In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Roush Dispatch
When Bad Things Happen to Good Characters
Something seriously unfunny is happening on two of TV's most notable hour-long comedies, Desperate Housewives and Gilmore Girls. Not that either show is beyond rescue, but I fear it's going to take a while this season to extricate some heretofore favorite characters from the miserable corners they were painted into last season.
Most infamously, Lorelai Gilmore (still, against the odds, effervescently played by Lauren Graham) is mired in an unpleasant situation that makes her overextended estrangement from daughter Rory a while back look like a walk in the park. Last season ended on a dreadful thumb-nosing note by departing series creator Amy Sherman-Palladino as Lorelai walked away from fiancé Luke after making an impulsive (some might say irrational) ultimatum, and then ended up in her former flame (and Rory's father) Christopher's bed. No good can come from this.
In Tuesday's opener, Lorelai tells everyone who'll listen, "It's over." If only it were. Not Lorelai and Luke, but the series itself, which in this latest contrivance to keep the couple apart is only taxing our patience. Which isn't to say there aren't many delightful moments in the episode. This is Gilmore Girls and Stars Hollow, after all. Paris and Babette each go on flights of hilarious shtick, and while Im not entirely a Logan fan, his romantic parting gesture to Rory almost redeems the hour. (Don't try to figure it out, or go to the effort to Google the episode title. Just let it impress and surprise you the way it does Rory.)
But Lorelai couldn't be more maddening, even though there is still so much charm and humor in her character (especially with Rory) that you cant help wanting to give her the benefit of the doubt. Still, her refusal to go to Luke even after he suffers a calamity during the episode is just about unforgivable. I've never been much of a fan of "jump the shark" talk, finding it much too easy a way to condemn the inevitable missteps almost every series makes during the long run, but Gilmore Girls has been making a pretty good argument for it ever since Luke's surprise daughter April was introduced. (Actually, April is in many ways a pretty cool kid, and the better narrative choice would have been for her, Lorelai and April's mother, Anna, to bond, leaving Luke comically frustrated with all these women bustling around in his life. Instead, a panicked Luke kept the situation a secret for too long, Anna turned a cold shoulder to Lorelai, and things went south fast.)
A surprise "love child" has also hobbled one of Desperate Housewives' more substantial characters, Lynette, played by Emmy-winner Felicity Huffman. While Sunday's premiere had many promising elements, including some juicy gags for Susan and Bree (who confused her first orgasm for a small stroke) and a compelling mystery involving Bree's latest psycho suitor (and how cool to see all the women rallying around her, albeit to little initial avail), Lynette is trapped in a story line so desperately unamusing, one that makes her and everyone around her act so idiotic, that you have to pray that we'll soon see the last of the obnoxious Nora, mother of Tom's surprise daughter - and really folks, when is this plot twist ever a good idea? Watching Lynette grovel to the boorishly shrill Nora when her clumsy lies are discovered is painfully unpleasant and unfunny. It kinda made me envy Mike being in the coma (the latest indignity for James Denton, whos been underused since the first season).
On the plus side, I loved seeing Laurie Metcalf as Orson's suspicious neighbor and Valerie Mahaffey as Orson's presumably ill-fated first wife in the sinister prologue. Orson wearing rubber gloves to clean up the morning after her disappearance reminded me (in a good, shuddery way) of Hitchcock's Rear Window, in the way Raymond Burr disposed of his wife. In pieces. Also got a kick out of Orson's fastidiousness being an aphrodisiac to Bree, leading to an ensuing demonstration of Libertarian-vs-Republican sexual relations. Now that's the Desperate Housewives I'd been missing.
As I noted earlier, neither show is a lost cause, and Housewives in particular shows encouraging signs of getting its act together. (Although having watched the very strong season openers of Cold Case and Without a Trace in their new time periods Sunday night, following another outstanding episode of The Amazing Race, I'm beginning to feel my allegiance to ABC on Sundays seriously drifting.)
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2006 10:19 AM
|
I'll keep watching Gilmore Girls. As you said, you just can't help giving Lorelai Gilmore the benefit of the doubt. In some way, I'm still kind of rooting for her. Lauren Graham's consistently amazing performance helps alot too.
Besides, my favorite part of the show will probably always be there. I live for Emily and Lorelai's "rivalry" (rivalry is not the right word for it, I know).
I have high hopes that this show will get back on track, at least I hope so. If not, it would be a waste of an incredibly talented cast.
|
|
Sep 25, 2006 11:49 AM
|
I, for one, am pleased to read one critic who doesn't lay the blame for the ugly finale solely on Luke. That seems to be the spin of not only the new showrunner, David Rosenthal, but also a few of the actors, particularly Lauren Graham.
