S1. Episode 18: The Third Lorelai
Nietzsche? Dawson.
Lorelai “Trix” Gilmore is one of the show’s best ever characters. This woman, played by actress Marion Ross, a.k.a. Ron Howard’s mom in Happy Days, is such a piece of work that she sends composed Emily Gilmore into a frenzied spiral. She’s a mystery really. For one, she lives in London for no real reason, has a transatlantic accent in 2001, and wears Victorian clothing year-round. Would kill to have Trix as a grandma but would rather die than have her as a mother-in-law.
They do such a good job of having Trix toe the line between being just demanding enough and absolutely heinous. She sends hideous, bulky antiques to Richard and Emily as “gifts” and then expects to see them on display when she comes to town, which is why Emily hoards everything in the basement in anticipation of these inspections. In a later episode many seasons from now, Emily does this exact same thing (sending gigantic antiques to Luke’s Diner) to Lorelai when Lorelai isn’t speaking to her, a manipulation tactic I feel sure she got from Trix. The irony, of course, is that Emily cannot recognize the controlling nature of this despite having suffered at the hands of such behavior for many years.
I have mixed feelings about how Richard should handle the situation. He clearly loves his mother and she clearly gave him everything she had. But Emily is his wife, and Trix openly humilates her in his presence. Richard’s response is to laugh heartily and act like Emily is crazy, like, oh ha ha Emily, how could you take offense to the fact that my mother said your genes are defective? While I don’t find Richard’s response adequate, I also genuinely don’t know how I would respond myself if I were him. I’d like to think I’d stand up for my wife, but it’s easy to be brave from my little keyboard behind a Substack.
The arrival of Trix brings with it more conflict around the Gilmore’s most fraught topic: money. Trix says, “Neither a borrower nor a lender be.” I’m pretty sure I’ve already quoted this Hamlet/Polonius saying in a previous post about Lorelai borrowing money, so I guess I’m not as original or witty as I thought. (Or maybe… am I like Trix?) It’s funny to quote Polonius at all though because he’s an idiot and we’re meant to ridicule him for talking too damn much. Like Polonius, Trix considers borrowing a dirty business, not to be engaged in amongst family members. So, she offers to give Rory her trust fund early so that school can be paid for, and Emily has a full meltdown about Lorelai not owing them and therefore not being beholden to their FNDs. Emily views money as a means of control. She views control as the only way she could ever get her daughter to spend time with her. And she sees freedom and need as mutually exclusive, as in, her daughter’s freedom means she doesn’t need her, and therefore would never willingly spend time with her. All of it’s sad, honestly, and makes me feel for Emily. Because the only reason she thinks this is from experience: Lorelai doesn’t willingly spend time with her and only comes calling when she needs money. Like, damn Lorelai, can you cut your mom a break and just reassure her you’re coming to dinner?
As for the trust fund, apparently it’s for $250,000, which Lorelai calls “a quarter of a million dollars.” While we’re on this topic, can I beg everyone to stop describing $250,000 this way? That amount is so far away from a million dollars, there is absolutely no reason we should be using the word million in its description. And while I wouldn’t turn my nose up at $250,000, it also doesn’t seem like that much in the context of how rich we’re supposed to think the Gilmores are. Trix lives in LONDON and wears VICTORIAN CLOTHING for NO REASON. Surely someone this eccentric is a multi-millionaire and the trust for her only great-grandchild can at the very bare minimum be described as “half a million.” The tuition and expenses for four years at Yale would eat through more than half of that $250k easily! And yes, though no one asked, I assure you I did look up the cost of tuition at Yale for the years 2003-07.
Emily successfully worms into Lorelai’s mind and makes her fear that Rory, with financial freedom, would want to have healthy boundaries and go places without her mommy. Meanwhile, Rory is blissfully unaware that her trust fund is up for grabs as she is busy navigating the meaningless and unprofitable drama of Chilton’s hallways. Post-party-kiss, things are super awkward between Tristan and Rory. They can’t even exit the classroom like normal people, nearly colliding in what Rory calls a “potential Marx Brothers moment.” However, they hash out their differences and decide to be friends— “Louis, I think this the beginning of a beautiful friendship,” she says to a bewildered Tristan. It’s funny, actually, that she quotes Casablanca here, because the Marx Brothers apparently have a movie called A Night in Casablanca, which is supposed to be a bad parody of the film. Listen, you know I try to give Dean a fair shake, but I feel it is deeply unfair that Dean gets to casually make Rosemary’s Baby references but Tristan is apparently an uncultured boor who gets zero of Rory’s pop culture references. I just don’t buy it. I think the showrunners are cowards and know if Tristan utters a “Here’s looking at you, kid,” it’s game over for every other love interest on this show.
