There's only one word which springs to mind for me about tonight's episode: Weird.
That's it, just weird. Filler, yes. High on things happening? Welllllllll ... yes and no. The plot was so thick with holes and bad continuity, I couldn't figure out whether the majority of the piece was retconning, fairy tales or lies. Apart from that, there was the skewed morality bit that keeps seeping through, and the entire 30 minutes left me somewhat asunder.
That doesn't mean it was bad, by any means, but it does raise some questions.
Ronnie's Lies, Dot's Fairy Tales and Is Nick a Bigamist?
So now Charlie knows Ronnie is a murderer, and Ronnie knows Charlie is a bog cleaner. And now we know why Charlie lied about Nick's death. We know a lot of things about that, Carl's murder and Ronnie's kidnapping of Tommy, but the thing is, most of what was told was a pack of lies, or fairy tales or whatever you want to call it.
Let's start with Ronnie's confession. I don't know about you, but I got the distinct impression that she was projecting what Archie did to her when she was a child onto Carl, who was an obnoxious creep who was sleeping with Roxy, but who really didn't try to rape Ronnie in any way. The night before Ronnie killed him, he made a move on her and she brained him with a bottle of champers, then managed to move his unconscious body down the street to The Arches (one of the reasons why I think Ronnie killed Lucy - she was capable of moving her from the place where she was killed to the Common). When Ronnie did kill Carl, he tried to kiss her, forcibly, after literally telling her to piss off and stop following him, but after she pushed him away, her turned to say he was going, putting Phil's bag in the boot of the car he was taking ... and he rest is history. Here's the proof:-
You see, I didn't interpret that as a rape attempt. The night before, yes, when she clobbered him; but this was Carl cocking a snook at her and leaving with Phil's money, when she killed him and then coldly disposed of his body. Bad man? Most certainly, but it wasn't her place to sit as judge and jury and condemn him to death.
Basically, she's killed a man, she needs to atone for it, and she's told Charlie a story that's not entirely the truth. Oh, and she neglected to tell him that she drove the car, with his body in the boot, to a salvage company and watched as they craned the car and the corpse atop a pile of other rejects waiting to be crushed. No, the way Ronnie told that tale, it was presented as if she were the victim.
Then, there's Dot's fairy tale about poor, pitiful Ronnie, which, once again, had holes in it. It was the story of the babyswap, and once again, Ronnie is presented as the victim. Up to a point, up to the point where Ronnie found James dead, all was true; but Ronnie only went to the Vic that night because she heard Tommy crying, and she took him and left dead James in the cot, simply because she could. True, she was returning the kid when she saw Kat return and Jack at the same time, but Ronnie went out of her way during the next four months to conceal Tommy's identity. She lied and she deceived. No matter that she suddenly decided she couldn't live with the deception anymore, she did deceive - Jack, the Moons, everyone.
Instead of divorcing when she got out of prison, as Dot indicated, one of the first things Ronnie did when she went inside was to initiate divorce proceedings against Jack. They were finalised. She refused to see Jack, and the divorce was final the night he spent together with Roxy, when they were in the throes of a custody dispute over Amy. In fact, she refused to see Jack at all during her time inside ... until she got wind of the fact that he was marrying Sharon, then she couldn't see him quick enough.
Dot's wrong again about Jack not forgiving Ronnie. He did. In fact, she moved in with him again - even ordering a new bed for them. But then one day, she blithely told him she didn't want to have anymore kids with him, made him cry and he left. Just like that. But in Dot's mind, it's poor pitiful Ronnie, a special girl to her; but then, Dot doesn't know what Charlie knows, and Charlie doesn't know all of the story, himself.
So there's more deceit.
And, of course, in the midst of this, Ronnie does what she always does when she's faced with the hard, cold truth - she runs. Or she tries to run. And now we've got Charlie's story, which makes even less sense than Dot's fairy tale and Ronnie's lie.
He's a bog cleaner in a care home. People who work in that industry are paid minimum wage, so where's he got the money for the flash motor and the wad with which to pay Les Coker and the money with which to pay off Bianca's debt? Here's another quandry: I buy the fact that Nick was married to Yvonne and they had Charlie. I buy the fact that Charlie was probably Nick's first child. I buy the fact that Nick kept popping up and back into their lives throughout Charlie's childhood and adolescence. But did he divorce Yvonne? When we first met Ashley and Zoe, when Dot left Walford all those ages ago, Zoe was Nick's wife, and Nick returned to Walford later with an adolescent Ashley, who was killed, and nary a word at anytime of an older son or another wife.
Of course, the last time Nick visited, there was a young daughter - Dottie/Kirsty - and a third wife, Sandy, who seems to be getting along very nicely without Nick's interference. So did Nick collect wives or was he a bigamist? Charlie also mentioned something about Nick knocking Yvonne about. Nick is many things - a punk, a drug addict (and probably a pusher), a petty thief and a murderer (twice over), but he never impressed me as being a wife beater.
