Monday, February 9, 2026

Emmy Watch 2026 Phase 2: My Reactions to the 2026 Saturn TV Nominations

 

The Saturn Awards, which honor the best achievements in science fiction in film and TV have existed since 1972 and have been expanding ever since. That is particularly in television where they gave a basic set of awards in the 1990s.

This made sense because sci-fi has basically been on the fringe elements of TV even starting in the 1990s. It has been front and center of Peak TV almost since Saturn started giving nominations in this category. Buffy the Vampire Slayer debuted in 1997 and slowly but surely a group of great genre dramas have filled the contours. Some, like Lost and Game of Thrones the Emmys worshipped, others like Battlestar Galactica and Smallville they all but ignored.

Now if it were merely to look at this as an alternative to the Emmys the Saturn's would be interesting enough. But as anyone whose paid attention to the Emmy nominations in the past decade sci-fi and alternative history has essentially become mainstream. Every year for the last decade at least two of the nominees for Drama have been some form of sci-fi or fantasy and they've been winning awards that go outside the technical. I'm not just talking about Game of Thrones but Westworld and The Handmaid's Tale, The Mandalorian and Stranger Things.

During the 2023 Emmys sci-fi and genre TV were dominant in a way unthinkable years ago: no less than four of the nominees for Best Drama had some kind of genre link to them. Alphabetically they were the first seasons of Andor, The Last of Us, House of the Dragon and Season 2 of Yellowjackets.  Combined with Wednesday's nomination for Best Comedy and Obi-Wan Kenobi being nominated for Best Limited Series genre TV had never had such a showing before. This past year alone we saw a similar presence with the second season of Andor, The Last of Us and Severance being among the biggest nominees and winners at the Emmys.

So with genre TV being bigger in prestige television then at any point in the history of the medium looking at the Saturn nominations could very well give the astute critic hints at what the Emmys might do in a few months' time. To be sure none of the series I've listed will be eligible this year but the final season of Stranger Things and the new season of Fallout will be and both have done superbly at the Emmy nominations in year's past. Those who chose to overlook the nominations could very well do so at their own peril. (They might also give look to the Oscars this year, too, but one award show at  a time.)

So let's go through it.

 

BEST SCIENCE FICTION TELEVISION SERIES.

Andor and Severance have already contended for Emmys this past year. It's unlikely any of the nominees in this particular category should or will, despite some of them being superb shows such as Foundation and Silo. Strange New Worlds and The Ark have little chance.

 

BEST FANTASY TELEVISION SERIES

The final season of Stranger Things might very well contend for Emmys and considering how well it did for its first season the second season of Wednesday will likely be a major contender.

Ghosts has done remarkably well in achieving nominations and awards from other critics groups except the Emmys. Outlander has never been able to crack the Emmy barrier despite doing well with almost every other major awards show, from the Golden Globes to the Astras. Mayfair Witches and The Librarians have no chance.

 

BEST HORROR TV SERIES

The Last of Us did contend and you'll get no argument from me Yellowjackets should have.  I would be perfectly fine if Welcome to Derry got some nominations; I'm less sure about The Institute. Talamasca and The Walking Dead have no chance.

 

BEST NEW GENRE TV SERIES

Pluribus is almost certainly going to be a front runner for most major awards this season and Alien: Earth was nominated for Best Drama by the Critics' Choice Awards.

Skeleton Crew has no chance and the biggest from with House of Ashur, Blood of My Blood and Robin Hood is less their genre then their networks – the Emmys hasn't shown much love to Starz or MGM+ in my lifetime which is their mistake.

 

BEST ACTION ADVENTURE SERIES

Season 1 of Paradise was nominated for Emmys this past year and very well might contend for Emmys this year. Squid Game's high point came in Season 1 and with one exception the Emms never showed much love for Cobra Kai.  Duster has already been cancelled and Twisted Metal and Reacher aren't the kinds of shows the Emmys likes.

 

BEST THRILLER TV

The Lowdown absolutely should contend for nominations and I've been saying the Emmys should nominate Dark Winds for at least two years.

Honestly the Emmys  could do worse with the majority of the nominees in this category. Whether its Dexter: Resurrection, Mobland, The Rainmaker and Your Friends and Neighbors.

 

BEST SUPERHERO TV SERIES

Don't kid yourself; The Sandman is irrevocably tainted for obvious reasons.

Many of these shows have contended for other awards in the past year. I've seen Peacemaker, Daredevil Born Again, Gen V and Iron Heart all contend for awards from multiple critics groups. Realistically the only show that has a chance is Invincible and that's because it's animated.

 

BEST TV PRESENTATION OR LIMITED SERIES

This seems almost to deal with 'miscellaneous'. The Pitt is going to contend, obviously. Black Mirror already did and The Beast in Me will. Murderbot did get a nomination for Alexander Skarsgard, so it can't be taken for granted. Sorry AMC, no chance for Nautilus or Daryl Dixon.

 

ANIMATED TV SERIES

I can't foresee what the Emmys will do here so I'll leave it be. For what its worth Harley Quinn has been a big winner over the years.

 

BEST ACTOR IN A TV SERIES

Adam Scott and Sterling K. Brown were nominated last year and Brown might be again. Diego Luna probably should have been nominated for an Emmy last year.

Michael C. Hall has been nominated for five Emmys for Dexter so he could very well contend this year. He has yet to win in this category. Sam Heughan has no realistic chance for Outlander and no one is taking John Cena or Norman Reedus seriously. Sorry.

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A TV SERIES.

Britt Lower won the Emmy this year. Rhea Seehorn is currently the front runner for the Emmy this year for Pluribus. Jenna Ortega is almost certainly going to be nominated again for Wednesday. Millie Bobby Brown has gotten nominated for – and honestly should have won at least once – for Stranger Things can't rule it out.

Catriona Balfe has gotten nominations from everybody but the Emmys and sadly I don't see that changing. Melissa McBride has gotten some nominations for Walking Dead from some critics groups but I don't think the Emmys takes the show seriously.  Sydney Chandler might be a dark horse for Alien: Earth.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A TV SERIES

James Marsden was nominated for an Emmy and Stellan Skarsgard absolutely should have been for Andor. All the others theoretically could be considered.

Babou Cessay has the most realistic chance for Alien: Earth. The rest of the nominees all have increasingly unlikely chances.  I love William Fichtner but the Emmys never recognize him for anything, ditto Jude Law. Jack Alcott's work in Resurrection was  a massive improvement from New Blood but will it be enough? I don't know enough about Strange New Worlds to theorize.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A TV SERIES

A mirror of last year's Emmys. Julianne Nicholson was deservedly nominated for Paradise and Genevieve O'Reilly should have been for Andor. (I'm less sure about Denise Gough.)

Karolina Wydra will almost certainly be  a contender for her work in Pluribus and personally I'd love to see Uma Thurman nominated for Resurrection. Jennifer Holland and Christina Chong have no real chance

 

BEST GUEST STAR

Speaking for myself I'd love to see either Peter Dinklage or Dave Dastmalchian nominated for Resurrection. (Dastmalchian played Gemini, so that took work.) James Remar was recognized for Welcome to Derry which is the correct show and its going to be a Skarsgard family reunion as Bill is nominated for Welcome to Derry. Samba Schutte might get nominated for Pluribus and we all want Linda Hamilton to get nominated for something.

 

BEST YOUNGER PERFORMER IN A TV SERIES

I have zero trouble with either of the nominees for Welcome To Derry, love that Joe Freeman was nominated for The Institute and am glad that Noah Schnapp and Sadie Sink were nominated for the final season of Stranger Things.  Am I disappointed that nominees from Skeleton Crew and Gen V are here instead of any of the wonderful girls from Yellowjackets?  Honestly many of them may be too old to contend by now.

 

When the awards are given I will check in on the winners because in this case I'll be curious if the acting ones follow a similar or superior path when it comes to last year.  That aside I'm genuinely impressed with the caliber of the majority of the nominees in every category, including acting.  Many of these series will contend in the months to come and many of them should contend across the board.

Put another way I have fewer notes for this group then I did the Golden Globes this past year. And even though it’s a different kind of nominees, considering what I think of their history with TV that's saying a lot for me.

I'll see you later this month with my predictions for the SAG-AFTRA TV Awards.

Sunday, February 8, 2026

Edward Brooke: A Groundbreaking Politician Who Doesn't Fit Easily in Any Box

 

In a complicated world it is tempting to look at history and find narratives that, if read a certain way, make the path to today's present seem inevitable. This is particularly tempting when it comes to the political situation in America when both sides and every ideology cherry picks our history to fit a certain narrative.

But history has never worked that way and what seems inevitable in hindsight would strikes those who lived through as ridiculous at the time. Take the narrative of the 1964 presidential election. With the benefit of more than sixty years both sides will argue that their respective political party's makeup was set in stone because of events in that fateful year. Those on the far left will argue that it was the passage of the Civil Rights Act that handed the South to the Republican Party.  Those on the right will hail Goldwater for being the bulwark for conservative politics and led the path to the conservative revolution which found its fruition in the Reagan landslide in 1980.

The problem is this narrative goes against what both sides took away from while that election was going on and in its immediate aftermath.  Indeed Goldwater himself never thought he had a chance of winning and knew from the moment he clinched the nomination that his campaign was going to end in disaster.  Indeed Goldwater had every reason to assume it would end his political life because he was up for reelection in the Senate that year and chose to commit to the campaign and run for President instead.  When he lost in the biggest electoral defeat for any candidate to that point in the popular vote. LBJ had gotten 61 percent to Goldwater's 37 percent, a margin of over 16 million votes.  That the Republicans had done extremely well in the South was cold comfort to a party that had been swamped in the seven other major geographic regions of the country, particularly considering Nixon had won 26 states four years earlier to Goldwater's 6 in 1964.

The Republican Party was almost relieved by the majority of the defeat: Clifton White and his conservative mentors had led what was essentially a coup over the traditional leadership to earn Goldwater the nomination. Now that he had been obliterated whatever momentum Goldwater had in the party since 1960 had been squashed flat and the party would move forward from the state and city Republicans as opposed to the Congressional ones. In what was a foreshadowing of things to come Theodore White said that there was a difference in the cleavage between these groups: "Republican governors know that government is necessary and Congressional Republicans think strong government is bad." Even after Reagan came along two years this belief would hold until at least the end of the 20th century.

And among the many tactical mistakes Goldwater had made was one his fellow Senators had objected to the post.  Minority Leader Everett Dirksen had been integral to Senate Republicans breaking the filibuster of Southern Democrats and ultimately leading the passage of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. Only seven Republican Senators had voted against it – and one of them had been Goldwater. Dirksen, who had conservative values not out of line with Goldwater, had urged his colleague to vote for it because he knew that by voting against it would guarantee the Republicans would lose the notable gains they had been making among African-American voters in Eisenhower and Nixon's runs for the White House. But Goldwater had stood by his principles – and as a result Goldwater received only 6 percent of the African-American vote.

So in the aftermath of the disaster of 1964 the Republicans were planning to go back to the center. They could not have foreseen how the riots that would follow in the next few years – most notably in Watts – were going to fuel the 'backlash' movement that Goldwater had started. There were signs of it in the next midterms as Republican Governors won deeply Democratic states – not just Reagan in California but Spiro Agnew in Maryland and Winthrop Rockefeller in Arkansas – but it was yet unclear if that narrative would hold true in Congress where the bigger issue was the increasing disaster the Vietnam War was becoming. And while Strom Thurmond had managed to win election to the Senate having changed parties another candidates election gave a different narrative to where the Republican Party might go.

Edward William Brooke III was born in D.C to a middle-class black family. Raised in a racially segregated environment Brooke would rarely interact with the white community. After graduating from Howard University he would enlist in the Army after Pearl Harbor. He would see combat in Italy and his fluent Italian and light skin would help him cross enemy lines to communicate with Italian partisans. He would also meet his future wife Remigia Ferrari-Scacco in Italy.

Exposed to the inequality and racism in the army and combined with FDR's decision to order Japanese-Americans interned during the duration, he began to rethink his support of him. He would eventually achieve the rank of captain and receive the Bronze star and a Distinguished Service Award.

In 1950 he entered politics for the first time when he ran for a seat in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. At the time he affiliated with neither party and chose to run in both primaries. He won the Republican nomination but lost in the general to a Democrat opponent and would lose again 2 years later. In 1960 he ran for secretary of the Commonwealth and won the Republican nomination. However he lost to the future Mayor of Boston Kevin White. The campaign issued a bumper sticker 'Vote White', which many took as a reference to his race. Despite the race's closeness Republican Governor John Volpe offered him a number of jobs. Brooke eventually accepted a position on the Boston Finance Commission. He would then run for State Attorney General and win in 1962, the first African-American of either party to win that office at a state level.

When Goldwater was nominated for President Brooke found his nomination offensive and publicly broke with it, imploring his fellow Republicans "not to invest in the pseudo-conservatism of zealots." While Goldwater lost Massachusetts in a landslide (he received just 23.4 percent of the vote) Brooke would win reelection to his office by nearly 800,000 votes. By 1965 Brooke had emerged as the main Republican spokesman for racial equality.

In 1966 he would run against former Governor Endicott Peabody for the Senate Seat that the Republicans had held in that state, defeating him by nearly half a million votes. As Time wrote the black vote had 'no measurable bearing on the election as less then 3 percent of the vote was black and both Peabody and Brooke were pro-civil rights. Brooke condemned both Stokely Carmichael and Georgia's Lester Maddox as extremists. He was the first African-American since Reconstruction to be elected to the Senate and the first one ever elected by popular vote.

Brooke would later say that "In all my years at the Senate, I never encountered an overt act of bigotry." He recalled visited the swimming pool in the Senate Office building where Thurmond and fellow segregationist senators John McLellan of Arkansas and John Stennis of Mississippi invited him to join him in the pool 'without hesitation or ill will. These were men who consistently voted against legislation that would have provided equal opportunity to others of my race…it was increasingly evident that some members of the Senate played on bigotry purely for political gain."

Romney was a member of the moderate to the liberal Northeastern wing of the part and would organize  'the Wednesday club' of progressive Republicans for strategy sessions. He supported first George Romney of Michigan and Nelson Rockefeller's bid for the Presidential nomination against Richard Nixon, mainly because he frequently differed with the future President on matters of social policy and civil rights. When he visited Vietnam he broke with his party in arguing that negotiations rather than escalation were necessary.

By his second year in the Senate Brooke took his place as an advocate against discrimination in Housing and affordable housing. He would work with Walter Mondale to co-author the 1968 Fair House Act which would create HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. LBJ would sign the Fair Housing Act into law on April 11th, one week after the assassination of Martin Luther King. He would also be the father of the Brooke Amendment to the assisting housing program which limited the tenants out-of-pocket rent expenditure to 25 percent of the income. Furthermore he would vote to confirm Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme court. During Nixon's administration he would consistently oppose the attempts to close down foundational element of Johnson's Great Society program.

In 1969 Brokke spoke at Wellesley College commencement against 'coercive protest, calling some students 'elite ne-er do well's." The student body president Hilary Rodham would depart from her planned speech to rebut Brooke's words, affirming the 'indispensable task of criticizing constructive protest.""

Brooke would vote to confirm many of Richard Nixon's nominees to the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell. But he also helped lead Republican opposition of Clement Haynsworth and Harrold Carswell to the bench and voted against Rehnquist's nomination as associate justice. Despite his opposition to many positions Nixon took Brooke respected him. He'd offered to name him to cabinet of ambassador when he was elected and was speculated as a possible replacement for Spiro Agnew during the lead-up to the 1972 election. That year Brooke won reelection in landslide over Democrat John J. Droney. Considering that Nixon's 49 state landslide nevertheless resulted in the Democrats gaining two seats in the Senate the fact that Brooke won by nearly thirty percent in the only state George McGovern would carry was one of the few highpoints for Senate Republicans that year.

