Lea Michele/Rachel Berry

[ancslove]

I hate the idea that someone does or does not deserve someone else's friendship.  Particular actions, sure - they can be deserved or not.  But whole friendships?  The idea just squicks me.  Rachel has tried to benefit Kurt, too, she's just not always as successful at it as Kurt has been for her.  

[Hana Chan]

Sometimes actions make friendships difficult to maintain. Rachel is a very difficult, very self-centered person who has a real blind spot at how her behavior affects others. It's part of what makes her interesting, but it's also what makes her a very challenging person to be around for any length of time. Even for the most tolerant people, the constant ME! ME! ME! behavior wears thin.

 

The behavior in Diva was beyond obnoxious, when she was treating her supposed best friend like her manservant out of an overblown sense of entitlement. Or inviting Brody to move in without bothering to check with her roommate to make sure it was okay with him. Or disavowing Kurt's friendship because he wasn't going to take sides during her fight with Santana. There have been many points where I could see Kurt just reaching a fed up point and where it would be understandable if he just couldn't deal with Rachel's behavior, however much he might care of her. But it's because he understands her so well that he lets a lot of this stuff go so that they can maintain their friendship.

 

Where I have my biggest problems with Hummelberry is that while Kurt often will go to bat for Rachel, even when her behavior doesn't warrant him giving her that kind of consideration, it's rarely a two way street. When I have to go all the way back to Duets for the last time when Rachel seriously went out of her way for Kurt unprompted, that's a problem. Take what happened in ODNT - Kurt was desperate for some kind of help in getting his career going and asked outright to be included in Rachel's little benefit, but was turned down. He then asked her to come to his show at the nursing home and again was rejected (Rachel attended only after being called out as a fraud by a stranger). I get that selfishness is a core aspect of Rachel's personality, but I would totally get why someone like Rachel would have few, if any real friends.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Hana Chan

[Advance35]

Advance35 - the one thing that struck me most about Rachel's character in season one that she wanted 2 things with near equal desperateness. To be a star and to have real friends. The way she sought the approval and friendship of others (including a romantic relationship with Finn) while all the while stomping on everyone's feet was the main focus for a lot of Rachel's stories. She was deeply hurt after Kurt gave her the sad clown hooker makeover (having thought that they were becoming friends). And that has been a major focus of many of Rachel's storylines since. Learning to balance her ambitions and need for the spotlight while still trying to maintain friendships (and often failing).

 

So maybe it would have been better for the show if they had gone the other way.   Again in the beginning I didn't like Rachel, it's on rewatch that I've gained an appreciation but I think the show had much more POP when she was a more antagonistic figure.   She would have done anything for stardom and maybe the turn with the character the writers should have taken, was having her realize she wanted that more than friends/loved one's.   Maybe the bullying Arc of Season 2 wouldn't have felt like such a high jacking of the show if while Kurt was dealing with the heavy stuff, Rachel was allowed to be on the other side of the canvas, clueless and indifferent to Kurt's problems (like she was in S1) and continueing her relentless and sometimes hysterical pursuit of the spotlight.

 

Kurt is one of the very few people (and the only others were Finn and Jesse) who went out of his way in a huge way for Rachel's benefit, sometimes at his own expense. She's certainly not deserving of his friendship, but she's lucky to have it.

 

I don't think anyone would have forgiven a peer for the trick in hairography.   I didn't buy and still don't this friendship the two characters had.   I think for a teenager that would have been point of no return, at least on Rachel's end.    I'm not overly fond of her relationship with Finn either.   If the writers had it to do over again, I think Rachel's character interactions should have been restricted to Schue, Jesse, Puck (who's intervention when she wanted to get a nose job was very sweet), and antagonistic relations with everyone else, maybe even culminating with her joining Vocal Adrenaline and being a real antagonist to ND.    It would have been better than the dreck we got.

[caracas1914]

If the writers had it to do over again, I think Rachel's character interactions should have been restricted to Schue, Jesse, Puck (who's intervention when she wanted to get a nose job was very sweet), and antagonistic relations with everyone else, maybe even culminating with her joining Vocal Adrenaline and being a real antagonist to ND. It would have been better than the dreck we got.

Well we all want to rewrite the show again, but we have what we have. Rachel has interacted with these Glee characters for 5 years and will continue to interact with them for a 6th year. I realize that a Rachel antagonistic relationship with practically everyone else on the show is your "ideal" but that was never gonna happen regardless. Edited September 4, 2014 by caracas1914

[caracas1914]

And gee how awful for her to get songs in episode  that was expected for 5 seasons and then was promptly disregarded for a plot point to get them all back to Lima the nest season.

 

And in getting them back to the Lima the spoilers show that Rachel sings in 4 out of the 6 songs for this new 6.01 reboot. including 3 solos...LOL...so there's that... Like I said, it is what it is. 

Edited September 4, 2014 by caracas1914

[Advance35]

Well we all want to rewrite the show again, but we have what we have.  Rachel has interacted with these Glee character for 5 years and will continue to interact with them for a 6th year.

 

Well I'm hoping the writers know there is nothing left to be mined from certain interactions and move a different way.   Having Rachel interact with characters that are not in her usual wheel house would go a long way in making this season seem at least a little more fresh.  I think Kurt/Rachel interacting as much as they did in the Front 13 would be a good way to move forward.   The bulk of Kurts Interaction could be with Blaine for their storyline (which will know doubt be one of the main one's of the season) and Rachel could have a new friend in Karofsky, they won't duet but it could be good insight into both characters.

[caracas1914]

I don't think anyone would have forgiven a peer for the trick in hairography

 

**********

God, in the great scheme of Glee transgressions that was hardly a radar blip. I actually thought it was a hilarious SL back when Kurt could be gloriously bitchy. It's not like Kurt sent her to a crack house or anything.

Edited September 4, 2014 by caracas1914

[Advance35]

Again all subjective.   A lot of what has been sited as bothering "Kurtsies" I've greatly enjoyed.   I don't think two normal teenagers would have gotten past that.   Rachel would have gone on to cause trouble for others in her pursuit of fame and she and Kurt may have been forced to stomache each other for mutually beneficial goals BUT the drivel they've tried to sell with the two ever since has seemed disingenuous and forced.

