Archive for the ‘Lauren Graham’ Category

Review: Gilmore Girls 7.2 — “That’s What You Get, Folks, For Makin’ Whoopee”

October 4, 2006

Which is what I think Ms. Goldberg’s parents said.

Vague-ish Recap:  Is beside the point.

Comments:

1)  If I were Chris, I’d have pressed charges for assault.  What Luke
did was totally in character and totally, at this point, unforgivable.
He needs to take an anger management class at the very least because,  well, I don’t think he should be around anyone, much less Lorelai, much less any kids he might have eventually with Lorelai, much less April with that temper.  I now fear for April.

2) Loved Rory taking on the parent role in the instant-classic
Asian-themed Scene.  Clearly, Lorelai did the whole shebang as her
attempt to wallow with Rory over Logan and it backfired into a classic
Gilmore Girls Role Reversal, with Rory playing the Mom scolding her
kid for, well, sleeping with Married!Dean or something.  Rory,
however, was perhaps a bit *too* angry, going into Emilyland in her
rant afterward.

2a) Loved Lorelai’s response, “I’m not perfect.”

2b) Loved the part of Rory’s hurt where she admitted that she was hurt because, “you didn’t tell me.”

3) *FINALLY,* the costuming is starting to show an uptick.  Loved both Lorelai’s sporty brown dress with her ever-present long-dangly
necklace and both Rory’s blue dress that she wore to her first visit
to Lane and her red shirt that she wore to her second visit to Lane.

4) Sometimes, it pays to know the Spoiler, as with Lane, I kept
saying, “Nine-Month Parasite!”

5) Loved the contrast in attitudes between Lorelai and Luke and the
situation:  Luke was constantly in denial saying, “I’m okay with it,
I’m okay with it until Liz laid it all out for him, shattering his
delusion by saying, you never really moved in, (shades of Nicole) and
you never told her about April (zing!  bullseye!).  Luke’s reaction is
to decide that he and Lor were never meant to be together — cynical,
fatalist.  Lorelai, by contrast, appears to admit to Sookie and then
to Rory that she indeed would have gone off and eloped with Luke had
she not boinked Christopher.  Which makes Rory’s laying into her about it right, if perhaps too much in a more than a little Emily-like way.  While I wish that Lorelai were stronger and had been sure that she would have stayed broken up with Luke whether she slept with Chris or not, this way, IMO, leaves the chance for reconciliation open.

6)  Calling them brats (as I’ve seen a mad fan or two call them) and then objecting to it misses the point:  they ARE brats.  Rory calls Lor on it and says, you don’t wallow by eating Chocolate Chip Daddy Dough, Liz says, you shut her out.  And Lorelai herself admits, “I’m not perfect.”  (Compare that with Lane’s desire to be perfect before she becomes a mother.)

Despite Lorelai’s clearly poor choice to use Chris as her wallow comfort food, it’s through Lorelai that This Relationship (with Luke) can be saved — ummm, *if* Luke can take some anger management classes and/or start seeing a shrink.  Right now, I don’t trust him around anyone.

7) I wonder if the shout-out to Sandra Oh is going to result in a
shout-out to Gg on Grey’s Anatomy.

Episode Grade:  A+

  — Rob

PS:  I’ll be doing some kind of essay/think piece on Gg this season sometime soon depending on what episode they’re on when I write it — in addition to my bullet reviews, which often neglect the quality of performances and quality of script *besides* the plot.

LORELAI: I am so done with plans. I am never, ever making one again.   It never works.  I spend the day obsessing over why it didn’t work and what I could’ve done differently.  I’m analyzing all my shortcomings when all I really need to be doing is vowing to never, ever make a plan ever again, which I’m doing now, having once again been the innocent victim of my own stupid plans.  God, I need some coffee.

Advertisements

Initial Reactions: Gilmore Girls 7.1 — “The Long ‘Morrow”

September 27, 2006

I’m still mulling over the fantastic Palladino-less season premiere of Gilmore Girls, which to me exceeded expectations immensely and proved that Amy was right, the show can not just survive, but thrive without her.  But before I do an in-depth analysis (give me a day or three — I have four pages of notes), here are my initial ratings post from alt.tv.gilmore-girls and then my email to Hercules at AICN for her massively wrongheaded review of the episode.

First, my ratings post to atgg:

 5 out of 5, a perfect episode.

These are just my initial reactions as I’m still decompressing it in my head, but here’s a few of my initial thoughts:

1)  I read Ausiello’s misreading of the finer points of the episode at http://community.tvguide.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800005298#comments absolutely correctly.  Lauren was deliberately and marvelously underplaying.  Lorelai’s in a post-breakup depression, after all.

2)  Any accusations that the show has lost its zip are false.  The
show is still zippy.  Lorelai is not in a zippy place.  The zip comes
elsewhere until she has a zipless fuck one of these days.

3)  Loved that the crash wasn’t really Kirk’s fault, it was Taylor’s.  (PS:  Damn fool didn’t know that these cameras normally don’t come with flashbulbs for this very reason.)

4)  The car crashed into the very spot where Lor and Rory usually ate.  Had Lor and Luke not broken up and Lor just watched from the Diner, she would have died.  Also, way to make the metaphor about their breakup blatant.

5)  At the end, Luke learns the lesson of “Too little, too late.” It’s totally his fault.

Waaaaaaay more to come.   Blog-long.

  — Rob

 And then there was Herc’s insulting, totally off-base post at AICN http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30198 .  Totally pissed me off.

Subject:  Gilmore Girls and the Geek (Herc) Who Cried Shark

Date: 9-27-2006

To:  Herculesaicn@yahoo.com

From:  ShutUpRob@aol.com

Herc — you blew it. 

Gilmore Girls is *far* from over.  In fact, EW, Michael Ausiello, Kristin Veitch, a begrudging Matt Roush, and others got it right.  The show has sounded more like itself in the season premiere than it has in a couple of years.  The problem is that Lorelai is in a major depression after breaking up with the person she thought was the love of her life.  Lorelai justifiably has no zip.  Yes, she’s *supposed* to be the source of most of the zip of the show most of the time, but this was clearly, deliberately, NOT one of those times where she could be zippy and funny and Ambush Bug in drag.  Because of the nature of her story, she couldn’t possibly be the clown and Lauren played her part brilliantly and with profound, moving and very necessary sadness.  But Lorelai’s depression should not be mistaken for the show having no zip or verve, as so many critics who baldly misread the show have done in their terrible, nonsensical, even misleading reviews.

The zip — all of the amount of zip and life that the show normally has and the show has normally embodied in Lorelai, was indeed still in the show tonight — just elsewhere.  In Rory, with Bledel more energized than she’s been since the last time she understood her part in the show — which was season 3 — in Kirk and Babette, Luke whining that he can’t handle pressure.  It was an hilarious, bittersweet episode that was *better* than most episodes the Palladinos wrote last year (except for their sublime Partings and I Get a Sidekick Out of You), but that should be no surprise to anyone who actually watched season 6’s instant classic, Super Cool Party People, which was also written by tonight’s writer and the show’s new showrunner, David Rosenthal.  He has the patter down pat. 

And how about that hole in the side of the Diner being the metaphorical hole of Lor and Luke’s smashed relationship?  Shades of the structure of last season’s hole in the side of the Crap Shack.  Rosenthal has his sense of Gilmore structure, too — especially if one considers that if Lorelai had been watching the proceedings of the traffic light from her normal spot in the Diner because she was too busy making googly eyes with Luke, she would have *died.*  So breaking up with him saved her, metaphorically and literally.  Rosenthal *is* the show now, every bit as much and every bit as good at it as the Palladinos.

Herc, you’re the Geek Who Cried Shark — not to be believed on this subject.  You’re wrong about the continuing state of the best show on television and you owe the show a deep apology for bailing on it after just *one* episode that you clearly didn’t give a snowball’s chance in hell.

  Best,

  Rob Jensen,

  Straight Guy Who Loves Gilmore Girls

  shutuprob.wordpress.com

  (Also, I’m the shutuprob in Kristin’s E! Chats, but please don’t hold that against me.  😉  )

Note To Katie Couric on the Occasion of Her First Nightly Newscast:

September 7, 2006

Dear Katie,

Only Lauren Graham can pull off white blazers.

   Bestest,

   Rob

PS:  On the other hand, if you ever do want to go out in front of tens of millions of people again looking like the mutant love child of an Oompa Loompa (Wilder version) and a marshmallow that collided with a coffee filter, that’s the outfit to go with.  Especially the whole fake-tan thing that’s sooooooo ten minutes ago.

The Secret to Alka-Seltzer is . . .

August 31, 2006

. . . use less water.  I’ve often made the mistake of filling an 8-oz glass full of water and then plopping Alka-Seltzer Cold-Plus into it, thus making me pee a lot more often.  But the reality is, less water — about a third of a glass — will make the Alka-Seltzer more concentrated and it’ll hit you a lot faster and a lot better than if you fill any old glass to the top and then add the tablets.

Yep, I warned y’all I had a sinus infection.  This is what happens.  You get directions on how to use Alka-Seltzer.

NOTE:  Some of my comments sections I feel turn into columns in themselves.  I’ll try to retroactively recategorize the initial post in any given thread by the gist of the comments if/when things go in a specific direction, as they did here with discussion of Lauren Graham and her newly announced guest-stint on Studio 60. 

Y’know, if there was a bit more functionality to this place . . .

August 27, 2006

2911.jpg. . . I’d add this picture of Lauren (from an issue of Hollywood Life from a couple of years ago) to my logo at the top of every page.  IMO, it’s the single funniest, sexiest picture of Graham ever published and IMO, it doesn’t just represent my luurrrrrve of All Things Graham, it so exemplifies the sense of humor that I want the blog to have I’d pay money for an autographed version of it, just like thousands of others would. But I’ve been to the original photographer’s website and he doesn’t seem to be interested in selling any of his work.  IMO, the pic should be her head shot.

PS:  ABC is counterprogramming the Emmys’ stupidity with a showing of Pirates of the Carribean.  I suggest we bloggers and posters similarly show our disgust with the Emmys by blogging about Lauren all day.  Who’s with me?

My Problem With the Lorelai-Luke Shippers

August 25, 2006

Part 2 of my fall schedule review will come later, but I needed to put this exchange that I had with a good friend of mine from the atgg newsgroup into the blog for further discussion:
“Rob Jensen” <ShutUpRob@aol.com> wrote in message
news:rq2te2l23umd96dbsvg80kq2qij95e0jm9@4ax.com
Okay, I wanted to untie the gordian know of thread drift and
microarguments about April’s DNA testing and pose this:

Writers often write in shorthand because they know that they only 
have limited amount of space to write their stories.  More important
stories get more screentime and/or are written more realistically,
less important stories get less screen time and/or are written less
realistically.  It works the same way with characters — the more
important characters, like Lorelai, are three-dimensional and capable
of making even infuriating mistakes, the less important characters,
like Kirk, are more cartoonish but still capable of making mistakes
(and indeed, making mistakes is part of that kind of cartoonish
Harlequin’s function).  So my question is this:  How do we get, say,
the ‘shippers to allow the show the space to show Lorelai making a
monumental mistake — because IMO, that monumental mistake
(boinking Christopher), just minutes after her greatest triumph
(walking out on the increasingly asshatted Luke) is just a triumphant
illustration of the complexity of human nature?  I’m stumped by the
‘shippers’ inability to see past the ‘ships and see into the show’s
real strengths and meanings, such as Partings.  So what can we
do?  What can I do as a poster?  (And “Be less arrogant” isn’t 
helpful as, IMO, explaining when the other person is clearly wrong
while respecting his right to be wrong is going to be considered rude
and arrogant by the other person no matter what you do.)  I’m
talking more generally — what can we do to meet the ‘shippers head
on and have them stop attacking Lauren and David and Amy and all 
the rest — as the show certainly has several more years left in it
given what a rich foundation Amy built for it?
 — Rob

My friend Sharpe and I responded in the following exchange, his statements with the > and mine without.

>The simple answer is there is nothing you or anyone else can do to
>convince them otherwise.
>
>I agree with you that the Lorelai / Luke storyline is less important
>than the Lorelai / Rory story or even the Lorelai / Emily story. 
>However, others feel L/L is the core of the show and I don’t think it
>it is possible to prove them wrong, even if ASP joined the group and >said so.

Now that’s a *great* observation of the ‘shippers’ mentality.  And IMO, it’s worth pointing that it doesn’t even matter whether or not ASP joins the group, she’s always maintained in print that the show is first  and foremost about Lorelai and Rory. 

DeFacto, the interpretations of ALL Lor-Luke ‘shippers who ignore the lesser significance of the Lor-Luke ‘ship to the Lor-Rory ‘ship are therefore categorically, manifestly wrong on all levels.  It’s one of those things where it literally really is there in black and white, in many places.

