Why Did So Many People Leave Lost After Season 3, Conclusion: In Defense of Those Who Stayed With Lost During Season 3

 

In my last article I explained there were quite a few valid reasons for fans to become frustrated with Lost during those first six episodes of Season 3. So now the question is: why did many of us choose to stay?

Speaking for myself and I suspect most of those who stuck with it there were two very big reasons involving two characters who became series regulars. The first was one we'd met during Season 2 and was about to officially become Lost's antagonist for at least the next two seasons (your mileage will vary as to when he stopped being one) and who deservedly received the first of four consecutive Emmy nominations for Best Supporting Actor in a Drama in 2007. The second would make an impression so quickly that when TV Guide listed Lost at number 9 on its 10 best list of 2006 then critic Michael Ausiello would say that 'her presence alone justified her being there'.

I speak, of course, of Michael Emerson as Ben Linus and Elizabeth Mitchell as Juliet Burke and because so much of the first six episodes have Mitchell front and center I think its worth beginning with her.

The opening teaser for Season 3 isn't quite at the level of Man of Science, Man of Faith but its up there. We open on the eye of a woman putting a CD in that starts playing Petula Clark's 'Downtown'. It's clear that she's on the brink of tears despite the upbeat song. We see her putting together chairs in a circle, hearing the smoke alarm before muffins come out of the oven and opening the door to her bungalow apologetically. We then see a book club involving Stephen King's Carrie and it's pretty clear many of the members don't like the book choice. Then the furniture starts shaking and everybody heads to the doorway.

Because we've been here before, the viewer is relatively certain we're still on the island even before everybody runs outside to see Oceanic 815 breaking into three pieces and that the man we know as Henry Gale (viewers will call him Benry for the first few episodes until we're officially introduced) starts giving orders to Goodwin and Ethan to go to where he thinks the wreckage will come. What's different this time is what the viewer knows. We know that Ben is sending both Ethan and Goodwin to their deaths. We know that despite that neither one hesitates before heading into danger and their demises. What we also notice is that everyone – including Ben – is genuinely shocked by what they're seeing. And the way Ben just says to Juliet "So I guess I'm out of book club," doesn't fit with what we knew of 'Henry Gale' at any point during Season 2.

In the DVD extras of Season 3 Elizabeth Sarnoff said that "it was important to establish early…that Ben Linus has lots of underlings and not all of them are happy with his leadership." By starting the season from Juliet's perspective the writers make it clear she's Others Exhibit A and Mitchell registers that in every scene she in during those first six episodes.

It's clear that while Juliet is just as capable of violence and manipulation as all the Others we've met so far, she's not as committed to it as that group. She is capable of tasing Sawyer when he tries to escape on their first introduction and holding a gun to Kate's head when Sawyer' tries a prison break in The Glass Ballerina. But compared to those such as Danny Pickett or Tom, it almost seems like a job more than a calling. The same is true during her interactions with Jack during 'A Tale of Two Cities'; the moment she manages to break Jack for the first time she walks out into the next room where Ben thanks her and she responds with perhaps the most neutral "You're welcome" you possibly could. 

This has nothing to do with the fact that she nearly drowned during Jack's attempt to escape (though the fact that Ben seems willing to let her die is not lost on the viewer). Mitchell makes it very clear that for her this is a job and she really wishes she could clock out and go home. As she'll joke to Jack later on "It's stressful being an Other' and as with so much of what Juliet says she means it.

Mitchell also makes it clear in her scenes with Jack that she's honest in a way that neither Henry nor any of the Others (sorry) have been. She's actually forthright with him in a way that none of the natives have been to this point. It's clear she knows far more than she's telling but she's also more forthcoming. When asked she tells Jack that the station they're in is called the Hydra, that's an aquarium that was used for experiments on animals from sharks to polar bears. Even though she knows everything about Jack from the files they've collected on them, she allows him to lie to her and she's honest about the speakers not working properly. And we learn very clearly that she is a doctor and she doesn't want Jack to get dehydrated or lose his energy because of the drugs they put in his system.

She also shows emotion far more readily then any of the Others we've met during this period and she also remembers her job. In Every Man for Himself she's called into operate on Colleen after she's been shot and is near death. Juliet then breaks protocol by demanded that Jack scrub up to try and help save Colleen.

This is important because Lost has already established, as Back to the Island makes clear "it's a dude-heavy show, with a lot of episodes focused on a moody doctor with a brusque demeanor, a hero complex, and daddy issues. And then here comes Juliet, also a doctor and also very complicated, but with a different energy." The biggest difference is that we've already seen Jack willing to violate the Hippocratic Oath multiple times in order to get what he wants and while Juliet is more than willing to manipulate people when required she truly believes in 'first do no harm.' And if that means she has to violate the Leaders orders in order to try and save a woman dying of a gunshot wound, that's exactly what she's going to do, Ben Linus be damned.

As the series continues it's worth noting that Juliet takes her oath far more seriously than Jack ever will. Despite his mantra that he needs to fix things we've already seen that is almost always arbitrary on the island, even when it comes to being a surgeon. Juliet, by contrast, will maintain that belief throughout her full three seasons on the series and there's an excellent chance the main reason she defects from the Others is because she's been forced to violate it because of the mission statement of Ben Linus. (If you look at Missing Pieces on the Season 4 DVD Set there are more than a few segments featuring Juliet that will back that up.)

When Colleen ends up dying despite the best efforts of Jack and Juliet, she confides in him she's a fertility specialist and then bursts into tears. Jack consoles her and while he makes it clear it’s a professional courtesy you can tell Juliet needed to hear it. This scene really does humanize Juliet in the eyes of the viewer; she may be 'one of them' but it doesn't make us care for her any less. And it helps matters that by this point we've gotten to know her boss a little better as well.

There have been some series that when the writers try to humanize the villain it backfires because it takes away some of the menace behind them. I'm reminded of William B. Davis's Cigarette Smoking Man and how the show's writers would make efforts in the later seasons to give him a family  of his own as well as a name – and then abandoned it when the mythology moves on to try and putting him back where he was. Michael Emerson is a special case, mainly because when the writers introduced him he had only a three episode arc but because of his performance they kept expanding his role and decided to make him the leader of the Others.  Darlton made it clear that by the time Emerson made his debut as 'Henry Gale' in Season 2 they'd only roughly conceived of who the leader of the Others would be and they sure as hell hadn't cast him. In one of those elements of synchronicity that worked out more often for Lost then not along came Michael Emerson and the rest is TV history.

Famously at the end of Season 2 Ben told Michael "We're the good guys." Considering who said it and what we'd already seen that season we were inclined to take this with a  pillar of salt. Eventually it will become clear that Ben believes it and that every action he has taken is for that purpose. Much of the first six episodes try to show bits and pieces of Ben, showing one face to the three Oceanics he's captured and the other to his underlings. What's clear is that neither group particularly respects him or even likes him that much. We assume that the Others are following him because he knows all the secrets of the island and we will hold that believe until Season 3 is nearly over.

That's why the opening scene of Season 3 is just as important for Ben's character as Juliet's as it reveals he's not in control of events as he makes himself appear to Jack, Kate and Sawyer. He's capable of improvising on short notice but those decisions have already led to people dying and we've heard with Walt "we got more then we bargained for.' At the opening of The Glass Ballerina Colleen comes to him and tells then that Sayid, Sun and Jin have a boat. Juliet tells them it doesn't matter because they'll just sail around aimlessly. Ben ignores her and sends a team after it – a decision that gets them the boat but leads to Colleen being mortally wounded. The fallout of this decision leads to her husband deciding to kill Sawyer and while Ben tries to hold him in check it fails the moment he goes into surgery which will lead to Danny's death.

While this is going on we become reacquainted with a familiar face – Alex. We met her in 'Maternity Leave' when she went against her father orders and broke Claire out of the Staff Station. We've seen her a couple of times in the last two episodes of Season 2 and she seems more interested in Claire's wellbeing then carrying out orders. The few times we see her in the first six episodes she's looking for her boyfriend Karl and she's not happy about it. By the time 'I Do' ends its clear that Alex is Ben's daughter – or as the viewer knows, has been raising her as such since he abducted her from Rousseau as an infant.

