There was this boat, and there was this iceberg ... and that was a poor four (out of ten). I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This show has the stench of dying Brookside about it. I thought Newman was bad, but Newman at her worst - all love and warmth, Snakegate and Tunagate and Dot's cold cuts - was never as bad as that thirty-minute shower I watched today, complete with the reminder of O'Connor's chosen star of the show being given the ubiquitous scene, showing her walking, po-faced and wordless, , across the Square, just to remind us that the show, at the moment, is all about Denise.
This, on the day when the BSA short-list was announced, showing no actors from EastEnders having made the list (not even Danny Dyer) and only one of the three actresses put forward making the short list, the perennial award-winner, Lacey Turner, who hasn't had a major storyline all year. As good an actress as Turner is, that award should have Charlotte Bellamy's name on it ... and O'Connor's muse didn't even make the cut.
Please, someone put this show out of its misery now. Call for Tony Jordan! Call for Sarah Phelps! Anyone! Please,just rid the show of this man who's choking the lifeblood from it.
The Friendless Friends Sitcom Sucks Shit. The idiotic sitcom episode about the post-it caper with the housemates was some schticky stab at théatre de l'absurde, but it bombed. It wasn't cute, it wasn't funny, it was just plain idiotic.
Remember Tony Jordan's singular bomb with the Alfie-and-the-condom episode? Well, that was worse than this.
This is what is irking me to no end about this show at the moment - the fact that everyone is acting so much out character in certain incidences, in major incidences, it all comes across as phony and contrived, everything to fit the plotline (or the non-plotline) that this producer is trying to get across.
It just seems to me that there are two constants with this clown, and we see and hear them in almost every episode:- Denise and the idea of community.
Jesus Christ, give me strength.
For example, when did Jay get to be one of life's male slobs? Because, basically, that's what Ben and Jay have become - two lads, Men Behaving Badly, Minty and Garry, Dumb and Dumber - ne'mind both of their traumatic histories. Ben doesn't even worry about Phil anymore. In fact, no one does, because no one knows when Phil is returning. In fact, I'm beginning to believe that Phil's going to exist someplace offscreen on the Amalfi Coast, where Sharon will disappear at regular intervals, whenever Letitia Dean wants a break.
But I digress. I'm no fan of Abi's, but I can understand her ire, and neither Ben, Jay, and especially Donna, came off well in this at all.
Donna recruited Abi to live in the house, basically, because she knew Abi would be the chief cook and bottle-washer. Abi is domestically responsible. She's had to be, given her background, and Dot would have insured she was house proud; but they did take advantage of her, helping themselves to her food because they couldn't be arsed to provide stuff of their own. I would imagine both Ben and Jay get enough free hand-outs from Kathy in the café.
I also don't see what the big deal with the labels was about in the house. No, Donna, you self-entitled, little bitch, "house-share" doesn't mean the people living in the house share everything. You share a roof, and that's that. Many of us have shared accommodation at one time or another, and it's common practice to label your foodstuffs, with no offence taken. I've also lived in house-shares in my youth where cupboards were labeled as well. They're just coming across as moochers,who not only expect Abi to clean for them, but to provide food for them as well and then pay the requisite rent. (By the way, I only just noticed that that squidgy front room also encompasses the kitchen as well -WTF?!) It's also common courtesy that when you use someone's foodstuffs in a house-share, you replace them, or else risk being labeled a deadbeat.
I particularly didn't like that scene where Donna called a "meeting" behind Abi's back, enciting Ben and Jay to go into Abi's room, find her labeling machine and bust it up - basically, enter Abi's space (for which she's paying rent) and destroy her personal property. Someone needs to hand this girl her arse. I know EastEnders has always had a tradition, starting with Adam Best, of presenting snarky, self-absorbed and unpleasant people with disabilities, and the vibe I get from this is that these people have been allowed to behave that way because people never thought of ticking them off because of their disability. Stuff all that shit Donna hypes about having to fight to make herself heard in a household of many. She can be a right nasty little bully.
And let's just look at the unreality of the plethora of post-it notes, in all shapes and sizes, literally plastering the Square. Who had the time and the money to accomplish all of that? Literally. I live near Dover, and overnight, this past week, the artist, Banksie, painted a mural on the side of a disused building. It just appeared overnight, which is how the artist works. But all of this happened well into the day - Ben had to take time off from The Arches, and Donna had to leave her stall to plot this; yet there stood Kathy and others, wondering in awe at the state of labelled post-it notes covering everything, and you're trying to tell me no one saw anyone doing that? It would have taken hours alone, just to label and cover the windows and walls of the cafe, not to mention everything else.
Just spare us these stupid storylines, with the joke eventually being turned back onto the perps by Abi outsmarting the lot of them by presenting them with a cleaning rota.
