'The Return of Jezebel James': No love lost in this sister act
March 14th, 2008
The basics are similar to a point. Parker Posey and Lauren Ambrose, each of whom outshines the material, star as sisters Sarah and Coco. However, Sarah (Posey) in addition to being chronologically older, is so much more mature and centered that they might as well be mother and daughter.
DNA is all the estranged sisters have in common. Sarah is career-oriented, Coco is a ne’er-do-well. Sarah is fashion-conscious and fastidious about her home. Coco is oblivious to what she looks like and bounces from place to place, depending on which friend will have her. Then circumstances lead them back into each other’s lives.
The similarities between the two series are by design, according to Sherman-Palladino.
“I like family dynamics because I can’t figure out mine.
Gilmore [Girls] was a mother and daughter but the relationship was very different. That was a relationship about two people who were instantly invested. They were so bonded, they finished each other’s sentences.
“This relationship is a departure because it’s two women who just don’t know each other at all. They’ve never formed any sort of bond. It’s weird because they’re adults but they’re just starting to figure out who they are, how they react, what they like, what they don’t like, how they’re going to make each other crazy, how they’re not going to make each other crazy. It’s just a wonderful dynamic.”
Tags: james, jezebel, return
March 16th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
This huge leap forward in space travel was done only 12 years after the disposable rocket technology we used to land on the moon. It seemed like a cool intermediary step in the direction of space planes. But it’s been 26 years, and we’re still stuck with that space-rig landing-brick. I wonder what the cost of the Iraq war would have gotten us if we had instead spend the resources on space travel and research on new, portable sources of energy instead?
March 16th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Fail for the copypasta of the description.
March 16th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
“April 12, 1981, twenty years ago today”… really?
March 16th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Great find.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Looks like it grew…
March 16th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Buried. This is old news.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Awesome pic. Good timing too, I could use a new wallpaper.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:24 am
it looks new?ha!look how big it is….the new thing now is slim!
March 17th, 2008 at 2:14 am
nasa pics = buried.
March 17th, 2008 at 3:05 am
That is a FANTASTIC Pic. You couldn’t tell if that picture was from 1981 or last week. I hope they make some changes and produce something as revolutionary as the shuttle was in 1981. We need to get back up there more often to discover something new.
March 17th, 2008 at 3:55 am
I’ll be sad to see it retired. They’ve done America proud. The next launch vehicle, the Orion, looks more like something from the Apollo era (i.e. a step backwards), but then I guess that’s exactly what they need for going back to the moon.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:46 am
You could tell it’s old picture because they no longer white-painted the fuel tank in order to save cost.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:37 am
Columbia RIPApril 12, 1981 - February 1, 2003
March 17th, 2008 at 6:27 am
My computer date is off by a lot. Anyone know how to fix it?