Girls

[shipperx]

I watched the second episode of "Girls" last night and... I have an odd mixture of feelings.

There are funny things in it (which is good.  It is a comedy). Some laughs.  And there is some truth and observant writing. 

There's also a LOT of cringing.

Unfortunately, I think the lead has the potential to easily swing from the intended "endearingly quirky" into "annoying as hell" as she's both generous to her friends (that she thinks are cool) and completely self-absorbed in the way of... I still side with her parents that wanting to be supported at the clip of $1100 a month for two more years  (as in they've already paid for her college degree, have already paid for her to live -- jobless in New York -- for two years and she wants them to pay for ANOTHER two years!) At this stage of her life this is not only absurd but somewhat obscene.   It may be a generation gap, but I was with her mom yelling "I want to be able to retire someday!" 

And it was really nigh impossible to sympathize with the job interview gaff.  I mean, who in the hell 'jokes' out of the blue that the person  doing the interview is a serial date rapist?  [/haha-funny...? o,O].  Who the hell does that?!   Then she proceeds to explain to him that she is casting him as a date rapist in her joke. In an interview (Yeah, he got that part.  Why do you think he stopped laughing?) No one does this in any social situation, much less a job interview unless they're self-sabotaging.

Which is where my wariness of the show comes from.  I'm not sure that watching self-loathing women is going to be enjoyable.  For her to put up with her 'boyfriend' takes more than a fair degree of self-loathing (he's generally scuzzy and on top of he treats her atrociously.  Add in squicky sex (I'd describe what he was wittering on about while having sex with her... but I really don't want to. Yuck!)  And there's nothing good to say about this relationship other than it clearly portrays that the protagonist has severe lack of self-esteem.)...As does the  job interview self-sabotage. This characterization could have potentially huge pitfalls.

And dear lord,I know she's not supposed to be at all glamorous, but whoever told this girl that flat-mid-gray tights were attractive with her outfits? (I mean, gray tights with some outfits, fine.  But with a rainbow shirt and brown skirt that looks suspiciously like one I owned in 1987?  Is the costume designer/wardrobe person shooting for her character to be considered to 'color blind'?  Worse than causing viewer eye-bleed, however, was that story-wise, those tights went straight from sex-- without an intervening shower-- to a job interview.)  Seriously, Hannah, hon. They're tights.  Buy a second pair!  Even you can afford that.   Perhaps something on the same end of the color wheel with your array of brown skirts.   I know you idolize Carrie Bradshaw, but the truth is, many of Carrie's fashion choices came off as impractical and weird.  And take a damn shower before an interview!  It's not even about poor fashion sense.  It's about an icky lack of hygiene.  S-H-O-W-E-R 

ETA: And now having read some of the interviews and tweets by the people behind this series, I think I'll opt out now.  The writers seem more unpleasant than the characters themselves.

Comments

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I sit and wonder whether they deliberately pushed it beyond having any sympathetic power or whether they were oblivious to the fact that what she was asking was obscene.

Graduating college with no job in your field? Sympathetic.
Unpaid internship? Sympathetic.

Living in the most expensive city in the world and expecting your parents to 100% support you for FOUR YEARS because you're planning to write a novel (which at the time she hands it to her parents is all of four pages long) NOT SYMPATHETIC.

The level of entitlement was astounding.

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

I agree 100% with this comment. And now I'll be wondering about whether the writers are aware of it, too.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Seems like the writers are this way. Yuck!

Comments by the guy who does "Mark Reads":
http://panasonicyouth.tumblr.com/post/21341995481/itsinthetrees-redlightpolitics-lesley-arfin

[queenofattolia.livejournal.com]

No - you're supposed to find the characters sympathetic despite their awfulness. Producer Judd Apatow has gone on record with this, as well as offering a variant of "people who don't get it are stupid." I guess he means that if audiences find his terrible male characters to be likeable, they're also supposed to find these awful female characters to be wonderful and "genre-breaking."

