So, in case you haven't heard, dear Reader, there's this new show called Girls on HBO. And it's like, the best thing ever. Or the worstest thing that ever worsted. Depends on who you talk to (or on which entertainment sites you read religiously). It's "the voice of our generation", it's got one hell of a race issue, it's nepotistic, it's our savior. For one 30-minute show two episodes in to its first season on a network that most people can't even afford, Girls seems to be a whole lot, huh?
And you know what? I'm kind of super psyched about that.
I'm going to go ahead and heap one more thing on to the pile of things that Girls apparently "is". And that's a dialogue starter. It might not always be conscious of or intentional with the dialogues that it creates, but it's creating them just the same. The Girls Backlash, as it's known, calls in to question the ideas of privilege, of gender, age and race - and last I checked, those are still hugely significant issues. So, while I'm glad that the same people who mindlessly watch the truly horrible excuse of a show that is True Blood or Whatever You Kids Are Watching These Days (jk I hate-love that show, lol ttyl byob) are now being engaged in a (hopefully) healthy discussion about these kinda-significant subjects, I still have some personal issues with the show. And seeing as how this is my blog, what better place to air my grievances (is it Festivus yet?)?
1.) Why did it have to be called Girls?
This is just super nit-picky, but hey, I tend to take a bit of an issue with this. While yes, the main characters are of the female gender and yes, they are youngish (and I understand, the whole crux of the show is how these "Millenials" are stuck between the grown-up expectations of their parents/the older generation and their need to, essentially, remain emotional children), but like, c'mon. Society is obsessed enough as it is with youth (and youth in women in particular - blech) that we don't need to label a show about women as "girls". And again, I understand that calling it something like Young Ladies is a.) nowhere near as snappy and b.) makes anyone talking about it sound like an angry father from a 70's after school special (he's not angry, he's just disappointed.), but you could as least call it Ladies. Or like, Vaginas. Oh Judd Apatow don't pretend like you didn't think about naming it that. You know you did. Although, I guess naming it Vaginas wouldn't make it any easier to google. It's super hard to search for it as is without getting the occasional NSFW in your image search.
2.) Ugh why do all the guys suck so hard?
Again. I get it. It's called Girls it's a show about girls and girl power and uteri and woo. But if this show is supposed to be so grounded in reality (which, I believe it's trying to be), it needs to acknowledge that there are men and women in this universe, and that often these genders (and others!) interact in ways that are non-sexual, or non-authoritative, or just...non. The penises on the show so far have been: Adam - the main character's non-boyfriend boyfriend and the general worst and Whatshisface - Brian Williams' daughter's (who, btw went to Yale and is super pretty and wrote/was in these really funny Wills & Kate videos on Funny or Die and also did this Mad Men theme song thing and yeah she's just great) overly sensitive girlfriend-boyfriend who's also the worst. Um let's see...who else? There's Hannah's indulgent and kind of useless father, a dude who picks girls up in malls and makes opium tea (is that a thing?), whoever impregnated British McHippie, that guy that made out with British McHippie, Hannah's dickish former boss and Hannah's job interviewer. So far the only men who end up looking like they are not horrible people are The Dad (who, again: useless) and The Hapless Interviewer (though Hannah did jokingly accuse him of date-rape. Score.), and even they serve as the show's sources of withheld opportunity - one denying money, the other a job. I'm all for strong female friendships on television. I encourage it. It's dangerously lacking. But I'm also all for not vilifying an entire gender in the hopes of making another one look better. It only makes the women involved look self-serving.
3.) The Uncanny Valley
Yet another personal issue here, but the main character's issues seem to mirror mine in a way that makes me feel...I don't know, let's say "itchy". Girls is so close to being my life, yet so not. It's the television equivalent of Tom Hanks in The Polar Express. The Uncanny Valley is the (mostly unexplained) human aversion to artificial human likenesses that are too realistic that is best explained, like most things, by 30 Rock. Like Hannah, I am a 24-year-old living in New York with less-than-secret dreams of being a writer of some sort. Like Hannah, I'm an intern. Like Hannah, I'm clueless about my future and a little tubby and dependent on my parents. Like Hannah, I wouldn't think twice about bringing a cupcake in to the shower with me. Unlike Hannah, I'm working two jobs to make ends meet and would never demand that my parents or anyone should help me. Unlike Hannah, I don't place so much weight on whether a guy is my boyfriend or not (and I also would not put up with this Adam character. Ew.). Unlike Hannah, I'm a real-live person, so maybe I should just chill. But you see, it's hard not to relate to a character or a situation that has so much in common with the life you are leading. And because of this Uncanny Valley nonsense, I get pulled in only to realize that the show is the artistic equivalent to this. So, what I'm saying to you is that HBO's Girls is the awkward face of a Japanese Sex Robot.
Yeah, I guess that's what I'm saying to you.
ALL of that being said, I'm still very interested to see where this show goes and if it decides to maybe fix it's posture a little and stand a bit taller. Either way, I'll be watching. But on my friend's TV because I'm poor.
![[source]](http://trainlost.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/annex-wayne-john-quiet-man-the_02.jpg){kind=link}