DianeDobbler

Northstar, I began watching this show and was intrigued, but most of the reviews came to your conclusion, so I'm not certain if I'm going to continue. It's got great atmosphere and a lead character who is very well-acted, whom I don't really like (even if she weren't screwed up, I probably wouldn't like her), but I do like Naomi Watts' acting. I think Jean Holloway is really fucked up. I get the premise being that we're ALL fucked up, we all have secrets, and I know that. I just wish I knew this would pay off but too many reviews believe it doesn't.

I actually like the kid. I think he's funny. From time to time we can catch him side eyeing at the director or parent or whoever is encouraging him, but he's a natural. I like the girls, too. I can't stand Chuck. I continue to believe Petra and Rafael have the best chemistry on the show, and I don't care about Rafael at all outside of that. I find his and Jane's friendship a little forced - more about the actors than the characters. I don't think they carry the characters' history in the scenes - it's not as relaxed as the show tries to tell us it is, there's no flow. JANE is getting on my nerves. Or maybe I'm not there yet - maybe just boring. What I think is showing is that Gina Rodriguez is a gazillion times more sophisticated, experienced, and maybe even more jaded than Jane, and I don't really believe it. I find it odd, because, with the time jump, they brought Jane closer to Gina Rodriguez's real age, so I'd have guessed it would be even more comfortable for her than playing the 23 year old. Instead I'm finding her sort of a bit going through the motions - adroitly - but not that invested. She's still decently inventive, but like an actress in a commercial. Despite her enthusiastic advocacy for sexual fulfillment, I find Xio is now played closer to the actress's lower key personality, which is a good look on the character. It works. I still believe she's a go for it type, but I don't believe anymore that she's someone who would make out with the boyfriend of one of her daughter's friends at some party.

Ok, I haven't finished watching the entire season, but want to talk about it overall versus one particular episode. Allie, I agree with most of your summing up. I liked this season better than a few recent seasons. I just disagree about Piper. I'm used to her. I don't have expectations of her - she is what she is. It's when they tried to turn her dark, and then tried to get "sexy" with her that I thought was stupid. She and Alex have a natural, unforced vibe, it just is what it is and IMO makes sense to let that ride. Piper isn't someone I'd be friends with, but I think Taylor Schilling is a good point of reference for the show. I'm not such a big Danielle Brooks (Tastee) fan. She works hard, etc. but IMO doesn't hold the screen have that charisma / authority. It's not always about talent - I think she has talent. I think Adrienne C. Moore (Black Cindy) is a star, and I think Samira Wiley (who played Poussey) was compelling despite not being the strongest actress there for awhile. Or rather, she at times seemed to be a poor fit for some of the material they were giving her. It's hard to play in the middle. MrsR, I haven't gotten to the episodes that tell me no more Boo. Why no more Boo? (I don't care about spoilers.) I enjoyed Boo's storyline this season - what I've seen of it. I do think the writing found its groove with some of the characters it had struggled w/in the past. I enjoyed Nikki a lot more this season. I, too, could have done without some of the guard torture exercises. Some of that felt bloated. Glad to see the back of Daya. Way in the past when she was having her guard romance, there was something appealing there, even though we knew there had to be more or she wouldn't be in jail. After this season I think she's dangerous. Doesn't mean she's not human. But she's dangerous.

I think Suzanne's scene was three minutes long because it's Uzo Aduba and this show falls into those kinds of traps. "She's our great actress, we need to fit a showcase in here. Also we didn't have a ton of story for her, so we'll fill it out here a bit." Felt the same way about Doggett / Donuts and Pennsatucky. They totally betrayed themselves with that storyline. Apparently the actors really objected, even some in the show thought maybe the show runner should pull the plug on making him the rapist. I don't know WHY, because I don't find the actor that remarkable, but .... But they didn't pull the plug, and instead tried to make it complex. It ain't.

When Lorna said she was pregnant, I swear for a second I thought Nikki was the father and what a plot twist. Then I remembered biology, but this show can do that to you.

