The commenter Nebraska from Walford Web Kindergarten remarks:-
I'm not the biggest fan of Nebraska. She's someone who runs with the hares and hunts with the hounds, and I usually abhor that openly craven sort of two-facedness; but she has a point here.
As with Kat and as with Bianca, EastEnders have scored a resounding EPIC FAIL with Sharon's return.
I'm someone who's watched Sharon from a teenager on the show. I've seen her as a child, a young married woman, a divorcee, in relationships and someone who found love(?) and re-married. She left as a widow. But I find I'm very discomfited watching her return as a mother - or more specifically, the way TPTB have depicted her as a mother. Not just a mother, but a particular type of woman in general.
Until this return, Sharon was always a strong character who, even from an early age, rose above all sorts of trouble. Sharon was the go-between in her parents' atrocious marriage, yet she never stopped loving either parent. She survived the departure of her alcoholic mother and the presumed death of her father. She was the abused wife of a man who loved the bones of her, but who - we know now - was suffering from PTSD from his military experiences in the Falkands. She rose above that and above the shame of having an affair with his brother; and in that instance, she allowed herself to be presented in a less-than-salubrious light and did so with dignity.
I admit, too, to being slightly uncomfortable with her reincarnation, from 2001, as the Square's resident "tragedy queen" as prerequisite to what Ronnie Mitchell would become - bowing out of a relationship with Phil Mitchell because she presumed she was infertile and refused to adopt, falling in love with a dying man who was killed in a fire (double dose of tragedy there), having an affair, fighting for, becoming engaged to and marrying a man who - for all intents and purposes - was her brother. (You really couldn't make it up). Then watching him die from stab wounds outside the Vic on the New Year's Eve she found she was pregnant.
I never bought into the Shannis mystique. Dennis was too pretty and too fey. He also looked like the kid brother or - better yet - the classroom kid who had the crush on Sharon's black-clad teacher figure. You could always imagine them, creepily, having a sex life where she role-played, wearing black fishnets and a mortar board, cracking a whip, with Dennis on his knees saying, "Yes, miss."
She was the stronger personality, and he was weak. She had the businesses and the business nous. Dennis had nothing but the beetle-brow scowl when he didn't get his way. Contrary to what Jonnie Allen observed (and he only said it to piss off Phil Mitchell), they wouldn't have gone the distance. The birth of Dennis Jnr would only have meant Sharon would have had two children, one of them her husband-brother. (I also find it creepy that Dennis Jr's paternal and maternal grandfathers are the same person).
This time, we're seeing her as some ueber-neurotic, over-protective mother, who talks to a six year-old as if he were two or three, and who's concocted some pie-in-the-sky fairy tale about his father being a heroic helicopter pilot who rescued people. WTF?
OK, to be fair, she doesn't have to tell him his daddy was a pretty-boy little punk who was easily manipulated by tougher, Alpha males and who murdered a man in cold blood, or that he foolishly beat up the local crime lord hours before he was due to leave the country, then threw him his mobile phone so the injured man could call an ambulance. Instead, his victim called a henchman to kill Daddy dearest.
She could just tell him his father loved him very much, but unfortunately, he was stabbed by a bad man.
Cutting up the kid's food, dressing him up to look like Little Lord Fauntleroy, obsessing over every little ache, pain or fart that doesn't smell right.
From what we've seen so far with the school situation, widdle Dennis is a bit of a whiner, knowing that all he has to do is complain of a headache or a tummy ache and Mummy will come running.
For goodness sakes, Sharon was always a strong woman, and she'd be someone who'd raise a child in a loving, but no-nonsense fashion, and she'd raise her son to be strong and to be a survivor. Otherwise, the whole exercise would be an insult to her husband's memory.
And speaking of Sharon as a strong woman, she's now become weak and clinging, with a needy dependency on comfort sex, on having a man to "help her make it through the night." Consequently, they've rescued her from an impending entanglement which she realised at the eleventh hour was wrong, only to have her immediately enter into a sex-first-flirt-later relationship with Jack-Fucking-Branning.
Because she's pretty and blonde and Jack's run out of female characters who aren't related to him in some way and with whom he can fuck. Sharon's pretty and of a certain age; Jack's pretty and of a certain age. It makes sense; besides, it gives Jack a purpose as a character, and it also bridges the gap between "new" Walford and "old" Walford - thus, validating the Brannings as a viable Walford entity.
And that's really what her return seems to be about.
Oh, and let's further cement the Branning connection by concocting a friendship with Tanya, the sort of woman Sharon would never think about initiating a friendship in a million years.
They brought this character back at a time when her two closest and longest-serving Walford connections are at their lowest points - Ian and Phil. Also obvious is the fact that Letitia Dean's acting goes up a convincing gear whenever she's in scenes with Adam Woodyatt or Steve McFadden. Why aren't we seeing her focus more on getting Ian back on track? Instead, we see him being ministered to by the Masoods. Why isn't she having heart-to-hearts with Phil about his fears for Ben? Why haven't we seen her talking with Phil about his cover-up? We know he told her off-screen and she refused to judge him? Why isn't Sharon providing a rock support for him and telling Shirley to sling her hook, make good her threat to go to the police or clear off?
The chemistry is still there for all to see between Steve McFadden and Letitia Dean, but TPTB seem intent on forcing us to accept the pretty and scripted relationship they're formulating between her and Jack Branning? Justify the continued existence of a wooden character at the expense of an EastEnders' icon? Pur-LEESE.
It makes sense to involve Sharon in Ian's and Phil's foibles, if only to expose her own problematic secrets (and there are sure to be some) to enable them - or at least, Phil - to help her through this.
I can't believe they've brought Sharon back to the programme only to make her part and parcel of a totally unlikeable family of rogues which is growing like a cancer. I can't believe they've brought her back as someone as weak and needy as she is - and I certainly can't believe she'd go this far off the deep end because of Dennis Rickman's death - a man she really didn't even trust. Or anyone's death for that matter. Sharon's made of stronger stuff.
And what was all this "I don't know if you remember me" shit with Janine? Sharon babysat Janine. She dated Janine's stepbrother. Janine had been on the Square for three years when Sharon returned the last time. They interacted. They have history, and even now, they can bond over their similarities - the daughters of iconic Vic landlords, their daddy issues, their abandonment by their fathers, their children, their marriages to men they didn't trust. OK, Janine's leaving, but so is Tanya.
A more believeable and feasible friendship to initiate would be Sharon being friends with Denise. Or waiting a bit and re-connecting with Carol.
Then, there's her appearance.
We've had Sharon with the bubble-cut perm and the thigh-high skirts in the 1990s. We had the tailored black, shoulder-padded business suits a decade ago - not to mention the hair extensions. Now we've got the more extreme hair extensions and the bigger hair. And although the styling is better, clothes-wise, the hair makes her look like a toned-down Dolly Parton.
In short, they've got Sharon all wrong. Like Kat. Like Bianca. A hattrick of failures by EastEnders with three of its most iconic female characters.
But then, why am I not surprised?
Sharon's return, so far, is a complete failure. She's getting the Kat treatment
Edit to explain it better:
I don't recognise the character I used to like, and it has nothing to do with her tragedies or how much time has passed.
As a mum she's cringeworthy; fussing constantly over her kid and being overwhelming. She's the type of mum I usually laugh at, as they're so stiff and show off it's ridiculous. That stuff about not sugary stuff before school made me chuckle, relax a little woman. Or the panic over a tummy ache. Just like I would have never pictured Kat being the shitty mum she is now, I would have never thought Sharon would turn out to be this type of parent. Everyone knows how much I detest Tanya, but this is probably the only time where I like her attitude to parenting better than somebody else's. So Sharon and parenting isn't working.
