I was really looking forward to Girls, the HBO comedy written, directed, and starring Lena Dunham. I'm always keen on watching movies or TV shows where women have a big role to play instead of being relegated to the role of housekeeper or love interest. The way HBO promoted this series, it felt like the second coming of woman, heralding a new age in television. But so far, I am vastly ambivalent.
The show follows Hannah (Dunham) and her friends, a motley group of women struggling to make it in New York City. Hannah is a twenty-something who has been working at an unpaid internship since she graduated from college and is certain that she can become a writer who represents "a voice of a generation" if not necessarily the voice of her generation. She is therefore shocked in the first episode when her parents inform her over dinner that they are cutting her off and she will have to find a way to support herself. In this economy, I imagine this is a conversation that parents and children might be forced to have all over the country and the upcoming season will probably place a lot of focus on Hannah's quest for employment.
After the first episode I thought I was never going to watch it again. Hannah and her friends are yet another example of how NYC is supposedly a land where only white women roam, and it is tiring to watch a bunch of stereotypically Brooklyn-dwelling white girls discuss sex and relationships endlessly as though that is all that women talk about. In fact, for all its supposed progressiveness in having an all-female cast, the show habitually violates the Bechdel test, because the girls are very rarely having a conversation that does not involve their relationships with their inadequate boyfriends. And also, it just wasn't very funny.
Comedies are notorious for starting slow and then gaining traction. Which is the only reason I decided to watch the second episode of Girls. And this one gave me some hope, even though the conversations were still incredibly self-involved and relationship-centric. There were two scenes that were actually funny (again, comedy is vastly subjective, so you may not agree). One involved Hannah's first job interview, which is an utter failure because Hannah makes a thoroughly inappropriate joke that brings into question her ability to function in an office environment or really just talk to human beings. As a stand-alone scene, it's a great bit of cringe comedy, but in terms of this character, it's just one more reason to find her difficult to root for. Similarly, I find the three women who play her friends to be incredibly difficult to like, but I can only hope that future episodes will help flesh out their characters. For now, they all seem terribly self-involved, and it's hard to see how they could meet anyone's definition of being a friend.
The final line of Episode 2 is the sole reason I will be watching the third episode of Girls. Hannah is getting an STD test and when the gynecologist asks her, "Does this hurt?" Hannah responds, "Yes, but only in the way it's supposed to." That is the kind of humor I expect from a show called Girls. It is instantly relatable (for women anyway), is wryly funny, and finally made me feel a smidgen of fondness for Hannah. I'm not saying I now want all the comedy of Girls to be about pelvic exams, but it's at least a step in the right direction. Being a woman does not limit your topics of conversation and I need to see Hannah having intelligent discussions with her friends instead of appearing completely witless or incapable of talking about anything other than sex. I know it's HBO, but come on. I want to know about her job hunt and learn more about how her friends earn their livings instead of seeing who they sleep with every night.
As with all shows that debuted with the word "Girl" in the title this year, the focus seems to be on portraying "quirky" women, not women of substance. Quirks are well and good, but they also render completely one-dimensional characters. If the people at HBO want the audience to relate to Hannah and her friends, or at least be interested in seeing what they do next, it's time to move past the quirks and talk about the things that real women, not "girls," talk about.
The show follows Hannah (Dunham) and her friends, a motley group of women struggling to make it in New York City. Hannah is a twenty-something who has been working at an unpaid internship since she graduated from college and is certain that she can become a writer who represents "a voice of a generation" if not necessarily the voice of her generation. She is therefore shocked in the first episode when her parents inform her over dinner that they are cutting her off and she will have to find a way to support herself. In this economy, I imagine this is a conversation that parents and children might be forced to have all over the country and the upcoming season will probably place a lot of focus on Hannah's quest for employment.
After the first episode I thought I was never going to watch it again. Hannah and her friends are yet another example of how NYC is supposedly a land where only white women roam, and it is tiring to watch a bunch of stereotypically Brooklyn-dwelling white girls discuss sex and relationships endlessly as though that is all that women talk about. In fact, for all its supposed progressiveness in having an all-female cast, the show habitually violates the Bechdel test, because the girls are very rarely having a conversation that does not involve their relationships with their inadequate boyfriends. And also, it just wasn't very funny.
Comedies are notorious for starting slow and then gaining traction. Which is the only reason I decided to watch the second episode of Girls. And this one gave me some hope, even though the conversations were still incredibly self-involved and relationship-centric. There were two scenes that were actually funny (again, comedy is vastly subjective, so you may not agree). One involved Hannah's first job interview, which is an utter failure because Hannah makes a thoroughly inappropriate joke that brings into question her ability to function in an office environment or really just talk to human beings. As a stand-alone scene, it's a great bit of cringe comedy, but in terms of this character, it's just one more reason to find her difficult to root for. Similarly, I find the three women who play her friends to be incredibly difficult to like, but I can only hope that future episodes will help flesh out their characters. For now, they all seem terribly self-involved, and it's hard to see how they could meet anyone's definition of being a friend.
The final line of Episode 2 is the sole reason I will be watching the third episode of Girls. Hannah is getting an STD test and when the gynecologist asks her, "Does this hurt?" Hannah responds, "Yes, but only in the way it's supposed to." That is the kind of humor I expect from a show called Girls. It is instantly relatable (for women anyway), is wryly funny, and finally made me feel a smidgen of fondness for Hannah. I'm not saying I now want all the comedy of Girls to be about pelvic exams, but it's at least a step in the right direction. Being a woman does not limit your topics of conversation and I need to see Hannah having intelligent discussions with her friends instead of appearing completely witless or incapable of talking about anything other than sex. I know it's HBO, but come on. I want to know about her job hunt and learn more about how her friends earn their livings instead of seeing who they sleep with every night.
As with all shows that debuted with the word "Girl" in the title this year, the focus seems to be on portraying "quirky" women, not women of substance. Quirks are well and good, but they also render completely one-dimensional characters. If the people at HBO want the audience to relate to Hannah and her friends, or at least be interested in seeing what they do next, it's time to move past the quirks and talk about the things that real women, not "girls," talk about.
No comments:
Post a Comment