Ryan McNeil
Dear Lena…
Through a neat set of co-incidences, you’ve been everywhere I look for the last few days. This weekend, I finally watched your first feature film TINY FURNITURE. Mere moments after it ended, you took to the stage at 30 Rock to host a solid episode of Saturday Night Live. Then just days after that, you gave a well-crafted and well-spoken keynote at SXSW. In the wake of all that, I half expected to tune into SportsCenter tonight and discover that The Knicks had signed you to be the new starting point guard.
Strangely though, in the wake of watching the film, and seeing you on SNL, I felt that your keynote missed a key point…a point that had more to do with the woman saying the words than the people listening to them.
Since we’ve never spoken before, I should lay a few cards on the table. You get a lot of flak from a lot of haters – I’m not one of them. I have nothing against your work, or how you choose to work your work. If you want to be nonchalant about it, be combative about it, be “whatever” about it – you’ve earned that. You are a role model for a lot of women, and while what you’ve done so far might not exactly be “my thing”, there is an undeniable amount of talent that goes into it.
At SXSW, you let out a battle cry. You said:
I think about this in relation to the cast on my show, which consists of three very talented women and also some very talented guys. Our male lead, Adam Driver, has had a bang-up year in movies which could not be more deserved because he’s a ferocious genius with an incredible work ethic, and I’ve learned so much from him. But the girls are still waiting patiently for parts that are going to honor their intelligence and their ability.
The world is ready to see Adam as a million different men — playing good guys and bad guys and sweet guys and scary guys. The world is ready to see Adam do all that. It’s not ready to see Allison Williams, Zosia Mamet or Jemima Kirke stretch their legs in the same variety of diverse roles. Allison is relegated to All-American sweetheart. Zosia is asked to play more flighty nood-nicks. Even though both are capable of so much, they’re not asked to do it. And this is not a knock on Adam’s talent, which is utterly boundless and he’s exactly the actor who should be doing all this. It’s a knock on a world where women are typecast and men can play villains, Lotharios and nerds in one calendar year and something has to change and I’m trying…
You went on to offer this piece of advice:
…don’t wait around for someone else to tell your story. Do it yourself by whatever means necessary…Tell the story you know…Stand up for your work and voice…
Well-said, all of it. But there’s a paradox; perhaps your battle-cry would be better heard if you swung that axe you’re holding a little bit harder.
Specifically, you are in a unique position. You are an award-winning writer and director who has Hollywood’s ear. Right here, right now, you might still hear the word “no”, but you’re certainly hearing the word “yes” more often than you were five years ago. Unfortunately, through these five years, as a writer/director who gets increasing amounts of “yeses”, all you’ve done is continue to tell your own story…about versions of yourself…and people you know. I put to you that instead of sending out this call-to-action at SXSW, that you’d be a greater champion if you just acted.
Adam was able to take roles as nerds and lotharios because there were writers out there writing parts for nerds and lotharios. Meanwhile, your writing talents have thus far only been used to write parts for confused white New Yorkers who come from money. I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t write what you know, I’m not even suggesting that you shouldn’t write it more than once. What I am suggesting, is that perhaps you should write the parts for women that aren’t being written. Bring to life all of the incredible stories you’ve encountered – stories that aren’t usually brought to life on our televisions and in our multiplexes. Write about women who fight, women who are beaten down, women who lead, or women who are fucked-up. Write stories that take place in the future, stories that take place in the past, or hell – stories that are about women older than 30.
You mention Zosia primarily being approached to play “flighty nood-nicks” (great word, by the way). This puzzled me somewhat since my introduction to Zosia was her spin on Mad Men as Joyce Ramsay – a strong, independent assistant photo editor. Not only is this character neither flighty, nor a nood-nick, but she plays a part in bringing Peggy Olson – one of the best-written female characters on TV – into her own.
Maybe that’s your cue; write fewer Shoshannas and more Joyces.
For further inspiration, let’s remind ourselves of the woman that took the Oscar this year for Best Actress. While you’re right to underline how much actors have to battle typecasting, let us remind ourselves that this one talented actor has made her bones playing a CIA officer, a 19th century heiress, a white-trash psychic, an elven queen, an Irish journalist, a medicine woman, a drunken jilted socialite, Maid Marion, Katherine Hepburn, The Queen of England (twice), and Bob Dylan.
Typecasting exists – but actors like Cate Blanchett are able to get past typecasting thanks to some good decision-making, and some well-written parts.
