Or is our generation just poorer and more depressing in general? Back in the day HBO’s leading ladies were Carrie, Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte, and they rocked designer shoes while hitting the hottest clubs in NYC. Now Judd Apatow’s “Girls” is being hailed as the “Sex and the City” of our generation, and these ladies’ days are filled with unemployment and boring dinner parties. Is “Girls” more realistic than “Sex” or are today’s 20-somethings more helpless than fabulous?
First, let’s examine the leading lady. We have Carrie Bradshaw, a columnist in NYC who somehow manages to own every Manolo Blahnik ever made and also land a sexy Wall Street mogul. The heroine of “Girls” is Hannah Horvath, an aspiring writer whose parents cut her off financially. Hannah unintentionally quits her unpaid internship after demanding to be paid, accidentally drinks opium tea, and then shows up at her parents’ hotel room high. And that’s all just the pilot. It’s clear that the whole writing thing worked out a lot better for Carrie, and it’s clear she’s a whole lot more independent. But a strong argument could be made for Hannah simply being a true representation of girls today, with the great recession and helicopter parenting shaping us into jobless, giant toddlers. It’s also pretty possible that Carrie’s life was never realistic in the first place, because I don’t think it’s plausible she was paying NYC rent on that sweet apartment without a roommate or a puppy mill in her basement.
When considering girlfriends, a lot of similarities can be clearly seen. You have the one with a good head on her shoulders and a good job, the Miranda of the group. This role goes to Hannah’s polished roommate Marnie. Then there is the flighty Samantha type friend, the fabulous one you’re jealous of because she lives her life without a care in the world. In “Girls” you have Jessa, the British Bohemian and unpredictable world traveler who babysits as profession. Then there is the bubbly, innocent one, the Charlotte of the group. The Charlotte is Shoshanna, Jessa’s American cousin whose biggest problem is that she is still a virgin. On the whole, I’d prefer the “Girls” group to be the ones around my brunch table because well, they’re just funnier. I appreciate a good Carrie Bradshaw pun as much as the next girl, but Hannah and her friends are smarter and so real that it’s hilarious. Not to mention they look like real people I would like to eat Greek yogurt with. Real people living in New York do not all look like Kristin Davis, and I would like a friend who I can complain to about feeling fat to once a month. And honestly, Kim Catrall’s face was mostly plastic for the majority of the series.
The next major point of comparison is men and dating. The women of “Sex and the City” were always on dates with doctors, lawyers, and hotel tycoons. Not to mention Carrie is eventually swept off her feet by the love of her life, the wealthy and sexy Mr. Big. In “Girls” Hannah sleeps with an out of work actor/ carpenter named Adam. He rarely texts her back and makes critical comments about her body. He’s that guy your with that none of your friends like and in two years you will look back confused as to why you would even speak to him. In this category the advantage has to go to “Girls.” At this stage in my life I can’t even convince a man to buy me coffee, much less take me on a moonlit carriage ride through the park.
In the end, “Girls” may just be the “Sex and the City” for millennials, but not because we are all ugly and date struggling actors. It’s because we are smart women who want to watch a show that is actually relatable and hilarious. We realize that you can’t always afford the perfect dress, Prince Charming is not there to sweep you off your feet, and sometimes your ex- boyfriend turns out to be gay.
photo cred motherjones.com