Tag: Lena Dunham

Gender Equality: Taylor Swift and the Pussy-Cats


Yes, I watched the video and I laughed at the glorious Internet headlines.  Well, what can I say?

To me, the really sad thing about the delirious puppets featured in the Bad Blood video is their conviction that they are real.  Even sadder: because they generate 8-figure annual earnings, have some pull in their closed-off entertainment realms, and are constantly followed by TMZ – they think that they are badass, that they represent the ultimate “Girl Power.”  

Well, the truth is they represent nothing but silliness, artifice, and utter emptiness.  What are these little Girls are made of?  Digitally enhanced voices, and unmemorable music with the life expectancy of butterflies, and silly meaningless lyrics, and even sillier antics, and fake emotions, and amateur face-making, and PR-boosted media frenzy, and airbrushed images, and a whole bunch of CGI.  That what these little Girls are made of – not a single fresh thought, not a single lasting idea.  I mean, they hit such level of dilettante mediocrity in that video, it’s hard to soldier through it.

Even worse, they don’t realize that they are objects AND instruments of manipulations by the men with real power. 

You see, it serves the men’s ambitions quite well for this type of Girls to be celebrated.  The dominant gender wants their pedestrian, shallow, benign values to be imprinted onto general public.  These girlish marionettes are very important -their individual contributions into the dumbing of the masses is incredible!  But this video opus is something special!  It amplifies the Girls’ damaging effect: together they stay united – not as powerful human entities they think they are, but as a bunch of well-compensated Barbie Dolls on display.  Of course, all girls want to be just like them!  It’s the Toys”R”Us effect!    

And for the hetero-male audience?  It’s the same ages-old flesh peddling: hooker looks, non-existent clothing or skintight latex, seven-inch heels, and, as a bonus, the all-time favorite subject matter – the catfight.

The bitching kittens are not a threat to the gender disbalance at all.  On the contrary, with every step they make and every sound they utter, they throw away everything women were able to gain so far in the hard-fought struggle for equality, for the right to be treated like humans rather than members of a particular gender.

That’s why the male record executives and agents who HANDLE these Girls keep pushing their sissy, non-threatening projects so hard – the more of it is out there polluting every visible and audible media, the less there is room for something real and stirring!       

If these girly bitches really cared about Female Power, they would go and hide their painted faces under their huge pillows in their oversized doll houses.  Their withdrawal from the toolbox of mass manipulations would really benefit the women’s fight for equality. 

And you, Joseph Kahn, The Bride is coming for you.  Now, that she is done with Bill, she can find time to teach you a lesson or two.  Because, there is homage and there is cheap, uninspiring imitation.  And you wouldn’t know the difference even if it ruptured you with a katana.       

Amendment to My Post on Vogue Covers, etc.


Girls-season-3_-episode-7-preview-hbo-300x168Those who have read it may remember that I specifically noted in that post that the possibility of diminishing number of the Confused Liberal Hipsters who misguidedly uphold Lena Dunham in high esteem as their feminist hero can be just my wishful thinking.  Still, I feel obligated to tell my readers that yes, indeed, it was nothing more than a momentary slip into an illusion that people may be getting a little bit less stupid.

I cited New York Magazine's long-time silence about Girls and its creator as a hopeful sign.  Well, I spoke too soon:  In the current issue The Approval Matrix placed that (I mean the image in the picture) on the Brilliant side.  

Then again, they might've been sarcastic…   Like in, "brilliantly exploitive and shockingly repetitive," or something?  You never know nowadays – hipsters don't possess genuine humor.  Thanks, Tina Fey!  And guess what?  See the article below.       

Related articles

Lena Dunham Hosting SNL on March 8!

Vogue Covers, Anna Wintour’s Executive Decisions, Lena Dunham, Confused Hipsters, and All That Jazz


Goddammit! 

In all honesty, I thought I was done with Ms. Lena Dunham.  I said everything I wanted to say about “her Movie,” and “her Show,” and her “success”; I analyzed the background, motivations, and the role of the hipster media; I expressed my opinions – negative and otherwise (HBO’s Girls Still Play with “Tiny Furniture”, 2013 Golden Globe Awards, and the breakthrough 8th episode of season 2).  The topic was important to me as yet another evidence of social and intellectual degradation of the so-called “cultured” bi-coastal populace. But as far as I was concerned, I exhausted the subject –  I threw it into my waste basket, all used-up and crumpled.  I had no future expectations (I still don’t) and I simply stopped paying attention.

Unfortunately, one cannot prevent other people from sharing their reactions – if not to her work, then to her public presence.  And you can swat away incidental remarks, but this Vogue-cover affair created a splash of diverse opinions, which were shoved into my face by my personal and public social networks.  

The funny thing is that if it wasn’t for the chatter around it, I wouldn’t even know that the cover happened in the first place:  I never bought a single copy of Vogue in my life.  Moreover, I never even notice it on the newsstands.  It’s not a conscious effort, but, come to think of it, my mind must be blocking it out – after all, this magazine and it’s kin are responsible for image crises of millions of women around the world. 

But again, this “controversy” of Ms. Dunham’s image gracing the cover of Vogue was brought to my attention.  And, as a life-long student of human psychology, I found the spectrum of reactions to this occurrence in itself to be quite a curious matter, which I’m itching to analyze.  So, fuck it, here is my assessment of various opinion-expressing groups.

1. Lena Dunham’s acquaintances from her pre-celebrity life. 

It just so happens that I am separated by a mere one degree from Lena Dunham’s former Oberlin College classmates (one of my client’s nieces), and I hear that these young women are absolutely scandalized by her success in general and the Vogue cover in particular.  Apparently, Ms. Dunham was an undistinguished student.  Moreover, she was “practically unnoticeable” (mind you, not unconventional, rabble-rousing, or irksome as a lot of real artists are perceived in schools, but simply unnoticeable)  in the classes of her chosen major, Creative Writing. Outraged exclamations such as “She was Nothing, just unremarkable Nothing!” have been quoted to me. 

Well, let me tell you: unremarkable she could’ve been, but she was never a Nothing.  Obviously these socially popular and academically overachieving children of wealthy businessmen (now, by the way, all in post-graduate programs trying hard to better their job-market chances) didn’t bother to learn anything about their awkward-looking classmate.  Lena Dunham has been born and will always remain a person with deep roots and vast connections in the artistic community.  Do I really have to explain that in this world it counts for more than any kind of personal and/or creative substance?

You see that picture at the top of this post? That’s Aura Rosenberg’s 1997 portrait of Lena, age 11, as her mother’s, Laurie Simmons, artistic object – a dummy.  How telling! Ms. Dunahm has been manipulated into the life she has right now since childhood.  She always knew that her creative efforts, such as they are, will get at least some attention from her parents’ close-knitted network of artists, gallery owners, museum curators, screenwriters, actors, and, of course, PR professionals. 

So, while the members of this opinion group were chasing top grades, prestigious internships, and references from esteemed literature professors, Lena Dunham didn’t need any of that – she was already writing her awful sketches for the “arty” web series, which eventually made her a MOMA (!) darling, as well as scripts for her self-directed and self-starred unwatchable shorts, which, despite their quality, were accepted for showing at indie festivals.               

2. Inexplicably blind fans, who naively think that Lena Dunham is one of them – a college grad struggling through her life in a big city full of dull jobs, bizarro living arrangements, hopeless relationships, and fake friendships.  Not too pretty or interesting, not too hard-working, intelligent just enough by the currently very low standards, and without any relevant life skills, yet feeling entitled to success and happiness.  These pitiful creatures loooooove Tiny Furniture and Girls, they devour Lena’s tweets and voyeuristically follow her Instagram.  And they went and shelled out $10 for the damn Vogue, because they mindlessly welcome every instance of public recognition of the person they mistakenly perceive as an “unlikely star.”  Her very success provides them with a false sense of hope for their own future.  

They are so self-absorbed and clueless, they didn’t even notice the familial loft (presently on sale by Lena’s parents for $6.25 million).  They are not sophisticated enough to grasp the priciness of the clothes Ms. Dunham was wearing in the photos taken before she made a single penny.  They already forgot about one of the first-season episodes, in which Hannah Horvath “worries” about her high school classmate who is going to Hollywood without having any connections.  In their blindness these people are not much different from the first group – they have no clue just how privileged Lena Dunham is.  

3. Starving skinny bitches, fashion zealots, and male chauvinists,who are having seizures every time someone who “doesn’t fit Vogue‘s image” is featured on the cover of the magazine: like Jennifer Hudson, or Adele, or Ms. Dunham.  What can I say to these fucking assholes?  Go and eat something – your brain screams for some sugar!  You say, these women (I don’t care much for any of them, by the way) don’t fit the “beauty” standard, but Sarah Jessica Parker does?  How about Kristen Stewart who looks in all dresses as if she is in drag?  And in whose acid-induced hallucinatory trip Lady Gaga can be considered a “dream girl?”

Vogue covers have nothing to do with beauty, or at least they shouldn’t – they are supposed to entice prospective advertisers into buying space inside the mag.  The trend-setting bullshit should be secondary to Anna Wintour – as a CEO of the business that is the periodic publication in her charge, her primary focus should be in increasing revenues.  And it appears that she has been making terrible executive decisions. 

The advertisers are interested in the number of eyes that will see their products and, like nowhere else, this book is judged by its cover: if they believe (whether right or wrong – doesn’t matter) that the celebrity featured on the cover will attract more readers, they will be fighting for the commercial space.  Thus, Lady Gaga makes sense, so does Beyonce.  Kristen Stewart while The Twilight was still a work-in-progress was an excellent business choice, now – not so much. 

So, it’s a total mystery to me as a revenue-conscious CFO, why would Anna Wintour cancel Miley Cyrus’s December cover, while apparently “chasing” Lena Dunham for the January one.  Let see: One is an international mega star who at her “mature” age of 21 is worth $150 million made primarily by her multi-platinum album sales and sold-out concerts (truth be told, I’m getting nauseous writing about it, but money talks).  And the other one?  A tiny auteur of a tiny movie with a tiny furniture that led to a tiny show. 

Oh, don’t tell me it’s because of the “wrong message!”  A fully clothed girl pretends to be sexual with a man on stage as a joke and that’s appalling?  Wait a minute!  Isn’t the other one is actually stark naked in most episodes of her show, frequently rubbing her bare vagina against her male co-star (for the sake of the show’s “emotional realism,” of course)?  Ah, but over 10 million people watched MTV VMA – Miley made a big splash!  An orthodox catholic priest Sinead O’Connor voiced her scorn all the way from her rural Ireland.  So, the editor-in-chief chickened out!  On the other hand, the last episode of Girls was seen by 830 thousand people – that’s safe.  Well, the numbers speak for themselves – bad executive decisions all around, Anna Wintour, and skinny or fat makes no difference.       

4. Cool-headed and reasonable, but unfortunately overly optimistic people. They understand very well what Lena Dunham is, how she came about, where her interests lie, and how much value her work has.  Yet, they convinced themselves that the adoring people will eventually come around to their side, shed the blinds, and realize that they’ve had a temporary brain lock, or, at the very least, will get bored of the emptiness and repetitiveness.  They believe that, just like much lauded by hipster media back in 2007 Diablo Cody (one of the 50 smartest people in Hollywood at the time, no less!), she will disappear into the mass of forgotten washouts. 

Uh-uh, my friends!  Lena is not going anywhere. 

In the nepotism ridden Tinseltown Diablo Cody’s momentary success was a rare case of an outsider’s rise.  She surprised herself with that ascent as much as she did the entertainment industry.  Standing there with the damn statue in her hand she was speechless – she knew it was all about the hype and that she didn’t really deserve the Oscar (Ratatouille, not Juno,  was supposed to win that year). 

Have you watched Lena accepting her big and small awards?  Have you seen her in interviews and in photo ops?  There is an unmistakable sense of entitlement and belonging in her every word and move.  She is gleeful.  It’s not about deserving it for her.  She knows she was born for this. 

5. Confused liberal hipsters in a tireless search for social rebels and antiheros.  They looked at Lena’s naked body and let themselves to be fooled into thinking, “That girl’s got balls; this is a feminist statement.”  They truly believe that she is the “voice of her generation;” that she influences people (at least according to 2013 Time’s list).  Moreover, they convinced themselves that Lena Dunham’s main human and artistic purpose is to fight their holy war for the right to be who they are and how they look. (Never mind that this representative sample is limited strictly to white, urban, college grads.)

These people are very disappointed. They feel like their idol has fallen.  In their ardent fervor of feminist puritanism, they are convinced that the right thing to do for their “spokesperson” should have been to say to the devil-woman Wintour, “Thanks, but no thanks.  You can shove your glamorous magazine and its cover up your skinny ass.”  And they write about it at length: “Why Lena Dunham Should Say No to Anna Wintour,” and stuff like that.

It may be a wishful thinking on my part, but there are some signs that the size of this group of Dunham missionaries is shrinking.  For examples, New York Magazine, the original (circa Spring 2012) herald of Lena Dunham’s coming as “the ballsiest,” the funniest, the most genuine, etc., etc., etc., has been absolutely silent for months about their former darling and her creations, making a single exception by placing an off-off-off-Broadway play that spoofs Girls via Little Women on the brilliant side of The Approval Matrix.  Maybe some previously infatuated people start sobering up and finally realize that the only group Lena Dunham represents is herself.  Who knows, of course?  There may be another cover in the works.

6. Me, not surprised whatsoever.  As Tyler Perry’s Madea said, “If someone shows you who they are, believe them.”  (Thank you, the brilliant people who introduced me to that quote).  So, when in the final scene of Tiny Furniture (Lena Dunham’s self-admitted movie about her life) she tells her real mother that she just “wants to be famous,” I heard it loud and clear.  That’s the main focus, the life’s purpose.

And for the sake of achieving it, Ms. Dunham will do whatever it takes: Parody the explicitness of the true art revolutionaries by stripping in front of the camera whether it makes sense in the storytelling context or doesn’t (it actually did once – in the shower scene of Tiny Furniture); make politically correct statements, so appealing to the liberal media; pledge unyielding admiration and love to anyone who has some sort of pull.  And yes, you only need to ask – she will pose for Vogue.

7. And then there is Kanye West… The poor man is terribly aggravated on account of his “friend” Anna Wintour selecting Lena Dunham for that cover instead of his Kim.  He says that it’s not fair; that his Kim is “just as talented as Lena Dunham” (oh, she is, Kanye, she is – just as talented and far more popular).  And by getting hysterical over this bullshit Kanye West unwittingly exposes how incredibly irrelevant the whole thing is.  That’s the consideration?  Lena Dunham or Kim Kardashian? That’s just funny.

Let’s keep it in perspective, people.  In the grand scheme of things literally only a handful of people cares.  Vogue has a circulation of 1.2 million. 1 million people follow Lena Dunham’s twitter, and apparently not all of them even watch her show (average 780,000 viewers).  And yes, some of those who are aware of Lena Dunham’s existence hold media and entertainment strings in their hands.  And maybe that’s all that Lena Dunham needs to be satisfied with herself, but intelligent people should know better: three months from now even the faithful perusers of Vogue will not remember who was on the cover of the January 2014 issue. 

To Those Who Doubt My Objectivity: HBO “Girls,” Season 2, Episode 8


Ok, I honestly thought that my post about the foreign press conspiracy was the last thing I would ever write about Lena Dunham, HBO’s Girls, the unjustified and pervasive brouhaha surrounding them, etc.  But I was never joking when I said that merit and objectivity were placed very high on my hierarchy of values.  They are so important to me that I can even look at a pool of  shit, notice a few specks of goodness there, and effortlessly say, “This is a pool of shit, but those couple of things are quite good.” 

No, I didn’t change my mind about Dunham’s creations so far, especially the ones she’s done on her own, without any help from other writing and directing talents; nor did I recant my opinion about the hipsters of media who buzz her up to the sky.  But that doesn’t prevent me from objectively acknowledging that the 8th episode of the second season, It’s Back, was a remarkable breakthrough.

For the very first time, the show elevated itself to the level of truly generational significance.  Because, if anything unites people in their 20s across geographical borders, nationalities, social origins, monetary standings, physical appearances, intellectual abilities, and creative talents, it’s the unprecedented levels of anxiety, uncertainty, disorientation, and doubt (whether deeply hidden or worn right there on their faces) we have instilled in them.

Yes, WE, most of all the parents, but also teachers, employers, mentors, and public figures – we fucked them young bitches up with our twisted, contradictory, egomaniacal, and unfounded “guidance!”  We tell them to pursue their dreams, yet want them to be financially self-sufficient.  We tell them that they can achieve whatever they want if they try their best, while knowing very well that no amount of hard work and talent can compete with inroads based on personal connections.  We tell them that a higher education leads to better employment, while openly complaining about our own jobs.  We convince them that they are talented, unique, smart, and beautiful, yet cannot summon enough decency to show them the respect they actually deserve.

And so, here, in episode 8, we have a gallery of ALL the lead characters presented in nearly equal measure (already an outstanding feat for “Girls”), with their various manifestations of the generational malady:

Absent is Jessa, the eternal quitter, once again wandering away in search of the false thrills of a “real life” (beautifully written out in the previous episode into her already-showing pregnancy by the Six Feet Under alumnus Bruce Eric Kaplan).

The dashing, gifted, interesting, and earnest Adam, who theoretically should not have any qualms about getting a girl, admitting to his blind date (set up by the girl’s mother),  that he is so nervous, he’s “sweating bullets.”  And we just know that he will fuck it up eventually.

The heart-broken Charlie, who drops his guitar and channels his pain into creating an iPhone app inspired by the obsessive pain inside him.  Yes, he cashes in on it and, by “society’s standards,” he seems to be on the top of the world, but his sad eyes say otherwise.  Moreover, we know all about the longevity of these startups.

The awkward Shoshanna, torn between the die-hard concept that college is supposed to be “the best time of one’s life” (never mind all those NYU suicides) and the reality that she lives with an adult man whom she actually supports; scared that, whether successful or not, she will be just as lost as her friends after graduation.

The “adult” Ray himself, a self-proclaimed “homeless loser,”  who is smart and possibly talented (in something), but is trapped in the reality that he cannot find a way into the world, in which he believes he belongs.  Yet, he still feels that he has a right to give advice to his fellow struggler “to stop being a cartographer, and start being an explorer.”

Here is Marnie, standing in front of Ray, crushed by disillusion and failing to be “the most likely to succeed.”  Pushed to the edge, she admits that all she wants to do is to sing… and turns out she has a beautiful instrument for it too.  Who could possibly know?  She was hiding it from everyone.

And there is Hannah…  This is the first show on television that unflinchingly uncovered a true portrait of OCD, without providing any comically cutesy cushions for the audience – just a straight blow to the head in all its ugliness.  This is what it’s really like – exhausting and debilitating, leaving you feeling powerless, reduced to a fucking puppet. This is also the first time someone showed with an admirable subtlety what it does to a girl when her loving father tells her: “You can’t be anorexic – I’ve seen you in a bathing suit.”

Considering the track record up to this point, it’s hard to believe that all of it was fitted into one episode.  It was written by three people – Lena Dunham herself, Steven Rubinshteyn (who served as Ms. Dunham’s assistant for the two seasons), and Deborah Schoeneman (who worked as the story editor on the show).  The rich material gave Jesse Peretz an opportunity to use his directorial skills for real. 

And they did all this without any cheap tricks: no false dramatics, no incoherent story turns, no random bare breasts and asses.  Instead, the episode was finally able to achieve a high degree of emotional nakedness.                   

Is this the beginning of a transformation?  I hope so.  Episode 9, On All Fours, (written by Dunham and Jenni Konner, directed by Dunham) is definitely an excellent follow up.  I always said, that Lena Dunham is a capable person, who will get better as she learns from other talented people.  But, on her own, she has a long way to go before she can truly live up to the hype around her.  Will she learn humility and start giving credits where they are due?  Who knows? 

Interestingly enough, as reported by The Atlantic Wire on March 7th, the co-authors of the It’s Back episode are not invited into the third season’s writers’ room.  Moreover, everyone in that room has been fired.  Only a few older pros will be allowed to share credits with Ms. Dunnam in the third season: Apatow, Konner, Kaplan, Heyward.  Maybe it will help Lena to hold on to her “so young, so brilliant” status longer?  These people will always be older than her.  You know who else is pegged to participate?  Dunham’s parents.  Reverse nepotism?  Oh, well…  

2013 Golden Globe Awards and the Foreign Press Conspiracy Against America’s Future



Like many other people exposed to human congestion and the environmental deterioration of big cities, I got hit by a terrible flu.  So, for quite some time I could only summon enough strength to drag my ass to work (THAT show, of course, must always go on).  Hence, as reactions to the Golden Globes broadcast go, this post is definitely outdated.  On the other hand, my sentiments are unlikely to change, so it’s just as well…

Nearly every time I go abroad, I am exposed to various degrees of anti-American attitudes.  Last time I was entering London’s National Gallery, I had to watch American flags being set on fire on Trafalgar Square.  In most European countries, economic and social difficulties are openly blamed on the US by both official and popular opinion-makers.  People shamelessly gloat every time we have a natural disaster and entertain themselves with predictions of our imminent economic and moral destruction.  Even in Amsterdam’s coffeeshops (aka hash bars), where the consumption of various cannabis products is supposed to make customers laid-back and agreeable, the hostility flares up at the sound of an American accent. I’m not going to venture into the anti-US mood swings of many Asian, African, and Latin American Nations – it would require a separate series of posts.

Individuals and nations alike have a need to absolve themselves and blame someone else for their troubles.  The wealthiest country in the world full of fucked up crap (as a true patriot I never deny problems) makes for an easy target.  But why don’t they first stop going to McDonalds, watching our movies, googling, and tabulating in Excel?  And, please, stop blaming us for Justin Bieber!  He is Canadian, for crying out loud!

The truth is that there is only a small contingent of people in the world who are capable of forming their own opinions even about matters close to their own homes, leave alone those far removed.  The majority, like a flock of sheep, rely on judgments presented by someone else through various media outlets.  Make no mistake: foreigners are just as susceptible to the brainwashing powers of newspapers, magazines, and TV as our domestic masses. 

Prominent journalists and commentators have a tremendous influence on the attitudes of their nations, especially in smaller countries.  Moreover, it’s a reciprocal relationship: as reading and viewing audiences become more receptive to particular sentiments, the media purveyors cater to their likings in order to retain their own popularity. 

Enter Foreign Press…  In general terms, any journalist who lives in the United States (the definition applies to any country, actually), but works for a public medium abroad, reporting on our domestic events, is a foreign correspondent.  These journalists, most of them expatriates, impact the way people in other countries view America. 

They usually conglomerate in major news hubs:  New York City, Washington DC, Los Angeles, etc.  In fact, I believe that New York Foreign Press Association, formed in 1918, is one of the oldest of such organizations.  Yet, not too many people know about it. 

However, many people around the world know about Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), even though it counts as its members only 93 journalists.  Or, at the very least, people know about the awards they have been granting since 1944 for achievements in film and television – the Golden Globes.  These reporters write on the subject that is most likely to attract the largest audiences – the United States entertainment industry.  They represent 55 countries in Europe, Asia, Australia, and Central and South America.  Wikipedia estimates their combined readership around 250 million (!).  And, boy, do they have an agenda! 

I can probably write another dissertation breaking down the clever and camouflaged ways they perpetuate their purposes: why Argo and not Zero Dark Thirty; why Les Miserables and not Silver Lignings Playbook, or Moonrise Kingdom; why Homeland (even though 100% deserving, but also perfectly fitting in their scheme) and not Boardwalk Empire; why Episodes and Smash and not Curb Your Enthusiasm and VEEP.  Why on Earth did they completely ignore a 2012 movie that not only celebrated the resilience of human spirit, but also raised a bar of creative filmmaking, while breaking the walls of the Hollywood bastion – Beasts of the Southern Wild?

Of course, I am not planning on writing a thesis.  I just want to dwell a little on one question: Why the fuck  did HFPA shove two Golden Globes into the grabby hands of Lena Dunham?  Obviously, they had their reasons. 

If one tries to think logically about this, it seems doubtful that the middle-aged-to-quite-old journalists from Egypt, Philippines, Japan, China, Russia, and Brazil would pay any attention to a tiny show about a group of youngish hipsters, especially the one with ratings too low and viewership too small even by cable standards.  But our own self-absorbed hipster-driven domestic media, in their unforgivable ignorance and blind confusion of values, served up Dunham as an overbuzzed gift.  A handful of people with similar backgrounds proclaimed her to be the “voice of the generation” they really know nothing about.  And that’s a very dangerous claim.   

HPFA took notice; rejoiced; said, “Much obliged!” and started parading this embarrassment to the whole world.  Look, they say to their 250 million readers in various countries, these characters are what all young Americans are like: navel-gazing, purposeless, severely limited in their abilities and skills, obnoxiously bad-mannered, insincere, unaware, incapable of squeezing out of themselves one true emotion or an original thought.  This is the American Future. 

By allowing them this opportunity, Dunham did a great service to the foreign entertainment journalists.  Therefore, she has totally deserved her two Golden Globes.  By letting her climb on stage at the Beverly Hilton Hotel twice, they exposed her as a “new American entertainment and media darling.”  Look, they say, this is the person hailed as a breakthrough by culture commentators and “intellectuals” (God, forgive me, for calling them that!), talk show hosts, Hollywood producers, the art community and whatnot.  They adore her, while in reality she is:

A “creator” without an ability to imagine characters, situations, or plots.  She can only transfer to paper and/or screen her own personal existence or the lives of the poor exploited mother-fuckers who got caught into her sticky cobweb.  If there is a need to invent something genuine, it’s Jenni Konner (the actual coiner of “the voice of a generation” label) or Sarah Heyward to the rescue.  On a few occasions Dunham ventures out of her comfort zone of the first-hand experiences, she steps right into the fuzzy cloud of her girly fantasies with an explosion of silliness.  I swear, the only time Dunham made me laugh out loud was during the 5th episode of the 2nd season – what buffoonery!  Honestly, in comparison, the wetly dreaming Dunham makes Stephenie Meyer look like a real creator. 

A ” writer,” whose first published work will be a self-help book.  What?  No secret collection of innocent and fragile early poetry?  Every respected author has it somewhere in their most private drawer.  Of course, it probably wouldn’t garner a $3.6 million advance.  The real literature never does (see Arts and Entertainment by the Numbers – Books).

An “actress,”  who couldn’t memorize her acceptance speech lines – the only winner of a Golden Globe with a piece of paper in her hand.

A “comedienne,” who tries to be funny by reminding her fellow nominees how much younger she is and telling them that they helped her through middle school.  Even though, I have to be honest – I cannot complain too much about that, because it gave Tina Fey a chance to write the funniest line of her career to date: “Amy, I know you since you were pregnant with Lena Dunham.”

A “director” incapable of overcoming her personal feelings and give some screen time to her other “lead” characters, cutting out their best tidbits (which are just a few to begin with).   You are right, Howard Stern, “she hogs the screen,” and I have no idea what kind of strings she pulled to make you recant your true opinion of her.    

A chameleon, who changes her attitudes depending on her PR management’s recommendations.  First, her characters were “reflections.”  Obviously, she was told that they were not very sympathetic.  Now she says that the “girls” were exposed as being self-absorbed on purpose.  The show gets criticized for being too white.  Instead of admitting that she really has no people of color in her life, she throws Donald Glover into her hodgepodge…  only to cast him away after two episodes.  The PR whispers into her ear that she comes off as too sure of herself in all her interviews and talk-show appearances, and she starts screaming about her “confidence issues” every time she gets a chance.  Seriously?  I know quite a bit about self-doubt.  You don’t fool me.  

A “nice girl” (as proclaimed by all), who in her conversation with the former It Girl, Miranda July, for Interview magazine openly admitted that she was a complete asshole as a school girl and a college student, and that now she adapted an equally “sweet” disposition towards everyone without any discrimination.  Apparently, some people get confused assuming she is their friend.  

A conniving manipulator, who undercuts all reasonable critics by calling them haters or qualifying them as shallow: “I’m a real person with a real body and that’s why you don’t like me.”

What can I say?  Even if the foreign press was a dark-magic cabal, they couldn’t conjure a better poster girl for their purpose of showing the American future in the worst possible way.

Now, let’s see.  Do Girls’ characters actually represent any portion of the 43 million Americans ages 20-29?  Yes, they do – 800,000 hipsters residing in the big cities on the East and West Coast, who faithfully watch the show (the other 3 millions of viewers consist of the hipsters’ parents, the media, and the cultural pundits).  That’s less than 2%!  

Does Lena Dunham, who takes her voice (plus, face and body) of the generation role very seriously, actually represent anybody at all?  Yes, she does – a handful of privileged kids, who were empowered by their well-connected parents to do whatever they wanted and were handed undeserving opportunities by the mafia of Nepotism.

And the saddest part is that dear Lena is not going anywhere.  Nowadays, award-winning shows scattered all over the place: broadcast networks, FX, Showtime, etc.   To keep the statuettes’ numbers up, HBO will continue pouring money into products that attract foreign and domestic media attention, whatever the reason.  They just picked up Dunham’s new show idea for development.  In return, she will keep upholding her family tradition by shoving her crap into everyone’s face. 

Look at that photo!  This is what she does: like a fucking hamster on stilts she wobbles on the red carpets and in the back rooms, trying to imprint herself on as many “players” as she can, making the foreign press and their readers very happy.