From HBO:
Created by and starring Lena Dunham ("Tiny Furniture"), the show is a comic look at the assorted humiliations and rare triumphs of a group of girls in their early 20s. Dunham wrote and directed the pilot of the series, which she executive produces along with Judd Apatow and Jenni Konner. The cast also includes Jemima Kirke, Allison Williams, Adam Driver and Zosia Mamet. Episodes were shot in New York. The ten-episode season debuts in 2012.They premiered the first 3 episodes at SXSW.
This show is great. Not to draw the comparisons too hard but it's got more in common with "Freaks & Geeks" than "Sex & The City" or "How To Make It In America" or any of that nonsense. (I'm not saying it's as great, I'm saying its in the same wheelhouse.) Also it should be noted that Apatow has not produced a narrative show since "Undeclared" before that was 'F&G' before that was "The Larry Sanders Show" and "The Critic" and "The Ben Stiller Show." So yes, this is going to be really really good.
Read my long ass article about it here (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/lena-dunham-judd-apatow-discuss-their-brilliant-new-hbo-series-girls)!
I wasn't a huge fan of Tiny Furniture, but Apatow's attachment to this made me more interested. Can't wait.
Yeah I wasn't a huge fan either. I watched it about a month ago knowing that I was excited for this show and that some people seem to hate her for some reason. For what it was (basically a really good student film) I thought it was surprisingly watchable but nothing revelatory. It's funny that the show is very similar to the film (most of the same actors, etc.), without being glossy or Hollywood-ized, and yet somehow a million times better.
Mod I generally always agree with your reviews and I have no doubt this is a good show, but I can't get on board. I like Lena Dunham. I liked her movie. I like her in interviews. I've seen trailers for this which have made me laugh but WHY IN THE EVERLASTING FUCK ARE THEY ALL WHITE? How is this reflective of any kind of New York City that exists in the real world? I mean no ill will to Lena Dunham personally but from every trailer I've seen there's not one non-white person in sight. Not even in the background. They're not even pretending to try. I don't care how broke and downtrodden these girls are. It's 2012 and you're making a show that's "honest" and "authentic" to New York City twenty-something living yet your three lead characters are all white. Fuck that.
Call me crazy, but the depiction of white people interacting with white people seems more authentic than inserting the token black girl in the apartment. Is NYC like this for everyone? Hell no, but for these characters I buy it.
The doctor looked Indian at least, or Hispanic maybe? (shit, I'm the proof of my thesis)
All white people aside, everyone should watch Girls tonight on HBO. It's great.
When I first heard of this show, I didn't understand the hype. After seeing the trailer, I didn't think the show could amount to much. I kept seeing the trailer and it kept growing on me. It grew on me to amount that I thought the show couldn't live up to my expectations. Watching the pilot tonight was excellent. It live up and surpassed my expectations which is difficult to do now. Lets just call that The Killing effect. I hope this show continues to surpass my expectations.
Yup, this show is absolutely fantastic.
Next 2 eps are even better. Hopefully it keeps going up from there.
Apatow says (http://twitter.com/JuddApatow/status/191522025003683840), "The whole season is strong. It gets better and better as it goes deeper."
Quote from: modage on March 16, 2012, 01:13:58 PM
It's funny that the show is very similar to the film (most of the same actors, etc.), without being glossy or Hollywood-ized, and yet somehow a million times better.
The first episode was better than Tiny Furniture, but it also had an unpolished feel without feeling amateurish. We've seen plenty of male characters in a similar in-between stage of their lives, so it will be interesting to see it from a female perspective.
I may be jumping the gun in addressing some of the criticisms of the show, but the show isn't a ringing endorsement of these girls' lives. People seem to confuse depicting something for endorsing it, especially when the protagonists are the ones living off their parents' money and living somewhat aimlessly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrQfvq9RfM0
HBO put up the first episode online for free on YouTube (it'll be up there until May 14th). They're going to do the same thing for Armando Iannucci's "Veep" next week.
The opening scene to "Vagina Panic" was horrifying and hilarious in copious and equal amounts. I enjoyed the episode.
why isn't a bigger deal being made about Lena Dunham? first feature at 23, first tv series at 25?! She's the orson welles of our time! ok at least the john singleton.
but then i found out her parents were rich and she grew up with famous families (hence the cast of Girls). so her achievements can go fuck themselves.
i really like this show though.
Quote from: Pubrick on April 24, 2012, 04:03:36 AM
She's the orson welles of our time! ok at least the john singleton.
I don't think she quite approaches the depth and verve of John Singleton.
Quote from: Pubrick on April 24, 2012, 04:03:36 AM
i really like this show though.
This surprises me. Not because I don't like the show (though to be honest, I don't). It just doesn't seem like something you would enjoy based on my impression of you.
Quote from: BB on April 24, 2012, 12:48:07 PM
It just doesn't seem like something you would enjoy based on my impression of you.
Why not? He's got a 'girl' in his avatar! I have yet to find a dissenter of this show, or at least someone with a convincing argument against it.
Quoteor at least someone with a convincing argument against it.
key phrase.
There's been
a lot of vitriolic backlash against it and Dunham, though. It's kinda crazy. Film Crit Hulk wrote an excellent piece addressing it. (http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/18/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulk-vs.-the-girls-criticism/)
Most of the critiques against this show seem to either revolve around extra-textual issues (THE ACTORS HAVE FAMOUS PARENTS!!!) or misinterpretations of its intentions (IT EXPECTS US TO SYMPATHIZE WITH VAPID YOUTHS!!!). I can certainly see how the show might not be someone's individual taste, but some of vitriol that's been spewed at it across the internet has been baffling.
Especially the second argument, because it's actually what the show DOESN'T expect you to do. I mean, most, if not all, of the characters are unlikable people. They're relatable not in their specific circumstances, but in the feelings they're experiencing. And if anything, the show is being wonderfully critical of the "rich white people problems" people accuse them of trying to humanize and make seem important.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't HATE the show with the same seething rage that the internet does. It's just not to my personal tastes and seems to me a little too slight to justify the hype.
I think the rampant misreading of the show as an endorsement of the characters' lifestyles speaks to a larger problem in mainstream media, wherein every character who is not obviously a villain need be "likeable" (as opposed to interesting or engaging). It's as if people have gotten so used to the phenomenon that when a lead character is not likeable in the traditional, banal sense, they are unable to see him/her as such and the whole thing simply does not compute. Couple this confusion with the show being "smart" and you have a perfect recipe for hostility.
As far as the charges of nepotism go, I understand where those folks are coming from. It is hard to get a foot in the door without some kind of leg up. But it's obviously unfair to hold this against any benefiting parties. What's really weird about it in this case is the parents are just sort of fringe famous. Brian Williams is the only one an average person is likely to know. Possibly Mamet, but probably not.
Also, there's no doubt that the reaction is so severe because Lena Dunham is a woman. If Damien Hirst's son got together with Matt Lauer's son and made a quirky TV show, nobody would say shit. In fact, it's entirely likely nobody would even know about their famous dads.
Quote from: polkablues on April 24, 2012, 10:44:05 PM
Most of the critiques against this show seem to either revolve around extra-textual issues (THE ACTORS HAVE FAMOUS PARENTS!!!) or misinterpretations of its intentions (IT EXPECTS US TO SYMPATHIZE WITH VAPID YOUTHS!!!). I can certainly see how the show might not be someone's individual taste, but some of vitriol that's been spewed at it across the internet has been baffling.
EXACTLY. Exactly this.
Quote from: polkablues on April 24, 2012, 10:44:05 PM
Most of the critiques against this show seem to either revolve around extra-textual issues (THE ACTORS HAVE FAMOUS PARENTS!!!) or misinterpretations of its intentions (IT EXPECTS US TO SYMPATHIZE WITH VAPID YOUTHS!!!). I can certainly see how the show might not be someone's individual taste, but some of vitriol that's been spewed at it across the internet has been baffling.
Those don't really bother me. The biggest and most justified criticism against this show is the race issue. There's absolutely no reason why these 4 girls all had to be white. Especially since we all had to endure 6 years of the shamelessly white, completely fantasized New York in Sex and the City. Dunham herself claims casting was a "complete accident" and would rectify it if they get a second season, so we'll see.
