Saturday, April 27, 2013

girls




                So I finally gave in to the hype and watched the first season of “Girls.” Not because I wanted to, though I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t a teensy bit curious, but because those DVD’s a friend shoved at me looked a hell of a lot better than my microeconomics objectives. “One episode,” I thought as I pressed play, “Then I’ll do my homework.”

                One episode turned into five because the HBO series is just that good. I have to admit, I was a cynic. I had seen Lena Dunham at the Golden Globes where she took home multiple statues. She and her cast of ladies looked dazed on the red carpet as they were interviewed by E!  and none of them looked like stars to me. My dislike of them wasn’t fair but it was impossible to avoid. You see, I’m a die-hard “Sex and the City” fan and this show seemed like its ugly stepsister. Just another show about well-off sophisticates in fabulous NYC. I’d seen it.  

Fast forward to five days ago when my cynicism turned to pleasant surprise when it wasn’t the rip-off I had anticipated. For one, Dunham, the brain behind the gritty show, has created relatable characters. These girls aren’t walking around on Louise Vuitton’s red soles and carrying Gucci on their arms. They wear ragged tee-shirts and underwear to bed and their eye makeup is questionable. They live in tiny apartments with second-hand furniture that doesn’t match.  Some of them can’t pay their bills and are all of them are emotional wrecks. They take the subway.

                Dunham plays Hannah, a lost dreamer who looks for acceptance in all the wrong places. Narcissistic and self-involved, her innumerable character flaws become glaringly obvious as the series unfolds. She sleeps with the wrong men and denies reality as she gets entangled in an emotionally abusive relationship while trying to finish her book.  As the bills pile up and her relationship with her roommate, played by Allison Michaels, becomes increasingly strained, the show shows the fragile nature of friendship. There’s a lot of serious stuff going on from STD’s to homosexuality but Dunham and her team of writers keep the tone light with hilarious quips and clever dialogue. Dunham holds nothing back as she embraces her imperfections by  making them a central component of the show. Her weight, oily skin, flat chest, and masculine features are frequent topics of conversation and the butt of many jokes. As for the woman behind the television screen, it is impossible to differentiate between Dunham the writer/producer and the character she plays because her acting skills are flawless as she keeps the emotion raw, though somehow, she never over-does it.

 “Girls” has a unique cast of supporting characters, most notably Shoshanna, played by Zosia Mamet. Shoshanna produces laughs with her nervous babbling and wannabe valley girl demeanor. An innocent girl who wishes she wasn’t, Shoshanna is the definition of awkward and hates herself for it. Though Mamet’s character is relatively insignificant in terms of plot development and at times it is not clear how she knows the other characters, she brings some of the biggest laughs of the first season when, in episode seven, she accidentally smokes crack because she thought it was pot. The irony of the virginal girl smoking crack at a rave where she is dressed like a school girl in silver eye shadow cannot be missed.

Clever writing aside, “Girls” explores the harsh reality of dreaming big while living in the real world. Unlike “Sex and the City” where the primary characters are successful, these new girls struggle to start their lives. Some realize their life may not be what they thought while others refuse to give up on their dreams. The characters fight to figure out the world and while the lessons imparted in the first season could easily become cliché, they don’t because the script is so good that every time somebody makes a mistake you can’t help but cringe out of sympathy as you learn along with them. Over the course of ten episodes you might get a sinking feeling in your stomach and you’ll likely cry. I am certain you’ll laugh. However you react, you’ll know you’ve stumbled upon something great because the best testament to good work is how it makes you feel and “Girls” arouses a kaleidoscope of emotions while making you think at the same time.



4 comments:

  1. I've never seen 'Sex and the City.' But your review tempts me to see 'Girls.' Maybe I'll give it a whirl--and one result of an effective review is to spur the reader to action, either to sample or not to sample what has been reviewed.

    So, good!

    I think what's missing here is your own stake in the material. I can't read this without a semi-conscious awareness of your own plans, dreams, and ambitions--and of your fears and anxieties about those plans. So, I get the subtext throughout as you describe the premise and the characters in this show.

    But there's nothing in this piece that allows a reader access to any of that subtext. It's coming from others of your pieces that I know.

    In other words, you miss a chance to offer texture and depth, to set up resonances, to make personal what is right now only professional (not that I am actually unhappy with a piece that handles material professionally--just wishing you had taken that further step.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well thank you! I really enjoyed writing this. It was fun and came really easy to me. So here's my question: Outside of this class, is it best to write a 'professional' review like this one or to make it personal? Obviously I could have here, and you want me to, and I'm thinking about using this as my revision piece so how would I talk about myself within this?

    I've always been under the impression that when it comes to things like reviews and intros, no matter what the topic, writers are supposed to remain outside of it.....it's not about them it's about the book/show/movie/shoes. Of course, I might be completely wrong and your comments suggest I am. I actually think I could make this good enought to use as a sample when I try to find a job so I really want you to tell me what is best for that scenario :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. It all depends. Not the answer you wanted to hear, I know!

    If you're writing with conscious literary intent, you've got to find a way to go in deep, and unless you already are a professional reviewer, perhaps with an agenda to push that your eager readers already know about, the obvious way to deepen the review is to give yourself up to the material a little.

    You'll notice that I didn't put myself into my review of 'Captains Courageous.' Not directly anyway. But I certainly took an approach that was individual and I used a slightly mocking, slightly cynical tone that is definitely all-me. I had some real ideas about the movie and its place in history and its successes and failures, and I wasn't afraid to drop the pedophilia bomb. It would have been malpractice if I hadn't!

    I did put myself into the two book intros I did, less in 'Slim,' but enough in both so the writer is peeping out at the reader. Is this right or appropriate?

    I think it's appropriate because the simplest and (to me) most effective way into material is one's own honest and perhaps autobiographically slanted reaction.

    Of course, the final decision in matters like this is up to your editor. But the market for objective reporting is disappearing, and the market for the personal,l reactive, and subjective seems to be expanding.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Okay, I see what you're saying and as I re-read this it seems generic and typical of what you expect a review to be. I definitely used common and maybe over-the-top words like 'flawless' to make my point and while I do believe her acting is flawless it could be way more interesting and less blah. Obviously I'm not a professional reviewer and nobody has hired me to promote their product so this could be more honest with less cliche-sounding setences....not to say the show amazing. This will be a challenge because I have no clue where to start fixing it.

    It's really different to write consciously with an intent than it is to just go wherever, whcih is usually what happens. I never think about what I'm writing beforehand and now I know why: it's way harder :)

    ReplyDelete