Instapundit quotes the Daily Caller headline, which isn't supported by what the actor Christopher Abbott ("Charlie") actually said or supposedly said. The actor's spokesperson said "he’s working on numerous other projects" and "a source" said "Chris is at odds with Lena [Dunham]" and "He didn’t like the direction things are going in." That doesn't mean he thinks the show is terrible. At most he's arguing with Dunham or doesn't like what she's doing with his character. My guess is: He's negotiating his salary.
Note: The show is not terrible. It's just — as sitcoms go — a grim picture. People are young and they get naked and have sex on occasion, and yet it's not fun. It tends to be dismal and dark. You'd think conservatives would know how to take that. Are they dumb or just unwilling to watch the show they berate?
४ एप्रिल, २०१३
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१६७ टिप्पण्या:
People are young and they get naked and have sex on occasion, and yet it's not fun. It tends to be dismal and dark.
Then they are doing it wrong.
the latter: unwilling to watch drivel which I guarantee you I refuse to watch and fully intend to berate.
You have a finite number of heartbeats in this lifetime. Why would you waste any of them watching this horrible show manufactured by these horrible people.
Sounds like he finally grew a pair.
May the contagion spread like cholera in the 1850s.
Many HBO subscribers think "Girls" is a terrible show. Only 600,000 watched the finale of season 2. Compare those abysmal numbers with many of their successful Sunday night shows.
I watched season 1 and thought "meh."
An even worse show was "Enlightenment": only 200,000 people watched the season 2 finale. (Since canceled -- a bit of good news.)
Can't speak for anybody else but I don't watch because I don't have cable, it's not on Netflix or Hulu, and from the one clip I saw it's not worth making the effort to track down.
Then they are doing it wrong.
...and trying to figure it out (not just the sex).
Instapundit quotes the Daily Caller headline, which isn't supported by what the actor Christopher Abbott ("Charlie") actually said or supposedly said
Also, this was clearly a joke. (and even if it weren't, have you ever heard of an actor saying they are quitting because their show sucks? Usually they are more diplomatic than that)
Too much sit, not enough com.
I Love Lucy was a sitcom. Lucy and Ricky (presumably) got naked and had sex. But they did it in private, not in front of us all. Maybe it was grim, unfun, dark and dismal but if it was, then they charitably left the rest of us out of it. Lucy was funny. Ricky was funny. Sex should be fun and funny, not dark and dismal.
Plus, they had Fred and Ethel.
The show is not terrible. It's just — as sitcoms go — a grim picture. People are young and they get naked and have sex on occasion, and yet it's not fun.
Sex in my twenties was neither dismal nor dark. Quite the opposite.
For me, the pleasure of watching Girls is all about Schadenfreude. :)
Any sufficiently realistic show is going to vindicate views which correspond to reality.
And girls is, mostly, a very realistic, very funny, show (apart from that one ridiculous episode in season 2, you know the one...).
From the news stories about the latest kerfuffle, it sounds like Charlie's character arc may have been going in an unsatisfying direction, though.
I bet he'd stay on if they write him a scene where he gets to piss on Marnie.
"I Love Lucy was a sitcom. Lucy and Ricky (presumably) got naked and had sex."
I'd like to see that.
You'd think conservatives would know how to take that. Are they dumb or just unwilling to watch the show they berate?
This isn't a feature of just conservatives, but I know what you're saying. I've never seen the show (it doesn't seem like it'd be my cup of tea) but I do try to avoid criticizing too much shows, movies, and books that I haven't read or seen. I'll admit I don't always succeed at that.
No you wouldn't. And you know it.
"Then they are doing it wrong."
What a waste of youth!
"From the news stories about the latest kerfuffle, it sounds like Charlie's character arc may have been going in an unsatisfying direction, though."
Well, that's what the "source" says. I'm guessing he's holding out for more money. I bet he gets paid less than some of the others and they know they can shortchange him. He has his pride.
And they can always get other boyfriends for Marnie.
"Then they are doing it wrong."
Conservatives should love this. They need to abandon their libertine ways and find marital love.
a grim picture...It tends to be dismal and dark.
That doesn't really sound like a sitcom.
Given Dunham's political activism, she has either insulated her show from cancellation or set herself up as a political martyr if the show is cancelled.
If one doesn't have enough talent to continue a show on its merits, then not an undumb move.
I guess he just can't handle a strong overachieving woman.
Agree with Ficta - Girls is very interesting and watchable. Of course Lena Dunham's politics are puerile but, thankfully, they don't infect the show. I also think that those puerile politics affect the ability of some (as the comments here indicate) to appreciate the show for what it is.
Agree that Enlightened was godawful.
Are they dumb or just unwilling to watch the show they berate?
Its a trap!
it's the most written about show in media for the last 2 years. and pulls 600k for a season finale. it must be great.
In which Lem manages not to fall for the professor's 19 thousand 3 hundred and eleventh loaded question.
Note: The show is not terrible. It's just — as sitcoms go — a grim picture. People are young and they get naked and have sex on occasion, and yet it's not fun. It tends to be dismal and dark. You'd think conservatives would know how to take that. Are they dumb or just unwilling to watch the show they berate?
Who says the title isn't tongue in cheek?
I've seen every episode of Girls and it's close to being terrible. There's little humor in it and the shock value - Adam urinating on Hannah, Hannah urinating at the train station (with and without UTI), Hannah's nude ping pong - which is supposed to make it more "real," just ends up boring the more you see of it. "What is shocking first time around is boring and vacuous when repeated."
And for how "real" the show is supposed to be, it certainly turns to old sitcom story lines when it closes out a season... A surprise marriage in the first season, all the couples getting back together in the second. Yawn.
You'd think conservatives would know how to take that.
I've never seen it, not because of lack of interest but because I don't have HBO... We only have basic... I look forward to it when it comes out on Netflix.
I don't have cable, but even if I did, I doubt I'd watch this. I never watched Sex in (and?) the City, or even Seinfeld. Just don't like sitcoms much.
However, last week when visiting someone I stumbled into the middle of a Game of Thrones marathon, another show I'd never seen. This is much more to my taste --- Mother of Dragons, you go grrrl!
While it's easy for a conservative to see it as a show that's critical of the lifestyle, I'm not sure that's how it's intended.
This thread reminds me of Ang Lee's Ice Storm, which to me always seemed like one of the most conservative movies ever made, but if you ask Ang Lee that you only get denials.
Either way Girls is less of a waste of space than Sex in the City ever was. I like how idiosyncratic it is, and suspect that the viewership numbers are suppressed because it is a show couples are uncomfortable watching together.
I think Lena Dunham, either knowingly or unknowingly, has a created a show that is a sad commentary on the end of the sexual revolution. We finally allowed people to make all their own decisions socially and sexually with little to no external consequences. But their are still consequences still exist and they are harsh. Conservatives should celebrate this finding - Lena Dunham is doing our work for us and life is better with some self imposed rules and morals. But instead we see a overweight, non-tan ass and boobs and we freak out.
I look forward to it when it comes out on Netflix.
I don't think HBO/Showtime stuff makes it to Netflix generally. You'd have to sneak it online or buy dvd's.
or just unwilling to watch the show
I am very unwilling to watch the show. I don't really berate it, except to note that I find Ms. Dunham quite unattractive.
I'd like to go on record to say that I don't think Lena Dunham's all that bad looking.
But maybe that's just the old age talking.
This thread reminds me of Ang Lee's Ice Storm, which to me always seemed like one of the most conservative movies ever made, but if you ask Ang Lee that you only get denials.
I can see that. Haven't seen girls but The Ice Storm was very atmospheric and depressingly sad. I can only watch so much of that kind of thing.
In which Lem manages not to fall for the professor's 19 thousand 3 hundred and eleventh loaded question.
Its devious fun.
What the headline really means...Girls' actor leaves show after we speculate he realizes it's terrible.
Headlines have to be short and punchy. Those extra modifiers take up a lot of room.
Conservatives are about as dumb as liberals. It's not necessary to wallow in the oppositions mud to conclude it's pretty unsavory. Many liberal commenters refuse to try to understand conservative points of view.
As for myself, I'm pretty much right all the time, so you can count on me to steer you right.
I did enjoy her movie.
The scene where she asked her mother where something was and her mother tells her, is in one of the drawers... she goes to the room and an entire wall was made up of drawers and she just stood dwarfed looking at them... that was hilarious.
It tends to be dismal and dark. You'd think conservatives would know how to take that. Are they dumb or just unwilling to watch the show they berate?
People who sit in front of the glow tube watching endless sitcoms are wasting their time. Instead they should be camped in front of their back-lit laptop screen, reading the Althouse blog (while buying stuff on Amazon).
I have always said, "to each his own" (as did the little old lady when she kissed her cow).
What's hilarious is that the entertainment industry is unabashedly liberal yet they keep producing highly-conservative stories.
This is a very good consideration of "Girls", among other things, and touches on some of the comments here.
James Bowman on Girls
I don't watch the show, don't want to watch the show and I don't have an opinion of the show other than its obviously a show for liberal pussies.
I don't think HBO/Showtime stuff makes it to Netflix generally. You'd have to sneak it online or buy dvd's.
Au contraire, you can watch The Tudors (Showtime) and Weeds (Showtime) on Netflix.
And I'm sure others.
The actor's spokesperson said...
Layers.
"Are they dumb or just unwilling to watch the show they berate?"
How very Barry of you.
Alternatively, maybe we just have better things to do with our time than watching a depressing situation comedy on pay cable?
Au contraire, you can watch The Tudors (Showtime) and Weeds (Showtime) on Netflix.
Ah, I forgot about the Tudors. (I didn't realize Weeds was a showtime show). Those are off the air now, though.
No true blood or game of thrones.
No true blood or game of thrones.
True. HBO tends to be more tight-fisted with their titles.
Shanna said...
Au contraire, you can watch The Tudors (Showtime) and Weeds (Showtime) on Netflix.
Ah, I forgot about the Tudors. (I didn't realize Weeds was a showtime show). Those are off the air now, though.
No true blood or game of thrones.
They come out a season behind, but often only on DVD and not available through streaming. I watched Game of Thrones on Netflix DVD.
Roger Ebert just died. RIP.
I've seen 3 episodes.
It is "1600 Penn" bad.
Keep in mind, MOST HBO fare is brutally overrated. "Sex and the City" was horrendous. "Veep" is terrible. "The Newsroom" is a snooze.
Thank God I have family who still subscribes to HBO so I can leech off of them. If I PAID for that BS, I'd be irked.
Sex in my twenties was neither dismal nor dark. Quite the opposite.
In the show's defense, you likely didn't have to bone Lena Dunham.
"Roger Ebert just died. RIP."
I didn't like his politics but I found his movie reviews useful and good reading.
Nihilism without the leaven of humor is terrible. And that's what "Girls" amounts to. But then progressives are a pretty humorless bunch, so I guess for them the lack of humor is a plus.
"I Love Lucy was a sitcom. Lucy and Ricky (presumably) got naked and had sex."
I'd like to see that.
Pervert. ^_^
Seriously, why would you want to watch a sitcom described by its defenders as "dismal and dark"? The lead is physically repulsive, the descriptions of the theme and plot are uninteresting and dispiriting, and it's on a pay channel I don't... well, pay for.
You couldn't pay me to watch it.
Anyways, just knowing that there are hundreds of thousands of Dunhams out there has been enough to put me firmly on the road to terminal alcoholism. Actually make me watch her damn show, and you'd have to lock my shotgun up to keep me from blowing my brains out because the rye just isn't taking the world away from me fast enough.
The show is not terrible.
Umm, I watched the first 6 episodes. That's all I could stand. It's not the worst show I've ever seen, but it's bad. Really bad. Borderline cringe-worthy.
It borders on terrible. It's hyped as quality because a certain subgroup of today's youth is adrift and Lena Dunham is a buoyant object they can cling to. And something about a naked Hannah is 'real' for some people.
