Hannah Thompson

2/15

Prospectus - Succession

Introduction:

My overall research topic is the ways in which masculinity and homosocial relationships function within a TV show. My research object, then, is the Home Box Office (HBO) show

Succession and two of the show’s relationships: Tom and Shiv’s relationship as husband and wife and Tom and Greg’s relationship as coworkers and friends. I plan to have this work span the show’s two seasons to understand how these two relationships change over time and inform the other. To do this analysis, I will be engaging topics like masculinity, both hegemonic and feminized, and homosocial relationships, including the power dynamics in these and the role heteronormative plays on these relationships. Some of my preliminary research questions include: (1) How is Tom’s masculinity characterized by his relationship and interactions with

Shiv? (2) How is Tom’s masculinity characterized by his relationship and interactions with

Greg? (3) How are these masculinities both related different and how do they inform one another?

This analysis is important in several ways. First, there is no existing research on

Succession in general, and specifically not the relationships in the show. Similarly, there is very little work done on homosocial relationships in TV shows and movies outside of rom-coms and bromance movies. Lennard’s work on HBO’s The Wire, engaged later, is one of the only works that focuses on a drama rather than a comedy. Another major reason this is important work is due to the scope of these two theoretical frameworks. Both masculinity and homosocial relationships have been studied extensively, with many of those works revolving around TV shows and movies. However, many of these studies engage other theories and do not actively study the intersection of these. By explicitly relating these theories together, I hope to demonstrate that these theories are interdependent one on another and that dramas are an important site of analysis.

Literature Review:

Incomplete and Multiple (Maybe even New?) Masculinities:

To start this section of the paper, it is important to have a theoretical background into the very broad topic of masculinity. Butler provides this background in both “Performative Acts and

Gender Constitution” and Gender Trouble. Specifically in “Performative Acts and Gender

Constitution”, Butler states that gender is “an identity instituted through a stylized repetition of acts”, with these repeated acts becoming a sort of theatrical performance (Butler, 519). Butler continues this dialogue in Gender Trouble by pushing back on the idea that sex and gender are binary, but rather argues that these are more fluid due to their nature as a performance (Butler).

Butler also stresses the importance of power and power relations in the construction of gender identity in Gender Trouble; she states that masculine identities inherently gain more cultural power (Butler, 34).

With a theoretical understanding of gender performance, we can now move to how this understanding influences the construction of masculinity. Buchbinder engages Butler’s theoretical frameworks while analyzing the formation of incompetent and inadequate masculinities, when compared to hegemonic masculinity, using the figure of the ‘schlemiel’.

Buchbinder defines this figure as a common Jewish masculinity trope and states that “the schlemiel figure fails at some level to meet the performance and attitudinal requirements of traditional masculinity” (Buchbinder, 230). Through this, Buchbinder demonstrates that masculinity, like gender, is a performance, and is informed through acts of masculinity.

This can then lead us to Alberti’s analysis of the construction of masculinity within the romantic comedy genre. While the romcom is discussed at greater lengths throughout this paper,

Alberti’s understanding of non-traditional masculinity is imperative. He states that “the ‘perfectly codified conventions’ of the traditional romantic comedy… with [the] conflicting representations of masculine identity connected to these conventions” push back on heteronormativity and the hegemonic understanding of traditional masculinity (Alberti, 160). Alberti’s work demonstrates that various entertainment avenues, like TV shows and movies, are able to push back on hegemonic ideals and instead demonstrate the “internal struggles” of characters, especially male characters, when dealing with the ‘perfectly codified conventions’ (Alberti, 162). Dube’s work on animated movies continues this work and conversation on complex and multiple masculinities while demonstrating how influential TV shows and movies can be on setting the cultural standard of masculinity (Dube, 44).

Brook’s work on heterodoxy, which is defined as “unorthodox, transgressive, or subversive ways of doing heterosexuality and being heterosexual” is especially relevant in the context of masculinity (Brook, 250). Her analysis also demonstrates that “less normative masculine identities are bound to more hegemonic masculinities through kinship and

(heteronormative, heterosexual) marriage”, which relates to the overall idea of multiple masculnities existing at one time (Brook, 261). This also introduces the concept of multiple masculinities existing in one space, and competing with each other for dominance.

