WalfordMafia
04-08-2005, 01:29 PM
Last night, BBC4's "TV on Trial - 1985", analysed the rather classic early EastEnders episode in which the identity of Michelle Fowler's unborn baby was revealed [and Den became really Dirty - and gained a reputation he could thereafter never quite live up to]. Now i never truly watched EastEnders until the mid/late 90s, I was only born in '84, and have only seen a couple of choice early episodes that are repeated on terrestrial TV (the first episode, the divorce papers, etc). I am always interested though, in investing time in them, simply, for no other reason, than what television storytelling was capable of back then. For example, in this episode: slow, paced, conversational dialogue (it was a mild landmark in that the entire second half of the episode was devoted to only two characters), that contained almost no cuts or edits, and although i felt compelled and interested throughout, when one of the on-screen critics said that if this perticular scene was being presented today, Michelle would have been screaming and crying and have thrown herself in the canal by the end, i realised quite how far things have come. The fact that the premier decades of both Coronation Street & EastEnders were both vastly better written and constructed than either soaps today, with a more superior ensemble of representational characters, is beside the point. The blame can't just lay there, the audience and their attention spans need to be accounted for too.
But this thread isn't about the early days, nor Coronation Street. It's about the state of things in Albert Square, which, although better than this point one year ago (probably in the pits of Ronny Feirrera's Kidney Transplant saga), is still unfortunately lamentable. There is more spark in the writing, characters like Stacey Slater speak with a 'sound' to their voice (i don't mean a cockerneee accent)... she speaks with an individuality, she 'sounds' apart from the mush of all the other non-dimensional characters. It's almost, in terms of characterisation, similar to how Coronation Street was in about 1997, where things happened to one character, but they may as well have happened to any other, because the ramifications and reactions would be almost the same. The best dialogue recently was Stacey Slater walking round the Square with Ruby Allen, telling her about all the women in the community: "...the two old witches in the pub are well up them selves, the one in the caff is all-right, but a bit up herself, the old dragon in the launderette, god, she's WELL up herself. as for my cousin Zoe, she's so far up herself she's coming out the other end..." or something like that. It was an individual characters voice, her opinions. It wasn't attacted to a plot, or about a plot, as every single line of dialogue in EastEnders has been for about a year. It was simply refreshing.
Another reason, coming to the intent of this thread, for the 'one month hiatus' i suggested in my previous post in Pamela's "Period Soaps" thread, is just because, I think, EastEnders post-Mitchell, needs a rest. It hit a nasty fatigue at the very end of 2002, managed to be buoyed through 2003 on the sensations of Kat & Alfie, the return of Den etc, but hit the wall big time, in 2004. The 90s was EastEnders decade, that can never be taken away. It coyuld do almost anything, tell almost any story, because its writing, its group of characters, it's 'world' were so well formed and thoroughly coloured, it could reach into anything (erm, except unknown Irish family members). Yes, it made mistakes, but it was number one by a mile. It's always the soap that, when it's good it's the best, and when it's bad its the worst. It's as tempestuous as Den & Angie. It found its groove in the very early 90s, when the Mitchell's arrived (hence my defining it now "post-Mitchell"), and powered by them, Peggy the Matriarch and her boys the muscle of the Square, flew through the 90s like it was on a mad adrenaline rush, and it never really felt like it was trying, or pushing, it just managed it. The 'Fowler Years' merged effortlessly with the 'Mitchell Years' to evolve Walford into a more densely populated, intricately constructed painting. The 'Slater Years', began in 2000, and for two years the same happened... i remember some pinpoint moments where the same happened, these three alpha families were intertwined effortlessly - for example in the New Years 2001/02 episode, where Little Mo Slater was baby-sitting Phil Mitchell in Pauline Fowlers house, simple, but it tied them together right up until Mo's trial, where Phil & Pauline gave evidence.
But the boat rocked, as I said, somewhere between 2003 & 2004, and it was a bigger rock than any soap or show which has been that big, has experienced. The wind was totally out of it's sails, and that is the adrenaline which is the lifeblood of the show, the storytelling, the writing. Everything about it was weak. It is nowhere near fixed, but is definitely past the worst (well, the immediate past two weeks have been very poor again, so who knows) that it was in last year, and although totally over-the-top, ham-fisted, contrived and fictitious, the 20th Anniversary plot - the Second Death of Den - and the weeks that led up to that hour long episode (well, through from the Christmas episodes, covering the Sam Mitchell double-crossing by Marcus Christie, and the Death of Paul Truman) were almost consistently well written and acted. It was like the show had woken up, it had a beating pulse. But again, like I said, it's lapsed. Who knows, but to me, this brief positive spell proved that EastEnders isn't the dead horse it was condemned as by the press last year, and although the 'Post-Mitchell' shadow is a long one, I think the soap, above and beyond all the others, has the potential for the greatest depth of story-telling, and a future. It just needs tro re-establish itself, and re-acclimatise it's audience to a different pace of storytelling. It works best, by record, when it's going at full pace. But i think it has been shown that full pace isn't necessarily best for the show. What do you guys think?
But this thread isn't about the early days, nor Coronation Street. It's about the state of things in Albert Square, which, although better than this point one year ago (probably in the pits of Ronny Feirrera's Kidney Transplant saga), is still unfortunately lamentable. There is more spark in the writing, characters like Stacey Slater speak with a 'sound' to their voice (i don't mean a cockerneee accent)... she speaks with an individuality, she 'sounds' apart from the mush of all the other non-dimensional characters. It's almost, in terms of characterisation, similar to how Coronation Street was in about 1997, where things happened to one character, but they may as well have happened to any other, because the ramifications and reactions would be almost the same. The best dialogue recently was Stacey Slater walking round the Square with Ruby Allen, telling her about all the women in the community: "...the two old witches in the pub are well up them selves, the one in the caff is all-right, but a bit up herself, the old dragon in the launderette, god, she's WELL up herself. as for my cousin Zoe, she's so far up herself she's coming out the other end..." or something like that. It was an individual characters voice, her opinions. It wasn't attacted to a plot, or about a plot, as every single line of dialogue in EastEnders has been for about a year. It was simply refreshing.
Another reason, coming to the intent of this thread, for the 'one month hiatus' i suggested in my previous post in Pamela's "Period Soaps" thread, is just because, I think, EastEnders post-Mitchell, needs a rest. It hit a nasty fatigue at the very end of 2002, managed to be buoyed through 2003 on the sensations of Kat & Alfie, the return of Den etc, but hit the wall big time, in 2004. The 90s was EastEnders decade, that can never be taken away. It coyuld do almost anything, tell almost any story, because its writing, its group of characters, it's 'world' were so well formed and thoroughly coloured, it could reach into anything (erm, except unknown Irish family members). Yes, it made mistakes, but it was number one by a mile. It's always the soap that, when it's good it's the best, and when it's bad its the worst. It's as tempestuous as Den & Angie. It found its groove in the very early 90s, when the Mitchell's arrived (hence my defining it now "post-Mitchell"), and powered by them, Peggy the Matriarch and her boys the muscle of the Square, flew through the 90s like it was on a mad adrenaline rush, and it never really felt like it was trying, or pushing, it just managed it. The 'Fowler Years' merged effortlessly with the 'Mitchell Years' to evolve Walford into a more densely populated, intricately constructed painting. The 'Slater Years', began in 2000, and for two years the same happened... i remember some pinpoint moments where the same happened, these three alpha families were intertwined effortlessly - for example in the New Years 2001/02 episode, where Little Mo Slater was baby-sitting Phil Mitchell in Pauline Fowlers house, simple, but it tied them together right up until Mo's trial, where Phil & Pauline gave evidence.
But the boat rocked, as I said, somewhere between 2003 & 2004, and it was a bigger rock than any soap or show which has been that big, has experienced. The wind was totally out of it's sails, and that is the adrenaline which is the lifeblood of the show, the storytelling, the writing. Everything about it was weak. It is nowhere near fixed, but is definitely past the worst (well, the immediate past two weeks have been very poor again, so who knows) that it was in last year, and although totally over-the-top, ham-fisted, contrived and fictitious, the 20th Anniversary plot - the Second Death of Den - and the weeks that led up to that hour long episode (well, through from the Christmas episodes, covering the Sam Mitchell double-crossing by Marcus Christie, and the Death of Paul Truman) were almost consistently well written and acted. It was like the show had woken up, it had a beating pulse. But again, like I said, it's lapsed. Who knows, but to me, this brief positive spell proved that EastEnders isn't the dead horse it was condemned as by the press last year, and although the 'Post-Mitchell' shadow is a long one, I think the soap, above and beyond all the others, has the potential for the greatest depth of story-telling, and a future. It just needs tro re-establish itself, and re-acclimatise it's audience to a different pace of storytelling. It works best, by record, when it's going at full pace. But i think it has been shown that full pace isn't necessarily best for the show. What do you guys think?