Succession

Discuss TV shows old and new.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
thirtyframesasecond
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:48 pm

Succession

#1 Post by thirtyframesasecond » Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:59 am

Anyone been watching Succession - the 'not about the Murdochs' King Lear-esque saga with Brian Cox as the ailing patriarch of a media empire and his horrible kids jockeying for power? Ferrell and McKay are involved but don't leave just yet because it's written by Jesse Armstrong (Peep Show, The Thick of It) and has some other great UK writers - Lucy Prebble, Tony Roche. Two episodes in and it's gripping but everyone is just awful.

User avatar
Murdoch
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Upstate NY

Re: TV of 2019

#2 Post by Murdoch » Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:14 pm

thirtyframesasecond wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:59 am
Anyone been watching Succession - the 'not about the Murdochs' King Lear-esque saga with Brian Cox as the ailing patriarch of a media empire and his horrible kids jockeying for power? Ferrell and McKay are involved but don't leave just yet because it's written by Jesse Armstrong (Peep Show, The Thick of It) and has some other great UK writers - Lucy Prebble, Tony Roche. Two episodes in and it's gripping but everyone is just awful.
I've been catching up with it and while it has its moments, it feels like Arrested Development with the humor largely drained from it (which the Netflix version of the show already did, thank you very much). It's hard not to look at each character from Succession as some doppelganger of the Bluths, except instead of caricatures running through ridiculous plotlines, you get grounded versions of Michael and company backstabbing each other to take control of their Fox/Disney-esque empire. Watching some combination of the Trumps and Murdochs (no relation) scheming to undermine local news and cover-up criminal negligence is rather exhausting after a few episodes, especially when there's no moral center to lean on. This is by no means me saying it's not worth your time, but I just can't get much satisfaction from a show of terrible rich people succeeding when I see enough of it on the 24 hour news cycle.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: TV of 2019

#3 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed Dec 29, 2021 1:19 am

Murdoch wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:14 pm
thirtyframesasecond wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:59 am
Anyone been watching Succession - the 'not about the Murdochs' King Lear-esque saga with Brian Cox as the ailing patriarch of a media empire and his horrible kids jockeying for power? Ferrell and McKay are involved but don't leave just yet because it's written by Jesse Armstrong (Peep Show, The Thick of It) and has some other great UK writers - Lucy Prebble, Tony Roche. Two episodes in and it's gripping but everyone is just awful.
I've been catching up with it and while it has its moments, it feels like Arrested Development with the humor largely drained from it (which the Netflix version of the show already did, thank you very much). It's hard not to look at each character from Succession as some doppelganger of the Bluths, except instead of caricatures running through ridiculous plotlines, you get grounded versions of Michael and company backstabbing each other to take control of their Fox/Disney-esque empire. Watching some combination of the Trumps and Murdochs (no relation) scheming to undermine local news and cover-up criminal negligence is rather exhausting after a few episodes, especially when there's no moral center to lean on. This is by no means me saying it's not worth your time, but I just can't get much satisfaction from a show of terrible rich people succeeding when I see enough of it on the 24 hour news cycle.
This is the best description I've read yet about Succession, a show that's "fine" (at least in its second season, which is a huge step-up from an incredibly weak first- haven't watched the third) but feels like yet another overhyped premium cable program hailed by all as a modern masterpiece. Right from the get-go we're asked to buy into the 1%'s problems without giving us an incentive. Look, I have a very low bar for finding empathy and connecting to the most morally-reprehensible characters- I believe there's always an outlet to extract and measure humanism from anybody- but this show really doesn't offer any of this until the second season, which is still halfhearted posing as deep, and that strikes me as more lazy and ignorant than fresh or courageous. It's quite clear that there are deep-rooted family dynamics that have warped these characters' psychologies and ways of relating to people, and I'm glad they're not spelled out and spoonfed to us, but the show doesn't seem to care to pay attention to them beyond vague postures before reverting back to comic interplay without the intentional comedy.

