Movies |
“Everyone” watched “Succession”— but was it a success?
By
Published: Jun 04, 2023
Category:
Drama
A few days after the final episode of “Succession,” I asked a culturally savvy, critically astute friend what she thought of it. She hadn’t watched it. More surprising, she’d never heard of it.
I didn’t watch it — I watch almost nothing — but I was stunned.
Over 4 years, “Succession” collected 13 Emmys, including two for best drama and three for the writer who created the show. How did it happen that my culturally savvy friend, who chats with culturally savvy clients during the work day and at least skims the Times had never heard of “Succession?”
This made no sense.
In fact, it makes perfect sense.
Let’s look at the viewer numbers.
The series finale of “Succession” produced 2.9 million viewers on Sunday night — according to HBO, a viewership high. Including delayed streaming, HBO said that “Succession” was averaging 8.7 million viewers per episode, also a new high for the show.
Compare those numbers with “The White Lotus,” also on HBO. It averaged 15.5 million viewers per episode, nearly double the viewers for the final season of “Succession.”
“Euphoria,” which was also on HBO, had an average of 19.5 million viewers per episode.
Who shot J.R. Ewing? In 1980, that was a burning question for Americans, and more than 83 million people — three-quarters of the entire American TV viewership — watched “Who Done It?,” the episode of “Dallas” that revealed who shot him.
When “Succession” finally ended, the Times — which had published an astonishing 33 stories about the series in the last month — finally acknowledged what the numbers signified: “Succession’ remains somewhat of a niche series.”
“Somewhat?”
In a country of 330 million people, with “Succession” poised to win its third “Best Drama” honors at this year’s Emmy Awards, nobody watched it.
No, sorry. Almost everybody we know watched it. And loved it. [Here, for just one rave, my pal Blair Sabol smartly concludes that “’Succession’ gave us what we needed — dark and damaged shadows.”] Who does Blair mean by “we?” People we know. They read the Times and the Washington Post and the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal and The New Yorker and The New York Review of Books. They stream good movies, often with subtitles. They watched three seasons of Borgen but bailed early on the fourth because they saw that it just milked the franchise. They endured just enough of ”Everything Everywhere All At Once” not to care.
Who are those people? In one word: us.
Now let’s compare those 3.1 million “Succession” viewers to Tucker Carlson’s numbers. Before his racist texts became a major factor in Fox’s $787.5 million libel settlement, he was pulling in 3.2 million viewers on Fox, without promotion in the Times, Post, etc. One guy. A steady cash machine for the network, pumping out what an audience wanted to hear, on a budget that, even with his $35 million salary, couldn’t have been close to the $50-to-$90 million spent on “Succession.”
And that, friends, is the point: we are two cultures now. As late as September, 2022, 61% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen. How many Republicans believe there’s a “witch hunt” to convict the former President of a crime? As many as 80%.
So a show about rich people, their tasteful clothes, and their clawing to be top dog was watched by many of “us” and very few of “them.” No surprise there: The people who feel victimized by the super-rich don’t care who inherits a fortune.
It’s not just those who feel marginalized in this economy who are sick of the rich and their “issues.” The Washington Post did a piece: “For mega-rich heirs, the anxieties that drive ‘Succession’ are all too real.” I sent it to a friend. Her reply: “I can’t find a violin small enough.”
My friend understands that “Succession” did what great entertainment automatically does: It played us. We followed the twists and turns of a story that took us far from the twists and turns of our own stories, and we were warmed by feuds that are a galaxy distant from ours, and we were grateful for that, because the news is terrifying and we see very little in the future that we’d like to see become reality, and now, dammit, we have been returned to our own lives.
The Washington Post thoughtfully directed us to the literary influences of “Succession.” Among others, it suggested “The Little Foxes.” Why? “It showcases a murderous capitalist so delicious that actresses queue up to portray her.” The film of Lillian Hellman’s play was directed by William Wyler, my favorite director (“Dodsworth” and “The Letter,” among many others). The story: In the early years of the 20th century, it was common for sons to inherit their family’s fortune. As a result, two brothers are wealthy. Their sister (Bette Davis) is married to a rich man who has a heart condition and has been living in a sanitarium in Baltimore for several years. She lures him home so she can convince him to go along with a deal that will make her rich when he dies. Once home, he makes an unannounced visit to his bank, opens his safe deposit box, and discovers $75,000 in coupons are missing. Plot twists follow, one of them dazzlingly evil. [To stream “The Little Foxes” on Amazon Prime Video, click here.]
Because Butler understands you might be having a hard time getting over “Succession,” here’s your next movie. Or consider what’s going on in the world — if you’ve been following the news, there’s much that’s involving. The catch is that it’s real. And although we’ve been reduced to spectators, it definitely involves us.
