Cannes Film Festival 2013

‘Girls’ just want to change the needle on a tired media record

Stop telling us we’re fat

<p>Lena Dunham walks the red carpet at the premiere of HBO's "Girls".</p>

Lena Dunham walks the red carpet at the premiere of HBO's "Girls".

Credit: AP Photo/Starpix, Dave Allocca

Are you a fan of In Contention?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

I am increasingly disheartened and disturbed by what appears to be an unstoppable uptick in open misogyny. I’ve touched on this previously in a piece on Women and Oscar, but the subtle and not so subtle flames of gender bias are currently increasing rather than abating.

The female sex seems to be taking two steps back in Congress, in the workplace (where, for many, equal pay is still a longed-for dream rather than a well-established reality) and of course, in the media, where appearance is both target and weapon of choice. We are circling the same drain ad nauseum and ad infinitum in this arena where even women endowed with close to physical perfection are repeatedly subjected to our scathing societal eye.

Just this past week the release of "Titanic 3D" has reignited criticism of Kate Winslet's perfectly natural and gorgeous body in that film. Though many have been supportive, the Twitterverse, as ever, was at the ready with scathing remarks. Perhaps in an effort to preemptively defend against the onslaught she faced at 22 when she made the film, the actress castigated herself upon viewing the 3D version. "The second it came up I literally went, 'Make it stop, make it stop, turn it off. I'm blocking it off,'" the actress said to ABC News."Do I really sound like that? Did I really look like that?'"

She even went so far as to quip that her co-star Leonardo DiCaprio has fattened up while she has slimmed down. And there is of course the ever present discussion of her breasts in 3D, or the censorship of said breasts in China. Ultimately, a large portion of the "Titanic" discussion has been centered around the physical bearing of its female lead.

BuzzFeed recently release a list of actresses who are continually referred to as heavy, which includes the notably tiny Ashley Judd (who took to The Daily Beast to retaliate against media obsession over her "puffy" face), Hillary Duff and a pregnant Jessica Simpson. Though I will confess that I believe a discussion of Jennifer Lawrence's healthy appearance in "The Hunger Games" versus the starved Katniss Everdeen described in the book has more to do with the stakes for the character than a critique of Lawrence's appearance. Meanwhile, much of the coverage of the HBO comedy "Girls" has centered on the allure of its cast, particularly the show's star and creator Lena Dunham.

This is, again, sadly nothing new. For years young girls have been doused with images of Kate Moss (the face that launched a thousand bulimics) and her fellow representatives of “heroin chick” (and how sick is that?), Twiggy before her and countless others after her. Each exalted representations of truly dangerous health habits and impossible standards for any of us mere mortals to meet, not if we intend to eat.

Related

Want More...

Academy Awards?
  • Oscar-statues-outside-the-82nd-academy-awards-at-the-kodak-theater-in-hollywood-ca
    Check out everything there is including photos, reviews, videos.

And yet if actresses acquiesce to the trend and become the waifs or wraiths that their careers demand they be, they are equally maligned. Angelina Jolie is, without question, alarmingly slender. But the vitriol she faces is more than a little bit telling. Rather than compassion, we give her censure. We create the standard and then lambast those who stumble in their attempt to meet it.

I sat in an interview the other day with an actress who, without question, is one of the most stunningly beautiful humans I have ever beheld (and is in fact a very well-known current sexual "icon"). In the course of four minutes she referred to herself as fat three separate times. I was saddened and disheartened listening to her talk about herself in those terms.

On a human level, I simply cannot fathom the ungodly pressure she must be under to be, at all times, “perfect” (whatever that may mean). Indeed, it’s fairly common for females to criticize themselves openly and often. It is a toxic habit that most of us develop and then must work to shed -- for inevitably, we will be reviled for it. Do a quick search for jokes about women asking the question, "Do I look fat?" Then search for the number of times a female celebrity is mocked for weight gain or censured for having cellulite, stretch marks or some other bodily imperfection.

Women are lambasted for falling into the habit of speaking of their physical attributes with a self-critical eye and yet, they are exposed to the incessant beat of the "self-improvement" drum from early childhood. More than that, if we are to look at some of the current “role models” for young women ("Twilight"'s Bella Swan, for example), a tendency toward self-deprecation is lauded. The character consistently refers to herself as "plain," "boring" and otherwise "not good enough" for her (literally) inhumanly hot vampire boyfriend, a trait which is meant to endear the reader/viewer to her. And so the maddening cycle continues. We are to be demure and self-effacing and yet when we are, we are considered insecure and thought to be fishing for compliments.

Though I am sympathetic to the quagmire she must find herself in, it is more than a little bit of a shame that the unnamed actress mentioned above has been so significantly blessed by the Midas touch of genetics and yet is incapable of enjoying it. I wish that more female celebrities would take their cue from "Mad Men"'s Christina Hendricks and embrace their bodies, their beauty and their unique nature. Though they may have not signed on for it, these ladies have a responsibility to those who, rightly or wrongly, will take their behavioral cues from them. And the media must endeavor to willfully alter the conversation.

For both women and men influence the gender dialogue and contribute to the focus on superficial and undermining assessments of feminine value, worth and appeal. We must endeavor, as much as we can, to shift the focus and refrain from incessant self-critique (as much as many of us, myself included, have mastered the skill) and ever abstain from a toxic attack on other women, particularly public attacks that focus the lens on their looks rather than the issues at hand (don't get me started on the media response to female politicians).

This is not to say that men are immune from the tide of anonymous cruelty that is currently present in our culture. They do, however, seem to face this particular blade with less frequency. Nor is it to indicate that this is the most crucial issue facing women in today's world, but it is symptomatic of a larger trend.

As mentioned, HBO’s “Girls” premiered Sunday night and Dunham’s appearance is mentioned (often in cruel terms) at least once as a salient factor in a large majority of the reviews. She is described alternately as “plain, unshapely and unpleasant” and in possession of “a short-waisted, pear-shaped body that makes her desperately unhappy even as she dares us to notice that she isn't as tall and slim as her best friends” by two widely read (female, by the way) reviewers.

Does the text of the show in some way offer a green light for this discourse? Perhaps. But inherent in that, the reason that the text of the show is what it is is that's the reality of our culture. What we need to examine is why that is so. When Ray Romano, Bill Cosby, George Lopez or Larry David were given their own shows, were the relevant levels of their sexual attraction the principal topic at hand? No. Nor were they meant to stand in for the entire male sex.

To be fair, dubbing a show “Girls” does somewhat beg the question, “Is this really what girls are like?,” particularly when there is such a decided lack of female-centric programming. But it is said lack of representation that is the real issue, not the size of Miss Dunham’s waist.

Is “Girls” an accurate representation of a generation? It’s an exaggerated, comedic representation of a small portion of the population, just as “Seinfeld” and countless other programs were (and are). Is “Girls” any more a comment on the female gender than “Entourage” is on the male? Should one half-hour comedy bear that kind of burden? Perhaps, perhaps not.

Nevertheless, it is the acrid and petty nature of a certain archaic dialogue rearing its head -- not merely in entertainment but, way more importantly, in our culture (as revealed in not just entertainment but politics and social concerns) -- that feels most significant to me.

For year-round entertainment news and commentary follow @JRothC on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Roth-cornet-sm
Roth Cornet
Contributor
Trending Now on HitFix Boards
Topic Started By Latest Post Replies
sandylewis90
2 months ago
1
sandylewis90
3 months ago
1
Discuss Movies General on HitFix Message Boards »

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    EwanW

    Excellently written and argued article. I agree completely. Let Winslet/Dunham/whoever be judged by the skill with which they ply their craft.
    Also, 'that's just how the world works' is not an argument. It's stupid and cowardly.
    Women are not the second sex. They are not a novelty.

    I hope loads of people read this article.

    April 17, 2012 at 9:15PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Roth Cornet Thank you!

      April 18, 2012 at 3:55PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    JJ

    Fantastic article. You expressed my feelings so much better than I ever could have.

    April 17, 2012 at 9:28PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Roth Cornet Thank you, that is very much appreciated!

      April 18, 2012 at 3:55PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Tom

    "particularly when there is such a decided lack of female-centric programming." I can't see that as being the truth. I read this while looking for something to watch and my options are Glee, NCIS, Cougar Town, The Biggest Loser, and 90210 on Network TV, with no original first run content on cable from the looks of it. Of that line up Id argue that Glee, Cougar Town and 90210 could be considered female centric, in theme or intended audience; with NCIS being more male centric, and TBL being neutral.

    Trying the 9'oclock hour, similar results with New Girl/Dancing/Ringer, the Voice, and another NCIS.

    Or tomorrow night, where ABC has 4 comedies, 3 with female leads, and a female led drama after that. Fox has a singing competition all night. CW has a modeling competition all night. CBS has a reality show, and a cop show, and then NBC has baseball.

    So what is your definition of a female centric show? Because it would appear that shows geared towards a female audience, or containing female leads, are quite numerous now.



    April 17, 2012 at 11:47PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Roth Cornet 90210 and Glee are aimed at teens and families not women and I'm not sure why a show about obesity is specifically female centric.

      April 17, 2012 at 11:58PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Tom "TBL being neutral." was referring to the The Biggest Loser. No where did I write that it was female centric.

      Even if I agreed that 90210 and Glee were neutral, then you would have 3 neutral shows and 1 male and 1 female, that is at worst balanced. Which again makes your assertion that there is a lack of female-centric programming appear false.

      So where do you see this lack of female centric programming?

      April 18, 2012 at 12:54AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Roth Cornet Look, I can sense when someone wants to argue simply because they want to argue. In an entire article you pulled out one sentence that is not the central point and latched on it, not because you want to engage in an exchange. But, judging by your tone, because you simply want to argue. To really discuss this we have to open up the door to a conversation about what's available versus what we want to see. And then start looking at demographics. And then look at correlations between what viewers are exposed to and then what they come to expect. It's a bit more complex than what you happened to see as you flipped through your cable. But, my sense again, is that is not what you are after. My sense is that you want to fight with me for some reason. Frankly, I'm to tired. So, no.

      April 18, 2012 at 1:54AM EST
    • Annie8bit_talkback_profile

      Stormshadow4life I really don't think you can tell what someone's "tone" is on the internet. He seemed pretty rational and, more importantly, his opinion is pretty spot on. And if Glee isn't watched by more females than males, I'd be shocked.

      April 20, 2012 at 1:35PM EST
  • 3_talkback_profile

    Intellectual Ninja

    Let's be honest and real about something for a second, okay?

    The vast majority of straight guys don't like sticks. They enjoyed Kate Winslet naked in Titanic. They prefer the pre-Cruise-d, healthy-looking Katie Holmes.

    You're not hearing a lot of straight guys say Kate Winslet was or is fat.

    Guys like a healthy body on a girl. Why? BECAUSE IT IS CURVY. Straight guys like a curvy girl (unless they're sick, like pedophiles). Michelle Williams. Zooey Deschanel. Kate Winslet. Healthy women. Who we want to see naked (there's your misogyny) :-).

    Seriously, ask most guys who they preferred: the beautiful, healthy Monica and Rachel of the first six or so seasons of Friends, or the super-skinny Monica and Rachel of those last few seasons? The curvy Buffy of the first four seasons of, well, Buffy, or the bony Buffy of the last few seasons?

    So who are we hearing most of this from, about women needing to be so disgustingly skinny we can see their breast bone in a low-cut top?

    Most of this b.s. is NOT misogyny. It's girl-on-girl crime, or even gay-on-girl crime. Supported by women and men in the fashion industry who should know better.

    We straight guys get blamed for a lot. Let's not blame us for something we actually don't like: girls with figures reminiscent of 10 year-old boys.

    Okay?

    April 18, 2012 at 2:20AM EST Reply to Comment
    • 3_talkback_profile

      Intellectual Ninja To illustrate: most of those quoted comments Ms. Cornet linked to were from women or gay men.

      So, again, it's girl-on-girl, or gay-on-girl crime here.

      The one quote that didn't belong was about Jennifer Lawrence, who rightly attributed positive qualities to her body, but said it was not keeping in character of the book, which it did not (but who cares, right?).

      April 18, 2012 at 2:26AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Roth Cornet I'm not sure that I was pointing fingers at strait men specifically. Actually, I'm certain I wasn't. I was pointing to a trend and one that we all, collectively, play a part in. Glad to hear you like curves. I actually like my own :). But what I am talking about here is not about what men do or do not find attractive. Though that's interesting too. But here I am looking at (among other things) the fact that a woman's physical appearance is seemingly always considered relevant and up for criticism (positive or negative) no matter the context. It is about the subtle ways that effects how we think of ourselves and relate to the world at large, and how we perceive that we are being related to. As to The Hunger Games, I agree that she looked great. I was pointing out that for me, the critique of her character's weight fits less into this trend as it is more about the context of the character in the original text. If she is really starving, the stakes are higher, we feel the strain of the world she lives in more acutely. I'm really very tired so I hope this makes sense. I appreciate what you are saying here and I am sorry that I was not more clear that this isn't about "blaming men." Again it's about a trend that we all participate in.

      April 18, 2012 at 2:47AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Shawn There's a grain of truth in that, Ninja, but Roth is correct to argue that women are more often judged for their physical appearance than men are for theirs. Also, there's a small but vocal minority of straight guys who say ugly things about women who aren't skinny. And some guys can be obnoxious about their preference for .7 hourglass figures, so that women's waistlines are an issue for them regardless of overall voluptuousness. We know there's at least one men's magazine famous for digitally manipulating photos to give models the appearance of a .7 waist-hip ratios. I think it's true that the camera adds 10 pounds (at least), so naturally many models and actresses are more concerned about appearing "too fat" than other women would be. That said, I second your assertion that heterosexual men generally prefer women who are larger than the ideal promoted by the fashion industry and to a lesser extent the entertainment industry.

