To preface this review, I want to say that I loved This Is England. I thought it was an endearing, charming and ultimately heart-breaking look at Thatcher's British North. It tackled a changing social climate, racial tensions and the misappropriation of youths drawn in to the bigotry of the National Front. Whilst I was born in 1990 and raised in an affluent South West London suburb, watching This Is England felt like I was peering in a window through time. I smiled at mentions of shoes frum Lundun, recoiled as the young Shawn was sucked into Combo's propaganda and silently wished for Woody et al. to rescue him. When Milky ultimately (apparently) paid the price for Shawn's redemption, I was legitimately upset. I had become endeared to him and his plight- being a British-Jamaican forced to identify with his country rather than his culture, and thought that (what I thought was) his death was touching, moving and heroic. A man, who smiled in the face of the hateful and deranged Combo, smiled in the face of a depressed and misguided North, smiled and ultimately martyred himself.
So imagine how I felt when Shane Meadows decided he would shit all over that and bring him back for this dire, dire, TV-quel.
Apparently not pleased with the success of TIE, both culturally and financially, Meadows decided that he would remove all the things that were great about the film, replace them with even more terrible haircuts, add a few totally unnecessary characters into the mix and excrete this tragedy. Maybe Meadows felt that some of the themes and ideas would be relevant to people today, maybe he thought that the British populace would flock to another viewfinder of 1980s England, maybe he had knocked back a few too many Special Brews whilst masturbating to the third series of Skins. Maybe, and this seems most likely to me, Channel 4 offered him a big fuck-off cheque in exchange for this big fuck-off to his credibility and integrity. Whatever his reasons for agreeing to this, none seems worthy enough to justify just what a train-wreck ‘86 is.
The first episode started promisingly enough. We catch up with the lads and the ladies and find that Shawn has become estranged from the gang. Seems logical enough, given that he was at least involved partially with the brutal beating of one of their comrades. I was surprised to see that Banjo and Meggy, two characters who decided they wouldn't stop Combo battering Milky, featuring as full-fledged parts of the group, but stranger things have happened on screen. It looks as though Woody and Lol are set to be married and immediately it becomes clear that there will be some sort of tragedy to prevent it... at least, it would have if the trailers hadn't clearly revealed that they weren't going to get married after all.
It's important to note that this is a recurring problem in TIE '86. It rolls about as subtly as a nine-iron to the temple. Not a single thing is implied- whether it's revealed in the trailer, blatantly spoken about, or shown on screen. There is no subtlety, no implicature, no class, no style, only painstakingly welcome-overstayed and totally over-indulgent eyesores.
There are funny moments scattered in the turgidity, though. Shawn's confrontation with the scooter-gang, Gadget and Harvey (last seen mocking Shawn’s dead father) running with the flowers, Meggy's heart-attack (I laughed, at least) but ultimately the episode establishes that it just isn't supposed to be a comedy. Fair enough, the film wasn't a comedy, either. What does become apparent is that Meadows has abandoned everything that was special and challenging about the film and decided to opt for a bizarre mix of Skins, Hollyoaks and Shameless and the resulting concoction wouldn't look out of place on Bravo at 2AM. Whilst the aesthetics and the general anachronism is there, the social, racial and political elements aren't. Mr Sandhu- victim of a racial tirade from Shawn and co. in the film has become something of a Northern emperor, owning a sweet shop, a Blockbusters, a laundrette and brothel... I assume. His success betrays his role in the original film, and his inclusion is presumably only to give Shawn a reason to run away, or possibly just so slack-jawed viewers can point and garp "That's the paki from the first film," secure in the knowledge that the film and the TV-series are inter-connected. Similarly, local whore Trudy has had something of a career upgrade, going from shoe salesperson to receptionist at a rundown... hall of some kind. The inclusion of irrelevant characters from the film only serves to further highlight the pointlessness of the new characters. Maybe the stylist had some extra bad haircuts Meadows liked the look of- I can't think of a better reason why some people have turned up.
The second episode is completely devoid of anything of real substance and can be summed up in a sentence; Lol's dad is a paedophile and Lol shags Milky. Nothing else of note happens.
The third episode is what ultimately spurred me on to write this review, so repulsed was I by its consistent awfulness. After being 'treated' to sights of Lol's pasty, malnourished torso in the previous episodes, we're once again rewarded for our (long, long, long suffering) patience by another glimpse at her breasts. What I found much more gratifying was Paedo-dad choking her. If only Milky and friends had had the same idea.
Obviously, I'm joking- there was absolutely no need for such a violent scene to be included, especially not after the sexually-charged scene prior. Meadows certainly has a fetish for merging violence and sex and on paper this sounds like it could be quite the statement. After all, psychologists have long theorised that lust and violence are very similar emotions, but trust me when I say that Meadows was certainly unaware of any such link, his motives purely to gratify the misogynist audience he was clearly pitching for. The violent child-rape scene at the end offended me on many levels. There was no reason for its inclusion, no motive for its length, and no justification for it whatsoever. There was nothing to be achieved by featuring it. The only message I could garner from it was "People who violently rape children are bad" and this is something that I, and no doubt the British public at large, have known for a very long time. Years of Ian Huntley flooding the Daily Mail has hammered this message in well, so why did Meadows feel it was vital to have it portrayed quite so graphically? As mentioned, the British public is well aware of the horrors of brutal paedophilia, and would very easily discern that that is what the character was going to do if they had had the taste to imply it, even just a little.
Against my better judgement, I stuck it out and watched the fourth and final episode and, now unsurprisingly, finished it feeling desperately like I needed a shower and a lobotomy. We’re treated to the dramatic return of Combo… who gives Shawn a friendly hug and sends him on his way. We’re treated to yet another sight of Lol’s nipples- no doubt the actress foresees her future in lad’s mags or soft-core porn- and yet another totally unnecessary rape scene. As soon as Lol and Paedo-dad are in the same room, you just know that’s where they’re going, so unsubtle and ill-written is this series. It’s justified at least, though. I know whenever I confront violent rapists; I always do it alone, threaten them with hammers and then turn my back on them for a few seconds. Unfortunately for Lol, though, her violent rapist father does something totally out of character and tries to violently rape her. What actually surprised me about this scene is just how sexually charged the dialogue before was, replete with heavy breathing and tender mutterings of “Yeah, look at that, yeah, mm.” When Combo entered to save the day, I was actually fully expecting him to try and have a turn on Lol, too. Instead, he gave Lol a hug and sends her on her way, and so the much hyped (at least a month and a half) return of the most complex character in the film is a total bust.
So why do it? Why sell out the values of the film wholesale and replace it with this muck? This Is England was an 18, but it contained none of the misogyny or sexual content, and certainly not any sexual violence. Why is This Is England ’86 so radically different to its predecessor?
The answer is simple. Shane Meadows is a money-grubbing sell out.
Though, maybe this is unfair. Shane Meadows wrote This is England, which was a great film. He wrote Dead Man's Shoes, which was a great film. He co-wrote TIE '86 with Jack Thorne of Skins notoriety, and whilst it would be similarly unfair to blame the disgusting mess purely on Thorne, it is not a ridiculous assumption that he might have pushed for more of the filth, more of the sleaze, more of the drivel, backed by Channel 4, infatuated by the success of Skins. Regardless, Shane Meadows has sold out wholesale, and should have refused point-blank to be a perpetrator in this muck. Do yourself a favour and do something, anything, other than watch This is England '86.
Note: This was edited for clarity. I removed the words "of a known paedophile" as I was later corrected on this.