I mean, for a show about intelligent wielding and dealing to 'success', made possible to streamline by forsaking empathy or morality for money and power, every character is pretty stupid. And no, not just in the clearly-deliberate ways some of the kids are supposed to be portrayed, especially when having emotionally-impulsive reactions against family members that are self-destructive to those financial and powerful gains (proving these to be necessary and impossible to truly block amongst stable human beings, clearly a theme)... within this world of continual betrayal, someone as sharp and seasoned (in one of the highest "advisor" roles in America, surely) as Hunter just accepts a piece of information to drop in a public toast, and is actually surprised when it blows up in her face after she just fucked over someone close to the person giving her said information. Shiv's savvy political campaign giant might make the dumbest moves of any of the characters regarding her future and she's the sibling with the least excuse to do so. It's all just so unbelievable even within the internal logic of the show. This only really works when I think of this as "Arrested Development, if it didn't realize it was a comedy but the audience does" - and of course the best elements are Greg and Tom, who are actually supposed to be funny. Between this and @zola, Nicholas Braun needs to be in everything.

The acting is solid, but the writing is pretty awful, especially all interactions of persuasion which are often laughable. The reverse psychology convincing of a key witness at one point made me seriously question the show's sincerity- but no, that was actually written intended to be a strong dialog of manipulation. Give me a breaksville- though I guess if everyone from rich moguls to simple civilians are this inane, it does make sense in its own silly way.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: TV of 2021

#4 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:24 am

I'm plowing ahead with season three of Succession, despite not loving the show (and despite that the showrunners never seems to know whether or not they want it to be a comedy or drama, and not in a forgivable strategy of self-aware unevenness), but episode five is one of the funniest satires I've seen in ages. The characters are so inane and repelling that the situational blunders evade the heights of cringe-comedy, which remove blockades of belly laughs and allow this to be a no-strings gawk at narcissists in positions of power failing to make a single A or B choice, or recognize impactful priorities with executive functioning in favor of reptilian-myopia zingers (thank you Alan Ruck). I can't say it was all worth it to get to here, but I'm hoping the series continues to shed its sincerity for the sake of farce, though its King Lear-spun tragedy is clearly building to something on a tonal wavelength ill-fitting to the greater strengths of the creative juices behind the production.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Trailers for Upcoming Films

#5 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu Feb 09, 2023 6:45 pm

brundlefly wrote:
Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:58 pm
But since I watched The Menu and realized I got backdoored into a McKay project I've decided I'm going to scan production credits for anything desperate to pretend it thinks it has something to say about recent events or the current state of the world because I find myself severely allergic to the vibe of things carrying his imprimatur. (I watch Succession, but never without an EpiPen.)
I never knew he was involved- finally some clue as to why I'm the sole person I know who thinks Succession is the most overrated show on TV right now

User avatar
brundlefly
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:55 pm

Re: Trailers for Upcoming Films

#6 Post by brundlefly » Fri Feb 10, 2023 10:03 am

therewillbeblus wrote:
Thu Feb 09, 2023 6:45 pm
I never knew he was involved- finally some clue as to why I'm the sole person I know who thinks Succession is the most overrated show on TV right now
You are far from alone on this! I'd barely argue for it, never mind for its greatness. But one of the things it does well is assemble an A+ cast and love them enough to give them a ton of space in which to hang out and playfully insult each other. Sure, it can get wearying that every slight personal interaction is really a fraught negotiation and that the subtext to every line is "What's in it for me?" And yeah, you have to enjoy on some level awful people being awful to other awful people, often in very pedestrian ways. But while it's a shame some talented guest stars go underused (Wasting Hope Davis is such a common crime these days that it's never prosecuted. Poor Holly Hunter may have gotten sidelined for leaning into the gussied-up Dynasty aspects of the show instead of the gussied-up Seinfeld it longs to be.), it's part of the m.o., cycling faces at the fringes while holding hollow court at the center. Whatever other feelings -- respect, familial love or want thereof, etc. -- are in play, none of the awful people like each other. But the actors love each other, and the show loves its actors, and that's what makes it fun to watch.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Trailers for Upcoming Films

#7 Post by hearthesilence » Fri Feb 10, 2023 2:26 pm

brundlefly wrote:
Fri Feb 10, 2023 10:03 am
therewillbeblus wrote:
Thu Feb 09, 2023 6:45 pm
I never knew he was involved- finally some clue as to why I'm the sole person I know who thinks Succession is the most overrated show on TV right now
You are far from alone on this! I'd barely argue for it, never mind for its greatness. But one of the things it does well is assemble an A+ cast and love them enough to give them a ton of space in which to hang out and playfully insult each other. Sure, it can get wearying that every slight personal interaction is really a fraught negotiation and that the subtext to every line is "What's in it for me?" And yeah, you have to enjoy on some level awful people being awful to other awful people, often in very pedestrian ways. But while it's a shame some talented guest stars go underused (Wasting Hope Davis is such a common crime these days that it's never prosecuted. Poor Holly Hunter may have gotten sidelined for leaning into the gussied-up Dynasty aspects of the show instead of the gussied-up Seinfeld it longs to be.), it's part of the m.o., cycling faces at the fringes while holding hollow court at the center. Whatever other feelings -- respect, familial love or want thereof, etc. -- are in play, none of the awful people like each other. But the actors love each other, and the show loves its actors, and that's what makes it fun to watch.
Speaking of Dynasty, not long before Succession aired, I remember talking to a friend about '80s television and how the most-watched dramas were basically the ones about enormously wealthy families in stark contrast to the most "acclaimed" shows (Hill Street Blues, St. Elsewhere) that were usually struggling or lagging behind in the ratings. (Amusingly two shows that were basically extensions of Hill Street Blues and St. Elsewhere - NYPD Blue and ER - wound up dominating the '90s.) The success of Dallas, Dynasty, Falcon Crest et al seemed appropriate given Reagan and how economically and culturally the country had changed under his policies, though somewhat obscene given how the gap between the wealthy and the poor grew exponentially. I've been reluctant to tune into Succession, but with the comparisons to the Trumps, it seemed like we were feeling the '80s much more in the culture than we had since that decade ended.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Air (Ben Affleck, 2023)

#8 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Feb 10, 2023 2:46 pm

I gave more in-depth thoughts on Succession here and finally threw it a bone again here (that third season ep really is something). Agreed that Holly Hunter was poorly used and Hope Davis too. Looks like there are more posts about this nonthreaded lame show than this threaded lame Ben Affleck movie, though I’m totally fine with diluting Air into a Succession thread

User avatar
brundlefly
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:55 pm

Re: Air (Ben Affleck, 2023)

#9 Post by brundlefly » Fri Feb 10, 2023 5:21 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
Fri Feb 10, 2023 2:46 pm
Looks like there are more posts about this nonthreaded lame show than this threaded lame Ben Affleck movie, though I’m totally fine with diluting Air into a Succession thread
Nobody wins! Everyone go home!

"Halfhearted posing as deep, and that strikes me as more lazy and ignorant than fresh or courageous" and "never seems to know whether or not they want it to be a comedy or drama" are all attributes I associate with the McKay industrial complex and of course totally agree. (He has a basketball show as well, that thing regurgitating the Hulu Lakers documentary as an HBO series. Which is one of the reasons I thought he might also be associated with Air (Ben Affleck, 2023). Just to stay um on topic.) I fuzzily remember seeing and enjoying that S3 episode you mention, but do not devote much recall space to the thing. I thought it peaked mid S2 when the gang went to the Sulzberger's (or whatever Cherry Jones' family was supposed to be) b/c it effectively doubled the cast for a couple episodes and provided exciting new configurations for the hang-outs.

But now I look and see that one of those eps was written by one of the writers of The Menu, which I mostly hated (because it was halfhearted posing as deep, more lazy and ignorant than fresh or courageous, and never seemed to know whether or not they wanted it to be a comedy or drama) so maybe I just had a good day, that day. Disheartens me to know Iannucci grads are involved.

Whenever people talk about how smart and well-made Succession is I like to introduce this screencap
SpoilerShow
Image
which is a sharp-looking image and definitely a meaningful piece of composition if your main character is a lamp. (It's off, so I can't even go, "Brightest character in the room." Or maybe I can.

User avatar
brundlefly
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:55 pm

Re: Trailers for Upcoming Films

#10 Post by brundlefly » Fri Feb 10, 2023 5:55 pm

hearthesilence wrote:
Fri Feb 10, 2023 2:26 pm
Speaking of Dynasty, not long before Succession aired, I remember talking to a friend about '80s television and how the most-watched dramas were basically the ones about enormously wealthy families in stark contrast to the most "acclaimed" shows (Hill Street Blues, St. Elsewhere) that were usually struggling or lagging behind in the ratings. (Amusingly two shows that were basically extensions of Hill Street Blues and St. Elsewhere - NYPD Blue and ER - wound up dominating the '90s.) The success of Dallas, Dynasty, Falcon Crest et al seemed appropriate given Reagan and how economically and culturally the country had changed under his policies, though somewhat obscene given how the gap between the wealthy and the poor grew exponentially. I've been reluctant to tune into Succession, but with the comparisons to the Trumps, it seemed like we were feeling the '80s much more in the culture than we had since that decade ended.
Agreed, though I think there was already a gap between Dallas, which was self-made American royalty and perhaps aspirational (and started during the Carter administration) and Dynasty, which I remember more as a campy gawk-at-the-rich clown show. But then I never watched either.

Have you ever seen Profit from the mid-'90s? It's probably aged creakily and I'm sure its plot mechanics seem rudimentary now, but was one of my favorites at the time and has been noted as an early prototype for the elite anti-hero shows that succeeded the '90s workplace dramas. It was meant to look like a soap -- Melrose Place was its lead-in -- but was a screed against capitalism as family values. The lead was an American Psycho type (named, of course, Jim Profit) raised in a cardboard box by a television set. He starts slashing his way up the corporate ladder of a family-run megacorp only because he wants to be accepted as part of their family. Great Iago-ish performance by Adrian Pasdar. Ultimately only lasted nine episodes (fewer aired), but they at least constituted a self-contained arc. A nice nasty piece of work, but the gauge reading how much we hated ourselves then was still on "Not Enough."

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Trailers for Upcoming Films

#11 Post by hearthesilence » Sat Feb 11, 2023 4:00 pm

brundlefly wrote:
Fri Feb 10, 2023 5:55 pm
Have you ever seen Profit from the mid-'90s? It's probably aged creakily and I'm sure its plot mechanics seem rudimentary now, but was one of my favorites at the time and has been noted as an early prototype for the elite anti-hero shows that succeeded the '90s workplace dramas. It was meant to look like a soap -- Melrose Place was its lead-in -- but was a screed against capitalism as family values. The lead was an American Psycho type (named, of course, Jim Profit) raised in a cardboard box by a television set. He starts slashing his way up the corporate ladder of a family-run megacorp only because he wants to be accepted as part of their family. Great Iago-ish performance by Adrian Pasdar. Ultimately only lasted nine episodes (fewer aired), but they at least constituted a self-contained arc. A nice nasty piece of work, but the gauge reading how much we hated ourselves then was still on "Not Enough."
I haven't, but after reading up on it on Wikipedia, it sounds pretty fascinating:

Canceled after only 5 out of the 9 hours produced were actually broadcast by Fox - basically four episodes were aired before the remaining four were later broadcast on Trio (ah, remember that network? They used to show uncut reruns of Late Night with Letterman from his days at NBC, becoming the source of most high-quality recordings that circulate on the internet).

Viewers reportedly flooded their local Fox network affiliates with phone calls objecting to Jim Profit’s amoral actions, some even referring to him as "Satan in a Suit"; such opinions were most vociferously expressed by viewers in the Bible Belt region of the southern USA. Some Fox network affiliates even threatened to pre-empt Profit in their local markets, replacing it with alternative programming.

Members of the business community were outraged that Profit portrayed them so poorly. Shaifali Puri of Fortune said: "Just in case there's anyone left who isn't convinced corporate America is a den of naked ambition and bald turpitude, comes now (the TV show) Profit." It was rumored that even Fox network founder Rupert Murdoch objected to the show's edgy portrayal of corporate America, although Adrian Pasdar was quoted as saying that Profit was Murdoch's favorite TV show.

Airings of Profit consistently lost almost all of the lead-in audience from the smash-hit melodrama Melrose Place (the original version) which was scheduled in the timeslot immediately preceding Profit. This reportedly did not sit well with Melrose Place's executive producer Aaron Spelling, especially after Time and Entertainment Weekly published glowing reviews of Profit but scathing reviews of Melrose Place.

It actually got a DVD release from Anchor Bay where the creators go into great detail about what would have happened had the show continued.

User avatar
brundlefly
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:55 pm

Re: Air (Ben Affleck, 2023)

#12 Post by brundlefly » Sun Feb 12, 2023 2:54 am

hearthesilence wrote:
Sat Feb 11, 2023 4:00 pm
Members of the business community were outraged that Profit portrayed them so poorly. Shaifali Puri of Fortune said: "Just in case there's anyone left who isn't convinced corporate America is a den of naked ambition and bald turpitude, comes now (the TV show) Profit."
Ha, that’s ripe. And I suspect Pasdar’s comment was sarcasm. Nothing that lost money could be Rupert Murdoch’s favorite.

When it got cancelled I was lucky enough to know someone who had screeners of the last four episodes so I had the benefit of immediate closure. It helped that what turned out to be the final episode not only resolved a lot of concerns (or at least gave them a good place to pause), but was one of the best.

Thanks for mentioning the DVDs, because while I have the set I guess I never got to the features. It’s impressive it has any, given how the show was treated by the network and how much money it lost Stephen Cannell’s studio. (It was made on a very low budget, and it can show, but the low episode order meant there was not enough of it to sell to overseas markets.) But the hour+ retrospective in the set does make it clear it was a labor of sick, sick love.

(The creators were kicked out of a CBS pitch meeting at the first act break when incest was introduced. Which would seem a given, back then, but CBS had also aired Cannell’s Wiseguy, which had an insinuated relationship between brother/sister villains Kevin Spacey and Joan Severance. Diff being this was the (anti) hero, and this wasn’t just explicit, it was flagrant.)

I re-watched that final episode, and the show’s age and budget are definitely factors. Its soapy side shows as much as its Shakespeare (the initial inspiration was Richard III), it’s driven by some very dramatic dialogue, and if you cannot buy into its undramatic method – it’s Jim Profit’s show, he is telling you how he’s going to win, he wins – you’re out. But it is somehow still audacious, has a wicked sense of humor, and the performances and writing are very invested in its collection of broken people. Looks like all the episodes are on YouTube.

Don’t know if there’s more talk about second season plans in commentaries on other episodes, but the ones dropped during this one sounded more like sketchy impulses than the well-woven arcs that were produced. The creators mostly sound like they feel they got away with something, surprised this ever got made and (partially) aired, aware toward the end that it was going to be the end.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Air (Ben Affleck, 2023)

#13 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Feb 24, 2023 11:39 am

Since this is amusingly the closest we have to a Succession thread, season four is confirmed to be the final chapter, will premiere March 26

User avatar
Murdoch
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Upstate NY

Re: TV of 2023

#14 Post by Murdoch » Mon May 29, 2023 10:21 pm

Succession is finally over.

I wouldn't call what I did hate-watching, since I did enjoy it in parts, particularly this last season. It's a compelling study of the insulating power of wealth and how the elite of the world operate in a world wholly outside of ours, yet shape the lives of the less fortunate in the cruelest and most arbitrary ways

The show was a mostly unfunny version of Arrested Development throughout its run, but the last season played out the real world consequences of its spoiled brats' king-making to horrific effect. The final episode pulls the curtain back on the three siblings, cutting them all down at the knees. For all the Finance Bro posturing of Kendall and Roman, and the empty virtue signaling of Shiv, they will never have to live with the impact of their decisions in any true sense
Entire ShowShow
Kendall will never have to face the consequences of killing a young waiter in a drug-induced stupor, Roman will never see any change to his lifestyle after leading a white nationalist to the White House, Shiv will continue to play the part of the woke sibling sympathetic to the left but continue to use her wealth to buoy the entitled neocons she surrounds herself with.
.
Their trajectory was that of incompetence failing upward until they reached a cliff, dragging as many down with them into the abyss as they can. Four years with these people was too much for me, good riddance.
Last edited by Murdoch on Mon May 29, 2023 10:35 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: TV of 2023

#15 Post by hearthesilence » Mon May 29, 2023 10:32 pm

Murdoch wrote:
Mon May 29, 2023 10:21 pm
For all the Finance Bro posturing of Kendall and Roman, and the empty virtue signaling of Shiv, they will never have to live with the impact of their decisions in any true sense
Entire ShowShow
Kendall will never have to face the consequences of killing a young waiter in a drug-induced stupor, Roman will never see any change to his lifestyle after leading a white nationalist to the White House, Shiv will continue to play the part of the woke sibling sympathetic to the left but continue to use her wealth to buoy the entitled neocons she surrounds herself with.
I haven't watched the show but looked at your spoilers anyway. I think most people I know watched the finale and expressed the kind of reaction I've seen from most reviews (which to be clear were likely assigned to critics who were already tuning in regularly and were already fans of the show)...
SpoilerShow
...it felt strange to see people call it a dark or devastating ending for the central characters simply because none of them ended up as the CEO of a massive corporation once owned by their family. I'm sure it's disappointing to their egos but I didn't see any mention of them losing their massive wealth or anything else that 99.9999% of the world will never experience, much less enjoy. I figured you'd have to follow the show to understand the loss, but your post seems to confirm my wariness for what seemed like a dubious concept since the beginning.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: TV of 2023

#16 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon May 29, 2023 10:40 pm

Agreed, it’s always been an overrated and tonally ambiguous show, never really deciding what it wants to be yet seeming to believe it’s balanced. It never earns its final dramas. The most appropriate part of the ending was
SpoilerShow
Roman finally realizing and exiting with “none of this/us fucking matters” - which aptly sums up the show, though most of us have diagnosed this from the pilot, so it also seems to nullify its very existence. Kendall’s final shot ripping off Godfather Part II was (likely unintentionally) laughable, not even able to be original or richly textured in his own existential bottom.

I did think Logan’s exit was a remarkably mature and realistic depiction of coping with unpredictable loss, subverting all the expectations of an involving drama series to invite us into the death of a main character. It was true to life and messy and brutal. Along with that one hysterical episode last season, that’s two good episodes and 37 meh ones.
I don’t not have sympathy for these characters because they’re 1%’ers or Trumpers or whatever - I believe in radical humanism and statistically this is the population with some of the worst mental health problems in this country. I don’t care about them because they’re not interesting, and the show doesn’t give them the depth it thinks it does. There’s so much opportunity to invite us into caring but every time it tries we get alienated again with more of this sloppy wielding and dealing. Everyone is an idiot (I already talked in another thread about how Hunter - who was the ultimate savvy insider businesswoman - allowed herself to be punk’d with impulsive exposure to a clear foe). It’s a liberal fantasy but also deeply offensive - to paint all the most powerful and intelligent people in power as morons. What does that say about us and our inability to punk them like they so easily could be?

User avatar
Murdoch
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Upstate NY

Re: TV of 2023

#17 Post by Murdoch » Mon May 29, 2023 11:27 pm

I find it fascinating how so many fans fell in line with Kendall's hollow confidence in himself, how they found the finale "devastating" but ignored the artifice of these characters and how they speak. I recall a conversation during the election night episode (I believe it was that one anyway) which hit viewers over the head with its absurdity as the characters shouted back and forth over the phone about if they had "the numbers", what "numbers" were needed, where they could get more numbers and so on. The longer it went on, the more it played out like the parody of a conversation (although one I could also easily imagine happening in any boardroom or campaign headquarters).

That absurdity helped make this season the best of the show's run because it showcased the emptiness behind what they were actually doing. That they weren't these brilliant gamesmen that the show tried to convince us they were in seasons past. They were just confused, shouting, and trying to flex their power and convey control to anyone in earshot.

I think the problem with the show is it spent three seasons trying to make these three into nuanced, sympathetic figures, but most of what they do is spend an exhausting amount of time trying to get into Logan's favor and play with power they can't handle. The dynamics are apparent very early into the show's start and they stay that way for three fucking seasons until the writers decide it's time for their endgame.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: TV of 2023

#18 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon May 29, 2023 11:55 pm

I think the show does get a lot right about the messy, convoluted nature of family dynamics. These siblings are constantly wavering on their allegiances to one another or themselves, so often and sloppily and confusingly that it defies a logic anyone watching can hang onto. There’s something to admire about this theoretically, because there’s obviously so much deep-rooted rich history between them that drives these emotional and often illogical instincts to trust or distrust, and then delusionally believe the trust or distrust at face value, not. But.. it doesn’t add up to anything when these nuances and sympathies are undercut by such superficial stakes and then those stakes are treated as sincerely valuable by the aesthetic choices heightening the melodrama. The series seems to understand there’s a lot of implicit psychosocial proclivities that are more sensitive within these people, but it also doesn’t really care to lean into them; not to explicitly explain them, which is fine, and even admirable- but to emphasize their value in motivating the behavior it’s satirizing. It’s as if to say: every human being has value, trauma, a perspective, and unique interest worth exploring… but also sometimes people are just stupid and vapid and not worth exploring. So let’s concoct a show that’s posturing at humanism from the get-go and then dilute that ethos completely, back and forth on repeat until we run out of steam. I truly do not know what the creators are trying to express with their own show, after four seasons, but to me it reads like the worst kind of ‘have your cake and eat it too’ aspirations

User avatar
Boosmahn
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:08 pm

Re: TV of 2023

#19 Post by Boosmahn » Tue May 30, 2023 3:06 am

I never viewed Succession as a satire (even though it clearly draws inspiration from the Murdoch family). It was always a family drama with business intrigue to me.

I don't think it's a bad thing to portray the stakes as super high despite them not being such. If any of the siblings were to take a step back, they would realize the entire business (or at least the news branch) is poison, but they can't because it's so damn important to them. The over-the-top classical score supports this. It's dramatic, loud, and feels like life-or-death, just how the business feels to Kendall, Roman, and Shiv.

Kendall was the series' throughline for me. Without him, I would like the series much less. I always found his character interesting, though I admit part of that comes from very personal reasons.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: TV of 2023

#20 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue May 30, 2023 11:40 am

Boosmahn wrote:
Tue May 30, 2023 3:06 am
Kendall was the series' throughline for me. Without him, I would like the series much less. I always found his character interesting, though I admit part of that comes from very personal reasons.
Same, which is why it was weird when
SpoilerShow
suddenly he seemed cured of his addictions in season four, and became kind of a non-character/empty vessel. That’s part of why I felt this was the worst season and the last shot didn’t land its intended power.

User avatar
Boosmahn
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:08 pm

Re: TV of 2023

#21 Post by Boosmahn » Tue May 30, 2023 4:11 pm

SpoilerShow
That's a very good point. I assume the show's reasoning was that he found a support system in Roman and Shiv after revealing the incident with the waiter. However, while I'm not an expert on the topic of addiction, I'm going to guess most people would not be cured instantly without some lingering effects. I noticed the finale made a point to show him drinking when it looked like the deal was going through (when all three were in front of the ocean at sunset), but it's not like that makes up for the show dropping that issue.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: TV of 2023

#22 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue May 30, 2023 4:59 pm

SpoilerShow
Yeah, my friend who's also in recovery (and, conversely, absolutely loves the show) has been noticing Kendall drinking throughout this season (i.e. in various earlier episodes socializing with various parties under stressful situations, yet never getting drunk or losing control), which is as antithetical to his characterization and the diagnostics of addiction as you can get on a blunt level

User avatar
Murdoch
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Upstate NY

Re: Succession

#23 Post by Murdoch » Tue May 30, 2023 6:16 pm

SpoilerShow
I wasn't paying much attention to Kendall's addiction, but that is a very good point. It's odd that the early seasons spent so much time on it, even having other characters use it against him, yet in later seasons the writers completely ignore it. You would think that the death of his father, the election, the uncertainty of the future of Waystar, his estrangement from his children, et al., would have led to some moment of him relapsing.

It's not as if Kendall has any strong support system to check his behavior. He's rarely if ever shown by himself in the last two seasons yet doesn't appear to demonstrate any symptoms of withdrawal or usage.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Succession

#24 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue May 30, 2023 6:52 pm

SpoilerShow
Yeah it's a big Fuck You to his entire characterization, and yet the series ends in a place that expects us to lean into the same building blocks of alienation he felt from the outset, just divorced from his maladaptive coping mechanisms of compulsive behavior (which itself becomes an identity).

User avatar
Black Hat
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Succession

#25 Post by Black Hat » Tue May 30, 2023 7:05 pm

Really surprised at some of you for missing the beats here...
Murdoch wrote:
Mon May 29, 2023 11:27 pm
That they weren't these brilliant gamesmen that the show tried to convince us they were in seasons past. They were just confused, shouting, and trying to flex their power and convey control to anyone in earshot.

I think the problem with the show is it spent three seasons trying to make these three into nuanced, sympathetic figures, but most of what they do is spend an exhausting amount of time trying to get into Logan's favor and play with power they can't handle. The dynamics are apparent very early into the show's start and they stay that way for three fucking seasons until the writers decide it's time for their endgame.
You're kinda answering your own grievance without realizing it. The whole point of the show is that these three people, if not everyone more generally, can not change and why. (no idea where you got the impression they were trying to convince the audience of their brilliance because they were made the fool time and time again)
Boosmahn wrote:
Tue May 30, 2023 3:06 am
I never viewed Succession as a satire (even though it clearly draws inspiration from the Murdoch family). It was always a family drama with business intrigue to me.
It's a tragedy.
therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue May 30, 2023 11:40 am
Boosmahn wrote:
Tue May 30, 2023 3:06 am
Kendall was the series' throughline for me. Without him, I would like the series much less. I always found his character interesting, though I admit part of that comes from very personal reasons.
Same, which is why it was weird when
SpoilerShow
suddenly he seemed cured of his addictions in season four, and became kind of a non-character/empty vessel. That’s part of why I felt this was the worst season and the last shot didn’t land its intended power.
Remember season four took place over what, two weeks, at most? So, it's not really long at all. Moreover, a lot of stuff — perhaps my favorite part of the show — happens off-camera so for all we know he is still struggling. Even if he wasn't I'm sure the answer to this would be something like he was also addicted to the idea of succeeding his father and that obsessiveness distracted from his addiction.

I enjoyed the show — a deep stable of memorable characters brought to life by an incredible cast, who wasn't great on this show? Every single actor was top-notch and they all had chemistry, so rare. Lots of amusing moments, many great one-liners, outstanding production design, and gorgeous location shooting, but I certainly think the praise has been over the top. Then again these people need to praise something, right? And I reckon this was far and away the best show on tv during its time. It'll be a long time before one of these awful companies pays for the kinds of things that made up Succession's budget.

Post Reply