What The Emmys Are Doing This Year To Try And Appease The Critics Is The Dumbest Thing They Could Do (And Not Just Because It's Already Backfired)

 

I've said this at least a dozen times in the last few years but I'm going to say it again. Awards shows: stop trying to please reviewers of your ceremonies.

Never in my lifetime, never, ever, has any awards show involving films, TV, plays anything, gotten any response from any major critic more favorable then: "It was okay. I guess." At this point I'm convinced they've pre-written every awards show review they've done in advance like the critical equivalent of a mad-lib and just fill in the names and dates every year.

I don't know what a critic is expecting when they watch the Oscars or the Golden Globes or the Emmys. You'd think after all their years of watching them they would have realized an awards show for what it is and graded it on those merits rather than the kind of entertainment its honoring. An awards show is not a film or a TV show, nor is it a concert or a play. If you are grading it by those standards, which I assume these critics are, it will always be inferior.

But an awards show is not about providing entertainment to a live audience: it is there to give awards to performers for their body of work. The emcee or the presenters are working primarily to keep the mood light in the theater. They are there to celebrate the industry and honor the nominees and winners. The idea of entertaining those watching at home is a distant third on their priorities or at least it should be.

All of the flaws that the critics trot out over and over make me wonder if they understand this distinction. Of course awards show are self-congratulatory, they are congratulating themselves. If you expect them to be simultaneously entertaining while they do so, you're asking far too much of everybody involved. And if you're watching this awards show for entertainment purposes rather than because you have an interest in the shows and actors nominated, then I truly question whether you have a functioning brain.

I really don't know why anyone would watch an awards show if they didn't care about Hollywood or the industry in some degree. Indeed these days with every other channel on TV running alternate and occasionally new episodes of shows and streaming services allowing to watch films or TV shows while the awards show going on, there are probably thousands of better ways you could pass your time if you wanted to have fun. An awards show is about giving awards; it's not about entertaining those watching. It's going to run long no matter how much the producers will try to streamline it; it's going to be full of dull stretches and it's going to be self-congratulatory with famous people mentioning people you don't know and in many cases people you don't recognize thanking their wives and children. Perhaps the average viewer doesn't realize that, but the average critic has to by now.

In my lifetime no matter what the Oscars or the Golden Globes or any other awards show do to try and please the critics they have always failed for that reason. The critics don't know what their ideal awards show is, only that each year they never get it. And considering that in so many of their reviews of your films and TV shows they tend to malign and judge the people who watch the more popular ones, I really don't know why you're making such an effort anyway.

With all of that said, I have to tell you the decision that NBC has made regarding the Emmys this year ranks as one of the dumbest any awards show has made in history and one that has already received backlash. It's not as short-sighted as the Oscars deciding to seat the most prominent nominees closer to the front in 2021 – which almost certainly led to the circumstances of Will Smith slapping Chris Rock – but it's one of those decisions that makes no sense in terms of the broadcast and even less sense when you consider the logic – which even now I can't figure out.

I'm talking, of course, of the decision to have the glut of the awards for Outstanding Limited Series – including most damningly Supporting Actor and Actress – out of the primetime ceremony and giving in during the Creative Arts Ceremony next weekend.

This decision received so much backlash almost immediately across the board – from critics performers and every single guild in Hollywood – that when it was announced back in July I was certain it would become so overwhelming that the Academy would have taken it back by now. Yet here we are, less than two weeks from the Awards, and both NBC and the Emmys are standing by a decision that even by the standards of network television and the Academy has to rank as one of the most foolish they've ever made. And that's including the decision to have five of the nominees for Best Game Show Host act as a collective emcees in 2008. Because at least they were willing to have that award be part of the ceremony. This is dumber and a far bigger slap in the face to almost everybody involved.

Start with the obvious one. While there's very little suspense of who will win Best Drama and Best Comedy there's actually quite a bit who will win Best Limited Series. All five contenders have no clear frontrunner, although Season 2 of Beef is gaining ground. Still the overwhelming majority of the nominees in writing, directing and both Supporting acting awards would help influence – and the Emmys is shafting them.

Second, it leaves out the very real fact that in this decade alone – the 2020s – some of the most memorable moments of the Emmys have come wins in those categories. I'm talking about Jennifer Coolidge's hysterical acceptance speech for The White Lotus's first season in 2022, Niecy Nash-Betts call of defiance for her work in Monster in January of 2024, Jessica Gunning's incredible speech in Baby Reindeer that September. And who among can't forget Owen Cooper's incredible acceptance speech for Adolescence last year? I didn't even like that series that much but I knew it was a moment in Emmy history.

And how many great writing and directing talents have been recognized in this category the last three years alone. We saw it for Lee Sung Jin for Beef, Richard Gadd for Baby Reindeer and Stephen Graham for Adolescence. Are we now supposed to say their triumphs must be moved to Creative Arts for the reason of time crunch?

And it's not like this year isn't going to offer a similar chance for such moments. David Harbour and Jason Bateman have worked in TV for decades, often nominated, never winning. Now both are favorites to win Supporting Actor in DTF ST. Louis. Several actresses I admire immensely are competing in Best Supporting Actress in a Limited Series/TV movie: Constance Zimmer for Love Story, Dakota Fanning for All Her Fault and the current favorite Linda Cardellini for DTF. St. Louis. All of them deserve their moments in front of their peers on prime time. The Emmys is essentially decided to shunt their triumphs to a basic cable channel that I guarantee you no one bothers to watch unless they knew it existed in the first place.

And finally – and I really shouldn't have to say this – by doing this, the Emmys is setting a dangerous precedent. The Emmys has always had all of the winners for these categories in the prime time ceremony since forever. To do it just one will be sending a message that these prizes are expendable and irrelevant to what the audience comes to see.

Now I don't know what the Emmys is planning to do in the place of these awards for Limited Series. And honestly I don't give a damn. What possible tribute to television could be worth sacrificing four awards that have been prominent in Emmy voting for decades? Who could they possibly be celebrating in order to say to these actors and talent who worked on this project "I'm sorry, we're putting your moment in the cheap seats."

No disrespect to the Creative Arts Emmys here, I've been watching you guys every year for thirty years and will be doing so this year.  But everybody – including them – knows what your place in the pantheon of the Emmys. You’re the place where all of the 'other awards' are giving, the ones that 'viewers don't care about, really." I get it, I do, if they had to give awards to all of the technical people on the same night the Emmys would be eight hours long. You need two nights to get through it all and you have to condense it to one two and a half hour showing. Your editors, cinematographers, makeup artists, scorers, and visual effects teams (among many, many others) have a generosity of spirit I'm not sure I would be able to have if I was among the best in my field, recognized my peers over and over in Hollywood, and nobody knew who I was even when I was acknowledged.

Personally I think the Emmys should devote some screentime each year for some of you wins, if only to just acknowledge that TV's biggest night isn't just about the onscreen talent. And that's again where I keep coming up against a brick wall because limited series is very much about the onscreen talent as well as writing and directing – and the Emmys is saying very clearly: "No, you're not really."

This goes against so much of what we've seen long before this, whether it is Angels in America, Big Little Lies, American Crime, American Horror Story, Sherlock and all the other shows on Masterpiece Theater that have won in the 21^st century alone. This is a knife in the heart to those of us who loves these shows (I am one of their biggest boosters) and a slap in the face to those and make them.

And why? Trust me when I tell you: the critics are going to have the knives out because the Emmys chose to do this. I guarantee you every single critics from The Hollywood Reporter to Variety and everyone in between has a paragraph in their review already criticizing you for leaving these people out. I guarantee you TV Guide has already set up a Jeer for you in advance in the next issue that comes after the Emmys. What possible tribute can you give to other actors or a legacy show that will compare to this? How can you justify celebrating TV's past at the expense of its present?

I know the talent in Hollywood always has work done but trust me when I tell you cutting your nose off to spite your face is never a good look for the industry. Considering the many, many other problems you're facing right now you're going to lose a lot and I don't see what you can possibly gain.

There's a reason I know you'll regret this. After the Critics Choice Awards decided to merge TV and film into one ceremony in 2016, they had some growing pains of their own. In their 2018 award shows they didn't bother giving any of the Supporting Actor or Actress awards in any categories in television as part of their one ceremony to try and condense it for two hours.

Immediately after that they realized that they'd made a huge mistake and they began to pull away from it and by the end of the decade they decided to give all the acting awards for TV as part of their ceremony. If that meant the show was going to run over three hours long, so be it.

These awards, I should mention, are given by critics so perhaps they had an understanding that so many other awards show don't. We know we can't be pleased when it comes to the length or makeup of these shows, so let's make this night about the industry and not about us.

You still have a week to do the right thing. And if you must insist on carrying forward with this monstrosity, all other networks who do this going forward for the love of God learn from your mistakes. This night is about you, not trying to please the critics. For one night be as self-centered and egotistical as you want. Stop trying to please those highbrow, narrow-minded, ill-tempered who can barely say polite things about anything. I can say that about them because I'm one of them – and you can say it about them too.

 

Here endeth the sermon. This week I'll be covering every  single one of these awards as if they were going to be given in prime time because they should be and because I appreciate what these people are doing even if the Emmys doesn't this year.

A Tale of Three Senators, The People and Special interests

 

I'm a student of American politics and it has always sparked a great pleasure in me it probably doesn't for the vast majority of people. Perhaps it's because I have such a wide view of it, I have a basic understanding that at its core, all the struggles that both sides  put forth as the most important issues of our time are just the latest version of a conflict that will never go away and in a free society, shouldn't.

Many might become cynical over that. I find it  comforting. When you take a very long view and see that we're still fighting some of the same issues we were in 1926 that we are in 2026, it makes you realize this too shall pass and it makes the urgency and stress will  ease just a bit.

One of the issues that is always going to be at the forefront of elections is that corporations, billionaires, the wealthy, or what we'll call the special interests have taken away the rights from the voters. All politicians of both parties have been corrupted by this and it is our necessity to get them out of office post haste. Such is the case in this election cycle and everyone in the 21^st century, particularly when it comes to the left but really both parties are guilty of it.

So I'm now going to relate two anecdotes given by two different Senators. One of them is a Republican who served in the Senate during the first two decades of the 20^th century and who I'm certain nobody has heard of. The other involves a Democratic senator who was at his time one of the most well-known examples of liberalism and will be familiar to some of you. And at their core both anecdotes tell the same story. Once I've done that I'm going to tie it to a third who clearly didn't hold with either one's teaching and paid the price.

First the Republican. Boies Penrose was what was considered a Political boss in the state of Pennsylvania back when corruption was far more out in the open then it is today.  He was elected to the Senate in 1896 and was reelected four more times, serving until he died on New Year's Eve 1921. He would be the longest serving Senator of that state until Arlen Specter surpassed his record in 2005. (So some things in politics do change.)

He was openly  conservative in a America where both parties were more conservative then liberal, being against reform of railroads, coal and most importantly oil companies. He backed conservative Republicans such as Taft and Harding for President. And in an era of cynicism he was forthright in his flaws. He actually boasted of his love of prostitutes because he didn't believe in the hypocrisy of his married counterparts who claimed not to frequent them

Indeed his forthrightness about his corruption almost makes him admirable. And it's that I want to talk about. Once asked about his political positions he would say:

I am often asked who I work for. The people or the special interests. To this I will always say: the special interests. They remember. The people forget.

That's the kind of straight talk that we always ask from our elected officials but almost never get. And I have to say it impresses me that Penrose was willing to say in print what so many elected officials must have wanted to but never did. I suspect Penrose said these words decades before Churchill would say that the biggest argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter and both men were arguing that if elected officials had to rely on the voters to keep them in power they'd never be able to hold on to it for long.

Now the liberal Democrat: Hubert Humphrey. If you're a long-time reader of this column or know anything about American history you know that Humphrey was for twenty years was considered the gold standard for the liberal cause in America, for better and for worse. I'd like to tell you a story that a friend of his told the first time he won reelection to the Senate.

Humphrey ran for reelection in 1954 during Eisenhower's first term.  At this point in American politics there were fewer wave elections in Congress or the Senate and it was true in 1954. Humphrey had manage to get elected to the Senate in 1948 but at the time Minnesota was still a relatively conservative state and no Democrat had ever won reelection. So Humphrey had to do a lot of work in order to manage what was effectively a landslide over the Republican winning by fourteen points.

Now a friend went to see him within a month of his election. Humphrey chatted with him for less then two minutes before an aide came in and told him he needed to take an urgent meeting with someone back home. His friend was somewhat irked. Hubert said: "I have to do this to make sure I'm reelected." "But you just won reelection," his friend wailed. "I know," Hubert said "and I'm off and running again."

Penrose in his cynical way and Humphrey in a more charming way were both saying the same thing about the voters: you have to keep them on your side because they have an incredibly short memory. This was just as true in an era before cable news and the internet – hell before most Americans had a television in their homes – as it was in an era before air travel and air-conditioning, two factors that Howard Baker would later argue were critical for changing the way Congress acted forever.

And I need to be very clear it has always been trickier to do this if you were a liberal then a conservative because just as 80 years ago as today, the special interests had no more respect for them then they do now.  That was true for Humphrey. Six years later he was facing a tough reelection battle in the Senate and he spent much of 1959 decided if he was going to run for President. That campaign collapsed to JFK in May and he then had to spend the next six months trying to save his seat. He managed to do it, by the way – this time by a bigger margin over the Republican – but it was a harder battle then the margin looks and he had to spend a lot of time making sure the people of Minnesota knew that Humphrey had their interests at heart.

This was true of many liberals of Humphrey's era particularly in many Midwest states and western states. It was certainly true of Frank Church in Idaho, Birch Bayh in Indiana, George McGovern of South Dakota and Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin. As the conservative revolution began in the 1960s and into the 1970s it was increasingly hard for these very liberal Senators to keep winning reelection. They were doing immense good for America but as time went on the voters of their states increasingly forgot what they did and they would end up going to right, perhaps as much because of their own short memories as well as the help of the special interests.

Now those of you who want to blame their eventual defeats on corporations will have a difficult time doing so: during the 1970s and early 1980s when most of these Democrats lost reelection Buckley v. Valeo was in full force and campaign finance laws were at their height for both parties. And that actually brings me to that third Senator who some of you might remember with fondness.

Russ Feingold was elected to the Senate in 1992 from Wisconsin. Feingold may have been the most liberal Senator in Congress during his tenure, frequently going to the left of his own party. He was a major opponent of NAFTA and free trade agreements and was one of only nine Senators to vote against creating the Department of Homeland Security. He voted against his own President multiple times, most notably voting against Timothy Geitner to be Secretary of the Treasury. And he was also one of two Democrats to vote against the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, saying it didn't go far enough.

He is best known for his work with John McCain for passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known as McCain Feingold. It took seven years to pass because of immense opposition from both parties.

(I should mention that despite being in favor of imposing spending caps in the past, he refrained from doing so on himself during his 2004 run for reelection. He would frequently assert during that run that he was being outspent by his opponents in every election which would eventually be ranked as 'pants on fire' by Politifact.com.)

The 2010 election witness the birth of the Tea Party and while the results in the Senate weren't quite as devastating as in the House the Republicans did win six Senate seats. In 2008 Obama had carried Wisconsin by more than 10 points.

Feingold would run on his record. He ran on his independence, on his belief in campaign finance (by this point the Citizen United decision had come into effect) and where as most Democrats were running away from their votes for Obamacare, Feingold was proud of it.

His opponent was Ron Johnson, a Tea Party movement favorite who was also a millionaire manufacturer who couldn't have more been endorsed by the special interests. And in November Johnson won by nearly five percent over Feingold.

Feingold had done everything he could for the people of America and the special interests remembered that. And the people of Wisconsin sent a message. To drive the message home in 2015 Feingold ran against Johnson to try and regain his Senate seat. He was backed by every liberal organization in the country and by May of 2016 Bernie Sanders  - who was by this point the heir to the positions Feingold had battled for – endorsed him and fundraised for him. Most polls in fact showed Feingold leading in that state and considering Johnson's problems in the senate, most Republicans thought he was vulnerable.

It didn't matter. Johnson won by roughly the same margin he had in 2010 and actually ran nearly 75,000 votes ahead of Trump in his landmark upset victory. Feingold actually got 2000 votes less then Hilary did in that state. Regardless of what might have happened in the Presidential election the voters couldn't have made it more clear. The people of Wisconsin had completely forgotten of all the good things Feingold had done for them and they were fine with Ron Johnson.

Feingold, very much like Bernie Sanders, spent his career railing against the evils of the special interest that had corrupted America. And while he had that right to do so he forgot that specific lesson that Boies Penrose had said a nearly in a century before. The special interests remember and the people forget.

What lessons do I as a historian take from this?

First of all the special interests will never disappear from America. Whether they own plantations in the antebellum south, control big steel or big oil during the Gilded Age, control car companies or Hollywood, all the way to the tech billionaires that the left currently gnashes its teeth over, you will never be able to rid America of the special interests. Penrose was aware of that fact at the start of the twentieth century; I'm uncertain whether AOC and Bernie are aware of it today.

They can be restrained – slightly – with legislation or executive action but that will at best hamper them only temporarily. That's the feature of being wealthy, not a bug.  In a democracy you can never destroy one part of the American experiment completely, it only shifts to another position. That is naturally with the forward movement of this country.

Those who try to do so are noble and should be approved of for their efforts. I admire the work of Humphrey and his fellow liberals in the 1950s and 1960s for the fights they did today. But throughout their careers they also knew that their ability to do so was only dependent on the voters of their states. The special interests could raise opponents to beat them, so they had to constantly go back to the people and fight for power to keep doing it. They understood this was a battle that never ended but just shifted. The special interests do have an advantage but if you can mobilize the people you have the power to stop them.

And as Russ Feingold found out the hard way there is always a cost to going against the special interests at the expense of the system and your own party. Fighting the system is noble but you have the system on your side to hold power. And the special interests have a long memory while the people forget very quickly and are far less liberal then men like he and Bernie tend to believe they are.  Feingold misjudged the mood of the voters of Wisconsin both in 2010 and 2016 and both the Senate – and arguably America – are weaker for it.

You can't beat the special interests forever and while I'm not saying you necessarily have to join them, you have to accept they are always going to be there and they will never forget their enemies. Which means you better be doing everything in your power to keep the people on your side. They are quick to forget so those who hold office have to keep reminding them, not just for their own good and the good of the country but because that's how the system has worked and always will.

Try not to forget that.

Homicide Rewatch: Shaggy Dog, City Goat

 

Written by Eric Overmeyer

Directed by Kyle Secor

 

Those of you who've seen Magnolia – and I think its more likely that by this point in time its been seen by more people than Homicide was – will recognize almost immediately the story that Juliana Cox decides to baffle a group of medical examiners in the aftermath of her being honored as Chief Medical Examiner of the year. Indeed if you remember the opening of the movie Ricky Jay says this very story was told at a convention of M.E.'s – I assume with the names changed.

So the main plot by seem protracted given that Paul Thomas Anderson and Jay deal with it in less then five minutes of screen time in the prologue of that classic film. Like most of the stories in it the tale plays out with heightened emotion, anger and depression. But because this is Homicide – and more importantly because the primary is John Munch who loves these kinds of stories – it plays with humor and charm all the way through. And indeed throughout the entire plot it plays as a frothy comedy because it is helped with one of great bits of stunt casting in the show's history. But we'll get there.

Cox tells them about how she's called from home to see what appears to be a straight up suicide 'a jumper'. Munch and Kellerman are on the scene of a white, male John Doe in his 20s. He took a header of the roof, no signs of a struggle  with witnesses who, according to Munch "witnessed liftoff, solo flight by all accounts'.  He fell seven stories and they note the awning, mute witness to his solo trajectory. (That's the biggest difference; there's no netting that would have saved our jumper's life this time.) Cox seems determined to go home but Munch tells her "not to jump to any conclusions, as it were." (Long of great Munch lines in this one, obviously.) Then Cox notes the gunshot blast. Kellerman actually seems to enjoy this next part: "I say Holmes," he says in a British accent. "Shotgun if I'm not mistaken. Which would make this murder." Then he and Munch, as all good detectives do, bet on what kind of gauge was used.

The M.E.s then begin the speculation we're used to from our detectives. One says he was suicidal, stands on the edge, gathers his nerve and just as he's about to jump, gets shot in the back by an unseen assailant. (All of the storytelling is related over several dinners.) Cox admits to thinking this but its clear he was shot in the chest, not the back.  One woman claims to have heard a shot before our jumped launched his 'short but brilliant career as a kamikaze.

In the midst of this conversation Cox's pager goes off (mirroring what happened in the flashback and then is called into work. (The convention is clearly being held in Baltimore.) Cox makes it clear that the shotgun blast would have killed him. However if his intent was to kill himself it was still suicide. She argues the awning might have slowed his fall enough  to survive. In other words he would have been left in a permanent vegetative state "with a little bit of luck'. But then Cox realizes that he was shot from 'inside the building' because they found fragments of glass from window glazier'

So they went back looking for tell-tale signs. And they receive the slight clue that someone has their window boarded up. Now the episode really gets fun.

Every season since Robin Williams appeared in 'Bop Gun' Homicide has made a habit of having at least one episode a year with an actor or actress known primarily for their comic talent in a guest role, frequently but not always cast against type as a murderer. We saw Lily Tomlin play the seemingly benign Rose Halligan in The Hat, Chris Rock as an almost comically clueless killer in Requiem for Adena, Lewis Black as an ex con in Betrayal. Now in the roles of Mr. and Mrs. Cochran we get one of the first couples of television Steve Allen and Jayne Meadows, playing a feuding couple appropriately with the first names George and Emily. (See Hey, Isn't That…for the direct connection the two of them have with Fontana.) And while there's a similar darkness it plays out, like so many stories involving Munch, as tragicomedy as opposed to melodrama.

Allen and Meadows, like so many other great comic performers, play what follows completely deadpan. The two of them bicker in a sense of fairly curmudgeonly behavior as they lead them to the shotgun which "it's never loaded…almost never." He discharged the weapon on Friday night. To be clear this was a bit of theater between the two, something they did when they fought which was often. George asks: "How could I murder someone who was committing suicide?"

Munch: "You killed him before he finished killing himself."

George: "I didn't even know he was out there.

Kellerman: "if you try to kill A and end up killing  B instead, it's still murder.

He's been threatening his wife with a shotgun for years. An unloaded shotgun, of course.  He points the shotgun, pulls the trigger, goes boom and cackles like a maniac.

We actually see all of this.

This has been going on for a while, but the last time was a Thanksgiving dinner where she burnt the gravy.  Then she burned the pot roast which led to it playing out. Munch and Kellerman spend much of this time trying to get them to stop arguing. None of them can agree who loaded it in the interim.

It takes two more meetings for drinks before Cox gets to the point. Still unaware of who the victim and who loaded the shotgun they take a warrant to the Cochran home. They find the shotgun shells in the cupboard that have been put away by George Jr. They last saw him Thanksgiving. Emily had cut off George's allowance and they had been estranged since. They figure out his fingerprint on the gun matches the body in the morgue. And here's the twist.

George Junior knew the game they used to play and he was mad enough to load the shotgun to get back at his parents. If the gun went off it would kill Emily and his father would go to prison for it. He went back to Tulsa hoping that would play out.  Despondent at his plan of revenge not playing out – the Cochran's were getting along better thanks to couples counseling – he went to the roof of his parent's building to throw it in their faces. Ironically he picked the very night she burnt the pot roast causing his father to fire the shot just as George was 'passing by, so to speak." He wanted his parents to identify the body, but he underestimated their lack of interest in the outside world.

It's suicide, avec torque. You know, with a twist.

Gharty and Ballard are investigating a non-starter 'a street dealer, based on the neighborhood." Ballard tells him that they're not supposed to profile the victim based on race or neighborhood. Gharty's reaction says a lot about him: "What a crock. What else does a cop do?" He refers to him as "one more unknown soldier of the drug wars…what we call a collateral casualty of the drug war." Of course this being Homicide Gharty is immediately backed up when Cox comes on to the scene and says: "Let me guess, drug dealer?"  And when they talk to Stivers, whose still in sex crimes she immediately identifies him as Antonio 'Jake' Livingston. 26 separate slugs in what was clearly an execution.

 Livingston was known for peddling counterfeit drugs, sugar as smack, etc. They find out a couple of white boys from Pig town in a pickup truck. Ballard actually seems amazed white boys came up for drugs. Gharty is less surprised when Stivers refers to this as a city goat stretch 'bailing wire, caulk and compound and string." Both the black female detective and the white old male detective refer to them as dope fiends.

The phrase 'city goat' is a Baltimore term for hillbilly. Appalachia isn't that far from Maryland. Gharty talks in the derivative terms we all too frequently do for what was about to become known as white trash, arguing that if these weren't the people involved they're probably cousins. Ballard tries to make the argument that this isn't politically correct.  This leads to as close to what we've gotten to a car chase on this series between a cruiser and a beat-up pickup. The pickup wins, naturally. The car belongs to Douglas McCord and a section of Baltimore we've yet to see on this show.

He shows her the public baths where for a nickel you could get a scrub and for another nickel a towel and a cardboard comb. Ballard admits that there's a whole sense of history here that's not out west. Gharty says in Baltimore history has you by the throat on a daily basis. We got a sense of it from the antebellum side last week; here we get the other side. They go to the McCord household and find a woman who refuses to let them in. She refuses to talk any more than any African-American does to the cops. They find Donna McCord who looks like she's in her twenties at the most. Ballard thinks she's their sister. Donna says: "I'm their mother."  When Ballard says she's too young to be their mother she says: "Somebody shoulda told their daddy that." 

Ballard and Gharty take a trip to their uncle in Allegheny County, 90 miles away without clearing it with Giardello. When they look at it Ballard is stunned: "This is America?" (You might consider this bigotry except the writers keep it even-handed; when they look at they say: "West Baltimore ghettoes must have looked deceptively pleasant.) However when Gharty says: "It's a shock to see white people live like this" Ballard says: "As a matter of fact, yes."  They find the weapon belong to the McCord's but when they go to a dive bar to chase them down they get involve in a brawl (Ballard is manhandled by a barfly) they get away. Gharty (who is the primary) thinks that they're going to be spending every free weekend for the next two years 'chasing our city goats around." (Turns out its actually about two months, give or take.) Interestingly while at the Waterfront, nursing their wounds, Billie Lou says that she's from that part of Baltimore. "Some get out, some get left behind," she says.

By the way Gharty tries to flirt with her and immediately shows how far behind he is. When she says she composes atonal minimalism, the best he can come up with is: "I'm a tonal man myself." Ballard rolls her eyes so high at this.

So much of what unfolds in the two stories that involve Cox are far more comedy then we usually get. And that's to be admired by the writers. This has already been a very dark season even for Homicide and the third storyline is about to bring us into our darkest territory yet.

Falsone's custody battle is still going on and he's being told by his attorney that this is an uphill battle with no real chance of victory. Falsone is starting to show an unpleasant side. He's done a background check on his wife's boyfriend and wants to get his son out of the house because the man has one DUI.  He files the paperwork but Falsone is not sanguine. As he puts it "Its like Tyson and Holyfield sitting down to dinner. Theoretically possible but…" He makes it clear he's going to make Janine work for it.  Falsone then points out something that Meldrick is about to learn and Munch already knows: "Divorce is just swapping one set of problems for another." Meldrick then says: "That’s why people sometimes choose the other solution. Murder." The way Falsone says so casually: "Don't think it didn't cross my mind."

But the real story comes when Ballard and Gharty go to see Stivers. Someone comes to them; says he doesn't read the card he just delivers the flowers. He's a process server and he's having a busy day. Georgia Rae Mahoney is suing Stivers, Lewis and Kellerman for their role in the wrongful death of Luther Mahoney. She's also suing the city, the department, Giardello and even Cox (though that defendant isn't going to be around for trial, as we'll see.) for $60 million.

Ballard and Gharty actually discuss the Mahoney case but in an abstract fashion. Gharty dismisses it as a nothing case. He knows it’s a fiasco. Ballard asks for the first time: "Does anybody know what really happened?" Gharty: "Besides Lewis, Kellerman and Stivers? Luther. He ain't talking."

When Lewis is served it is in front of Falsone. The claim is that Kellerman shot Luther in cold blood and that Stivers and Meldrick conspired to cover it up. This is, in fact, exactly what happened but when Falsone asks if that's the case Meldrick storms off without answering.

Giardello is willing to stand by his men. He says Lewis and Kellerman will stay in the rotation and its clear he's willing to take the heat for them against Barnfather.  He actually asks for the first time if there's anything he should know about this. This might have been the last chance Mike and Meldrick had to get out from under this without anything else happening. Mike says so yet again it went down like they said – but leaves out everything he's been doing with Georgia Rae to this point. Lewis storms out – and that's when things become impossible.

Lewis goes to Georgia Rae's and confronts her. He says that his brother put a gun to his head and got killed. He assumes he's got a cop and an attorney and judge on her payroll (good thinking, as it turns out.) Its when Georgia Rae says: "She's just a businesswoman trying to get the system to work for me" that she pushes Lewis too far. He tells her: "Why don't you stick this suit where you used to mule crack and skank for the Colombians?"

