Skip to main content

Lena Dunham tunnelling in to Hannah's plight

Concerning "Girls"' Hannah's new job, Daniel D'Addario wrote this: 
Hannah has taken a gig at GQ, where she’s explicitly told not to answer the phone giving the name of the outlet; she’s writing sponsored content for Neiman Marcus, those glossy pages in the magazine that look sort of like — well, Ray explains it best in the episode’s first moments. “It looks like a real article,” he says, “so they trick you into reading it, but then you find out it’s a paid advertisement, which is both morally and creatively bankrupt.” 
It seems much the same as Adam’s anti-Gawker rant earlier in the season — a man hectoring a naif for not sharing his point of view about the idiocy of the media world. And Ray is sort of right: Hannah would never have been hired to be a staff writer at GQ. All the perks of her job — from paycheck to snack room — stand in for respect in precisely the manner she craves. 
But Ray’s sort of wrong, too, about just how bankrupt the enterprise is — the twist is that all of Hannah’s colleagues working on the advertorial side are ambitious writers, who’ve been published in, say, n+1 and The New Yorker. Hannah undergoes a period of self-doubt as she wonders whether or not working full-time in a less-than-artistic environment will preclude her from doing the work she wants to do. 
This is, rather notoriously, not a problem Lena Dunham herself has confronted in quite the same way in her real life. Though criticisms on these grounds have largely died down, it’s true that her path to success as a writer was smoother than Hannah’s because she didn’t have to consider financial realities to the same degree.
-----
I don't think it's about selling out, rather, about whether living in a way that doesn't make us feel especially spoiled actually fits sorta well with us. Anyone out there who is having to compromise themselves to get by, may have to deal with self-hate -- which, actually, I kinda doubt, because it's what the world expects out of us: none of us are all that special -- but won't feel like the world's radar is on them for living however they please. 
I very much doubt that if you listen to how Lena Dunham describes her life, it'd be that she's just living it. Good stuff, of course; but you'll hear how she's been burdened, chastened, reigned in, as well. What we have to hope for her is that her strength to follow her vision isn't bested by her feeling safer, less abandoned, by subscribing her art to our expectations -- her character -- even truculently -- instantly dating a black man when we start pressing, for instance. She's doing pretty good so far. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…