Yeah but. Wouldn't it have been more insulting had HBO forced her to cast someone of race just to fulfill a quota? She cast 4 white people in the lead, so what? So does Mad Men, so does Breaking Bad, so does The Sopranos, so do tons of shows. I just can't understand how this show of all shows has been seized upon for some of these issues...
It's an apples and oranges comparison for me. Mad Men and Sopranos are shows in large part about race and class, depicting worlds that are insulated to a fault. It was a calculated choice to have all-white primary characters, and they deliberately tell stories about how these insulated worlds collide with different ethnic groups. Girls is a show priding itself in its realness and authentic portrayal of New York City living in your 20s, modern relationships, and post-college malaise. This is shit we ALL go through, not just spoiled white girls.
It's just such a boooring choice. It's 20-fucking-12. You're on HBO. You can do whatever you want. Unless you're making a grand comment on race and how we still self-segregate, which I'm not convinced the show is doing, why be yet another dating show full of white people? Sure there are certainly large parts of the city that self-segregate. WASPY, republitard finance guys living in Murray Hill keep to their own (thank christ). But these girls are hipstery east villagers/brooklynites. They would have friends from many races and walks of life. That's a big reason why we all live here to begin with.
Yeah I mean if that's what keeps you from enjoying it, fine. But it's still a great show. Why doesn't the show include ______X______ is besides the point. The answer is: because it doesn't. Why isn't it capturing my experience as a white dude? Because it's not. But I can still empathize with the characters.
Quote from: ©brad on April 25, 2012, 11:27:24 AMBut these girls are hipstery east villagers/brooklynites. They would have friends from many races and walks of life. That's a big reason why we all live here to begin with.
I feel like you're holding the show against some expectation that it's supposed to represent the absolute truth of the world right now. The show and no one behind the show has ever said this. If the media made it seem like that's the case, that has nothing to do with the show itself.
Quote from: ©brad on April 25, 2012, 11:27:24 AM
This is shit we ALL go through, not just spoiled white girls.
But if the show is about spoiled white girls, as you put it, that's totally valid. As long as it's telling an interesting, funny, real, story about them, right?
Read this.
Quote from: malkovich on April 24, 2012, 10:42:57 PM
Film Crit Hulk wrote an excellent piece addressing it. (http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/18/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulk-vs.-the-girls-criticism/)
Quote from: ©brad on April 25, 2012, 11:27:24 AM
Girls is a show priding itself in its realness and authentic portrayal of New York City living in your 20s, modern relationships, and post-college malaise.
Is it? To me, these characters seem pretty broad and unrealistic. Which isn't a problem. The show derives its humor from over-the-top characterizations and their ridiculous behavior.
The issue are relatable but everything else is sort of heightened. Right? There aren't masses of people actually like this for real, are there?
Ugh all caps. He doesn't dismiss the race criticism, rather just makes the point that the show is only 2 episodes in and we should reserve our judgment.
Mod I see what you're saying but just because the show is entertaining and relatable doesn't absolve it from this racial criticism. I watched the first two episodes and I liked them. A lot actually. Which makes the lack of diversity sting even more, because it's such a missed opportunity that in my mind would make the show truly great and even kind of groundbreaking. Minorities are largely ignored or caricatured in so much of television. This concept (and certainly the title) are broad enough that there's no justifiable reason not to mix up the cast, especially when it takes place in a city full of color.
I will say Dunham and her team should take some backwards compliment to all the backlash, which I'd admit is a bit overheated. Had she made a banal show no one would be criticizing because no one would give a shit.
Quote from: ©brad on April 25, 2012, 02:11:35 PM
This concept (and certainly the title) are broad enough that there's no justifiable reason not to mix up the cast, especially when it takes place in a city full of color.
But this is not a CBS sitcom. It did not come from a focus group. The responsibility is not on this show to be all things to all people. It's great because
its viewpoint is limited! This is Dunham's show and we can speculate as to why she cast herself and 3 whities - maybe her 3 closest friends upon whom she based the characters are white, maybe she doesn't know enough about the black/hispanic/indian/whatever experience to confidently write for those characters? - but the fact is that it doesn't matter. Until the show actually delves into race in some insensitive way, it is not a part of a larger conspiracy to keep minorities off of television. It just isn't. Wouldn't it have been so much more depressing to see a poster that looked like an ad for Bratz dolls (http://www.bratz--games.com/bratz.jpg)? Wouldn't people feel pandered to? Wouldn't it be worse to force that upon the artist to serve the public when it wasn't her intention?
I think you can write whatever convenient rules you want for why Mad Men or Breaking Bad or Freaks & Geeks isn't responsible for this but Girls is but it's just making your own justifications.
Also: The AV Club weighs in...
http://www.avclub.com/articles/our-white-people-problems-problem-why-its-time-to,72974/
Quote from: modage on April 25, 2012, 03:08:11 PM
Quote from: ©brad on April 25, 2012, 02:11:35 PM
This concept (and certainly the title) are broad enough that there's no justifiable reason not to mix up the cast, especially when it takes place in a city full of color.
But this is not a CBS sitcom.
Exactly. It doesn't have to succumb to focus group thinking. 90% of TV deserves and should receive the same racial critique but 90% of TV sucks and isn't worth wasting life talking about.
Quote from: modage on April 25, 2012, 03:08:11 PMIt's great because its viewpoint is limited!
Please explain to me how a show taking place in New York City circa 2012 is great
because it's excluding people that very much exist here.
Quote from: modage on April 25, 2012, 03:08:11 PMWouldn't it have been so much more depressing to see a poster that looked like an ad for Bratz dolls (http://www.bratz--games.com/bratz.jpg)? Wouldn't people feel pandered to? Wouldn't it be worse to force that upon the artist to serve the public when it wasn't her intention?
If the character was fully developed and not a one-dimensional caricature it wouldn't be pandering at all. This is the defense, we're not going to reflect the diversity of a city in fear of coming off pandering? Writers that aren't hacks should be able to write for anyone.
Quote from: modage on April 25, 2012, 03:08:11 PMI think you can write whatever convenient rules you want for why Mad Men or Breaking Bad or Freaks & Geeks isn't responsible for this but Girls is but it's just making your own justifications.
What convenient rules am I writing? The Sopranos was about racist people in New Jersey. Mad Men takes place in an advertising agency in 1965 and still has more black people than this show (this season at least). It doesn't make sense dramatically to give Carmela Soprano a black best friend to go on brunch dates, but it definitely makes sense to give these liberal-artsy girls living in freakin' Brooklyn a diverse group of friends to hang with.
I like the show fine. It's okay to like something and have problems with it.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FaVZgT.gif&hash=ebbb599ff1756e3d16cfaa8d3a90e69630ed29ea)
Quote from: ©brad on April 25, 2012, 05:51:58 PM
Exactly. It doesn't have to succumb to focus group thinking. 90% of TV deserves and should receive the same racial critique but 90% of TV sucks and isn't worth wasting life talking about.
I'm not sure you can be selective. It's either an issue worth discussing or it's not. My problem with this Girls backlash is that other shows aren't being put under the same kind of scrutiny.
Quote from: ©brad on April 25, 2012, 05:51:58 PM
Please explain to me how a show taking place in New York City circa 2012 is great because it's excluding people that very much exist here.
Because viewpoints are specific and trying to make something for everyone is boring. When the artist's intent is being watered down to cater to a larger audience, it sucks.
Quote from: ©brad on April 25, 2012, 05:51:58 PM
If the character was fully developed and not a one-dimensional caricature it wouldn't be pandering at all. This is the defense, we're not going to reflect the diversity of a city in fear of coming off pandering?
Why is it the show's job to "reflect the diversity of the city?" Wouldn't that also include old Jewish people, Indian cab drivers and Upper East Side rich kids and on and on. Those people exist too but when did it become this show's responsibility to tell their stories? Like, where do you draw the line? The version of NYC the show is presenting isn't denying those people exist, they're just not the central characters on the show. What about Friends? What about Flight of the Conchords? What about Seinfeld? These are all shows with a specific viewpoint. How To Make It In America reflected the diversity of the city but it just wasn't a good show.
We're exhausting this argument like the rest of the internet, so I'll try and be quick. It's one thing to just look beyond the all-white central leads and still enjoy the show for what it is, but to argue it
benefits from racial exclusion is mind-boggling to me.
