Since the HBO original series, Girls, premiered about 10 weeks ago, I’ve been engaging with a lot of people of all ages about the show -- getting into deep discussions on many levels about why I think it’s the most brilliant work on television right now. Obvioulsy, not everyone agrees. But the reasons why people agree or disagree is interesting. It’s starting to become clear that almost everyone can be put into one of the the following 6 categories on a scale of worshipping to not even watching:
1. The Worshipper
The Worshipper, like me, wants to bronze every word that comes out of the characters’ mouths (esp. Lena Dunham’s), frame it and put it on a wall to revisit time and time again. (e.g. or "Didn't you say texting is like the lowest form of communication on the pillar of chat?" "The totem of chat, and Facebook is the lowest, followed by Gchat, then texting, then email, then phone; face-to-face is of course ideal, but it's not of this time." Or, “No, I have not tried a lot to lose weight, because I decided I was going to have some other concerns in my life.” The worshipper also loves the awkwardness of seeing Lena Dunham’s not-perfect body naked and in compromising positions almost every episode. It’s a nice, realistic break from the cartoonish Samantha Jones sex we got in Sex/City. As one critic wrote recently: Everyone on the show is “beautiful but nobody looks like they’re on the CW and nobody has a body your friend wouldn’t have...”
2. The Liker
Just below worship, of course, I’ve encountered those who dig the show, but aren’t going to proselytize about it on a major Weblog. The Liker generally appreciates what Lena is doing to buck the stereotype of what we generally consider worthy of a leading, sexy lady role on a major television show. The Liker also appreciates things like the fact that one of Hannah’s tattoos was inspired by the children’s book Eloise that she got in high school because she gained a lot of weight in a short amount of time and wanted to feel in control of her own body.
3. The On The Fencer
This person has watched a few episodes, maybe even half a dozen, mostly because all her friends are talking about it on Facebook, but hasn’t committed yet. Seeing Lena have sloppy sex is a struggle. Also, aside from Lena’s character, the On The Fence-r isn’t sold on the other three girls—their plot lines aren’t developed and their acting is subpar.
4. The Critic
The Critic can’t stand that a show has been made about four girls who come from privilege and/or famous parents. (e.g. Dunham is the daughter of Laurie Simmons, a photographer and designer, and Carroll Dunham, a painter. Zosia Mamet, another star on the series, is the daughter of American playwright, essayist, screenwriter and film director David Mamet and actress Lindsay Crouse.) As if such girls don’t exist in real life. The Critic also doesn’t like that of the four girls, none is African-American, Asian or Latino. Again, as if there aren’t four female white friends who hang around together in the real world.
5. The Loather
In my discussions with people about the show, many have expressed their violent reactions to the series. In general, I’d say these people are speaking from a jealous place. Either they are writers who are envious that the show is getting so much attention while their pilot sits dusty in a drawer somewhere, or they are jealous of Dunham’s raw talent. They wanted to be the voice of the millennial generation or are upset that Dunham’s quirky dialogue is regarded as the voice of the millennial generation. Every comparison of Dunham to Woody Allen makes them want to run from the family room screaming. (Wait, do people still watch television in the family room?) Others are put off to such a show because it’s too real. They want sitcom dialogue with its familiar setup line, setup line, joke, setup line, setup line, joke. If they’re going to see people naked, having sex on camera, well it better damn well be someone they’d want to fantasize about later. Not some average-looking chick with an average amount of cellulite an tattoos.
6. The Won’t Watcher
This person has heard a few things about the show and has already decided it’s not for her. Maybe she even saw Dunham’s 2009 feature filmed while still at Oberlin College, Creative Nonfiction, or her 2010 Tiny Furniture. Maybe one of those films rubbed her the wrong way. Or maybe she doesn’t have HBO and isn’t shy about saying so. “Pff. I hate all that pretentious crap on cable.” Whatever the reason, The Won’t Watcher isn’t watching and isn’t willing to give it a try. That’s okay. Girls doesn’t need Two and a Half Men numbers. It just needs numbers 1-6. Because a list like this is proof that Dunham has done something really, really big. And don't forget, no one ever erected a statue for a critic. How about you all? Do you fit one of the six types above? Let us know in the comments below!
Seems that is all the average American wants to watch though, and I think that has to say something about the average American.
Give me sophistication, like Moffats "Sherlock", or epic drama, like "Rome". If I cared about 20-30 somethings behaving like children, I just need to go out to the clubs in the evenings - I don't need umpteen TV shows about it...
Oh really?
http://www.themusicstand.com/The-Muppets-Statler-and-Waldorf-p/577426.htm
http://img2-1.timeinc.net/people/i/2012/news/120423/lena-dunham-440.jpg
You just described the range of viewers on every show ever.
I'm right there with you in group seven. Never heard of the show till now. No cable and no cares.
If there is a show worth my watching, it's worth my money... I'll get the DVDs.
This, probably isn't one.
I'm not a writer, but I enjoy good television, and think that the best television (i.e. the Wire or Mad Men) is as legitimate an art form as our greatest films and I love seeing talented new voices in the world of T.V. (Always Sunny being the most recent, hilarious, and brilliant example) but it's shame to see such nepotism when creators like Felicia Day or Issa Rae are relegated to self-producing web shorts.
HBO Presents: "Shallow, Self-Centered, Talentless, Vapid, Hipster Bitches with a Tremendous Sense of Entitlement and Exceedingly High Opinions of their Pointless Billyburger Lives Whining and Making Bad Decisions."
Brought to you by "Nepotism: EXTREME EDITION!"
If they called it that, I'd love it.
But seriously... THIS is the "voice of a generation?" I weep tears of blood for our future. We're screwed. No wonder America is last in the world in everything but diabeetus and carjackings... these moronic wastes of skin represent our "Best and Brightest."
I think I'm going to learn Mandarin.
I'm not trying to say it has to be journalism, but if I cared to read a big long opinion I'd read a personal blog and not an article on a site for interesting and "neat" things.
Frankly, this show looks almost like some sort of mirror-mirror universe version of TWO AND HALF MEN to me. ...and I don't mean that in the good goatee way either, but in the stabby-stabbity kill everyone to get ahead way.
Frankly, if it were douche bag frat boys and the show was called "Boys" I would also avoid spending an hour of my own life listening to fictional people whine about their fictional lives.
I stopped going to see "drama" films nearly a decade ago because of this same issue. Paying money or using time to basically see actors acting out day-to-day life crap isn't enlightening or entertaining. If it is either one of those things to you then you aren't pay attention to your own world around you very well on a daily basis. If you can afford premium cable (and let me guess, you're watching it on a minimum 42" flat panel HD television) and the time to watch a show like this, then I suppose these people's problems must seem very important to you in some way and that it is enlightening or in some very schadenfreude way it is entertaining. But once you've seen a movie or television show like this a few times, you really start to wonder what the point of such television is. To reflect back on the self? Fine, if that's what you need for your own intellectual development then good on you. That's for you.
Some of us can't afford premium television and time to sit down and watch dramedy drivel. I canceled all my cable to save money. And I am happy to be able to to a fun, mindless romp of a movie or one that has some visual spectacle to it a few times a year when a family member visits and is willing to babysit.
Moreover, I dont even know who the hell you are talking about that makes this show. Did the person make an action movie or a scifi movie or a horror movie? No? Then I hardly care. Those are the fun genres and on the whole end up having a lot more to say than "important" shows about middle-class white people trying to get their shit together and whining to their friends about how they can't get their shit together.
I just don't care about watching crap like this at all. Not a single thing you listed is why, either.
Put 'em on a spaceship, though, and maybe give me a space lizard and I'm there.
However, I've heard about the show and would probably give it a shot if I had cable.
What bothers me is how prominently the actors' bodies figure in to the reviews (positive or negative) of the show. Why are female actors always reduced to how amazing or how "real" their bodies look? It seems that female critics are falling into this just as much as the male. The very fact that this is mentioned shows how far we have to go.
Peace out.
However, the "Y'all are jus jellus!" defense against people who don't like it? Seriously?
People have different tastes, and that's okay. I know plenty of people who don't like the show and it isn't because they are filled with envy over Dunham's success and/or talent (I'd wager that most of them don't even realize that she created the show and think she's just an actress). I even know people who appreciate the "realness" of the show, but still find that it isn't their cup of tea. And that is okay, too. People can not like something without it being because they're jealous or an idiot who doesn't "get it."
Have not had cable for almost 20 years.
Did I miss anything important?
Quit reading the article like it's hard-hitting journalism. Yeesh, not everything is going to win a Pulitzer. Relax and fricken breathe a little.
As for Girls, I adore it. It's the anti-Sex in the City and I like that. Of course, I liked Sex in the City, too. I'm not watching for realism, I'm watching for escape.
These girls remind me much of me and my friends when we were that age---and maybe that's how this show is best watched. When you are 15--20 years older than the characters and actually have real worries and concerns in life, but can remember when early 20-something problems were all-consuming and not really funny yet. In your 40's? Realizing you dated a gay guy for 2 years can be hilarious. Mostly because you have just tucked the kids in bed and are sharing a bowl of popcorn with your very hetero husband.
I think it's a good show. I understand that some people don't like it. I don't care. For now, it's there for me to watch and lose myself in for a few minutes and escape, remember, and chuckle.
Second, and most importantly, I think you need to understand that people might not like rich white people whining about being rich and white has been made into a tv show. Its not that crazy to think that this show only appeals to a very select few, and that others are a bit ridiculous.
I really don't like the show, as many people has commented on get glue is weird watch a show about 4 twenty-something girl and their weird life. Maybe in the city there are this kind of girls and the show is "the voice of the millennial generation" but in other areas this doesn't happen, even in Europe where being Hipster is the daily bread this 4 roles are hard to find.
I think the success of this show it has be because the "hipster-be yourself" mainstream movement we are living in.
If you take attention nowadays everybody is trying so hard to be themselves that they start to involve in things that "are not mainstream-but are mainstream". They all want to be taken as individuals to fit in.
Such a bad show.