Lena Dunham for ASOS Magazine

Posted on October 01, 2012

Girls star and creator Lena Dunham gets the ASOS treatment and she couldn’t be more suited to the brand.

 

Lena Dunham covers the November 2012 issue of ASOS Magazine and the new free app ASOS FASHION UP photographed by Danielle Levitt shot in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, NYC.

 

On success:
“…so many amazing things have happened in this past year, it was almost like amazing things overload…I wish these were slightly more spaced out so I could appreciate every single one with the correct amount of gusto and savor it as a memory until my deathbed.”

On shooting the pilot of Girls:
“Is this happening? I couldn’t believe the idea that I was going to get paid to do it. It was just so mind-blowing to me. I’d done things, but never on this scale so it was really trial by fire. I worked as hard as I could and sort of faked it until I made it.”

On the characters of Girls:
“I think it’s having heroines who are imperfect on television (of the show’s appeal) which hasn’t been allowed as much as it should be. Having girls who don’t look like every other girl on TV – even though I have beautiful girls on the show. It’s a mix of body types, complicated people and faces and attitudes.”

On growing up in NY and describing herself as a bit of a ‘weirdo’:
“I felt highly anxious in a way that I didn’t think other children were. I just wanted to be at home watching old Saturday Night Live reruns with my parents and trying to find the dirty parts of books.”

We’ve had fights over her. No, really. Not serious ones, but we strongly disagree about her charms. Lorenzo joins that large chorus of people who can’t stand her, find her pretentious, and don’t think she warrants nearly the amount of praise and press she’s received. Tom thinks she’s a talented, thoughtful writer (but only so-so as an actress) and appreciates her role in defying the conventions of Hollywood, which hold very dearly the notion that girls who look like Lena Dunham don’t actually exist.

ASOS Skater Dress With Kiss Print

ASOS Studded Oversize Denim Jacket in Random Bleach Wash

Adidas Originals New York T-Shirt

ASOS Full Skirt in Dogtooth Print, The Hundreds Vs The Seventh Letter Collab T-Shirt

 

But we’re in agreement that she makes the perfect model for the ASOS brand style of street fashion crossed with conventionally pretty fashion. She looks really cute here, especially in that red dress.

 

[Photo Credit: Danielle Levitt for ASOS Magazine/ASOS FASHION UP]

    • alyce1213

      I’m with Lorenzo. — trust fund hipster slumming in Brooklyn; I don’t see much else happening.
      I don’t like these clothes, either, except the metal headband with spikes.

      • A. W.

        This feels like unfair analysis. She’s clearly very talented. Her mother is a photographer, so she’s hardly the product of hedge fund managers. And even if she was, why should that be held against her?

        • alyce1213

          See, I don’t think she’s “clearly” very talented. “Marginally entertaining to some people” is as far as I’ll go.  Okay, maybe ‘trust fund hipster’ is not all fair since she’s not literally the child of hedge fund managers. But she is a child of privilege, which is fine if there’s something to back it up, which I don’t see. I’m exposed to many more talented young women and men who struggle for the recognition that came to her because of connections, provocative behavior and penchant for taking off her clothes (big deal).

          • http://twitter.com/GuidosDaddy Jason M. Galloway

            I disagree.  She is funny, smart, and attractive-all qualities a “star” should have. I doubt she had that many connections in the industry and even if she did, she has the talent to back it up.  I mean, do you begrudge Sigourney Weaver, Jake Gyllenhaal, Drew Barrymore etc for having connections?  I don’t, because their talent backs them up.  For every Paris Hilton out there we, luckily, have a Lena Dunham.  You don’t have to like her, but I sure do.

          • A. W.

            She broke into an industry that is not her family’s, and she did it at a tremendously young age. She directed a critically acclaimed movie, and then translated that success into an Emmy-nominated TV show for HBO. I like that she writes from a privileged space and writes about privileged characters: she isn’t attempting to speak for less privileged people, or steal away their voices. I think she’ll have learned from the backlash regarding the lack of people of color on the show, and maybe next season she will bring on, say, a black female writer to write her own character, and spread around the wealth of recognition of young talent. I have my fingers crossed!

          • http://twitter.com/jaythenerdkid Aaminah Khan

            Oh my god, YES. This, all of this, a million times over. She is just not. that. special. I can’t wait for this flash in the pan to burn out so I can stop hearing about her.

        • Sobaika

          For me the issue is not that she comes from privilege (although you’re right that plenty of worthier writers/actors get ignored) it’s that she writes from a place of privilege. It’s so out of touch. Honestly, I could only enjoy Girls when I viewed it as caricature.

          • JMansm

            But all of her work is just based on her and her friends (and variations of experiences), who are white upper middle class women. That’s a premise that you have to accept going into it regardless of taste.

            • Sobaika

              I have yet to meet an upper-middle class woman whose world is so narrow. There is plenty of good TV/film that is written by people who don’t represent me (20-something first-gen American) but manage not to be so exclusionary.

            • JMansm

              I don’t get how it’s so exclusionary other than the fact that there aren’t any women of colour in her friend group (which has been addressed at length and I’m not going to get into right now). Maybe the fact that she manages to be so irresponsible and get away with it but really every woman around my age I know (including women of colour) at least as shades of either Hannah, Marnie, Jessa, Shoshanna (or a combination of more than one of them). I don’t think it’s speaking for an entire generation of young women (or men, because I identify with a lot of what’s going on), by any means, but there are certainly aspects that are representative, particularly emotionally and tonally.

            • Sobaika

              I replied to you in the other comments area, but we interpret this show differently and you are free to love it. Not hating. It feels like we’re just going back and forth and stating the same things in different ways. But why not:

              While there’s much to be said about the lack of color on Girls, I’ve enjoyed plenty of shows with an all-white cast. It’s a casting style that we should be ashamed of at this point, but that’s another conversation altogether. 

              When I say ‘exclusionary’ I mean that basically, we see four versions of the same character. Oh sure, there’s the Neurotic one and the Bohemian one and the Virginal one. But they are all sides of the same person: Overly privileged, emotionally stunted, co-dependent, and myopic. They all come from the same place and have the same thing to say. Not to mention the financial issues discussed in the show, which for me are even more alienating to me than the race issue. My gut reaction to the show was the same as when I was in high school and The Hills premiered on MTV – Who are these people? They exist? How do I not become them?

            • JMansm

              I don’t really get the privilege thing for the show other than in the way that you and I would also be privileged because we have computers which probably means our basic needs are met and we’re able to deal with our other needs. Sure, these girls have clearly had help along the way from their parents (some more than others) but there’s no sense of the lavish or the excess (the way that there is in something like Laguna or the Hills). It seems extremely elitist to put yourself above being emotionally stunted, co-dependent, selfish etc. These are things that everyone goes through, usually in their twenties, and if you don’t you are a superhero (which is great, good for you) BUT you have to encounter people like that on probably a daily basis. I’m not trying to make you like the show I just want to point out how brutal it is to be so dismissive of characters who exhibit very transformable, widespread and harmless flaws. A lot of very functional and contributing 30-somethings were these girls in their 20’s. Emotionally, I am a lot like some of those girls right now (reminder, 24 year old male) and I know that I will sort myself out in the next couple years and I wish not to be dismissed as a whiny white boy. Maybe I am making this too personal though so I don’t know.

            • Sobaika

              Her parents were financing her life for two years and her roommate covered her rent for the next few months. She threw a drug-addled temper tantrum and refused to get a regular job when told she was being cut off by her parents. Said roommate also had a job as a receptionist, I think. Shoshanna is a college student with an apartment the size of Carrie Bradshaw’s. The other is, quite literally, a jet-setting babysitter. If none of that speaks to an out of touch purview then I don’t know what does. 

              I’m not sure when I gave the impression of being elitist or a superhero. One can have all of those negative characteristics, it’s just usually not all at once through a bunch of indistinguishable characters with the expectation of being lauded. There are plenty of characters on TV with well-developed flaws, I just don’t think Girls is one of them. I said before (I think it’s in a comment down below) that I don’t expect characters to be perfect, just interesting, and I find the characters stagnant and bland. The only one who has been given emotional development, relatability, and depth is Adam. The main character remains remarkably similar to who she was on Day 1, no grand year of self-discovery or inner exploration.

              I feel like this goes without saying, but to dismiss the show is not to dismiss you. I just don’t think it’s brutal to recognize her for what she is and it’s pretty true to how I’d treat her if I met her in real life. “Whatever girl, bye. Gonna go hang with Shoshanna and watch her tweak out.”

            • alwaysanswerb

              When I say ‘exclusionary’ I mean that basically, we see four versions of
              the same character. Oh sure, there’s the Neurotic one and the Bohemian
              one and the Virginal one. But they are all sides of the same
              person: Overly privileged, emotionally stunted, co-dependent, myopic,
              with a serious case of SIDDs – self-inflicted drama disorder. They all
              come from the same place and have the same thing to say.

              Maybe it’s because I do know a lot of people like this, but this show rings very true to me for this reason. When you are white and privileged and middle-upper class and you feel like there is something *unfulfilled* in your life, you develop these personality caricatures because you feel the burning need to be different from the other white, privileged, middle-upper class people around you. In this sense, I think the show taps into that in a way that is very honest.

              These issues are absolutely not universal, and watching people like this from the outside can be pretty damn frustrating. I just find it very fascinating that this particular show seems to be the scapegoat for all shows that we don’t relate to. I think it’s partly because “Girls” doesn’t try to be high-concept that it is getting so much flak. We have no problem not relating to, say, Arya Stark on “Game of Thrones” or Debra Morgan on “Dexter” or Walter White on “Breaking Bad,” and I think it’s because we accept automatically that we don’t live in their worlds. But when a show says “it’s about a group of people living in Brooklyn” there are a lot of people who think they could potentially relate to that. So when we see this group of very flawed, rather myopic (to take your word) and silly characters, we are frustrated because we wonder why those people get to have their stories told.

              And maybe there is something to that. Maybe we are over-saturated already with the stories of over-privileged white girls. I certainly won’t argue otherwise. But for the time being, having finally watched it, I did feel very drawn to it because of how cuttingly honest it was about that category of people. It exists neither to idolize them nor to take them down a few notches; it doesn’t have an agenda. For me, that was kind of a refreshing way to approach these women. For all of the “Sex and the City” comparisons, that show obviously wanted you to love those women and identify with them. I think with “Girls,” at least for those of us who have grown up like them, we identify with them *in spite* of ourselves.

              So yeah, this isn’t a campaign to try to get you or anyone else to like it better. But I didn’t really engage in this conversation earlier since I didn’t watch the show until last week, so this is the first time I’ve had thoughts on the matter.

            • MilaXX

              I think that’s why I’m not interested in it. I’m in my late 40’s and I find it sad that unless I watch BET, all tv wants to offer me is white, upper-middle class. Do I watch shows with all white cast? Sure, it’s kind of hard not to, but they have outstanding to grab my attention. Nothing I heard about this show made me want to give this a glance.

            • shelley514

              And there you have it right there!

            • SassieCassy

              LOL NO

              If your saying that a person is limited to writing exactly who they are on paper and their friends

              Then that makes them a pretty shit writer tbh

            • JMansm

              Oh no no I’m not saying anyone is limited to that I’m was just contextualizing the depiction of “privilege” in the piece by saying that that is how she has chosen to work with all of her short films and well as her full length filmw – permutations of the familiar.

            • http://profiles.google.com/ameliaheartsu Amelia Logan

              I am that demographic and i think the show is kind of boring. I’m rather indifferent to it. I have enough happening in my own life that I don’t really desire to watch a group of girls not being able to cope with the problems they create.

            • JMansm

              And that’s fine because I’m a male of around their age with a similar emotional composition and i find it to be at times comedic and at times enthralling. So this is down to a discussion of taste/preference which I find totally reasonable – it’s the people who hack down her right to even be on the air that bug me. Even if the show is boring, the fact that she is willing to depict female bodily anxieties (and demonstrated through her being naked, not just talked about) as well as things like STI’s is progressive and important.

    • nicole seligman

      i realize this question is probably moot now, but i’ve been wondering if there was any chance TLO would cover GIRLS or even the costuming. i think there are some really brilliant things going on over there (even just costume wise), especially in the finale. i see this is probably a no, but i wish i had someone to talk to about it!

      • Sobaika

        Maybe you could talk about it? Because I’m hard pressed to find anything brilliant about it at first glance. I’m curious about your thoughts.

        I should say that brilliant is sort of a word I reserve for Mad Men-level costuming and design.

      • rubigirl

         I would read a TLo “Girls” recap!

      • Laylalola

        The only thing I recall is that she’s an exhibitionist, a girl of perfectly average figure who doesn’t mind showing her skin in every other episode (or opening the Emmys with a shot of her naked sitting on a toilet eating cake). Maybe that’s the height of fashion to some, but I’m in Lo’s camp in regard to her on every count.

        • librarygrrl64

          Speaking as an old fart of 48, I do wonder if that exhibitionism is a 20-something thing, what with all of them having grown up being photographed and videotaped by their parents and also growing up in the internet/social media age. I see it quite frequently with 20-something celebs, bloggers, writers, etc.

          • librarygrrl64

            BUT, on the flip side, I wonder if she and other non-sample-sized young women get called out on their “exhibitionism” more because they’re not the standard Hollywood actress/model type whom we almost expect to see unclothed.

            • Celandine1

               I want to like this times a million.

            • http://twitter.com/PhDKnitter marlie

              Lena Dunham annoys me, but it has nothing to do with the amount of skin she shows off. And there’s absolutely a double standard with stereotypically “thin and pretty” women taking it all off, and those that fall outside of “thin and pretty” taking it all off. That’s an unfair criticism of her, because she’s not the first, and surely not the last to show some skin.

              I just can’t stand her because she’s annoying as f*ck, AND I think the idea of eating in the bathroom – a public one, no less – to be beyond disgusting (even if it’s just a skit).

            • DTLAFamilies

              She may be non-sample sized but she’s not 300 pounds either. And I wouldn’t call her ugly. How transgressive is her stripping, really? 

        • Celandine1

          I haven’t watched her show and don’t know much about her other than what I have read in some blogs. Regarding your post about her showing skin so frequently, I don’t recall such a frenzy about the Playboy girls doing that all the time in that horrid “Girls Next Door” show.

          • librarygrrl64

             It’s sad that it’s only “shocking” when it’s an average and/or conventionally unattractive woman who does it.

          • Laylalola

            To each her own. She’s an exhibitionist who is praised for being normal size and still showing off her tits and ass every other episode. I find it ridiculous that a woman of any size is praised for having this talent, and I take it you’re not praising the Playboy girls even as you imply you would praise Dunham if you bothered to watch her.

            • librarygrrl64

              Exhibitionism makes me feel a bit sorry for any of the perpetrators, no matter what size and shape they are. It always strikes me as kind of a juvenile, “Hey, mommy/daddy, look at me, LOOK AT ME!!!” cry for attention. Acceptable in a 5-year-old, pathetic in a 25-year-old.

              Being proud/unashamed of one’s body and being accepting of all body shapes and sizes and colors is one thing, constant exhibitionism is another. The former is healthy and desirable, the latter is mainly for attention and shock value, IMO. I am not shocked, nor am I titillated. It’s just body parts. Big whoop. We’ve all got ‘em. 

              But I’m not sure that Dunham is trying to be sexy. She wants a reaction, as does every exhibitionist (if that’s what she is), but with her I feel like it’s more political/feminist than sexual. The jury is out, however, on whether it has any effect, positive or negative.

            • JMansm

              She is not an exhibitionist in the “look at me sense,” and possibly not an exhibitionist at all. She’s telling a story and a lot of the story has to do with her body (please see my explanation about in response to Laylalola). 

            • librarygrrl64

              I did use “exhibitionist” in quotes up-thread, because I am not positive that’s the most accurate term anyway. However, that being said, she’s an intelligent and savvy young woman, and it would be disingenuous of her and of us to think that the nudity on the show isn’t purposely a message, and that it is purposeful on her part. Like I also said, I feel with her that it’s political/feminist, not sexual. Whether or not it can termed exhibitionism is debatable, IMO. It isn’t always strictly sexual:

              DEFINITION:
              1. someone with a compulsive desire to expose the genitals; someone who takes off all their clothes in public
              2. someone who deliberately behaves in such a way as to attract attention; a show-off

              Slightly off-topic, but HBO’s policy on showing nudity seems to be simply “because we can.” ;-)

            • JMansm

              I think we’re on the same page. I’m saying that her nudity comes from a place of talking about bodily anxieties and issues of intimacy and sharing one’s body with others (in the universe of the show that means Adam) and I think that just in the act of doing that/telling that kind of story she’s making a feminist/political statement or at least a statement that can be used in those spheres (which is pretty much in line with what you’re saying). 

            • JMansm

              The nudity in the show is not about exhibitionism. We all deal with our own naked bodies every day; that is something that people go through. In this show, the point of her being naked is not to thrill or entice the audience in any kind of exhibitionist way but rather to talk about personal bodily anxieties as they apply to identity as well as intimate relations with others (realized through her interactions with Adam). 

