Days of future past, all right, and then some. Call it repetition for emphasis, call it déja vu, call it what you will, the Southern author, Thomas Wolfe, wrote a book about it, entitled You Can't Go Home Again.
And this is what I think Sean O'Connor is trying to do. This episode had it's We're the future of Walford moment, only this was a step into the past, with the three-way toast to the Beales, the Mitchells and the Fowlers. But where does that leave the Brannings, the Fox-Hubbards and the Carters, you ask?
All three of those outsider families will find themselves entangled in some way, shape or form with one of the three premier families listed above.
And now the gossip all around, especially in one area, is the possible return of a re-cast Michelle Fowler. With the mysterious phonecall that abruptly ended and with a mention in this episode of a Christmas card, it probably means she'll show up with a new head on Christmas Day as the "big surprise" Sharon Marshall's punting.
I feel this is wrong. The role of Michelle will forever be linked with Susan Tully, and there it should remain. The only people who are excited about it are the viewers who never saw her, except for the clips shown on YouTube - those people who watched from the eras of John Yorke and Diedrich Santer. This is being done for them, the Millennials (although they hate that word). It isn't being done for anyone who watched prior to 2000. We don't matter.
O'Connor will make his recast, and that means that wherever Michelle - a complex character and probably THE original nuanced character - goes, her two putrid children follow, kids who have been raised and who were born in the US, sounding like they were from the leafy Surrey suburbs, so us oldtimers are just going to have to suck it up and like it.
Or not.
The show bled long-term viewers when they brought zombie Den back. It can't afford to bleed more.
In my opinion, which isn't allowed to be expressed in some spheres, this is O'Connor's second strike.
Only one remains.
The Shitty Teens Again. The girl who plays Rebecca is arguably one of the worst actresses who ever appeared on the show. She calls herself a singer, but she's pretty bad at that and all.
Does O'Connor think presenting the classic teenaged love tryst storyline - the one where the silly girl doesn't want to lose her boyfriend, so she puts out and loses him - would interest us?
Stacey told Martin what happened between RedNose and TurdHead, and so she should have as well. She's his wife, and RedNose is his daughter. He has a right to know what she's up to, especially since she's still dependent on him for financial and emotional support and lives under his roof. He reacted ... like a father.
Ian Beale would have done the same thing. And Mick Carter. Both did. And a fit Phil Mitchell or even Grant Mitchell would have done the same. Den Watts would have hung him out to dry. And so would Max Branning, but like all situations on EastEnders, the father in question was made to feel that his overreaction was wrong.
The good thing about this storyline is that Martin got some crafty zingers in at the expense of the Kazemis and their defensive self-righteousness. When Kush, holding him back from attacking Shakil, called him out for acting like a prat and not a father, Martin had a brilliant retort ...
Since when do I take parenting advice from you?
And when Carmel prissily asked where Rebecca's mother was, Martin shot back, asking where Shakil's father was.
The idea of Kush talking to Shakil about his behaviour was risible. This is a family of self-absorbed narcissists and sexual predators. The gist of Shakil's bad behaviour stems from the fact that he dumped Rebecca online ... "in front of everybody", she wailed. Kush agreed that this was low, and that was astounding, coming from a man who made a career our of one night stands and ditching inappropriate women after currying sympathy sex for his dead wife.
Shakil thought Rebecca wanted to dump him. Why? Because she kept wanting to talk.
Duhhhhhhh ... dumb or what? I guess Shakil is a man of action and few words. He just wants a fuck on tap and no conversation in between. Kush echoed exactly what Stacey told Rebecca: If you can't even talk to one another, what the hell are you doing sleeping with each other? That's not a relataionship, that's just using.
I liked Kathy taking on the role of Beale-Fowler matriarch, in speaking to Rebecca, and the reminsicent scene at the pub at the end of the rehearsal, when Ben toasted Kathy on her new name change, and everyone sat around remembering Lou; but Ben piped up and wished he'd known Lou - sorry, but Lou Beale was not his grandmother, or even his great-grandmother; and Lou wouldn't have considered him a Beale at all.
I'd also forgotten that Martin wouldn't have remembered Lou, being just a baby when she died, and it was funny hearing Jane refer to Pauline as a "battle-ax".
But the Shakil-Rebecca shit is just deplorable, and it's bad, not only because the actors are bad, it's bad because the characters stink.
The Valley of the Shadow of Death. EastEnders still doesn't do subtlety, and to me, that's playing to the lowest common denominator of viewer. Dumbed-down.
The story that's interesting me the most at the moment is the continued downward spiral of Roxy, a character I feel they shouldn't lose. Charged with the task of arranging Ronnie's hen night, she pulls a sickie on Donna and fuels her research with liberal snorts of cocaine.
