Skip to comments.Ignore Lena Dunham's 'Girls' at Your Own Peril, Conservatives
Posted on 01/30/2013 6:35:57 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Theres plenty about Girls to annoy conservatives, yet this often creepy, usually skeevy, critically-acclaimed HBO series is also a test for conservatives.
Will we finally heed Andrew Breitbart's warnings about the importance of taking pop culture seriously or just keep fiddling as the culture burns?
If conservatives are going to be in the popular culture and act to change it they cant simply ignore shows like Girls that capture the zeitgeist, even if the zeitgeist makes their skin crawl. Season two is well under way, and conservatives need to participate in the discussion.
Girls is about four young, aimless college grads living in New York. Think of Sex and the City, except Sarah Jessica Parker has doubled her weight, dresses like a potato sack and fancies herself the voice of some undefined generation. Theres sex and nudity just not hot Homeland sex and nudity. This is the first show in the history of cable television where male viewers actively root for the heroine to keep her clothes on.
Said heroine is played by Lena Dunham, who like most of the starring actresses is the daughter of somebody famous. David Mamets daughter is in it, as is NBCs Brian Williams daughter. But this isnt just some vanity project. They are all talented, and Dunham is very talented. She created the show and writes most of the episodes (and well the dialogue is sharp and funny), but her fearless portrayal of an awful, awful young woman truly makes the show something special.
There are plenty of red flags for conservatives, off-screen and on. Off-screen is the fact that Dunham is an Ivy_League, wealthy, 26-year-old New Yorker who has all the pretentions and prejudices in real life that one would expect from an Ivy League, wealthy, 26-year-old New Yorker...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Isn’t crushing the immoral “culture” the alternative to “ignoring”, though?
When I was young, fat girls like that were ignored all the time.
I think Brian William’s daughter, Allison, who plays Marnie is pretty. It is kind of weird, but for some reason it can hold my attention. I am not sure if it is supposed to be a parody of urban life.
I tried watching the first episode to see what all the hubbub was about. I really tried. Couldn’t finish it. Scary to think that so many young minds are being corrupted by trash like this show.
It's even scarier that there are actually people like this and they vote.
There is a reason why Obama won the 18-29 vote by almost 27%.
from what I read about it on Breitbart, it was supposed to have been the ‘anti-Sex-in-the-City’.
If you’re going to have a show with nudity that I’ll watch fat and tattooed is not going to get me there.
Fortunately, for me, this is all irrelevant. I opted out of the TV portion of culture back in ‘88. Haven’t had a box in the house since. It will be a snag on crossword puzzles when their names get into that corner of the literary world because I won’t know who hey are.
Allison Williams got topless in one episode.
Anytime I see some trendy schmuck use the phrase “cultural zeitgeist”, I have the urge to slap them. I have no interest in seeing that ugly, tattooed, Stalinist tub o’guts whore, nor the progeny of the execrable Brian “I’m proud to watch my daughter have sex on tv” Williams (to which he probably pleasures himself to, the sick f***). The faster we nuke this “cultural zeitgeist” from orbit (just to be sure), the better.
Gawd, how I long for the days where true ‘ladies’ were treasured. I’ve already told my boys if they bring home trash like that...the ‘girls’ will go out the back door where we feed the animals.
I think a vile, repulsive (and utterly moronic) show like Shameless, which draws double the audience of TFGS, is a much bigger deal.
pass. I refuse to knowingly help an Obot. It has low ratings I think.
I have never ever subscribed to the notion advanced by self-appointed arbiters of "tolerance."
I've never need to experience "deviancy," STDs or Meth face to be seen as "cool," "hip," or "tolerant."
But that's just me. We are all free to choose the social group we wish to identify with, but no one is free to decide for me what my choices must be.
Fat, it depends. Tattooed, not so much.
“Girls” had 860,000 viewers for its second-season premiere.
That means, statistically speaking in a country of 300 million, almost nobody watches “Girls.”
So how can you even type the word “zeitgeist” in an article about the show and keep a straight face?
“Zeitgeist” does not mean “reflective of what annoying media types and their creepy sibling spouses, bloggers, are talking about.”
For comparative purposes, in its best years, “Seinfeld” averaged 20 million viewers. For its series finale, “Friends” pulled in 52 million. THAT is the zeitgeist — what lots of people are thinking about/talking about.
And if I were a Time/Warner/HBO stockholder, I’d be screaming my head off about continuing to produce a proven loser that will never, ever go into profit.
Breitbart was right about not ignoring things that were successful and really making an impact.
“Girls” is neither. The thing to do is ignore it. Like MOST OF AMERICA already is.
Where is the New Normal?
He’s not only a trendy schmuck, but an annoying, condescending, clueless one as well.
Articles like this one are why Breitbart’s site is headed for the dustbin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.