>You can point to all the evidence you want and they will answer that 
>the L/Lstory is the one that they see as most important and they are
>right that it is the most important – to them.

And I could say that a lightbulb is a squid.  The blatant
misinterpretation of the show by the ‘shippers is the same exact thing, IMO — nonsense — or, if you will, surrealism, except surrealism without even its mischievous point.

>If this were a simple factual question like which story gets the most 
>screen time you could in theory add everything up and come to an
>objective answer. If the question is what story is most important,
>that is personal opinion.  Even the shows creator can only say what she views as most important.

I cannot disagree more — the show’s creator is the show’s owner in every moral and ethical sense and her intentions should not be so cavalierly disavowed, dismissed and discarded by the overly hormonal gaggle of teenage girls and the like who have baldly, willfully misinterpreted the show for the past year and a half.  And misinterpreted it at the beginning of season four.  And misinterpreted it at the end of season 2.  IMO, and I’m going to be as impolitic about it as I possibly can (and I know that sounds redundant coming from me), but they’ve got to get their heads out of their asses and accept the creator’s vision or they have no chance whatsoever of understanding the show. 

And, IMO, this is true of any movie or show that is not made in a
deliberately open-ended surrealistic mode (ie: Monty Python, The
Prisoner, Arrested Development).  We have plenty of counter-examples to show that the directors/creators’ rights to the moral and ethical intent of even *open-ended* works begins and ends with them.  Baz Luhrmann, for instance, stated outright in his commentary tracks for his Red Curtain trilogy that the purpose of these movies was NOT to tell the stories, it was show how these stories are worthy of contemporization using modern filmmaking techniques and styles.  Now, I loved the Christian and Satine Romance in Moulin Rouge!, but the Christian and Satine Romance was explicitly, by the creator’s own words, not the point of the story, not the focus of the story, even though it was the main plot.  Who am I or any fan to argue with the creator’s actual intent?  IMO, it boils down to this: the sheer arrogance by the Lor-Luke ‘shippers who think they’re entitled to reinterpret the show in violation of Amy and Dan’s intent — that, to me, is artistic perversion and artistic vandalism that’s not worth even an iota of respect.

  — Rob

Note:  I lightly edited some of my statements above for the sake of clarity and/or emphasis.

Could Someone Please Tell Me Why Lauren Graham’s Face Isn’t Plastered All Over the Newsstands?

August 23, 2006

I mean, really, why?  No Cosmo, no Redbook, no Family Circle.  What in the hell is wrong with a) Lauren’s publicists (answer: probably nothing, they just can’t their feets in the Conde Nast doors), b) Warners’ publicists (answer: they’ve got too many shows and movies to worry about one critically acclaimed, drop-dead gorgeous actress) and c) the dumbass editors of these dumbass magazines?  I mean, who the hell wants to see French Capital Hotel spread her legs *again?*  And come on, 87 billion covers of Jennifer Aniston is gilding the frickin’ lily — the frickin’ beautiful lily, albeit — but still, twenty of those covers could be taken from the artificial Vaughniston soap opera, given to Lauren Graham (thereby making all of us who are *starving* for Graham and Gilmore information darn skippy) and the magazines would *still* selll like hotcakes.  Because we wuvs us our Lauren Graham.  Really, we do.  That’s why Bad Santa is two years old and yet to be in the bargain basement of titles at your local Tarzhay.

So here’s an idea I’d like to see Vanity Fair do:  Lauren posing in an parody of VF’s French Capital Hotel cover, where the useless heiress was wearing jodhpurs and pretty much nothing else.  And I can see the headline for the cover:  “Who’da Thunkit?  This Gal Loves Horses!”

And she’s got the interesting upper-class social life that Vanity Fair loves to cover.  And she’s not blonde.  And she didn’t violate SEC Laws.  What a novelty that cover would be!

Why Some People Are Going To Hate Me

August 23, 2006

The sixth season of Gilmore Girls was one of its best because of the season finale.  Let’s discuss my view of season 6 over the next several days, with the caveat that I do NOT tolerate the shippers’ profound misinterpretation of the show.  If you aren’t talking about how the show is about Lorelai and Rory, not Lorelai and Luke, then you’ve missed the point.  And we’ll have to talk about that. 

Oh, and by the way, I loved the sixth season of Buffy, too.

