Here's a song which sums up the Brannings, from South London's finest:-
It's the first of November, and in many European countries, this is a religious holiday. It's called All Saints' Day, when you're supposed to honour the lives of those people so pure, so good, so ... well, saintly --- that they've actually become superior beings, close to God (if you believe in that thing), called saints.
I think it's sublimely ironic that Lorraine Newman gave us an episode chocked to the brim with all kinds of Brannings, even Branning satellites in bit parts tonight in honour of All Saints' Day ... because, you know, we're really supposed to love those Brannnings. We're supposed to think Max is all kind of cool, loving to hate him more than Phil. If you're a particular sort of fanboy (usually found sucking their thumbs in a passive-aggressive manner at the Walford Web Kindergarten), you're wishing you were suckling Yummy Mummy Tanya, instead. We're supposed to rave at Carol's wisdom and cream our knickers at the very sight of Jack or Joey the Goon. We're supposed to think Alice and Abi are sweet, go "aaaawwwwwww" at the mention of Abi and Jay. If you're a teenaged male (either literally or mentally), you'll fantasize about Lauren's upper lip. And Derek is supposed to be Mr Popular. Well, The Sun says he is, and they're quoting TPTB, who reckon Derek is popular because he won an award - ne'mind, they refuse to believe that there are so many besotted children out there, who are technologically adept, and therefore able to vote EastEnders a popularity that it neither deserves nor actually has, in reality.
Still, tonight was the Branning Show, once again, with a nod to Chryed's boring leaving line, which seems to remind me of a particular song from the 80s ... Isn't Yummy Mummy Tanya a fan of the 80s?
And a soupcon of poor pitiful Lola's struggle to get her baby back, a storylinen whichi is really a vehicle to unite Phil and Sharon - and there was even Branning involvement in that tonight, threefold ...
There's one thing I've noticed about EastEnders - and Corrie, if I must be honest. Tonight's first scene showed an expensively manicured fingernail frantically pushing a buzzer to a flat. The fingernail belonged to Lola, who lives in a squat with her contrived "Pops" (AKA Billy Mitchell), who's also unemployed. Lola and Billy are thieves, who'll rob from people who try to help them; yet Lola is permanently and expensively perma-tanned and sports expensive manicures. Cast your mind back a few years, and you'll remember poor pitiful Sonia, when she was a lowly student, again with an expensive manicure, or - on Corrie - Janice Battersby, a machinist, with nails which wouldn't last five minutes in a garment factory like Underworld. This isn't the first time EastEnders has transcended reality - who can forget Mel Healy, before she married Steve Owen, working as a barmaid at the Vic and wearing designer clothing?
The Brannings were everyplace tonight and totally OTT as per usual. In another blog, I've said, and I stand by the fact that this whole shower could be pared right back to Carol and Max,the only two remotely interesting members of that family and the only two who are played by decent actors.
Lauren never ceases to annoy me. She's a godawful character, played by a godawful actress, whose sense of entitlement matches that which her character displays. Tanya never ceases to annoy me. Her hypocrisy knows no bounds. That initial scene in the cafe with them tonight was practically surreal. I mean, that dialogue - was that Lorraine Newman and Co exercising irony?
Lauren has fallen out with Lucy. Why? Because Lauren told her, accidentally on purpose, that Turdhopper was going to dump her. So Lucy dumped him first - and why does Lucy have such a cut-glass accent?
Lucy to Christian: Eoow, wot happened to yeewww?
Lauren is throwing a pity party for herself and moans to Tanya that she has no mates, no money and no job. Boo-bloody-hoo.
Lauren has no mates because she's got a terminal case of headuparseitis. She's self-obsessed, selfish, hateful, rude, lazy and entitled. She has no money and job? Get up off her arse and go look for something. She lives at home and expects to be treated like an adult, yet wants her parents to support her financially. In fact, she demands the do so.
