The Frustrated CFO

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...  

Related articles

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

 

Lena Dunham Quietly Shakes Up the Writing Operation on 'Girls'

HBO's 'Girls' Is Defiant in the Best of Ways

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.

Legal Expert's Rundown on Employers' Rights to Discriminate

I frequently write (and talk) about the distortion of bill of rights in the workplace and other similar perks of employees' existence.  Hell, I even have a separate category for posts devoted to nepotism. I always stress out that small-business employers can pretty much define their own rules, as long as they put them in writing and notify new hires of how things are done in their domain.  Not only that labor authorities don't look into employment conditions of companies with less than 50 employees, but, even if one or another wrong-doing is brought to their attention, they will take the corporate side as long as there is a correspondent written policy in place.  And think a hundred times before suing your former employer - you may end up staring at a defamation law suit filed against you. 

Now, I have an opportunity to direct my readers to an expert's list of legally permissible ways employers can discriminated both existing employees and job applicants in a business of any size - big or small.  I have previously quoted a veteran employment law specialist and award-winning writer Donna Ballman on the issues of workers' rights.  And, as you can see, her popular blog Screw You Guys, I Am Going Home is a single proud member of my Blog Roll.  I highly recommend for everyone to follow the link below and read her latest contribution to AOL Jobs - the characteristically concise summary of legitimized discriminatory practices.  I guarantee that at least some of them will surprise you.

8 Ways Employers Can Discriminate Against Workers - Legally by Donna Ballman         

R.I.P. the Queen of Romantic Comedy Nora Ephron

It's hard to believe that the witty romanticist of Upper West Side, Nora Ephron, is gone.  It seems that it was only yesterday (actually more than four years have gone) that she was concerned about the condition of her neck.  And what a classy dame - managed to hide her leukemia from nosy parkers of the media variety; wrote a script (Lost in Austen) and committed to direct it in 2013, as if nothing was going on!

Here is someone who didn't ride to her fame on the back of the nepotism (both her parents were Hollywood screenwriters).  She was in her late 30s when she started transferring her writing skills from journalism to TV and 41 when she penned her first movie script (together with Alice Arlen) for Silkwood directed by Michael Nichols.

At her best, she was able to reach a remarkably broad audience.  Her female characters were tested by circumstances, connections and emotions familiar to anyone.  In her greatest hits (When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless in Seattle, You've Got Mail) she managed to make her writing both highbrow and accessible at the same time - a rare feat in contemporary cinema.  Her writing skillfully combined sharp humor and intelligence with uplifting, almost fairy-tale, aspirations to achieve human happiness.  As the result, these movies have become undeniable critical and commercial successes.  Together they grossed $572 million to date, returning 5.6 times of their total budgets.

Most importantly, Nora Ephron left us with fond recollections of funny moments and snappy quotes that will be affectionately cited by fans and shamelessly imitated by other writers for generations to come.  And for that we are grateful to you, Nora Ephron.      

 

HBO's "Girls" Still Play with "Tiny Furniture" - Part V: What Is to Be Done?

Continued from the Previous Post

There is a moment of truth (actually, two truths) at the end of "Tiny Furniture." Aura (Lena Dunham) tells her mother, "I want to be as successful as you are." And that's all it is about: not the Story, not the characters, not the message, not the art; it's about fame and recognition. If you ever watch her talk-show interviews, notice how she never looks at the audience. She doesn't care what their reaction to her is. She is intent on the celebrity host in front of her - always ready with some statement of admiration.

In response to Aura's (Lena's) admission, her mother (Lena Dunham's real mother) says, "Oh, you will be more successful than I am. Really, believe me." And that's, ladies and gentlemen, is a promise made by someone who knows a full power of her influence. Many mothers are ready to sacrifice their lives for their children, but only a few, have means to part the Red Sea of obstacles in the way of their offspring's march to success.

Some people, I am sure, will be surprised by the extent of this five-part "feature article." Well, what can I say? Nepotism is one of my themes. It happens everywhere and pretty much in the same manner, but an entertainment case is easy to breakdown into crucial components for everyone to understand.

Lena Dunham is not a talentless person. She is apparently an intelligent and well-read cinephile. Most likely, if I met her casually, I would enjoy talking to her. But she did benefited from nepotism unfairly - her output did not deserve all the noise around her. Maybe eventually she would arrive there anyway, with more mature and important material. Instead, she got ahead of other talented and brilliant young people, who are deprived of the ability to deliver their important messages to the world because they have no connections and no funds to produce their projects or hire PR firms.

And that's, boys and girls, where your already hopeless economic predicament becomes even more hopeless. The resources that could've been used for worthier projects (or jobs that could've been filled by worthier candidates) go to those who have connections. Some Internet writers predict "Lena Dunham's inevitable world domination," and they are absolutely correct - the connected people will always know how to work the world machine to their advantage.

So, 150 years after Chernyshevsky, I have to ask the same question, "What is it to be done?" Well, I am not claiming to be a revolutionary. As a matter of fact, I always say that Compromise is my middle name. You don't get to have any career at all if you don't play along at least to some degree.

So, the only advice I can render is this. If you have a real talent and desire to succeed, don't give up. Work hard and produce deliverable products; fight your fears and insecurities; build your own connections; keep people in your iPhone, even if you don't like them; knock at all doors and use whatever resources you can gather to help you reach your targets. I cannot promise that it will work, but if you don't keep trying, only lena-dunhams will always win.

The End

HBO's "Girls" Still Play with "Tiny Furniture" - Part IV: What's the Big Deal?

Continued from the Previous Post

So, why "Girls" are lauded as unique, original, ballsy, even revolutionary?

Is the writing that astonishingly good? Well, for me good writing means story and character development; the more layers, the better. And as hard as I tried, I have not seen any of that in "Tiny Furniture" or in "Girls." In fact, the most fitting description of the situational comedy that came off Lena Dunham's printer so far would be sketches, sticky notes transplanted from a mac-book onto the proverbial silver screen. I've seen 90-second student movies with more story substance. Yet, what else can we expect from someone who experiences "a joy of writing." Let me give you a quote from Thomas Mann: "A writer is someone for whom writing is more difficult than it is for other people." But, of course, the great Noble Prize laureate was talking about REAL WRITING.

Is it the recognizable dialogue plucked straight from today's conversations? The use of the momentary phraseology that is on everyone's lips today and completely forgotten tomorrow? But I thought Diablo Cody has already been improbably celebrated and rewarded with an Oscar for that.

Is it the fantastic directing skills? Seriously? Some of the shot choices make me dizzy. Acting? Ms. Dunham's acting is limited to changing her real-life masks (you know, cheerful buddy one minute, snooty bitch - another), but acting out a scripted emotion - so far it comes off wooden. The whole hire-who-you-know method didn't work too well for the rest of the cast either, except for maybe Jemima Kirke, who is a natural.

Is it because the creator is 26? Well, we've been blessed by young filmmakers before. The brilliant and defiant Harmony Korine was 22 when he wrote astonishingly raw "Kids," 24 when he wrote and directed "Gummo," and 26 when his heart-breaking "Julien Donkey-Boy" came out.

Is it because the creator of the show is naked a lot? Apparently Ms. Dunham thinks it's groundbreaking - she talked about it in many interviews. But let me tell you: every cultured kid from New York, regardless whether her/his parents are artists or financial execs, have been exposed to truly revolutionary artists who used their naked bodies as artistic media: Matthew Barney and Marina Abramovic come to mind first and foremost. These people already broke the ground and the young creators who've seen them have stepped over the naked barrier.

Is it sex? Oh, excuse me, the awkward sex? Common, the show is on the cable channel that brought us Real Sex series.

And who can seriously claim that it's edgy, when we have "Homeland" and "Nurse Jackie" on Showtime?

So, you see, there is nothing special or unique about it. It's just a carefully designed media campaign. But it works, it always does. It managed to create the hype, to convince viewers that Lena Dunham, through her personal experiences, represents the entire generation. 3.8 million people watched the first three episode.

In reality, Lena Dunham's personal experience and power of imagination are so limited that every time the situtation goes outside of her immediate surroundings, she needs a co-writer. But it doesn't matter. That three-episode viewing statistic was enough for HBO to renew the show for the second season even before the 4-th episode aired. As Hannah's boyfriend says in that crucial third episode, "We are only as blind as we want to be."

To be Concluded

HBO's "Girls" Still Play with "Tiny Furniture" - Part III: This Is How It's Done

Continued from the Previous Post

Lena Dunham is unabashedly bold about her position in the world. She provides a straightforward example of how it's done in "Tiny Furniture": you have a friend with an art-dealing father who cannot say no and puts up your horrible, stupid video in his gallery.

In the sixth episode of "Girls" Ms. Dunham throws hapless Hannah Horvath's mask away (who cares about the inconsistent characterization?), fixes a bewildered look on a Michigan girl with a plan to go to Hollywood, and asks if this person has connections, people who can arrange auditions, ways to get in. Because in Ms. Dunham's mind, the only people who have rights to be in the entertainment world are people like her, the ones supported by a network of contacts.

And why would she think differently? Life comes with very specific benefits when your mother's photos are displayed at the Met, the MoMA, the Guggenheim, and the Whitney, among other places.  Did Laurie Simmons ventured into making a musical short starring Meryl Streep in 2006 for the pure purpose of getting her foot into the filmmaking business?  The same year she produces Lena's first short "Dealing," which somehow gets accepted at Slamdance, while thousands of much stronger films from all around the world are rejected. 

Three years later Lena graduates from college and now it's time for things to start really happening.  I can just picture Ms. Simmons telling the curators at Guggenheim, "Did you see my daughter's web series Delusional Downtown Divas'?  It's all about the art phonies!  It's hilarious!" And before you know it, Lena is commissioned by the museum to produce another 10 episodes of tedious sketches, set in a plethora of Tribeca wealth, to be projected at the first annual Art Awards.  She is also invited to host the event.  Isn't it awesome to have that on your bio and resume? 

Still, I don't understand how "Creative Nonfiction" got accepted at 2009 SXSW.  I've seen much better movies with real stories and characters, written, directed, and shot by young aspiring filmmakers, who sent their work in and got "sorry, you were rejected" emails.  Then again, it's very possible that Lena Dunham's first feature got sent directly to Janet Pierson (head of the festival).  After all, when written in four days "Tiny Furniture" was finished, the writer/director/star managed to get a post-deadline waiver, enter in January 2010 and win 2010 SXSW Best Narrative Feature Award in early March.     

Here is a challenge for my readers: how many independent film festival's winners get to have multiple gala-premiers in places such as Brooklyn Academy of Music and MoMa?  I found only one - the one that stars a famous artist, "Tiny Furniture."

And then, of course, there are publicists (check out ID Public Relations). For all we know, Lena has been their client since nursery school (both Dunham and Jemima Kirke were featured in Vogue as preteens). Let me explain for the uninitiated.  If you can afford to pay steep PR fees, publicists will be the ones responsible for putting together smart websites for all your opuses, writing press releases and bios, contacting publications, etc. 

They will get you on 25 Independent Filmmakers list (Ms. Dunham was featured in 2009, right after "Creative Nonfiction").  They will make sure you are featured on one or another talk show.  Through their personal connections (again!) with writers and editors, they will get you a NY Times profile (03/19/2010) and a movie review (11/11/2010) after your big win at SXSW.  No publicist?  You are shit outta luck.  Robbie Pickering won the Best Narrative Feature this year. The Gray Lady completely ignored his existence. 

It just a fact of my life that I came to know someone who worked in the entertainment PR and explained this to me, but for those who want a second opinion I recommend to watch "Nurse Jackie," episode 2.3.

We may never know how exactly the mechanics of personal connections worked for Lena Dunham, but we do know for a fact that thirty-something Jenni Konner, who's been working on various TV projects since 2001 and now happily serves as an executive producer on "Girls," was outfitted with a box of "Tiny Furniture" DVDs she pushed into hands of every single person she knew in Hollywood, including her "Undeclared" boss Judd Apatow.

The uber-successful Hollywood tsar of awkward comedy seems to be on a mission to show the world that life sucks for everyone, but everything going to be Ok at the end. A privileged girl having an unhappy moment in a huge Tribeca loft - how could he possibly resist?  Keep in mind, the man does have two pre-teen daughters, whose acting "talents" he promotes in his own movies. He simply had to offer Lena Dunham millions of dollars to plow her shallow-themed field on television.

To Be Continued

HBO's "Girls" Still Play with "Tiny Furniture" - Part II: Psychological Nepotism

Continued from the Previous Post

But Lena Dunham is not a "regular" person. Far from it. Her parents have enveloped her entire being into nepotistic shroud of cultural connections. More importantly, however, they bestowed upon her, what I call, the psychological nepotism - a phenomenon specific to wealthy families with no worries for the children's material wellbeing in the future. The ability to provide for their children far beyond their own graves turns these parents into blind believers that whatever their daughters and sons poop out are unmatchable manifestations of incredible talents.

Let me give you an example.  I remember many years ago Alec Baldwin telling David Letterman how him and his then-wife Kim Basinger were playing tennis and their three-year-old daughter touched a racquet. Kim started talking incessantly about the child's "being drawn" to the sport and a possibility of John McEnroe "taking a look." Are you catching my drift?

I believe that Ms. Dunham herself is somewhat aware of impact the psychological nepotism has on privileged children. In the third episode of "Girls," when Jessa is introduced to her babysitting charges by their mom, a filmmaker, we learn that the little girls (I think 6 and 9) have several "incredible" projects in the making: painting a toy animal, a mosaic project, a novel that requires editing...

My readers may think I am a "material" bitch stifling "normal" children's creative aspirations. That's laughably far from the truth. I firmly believe that real talents should be encouraged to go the distance no matter how hard the road ahead is. However, my standards are pretty high. On the other hand, "connected" parents turn everything into a tightly managed "artistic" output and treat every piece of a mediocre crap as a fucking masterpiece. 

Judd Apatow keeps saying in different interviews that for him writing is an extension of his struggle for self-esteem, while Lena just goes and enjoys herself, merrily banging at the keyboard. And it makes perfect sense: no matter how much success he will achieve, Judd will always need to prove his worth to himself, while Lena Dunham was born with the idea that everything she does - every nursery school drawing, every little story for the English class, every small part she had in a school play, is absolutely, indisputably precious. As it frequently happens, when nepotism is at play, the quality is irrelevant - the products get pushed through all available channels anyway.

To Be Continued

HBO's "Girls" Still Play with "Tiny Furniture" - Part I: The Predicament

I frequently talk about the hopelessness of life prospects for most people in their twenties. In my post Futurenomics of Higher Education, I wrote about practical uselessness of college degrees for the majority of these kids. Anyone with half a brain can see that a staggering number of recent grads will never be able to buy houses in the same neighborhoods their parents did, enjoy nice vacations, pay for their children's education or elderly care.

And it's unfair, because on average the generation in question stands on much higher ethical grounds than, us - their parents: they are more open-minded, more accepting of diversity, more environmentally aware. At least the kids in their twenties that I personally know deserve a better future than we've set up for them. For years now, I've been like, "Hello! These young college grads have nowhere to go! Can we start talking about this issue?"

Be careful what you wish for! Better yet, try to define your wishes more accurately, because it does matter who talks and what they say. There are speakers with trite messages who have access to the channels unavailable to others. They confuse the eager audiences into seeing what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.  When Lena Dunham's movie "Tiny Furniture" was propelled into their view by an inadequately strong PR campaign, they mistook the depiction of someone's feeling momentarily insecure for an introspective statement relevant to the entire generation.

In truth, the movie is nothing more than a photograph (it's ironic that it was shot on an SLR camera) of a bad moment in a life of a privileged girl, whose existence has nothing to do with the reality experienced by the majority of people. As such, it does have some bits of stark vulnerability familiar to many unattractive people. However, as the cinema critic for New York Magazine David Edelstein pointed out "Lena Dunham is so much smaller than life."

In that, she essentially upholds a fine family tradition by following in her mother's (a renown photo-artist Laurie Simmons) footsteps: playing with toys, showing ersatz characters in artificial surroundings, miniaturizing settings and issues to the point of irrelevance. For me, the smallness of the subject matter combined with the repetitiveness of self-pitying incidents turned "Tiny Furniture" into a lack-luster drag. If Lena Dunham were a "regular" person this film would have never been made, won Best Feature at SXSW, and led to the HBO's new series "Girls" bankrolled by Judd Apatow and created by Ms. Dunham, who also stars as a central character.  She also wrote and directed most of the first season's episodes.

To Be Continued

The Bottomless Well of Nepotism and the Issue of Business Survival

My dear readers, I wish I could stop writing about it, but it never ends - there are always more examples to share. I already wrote The Curse of Private Business: Nepotism and then More on Nepotism, but I cannot resist the urge of giving a space to yet another example. And even though it concerns the entertainment industry, it is an important financial issue as well.

You see, in the deteriorating economic environment (and it will continue deteriorating), there is only a handful of industries that have a chance of surviving. Filmmaking is one of them. Not the whole of entertainment, but cinema in particular. People already pretty much stopped reading books, and who knows what's going on with the music industry. Only a small percentage of population can afford to go to the concerts, sporting events, or theater.

But no matter what happens, people will continue seeking an escape from their dreary lives in the darkness of movie theaters or in front of their TV screens. So, whether we like it or not, it is socially important that Hollywood spreads their financial resources wisely and survives. It would be even better if the production funds were also distributed with artistic responsibilities in mind, but that's a subject for another post (or, perhaps, even another blog).

From a strictly financial point of view, I cannot even complain about the stupid Michael Bay's movies - at least they make money. But I have a problem with irrelevant films that get pushed through studios and independent production companies with the help of connections and familial relationships. Some of them are not able to cover even 10% of their budgets. And not because they are complicated intellectual creations (I don't mind money being spent on actual masterpieces), but because they are simply crap. And it is not about the nepotism per se, as I previously wrote. It is about mediocrity and losses caused by nepotism. In any business, not just filmmaking, if nepotism results in success and profits, objectively it can be tolerated.

So, how is it done? The August 29th issue of New York Magazine had a little interview with Zoe Kazan - Zoe Kazan Needs Coffee, conducted by one of my favorite magazine writers, Jada Yuan. It is actually in the theater section, because on top of having her screenplay being made into a movie (He Loves Me), in which she also stars together with her boyfriend Paul Dano, this 28-year-old has a play, commissioned by Manhattan Theater Club, opening this fall in New York (!).

Of course, Ms. Yuan shines the light on the grounds of this first-time screenwriter's ability to penetrate Hollywood's entry barriers. She starts by defining the interviewee as Elia Kazan's granddaughter. Then she goes on to point out the connection between the directors spearheading He Loves Me - Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, and the boyfriend (they directed Paul Dano in Little Miss Sunshine). Finally, in her last question she names Zoe Kazan's parents - both screenwriters: Nicholas Kazan (who co-wrote Frances, adapted Alan Dershowitz's Reversal of Fortune, and penned excellent, but underrated Fallen) and Robin Swicord, who has a good knack for adapting highbrow sentimental literature (Little Women, Practical Magic, Memoirs of Geisha, The Jane Austin Book Club).

And again, the nepotism would be okay (after all, we know how lazy people are - nobody wants to work hard and look for new talents), if writing was Ms. Kazan's genuine calling and her ideas were original. But He Loves Me is just another rehashing of the Greek legend of Pygmalion. And here is how she answers Jada Yuan's question, why did she start writing:

"Because when I was first trying to get acting jobs, there would be these huge slots of time, where I wouldn't have work..."

Soooo, she started writing because she had free time? Are you joking me? True writers write because they cannot live any other way. Not, because they need to kill some time or as a form of "self-actualization." The saddest thing is that I happen to know incredibly talented young writers with original ideas, who try and try again, querying agents and production companies just for a chance to get their excellent scripts read. Robert McKee says that one of the main concerns of the screenwriting professors is preventing their best students from killing themselves.

But Ms. Kazan? Whatever she is going to write, will be read by someone with a finger on the green-light button. And then, money and resources will be invested on something that only a small group of people (most of them also connected) will be interested to see.