Sunday, February 10, 2013

Girls = Bizarro Sex + the City

I don't watch Girls. I won't watch Girls. I don't want to contribute to Lena Dunham's bank account so she can get more tattoos, eat more Twinkies and have a career longer than she deserves. I tweeted months ago that I liked it better when it was called Sex + the City. I read sites that discuss Girls. The NY Times and the intelligentsia approved of Girls, therefore they got angry that it was an all white cast. It was similar to when Sex + the City got shit for being "shockingly white" late in its run and threw in a black love affair for a short run to please the progressive priesthood. Girls isn't an original show despite the media's cheer leading. Dunham admits that Sex + the City is a big influence, but she needs to be careful of the parallels. God forbid, someone in Hollywood do something original. Girls is just bizarro world Sex + the City (SATC).
At its core, SATC was about one 30-something's journey through the wild fashion, finance and fucking world of wealthy '90s Manhattan. The lead is a skinny fug monster  (no comma between skinny + fug because fug monster is a noun) that is picky because she is in the big City looking for Mr. Right but trying to remain true to herself. Story lines followed four women with good careers in Manhattan's wealthy world who caroused with tons of handsome, rich guys. They dressed great, went to great parties, and lived great lives. They are winners in life.
At its core, Girls is about one 20-something's journey through the SWPL, hipster world of artisinal food, art and assholes in Obama-era Brooklyn. The lead is a fat fug monster discovering herself and just trying to be a free spirit who is not going to sell out and remain true to herself for as long as possible. Story lines follow four women with meh careers who party, fuck and freak out with tons of loser guys. They dress meh, go to hipster parties and live shitty lives. They are losers in life.
Ten years ago, I could get wrangled into watching SATC because I knew my girlfriends would be up for sex after or if I heard it was an episode with a Kristin Davis nudity scene. Not even "Marnie" getting naked could get me to watch Girls. I find it depressing that women would model themselves after the vapid characters of SATC (Charlotte was OK*). It's even lamer to watch a show about characters influenced by the aforementioned bitches of SATC. I'm not wasting time watching a derivative show with characters that are repulsive reflections of the women of my generation.
*They had Kristin Davis get married to the Jewish guy who plays Jewish characters in a lot of TV shows and movies. He's so Jewish looking (and sounding, yeah he has that voice) that he can't play gentiles like Ben Stiller and other Jewish leading men can. He's homely. Davis' character married him and went through the full conversion rites for him. Seriously, the best looking chick on the show ends up with that schmuck.


PRCD said...

A few years into college, I ran into this hawt chick I knew from HS. She dated the captain of the football team but he broke it off with her senior year.

I invited her to a lifeguard banquet at the end of the summer. She turned me down with, "No, I've gotta watch SATC."

I friended her on Faceborg 7 years later and - wow - the years on the carousel hadn't been kind to her. She hit her 30s unmarried, which is of course well-past the age at which a women can find a man of her choosing.

I wonder if less SATC viewing might have averted this disaster in her case?

odinslounge said...

Thankfully I've never had HBO and never seen SATC.

But I take it a step further. It is very rare for me to even go to see a movie now. If I do it has to be something that interests me, and doesn't feature an ultra liberal douche wad(95% of hollywood).

Doesn't bother me much though since most movies seem to be crappy remakes anyway.