Uh…New York Post Column Dubs ‘Girls’ An ‘Economic Loss For High-End Gyms’
3:30 pm, January 4th | by Laura Donovan
Wrong, obvs, but one New York Post writer, who has had the privilege of previewing season two of the series, is having some trouble understanding why a tubby lady such as Dunham’s onscreen character Hannah fares better than poised, tall, brunette swan Marnie, who is boyfriend-less and job-less in the second season:
“[T]he gorgeous Marnie is the one who is now totally unlucky in love. Sometimes it just doesn’t pay to be smart, breathtakingly beautiful, nice and kind. Not when there are blobbies who are willing to take their clothes off in public constantly — even when they aren’t in character.”
The columnist is of course referring to Dunham’s nude video clip at last year’s Emmys and tendency to strip down in season one of “Girls.” The Post scribe goes on about Dunham and the program as a whole:
“It’s not every day in the TV world of anorexic actresses with fake boobs that a woman with giant thighs, a sloppy backside and small breasts is compelled to show it all.
It’s a boon for the out-of-shape, and perhaps a giant economic loss for high-end gyms, especially in Brooklyn.”
Well, Lena, if a comment like that doesn’t give you a sense of satisfaction or pride, I don’t know what will…