Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life

photo courtesy of usmagazine.com

SPOILER WARNING. ALSO, I KNOW IT’S NOT A MOVIE, BUT GET OVER YOURSELF.

     Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life is a four-part revival of the original well-beloved Gilmore Girls TV series. The show’s original run ended amidst controversy, as it was the first and only season without creators Amy Sherman-Palladino and Daniel Palladino at the helm. Netflix brought the duo back for a proper ending in A Year in the Life. Unfortunately, A Year in the Life is anything but a proper ending; it’s an unnatural extension to the show whose charm isn’t enough to overcome the disservice it does to its own characters.

     The four episodes of A Year in the Life take place over the course of one year, with each episode named after the season in which its events occur. Lorelei is struggling to cope with changes at work and at home while she maintains a committed relationship with Luke. Rory, meanwhile, balances a freelance writing career with a no-strings affair with Logan, who’s engaged. She quickly finds herself unable to handle the competing pressures. Emily Gilmore, having lost her husband, makes some drastic changes to adapt to the next stage of her life. Together, the Gilmore girls learn lessons about family, the nature of time, and what really matters.

photo courtesy of hollywoodreporter.com

     A Year in the Life is certainly fun. It captures something of that bizarre atmosphere of the original show that captivated fans. The essence of Gilmore Girls is all there: the quirky antics of the townspeople, drama between generations, and relationship drama. The hallmark of Gilmore Girls, of course, is its fast-paced, brilliantly witty and hilarious dialogue. A Year in the Life gets back into that rhythm, even if it feels a bit rusty along the way.

     The best thing about the revival is that it allows the viewer to re-enter the world of the show. Stars Hollow, it seems, is alive and well, picking up as if nothing had happened at all. The ability to recapture that feeling is enough to merit a return to the show, and even enough to enjoy it, perhaps.

     And yet the revival is also markedly different from the original. This makes sense, as the showrunners probably felt a need to differentiate the series stylistically. The title sequences are entirely new and fresh (and, by the way, a bit odd), and the directing seems to take pains to be distinctive—at times sticking out like a sore thumb.

photo courtesy of vulture.com

     A Year in the Life is, at times, hilarious. Laugh-out-loud funny. And what’s more, it’s a good-natured funny—Gilmore Girls retains its ability to jab without really tearing anyone down. That’s a refreshing taste in today’s comedy landscape.

     More interestingly, it boasts some truly interesting family dynamics. The show’s ability to spin complicated webs into satisfying, often explosive conclusions is visible here. Emily Gilmore’s character arc is the most well-developed and appropriate. The loss of her husband, which sends ripples through the rest of her familial relationship, is touchingly and tastefully handled. The real-life death of Edward Herman, whose presence on the show was vital, is given an in-world address that honors his legacy.

     Lauren Graham is the clear star of the show, as she was in the original seven seasons. Her charm and talent as an actress grace the screen. More importantly, her character is the driving force behind the show, and gives viewers someone to root for.

photo courtesy of ew.com

     Unfortunately, that’s about where the good stops for A Year in the Life.

     Where to start with the myriad story problems that plague this revival? The format is a decent candidate. The revival departs from the original show’s 44-min episode format in favor of, on average, hour-and-a-half-episodes. This format, which provides the show a real opportunity, instead only highlights the storytelling weaknesses of the showrunners.

     Rather than fill the extra time with more content—say, thematic development, or some more of the many characters fans love—the show seems to stretch to fit just the same amount of content into the longer format. Into the mix, the showrunners inject long and seemingly meaningless interludes. Some are at least useless plotlines, like Rory’s crazy-book-lady struggles, but others are simply huge blocks of mindless material, like the Stars Hollow musical.

photo courtesy of variety.com

     If Lauren Graham is as dazzling as ever, Alexis Bledel’s acting, already rough toward the end of the show, has continued to drop. She was often wooden, stiff—and in a show that depends upon wit, that’s catastrophic.

     Most of the show’s cast (which is fairly large) return for the revival—even cast members who have gone on to much bigger and better things. Instead of being earnestly utilized, however, they seem to be sprinkled here and there in brief, choppy segments. The actors, many of whom are exceptional talents, are critically underused. Milo Ventimiglia, for instance, plays fan-favorite Jess, but appears only in a few short scenes. Melissa McCarthy, who admittedly scheduled the shoot around other conflicts, is in one (!) scene, and her noticeable absence is explained away with an out-of-character wave of the scriptwriting wand.

photo courtesy of elle.com

     Speaking of out-of-character, A Year in the Life repeats some of Gilmore Girls’ biggest mistakes by forcing characters into completely contrary situations. Lorelei Gilmore’s post-funeral lapse isn’t her typical flawed and complicated familial reaction—it’s a ridiculous scenario created to raise tension arbitrarily. Her Wild adventure is overlong, not to mention bizarre considering who Lorelei Gilmore is.

     The big elephant in the room is Rory Gilmore, the undoubted villain of the entire series at this point. She was frequently obnoxious or enraging during the latter half of the regular series run, but thanks to A Year in the Life she’s gone full Anakin Skywalker. I sympathize; it’s always difficult to maintain the balance between “flawed” and “unlikeable.” But it’s been some time since Rory was likeable. I’d have sympathy if the flaws were at least new ones, but A Year in the Life sees her stagnant in the same behavior from before—despite a now-invalidated choice to the contrary at the end of the original series.

photo courtesy of elitedailey.com

     It’s not Rory’s fault, though; it’s another example of forced plotlines. In this case, the blame goes to the “four words” which Amy Sherman-Palladino has long said she always planned to end the series with. The four words, which reveal Rory’s pregnancy, are undoubtedly enticing. They make a great end to a series about the close ties between mother and daughter. However, they fit the Rory of the original show far better than they do the Rory of ten years later. The solution? Ensure that Rory has made almost no progress in any facet of her life, even if that makes her more insufferable. It’s a forced fit that could have been achieved in so many other, more effective ways.

     There are plenty of other plot problems. Lorelei is also in stasis since the end of the series, her marriage to Luke being postponed for seemingly no reason other than plot convenience. At least it allows for a stirring marriage scene. The central conflict between the titular Gilmore girls arises because of Rory’s book on her mom’s life—a tired and contrived plot device. If that wasn’t enough, the showrunners use it to revive one of the most reviled plotlines from the original series (which, tangentially, came into being under Sherman-Palladino): bitter, childish, and distancing conflict between the two main characters.

photo courtesy of vox.com

     That conflict (a main season 6 storyline) was a terrible decision that undermined the very premise of the show—even if the showrunners were able to produce some interesting arcs with it. Perhaps that season should have been an indication of where things could go; Sherman-Palladino’s involvement steering the ship, it seems, is not magic.

     In A Year in the Life, many of the pieces are there. The formula is strong enough to evoke something of the quirky fun of the original series. It’s not, however, strong enough to overcome crucial story problems that provide a sinking foundation for the more promising elements of the show. 

photo courtesy of digitalspy.com