As discourse concerning women often goes in this country, every person who saw the Girls pilot last week felt the need to stick in their two cents, qualified or not -- present company included. Some interesting thoughts about its intense white privilege were expressed. Some flawed and pointless arguments consisting of misogyny pretending to be critical analysis were made (since when is nepotism new in Hollywood? What do the actresses having famous parents have to do with the integrity of the on-screen characters? Why doesn't anyone ever mention Zosia Mamet's mom, actress Lindsay Crouse? Since when does being the daughter of Bad Company's drummer matter to anyone?). One writer of the show even made the poor decision to joke about the criticism of the whiteness of the show, totally missing the mark, while Judd Apatow himself claims that those who write bad reviews of Girls are doing it "just out of boredom" and pageviews because "who wants to read only good reviews?" Apatow seems to be enjoying the backlash, at least, and doesn't mind that the series isn't representative of non-privileged women, explaining: "That's the point of it, really. It's supposed to be a comedy about women in New York who are really smart, but their lives are a mess. They know they should be doing great things, but they don't know what it is, and they have kind of a feeling of self-entitlement about it. That's the joke of the show."
MOST RECENT POSTS