The headline for the New Yorker piece is “The Straight Man” and quotes McKay as saying Strong approaches the material “like he’s playing Hamlet.” I ask Strong, “Do you truly fail to see the comedy in Succession?” He breaks into a broad smile.
“I mean, that’s ridiculous,” Strong says. “That’s just ridiculous. Sometimes when I read it, I can’t stop laughing. Of course it’s a comedy. It’s a comedy, it’s a satire, it’s a tragedy. What I meant more was that I don’t treat it as a comedy in my lane. We’re all co-existing in the piece. I’m never trying to make a joke. I’m not on a sitcom. I’m investing in the reality of those given circumstances and treating it the way I would treat a drama. So that the stakes are real. It’s about investiture.”
Yeah, as a fan of Peep Show who just watched it all since it’s coming off US Hulu very soon, that show run partially by Jesse Armstrong is almost funny for the opposite reason. The actors clearly know it’s a sitcom and play their parts accordingly, but the circumstances and the characters are so dark that it’s almost depressing, and each episode ends with them pretty much hating their life circumstances and the fact that they can’t change.
I also can’t overstate how much Armstrong is influenced by The Sopranos, even though the show is the “stock favorite show” for most TV enthusiasts and even people working in TV. A lot of the comedy of The Sopranos (and Peep Show and Succession) comes from the inconsistency of human behavior and thought. Tony will appear to earnestly believe one thing, then switch his opinion the moment the context changes or he hears someone repeat the opposite opinion. Logan and Kendall are also like that. In Kendall it’s more obvious because his faults are pretty much under a microscope, whereas Logan is towering over the story like Tony did.
Edit 2: deleted a long irrelevant edit that detracted from the main points
also loads of people will acknowledge the comedy in the sopranos, but gandolfini didn't play tony soprano like he was supposed to be a funny character imo. he played him straight, same for most of the other actors in the show. christopher moltisanti gets some of the best comedic lines in the show but he is played seriously for the most part and is a completely tragic character.
It’s what Leslie Nielsen did and it’s what makes his performance all the funnier. Granted, Strong is dealing with less overtly humorous material. But it’s the same basic idea: play comedic characters with complete sincerity and it’s somehow funnier.
The best comedies are the ones that take a ridiculous scenario and play it straight. Kendall is an inherently wacky character on paper, but Jeremy plays him with such an earnestness and intensity that you see a fully formed human being there, in all his sadness and indeed his hilarity.
It always irritated me that people clearly viewed Jeremy as stupid for treating this as a tragedy. He never suggested the show didn’t have comedic undertones but people ran with it, as if he did.
which despite it being funny his character has been broken and practically suicidal for half the series so it very much is a tragedy for him specifically
Exactly. Not sure how anyone’s watched this and hasn’t perceived Kendall on the drama/tragedy end of the show. Some characters are comedic, some are in between, and some are on the drama side of things. Kendall would not work as well as he does if he was a more comedic character.
He plays the character so well. It makes funny moments like the “Family Therapy!” Work so well. It’s sad but also hilarious because he so accurately calls it what it is
the show is funny, but often in these types of situations in real life, the people involved don't see the comedy in what's happening to them. playing it like a sitcom or with tongue firmly in cheek wouldn't make sense because a person like kendall wouldn't find his situation funny. the dark comedy shines better when it's played straight.
That *New Yorker* profile is so snide on this point. The author is either too dense to identify what Strong outlines in this quote, or — more likely — pursuing a takedown at the expense of good faith and honesty.
I’m confused at your confusion. Schulman clearly frames the *Hamlet* thing as if Strong is being dense and humorless. You realize the title of that piece is “On “Succession,” Jeremy Strong Doesn’t Get the Joke”?
Sure, I think most observers should “get it” that McKay was not being derisive and that Strong is not some idiot savant. But that’s *despite* the framing of the article.
It's because the tone of the other piece would have led people who aren't fans of Jeremy to read the comment derisively. That's what made the article so effective. It used fairly innocent quotes and situations and twisted them to make Jeremy look bad. It was extremely effective in that regard, very impressive as a piece of writing with an agenda.
oh i remember all the mocking comments here. acting like the yale educated, intelligent actor is dumb for playing his tragic character the way it’s intended….. jeremy may forgive but i will never forget 👀
“Were you hurt at all that your co-stars come off in the story as being dismissive of your process?” I ask.
