Oh shit really? I’d seen enough awkward nudity by the time I tapped out it didn’t seem out of place. That’s pretty funny.
Most of the other people on the show are just as bad.
As a counter-example to “everyone only talks about it because she’s unattractive,” Game of Thrones. Everyone that’s nude on there is like a 9, but the gratuitous nudity is talked about constantly.
It’s about whiny, self-centered, 20-something, rich hipsters in New York. I find it entertaining.
But if you hate hipsters or first world problems or navel-gazing or young people or New York, then you’ll likely hate the show. Yet still manage to talk a lot about it anyway while you don’t watch.
There’s little middle ground in opinion.
My personal take on the question, and the weakness of answer is actually the same as yours.
I was just pointing out how a creative team could read into it (probably incorrect) implications that might offend them.
Pretty well summed up. Apatow was asked how the viewers are supposed like these characters. He said who says you’re supposed to like them? Realistic portrayals of people I don’t like do not entertain me. I did give it a shot.
A creative work does not have to have a purpose, and creative artists have no obligation whatsoever to justify or explain their work.
I guess you could argue that since Dunham, Apatow, and Konner voluntarily put themselves in front of the press, they could have prepared more anodyne answers to the predictable nudity question. But I don’t blame Apatow and Konner one bit for going off on the reporter, who seemed weirdly tone-deaf to the implications of his question. And Dunham DID answer him; her answer made perfect sense to me.
Steve,
What do you think are the implications of his question? There is that Dunham is not good looking enough to titillate most viewers. Aside from that?
While technically true, this ring a bit hollow when the “creative artists” in question are voluntarily sitting on a panel explicitly for the Television Critics Association to ask them questions.
:MontyPython:It’s just a flesh wound:MontyPython:
I think the overall objection is a feminist one, that a woman should be able to own her sexuality and show her body when and where she’d like (legally) without having to make excuses for it.
Nope. First, it’s not just “an aspect of the show”. It’s the obsession of the media since the show began, and the question is inherently rude. (If you honestly dont’ get that, follow the links I gave. I think the Slate one is especially illuminating, if I recall) It doesn’t mean it should never have been asked, it should have. And it has been. To death.
Secondly, it’s lazy and rude to ask a question that has become, essentially, The Question that is asked and asked and asked and asked, and a decent journalist who has done their homework is not going to ask it AGAIN, they are going to write, as part of their story (if they really feel the need… it’s NOT necessary and it would be so fresh to fucking skip it, but whatever), a summary of the question having been asked to death and Dunhams many replies, they are not going to force her to answer it again. Especially if they have two fucking brain cells to rub together.
Honestly…this amazes me.
This does not answer my question. I asked what the implications of the TV critic’s question were. Can you tell me what the implications of his question were? How do you know that these were the implications of his question? Are you relying on mindreading to ascertain what he meant when he asked the question?
Can you show me where the reporter asks for excuses from Dunham? He asked why, a creative artist being asked why s/he made creative choices is not asking for excuses.
An excuse is a justification/explanation to defend a fault, right? The TV critic asked for a justification/explanation but what makes you believe that he thinks it’s fault for her to be naked?
How come nobody is after the two for being so extremely rude to the reporter? Dunham starts right out implying that he uses prostitutes (according to the “Today’s Entertainment” article linked to above, she said " If you’re not into me, that’s your problem, and you’re going to have to kind of work that out with whatever professionals you’ve hired." Ouch!). Then they asked him if he had a girlfriend. What’s that got to do with his question? Maybe it wasn’t the best-worded question ever, and maybe they’re sick of hearing the question. All the more reason to work out a short answer (the producer’s “Just like humans,” she said with a shrug.) Wouldn’t that sort of put it to sleep? Maybe they should have let it go at that. Got to say, they come off the worst. (And I would much rather talk about Achmed.)
If it doesn’t distract from the show or somehow adds character to the show’s “message,” then it’s fine.
But senselessly parading around nudity is a cheap trick for fools.
If she’s ugly and they want to parade around her nude body as a message against appearance bias, then come out and say so. Don’t hide behind righteous indignation.
That’s okay, it amazes me that they can’t find a better response to a legitimate, if common, question than flipping out and going ape on the interviewer.
The question is not rude and if it’s “The Question” then they shouldn’t be caught so flat-footed by it that they can’t come up with anything better than a shrieking attack on the interviewer for daring to ask it.
All three acted like over-reacting idiots who couldn’t handle a simple question and responded with all sorts of indignation and attacks to cover for their inadequacy.
She meant a therapist. Women are allowed to be other professions other than prostitutes these days.
The girlfriend question wasn’t implying that he didn’t have one but that she would be offended as a woman hearing that he’d asked the question, unless she was a misogynist.
He should see a therapist because he’s not into her? Huh. If all the guys not into me went to therapy, we’d run out of therapists.
It most certainly is not, and it sounds ridiculous to say it is. “Why did you make artistic choice X?” is not inherently a rude question. And that it all the question was - this is blatantly obvious to me.
In context, the question is in fact showing Dunham respect as an author, by assuming she has motives beyond the prurient. Nobody asks the people who make Game of Thrones why there are so many naked people in the show. You know why? It’s not because the naked people are attractive. It’s because it’s brutally obvious why the nudity is there. There’s no deeper purpose. It’s there to turn on the viewer - to increase interest among certain segments of the audience. It’s kind of a cheap trick, but it’s an obvious one and everyone understands pandering, so there’s no need to ask about it.
Girls is different. It is clear that its creators believe themselves to be artists, and their work to be on the deeper side. The nudity is odd - and it would be whether it were Lena Dunham or Scarlett Johannson or Steve Carell. It does not seem to be there purely to pander - if nothing else, the show and its creators seem to have set their sights on a higher level than that. So, the critic wonders: why is it there? I respect your work enough to assume it’s not intended as sexual pandering, but don’t see how it connects with the rest of what you’re doing. Why so much nudity?
This is a perfectly valid, respectful question about a work of art.
The artist is free to decline an answer: “I’d prefer my work speak for itself.” They owe no one an explanation. But there’s nothing wrong with asking for one.
A journalist’s job is to get information from as close to the source as possible, not to rely on other journalists’ work unless they have to.
I think it’s a fair question.
Dunham’s right in that the nudity on the show differs from nudity on, well, Game of Thrones, because it’s mostly everyday people doing everyday things in the nude. Everyday nudity, instead of salacious, titillating nudity. That’s something new, and it’s rather refreshing.
However, she’s also being a little disingenuous. Yes, the reporter’s “you particularly” could be taken to mean “You? You’re overweight and average (by Hollywood standards); why are you nude so much when there’s far more attractive people on your show that could be nude?” As both Dunham and Apatow seemed to take it. But it could also be “you particularly” as in “you’re nude on the show far more than your co-stars; why is it mostly just you and no one else? If you’re being real-life nude, everyday nude, and trying to make a point with that, why isn’t anyone else on the show everyday nude?” And she’s totally dodging that question. Hell, last season there was a sex scene between two of the actors where the lady was clearly being given oral sex by her boyfriend, and said lady was fully clothed from the waist up (with anything down south obscured by the other actor). What’s up with that? Does she just have a better contract than Dunham? Here’s definitely a place where being nude would make total sense, and yet we get Knocked Up-style nudity. It’s nonsensical.
I like that Dunham’s taking risks and showing everyday nudity, because that’s new and different and something I haven’t seen before. But it’s mostly only her. And because it’s mostly only her, I start to question whether she’s trying to make a point, or if she’s just trying to make it all about her (like with so many other things she’s done). At this point, I think it’s far more of the latter, and that’s disappointing.