At the risk of pulling a Britta, I could logically understand Lena Dunham's defense of not having a racially diverse cast in Season 1 of Girls, but I can't stand Season 2's acceptance of male anger. Adam has risen to co-star status this season, which from afar seems like an improvement given that Adam Driver is clearly the best actor on the series, but I think that it generally has hindered the show in a very serious way. Girls Season 1 was about a group of young women struggling to find their identities through their various relationships with each other, and occasionally, through men. Season 2 was about several fair-weather female friends who completely unravel when there's not a strong male presence in their lives, while the men who matter to them thrive or at the very least, actively try to become better people. (And now that Season 3's writing staff is mostly men, to say I'm pessimistic would be an understatement.) Whereas Hannah stumbled through the season coping with overwhelming stress-induced OCD, Adam made a few charming speeches and was rewarded with a girlfriend on whom he could take out his repressive issues in what I'm going to go ahead and call "gray rape," becoming the storybook hero the show so desperately wanted him to be in the Season 2 finale. In the same way that, say, Rihanna is not responsible for being a role model for battered women and has every right to get back together with her abusive ex-boyfriend, just because Girls was marketed as a series for young women to commiserate with, I guess it is technically okay that it's become a show where the ladies are emotionally immature (at best) and the guys are the focal points, if not the anti-heroes. Sure.
Isn't it nice to be able to just watch Girls, rather than read think piece after think piece about how various people disliked those ten episodes of Season 1 so much that they feel their thoughts on Lena Dunham must therefore be transcendent? Yeah, me too.
MOST RECENT POSTS