For the first and last time Georgia Rae show her true colors. After Meldrick throws the process in her face she kicks him square in the crotch. He pays her back by hitting her in the face. Her bodyguards are about to fall on him but she pulls them back. There's a smile on her face and we hear that laugh – though we don't know it, for the last time.

Georgia Rae is on the phone with the department and the mayor's office by the time Lewis gets back to the squad room. We don't so much see an angry Giardello as a disappointed one. Lewis is suspended indefinitely for his actions by Barnfather. And when Meldrick asks Gee to talk him out of it – something he was clearly counting on – Al stops him by saying: "For once, I agree with him."  Perhaps it's because he burnt all his IOU's bringing Frank back to the unit or maybe he genuinely doesn't recognize the detective whose been with his unit this long. Whatever the reason Lewis accepts it.

There's something incredibly solemn about the last scene. Munch asks where Meldrick is going. "To get some cigarettes," Lewis says. Munch is surprised because he doesn't smoke. Lewis doesn't answer but goes to his desk, takes his fedora and the football that we've always seen being tossed around the squad. Then he walks out tossing it in the air. Indeed many fans were sure that this was a sign that Clark Johnson was leaving the show forever. I didn't buy it  - Johnson's name was still in the credits – but it really did feel that way.

But as a result of this the war against Mahoney has entered its final phase. And when its over frogs falling from the sky will seem less destructive by comparison.

 

Notes From The Board

It's possible that when Juliana prefaced her acceptance speech with "I've never ever actually won anything before" that Overmeyer is making a dig at the fact Homicide's disgraceful track record with the Emmys.

I almost wonder when in the teaser one of the M.E.'s is bragging about using a 'forensic entomologist' that someone at CBS would come up with the inspiration for Gil Grissom two years down the road. Certainly the way that one of them brags about figuring out where the body is based on a bug indigenous to the Delaware river really does sound like the kind of thing CSI would perfect.

'Detective Munch': This case leads John to get historical more then once. When Kellerman brings up the theory of overkill Munch tells the story of Rasputin. "They poisoned him, they stabbed him, they shot him 12 times, and then they stuffed him in a burlap bag, they dumped him in the Neva River to drown and here's the beauty part: an hour later, he flops up five miles downstream still kicking."  Kellerman replies: "That's why you're a great detective. Because you know stuff. Except about weapons." And the two start bickering about the shotgun used.' When Kellerman tells him to stop with the metaphors Munch adds: "Without metaphors what are we left with? We have a riddle, surrounded by a mystery, wrapped inside an enigma and stuffed in a body bag." So he goes from Rasputin to Stalin in the same conversation. Munch does know stuff.

But honestly the best line from Munch comes from Kellerman.

Munch: "It's homicide if the shot was delivered with intent. If its accidental discharge…

Kellerman: "Don't you hate when that happens?"

Munch: With that mustache and beady little eyes, he looks like a cross between Steve Buscemi, John Waters and Edgar Allan Poe.

Kellerman: "Aren't they all the same guy?"

Honestly these two were born to be partners. Shame how the season ends.

We learn the havoc the rotation is wreaking on the department. The policy has made it clear that no one there knows who the current players in the drug game are. Cox suggests they search out Stivers.

Hey, Isn't That…Steve Allen is  known for being the man who essentially invented late night as the first host of The Tonight Show. He co-created it in 1954 and would run it for 3 years before leaving. He would later create both the Steve Allen Playhouse and nearly a dozen other comedy shows connected to him, One of the most famous comedians of all time he was known for extensive guest work in television and film usually as himself. One of the only times he played someone who wasn't Steve Allen was when he played Lech Oseransky, Victor Erliich's birth father on St. Elsewhere which earned him an Emmy nomination. He was one of the great pioneers for TV as an art form yet in his later years rejected the kinds of dramas such as The Sopranos and OZ that HBO was created as disgusting and sick. He died on October 30, 2000 at 79.

Jayne Meadows was the sister of Audrey Meadows, who famously played Alice on The Honeymooners. She began her career in Hollywood and starred in such films as Lady of the Lake, David & Bathsheba. Like her husband she also was a pioneer in the early days of television in the first Hallmark Hall of Fame, Kraft Mystery Theatre and Studio One. After marrying Allen in the 1950s she would star in several sixties and seventies shows, most notably Medical Center as Nurse Chambers. She also appeared in several of her husbands works including his projecting Meeting of Minds where she played Cleopatra, Florence Nightingale and Catherine the Great among others. She had regular roles in failed series like It's Not Easy. She played Olga Oseransky, Victor Erlich's birth mother on St. Elsewhere (along with Allen) and was nominated for an Emmy for that along with her husband. She was nominated for her third and final Emmy in the short-lived series High Society in 1996 for Best Supporting Actress.  After Steve passed away in 2000 she retired from acting and passed away on April 26, 2015 at 95.

Neither Kyle Secor nor Andre Braugher appear in this episode. We'll get an explanation where Bayliss is in the episode that follows.

On The Soundtrack: Depending on which service you have, you'll hear John Campbell's 'Couldn't Do Nothing' as Ballard and Gharty travel through Allegheny county looking for the McCord's.

Jeopardy Masters 2026 Quarterfinals Recap: Friday August 28th

 

Match 1

Paolo Pasco vs. Juveria Zaheer vs. Long Nguyen

Long knew a win could help him the most and he came out swinging in the Jeopardy round. He found the Daily Double in the Jeopardy writers tribute to Oliver Stone: GREEN, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, IS GOOD.

At the time Long was in the lead with 2800 points and he bet everything:

In a Paris-set 1890 Marie Corelli novel, a character says of this "What an idea…Medicinal green! Think of melted emeralds". It took a while before he guessed: "What is absinthe?" He was so astonished he was correct.

By the end of it he had 11,600 points to Juveria's 2600. Paolo, who really struggled (as did the entire group with) NON-KELSEY GRAMMAR was lucky to finish the Jeopardy round at -800 points. (Grammar have never been my strong point either and I didn't even try to buzz in on any of them.) He finished by referring to Arthur Fleck as the 'Joka' before saying Joker just to get -800.

Paolo knew he had to come out swinging in Double Jeopardy and he demonstrated some Holzhauer like ability to find the Daily Double on his first two picks.

In the first category alone he showed true skill in A NOT-THERE PHRASE. This was the kind of category that was clearly designed for this tournament. Here's the example Ken gave: "Boy or A best selling novel'. The correct response would be Gone Girl. This is the kind of category even the best Jeopardy champions save for last. Paolo picked the 1600 point clue as his first choice.

He bet the 2000 he knew he needed to:

Relative humidity is used in calculating the index: a virtual tie in a race.

You gotta figure Paolo's crossword puzzle constructing clues helped him come up with: "What is dead heat?"

Immediately after that the Joka as Ken teased and Paolo smiled about found the other one in BODIES OF WATER. Again he bet the 2000 points he was allowed:

Once one of the largest bodies of water of its kind, its reduction came from the diversion of the Syr Darya and Amu Darya rivers.

Paolo came up with it: "What is the Aral Sea?" He moved up to 3200 points and into second place. But despite his impressive recovery he couldn't catch up to Long.

Long finished in the lead with 22,400, ten thousand points more Paolo, 20,000 more than Juveria.

So the question was: would Paolo play safe and try to play for second, which would maintain his position on the leaderboard or go for the win in Final Jeopardy and try to lock up his place right now?

The category for Final Jeopardy was PEOPLE IN 2OTH CENTURY HISTORY. After brilliant service in Morocco in 1926 at age 33, he became the youngest brigadier general in the European Army.

Juveria was first. She wrote down: "Who is Petain?" That was incorrect but she wagered nothing.

Paolo was next: "Who is Lawrence?" He was clearly thinking of Lawrence of Arabia, not a bad idea but also wrong. He bet 7599, leaving him with 4801. He clearly wanted to lock up second place.

Long was now looking pretty safe. He was also thinking of the French. "Who is De Gaulle?"  As it turned out Spain was at war with Morocco and it turned out to be General Francisco Franco, who would famously become dictator of Spain. (For the record I was closer to Paolo; I wrote down: "Who is Montgomery?") Long lost 2401, which left with 19,999 points more than enough to get a victory he desperately needed.

 

Long received 3 Match Points. Paolo got 1 more match point. Juveria had zero

 

Interview: Long mentioned a story about how he had studied tennis for a while as a teenager and while he thought he was good one day he went to his tennis coach and asked whether to go to a math academic tournament or a tennis match that were on the same day, his coach told him he had a chance to get an academic scholarship, he had no chance as a tennis scholarship. Juveria shared that she had been comparing every single Master to someone from the MCU. Long was Ant-Man because he was an engineer who had just come out of nowhere, Paolo was the Filipino Peter Parker (same initials) and Juveria was protective of her husband and children so she was the Scarlet witch. Paolo joked that somehow since he'd first appeared on Jeopardy there were people on line who he said was a 'Filipino Jeopardy champ' who 'has swag' , something he greatly disagreed with based on close-ups from previous appearances. He thought he'd improved his dress sense since the Masters.

 

Match 2

Yogesh Raut vs. Victoria Groce vs. Andrew He

Andrew knew going into this game that he needed a win just to stay alive. He had to do it against the two highest ranked players on the leaderboard. It didn't work out as well as it did for Long.

It took a long time in the Jeopardy for anyone to find the Daily Double and VICTORIA found it in MYSTIC COMMERCE. She was in the lead already and bet the 5400 points she had:

The name of this optical brand founded in 1919 was meant to sound like the pinnacle of achievement. She figured it out: "What is Olympus?" and doubled her score to 10,800.

At the end of it Victoria led with 11,400 points to Yogesh 5200 and Andrew's 1400 points.

Victoria and Yogesh went back and forth early but Victoria found the first Daily Double in CAUGHT IN 4 'A's. There were going to be four A's in every response and at that point no one had gotten a clue correct. So Victoria, who had 16,200 points "based on this category bet a meager 200:

It's the title given to Ranjit Singh, founder of the Sikh kingdom of the Punjab.

She responded: "What is maharaja?"

Two clues later Victoria found the other Daily Double in 3-NAMED PEOPLE. She tried to do some quick math (and there was a category on the board called "WERE YOU TOLD THERE'D BE MATH?) before sighing and betting $2600:

She taught law at Notre Dame before being joining the Supreme Court.

There are two obvious candidates and Victoria picked the correct one: "Who is Amy Comey Barrett?" She went up to 21,000 even.

She would finish the round even stronger with 30,200 points. Yogesh had 9600 and Andrew had 4800. Victoria had locked up the win but Andrew still had a chance at a match point for second place.

The Final Jeopardy category was PEN NAMES. Schardanus Rider, a pseudonym found on 17^th century British Almanacs anagrams to this American pseudonym from the 18^th century.

In a sense all three of them got the correct response (as did I) but only two benefited.

Andrew wrote down: "Who is Richard?" He was clearly thinking of Poor Richard but they couldn't accept it as was. It cost him everything, but it wouldn't have affected the end result.

Yogesh was next: "Who is Richard Saunders?" And that is the complete pen name that Ben Franklin famously used for Poor Richard's Almanac. Yogesh added 1 point to his total, locking up second place.

Victoria also came up with Richard Saunders and bet 4375, locking up her third victory in the 2026 Jeopardy Masters so far and added another 3 match points to her total.

Interviews: Andrew said that in trying to keep up with Jeopardy he listened to a bunch of old songs on a loop which made him joke that after the last summer Spotify seemed to thing he was 93 years old! (It didn't pay off for him.) Victoria told her about competing in adult spelling bee which she says is with no offense to anyone here 'is the dorkiest crowd ever' and impressed us with another word she'd won to win with. Yogesh talked about his experiences in trivia around the world and how he seems to be using his newfound success to serve as a mentor to others.

 

 

LEADERBOARD AFTER AUGUST 29^TH

Victoria Groce – 9 Match Points

Yogesh Raut – 8 Match Points

Paolo Pasco – 6 Match Points

Long Nguyen – 5 Match Points

Juveria Zaheer – 3 Match Points

Andrew He -  1 Match Point

 

At this point Victoria has officially locked up her spot in the semifinals.  For the remaining three spots its mathematically possible that the remaining five players could qualify at the least until next week.  That said its looking pretty good that Yogesh will qualify for the quarterfinals for the third consecutive year right now.

But there are still four games left to play and next Tuesday we'll get a good idea who will be moving on to the semi-finals on Thursday. It's been thrilling so far, let's hope they can keep it up.

 

My Predictions for the 2026 Emmys Week 2 Conclusion:Outstanding Supporting Actress in A Drama Et Al

 

We've had multiple nominees from the same series in Best Supporting Actress every single year this decade so far. And it rarely works out for one of the nominees from the drama that has the most nominees.  Prime example: It's very likely the split between the four nominees from The White Lotus last year helped pave the way for Katherine LaNasa's win for The Pitt – which clearly shocked her.

Now she's the favorite to repeat but the shoe's on the other foot. There are four other nominees from The Pitt that very likely will divide the vote. Throw in the fact a couple of other performers have won awards for shows this season and this is far from decided.

For the record I'm going to do what I did for Supporting Actor in a Drama and throw in my personal pick from The Pitt as well as a favorite from a different show. Keep in mind this is a top heavy field.

 

Taylor Dearden, The Pitt (My Pick for The Pitt). For Playing: Dr. Mel King, sweating a deposition and finding out new facts about her sister. Pro: Dearden is my favorite character this season for many reasons. For one thing she's still incredibly nervous about working here in a way most of the staff isn't, spending the first half of the shift terrified of a deposition. For another, she's centered her entire life around the care of her disabled sister so it appalls her to learn that not only does her sister have a better social life she does but is pulling away from her because of it. And there's the realization that she's trying to keep things together without flying apart and has formed so many bonds that I already care about deeply. Throw in the fact that she is the daughter of Bryan Cranston and there's a feel good story. And come on for that post Season 2 credits rendition of You Ought to Know alone she deserves respect. (I want her and Isa Briones to recreate that moment on the Emmy stage this year.) Con: Like Mel herself it seems likely that Dearden will always be overshadowed by greater talent. I rest assured by the certainty that while this is his first nomination, it won't be her last.

 

Fiona Dourif, The Pitt. For Playing: Dr. Cassie McKay, facing a chaotic shift where she watches a terminally ill patient make a difficult decision. Pro: Like Dearden, Dourif is the daughter of a great actor. (Indeed her father Brad appeared in Season 1.) But her work is often more subtle and compassionate. Much of her work this shift dealt with her taking care of a terminally ill cancer patient and her family and then watched as she made the decision to end her life and spent most of that shift trying to prepare her family and most frequently her children to say goodbye. In one of those deep ironies that often affects this show, Cassie was on the street when her patient passed away and that clearly hit her even deeper then the death itself. Dourif's nomination was the least expected of the four nominees on this show but in my mind it’s one of the better choices by the Emmys overall this year. Con: The storyline she's a part of may help her – Tai Anderson was nominated for an Emmy along with Dourif – but its far more likely she will be overshadowed by other forces

Alison Janney, The Diplomat. For Playing: Grace Penn, ascending to the White House after the death of the President. Pro: There's the historical part if Janney were to pull of a victory here. It would be her eighth Emmy as an actress, putting her into a tie with Julia-Louis Dreyfus for most Emmys won by a performer. There's the synchronicity of it: her first four Emmys came for her work as CJ on The West Wing where she merely spoke for the President and now she is playing the President. There's the continued fact of her versatility and excellence. Going into this Emmy cycle she had a chance to be nominated in comedy for her work in Palm Royale and TV Movie Limited Series for Miss You, Love You. There's the fact that over the last two years, incredibly, the Emmy have shortchanged her, especially by ignoring her in this category last year when she was nominated for every award in the book for her role. And then there's the fact that yet again she demonstrates all the qualities that have made Janney one of the greatest actresses in history as Grace Penn, a President who has committed treason just before she took office and now has concerned about what will be done. Con: The Emmys might very well want to give a prize to someone who hasn't already got an Emmy in every acting category a performer can win in in both drama and pretty much comedy as well. Not saying they won't give it to Janney, or that she doesn't deserve it, but it hasn't been their pattern this decade

Katherine LaNasa, The Pitt (EXPERTS PICK). For Playing: Charge Nurse Dana Evans, dealing with a chaotic shift while still recovering from her assault from last year. Pro: It's been clear this shift that Dana is only slightly more put together then Robby. She spent much of the season helping a trainee adjust to her first day and several hours dealing with a victim of sexual assault, then erupting in fury when she learned a rape kit from weeks earlier still hadn't been collected. She spent the shift handling the analog ER and trying to protect her trainees and increasingly becoming worried by Robby's harsh and mean-spirited behavior. It all exploded in a long confrontation after Dana ended up dosing a patient who assaulted one of her nurses and she told Robby everything would be here when he came back. When he answered: "What if I don't come back?" you could see the terror forming over LaNasa's faces even as he never answered the question. All in all, it was a superb performance that deserves to repeat in this category. Con: What worked for LaNasa last year could very well work against her this year. Throw in the fact of what happened at this year's Astras and I'm beginning to think momentum might be shifting to…

Sepideh Moafi, The Pitt (DARK HORSE). For Playing: Dr. Al-Hashimi, the interim replacement who clashes with Dr. Robby and is hiding a diagnosis. Pro: Moafi was the most central new cast member to The Pitt in Season 2, an accomplished doctor with a clear history behind her who was more than qualified to replace Dr. Robby and yet no matter how good she was he challenged her in every scene they shared. The overwhelming majority of this was on him: as an outsider with no knowledge of the history she had the clearest look at how horrible his behavior was to his fellow doctor and it was satisfying watching her cut him down throughout the entire season. But there was clearly something she was hiding and when she told Robby about in the final episodes it faced him with an ethical dilemma that we're still not sure how it will be resolved next season. It was a restrained, calm performance the type that usually doesn't get recognition. So the fact that Moafi managed to win at the Astras a few weeks ago in this category is the clearest sign yet that it might resonate with Emmy voters. Con: Moafi's problem is the same as every other nominee for The Pitt: the other three actresses will (for good reason) take votes away from her. I don't envy them their jobs: all of these actresses gave superb performances and it's going to be tough for them to choose.

Julianne Nicholson, Paradise (My Pick). For Playing: Sarah Redmond, code name Sinatra facing threats from without and within after emerging from a month-long coma. Pro: I'm very grateful the Emmys have been catching up with one of the most undervalued actresses in 21^st century TV.  She won an Emmy for playing 'Dance Mom' on Hacks last year while being nominated in this same category. While her role in Paradise was somewhat diminished compared to Season 2, Nicholson continued to flesh about Sinatra to the point where by the end of the season (and in theory her life) she went from villain to antagonist to someone who did bad things for the right reasons. It's clear that all along she's been trying to save humanity and that caused her to horrific things even before the reality of the bunker. But we saw the good person she once was while she watched the birth of the first child in Paradise, someone who genuinely wanted the approval of her therapist, someone who may have done everything to see her son again and may have succeeded. In the final minutes of Season 2 she seemed at peace for the first time in the entire series, watching the bunker she spend her life and fortune on collapse over her head and in that final moment perhaps realize what she wanted all along. I don't really know if this will be the end of Nicholson's tour (as we saw throughout the season we saw a lot of the people who died last year in flashbacks) but it's the kind of role deserving of an award. Con: As superb as her work is I have to admit it's not at the same level of even some of the other non-Pitt nominees. But considering she's recreating the role that won the first Emmy she got in Mare of Easttown in Season 2 of Task I think it's safe to say she'll have another chance sooner rather than later.

Karolina Wydra, Pluribus. For Playing: Zosia, the representative of the hive mind to Carol. Pro: Wydra was one of the breakout stars of 2025 for her work as Zosia and that's saying something considering that most of the season she's basically a representation of the forces that have conquered Earth rather than a character of her own. I always give extra credit for those whose roles have deeper layer and you can't get much deeper than someone who doesn't think she's an actual person. Most of the time the viewer doesn't trust Zosia's motives any more than Carol does and we watch as Carol clearly becomes charmed by her with a sign of concern. But there's something about Zosia's very real ability to struggle with calling herself 'I' rather then the hive mind 'We' that is very really, along with the memory she shares with Carol as Zosia for the first time in the series. In that montage where its clear Carol has fallen in love with Zosia for the briefest of moment we want to believe in it not just for Carol, but for Zosia. That's how good a job Wydra has done. It's a revelatory performance that has gotten deserved respect, including a Saturn for Best Supporting Actress. Of all the nominees who aren't in The Pitt, I think Wydra has the best chance of breaking through and winning. Con: Wydra is a supporting actress in a series that was created by Vince Gilligan. We all know just how well that tends to work for them the last decade.

 

Prediction: I think that this one is more wide open then it looks. For the moment I'm predicted Moafi but I'm not confident of it. To be clear they are all deserving winners.

 

Now let's look through the remaining categories.

 

 

OUTSTANDING GUEST ACTOR IN A DRAMA

Colman Domingo has previously won in this category and is the heavy favorite to repeat for the final season of Euphoria. I'm actually inclined to think that it will go to Jeff Kober for his work as Duke in the final stretch of The Pitt.

 

OUTSTANDING GUEST ACTRESS IN A DRAMA

Having seen all six performances my personally preference is for Shailene Woodley who is still the favorite for her work in Paradise. Brittany Allen is gaining on her but I'd personally bet on Tai Anderson for pulling it off for someone from The Pitt.

 

 

OUTSTANDING DIRECTING AND WRITING

I expect Pluribus to win in both of these categories. That being said, don't rule out an upset by Slow Horses in either one as that does seem to be their pattern. It's currently ranked in third place in writing for the season finale behind The Pitt and Pluribus so I'm guessing that's where it would happen if it does.

