In This Section
|
« Gilmore Girls
October 31: 2006: Two Morrow
Normally, I love to write about reruns, especially my favorite show. There’s sitting back all comfy on the couch, knowing what’s going to happen next, but keeping an eye out for some of the things I might have missed. (This is GG, after all, and no mater how devoted you are, something great was going to zoom right past you.) It’s fun catching those fly-by slys or finally understanding one of Michel’s bizarre jokes. (Am I the only one who sometimes has a hard time understanding his over-the-top French accent. Good thing for closed captioning!)
But this was a repeat of “The Long Morrow,” the season premiere, and the first ep written by new show runner David Rosenthal. The first time it aired, there was no sitting cushy, there were no snacks and there was certainly no talking out loud. Not even during commercials. I was watching this ep the way Rory reads Camus under a tree on campus -- with complete concentration and absolutely no distractions. Do you remember how nervous I was about this episode? What was going to happen to my girls?
Before the rerun started, I wondered how I would feel about re-watching an ep that was so important, so wrought with agita when it first aired. I have to admit, it was still pretty tough. There’s something very heartbreaking about watching Lorelai and Luke in visible pain, no matter if you’ve seen it before. I was still reeling from the agonizing look on Lorelai’s face, how she couldn’t get dressed and out of Christopher’s apartment fast enough. And how much did your heart break when Luke pulled up at Lorelai's house with a full truck, ready to elope and take her on any honeymoon she wanted? Only to be curtly told “I slept with Christopher.” If that’s not a knife to the chest, I don’t know what is. Still felt that way.
Thank god for comic relief. Babbette washing her “unmentionables” in Lorelai’s house! (Is it wrong that I am picturing a week’s worth of granny panties but have a sneaking suspicion she had her lacey black thongs set on the delicate cycle?) I’d spent most of the first time time analyzing the meaning behind Kirk crashing Taylor’s 1964 Thunderbird into the diner, but tonight I was able to enjoy the simply hilarity. (I’d forgotten he had on leather driving gloves. A pair of shades might have been more helpful.) And you knew there would be some sort of racquetball “incident” once Lorelai and Rory took to the court. (Though Lorelai getting hit in the eye probably meant more than I initially realized. After all, she’s partly to blame for being a smidge blind to her role in the breakdown of her relationship.)
To end on a somewhat happy note: I want more Paris. Out of all the characters, the rudest one has changed the most. And not like you’d think: she’s a lot snarkier in the funniest way possible, and even more obnoxious that you could ever imagine. Students, professors, parents -- this girl is no holds-barred with brilliant barbs, intimidating insults and horrendous haughtiness. And I have to say she looks fantastic. Maybe it’s the blonder hair and the more confident attitude. (Perhaps being without Doyle suits her better?) She’s one of the best written characters on the show.
I’d love to hear what you caught the second time around. Write and let me know.
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2006 9:19 PM
|
I've always thought that Liza Weil should have been cast as Rory.
She's much better at the Lorelai-type rapid-fire dialogue than half-mumbling Alexis Bledel.
|
|
Nov 1, 2006 7:52 AM
|
|
Totally agree. I've always thought that the only reason Alexis was cast was because of her resemblence to Lauren Graham. She is definately the weakest cast member acting-wise.
|
|
Nov 1, 2006 11:55 AM
|
This is my first post.
I agree that Liza would be better at the "rapid-fire dialogue, but I feel she was cast perfectly as Paris and not Rory. The resemblence thing is important, and I don't think she and Lauren's character would have good on-screen chemistry...her persona is a little overbearing.
|
|
Nov 1, 2006 7:24 PM
|
|
I almost didn't watch this episode since so much of the new season has been so sad, but at least in this one we still had some interaction between Lorelai and Luke and still held onto the possibility that Christopher would be only a one night stand, but that was not to be. I feel so much of this fall has been like last fall when Lorelai was without Rory, this year she is without her other rock, Luke. So I watched for the humor that the other interactions supplied - Lorelai with Babette, Paris with Rory, Lorelai with Rory - all with the conversations we have grown to love over the years, still feeling as true as ever. And can Taylor ever have a plan work as intended? We can only hope after the next few episodes we can begin to get our hope back for Lorelai and Luke and the original characters developed over the years.
|
|
Nov 1, 2006 10:11 PM
|
|
Second veiwing.. I still think Luke make the biggest mistake of his life. I know L&L are the end game but I'm not sure Lorelai is getting a prize.
|
|
Nov 2, 2006 8:55 AM
|
I agree with the comments on Rory as opposed to Paris, i.e. Rory (Alexis Bledel) is no match for Paris (Liza Weil) in the rapid fire delivery, but the initial casting is right on. Rory was 14 or 15 at the beginning of the series and they were looking for this brainy, yet demure little girl devoid of the brashness of Paris. Rory's character did not evolve as well as that of Paris now that they are young women in their twenties. Liza is perfect in her role (remember in S6 when she blasted Lorelai about Rory's "dropping out", barely acknowledging poor Luke. As much as I hated S6, moments like that made it worth watching). To sum it up, Alexis was perfect for younger Rory but not so much for older Rory.
As to Lorelai's actions in the finale (and beyond). I think this will baffle me to the end of my days unless Amy SP and Co. would care to enlighten us as to what they were thinking and cliffhanger does not cut it. With a good dose of creative talent, there were so many other ways to cause a rift between L/L without dragging the insipid character of Christopher into the mix. If they ever plan to reunite L/L as it was meant to be, they would have to make Luke a heck of an understanding and forgiving guy or a very desperate one (the latter is not much of a choice) and Lorelai a very determined mama to get her guy back at all cost. If there is anything in S7 that should spark our interest, it is this development.
MHO on the matter.
|
|
Nov 2, 2006 12:03 PM
|
I agree with the comments on Rory as opposed to Paris, i.e. Rory (Alexis Bledel) is no match for Paris (Liza Weil) in the rapid fire delivery, but the initial casting is right on. Rory was 14 or 15 at the beginning of the series and they were looking for this brainy, yet demure little girl devoid of the brashness of Paris. Rory's character did not evolve as well as that of Paris now that they are young women in their twenties. Liza is perfect in her role (remember in S6 when she blasted Lorelai about Rory's "dropping out", barely acknowledging poor Luke. As much as I hated S6, moments like that made it worth watching). To sum it up, Alexis was perfect for younger Rory but not so much for older Rory.
As to Lorelai's actions in the finale (and beyond). I think this will baffle me to the end of my days unless Amy SP and Co. would care to enlighten us as to what they were thinking and cliffhanger does not cut it. With a good dose of creative talent, there were so many other ways to cause a rift between L/L without dragging the insipid character of Christopher into the mix. If they ever plan to reunite L/L as it was meant to be, they would have to make Luke a heck of an understanding and forgiving guy or a very desperate one (the latter is not much of a choice) and Lorelai a very determined mama to get her guy back at all cost. If there is anything in S7 that should spark our interest, it is this development.
MHO on the matter.
|
|
Nov 2, 2006 12:03 PM
|
Quick question. How long has Luke waited for Lorelai? Seems like quite a while. I didn't start viewing the show until a couple of seasons ago, so I'm not sure how long Luke obsessed over Lorelai.
One thing I'm amazed by after watching the past season's finale and the episodes of this season is that no one has called Lorelai on the ridiculous ultimatum of pick me over your daughter. Did Luke not just find out he had kid? I mean let's consider this, if anyone had ever forced Lorelai to choose between Jr. and themselves, who do we expect her to pick.
I don't have kids and am not in a near marriage relationship. But I can't imagine just finding out I have a child that is almost a teenager and being forced to pick between her and my fiance.
I know Luke should have been open about April but Lorelai should have told him how she felt. I like Luke's character and would love to see more of his interactions with his daughter. However the show is called Gilmore Girls.
|
|
Nov 2, 2006 9:06 PM
|
|
MrJonesto answer your question, Luke's attraction to Lorelai - I would not call it an obsession - has been going on since the beginning of the show, that is what made the show so fascinating and that is why the show has lasted that long. When he finally had the courage to tell her his feelings at the end of Season 4, he said he had feeling for her for 8 years. She on the other hand, all of this time, went out with other guys but flirted with Luke constantly sometimes shamelessly. She also interfered in his personal affairs and relationships constantly causing other women in Luke's life (Rachel, Nicole) to be jealous and finally end the relationship. It's like she wanted him to be at her beck and call and not have a personal life of his own while she had various romances. Selfish? I'd say. I totally agree that this ultimatum in S6 finale was ridiculous, who responds well to ultimatum ? (poor guy finally responded but too late for her). This whole fiasco is ridiculous and has ruined the show.
|
|
Nov 3, 2006 8:32 AM
|
|
|
