Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

'Girls' creator Lena Dunham on the cover of the new Rolling Stone mag

In the upcoming issue of Rolling Stone, Lena Dunham opens up about her lifelong struggles with anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder, her childhood fear of sex, her reaction to criticisms about the show’s lack of diversity – and much more. “It’s funny to me that I’m writing a show that people consider to be the voice of twentysomething people,” she says. “Because I don’t feel that connected to it all the time.”

by Anonymousreply 4802/24/2013

Ooooh ... this can't be good news for DL folks who find an actual woman to be a repulsive sight.

How long until a C-word meltdown begins?

by Anonymousreply 102/13/2013

Her hair looks so cute.

by Anonymousreply 402/13/2013

She needs to be erased from the space-time continuum.

by Anonymousreply 502/13/2013

R3, without googling, name who her parents are and what they're primarily known for.

by Anonymousreply 602/13/2013

She would never have been able to direct her piece of shit movie if she didn't have those parents supporting her career. I blame them for this blight on our country for not aborting her.

by Anonymousreply 702/13/2013

Best show on TV? Please.

by Anonymousreply 802/13/2013

"her childhood fear of sex"

Huh? Why is child even thinking about sex? Was she molested?

Could her father being a closet case have anything to do with most of her sex and other issues?

by Anonymousreply 902/22/2013

Stare down my cleavage, America1 You know you want nothing more.

by Anonymousreply 1002/22/2013

Is "Girls" anything more than "Sex and the City" recycled using hipster women in their 20s? If not, then how is this woman (Lena) celebrated for creating something so painfully unoriginal?

They could've at least made one of the girls black and set it in Portland.

by Anonymousreply 1102/22/2013

My sassy irreverent tongue and carefully contoured cleavage as well as the aerial POV have all been designed to distract you, the viewer, from my overall width. Which is the thickness of a Sequoia.

by Anonymousreply 1202/22/2013

Will The Lena Dunham troll give it a rest?

by Anonymousreply 1302/22/2013

To be fair, R9, lots of children think about sex, and a fair amount of girls get freaked out when they first hear about it (oftentimes because they're so young at that point, they can't even imagine putting a tampon in there).

But it seems this girl/her work is hyped more than she's realistically liked, and in my opinion, that's rightfully so. I was surprised to see lots of comments on more pop culture-y, woman-y sites that expressed that very sentiment.

by Anonymousreply 1402/22/2013

R6 and anyone who pulls out this line (and there are a lot of them) in defense of Lena's success being linked to nepotism is either an idiot or someone who owes their own success to nepotism.

Here's how nepotism doesn't work: Lena's parents are known by the public at large and everyone demands HBO give a show to the daughter of two artists.

Here's how nepotism does work: Lena Dunham is the daughter of two very well connected artists who figure in the New York social scene. Lena grows up attending parties with celebrities (she admits this) and makes her own connections. Lena decides to enter the entertainment industry and is able to use all of these connections to get a film made. That film is all but guaranteed a place in festivals and write-ups in publications because Lena has more connections. Success follows quickly from word-of-mouth and the ability to get your film seen by those in the industry who you have known since a very young age because of who your parents are.

So fuck off, R6. Just because most people couldn't tell you who the fuck Lena's parents are, doesn't mean her entire career wasn't built on the system of nepotism. Bitch was born on third and you think she hit a triple. She is almost entirely where she is because of her parents and if you can't understand why, you're a deluded idiot.

by Anonymousreply 1502/22/2013

Bravo, r15.

by Anonymousreply 1602/22/2013

R15, you have no idea how film and TV work. Lena got good press after Tiny Furniture was screened for SxSW (I believe). It was a critical darling, yes. But, if you think Lena's niche artist parents had anything to do with the media's fawning over TF, well, you'd be wrong. She made a movie that was incredibly well reviewed and well received. And it was damn good. This had nothing to do with nepotism. Nepotism doesn't write a script and cast it and direct it. I mean, I grew up in LA. My parents have industry friends. No one made my script. Why? Because it sucked. You're giving her "parents" way too much credit. Spielberg they are not.

by Anonymousreply 1702/22/2013

Most importantly, she is spared years of waiting tables and living in Queens and doing crap plays in off off off Broadway. She has all the time and money to devote to her career -- in addition to access to people who can get them done (that access being huge). Some talent in there, maybe, and yeah sure she gets the project done. But come on... hardly an even playing field. I wish she would just admit that once.

by Anonymousreply 1802/22/2013

r17, if you grew up in LA, you'll know that a lot of people hook onto others like sociopathic lampreys.

