http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/04/girls-through-the-veil/256154/
― iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 14:20 (fourteen years ago)
yeah i remember coates taking that line before when something like this came up. it's certainly a good point that given this alfin woman is on the writing staff, characterization of nonwhite characters would maybe not be a strong suit on this show.
it's great that he takes that line, because it's encouraging rather than bleak. but i think i'm just a little too negative to feel totally comfortable with it.
obviously he's otm about power brokers in the various culture industries recognizing other voices.
― horseshoe, Friday, 20 April 2012 14:26 (fourteen years ago)
naw, i meant the intensity of self in that article you posted, "why aren't _I_ the megastar"
― boy, was that Dan Fielding hungry for some cake! (forksclovetofu), Friday, 20 April 2012 14:32 (fourteen years ago)
Then again, a lot of being in your 20s involves pretty simple things being more complex than necessary.
mmmm yes
― mh, Friday, 20 April 2012 14:34 (fourteen years ago)
I feel somewhat like a jerk due to the fact there was obviously a lot of show set-up time since it's a first episode, but was there really a throwaway line about the English-accented girl being pregnant? I realize this is no-relationship, drama-tired me but I was like... really, they're using that issue in a show about a group of women? I mean, I guess it'd happen plot-wise eventually and they're probably being tricky by throwing it out right at the beginning of a show, but it still rubbed me the wrong way.
― mh, Friday, 20 April 2012 14:37 (fourteen years ago)
if nothing else, i'm glad this show has provided a chance to talk about race/privilege and i hope the creators have learned something from it... i mean aside from lesley arfin who just seems like a human troll. the cynical side of me imagines them all sitting around rolling their eyes at this criticism though :(
― bene_gesserit, Friday, 20 April 2012 14:46 (fourteen years ago)
is being pregnant really just an 'issue' if you're doing a show about women's lives?
― A Little Princess btw (s1ocki), Friday, 20 April 2012 14:53 (fourteen years ago)
yeah, mh, i don't understand your criticism really
― horseshoe, Friday, 20 April 2012 14:54 (fourteen years ago)
There is certainly an argument that EG "rich black girls are like *this*" is a less bad than "rich black girls ... aren't"
― Andrew Farrell, Friday, 20 April 2012 14:56 (fourteen years ago)
idk, on one level it's a very real thing that makes sense in the flow of the lives of these characters
on the other hand, it's also a plot device that nearly every long-running tv show uses
like what if there was a tv show about a group of women who were better than average at contraception and there was never a "someone may be pregnant" plot
this is me throwing male privilege all over the place and I'm going to stfu now
― mh, Friday, 20 April 2012 14:57 (fourteen years ago)
yeah things can be 'real issues' and overused plot twists at the same time
― iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 14:57 (fourteen years ago)
Oh now you're just looking for things to criticize!
― wolf kabob (ENBB), Friday, 20 April 2012 14:58 (fourteen years ago)
its a plot device that every show uses because it is the most basic and universal fact of human existence iirc
― A Little Princess btw (s1ocki), Friday, 20 April 2012 14:58 (fourteen years ago)
otm
wait and see how they use it, at this point it's like saying 'oh great another show about a character with a JOB, so over-done'
― A Little Princess btw (s1ocki), Friday, 20 April 2012 14:59 (fourteen years ago)
pregnant Brit didn't seem strange to me at all
― wolf kabob (ENBB), Friday, 20 April 2012 14:59 (fourteen years ago)
hard for me to believe it's only been one week since this aired considering the amount of dissection it's earned. I know it's been said before but I do wonder how different the publicity/backlash would have been if the show was called Lena!
― da croupier, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:01 (fourteen years ago)
― Andrew Farrell, Friday, April 20, 2012 10:56 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
well, that might be an argument, but Coates is explicitly arguing the opposite. also he's saying it's likely to be less like "rich black girls are like *this*" and more likely to be "offensive stereotype of blackness" given that one of the writers thinks it's hilaaaaaaaarious to call taking a shit taking Obama to the White House.
― horseshoe, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:01 (fourteen years ago)
it didn't seem strange to me at all either, just kinda a cliched tv way to go about it (announcing it dramatically as an argument shocka)
xp
― iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:02 (fourteen years ago)
― da croupier, Friday, April 20, 2012 11:01 AM (38 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
i think its more because it's about young ppl in brooklyn having sex + criterion-approved super-young female director, i mean, it hits all the agitated-internet sweet spots
― A Little Princess btw (s1ocki), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:02 (fourteen years ago)
plus nudity from a non-model and peter scolari; perfect storm imo
― boy, was that Dan Fielding hungry for some cake! (forksclovetofu), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:05 (fourteen years ago)
ya, if it was just peter scolari alone, we would be talking about it and nothing else for weeks
― A Little Princess btw (s1ocki), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:06 (fourteen years ago)
i don't know about you guys but i think that there has been some GREAT and thoughtful criticism written about this show that i have enjoyed reading way more than i enjoyed watching the show...this is one of those weeks i am actually happy to be living in the age of blogs.
― bene_gesserit, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:06 (fourteen years ago)
Obviously it still would have gotten a lot of attention, but I think such an ambitious title validated both the wave of initial praise and the wave of people holding it to a higher standard than everything else on TV. Which isn't to say the criticism isn't valid, just - as Coates notes - a bit blinkered.
― da croupier, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:06 (fourteen years ago)
I should watch this Tiny Furniture movie, huh?
― mh, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:07 (fourteen years ago)
opinion on that is p divided itt, but i really liked tiny furniture.
― horseshoe, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:08 (fourteen years ago)
if you think about the other options for vanity projects currently on major networks that you could compare this i got two immediate analogues: Louie (which is incredible and is gonna be an unfair comparison at least until GIRLS gets through two seasons) and Whitney, which is so AMAZINGLY shitty that GIRLS is already leaps and bounds ahead of it, so
― boy, was that Dan Fielding hungry for some cake! (forksclovetofu), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:08 (fourteen years ago)
say whatever you want about GIRLS but no one in their right mind would say it's worse than Whitney
― boy, was that Dan Fielding hungry for some cake! (forksclovetofu), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:09 (fourteen years ago)
and I say this as someone who has forced himself to watch the entire first season of Whitney, mostly on ffwd
wth is Whitney?!
― wolf kabob (ENBB), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:10 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.nbc.com/whitney/
― boy, was that Dan Fielding hungry for some cake! (forksclovetofu), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:11 (fourteen years ago)
i don't want to live in a world where "not as bad as whitney" is any kind of laudable achievement
― bene_gesserit, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:17 (fourteen years ago)
yeah that looks dreadful
― wolf kabob (ENBB), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:17 (fourteen years ago)
bene, no argument; what i'm asking is what is it WORSE than within its field? how many directed by/written by/starring sitcoms are better than GIRLS even after one episode?
― boy, was that Dan Fielding hungry for some cake! (forksclovetofu), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:30 (fourteen years ago)
currently running of course, i know "Mary Tyler Moore was so much better"
Whitney is the most trad-sitcom crap ever. Characters and plots calculated to appeal to a cross-section of groups that might watch tv in that timeslot and everything.
― mh, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:31 (fourteen years ago)
xp not that she wrote MTM, whatever, you get what i'm getting at
― boy, was that Dan Fielding hungry for some cake! (forksclovetofu), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:32 (fourteen years ago)
Can I just take a moment to lament abt my v wonderful but maybe a bit too feministy friend who seems to think the only reason people don't like this show is that it's centered around women, and that How To Make It In America is the EXACT SAME SHOW but with men and how nobody hated on that, etc.
― Time, a group with Jam and Lewis (Stevie D(eux)), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:33 (fourteen years ago)
i think that definitely makes it more of a target, there is no doubt
― A Little Princess btw (s1ocki), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:35 (fourteen years ago)
xpost
No one watched it either
― Moodles, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:35 (fourteen years ago)
i think it's true that a lot of pressure is being placed on this show in part because a young woman created it. i mean, i am putting a lot of pressure on this show for that reason. but it's a little more complex than people hate this show because they hate women. i think part of the reason i was a little bummed there were no people of color in prominent roles is because i was so excited about and invested in the show.
xxp
― horseshoe, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:35 (fourteen years ago)
but yes, also, s1ocki otm. the bruni response is frankly insane, for example.
― horseshoe, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:36 (fourteen years ago)
haha bruni frankly
― lag∞n, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:38 (fourteen years ago)
How To Make It In America is the EXACT SAME SHOW but with men and how nobody hated on that, etc.
well nobody hated on 'how to make it...' cuz nobody watched it, tbf
― Lamp, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:38 (fourteen years ago)
I h8d on it and also did not watch it
― lag∞n, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:39 (fourteen years ago)
what was bruni's thing
― A Little Princess btw (s1ocki), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:39 (fourteen years ago)
part of the complexity at play is that it's a show about easy-to-hate women, written by/directed by/starring a womanso you're supposed to hate the characters but they want you to like the showexcept many people connect the characters to the creators which is a ley line she's seemingly intentionally left intactso everybody gets to play hunt the wumpus on everyone involved's social media and promo press to get an AHA they ARE really just dumb bitcheswhich tbf is absolutely NOT the way any normal male-centric sitcom would work but they're absolutely intentionally playing to that dynamicthough i suppose if james franco started an HBO sitcom...
― boy, was that Dan Fielding hungry for some cake! (forksclovetofu), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:40 (fourteen years ago)
http://bruni.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/naked-in-new-york/
― horseshoe, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:40 (fourteen years ago)
no such thing as a bit too feministy tbrr
wait no:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunday/bruni-the-bleaker-sex.html
― horseshoe, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:41 (fourteen years ago)