And Tanya's serious reply is to advise her spoiled daughter that life isn't easy, and she should know. It's bloody hard finding a man with a fat wallet who'll give you the means of trying to pass yourself off as middle class, when you're really trailer trash. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, especially when the sow is Tanya.
Another thing ... Lauren is eighteen years old. Why does Tanya talk to her like she's three years old? It's one thing - and it's annoying - that Sharon talks to Dennis in that silly, faux baby voice that no one in their right mind uses in real life - no parent, anyway - yet not only does Sharon talk to Dennis like that, Tanya talks to Lauren like she's a bloody simpleton ... wait. Sorry, I just remembered. Lauren is a simpleton, so Tanya's entitled to talk to her like that, but her solution to Lauren's whine about Bag o'Bones Beale not liking her is that Lauren and Lucy do something together. Lauren's bright idea is that they should go for ... you guessed it ... a drink, and not just orange juice. Liquor. And, of course, since Lauren has no job or money, Yummy Mummy will pay.
Lucy should realise that Lauren is a canting bitch. She slept with Darren Miller the night before his wedding and then thought she could breeze along with Jodie Gold on Jodie's hen night. She'll do Turdhopper and then probably think Lucy's OK about wiping her entitled arse.
Meanwhile, speaking of Darren Miller, who remembers when Max found Darren, smelly feet and all, sleeping in the portacabin? What did he do, but take Darren home to live at the family abode. Carol was living there at the time in the wake of Bradley's demise. Well, we had a reprise of that scene tonight, minus the smelly feet, with Turdhopper Branning, son of Derek. And we couldn't have the ripped Mr Witts, such an eminent thespian, displaying rancid feet, could we?
Ne'mind, we still couldn't understand a word he said. Of course, this is yet another plot device designed to create the star-crossed lovers scenario that's going to set DelBoy on Steroids off on a downer on Rodney on Steroids.
Attraction aside, who the fuck is Lauren to tell Max whom he can bring back or invite to stay in the Branning household? Like, Max has to have permission from her and Tanya, the two people who've actually tried to kill him, but they can do as they damned well please. Tanya thinks Derek is the family loser, which makes Lauren laugh - well, their standards are fucking low, aren't they?
David Witts delivered all his lines tonight without closing his mouth, a singular feat if there ever was one. I know he's trying to imitate Jamie Foreman and Jake Wood, but it isn't working, and I'm waiting with baited breath (mouth closed and breathing through my nose) for him to start drooling in mid-sentence.
The Joey-Lauren shit is so fucking obvious, it's insulting to the viewers' intelligence, and that's me being nice. Seriously, it's so damned obvious what's going to happen. It's also obvious that someone in the storylining department has been meticulously grooming the one-brain-celled post-Shannis adolescent brigade who are the only viewers who give a damn about either LipGirl or TurdBoy. This is another minority tranche of viewer-influenced plot-driven tripe and it's an absolute insult to everything this show ever represented. Besides which, the dialogue is so awful and the acting bad enough to match it, not to mention the fact that the principle characters are all totally pejorative and unlikeable, except to the Tweenies and sad old contrarian trolls like vald
or hysterical retcon Branning fanboys like vaslev37.
Really, nobody gives a rat's ass, and there'd be a collective cheer from most of Britain if you'd just let their sorry, lazy asses die a horrible, slow, agonising and burning death from the car crash next week.
Also, advice tothe poor man's Jennifer Lawrence Jacqueline Jossa:
Watch. Steve. McFadden.
That's the way you play a drunk. You're imitation of a drunk is pathetic. An actor is supposed to have good observational skills. Maybe you should stop believing your own hype and pull your head out of your ass and look around.
The Brannings even ventured into Lola/Mitchell territory tonight.
Score one fist in the eye of vaslev37, because the highlight of the episode was Sharon's good continuity when telling Lola of her life in care and her adoption - how she was better off, even with the continuously scrapping Den and Ange than with the mother who gave her up for adoption and then rejected her when she found her. But I'm sure vaslev37 creamed his knickers when Sharon had a two-second scene with Cora in the charity shop - although why she had to mention that Jack was clearing out some rubbish to make room for her and Denny is beyond me. Who is she trying to fool? The relationship with Jack is so forced on her part - and that's another obvious truth, for all who have watched this show since Sharongate: Sharon and Phil are in love with each other.