      And just to confound things, I'll add that women bear some responsibility for putting their bodies on display. For better or for worse, it's something many women wish to do.

      April 18, 2012 at 3:50AM EST
    • Guypic_talkback_profile

      Guy Lodge "Straight guys like a curvy girl (unless they're sick, like pedophiles)."

      I can see that you mean well, Ninja, but senseless generalisations like this don't push the conversation forward. Some people are naturally skinny. Some are not. Neither state is more intrinsically healthy than the other.

      April 18, 2012 at 6:00PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Shawn

    There's a compelling case to be made here that you're too smart for television, Roth. The whole 240 characters or less thing might also be overly constraining for an active mind like yours. I'd say all in good measure, but if it's getting under your skin you always have the option of not paying attention to it.

    One thing I always admired about Winslet was her nonchalance about what other people might say about her body. I hate all the nasty things that are said about celebrities, perhaps actresses in particular, so I'm heartened when an actress decides that all that noise isn't worth responding to.

    April 18, 2012 at 4:12AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Roth Cornet Thank you! And you're right, there is something to be said for ignoring the noise. I have to make that choice fairly often in this job actually. But, for me, what is happening is indicative of a larger cultural trend. We can look at some of the recent political rhetoric, some of the choices Congress has made in last several months and sadly (and I have more personal/observational than statistical evidence on this one)what seems to be an increased incidence of pay inequity since the recession. The superficial elements of the trend are not the most crucial ones. But opening the door to examine why things are structured this way (not an answer I have at the ready) seems like a decent first step. In theory anyway.

      April 18, 2012 at 5:54PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Louie

    But the show's terrible. Am sympathetic to your point. We need far more female-centered and ran shows. It's wonderful that we're finally getting away from stick figures.

    There is a larger issue here which is the representation of women on t.v. I'm with you there although I think Ninja has a point.

    But Girls is really bad. The media hyped this thing incredibly. They called it the Voice of a Generation. A generational event. (There's still an article on this site, right above the comment page still saying that.) The best comedy to premiere this decade. By far the most important and interesting show on television. Now that it's meeting backlash, much of which points out that the show is not interesting, not remotely funny, slow and just flat out bad, the media is deciding to IGNORE all of that criticism, fail to answer for why in the world they hyped anything this mundane to such a degree and instead focus only on the comments about Dunham's weight and the lack of minority characters.

    Really? The media is being incredibly hypocritical on this and they're mad that they're being called on it.

    Again I'm not denying this is an issue, but what about Roseanne? What about Melissa McCarthy? What about Penny Marshall in the 70s?

    No one cared that they didn't look like models. Because they were funny. Their shows were good. I understand it might seem like a small sample size to you, but it's not.

    This is a very important topic. But I'm sorry Gawker, the NYT, the LA Times, Salon, Slate, and every other entertainment site needs to take some responsibility for their incredibly over-the-top, ridiculous over-hyping and unheard of praise for the pilot episode of this actual show and deal with why so much of the public saw something so very different.

    Much of the public was suspicious in the first place because none of the media ever seemed to be telling us WHY Girls was good. Only why it was somehow the Voice of a Generation (which twenty and early thirty year olds are posting all over the net explicitly stating that it is not.)

    I'm glad this article is on Hitflix. But the site also needs to take into honest account the reviews of the majority of the viewing public, the very loud, valid criticisms of this show and the low ratings and actually grapple with that.

    April 18, 2012 at 4:55AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Brock Landers I agree that the show is overhyped in terms of how relevant it is to a generation, but I don't think that makes it a bad show. I actually think it's a very good show. I think it's pretty funny, well-acted and has the same brutal honesty of a show like Louie.

      I think people are misattributing the discomfort that this show made them feel for it being a bad show. A show being brutally honest to a point that it makes you feel uncomfortable is a GOOD thing.

      The public saw it for something different because the majority of the public don't know a good show when they see one. Ratings are RARELY an indicator of the quality of a show. I mean, fucking Deadwood got cancelled for Christ's sake.

      April 18, 2012 at 11:48AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Brock Landers I also don't think it needs to be a voice of a generation, and I don't necessarily think that the creators went out of their way to make it that.

      April 18, 2012 at 11:54AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Ae Thank you. It makes quite a bit of sense that critics have deflected talking about the demerits of the show in favor of '"exploring" the response to Dunham's appearance.

      April 18, 2012 at 1:21PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Roth Cornet You raise some interesting points and I'd like to respond to them individually (and I will) but before we get too off track in these comments. I want to say what I have said to the comments below:

      "The content of this article isn't a review of the show "Girls." I'm not sure how the last several comments got off course. The content is (as stated previously) about the idea that, no matter the context, woman's physical appearance is seemingly always considered relevant and up for criticism (positive or negative) no matter the context. It is about the subtle ways that effects how we think of ourselves and relate to the world at large, and how we perceive that we are being related to. And this is indicative of an undercurrent in the culture. That's what this is about. I actually find it fascinating that folks are jumping on a band wagon to get his off course in all honesty."

      Thanks for your comments -- I'll be back to comment further!

      April 18, 2012 at 1:38PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    J

    I don't hate the show because of the way Dunham looks. I hate the show because it's terrible.

    April 18, 2012 at 7:47AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Roth Cornet The content of this article isn't a review of the show "Girls." I'm not sure how the last several comments got off course. The content is (as stated previously) about the idea that, no matter the context, woman's physical appearance is seemingly always considered relevant and up for criticism (positive or negative) no matter the context. It is about the subtle ways that effects how we think of ourselves and relate to the world at large, and how we perceive that we are being related to. And this is indicative of an undercurrent in the culture. That's what this is about. I actually find it fascinating that folks are jumping on a band wagon to get his off course in all honesty.

      April 18, 2012 at 1:35PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Ae

    Somehow I'm more offended by the comparison of 'GIrls' to 'Seinfeld' more than anything else.

    April 18, 2012 at 1:16PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Roth Cornet Repeated from above:

      The content of this article isn't a review of the show "Girls." I'm not sure how the last several comments got off course. The content is (as stated previously) about the idea that, no matter the context, woman's physical appearance is seemingly always considered relevant and up for criticism (positive or negative) no matter the context. It is about the subtle ways that effects how we think of ourselves and relate to the world at large, and how we perceive that we are being related to. And this is indicative of an undercurrent in the culture. That's what this is about. I actually find it fascinating that folks are jumping on a band wagon to get his off course in all honesty.

      April 18, 2012 at 1:35PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    bef

    Thanks for the link to Judd's great commentary. I've always liked her, but only liked her (as far as movies go) in "Bug." Something seemed rather real about her, and I very much appreciated her writing. And Ruth, yours as well, and a much needed added perspective on film sites. It's one step, I think. Film is a boy's club that is very far behind in society and therein lies a big problem: film is a way we send our culture to the world, and we are primarily sending one-sided view: white male. I've never left the USA (but I will soon) and most of what I think of how a country looks or behaves comes from film. To do the reverse and think of what that says about the USA can be very depressing.

    April 18, 2012 at 5:51PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Nature Lady

    Did you notice how the Oscars broadcast with the "top 3 women" listed across the bottom of the screen based on everyone else's opinions (those who cared to share them on twitter, etc.). Can we do this with the men next year? Can we rate them based on whatever we feel like and broadcast their rating on the screen. Please!!!

    April 20, 2012 at 9:02AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Annie8bit_talkback_profile

    Stormshadow4life

    I don't follow anything related to Twitter...but I kind of feel like we're living in a world where it's becoming less acceptable to put down fat people...and more acceptable to put down someone for being skinny. Even in this article, you pointed out how Angelina Jolie is "without question, alarmingly slender.". Is that okay to say (even though I completely agree with you)? What if you pointed out that Melissa McCarthy was "alarmingly obese"? I have a feeling that wouldn't be okay.

    April 20, 2012 at 1:48PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Annie8bit_talkback_profile

      Stormshadow4life On a side note, I really enjoyed Girls (as did my wife). Neither of us thought to comment on Lena's body while watching. I think people are more likely to comment negatively on an actress's body in cases where they have changed from what you're used to (sudden weight gain or loss).

      April 20, 2012 at 1:51PM EST

Get Instant Alerts on In Contention

2012-2013 OSCAR PREDICTIONS

oscarside.jpg

Best Picture

Best Director

Best Actor

Best Actress

Best Supporting Actor

Best Supporting Actress

Best Adapted Screenplay

Best Original Screenplay

Best Cinematography

Best Costume Design

Best Film Editing

Best Makeup And Hairstyling

Best Original Score

Best Original Song

Best Production Design

Best Sound Editing

Best Sound Mixing

Best Visual Effects

Best Animated Feature Film

Best Documentary Feature

Best Foreign Language Film

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook