Branning Bonanza: Crisis Management - Review: 14.06.2013

I've been laid up with nephritis, or I would have done this sooner. First of all, I'd like to thank the kind person who left such an uplifting remark in moderation. You know who you are, and I suspect that deep down you know who the real retard is. (Hint: Try looking in the mirror).

One week of watchable programmes - whoda thunk it? And how ironic that Katie Douglas, who's recently departed backstage at EastEnders proved that she really could write a decent episode when someone made her take her finger out of her arse and write the show - and the characters - the way the should have been written.

There's only one criticism I have amongst this currently improving fare. If we're talking about families, let's talk about extended families. There was a scene in Friday's episode between Bianca, Tyler and Peter, where Bianca and Tyler were gossiping about Lauren's drinking problem, and Peter intervened to tell them off. Later there was a scene where Peter gave Bianca David's letter.

First of all, Bianca was gossiping to Tyler about her first cousin. She was told off by Peter, who is also her first cousin. No acknowledgement of this. In the second scene, when Bianca remarked that the letter was from her dad, wouldn't it have been a nod and a wink to consistency for Peter to have said, "Uncle David?"

Peter would certainly have remembered David and would have known he was his uncle.

I want more of Bianca being brought closer to the Beales and if David is brought back, I hope they do this.

That's a relationship which shouldn't have been forgotten.

Peacemaker Pete.

I like Peter Beale. Rather it be intentional or not, he's got something of his grandfather's personality about him, and it's mete that another Pete Beale be on the market stall, making him the fourth generation of his family to do so.

I'm also glad that the underlying animosity between Lucy and Ian is now out in the open. It's obvious that both have their own spins on what happened last year, but Ian's is probably the closest to the truth. I'm surprised Peter hasn't spoken to someone like Alfie Moon, Ian's best friend, for the real spin on what happened to Ian and the condition in which they found him.

Yes, yes, yes, I see the Lucy-defenders, talking up about what she'd suffered, but Lucy took that upon her own back. There was a network of friends to whom she could have reached out, but she chose to do things her own way, and she's never acknowledged Ian's illness. Ian should tell Peter that the only way he was allowed back into the house was if he signed over all of his businesses and his house to her. 

Also, I wonder if Ian is still confined to the loft room, where Lucy demanded he sleep so she and Joey could have Ian's bedroom, or how badly she and Joey treated him. Or even that she had to be convinced not to sell the veg stall, instead "allowing" Ian to work there. It's clear that she's jealous now of Ian having any success with the restaurant.

The big question is why Lucy is keeping David Wicks's letter? What could that accomplish? She even read it, FFS. Ian's lie was just pathetic, about Lucy saying to keep it. It was obvious Ian didn't want the letter delivered in case it brought David back to Walford. At this moment in time, it's still unknown if he will return. One thing's for certain - it won't be in September.

But I'm glad Peter seems to be the decent sort of chap, calling a stop to the one-upmanship in Ian's household and reminding Lucy that she was less than perfect. And returning the letter to Bianca.

I just wish that the Beale/Jackson-Butcher relationship were acknowledged.

Bye Bye Bimbo Barbie ... Hello Sharon.

This is the celebrated "break," and it's obvious that someone took to heart what Ms Dean said to TPTB. Someone wasn't happy with Bimbo Barbie, and I can't blame them. If the viewers mean that little to Lorraine Newman's or Simon Ashdown's egos, then maybe they want to take heart at something Letitia Dean said.

And Sharon mentioned Michelle! She actually said Michelle's name!

Even before that, she was standing up to Phil, who was, in his Phillish sort of way letting her know he cared about her. 

But why, oh why, did this vignette have to have some sort of reference to Jack? The Jack and Sharon partnership was the most dire in the history of the show, so why did they have to give it closure on this instance? It was so bad, it didn't need closure. It should just be forgotten. In fact, the whole Sharon-as-a-Branning venture should all be forgotten. 

One thing I did like from this was Shirley's intervention when Jack was hassling Sharon in the street. Line of the night:-

Jack: Since when were you a part of her coven?

I like the idea of a Shirley-Sharon friendship, more than her association with Tanya - and notice that Sharon never once thought to say good-bye to Tanya.

Dot being presented as the matriarch of "old Walford" was mete as well as her remembering when Sharon and Michelle were young and messing about the launderette.