I’m not saying that any of this will be easy, and I’m not saying that you won’t still hear more than a few no’s. You’re bang-on in pointing out the imbalance, but now that you’ve underlined it, it’s time for you to use your unique position and act. You have built up a high degree of clout at a content creator that is on the leading edge of television. What’s more, in the fight ahead you have the best cornerman that any champion could ask for – Judd Apatow. Not only is he as powerful and influential a producer as there comes in today’s Hollywood, but with BRIDESMAIDS, he’s proved that he’ll go to bat for stories about women, by women, that would otherwise get tossed off as “niche”.
I believe you have this in you in a way that few others do – the true talent you wield and the foothold you have gained in the business tells me so.
You have enjoyed a great deal of success telling your story. Between TINY FURNITURE and “Girls”, I feel like you have explored your highs and lows to great ends, along with the highs and lows of those around you. But the time has come to tell other women’s highs and lows. Women who aren’t young, women who aren’t from The City.
To paraphrase Matthew McConuaghey, be your own hero. Your call-to-arms was stirring; now pick up your weapon and lead the fight.
Good luck,
– Ryan
Note: As I should have expected, this topic has sparked a lot of charged words and ideas. Please feel free to join the discussion below, but do so politely. Much of what has already been said remains, but any further misbehaviour will be deleted. – RM
To write stories about someone else than her would require her not to be a heinous narcissist, which she is. Great post, beautiful written but I disagree with your point about her talent – I think she got where she is because of connections and she really isn’t special.
Furthermore, I’m not easily offended by movies and TV but Girls is something I find horribly offensive as a woman. The portrait of a woman she paints is doing more damage than good and frankly her whole show is disgusting and a huge sore spot on HBO’s flawless TV series legacy
How is Girls any more harmful to perceptions of women than Californiacation is to men? Bring on the hilariously real fucked up ladies I say.
But yes, I agree. It’ll be interesting to see Dunham attempt to embrace a different style of writing the next time around. To be fair, its only her second major work so we have plenty of time.
Danielle what has Californication to do with anything here? What does it have to do with Dunham?
Having seen some of Californication, Duchovny’s character is nowhere near as disgusting as selfish as Dunham’s.
Fucked up women is one thing. Stupid, gross and despicable is another.
It’s my go-to for comparisons. Personally I quit at the end of Seasons One of Californication for similar reasons as to why people do with Girls so I think it’s fitting, but people revere Duchovny in one breath and despise Dunhum in the next.
I reject the notion that depictions of interesting women have to be roses and sunshine. Girls is a show that can be inane, fun, fucked up, gross and dark, and yes, it is a show about about entitled ‘girls’ who don’t really understand how entitled they are and that’s part of the intentionally sinister charm of the show. The character’s aren’t supposed to be idealized, they’re supposed to be fuck ups, yet they still come across as more real than a lot of terrible schmuck on TV these days. You’re not supposed to like these characters all the time, but you absolutely KNOW they exist.
“The character’s aren’t supposed to be idealized, they’re supposed to be fuck ups..”
And they increasingly call each other out on it. Their fuckups aren’t being presented as virtues.
They are supposed to have some redeeming qualities, for me – they don’t have any. This show portrays human garbage. In Californication at least Duchovny’s character cared about his daughter and had quick wit which made him entertaining.
Jokes about AIDS and miscarriage aren’t entertaining – they are just despicable. Dunham’s show being hailed as ‘realistic’ is downright offensive.
Duchovny doesn’t write the show, Dunham does.
This is a really great read. (Although the snark in me wants to point out that the reason Allison Williams probably doesn’t get offered meaty roles is because she’s terribly mediocre.) But you’re spot on with your points. I’m not a Dunham fan, but I tried to be at first. She really does only write versions of herself. I remember when I watched Nobody Walks, the only character in that movie that had somewhat of a back story was of course the rich girl from New York.
I hope this wasn’t the post you were worried about, you said things a lot nicer than most would.
This was indeed the post I was worried about.
I hashed it out in my head yesterday afternoon, wondering if it would come off as “mansplaining”. Happily, when I ran it past my wife over dinner, she reassured me that I’d be on solid footing…but to watch my phrasing since, to use her words, “You’re still saying all of this as a dude”
Thanks for reading Brittani!
HA! “Mansplaining” I accuse The Walking Dead of doing that all the time. (also manpain and mangst) It’s funny to hear someone else actually say it.
