Hannah v. Carrie

"GIRLS" is often seen as the modern "Sex and the City". The shows are very similar in that both are based on four different women living in New York City. Both series focus on sex and relationships, as well as friendship. While they have their similarities they are also very different.
There are two major differences between the shows; first off, "Sex in the City" is about older women, around their mid-thirties and older. This clearly brings about a whole different crowd of viewers. The characters are constructed around what is supposed to be real women living in New York City, just like "GIRLS" but for older women. Both main characters are writers, but Carrie Bradshaw becomes successful; she publishes a book and is on the cover of magazines and is well-known throughout the city. Not one of the characters every truly struggles with money. When Carrie goes through a rough patch she has all of her friends and Big to offer her the money she needs.
Another huge difference would be the time that the shows were produced. "Sex and the City" began filming in 1998 and lasted until 2004 (not including the two movies). GIRLS, on the other hand, began in April of 2012, just under two years ago. These differences make it hard to compare the series since they are vital factors. However, I think we can compare the progression of HBO instead.

While I absolutely love "Sex and the City", I do think that it plays into some of the roles our society expects the media to produce. All four of the women are, or can be, very independent, self-reliant women. However most of them turn to men when they start to feel alone. Carrie Bradshaw is a glamorous writer living in NYC. She has a pretty decent apartment and no doubt spends all of her excess income on designer shoes and clothes. That is her trademark! Have you ever thought about how she has the money to do that though? She has a new outfit every episode, multiple even. Yet she often struggles to keep steady income as a writer, just like Hannah! Carrie does write a book at some point in the series and writes for a high-profile fashion magazine, but it isn't clear how she has enough money to buy extremely prices clothes. This just shows women that if they want to be glamorous and score men like she does, they have to be overly focused on their appearance, even though it is clearly not as easy as the show makes it seem to earn the income that would allow any woman to do that. Now, Carrie is at least a decade older than Hannah, but I do think that Hannah is a much more honest representation of reality in this case. Hannah is striving to be a successful writer in NYC and she is constantly searching for a way to support herself; her struggles are made clear throughout the series. Hannah has yet to succeed in her ambitions, but maybe that is something we will see in a later season. Either way, I don't think Hannah would change herself to fit this glamorous ideal even if she became successful. If I had never seen the show GIRLS and had watched "Sex and the City", I would think that if I moved to New York City I would have a lot of self-adjusting to do. I might would go waste some money on some over-priced styles, because that is what "Sex in the City" shows you is reality. If you followed the series for all 6 years, you are likely to start forgetting that it is just a TV show, and start believing these women are real. If I watched GIRLS before I moved to NYC, I would be much more excited about the move and much more comfortable in my skin. This is one way I think HBO has progressed in the past decade. It is becoming okay to show a true reality!

We can't forget the other lovely ladies! Jessa could be seen as a modern day Samantha, despite the glamour. Samantha is one of the strongest characters on "Sex and the City", but also takes on this over-the-top glam aspect. She does have a better paying career as a publicist, but is never seen even remotely dressed down. She is always in a sexy outfit with bling and cleavage. I think this is an interesting contrast to GIRLS' Jessa. As I have talked about before, Jessa is much more conservative than Samantha in the way she portrays herself, yet she is probably equally as sexual. She is known to have a few crazy outfits, but they never make her look too sexy or slutty. This is the biggest difference between these two important characters. If we look back a decade, we find Samantha who scores bucketloads of attractive men, never without her overly sexual attire. This plays into everything I have talked about in this blog. She is the epitome of the male fantasy. She has the perfect body, she is blonde and experienced, she will talk dirty to any man that appeals to her, and take him home without a second thought. I don't think that her character was created to attract male viewers, so why have her in the show? She is supposed to represent sexual women in the city, but it is done in a way that satisfies men, which only tells women they should look and act like her if they want to be sexual. Jessa is a major progression from this. I think that if anyone told Jessa to dress a certain way she would laugh in their face. She is purely herself, guaranteed. Yet she doesn't act over the top, she doesn't change herself to attract men. I believe she is a much better representation of actual women. She shows how you can be as sexual as you want, but you don't have to change yourself for a man. This says a lot about how HBO has grown throughout the past decade. HBO is allowing producers to modernize, and speak the truth about reality.