I know she's not gone for long - she's back filming now at Elstree, but I hope strong Sharon returns, and gets with Phil, and that we have some inkling about what happened in Florida, why she left, when she left and what happened with John.

And Phil loves her. You could tell in that last scene. (Sticks tongue out at monalisa).

The Psychopath and Saint Kat.

Does Kat sell clothes by flashing her tits? I'm beginning to wonder. I've never seen such a decolletage or anyone go out of the way to show it such. OK, she's toned down the make-up, but the tits need to go. Zip'em up, whatever. They are not sexy. Seriously.

And could Newman make it more obvious that she's redeeming this vile creature? I'm sorry, but for me, she'll never be redeemed until she steps up to the plate and admits what she did that ruined her marriage. In other words, take full responsibility. But, of course, that's something she'll never do.

I find it wonderfully amusing that the only people in Walford who understand that Michael Moon is a class A certified psychopath are Fatboy and Poopy-La-Dim. That Kat would even associate with Michael, if not for what he did to her then for how he scuppered Jean, is gobsmacking.

There's no pity to be had for Michael, and how anyone could see some sort of chemistry between him and silent Amy is beyond me. The smile he gave the child was creepy to say the least. And speaking of Amy, why is she carried everyplace? Amy is supposed to be four years old. She was born in November 2008. This September, she'll be starting school. Yet she's carried everyplace like a two year-old, and I noticed in this episode that the little girl is really small - like two- or three-year-old small.

So Kat hears from dippy Alice that Michael popped her cherry and she's disgusted. Does Michael care? No. He doesn't give a rat's arse. And he doesn't want punishment for his deeds either, DS-happy campers. Try as you might to make excuses for poor Michael, the reason he said what he said to Joey was that he wanted everyone in the pub to know what he'd done to Alice - so now everyone will know what happened to Alice, instead of the people Alice had wanted to know to begin with - and one of those wasn't Joey.

The one I feel sorry for is David Witts. Not only can he not act, he can't even throw a convincing punch. And how much does anyone want to bet Jack and Michael will still be best buds tomorrow after Jack telling Joey Michael wasn't worth it and Jack finding out that Michael had boned his niece.

Here's a thought, however ... if Michael Moon dies (and stop saying he'll kill himself, he won't), it will be at the hands of one of the two Branning sprogs of Derek's. Something Joey said ...

The Continuing Saga ...

Boy, the Lauren saga was replete tonight with foreshadowing.

Tanya is one of those characters who never learns from her mistakes. Kirsty asks if anyone has actually talked to Lauren. Of course, they haven't. Tanya hasn't. Cora the Bora certainly hasn't. In fact, Cora's remark about not allowing a kenneled dog to stay with Max and Kirsty was as putrid as her breath.

Of course, Lauren staying in a house where she's grown up watching her mother drink, her aunt drink and her grandmother drink is just as healthy as Lauren going to stay with her dad and stepmum, who seems to have been through the same crisis as Lauren at her age.

But that's Tanya for you. 

She's my daughter. She stays with me.

Yeah, unless Tanya is the reincarnation of the Virgin Mary, I'd guess that Lauren was Max's daughter too. And Lauren can go where she likes, only it took her tearing up Abi's notes to convince Tanya of that - and that wasn't convincing; it was a temper tantrum, which interprets to Lauren that Abi is, indeed, the only child that matters. Except now gurning Oscar is part of the equation as well.

I still say something should have been done to reference Tanya's, Rainie's and Cora's alcohol dependency, because it's most obvious. Without that acknowledgement, the storie's all for nought, as much as Tanya's remark about not ever abandoning her child when she needs her the most - we know that in exactly two weeks, that's what she's going to do, which makes this leaving line more about Lauren and less about Tanya, which isn't fair.

One thing which is accurate, however, is the portrayal of Tanya as bullheaded and selfish. I've said this all along. Last week, she was promising Max that Lauren was going to get professional help, but she's done nothing about it, except lock her in her home. Max was right. If he hadn't come along, she'd have done a serious injury to herself, and her mouthing off about throwing herself off the top of the Vic, in reference to Bradley, proved she was off her head. But Tanya knows best. One wonders how much this is Tanya genuinely caring about her child as to not having Max and his wife show her that they might handle the situation that much better. Lauren manipulates Tanya, who wants to be the Yummy Mummy good cop. She wouldn't manipulate Kirsty.

A decent week of episodes. By old standards, just decent. But by current standards, good.