The story being presented by Charlie is that Nick was in trouble with the police, so they'd arrange a convenient death, there'd be a body, a funeral and Nick would emerge as someone else. Bob's your uncle! Or Nick, as the case may be. That is, in itself, a crime, and cruel to Dot. That would also mean the woman who accompanied Charlie to inform Dot of Nick's "death" wasn't a real policewoman as we all suspected. This is, in and of itself, a major crime, and it involves not only Charlie, but Yvonne, Nick and Les Coker, especially if the body in question came from his funeral home.
I want to know what Nick's done that's so terrible he has to change identities and fake a death. More important, was Charlie's shaggy dog story about Nick showing up from time to time and Charlie loving him because he was his dad. This was a bonding exercise with Ronnie, because then, all of a sudden, it became Bad Dads Week, and Ronnie's on a relation course of identifying with Charlie because both their fathers were and are psychopaths - like both of them, I'd imagine.
I feel sorry for the child involved. Name it Damien and be done with it.
Carter Cocktails.
The Beales and Brannings always gave us the dinner parties from hell, so leave it to the Carters to give us the Cocktail Party from Hell, featuring a matchmaking attempt with Dean and Stacey. Mick meant well, but he still cannot see or fathom that Linda's greatest unease surfaces around Dean. And Linda continues to frustrate by saying nothing.
Mick and Linda seem to make a habit of leaving the bar to Johnny, Nancy, Tracey, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, regularly, for a quick nip upstairs - for a family meal, a bit of afternoon delight or an impromptu cocktail party. Now this was weird, but interesting - because whilst Dean was playing mind games with Linda, still trying to psychologically manipulate her into thinking their sex had been consensual, Stacey was giving Mick what for in the kitchen about his knowing about Alfie's scheme. Stacey's on a moral high horse, and a lot of the Alfie-Haters will side with her, but Mick makes a good point. Alfie didn't mean for anything to happen the way it did, and what good would it do to have him imprisoned for that fire? How would Kat and the kids cope? And besides, Stacey isn't so clean - remember she provided an alibi for Chrissie Watts the night Den was killed, amongst other things.
I'm not so certain that there won't be something between Mick and Stacey sometime in the future, but one thing I did notice was the difference in Dean when he's around Linda and when he's around Stacey. Around Linda, the creepiness aspect comes to the fore, but if you forget everything that happened between him and Linda, he and Stacey make a good pairing, which is unfortunate, considering what's about to happen in his future. At the moment for me, this storyline is the one which is holding my interest.
Another Fine Mess.
Who's not surprised that the insurance isn't going to pay out? Denise was last seen drinking two glasses of champers to everyone else's one at Sharon's wedding reception. Now Alfie's drunk, which is totally out of character. Phil best get that AA chapter started quickly.
That's it, just weird. Filler, yes. High on things happening? Welllllllll ... yes and no. The plot was so thick with holes and bad continuity, I couldn't figure out whether the majority of the piece was retconning, fairy tales or lies. Apart from that, there was the skewed morality bit that keeps seeping through, and the entire 30 minutes left me somewhat asunder.
That doesn't mean it was bad, by any means, but it does raise some questions.
Ronnie's Lies, Dot's Fairy Tales and Is Nick a Bigamist?
So now Charlie knows Ronnie is a murderer, and Ronnie knows Charlie is a bog cleaner. And now we know why Charlie lied about Nick's death. We know a lot of things about that, Carl's murder and Ronnie's kidnapping of Tommy, but the thing is, most of what was told was a pack of lies, or fairy tales or whatever you want to call it.
Let's start with Ronnie's confession. I don't know about you, but I got the distinct impression that she was projecting what Archie did to her when she was a child onto Carl, who was an obnoxious creep who was sleeping with Roxy, but who really didn't try to rape Ronnie in any way. The night before Ronnie killed him, he made a move on her and she brained him with a bottle of champers, then managed to move his unconscious body down the street to The Arches (one of the reasons why I think Ronnie killed Lucy - she was capable of moving her from the place where she was killed to the Common). When Ronnie did kill Carl, he tried to kiss her, forcibly, after literally telling her to piss off and stop following him, but after she pushed him away, her turned to say he was going, putting Phil's bag in the boot of the car he was taking ... and he rest is history. Here's the proof:-
You see, I didn't interpret that as a rape attempt. The night before, yes, when she clobbered him; but this was Carl cocking a snook at her and leaving with Phil's money, when she killed him and then coldly disposed of his body. Bad man? Most certainly, but it wasn't her place to sit as judge and jury and condemn him to death.
Basically, she's killed a man, she needs to atone for it, and she's told Charlie a story that's not entirely the truth. Oh, and she neglected to tell him that she drove the car, with his body in the boot, to a salvage company and watched as they craned the car and the corpse atop a pile of other rejects waiting to be crushed. No, the way Ronnie told that tale, it was presented as if she were the victim.
Then, there's Dot's fairy tale about poor, pitiful Ronnie, which, once again, had holes in it. It was the story of the babyswap, and once again, Ronnie is presented as the victim. Up to a point, up to the point where Ronnie found James dead, all was true; but Ronnie only went to the Vic that night because she heard Tommy crying, and she took him and left dead James in the cot, simply because she could. True, she was returning the kid when she saw Kat return and Jack at the same time, but Ronnie went out of her way during the next four months to conceal Tommy's identity. She lied and she deceived. No matter that she suddenly decided she couldn't live with the deception anymore, she did deceive - Jack, the Moons, everyone.
Instead of divorcing when she got out of prison, as Dot indicated, one of the first things Ronnie did when she went inside was to initiate divorce proceedings against Jack. They were finalised. She refused to see Jack, and the divorce was final the night he spent together with Roxy, when they were in the throes of a custody dispute over Amy. In fact, she refused to see Jack at all during her time inside ... until she got wind of the fact that he was marrying Sharon, then she couldn't see him quick enough.
Dot's wrong again about Jack not forgiving Ronnie. He did. In fact, she moved in with him again - even ordering a new bed for them. But then one day, she blithely told him she didn't want to have anymore kids with him, made him cry and he left. Just like that. But in Dot's mind, it's poor pitiful Ronnie, a special girl to her; but then, Dot doesn't know what Charlie knows, and Charlie doesn't know all of the story, himself.
So there's more deceit.
And, of course, in the midst of this, Ronnie does what she always does when she's faced with the hard, cold truth - she runs. Or she tries to run. And now we've got Charlie's story, which makes even less sense than Dot's fairy tale and Ronnie's lie.
He's a bog cleaner in a care home. People who work in that industry are paid minimum wage, so where's he got the money for the flash motor and the wad with which to pay Les Coker and the money with which to pay off Bianca's debt? Here's another quandry: I buy the fact that Nick was married to Yvonne and they had Charlie. I buy the fact that Charlie was probably Nick's first child. I buy the fact that Nick kept popping up and back into their lives throughout Charlie's childhood and adolescence. But did he divorce Yvonne? When we first met Ashley and Zoe, when Dot left Walford all those ages ago, Zoe was Nick's wife, and Nick returned to Walford later with an adolescent Ashley, who was killed, and nary a word at anytime of an older son or another wife.
Of course, the last time Nick visited, there was a young daughter - Dottie/Kirsty - and a third wife, Sandy, who seems to be getting along very nicely without Nick's interference. So did Nick collect wives or was he a bigamist? Charlie also mentioned something about Nick knocking Yvonne about. Nick is many things - a punk, a drug addict (and probably a pusher), a petty thief and a murderer (twice over), but he never impressed me as being a wife beater.
The story being presented by Charlie is that Nick was in trouble with the police, so they'd arrange a convenient death, there'd be a body, a funeral and Nick would emerge as someone else. Bob's your uncle! Or Nick, as the case may be. That is, in itself, a crime, and cruel to Dot. That would also mean the woman who accompanied Charlie to inform Dot of Nick's "death" wasn't a real policewoman as we all suspected. This is, in and of itself, a major crime, and it involves not only Charlie, but Yvonne, Nick and Les Coker, especially if the body in question came from his funeral home.
I want to know what Nick's done that's so terrible he has to change identities and fake a death. More important, was Charlie's shaggy dog story about Nick showing up from time to time and Charlie loving him because he was his dad. This was a bonding exercise with Ronnie, because then, all of a sudden, it became Bad Dads Week, and Ronnie's on a relation course of identifying with Charlie because both their fathers were and are psychopaths - like both of them, I'd imagine.
I feel sorry for the child involved. Name it Damien and be done with it.
Carter Cocktails.
The Beales and Brannings always gave us the dinner parties from hell, so leave it to the Carters to give us the Cocktail Party from Hell, featuring a matchmaking attempt with Dean and Stacey. Mick meant well, but he still cannot see or fathom that Linda's greatest unease surfaces around Dean. And Linda continues to frustrate by saying nothing.
Mick and Linda seem to make a habit of leaving the bar to Johnny, Nancy, Tracey, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, regularly, for a quick nip upstairs - for a family meal, a bit of afternoon delight or an impromptu cocktail party. Now this was weird, but interesting - because whilst Dean was playing mind games with Linda, still trying to psychologically manipulate her into thinking their sex had been consensual, Stacey was giving Mick what for in the kitchen about his knowing about Alfie's scheme. Stacey's on a moral high horse, and a lot of the Alfie-Haters will side with her, but Mick makes a good point. Alfie didn't mean for anything to happen the way it did, and what good would it do to have him imprisoned for that fire? How would Kat and the kids cope? And besides, Stacey isn't so clean - remember she provided an alibi for Chrissie Watts the night Den was killed, amongst other things.
I'm not so certain that there won't be something between Mick and Stacey sometime in the future, but one thing I did notice was the difference in Dean when he's around Linda and when he's around Stacey. Around Linda, the creepiness aspect comes to the fore, but if you forget everything that happened between him and Linda, he and Stacey make a good pairing, which is unfortunate, considering what's about to happen in his future. At the moment for me, this storyline is the one which is holding my interest.
Another Fine Mess.
Who's not surprised that the insurance isn't going to pay out? Denise was last seen drinking two glasses of champers to everyone else's one at Sharon's wedding reception. Now Alfie's drunk, which is totally out of character. Phil best get that AA chapter started quickly.
No comments:
Post a Comment