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

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...