In a recent podcast posted by Network ISA, Susie Shaw discusses Lena Dunham’s show Girls, which can be found on HBO. I have never seen the show, but have checked out trailers for the seasons on YouTube to try and get a “feel” of the show and compare it to the discussion.
Girls is put at a stark contrast when it comes to Sex in the City. While it was a show that was more “attractive,” Girls left an ending note that showed the “ugly truth”–less dazzling.
Characters are said to have not learn from their mistakes, which I agree, is a lot more realistic. Jeff York begs the question if the lack of change in characters might be due to Dunham being a female writer instead of a male, which I found very intriguing to wonder.
I would not say Dunham’s choices were more “intrinsically female,” but I would say that it was only a matter of her making the purposeful choice of choosing to drop convention, and an opportunity allowing her to showcase that decision. In other words, it was her awareness and luck of the draw that contributed to the difference.
I am an avid believer in films and shows depicting more life-like decisions and reality. Girls is said to be just that, showing regular females trying to find themselves and get their life together, but never really accomplishing just that–and that is life. For that reason alone, it could have had the potential to bring the show such success.