If there's one thing positive you can say about EastEnders at the moment, it's that it's consistent. The negative, however, is that it's consistently bad. The episode which aired on the UK's election day was a pisstake of pejorativity. I didn't watch the show last night. Quite simply, I couldn't be bothered. Political junkie that I am, I was spoiled for choice by the history-making real-life soap operas of Theresa May snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by her own naivete and arrogance and James Comey doing his best Mr Smith Goes to Washington impersonation in a valiant effort to quell the Russian stooge in the White House.
Those situations are history, and they matter to our lives.
Even at its worst, EastEnders has a tradition of contemporary relevance in inserting special scenes that comment on current affairs. The last two times this was attempted, including last night's efforts, came across as lame and cringeworthy.
This time last year, on Brexit Day, there was a scene inserted, which had Linda, seated upstairs in the Carters' front room, listening to some political pundit expostulate on the meaning of the Brexit result. When Mick came in and asked her about what the voice on the radio was saying, she stared at him blankly and whined,
Oh, I doan know, Mick. I ain't got a clue what it's all abahhhht.
In last night's episode, we got a silly insert about Kathy scrabbling around, looking for her voting card, whilst Jane ruminated about not having enough time to vote, before they both decided that one had to "make time". (Public service announcement).
Then they did a little verbal dance, trying to find out how each one was voting. (My way ... the way I voted before ... leaving the final interpretation up to the viewers' assumptions.
Both scenes sucked shit in lacking the gumption to tackle reality, and also, one in particular, showed a glaring hole in the reality stakes.
Why?
Well, take the Brexit insert, for example. We all know that London voted overwhelmingly to remain, a year ago; but that doesn't mean everyone on the Square was a Remainer or that they didn't understand the concept of the referendum: Either you wanted Britain to remain part of the EU or you wanted sovreignty and all that entailed. Some characters stuck out like sore thumbs as Brexiteers, even as UKIP supporters - Dot, for example; or Billy Mitchell ... or the Carters.
As gung-ho Rule Britannia Royalists, who were introduced as being mildly homophobic and closet racists to the bargain, the Carters would have been at the forefront of Brexit, and in reality, would have been moaning about immigration and the influx of Eastern European immigrants. There would have been nothing about Brexit - exiting the "foreign-controlled" EU - that the Carters didn't understand.
Likewise, the Election Day scene. The clanger that dropped came when Jane asked Kathy how Kathy planned on voting, and Kathy cryptically replied My way and when pushed, replied to Jane that she was going to vote the way she voted before.
Oh, really, Kathy?
Well, that would have been the 1992 John Major/Neil Kinnock bunfest then? Because you were out of the country, living in South Africa for the rise of Blairism, and you were gadding about from 2007, pretending to be dead.
Be that as it may, you can easily ascertain the political persuasions of both these women. Kathy, despite Gavin, would have remained true to her working-class roots and would be voting Labour; and everyone has always known that Ian is unabashedly conservative in taste and outlook. As Mrs Beale, the wife of a prominent local businessman, Jane would be a true-blue Tory.
What a shame the show's attempt at reality stopped short of actual realism.
Time to Say Good-Bye: The Baby That Never Was. It's been awhile since EastEnders did an abortion storyline. Truth be known, the show could be a walking advertisement for the Catholic Church in the way they demonise, not only abortion, but also adoption.
For days now, we've watched Lauren furtively sneak around Steven, brushing off any and all of his attempts at affection whilst she wrestles with whatever conscience she has left in her determination to rid herself of his child. Her rationale is that another baby would dent her chances in pursuing her "career", although what career she has at Weyland & Co is debatable. She has no discernable skills and appalling spoken grammar, and the fair bet is that she's being groomed to be her boss's latest plaything.
A well-known, self-appointed sage has proclaimed that being pregnant and having a child shouldn't be a hindrance to a career here in the 21st Century; but one must remember that Lauren has only just started in that job, and since her actual job description (Creative Team Assistant) is vague as such and since she also is aware that her actual boss fancies the fat arse off her, she knows she'd be out on her ear, the moment she waddled into the office with swollen ankles and a distended belly. That really isn't what Josh bargained for.
Besides, the real reason Lauren doesn't want to have this baby is twofold - she doesn't want any more children (she's flatly stated as much to Stacey),and she doesn't really fancy Steven.
Abi's assessment of Lauren is spot-on - never satisfied with what she's got and she only thinks of herself most of the time. The signature characteristic of the Brannings is their selfishness, but you have to feel a modicum of sympathy for Abi, about to turn 21, a milestone birthday, and left to her own devices to plan a party, probably no one will attend. Tanya sent money, rather than showing up and joining forces with Max to give their youngest daughter a coming-of-age send-off she'll long remember. Max hasn't even mentioned the event. A 21st party is something which is planned for the recipient, not something the birthday person plans himself or herself.
With Stacey acting as human version of a conscience, offering emotional support and still advising Lauren to talk to Steven about this, Lauren is hell-bent to do what she wants to do. (Has anyone noticed that Stacey the Walking Conscience assumes a certain demeanor when she's about to render important advice? The furrowed brow of concern linked with her shoulders hunched protectively?)
There was a twist to this storyline - and, credit where credit is due, O'Connor's twists, unlike DTC's, are subtle. The fanbois reckoned they had it sussed when they thought Steven would find out about Lauren's abortion when the app on her phone tracked her to the abortion clinic. They were wrong. She left her phone at home deliberately, because she didn't want to be distracted and guilt-tripped by Stacey. At the end of the ordeal, she confessed what she had done to Abi, the absolute worst person she could have told. Lauren, with her head up her newly-fattened arse, has no idea the extent of Abi's hatred for her sister. Abi knows about the abortion, and it will be a bitter Abi, who'll let that cat out of the bag for Lauren, probably at her 21st birthday party when something goes wrong. At the moment, she's inadvertantly filling Steven's already addled head with further doubts about Lauren's character, something which only reinforces Steven's insecurity, and we all know how dangerous and unstable an insecure Steven can be.
Time to Say Good-Bye: The Maudlin Farwell of Matthew Mitchell-Cotton. First of all, it's a testament to the show that they managed to find such seasoned toddler actors as the kids who play Matthew and Pearl. They say their lines almost as if they were on cue. Credit goes to the fact that both these kids seem to feel extremely comfortable and secure when in the company of the adults who are with them the most - in Pearl's instance, she seems more comfortable and familiar with Richard Blackwood than with Tameka Empson (who always seems to evoke terror in the kid), but the little boy who plays Matthew is equally as familiar with Scott Maslen as he is Declan Bennett, and both men are great with the kid.
I like Charlie Cotton, but Declan Bennett was never going to stay long in this show. He's already back in Brooklyn, where he lives, prepping for other musical theatre roles;but apart from that, thought this long good-bye for Matthew was overladen with maudlin, melodramatic scenes, including one featuring Dot the Miracle-Worker.
Charlie is Matthew's father. He loves and wants the child.That much is true; and he did genuinely want Dot to move with them to Ireland (although, in her excitement, Dot seemed to have forgotten poor Dave, who's probably the Murrays' long-lost cat, Lucky). However, it had to be revealed that Charlie is yet another gutless, emasculated man in thrall to a domineering woman. When it became obvious to Liz that Charlie hadn't set Dot straight about the fact that she wasn't going with them to Ireland, Liz stepped in and politely put Dot straight, which went a long way to putting a dampener on the farewell party.
Of course, this happened after Dot the Miracle Worker used a snowflake paperweight (why did I suddenly think of Citizen Kane and the Rosebud scene?) to explain to 8 year-old Will Mitchell the concept of heaven and souls, comparing the human body to a box from which the soul is freed upon death. Will was frightened to live above a business where dead bodies are stored. I would think Dot's description would have given him a predilection of fascination with death.
Of course, all of this brouhaha was part and parcel of Max's machinations. Charlie and his wife weren't really flying back to Ireland the next day. They were sticking around London, visiting her family for a few days. I'm interested in knowing what else it is that Max wants Charlie to do or say to Jack in the ensuing time - probably informing him that it would be better all around that Jack didn't maintain contact with Matthew or maybe even telling him that he and Liz were emigrating to Australia. Who knows? Who cares? Perhaps Matthew's departure will jolt Amy into realising that she's actually almost 9 years old and not a stunted 5 year-old, the way she talks and acts.
Scott Maslen's crying scenes are embarrassing, and we really should be spared June Brown's silent movie antics at despair in a close-up of Dot in the window.
In point of fact, Matthew actually looked happy to have been leaving that shower, and who would blame him?