 

Rachel apparently psychologically destroyed Tina Co-whatever her name is when she had her Tonight-Fit in Season 1.   Something I didn't think was a huge deal even before I started liking the character.

[Glorfindel]

I don't think anyone would have forgiven a peer for the trick in hairography.   I didn't buy and still don't this friendship the two characters had.   I think for a teenager that would have been point of no return, at least on Rachel's end.    I'm not overly fond of her relationship with Finn either.   If the writers had it to do over again, I think Rachel's character interactions should have been restricted to Schue, Jesse, Puck (who's intervention when she wanted to get a nose job was very sweet), and antagonistic relations with everyone else, maybe even culminating with her joining Vocal Adrenaline and being a real antagonist to ND.    It would have been better than the dreck we got.

Jesse only started a relationship with Rachel so Shelby could let Rachel know she was her mom, and then he left and egged her! Puck slushied Rachel multiple times. But somehow Kurt giving Rachel a make-over (and she looked beautiful, even though it wasn't what Finn was looking for in a girl) is worse. Right.....

 

And remember that Kurt and Puck organised that Barbra nose job intervention together.

 

Also: why would Rachel even wanted to join Vocal Adrenaline when its coach first tricked her in meeting her by sending a boy to her to win her trust (who then betrayed Rachel) and then rejected her as a mom?

Edited September 4, 2014 by Glorfindel

[dizzyizzy01]

When I have to go all the way back to Duets for the last time when Rachel seriously went out of her way for Kurt unprompted, that's a problem.

 

 

 

Now that's just a lie.  What about the student elections, when Blaine and Kurt broke up, his NYADA auditions, stupidly deciding to stay in Lima to help Finn and Kurt reapply for college, helping him with Vogue stuff, etc.  Kurt's problems are not usually given the same emphasis or focus as Rachel's so that probably plays into the disproportionate feeling, but that's really on the writing and storytelling aspect of the show.  You can't really blame the characters for that.

 

I can't remember what happened in S5 other than I hated most of it, but I do remember liking Kurt and Rachel's interactions during End of Twerk.

[caracas1914]

I think Hummelberry have been mutually supportive to each other for the most part. My fave is S4 when Kurt nearly breaks down regretting going back to Lima for "Grease" and Rachel boosts him up, telling him not to let them see him sweat. They have their obstacles and roadblocks, but their loyalty to each other has been consistently shown.

Edited September 4, 2014 by caracas1914

[Danielle87]

 

I think Rachel's character interactions should have been restricted to Schue, Jesse, Puck (who's intervention when she wanted to get a nose job was very sweet), and antagonistic relations with everyone else, maybe even culminating with her joining Vocal Adrenaline and being a real antagonist to ND.    It would have been better than the dreck we got.

 

Oh definitely. Unfortunately that could never happen since number 1, Rachel is the leading lady of the show and I can't think of any other female lead that wasn't completely woobiefied, with the exception of maybe Blair Waldorf and that was only because they had a second female lead to play the typical "sweet" role. In addition, it wouldn't have worked with the new format of the show after it stopped being a black comedy.

 

 

Kurt went to bat for Rachel a lot of times when frankly she didn't deserve it.

 

Honestly, Rachel has been at times a terrible friend to Kurt, but I find Kurt's holier than thou disposition since season 2 so intolerable that I don't even care. I never really cared for them as friends in the first place. I would have preferred them to keep her as a loner in high school, then in college meet another Rachel like girl (but someone in a completely different field so they wouldn't kill each other) that she could become BFFs with. In real life no way would a girl that was bullied like Rachel would continue to associate with people from her high school.

 

I still say the friendship has served Kurt more as since he's a man, he always gets to be in the right on Glee, and he never would have put off NYADA or stuffed the ballot box the way Rachel did for Kurt.

[caracas1914]

It's the writers, people.

Rachel is the leading character on Glee and she is going to interact with other characters. If there are patterns to how she reacts it has to do with how the writers view her. The predominant male writers of Glee have a hard time dealing with an ambitious and driven woman, which is why they make Rachel apologize over and over and over.

Pairing her with new characters or recurring old ones isn't going to change how the writers consistently see her persona. They have very mixed feelings about whether her drive is good/harmful or will make her "happy".

Edited September 4, 2014 by caracas1914

[Hana Chan]

Now that's just a lie.  What about the student elections, when Blaine and Kurt broke up, his NYADA auditions, stupidly deciding to stay in Lima to help Finn and Kurt reapply for college, helping him with Vogue stuff, etc.  Kurt's problems are not usually given the same emphasis or focus as Rachel's so that probably plays into the disproportionate feeling, but that's really on the writing and storytelling aspect of the show.  You can't really blame the characters for that.

 

I can't remember what happened in S5 other than I hated most of it, but I do remember liking Kurt and Rachel's interactions during End of Twerk.

 

The student election where she, in a panic over fearing that she wouldn't get the lead part in WSS, decided to run against Kurt and didn't drop out until late in the game? And then got him disqualified by stuffing the ballot boxes (which I know she meant to be helpful but ended up totally screwing him). And on top of that, was ready to let him take the fall for the election cheat until Finn shamed her into accepting responsibility. As for Vogue... I don't recall her encouraging him beyond a quick pep talk and then ended up benefiting from his opportunity with her high fashion makeover. And yes, she did offer to say behind in Lima to help Kurt reapply for NYADA, but didn't have to and was put on a train by her loving fiancé.

 

What I'm talking about is actually sacrificing something for Kurt. Going out of her way because Kurt was important to her. Her best friend. She couldn't even bother to help him those first few days at NYADA when he didn't know anyone and she was too busy running around with Brody. Hell, she couldn't even try to find him a place in her benefit after he tried to bail her ass out when she got caught lying about why she was missing a show.