Phil's like a bull in a china shop. Phil will do whatever it takes to get what he wants. We saw it with Ben. We're seeing it now with Lexie, and tied up with that is Sharon. He reads Sharon like a book, and he knows she would have no respect for a piece of wood like Jack Branning.
It's only a matter of time before Sharon admits her feelings for Phil and they sleep together. Then poor Jack will be out in the cold again. Ne'mind. Maybe he can find comfort with Shirley. After all, she's blonde and had hopes of being a Mitchell, herself.
The Brannings infiltrated the story even more, with Jay and Abi muscling in on poor pitiful Lola's grief at losing the baby.
I realise it's half-term this week, but does Abi ever go to school? She's off on another trip soon, so this must have been when Lorna Fitzgerald actually took a holiday. And, like Lauren, Jay has no job, and is living at the B and B on Patrick's charity - so where, exactly, does he get money to buy Abi junk food and go bowling with her? The mind boggles.
I gather from Carol's dialogue that she didn't know Derek smacked his wife around. I didn't learn that from Joey because I couldn't understand Turdboy's words. Hello? Derek hit Carol last New Year's. He backhanded her across the face when she tried to leave with David Wicks. Maybe incest runs in the blood of the Brannings, because the worst day of Derek's life occurred 36 years ago when David Wicks got Carol up the duff. (Please remember that David told Carol, Pauline and Pat that Carol's three brothers beat David up. So 17 year-old Derek punched David, whilst 7 year-old Max and 4 year-old Jack bit his ankles. He bears the scars to this day.) The Brannings are the family of retcon. Oh, and listen closely. Derek mentioned a woman Jackie. EastEnders never mention a name without an appearance of some character. This gives me hope - no one ever refers to Derek's wife by her name. Carol obviously knew her, as did Max, but they never call her Gertrude or Agnes or Mavis or even Camilla, it's always "your wife." How unnatural is that? At least it bodes well for not having another Branning satellite show up in BranningVille.
I know a lot of people have been praising Danielle Harold lately, but I can't warm to her, either as an actress or to Lola the character. Lola is just another loud-mouth, who refuses to take responsibility for her actions, and blames everyone else for her mistake. Her entire ethos and the reason she misbehaves is because she's been in care. I've no doubt she loves her baby, but with love comes the hard part of disciplining your child, of knowing when to chastise a child when they've done wrong, and encouraging good behaviour. Lexie, left to Lola, will be just as mouthy and undisciplined as Tiffany Butcher. Lola will get stroppy with the kid's teachers and mouth off at every figure of authority in Lexie's life. What an example she'll set.
As for Billy giving tea and sympathy, he's another Tanya-type hypocrite. Yes, he knows what she's going through because "he's got kids." Billy rarely sees Janet and William, and as he's not working, it's doubtful he contributes much toward their financial welfare. That was the entire premise of the Billy-Steals-the-Post storyline which never finished and was obviously going to lead to him becoming a drug dealer again. Honey wanted more maintenance from him for the kids, which he was unable to provide. Now he seems to have all but abandoned the kids for someone who, a year ago, he didn't know existed. Billy has done nothing but encourage and defend Lola's bad behaviour. If her "Pops" (can we stop using this shitty word?) had shown her some structure and purpose from the beginning, she'd have sloped off. She's only with Billy because she can get her way around him. I wouldn't miss her if she left.
As for Harold's acting, yes, she's improved somewhat, but those scenes are few and far between. She shouts her lines (doesn't everyone now?) and her inflection has no depth. She talks as if she's memorised her lines by rote for an amateur school play. Another casting in the big time of someone with no professional training, no experience and straight off a reality show. Are the budget problems that bad at EastEnders?
So ... Syed's lying to Christian and now Christian's lying to Syed. Well, that marriage started off well, didn't it?
The irony there is that Syed thinks Christian doesn't know he slept with Danny and Christian does know - except, he's not saying. In fact, goodness only knows why he made up that homophobe attack lie. He knows Syed's lying about Danny. I guess he thinks Syed will come clean, but that's one thing Syed will never do.
Like Lola, like Tanya and Lauren, Syed is yet another victim. Whenever he goes off the rails and bankrupts his family or cheats on his wife or his husband or whoever he's married to on whatever day of the week, it's always someone else's fault - usually Mas's. Let's add his mother to the list of victims whom he emulates as well, because she taught him all she knew about that behaviour.
I know there are a lot of Chryed fans out there, but I won't be sorry to see them go, and I could care less whether they leave together or leave separately. One thing is certain: Syed doesn't love Christian. Formerly, I think he thought he loved Christian, but as Christian wanted to have a family and got broody, Syed started backing off. Yes, I know that Syed has a daughter, but lately, it's Christian who's done all the hands-on caring for Yasmin. As someone on DS pointed out, Syed was even going to walk out on Christian and leave Yasmin. Now, I think he's staying with Christian as a means of gratitude, because he knows that Christian will ease the path back to the family for him; but sooner or later, Syed will go off the rails again. It's good to see more consistency however - Syed is leaving just the way he came into the show: a lying, cheating, basically dishonest man.
And finally, what was the purpose of the Kat and Kim unfunny scene, except to exhibit to everyone that Kim isn't funny and that she's yet another character with drink issues. Obviously, it's to foreshadow Kim's upcoming exciting storyline about her cooker breaking down, an outbreak of mice at the B and B and 'Elf'n Safety getting involved. Oh well, at least there were no Brannings in that storyline.
For the time being and for the rest of the year, this song sums up all things Branning:-
Update: By the way, in most European countries, tomorrow is Day of the Dead. I guess that means the Brannings, Walford's version of the living dead, will see out the week.
It's the first of November, and in many European countries, this is a religious holiday. It's called All Saints' Day, when you're supposed to honour the lives of those people so pure, so good, so ... well, saintly --- that they've actually become superior beings, close to God (if you believe in that thing), called saints.
I think it's sublimely ironic that Lorraine Newman gave us an episode chocked to the brim with all kinds of Brannings, even Branning satellites in bit parts tonight in honour of All Saints' Day ... because, you know, we're really supposed to love those Brannnings. We're supposed to think Max is all kind of cool, loving to hate him more than Phil. If you're a particular sort of fanboy (usually found sucking their thumbs in a passive-aggressive manner at the Walford Web Kindergarten), you're wishing you were suckling Yummy Mummy Tanya, instead. We're supposed to rave at Carol's wisdom and cream our knickers at the very sight of Jack or Joey the Goon. We're supposed to think Alice and Abi are sweet, go "aaaawwwwwww" at the mention of Abi and Jay. If you're a teenaged male (either literally or mentally), you'll fantasize about Lauren's upper lip. And Derek is supposed to be Mr Popular. Well, The Sun says he is, and they're quoting TPTB, who reckon Derek is popular because he won an award - ne'mind, they refuse to believe that there are so many besotted children out there, who are technologically adept, and therefore able to vote EastEnders a popularity that it neither deserves nor actually has, in reality.
Still, tonight was the Branning Show, once again, with a nod to Chryed's boring leaving line, which seems to remind me of a particular song from the 80s ... Isn't Yummy Mummy Tanya a fan of the 80s?
And a soupcon of poor pitiful Lola's struggle to get her baby back, a storylinen whichi is really a vehicle to unite Phil and Sharon - and there was even Branning involvement in that tonight, threefold ...