But the biggest bone I had to pick with all this was Max, informing Jack that he was well aware of Jack's anguish at losing Matthew because he had gone through similar circumstances when both Bradley and Oscar were "taken" from him.
That wasn't entirely true. In fact, it was a lie of Trumpian proportions,and Jack should have realised this because he was right there in the thick of things, in at least one incident.
To begin with, Bradley wasn't taken from Max. Max walked out on his wife, Rachel, Bradley's mother, to be with Tanya, the teenaged nymphet, whom he'd impregnated. When he did that, Rachel divorced him and wouldn't allow him access to Bradley; and Max didn't fight it, basically because Tanya made him swear he'd put their children first.
But Oscar? Oscar went with his mother when Max and Tanya finally split, and on at least one occasion, he's actually visited Max, with Tanya's permission. Tanya never stopped Max from spending time with Oscar, even now.; so that was just an outright lie,and Jack was either too stupid or too upset to notice. Besides, Jack, himself, had a habit of dropping kids by the wayside. He sees Penny only rarely and had no real interest in either Amy or Ricky when he thought that James was alive and well.
The fact that neither Amy nor Ricky even ventured to kiss Matthew good-bye, even at Jack's order, was significant. First, they knew he wasn't their brother, and secondly, they've been party to the fact, for some time, that Jack was more interested in Matthew than in anything they did or said as his real children. That fact is going to stick with them.
Because She's THERE. It wouldn't be an episode of EastEnders if we didn't have Sean O'Connor's pointless Denise scene - or in this instance, two. The scenes had nothing to do in any way with the other two storylines which were featured (which were vaguely linked); they simply served the purpose of reminding the audience just who is the real star of the show.
Denise has reverted to type. She was too proud to accept or ask for any help from Kim, but now, she'll happily take her money (cash in hand and no tax deducted) to pretend to be a nanny for Pearl, when in reality, she's swanning about the Square, spending her money on drinks with Kush and stuffing her po-face with a full-on meal at the cafe rather than cooking at home.
Because of her pride, she hadn't yet told Patrick of her break-up with Kush. Once again, when explaining to Patrick that there were "issues" that neither she nor Kush could or would resolve, the elephant in the room, which in real time would have been addressed, certainly by Patrick, was that the big issue is the age difference of about 16 years between Denise and Kush. Instead, all we got was unpleasant, sarcastic snark from Denise directed at Patrick.
Someone rid our screens of this offensive character.
Those situations are history, and they matter to our lives.
Even at its worst, EastEnders has a tradition of contemporary relevance in inserting special scenes that comment on current affairs. The last two times this was attempted, including last night's efforts, came across as lame and cringeworthy.
This time last year, on Brexit Day, there was a scene inserted, which had Linda, seated upstairs in the Carters' front room, listening to some political pundit expostulate on the meaning of the Brexit result. When Mick came in and asked her about what the voice on the radio was saying, she stared at him blankly and whined,
Oh, I doan know, Mick. I ain't got a clue what it's all abahhhht.
In last night's episode, we got a silly insert about Kathy scrabbling around, looking for her voting card, whilst Jane ruminated about not having enough time to vote, before they both decided that one had to "make time". (Public service announcement).
Then they did a little verbal dance, trying to find out how each one was voting. (My way ... the way I voted before ... leaving the final interpretation up to the viewers' assumptions.
Both scenes sucked shit in lacking the gumption to tackle reality, and also, one in particular, showed a glaring hole in the reality stakes.
Why?
Well, take the Brexit insert, for example. We all know that London voted overwhelmingly to remain, a year ago; but that doesn't mean everyone on the Square was a Remainer or that they didn't understand the concept of the referendum: Either you wanted Britain to remain part of the EU or you wanted sovreignty and all that entailed. Some characters stuck out like sore thumbs as Brexiteers, even as UKIP supporters - Dot, for example; or Billy Mitchell ... or the Carters.
As gung-ho Rule Britannia Royalists, who were introduced as being mildly homophobic and closet racists to the bargain, the Carters would have been at the forefront of Brexit, and in reality, would have been moaning about immigration and the influx of Eastern European immigrants. There would have been nothing about Brexit - exiting the "foreign-controlled" EU - that the Carters didn't understand.
Likewise, the Election Day scene. The clanger that dropped came when Jane asked Kathy how Kathy planned on voting, and Kathy cryptically replied My way and when pushed, replied to Jane that she was going to vote the way she voted before.
Oh, really, Kathy?
Well, that would have been the 1992 John Major/Neil Kinnock bunfest then? Because you were out of the country, living in South Africa for the rise of Blairism, and you were gadding about from 2007, pretending to be dead.
Be that as it may, you can easily ascertain the political persuasions of both these women. Kathy, despite Gavin, would have remained true to her working-class roots and would be voting Labour; and everyone has always known that Ian is unabashedly conservative in taste and outlook. As Mrs Beale, the wife of a prominent local businessman, Jane would be a true-blue Tory.
What a shame the show's attempt at reality stopped short of actual realism.
Time to Say Good-Bye: The Baby That Never Was. It's been awhile since EastEnders did an abortion storyline. Truth be known, the show could be a walking advertisement for the Catholic Church in the way they demonise, not only abortion, but also adoption.
For days now, we've watched Lauren furtively sneak around Steven, brushing off any and all of his attempts at affection whilst she wrestles with whatever conscience she has left in her determination to rid herself of his child. Her rationale is that another baby would dent her chances in pursuing her "career", although what career she has at Weyland & Co is debatable. She has no discernable skills and appalling spoken grammar, and the fair bet is that she's being groomed to be her boss's latest plaything.
A well-known, self-appointed sage has proclaimed that being pregnant and having a child shouldn't be a hindrance to a career here in the 21st Century; but one must remember that Lauren has only just started in that job, and since her actual job description (Creative Team Assistant) is vague as such and since she also is aware that her actual boss fancies the fat arse off her, she knows she'd be out on her ear, the moment she waddled into the office with swollen ankles and a distended belly. That really isn't what Josh bargained for.
Besides, the real reason Lauren doesn't want to have this baby is twofold - she doesn't want any more children (she's flatly stated as much to Stacey),and she doesn't really fancy Steven.
Abi's assessment of Lauren is spot-on - never satisfied with what she's got and she only thinks of herself most of the time. The signature characteristic of the Brannings is their selfishness, but you have to feel a modicum of sympathy for Abi, about to turn 21, a milestone birthday, and left to her own devices to plan a party, probably no one will attend. Tanya sent money, rather than showing up and joining forces with Max to give their youngest daughter a coming-of-age send-off she'll long remember. Max hasn't even mentioned the event. A 21st party is something which is planned for the recipient, not something the birthday person plans himself or herself.
With Stacey acting as human version of a conscience, offering emotional support and still advising Lauren to talk to Steven about this, Lauren is hell-bent to do what she wants to do. (Has anyone noticed that Stacey the Walking Conscience assumes a certain demeanor when she's about to render important advice? The furrowed brow of concern linked with her shoulders hunched protectively?)
There was a twist to this storyline - and, credit where credit is due, O'Connor's twists, unlike DTC's, are subtle. The fanbois reckoned they had it sussed when they thought Steven would find out about Lauren's abortion when the app on her phone tracked her to the abortion clinic. They were wrong. She left her phone at home deliberately, because she didn't want to be distracted and guilt-tripped by Stacey. At the end of the ordeal, she confessed what she had done to Abi, the absolute worst person she could have told. Lauren, with her head up her newly-fattened arse, has no idea the extent of Abi's hatred for her sister. Abi knows about the abortion, and it will be a bitter Abi, who'll let that cat out of the bag for Lauren, probably at her 21st birthday party when something goes wrong. At the moment, she's inadvertantly filling Steven's already addled head with further doubts about Lauren's character, something which only reinforces Steven's insecurity, and we all know how dangerous and unstable an insecure Steven can be.
Time to Say Good-Bye: The Maudlin Farwell of Matthew Mitchell-Cotton. First of all, it's a testament to the show that they managed to find such seasoned toddler actors as the kids who play Matthew and Pearl. They say their lines almost as if they were on cue. Credit goes to the fact that both these kids seem to feel extremely comfortable and secure when in the company of the adults who are with them the most - in Pearl's instance, she seems more comfortable and familiar with Richard Blackwood than with Tameka Empson (who always seems to evoke terror in the kid), but the little boy who plays Matthew is equally as familiar with Scott Maslen as he is Declan Bennett, and both men are great with the kid.