Quote from: modage on April 26, 2012, 10:25:09 AM
Quote from: ©brad on April 25, 2012, 05:51:58 PM
Exactly. It doesn't have to succumb to focus group thinking. 90% of TV deserves and should receive the same racial critique but 90% of TV sucks and isn't worth wasting life talking about.
I'm not sure you can be selective. It's either an issue worth discussing or it's not. My problem with this Girls backlash is that other shows aren't being put under the same kind of scrutiny.
But other shows are put under the same scrutiny. Girls is new, that's why the scrutiny is heightened. Do I really need to write a review explaining the racial (not to mention bigoted and misogynistic) bias of Two and A Half Men, or anything on CBS's horseshit lineup? The reason Girls is getting all this attention is because it's good! It's a show worth discussing and arguing about.
Quote from: modage on April 26, 2012, 10:25:09 AM
Quote from: ©brad on April 25, 2012, 05:51:58 PM
Please explain to me how a show taking place in New York City circa 2012 is great because it's excluding people that very much exist here.
Because viewpoints are specific and trying to make something for everyone is boring. When the artist's intent is being watered down to cater to a larger audience, it sucks.
I don't understand how giving Lena Dunham a black friend is watering down anything. Making your entire cast white in this context is what's boring.
Quote from: modage on April 26, 2012, 10:25:09 AM
Quote from: ©brad on April 25, 2012, 05:51:58 PM
If the character was fully developed and not a one-dimensional caricature it wouldn't be pandering at all. This is the defense, we're not going to reflect the diversity of a city in fear of coming off pandering?
Why is it the show's job to "reflect the diversity of the city?" Wouldn't that also include old Jewish people, Indian cab drivers and Upper East Side rich kids and on and on. Those people exist too but when did it become this show's responsibility to tell their stories? Like, where do you draw the line? The version of NYC the show is presenting isn't denying those people exist, they're just not the central characters on the show. What about Friends? What about Flight of the Conchords? What about Seinfeld? These are all shows with a specific viewpoint. How To Make It In America reflected the diversity of the city but it just wasn't a good show.
Maybe I'm not articulating myself clearly.
Quote from: ©brad on April 25, 2012, 05:51:58 PMIt doesn't make sense dramatically to give Carmela Soprano a black best friend to go on brunch dates, but it definitely makes sense to give these liberal-artsy girls living in freakin' Brooklyn a diverse group of friends to hang with.
This isn't Downton Abbey. These girls don't live in an insulated world. They live in New York City. There's no sensible dramatic reason why they had to be all white, given their age, occupation (or lack there of) and where they live. If your title and premise are going to be this broad, so should your cast.
And I never said this or any show was responsible for shit. I'm criticizing the creator's choices and arguing it would be a better show if it was more inclusive. I would say the same thing to Friends, Sex and the City, Seinfeld, and any low-concept show in New York about dating, sex, or finding oneself.
Uh-oh, Reelist just found out about the internet.
Cripes, are we still talking about this? There's been two episodes. Two. Should we shift the conversation to how Game Of Thrones didn't have a black character that didn't threaten to rape a white woman until midway through Season 2?
Or we could start talking about Veep, Armando Iannucci's spiritual successor to The Thick of It and In the Loop, which is both hilarious and has a black person in it.
Let's talk about me and Diggler's avatars. I think we deserve some credit here.
Quote from: polkablues on April 27, 2012, 05:21:24 PM
Or we could start talking about Veep, Armando Iannucci's spiritual successor to The Thick of It and In the Loop, which is both hilarious and has a black person in it.
Haha. Yeah I loved it.
This article from Gawker is good and pretty much argues both the points Mod and I were trying to make.
Hipster Racism Runoff And The Search for The Black Costanza (http://gawker.com/5905885/hipster-racism-runoff-and-the-search-for-the-black-costanza)Another week, another episode of Girls with no black people, another Gawker Media piece about why it's fucked up to not include black people in your show about New York, another article from angry neocons attacking Gawker Media. The dust Lena Dunham's new HBO show has managed to kick up thus far is remarkable in light of its relatively average ratings. But it's also noteworthy because far fewer people seemed to care when the crimes of which the show is accused happened before—many times. Though it's taken on different iterations throughout the years, the white-ified TV New York City has served as a backdrop for lots of America's most beloved programs, and there is no sign that that trend is slowing. Hate Girls all you want, but recognize that Dunham is following a precedent that started even before she was born.
The Honeymooners didn't have any blacks in it, of course, despite the fact that New York City was already about 14 percent black by 1960. But that was a long time ago. In the 1980s, when Seinfeld premiered, Dunham was 3. Seinfeld is probably the most "New York" TV show in history in that it accurately gets at the quotidian indignities, stresses, and petty bickering a person must endure to live in New York City. New Yorkers liked Seinfeld because it was all about the ordinary problems New Yorkers faced: an awkward encounter with a romantic interest at the gym, a foolish interaction with a stranger on the subway. But while the show's verisimilitude was its greatest strength, that's also what made its dearth of people of color particularly irritating—how could they get it so right in so many areas while totally ignoring one that really mattered to millions of non-white New Yorkers?
Worse still is that when Seinfeld did include characters of color, they were often outrageous caricatures: A heavily accented Chinese restaurant host too dumb to tell the difference between "Costanza" and "Cartwright," a heavily accented gay Puerto Rican with a penchant to steal. To relieve yourself of any notions that Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David weren't intentionally trading in ethnic stereotypes on Seinfeld, go here and listen to actor Danny Hoch tell a story about the time he was fired from the show for refusing to use a Spanish accent to play a crazy pool boy.
"Why a Spanish accent?" asked Hoch. "Because it's funnier," said Seinfeld.
In 1998, the year Seinfeld went off the air, Sex and the City premiered and continued whitewashing the titular City. Though Carrie Bradshaw and her shoe crew were always out and about in the ultra-diverse New York, they were somehow able to constantly avoid serious interactions with black and brown people (save for obnoxious transsexual prostitutes). To be fair, throughout the majority of the show, the quartet refused to leave the whitest parts of Manhattan, lest they should run into the unwashed dark thugs in the outer boroughs. But that never totally explained how women so professionally and personally invested in New York's culture scene, a scene influenced deeply by young black people, were also content never talking to black people.
In the off chance one of the foursome did date a black man, it always went wrong somewhere along the way. There was the handsome doctor, Robert, who lasted about four episodes before Miranda dumped him. Robert got his revenge by being such a paragon of sexuality that he was able to essentially fuck two women in front of Miranda's white boyfriend, Steve, who slinked away from a would-be confrontation in shame. Then there was Chivon Williams, the black rap label executive who dated Samantha. That relationship was going fine until Williams' sister told Samantha to get her "little white pussy" away from her brother. Angry black women, amiright?!?!
After Seinfeld and Sex and the City, most of the all-white, fictional New Yorks start to blur together into what we can call the "Friends Vortex." The problem of Friends' almost total whiteness was complex, because there were several black people in speaking roles on the show—they were just eminently forgettable. It's a dilemma many TV programs face: a desire to have some color, but no real desire to add minority characters that are substantive or layered. In the end, you're left with a black waiter here and there, or a black school principal or temporary lover. They're good for a couple laughs, and they let your audience know you're aware black people exist, but they're also distant enough you don't have to start incorporating "Black Issues," like, y'know, weaves and welfare. What makes the black-person-as-ambiance routine especially upsetting is that it's how many black people feel they're treated in the real world: off to the side, immaterial, seen and heard but rarely remembered.
Other shows caught in the Friends Vortex are Mad About You, Caroline in the City, How I Met Your Mother, et cetera, et cetera. Gossip Girl hints at giving you a brown character in Vanessa, but not in any direct way. I think you're just supposed to assume she's a Latina because she wears patterned clothing and big earrings sometimes. You'd think that show could include a black boy or girl somewhere; they could make him or her a rapper's child.
Put into this context, one hopes it should be easier for people like Lesley Arfin to see why blacks and others who criticize Girls for its lily-white depiction of Brooklyn are so offended: because after a while you get tired of rich celebrities pretending that you don't exist. Beyond that, you get tired of them pretending that if you do exist, you work at a rap record label or are a bum, as the only black guy in the Girls pilot was.