There's one thing I've noticed about EastEnders - and Corrie, if I must be honest. Tonight's first scene showed an expensively manicured fingernail frantically pushing a buzzer to a flat. The fingernail belonged to Lola, who lives in a squat with her contrived "Pops" (AKA Billy Mitchell), who's also unemployed. Lola and Billy are thieves, who'll rob from people who try to help them; yet Lola is permanently and expensively perma-tanned and sports expensive manicures. Cast your mind back a few years, and you'll remember poor pitiful Sonia, when she was a lowly student, again with an expensive manicure, or - on Corrie - Janice Battersby, a machinist, with nails which wouldn't last five minutes in a garment factory like Underworld. This isn't the first time EastEnders has transcended reality - who can forget Mel Healy, before she married Steve Owen, working as a barmaid at the Vic and wearing designer clothing?
The Brannings were everyplace tonight and totally OTT as per usual. In another blog, I've said, and I stand by the fact that this whole shower could be pared right back to Carol and Max,the only two remotely interesting members of that family and the only two who are played by decent actors.
Lauren never ceases to annoy me. She's a godawful character, played by a godawful actress, whose sense of entitlement matches that which her character displays. Tanya never ceases to annoy me. Her hypocrisy knows no bounds. That initial scene in the cafe with them tonight was practically surreal. I mean, that dialogue - was that Lorraine Newman and Co exercising irony?
Lauren has fallen out with Lucy. Why? Because Lauren told her, accidentally on purpose, that Turdhopper was going to dump her. So Lucy dumped him first - and why does Lucy have such a cut-glass accent?
Lucy to Christian: Eoow, wot happened to yeewww?
Lauren is throwing a pity party for herself and moans to Tanya that she has no mates, no money and no job. Boo-bloody-hoo.
Lauren has no mates because she's got a terminal case of headuparseitis. She's self-obsessed, selfish, hateful, rude, lazy and entitled. She has no money and job? Get up off her arse and go look for something. She lives at home and expects to be treated like an adult, yet wants her parents to support her financially. In fact, she demands the do so.
And Tanya's serious reply is to advise her spoiled daughter that life isn't easy, and she should know. It's bloody hard finding a man with a fat wallet who'll give you the means of trying to pass yourself off as middle class, when you're really trailer trash. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, especially when the sow is Tanya.
Another thing ... Lauren is eighteen years old. Why does Tanya talk to her like she's three years old? It's one thing - and it's annoying - that Sharon talks to Dennis in that silly, faux baby voice that no one in their right mind uses in real life - no parent, anyway - yet not only does Sharon talk to Dennis like that, Tanya talks to Lauren like she's a bloody simpleton ... wait. Sorry, I just remembered. Lauren is a simpleton, so Tanya's entitled to talk to her like that, but her solution to Lauren's whine about Bag o'Bones Beale not liking her is that Lauren and Lucy do something together. Lauren's bright idea is that they should go for ... you guessed it ... a drink, and not just orange juice. Liquor. And, of course, since Lauren has no job or money, Yummy Mummy will pay.
Lucy should realise that Lauren is a canting bitch. She slept with Darren Miller the night before his wedding and then thought she could breeze along with Jodie Gold on Jodie's hen night. She'll do Turdhopper and then probably think Lucy's OK about wiping her entitled arse.
Meanwhile, speaking of Darren Miller, who remembers when Max found Darren, smelly feet and all, sleeping in the portacabin? What did he do, but take Darren home to live at the family abode. Carol was living there at the time in the wake of Bradley's demise. Well, we had a reprise of that scene tonight, minus the smelly feet, with Turdhopper Branning, son of Derek. And we couldn't have the ripped Mr Witts, such an eminent thespian, displaying rancid feet, could we?
Ne'mind, we still couldn't understand a word he said. Of course, this is yet another plot device designed to create the star-crossed lovers scenario that's going to set DelBoy on Steroids off on a downer on Rodney on Steroids.
Attraction aside, who the fuck is Lauren to tell Max whom he can bring back or invite to stay in the Branning household? Like, Max has to have permission from her and Tanya, the two people who've actually tried to kill him, but they can do as they damned well please. Tanya thinks Derek is the family loser, which makes Lauren laugh - well, their standards are fucking low, aren't they?
