Girls Conversation
Had an interesting conversation about Girls, the controversial Lena Dunham show today after breakfast. Here are the bullet points:
-I don't think Lena Dunham likes her own characters (hence, why should we?)
-The only reason Lena Dunham is considered "brave" for getting naked is the fact that she is not good looking. If she were good looking, she would be a more more educated (but not necessarily more intelligent) Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian. Has anyone ever called Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian "brave" for releasing a sex tape? Why not?
-People who like the show often cite the realism and say things like "this is what 24 year olds are really like." And yes, perhaps some 24 year olds are like this in the same way some people probably have the same POV as ridiculous Aaron Sorkin characters. But I'm not really willing to believe all 24 year olds are naturally selfish, entitled, self-centered brats. Not even all the ones living in New York. I guess what I'm trying to say is: the POV of the show and characters isn't all that age-specific. I think Lena Dunham at 35 won't have much of a world view shift. Nor at 45. The continued living lives of unexamined privilege will go on and on, much like Woody Allen's neurosis, Michael Mann's obsession with lonely men finding solace in their work, and Ed Zwick's continued quest to marry social issues and big action movies.
-I would argue that a bit of this show's popularity stems from misery loving company, that it is more cathartic to watch the painful, awkward sex, when that is the sex you know. And while this is certainly a valid reason to enjoy the show, I do not envy those in such a position.
4 comments:
A thought on Girls:
I don't really think about or care how Lena Dunham feels personally about her characters. I wonder why people are so entranced by the need to connect the unreality of a fictional show with real life of the creator? Why can't you simply judge the work on its own merits…why must the rationale be based on what one guesses the author thinks of her characters. It makes no sense to me.
And while we're on it - who says you have to have a likable main character - Citizen Kane, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Bad Lieutenant, Taxi Driver - we don't have to "like" the character necessarily to find them compelling.
For me the essential element is this…The show follows four women each with very deeply entrenched obstacles - yes they are self generated obstacles in many ways - but the same could be true of many characters. Their more outward obstacle is a manifestation of an inner issue.
So Hannah trying to negotiate the waters of a relationship with Adam isn't so different than Ben Braddock trying to deal with his own issues, both psychologically and practically, in the Graduate. There's an internal obstacle and an external obstacle - these are the things which make characters and stories engaging to an audience.
you can like an evil person. they are still evil, but you can like them. when i say "like," i mean, enjoy spending time with them, curious to see what they'll do, etc.
david chased loved tony soprano. he is a way "worse" person than the characters on girls, but he still loved him. and so did the audience. i tend to think this matters. not exclusively, but it isn't a complete irrelevancy. otherwise, we should just have computers make movies for us.
Post a Comment