Ambitious people glom onto talented people and vice versa--anyone who can further their ascent.

Dunham is ambitious, and she made a concerted effort to be the new buzz with Tiny Furniture, mainly by using her family's connections (and money) as an springboard to more talented people.

Once a certain level of interest is created, these talented people want to be associated with her because it makes them look trendy or intelligent enough to see the next celebrity or creative.

And don't tell me 'critical reception' isn't part of the game, either. It's all related. Critics are jockeying for access too.

by Anonymousreply 1902/22/2013

Now that's true, R18. She didn't have to do a menial job for a decade like most starving artists. But that really isn't her fault, is it? She sure used her time and financial circumstance wisely. I mean, I knew tons of people who had financial help from their parents through 25. None of them wrote a movie.

by Anonymousreply 2002/22/2013

Listen, I'm not really here to defend Dunham. I just think crying nepotism is a straw man fallacy in derogating Dunham. Of course, connections play a part in a successful person's life. Just like good looks often do. And intelligence. But you have to do the work. That doesn't get done for you, especially when she writes and directs her stuff. That is not just ambition, that's hard work, dedication, etc. Again, the world is littered with offspring of famous people. Most do nothing with that advantage. Dunham did. And, again, her parents aren't exactly Andy Warhol and Georgia O'Keeffe.

R19, most of what you say isn't in any way damning to me in regards to Dunham's career trajectory. Every directer/actor/writer uses people they know to try and get buzz in the industry. Every single one. I don't get why when she did it, it's some huge gasp-worthy act of evil. And she didn't use her parents to push Tiny Furniture into the critical limelight - she used the film! I remember the reception it received in LA from people who had no idea who Dunham's parents were. They all loved it. Have you seen it? It's really, really good.

by Anonymousreply 2102/22/2013

r21, it's how she is being presented (with her tacit approval) as some multi-hyphenate young genius.

I think the scale is tipped way too far in favour of her talent by people who have a vested interest in her success.

She has a lot of people, like Apatow, behind the scenes, unlike Louis CK. I'm not saying he isn't over-rated either, but he is a true auteur. Whether an episode goes over or not, it's his vision and execution.

As someone who writes as a hobby, I don't think writing a simplified autobiographical template is any sign of a good writer.

FWIW, I thought the same of 30 Rock, so I'm certainly not singling out Dunham in that respect.

by Anonymousreply 2202/22/2013

I've seen the film and it's competent, r21. It happened at the right time and to the right person that played it out to the HBO show.

I like her, it just feels like many girls at my college are funnier and better looking - and they aren't going to have scripts made. So the question is: why her?

by Anonymousreply 2302/22/2013

Well at least she doesn't have to worry about getting fat and losing her looks when she hits 40.

by Anonymousreply 2402/22/2013

What DL is telling me is that I should watch her program?She's all over DL and if DL hates her...she must be doing something right.

by Anonymousreply 2502/22/2013

I love how the raging, man-hating fraus and lesbians troll here, taking snipes and shots at gay men who this site was both founded by and for.

Agree, this young woman is a gross pig. Doesn't mean she has no right to exist, just means she doesn't elicit many fans here.

If you don't like that, perhaps you should slog back to whatever sapphic dark hole you came from and stop making a nuisance of yourself around people who never welcomed you in the first place.

by Anonymousreply 2602/22/2013

"Once a certain level of interest is created, these talented people want to be associated with her because it makes them look trendy or intelligent enough to see the next celebrity or creative."

Great point. which is basically why someone like Judd Apatow, who is basically not going for the 20 something hipster demographic in his own work, has latched on to this walking potato. It seems doubtful he sincerely believes she is talented, he is simply jumping on the hype bandwagon to appear hip and in-the-know about a person who was suddenly deemed happening by another branch of the media.

The main problem I see with this Dunham woman, is her utter lack of talent. The hype is mind boggling!

People keep going on about her narcissistic in-your-face flaunting of her horrible physical appearance, though that's not the main problem I find with Dunham.

This woman could be the fattest, most smelliest looking creep in the world, yet people would give her a pass if she exhibited some actual talent. The series is self indulgent navel gazing at it's worst. Most of the characters are annoying and you have no sympathy for their plights because they are either straight out stupid or self absorbed twits who talk about nothing but themselves 24/7.