We'll get to know Alex much better during the rest of Season 3 (Tania Raymonde will appear in nearly half the episodes) but our first impressions of her are correct: she's no more committed to the vision of the Others then Juliet is and her reasons are far more personal. For one thing Ben has given the dress he gives to Kate from Alex's wardrobe. (The way Alex says "It looks better on you" to Kate during The Glass Ballerina will break your heart.) By 'I Do' it's clear she's team Oceanic all the way: she warns Kate that they're planning to kill Sawyer and she actually helps Jack break out of the Hydra station. In a scene I really wish had been part of the episode (you can find it in the deleted scenes of the DVDs.) Ben calls Alex into his office. Alex yells at him: "I hate you. I hate your guts. I wish you were dead!" It's then that Ben tells her about the tumor on his spine. In what is his most human scene yet Ben says that what upsets him more is how badly our relationship has suffered. It doesn't make a difference: Alex isn't around for Ben's surgery and by the time the action resumes in Not in Portland, she's actively trying to help Sawyer and Kate escape.

So its fascinating to see Emerson when he formally introduces himself to Jack at the end of 'The Glass Ballerina'. He takes on the form of this being a socially awkward position rather then the fact he's holding Jack and his friends hostage. Jack spends most of this scene refusing to buy a word of it, and he's absolutely right to do this. Ben's lying even when he says he's lived on this island his whole life and Jack knows that whatever offer he makes about bringing him home has to be a trap.  That at first he believes they have no contact with the outside world is understandable and it's telling Ben has to show him the final out of the 2004 World Series just to confirm it.

Those last moments show a perfect mix of comedy and darkness. There's the humor as Ben has to explain the greatest comeback in baseball history to Jack (knowing full well that he's never seen a game in his life) and then how Ben shows that final out, completely unaware of the significance of the Red Sox to Jack.  While the Others will prove to know every single piece of data about the survivors lives they have no way of know the personal details and therefore can't know that Christian's favorite saying was: "That's why the Red Sox will never win the series." There's been some debate whether Jack's reaction at the end of the episode is based just on seeing a recording of a baseball game or whether he secretly believed in his father's theory on fate and free will. I suspect it’s a combination of the two.

And it's at that point that Matthew Fox manages to take baby steps towards finding direction for Jack. It helps matters that of the three characters who've been taken prisoner it’s the greatest power reversal for his character. Jack has been the reluctant leader ever since the crash, the one that everybody takes direction from whether they listen to him or not. It's gotten hugely frustrating seeing that dynamic during the first two season with Jack not wanting to be the leader but unwilling to relinquish control. Now for the first time in the series he's in a position where he has none of all, where he's at the mercy of people who've made it clear they will do him harm. Much he doesn't believe a word they say, he knows he has to let this play out.

It helps matters that he has the most interaction with Mitchell and Emerson during this period which in turn helps the two of them up their game. With both characters it's clear Jack doesn't believe a single thing either of them say and while he may be more at ease with Juliet, he never misses a chance to punch back at the flaws in her character. We see this most apparently in Every Man for Himself when Juliet, having just tried to convince them that they make decisions independently, Ben runs in and says "Juliet, we need you right now." The smirk on Fox's face as he says goodbye makes it clear that this just took the piss out of the woman trying to lure him to their side.

When Jack sees the x-rays its clear he makes the connection almost immediately. We get to see a different side of him in 'The Cost of Living' when he tells Ben "It must hurt."  He then describes the tumor on Ben's spine and how its borderline inoperable. When Ben tries to deflect Jack shrugs it off as if he could care less. The moment Juliet shows up the game is given away:

Ben: Why did you show him my X-rays?"

Juliet: I didn't tell them they were yours. But I guess you just did.

The look on Ben's face that moment is brief; Jack's isn't.

When Ben goes to visit Jack while he eats a cheeseburger (no, we never found out where they got it) and tries to let down his guard we don't know if this is yet another manipulation of his. The problem is that Ben literally doesn't have time for manipulation. In the opening of 'I Do' Jack tells him about the X-ray and the OR before telling him "You need to be in surgery yesterday."

That scene between them is magnificent. Ben seems to assume Jack has agreed and then in what is the cruelest scene of all Jack says he's not going to operate: "I just want to tell you how you're going to die."

There's a darkness in Fox's behavior that we've never seen on Jack's face before, and its abated by the fact that his reasons are absolutely valid: Ben has no intention of letting him go home; this is just another manipulation. This leads to an even darker exchange:

Ben: I'm very disappointed in your decision.

Jack: At least you won't have to be disappointed for very long.

Here's how much we're on his side. When Sawyer learns about this from Kate he completely agrees with Jack's decision even if it means he'll die the following day. And with the benefit of hindsight you do wish Jack would follow through given how many people will end up dead as a result of Jack's eventual decision to save Ben. No viewer could have known this for certain in November of 2006 but that didn't mean when Jack agreed to scrub in that we didn't think in our gut that this wouldn't have a happy ending for anybody, least of all Ben.

While the overwhelming majority of the good stuff is happening on Hydra Island there is some interesting stuff back on the beach and unsurprisingly it involves John Locke.  Terry O'Quinn's work in the first six episodes is fascinating because it's very different from what we've seen before and what we'll see in rest of the series.

'Further Instructions' the first Locke-centric episode of Season 3 shows John unable to speak, presumably as a consequence of his decision to not push the button, causing the Swan to implode. (We actually see the wreckage of it.) John builds a sweat lodge and has one of the trippiest sequences of the entire season in which he goes on a vision quest where 'Boone' shows up to guide him. We see him in an airport in a wheelchair unable to walk and we see how he views the castaways. Interestingly his visions will end up foreshadowing much of not only Season 3 but the show to come with the arc of the characters (I'll just talk in regard to Season 3). He's told by Boone there's someone in the airport he needs to help

Charlie, Claire and Aaron are together as a family. Boone says: "They'll be fine. For a while."  (One of the major stories of the season is whether Charlie will die.)

Sayid is talking to Sun and Jin who are having a quarrel. "I think Sayid's got it," Boone says. (This seems to refer to what happened in the previous episode but Locke has no knowledge of that yet.)

Hurley is at the airport desk, checking everyone in the same way the Swan did every time they entered the numbers. "Not Hurley" Boone assures him. (Locke seems to have realized Hurley has a connection to the hatch and perhaps the island he wasn't aware of.)

Desmond is seen in a pilot's uniform. "Forget it, he's helping himself," Boone says. (Rescue will come this season because of Desmond.)

Kate, Jack and Sawyer are at the gate. Locke starts pointing at them the moment he sees 'Henry Gale'. (Ben is wearing that as a nametag and as of this point that's the only name John knows him as.) "There's nothing you can do to help them, not yet.

"First you have to clean up your own mess."

At the top of the escalator is Boone. Locke climbs it and at the top he sees Boone covered in blood and Eko's stick.

John comes out of his experience able to talk and knowing he has to save Eko.

Charlie comes with him, despite Locke's warning "Bad things happen when people are around me." The rest of the episode is Locke's rescuing of Eko from a polar bear. John tells Charlie he was told to clean up his own mess.

Locke confides in Eko that this is his fault. If he'd let Eko keep pushing the button he could have helped his friends and none of this would have happened. He will spend the first half of the season trying to take up the role of leadership.

It's surprising just how good John is at during the first half of the season. He's more democratic in his approach then Jack, more willing to take counsel from people like Sayid and he knows when to tell the truth and use his discretion. When Eko's killed he only tells Sayid that he was killed by the Monster because he doesn't want to create a panic and at one point he goes with Sayid to tell just Charlie and Hurley what happened so that morale doesn't get any lower.  

It's possible that Locke's arc in the second half of Season 3 was necessary for how the rest of the series played out. Considering that the writers began to do so after they'd negotiated an end date for the series makes me pretty confident that this was what Darlton and company planned for John all along. And much as I'd like to have seen this narrative followed considering O'Quinn won an Emmy for his work as a large part because of that turn, I can't argue it didn't work for Lost.

 

But let's not kid ourselves. The biggest argument for sticking with Lost after the first six episodes of Season 3 is the rest of Season 3. Generally speaking from the moment actin resumes whatever problems the show had before almost immediately become resolved and we have one of the greatest stretches not just in the show's history but in TV history.

And we'll get to that when I officially resume the 20^th anniversary coverage of Lost next year. (There'll be more articles in between.)

 

Homicide Rewatch: Pit Bull Sessions

 

Written by Sean Whitesell ; story by James Yoshimura & Julie Martin

Directed by Barbara Kopple

 

Every so often when I'm watching a rerun of 1990s TV series – almost always a drama – and I see an actor in a small role who has now become either a superstar or one of the most award-winning performers in the business, I watch the episode to see if there were signs, even in a small role, if you could see it coming. There are times its more obvious than others and rewatching Homicide sometimes it's more obvious.

You could tell watching Edie Falco as Eva Thormann there was a great actress waiting to come out; you could see with Dean Winters or Shawn Hatosy in what were their first acting gigs that they had potential and its been crystal clear this season with such future talents as Jeffrey Wright and Michael Pena. But I think one of the few times I was certain both the first time I saw an actor who was at that point a complete unknown had the potential for greatness that didn't prove me wrong was in 'Pit Bull Sessions'

Paul Giamatti had been acting in film and TV for awhile but not so you would notice him. The biggest role he'd had in 1997 was as Kenny, Howard Stern's nemesis in Private Parts but he wasn't there yet. His role as Harry Tjarks was him just on the cusp of becoming a bigger name: during the summer he would have roles of note in The Truman Show, Saving Private Ryan and show his capacity to steal scenes from Samuel L. Jackson in The Negotiator all of which were among the biggest box office and critically acclaimed films of 1998.

It took a bit longer for him to move from "Hey, It's That Guy' to one of the greatest actors of this century and certainly working today – his official breakout role came as Harvey Pekar in American Splendor and he's never looked back since – but it was pretty clear in this episode that there was a force of nature there. And that's all the more remarkable because his work as Harry is one of the most atypical role he ever does. Most of his work has always been where there's something deeper beneath the surface; as Harry he's someone who is so clear intellectually and emotionally vacant that it appalls the detectives.

The episode is already superb even before Giamatti shows up, mainly because it brings the unlikely pairing of Falsone and Pembleton. This is the first time they've worked together all season and it's notable that Paul seems a little in awe of his fellow detective. The way he and Frank talk about being completely different kind of cops in the unmarked car is telling: he says Frank is a thinker while he's something of a shuffler.  This is likely the first time since we met him that someone who isn't Bayliss hasn't complimented Frank on being a great detective; whatever respect Frank has in the squad has been completed negated by his arrogance over the course of the show. You can tell Pembleton doesn't know how to deal with it – his reaction is to deflect – and the fact that Falsone isn't offended but can joke about it shows the kind of cop he is.

We're also aware how much Frank is becoming a team player. Gone is the detective who famously refused to partner with anyone in the first season and scorned his colleagues. He partnered effective with Stivers and Ballard during Something Sacred and he worked with Lewis with none of the rancor we saw in their previous partnerships. It's fascinating that as Braugher enters the homestretch of his final season, we see him showing emotional growth on the job that wasn't present even last year. The arrogance we know shows up on the job, but not with his colleagues anymore.

This is clear when they get to the crime scene and find everybody outside. The victim is Leonard Tjarks. The officers are over the body when the killers emerge – pit bull terriers'. Leonard is 82 years old and the master is the grandson Harry, who isn't around. Everyone's waiting for animal control and Falsone puts his coat around his arm, determined to put the dogs back in the basement by making them 'consider you'. Falsone opens the door and that gives animal control enough time to tranquilize them. Pembleton takes this in with complete neutrality, his expression never changing.

It's only afterward he calmly and quietly asks Falsone whether he was going to let the dogs gnaw on him. The exchange is amusing:

Pembleton: You really going to let those dogs chew on you.

Falsone: I was going to let them eat my coat.

Pembleton: What were you gonna do when they eaten through your leather? Call time out, show 'em your badge? What?

Falsone: You don't understand dogs.

Pembleton (looking at the body): Neither did he.

There's also some amusement as Scheiner seems bored by the cause of death. When Falsone asks if he was drugged or strangled, Scheiner talks back: "Maybe he fell from an airplane" before walking off.  Then they find the second 'dead body' – a golden retriever who's been similarly mauled to death.

Pembleton and Falsone go to see Norman Tjarks and in a riveting scene the son tells him just how much Harry has been a disappointment to him over the years, how he came back home to ask to live with him, how when his own father called and asked to help him with an errand, he didn't hesitate but his own son didn't feel like it, how the grandfather let his grandson move in with him, how his grandson brought home the pit bulls that led to the grandfather's death. Falsone and Pembleton ask where Harry is. Norman makes it clear that if Harry had something to do with his father's death, he wants him in jail. Falsone feels guilty about lying about Harry being a suspect. Pembleton doesn't think he is but he wants to know "what kind of moron owns three pit bulls."

After a spirited debate between the two detectives about whether pit bulls are cruel or misunderstood the detectives return to the unit. Giardello tells them not to waste time: figure out if it’s a murder or not. Pembleton then tells Falsone about the unwritten rule of Homicide: there's enough names on the board without them making more work for themselves. Gee doesn't want to make a murder out of an accidental death.

There's some unsettling talk about dogfights and how they are done (while they'd fallen out of favor even by 1998, animal cruelty laws were still not on the books in Maryland by then) and its frightening how causally the way the dogs attack each other is discussed by one dogfight expert. Tjarks has been looking for dogs and has been trying to trade up. However one dog breeder makes it clear his dogs are trained to only attack each other, not human beings. The breeder says there's only one master and that the dogs work off command. Considering Leonard and Harry had a fight before Harry stormed off, there's a clear implication.

The case takes on a new wrinkle when Harry shows up at animal control – and his first concern is his dogs. That's when we meet Harry – and I first met Paul Giamatti. At this point he still has most of his hair and a scruffy beard. And there's something frightening about his first concern is his dogs and not his grandfather, even after he learns his grandfather's been killed by them he still wants them. He cares more about the dogs being misidentified as their breeds and he seems okay with the Golden Retriever being killed because 'it was going to die anyway."

So much of the brilliance of Giamatti's work comes in things you can't adequately describe: the long silences, the way he keeps coming back to the dogs, his dull incomprehension about simple question about common courtesy. The only thing he can show emotion about is his dogs. He sees no problem in that he prioritizes his dogs ahead of his grandfather's wellbeing.

Eventually it becomes clear to the detectives what happened: during the fight Harry stormed out of the house without locking the dogs up. The old man had never been alone with the dogs before and the dogs turned on him. It's another in a line of cases where while there's been a violent death, there hasn't been an actual murder. Pembleton realizes this quickly but Falsone won't let it go: he keeps trying to find out if this was an intentional act.  Pembleton can tell that this wasn't premeditated but Falsone is trying to make it fit. Next he tries to say he acted in the moment. Falsone acknowledges he's stupid and tries to get Harry to say he did in the moment.

Falsone goes back in the box and tries to berate Harry for the failure it is. He can't pay the rent, he's never had a full-time job, he's never had a steady girlfriend. He's 35 years old and can't remember he ever had a relationship and he's Paul Giamatti so he's not good looking. He doesn't have any real friends and its not clear he considering going to the burial of his grandfather. He can't even seem to grasp how much this would affect his father. And while I'm relatively sure that Falsone is lying about the first thing that came out of his father's mouth, given his attitude in that scene I can believe it's not much of an exaggeration. And not even that can provoke an emotional response from Harry.

Pembleton then tells him the truth: Harry Tjarks is empty. Even if he got a confession and got 30 years, it would be meaningless. Falsone wants him to be guilty of murder because it would explain his actions. But it's something more frightening then that: Harry just doesn't care. And its telling the only reaction Falsone gets is when he tells him that his dogs have to be put down because they killed a man. And its then we get a sense of the genius. The moment Harry hears that his dogs are going to be put down he reacts in a whirlwind of emotion that is both incredible because of how suddenly it comes and how disproportionate it is to the loss he's actually suffered. There should be something absolutely pitiful about how Harry keeps saying: "Please don't kill my dogs!" tearfully over and over, the way he suddenly collapses that you can see a man who has Emmys in his future.

 

In the Waterfront Gharty and Munch come in for coffee where Bayliss is working and discuss how their most recent case – a cab driver is murdered for his fare – is down because the criminal mastermind was, in Gharty's memorable turn of phrase "in need of liposuction between the ears'. We then get the flashback and I have to share these lines:

Munch: You know that old line 'a criminal always returns to the scene of the crime?

Gharty: We never believed it!

Munch: Why should we? I mean, how can anyone be so stupid as to rob and kill a cab driver and then forget job one? To run away!

To be clear Butchie came back because he forgot his gym bag. This leads to a hysterical sequence where Butchie declares innocence because Huggie did it, took the cash and has the jewelry on him. Butchie actually thinks that if he tells the detectives where the accomplice is he gets to go home. He then calls them, taking advice on where to meet him and then is promptly indignant that he's been locked up.

This begins a series of retelling of some of the dumbest criminals in Baltimore to laughter, drinking and the eventual arrival of Ballard to join in. Bayliss talks about how he was investigating a crime with a stabbing and he suspected his stepbrother was the killer. He tells Maurice that he intends to use 'the camera' where they take a picture of the dead man's eyes which show what the victim saw the last moment of his life. Naturally Maurice admits even before the photo is taken that he in fact did it because his brother Lorenzo left laundry in the dryer. (And he forgot the add the fabric softener.) Munch relates the story of a bar knifing he and Kellerman investigate two barflies who are getting along until they start talking about Vietnam. One guy says he was there during Tet and starts bragging about the 1^st marine division. The other guy says he was with the first Air Cavalry. They start arguing who was better than out come the knives. But the thing is, neither of them served in Vietnam because the 'Marine' was 13 in 1968; the 'Air Cavalry' was 11! Ballard and Gharty talk about the death of a fireman who gets a fire truck for his birthday. 2 15-year old knuckleheads who take 20 dollars and the toy fire truck. They take the money and ditch the wallet but are caught because they still have the fire truck.

And then the story, as always, becomes serious. We can tell because Gharty becomes so at once and tells them about an incident a week later and Ballard sobers thinking about the wife and the 8 year old. The fireman's widow asks to drive her and her son to where her son was shot and that the 8 year old wants to see where his body was. "If I can go where the kid was killed, I want to see what he saw when he died." The eight year old walks away and he says his dad doesn't have to be there anymore. The fact that Gharty can remember the case but not the name of the victim shows that even the most tragic deaths are just one name on the board after another.

I suspect that the story about Tony, the man who's drawing and writing about the cases in his Bible is a stand-in for Simon himself and the way he recounted them "is about listening to hear what your souls are'. That the moment they hear about this Bayliss and Munch fire him and demand their names be removed sounds very much like how some detectives may have treated him after the book and series came out.

The major plot point for the Mahoney storyline takes place when we learn why Stivers was at the courthouse (facilitating why Falsone and Pembleton are partnering in the first place.) The wrongful death civil suit which the city attorneys assured Kellerman would be tossed out has been bound over for trial. Kellerman is upset. Stivers speculates about the tape but for once Mike is right: if she had one, she'd have to turn it over for discovery and she didn't.

The real point is to show the corruption of the Mahoney organization in the legal system. Judge Gerald Gibbons in Division 14 was the presiding judge who felt there was sufficient evidence. The detectives think he's solid for them but then Kellerman points out something. Five months ago Georgia Rae Mahoney was arrested for her role in Junior's shooting at the detectives and Gibbons was the judge who let her out on bail. Gibbons specifically asked for the case. Mike concludes he's dirty. Al tells him not to jump to conclusions. Turns out Mike's instincts are right. He just follows them wrong. He immediately tries to schedule an appointment with Gibbons at his office and essentially tries to first cajole, then bully his way in. It's only when the secretary makes it clear she will call security that he leaves.

The episode ends with Falsone and Pembleton on the roof. They talk about their kids and Falsone wonders if they're raising losers. Pembleton tells Falsone to let it go because Harry Tjarks isn't a killer. But just as with Bayliss Falsone can't let it go at the end of the day and won't accept the idea that Harry is just simple. Pembleton is reluctant to answer but eventually he does and it's not comforting:

Pembleton: "Norman Tjarks is going to bury his father this week. And he's probably gonna think on that for the rest of his life. Harry Tjarks will mourn his dogs as long as it takes to go down to the kennel and buy some more pit bulls.

Falsone: "So Harry wins. Simple wins."

Pembleton: "Every now and again."

Sometimes even if the criminals are stupid it doesn't always make the detectives sleep better.

 

NOTES FROM THE BOARD

 

Sean Whitesell, who has the recurring role of Dr. Eli Devilbiss, makes his debut as a writer. He will later serve in the writer's room of OZ where in the first season he memorably played Donald Groves, the Jeffrey Dahmer like killer, who met his end my firing squad in the first season.

From Simon's Book: The first three cases that are recounted in the Waterfront by Munch, Gharty and Bayliss all appear in Simon's book. Just as onscreen, it's done to illustrate the frequently stupid nature of the criminals and the bizarre nature of some of the killings the detectives investigate.

Pembleton's line: "Scheiner may outlive all of us" is a direct lift from the pilot of St. Elsewhere.  When one of the resident mentions Dr. Auschlander has fatal liver cancer, Dr. Westphal says: "Dr. Auschlander will outlive us all." And it's worth noting he does outlive quite a few of the younger characters on that series.

Mahoney PTSD: Bayliss is working a shift at the Waterfront because Billie Lou is off and Meldrick has apparently missed four straight shifts. It's a sign of how focused Meldrick is on Georgia Rae that he's apparently letting his other job fall by the wayside as well. Kellerman didn't bother going to court to see the Mahoney case thrown out. Stivers did. His lack of concern about this compared to the fact he is the impetus of it shows a growing refusal to take his job seriously.

Detective Munch: Gets to the deliver a line that could be a mantra for so many detectives over the years. When Bayliss asks if the violence makes them stupid or the stupidity leads to violence:

"The important point is that we win certain cases because our brains are repositories for intelligence and their brains are day old banana pudding…Stupid criminals are a gift from God.

Hey, Isn't That…As with so many film actors I'm going to simply deal with Paul Giamatti's TV work. As we all know that's pretty substantial for its own column. His career began as Heckler #2 in the TV Movie She'll Take Romance. He'd had one episode roles in small shows such as New York News and NYPD Blue. Later in 1998 he would play Herman Klurfeld in Winchell the Emmy winning TV Movie for HBO and Ted Hedley in If These Walls Could Talk 2 in the segment which would win an Emmy for Vanessa Redgrave. He played Anthony Russo in the FX movie The Pentagon Papers. But it was for playing the title role in HBO's landmark limited series John Adams that would he receive the recognition he deserved winning an Emmy, a Golden Globe and a SAG Award for Best Actor in a TV Movie.

In 2011 he played Ben Bernanke in Too Big to Fail, the HBO TV film about the 2008 financial crisis. He would receive an Emmy nomination for Best Supporting Actor in a Miniseries for that. He has also been nominated for Best Guest Actor in a Drama in 2014 for playing Harold Levinson in Downton Abbey and Best Guest Actor in a Comedy for Inside Amy Schumer where he famously played Juror #10 in the classic '12 Angry Men Inside Amy Schumer' episode. He did not receive a single Emmy nomination for his incredible work as Chuck Rhoades in Billions, the classic Showtime Drama series whose being ignored by the Emmys I will bear a grudge to my dying day. He would play Christian Barbrow in Season 2 of the HBO horror mashup 30 Coins and Philip in the most recent season of Black Mirror. He just finished playing Nus Braka in the critically panned Star Trek: Starfleet Academy series on Paramount Plus which I don't hold against him. He also played L. Marvin Metz in the critically acclaimed AMC series Lodge 49. He's also done his share of voice over work for PBS both in documentaries particularly Ken Burns having recreated John Adams voice for Benjamin Franklin and The American Revolution as well as The Roosevelts (Theodore Roosevelt) and Nature as well as Adult Swim such as Teenage Euthanasia and Rick & Morty.

Coalition for the Sane: Harper's and Similar Magazines Are Just Doomscrolling in Printed Form Spreading Liberal Despair For More Than A Century

 

I'm very aware of how badly print journalism is doing, which is one of the reasons why I'm still astonished so many left-wing magazines are still in existence in print form. I speak of Harper's, The Nation, The Atlantic, The New Republic and The New Yorker all of which I've either read frequently, had a subscription to more then a few and which I still browse when I'm in either a bookstore or Penn Station.

None of these publications have a huge individual readership and if I had to guess there's a significant overlap between them collectively. They're not the kind of magazine I can see anyone who isn't a college graduate reading voluntarily and I bet in states like Mississippi and Arkansas you could count the number of subscriptions on one hand. And having read all of them I can assure you they're all essentially covering the same subject matter and in tone they're virtually identical particularly in the opinion sections. They all have the tenor of the professor those who went to college all had and that even if you agreed with their lecture you secretly were put to sleep by their monotony or were annoyed by their stridency.

And having read many of them well before the internet and social media were part of our daily lives I can assure that they were all basically doomporn before that term existed. And now that you can find them so easily (including this one) I've come to question their purpose in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not saying that they don't have value when it comes to some of their individual journalism and interviews to be sure but it does astonish me that Mother Jones still exists when magazines such as Newsweek is gone and Time is a shell of its former self. Much of it no doubt has to do with the fact they are being propped up by wealthy academics and interests who truly believe they serve some kind of higher calling but the reality of America is much different. Combined their readership wouldn't come close to what CNN or MSNBC manages on a single night and given their tenor they know all too well what a choke-hold the right-wing media has on so much of America. And considering how much the authors of their columns clearly hold both political parties in equal amounts of contempt, I can't imagine they're getting support from the Democrats. So why are they here?

I don't have an answer but I can speculate as to why these publications do have a following and why the people who write them believe their necessary. Harper's and similar publications are written by some of the most left-leaning academics in the country for essentially college educated or post-grad people.  Now if you can afford subscriptions to them, as opposed to say The New Criterion or Forbes, you meet the progressive mindset of being rich, well-educated and almost certainly white. In other words, the American Dream is working perfectly for you and you're reading to make sure that the rest of the country is asleep and you're not.

All of these publications, especially after Trump's election but even when Democrats or other Republicans are in office, are almost certainly staffed  by the kind of people who either didn't vote or voted for Nader in 2000 and then said W. stole Florida or either didn't vote or voted for Jill Stein in 2016 and then argued about the unfairness of the electoral college.  They hate Republicans with every fiber of their being and are convinced the Democrats sold out years ago because they betrayed 'the cause'. They can't define what 'the cause' is and they rarely, if ever, have stories in their publications of real-life examples of left-wing theory. And often when they do, its when they've realized they didn't work and are only really reporting it years after right-wing media has made it clear they failed. Witness a  recent Atlantic story that argued that the policy of harm-reduction had failed in cities like Burlington and Portland – years after right wing media had showed to its much larger audience how badly it had played out in cities like San Francisco and Seattle.

Almost all of their magazines are devoted to the collapse of some major liberal institution or some failure of the Trump administration with such detail that it almost seems like they're doing it with a kind of eagerness. Considering that most of their op-eds in the last decade have been about how all things Trump and Republicans are destroying the country as well as the collapse of the liberal order, you'd think a little seriousness would be in order. Yet the detail these journals go into when they describe how our country is in slave to seniors or the way that RFK Jr has destroyed the American Health System has a combination of smugness to it that I always associate with the left far more than the right. It's like their anticipating America finally becoming a dictatorship just so they can write about in their final issue with a great big "We Told You So!" on the front cover.

So much of these publication stories are often vastly out of correlation with what is happening in America, even under Trump, to the point that I can't help but wonder if these are just the left-wing versions of conspiracy theories. I remember seeing multiple publications in The Atlantic or Harper's arguing that Trump was going to eventually seize power and cause a military coup. They argued in the spring that in case the majority of the House was close Trump would order the military to seize ballot boxes and put them under his custody.  There was no evidence he was planning to do this – and to be very clear if he was I'd argue that The Atlantic's first duty would have been to go the Democrats or some other outside agency with people they could trust.  Furthermore if he is the dictator they say he wants to be and he heard of this article, well, wouldn't he have arrested these writers or at the very least tried to sue them if there was truth to it?  Considering that he is the most litigious President on so many minor details in American life, you'd think he'd do that when something that was a threat to him became published.

And yet that did not happen. Now another theory popular among columnists like this (Heather Cox Richardson is one of the bigger posits of it) is that even if the Democrats win the election Mike Johnson and JD Vance will just refuse to swear them in. They will ignore the results of the people and just fire the clerk and then appoint someone who will ignore the result of the elections and, I guess, all the Democrats will be arrested by the FBI and face a firing squad in front of the White House?

Now I'm fully aware of Trump's election denialism and who he is. But again if he were actually going to do this doesn't that call for more than just circulating memos? And again, wouldn't it be in the President's interest to make sure that the people who know this are arrested and/or killed? That is, lest we forget, what dictators have a habit of doing to political dissidents and journalists. Wouldn't the author meet the fate of Alexei Navalny?

If it sounds like I'm not taking Trump as a threat seriously, I am. But I can't help but be aware of the disconnect between the screaming and stridency of left-wing journals like the ones I describe and what I actually witness happening on the news. Is his Justice Department engaging in false prosecutions of his political rivals? Yes. Have all of them been dismissed by other judges? Yes. Has he introduced legislation like the SAVE Act and demanded it be passed by the Senate? Yes. Has John Thune refused to put it on the floor? Also yes. Has the President pushed so many of his policies to the point that they get to the Supreme Court? Also yes. Has the Supreme Court refused to go along with the most important ones, such as tariff and election rules for mail-in voting? Also yes.

And so on. All the things the President turn my stomach – and I often watch network television with this dread some point he's going to make an announcement along those lines. But it never comes. No I haven't listed every single thing that each time is considered the first step down the slippery slope but he never escalates, usually because his focus shifts to something else, equally bad or backs down while declaring he won on social media. His tweets don't make it so anymore then the left's arguments that we are getting there.

That's also why, for all the arguments in these publications of how we're practically a dictatorship now – no seriously, we really are! – I feel compelled to remind people that there are already enough actual dictators and that while Trump clearly admires them, he doesn't have the follow through to actually be one. If Trump were an actual dictator, he'd do more than just loudly tweet and scream on social media every time he suffered a reversal. Actual dictators like Putin, like the Saudis, like Kim Jung Il, do not simply  mess around with social media, they actually kill and arrest their enemies and do things that actual suppress so that no one resists at all. Publications like The Nation and Harper's would have been raided as early as inauguration day, their writers arrested. They certainly wouldn't be allowed to interview Trump's staff members or even write about them. That's how dictatorships work. They actually destroy the institutions; they don't merely weaken them.

Now I'm not going to deny Trump is the worst President in history and that all the horrible things that are reported about him aren't true. But for God's sake only report on the horrible things he actually does; don't use them to argue their proof of future bad acts unless you actually have proof.

That actually gets to a different point. Let's say for the record I agree with the thesis of these articles: that even if the Democrats win, Trump will ignore the results and there's nothing I, as a citizen, can do to stop him. Well, if that's the case, why should I bother to vote at all? Why should I spend my time and energy trying to elect Mary Peltola to the Senate in Alaska if she's not going to get seated even if she wins? Why should I vote for Tom Suozzi, who's critical to Democrats taking the House, if the end result is he's thrown into jail?

I think that the threat Trump holds to democracy is a valid one. But just as valid is the attitude in these articles that even when it's working perfectly, democracy is useless. I remember vividly how in the final weeks of the 2024 election the intern's of The Nation published an editorial where they reversed a previous endorsement of Harris. They argued that neither candidate would make a difference either to the fate of Gaza, but that democracy wouldn't be better off if one candidate or the other was elected. We knew already that was a lie so for the editors of The Nation to allow it to go to print was journalist malpractice.

But I'm pretty sure that the reason they did was the real reason these magazines exist. They don't believe in democracy any more than the far right does. In fact I read an op-ed by Thomas Frank in Harper's in January of 2026 called 'Liberal Despair' in which he wrote of the destruction of Trump's first year in office with something that bordered on admiration. He tore about the results of the 2025 elections, saying that by agreeing to reopen the government in their aftermath Democrats had betrayed the people, and spent more time criticizing Clinton's efforts to 'triangulate the right' and yearning for so many candidates like Mondale and Dukakis who'd lost in landslides to Reagan and Bush 41. The results of those two elections had taught Democrats that their version of liberalism was dead and that they had to try and go to the center to where the voters actually were, as Clinton did with success. To those such as Frank and the like that was a betrayal of the liberal cause, and its clear he would have preferred Republicans continuing their dominance to Democrats compromising. (Frank worked for Sanders' 2016 primary campaign so its clear where his bias comes from.)

What Frank refers to as liberal despair is really 'progressive fatalism' and its what Harper's and all of these magazines are essentially publishing and selling to their readers. And there's something tonally off about. It's nihilistic enough to make the reader certain that everything you ever thought was real about America is either a lie or a false flag yet smug enough to somehow argue that all of these horrible things that are happening are either not your responsibility to deal with or that it's not going to affect you personally when the worst comes. Put bluntly, it's saying that America is going to become a dictatorship any day now but you'll still be safe reading about it in the comfort of your home and even though you are the exact kind of person the enemy hates and wants dead, they'll never knock on your door. All of this was always going to happen and there was never anything you could have done to stop it, except read these articles which told the world exactly what was going to happen. If we're living in a fascist state, its everyone else's fault for not subscribing to The New Republic.

As I said I'm not oblivious to everything the President did in his first term and is doing in his second. I just don't buy the fatalism that publications like this thrive in. Even if I did, then I believe it is the obligation of everyone who is worried about these things to get off their asses and do something. That's what I'm doing this year in my small way and I support all of those who are working voting drives or campaigning for Democratic officials this cycle. It's why I've spent so much time this year in particular highlighted the candidates I support. I'm not naïve enough to believe this articles, on their own, will be enough to bring about change but I sure as hell consider them more productive then just sitting in my living room, doomscrolling waiting for the end to come.

I believe, at some level, many of the writers as well as the subscribers to these magazines have basically given up on the country or the liberal order. I understand why they think this but not their collective willingness to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic if that is the case. I think their minds are in the right place but they have no desire to do the heavy lifting the way the right has clearly managed to succeed at.  The right has worked within the system in order to corrupt it to shape their vision, and we should be horrified by that. But the left basically refuses that same level of involvement, passive aggressively wanting the system to change for them while never exactly telling you into what or how. They deserve a measure of disgust for that as well.

As for me, I'm going to keep doing my part. I have another cycle on the phone banks for Peltola tonight. The work is difficult, with little reward, frequent hostility and little sign of actual accomplishment. But if we truly want America to recover from this horrible period in its history, it is incumbent on those of us who can to do so.  Sam Rayburn, one of the greatest Congressmen in America's history. famously said: "Any jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build one."  Publications like the ones I've discussed are where the jackasses go to bray. Having spent far too much time with them, I've decided I prefer the company of carpenters.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a barn to build.

 

#EmmysSoWhite Was BS in 2021. This Year, It's Another Hashtag as To Why Everybody Has The Wrong Priorities

 

 

I remember the first time that #EmmysSoWhite trended immediately after the 2021 Emmys. I couldn't understand it then for two very good reasons.

The first was that in the prime-time broadcast which had inspired it the Emmys had not, in fact, been all white. Michaela Coel had made his when she became the first woman of color to win an Emmy for writing a Limited Series I May Destroy You which is still considered by many critics one of the best shows of the 2020s.  Coel was in fact only the second African-American woman in the history of the Emmys to win for writing behind Lena Waithe who'd done in 2017. 

It became clear almost immediately that what caused the hashtag was the fact that no African-American actors had won an Emmy. Except that wasn't true either. In the Creative Arts Emmys earlier that month Courtney B. Vance had won Best Guest Actor in a Drama for Lovecraft Country, the second Emmy he'd ever won.

So what #EmmysSoWhite really meant was that no actors of color had won an Emmy in the primetime broadcast. In hindsight this should have told me something about how the people on social media, particularly on the left, truly see the world as a whole: if they didn't see it and it didn't meet their very particular standards, they were going to condemn it.  (It would take me the next few years to truly realize just how limited that scope was.)

It's not like I was completely unaware of the Emmys horrible history when it came to giving awards to people of color. Hell that hashtag could have applied far more easily to any Emmy broadcast from the start of the 21^st century up until 2013 and it would have been far more realistic. This was, after all, the age of the White Male Antiheroes and during the entire 2000s I could count the number of nominees of color across the board on both hands and still have fingers left over. And it was a lot easier to accuse the Emmy of racism in so many ways over that period – shutting shows like The Wire out completely, the choice to give Best Supporting Actress in a Drama not to Sandra Oh or Chandra Wilson but to their white co-nominee Katherine Heigl. Indeed the first actress of color I can recall winning an Emmy in drama during the 21^st century was Archie Panjabi in The Good Wife in 2010.  Every so often an actor of color would win Best Guest Actor or Actress in Drama or Comedy, but since that usually happened in the Creative Arts Emmy category it was easy to cast aspersions.

Primetime TV and cable were very limited in the number of prominent roles for African-Americans and other actors of color during the first decade of the 20^th century and well into the second. You'd have gotten no quibbles from me if they'd used it during that period. So the fact that the hashtag only came in 2021 was telling because for the five Emmys prior to that one it was always honoring anywhere from three to four actors of color a broadcast.  In 2020 they'd honored four of them: Regina King and Yayha Abdul-Mahteen for Watchmen, Uzo Aduba for Mrs. America and Zendaya winning her first Emmy for Euphoria. I didn't always agree with the winners over that period but I knew the significance.

So the fact that #EmmysSoWhite only started trending in 2021 seemed to mean only two things. Either the people who were handling the hashtag had only started watching the Emmys in 2015 or those online weren't counted all of the progress in the last six Emmys ceremonies, only the one where their own standards weren't met.

So this year, when #EmmysSoWhite started trending even before the broadcast was fully over I knew what this was about. Viewers were upset that no performer of color had won an Emmy in the primetime broadcast. I knew even if I were to argue that Ernest Harden Jr. had done so for The Pitt in the Creative Arts Emmys as well as the fact Hiro Murai had won for Best Directing in a Comedy (the first Asian-American to ever accomplish that, not that anyone cared) it wasn't going to placate the online mob.

There's a part of me that almost finds this hashtag adorable. At least when it trended in 2021 we were in the relatively liberal Biden Administration. Now in the midst of Trump 2.0 and all of the problems the world and Hollywood was facing, the fact that so many people were still concerned about representation at the Emmys seemed almost quaint. The fact that for the second straight broadcast the Emmys had been relatively apolitical (safe of course for Stephen Colbert's win) almost made me wonder if this was an effort to start controversy for controversy's sake because no one had taken the opportunity to speak for the people of Gaza or the One Percent or told ICE to screw itself.

The reason that this hashtag trended yet again is because it clarifies something I've always known about the way both Hollywood and the online chatter is in regard to issues. It’s not just the selective outrage or the way that they focus either on things that are irrelevant or that it's not the job of Hollywood to change. It's that they are increasing turning an awards show for television – which is so irrelevant in the grand scale of problems with America, the world or even Hollywood overall – into yet another thing that is more about checking boxes rather than something that isn't about society or issues or even the problems in Hollywood.  And on a purely basic level it gets to the lie of the whole 'representation matters' and makes it clear that it only matters about performers, full stop.

This is bad for many reasons. First of all, it makes it clear just how much BS the whole idea of 'representation matters' always was in Hollywood. It tells us that all of the people who are responsible for a show – not just writers and directors, but cinematographers, musicians, editors and all the people behind the scene – are utterly irrelevant compared to those in front of the camera.  More than a few actors have openly implied as much over the years but #EmmysSoWhite drives it home.

Put simply if Michaela Coel had won for acting in 2021 but not writing I seriously doubt #EmmysSoWhite would have trended at all even though the latter win was far more significant then her winning for acting would have been. Regina King had won in that category the previous year. And while it would have been significant had Salli Richardson-Whitfield won for Directing by the time of that award it was already irrelevant as the hashtag was trending again this year.

Second, it basically takes any remaining argument that the Emmys should be about the quality of the performance at all but rather some version of affirmative action. Now I would have been thrilled if Sterling K. Brown or Janelle James or Charles Melton had won Emmys earlier this but that was because of their excellence of their performance. #EmmysSoWhite reverse the idea: it says they deserve to win not because of the quality of their performances but the color of their skins. And if you think this sounds racist remember the hashtag has the word 'white' in it, not #EmmysNeedColor or something similar.

Related to this is how it basically reverses what the Emmys and awards shows should be about. The hashtag makes the Emmys not about honoring the best performances  but an institution that slights people of color. And if that's true then the Emmys can't even honor people like Quinta Brunson or Jessica Williams because the awards aren't about them even when they win them but makes them symbols of some great struggle. Their victories aren't about them and their defeats are symptomatic of institutional racism.  It can't reward them for their accomplishment; it can only argue their failures are part of a bigger societal system.

The final reason is the most important. The Emmys is just an awards show. No matter how much Hollywood wants to try and argue its political significance in America and the world at large it's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things or even in the smaller schemes of television. A win for Tyler James Willliams at the Emmys will not stop conservative politicians trying to roll back DEI programs; Liza Colon-Zayas' victory for The Bear did not do anything lead to immigration reform; and a victory for Niecy Nash-Betts did nothing for African-Americans, women or gays and lesbian rights in America. The best you can say these wins might do is lead to more roles for all of these minorities in Hollywood down the road. For all those who are of these minorities but have neither the means nor desire to work in the industry, it's meaningless.  Racial parity in the Emmys did nothing to help Americans during Trump's first term or Biden's term and the only people who might think it would are in Hollywood themselves, which means their perception of what is important is skewed by their status.

Now as someone who has spent the last decade studying the Emmys with a fascination where some might question might sanity, I do recognize the significance of when the Emmy makes history when it comes to minorities and will applaud it when it happens. But I've never for a moment thought that the Emmys are going to change the world when the actual awards have been dropping steadily in ratings basically my entire life.  What happens in the Emmys is cared about by a relative few and its significance basically ends within hours of the broadcast itself.  

Theoretically like all entertainment the Emmy broadcast is supposed to provide a brief respite from everyday life, not reflect society ills or be used as an instrument for social change. It's just a TV show. And considering that it's supposed to be recognizing the best performances and shows of the year, the argument that is specious.

It's not like there aren't a lot of awards show for recognizing the best among minority group – the Image Awards, Alma and GLAAD among many others, have their own recognition for identity politics in that sort  - and in some cases they actually do a better job recognized important shows and actors then the Emmys. Taken to its natural extent you almost wonder if the Emmys is supposed to have categories for Best African-American in acting, Best LatinX in acting, etc.  (As always those are the only categories #EmmysSoWhite is covering, every other award can just be one big happy melting pot.)

I have to point out that there's a similar lack of focus when it comes to gender neutral awards. No one seems to have a problem with Salli-Richardson Whitfield being nominated twice in the directing category for television or that Katie Dippold had to compete against men and women when she won for Best Writing in a Comedy. And I have heard a single non-binary writer or director complain about submitted in those categories at the Emmys. No it's only Asia Kate Dillon and Liv Hewson who seem upset about Hollywood not having a place for them, though Bella Ramsey has made it very clear they have no problem competing for Best Actress in a Drama because "I respect women." I'll bet that made them popular in their circle.

Am I making much ado about nothing? So's #EmmysSoWhite which is my point in the first place. If a shiny gold statue can't fill the broken place in the soul of a millionaire who feels guilty that they didn't become a doctor or a lawyer, how can it possibly solve the issues of systemic racism?  (By the way, whoever hosts the Emmys next year, there's a one-liner free of charge.)

Anyway now that the Emmys is over Hollywood can get back to using its platforms to do absolutely nothing to solve the problems in America or the world while in their free time producing television shows that every so often have the power to help us forget, even for a moment, how bleak the world can be. I wish they'd spend more time doing that then everything else but I know that's not the world we live in.

My sincere congratulations yet again to all of the winners this year. Don't believe the hashtag; all of you did deserve to win. (Well, maybe not Sally Field but I'm still glad she won.) Can't wait to see what you come up with this season.

And since they ignored you in their hashtag, congratulations again to Hiro Murai. You've deserved to win in this category since Atlanta. I'm thrilled at what you accomplished even if it did get in the way of a perfectly good hashtag.

 

Why Did So Many Fans Leave Lose 20 Years Ago, Part 2: In Defense of Those Who Left After Season 3

 

I was a diehard fan of Lost then and now but I'm also a critic. I don't think the first six episodes of Lost are the weakest stretch of the entire series (I actually think it’s the middle of Season 2 but I'll save that for a different article) but I'll admit with the benefit of multiple rewatches over the years I know there are legitimate problems with those episodes and it's fair to discuss the biggest issues fans had as well as some that critics might have issues with.

Let's start with the biggest canard: Nikki and Paulo. If one of the reasons you left Lost in November of 2006 was because you had issues with two characters who combined had five minutes of screen time during those six episodes (I've clocked it over the years) then you were never really a fan of Lost to begin with and you're actually worse then all those people who hated Buffy because of Riley in Season 4. I don't have much use for those people either but at least those people have the excuse that Marc Blucas was a cast member for a year and a half and was vital to the plot.

So Nikki and Paulo weren't the problem with first six episodes. Here are the real ones:

The flashbacks are now almost entirely diminishing returns. They will improve in many cases when the show resumed in February of 2007 with a few glaring exceptions but there's no question there's almost no reward with them in the first six episodes.  We've gone to the well of both Jack's father and his marriage to many times by this point ('A Tale of Two Cities') Kate's flashback really doesn't give us any pertinent about her character then or now (I Do) and the most pertinent part of Sawyer's prison flashback won't even pay off related to Sawyer. (Every Man For Himself.)  Locke's flashback in 'Further Instructions' is somewhat better but it ends on an anticlimactic note (the final scene was cut for broadcast) and while Eko's flashback in 'The Cost of Living' is a great one, it's immediately undercut by the fact he dies on the island in the present minutes later.

Only Sun and Jin's flashback in 'The Glass Ballerina' is completely rewarding from beginning to end because it tells us much more about Sun's backstory and the real damage it was doing to both of them in their marriage. What's more it's pertinent to the on-island storyline in a way none of the others are because of Sun's pregnancy and will actually have relevance later in the season.

 

There are problems with Jack, Kate and Sawyer that have nothing to do with the love triangle.

Much as I'm a fan of Lost I know that as with any show there are periods where the writers hit a wall with many of their characters. This is especially true with Lost, where many characters have arcs or even entire seasons where the writers clearly lose what inspiration they had for them in the first place. It doesn't help when the writers seem to come up with potential arcs for them during one point of the show and then abandon it either during the season or in future ones.

Jack's weakest stretch starts after the Others take Michael in Season 2. There's a potential story about training an army with Ana Lucia that never goes anywhere and he spends most of the season at war with Locke which becomes just as draining. Matthew Fox takes a lot of hate from the fanbase because of how Jack is both self-righteous and stubborn and we see him at his nadir during the second half of the season.

Sawyer's problem is that the writers, having done much to redeem his character in the first half of Season 2, decide to arbitrarily turn him into a villain when he returns to the camp. There's no reason for him to steal the guns other then the plot demands and considering that by the end of the season he basically just gives them back you can see the gears of the story grinding.

Kate's only problem is that during the second half of Season 2 she becomes less pertinent to the story to the new arrivals, first the Tailies and then Henry Gale. That's true for many characters in Season 2 and Kate honestly isn't the one who suffers the most. But just as with Matthew Fox and Josh Holloway, Evangeline Lilly's performance has diminishing returns.

In theory having a story where the three of them are at the center of the action would seem like a great way to reset all three characters. The real problem is it becomes clear as early as The Glass Ballerina that when the Others forced Michael to bring the three of them to the ferry, the only one they wanted was Jack. They took Kate for the sole purpose of keeping Jack under control and they took Sawyer to do the same to Kate. In other words (heh heh) the writers are forcing the Others to use the love triangle for their own means and that's not a good sign for any of the characters.

Even this would work better if the show was less subtle about it. But during these six episodes Jack is essentially isolated from Kate and Sawyer and doesn't know where they are. Jack has more contact with Juliet and Ben during this period then Kate and Sawyer, who are essentially delegated down the food chain. One wonders if Danny Pickett is angry all the time, not so much because its his nature but because he knows he's been relegated to the B-Plot.

And its clear the writers, having figured out this much, now have to come up something to do with one leg of the triangle. And their answer is – to put them on a chain gang with some Others breaking rocks and hauling them away for reasons that aren't explained to them and it's very likely none of the Others themselves know. They've basically given Kate and Sawyer busy work for the first six episodes and if that  isn't a metaphor for Lost as a whole at this point, I don't know what is.

So when you combine both their well below average flashbacks and the fact that the writers have no idea how to handle the characters after putting them in this situation then the reality is that none of the three actors have anything to work with and Fox, Lilly and Holloway are forced to play notes they basically didn't play for much of Season 2 and that are essentially labored.  The writers will get a handle on them when the show resumes in February though it will take a varying amount of time for all three to get there. But it's clearly a slog for the actors as much as the viewers and I get why people would be frustrated with it.

 

The Others machinations are starting to just seem ridiculous at this point.

In Back to the Island  Emily St. James says in a future Season 3 episode: "At their most opaque the Others felt not like human beings but like enemies in a video game" and she has a point. Throughout the first two seasons The Others seem to be able to come out of nowhere, have superhuman strength and wear dirty clothes and disguises, all the while saying portentous things in which its clear they view survivors of a plain crash who are foraging for food and water as the real enemy. It's clear from the teaser of Season 3 that we're finally going to see what The Others are really like…

…except in those first six episodes they're just as maddening as ever. To be clear many of the characters we meet as well as getting a glimpse of their hierarchy is rewarding (and when I get to what works about these episode I'll focus on it). The problem is after spending two seasons only appearing in the jungle just to screw with the heads of the survivors they seems to have kidnapped Jack, Kate and Sawyer…just to screw with their heads.  A viewer could ask almost bemusedly if the only reason they took them was so they'd have less of a commute. (And when you find out the answer is no, you really wonder what's going on. I'll get to that.)

It's not just the polar bear cages and the mystery with the fish biscuit. Honestly that's mild compared to some of the crap they're pulling. Taking Kate to breakfast and giving her a dress, apparently just so Ben can introduce himself to her. Keeping another Other in a polar bear cage and after he helps Sawyer escape, forcing him to apologize before taking him somewhere else. Watching Sawyer and Kate make an elaborate escape plan and give us hope, only to show that there are cameras recording every moment that somehow Kate and Sawyer have missed even though they'll be apparent in later episodes because the writers need them to be there. And don't get me started on that whole act where Ben tries to lie to Sawyer and tell him they've put a pacemaker in his chest that he'll make his heart explode. Even some of the Others can't understand why Ben puts Sawyer do this.

By the time they reveal – "we've been on a smaller island all this time!" – you're really beginning to wonder if the only reason the Others went along with harassing the Losties in the first place was because every time Ben had Game Night he put them through these things. (Hey, we've already seen them have Book Club and we'll find they have a game room later, so I'm not talking out of school.) I almost wonder if by the time we reach the winter finale Sawyer doesn't want to get out of his cage is a metaphor for where the show is right now. "If I leave the Others are going to tell me one of my sandwiches has poisoned meat in it and I have to choose with a gun to my head.)

Matthew Fox honestly does get more rewarding things, mainly because he doesn't have to deal with this nonsense. It helps matters that the writers are partnering him with Elizabeth Mitchell's Juliet or Michael Emerson in every scene he's in and considering how brilliant the two are almost immediately he at least something to sink his teeth into.  The problem comes when we finally realize why they've taken Jack in the first place:

 

Can't the Others just say 'please?"  Eventually it becomes clear why Jack was kidnapped. Ben has a cancerous tumor on his spine that is borderline inoperable and he happens to be a spinal surgeon. He'll later reveal "Two days after I learned I had a tumor on my spine; a spinal surgeon falls from the sky."

The problem is by the time Ben tells Jack this, he's already gotten trapped in a net, spent a week in the Swan pretending to be Henry Gale, had his lie uncovered, continued to manipulate everybody, got busted out, manipulated Michael into kidnapping Jack, Sawyer and Kate, took them to an entire different island and has spent the last few days manipulating all three all without telling anybody why. And as we all know Jack only finds out when he's called in by Juliet to operate on a dying Colleen and in the aftermath finds the X-rays of a 40 year old male. He figures out what's going on and Ben still deflects. (I'll get to this later because I'm dealing with the low points now.)

In 'The Cost of Living'  Ben tells Jack casually: "We had such a good plan. To break you." After not explaining (he is Ben after all) Jack asks incredulously: "You want me to save your life?" Ben answers: "I want you to want to save my life." Considering everything he's already put Jack and his friends through (and no spoiler he hasn't even gotten started yet) you can't blame Jack for being so doubtful.

In the Any Questions section for this episode Nikki Stafford, who so often spoken for the fan base, asks: "Why are they going through with this? What's with this entire game when his tumor was so severe?" It's a more then pertinent question and one that Ben never answers. Like so many other parts of Lost the writers do answer it indirectly and in such a way that many fans could miss the implication. (Because it's not relevant to these six episodes I won't state it here.)

It's just as possible the writers haven't yet figured out Ben's place in the totem pole of the island hierarchy. Its clear Ben is the leader of The Others but the writers haven't figured out what that means in the context of Lost. We definitely know by the time the final six episodes end that whatever position Ben holds he isn't exactly popular with the rank and file.

That actually leads me to the other big flaw. During this episode Juliet says she's there to show Jack a movie and shows a tape telling Jack that "Some of us want a change" basically telling him to kill Ben during his complicated surgery. The problem is even before the winter break its very clear that isn't the truth: when he knicks Ben's kidney in the OR, then punches out an Other everybody – including Juliet – is shocked by what he's done and everybody acts as if killing Ben is the worst thing possible.  Juliet will later be punished for her actions as a result of this, which makes this entire bit irrelevant to the story.

 

The writers focus so much on Hydra Island they ignore most of the regular characters.

This is actually a pattern that will hold through the first half of Season Three for many characters and never pay off for some.  Sun and Jin are the focus of The Glass Ballerina and then both essentially disappear from the action until the season is basically halfway over. Hurley gets very little to do for the first three episodes and he seems to have forgotten that Libby, his potential girlfriend, was killed by Michael even though it just happened four days ago. Sayid and Claire are similarly ignored and while Claire becomes more pertinent in the second half Sayid, who has been vital to the plot for the first two seasons is given really nothing to work with in Season 3. (Naveen Andrews would express his frustrations with the show during this period.) And Bernard and Rose, the two most important recurring characters who aren't regulars, are basically forgotten until the final two episodes of this season. (And when they both show up, most fans were sure it meant they were going to die.)

The writers will realize this problem and learn from it in future seasons but it is understandable why, in addition to spend so much time with a sagging storyline, is leaving behind characters we've grown to care about. Throw in the fact that Eko is killed, effectively killing all of the Tailies who were regulars last season and the writers did seem to be failing with their two new characters and I could understand why so many people lost patience. It's one thing not to take your time with the mysteries but to put so many characters on the backburner for it, it was frustrating as hell even for those of us who stuck with it.

 

So in conclusion I can see why so many die-hards who stuck through the show through two seasons might not have wanting to 'Go Baack!' (sorry) after I Do came to an end in November 2006.

Now having stated all that, in my next article I'll explain the reasons even this six episodes had some genuine rewards that made it worth it for some of us.