Tuesday, May 23, 2017

BabyMen, Beetle-Brows and Bitches - Review:- Tuesday 23.05.2017

EastEnders ... the show you love to hate, where most of the characters are eminently unlikable to the point of vitriolic hatred. A square full of babyfied men, clinging onto their mothers' virtual nipples, dirty girls who connive and twist their fate into making themselves victims when they're nothing more than amoral, manipulative, well-dressed sluts, beetle-browed thugs wallowing in self-pity; whiny, menopausal women who seem to think they're some iconic character from the past when they're nothing but totally moronic, and if we're not hyperventilating over one GSCE course, we're obsessing over work uniforms. 

Sean O'Connor's EastEnders.

At least we didn't see Denise tonight, and that was a welcome respite.

Fatherhood: BabyMan vs Beetle-Brow. Tonight we got two moralising tales for the price of one - two tales of birth vs actual fatherhood, with a foot of support in both camps.

But that's Sean O'Connor all over. Until now, EastEnders has always shat from a great height all over anything to do with adoption and adoptive parents, and it's still doing so to a great extent; and that's an almighty insult and affront to anyone who's adopted and raised a child as their own.

Consider the individual plights of two birth fathers at the moment. There's a question of parental rights - Charlie's case, as opposed to Kush's case. There's always going to be some sausage surprise who's enough of a volpebot to pop up and pop on about father's rights, so here's the score:-

Rights ... Charlie has'em, Kush doesn't. 

Charlie is Matthew's biological father. He was married to Matthew's mother when he was born. His on Matthew's birth certificate. He didn't abandon Matthew, he was forced to leave Walford on threat of death by Matthew's mother, and Charlie knew that Ronnie was more than capable of killing him or having him killed in cold blood. He knew that as much as Jack was aware of such a feat - otherwise, when Charlie reminded him of why he couldn't fight for custody of Matthew after he had been summarily dismissed from Walford, Jack could say nothing in any form of retort - because he knew Ronnie was a killer.

So the truth hit home, at least for me, when Charlie reminded Jack that he should be paying more attention to the three kids in his life who actually were his children, because Matthew belongs to and belongs with Charlie. 

I must admit that not only Jack, with his presumptions and his condescension, but also Dot, annoyed me in this segment.Jack's proposals were unrealistic for Charlie - visiting every other weekend or having Jack bring Matthew to Ireland once a month. To begin with, Charlie has a job, and work commitments,as well as finances, probably wouldn't permit two weekends away per month. As well, how long would Jack actually adhere to slogging all the way to Ireland once a month with two young children and a toddler?

Increasingly, I get the feeling that a lot of this is all about Dot. I don't buy her ludicrous argument about Matthew, first, not knowing Charlie, but instead, being familiar with Jack. I could buy that if Matthew were, perhaps, Ricky's or Amy's age, but he's two years old, for fuck's sake! He'd very soon adjust to both Charlie and his new wife.Kids, especially young children, are adaptable. So, no, Dot, there's no reason why Matthew needs to be with Amy and Ricky. Matthew isn't their sibling. He's Amy's first cousin, and Ricky's second cousin.

Because Dot never experienced seeing her grandchildren grow from infancy into adulthood, it must resonate with her when Charlie laments that he never saw his son's first steps or heard his first word. Ronnie, and subsequently, Jack, deprived Charlie of all of that. Equally, it's just as silly for her to suggest that Charlie up stakes and move to Walford, living with her. 

Charlie and Mrs Charlie? The wife is a stranger to Dot, and you know how persnickety she is about strangers being in her home; and who is she kidding when she thinks Jack would relinquish custody of Matthew to Charlie, even if he knew Charlie lived just next door?

Jack's in this for the duration. Jack thinks more of this child than he does his own children. Why? Because this is Ronnie's child. Think back to when he thought Tommy Moon was the dead James. He totally ignored Amy; he didn't even want to know Ricky. He even stated, time and again, that none of his other children mattered, except James. And worse, even after he knew James was dead, Roxy literally had to beg him for emotional support with Amy. The night he reluctantly agreed to babysit her, when she almost drowned - that happened because Jack was in a massive sulk and came home late because he was brooding after finding out Ronnie, in prison, didn't want to see him anymore.

This obsession with Matthew, on Jack's part, is all about unresolved grief for Ronnie, and even more importantly, unresolved grief over James.

Matthew is not James, and he is not Jack's son. 

I feel immensely sorry for Charlie. He actually feels for Jack's suffering in this, not surprisingly, because he's a nice bloke is Charlie; but also, he feels uncomfortable finding himself a pawn in whatever elaborate plan Max is unwinding. Charlie simply wants his son back in his life.

However, if Max's machinations work enough to reunite Charlie with his son, I'm Team Charlie; because, in this instance, the child should be with his birth father, the man who was married to his mother at the time of his birth and cared for him exclusively during the first six months of his life.

Personally, I'm tired of Jack's angry beetle impersonation.


Now for Kush.

Kush's son is the result of a one night stand with a woman who subsequently married his best friend and allowed the best mate to think the child was his. His son bears Martin Fowler's surname. In fact, he's named after Martin's father. From the moment of his birth, even when he knew Arthur wasn't his son, Martin Fowler has considered him his own and treated him as such.

