MovieChat Forums > Pulling (2006) Discussion > A Good Show That Could Have Been Great

A Good Show That Could Have Been Great


Much props to Sharon Horgan and Dennis Kelly for delivering a solid British sitcom in the 00s/aughties. As contemptible of a character of Karen was, I can't deny that she was just as uproariously hilarious and compelling as the main character of another BBC Three sitcom that derived its humor from social embarrassment and awkwardness (i.e., Julia Davis's Jill Tyrell). I additionally found Louise to be funny in both a sweet and droll way (if you ask me, this combination is very hard to pull off). That being said, Sharon Horgan's Donna has to be one of the most unlikable and uninteresting characters in British sitcom history.

Please note here that I didn't qualify "unlikable" with "inherently." Donna could have been a much more effective character had the character of Karl not been such an integral part of the show. While Horgan had her moments as Donna, I couldn't help but have a bad taste in my mouth every time she interacted with Karl after he had gotten over the agony of being dumped and decided to move on with his life. Contrary to what the ending of this show might have implied (i.e., that Donna and Karl were meant for each other), I thought it implied something much, much more cynical: that, when at an arm's length, Donna needed Karl for nothing more than to make herself feel better. Ultimately, Donna came to rival the delusion and mean-spiritedness of what I'd consider her predecessor in British sitcoms, Dorothy from "Men Behaving Badly."

Although I do value a protagonist that is congenial, I've always considered a riveting story or character a more than acceptable substitute. Unfortunately, Donna was neither likable nor that interesting. I've already said this but I though I'd repeat it to make clearer the criterion I'm basing my judgment of this show on. How did you feel about Donna? Did you feel similarly or completely different?

reply

I never looked at it like that. I always saw her as confused, and I thought she genuinly regretted dumping her boyfriend, you could understand why she did it and I think the whole show was a cautionary tale of careful what you wish for.

"...I'm a contradiction"

reply

I"ve finished Season 1, and can only respond within that context.

Interesting question.

Donna is flawed, well, obviously all three of the girls are flawed. Donna is SUPPOSED to be the one who is together, but she's morally bankrupt. Time and time again she lies or makes promises she will not keep (a form of lying.) She is weak, lacks conviction in any area of her life: men, job, even entertainment. She's always unhappy where she is and thinks the grass is greener elsewhere.

Karen is the heroine, in a way, because she is strong and consistent and while deeply flawed (fighting the demon alcohol) but she is far more of a stand up lass than is Donna. You can count on Karen but when drink gets in the way.

I enjoy the Louise character a lot, that poor girl.

I honestly see the DOnna character in this show (which I repeat--I really like!) as typical of contemporary chic lit--the heroines all seem to be ditzy emos running around operating entirely on their feelings of the moment. "We can be strong women" one second and "God I need a man now and will do anything/lie/cheat to get one" the next moment."

Sex and the City did this extremely well, I love that show. Imitations and chic lit novels are far less engaging. SATC broke ground.

reply