At the end of Monday's lecture we were asked what we thought of Girls. The majority of the room spoke up against the TV show listing valid criticisms to the show's lack of representation, diversity, and intellectual argument. I agreed with most things that were said my opinion landing somewhere between focuses on banal lives of upper-middle class white girls and the characters not being particularly likable in most respects. However, listening to my colleagues' critiques I found myself silently rooting for the show. Nowadays anything female-centric is exposed and intensely analyzed for mistakes, faults, lack of diversity, misrepresentation. But when can any show or film hit all of the nails on the head? Dunham started another valid discussion about the representation of women in the media within a personal artistic vision. Someone mentioned how no one criticizes Woody Allen for making movies about white people flailing through personal mistakes in urban centers. They praise him as an auteur. And I also agreed with the point that just because something is written or directed by a woman doesn't mean that it's feminist. However, I do believe Lena Dunham is an intellectual woman driven by feminist ideals and personally I prefer representations of my own sex to be created by someone of my own sex. Dunham put another foot in the door for other female representations to be made by female writers and directors (enter Orange is the New Black, which still doesn't get it right but shows something new).
Girls reminds us that just because a TV show is written by a woman, about women, depicts unenjoyable sex and average female bodies doesn't necessarily make it progressive. But we all can't stop watching whether it's to stay culturally relevant or because we find her writing poignant and funny (i.e. me). I appreciate Dunham as a writer and director and think these representations hit close enough to home for some of us to cringe and laugh along with them.
I really appreciate this post. I have a very complicated relationship with Girls and Lena Dunham in general. I was living in New York during the time when Dunham’s Tiny Furniture first came out. I was able to attend an advance screening and Q&A. When someone asked her about the lack of diversity in her work, Dunham’s comment was something dismissive to the effect “I’m glad that I could start a conversation.” I found her stance to be emblematic of privileged ignorance. And as someone inhabiting that world at the time (urban, predominantly white, upper/upper middle class, elitist, liberal leaning), albeit as a clear outsider, I found Dunham and her solipsistic subject matter appalling. For the same reason, I find it so fascinating.
ReplyDeleteWhile Dunham has very much her own sensibilities, in many ways, I think of her as descending from filmmakers like Elaine May and Nicole Holofcener. Both of whose work can make for daring, difficult and sometimes unpleasant viewing. But I think there’s much value in that discomfort. They hit at truths (not necessarily universal, but personal) that are so often glossed over in most representations. I think Girls gets at the uncertainty, the wandering, the emptiness that sometimes make up young urban life. Perhaps it casts its net too narrow, but that it even tries is an accomplishment worth noting. Not every movie or TV show is supposed to leave you feeling good about yourself or the world. As a young African-American male, I know of very few that do.
You make a very important point about someone of your own sex putting forth these representations. There’s such a dearth of opportunities for female filmmakers and showrunners, that I can’t help but support new voices fighting against this marginalization. I feel compelled to root for a criminally under-represented population, even one with access the class and racial privileges, taking agency of their own narrative and representation. Whatever it’s faults, and there are plenty, I’m glad Girls exists.
I completely agree with both of these posts! I am a fan of Girls because I think it captures the current narrative of women in there twenties during the recession. Shows like Hung illustrate the impact of the economy on a family, but rarely do we see insight into the life of a 20-something female. The opening scene in the pilot is Hannah’s parents cutting her off after a 2 year unpaid internship. It then shows her going to ask her boss for a paid job, and her boss simple states she can be replaced with another unpaid intern. This is the reality of having a college degree in a time of economic turmoil. I found this scene completely on point and even comical. There is arguably not another show on television that captures this narrative.
ReplyDeleteLena Dunham not only gives a voice to female filmmakers, but specifically to the younger generation of filmmakers. Even shows like Sex and the City featured women in there thirties. The twenty something voice is often neglected from TV, and when it is portrayed it is normally more reflective. Dunham is in her mid-twenties and is able to, at times, authentically represent the coming of age of the millennial generation.
I am so happy that this conversation is being had on here! I too was slightly bewildered at the amount of criticism Girls got during class. I used to watch the show religiously, but have slowly tapered off because all the characters are fairly annoying after a while-- I thought of Dunham as a voice for our generation, but the fact that none of the girls get their act together is a thoroughly depressing outlook for my own future.
ReplyDeleteThe strangest argument I heard in class was the critique that none of the characters have enjoyable sex on the show. Is it that the characters don't have enjoyable sex or that we don't enjoy watching them have sex? Jessa, as I recall, has some great sex with an old flame and Hannah also has sex with an older doctor played by Patrick Wilson (!!!) that winds up being an entire episode devoted to her escape to paradise. The times of below-average sex are when there is a deeper emotional issue going on during the scene (Hannah and Adam all the time or Marnie and Booth). Besides, in reality sex isn't fantastic every single time. It's awkward. Especially when young women are trying to find themselves--including a love of their physicality.
I understand that female pleasure is extremely underrepresented. I hate the fact that a film immediately gets an NC-17 rating when Ryan Gosling goes down on Michelle Williams. Does that mean, though, that all sex scenes depicted must be enjoyable, especially for it to be a feminist show? At what point do we stop and consider that maybe the problem isn't that Hannah is freaked out about the thought of having anal sex, but the audience is at seeing Lena Dunham do it?
-Victoria Hallebo