This episode is chock full of amazing references, by the way. Louise says, “Those who simply wait for information to find them spend a lot of time sitting by the phone. Those who go out and find it themselves have something to say when it rings.” Nietzsche? Rory asks. Dawson, Louise retorts. I can’t actually confirm whether or not Dawson says this because I have not watched Dawson’s Creek that closely, but it is a very good imitation of something stupid our fave suburban nihilist would say. As expected, Louise has all the great one-liners: when Paris is trying to assign roles for their group government project about medieval England, Louise requests lady-in-waiting. “Lady-in-waiting is not a political office,” Paris says, exasperated. “No, but they get all the sex,” Louise says. I mean, who can argue with that?
The most frustrating part of the episode is watching Rory make a misguided attempt to set Tristan and Paris up. It’s like watching a slow car accident. We all know this will end badly, for Rory but especially for Paris. I personally want to shake Rory as she dead-eye stares into Tristan’s pining face, which has “I love you, Rory” written all over it, and says he should date someone with “more substance”… like Paris. Honestly, Paris has too much substance and is a thousand levels above Tristan, but she clearly doesn’t know that yet at this juncture in her short life. Tristan asks her out and Paris shows up in Stars Hollow on the night of her date, completely manic and desperate for Rory to help her with an outfit. They bond! They share clothes and lipstick! We think things will be alright! Until the next day at Chilton, Tristan thoughtlessly friendzones Paris in front of everyone and mentions Rory is responsible for their brief romantic entanglement, which of course triggers an epic lashing out and the immediate dissolution of any friendship they may have painstakingly built.
Of course, this reaction, while in character for Paris, is also completely illogical. Rory’s suggestion that Tristan ask Paris out is clearly well-intentioned. Tristan’s disinterest in dating her is also out of anyone’s control. And if Paris should be upset with anyone, it’s Tristan for asking her on the date despite his better judgment, kissing her, and then cutting her loose publicly (although one might argue he’s at liberty to date and kiss in order to determine whom he likes, and his quick and honest communication with her was humane). But the object of her loathing is Rory, and her anger is rooted in feeling, not logic. She knows Tristan likes Rory and she’s jealous and threatened by her. In her perspective, maybe their date would’ve been a success had Tristan not been so intent on pursuing Rory. Paris views the world in a limited-resources kind of way: there’s only so much to go around, only a limited number of seats at the table, and someone like Rory is bound to take something from you, intentional or not. To be fair, Rory does basically just go through life taking and expecting things, rarely ever experiencing “no” and always frustratingly regarded by those around her as innocent.
But even so, I always thought Paris’s reaction was a stretch, one of those reasons in shows or books that in real life wouldn’t be an inciting event or consequence. A look taken the wrong way, an innocuous thing that had some underlying meaning conveyed through a tone just slightly off. Those things I am always willing to bend over backwards to believe YES this caused a family rift for fifty years! or YES this was the reason for accidental murder! But I know in my heart would never cause such passionate response from real people. That is, until I started watching The Traitors. Have you watched this show? It’s basically a hybrid of Clue and Survivor with a bunch of D-list reality show celebrities set at Alan Cummings’ Scottish castle. He’s also the host which is one of the most delightful parts of the show. Alan Cummings chooses a few “traitors” who are get to “murder” (re: eliminate) one of “the faithful” (re: the rest of the participants) who are always trying to suss out and banish the traitors. Simultaneously, there are Survivor-esque challenges where they can add money to the pot. At the end, the remaining people split the pot of money—unless there are any traitors left, then they take it all.
The pot of money is the size of Rory’s trust fund, which is to say, it’s weirdly a very low amount for a reality competition, especially one in which it’s possible the pot might be split amongst several people. The contestants come from Survivor, The Challenge, Big Brother…but also non-competition shows featuring the ultra-rich, like Real Housewives, Vanderpump Rules, Selling Sunset. There’s also a few randos, like a politican from the English House of Lords, or a literal member of the British royal family. All in all, a very strange cast of people fighting and humilating themselves over an almost negligible amount of money in the context of their existing wealth. Because of that, the show feels truly minimally produced, in the sense that the contestants are not a part of the show’s machinations. They really seem at the whims of the show’s decisions, like they’re playing a giant game of real life Clue. This lack of control has restored both the childlike glee to their partipcation and authenticity to their behavior—because it’s not really for the money and the show’s object is not about exposure.
All of this was a very longwinded way to explain that Paris’s reaction upon learning Rory had casually mentioned Tristan should ask her out is now believable to me after watching this live psychological study on human behavior. A mere breath breathed the wrong way could trigger a wild accusation that you are indeed a traitor. Literally the way you say a word a half octave lower or higher than you normally might is reason to suspect guilt. Most people sling suspected names with the conviction of an evangelical convert, and almost all of the accused are innocent! Many of the most intelligent game players’ first and most fatal mistake is trying to play logically, when the dominant driver of the game is purely social: what alliances you make, how likeable you are, and how innocent you appear. Understanding that most people are already willing to believe the worst based on essentially nothing makes every insane thing Paris does completely plausible. After watching this episode, though, I am reminded woefully that my fantasy of Nietzsche and Dawson cast as contestants on The Traitors will never happen.