It is a dumb show.
Roger Ebert would give it a thumbs down. If he were alive, that is.
RIP
Roger Ebert just died. RIP.
Two thumbs, way up.
I didn't like his politics but I found his movie reviews useful and good reading.
Me too... RIP.
What's not terrible about the show?
Having watched it, I wouldn't call it a sitcom, and wouldn't "a grim picture" be a pretty terrible sitcom?
Like... Seinfeld was an extremely funny sitcom that featured people without redeeming qualities. But it wasn't grim, it was funny and that made the people without redeeming qualities funny.
Bad people got themselves into bad situations and hilarity ensued.
With girls, it's "a grim picture" because there's not much funny. Bad people get themselves into bad situations and moping and anger ensue.
Basically, Lena Dunham's Hannah character is a more realistic,angrier and much less funny George Costanza.
If you don't understand why this fails, some simple answers:
1. This sort of grim reality is inherently not very funny. The parody of it is funny.
2. George Costanza was a foil to the main protagonist and straight man, Jerry. Hannah is the protagonist herself.
Maybe next season we'll finally get to see Marnie's hooters.
Peter
Two thumbs, way up.
Deceptively clever.
I was always a Siskel fan and never really warmed up to Ebert except to the extent that he made Siskel crazy with rage, which was entertaining and defining. They completed each other. I usually thought Ebert's analysis was rather plodding but then he could surprise as well. RIP.
Big Bang theory is the only sitcom I watch anymore.
May the contagion spread like cholera in the 1850s.
Or like antibiotic-proof gonorrhea is about to, today.
I never heard of it until it won some affirmative actions Emmy awards for being written, etc. by a girl.
People are young and they get naked and have sex on occasion, and yet it's not fun.
Sounds terrible.
People are young and they get naked and have sex on occasion, and yet it's not fun. It tends to be dismal and dark.
Isn't this the show that stars some ugly fat chick? I would think the darker the better in that case.
They come out a season behind, but often only on DVD and not available through streaming.
Yeah, I don't pay for dvd's, just streaming. I want to catch up on GoT's, but I stopped watching right before Ned...well I won't say it lest I spoil a two year old episode but I just didn't want to watch it.
He is so hot.
So, was that episode with the "older" man a dream sequence or what?
RIP Mr. Ebert. While I completely disagreed with him politically, I liked his movie reviews. I used to be a movie industry buff and watched the original review show with Bob Siskel on PBS back in the early 80s.
"Girls" is badly-written and badly-acted. It's just plain bad.
"Sex and the City" was much better than the book on which it was based. Somehow the writers made four not-particularly-likable women interesting and somewhat likable.
"Girls" is just...bad.
Roger Ebert just died. RIP.
So who will curate all those vile tweets he left behind?
It's quite a legacy.
Professor, in the scheme of things, no one watches the show. More people watch Hannity every night--and he's (while very earnest, I'm sure) God awful.
Why must you start throwing around shit at everyone who might not march in lockstep with your tastes?
@Althouse, I'm with Shanna and a bunch of others on this thread -- there are lots of things to spend money on, and I'd spend money on cable only if I lived out where broadcast TV was not an option. It's not as though there's much to watch that's worth watching except for the occasional NOVA show on PBS that doesn't push the Global Warming hoax.
@Meade (1:49) you're not implying they had foursomes, are you? Maybe eveybody loved Lucy!
@Meade (1:52) actually, Lucille Ball was quite a hottie in her younger days. You might rethink your response to your missus.
"'a grim picture...It tends to be dismal and dark.'
"That doesn't really sound like a sitcom."
Oh, but that's the best kind of sitcom. Humor comes from discomfort and shame and guilt and pain.
For all those tut-tutting condescendingly about "the kids doing sex wrong," while you all may have been sexual athletes and prodigies from the first time you had sex, many people have a learning curve and struggle with unsatisfying sex until they learn how to "do it right" or until they find a partner who knows how to do it right or who simply "does it for them," (i.e., with whom they have sexual chemistry).
Sadly, many people never experience satisfying sex lives. (They're called "comedians," as per my initial remark.)
My wife likes the show. I've watched about six episodes.
It's terrible. Most of the characters are dull, and Dunham's character is the dullest.
Shanna said...
well I won't say it lest I spoil a two year old episode but I just didn't want to watch it.
If you think that's bad the book's a decade old. Series often move from DVD to streaming. But when depends on the popularity so it might be a while. I don't think Sopranos ever made it to streaming, but most do.
If you like that sort of thing try Patrick Rothfuss - not as epic as Martin and so a different feel. But quite good with some unique attractions. The books are always better anyway.
Brew Master said...
Then they are doing it wrong.
Thread winnah! One & done.
"'Girls' is badly-written and badly-acted. It's just plain bad.
"'Sex and the City' was much better than the book on which it was based. Somehow the writers made four not-particularly-likable women interesting and somewhat likable.
"'Girls' is just...bad."
Without debating whether GIRLS is bad or good, it's far more realistic than SEX IN THE CITY, which was softporn for the "ladies who lunch," (or who work at interesting or prestigious occupations), presenting a dreamland of lunches and martinis in fab restaurants, the protagonists tottering about the metropolis in their Dolce & Gabbana attire.
Lena pimped Obama with her "You should have sex with Obama for the first time" campaign pimpage. There is only so much cultural rot on the left that I can take. It doesn't surprise me that the show is dismal and dark. The left have their politics as religion, their false god at the presidential helm, (save us dear leader!) and sex without consequences. Empty.
Plus, Lena reminds me of Fluke.
Empty but free!
Mehtadras @
Big Bang theory is the only sitcom I watch anymore.
I like BBT as well. The first four seasons are pretty funny. However, the newer episodes seem like the writers are out of ideas. It's now the predictable Leonard and Penny are going to have sex now show. Boring.
"Without debating whether GIRLS is bad or good, it's far more realistic than SEX IN THE CITY"
This ties in to my Seinfeld comparison. Reality doesn't get you very far in comedy.
I'd consider watching "Girls" if I heard a recommendation from someone whose opinion I valued.
rehajm said...
It borders on terrible. ... And something about a naked Hannah is 'real' for some people.
It nekid Hannah does remind of Suidae family exhibits at state fairs.
Brew Master is still right...if you are naked and having sex in your 20's and it isn't fun...you're doing something wrong. Period.
Roger von Oech said...
Many HBO subscribers think "Girls" is a terrible show. Only 600,000 watched the finale of season 2.
Interesting point. It's supposed to be on the pulse of what girls are thinking, bit its ratings are close to absolute zero.
Meade said...
Too much sit, not enough com.
I Love Lucy was a sitcom. Lucy and Ricky (presumably) got naked and had sex. But they did it in private, not in front of us all. Maybe it was grim, unfun, dark and dismal but if it was, then they charitably left the rest of us out of it. Lucy was funny. Ricky was funny. Sex should be fun and funny, not dark and dismal.
Plus, they had Fred and Ethel.
Is Meade talking foursomes?
Well, I guess I just decided that I needed to grow as an actor. To expand, and hone my craft. I think when you become comfortable in a role, too comfortable, that is you begin to stagnate as an actor. It was time to move on to new challenges.
*snap* Oh, here I am.
Girls is terrible. I watched the first episode. The best part of that was the parents saying to their daughter: "You're an adult, a college graduate, and we're not paying your living expenses anymore." Then she thought that her unpaid internship (that she'd been in for TWO years) would turn into a paid job. Yeah, right.
I'd consider watching "Girls" if I heard a recommendation from someone whose opinion I valued.
Hoo-ee ouch! It must be Zinger Thursday!
I love Girls. Abs amazing. It has it all, tits, fucking, sucking, golden showers, more tits, Brooklyn, fabness that is struggling and tits playing ping pong.
Best Show Ever.
They're called "comedians," as per my initial remark.
So this fairly old Jewish woman is walking down the street in the Garment District in NYC, and she comes upon a flasher in a raincoat.
He whips open the coat so she can see all, she takes one look and says "That lining is shot!"
The show is very deep and "urban" and takes the "right" kind of person to appreciate the art.
You know?
The urbane of misery
Oh, but that's the best kind of sitcom. Humor comes from discomfort and shame and guilt and pain.
Well, I can't comment on this show specifically, but there is only so much dark, depressing stuff I will watch. If it's going to be a screwball comedy with dark elements, ala arsenic and old lace, that's fine and dandy. But you don't come away from that movie with a heavy heart.
So, when you get done watching the show, do you feel heavy or light hearted?
It's supposed to be on the pulse of what girls are thinking, bit its ratings are close to absolute zero.
You know what young girls are watching? Pretty Little Liars.
HBO sure gets a lotta buzz out of a show that draws so few viewers.
I cancelled my HBO- I refuse to want to give my money to any business that employs a dickhead like Bill Maher.
"Dunham is a genius. Interpret her words accordingly."
Ann Althouse
February 28 2013
Many HBO subscribers think "Girls" is a terrible show. Only 600,000 watched the finale of season 2
Perhaps the ratings could be pumped up by Fed.
I refuse to want to give my money to any business that employs a dickhead like Bill Maher.
Even Bill Maher hates Michael Bloomberg. Common cause!
Girls' actor leaves show after realizing it is terrible.
Is Charlie Sheen still available?
Note: The show is not terrible. It's just — as sitcoms go — a grim picture. People are young and they get naked and have sex on occasion, and yet it's not fun. It tends to be dismal and dark. You'd think conservatives would know how to take that. Are they dumb or just unwilling to watch the show they berate?
Oh, LORDY me! Sex not being so fun from time to time! What a travesty! It's like getting in your car and having to commute to work instead of having a constant series of joyrides or maximal velocity runs on a closed track! Holy hell the horror is horrendous!
In related news, at least a day's gone by without Althouse having a thing to say about Obama's decision to repatriate 5% of his salary to the treasury department. But she does have another one of the predictably banal posts about how anything said by a North American colonist 235 years ago is absolute liberty and in polar opposition to the utter tyranny that must somehow be demonstrated by representational, constitutional self-government, or maybe even the fact that it exists.
Keep on keepin' on, Altie. The faith needs you.
Okay. Haven't seen the show, but declaring it not terrible doesn't make it so. It's your opinion.
Agree that the article mischaracterized the actor's exit.
I haven't seen [nor will I see] the series but I know it sucks because Lena Dunham voted for Obama. That's just how I roll!
For the normalization of sex in entertainment you squares might want to try a Hulu video I just saw with Chelsea Handler and Conan O'Brien fighting in a shower. I'd link it, but who knows what kind of backlash among the repressed that might bring on. But at least (one of them?) was a network entertainer, so his conserva-square creeds should carry at least some weight on that score.
The trolls! The trolls!
Please don't feed the trolls.
Presumably Fred and Ethel had sex as well. Gooey Steamy Mertz Sex.
Dismal and dark enough for you yet?
Yeah, what other President has repatriated 5% of his salary to the Treasury?!
Now that's sexy.
I have seen exactly one scene of one episode of Girls and my reaction is that it is a very smart show, but also unfunny and not likable at all.
Contrast Archer. That show is filled with sexually obsessed people. And they too "need to abandon their libertine ways and find marital love." But you don't watch Archer for that reason. It's hilarious.
I love that show. And so do a lot of other people.
I haven't seen [nor will I see] the series but I know it sucks because Lena Dunham voted for Obama. That's just how I roll!
She didn't just vote for him--she had pretend sex with him!
Yuck!
I love Archer too! Hilarious funny and so so wrong.
Inga said...
Yeah, what other President has repatriated 5% of his salary to the Treasury?!
It was commendable and was a very good-hearted gesture. Plus -- if he keeps it up -- he'll reach the same percentage of charitable giving as Mitt Romney did: link
Humor comes from discomfort and shame and guilt and pain.
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Humor is when you fall in a sewer and die."