 

I get that very often Rachel genuinely means well, but her follow through sucks. Her self-centered view of the universe is a deeply engrained trait of this character, but it's really sad that after years of actually having real friends who do go out of their way for her that she still needs to be prodded or told outright to do the right thing by them. It's rarely a two way street and it's the primary reason that while I like the idea of Hummelberry in theory, in the practical sense it's too unbalanced to be fair to Kurt.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Hana Chan

[Hana Chan]

They have very mixed feelings about whether her drive is good/harmful or will make her "happy".

 

Her drive, I think, is the one thing that has been really consistent about her character and how it's portrayed. It does come across as self-destructive in a lot of ways because her ambitions are so wildly out of control. I don't think that this is meant to be a slam against ambitious women, but one trait about Rachel that has been consistent since the pilot is that her ambition controls her rather than the other way around. She is impulsive and often really doesn't consider the possible consequences of her actions. She only sees the upside, so when things don't work out or when people call her out because she impulsively screwed them over by focusing only on her wants, she usually seems genuinely taken by surprise.

 

As for Rachel being "happy"... I've long held the belief that Rachel doesn't honestly know who she is at the core because she has been raised to be a total performer. She switches identities to suit her mood and setting and a lot about her behavior seems to be an act about who she thinks people expect her to be (Star, Girl About Town, Hometown Girl, etc). And if achieving her lifelong dream didn't make her happy past the first five minutes, I have to wonder if that really was her dream (or one fed to her by her fathers) and if she really knows what her dream is. It would be fascinating if her storyline this season focused on Rachel trying to figure out just what she wants out of life and makes a conscious choice for herself and not what people expect of her.

[Glorfindel]

I get that very often Rachel genuinely means well, but her follow through sucks. Her self-centered view of the universe is a deeply engrained trait of this character, but it's really sad that after years of actually having real friends who do go out of their way for her that she still needs to be prodded or told outright to do the right thing by them. It's rarely a two way street and it's the primary reason that while I like the idea of Hummelberry in theory, in the practical sense it's too unbalanced to be fair to Kurt.

Besides Rachel not really being the bff all the time to Kurt (although I admit she supported him a few times), what annoys me a lot about Hummelberry is that when they are both in the same storyline the POV and focus  is 90% on Rachel, and everything Kurt does is ultimately all about Rachel and not about himself.

 

The election and the fiasco it meant for Kurt was mostly about Rachel. Yeah, Rachel got (rightfully) suspended, but Kurt lost something he wanted very much and could have used for his NYADA application. When Kurt got his NYADA audition letter before Rachel did she barely could manage a smile and then he needed to comfort her while she cried, for nothing I might add. Same when Kurt rocked his NYADA audition and Rachel choked. And also when Kurt won Midnight Madness (and when Kurt got 'Funny Girl' auditions for both of them, all we saw was Rachel's audition without even a mention of Kurt auditioning too).

The exact opposite happened when Rachel got accepted into NYADA while Kurt was rejected: instead of seeing Rachel comforting Kurt for a change or at least some focus on Kurt's POV after such bad news, we didn't get 1 single line from Kurt anymore and we only saw him again in the episode when he was supporting Rachel again at the train station.

The guy hardly gets a minute to enjoy the few times he actually wins something, and when he loses everyone forgets about him, including Rachel.

 

I know this is not strictly Rachel's fault, as it's the writers who constantly put the focus on her in Hummelberry storylines, but as a Kurt fan it is grating and annoying. Plus besides him being used as a prop most of the time in the Hummelberry dynamic it doesn't paint their friendship with him in a healthy and balanced light in canon.

Because when the writers only care about Rachel's needs and feelings while forgetting Kurt's it does seem as if Rachel really only cares about herself and doesn't spend many thoughts on her supposed bff Kurt.

 

Unrelated to this, but something I suddenly remembered:

I don't think I've ever been more angry at Rachel then in 5x10, when she went to Elliot after Kurt refused to take sides in her fight with Santana, and told Elliot that he had done more for her in 24 hours then "that traitor Kurt Hummel" did since graduation. Yeah right, Rachel, forgetting it was Kurt who got you a nice place to live and a roommate, and it was also Kurt who got you that 'Funny Girl' audition.

I think Rachel means well in her friendships, but she forgets quickly what her friends have done for her and can't handle well-meant advice and criticism.

[shoregirl]

The exact opposite happened when Rachel got accepted into NYADA while Kurt was rejected: instead of seeing Rachel comforting Kurt for a change or at least some focus on Kurt's POV after such bad news, we didn't get 1 single line from Kurt anymore and we only saw him again in the episode when he was supporting Rachel again at the train station.

Wasn't Rachel going to stay in Lima and help both Kurt and Finn prepare for next year. How nice of him to support her getting on the train. Maybe if he really wanted to support her he could afford given her a heads up that instead of getting married like she thought she was being put on a train because he was at the train station and Finn was his stepbrother he obviously knew what was going on.

[Advance35]

I still say the friendship has served Kurt more as since he's a man, he always gets to be in the right on Glee, and he never would have put off NYADA or stuffed the ballot box the way Rachel did for Kurt.

 

That election nonsense was so hurl worthy.  Like Rachel, true to character, would give a tinkers tool about whether Kurt Hummel became student council president.   Didn't the writers even have Rachel moved into withdrawing because she was so "touched" by Hummel's crusade against "Dodgeball" LMAO.

 

I don't want to see Rachel cowtowing to Kurt or his world view on right and wrong ever again.  And I do like when Rachel turns on him because it gives me a glimpse of who she was when this show was entertaining.   Self-Obsessed, Self-Centered and Self-Aggrandizing.   Someone upthread sited Rachel downplaying her friendship with Kurt to Elliiot and I loved it.   Rachel may have eyes like Bambi but she can have the heart of the coldest mercenary and "What have you done for me lately" is believable when she's wrapped up in her own drama.

 

Hummelberry at it's BEST, is just too artificial for me.   When Mayonaise in human form Burt Hummel showed up and he and his son insisted Rachel put an ornament on their stupid tree because she's "family"?!?!?!  Sigh.  

 

The fact that it's Season 6 and I know more about that hammerhead Burt than the supposed female leads parents speaks volumes about who the writers give genuine thought too.

 

Honestly, Rachel has been at times a terrible friend to Kurt, but I find Kurt's holier than thou disposition since season 2 so intolerable that I don't even care. I never really cared for them as friends in the first place. I would have preferred them to keep her as a loner in high school, then in college meet another Rachel like girl (but someone in a completely different field so they wouldn't kill each other) that she could become BFFs with. In real life no way would a girl that was bullied like Rachel would continue to associate with people from her high school.

 

And that's the main thing with Rachel.  I don't believe she would try/want to say in touch with Kurt or any reminder of the life she left behind in Lima.  She certainly wouldn't have been hung up on Finn Hudson either.  I never got the impression Rachel hated Kurt or anyone else, I got the impression she wanted to be rid of/rise above them (NOT remain friends forever) and I think the writers forgot that.

[Myrna123]

I never got the impression Rachel hated Kurt or anyone else, I got the impression she wanted to be rid of/rise above them (NOT remain friends forever) and I think the writers forgot that.

I think they forgot it because it is an extremely narrow group of television viewers who would have had any interest in seeing that.  Although, Glee being canceled in its second season wouldn't be much of a loss to the television universe.

 

I get that you don't see any heart or vulnerability or longing for friendship in the Season 1 Rachel, but in my view it was there all along.  Perhaps it was an extension of wanting to be worshiped for her talent, but I think she genuinely wanted warm, personal connections.  She just didn't know how to go about making them and her over-the-top ambition kept getting in the way.  I think she was always meant to learn how to mix being a star with being a real human being.

 

I don't think the majority of television viewers--and certainly not the overwhelming younger, 10 to 18 year old crowd Glee found themselves with (perhaps against their will)--are looking for the star of their tv shows to be as cruel and unlikeable as you.  I think that's one of the reasons both Rachel and Quinn were confounding characters for the writers.  For a more mature, discerning crowd, you could portray characters who were a little bit awful and a little bit sweet and a little bit loving and a little bit crazy.  Younger viewers have a harder time seeing a character as both good and bad, hence we get Rachel the Star of all Stars and the rest of the very flat, one dimensional characters of the later seasons.

[Glorfindel]

Wasn't Rachel going to stay in Lima and help both Kurt and Finn prepare for next year. How nice of him to support her getting on the train. Maybe if he really wanted to support her he could afford given her a heads up that instead of getting married like she thought she was being put on a train because he was at the train station and Finn was his stepbrother he obviously knew what was going on.

Like rachel gave Kurt a heads up when he was going to be ambushed and publicly proposed to with half of Lima watching, when he and Blaine weren't even back together for a week? Yeah, no.

 

And btw: in both situations I blame all characters involved for not saying anything. I absolutely hate it when people are put on the spot by those who supposedly are the love of their life, with their friends and/or family being brought along in secret to pressure them even more.

[RealityCowgirl]

And that's the main thing with Rachel. I don't believe she would try/want to say in touch with Kurt or any reminder of the life she left behind in Lima. She certainly wouldn't have been hung up on Finn Hudson either. I never got the impression Rachel hated Kurt or anyone else, I got the impression she wanted to be rid of/rise above them (NOT remain friends forever) and I think the writers forgot that.

That sums up my whole problem with most of what has unfolded, and what I've been reading about what's to come. For most of us, there's life after high school. Thank God. We may - or may not - look back with some fondness, at least at our reunions (if we choose to go). We may friend some of them on Facebook. But our adult lives don't remain hopelessly entwined with our high school selves and, for crying out loud, "success" doesn't mean dragging our collective carcasses back there as the ultimate success. We don't inevitably marry our high school sweethearts. We don't all remain besties. We may room with one in college, but then life moves on.

And don't get me started on the ridiculous "performing arts = the only success that counts" nonsense. Even as a product of that environment, I know better. For one, maybe two, of these characters (obviously. Rachel), that might make sense. For the vast majority? No way. But that *should* be okay.

Moving on, on whatever path inspires you, IS success for most healthy adults. Maybe that's my problem: applying reality to this mess and the character casualties it's created.

Edited September 5, 2014 by RealityCowgirl

[Advance35]

I get that you don't see any heart or vulnerability or longing for friendship in the Season 1 Rachel, but in my view it was there all along.  Perhaps it was an extension of wanting to be worshiped for her talent, but I think she genuinely wanted warm, personal connections.  She just didn't know how to go about making them and her over-the-top ambition kept getting in the way.  I think she was always meant to learn how to mix being a star with being a real human being.

 

I saw all of that in Season 1 Rachel BUT I don't think she'd ever choose love/friendship/or the pool of mediocrity that was the rest  of ND over potential advancement or success.    She wanted everything you site but it all came a distant second to her love/pathological hunger for fame.   She did have moments where it seemed like she believed without love and friendship, fame and fortune could be hollow but she still  pursued it no matter what regardless.   It was wonderfully complex and it gave plenty of other characters something to play off of.  

 

When the show switched to a PSA on SPECIAL kinds of bullying, they decided to water Rachel down into a hollow, c-budget version of the character that got so many critical raves, golden globe noms, and an Emmy Nom to boot.   She became centered on her relationship with Finn.  After that her relationship with Finn and her friendship with Kurt seemed to be her defining traits.   S1 Rachel would not have come forward about that election rigging, certainly not if it cost her a role in the Sectionals performance but the REAL Rachel wouldn't mesh with Kurt and since RIB feel these two MUST share screentime, a round peg goes into a square hole.   And viewers can either like it or lump it.

[Hana Chan]

The "real" Rachel would probably also still be back in Lima posting videos on MySpace since she would never had made it to NY or NYADA without all of those "friends" that went to bat for her. Or maybe she would have tried to make it there her own, and found herself unable to find work because she is such a delight as a human being that everyone would be falling over themselves to work with her (am being sarcastic here). It's a sad fact that a lot of Rachel's successes, especially in the past three seasons, came as a result of a lot of other people really going out of their ways to help her. Sometimes even at their own expense.