I also think it goes much deeper than just wanting to be characterized as being normal, or be characterized at all. One of the reasons Girls seems to be so adored is that its depiction of upper-middle class, Urban Outfitters ennui reads as more true than most everything before it, as if, at long last, there is finally a team of young people that "gets it." Many sub-30, post-college men and women look at the show and nod their heads in agreement with every abortion joke, drug reference, and unfortunate sex scene. This stuff is indeed happening in Ivy League pockets throughout the United States, the only difference is it's happening to black, Latino, and Asian people as well, not just Dunham and her trio of white friends.
It's a failing of contemporary American culture that if there's ever a discussion about adding a black character to a show, people immediately think that means a slang-spitting, wise-cracking stereotype. They assume the person asking for diversity is asking for the show's creator to change the entire dynamic of the program. Instead, what's more often happening is that the person interested in diversity is simply asking for the show's creator to understand that black people can and do do everything white people do, usually making a character's race irrelevant.
There is currently not a single leading character on Girls that couldn't be played honestly and convincingly by a black actor or a Pakistani actor or a Taiwanese actor. It may come as a surprise to some Americans, but there are women of all races who freeload off their wealthy parents and work in tony art galleries. Alas, if you look at the full cast list for Girls, you'll see that minority actors don't play those kinds of girls. They're saved for special roles, a sampling of which includes:
Sidné Anderson as "Jamaican Nanny"
Jermel Howard as "Young Black Guy"
Moe Hindi as "Roosevelt Hotel Bellhop"
Jo Yang as "Tibetan Nanny"
When he won the Pulitzer this year for criticism, the Boston Globe's Wesley Morris owed part of his victory to his writing about the Fast and Furious film series. Though the Fast movies are almost universally mocked as obnoxious pieces of shit, Morris calls them "incredibly important" for their depictions of race. "
nlike most movies that feature actors of different races, the mixing is neither superficial nor topical," Morris wrote of Fast Five. "It has been increasingly thorough as the series goes on—and mostly unacknowledged. That this should seem so strange, so rare, merely underscores how far Hollywood has drifted from the rest of culture."
The thing that sucks about Girls and Seinfeld and Sex and the City and every other TV show like them isn't that they don't include strong characters focusing on the problems facing blacks and Latinos in America today. The thing that sucks about those shows is that millions of black people look at them and can relate on so many levels to Hannah Horvath and Charlotte York and George Costanza, and yet those characters never look like us. The guys begging for money look like us. The mad black chicks telling white ladies to stay away from their families look like us. Always a gangster, never a rich kid whose parents are both college professors. After a while, the disparity between our affinity for these shows and their lack of affinity towards us puts reality into stark relief: When we look at Lena Dunham and Jerry Seinfeld, we see people with whom we have a lot in common. When they look at us, they see strangers.
One last Girls post and I'm done. This video is from the hysterical Louis Virtel who does this web show Verbal Vogueing I highly recommend watching. Anyway, he gives shits like me a hard time for giving Girls such a hard time and it's pretty funny.
And here's verbal vogueing.
I was an extra on this show, art gallery seen, i got tipsy during the long ass wait, there were like a dozen bars in the area and it was like a Friday night and, being a extra is a poor way to spend a Friday night so I made the best of it
So you're white right?
Has to be.
which drunk white person are you in what episode?
Quote from: ©brad on April 28, 2012, 04:34:50 PM
This article from Gawker is good and pretty much argues both the points Mod and I were trying to make.
Hipster Racism Runoff And The Search for The Black Costanza (http://gawker.com/5905885/hipster-racism-runoff-and-the-search-for-the-black-costanza)
The use of "hipster" is unnecessary. I guess they needed a buzzword in the title.
It is a fair criticism of TV in general that there's not enough diversity, but I don't buy that a show like Girls needs more black characters in it. I don't think it is so inconceivable that the central characters would be lily white.
Quote from: lena dunham on nicholas ray
I'm a total movie geek, but I can't get into movies like Nicholas Ray's. I'll go with my friends and they'll say, "Bigger Than Life—that was incredible." And I was so distracted the entire time by watching James Mason act in that fashion. I was watching it with a boy who I wanted very much to think I was cool and have a crush on me, but the whole time I was like, ugh, yawn, bring a book, I can't deal with this. . . .
http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-06-08/film/what-it-takes-bamcinemafest-edition/ (http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-06-08/film/what-it-takes-bamcinemafest-edition/)
that's the final nail in the coffin for lena dunham.
and i hated tiny furniture.
Yes, an article from 2 years ago where she says she doesn't like Nicolas Ray is the "final nail in the coffin" for her. Somebody call HBO. Tell them to cancel the series, it's done. Cheremill says so.
Quote from: modage on April 30, 2012, 08:46:21 AM
Yes, an article from 2 years ago where she says she doesn't like Nicolas Ray is the "final nail in the coffin" for her. Somebody call HBO. Tell them to cancel the series, it's done. Cheremill says so.
now you're catching on.
Renewed (http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/whats-alan-watching/posts/hbo-renews-girls-veep-for-season-2) for Season 2. Good news for Apatow ending his run of previously cancelled 1-Seasoners.
Quote from: modage on April 30, 2012, 02:41:33 PM
Renewed (http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/whats-alan-watching/posts/hbo-renews-girls-veep-for-season-2) for Season 2. Good news for Apatow ending his run of previously cancelled 1-Seasoners.
:yabbse-thumbup:
Last night's episode was really good.
I was not seen thank heavens! I was in the lower part of the gallery there was a dude rocking a crazy outfit, which was visible for a millisecond .I was like far left, unseen but paid.
oh and I am 100% Puerto Rican, but am often mistaken for being white....
I think the show is pretty lame, I cant believe HBO canceled Bored to Death, that was my favorite HBO show, next to Boardwalk Empire and Curb.
I find the that most shows that take place in NYC that you see are white washed that's cause the people who created the show, and in effect are running the show come from a affluent white world so that's what they know and that's what they show.. I don't get mad at these shows I just don't watch them after I see what there about.
Ive watched 3 episodes of Girls and its about rich girls and their warped sex lives, but the folks that sell the show have to shovel the bullshit which is "oh this is about "real girls" making it in NYC...really? Cause to live in Greenpoint you gotta have $$$, Greenpoint before the hipster invasion was a Polish neighborhood and to some degree it still is....just like Williamsburg was a Puerto Rican enclave now its predominately hipster because they have pushed out the people who used to reside in these neighborhoods via gentrification.
Whats happened to Brooklyn is basically this: Manhattan(except past 110st,Harlem, but that is probably next to fall, Thanks to Columbia, has transformed into a wealthy person's utopia. Post 9-11 NYC morphed into a police state(the transit system motto is "if you see something say something", that's the facts,for the safety of its citizens and its done some good(screening people , thwarting an IED attack by some terrorist) and bad(stupid quality of life arrests like riding your bike on the sidewalk, pissing on sidewalk, spitting or smoking a joint out in the street).
What Brooklyn has become is the "new Manhattan" or rather the new village, where artists,musicans,poets,filmmakers, and bohemians alike can live in harmony with one another. However there are so many shoddy modern looking "luxury" condos its ridiculous.
Quote from: wiped_out on May 02, 2012, 11:04:36 AM
Whats happened to Brooklyn is basically this: Manhattan(except past 110st,Harlem, but that is probably next to fall, Thanks to Columbia, has transformed into a wealthy person's utopia. Post 9-11 NYC morphed into a police state(the transit system motto is "if you see something say something", that's the facts,for the safety of its citizens and its done some good(screening people , thwarting an IED attack by some terrorist) and bad(stupid quality of life arrests like riding your bike on the sidewalk, pissing on sidewalk, spitting or smoking a joint out in the street).
The parenthesis use in this paragraph was like the literary version of Inception.
Quote from: ©brad on April 30, 2012, 03:39:34 PM
Quote from: modage on April 30, 2012, 02:41:33 PM
Renewed (http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/whats-alan-watching/posts/hbo-renews-girls-veep-for-season-2) for Season 2. Good news for Apatow ending his run of previously cancelled 1-Seasoners.
:yabbse-thumbup:
Last night's episode was really good.
Yes I agree they really kept it real this time with the black girl in the background at the gallery (lower ground, visible for a few seconds from the upper level) and the other black girl passing through the background at the bar where Hannah meets up with her gay ex.
groundbreaking stuff
They should've included a black girl in the group of friends. And cast hotter actresses. And made the characters more likeable.
more ugly black men
Lena Dunham addressing (http://www.npr.org/2012/05/07/152183865/lena-dunham-addresses-criticism-aimed-at-girls?ft=1&f=1008#) the cBradtroversy:
"I take that criticism very seriously. This show isn't supposed to feel exclusionary...I wrote the first season primarily by myself, and I co-wrote a few episodes. But I am a half-Jew, half-WASP, and I wrote two Jews and two WASPs.
Something I wanted to avoid was tokenism in casting. If I had one of the four girls, if, for example, she was African-American, I feel like — not that the experience of an African-American girl and a white girl are drastically different, but there has to be specificity to that experience [that] I wasn't able to speak to. I really wrote the show from a gut-level place, and each character was a piece of me or based on someone close to me. And only later did I realize that it was four white girls. As much as I can say it was an accident, it was only later as the criticism came out, I thought, 'I hear this and I want to respond to it.' And this is a hard issue to speak to because all I want to do is sound sensitive and not say anything that will horrify anyone or make them feel more isolated, but I did write something that was super-specific to my experience, and I always want to avoid rendering an experience I can't speak to accurately."
Sounds like...
Quote from: modage on April 25, 2012, 09:23:53 AM
Wouldn't it have been more insulting had HBO forced her to cast someone of race just to fulfill a quota?
Quote from: modage on April 25, 2012, 03:08:11 PM
This is Dunham's show and we can speculate as to why she cast herself and 3 whities - maybe her 3 closest friends upon whom she based the characters are white, maybe she doesn't know enough about the black/hispanic/indian/whatever experience to confidently write for those characters? - but the fact is that it doesn't matter.
"Hey, I'm just writing from my experience, to which in my segregated, racially pure lifestyle in a town were only 35% of the population is white, I somehow only managed to always find myself in places were 99.99% of the people surrounding me are white."
I didn't want to embark on tokenism. And we all know the only TV shows, or real life interactions with blacks or latinos is where they are token side kicks to whites. I mean, who actually hangs out with 'colored people' in Brooklyn?"
And good Christ she said it herself, how different does she think a black girl's post-college malaise is to hipster white girls?
Sorry man, we'll have to agree to disagree. The more she talks the more infuriated this all gets. I like the show. I like her. I don't believe her to be a racist, rather just a little shallow and insulated.
Did you listen to the whole interview? It's a good interview and should assuage most of everybody's complaints about the show.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Feightasians.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2F8a-white.jpg&hash=16bea0aeb82aed8607d30b3a8a6bedf91b33e62a)
wouldn't it be great if they were more upfront with the perspective of this show and we could all just move on?
Quote from: modage on May 09, 2012, 10:43:04 AM
Did you listen to the whole interview? It's a good interview and should assuage most of everybody's complaints about the show.
Not the whole thing but I will. She does come across well-intentioned and I do admire her greatly.
One last point and I'll shut up because I'm so exhausted with the arguments circling this show that I'm coming full circle and starting to consent to your points now. I really feel like many of the issues stem from the title, as silly as that sounds. Because it's so generic and inherently inclusive. Had she come up with a more specific title that was more revealing of this specific subset of people - oh god forget it. I'm boring myself now. It's a good show. Let's move on.
Quote from: ©brad on May 10, 2012, 01:08:49 PM
I really feel like many of the issues stem from the title, as silly as that sounds. Because it's so generic and inherently inclusive. Had she come up with a more specific title that was more revealing of this specific subset of people - oh god forget it. I'm boring myself now. It's a good show. Let's move on.
What should the show be called,
Jewish and WASP Girls From Upper-Middle Class Backgrounds Who Live in New York and Don't Have Their Shit Together? Isn't the show itself supposed to be what reveals how these people are? The title is perfect. It shows that the characters are immature girls and not
women.
Quote from: Ravi on May 11, 2012, 04:39:02 PMWhat should the show be called, Jewish and WASP Girls From Upper-Middle Class Backgrounds Who Live in New York and Don't Have Their Shit Together? Isn't the show itself supposed to be what reveals how these people are? The title is perfect. It shows that the characters are immature girls and not women.
Quote from: ©brad on May 10, 2012, 01:08:49 PM
oh god forget it. I'm boring myself now. It's a good show. Let's move on.
So how about that Fringe finale?
This topic really exploded since I last posted. I really wanted to not comment on the huge controversy this show seemed to have caused but doesn't seem plausible if I want to talk about the show. The nepotism controversy is completely stupid. The racial issue is justifiable but why don't other shows get the same criticism? I think the show is very much Lena Dunham trying recreate a show like Seinfeld. I think it's Seinfeld meets Louie. Seinfeld got it's controversy over race but it was no where near the amount Girls has gotten but it's a different time now. But shows like Entourage, Sex and the City, Always Sunny, Arrested Development, Bored to Death and other comedies that had a vastly majority white cast never had this kind of controversy. While the criticism is justifiable, it's unfair to hold up this one show up to the criticism while I'm sure the vast majority of shows are guilty. I tend to believe the show is getting much more criticism due to the fact its a young woman with a famous mother running the show. There seems to be a lot of young woman hate going on lately. Lana Del Rey got a lot recently which is ironic since Brian Williams was a part of and now his daughter is getting it from being on the show with another famous parent.
Now on to what I really wanted to discuss: I love the show. I think it's hilarious. What I love most is the portrayal of Shoshanna. Any other show would have made her the geeky judgmental virgin who looks down on what everyone else is doing. But she is really sweet and genuine and my favorite character of the show.
Quote from: Brando on May 14, 2012, 01:11:43 AM
I tend to believe the show is getting much more criticism due to the fact its a young woman with a famous mother running the show. There seems to be a lot of young woman hate going on lately.
Yeah, it's just people going "well, if the show's so great how come it didn't cover
this?"
Quote from: Brando on May 14, 2012, 01:11:43 AM
What I love most is the portrayal of Shoshanna. Any other show would have made her the geeky judgmental virgin who looks down on what everyone else is doing. But she is really sweet and genuine and my favorite character of the show.
Me too. She gets the most laughs out of me. She's so innocent and always cooped up in her apartment. Some of those looks on her face are priceless.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm.nypost.com%2Frw%2Fnypost%2F2012%2F05%2F18%2Ftv%2Fweb_photos%2F18.1T102.girls--300x450.jpg&hash=c3c050a19d96cf1df7a355140cc3147fbd1190b8)
'Girls' quick fix
Source: NY Mag
Well, that was fast.
"Girls," which has been blasted in the media for its lack of diversity, began filming its second season in Brooklyn this week.
And surprise, surprise, the creator and star of the HBO show, Lena Dunham, was photographed filming on a stoop with African-American "Community" actor Donald Glover.
Dunham spoke about the diversity controversy on NPR's "Fresh Air" last week.
"Now we have the opportunity to do a second season and, believe me, that will be remedied," Dunham said. "I'm really excited to introduce new characters into the world of the show. Some of them are great actors of color."
Privately, HBO said this week that it "wouldn't be surprised" if Season 2 of "Girls" addressed the diversity void.
But filming with an African-American actor within the first days back on set is still a surprisingly quick turnaround.
Dunham made it clear in the NPR interview that "something I really wanted to avoid was tokenism in casting."
he looks a little too happy to be there...
not black enough
Haha the unruly mob has changed the world once again.
If only their complaint was that the hot chicks in the show are not getting naked enough.
"Tako" is my friend's sister. She's been to my apt. I had no idea she was on this show. That's crazy.
James Franco weighs in:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-franco/girls-hbo-lena-dunham_b_1556078.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-franco/girls-hbo-lena-dunham_b_1556078.html)
I don't know if it's just mod and I that still watch this show, but this last episode was the most affecting episode of television I've seen since Friday Night Lights ended.
Yeah, fantastic. Love that it broke the format, felt like a short film or something.
Agree. The show is only getting better.