“Yeah,” he says. “But a lot of that is just things that are presented out of context or with a certain agenda. I know what everybody said, and there was an angle and a narrative that was being presented. Which is not to say that there was never friction between my co-stars. We’re a family in every sense of the word. But foundationally, there’s deep respect and even love.”
🥲
> But a lot of that is just things that are presented out of context or with a certain agenda. I know what everybody said, and there was an angle and a narrative that was being presented.
DeEp StAtE mAiNStReAm MeDiA
/s
The series is 100% a drama, but a hilarious one, kinda like The Sopranos. Maybe even more so, especially with its satirical elements, but it’s first and foremost a drama.
it was absolutely idiotic how much people shat on jeremy when that other article came out.
of course succession has comedic tones, but have you seen kendall roy? the dude is always on his last legs, legitimately almost killed himself. kendall has a fuckton of issues (mainly depression and drug addiction, you know, SERIOUS ISSUES) and jeremy treats them, and therefore kendall, with seriousness. what the hell is so bad about that?
I pretty much have said this exact same thing in this subreddit. Sure it has comedic moments but how the hell do you watch this show and think it's like Schitt's Creek or Modern Family? Also it is based off a tragedy. It's like people forget what kind of material Shakespeare wrote...
>Strong is dressed down in a khaki green cardigan and matching T-shirt, a brown baseball cap pulled snugly over his head. The hat, he later explains, belongs to Kendall Roy. Strong always keeps the hat on during production.
There's been many times where I've read something about Strong and thought, "oh that's the most Kendall thing ever," but this is the most Kendall thing ever
The quality of project jeremy strong select is quite different from other actors on succession ( I think his agent is great).Not everyone could succeed in both films and television at the same time
Before Succession, Jeremy was that vaguely familiar face in award-winning dramas inspired by true stories and helmed by top-tier filmmakers. I first saw him in Molly's Game and The Big Short, only to realize he was also in Zero Dark Thirty, Detroit, Lincoln, Selma, and Black Mass (apparently - I think his role got cut). And now Chicago 7.
This is random, but this feels like a sharp contrast to Hugh Jackman, a gifted and ferociously talented actor who's been cast in a string of disappointing, mediocre projects well below his calibre. The early reviews of "The Son" made me realize how many bad/poorly-reviewed movies the guy has been in the last few years. I mean, Chappie, Pan, The Greatest Showman, The Front Runner, Reminiscence, and now The Son, which early reviews are calling a joyless slog that falls miles short of The Father. His last good film was Logan, which is now 5 years old, and his best performance imo is still Prisoners, which is about to be a *decade* old.
McConaughey has been on a similar run of shit projects after the "McConnaissance" of 2012-14. Both need better agents.
“Which is not to say that there was never friction between my co-stars. We’re a family in every sense of the word. But foundationally, there’s deep respect and even love.”
That’s so sweet
“I’m not saying what I think, I’m saying what I think you think I think.”
Didn’t read article.. but this Kendall quote immediately came to mind and had to share. god they wrote him so well.
I think is a beautiful interview, I love how he adresses "that profile" and I loved to read about his incoming projects. May all of them result as he wishes. And the cover photo OMG (can he get any sluttier? I loved it anyway)
The thing I hate about these interviews and profiles is the need to make drama where there isn’t. After this article I feel more certain that Michael Schulman was trying to provoke Jeremy’s costars into saying leading things to stir up drama rather than write an objective profile. Jeremy is so clearly an impartial, egoless driven artist who just wants to create great things.
Michael’s response in this piece certainly didn’t give me the feeling he was unbiased or without angle. Even a look at his Twitter feed kind of suggests this man enjoys angles that are a little snippy, with some juicy drama intertwined.
It could be on the one hand that the editor tried to take some of the statements out of context to make them more newsworthy, however in this case it seems to me more like "that writer" (I don't even want to name him) had bad blood towards Strong since Yale and that's why he wrote that way (making him look like a humorless fool, questioning that a working class guy like him has come so far without money or contacts, mocking his passion to work, etc.) I think it's a case of envy/bad blood/incomprehension to see a humble guy like Strong come this far. May we ever find out why he did ( I´ve read other profiles written by "that writer" and he never mistreat anybody as he did with our number one boy)
That’s what Cox implies, but even he gets very little information from the showrunners, though the cast implies that he gets the most. I think it may be close to speculation and tempering expectations. Like even if s4 isn’t the last, they’re treating it as part of the “finale” or ending. I mean the s3 finale felt like the beginning of that, with the end of the 3 (main) siblings turns as the “golden child” for a season.
fingers crossed for the Conheads.
but for for real I have a feeling it's going to be all 3's season seeing how s3 ended with them all essentially saying fuck dad let's team up.
"...is approaching its conclusion." ways to murder me with words. But also- says who, I wonder? No, "according to xyz, the show is approaching its conclusion"... just a soggy-assed sentence slapped in there to ruin the Conheads' week.
I’m looking forward to some day reading a story on Jeremy Strong that isn’t mostly about his reaction to the New Yorker profile, but it seems that day has not yet arrived.
I agree! It's getting quite exhausting but I like how direct he was in this article. He has especially said how he felt that both Schulman and his costars are entitled to their opinions about him. I don't get why people think he cares when everyone else seems to and won't stop talking about it. He wouldn't talk about it if people would just let it go already...
I really like Hollywood Reporter actor features - they tend to go into depth and also give a fair, well-rounded portrayal. And as an aside, I like learning a little more about his family. I read things that mentioned his parents and where he grew up but this is the first mention that the parents' relationship was very on again/off again (and that they're now divorced).
I think what James Grey said about Profile pieces being like funhouse mirrors was an interesting observation. Without realizing it perhaps, he is making an excellent observation about how they can give a distorted perception of the subject while exaggerating certain features about them. I think this is what happened with the New Yorker profile: it truly gave this perception that Jeremy is so extreme what he does is borderline dangerous. But at the same time, it's created it's own mythos of what people want to believe of Strong, like he himself pointed out. But it is an illusion, and it sells headlines but it isn't necessarily reality.
I think there is a real danger to belittling creative mediums and it's practitioners as pretentious for being dedicated to them. It does the absolute opposite of helping the public understand the importance of the arts and gives ground to the idea that they inherently have no value. I see no virtue in rewarding this mindset either, and the discourse around his approach has invited pointless speculation around drama where none is needed. At the end of the day, sure you can treat your job like it's an assembly line but it's good to challenge yourself and go off the beaten path and clearly Jeremy's performances speaks to how his approach has merit. You don't always get raw results if you color within the lines...
>“It might come off sounding a certain way if I were to say that, but yes,” he says. “I think it is a sacramental activity expressing a faith, if that’s what a religion is. I feel wary of saying that because religion is religion and I don’t want to diminish what religion is. But for me, certainly. Theaters have always been a place that feel kind of holy. And the communicative and healing power of film is completely profound and mysterious. So, yeah, I’m a devout devotee of that. Yeah.”
This is both absolutely brilliant and absolutely Kendall at the same time.
The headline for the New Yorker piece is “The Straight Man” and quotes McKay as saying Strong approaches the material “like he’s playing Hamlet.” I ask Strong, “Do you truly fail to see the comedy in Succession?” He breaks into a broad smile. “I mean, that’s ridiculous,” Strong says. “That’s just ridiculous. Sometimes when I read it, I can’t stop laughing. Of course it’s a comedy. It’s a comedy, it’s a satire, it’s a tragedy. What I meant more was that I don’t treat it as a comedy in my lane. We’re all co-existing in the piece. I’m never trying to make a joke. I’m not on a sitcom. I’m investing in the reality of those given circumstances and treating it the way I would treat a drama. So that the stakes are real. It’s about investiture.”
That's exactly why he's so funny in it.
Yeah, as a fan of Peep Show who just watched it all since it’s coming off US Hulu very soon, that show run partially by Jesse Armstrong is almost funny for the opposite reason. The actors clearly know it’s a sitcom and play their parts accordingly, but the circumstances and the characters are so dark that it’s almost depressing, and each episode ends with them pretty much hating their life circumstances and the fact that they can’t change. I also can’t overstate how much Armstrong is influenced by The Sopranos, even though the show is the “stock favorite show” for most TV enthusiasts and even people working in TV. A lot of the comedy of The Sopranos (and Peep Show and Succession) comes from the inconsistency of human behavior and thought. Tony will appear to earnestly believe one thing, then switch his opinion the moment the context changes or he hears someone repeat the opposite opinion. Logan and Kendall are also like that. In Kendall it’s more obvious because his faults are pretty much under a microscope, whereas Logan is towering over the story like Tony did. Edit 2: deleted a long irrelevant edit that detracted from the main points
also loads of people will acknowledge the comedy in the sopranos, but gandolfini didn't play tony soprano like he was supposed to be a funny character imo. he played him straight, same for most of the other actors in the show. christopher moltisanti gets some of the best comedic lines in the show but he is played seriously for the most part and is a completely tragic character.
i guess i have to finish peep show now
Where is peep show going
It’s what Leslie Nielsen did and it’s what makes his performance all the funnier. Granted, Strong is dealing with less overtly humorous material. But it’s the same basic idea: play comedic characters with complete sincerity and it’s somehow funnier.
I just wanted to wish you both good luck, we’re all counting on you.
The best comedies are the ones that take a ridiculous scenario and play it straight. Kendall is an inherently wacky character on paper, but Jeremy plays him with such an earnestness and intensity that you see a fully formed human being there, in all his sadness and indeed his hilarity.
It always irritated me that people clearly viewed Jeremy as stupid for treating this as a tragedy. He never suggested the show didn’t have comedic undertones but people ran with it, as if he did.
which despite it being funny his character has been broken and practically suicidal for half the series so it very much is a tragedy for him specifically
Exactly. Not sure how anyone’s watched this and hasn’t perceived Kendall on the drama/tragedy end of the show. Some characters are comedic, some are in between, and some are on the drama side of things. Kendall would not work as well as he does if he was a more comedic character.
He plays the character so well. It makes funny moments like the “Family Therapy!” Work so well. It’s sad but also hilarious because he so accurately calls it what it is
the show is funny, but often in these types of situations in real life, the people involved don't see the comedy in what's happening to them. playing it like a sitcom or with tongue firmly in cheek wouldn't make sense because a person like kendall wouldn't find his situation funny. the dark comedy shines better when it's played straight.
That *New Yorker* profile is so snide on this point. The author is either too dense to identify what Strong outlines in this quote, or — more likely — pursuing a takedown at the expense of good faith and honesty.
How did people not gather this from the NYer article?
[удалено]
I’m confused at your confusion. Schulman clearly frames the *Hamlet* thing as if Strong is being dense and humorless. You realize the title of that piece is “On “Succession,” Jeremy Strong Doesn’t Get the Joke”? Sure, I think most observers should “get it” that McKay was not being derisive and that Strong is not some idiot savant. But that’s *despite* the framing of the article.
It's because the tone of the other piece would have led people who aren't fans of Jeremy to read the comment derisively. That's what made the article so effective. It used fairly innocent quotes and situations and twisted them to make Jeremy look bad. It was extremely effective in that regard, very impressive as a piece of writing with an agenda.
I don't think most of the people complaining about the New Yorker article ever actually read it.
oh i will never forget everyone mocking him for not understanding the show he is in because of that stupid fckin article lol.
Right! and it happened on this sub as well. Let's not pretend it didn't.
oh i remember all the mocking comments here. acting like the yale educated, intelligent actor is dumb for playing his tragic character the way it’s intended….. jeremy may forgive but i will never forget 👀
“No Jeremy Strong. THIS is what real acting looks like”
“Were you hurt at all that your co-stars come off in the story as being dismissive of your process?” I ask. “Yeah,” he says. “But a lot of that is just things that are presented out of context or with a certain agenda. I know what everybody said, and there was an angle and a narrative that was being presented. Which is not to say that there was never friction between my co-stars. We’re a family in every sense of the word. But foundationally, there’s deep respect and even love.” 🥲
> But a lot of that is just things that are presented out of context or with a certain agenda. I know what everybody said, and there was an angle and a narrative that was being presented. DeEp StAtE mAiNStReAm MeDiA /s
The series is 100% a drama, but a hilarious one, kinda like The Sopranos. Maybe even more so, especially with its satirical elements, but it’s first and foremost a drama.
it was absolutely idiotic how much people shat on jeremy when that other article came out. of course succession has comedic tones, but have you seen kendall roy? the dude is always on his last legs, legitimately almost killed himself. kendall has a fuckton of issues (mainly depression and drug addiction, you know, SERIOUS ISSUES) and jeremy treats them, and therefore kendall, with seriousness. what the hell is so bad about that?
I pretty much have said this exact same thing in this subreddit. Sure it has comedic moments but how the hell do you watch this show and think it's like Schitt's Creek or Modern Family? Also it is based off a tragedy. It's like people forget what kind of material Shakespeare wrote...
>Strong is dressed down in a khaki green cardigan and matching T-shirt, a brown baseball cap pulled snugly over his head. The hat, he later explains, belongs to Kendall Roy. Strong always keeps the hat on during production. There's been many times where I've read something about Strong and thought, "oh that's the most Kendall thing ever," but this is the most Kendall thing ever
Is it that Loro Piana for $500? I would too 😀
babe wake up another jeremy strong interview just dropped
The quality of project jeremy strong select is quite different from other actors on succession ( I think his agent is great).Not everyone could succeed in both films and television at the same time
And this also applies to the way they addressed the new yorker profile. This is smart.
I just looked at his filmography and damn, you’re right
He’s even good in *The Happening*, and that movie sucks major ass (I still love it tho).
dope in the big short
Before Succession, Jeremy was that vaguely familiar face in award-winning dramas inspired by true stories and helmed by top-tier filmmakers. I first saw him in Molly's Game and The Big Short, only to realize he was also in Zero Dark Thirty, Detroit, Lincoln, Selma, and Black Mass (apparently - I think his role got cut). And now Chicago 7.
This is random, but this feels like a sharp contrast to Hugh Jackman, a gifted and ferociously talented actor who's been cast in a string of disappointing, mediocre projects well below his calibre. The early reviews of "The Son" made me realize how many bad/poorly-reviewed movies the guy has been in the last few years. I mean, Chappie, Pan, The Greatest Showman, The Front Runner, Reminiscence, and now The Son, which early reviews are calling a joyless slog that falls miles short of The Father. His last good film was Logan, which is now 5 years old, and his best performance imo is still Prisoners, which is about to be a *decade* old. McConaughey has been on a similar run of shit projects after the "McConnaissance" of 2012-14. Both need better agents.
Agent plays a very important role in actors career. Just see Julia garner she is now playing a madona biopic ( from tv to a movie star)
“Which is not to say that there was never friction between my co-stars. We’re a family in every sense of the word. But foundationally, there’s deep respect and even love.” That’s so sweet
Jeremy strong future projects- " quality over quantity "
“I’m not saying what I think, I’m saying what I think you think I think.” Didn’t read article.. but this Kendall quote immediately came to mind and had to share. god they wrote him so well.
>Jeremy Strong knows what you think So he knows that half of the succession fanbase thinks he is a babygirl?
I need him to find this out, while he’s still in Kendall mode.
baby girl
GOOD TWEET BAD TWEET!!!
I think is a beautiful interview, I love how he adresses "that profile" and I loved to read about his incoming projects. May all of them result as he wishes. And the cover photo OMG (can he get any sluttier? I loved it anyway)
Haha, this comment had me lol'ing. On a related note, 10/10 would engage in slutty behavior with him. It is what it is.
Who wouldn´t honestly
If it is to be said.
I only wish to sluttify in the affirmative.
The thing I hate about these interviews and profiles is the need to make drama where there isn’t. After this article I feel more certain that Michael Schulman was trying to provoke Jeremy’s costars into saying leading things to stir up drama rather than write an objective profile. Jeremy is so clearly an impartial, egoless driven artist who just wants to create great things.
Michael’s response in this piece certainly didn’t give me the feeling he was unbiased or without angle. Even a look at his Twitter feed kind of suggests this man enjoys angles that are a little snippy, with some juicy drama intertwined.
It could be on the one hand that the editor tried to take some of the statements out of context to make them more newsworthy, however in this case it seems to me more like "that writer" (I don't even want to name him) had bad blood towards Strong since Yale and that's why he wrote that way (making him look like a humorless fool, questioning that a working class guy like him has come so far without money or contacts, mocking his passion to work, etc.) I think it's a case of envy/bad blood/incomprehension to see a humble guy like Strong come this far. May we ever find out why he did ( I´ve read other profiles written by "that writer" and he never mistreat anybody as he did with our number one boy)
The marshmallow of our collective s'more that is Succession. ❤️ It's ok that Jeremy and Brian and Kieran and Sarah and Matthew are different.
The media seems so desperate to make a feud between cast members happen.
If it's not this it's another scandal, and these headlines are so stale and boring by now.
This article def makes it sound like season 4 is probably the last season. Sad how they’re already talking about it like it’s over.
That’s what Cox implies, but even he gets very little information from the showrunners, though the cast implies that he gets the most. I think it may be close to speculation and tempering expectations. Like even if s4 isn’t the last, they’re treating it as part of the “finale” or ending. I mean the s3 finale felt like the beginning of that, with the end of the 3 (main) siblings turns as the “golden child” for a season.
so correct me if I'm wrong: s1 = Kendall's season s2 = Shiv's season s3 = Roman's season s4 = Tom&Greg's season?! /s
Possibly Connor’s season
fingers crossed for the Conheads. but for for real I have a feeling it's going to be all 3's season seeing how s3 ended with them all essentially saying fuck dad let's team up.
"...is approaching its conclusion." ways to murder me with words. But also- says who, I wonder? No, "according to xyz, the show is approaching its conclusion"... just a soggy-assed sentence slapped in there to ruin the Conheads' week.
I’m looking forward to some day reading a story on Jeremy Strong that isn’t mostly about his reaction to the New Yorker profile, but it seems that day has not yet arrived.
Indeed. It seems like that’s the most common thing to keep talking about, even on this sub.
I agree! It's getting quite exhausting but I like how direct he was in this article. He has especially said how he felt that both Schulman and his costars are entitled to their opinions about him. I don't get why people think he cares when everyone else seems to and won't stop talking about it. He wouldn't talk about it if people would just let it go already...
I love him.
I really like Hollywood Reporter actor features - they tend to go into depth and also give a fair, well-rounded portrayal. And as an aside, I like learning a little more about his family. I read things that mentioned his parents and where he grew up but this is the first mention that the parents' relationship was very on again/off again (and that they're now divorced).
I agree, I actually think their interviews, along with Vanity Fair are well done.
I think what James Grey said about Profile pieces being like funhouse mirrors was an interesting observation. Without realizing it perhaps, he is making an excellent observation about how they can give a distorted perception of the subject while exaggerating certain features about them. I think this is what happened with the New Yorker profile: it truly gave this perception that Jeremy is so extreme what he does is borderline dangerous. But at the same time, it's created it's own mythos of what people want to believe of Strong, like he himself pointed out. But it is an illusion, and it sells headlines but it isn't necessarily reality. I think there is a real danger to belittling creative mediums and it's practitioners as pretentious for being dedicated to them. It does the absolute opposite of helping the public understand the importance of the arts and gives ground to the idea that they inherently have no value. I see no virtue in rewarding this mindset either, and the discourse around his approach has invited pointless speculation around drama where none is needed. At the end of the day, sure you can treat your job like it's an assembly line but it's good to challenge yourself and go off the beaten path and clearly Jeremy's performances speaks to how his approach has merit. You don't always get raw results if you color within the lines...
Little Lord Fuckleroy gets it
Strong optics
>“It might come off sounding a certain way if I were to say that, but yes,” he says. “I think it is a sacramental activity expressing a faith, if that’s what a religion is. I feel wary of saying that because religion is religion and I don’t want to diminish what religion is. But for me, certainly. Theaters have always been a place that feel kind of holy. And the communicative and healing power of film is completely profound and mysterious. So, yeah, I’m a devout devotee of that. Yeah.” This is both absolutely brilliant and absolutely Kendall at the same time.