Gilmore Girls too… girly?
Some of the comments coming out of response to the New York Times article on Gilmore Girls are really great.
One of the main things to come out of it all is how Lorelai and Rory have turned from "strong women" into "girly girls", so to speak.
Our Girls have turned from strong, stubborn, independant women, who often make mistakes but always have each other, strive for difference and always have their wit into soppy man-obsessed, designer-clothes-wearing, weak, unfunny girls.
What happened to our Girls? Is it the perspective of a man as producer that has changed the show? Has Rosenthal mistakenly, and perhaps inadvertantly, stripped Gilmore Girls of the true essence of its appeal - true strong witty women?
What do you think? Do you think it’s the plot alone? Is it deeper, to the core of the writing and portrayal of the characters?
Tags: gilmore girls, writing, rosenthal, tv, criticism, tv critics
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Gilmore Girls, Gossip
16 opinions for Gilmore Girls too… girly?
Janey
Nov 7, 2006 at 11:43 pm
I think the NYT writer was on the money in some ways, although what I heard her saying about Lorelai is that she didn’t want Lorelai to go through a process of emotional self-discovery, becuase if she was to introspect past her fast-talking to the heart of why she feels the need to talk so fast, that process would turn her into a conventional, “banal” character.
I can’t say that I agree with this entirely. I don’t think that Lorelai growing and developing as a character has to equate with her losing her uniqueness. This is a wierd comparison, but think of Sam Malone from Cheers.
He grew as a character, and dealt with his sex addiction, yet the writers of the show refused to have him run off into the sunset with Diane at the end of the series, thus, he stayed somewhat true to his character while still managing to grow and change at the same time. A character who doesn’t change at least a little over the course of a seven-year period is presumably going to be a two-dimensional charicature, or very, very boring to watch.
With all that said, though, I think there are some huge weaknesses in the writing of the show that can’t be ignored. The wit is gone. It’s just gone. The dialogue that must have been the unique brain child of the Sherman-Palladinos left along with them. Gina Fattore in the Great Stink came the closest to getting it right, but none of the other episodes have even come close.
Beyond the dialogue and absence of challenging references, the character and plot development has been bizzare. Lorelai’s transition from engaged to Luke to running into Christopher’s arms isn’t necessarily all that unlikely, given the fact that Lorelai is extremely out of touch with herself emotionally, but it just wasn’t fleshed out properly, plain and simple.
Another character that has gone in a strange direction is Logan. We were given no real reason as to why he did a complete 180 from wanting to throw away the Huntzberger destiny to corporate cheesehead, and what’s up with the corporate cheesehead bit?
If the Huntzbergers are to be modelled after the Sulzbergers of the NYT, then Logan should be doing some writing right now (as the fictional character Mitchum H. did in his formative years). Also, his strengths as a writer were emphasized previously, and when he had to talk to Mitchum’s corporate drones in “Partings” about synergistic media ventures (or something to that effect) he remarked to Rory that he could “Hear his soul dying.” So, how did he get from point A to point B with little to no explanation?
And these are really just a couple of examples. The list could go on and on. Emily is nowhere to be seen, which is sad. I think she was my favourite character on the show, just because she was so well-written.
To conclude this long and rambling post, I hope that this season will be the last for the Gilmore Girls, so that the show won’t have to suffer the indignity of being further defiled before it’s put out of its misery.
Diana
Nov 8, 2006 at 12:35 am
I totaly agree with you
Rachel
Nov 8, 2006 at 12:40 am
I agree the show has changed. But I don’t think it’s because of Rosenthal, I think the show changed after season 4. First they changed the “layer”, Gilmore Girls had this yellow - reddish layer (autumn colours) and these seasons it changed to blue – greenish.
Second I do think Lorelai and Rory changed from strong and smart woman to …eh… something else… They just don’t look like THE Gilmore Girls we know and love from the first seasons…
Maybe it is because Rory left for Yale and we don’t see so much Rory – Lorelai conversations as we know them for, maybe we miss the visits to the diner, the strange food habits, the movie nights, the crazy town, the dreams or maybe there really is too much drama or maybe it’s something deeper…
I’m a real Gilmore Girl Fan, straight from season 1. I still love the show very much, but I did noticed the ‘mystery’ change…
Veronica
Nov 8, 2006 at 4:08 am
I totally agree with you, Janey!
I also hope that this Lorelai-Chris-thing will be over soon!