It's impossible to have a sensible debate about this show online. This last episode spawned such an internet shit-storm about Lena Dunham's nudity, mostly from guys. It's infuriating and sad.
One thing that continues to irk me (besides the continuing race problem, but I need not reopen that can) is the Zosia Mamet character. She's such a caricature and feels so broad and sitcom-y in comparison to the rest of the cast. In fact after last week's episode I wish the show was just about Hannah.
the last two episodes, eps 5 and 6, have finally taken this shit to the next level.
give a fuck about the race non issue, the best episode of the entire series (ep 5) was basically 99% two characters, a white dude and a white chick. but who was thinking about that bullshit? if they had caved in to the dickhead PC police and bent over backwards to accommodate ridiculous racial quotas then that episode would never have existed. so enough about that.
i haven't been paying attention to what the cry babies have been saying lately, so what's the new internet shitstorm? please let me know in case i meet one of these losers in person, knowing their argument beforehand will give me a chance to stop myself slapping their hipster glasses off their face as soon as they open their mouth.
for once (twice now) this show has FINALLY lived up to what it should have been doing all along. that is being true to its own characters at the expense of the entire world. the pay off has been amazing. i actually hate every character on it, but at least now we're starting to share that hatred with them as well. the best example of this was adam telling off the 33yr old lame guy and that dude's own awesomely pathetic realisation at the end of ep 6.
hopefully it can keep up this level of self awareness for the remaining episodes before the ignorant hive mind burns it to the ground and pisses on its ashes for no other reason than "it was the cool thing to do."
The latest shitstorm has focused mainly on Lena Dunham's "excessive and gimmicky" nudity. There was a torrent of complaining (mostly from men) that Hannah was eye-raping them by constantly being naked and felt a girl her size could never land a dreamy dude like Patrick Wilson. These fools meanwhile have no issue with the Kevin James and Seth Rogen's of the world constantly dating girls way out of their league. Weeding through all the misogyny and hypercritical sex-negative commentary to actually debate any given episode is exhausting.
As for race, dickhead PC police like myself have mostly given up on that fight. How casting a single girl of color is "bending over backwards" is beyond me but whatever. It's too late now. Welcome to the white-only part of Brooklyn!
i dont understand why people feel the need for this. just like, did the narrative seem to work, was there a logic, what did it make you feel like. that's how we talk about these things, right
is it evidence of this show being well-written that the audience feels the need to judge these people (person above me both judged and judged judgers, seems like the conversational equivalent of when the person in movies gets shot and their dying hand clutches their tommygun's trigger and bullets go flying around the room for no specific reason), or is it evidence of the general tv audience being a bunch of hypersenstive hyperopinionated hypervocal mother idiots
who gives a fuck about this or that controversy i'm about to hulk this thread
jk
im an episode behind but i really liked the fuckfest episode. ive had irl experiences with those kinds of special rules, special feelings. i sensed that she sensed its specialness. if all our days could be like our best days, right. and i related to her sensitivity toward the end of it, how her toughness (a kind of breath-holding) crumbled into sensitivity and emotional paranoia. those fears that start as feelings tend to infect the other person and create the object of worry. life is terrible that way. that's good dramatic material
I think "On all fours" is the best episode to date of the series, and certainly the darkest. I can't wait for the finale.
SPOILERS
I'm glad Hannah's OCD wasn't some one-episode gimmick. Watching her descend like this is just heartbreaking, as was the scene with her and Adam. I loved how simultaneously disgusted and concerned Adam was for her. Next to Lena Dunham, Adam Driver serves up the most captivating performance on the show.
I'm continually annoyed with Shoshanna. I always feel like her character is on a different show. I know girls like that but she comes off as such a cliche in comparison to the other girls. Plus we've seen the recent virgin coming into her own storyline a gazillion times before, and the show isn't bringing anything new or interesting to it.
at this point its pretty clear what this show does well versus what it does poorly. it is not very funny. the awkward attempts at jokes as the camera scans the crowd at charlie's work party (charlie's "career" a contrived plot point that i'll leave alone) feels like something out of a bad sitcom. the show is best when it feels honest and truthful (and the humor works best if it grows out of this). all the stuff with adam and hannah is great. it feels real to me! i thought the OCD thing was a little forced at first, but the sequence with adam going to the engagement party and running into hannah was one of the defining moments of the show.
i find almost all of the stuff involving allison williams (can't bring myself to refer to her as her character) and shoshana to be cartoonish and kind of a dead-end. ray is dec.
ultimately, its a frustrating watch. the season itself is sort of unfocused, but there's enough good material within each episode that its hard not to watch.
Quote from: JG on March 12, 2013, 10:21:38 AM
all the stuff with adam and hannah is great. it feels real to me!
Had to..
Yeah, Adam is my favorite character on the show. He's the funniest and most real. Haven't watched but I heard the last one was mainly his episode so that can only be a good thing.
I'm really glad Jemima Kirke is gone for the moment ( can't bring myself to refer to her as her character ). Please tell me she doesn't show up again. Her character has annoyed the piss out of me this season and I'm finding it harder to see anything redeeming in her.
how many are left?
Quote from: Reelist on March 12, 2013, 11:21:25 AM
how many are left?
a couple of episodes at most, right?
this last episode was even better than the previous two.
it's interesting how fascinating the male characters have become this season (with the exception of pretty-girl's pretty-boy ex boyfriend, can't bring myself to name their real names or their character's), given the show is supposed to be about GIRLS. i don't know about the actor's contracts or whatever but i always felt that the male characters could disappear at any given moment, sort of like Sex and the City. but the focus on adam in this episode and the loser 33 yr old in the other one have made them kind of indispensable.
SOMEONE HAS TO DIE
that's no spoiler.
this last episode was so fucking incredible it made me CRINGE more than anything i've seen in the subreddit that is devoted to that feeling. when pretty girl sang, WOW, i wanted to leave the room. how perfect was that song she chose? perfectly awful i mean. it's a privileged white girl doing a rich black guy's song inspired by some french robots... it made NO sense. i can't think of a more perfectly embarrassing thing for her to sing.
then adam's date with the chick that looks like the chick from the sopranos. the ending to that.. it was almost like CMBB in that the title predicted that this had to happen. and in a similar way that our expectation of it would be satisfied and at the same time flipped completely upon delivery....
here's the thing: last season this show tried to make the characters do things that were unexpected and sometimes downright stupid and then play it off as a profound manifestation of alienated youth. it didn't fucking work. this year - this episode in particular - what adam does feels as spontaneous and chaotic as anything happening (http://i.imgur.com/OLBwlDo.gif) in 20-something society today but the clarity of the "afterglow" is what has been perfected.
the
spontaneous but inevitable chaos is also personified in hannah's OCD. her character is given the chance to realise her dream but then devolves into this malfunctioning human robot (into something grotesque). this bracketed description also encapsulates adam's transformation but the same can also be applied to the pretty girl when her pretty boy ex tells her she's lost her mind after her horrendous display.. and shoshanna who i don't mind as much as others, she was never a human she was always a robot which is why her malfunctioning (into human) is less interesting.
the other chick she was so free/grotesque already that her malfunctioning caused her to outright DISAPPEAR from existence. i like what this show is trying to do, and now often achieving.
this season like last season is 10 episodes. there's 1 more episode this season. next season will be 12 episodes
i'm fighting with the show. i fought with it last season too. it was almost lifelessly mellow during jemima's parents episode, and now it's gotta work itself into a tizzy for the finale. and what does it think to do? stir the relationship pots
sometimes its drama strikes me as really, really bad. there's always like -- the episodes are kind of like the characters, broken but with certain treasures. partially i think it's the tv format and the dynamics of season-long narratives. gotta build to a crescendo! GOTTA
bad drama imo:
charlie and marnie. in real life, sure maybe there'd be two simultaneous reunions going on between best friends and their exes. in a written tv show, just one would've been fine. and this is terrible romcom stuff, straight down to "embarrassing situation as emotional tribute." narrative wise, there's nothing charlie and marine are doing that adam and hannah aren't doing better
the episode with adam and ray foreshadowed not just the reunion of adam and hannah, but also the reason, and i trust that it also foreshadowed the shoshanna and ray breakup. ray was a starter vehicle, sure, but this is awful to watch, i don't enjoy it, i'm not learning from it, they both annoy me
i think the ocd thing is pretty thick, hasn't hannah just been straight ocding the past two episodes
i feel like the only captivating element active right now is:
the magnetic attraction between adam and hannah. the show is doing hot mess well 'cause it understands what those connections are based on. adam and other girl couldn't work 'cause hot messes can't base relationships on what works. they have to meet in darkness. the show did a nice job of illustrating this link by bottoming-out both adam and hannah. unhealthy, insightful, real. the romance has a dangerous beauty, the way it's held together by a mutual understanding between imperfect people. the same imperfections that damage it, make it volatile. it's good stuff.
but, again 'cause of the structure of tv narratives, a lot rests on how this last episode goes
Great write up of the The Last Episode (http://www.theonion.com/articles/next-episode-of-girls-to-feature-lena-dunham-shitt,31661/)
this show is so brave.