I see absolutely nothing remarkable about this series! EVERY generation has had self absorbed assholes going on about their lives, how is this any different?

"Girls" is like one long student film. The characters on "Seinfeld" were annoying, but they were well written, extremely funny and in some cases almost lovable despite the high annoyance factor. You almost felt sorry for George, I feel nothing for these "Girls" idiots.

"Girls" needs to be dissected: the writing is not very good, there isn't one character who is likable, not t mention, Dunham casting herself in a role as well as directing several of the episodes, was never a good move, especially considering her lack of experience. It's like letting a monkey loose in a room filled with delicate antiques!

Giving her full reign to indulge on this level was ridiculous.

I do feel bad for anyone struggling to break into show business on any level, then to see this woman's rapid rise without much work or effort, has to be extremely frustrating. Her success proves that today, 90% of success in showbiz is based on relentless hype and tenuous showbiz connections.

If you drum it into the public's collective head how 'new and fresh' or whatever something is, after awhile the public starts to believe it. Out society has become very passive, some people can't think for themselves.

As for Rolling Stone putting her on the cover, who the hell wants to read an interview with a very uninteresting person?

Dunham's world is very small, basically writing about oneself is very limiting, the public will tire of her downtown NYC elitist self absorbed bullshit. That's when not being attractive with then finally become a major liability to keeping whatever public interest she now has. She already looks about 45! You have to wonder how, in a world where actresses are trying to keep their jobs, how can someone who looks like Dunham hope to maintain a career as an actress.

When her rocker boyfriend becomes even more famous, he will dump her flat flabby ass pronto and start dating a model.

by Anonymousreply 2702/22/2013

That should have read:

"You have to wonder how, in a world where attractive, talented and accomplished actresses are trying to keep their jobs, how can someone who looks like Dunham hope to maintain a career as an actress? Especially when she has very little talent in that area to override the fact that she is not good looking? She won't even be able to maintain a career as a character actress, because she cannot act. She's either whining or yelling out her lines or she sounds as if she's seeing the lines for the first time off cue cards!"

by Anonymousreply 2802/22/2013

I thought Sex and the City was utter crap. SJP's outfits would have had her attacked on a dark street on the LES at night. Samantha's character would have been killed at some point for all the strange men she picked up and took home and she old have every STD in the book. I always thought Cynthia Nixon was gay bad was shocked to find she lived with a man with whom she'd had children. I could never see her as a heterosexual woman. And Charlotte was a nonentity.

But not only was it a huge hit;it's popularity is still high today. Tourists still flock to SatC "monuments" like the Magnolia.

Now all you people who dislike Lena Dunham and Girls know how I've felt for a decade.

by Anonymousreply 2902/22/2013

I apologize for my typos. My arthritis meds haven't kicked in yet.

by Anonymousreply 3002/22/2013

[quote]Ambitious people glom onto talented people and vice versa--anyone who can further their ascent.

Couldn't be more true about LA/Hollywood. Applause.

Perhaps the saddest thing about this? The people in this relationship dynamic really believe it constitutes a true friendship, and anyone outside of it is the enemy.

by Anonymousreply 3102/22/2013

I was never a big SATC fan, even though many people assume gay men are expected to be into fashion and a frivolous lifestyle, which is, of course, a stereotype, but SATC was escapist fun, unlike "Girls" which is extremely annoying, depressing and very hard on the eyes! Even the attractive characters are extremely annoying.

"Girls" is presented as a real view into a particular segment of 20 somethings, I hate to inform HBO, not all 20 somethings from middle class backgrounds are self absorbed whiners whose parents are bankroling their creative lifestyles. Three of my younger cousins are going to college while working two jobs and paying all their bills.

There is nothing worse than a person from a spoiled elitist background telling the rest of us exactly what a certain lifestyle is all about. Dunham is NOT the voice of any generation, I wonder what ad agency dreamed up that tag line!

As for her looks, most of today's young women care about their looks to the point of obsession, even the ones who don't wear a lot of makeup or designer clothes, still care about their bodies, skin and hair. Dunham's looks are not normal for a 20 something in 2013, she's an anomaly. Besides being flabby and shapeless, she always looks as if she's in dire need of a shower!

