While I'm only nine episodes into Girls, I felt compelled to write something about it. I think that says something about the show, but I only mention this to be clear about where my opinions are coming from as it relates to the plot of the show.
A few weeks ago I finally caved and started watching Lena Dunham's much talked about/loved/maligned/scrutinized show, Girls. And I loved it. I was surprised. The eponymous girls all lead thoroughly interesting lives, and despite their obvious flaws, aren't entirely without virtues. After each episode, I find myself wanting to watch the next one, and not because of that old TV standby trick: the cliffhanger. I've yet to come to an episode of Girls that stooped to that level of sitcom gimmickry. No, I want to watch the next episode because I'm genuinely interested.
The more I watched, I began to notice something. More accurately, I began to feel something. I had a feeling that something was slightly off about what I was watching, and I could not put my finger on it. It wasn't until I didn't watch an episode for a few days that I realized what my problem with Girls was: the guys on the show don't make any sense. Now, before the pitchforks and torches are grabbed, notice I said "was." That was my problem with the show. I no longer have a problem with the way Lena Dunham characterizes men. Do I now find them realistic? Absolutely not. But that isn't a poor reflection on her. That's not the point of the show and it shouldn't be held against her. What I've come to realize is that characterizations of the opposite sex have often been sacrificed in the name of great artistic achievements.
I now believe that Adam Sackler is Catherine Barkley. Remember Catherine Barkley? You probably don't. You knew her in high school as Hemingway's absurdly unrealistic portrayal of a young woman in A Farewell to Arms. Adam (at least thus far) is the most recurring of Hannah Horvath's love interests. He functions in the same way that Catherine Barkley does. He is a romantic interest whose purpose for being present is to make the protagonist (either Tenente or Hannah) more interesting. Hannah is more interesting because Adam is weird. Weird is putting it nicely, actually. Has anyone ever met a man who would say, "You should never be anyone's slave… except mine." Um...gag?
But Hannah keeps coming back to Adam, despite the fact that he pretty clearly gave her HPV. (Sidenote: were we supposed to forget about that?) Why would she do this? She has to keep coming back to him, because her interest in him makes her a more complex character: woah she's even more messed up than most millennials. Tenente from A Farewell to Arms isn't a millennial, but Catherine is still a poor romantic choice. If a woman ever said to me, "I'm afraid of the rain because sometimes I see me dead in it." I'd be afraid of her, and see myself dead...because she probably murdered me. Weirdo much? Sounds pretty familiar actually.
On the surface these are terrible characterizations, but they serve a purpose. I think this is part of the reason that Girls gets so much flak. Personally, I think the nudity thing is way overblown. I don't think the predominantly male field of television critics is ready to accept this "other side" that really isn't the other side at all. The male point of view has been dominant in art for so long, and we've all become accustomed to the mischaracterization of female characters to suit the male protagonist. What Dunham is doing really isn't any different. Sure, Adam (and other male characters I don't have time to talk about like *cough Charlie) is not a realistic portrayal. But so what? Girls is a great show.
Share This Article
