EastEnders Is Back! - Review: - 20.12.2013

It can finally be said. EastEnders is back. It took a long road and a lot of pain, and there are still things I don't like about the show and don't trust about the current executive producer, but Friday's episode showed every reason to believe the show is turning a massive corner.

Of course, I might be wrong. Although I was glad that someone who was a proven storyteller was taking the helm, Treadwell-Collins, to me, wasn't the Messiah in whom a lot of people were investing their hopes.

Fatboy is still there, and he will be for the foreseeable future. Tamwar remains, whilst Ajay, a proven actor whose character was never developed, is leaving. DTC came from an epoque where the essence was to paper over the cracks of a show bleeding viewers. Get  bums on seats by sensationalist plots and incessant returns of old characters. The fact that Ronnie Mitchell is back, and Stacey Slater is returning, two of DTC's favourites point to every evidence that the show will be what it was under Diederick Santer's tenure - The Stacey and Ronnie Show - despite what Treadwell-Collins is saying. And I'm not enthusiastic about Shirley or her charmingly retarded sister taking centre stage in 2014.

And the show's strongest actress is leaving whilst Sonia is returning, arguably the most annoying actress on the show.

There are lots of things of which I'm wary, and I'm wariest of this executive producer's ego, but o the whole, he seems to appreciate the value of a good writer, and now they've taken on board, one Laura Poliakoff, daughter of Stephen, and what a superb episode her writing genes have produced.

Were there aspects I didn't like? You bet. But that has nothing to do with the writing, and more with certain characters written the way they were intended to be.

This most recent episode was like the EastEnders of old. Welcome back.

The Things I Liked

Peter and Lola Go Large.

I don't know if Newman cooked up the Peter and Lola romance or DTC, although I'm certain peope will give DTC the tip-off, but as an ingenue couple, they work.

Once again, this is a couple who happened by chance, and someone saw their chemistry worked. This is what happened with Sonia (when she was likeable) and Jamie, with Bradley and Stacey - one geeky half or a couple, the other a pretty or dynamic one. Here we have Peter, the nice boy, the fixer for his family and a Beale, being attracted to the single mum, whose child happens to be his first cousin, the girl a chav and a product of the care system, and - to top it all off - a Mitchell.

I wish Billy would stop touting the Mitchell aspect of Lola's heritage to her face. In a recent episode, she pointedly declared that she was no Mitchell, and there he was again in this episode telling what a "proper little Mitchell" she was when she declared what she'd do if Peter ever hurt her.

The scenes of a sexual nature in this instance are superfluous. We know, without a doubt, that Peter and Lola are having sex. In the sexual sense, Lola is seventeen going on forty-two, but Peter's brought out an innocence in her and a vulnerability, which has made her likeable. I can remember when Lola was the most frustrating character to watch - her temper, her total lack of morality, her entitlement issues - where now, she's one of the most enjoyable. And one of the show's most gifted young actresses.

But we don't need to be shown Peter and Lola having sex in the backroom of the launderette to realise that they are, indeed, an item and that they are in love. Whatever happened to leaving something to the imagination? This was a stunt scene, meant to shock, and it's one of the quibbles I have with this EP. By not leaving anything to the imagination, he's both disrespecting the long-term viewer and pandering to the shallow end of viewership, the viewers weaned on EastEnders 2.0, the Stacey and Ronnie Show, the Santer era.

And, yes, we also know that Peter and Lola is a reprise of Romeo and Juliet, with the Beales and the Mitchells deputising for the Montagues and Capulets. (Although I have a problem envisaging Fatboy in the Mercutio role; I suppose the obvious Mitchell candidate to be Tybalt would be psychopathic Ronnie, who'll kill him.)

The irony of the situation is the fact that Billy the unwanted Mitchell taking it upon himself to rectify the obvious situation between Ian Beale and Phil Mitchell, and failing mightily. Still, the scene in the Vic between Phil and Ian was brilliant, if only for the evocative past the dialogue established between the two men. Ian is the mouse who roared against Phil the bully.

Good continuity. At least we have one writer on board who respects the past.

Alfie and Kat.

I know it's popular to hate the Moons, rather, it's popular to hate Alfie and wish Kat were a Slater and on her own again, irrespective of the fact that she's now a fortysomething woman with a child (and soon to be two); but I like the Moons as a couple. 

Obviously, in the scheme of things, the Moons will not be front and centre at the Vic anymore. During their first stint there, we never really got the feel of Alfie and Kat fronting the Vic due to Jessie Wallace's suspensions and her maternity leave. Their second stint was ruined by Bryan Kirkwood's interpretation of how Alfie and Kat should be, instead of what they were.

Scores of people, especially the numpties on Digital Spy, want Alfie to leave and predict Shane Richie will depart this year. Listen. Alfie and Kat are an endgame couple. If one goes, the other follows. And if DTC had had no plans for the Moons, then he wouldn't have minced words and told Richie that Alfie Moon bored him. Instead, he's allowing both Richie and Wallace time off to do other projects, and he's keeping them on hand for the upcoming Thirtieth Anniversary. Face it, EastEnders is short on long-term characters, and the Moons are quite possibly the most recent sorts who can be deemed iconic in any way.

It was hard not to feel sympathy for Alfie and Kat tonight, especially remembering the flimsiest of excuses Phil Mitchell had for pulling the plug on their tenure - quoting a line from the tenancy agreement for the ability to sack the licence-holder on the spot for "gross misconduct" was laughable. Whatever it is, dumping the owner's desperate cousin at the altar, when she, herself, knew she'd be playing second fiddle in that relationship might have been bad form, but it wasn't gross misconduct.

The Vic means the world to Alfie, but serving the community means even more, and it was good to see him and Kat step in and resolve the problem caused by Dot's disappearance (see below) by reining in Jake from Ian's domain (and what a good way to integrate the otherwise appalling Jamie Lomas into the community, which means we've more to suffer from him in the future) and putting on the Ritz for the OAP's at the community centre. Actually, Alfie would do well in some capacity for managing the Walford Community Centre in the future.

Another good aspect in this respect was the long-awaited return of Big Mo. Under Newman, Big Mo didn't just fade away, she disappeared. We saw her last Boxing Day and then no more, and we were asked to believe that she was tucked away, unseen, someplace in the nether regions of the Vic. Instead, she arrived tonight, suitcase in hand, and it seems she's been living elsewhere - with Fat Elvis? With Charlie? Who knows? Still, it's good to see Mo back and interacting with the few remaining elderly crew - Cora the Bora and Patrick (again, see below).

I, for one, will miss the Moons in the Vic, and I hope they have a good future.

Observation: Kat was happy because it's "Christmas." I'd be willing to bet she's just found out she's pregnant.

The Stars of Our Show ... The Queen of the Night and Don Giovanni.

Once again, Charlie Brooks and Michael French carry the show to the hilt. After this episode, when Janine finds out David's deception, there will be return for her character. Every trust issue she's ever encountered will be scattered to the wind once she's found out that David will use her confession to blackmail her for money.

Does anyone smell re-hash about this? Of course. Think Lauren taping Stacey's confession to Archie's murder. The fact that David has taped this inadvertant confession would not hold up in a court of law. It's inadmissable evidence. Besides, everything Janine told him was gospel truth, word for word, about what happened that night - that Michael was strangling him, that Alice stabbed him and went to the door for the police. Michael jumped up again and would have killed Janine at that moment, had she not acted first. Yes, she wanted him dead, and it wasn't pre-meditated, it was self-defence.

Laura Poliakoff managed to bring out two very important aspects of Janine's and David's characters and linked them with the very essence which binds these two together - Pat.

Pat was the real matriarch of the Square, the lychpin who was related by blood, marriage or friendship to everyone in Walford. Two years on from her death, and her name has barely been mentioned. Sharon shrugged her shoulders with indifference when she learned of Pat's death. Derek Branning, arguably the show's most unpopular character is still being referenced. His children hang about the place like a bad smell.

Tonight, however, was all about Pat's influence on David and Janine. Janine is still convinced that she is an awful person, and this goes back to her abandonment issues she had with Frank passing her from pillar to post. A child comes to view themselves as unwanted in those circumstances, when everything Janine had ever wanted was to be an accepted part of a family dynamic and to be loved. Everyone who should have been there for her has either deserted her or let her down immensely in her life. Her only solace now is in her wealth, but Michael had so played with her mind during his association with her, she now believes that she isn't a worthy mother and that she ruins everything she touches.

David, on the other hand, had the manipulative cemetary scene backfire on him, revealing his own character flaw in the biggest of ways. The writer of this episode isn't afraid to tackle the past on the show and to show continuity, and I commend her for that. David referenced that he will always be known as "the man who sleeps with his brother's wife" in  Walford terms, but he wasn't the first to deserve that epithet. Phil Mitchell, anyone?

When he was attempting (and whether or not that was feigned, I'm not sure) to leave Janine and she asked him why he was going, his reply was totally and utterly from David Wicks 1996 edition ...

It's what I do. Run away.

Think back ... This is what David said to Cindy, when he dumped her at St Pancras station. It's what he said to his ex-wife Lorraine, when he told her he was leaving Joe.

And if you think Carol was the only person David left crying in the Square in the rain, think again ...

All it takes is one damned good writer with an attention to detail. It's an unusual statement that two first-time writers on the show this year, Natalie Mitchell and now Laura Poliakoff, have understood the ethos of this show far more than people whose names we've seen more frequently on the credits, and that includes Simon "Mr Branning" Ashdown.

Do you know something? In all of this, if Pat were alive, knowing the way Michael Moon treated her, knowing what he was planning to do, I think Pat would have backed Janine to the hilt. The imprisonment of Derek's smug and simpleminded daughter would have been just karma to Pat for the ills Derek inflicted on her and her kin.

Speaking of simple minds ...

Things I Didn't Like about This Episode

The Incipient Carter Dynasty.

This, I don't like, and how many still remember that Shirley is a lush? That she has a drinking problem and that it's obvious that Tina has one also. These are women who live for "vodka money" and they aren't above stealing off their kin. After all, at Shirley's instigation, Phil Mitchell stole money from his own cousin.

The episode was big with almost constant allusions to the big star about to join the ranks of what is supposed to be an ensemble piece. With the big star comes the big ego, a stunt casting to match the ego of the current EP. I hope it works, but I deplore the fact that Shirley will, for all intents and purposes, become the face of EastEnders.

She simply doesn't deserve it.

The foreshadowing was embarrassing.

'E's my little bruvver and I miss  him.

How old is Mick Carter supposed to be? If Tina is fortyish and he's in his late thirties, how does that account for  him and his wife having a son who's in the forces and older than twenty-one?

The image of "Mick" calling Shirley's mobile ... If they've not been in touch for fifteen years, then how does he have her mobile number?

Tina the Retard lays a guilt trip on Shirley. She wants "Mickey" to be a part of their family dynamic again. So there they are - two feckless sisters, both of whom have effectively abandoned children, want to reunite with a brother to recreate a childhood dynamic. Has Shirley never grown up?

One of the funniest things in the scene was when Tina approached Cora the Bora, asking if she'd seen Shirley, only to have Cora point out a drunken old lush waiting for the OAP proceedings to begin. Shirley is  a drunk, but we've now achieved an off-screen reconciliation and a gift to Shirley from the big star of eternal vodka money.

Let's say that 2014 is going to be a very interesting year.

For whom? Mick may very well be a likeable character. Who knows? His wife certainly has proven to be on initial impressions, but Shirley is a marmite character, with no redeeming features, and her sugly blister's retarded act is wearing thin fast.

Rehash.

Once again, the clandestine goings-on between Lauren and Jake. This is really Tanya-Max-Rachel meets Stax territory. I can just imagine Tanya, running head over heels after a married Max, arragnging clandestine meetings, wanting to spend all day with him in a posh hotel with a jacuzzi. I can remember Stax as well, the secret canoodling meetings in the light of day - this episode featured them snogging right around the corner from Ian Beale's restaurant.

And Ian didn't find this suspicious? Really? This was in broad daylight in the Square with people Lauren certainly knows milling about.

The couple have no chemistry, and she still looks like an underaged kid. Her ideal of appealing is to gurn, because she is ...

THE. WORST. ACTRESS. EVER. TO. APPEAR. IN. EASTENDERS.

His idea of appeal is to breath heavy, whisper his lines and look as though he needs a bath. It's a wonder Ian Beale's kitchen isn't under inspection by the health authority.

Cora the Bora.

Yet another drunken old lush, freeloading off an ex- son-in-law she hates, contributing nothing to the household,and inviting waifs and strays to stay at Max's cost. She's a despicable old hag, and I hate how she brings Patrick down to her level. Drunken pensioners are neither funny nor cute.

Dot is Not.

Please, spare us the martyr syndrome. Dot's another prideful beast whose pride always catches her out. People call the character iconic, yet forget in her early days - the first stint before she left the show in a huff due to the way Peter Dean was sacked - she was a comical character, unlikeable and judgemental. Someone says (and they are right) that she lacks a Pauline or a Pat to rein her pantomime hypocrisy in, and hopefully, Big Mo might be the character to do that.

I'm no fan of Poppy's but I hate the way Dot is rude to others when she has been caught out short-handed. She bragged to all and sundry about her fund-raising abilities and waved that money around to such a degree that lowlifes got wind of it. She was hoist on her own petard, and now she's taking it out on Poppy and playing the sympathy card.

I have none.

Excellent episode and an excellent lead-in to Christmas week.