In Defense of 'Girls'

But why does the multi-award-winning hit HBO series that everybody loves need defending?

Maybe it doesn't, but like all things that are generally agreed to be 'good', there's an inevitable backlash. People look for reason why it might not be good. Drunk with open mindedness, critics start to think things like, 'wait a minute, maybe this thing that people think is good isn't really good after all!' Then they write about it and we all get to feel bad about having so misguidedly believed it to be good. Ah, jeez.

Image via Retailrobot.wordpress.com

Well, I'm taking a preemptive stand when it comes to 'Girls.' I like the show; so here's my unsolicited defense:

As far as I'm concerned, the show might as well be called 'Girl'. It couldn't and wouldn't be the success it is without Hannah (and not just because Lena Dunham is the creator/executive producer). One of the critiques I've seen about the show is that the characters are simply unlikeable. I disagree, since they can be pretty relatable (if they don't remind you of yourself, they remind you of a friend) and that allows them to retain a bit of charm. However, I suppose I get the point when it comes to Marnie, Jessa and Shoshonna. Hannah is clearly the best. Yes, she's spoiled and whiny - but that's the point! The fact that you still root for her says a lot about what a well-acted, well-conceived character she is. The scenes without Hannah are worse, but luckily there aren't that many of them.

Another critique I've come across - Lena Dunham has only gotten to where she is because of her Hollywood connections. Um, who cares. Isn't life all about who you know? I thought that was a thing that teachers and parents say to emphasise the importance of networking. But now that's a bad thing? Plus, there are plenty of well-connected people who don't do anything with their lives (I'm looking at you Nicole Richie) and even if they try, there's still the chance of failing (Rob Kardashian's sock company comes to mind). As my 'Critical Thinking' course at GU taught me, when you attack the person behind the argument (or show, in this case) rather than the points they're making, that's called ad hominum - AND I WON'T STAND FOR IT! Snap, snap, snap.

So, the show's funny. It's well-acted. It's well-observed. It's realistic, but it's also ridiculous at times (because true reality, even as part of 'reality tv' will never really exist as entertainment). Yes, Hannah gets naked a lot and her body is 'weird', but probably on the same level of weird as my body when I didn't poop for three months. I don't really care how or if Hannah's cellulite is changing Hollywood's attitude toward women. But I do think it makes the show more realistic; so good.

Anyway, I like it. I can see why people like Andy who have no tolerance for flawed individuals wouldn't like it (he's never seen it, but I think I can predict his disinterest). So if you suspect you're not up for it - if you can't handle the bratty entitlement that is one's early 20s - then give it a pass. But if you've heard about the show, think it looks good and haven't gotten around to watching it - WATCH IT!

Here's a clip from this week's episode:



Cheerio,
Smadge