Conan Introduces the 2006 Emmy Awards

August 21, 2006

“Good Evening, Ladies and Gentlemen and Leonid, I’m sorry to have to break it to the thousands of you here who are boxtoxed within an inch of your lives and scoping out the best looking runner to fill your seat when you go to the bathroom — but the Emmys have been cancelled on account of pure and utter stupidity.

Don’t get me wrong, the ceremony will still go on as scheduled, but it will be completely devoid of taste, tact and worst of all, merit. After all, Ellen Burstyn got nominated for fourteen seconds of screen time.  Fourteen seconds! My fluffer got more screen time than that in Edward Penishands Twelve: Edward Takes Flanhattan.

I mean, come on — Kevin James? Excuuuuuuuuuuuse me, but just showing up and making your marks doesn’t fulfill the requirements of artistic excellence — otherwise, we’d all have the statues on our mantelpieces — including Carrot Top.  And that would be wrong in oh, so many ways.

And helllllooooooo, you over-the-hill bastards — take some frickin’ viagra, will ya? Okay, take some more frickin’ viagra, will ya?!  ‘Cause, um, you like, TOTALLY blew the category of Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy.

Stockard Channing? Umm, guys, Out of Practice wasn’t about the repeal of the 22nd Amendment. And it got cancelled!

Lisa Kudrow? Come on, we all loved her as Phoebe Buffay — and nobody does squirm with the most deliciously pregnant of uncomfortably long pauses like she does, (umm, except for this audience right about now) but come on — The Comeback was too ironically named! Because it was cancelled!  I mean, before becoming a hit.

And then there’s Debra Messing. Poor, poor Debra Messing.  I remember you calling me last year when you missed Seder at Larry David’s house for no good reason — Okay, I understand, you couldn’t very well pass up a 20% discount on a Birkin Bag, but still — your performances this year on Will and Grace sounded exactly like when you blew off Larry David. And you were cancelled!  Okay, sure, you wanted the show to end last year, but why show up this year when you weren’t even interested in the show to begin with?  And why did you accept the nomination ANYway if you couldn’t be bothered to “show up?”  Oh, I mean “wake up.”

And poor Jane Kaczmarek — the Academy couldn’t be bothered to give her an Emmy when she actually deserved it several years ago for the flashback episode everybody keeps talking about (and who won that year? Hmph. Don’t know. Don’t care, Patricia Heaton. Either way, it wasn’t Lauren Graham.) So this year, they’re giving her the pity-{bleep)k award for selling the clothes off their backs for charities. A noble cause, yes, but not in the least a reason to give a person an Emmy for mere journeyman work.

And finally, we have poor Julia Louis-Dreyfus, just sitting there wondering, “Why am I here? My show is still running! Stop trying to kill it, you ass-kissing bastards!” I’m sure Marcia Cross, Emily VanCamp, Teri Hatcher and especially, Lauren Graham, who has not once been nominated for an Emmy, are all wondering the same thing. Why can’t the Emmys nominate the women — the actors — who did the actual outstanding work as Lead Actresses in their field of Comedy? It seems to me that nobody in the academy listened to Candace Bergen when she told them more than a decade ago to stop voting for her out of the very bad habit of liking her.  Instead, she called for them to (vote for Helen Hunt) seek out excellence wherever they find it on the dial, which I think Candace would agree with me should include looking at such places as the WB, UPN and their line-dancing mutant love-child, the CW.  And to basic cable operators like the Sci-Fi Channel, whose groundbreaking, unapologetically political Battlestar Galactica went totally unnoticed.  (“‘Time Magazine’s Best TV Show of the Year?’  Who cares?  We’re the Emmys!”)  A token nomination and win for Tony Shalhoub for Monk doesn’t solve anything. A token nomination and win for Michael Chiklis for The Shield doesn’t solve anything. The rules are still broken.  The nomination process is still broken and should not be acknowledged nor accepted for anything when they can foist the nomination of a fourteen-second performance on us and Lauren Graham has no statue.

Shame on you, Academy, shame on you. And if I win for Best Comedy/Variety series (which I won’t, because it’s Colbert’s year), I’d say Shame on you, again, Academy. Until you can figure out a way to give an Emmy to Lauren Graham, who’s continually in her prime as Lorelai Gilmore, quite probably the greatest female character ever created for television — and I mean that, you Buffy fans, so stop sharpening your stakes — then shame on you. 

Thank you and good night.”