Three weeks ago, HBO aired the
pilot of their new television show GIRLS.
The show is a semi-autobiographical depiction of the post-undergrad life of its
showrunner Lena Dunham (who became famous after her similarly themed film Tiny
Furniture won praise (and an award for Best Narrative Feature) at Tribeca. From
its promotional release, GIRLS has
been receiving critical praise for it’s brutally real depictions of
twenty-something women. In her New York Magazine article, Autumn De Wilde
referred to the show as
“a bold defense (and a searing critique)
of the so-called Millennial Generation by a person still in her twenties. It
was a sex comedy from the female POV, taking on subjects like STDs and abortion
with a radical savoir-faire as well as a visual grubbiness that was a statement
in itself.”
The article goes on like this for about seven
pages.
There has been
backlash about the show, however, particularly on the subject of how it represents,
or doesn’t represent race. Jenna Wortham addressed this issue in article for The Hairpin titled “Where (My) Girls At?”
In her article Wortham praises GIRLS for
getting so many things right, but laments over its inability to present one
legitimate character of color.
“It makes it feel all
the more egregious to see that while Girls
missed so many of the other traps of its forebearers [(Friends, Sex & The City, etc)], it failed to account for this
one. Plus, back then it was pre-internet, so we didn't really know what
the world did and didn't look like beyond our window. But now, we know better.
We can see hundreds of thousands, millions, of other people out there, just
like us, blogging, tweeting, posting makeup tutorials, comedy skits, and Dance
Central videos on YouTube, so that we could see more of the world is like us.”
I’m
inclined to agree with Wortham and other similar critics. While GIRLS does privilege the 3rd-wavian
objectification of a real female body, as well as do a great job representing
women who flawlessly pass the Bechdel test (admittedly an oversimplification of
its pros), the show is racially monochromatic. Thus far, the only people of
color featured on screen have been an Asian woman who knows photoshop (zero
lines), a homeless Black man (one lines), and an Indian gynecologist (a half
conversation).
Most
of the arguments I’ve since heard in defense of GIRLS have been along the lines of “She’s writing what she knows,
and maybe she doesn’t know that,” an argument which I call total BS to. While
Dunham may be white and come from privilege, I defy anyone to tell me that
growing up in New York, and attending a Liberal Arts school comparable to
Macalester (Oberlin), she hasn’t had at least one critical conversation on the
topic of race.
I could continue on a
rant about the absurdity of ignoring race on a show situated in Brooklyn, which
is roughly 1/3 White, but instead I want to refer to bell hooks’ essay “The
Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectators.” In the essay, hooks criticizes the
whiteness of mainstream feminist film criticism, that ignores the prevalence of
race in representation. While the objectification of white women in earlier
films was studied, criticism often ignored representations in the same movies
of women of color, who ere typically placed in submissive roles. According to
hooks, Black women have therefore constructed identity through criticism of
representation.
The separation of
feminist and racial studies in mainstream criticism is a huge problem and is
exemplified in the creation and reactions to GIRLS. Sure Dunham calls herself a feminist, but can her work
really be celebrated for its “radical” representation when it so blatantly
ignores so many people who identify as girl?
In terms of the discussion with race and Girls, I thought the controversy with Lesley Arfin's tweet spoke to a number of aspects of bell hook's essay as well. It seemed that people were much more aware of the lack of characters of color in this particular show, and the backlash was quite vehement. In response, Arfin tweeted that “What really bothered me about Precious was that there was no representation of ME”, and when she called called out for this problematic tweet, she responded “Without thinking, I put gender politics above race and class.” Though this follow up statement reiterates points about the discourse that details a lack of “accurate female representation” (whatever that may mean) in television in films, it also ignores the fact that it is impossible to separate the different discourses from one another in most instances. In other words, yes, there are more girls on the television screen that deviate from the traditional Hollywood glamourous female, but is that enough? (The answer here, obviously is no.)
ReplyDeleteI do find it is a bit telling that though there is such a surplus of white male oriented media, very few of that previous media seems to have received as much attention at Girls did about the unequal representation. For this show, many “black female spectators” and other generally all spectators of color seemed eager to immediately resist identification with the white female protagonists. Some of the trouble with resisting this media and turning away in protest is that it requires to turn away from nearly all of the media that saturates daily life. Bell hooks mentions how even in justice-oriented discourses, there are so many ignored intersections of identities, and the problems in avoiding a kind of hierarchy of oppression. An LA Times article mentions how there is so much pressure on the show “to be the voice of a generation”, and the increased scrutiny on the show put much more pressure on the show's lack. Personally what has been interesting to see among friends from home (i.e. non-Mac students) talk about the show and their ability to notice/not see the ways in which the show differs/doesn't differ from other popular problematic television shows. It is hopeful though, that the increased scrutiny seems to have highlighted more ignored intersections of identities and that such an intensive dialogue about such a lack continues to be one of the main discussions of the show.
Another troubling point that the first tweet brings up is the trend of so-called “hipster racism”. I first saw it when Facebook friends linked to the Jezebel article and since then, it the term seems to have created quite the dialogue around it. The Jezebel article notes the kind of elitist privilege that many people seem to exercise when involved with hipster racism and irony. Of course, hipster racism isn't that different from racism, and the reappropriation of other's culture for the sake of irony is questionable.