srn2020oxford 26 Jul 2021 Empathy, Ethics, Panel 14, TV series

Cotta Ramosino – Succession: Pushing the boundaries of family drama

Laura Cotta Ramosino (Catholic University, Milan, Italy)

Luisa Cotta Ramosino (Catholic University, Milan, Italy)

Panel 14 – TV & ETHICS

Monday 13 September (Day 4), Session 1, 10.30 am

READ ABSTRACT & BIOS

Cotta-Ramosino OPEN/DOWNLOAD

WATCH PRE-RECORDED PRESENTATION

You can leave comments/questions in the box below to be used during the Live Q&A session.

ATTEND LIVE PANEL

5Comments

Add yours

1

Paolo Russo on 9 Sep 2021 at 5:39 pm
Reply

Thank you Luisa and Laura for this presentation: engaging as usual, and offering lots of insights.
I’d like to ask you to elaborate on a few of these, if you could:

1) You make a key remark when noting that the Relationship Lines in the series are built around notions aptly borrowed from the world of finance (i.e. negotiations, contracts, manipulation). But how are these developed in terms of medium-specific writing strategies/techniques? You do mention power struggles (power to be conquered or lost) and characters who are blind to their own weaknesses (one of the most useful tools in any writer’s arsenal) but I wonder if you could be more specific. For example: when you focus on Logan you wonder how one can “side” with such an awful character (which is a form of “moral allegiance”) but then you switch to a more generic notion of identification – that seems to me to match our keynote’s notion of “alignment” (different from allegiance). In my view, allegiance varies based on the way storylines are developed throughout the episodes (one element of what I call dynamics): one does in fact side with Logan initially, or at least feels empathy when he is taken ill or is in rehab and his heirs plot all sorts of things to replace him, for that to be completely reversed a few episodes later when he recovers and shows his true face. It’s techniques like this that make audiences engage with characters, not because of their moral substance, but because of their “substance” and dynamic range, which keeps us wondering where the narrative will take us next. The same strategy (in reverse order) is applied to Kendall, which is why we tend to slowly but surely “side with him” as the season progresses. Would you agree? If so, would you elaborate on this? If not, how do you think this is designed in the series then?

2) Loyalty: connected to what I mentioned above, and to borrow another term from the world of finance, there is a “sunk-cost effect” at play as the result of the viewer’s long-term engagement in a serial narrative and its characters: because it’s long term and you invest your emotional energy (and time) in it (i.e. the sunk cost), you automatically don’t want to lose on that investment and you tend to hold on to it. Do you think Armstrong relied on this in developing “Succession” (assuming he curated the whole development of the arcs)?

3) You highlight the choice of shots and the use of zoom, which are formal devices of the cinematography. Are they already in the teleplays? If not, do the teleplays already somehow “call for” those choices?

Loading...
- 2
  
  Luisa Cotta Ramosino on 12 Sep 2021 at 9:35 pm
  Reply
  
  thanks for these very smart questions. We will try to answer tomorrow using a scene from the pilot’s script. I think Armstrong has decided to ask his audience a lot, betting on the fact that prestige television audience is usually ready to give a show at least two or three episode before deciding to “stay or leave”. Succession is a show that grows on you… at the beginning it challenges you more than involving you…but this level of sophistication is probably the reason why afterwards it creates a stronger loyalty in the audience…
  
  Loading...
3

Mike Gibas on 11 Sep 2021 at 2:28 pm
Reply

Succession is one of a many items in a seemingly endless ‘watchlist’ and I shall now have to prioritise watching it after this fascinating presentation. I wonder, Luisa and Laura, what do you think underpins this rise in TV series that are absolutely packed with irredeemable characters; indeed, series that don’t even have a flawed hero of any sort at their heart? I’m thinking of Billions and of Ozark — both hugely popular — where every single character is absolutely awful, and yet we still tune in faithfully to find out what happens next. What is it in our society and our developing culture that makes us enjoy the lives of these dreadful people? It’s like it’s all J.R and no Bobby these days! (A ‘Dallas’ reference for those not old enough to remember).

Loading...
- 4
  
  Luisa Cotta Ramosino on 12 Sep 2021 at 9:23 pm
  Reply
  
  I think that Succession’s characters are slightly different from the other anti-heroes of many shows of the last years because a lot of them are actually designed as comic characters in a dramatic/tragic scenario…there is a lot of farce in this series and this is probably what makes it so cleaver and unique.
  but if you are looking for a show with no bad guys and a lot of good people have a look at Ted Lasso. it is really good and interesting exactly because everybody is …good!
  
  Loading...
5

Rose Ferrell on 12 Sep 2021 at 10:17 am
Reply

Wonderful presentation. Now it is only left to watch the series! Thank you!

Loading...

SRN 2021

Cotta Ramosino – Succession: Pushing the boundaries of family drama

READ ABSTRACT & BIOS

WATCH PRE-RECORDED PRESENTATION

Like this: