Season 1: Have Your Cake and Eat It Too?
 |
| I may be the voice of my generation. Or at least a voice of a generation. – Hannah Horvath |
Dunham made a splash a few years back with her feature film, Tiny Furniture. It was a quaint and somewhat touching story about, you guessed it, a twenty-something girl in New York City. But its storytelling was somewhat restrained, to say the least, and generally unprovocative, at best. Yet, it was already abundantly clear that Dunham had a knack for voicing issues rooted in something real, breathing life into characters and concerns that otherwise would’ve been extremely forgettable. Indeed, if Tiny Furniture was Dunham’s rehearsal at writing witty dialogue for NYC ladies, then Girls is undoubtedly her primetime premiere.
I won’t dive into the plotlines of the show here – that’s something for viewers to discover for themselves. But upon the airing of the season finale, I found it interesting that the show had become such a lightning rod for criticism. Nepotism. Favoritism. Sexism. Racism. And more racism? It seemed to me that despite all the praise Dunham was receiving, critics were voicing their opinions loudly and relentlessly.
As the old adage goes, haters gonna hate. I have no problems with critics expressing their opinions; after all, everyone is entitled to voice their thoughts. However, one would hope for sound critique to be based on something just, something firm, and something substantial. Instead, it seems that Dunham’s critics, for the most part, are missing the point entirely. Take for example, the argument that the show only portrays self-centered, privileged girls who have never suffered or experienced hardships. Critics seem to argue that everyone on the show is clueless, spoiled, superficial and by extension, not relatable to the general audience. And yet, it seems to me that this very notion of nepotism is the true subject of the show. These girls are shallow and spoiled; they do expect their parents to support them financially; they are struggling to grow into real careers, real relationships, and ultimately, real adults. And that’s the fucking point. Look at how miserable – and oddly entertaining – their struggles are, no matter how privileged they may be, as they try to find their identities!
But perhaps the bigger question surrounding the show is why Girls, virtually alone among current TV shows, has become such a lightning rod for accusations of racism? The critics seem to think that as a twenty-something white girl from New York, Dunham should invariably have some prophetic insight into the lives of people from all creeds and races. And why not? She’s obviously lived life as a black guy from the Bronx, right? Or a Latino from Bushwick. Or an Asian from the Upper Eastside. Naturally, she needs to voice her concerns for those demographics in an attempt to appeal to the growing over-sensitivity of the American culture before attempting to tell a story she actually wants to tell.
But perhaps I’m missing the bigger picture. Deep down, I believe Girls is attracting criticism with such fervor and frequency not because of its subject matter or depictions of its characters; it’s actually because it's written by, created by, directed by, and largely about, well, girls. This is not a matter of favoritism or racism; it’s a matter of sexism. I can’t help but think back to the wild success of Kristen Wiig’s Bridesmaids upon its release in 2011. Heralded as “the chick flick” that guys would also enjoy (and thereby hitting the marketing holy grail of 18-35 year-old males), the film seemed to garner much of its attention not because it dealt with strong women, but in spite of its strong women, both in front and behind camera (it was directed by a man after all). And as much as I adored the film, I couldn't help but see it as a slightly more feminine shade of a guy's definition of a comedy. There are fart jokes and sex jokes! It’s raunchy like a guy movie! And kind of funny like one too! Except it has women!
The sad truth is we live in an unilaterally patriarchal society, one wherein violence is considered more tolerable than sex, one wherein blood and gore is excusable for teenagers but the slightest sensual hint of the human body is met with outcry and intolerance. We live in an ignorantly biased world, one wherein war and violence, topics largely associated to males, are inherently more socially accepted and financially viable than matters concerning women. So as we begin to see more and more creative mediums created by women, focusing on women, and speaking to women - and actually finding success! - how should we expect the American society to react in any other way?
Despite everything that’s been said about Dunham and her astonishing creation, I believe she will have the last laugh. Through Girls, she’s managed to create characters who are inherently complex - selfish but caring, bright but insecure, uncomfortably appalling yet undeniably loveable. It’s a feat much easier said than done. Indeed, Dunham understands her characters better than they understand themselves; she may even understand her characters better than she understands herself. It would be tough to tell where Lena Dunham ends and where Hannah Horvath begins if it wasn't for the fact that Dunham has, in ten weeks' time, pretty much positioned herself to become the most hard-working, charming, and successful 26-year-old currently running her own premium cable TV show, or perhaps ever. The very existence of Girls - the very fact that this show has people speaking so fervently about it, whether for or against - suggests the degree of passion that has gone into the creation of the show, a genuinely amazing encapsulation of a people and a time and a place that has invariably struck a chord with the American public.
We are on the verge of something special here. And I’m sure, just as Dunham is sure, that we ain’t seen nothing yet.
