TV | Girls

Share Post To:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

When Girls emerged two years ago, it’s fair to say it courted its fair share of controversy. Perhaps most shocking was the decision to seemingly exclude anyone with a Y chromosome from attaching themselves to the show. It’s a testament to modern viewers’ fickleness that now entering into its third season (with a fourth already commissioned) – the once controversial show is well and truly established in the television canon. But, like its characters, Girls now faces a quarter-life crisis of just where it should go next.

Look past the air of entitlement and self-absorption that follows the titular women around Brooklyn and you’ll see there’s more to Girls than just trendy scenario after absurdly trendy scenario. Many of the character flaws that will likely enrage you come not from an inability of the show to create likeable characters but rather a commitment to making real characters, warts and all.

Lena Dunham’s show has achieved a universal appeal due to its excellent portrayal of the aimless struggle of a bunch of creative types to find their place in the world and come to terms with who they are. It’s enough to deter anyone from taking a degree in the arts. But we’re now facing the prospect of a third season with no sense of substantial progression in its characters. It makes sense that in reality you won’t have your head on straight by 25 but it doesn’t make for great television to watch a bunch of Brooklynite white girls make the same mistake week after week.

The show already has its fair share of critics, and if it doesn’t begin to develop on what was a remarkable sophomore season then it runs the risk of gaining a few more.

Ben Cook

Leave a Reply