Says the Lena Dunham character at the beginning of the first episode of the last season of "Girls."
For those of you who hate "Girls" so much you don't even want this post to exist, hang on. Here's some anti-Paul Krugman dialogue:
Shoshanna: Oh, wow. The American middle class is disappearing. Thanks for the hot tip, Paul Krugman.
Ray: I know, right? You've really got your finger on the pulse there, Krugman.
Marnie: What's happening?
Shoshanna: I know, it's like, if I need a tip about what to talk about at a dinner party in 2005, I'll call you on your flip phone.
Ray: Fuck you, Paul Krugman! Thank you for shedding light on the most obvious, self-evident bullshit that every halfwit in the city already knows.
Shoshanna: It's like, "Oh, hey, Krugman, maybe you should write an article - about, like, women's inequality." Like, let's talk about that.
Ray: Oh, man.
पोस्ट्स
४५ टिप्पण्या:
I guess if I need to know what to talk about at a dinner party in 1975, I know where to go.
So she's critical of Krugman because he's slow to repeat a false premise but wants him to repeat her preferred false premise.
She's right about the strong opinions on topics she's not informed on part.
I have a sneaking admiration for Dunham. No talent. Butt ugly. But she worked herself up to the show business A-List. That's quite an accomplishment.
Didn't she get naked on camera AGAIN here? I remember reading people bitching about it.
But not many people. It is Girls, after all.
I'm far from being a prude but that was a lot of nudity for something not classified as porn. And at this point in the series seems more in your face than necessary to the plot.
I saw an article last week that said the audience skews old--55+ or something. Just us old people shouting at them to get off our lawns.
I don't hate "Girls". I guess some would see this as worst than hating it, I just don't care. Don't care about Girls and don't really care about Lena other than to point out that like many "Hollywood" stars, she (and her enablers) think far more and more highly of her than she has any right to expect.
I don't watch TV; my highly limited knowledge of this show and Dunham comes almost entirely from this blog. Up until now I had considered that as a useless contamination, but today I think you've justified the blog space.
Apparently criticism of the deeply insular "prestige" media is now the "thing".
I'd laugh at your leading quote, but it is too true!!
Oh, more Lena Dunham stuff. Most of the people I know have't a clue who this silly person is - and they're better off for it.
That's what passes for edgy dialogue? Zing, indeed.
I'm with you Ann. Couldn't disagree more with Lena Dunham's politics, but Girls is terrific. Great first episode. The Dunham haters are missing out, alas. Krugman is a ridiculous, dated, pearl-clutcher, and Dunham is clear-eyed enough to see the humor in that.
I don't subscribe to any of the premium channels like HBO. Periodically, DirecTV has a free preview weekend (including this weekend) and I'll take a look. Curious about the hype, I tuned in once and watched a few minutes of "Girls". That was more than enough for me. If others like it, fine, but it just isn't for me.
How does one watch this show? Must one have enhanced cable?
TV is so complicated now.
Lemme guess. They go on to discuss BLS stats and Rebecca Blank's latest best-seller, and conclude that the middle class is disappearing because, over time, more families have earned enough money to move up out of what was once defined as "middle class." Edgy stuff. Who needs nudity when you can have numbers?
Haven't seen the episode yet, but I enjoy the show. I think it's funny and self effacing. While Krugman is the ostensible goat in that scene, it's the main characters who are mocked most. Ray the most conservative is the most sane. Not surprised older viewers like it.
"For those of you who hate "Girls" so much you don't even want this post to exist, hang on. Here's some anti-Paul Krugman dialogue:"
Heh - "hate" is too strong a word for Ms. Dunham or for Paul Krugman, for that matter. Hatred should be reserved for evil men - Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, Timothy McVeigh, Dylann Roof - those type of warped miscreants.
As for Ms. Dunham and Mr. Krugman, gentle "mockery" is a much more apt response; mockery to Lena Dunham, for constantly exposing her flabby, mis-shapen, hideously naked figure at us (Thank God for Playboy's return to normalcy!) and Paul Krugman, for, well, being so lost in his numbers and LeftWing political fads, that he can't understand the simple truism that lowering taxes spurs private sector growth, creates jobs and helps workers.
Indeed, if Dunham and Krugman switched jobs - both the sex scenes in "Girls"and the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times would greatly improve.
I'd like to see a Venn diagram for people who love both Trump and Lena Dunham. It'd probably only overlap with Ann Althouse!
As for the rest of us I don't think we "hate" Dunham or her show, we just don't really think about her. But then, she's not the voice of my generation.
I'm an almost 50 y/o lesbian who supported Trump from day one and has watched Girls from the beginning. Hannah is my least favorite character on there - but sometimes there is a decent sense of self awareness. I also watched the Actor's Studio episode with the "girls"it was fascinating how similar their real lives are.
I watched the first two seasons. I wasn't sure if the show was a criticism of the fatuity and self indulgence of rich kids or rather an exposition of such behaviors. If the show didn't offend people like me, it would wither and die........Lenny Bruce simply had to say dirty words to offend people. Look at the extent poor Lena has to to go in order to generate offense. I wonder if this season she will take the subject of bestiality out of the closet and give us an honest look at this difficult subject.
I watched Girls for a season or two and finally put my finger on why I stopped. The show is well shot, witty and the actors are engaging. With one major exception: Dunham herself is hard to watch. It is not just that she is unsightly, she is also very off-putting. The show would be better if she wrote, directed AND hired an actor to play the part she plays.
I'm not going to this corner of Crazytown. I'm not saying her name. I'm not giving her the attention she wants. As your mother used to say: You'll only encourage her.
I've never run into "Girls". What channel is it on?
I wish this post didn't exist.
For those of you who hate "Girls" so much you don't even want this post to exist, hang on.
Hang on for that twaddle? Even if it skewers Krugman, it's silly dialogue. If this is what passes for wit and freshness, I'll pass and watch reruns of "House of Cards."
Paullie "The Beard" Krugman has earned his bad rep.
The twist when the coffee shop turned into a refuge from lib hipsters was also good, pro con, stuff, imho.
Indeed, if Dunham and Krugman switched jobs - both the sex scenes in "Girls"and the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times would greatly improve.
I literally LOL'd.
I watched several episodes of "Girls" simply as an effort to stay informed about the younger generation's culture.
I guess I am getting old, but I was totally baffled by what it was that I was watching. Is it a "farce", a "parody", a "comedy" or a "drama". Were we supposed to "root" for the characters, "pity" them or "despise" them? Was it meant to be critical of the characters or was it simply a story intended to represent a subgroup of rich, highly-educated recent college graduates who seemed to be completely clueless? Was this supposed to be "feminist"? Was I watching a depiction of a "train wreck" or a story of lives to which some people aspire?
Watching additional episodes didn't clarify any of this in my mind. Can anyone help me out?
"As for Ms. Dunham...gentle "mockery" is a much more apt response; mockery to Lena Dunham, for constantly exposing her flabby, mis-shapen, hideously naked figure at us."
More women in the USA look like Lena Dunham than like Playboy models. These women are sexual beings and most are in relationships with men (or women) who love them and find them desirable. I can't understand the scorn and insults for someone brave enough to expose her imperfect-by-Hollywood-and-Playboy standards nude body to the world. Why is her body "hideous" or "mis-shapen?" She looks like many of the women you know.
I haven't watched GIRLS since the first season, where I watched all but the last one or two episodes, (only because I wasn't home when at the time...and I never went back after to catch up), but it seemed quite sharp about human foibles, and about the foibles of these characters in particular. People who think Dunham is uncritically celebrating the insularity and grandiosity and angst of these characters haven't watched the show...or don't get it.
"I guess I am getting old, but I was totally baffled by what it was that I was watching. Is it a 'farce,' a 'parody,' a "comedy" or a "drama". Were we supposed to 'root' for the characters, "pity" them or 'despise' them?"
It's a comedy of manners.
As to how viewers are supposed to feel for them, that's up to the each viewer. I would say we should view them as we view people in general: dismay at their self-defeating behavior, astonishment at their delusions and foolishness, sympathy for their failings and defeats, gladness at their successes, and empathy for them as for ourselves.
I know who Paul Krugman is but... What is 'Girls'?
(This is both sarcastic and a true statement. I have no idea what show or movie or whatever this refers to. With which I have no issue. Perhaps if we stopped paying attention to their petty little psychoses they would be less likely to get promoted? IOW: There's a strong argument that groups on the Right should probably cut the word 'Dunham' (with the exception of the inimitable Jeff) from their news feeds along with any reference to 'Clinton'. Because they honestly don't matter.)
"Indeed, if Dunham and Krugman switched jobs "
Has anyone seen Dunham and Krugman together? I suspect they are the same person. Naked they must surely be indistinguishable.
What I always wonder is if Zosia Mamet (Shoshanna) will ever have the epiphany her father (David Mamet) did and come around to his conservative politics. Fathers tend to have huge influences on their daughters' world views.
They are criticizing Krugman for sating obvious truths. Krugman's problem is his untruths and deceptions, so this is how 'criticism' from the Left looks.
Shoshanna: It's like, "Oh, hey, Krugman, maybe you should write an article - about, like, women's inequality." Like, let's talk about that.
Shouldn't she use the phrase "women's inferiority"? Surely she doesn't mean women are in a superior position to men.
"More women in the USA look like Lena Dunham than like Playboy models."
Not at UCLA circa 1983!
I really like girls, but there's a weirdness to me that is the same weirdness as Transparent.
When you hear directly from the creator/writer, she sounds so strident and unfunny and unbending. But in their shows, they seem able to look at the other side, to the humorous or confusing side of the characters they've created. In real life, they seem to not have that ability at all.
The show gets way more press than it's ratings indicate that it deserves. It has a viewership of about 500k persons per episode. In comparison, Game of Thrones has over 7 million. the lowest rated show on CBS, Ransom, draws 3.8 million viewers. The highest, Big Bang Theory, about 14.7 million.
That's what you get for doing a show about NYC 20-somethings. People like to watch those like themselves on TV. So the entertainment press, full of 20-somethings, watch it.
Robert Cook said "I can't understand the scorn and insults for someone brave enough to expose her imperfect-by-Hollywood-and-Playboy standards nude body to the world.
'Brave' is incensed! It can't remember when it's been ask to represent such an odious action.
"When I'm applied to such a shallow and self-serving act," the word was heard to say, "I have to wonder if the writer really knows me at all. My being associated in any way with that publicity hound is defamatory and malapropic."
When asked if that last was a word, Brave replied, "Certainly, he's a close friend of mine. And when I said hound, I meant dog,' it added quickly.
Truly art does imitate life. At least sometimes.
I think I also said this a year ago, but I'm still loyal to the show & will continue watching to the end.
Krugman, Krugman? Sounds familiar. Wasn't there a financial advisor for Enron named Krugman? Wonder if its any relation.
Has anyone seen Aziz Ansari's "Master of None"?
I love Aziz, loved him in "Parks and Rec", love his stand up. But I tried "Girls" and it struck me that is shares some similarity with "Master of None": educated, young people with sky high expectations about how "special" they are but can't figure out how to make choices that result in them feeling special 24/7. Ugh. The combination of appearing smart, but reeking of stupid, is not entertaining.
I had to drag myself across the finish line with "Master of None" and I loved the lead actor. I guess you have to be of a certain young age to be entertained by an hour of navel gazing. The characters in these "set in elite NYC" series are so damn tedious and self absorbed.
Give me a story of an alcoholic detective any day.
ALP said...
Give me a story of an alcoholic detective any day.
2/15/17, 3:40 PM
Would you (by some chance) be referring to Jesse Stone?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा