Poor pitiful Phil! He must surely (pun intended) like the taste of ashtray and stale booze. Of course, now we know the measure of Shirley. All this hump about Ben being back was the key to the door to get her back with Phil.
And so much for Sharon's big storyline. It's a smokescreen, really, for Shirley, as are most things on the show now. Not only that, but Sharon's yet another victim of the stupefication syndrome which this EP uses against certain characters. We even had it articulated tonight, by none other than the new all-purpose matriarch-cum-enforcer-cum-power player on the Square - Shirley.
I know Sharon's stupid ...
Really, Shirley? What's Sharon done that's more stupid than you? Not much. You're both pretty dimwitted to put your apples in a cart owned by Phil Mitchell, but then DTC has made Sharon stupid in the same way he's made Alfie stupid and continued the stupidity of Bianca - characters who may have made mistakes in the past, but who were anything but stupid.
The most amazing thing about Phil's reaction was that it seemed to me that what upset him the most was his loss of money. Sharon really did know where to hit him, and he really thinks himself so clever that Sharon wouldn't have found out about his masterminding the attack on The Albert? How very patronising of him to dismiss Sharon's first attempt at taking The Albert as the little woman trying her hand.
Here's irony to Phil's dilemma - not knowing that Sharon knows about him being behind her getting beaten up, Phil shows great consternation that Sharon would even associate with Marcus after what he did to Sam. (You want stupid? Sam was stupid). If he only knew that, looking at a picture of Sam, Phil and Grant, spurred Sharon's memory of exactly what Marcus did to Sam and prompted her to contact him. I cannot wait until she reveals what he did, and I hope it's done publically, but I have an awful feeling that Sharon's not made to succeed in this mess.
Ne'mind the fact that she is an original character, ne'mind that she was on the Square well before any of the Mitchells, ne'mind that this producer in a previous interview cited her as his favourite character and tweeted more recently a vow to bring Sharon back to the centre of the show and bring back the "old" Sharon, that was a sop. A sop and a porky pie, because this producer cannot resist putting the Mitchells on top of everything, and nothing will stand in the way of his aim to promote a marmite character as the central focal female point in the programme.
He still thinks this is about Dennis, which indicates to me that he does still feel tremendous guilt about Dennis. As for Shirley, this whole escapade only proves how utterly and totally pathetic she is. When Jay trusts her with a confidence, she runs, like a tale-bearing schoolgirl, to tattle to Phil, because that's what this is all about.
I care about you, Phil.
You can trust me, Phil.
I'll be your doormat, Phil. Let's bring Sharon down, Phil, because you certainly wouldn't do what you've done to Sharon to me, would you, Phil?
This is why I hated Shirley and Phil as a couple so much - seeing Phil morph into a perverse and pathetic version of Grant and watching Shirley move into Mastemind Phil mode. How cozy that they seal their pledge to grind Sharon to the ground with a sex session in the dirty, squalid, oily Arches. That's a step up from where Shirley's slept.
As for the stupefication of Sharon, that scene in the Vic with Linda reminded me of two dumbassed schoolgirls, a watered-down version of Bianca and Roxy slanging at each other. Even though there were home truths spoken about Linda - as in the fact that she does look down her nose at everyone else and holds a higher standard, the hypocritical point of that being that, for all the cheap Lady Di version of an engagement ring she wears, she isn't married and would be mortified if anyone found out. And she is keeping Dean's advances secret from Mick. Had she told him what happened, this would have been nipped in the bud. But she didn't, and now Dean's obviously got the idea that she may be playing hard to get.
But I've watched Sharon since the very beginning, in all three of her permutations - from the original version, to the damaged and bowdlerised version of John Yorke, to this totally unfamiliar Sharon about whom the writing room cares for only slightly more than they care for Alfie. Her characterisation is inconsistent. The writing for her is mostly bad. Is anyone surprised at the actress's substandard performance? Actors can tell when they're being given the shaft, so they either phone in their roles (Jake Wood) or they caricature themselves (Shane Richie/Letitia Dean).
Sharon was rarely a bitch and never judgemental. Yet, there she and Linda sat tonight, trading barbs under the influence of wine in a scene reminiscent of Tanya and Jane. Sharon drunk is a rarity, Sharon drunk and loose-lipped, passing an assumption as gossip is something that would never happen. Who are the people who write this?
And, please ... how to emphasise that the Carters' partnership is based primarily on sex! Linda is about to become a bona fide victim. She is going to be raped. Rape is a sexual crime of power and control. Suffice it to say thatconsenual sex is often used as a means of control and an assertion of power in a relationship, as well. Mick does it all the time. Linda left him, and during her time apart, she had an epiphany - that she could live apart from him. She felt this so strongly that when she returned for a visit, she was repulsed by the memory of his betrayal. Instead, all it took was a roll in the hay for her to come around. Interesting to note that what Mick missed the most about his "wife" was the sex - not her presence or her humour or anything else, but the sex. Mick knows that whenever Linda disagrees with something or he needs to get her onside about something or distract her in an argument, he can always pull the sex routine - seduce her and get her in the sack and she'll agree to anything.
Just a final note to ponder about Linda, who's about to become a rape victim. Yes, rape is a crime whereby forced sex is used as a means to control and exert power; but consensual sex can also be used in such a manipulative way. The Carter partnership between Mick and Linda (because it isn't a marriage) is grounded on sex. Mick knows Linda likes sex. He also knows that anytime he wants to get a reluctant Linda onside about something or quell any disagreement, all he has to do is aim for a bonk. Get her in the hay and she'll agree to anything. That's consensual sex used to control and to exert power in an unequal relationship. Mick missed Linda. He missed the idea of having sex with her and playing the big head-of-the-household. It's an unequal partnership, and his consensual sex is used as an extension of his passive-aggressiveness.
This was a Carter-heave episode, again with Babe lumbering around. It's obvious that Sylvie is staying with her. I'm wondering if Sylvie is some sort of Boo Radley-ish recluse, with Babe buying lilies to humour her. I'm glad both Stan and Les, in a macabre sort of way, scared the old bitch off. She deserved it, after her rudeness to Pam.
The Carters don't infiltrate the Moon storyline until next week when the fire happens, but the less said about the Swiss-cheesed Moon troubles, the better. The lead-in storyline is so ridiculous, it isn't even a fantasy - it's a fallacy.
Bianca is leaving, and her leaving line is all about Whitney's dilemma. Whitney didn't need Bianca's permission to stay. She's an adult, with a job and a place to stay (with Carol), unlike the sulky, lumbering Liam, who's fifteen and acting like a spoiled brat. News flash: When it comes to some things, adults do make collective family decisions. Maybe Bianca is wrong, asking Liam to re-locate in his GCSE year, but he is still a child. TJ is saying nothing about the move, and he's got a myriad of reasons to want to stay behind in Walford.
Still, Whitney's decision is made for her by Lee. That's right - Whitney, who never hesitated in making decisions for other people and overstepping the mark - like contacting the fathers of children whose mothers had forbidden it and with whom she had no right - now bases her decision not to move to Milton Keynes on the fact that Lee "loves" her. I'm pretty sure Lee said that he loved Lucy too, or words to that effect. Bianca tells Whitney she shouldn't worry about getting hurt. Famous last words and overshadowing.
In a different way, Lee is as creepy as Dean. There was a cold shudder when he promised Bianca that he would take care of Whitney. Like he took care of Lucy, perhaps? Or maybe it's just that I'm bored with the umpteenth exploration of Whitney's lovelife.
Another meh episode, more me than Monday's.
And so much for Sharon's big storyline. It's a smokescreen, really, for Shirley, as are most things on the show now. Not only that, but Sharon's yet another victim of the stupefication syndrome which this EP uses against certain characters. We even had it articulated tonight, by none other than the new all-purpose matriarch-cum-enforcer-cum-power player on the Square - Shirley.
I know Sharon's stupid ...
Really, Shirley? What's Sharon done that's more stupid than you? Not much. You're both pretty dimwitted to put your apples in a cart owned by Phil Mitchell, but then DTC has made Sharon stupid in the same way he's made Alfie stupid and continued the stupidity of Bianca - characters who may have made mistakes in the past, but who were anything but stupid.
The most amazing thing about Phil's reaction was that it seemed to me that what upset him the most was his loss of money. Sharon really did know where to hit him, and he really thinks himself so clever that Sharon wouldn't have found out about his masterminding the attack on The Albert? How very patronising of him to dismiss Sharon's first attempt at taking The Albert as the little woman trying her hand.
Here's irony to Phil's dilemma - not knowing that Sharon knows about him being behind her getting beaten up, Phil shows great consternation that Sharon would even associate with Marcus after what he did to Sam. (You want stupid? Sam was stupid). If he only knew that, looking at a picture of Sam, Phil and Grant, spurred Sharon's memory of exactly what Marcus did to Sam and prompted her to contact him. I cannot wait until she reveals what he did, and I hope it's done publically, but I have an awful feeling that Sharon's not made to succeed in this mess.
Ne'mind the fact that she is an original character, ne'mind that she was on the Square well before any of the Mitchells, ne'mind that this producer in a previous interview cited her as his favourite character and tweeted more recently a vow to bring Sharon back to the centre of the show and bring back the "old" Sharon, that was a sop. A sop and a porky pie, because this producer cannot resist putting the Mitchells on top of everything, and nothing will stand in the way of his aim to promote a marmite character as the central focal female point in the programme.
He still thinks this is about Dennis, which indicates to me that he does still feel tremendous guilt about Dennis. As for Shirley, this whole escapade only proves how utterly and totally pathetic she is. When Jay trusts her with a confidence, she runs, like a tale-bearing schoolgirl, to tattle to Phil, because that's what this is all about.
I care about you, Phil.
You can trust me, Phil.
I'll be your doormat, Phil. Let's bring Sharon down, Phil, because you certainly wouldn't do what you've done to Sharon to me, would you, Phil?