“Manpain”? Never heard that one. Tell me more…
Manpain – The Walking Dead LOVES their manpain. Whenever something awful happens to a man, we see it all play out. However when something equally awful happens to a woman, it’s mostly passed over. (Example, Rick loses his shit when Lori dies for many episodes, however when Carol loses Sophia, she gets one scene of follow up then has to suck it up) The women are never given scenes alone, and if they are it’s mostly brief and they’re talking about the men in the show. Other characters are used as plot devices to see more manpain (the most recent example is Beth to Daryl)Men on the show can commit certain offences (like murder) and they will be forgiven. The minute a woman does the same thing, she’s shamed for it.
Holy shit – that’s right!
Thanks for pointing that out…I’ll totally be watching for it in the future!
Correct me if I’m wrong Ryan, but I thought you don’t watch Girls? I remember you gave up after one episode, and Lindsay told me at pub while we were talking about season 3 only a few weeks ago that you don’t watch it/hate it.
Anyways, Lena is off base here. “Where women are typecast…”
To a degree yes, and there is always the usual systematic sexism going on, but you typecast these women yourself Lena. Shosh is your Kramer. Michael Richards and Jason Alexander didn’t exactly have the easiest time finding roles after they left Seinfeld, and they were a lot more popular than Shosh is. Alison Williams simply faces competition with people far more talented than she is who are just as Hollywood pretty. Jessa could be a Patricia Clarkson kind of character actress but doesn’t seem to have lead potential IMO.
And Lena… you gave yourself and Adam all the juicy shit, you opened doors for him and yourself by your own hand. I’d even argue that you’ve written Ray in a way that will allow him more opportunities than your other co-stars. I don’t think Lena needs to necessarily write “more Joyces” to make Girls continue to work (season 3 is IMO the best one to date), but if she wants more opportunities for her cast it’s a start. There’s been numerous episodes where it’s just Hannah. Let Zosia or Alison actually carry one if you’re so sure they are capable.
“…horribly offensive as a woman.”
These kind of statements to always read a bit like one is speaking on behalf of all women. But I would say that the characters on Girls are negative enough that if it was exactly as it is, but the creation of a man, people would be burning HBO to the ground.
You’re right -I don’t watch Girls, but I’ve softened on it from my original “Nope, can’t do it” reaction. I don’t run from the room, but I don’t pay close attention either. That’s why I say in the post, Girls “isn’t my thing”.
The point though is that if she feels that her female castmates are capable of more – show us that. Write them roles that have them playing “against type”, whether it’s a short, a feature, or what-not.
You should probably give it a second go. I remember when it started we both were talking about Adam in particular, and while in season 1 he can be hard to put up with, at this point he’s probably the most beloved character.
And he absolutely kills in The F Word.
As season one ended, Lindsay and Shane told me about where Adam’s character had gone. Gotta admit, at the timer it gave me a twinge of curiosity. Ditto this year when I’ve caught glimpses of his whole plotline surrounding getting the part in the play.
Unfortunately though, for every one step forward the show takes in that respect, it takes four or five steps back like the episode a few weeks back where all I could hear – from another room, behind a closed door – were the girls bitching and moaning at each other.
Like I said, it’s not for me.
Yeah I wrote I find it offensive as a ‘WOMAN’ – I am one.
I don’t know where you took that “on behalf of all women” nonsense from.
Sati, I think you have a very narrow view of what’s realistic. You keep ignoring the fact that there are a lot of people who are just like the characters on this show. You may not relate to them, but it’s incorrect to say that it’s unrealistic.
“As a _______” is a lousy phrase when you’re following it up with an opinion that doesn’t speak to a vast majority of your “________” of choice. “As a ______” essentially means “I’m _____ so of course I think….”
“As a scientist, I don’t skew my results to fit my opinions” makes sense. “As a man, I think MMA is a barbaric sport.” is nonsense.
People saying this show is realistic keep forgetting that there are some women who are normal in the world. Who actually work hard, who don’t cheat on their boyfriends and run around pants-less after they get high.
If you think this show represents women correctly you are the one whose view is narrow.
She’s not trying to represent ALL women! It’s the media that has sometimes placed that label on the show.
There are lots of women who struggle, fail in relationships and do silly things. Are they not women too? Should they not be represented on TV too?
It may sound cliche to say but, what is “normal” anyway? These girls seem very normal to me but again, that’s because I have experience living in that sort of social environment. These people are flawed but they are not “human garbage”. We can’t all be perfect and I appreciate the show for that.
People making jokes about HIV, miscarriages and things as serious, horrific and devastating as that will always be subhuman to me. There’s just no excuse for that for me. And my mind will certainly not be changed by someone calling me narrowminded just because I surrounded myself with people who have respect for themselves.
“Who actually work hard, who don’t cheat on their boyfriends and run around pants-less after they get high.”
And the Hannah Horvath of Season 3 is none of those things. She is becoming a more mature person as she figures out her way in life. Can’t we all say the same about ourselves?
Interesting post. I’m a huge Lena Dunham fan but I can see where you’re coming from. I still think it’s a bit early in her career to expect her to make waves in cinema in a writer or director position. It’s a big step from TV.
Also, her show is a lot more nuanced than a lot of people give it credit for, especially recently. People who quit the show early are unaware of this current season that does a fantastic job showing all of these types of women:
“Write about women who fight, women who are beaten down, women who lead, or women who are fucked-up….stories that are about women older than 30.”
Trust me, it’s all in there this season.
Funny you should mention that, because the other thing that’s in there this season is Hanna being thrown for a loop because her book – about her life – is tied up in rights issues. When other characters suggest she just “write another story”, she says she doesn’t have one.
Did you continue watching after that? The show explores it further regarding her new success at the GQ job and learning how writers deal with having to adjust their dreams.
No – again, I don’t watch, I’m just in the room when it’s on.
I will try my best not to come across as a Dunham defender, since I am neither here nor there on her. I will also avoid the did she get there based on talent or connections argument raised in the comments. Frankly it comes too close to the “who did she sleep with” rhetoric that plagues women who move up the ladder in the corporate world.
Instead I would like to focus on one line from your argument that I think is really at the core of all of this:
“Adam was able to take roles as nerds and lotharios because there were writers out there writing parts for nerd and lotharios.”
What is it about nerds and lotharios that make them inherently male? Why are not more females getting these types of roles in general? I am sure we all know women in our day to day life who we would classify as nerds, possibly a few lotharios as well. Yet in the context of film, male writers and casting agents do not seem to think that this can be possible. Yes Dunham could be writing these parts as well for women, but why must she be the only one? I recall an interview where Tyler Perry questioned why has it fallen on him to be the mainstream writer of leading roles for black women? He pointed out that women have the same experiences and emotions that men do but it is rarely reflected on screen. You brought up Bridemaids as an example but how many other successful female R-rated comedies have there been since? How many successful female driven dramas that weren’t deemed “chick flicks”?
I agree with you that Peggy Olsen is one of the best written female characters on television, my love for Elisabeth Moss grew even more after seeing Top of the Lake, yet she is a rarity. It is great that actresses like Cate Blanchett, a modern day Meryl Streep in my opinion, Amy Adams, Michelle Williams, and Jennifer Lawrence are getting quality roles but there is still only a handful of them to go around. Even with multiple Academy Awards, Blanchett must still call attention from the Oscar podium to the fact that more quality roles are need for women. I doubt that Blanchett was only imploring the female writers like Dunham to do better. Why are we shooting the messenger when it is the message that is most important? Crafted or not, there is no denying that there is an inequality that few in Hollywood are willing to address.
I’m wondering what Moss’ recent re-adherence to Scientology is going to do to her career. Only a select few Scientologists manage to overcome the stigma.
I shoulda guessed you’d have a lot to say…
I’m not overly concerned with how Dunham “got there”. She’s there now, so if anything, my only request on that end would be that she pay her good luck forward. If she wants to be a champ, she could even quietly make it a mission to pay it forward to other female artists.
Dunham doesn’t need to be the only one writing parts for female nerds and female letharios, but she has to try. So far, she’s primarily written one type of character, of one age, from one place. Hollywood needs to get its act together, but Dunham has to help them help her. Until she does, we’ll just keep looking to people like Sarah Polley, Joss Whedon, Tina Fey, and Pedro Almodovar.
A successor to BRIDESMAIDS? That’s easy – THE HEAT. Female-led, female written, didn’t re-invent the wheel but did boffo box office. The echo of these things won’t come hard and fast, but it will come!
Funny thing about The Oscars is that I think it all depended on how one approached it. Cate’s right – no arguing that, but doesn’t it count for something that four of the five women up for Best Actress were roles for women over forty? What about the women who missed the cut like Julia Louis Dreyfuss or Emma Thompson?
The tide is turning – slowly, ever so slowly. While Dunham has every right to sound the bell and ask “Why isn’t it turning faster?”, she must also accept her role and get to work turning it herself.
I’ve never seen any of Lena Dunham’s work (unless you count This is 40, I have seen that). I’ve been interested to check out Girls for some time, but hey, I say that about a lot of TV shows and I never do watch them. So yeah, might be quite some time before I can bat for Lena, but I do think it’s cool that she’s out there trying to bat for the ladies.
Since about November last year, I’ve found myself becoming increasingly pro-females in the film industry than ever before. After all, the very reason I have the big crazy dream/delusion of being a filmmaker was spurred by the very moment Kathryn Bigelow won that Oscar. I’d wager that I’ve read every single piece about females in film on Indiewire, and whenever something catches my eye about females, I would have read that too. However, it’s so exhausting fitting into the category of “feminist” because all it seems to be is complaining about everything. And I feel like the more people complain and point out the flaws in the system makes people like me doubt whether I could stand up to the big bullies. Luckily, though, I live in NZ, which is pretty much one of the best places to be if you’re a female with a big dream, and over half of our film makers are female.
So after I read about what Lena was saying (and she does point out good points, but as with everything written about feminism, there’s always a paradox), I kinda thought of a quote of my own to sum up stuff. Like, if I ever became successful enough to talk about this stuff, I’d say this: Continuing to talk about these problems with a low rate of females in the film industry is like that eight year old girl who begs her parents to let her have a pony but she lives on the 10th floor of an apartment building in the middle of a city. But she wants one just because that’s the thing you want when you’re an eight year old girl. If she were to have the pony, she’d have to go live on a farm, go back to the grassroots, and work hard to look after that pony. What we need to do is go back to the root of the problem and start again. Work hard to preserve what we want if we want it enough. Creating the opportunities instead of settling with the opportunities made available to us. Because that girl is never going to get a pony on that 10th floor. If she really wanted it, she’d have to create her own opportunities and work hard to preserve it.
I don’t know if that makes any sense, but I just think that’s the way it should be. At any rate, it’s great to have people like Lena, Cate Blanchett, Jessica Chastain etc etc flying the flag and keeping my inspiration and aspirations alive.
I said it on Twitter, I’ll say it again – I want to be you when I grow up.
Thank-you for expressing this so eloquently.
PLEASE READ:
This is the first time something like this has happened in my comments section – where two people went at it and one of them wasn’t me. I feel like it’s my responsibility to say something.
Around this time yesterday, I sat across a table from Lindsay and mapped out my idea for this post. I was excited to write it, but felt like it might come off as biased and/or sexist and result in an inordinate amount of blowback. When she assured me that I had a point, but to make sure I treaded carefully, I set out.
Let’s state the obvious here: Not everybody likes Lena Dunham. If they don’t – they don’t, end of story. Whether Dunham is talented, or pretty, or “good” wasn’t the point of this discussion – it was meant to explore what she said in relation to who she is.
Reading through what Corey and Sati have said already (not to mention what’s been deleted), it’s clear that they should have agreed to disagree a lot faster. Corey likes Dunham, Sati doesn’t. A middle ground would never be found. Both of them could have chosen their words a bit better, but at the end of it all, none of that matters.
Going forward, I want people to consider this a safe place. There’s only one person people should feel like they can tear into, and that’s me.
Full apologies for anyone who was upset by the ideas discussed here.
In all fairness then, you should also delete the comments that characterize a non-criminal sector of society as “subhuman” and “garbage”. Can we at least be tolerant?
Your article/letter is lovely, Ryan! I fully believe in not complaining, but fixing the problem and though all I know of Dunham comes from other film bloggers in our community, I understand she’s got enough power that her writing would count, she could give actresses the diverse roles they deserve.
I’ve never understood the necessity of TV shows about horrible people– horrible in the sense like the people in Girls, apparently– and why Lena Dunham writes her characters so. Your “now pick up your weapon and lead the fight” is beautifully said. I agree completely.
