Jamie Moyer Didn't Quite Go Out In Style, But He Came Damn Close
Uncle Goober mentioned that he wanted to start a feature on his Geocities website where he would wait 28 days or 30 days before reviewing something. Kind of like having a first second look or sort of like just a really lazy reviewer who can't get his shit together. It's a good idea, which is why I'm stealing it.
That said, I'm not really stealing it because A) he probably will never get around to doing it so no one would be the wiser and B) I'm not really waiting 30 days to say something about something because I already jumped the gun and said what I wanted to say about [doing math here] about 38 days ago.
Except I've changed my mind a bit about HBO's Girls, especially after seeing how thick subsequent episodes have been laying on what was initially kind of just a slight parallel with Sex and the City (the one-to-one archetypes and the on-again-off-again relationship with Adam/Mr. Big kind of stuck out, not to mention the juxtaposition of the unpublished writer who spends too much time on Twitter with Carrie Bradshaw and I guess the fact that it takes place in New York Fuckin' City).
So if the show is sort of a gritty verité take on Sex and the City, then maybe Girls is HBO's way of buying carbon credits against their campy excesses with Sex and the City. Which is kind of a clever thought experiment, although I kind of wonder to what end. And then I think about Michael Patrick King and Judd Apatow sitting at the top of two shows about women and kind of get skeeved out, which is when I decide that's all I have to say about it, and mercifully cut myself free from the historical present. Jen thinks it's pretty funny though, which is why it's still occupying my mental space.
Posted: June 6th, 2012 | Author: Scott | Filed under: Those Who Can't Do Review | Tags: At Least I Think It's Called The Historical Present, Despite What The Title Says There's Nothing In Here About Jamie Moyer, HBO's Girls