Tonight's episode was very much of the filler variety, featuring one of the aspects which drove the show into the ground for the past year - and that was the constant going around and around in ever decreasing circles.
Apart from the Carters, and the gratuitous surprise ending, this was very much a filler episode, with some infuriating, although watchable, moments.
The Red Herring Moment, or The EP's Ego Trip.
Let's go arse backwards first. Now we know that Peter contacted Jane, and that Jane was "the only person he could trust" to deal with Ian.
Is he having a laugh, or was that phonecall simply a plot device to allow yet another past character to return to the fold? I agree that some of the returns made were necessary to re-establishing the show's mojo, but it also seems that, with one notable exception, DTC has gone about ditching every creation and undoing every action of the previous two regimes.
Jane is a character whose arc had come to an end. She ended her marriage when she realised that she simply wasn't in love with Ian anymore. Ian knew this as early as 2007 shortly after Christian arrived in Walford and arranged a dinner for Ian and a gay friend with a view to doing business. During that meal, Ian confessed that, whilst he was fond of Jane, she wasn't the love of his life.
Almost simultaneously, Jane confessed to Christian that she was only with Ian for financial security and out of a sense of guilt, having been secretly unfaithful to him with Grant.
That's pretty much tit for tat.
By the end of Jane's stay, she'd decided to end her marriage to Ian, after both had been unfaithful in the marriage twice, after Ian and Lucy had told Jane a major lie (of which Peter was a part), and after another member of the Beale family had made it impossible for Jane ever to have a child. In fact, the whole ethos of Jane's being was having a child and being a mother, ne'mind the fact that Ian had made it abundantly clear when they moved in together that he wanted no more children.
But after she was injured by Steven Beale, she adopted Bobby. Jane is Bobby's legal mother. She was entitled to custody of the child when she divorced Ian. Instead, she moved to a new job in Cardiff and told Bobby he could visit her every weekend - not a physical impossibility, I know, but a feat which would have entailed Ian or one of the twins driving/accompanying him by train to Cardiff each weekend. The gist of all this was that Jane, the adult, the mother, didn't want to take her child with her to her new life, didn't want to sacrifice her weekends to visit him in London or the school holidays, and never maintained contact after she left.
She was never contacted for help or sustenance when Ian went missing - instead, Lucy was worried about Social Services putting Bobby into care; and she hasn't been in touch since.
So tonight, she shows up in Walford, summoned by Peter, ostensibly to talk Ian out of his latest panic attack. Did she even know about his breakdown before? If she did, it's likely she heard from it via her bosom buddy Tanya, who visited her last March, some eleven months after the event. This is woman who can't even be bothered to see her child during the school holidays, but makes the trip because her ex-stepson is afraid of his father having an epiphany moment and misinterpreting it as a panic attack.
The red herring was Sharon, and through her, we found out the reason behind Ian's panic - he wanted to marry Denise, but he doesn't really love her. Again. Surprise surprise. Again.
He got cold feet about asking her to marry him, when Patrick twigged and told her ahead of time what Ian planned. So Ian's afraid, at the same time, of being rejected by Denise, but he's also afraid of committing himself to a woman, once again, that he doesn't love. Oh, he likes Denise. He's fond of her, but he's already told her a major lie, and she's there to help him with the kids as per all the other stepmothers, but we already know that Denise likes a bit of passion.
Judging by Denise's behaviour on New Year's Eve and what she said to Masood about Ian, I don't think she loves Ian either. Instead, they are two lonely people, one of whom is afraid of being alone and the other who's convinced herself to sacrifice passion for companionship. Spot the one who'll cheat first.
I just cannot fathom why Jane was summoned to speak with Ian, when Sharon got all of Ian's fears out of him - his fear of failing in his businesses, his fear of Denise rejecting him and - at the same time - his fear of spending the rest of his life with someone he really doesn't love. Then there was also his unabiding fear of Phil Mitchell, which Sharon, in her present situation, doesn't really understand. At the end of his conversation with Sharon, Ian is even more determined to do what he'd planned in the first place - propose to Denise. And that's exactly what he's going to decide to do after speaking with Jane.
