After the most recent
episode of Girls, “Beach House,” I've started to wonder if
I'm watching the show wrong. I knew that there was a lot of hate for
the show, but this season more than ever I wonder if the show itself
wants me to hate its characters and, by extension, only enjoy the
show when other characters are criticizing the girls or they're
lighting into each other, in both cases as proxies for “the
audience.”
Even though with every
season, and this season with every episode, I'm less sure how to
respond to the show, I'll say this for it: it's a radical experiment
in tone. It's common for sitcoms to feature protagonists that you
love to hate, from the lowbrow Archie Bunker to the highbrow Frasier
Crane and from the cast of Seinfeld to
innumerable British sitcom examples. The way it works is that you
know the character or characters are loathsome but you enjoy watching
them out of what's basically sadism (play is the only thing that
distinguishes comedy from sadism, as Northrop Frye put it): you enjoy
watching them make themselves and others suffer, and often enjoy
their outrageousness while they do it. This is not the same trope, by
the way, as the socially incorrect character in a group comedy, who
wins the audience's love, without any hate, by doing and saying
things you aren't supposed to do and say, even though the creators
may intend him (it's usually him) as a criticism of what they're
portraying: Alex P. Keaton, Barney Stinson, and, of course, the
greatest of them all, Bender on Futurama.
Sheldon Cooper is this type as well, although he's not a criticism of
anything but rather a representation of a popular idea of autism.
The
first thing that makes Girls
different is that it doesn't seem to have won any love-hate for its
characters: as one can plainly see all over the internet, a vocal
portion of its audience just hates them, period, as if those viewers
are watching a reality TV show where they can't find any characters
to root for (except the men a little, sometimes). The second thing
that makes it different is that Dunham and co. then ask us to
sympathize with the characters anyway in their trials with
relationships, jobs, their friendships, body image, mental health,
etc., making far more soap operatic (and dramatic) demands on the
viewer's emotions than most sitcoms. When sitcoms go into dramatic
territory they usually change their tone to do it, and become
sentimental, but Girls
is never sentimental, and when it goes dramatic it just goes even
darker than the comedy.
I
continue to basically sympathize with the main characters, Hannah and
Marnie, because I can identify with them as social types, and as the
show goes on it starts to seem like they are two sides of one woman
(their creator presumably). Shosh and Jessa are the “zanies”:
Jessa is The Bender, the straight-up sociopath who's easy to love
because, being rich, she gets away with everything and doesn't call
for a complicated reaction; Shosh is The Phoebe, who seems like a
ditz from another dimension most of the time but has a harder edge
than any other member of the group and is the only one who'll let
them know what morons they are. What's interesting about Jessa is
that she's not, as she so easily could be, just a portrayal of a rich
bitch who takes people's lives apart because of her own boredom,
emptiness, unhappiness, and immunity to consequences. The show allows
her to be that but also to be occasionally wise, although as with its
other resident wise character, Adam, it's hard to know where the
wisdom stops and the bullshit begins.
Girls, Awkward Black Girl, and Women's Fiction
Ray,
we learned last week, thought he was “too wise for grad school,”
definitely an example of bullshit masquerading as wisdom. Neither
wise nor sociopathic, Ray has transformed from his humble beginnings
as Charlie's bitches-hating homeboy into the show's heart, and a lot
of credit for that must surely go to the marvellous Alex Karpovsky,
who manages to make the most assholish things his character has to
say seem to come from a place of sensitivity and pain. The show's
writing needs more actors like this, who can bring the sense of a
whole human being to the often one-note meanness of the dialogue.
In
Season 3, more than ever, it feels like the two remaining main male
characters are emotional ballasts for Hannah and Marnie, now that
Adam's post-Hannah tailspin is in the past. Early in the first
season, Hannah fantasized out loud about wanting to have AIDS; this
was a fantasy about having no responsibility, so that no one could
ask or expect anything from you and could only take care of you. In
the second season she had a new version of that fantasy, with Patrick
Wilson as her rich and handsome caregiver. By the end of the season
she was living it out in a different way by becoming very, very ill,
and although Adam coming to her rescue (she shuts out Marnie and
she's abandoned by Jessa) seemed, at the beginning of Season 3, like
only a momentary solution after all, the fantasy continues beneath
the surface. I get that Dunham wants to make the point that female
friendships aren't always like Sisterhood of the Traveling
Pants, just like she wants to
make the point that everyone doesn't have a Victoria's Secret body,
but instead of counselling self-reliance as the alternative to
placing destructive expectations on your friendships, she seems to
counsel reliance on men (or, at least, on romantic relationships).
Make no mistake, the climactic line of the big “Beach House”
argument, Hannah's “I miss my boyfriend,” wasn't just a slap in
Marnie's face, it was an Oedipal knife in the heart of Mama Feminism.
In
my last post I talked about how the kind of privileged white girlness
shown on Girls and its
simultaneous celebration and critique can be traced back at least to
Jane Austen's Emma,
and Anne Helen Peterson LA Review of Books piece on Marnie, subtitled “Pretty Girl Privilege,” backs up my
point while failing to recognize that “The Marnie” is not a type
of real person but rather a trope of fiction. And it's fascinating,
and a little disheartening, to see the extent to which cutting-edge
women's fiction of the early 21st
century relies on tropes that were used by Austen in the early 19th
century. The Austenian core of Girls
is the reason that the male love interests are more mature,
older-acting (remember Adam's “Kid” nickname for Hannah) or
actually older than the girls, and often take a tutelary stance
towards them, which includes speaking criticism to privilege. This
does not preclude sometimes siding with the “unruly” girls and
finding the “grown-up” men tedious, as I suggested that you could
when watching the “Dead Inside” episode. I also, however, tried
to make a comparison between the men's finger-wagging attitude in
that episode and Skyler's relationship with Walter in Breaking
Bad, but that was a really big
stretch. Fans of Breaking Bad
will let you know that when women call men on their bullshit, it's
“nagging” and “being a bitch,” while the hate-watchers of
Girls (who can be
found, for example, in the comments section of The AV Club,
under the thoughtful and sensitive weekly reviews of Todd
VanDerWerff) will let you know that when men criticize women, it's
calling them on their bullshit.
Hannah
dreams of a Mr. Darcy that looks like Patrick Wilson, but gets a sort
of Heathcliff/Mr. Rochester brooding Gothic weirdo/soul mate, who, in
Season 2, stalks her like Caspar Goodwood. But Marnie, who's way more
of an Emma than Hannah is an Elizabeth, gets a proper Mr. Knightley
in Ray. I mean, surely today Mr. Knightley would be a Classics Ph.D.
drop-out-turned-coffee shop manager. And this
young-ditzy-woman/older-wise-man love relationship ideal may even be
conscious on the part of Dunham, who's namechecked Clueless
as being among her influences.
The
tropes of Austen, or perhaps one should just say women's fiction as
it has been since at least the 19th
century, also seem to haunt Issa Rae's addictive web series The
Mis-Adventures of Awkward Black Girl.
When the show begins, the heroine, J, has two problems that most of
us have experienced: she's single and she hates her job. In the first
season, she's coached by her best friend to find love, which results
in a whole season where she must try to choose between two men, Jay
White, whom she nicknames “White Jay” for obvious reasons, and
her black co-worker Fred. At the end of the first season, she
realizes which man she really wants in an Elizabeth Bennet-style
epiphany. But there are no real obstacles to the eventual
relationship, not even J's own psychology. The who-will-she-choose
suspense is generated entirely by the serial format: as befitting the
microscopic storytelling of the webisode, the tropes of Awkward
Black Girl are in their simplest
and most basic form (the inventiveness and originality come into play
with the comedy and the POV). What fascinates me is how compelling
they are in that form.
George Eliot's Pretty Girls Issues
More
even than Emma Woodhouse, in “Pretty Girl Privilege” Petersen is
describing a Gwendolen Harleth:
There
are Marnies all over the contemporary media, they just get everything
that we've been conditioned to expect their looks, class, and education level
meriting: outrageous success,
perfect happiness.... The implicit message of these Marnies? If you
work hard - if
you have great hair – you will get the things to which you are
entitled. The job, the boy,
the body, all yours, simply through the force of your American will.
You don't have to
have charisma, per se, or even superlative, well, anything – you
just have to let things happen....
You're a pretty, skinny, moderately intelligent girl, and every piece
of media you've
consumed has told you that your life would go one way.
Seriously, did Petersen have the heroine of George Eliot's Daniel Deronda in the back of her mind when she wrote this? And was she thinking of Harold Bloom's “Heroines of the Protestant Will,” a banner under which he includes Gwendolen as well as Emma and Elizabeth, when she wrote the phrase “your American will”? Eliot, who was beauty, had some deep-seated pretty girl issues that she took out on Rosamond Vincy in Middlemarch, whose vapid social climbing and overspending ruin the idealistic genius husband with whom she's grievously mismatched, and on Gwendolen, who learns, in Petersen's words about Marnie:
Only
WAIT A SECOND, that's all bullshit, because American is neither a
meritocracy nor a prettitocracy:
it's all about connections, and no one in New York cares if you went
to Oberlin and
your mom has a solid upper middle class job as a real estate agent in
New Jersey. Marnie spent
so much of her life thinking that things would work out when she
graduated that she forgot
to actually become something.
To
translate this into the terms of Eliot's Victorian novel: in ways that Simone de Beauvoir would understand perfectly, Gwendolen has
been warped into a pathological narcissist (and neurotic) by being
treated all of her life as perfect because she's, precisely, “pretty,
skinny, moderately intelligent,” oh and rich, and she has been
given her way in everything. She has been celebrated for who
she is, immanently, without ever
having to become
anything, since it was never expected that she would have to be
anything other than a socialite. When she learns that she's no longer
rich, she at first thinks that she can support herself and her mother
using one of her minor accomplishments, singing, and asks for the
appraisal of an expert, who informs her that she has neither skill
nor talent – a little like Marnie's YouTube video experience.
Girls
is dealing with the echoes of these privileged white girl tropes from
19th
century fiction even though, as I suggested in my last post, the
circumstances that created the tropes have changed. Marnie has not
been brought up to think that she will never have to earn a living,
but she has, more vaguely and insidiously, been brought up to think,
as Petersen says, that she will be a success.
Because it can be deduced from her whiteness, prettiness, skinniness,
and economic privilege that she will be a success, she has never had
to work hard at developing any particular skill, including singing.
And now she has to face the fact – if any of the girls were able to
face any facts – that she is ordinary. Yet surely it's that sense
of entitlement, that indomitable, irrational sense that she is better
than all of this, better than her circumstances, that makes her
attractive to Ray?
It's
interesting to compare the ways in which white girls feel entitled to
the ways in white guys feel entitled, and the different reactions
their privilege receives. Todd VanDerWerff wrote a piece for Salon
on white male privilege in Breaking Bad
in which his description of Walter White's entitlement sounds a lot
like Petersen's description of Marnie's:
Walt's justifications for why he should have what he wants stem almost entirely from believing that he's owed in some way, that the universe has screwed him over. Yet when the series begins, he has a pretty good life. He has a beautiful wife, a loving son, a baby on the way, and a house with a swimming pool. Maybe he doesn't like either of his jobs, but who does? And when he gets cancer, old friends who feel a debt to him offer to pay for the treatments. Yet all Walt needs is the slightest provocation to look around himself, reach out for anything within reach, and cry out, "I want that!" like a spoiled toddler.
Since
writing my last post it occurred to me that a white girl defending
white girls (“We're not all upper middle class! And even those who
are have problems too!”) was as hypocritical and ludicrous as the
white guys who whine about the bad name they seem to have with women
and non-whites. And yet although it should be the same thing, in the
context of premium cable TV viewing, bizarrely, it's not, because no
one is hate-watching Breaking Bad,
or any other TV show, in order to seethe and rail at the examples of
white male privilege on display and to wait for those moments when
the women call the men on their bullshit. On the contrary, the
seething and railing going on are against any criticism of the show,
or not the show (because VanDerWerff thinks it's self-aware), but
rather Walter White himself, by fans, as one can see in the comments
on the piece. It's hysterical hero-worship of Kurt Cobain intensity –
and every Cobain, or stricken king, needs a Courtney/Yoko/Skyler. The
show may be self-aware, but at the mythic level it's structurally
misogynous.