Actually, I stopped watching in February and am not going to begin to watch again. I had been waiting to hear something that would make me return since I had watched since day one six years ago and still miss the good old days.
What happened last season and what's coming up really seems to be a case of changing this show from a character driven show to a plot driven show because nothing that occurred in the second half of last season seemed in character.
Oh well. I do hope that the people who do watch enjoy it - I like some of the actors - Kelly Bishop, Scott Patterson and Edward Hermann - so I want them to keep their jobs for as long as they want.
|
|
Sep 25, 2006 12:14 PM
|
|
I'm on Team Christopher. I used to love Luke, but they ruined his character last season, and now I don't feel like Luke and Lorelai have ANY chemistry anymore. But whenever Lore is with Christopher, THEY SPARK! I love them. I'm totally on Team Christopher. Go Christopher!
|
|
Sep 25, 2006 1:23 PM
|
It doesn't change a thing, but even so ... it's nice to know.
I loved that line from Fiddler long before they used it on Gilmore Girls. It's the only way I can think to describe how your column made me feel.
I know criticism won't change this show, won't rescue it. Maybe you're right that they should just end it. Some longtime fans still harbor this silly hope that it will get back on track - I guess that's why we still read about it. We found something in it that we can't replace, and it's hard to give up on that and let go.
Reading your column, it felt so good to see a professional critic articulate what many of us think. Even if it doesn't make a difference, for this disappointed fan, it somehow helped to see it said in print. So, thank you.
|
|
Sep 25, 2006 1:24 PM
|
You're right, Matt. The surprise love child interjected into a series is never a good thing. It's a horry old plot device that should have been passe in daytime soaps 30 years ago.
The Nora character in DH is beyond aggravating. In fact, I fast forwarded through most of those scenes. The rest of the episode was very enjoyable and gave me hope that the series is back on track. Once Mike comes out of his coma, I hope they give James Denton more to do.
As for GG, I've been irked at Lauren Graham ever since her character and Luke got together. Graham never seemed very invested in this relationship from what I could glean from her interviews and it showed in her scenes with Scott Patterson. And, again, the surprise love child plot device has ruined the dynamics of the show. But I will keep watching as long as my patience holds out. Maybe the other characters will provide enough entertainment value to mitigate my irritation with Lauren/Lorelai.
Thanks to my DVR, I was able to watch Cold Case too. It was good to see Kenneth Anderson again. I hope they give him more to do in future episodes.
|
|
Sep 25, 2006 5:56 PM
|
I will no longer be watching Gilmore Girls unless sometime during the season, I read about a complete turnaround. It used to be a great show. I was a hugh fan. But suddenly in the middle of last season,with the appearance of Luke's long lost daughter, the show changed. Now we have Luke as a jerk and Lorelai, once a strong independent woman, as sad and dysfunctional. If I want to see these type of people, I'll tune into Dr. Phil.
I do not wish to see Luke and Lorelai on their separate journeys. I thought that was what we were seeing all these years. I especially don't want to see Lorelai with Christopher.
I don't want to invest in this show any longer. If this is the final season, I don't see how a believable resolution/reconciliation can occur in 22 episodes, given Luke and Lorelai's apparent deep seated neuroses and that he would have to forgive her for cheating with Christopher. Maybe this happens in Hollywood but most men elsewhere would run far and fast. If it goes into an 8th season, I just expect to see more of the same "will they or won't they". After all, David Rosenthal and the Pallidinos before him, made it clear that Luke and Lorelai together in whatever form or fashion = boredom, and Luke and Lorelai, apart= good drama. Actually I find the opposite to be true and I'm bored with the whole thing.
I agree with you Matt, that I find April to be an appealing character and I like your suggestion that a better storyline would have been to have the interplay between Luke,Anna, and Lorelai.
The writers could have left them together to deal with a laundry list of problems as a backdrop to the real focus of the show, the relationship between Emily,Lorelai, and Rory. Instead we viewers are left to deal with a soap opera and characters we no longer recognize or like. No thanks.
|
|
Sep 25, 2006 6:19 PM
|
I quit watching Gilmore Girls last season, skipping three of the last five episodes because it was obvious what the show runners were doing. The storylines last year were ridiculous, the episodes themselves were (with a few exceptions) poor, it felt like a different show, with the main characters there in name only. I'll hang out a spoilers boards and wait for news about if and when the relationship between Lorelai and the deadbeat who ignored their daughter for 20+ years mercifully ends, or not. If it ends, and the quality of the show improves, I might come back. If not, Friday Night Lights is at least striving to be a quality show.
I loved the Lorelai character and thought it would be impossible to dislike her. Congrats to the showrunners. You've managed to turn her into someone I don't want to know.
Note to Lauren Graham. At this point, doing midnight infomercials would be a more honorable way to earn a living.
|
|
Sep 25, 2006 8:35 PM
|
Thanks for the analysis, Matt. I?m going to try to keep an open mind on the Gilmore Girl?s season opener. Regardless of where that one particular storyline?s heading, I still think it?s the freshest, funniest show on TV (also, I?m trying not to be influenced by critics...it?s not easy, but I think I?m managing not to let you influence me in any way...how?m I doin??)
|
|
Sep 25, 2006 10:05 PM
|
|
I've hesitated to post where GG has been discussed before b/c its pretty much a losing argument to try and get naysayers to watch this great show. But here's my two cents anyway. First off, JLH - you mention that Lorelei used to be a strong independant woman. Uh huh - what about when she dumped Max? and then waffled again. What about when she hid her relationship with (dad's partner - dang what was his name!?) She's an emotional freak and always has been. That's what i love about her - she's real!!!!! And even though most people freaked at her "irrational" ultimatum to Luke - that is SO Lorelei! She is impulsive and she emotionally explodes and does self destructive things. And running to Christopher was so IN character it was almost predictible. He was her safe haven - she knew he would want her and be there for her and she needed that kind of security when the man she loved (she felt) was not getting her and was turning his back on her. Of course she regretted it the next morning...I just find this storyline to be very real for her character and in real life - I know people who would make the same kinds of "oh dear god" type decisions. And I am looking forward to seeing what happens on the show. Although I might want Luke and Lorelei together (even though I think she does have more chemistry with Christopher - their banter is better - which isn't L's fault) I won't stop watching a show just b/c its not written the way I want it to be. If you dont' enjoy something enough to watch it anymore fine, but to say, I'm not watching it until it goes the way I want it to, reeks of "i'm taking my game and going home, hmph" Again, just my two cents.
|
|
Sep 26, 2006 10:18 AM
|
Hooray Matt! Thanks for your analysis of both shows. Thanks for saying that the long lost child is tired and overused!
I agree with you 100% with your GG critique. Like, Caf, I too feel relief that someone has put my feelings into words. I think that the writers of this once great show have gone so far off the path that there is no recovery. Personally, I am ending this series with season 5. I had hope that the new producer would correct season 6 mistakes but he is embellishing them from the spoilers I have seen. Jump the Shark---this series has been eaten by it!
The LLD storyline on DH is also quite annoying. I haven't invested as much in this show as I had in GG but I too could not stand the character of Nora.
Thanks again Matt.
|
|
Sep 26, 2006 11:49 AM
|
Matt, Thank you for your column, although it appears to me that you ended up with a critique of GG and DH, instead of concluding your premise of bad things/good characters.
Why was it necessary to spend time (5 seasons) making Luke Danes a really good man (voted best b/f by TV fans) in the first 5 seasons, then turn around and write scripts that make him more devious, less lovable, and insensitive? Looks like the writers were setting the path for a Lorelai/Christopher reconciliation all along. Even though the fans, such as I, had declared along Christopher was reprehensible.
I won't watch, but I'll keep in touch in case the storyline changes.
As for DH, I never watch. It is just another show about suburban bed bingo, sort of like the game Lorelai plays. Great role model, huh?
|
|
Sep 26, 2006 12:24 PM
|
|
I am sticking with Race, Case & Trace!
|
|
Sep 26, 2006 1:43 PM
|
Matt -
Thanks for the horrifying flashback of Fonzie in his leather jacket, white tee and swim shorts water ski-ing over a shark.
And thank you for being the voice of reason as a tv critic. Too many tv critics are writing lop-sided opinions instead of true observations of where a show is headed. And even worse, some are writing flagrant spoilers, and sitting back and watching viewers get emotionally crazy.
I love Gilmore Girls and will stick with it to the end. I am just not sure if I will ever buy Seasons 6 and 7 on DVD.
Keep writing those realistic and spot on reviews. We truly appreciate them.
|
|
Sep 26, 2006 2:27 PM
|
|
I'm sorry, but I just can't help but disagree. I've always thought that Lorelai and Christopher belonged together, even when he was at his flakiest and most stupid. I kind of thought that the whole point of the Luke/Lorelai thing was the whole unrequited love thing. I was kind of excited when they finally hooked up, but it was too easy. Lorelai and Christopher have years of obsacles to overcome, and through everything they've developed a great friendship and have always been there for each other, to me that's a great love, possibly the love of their lives. To stop watching a show just because it doesn't go the way you want it to is really, really stupid. I for one will not stop watching until the show ends.
|
|
Sep 26, 2006 2:29 PM
|
|
|