Have to say this show keeps getting better.
Christopher Abbott (AKA Charlie) Abruptly Exits 'Girls' Season 3 As Production Starts
Source: Playlist
The unstoppable "Girls" may have just closed out its second season with its divisive finale, but it looks like one of the major storyline developments is getting an unexpected shakeup. Not all is sunny on Lena Dunham's set of the now-shooting third season, and one major character has abruptly exited the show.
NYPost reveals that Christopher Abbott -- who plays Marnie's perennial doormat Charlie -- has left, with reps for the actor confirming he's "grateful for the experience of collaborating with Lena, Judd [Apatow], and the entire 'Girls' cast and crew, but right now he's working on numerous other projects and has decided not to return to the show." But according to the paper, there may have been more at play.
Their sources say that Dunham and Abbott clashed, with Abbott reportedly dissatisfied with "the direction things are going in." No matter what the official story is, it's certainly a surprise given that Charlie's arc really developed in the latter half of season two, with the character landing a hot new job after selling a successful app, and with Marnie back in his arms with declarations of love. So now the writers will have to do some interesting dancing to write him out of the show, though to be honest, the whole Charlie/Marnie drama was getting a bit tedious and repetitive, so maybe Abbott's exit is not the worst thing in the world.
We'll see how this develops, but it looks like season three of "Girls" is already serving up some twists without a single episode having aired.
That's too bad. I liked him. Although his storyline with Marnie was getting repetitive.
I guess his career really took off after that guest spot on Enlightened
The girliest character on the show is leaving? Won't be crying into my pillow over that one. Now if it was Adam, omg, I'd kill myself.
Quote from: MacGuffin on April 04, 2013, 09:19:49 AM
Christopher Abbott (AKA Charlie) Abruptly Exits 'Girls' Season 3 As Production Starts
Never liked him. His best moment was when he points to his dick and goes "You're not getting any of this."
Yes but 'unlikable' = are we responding to the character or the actor? I think he was great in this role and it's going to be super awkward for them to write him out of the new season after they spent the entire second season putting him and Marnie back together. Also have to imagine the scripts are basically set for Season 3 since aren't they shooting soon? So how much rewriting and re-conceiving of any Charlie/Marnie storylines is going to affect production I can't imagine.
If I were them I would just write Marnie off the show too, make her that girl who retreated to the suburbs with her boyfriend, never to be seen again. Then, in a season or two, have her come back after it falls apart to find that everything she knew is different.
Quote from: modage on April 06, 2013, 09:13:49 AM
Yes but 'unlikable' = are we responding to the character or the actor?
Quote from: ddiggler on April 05, 2013, 08:22:23 AM
I guess his career really took off after that guest spot on Enlightened
Now that I think about it, I did really like him on that episode of 'Enlightened.' So no, it's not Chris himself, but the character of Charlie. I guess the fact that he can play such a believable douche is a testament to his acting ability. His appearance on 'Enlightened' showed us he's not just 'that one guy' and can handle much more interesting roles. Maybe he doesn't want to be typecast as 'The HBO dude' and working with Mike White and Luke Wilson gave him the confidence to try and do some good movies? However the decision was reached, I think it's for the best of the show. I haven't seen the last 4 eps so I don't know how their relationship ties together in the end, but I almost wish he was axed for the entire season. I'm really not interested in the chemistry between those two, they're the two phoniest people on the show it seems.. but I will watch the last episodes and maybe revisit season 1 to see what it is that I DO like about Charlie, and if he has any redeeming qualities..because right now I can't think of much having been so distanced from the show.
Lena Dunham analyzes three episodes of 'Girls'
By Glenn Whipp, Los Angeles Times
— Lena Dunham finally moved out of her parents' house last year, buying a modest, one-bedroom apartment in Brooklyn Heights. It's her first place all her own, full of pillows and trophies, located on the top floor of an old building where Dunham is surrounded by elderly neighbors, people the 27-year-old creator and star of the HBO comedy "Girls" calls her "emotional demographic."
"I love them," Dunham says, "though some of them are constantly consternated with me coming home at 10 p.m. They think you're a hooker if you're out past 9:30. That's something I've dealt with. 'You guys! I'm 27 and I'm home six hours before all my peers.'"
Dunham's actual peers have turned "Girls" into one of television's most talked-about — and scrutinized — programs. Though the series is far from a ratings powerhouse, its small audience is obsessive about following the weekly trials and occasional triumphs of its quartet of young New York women. Placing a glass of lemonade carefully next to Dunham's prized, paperback copy of Fran Drescher's "Enter Whining," we asked her to talk about three of the season's most controversial episodes.
"One Man's Trash"
The season's fifth episode found Dunham's Hannah playing house — and having a lot of sex — with Joshua (don't call him "Josh"), a gorgeous doctor played by Patrick Wilson. Hannah's 48-hour tryst gives her a glimpse of a grown-up life far removed from her usual dodgy, day-to-day existence. The episode generated a fair amount of talk over whether an attractive, well-heeled doctor would hook up with Hannah.
Mismatched couple? It's such a funny response, the idea that a handsome, 42-year-old man would never sleep with an awkward, 24-year-old girl. It felt so oddly mathematical, like it was a bunch of scientists who had done a calculation rather than people who had a real grasp on the realities of being alone in the city. There's so many forms of human capital, and they're not all looks.
OK. But Patrick Wilson? That was the only argument I heard: "It feels weird to me." And I'm like, "Dude, I get it. It felt weird to kiss an actor that looked like Patrick Wilson." I get so tired of having to cry out "misogyny," but that's what's going on in this situation. People questioning the idea that a woman could sleep with a man who defied her lot in the looks bracket hews so closely to these really outdated ideas about what makes a woman worth spending time with. Really? Can you not imagine a world in which a girl who's sexually down for anything and oddly gregarious pulls a guy out of his shell for two days? They're not getting married. They're spending two days [having sex], which is something that people do.
Fantasy fulfillment: Richard Shepard, who directed the episode, would use the word "dreamy" to talk about the stylistic choices he was making. And some people thought maybe the whole episode was just a dream of Hannah's. That was an interesting angle. But this isn't "Twin Peaks," you know? I think for Hannah, just sleeping in late is a fantasy. And if you added up the thread counts in her entire house, the linens on Joshua's bed would probably beat it.
"On All Fours"
Hannah's obsessive-compulsive disorder resurfaces, as does the alcoholism — and self-loathing — of her ex, Adam, who has an awful sexual encounter with Natalia, his new girlfriend.
Scariest sex of the season: Questions were thrown out about the idea of consent. Did what Adam do constitute rape? That's hard for me to answer. I'm a rabid feminist. and no woman should ever be placed in a sexual situation that leaves her feeling degraded or compromised. That's not what sex is supposed to feel like. But I don't think Adam is a villain. If he thought he had even touched the R-word, he would be unable to live. To me, it seemed like a terrible miscommunication between two people who didn't know what they really wanted.
Too much? A moment like that, which is so humiliating to Natalia, wouldn't be visceral enough unless you show the offending substance. My dad's personal trainer thought it was too much semen. Everyone's a critic.
Rebuke to porn? In some ways, all the sex on the show is a rebuke to porn. So much of what happens sexually today is from porn. My entire sex life has been against that backdrop. What did it used to be like? I totally don't know. I'd have to sit down with my mother and compare and contrast her early 20s sex life, and that's not a conversation I feel like having.
