I love the show, and I also loved Downton Abbey, (bear with me). I just wish Julian Fellowes had watched Succession when he was making what turned out to be his god-awful American version of Downton Abbey, Gilded Age. Fellowes has never understood America, and I think it's a remarkably easy country to understand. He just fundamentally doesn't care, which doesn't bode well for an American based TV series. I knew a show called the Gilded Age would be about the clash between old and new money, which is a very old topic but can still be entertaining. But so far there is absolutely no difference between the two castes. The Old Money family sits around saying we're old money and we don't talk to new money, and the new money family sits around saying I'm going to show those old money snobs blah blah. In reality it just wasn't talked about all the time, or ever really. It just was.
The reason I bring this up is Succession does an infinitely better job of exploring the same theme, particularly in Season 2. The old money family, whom I take to be the Boston Bancrofts selling the WSJ to the vulgar Murdochs, don't once say "we don't deal with new money". But they live in a rambling shingle style big house in New England and quote Shakespeare and nurse their pet intellectual interests and charities, while the Murdochs go to coke filled orgies and shout obscenities at each other. It's more subtle but so much more realistic and engaging than the Gilded Age representation of this age old conflict is.
And I realize I've strayed off topic quite a bit, but to bring it back, I guess what I'm saying is that what you're seeing is the conservative vs liberal dynamic I see as more old vs new money. But either way, the new money upstarts are almost always going to be conservatives vs the mellowed out liberal old money (all the big name families with foundations and university buildings named after them).
The writing is very current. The part about Waystar’s app having good content but horrible tech is so Fox Nation - where shows like Tucker Carlson Today long interviews are fantastic but it take me 20 minutes to download an episode- and then from time to time the download option just goes away.
I was hoping for more development of the competing Presidental candidates, but the Pence as the VP and the neo con pretending be a paleo con as Rubio is spot on. The alt-right Senator who was described as Medicare for all and abortion for none is fascinating and reminds me of much of my Twitter feed. I think the best comparison for him is Blake Masters in Arizona - who is connected to a billionaire in Peter Thiel. It will be neat to see how they develop this arc.
National politics are the least interesting aspect of the show. The premise of Machiavellian struggle for power is also banal and unoriginal. What originality the show has comes from how incompetent, buffoonish, and morally bankrupt all the key players obviously are, and the element of dark humor that comes with it. And, of course, the execution is what makes it.
At least for me, he's right. I don't watch TV so am pretty uninterested in hearing about TV shows.
What I am interested in is how from (presumed) not too dissimilar objectives Progressives and Conservatives get to their specific beliefs. Why do some conservatives think that lots (but not population swamping levels) of high skilled immigration would be a bad thing or (the same thing) that new immigrants will not assimilate? Why do some Progressives think that fewer police on the streets would improve city life?
I love the show, and I also loved Downton Abbey, (bear with me). I just wish Julian Fellowes had watched Succession when he was making what turned out to be his god-awful American version of Downton Abbey, Gilded Age. Fellowes has never understood America, and I think it's a remarkably easy country to understand. He just fundamentally doesn't care, which doesn't bode well for an American based TV series. I knew a show called the Gilded Age would be about the clash between old and new money, which is a very old topic but can still be entertaining. But so far there is absolutely no difference between the two castes. The Old Money family sits around saying we're old money and we don't talk to new money, and the new money family sits around saying I'm going to show those old money snobs blah blah. In reality it just wasn't talked about all the time, or ever really. It just was.
The reason I bring this up is Succession does an infinitely better job of exploring the same theme, particularly in Season 2. The old money family, whom I take to be the Boston Bancrofts selling the WSJ to the vulgar Murdochs, don't once say "we don't deal with new money". But they live in a rambling shingle style big house in New England and quote Shakespeare and nurse their pet intellectual interests and charities, while the Murdochs go to coke filled orgies and shout obscenities at each other. It's more subtle but so much more realistic and engaging than the Gilded Age representation of this age old conflict is.
And I realize I've strayed off topic quite a bit, but to bring it back, I guess what I'm saying is that what you're seeing is the conservative vs liberal dynamic I see as more old vs new money. But either way, the new money upstarts are almost always going to be conservatives vs the mellowed out liberal old money (all the big name families with foundations and university buildings named after them).
Wanting Peace With Russia To Focus Aggressions On China Is Just Being An Imperialist Warmonger
https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/wanting-peace-with-russia-to-focus?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1NTc3OTQsInBvc3RfaWQiOjQ4NDM3OTEwLCJfIjoiMXJwZUYiLCJpYXQiOjE2NDQ0MTg3OTEsImV4cCI6MTY0NDQyMjM5MSwiaXNzIjoicHViLTgyMTI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.SAhPl85yqb3M1C0k1Sdub7FOJN7Ga25FklslHdMXftc
The writing is very current. The part about Waystar’s app having good content but horrible tech is so Fox Nation - where shows like Tucker Carlson Today long interviews are fantastic but it take me 20 minutes to download an episode- and then from time to time the download option just goes away.
I was hoping for more development of the competing Presidental candidates, but the Pence as the VP and the neo con pretending be a paleo con as Rubio is spot on. The alt-right Senator who was described as Medicare for all and abortion for none is fascinating and reminds me of much of my Twitter feed. I think the best comparison for him is Blake Masters in Arizona - who is connected to a billionaire in Peter Thiel. It will be neat to see how they develop this arc.
National politics are the least interesting aspect of the show. The premise of Machiavellian struggle for power is also banal and unoriginal. What originality the show has comes from how incompetent, buffoonish, and morally bankrupt all the key players obviously are, and the element of dark humor that comes with it. And, of course, the execution is what makes it.
At least for me, he's right. I don't watch TV so am pretty uninterested in hearing about TV shows.
What I am interested in is how from (presumed) not too dissimilar objectives Progressives and Conservatives get to their specific beliefs. Why do some conservatives think that lots (but not population swamping levels) of high skilled immigration would be a bad thing or (the same thing) that new immigrants will not assimilate? Why do some Progressives think that fewer police on the streets would improve city life?