How A Strike Within In A Strike Lays Bare The False Progressive Values of Hollywood In The Starkest Sense Yet

 

 

Those of you who are long time readers of my column might be aware that in July of 2023 I began a series of articles called the Disruption Series in response to what was quickly becoming the longest work stoppage in Hollywood industry: the joint strike held by the WGA and SAG-AFTRA.

These articles weren't directly political – I still wasn't comfortable writing about politics in anything but in an indirect fashion back then – but in hindsight they were for me the first step that caused me to essentially begin to push back hard again the most well-known left-leaning people in America. Most of my concern was about the health of the industry that was the bread and butter of my columns and whose work I still worship immensely. I knew that Hollywood was still struggling to recover after the pandemic, that streaming was starting to undermine sources of entertainment such as network and cable severely and that increasingly networks were beginning to merge with studios and streaming services in order they could survive financially. This was hardly the time to destabilize the industry further with a labor stoppage.

And yet for the summer and well into the fall that's what both the WGA and SAG-AFTRA chose to do. In doing so they brought out all of the worst aspects of Hollywood's personalities and perhaps for the clearest time yet demonstrated to outsiders that for all of their so-called beliefs in liberal values and equality, at the end of  the day that stopped at their own pocketbook. For all the cosplaying they did as working stiffs on picket lines, what they really were doing was portraying themselves as John Galts. In their minds they were the job creators and the corporations needed to bow before them and pay them what they believed they were worth. That the overwhelming majority were already multimillionaires was irrelevant, that the industry might not have any money to pay them from streaming was not even considered. Their logic demonstrated that they couldn't understand economics at even a first grade level; in their minds Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos were billionaires, so they must be hiding the royalties from Black Bird and Marvelous Mrs. Maisel from all of the hardworking people in Hollywood. The fact that many streaming services were beginning to collapse because there was no money – Netflix would reveal it had been lying about its ratings during this period and would have to start both raising subscriptions and adding commercials to cover it – never enters their minds at all. And they certainly didn't care how they were affected the lives of all the other people who worked in Hollywood – caterers, gaffers, set designers and everything else in the industry – who weren't like Billy Porter and didn't have the benefit of a second house to sell to cover expenses.

What's all the more galling is that eventually both the WGA and SAG-AFTRA had to come back an accept a deal that was, for all intents and purposes, not much better than the one the DGA had accepted a month before both industries went on strike. Hollywood has gone out of its way to polish the turd for its members and for the audiences they have but I will be damned if I can see what they actually gained. A writer for Smash said she got a 6 cent royalty check from Hulu and Mandy Moore said she got one for 11 cents for This Is Us. The streamers were never underpaying the talent; there was no money there to give.

If it anything the industry is still recovering from the strike across the board and we continue to see economic cutbacks everywhere. Hollywood, to be clear, sees no correlation between their actions and these increasingly bad times for the industry, if anything they've become more arrogant in their outrage towards the corporate oligarchs in the aftermath of the 2024 election. What this has done, increasingly, is make them sound even more tone deaf and out of touch then they were during the strike as well as more ungrateful to the industry. The only lesson they've learned is that they want to protect their own finances and can't bear to lose even more money. So when time came to negotiate contracts for both the WGA and SAG-AFTRA earlier this year there was none of the drama or tension as before: all sides agreed quietly and with little reaction.

What almost nobody mentioned, except in some journals during the industry is that there was a labor stoppage going on involving one of the Hollywood unions that was vital to the strike of 2023 and yet no one in any part of the industry wanted to talk about it. The biggest reason is that it would lay bare just how selfish and ultimately hypocritical the industry in a way that none of their tone-deaf performative activism ever could.

On February 17^th the staff union connected with the WGA West, which is located in LA, went out on a picket line demanding better wages and 'just cause protection'. The people who were essential to so many aspects of the WGA West in LA – no doubt playing a vital role in so much the work during the 2021 strike – are not rich people. They have a salary floor of $43,000 which in California is horrible. They wanted a work increase wage somewhere between 15-20 percent they settled for four. They also wanted their salary floor increased to $57,000, longevity increases for those who had worked at the union for five, ten or fifteen years. They also wanted a labor-management committee and contractor protections.

The picket line became a staple outside the headquarters on Fairfax Avenue and 3^rd Street. To say this was awkward for the WGA is putting it mildly because they were trying to negotiate with the studios for a better deal for themselves. Now you'd think in an industry that deals both with optics and trying to deal with negotiations they'd want to put forth a model of being good management as well of progressivism.

Instead they have been accused of terminating the employing of a union organizer and supporters, bargaining the contract in bad faith, many staffers alleging they were stripped of their health insurance and illegal surveillance of their employees. Indeed showing no sense of optics at one point representatives of the WGA attempted to enter a build for film and TV bargaining while they're protestors were present. The fact that this took place just three years after accusing corporations of being bad bosses shows a kind of bizarre lack of self-awareness. Writers have actually called this strike 'embarrassing' and says this 'degrades the goodwill we won during our strike'.

To be clear these writers mean the goodwill they got with the corporate interests, not the people who don't have jobs in Hollywood that isn't related to talent. They made it clear multiple times during the strike they couldn't give a damn. The most obvious example came when Drew Barrymore began her talk show because she wanted to provide an income for the people who worked under her and were starting to undergo financial strain due to loss of income. Everyone would immediate vilify Barrymore on social media, eventually causing her to back down. This was the clearest example to that point (there were far more to come, unfortunately) about the basic selfishness of the industry and their lack of compassion when it came to  so many of the values they preached.

Much of this took place during the height of award season and while A-List talent was telling ICE to F--- itself, screaming at a man with Tourette's for being a racist and accusing the men's hockey team of being sexist, there was no support among these speakers for the people striking in LA. In an irony the writers themselves couldn't script the WGA canceled its LA awards ceremony so that the dues paying members wouldn't have to cross a picket line – and more importantly not get involved in what would have been awkward conversation with the media about this. They held the ceremony in New York where every winner would celebrate themselves away from the ugliness of labor strikes. To be sure Hollywood had no problem cancelling every awards show in the fall of 2023 until the strikes involving them were resolved, something that I'm very sure no one wanted to talk about.

This deal, I should add is, the exact same kind of scale that was arranged with WGA East which settled in February of 2026, right about the time WGA West was rejecting it. The deal they have is prohibitive and still needs to be voted on by the rank and file but I have little doubt it will be approved.

My sympathy is far greater for the staff members at WGA West that it ever could be for those who pay dues. These people were vital to their industry in a subtler and more important way and clearly make far less then the talent involved. It also shows the very real contrast for what the writers and actors claimed they were doing. They were cosplaying at being working stiffs; these people actually were – and they couldn't be bothered to even wear a pin in solidarity. I guess they were too busy make it clear that no one was illegal on stolen land to help people who were having trouble paying rent.

If Fox News and right-wing media hasn't been paying some attention to this story and using it as part of their nightly broadcast for the last three months then they're clearly not as good at their job as so many people have thought they were for this time. To be sure much of Hollywood's actual behavior and the left overall has more than provided multiple examples of their greatest hypocrisies possible and considering that the GOP doesn't have the best relationship with organized labor these days this would probably cause backlash on them from the left who will gladly point out right-wing hypocrisy to cover their own any day of the week.

Yet this 'strike within a strike' could not be a clearer example in microcosm of so many of the hypocrisies within Hollywood's progressivism, not the least the way they have recent decided that corporations are villains and rich people are the enemy. That Sarah Paulson, while this strike was still going on, chose to spend $100,000 for an invitation to the Met Gala, no doubt hundreds of thousands on a costume to show she was against the one percent ,while so many of the people who had played a role in her continued prosperity struggled for a working wage and health insurance, is perhaps the most tone-deaf part of an excruciating level of performative behavior.

Millionaire actors have been jetting around the world protesting film festivals, attending awards shows while wearing pins protesting the administration, calling their corporations out for fascism, using the public airwaves to rail against all the evils Republicans are doing to the average American all while a picket line is going on outside negotiations to make sure they get more millions for themselves. This is the kind of behavior you'd expect on Succession or at The White Lotus and somehow the people who create and star in it are as blind to their foolishness as anyone at Waystar Royco.

It is bad enough that Hollywood has basically decided that terms like 'limousine liberal' are no longer slurs but badges of honor that they were like the pins on their awards shows. That at the end of the day they are just selfish when it comes to feeding off the fruits of the labors and have no more problem ignoring the working stiff then the corporate bosses that are on the sides of conservatives is the biggest sign yet of their own hypocrisies. The WGA West strike and how Hollywood spent the height of awards season pretending not to see the little people who put them where they were should be the clearest reason yet for why anyone who still thinks it is important for a celebrity to 'share the values that you do' is nearly as clueless as the celebrities themselves.

Celebrities are a bunch of rich entertainers who are very much part of the one percent themselves. They're performers who can read a line of virtue signaling as well as any line of dialogue. They are as selfish as the MAGA politicians they rail against as now being in line with the values of the 'average American.' To be clear they haven't been an 'average American' for a very long time. Average Americans don't go to film festivals, have thousands of cameras pointed on their every move, get royalty checks from movies they made twelve years ago that you didn't see, win shiny awards that are gold plated or get paid a million dollars for appearing in a coffee commercial. So why should you believe them when they say that they think that the corporations are exploiting the average person? They've made a lot of money because of these corporations and will do everything they can to get more money from them.

But speak up for the people who help them make their millions and who need health insurance and money for rent? Quiet, we're too busy in an awards show surrounded by our fellow millionaires screaming at the policies of another group of millionaires about how the working people in states hundreds of miles away are suffering.

To be very clear I'm not going to stop watching their movies and TV shows any time soon; I drank that Kool-Aid long ago and I can still separate the artist from the art. Just try to remember that these actors can't separate time from their busy schedules to support the people who helped them get their 6 cent checks from Amazon next time you ask if "they share your values"

They can afford to and they can afford not to. I can't say the same for those who worked at WGA West – and those are the ones you should feel for.

 

Back to the Island: Life, Jeremy Bentham and The Polar Bears: How Lost Explained Mysteries When We Weren't Looking

 

 

One of the reasons I'm such a fan of Back to the Island is because St. James and Murray are exactly like me in a key respect: they are both critics and fans. The latter comes into play because (like me) they've clearly rewatched Lost several times before they wrote this book. (For the record I'm at seven, which means its well past time I rewatch it again.) Like me they seem to enjoy rewatching the show in order to find out details that we missed the first (or the fourth, or the twelfth, or the hundredth) time around.

The reason I know this is because when I read their book the first time I realize Emily and Noel make me look like a piker. They've picked up on details about Lost that I missed, perhaps because I haven't been looking for them. Much of it has to do with the symmetry that the writers so subtly that the fan probably doesn't notice, within individual episodes, within the season or even within the series as a whole. Once you see them, you're like any good fan wondering: "How the heck did I miss that?"

And the reason was something that rarely gets discussed in television and certainly not in shows like Lost: the writers were very subtle at their jobs: "…the show's dedication to answering its mysteries only insofar as the characters care about them always kept it on the right track." That may have left the fans somewhat disgruntled but it also is the main reason why Lost is a masterpiece in a way so many of its often failed successors were not. Darlton knew that at the end of the day the long-time viewer of Lost – and I was one of them  - cared less about having everything neatly checked off but far more about what happened to the characters as the show progressed.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate this is with an episode I mentioned in passing in an earlier article where this worked the best: 'The Life And Death of Jeremy Bentham." This episode we airs at the exactly halfway point of Season 5 is one of the highpoints not just of the season but the entire series. In 2009 Entertainment weekly ranked it as one of the top 10 episodes on TV that year and I've always agreed with them.

Let me explain why it’s a masterpiece: 17 year spoiler warnings ahead

At the end of Season 3 we saw that Jack had read an obituary and attended a funeral of someone that he and Kate both knew whose death shook him profoundly, but not her. By the end of Season 4 we're told that 'Jeremy Bentham' was the person in the obituary, that he came to see five members of the Oceanic 6 as well as Walt and told them that they needed to go back to the island. In the final shot of Season 4, after Ben has told Jack that they all have to go back to the island he says: "We're going to have to bring him, too." Finally we see who's in the coffin – and its Locke.

After the viewer spent the next eight months getting their jaws off the floor we spent the first half of Season 5 watching the Oceanic 6 being assembled slowly and very reluctantly to get on Ajira 316. Ben had taken possession of the coffin and made it very clear to one of his followers that "if they don't bring him on the plane, all of this will be for nothing." We learn as the season unfolded that John killed himself but every time Ben talked about it, we knew he was keeping secrets. This became clear when Ben gave Sun Jin's wedding ring to tell her that Jin was still alive. Ben had just been caught in a lie about never seeing Locke when he came back and the viewer had just learned that Locke never went to see Sun because he was keeping a promise to Jin that he would not bring Sun back to the island. This was the viewer's biggest hint that Locke didn't commit suicide.

During the flashes that took place on the island in the first several episodes we watched as John was told by Richard (at some indeterminate time in the future) that the Oceanic 6 had all made it back to civilization and that Locke was going to have to bring them back. Asked how he was supposed to do that Richard told him: "You're going to have to die." As the flashes continued Locke was clearly trying to find out how he would leave the island and how to convince them to come back. By the time we reach 'This Place Is Death' Locke manages to convince everyone that they need to go to the Orchid in order to stop the flashes. At this point it's becoming clear that every time the island skips in time, it's starting to cause the castaways to come unstuck in time and if they don't stop the time-jumping they will all die horribly. Charlotte begins to succumb the quickest of those who are still in Locke's party – by this point it's down to Jin, Sawyer, Juliet, Miles, Dan and Charlotte – but they're all starting to suffer nosebleeds and headaches.

Locke ends up trying to climb down a well where we see a wheel that we've seen before. At the end of Season 4, it was frozen in ice and Ben ended up going down that path and moving the island because Jacob said it was the only way to save it. Ben had told John that the person who moves it can never come back.

Locke has broken his leg fallen (we actually see his exposed shinbone) and while he is in pain a man he's seen before – 'Christian Shephard' – tells John he's here to see him the rest of the way. He has to gather all his people and go to see Eloise Hawking. Locke tells Christian that Richard said he would have to die. Christian says: "That why they call it a sacrifice."

Locke then manages to get the wheel right on its axis and then turns it. As he does 'Christian' shouts: "Say hello to my son!" Locke screams "Who's your son?" (Poor Locke. No one tells him anything.) Locke's actions, as we learn have stopped the island from skipping through time and its landed the remaining survivors in the time of the Dharma Initiative. As Juliet realizes "We're already saved." I've dealt with the ramifications before but now that I've done that lead up its time to get to Jeremy Bentham.

The episode opens in the aftermath of Ajira 316 ending up on the island. Ilana, one of the passengers tells Caesar that they found someone who no one remembers for the plane.  We see a man in  a blanket who tells us "My name is John Locke."

It's an indication of the kind of series Lost was that what should have been the most stunning event in series history to that point was essentially brushed aside by most fans, including myself. The writers had spent so much time laying the groundwork for the belief that the whole reason they were bringing the body of Locke back to the island was for this very purpose. I basically remember seeing this episode in 2009 and essentially saying: "Took long enough."

