One step forward, two steps back. Get so far, then regress.
What a welter of disappointment! There were, indeed, some good bits, but there were some hellaciously bad bits as well, and that, ladies and gents, has been EastEnders' single biggest problem in recent years - it's inconsistency; because just like the little girl with the curl in the middle of her forehead, when the show is firing on all cylinders, it's excellent, and when it's not ... well, it's like water leaking.
The Good Bits ...
Shabnam and Stacey. I liked seeing them in the cafe, sharing a cuppa and a natter. I never pegged those two down as friends, but I like the association; and for once, Shabnam's not being supercilious and judgemental, which she could so easily be over Stacey. Both young women need friends from their own age dynamic. Stacey's friendships which she had before happened in the space of hours and ended up being shallow (the woeful Ruby) and dictated by Stacey's own terms (the even more woeful Danielle). Shabnam was friends with Dawn and Carly, but this time around, she's been priggish, judgemental and found comfort in hanging out with her mother's friends.
I liked Kush's banter, and Stacey prodding Shabnam for playing hard to get, and Shabnam's reply was ambiguous enough to indicate that she was, indeed, interested in Kush. Anyone surprised by this? Because I'm not. Sometime ago, someone reckoned a romance between Shabnam, a practicing Muslim, and Lee Carter, who'd served in Afghanistan, might be provocative - and mark me, EastEnders could do a vastly more effective version of this type of attraction than the milquetoast Gary Windass story being pursued by Corrie. But no ... EastEnders plays it safe.
Still, it's going to be interesting - well, it will attempt to be - watching this EP unravel yet another romcom situation - and make no mistake, DTC is a man who loves romcoms.
Anyway, the Stacey-Shabnam friendship is one I'd pursue, were I TPTB.
I'm also glad they're keeping up the continuity of Dean's association with Shabnam. She was a friend of his sister's, and there was a link between the two to "slightly older" Walford, the way they were having a laugh in the cafe.
Of course, such scenes, especially featuring Dean, are meant to conflict and confuse the viewer, and they do. It's easy to get sucked into the chemistry between him and Stacey, the banter between him and Shabnam, her teasing Stacey about his interest and his interest in being there for her and Lily, before we're pulled back to remember that he raped Linda, and there's the awful incongruity of Dean, happy, with Stacey and Lily in the Vic, teasing Lily and establishing that he and Stacey are, at the moment, a couple, stood before Linda, who can't help but see Dean exactly for what he was and is - her rapist.
This is actually the first time the soap genre has actually depicted a rapist as a regular and established character of a community, with family and emotional ties. Brookside followed a similar plot with the Peter Robinson date rape, but this is something on a completely different level.
Dean is a rapist. He's also an emotionally stunted and crippled character with rejection issues and a misogynistic streak formed as a result of his mother's abandonment of him. He is not a victim, in the sense that Linda, the woman he violated, is a victim; but he is a victim of emotional abuse on his own accord - yet another abuse victim becomes an abuser.
Mrs Doyle and the Devil. Undoubtedly, the stars of the show tonight were Pauline McLynn and John Altman. Nick scored, again, with the undisputed line of the night ...
You're the poster girl for Catholic repression.
It's amazing the comic chemistry that these two have - Nick alluding to the more sordid aspects of their courtship and previous association - grungy pool halls, dirty pubs, aptly identifying Yvonne's tightly scrunched bun as a symbol of her repressed feelings toward him. These two are delightful - the very antithesis of their prissy, suddenly effete son, who's taken his lead from Roswell Ronnie, the Ice Queen.
Another brilliant line from Yvonne and an apt assessment of Ronnie ...
He's not been the same since that one's got her icy fingers around him.
Yvonne's got Ronnie pegged, and I'd love to know who the feck she thinks she is, to sit in Dot's house and rudely call out Yvonne, simply for serving tea? This is Dot's house, and these people, for better or for worse, are Dot's family; and Ian Beale's crave capitulation in contributing money - a couple of thousand quid - to rid the Square of Nick.
I'm doing this for Dot, he says.
Really, Ian? And why the hell is Ronnie doing this?
Someplace else, in a discussion, someone who isn't au fait with Nick and his history on the Square, wondered what, exactly was the point of this tale, and although I'm enjoying John Altman's tour de force, I'm wondering that too.
OK, Nick allegedly committed an armed robbery and got into some sort of trouble with some gangsta type. He and his sudden new-found son, Charlie, put their heads together, and Charlie suggested he fake his death. Gangstas couldn't hassle a dead man, could they? I get the impression that Nick split the proceeds of the robbery with Charlie - hey, wait ... did Charlie participate in the robbery? If he didn't, he had no qualms about taking the stolen money. Maybe Charlie was supposed to guard that money for Nick, but we know he didn't.
He paid off Les Coker to bury "Nick"; he bought a flash car. He paid off Bianca's death and swanned about the Square for months, pretending to be a policeman. He got involved with Ronnie. A formerly interesting and mysterious character has now become Roswell Ronnie's sperm bank and lapdog. Still a man of mystery, the bog cleaner could also be an accessory in a murder.
Nick returned, ostensibly, for his money, but did he? The culprits didn't have it - although, I'm at loss to see how Ronnie, herself, couldn't have come up with the dosh, considering the amount she lifted from Phil. I feel that this storyline is a contrivance that's meant somehow to be linked to the Lucy investigation, and I'd be willing to bet that the likes of Ronnie, Ian and Phil connive to set Nick up to be arrested as Lucy's murderer, meaning the murderer is still amongst them - most likely a Beale or a Mitchell or someone connected with the Beales, Mitchells and Cottons. If it weren't for John Altman's prize performance, ably supported by Pauline McLynne, this storyline would be in serious danger of losing its way.
I just hate the way both Ian and Ronnie patronise Dot. Ian and his family have done so for years; Ronnie treats her like a senile old crone with her condescending goodwill.
Nick isn't staying in his room, and when he is, Yvonne's staying with him. The fragrant Ronnie thinks herself so far above Nick - this is a man who's got away with murder twice, once being found not guilty by a jury! Nick might seem like a benevolent fool whom no one takes seriously but himself, but I'll wager he could make mincemeat out of Roswell Ronnie.
The most surprising result of this entire storyline is the utter and complete emasculation of Charlie Cotton. Oh, well, this is EastEnders, and Walford is the home of de-balled men.
The Whiffy Bits ...
The Moaning Moons. I really don't know what to say about this family and the untold damage done to them since 2010. I know that Alfie is the fashionable character to hate, but I honestly do find it astounding that people cut some characters slack by citing various characters' weaknesses or the way they come across as being the writers' fault, yet throw caution to the wind when considering Alfie or Sharon.
The problem with Alfie is that the writing room cannot differentiate the actor from the character. For the record, Alfie isn't absconding blame for what he did. He knows very well that their plight is his fault. However, as someone else pointed out, the insurance company had accepted that the fire was an accident; they just didn't pay out because Big Mo was using the property to store retail items. Alfie blames himself every moment he looks at Kat and the scars he caused.
As for Alfie not finding a job, I agree, that's unrealistic; however, how many characters actually have a job off the Square? In real time, the Moons would be the recipient of any and all sorts of economic state benefits, and they would be found council accommodation. Strange, however, that the little matter of Alfie's tax bill has been, seemingly, forgotten.
I found Kat's behaviour offensive - throwing water over the police, screaming "Squatters' rights" (something that no longer applies, legally), creating a scene to such a degree that when she had to vacate the property, she was forced to endure the "walk of shame" through the gauntlet of nosy neighbours gathered to view a show. However, I'm wondering how and why Donna had the key to that flat and knew about it being paid up until the end of the month? Kat proved nothing tonight, except that acting out like a harpy achieves nothing.
Of course, this is building up to Alfie's eventual confession, and the ubiquitous picture of Nana Moon, which accompanies him everywhere, is bound to feature in the reveal. That said, I'm not one of the rabble calling for Alfie and Kat to split and the Square to be rid of Alfie. Alfie and Kat, like it or not, are an endgame couple. Get rid of Alfie, and what do you have? A single woman, over forty, with three small kids, screeching on the Market. In other words, Bianca, doomed forever to whine about feeding her kids hooked into a repetitive loop of downward-spiralling storylines. Alfie and Kat need to be found a direction and a purpose, and the writing room need to stop treating Alfie Moon like a cringeworthy Shane Richie. He's not. On his day, Richie is one of the strongest actors in the programme, and it was Alfie who had the perspicacity to remind Kat of something she'd forgotten - if the police had to arrest her, she's going back to prison.
No surprise for sussing that the Moons are rescued by SuperMick, clued in on their fate by SuperShirl and taken back to the Inn, where there's miraculously loads of room. Another line of the night goes to the delightful Linda:-
It's not a Tardis!
No, Linda, it's a Christmas miracle.
The Self-Perpetuating
Instead, Ian, the man who reckons he can dictate to Dot about how she should cut off links with her child, seeks to wrap poor, pitiful Pete in cottonwool and force people to view him as the sympathetic victim in Lucy's demise.
He made a mistake. Everybody makes mistakes.
Yes, but not everyone is so stupid as to assume that an addict can be controlled. Just when I was beginning to like Lauren, they allow both Ian and subsequently Peter to emotionally blackmail her into involving herself, romantically, with Peter again. Short stuff - Peter is an enabler, and Lauren is an addict; Lauren knows that Peter is the last person with whom she should be involved romantically. Ian suggests friendship, and she thinks she can deal with that - so the audience are force-fed poor pitiful posh Pete looking as though he's feeling very sorry for himself, whilst surreptititously goading Lauren's compassion.
(Sniff, sniff) The family are trying to keep things normal for Bobby. He's just a kid. (Sniff, sniff)
Lauren, who makes a pittance, occasionally waiting tables in Ian's unprofitably burger joint, somehow has enough money to buy Peter an expensive digital camera - you know - for his travels for which Ian will, undoubtedly, pay. Of course, this is yet another day Peter hasn't opened the veg stall. So why hasn't Aleks come down like the wrath of God on him?
All it takes is a trip to a Christmas Fayre and Peter emotionally blackmailing Lauren with the most appalling example of passive-aggressiveness lately seen on this programme:-
Peter: If you want us to be just friends ... you know, I don't think I can do that ... I love you ... I always have.
Oh, pass the bucket ...
Eh, voila! We have yet another ubiquitous romcom scene - the one where the engaging young couple are seen kissing in the rain.
It didn't work, and Jossa's back to waving her arms and making silly voices.
The Intriguing Bit ...
Dummerhayes's Dilemma. Yet here's another Devil's Advocate - the diving Keeble, offering Dummerhayes her professional future in exchange for her soul. Her mission, should she choose to accept it, is to swipe Lauren's laptop (without Lauren's knowledge), because there appears to be some adverse IP activity on Lauren's computer in the days following Lucy's death - on a social media site, no less.
Dummerhayes is appalled at what Keeble is advocating and is shocked to learn that Keeble is slightly bent regarding legal procedures, suggesting that Keeble get a warrant. Dummerhayes is worried, but I don't think Max appreciates that his involvement with her has seriously compromised the investigation. And if Dummerhayes is so appalled at Keeble bending the rules, doesn't she realise that she failed to arrest Abi for running down a dog (a traffic offense), driving under the influence, driving without a licence or insurance and that she didn't arrest Peter once he made it public knowledge within her knowledge that he had supplied cocaine for his sister. And she calls herself a good cop?
Well, she did lift the laptop.
My guess is that the "activity" is when Whitney used Lauren's laptop to remove the pejorative messages she left on Lucy's facepage.
Pretty meh episode for so close to Christmas.
No comments:
Post a Comment