A Meathead Watches Gilmore Girls (“The Breakup, Part 2” and “The Third Lorelai”)

Avatar

Sam Wilkinson

According to a faithful reader, I'm Ordinary Times's "least thoughtful writer." So I've got that going for me, which is nice.

Related Post Roulette

8 Responses

  1. Avatar Glyph says:

    Anyway, she is a woman that is comically awful to Emily. Lorelai delights in seeing her mother chopped down a peg but it is quite clear immediately that this woman’s open hostility toward Emily goes far beyond the often bitter back-and-forths between Lorelai and Emily. She is a terrible person in every imaginable way.

    Ah, the old TV shortcut of generating sympathy for a previously-unsympathetic character (PUC), by introducing a MORE unsympathetic character (MUC).

    Not that it’s never valid, and it generally “works”, but it kind of irks me sometimes, because it’s common and often transparent, so it can feel manipulative and cheap.

    I prefer when a PUC can be made somewhat sympathetic more through their own words/actions/backstory (though to be fair, sometimes the MUC *is* the PUC’s backstory, which may be partly the case here?)Report

    • Avatar Sam Wilkinson in reply to Glyph says:

      I watched a movie once that might have been called Animal Room. It starred Matthew Lillard as a bad guy. Throughout the entire movie, we’re constantly reminded that Matthew Lillard is a bad guy. He might as well have worn a sandwich board that read, “I Am A Bad Guy.” But that didn’t stop him from snapping the neck of a baby bunny three-quarters of the way through the movie. Because he was a bad guy. And in case we’d forgotten, now we could be sure.

      It was such a stupid movie.Report

      • Avatar Glyph in reply to Sam Wilkinson says:

        That’s…sorta hilarious, actually.

        After I wrote my comment, I realized my new canonical example of how to do it right, in particular in a See You Next Tuesday situation, is the TV handling of Cersei on GoT.

        Yes, she’s a terrible, awful person; even more so when drunk.

        But there have been times where, through Lena Headey’s terrific performance, (and Charles Dance et al’s, as all the people who ‘created’ her), and via the vivid rendering of a world in which her (and any woman’s) absolute best bet is to be, at best, a pawn of others, the show has generated the occasional moment of my sympathy for a character you’d normally think it impossible to feel for.Report

      • Avatar Kimmi in reply to Sam Wilkinson says:

        Glyph,
        I rather prefer the “but everyone loves a wise-ass” way of generating sympathy. A good person? No, but definitely an Entertaining person. And for that, we forgive much, if not all.Report

  2. Avatar Mike Schilling says:

    L1’s giving L3 a buttload of money to do whatever with made no sense anyway. What an even semi-real person would do in that situation would be to establish an educational trust (which still cuts the enforced bond between Emily and the Girls). But then we wouldn’t have the subplot about L2’s mixed feelings. Just the usual sloppy logic we’ve come to expect.

    But Emily’s warning to L2 about how money will change her relationship with L3, where she’s very clearly talking about herself and L2, was very nicely written and played.Report

    • Avatar Kimmi in reply to Mike Schilling says:

      I’ve seen weirder, believe you me.
      In this day and age, CEOs give their kids money to start businesses using child labor (orphans, really — they work cheap).
      … or maybe that’s just who I know.
      (granted, this isn’t “here’s the money, I’m running away now.” this is helping them create a competent business plan)Report

  3. Avatar kaitcat says:

    “But, because I just can’t quit this show” — wondered how long it would take you to write that line. Lol.

    Join you wholeheartedly in your hatred of the uselessness that is Max,except you glossed over the kissing that Lane interrupted last episode. That was hot in a very PG-13 sort of way. A girl person can excuse a lot when just the kissing is that steamy good.

    I’m still enjoying seeing the show through your new eyes. Keep ’em coming. 😉

    DawnReport

  4. Avatar Mike Schilling says:

    Richard’s mother witnesses this argument and decides that Lorelai is not responsible enough to oversee the money, withdrawing her offer for it.

    I’m not sure. Remember Emily’s wailing to Richard that the money would mean they’d lose Lorelai and Rory for good? I suspect that as a result he persuaded L1 to take back her offer, and she merely used their arguing as a plausible excuse.Report