Analyze the ways in HBO series succession follows a traditional tragedy structure in both the Ancient Greek sense and Shakespearean sense. A tragedy is a play based on human suffering, primarily concerning tragic events that befall the main character. The intention of tragedy, as understood by Aristotle, is to provoke catharsis in its audience. Catharsis is a release of emotions that comes with seeing others undergo painful or unfortunate circumstances. It is the pleasure of intense emotion with the relief of not undergoing the suffering oneself. Both Greek and Shakespearean tragedies tend to focus on the downfall of a protagonist who holds a high position in society. In the case of Succession, the main character, Kendall Roy, is the son of the CEO and founder of the largest multi-media conglomerate in the world. The plot itself is reminiscent of King Lear, as Logan Roy ages and must consider which of his three children is fit to take over his immensely successful business as he ages (though whether or not he is actually willing to give up his position of power is uncertain). Kendall's dreams of taking over the company are continuously derailed, no matter how hard he tries he is denied this one desire that he believes to be his birthright. Are there other aspects of Shakespearean tragedy that present themselves in the show? For example, there is considerable comic relief throughout the whole show, a feature not present in Greek tragedies. Is it more like one than the other? In what ways does it differ from these archetypes, and what significance do these divergences carry? Many consider it to be a comedy, how does the entwining of genres contribute to the complexity of the show, and the message it sends to its viewers? How does it merge traditional media with the problems and techniques of modernity?
Tragedy had elements of comedy from the time of the 16th to the 19th (maybe very early 20th) centuries. Vice verse as it pertains to comedies. – J.D. Jankowski2 years ago
Alex Russo in Disney Channel's hit TV show, "Wizards of Waverly Place" (2007-2012), is well loved for her constant antics: pranking her brothers, breaking rules, being lazy and selfish but ultimately having a heart of gold. Why is it that audiences adore "rule breaker" characters? Is it because they can do and get away with things that the rest of us in reality cannot so we live vicariously through them? Or is it because to be good all the time is boring? What other films and TV series star rebel protagonists and why are their immoral actions so appealing to viewers?
The main reason I think we see so many rebel characters is because it is an easy way to introduce conflict into a plot. – Blackcat1302 years ago
I'm not sure delinquents and rebels are always the "best" kinds of characters, per se, but I think their appeal taps into wish fulfillment. Most kids hate where they go to school, and most adults hate where they work, and so the idea of being able to just flout the rules and do what you want is super appealing. This is especially true if, as often happens in these kinds of stories, a character breaks a rule for the greater good, and by the end of the story everyone sees how right they were all along. – Debs2 years ago
It seems as though, a lot of the time, the audience's perception of a character in a story is colored less by things the character has actually said or done, and more by how another character (who is usually a main character or simply more popular) views them. For instance, in the original British Office, Tim, a salesman, spends most of his time bullying his fellow salesman, Gareth. However, because Tim is more popular and gets more screen time, audiences just assume that he is the "nice" one and Gareth "deserves" to be mistreated when there's no real evidence of this. The same series also includes a corporate higher-up named Neil, who is made out to be "mean" simply because he doesn't get along with David, the main face of the show. What are some other examples of this phenomenon from TV, or media in general? Are there any characters who seem to be especially unfairly judged? Do they (or the people judging them) share any particular traits in common?
In no way is the female warrior a new archetype, but what is new is the increasing mainstream TV portrayals of faceted versions of such characters. With the changes occurring in the representation of women in TV we are seeing a great up take of new presentations of women in what have been predominantly male roles/positions. An examination of this progression and the emergence of new perspectives on the female warrior would be a timely discussion.
Some examples you ask? Take 'Wynonna Earp' first. Westerns have traditionally focused on masculine frontier storytelling where women have two roles (chorus girl or wife – to put it politely) that are fundamentally centred on the men in the story. Wynonna is an alcoholic, damaged and has so much emotional baggage it fills the show. She is flawed, she is all the western cliches and she is still the biggest "bad ass" on the show. Consider 'Star Trek: Discovery' next. ST has actually been fairly forward with the presentation of women in roles of power and has often represented them in new and relevant versions…until the most recent films, when they were regressed back to wearing short dresses, go-go boots and being vulnerable. Michael (with a very traditionally masculine name) exemplifies the characteristics of a warrior, to the degree that the first season is framed by her act of violence. ‘Motherland: Fort Salem’ is literally a show about warrior witches. They are training and learning to be warriors. This is a show that fulfills many of the traditional tropes in masculine representations of war/combat style archetypes. Many of the subplots within the show follow traditional subplot paths of such genres, including characterisations of particular stereotypes such as the recruit, the cocky fighter, the drill sergeant, and so on.
There are so many more that could be discussed and explored. It is interesting to see the changes to these representations that are able to balance traditional “feminine” characteristics of the characters with traditional representations of masculine warrior traits in a manner the begins to normalise a greater diversity in gender representations.
Tina Fey's character in the sitcom 30 Rock is an at times uncomfortable portrayal of an archetype that many people identify with: white, female, and straight, as well as smart, witty, and awkward. How do we understand Liz Lemon's self-presentation in the show, as well as how the characters around her interact with her? Does her character have implications for the people who see part of themselves in her? What is Liz Lemon's legacy? Specifically, I'm interested in how Liz Lemon deals with issues of privilege, especially in terms of the racial humor the show occasionally incorporates, as well as her interactions with her boss Jack and the power dynamic and competition between them.
From my admittedly limited experience with 30 Rock, Liz Lemon always kind of struck me as a female version of Michael Scott, from The Office. Like Michael, Liz is rude, childish, self-centered, and often feels attacked and unfairly imposed upon by her boss and colleagues. Liz gets much less sympathy than Michael does, however, which I can't help but feel is due to sexism. Many people (both in and out of 30 Rock's world) seem to believe that men can get away with acting inappropriately but women "should know better" somehow. – Debs2 years ago
I think a lot of what Debs is saying is right, but Liz is also much, much smarter than Michael Scott. 30 Rock's interest to me is the balancing act it performs: the show is definitely aware of the sexist dynamic that Debs is describing, but doesn't let Liz off the hook for her faults. That can be a controversial balancing act, because like Debs says, it does suggest Liz ought to know better in a way that Michael Scott isn't expected to, but I think the show is also plainly aware of that controversy, making it a more challenging show to grapple with. – Elliot Brunk2 years ago
What is the function of these categories on streaming services:
Disney – Trending Netflix – Popular on Netflix, trending now, Top 10 movies in Australia today Amazon prime – top movies, top tv Stan – trending on stan, popular now
Psychologically why do we want to be watching what everyone else is? Or if not, why?
How does this work on services such as Netflix, who have their own original content? Can we trust that they aren't bumping their own numbers?
Also, how do they know what is being watched most? Do they get these numbers anonymously or can they see what each user/profile is watching? Netflix has a category based on the user's country, so they must be able to see at least some user info with what is being watched.
I have seen writer's use eg. Bridgertons viewing stats in articles, where do they get these numbers? Are they released by the streaming services or are these inferred from their places in 'trending' categories?
Having these lists and categories seems to guarantee that certain content will reach pop culture icon status (eg. Tiger King), which spurned trends on social media and spin-off shows. Perhaps this is why the services have these categories, so that everyone is talking about the show/movie that can be seen exclusively through their service.
I think FOMO, or the fear of missing out, plays a major role in why the 'trending' section works so well. Many want to be able to connect with others and fear that if they do not they will be left behind – Alex2 years ago
Considering the recent success of Squid Game, what factors led to its popularity? The plot itself is one that – while unique, is perhaps not as haunting as less popular films and TV Shows. Is its more simplistic plot the cause of its international success?
I'd argue that, while the battle royale format is relatively simple, Squid Game is actually trying to make a fairly complex point about class and privilege. The contrast of simple surface/deeper content could be explored here. You can see online how often people misinterpret the point of the show (ex. "it's about having a go-getter mindset!"). Is it digestible because people are taking something from it without having to dig too deep? And are they taking the right thing? – SBee3 years ago
I agree with the above comment. Squid Game may seem simple, but it's underlying commentary on class and wealth cannot be overlooked. However, the gore, the bright colours, the flashiness of the game and the characters are attractive to viewers without having to dig too much deeper.
– oliviatrenorden3 years ago
I agree with SeeB. I’d also like to see a consideration of how the national
context also influences its popularity. There’s a transnational consumption of Korean culture as mainstream. I think there’s something there to explore. Is S Korea the canary in the coalmine? – ProfRichards3 years ago
This is a very interesting question indeed. I would say that the suspense also played a role in its success. Plus, there is an interesting presentation of the characters who are different in their intentions in the game. You get to see those who make you feel uncomfortable or angry and those who make you feel like there is still hope in humanity. The emotional responses these characters have on the audience is what I believe made the show an international success. – Malak Cherif3 years ago
Could also consider that the translation into English was far from perfect, apparently lots of the nuance was lost. However, it managed to be wildly successful in both forms. – JDWatts3 years ago
I really just think people in the western world made it seem more popular than it was intended to become. I've seen this plot before in anime I've seen but it's more of a niche sub-genre. It took the average Netflix viewer by surprise because it's not something they watch, the survival game type of vibe.
– jeet3 years ago
It'd be interesting to discuss the cultural differences underwriting the themes. Western culture and entertainment are becoming more desperate for innovative content and turning to other languages and cultures to find them. Does this mean that Western content creation has been tapped out in terms of innovation and will be limited to endless remakes of the same stories, over and over? – PeterRogers2 years ago
Analyse Don't Look Up that came out this past year. In what terms is it showing the truth and/or exaggerating. With the NASA scientist being arrested and the implications on climate change, there is the connection that we are destroying ourselves. How does this connection make us think more about the impact we have on our lives? Or why is it so hard to take action to basically save us?
Going on from here to discuss human psychology in situations like this would be really important. The investigation could start on a personal level and end on a collective level. Let's start with some hypothetical questions: why is it possible to intentionally heart oneself? Is it simply a matter of ignorance? Where one knows, is it then a matter of lack of faith? Is it a lack of emotional impulses? Why is it possible to know and believe in self-hearting yet not act on it? How does a personal activity become a community-wide behavior after this? Etc... – Samer Darwich3 years ago