I'm annoyed at the fact that she's just back, got out of a relationship where she nearly got married, and is already thrown in some sort of crappy courtship with Jack. Seriously? Why can't we have a woman who stands on her own two feet without needing a man? Why can't we have Sharon forming meaningful friendships with the likes of Denise or Kat, or being more involved with Ian? Why aren't we seeing more of the meaningful connection she has with Phil, since everyone has been raving about it for months? And why does she need to look so dolly-like? Last time she was around she looked much more natural, her face and hair was so pretty... She looks so unattractive now, there's hardly any appealing left in the character.
I'm not pleased. They need to sort out her character quickly, cause we're heading for a disaster here.
I'm not the biggest fan of Nebraska. She's someone who runs with the hares and hunts with the hounds, and I usually abhor that openly craven sort of two-facedness; but she has a point here.
As with Kat and as with Bianca, EastEnders have scored a resounding EPIC FAIL with Sharon's return.
I'm someone who's watched Sharon from a teenager on the show. I've seen her as a child, a young married woman, a divorcee, in relationships and someone who found love(?) and re-married. She left as a widow. But I find I'm very discomfited watching her return as a mother - or more specifically, the way TPTB have depicted her as a mother. Not just a mother, but a particular type of woman in general.
Until this return, Sharon was always a strong character who, even from an early age, rose above all sorts of trouble. Sharon was the go-between in her parents' atrocious marriage, yet she never stopped loving either parent. She survived the departure of her alcoholic mother and the presumed death of her father. She was the abused wife of a man who loved the bones of her, but who - we know now - was suffering from PTSD from his military experiences in the Falkands. She rose above that and above the shame of having an affair with his brother; and in that instance, she allowed herself to be presented in a less-than-salubrious light and did so with dignity.
I admit, too, to being slightly uncomfortable with her reincarnation, from 2001, as the Square's resident "tragedy queen" as prerequisite to what Ronnie Mitchell would become - bowing out of a relationship with Phil Mitchell because she presumed she was infertile and refused to adopt, falling in love with a dying man who was killed in a fire (double dose of tragedy there), having an affair, fighting for, becoming engaged to and marrying a man who - for all intents and purposes - was her brother. (You really couldn't make it up). Then watching him die from stab wounds outside the Vic on the New Year's Eve she found she was pregnant.
I never bought into the Shannis mystique. Dennis was too pretty and too fey. He also looked like the kid brother or - better yet - the classroom kid who had the crush on Sharon's black-clad teacher figure. You could always imagine them, creepily, having a sex life where she role-played, wearing black fishnets and a mortar board, cracking a whip, with Dennis on his knees saying, "Yes, miss."
She was the stronger personality, and he was weak. She had the businesses and the business nous. Dennis had nothing but the beetle-brow scowl when he didn't get his way. Contrary to what Jonnie Allen observed (and he only said it to piss off Phil Mitchell), they wouldn't have gone the distance. The birth of Dennis Jnr would only have meant Sharon would have had two children, one of them her husband-brother. (I also find it creepy that Dennis Jr's paternal and maternal grandfathers are the same person).
This time, we're seeing her as some ueber-neurotic, over-protective mother, who talks to a six year-old as if he were two or three, and who's concocted some pie-in-the-sky fairy tale about his father being a heroic helicopter pilot who rescued people. WTF?
OK, to be fair, she doesn't have to tell him his daddy was a pretty-boy little punk who was easily manipulated by tougher, Alpha males and who murdered a man in cold blood, or that he foolishly beat up the local crime lord hours before he was due to leave the country, then threw him his mobile phone so the injured man could call an ambulance. Instead, his victim called a henchman to kill Daddy dearest.
She could just tell him his father loved him very much, but unfortunately, he was stabbed by a bad man.
Cutting up the kid's food, dressing him up to look like Little Lord Fauntleroy, obsessing over every little ache, pain or fart that doesn't smell right.
From what we've seen so far with the school situation, widdle Dennis is a bit of a whiner, knowing that all he has to do is complain of a headache or a tummy ache and Mummy will come running.
For goodness sakes, Sharon was always a strong woman, and she'd be someone who'd raise a child in a loving, but no-nonsense fashion, and she'd raise her son to be strong and to be a survivor. Otherwise, the whole exercise would be an insult to her husband's memory.
