Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

<img src="http://imageshack.us/a/img651/7179/ogirlspostersseason2570.jpg" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us"/>

Synopsis:

Hannah gets an e-book deal that comes with a fast-approaching deadline; Marnie hosts Booth's art party; Adam persuades Ray to take a trip to Staten Island; Jessa's depression forces a retreat to Hannah's place.


Episode 6 of 10

Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

In this episode, Lena hooks up with the Elephant Man for two days of nakeness and debauchery ...

Makes me long for SJP's voiceovers.

Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

This episode was a total turnaround for me. Very very funny.

One thing though... I don't see how Hannah can't come up with something to write about. You just had a weekend tryst with a doctor. Use that.

Also... was John Cameron Mitchell playing himself?

Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

When the shows are like this, I really believe Girls is one of the best shows on television. The supporting cast is so awesome, I could watch Adam or Shoshanna spew dialogue all day long. Hannah is the least interesting character, and the focus on her was dragging the show down. The whole Adam and Ray storyline was hilarious.

Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

Loved the ongoing diatribe about Staten Island...so true of what everyone in NYC thinks about Staten Island except people from Staten Island. And the well deserved verbal beatdown from the dog owner's daughter....HILARIOUS

Its so funny how everyone on the show talks about what Hannah is wearing...like THAT is the most memorable thing about her...

how can anyone not enjoy watching these character being miserable?

Thumbs up to whoever puts together the music for this show...

Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

The Staten Island stuff was golden.

Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

That is exactly the problem. Nearly all current cable "comedies" rely upon the audience enjoying watching a bunch of pathetic creatures. These shows seemed to be embraced by those who spend a lot of time professing to care so deeply about others yet love to see the misery of others. :hscratch: House of Lies, Californication, Girls, etc...they all feature selfish, egotistic, obsessed, weak characters who are slaves to various addictions (greed, sex, power, vanity, etc.).

The odd thing is that the most of the cable dramas feature some sympathetic or even admirable characters. Even the villains seem to have some redeeming features. The comedies, on the other hand, are populated by characters who need a good butt-kicking every other second.

It's not prudishness. Entourage, Sex & the City, Hung and other 'raunchy' comedies featured characters who were at least moderately likeable and had people who seemed to genuinely care about each other. The characters in Shameless care about their clan and have some sense of decency even when they don't show it, but it seems that the characters in a lot of these shows are just spoiled, immature brats. Maybe seeing them get their comeuppance is enjoyable, but not when you've had to deal with these people in real life. Then it's just annoying or sad. But funny...naw.

Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

I disagree, I work with people this age all the time, and when you view the show as a parody of the early-20-somethings, this stuff is hysterical.

Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

I'm trying to remember if there was episode in which we heard some of what Hannah has written. I'd like to know if she's less annoying on paper than in life.

Shoshanna's like dialogue is like totally annoying and like whatever.

Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

I don't know where the hell they dug up this guy who plays Adam, but he's phenomenal.

Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

Adam was in the Marines before joining the show and he was on Kimmel a couple of weeks ago.


Jorma Taccone from the Lonely Island Boys is a player on this show bagging Marnie and Sin Joo.

More Adam and Ray scenes please.


Alex Karpovsky is also a indie filmmaker.


http://theweek.com/article/index/240...laying-himself

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sit...ena_dunham.jpg

Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

The Tweety Bird speech was hilarious.

Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

Agreed.

Only show I know of that can go back and forth from greatness to unwatchable many times during a single episode.

Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

This is pretty much my exact thoughts minus listening to Shoshanna all day...a couple hrs perhaps but not all day.

I though it was interesting for no reason I can explain that I liked that this was not written by Dunham.

Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

The guys on this show are so much more interesting than the girls. Get rid of all 4 and have it be about Adam and Ray on adventures and it will be the greatest thing ever.

Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

Carson Daly interviewed Jenni Konner the other mastermind behind Girls.


<iframe width="512" height="288" src="http://www.hulu.com/embed.html?eid=ov60qhuqegtcfzuy_gmb5a&partner=metacafe&uri=http%3a%2f%2fwww.hulu.com%2fwatch%2f45434 2" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>

Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

In my opinion the humor and satisfaction in the show doesn't derive from "hah, look at these pathetic fuckups!". It plays to me as a serious show with random funny moments.