But that’s part of the problem, Elina. We celebrate characters like Walter White in Breaking Bad and Frank Underwood in House of Cards but then when it’s a woman doing something as harmless as making a bad joke (and the show plays it in a way that you’re supposed to be disgusted by it) or has the audacity to show her naked body or wear unflattering clothes or have weird sex, all of a sudden it becomes something despicable. One of the arguments in the comments was that she cheated on her boyfriend in an earlier episode. Do we really wanna go there? Have you seen Mad Men and countless other male-dominated shows?
I’m still trying to find out what’s so horrible about the characters in GIRLS. I have yet to see any argument that doesn’t stem from a fundamental prejudice towards a social class (i.e. privileged white people).
Lena is writing female characters from her own experiences and perspectives and will probably continue to “pick up the weapon and lead the fight” when she has more to time to continue developing new material (she already announced that she wants to take a break from acting for this reason).
In my opinion, the way we judge Lena Dunham seems unfair when we allow male writers and characters to get away with anything they want.
I have no problem with people hating the show for the quality of the writing/directing etc. But I can’t stand the moral criticisms, considering when we live in the age of the “anti-hero” on TV (especially when those other shows portray much worse criminal activity).
Just one final note and I promise I’m done.
To clarify something I wrote (my words have been misrepresented elsewhere)….when I said “privileged white people” I was referring to the characters on the show, not those who hate the show. Sorry, if that was misinterpreted and offended anyone.
Apologies if I came across as aggressive, I just felt there needed to be a debate for both sides of the argument. I won’t belabor the point any longer, as I’m already starting to feel icky about how my comments have come across.
Wow, this seems like a lot to put on Lena Dunham. Since early 2012, she’s been writing, directing, producing and starring in (to date) three seasons of a television series. Quite naturally, the stories she’s been telling are about the characters on that series. She’s also been working on a book, doing small roles and cameos in films, and she recently hosted SNL. I’m not sure she’s had a great deal of time to work on other material, but then again maybe she has. We don’t know what she might have in development, or what she might be writing on spec. It can take a long time to get a feature green-lit or another series developed. While GIRLS may mostly represent Dunham writing what she knows (and who she knows), the women of the show are not carbon copies of each other despite similar class backgrounds, and they are not the ONLY type of woman we see on the show. I think her point could have been better stated — it seems to me the problem is that Hollywood sees Adam Driver on GIRLS and assumes he can play a variety of roles beyond that character, but they look at Williams, Kirke and Mamet and assume they are working within their limitations. There’s really no logic in this. Now, if Driver is nailing his auditions and the “girls” aren’t, that’s a different story.
Welcome to the Matinee, Jay!
This *is* quite a bit to put on Dunham, but at the risk of sounding flippant – she brought it up. I like what she’s been able to do with her small roles & cameos, and was quite entertained by her spot on SNL. As for the book, I thought maybe this will be a window into what other stories she has in her. Then I discovered that her book was a collection of essays about what she’d learned through her last few years in the business.
So maybe not.
As for the other women on the show, I can’t paint all three with the same brush. As mentioned already, Mamet has already successfully shown another side of herself. Williams seems to have done alright herself with parts on other shows (though I can’t recall what she did on the League or Mindy Project enough to compare them to what she does as Marnie. Kirke only ever seems to drop by the set when Dunham has a project, so I’m not even counting her as part of the argument.
Dunham is right – the parts aren’t there in the abundance that they are for men: but she can do something about that.
You actually bring up a good point in that “the core four” aren’t the only women on the show. I’m encouraged by what was written a few episodes ago for June Squibb in the role of Hannah’s grandmother. I guess part of me just wants more of that.
Thanks for the welcome, Ryan.
My main point though was that I don’t think we can judge Dunham on this issue based solely on what she has managed to get into the marketplace to date. We don’t know what she’s planning or developing. I’m not sure how many more seasons of GIRLS she is contracted for, but I imagine that will have to be her priority until it’s canceled or she walks away from it. And we can hardly criticize her for not making the show about other characters. No one would ever say, “Why is LOUIE centered so much on Louis C.K.?” or “Why do all the cases on LAW AND ORDER SVU have to be sex crimes?”
And I’m sure Dunham got her book deal based on what the publishing company thought was most marketable about her at this point in her career, which is the nearly unprecedented ascent of a young woman in her 20s to a high-profile career as a filmmaker and creator of her own award-winning TV show. Again, there may well be a contractual issue as to whether she was free to write about anything else under that specific book deal.
I don’t claim any special knowledge here, but neither do you, as far as I can tell. You’re making an assumption, which may well be true, but then again it may not. I just prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt.
