Better episode, but just that and no more. Classic EastEnders, the show we all knew and loved and revered in the 80s and 90s is no more, and - sadly - something of this calibre is the best we have at the moment.
Inconsistency abounds, and it's embarrassing. Masood starts the day in a Royal Mail logo'd teeshirt, indicating that he still works as a postman - well, we've seen him, damn it. He also finishes his round and appears to have nothing left to do all day but swan around the Square spying on Syed. So when he shows up at Syed's lock-up to discover something he already knew (psssst, Syed's lying - again), he offers up a Walford Primary ID as a means of identification, indicating that he's also pursuing his intended career as a teaching assistant.
Hang on ... does he show up at Walford Primary as and when he feels like a day in the classroom, or is every day Saturday in Branningville? Or Margaritaville?
Because either everyone's drunk in Walford - er, Branningville - or the writers are. Look, it's not rocket science. Either Masood's still a postman or he's a classroom assistant at the local primary school. He simply can't be both. He' be exhausted as well as committing a crime. For story purposes, let's just admit that the teaching assistant malarkey (which meant that Masood would have to work away from the Square - shock, horror) didn't work out, and he returned to life as a postman - complete with a Post Office ID. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink ... really, writers, you should begin to think. Critically.
Speaking of thinking, Jack Branning is really a certified dickbrain. That means he constantly has his dick on his mind.
That's memories as in Sharon and Phil, not Sharon and fey Dennis. As a very perspicacious commentator on both Walford Kindergarten and Digital Spy constantly reminds us - Sharon was the woman who opened the Vic for business the day after Den was dug up.
Sharon the Wimp is the leftover from Kirkwood's fuck-up as a means of introducing Sharon as a supporting player in the Branning set-up. It sucks and it shows.
Yeah, and not only did Jack babysit Amy the night before, he also babysat Dennis, reading him stories and bonding - ostensibly whilst Sharon managed the club. Ain't it grand that Jack can bond with someone else's son (because he wants to woo the woo-woo of the boy's mother), but can't be arsed to visit his own son in Portugal?
Speaking of babysitting, drinking and abject hypocrites, I give you poor Roxy's plight. Too many writers have been giving credence to too many viewers of low intelligence levels who insist that Roxy is a slut. Let's count the men since 2007:
Jack (once- 2008 - resulting in a pregnancy)
Sean (2008 - married)
Jase Dyer (2009 - once)
Al Jenkins (2010 - short relationship)
Michael Moon (2011 - weird relationship)
Jack (once - 2012)
and now AJ, which counts as once, and which she stopped.
That's hardly promiscuous, yet for some viewers, Roxy is the ultimate slut. This episode, sadly, reinforced that notion. From her first scene when she and that eternal adolescent AJ clambered down the stairs, hungover, in Zainab's house, receiving the mother of all condemnations from the woman who disowned her son because he was gay, tacitly condoned the beating of his lover and who has set herself up as a paragon of virtue. She questions Roxy's maternal qualities, when she, herself, forced her son to undergo a sham marriage rather than live as the gay man he was.
Then Jack, once again, directly implies that Roxy is an unfit mother - ne'mind the fact that Jack can parade a different girl each morning before the breakfast table where Amy is sitting. That's rich. And hypocritical. But it reinforces the notion that Roxy is feckless, irresponsible, amoral and immature.
Granted, Roxy is going around in circles at the moment - yet again - and the coupling with AJ was a notion meant to reinforce this; I disagree with sacrificing her character, yet again, at the altar of salvaging the spent relationship between Alfie and Kat. Kat is a character who should just go - Yorke's creation or not. She was ruined by EastEnders, and they should just own it and move on ... with Roxy.
Once again, I don't know where the Roxy-Michael thing is going as well or how it's meant to play out. At the end of the day, Michael is still married to Janine, and will be married to Janine until next July if and when Janine wishes to end the relationship legally. At the moment, Charlie Brooks is returning, but I suppose a Roxy-Michael situation is always a contingency plan in the event that Ms Brooks decides to change her mind about a return.
The general pills of the episode were the likes of Lola and Syed. Roxy is presented as a slut and yet we're supposed to feel immense sympathy for Lola. Lola has no moral qualms and, as much as she might profess her love for Lexie, has no compunction about dropping the kid with all and sundry in order to do what she wants. So she's got this cleaning scheme in mind - cash in hand, of course - as a means of making a living for her child. Stealing the cleaning equipment, of course. At least at the beginning of this episode, Patrick is again reminding her that stealing is wrong. Still, it's obvious that she didn't intend to pay Syed for the cleaning equipment and never did; and it was just a bit of luck that Patrick happened along at the time her probationary officer was about and - yes - lied to save her sorry skin.
Awful actress and pejorative character. I hope she leaves.
And as for Syed ... as Dan, the moderator and commentator on Walford Kindergarten observes, it's interesting that Syed was introduced as a totally immoral and weak liar and that he's leaving this way as well. Syed behaves like a spoiled brat, especially at the table in the last scene (but that's only because he's like a cornered rat, knowing that Mas is onto his lies and deceit).
Syed has form in embezzling and screwing his own family, financially, and he's even letting Tamwar (yawn ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz) get het up (as much as he can) over the fact that Tamwar believes he's written a missing cheque which has cocked up the cooked books. Syed feels no compunction about that at all, and the lies virtually tripped off his tongue at the table scene as he took pleasure in putting his father in his place, yet again, to the point that Zainab demands Mas apologise to Syed for being wrong - only Mas is not wrong, as we have seen. Yet again, Zainab undermines her own husband.
Finally, Phil is back and his efforts to redecorate the Vic have finally managed to spook creepy Jean and the increasingly redundant Fatboy.
Better episode. Not great, but watchable.
Inconsistency abounds, and it's embarrassing. Masood starts the day in a Royal Mail logo'd teeshirt, indicating that he still works as a postman - well, we've seen him, damn it. He also finishes his round and appears to have nothing left to do all day but swan around the Square spying on Syed. So when he shows up at Syed's lock-up to discover something he already knew (psssst, Syed's lying - again), he offers up a Walford Primary ID as a means of identification, indicating that he's also pursuing his intended career as a teaching assistant.
Hang on ... does he show up at Walford Primary as and when he feels like a day in the classroom, or is every day Saturday in Branningville? Or Margaritaville?
Because either everyone's drunk in Walford - er, Branningville - or the writers are. Look, it's not rocket science. Either Masood's still a postman or he's a classroom assistant at the local primary school. He simply can't be both. He' be exhausted as well as committing a crime. For story purposes, let's just admit that the teaching assistant malarkey (which meant that Masood would have to work away from the Square - shock, horror) didn't work out, and he returned to life as a postman - complete with a Post Office ID. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink ... really, writers, you should begin to think. Critically.
Speaking of thinking, Jack Branning is really a certified dickbrain. That means he constantly has his dick on his mind.
Jack Branning Walks the Streets of Walford
Jack's doing the odd bit of parental duty when he spies an attractive blonde woman leaving Michael's house, with Michael following, buttoning up his shirt. Jack automatically assumes that Michael's pulled a bird for the night. It matters naught to Jack that Michael has an infant daughter upstairs (I hope, because he walked away from the house, with no sign of Scarlett) and suffered the abrupt abandonment by his wife not a month prior to that. Of course, the first thing running through Michael's mind would be his need to get laid - well, Jack thinks that, because that's exactly what Jack would be thinking, himself - and he'd do just that and did, when Ronnie left.
As the viewers saw, there are a million-and-one reasons why a well-dressed female professional would be at the Butcher house early in the morning - this one is obviously a private investigator hired by Michael in order to find Janine. But Jack's had so many nameless blondes leaving his flat lately, he automatically assumes Michael is just like him.
No wonder Amy's mute. It can't be easy being seen in public with a walking penis.
Speaking of penises, we were subjected to yet another bosom-heaving attempt at creating sexual tension between a Walford icon and a plank of wood. How's this for a storyline? Sharon shags Jack and then has to go to the emergency room in order to have splinters removed from her woo-woo.
Quite honestly, the scenes between Letitia Dean and Scott Maslen are an embarrassment. Please, stop trying, EastEnders. It isn't working. There is absolutely no sexual chemistry, and any involvement with Jack would send Sharon crawling for her pill addiction. Their scenes together are butt-clinchingly cringeworthy - the simpering, the bosom-heaving, the breathy voices, the eyelash-fluttering. That isn't Sharon. That's fucking Days of Our Lives.
Or Another World ...
With Sharon morphing into Alice Matthews ...
Once again, TPTB juxtapose a scene between Dean and Maslen with one between Dean and Steve McFadden. Either they are unaware of the innate difference in quality (the former duo lack that element, whilst it abounds in the case of the latter) or they want us to see how Sharon and Phil resonate whilst Sharon and Jack fall flat. One can live in hope.
Phil's predicament strikes a chord with Sharon. She's an addict and so is he. That will be an emotional link. But Sharon was never such a wimp as to declare the Vic a curse which will conquer whoever and to eschew working there because of memories. Cue music ...
Sharon the Wimp is the leftover from Kirkwood's fuck-up as a means of introducing Sharon as a supporting player in the Branning set-up. It sucks and it shows.
Yeah, and not only did Jack babysit Amy the night before, he also babysat Dennis, reading him stories and bonding - ostensibly whilst Sharon managed the club. Ain't it grand that Jack can bond with someone else's son (because he wants to woo the woo-woo of the boy's mother), but can't be arsed to visit his own son in Portugal?
Speaking of babysitting, drinking and abject hypocrites, I give you poor Roxy's plight. Too many writers have been giving credence to too many viewers of low intelligence levels who insist that Roxy is a slut. Let's count the men since 2007:
Jack (once- 2008 - resulting in a pregnancy)
Sean (2008 - married)
Jase Dyer (2009 - once)
Al Jenkins (2010 - short relationship)
Michael Moon (2011 - weird relationship)
Jack (once - 2012)
and now AJ, which counts as once, and which she stopped.
That's hardly promiscuous, yet for some viewers, Roxy is the ultimate slut. This episode, sadly, reinforced that notion. From her first scene when she and that eternal adolescent AJ clambered down the stairs, hungover, in Zainab's house, receiving the mother of all condemnations from the woman who disowned her son because he was gay, tacitly condoned the beating of his lover and who has set herself up as a paragon of virtue. She questions Roxy's maternal qualities, when she, herself, forced her son to undergo a sham marriage rather than live as the gay man he was.
Then Jack, once again, directly implies that Roxy is an unfit mother - ne'mind the fact that Jack can parade a different girl each morning before the breakfast table where Amy is sitting. That's rich. And hypocritical. But it reinforces the notion that Roxy is feckless, irresponsible, amoral and immature.
Granted, Roxy is going around in circles at the moment - yet again - and the coupling with AJ was a notion meant to reinforce this; I disagree with sacrificing her character, yet again, at the altar of salvaging the spent relationship between Alfie and Kat. Kat is a character who should just go - Yorke's creation or not. She was ruined by EastEnders, and they should just own it and move on ... with Roxy.
Once again, I don't know where the Roxy-Michael thing is going as well or how it's meant to play out. At the end of the day, Michael is still married to Janine, and will be married to Janine until next July if and when Janine wishes to end the relationship legally. At the moment, Charlie Brooks is returning, but I suppose a Roxy-Michael situation is always a contingency plan in the event that Ms Brooks decides to change her mind about a return.
The general pills of the episode were the likes of Lola and Syed. Roxy is presented as a slut and yet we're supposed to feel immense sympathy for Lola. Lola has no moral qualms and, as much as she might profess her love for Lexie, has no compunction about dropping the kid with all and sundry in order to do what she wants. So she's got this cleaning scheme in mind - cash in hand, of course - as a means of making a living for her child. Stealing the cleaning equipment, of course. At least at the beginning of this episode, Patrick is again reminding her that stealing is wrong. Still, it's obvious that she didn't intend to pay Syed for the cleaning equipment and never did; and it was just a bit of luck that Patrick happened along at the time her probationary officer was about and - yes - lied to save her sorry skin.
Awful actress and pejorative character. I hope she leaves.
And as for Syed ... as Dan, the moderator and commentator on Walford Kindergarten observes, it's interesting that Syed was introduced as a totally immoral and weak liar and that he's leaving this way as well. Syed behaves like a spoiled brat, especially at the table in the last scene (but that's only because he's like a cornered rat, knowing that Mas is onto his lies and deceit).
Syed has form in embezzling and screwing his own family, financially, and he's even letting Tamwar (yawn ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz) get het up (as much as he can) over the fact that Tamwar believes he's written a missing cheque which has cocked up the cooked books. Syed feels no compunction about that at all, and the lies virtually tripped off his tongue at the table scene as he took pleasure in putting his father in his place, yet again, to the point that Zainab demands Mas apologise to Syed for being wrong - only Mas is not wrong, as we have seen. Yet again, Zainab undermines her own husband.
Finally, Phil is back and his efforts to redecorate the Vic have finally managed to spook creepy Jean and the increasingly redundant Fatboy.
Better episode. Not great, but watchable.
No comments:
Post a Comment