David Witts delivered all his lines tonight without closing his mouth, a singular feat if there ever was one. I know he's trying to imitate Jamie Foreman and Jake Wood, but it isn't working, and I'm waiting with baited breath (mouth closed and breathing through my nose) for him to start drooling in mid-sentence.
The Joey-Lauren shit is so fucking obvious, it's insulting to the viewers' intelligence, and that's me being nice. Seriously, it's so damned obvious what's going to happen. It's also obvious that someone in the storylining department has been meticulously grooming the one-brain-celled post-Shannis adolescent brigade who are the only viewers who give a damn about either LipGirl or TurdBoy. This is another minority tranche of viewer-influenced plot-driven tripe and it's an absolute insult to everything this show ever represented. Besides which, the dialogue is so awful and the acting bad enough to match it, not to mention the fact that the principle characters are all totally pejorative and unlikeable, except to the Tweenies and sad old contrarian trolls like vald
or hysterical retcon Branning fanboys like vaslev37.
Really, nobody gives a rat's ass, and there'd be a collective cheer from most of Britain if you'd just let their sorry, lazy asses die a horrible, slow, agonising and burning death from the car crash next week.
Also, advice to
Watch. Steve. McFadden.
That's the way you play a drunk. You're imitation of a drunk is pathetic. An actor is supposed to have good observational skills. Maybe you should stop believing your own hype and pull your head out of your ass and look around.
The Brannings even ventured into Lola/Mitchell territory tonight.
Score one fist in the eye of vaslev37, because the highlight of the episode was Sharon's good continuity when telling Lola of her life in care and her adoption - how she was better off, even with the continuously scrapping Den and Ange than with the mother who gave her up for adoption and then rejected her when she found her. But I'm sure vaslev37 creamed his knickers when Sharon had a two-second scene with Cora in the charity shop - although why she had to mention that Jack was clearing out some rubbish to make room for her and Denny is beyond me. Who is she trying to fool? The relationship with Jack is so forced on her part - and that's another obvious truth, for all who have watched this show since Sharongate: Sharon and Phil are in love with each other.
Phil's like a bull in a china shop. Phil will do whatever it takes to get what he wants. We saw it with Ben. We're seeing it now with Lexie, and tied up with that is Sharon. He reads Sharon like a book, and he knows she would have no respect for a piece of wood like Jack Branning.
It's only a matter of time before Sharon admits her feelings for Phil and they sleep together. Then poor Jack will be out in the cold again. Ne'mind. Maybe he can find comfort with Shirley. After all, she's blonde and had hopes of being a Mitchell, herself.
The Brannings infiltrated the story even more, with Jay and Abi muscling in on poor pitiful Lola's grief at losing the baby.
I realise it's half-term this week, but does Abi ever go to school? She's off on another trip soon, so this must have been when Lorna Fitzgerald actually took a holiday. And, like Lauren, Jay has no job, and is living at the B and B on Patrick's charity - so where, exactly, does he get money to buy Abi junk food and go bowling with her? The mind boggles.
I gather from Carol's dialogue that she didn't know Derek smacked his wife around. I didn't learn that from Joey because I couldn't understand Turdboy's words. Hello? Derek hit Carol last New Year's. He backhanded her across the face when she tried to leave with David Wicks. Maybe incest runs in the blood of the Brannings, because the worst day of Derek's life occurred 36 years ago when David Wicks got Carol up the duff. (Please remember that David told Carol, Pauline and Pat that Carol's three brothers beat David up. So 17 year-old Derek punched David, whilst 7 year-old Max and 4 year-old Jack bit his ankles. He bears the scars to this day.) The Brannings are the family of retcon. Oh, and listen closely. Derek mentioned a woman Jackie. EastEnders never mention a name without an appearance of some character. This gives me hope - no one ever refers to Derek's wife by her name. Carol obviously knew her, as did Max, but they never call her Gertrude or Agnes or Mavis or even Camilla, it's always "your wife." How unnatural is that? At least it bodes well for not having another Branning satellite show up in BranningVille.