Mimi
Nov 8, 2006 at 4:30 am
I totally agree, I think the show has changed fundamentally from what it set out to be at the beginning.
I think one thing that was always clear is that Lorelai had rejected the wealthy, preppy life-style that her parents tried to foist on her and all her struggles through out the show were to demonstrate that there was more satisfaction and fulfilment found in a simple life in a small town than the glitz of her parents life.
This started to change in season five and six as Rory began to embrace her grandparents values more and more and the hook up with Logan was the final nail in the coffin. She chose a Huntzberger and the life-style that comes with that.
Now we have Lorelai and Christopher, a man who has more than one thing in common with Logan (remember the episode when Christopher went to Logans flat and they completely bonded) and finally Lorelai has also abandoned all her initial values for the life her parents always wanted for her.
This is not in keeping with a character that stood for everything her parents didn’t and the show is suffering for it as Lorelai has completely lost her spark. The two characters have now fully embraced what they used to ridicule and the show suffers because of it.
Sam
Nov 8, 2006 at 4:44 am
I totally agree Mimi. These girls were not for the self aggrandizing rich set, they showed us the joys of living in Stars Hollow, and were so down to earth and quirky, like the town
Huntzbergers influence on Rory I hoped would be shortlived, and she would give him her values. Instead, she is a corporate wife in the making, and is so impressed by his bravado (Captain of Industry indeed)
As for Chris, he and Logan could be brothers they are so alike.
I don’t believe I would have loved the show if it was about the elder Gilmores, their offspring and their rich boyfriends . I fell in love with the characters, the wit and quirkiness of Stars Hollow.
Remember ages ago at the Bracebridge dinner, when Richard and Emily were starting to become proud of Lorelai’s life, and the friends she’d made, and they started to embrace Stars Hollow too.That has all gone now. It is life with the shallow rich, and the spoilt.
Sonia
Nov 8, 2006 at 7:00 am
I too agree with Rachel. Gilmore Girls is so refreshing, I love the show so much but I do miss the trips to the diner, both of them giving Luke a hard time. I guess it is not realistic for it to always be like that. I do hope though that they can in some way recapture what was once there.
rachel
Nov 8, 2006 at 10:04 am
I think it has changed but it changed last season too. The misogyny present in the NYT article astounded me ” Indeed, that was the charm of the old show: women, fundamentally women without men, were compelled to talk as fast as they could to keep their loneliness at bay. The virtue of Ms. Sherman-Palladino’s shticky style was that it created characters who were new to television. In their purest incarnations, Lorelai and Rory shared the witty woman’s challenge: to architect a wall of words so high and so thick that no silence, no stares, no intimations of mortality or even love could penetrate it. ”
Was that the charm? The premise? I don’t think this author knows what they are talking about.
DA
Nov 8, 2006 at 11:18 am
I totally and completely agree with the article!! Where has the funny, witty, charming dialoge and plot outline gone? It is way too focused on the love life of Lorelai. Even Rory has been out of the mix. The show has turned into “Girl”- losing all original sense of Gilmore and focus on the relationship between mother and dauther turning into simply Lorelai’s love life. I miss the random, yet appropriately placed pop-culture references, and the wittiness of not only Lorelai and Rory, but of all the characters. Even Emily has lost her witchy touch. There is no banter, no rants (well, none like we are used to, they have gotten annoying to the point of “would you just shut up PLEASE!!”). Most of all, I miss the lalas and the music. If there is any at all, it seems out of place. Fans no longer need to be able to think fast when watching it. It moves grudgingly along and the only reason many of us are staying true and religiously watching the show is because we want Luke and Lorelai back together- instead of a refreshing, enjoyable show. That’s just sad.
I agree with Mimi- what happened to the old Lorelai??
I also agree with Rachel- The show just hasn’t been the same since Rory went off to college. Although it did reveal that Lorelai was so dependent on the presence of her daughter that the seasons afterward have shown her trying to fill that void with anything and everything possible. “Maybe it is because Rory left for Yale and we don’t see so much Rory – Lorelai conversations as we know them for, maybe we miss the visits to the diner, the strange food habits, the movie nights, the crazy town, the dreams or maybe there really is too much drama or maybe it’s something deeper…” -yes, exactly.
dar
Nov 8, 2006 at 1:20 pm
agree.they right :( .
tizzie
Nov 8, 2006 at 1:21 pm
The show really changed with the first rift between Rory and Lorelai at the end of Season 4. The show started out on the premise of a single mom and her unique bond with her daughter. The two complimented each other because they were so alike yet so different. Lorelai has always been kind of childish and selfish where Rory was very mature and reliable. They were alike in the things they enjoyed and the life they lived together. Even after she moved to college, they always had each other.
