How interesting would the show be if Rory kept on being Lorelei's "great kid"? We're supposed to hate her stupid friends, I think, and to believe that Lorelei is totally justified in her response. I loved the way the episode kept L and R totally apart (even to the extent that their stories took place in different "acts" of the episode). Without any dramatic confrontations between them, this structure spoke incredibly loudly about the distance between the characters. Surely this season will be about Rory passing through this "phase;" she will hardly be a "sorority ho" forever. Although I'm not too crazy about Rory being with Logan, I do think that the character--and their relationship--is fascinating. It is impossible to tell to what extent L. is genuine and to what extent he is completely manipulating R. Probably a bit of both. I also loved the way that Lorelei's joy over her relationship with Luke and her devastation over her relationship with Rory are allowed to co-exist. She is not defined by either one. A woman on TV who is not "the girlfriend" or "the mother" but both and so much more? This show has earned our continued investment in it by drawing its characters so artfully and thoroughly. Abandoning it because a character shows her flaws seems to miss the entire point.
I love Lorelei. LOVE HER. She is my forever tv girlfriend.
It seems like people watch tv for all sorts of reasons. And it def. seems like viewers can become very involved in their relationships with the characters. So if Rory goes from being a person I felt like being friends with to a person who seems totally shallow and foreign . . .of course I'm going to be pissed (much like the way Paris reacted. In fact, I really felt like Paris was sort of standing in for the viewer in those scene -- the way she reacted and then went straight to Lorelei)
But my problem isn't just being pissed . . . and my problem isn't that Rory changes, but that her change just isn't convincing. . .even after a whole season of her not being Lorelei's "great kid" (and I always thought the whole "great kid" thing WAS one of Rory's flaws). I think I'd be more interested if the nature of her angst was fleshed out a bit more (and I have a hunch the writers don't really know . . .which sort of seems like poison to a character-driven drama). I feel like this is one area in which the show has gotten really sloppy (other things, like LORELEI and the way the show is structured, still seems good -- though the townie filler is getting a little dull. More Michel!!!!). Anyway, I don't think people are abondoning the show because Rory shows her flaws . . .I think people are abandoning the show because they feel like the care and attention that went into creating Rory's character -- and developing it -- has been replaced with this sort of hackneyed, ill-fitting "twist" that has all the actors involved in any of Rory's scenes struggling to make it even a littlbe bit convincing. It's like there's this big idea -- that Rory freaks out and quits Yale -- but none of the details that make it ineteresting or convincing. One of the reasons I ever started watching Gilmore Girls was because of its attention to details. Now everything with Rory seems like broad strokes colored by nothing more than random screwball filler.
And I enjoyed hating Tristan and Paris in the 1st season so much more than I enjoy hating Logan's friends.
And there is nothing fascinating to me about Rory's relationship with Logan. Nothing.
Back when I was watching more regularly, I thought one of the interesting things about The Gilmore Girls was the way how well Rory turned out is in some ways Lorelai's proof to her parents that her way of doing things when she got pregnant (by contrast to what they wanted her to do) was the right way. That puts a lot of pressure on Rory and I wonder if now she's sort of reacting against the subliminal expectation Lorelai has for her to never give Emily and Richard the chance to say I told you so.
It seems like Lorelai makes a lot of emotional demands on Rory sometimes. I don't know how healthy the way she handled the situation with Emily and Richard was. Completely cutting them out of Rory's life set up a situation in which Lorelai was the only source of familial love in Rory's life and sometimes it seems like she liked things that way - it gave her all the control. Instead of wanting Rory to have a good relationship with her parents, sometimes it seems like she feels threatened and competitive about it. Sometimes, Lorelai's relationship with Rory seems a little narcissistic - more about who she thinks Rory is and what she thinks Rory needs than who Rory actually is and what Rory actually needs - I think it's natural for Rory to react against that. She started to do it by picking Jess over Lorelai's preferred Dean and she's doing it now by further asserting her right to choose her own friends, even if their idiots (didn't Lane seem just like the best friend Lorelai would hand pick for Rory?), and to have the relationship with her grandparents that SHE wants, not the one that makes Lorelai comfortable.
Of course, whether any of that is pleasant to watch is another question.
michalle, great discussion of the Lorelei/Rory relationship. One of the things I love about it is just what you point out--that Lorelei doesn't always make great choices as a mother. In fact, she's a pretty messed up person in a lot of ways. She has completely put Rory in the middle of her own relationship with her parents and thus Rory's current actions are very much in defiance of that whole history. So, FF, I do think Rory's changes are motivated, if subtly. But that's another thing I love about the show--that it can be so subtle and so effective at the same time (again, unlike most TV--and I love TV!).
I see lots of complexity in L's character . . . and I think y'all make great points -- about L and her parents, esp. But I still don't find Rory's behavior convincing. It makes sense on a sort of "macro" storyboard level, but not in the actual scenes. For example, I can see how the conflict (the ultimate triangulation between L, R, and the eleder Gs) was conceived. I just don't find any of the actual key scenes with R -- rory falling for logan, rory stealing a yacht, rory telling her mother that she's dropping out of yale, rory going to her grandfather for help and saying "everything is falling apart" -- convincing. I see the narrtive motivation if I zoom out and think about the writers storyboarding the season, but not when I WATCH THE SCENES WITH RORY. To me, there's awkward dissonance between the narrative intent, and the scene by scene characterization. It's sort of like that whole "show don't tell" adage. I feel like I've been told all these things about R without really witnessing them -- like I see before and after but no real transition. I guess you could call that subtle, but to me it just seems sloppy -- esp. when compared to seasons 1-3.
7 comments:
How interesting would the show be if Rory kept on being Lorelei's "great kid"? We're supposed to hate her stupid friends, I think, and to believe that Lorelei is totally justified in her response. I loved the way the episode kept L and R totally apart (even to the extent that their stories took place in different "acts" of the episode). Without any dramatic confrontations between them, this structure spoke incredibly loudly about the distance between the characters. Surely this season will be about Rory passing through this "phase;" she will hardly be a "sorority ho" forever. Although I'm not too crazy about Rory being with Logan, I do think that the character--and their relationship--is fascinating. It is impossible to tell to what extent L. is genuine and to what extent he is completely manipulating R. Probably a bit of both. I also loved the way that Lorelei's joy over her relationship with Luke and her devastation over her relationship with Rory are allowed to co-exist. She is not defined by either one. A woman on TV who is not "the girlfriend" or "the mother" but both and so much more? This show has earned our continued investment in it by drawing its characters so artfully and thoroughly. Abandoning it because a character shows her flaws seems to miss the entire point.
I love Lorelei. LOVE HER. She is my forever tv girlfriend.
It seems like people watch tv for all sorts of reasons. And it def. seems like viewers can become very involved in their relationships with the characters. So if Rory goes from being a person I felt like being friends with to a person who seems totally shallow and foreign . . .of course I'm going to be pissed (much like the way Paris reacted. In fact, I really felt like Paris was sort of standing in for the viewer in those scene -- the way she reacted and then went straight to Lorelei)
But my problem isn't just being pissed . . . and my problem isn't that Rory changes, but that her change just isn't convincing. . .even after a whole season of her not being Lorelei's "great kid" (and I always thought the whole "great kid" thing WAS one of Rory's flaws). I think I'd be more interested if the nature of her angst was fleshed out a bit more (and I have a hunch the writers don't really know . . .which sort of seems like poison to a character-driven drama). I feel like this is one area in which the show has gotten really sloppy (other things, like LORELEI and the way the show is structured, still seems good -- though the townie filler is getting a little dull. More Michel!!!!). Anyway, I don't think people are abondoning the show because Rory shows her flaws . . .I think people are abandoning the show because they feel like the care and attention that went into creating Rory's character -- and developing it -- has been replaced with this sort of hackneyed, ill-fitting "twist" that has all the actors involved in any of Rory's scenes struggling to make it even a littlbe bit convincing. It's like there's this big idea -- that Rory freaks out and quits Yale -- but none of the details that make it ineteresting or convincing. One of the reasons I ever started watching Gilmore Girls was because of its attention to details. Now everything with Rory seems like broad strokes colored by nothing more than random screwball filler.
And I enjoyed hating Tristan and Paris in the 1st season so much more than I enjoy hating Logan's friends.
And there is nothing fascinating to me about Rory's relationship with Logan. Nothing.
Back when I was watching more regularly, I thought one of the interesting things about The Gilmore Girls was the way how well Rory turned out is in some ways Lorelai's proof to her parents that her way of doing things when she got pregnant (by contrast to what they wanted her to do) was the right way. That puts a lot of pressure on Rory and I wonder if now she's sort of reacting against the subliminal expectation Lorelai has for her to never give Emily and Richard the chance to say I told you so.
It seems like Lorelai makes a lot of emotional demands on Rory sometimes. I don't know how healthy the way she handled the situation with Emily and Richard was. Completely cutting them out of Rory's life set up a situation in which Lorelai was the only source of familial love in Rory's life and sometimes it seems like she liked things that way - it gave her all the control. Instead of wanting Rory to have a good relationship with her parents, sometimes it seems like she feels threatened and competitive about it. Sometimes, Lorelai's relationship with Rory seems a little narcissistic - more about who she thinks Rory is and what she thinks Rory needs than who Rory actually is and what Rory actually needs - I think it's natural for Rory to react against that. She started to do it by picking Jess over Lorelai's preferred Dean and she's doing it now by further asserting her right to choose her own friends, even if their idiots (didn't Lane seem just like the best friend Lorelai would hand pick for Rory?), and to have the relationship with her grandparents that SHE wants, not the one that makes Lorelai comfortable.
Of course, whether any of that is pleasant to watch is another question.
well said michalle! you must be a writer!
:)
michalle,
great discussion of the Lorelei/Rory relationship. One of the things I love about it is just what you point out--that Lorelei doesn't always make great choices as a mother. In fact, she's a pretty messed up person in a lot of ways. She has completely put Rory in the middle of her own relationship with her parents and thus Rory's current actions are very much in defiance of that whole history. So, FF, I do think Rory's changes are motivated, if subtly. But that's another thing I love about the show--that it can be so subtle and so effective at the same time (again, unlike most TV--and I love TV!).
I see lots of complexity in L's character . . . and I think y'all make great points -- about L and her parents, esp. But I still don't find Rory's behavior convincing. It makes sense on a sort of "macro" storyboard level, but not in the actual scenes.
For example, I can see how the conflict (the ultimate triangulation between L, R, and the eleder Gs) was conceived. I just don't find any of the actual key scenes with R -- rory falling for logan, rory stealing a yacht, rory telling her mother that she's dropping out of yale, rory going to her grandfather for help and saying "everything is falling apart" -- convincing. I see the narrtive motivation if I zoom out and think about the writers storyboarding the season, but not when I WATCH THE SCENES WITH RORY.
To me, there's awkward dissonance between the narrative intent, and the scene by scene characterization. It's sort of like that whole "show don't tell" adage. I feel like I've been told all these things about R without really witnessing them -- like I see before and after but no real transition. I guess you could call that subtle, but to me it just seems sloppy -- esp. when compared to seasons 1-3.
also, is Logan going to have to go to court? He stole the boat with Rory, right?
Post a Comment