My Review On the Reviews On HBO's "Girls"

HBO’s Girls debuted on April 15^th. It stars Lena Dunham (director/writer/star of "Tiny Furniture"). Director/writer/producer Judd Apatow took notice of Dunham and worked with her to create Girls. Shortly thereafter, writers/critics/bloggers went bananas.

The show’s homepage says Girls is: “a comic look at the assorted humiliations and rare triumphs of a group of girls in their early 20s.” Very succinct. The first episode follows Hannah (Dunham) who recently graduated college and has just been cut off financially by her parents.

At this point, only two shows have aired. Is that enough to form an opinion on the whole season?

YES!

I would love to have a divisive and incendiary opinion on the show- but, alas, I don't have HBO.

That is okay, because the reviews on Girls are insanely entertaining. 

Everyone has an opinion on the new HBO show Girls. Most of the reviews were written before the second show aired.

Those opinions seem to be that it is either "a staggering work of genius" or "offensive fail of a show." There is very little middle ground.

(**Also- you are required to use the word “zeitgeist” at least once in your review.)

In order to enter this arena, you need only have an opinion (based on one episode) that you defend to the death.

It Doesn't Represent Me

Ugh. I don't want television shows to represent me. That would be the worst show ever. I don’t even know how you would dramatize marathon naps, epic tumblr sessions, and doing stand-up about muffins. I need escapism.

But I get it. There are so few women in TV (and even fewer female leads) that a lot of hopes and ideas are riding on the few that make it to leading lady status. When the L-Word came out, so many people complained that it was an inaccurate portrayal of lesbians and unless you were a hot (white) lady who was rich and had her shit together, it was. BUT since it was, you know, the ONLY SHOW EVER to be about lesbians, I think it would be fair to say that there was a lot of ground to cover.

Women have always been under-represented in TV. For years, television's portrayal of women have typically either been insipid or just grossly inaccurate (I’m looking at you “Flying Nun.”) If only Twitter existed earlier, then people would have had a forum to voice their outrage ("I am not a nun NOR do I have the powers of flight. How could I possibly be expected to relate to this! #OFFENSIVE")

Some argued (vehemently) that the ideas and beliefs espoused in the show aren't representative of women/the times. People seem to acknowledge that women are varied and nuanced but (IN THE SAME ARTICLE) complain that one female character doesn't represent all women everywhere.

Like when the internet lashed out at my girl Liz Lemon (and Tina Fey herself) for not being a good/accurate representation of women. (*those are 8 different links)

An article in GOOD points out "This is only a problem because there are so few shows starring complicated, authentic young female characters. Girls ends up having to stand in for everybody. Dunham is painfully aware of this pressure. "I was given a role I never said I could handle" she told Salon." Poor girl.

She is one lady. She isn’t going to represent womankind.

Clearly we have cast Beyonce in that role. 

"Girls" and "Sex in the City"

People were quick to wonder how "Girls" would compare to that other show about women. 

Is it "Sex in the City" for a new generation? Is is the anti-"Sex in the City"? Is it "Sex in the City" with poor people?

I doubt any of the massive generalizations above would accurately describe the show. At least I hope not (but I do hope they go to Dubai in the second season).

Girls Can Be Shitheads Too!

After Bridesmaids, people seem to concede (most of them) that woman can be funny. So now the new frontier woman have to conquer is “the female slacker.” These battles are becoming more and more aggravating. 

Can women be slackers? Some say “yes” and this is apparently BLOWING PEOPLE’S MINDS!!

The slacker dude is a pretty established archetype: Kenny Powers, Jeff Winger, and every stoner comedy ever. They are can range from morally neutral to completely amoral but we always end up finding them charming.

People aren't finding slacker ladies so charming. It doesn't look good on them. Their lack of direction in life is irritating and their life of privilege is offensive. 

Keep reaching for that star, ladies.


I'm certainly doing my part to make the female slacker more visible.

SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX

Every single article mentions sex.

Every.

Single. 

One.

It shouldn't be that sensational. It isn't as if this show is airing on a cable network. It is on HBO. There is sex on EVERY SINGLE SHOW but Girls is the one to drawing the most criticism/attention. It seems kind of crazy that people are going bananas over the sex in Girls when there is rape and insect on the show after it.

Boring and awkward sex is apparently more controversial.

When people offer up critiques, it isn’t that the scenes are bawdy, rather, it is that it’s boring or (my favorite) not funny (you know, because if I see a woman having sex, I better be fully aroused or shaking with laughter!).

My favorite is one writer (seemingly horrified) wondering “is sex always as unfun or awkward as it is on the show?” Does "real sex" equate to "bad sex"??! (she only has awesome sex so she wouldn't know),

The article is from (my favorite) Slate and titled "Why is the sex on the HBO show Girls such a drag?" They claims that “the show’s skittishness about sex is just old-fashioned moralism."  Because sex in Girls is strange and uncomfortable (and makes her feel sad feels) that it is the show's way of saying, "promiscuity is punished by HPV, abortions, and sad sex."


But the show doesn't seem that “skittish” about sex. It isn't pushed to the side. There is a lot of it and people talk a lot about it.


"It" meaning sex (didn't want to appear skittish).

Also, sadly even if you are having awesome sex, you can still get HPV and babies.

Oh My GOD! Did We Mention She Isn't Pretty??

People are tripping over themselves to mention Dunham's appearance.

Even though Dunham herself talks about how she deliberately chose for her character not to be glamorous, when other people comment, it just doesn’t feel nice.

Some people mention it and then "defend"/"praise" her for being "so real."

Which seems like it should be a compliment but it reads like "you are so brave for showing your horribly plain face on television."

THIS IS WHAT PROGRESS FOR WOMEN LOOKS LIKE!

Enough About "Girls." Ima Talk About Me For A While.

There were some articles where the writers just started talking about themselves.

Fascinating.

My favorite article was basically a journal entry complaining that he doesn't have a show. After he remarks that Dunham's sucess can be attributed soley to nepotism, he spends two paragraphs claiming how he is more deserving of a show.

WHO ARE YOU??!

In what other article would that be appropriate?

Op-Ed = Gospel Truth.

Again, I haven't seen the show. I'm not trying to defend the show or attack people who don't like the show. My issue is when huge generalizations are made about a show based on one episode.


Sure there hasn't been any character development  but that critique would hold a lot more weight after you watched the entire season. Most characters don't experience much character development after one episode. Maybe there is a story arc that reveals complexities and insights. Perhaps people's views change. WHO KNOWS!


Also, pundits and bloggers have really worked to blur the line between opinion and reporting. Opinions aren't facts. 


A lot of negative articles could be summarized thusly: "I did not like it- therefore it has failed as a show."

I don't like Entourage or Grey's Anatomy.

My solution?

Not to watch them. 

I could construct arguments about specific ideas and constructs within the show (The actions of "character" are misogynistic because of A, B, and C). But I can't just insist that it is bad (or good) because of my feelings. You can't argue that your opinion is correct.

De gustibus non est disputandum: you can’t dispute matters of taste.

BAM!

Latin.

Latin automatically makes everything in this article is authoritative and scholarly.

(also... zeitgeist)