This is why I hated Shirley and Phil as a couple so much - seeing Phil morph into a perverse and pathetic version of Grant and watching Shirley move into Mastemind Phil mode. How cozy that they seal their pledge to grind Sharon to the ground with a sex session in the dirty, squalid, oily Arches. That's a step up from where Shirley's slept.
As for the stupefication of Sharon, that scene in the Vic with Linda reminded me of two dumbassed schoolgirls, a watered-down version of Bianca and Roxy slanging at each other. Even though there were home truths spoken about Linda - as in the fact that she does look down her nose at everyone else and holds a higher standard, the hypocritical point of that being that, for all the cheap Lady Di version of an engagement ring she wears, she isn't married and would be mortified if anyone found out. And she is keeping Dean's advances secret from Mick. Had she told him what happened, this would have been nipped in the bud. But she didn't, and now Dean's obviously got the idea that she may be playing hard to get.
But I've watched Sharon since the very beginning, in all three of her permutations - from the original version, to the damaged and bowdlerised version of John Yorke, to this totally unfamiliar Sharon about whom the writing room cares for only slightly more than they care for Alfie. Her characterisation is inconsistent. The writing for her is mostly bad. Is anyone surprised at the actress's substandard performance? Actors can tell when they're being given the shaft, so they either phone in their roles (Jake Wood) or they caricature themselves (Shane Richie/Letitia Dean).
Sharon was rarely a bitch and never judgemental. Yet, there she and Linda sat tonight, trading barbs under the influence of wine in a scene reminiscent of Tanya and Jane. Sharon drunk is a rarity, Sharon drunk and loose-lipped, passing an assumption as gossip is something that would never happen. Who are the people who write this?
And, please ... how to emphasise that the Carters' partnership is based primarily on sex! Linda is about to become a bona fide victim. She is going to be raped. Rape is a sexual crime of power and control. Suffice it to say thatconsenual sex is often used as a means of control and an assertion of power in a relationship, as well. Mick does it all the time. Linda left him, and during her time apart, she had an epiphany - that she could live apart from him. She felt this so strongly that when she returned for a visit, she was repulsed by the memory of his betrayal. Instead, all it took was a roll in the hay for her to come around. Interesting to note that what Mick missed the most about his "wife" was the sex - not her presence or her humour or anything else, but the sex. Mick knows that whenever Linda disagrees with something or he needs to get her onside about something or distract her in an argument, he can always pull the sex routine - seduce her and get her in the sack and she'll agree to anything.
Just a final note to ponder about Linda, who's about to become a rape victim. Yes, rape is a crime whereby forced sex is used as a means to control and exert power; but consensual sex can also be used in such a manipulative way. The Carter partnership between Mick and Linda (because it isn't a marriage) is grounded on sex. Mick knows Linda likes sex. He also knows that anytime he wants to get a reluctant Linda onside about something or quell any disagreement, all he has to do is aim for a bonk. Get her in the hay and she'll agree to anything. That's consensual sex used to control and to exert power in an unequal relationship. Mick missed Linda. He missed the idea of having sex with her and playing the big head-of-the-household. It's an unequal partnership, and his consensual sex is used as an extension of his passive-aggressiveness.
This was a Carter-heave episode, again with Babe lumbering around. It's obvious that Sylvie is staying with her. I'm wondering if Sylvie is some sort of Boo Radley-ish recluse, with Babe buying lilies to humour her. I'm glad both Stan and Les, in a macabre sort of way, scared the old bitch off. She deserved it, after her rudeness to Pam.
The Carters don't infiltrate the Moon storyline until next week when the fire happens, but the less said about the Swiss-cheesed Moon troubles, the better. The lead-in storyline is so ridiculous, it isn't even a fantasy - it's a fallacy.
Bianca is leaving, and her leaving line is all about Whitney's dilemma. Whitney didn't need Bianca's permission to stay. She's an adult, with a job and a place to stay (with Carol), unlike the sulky, lumbering Liam, who's fifteen and acting like a spoiled brat. News flash: When it comes to some things, adults do make collective family decisions. Maybe Bianca is wrong, asking Liam to re-locate in his GCSE year, but he is still a child. TJ is saying nothing about the move, and he's got a myriad of reasons to want to stay behind in Walford.
Still, Whitney's decision is made for her by Lee. That's right - Whitney, who never hesitated in making decisions for other people and overstepping the mark - like contacting the fathers of children whose mothers had forbidden it and with whom she had no right - now bases her decision not to move to Milton Keynes on the fact that Lee "loves" her. I'm pretty sure Lee said that he loved Lucy too, or words to that effect. Bianca tells Whitney she shouldn't worry about getting hurt. Famous last words and overshadowing.
In a different way, Lee is as creepy as Dean. There was a cold shudder when he promised Bianca that he would take care of Whitney. Like he took care of Lucy, perhaps? Or maybe it's just that I'm bored with the umpteenth exploration of Whitney's lovelife.
Another meh episode, more me than Monday's.
No comments:
Post a Comment