GIRLS talk (the Lena Dunham thread)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (4977 of them)

the pipe scene was the clincher

Number None, Thursday, 5 April 2012 16:08 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah, agreed.
the pat on the thigh from spent dude was just painfully real.

wrapped sausage stylus (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 5 April 2012 16:18 (2 years ago) Permalink

i channel surfed through Tiny Furniture for a few minutes recently and could barely stand it, the direction/acting was like kevin smith-level bad

ferrante's inferranteno (some dude), Thursday, 5 April 2012 16:21 (2 years ago) Permalink

"In the street?"
"No, worse than that"

Number None, Thursday, 5 April 2012 16:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

Dunham is curating a mini-fest where i work called Hey, girlfriend. bummed i missed mulholland drive last night (one of her picks)

surm, Thursday, 5 April 2012 16:23 (2 years ago) Permalink

at least i have seen it on the big screen b4 tho

surm, Thursday, 5 April 2012 16:24 (2 years ago) Permalink

twice actually!

surm, Thursday, 5 April 2012 16:25 (2 years ago) Permalink

haven't seen any of her stuff, she's doing several days of film 'presenting' at BAM, tonight w/ Whit Stillman.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 April 2012 16:26 (2 years ago) Permalink

i sympathized with most of the characters in tiny furniture?

haha me too

i saw one of the episodes on the weekend it was... idk, im p excited to watch them properly but it was a bit of a mess. theres a lot of ambivalence in general i guess

Lamp, Thursday, 5 April 2012 16:27 (2 years ago) Permalink

Tiny Furniture was horrific but she might do okay in a TV format. As long as she's not directing.

Simon H., Thursday, 5 April 2012 16:30 (2 years ago) Permalink

oops hey i missed surm's posts, sorry.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 April 2012 16:34 (2 years ago) Permalink

some dude OTM about Tiny Furniture's filmmaking, but I also can't find it in myself to give a shit about the problems of an educated rich kid in this hard hard world of moving back into the 'rents multimillion dollar loft.

Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:27 (2 years ago) Permalink

still going to give Girls a shot, maybe there will be characters who aren't hateable

Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:28 (2 years ago) Permalink

I think she's more self-aware than people who offer that criticism realize

Number None, Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:30 (2 years ago) Permalink

I think she is sorta cute and seems fun and smart

og (admrl), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:31 (2 years ago) Permalink

"WKIW", as I believe you say

og (admrl), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:32 (2 years ago) Permalink

Like the scene where she has the big argument with her mother and she's all "I'm 22 and i just graduated and i got my first job". I have to believe that was somewhat tongue in cheek

Number None, Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:34 (2 years ago) Permalink

I don't think it was, or that the entire movie was one big self-aware joke at the expense of overprivileged twentysomethings... but I'm not sure that it would improve things had that been her intention.

Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:36 (2 years ago) Permalink

i like how the friend from ohio felt like a protagonist that wandered in from some other (slightly more conventional) movie

40oz of tears (Jordan), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:38 (2 years ago) Permalink

That's another thing. She tells her friend a day before she moves to New York that she's not going to move in with her, avoids all her calls, blows her off at the art thing cos that dude turns up etc. It has to be a joke, right?

Number None, Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:40 (2 years ago) Permalink

idk it's all part & parcel of being an actual horrible, spoiled 20-something

johnny crunch, Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:41 (2 years ago) Permalink

the character, not lena i mean

johnny crunch, Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:42 (2 years ago) Permalink

I think there was a degree of self-awareness on display in Tiny Furniture, but probably not the degree of self-awareness that she might've had if she'd waited a couple more years to make it.

1 of paper = 4 of coin (Deric W. Haircare), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:42 (2 years ago) Permalink

Which is a lot of why I'm open to Girls being more "my thing".

1 of paper = 4 of coin (Deric W. Haircare), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:42 (2 years ago) Permalink

its not a "joke" but it is "self-aware"

max, Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:44 (2 years ago) Permalink

Yeah but she didn't. She made it when she was like 23/24 and it's pretty much ABOUT being that age.

xxp

og (admrl), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:44 (2 years ago) Permalink

I mean, she was self-aware enough to not portray her character as a completely sympathetic protagonist (see: the treatment of her friend from Ohio) but I don't know that she was as aware of her character's/her own level of privilege as I would've liked.

1 of paper = 4 of coin (Deric W. Haircare), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:45 (2 years ago) Permalink

It's certainly no less self-aware than you might hope/expect given the age and status of the filmmaker.

og (admrl), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:45 (2 years ago) Permalink

Why does she have to apologize to you for being rich

og (admrl), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:45 (2 years ago) Permalink

I never really understand the "ugh, why would i want to watch something about rich people" criticism. I like to watch things about all kinds of people. I'm not rich btw

Number None, Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:47 (2 years ago) Permalink

She made it when she was like 23/24 and it's pretty much ABOUT being that age.

That being the case, I almost wish it had been less self-aware and more just a document of 23/24-ness. She probably had more awareness of how ridiculous people are at that age than most people do when they actually are that age, but it still didn't seem like a terribly high level of awareness.

1 of paper = 4 of coin (Deric W. Haircare), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:47 (2 years ago) Permalink

am i automatically supposed to give a shit about poor people but not about rich people

max, Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:48 (2 years ago) Permalink

I've also heard the opposite argument, the why-make-art-out-of-other-people's poverty argument that seems to suggest ALL films should be about people who are at LEAST of the same social status as the filmmaker/potential audience, which is deeply weird.

og (admrl), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:50 (2 years ago) Permalink

It's interesting that a desire to see a higher level of awareness of the characters' privilege translates to some as a demand for an apology or a lack of desire to see a movie about rich people. Kinda not the same thing at all.

1 of paper = 4 of coin (Deric W. Haircare), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:51 (2 years ago) Permalink

i think its really 'self-aware' but not entirely self-critical, like these are the worst impulses and decisions and stuff but its not about how terrible its just like, this is how it is

Lamp, Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:52 (2 years ago) Permalink

i tend to think that the best art is usually made about people from the same social/economic background as the filmmaker, this is not a real Rule at all but i guess im saying id rather lena dunham make this movie and whit stillman make those movies and john updike write about rabbit than have them all try to do like "menace II society" or something

max, Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:53 (2 years ago) Permalink

OTM. Although the attempt might be horrifyingly absorbing.

1 of paper = 4 of coin (Deric W. Haircare), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

anyways her character is not rich, her parents are better off than average. she leaps head on into being working poor. Having the puffy white cloud of conditional support beneath you is nice, but her story seems to be about what happens when you've always had gentle hands carrying you everywhere and then the palanquin stops and you gotta figure out how to be a grown up.
the "I feel like I'm entering a really exiting period in my life right now" / "What are you talking about? Everything you own is in garbage bags on my kitchen floor" joke is very much dead on with my experience during that time and feels pretty real. sure it's privileged, but she's hyperaware of it and seems to be primed to make good stories within that space

wrapped sausage stylus (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

a desire to see a higher level of awareness of the characters' privilege

i mean i think there are lots of parts of 'tiny furniture'/what ive seen of 'girls' thats really aware of how privileged some of the characters are but they maybe still dont know what that means, how they should deal with their comparative privilege not knowing the right tone to strike or pose to take or w/e like knowing w/o really understanding, being 22

Lamp, Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:56 (2 years ago) Permalink

^

wrapped sausage stylus (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:57 (2 years ago) Permalink

as a guy who DID move back home with his parents after college i suspect i'll find things to sympathize with here

y'tulip, y'pea-brained earwig (donna rouge), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:58 (2 years ago) Permalink

I don't think that it's about rich vs. poor, it's about the stakes being so small that Tiny Furniture/Lost In Translation/etc. wind up being about "this is how it is" for the overprivileged. Which is just not a very interesting story to tell.

I loved 'Wendy & Lucy,' which is also kind of "this is how it is" (you could criticize Michelle Williams's character's choices and how it all could have been easily avoided, etc.) but there's real shit going on there.

Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:58 (2 years ago) Permalink

anyways her character is not rich, her parents are better off than average.

Gotta call bullshit if you're talking about Tiny Furniture.

Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:58 (2 years ago) Permalink

(will totally cop to being a Stalinist about the wealthy, fwiw)

Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 5 April 2012 18:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

I will allow for the possibility that I didn't particularly care for the movie in large part because it's so grueling to watch people in their early 20s wrestle with the inherent douchebaggery of being in one's early 20s.

1 of paper = 4 of coin (Deric W. Haircare), Thursday, 5 April 2012 18:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

Have said elsewhere that my response to Metropolitan after 30 minutes was "nuke them all from orbit," Tiny Furniture was not this bad.

Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 5 April 2012 18:01 (2 years ago) Permalink

it's about the stakes being so small

'what is a life worth?'

