so, Luddites of Digital Spy, pay attention: the only woman fighting for Max to look desperate at the moment is Tanya. That's why she got Max out of Walford for that break, which wasn't a success, from the look of thunder on her face when she returned. And Kirsty knew it was an epic fail.
Cora the Bora's life in song:-
Kirsty's got the leverage. At the end of the day, she's Max's wife. She knows him better than Tanya.
Maybe Tanya and Kirsty could do a duet to Max:-
You gotta laugh - otherwise, you'd cry in anger at the shitstorm of Brannings Numptie's allowed to infest the programme. Like nits growing into lice.
Final Thoughts: Bianca spending a day's wages on an outfit to wear to the party, rather than put it aside for gas, electric or food and clothing for her children. Same old same old there. She really is the Billy Mitchell of the Brannings. The scene when she's in her scrubber's gear at the club when Jack prances in and arrogantly asks that she leave him and Sharon alone, especially after Bianca reminding him of their familial status. Bianca is more of an embarrassment to the jumped-up poor white Brannings than she ever was to her Beale relations.
I always read & enjoy your blog Emilia, must confess that the vast majority of your thoughts & opinions tend to mirror my own.
ReplyDeleteThe only downside is the endless repetition; yes the Brannings are indeed 'white trash' - I totally get it.
Don't really need to be reminded every time I log in.
Likewise Sharon being reduced to nowt more than a 'Branning satellite' / gurney-Lauren-the-Mick Jagger-wannabe trying to look like that American bird / etc, etc - I get that too.
Quite often the excellent points you make tend to get swallowed up by the aforementioned repetition, which is a real shame.
I can't be the only reader that sees 'white trash' for the umpteenth time & starts wilfully scrolling.
Perhaps less is more; as in a thrice-weekly blog might provide better quality content than your current nightly musings?
Just a thought ...
Kindest regards,
Liam.
PS. Really wish you did similar blogs for Emmerdale & Corrie too!
Thank you, Liam.
DeleteI am sorry you think I repeat myself, but I am also preaching to a certain demographic who need repetition for emphasis. Feel free to skip any portion you wish.
I don't watch Corrie or Emmerdale. Maybe I should.
I agree, I really like this blog, found it when I was searching for spoilers as I'm in Aus and we're about a month and a half behind. I agree with a lot ofEmilia's views but there us a lot of repetition, even of specific phrases and I also sometimes find myself scrolling past stuff I've read before. I don't know how many nights a week it's on back home nowadays but one review of each episode might be enough.
ReplyDeleteI've been reading your blog for sometime now and I am glad you have toned the language down a bit makes much better reading. There are certain posters on DS who are really frustrating me with this whole Max/Kirsty/Tanya storyline they seem to believe that divorce is as easy as just handing someone papers and that Tanya has more rights than Kirsty, that Max believed he was divorced etc. It's frustrating having to explain how divorce works to people who are either too stupid or just plain blinkered or not old enough (which I could excuse if they weren't quite so quick to slag off Kirsty and praise Saint Tanya). They don't seem to understand hat Kirsty as Max's legal wife has more rights than the woman he shacked up with which in the eyes if the law means naff all.
ReplyDeleteThe pathetically named 'Team Tanya' and their main cheerleader are really starting to piss me off on DS.
ReplyDeleteUninformed rubbish spouted by slef-proclaimed legal experts and endless wailing about Max 'cheating' with Kirsty. How can he cheat with his legally married wife ? In all honesty Max should be apologising to Kirsty for his infidelity with Tanya.
None of them can provide a decent reply to this, instead gibbering endlessly about a 'special spark' between Tanya and Max. When it is pointed out that Max cheated on one wife to get with the sainted Tanya, has failed miserably to keep it in his pants ever since and is clearly bored of Tanya (or he wouldn't stray at all) this point is just ignored and the endless circular trudge through the debate starts all over again. It is horribly reminiscent of the 'Shirley and Phil' threads that used to bore on for hours.
Give me strength.
Nice to see things on DS are not much better than in Kindergarten land!
ReplyDeleteP.S. there seem to be a lot of the better informed posters missing from said Kindy, if any of them are reading this, or you know who they are, the near silence is getting a bit deafening there. (or is it some of the "less mature" posters getting louder)
Professor Plum