What is baffling to me is all the critical wanking that's been done over this series, as if it actually IS ground-breaking. Uh, no. Except for the overall aura of [as you rightly described] Brooklyn scuzziness, Whit Stillman was skewering these exact women in his films in the 80s and 90s - and doing it with a lot more wit. Last Days of Disco is ten times better than this series.

As for the level of entitlement: I've read some comments on a very huffy defense of this series, and yes, some commenters believe her parents were wrong to cut the main character off. WTF?! My sister is going through a similar issue only with a son, and as much as I love my nephew, he's exactly like the Hannah character - almost 24, living in Brooklyn, too full of himself to take that "McDonald's" job, deluding himself that soon he'll be "granted" a job/career which suits his high opinion of himself, etc. Sigh. I don't know why they're like that. And yeah, my sister and BiL have cut him off (much to my mother's chagrin).

And another thing - what is up with the awful, dehumanizing sex with unattractive, possibly smelly men who don't give a crap about you? If this is today's reality I feel so sorry for young American women. I don't know if they deserve better (possibly not), but if I were them and given the choice, I'd opt for celibacy. Bleah.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

As for the level of entitlement: I've read some comments on a very huffy defense of this series, and yes, some commenters believe her parents were wrong to cut the main character off. WTF?! My sister is going through a similar issue only with a son, and as much as I love my nephew, he's exactly like the Hannah character - almost 24, living in Brooklyn, too full of himself to take that "McDonald's" job, deluding himself that soon he'll be "granted" a job/career which suits his high opinion of himself, etc. Sigh. I don't know why they're like that. And yeah, my sister and BiL have cut him off (much to my mother's chagrin).
This is part of the reason why my sister has been pushing my younger nephew so hard to do what he needed to in order to be accepted into dental school (and why even now everyone is impressing on him that when school starts he has to be SERIOUS about it). Because he, like many in this economy graduated with no real job. He, unlike these characters, however lives in his parents basement, has a...well it's not McDonald's. It's "Mellow Mushroom" which is a local pizza chain job, not asking for $1100 a month for living expenses. (Heck, when he starts dental school... he'll still be living in their basement.)

This economy is tough. I understand that young people are being pressed. I sympathize with that. You have to be realistic though.

And thank god someone other than me finds Apatow's characters often unsympathetic. I remember telling same nephew that "Knocked-Up" was pure stoner fantasy because Catherine Heigl's character would never in a million years have ended up with the ambitionless stoner who wanted to do a porn website for kicks so he could smoke weed.

[queenofattolia.livejournal.com]

I have to amend my comment about the awful sex on the show. I think what I find so objectionable about it is its continuation. When I was a young adult everyone was pretty free about sex ("Hence, AIDS" as Abed on Community said) and while I never indulged in it myself (being my mother's daughter and thus terrorized), many of my girlfriends were champeens of the one night stand, and many of those encounters were, shall we say, regrettable. But I can't remember any one of my friends continuing to have terrible, demeaning sex with someone who didn't give a rat's ass about them. Perhaps we all had more self-respect then. Sexual experimentation and freedom were OK; debasing one's self to men was not. Maybe.

I don't know. I'm not a parent, but is this what my generation taught to today's women - that bad sex with disinterested sub-par men is better than no sex at all? Jeebus.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

bad sex with disinterested sub-par men is better than no sex at all? Jeebus

I don't know. That's the message today's pop culture received at any rate.

[next_to_normal]

I'm not a parent, but is this what my generation taught to today's women - that bad sex with disinterested sub-par men is better than no sex at all?

You know, I kind of think it is? There seems to be this idea that not only should you be having sex, but that you should be having it regularly, and if you're not, there's something wrong with you. (Also, I would add that while abstinence as a choice is generally accepted, abstinence because of lack of opportunity makes you a loser.)

It's only one example, but I keep thinking of the HIMYM episode when Ted finds out his new girlfriend hasn't had sex in five years, and he and all his friends act like this is a fate worse than death. And I can easily see those kinds of pop culture references making impressionable young adults in their 20s feel insecure about their own sexual activity. It's like, what if I get into a relationship, and my boyfriend is horrified by how long it's been since I had sex? I can definitely see some kids drawing the conclusion that any sex is better than that.