After two years of off and on fighting, I can see how they’ve grown apart, but I swear the only time you get to see them together anymore are in shots where they’re on the phone having a ridiculous conversation that plays out too long. Lorelai is not witty anymore, she’s just goofy. And Rory isn’t amusing, she’s dry. The dynamic has changed because they no longer get along or even have much of a relationship anymore.
I somehow enjoy how Luke has softened up since he’s had his relationship with April but I can’t help but feel this is like when the Brady bunch was going downhill and they introduced that little cousin with the glasses. And the the series died. At the same time, I miss his gruffness. I miss his dark sarcasm.
And Kirk isn’t even funny anymore because he’s strange. He’s just a jerk now.
I find myself turning off the TV in disappointment ever single Tuesday. Granted, I don’t want the show to go away, but it seems as if the spark has died. Possibly we should start a forum where we brainstorm how to get it back and maybe the writers will tap into some of genius :D
Lindsay
Nov 8, 2006 at 2:56 pm
It is no longer socially acceptable to be a strong, independent womyn. 6-7 years ago there was still a need for feminist dialogue in the media - but that femininity has become a 1980’s stuff obsessed, man hungry stereotype. As an educator, I have seen the drift over the last few years and I have seen womyn (especially young ones) moving away from independence into the arms of the stereotype. Soap Opera’s and tight pants are back in style.
It seems to me that the writers are spending more time “fixing LUKE’s character” from the total and complete loser and tool he became last season. They are spending an awfully large amount of time building him back up - the show is not about him!!!
The Girls have become Girls - “growing up” is defined on the show as womyn who settle… who settle for men, who settle with their parents (Lar is getting along very well wih her folks!) and the conflict is gone… the real conflict, the reality conflict; it’s like the writer’s realize how old Lorelei is getting - and yet no one is mentioning it!! She is almost 40… why can’t a womyn be strong, stable and self aware - like many womyn out there are, and committed… and loved…. and interesting.
As soon as happiness comes around - people say the show is boring. I find exciting things in my life everyday - nd I’m happy…
Also, I agree with everyone who says the show has lost it’s wit - where are the Proust references!!!!
Lindsay
Nov 8, 2006 at 2:57 pm
BTW:
What happened to continuity on the show?
Luke made some comment about thinking maybe a captain could marry them - no duh, he WAS married by a captain… I think he’d remember that!!!
Dennis
Nov 9, 2006 at 5:13 am
Too girly . . . interesting choice of words. There is still a billboard up at my train station from before the CW launch with AB’s picture (in a fur, thank you very much!) with the caption “Free to be . . . girly”.
Now maybe they they were just playing on the title of the show. Or perhaps the CW was aware of a new direction for the show and were trying to entice a new audience to tune in?
In any event, the show seems to be moving in slow motion. Where is the repartee? Is Lorelai In Love suddenly struck dumb? Has Moonstruck Rory forgotten all her cultural references? Shoot, if I want to see Dawson’s Creek, there’s reruns on ABC Family. Better still, if I want to see the REAL Gilmore Girls, THEIR reruns are on ABC Family.
Rachel
Nov 10, 2006 at 6:21 am
…. or when was the last time Rory read a book?
Tara Ashley
Nov 11, 2006 at 6:18 pm
I think it’s interesting how both characters have changed. Rory, I feel, has changed in a believable way. She couldn’t be a bookwork mommy’s girl forever. She’s matured gracefully, and yes, she has a rich boyfriend, but I think her fundamental qualities are still there. She’s not going to drop her dreams for Logan. She’s just found true love, you know?
Lorelai, however, has changed in strange ways. She’s not as down-to-earth as she used to be. Does anyone else feel like that? Like she’s just nto as accessible? I feel like she’s lost her depth, but this could be because they haven’t really fleshed out the whole L&L breakup (how does she really feel? how could she move on that quickly? etc.) I don’t know, I feel like there’s something vital that’s missing in her character. Maybe an L&L reconciliation will light the spark again?
I’m not giving up on the show just yet. That’s not fair for us to do- there have only been six episodes! I don’t think I could ever completely abandon the show, but IF the C&L thing drags on and if the C&L&L “pivotal moment” in the 13th episode is poorly executed, I WILL be truly dissappointed!
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: