The Stacey and Shirley Show - Review 20.02.2014

I wake up this morning to the news that Bag O'Bones Beale is about to go to that Great Food Hall in the sky. 

So DTC is killing off Lucy Beale, who is one of the most important legacy characters in the show, and the daughter of one of two original characters remaining. That's a stiff step to take, considering that the pre-Millennial population is a bit thin on the ground.

I have mixed thoughts about this. I've never been the biggest Lucy fan, either of Melissa Suffield's interpretation of her or of Hetti Bywater's. Suffield was too cold and mean a character. You just wanted to smack her. Bywater's total lack of acting experience showed. She mumbled her lines, looked every way but at the camera or the person speaking, and affected a grossly unattractive open-mouthed pout. In the entire two years of her tenure on the programme, she learned absolutely nothing about the craft.

I knew that DTC wouldn't entertain retaining Bywater. After all, she wasn't his casting. I envisaged him sending Lucy away to work or live with her grandmother again, and return five years later with a new head. And whilst the usual squad of cheerleading bullybois are creaming their knickers, here's the real reason Lucy's being killed off.

She simply isn't The Messiah's creation (pun intended).

Not only that, but there's got to be some gripping occurrence that will hold the viewers' interest and capitalise on getting the long-term viewer to return. Let's face it, the results of a poll taken yesterday on that great one-celled forum, Digital Spy, indicated that the bulk of current viewers started watching under John Yorke's tenure and list him, Diederick Santer, Bryan Kirkwood (!) and DTC as the best executive producers. Anyone before 2000 is almost non-existent.

So you have the factors of Bywater's Lucy not being up to DTC's speed, the desire to keep the public salivating in their seats until the 30th Anniversary and then there's a third factor ... imitation being the sincerest form of flattery.

Corrie's killing off their version of Stacey, Tina McIntire, this spring, in a whodunnit storyline which will run until their 55th Anniversary special, which also airs in 2015; and Emmerdale is set to run a storyline which sees Belle Dingle accidentally kill her best friend Gemma. My guess is that this is going to be a clever amalgamation of the two.

Is it sensationalist? Well, yes, considering that since 2009, we've had Archie's death, Yusef's death, Pat's death and Heather's death, and Archie's murderer is still swanning about the Square, unpunished. Will it work? That depends. You have to wonder who's going to make an exit as the killer, unless DTC plans on making the Square a murderer's paradise, allowing Stacey and Ronnie full rein.

My guess is that Ronnie will kill her, because I don't think Sam Womack will last past the 30th. On the other hand, Jacqueline Jossa (who also wasn't cast by DTC) wants the chance to shine as a killer. Shit, they could even have Denny do it.

On the one hand, this could work, but on the other hand, it could land a big stinker.

One thing for certain, the show needs to move on from the hour-long tripe dished out last night, and people want to man up and feel free to call tripe tripe rather than fear repercussions from the fanboi bullies.

The Eternal Victim of the Mind.

We're two-thirds of the way to where DTC wants us to be, so make no mistake. Last night's double-header was all about Stacey and Shirley, with a tip to the long-term viewers (crumbs from the table) and a tour of Walford from the time DTC was first there.

Stacey, the Eternal Victim, is back. Note how, since she first showed up, snarling and spewing, she's suddenly been turned into the helpless little victim, who's just been a victim of bad circumstance. Key word ... victim.

She would have been quite happy living out the rest of her cush life with Luke, who reminded me of a tattooed Bradley, with her SORAS'd daughter - oddly, this child reminds me of the first young actress to have played Janine, very similar physically and certainly not three years old.

A three year-old, even those who are approaching four, are still toddler material. They have rounded, fleshed-out faces and bodies. You have only to think of that famous photo of Madeleine McCann to remember what a three-year-old's bone structure is like. Or just think of Tommy. Or Amy. Seriously.

This child's face is too defined, too mature to even resemble a three year-old. I would say she's five, even closer to six. And she's too tall. Stacey's been with this bloke for two years, which means he took her and her kid on when Lily was still a baby.

Stacey's entitlement knows no bounds. How can she hope to say to a man that she loves him, when she can't even be honest enough with him to tell him who she is. And she wasn't even entirely truthful then. Yes, she told him she was wanted for stabbing someone, which she didn't do; but not a word was mentioned about her having murdered a man.

That led me to wonder who exactly knows that Stacey killed Archie - there's Max and Lauren and the Blisters, but do Kat and Alfie know? They seemed only worried about the fact that she was wanted for stabbing Janine, nothing about Archie. Oh well, let's hope Ronnie tortures the pig-faced piece of trash. And yes, dancing.queen, who really ought to pay more attention in grammar class, I can say that on my blog.

The most putrid piece of television last night was seeing Stacey curled up in bed with her demon sprog, an open plea by EgoBoy for the viewers' compassion and sympathy for poor, pitiful homeless fugitive Stacey as she lay, a virtual captive in the Moons' front bedroom, with Kat making inane remarks about how Lily should remember her, how she and Alfie were her family. Oh please - and I can say that here, without offending the delicately entitled sensibilities of EastEnders' own Taliban representative Enders89 - the kid was six months old when she left Walford. If she didn't remember being in the backseat of Dot's old car whilst Ryan and Stacey fucked on the bonnet, she's hardly going to remember Kat.

The gist of this storyline now switches to Kat being determined to get Janine to drop charges of assault against Stacey. I bow to the magnificent observation of one of the stellar lights (and I mean that most sincerely) of Digital Spy kitkat1971, who observed in a comment that it really wasn't Janine's decision to make to drop the charges. The case was passed to the CPS, who are the ones pursuing Stacey for justice. It was the same with Max, when he tried to stop proceedings against Lauren for attempting to murder him. It was out of his hands. So there's nothing Kat can realistically do. In fact, she cannot even visit Janine without applying for and receiving a visiting order; and if Janine doesn't want to parley, that's tough shit.

But this is EastEnders! More importantly, this is Dominic Treadwell-Collins's EastEnders, where detail doesn't matter and we can make up the rules as we go along, because - let's face it - we're aiming to please the lower end of the market - the kids who speak and write atrocious grammar and who've never been told they're anything but special, the xTonix's of the world, the fanbois who are up for a little sensationalism. You know, the ones who'll take his fiction as fact.

I hate Stacey. She's everything that is bad about this programme and more. She is common trash, and she makes everyone with whom she associates common trash - Max, Kat, even Alfie. It amazes me that Kat is so obtuse that she cannot understand Alfie's reluctance to harbour Stacey. Both he and Kat have criminal records. Harbouring a fugitive is a major offence, and he's looking out for his family the best way he knows how.

I never thought I'd ever say I'm, looking forward to Ronnie coming back, even though she shouldn't have returned in the first place. If anyone can stick her past into the porcine gob of Saint Stacey Slater, it's Ronnie Mitchell.

Bring it on.

The Embarassment of Bitches.

I'm sorry, I have to play this, because this song will never be the same again.

Yes, we get the picture. DTC likes Les Mis, but there's no need to cram home the truth. 

The protest was always a statement of the bleeding obvious. You always knew that Ian would come up trumps in the end, you just knew it - just as you knew that Tamwar would throw down his tie, rip off his council badge and join the protest, after an entirely rhetorical comment from Lauren, which was this side of stupid ...

Why are you doing this, Tamwar?

Well, that was easy enough to answer. It was his job, you dumb entitled bitch, something which you've never had in your life as Dadd-i-o is still financing your skank arse. Her comment was seconded by that infamously other piece of entitled female flesh on the show, Whitney. It seems that somehow DTC has forgotten that Whitney has a job as a teaching assistant, but I suppose that's fallen by the wayside as that was Lorraine Newman's idea.

The protest was cheesy and embarrassing. The minute the resident Court Jester, Tina, threw a bread roll at Aleks, the thing became violent, and let's face it - the Carters were only in this game because closure of the market would affect their business. And Linda was only in the game for her own publicity.

And here's another question: Is anyone seriously going to address Shirley's alcoholism? She downed a bottle of vodka neat, during the protest, then topped it off with various bottles of wine during dinner. Ian leaping to the parapet of a truck to speak and reference his family's history with the market as well as Pauline working in the launderette, was but a few crumbs from the high table for the long-term viewer, and a lesson in history for the Millennials, which no one will give a toss about.

This was DTC's party trick of bringing together community. Where was Max in all this? Oh yes, I forgot. He was visiting Dot in hospital.

Beale-istic

Of course, any Beale activity pales into insignificance now we know that Lucy is brown bread. We had a bit of everything with this lot tonight - some history lessons, with a tip to the ignorance of the Millennials in Lucy wondering what the poll tax was, Ian's extolation of Maggie Thatcher and Denise's party political manifesto definition of what exactly the poll tax was.

But this was all about the cow coming home.

In the midst of Lucy being bumped off, we'll probably see Ian get back with Jane, as it seems that the most sanctimonious, judgemental piece of bovine flesh is willing to return for another dose of Ian Beale, probably most likely behind the back of Denise.

Have you noticed how, when Jane's around, Ian speaks to Denise as if she were a piece of shit? OK, they don't love each other, but I hate the snide way Lucy sneakily asks Ian if Jane's back in the picture, and this after everything Denise has done for her in the past. The plain truth where this is concerned is that Denise wouldn't let Lucy get away with half the shit Jane has. I suppose DTC has forgotten that Lucy is the real reason Jane can't have the calf she wants.

Denise can try to talk Ian around to supporting the market with all the same references Jane makes to history and heritage, and yet Ian listens to Jane.

If that isn't enough, we had to take an extended tour of Walford as Jane walked around, cadging a drink off Masood and finally gazing up at Scarlett's. She's a sous-chef in a poxy restaurant in Cardiff. How the hell does she come by having so much money to invest in a London eatery? Once again, the figures don't add up.

And this is just another bit of window dressing in wiping the memory of the past three years from viewers' minds - not difficult to do, considering most of the viewers who cream their knickers over the show today don't have one collective brain cell to rub together.

Another Pointless Return.

What was the point of Bushra in this episode? This was yet a continuation of her last appearance, the one where Zainab knocked her for six. This time was Masood's turn to do so - booted and suited and ready to go the the mosque fundraiser. The weirdest thing about Bushra's dressing down was Masood's reference to Syed and his husband, with nary a blink from Shabnam the Muslim poster girl.

I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that Shabnam has a degree in pharmacy. She was well ove the age of a graduate the last time she was on the show, yet she was only fit to work in the post office with her mother - something Bushra referenced tonight. My understanding was that Syed had a finance degree (which was about as useless as a chocolate teapot) and Tamwar was going to Oxford. 

Actually, my most favourite bit about the Masood-athon in this episode was Masood finally admitting that Tamwar as good as would never get to university. At least there's some sort of realism waiting around to get snuffed out by EgoBoy.

But please, let's don't re-visit that old chestnut that is Masood and Jane. I'd sooner see Nitin Ganatra leave.

Drink and Drugs at Home in the Vic.

I'll ask  it once again: When will Shirley's alcoholism be addressed? She was drunk throughout the show, and if Mick is having financial problems, it's because Shirley is drinking up the profits.

I'm certain Shirley and lame-brained Tina would be sad to see the market go. They'd have no place from which to steal.

And last night's episode proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Shirley should have nothing to do with the Vic. Aunt Babe.

I decided last night that I don't like this character. I hate her whispery, low-pitched voice and her snide comments about all and sundry. Her proposal to sell pot from behind the bar of the Vic was ludicrous beyond comment - almost as ludicrous as her having to deal to provide for Mick and Tina. Stan was a working fishmonger, FFS, that's a profession with a living wage!

That she was serious about Mick doing this and that Shirley and Tina backed her showed just how incredibly stupid they were. Not dealing to kids is one thing, but they'd get caught before long and then Mick would not only lose his business, he'd lose his home. That Mick even considered bringing this to a vote is indicative of the fact that he's just another weak male. His wife was dead set against it, and his son is a law student. He has his livelihood to think about and he put it to the vote. I'm glad the kids didn't approve or else, I think Mick may have gone along with this.

The absolute irony of that scene was Babe whispering (always whispering) to Shirley that Dean had been staying with Stan and that ...

(whisper whisper) ... he's not a good influence.

How? He likes a drink, but he's prone to telling Dean a few home truths about his mother, some things he found out, himself, when he was there the last time? At least Stan isn't trying to deal drugs or steal from fellow business traders.

In fact, the final scene was better than the whole turgid hour, yet you knew damned well that Dean was lurking someplace within the bowels of Stan's flat. Shirley is a piece. Would it have cost her that much to ask her father nicely for news of her son? Obviously her pride is that great, but an even bigger irony is how DTC is making big the return of a character whom he disdained before. I've always lobbied for the return of Dean Wicks, but not for him to be paired with Stacey Slater, which is obviously what's going to happen.

Signing off ....