I watched the first two seasons of “Girls” and while I enjoyed many moments in the writing – when delivered well, the dialogue could be slyly caustic, a sign of a well-honed sense of humor. There was an overall verbosity though that drove me nuts. With the exception of Shosh and Adam, the characters are either boring or unconvincing, and naturally remind me of those in “Sex in the City” – their interactions having about as much resonance for me. Which means little. I NEVER understood the hysteria about “Sex in the City”. And of course, “Girls” reeks of the latter’s influence (though I will say its much more interesting w/its explorations of awkward sex, OCD, etc.). Still, it was with a detached curiosity that I kept watching, the anthropologist in me**, I guess, wanting to see the world of generation Z through Lena Dunham’s eyes. Ultimately the characters felt too self-involved and privileged for me. (**I was once actually on a PhD track for cultural anthropology until in my second year I realized the discipline would be forever mired in its colonial roots – still, I will forever be inspired and intrigued by otherness)
Anyway, I wrote all that as prelude to saying how I’m now watching http://www.hbo.com/enlightened, another HBO show, featuring Laura Dern, who co-produces, and I’m faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more engaged! Its really odd, the tone of it, as Dern’s character who is seemingly manic/bipolar works for a company whose sinister practices only she seems to care/know about. Where her mental illness ends and her authentic desire to change the world/herself begins is constantly confused – classical unreliable narrator – such that she acts crazy but much of what she says isn’t. This tension is addled, humorously, by her wholehearted embrace, California-style, of spiritual gurus and treatment center cults. She’s fascinating, and her relationships – with her taciturn mother, her self-medicating ex-husband, her co-workers – are much richer than Dunham’s are, though both shows share a well-honed awareness for the awkward disconnects that comprise so much human contact. If in “Girls”, this self-consciousness seems an end unto itself, in “Enlightenment” its represents the spiritual aims of its protagonist. Her belief that change will come if you will it, though thwarted again and again by all that can and does go wrong, remains steadfast, and soon you begin to stop waiting for outcomes that prove her right (sane) or wrong (crazy).
Interestingly enough, both represent the real-life experiences of their writers. In the case of “Enlightenment”, Mike White, who also co-stars – brilliantly as Judd – and co-produces with Dern, wrote screenplays, hated Hollywood politics, and suffered his own nervous breakdown (like Dern’s character at the outset). This article in New Republic interestingly conveys some of what I just wrote as the reason for the show’s low-ratings:
“The reason “ENLIGHTENED’ has gotten such consistently, unjustly low ratings since it premiered in 2011 seems to be that viewers don’t know quite what to make of it. The show can be very funny, and was included in the comedy category at last year’s Golden Globes—but it is not a comedy. The tone is something all its own: It teeters so precariously between earnestness and self-awareness that viewers are left half repulsed by its worldview and half converted to it.”
I say decide for yourself, I recommend it, especially for those who like to challenged/thrown off-kilter.