Wasted journey.
The Pointless Pointless Feud.
Yee-hawwww! For Hatfields and McCoys, read Beales and Mitchells. I don't see the point. In fact, I don't even remember the beginning of the feud. Phil married Kathy Beale, widow of Pete, and Ian threw a hissy fit. Phil flushed his head down the toilet.
Is that it?
I know there was an issue when Kathy died - that's right, she's dead - and Phil wanted Ben to live with him, whils Ian wanted to raise him, but - I mean - is that it?
In the end, Ben was a Mitchell through and through, so Phil's objecting to his mostly Mitchell granddaughter to be raised by Ian Beale's son, who is really Lexi Pearce's cousin?
Phil is just being pathetic, and that was shown in his behaviour tonight, when Lola told him that she and Peter were going to live together with Billy, who'd allowed them to move in. So Phil reckons that Peter is a loser? He's got a regular job and income and more chutzpah about him than Ian ever had, and there was a time, once, when Ian would answer back to Phil Mitchell, but of late, he's been turned into a quivering mass of cartoonish jelly and Phil comes across looking like a prick. Yes, Lexi is his granddaughter, but Lola is Billy's granddaughter and Lexi is his great-granddaughter, of whom Lola has custody. Phil has no rights at all and no right to interfere.
Pot, Meet Kettle.
Okay, the obvious bad bit first - what the hell right does Shirley have criticising Linda's parenting skills, to the point of calling her a bad mother.
This is Shirley, remember, the woman who walked out on three small children, one of whom was disabled, and didn't look back for eighteen years. Didn't even bother to attend the funeral of the eldest, and she's on Linda's case because Linda is having trouble accepting that one of her children is gay?
Yes, Linda's having problems, big problems with this - owing to her own personal beliefs and the facts surrounding Johnnie's birth and upbringing - a premature baby for whom she felt over-protective. It was rather poignant, if ignorant when she confessed to Mick at the end of the episode that she blamed herself and her overprotectiveness for contributing to his lifestyle. Also telling was the fact that she told Mick that she was afraid of Johnnie being hurt by men, in a way that Nancy never would be. She raised Nancy to protect herself and her emotions against predatory men, but I doubt she ever thought Johnny would be pitted against a man in a relationship. More likely, she'd have schooled him in being gentle in putting girls off and not letting any woman take advantage of him.
But here comes Shirley, who's been out of that family dynamic for fifteen years and back inside it for five minutes, shouting the odds and calling Linda a bad mother. Linda may not be the best of mothers, but at least she was there for her children and she raised them, And bleating the fact that Johnnie was gay to all and sundry in the pub was presumptuous and arrogant beyond extreme. What right had she to do that? Did she ever stop to think that the boy, himself, who'd only just come to terms with his sexuality, might not want others to know?
What a vile and evil woman! And Linda was right to sack her, if only Mick would back her up.She's right also that it's a family pub - meaning her, Mick and the two kids. I agree. From the getgo, Shirley and Tina have only been moochers and hangers-on, Shirley especially, once again basking in the shadow of Mick's position as landlord of the Vic.
Scene of the night: Lucy andZara Phillips Nancy "shaking hands" on a food deal, which resulted in Lucy "shaking" Nancy's fist bump.
Bits.
Bianca and Terry are playing hard to get. Terry's moved into Carl's old flat, which means the pool of blood on the kitchen floor will neither get cleaned nor noticed.
Ajay has a new job, and Dexter (puke) is there to celebrate with him. Oh, and Wayne is back - yet another offensive racial stereotype penned probably by a white man from Hampstead Heath.
Finally, is Danny Pennant the predatory bi-sexual, a Christian Clarke who swings both ways?
Watchable, but could do better.
Apart from the Carters, and the gratuitous surprise ending, this was very much a filler episode, with some infuriating, although watchable, moments.
The Red Herring Moment, or The EP's Ego Trip.
Let's go arse backwards first. Now we know that Peter contacted Jane, and that Jane was "the only person he could trust" to deal with Ian.
Is he having a laugh, or was that phonecall simply a plot device to allow yet another past character to return to the fold? I agree that some of the returns made were necessary to re-establishing the show's mojo, but it also seems that, with one notable exception, DTC has gone about ditching every creation and undoing every action of the previous two regimes.
Jane is a character whose arc had come to an end. She ended her marriage when she realised that she simply wasn't in love with Ian anymore. Ian knew this as early as 2007 shortly after Christian arrived in Walford and arranged a dinner for Ian and a gay friend with a view to doing business. During that meal, Ian confessed that, whilst he was fond of Jane, she wasn't the love of his life.
Almost simultaneously, Jane confessed to Christian that she was only with Ian for financial security and out of a sense of guilt, having been secretly unfaithful to him with Grant.
That's pretty much tit for tat.
By the end of Jane's stay, she'd decided to end her marriage to Ian, after both had been unfaithful in the marriage twice, after Ian and Lucy had told Jane a major lie (of which Peter was a part), and after another member of the Beale family had made it impossible for Jane ever to have a child. In fact, the whole ethos of Jane's being was having a child and being a mother, ne'mind the fact that Ian had made it abundantly clear when they moved in together that he wanted no more children.
But after she was injured by Steven Beale, she adopted Bobby. Jane is Bobby's legal mother. She was entitled to custody of the child when she divorced Ian. Instead, she moved to a new job in Cardiff and told Bobby he could visit her every weekend - not a physical impossibility, I know, but a feat which would have entailed Ian or one of the twins driving/accompanying him by train to Cardiff each weekend. The gist of all this was that Jane, the adult, the mother, didn't want to take her child with her to her new life, didn't want to sacrifice her weekends to visit him in London or the school holidays, and never maintained contact after she left.
She was never contacted for help or sustenance when Ian went missing - instead, Lucy was worried about Social Services putting Bobby into care; and she hasn't been in touch since.
So tonight, she shows up in Walford, summoned by Peter, ostensibly to talk Ian out of his latest panic attack. Did she even know about his breakdown before? If she did, it's likely she heard from it via her bosom buddy Tanya, who visited her last March, some eleven months after the event. This is woman who can't even be bothered to see her child during the school holidays, but makes the trip because her ex-stepson is afraid of his father having an epiphany moment and misinterpreting it as a panic attack.
The red herring was Sharon, and through her, we found out the reason behind Ian's panic - he wanted to marry Denise, but he doesn't really love her. Again. Surprise surprise. Again.
He got cold feet about asking her to marry him, when Patrick twigged and told her ahead of time what Ian planned. So Ian's afraid, at the same time, of being rejected by Denise, but he's also afraid of committing himself to a woman, once again, that he doesn't love. Oh, he likes Denise. He's fond of her, but he's already told her a major lie, and she's there to help him with the kids as per all the other stepmothers, but we already know that Denise likes a bit of passion.
Judging by Denise's behaviour on New Year's Eve and what she said to Masood about Ian, I don't think she loves Ian either. Instead, they are two lonely people, one of whom is afraid of being alone and the other who's convinced herself to sacrifice passion for companionship. Spot the one who'll cheat first.
I just cannot fathom why Jane was summoned to speak with Ian, when Sharon got all of Ian's fears out of him - his fear of failing in his businesses, his fear of Denise rejecting him and - at the same time - his fear of spending the rest of his life with someone he really doesn't love. Then there was also his unabiding fear of Phil Mitchell, which Sharon, in her present situation, doesn't really understand. At the end of his conversation with Sharon, Ian is even more determined to do what he'd planned in the first place - propose to Denise. And that's exactly what he's going to decide to do after speaking with Jane.
Wasted journey.
The Pointless Pointless Feud.
Yee-hawwww! For Hatfields and McCoys, read Beales and Mitchells. I don't see the point. In fact, I don't even remember the beginning of the feud. Phil married Kathy Beale, widow of Pete, and Ian threw a hissy fit. Phil flushed his head down the toilet.
Is that it?
I know there was an issue when Kathy died - that's right, she's dead - and Phil wanted Ben to live with him, whils Ian wanted to raise him, but - I mean - is that it?
