> GENERAL DISCUSSION

SPOILER WARNING: Prestige Television Discussion

(1/261) > >>

Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND:
How did I wake up this morning to no thread about the double-episode premiere of Girls last night?

A few thoughts as a jumping off point:

* It felt weird that we got our "this episode does not take place in the City" episode out of the way in the first two episodes. In the first two seasons, we've seen this construct once each and both times were in the middle of seasons and functioned as a pause that allowed the characters -- and by extension, the audience -- to reflect on what was going on without actually advancing the storyline in any meaningful way (in some ways One Man's Trash did this as well) but here we get it positioned as episode 2 of 12. It felt very much designed this time for an alternate purpose: to intentionally bottle off certain characters into various little orbits that either overlapped or didn't overlap in different, unexpected ways. How else do you organically get Shosh and Adam to spend 36 hours together?
* Speaking of Adam and Shosh: OMG. I have never loved an odd couple scenario quite so much. I would willingly give up two years of my life if Season 4 of Girls has those two date for the entire time. It was the most purely comedic episode probably in the show's run if we measure it on how many audible laughs it produced from the audience. Shosh's belief women should not be President because their menstrual cycles could mess up their decision making was probably the 10 second encapsulation of her character.
* I adore Marnie's mother, and the realization her name is Marnie Marie, "which is only one letter off, and that's pretty weird if you think about it!" Please have Marnie live with mom all season.
* The building blocks for a story about how Adam and Hannah, as a unit are distancing themselves from everyone else, and Marnie is probably now Hannah's third-closest female friend are getting laid. Jessa's been gone for months and yet it feels like her and Hannah relate on a more immediate level than Marnie and Hannah at this point. The contrast between Hannah's phone call with Jessa at the end of episode 1 and her call to Marnie in the middle of episode 2 is staggering. You can see Hannah turn off the emotional sector of her brain as soon as she starts speaking to Marnie.
* Ray's complete shit-eating grin during the entire run of coffee house confrontation scene is awesome. "It's on the house." That character is fantastic and Alex Karpovsky is an amazing actor when it comes to playing an understated role. (Loved the Talk of The Town piece about him around 6 months ago in the New Yorker and he gave the second best performance in Francis Ha earlier this year as well.)
* I hate that people are still talking about this show's diversity "problem." The best tweet of all time is still Leslie Arfin's response to said criticism: "What really bothered me most about Precious was that there was no representation of ME." Still a brutal takedown. Girls is NOT a show about all the things people who want more minority characters like to pretend its about: namely, the general experience of being just out of college, or the experience of being young and living in Brooklyn in the 2010's, or general young womanhood. It is about the SPECIFIC experience of 4 (imaginary) girls who all come from at least upper middle-class backgrounds, if not affluence, who made specific (realistic) life decisions that put them in orbit with very few minorities. People like that exist. Its "their" story. To include all these extractions for diversities is intellectually dishonest, the way The Blind Side or The Help is intellectually dishonest. And the thing is, you don't even have to in any way "like" that story or people of that ilk to like Girls. It in no way portrays these 4 ladies as "good" people, or most the time even as people we're supposed to root for. So ultimately, people are mad that self-absorbed, myopic caricatures that are supposed to be grating -- at best! -- live lives that don't overlap with people outside of their demographic worldview? Of course they don't. The fact that they don't says more for the cause of diversity than actual diversity on the show would.
* The transcript of the TCA event last week with Apatow and Dunham is hysterical.

slappy:
TLDR - Kim Gordon is really bad at acting.

Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND:

--- Quote from: slappy on January 13, 2014, 01:31:18 pm ---Kim Gordon is really bad at acting.

--- End quote ---
Yep. I actually found the Amy Schumer appearance more grating.

Brian_Wallace:

I mean, I didn't really value your opinion before but, really?  This show?!?!  The one with the fat, naked chick?

Whenever some mentions that show I just think of this, which sums it up perfectly:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/next-episode-of-girls-to-feature-lena-dunham-shitt,31661/

Why can't it have great nudity like "Spartacus"....or "Shameless"...or "Californication."  "Girls" is to nudity what The National is to music.

However, I thought it about it a little more and comparing this message board to that show:

1.)  Entitled
2.)  Hipsters
3.)  Parents pay for everything.
4.)  The delusion that others care about your opinion.
5.)  So self-centered it turns around and even isn't self-centered anymore.
6.)  Token stereotypes.

and then it hit me!

9:30 Club Message Board = "BOYS".

I hate Judd Apatow so much.  And his response to that question last week just goes to show you what an insufferable prick he really is.  So much so, I think he's going to join Arcade Fire.

Plus, if "Girls" lasts a million years longer and produces a billion more episodes, they all will have been pissed on by the first 10 minutes of "True Detective".

Brian

P.S.  Tonight's "Archer" premiere will probably be even funnier.

atomic:

--- Quote from: Brian_Wallace on January 13, 2014, 03:56:58 pm ---
I mean, I didn't really value your opinion before but, really?  This show?!?!  The one with the fat, naked chick?

Whenever some mentions that show I just think of this, which sums it up perfectly:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/next-episode-of-girls-to-feature-lena-dunham-shitt,31661/

Why can't it have great nudity like "Spartacus"....or "Shameless"...or "Californication."  "Girls" is to nudity what The National is to music.

However, I thought it about it a little more and comparing this message board to that show:

1.)  Entitled
2.)  Hipsters
3.)  Parents pay for everything.
4.)  The delusion that others care about your opinion.
5.)  So self-centered it turns around and even isn't self-centered anymore.
6.)  Token stereotypes.

and then it hit me!

9:30 Club Message Board = "BOYS".

I hate Judd Apatow so much.  And his response to that question last week just goes to show you what an insufferable prick he really is.  So much so, I think he's going to join Arcade Fire.

Plus, if "Girls" lasts a million years longer and produces a billion more episodes, they all will have been pissed on by the first 10 minutes of "True Detective".

Brian

P.S.  Tonight's "Archer" premiere will probably be even funnier.



--- End quote ---

I like "Girls".  Every Judd Appatow movie ever made has been hilarious.  Love Arcade Fire and thanks for reminding me Archer is on tonight as I like Archer as well.  I like the National and I don't mind seeing Lena Durham naked. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version