Lamp, Thursday, 5 April 2012 18:01 (2 years ago) Permalink

i tend to think that the best art is usually made about people from the same social/economic background as the filmmaker, this is not a real Rule at all but i guess im saying id rather lena dunham make this movie and whit stillman make those movies and john updike write about rabbit than have them all try to do like "menace II society" or something

I get your point max but I guess it really depends on how much the filmmaker has a public presence that forms part of the conversation around the film. Obviously with LD that is a factor, but not every artist fits neatly into some social or economic type and it always seems like a much bigger deal than it should be. If you only make work about who you are and where you are from, you can easily turn that into an examination of identity or you can just come across as totally self-absorbed. I think it is to Lena Dunham's credit that folks ITT seem split on that question.

og (admrl), Thursday, 5 April 2012 18:02 (2 years ago) Permalink

"anyways her character is not rich, her parents are better off than average."
basing this on the promo language where she asks her parents for 1100 a month for the next two years to get on her feet and they straight up laugh at her; the rich would shrug and put up with that shit methinks
anyways, i'm talking about a show I haven't seen yet; I should shut up until I see the pilot.

wrapped sausage stylus (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 5 April 2012 18:02 (2 years ago) Permalink

I loved 'Wendy & Lucy,' which is also kind of "this is how it is" (you could criticize Michelle Williams's character's choices and how it all could have been easily avoided, etc.) but there's real shit going on there.

Didn't love W&L, but otherwise this is OTM.

og (admrl), Thursday, 5 April 2012 18:02 (2 years ago) Permalink

you're a moron

18th Century Celebrity WS of Shame (Hurting 2), Thursday, 4 December 2014 18:05 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

yes i know i am, i'm not disputing anything in Dunham's book (which i loved), but doesn't it matter if someone is telling the truth about a rape? that's important right? i'm not being glib - the whole notion that this needed to be investigated by breitbart is completely ridiculous, but I am having a hard time wrapping my head around "It's just not important if they are telling the truth." i don't think she's lying, and all the discrepancies the writer points out are so flimsy, like "oh, he actually didn't have a mustache and purple pants" and "he graduated a semester later than Dunham said." it's an obnoxious hit piece. "Asking whether or not a victim is telling the truth is irrelevant" - i completely agree this is not something you ask a victim, but "It's just not important if they are telling the truth" - wtf? it isn't??

ET sippin the wig (spazzmatazz), Thursday, 4 December 2014 18:23 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

you, like breitbart.com, are misapprehending the context of that quote and also attaching importance to what this one person says for reasons that remain unclear to me, and also you are actually engaging at all with something posted to the website breitbart.com, hence you are a moron

18th Century Celebrity WS of Shame (Hurting 2), Thursday, 4 December 2014 18:26 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

jfc someone sent me the link because she knew i loved the book, and fwiw engaging an article or a website you vehemently disagree with does not a moron make. how did i "misapprehend" the context of the quote? i want to understand "Whether or not a victim is telling the truth is irrelevant," because i don't.

ET sippin the wig (spazzmatazz), Thursday, 4 December 2014 18:48 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

in the context of a breitbart reporter calling you up and digging for dirt?

ET sippin the wig (spazzmatazz), Thursday, 4 December 2014 18:48 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Why should anyone care what breitbart or ms. Hess have to say in this context, both are completely irrelevant.

Οὖτις, Thursday, 4 December 2014 19:13 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

for starters, whenever you see url's containing breitbart.com, just assume whatever you are reading is being presented incorrectly, especially if the subject matter involves rape but also pretty much anything else. sincerely hope that is helpful.

18th Century Celebrity WS of Shame (Hurting 2), Thursday, 4 December 2014 19:22 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

"Whether or not a victim is telling the truth is irrelevant" - does anyone agree with this? i'm speaking generally, not about LD - the quote seems insane to me and i wanted to see how ILX felt about it, if it's a common sentiment going over my head. and i don't mean asking/grilling a victim about the veracity of their claims - that is unacceptable unless abundant evidence suggests otherwise...but whether or not a rape occurred matters, yeah? am i just cherry-picking a wrongheaded line from a college student or is this more of an accepted notion than i thought? that's all. i'm genuinely confused by it and want to understand the context of the quote

for starters, whenever you see url's containing breitbart.com, just assume whatever you are reading is being presented incorrectly, especially if the subject matter involves rape but also pretty much anything else. sincerely hope that is helpful.

i read it with a pound of salt in my lap. the writer is garbage. but that quote threw me for a loop and i want to understand it, and if anyone agrees with it and why, so i can learn.

ET sippin the wig (spazzmatazz), Thursday, 4 December 2014 19:33 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Hi James O'Keefe

18th Century Celebrity WS of Shame (Hurting 2), Thursday, 4 December 2014 19:34 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Your attention is probably best directed elsewhere, rather than allowing yrself to be trolled by breitbart.com

Οὖτις, Thursday, 4 December 2014 19:35 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

christ i was expecting to get chewed out but neither of y'all have explained why i'm wrong, which i almost surely am, and i want to understand the thinking behind that quote and if many people felt the same way. i don't think i'm cherry-picking - it's a bold statement. i'm just eager to see what other people think of it so i can learn. honest to god!