I'm paraphrasing Mel Brooks.
It's a problem if you're making a comedy and nobody is laughing.
Also a problem if you're making a drama and there's no suspense.
Also a problem if you don't like the characters and you think they're stupid people who do stupid things.
The one scene in the one episode that I saw was indeed highly critical of the sexual revolution. There was a sex scene, and he wanted her to do a sex fantasy in the middle of the sex scene, without discussing it with her first.
That could be very funny. But they didn't shoot it funny. They shot it dark and serious. The upshot is that it's really incompetent (as humor), and it leaves the viewer feeling awkward and uncomfortable.
It's not actually bad, as an artist, to make your audience feel awkward and uncomfortable. Lenny Bruce did that. Andy Kaufman too. But they were also funny.
I think the people who admire Dunham are responding to her ambition and her goals, what she's attempting to do. But I think most people simply respond to the execution. Which, in my limited experience, was not good.
I love Archer too! Hilarious funny and so so wrong.
They're skewering the James Bond persona. And I really like Bond, but that's a persona that has (arguably) corrupted men more than anything else in our media.
In real life Pussy Galore is calling up 007 for child support, he's got herpes, and three or four dead babies to his credit.
License to kill, indeed!
So Archer is introducing a bit more reality to the 007 universe, which is snarky and sneaky and hilarious.
I still love Thunderball, though. But I don't think we should underestimate how much that persona has corrupted young men, including myself when I was younger. It conflates cool and callous in a very dangerous way.
You introduce a pregnancy into a James Bond movie and that whole franchise is wrecked forever.
garage mahal said...
I haven't seen [nor will I see] the series but I know it sucks because Lena Dunham voted for Obama. That's just how I roll!
It sure is difficult to figure out why garage is singled out for criticism. I just can't understand it.
I haven't seen the show, but everything I have read about it makes it sound awful. Someone somewhere said that it is the only cable show you watch and hope the character doesn't get naked. When I saw Ms. Dunham I understood that.
There is much nudity in Game of Thrones also, but no one is fat and homely.
I haven't seen the show, but everything I have read about it makes it sound awful. Someone somewhere said that it is the only cable show you watch and hope the character doesn't get naked. When I saw Ms. Dunham I understood that.
There is much nudity in Game of Thrones also, but no one is fat and homely.
It sure is difficult to figure out why garage is singled out for criticism.
Primarily by same humorless, dim bulb trolls. They're just words. I think you need to branch out a little bit. Try new things. Look at things in a different way.
[No offense, but you're life does seem a little boring.]
Embrace the droll!
Moah Mutha o'Dragons!
garage mahal said...
Primarily by same humorless, dim bulb trolls.
So introspection's not your strong suit. Shocking.
[No offense, but you're life does seem a little boring.]
New Definition of Funny: someone whose excitement consists of being an asshole on the internet judging others' lives insufficiently exciting.
I'm a conservative who watches and enjoys Girls, and there are conservatives online who've talked positively about the show, as well. My guess it is just as divisive among liberals as conservatives, because the show is divisive, period. Sometimes it is very hard to like, and I think Dunham does that very deliberately.
I do not care for the general feeling out there among pop culture commentators that if you don't like Girls, you're a prude or you lack a sophisticated sense of humor.
There are many who are saying Enlightened was even better than Girls, which makes me think that the fewer people watch the show, the more people will extoll its virtues. My favorite HBO show, In Treatment, probably had even fewer viewers than Girls. I have such refined taste!
Some people really don't have a concept for fiction (or even non-fiction) that shows bad things in a bad light. I've known people who wrote Christian fiction that had bad situations in the stories and been unable to publish them as Christian fiction because of it. For a YA story, one author tried to explain that in order to portray redemption, you pretty much have to have your main character be messed-up so that there is something to redeem. _Year of the Warrior_ by Lars Walker, is a fabulous and deeply Christian book, but it's full of raping and pillaging. (And published by Baen, not a Christian imprint.)
It's not necessarily a case of someone not thinking it through or just wanting to pile hate on a particular work because it's true that although a situation may be presented as "bad" and it may be presented as "dark" or having consequences... you're still being entertained by it. You're still being entertained by the raping and pillaging. And those people would say that "Girls" is portraying the "dark" situations as normative which leads to the expectation that "this is the way life is" and send the wrong message (if we're worried about messages.
It's not as simple as a whole group of grumpy-pusses just not *getting* that what they object to isn't being portrayed as desirable.
Note: The show is not terrible.
Yes, it is terrible.
I have seen exactly one scene of one episode of Girls and my reaction is that it is a very smart show, but also unfunny and not likable at all.
See? That's the problem with America. Some things just need to be said, expressed, or explored - because they are real and need to be and the continued avoidance of them causes too many problems. It feels good to deal with things that exist and haven't been acknowledged in a way that considers their impact.
And then there are people who prefer to just feel good, regardless of the cost - artistically or otherwise.
Art and reality are not just about feeding addictive mindsets. They're about acknowledging a way of looking at things that hopefully, more often than not, reflects how things really are or could be. There is intrinsic value in dealing with reality as it is, and in dealing with social realities as they are.
Why don't conservatives get this?
"There is intrinsic value in dealing with reality as it is, and in dealing with social realities as they are."
At what point is watching a television show "dealing with reality."
It's like the awful "women's" television disease of the week programming. As if a person can't feel and empathize with the sick people in your life, you've got to watch a show that uses drama to beat you over the head with it.
"Why don't conservatives get this?"
I don't understand it. That's true. I don't understand it at all. If I want "real life" I have plenty of real life right in front of me. And I deal with it. And it's real.
So at what point does the criticism that someone doesn't want to watch pretend real life even make sense?
If I want "real life" I have plenty of real life right in front of me.
I don't want to watch a show every week about being bored commuting to work. Unless it's funny and actually entertaining. Clearly this show is entertaining a...handful of people. So that's fine.
But if people don't like it, I doubt it has anything to do with it being dark. Look at the Hunger Games. Let's watch children fight to the death for our amusement is pretty damn dark, but the underlying story is about more than that and I think that's why it appeals. If the story is life is dark and it continues to be dark and we're all depressed, well, not everybody is going to enjoy that.
At what point is watching a television show "dealing with reality."
When it portrays situations that a lot of people deal with or struggle with and have found lacking in their mainstream art/entertainment.
Your question is missing a question mark.
So at what point does the criticism that someone doesn't want to watch pretend real life even make sense?
Probably the point when even in their rebuttals they still come across as artistically and socially obtuse.
Inga said...
Yeah, what other President has repatriated 5% of his salary to the Treasury?!
None that I know of, but does giving 100% of their salaries to charity count? If so, then Herbert Hoover and John F Kennedy are in that league.
Obama gave up 5% of his base $400,000 salary....e.g., $20,000 and I commend him for it. Recently the "furlough" proposals for federal employees have hovered between 10% and 20%, even 40% for some.
I am far more impressed with Obama's $100,000+ donations to Fisher House each year, and dedication of some book profits to veteran's children.
I notice you and Ritmo didn't mention that. Pay attention.
Let's watch children fight to the death for our amusement is pretty damn dark, but the underlying story is about more than that and I think that's why it appeals.
Well then why don't you return the favor and explain that to me. Because as someone who appreciates/admires Girls for its honesty in portraying the many rarely-talked-about neuroses that are all too common in young women, I couldn't really get into Hunger Games. Did my best to try, but the most I could come up with is that Americans really identify with the idea of looking upon each other, or others looking upon them, with a sense of competitive brutality and cruelty. So much so that we can identify with imbuing even our children with it.
And that would be real, and worth exploring, despite a setting that's even more fictionalized than Girls' is.
If another difference between the two works is the degree of glamorization between them, I think that's worth pointing out, too.
Some things just need to be said, expressed, or explored - because they are real and need to be and the continued avoidance of them causes too many problems.
I don't disagree. I just think it should be explored by competent artists. If Dunham was funny, she could smuggle in an entire political agenda. But she's not funny. And her show's far from dramatic. Thus it fails to entertain.
Although I grant you that awkward and uncomfortable can be interesting for some people. For instance, Royal Tenenbaum writes...
I've seen every episode of Girls and it's close to being terrible.
That's interesting, to almost hate something and yet you keep watching it. Most of us, though, just bail. And I grant you that I might be too harsh on a show that I have barely seen. But I was struck forcibly by the potential for humor in the show, and the utter failure to be funny. It's like she has no idea if she's making a comedy or a drama.
And some artists are so skilled that can import drama into comedy, and vice versa. They can shift from one to the other flawlessly.
Dunham is not like that. In fact her commercial for Obama suffers in the same way. She's writing comedy (Obama was my first) but it's not funny. And her seriousness and passion makes her weird conceit just weird.
Sarah Silverman is another artist who can make people feel awkward and uncomfortable. But Silverman is also funny.
Humor is how you explore awkward and uncomfortable, as an artist. But the problem with Dunham (I suspect) is that she has a disdain for humor. Either that or she has no idea how to execute.
I watched it last season, mostly because it was on right after Game of Thrones. Game of Thrones was partially about the struggles a midget encounters in his quest for true love and the occasional orgy. A fine drama that everyone can relate to. To me an orgy without a midget is like an axe wound without arterial bleeding. There's just something missing.....Girls was about the something missing. I've seen Lena on some talk shows. She's quite witty and, dressed appropriately, she's attractive enough for most normal purposes. However, she goes out of her way to make the character on her show fat and unattractive. She not only shows her fat ass, she zooms in for a close up of the carbuncle on her fat ass. That's the ground breaking part of her show. She's not hot, and she gets naked. At long last, what women have been waiting for all these years: a romantic comedy about a fat assed woman's quest for love......I think it very significant that a woman who can incorporate being pissed on into her love life came out in support of Obama.
Inga,
As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney took only one token dollar as salary for his entire term (I believe he had to be paid *something* and couldn't take nothing at all.)
Obama's five percent is a token "repatriation"...
Ritmo wrote Did my best to try, but the most I could come up with is that Americans really identify with the idea of looking upon each other, or others looking upon them, with a sense of competitive brutality and cruelty. So much so that we can identify with imbuing even our children with it.
I pretty much ignored that aspect. What stuck with me about The Hunger Games was the all too real portrayal of City-Fab vs. Rural Honesty. I see it here everyday.
I don't disagree. I just think it should be explored by competent artists. If Dunham was funny, she could smuggle in an entire political agenda. But she's not funny. And her show's far from dramatic. Thus it fails to entertain.
But you are making the classic conservative mistake of universalizing your personal opinion here. Plenty of people think her show is funny/entertaining in the same way that Larry David's Curb Your Enthusiasm is. Neither rely on laugh tracks or comical or absurdly complicated bits. They just showcase the absurdity of situations that develop from being a bit too honest, selfish or unconventionally selfless in ways that others don't understand, and the absurdity ensues from there. The reason why it does cause a stir - regardless of how much you want to contrast it to FOX's (or MSNBC's?) ratings - is because it taps into motivations that a great deal of young twenty to thirty-somethings have either experienced or can relate to directly. And theirs is a demographic that is not only important for the same reasons that youth demographics are always important, but because their generation is finally confronting a lot of the ironic social absurdities and conveniently told lies that we have lazily decided to leave to them to resolve. The show does a great job of expressing that, IMO.
I pretty much ignored that aspect. What stuck with me about The Hunger Games was the all too real portrayal of City-Fab vs. Rural Honesty. I see it here everyday.
Sometimes you really amaze me in how you decide to direct your attention. Both things were exaggerated, but city-country distinctions have been explored since antiquity. Also, not to nitpick, but glamour and honesty are not opposites, but different things. Although I get your point.
However, the lengths the movie went to in extending America's signature competitive and even murderous brutality to children should be shocking. The fact that it wasn't to you disturbs me, but then, I guess there was a whole movie-going audience beyond you who still managed to find some kind of value in it despite that as well.
I can only conclude that America is not only a violent place, but an unapologetically and indulgently violent place. You might think there must be something wrong with me for being disgusted by that, but I guess my understanding of civilization is built upon a certain set of notions that I can't really discard.
Ritmo, now that you mention it, what struck me about the child violence in The Hunger Games was how it was inflicted on the flyover people by the Panem citizens.
I can only conclude that the future American metropolis will not only be a child-unfriendly place, but an unapologetically and self-indulgently child-unfriendly place. Fabulous. You might think there must be something wrong with me for being disgusted by that, but I guess my understanding of civilization is built upon a certain set of notions that I can't really discard.
"Probably the point when even in their rebuttals they still come across as artistically and socially obtuse."
Really, Ritmo, you can't snob-shame me. I do science fiction and the literati have all tried and failed.
Personally, I can't even imagine what it would take to make me impressed by someone who uses their "appreciation" for make-believe into a metric for artistic and social enlightenment in others.
"I can only conclude that America is not only a violent place, but an unapologetically and indulgently violent place."
So... you only watch the high-brow foreign movies, hm?
Never even once, a Japanese game show? Not once?
Ritmo, now that you mention it, what struck me about the child violence in The Hunger Games was how it was inflicted on the flyover people by the Panem citizens.
But certainly not the fact that it even occurred. In America. Too broad a conclusion?
Don't you think it's the least bit possible that are seeing a tree and ignoring a forest? Detail orientation is great but sometimes there's a tidal wave containing all those little droplets. Not that I'd want to distract you from things on the nanometer scale.
Oh, I was being kind and missed this:
I can only conclude that the future American metropolis will not only be a child-unfriendly place, but an unapologetically and self-indulgently child-unfriendly place.
Utterly stupid. Pat yourself on the back for mimicking my prose, but it's absolute bullshit. Cities are plenty friendly to child and the act of rearing them - there are actual people to interact with all around you at all times and infrastructure to support them for those children to explore. Dogs and parks and ways of getting to work in a way that doesn't disrupt your homelife, but blends into it. Distance from the high divorce rates and social dysfunction of America's red state methamphetamine epidemic.
I guess you forget to check out some facts before you went on that rhetoric binge.
I shouldn't judge plot and writing of Girls having never seen it. My teenage daughter will discover it soon enough I suppose.
I do find it interesting that most men here are likewise physically repulsed by Dunham. This is normal and healthy. There is something unaesthetic about her.
Albania's post-WW II leader Enver Hoxha, tried such a social experiment, creating a so-called "Cult of Ugly" with horrific results. You can read about it in the NYT, of all places: link
Really, Ritmo, you can't snob-shame me. I do science fiction and the literati have all tried and failed.
Personally, I can't even imagine what it would take to make me impressed by someone who uses their "appreciation" for make-believe into a metric for artistic and social enlightenment in others.
Yeah - nanny nanny pooh pooh and all that. Whatever.
Anyway, the show is not devoid of relevant, REAL social commentary. I've provided some of my own two cents on it here. But I guess I must not exist. What is written in NYMag and other publications in a city of several millions must also not be real or resonate with others in real-life -- their personal comments that follow notwithstanding. Yeah, I see the real strong point you tried to make, but didn't.
"I can only conclude that America is not only a violent place, but an unapologetically and indulgently violent place."
So... you only watch the high-brow foreign movies, hm?
Never even once, a Japanese game show? Not once?
Logic fail. I never said no other societies weren't violent. I said America's was. America's is and other societies aren't are actually, two different ideas. And one of them I said. The other one, well, you imagined I said.
I do find it interesting that most men here are likewise physically repulsed by Dunham. This is normal and healthy. There is something unaesthetic about her.
There is something repulsive and abnormal and unhealthy and unaesthetic about being incapable of judging a woman's obvious and needed talents because you are obsessed with how you should be able to fit her figure on a magazine cover.
But it's your species too, right? Feel free to do your part to turn the race into a physical form, with no attention to any humanistic attributes whatsoever. I guess it's the German in you. Maybe if Dunham had instead paraded Olympian body-builders around a crowd of adoring Berliners giving fascist salutes you'd have been more impressed.
You are the most innocent little Teutonic warrior I have ever met.
Utterly stupid.
The last time I visited San Francisco (about 5 or 6 years ago) one the parks (near St. Peters and Paul church in North Beach) had decent sized park with a residual playground but no kids (except our own). Lots of couples and dogs though.
A saving grace is that immigrants are moving back into the cities now with their kids and displacing some of the hipsters.
A saving grace is that immigrants are moving back into the cities now with their kids and displacing some of the hipsters.
Whatever you need to do to keep your sense of ally and enemy intact in this retelling. That's the most important thing, I guess.
Maybe if Dunham had instead paraded Olympian body-builders around a crowd of adoring Berliners giving fascist salutes you'd have been more impressed.
Now, now, Ritmo. Lena, not Leni.
Riefenstahl was interesting though and an admirably brave woman, especially later in life. She lived forever too.
I just read Ritmo's entire output on this thread and I didn't skip anything. Now I'm ready for something equally dark and dismal and deeply twisted.
I think Lena Dunham will just about fit that description, so I'm off to find an episode of Girls' and I won't stop watching no matter how bad it gets.
On 14 June 1940, the day Paris was declared an open city by the French and occupied by German troops, Riefenstahl wrote to Hitler in a telegram, “With indescribable joy, deeply moved and filled with burning gratitude, we share with you, my Führer, your and Germany's greatest victory, the entry of German troops into Paris. You exceed anything human imagination has the power to conceive, achieving deeds without parallel in the history of mankind. How can we ever thank you?”
If only all of us could have attributes so supposedly great as to eclipse a mind so given to such ugliness as the above.
In any event, Riefenstahl was no looker, either. Her eyes were close together and a bit cross-eyed, like George W. Bush the Cyclops, but oh well. I'll presume you'll let that slide given how irrelevant you find Lena Dunham's appearance to anything.