I'm binge-watching, only partly through. I find I couldn't care less about the riot. The framework does nothing for me. I do like that they appear to have sectioned characters off according to actor chemistry, which is always a saving grace of a sketchy plot. I usually don't care if a show re-sets a character or relationship as long as it's not forcing something the show runner wants and cheating the fans out of a pay off they're expecting. The two "pairings" I'm liking the most are Piper/Alex and Lorna/Nicky. I'm willing to overlook the psycho stuff we learned about Lorna - they have sort of re-set her back to before that. Prepon and Schilling have a very natural rapport, and that is sort of a touchstone so far this season. Adrienne C. Moore as Black Cindy is one of my favorites, and so far she has very little to do. (So far - maybe that will change) In fact the black characters are sort of being used as an ensemble, rather than getting a consistent individual arcs within an arc. They have a scene or two apart from pushing plot, but that's it. IMO they're getting shortchanged, material wise, because they're stuck with pushing plot and not much else. Which is my comment on the plot. Eh. The idea is good, the execution feels like a lot of filler at times without a strong narrative structure. I do like the dynamic of that guard going under cover as a prisoner - so far it's being handled well. I don't think we needed her backstory. WTF, who cares, not everybody needs a backstory in a cast of dozens and dozens. We just met her! And the sorority backstory, while trying to be farcical, was completely unbelievable with ridiculous characterizations and scenarios. The other duo with strong chemistry is of course Pennsatucky and Boo. I can't name check everybody, but there are other actors who, individually, are proving their chops. Two who are not, IMO are the actress playing Flaca who is paired with Diane Guerroro's character. Neither one merits featured focus. Daya I no longer have time for - a person who did what she did and then is somehow shocked it sets her up for max has no credibility. As always, the meth head characters are a turn off and a complete waste of time. Not because they're meth heads - Pennsatucky started off as the primary meth head/white supremacist, and she was a very strong character because Taryn Manning is a great actress who can deliver when she's in the spotlight. I'm still extremely uncomfortable about her relationship with the rapist/guard, and think that is more the show runner trying to help out an actor it turns out they liked, rather than something that would actually happen, and I don't care for it. I recall that actor was very upset about the rapist turn. This feels like the show trying to dig itself out, but it's dangerous with the redeemable rapist stuff. That is ALWAYS dangerous. Orange is the New Black doesn't want to turn into M*A*S*H. The Korean war lasted 3 years and M*A*S*H went on for 11. Most of the prisoners at Litchfield have limited prison sentences, under 3 years. I don't think medium security prisoners are set up for long sentences. At some point OITNB had to deal with the timeline - if they continued to extend the prisoners sentences, it would no longer make sense for them to be at Litchfield, especially as many of the characters were planning for when they'd get out, or keeping their head down so they could get out on time. More would move to max. Many of the characters would lose their motivation if they had some long sentence piled on top of them. So, to have a season that follows only three days for the entire season seems like a smart, credibility saving move for the show, and it's just a matter of what they focus on and how well they pull it off. Not crazy about the execution of the riot to date, but liking when the show slows down and favorite pairings have scenes.

As I read interviews with Brosh-McKenna, it would be both. She said they always intended Rebecca to literally become the crazy ex-girlfriend with Josh, but that it would also be punctuated by things like her going "Oh, he liked my instagram!" and how does she keep up the hate? I took it to mean that Rachel would be determined to get her revenge / ruin his life, but would also be susceptible and determined to override her susceptibility. And as usual, her friends would be both supportive and appalled by her extremes. My assumption is she and SMF's character will hook up or have a familiar love / hate + sex dynamic while she's seeking revenge on Josh. I'm actually kind of hoping they can do something w/him and Valencia. I think they'd work.

The only guy I know in Jean-Louis position - a weekend hook-up ended up with the woman pregnant - relocated his job to move to the city where she was, and remained in the area where she lived so he could have access to the child. This is about 400 miles away from where he'd been. When he married someone from his hometown, his wife also relocated / found work in the new city and custody is shared. It's not an easy situation but he did it with no hesitation.

That was me. I hope you like it. Her stories pay off like a motherload. That's what kept me going when I got started on Episode 1. I read ahead to a synopsis of the season finale and thought - WOW! story! And the S2 opening is a gem .

It's nothing new for shows to skirt over financial realities, but more than most shows, Girls only addressed it when convenient, and, IMO, didn't really focus on the real issues with not having money - the risk of being on the street and not having enough to eat. That's actually a thing. I'm sure most college educated young white girls in the position of the girls on "Girls" have a fallback, which = move home w/mom and dad. Hell, setting aside the suspicion that Jessa has at least a minimal safety net income somewhere - her grandmother is alive. And Shosh is her cousin (and Shosh's parents her aunt and uncle). So as has been noted, the environment was "struggling to make it" but the options were "Born rich, and don't really know what that is." Again "Chewing Gum" (now on Netflix) DOES know what it is, and follows the logical conclusions of actually not having money. And is still really funny with tons of story and story payoff. I never thought I'd be on the edge of my seat wanting to know what the hell happened to break up a couple when the break up happened (and the flashbacks were happening) in a homeless shelter. But Michaela Coel is that good. On SATC, for me, only Carrie's financial circumstances were absurd. The rest were accounted for (assuming Charlotte came from money and was a trust fund baby - a safe assumption, IMO). Charlotte getting her first husband's family apartment in the divorce would never happen in a million, billion, gaztrillion years, but apart from that, the jobs the other three had or the circumstances they came from did allow for the lifestyle, except for Carrie. The taxis and drinks alone would have had her broke in two months. I think the furniture in Hannah's fantasy house was meant to come with the house. A fully furnished, charming three bedroom with a fairy tale view came with the "professorship" offered to a woman with about 13 MFA credits because she was uniquely qualified to "teach the internet" to 17-22 year olds. A demographic that knows SO little about the web! (For that matter, what does Hannah know about it?)

You know, Lena Dunham seems to follow the Matthew Weiner school of show runner-ing in that she'll tell you what you saw wasn't what you saw or didn't mean what you thought it did, or that something happened that you didn't see happen - she'll narrate what occurred in a scene and what it meant, and how it justified the next step, even though in conventional (or even skilled unconventional) narrative terms it was unearned. But the show was good at giving us characters and creating an environment and being outrageous, which also worked for Matthew Weiner. But what I don't believe is that these people believe their own bullshit. They just think they can bullshit us. Here's another example, Michael Patrick King gives a lot of commentary on Sex and the City DVDs. I have a bunch of them from a few years ago. He comments on the Baryshnikov story as if it were a romance - the end scene of one tense episode that showed Carrie on a sleigh with him had King commenting that the scene showed it WAS a romance, it was legit, despite the doubts of her friends. Now to me, the entire episode said something else completely - the guy was toxic and Carrie was being escapist. Then there was Miranda's ex-boyfriend, who lived in her building, who she dumped for her final reunion with Steve. There was an episode when Steve and Miranda kept running into the guy and he acted like a douchebag. King said, on the dvd, that the guy was right, and he brought the guy back to have his say. That, also, seemed weird to me seeing as the guy came off completely unsympathetically. FF to when the movie is coming out and King is in the NY Daily News walking us down memory lane about different episodes. WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY. He says they did the Baryshnikov story because some fans thought Chris Noth (Mr. Big) was too old for Carrie, so they wanted to give Carrie a love interest that made Mr. Big seem young and romantic for the finale. He said he brought back Miranda's boyfriend to bury him, to let us see that he was such a dick they would never ever ever be getting back together. (I guess because until Miranda dumped him, he'd been portrayed as sort of a sweetheart, so King wanted to make sure we knew he was the wrong guy for her). King was rattling off a series of narrative agendas that were completely, totally obvious for any audience member to grasp at the time the show aired, but at the time the show aired AND when it went to DVD, he was still pushing spin out there and gaslighting the audience. Only when sufficient years had passed did he cop to what the audience could see for themselves but he had denied. I've got a few twists and turns in Mad Men that I'm pretty sure happened for agenda reasons and I'm sure the same is for Girls. Television is always collaborative but the show runner is the show runner and a collaborative process has never stopped someone from being "first among equals" or for various members of the team to get their licks in. It's not always 100% professional (although King's own agendas were narrative ones, he wanted to deny the machinery to the audience, I guess).

Amen.

It does kill me that a show which purports to have a bit of a veneer of reality, does, like every other show, paper over what is central to every non-financially privileged person entering the world of adulthood. MONEY. People's worlds are organized around that if they don't have a safety net. It absolutely kills me that Hannah's entire baby arc didn't deal with the issue of child care at all, and it was just handled via magic. That is absolutely the central concern for a single working mother, as Lena Dunham well knows. Marnie showing up was also magic. Even if she's basically living there free of expenses, she was broke on her ass last we saw her, so how did she get her butt to Hannah's town, who is paying for her mobile phone, how is she paying for her clothing, and where does her walking around money come from? Pfffft! It's magic.

Putting in a plug for "Chewing Gum" currently on Netflix. 2 seasons. I think each season has only six episodes, so you can burn through them fast, but every word is apparently written by the star, Michaela Coel (she does have a script editor to help her break down the pacing to include commercial breaks). I didn't know what to make of the poster art, showing a twentysomething woman in pigtails and overgrown child's clothing. Anything whimsical like that and sort of magical realism / twee just makes me barf, so I gave it a miss, until one evening I was hard up for a distraction and gave it a try. While there isn't nudity, the show's "no boundaries" sensibility makes both Lena Dunham and Rachel Bloom seem shy, but absolutely none of it is in the realm of exhibitionism, narcissism, or anything close. The heroine is poor, genuinely poor, and the show is hilarious. ETA I don't find Rachel Bloom either narcissistic or exhibitionistic, but her character does lack boundaries, and exists in the realm of TMI. Chewing Gum makes her look like an amateur, but it's completely believable within the show. Except when it is clearly being farcical for character / comic effect, IMO it is far more recognizable than some of the stuff on Girls. One of the things that is strongest on Chewing Gum is story. There's a lot of sensibility there, and humor, but you can count on a strong narrative through line that pays off.

I doubt anything on the show was fueled by an imagined personal grievance. A real one, perhaps. That's what I was speculating.

A few thoughts, mostly unkind. The past couple of episodes have made me revisit the CDN blind items about Lena Dunham reprinted here not long ago. I like her public persona, I support nearly everything she's said publicly, from politics to issues. There's one issue - her book - that I have a big problem with, but I assume the part of the book that bugs me is a fantasy that misfired, and not something that literally happened. Because at least part of it could not have (how she describes her 1-year old sister's behavior). So anyway, with the assistance of selective myopia, I like Lena Dunham, particularly the public her. And I think her Hannah has been really funny at times. BUT. I'm a Shosh fan. And when Dunham told an interviewer that Shoshanna ended up the best, and had the BEST ending, and that she'd "earned every bit of it." I now recognize as beyond trolling, beyond deadpan vicious. I'm sorry, it is. I don't know what went down behind the scenes, but hey. Then, as the show begins to wrap up, suddenly the show is "Hannah" and not "Girls." The other Girls become cartoonish, or become punished (Jessa drops out of social work school? Is Lena Dunham at all familiar with the world of social workers and how actually TYPICAL Jessa and some of her limitations are in that world? Plenty of people function as social workers without being able to use what they know on their own lives), Hannah evolves and grows. Adam comes back, proposes marriage, and she gets to reject HIM. Jessa takes him back no questions asked. The only one who has an equally magical conclusion is Elijah,the new Broadway star. Still can't get over Hannah hired at that unnamed school to "teach the internet" to people who know the internet better than she does and have since birth, hired after exactly one interview despite lacking credentials, and getting benefits and what seems like either a super healthy salary so she can afford fantasy housing OR she gets faculty housing. Marnie's bitchiness always had a certain obliviousness to it, but it became more and more ridiculous, and inexplicable, and unrealistic. A woman at that level of financial desperation isn't going to be able to sustain Marnie's level of personal maintenance, not even moving back in with her mother. So all I can say is that the rumors about Dunham's ego and vanity, which seemed like a kneejerk castigation of a female showrunner at first, now seems borne out in how she managed the final season. She has said she wants to help other people realize their vision, and doesn't expect to be doing much acting. I now see that as Dunham really begging the industry to prove her wrong and hire her as an actress, or I see that as Dunham developing another project to star herself. We'll see, but I no longer believe what she says about herself and acting. On the plus side, I like Becky Ann Baker, who plays Loreen, and Girls has certainly given her a ton of rangey material for her reel, or to show casting people who want to see different sides to her.