Kush was given ample opportunity, early on, to be a part of Arthur's life - the reality of his situation is that he has as much right to Arthur as Arthur's mother accords him, and that's the truth. At the time of Arthur's birth, Kush was married and mourning the stillbirth of another son.

Initially, when Stacey offered Kush a place in Arthur's life, Kush was suitably hesitant, even saying, himself, he'd limit his role to babysitting. But Kush brings excess baggage in the form of the odious Carmel, his mother, and she wants a full-on 24/7 access to this child. As her sons have aged and as two have grown and are growing away from her, she relishes the thought of Kush's child, because Kush is still babyfied and Oedipal enough to put up with her demands and temper tantrums and ultimate desire to be part of every aspect of her son's life.

In fact, Kush is woefully unprepared for full-time, full-on parenting. That was obvious from the very beginning when it actually dawned on him that Shabnam was pregnant. He ran out of the room, and later, after Tamwar told him a few necessary home truths about his propensity to prey on emotionally vulnerable young women - like Stacey, like Shabnam, like Nancy - he probably wasn't mature enough to parent any young child. 

That's when he decided to step back from Arthur. And he stepped totally back, almost off radar.

I think the only reason Stacey (and, reluctantly, Martin) are willing to include Kush now in their dynamic, is because they are having a child of their own. In fact, the amount of time they allow Kush to spend with Arthur is actually just right for Kush.

Kush is the ultimate divorced dad-type of father - the weekend dad, the playground-and-ice cream dad. He'd be happy with the odd afternoon here and there and the occasional babysitting stint when Martin and Stacey want to have a date night. That would suit his maturity level, because this is one big Mother of all BabyMen, and he could no more cope with a child full-time than the Pope could cope with a hooker.

I think this is part of the reason why Kush is drawn to a much older woman like Denise. He's clearly Oedipal, and coupling with a woman too old to give him children - please, don't mention Denise's recent pregnancy; she's 48, and that was the last spurt of menopausal estrogen- would mean that he would always be simultaneously the child and the lover, with no competition from any child born of the relationship. That's obvious from the dominatrix way Denise treats him and the way he conforms to her domination in their relationship.

The problem with access to Arthur, and Kush knows it, is Carmel. Even in tonight's episode, he warned her from horning in on his first evening alone with Arthur,but she couldn't help herself. Even though Kush is satisfied with the arrangement he has with Martin and Stacey, Carmel thinks that she should be entitled to her grandchild all of the time,and we know her ambition - which is why she's always egging Kush to get a girlfriend. It would make it all the more easier to push for custody of Arthur.

And even though he wouldn't want to do so, Kush would be sucked along in his mother's vortex, BabyMan that he is.


Widdle Mick: The Incredible Sulk. Wow, I guess Linda's the real enemy now. Mick couldn't even tell her he loved her at the end of her tearful telephone call. I really felt sorry for her, because she did what she actually had to do in dire circumstances.

Throughout all of this, Mick stomped and sulked and basically threw his toys out of the pram, blaming both Linda and Shirley - but mostly, Linda (hence the scene where he talked to the dog about all of this being mostly Linda's fault, because she "sold" his dream). 

Awwww, diddums!

The phone call to Linda was one of his most hateful, petulant examples of overt bullying I've ever seen in this character. Mick's always passive-aggressively bullied and sidelined Linda, but now the knives are out. Like all impotent, raging and ultimate loser bullies, he spends the majority of the episode huffing and puffing about how the freehold needn't have been sold, that somehow he would have found the money.

How exactly would that have been, Mick? Your only pot in which to piss had a leak in the roof. Telling Shirley and the ineffectual Johnny that they should just have hung on until he returned, and they would have found a way was the ultimate spoiled child's rejoinder when someone finds a solution to a problem he's basically created.

What remains now is how long it will be before Mick and Shitney sleep together, if they haven't done so, already off-screen, because it looks as though he's nailed his colours to mast that can only be identified as Shitney's dirty knickers. 

I can't believe this canting bitch is so self-centred as to still accuse Mick, not only of being away for a great length of time when things spiralled out of control from bad to worse, she was blatant enough to accuse him of abandoning her! She refuses to accord him the love, devotion and duty he felt to go care for his badly injured daughter.

Who the fuck is Whitney and why is she even still there? She is the soon-to-be ex-wife of his eldest son - who, incidentally, is divorcing her for unreasonable behaviour, although neither she nor Mick would ever admit to the part they played in enhancing Lee's mental and emotional suffering. This family is not her family anymore. They owe her nothing, and it isn't as if she's totally without family. There's Bianca in Milton Keynes and her own brother in Yorkshire, and somewhere she has a mother as feckless as she is.

The only reason she's sticking to the Carters like glue is down to Mick, and quite honestly, it was putrid the way she pouted about calling Mick countless numbers of time and getting no response. 

This is the man the insipid Whitney idolises as a pillar of strength, and all he can do is sulk and reach for the whiskey bottle,cognizant of the fact that he won't be able to be the "Big I Am" at the centre of his very own business. But, really, how good a businessman was he, really? He may blame Lee's financial woes until he's blue in the face (and a great deal of those problems were down to the fragrantly shit-stirring Whitney), but Mick never was a good businessman - when he arrived on the Square, he had no idea how to order supplies of booze -Alfie had to show him. And then he allowed Shirley and Tina to pilfer from the supplies for their own use. The Carters, under Mick's tutelage, never seemed to break even.The Vic was always struggling, and Mick, himself, took out a payday loan to bring Linda and Elaine back from Spain.

Once again, this entire fiasco isn't about how the building was falling down around their ears and causing concern enough for Health and Safety to actually threaten to shut the place down or how a much-loved family pet needed expensive emergency medical treatment, it's all about Widdle Mick's ego, how the two women closest to him in his life literally saved his bacon, when it would have been far more convenient and amenable for him to watch the business go to pot all around him - it was more palatable for him to carry on blaming Lee for all his misfortune.

Of course, Max manipulated Shirley, but he didn't push the option of selling the freehold on her. He actually pushed the idea on Mick, who refused, point-blank, even though Shirley wanted to go ahead with the idea at the time. And, realistically, this was the only way out left for Shirley in view of everything that was happening. She may have been conveniently caught in Max's web, and the whole sale of the freehold was certainly illegal due to Shirley forging Mick's signature (and Max knows it), but Mick is actually caught between a rock and a hard place,because revealing the nature of the fraud would garner a prison sentence, not only for Shirley again, but for Linda; and at the moment, Mick is still not angry enough with Linda to get her out of the way by that method.

As it's obvious that, on her day, Linda really is the lychpin in this family, she needs to come back, suss what's going on between Mick and Shitney, smack the bitch, kick Mick out on his balls and run the place with Shirley and Sharon.

Mick really is a vile piece of work, the worst sort of BabyMan.


A Day in the Life. OMFG, yesterday, it was the Saga of the GSCE, today we got Michelle's first day at work ad nauseam. I mean, everything from the Tube ride, to the fitting for uniform, to quirky escalator shots, of which O'Connor seems fond regarding this actress, to idle gossip from yet more speaking extras so we get to know the secrets and gossips of Michelle's fellow shopgirls, providing the show with yet another off-Square set and a group of friends we'll never, if rarely, see again.

Like Denise, we're supposed to be fighting the corner of plucky Michelle, even though she got herself into the predicament she's in by committing a crime -and a sex crime at that. It's no wonder she's pretty close-mouthed to the nosey colleague, who's been in retail for fifteen years, about her antecedents. I would imagine that most of those women have children at home the age of the student with whom Michelle slept. I doubt they'd show so much friendly initiative toward her if they knew her grubby little secret.

I simply can't fathom this show wasting so much screen time of what was essentially nothing.

Who's the Victim Here? Not Lauren. Lauren took one more step, in her ultimate stupidity, at becoming the corporate whore. The symbolism between Steven's colourful yet staid top and the evening outfit Lauren bought at Josh's instigation on his company credit card was rife -the staid, stay-at-home mum with a child and a committed boyfriend as opposed to the creepy, but dishy boss, complete with the ubiquitous topless scene for which EastEnders is becoming bum-clinchingly and embarrassingly known, followed by a scene (the cufflink scene) which was supposed to emote some sort of smouldering sexual chemistry ... except it doesn't.

TPTB should really stop trying to push Jacqueline Jossa as a romantic lead, because they have tried, time after time, to involve her with various male juvenile leads, and nothing has worked. She is still far too aware of the camera on her, and you would have thought this overt self-awareness would have gone as she matured as an actress... which she hasn't.

Lauren, herself, as a character, is still as selfish and self-obsessed as she ever was. Steven is a convenience. He's the nice bloke who wants her to love him, who wants to be accepted as the head of his own family unit, and yet he's treated almost trivially by her.

She's constantly reminding him of the fact that he's not Louis's father - something Stacey would never do to Martin. Until we know exactly what happened to Peter, we have to accept that Steven's stepped up to the plate when he absconded his responsibilities. She thinks nothing of putting this so-called glamourous job,before any quality family time. Whatever she's doing at that company, she can't see that she's merely glorified window-dressing, arm-candy for the creepy boss. He feeds her ego by making her feel that she's an important cog in the wheel, and he'll keep doing so until it's time for him to call in his debts.

Like the weakest link who's recruited to be a traitor, by the time she's realised what she's done, it will be too late.

As for Steven, it's obvious that she doesn't really know the measure of his insecurity and instability. As symbolic as the difference in apparel (the clothes being symbolic of how both Steven and Josh view Lauren), equally symbolic was Steven's ripping up the frock Josh bought.

This will all end in major tears. 'Tis a pity that she, also, is an unintentional whore.

And Finally ... Billy and Honey move into an almost unrecognisable flat that belonged to Les and Pam. Am I right that Honey said they had given the flat to them? Surely, they must want rent, but then this is EastEndersLand.

But the biggest mystery of all was to whom was Ben talking on the phone about staying over?

No comments:

Post a Comment