Desperate Housewives takes something of a bold leap and centres an entire episode on exploring the less-than-desirable characteristics of a number of its key players.
6.5
"Fair"
Desperate Housewives is about to make another brief departure from our screens for three short weeks (bloody networks!) but before it does, it takes something of a bold leap and centres an entire episode on exploring the less-than-desirable characteristics of a number of its key characters. It's risky business this, tampering with the viewer's perceptions of the 'people' they enjoy watching week in, week out and while, when done successfully, it can add many welcome layers to the cast and humanise them to a greater extent, which in turn allows for an increased level of empathy because, let's face it, we certainly aren't perfect, all too often, the attempt is botched and what we're left with is a considerably bitter taste and the feeling that, honestly, we've been cheated out of our previously established allegiances. Here, we are subjected to plots that demonstrate the distinctly unlikeable sides of three of the main players: Tom Scavo, Susan Myer and Orson Hodge (I don't count Gabrielle because, well, what we get here is nothing new). Let's start with Orson, as his is perhaps the best executed.
So this week, Bree's husband discovers that plush-living gay Andrew (her son) is making more money than he is, working as Mrs. Van Der Kamp's PA. Which, quite frankly, he should be. He runs around after Bree, picks up all her messes, organises everything for her, makes sure everything goes according to plan and even waits on her hand and foot. Basically, he's the mechanics of the entire operation, turning the cogs and letting Bree be the pretty front. The only thing he doesn't do is cook. Orson cooks. And that's about it. So how would it not be fair for Andrew to earn more than he does... even if it is double? Frankly, that's none of his business and his qualifications as a dentist don't make an ounce of difference. At the end of the day, it's Bree's business, Bree's pay scheme and she actually let him have the job in the first place. With no relevant qualifications or experience, I might add! Thus, as soon as Bree opens her mouth to defend her position, she's unquestionable in every aspect. It's good to see her standing up for her decisions and not bowing to the pressure placed on her by her husband; she puts him in his place, which is exactly as it should be. Effectively, this a competent vehicle for Marcia Cross' character, allowing her to counter some of the questionable compromises she has made for Orson in the earlier hours of the season. So this one works: while we certainly don't empathise with Orson, his position is understood, resolved and quietly put to bed without much damage to his character (frankly, the kleptomaniac thing seems rather fun!)
The same cannot be said for Susan Myer and Tom Scavo, however. Susan in particular is just unforgivable here. While it does seem to chime with her character that she would be jealous of Katherine, it's just plain irritating, especially given the double standard it seems to be inherently predicated upon. Just a few weeks ago, she expected Mike to be fine with the idea of Jackson spending time with MJ which, despite his initial reservation, he simply bluntly accepted. No forced confrontation with the man, accusing him of trying to steal his son away from him. Now the boot's on the other foot and Susan isn't happy... which, frankly, I'm surprised the writers didn't address (missed opportunity, much?) But of course, this is an exercise in plot manoeuvring. The purpose of Susan's unjustified vehemence is so we can get to the point where Mike moving in with Katherine can be revealed. Resultantly, this feels a little contrived, even if Susan's objections are arguably in character. And perhaps more worryingly, it's just frustrating watching her whine about MJ's need to be with Mike, not his girlfriend. Change the bloody record, would ya? Tom Scavo, meanwhile, is just plain insane. While I certainly buy that he would be desperate to save his pizza place, I do not accept that he would get his underage children to work there. Porter and Preston, maybe, okay. But Parker? Penny?! She's nine years old! NINE! It's bloody illegal and there's no way Tom would flaunt the law so outrageously. He wants to keep his business, not lose it due to legal action. I understand that the writers evidently want to demonstrate just how much he wants to make the place a success and not let go of it, but couldn't they have found a better way of illustrating it than by completely throwing his character out of the window? No, this is not something that Tom would do ever. And it certainly not something that Lynette would agree to. Ever. In fact, it's something that no one would do. EVER. And are you telling me that the neighbourhood would let them get away with it? That they wouldn't object to having a nine year old behind the cash register, desperately trying to remember last week's Maths lesson in which they learned how to subtract big numbers from one another? Hello, it's a small community, someone would notice! Hell, Edie's there in one of the scenes! *rips hair out* It's just sloppy writing: finding the easiest method of getting to a desired point rather than the most organic.
This episode's overall feel is tainted somewhat by these two frustrating exercises in futility (oh and Gabrielle's story is just a damn retread of every other narrative she has ever had). While the writing staff prove that they can explore more human, less desirable character traits successfully with Orson's story, they completely botch it with Susan and especially Lynette/Tom's stories by either making completely out-of-character, thoroughly unbelievable decisions that even a six year old would pick holes in or simply making the emphasis too great on that which is irritatingly unlikeable. It's a brave attempt, I'll give it that, but 'In a World Where the Kings are Employers' can only be described as partially successful.