Lena Dunham returns to moviemaking with the Sundance premiere of Sharp Stick
A naive twentysomething, a sex-starved himbo, and a quirky adoptive family star in Dunham's first feature since 2010
Film Features Lena Dunham
L.A. changes people, and not always for the worse. I’ve known hard-drinking Midwesterners who became yogis and got sober (well, “California sober”) within a year of relocating out west. California seems to have changed Lena Dunham as well: After laying low for a few years with some pretty serious health issues—and a litany of controversies, including accusations of white feminism and her defense of a Girls writer accused of sexual assault—Dunham has made a new feature film, her first since 2010's Tiny Furniture. So what has all that bright sunshine done for Dunham? Like your cousin who moved to L.A. and became an energy healer, it’s made her weirder.
Believe it or not, this is Dunham’s first appearance at Sundance as a filmmaker: Tiny Furniture premiered at SXSW, and Girls went straight to HBO. But Sharp Stick made its premiere last night out of competition, introduced by a festival programmer as a work that would spark conversation. (If Dunham is good at anything, it’s sparking conversation.)
Kristine Froseth stars as Sarah Jo, a sheltered 26-year-old woman who works with children with special needs and dresses and acts like someone half her age. There’s a reason for that, as it turns out: When she was a teenager, Sarah Jo was traumatized by a series of emergency surgeries to remove her reproductive organs, and has remained emotionally stuck in adolescence ever since. Now, she’s finally decided that she’s ready to start having sex. But she doesn’t have the social skills of her adopted sister, Treina (Taylour Paige), a budding influencer obsessed with her phone and whatever guy she’s crushing on that week. And so Sarah Jo fixates on Josh (Jon Bernthal), the married father of one of the children she looks after. At first hesitantly, then enthusiastically, this total himbo returns her advances.
Traces of Dunham’s personal history can be found throughout the film. Sarah Jo’s medical history reflects Dunham’s, given that the writer-director had a hysterectomy at the age of 31 to treat severe endometriosis. Given that fact, it makes sense that this is a film that’s fixated on fertility, pregnancy, and family both biological and chosen. (In a typical putting-it-all-out-there touch, Dunham plays Bernthal’s stressed-out, very pregnant wife, which must have been strange for someone working out some issues about not being able to have a biological child of their own.)
The film is also obsessed with sex, presenting indiscriminate, freewheeling horniness as an unequivocal good for our repressed main character. Sex positivity has long been a Dunham specialty, but Sharp Stick stands out for its positive attitude towards porn: Discovering her favorite porn star is a key step on Sarah Jo’s journey towards self-realization. And when the performer, Vance Leroy (Scott Speedman) eventually enters the narrative in the flesh (no pun intended), the results are—believe it or not—very sweet. Also sweet is Sarah Jo’s relationship with Treina and their mom, Marilyn (Jennifer Jason Leigh), a five-time divorcee and former L.A. party girl who used all that alimony to buy the apartment building where she and her daughters now live.
The main issues with Sharp Stick are the bumpy tonal shifts. In scenes where she eats yogurt like a baby, smacking her lips and letting it dribble down her chin, Sarah Jo feels like a character from another movie—namely, one by Miranda July, who realizes her dreamy L.A. strip-mall fantasias more fully and consistently than Dunham does here. Similarly, the costuming ranges from realistic to cartoonish, as do the performances. When Dunham pushes the surrealism, it’s an intriguing new step for her, but in the end she can’t seem to help but regress to rich people bickering.
The least successful transition in Sharp Stick is a pivot midway through from earthbound (if quirky) dramedy into broad sex comedy; the effect is of two half-films awkwardly smushed into one. Still, there are interesting ideas about sex, relationships, bodies, family, and how we present ourselves to the world in this hodgepodge of a film. And Dunham does show progress, both in terms of the diversity of her casting and pushing the limits of her style. If you’re not already a fan of her work, this film probably won’t convert you. But there’s a specific wavelength of person who may find it touching in a very personal way. Look at me—one L.A. movie, and I’m already talking about vibes.
85 Comments
LLol the headline could not be more Lena dunham
Including a list of all of the ways she’s supposedly transgressed before actually mentioning the film.
“Discovering her favorite porn star is a key step on Sarah Jo’s journey towards self-realization.”
Jennifer Jason Leigh really seems to love projects that are as weird as possible
Should I watch eXistenz again?
Great review!
“If you’re not already a fan of her work, this film probably won’t convert you.”So noted, and thank you for the warning. Though I’m intrigued by Scott Speedman. Apparently I’ve only ever seen him act in The Strangers, but I’ve watched that movie many times and he’s ridiculously handsome.Porn star. I totally buy it.
I think Dunham is talented, I think she’s in on the self-loathing when it comes to her characters because they represent a part of herself, so it always makes her haters look kind of silly. Excited to see this growth, even if it isn’t quite a landing!
Lena you’re being a little obvious…
I’m the voice of your generation ok!
…Lena?
http://twitter.com/AmyGravino/status/1484334831794221058…Yeah, so there’s a reason for the weird characterization of the lead, and it’s classic Dunham in that, when a controversy is both pointless and entirely avoidable, she takes that as a starter’s pistol
twitter.com/AmyGravino/status/1484334831794221058
Bottom line – autistic sex therapist was approached to give notes before filming, because protagonist was intended to be autistic. Therapist hated the script, but was told that her services weren’t required after all, since they were simply going to ‘drop’ the autism angle. So that’s why this woman dresses so weird, has no social skills whatsoever, and eats yogurt like a toddler.
Fantastic. It’s like every time we get better representation onscreen, some bullshit comes along to ruin it. For every Atypical and As We See It, there’s a Sharp Stick and a Music. I already hated Dunham, now I can pop her in the proverbial burning wicker man with Sia.
Legit, surprisingly considering it was from Jim Jefferies, was pretty good with how it used the handicapped or the developmentally disabled (all were played by actual handicapped / autistic people except DJ Qualls). Mostly because they were treated as normal as any other character. Rodney, an autistic character was like one of the best on the show,
Dunham being a dipshit? I am shocked!
As I was reading this review, I was thinking, “This sounds like a terrible depiction of an autistic character”. Whaddaya know.
I don’t know, this feels like a weird kind of tattletale thing to me. This character was originally implied to be autistic, they thought better of it and went in a different direction… and the (paid) consultant was mad that she didn’t get the opportunity to “fix” the script?
FWIW, I don’t think the character reads as autistic in the final film. She very much reads as arrested in her development. She acts like a fairly sheltered teenager, rather than a woman in her mid-20s; all of what makes her unusual has to do with her level of experience (or lack thereof). It stretches belief a bit, given that she lives alongside her mother and her sister and they aren’t similarly regressed (well, not overtly), and it’s hard to imagine she wouldn’t have picked up some more adult awareness, but that’s never implied to be because of autism. I agree that it would be pretty questionable taste if she were! So… they thought better of it and took that out. So………what’s the problem again? That she ever considered making the character implicitly autistic?
Fair enough, your mileage may vary, etc., but I think the problem/allegation isn’t that Dunham rewrote the script to alter that conception, but that she likely didn’t – she just stopped talking about that part. And I’m sorry, but I’d be far more generous if not for the yogurt thing, which seems inexplicable in any context other than that particular lens of ‘condescending depiction of mental disability’
I guess having seen Girls, where characters are messy and immature on the regular, the yogurt thing didn’t strike me as especially egregious… not least because I can picture Hannah Horvath doing that pretty easily, even though it’s a pretty different character here. And whatever they did or didn’t do in terms of making that alteration (or maybe consulting to see if they could conceivably make that alteration? It’s not really clear, almost as if the advisor wasn’t privy to the filmmakers’ entire process), they didn’t make a movie about an autistic girl. I don’t doubt Dunham was weird or flaky with the advisor; just not sure what else this person wanted from them once they evidently decided it was a bad idea! Is she saying Dunham should have started over and made a movie about an autistic person? Does anyone think *that* would have gone well?!?
She admits up front that she only saw a script, and that she doesn’t know how much of what concerned her in it made it to the actual movie. And I don’t think she’s saying that Dunham should’ve started from scratch and made the movie all about autism – just that she was skeptical that enough had been done to shift it away from that direction and into less objectionable waters.Again, not having seen the film, I don’t know if the actress is playing her as recognizably autistic (by the sound of it, it seems like one problem is that she’s not played – or written – in any single, coherent way), and if Dunham did successfully swerve away from that conception, I think we would all breathe a sigh of relief. But enough reviews have come out indicating that this reading is one of the few that actually make the character comprehensible/explicable, so this seems like a resonable line of inquiry to pursue (and certainly not simply being a ‘tattletale’)
“L.A. changes people, and not always for the worse”
It didn’t change me!Of course, I was born here.
And the people are all phonies! No one reads. Everything has cilantro on it—
So it’s semi-autobiographical, huh? Does the protagonist assume that a black man she doesn’t know finds her unfuckable because he doesn’t make an effort to start a conversation with her?
Fuck I forgot she’s an incestuous child molester AND a fucking racist. Wow this Lena Dunham sure is great!
This one’s fair.
I can’t imagine wanting to watch a movie by a pedophile.
White Feminism is a hell of a euphemism for sexually abusing her 5 yr old sister. Whew.
ok tucker carlson.
She wrote it herself, I don’t understand how anyone can still be defending her for this, it’s not a right wing conspiracy, she wrote it in her own book.
wasn’t the story just her examining her little sisters vagina when she was like 6? and they found rocks in it?
Try reading the book yourself and come back to me with specific references to this abuse.
Tucker Carlson makes gross comments about his daughter, you defend Lena Dunham for abusing her sister. All 3 of you are sick fucks.
you got some sick fucked up ideas of abuse.
You moron, you don’t even know what she did yet you’re on here running your mouth dissembling for Dunham. Educate yourself.
fuck off and die.
Try reading the book yourself
I have. Stop defending a sexual abuser.
You clearly haven’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t be spouting such ignorant bullshit.
Incorrect. Only apologists give charitable readings to descriptions of non consensual sexual activity.
Please cite the nonconsensual sexual activity. Oh ,that’s right, you can’t.
Incorrect again. You’ve apparently read the whole book and apparently don’t recognise it when you read it. Grim.
Please quote the passage you believe supports your mistaken belief.
Ahaha you could have asked that in your first post to me if you haven’t read the book. But you didn’t. So either 1) you haven’t read it and just argued in bad faith. 2) you have and can’t tell what sexual abuse is when you read about it or 3) are a Dunham stan downplaying her sexually abusive behaviour. None merit doing what you ask.
I have read the book, asshole. Now put up or shut up.
Thanks for narrowing it down to just options 2 and 3.
Project much?
Accusations of projection are the best examples of projection.
Lol
Deny sexual abuse and laugh about it. Good one.
Go back to Breitbart
You’ll note I have no problem talking about those on the right being sick fucks too. But the fact you made it tribal is extremely telling re your blinkers.
Sure man.
I accept you conceding. Perhaps next time don’t try to excuse sick behavior from celebrities.
What are you? 12?
Don’t panic, it won’t violate the terms of your parole to engage.
An absolutely tired and debunked take.
Yes yes, you read the book and know what you’re talking about but you didn’t even get her age right.
No doubt you fixate on the specific age of a young child that was sexually abused. No doubt.
You know it!
Fronting doesn’t make you less of a creep.
I just came here to note you had some basic facts wrong about something you seem to be obsessed about, I’m not defending Dunham, at all. Save this narcissistic bullshit for your therapist.
Incorrect. If you were concerned with just basic facts your first reply wouldn’t have had the dismissive bullshit tone. Such a bad faith engagement to deflect from Dunham’s abusive beahvior is the real therapy worthy bullshit here.
Yeah you were wrong and you’re being a little bitch about it. I’m so sorry I didn’t treat you, one of the most obnoxiously condescending internet commenters I’ve come across recently, with the respect you think you deserve for making an egregious factual error.
No issue saying I forgot the age of the young child being abused. To me, and this may shock you, the fact it was a very young child was the salient fact not the specific age. You OTOH started off being a little bitch about a small error for no good reason. Btw “obnoxiously condescending” is a much better description for a pedant like you stomping into the middle of a thread about abuse.
Gurl, it turned into a thread about your ego way before I got here. And I’ve never seen someone respond with ‘I know you are but what am I?’ so many times.There’s a pretty big difference between someone who is 11 touching a 5 year old and someone who is 7 touching a one year old, but I doubt you originally posted to be sincere.
Lmao you actually think the entirety of the abuse is confined to the horrible story about pebbles. You’re the same as the other guy – unable to recognise sexual abuse when you read it. Also you just confirmed you were never “just” here to correct an error despite your bullshit comment above. Your bad faith in defense of abuse is obvious and sick.
I’m just here at this point because I have a thing for bullying emotionally fucked up people who think everyone should be defined by what they did when they were seven.
Thats why you first commented as well duh. Plus you still seem think the abuse is confined to one incident you moron. Oh and it’s bullies who are the emotional fuck ups, what an obvious reveal.
Friendly reminder Lena Dunham is a sex predator.
Quit watching Fox News.
That’s not Fox News, I’m a leftist anarchist. It’s justthe literal text of a book she wrote, my dude. Quit defending sex predators?
Please – point out the literal text which you believe supports this and I will show you where you misunderstood what you read.
You mean where she literally describes herself as such? “The passages cited include one that describes an incident when Dunham was seven and her sister was one and playing on the driveway. Dunham writes that “curiosity got the best” of her and she opened her sister’s vagina only to call for her mother when she found the toddler had “six or seven pebbles in there”.“My mother didn’t bother asking why I had opened Grace’s vagina,” Dunham wrote. “This was within the spectrum of things that I did.”In another passage that has attracted critics she describes trying to persuade her sister to “kiss her on the lips for five seconds” by offering gifts of sweets or coins. “Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl, I was trying,” wrote Dunham.”Woof, my dude
LOL. If you think that either of those incidents from when she was small child are predatory, you are seriously twisted man. Way to project you perviness onto a 7 year old.
“Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl, I was trying,” wrote Dunham.” Read. It’s not hard.
Obviously, you have poor reading comprehension skills or those are the only sentences of the book you read. You are talking about a prepubescent child moron.
Damn bro the amount of white knighting you’re doing for her is kinda wild tbh. You know she’s not gonna fuck you, right?
You’re not terribly bright, and I am now done with this conversation.
She should make a movie about molesting her sister, since… you know… she molested her sister in real life.Fuck Lena Dunham and any sack of shit who props her up as some sort of icon. She’s trash.
I am a few years younger than Lena Dunham and was living the post grad NYC life when girls was airing. It always struck me as insincere and not grounded in reality, although in fairness I’m not sure if that was the goal. Regardless, I’ve always felt like there isn’t any “there” there in her work. Camping was not a well rounded show, tiny furniture was an exercise in mumblecore futility…seems like this is more of the same. I’d be interested to see her work 15 years from now when she’s hopefully gained some actual perspective.
I really like Girls, but Camping, my god, wtf was that?
Im probably not the target market for this, but “Inexplicably naive (but still conventionality attractive) 26yo woman bangs 40yo man as written by Lena Dunham” seems like it has disaster written all over it.