Is Girls the product of nepotism? Does Girls flatter privilege? Is Girls racist for not casting nonwhite actors in its central roles? These questions were posed in thinkpieces in the show’s first few weeks. Only the last is really worth asking. The rest are for people who have ideological hammers and treat whatever’s recent and “hot” as a nail.
This is the kind of conclusion - tucked away in the middle of the article! - that a UK critic wouldn’t be able to make. It’ll be interesting to see how much more attention class and privilege gets when the show officially hits the UK in the Autumn.
Seitz is probably right in not wanting to give the question of nepotism too much attention. The show is good, and biting enough of its protagonists to at least deflect those problems away. But I’d be surprised if anyone thought that the sons and daughters of teachers becoming teachers themselves is the same thing as the dynasties of politicians and media types that give both professions their reputations as closed shops. I can imagine a Tory minister making a similar point on Question Time: ‘Well, yes, I am the 10th generation in my family to take PPE at Kings and serve as MP, but let me ask you a question, sir: was your father also plumber?’.
Another small observation from the class-obsessed, Marx-reading side of the Atlantic. I know Americans see everyone as middle-class, but Seitz describes the characters as ‘upper-middle-class’ when at best they come from an ordinarily middle-class background and live a - as he does point out of Adam, to be fair - fauxheimian lifestyle of lower-middle ‘discomfort’. You want Upper-Middle Class? This is Upper-Middle Class.
Stop erasing the working classes from your class system, ‘merica.
(Source: vulture.com)