 

Given that I've never seen Rachel actually sacrifice any of her achievements for the benefit of anyone else (and no, I don't consider her dropping out of the school election any great thing since she went into it knowing that she would be kneecapping her best friend in the process), the complaints that she has softened too much fall somewhat flat. This is still the girl who ran off Santana, leaving her professional show with no viable understudy, then flitting off to LA on a whim for an audition and now quit her show in order to follow her own aspirations (who cares about silly things like professional obligations or contracts?). Having a few friends who looked out for her (even when she did not appreciate it) hasn't softened her much at all because she's still out for numero uno.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Hana Chan

[Advance35]

I disagree.  The character has shown initiative, inventivness and a willingness to work hard.   And I find it hard to believe a Rachel that hadn't been woobified by Lurch Hudson and Kurt "Don't throw the dodge ball to hard" Hummel, wouldn't have been focused on the relentless pursuit of stardom.   I think I wouldn't chosen any other two characters for Rachel to be marooned with other than the so holy they grow halo's twoesome.

 

And I certainly don't want Rachel ever sacrificing for Kurt.  Hopefully the showrunners can manage to avoid that bit of fanpandering with only 13 episodes left.   Let his moron, sentator father or his step-mother (who seemed to prefer her step-son to her bio one, based on "Furt") do that.   Or even Blaine, since he was nice enough to squeeze Kurt into his performance when Shirley McClain's character didn't originally want him.

 

If your preception of the Rachel character is she's always beeen a princess who needed rescuing, well know discourse is going to change that.   And I must have missed when she "ran off" Santana because I thought Santana quit because she had another mood swing and decided she wanted to do something else with her life, following the pattern as to why she dropped out of college in the first place.

 

The frat house that run this show may think a girl being declawed is a sign of growth but many do not.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Advance35

[dizzyizzy01]

What I'm talking about is actually sacrificing something for Kurt. Going out of her way because Kurt was important to her.

 

 

This idea of self-sacrifice to deserve friendship is sort of ridiculous.  The point of friendship is to be there for one another with support and understanding, and Kurt and Rachel have BOTH done that for one another.  Anyway, when has Kurt actually given up something he's really wanted for Rachel?  Where is this idea that Kurt has sacrificed his goals and wants for Rachel?  Why is the an expectation of friendship? Of course, he's been supportive of her and been there for her when she freaked out, but so has Rachel.  Why is sacrificing oneself some sort of requirement for anyone's friendship?

 

The writers  choose to make Kurt a martyr more often than not and let his efforts come off as always right, where as Rachel comes off falling short most of the time.  Rachel helped Kurt with his NYADA audition (but it unfortunately didn't change the outcome), decided she wanted to stay in Lima to help Kurt and Finn reapply for college (desired storytelling changed made that irrelevant), was very supportive of his relationship with Blaine and while he was at Dalton (making Blaine into a terrible boyfriend was another writer choice), encouraged Kurt with the Vogue benefit thing (this story just never got much focus), and helped Kurt with the student election (which was a stupid storyline to begin with and a really an unfortunate end result but Rachel did withdraw from something she believed she wanted and needed and tried very hard to help Kurt, but in a misguided way).  Not to mention, she's one of the few that stood up for him in the bullying challenges, which by the way, nobody really did for Rachel in high school.  Because on glee, bullying girls is funny, but bullying gay kids is taken seriously (but these again are writer choices).

Edited September 5, 2014 by dizzyizzy01

[caracas1914]

I just think it's silly to pit Hummelberry against each other. They've mutually supported each other for several years and helped pick each other up.

BTW, sometimes the show goes for humor and t thought that Rachel's over the top reaction to Santana getting the Funnygirl understudy role and calling Kurt a traitor was simply Rachel histrionics. It wasn't meant to show that she was truly over in her friendship with Kurt and Kurt seemed to take in stride her antics.

The show creates an imbalance in their relationship but it goes both ways, Kurt lectures her acting as her moral anchor, and it's not always a comfortable fit. Otoh, most of their joint storylines seem to center on her adventures and professional journey as the focal point. It's not perfect, but they do support each other. For example, Kurt tempered his response to her jumping in bed with Brody with " as long as your happy" and Rachel actively pushed Kurt to pursue Adam confirming to him she thought Kurt was a catch. For the most part they do have each other's backs plus I think they have amazing chemistry and acting together. Compare their acting to , say, Blam, and the gap is night and day. There is an energy and ease to Hummelberry scenes I enjoy.

[tom87]

It wasn't meant to show that she was truly over in her friendship with Kurt and Kurt seemed to take in stride her antics.

 

 

 Rachel calling Kurt a traitor rolled off him as fast as Kurt calling Rachel a slut rolled off her. 

 

Given that I've never seen Rachel actually sacrifice any of her achievements for the benefit of anyone else

 

So even though not once but twice she was willing to deffer her dreams/school for a year or more for Finn (and Kurt) that just doesn't count cause she ended up not  having to cause Finn and I would bet Kurt decided to make her go to NY?

 

This was a huge deal and frankly  as a Rachel fan was pissed at the notice she would do that.

[camussie]

I am not trying to make her martyr. I just think at time she doesn't get enough credit at times and more of the blame then she deserves.  I know that can come with the territory at times.   I never said she got a raw deal. I did mention the royalties for them but that was an over all question not just about Lea.  

Once the song spoilers came out so did the claws.

It was a bit of an exaggerate and hyperbole but I see that here a lot so i thought it would be ok.

 

 

My honest opinion is that some think Lea deserves the most credit for the success of Glee and I simply don't agree with that.  She was integral part of putting it on the map but I think her, Cory, Matt, and Jane share equal credit, as far as actors, for it becoming the phenomenon it was in season 1.

 

Also, as much I think RM, is a hack who can't sustain a show over several seasons I have to give him and Brad and Ian the most credit for Glee's early success.  They wrote a dang fine first 13 episodes and even a good back 9.  Without that writing Glee would have never made it as far as it did.

