criterionforum.org

I've repeatedly been a little disturbed by how frequently I've seen charges of "chivalry," "white knighting," being a "knight in shining armor," or engaging in "male-led heroics" not only whenever a male person calls something out as sexist or even raises questions related to sexism, but even at times when the discussion has nothing to do with sexism and it just happens to be a male person defending or questioning criticisms leveled at someone who is female or in a discussion involving a female character. It looks like a way of throwing aside the actual substance of the discussion in order to suggest (in many cases when it's baseless and unfair) that the other person has ulterior motives of some sort. It's just all too easy a riposte.

I thought VanDerWerff's point in saying Dunhum is actually attractive was to put into question presupposed conventions of what is beautiful, but I think he could have made that point a little better.

domino harvey wrote:It may be petty, but it's not completely off-limits, especially since part of Dunham's shtick seems to be an approximation of "Look at me, I'm sooo unglamorous" (which, I might add, comes off as pretty disingenuous as it functions as its own form of vanity).

I don't quite see how what Dunham has done with humor about body types and conventional standards of beauty in the media is vanity. Saying "I'm sooo unglamorous" is a way of getting into the material -- something that hasn't been addressed much in television, which is a medium that generally doesn't map onto the actual world we live in very well in this regard and many others, in my view -- not a way of saying "Look at me." Of course starring in a series unavoidably means saying "Look at me." The only difference here is that the star is calling attention to herself in order to take the tradition of self-deprecating humor (which is self-centered by definition) in a new direction.

domino harvey wrote:If we can praise a star for their beauty, we can decry one for their lack thereof.

When a review notes that a star looks radiant, it can be taken as a personal aside, beauty being in the eye of the beholder. Saying flat-out that a star is unattractive is similar, but isn't an aside worth making, in my view. It adds little and comes across as mean-spirited and, in the case of this show, missing a big part of the point of the material.
Case in point:
Lena Dunham Looks Frumpy in Denim Shorts on Set of Girls
Thanks, Daily Mail, for yet another "hey, look at this celeb not looking her best!" paparazzi-type story to make the world a better place, but as you say yourself, she's on set, in other words, unless I'm mistaken, in costume, playing a character, who obviously isn't like Carrie Bradshaw and isn't supposed to be. HBO isn't so stupid that they overlooked the fact that Dunham doesn't look like Sarah Jessica Parker when they green-lit the show.

Why was this moved from the TV thread to a movie thread when we're talking about a TV show?

This is the official "Bitching About Something Lena Dunham-Related" thread.

I guess my question is: Should it be? Girls is its own thing.

My answer is no, but I don't make the rules around here.

"Girls" actually has its moments- a lot of it is sitcom wine in hip bottles (they read her diary! onstage! at a small indie(?) show!) - but some of the sex scenes have been really complicated and good, better than I've seen on TV before.

I'm thinking of splitting off a "Girls" thread, but so much of the discussion of the show is intertwined with discussion of this film and Dunham herself. Just roll with it for now, please, and I'll see what I can do later this week.

Though it would involve breaking the rule that every Criterion release needs a dedicated thread, the perfect Duh Solution is to move the whole thing to the filmmaker forum as "Lena Dunham"-- maybe just the first specs post locked with a link to the Dunham thread and everything else moved there

Lena 'Duh'-nam

mfunk9786 wrote:Lena 'Duh'-nam

I've been trying to think of a way to respond to this comment, and I just can't. Everything I want to say just would sound too angry, and I'm not angry. I'm... defeated.

I know you think you're making a joke. I know you think what you're saying is funny, and I know you think that the people who are on your level will laugh, and the rest of us will roll our eyes, and nothing will happen. And nothing WILL happen, because this is The Criterion Forum, and what makes our comments great is that we have a very, very, very, very open door policy when it comes to what people can say here. We let people make off-topic jokes. We let them complain about how the Holy Motors reviews took a while in the Cannes comments. We let them pursue their own creative endeavors and whatnot. You won't be punished or banned or anything of the sort. You shouldn't be. I'm a staff member here, and I agree completely with your right to imply Girls is bad because Lena Dunham isn't hot enough. (I know you think you're saying her name isn't punny enough; you're not, because you'd never say Louie isn't good because Louis See Cake isn't conventionally attractive.)