The reason for Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham's power becomes more incredible every time you rewatch it (I won't spoil that part of it in this article) but even if you belief that death was just an inconvenience for Locke, it's still an incredible episode that Cuse and Lindelof have created.

For one thing the episode is essentially a giant flashback which tells us exactly what happened to Locke from the moment he turned the wheel until he ended up dying. It's a globe spanning journey that takes us across multiple continents, across America, before ending in a dirty hotel room in Los Angeles. It lays the groundwork of the epic struggle between Ben and Widmore which seems to be (as the viewer believes) at the center of Lost. It tells us how Locke ended up using the name Jeremy Bentham – and in keeping with the show its another in-joke for all of us who spent months wondering why Locke chose that name. He didn't. Widmore did. Jeremy Bentham is a British philosopher like Locke. Widmore says: "Your parents had a sense of humor when they named you, why can't I?"

And most impressively it is one of the greatest showcases for Terry O'Quinn as John Locke, who by the time Season 6 debuted had been named by Entertainment Weekly as one of the 100 greatest fictional characters of all time, along with such classic TV characters as Tony Soprano, Vic Mackey, Dexter Morgan, Don Draper and Patty Hewes, all among the greatest characters of TV's golden age.

This is how St. James describes him:

Across the run of Lost to this point, Locke has been a figure with an almost tyrannical sense of purpose. He, alone, can intuit what the island wants and he, alone, can make sure that will is carried out. That quality makes him an antagonist, a necessary evil, a messianic figure, a survivor, and a charismatic enigma at various points, and at times, he's been all five at once. He is perhaps the single most fleshed-out, well-developed character in this show and Terry O'Quinnis remarkable at playing every little micro expression that might plausibly flutter across Locke's face.

St. James this episode answers a character question: "Who is John Locke, deep down?" And the answer isn't particularly flattering: he's something of a dupe."

This would be a very reductive analysis of John, were it not for the fact that O'Quinn himself felt as much him as the series progressed. The show will actually twist the knife when it reveals Locke's last thought as he died was: "I don't understand." And it’s the saddest thing we've ever heard.

The show has spent four and a half seasons basically establishing that Locke is a man who always believes the wrong people, who always makes bad choices, who has endured the kind of family life that is the worst of any character and who ended up in a wheelchair because of his father. We saw in his last episode he was watched throughout his life by the forces of the island and always walked away from it and ironically when he was paralyzed ending up on the path that put him on it.

And this episode basically tells us Locke's story in microcosm. He loses the island when he's booted off it. His leg is broken so he is put in a wheelchair, which by this point we know is his weakness, he travels which means he's literary being carried around by an agent of the enemy and he fails to tell each of the castaways to return. Furthermore each of them treats him with the kind of behavior that demeans his always fragile self-worth: Sayid says he must have nothing to come back to, Kate says he never loved anyone, Hurley, when he thinks he's dead just says: "No biggie" as if he couldn't care less. And Jack, who by this point has falling into drinking and drugs and is seeing visions of his father tells John that he's a tired, useless old man. His last words were: "We were never important."

St. James writes that his purpose has been co-opted more bloodthirsty men but its worse than that. When we see him in the hotel room as he prepares to hang himself as Nikki Stafford writes: his face shows the weight of all these failures.

In Season 2 Locke delivered a quietly devastating sentence in only three words: standing amidst a hatch that was about to explode, he simply says 'I was wrong'. And in those three words, he sums up every important decision he's made in his life. Now, in a quiet room, the chaos is all happening inside Locke, and he looks at Ben, with the red cord around his neck and says: 'I'm a failure'. Both of these brief sentences are delivered with a conviction and absoluteness that Locke doesn't show at any other time. These are the only times that believes what he's saying one hundred percent.

And just to make it all the more worse Ben then spends the next two minutes convincing Locke how important he is and that he is a success to talk him off that ledge and get the rope off around his neck. And then the moment he learns the information John has he immediately strangles Locke with the very cord he was going to use to kill himself moments earlier. Locke has been manipulated from having any choices in his life, and now he doesn't even get to choose how he dies.

This is one of the most tragic deaths in the entire show and even if you assume that John has survived it, it doesn't make this moment any less painful. (On rewatches, of course, it becomes all the more agonizing.) Which is why I surprised in her review of this episode St. James spends so much time talking about something I kept missing all this time: This episode explains the polar bears.

To be clear it's been telling us for a while but because it never said, "This is why polar bears are on the island', the idiot fanbase kept asking the question. (And I'm sorry Nikki, this includes you: You had it as unanswered question in Season Five and I'm pretty sure you didn't get it until the DVD's came out. No judgment, I made the same mistake.)

We learned as early as 'A Tale in Two Cities' that the Dharma Initiative brought the polar bears to the island. That's what the cages Sawyer and Kate were being kept in. They had to solve puzzles to receive their daily fish biscuit.

Now in Season 4 finale, we learned beneath the island is the Frozen Donkey Wheel that allows the island to move in space and time when turned. Dharma found out about it (that's confirmed in the opening scene of Season 5). They must have figured it out and realized that they needed an animal that could survive the cold.

Why not a human being? Well, pushing the wheel is a one-way ticket off the island. The episode told us as much in Charlotte's flashback in Confirmed Dead. She goes to the Tunisian desert where the skeleton of a polar bear has been found with a collar from Dharam on it.

Now in The Shape of Things to Come we saw Ben end up in Tunisia wearing a parka. Five episodes later we see how he got there (this is how Lost works) when he moved the wheel.

At the start of the episode the final puzzle piece is filled in as Locke after moving the wheel ends up in the exact same location as both the polar bear skeleton and Ben. Charles Widmore makes this point explicit to the viewer (but, critically, not to Locke) when he tells him "that's the exit'. By this point we know Widmore once lived on the island and was exiled and has been monitoring this area for awhile for this very reason. We knew that because the first time Ben showed up two Bedouins appeared suddenly and seemed mystified as to how he arrived – but they were heavily armed. When Locke is brought to Widmore, similar Bedouins do the same thing.

St James explained all of this and then says:

The thing is: Nobody ever sits down and says any of this within the show itself. All the puzzle pieces existed within the show, but they were spread out across three seasons of television from the initial reveal of those polar bear cages to the final moment of Locke crash-landing in the desert. What's more, if you didn't remember that, say, Charlotte found the polar bear skeleton in Season Four, you'd be unlikely to conclude 'Oh, hey, Locke landed in that same place. I wonder if the polar bears were being used to move the island?" "You'd just think weird shit was happening for its own sake.

To which I will proudly say: "Guilty."

Lost has always had a reputation long after it ended of never answering its fans questions. To be clear as Lostipedia indicates and St. James points out, the number of mysteries involving Lost is surprisingly small and mostly has to do with  character motivation. One could make the argument its because the writers rarely explicitly spelled things out.

I actually think it has more to do with the fanbase's expectations being so high that answers were rarely satisfactory when that happened. We saw examples of this played out in Season 6 most notably when we finally learned what the whispers were all about. Hurley and Michael explained it to the viewer a few episodes before the end, all but spelling it out. And the fans were somehow more upset because to them the solution was something they'd hypothesized on years ago.

I believe the reason this never bothered me came in large part because of my experience as a fan of The X-Files. As I've written in its own series of articles the show kept building new layers to its mythology that often disregarded the previous ones to the point that it was completely incoherent by the time we reached the series finale. Chris Carter then decided to make the revelation of the mythology the center of the series finale and it was among the most excruciating two hours of TV I've ever watched in my life. It wasn't just that all they were doing was restating the mytharc with no purpose to what was happening in the present, it was that they weren't explaining how it all fit together. It made the viewer wonder over and over: "How many years have I wasted trying to understand this crap?" I certainly feel that way when I run across 'The Truth' in reruns.