And speaking of Sharon as a strong woman, she's now become weak and clinging, with a needy dependency on comfort sex, on having a man to "help her make it through the night." Consequently, they've rescued her from an impending entanglement which she realised at the eleventh hour was wrong, only to have her immediately enter into a sex-first-flirt-later relationship with Jack-Fucking-Branning.
Because she's pretty and blonde and Jack's run out of female characters who aren't related to him in some way and with whom he can fuck. Sharon's pretty and of a certain age; Jack's pretty and of a certain age. It makes sense; besides, it gives Jack a purpose as a character, and it also bridges the gap between "new" Walford and "old" Walford - thus, validating the Brannings as a viable Walford entity.
And that's really what her return seems to be about.
Oh, and let's further cement the Branning connection by concocting a friendship with Tanya, the sort of woman Sharon would never think about initiating a friendship in a million years.
They brought this character back at a time when her two closest and longest-serving Walford connections are at their lowest points - Ian and Phil. Also obvious is the fact that Letitia Dean's acting goes up a convincing gear whenever she's in scenes with Adam Woodyatt or Steve McFadden. Why aren't we seeing her focus more on getting Ian back on track? Instead, we see him being ministered to by the Masoods. Why isn't she having heart-to-hearts with Phil about his fears for Ben? Why haven't we seen her talking with Phil about his cover-up? We know he told her off-screen and she refused to judge him? Why isn't Sharon providing a rock support for him and telling Shirley to sling her hook, make good her threat to go to the police or clear off?
The chemistry is still there for all to see between Steve McFadden and Letitia Dean, but TPTB seem intent on forcing us to accept the pretty and scripted relationship they're formulating between her and Jack Branning? Justify the continued existence of a wooden character at the expense of an EastEnders' icon? Pur-LEESE.
It makes sense to involve Sharon in Ian's and Phil's foibles, if only to expose her own problematic secrets (and there are sure to be some) to enable them - or at least, Phil - to help her through this.
I can't believe they've brought Sharon back to the programme only to make her part and parcel of a totally unlikeable family of rogues which is growing like a cancer. I can't believe they've brought her back as someone as weak and needy as she is - and I certainly can't believe she'd go this far off the deep end because of Dennis Rickman's death - a man she really didn't even trust. Or anyone's death for that matter. Sharon's made of stronger stuff.
And what was all this "I don't know if you remember me" shit with Janine? Sharon babysat Janine. She dated Janine's stepbrother. Janine had been on the Square for three years when Sharon returned the last time. They interacted. They have history, and even now, they can bond over their similarities - the daughters of iconic Vic landlords, their daddy issues, their abandonment by their fathers, their children, their marriages to men they didn't trust. OK, Janine's leaving, but so is Tanya.
A more believeable and feasible friendship to initiate would be Sharon being friends with Denise. Or waiting a bit and re-connecting with Carol.
Then, there's her appearance.
We've had Sharon with the bubble-cut perm and the thigh-high skirts in the 1990s. We had the tailored black, shoulder-padded business suits a decade ago - not to mention the hair extensions. Now we've got the more extreme hair extensions and the bigger hair. And although the styling is better, clothes-wise, the hair makes her look like a toned-down Dolly Parton.
In short, they've got Sharon all wrong. Like Kat. Like Bianca. A hattrick of failures by EastEnders with three of its most iconic female characters.
But then, why am I not surprised?
Why do they have to feel they have to take the piss out of everything? Why cant they go back to some quality (for a soap) drama like in the early days? I think they would have a top rated show again if they did that. If they have screwed up Sharon as bad as you say (and I am not for a minute doubting you), then I hope they dont bring back any more of the past. Certainly not Mark Jnr, cos they dont have a clue or any respect for anything past or future. They have set some good seeds for the future with Lolas baby, whats the bet she tragically dies next time they need a ratings booster, or is wasted in some other way.
ReplyDeleteProfessor Plum