criterionforum.org

I watched Girls. I thought the pilot showed a very sharply written, keenly observed and directed, mature take on a sometimes egregiously immature set of 20-somethings. There's a certain blend of self-satirization/self-celebration going on that I really don't know if I can jibe with seeing as how the majority of the characters mostly make my flesh creep, but that's not to take away from the show's value and capacity to hold interest. It may not be my or your cuppa but it's not bad, in fact, I'd have to say that its objectively pretty great. I'd just rather spend my Sunday evenings with Tyrion and Don Draper.

LQ wrote:I watched Girls. I thought the pilot showed a very sharply written, keenly observed and directed, mature take on a sometimes egregiously immature set of 20-somethings. There's a certain blend of self-satirization/self-celebration going on that I really don't know if I can jibe with seeing as how the majority of the characters mostly make my flesh creep, but that's not to take away from the show's value and capacity to hold interest. It may not be my or your cuppa but it's not bad, in fact, I'd have to say that its objectively pretty great. I'd just rather spend my Sunday evenings with Tyrion and Don Draper.

I didn't mind it either, though I really thought the "Sex and the City" observation/reference/joke felt extremely dated. I'm assuming it was included to make a clear distinction between the two HBO shows and to show this one is created from a different perspective and targeted towards a different audience, but I thought it could have been handled in a much more subtle method.

Was Zosia Mamet any good? I only know her from Mad Men (I love Joyce) so I'm curious how her talents fare elsewhere.

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:Was Zosia Mamet any good? I only know her from Mad Men (I love Joyce) so I'm curious how her talents fare elsewhere.

She was only in the episode very briefly. In fact she was the one who delivered the "Sex in the City" joke. She didn't make as forceful an impression as she has in her brief appearances on Mad Men, but she was pretty much par for the course. I think she'll have a larger role in the upcoming episodes.

Having only seen the pilot, I actually found Zosia one of the more irritating characters in the show (if not the most). It's not Zosia's fault, she's great in her Mad Men appearances, but I found the inanity of her dialogue, comprising mostly of Sex and the City references, incredibly grating. It's only the pilot, though, so it's possible she may have better material in upcoming episodes.

HBO has the Girls pilot up on youtube for anyone interested.

LQ wrote:I watched Girls. I thought the pilot showed a very sharply written, keenly observed and directed, mature take on a sometimes egregiously immature set of 20-somethings. There's a certain blend of self-satirization/self-celebration going on that I really don't know if I can jibe with seeing as how the majority of the characters mostly make my flesh creep, but that's not to take away from the show's value and capacity to hold interest. It may not be my or your cuppa but it's not bad, in fact, I'd have to say that its objectively pretty great. I'd just rather spend my Sunday evenings with Tyrion and Don Draper.

After two episodes, I think I can objectively say that the show is a big improvement over Dunham's TINY FURNITURE feature. Stronger performances and stronger writing are most evident but I also think the half-hour format is simply more conducive to her humor. Not to everyone's tastes, but I never thought I'd laugh so much about the subject of abortion!

I just finished season 1 of Girls. After last year's epic thread on this forum about Lena Dunham, I know that there is a backlash, but it was so long ago I honestly never paid enough attention to know what it was about.

I'm glad about this, and really went into the show with an open mind. It doesn't disappoint. The first five episodes are clever, emotionally pretty raw, and enjoyable. The second half of the season is a bit weaker, overall. As the characters have developed, they kind of become a bit more predictable and rather than being witty snapshots of different people from my generation, they kinda feel like characters destined to have the same "growing up and finding myself by changing who I am" character arc. When the show gets serious, it tends to (though not always) slow down.

But when it's at it's best, it's quite charming and enjoyable. While her three friends are easy to define and pinpoint, Lena Dunham's character is definitely more complex and more interesting. While it's clear the other three girls will eventually reveal that's there is more below the surface (e.g. that's where the show will likely take them), Lena's character already does that, and is much more interesting for it. When she decides that

Spoiler

she doesn't want to move in with Adam

, you can see the regret she doesn't necessarily exhibit right away. I guess it's because the course of the first season pits one girl who is never in her comfort zone (Hannah) with three girls who are just being thrust out of theirs (the other three).

This show could get really good. The awkward scenes don't last as painfully long as they do in the Apatow movies, and the show is consistently funny. I just hope it gets better at being serious and doesn't become as obvious as it's telegraphing that it might become.

I really enjoyed the first series as a whole. Although I didn't find it funny very often, the main draw for me was the bittersweet vibe of it all. I got a feeling Lena is a fan of Whit Stillman, especially in the final episode

Spoiler

where Hannah ends up on a train platform in Coney Island, I thought that kind of mirrored the images of the three characters stranded in the Hamptons in Metropolitan

. I guess she deals with a similar social set?

I'm looking forward to the new series. Just realised it starts tomorrow, I'm glad I noticed this thread.

I change my mind. After finishing S1, this show is pretty great, and pulls off a Park & Recreation like feat of making some of the more immediately grating characters likeable and complex by season's end. And yes, the Whit Stillman comparison is pretty well-earned, a sweetly biting paean to self-absorbed youth. Too bad the cognoscenti tried so hard to make this the voice of its generation, because it's actually pretty neat. Even if it still stings to see a Bushwick loft party on HBO, and not have George Christopher or Jonathan Ames show up (the crossover potentials are limitless!).

But Tiny Furniture is still pretty awful.

Exciting news for fans of NewsRadio or Larry Sanders: Paul Simms has been added to the writing staff for Season 3.

ugh, as much as I love him and those shows, Bruce Eric Kaplan and Judd Apatow's credited episodes were the worst of this season and I don't think more 50 year old men coming on bodes well after that finale.

According to Lena Dunham's twitter page, Gillian Jacobs has joined the cast of Girls for Season 4.

That's interesting. Hope she gets a juicy role.