In the end, Ben was a Mitchell through and through, so Phil's objecting to his mostly Mitchell granddaughter to be raised by Ian Beale's son, who is really Lexi Pearce's cousin?
Phil is just being pathetic, and that was shown in his behaviour tonight, when Lola told him that she and Peter were going to live together with Billy, who'd allowed them to move in. So Phil reckons that Peter is a loser? He's got a regular job and income and more chutzpah about him than Ian ever had, and there was a time, once, when Ian would answer back to Phil Mitchell, but of late, he's been turned into a quivering mass of cartoonish jelly and Phil comes across looking like a prick. Yes, Lexi is his granddaughter, but Lola is Billy's granddaughter and Lexi is his great-granddaughter, of whom Lola has custody. Phil has no rights at all and no right to interfere.
Pot, Meet Kettle.
Okay, the obvious bad bit first - what the hell right does Shirley have criticising Linda's parenting skills, to the point of calling her a bad mother.
This is Shirley, remember, the woman who walked out on three small children, one of whom was disabled, and didn't look back for eighteen years. Didn't even bother to attend the funeral of the eldest, and she's on Linda's case because Linda is having trouble accepting that one of her children is gay?
Yes, Linda's having problems, big problems with this - owing to her own personal beliefs and the facts surrounding Johnnie's birth and upbringing - a premature baby for whom she felt over-protective. It was rather poignant, if ignorant when she confessed to Mick at the end of the episode that she blamed herself and her overprotectiveness for contributing to his lifestyle. Also telling was the fact that she told Mick that she was afraid of Johnnie being hurt by men, in a way that Nancy never would be. She raised Nancy to protect herself and her emotions against predatory men, but I doubt she ever thought Johnny would be pitted against a man in a relationship. More likely, she'd have schooled him in being gentle in putting girls off and not letting any woman take advantage of him.
But here comes Shirley, who's been out of that family dynamic for fifteen years and back inside it for five minutes, shouting the odds and calling Linda a bad mother. Linda may not be the best of mothers, but at least she was there for her children and she raised them, And bleating the fact that Johnnie was gay to all and sundry in the pub was presumptuous and arrogant beyond extreme. What right had she to do that? Did she ever stop to think that the boy, himself, who'd only just come to terms with his sexuality, might not want others to know?
What a vile and evil woman! And Linda was right to sack her, if only Mick would back her up.She's right also that it's a family pub - meaning her, Mick and the two kids. I agree. From the getgo, Shirley and Tina have only been moochers and hangers-on, Shirley especially, once again basking in the shadow of Mick's position as landlord of the Vic.
Scene of the night: Lucy and
Bits.
Bianca and Terry are playing hard to get. Terry's moved into Carl's old flat, which means the pool of blood on the kitchen floor will neither get cleaned nor noticed.
Ajay has a new job, and Dexter (puke) is there to celebrate with him. Oh, and Wayne is back - yet another offensive racial stereotype penned probably by a white man from Hampstead Heath.
Finally, is Danny Pennant the predatory bi-sexual, a Christian Clarke who swings both ways?
Watchable, but could do better.
To be fair, I think Jane's character was 'out of sight out of mind' (for the writers and producers), because if she'd been in the show she would never have been portrayed as uncaring towards Bobby. Similar situation in Corrie a little while ago with David Platt wandering around all lost with nowhere to go - I wondered why he didn't just catch a train to Liverpool to see his dad (I think that's where he moved to). But no mention. If Laurie Brett wasn't available during Ian's absence it could have been written that she helped in some way, like Bobby being picked up and taken (off screen) to Cardiff and/or her sending money to Lucy (I understand the story of Lucy being unable to pay the bills would have changed but it would have been realistic). They've doe the same with Ricky and you've mentioned that yourself. It's lazy writing - just because an actor s unavailable it doesn't mean the character can no longer be mentioned. I live in Australia now but I know I haven't been erased from my family back home in Britain.
ReplyDeleteViews I agree with:
ReplyDelete1. DTC: Boy, is he seemingly wiping clean the last 3 years with bleach, as if they never happened! But his powers of redemption can only reach so far: he can't resurrect Pat, and I'm not sure that he can undo all the damage Kirkwood and Newman did to the show under their tenure. I certainly can't erase what happened and embrace this "new and improved" EE after its ugly desecration in the last 3 years. I'm not that easy won over, and sadly have become a little less invested in the storytelling of EE for fear of being dropped from a great height once and again and left nursing a bruising disappointment. But credit where it's due, I think he offers a far better prospect than Kirkwood and Newman, in that the food he plates up may not be as bad as what Kirkwood/Newman served up. Same ingredients, different meal, better presentation. But will it be a meal that leaves one satisfied or one that leaves me hungry for something else? Too many EPs of late have been swept in a tidal wave of saving euphoria and enthusiasm, but how people quickly forget they initial praises should things don't turn out as great and wonderful as they expect. Take Ronnie's return on DS - wild screams and excitement from her fans. Now the worm's turning as Ronnie's character takes to the 'dark' side, and a few are now feeling a little disappointed. I had a feeling they may start to regret what they wished for. As for me, I shall take this new EE revamp in my stride ... for the sake of my sanity!
Views I agree with:
ReplyDelete2. Phil: Indeed, what IS this feud based on? I laughed at your Hatfield and McCoy analogy. I watched the 5-part series recently on Channel 5. I got as far as part 3 and gave up. Somewhere along the gene pool of the Hatfields and McCoys, someone had a lobotomy; otherwise I can't explain their empty-headed, mindless blood-letting. Is there no-one who cannot just stand up to this vile bully Phil and say, "Look, mate, you have no right over what Lola and Peter decide to do with their lives. You're a mere grandfather who, if Lola decided to cut off all contact with you, would have no rights under the law to kick a fuss over?" Honestly, the way the likes of Ian, Billy and yes, even Peter, allow this over aged Neantheral to walk over them is infuriating, not least because much of what they allow him to get away with would not happen in real life. It's completely unrealistic. Of course, this is a soap, but if I had to read this character in a book over a series of books - without him getting his comupperance now and again - I would've chucked the damn thing in the bin.
View I agree with:
ReplyDelete3. Dexter/Wayne: "Offensive racial stereotype" doesn't even come close. There have been times - more so now than ever before - that EE writers just do not know how to write for characters who happen to be black. Full Stop. Period. Exclamation mark. I don't know what creative procedure they go through when a black character pops into their head, but it seems to me that they gather round in a circle during one of their writer's conferences with the colour of skin blazoned across their notepads. And every stereotypical "BLACK cultural" trait is conjured up. I can't tell how deeply offensive I've found the way the Masoods, the Hartmans, and sometimes the Foxes have been written over the years.
Views I agree with:
ReplyDelete4. Shirley/Linda: Your comments seeking to explain Linda's POV over Johnny's relevation were good and plausible. I could understand where she was coming from. But as for Shirley, well, I think the one thing that vexed me last night - as it did when Nancy did it and when Christian Clarke did to Syed - was once again SOMEBODY ELSE taking ownership of another man/woman's coming out. It isn't even something I would call "coming out" as royally betrayed and exposed. What right does Nancy and Shirley - and indeed, Christian - have in declaring to all and sundry things which were said to them in deep confidence and trust by another? I do get so tried and jaded by all these coming out stories, but "the coming out of someone by someone else" is an over-used narrative device EE needs to abandon ASAP. It truly gets wearisome after a second dose of the pill.
5. Jane/Bobby: I can only put this down to the terrible awful writing and plotting by Kirkwood/Newman and their team. It isn't worth my time commenting on it - you did a good enough job for both of us, haha.
View I don't agree with (yet):
ReplyDelete1.
I needed to get that off my chest!
View I don't agree with (yet):
Jane/Ian: Thanks for the very brief summary of their relationship. Despite its journey, I think it is still possible for two people after time apart to realise, on reflection, that what they had together was good, perhaps even the real thing. The same thing can happen with Ian and Jane I believe. But it's early days yet: Jane only returned yesterday and no-one is sure what her return is meant to signify. It may be for Ian she's come back for; it may not. Or it may be a mixture of Ian and something else.
Jane the bovine returns.....
ReplyDelete