I can’t source it right this second, but I know Dunham has gone on record as saying she’s having trouble adjusting to the writers room environment of a television series, and is still taking the lion’s share of the work upon herself. Part of me wonders if she was able to settle into the system a bit more comfortably if she’d (A) have more time for other things, (B) give voice to some of those “other women’s stories” I mentioned.
You’re right though – I don’t want GIRLS to be something else. “Louie not centred on Louie” as you so-nicely put it. I want *the next thing* to be something different. Whatever film/book/show she has percolating in her brain. If it feels even slightly different from TINY FURNITURE and GIRLS, I’ll count it as a win.
I believe in giving her the benefit of the doubt, that’s why I end the piece with:
I believe you have this in you in a way that few others do – the true talent you wield and the foothold you have gained in the business tells me so…
and
…the time has come to tell other women’s highs and lows.
You raise good points though…
it’s nudnik, not ” nood-nick”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nudnik
Ryan, your wife is wrong–this is mansplaining. Why do you assume that your opinions about a show that you don’t even watch are in any way valid, interesting, or valuable? It’s incredibly arrogant for you to issue decrees to Dunham that are based on nothing but your general feelings about what her show is like. I’ll look forward to your next column, “An Open Letter to Donna Tartt, Whom I Have Never Read.”
Welcome to The Matinee, Janet –
I get the feeling you’re a fan on Dunham and Girls.
Your comment perplexes me a little bit, because nowhere in the piece do I describe Girls as being without validity, interest, or value. Quite the opposite actually. I say that the show “isn’t for me”, but that’s not the same as saying that the show is in any way *bad*.
What I AM saying – an what you haven’t argued against – is that through Girls as TINY FURNITURE, that Dunham has been telling this same story long enough, and that the time has come to tell other stories about other women.
That’s not a point that I have to watch all 31 episodes of Girls, or read every word of Donna Tartt to make.
Thoughts?
I can’t speak for Janet, but I think the crux of the problem is that you seem to expect Dunham to do something that almost no other TV show-runner is expected to do — abandon or alter the premise of her series while it’s still in production. I don’t recall anyone ever suggesting to the producers of I LOVE LUCY, THE PHIL SILVERS SHOW, ALL IN THE FAMILY, M*A*S*H, THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW, CHEERS, FRASIER, EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND, THE BIG BANG THEORY, etc., that they should start writing about a different set of characters after two or three seasons (except in cases of cast members leaving and being replaced). If this is not what you’re suggesting, I’m not sure what else she can do, short of creating another series or film and taking her attention away from GIRLS. I assume she will do exactly that at some point, but I don’t see the rush for someone who has been in her position only a couple of years.
You again huh? (jokes man – happy to see you sticking around)
Let me be clearer on something: I *don’t* want Dunham to alter the premise of the show while it’s in production. I want her to do something else, but I’ll get to that in a second. For the show, what I’d like (if she’s so adamant about quality roles for women) is to build the universe out a little bit. The June Squibb part was a good start. There needs to be more of those: More women who aren’t insecure-20-somethings for the core cast to interact with. As an example, perhaps the John Cameron Mitchell part could have been female?
Your last example in that list actually struck an interesting note: Big Bang Theory. How much more milage did that show give itself when it added in the two extra women into the cast?
For Girls, that’s my suggestion – broaden the scope of the story and do it with the sorts of parts and actresses she feels are under-represented.
But let’s assume she doesn’t want to – and she’s probably right bot to want to. That’s fine, but that leads me to the “something else”:
What I want most is for her next project to be something radically different. Not the story of 20-somethings, not the story of insecure neurotics, not the story of white-privileged New Yorkers. THAT was the core of what I wanted to suggest with this whole piece…not to criticize what she’s done, so much as to underline what she should do *next*.
Thanks for reading man – and for furthering this discussion.
I think she is talented, and not afraid to be very present and vocal. Narcissist, yes. I don’t think she’s easily fall from haters as well. But I think it’s true that at some point Dunham must do something different than from a point of view of a girl in a big city. She should experience is herself, that is if she wants too. But seeing her fame and the next new seasons possibility, it seems like a far choice. Unless she’s bored with it, ahah. Great post!
You hit the nail on the head Andina – Dunham certainly hasn’t had an easy time with the scores of haters ready to pounce on here every decision! I really am hopeful about what she still has ahead of her, especially while continuing to work under the tutelage of Apatow.