“Euphoria” is no doubt one of the most beautiful shows to hit modern screens with its cinematic visually captivating scenes and its incredibly complex characters with deep storylines, but I have concerns about the nuances in the in-betweens. This new season brought up a lot of questions for me about what the purpose of media is and how we can tell stories in the most effective way possible, but how that can be convoluted when we want people to pay attention. The first two episodes of the second season, in all honesty, disappointed me. With the long wait and the carefully crafted middle episodes I anticipated something great, but the early episodes of the second season reminded me of a lot of the potential dangers of this show. 

In those special episodes released between seasons, we saw how “Euphoria’s” narrative could be told with everything stripped down. A simple 40 minute episode with one setting and two characters taught us so much, but perhaps not a wide enough audience liked that. A review from The Harvard Crimson described it as “too much talking for comfort.” 

Do American viewers crave shock and sensationalism at the cost of the characters’ well being—and conversely, the audience’s? TV is a tricky thing because it’s necessary to keep the audience engaged, hold them tight so they’ll watch each following episode. Therefore, we can’t see a beautiful arc of Rue’s (Zendaya) storyline in one fell swoop 90 minute story as she eventually seeks help and learns healthier coping mechanisms for her mental health issues. But at what point does “Euphoria” cross the line of normalization of issues that do exist and are prevalent in young adults, into the glamorization of them? We saw that in the month following the release of “13 Reasons Why,” there was a 28.9 percent increase in suicide rates among US youth ages 10 to 17 (National Institute of Mental Health). “Euphoria” is so much better produced and cinematic in its storytelling, but how can we make sure the depth of the message is clear to the audience it might be aimed at? I don’t believe in any way that the creators intended to condone the kind of behaviors that we see in the show’s characters, in fact I know it was loosely based on the creator’s struggle with addiction in high school. However, how can we ensure that because of the setting of high school, youth can educate themselves about support after their struggles are brought to screen? The special episodes showed Rue talking with a mentor and Jules (Hunter Schaefer) with a therapist, but the second season dives right back into intense trauma without any resolution there. I hope that viewers can go beyond the understanding that mental health struggles are things that should be discussed and normalized, but also things that one should seek help for. On a personal note, I started watching “Euphoria” in high school and now looking back I realized how when I related to Rue’s character because of her struggles with depression and anxiety, I didn’t really take the relation as a hint to seek support, but rather that it was something that made me “interesting” and treated “Euphoria” like a tool for escapism. After some time of seeking support and finding how much better things can be my perspective truly shifted—but I don’t think I could have found that within “Euphoria’s” entrancing atmosphere. The world is complicated and the access to adequate mental health care has a truly long way to go, and today’s generation are struggling even more than any other. Yet, they’re also more open about it than any other—so how can we take that one step forward towards solutions?

This brought on further questions for me. Do we need this excess of nudity, violence, sex and graphic imagery of drug abuse to convey “Euphoria’s” message? Do we have to recreate trauma for the viewers to understand it? Or is that simply a tool to keep desensitized Gen Z viewers who’ve seen everything under the sea engaged so that the creators can continue to make money? I’d like to think that “Euphoria” has proven its capability of telling the stories it needs to tell stripped down because we’ve seen that in its special episodes. We’ve also seen how absolutely captivatingly cinematic the show is, and I’d like to see them own those elements rather than profiting off of shocking ones. With the development of Lexis’ (Maude Apatow) storyline I’ve loved the creative liberties the creators have taken of playing with the idea of viewership in almost a meta-breaking-the-fourth-wall kind of way. And the opening scene of the fourth episode had some gorgeous references to art and film classics (however, I think they could have excluded some for better taste rather than ensuring that every viewer got at least one reference). 

All in all, I’m curious to understand, at what point are creators simply privy to what gets them views, at the cost of their own creative integrity? Or do the creators actually have a sense of integrity? 

I’ve been horrified and shocked to hear about some of Sam Levinson’s behaviors and responses to critiques, even by his own crew. Apparently Levinson cut Barbie Ferreira’s lines after she expressed concerns to him about the direction of her character, and there have been other rumors about actors’ lack of collaboration with the creator (Algee Smith was described as one in Elle’s article). However, on the other hand, Sydney Sweeney apparently has been quoted saying, “ I’ve never felt like Sam [Levinson] has pushed it on me or was trying to get a nude scene into an HBO show,” despite some viewer concerns about the excess of nudity, especially when all the characters portrayed are supposed to be underage. Media is an incredibly nuanced medium with lots of stories behind the scenes that viewers know nothing about, but I think it’s important for creators to think carefully about making sure the message they intend to convey is one that others will effectively hear, and grow and learn from, not simply be entertained by.