[tom87]

My honest opinion is that some think Lea deserves the most credit for the success of Glee and I simply don't agree with that.  She was integral part of putting it on the map but I think her, Cory, Matt, and Jane share equal credit, as far as actors, for it becoming the phenomenon it was in season 1.

 

Also, as much I think RM, is a hack who can't sustain a show over several seasons I have to give him and Brad and Ian the most credit for Glee's early success.  They wrote a dang fine first 13 episodes and even a good back 9.  Without that writing Glee would have never made it as far as it did.

 

I never said she should get most of the credit.   I said I do not think she gets enough credit some times.

Edited September 6, 2014 by tom87

[camussie]

What credit exactly do you think she is not getting because frankly I think, at least on this site, people acknowledge that she is a big part of the show's success.  Now, of course there are some who think Rachel's season 5 story made the show unwatchable but that isn't on Lea - that is on Ryan,

Edited September 6, 2014 by camussie

[tom87]

What credit exactly do you think she is not getting because frankly I think, at least on this site, people acknowledge that she is a big part of the show's success.  Now, of course there are some who think Rachel's season 5 made the show unwatchable but that isn't on Lea - that is on Ryan,

 

I am not  just talking just this site.   No I don't expect people to say all Hail Lea as she enters a room but when I see a lot of resentments  it make me feel she isn't appreciate for what she has done.    Maybe a lot of the people really are just frustrated at Rachel and/or the writers but often times I see that bleed through to Lea.

Edited September 6, 2014 by tom87

[dizzyizzy01]

What credit exactly do you think she is not getting because frankly I think, at least on this site, people acknowledge that she is a big part of the show's success.

 

 

There was a whole series of posts of how the first tour wasn't that difficult for Lea since she was used to being on Broadway, when I think others believe the tour relied extremely heavily on her and she was pretty much critical to the its success.  

 

Everyone has differing opinions and perceptions of the actors and characters, and frankly there's a lot of actor/character bleed on this show.  I think part of it is people exaggerate from all ends of the spectrum about all of the actors' importance/critical acclaim/success, but comments about Lea tend to attract the most back and forth discussion between folks with differing opinions.  Everyone has their favorites, but comments about Lea almost always attract some sort of counter argument about one of the other actors.  

[marymon]

Been lurking here but when a thread is called Lea Michele and it keeps going back and forth between Lea and Rachel is can become a bit jumbled .   Plus some discussions has been going back and forth between different threads.

 

 

carry on back to lurking.

[Hana Chan]

(An answer to the People in Charge conversation) - I'm going to try to put this as clearly as I can to avoid being misunderstood.

 

First, I have no issue acknowledging that Lea is a very talented actress and singer. That being said, 99% of the issues that I have with her performances are due to how her character is used which is the responsibility of the show runners, musical directors and writers. So while I don't agree that Lea is "the voice of a generation" (which is a matter of taste), I'll agree that she has talent and charisma.

 

As far as Rachel's characterization goes, I feel that it's something of a cop out to blame her behavior on poor writing. All of the characters suffer from bad writing and the simple fact remains is whether we think the writing is good or not, this is how they want Rachel to behave and be seen on the show. Rachel is a selfish, stubborn, self-centered, short sighted individual who still has her good moments, but her core identity hasn't changed all that much since season one. The girl who hastily quit New Directions back in season one over claims to a song in favor of another venue that offered a better chance for her to be spotlighted is the same girl who hastily quit NYADA (and then Funny Girl) when what she saw as a better option beckoning. We can complain that she never learns from past mistakes, but her stubbornness and insistence that she knows better than anyone else is, again, a core part of her personality. We might bemoan that the writers constantly have Rachel making the same mistake over and over again (and never really learns a lesson), but again this fits in with Rachel's nature. Whether we like how she is on the show or how she behaves doesn't change the fact that this is how she is.

 

When it comes to her songs, the show has made many mistakes in the song choices for her (too often having no real relation to her storyline), how often they have her sing (which leads to the juke box effect and a loss of interest by the audience who tune her out) and the musical direction (which focuses on showing off her power and technique instead of finding an emotional core to the song). Sometimes I think that the tendency to direct her to sing in her overly theatrical, bombastic manner does work with the storyline (such as the Bring Him Home contest with Kurt in order to draw a sharp contrasts and hint that she had not performed the song appropriately), but more often than not it comes across as pointless. It's telling that some of my favorite Lea/Rachel songs are the quieter ones, where she dials it back and I can actually enjoy the tone of her voice (which is quite lovely) without feeling like I'm being yelled at.

 

Rachel, for me, worked best as a character in an ensemble cast where she might have had a significant role, but her abrasiveness was tempered by other characters. When the cast began to be stripped down and left Rachel with only a few characters to interact with (Kurt, primarily, but also Finn and Santana), the interactions didn't work as well. I don't think a show would survive with a character like Rachel as the primary lead over the long run because while her antics might be amusing at first, after awhile her bad behavior would grow tiresome. Some might like her anti-hero type behavior, but for me she always worked best when she had others to play against.

 

The writers did Rachel absolutely no favors by fast forwarding her career successes to such absurd levels. Having her admitted to NYADA after a botched audition was already a difficult enough line to follow (given that the school was supposed to be so competitive that any misstep should have put her out of the running). Then having her leapfrog to being the most talented singer in the school (given that the school should be filled with students at least as talented as she is). Then having her being seriously considered for a lead part in a Broadway production less than a year after graduating high school (and her dream part at that) and showing her having no real competition in what should have rightly been a highly competitive audition process. Then her getting the part and having no real learning curve in making the jump from amateur to professional performer. Had they actually tried to make Rachel's storyline one of hard fought challenges until her eventual rise to getting that starring role that she craved, the audience might have continued to be invested in Rachel's story. Instead it became (the worst possible thing you can be on television) boring.

 

Lastly, I don't think that the show runners (Ryan Murphy in particular) are doing Lea herself any favors by constantly trying to compare her to Barbra or Idina. Both outside the show and on the show, Lea's superficial similarities to both singers are alluded to and it's been clear that Ryan Murphy is invested in trying to make Lea be seen as this generation's Barbra. But you can't make someone into an icon by having her simply copy real iconic performers. Both Barbra and Idina earned their iconic status through years of performing and originating characters that themselves become iconic. Having Lea (and Rachel) constantly compared to both of them and imitating them by singing songs and playing characters that they originated doesn't really make Lea the heir apparent to their iconic status. It just makes her look like an imitator. To be a true iconic performer comes from being completely original and setting new standards and not just copying what others have done before her. To be the absolute best Lea Michele and not Lea Michele singing Barbra or singing Idina. Having Lea dressed like Barbra (and not the character of Fanny) for the scenes where Rachel is playing Fanny was a manipulative effort to keep the audience seeing Lea as a young Barbra and I just don't think it's working or serving Lea well. It was a cute joke in the show to have Rachel's middle name be the singer that her fathers wanted her to be like, but they carried that far too long and too deeply. Whether or not she becomes an iconic performer in her own right won't be seen until ten or twenty years from now, when we see how Lea's career goes and whether or not she manages to find those roles and opportunities that can set her apart at that rarified level. It's not something where she can shortcut by singing Barbra of Idina songs, or playing the parts that they originated. I get frustrated when I read the gossip that Ryan Murphy wants Lea to play Fanny Brice since he's now got the rights for Funny Girl, or that people want to see her as the lead in Wicked. She needs to establish her own identity as a unique performer with an audience rather than just spend her career copying older (and IMO better) performers.

 

Sorry if that rambled a bit - I tried to keep it as coherent as I could.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Hana Chan

[camussie]

There was a whole series of posts of how the first tour wasn't that difficult for Lea since she was used to being on Broadway, when I think others believe the tour relied extremely heavily on her and she was pretty much critical to the its success.

 

 

I didn't see anyone argue that the tour didn't rely heavily on Lea nor that she wasn't critical to its success.  I think everyone acknowledges she was.  What I saw was push back on the notion that it was harder on her than the rest of the cast.  They all worked hard on that tour.  For example while Harry didn't sing near as much he danced quite a bit, especially during the 2011 tour when his dance troupe was the opening act.  Then again, he has the training to be able to put in that kind of performance for 30 shows over the course of 6 weeks.  Acknowledging that isn't negating his hard work just like acknowledging that Lea's & Jenna's Broadway backgrounds were most likely a benefit to them on the tour isn't negating their hard work.  What is appalling is that none of them got compensated for that hard work like they all should have.  

Edited September 6, 2014 by camussie

[SevenStars]

I am not  just talking just this site.   No I don't expect people to say all Hail Lea as she enters a room but when I see a lot of resentments  it make me feel she isn't appreciate for what she has done.    Maybe a lot of the people really are just frustrated at Rachel and/or the writers but often times I see that bleed through to Lea.

Maybe you are mistaking resentment of Rachel for resentments of Lea. Because the way the writers have write Rachel and the characters around her, it is understandable why people would resent Rachel and totally dislike her. But that doesn't mean that they also resent or dislike Lea.

 

For example: I totally dislike Blaine because of the way the writers write him. I'm rooting for him to never get back with Kurt after this break-up. But I totally like and appreciate Darren because of how much he seems to enjoy working on Glee and everything he tries to do with the character. I might slap Blaine if I ge the chance but I would totally hug and kiss Darren.

[Omnihelix]

 It was a cute joke in the show to have Rachel's middle name be the singer that her fathers wanted her to be like, but they carried that far too long and too deeply. 

 

I'm wondering if the SL  regarding her parent's divorce will explore  this more. 

[ancslove]

Is Idina Menzel really iconic?  She's originated a couple iconic characters, but I wouldn't put her on a level with Barbra.  And Lea has also originated one star character so far, 2 if you add Rachel Berry.  Musical theater performers hope to have a good mix of original roles that will hopefully become icons, and classic roles that already are icons.  And, arguably, few reach iconic levels as themselves.  Glee is a show that covers songs, and Rachel has so far covered 2 "Idina songs" - both from the same musical role.  I don't think she's trying to actually be Idina.  You can't just say that Lea should never touch famous, classic songs because they've already been done.  That's not how Glee or musical theater works.

[caracas1914]

Is Idina Menzel really iconic?

 

No.

 

John Travolta's slip made her known more to the general public than anything. 

[Cranberry]

I thought about making separate threads for each actor and character, but so much of the Rachel Berry discussion is about how Lea plays her (and same for Kurt/Chris Colfer, and others) that it didn't make a lot of sense to me. 

 

I just edited all of the actor threads to include their character's name, as well.

[tom87]

Maybe you are mistaking resentment of Rachel for resentments of Lea.  Because the way the writers have write Rachel and the characters around her, it is understandable why people would resent Rachel and totally dislike her. But that doesn't mean that they also resent or dislike Lea.

 

I get  why people may resent Rachel but as I said also at times it does bleed through to Lea.     Her relationship with Ryan is sometime use in an accusatory way  for some for example.  

 

 

John Travolta's slip made her known more to the general public than anything.

 

So true, best free press of the 21st century so far. 

[caracas1914]

OH I think Lea has been the recipient of a lot of brutal gossip/innuendo about her behavior  on stage and sets.     To hear some sites she was the worst hellacious Diva on Broadway and burned all her bridges, there, etc. Then all the talk that the relationship with Cory was fake and staged for PR.   I know all stans think their favorite is unfairly maligned but in the case of Lea I don't think the gossip mills/forums have given her  a free ride.  Of course I admit I'm biased.

[camussie]

Agreed she has been the subject of brutal gossip, etc but I think feeling for her in that regard is different than thinking those in charge of Glee have "taken her for a ride" or thinking that she alone has been unfairly treated by the show.  That idea is what I push back against.  I simply don't believe she has been unfairly treated by those who produce Glee.  At least no more than any of the rest of them.  Nor do it is unfair of for those in charge of Glee to expect her to remain positive face of show, even as it has gotten worse and worse.  Part of her job, especially as a lead, is PR.  