            • Laylalola

              While I agree that this ostensibly, on the surface, is why her character is nude on the show, I’m going to respectfully disagree. She herself is an exhibitionist deliberately and inappropriately exposing herself every chance she gets on the slimmest of excuses (see the later TLo entry with her without pants on the red carpet). She’s an exhibitionist seeking to thrill with the nice cover of playing a character (written and directed by herself) who is conveniently naked every episode, ostensibly “to talk about her personal bodily anxieties” (though for a character with a normal-size body she exhibits remarkably few personal bodily anxieties, in fact, I can’t recall one time in the season when her character talked about her personal bodily anxieties or demonstrated physical inhibitions of any kind).   

            • JMansm

              I definitely can see your point about the possibility of her being an exhibitionist outside of the work. For the second part I need to clarify though. When I say “talking about personal bodily anxieties” i mean talking about them as a writer/director for women or for people in general – by depicting this on a show (and one could argue that it wouldn’t have the same impact if willowy Jemima Kirke was naked all the time and it didn’t have the same impact when Zosia Mamet with her teenager’s body was in her bra and panties) she is opening up the conversation. However, there are a few examples of the character actually speaking about it and the best one is when Adam is playing with her fat rolls and she’s uncomfortable about it.

      • Glammie

        I wish TLo would write the occasional critique of shows that aren’t intriguing enough to them to regularly recap, but do, over a season, do some things that are interesting enough to write about.  

        They actually do this, but I wish they kind of made it an official feature–once a season comments on Glee if they can stand to glance at it.  

        • Sobaika

          I’d be interested in that too, it’s just that in order to do a once-a-season check on Glee, they’d have to watch the entire season.

          That’s not something I’d wish on anyone. I caught that awful Britney 2.0 episode and was embarrassed for the actors.

    • Sobaika

      Going with Lorenzo on this one – I find her basic as all get out.

    • Catiline

      Love that spiky jacket!

    • YAELS

      I’m with Tom. I LOVE her. She may be a little pretentious but she is also insanely, refreshingly honest, and willing to go really far by putting her body and her weirdness on full display. And she looks super adorable here.

      • formerlyAnon

         And a LOT of that “weirdness” – at least as represented in the show – I recognize from young people of the same ages in the 70s and 80s. It’s human nature, which comes in a range.

        (Recognize does not equal like, I avoided those folks as much as was consistent with having friends and doing interesting things.)

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5UQHEKG5EDX4T6NMARUC565TPQ Amy

      While I do agree with some of T’s points (it’s true, she has broken down a few doors), I am more in Lo’s camp! Could she BE more overpraised?!

      She can rock a red dress but please tell me she is never going to be rocking an Emmy.

    • MrsMaxPower

      I just appreciate that depending on which side of her face is being shot, and what expression she makes, girl looks TOTALLY different in shots. 

    • nannypoo

      I don’t know who she is and I don’t know what asos is, but I would say she looks cute here. Not so cute was her outfit at some LA Lemonade event that I saw on Huffpost, where she showed up in a big flowing top and shorts so short that you couldn’t see them. Looked like a fool, actually.

    • puesnada

      I’ve never seen Girls and frankly never want to. The moment that I heard it was just another show set in NYC with braying, whiny white twentysomethings who seem to have never interacted with a person of color in their life who wasn’t serving in some kind of service or magical negro capacity, I washed my hands of the show before I ever got near it.

      • Sobaika

        You’ll be (dis)pleased to know that I had the very same reaction you did, but I did ended up watching the show. HBO ran marathons of it, they really wanted to make Lena Dunham happen. Anyway, aside from a few rare moments (I laughed maybe twice) it’s sort of average and self-congratulatory. You’re not missing much.

        • http://twitter.com/Alloyjane Alloy Jane

          So it’s like Twilight without the vampires and superimposed yet sincere attempt at cultural diversity?  Yeah, no wonder it never interested me.  

          I’d rather watch New Girl.  I think that’s a more responsible depiction of the struggle to exit the extended adolescence of your 20s.  Those roommates are idiots, but they know they’re idiots and they’re trying very hard to be purposeful and not stupid.  Based on the comments, it seems like Girls does nothing but glorify the unending immaturity of entitled kids.  
          Also, “magical negro capacity,” LOL.  I don’t really care about any of the clothes on her, but I really want those balloons.

    • MK03

      Never seen the show (I don’t have HBO), so I don’t have much of any opinion of her. Though I do have a certain appreciation for her just being who she is and apparently feeling no pressing desire to conform to Hollywood’s image of a starlet.

    • http://www.thirteen.org/insidethirteen Gotham Tomato

      I so much wanted to root for her, and her show, just because she is an ordinary looking girl – the kind that usually doesn’t get through the Hollywood filter (and I don’t think most people really understand how that is). 

      But her show is horrific. It’s crazy that she refers to the characters as heroines who aren’t perfect, because I see no heroines there at all. Those girls are completely stupid and pointless, which shows that she really isn’t bucking the Hollywood stereotypes in any meaningful way — it is smart and strong girls and women who don’t get enough representation on television, not desperate, stupid ones.

      –GothamTomato

      • Sobaika

        I’m of a slightly different mind – I don’t expect characters to be always smart and strong (although you’re right in that it would actually be going against the Hollywood grain). 

        I just want my characters to be interesting. And I find most of the characters to be about as engaging as soggy oatmeal. I only care about Adam and Shoshanna, and only a little at that.

      • Winter_White

        Just curious:  did either of you, Gotham, Sobaika, see (and like? or dislike?) Tiny Furniture before watching Girls?  I did like the film, but have heard so much negative commentary about the TV show that I’ve avoided it.

