Going Out on A High Note The Final, Wonderful, Hysterical Season of Hacks

 

Hacks is, without question, one of the greatest shows of the decade. It ranks with such masterful comedies as Reservation Dogs and Somebody Somewhere and stands with such reigning champions as Abbott Elementary, Only Murders in the Building and Shrinking. And like those incredible comedies it represents an incredible, joyous transition that HBO itself was the leading contender in during the last decade: comedies which would make the audience laugh at the toxic, horrible, juvenile bad behavior of the protagonists and call it entertainment. By contrast all the shows I've listed above believe in forming connections that cross the generational divide that today's culture not only says is insurmountable but should forever be one.

Few relationships have been more wondrous then the slow building friendship between Deb (Jean Smart) and Ava (Hannah Einbinder). There was a joke early in Season 1 by creator Lucia Aniello that this was actually a love story but it has nothing to do with sexuality but female friendship. And this is one that we are told shouldn't exist. Deb is a descendant of the Baby Boomers, the old school who has been doing the same schtick for forty years when we first meet her. Ava is a thin-skinned Gen Z comedian whose sexuality, like everything else about her, seems based on not willing to offend anybody  who believes everything is political and that you must discuss everything to death. Deb is the ultimate bully and bad boss. Ava is the ultimate entitled employee. They should hate everything the other says. They spent a lot of the first two seasons hating everything the other said. They should barely be able to tolerate each other as employer and employee, must less have formed one of the deepest bonds in TV history. And yet they have,

The fourth season dealt with both women realizing their dreams: Deb finally becoming a host on late night, Ava writing for it. Like all dreams it was better as a hope then a reality. The two of them spent almost the entire season at each other's throats until in the penultimate episode Deb did something she would not have been capable of: she sacrificed late night for Ava. And it cost her everything. She was unable to perform for the next three years and as we learned in the most horrifying fashion the boss of the network (Tony Goldwyn at his most loathsome) has taken everything Deb ever did off line, not just her late night clips but also the standup special that was the basis of Season 2.  When the fourth season came to an end Deb had gotten lost in Singapore and was reported dead by a bad tip on TMZ. Deb is now infuriated, particularly because she is being blamed for killing late night on the network. (Last season, I should mentioned, was filmed entirely before the recent problems with both Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel.)

But if there's one thing we know about Deborah Vance its that she doesn't take anything lying down. And so after flying back to her home (finding the obligatory shrine and crowd of mourners around her gate) she is determined to rewrite the narrative about her. At first she takes an absurd plan of attack, making a plan to earn an EGOT.  (Oddly enough she already has an E and a T. Who knew?) Her inner circle, including Jimmy and Kayla knows that this is insane, but for once Ava is terrified that having seen Deb at a near comatose state before the season finale that she's willing to do anything.  Of course she's perfectly fine meeting Tony Kushner to write Deb's autobiography (Kushner is hysterical as himself, wanting to start Deb's story back in the Scottish Highland a thousand years before she was born) but when Deb says that she thinks the best thing for her comeback is to primary AOC and Ava doesn't blink, Deb calls her on her bullshit.

As always Deb has a cunning plan. She has a secret stand-up special of her own and makes it clear she doesn't want it to be filmed. It is filmed and the network serves an injunction on her. Then she goes before the camera and talks about how she is being silenced and this is a war on free speech and that she plans to appear at Madison Square Garden and sell it out. Of course she didn't book the space first, but for Deb that's a minor detail.

The second episode (as always I've only reviewed the first two) shows Deb and her entourage going to New York and trying to book the venue. They are met with a firm no, saying that it's not good for MSG's brand. "You host a true crime podcast!" Ava shouts before they are shown the door. Deb then tries to rally her fan base – the Little Debbie's – to do what she needs to book a venue.

We then go to a fan convention and find hysterically the Little Debbie's are just as insane as every other fanbase at comic con, making impossible demands. "I'm mad you left QVC!" one tells her. "And I'm mad you stayed so long at QVC!" the next one says. This goes on for a considerable period until naturally one makes it clear Deb Vance is a lizard person. Of course Deb is then presented with a picture that was done by a fan and her mother – and then learns that she's been gone from the conventions so long that her mother died before she could give it to her.

Then Deb leaves with tears in her eyes and has a conversation with a women in alien makeup about the love one's fans have for you. As always with Hacks the sincerity of the writing is always undercut by the messengers. Indeed the alien makes it clear that the fans will always be there for you and you should always be willing to ask. So Deb goes back inside and says she was going to ask them for help booking a venue at MSG.

And immediately every single Little Debbie swears their loyalty to the cause. This is insane and increasingly borders on the ridiculous ("It's good enough for the Knicks but not for you!" one fan says.) And if this were a serious show we could argue about the other insanity of fan culture deciding to harass the head of MSG, sending mail to her home and eventually writing 'Bring Deb to MSG' on toilet paper in a public restroom. But this is a comedy and let's not kid ourselves we hate the woman being harassed.  So Deb does get a date – on September 11^th. "It's the only date they have available." Deb says.

Much of the first two episodes is about building the bond between are two lead. Ava agrees to go to the convention on what is her 30^th birthday and she says its no big deal. But Deb nevertheless throws a party for her at her house and despite her guilt about having said she had no friends, there's sincerity behind all of it.  Deb arranges for Jesse McCartney who Deb had a crush on growing up to sing for her at the party and its genuinely sweet. As is the conversation between the two when Deb admits that while she was popular she never had any friends like Ava. And Ava means it too.

Hacks does nothing to make us forget the other love story going on: Jimmy and Kayla. The agency has been struggling ever since Jimmy punched the head of the network and he's clearly trying to make things work. We learn the Fatty Arbuckle movie he was working on in Season 3 is now in production and there's already Oscar talk about it. Jimmy tries to get Deb to have a part for the reshoot but she immediately turns against it. Fortunately his mother Diedre Hall has time off from Another World. (Yes that's still canon.) Paul W. Downs's character has grown immensely during the entire series run: he still seems perennially put upon but he's just a bit more savvy. And every so often we get a sense of the fan beneath the agent: in the convention he sees Renee O'Connor from Xena signing autographs and he tells Kayla how much he idolize Xena growing up. Kayla pushes her into getting his picture taking with her and Jimmy manages to both gush and manage a pitch about doing a podcast about revisiting the show. And incredibly this immediately pays off: O'Connor tells Jimmy that she'd talked about it with Lucy Lawless and she's willing to do it. She immediately gives him a cut of what she earned today and Jimmy recovers nicely and signs her for dinner. "Do you like Greek?" "I love Greek," O'Connor says.

At this point the only box left to be checked off for Hacks at least for me is for Meg Stalter to get an Emmy nomination for her incredible work as Kayla. As I said in the opening paragraph there have been an extraordinary number of brilliant comedy series during the 2020s; in addition to all the ones I listed Ted Lasso, Barry and The Bear have been dominant in the Emmys nominations during the time Hacks has been on the air. And yet somehow the Emmys has done absolutely right by Hacks. Not just the four consecutive Emmys that Jean Smart has won for every season she's been eligible but the writing has been honored twice, the directing once and Hannah Einbinder finally won last year – along with the greatest upset victory at the Emmys this decade when Hacks defeated Season 2 of The Bear for Best Comedy Series.  Hacks was already the favorite in almost every Emmy category it was eligible in even before the final season debuted and now that its over and everyone agrees its gone out on a high note, the question is how many Emmys it will win before the show, like Deb, goes out on top.

I will miss Hacks once these final episodes are gone but as I said there are more then enough great comedies about good people doing the best they can and getting humiliated despite themselves. Like Ted Lasso Hacks came around exactly when TV needed it and we got as much fun out of it as possible. I may not be as rabid a fan as Deb Vance's were  - and you don't have to tell me you're not a lizard – but I've loved watching Hacks and I couldn't ask for more.

My score: 5 stars.

Coalition of the Sane: What Graham Platner Represents Is More Symbolic to the Left Then What He's Actually Running For

 

First I would like to address this part of the article to my conservative friends who are appalled by what happened in Maine Tuesday.

As a reminder Graham Platner was basically running unopposed. Technically there were two other candidates on the ballot but ever since Janet Mills dropped out a month prior to primary day Platner was running for what used to be called a 'beauty contest' election. It was importantly symbolically but it meant nothing according to his appeal.  Had my party not shown some spine and kept fighting it out it would have meant something. No one ever accused the Democrats of being smart.

Now to the progressives who are crowing about how Platner received the 'most votes of any Democrat running in Maine'. First, again he was running basically unopposed in a primary. Platner received 153,000 votes out of 211,597 votes cast. By contrast 213,727 people voted in the Maine Democratic Gubernatorial primary. So 56,500 Democrats cast their vote for someone other then Platner but voted for governor and roughly 1800 votes left their ballot blank in the Senate primary altogether. That's not the best start to a campaign run.

And to be clear Susan Collins got 417,645 votes in 2020. Sara Gideon, who ran against her as the Democratic nominee managed to get 116,294 votes in the Democratic primary that year which was roughly 71 percent of all those cast. Platner got 72.3 percent of all votes cast. Gideon, I should mention was running in a contested primary, against Justice Democrat Betsy Sweet, who got 23 percent of the vote.

So to be clear Platner only got a slightly higher percentage in an uncontested Democratic primary then Gideon did in a contested one.  Gideon, I should be clear, got 347,223 votes in the general election, which means she lost by 8.5 percent to Collins. That's called a blowout in most states. And as I'll keep reminding people all of the polls pretty much all showed Gideon beating Collins by as much as four to 12 percent throughout the campaign before finally saying she'd win by anywhere from four to eight percent. Gideon was endorsed by Sanders, Warren and Chris Murphy along with the entire Democratic establishment and Janet Mills.

I'm reminding my left wing readers far more than my right wing readers, who understand both basic arithmetic and electoral history in a way you've basically chosen to ignore, that getting all the votes in the Democratic primary, particularly in a state that hasn't election a Democrat to the Senate in forty years, that you can get all the votes in the primary and it will count for squat if you can't win the general. Sure Annie Andrews beat her Democratic challenger two to one in South Carolina. She still got fewer votes then Lindsey Graham did in the Republican primary.  Jaime Harrison did far better six years ago in the Democratic primary. Graham beat him by ten points.

And aside from the delivery and the fact that Platner has far more scandals to his credit there is no difference when it comes to basic policy between him or Sara Gideon. Platner believes in Medicare for all, housing affordability and ending US Involvement in pointless wars and brands himself as anti-establishment and anti-corporate. Sara Gideon was in favor of the affordable care act, planned parenthood, police reform, the Paris Accord and believes in expanding abortion access. There's no evidence that Maine voters have gone more to the left in 2026 considering that both in 2020 and 2024 Trump was able to carry Maine's 2^nd district.

So the question one has to ask the Democratic Party and progressives overall is what reason could anyone rationally believe that Platner could succeed six years after Gideon failed? The reason is familiar to anyone who knows progressives: they feel certain the voters want him. When it comes to believing without empirical evidence or electoral results the certainty the modern progressive has that Americans want progressive candidates puts the evangelical's belief in a higher power to shame. And its that fact I will turn to as I address my normal readers of this column.

 

I've written in my previous articles that at the end of the day, for all their education the average progressive has no real understanding of things.  Their basic understand of governing is nothing more than the liberal dogma of 'money solves everything', they have no ability to comprehend that what works in a theoretical setting can't work in real life, they cherry pick historical facts to fit their moral narrative. And when it comes to what the average American voter wants from politics they really have moved one inch from their thinking of George McGovern in 1972 except to go further to the left.

McGovern's campaign style, in truth, is no different from Sanders in either of his Presidential campaigns or the Squad when they stump or really that much different from Platner. And it's worth remembering how Theodore White described him on the campaign trail:

On the college campuses, within the circle of his faithful, he might be cheered as the voice of the future; in the tormented cities of America, however, after a decade of similar ringing high-minded proposals, he sounded like the voice of the past – more of the same, and frightening.

Given the electoral history of Sanders and all the left-wing politicians that have followed in his wake it's difficult to argue that there is any difference. The major one is now the circle of the faithful can be expanded within the echo chambers of social media to an entire nation of like-minded people who might cheer the proposals of the candidate as the voice of the future but are nowhere near the state that candidate is from.

So in this world we have a virtual crowd listening to the speeches of Annie Andrews or Jamie Davis or Graham Platner and their voices resonates with them. And because the algorithms of social media allow you to align with like-minded people in an instant one can assume that America is in favor of these candidates.

But the virtual progressive rarely lives in South Carolina or Louisiana and Maine and they are always smaller in number in the electorate in these states as they might appear in a protest movement or a rally.  And what may appeal to Democrats on a national level, as I've argued in articles on Texas, rarely, if ever, applies to the masses in a deep red or even purple state.

This pattern has been shown to bear in countless elections for Justice Democrats or far left candidates at a state level across the country and to this point in the post-Trump America, the average voter has rejected them nationwide. Within the virtual circle of the faithful, candidates like Andrews and Platner and Jasmine Crockett, they have been cheered as the voices of the future.  In any other parts of the states where they try to vote they do sound more of the same and often frightening – and that is before cable news and the internet intervenes.

The question "What do you stand for?" has been a drumbeat of the left for more than a decade. On the campaign trail a candidate can stand for all the right things and say them with no consequences. But once they are elected, one has to compromise and move to the center in order to govern. The modern left has rejected this for decades, calling it a betrayal of principles.

Platner has demonstrated, perhaps more than any other Democratic candidate in decades, how little their moral principles really have ever mattered. Scandals that they have called upon as something that should cause a Republican to resign are shrugged off in the case of Platner. The clearest resemblance has to be everything that Trump has said or done before he became President and everything done since. Yet those who have spent years attacking Trump for his horrible behavior are now saying that it should excuse everything Platner has done, that the stakes are too important not to let this matter.

This is yet again another example of the left's funhouse mirror standards. In Trump's case he was running for President. Graham Platner is running to replace Susan Collins in the U.S. Senate in Maine. Platner's personal baggage is as bad as Ken Paxton who just a few weeks ago the media was arguing his presence in the Senate would be a degradation of Congress overall.  The only difference is Paxton is a Republican and Platner is a Democrat.  There have been far too many examples of the left excusing the horrific behavior of conservatives but been more than willing to excuse the same behavior of progressives. Platner is just by far the most blatant argument that all of these arguments for principles and moral justice and everything the Republicans were destroying by their polices were just a smokescreen for their own tribalism.

But again the argument doesn't hold water. What do the virtual faithful truly think Platner, who even if he wins, will be just one voice among the Democrats and one voice among the hundred Senators be able to do on his own? The often conspiratorial arguments in certain echo chambers willing to excuse Platner's horrible behavior and the constant scandals argue that: They must be really afraid of him.

 Afraid of what? Short of being able to turn water into wine, Platner is just going to be another Senator if he wins. As Napoleon famously said: "Without the revolution, I am nothing." And for all his fiery rhetoric, Platner is just going to be the junior Senator in Maine with one vote. His vote will have the same power that Ron Johnson or John Fetterman will have. Whatever legislation he introduces will have to go through the same process any other bills do and be subject to the same ossification. He has little chance of being placed on any committees of note for a significant period and whatever speeches he says on TV will have the same power with the base than any other Democrat or Republican does.

It's one thing to argue the liberal establishment is trying to destroy Trump, he's a once and future President. But the media establishment is putting this much effort to keep Susan Collins in the Senate?  The same people like her who did six years ago and the same people hate her as well. And even if they do, the only people who this matters to are the voters in Maine. The media has made it clear of its feelings of Ted Cruz and Rick Scott and Mitch McConnell for years and decades. It's had no effect on what the voters of their respective states have thought of them, if the fact they kept winning reelection is any indication. But the idea that it would suddenly have an effect among Republicans in Maine? That's so batshit I think even Joe Rogan would never buy it.

The other reason I'm convinced Platner serves as a metaphor for the progressive's modern flaws came from an interview I saw on News Nation. This network is a mostly centrist one and it involved one of Biden's campaign aides and the campaign manager of AOC..

Biden's campaign aide argued very simply that many people would find Platner's Nazi tattoo troubling and asked how we're supposed to deal with it. AOC's campaign manager immediately pivoted to the argument that what was more important was the persecution of Muslims and was about to talk about what was happening in Gaza.

Biden's aide refused to be deterred and went back to the Nazi tattoo. AOC's campaign manager kept going back to Platner's support for Gaza being more important. The moderator kept pushing the point of Biden's campaign.

Finally Biden's aide said that this might have the effect of pushing voters away. AOC's campaign aide didn't hesitate. "Well then go ahead and join the Republicans. I'm sure they'll be happy to have you."

There's a lot to unpack from how AOC's manager's defense of Platner but I think there are two obvious facts.

The first is that the Justice Democrats have made it very clear that even though Gaza was proven to be unimportant to the electorate in 2024, that America is clearly dealing with more important issues in 2026, most notably inflation and affordability, AOC still believe that the Democratic Party should be putting everything in Gaza front and center. That this turned out to be a losing issue for multiple Justice Democrats in the last election cycle is of no consequence to them. More importantly there's the idea that somehow Graham Platner, whose running for the Senate in Maine, can do more to solve the problem in America then whatever happens in the Israeli election in a few months' time – which again involves some of the only people who can properly resolve it.

The second is how one of the campaign mangers for AOC, a woman who is short-listed among those who will run for President down the road, has basically made it very clear that the Democratic establishments deal with the devil with the far left is a loser. The biggest problem the Democrats have had has been winning over moderates and working class voters who find the behavior of left-wing politicians like AOC so extreme that they vote Republican. And here is the campaign manager of a prominent Democrat saying to another Democrat that if you don't like our policies, vote Republican.

The left has never had any political sense when it comes to getting the mood of the electorate. Now they are saying directly: if you have a problem with our standard bearers, vote for Republicans.  That people have been doing this for years to the point that the Democrats are in this position is not something that they consider a problem.

The most recent autopsy of the 2024 election argued that "Democrats seem more interesting in winning the argument then the election." One of AOC's representatives basically just said it out loud.  Which makes me think that Platner winning the election in Maine means less to them then the fact that he says and does all the right things.  That by doing so he might never be in position to put campaign rhetoric into policy is irrelevant: the left has always made it clear they'd rather lose with an ideologically pure candidate in a landslide then win narrowly with a more moderate candidate and get a chance to make things better for the people. That the cost has been Democrats losing races they might have been able to win over the years doesn't matter; that it means things will get worse for people by Republican policies is insignificant.

It's always difficult, giving the way the media and both parties tend to argue that every election is 'the most important in our lifetime' and every result is 'groundbreaking' to keep one's perspective. While what is going on involving Platner and Collins important only to people in both parties, the media-industrial complex and the endless chatter on social media within these circles. Beyond this the people it will matter the most to are the voters in the state of Maine who are deciding who will serve them in the Senate for the next six years.  There will be a lot of money spent and a lot of attention paid to it but that's all this is about.

For the Democrats it is only as important as regaining the majority but it would be less groundbreaking then victories for Peltola in Alaska, Talarico in Texas or Turek in Iowa. The ones who feel the strongest about Platner and what he represents almost certainly don't live anywhere near the state of Maine, who've made it clear in multiple elections what they think of progressives in their state as recently as six years ago.  And any endorphin the virtual progressive mob will get about what Platner represents if he wins will end the moment he is sworn in and doesn't immediately introduce a resolution arguing that the Senate and Congress should be permanently dissolved, followed by the entire chamber agreeing to it with unanimous consent. Anything else will only disappoint the left given all the attention they've focused on what he represents to not the state of Maine or the Democratic Party or even the progressive cause, but America itself.

That assumes, of course, those who are the loudest voices on the left even want Platner to win which to me is debatable. As AOC's own communication head finally said the left prefers martyrdom and losing in a noble cause rather then winning and being forced to compromise and govern.  Hell, for all we know the loudest voices arguing for Platner may well be sending donations to Collins's campaign as we speak. They've always preferred having an elected monster that they can vilify rather than a hero who can only disappoint them.  They are more interested in winning arguments then elections because the former feels better immediately then the democratic process. My conservative readers should remember that because the progressives never will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emmy Watch 2026 Phase 3 Continued: My Reactions to the 2026 TCA Award Nominations

 

One of the oldest critics organizations to give awards for TV is the Television Critics Association (TCA). Meeting in the weeks after the end of every season they have regularly given nominations for the most significant TV shows of the year just past.

Earlier today they gave their official nominations that may very well give the clearest indication yet what the Emmys may do in the next month, though even here we see some outliers. The biggest is the recognition for the Canadian drama Heated Rivalry which has become an international phenomena but is ineligible to compete in the Emmys. With that in mind, here are the nominations.

Program of the Year

In addition to Heated Rivalry Stephen Colbert's nomination is by far the most blatant recognition of politics more than anything.

In comedy we see the usual suspects: Hacks and Shrinking along with The Comeback and the new sensation Widow's Bay which may well contend for nominations given how much of a phenomena it has become. In drama we see Pluribus, The Pitt and Industry.  The latter show has been a grower among critics and fans for years but it still faces an uphill battle to sneak in for Best Drama

 

OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT IN COMEDY

As you'd expect The Comeback, Hacks, Shrinking and Widow's Bay. Also present is perennial contender Abbott Elementary and new face Margo's Got Money Troubles.

The most fascinating newcomers are two freshman sensations that have achieved critical acclaim but less recognition in awards shows: The Fall and Rise of Reggie Dinkins and The Lowdown.  The Bear has fallen completely off the grid and honestly either of the shows listed would be good choices.

 

OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT IN DRAMA

Aside from Heated Rivalry almost every nominee has an argument to contend. The Pitt and Pluribus, as you'd expect, are here, as is Industry. The Gilded Age, Knight of the Seven Kingdoms, Paradise and Task are all formidable contenders for nominations in a few weeks' time with only Industry being the least certain.

 

OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT IN MOVIES, MINI SERIES OR SPECIAL

As you'd expect all of the major contenders are present. All Her Fault, The Beast in Me, Beef, Death by Lightning, DTF St. Louis, Half Man and Love Story. Only Lord of the Flies seems unlikely to contend.

 

OUTSTANDING NEW PROGRAM

For comedy's previous faces like Reggie Dinkins, Lowdown, Margo's Got Money Troubles and Widow's Bay. For drama, Heated Rivalry, A Knight of the 7 kingdoms and Pluribus. The new face is Alien: Earth which we've seen at multiple award shows over the last several months. I'll be honest, I think it has a better chance of being nominated for Best Drama then Industry

 

INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT IN DRAMA

As a reminder this includes limited series and doesn't differentiate between lead and supporting.

Industry makes its biggest noise with Marisa Abela, Myha'la and Ken Leung. Both of Heated Rivalry's nominees are ineligible. Noah Wyle and Katherine LaNasa will be there for The Pitt as will Rhea Seehorn for Pluribus and Sterling K. Brown for Paradise. David Harbour's chances of an Emmy nomination if not an award for DTF: St. Louis keep getting better.

 

INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT IN COMEDY

Hannah Einbinder and Jean Smart will be there for the final season of Hacks. Elle Fanning is a lock for Margo's Got Money Troubles; ditto Harrison Ford for Shrinking. Lisa Kudrow is nearly certain for The Comeback.

Matthew Rhys is guaranteed to be there for The Beast in Me, could he possibly double dip with a nomination for Widow's Bay? Kate O'Flynn is interesting. Tim Robinson's chances for The Chair Company remain remote.

 

OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT IN VARIETY, TALK OR SKETCH

All the usual suspects are here along with The Muppet Show special. Is this the biggest sign that it may finally be revived?

 

In addition we have some new categories which I'm going to go over.

OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT IN Animation

The usual suspects: The Simpsons, Bob's Burgers and South Park are here. But we also have the revival of King of the Hill, Invincible and Long Story Short.  Also present are Haunted Hotel on Netflix and Women Wearing Shoulder Pads on Adult Swim

 

OUTSTANIDING INTERNATIONAL SERIES

We see the final season of Squid Game and Amazon's adaptation of House of The Spirits. Netflix dominated with The Boyfriend, Crime Scene Zero and Last Samurai Standing. Apple TV has Drops of God

The rest of the series are irrelevant to me except for Outstanding Achievement in Family and Children's Programming. I'm glad to see Wonderfully Weird World of Gumball and Snoopy Presents: A Summer Musical and First Snow of Fraggle Rock in the latter and Phineas & Ferb and Wizards Beyond Waverly Place back as revivals in the former. Oh and Stranger Things: Tales from '85. The TCA thinks its worthy.

 

As an update according to Gold Derby both Widow's Bay and Industry are beginning to rise of very high in Emmy Predictions across the board. Widow's Bay currently ranks ninth in Best Comedy just behind a falling Nobody Wants This  and The Bear. Matthew Rhys is knocking on the door for the Best Actor nominees just behind Steve Martin.

Industry's odds remain long in any major category as do Reggie Dinkins and The Lowdown.

Well, we're just about here. On Monday I start breaking down my contenders for this year's Emmy nominations. How much do I agree with my peers and what are my own hopes? You'll find out starting next week.

 

Emmy Watch 2026 Phase Three Continued My Reactions to the 2026 Gotham TV Awards And Golden Trailer Nominations

 

 

With the Emmy nominations less than a month away the final sets of nominations and awards from various groups are being given. Today I have two different sets of awards that have taken place in the last few weeks but because of outside factors I've yet to update my readers.

First last May I announced the nominations of the third annual Gotham TV Awards which essentially focus on new shows of the season just past. Here are the winners for 2026:

Breakthrough Comedy Series: I Love LA

Breakthrough Drama Series: Pluribus

Outstanding Limited or Anthology Series: DTF St. Louis

Outstanding Lead Performance in A Comedy: Tim Robinson, The Chair Company

Outstanding Supporting Performance in a Comedy: Laurie Metcalf, Big Mistakes

Outstanding Lead Performance in a Drama Series: Chase Infiniti, The Testaments

Outstanding Supporting Performance in a Drama: Babou Ceesay, Alien: Earth

Outstanding lead Performance in a Limited/Anthology Series: Michael Shannon, Death by Lightning

Outstanding Supporting Performance in a Limited/Anthology Series: David Harbour, DTF St Louis

Outstanding Performance in an Original Film: Cory Michael Smith, Mountainhead

Ensemble Tribute: Love Story: John F. Kennedy Jr. & Carolyn Bessette.

 

Let's get this out of the way first; Mountainhead is ineligible because it won at the Emmys last year. Pluribus and DTF St. Louis were already top contenders in their respective categories and the special award can only help Love Story.

As for the rest I Love LA is fighting an uphill battle in the comedy category that already has several contenders from HBO. Tim Robinson faces a similar struggle to break into outstanding lead actor in a Comedy. Laurie Metcalf's chances for Big Mistakes are better by far.

Chase Infiniti has been a dark horse for her work in The Testaments and while Alien: Earth could slip in for Best Drama Cessay is already facing a crowded category. David Harbour was a near lock to get nominated for his work and this will help Michael Shannon's chances for Death By Lightning.

I should add that Michelle Pfeiffer received the Legend tribute and she is all but assured an Emmy nomination this year as is Claire Danes who won the performance tribute. Will the Emmys honor the final season of Stranger Things as the DTF did by giving the Duffer Brothers the Visionary Tribute? We'll have to wait in see.

To be clear a lot of the likely nominees and winners were ignored by the Gotham TV awards across the board but that's the way of many awards shows anyway.

 

One of the more incidental awards shows I discovered last year was the Golden Trailer Awards and earlier this month they gave their awards. I feel an obligation to look at the nominations for TV because they did have some correlation with the 2025 Emmy nominations last years. I will only cover the nominations

 

Best Comedy Trailer TV Series/Streaming

Season 5 of Only murders in the Building and Season 2 of Nobody Wants This are shoo-in for nominations. Chad Powers is a dark horse for some awards. Stick and How to Get To Heaven From Belfast have no chance.

 

BEST DRAMA TRAILER TV Streaming Series

Love Story and Season 2 of The Pitt are locks and the final season of Stranger Things might well be here. Ponies and Young Sherlock have no chance.

 

Best Action for a TV Streaming Series.

Peacemaker has gotten some nominations. None of the others – The Night Agent, The Last Frontier or The Terminal List have any chances.

Best Fantasy Adventure Trailer

Alien: Earth and Wednesday's second season might contend. Ironheart did get some nominations but has no real chance, neither do Legacy of Monsters or Invasion

 

Best Graphics in a Trailer

Apple's Cape Fear might contend next year. Welcome to Wrexham will do in reality programing. I don't think The Beauty or Agatha Christie's Seven Dials have chance.

 

Best Horror Thriller Trailer

IT: Welcome to Derry has a possibility as do The Ed Gein Story as does Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen. Devil In Disguise is a dark horse.

 

Best Music In A Trailer

The final season of Euphoria was a major contender – then it aired. The Ed Gein Story, Love Story and the final season of Stranger Things might. I don't think Your Friends & Neighbors will

 

Best Original Score

Squid Games final season can't be counted out or Welcome to Derry or Stranger Things. The buzz on Chief of War has faded.

 

Best Sound Editing

Usual suspects: Stranger Things, Welcome to Derry, Ed Gein.

 

Most Original Trailer

Pluribus definitely will and Alien: Earth might. Peacemaker and The Beauty, slims

 

TV SPOTS FOR STREAMING SERIES

The most realistic possibility here is Fallout.

 

COMEDY TV SPOT

Abbott Elementary has it locked up. Chad Powers is a dark horse. Wonder Man who knows. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia…if only.

 

Drama TV Spot

Note The Bear is here Emmy voters alone with The Pitt and Landman.

 

Best Horror TV Spot

Alien: Earth and Welcome to Derry: Twice.

 

Best Music TV Spot

Industry is here as is Fallout

 

Original TV Spot

Poker Face is ineligible. Bridgerton has no chance. Industry and Chad Powers might. I'm skeptical about The Beauty.

 

Innovative Advertising: I'm only going to cover shows that will likely contend.

Only Murders is her twice for comedy trailer byte. Industry AND devil in Disguise drama trailer byte. Thriller trailer covers Alien: Earth (twice) Stranger Things, Welcome to Derry and Task.

 

Posters: Same as with Innovative advertising

Only Murders and It's Always Sunny for comedy. Pluribus is here for drama – though respect for Memory of A killer and Vladimir. Wednesday: Season 2, Ed Gein and Welcome to Derry for Horror/Thriller. Oh and Season 4 of The Bear got recognition in Best Music.

Does this mean anything to what the Emmy judges will do? Almost certainly know. Do I understand what many of the terms listing mean? Absolutely not.  Do trailer really work when it comes to shows like Hacks or The Gilded Age in terms of quality? I think we all know better.

But even with all those provisos the dedicated critic can't deny that a lot of the major contenders for nominations and awards shows in the weeks to come are being advertised here even if it does lean strongly towards genre TV as these things usually do.

Anyways that's it for this edition of Phase 3. The last major contender I'm waiting to hear about are the TCA nominations which will happen later this summer. If any other awards shows come up that might be pertinent you will read it here.

 

 

Graham Platner Has No Chance of Winning in Maine. Here's Why, What Needs to Happen And Why All of this Only Helps Susan Collins

 

A month ago after Ada Mills dropped out of the Democratic primary in Maine I made it crystal clear that Platner was absolutely the best thing to happen for Susan Collins chances for reelection. I knew that his social media history as well as his own record with his campaign staff had basically written the opposition research for the Republicans before he'd officially become the Democratic nominee.

I didn't need to know any more about Platner to know how toxic he was going to be and the last two weeks have, if anything, made it clearer just how many self-inflicting wounds he's giving himself and the Democrats.

Time Magazine in a front page article on him published a story that while it sung his praises acknowledged a sexting scandal that had already come to light. By the time that issue had hit the newsstands The New York Times – which had written many favorable articles about him in the months prior to the primary – published an in-depth story of no less then three former girlfriends who have claimed that they were abused by him.  The Atlantic has published multiple articles over the last week including one titled 'Maine Has A Graham Platner Problem'. And the day before the primary The Washington Post ran an op-ed by Platner's former campaign manager making it clear just how bad a choice he was for the Senate.

I need to emphasize that none of these publications could remotely be described as part of the conservative media. The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal have published similar articles pointing out Platner's flaws but they all basically came within days of the earlier publications, none of which could be mistaken as close to pro-Trump.  These are all the bastions of the so-called liberal media and they couldn't make it clearer that Platner is not the kind of candidate the Democrats should endorse.

And as I've mentioned the party is increasingly becoming split on what to do about him. The progressive wing – Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders the most prominent members – have stood by him and have continued to stand by their endorsements. They have no choice because they're the ones who have done everything to back him in the first place and the progressives have long made it clear they'd rather lose elections with one of their own then win with a moderate. This is not the case for many other members of the coalition, including critically women's groups who rescinded their endorsement on Thursday.

And the thing this is all before Platner became the nominee. It is one thing to win the Democratic primary in Maine. But now Platner has go into the general election and try to defeat Susan Collins who has won reelection four times and ran ahead of Trump in Maine in the 2020 election. Collins managed to get over 417,000 votes in 2020. Platner is going to need more than that to beat her in the general.  This was going to be a tough fight with a moderate candidate: for a man who already has the kind of baggage going into it then compares to Ken Paxton, its as if he's purposely putting sandbags on before an uphill run.

Right now the Democrats biggest argument is that it is more important to get Susan Collins out of the Senate, even with a horribly flawed Democrat candidate like Platner. This is essentially the same argument that so many Republicans who were frustrated with Trump during his first term were: the other side is much worse. That never struck me as a powerful argument for Republican voters; to use it in terms of a moderate Republican in Maine – who Trump has not officially even endorsed during this cycle -  strikes me by far as the worst kind of hyperbole.

It doesn't help matters that so much of the chatter trying to defend Platner seems to be based on the idea that he's trying to do better and that his major defense has been that he has suffered from PTSD when he made the majority of his 'mistakes'.  Basically the defense seems to be he's not guilty by reason of mental defect. That barely flies in defending serial killers; it's not a plus for someone you want to be in the U.S. Senate.

And to be clear this election was a mandate on whether Susan Collins deserved to win reelection. Now it's a mandate on whether Platner is fit to serve in the Senate at all. If you think the establishment is trying to undermine Platner because 'they're scared of him' (a common online defense of any progressive) then wait until the Republicans start in on him. As I've said multiple times and will keep emphasize, the last thing you want to hand the GOP in any battle is the moral high ground.

 Collins, on her worst day, was never a MAGA extremist; the most damning indictment the left has been able to throw against her is that she has endorsed Trump's agenda without blinking. To be very clear so has every Republican in Congress at this point, something that the Democrats have made very clear in every election for the past decade. The problem is, particularly in the Senate, it has rarely been the kind of dealbreaker for most voters that the left believes it should be. If anything, it keeps helping Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz and Rick Scott winning elections. Collins is not unique in that regard and honestly she's much milder then all of the Senators when it comes to their voting record and overall demeanor. Lauren Boebert and Nancy Mace she is not.

It was never going to be enough to just say Collins was in favor of Trump to beat her in Maine. It wasn't in 2020 and there was no real reason to assume it would be that simple this time around.  But the left did what it does so many times before; it made the assumption that a loud, left-wing candidate would be able to win over the masses in a general election. As always they mistook popularity in the Democratic primary for how it would play in the general election. That has never worked for the Democrats before in the last decade: we saw how badly it failed Jaime Harrison against Lindsey Graham in 2020 and Sara Gideon who ran against Collins that year was far milder. Both lost in what amounted to landslides in two of the most expensive Senate races in the cycle that year.

The other major argument in favor of Platner is that he represents a new vision for Democrats. It's not a new vision: it is almost exactly the same kind of argument that Bernie Sanders failed twice to win with in his Presidential runs and that Elizabeth Warren failed at in hers; it's the vision that Harrison and Gideon ran on and lost with; it’s the vision Paula Jean Swearngin lost with twice when she trying to run for the Senate in West Virginia; it’s the same vision that Annie Andrews is trying to defeat Lindsey Graham with this cycle and that Jamie Davis is trying to run on in Louisiana. The pattern never changes; its works with Democratic primary voters, and in the general election the candidate get trashed because Republicans and independents don't buy it. The only reason it had a chance with Platner in the first place was because Maine isn't South Carolina or Louisiana or West Virginia.

And in all the examples that I've given involved infinitely less flawed candidates then Graham Platner is. In a primary you can run as far as you want to the left but in the general you have to move to the center.  This is counterintuitive to how the left believes anything should be done, and it's never paid off in any Senate race in the last decade or even further back. Platner is now going to have to win over independents and moderates who might have had doubts about Collins. That was going to be a tough fight just on his platform alone; with all of the scandals already following him it may be impossible.

To be clear if you don't think the RNC, the GOP and every dark money organization connected with the Republican party hasn't been created anti-Platner ads since November, you clearly have forgotten who your opponents are. The big difference is, up until now, they haven't had to start digging up false scandals to plague their opponent; he's basically acknowledging many of them and the 'liberal media' has been pointing them out for the last several weeks. Platner is going to be on the defensive from day one of  the general campaign. He had to acknowledge as much in his 'victory speech' last night.  And all of this is before the Republicans start digging for more skeletons in his closet. I don't exactly think they'll need a steam shovel to unearth them.

This all comes before what is now the biggest difference between now and when Platner announced his run for the Senate last November. The map has shifted dramatically in favor of the Democrats. It was going to be an uphill battle at the end of 2025 but now in large part because of Trump's presidency as well as his spending much of the primary campaign taking revenge on many of his opponents within the GOP, the odds have begun to shift in favor of the Democrats taking the Senate back. As I mentioned Race to the White House has shifted the odds in favor of the Democrats doing so for the first time last week. Roy Cooper looks certain to win in North Carolina, Sherrod Brown and Mary Peltola look like they will gain seats in Ohio and Alaska, and for the first time in decades James Talarico has an excellent chance to win a seat in Texas. In addition Iowa is increasingly beginning to look like it may be in play after Joni Ernst's retirement.  Winning Maine was critical to the Democrats taking back the Senate as recently as May. Right now, it might just be icing on the cake.

And while Democrats have gaining a better chance of winning the Senate everywhere else Graham Platner's chances of winning in Maine have been dropping. Race to the White House had his chances as high as 70 percent and had moved the state into Lean Democrat back in March. Now they have it ranked as toss up and his odds have dropped to 63 percent. Kalshi, the major prediction market, once had Platner's odds as high as 72 percent. They currently have it at 57 percent in his favor.

The polls reflect a similar downward trajectory. As late as May 27^th Platner had a nine point led in the general: 51 percent to 42 percent. A poll released Monday showed his lead had shrunk to 51%/49% with some polls showing the two tied or Collins with a slight lead. Other Democrats, such as Talarico and Brown, have been gaining ground and moving ahead in their races. Platner is the only one going backwards.

And keeping this all within the state of Maine, where it’s the only place that matters, all of the controversy around Platner will know doubt solidify Republican support around Collins in a way a more moderate candidate wouldn't have the same issues. This has been true as a general rule for Republicans across the board; when the Democrat has such obvious flaws it can only help. Its worth remembering Maine has ranked choice voting and I find it difficult to believe that a state with such an independent streak, as well as a district that has voted for Trump in multiple elections, is going to find Platner as convincing a sell as so many progressives believe he will be.  And I find it infinitely plausible that many voters might be so frustrated with either choice that they might choose not to vote at all and low turnout generally favors Republicans. I believe progressives have reminded us of that fact more then once.

For all of this pessimism, its worth noting that in Maine the Democrats do have an off-ramp. According to the election laws the nominated candidate can still choose to withdraw by a deadline. This year it's July 13^th.  So if Platner can be convinced for the good of the party to withdraw his name from consideration another candidate, whether it is Janet Mills or someone else from the Maine Party, could run in his stead. We'd look incompetent for doing so, of course, and there's no guarantee it would end up leading to a victory in Maine but as anyone who's been a Democrat as long as I have, incompetent is basically our go-to look. And in this case I think the Party would prefer  looking incompetent and having a chance of victory then embracing a candidate this toxic and almost certainly losing and whatever collateral damage is does to our already tattered brand.

To be clear it is in the best interest of the Democratic Party and any chance they have in Maine to convince Platner to step down. If he doesn't then I need to be blunt. I will be endorsing Susan Collins for reelection. This wouldn't be a hard choice most times: Collins is as much a centrist as many of the Democrats I've endorsed in my column before and we very clearly need more of them in the Senate, not less. And considering Platner has no business being anywhere near the halls of Congress, no matter which party he chose to be a party of, it's an even easier choice for me. I suspect it will be far easier for the good people of Maine who are the only ones whose opinion matters in this discussion.

Season 42 Update: Five Weeks Spent With Three Superb Jeopardy Champions

 

 

On May 13^th 2022 Ryan Long would begin an impressive 16 game winning streak that marked him the fifth and last of five Jeopardy greats who achieved super-champion status that incredible year. What few noted – certainly not me – was that something equally remarkable would happen over the next six weeks. Ryan Long would eventually be defeated by Eric Ahasic who win six games of his own before losing to Megan Wachspress who would also win six games.

Last year I remarked on the phenomena known as 'clusters of Jeopardy champions' where several five or six game winners appear within days of each other's appearance. What I didn't realize until this week was that Ryan, Eric and Megan had done something in its own way equally impressive. It was the first time in Jeopardy history that three players had won five or more games back to back to back.

The reason I didn't notice was because it really did seem like a statistical anomaly and until it happened again there was no reason to talk about it. Cut to four years later – almost four years to the day in fact -  when on May 9^th Tristan Williams would begin a ten game streak until he was defeated by Chris D'Angelo who won eight consecutive games until he was beaten by Peter McFerrin who managed to win six games before he finally lost in heartbreaking if far from unprecedented fashion for any Jeopardy champion. It's not as perfect symmetry as with Season 38  - Ryan, Eric and Megan managed to 28 straight games where as these three won 'only' 24 – but its impressive nonetheless, especially when you consider just how good all three of them were.

As I wrote in regard to Tristan's original run he was pretty comparable to the kind of super-champion Ryan was: a lot of runaways but also a lot of incorrect Final Jeopardys which led to very low paydays as a result. Tristan did better overall then Ryan during his period – he managed to win $221,902 in ten games, a total that it took Ryan 12 in order to get that high -  but Tristan was able to do better when it was a clutch situation then Ryan. In the last three games of Tristan's run he managed to get Final Jeopardy right every single time and since none of them were even close to runaways that was vital. But he never managed very impressive paydays during his streak –  he managed to top $30,000 twice and he ended up getting more Final Jeopardys incorrect then he did correctly.

Chris was better than Eric in that he won more games then him but not much better. In his six victories he managed $160,601, much less than Chris's $124,201 during his first six games. It helped immensely that on his seventh win Eric managed a $50,000 payday something that Tristan never even came close to getting in his entire run. But he had his share of troubles both with Daily Doubles and Final Jeopardys during that period and that combination came to bring him down against Peter McFerrin last Monday.

It's not really fair to compare Peter to Megan, considering that on his second game he won $50,000 which is very close to what Megan managed in her entire run. (Sorry Megan but you did win only $60,603 in six games.) For Peter, however, nothing came easy and I'm not just talking about in terms of the competition. Throughout the run it really did appear that Peter was playing in some kind of physical pain that may have been hampering his ability to play at his best.

That said, credit must be given to his competitors as one could make a great argument for a Second Chance player in every game he was a part of.

When he defeated Chris Camryn Bell managed an impressive $10,200 with 14 correct answers and no mistakes. Considering she came between two impressive players that usually gets you an invite no questions asked.

Peter's second win was a great runaway but Alex Reyes and Savanah Madeira kept his honest until Double Jeopardy.

In Game 3 Gil Hamel and Gabriel Berkowitz were masterful with both finishing with impressive figures at the end of Double Jeopardy: $11,000 and $9000 to Peter's $16,000. It came down to Final Jeopardy and all three responded incorrectly. Peter kept enough behind so that he could move on.

By all marks it should have ended the following day when Webster Guan took the lead in Double Jeopardy and never relinquished it. Peter finished behind him with $11,400 to Webster's $13,600. Fortunately Peter was the only one to get Final Jeopardy correct and he moved on.

Game 5 was another runaway but that was mainly because of bad luck by Seth McElroy. He found all three Daily Doubles and missed all three. By the very definition of the term he's earned a second chance. On a side note, no one responded correctly on Final Jeopardy that day either.(Stumped me at home too)

Yesterday Alejandro Sobalvarro kept close to Peter in the Jeopardy round until he found the Daily Double. Early in Double Jeopardy he got both Daily Doubles back to back and took the lead away from him. Unfortunately for Alejandro he only got one correct answer the rest of the round while Peter went on a tear to finish with $24,800 to Alejandro's $15,600.  This time Peter needed to get Final Jeopardy correct to ensure his victory and he did winning another $31,201.

 

Peter, while not being the inspiration for an Emmy winning TV movie due to his efforts to get on the show, nevertheless comes from good Jeopardy stock himself.  As he mentioned in his first interview he was on a pub quiz team with Tournament of Champions and reigning Jeopardy Masters winner Yogesh Raut and attended the same high school with James Holzhauer. That will make for interesting stories when the 2027 Tournament of Champions occurs – as well as a wonderful storyline matching up him and Chris. (I think I see the plot for the next film in the franchise.)

For the record in chronological order  here are the eight players who have officially qualified so far for next year's Tournament of Champions:

 

Harrison Whitaker, 14 wins, $373,999

Will Riley: 4 wins, $77,403

James Denison, 4 wins, $99,400

Jamie Ding, 31 wins, $882,605

Tristan Williams, 10 wins, $221,902

Chris D'Angelo, 8 wins, $194, 201

Peter McFerrin, 6 wins, $147,399

Mina Kimes, Celebrity Jeopardy All-Stars Winner

 

And here are the 3-game winners who are not yet officially qualified but based on Jeopardy's track record in the last few years we will almost certainly see again:

Ron Lalonde: $52,501

James Hirsh, $67,418

Greg Shahade, $74,602

Greg and Ron are shoo-ins because of what their Jeopardy track record in regards to super-champions. Ron is the twin brother of super-champ Ray Lalonde and Greg managed to defeat Jamie Ding.

So even though there have been barely 100 games of eligibility for the 2027 Tournament of Champions since last November we have a formidable roster already in place. I'll admit it is fairly testosterone heavy but we do have another six weeks left in Season 42 to play but anything can happen on Jeopardy and this season, practically anything already has.  When it does, I'll be there to keep you informed.

 

 

 

How Four Groundbreaking Television Shows Played The Role in Gay and Lesbian Representation, Introduction and Part 1

 

From A White Cis Male

Who Loved TV

 

I've always been incredibly open-minded when it comes to television shows even if I as a white, cis male am not always the intended demographic.  My problems with Shonda Rhimes have nothing to do with her being an African-American woman, its because she's a terrible writer and her shows demonstrate it. Conversely in the past decade I've found characters I recognize in series I as a white cis male should not, whether they are in Ramy, Reservation Dogs or Pose.  Yet I've ranked all of these shows among my ten best of the years they aired because I truly believe great storytelling is universal.

Those of you who've read my reviews over the last few years in particular know how inclusive I've been to series that should, by any definition, be outside my comfort zone. These include such extraordinary limited series as Fellow Travelers, Capote Vs. The Swans and Ripley.  But while I've talked a lot about how much gay and lesbian representation in current TV can lead to extraordinary television, I've rarely looked backward.

So in celebration of Pride Month I thought I would do just that and take a look at how four series that helped usher in the Golden Age of TV were groundbreaking because they looked at something that America had never seen before – and who many had a lot of trouble adjusting to.

It's said that the era of Peak TV was one of Difficult Men. As those of us who came of age during that period (I was one) one of the most radical things they did was make many of these difficult men homosexuals and in many cases complicated – and in several cases, truly monstrous. This could not have been a pretty picture for the gay and lesbian community. It was one thing to want representation on film and TV but I remember how so much of it was trying to prove they weren't a threat. It could not have been fun to suddenly get representation and then wonder: "This is gonna confirm everything the Moral Majority thinks of us."

Perhaps that was true. I'd argue that these characters were a vital step forward. If representation matters it is important to illustrate that you can be more than the model minority. This has always been true, even if in recent years some shows like Euphoria and Scandal have taken it to an extreme few would willingly follow. But they are necessary, not just to paint a fuller picture but to tell truer and more real stories.

So let's begin in the beginning. And that starts in the darkest place imaginable.

 

Part 1

"OZ Didn't Make You A Bitch"

Dealing With Queerness and Love in the Darkest of Places

 

Everyone wants to argue that the era of Peak TV began with The Sopranos in January of 1999. I have always argued that it really began in June of 1997 when OZ debuted. Critics like Matt Sepinwall and Matt Zoller Seitz acknowledge that shows like The Sopranos couldn't happen without OZ but they still insist that didn't begin there.

Because I was there I understand why. Critics and awards shows immediately responded to the later show. The reaction to OZ was decidedly mixed. Some magazines like Entertainment Weekly always had it on their ten best list; TV Guide never really liked it at all. But considering that by the time OZ came to an end in 2003 and so much of what critics found repulsive at the time – the horrible, brutal deaths usually in graphic detail, the endless horrible profanity, no characters to root for, no real sign of progress – would become the kind of things that were praised in The Wire and Deadwood and to an extent in The Shield, I still can't understand why so many critics look down on it even now.

Now with the benefit of the time I think I know what one of the biggest issues was. The nudity and the openly gay relationships that dominated every episode. I mean the media of TV criticism was dominated, even more so then today, by straight white males. And in the dim dark days of the 1990s  - which trust me were far more homophobic then today – to have a show where in the Pilot you see Beecher, who Tom Fontana said represented the HBO viewer, getting raped by a member of the Aryan brotherhood – well, let's just say it might have been easier for them to deal with a mobster who yearned whatever happened to Gary Cooper as the show that brought on the Golden Age.

For the record I don't blame those critics one bit: OZ wasn't an easy watch even if you could somehow removed the gay undertones that were present in almost every episode. I won't lie: the open nudity for someone in college on a regular basis was disconcerting in the first season and Fontana and the cast kept pushing it with each new one. (Lee Tergesen would say in the commentary that the cast would start to work out more when they realized just how much nudity they were going to have to do.)

But based on what I read at the time (which wasn't much) OZ's willingness to put homosexual relationships so front and center was something that was immensely respected by what was then called the gay and lesbian community. And I honestly don't think Shonda Rhimes or any of the many LGBTQ+ series that have followed in the past decade in particular could have happened without OZ showing these kinds of relationships in the most brutal and horrible way imaginable.  Who knows? Maybe it even helped. Once you've shown the twisted love story of Beecher and Keller, any other gay relationship has to look like a Harlequin romance.

I need to be clear that on OZ there was a division between openly gay men and those who didn't admit even to themselves they were gay, if not sexual predators. There were quite a few examples of the former during the series but understandably they got buried under the latter who were the series regulars. Still I respect Fontana for what he did.

Early in Season 2 we meet a character named Richie Hanlon (Jordan Lage). He's overheard a conversation about the rape of Leo Glynn's daughter. He goes to see Father Mukada. This is how it opens:

Hanlon: I like to take it up the ass. Some people think it's perverse. But it's my choice so fuck them.

Ray is puzzled by this.

Hanlon: I choose to take it up the ass. But rape…that's something else.

In what is almost a throwaway exchange Ray asks Richie if he was raped. Hanlon says  casually. "Yes. But that's not why I'm here." There's an entire saga told in that line, not the least of which is Hanlon's resignation. He knows that there's nothing to be gained by telling the horrible thing that's happened to him; it’s a reality the warden and the hacks are unwilling to even try to solve.

Just as tellingly Hanlon is seen as inferior to the Aryan brotherhood who we know regularly rape and sodomize other prisoners and feel no disconnect when they say they're not f---ts. This is particularly true for Vern Schillinger who we will see sodomize the brain damaged Cyril O'Reilly later than season and completely deny it years after the fact.

Indeed one of the more uncomfortable truths about OZ – which have to make it tough watching even now – is just how clearly so many of the prisoners are not just sexual predators but how freely they abuse much younger men. This is true of both Schillinger and Adebisi, who we will see multiple times molesting teenagers. We never see it as graphically (OZ had almost no sex scenes and the few that were televised were heterosexual) but the viewer saw just enough. It's hard to forget a scene where Adebisi has tied a naked Kenny Wangler (JD Williams) to the bed and unties him every morning, only to tie him back up the next night.  Kenny is just eighteen at the time and its very important to note he's far from innocent. In fact in the episode prior to this he's ordered the murder of his wife for stepping out on him and has laughed about it to his friends before going to her funeral. Nevertheless seeing him during this scenes is horrifying in its implications.

During the third season Adebisi has started to work at the AIDS ward for an elaborate plan of revenge. He's drawn the blood of a dying man so he can infect one of his tormentors with it, which is honestly horrible enough. During it the man he's infected (though he doesn't know it) asks why he wants to leave the cafeteria to work with a bunch of "f—s".

Adebisi: "Out there, I hate them. But in here, sometimes you need your dick sucked."

You get the feeling this compartmentalizing is far from uncommon in OZ and that Adebisi and Schillinger have just taken it to an extreme. Sister Pete (Rita Moreno) will make it clear to Beecher that there are some men who do this.

Beecher, of course, is a special case by this point. I actually remember the first episode he and Keller met: it was the first episode of OZ I ever saw.  It was the episode that introduced Keller – or as Augustus Hill put in the narration: "Boy meets boy."

When they first start sharing a cell this is their first exchange:

Beecher: Are you a f--?

Keller: I do what I have to do.

By the end of that episode we know that Keller knows Schillinger and that he's working a plan to manipulate Toby so that he and Vern can destroy him emotionally and then physically.

During the first season and a half of their, shall we say, complicated love story we're not sure if Keller is the first man Beecher had sex with. We know that Schillinger saved Keller previously and while its assumed they had a similar relationship Fontana never tells us one way or the other. Keller has been married three times ("Four if you count Bonnie, who I married twice") and during the first season we see all three of his exes. We're honestly not sure that Keller was even bisexual before he came to Oz.

And then in Season 4 we learn about his past. He is the suspect in the killings of three homosexual young men in the year before he was arrested and sent to prison. (This storyline will form the backbone of Beecher and Keller's relationship in the final two seasons.) It's only later in the season that he confesses he killed those three men after he had sex with them. Mukada asks why. "I didn't want them to tell," he says simply.

Chris Meloni's work on OZ is one of the three or four best performances on the entire series. He would start work on Law & Order: SVU while OZ was still on the air but the producers were more than willing to allow Meloni to keep acting on as Keller. (There's a certain irony in this as you can see that this is exactly the kind of case that Eliot Stabler would be trying to solve on the show at any time during its run.) What's fascinating is that for much of his tenure Keller was a man tormented by some of the horrible things he did. At one point he would tell Sister Pete that "We don't choose God. He chooses us." And he made it very clear that it was too late for him. After that decision he promptly decides to kill two men that Beecher has slept with, theoretically to upset the applecart under the new management but mostly out of revenge.

Beecher spent the entire series knowing that his love for Chris Keller was by far the best and worst thing that ever happened to him. He didn't want to love him, not just because he knew what a horrible person Keller was, but because the two constantly brought out the worst parts of each other.

Complicating things was Beecher's spiritual journey during this same period. In one of the more inspired storylines of OZ during Season 3 Beecher would form a friendship with Kareem Said that was very close to a conversion to Islam. The decision would temporarily cost Said his leadership of the Muslims in Em City but neither man regretted it. But because homosexuality is against the preaching of Islam Said disapproved and made this very clear.

There were many inspired discussions of this between the two men on the subject. At one point Said told Beecher that this 'thing he has for Keller' was hurting his growth. Beecher was painfully honest: "I don't want to love him but I do. And as for Allah, I'll deal with him when the time comes." It is a measure of both men's growth that this was not a dealbreaker for Said and he would try to lead Beecher through it.

The sad part is Said was right: Beecher's relationship with Keller was toxic. The most horrible touch came in the final season. Keller would be convicted of the murder of Bryce Tibbits, one of the gay men he was accused of killing and sent to death row. Beecher, who was paroled earlier that season, worked pro bono and got him off. But Keller was so jealous of Beecher's freedom that he ended up tricking Toby into picking up an illegal drug that would violate Toby's parole – and then called the cops to make sure it happened. When Beecher returned he said: "Same old story. I got fucked in the ass."

And yet when the show is over, when the bodies have fallen, one of the last scenes is of Beecher talking to Sister Pete about love:

"When God was making the Universe why did He make something so wonderful so fucking painful?"

Sister Pete, who's had her own struggles with the question says: "I think He thought we could handle it."

It's an exchange that could just as easily serve so many queer relationships beyond TV – maybe even being gay itself.

And I've never forgotten one of the earliest episodes of Six Feet Under. David and Keith are sitting at home watching OZ with a kind of fervor. During it Keller recites one of his most famous lines and both Keith and David mouth it:

OZ didn't make you a bitch. You were born one.

Considering that Six Feet Under debuted just a few weeks after Season 4 ended in the wrong hands this could have seemed like selfless promotion of the network. I never looked it at the way.  Alan Ball, it's worth remembering was a gay man himself perhaps the first openly gay man to become a showrunner in TV history. And given how much of his real life would influence that show I find it easily to believe that there were watch parties like this among his community for much of the late 1990s.

Of course it was because of Alan Ball that gay men would have a more realistic and slightly healthier relationship to see on HBO in the near future. That will be the subject of the next article in this series.