Perversely fascinated by moral depravity
This week's Marginalia: some detours into television and theater, and preparing myself for the fall movie and TV onslaught.
NOW PLAYING/STREAMING
"Succession" (HBO)
I resisted this show for a long time because it's not the kind of TV I typically like. I also wondered if all of the chatter that I was hearing about the show was the product of being in a bubble — I follow lots of journalists on Twitter, who are disproportionately likely to eagerly discuss a show about the media industry (though the show is much more about the business of media rather than the industry itself. In other words, it's not "The Newsroom." It is also, of course, much better in quality than "The Newsroom.") If you are mercifully not in this bubble, a brief logline: "Succession" follows the Roy family, led by patriarch Logan (a thinly veiled version of Rupert Murdoch), who owns a media conglomerate consisting of a right-wing news network, some theme parks, and a movie studio. Summary: terrible people behaving terribly, through wild scheming and batshit power dynamics.
I slogged through the first season over the last few weeks, in an attempt to get caught up for the second season, currently airing on HBO. And I mean, it was a slog. By the time I was about halfway through the first season, I did find myself getting more and more engrossed by the power dynamics and the scheming, despite also being disgusted — but also perversely fascinated — by the moral depravity. Every single interaction between its characters, even the most personal of moments, like those between the Roy siblings, is ultimately transactional.
I have no problems with the show itself: the writing and the acting are fantastic, and while it's trite to describe all of its high drama is Shakespearean, it really is that. The second season so far has been truly stellar (GUEST STAR HOLLY HUNTER!).
But I keep wrestling with articulating what exactly is drawing me to the show. There needs to be a term for hate-watching — not in the sense of "watching this show because it's so bad it's good" — but in the sense of "I hate almost every single character to the point of dread, but somehow, I perversely keep watching."
TV masochism? But I don't even derive pleasure from it because it has been a slog to watch. Anyway, I'm fascinated by the way it's a show that seems intentionally designed to exhibit whatever perverse phenomenon I'm trying to articulate. I keep circling around whatever this is, but can't seem to crystallize it.
"House of Cards" might be the closest analogue (in addition to the similar scheming and power dynamics) in the way it is all so grim to watch. Yet we keep watching anyway — though I wonder how long something like "Succession" can sustain itself, given that I gave up on "House of Cards" several seasons before its eventual demise because of you-know-who. However, it's not a fair comparison: "House of Cards" took a nose dive in quality, and I think pound for pound, "Succession" is a much better show overall, particularly in its craft.
I'm trying to think of a third example of a show like this: characters with no redeeming qualities, no ounce of empathy, few if any reasons to generate our emotional investment or sympathy. It's way beyond the antihero shows. Maybe "Veep"? Though that is darkly comedic, which "Succession" for the most part is not. That said, this week's episode was pretty funny at times — but again, in a perverse, stomach-turning way. I have seen others make the argument that the show a dark comedy, but I wouldn't go that far.
Very interested to hear your thoughts if you are also obsessed with "Succession" — and especially if you, like me, aren't sure why.
NOW PLAYING/COMING ATTRACTIONS
"What the Constitution Means to Me"
I was in New York recently, and when I'm there, I always try to squeeze in some theater. What a zany and funny, yet wrenching and deeply cathartic theatrical experience, written and performed by the incredible Heidi Schreck, who based on it on her real life experience as a teenager who won an American Legion speech contest about the Constitution. The play reminded me a bit of Hannah Gadsby’s "Nanette" in both style and substance — Schreck even makes meta references to the structure, and just when you’re not sure where it’s all going, bam! She says an incisive line that instantly cuts through, and brings it all full circle. (Also, between this and "Fleabag," I seem to be on a kick of one-woman shows written and performed by brilliant feminist playwrights, involving fourth-wall breaks that initially don't make any sense..until they do.) This play also gave me some stress flashbacks to my high school speech and debate years.
D.C. friends, this is moving to the Kennedy Center for a two-week run starting next Wednesday (which I found out not long after I bought tickets to see it in New York), so please go, go, go. And if you're elsewhere, you might be able to catch it in other cities along its national tour.
BRICOLAGE
A couple weeks back, I wrote about "American Factory" on Netflix, the first movie to be released by the Obamas' production company, and talked with its directors Julia Reichert and Steven Bognar about how it all came together (and about getting to meet the Obamas).
As your resident comfort-food reality TV correspondent, happy to report "Great British Bake Off" is back! In a first, Netflix is putting up each episode week by week, the Friday after it airs in the U.K., so we Americans will get to experience it in real time, just as our U.K. friends do. Counterpoint: a colleague mentioned to me that there's a downside to not getting each season in binge-able form. I see her point, but I also like not having to wait several months after it airs in the U.K.