        • Sobaika

          It was actually on my Netflix queue until the show and then I took it off. She has a pretty specific humor so I would think that if you liked the movie you might like the show? Most of its problematic aspects are independent of that, however.

          Check it out. You might agree with how many issues it has or you might really dig it.

          • Winter_White

            Thanks, Sobaika.  Probably won’t watch, though — I actually think those characters were best experienced in a very small dose! (Now that you’ve seen the, er, larger dose, and disliked it, I doubt you could enjoy the movie.)

            It might have been better for Lena in the long run if HBO/the media hadn’t pushed this show so hard.  People would’ve found it or not; liked it or not.  But the media overkill seems to have created strong feelings against her from people who’ve never even seen her work.  She’s only 26.  

            • http://www.thirteen.org/insidethirteen Gotham Tomato

              I wouldn’t grade her on a curve just because she’s 26. The show has to stand on its own or not regardless — and it doesn’t.

              But I do agree about the media. Before the show started they were claiming that it was a more realistic version of Sex and the City, and nothing could be further from the truth. SATC (before it got played out) rang true in many ways. Girls is just pathetic.

              –GothamTomato

            • Winter_White

              Wasn’t grading the show at all — haven’t watched a minute of it.  But her film made me want to see her grow as a writer/director…and this bout of early fame can’t help but radically change her trajectory.  (Is it selfish of me to wish that she’d had to struggle first, gaining maturity and wisdom and life experience?)  ;)

              I so want to see talented women making films.  Don’t know if Lena has the goods or not; I just don’t want her TV show to cause or contribute to any backlash against “women directors.”

            • http://www.thirteen.org/insidethirteen Gotham Tomato

              Yikes! A lot of pressure to be responsible for all women director-kind! Men make tons of crap movies and no one ever thinks there might be a backlash against male directors. I should hope we are beyond that by now.

              –GothamTomato 

            • Winter_White

              Yes, we should be beyond that, but I don’t think we are.

              “Men make tons of crap movies…” — truer words were never written!  Women still don’t have much room to make mistakes as filmmakers.

        • http://www.thirteen.org/insidethirteen Gotham Tomato

          Sorry, I haven’t seen it.

          –GothamTomato

    • AR16

      I just watched Tiny Furniture last night and was blown away by it.  I was also completely charmed by the dvd extra of her talking with Nora Ephron for 30 minutes.  I think she’s really talented and smart and I don’t find her pretentious at all, just well-educated.  These pictures of her are adorable.  

      • Winter_White

        AR16, I was writing mine (above) at the same time.  Sorry to repeat what you wrote much better!

        • AR16

           Hee, I’m just glad to know someone else here appreciated that interview.  They so obviously adored each other.  It was very cool of Ephron to do the interview.

    • http://twitter.com/Elizabethann1 Elizabeth Denton

      So cute! Love Lena and ASOS is perfect for her. Great styling. 

    • Winter_White

      Interesting take, Tom.  The DVD of her film Tiny Furniture includes an interview with her conducted by Nora Ephron.  Nora loved Lena, and described her as a sort of female version of Woody Allen:  an unphotogenic guy who muscled himself into the film scene — because he had something new to say as a screenwriter, director and actor.  (Nora substituted the phrase “unconventional beauty” for Lena.) ;)
      I like the red dress pic, too.

    • librarygrrl64

      I think she’s both, TLo. And I do so wish she would stop wearing that shit-or-get-off-the-pot waistline that’s not Empire, not at the waist. It’s not her friend.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1576973112 Patricia Groves Dobrowski

      Need to find those oxfords.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Austen-Jane/100002245814326 Austen Jane

      How’s this for soft: I think you are both right. 

    • Rand Ortega

      “I wrote the first season primarily by myself, and I co-wrote a few
      episodes. But I am a half-Jew, half-WASP, and I wrote two Jews and two
      WASPs. Something I wanted to avoid was tokenism in casting,”  she said.
      “Not that the experience of an African-American girl and a white girl
      are drastically different, but there has to be specificity to that
      experience (that) I wasn’t able to speak to. I really wrote the show
      from a gut-level place, and each character was a piece of me or based on
      someone close to me. And only later did I realize that it was four
      white girls.”

      Please explain how that statement, let alone any aspect of the ignorant, entitled characterizations rampant in “Girls”, defies the conventions of Hollywood. Girls who look like Lena Dunham don’t exist in Hollywood? What about SJP? Mindy Kaling? Tina Fey?
      Personally, I find those platitudes about her merely a convenient excuse to give this girl a free pass to express a certain demographic’s anger/dissatisfaction for no longer getting away w/ the preferential treatment oppression has allowed them for generations.

      • http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/ Tom and Lorenzo

        Please re-read what we actually wrote and respond to that. We’re not here to answer for everything Lena Dunham has ever said or done, so tone down the self-righteousness.

        • Rand Ortega

           I was responding to your statement that girls who look like Lena Dunham don’t exist in Hollywood. They do. “Girls” all white cast does not defy the conventions of Hollywood. They reinforce them. I never said you were answering for everything Lena Dunham has ever said or done. I was asking for a substantiation of the claims that she defies the conventions of Hollywood & gave examples of how her show reinforces conventions & actresses who, in their unconventional appearance, do exist in Hollywood. Sorry if I offended.

          • http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/ Tom and Lorenzo

            And once again, we direct you to re-read what we wrote. Because we did not say that girls who look like Lena Dunham don’t exist in Hollywood. We said that Hollywood HOLDS ON DEARLY TO THE NOTION that girls like Lena don’t exist.

            • Rand Ortega

              Now I understand your distinction. It’s Hollywood that holds on to the notion that girls like Lena Dunham don’t exist, not Tom. But what I still don’t understand is how she or her show defies Hollywood conventions. Or why she or her show deserves appreciation. I guess I just don’t get “it”.

            • http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/ Tom and Lorenzo

              We never said her show defied Hollywood conventions. Her looks do.

          • RebeccaKW

             I’m not defending or bashing T-Lo’s statement (or Lena Dunham’s show, which I have never seen nor care to), but I do think that while there are non-conventional beauties in Hollywood, they are rarely cast as leading ladies.  SJP, yes, but her angular face wasn’t so angular when she was younger and she’s always had that very thin frame-like in Honeymoon in Vegas, her body seemed almost the focus of her appeal.  Tina Fey does get leading roles, but never about appearance.  Which I’m not complaining about.  But her roles are based on her comedy, and in some cases (30 Rock), based on being unattractive. There are stories about Jennifer Aniston being encouraged to get a nose job, to be more attractive, less ethnic.  Jennifer Grey did get one.  Yes, Hollywood does recognize other appearances, but rarely in the same way it recognizes conventional beauties.  So I can see the point they were making.

            • http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/ Tom and Lorenzo

              I don’t even get why SJP and Tina Fey are being brought up because Tina Fey is conventionally attractive all around and SJP is a size two blue-eyed white woman with a great rack and great hair. Neither of them do much to challenge the beauty paradigm.

            • Sobaika

              Mindy Kaling to the rescue!!!!

              Although I saw her show and didn’t love it all that much either.

            • Rand Ortega

               I think in 1998 (when SATC debuted) SJP did challenge the beauty paradigm (regardless of her body, SJP simply is not a conventional beauty) & the comedy paradigm in SATC’s frankness about sex, particularly sex & dating re: women in their ’30’s. Consider the trend it created in ensemble women’s shows thereafter, for better & for worse.
              I honestly don’t believe “Girls” wouldn’t have gotten a chance if it weren’t for the success of SATC, which I think is connected to the lead being a “Katie” & not a “Carol Ann”.
              Tina Fey broke quite a significant glass ceiling for network comedy in being the creator, star & writer of “30 Rock”. Most of the executives who greenlight series consider women innately unfunny. Again, not a conventional “beauty”. Maybe this is splitting hairs, but these 2 ladies are not in the same league as Candace Bergen or even today’s Zooey Deschanel when it comes to looks.
              Mindy Kaling, on the other hand, trumps them all in the unconventional category.

            • RebeccaKW

               I would agree-SJP and Tina Fey are not conventional beauties.  I’m not saying they aren’t attractive, IMO.  But I think SJP’s attraction for a long time has been her body and not her face-I won’t repeat the tasteless ‘jokes’ I’ve heard/read, but it seems a lot of men/women do not find her attractive.

            • megohd

              Couldn’t agree with this more.

            • AnaRoW

              This is the first time I’m seeing this woman although I’ve heard of her.  What is it about her that isn’t conventionally attractive?  Judging from these pictures I’d say she looks like everyone else in Hollywood except maybe a bit heavier than most.

            • RebeccaKW

               I think it’s partly her figure, but I think partly her nose.  I don’t know what her heritage is, but I think she could be cast as Greek, Italian, Israeli…and I think Hollywood prefers the actresses to have a more generic appearance.  Her front teeth also seem a bit prominent.  And I’m not saying prominent teeth aren’t seen in Hollywood, but I think it relates back to directors/producers wanting a specific type for leading lady roles.  It’s unfortunate, but it seems to be the way it is, in the mainstream.

      • Sobaika

        Look, I’ll be the first to applaud women running their own shows in Hollywood, and especially women so young. It took Tina Fey and Amy Poehler half their careers to get there. Couple this with her non-Hollywood plastic looks, and on the service it is something to cheer for.

        That being said, I stick by what I said when the show first premiered: I like my feminism to be intersectional. The show’s purview is very specific, very narrow, and very one-dimensional. I guess I take it personally because I’m the same age as her characters, living in NY and trying to establish a career, and I should be so lucky as to live in Greepoint and be ‘too good’ to work retail. I’m not saying people like her don’t exist and that she’s not speaking a truth to someone out there, just that it’s not mine and it’s not one I’m interested in. Her clear lack of awareness regarding the race issue is just one example of how off-base the show can be.

        Basically what I’m saying is, people give her too much credit for simply defying Hollywood expectations. Her show isn’t that great.

    • janetjb

      I really want the red dress and the shoes.  I’d look silly wearing that dress, but I love it.

    • http://twitter.com/GuidosDaddy Jason M. Galloway

      Adorable.  I love her. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/seelebrennt Christina Diaz

      completely with Lo on this one…i just don’t see the appeal AT ALL. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=661256074 Mars Tokyo

      Too bad they had to airbrush and Photoshop the hell out of her!

      • megohd

        THANK YOU! I had to laugh at this:
        Tom thinks she’s a talented, thoughtful writer (but only so-so as an actress) and appreciates her role in defying the conventions of Hollywood, which hold very dearly the notion that girls who look like Lena Dunham don’t actually exist.

        … when, in this photo spread, they actually don’t! Lena is not recognizable.

        I like Tina Fey’s take on Photoshop: It should be used to make the subject look like they were captured in their very best moment on a very good day. Not so that the subject ceases to exist.

    • JMansm

      The sheer amount of multi-tasking she has to do in Girls makes her extremely talented. Furthermore, the whole “pretentious” thing is insane. She comes across as ridiculously authentic and grounded and couldn’t be further from pretentious. 

      • JMansm

        I feel like people see Brooklyn, artsy, nasally voice, quirky and immediately jump to “pretentious.” That’s not what that means, dears. 

        • Sobaika

          I feel like she considers the show much more significant than it actually is in terms of women in Hollywood, beauty expectations, norm-defying, and its ability to speak to the Millennial generation. And that is pretentious.