We know this because all the time she's standing around talking to Ronnie about various venues, she's sniffing so loud and obviously, that you can barely hear her dialogue. Now Ronnie's pretty much a lowlife and a woman of the world, and it hasn't been that long since Roxy rocked up in Walford again, acting as a drugs mule and having a drugs problem.
But Ronnie's got a bad case of the stupids, or else the EP wants us to believe that this murdering psychopath has been tamed to domesticity by Jack's cock and three kids. She thinks Roxy is tipsy from drink. Roxy sniffs her way through most of the episode, pointedly refusing to spend Christmas with Ronnie and co, and between the two of them, uttering THE SINGLE MOST OBViOUS piece of overshadowing in the show's history:-
Roxy: This Christmas should be just you, Jack and the kids. It's your last Christmas before you move to Ongar.
Ronnie: IT'S OUR LAST CHRISTMAS.
Yes, Ronnie, it is, indeed.
The Spectre of Phil. Steve McFadden is phoning this in, shuffling around, gruning, mumbling his lines. He's off on a day out looking at West Ham's new stadium with another dying friend, leaving Sharon to deal with the small matter of Social Services and Jay.
There was good continuity, in that they've used the same social worker, who's followed Jay's case since he was a boy. He knows Jay, but he also knows that Jay is on the sex offenders' register, and cannot inhabit a house where an underaged girl is living. The choice is stark - either Jay leaves (and he's an adult, capable of living on his own) or Louise goes into care.
I know Jay was allowed to remain with Billy and Honey in the wake of his conviction, and they have younger children, but I think the core of this is more to do with Phil and his ability to exercise responsibility more than anything else. Phil is an alcoholic with a history of violence. Removing Jay from this equation is as much for Jay's protection as for Louise's.
There's an easy solution to all of this - the empty flat above Coker and Son. I'm sure Les would allow Jay to stay their, probably at a reduced rate, and maybe sharing with Ben; but under Sean O'Connor, the "bruvs"' relationship seems to have undergone a downward spiral.
Ben feels isolated and abandoned within his family dynamic. There's no more Treadwell-Collinish talk of being "brothers." Instead, as much as Ben feels jealous of Denny's relationship with Phil, he feels left out when Phil places a paternal hand on Jay's shoulder and announces that Jay is staying, regardless of Social Services. This is the man who kicked Jay out as soon as he was charged with the sex offence.
Later, when Ben returns from rehearsal and remarks to Sharon and Phil that Denny got in trouble for spying on the girls undressing, Phil, in pain and not thinking straight (bad pun), blurts out ...
It's what nomal boys do.
Phil loves his son, but he is simply unable to accept Ben's sexuality, and sometimes - because he's drunk or in pain - he says things that he shouldn't say, and it hurts. I was a bit taken aback by Sharon, trying to get Ben to ignore Phil's remark, but I thought the subsequent scene between her and Jay was good, and I'm not a Jay fan.
The line about Social Services having its priorities, but her having her own priorities was total Sharon. It's the sort of thing Sharon would do, and the fact that she's confiding her fears to Jay isn't lost on Ben, who's returned only to tell them that he's having a Beale Christmas and tha he doesn't belong in that family anymore.
So Ben's removing himself from the Mitchell frame ... just in time for the birth of Rainbow Baby Jesus Mitchell, another sucky storyline.
Just a word about Dennis leching on the girls. First, this was another, more cack-handed, attempt by the show to show generational continuity. Dennis is the son and grandson of inveterate womanisers, and he's showing an early interest in the opposite sex. I think in that scene, O'Connor tried to please everyone and ended up pleasing no one.
There was the indignant reactions of Louise and Rebecca, but even that was OTT. This was a ten year-old kid, copping a peak, not a sixteen year-old boy or even a man. There was Kathy, accusing Derek of blaming the victim (a tip to the odious sex offender Trump and everything that goes with him) and Mick and Patrick calming everyone down by saying, simply, that this is what boys do. It is. Dennis has a crush on his step-sister and he's also on the cusp of puberty and curious.
Dot the Martyr. Again. I don't understand why Dot won't go with Abi to Devon. She clearly knew that Tanya wanted Abi to spend Christmas with her, and both Tanya and Abi wanted Dot to share Christmas with them. Was she really so expecting an invitation from Jack and Ronnie? Or does this have to do with her eyes?
The Endless Show. All of this played out against the backdrop of the Christmas show, enhancing Denise's ego, which is expanding in proportion to her Mitchell-filled belly; giving us an attempt at comedy with Mick's tight trousers and Linda messing up the music cues; and establishing a camp generational comic duo of Johnny and Derek, which is a pity, because there's been almost no interaction between Derek and Martin, and that has been a waste and detrimental to Derek's character.
I know this is all setting the scene for the ubiquitous action-packed Christmas and New Year, but I don't like the way this producer is trying to take the show back to the future, but on his terms.
And this is what I think Sean O'Connor is trying to do. This episode had it's We're the future of Walford moment, only this was a step into the past, with the three-way toast to the Beales, the Mitchells and the Fowlers. But where does that leave the Brannings, the Fox-Hubbards and the Carters, you ask?
All three of those outsider families will find themselves entangled in some way, shape or form with one of the three premier families listed above.
And now the gossip all around, especially in one area, is the possible return of a re-cast Michelle Fowler. With the mysterious phonecall that abruptly ended and with a mention in this episode of a Christmas card, it probably means she'll show up with a new head on Christmas Day as the "big surprise" Sharon Marshall's punting.
I feel this is wrong. The role of Michelle will forever be linked with Susan Tully, and there it should remain. The only people who are excited about it are the viewers who never saw her, except for the clips shown on YouTube - those people who watched from the eras of John Yorke and Diedrich Santer. This is being done for them, the Millennials (although they hate that word). It isn't being done for anyone who watched prior to 2000. We don't matter.
O'Connor will make his recast, and that means that wherever Michelle - a complex character and probably THE original nuanced character - goes, her two putrid children follow, kids who have been raised and who were born in the US, sounding like they were from the leafy Surrey suburbs, so us oldtimers are just going to have to suck it up and like it.
Or not.
The show bled long-term viewers when they brought zombie Den back. It can't afford to bleed more.
In my opinion, which isn't allowed to be expressed in some spheres, this is O'Connor's second strike.
Only one remains.
The Shitty Teens Again. The girl who plays Rebecca is arguably one of the worst actresses who ever appeared on the show. She calls herself a singer, but she's pretty bad at that and all.
Does O'Connor think presenting the classic teenaged love tryst storyline - the one where the silly girl doesn't want to lose her boyfriend, so she puts out and loses him - would interest us?
Stacey told Martin what happened between RedNose and TurdHead, and so she should have as well. She's his wife, and RedNose is his daughter. He has a right to know what she's up to, especially since she's still dependent on him for financial and emotional support and lives under his roof. He reacted ... like a father.
Ian Beale would have done the same thing. And Mick Carter. Both did. And a fit Phil Mitchell or even Grant Mitchell would have done the same. Den Watts would have hung him out to dry. And so would Max Branning, but like all situations on EastEnders, the father in question was made to feel that his overreaction was wrong.
The good thing about this storyline is that Martin got some crafty zingers in at the expense of the Kazemis and their defensive self-righteousness. When Kush, holding him back from attacking Shakil, called him out for acting like a prat and not a father, Martin had a brilliant retort ...
Since when do I take parenting advice from you?
And when Carmel prissily asked where Rebecca's mother was, Martin shot back, asking where Shakil's father was.
The idea of Kush talking to Shakil about his behaviour was risible. This is a family of self-absorbed narcissists and sexual predators. The gist of Shakil's bad behaviour stems from the fact that he dumped Rebecca online ... "in front of everybody", she wailed. Kush agreed that this was low, and that was astounding, coming from a man who made a career our of one night stands and ditching inappropriate women after currying sympathy sex for his dead wife.
Shakil thought Rebecca wanted to dump him. Why? Because she kept wanting to talk.
Duhhhhhhh ... dumb or what? I guess Shakil is a man of action and few words. He just wants a fuck on tap and no conversation in between. Kush echoed exactly what Stacey told Rebecca: If you can't even talk to one another, what the hell are you doing sleeping with each other? That's not a relataionship, that's just using.
I liked Kathy taking on the role of Beale-Fowler matriarch, in speaking to Rebecca, and the reminsicent scene at the pub at the end of the rehearsal, when Ben toasted Kathy on her new name change, and everyone sat around remembering Lou; but Ben piped up and wished he'd known Lou - sorry, but Lou Beale was not his grandmother, or even his great-grandmother; and Lou wouldn't have considered him a Beale at all.
I'd also forgotten that Martin wouldn't have remembered Lou, being just a baby when she died, and it was funny hearing Jane refer to Pauline as a "battle-ax".
But the Shakil-Rebecca shit is just deplorable, and it's bad, not only because the actors are bad, it's bad because the characters stink.
The Valley of the Shadow of Death. EastEnders still doesn't do subtlety, and to me, that's playing to the lowest common denominator of viewer. Dumbed-down.
The story that's interesting me the most at the moment is the continued downward spiral of Roxy, a character I feel they shouldn't lose. Charged with the task of arranging Ronnie's hen night, she pulls a sickie on Donna and fuels her research with liberal snorts of cocaine.
We know this because all the time she's standing around talking to Ronnie about various venues, she's sniffing so loud and obviously, that you can barely hear her dialogue. Now Ronnie's pretty much a lowlife and a woman of the world, and it hasn't been that long since Roxy rocked up in Walford again, acting as a drugs mule and having a drugs problem.
But Ronnie's got a bad case of the stupids, or else the EP wants us to believe that this murdering psychopath has been tamed to domesticity by Jack's cock and three kids. She thinks Roxy is tipsy from drink. Roxy sniffs her way through most of the episode, pointedly refusing to spend Christmas with Ronnie and co, and between the two of them, uttering THE SINGLE MOST OBViOUS piece of overshadowing in the show's history:-
Roxy: This Christmas should be just you, Jack and the kids. It's your last Christmas before you move to Ongar.
Ronnie: IT'S OUR LAST CHRISTMAS.
Yes, Ronnie, it is, indeed.
The Spectre of Phil. Steve McFadden is phoning this in, shuffling around, gruning, mumbling his lines. He's off on a day out looking at West Ham's new stadium with another dying friend, leaving Sharon to deal with the small matter of Social Services and Jay.
There was good continuity, in that they've used the same social worker, who's followed Jay's case since he was a boy. He knows Jay, but he also knows that Jay is on the sex offenders' register, and cannot inhabit a house where an underaged girl is living. The choice is stark - either Jay leaves (and he's an adult, capable of living on his own) or Louise goes into care.
I know Jay was allowed to remain with Billy and Honey in the wake of his conviction, and they have younger children, but I think the core of this is more to do with Phil and his ability to exercise responsibility more than anything else. Phil is an alcoholic with a history of violence. Removing Jay from this equation is as much for Jay's protection as for Louise's.
There's an easy solution to all of this - the empty flat above Coker and Son. I'm sure Les would allow Jay to stay their, probably at a reduced rate, and maybe sharing with Ben; but under Sean O'Connor, the "bruvs"' relationship seems to have undergone a downward spiral.
Ben feels isolated and abandoned within his family dynamic. There's no more Treadwell-Collinish talk of being "brothers." Instead, as much as Ben feels jealous of Denny's relationship with Phil, he feels left out when Phil places a paternal hand on Jay's shoulder and announces that Jay is staying, regardless of Social Services. This is the man who kicked Jay out as soon as he was charged with the sex offence.
Later, when Ben returns from rehearsal and remarks to Sharon and Phil that Denny got in trouble for spying on the girls undressing, Phil, in pain and not thinking straight (bad pun), blurts out ...
It's what nomal boys do.
Phil loves his son, but he is simply unable to accept Ben's sexuality, and sometimes - because he's drunk or in pain - he says things that he shouldn't say, and it hurts. I was a bit taken aback by Sharon, trying to get Ben to ignore Phil's remark, but I thought the subsequent scene between her and Jay was good, and I'm not a Jay fan.
The line about Social Services having its priorities, but her having her own priorities was total Sharon. It's the sort of thing Sharon would do, and the fact that she's confiding her fears to Jay isn't lost on Ben, who's returned only to tell them that he's having a Beale Christmas and tha he doesn't belong in that family anymore.
So Ben's removing himself from the Mitchell frame ... just in time for the birth of Rainbow Baby Jesus Mitchell, another sucky storyline.
Just a word about Dennis leching on the girls. First, this was another, more cack-handed, attempt by the show to show generational continuity. Dennis is the son and grandson of inveterate womanisers, and he's showing an early interest in the opposite sex. I think in that scene, O'Connor tried to please everyone and ended up pleasing no one.
There was the indignant reactions of Louise and Rebecca, but even that was OTT. This was a ten year-old kid, copping a peak, not a sixteen year-old boy or even a man. There was Kathy, accusing Derek of blaming the victim (a tip to the odious sex offender Trump and everything that goes with him) and Mick and Patrick calming everyone down by saying, simply, that this is what boys do. It is. Dennis has a crush on his step-sister and he's also on the cusp of puberty and curious.
Dot the Martyr. Again. I don't understand why Dot won't go with Abi to Devon. She clearly knew that Tanya wanted Abi to spend Christmas with her, and both Tanya and Abi wanted Dot to share Christmas with them. Was she really so expecting an invitation from Jack and Ronnie? Or does this have to do with her eyes?
The Endless Show. All of this played out against the backdrop of the Christmas show, enhancing Denise's ego, which is expanding in proportion to her Mitchell-filled belly; giving us an attempt at comedy with Mick's tight trousers and Linda messing up the music cues; and establishing a camp generational comic duo of Johnny and Derek, which is a pity, because there's been almost no interaction between Derek and Martin, and that has been a waste and detrimental to Derek's character.
I know this is all setting the scene for the ubiquitous action-packed Christmas and New Year, but I don't like the way this producer is trying to take the show back to the future, but on his terms.
No comments:
Post a Comment