 

Next week, I will wrap up by coverage with Best Limited Series. Oh and stay tuned this weekend as I let the Emmy have it with both barrels as to how they're doing it this year. One week to change your mind, NBC.

Jeopardy 2026 Masters Quarterfinals Recap: Thursday August 27th

 

 

Match 1

Victoria Groce vs. Andrew He vs. Long Nguyen

Going into this game Andrew and Long needed a win far  more than Victoria did. For much of the Jeopardy round Andrew had the advantage, helped when he found the Daily Double early in CLASSICAL COMPOSITION. Already in the lead with 2800 points he wagered everything:

Debussy took the title of a piano movement from a Verlaine poem that begins "Your soul is like a moonlit landscape fair."

Andrew pondered: What is Claire de Lune?" It was correct and he was into a big lead.

But despite her reluctance to pick it Victoria finished strong by running the category RECENT HORROR to retake the lead, finishing with 9600 points to Andrew's 5600. Long trailed with 2800 points.

In Double Jeopardy Long was helped when he found the first Daily Double on his first pick SCIENCE & SCIENTISTS. Saying "I was kind of like a  a scientist back in the day" he bet everything.

Oblivious sharks and hungry remora have this symbiotic relationship, partly from Latin for 'table'.

Once again we were nervous until Long responded: "What is commensalism?" He moved up to 5600 points, right on Andrew's tail

Two clues after that Andrew got the other Daily Double in RATED MIDDLE 'X'. (The letter X would be in the exact center of the response.) With 7800 to Victoria's 11,200 he wagered 6000 or as he put it '6 kilo-points."

Synonyms for this include center, core & union. He couldn't figure it out. At home I was right – I guessed "What is nexus?" but because I hadn't responded correctly on the clue prior I gave myself no points. Andrew dropped to 1800. He never got out of third place the rest of the round. Victoria and Long went up and down much of the rest of the round but nothing changed in order by the end of Double Jeopardy.

This was the first game where at the end of Double Jeopardy no one had a runaway. Victoria had 15,600 points to Long's 8000 while Andrew had 4800 points. So the end result for any of the free players was not written in stone.

The Final Jeopardy category was WORLD LANGUAGES. One of 24 official languages of the EU, this island tongue spoken by 500,000 is a form of Arabic written in the Latin alphabet.

For the first time in this year's Masters all three players had the correct response in Final Jeopardy (as did I at home) What is Maltese?

Andrew wagered 4000, moving him to 8600. Long wagered 7601, giving him 15,601 and putting him momentarily in the lead. It came down Victoria and when her correct response was revealed as well as her 401 point wager for a well-deserved victory.

It was Victoria's second win and  3 more Match Points. Long got 1 match point. Andrew got zero.

 

Interviews: Long admitted that he and Victoria had gone all the way back to college in terms of rivalries both in Academic Quiz Bowl and that in high school she'd beaten his brother's team. He said his brother had come all the way across the country to see him play…hopefully. Andrew talked about how his increasingly long hair dated back to 2020 but before his audition he had been told to cut because 'it was Covid hair.' Victoria showed us a good luck charm that dated all the way back to her first appearance on Jeopardy, a baby toy named Mutton that was Nora's from 2005. It served her in good standing today.

 

 

Match 2

Paolo Pasco vs Yogesh Raut vs. Juveria Zaheer

The three top players on the leaderboard after Wednesday's games battled for a win that would give one of them a clear advantage going forward. Yogesh got an advantage early in the Jeopardy round in the category HAVE A SEAT. He was already in the lead with 2800 points and though the category made him want to 'have a seat' as he put it, he still bet all his points.

2 animals that don't typically get along combine in this folksy term meaning a position of great advantage. Yogesh knew it was: "What is the catbird seat?" And went up to 5600 points. He was then generous enough to select "I WANT MY REALITY TV' for Juveria, who thanked him for doing so before getting the 1000 point clue correct.

Yogesh finished the Jeopardy round with 7600 points but Paolo with 4800 and Juveria with 2600 were right on his heels.

Yogesh got off on a fast start in Double Jeopardy but before he could completely run away with it Paolo rang in on a 1200 point clue and then found the first Daily Double in OUR FAVORITE RHYMES. With little choice he bet 6000 points:

In this work the irrepressible Mr. Gilbert rhymed 'Ring the merry bells on board ship' with 'for the union of his lordship'. It is greatly to his credit that he knew the correct response: "What is H.M.S. Pinafore?" (Savoyard humor.) He moved up to 12,000 points.

Two clues later Yogesh found the other Daily Double in ELEMENTARY MY DEAR MASTERS. At the time he led with 16,400 points to Paolo's 10,400 so he also bet 6000 points. This time not going all in probably saved Yogesh the game.

The Soviets wanted to name element number 104 kurchatovium; the Americans got it named this, after a physicist and Royal Society president.

This one clearly stumped him (and me at home too). Before time ran out he guessed: "What is Seaborgium? It was actually Rutherfordium. He dropped into a tie with Paolo for the lead.

The rest of the round was a mix of incorrect responses, triple stumpers and a slow recovery by Juveria. But Yogesh would hold on to his lead. However unlike all the previous games  at the end of Double Jeopardy this one was anyone's to win. Yogesh led with 15,600 points; Paolo was next with 11,200 and Juveria right in there with 9800.

The Final Jeopardy category was LITERARY NAMES. A literary friendship began when these two met in Florence in 1350; the death of one in 1374 inspired a sonnet by the other.

Juveria's response was revealed first. Who are Chaucer and Petrarch?" Sadly she was half correct. Even sadder, it cost her everything.

Paolo wrote down: "Who indeed?" After the laughter subsided it cost him 6401, leaving him with 4799.

It came down to Yogesh. His response was: "Who is Dante and Petrarch?" And unfortunately he was also only half correct. Petrarch was correct but the man he wrote one of his famous sonnets for was Boccaccio. (I also was half correct but I misread the clue and wrote down Laura as the other half.)

It came down to Yogesh's wager which was 6801. It left him with 8799 and today that was enough as he managed a scrappy victory.

Yogesh managed his second win of the Masters and got 3 match points. Paolo got 1. Juveria zero

 

 

Interview: Juveria told them that with her Jeopardy winnings her eight year old daughter insisted that they go on the Disney Adventure Treasure cruise at the concierge level. While mystified her eight year old knew what concierge level was, she showed pictures of their trip and said they were headed for Hawaii. Yogesh said he'd been hanging out with Isaac Hirsch and since they were both Columbo fans they'd started guessing which villains from Columbo their fellow Jeopardy Masters would be. After debate Juveria was ranked as William Shatner. Juveria seemed charmed: "He is Canadian." And Paolo told us of a continued fantasy of his to recreate a music video involving OK Kid. (I remember this discussion) and apparently he's now in the position of owing a musician of OK's stature an email!

 

 

LEADERBOARD AFTER AUGUST 26^TH GAMES

Yogesh Raut – 7 Match Points

Victoria Groce – 6 match points

Paolo Pasco – 5 Match Points

Juveria Zaheer  -3 Match Points

Long Nguyen - 2 Match Points

Andrew He – 1 Match Point

 

Halfway through the quarterfinals only 2 match points are separating first from third. And a win for anyone in bottom three could shift things all over again.

I'll be back with Friday's results this weekend. Tomorrow's results could shift things irrevocably. We'll find out then.