HBO’s “Girls” is irritating.
There, I said it. Given the fact that I am male, HBO is probably not going to lose sleep over my irritation. The target demographic for “Girls” undoubtedly has more estrogen than testosterone.
Nevertheless, my beef begins with the show’s director, writer, star and overall figurehead, Lena Dunham. Her unbridled narcissism is on full display in every episode. Playing the entitled Hannah Horvath, Dunham inserts herself into just about every scene.
Moreover, Dunham seems to take a perverse pleasure in exhibitionism. In the three or four episodes I subjected myself to watch, I saw more than enough of Hannah/Dunham for one lifetime. She has little to no shame.
This is illustrated in various ways. For example, in one episode, Hannah informs the audience that she has a urinary tract infection. Unsurprisingly, viewers are soon treated to a scene of Hannah on the toilet bowl writhing in UTI-generated agony.
In another scene at a train station, Hannah has to relieve herself, but unfortunately a bathroom is nowhere in sight. What’s a girl to do? You guessed it — Hannah publicly and explicitly does her business at the train station while unsuspecting passers-by look on.
I have no problem with these ordinary and natural facts of life. People get infections and have to go to the bathroom — sometimes at inconvenient moments. What bothers me is that the critics have fallen head-over-heels in love with a show that seems to revel in the basest aspects of human lives. I think critics have confused shock value with realism and put it on a pedestal.
Metacritic.com, the website that gives an aggregate critical rating of movies and TV shows, has “Girls” scored at 84 out of 100, which is described as “universal acclaim” from the critics. The first of 10 perfect 100 scores comes from Tom Gliatto of “People Weekly.” Gliatto is barely able to restrain his glee as he gushes about “Girls.”
“It’s a raw, ironic, occasionally touching comedy of post-millennial manners,” Gliatto declares.
It certainly is raw. Ironic, I’m not so sure. If Gliatto is asserting that “Girls” is a template for “post-millennial manners,” then heaven help us because the manners on display in this show are the worst I have seen in a while.
While many critics are enamored by the show’s realism, personally, I have serious doubts about this so-called realism. One story line that seems to detract from the show’s authenticity is Hannah’s brief physical relationship with Joshua, played by Patrick Wilson, who is out of her league by a mile. This might not be politically correct or fair, but it is reality.
I think the kind of fiction masquerading as realism that “Girls” portrays is what irritates me the most about the show. Yet, the critics are falling over themselves proclaiming “Girls” to be a beacon of realism in spite of its glaringly unrelatable and unrealistic scenarios and characters. I think critics have confused realism for simple shock factor, and the show pales in comparison to better programming and other genuinely interesting shows out there.