do you know of any other critics who are (even slightly!) skeptical about succession? really interested to hear a variety of thoughts because i've mostly heard universal praise
they've all been sniped. no jk. they do exist! there were people who soured on season 3 because they thought the show felt stuck (like Sophie Gilbert at The Atlantic and Cassie da Costa at Vanity Fair). I think being stuck is the whole point of Succession (because it's a comedy) but they're not turning that into anything dramatically satisfying. Lili Loofbourow's take on this in Slate is my favorite; it's a good look at how repetitiveness might be "the point" but it's still draining the show of any real stakes.
what I really want to read is a good article on what it means that this supposedly pointed eat-the-rich satire is so beloved by so many rich people. shouldn't it comfort them less? I liked this piece in Vanity Fair by Richard Lawson, whose review of Season 1 was also skeptical, but Succession isn't the focus of that piece. but I agree with the idea that nobody's succeeded at going for the kill. honestly, I think Succession is closer to getting it right than any other eat-the-rich satire airing right now. (it's no Veep though.) I loved this feature from Alison Herman at The Ringer about how the designers and cinematographers make wealth look miserable.
but if the idea is "rich people are miserable," the pity kind of dulls the satire. but it's SO hard not to make that argument sound media illiterate!! this article in The Week is technically asking the question I want to read about (does Succession hate wealth as much as it wants you to think), but most of the argument boils down to "it's hard not to sympathize with characters as you watch them suffer." which is annoying because it treats audiences like they don't have brains and feels dangerously close to "Breaking Bad glorifies meth" levels of not getting it. of course saying wealth is a trap for the wealthy doesn’t cancel out their horribleness. but artistically, yeah, as some reviews have pointed out (like Mike Hale at the New York Times and Darren Franich at EW), Succession has had a hard time balancing mockery and sympathy. it feels like two shows in one, and it’s better at being the funny one.
anyway, this one isn't remotely negative, but I think it sums it up: here's Kathryn VanArendonk at Vulture on why Succession is a great comedy.
one of the most infuriating things about becoming an adult is when you realize that it actually is 10x easier to solve problems by making a phone call vs literally any other communication method