hipstercrite says

Lena Dunham stole my life: Why I’m jealous of Girls' success

Lena Dunham
Photo courtesy of HBO
Allison Williams, Jemima Kirke, Lena Dunham, Zosia Mamet in HBO's 'Girls.'

After finding myself rolling my eyes at yet another Internet ad for HBO's new series, Girls, I had to finally admit to myself that my aversion to Lena Dunham is stems from my utter and complete jealousy of her.

I've never wanted to be that girl who dislikes other girls simply because they have something I don't. I try to be supportive of my gender because we girls need to look out for one another. I think Dunham said it herself in a recent interview — "a success for one woman is a success for all of us."

Or she could have not said that, I'm not sure. I've read so many freaking articles about her lately, I can't keep track. But if she did say that, maybe she's right. Maybe she'll pave the way for us narcissistic twentysomethings who love talking about our less-than-unique neuroses and "problems." We need a champion, dammit!

Or maybe she just fucked us all.

My issue with Dunham developed after viewing the first 20 minutes of her freshman feature, Tiny Furniture. My initial excitement for the film quickly turned to revulsion when I realized that not only could I not relate to the film, but I couldn't even understand what all the hubbub was about.

Though I, like many girls, had an early twentysomething existential crisis in the form of self-loathing and bad decision-making similar to that of the heroine, I found Aura absolutely obnoxious. And not in an "I was exactly like her — this is too hard for me to watch!" kind of way. More like an "I know this is loosely based off of Dunham — why do the rich kids always get famous so easily?" kind of way.

Let’s face it: Most people hate on Lena Dunham because they think, “Oh, I can do that!” Maybe we can, maybe we can’t. Maybe we’re not talented enough, or maybe we’re not lucky enough.

If I dig deep down I can recognize that there is a part of me that despises Dunham for becoming the voice of my generation. This is not an idea she herself believes, but one that critics, fans and HBO editors have rallied behind. She is The Golden One and all us other twentysomething creatives who think they have something special to say are turds.

Let’s face it: Most people hate on Lena Dunham because they think, “Oh, I can do that!” Maybe we can, maybe we can’t. Maybe we’re not talented enough, or maybe we’re not lucky enough.

Even being objective, I can confidently say that Tiny Furniture is not a special movie. What is special is Dunham's writing, which must be a large reason why the accolades for Girls have been so wonderful. She is witty, and she's smart, and I can't take that away from her.

Vogue calls her a modern day female Woody Allen, and as much as it pains me to read something like that, what if it's true? What if the title so many of us anxious and awkward lady Jews strive for just got taken? (I’ll still gladly give that crown to Sloane Crosley)

Girls premiered last week. Even if I had HBO, I'm not sure I'd watch it. I'm afraid of loving it. I'm afraid of hearing dialogue I wish I wrote and cursing Dunham while raising a fist to the sky. I want to like her and I want to support her. I want to stop judging her for the things she has that I do not. But above all, I want the assault of Girls advertisements to stop being a constant reminder of my creative failures.

Update: I finally watched Girls. Though I still have complaints similar to the ones I have with Tiny Furniture (“Oh God, can these women get anymore unrelatable and cringeworthy?!”) the Judd Apatow sheen made for a slightly more digestible viewing. Though I wasn’t wowed by the premiere, I’m curious to see where the show goes.

You’re slowly winning me over, Lena Dunham. I’m still jealous of you though.

unspecified

Movie Review

Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 doesn't match the first movie's enthusiasm

Blumhouse

Five Nights at Freddy's 2.

Blumhouse Productions first made their name with the Paranormal Activity series, establishing themselves as a leader in the horror genre thanks to their relatively cheap yet effective movies. In recent years, they’ve added on “soft” horror films like M3GAN and Five Nights at Freddy’s to draw in a younger audience, with both films becoming so successful that each was quickly given a sequel.

Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 finds Mike (Josh Hutcherson) and his sister Abby (Piper Rubio) still recovering from the events of the first film, with Abby particularly missing her “friends.” Those friends just so happen to be the souls of murdered children who inhabit animatronic characters at the long-defunct Freddy Fazbear’s Pizza, children who were abducted and killed by William Afton (Matthew Lillard).

A new threat emerges at another Freddy Fazbear’s location in the form of Charlotte, another murdered child who inhabits a creepy large marionette. Mike, distracted by a possible romance with Vanessa (Elizabeth Lail), fails to keep track of Abby, who makes her way to the old pizzeria and inadvertently unleashes Charlotte and her minions on the surrounding town.

Directed by Emma Tammi and written by Scott Cawthon (who also created the video game on which the series is based), the film tries to mix together goofy elements with intense scenes. One particular sequence, in which the security guard for Freddy Fazbear’s lets a group of ghost hunters onto the property, toes the line between soft and hard horror. That and a few others show the potential that the filmmakers had if they had stuck to their guns.

Unfortunately, more often than not they either soft-pedal things that would normally be horrific, or can’t figure out how to properly stage scenes. The sight of animatronic robots wreaking havoc is one that is simultaneously frightening and laughable, and the filmmakers never seem to find the right balance in tone. Every step in the direction of making a truly scary horror film is undercut by another in which the robots fail to live up to their promise.

It doesn’t help that Cawthon gives the cast some extremely wooden dialogue, lines that none of the actors can elevate. What may work in a video game format comes off as stilted when said by actors in a live-action film. The story also loses momentum quickly after the first half hour or so, with Cawthon seemingly content to just have characters move from place to place with no sense of connection between any of the scenes.

Hutcherson (The Hunger Games series), after being the true lead of the first film, is given very little to do in this film, and his effort is equal to his character’s arc. The same goes for Lail, whose character seems to be shoehorned into the story. Rubio is called upon to carry the load for a lot of the movie, and the teenager is not quite up to the task. A brief appearance by Skeet Ulrich seems to be a blatant appeal to Scream fans, but he and Lillard only underscore how limited this film is compared to that franchise.

Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 is better than the first film, but not by much. The filmmakers do a decent job of making the new marionette character into a great villain, but they fail to capitalize on its inherent creepiness. Instead, they fall back on less effective elements, ensuring that the film will be forgettable for anyone other than hardcore Freddy fans.

---

Five Nights at Freddy's 2 opens in theaters on December 5.

movies film