Okay, so this happened! The producers of Girls were doing a Q&A panel for the Television Critics Association, when an unidentified male reporter stood up and unfortunately asked this question. (From EW and Today.)
“I don’t get the purpose of all the nudity on the show — by [Dunham] in particularly. I feel like I’m walking into a trap where you go, ‘Nobody complains about all the nudity on Game of Thrones,’ but I get why they do it. They do it to be salacious and titillate people. And your character is often nude at random times for no reason.”
Exec producer Judd Apatow’s response:
“That was a very clumsily stated question that’s offensive on it’s face, and you should read it and discuss it with other people how you did that,” Apatow said, speaking to the reporter who asked the question. “It’s very offensive.”
Creator Lena Dunham’s response:
“[The nudity is] a realistic expression of what it’s like to be alive. But I totally get it. If you’re not into me, that’s your problem and you’re going to have to work that out with professionals.”
Apatow continues:
“Do you have a girlfriend?” executive producer Judd Apatow asked the reporter, who responded that he did.
“Does she like you? ” Apatow replied. “Let’s see how she likes you when you quote that with your question, just write the whole question as you stated it. Then tell me how it goes tonight.”
Other questions were asked, but later EP Jenni Konner interrupted her own response to circle back around to the offending reporter:
“I literally was spacing out because I’m in such a rage spiral about that guy,” she said pointing to the question-asker. “I was just looking at him looking at him and going into this rage [over] this idea that you would talk to a woman like that and accuse a woman of showing her body too much. The idea it just makes me sort of sick.”
So far the reporter is unidentified… but I sincerely doubt the judge and jury of the internet will allow that to be the case for long.
UPDATE: The reporter identifies himself and responds… poorly.
Great, now I’ll stick my head on the block for no reason: it was clumsily stated, but the vitriolic response seems kind of ridiculous to me.
Nudity is just one of many artistic choices. In a society as schizophrenic as ours about sex, gender and body issues, the choice to show live naked bodies in any context is a strong statement. Often it’s obvious why nudity was chosen. Sometimes it isn’t. It wasn’t to this reporter. He asked.
The beginning of Dunham’s response (“a realistic expression of what it’s like to be alive”) was perfectly fine.
Is the objection that his words can be twisted into saying “DURR those ladies are sexy and I get sexy stuff but I don’t find you sexy so why are you showing me this DURR?” I don’t really think that’s what the guy is saying.
Even there though it strikes me as a dumb question. Whether intended or otherwise, he makes it look like he has no idea what nudity would be doing in a show if it fails to titillate.
So, don’t ask about the use of nudity on Girls apparently.
Yeah, I haven’t seen much of “Girls,” but at one point I was a 20something living with roommates. There was occasional nudity that had nothing to do with sexytimes — more like people being on their way to the shower or getting coffee early in the morning and — most importantly — being comfortable enough with their bodies and our living situation that it was no big deal. Having this part of life on a TV show about similar roommate setups probably adds to the realism. This reporter seems both snide and clueless. (And it doesn’t appear that the response has been “vitriolic” — more just like, “Dude, really? Think about what you just said.” We need more responses like that when people say snide and clueless things.)
Bullshit, this guy asked a reasonable question and Judd Apatow, a horrible filmmaker who became famous by making totally sexist movies, jumped down his throat just to show off his newfound feminism. Girls, like all Apatow projects post-Freaks and Geeks, is a completely shallow show that explores nothing but its own navel. The guy should have just asked the broader question, “why anything that happens on this show.” Lena Dunham gets naked for the same reason Lady Gaga does, it makes people talk about her.
Had he not singled out Dunham perhaps the question would’ve received a more measured response.
You give the guy too much credit, Colin. Just because he holds a mic doesn’t mean you can infer the best intentions from his question. He “gets” Game of Thrones nudity which happens to be ridiculous and arguably gratuitous. If Alison Williams were as nude as Lena Dunam on the show he’d probably get that, too. I assume nothing more from him because the subtext of his question falls squarely into the same category of dense, negative reactions to nudity from someone who looks a bit too real for his taste.
What we’ve learned today: if Blogtown ever published the “Don’t Be a Dick” column on Fridays any more, this week’s winners would be Apatow, Dunham, and Konner.
The journalist in question responded to the controversy last night. He’s not by any means an unidentified male.
http://www.thewrap.com/judd-apatow-lena-dunham-get-mad-asking-shes-naked-much-girls/
Until she shows some beav, this is a non-issue.
Roll Tide
@herpderp, thanks, that would seem to confirm it. TSW, would you agree that I wasn’t giving the guy credit he wasn’t due?
It sounds like his question was more about the volume of casual nudity that seemed (to him) to fit no narrative purpose. I’ve never seen this show, but I’ve sure seen a lot of ink spilled over that part of it. He didn’t ask the question very well, but I think it’s certainly possible to be confused about that without necessarily being offensive or misogynist.
For example, if someone films and presents as art a scene that’s simply ten minutes of a naked woman eating Froot Loops, are people not allowed to ask why the artist chose to present her that way?
As Dunham and Apatow do here, it’s simply disingenuous to pretend the artistic choice of nudity can be divorced wholly from its general context (a country where women’s bodies in culture are presented as sex objects nearly 100% of the time) and its specific context on HBO, a network that seems to wedge sexy, naked women into every possible scene. In other words, it’s unfair to say, “it’s so prudish or repressed or misogynistic to even ask that question because obviously real people are naked sometimes. Stop telling women to cover up if they’re not sexy, Hitler.”
I think this is simply a case of misplaced rage*. These people are (rightfully) mad at how culture and sociey treats women’s bodies. Here however, it seems like they are all leaping at the chance to humiliate someone for MAYBE betraying just the faintest whiff of what they’re truly angry about. That they are correctly angry about SOMETHING doesn’t make their obnoxious reactions appropriate.
* (And possibly well-placed rage at being presented, yet again, with a question they seem to see a lot of variants of.)
I too don’t get it. Reporter wants to know why so much nudity. What’s the big deal here?
I Read the reporter’s response. He just reiterates how fine he felt about his question, not much else.
It’s not a ground-breaking or insightful question. Dunham’s one-sentence answer was perfectly sufficient.
After the same broken-record, obtuse criticisms I wish someone would cut honestly through the BS and ask what they really want which is “Why are you with your mis-shapen, smaller-than-average boobs, lumpy thighs and average physique so nude on the show?”
Colin, you should check out the show. I’m curious then how you’d respond to the topic.
It’s only a 30 minute show. It’s not 26.5 minutes of Dunham’s boobs. But Dunham is the star of the show. She’s on-screen the most, and therefore nude the most. But she’s not the only one. There’s plenty of unique-to-tv sexuality, too. Allison Williams gets her pussy eaten. Adam gets agressive and partially date-rapes a girl and cums on her chest. The characters make tons of questionable sexual decisions.
Focusing solely on Dunham’s nudity (like this guy’s question did) ignores all the very worthy over-arching discussions one could have about the show’s content.
She is a con artist. I’m sick of all the publicity about the show. She is the worst thing about it. She’s a good comedy writer, who wants to con everybody into thinking she’s some feminist hero/martyr.
And I would complain about the nudity on Game of Thrones. Where was Robb buck naked? I think Martin put the cruel treatment of women in his books to show its unfairness. On the show, it’s just “here’s some titties!”
I just assumed there was nudity on “Girls” because it’s on HBO… I mean has there’s tits and gratitous nudity on display on just about every HBO show ever–doesn’t anyone remember the old 90s show “Dream On”?
TSW, you obviously know the show better than I do (though I know all those plot lines because I’m a human with an internet who lived through last year), and the people hearing the question in real time are better judges of whether the question’s tone justifies re-interpreting it as the words you put in his mouth.
Still, it doesn’t seem fair, based on so little evidence, to assert that the guy wouldn’t ask this about another, lesser character on the show who is presumably (from your context) more conventionally attractive. It also seems unfair to assume that this is the guy’s ONLY question about the show and the only issue he considers worthy of thought or discussion.
That still just brings me back to:
Everyone understands why characters are naked in sex scenes, whether stylized (Game of Thrones) or not (Girls).
Everyone doesn’t necessarily understand why someone is naked when they are not either having sex, bathing, or getting dressed. More precisely, not everyone understands why Girls chooses to show this particular moment (or so many particular moments) of it’s main character’s casual nakedness.
This reminds me of the debate about whether the amount of n-words in Huck Finn indicates anything meaningful about Twain’s racism. We know that volume should mean SOMETHING, but it can’t necessarily be reduced to a bean-countery “X number of n-words = verisimilitude, X+1 = racist.”
In other words, isn’t it OK to be confused about what volume is supposed to be telling us, especially when it’s so rare to see the artistic choice in question at all?
Again though; his main problem -by his own words- seems to be a childlike misunderstanding of the presence of nudity outside of a boner-making context. In the case of ‘Girls,’ a lot of the time it’s there for humor’s sake. Sometimes it’s about vulnerability, mental instability, or just a quick take on how people who are friends can be so completely comfy with each other.
I don’t know if Dunham, Konner and Apatow are quite right about what they’re mad at, but I do know this reporter asked a dumb fucking question, and is now being made to feel dumb for it, which is good.
“Everyone doesn’t necessarily understand why someone is naked when they are not either having sex, bathing, or getting dressed. More precisely, not everyone understands why Girls chooses to show this particular moment (or so many particular moments) of it’s main character’s casual nakedness.”
Colin,
I just don’t think it’s a question that demands an explanation. Watch the show and I think you’ll agree. Any answer you could get easily connects back to Dunham’s original answer. Why is she naked in the scene where she’s walking around her house and about to take a bath? Because that’s what people look like in their homes. These are the types of scenes people complain about. They are so unworthy of justification.
In a bigger context, I guess I find what shows exclude far more intriguing and thought-provoking than a few extra seconds of titty on my screen. Speaking of, like why no dongs still? Why can’t two gay male characters show affection?
I remain suspicous of nudity used to keep my attention on any show, to include Game of Thrones.
Sometimes even, especially GOT.
I become wary of the writing when it feels to me that hot chicks bodies are being used as a crutch.
And, 99% of the time, it is being used to make up for lackluster writing. Don’t kid yourself.
TSW, seen “Shortbus”?
Thinking that film was a comedy (heh heh, he/she rides the shortbus) I almost brought that film, unwatched, over to a dinner party.
Well, maybe it would have made the evening even more memorable I suppose…
Leave her alone, who said actresses have to look like perfect models? Do all male actors look like models?
http://goo.gl/dZfup1
Dunham is the one with the problem, not the reporter. She’s an exhibitionist that has a tv show.
Gee, an exhibitionist in the entertainment industry? Who would have guessed?
I wonder what the responses would have been had a woman asked the question.
Apatow and Dunham over-reacted because Dunham looks the way she does with her clothes off. They know her nudity creates a spectacle but they vehemently object to any question of “why” it creates a spectacle.
Assholish Hollywood Hypocrites.
This is the same question that narrow-minded assholes have been asking since the show went on the air. It’s old. And it’s been answered. And it’s not like Hannah walks into work naked, or goes to a party topless, it’s always understandable nudity. I can’t remember any time when I thought to myself while watching, “why is she nude right now?” Whereas, in GoT, it’s always gratuitous and over-the-top. But why should we even compare it to GoT? the shows are nothing alike.
I’m glad there’s a show that sometimes shows nonsexualized, realistic nudity or semi-nudity, and especially with an average female body. It’s progress. (Sometimes change is uncomfortable or surprising!) And I’m pretty sure this level of nudity would be a non-issue in Europe.
The idea that nudity on Girls would be called a “spectacle” is so weird to me because it’s so downplayed on the show. GoT is the one that’s all “LIVE NUDE WHORES!” in your face. That serves its purpose too, though it’s a completely different purpose.
I like both of these shows, and I actually like GoT a lot better on the whole, but I am so tired of this debate about Lena Dunham’s body. There’s nothing confusing about it. It’s just a stylistic choice toward realism. The only reason that would be confusing is if you really buy into the beauty myth and are interested in perpetuating it. So can we quit with the pervy nudity focus please? There are plenty of other aspects of the show worth talking about, like how it’s so boring but you can’t stop watching it anyway.