It's impossible to answer the ugly v. beautiful building because what does ugly mean? Ugly as in the aesthetic? Or ugly as in one is a dump and the other is nicely maintained? No way Shoshanna would rather be in a dump and look out at a nice building, so she must have assumed it's aesthetics, and the conclusion about what that means is just absurd. It's fake psychology.

I was disappointed in the Dennis date, too, and I'm also disappointed by the long line up of Petra's skeevy love interests. I don't buy "Chad's" turn around into sincerity for a single second. Yael Grobglas has chemistry with everybody, so I don't understand why not a single one of her love interests have had any chemistry - or charisma in their own right. It's tedious. Every single one of Rogelio's non-Xo love interests has been a hoot and could hold the screen in their own right - even the intense, selfish wife character with the bazillion bunny rabbits. Even his stalker/kidnapper. But Groblas's have always been yucky, whether in scenes with her or scenes with others. Irritating, because the showrunners talked about being "excited" about this season's love interest. At least it's less irritating when she doesn't really like them, but when we're supposed to believe she likes them - as with Chad - it's annoying. The show just keeps repeating the same idea for its characters, over and over.

I liked the Petra/Rafael hook up because the two of them have loads more chemistry than Jane/Rafael. I hope this wasn't just fan service - like - here's a bone along the way while we pursue our ultimate agenda - because the show sort of does that. It did that w/Michael & Jane before pulling the plug and this could be their way of paying off Petra/Rafael chemistry while continuing towards an agenda that seems stupid to me. Rafael and Jane squick me out. It's almost incestuous at this point. That said, THIS is the Petra I enjoy. She's so much fun.

Marnie will only marry a nice older professor if she can construct an ego-gratifying, starmaking narrative around the relationship. Her "Have a blessed day" in the most recent episode pretty much signals that her newfound "humility" is another role she's assumed. All played badly, every one of them.

I completely agree with this. I can also do without Lena Dunham trolling the audience with some of her b.s., like "Shosh is a core character and having her off screen off season was an important storytelling point." She says she doesn't expect to be acting much in the future - I wonder if this uber focus on Hannah - she's Mary Suing Hannah to beat the band - is just making the most of an opportunity she doesn't expect to have again, so she's getting it all out of her system. I was super distracted by her tears when Adam asked Hannah to marry him - the entire scene seemed more about getting that long take on film than anything else. As far as Hannah being more kindhearted than the rest - I've considered this and I'm not so sure. I think she is better mannered than the rest can often be. Marni can have nice manners but her tone and demeanor make it clear she's doing you a favor. Hannah is ingratiating but not particularly considerate, IMO. Manners and how you treat others aren't the same thing.

I've been side-eyeing this show on Netflix for a long time, hesitating because I hate quirky and whimsical, and that's what I assumed this was. I didn't know it was a British show. I binged watched the whole thing over a few days. The most amazing, for me, were the scenes in the homeless shelter. Brilliant. I don't know how Michaela Coel conceived that and it WORKED. It was mesmerizing and also had a lot of suspense. By the time we started flashing back I was dying to know what happened. And then the contrast between what Connor thought happened and what actually did, and both made sense. I, too, was really disappointed that Louise recanted and fell into the stereotype of lonely spinster. I really like Connor's girlfriend (Emily)? She became really fun once it was revealed she was 45. That happens in real life - there are people who don't start aging until later so it can get kind of vague about how old they are. Are they 26? Are they 42? I know someone like that. It also makes Emily more formidable, while also, IMO at least, making a long term thing between her and Connor unlikely. It both reinforces and undermines them as a couple. I found the Connor/Emily instagram story funny with her happy and in love faces and his awkward, WTF ones. Cynthia's pursuit of, and success in, losing her virginity was terrific. I was mad that her home was robbed because in its own mechanical way, her plans had worked to perfection. But the guy turning out to be sort of her stepbrother was funny. Aaron's dad was perfectly cast. What a dick. Yet you can see the sexual appeal he might have. However, while I understand he personifies what Candice thinks she wants Aaron to be, I don't understand why Candice stayed with Aaron if that's really what she wants. *I* can see why a girl would want him - he's funny, he's good-looking, he's kind (and I guess, rich, it turns out), but considering what attracts Candice, I don't get it. Is it really so hard to find an asshole to date if that's what she's into? I liked Ronald's scene with Cynthia, and his maliciously triumphant expression when he asked her if she was a lesbian. And then I felt sorry for Cleveland, and scared that he'll go back to Ronald just because he's vulnerable.

I wonder why. I saw the Golden "Girls" skit on Jimmy Kimmel (or was it Fallon? Because I actually watched the youtube video) and Sosia Mamet and Jemima Kirke were the best and funniest ones in it. Lena Dunham was OTT and Allison Williams was Allison Williams. I think Dunham focused on the least charismatic, least interesting of the other three to be her character's bestie so as not to have someone else steal focus. You know, reading vulture's article about how Hannah's job is impossible, not to mention that "teaching the internet" is ALREADY a thing, how the hell does "writing for the internet" fuel an entire series of classes? There's actually a "teach you the internet" school in New York City called "General Assembly." IMO it's very worthwhile, while tackling pretty much the same issue from slightly differently calibrated angles. Content as content is almost never the focus. It's an analysis of the different platforms (facebook, surprisingly or not, continues to have a megaton more reach than any other platform, including twitter. It's just that privacy settings prevent us from seeing that, whereas twitter seems more pervasive). It's conveying information about the sort of content to avoid every bit as much as the sort of content to include (the content to be avoided is the sort that triggers bots or any kind of large group on the hunt, such as "bargain hunting moms"). It teaches you about the different analytical tools to see who you are reaching (some major companies actually have learned that most of their followers are spam). It shows what platforms are good for what purpose. Content wise, you are left to your own devices. In one boot camp I took, there was a couple who had an organic farm out of state, and were interested in using it for events, etc. The married couple who owned it had a great "look" - you'd cast them as owners of an organic farm. The great kind of thick salt and pepper hair, windburned and sun-cured skin but fabulous bone structure. They weren't really sure how to get started, but this is where someone would tell them to google. "I want to get married on a farm" or "I want to buy farm-loomed yarn but ALSO have my graduation there AND sample goat cheeses." There are a million web pages for places like theirs that would let them know how to get started. But teaching the internet is not "here's how to make your copy pop!" It's "here's how not to waste your time on the internet as a professional interneter." Something I doubt Hannah is qualified to teach. The online entities she wrote for - THEY might be able to teach that course.

Oh, but see, the department head wanted entirely new blood! Which can only come from the universe of the un-credentialed! So do I and that's not what I see. Different strokes I guess. I also know nobody who has ever had a dude pee on their leg while a rat ran over their foot, but MMV. When a subway rat makes it up to an actual platform, that does create consternation though.

Yes, but they still used prosthetic breasts for the nursing scene, according to my DVD of that episode.