 

I also think that if someone has an issue with what is said on another board or social media site that issue should be addressed on that site instead of taking it up with posters who have not said anything like that on this site.  For example no one on this site has said she slept her way to the top, nor blamed her for Cory's drug problems, etc so it is a head scratcher to me why that is even brought up as a counterpoint to posters' hyperbole about the character of Rachel.  That is what blurred the Rachel/Lea line not the criticisms of Rachel and Rachel's story.

Edited September 6, 2014 by camussie

[Sara2009]

There's also the fact that people have the right to believe the rumors and judge her accordingly. It stinks to read negativity about your favorite, but we all go through that especially with a show like this.

[dizzyizzy01]

It's not frequent on this site, but people do make some snide comments about the rumors about Lea and her personal life. It's not limited to Lea, but she definitely gets some. I agree though that posters here are far more respectful of all the actors than elsewhere on the internet.

[tom87]

Agreed she has been the subject of brutal gossip, etc but I think feeling for her in that regard is different than thinking those in charge of Glee have "taken her for a ride" or thinking that she alone has been unfairly treated by the show.  That idea is what I push back against.  I simply don't believe she has been unfairly treated by those who produce Glee.  At least no more than any of the rest of them.  Nor do it is unfair of for those in charge of Glee to expect her to remain positive face of show, even as it has gotten worse and worse.  Part of her job, especially as a lead, is PR.  

 

I also think that if someone has an issue with what is said on another board or social media site that issue should be addressed on that site instead of taking it up with posters who have not said anything like that on this site.  For example no one on this site has said she slept her way to the top, nor blamed her for Cory's drug problems, etc so it is a head scratcher to me why that is even brought up as a counterpoint to posters' hyperbole about the character of Rachel.  That is what blurred the Rachel/Lea line not the criticisms of Rachel and Rachel's story.

I don't know why you don't know since it has been explained.   The conversation was how she was being treated/perceived no on implied it was by people here just in general.   

 

But I also have never said she is the reason glee is successful or that she was taken for a ride  or treated unfairly.   

[dizzyizzy01]

I didn't see anyone argue that the tour didn't rely heavily on Lea nor that she wasn't critical to its success.  I think everyone acknowledges she was.  What I saw was push back on the notion that it was harder on her than the rest of the cast.  They all worked hard on that tour.

I suppose ultimately everything is still subject to interpretation, but I still view some of the comments as a bit dismissive of how much Lea did on the tour.  There were comments on how her Broadway background made it not as big of a task for her or how she didn't even sing as much as what a lead singer for a band would be asked to do.  I can't help but feel that those are qualifiers to say that the work she put in wasn't that big a deal.  Again, I'm not saying others didn't work hard.  I don't disagree that all the cast worked very hard on the tour, but I still contend that given how that first tour was structured Lea was tasked to do more than the others.  If you objectively look at the 2010 tour set list; she's literally in 4 or 5 more numbers than almost everyone else and she's doing the majority of the singing in a most of her numbers.  The only other person that comes close to the amount of numbers that Lea had would be Amber.  Cory comes in a distant 3rd.  However, I agree the second tour is far more balanced.  And yes, all the cast got shafted.

[Hana Chan]

 There were comments on how her Broadway background made it not as big of a task for her or how she didn't even sing as much as what a lead singer for a band would be asked to do.  I can't help but feel that those are qualifiers to say that the work she put in wasn't that big a deal.  

 

Well, let's put things in perspective. If Lea had stayed on Broadway, she'd be doing 8 shows a week for months at a stretch. If Lea was on an extended tour as singer, she'd be singing a lot more nights than the 10 dates that was the 2010 tour (when she had the most singing). Lea sang in 12 songs on the 2010 tour (whether lead, in a duet or in group numbers). If she were a soloist on tour, she'd be singing a great deal more. Again, just to put in perspective, when Adam Lambert toured with Queen this year he sang 23 songs per night and they played 36 dates and this is considered by the industry a very short tour (allowing for the members of Queen who are in their 60s and not physically up to an extended tour).

 

No one is saying that Lea didn't work hard on the Glee tours, but the first tour was only a few nights (just two performances more than Lea would have done in a single week while on Broadway) and a lot less than singers on even limited tours would be expected to sing. I have no issue acknowledging Lea's hard work or the fact that in the first tour she did have to carry the lion's share of the songs (since the distribution sucked), but I'm also not going to make it out to be more than it was. With Lea's extensive background of performing on Broadway, 10 dates was certainly going to be a manageable challenge. If and when Lea ever goes on tour to promote her own albums, she's going to have to play a lot more dates and sing a lot more and not have a big group to back her up and fill in the usual two hour concert set list.

[fakeempress]

 

There were comments on how her Broadway background made it not as big of a task for her or how she didn't even sing as much as what a lead singer for a band would be asked to do.  I can't help but feel that those are qualifiers to say that the work she put in wasn't that big a deal.

Are we doing another round of this again? These comments weren't made just like that. They were in response to comments how "poor her" damaged her voice because she had to carry the tour. If these 10 nights of touring can be so detrimental to her voice, I can't believe she was able to carry a Broadway show practically every night for all these months (and yet afaik she did). That's why her training and experience as a singer was brought up, not to deny her the work she put in. And as Hana Chan says, she'll have to do much more singing than that, and for longer than these 10 days, when she goes on her solo tour, and also back on Broadway. The important distinction is that due to the type of arrangements there will be, she may be much better compensated for the solo tour (and another Broadway stint) than she arguably was on the Glee tours. But not knowing how much Lea actually made per night on the Glee tours versus Spring Awakening, I can't say more than "my feeling is she was shortchanged on the Glee tours, as everyone else was."

Edited September 7, 2014 by fakeempress

[caracas1914]

I'm curious how Lea will do with touring to support a second album , one of the things I thought was that with their schedules on Glee it was actually hard to get an album launched for the actors.

Her first album did OK considering she couldn't tour and really pound the pavement, though I do think the second album needs to have more of an edge, I live Lea but the first one wasn't particularly memorable.