The characters are not written to be likeable, and I think that's a good quality of the show. They feel authentic to me in that they are broken and sometimes come across as shitty people. I find myself alternating between liking and hating many of the characters, sometimes even within the same episode.

The show is personally the best I've seen at finding the shittiness, happiness, and humor of real life. And it's not something you have to force yourself to appreciate, most of the episodes are massively entertaining.

Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

as a writer, its been a well known fact to me in my career that to be successful you have to create believable characters people can relate to and then torture the hell out of them in their storylines....its called 'drama'

and it ties into a well known phenomenon about human nature that has been around since the bible called 'schadenfreude'

look it up kids

Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

Perhaps that what you personally have to do to be "successful", but it your assessment is a general assessment of what is required for writers to be successful, it's far off the mark.

For just one example, examine the exquisitely-written Andy Griffith Show episodes (and read chapters from books about the making of the show and see how much care went into hammering out what seems so effortless on the screen).

This type of humor may not appeal to those who demand 'trendy' or 'cutting edge (sic)' humor, but it has stood the test of time. Characters do not have to endure or be subjected to demeaning behavior, humiliation, or self-flagellation in order to be funny.

As a "kid" who has witnessed decades of television and enjoys both past & current high-quality shows...and as an English major...I always found that 'conflict' is the driving force behind entertainment, not "drama" (as is Drama Queen 101). I have found that MOST people want characters who are likeable though flawed, and that they do not enjoy seeing "the hell tortured out of them" unless it's in soap operas. Sure, most people have their moments of self-doubt & fear, but they don't have to parade their neuroses around for the world to see.

I'm sure that there are viewers who 'relate' to Hannah & her cohorts...perhaps people who were in therapy since age seven (like Lena Dunham, according to the new Rolling Stone cover story) who were excruciatingly annoying to most people in their past (including their parents) and use the word "like" three times in the same sentence (as Dunham does in her post-show interviews and the article).

But your theory that characters have to be put through the emotional wringer constantly (and fall on their faces 90% of the time) is pretty easily rebutted. Just look at the negative comments about the show posted here in a forum whose posters are probably 95% liberal on social & political matters, and you'll see that not everyone eats up this stuff and finds it 'funny'. If the characters were 14, it would make more sense (since most teens tend to be drama queens & totally self-centered). However, for those who see the characters as a parody of what twenty-somethings are like, maybe they are hanging out with the wrong crowd. Most young adults whom I see in their mid-twenties have graduated and are holding down responsible careers, and many are married and beginning to raise a family. The exceptions tend to be the slackers who are stuck in Never-Never Land (and who keep getting fired from jobs, getting their licenses suspended, and spending 45 days in lockup for their third DUI).

Although Dunham has made it clear that "I am not Hannah", she also stated in one post-episode interview that she felt that the show represents a pretty accurate depiction of the relationships that most twenty-somethings go through. Considering that she and her cast-mates were children of artists, musicians, and famous people (David Mamet, Simon Kirke, etc.), perhaps that is her experience. If so, she needs to get out and meet some new people.

Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13
 

I have to admit that I prefer the honesty and less predictable nature of Girls to the formula-ridden wet dream of Californication, which has followed the same pattern since the first episode. Or the even worse House of Lies, which isn't funny at all.

Although Californication has its humorous, absurdist moments, Girls favors the awkwardly realistic to the buffoonish. I can acknowledge the exaggerated-for-effect nature of the some of the characterizations in Girls as being done for entertainment purposes, but it's still hard to tune in unless there's some sort of expectation that these characters will grow up sometime within the next 10 years. I prefer "real" people to the slapstick, cartoonish creations on mainstream networks, but that still doesn't mean that viewers find it entertaining to watch selfish, privileged people whine about their lives all of the time.

If this upper trend toward arrested development continues, younger viewers can expect to see more and more shows about people in mid-life who can't achieve independence and let go of their own self-centered natures. Those types of depictions used to be used to lampoon characters as the exceptions outside the norm...it appears that the depiction of 40-something 'children' will be the new normal in the future.

Maybe that's just a consequence of the extension of life expectancies.