Kaley Cuoco Goes Into Dark Territory And Helps Raise Vanished Above the Formulaic

 

The first six seasons it was on the air I religious watched The Big Bang Theory.  I always thought it received both a fair amount of recognition from the Emmys and never enough: while the show and particularly Jim Parsons' won a huge number of awards during its run the overwhelming majority of the cast – particularly the incredible comic actresses that gathered when the series started to reach its comic peak after Season 4 – never got the respect from the Emmys they should have. That was particularly true of Kaley Cuoco as Penny, who started out as the dumb blonde and ended up being the comic spark that helped make the show work for twelve seasons.

Unlike her gifted brethren Mayim Bialik and Melissa Rauch  who pursued traditional, if intriguing, network comedies in the aftermath of the show ending its run Cuoco chose a darker and more interesting path. Her first major role was in HBO Max's The Flight Attendant in which she played the title character, an alcoholic whose one night stand ends up with her being part of international espionage. Nominated for multiple Emmys in its first season it ended up being overshadowed by what was going to be an all time classic HBO Max series Hacks which ended up debuting that spring and deservedly sucked up all the oxygen.

After The Flight Attendant was cancelled after a lackluster second season Cuoco ended up moving to the even blacker dark comedy on Peacock's Based on A True Story. She and the equally gifted Chris Messina played an unemployed married couple with a baby on the way who in order to make money begin their own true crime podcast and start listening to a potential serial killer. The flip side of Only Murders in the Building, it got into even darker territory by the end of the first season with the characters becoming killers themselves. A critical hit, it was also canceled after two seasons.

Now Cuoco has abandoned even the pretense of comedy in her next TV venture Vanished a combination production between British television and MGM+ which in its relatively short time in original programming has a capacity for original productions that are still pretty original. To be sure Vanished is not close to their best work by far, even by the standards of their work with British Television. It doesn't have the dark feel of A Spy Among Friends or the everything but the kitchen sink mentality of Proud Heroes but as I've mentioned countless times before the British have this way of making things that should seem formulaic at the very least watchable and frequently riveting.

Like far too many series these days it opens in medias re watching a motorcyclist with a helmet drive down an autobahn in Europe. He takes a package and walks to a grubby building. We then cut to Cuoco with cuts on her face and frantically washing blood of her hands. When the cyclist knocks on her door she's clearly terrified and tries to delay him, pushing chairs and furniture against the door while she frantically gets to the nearest window and manages to pull it open just as whoever it is breaks the door down. By the time she's leaping onto the garbage bins and running down the street the viewers knows what's going to happen and sure enough we then cut to the title that says: "One Week Earlier."

Then we see Cuoco who we quickly learn is named Alice walking into a luxury hotel looking for a man in the lobby. We quickly learn (after some well-choreograph but not explicit sex) that this is her boyfriend Tom and that they've been seeing each other pretty much steadily for four years. Alice is an archaeologist Tom runs a charity. Alice has just been offered a tenured professorship in Princeton and she thinks it is well-past time they settle down and become serious. Tom sounds enthusiastic.

Almost from the start there are signs Tom is not who he appears to be; he's always engaging in conversations that force him to leave the room a few times. When he tells her that they've managed to score reservations at a luxury hotel in Arles she's more than enthusiastic to go. They get on a train that will take them there. Tom gets pulled away on a call and Alice falls asleep.

When she wakes up there's no sign of Tom. She searches the entire train from top to bottom and can't find him. She has a frustrating encounter with the conductor, in which only a discussion with a friendly passengers helps her from coming to blows. She then gets a phone call where Tom is on the caller ID but when she picks up all she hears is background noise she can't identify.

Naturally when she gets to a station and tries to talk to the police, the local gendarme is unhelpful, telling her that they have to wait 48 hours to file a missing persons report. It doesn't help Alice's credibility that when she searches Tom's luggage for his passport, she can't find it. The detective (Matthias Schweigert) tells her there are three reasons people vanish: "Money, legal problems, and relationships." When Alice says he doesn't know Tom, the detective asks: "Do you?"

Tom is very much a presence despite disappearing in the first twenty minutes of episode one: in large part because he is played by British heartthrob Sam Claflin and you don't cast someone like him in a TV show and have him absent after the first ten minutes. More seriously Vanished looks at the relationship between Tom and Alice as it began as we see that Alice is beginning to question if she ever did know Tom.

All of this is, as I say, formulaic but what sells is Cuoco. Still remarkably sexy as she passes forty Alice is the kind of role that she's been increasingly gravitating towards, a guileless innocent who is dragged into situations that quickly spiral. Unlike those series in Vanished Alice gets to play someone who is actually competent when we first meet her and doesn't need to be led around by the nose.

In the highpoint of the first episode (all I've seen so far) Alice ends up going back to the train station she thinks Tom might have left at. In a sequence with no dialogue we watch her retrace Tom's steps over train tracks (to the point when a train passes just by her we're as terrified as she is) trying to find some trace of him. When she finds a chewing gum wrapper that she knows is Tom's it's the kind of detective work none of her previous characters would have been capable of, even though we're aware it will come to nought in the first episode.

It helps matters immensely that by this point 'thrown in the deep end' is essentially Cuoco's brand. She was doing it even before she had her breakout role in The Big Bang Theory when she had a role playing a promising witch in the final season of Charmed. Cuoco's characters are usually women who seem at the surface level like they are out of their league but quickly prove that they have more going on beneath the surface than at first glance. Those who dismiss her, like the detective at the end of the first episode, do so at their own peril.

I'm not expected Vanished to be much more than a time filler during a February that doesn't have much on any of the major channels to offer me on a Sunday night. (I don't expect to have anything of interest until the most recent season of Dark Winds debuts in March.) But I never miss a chance to watch one of my favorite performers in anything they do and that has always been true of Cuoco. Watching her try to solve the mystery of her missing boyfriend is enough to get me through February and it may even be able to rise above the formula in four episodes. We'll have to see.

My score: 3.5 stars.

Emmy Watch 2026 Phase Two Part 1: My (Delayed) Reactions to the 2025 Image Nominations for TV

 

We've now unofficially begun Phase 2 of this year's Emmy Watch. With the Golden Globe and Critics Choice Awards in our rear view and only the SAG awards remaining, it's time to discuss some of the other major groups that give awards for television.

This year I will be expanding my scope slightly more as well as looking to see if other major awards groups even exist. For this article I'm finally going to get around to dealing with a group I started covering for my blog during the last few years: the NAACP Image Awards and their nominations for TV.

While it remains highly unlikely, to say the least, the Emmys will ever recognize series like Reasonable Doubt or The Upshaws for award recognition looking at the various acting and writing nominations for all three groups one can see possibilities for the year to come. And as is usually the case much of the time you wish the Emmys, in their less then infinite wisdom, would show some common sense and nominate some of these series and actors.

Anyway here we go and as always I start with drama.

 

OUTSTANDING DRAMA SERIES

One of these series was nominated for best drama by the Emmys last year and may well be again: Paradise.  Beyond the Gates is no doubt going to be in the hunt for Daytime Emmys down the road and Forever did get some recognition for various awards. The Emmys will never recognize Bel-Air or Reasonable Doubt.

 

OUTSTANDING ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES

Sterling K. Brown is here for Paradise and perhaps he'll even win. The Emmys really should nominate Forest Whitaker for Godfather of Harlem. I'm glad to see Morris Chestnut recognized for Watson. Michael Cooper is here for Forever and Jabari Banks is here for the last time for Bel-Air.

 

OUTSTANDING ACTRESS IN A DRAMA SERIES

Yes the Emmys need to give Angela Bassett some love for her work in 9-1-1; they really do. Queen Latifah is here for the last time for The Equalizer. Lovie Simone, Patina Miller and Emayatzy Corinealdi have no realistic chance.

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES.

Okay I'm kind of shocked that no one from Severance here, considering Tramell Tillman did win the Emmy and the Critics Choice Award. Ato Essandoh has been nominated for the Critics Choice Award for his work in The Diplomat and it's not impossible he will be by the Emmys. Caleb McLaughin fills the gap for Stranger Things. Wood Harris has deserved an Emmy since The Wire but they're not going to nominate him for Forever, likewise no one from The Chi will get in and Adrian Holmes for Bel-Air.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A DRAMA

Karen Pittman is competing against herself: she's nominated for both Forever and The Morning Show. She's more likely to be nominated for the latter as is Nicole Beharie, both have been in previous years. I would love to see Audra McDonald nominated for The Gilded Age though its more likely Denee Benton will be. Aisha Hinds has no chance for 9-1-1

 

OUTSTANDING DIRECTING

Salli Richardson-Whitfield might very well get nominated for directing The Gilded Age or indeed some other award.  Its not clear what will happen with The Copenhagen Test. None of the other three series have much of a chance.

 

OUTSTANDING WRITING IN A DRAMA

This actually has some legs. The Lowdown does have some possibility for nominations so Walter Mosley could have a chance. The Pitt has had writing nominations in the chance and The Beast in Me is a contender for nominations in Best Limited Series. FBI and Law & Order have no realistic chance but its because the Emmys have turned their backs on network TV.

 

 Now Comedy.

OUTSTANDING COMEDY SERIES

Big surprise Abbott Elementary is here. Bigger surprise is the recognition for The Residence which got some Emmy recognition before it was canceled. Harlem has gotten some nominations for awards in the past and The Upshaws and Survival of the Thickest will not.

 

OUTSTANDING ACTOR IN A COMEDY SERIES

The Emmys absolutely should nominated David Alan Grier for St. Denis Medical. I've advocated for it numerous times. The Vince Staples Show was canceled. I'm not sure there's much love coming for the canceled Government Cheese and Cedric The Entertainer and Mike Epps have no realistic chance.

 

OUTSTANDING ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

This is the first category the Emmys either have or will follow: only Michelle Buteau for Survival of the Thickest has no chance. Uzo Abuda was nominated for The Residence last year and Ayo Edebiri, Maya Rudolph and Quinta Brunson are already regulars for their respective shows. Edebiri and Brunson are certainties and Maya Rudolph might buck the odds for Loot

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR FOR A COMEDY

Colman Domingo was nominated for The Four Seasons. Giancarlo Esposito should have been for The Residence. And I want to see Wendell Pierce nominated for Elsbeth and William Stanford Davis nominated for Abbott Elementary. The Daily Show doesn't fit the category.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

Janelle James may be the front runner for Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy. Ego Nwodim left SNL before the season began so she's ineligible as is Edwina Finley for The Residence. The other two nominees have no realistic chance

 

OUTSTANDING DIRECTING IN A COMEDY

The Four Seasons, Government Cheese and Demascus are ineligible. Tyler James Williams might make it.

 

OUTSTANDING WRITING IN A COMEDY

All of the nominees are for shows that either ineligible this year or have already happened. That said Abbott Elementary and Hacks are likely to be in contention for writing.

 

OUTTSANDING TV MOVIE, MINI SERIES OR SPECIAL

Washington Black, Ironheart and G20 I've all heard of and they're ineligible. Ruth & Boaz and Straw have no chance.

OUTSTANDING ACTOR IN TV MOVIE, LIMITED SERIES, SPECIAL

Bryan Tyree Henry has been nominated for multiple awards for Dope Thief. Idris Elba's best chance is for Hijack, not Heads of State. Taye Diggs and Giancarlo Esposito are great actors they don't have a chance.

 

OUTSTANDING ACTRESS IN A TV MOVIE, MINI SERIES OR SPECIAL

All of these nominees are ineligible, which is a shame because Dominque Thorne in Ironheart was solid.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A LIMITED SERIES OR SPECIAL

Okay I wouldn't mind if Jay Ellis was nominated for his work in All Her Fault and having seen much of Dope Thief Ving Rhames more than deserved a nomination. Neither of the nominees for Straw have much of a chance.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A TV MOVIE, LIMITED SERIES OR SPECIAL

Zero Day should have gotten more nominations across the board. No one else is likely

 

I'm actually going to look at some of the other categories.

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY A YOUTH

Frankly I think this category should exist at the Emmys. And Amanda Christine and Blake Cameron James work in Welcome to Derry was superb as was Percy Daggs IV in Paradise.

Shows like Chief of War might contend for technical awards. The Emmys won't touch All's Fair with a ten-mile pole.

I'll be back at the end of the month to see if the winners give us any guidance.  Later this month I'll be dealing with a new face to Emmy watch: the Saturn's. And I should have following them even longer the Images honestly.

Why Everybody Has Read The Matrix Wrong, Part 1: Why The Matrix Was Neither Groundbreaking Nor Particularly Impressive If You Looked Below the Surface

 

Over the last twenty five years I've watched the Wachowski siblings The Matrix and the first two sequels countless times. I've made no secret of the fact that I feel that they completely frittered away the talent showed in their debut film Bound with films that are nothing but popcorn.

Now pedants would call me a snob because the opinion of pop culture and quite a few major critics is that The Matrix is one of the most revolutionary films ever made. I suspect that's simply because none of those people had any experience with so much of the movies of that era or the literature of that time.

In recent years we've seen an entire internet following of a kind of misogyny based on the so-called 'Red Pill' version of it and the Wachowskis have recent taken to arguing that the 'manosphere' has misinterpreted their vision. On that they have a point – but I'm pretty sure it's not one they want to be proud of.

By this point I've seen the film enough times – more than I comfortably want to – to have gathered quite a few impressions of it. And the truth is I'm pretty sure everybody from day one has been reading The Matrix wrong. So I will be discussed why so many people have misinterpreted it. First from the stand point of culture and genre.

Let's start with the fact that in the 1990s there were a lot of movies that were based on the idea of virtual reality. Some of them were just dumb action films like the bizarrely dumb Denzel Washington vehicle Virtuosity in which Washington played a cop tracked with hunting down Sid 6.7 (a movie Russell Crowe has to have regretted making for the last thirty years) a combinations of hundreds of serial killers. Far more inventive was the 1995 neo-noir masterpiece Strange Days in which Kathryn Bigelow showed us a picture of 1999 Lost Angeles were one is fed virtual fantasies as a kind of addiction. Bleak and extremely well-acted by Ralph Fiennes, Juliette Lewis and Angela Bassett this movie bombed at the box office but became a cult classic.