ET sippin the wig (spazzmatazz), Thursday, 4 December 2014 19:42 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

First of all: This transcript is based on memory and extensive notes taken during the call

do you really need more?

18th Century Celebrity WS of Shame (Hurting 2), Thursday, 4 December 2014 19:48 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Second, why does it matter at all what this person said? She is the current student station manager of a station where maybe Dunham's purported rapist worked years earlier, before Hess was there (and we don't necessarily know that Dunham hasn't changed details, e.g. to avoid a libel suit).

Third, she pretty clearly did not want to help breitbart.com with anything at all, so the conversation has to be read in that context.

Fourth, she not only has no connection to the case, but she has no connection to the campus's dealings with reported rapes. So, again, why does it matter what she says?

Fifth, I think it's likely that what she means is "truth would matter if there was actually a specific person's guilt or innocence or reputation at stake, but there is not."

18th Century Celebrity WS of Shame (Hurting 2), Thursday, 4 December 2014 19:53 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

In other words "why are you poking your nose around in this, asshole?"

18th Century Celebrity WS of Shame (Hurting 2), Thursday, 4 December 2014 19:54 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Oh wait, I know why it matters, because as a prominent Oberlin student she is part of the larger SJW conspiracy to cover up false rape accusations against people who don't exist.

18th Century Celebrity WS of Shame (Hurting 2), Thursday, 4 December 2014 20:02 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Well, there is a person's guilt and innocence and reputation at stake. Dunham didn't use a pseudonym for the rapist and he was quickly found online. Side with and help the victim always, but to say "the truth is irrelevant" seems messed up to me, and if it doesn't to you, i want to know why because like i said, i am most likely wrong and ignorant. in context, she's (the student) not referring just to this case - she's talking about sexual assault and rape on campus in general. i'm not begrudging her or berating her, it doesn't even matter who said it, it's the quote itself that took me by surprise and i'm just seeing if anyone feels the same way, so i can understand it properly, if it has any merit at all, which is why i posted in here in the first place.

ET sippin the wig (spazzmatazz), Thursday, 4 December 2014 20:22 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

sorry for writing in circles - i want to learn about something that's totally out of my depth + experience because i am probably wrong, thats all

ET sippin the wig (spazzmatazz), Thursday, 4 December 2014 20:23 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

It's a questionable quote from an untrustworthy source, it has zero importance or relevance.

Οὖτις, Thursday, 4 December 2014 20:29 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

"he" wasn't quickly found online, some guy named Barry who otherwise bore little resemblance to the person Dunham named (as Nolte himself is adamant to point out!) was found online

18th Century Celebrity WS of Shame (Hurting 2), Thursday, 4 December 2014 20:34 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

she's not talking about "sexual assault and rape on campus in general" she's talking about a case where no real person has been named and no charges have been sought, no suspects have even been brought in, no report has been made. The truth doesn't matter in the sense that nothing is at stake other than one man's quest to prove that Lena Dunham is a lying liar and in turn cast doubt on whether women actually get raped much.

18th Century Celebrity WS of Shame (Hurting 2), Thursday, 4 December 2014 20:36 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

at least that's what I can glean based on what sounds like a garbled quote from "memory" and "notes"

18th Century Celebrity WS of Shame (Hurting 2), Thursday, 4 December 2014 20:37 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i completely agree, and i'm still mystified why conservative men in particular LOVE TO HATE lena dunham, clearly because she's threatening to them in some way, which rules. sorry to harp on the quote, i didn't know if that was the consensus.

ET sippin the wig (spazzmatazz), Thursday, 4 December 2014 20:45 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

glad you "learned" something today but kinda rmde @ you right now

18th Century Celebrity WS of Shame (Hurting 2), Thursday, 4 December 2014 20:46 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

just an aside: LD wrote that her gynecologist used to pitch for the Mets, and no ex-Met pitchers are in that field.

things lose meaning over time (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 4 December 2014 20:49 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

lol

18th Century Celebrity WS of Shame (Hurting 2), Thursday, 4 December 2014 20:57 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I feel like there is a joke in there but not one I want to come up with let alone make

18th Century Celebrity WS of Shame (Hurting 2), Thursday, 4 December 2014 20:58 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Maybe it was Doctor K

18th Century Celebrity WS of Shame (Hurting 2), Thursday, 4 December 2014 21:04 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

It's Doc Gooden, but not that Doc Gooden.

Don A Henley And Get Over It (C. Grisso/McCain), Thursday, 4 December 2014 21:26 (2 weeks ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.