It would be glib to state The X-Files is a masterpiece despite the fact it has an incoherent mythology and Lost is one because it has a coherent one. To be sure Lost's basic backstory is more comprehensible then The X-Files but there are times even in the second half where you can see that the writers are making at least some of it up as they go. But the reason Lost works is that always remember that the characters came first and that the solutions to the puzzles were only as important as they affected the characters. It wasn't a necessity to enjoy Lost if you could figure out the mysteries, merely a bonus.

And that's going to be true the next time I rewatch Lost. (I really have to get around to that, it's been nearly two whole years.) Do I need to know that Jeremy Bentham finally explains why there were polar bears on the island to enjoy it more? No. Will I appreciate the episode more knowing it? Honestly, no. To paraphrase Locke at the start of the series: I don't need to have a reason to know that certain TV shows like Lost are masterpieces. Not everything needs an explanation to be a classic.

 

 

This is Jeopardy, Do Superchampions Get Tired? Conclusion

 

 

In the last five years 11 players have reached super-champion status winning 11 games or more. Amy Schneider and Matt Amodio, numbers 2 and 3 in consecutive games won respectively gave no real sign that they were running on empty at any point prior to their defeats. For Matt he finally ran into a super-champion of his own; for Amy Rhone Talsma played just well enough to beat her.

So let's look at the others.

 

Jonathan Fisher, 11 Wins, 2021

With Jonathan its very difficult to tell whether exhaustion played a role in his defeat as in so many of his games he either was playing just well enough to win or his opponents were just as good as him. On his eleventh game Jonathan managed 27 correct responses and three incorrect ones but two of those were Daily Doubles he missed. When he finally lost to Nancy Donehower he got 21 correct responses but six incorrect ones.

I can't say one way or the other about Jonathan.

 

Mattea Roach, 23 wins, 2022

In Mattea's case I do think they were starting to flag a little by the end. On their 22^nd win Mattea went into Final Jeopardy well behind Sarh Snider. But somehow Sarah hadn't seen Citizen Kane and Mattea lived to fight another day.

To be clear Mattea was far better the next day: their Coryat score at the end of Double Jeopardy was 17,800 to Danielle Maurer's 6000 and Betsy Hobbs 7600. It was the Daily Double Danielle got late in Final Jeopardy running away from it that stopped it from being a runaway. That said Mattea only got one correct response the entire second half of the Double Jeopardy round so its clear they were flagging. That in the fact the clue happened to relate to Georgia where Danielle was from was the final nail in Mattea's streak.

Throw in that Mattea was never quite as dominant as the other super-champions ahead of them on that list and I think they were running on fumes by the end of it.

 

Ryan Long, 16 wins, 2022

Ryan is hard to say because he struggled a lot in his wins: lot of incorrect responses on Daily Doubles and overall as well quite a few incorrect Final Jeopardys even when he didn't have runaways.  Aaron Gulyas nearly beat him in his 11^th appearance.

The biggest sign he might have been fatigued, however, was in his fourteenth game when he played against  Meagan Morrow. He got 22 correct responses and six incorrect ones; Megan got 16 correct and only one wrong. The two of them were tied in Coryat score but because of the number of incorrect responses Meagan was ahead going into Final Jeopardy. All three players were stumped  by it and Ryan bet slightly less then Meagan to hold on for win number 14.

The next day Ryan faced off against Tom Philipose and it was the same story. Ryan got 28 correct responses and 1 incorrect one; Tom got 20 correct and none wrong. Ryan finished slightly ahead in Double Jeopardy and it was another triple stumper which preserved his streak

So its pretty clear even though it appeared Ryan was playing well he was starting to flag by the time he reached his seventeenth appearance. And on that day not only did he play poorly Eric Ahasic was just too good for him to overcome.

 

Cris Panullo, 21 Games, 2022

Until Jamie Ding came along this past few months Cris Panullo had been fifth all-time in winnings in a players original run, winning more money in 21 games then Mattea did in 23 and arguably a better player then Ken Jennings to that point in Ken's original run. The only argument that Cris was slowing down was that he went from 34 correct responses in his 20^th victory to 'only' 26 in his 21^st. And he managed 27 correct responses in his 22^nd appearance.

The difference was the Daily Doubles. Cris got one wrong in Double Jeopardy that cost him $6600; his opponent Andy Tirrell got one right that gave him $3700. That caused 8 lead changes late in Double Jeopardy and Cris ended up retaking it with his last two clues.

That said the Coryat score tells a different story. Cris would had $19,000 to Andy's $9000. It's hard to argue Cris was losing steam in his last appearance.

 

Ray LaLonde, 13 Games, 2022-2023

 

Ray was one of the best Jeopardy champions but not quite as dominant as so many of those on this list. He had earn many of his wins because his opponents were just that good. That said he was probably starting to miss a step in his last few wins because luck was a big factor.

In his 11^th game Ray, Emily Kawaler and Rachel Cohen were basically dead even all the way through. Emily was $1000 ahead of him in Final Jeopardy and she was the only one to respond incorrectly. Win 12 against Isaac Rabbani and Kristen Jacobsen was even harder and this time he had to respond correctly in Final Jeopardy to win. And playing Denise Carlon in the first game of 2023 he was lucky to pull of a win: Denise was ahead of him at the end of Double Jeopardy and Ray had only a $100 margin at the end of Double Jeopardy after getting both Daily Doubles wrong. That $100 margin got him his thirteenth win.

In his final appearance against Lloyd Sy and Claire Theoret he was clearly running on empty: while he got 22 correct responses, he also got 6 incorrect ones. And that last one for $400 cost him the lead going into Final Jeopardy and therefore his run ended.

As we now know Ray has suffered from physical ailments that caused him to be seated in later appearances on Jeopardy. While I can't rule out that wasn't a factor, he was still playing at a superb level. But his opponents were just as good as him and eventually it cost him.

 

 

Adriana Harmeyer, 15 Games, 2024

Adriana is an interesting case study. While she was a superb player it must be admitted that many of her victories were as much due to her opponents getting incorrect responses – particularly on Daily Doubles – as much as her playing well (and getting Daily Doubles correct). In more than a few games in her original runs her opponents were playing far better than she was throughout the game and it was only through their own errors that she continued to win. In her fifteenth appearance, for example, Colleen Matthews played better than her and finished with a higher Coryat score. But because she got both Daily Doubles incorrect Adriana was in the lead going into Final Jeopardy and as a result won.

But when the crash came, it came fast. And it came in Double Jeopardy against Drew Basile and Tekla Sauter she was once as high as $13,700. Then the last three responses she gave in Double Jeopardy were incorrect and Tekla and Drew completely outplayed her. She became the first super-champion to lose in a runaway victory as Drew Basile began his own impressive run.

It's hard to know if Adriana ran out of steam or if she just ran into a better player: Drew managed the third most games and money won in the 2025 TOC lineup. She couldn't outplay or outlast him.

 

Scott Riccardi, 16 Games, 2025

In Scott's case there is no evidence fatigue was setting in by the end of his run. On the contrary all statistical evidence proves that he was actually getting stronger with each victory in his last week. This was true even in his final appearance: he managed to get 29 correct responses and didn't get a single clue wrong until Final Jeopardy. Jonathan Hugendubler's victory is in part because he got to both Daily Doubles in Double Jeopardy ahead of Scott which insured Scott wouldn't have a runaway – and set up the conditions for his spectacular upset.

 

Harrison Whitaker, 14 Games, 2025

In Harrison's case its hard to know. He managed six consecutive runaway victories prior to his fifteenth appearance and the only clue he got incorrect was the Daily Double in that game. The evidence is that he was giving few correct responses for a while: 30 in his thirteenth game, 28 in his fourteenth, 25 in his fifteenth.

The other evidence is that his opponents were starting to play better and find Daily Doubles ahead of him. That was true for Libby Jones and Brendan Thomas in his last game and Wilder Seitz in his fourteenth. Wilder got to all three in the latter game but critically got 2 wrong. Had he gotten one of them correct he might have been able to end his streak that day.

There's some evidence but its hard to say for sure.

 

Jamie Ding, 31 Games, 2026

In Jamie's case there does seem to be some clear evidence he was starting to run on fumes in that final week. The clearest evidence came in what was his thirtieth win in which Patrick Nolan was ahead of him late in the Double Jeopardy round. In that game he only got 21 correct responses to Patrick's 19 and he had to bet everything on a Daily Double in Double Jeopardy to assure he was ahead in Final Jeopardy – narrowly.

The best evidence is, of course, how thoroughly Greg Shahade beat him in his final appearance. Jamie didn't find any Daily Doubles, got eighteen correct but also three incorrect while Greg found all three to runaway with the game by the end of Double Jeopardy. Greg is only the second Jeopardy super-champion after Adriana Harmeyer to lose his title by being on the other side of a runaway which is the clearest sign of his exhaustion.

 

Conclusion

 

In the case of Cris Panullo and Scott Riccardi, there is no sign fatigue played a factor in their defeats. In the case of Mattea Roach, Ryan Long, Ray Lalonde, Adriana Harmeyer and Jamie Ding the record shows fatigue clearly paid some factor in their losses. There isn't enough evidence in the cases of Jonathan Fisher or Harrison Whitaker for me to state definitively.

Overall of the 20 super-champions in nine cases there would appear to be statistical evidence fatigue played a role in their defeat. In eight there's no direct statistical evidence of it and in three I just can't tell way or the other.

In addition we have to consider the factor of who they lost to as being a role. Five of the super-champions here were beaten by players who would ascend to the Tournament of Champions in their own right. Emma Boettcher, Jonathan Fisher (when he beat Matt Amodio) Eric Ahasic and Drew Basile all ended up getting to the TOC and Greg Shahade almost certainly will be invited back.  Considering that Victoria Groce has subsequently been a finalist in the last two Jeopardy Masters her defeat of David Madden in 2005 would indicate she was a better player than just her one victory in her original appearance.

That's being trying to sound academic. Now I'll be a human being again.

I think there are a lot of factors for long term success on Jeopardy and that to quote Yogi Berra 90 percent of the game is mental. Is the other half physical as that sage put it? No but it has to be a factor the longer the streak goes.

And waiting for every Jeopardy champion is the knowledge that someday, there's going to be someone who is better than you. It may be a great player like Drew Basile or just someone like Nancy Zerg for whom victory is as much a shock to them as it is everyone in the studio or watching at home.

So remember whenever the next super-champion comes along they are only human. At some point they'll be slower on the buzzer or miss a Daily Double that you knew at home because the fatigue on the body will momentarily overcome their beautiful minds. And remember this is Jeopardy. You'll be seeing them again sooner then you think and they'll get a chance to prove how bright they are.

 

As Long As I Count The Votes What Are You Going to Do About It? Variations on That Axiom That Explain American Politics Today - And The One I Believe In Even Now

 

 

I live in New York, a state of great political officials and some of the most corrupt political machines in history. The most famous of that was that of William 'Boss' Tweed. Tweed never held any political office for long but he was the most powerful man in New York for nearly twenty years in large part because he used cronies to control every aspect of New York City and the state regardless of their political party. If anyone talks about the Gilded Age and the hold money had on politics during this period Boss Tweed is the first name they bring up in connection with Tammany Hall.

Tweed was openly and brutally corrupt both in the bribes he accepted and those he made. Everyone in the state of New York knew it and he knew they knew. And he was blatant about how untouchable he was. In 1871 when an attempt to bring him down by reformers failed by corrupt actions he openly baited them: "As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it?" Ironically right after he made that statement  and a bipartisan coalition ended up bringing him down and arresting him.

Tweed was a Democrat but looking at America today I can't help but think that in my lifetime it is the Republican Party who has learned the most effective lessons from him. They aren't as openly corrupt as him but they are very much in the pocket of big business. And they understand more than so many reformers of today that the only way to hold on to their corruption is through political power.

Party loyalty and unity to a movement has been front and center of the GOP in my lifetime: whether it is Gingrich leading the Republican revolution in the 1990s, Cheney's belief in the Grand Unitary Theory and the rise of the Tea Party in 2010. Republicans have sown chaos in every branch of Congress against the increasingly shouts of dismay from the Democrats and screams of morality from those on the left who have little use for how politics works and think only in terms of morality.

This dissonance was in full display throughout the 20 years before Trump ran for President. And it was built on a variation of this statement which might as well be a mission statement for them and a mocking term for all their opponents: "As long as we have the votes, what are you going to do about it?"

The left has never understood this logic in any real sense because to them everything is a moral decision. And the moment Trump arose on the scene and began to destroy every norm of civility and showed contempt for how politicians behaved in every aspect of him, the question was: "Why didn't the Republicans ever rise up and condemn him?" For every single one of them at the time the answer was another variation: "As long as he has the votes, what do you want us to do about him?"

Everyone in the media acknowledges the hold Trump has over the Republican base that, while diminished over the last decade, is still incredibly potent. They know it became carved in stone when he first won the President and every Congressman or Senator whose said anything remotely oppositional to him has been forced to retire or has been primaried out of their elected office when Trump chooses to back a challenger. If you don't kiss the ring of Trump at every opportunity and you hold political office he has the ability to destroy you politically no matter what state you live in or how popular you were with your voters in the previous election. We saw it with Liz Cheney in 2022; we saw it with Mitt Romney when he voted to impeach Trump twice. It doesn't matter how big a name you are and who long you've been part of the Republican Party; you get on Trump's bad side; he can and will end your political career.

Now to everyone who isn't in politics, particularly those who are on the left, they can't comprehend why this is such a big deal. So what if you no longer hold political power; isn't it worth it if you stop Trump? First of all, it assumes that every single elected Republican has no problem with Trump which I'm not convinced even after ten years is the case. How big a majority it is I don't know but I'm pretty sure a lot of them still think the sun rises and sets on him. We know what the margins are necessary to impeach the President; I've not convinced there were ever enough Republicans in the Senate who would go along with it. If people like Hawley and Cruz were fine raising objections to the electoral count hours after an armed mob tried to storm the capital then end of the day, I think they're fine with whatever he does in what passes for their souls.

More to the point, we saw just what happened when the criminal justice system went after him during Biden's term. It did nothing to diminish his popularity among the base. I really think he could have run for President while serving his sentence and still could have won the election: that's how devoted his followers are. And as long as he has the votes, what are we supposed to do about it?

And let's not leave out the threat of violence. We know just how rabid his followers have been to Republicans who disagree with him when they confront the elected officials. We know the power he has over them. They would not be human if they weren't terrified of it being carried out on them. And as we've seen he's been more than willing to use the criminal justice system to seek retribution on anyone he considers a threat. Morally  I agree its bankrupt; as a way to cow the opposition, you really can't get much more effective.

There's no upside for a Republican to go against Trump the way there is for a Democrat if they so. The left can't comprehend that because they have no capability to see in anyone who isn't them. And because they have no real use for any elected official as being corrupted by the system, they can't conceive why anyone would want to leave the corridors of power voluntarily or to be voted out. They've always had contempt for those who serve the public as being 'part of the system'

Even some liberals can't understand the difference. My mother said that many former Republicans who turned against Trump are now making a good living as commentators or part of a think tank. Yes, but they no longer have any influence in the political system and therefore can only comment on how badly its fallen, not do anything to change its trajectory. For those on the outside, particularly those who work as activists or commentators, they don't see a distinction but there is a big one and its part of the problem.

We saw just last night how deep the loyalty to the President is. Earlier this year a group of legislators in Indiana voted down an attempt to redistrict the state to get rid of the Democrat seats that remained. Indiana has been one of the most Republican states in the country for years and Trump is currently experiences the absolutely nadir of his popularity.

And yet despite that after he waded into the Republican primaries for Indiana legislators five of the candidates he chose to go after have lost their primaries. Some have held it for years and even decades before Trump came on the scene. And yet despite that many of them were beaten by margins of more than 30 points. Trump inflicted retribution against those who he felt stood against them and now these public servants who did the right thing will no longer be able to hold office.

Now those of you who might have admired their bravery will say: "But they did the right thing and doesn't that count more?" (To be sure, those same people will no doubt be shouting at those in Maryland who stopped the redistricting there committed treason and should be primaried but that's for another article.) On a moral standpoint, that's true. For people who've devoted their lives to public service to have them rejected by their constituents so effectively and finally for doing so, it comes as a shock. And it will no doubt serve as a reminder to those Republicans who are questioning loyalty to the President that maybe they should shut up.

I suspect that for many of these Republican elected officials all of them are acting on the belief that Trump will be gone and then they can go on without having to worry about him. This is becoming a more viable alternative by the day; for all the trolling Trump does of the Democrats, he is constitutionally ineligible to run for reelection and even so he will be the same age Biden was in 2028.

The clearest sign of this, I'd argue, is the one area where the Senate is willing to make a stand. Despite his increasing arguments for it Majority Leader John Thune has made it clear multiple times there is no desire to get rid of the filibuster, the bete noire of the Democrats since Obama's first term. It would no doubt make it much easier for the Republicans to get Trump's agenda  through Congress and get rid of the one obstacle the Democrats have against his Presidency. But throughout both Democratic shutdowns Thune and leadership made it clear their position: "As long as we have the votes, what are you going to do about it?" In six months if the Democrats take back the Senate there may be a reversal of fortune but for now its still there mainly because the GOP can see a world without him.

For all Trump's very real flaws he understands the power he has over the electorate completely and he yielded it without quarter in the GOP for a decade. He knows that if he tells his followers that someone is his enemy they will do as he says and vote for someone who he says is more loyal to him. That he has done much to weaken the Republican Party is irrelevant: like everything else he only sees it as a reflection of his own identity. Republican officeholders have learned that lesson. The problem is that Democrats are weak in so many places they've been unable to take advantage of it the way they should – and just as importantly, part of their own base has so little understanding of any politics they believe that is their job to resist Trump regardless of what the voters say.

So many people on the left in America have so little respect for the power of suffrage that they refuse to acknowledge just how much power it really has. We got the clearest example of that last month in Hungary. Even before 2016 conservatives had consider Viktor Orban the model for their party, both in his policies and in the way he governed. Last month, despite a concreted effort by the American administration to boost his chances, after more than 13 years in power Orban was defeated.

 What I find even more remarkable was the leader that the right has considered their model for a government, that the President lovingly called a 'strong man', accepted the results of the elected and almost gracefully conceded.  I honestly wonder who was more shocked by that the liberals who considered him a tyrant or the conservatives who considered him a hero.

Viktor Orban is the last leader in Europe who I thought would go along with what Vaclav Havel referred to as the 'velvet revolution'. Yet every indication is that he is doing the complete opposite of what so many Republicans and a few Democrats are doing when an election goes against them and bowing to the will of the people. When a Hungarian conservative leader who was closer to a dictator is more accepting of the results of elections then far too many American elected officials in either party these days are, it says a lot about how little we respect the will of the people.

Yet I choose to take hope from this story because it demonstrates the forces of darkness can be overcome if the electorate takes its power of suffrage seriously. I'd argue that the gift Trump has given America is that he has proven once and for all what happens if we don't take the voters seriously and our power as voters equally so. So many intellectuals and non-politicians refuse to acknowledge it so the rest of us have to.

In six months' time the nation will get a chance to send a message to those in power across the country about the direction we think the government should do. The man in charge in the executive branch might not care but the ones in the legislative branch have no choice but to. No matter how much the activist scorns the process what would be don on election day sends a more effective message then any march or series of demonstrations ever can or will. That's the variation of Tweed's remark I choose to cling to: "As long as we have the vote, we have the power to do something about it'. Too many people have taken it for granted for too long. We need to always remember it and keep our power.

 

This Is Jeopardy: Do Super-Champions Get Tired, Part 1

 

Not long after Jamie Ding's run came to an end last week there were a series of interviews with the man who has now won more games and more money than all but four people in Jeopardy history. Jamie has been enormously honest in his interviews and he admitted that by the end of his run he was started to feel more than a little fried.

Throughout Jamie's run I was preparing to write a piece involving 'Signs a Jeopardy Super-Champion Is About To Lose'. While this may sound like  clickbait  it came from nearly two decades of watching Jeopardy super-champions (particularly in the last few years) and having attempted to write a book on the subject a few years back.

Because Jeopardy is a competition. It may be more mental than physical but the physical part plays into it: both in terms of being quicker on the buzzer then your opponents and being able to play well at a consistent level. And Jeopardy players are not Watson: they're only human. It would be inevitable that they'd get tired the longer they were doing the same thing, the same way a professional athlete does over several months of playing.

This was almost non-existent in the first twenty years of Jeopardy. With a limit of five wins, to be a great you had to just get through one, two days of shooting at the most. Then several months later you would come back and if you could win four games over two days, you were officially the best player of the year. But to make the leaderboard of legends as they've now established it you have to play five games a day for days at the time. It's inevitable that at a certain point you'd hit a wall.

We now have a fairly large sample of super-champions to look through to see if this fatigue exists and when it becomes evident. To be clear the four players immediately ahead of Jamie Ding – James Holzhauer, Matt Amodio, Amy Schneider and Ken Jennings – never really showed any sign of this fatigue up until the end. Jennings and Schnieder's losses came as a shock to audience, Holzhauer was outplayed by Emma Boettcher and Matt Amodio's encounter was with a super-champion of his own Jonathan Fisher. But that still leaves us with fifteen players to look through and see if there were signs. That said, there were factors for each of them that we have to consider as well.

So let's start with the era from Jennings streak to the passing of Trebek in 2020.

 

DAVID MADDEN 19 WINS 2005

David's run straddled the end of Season 21 and the start of Season 22. So considering that there was a six week layoff we can only wonder if some rust might have developed over the summer. During the first week of Season 22 he won his first five games and he managed to run away with two of them. That being said he also got three of five Final Jeopardys incorrect including one the day before he lost.

By the time he ran into Victoria Groce in his twentieth appearance he was clearly starting to flag, particularly considering how close his last few games were.

I think by the end of it.

 

ARTHUR CHU, 2014, 11 WINS, 2014

Arthur's eleven wins took place in an odd way. He won four games, rested three weeks as the Battle of the Decades: The 1980s and the 2014 College Championship took place, won five straight, rested another week as the Battle of the Decades: 1990s took place and then came back for his next two wins. He ran away with game 10 then won his eleventh. On the 11^th it was clear he was having some trouble: he got 24 correct responses, including 2 Daily Doubles but he also got 8 incorrect responses including the last Daily Double in Double Jeopardy. He still ran away with the game but he was clearly starting to flag.

The next day he also gave 23 correct responses but also gave 6 incorrect ones including a Daily Double that cost him everything and from which he could never recover. He also got Final Jeopardy wrong. I think there's a clear sign that win 11 was a sign of just how fatigued he was.

 

JULIA COLLINS, 2014, 20 wins, 2014

Like Arthur Julia's streak was interrupted by the battle of the decades. Having won ten games, she rested for the final two weeks of the Battle of The Decades then won ten more. That said its pretty clear by the 20^th game she was running out of steam against Sami Siegelbaum and Wendy Hardenberg. She got 21 correct responses and four incorrect ones, including both Daily Doubles. By the end of the Final Jeopardy she barely was ahead of both of them and had to get Final Jeopardy correct to win her 20^th and take second place from David.

She came out swinging the Jeopardy round of her 21^st game, got the first Daily Double incorrect and then Brian Loughanne moved ahead of her in Double Jeopardy very close to the end. She got Final Jeopardy wrong and Brian got it right. I think its clear Julia was starting to lose momentum by that point in her run. But it was 20 games, who wouldn’t?

 

MATT JACKSON, 13 WINS, 2015

In Matt's case there was no warning at all. He was still running at full steam in the last two games before that. He slowed down slightly in Game 14 'only' getting 19 correct answers, including both Daily Doubles and getting two responses incorrect. But he was still leading going into Final Jeopardy, by the narrowest of margins over Michael Baker.

This was a triple stumper for Final Jeopardy and it came down to wagering. Michael bet the least and it ended up paying off. I don't think Matt was really tired; I think his luck just ran out.

 

SETH WILSON, 12 WINS, 2016

With Seth it was hard to tell because he was never quite as dominant as his predecessors. His model of victories were closer to that of Ryan Long. He did just well enough to win many of his games and much of the time he won because of his opponents mistakes. That said in his 12^th victory he was incredible getting 26 correct responses and only 1 incorrect one. For that matter he was even better in his 13^th appearance getting 27 correct response and 3 incorrect ones. He was ahead of Margie Eulner Ott in that appearance and he got Final Jeopardy right. The difference was he only bet $5 and Margie bet everything.

In his case I don't think he was running on fumes so much as his luck ran out.

 

AUSTIN ROGERS, 12 WINS  2017

Austin might have been slightly fatigued by the time of his 12^th win. He got off to a great start in the Jeopardy round and had $12,600 by the end of it. But in Double Jeopardy he started to flag he got all three of his incorrect responses and only five correct ones. Brian his nearest opponent found both Daily Doubles and got one of them wrong. Austin still managed to win a runaway but it was the closest one and it was by far his lowest score at the end of Double Jeopardy $15,400.

He improved the next day with 21 correct responses but also got five wrong the most he'd managed to that point in his run. That combined with a near perfect performance by Scarlett gave her the lead going into Final Jeopardy. I'm not the kind of person who goes by Coryat score but according to it he finished with $11,000 and its only because of the Daily Doubles he got that he actually had $16,600 at the end.

For that reason I think Austin really was starting to flag by this point. Which is understandable: he was playing at a level that hadn't been seen in a while. You can only average $35,000 per win for so long.

 

For the record there were no signs James Holzhauer was slowing down. He gave 25 correct responses in his 32 game. Emma Boettcher was just as perfect with 21 correct responses. The difference was she found 2 Daily Doubles to his one. That's how great you had to be to beat Holzhauer. You had to be perfect.

 

JASON ZUFFRANIERI, 19 WINS, 2019

Jason won six games at the end of Season 35. When Season 36 began he actually seemed to have gotten better with each victory. By the time he reached win 19 there were no real signs of flagging. He'd given 26 correct responses to run away with it yet again. His opponents had each done very well: getting 15 correct response apiece but not well enough to stop him from running away with it.

And he was perfect in his twentieth appearance getting 25 correct responses with zero mistakes. The difference was Christine Ryan and Gabe Brison-Trezise managed to find all three Daily Doubles ahead of him. Even then Gabe had to get two of the last three clues correct to make sure that Jason couldn't run away with the game. When Gabe got Final Jeopardy correct and Jason got it wrong that finally ended Jason's streak.

I don't think there was any sign of fatigue with Jason.

 

So with Arthur Chu, Julia Collins and Austin Rogers there's clear signs that they were starting to run on empty. For Jason Zuffranieri, James Holzhauer, Matt Jackson and Seth Wilson there's no proof of that: a combination of meeting better opponents and bad luck in Final Jeopardy brought them down. With David Madden I can't say definitively one way or the other and as we all know Ken beat himself.

In the next article I'll look at the super-champions in the post-Trebek era, sans Amy Schneider and Matt Amodio.

 

 

 

 

Back to the Island Emmys Edition: How Did The Emmys Do By Lost? One Critic (and Fan's) Opinion

 

 

When Lost debuted in September of 2004 the Golden Age of TV was in full bloom. When it left the airwaves in May of 2010 it was well into its second, equally brilliant phase.

When the series began HBO was essentially still the Big Dog with The Sopranos, Six Feet Under and Deadwood regularly making visits while The West Wing was in its final two Sorkin-less seasons and 24 was still at its peak. With each new season it seemed both new networks and new dramas were coming out to prove that they wanted to enter the world of Peak TV, most prominently AMC but also Showtime, FX and the networks were still putting their best foot forward with such standouts as Friday Night Lights, House and The Good Wife.  I saw the majority of those shows when they were airing and I've seen quite a few of them since multiple times and they are everything we say they are and more.

During this same period I took the Emmys more personally then I do now. Much of this was due to the fact I was in my twenties and far more in the fan stage of my TV viewing then the critic I am today. I'm not saying I took the Emmys as the be all and end all of great TV – their attitude to shows such as Homicide and Buffy The Vampire Slayer had made it very clear to me where their blind spots were even then -  but I did rise and fall with the nominations and winners more than I do today. (And by today I basically mean within the last six or seven years at the earliest.)

It's only now I realize just how hard it must have been for the Emmy voters to make the decisions they did for nominating so many of these dramas, much less picking winners. More to the point until the mid-2000s the Emmy judges had tied at least one hand behind their backs because the nomination list in every category was capped at five no matter how good every performance or show was. They wouldn't begin to expand the nominees in every category for good until the end of the 2000s and they've still been toying with the rules every few years, never quite settling on a formula that makes everyone happy. (They never will, of course, but I respect the Academy for trying.)

As I wrote in a previous article Lost did incredibly well under these circumstances receiving 53 nominations and 12 awards over its six seasons. And while I'm not the kind of person who Monday morning quarterbacks any awards show I have wondered if there had the rules of today or other factors is it possible the Emmys would have done better by Lost? Or with hindsight are there nominees in major categories that look bad for the Emmys and that nominees from Lost would have made better?

At this point being an authority not just on the Emmys but having seen most of the nominees and winners during this period I think I can make some speculation. So what this article will due will look at the Emmys during the period Lost was on their air and argue how right the Emmys did by Lost, whether they could have done better and if so where? I'll try to limit my rulings based solely on that show, but I'll also give context by dealing with the series and actors who were nominated.

 

2005 Season 1 Lost (Nominees capped at five per category

Here obviously I have no notes as Lost deservedly won Best Drama over a strong field: Seasons 4 of 24 and Six Feet Under, Season 6 of The West Wing and Season 2 of Deadwood. 

Now do I slightly bare a grudge that Terry O'Quinn should have won a Best Supporting Actor Emmy for 'Walkabout' instead of William Shatner. Yes but it did work out for O'Quinn. The show deservedly won Best Director  for its groundbreaking 'Pilot' still considered one of the greatest episodes in TV history. It was nominated for its Pilot and Walkabout but lost to House but I'll be honest that year it should have gone to The Wire for Middle Ground (R.I.P Stringer Bell).

That said I do think the Emmys made a bad judgment by nominating and giving Best Supporting Actress to Blythe Danner for Showtime's Huff.  Had they expanded it to six nominees and they'd been willing to give a nomination to Lost I would have nominated Evangeline Lilly. I wouldn't have given her the prize: that should have gone to CCH Pounder for The Shield but Lilly was ignored by the actors branch for too long. Still they got it right by Lost.

 

2006: Lost Season 2  (Nominees capped at 5 PER category)

Twenty years later I'm still scratching my head about almost everything the Emmys did this year. The Shield was completely skunked in every category, especially Forest Whitaker for Best Supporting Actor.  They gave The West Wing too many nominations for its final season and not enough for Six Feet Under which was nominated for many major acting awards but not Best Drama. House was nominated for Best Drama; Hugh Laurie wasn't nominated. Grey's Anatomy got more writing nominations then The Sopranos.

The only reason I've never bitched is despite all of these mistakes the Emmys got it right when they gave Best Drama to 24 for its fifth season, not just its finest hour but one of the greatest seasons any show has had in television history.  I'm actually glad in hindsight Lost wasn't nominated for Best Drama because then I would have to root for one against the other and I didn't want to have too.

That being said having seen all of the seasons of the nominated shows Lost was as good as the final season of The West Wing and the second season of Grey's Anatomy and superior to Season 2 of House.  (I can't be objective about The Sopranos so I won't talk.)  Lost did receive nine nominations and three of them were pretty big deals: 'The 23 Psalm was nominated for Best Teleplay and 'Live Together, Die Alone' was nominated for Best Director and Henry Ian Cusick received a nomination for Best Guest Actor in a Drama.

I do believe that the nominations for Oliver Platt and Blythe Danner for Huff were still the wrong call. The following year the acting nominations would be extended to six and if I had by choice for which two actors I would have nominated in those categories I would have selected Michelle Rodriguez for Best Supporting Actress and Terry O'Quinn for Best Supporting Actor. Both gave the standout performances of Season 2 in my opinion.

 

2007 Lost Season 3 (Nominees capped at 5 for Drama; six for supporting actor for Drama that year)

 

How much you think Lost deserved to be nominated that year depends on your opinion of Season 3 overall. It's clear the first half did much to the erode many of the fandom's faith. That being said having seen all of the nominated shows (save Heroes) I think Season 3 was equal to those of House and Grey's Anatomy and slightly better than Boston Legal. That the latter two were ABC dramas and Lost was as well might have been a factor: perhaps the Emmys didn't want one network to dominate the nominations.

Otherwise the Emmys did pretty well by Lost nominating the iconic 'Through the Looking Glass' for teleplay and directing and giving nominations for Supporting Actor to Michael Emerson and Terry O'Quinn, with the latter deservedly winning the Emmy for it. That said I'm still irritated that Elizabeth Mitchell, who made Season 3 shine as Juliet wasn't nominated even though three actress from Grey's Anatomy and Rachel Griffiths for Brothers & Sisters were. I liked Griffiths and Brothers and Sisters but Mitchell deserved it over her no question.

 

2008 Season 4: drama and comedy at six, acting at five

Jack shouts "We have to go back!" at the end of Season 3. And the Emmy judges listened and nominated Lost for Best Drama.  I'm not sure which feat is more remarkable: even in 2008 'the rules' were that if you fell off the list of Emmy nominees for any reason you weren't invited back. I'd seen it play out for The X-Files, Law & Order and 24. And yet for some reason I can't fathom, after a two-year absence, Lost was nominated for Best Drama and stayed there until the end of its run.

The Emmys were right to nominate alongside the breathtaking first seasons of Mad Men and Damages as well as Season 2 of Dexter. Boston Legal and House were there; we hadn't yet realized how great a drama Breaking Bad was. They nominated Michael Emerson for Best Supporting Actor.

And yet for the only time its run it was ignored for directing or writing.  To be clear they screwed the pooch by not nominated the landmark episode 'The Constant' for writing or directing – though to be fair those nominations were still capped at 5. I've seen all the episodes that were nominated and trust me 'There's No Place Like Home' or 'The Constant absolutely should have been nominated for directing over Boston Legal that year. To be fair they nominated the former for editing and the latter for cinematography and musical score and they did give sound mixing to Meet Kevin Johnson.

I'd also have given a nomination for Best Supporting Actress to Yunjun Kim for her outstanding work in the Season finale. I saw four of the five performances all of which were from other ABC dramas and trust me Kim's in that episode is her best in an incredible run. From the moment she spots Jin on the freighter and starts screaming for them to go back to her hysterical scream of anguish when it explodes to the way she just goes dead in the final half-hour is an astonishing work of acting by anyone.

 

2009 Season 5 (all nominees for drama and acting at 6)

Lost received 5 nominations and I really don't have any notes. Sure it is one of the greatest seasons in TV history by the estimate of some (the argument is made in Back to the Island) But the same could be said for Seasons 2 of Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Season 3 of Dexter and Big Love (nominated for the first and only time). They nominated 'The Incident' for Best Teleplay, the only nominee that wasn’t one from Mad Men. Michael Emerson won his only Emmy for Lost against a field that included previous winners William Shatner and Christian Clemenson for Boston Legal, Aaron Paul, who'd win three other times for Breaking Bad and William Hurt for his incredible work in Season 2 of Damages.

Now I do think Matthew Fox should have been nominated for Best Actor in a Drama ahead of Simon Baker for The Mentalist but honestly I'd have put Kiefer Sutherland in 24 ahead of both of them. I do think Elizabeth Mitchell should have put in ahead of Sandra Oh and Chandra Wilson for Grey's Anatomy: Season 5 was where the wheels came off the bus creatively. (The Emmys agreed; the show has never been nominated for any major awards in all the years since.)

 

2010 Season 6 (all nominees in drama and acting at six)

No notes. I'm serious. The Emmys nominated the final season of Lost for 12 Emmys the most since its first season. That's remarkable in itself before you consider just how well the Emmys absolutely did across the board in this category.

In Drama its up against Breaking Bad, Mad Men and Dexter all at the height of their powers. The Good Wife was nominated for Best Drama. True Blood…well nobody's perfect.

Matthew Fox nominated for Best Actor against Bryan Cranston, Kyle Chandler, Michael C. Hall, Jon Hamm and Hugh Laurie. How lucky he must have felt.

Terry O'Quinn and Michael Emerson up against John Slattery for Mad Men, Andre Braugher for Men of A Certain Age, and Martin Short for Damages. Aaron Paul must have felt like he had no chance before he won his first Emmy.

The series finale was nominated for directing and writing which it deserved to be. (If you're going to nominate Made in America for The Sopranos the Emmys could handle a controversial series finale.) Elizabeth Mitchell finally got nominated for her work as Best Guest Actress in a Drama.

To be clear I don't think there's a single note I have (with perhaps the exception of True Blood) for any of the nominees in drama or comedy  anywhere  either at the time or in hindsight. That was maybe the first year I was covering the Emmys where I could say that with honesty. So to argue that Nestor Carbonell deserved a nomination for Ab Aeterno or the rest of the cast is the definition of petty. The Emmys got it right and that applies to Lost in its final season.

 

I should mention all of these choices for acting nominees are my personal preference before I get the inevitable backlash from Losties. I could have made arguments for any of these seasons for Josh Holloway or Jorge Garcia, later ones for Jeremy Davies and Emilie De Ravin (her work in Season 6 was a revelation) and really the entire cast.

The thing is I keep coming to the same question: Where would I put them? If you've seen any of the series I've listed among the nominees and winners during this epic period of excellent television you know that some of the greatest performance in lead and supporting were competing every year. Just because the Emmys was, in hindsight, correct 85 to 90 percent of the time with its track record in nominees doesn't mean that there weren't a lot of creative forces who kept ending up on the short end during this period. It's the inevitable record of any awards show that some of your favorites will be left out every year; the voters must have been in agony every time they chose some and left 'others' out.

So at least when it came to one of my favorite shows of all time the Emmys was right more often then not. I can't say that with a lot of other shows…but as my readers know I'll be dealing with those issues very soon.