Brooke then became the first Republican to call on Nixon resign immediately after the so-called Saturday Night Massacre, actually going so far as to recommend it to the President one week after words. By this point he was the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee and on Appropriations.  He was responsible for vital legislation during that decade, including enactment of the E      qual Credit Opportunity Act and leading the fight to retain title IX.

In 1975 the extension of the Voting Rights Act was at state, Brooke would face John Stennis is extended debate and it was in large part due to that it won extension to the first time. In 1976 he would also take on support for wide-scale legalized abortion. This led to a battle by the Anti-Abortion crusade and would weaken his support among Catholics vital in a state like Massachusetts. Despite speculation that Gerald Ford might consider him as a running mate Ford chose Robert Dole. This decision ended up costing him his Senate seat as he would be defeated by Paul Tsongas in 1978, one of the few Democratic gains during that year's midterms. Brooke would be the longest serving African-American Senator in history until Cory Booker surpassed his tenure in 2025.

Brooke's accomplishments are as groundbreaking in political history as Adam Clayton Powell in the House, Douglas Wilder would be for governors and would lead to Barack Obama's election. (Brooke would endorse him in 2008). Yet only ten years after he passed away he has become nearly forgotten by every aspect of his career, be it the GOP or Congress. And while African-Americans have spent so much of the last decade seemingly drawing attention to every single African-American who accomplished something, no matter how obscure,  I have yet to see any articles highlighting his achievements which were far more substantial and important then even I thought when I began to write this article. One suspects the reasons for this is because in the binary view of the world that so much of America holds Brooke throws a huge wrench into it.

Paradoxically given their troubled history with African-Americans for the last half-century the Republicans attempts to obscure him makes the most sense. It has far less to due with his racial background then the fact his ideology is one the party wants to forget it had. Brooke was a moderate, bordering on liberal Republican who supported civil rights, women's rights and civil liberties for gay rights – all of which sadly appeal to far too little of the GOP's base right now. He was fiscally conservative but unlike the majority of his colleagues in Congress (such as Goldwater) he was a pragmatist saying: "There are things that people can't do for themselves and therefore government must do it for them." That position was going out of style by the time Brooke lost reelection and its impossible to imagine him being able to get along with Reagan's philosophy when he became President two years later.

With African-Americans it speaks to an issue more about them rather than Brooke. By the time Brooke managed his historic accomplishment 'the movement' was beginning to lose interest in politics and was focusing far more on activism.  By any logical construct Brooke was doing far more for civil rights and African-Americans during the 1960s and 1970s then any of those who were in charge including the rising star Jesse Jackson.  (It couldn't have helped that he considered Stokely Carmichael and Lester Maddox in the same breath.)

I have little doubt that despite the fact he was doing everything he could for his people Brooke heard the expression 'Uncle Tom' over and over. The African-American community, then as now, had a low opinion of the Republican Party even when so many of their Congressional members were on their side when it came to civil rights during the 1950s and 1960s. (To be fair, they didn't much like Democrats either.) In large part this may have been due to their simplistic view of how the government worked. When Ralph Abernathy, a key member of the civil rights movement visited Nixon's White House they made it clear that they believed all the President had to do was press a button and the government would give them what they needed. (This theory of progressive politics has remained steady for half a century; under Obama is was referred to as the magic lantern theory.)

Brooke was in a position to understand this was not the case and he devoted his career to fighting the tide to make it work for the underprivileged. And it is worth noting his battles showed genuine political courage as opposed to that of the activist. Turning against Richard Nixon, fighting battles for civil rights in Congress and fighting for things such as housing and abortion were brave stands, particularly in a party that was going against it and for a state that didn't have enough African-American support to help him if he went too far to the left for his own good.

The circumstances of Brooke's election and reelection are also not things the Democrats are interested in highlighting either. For one there is the fact that Brooke's battle against segregationists remind people that not all of the segregationists marched out of the Democratic Party like Strom Thurmond did and that many of them were present until the early 1980s. For a party that wants to argue that it has always been the party of equality and civil rights and that bigotry and prejudice have always been the property of the GOP this is something they would rather not mention in Daily Kos.

And from a political standpoint Brooke's accomplishment point out another major weakness for the Democrats when it came to running for the Senate, particularly in the South. It is far easier for a white man to get elected as a Democrat then an African-American. The decision to ignore this reality, particularly in the last decade, has caused them to lose so many races that they could win. And it points out the uncomfortable truth that it is easier for a minority to run as a Republican in these states and win. It's why Tim Scott was able to win election in South Carolina in 2016 but Jamie Harrison was humiliated by Lindsey Graham when he ran against him in 2020. It's why Beto O'Rourke came far closer to defeating Ted Cruz in 2018 than Colin Allred did in 2024 – and why I have serious doubts that no matter who the Republicans nominate in 2026 Jasmine Crockett will be able to be them. Only in Georgia was Raphael Warnock able to win a Senate seat. But it's worth remembering that when he won reelection in 2022, Stacey Abrams was trounced by Brian Kemp when the two had a rematch for governor of that state.

In the era of identity politics it is easy – too easy – too argue that when a minority candidate runs for elected office and losing to a white Republican that it is bigotry that elected them, particularly in the South. Increasingly in my lifetime I've heard the argument made whenever a female candidate or a minority candidate runs for President and whenever question about their qualifications, the response is typical: "If they were a white man, you wouldn't ask that question." The problem is when you're running for any political office electability is the only question that is important for a candidate.  And coming from my perspective as a Democrat if you choose to ignore as a liability I can assure you the opposition won't.

In recent years there has been much attention paid to Shirley Chisholm's run for the Democratic nomination in 1972, both as an African-American and as a woman. But the fact she wasn't even through her second term in Congress before she chose to run for the Democratic nomination. If she had been a white man and made that decision everybody in politics would have immediately said that he had no business running for the highest office in the land. The candidacy was not taken seriously because there was no reason to take it seriously. And neither did the voters. The most she got in any state was 157.435 votes or 4.5 percent in California which amounted to 2.7 percent of the vote and 26 delegates.  It was not a serious candidacy and never had any chance of getting anywhere and yet she is held in higher regard by African-Americans then Brooke even though he got nearly three times as many votes in Massachusetts then she did in her entire primary run.

In my lifetime the only thing the Chisholm campaign inspired was a series of unqualified African-Americans in either party making runs for the Presidency with nothing more to advocate for them then their race. With the sole exception of Jesse Jackson's 1988 run, between 1984 and 2004 they were basically empty suits, from Alan Keyes to Alan Sharpton to Carol Moseley Braun and later on Herman Cain. We've seen similar patterns play out for so many other underqualified female and minority candidates throughout this century and by any logical standard so was Kamala Harris' 2020 run for the Democratic nomination.  By contrast both Nikki Haley and Tim Scott were far more qualified in terms of legislative and governing experience.

Brooke very well might have made a good Presidential candidate had the party been willing to go in that direction during the 1970s. It would have been a harder road for him then it would be future candidates such as Obama but he would have been more qualified then Jesse Jackson when he ran or men such as Keyes and Sharpton. Brooke would have understand how the corridors of power worked, how to reach across party lines and when to stand against your leadership. I don't know if when Cory Booker made his rec0rd breaking speech last year he was thinking of the legacy of Brooke or how it made it possible for him to be there. But I think Brooke would have been proud of him, even if Booker would not have thought the same thing.

Saturday, February 7, 2026

Homicide Rewatch: M.E., Myself & I

 

Written by Lyle Weldon & Emily Whitesell ; story by Tom Fontana

Directed by Michael Fields

 

If Homicide had any flaw it’s the one that all police procedurals suffered from in the era of network TV. (Many of the creative forces behind Homicide would resolve them in their follow up series on cable and streaming.) How do you handle main characters who aren't detectives and therefore not central to the actions in investigations?

With Megan Russert the series started out decently but eventually had to double demote her to use her as a detective, thus acknowledging the basic flaw. It's been nearly a full season since J.H. Brodie became part of the unit and the detectives seem to treat him no better than the show itself. No doubt in large part to deal with the departure of Hoffman the series uses this episode to introduce its newest female character Chief M.E. Julianna Cox.

Michelle Forbes already had a reputation as a superb actress (see Hey, Isn't That to see that it would only get better from here) and this episode uses her to the most vital effect possible. The problem is the nature of the medical examiner as a whole in relation to the series. No one denies the medical examiner is important to the investigation and the series already has a solid rotation of performers in small but critical roles. Ralph Tabakin, who we see again in this episode, has been superb as the ancient and crotchety Scheiner who can say a lot with just a few words. Other actors such as Herb Levenson and Harlee McBride have done much with smaller roles.

To make a medical examiner a series regular and more importantly to justify doing so Fontana and the writers will go out of their way to give Forbes more screentime, particularly in the first several episodes after she's introduction as well as give her a fascinating backstory for her reason for coming to Baltimore in the first place.  However they will also end up putting Cox in places the show has never had them to this point, such as the squad room and getting in the faces of detectives which goes against their traditional role. And unfortunately the writers end up doing what they've done to every major female character other than Howard and essentially turn Cox into a love interest for one of the detectives.  To be fair they will handle it with much more of an effort then any prior romantic relationship they've done for any detective who is single on Homicide before and mostly do it well. But it speaks to the flaw in so many network dramas that they still can't see a female character in any role other than girlfriend.

It's a shame because from the moment she appears on screen Forbes nails Cox much in the same way few new characters have been introduced to this point when it comes to establishing the kind of person they are. While some viewers quickly got a negative impression – one book says they might have thought  "Uh-oh, here comes the token ratings-boosting bimbo" – Homicide has never been the kind of series that does things that way with any character.  They might well be forced to cast actors based on their good looks but they go out of their way to make it clear that there is much going on beneath them.

The first time we see Cox at work does much to show the strengths and limitations of her as a character. Bayliss and Lewis are investigating the murder of a prostitute and they begin to move the body rather than wait for the ME. Cox drives up in a snappish fashion and becomes territorial of the crime scene in front of Lewis. Oddly enough Lewis backs down but Bayliss is the primary and he only came for pretzels.

Bayliss is clearly impressed by her authority and it becomes clear almost immediately he has a crush on her. But this does nothing to compromise the chain of command. When they find the killer just a few feet away and Cox asks a question Bayliss firmly tells her to take care of the dead and he'll handle the living. Cox to her credit backs off for the only time in this episode.

We are now getting a case in point in regards to Mike Kellerman. Being reduced to administrative duty was already bad enough for a man of action; now he has to watch as the FBI talks to every single member of his unit in regard to the grand jury investigation.  And we can already see how much of it will bring out the worst in him.

Because he is an outsider and because he poses a threat to one of the detectives it is easy to view Agent Thomas Pandolfi as some kind of enemy. But from another perspective its clear that Pandolfi really isn't any different from any of the detectives, either in his approach or the questions he asks. It's not a huge shock to learn he worked Homicide himself considering he has the same behavior. That all of the detectives view him an obstruction is telling and is in itself a commentary on how little police believe they should be policed.

  Edward Hermann was just about to age into the patriarchal force he is now known for being in TV  but during this stretch of his career he also had the ability to portray characters with an edge that was adversarial.  At his core he's not doing anything the detectives haven't done before: trying to get to the truth of a crime. Indeed Kellerman himself put Jake Rodzinski through this exact process when he was investigating the murder of Kenny Damon.

And it is worth noting that Kellerman's behavior has not been beyond reproach to this point. We are reminded of how he sold a hot VCR to Munch and that nearly got both of them in trouble with internal and everything involving the Rose Halligan case should have gotten him and Lewis facing some consequences.  When Lewis says: "No man is without sin!" Pandolfi surprises him – and the audience – when he agrees. "My job is to find out if Kellerman's are mortal or merely venial."

The problem is Kellerman is taking the approach that even the idea of the process is an insult.  He keeps pushing everybody to tell him what happened in the interview room even though that violates how these things work.  He keeps walking to the observation room, despite the fact Giardello says its off limits. When Lewis comes out and tells him what happened Kellerman immediately sees it as a betrayal. The fact that he is guilty of the sin in question doesn't matter; that Lewis would have been in a jackpot of his own if he tried to hide the truth from the FBI is also irrelevant. What he clearly wants is everyone to tell him that they absolutely one hundred percent support him and that they didn't tell the Bureau anything that could remotely been seen as incriminating, even if they have to lie.

Kellerman clearly thinks he superior and is already showing it in the worst possible way. When Detective Connelly, who's also being investigated shows up in the bar, a drunk Kellerman goes out of his way to humiliate him under the eyes of brotherhood, when he throws beer at him and the two start brawling

By the time he sees Pandolfi he's actually insulted that the FBI has no interest in hearing his side of the story. If Kellerman believes that he can just wiggle out of this by saying he's innocent and that they'll take his word for it  - something he's been making clear to everybody who will listen – this is the first clear sign that his word will not cut it. Pandolfi has no doubt been in enough situations that he knows that what the accused has to say is the least important part in grand jury testimony and the only interest he has is Kellerman taking a drug test. Kellerman says that's humiliating which is beside the point. Kellerman tries to argue that everyone looks bad if you look hard enough, ignoring the fact that's he spent the entire episode paranoid and picking fights with allies and enemies alike. He both doesn't want to justify his behavior and wants the presumption of innocence and Pandolfi has no interest in giving him either.

And its not as though the main investigation of the episode doesn't demonstrate the very reason that the police force can be trusted to follow the rules.  The case Bayliss investigates – the murder of Steffy Hammett – is resolved so quickly the name is written up in black. But the suspect keeps talking for so long that he also confesses to the murder of a second prostitute. Bayliss can't find a record of her on the board and he asks Cox to look into it.

Her diligence leads to the discovery of Amy Introcaso, another prostitute whose death was listed as a drug overdose even though the toxicology doesn't read high enough. The case was investigated by Detective Higby who works for the other shift; we've seen him a few times in previous episodes.

Higby is the example of another in a line of sloppy cops. Not only is he not impressed by Bayliss's accomplishment he admits that he'd didn't bother investigating because the woman was a prostitute, he had a busy workload and no one would miss the victim. We've seen sloppy police work from some detectives before but we've rarely seen someone so lazy he doesn't want to work a murder because he doesn't think the victims life mattered. Cox is nearly as indignant as Bayliss on the subject, though in his case its due to professional reasons.

Not long after this Thomson's public defender manages to get the suspect to rescind his confession and the fact of the false toxicology report throws doubt on it. And its here we see something we haven't seen in a while. Frank Pembleton rising to the opportunity.

It seems as though Frank has decided to take his failure of the firearms exam and Gee's refusal to pull strings as a wakeup call. He knows that he has to prove to everybody that he is still a good detective even if he gets no credit for it. And that means doing something he rarely did when he was active: try to help his partner be better at his job. He does so in his typical indirect fashion. When Bayliss and Lewis are stumped he says: "You know what I would be doing if I were a Homicide detective?" It's not clear if either detective will listen but Frank actually tells them that the next thing to do is to unearth the dead prostitute's body and figure out if she died of an overdose or not. Tim and Meldrick agree (while of course saying they would have done it themselves). And sure enough the autopsy does prove Introcaso was strangled and Thomson is guilty. Bayliss points this out to Higby and its clear this experience was meaningless to him. (He won't be in Homicide much longer but not because of this.)

In this episode we see the personal lives of the two married detectives in the unit in two very different ways. We've known Meldrick's marriage was troubled ever since the fourth season finale but this is the first time we get an insight into it. Of course it's solely because Brodie has forced his presence on the Lewis household but this visit actually makes us wonder how much of the reason Brodie keeps being thrown from house to house is problems they already had.

Meldrick clearly doesn't think his wife is a good cook and she's clearly not welcome to the flirtations he tries early on. When we see Barbara say grace at the meal its clear this chafes Meldrick just as his remarks on Brodie's cooking hurt her. When Brodie casually mentions the portrait of Teddy Pendergast this leads to a fight between the two of them which makes us question what Barbara and Meldrick ever had in common at all. Barbara clearly never liked his taste in anything as a bachelor and its clear Meldrick thinks Barbara's overbearing. When Barbara decides to make the painting a condition of staying in the marriage and Meldrick has to think about it at all, it speaks to just how little commitment he really has to this. Meldrick blames Brodie for Barbara going to her mother's but we already knew this marriage was on thin ice without a third party involved. We've already seen Lewis often shift responsibilities to others while on the job; this demonstrates he's exactly like this in his personal life.

Now contrast this to Frank and how he is dealing with he and his wife's upcoming anniversary. We've rarely seen Frank this open or uncertain about his personal life to anyone, even Bayliss, and its interesting that he chooses to confide in Munch. (Clearly John's overcoming his issues with Pembleton being back a few episodes ago have had an impact on the relationship between the two.) Munch tells Frank that what his wife wants is not a great meal or a great theater experience but a roll in the hay. Frank is understandably dismissive of this but John reminds him that despite having three failed marriages he's had seven anniversaries. (Eight if you count when he and Gwen slept together after the divorce.)

The scene where Frank goes to his doctor and tells her what he wants to do is incredibly raw for him. This is a man who doesn't like to show any sign of vulnerability even to his wife and its telling how much he loves Mary that he's going through it at all. This degree of humility is a superb moment for Braugher as well as how he thanks the doctor for giving him this small opening.

The final scenes of the episode show all of the characters we meet at their most vulnerable. Mike, who has been carrying the weight of all this for weeks, finally breaks down prior to taking the drug test and decides to call his parents and tell them what is happening. This is a moment of personal vulnerability for Kellerman that we rarely see throughout this and indeed much of the series, and it makes the episode a personal high point for Reed Diamond.

Then we see Frank and Mary at home having sent the sitter home. We see just how nervous he is about making love to his wife and just how much Mary's support to him. The scenes between the real life husband and wife Braugher and Brabson always have a great soulfulness to them and it adds a layer of tenderness.

And then Bayliss comes down to the morgue to thank Cox, who is sitting by a body waiting for the funeral parlor. For the first time since we met her Julianna looks vulnerable as she opens up telling him something close to the truth about how she deals with her job:

I drive too fast. I drink too much. I fall madly in love with the wrong man.

She will do all three on this show before this season is over. But its only in the final moments we realize this significance.

We learn she came back home earlier to take care of her father, who has refused to be hospitalized for reasons we don't yet know. Now with a shock that comes with the kind of pain we've haven't really felt since Frank's stroke, we learn that her father has succumbed and she is there to take him to the parlor.

Had Cox served only as a recurring character instead of a regular the ability of Forbes might have had more power. As it is this episode is very much the high point of her work on this series though we're not going to see the evidence of the decline for many months to come.

 

NOTES ON THE BOARD

Detective Munch' He's actually more supportive then he appears not only when it comes to advising Frank on the best way to celebrate his anniversary but when he tells Kellerman that its in his best interest to talk to his parents because they might be able to help. That said he still has some good lines in regard to the FBI, particularly when Pandolfi first arrives. "The Bureau just hasn't been the same since J. Edgar Hoover. They can't find the right man to fill his bra."

Brodie Is On The Move! The episode begins with Bayliss dropping Brodie's bags on the squad floor and telling him to have a nice life. "Now I understand why he got kicked out of his own place," he tells Munch.  Again this seems to be more Bayliss' problem then Brodie's: his big sin was getting philosophical over the breakfast table. "You ever discuss Nietzsche over a Pop-Tart?" Which makes you wonder why Munch kicked him out.

He ends up in Lewis's place by saying he won fourth prize in a chili cook-off. Meldrick's reluctant until he describes the recipe as 'beer chili'. It's not clear how long Brodie would last anyway; he's not as confident in his cooking as he claims.

Maybe You Need the DVD, Maybe you Don't: The streaming version of means you don't get to hear Los Lobos version of 'Georgia Shop' as Cox drives into Baltimore, which is fitting theme music. However you will hear Jimmy Scott's mournful "There's No Disappointment in Heaven in the final scene in the morgue when Cox drives away.  I think that works well enough.

 

Hey, Isn't That… Michelle Forbes began her career as Sonni on Guiding Light between  1987-1989. She would make a spectacular film debut in Kalifornia along side David Duchovny, Juliette Lewis and a then relatively little known Brad Pitt. She'd had a recurring role as Ensign Ro in Star Trek: The Next Generation and was originally supposed to be one of two semi-regular characters to go to the next spin-off Deep Space Nine along with Colm Meaney's Miles O'Brien. She elected not to and would have roles in smaller films such as Swimming With The Sharks and the sequel to Escape from New York, Escape From LA.

After leaving Homicide she has one of the most formidable careers in television of any actress in the 21st century. She had a recurring role in the first season of The District and was a regular in Wonderland, the very short-lived debut of Peter Berg as a writer director in TV. She would play Lynne Kresge in the second season of 24.

She would play Admiral Cain of The Pegasus in the reimagining of Battlestar: Galactica and play Samantha Brinker in Season 1 of Prison Break. She also had roles in short lived series such as Waking The Dead and Durham County, while playing Kate Weston, Gabriel Byrne's troubled spouse in the HBO drama In Treatment during its first two seasons. She played Maryann Forrester, the major villain in Season 2 of True Blood and received what is shockingly her only Emmy nomination to date for her role as Mitch Larsen in the AMC's masterpiece The Killing.

She's had major roles in genre TV more than anything else, from a small role in Orphan Black, Helen in the ABC remake of The Returned, Retro Girl in Powers. Her biggest roles in TV include Valerie in Berlin Station, Ellen Becker in Treadstone and Veronica Fuentes in New Amsterdam. Her last appearance on TV to date was the recreation of Ro Laren in Picard.

Edward Herrman, who plays Agent Pandolfi, is one of the very few actors who appeared on all three series associated with Tom Fontana in the 20th century. He played Father McCade on St. Elsewhere and Tobias Beecher's father on OZ starting in 2000. One of the greatest character actors of all time I'm strictly to focus on his television work.

He would make his TV debut as Richard Palmer in Beacon Hill and play FDR as a young man in the TV miniseries Eleanor & Franklin which would he play again in the follow up. He would nominated for Emmys for both roles as well as for playing Father McCabe on St. Elsewhere in 1986 and 1987. Throughout his career he played many famous people in TV movies including Lou Gehrig, Alger Hiss, George Bernard Shaw, Branch Rickey and in the James Dean TV movie Raymond Massey. He would also play Herman Munster in the ill-fated TV movie Here Comes The Munsters. He would eventually win his only Emmy for playing Anderson Pierson, a mentor to Lindsey Dole in The Practice accused of murder.

But it was only he took on the role of the warm-hearted Richard Gilmore, father of Lorelai, mother of Rory that he became worshipped in the eyes of millions to the point of beloved. He continued to act in series such as Law & Order in multiple roles, the oldest intern in history in Grey's Anatomy and Senator Warren in the failed pilot of Wonder Woman. He had recurring roles on the Good Wife and Harry's Law as well as the short-lived series Black Box. He would give voice to FDR one last time in Ken Burns' documentary The Roosevelts. He passed away on December 31st 2014 at only 71.

 

Friday, February 6, 2026

In Half an Hour John Oliver Says More Unpleasant Things About Hollywood Then Ricky Gervais Ever Says at The Golden Globes. Why Does The Industry Revere One and Loathe The Other?

 

 

My memory escapes me on the particular episode but the circumstances are clear. On one episode of Last Week Tonight John Oliver was beginning the main story and the show did a bit where it looked like a view was choosing something else.

Oliver said: "Oh. You want to watch the Entourage movie? That's fine. I'll wait."

We then saw the first sixty seconds saw one of the characters say the opening line and then cut to the viewer going back to Last Week Tonight. Oliver then said: "I thought so. Let's get to the main story."

In hindsight this bit may have told us far too much about what Oliver thought of Hollywood and I'm kind of amazed I didn't get the point. By this point in my viewing career I was familiar with how everybody in late night used clips from TV or films to illustrate a point: The Daily Show had used it to perfection, The Colbert Report did it the same way and Stephen Colbert would bring it to the late show and Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers all did it as well. I also remember James Corden and Jimmy Kimmel using some version of it.

But in every case it was done to juxtapose a talking point from politics or talking heads and most of the time, not always usually, there was a sense of gentle affection. They were using the clips to criticize politicians, not Hollywood. Oliver, by contrast, was using a clip from the Entourage movie for the sole purpose of saying that Last Week Tonight is more entertaining and intelligent than something his network put together.

This wasn't the first time Oliver had done this; it wasn't even the first time he'd criticized Entourage. But it confirmed a pattern that is far different from any other late night show, whether it is a sketch comedy or talk. Whereas all of them clearly have some respect for the medium TV Oliver alone seems to think that he is above everything else that is on including his own network. I lost count of how many times he went out of his way to criticize HBO or the Max streaming service and almost the things connected with it.

This isn't to say that Oliver necessarily thought his show was entertaining: he's made that clear numerous times. But by his attitude towards his own network – and by this point almost everything else on TV or film he's taken shots over the years – he clearly thinks he's superior to the industry that's given him his platform.

It has to be said that so many of the jokes that Oliver's made about so much of TV are frequently bizarre. I once remember his choosing to make a remarking about no one knowing that Apple Tv existed or that there was a show called Defending Jacob on it. There was no reason to reference that particular show which obviously he never watched. The fact that he chose to highlight it for the sole purpose of mocking it really seems like the kind of punching down that most comedy isn't supposed to be. And honestly it really seems like the kind of thing that he accuses Trump of doing in his rallies: taking shots at things for laughs.

Oliver has been openly contemptuous of television and Hollywood in a way that no one other than his HBO colleague Bill Maher has been over the years. But where Maher always does so to argue that this is part of the mean-spiritedness of the left, Oliver frequently takes the position that Hollywood is not far left enough. Never was this clearer when he devoted an entire episode to berating Law & Order for arguing it created a false narrative of law enforcement. Not even he seemed able to make a coherent argument, he kept admitting it was just a TV show. But if that was the case why devote the same amount of time to it that he was willing to give to pullout on Afghanistan or the Sackler family? When you consider that on numerous occasions he'd invited cast members of the show to parody ideas of law enforcement years before, it seems even more spiteful like he's now choosing to turn on people who were good enough to make fun of themselves.

And at this point it's impossible for me not to compare Oliver to another British comic who is not much older than Oliver and whose career basically runs parallel to him but who by this point in his career, is practically a pariah in the industry: Ricky Gervais.

As I've said on multiple occasions – indeed as recently as this year's Golden Globes – I've never liked Gervais as an entertainer. I find his brand of cringe comedy unfunny, the man himself an unbearable presence on stage and his either attitude unctuous.  So the idea of having to take his side on anything makes me uncomfortable myself. Nevertheless when Gervais chose to repost something he said the last time he hosted the Golden Globes back in 2020 – something that I'd mercifully erased from my memory – it was hard not to find common ground.

He made it clear that if someone won: "They should not make a political speech. Just say your thank yous and leaves. You're not qualified to give advice on anything. You have less education then Greta Thunberg." I don't know how heartily Hollywood applauded or laughed (I'm actually going to get back to the point) but he's right when he said they didn't listen.

Gervais reposted this after the Grammys this weekend not long after Bill Maher had repeated for his audience for the exact same reason. Maher, if anything, was even blunter about Hollywood's behavior and its worth noting that this was one of the few ending monologues he gave that I have absolutely no notes on.  Every single thing he said about the average American greeting Hollywood's statements with eyerolls, that America sees Hollywood as an outreach of the Democratic party already was accurate as was his closing statement that they were making a difference "You're causing independents to vote Republican." Particularly in the aftermath of the 2024 election its impossible to argue this fact.

And the results played out pretty much as you'd expect on Sunday: every single out of touch millionaire who won a prize or presented at the Grammy chose to deliver diatribes on how horrible ICE was, apparently having reached the conclusion that the reason they were still in Minneapolis was because not enough people had seen them wearing buttons at the Golden Globes three weeks earlier.  The speech that has undergone the most scrutiny was Billie Eilish's when she chose to say: "No one's illegal on stolen land."

Setting aside the hypocrisy involved with Eilish's statement – every civilization has stolen land to an extent -  what I find more telling is how Hollywood has chosen to stand behind Eilish as if her statements were somehow above reproach. Its worth remembering even before Trump was elected to the White House the first time, every single late night show went out of their way to fact check every thing they came out of his mouth to prove that he was a liar and a hypocrite.  By the time Last Week Tonight debuted Oliver was still doing as a bit but he added: "The truth doesn't matter anymore."

In a sense the internet and cable news are doing by fact-checking   Eilish's statements are no different – and honestly with far less harshness - then comedians have done to Trump in the last decade. And it's not as though there was any real difference between Eilish giving her statement at the Grammys and anything the President says or does at a televised rally. Both are public figures and both should be subject to the same scrutiny.

But given the reactions of so many from Eilish's brother to Mark Ruffalo, Hollywood doesn't think the rules should apply to them.  If they want to give intellectually vapid statements that are the definition of playing to their base in front of millions of people then according to the Ruffalo's and Olivers of the world, they should do so free from the criticism of their opposition.

Its worth going back to Last Week Tonight which I've criticized immensely in recent years after spending much time enjoying it. I've pointed out multiple time the fallacies in Oliver's comedy and how he presents himself as the left-wing equivalent of Bill O'Reilly or Tucker Carlson. If anything, he's more insulated then they are as he has not even interviewed anyone since his first season and has made no secret that he thinks his show is less there to entertain or inform then to 'stir shit up'. In this case he goes even further then those in his industry who will at least go through the motions of working for some greater good. Oliver won't even hide that much.

Its here the comparison between Oliver and Gervais is the most telling. Oliver no doubt believes, like the overwhelming majority of entertainers in Hollywood, that his job is to 'speak truth to power'. That he does so, much like Eilish at the Grammys, hundreds of miles from the action from the safety of a studio filled with people who cheer everything he says, argues that his liberalism stops at the borders of his set.

Now contrast with Gervais at the Golden Globes. Gervais has never hidden the fact he only considers himself an entertainer and that you should keep your politics of your comedy. He then went to Hollywood and hosted a show that was full of the most powerful people in the industry, and people who believe that translates to intelligence and influence on every subject of the world. On five separate occasions he increasingly made fun of their hypocrisies and on the very last one, he got right up in their faces and said in front of a televised audience, that they were uninformed people who had no business lecturing the rest of the world on anything. That is speaking truth to power in a way that Oliver himself never does, considering he's never done any of his routines in a political setting, certainly not in the presence of actual Republicans.

I don't think it’s a coincidence that Gervais has never been invited back to host since. It's clear this doesn't bother Gervais any more than it bothers Hollywood. Even though he was nominated for a Golden Globe for a comedy special this past year (competing against Bill Maher) he notably didn't make the trip from London. Vonda Sykes, the presenter, made it perfectly clear she was glad about that because then she could make his award about her – and Hollywood cheered louder than they ever did it Gervais. Of course, if he'd been there Sykes no doubt would have been softer in her remarks the way she was to Maher, another figure in the industry that no one likes that much because he calls them on their hypocrisies

Essentially this fits Hollywood's behavior perfectly: they will say the most powerful things possible when their target (in the most recent case, he wasn't even on the same continent)  isn't there to take offense. No one bothered to make the argument that if any of the recipients at the Grammys, from Bad Bunny to Joni Mitchell, had said F--- ICE to an actual ICE agent in Minneapolis it would have been real bravery because they would have gotten a completely different and far harsher reaction. And few bothered to point out that Bad Bunny, like many other celebrities, is moving out of America altogether.

This does even more to argue for the hypocrisies of Hollywood in a way that is ridiculous compared to all of their other virtue signaling. They are fine criticizing what the American government is doing to immigrants while they have been emigrating to other 'safer' countries. As someone who's always thought actions speak louder than words this demonstrates how Hollywood is a bigger hypocrite than anything the Republicans are doing. You're criticizing the policy of a country you don't even want to live in any more. What message does that send to those people who might face deportation?  These people have been the biggest beneficiaries of the American dream and they can't wait to get out of here.

When Kevin O'Leary claimed that Eilish statements were isolating half the country Mark Ruffalo jumped to her defense by doing what Hollywood does: denying the truth of the statement while vilifying the accuser. This pattern followed not long after the cancellation of Stephen Colbert when Jay Leno made it clear that late night comedy was political activism isolating half the country. Every single late night host – Oliver among them – chose to deny the truth of the statement and say that Leno was not now, nor ever had been funny. The fact that he had been the most successful name in late night for twenty years – records that can be proven with a Google check – was irrelevant to this new breed of Hollywood.  The fact that their industry is clearly suffering and one of the factors might well be Hollywood's decision to attack Trump and by extension his voters is, in fact, the kind of thing that Last Week Tonight could do if it ever chose to do a show on it.

But Oliver has no interest in seeing anything that doesn't fit his worldview.  Despite all the seeming self-deprecation John Oliver truly thinks the world is how it is today because no one listen to John Oliver.  He is so far to the left in his politics that not only does he think the Democratic Party has sold out but that Hollywood itself is basically neo-liberal and perpetuating the capitalist system. I suspect by the time Last Week Tonight debuts later this month he will deal with the subject of ICE but if he mentions what happened at the Grammys it will only be to highlight what a horrible singer Billie Eilish is and how Trevor Noah never did enough when he was host of The Daily Show to use his platform. Then he'll spend that episode like he does every season, arguing how Hollywood is full of evil corporations that doesn't police itself adequately, that the shows and movies its makes are wastes of time and intelligence and of course that HBO has yet again failed the country even though a large part of the reason he has had his success is because Last Week Tonight has been following Sunday night hits for twelve years.

We'll then have another season when not a single thing he focuses on ever improves or gets worse. Of course if it improves we'll never know because Oliver only does follow ups on stories when they get worse, which fits his narrative. He will be idolized by the industry he says more nasty things about in an episode then Gervais did every time he hosted the Golden Globes but because he stands for the right things he will be honored by the industry with awards and millions of dollars.  This will allow him to continue to 'entertain' by 'speaking truth to power' for years to come to achieve the American dream by saying that America sucks. And hopefully this election year people will end up voting Democrat despite everything Hollywood says or does to convince them otherwise. If they do, they'll take the credit, if they don't, it's America's failure not Hollywood's and either way the Olivers of the world will be insufferable about it.

I won't care because I'll be watching something else. Not Entourage or Defending Jacob. Maybe Law & Order will be running a marathon.

Thursday, February 5, 2026

Back To The Island: Why The Character of Ilana May Be The Biggest Failure of Lost

 

It took many rewatches for me to realize that the final season of Lost did work that the show was not a disappointment. I now realize that part of the problem was not the series finale but some of the problems with the final season.

I think this has less to do with the flash-sideways (though in a different set of articles I will probably deal with my issues with them) and rather the action on the island. Some of it Darlton would later acknowledge was their own fault, most notably how they chose to cut bait on the Temple after having built it up so much over the second half of the series. Other parts, most notably everything involving Widmore, may have been based on the decision to try and tie all the storylines they'd spent the series dealing with up a bow.

But the one they really don't have any excuse for, both at the time and in hindsight, was how Ilana, who the writers spent pretty close to two seasons building up as vital to the endgame, went out in a damp squib.

This is different than how other characters who the writers had plans for had long-term plans for had to be killed off to the actors demands. The most notable example was Eko but it played out with other characters such as Matthew Abadon who seemed important when first introduced in Season 4 and was killed off when Lance Reddick was cast in Fringe in late 2008. In the case of Ilana the writers really don't have any excuse because they had built her up in Season 5 as important and then moved Zuleikha Robinson to a series regular for the final season.

And the main action on The Incident seemed to imply Ilana was important in a way we hadn't seen any other character being. One of the flashbacks that we saw involved Jacob visiting a heavily bandaged Ilana in a hospital in what appeared to be Russia. This was the first episode we'd learned of Jacob's existence and in all the other flashbacks he had visited the passengers on Oceanic 815 throughout their lives at key moments without them knowing it. Ilana was the first person who knew who Jacob was and who told her that he needed her to do something for him.

We'd first seen  Ilana when she was holding Sayid in handcuffs as they boarding Ajira 316. Interestingly Jack made no effort to talk to him when they got on the plane and while everyone saw him, no one mentioned him until the survivors all flashbacked to 1977.

Chronologically after the plane crashed on the island the first words out of Ilana's mouth were 'Jarrah'. In the immediate aftermath of the crash a passenger named Caesar took charge and began to search the island. Ilana seemed willing to follow his lead and eventually brought him to a man no one remembered from the plane, calling himself John Locke. She engaged in conversation with Locke and there's no sign as to how she reacted when he told her the last thing he remembered was dying.

Later in that episode she and a group of passengers found a crate and while they talked to Ben they never told anyone what was inside it. Eventually she and another man, known only as Bram, found guns and said they were in charge. When Frank challenged them she asked: "What lies in the shadow of the statue?" When he couldn't answer the question she knocked him out.

By the time of the season finale Bram clearly answered to Ilana and said he didn't understand why they were taking him with her because he didn't know the answer to the question. Ilana said: "That doesn't mean he's not a Candidate'. That was the first time we heard that word and we had no idea what it meant. Eventually Frank went with them to take what was in the crate to a cabin where we had been led to believe Jacob had been living all this time.

But when we got there, seeing the cabin for the first time in the daylight, it was a dilapidated wreck. Ilana went in and knew immediately Jacob hadn't been living there and 'someone else had been using it." She looked at a piece of tapestry which had an image of the statue and in the opening flashback we knew Jacob was living there.

And as we all know the finale ended with Ilana, Frank and her band of followers meeting Richard and the Others outside the statue in which Ben and Locke had gone in. Ilana asked to see Ricardos ("It's Richard, actually) and once he gave the correct answer to the question (in Latin it was: "He who will save us all") Ilana relaxed. She said she needed to show Jacob something and opened the crate which revealed…

Time for a flashback (whoosh)

Earlier in the season we'd seen what had happened to Sayid. He'd been getting drunk at a bar and he met a woman dressed who we now knew was Ilana. They chatted each other up and we saw them kissing in a hotel room. Ilana then pulled a gun on Sayid and said she represented the family of Peter Avellino, the man we'd seen him kill in back in Season 4. Sayid asked if she was a bounty hunter and she didn't answer.

Then we saw the leadup to Ajira 316. Sayid saw his fellow Oceanics get on the plane and he asked to take a different flight. Ilana said: "This is the flight we're taking." Onboard he asked if she worked for Ben Linus and it was clear she had no idea who Ben was and that Sayid had worked for him.

Later that season in Miles flashbacks in Some Like it Hoth he was kidnapped off the street by Bram, who said he knew what he was planning on doing, asked him the same question Ilana did and Miles had no idea of the answer. They told Miles he wasn't ready yet and that he was 'playing for the wrong team'. When Miles asked which team they were on Bram said: "The one that's going to win."

That flashback, it's worth noting, took place a full three years before the events in Season 5 and since Bram was taking orders from Ilana by The Incident, it's clear they knew about the island and that they were planning to get there. That part was never clarified but let's leave that for now.

Bram would go out of his way to tell Frank that he was with 'the good guys'. Frank didn't buy it and considering that was the exact phrase Ben had used to refer to the Others way back in Season 2, the viewer took it with a PILLAR of salt. And considering by this point Ilana had already forced Sayid to come to the island at gunpoint (a place he absolutely did not want to return to) and was essentially doing the same thing to Frank, when he told Sun later "I'm not buying it either," neither did we.

Considering that by this point in the series the only person on the island who had seen Jacob on a regular basis was Richard it seemed significant that Ilana had seen him and that he chose to trust her. But as Nikki Stafford pointed out in Finding Lost: Season Five there was a critical difference between his visit to the survivors in the past and his recent visit to Ilana. In that visit he was wearing black gloves as if he could not or would not touch her. That seemed to signify that she was less important to him than the survivors.

Now we would learn later that he had come to see her because he had six names for her, the names of the remaining Candidates. It was her job to get them to the island and for her to protect them when she got there.  That would explain why she chatted up Sayid and brought him on the plane. And it would seem to explain why she cared so much for John Locke and when she found his body in the baggage compartment of the plane, she knew that they were going after "something a lot scarier then what was in that box."

So during Season 5 its clear that Ilana and her followers seemed vital to the show's endgame. In a deleted scene from the Season 6 premiere that is built up. Ilana has realized that something has gone horribly wrong and wants to go into the statue to check on Jacob. Bram stops her and says he and the rest will go in. "It'll be daylight in 20 minutes. You have to get everyone to the Temple. You're too important."

So the three of them go in knowing something about what they're about to face but not enough. They shoot 'Locke' in the chest and he disappears. They find the bullet and then we realize the truth of something only theorized: the Man in Black is the smoke monster. He kills two of the bodyguards immediately. Bram picks up ash and uses it as a protective circle. This provides him with momentary protection – until the Monster brings down the ceiling and leads to Bram's death.

Now its worth noting 'Locke' identifies Bram – and by extension Ilana – as Jacob's bodyguards, not the Candidates. And later that season we know that Richard doesn't know who the Candidates are but Ilana does. Clearly Ilana has been completely off the radar of everyone on the island including the Monster. Combined with everything we've already seen it seems Ilana may never have been on the island but she knows more of its secrets then anyone we've met before. And this would seem to be confirmed as Season 6 progresses.

Throughout the first half of Season 6 Ilana seems more aware of 'the rules' then most of the people we've met to this point, certainly any new arrival. She knew about Richard's importance, she knew about the cabin and where to find Jacob based on his clue. When she enters Jacob's sanctuary  - and she's clearly broken by it – she asks an equally shattered Ben what happened. When he tells her "you probably won't believe me" she does believe him when he tells about the monster, and when she learns Jacob was pushed onto the fire she takes his ashes and puts them in a bag. She tells them that the Man in Black is now stuck in Locke's body and that they have to go to the Temple.

When they get to the Temple and all hell is breaking loose (courtesy of Smokey) she moves in a direct pattern until she finds a hieroglyph that tells them where to find a panic room, a move that saves everyone in her party. And she also knows about Dogen the people who work at the Temple and certain details about everyone who's been here. She knows Miles can speak to the dead, for one thing.

And what drives all of this home is how Robinson manages to imbue Ilana with more then a bit of humanity we've gotten from everyone else who 'knows the answers'. She breaks down sobbing when she sees the bodies of her friends and what has happened to Jacob for a moment and when Ben comes in, she does her best to cover it. She insists on a burial for Locke and that somebody should say something. Indeed she seems astonished that no one knew him well enough to talk about him – which actually leads to Ben's crazy but heartfelt eulogy.

And when she learns that Ben murdered Jacob, though she tries to hide it has clearly cut her. She holds it in until they get back to the beach and then she pulls Ben aside at gunpoint and tells him he is going to have to dig his own grave and when he finishes she intends to kill him. Ben has spent the last four seasons able to talk himself out of every horrible thing he has done – and killing Jacob was honestly one of the most understandable actions he's taken – and now he is face to face an enemy who knows the consequences of his actions and people who know all too well what he's capable of.

It's understandable that when Smokey shows up and offers to give him the island if he kills Ilana that he jumps at the chance. It's not clear if the Man In Black knows how much of a threat Ilana is or if he's recruiting as Ilana herself put it. Whatever the reason Ben has no options.

Ben escapes and what follows is one of the highpoints of Season 6, if not the entire series. Ben looks at Ilana and sees himself, someone who has sacrificed their lives in the name of Jacob, a man who has never even spoken up for him. He admits responsibility for his role in Alex's death and that he gave up the only thing that mattered to him for the island.  Emerson is magnificent, in tears and agony in a way he's never come close to playing in his previous four seasons, with a rawness and honesty that we've never associated. The prince of lies is telling the truth.

So when he begs Ilana to let him go to the Man in Black "Because he's the only one who'll have me" we feel the pain in our guts. It's not a performance and Ilana recognizes it. So when she walks over to Ben and says simply: "I'll have you," it's an emotional highpoint.

At the end of the episode we have one of those moments we've seen so many times before on Lost a reunion of characters who've been apart for an eternity if not longer. But it guts us for multiple reasons. There is the fact there are so few people left on the beach to unite and there's a group of characters – Richard, Ben and Ilana – who aren't smiling. They were the disciples of Jacob and now that he's gone they have no future.

In the opening of Ab Aeterno, the first flashback is to Ilana's in 'The Incident'. We see both that moment and the aftermath. The bandages are gone with Ilana's face (the implication is he healed her by touching her) and he tells here that he has six names, the last remaining candidates and he needs for her to find them and to protect them. Once she's brought them to the island she has to bring them to Richard, who according to Jacob will know what to do.

But the thing is Richard makes it clear he has absolutely no idea what to do and storms off to try and have his meeting with the Man in Black. Hurley goes after him but Ilana stays behind, certain that Richard will come back solely because Jacob said he would. Everyone else is incredulous and when Richard comes back with Hurley and tells them that they have to stop the Man in Black from leaving the island, they have to blow up the plane everyone is astonished. Sun holds it in the most and Jack promises her that he'll try to get her and Jin off the island. But when he says this Richard makes it clear he shouldn't have because that's the only way forward.

It's worth noting that as important as Ilana seemed to be throughout this entire period the viewer still wondered just how much Jacob let her into his confidence. He'd given her the names of the remaining candidates but he hadn't told her what had happened to Locke. She brought Locke's body to Richard and the Others but didn't bother to tell anyone else that he was dead, which might have helped avoid a massive tragedy.  She didn't tell her followers that they couldn't kill him and that led to them all dying. And while she knew she had to protect a Kwon Jacob didn't tell her (or anyone) whether it was Sun or Jin.

And all of the knowledge he had he gave to other people but it was selective. He never told any of the Others why the names on the list were important at any point but he seemed more than willing to tell those who were off the island. Everybody had complete faith in Jacob even though as Richard himself said "He never tells us what to do."  Ilana had blind faith that Jacob was right.

And then…BOOM!

I've argued that Lost's reputation with female characters isn't entirely deserved but in the second half of the series it keeps getting harder to make that argument. Charlotte is the first freighter folk to die. Juliet is killed in the fifth season finale. Kate isn't a Candidate. We're not sure if Sun ever was. The writers could have at least partially atoned for that with Ilana and then she's killed off when she drops unstable dynamite right before the endgame of the series officially begins. We never even learned her last name.

I've tried to make an argument in my own writings that Ilana might work if you understand her as a symbolic character, the ultimate example of blind faith and another pawn in Jacob's war. Yet even then I think I'm grasping at straws. Nikki Stafford pointed out in her final volume of Finding Lost just how badly the writers screwed up with the decision and considering just how much she was willing to defend practically every other choice Darlton made from start to finish of the series that speaks volumes. And considering that nobody even bothers to mourn her death, it just makes it leave an even worse taste in the mouth.

Everything involving Ilana honestly speaks to all the bad things people say about Lost all at once. The writers never knew what they were doing; they built up plot threads and then cast them aside, they were horrible with female characters; they had no plan for the final season. The writers did a disservice to Robinson with Ilana's fate and they didn't do much better by the viewer.