I know a lot of people have been praising Danielle Harold lately, but I can't warm to her, either as an actress or to Lola the character. Lola is just another loud-mouth, who refuses to take responsibility for her actions, and blames everyone else for her mistake. Her entire ethos and the reason she misbehaves is because she's been in care. I've no doubt she loves her baby, but with love comes the hard part of disciplining your child, of knowing when to chastise a child when they've done wrong, and encouraging good behaviour. Lexie, left to Lola, will be just as mouthy and undisciplined as Tiffany Butcher. Lola will get stroppy with the kid's teachers and mouth off at every figure of authority in Lexie's life. What an example she'll set.
As for Billy giving tea and sympathy, he's another Tanya-type hypocrite. Yes, he knows what she's going through because "he's got kids." Billy rarely sees Janet and William, and as he's not working, it's doubtful he contributes much toward their financial welfare. That was the entire premise of the Billy-Steals-the-Post storyline which never finished and was obviously going to lead to him becoming a drug dealer again. Honey wanted more maintenance from him for the kids, which he was unable to provide. Now he seems to have all but abandoned the kids for someone who, a year ago, he didn't know existed. Billy has done nothing but encourage and defend Lola's bad behaviour. If her "Pops" (can we stop using this shitty word?) had shown her some structure and purpose from the beginning, she'd have sloped off. She's only with Billy because she can get her way around him. I wouldn't miss her if she left.
As for Harold's acting, yes, she's improved somewhat, but those scenes are few and far between. She shouts her lines (doesn't everyone now?) and her inflection has no depth. She talks as if she's memorised her lines by rote for an amateur school play. Another casting in the big time of someone with no professional training, no experience and straight off a reality show. Are the budget problems that bad at EastEnders?
So ... Syed's lying to Christian and now Christian's lying to Syed. Well, that marriage started off well, didn't it?
The irony there is that Syed thinks Christian doesn't know he slept with Danny and Christian does know - except, he's not saying. In fact, goodness only knows why he made up that homophobe attack lie. He knows Syed's lying about Danny. I guess he thinks Syed will come clean, but that's one thing Syed will never do.
Like Lola, like Tanya and Lauren, Syed is yet another victim. Whenever he goes off the rails and bankrupts his family or cheats on his wife or his husband or whoever he's married to on whatever day of the week, it's always someone else's fault - usually Mas's. Let's add his mother to the list of victims whom he emulates as well, because she taught him all she knew about that behaviour.
I know there are a lot of Chryed fans out there, but I won't be sorry to see them go, and I could care less whether they leave together or leave separately. One thing is certain: Syed doesn't love Christian. Formerly, I think he thought he loved Christian, but as Christian wanted to have a family and got broody, Syed started backing off. Yes, I know that Syed has a daughter, but lately, it's Christian who's done all the hands-on caring for Yasmin. As someone on DS pointed out, Syed was even going to walk out on Christian and leave Yasmin. Now, I think he's staying with Christian as a means of gratitude, because he knows that Christian will ease the path back to the family for him; but sooner or later, Syed will go off the rails again. It's good to see more consistency however - Syed is leaving just the way he came into the show: a lying, cheating, basically dishonest man.
And finally, what was the purpose of the Kat and Kim unfunny scene, except to exhibit to everyone that Kim isn't funny and that she's yet another character with drink issues. Obviously, it's to foreshadow Kim's upcoming exciting storyline about her cooker breaking down, an outbreak of mice at the B and B and 'Elf'n Safety getting involved. Oh well, at least there were no Brannings in that storyline.
For the time being and for the rest of the year, this song sums up all things Branning:-
Update: By the way, in most European countries, tomorrow is Day of the Dead. I guess that means the Brannings, Walford's version of the living dead, will see out the week.
No comments:
Post a Comment