Well now you've got me watching The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl. I'm quite sure it will be dark.
By 1934 she was a favorite of the Nazis, and was chosen by Goebbels, the propaganda minister, to film the party’s rally at Nuremberg. Given many cameras and unlimited film, she also benefited because much of the rally was deliberately staged with the film in mind. The result, ‘Triumph of the Will,’ is one of the most important documentaries ever made, and by general consent one of the best—important at the time for the way it painted Hitler and his followers as idealized supermen, important now because it helps explain how Nazism was not only a political movement but an exercise in mass hypnotism drawing on fetishistic imagery.”
I also wrote, “But being in great shape at a very old age, while admirable, does not erase the stain of her association with the Nazi movement.”
And, referring to a documentary about her, “there are candid moments, when she is not aware of the camera, when she shares quiet little asides with her old comrades, which, while not damning, subtly suggest a dimension she is not willing to have seen.”
All of this is not fluff, but true.
~Roger Ebert
@Inga: I saw the ultimate in bumper stickers today in Oceanside: "I ♥ My Grandog"
If you see a tall muscular guy with tatoos and a tall svelte blond walking four chihuahuas, it's my daughter and her boyfriend.
It's not sex any more, it's just masturbation--intra-vaginal masturbation. Since they started in junior high, they have been at for more than thirteen years--and they were the generation with those colored ribbons in their hair (now wristbands) with each color designating either sex with a particular boy or a sexual act they had performed (oral, anal, cunnilingus, etc.) Now that they are approaching thirty, sex is just given out without a thought. There is no prelude--no hunt. No anticipation. No expectation of a relationship beyond a few days or weeks.
And yes, since it's a 28-minute show, I have seen every episode.
Omg! It's just a tv show! People should feel free to like it, hate it, rip on it, and mock it. How did it get to be a test of your character if you like or hate the show?
I don't watch it although I dvr'd the first season. My husband, a Democrat, didn't want to watch it. "I just can't" he said.
My sons, both libertarians and male, didn't want to watch it. They are not into Lena Dunham.
So lets get over this idea that its what the kool kids are watching. They aren't.
"It's just — as sitcoms go — a grim picture. People are young and they get naked and have sex on occasion, and yet it's not fun. It tends to be dismal and dark."
That doesn't sound like a comedy plus the star is a lefty asshole so it is easy to not watch it. Very funny to see Althouse calling conservatives stupid because they have different tastes than her, she has so little self awareness.
I did google images of Lena Durham to see if she is good looking but she is not a sexy gal. Kind of dumpy and the tattoos are a turn off. She has a body made for radio. Given that I don't want to look at her nude and she is nude a lot on the show, that is another reason for me to not watch the show.
I just watched the first episode.
If it's framed as a send-up of Sex and the City, it works, as a repudiation of glamorous, easy single-womanhood in New York City. The context between the two is largely the economy ... the Clinton economy vs. the Obama economy. The dire lack of optimism in Hannah's universe conflicts with her public probama stance ... it's going to get better, right?
it's difficult to compare it to Larry David's Curb Your Enthusiasm, which is constructed in the breezy, warm and comfortable universe of a man who has made it but can't enjoy it. There's too stark a contrast to Dunham's dismal concrete universe where sex is boring, people are somewhat ugly creatures, and life is an uphill battle.
As one commenter said, it's as if Girls is twisted-ly celebrating the end of the sexual revolution where everyone has basically lost.
It's not outrageously funny, but I did enjoy the one guy's defense of McDonalds, although it seems stolen from long-ago bit.
Omg! It's just a tv show! People should feel free to like it, hate it, rip on it, and mock it. How did it get to be a test of your character if you like or hate the show?
I get the feeling that Althouse gets social cues from her vaunted liberal friends and family and then posts the opinions here as rorschach tests.
OK, many comments last night, but I'm just going to comment on the Hunger Games.
The violence is imposed on the kids. This is not a story about how violent americans are, ritmo.
The violence is imposed as a result of a failed rebellion. As a punishment. And then they are all forced to watch as kids they know and love are murdered and forced to murder. Star Wars crossed with the running man. Of course they end up fighting back, but I won't spoil it for you since it sounds like you only saw the movie.
People are young and they get naked and have sex on occasion, and yet it's not fun. It tends to be dismal and dark. You'd think conservatives would know how to take that.
Well, I'm a conservative, and that description sounds like the show vindicates the conservative perspective of the Sexual Revolution. The cultural Left tried to make sex into a mere pastime that doesn't require intimacy or relationship permanency, and this is what we get.
Well, I'm a conservative, and that description sounds like the show vindicates the conservative perspective of the Sexual Revolution. The cultural Left tried to make sex into a mere pastime that doesn't require intimacy or relationship permanency, and this is what we get.
Disagree. I think the show's creative genius, Lena Dunham, is good enough prima facie evidence that the show's direction and intent is decidedly liberal. Who did the show's creative genius vociferously support in the last election?
On the other hand you may be saying that Dunham is a closet conservative which is an interesting notion. I'm skeptical though.
I think the show's creative genius, Lena Dunham, is good enough prima facie evidence that the show's direction and intent is decidedly liberal.
Didn't I just say that? Liberals acting liberal is very good at vindicating conservatives.
If a show is shallow and aimless (the impression I get from the blog hostess' description), it's usually because the creator is shallow and aimless.
Didn't I just say that? Liberals acting liberal is very good at vindicating conservatives.
Touche' but they don't see it that way. Look, I'm on your side but the other side sees green where we see red.
I have never watched the show. Partly because living overseas I am not as clued into pop culture back home these days. But frankly, and I think mostly, because my family comes from Williamsburg/Greenpoint (though after moving out as an infant, I lived there only briefly in the early 2000s) And I have a built in dislike for the hipsters. Not that they are bad people or anything, they are just, well, Williamsburg hipsters.
Dunham's writing is terrible. She created likeable characters only to surround them by unrealistic insanity. She and HBO should have quit after the first season. Sustainability was obviously an issue this "writer" couldn't overcome.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा