GIRLS talk (the Lena Dunham thread)

see that's the thing though. not sure if im ok with the options being "indulgent" or "laceratingly critical"--i mean, i def sense there's satire at work, but i dont get the sense that there's all that much teeth in it so far. i mean, take the last shot of the first episode and the last shot of the first season and tell me there's not some weird self-regard going on there. or is that my mis-reading? i dunno. this can be a tough show to get a handle on, which is to its credit.

and yeah of course who cares how "conscious" she is about any critique in her work. it doesn't need to be that cut and dried. and she's under no more obligation to curb indulgence than anyone else.

Likability is a thing with TV characters. We choose to spend 30-60 minutes with them a week (or in this era, perhaps three hour blocks for weeks on end) - there's a level of grating that can be hard to look past.

Tony Soprano and Stringer Bell were vicious sociopaths - but they were also charming and had enough depth that the show made you forget that you were watching someone you wouldn't want to be alone with IRL. No one on Girls (except Shoshanna) has shown much in the way of redemptive qualities as either a (fictional) human being or as a character.

what's wrong with Ray? you got something against homeless guys?

i feel like i am okay with that binary. i don't know if it's blog fatigue, resistance to just the collective noise of like pedantic independent takedowns of imperfect but conversationally catalystic art. i remember thinking that brokeback mountain was somewhat reductive in its portrayal of gay relationships amongst cowboys; the couple separate, quickly, into a traditional-gender-role-seeming dynamic, one partner needy, the other aloof. but guess what it's a gay cowboy movie & probably had enough of an uphill climb without being able to round off its last five percent into nuanced perfection. girls is obviously imperfect, in so many ways - mainly, actually, the kinda apolitical stuff, like how syrupy & dawsons creekish & involved with its characters emotionality it got in the second season, which i'm not addressing here - but i think as a text that does like a lot - ie it puts new angles on stuff that was pretty much disenfranchised from discourse before, it provides weird modern brooklyny character archetypes, it works as a syrupy show for teenagers, &c - it should be kinda "accepted", at some level, rather than just flogged for the shortsightedness of its every failure. i don't mean not criticised; i just mean not criticised as if its failure to absolutely transcend limitations is a weakness rather than a formal inevitability. there's total self-regard throughout (sorry, i forget the shots you talk about, but i believe you), there are failings, but it's just frustrating that they're kinda laid on the doorstep of ld as if she's sleepwalking, or as if it isn't valuable as a stimulus as much as as an exemplar.

xxxxp @ ryan

Likability is a thing with TV characters. We choose to spend 30-60 minutes with them a week (or in this era, perhaps three hour blocks for weeks on end) - there's a level of grating that can be hard to look past.

Tony Soprano and Stringer Bell were vicious sociopaths - but they were also charming and had enough depth that the show made you forget that you were watching someone you wouldn't want to be alone with IRL. No one on Girls (except Shoshanna) has shown much in the way of redemptive qualities as either a (fictional) human being or as a character.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, January 9, 2014 5:36 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

oh god this is just so awful you can not watch it
seriously they made friends for you

you can just not watch it

seriously i demand that a depiction of somebody be at some point passed to a Sweetening Committee - perhaps some people from the midwest with experience of redemptive everyday niceness - and be at a minimum 10% sweetened, removing vulgarities, adding acts of general american generosity, so that i might avoid too deeply contemplating actual human behaviour

even if you set aside all the "why are we telling stories about these people" stuff (these people = white, non-impoverished, young etc.) then i still think you're left with a kind of narcissism that feeds into itself rather than exposed as such. the politics of the show, such as they are, are more about a kind of banal consciousness raising from within rather than any kind of genuine clash with anything other. (forgive the abstractions). that may be intentional and pointed but it's also really limited.

xp: very well said, schlump. and yeah i dont wanna hit this show over the head for failing to transcend its inherent limitations. but maybe LD's potential is such that I'm gonna go ahead and do that anyway! i think you're probably right and I'm wrong.

ps these people should be more like tony soprano is just like the ninth symphony of terrible responses to art

ps: i think hannah is kinda likable and wkiw.

seriously i demand that a depiction of somebody be at some point passed to a Sweetening Committee - perhaps some people from the midwest with experience of redemptive everyday niceness - and be at a minimum 10% sweetened, removing vulgarities, adding acts of general american generosity, so that i might avoid too deeply contemplating actual human behaviour

ps these people should be more like tony soprano is just like the ninth symphony of terrible responses to art

You build lovely strawmen - do you handcraft them while watching Girls?

we talked about this upthread, but the ep where hannah tries and mightily fails to write about "death" struck me as a high point of the show--it was an auto-critique but at the same time i think it was LD's nod to the fact that the show (and her POV as a writer) is limited but that limitation gives it a specificity of time/place/character that make it worth paying attention to. writing about "death" (or anything "meaningful") in the abstract, or divorced from particularities, would rob her of an ability to SPEAK at all. so it was sort of an empowering acknowledging of necessary limitations. hope that make sense.

naw ryan i feel you - my post is littered with this is beyond criticism while using lazy caveats to stem a response mentioning that criticism is vital, as was demonstrated by the various race discussions coming from this show. i really liked that lou reed review of yeezus that loved part of a record & didn't give a fuck about the things it didn't like; it brushes aside like half of the record as like, yeah it has the basic failings of a rapper on autopilot uninventively celebrating wealth but who cares. & i think i just feel like a million thinkpieces is too much in the face of something pretty innovative, even though a bunch of those specific thinkpieces - ie the race thing - are necessary & the 'why are we telling stories' thing is an appropriate macro lens for it all. i also feel sorta defensive of that kinda internal critique. i remember reading miranda july talk about her movies & say like ... should i make them .. about .. prisoners? so it's more real?, because there's this sorta ... protesting-too-much intolerance for introspection from viewers whose demographic is being portrayed too closely for comfort. like i am white & occupy coffee-drinking internship-pursuing metropolitan-city situations that it would be gross to pretend are significantly different from girls, & i feel like some rejection of the show can be from an impulse of disliking seeing my demographic portrayed with a self-important focus, like the introspection is gauche. i think the big leap she took in really interrogating her scene from within, & writing scenes like the hiv one i mentioned, or foregrounding dissatisfing sex to i think such kinda societally-reassuring-ends, is such an achievement, & the rejection of it as marginal on account of the obvious privilege of its protagonists is frustrating.

In choosing long-longform narrative (whether it's a novel or a television show or a latter-day Martin Scorsese film), everyone has a decision tree regarding "is this worth spending my limited amount of free time" on reading/watching/etc. Is it funny, is it moving, is it well-made, am I going to get something great from it so on down to "do I want to be able to talk about this with my friends" and yeah, how you feel about the people you'll be watching/reading is part of that.

What you don't seem to understand is that likability, here, is a reflection of storytelling. No one said Hannah needed to be more like Tony Soprano - what I said was that Tony Soprano was a monster but a fascinating, charming monster. Hannah isn't interesting or likable in and of herself - nor is she a great character in the narrative sense.

I don't think the "likeability" thing is just about "privilege" either. I mean I found the main character in Frances Ha to be full of pathos, and on paper she could be a Girls character. She wasn't "likeable" in the sense of someone I want to hang out with, but I felt empathy for her. You could say her problems were "first world problems," and yet I felt genuinely sad for her. I think that's more what people mean, or at least what I mean, not "these people would be no fun at parties" but "I feel like I am watching cardboard cutouts talk to themselves in a mirror." I guess the way Dunham writes her characters leaves me a little cold. It's not that their problems aren't "real," it's that they seem like they don't even know what it means to feel like a problem is real, like they're just imitating the way they think people with problems act.

You build lovely strawmen - do you handcraft them while watching Girls?

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, January 9, 2014 5:42 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

c'mon man! you are saying:

Likability is a thing with TV characters. We choose to spend 30-60 minutes with them a week (or in this era, perhaps three hour blocks for weeks on end) - there's a level of grating that can be hard to look past.

& then

No one on Girls (except Shoshanna) has shown much in the way of redemptive qualities as either a (fictional) human being or as a character.

i don't think i'm excising anything that modifies these in between.

should these people not be portrayed at all? should their portrayal be softened so as to make it more bearable? or is it okay to attempt to capture a grim likeness of some particular subculture just for the value of exploring it? it's like saying take the swearing out of movies or something, that's ... okay, i guess, but the fact that swearing happens in the real world gives us reason to portray things that way. there shouldn't be a concession to include fucking 'redemptive qualities', why should that be imposed for television?

I think milo's criticism thus far can be summed up as "These characters aren't sociopaths... so I don't like them! What a terrible show."

Just kidding milo! Haha. A gaff

And again, I really like a lot of Dunham's writing, I think she's very witty and funny, and I will keep watching girls. I just find myself ultimately not giving a shit whether Hannah gets back with Adam, whether Marnie ever snaps out of her pathetic need to be needed by a guy she never loved, whether Ray and Shoshana's completely nonsensical relationship "works out," whether Adam relapses into his unconvincing teen alcoholism, whether Hannah's "writing" takes off, etc. The one time in the show I have felt otherwise was in the episode where Jessa visited her dad, which I found genuinely moving and real.

What you don't seem to understand is that likability, here, is a reflection of storytelling. No one said Hannah needed to be more like Tony Soprano - what I said was that Tony Soprano was a monster but a fascinating, charming monster. Hannah isn't interesting or likable in and of herself - nor is she a great character in the narrative sense.

do you not think that there's value to representation beyond the construction of satisfying, literary characters? i'm thinking of films like paranoid park or hou's cafe lumiere that are like nature shows about humans; nobody is explained, nobody's life conforms to a satisfying arc, but they're engrossing because we just get to watch people make decisions and behave and act and that's enough. watching hannah as a dexturous, varied, rich human - or watching shoshanna as somebody who's in some ways timid, in some ways really socially fluent & who throughout seems to grow into adulthood & to accumulate control - these are really beautiful, valuable things. i guess they are not delivering some particular thing that we're used to as a kind of cumulative narrative quality of tv & books but they aren't failing for that; they are clearly usefully socially, as landmarks or representations of what it means to be alive now for some people. "hannah isn't interesting", idk, i think she is?, i think it's interesting thinking about being in her place?, i'm comforted by voice being given to conversations that are happening elsewhere on a big stage, idk what to tell you. gonna remind you that you have the option upon careful consideration of how much you like this ~not to watch this~.

frances ha is kind of a defanged, spoonfed girls remix, to me, with a bunch of redeeming qualities but standing very much in its shadow.

The one time in the show I have felt otherwise was in the episode where Jessa visited her dad, which I found genuinely moving and real.

agree with this, it was a strange interlude that really worked. Jessa's "but I'M the child" speech to her dad.

aw man, I get choked up

should these people not be portrayed at all?

it's like saying take the swearing out of movies or something, that's ...

I'm not sure what's hard to understand about "(fictional) human being or as a character."

aw man, I get choked up

dad reactions

^^^

perhaps some people from the midwest with experience of redemptive everyday niceness

fuck you in your face

signed,

a lifelong midwesterner

"I feel like I am watching cardboard cutouts talk to themselves in a mirror." I guess the way Dunham writes her characters leaves me a little cold. It's not that their problems aren't "real," it's that they seem like they don't even know what it means to feel like a problem is real, like they're just imitating the way they think people with problems act.

The series, aside from the jokes (and there gen are good ones), has this aura of Dunham doling out life lessons which (given her age) I suspect she learned five months ago.

― eclectic husbandry (Dr Morbius), Thursday, January 9, 2014 12:08 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i feel like the fact that people are like this changes our interpretation of it. the fact that people in their twenties are cresting on the self important tidal wave of shit they have just learned, & the fact that none of us ~know what it means to feel like a problem is real~, is a legitimate thing to portray. the ouroboros thing i mentioned is that i feel like we are bringing Satisfying TV Values to a show that is not trying to espouse Satisfying TV Values: you can't criticise girls for being full of unlikeable characters who are riding high on self importance & behaving unlikeably & unable to correctly order or process or inhabit their problems or do so with appropriate pathos when this is what the show is about

ha ha sorry j.! i feel like your tribe are lazily pigeonholed as simple minded folk, this is true of where i am from, too, i figured they would be appointed as the appropriate arbiters/conjurers of providing good ol fashioned syrup

do you not think that there's value to representation beyond the construction of satisfying, literary characters? i'm thinking of films like paranoid park or hou's cafe lumiere that are like nature shows about humans; nobody is explained, nobody's life conforms to a satisfying arc, but they're engrossing because we just get to watch people make decisions and behave and act and that's enough. watching hannah as a dexturous, varied, rich human - or watching shoshanna as somebody who's in some ways timid, in some ways really socially fluent & who throughout seems to grow into adulthood & to accumulate control - these are really beautiful, valuable things. i guess they are not delivering some particular thing that we're used to as a kind of cumulative narrative quality of tv & books but they aren't failing for that; they are clearly usefully socially, as landmarks or representations of what it means to be alive now for some people. "hannah isn't interesting", idk, i think she is?, i think it's interesting thinking about being in her place?, i'm comforted by voice being given to conversations that are happening elsewhere on a big stage, idk what to tell you. gonna remind you that you have the option upon careful consideration of how much you like this ~not to watch this~.

It's kind of funny you're bagging on likability because everything starting with "watching hannah" is about how you like the characters and find them interesting.

I love "nature shows about humans" - three of my favorite movies are "Wendy & Lucy," "Gates of Heaven" and "Killer of Sheep." But watching Hannah as a "dextrous, varied, rich human" would require me to see how the character is any of those things.

I think Hannah *is* from the midwest, isn't she?

I cared about whether Adam gave in and decided to be Hannah's actual bf in series one, despite his sociopathic tendencies and her frustrating selfishness. I also cared about him walking out on his play and (in the same episode) apologising for lashing out at the driver who nearly ran him over (even though the actual act of apology was ridic). Maybe I just care a lot about Adam because I lust after him but I also found his character development unexpected and convincing. I haven't cared about anything on season two besides the garbage bag episode which was interesting.

has s3 started?

starts Sunday

thanks.

feel like the attempts to add depth to the character have in almost every case been a shortcut or a failure: the OCD, Adam's alcoholism. Ray's panic at not having a better job at his age is sorta specific and, yeah, *real* i guess. it would have been far more interesting to avoid going down the list of everyone's Past Trauma that the show has started to indulge (there's that word again) in. but i chalk this up youthful writer missteps and i hope it's overcome.

xp yeah actually I did initially find Adam to be "likable," and I liked the way he was sort of the "Id" of the show serving to contrast with the bewildered, mild anhedonia of the other characters. Somehow he lost me along the way too.

it is that or else it is the Introduce Character Siblings stage
xp

Also I will probably watch this on HBO Go because it's badness is kind of compelling (not unlike Entourage) and I like to watch those shows and question how they get all the resources thrown into making them. That may abate this time, as Charlie was the worst character and storyline and will be missed for that.

hope s3 opens with Charlie's funeral

and then Marnie sings a terrible song

and is pregnant with beautiful brown baby

Pl

/thanks to 'citizens united,' the GOP might get destroyed . . . by rich trustfund objectivists? the irony

http://www.vocativ.com/10-2013/gop-scared-conservative-kids/?test/

i like how that one guy is all "i don't believe in a luck" while he and his coterie of 'tantric' Galts are piggybacking off the a dude who inherited millions of dollars.
--|citation needed| (will)

Likability is a thing with TV characters. We choose to spend 30-60 minutes with them a week (or in this era, perhaps three hour blocks for weeks on end) - there's a level of grating that can be hard to look past.

Tony Soprano and Stringer Bell were vicious sociopaths - but they were also charming and had enough depth that the show made you forget that you were watching someone you wouldn't want to be alone with IRL. No one on Girls (except Shoshanna) has shown much in the way of redemptive qualities as either a (fictional) human being or as a character.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, January 9, 2014 5:36 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

oh god this is just so awful you can not watch itch up
seriously they made friends for you
--mustread guy (schlump)

Xp Baby, Booth, Jonathan

lol Shakey

i feel like i could go to any post in this thread, chosen totally at random, and read the same 2-3 arguments, over and over and over again

not really complaining, well kinda

that's racist

fwiw schlump I really enjoyed some of your posts just now even though I don't completely agree with them in relation to girls

e.g this:

i remember reading miranda july talk about her movies & say like ... should i make them .. about .. prisoners? so it's more real?, because there's this sorta ... protesting-too-much intolerance for introspection from viewers whose demographic is being portrayed too closely for comfort. like i am white & occupy coffee-drinking internship-pursuing metropolitan-city situations that it would be gross to pretend are significantly different from girls, & i feel like some rejection of the show can be from an impulse of disliking seeing my demographic portrayed with a self-important focus, like the introspection is gauche. i think the big leap she took in really interrogating her scene from within, & writing scenes like the hiv one i mentioned, or foregrounding dissatisfing sex to i think such kinda societally-reassuring-ends, is such an achievement, & the rejection of it as marginal on account of the obvious privilege of its protagonists is frustrating.

hurting i put one of your quotes between aghast tildes & felt bad because yeah, same, i am obviously satisfied to damn you all to hell itt but there is no personal animosity & i am totally into reading your just casual breakdowns of meals eaten in queens elsewhere