"Together"
The season finale reunited Hannah and Adam, and Marnie and Charlie, and put Shoshanna back on the market. It was marked by a sweeping romanticism previously unseen in the show.
Adam makes viewers swoon: That's as romantic as I can get as a writer. Adam running to Hannah via FaceTime speaks to the intensity of rom-com endings. Don't people just meet at the coffee shop rather than run to the aiport to find somebody? But we also all want someone to run to the airport to find us. So we wanted something that did both.
Sorry, Charlie: I've had so many concerned Twitter followers ask: What are you going to do without Charlie? (Actor Christopher Abbott left the show.) I want to say, "If the show 'Girls' relied on guys, we'd be up a creek without a paddle." Don't worry. I've tried to come up with an emotionally honest version of the end of that relationship.
Too happy an ending? People are always complaining that there are no wins for the characters. Well, we had an episode of super-wins! It's funny. I don't experience life as being this series of downs, but I've never been drawn to writing about characters experiencing great joy and triumph. Let's just say I'd be the wrong writer for the bright side.
I like this trailer! But, yeah, Marnie should die, one day, crying in her bed. I don't know. Can't she have toxic tears?
^recommended soundtrack to play while sharing feelings about this season of girls
like i always say (when i say it), our reactions to material are based not only on the material, but also on who we are and how we feel when we experience the material, and whether mercury is in retrograde and whatnot
this season of girls is pulling my emotions with a high-level vibrancy. i'm fucking roped in like a [thing that gets roped in a lot], and that's the full truth. tonight i finished episode 5 and i'd drink tea with any of you while we chatted it out. i think this sunday is episode 8 so i'm a bit behind but i'm still going to be typing btw
the shaky-cam in the episode was spot on. how did that happen, first of all. i continue to admire the artistic sensibility of lena dunham and her team. when is the shaky-cam appropriate? during shaky emotions. and how could she not feel shaky during that moment??
i can barely remember earlier seasons. i'd have to read up and etc, to be reminded. but i can tell you what i like about this season: i think the force of life is hitting the characters in the hard, tough way it does. they're not the dreamy idealistic kids they once were, when they were younger and the show was about younger people, and when the idea of the show was young to us
i'm fascinated by this season's narrative direction. after the fist two episodes i was regretting making the life decision to continue watching girls. everything felt recycled to me, closed in. television oriented, something like that, i thought. but i think that nut was cracked on episode 3. now i see the characters dealing with new realities, and i don't think their realities are based on the idea of creating a tv show, so much as ideas in life shaping humans' ideas about who they are and who they can be, and how they can be that person, you know. i think i should i rewrite that sentence but i think you know what i mean
i think it's intense stuff and i like it a lot, and i need it, i do. this season of girls is an example of how art helps restore my broken soul, again and again and again, all through my life
Yeah this season has been stellar. The break-up episode was one of the best they've done. Ironically outside of Hannah, the characters with the most dimension on Girls are the boys, Ray and Adam. I don't really understand what's going on with the other girls. The writers still have no clue what to do with Jessa. Marnie is pretty insufferable, and I don't see any signs of her maturing or escaping the pitfalls of her own narcissism. It's hard to understand why these girls are even friends at this point. When the show focuses on Hannah, which it almost always does, I'm happy.
caught up and i aim to catch up again with this week's
i simply think it's an impressive show. honestly wouldn't trust myself to say this is the best season, but i do know for sure it's the season that's vibed closest with my emotions. i'm total fucking edge of my seat, into every characters' emotions, hannah's especially, hannah's almost exclusively really, except she makes me so emotional that of course i'm caring about everyone. the most is happening to her. i'm dying to know what happens
^i'll leave that post but now i wanna ask
©brad you think they blew it this week? i'm like-- i'm like frustrated. always the frustrated one (i don't even get invited to weddings). the dad thing, the shoshanna thing, the goddamn engagement. even hannah jumped the rails. wtf was that tongue piercing scene for? exploitative, right? do you also feel like they suddenly blew it, when i was believing in this season so much, or do you think they simply jumped rails and i'm reacting adversely to change (that's pretty human). i know there's that cloud of protection from the perspective of allowing "full range" and saying i'm not handling full range material. thought the episode was catty though. so, so catty. what do you think
That's so crazy because as someone who was a diehard of this show since Day 1, I'm almost entirely out on it now. Season 1 & 2 were both great but inconsistent. 2 was a mixed bag but the highs were the show's best eps ("One Man's Trash," the coke ep, etc.) but for 3 & 4 outside of the occasional random episode I feel like the show has not only lost its way, I don't believe any of the characters or their relationships to each other. I have no idea what its doing and have come to hate almost everyone except Hannah because I still think Dunham's performance is really great.
It's funny because after all the controversy when the show premiered about having 'likeable characters' I find myself now just baffled in every scene thinking, "Are we supposed to hate both people onscreen right now? I think they're horrible but do the writers know this?" (For instance, scenes with Marnie and her guitar-hero beau.) It's this disconnect that makes the show just frustrating but fascinating to watch.
I think in retrospect the nail in the coffin was when they decided that Adam, the total creep, was going to be Adam, prince charming & Hannah's great love, and pivoted the entire show to accommodate this. Still love Lena Dunham but wondering if the show can ever recover from having been adrift for essentially 2 seasons.
SPOILERS SEASON 4
To me, this is about a friendship falling apart. Remember Beach House, last season? They're not really friends anymore. Sometimes, they're all in the same scene because Marnie is singing and everybody hates Marnie. Marnie and her boyfriend? The show is obviously aware they're awful, it's almost an horror story. I couldn't say why, in a story level, they're relevant. I don't know where the story is going. The show itself doesn't always know where it's going. But I love Girls.
Dunham is a great actress, she's funny in her own way, and when she has to be emotional I always find it heartbreaking. This season, she realized she wasn't a writer. It was an important storyline; then, you had the breakup, and it was good to watch Hannah being aware of how she is, what's her life, what it has been. She needs to change but stays this embarrassing narcissistic person who's talking way too much but stays, in my opinion, a character I care about.
What about the rest? Soshanna and Ray aren't Jessa and Marnie. The viewer can care about them. What about Jessa and Marnie? I don't know. But they're a part of Hannah's world. The last scene between Hannah and Marnie was fantastic. Because they're living different lives, and we know how naive and stupid Marnie is, we all dislike who she is, and we remember when they were kind of friends. I'm just writing incoherent thoughts right now...
Anyway! Good show! With sometimes absolutely fantastic episodes. I like it.
I always have to remind myself this show is either not interested or very good at season arcs and long-form narrative. The plotting is so scattershot and story lines are so quickly abandoned that it's hard to evaluate Girls season by season. For instance, I loved everything going on in Iowa, but after all that build up from last season, Hannah was back in New York in 3 episodes. This teaching subplot is interesting but it looks like Hannah is already done with it. Can't the writers commit to something?
Mod I'm interested in hearing what you think is so different about the first two seasons vs these last two. I think Girls remains a messy, inconsistent yet occasionally brilliant show with glimpses of great writing and usually at least one solid scene in each episode. We're so used to evaluating a series based on seasons now but this show feels more like an anthology of short films.
As for the characters and the likability debate, I always subscribe to the idea that characters don't have to be likable, just interesting. Thing is there is nothing dramatically interesting going on with Marnie right now. I also don't get why the writers are so lazy with Jessa story lines. She had a nice moment with that older woman she was taking care of back in the first episode. Now she's just being horrible to everyone and obsessing over some dude we haven't met.
I think I'd like the show better if it was called Girl and was just about Hannah.
thanks for reporting back ©brad and i wanna tattoo your post on my face because it gave me the clarity i needed. are you related to polka? are you cousins? do you like horses? what's your favorite animal? i got a lot of questions and glad to have you around
this is a huge fucking problem and it was staring at me the whole time but i couldn't name it:
story lines are so quickly abandoned
i don't like it, because it gives my investment in the show a rocky foundation. i could explain more but i'd be paraphrasing ©brad really
begins with sexploitation, dad stuff funny like
crazy, stupid, love, troubs with making friends at school forever, politics and speeches related to past relationships, and a new song from grimes. it's melodramatic and i'm back in, it won be back in one episode, with fun melodrama
nah but i thought that was silly and imma forget this season too