I do have one distant female relative who is extremely intelligent, she doesn't care about her looks at all, she always looks sloppy, her hair is always in a sloppy bun, she never wears makeup, even to attend a wedding. It seems she projects this image to stand out and annoy people, it all seems very calculated on her part. This woman is large, lumbering, she's studying to be a scientist. She's got this weird stare and has a superior arrogant attitude, what's even weirder, she reminds me of Amy Bishop!

by Anonymousreply 3202/22/2013

[quote]she never wears makeup, even to attend a wedding. It seems she projects this image to stand out and annoy people,

But it's wrong!... [italic]shockingly[/italic] wrong!

by Anonymousreply 3302/22/2013

Well, there really wouldn't be much point in a tv show about 20 somethings who work 2 jobs and attend college. It would be tedious.

by Anonymousreply 3402/22/2013

It's a tragedy what has become of that once fine magazine.

by Anonymousreply 3502/22/2013

"If you don't like that, perhaps you should slog back to whatever sapphic dark hole you came from and stop making a nuisance of yourself around people who never welcomed you in the first place"

That comment speaks to your women-hating tendencies but not for many gay men on here.

by Anonymousreply 3602/22/2013

The premise of GIRLS isn't very thrilling on paper either, R36.

by Anonymousreply 3702/22/2013

Who wants to see some ugly chick get naked and fuck on TV?

by Anonymousreply 3802/22/2013

I rather enjoy Girls. I just wish Lena would show less of her collapsed blancmange of a body.

by Anonymousreply 3902/22/2013

Sex and the City had much smarter writing, and it was great satire.

GIRLS is flat, not pretty to watch, banal disguised in some hipster pretense, and extremely over-exposed.

by Anonymousreply 4002/22/2013

She has tirelessly promoted tig notarodespite all the HATAS who dismiss Notaro as a lying zero. She is wise enough to throw in with this cancer warrior and gay icon of our new century.

by Anonymousreply 4102/22/2013

[quote]Is "Girls" anything more than "Sex and the City" recycled using hipster women in their 20s?

Right down to the unattractive lead actress desired by men out of her league.

Limey chick = Samantha

Brian William's daughter = Miranda

Dogface daughter of that cunt Mamet = Neurotic Charlotte

by Anonymousreply 4202/22/2013

I've seen the first season and it's fantastic, way better than SaTC, which is called escapist fun here, probably another term for stupid, shallow crap. Girls is clever, insightful and hilarious. Yes, the characters are annoying, just like real people, only slightly exaggerated for comedic effect and to shine more light on the truth.

However if someone hates women in the first place, there is little point in watching a show called Girls.

by Anonymousreply 4302/22/2013

I've been watching the episodes of this show after Bill Maher and it just looks like a bunch of not very hygienic, self-involved people yelling a lot and having their feelings hurt because everybody else isn't thinking about them all the time.

It's like the dirty, low rent version of the old thirtysomething show. "But what about [italic] my [/italic] needs!"

by Anonymousreply 4402/24/2013

What "career" could she possibly have after her series ends (she can't be a "girl" forever)- directing more twee movies nobody sees, about fatty misfits with Issues (sorry, Todd Solondz has that market covered)?

Sorry, Melissa McCarthy she ain't.

by Anonymousreply 4502/24/2013

TV is so full of artists trying to make it. All angsty and prickly and angry, throwing paintbrushes and rags at the wall. I'm an artist, I'm a sculptor, I'm a graphic novelist, I'm a writer, dammit!

There are always art galleries giving someone THEIR OWN SHOW, HELLO? My own show!

"That's fantastic! Woo! Your own show! (instantly becomes jealous, filled with feelings of worthlessness)"

Or the art galleries are giving someone a job to keep that person from being bored and feeling like her education was wasted.

Or someone's dad or mom dies and leaves her money, so she opens an art gallery.

I lived in NYC for 25 years and never met anyone who worked in an art gallery. I had friends who were artists and musicians, but they had kids and were scrambling for money in their 40s. The musicians were the unluckiest, trying to land jobs working in post-production sound on the Sopranos or 30 Rock. They had union jobs which all dried up. Sometimes they were offered per diem work at their former union jobs for half the money and no benefits. For two weeks.

The artists I knew got their work in art shows all the time, but it's no big deal. You almost CAN'T NOT get your work in art shows out in the Hamptons in summer. Even the delis in the Hamptons have art shows.

All of the artists I knew in NYC had very suburban worries. Rent/mortgage, kids schools, car (should I have one or not?), crime, impending college bills. They never threw paint rags at the wall in disgust at the bourgeoise world around them.

by Anonymousreply 4602/24/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!