Article Writen by Jill (aka RachelAdmirer)

At the end of November, main cast members Laurel Holloman and Rachel Shelley attended The L Word Convention and were warmly received by the fans.  Laurel gave an exclusive interview to l-word.com in which she said: “All credit to Rachel because I think even on paper the character wasn’t credited with layers, and Rachel has played her with such sensitivity. (..) I think Helena’s layers will show slowly. You just have to give a character enough screen time for it to develop. The layers you have to add in as an actor which is what Rachel has done, and I think it’s better to have lots of shades of gray because people are not black and white. “ Does Ms Cole even read genuine articles on your site?

On 29th December, you proudly proclaimed ’The Show Newsflash! Rachel Shelley Condolences for tbsaver’, yet on the same page you provide a link to Ms Cole’s piece in which there is an unwarranted attack on the acting ability of Ms Shelley. We say unwarranted as the derogatory remarks are not substantiated in what reads, to all but die-hard Bette and Tina fans, as a piece more suited to a message board forum. Did anyone at l-word.com take the time to read this ‘article’ before adding it to the site? If so, how can you reconcile your delight in Rachel’s kindness and selflessness, yet allow Ms Cole’s defamatory opinions to appear unchallenged? This piece is a litany of the writer’s personal disappointments at the Season 2 finale, but l-word.com raises it to the status of serious critical analysis by calling it an ‘article’ and failing to point out that it is merely opinion, a skewed and biased opinion at that. It troubles us further, that l-word.com gives additional credibility to Ms Cole’s ruminations by having three of her other blog entries on the site as ‘articles’.

To the points with which we have issue: Ms Cole’s piece is entitled ‘The end of Season 2’, but in place of critical appraisal or analysis the author mainly talks about Bette and her relationship with Tina, and the things she'd have wanted to see and was disappointed not to get. She states: “I couldn't bear to watch the final trick that might be played on the audience. The trick was this: it was Jenny who had the grand finale, not Bette and Tina”. Unless we are mistaken, The L Word is an ensemble drama. Doesn’t this mean that no one or two characters make this show? That all the characters are important to this collective narrative? We love Bette and Tina as much as anyone else, but though they are a central part of the storyline, they are not the be-all and end-all of The L Word.  There is an obvious partiality here in Ms Cole’s writing, which in itself is sufficient to justify that it is read with circumspection.  It does little to enhance the reputation of l-word.com to publish it without a rider to that effect.

Although fans of Ms Shelley, we are not blindly devoted. Rachel Shelley is a good actress, who can even be excellent when she is provided with quality material. . Her first appearance in the series may not have been her best one, but, hey, who's never made a mistake?  Everyone has the right to fail. It happens. Even Al Pacino can be bad! In Rachel’s defence, (and Ms Cole did reference poor writing as a blatant generality), she did have some of the most painfully toe curling lines to deliver – lines that took no regard of British speech patterns or idioms.   Not even Jennifer Beals or Laurel Holloman, on both of whom Ms Cole lavishes praise, could have found a suitable way to convey a line as unwittingly hilarious as “It brought tears to my eyes”. It was to Rachel’s credit that she managed to deliver this without appearing too ridiculous.

Ms Cole wrote: “The character of Helena is a whole problem in itself. I have never, for a moment, bought into Rachel Shelley as a lesbian…The fact that Shelley was given this part, and then brought back for season three, really boggles my mind. While Shelley was stellar in Lagaan, she is a heterosexual actor with no experience (real or imagined) to inform her performance as a lesbian. Bad casting. Still, I have my doubts that this character could have become believable even with great acting. Helena has so little genuine emotion as Helena that it's hard to tell if Shelley is acting badly, or if Helena is acting badly in her own superficial play.”

We find Ms Cole’s assertion about Rachel Shelley's lack of ‘imaginary experiences’ in the lesbian domain’ puzzling. What is an "imagined experience"? It is real experiences of loving and being loved that will inform the actresses’ performances. Has Ms Cole asked herself the same ‘imagined experience’ question in relation to Jennifer Beals? No. Emphatically no! After proffering that an actor has to be “in some way like” the character they audition to play, Ms Cole goes on to assert in “Jennifer Beals v Bette Porter”: “Ilene Chaiken has said that the only actress she ever considered for the part of Bette Porter in The L Word was Jennifer Beals, so we must assume that the Jennifer Beals Chaiken knew was very much like Bette. Beals herself claims to be quite different from Bette, in that she is not as pushy or quick to anger. And yet the ease with which Beals has assumed the role of a character whose sexual orientation is different from her own, makes us instinctively question those differences and look for similarities instead.” Did we mention a little bias on the part of Ms Cole? Add to that some very confusing ways of expressing herself, and one is hard put to understand what point the writer is trying to make. Many of us also feel that the tone and content of Ms Cole’s writing would be a source of embarrassment to Jennifer Beals, should she have the misfortune to read it. 

One of our number was so incensed by Cole’s ‘heterosexual actress’ comment that she was moved to say:” As a lesbian who often gets accused of “not looking like one”, I take a personal offence to her remarks about Ms. Shelley. What the hell is a lesbian supposed to look and act like? It tells me a lot about the writer's own hypocrisy about tolerance. Time and again I see this hypocritical act in a Gay community that demands tolerance, yet does not give it to begin with. I feel that Pam Cole suffers from what I keep seeing on various message boards and L Word fans sites: she seems to be confusing the actor with the character, and vice versa. Is this not a testament to the actor’s skill rather than evidence of her inability to be convincing, as Cole would have us believe?”

Perhaps Ms Cole and l-word.com may be interested in our reading of Helena, and the evidence that verifies just how good Rachel Shelley is in bringing Ms Peabody to life?

Much of the credit for the complexity of the characterisation of Helena - loving mother, sexual exhibitionist, abandoned daughter, insecure lover etc. - is owed to the subtle performance given by Rachel Shelley. The way in which she peeled away so many layers from the apparently somewhat cold and hardened woman we first met to reveal a vulnerable and insecure core is a credit to her talent. Her interactions with her mother, in particular, demonstrated superbly the fragility of the cool façade Helena presents to the world.

Throughout Season 2, Rachel Shelley was being true to her character, like any actor would be. Ms Cole seems to have forgotten that Rachel doesn't have to wear flannel shirts, a mullet or Doc Martens to be a   believable lesbian. Is she forgetting the fact that Rachel had to perform two controversial and explicit love scenes?  Did the pool scene, with a very pregnant Tina, escape Ms Cole’s attention? Not to mention the balcony scene with that ingenious foot technique? Two further examples of intimacies that have never been shown on television before. But hang on, what was that landmark scene? Was that a straight girl’s idea of going down on another woman? Because it looked pretty believable to us - lesbians included. Not only is Rachel Shelley believable in her role as Helena and in her scenes with Holloman but, dare we say, that the chemistry between those two actors rivalled that of Beals and Holloman from Season one. This begs the question: “Was Ms Cole watching the same show that we saw?

Part of the statement that this show is making is that there is no set rule for what anyone is supposed to be like, gay or straight. In interviews and public appearances, Ilene Chaiken, Laurel Holloman, Jennifer Beals other cast members have stated as much. Rachel never appeared in any Season 2 Promos, unlike Sarah Shahi, the other new addition to the Season 2 main cast, and the role of Helena seems to have been hastily written as a half-series diversion for Tina. Ms Shelley most certainly impressed someone to have been made a permanent cast member, and her prominence in the Season 3 Promos already has many fans on the edge of their seats in anticipation of her Season 3 storylines.

We have no problem at all with reviews on fansites which criticize any aspect of the show, whether it is the writing, acting, editing or whatever. But that criticism has to be reasoned and substantiated. What concerns us is an attack on one actress in an ensemble cast that is apparently made principally on the basis of her sexual preference in real life. Little, if any, other justification was provided in Ms Cole's article. This is aggravated by the fact that the attack is contained in a badly written piece that barely conceals an obsession with one of the other actresses, and is then endorsed by being given prominence on a fansite that purports to promote the show and all the characters.

We urge l-word.com to publish this open letter, not only to restore fans’ faith in the site, but also by way of an apology to Rachel Shelley who has been most gracious and generous towards all L Word fans, as those who attended the convention will testify.

Yours,
As Fans of The L Word,

Go Back to Fan Editorials Archive Pages