This really is the beginning of the end. It wasn't even funny.
So Blood Doesn't Run Thicker Than Water. All the time Dot's been involved with Jim and Jim's kids, even though they all love the bones of her, and she has settled well with them, even with all their children calling her "Grandma", Dot's always hankered after her own blood kin.
This is why she's always made room for Nick in her life, whenever he would appear with whatever latest child he had. When Charlie appeared, Carol and her lot were on the Square, as was Abi, but Abi was busy with her nose up the Mitchells' collective arse, and Carol was busy with other things, so Charlie (and subsequently Nick when he turned up) was more than welcome. As Dot repeatedly told people who complimented her on Jim's family, his kids weren't hers.
And this is why this storyline, involving Dot, makes no sense at all.
Ever since Charlie disappeared, Dot's tried, unsuccessfully, to contact him. She even upbraided Ronnie, quite severely, for his disappearance. By that time, especially with all the kerfuffle surrounding Nick and his faked death, she knew Ronnie to be a liar at the very least. When Ronnie died, Dot made repeated efforts to contact Charlie, even trying to contact Yvonne in order to get in touch with him - she said so many times in the immediate aftermath of the Blisters' death. In fact, she pointedly told everyone, including Glenda, that Charlie needed to be told, that Matthew was Charlie's son and that Matthew needed to be with his father, that it simply wasn't right.
As fond as Dot was of Jack, she knew that Charlie wouldn't willingly abandon his own child.
Now, we're asked to believe that Dot will side with Jack against Charlie over custody of Matthew? Seriously? Is this because Charlie's settled in Ireland? At first, I thought so, but then I'm not so sure. If Charlie rocked up and settled on the Square with his new wife, I'm sure Dot would still expect him to play the role of the incidental, occasional father. One of the few highlights of the episode tonight came when Charlie, effectively, handed Dot her arse, musing about how Matthew would one day perceive him, when he learned the truth about his paternity, as a father who didn't care about him, who'd walked away from him. The line of the night was when he pointedly reminded Dot ...
Sound familiar?
Dot knew exactly what he meant, but that still didn't stop her. He'd asked her not to say anything to Jack about his plans, that he, himself, wanted to broach the subject with Jack when the time was right; but Dot had to go blabbing her conscience to Jack for the price of a "family" lunch (from which Charlie was expressly excluded) and some cute lines of dialogue from Amy.
Listen, I'm Team Charlie here, even though he's being unwittingly propped up by Max, who has an ulterior motive. Charlie isn't a bad man. He didn't walk out of his son's life, willingly. He was forced to leave, bullied out of the community on a threat of death by Ronnie the psychopath. When Charlie told Jack about Ronnie's threat to him, he didn't bat an eyelid. Jack knew Ronnie was a cold-blooded killer, and I wonder what Dot would think about her, if she were ever to find out what happened to Fatboy. If Charlie had just shown up after years of being away and claimed paternity after Jack had done all the heavy lifting, that would, indeed, be a pisstake. But he's not. He has a stable job, he's married, and as much as Jack is balking at it, he's offering Matthew stability.
Jack's situation at the moment consists of chaos and various babysitters. And ... Matthew is not his son. I still say that Jack is transferring a lot of his unresolved grief for James onto Matthew. Another thing: We also know that whenever Dot had Matthew to mind, she constantly was talking to him about his "real" daddy. Are TPTB trying to tell us that Dot would want her grandson to sit back, relinquish custody of his son to someone who had no right to him at all? That doesn't make sense. If Charlie were the man his father was, if he were feckless and mean, I'd see her point, but her siding with Jack makes no sense.
Don't get me wrong - I feel for Jack. Matthew is the last bit of Ronnie he has in his life. But all this malarkey about Matthew not knowing Charlie doesn't hold water. Matthew is 2 years old. As Charlie said, he'd soon adjust, and that's the truth. It's not only self-entitlement, it's egregious that Jack would think Charlie would only be content with showing up now and then and playing "Uncle Charlie" to his own son. And it's pretty shitty that Dot would take Jack's side.
The Mattress Gets Dumped. Linda's return is long overdue, especially since Whitney has stepped into the fore, taking a commanding position and assumes that she's the rightful landlady of the Vic. What a presumptuous little whore she is! As Linda isn't returning on Friday but Ollie is, she's further on her way in attempting to become LindaLite by showing up with Ollie. Suffice it to say that it didn't take much persuasion from Johnny the Dolt to convince her that Moose's errand was to suss the lay of the land for a reconciliation with Lee. You can bet your bottom dollar, as well, that Whitney would have made Lee dance a clever trick to get back into her good books.
I'm fed up to the teeth, also, with all these pejorative references to Lee as the baddie, and it pisses me off that we probably won't get to see Linda rightfully find out the utterly cruel part Mick and Whitney played in Lee's breakdown and departure. Mick actually told him to part with Whitney, that she was too good for him, and that he needed to leave Walford. The message sent out to viewers was, basically, anyone suffering from a mental illness needs to be sent away.
Tonight, we got references to Lee being a right "do-do" (Johnny), as well as Moose talking him down in comparison to the brilliantly amazing Whitney - to the point that Whitney's enormous ego got the best of her and she actually thought Moose was coming onto her,and then was disappointed when she found that he wasn't.
The fact that Lee wants a divorce was a real punch-the-air moment. Good. He's moved on from the bitch who sucked the lifeblood from him with her greediness, only to fancy his father behind his back and to poison Mick's mind against his own son with her tattling and whining. The look on Whitney's face was priceless when she found out she was being dumped. She's dumped so many nice blokes in her time just to chase after the ubiquitous bad boy, it's a shock that someone would want to dump her. Maybe Lee had time to think on his home and away from that toxic atmosphere, and he realised just how much Whtney dragged him down. I hope he realises the same about Mick.
And of course, Whitney still goes running to Mick, ringing him in Albania.
Mick, I needja.
I'll bet you do. Run right to Mick, whining about big,bad Lee, dumping you. It angers me to think that Lee is going to be estranged from his family at the expense of some skanky little whore, who looks as though she needs a bath and as if you could fry an egg in her hair.
But she's spoiled for choice now, isn't she, judging by the calculating look on her face, after Woody enquired about her in the wake of Moose's news, in Mick's absence (and Linda's), Woody's wood will suffice.
I like Woody. I really do, as much as I like Konrad, both being painfully obvious how much the show cries out for new characters, as much as how tired some older characters are; but for Christ's sake, do not pair him with Whitney. Why is it that a muscular young man of a particular age demographic has to be paired with Whitney the Walford Mattress? Is there some sort of rule or requirement?
The show has a very peculiar problem with their older ingenues at the moment, and I'm speaking about Shona McGarty and Jacqueline Jossa. Both these actresses have never managed to spark any amount of sexual chemistry with any of the male characters with whom they've been paired. I don't know whey that is, but I think that part of the reason that they fail at romance storylines is simply because that, as actresses, they are too self-aware of their own image in front of the camera. They do well, in portraying two, dimwit, self-absorbed and silly young women, whose superficial friendship consists of them talking at each other and never listening to what the other is saying, but as romantic leads in any sense of the word, they are an epic fail.
Were this producer of any worth, he'd shed some characters without whom the show might continue without missing them - unlike the Mitchell sisters, one-half of which is sorely missed. I'm no fan of either actress, but I'd shed McGarty's character. Her links to the Square are tenuous, she has family in other parts of England, and what the hell is hse doing, still within the Carter dynamic, when she's the obvious instrument in its eventual break-up?
As for the actor playing Moose, fresh from playing Richard, Duke of York/Perkin Warbeck in the US production of The White Princess, re-cast him as Peter Beale and be done with it.
Another Jog Down Memory Lane at the Allotments. Another thing that gripes me is the constant portrayal of Martin as a Luddite, stubborn in his resentment against various people, with Stacey constantly sniping at Martin to make his peace, not only with his sister, but also with the Kazemis.
First of all, Martin has a justifiable gripe with Kush and Carmel, especially Kush, who knew about the sexting between Rebecca and Shakil, but equally with Carmel,for interfering in his family dynamic by interposing herself onto the situation with Arthur and the subsequent remarks she made, revealing that she'd really like for Kush to have custody of Arthur.
But then, I can also understand his displeasure with Michelle. Sometimes, families fall out, many times over minor trivialities, but sometimes over major issues; and Michelle using Martin's child as a sexual ploy and pawn in her affair with an underaged student is, indeed, a major issue. As I've said before, if Sean Slater had tried such a trick with an adolescent Lily, Stacey would see red.
I also don't get where she's going by trying to convince Martin that they'll need Michelle when their new baby is born. It's not as if they're without familial support. Jean isn't that far away, and Kathy would more than step into help. And, by the way, it was Kathy's birthday today, and neither of her sons even acknowledged this. Ian was nowhere to be seen, and Ben was too busy decorating the Square in post-its to remember. But Martin, her nephew and godson, did; that scene where Martin gave "Auntie Kath" her birthday card and kissed her, was a beautiful, but brief, scene.
Actually, this segment showed, really, how pragmatic and sensible Martin was, and how airy-fairy and downright jealous Michelle was. The baby brother was the adult in the room. Michelle is still applying for jobs in education and still being rejected. She refuses to accept Sharon's suggestion of trying to find employment in another field. She's too snobby and narrow-minded enough to consider anything else. Education was her "field."
Bitch, you've tried your hand at hairdressing, pint-pulling, working for the council and home-wrecking, don't tell me that education is your "field," not when you're using "ain't" without compunction in your everyday dialogue. Even if you hadn't slept with a child, were I employing you, I'd not consider you on your grammar alone.
Still, we got the ubiquitous allotment scene. Sean O'Connor must be a gardener, himself, the number of scenes where we've seen characters bonding over digging earth in Arthur's overgrown allotment. It's mid-May now and early crops - tender lettuce and spring onions - should be coming in. Still, all we see are people playing with dirt and moving uprooted grass around. At least, it gives the characters in question time to talk, and the memory lane stuff was pretty relatable.
We learned that Michelle is still jealous of Sharon and Phil, especially of the fact that they've bought land and plan to build a holiday home. Although she tries to mask her bitterness and jealousy, it spills over in her remark, comparing her situation and Sharon's to the tortoise and the hare. I'm glad Martin picked up on that and called her out on implying that Sharon's got what she ultimately got by sheer luck. Yes, a lot of what Sharon's achieved came by way of association with a man, sometimes romantic (the Mitchells), sometimes familial (Den) and sometimes via a business arrangement (Steve Owen, Vincent); but she has worked hard, she has suffered enormously (Angie's death, her birth mother's rejection, and the Mitchell brothers' various mistreatments of her), and for Michelle to express her whining self-pity by reckoning Sharon's situation was down to sheer luck was patronising, condescending and simply mean. With friends like Michelle, Sharon doesn't need enemies.
It also took Martin to give Michelle a reality check. Michelle's remark about her and Sharon was pithy and petty:-
It's not how you start, it's how you finish.
I'm glad Martin reminded this self-pitying, whining bitch that she was right where she was because she screwed up. And he set her right about the teaching jobs - no one will ever hire her as a teacher once they get the proper references (globalisation, innit?) and find out what she's done. As for her constant refrain about Preston, what did she actually hope to achieve with that relationship?
I also think Sean O'Connor or whichever writer wrote this needs to get a time check on Rod Stewart. Maggie May dates from 1971. Michelle may have only been 2 years old, but I hardly think a pretty hard-up Pauline would be wasting her time buying 45s with two small children after whom she was running. Pauline's music would have dated from the 1960s. Why did she have to reference Pauline at all with this? The song is a timeless classic and would have been played enough on the radio throughout the years and sung as a standard by Rod Stewart, that everyone - even Martin - would have known that song. Why go through the rigamarole of her and Sharon singing along as teenagers with hairbrushes as wannabe singers? Their schtick would have been Kajagoogoo, Boy George, or Wham.
God, they mess up every time they do this memory lane shit between Michelle and Martin. SOC is trying too hard to convince the audience that Jenna Russell is Michelle Fowler, when she's not. Nothing about her is Michelle- not her mannerisms, not her attitude, nothing.
Martin's told her some home truth - basically and brutally, that she's pushing fifty and no longer an adolescent (as if Tully's Michelle would ever have thought that), but I daresay, she won't listen.
Observations and Incongruities. Steven's brought Louis to visit Amy, suffering from chicken pox, with instructions to give Amy one big hug. Obviously, he's hoping Amy will infect Steven, thus forcing Lauren to have time off work to look after her sick child.
Think again.
Max's idea is to strip Jack of everything that really isn't his, to which he thinks he's entitled. The obvious thing is Matthew, who isn't Jack's son. Max remembers how Jack simply took Max's possessions when they were children, as if he were entitled to them, and how he was encouraged in this by Jim. Max has a long memory, and revenge is often a dish that's best eaten cold.
And here are two incongruities for the price of one: Kush brushes Carmel's concern off as her meddling. (It was). He also suspects something has transpired between her and Denise.(It has). But Kush is such a manchild. It's one thing to act like the diffident adult, when Carmel, his mother, knows that at heart, he's trapped within a spoiled adolescence.
The link between the two incongruities is our inevitable sighting of Denise, moving,ghost-like and po-faced across the market, saying nothing. O'Connor thinks an episode without, at least, a wordless sighting of his muse means we'll forget her. Yet that sighting gives Carmel a chance for a bit of a goss with Sharon - and since when did Carmel ever speak to Sharon before? - filling her in on all of Denise's strange behaviour. Once again, we get reference to Denise's famous concern for the community and wonder at her disinterest in the community centre project (yawn) and her sudden dumping of Kush. As unlikely as Sharon, someone to whom Carmel has never spoken before in my memory, is as a confidante,even more unlikely was the sudden look of concern which melted across Sharon's face when Carmel rabbited on about something bothering Denise.
Where's Ben with his post-its? Sharon's in need of several to be plastered about her person. How about "Doormat"? How about "Sleep with my father" (for Michelle) or "Sleep with my ex-husband" (again, for Michelle or even Denise's daughter) or better yet "Sleep with my husband" (for Denise). Please don't tell me that Sharon's going to show singular compassion and interest in a woman who didn't give Sharon one back thought when she fell pregnant with Phil's child nor apologised to Sharon when Sharon found out.
This show is dead in the water.
This, on the day when the BSA short-list was announced, showing no actors from EastEnders having made the list (not even Danny Dyer) and only one of the three actresses put forward making the short list, the perennial award-winner, Lacey Turner, who hasn't had a major storyline all year. As good an actress as Turner is, that award should have Charlotte Bellamy's name on it ... and O'Connor's muse didn't even make the cut.
Please, someone put this show out of its misery now. Call for Tony Jordan! Call for Sarah Phelps! Anyone! Please,just rid the show of this man who's choking the lifeblood from it.
The Friendless Friends Sitcom Sucks Shit. The idiotic sitcom episode about the post-it caper with the housemates was some schticky stab at théatre de l'absurde, but it bombed. It wasn't cute, it wasn't funny, it was just plain idiotic.
Remember Tony Jordan's singular bomb with the Alfie-and-the-condom episode? Well, that was worse than this.
This is what is irking me to no end about this show at the moment - the fact that everyone is acting so much out character in certain incidences, in major incidences, it all comes across as phony and contrived, everything to fit the plotline (or the non-plotline) that this producer is trying to get across.
It just seems to me that there are two constants with this clown, and we see and hear them in almost every episode:- Denise and the idea of community.
Jesus Christ, give me strength.
For example, when did Jay get to be one of life's male slobs? Because, basically, that's what Ben and Jay have become - two lads, Men Behaving Badly, Minty and Garry, Dumb and Dumber - ne'mind both of their traumatic histories. Ben doesn't even worry about Phil anymore. In fact, no one does, because no one knows when Phil is returning. In fact, I'm beginning to believe that Phil's going to exist someplace offscreen on the Amalfi Coast, where Sharon will disappear at regular intervals, whenever Letitia Dean wants a break.
But I digress. I'm no fan of Abi's, but I can understand her ire, and neither Ben, Jay, and especially Donna, came off well in this at all.
Donna recruited Abi to live in the house, basically, because she knew Abi would be the chief cook and bottle-washer. Abi is domestically responsible. She's had to be, given her background, and Dot would have insured she was house proud; but they did take advantage of her, helping themselves to her food because they couldn't be arsed to provide stuff of their own. I would imagine both Ben and Jay get enough free hand-outs from Kathy in the café.
I also don't see what the big deal with the labels was about in the house. No, Donna, you self-entitled, little bitch, "house-share" doesn't mean the people living in the house share everything. You share a roof, and that's that. Many of us have shared accommodation at one time or another, and it's common practice to label your foodstuffs, with no offence taken. I've also lived in house-shares in my youth where cupboards were labeled as well. They're just coming across as moochers,who not only expect Abi to clean for them, but to provide food for them as well and then pay the requisite rent. (By the way, I only just noticed that that squidgy front room also encompasses the kitchen as well -WTF?!) It's also common courtesy that when you use someone's foodstuffs in a house-share, you replace them, or else risk being labeled a deadbeat.
I particularly didn't like that scene where Donna called a "meeting" behind Abi's back, enciting Ben and Jay to go into Abi's room, find her labeling machine and bust it up - basically, enter Abi's space (for which she's paying rent) and destroy her personal property. Someone needs to hand this girl her arse. I know EastEnders has always had a tradition, starting with Adam Best, of presenting snarky, self-absorbed and unpleasant people with disabilities, and the vibe I get from this is that these people have been allowed to behave that way because people never thought of ticking them off because of their disability. Stuff all that shit Donna hypes about having to fight to make herself heard in a household of many. She can be a right nasty little bully.
And let's just look at the unreality of the plethora of post-it notes, in all shapes and sizes, literally plastering the Square. Who had the time and the money to accomplish all of that? Literally. I live near Dover, and overnight, this past week, the artist, Banksie, painted a mural on the side of a disused building. It just appeared overnight, which is how the artist works. But all of this happened well into the day - Ben had to take time off from The Arches, and Donna had to leave her stall to plot this; yet there stood Kathy and others, wondering in awe at the state of labelled post-it notes covering everything, and you're trying to tell me no one saw anyone doing that? It would have taken hours alone, just to label and cover the windows and walls of the cafe, not to mention everything else.
Just spare us these stupid storylines, with the joke eventually being turned back onto the perps by Abi outsmarting the lot of them by presenting them with a cleaning rota.
This really is the beginning of the end. It wasn't even funny.
So Blood Doesn't Run Thicker Than Water. All the time Dot's been involved with Jim and Jim's kids, even though they all love the bones of her, and she has settled well with them, even with all their children calling her "Grandma", Dot's always hankered after her own blood kin.
This is why she's always made room for Nick in her life, whenever he would appear with whatever latest child he had. When Charlie appeared, Carol and her lot were on the Square, as was Abi, but Abi was busy with her nose up the Mitchells' collective arse, and Carol was busy with other things, so Charlie (and subsequently Nick when he turned up) was more than welcome. As Dot repeatedly told people who complimented her on Jim's family, his kids weren't hers.
And this is why this storyline, involving Dot, makes no sense at all.
Ever since Charlie disappeared, Dot's tried, unsuccessfully, to contact him. She even upbraided Ronnie, quite severely, for his disappearance. By that time, especially with all the kerfuffle surrounding Nick and his faked death, she knew Ronnie to be a liar at the very least. When Ronnie died, Dot made repeated efforts to contact Charlie, even trying to contact Yvonne in order to get in touch with him - she said so many times in the immediate aftermath of the Blisters' death. In fact, she pointedly told everyone, including Glenda, that Charlie needed to be told, that Matthew was Charlie's son and that Matthew needed to be with his father, that it simply wasn't right.
As fond as Dot was of Jack, she knew that Charlie wouldn't willingly abandon his own child.
Now, we're asked to believe that Dot will side with Jack against Charlie over custody of Matthew? Seriously? Is this because Charlie's settled in Ireland? At first, I thought so, but then I'm not so sure. If Charlie rocked up and settled on the Square with his new wife, I'm sure Dot would still expect him to play the role of the incidental, occasional father. One of the few highlights of the episode tonight came when Charlie, effectively, handed Dot her arse, musing about how Matthew would one day perceive him, when he learned the truth about his paternity, as a father who didn't care about him, who'd walked away from him. The line of the night was when he pointedly reminded Dot ...
Sound familiar?
Dot knew exactly what he meant, but that still didn't stop her. He'd asked her not to say anything to Jack about his plans, that he, himself, wanted to broach the subject with Jack when the time was right; but Dot had to go blabbing her conscience to Jack for the price of a "family" lunch (from which Charlie was expressly excluded) and some cute lines of dialogue from Amy.
Listen, I'm Team Charlie here, even though he's being unwittingly propped up by Max, who has an ulterior motive. Charlie isn't a bad man. He didn't walk out of his son's life, willingly. He was forced to leave, bullied out of the community on a threat of death by Ronnie the psychopath. When Charlie told Jack about Ronnie's threat to him, he didn't bat an eyelid. Jack knew Ronnie was a cold-blooded killer, and I wonder what Dot would think about her, if she were ever to find out what happened to Fatboy. If Charlie had just shown up after years of being away and claimed paternity after Jack had done all the heavy lifting, that would, indeed, be a pisstake. But he's not. He has a stable job, he's married, and as much as Jack is balking at it, he's offering Matthew stability.
Jack's situation at the moment consists of chaos and various babysitters. And ... Matthew is not his son. I still say that Jack is transferring a lot of his unresolved grief for James onto Matthew. Another thing: We also know that whenever Dot had Matthew to mind, she constantly was talking to him about his "real" daddy. Are TPTB trying to tell us that Dot would want her grandson to sit back, relinquish custody of his son to someone who had no right to him at all? That doesn't make sense. If Charlie were the man his father was, if he were feckless and mean, I'd see her point, but her siding with Jack makes no sense.
Don't get me wrong - I feel for Jack. Matthew is the last bit of Ronnie he has in his life. But all this malarkey about Matthew not knowing Charlie doesn't hold water. Matthew is 2 years old. As Charlie said, he'd soon adjust, and that's the truth. It's not only self-entitlement, it's egregious that Jack would think Charlie would only be content with showing up now and then and playing "Uncle Charlie" to his own son. And it's pretty shitty that Dot would take Jack's side.
The Mattress Gets Dumped. Linda's return is long overdue, especially since Whitney has stepped into the fore, taking a commanding position and assumes that she's the rightful landlady of the Vic. What a presumptuous little whore she is! As Linda isn't returning on Friday but Ollie is, she's further on her way in attempting to become LindaLite by showing up with Ollie. Suffice it to say that it didn't take much persuasion from Johnny the Dolt to convince her that Moose's errand was to suss the lay of the land for a reconciliation with Lee. You can bet your bottom dollar, as well, that Whitney would have made Lee dance a clever trick to get back into her good books.
I'm fed up to the teeth, also, with all these pejorative references to Lee as the baddie, and it pisses me off that we probably won't get to see Linda rightfully find out the utterly cruel part Mick and Whitney played in Lee's breakdown and departure. Mick actually told him to part with Whitney, that she was too good for him, and that he needed to leave Walford. The message sent out to viewers was, basically, anyone suffering from a mental illness needs to be sent away.
Tonight, we got references to Lee being a right "do-do" (Johnny), as well as Moose talking him down in comparison to the brilliantly amazing Whitney - to the point that Whitney's enormous ego got the best of her and she actually thought Moose was coming onto her,and then was disappointed when she found that he wasn't.
The fact that Lee wants a divorce was a real punch-the-air moment. Good. He's moved on from the bitch who sucked the lifeblood from him with her greediness, only to fancy his father behind his back and to poison Mick's mind against his own son with her tattling and whining. The look on Whitney's face was priceless when she found out she was being dumped. She's dumped so many nice blokes in her time just to chase after the ubiquitous bad boy, it's a shock that someone would want to dump her. Maybe Lee had time to think on his home and away from that toxic atmosphere, and he realised just how much Whtney dragged him down. I hope he realises the same about Mick.
And of course, Whitney still goes running to Mick, ringing him in Albania.
Mick, I needja.
I'll bet you do. Run right to Mick, whining about big,bad Lee, dumping you. It angers me to think that Lee is going to be estranged from his family at the expense of some skanky little whore, who looks as though she needs a bath and as if you could fry an egg in her hair.
But she's spoiled for choice now, isn't she, judging by the calculating look on her face, after Woody enquired about her in the wake of Moose's news, in Mick's absence (and Linda's), Woody's wood will suffice.
I like Woody. I really do, as much as I like Konrad, both being painfully obvious how much the show cries out for new characters, as much as how tired some older characters are; but for Christ's sake, do not pair him with Whitney. Why is it that a muscular young man of a particular age demographic has to be paired with Whitney the Walford Mattress? Is there some sort of rule or requirement?
The show has a very peculiar problem with their older ingenues at the moment, and I'm speaking about Shona McGarty and Jacqueline Jossa. Both these actresses have never managed to spark any amount of sexual chemistry with any of the male characters with whom they've been paired. I don't know whey that is, but I think that part of the reason that they fail at romance storylines is simply because that, as actresses, they are too self-aware of their own image in front of the camera. They do well, in portraying two, dimwit, self-absorbed and silly young women, whose superficial friendship consists of them talking at each other and never listening to what the other is saying, but as romantic leads in any sense of the word, they are an epic fail.
Were this producer of any worth, he'd shed some characters without whom the show might continue without missing them - unlike the Mitchell sisters, one-half of which is sorely missed. I'm no fan of either actress, but I'd shed McGarty's character. Her links to the Square are tenuous, she has family in other parts of England, and what the hell is hse doing, still within the Carter dynamic, when she's the obvious instrument in its eventual break-up?
As for the actor playing Moose, fresh from playing Richard, Duke of York/Perkin Warbeck in the US production of The White Princess, re-cast him as Peter Beale and be done with it.
Another Jog Down Memory Lane at the Allotments. Another thing that gripes me is the constant portrayal of Martin as a Luddite, stubborn in his resentment against various people, with Stacey constantly sniping at Martin to make his peace, not only with his sister, but also with the Kazemis.
First of all, Martin has a justifiable gripe with Kush and Carmel, especially Kush, who knew about the sexting between Rebecca and Shakil, but equally with Carmel,for interfering in his family dynamic by interposing herself onto the situation with Arthur and the subsequent remarks she made, revealing that she'd really like for Kush to have custody of Arthur.
But then, I can also understand his displeasure with Michelle. Sometimes, families fall out, many times over minor trivialities, but sometimes over major issues; and Michelle using Martin's child as a sexual ploy and pawn in her affair with an underaged student is, indeed, a major issue. As I've said before, if Sean Slater had tried such a trick with an adolescent Lily, Stacey would see red.
I also don't get where she's going by trying to convince Martin that they'll need Michelle when their new baby is born. It's not as if they're without familial support. Jean isn't that far away, and Kathy would more than step into help. And, by the way, it was Kathy's birthday today, and neither of her sons even acknowledged this. Ian was nowhere to be seen, and Ben was too busy decorating the Square in post-its to remember. But Martin, her nephew and godson, did; that scene where Martin gave "Auntie Kath" her birthday card and kissed her, was a beautiful, but brief, scene.
Actually, this segment showed, really, how pragmatic and sensible Martin was, and how airy-fairy and downright jealous Michelle was. The baby brother was the adult in the room. Michelle is still applying for jobs in education and still being rejected. She refuses to accept Sharon's suggestion of trying to find employment in another field. She's too snobby and narrow-minded enough to consider anything else. Education was her "field."
Bitch, you've tried your hand at hairdressing, pint-pulling, working for the council and home-wrecking, don't tell me that education is your "field," not when you're using "ain't" without compunction in your everyday dialogue. Even if you hadn't slept with a child, were I employing you, I'd not consider you on your grammar alone.
Still, we got the ubiquitous allotment scene. Sean O'Connor must be a gardener, himself, the number of scenes where we've seen characters bonding over digging earth in Arthur's overgrown allotment. It's mid-May now and early crops - tender lettuce and spring onions - should be coming in. Still, all we see are people playing with dirt and moving uprooted grass around. At least, it gives the characters in question time to talk, and the memory lane stuff was pretty relatable.
We learned that Michelle is still jealous of Sharon and Phil, especially of the fact that they've bought land and plan to build a holiday home. Although she tries to mask her bitterness and jealousy, it spills over in her remark, comparing her situation and Sharon's to the tortoise and the hare. I'm glad Martin picked up on that and called her out on implying that Sharon's got what she ultimately got by sheer luck. Yes, a lot of what Sharon's achieved came by way of association with a man, sometimes romantic (the Mitchells), sometimes familial (Den) and sometimes via a business arrangement (Steve Owen, Vincent); but she has worked hard, she has suffered enormously (Angie's death, her birth mother's rejection, and the Mitchell brothers' various mistreatments of her), and for Michelle to express her whining self-pity by reckoning Sharon's situation was down to sheer luck was patronising, condescending and simply mean. With friends like Michelle, Sharon doesn't need enemies.
It also took Martin to give Michelle a reality check. Michelle's remark about her and Sharon was pithy and petty:-
It's not how you start, it's how you finish.
I'm glad Martin reminded this self-pitying, whining bitch that she was right where she was because she screwed up. And he set her right about the teaching jobs - no one will ever hire her as a teacher once they get the proper references (globalisation, innit?) and find out what she's done. As for her constant refrain about Preston, what did she actually hope to achieve with that relationship?
I also think Sean O'Connor or whichever writer wrote this needs to get a time check on Rod Stewart. Maggie May dates from 1971. Michelle may have only been 2 years old, but I hardly think a pretty hard-up Pauline would be wasting her time buying 45s with two small children after whom she was running. Pauline's music would have dated from the 1960s. Why did she have to reference Pauline at all with this? The song is a timeless classic and would have been played enough on the radio throughout the years and sung as a standard by Rod Stewart, that everyone - even Martin - would have known that song. Why go through the rigamarole of her and Sharon singing along as teenagers with hairbrushes as wannabe singers? Their schtick would have been Kajagoogoo, Boy George, or Wham.
God, they mess up every time they do this memory lane shit between Michelle and Martin. SOC is trying too hard to convince the audience that Jenna Russell is Michelle Fowler, when she's not. Nothing about her is Michelle- not her mannerisms, not her attitude, nothing.
Martin's told her some home truth - basically and brutally, that she's pushing fifty and no longer an adolescent (as if Tully's Michelle would ever have thought that), but I daresay, she won't listen.
Observations and Incongruities. Steven's brought Louis to visit Amy, suffering from chicken pox, with instructions to give Amy one big hug. Obviously, he's hoping Amy will infect Steven, thus forcing Lauren to have time off work to look after her sick child.
Think again.
Max's idea is to strip Jack of everything that really isn't his, to which he thinks he's entitled. The obvious thing is Matthew, who isn't Jack's son. Max remembers how Jack simply took Max's possessions when they were children, as if he were entitled to them, and how he was encouraged in this by Jim. Max has a long memory, and revenge is often a dish that's best eaten cold.
And here are two incongruities for the price of one: Kush brushes Carmel's concern off as her meddling. (It was). He also suspects something has transpired between her and Denise.(It has). But Kush is such a manchild. It's one thing to act like the diffident adult, when Carmel, his mother, knows that at heart, he's trapped within a spoiled adolescence.
The link between the two incongruities is our inevitable sighting of Denise, moving,ghost-like and po-faced across the market, saying nothing. O'Connor thinks an episode without, at least, a wordless sighting of his muse means we'll forget her. Yet that sighting gives Carmel a chance for a bit of a goss with Sharon - and since when did Carmel ever speak to Sharon before? - filling her in on all of Denise's strange behaviour. Once again, we get reference to Denise's famous concern for the community and wonder at her disinterest in the community centre project (yawn) and her sudden dumping of Kush. As unlikely as Sharon, someone to whom Carmel has never spoken before in my memory, is as a confidante,even more unlikely was the sudden look of concern which melted across Sharon's face when Carmel rabbited on about something bothering Denise.
Where's Ben with his post-its? Sharon's in need of several to be plastered about her person. How about "Doormat"? How about "Sleep with my father" (for Michelle) or "Sleep with my ex-husband" (again, for Michelle or even Denise's daughter) or better yet "Sleep with my husband" (for Denise). Please don't tell me that Sharon's going to show singular compassion and interest in a woman who didn't give Sharon one back thought when she fell pregnant with Phil's child nor apologised to Sharon when Sharon found out.
This show is dead in the water.
No comments:
Post a Comment