Seibert Desjarlais continues this idea with their analysis of contrasting masculinities within one TV show and its characters and how these masculinities push back on hegemonic and heteronormative ideals. Seibert Desjarlais states that the tensions that multiple masculinities within multiple characters create “have the ability to illuminate contradictions and pluralities that exist in masculinities”, which allows audiences to question hegemonic ideals (Seibert Desjarlais,

172). Seibert Desjarlais also discusses how the masculinizing of femininity, in female-coded characters, also informs hegemonic ideals (Seibert Desjarlais, 175).

Gillam’s work continues previous work on the idea of the ‘New Man’ masculinity and argues that Pixar movies introduce a new model of masculinity, described as “one that matures into acceptance of its more traditionally “feminine” aspects”, ultimately continuing the push back against hegemonic ideals (Gillam, 2). One of the most important aspects of Gillam’s work for my analysis is the idea of ‘the other woman’ and how this feminized character illuminates the dominant masculine personality and functions to uphold hegemonic masculinity for characters who seem to be struggling with a crisis of masculinity (Gillam, 5).

Lastly, Tait’s work on Step Brothers is critical to understanding how comedy and masculinity function, which will be discussed next. However, their analysis of corporate culture and its relation to hegemonic masculinity and how office spaces dominated by men can become hyper masculine is critically important to my analysis of a similar corporate space (Tait, 73). The discussion of corporate office spaces and their relation to masculinity is imperative to my analysis.

Comedy and Masculinity:

While most of my sources in this paper discuss romantic comedies or ‘bromance’ films, this section’s specific function is to engage several sources that actively demonstrate the link between masculinity and comedy. Continuing with Tait’s work on Step Brothers mentioned above, comedy plays a large role in characterizing the different masculinities of the two main characters, Brennan and Dale, and how these masculinities play out throughout the movie. Tait demonstrates that comedy is one of the most accessible ways to confront hegemonic masculinity while presenting other versions of masculinity. On a vaguer note, Step Brothers is studied by many scholars, some included here, and has been praised as one of the most important representations of the bromance genre. Tait’s other work on the career of Will Ferrell furthers this point and introduces the concept of ‘absurd masculinity’, which is imperative to studying bromances in a comedy genre. Tait states that “[t]he key to Ferrell’s success is his genuinely likeable comic persona that relies on overdetermined and excessively masculine and feminine traits” (Tait, 167). Tait also argues that Ferrell’s respected comedic ability allows him to easily subvert hegemonic masculinity in most of his movies.

Related to Will Ferrell’s comedy career, Benson’s work on the promotional materials of

The Hangover Part III details how multiple characters within a movie can have incomplete or unconventional masculinities, how these masculinities are shaped, and why the comedic aspect of the film is so important. The two characters specifically analyzed by Benson have multiple incomplete masculinities which are introduced in comedic scenarios, which helps the audience understand why and how these masculinities are subverting hegemony.

Most of the scholarly work done on masculinity in TV shows and movies and its relation to bromances focuses on comedy, as that is the main source of bromance movies. However,

Lennard’s work on HBO’s The Wire and its ability, as a drama, to demonstrate masculinity and homosocial relationships is important. Lennard’s work opens up the possibility of more dramas being the focus of studies on masculinity and homosocial relationships and outlines how dramas still use some comedic aspects to characterize masculinity.

Homosocial Relationships: Since they have already been referenced above, the discussion of homosocial relationships is imperative to understanding the bromance genre. Sedgwick’s work on homosocial relationships is cited in many of my other sources, so I am including her work as a theoretical background. She defines homosocial as the “social bonds between persons of the same sex” and also emphasizes that power dynamics, as well as culture, play a large part in how these social bonds are formed and maintained (Sedgwick, 1). To further this definition of homosocial bonds, DeAngelis’s introduction acts as a modernized guide to the bromance genre.

He gives this definition of a bromance: “an emotionally intense bond between presumably straight males who demonstrate an openness to intimacy that they neither regard, acknowledge, avow, nor express sexually…” (DeAngelis, 1). The emphasis placed on heterosexuality throughout the introduction is important for my analysis. Likewise, another definition given in the same book “situates the bromantic bond in a competitive relationship with the heteroromantic bond” (DeAngelis, 203).

Oria’s work references the ‘homme-com’, which is very similar to the Hollywood bromance, and then continues to apply the term to recent Spanish homme-coms. While most of my other sources are centered around Hollywood and American entertainment, the focus on

Spanish bromances illuminates an important aspect: culture. Oria is able to demonstrate why understanding the culture within which a piece of entertainment exists is imperative to understanding the work itself.

As exemplified by Oria’s work, homosocial relationships exist outside of the American

Hollywood canon. Stanley’s work on homosocial relationships in Shakespeare works furthers the working definition of homosocial relationships and specifically points out the effect power has on these relationships. Stanley furthers this point by stating that “[h]omosociality reveals male relationships as an unstable balance of power, rivalry, and non-sexual intimacy” (Stanley, 115).

As mentioned at other points throughout this paper, power relations continue to play a large part in homosocial relationships.

The comparison of homosocial relationships to marriages is extremely prevalent in other scholarly works. For example, Chen compares homosocial relationships to heteronormative marriages in two ways. First, Chen argues that bromances “mimic marriage and its concomitant burdens” “by privileging exclusivity and dyadic pairings” (Chen, 252). Chen’s second argument is that bromances “encourage heteronormativity under the guise of masculinity” (Chen, 252).

Related to the idea of marriage in the presence of homosocial relationships, especially in film,

Benson argues that heteronormative marriage helps the audience understand that the bromance is strictly homosocial, rather than homosexual (Benson, 2). Benson also states that “[w]omen and the domestic space are both used commonly by bromances to reaffirm sexual boundaries and restore the protagonists’ heteromasculinity” which continues to emphasize the strictly social bonds (Benson, 2).

Some scholarly works consider closeness, similar to marriage, as the driving force behind homosocial relationships. Robinson provides an extensive history of the bromance and homosocial relationships and emphasizes the impact cultural homophobia has on homosocial bonds, both on and off screen. They discuss their study’s findings and demonstrate the impact close friendships have on homosocial relationships. The study found that men “open up and express their feelings to their bromances”, more than their heteronormative relationships for two reasons (Robinson et. al, 863). First, they emphasize the lack of emotional boundaries in bromances, which creates a sort of judgement-free zone where men can tell each other things that they would not tell partners (Robinson et. al, 864). Second, they found that men tend to self-monitor themselves, to both “achieve desired heterosexual sex [and] to prevent relationship destruction” (Robinson et. al, 864). Both of these findings further the understanding of homosocial relationships between men and inform my own analysis.

Lennard’s work on masculinity and homosocial relationships in The Wire was previously mentioned. However, it is one of the most relevant sources for my analysis because it specifically engages the idea that homosocial relationships can exist outside of the bromance genre, which is historically limited to comedy. Lennard’s analysis works to specifically point out how women are mostly excluded from this drama and how this exclusion impacts the creation of homosocial bonds. He states that “The Wire depicts women and traditionally feminine spaces as an exhausting impediment while masculine spaces and companions provide a haven for mobility and secure love” (Lennard, 283). This relates to the earlier idea of corporate spaces being hyper masculine and the common exclusion of women from bromance genres.

Methodology:

As laid out above, there are several major theoretical frameworks I will be using to analyze my research object. The construction of masculinity, as based on gender performance, and the concept of homosocial relationships both play extremely large roles. The works of Butler and Sedgwick are the two main sources of these. The numerous sources I have just engaged help bring these theories into modern contexts and specifically apply them to television shows and movies, which are similar to what I will be analyzing. However, many smaller theories have come up in this paper and will be utilized in the analysis. As for my methods of analysis, I will be doing a close reading of scenes that feature Tom and Greg and scenes that feature Tom and

Shiv, with Tom and Shiv’s relationship being a heteronormative marriage and Tom and Greg’s relationship a homosocial relationship. Many of the articles I have engaged perform a close reading of their research objects, with the most prevalent being Alberti and Seibert Desjarlais.

These scenes will likely span the two seasons of Succession and will also take place in a variety of settings to demonstrate the versatile nature of both of these relationships. As there is no current scholarly work on the relationships in Succession, I hope to relate some current scholarly work on other TV shows and movies to the HBO show.

Works Cited:

Alberti, John. “‘I Love You, Man’: Bromances, the Construction of Masculinity, and the

Continuing Evolution of the Romantic Comedy.” Quarterly Review of Film & Video, vol.

30, no. 2, Mar. 2013, pp. 159–172. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/10509208.2011.575658.

Benson, Chloe. “At the Margins of the Bromance: A Queer Reading of The Hangover Part III

and Its Promotional Materials.” Film Criticism, vol. 41, no. 1, Mar. 2017, pp. 1–14.

EBSCOhost, doi:10.3998/fc.13761232.0041.111.

Brook, Heather. “Bros before Ho(Mo)s: Hollywood Bromance and the Limits of Heterodoxy.”

Men & Masculinities, vol. 18, no. 2, June 2015, pp. 249–266. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1177/1097184X15584913.

Buchbinder, David. “Enter the Schlemiel: The Emergence of Inadequate or Incompetent

Masculinities in Recent Film and Television.” Canadian Review of American Studies,

vol. 38, no. 2, Mar. 2008, pp. 227–245. EBSCOhost, doi:10.3138/cras.38.2.227.

Butler, Judith. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge, 2011.

Butler, Judith, “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay on Phenomenology and

Feminist Theory,” Theatre Journal 40/4 (1988): 519-531.

Chen, Elizabeth J. “Caught in a Bad Bromance.” Texas Journal of Women & the Law, vol. 21,

no. 2, Spring 2012, pp. 241–266. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=79992799&site=ehost-live&

scope=site.

DeAngelis, Michael, editor. Reading the Bromance: Homosocial Relationships in Film and

Television. Wayne State University Press, 2014.

Dube, Siphiwe Ignatius. “‘Toys R Us’: Toy Story 2 and the Re-Inscription of Normative

American Masculinities.” Social Alternatives, vol. 35, no. 3, July 2016, pp. 44–49.

EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=121172482&site=ehost-live

&scope=site.

Gillam, Ken, and Shannon R. Wooden. “Post-Princess Models of Gender: The New Man in

Disney/Pixar.” Journal of Popular Film & Television, vol. 36, no. 1, Spring 2008, pp.

2–8. EBSCOhost, doi:10.3200/JPFT.36.1.2-8.

Lennard, Dominic. "”This ain’t about your money, bro. Your boy gave you up”: Bromance and

Breakup in HBO’s The Wire." Reading the Bromance: Homosocial Relationships in Film

and Television, edited by Michael DeAngelis, Wayne State University Press, 2014, pp.

274-294.

Oria, Beatriz. “Love Is a Man’s Thing: Hollywood and the Spanish ‘Homme-Com.’” Journal of

Popular Film & Television, vol. 43, no. 1, Jan. 2015, pp. 28–38. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1080/01956051.2014.975672.

Robinson, Stefan, et al. “Privileging the Bromance: A Critical Appraisal of Romantic and

Bromantic Relationships.” Men & Masculinities, vol. 22, no. 5, Dec. 2019, pp. 850–871.

EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/1097184X17730386. Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire.

Columbia University Press, 1985.

Seibert Desjarlais, Stevie K. “How I Met Your Masculinity: Contrasting Male Personas

Portrayed on How I Met Your Mother.” Journal of Popular Film & Television, vol. 46,

no. 3, July 2018, pp. 169–178. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/01956051.2018.1476833.

Stanley, Diana Ireland. “The Two Gentlemen of Verona: The Homosocial World of

Shakespeare’s England.” Journal of the Wooden O Symposium, vol. 8, Jan. 2008, pp.

115–124. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=47029699&site=ehost-live&

scope=site.

Tait, R.Colin. “Absurd Masculinity: Will Ferrell’s Time-Bending Comic Persona.”

Communication Review, vol. 17, no. 3, July 2014, pp. 166–182. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1080/10714421.2014.930270.

Tait, R.Colin. “The Screwball Bromance: Regression, Bisexuality, and Reconfigured Masculinity

in Step Brothers.” Journal of Men’s Studies, vol. 24, no. 1, Mar. 2016, pp. 60–77.

EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/1060826515624412.

I have acted with honesty and integrity in producing this work and am unaware of anyone who has not.

/s/ Hannah Thompson