White
male privilege, as Walter White shows, involves thinking you're owed
a fortune for your super-competence, while white female privilege (as
we'd call it if we weren't stuck on that quasi-reclaimed pejorative
“girl”), as demonstrated by Marnie, involves thinking you're owed
the perfect life for your attractive appearance. Hannah Horvath (yay
for TV protagonists with same-consonant-initials!), on the other
hand, does think she's potentially a genius, but of course that's
just more privilege and “self-absorption.” White women also, one
notes, do not, as a trope, react to not getting what they think
they're owed in life with a rage rampage, presumably because until
recently, women had to get what they wanted in life through a husband
or lovers. In noir, the trope is that if she couldn't get what she
wants through her husband, she has to use her lover to get rid of the
husband for her. She can't act directly but must always act by proxy.
Even Scarlett O'Hara, the most direct and action-oriented of all the
privileged white girls of fiction (she even get to shoot a man to
protect her household), is forced to marry her sister's beau in order
to save Tara since she can't just go into business for herself.
Up
to this point, most TV, like most European and American fiction, has
been about white privilege. Auteur TV seems to be calling attention
to this in a new way, maybe because educated people are taking it
seriously enough to analyze it, and maybe because it reflects the
fantasies of a mostly affluent viewership more directly and
visibly/audibly (through vivid cultural discussion and colourful
internet commentary) than contemporary fiction does. These fantasies
at the moment revolve around the idea of a broken-down economy and
the sun setting on America and the American promise: the heirs and
heiresses of all the ages growing up to discover that the fortune
they thought would be theirs has been lost. And yet, somehow, we only
get mad at the girls for their expectations. I do understand that
this hatred of “bratty” white girls is the flip side of our
purely symbolic overvaluation of them, which has been critically
investigated, and simultaneously promulgated, in Anglo-American literature, movies, and TV from Clarissa Harlowe to Daisy Buchanan to Melanie Daniels to Laura Palmer.
Girls
is a more subtle a show than it sometimes seems, and “Beach House”
was very much the answer to “One Man's Trash” from last season,
this time focused on Marnie and her fantasies instead of Hannah and
hers. In both cases, a beautiful house that does not belong to the
Girls, whose material
splendour is emotionally reassuring (like the manor houses in
Austen), plays a central role in the episode. But while Hannah gets
her perfect couple of days, isolated from the rest of the world and
her concerns, with one perfect man entirely focused on her, and only
punctures the fantasy towards the end, Marnie isn't allowed the
private “healing time” that she wants to her friends, largely due
to Hannah's resistance. Hannah's fantasy is to be taken care of, even
to the point, in the words of Jane Bowles, where “everything is
taken off your hands and you flop around like a baby.” Marnie's
fantasy is to be surrounded by friends who love her, or, failing
that, to convey the image of it on Instagram. Although I wouldn't go
as far as Chuck Bowen, who, in a lovely review on the Slant blog, calls Marnie “the center of Girls's
empathetic imagination,” there's no doubt that the episode imbues
her with a certain pathos: she's a latter-day Mrs. Dalloway whose
recalcitrantly real
friends (in a strain of Dunham's imagination that's been with the
show from the beginning) just won't get on board with her aesthetic
vision of the perfect moment.
I
suggested in my V. C. Andrews post that very young women who are
still in the process of forming their own opinions pick up the
cultural signals that tell them to devalue women and obey them with
the ferocity of zealots. I hear that same voice in comments and on
blog posts in which female viewers criticize the characters on Girls
for their narcissism, self-absorption, selfishness, privilege, and so
on and so forth. Again, I just don't see young men watching shows
about young men who do not live up to the cultural ideal of what men
should be in order to berate the characters for their non-compliance,
although maybe that's happening in some corner of popular culture
that I'm not aware of. If Marnie and Hannah are
two sides of one woman, they're Superego and Id, or the woman you're
supposed to be and the woman who rebels (to the point of spending an
entire episode/day in a green bikini that exhibits her ample
cellulite to the world) against being that woman. And here's one
genuine point of connection between Breaking Bad
and Girls besides all
of the white privilege: they're locked in a love-hate combat as brutal as Walt and Jesse's.