Most incredibly in 1998 came Alex Proyas' Dark City  a movie that Roger Ebert named the best film of the year ahead of Saving Private Ryan and would one day name one of the greatest films ever made. For sheer scope and imagination it remains one of the most dazzling films of all time and it's hard not to imagine filmmakers like Christopher Nolan being influenced years and decades later. The movie takes place in a distant galaxy on a planet controlled by The Strangers, a mythical alien race who 'mix and match the memories of our inhabitants like so much paint'. Rufus Sewell plays John Murdoch an amnesiac who thinks he is a serial killer and has vague memories of a distant time. William Hurt plays an inspector trying to solve a set of killings. Kiefer Sutherland plays Dr. Schreiber who has been forced to work with them.

There have been arguments as to whether the final cut is the true way to see this film. All I know is that I've seen it several times and in any version it is a masterpiece. I didn't see a film this visually stunning with a plot until I saw Inception in the theaters and the performances are superb all the way through, particularly Sutherland who has never played a character more physically and emotionally broken in his film repertoire before and rarely has since. It's radically daring, has a plot to match and is more horrifying in its ideas that anything else.

All of which is to say that by comparison there isn't anything close to that level of originality in The Matrix. The idea of people living in a virtual simulation was one that sci-fi writers such as William Gibson had been writing for years and in truth it wasn't that different plot-wise from so many stories in The Twilight Zone. Indeed Star Trek: The Next Generation did at least one story and shows from the 1990s The Outer Limits and Lois & Clark: The Adventures of Superman covered the same ground in an hour.  As Ebert noted there was nothing that remarkable about the virtual reality in The Matrix. "It's like real life, only more expensive."

Similarly the idea of being controlled by an AI was also a plot of numerous sci-fi novels and TV shows over the years. The only difference between the Machines in the Matrix and HAL or The Quartermass Experiment was better effects. From the idea of using technology as a plot point Strange  Days  is infinitely superior.

I think part of the reason The Matrix seems like its about more than it is has to do with the fact that they cast Laurence Fishburne as Morpheus. Fishburne's presence is much like Alec Guiness in Star Wars: his voice and delivery lends gravitas to dialogue that really doesn't say that much at the end of the day. I'll grant you the screenplay is better than Lucas's but that's saying very little.  In his review of Reloaded Ebert compared it to Laurence Olivier giving a speech at the Oscars in 1978. Jon Voight was wowed by it at the time but when it was over it was clear it was just drivel.

That's a pretty fair comparison to so much of the dialogue Fishburne delivers throughout the trilogy and you could extend to so many of the other actors and actresses such as Gloria Foster and Mary Alice as The Oracle when they talk about Neo's mission and him being the One. Does what they say mean anything? Not really. Does it sound like its important? Absolutely and you understand why Keanu Reeves only questions himself after he's left their presence. I wouldn't want to argue with them either even if I knew they weren't making any sense.

Now before I go any further I don't hate the first Matrix film. I think its immensely overrated and I'm depressed that the Wachowskis chose to go from Bound to a movie that is just a fancier and more elaborate version of 1992's The Lawnmower Man in terms of basic plot idea. For what it is The Matrix is a very good film. It is a technological masterpiece that deserved the Oscars it won, the action sequences are incredibly good and many of the moments do haunt me, such as how Cypher reveals his betrayal of Morpheus and then kills Apac and Switch while they are powerless to do anything. (I really wish there had been a way to bring Joe Pantiliano back for the sequels.). I think Carrie-Ann Moss is by far the best thing of the entire trilogy as Trinity and I'm sorry that career never took off the way it should have. And if it The Matrix had just ended after the first film I probably would have been willing to let it go. Its in the sequels that the larger problem becomes clear – and no its not just the plot becomes harder to comprehend.

It's that at the end of the day there are no good guys when it comes to the final two movies. Let me explain.

Morpheus tells Neo when he's finally able to see and move what the Matrix is. I think its been lost over all the brilliant kung fu and Keanu Reeves flying and agents and famous actors saying deep sounding things in some of the most purple prose that anyone except Chris Carter has written what it actually is. The thing is Morpheus tells us that its there to turn a human being into a Duracell Battery.

We're told and shown 'the endless fields where humans are no long born…we are grown…where they liquify to dead to feed the living." Interestingly outside of the simulation we never go to one of those fields and I don't think that's a coincidence.

Now every sci-fi film or TV show I've seen before as well the majority that have happen since that deal with the subjugation of Earth by some force, whether it is an alien race or intelligent machines, involves some form of resistance to overthrow it and the purpose of the lead character is to help the resistance do so. In fact Dark City itself does exactly that and there are clear parallels between Murdoch and Schreiber's relationship and Neo and Morpheus.

Schreiber knows that Murdoch is different from the others and once Murdoch finds Schreiber tells him in great detail who the Strangers are and who Murdoch has been in relation to the planet. He reveals in great detail that there is 'nothing beyond the City'. He then helps John realize his true potential and find away to defeat the Strangers in a climatic battle. And in the aftermath Murdoch rebuilds the planet into something close to Earth.

Morpheus, like Schreiber is present to reveal Neo's potential the change the world, in this case to shape the Matrix. And the ending of the first film seems to imply that 'The One' is now going to help liberate humanity from the rule of the Machines and the Matrix. Except…that is not the point of Reloaded and Revolutions. (I have yet to see Resurrections but since the basic premise is that basically nothing has changed since the third film I'm going to leave it out.)

Now I've watched both films multiple times over the years and while the basic plot remains hard to follow under all of the portentous monologues that interrupts the action sequences the main purpose seems to be to end the war between the Machines and Zion.  The Machines wants to kill everyone in Zion and that is because Morpheus, Neo and the rest of those in the various ships are…

…liberating a handful of people. I'm not sure of the exact number but its somewhere between 100,000 and 250,000. We never hear of any raids on the fields, any attempts to destroy the Machines or to dissolve the Matrix itself which in case you've forgotten is the main source of the Machines power. Without them they'd theoretically be gone.

Now no matter how many times I watch these films I only see three sets of combatants: the people of Zion, the Machines and Agent Smith who seems to represent a threat to all of them. The Wachowskis never seem intent on explaining how this happened, apparently being more interested in seeing Keanu Reeves fight hundreds of Hugo Weavings. They never really explain how Smith manages to be both in the Matrix and one of the survivors at the same time even though they have two whole movies to do so.

Now I've never been able to understand who the climax plays out and how Neo manages to defeat all of the hundreds of thousands of Smiths by letting himself be sacrificed to one. I know there are countless websites that will explain this point to me but that's not the point of this article. What I do know is that in the denouement the Architect and the Oracle have a conversation and The Oracle says:

"What about the others? The ones who want out?"

The Architect says: "Obviously they will be set free."

Now I grant you I may have missed the point through the jubilation of the War being ended, the fact that Neo somehow is dead but might come back and the presence of a rainbow. But it sounds to me that all that these two movies have been about is not some kind of liberation of mankind or defeating the Machines but essentially some kind of Cold War where the Machines agree to leave Zion alone and Zion agrees to let the Machines keep growing humans and feeding them with the dead as long as you allow those who want to leave to join our community.

And of course the Matrix will be allowed to continue to exist and countless millions will be kept as unknowing slaves while occasionally people of Zion come in to do martial arts and give long speeches. (Again Resurrection would seem to argue that was the case.)

Now I have no use for Star Wars  even Episodes 4-6 but at least when Jedi ended everyone in the galaxy had been liberated from the rule of The Empire. They weren't celebrating because they reached détente with Palpatine and he'd agreed to let them keep a handful of planets. But that is the victory that Revolutions is supposed to give us as the cause for all the people we've seen die horribly in the last two movies. This is what Trinity died for? This is what Neo died for? (Yes I know there both alive in the next film but there was a fifteen year gap. The viewer could be forgiven for thinking that.)

Neo himself seems willing to acknowledge that this was never the point of what he was doing. When the Architect tells him that his failure to comply will lead to a systemic failure which causes the Matrix to shut down, Neo says calmly: "You won't do that. You need humans to survive." The Architect says just as calmly: "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept." And need I remind you that a few minutes later he is willing to let the entire species die to save Trinity.  Some white savior he is.

The fact that in three films the Wachowskis weren't willing to do what Alex Proyas was more than willing to do in one is not the main reason I have so many problems with the first three Matrix films but let's not pretend it’s not a big one.  We've followed Neo's journey for three films, six and a half hours, endless fights, lots of special effects and dialogue that makes the kind of things George Lucas wrote over the years seems like Noel Coward. And what's the end result? The majority of humanity – 99 percent of it, according to the film's own plot  – is still exactly where it was when Morpheus started searching for him! Mr. Anderson might have well taken the blue pill for all the good he did for everyone he was working in his software company during this period.

All of the trilogies I've seen like this (Lord of the Rings and Nolan's Dark Knight Series) try to either build their movies to a climax with the heroes journey.  The various Phases of the MCU have a similar dynamic (I haven't seen them but that's what I've observed). Action film franchises like Fast & Furious have a single story at the center, those movies based off books have an endgame in mind and for all their flaws each set of trilogies in Star Wars had a goal at the end.  The first three Matrix films are the only franchise I've seen in nearly thirty years of viewing film where, for all of the action and special effects, you could make a convincing argument that the status quo is the same from before the films began.  And considering that Resurrections seemed to reverse everything that ended that trilogy there's an argument that even what happened in Zion and with the Machines was pushed back to zero as well.

I'm not saying this as an elitist who has problems with blockbuster films: for all the formulaic aspects to the overwhelming majority they have the benefit of having a beginning, middle and end, even when they take multiple films to get there.  The Matrix films almost by themselves don't seem willing to get that far. And considering that the second two films are ostensibly all about the war between the Machines and Zion, it's telling the Wachowskis spent so much of the second film as well as the third in The Matrix where theoretically the major conflict isn't happening.  At a certain level I get it – this is more fun that watching the somewhat cliched post-apocalyptic world that is the aftermath – but it undercuts the argument that these films are about anything deeper than getting to see Keanu Reeves fly through the air. The threat of the apocalypse is, as Smith himself, almost as artificial as the Matrix itself.

So that's why I believe that the place the original film as well as the franchise has been another one of those pop culture stand-outs where millions have seized on it even though there's no there there. In the second part I'm going to deal with why there very well might political interpretation of it that is elitist and bigoted – and it's not the one the right has misconstrued it as for its own gain.

 

 

 

 

Homicide Rewatch: Bad Medicine

 

Written by David Simon ; story by Tom Fontana & Julie Martin

Directed by Kenneth Fink

 

Bad Medicine is the clearest sign yet that Homicide is getting back to its roots in Season 5. It introduces a storyline involving Kellerman that will take up the remaining first half of the season. It officially begins in an ongoing one that will infiltrate much of this season and have repercussions throughout the next one, if not the remainder of the show. It introduces a character who will be vital to Homicide's second half even though she won't officially becoming a series regular until the final season. It officially comes back to drug-related crimes in a way Homicide had increasingly pushed aside in the last season in favor of more sensationalist stories. And it does so in a fashion that is arguably bleaker than it has ever been since the first season and sets the tone for even darker times ahead.

Because so much of the storylines will involve Kellerman, it's best to start with him. At the start of the episode Kellerman is told by Giardello and Gaffney (who for once manages to squash his usual unctuousness) that he is under a grand jury investigation for his time at Arson.

When we first met Kellerman he told us one of the men he was investigating was Matthew Roland, a developer who had a habit of burning down old buildings in arson-for-profit.  The Feds we shall learn have indicted his son Mitch. What's clearly happened is that in order to get a light sentence Roland named some of the other detectives in the Arson Unit for taking bribes, including Kellerman. We meet one of the detectives, Bob Connelly, and from their brief interaction we get the impression that not only is Roland telling the truth about it but he also knew about it at the time. The way Connelly acts when he sees Kellerman has been subpoenaed – "We all figured you were the rat" – would seem to have darker implications but we won't find out the truth of it until a few episodes later.

Kellerman claims his innocence but the writers never give us independent clarification: the viewer is just asked to take his word for it.  And its not like Kellerman's behavior during his first year in the unit has been on the straight and narrow: we'll be reminded of this in the next episode as the investigation begins.

What I find more interesting is that from the start Kellerman truly seems to believe his word should be good enough, not just for his colleagues or Giardello but the FBI. Kellerman is getting better treatment then his fellow detectives in Arson; he's just placed on administrative duty while its assumed the other detectives have been suspended indefinitely. And its not as though the viewer isn't aware that cops don't walk on water on this show; earlier this year Kellerman arrested a detective for murder even though he clearly hated doing it.  We remember that he followed procedure correctly and when Jake Rodzinski tried to push him he was delicate and made it clear how the process worked.  So when Giardello tells him he has to follow the rules because of how the target letter worked and Kellerman says that by doing so everyone will think him guilty he's clearly arguing that he should be above the rules. Due process is for everyone but him.

More to the point he begins to develop increasingly paranoid tendencies that are nasty from the start as is clear when he snaps at Giardello. Considering how short-handed the squad is already (something he will refer to at the end of the episode) you know this is not something Gee is doing voluntarily. This episode reminds in all the ways we need to that as much as he bends the regulations there's only so far he can go without getting in trouble himself. That neither Kellerman nor Pembleton seem willing to acknowledge this point illustrates their own selfishness (though in Frank's case he seems more willing to accommodate it than Mike will be) Even when his union rep tells him what his best course of action is he thinks that because he says he's innocent should be good enough for the Feds, the grand jury and the department.

 No matter how many times the unit tells them they're on his side he refuses to accept it. There's nothing the squad can really do and many of them will make multiple efforts during the process. Its also worth noting as the investigation progresses Kellerman will do everything in his power to make himself worse in the eyes of the investigators yet still demand to be treating above his fellow detectives. We'll see how this behavior manifests as the storyline progresses but it's worth noting with the passage of time my sympathy for Kellerman has gone down immensely and this is clearly the point where he starts becoming less admirable. This is clear when Lewis tells them they're going after Luther Mahoney and he demands to come along even though he's on administrative duty. It is to the credit of Stivers that she's already made it clear that she can stick up for herself. But he also seems more than willing to jeopardize an investigation into two murders which is on shaky ground already because he holds a grudge against Luther. When Lewis – a man who has been guilty of playing fast and loose with procedure before he met Kellerman – gently tells him no Mike takes is as a sign that Meldrick thinks he's guilty even though he's following procedure.

 

During the first act Meldrick Lewis bursts a locker room and demands to know where Stivers is. “I’m gonna smack him,” he shouts. A petite African-American woman looks at him and says: “Take your best shot.” Meldrick blinks: “Terri Stivers. You a woman.” Stivers looks at him: “You Homicide detectives don't miss any details.”

This is our first introduction to Toni Lewis as Stivers and its striking just how quickly she absolutely nails it. While Homicide generally handles female characters exceptionally well, it has a tendency to lean into the idea of them as love interests more than women in a men's profession. The series will hint at it with Meldrick throughout Season Five but it will never rise beyond flirtation and its basically one sided on Lewis's part.

At the start of her introductions Stivers is being set-up as the equivalent of Howard. While Toni Lewis is attractive she doesn't scream sexuality the way Isabella Hoffman (to this point the viewer's only comparison) ever did. She dresses down, has a tough as nails attitude towards her male counterparts and the dealers on the street, knows everything about the drug world in a way we haven't seen another detective be outside of the unit and is clearly more concerned about her territory then Homicide's.  But nor does she display the arrogance we see so often when we've met so many of the other detectives outside of the unit over the years, the surety that they are as good at their jobs if not better.

This is clear as to how the unit is dealing with the bad package that has been causing all of the ODs that we see them investigating in the teaser. We see them looking through crime scenes of dead people but with none of the interest or concern they do when they investigate murders. Twenty people have overdosed in three days and it doesn't raise an eyebrow because they're not murders. Even Brodie doesn't care: "Has everyone in Baltimore forgotten how to shoot dope?" So when Stivers brings in a witness to help bring down BoJack Reed's lieutenant to get the package off the street it's telling that Meldrick thinks one murdered dealer is more important then dozens of those who die from drugs. Stivers response to this is very telling: "You go by the bullet or the blade; you got a chance of being avenged. You go by the blast, you're just gone."

And it's for this reason that the hunt for Luther Mahoney has a different vibe to it. When Lewis and Howard come to the street and learn that their victim is 'BoJack' Reed they're stunned because they thought he was in prison for thirty years. They had no idea he'd been back out for a year and certainly not to the point where he was giving Mahoney a run for his money. We've been reminded multiple times that the detectives aren't interested in the cause of the murders, only having to catch who killed them and given their reactions to all those who have overdosed, black or white, rich or poor, it throws into question so much of what we've heard about them speaking for the dead. They only speak for those who die violently at the hands of another. They're fine if you kill yourself with drugs. The only reason Lewis wants to get Luther is because he's making their job harder. They'd be fine if he just let the good people of Baltimore kill themselves with drugs laced with Scopolamine.

This is made clear in a mesmerizing encounter with Vernon Troy, who has to stuff himself with candy in order 'to keep the snake at bay.' Troy tells us how Reed decided to lace packages with Scopolamine and put them in double star bags (Luther's brand) in order to say Luther was dealing poison and move them to his product. It failed, Troy makes clear, because that just make junkies chase the dragon more.

Troy gives Lewis Reed's killer but when he's found dead with the weapon he used to kill Reed in plain view Lewis wants to go after Mahoney by putting Troy's name on the warrant. This is pretty close to a death sentence and its worth noting the best case scenario doesn't make either Lewis or Stivers look good. They send him back on the street to get a fix, tell him to be back in an hour, and then they'll keep him safe.  Both are negligent here as even now we know junkies have no sense of time or self-protection when they're chasing a high. Even before Luther's brought in we're pretty sure how things are going to end for him.

The scene in the box with Luther is another one of those gems. By this point we've been through so many times that the viewer expects how this is going to end up. This is the only real scene where Erik Todd Dellums has any presence, which is another sign of how well the writers do it: Luther Mahoney is such a presence just by the nature of his name that he only has to show up in one scene an episode for the point to be made.

Luther and Stivers almost seem to be flirting early on: the two have a history given that he's given her his pager number. (That's no doubt why Simon kept to that plot when he did the first season of The Wire.) In four and a half years we've rarely seen a suspect who was up to the manipulations of the detectives: the last time was Gordon Pratt. Lewis and Stivers talk to him in hypotheticals while making it clear they know what he does. Stivers is particularly blunt saying the package kills them fast "as opposed to killing them slow." They walk through Reed's murder and seem to get Luther to admit knowledge of how Phipps was killed. But Luther knows the game well enough to lawyer up at that point.

And because Lewis and Stivers are rarely in this position Danvers actually has to point out that none of this would get past a grand jury, much less lead to a verdict. Phipps' door was unlocked when the cops arrested him and Troy is a junkie reporting secondhand knowledge from a third party who is dead.  Anyone who watched an episode of Law & Order would know this was the case but because this is Homicide it hits the viewer with a gut punch. When Troy ends up 'taking one for the team' in the final moments it's an inevitability.

And as if to drive all of this home we are reminded of what's been going on with Frank. We've seen just how useless he feels and Brodie has in fact confided to Bayliss that Pembleton hasn't been taken his medicine. More to the point Frank is at the hospital with Mary and she has far less patience for what Frank has been doing then Tim is. She makes it clear that if he doesn't take his medicine she will put him back in the hospital himself. It's not clear if he hears given that Bayliss says the same thing hours later.

Because so much else is going on we nearly forget that Frank is taking the firing exam this week. So after all of the dismay that's been going on when Frank comes into Giardello's office saying he didn't pass it might be too much were it not for how Braugher describes why. When he relays the exam in the stammering were used too and tells us how he got hung up on the word 'magazine' the fact that he missed qualifying by four points almost comes as a relief to the viewer. For all the clear frustration Braugher shows and for all the viewer's desire to have the status quo maintained it is clear to the untrained and even the trained eye that Frank has no business being back out on the street right now.  The gun may be the least important thing but the mind and the body are and at this point there's no sign Frank is up to it in either.

Al gives a painful monologue of the status quo of the unit: "Russert's on indefinite leave, you and Kellerman are on administrative duty; Bolander's retired, Felton, I have no idea where he is". (This is the first time Felton's absence has been mentioned at all this season by anyone.) Considering all the problems the unit has been having for the past two years – and they are going to get worse before they get better – its as close to Giardello admitted how precarious he thinks his position is with the bosses right now.  And the fact is Pembleton has rarely looked more pathetic when he says (despite saying he's not begging) that Al can get him back on the street – but he can't say it without stammering.

The final section of the episode is one of the most memorable in the series entire run. When TV Guide ran an article calling Homicide: The Best Show You're Not Watching in the early winter of 1997 they would bring in noted police author Joseph Wambaugh to do a guest column. In his praise of the episode he highlighted the final sequence of the episode as proving "a policeman's lot is not a happy one.'

And it is a bleak one. As anyone who watched The Wire is aware Simon used Tom Waits's 'Way Down in the Hole' as the opening song over the credit of The Wire. (Waits' official recording is heard over Season 2.) His fondness for Waits's is made clear in both the opening and closing of the episode but rarely more powerfully then here. To the sound of Waits's whiskey soaked voice since 'Cold, Cold Ground' we see some of the bleakest moments of the series so far. Luther Mahoney walks out of the squad to his limo. Lewis prepares a martini for Stivers as they discuss what to do next as well as the still shaky state of Meldrick's marriage. Munch and Howard are in an alley and find Vernon Troy with a bullet in his head.  All three murders in this episode are still open one of the few times in the show's entire run we don't even get any relief from the board.

And Pembleton goes home looking lost. He passes over a sandwich and milk Mary has left for him. He goes upstairs and he hugs Oliva for a few moments. And then at the end of the episode we get the faintest glimmer of hope. He goes into the bathroom, looks at his medication. Then he opens the bottle and swallows a pill. It’s the first real sign that Frank has taken his failures to heart. From this point on he'll take his administrative leave more serious and finding his way back to the job the right way.

 

 

NOTES FROM THE BOARD\

 

In his first script for Season Five Simon returns to his journalistic routes. The episode is based on a real problem going on in Baltimore at the time as heroin was being laced with Scopolamine.

'Detective Munch'  While looking for track marks on an OD Munch bemoans the loss of Bolander and Russert "I lose partners faster than any detective on the force. And my marriages? Three. Each one shorter than the last. Then he looks at the OD. "Maybe this guy had the right idea. It didn't end well for him but at least he knew where he stood." Munch is depressed even for him and it actually gets worse because…

Brodie Is On The Move: During the episode Brodie awkwardly walks up to Munch and tells him he wants to move out of Munch's home. Munch takes this badly at first – "I raised you from a pup!" and then becomes cautious. "You looked in the medicine cabinet, didn't you?" Brodie insists he didn't, which means he did. Bayliss agrees to take him in. Munch will later lie and say that he threw Brodie out and take a special pleasure as Brodie continues to wander from detective to detective.

We see Bayliss at home eating pizza and watching Mighty Mouse cartoons when Brodie shows up. Brodie actually wants to watch a retrospective of Frederic Weisman the famous documentarian. (Never let it be said Brodie hasn't studied the masters. His discussion of the landmark Titicut Follies goes completely over Bayliss's head who insists they watch Mighty Mouse. Brodie's not going to be staying here long.

Toni Lewis might have gotten her job through some form of nepotism. Her husband is Chris Tergesen who at the time was Homicide's Music supervisor. Tergesen has had a far longer and more successful career in television then his wife and would work with either Fontana or Simon on almost every show they've done since including OZ, The Corner and COPPER. He was nominated for an Emmy in 2024 for his sound editing for Ahsoka. Lewis, despite being exceptional actress, never had a major role after this, save for recurring roles on OZ and The Wire. That's a huge loss for television.

Get The DVD: The opening scene and closing scene are scored by Tom Waits. 'Till The Money Runs Out' and 'Cold, Cold Ground'

Jeopardy 2026 Tournament of Champions Recap, Part 2: The Semifinals

 

As we begin the semi-finals it is important to remember that this is the only third time that Jeopardy is using this format for its Tournament of Champions. (The endless postseason of Season 40 caused them to do ridiculous contortions.)

The first time that Jeopardy gave the three biggest winners of the previous season a bye to the semi-finals was in 2022 when they famously did for three of the greatest Jeopardy players of all time: Matt Amodio, Mattea Roach and Amy Schneider. Amy was the only one to win her semi-final match and go on to the finals. Matt was defeated narrowly by Sam Buttrey and Mattea was routed by Andrew He.  Amy went on to narrowly beat both of them to win the Tournament of Champions.

Last year the same approach was done for Adriana Harmeyer, Isaac Hirsch and Drew Basile. Adriana and Isaac went on to win their semifinals but Drew would lose to Nilesh Vinjamuri and it would be Nilesh who went on to win the Tournament of Champions.

So the question was how would the format favor the three biggest winners of Season 41: super-champion Scott Riccardi, 8 game winner Laura Faddah and 7 game winner Paolo Pasco.  Here's how it played out.

 

Game 1

Scott Riccardi vs. Tom Devlin vs Allegra Kuney

 

Reminder: Both Allegra and Tom  won their semi-final games in runaway victories, though neither responded correctly in Final Jeopardy.

For the first half of the Jeopardy round Tom seemed absolutely in charge. Then Scott finally found the Daily Double in CALIFORNIA GEOGRAPHIC. He had $3800 to Tom's $6000 so he did what he does and bet everything:

Formerly Ocean View Avenue, this Monterey street process around 240,000 tons of sardines in 1945. Scott is a Steinbeck fan so he instantly responded: "What is Cannery Row?" He doubled his score and went into the lead for the first time. He held it but it was a near thing: Scott finished the Jeopardy round with $8200 to Tom's $7400 and Allegra's $1200.

The first half of Double Jeopardy was a back and forth between Scott and Tom for the lead. Scott had just taken it back and found the first Daily Double in LIGHTENING UP THE ENLIGHTENMENT. He then made the biggest Daily Double wager of Season 42 so far: all $15,400 he had:

"We're all signatory to this, the title of a 1762 work by Rousseau." He responded: "What is The Social Contract and jumped to $30,800.

On the very next clue he found the other Daily Double in LATIN LOVERS. There was a long pause as he did math in his head before finally deciding to wager $6000:

Euripides was famous for this Latin-phrase plot resolution; in 'Orestes' Apollo shows up and restores order. Scott knew it was deus ex machina and went up to $36,800.

Tom didn't surrender. In fact he technically played a better game then Scott. He got 24 correct responses to Scott's 22 with each only getting one incorrect and finished with $19,000. But those three Daily Doubles allowed Scott to finish with $41,200, a closer runaway then the ones we've become used to from Scott but nevertheless a runaway. Allegra managed $7600.

The Final Jeopardy category was EUROPEAN HISTORY. Writing from prison to here père in 1793, she quoted the dramatist Cornelie 'Crime makes the shame, and not the scaffold."

All three players wrote down the same person: "Who is Marie Antoniette?" As Ken said to Allegra " I can see why you would say that, but it's actually not correct." When he revealed the response all three players said: "Oh!" It was Charlotte Corday, who famously assassinated Marat.

(For the record I also wrote down Marie Antoniette but at the last possible second, crossed it out and wrote down Corday. I can't tell you why exactly; perhaps it's because I figured out Corday's father might still be alive while Marie Antoniette's had long passed.)

It didn't make a difference in the final results as neither Tom nor Scott wagered anything and Scott became a well-deserved finalist.

 

Game 2

Laura Faddah vs. Steven Olson vs TJ Fisher

 

Steven and TJ went back and forth for the lead in the Jeopardy round. Laura, however, got to the Daily Double in BOOK IT. With only $200, she bet the $1000 she had:

In a 1906 novel he wrote of 'splitters' who earned 50 cents an hour doing nothing but chopping hogs down the middle. She figured out it was Upton Sinclair, the author of The Jungle and went up to $1200. She was still in third at the end of the round with $2000 to TJ's $3400 and Steven's $6200.

Laura picked first in Double Jeopardy and found the first Daily Double in 'N' THE CITY. She bet the $2000 she had:

Once named for Nicholas II, a city on the Ob was given this new name meaning 'New Siberia'

Laura spent a long time but couldn't come up with the answer: "What is Novosibirsk?

She dropped to zero and was essentially out of contention; she would only be able to answer one clue for the rest of the game.

Steven got the next two clues correct and then found the other Daily Double in FROM THE NECK UP. He thought a long time before deciding to bet the $9400 he had. He would immediately regret it:

Also called gray matter, this outermost part of the brain with a 2-word name integrates sensory impulses.

Again he stared and finally guessed;: "What is corpus callosum?" It was in fact the cerebral cortex. He dropped to zero and by the benefit of not answering a clue TJ was in the lead

TJ's performance was perfect. He gave sixteen correct answers and no wrong ones. Steven gave 23 correct answers and only two wrong ones. However one of them was that Daily Double. However he still managed to finish Double Jeopardy with $8400 to TJ's $13,800. Laura had $1600.

The Final Jeopardy category was 20^th CENTURY BIGWIGS. That could have meant anything. The subtitle of a 2022 bio of this magnate who died in 1976 is 'The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth – But Not Its Mineral Rights.

Laura spent a lot of time thinking and at the last minute wrote down: "What is De Beers?" She was thinking of diamonds, which was a good guess but wrong. It cost her everything but a dollar.

Steven also wrote down: "Who is De Beers?" He bet $5404. He dropped to $2996.

It came down to TJ. He wrote down: "Who is Nestle?", then crossed it out and wrote down DuPont.  He was also wrong. The subtitle refers to a quote by the oil billionaire J. Paul Getty. (I wasn't any better then them; my best guess was Howard Hughes.)

It came down to his wager. TJ had bet $3001. It left him with $10,799 and that was enough to make him the second finalist.

 

 

Game 3

Paolo Pasco vs Cameron Berry vs. Ashley Chan

 

Paolo came out swinging in the Jeopardy round when he found the Daily Double when he was still the only player with any money. He had $2400 to risk in PHRASES FROM SPORTS and while he clearly wasn't comfortable with the category he nevertheless bet everything:

This 4-word phrase meaning 'last minute' comes from stretching a cable across the finish lines in horse racing. He guessed: "What is just under the wire?" And that was acceptable. 'Down to the wire' would have been to.

He finished the Jeopardy round with an impressive $9200 to Cameron's $4200 and Ashley's $800.

Two clues into the Jeopardy round Paolo found the first Daily Double in 'E' BEFORE 'I'. (They had to be consecutive letters.) He bet $6000:

The great ice age occurred during this epoch that preceded the one we're in now." He figured it out. "What is Pleistocene?" and jumped to $16,600.

However Cameron responded correctly on the next clue and found the other Daily Double on the follow response in VICE PRESIDENTS. He didn't like the odds but he bet the $6600 he had:

Nominating him at the convention, ex-VP Hubert Humphrey called this man 'my personal friend and a truly great American."

There was a very long pause. At the last possible second he said: "Who is Mondale?" And it was correct. He doubled his score and it was now a dogfight.

Paul and Cameron basically were dead even. Paolo got 24 correct answers (the 2 Daily Doubles included) and two incorrect ones. Cameron got 22 correct answers (including his Daily Double) and two incorrect ones. Paolo would finish with $24, 800 to Cameron's $22,000 while poor Ashley was lucky she finished with any money at all and had just $400.

Once again it came down to Final Jeopardy. The category was BODIES OF WATER. This body of water with over 1/3 of the world's marine mammals, like the vaquita, has been called 'the Aquarium of the world'.

Ashley's response was revealed first: "What is Lake Baikal?" It was incorrect. She bet everything.

Next came Cameron. He wrote down: "What is the Mariana Trench?" That was incorrect. He wagered $21,199 leaving him with $801.

Now Paolo clearly had a lot of respect for Cameron as it seems he assumed Cameron would respond correctly. He wrote down: "What a fun time!" and then added: "I Dunno though sorry." (I didn't either my guess was the Indian Ocean.)

Ken told us the name 'vaquita' would've clued you in that it's something Latin American. It was the Sea of Cortez, or the Gulf of California.

But Paolo had bet nothing. It left him with $24,800 and that was enough to make him a more deserving finalist.

 

So for the consecutive year the two biggest money winners of the season are finalists in the Tournament of Champions. And for the first times since 2022, a three game winner is not competing at all as TJ Fisher is a five-game winner.

Who will win this year's Tournament of Champions? I'll be back when its all over with the recap.

 

 

There Are Two Ways To Interpret What Natalie Portman Said About The Oscars This Week, And Either Interpretation Makes Her - And Hollywood - Look Terrible

 

 

At this point in my career as a critic as well as someone who has been observing Hollywood for nearly two decades I'm sadly used to celebrities making statements that reveal their own ignorance. Usually it has to do with politics, both foreign and domestic, and while I've never happy when they do it I can excuse it to an extent if not forgive it. They're entertainers and entertainers aren't qualified to talk about much but their industry.

Now as we've seen over the past several months many of the performers are starting to criticize their industry for not being moral because it puts profits over people. This has been tone-deaf that they're willing to take checks from these corporation their entire lives and it is in fact the reason they are rich and famous. I've been writing about that glaring omission.

But it astonishes me that there are some celebrities who are so blinded by their own narrative they don't even seem to be aware of events in their own industry that clearly prove them wrong. And yet that is what Natalie Portman did earlier this week when she chose to say that the Academy Award had 'snubbed women directors this year'.

Not unfairly represented. Omitted.

Now to be blunt the Oscars is not the same when Portman made her film debut in 1991. It's not even the same when she was last nominated for an Oscar for Jackie back in 2016.  To that point in Oscar history they had only nominated four women for Best Director in the previous 90 years.

Now let's look at the last decade.

In 2021 for the first time in history two women were nominated for Best Director: Emerald Fennell for Promising Young Woman and Chloe Zhao for Nomadland. Zhao won Best Director that year as Nomadland took Best Picture and  Fennell won Best Original Screenplay. In 2022 Jane Campion won Best Director for Power of the Dog. In 2023 people were annoyed that Sarah Polley wasn't nominated for Best Director but she did win Best Adapted Screenplay for Women Talking.

In 2023 Justine Von Triet was nominated for directing Anatomy of A Fall, the first female director to be nominated for directing an international feature that was also nominated for Best Picture. (We'll get back to that.) Last year Coralie Fargeat was nominated for directing, producing and writing The Substance.

So there have been as many women nominated for directing in the past five years by the Academy Awards as their were in the previous 95. I'd like to think that's at least progress.

Now on Thursday Chloe Zhao was nominated for Best Director for the second time, only the second female director in history to receive two nominations for directing. (The other is Campion.) This is only Zhao's fifth feature as a director. Her pronouns are she/her if I have to spell it out.

Now the charitable explanation, the best case scenario for Portman, is that she had somehow completely missed the fact that Hamnet was nominated for Best Picture or that she has somehow spent the entire awards ceremony unaware of Zhao's presence. This requires a spectacular level of blindness considering how much Hamnet has been making the awards circuit for months, if not years and ignored the fact that it is co-produced by Steven Spielberg. It means she completed missed the Golden Globes, the Critics Choice Awards and didn't see Zhao accept the prize for Best Picture at the Golden Globes at the latter and somehow missed everyone of Jessie Buckley's acceptance speeches.

That would require a remarkable level of obliviousness particularly to someone who has been a Hollywood fixture. However I have to say it is preferable to the alternative.

As I pointed out when the Oscar nominations came out in 2024 I wrote a long article about Justine Von Triet's accomplishment but:

…the big story in Hollywood today is how Greta Gerwig was snubbed by the Oscars for directing Barbie even though the film was nominated for eight other awards including Best Picture. The fact that Gerwig was nominated for producing and writing the film will be overlooked in the long saga of how another woman director was ignored. I imagine there will be some who will argue that Triet’s nomination was done so the Oscars could say they nominated a female director but ignore Gerwig. The possibility that Anatomy of A Fall is  a better film will not enter into the discussion at all because everybody saw Barbie and ‘no one’ saw Anatomy of A Fall. That the film took Best International Film and Best Screenplay at the Golden Globes and Barbie was basically ignored by them will do nothing to convince these people of the toxic sexism in Hollywood.

There’s a longer story to be told about the xenophobia that has always plagued the Oscars and has always regulated films that are not made in America to second class at best. I might end up writing that article someday.

Well, I've been writing about the xenophobia indirectly and I'll finish that series but let's consider Portman's statements in a larger context.

Zhao is Chinese even though she's made her last four films in America. It was tricky to make the argument of xenophobia with Von Triet's nomination in place of Gerwig in 2024: it's always been trickier to make that argument with European directors these days though Hollywood has an unfortunate history with that. It's a lot harder to ignore it in the case of saying that Zhao doesn't seem to be considered a female director in the eyes of Portman and that Eva Victor – one of the names she mentioned as being slighted – is one of merit.

It's even harder to ignore a different kind of racism. This year Sinners became the most nominated film in the history of the Academy Awards with 16 nominations.  There was a lot of controversy about how the box office returns were weighted because the industry wasn't comfortable with having a film with an African-American director and featuring an almost entirely African-American cast and crew doing so well at the box office.

When you consider Coogler and Zhao's success and Portman's seemingly oblivious statements it is very hard not to read an undertone into it.  This is by any standard one of the most diverse group of nominees the Oscars has had in my lifetime and we definitely see it in Best Director. Coogler has become only the fifth African-American to earn a nomination for directing for Sinners and Joachim Trier is joining the expanding list of directors of International Films to earn nominations for direction. Combined with Zhao's history making accomplishment one would be hard pressed to argue about the Academy Awards lack of diversity. And that's without counting the writing nominees which include Guillermo Del Toro adaptation of Frankenstein and the team from It Was Just an Accident.

Portman's statement could almost be considered being a wet blanket were it not for her apparent ignorance of the facts. There is no scenario where Portman doesn't look clueless and that is, as I said, the best case scenario. The alternative makes her sound very close to a Karen who's upset that all these 'colored people' are endangering white women.

And while I'm not the kind of person who wants to read into things its difficult for me not to see this as a metaphor for so many things in our society. An institution exists for extended period in our society. Grumbling from those who believe (not without cause) that they have been unjustly excluded for decades demand change and reform. That institution eventually gives that reform but it does nothing to end the grumbling. At best it is considered under the metric "better late than never", at worst there is always the complain that inclusion of one group comes at the expense of another and therefore it is still inadequate.

Well you can't get more left-leaning than Hollywood, particularly in the last decade. The Academy Awards have seen a significant amount of reform to their voting process and minority nominees are being recognized at a greater rate than any time in the near century that the institution exists. Yet little credit is given to the Academy and the exclusions are still pointed out as signs of the deep flaws even when in many cases their imagined. No one bothers to pretend that the Oscars were ever a meritocracy and now its considered more important that representation from a race or gender in every category is there whether or not their was an actor or director worthy of recognition in the first place.

And I have to say considering how low-stakes the Oscars are compared to everything else in the world the fact that someone like Portman can make these statements in the same breath as events in Minnesota and give the same weight of importance and seriousness shows a special kind of obliviousness. The fact that the part about female directors being snubbed is complete at odds with something that happened this week is the kind of thing that dismantles why anyone should take a celebrity seriously about anything they say. It's the kind of news clip that right wing media salivate to have because they don't even have to bother to play it out of context. In context Portman looks clueless at best.

All of this speaks to how so much in Hollywood that used to be taken less seriously is now considered a blood sport. It used to be fun to joke about who was and wasn't nominated for an Oscar; now being excluded is now a sign of some kind of systemic blindness even if there is none. As Bill Murray famously said in so much about the Oscars: "Who cares?" Now not only is clearly they done but that they care for the wrong reasons and that takes a lot of the joy out of it.

Whenever I hear a celebrity talk about anything that isn't related to their industry the explanation is that because they have a platform they feel an obligation to use it to speak on issues they care about. Even if I agreed with that as a premise that doesn't make them any more of an expert than the average Gen Z on TikTok. Just because Natalie Portman played Jackie Kennedy she's not qualified to talk about Cold War politics in the 1960s, the Freedom Riders or even whether Jackie Kennedy knew about Marilyn Monroe. Natalie Portman didn't become an expert on Jackie Kennedy because she played her in a film and she doesn't know anything about policy in the Middle East for decades better than the Ambassador to Jordan or immigration policy.  Honestly strictly from a class perspective she has more in common with Melania or Ivanka Trump then any of the women protesting in Minneapolis. What she is qualified to talk about is her industry and as her comments about the Oscars and female directors being shut out reveal she doesn't even seem qualified to talk about that.

Every time a celebrity talks about anything that doesn't relate to Hollywood they are always out of their depths intellectually, politically and from a perspective of common sense. Portman's statement about female directors leave us thinking there are two explanations for what she said and neither reflect well on her or the industry's moral authority in general. I continue to beg them to stay in their lane and concentrate on their job of entertaining us, if for no other reason than they're not helping anybody the way they want to think. It's bad enough you're not helping with your ignorance on the subject of politics; do you have to keep showing you don't even know what happened in your industry on Thursday?