Options
Jamie Borthwick & Joshua Pascoe were incrediable this week!
Aside from the fantastic Steve Mcfadden & Linda Henry who we both know are brilliant anyway I thought Jamie Borthwick and Joshua Pascoe were absolutely incrediable this week. We all knew that Jamie had such talent after Jase's death where he was fantastic but since then he hasnt had any chance to prove himself until this week. I really felt Jay's pain and terror, the scenes with him in the Archers and then that awesome scene with Billy was heartbreaking, then we had him trying to grab Ben's hand for support was so sad when Ben pulled away. I'm so pleased that Jay was used in this story, he has the potential to be one of the A Star characters in the show and I hope after this bosses will continue to throw more big stories to him as JB can really pull anything off and make it beliveable. I've always said that he is one of the best actors on the show and this week proved just that.
Equally fantastic was Joshua Pascoe, never have I seen such a twisted sick character like Ben this week, his jokes he made about Heather after what he had done was sick but so good to watch. Like Jamie as Jay you could not take your eyes off Ben throghout any of his scenes, I felt uneasy watching him and witnessing a young boy who had turned physcho. People that still slag off Joshua after this obviously dont know what talent is as that guy has it in plenty, ive always rated Joshua since he took over and I hope he gets an award for his performance as its clear that Ben wont be around for ever. Ben is such a complex, interesting character and thats all down to Joshua's performances.
I think the huge contrast between both Ben and Jay has been one of the real highlights of this week. This weeks episodes have actually excedded my expectations, they are some of the best episodes I have seen since the Anniversary week and i'm so pleased that Bryan Kirkwood has overseen this week,I agree he hasnt been the best EP but this week and this whole Heather murder story will be what he is remembered for.
Equally fantastic was Joshua Pascoe, never have I seen such a twisted sick character like Ben this week, his jokes he made about Heather after what he had done was sick but so good to watch. Like Jamie as Jay you could not take your eyes off Ben throghout any of his scenes, I felt uneasy watching him and witnessing a young boy who had turned physcho. People that still slag off Joshua after this obviously dont know what talent is as that guy has it in plenty, ive always rated Joshua since he took over and I hope he gets an award for his performance as its clear that Ben wont be around for ever. Ben is such a complex, interesting character and thats all down to Joshua's performances.
I think the huge contrast between both Ben and Jay has been one of the real highlights of this week. This weeks episodes have actually excedded my expectations, they are some of the best episodes I have seen since the Anniversary week and i'm so pleased that Bryan Kirkwood has overseen this week,I agree he hasnt been the best EP but this week and this whole Heather murder story will be what he is remembered for.
0
Comments
Ben has developed into a sick and twisted evil character. I don't think Charlie could of done as good as Joshua has, so I think recasting him has really worked to show that development in Ben.
BIB - in your opinion. I don't find either of them 'brilliant' at all. They are very limited in the range of character they can play, and just portraying varying emotion (even the grief we saw from Linda Henry this week) does not mean she is a 'great' actress at all, merely that she can portray grief when required. From what I've seen Steve has really only played Phil in his acting career (one or two minor, 'blink and you miss them' roles prior to joining, but mainly Phil) and Linda has played the hard 'tart - occasionally with a heart' before and simply has no range for anything else.
A 'good' actor, to my mind, is one who can play multiple roles in multiple shows or films year in, year out, and make each one different, and even make themselves totally unrecognisable either from their non-acting selves, or from all previous characters. Interviews when 'out of character' are always interesting - some are just variations of their one-note character acting. Others just take your breath away and are barely recognisable. A notable example of this would be when Luke Roberts was playing Joseph Byrne in Holby City - a character with extremely subtle, studied mannerisms of someone with barely concealed raging OCD, and yet when you saw him as Luke he was nothing like Joseph. He even played another character in Holby shortly before he was cast as Joseph, but again it was totally different in tone and inflection and almost unrecognisable apart from the facial features.
That, to me, is a 'good' actor. I'm afraid the one-dimensional actors who get locked into long-term roles in soaps do not fit that bill. Stacey was another character who was raved over and Lacey widely praised, but I'd seen little to rave about it was all the same. The storylines and direction had a lot to do with her (and others') performances, not the acting skills of the actor themselves.
If they are so 'great' where are the ones who left for 'bigger things' now? Hardly setting the world alight on screen (if on stage, then fine - but you don't often hear about ex-soap actors in high-profile stage roles alongside real thesp actors). Other actors won't leave until they are pushed, and some are relying on becoming the 'Ken Barlow' of EE (Ian and Phil among them) and never having to leave and make a living as jobbing actors any more (and no, panto doesn't count when they are essentially just hired to be extensions of their TV characters). They'd p*ss themselves if they were handed their P45s and told they had to make their own way in the acting world because they're just stuck in an endless interpretation of the one role.
There are no fantasically great actors in soaps - anyone who thinks so is kidding themselves. Loving a character does not a good actor make - just portraying happy, sad, grief, joy doesn't count. True acting is branching out, being hired time-after-time for different roles in different shows on short-term contracts and honing your craft as you go. Shouting in a cockney accent isn't acting. Jake Wood is another highly over-rated 'actor' in EE. I've only seen him in one other thing (an Agatha Christie film when he was younger and with hair) but he was the one-dimensional cockney lad in that too. Hardly playing out of type, is he. Or many of them, come to that.
So, sorry, but I can't agree with the 'great acting' remark because that's only an opinion and I haven't seen anything to back it up as cast iron fact (although please, do enlighten me) because it's all too one-dimensional and just showing a bit of grief isn't the sign of a great actor, it's par for the course. Acting 101, if you will - you can find that at any drama school.
Jamie Borthwick does have potential, but if he wants to grow that potential then he needs to get out and spread his wings in the real acting world, not the gilded cage that is a UK soap. Joshua Pascoe may have potential too, but again unless he spreads his wings then it's too soon to say for sure.
Soaps should only ever be a stepping stone to something else, a learning curve, certainly for no more than a few months or a couple of years... if the actor is serious about their craft and being taken seriously. Or they can be a resting place for an actor who's been working their socks off for 20 years and looking for a bit of stability for a few months or a couple of years before moving on again and spreading their wings. The Ken Barlows/Ian Beales/Phil Mitchell long-serving fixtures know they won't be employed anywhere else now and that's entirely down to them being seen as type-cast, firstly, but mostly because they have never proved their skill or their range. Cheryl Fergusson is another one - didn't expect to be sacked (ok, contract not renewed, but it amounts to the same thing), it came as a shock and you can tell that right from the first interviews she gave after being 'let go' she had expected an easy meal ticket for the rest of her career. If we see her in any serious roles in any great number as per REALLY good actors who are constantly working (so more than 10 roles a year at least - none of them soaps or 'continuing dramas') then I'll willingly eat my hat with mustard on it.
But I don't expect to be called on my bet because it just won't happen. It hasn't happened for Lacey Turner either, has it... actually, has it happened for many of them?
while i agree with steve he has only ever played phil and doesnt have that many facial expressions its very hard to read him but he has been brilliant
Linda wasn't bad as Yvonne in Bad Girls, was it Yvonne? Lol. I must say she was superb in 'Beautiful Thing' years ago which is why i thought she would be dynamite in EE. I think she has been written poorly and not anwhere near as powerful enough to give it her all! She has so much more oomph but the scripts are terrible which is a shame for many of the actors.
yeah they have wasted her to some extent in EE but i think if they got it right with this storyline shirley could be a better character
I would keep Simon Ashdown and Christopher Reason though as they've written some of the show's best episodes and know the show inside and out, not to mention are greatly experienced, so they can help the new writers to creatively settle into the show. But for sure, the rest need to go.
Roles on soaps are the only roles people give a damn about in the UK. And why should soaps only be used as a stepping stone on to bigger and better things? The whole basis of a soap is that they are meant to run forever so there needs to be long-running characters.
And why is an actor bad if they only stick to a long-term soap role? That's like saying an R&B singer is a crap singer just because they've stuck to the R&B genre for ten years without doing any Dubstep. Your opinion of acting sounds like you wish it was the 1850s when acting was only done in a theatre.
And let me guess, you work in the acting field? Haven't made it yet, huh?
I couldn't agree more it's beyond a joke! Ben, Derek, Tyler and Anthony must be chopped for starters though! I can't wait to discover who the new EP is unless it will be Lorraine Newman. The rumoured Paul Marquess mustn't be let anywhere near it or we'll have a brand new cast of mannequin dummy's, another fire and continuity even worse than we have now! I still say a disaster in the tube station should befall the square as it hasn't been done before, is realistic and believable and will bump off the nobody's! A gas leak? A deadly plague? (Brookie did it well) Anything, just get rid!!
What happened to Rob Gittins he was consistently good from what i remember too.
Haha true. I agree with everything here.
Personally, I just want to see some fresh writing. They just recycle the same crap too much nowadays.
Hmmm, I dunno. I think Ashdown and Reason are superior to him and are also legends. Okay, I'll let you have Pete Lawson since you mentioned him
The contrast between them was what made it work so well. Ben and his immediate coldness and threatening demeanor, and Jay completely breaking down was brilliant
Jamie as Jay has done some brilliant performances this week, really memorable. Hes not the most prominent of the teens, but hes the best, and this week proved that to me. Hope he gets nominated for some awards!
Whilst I think that the two actors you mentioned are ok, I wouldn't use the term amazing. I don't think that the pinnacle of acting is a move to films in Hollywood either. There are huge numbers of actors in theatre and television drama who I would consider far more successful and talented.
As for roles in soaps being the only roles people give a damn about? You really shouldn't confuse acting ability with fame or celebrity. Very few soap stars go on to long term and truly successful careers when they leave the soap. Soaps are only a section of the acting profession and a small one at that.
Roles in Hollywood films are the pinnacle of acting because those actors earn millions of $$$.
I completely agree with this. It wouldn't have worked nearly as well without the contrast. Maybe they will be nominated for awards.
thats the way he's supposed to be played. he's showing no remorse. cracking jokes etc
Yeah. And the fact that he's mentally unstable would explain his lack of facial expressions & inability to show emotion.
Not even a little emotion for killing his friend by accident? after everything they've been through? is he that messed up?
yes thats the point. he shows no remorse whatsoever. i think thats the point of phil's anger if ben actually showed that he was upset phil might not be so angry