The HBO series has become a phenomenon capable of questioning the habits and tastes of current series fans
That a series improves its audiences as the seasons go by was something common a few years ago. The arrival of platforms -which did not force the viewer to consume content on a specific day like linear television- allowed the audience to consume as they wished and join already advanced phenomena if they felt like it. It happened with ‘Breaking Bad’, which premiered quietly and until the fourth season had the support of just two million followers. However, by the end more than ten were gathered.
It’s what in series slang is known as ‘catch up’, that is, catch up, watch everything pending to be able to get hooked on what’s new. It also happened with ‘Game of Thrones’, which in its first batch of episodes exceeded just over 2.5 million viewers and by the end there was talk of audiences of more than 40 million. It is curious that ‘Euphoria’ has been compared to the latter, because in their conception they are very different products. Although it is true that fantasy plays a very important role in both. And that the second paid tribute to the first with a reinterpretation of the violent sexual encounter between Daenerys and Khal Drogo. Beyond that, the Zendaya series has been fired with a record, surpassing some of the first seasons of the Poniente stories in audiences.
What is striking is not that an audiovisual work succeeds today, but rather that it succeeds in this way. Today, everything is consumed and forgotten more voraciously. Today, it is committed to miniseries because it is supposed to cost more to retain the attention of users. Today, a good part of the audience does not review classic titles because the excess of seasons would prevent them from knowing everything new that appears in the catalogues.
But ‘Euphoria’ has come to knock down some maxims and theories and has reopened serial debates that were frozen or we thought were buried. The success of HBO allows many readings and gives rise to many discussions. Therefore, surely, it has been a success. Let’s tackle some of the melons this series has opened.
Cassie, in love.
1. Is it a series for teenagers or for teenagers?
The first thing we have to start doing is reviewing the concept of what an adolescent series is, because for many decades they have been characterized by creating prototypes with which the young people who stood in front of the screen could feel identified or longed to look like them. . The idea was to diversify the casts so that whoever more or less found a character in which to recognize themselves or who they wanted to emulate. This does not happen in ‘Euphoria’. The protagonists follow tormented trajectories and do not stop making wrong decisions. This paradigm caused many of those who were supposed to be his potential followers to feel disconcerted by what they saw and it was more difficult for them to enter the proposal. Although on the other hand it also allowed to conquer a more adult audience. ‘Euphoria’ describes today’s society well, weathered by deep crises and accustomed to dealing with anxiety, toxic pressures and disappointments. These characteristics have been decisive when different types of users approach the story and end up hooked.
A still from ‘Euphoria’.
2. Have you favored the weekly broadcast to generate conversation?
This debate is never resolved. It reappears from time to time, as if at some point we had to choose a single exhibition model. Nobody has convinced HBO that there is a better system than broadcasting one chapter a week. There is no chance of a marathon until the full season is released. That may mean that titles like ‘Estación Once’ or ‘The Golden Age’ (still on air) are not being talked about as much as they should be. But works like ‘Euphoria’ favor them a lot. First, because this is not an especially easy series to watch. It is convenient to let each chapter rest before diving into the next one so as not to fall into depression. And it leads to interesting conversations. Social networks have witnessed this in recent weeks, where all kinds of debates were taking place about the fate of Rue, Kat or Nate. To this are added the memes and iconic images that have managed to become viral after the premiere of each installment, multiplying their exposure.
3. Does the creator care more about form than substance?
If Sam Levinson, creator of the series, knows anything, it is the iconic images that we referred to in the previous question. Nothing is casual in this series. Everything has a reason. Each episode has a budget of around eleven million euros and they are well used so that no sequence goes unnoticed. But beyond Levinson’s aesthetic attitude, there is a hidden purpose of narrating details in another way than through dialogue. The first thing that stands out about the second season is that it is much darker than the previous one, where glitter and glitter monopolized the attention. The intention was to accompany the protagonists (especially Rue and Nate) to their descent into hell. And that was done through a risky decision: shoot in 35 millimeters, in analog format, almost cinematographic, for which it was necessary to reach an agreement with Kodak so that it would manufacture enough material to record the entire batch of episodes. And the result immerses the viewer in a captivating ‘Euphoria’, although it is very different from the one we knew. From there begins the game of shots, frames and other compositions at the service of the story. Everything has a reason in this story, although sometimes it seems gratuitous. The same happens with the costumes, the music or the images that are interspersed. It is no coincidence, for example, that ‘Right Down the Line’ plays while Rue and Elliot get high together, considering the final fate of the author -Gerry Rafferty- of that song. Or that the theme with which they introduce us to Cal before unleashing the war on his family is ‘Drink Before the War’, by Sinéad O’Connor. Each chapter of the HBO production contains a lot of cinematographic references (‘Titanic’, ‘Brokeback Mountain’, ‘The box of surprises’) or artistic (Botticelli, Kahlo, Magritte) that provide a lot of information about what they are telling us .
Angus Cloud brings Fezco to life.
4. Does ‘Euphoria’ glorify drugs?
Associations in the United States issued statements while the series was broadcast accusing it of glorifying drugs. There are associations for everything. Here and there. Those responsible for the network, the series and some actors had to come out to explain that none of this was happening. In fact, this season much less than the previous one. Because in the first season the use of narcotics was more widespread among all the characters, although each one of them faced them in a different way. More playful for some, more oppressive for others. This is a constant in some current series, that of normalizing the use of drugs, describing the scenarios in which they are consumed and exposing their consequences in different cases. In the controversy over the last chapters of ‘Euphoria’, the impact that fiction has achieved and that it has teenagers involved has had a lot to do with it. Possibly the bandage has been put on before the wound, because nothing that happens around Rue (the character hooked on drugs) is likely to be romanticized or idolized. In several chapters she is completely absent and in others suffering from the monkey. Nothing worth imitating. The stories need their times and it is convenient to have patience with them. Especially the ones that are fragmented like this.
Maude Apatow brings Lexi to life.
5. Has the creator mistreated any characters?
A curious phenomenon has occurred around this season and that again serves to assess the dimensions that this fiction has taken. Many viewers do not forgive Sam Levinson for some narrative decisions and what he has done with certain characters, to the point that they have asked that the following installments not have him. Such nonsense doesn’t make any sense, because, logically, there would be no ‘Euphoria’ without Levinson. It is true that it is based on an Israeli series, but it has taken on so much of its own that no one remembers the original. It already happened -since we mentioned it before- with ‘Game of thrones’, which caused such a wave of protests that there were those who proposed that the end be shot again with different authors. There is no doubt that this season there have been protagonists from the previous one who have lost their essence or who have been seen less (Kat, Jules) and that this can hurt part of the audience. On the other hand, others (Lexi, Cassie) have gained presence. You may like it more or less, but in a work as authorial as this, the least you can ask for is that the decision of the screenwriter be respected. Especially when he has signed a final result that has surprised and entertained so much and so many people. They are the perks of success. Levinson knows it. And what’s more, he encourages it. He hardly grants interviews and does not deny the numerous rumors that run around his work, such as that he got along badly with some actresses or that he proposed toxic work sessions.