I like Charlie Cotton, but Declan Bennett was never going to stay long in this show. He's already back in Brooklyn, where he lives, prepping for other musical theatre roles;but apart from that, thought this long good-bye for Matthew was overladen with maudlin, melodramatic scenes, including one featuring Dot the Miracle-Worker.
Charlie is Matthew's father. He loves and wants the child.That much is true; and he did genuinely want Dot to move with them to Ireland (although, in her excitement, Dot seemed to have forgotten poor Dave, who's probably the Murrays' long-lost cat, Lucky). However, it had to be revealed that Charlie is yet another gutless, emasculated man in thrall to a domineering woman. When it became obvious to Liz that Charlie hadn't set Dot straight about the fact that she wasn't going with them to Ireland, Liz stepped in and politely put Dot straight, which went a long way to putting a dampener on the farewell party.
Of course, this happened after Dot the Miracle Worker used a snowflake paperweight (why did I suddenly think of Citizen Kane and the Rosebud scene?) to explain to 8 year-old Will Mitchell the concept of heaven and souls, comparing the human body to a box from which the soul is freed upon death. Will was frightened to live above a business where dead bodies are stored. I would think Dot's description would have given him a predilection of fascination with death.
Of course, all of this brouhaha was part and parcel of Max's machinations. Charlie and his wife weren't really flying back to Ireland the next day. They were sticking around London, visiting her family for a few days. I'm interested in knowing what else it is that Max wants Charlie to do or say to Jack in the ensuing time - probably informing him that it would be better all around that Jack didn't maintain contact with Matthew or maybe even telling him that he and Liz were emigrating to Australia. Who knows? Who cares? Perhaps Matthew's departure will jolt Amy into realising that she's actually almost 9 years old and not a stunted 5 year-old, the way she talks and acts.
Scott Maslen's crying scenes are embarrassing, and we really should be spared June Brown's silent movie antics at despair in a close-up of Dot in the window.
In point of fact, Matthew actually looked happy to have been leaving that shower, and who would blame him?
But the biggest bone I had to pick with all this was Max, informing Jack that he was well aware of Jack's anguish at losing Matthew because he had gone through similar circumstances when both Bradley and Oscar were "taken" from him.
That wasn't entirely true. In fact, it was a lie of Trumpian proportions,and Jack should have realised this because he was right there in the thick of things, in at least one incident.
To begin with, Bradley wasn't taken from Max. Max walked out on his wife, Rachel, Bradley's mother, to be with Tanya, the teenaged nymphet, whom he'd impregnated. When he did that, Rachel divorced him and wouldn't allow him access to Bradley; and Max didn't fight it, basically because Tanya made him swear he'd put their children first.
But Oscar? Oscar went with his mother when Max and Tanya finally split, and on at least one occasion, he's actually visited Max, with Tanya's permission. Tanya never stopped Max from spending time with Oscar, even now.; so that was just an outright lie,and Jack was either too stupid or too upset to notice. Besides, Jack, himself, had a habit of dropping kids by the wayside. He sees Penny only rarely and had no real interest in either Amy or Ricky when he thought that James was alive and well.
The fact that neither Amy nor Ricky even ventured to kiss Matthew good-bye, even at Jack's order, was significant. First, they knew he wasn't their brother, and secondly, they've been party to the fact, for some time, that Jack was more interested in Matthew than in anything they did or said as his real children. That fact is going to stick with them.
Because She's THERE. It wouldn't be an episode of EastEnders if we didn't have Sean O'Connor's pointless Denise scene - or in this instance, two. The scenes had nothing to do in any way with the other two storylines which were featured (which were vaguely linked); they simply served the purpose of reminding the audience just who is the real star of the show.
Denise has reverted to type. She was too proud to accept or ask for any help from Kim, but now, she'll happily take her money (cash in hand and no tax deducted) to pretend to be a nanny for Pearl, when in reality, she's swanning about the Square, spending her money on drinks with Kush and stuffing her po-face with a full-on meal at the cafe rather than cooking at home.
Because of her pride, she hadn't yet told Patrick of her break-up with Kush. Once again, when explaining to Patrick that there were "issues" that neither she nor Kush could or would resolve, the elephant in the room, which in real time would have been addressed, certainly by Patrick, was that the big issue is the age difference of about 16 years between Denise and Kush. Instead, all we got was unpleasant, sarcastic snark from Denise directed at Patrick.
Someone rid our screens of this offensive character.
No comments:
Post a Comment