Lena Dunham, Exposed on SNL!

Lena Dunham, Exposed on SNL!

 

What Lena Dunham lacks in talent and grace and taste she apparently thinks she can compensate for with chutzpa and crudeness and an insatiable appetite for public exhibitionism, all of  which proclivities Lorne Michaels and his “Saturday Night Live” cohorts must have felt would be the ingredients for a spectacular show and great ratings.

They were miserably wrong on all counts–mainly in picking “Girls” creator and star Dunham to host last Saturday.  Dunham bombed with her chutzpa, crudity, and exhibitionism as well as in the ratings game.

And, it’s not as if NBC didn’t hype her appearance by putting Dunham on its Today and Late Night with Seth Meyers shows prior to her hosting “SNL,” all to little avail. 

According to Deadline.com, the 27 year old presumptuous actress/comedienne pulled in a “4.1 household rating in the metered markets and a 2.1 in adults 18-49 in the markets with Local People Meters. That was down 11% in households and down 19% in 18-49 from last week’s show hosted by Jim Parsons. These are SNL‘s second-lowest results of the season in both households and 18-49.”

Those lousy numbers prove once again that it’s impossible to make a silk purse out of a sow’s rump no matter how much promotion a network does.

“SNL” long ago lost the luster that made it one of the most popular shows on NBC before its decline from the “not ready for prime time players” into the “not ready for any time hosts.”  Three nights ago the show lost whatever claim to fame it ever had as well as any shred of decency it had left, all thanks to Lena Dunham.

“SNL” also long ago lost its satirical sense of purpose and instead of ridiculing foolishness and corruption through biting humor, last Saturday, Lorne and Company resorted to a mocking, borderline-blasphemous skit posed as comedy and featuring a naked Lena Dunham in the role of Eve and Taran Killam as a similarly-naked Adam satirizing the Bible’s Book of Genesis, life in the Garden of Eden, and God Himself.

Clearly a product of her parentage, of her Protestant father, Carroll Dunham, who paints “overtly sexualized pop art” and her Jewish mother, Laurie Simmons, who “photographs artistic domestic scenes with dolls” . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=36233.)

Vogue Revisions Lena Dunham

Vogue Revisions Lena Dunham

 

As a proud feminist, twenty-seven year old Lena Dunham should know better.

The fairly frumpy star of the HBO flop ”Girls” is clearly no shrinking violet and thinks nothing of exhibiting her far-less-than-perfect body as if she were an alternate Miley Cyrus but absent the twerker’s, the wrecking ball girl’s, admittedly controversial panache.

Nevertheless, Dunham, described by Wikipedia as a product of a Protestant father, Carroll Dunham, who paints “overtly sexualized pop art” and a Jewish  mother, Laurie Simmons, who photographs artistic domestic scenes with dolls, is now being portrayed by Vogue as a classic beauty, thanks to a ton of photoshopping and what seems to be Vogue’s odd commitment to magically and un-femistically converting an average girl into a gorgeous Hollywood starlet.

That effort won’t work except with starry-eyed Lena fans but much more relevant is the question of why Vogue would so twist the reality that Dunham is what used to be called a “plain jane” and manufacture her into something she isn’t?

Billed as “the world’s most influential fashion magazine,” with a print circulation of more than eleven million, Vogue seems to be editorially saying that plain girls and young women must have their physignomy altered to conform with contemporary, societal expectations of beauty rather than depicting them for who and what they are even if they’re far from classic beauties.

“Girls” pretends to be a comedy/drama allegedly based on Dunham’s “life experiences” whereas it actually serves more as a televised vehicle for her father’s “over sexualized pop art” and her own desperate cravings for attention which must be exacerbated by Vogue’s presentation of her as someone that isn’t really real.

In her defense, . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=35218.)