I know. Enough already. I'm sick of hearing it. You're sick of hearing it. But upon last night's Golden Globe awards, and the season two premiere of Lena Dunham's brain child, now is as good a time as any to get some things out there.
As I mentioned in my "Top Ten of 2012" list, I personally connect to Girls. It's one of my favorite shows and I relate on many levels. I am the same age as the characters. I have had similar life experiences and I know these people on this show. And I happen to have been born and raised in New York. So it goes without saying that I have been defending Girls for quite some time. But I wasn't always on its side. The pilot episode left me defensive and annoyed. I had a lot of conflicting thoughts and emotions about entitlement, whether I liked Dunham's character Hannah, whether she was defensible or awful or sympathetic or delusional or, more likely, everything at once. I actually posted my immediate thoughts on my tumblr...and its pretty clear I started off a bit of a hesitant fan (ugh I can't believe I just linked to my tumblr). But I came around. And I came to the conclusion that I couldn't dislike Hannah for being more fortunate than I am. Because if my parents ever afforded me the opportunities Hannah has, to live in Brooklyn post-college and intern (or go to grad school) and follow my dreams and live my life with my closest friends, I would have done it in a heartbeat. Yes, Hannah is insufferable a lot of the time. That's who she is off the bat. She's a privileged middle-class white girl in her twenties. What do you expect? Thats the point of her character. And I genuinely love how conflicted I was--and still am--about just one episode of television. Especially a pilot episode with a blank slate. You have to admit that's pretty damn impressive.
Being the same age as Hannah and her crew, and seeing what Dunham has accomplished, I am left beyond impressed--even if her parent's and nepotism helped her along the way. She was so sure of what she wanted to do and she used her station in life to achieve it. And she does it well. I'm sure there are plenty of people our age who tried following their dreams, who had parents with connections and enough money to support them, but who never got off the ground due to laziness or lack of talent. But Dunham somehow made it work. I am an underemployed twenty-something living at home. I work a nine-to-five job, come home, roll my eyes at my parents, get jealous of the care-freeness of my 19-year-old sister's age, sit on the internet for hours, visit some social media sites and the like, and, if I'm feeling up to it, maybe right a blog post of my own for a blog that no one even reads (but me and possibly you...thank you, by the way). Meanwhile, Dunham spends all day doing things I WISH I could. And she manages to do it provocatively and compellingly. She writes whole episodes of television, directs her friends and herself in these episodes, and tells a cohesive, amusing story with well drawn characters. AND SHE'S MY AGE. I think about what I do in general, even things I guess I do well, and its nothing compared to this. I watch this show and its still crazy to me whenever I realize that Dunham is my peer.
Now I'm not idolizing Dunham. I often have similar reactions when I think about what actresses like Emma Stone or Elizabeth Olsen or Dakota Fanning have accomplished. (The difference is that these actresses dont have complete control over their projects. They're artists but they're not creators). Essentially, the whole point of the previous paragraph is that I don't think we can hold it against Dunham that she's living the dream and doing it well and so openly. She lets her insecurities out for the world to see and is genuinely sincere when people respond to it. And it just really grinds my gears when I see so many people harshly hating on her, and the cast, for this show. Because any of us would love to do what she does. And I could only assume I'd do it maybe half as well.
My personal feelings and defenses aside, the quality of Girls itself and what it's trying to say should also be addressed. It's only fair. And to begin with, I am sick and tired of all the vitriol Hannah & Co. get. Yes Hannah does dumb, grating, selfish, immature, bonehead, irresponsible things. But so does Claire Danes on Homeland, and Mindy Kaling on The Mindy Project, and Edie Falco on Nurse Jackie, and Kat Dennings on 2 Broke Girls, and Krysten Ritter on Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23, and....you get the point. I just don't understand why Girls gets all the hate and controversy. Because it's a braver show? Because its characters and situations are relatable? Because the humor isn't cruel? Because she's not bipolar and chasing terrorists? God forbid TV (well technically it's not TV, it's HBO) presents us with three-dimensional characters. With human beings who are young and unsure of themselves. Who make mistakes and who are still searching--like so many of us currently are or have in our past. So...enough already. Back off this girl and her show. I'm sick and tired of this trendy opinion of disgust and dislike. Why does it have to be black and white, love versus hate of this character? It's the dumbest most unnecessary extreme I've come across in quite some time. Just admit that you are conflicted about Hannah and Dunham alike. And unsure of whether you like her, love her, or hate her. There's room for more than one emotion here. Thats what you fill the gray areas in with. And thats what good writing does. It was okay to admit it about Tony Soprano and Walter White and Don Draper, but why not Hannah? Is it her lack of Y chromosomes (you sexist!)? Is it that she's middle class (like the male antiheroes I just listed)? Or that she's white (ditto)? I just don't get it. We allowed ourselves to feel conflicted about Joan Holloway this past season of Mad Men. And about Skyler White over the course of Breaking Bad (which is another character that gets way more hate than she deserves). What makes Girls different? Is it unworthy of nuance, reflection, and critique? The only conclusion I can come to is that certain websites have made it trendy to have a negative opinion. Its easier to let the cynicism from such snarky sites sway your perspective rather than watch the show with an open mind. And its getting ridiculous.
That being said, Girls is clearly not the best comedy on all of television this past year, as the Golden Globes deemed last night. However, in that particular Golden Globe category, it actually was the best. The Golden Globes seem to make television award decisions based on buzz, celebrity, and trends. And lets be real, that has been Girls this past year. And if you're sick of seeing such an undeserving, awful, indefensible female and the show she created (and writes, directs, and manages to star in) win in the future, then try shutting up about it already. And while I admit that Girls deserves writing and directing recognition, it didn't necessarily warrant acting. As much as Dunham pushes herself, there were other actress more deserving. But it's still better than most things on TV. Personal feelings aside, as a television show, it's a damn good show. I just wish other's were more willing to see it. And at least appreciate how refreshing it was to see a show other than Modern Family win something.
And lastly, if I could go off on a tangent real quick, can we just acknowledge how awesome it was seeing so many great young actresses take home trophy's last night? And I'm including Jodie Foster in this. How great and emotional were all their speeches? So good! And how amazing were the hosts Tina Fey and Amy Poehler? Hilariously amazing! And how surprised were you to see Hillary Clinton's husband? So surprised! Good for the women. And good for the Golden Globes for mostly getting it right this year (minus Les Misérables and Don Cheadle....and perhaps Lena Dunham...but I'll get to that later...)
No comments:
Post a Comment