          • JMansm

            I really don’t think she does. To my reading and thinking she’s very authentically saying that this was just another project (very much in line with her other work) and she feels lucky that it got a good response (by good response I mean it got produced). I think the only way that she thinks she’s defying beauty expectations and speaking to the Millennial generation is that she’s doing something that she personally sees lacking in terms of the cultural production she has been exposed to. Basically what I’m saying is that she believes in her project but only in a vital, grounded, simple way and not in any kind of inflated or pretentious way. The people who write about Girls in an overly positive way, who actually take the line about “voice of a generation” seriously, are the problematic ones.

            • Sobaika

              We are both free to interpret the show and her words differently.

            • JMansm

              Certainly, but when we default to “both free to interpret the show,” then that undermines the point and pleasure of having a discussion.

      • julnyes

        If multi-tasking is the basis for her talent than Tommy Wiseau is a man for the ages.

        I actually have no opinion on her or the show (saw clips and it didn’t interest me) but that red dress is very cute and I love the shoes :)

        • JMansm

          Fair point but in fair response multitasking on an HBO program that received Emmy recognition and critical acclaim (I realize that I’m basically using the logical fallacy of appealing to authority but only in a mild way) and is really only criticized by arguments of taste and preference, is much different than multitasking on what is widely known as the worst film ever.

          • julnyes

            Many people have Emmys, but there can be only one WORST FILM OF ALL TIME!

            (I kid, I kid)

    • holdmewhileimnaked

      …..& up until the last photo they did, indeed, photoshop her into being someone who hollywood, yes, does think exists. & they mustve got her a bespoke version of the red dress cos it doesnt come in her size.

      • formerlyAnon

         Truth.

    • mjude

      never seen the show, have no connection to her. but i covet those shoes.

    • formerlyAnon

      As usual I lean Tom-wards. I appreciate that these are mostly not Hollywood beautiful people, though most of them are reasonably attractive. 

      Nonetheless, Girls annoys me because these are the current day t.v. – version of the people I avoided whenever possible in my late teens & twenties due to my lack of tolerance for drama, especially self-inflicted drama. Of course, you can’t always tell who’s going to get weird, or show ridiculous tolerance for drama in their friends, or have legitimate problems through no fault of their own, so you can’t really avoid them.

      Asos does not make clothes for me, and the people I have known who dress like this have always done it mostly by thrifting and making things themselves at a far, far, lower price point.

    • ThaliaMenninger

      I’m with Lorenzo on the not thinking she’s any great shakes. I tried the show once and HAAAATED it. Vapid, pretentious, way too spoiled and bratty. Poor Peter Scolari. I worry about him, always in the shadow of Tom Hanks, never good enough, now naked in a terrible show.

      But, anyway, the red dress is cute and the shoes with it are great. So there’s that. But why does she always look like she hasn’t got a brain in her head, like there’s no there there behind the blank eyes?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Julie-Chase/731391326 Julie Chase

      I watched the pilot for Girls and ran screaming (though to be fair I did hear it improved), but she does look rather charming here.

      • Kayceed

        I heard so much about it, I tuned in and… kept waiting for it to get better. Truly tedious. It is one of those shows that thinks it is much more clever than it actually is.  

    • teensmom99

      Lena Dunham must make whoever did the hair and make up part of her entourage.  She looks fantastic.  And she should have that red dress copied 30 times over!

    • MilaXX

      That first dress and shoes – WANT.
      She’s neither here nor there for me. I just don’t find the premise of the show interesting enough to tune in. I know who she is but not enough to call her pretentious.

    • Nonmercisansfacon

      “Thoughtful” is not an adjective that should be associated with the blissfully unaware Lena Dunham (or anyone associated in writing that show really). 

    • http://twitter.com/graceishuman Grace

      Whatever. eta: I mean, whatever to Lena Dunham. I was ready to give her a tiny pass before her ridiculous Islamophobic tweet. Now I’m just tired of her.

      • Sobaika

        That was just STUPID. At least she apologized… sorta.

    • ccm800

      That kater dress shot is the cutest pic I have ever seen of her. And those balloons are my new fave thing.

    • http://heartprintandstyle.blogspot.com Vivi N

      I don’t have a problem with the show. I don’t watch TV shows to ‘relate’ to them. TV shows are my escapism. If it just so happens that I watch a show with a character that I can relate to, cool beans! If it doesn’t happen, cool beans! Either way, I’m good. I either become invested in a character or I don’t. As long as the writing is good, I’m here to stay. It never crossed my mind that this was a lily white show until folks started talking about the problem. I’m used to watching lily white shows. It’s no big deal to me. If Lena grew up in an all white community, so be it. What I don’t want to see is some random token person of color added to the show just to appease the audience. It needs to be natural and thought out and well written. I heard Donald Glover will be a guest star in a multiple episode arc in the second season. And this was added way before the whole race hoopla. So, can’t wait to see that. 

      Anywho, yeah, Lena’s character, Hannah, can be quite annoying. Like, I want someone to bitch slap her. What keeps me watching are the other characters. Especially, Shoshanna. Which leads me to this…I wish the other actors on the show gets more shine than just Lena. I mean, I understand why Lena is getting the shine being she is the trifecta (creator, writer, director) of the show but still…it bothers me that I always see her face plastered everywhere and not the other actresses. I’m all about sharing. lolol. 

      Fashion time: Lena looks great in this editorial. Her new haircut is doing wonders for her.

      • crackineggs

         Well said. 

      • baxterbaby

        Sing it, sister!  Agree, so well said.

    • aristida_girl

      I love her and appreciate her work, and this spread, I say, good for her! I wish more shows would have average girls as protagonists.. 

      • SassieCassy

        Maybe thats it i guess….i dont think the show is original, just a super bland sex and the city redux.

    • mrowbecca

      I attended the same college as her, and it’s a wonderful place to learn about different EVERYTHINGS and expand your horizons. Except it’s like she never did. I knew plenty of people who attended posh high schools. Some of them were like her–unendingly self-absorbed. Others grew up and out of their bubbles.
      It’s sad that the place I love is represented by her. Ok, not sad, but annoying!

    • CarolinLA

      GIRLS is basically SATC with all the joy sucked out of it.  Sooooo depressing.  I found nothing to like about any of the characters.  And I’m completely sick of the random British actor being thrown into the mix to add interest.  Make that girl from Kenya or the Sudan to add interest.

      • alice20c

        I agree completely. In the last 10 years, tv characters have been getting richer and whiter to the point where working and middle class people are almost non-existent. Every time a Brit winds up in an American show, it feels like the creators are thinking, “OMG! Is it white upper class enough?! Add a Brit to make sure.” (Yes, I know that not all Brits are upper class, but that’s their shorthand meaning in American entertainment, the intended outcome.) So anyone from anywhere else, please. Also, someone NOT rich would be lovely too.

    • Bozhi

      Who is this person?  I don’t even have enough interest to investigate.  BORING

    • http://twitter.com/dianasof Diana

      “Having girls who don’t look like every other girl on TV” Really, Lena? Do you actually believe that’s what you’re doing?
      While it IS unfair to establish her as the poster child for a new feminist wave or whatever, and then ostracize her for the lack of POC in her writing (although I do find her excuses really pathetic), if she keeps casting herself in that light, as somebody who is doing something that’s different from what has been previously aired, as an outsider, then she better deliver. But she hasn’t yet.

    • http://www.facebook.com/josefranciscobejarano Jose Bejarano

      This has got to be one of the most annoying threads that I have ever seen. How can so many people hate a show that they’ve never seen and a person that they’ve never met? Whether the show is up your alley or not, it’s undeniably quick and sharp. If you can watch Shoshanna accidentally take crack or Hannah get makeup lessons from her fellow secretaries and not laugh, you just don’t have a good sense of humor. I think she inspires a lot of hatred (mostly amongst women) because of a little good old fashioned jealousy. Many women writers would love to be where she is right now. They claim that it’s because of her insane connections from her parents. Her photographer mother, Laurie Simmons. You know, that Laurie Simmons that has her foot in every door in Hollywood. Or the same women that blame the show’s popularity and critical acclaim on Dunham getting naked. I challenge all of you to try to get your own show by baring all. Dunham is a workhorse and a complete badass. I for one cannot wait for the next season of Girls.

      • Rachel Hewitt

        Couldn’t agree with you more. And for me the bottom line is: I laugh every time I watch an episode.

      • Sobaika

        I’ve seen the show and freely admit Shoshanna is one of the few characters that made me not turn the TV off immediately. I also think it’s lily-white and wildly out of touch to the point of wanting to smack the characters in the face. Doubt I’m coming back for the second season, unless HBO does more of it’s 24/7 marathons. 

        If you’re going to knock the people in the comments who aren’t that jazzed about the show or Lena Dunham, you can at least say something other than we’re just jealous.

      • http://howtofaint.tumblr.com/ How to Faint

        Oh, I’ve seen the show. Quick and sharp are not words I’d used to describe it.

    • alice20c

      Late to the party, but I have to side with Lorenzo I’m afraid. So overpraised. 

      The problem I have with Girls is that it ignores what’s happening in actual NYC. A recent study showed that the places losing diversity the fastest in the city are exactly those hipster neighborhoods that Girls is set in, so the show’s lack of AA representation reflects a real avoidance racism that has real repercussions costing people their homes. Plus, Bloomberg has spent a decade “transitioning NY to a luxury economy”, displacing huge segments of the middle and working classes intentionally. The parent-funded hipsters are the first blow. The characters in Girls are deployed to raise the rent values and break the hold of rent-stabilization, so that the poor and working classes are pushed out. If the process is efficient, the property values and taxes rise too quickly for the middle class to get a foothold. Now, the first gestures at ending public housing are being made. The city’s being remade to evict everyone but most wealthy. This is a very angry, tumultuous time in NY, and one of the most visible components are people like the Girls characters. 

      The show couldn’t care less. It’s like it’s not even happening. The characters don’t care about anything outside themselves, and their world (unrealistically) doesn’t intrude on their narcissism. So…how is Girls a revelatory and progressive again?

      • Sobaika

        Bless this comment!

    • mypersonaloasis

      I’m torn. There were aspects of Girls I liked but it could get awfully whiny. The aversion to actually working hard to get somewhere in life didn’t sit well with me. Presenting Hannah’s situation being bankrolled by her parents after college as normal and the horror of being cut off was so unrepeatable to me and most of the people in my social circle.

      Also it’s probably unfair, but it kinda bugged me that all the lead actresses (except for Lena) on Girls are all daughters of successful fathers. It makes me wonder if that has anything to do with the “privileged” nature of the show.

    • http://howtofaint.tumblr.com/ How to Faint

      Too bad she couldn’t defy Hollywood conventions by casting someone, anyone who wasn’t white. 

    • shelley514

      I see lots of airbrushing.  She’s not making these clothes appealing.  At least not to me.

    • AthenaJ

      ASOS clothes are always hit or miss with me… though are those saddle sneaker shoes with that kiss print dress? If so – fab!

      I also totally identify with her ‘wierd, anxious child’ comment. Watching old SNL reruns and trying to find the dirty parts in books were EXACTLY what I did when I was younger. Damn, me and Lena could have been hanging out!

    • http://twitter.com/chylde chylde

      Look here, TLo and anti-Dunhams. Lorenzo – this girl would be your best friend if you gave her half a chance. She’d be a helluva lot more interesting at one of your dinner parties than most of those bland talentless chicky-poos  you critique.