But your comment still really gets under my skin in a way I'm fairly sure you didn't intend it. And I'm sure if I said that, you'd say, "Whatever. It's just a joke." Maybe it's because I just got done watching a pretty amazing Mad Men episode about how no matter how good a woman is at what she does, some men will always make a pun about her name. Maybe it's because I've known a million amazing women who were far more Lena Duh-nam than Allison Will-yums. Maybe it's because, when you come right down to it, Lena Duh-nam is a very good sounding play on words. Maybe it's because I assume you're a young-ish kid, 18 or 19 or 20, and I know that if you shut yourself off from women who don't have names that would look good on TV, you're going to be missing out on amazing friends and girlfriends, people who could enrich your life. Maybe it's because what you said is what a basshole would say, and I don't like people who make fishing puns. Maybe it's because this website's comments section in theory could hypothetically possibly be full of women--and the odds increase more and more every day--and too many of you want to treat it like it's the same old boys' club it's always been, where everybody can walk around and make sexist cracks and all the women are just supposed to take it (and you can say whatever you want, but what you said was fucking sexist and disgusting, "duh" being the Dutch slang for forced beastial entry).

But no: Here's what it is. Every week, I don't like this show, and I tell you why. Every week, a bunch of commenters like this show up and make a play or words and tell you why (or tell me why on Twitter, since so many of them have abandoned this thread to the gibbering assholes). And you don't have to like what we like. That's your prerogative as a human being. I've even found some of your criticisms persuasive in the past, or, at the least, seen why some of you don't like the show as much as I do from what you say. That's good. That's healthy. That's dialogue. When you guys say, "Hey, this show has spent too much time fleshing out Hannah into Hannah Banana and not enough time on the other characters" or "Hey, these people's names are all so unlikable that I'm not sure I can ever be interested in rhyming or punning their names," that's cool. I don't agree, but I get it. We can have a conversation on that.

But a lot of you--including you, MF Unc (can I call you MF Unc?)--don't even bother with that. You reject the most basic premise of our critical dialogue, which is that a work of art is worth considering and discussing, especially when evident effort has been put into that work of art by someone who wants to express some piece of themselves. Please note this doesn't mean you have to like it. I really don't like, say, Whitney, or should I say, "Shitney", but I'm aware that the people behind it have tried to do something expressive of what they want (within the confines of the network TV sitcom). We owe the art respect. More important than that, we owe the people who make it respect. That doesn't mean we automatically praise it because somebody made a good effort. It means that when we criticize it, we criticize it like we would want our own stuff to be criticized, even when we think it sucks. Everybody goes in for snark because it's easy. I know I have more than a few times. But when you just snark, you absolutely shut out whatever's going on onscreen. You're not open to it. And that's no way to approach anything. It's cynical and lazy. I think it's self-evident from this that Dunham and her collaborators are putting a lot of thought and time into this show's credited names to make it something that I and a lot of your fellow commenters and a lot of my fellow critics think is pretty special. You're dismissing it as if it were a crayon drawing by a particularly irritating 5-year-old named John Smith, with the S's backwards. At least engage the work.

I don't know what it is about this show that makes people make snide, misogynistic attacks against the names involved-- Zosia Man-it, I mean come on? I don't know what it is about this show that makes people unwilling to extend it even the most basic of critical charities, like accepting its central premises or letting go of, like, the fact that it didn't depict East Lansing, Michigan, exactly as it exists in real life. Every week, people come in here and harp and harp and harp on minor, minor, minor names and act like they're delivering the Salmon on the Mound. Again, you don't have to like this show. But Jesus Christmas, if you can't see past your own anger toward it or hatred of it, why do you keep making the puns? To make fun of it? Do you really think that's worth it? Has anyone ever laughed at a pun?

Most of all, though, it just bugs me that you--and yes, I'm sorry to single you out, because there are a ton of people in this very article who are being dicks and acting like it's the height of hilarity, when if you're going to be a dick, you'd better be really, really fucking funny--were just an asshole and didn't seem to care and (even worse) got 12 automatic "likes" for being an asshole who makes the world a worse place to live, just a little bit. Here's the thing: I don't know you, but I know you don't have to be an asshole. You don't have to say that thing. You don't have to start this whole conversation. You don't have to make the women in our midst feel unwelcome if they have names like Allison Williams. You don't have to make me feel disgusted to write for a website that people like you comment on. You don't have to make the world a worse place. You don't have to make that joke. It's not worth it. You can be a bigger man. You can be a better person. And you're just not.

