Yesterday’s winner of the Best TV series at the 2013 Golden Globes, Girls, has in its short lifetime so far, certainly caused a stir. Developed by its star, the 26 year old Lena Dunham, Girls is a fairly unique vision. Praised for being more frank than typical television fare, Sex and the City appears prudish by comparison. Girls features not only explicit sex, but awkward sex, and puts the nitty-gritty of contraception and sexual health at the centre of its characters’ concerns.
Its central character, Hannah, is a writer, but no Carrie Bradshaw: there is no shoe collection that mysteriously doesn’t match her writer salary, instead, she has recently been financially cut off from her parents, has been interning for years and cannot find a paying job. While definitely showing a fashionable flair, she is often awkward and unglamorous, and her threshold for bad boyfriends is questionable.
As it always is, it is a relief to see a character with flaws, but even better that this time to see one in a more realistic setting. Rather than the girls discussing their dramas over brunch, they would be more likely to occur in an abortion clinic. In praise of a more accurate representation of sex, Clementine Ford today remarked that “the sexual landscape of adulthood as presented in Girls boasts more subtle shading than the black and white mounted stencil seen in shows like SATC.”
What is truly refreshing about Girls, I feel, is that it is indicative of change in the film and television industry: comedy that was developed by a very young woman, who writes and directs (as well as stars). As yesterday’s Golden Globes unfolded, the first episode of Season 2 premiered in the US, and Twitter was aflutter and today online journalists continue to rave. It appeared to be Lena Dunham’s night.
Girls and Dunham, however, are not without their critics. As Dodai Stewart put it: “It’s no secret that the show’s stars are four white women. In the first episode, there was a minor character who was Asian… and a cameo by a black man who appeared to be homeless. For those of us who are — or have been — young twentysomethings living in New York, this version of New York is a bit peculiar.”
It’s true that there is an absence of racial diversity in Girls. However, there is also an absence of socio-economic diversity and for the most part an absence of sexual diversity (bar one instance which was for the purposes of tragi-comic effect). This is frustrating at best, but also, this commentary can be frustrating too. Is it realistic, or even desirable, that Dunham write into her series more diversity, to write on behalf of people who aren’t spoilt white girls? These characters, a group of indulged twenty-something New Yorkers, are hardly the keepers of wisdom in any form, and I wonder if it is Dunham’s place to compare and contrast in her writing a more diverse experience.
We need more diversity in film and television, yes. That is the reason Seen & Heard exists. But is it the responsibility of one single progressive artist to represent everyone in need of representation? Why are we attacking Dunham and not the networks and casting agencies?
When SATC ended in 2004, little thought was given to its lack of diversity. SATC went for six seasons, and that’s plenty of time to work on representation and diversity. By comparison, in one season, Girls has made some rapid progress in representing women and sexuality, and at the same time has been quick to receive criticism. This, I can only assume, is a sign of the times – and it is fantastic that television is changing – and that it is widely acknowledged there’s still more work to be done. It’s great for audiences to be critical of the content they are watching, but the writers are not always the best targets for these criticisms. Networks, distributors and funding bodies are the ones making these shows happen, and they are doing so with fiscal gain in mind.
What I would rather see than Dunham write into her series more frequent appearances by non-Anglo characters (although, there’s no disputing that casting can handle this) is more television shows of quality created by the people they represent and for these series to be supported by networks and advertisers.
Related reading
- Why We Need to Keep Talking About the White Girls on Girls by Dodai Stewart, Jezebel
- Why ugly sex is important by Clementine Ford, Daily Life
- Girls on Girls – Season 2, Episode 1 – five women writers reflect on the premiere on The Vine