And that pisses me off. Or, should I say, that misses me off. Misses, like young ladies. Because the show is called Girls. It's about young girls. Misses. Misses me off.

domino harvey wrote:a pretty amazing Mad Men episode

OT, but glad to read you stuck it out!

That was obv my play on Mad Money

swo17 wrote:I love this response as to why so many of the films she decided to showcase are from the '90s:

Not to sound like an old curmudgeon, but it does feel like intelligent films are harder to find than ever...and we must often reach back

...to The Craft.

i'm sorry...but I thought i'd catch up on Ms. Dunham and revisit this thread where I left it 6 months ago and had to acknowledge Swo17's generation of a real actual spit take on my end. I just had to dig out my screen cleaner to remove the root beer i spewed all over it.

mfunk9786 wrote: Good thing James Mills isn't here anymore. :-"

don't tell me i missed a good melt down

That happened months ago

Although I am not the biggest fan of Tiny Furniture, Girls is vastly better (She shouldn't have employed her friends though)

Forgive me my stupidity, but what I've quoted below is a joke, right? And, not a subtle one? It's just obtuseness on my that I have to ask about it?

I read this whole thread instead of doing something I should have been doing. What have I become?

domino harvey wrote:

mfunk9786 wrote:Lena 'Duh'-nam

I've been trying to think of a way to respond to this comment, and I just can't. Everything I want to say just would sound too angry, and I'm not angry. I'm... defeated.

I know you think you're making a joke. I know you think what you're saying is funny, and I know you think that the people who are on your level will laugh, and the rest of us will roll our eyes, and nothing will happen. And nothing WILL happen, because this is The Criterion Forum, and what makes our comments great is that we have a very, very, very, very open door policy when it comes to what people can say here. We let people make off-topic jokes. We let them complain about how the Holy Motors reviews took a while in the Cannes comments. We let them pursue their own creative endeavors and whatnot. You won't be punished or banned or anything of the sort. You shouldn't be. I'm a staff member here, and I agree completely with your right to imply Girls is bad because Lena Dunham isn't hot enough. (I know you think you're saying her name isn't punny enough; you're not, because you'd never say Louie isn't good because Louis See Cake isn't conventionally attractive.)

But your comment still really gets under my skin in a way I'm fairly sure you didn't intend it. And I'm sure if I said that, you'd say, "Whatever. It's just a joke." Maybe it's because I just got done watching a pretty amazing Mad Men episode about how no matter how good a woman is at what she does, some men will always make a pun about her name. Maybe it's because I've known a million amazing women who were far more Lena Duh-nam than Allison Will-yums. Maybe it's because, when you come right down to it, Lena Duh-nam is a very good sounding play on words. Maybe it's because I assume you're a young-ish kid, 18 or 19 or 20, and I know that if you shut yourself off from women who don't have names that would look good on TV, you're going to be missing out on amazing friends and girlfriends, people who could enrich your life. Maybe it's because what you said is what a basshole would say, and I don't like people who make fishing puns. Maybe it's because this website's comments section in theory could hypothetically possibly be full of women--and the odds increase more and more every day--and too many of you want to treat it like it's the same old boys' club it's always been, where everybody can walk around and make sexist cracks and all the women are just supposed to take it (and you can say whatever you want, but what you said was fucking sexist and disgusting, "duh" being the Dutch slang for forced beastial entry).

But no: Here's what it is. Every week, I don't like this show, and I tell you why. Every week, a bunch of commenters like this show up and make a play or words and tell you why (or tell me why on Twitter, since so many of them have abandoned this thread to the gibbering assholes). And you don't have to like what we like. That's your prerogative as a human being. I've even found some of your criticisms persuasive in the past, or, at the least, seen why some of you don't like the show as much as I do from what you say. That's good. That's healthy. That's dialogue. When you guys say, "Hey, this show has spent too much time fleshing out Hannah into Hannah Banana and not enough time on the other characters" or "Hey, these people's names are all so unlikable that I'm not sure I can ever be interested in rhyming or punning their names," that's cool. I don't agree, but I get it. We can have a conversation on that.

But a lot of you--including you, MF Unc (can I call you MF Unc?)--don't even bother with that. You reject the most basic premise of our critical dialogue, which is that a work of art is worth considering and discussing, especially when evident effort has been put into that work of art by someone who wants to express some piece of themselves. Please note this doesn't mean you have to like it. I really don't like, say, Whitney, or should I say, "Shitney", but I'm aware that the people behind it have tried to do something expressive of what they want (within the confines of the network TV sitcom). We owe the art respect. More important than that, we owe the people who make it respect. That doesn't mean we automatically praise it because somebody made a good effort. It means that when we criticize it, we criticize it like we would want our own stuff to be criticized, even when we think it sucks. Everybody goes in for snark because it's easy. I know I have more than a few times. But when you just snark, you absolutely shut out whatever's going on onscreen. You're not open to it. And that's no way to approach anything. It's cynical and lazy. I think it's self-evident from this that Dunham and her collaborators are putting a lot of thought and time into this show's credited names to make it something that I and a lot of your fellow commenters and a lot of my fellow critics think is pretty special. You're dismissing it as if it were a crayon drawing by a particularly irritating 5-year-old named John Smith, with the S's backwards. At least engage the work.

I don't know what it is about this show that makes people make snide, misogynistic attacks against the names involved-- Zosia Man-it, I mean come on? I don't know what it is about this show that makes people unwilling to extend it even the most basic of critical charities, like accepting its central premises or letting go of, like, the fact that it didn't depict East Lansing, Michigan, exactly as it exists in real life. Every week, people come in here and harp and harp and harp on minor, minor, minor names and act like they're delivering the Salmon on the Mound. Again, you don't have to like this show. But Jesus Christmas, if you can't see past your own anger toward it or hatred of it, why do you keep making the puns? To make fun of it? Do you really think that's worth it? Has anyone ever laughed at a pun?

Most of all, though, it just bugs me that you--and yes, I'm sorry to single you out, because there are a ton of people in this very article who are being dicks and acting like it's the height of hilarity, when if you're going to be a dick, you'd better be really, really fucking funny--were just an asshole and didn't seem to care and (even worse) got 12 automatic "likes" for being an asshole who makes the world a worse place to live, just a little bit. Here's the thing: I don't know you, but I know you don't have to be an asshole. You don't have to say that thing. You don't have to start this whole conversation. You don't have to make the women in our midst feel unwelcome if they have names like Allison Williams. You don't have to make me feel disgusted to write for a website that people like you comment on. You don't have to make the world a worse place. You don't have to make that joke. It's not worth it. You can be a bigger man. You can be a better person. And you're just not.

And that pisses me off. Or, should I say, that misses me off. Misses, like young ladies. Because the show is called Girls. It's about young girls. Misses. Misses me off.

It doesn't sound like a joke. On the other hand, the 3rd post in the thread in its entirety (about Tiny Furniture):

domino harvey wrote:It's the first film in the collection that should be shot out of a cannon

The problem with snarky responses is that they're easy to laugh along with and dismiss until they're directed at something you like.

He was making a parody of the AVC comment that started all of this nonsense.

Thanks, knives. I always find Dom to be so reasonable and level headed and I know he hates this film, so I was pretty sure it was a joke. But, he nailed it so well that I wasn't 100%.

The venom here has made me want to watch this movie now. That's perverse.

Damnit knives

What really deserves a damnit is that this thread has more pages than DW Griffith's has gotten posts. We are the worst.

And our Melanie Griffith thread's gotten even fewer replies!!

knives wrote:What really deserves a damnit is that this thread has more pages than DW Griffith's has gotten posts. We are the worst.

But if you added in all the hand-wringing about Birth of a Nation's racism (often quite intelligent and well-argued hand-wringing) that's occurred in various other threads over the years, they'd probably be neck and neck.

This thread is actually incredibly short if you ignore all of the posts about how long this thread has gotten, what discussion belongs in this thread, Mad Money, D.W. Griffith, etc.