Deadwood Episode Guide: A Constant Throb

Written by W. Earl Brown

Directed by Mark Tinker

We are reaching the point of climax in the third season, and alliances are beginning to finally solidify.  Hearst is making his final effort to try and bring about his total control over the camp. His main effort of the episode comes in the opening minutes.

Alma has been managing to recover from her addiction. In the previous episode Trixie calmly said that she looked better from a distance and at presence. It is not clear whether Hearst knows of this, and the fact is, it’s irrelevant: he doesn’t care if she’s sober or loaded, he wants her holdings. In this episode, he makes his most direct approach: shots are fired within inches of missing Alma as she walks to the bank. With Bullock out at Sturgis campaigning and Ellsworth absent, Swearengen and the crew from the Gem leap into action to save her. (Al literally does so, jumping from the veranda.) They secure her in his office (after an amusing bit in the whores’ quarters where Al gently comforts Alma about the fact she probably soiled herself), and then the entire contingent begins to plan. At this point, almost the entire camp has realized the importance of Swearengen; even Charlie Utter is willing to take orders from Al, however reluctantly.

The camp being galvanized into action would seem to be a nod to the impatience of the audience for some kind of final movement against Hearst. But Al has now regained the clarity of focus he has been missing ever since Turner and Hearst attacked him near the beginning of the season. He realized that the shots fired at Alma were meant to provoke Bullock or Ellsworth to respond with violence, causing the battle that he knows Hearst would surely win. So he decides to completely deny Hearst anything:

SWEARENGEN: We want his piss pot’s play hours occupied by confusion and grievance. We want him sitting, sulking like a three-year old whose toys won’t do his bidding… Hearst’s not to see he’s had half a fucking cunt hair’s effect on any of the comings and goings in this camp.

And that’s exactly what he spends the episode doing. He begins to make his movements to wire for the guns from Cheyenne – even utilizing Hawkeye from Silas, which he clearly doesn’t want – he makes sure that everybody sends their wires through the secret door in his office, rather than going around out front, and finally manages to persuade Alma to complete her walk to the bank. He has Dan knock out Ellsworth and tie him up, so he can’t react with vengeance, and wired Seth while keeping things very vague.

And though he can’t see the end result, it is very clear that Hearst is feeling the effects of it. When the episode opens, he is breakfasting with Jarry, and casually comments on Alma being shot at. He then has a long conversation with Jarry, in which the commissioner refuses to believe that Hearst has any responsibility for it, and it becomes very clear that he openly wants credit. When he sends his man Barrett, who replaced Turner as Hearst’s grounds commander in the previous episode, to send a message to Al, it becomes very clear that Barrett is nowhere near up to the task as Turner was. Barrett then comes to his office with the message and the reply.

The confrontation is classic Swearengen. He manages to woo Barrett into a false sense of security, and just when Barrett thinks Al is ‘a halfway decent person’, he attacks and visibly taunts him, accusing him of shooting at Alma and the beating he laid on Merrick in the previous episode. In the final extremities, Barrett sells out his employer, telling him about his plans. Al goes to his veranda where Hearst is waiting from across the way, and casually says: “Taking the air.” Al then returns, finishes the beating and slits his throat. We know that Swearengen has completely regained his cunning, because he then openly taunts the man who he considers dangerous, by telling him his man has fled to Bismarck, and mocking him for his message (which was offering ‘protection’ to Alma.) Hearst leaves the office with a scowl, and we don’t want to think what his mood is like now. Minutes before, he hammered on Farnum’s door (the hotel manager has been wisely hiding most of the episode) and then torments him with a series of angry questions that E.B. couldn’t give a smart reply to when he wasn’t scared shitless, and finished the diatribe by spitting on E.B. and telling him that he would be pissed if he returns to see it wiped off. The bastard has put in the situation of feeling sympathy for E.B. Farnum.

The critical actions of this episode are therefore that everybody is trying to proceed as if everything is normal, rather than assume that things are going to be disrupted. Tolliver, who at this point is clearly on the outside looking in from both the camp and Hearst, seems to have reacted to last night by mutilating his stab wound. When a new prostitute has arrived, he can’t even be bothered to go through with the niceties he could manage when he got here – he calls the whore ‘Stupid’, which is the same name he gave Lila, gives her the most perfunctory of introductions, including not to take dope from Leon, and can barely manage the enthusiasm to say ‘Welcome to the Bella Union’.  Martha continues to conduct the business of the school, with first Adams, then Charlie, and finally Joanie and Jane standing guard. And at the end of the episode at the Bullock household, Seth is clearly inwardly seething, so Sol tries to distract him by talking about resupplying the hardware story to help with the livery, and Martha setting the table for dinner, and finishing the episode by saying: “Let us say grace.” They all know that Seth can’t concentrate on anything but his fears and anger, so the only thing his family can do is pretend that it’s just another night.

But for all the actions that take place around Al and Alma, the highpoint of the episode involves Jane and Joanie. Jane is clearly irked about the idea of Charlie taking orders from Swearengen, and takes Joanie’s diplomatic touch to make him leave standing guard. When the night is over, and the two are undressing in Joanie’s room, Jane delivers a monologue that, in a rarity for Deadwood, sums up the complete trajectory for a character. She relates to Joanie a dream that weaves together about anxiety about loss and shame, and yet the possibility for redemption. We learn that her major trauma is about the loss of Wild Bill combined with her shame of not being able to defend Sofia against Swearengen. Charlie is the messenger in this dream, telling her that they are outside the Number 10 where in a few days Wild Bill will be murdered. Charlie tells her this is also the night where she walked out to the creek to weep. Then Charlie reminds her that this is also the night where she and Charlie will abscond the child and sing her to sleep.

In a rare moment of self-reflection, she connects the moment in the previous episode when they walked the kids to school and she held Joanie’s hand because she was too drunk to walk on her own.

JANE: And Charlie helped me find the little girl, the very night I got scared and run, and the both of us sang a rung to her, and you went ahead and kissed me.

In response to this, Joanie gently takes Jane’s face in her hands and kisses her. Because of Joanie’s love, Jane can do something that almost no one else in Deadwood has managed to do, or will manage to do – push past her shame and find redemption. This is ironic, considering that she is doing so by entering a lesbian relationship that the world of the camp (and in some places, even now) will never look on with parity.

There may be significance to this in the fact that the Joanie-Jane narrative is entirely separate from the Hearst storylines of the third season: they are the only characters not threatened by the changes sweeping through Deadwood. Is there a possibility that Milch and his writers, usually the most cynical in all of television, are saying that there is a chance that love is the one thing that survive the coming of civilization? Because of the abrupt termination of the series, we will never for sure. I’d like to believe in this possibility, but to quote another author who trafficked in this type of business: “Isn’t it pretty to think so?”

A Final Bow on 42nd Street: The Deuce's Final Season

I have constantly raved about David Simon’s The Deuce, the latest brilliant collaboration between Simon and HBO, but while my reviews have always been superlative, I’ve admitted that I’ve had trouble trying to figure out what the ultimate message might be. Halfway through the premiere of the final season, I found it.

It’s 1985 now, and Candy (Maggie Gyllenhaal, still doing her best work) is now a major director in the pornography industry, known as something of an artiste in the genre. She and her fellow producer (David Krumholz) are attending a ‘convention’. The videocassette has started to infiltrate the world, and it has now interfered with the world of pornography. Candy (who has changed her name back to Irene) clearly has a better idea of what makes erotica work, but Charlie, who believed intensely in the idea of art and porn working together, now tells her: “That’s not what makes money anymore.” And therein lies the theme, not only of The Deuce, but of almost all of Simon’s work: capitalism destroys everything, even such vital institutions as art and sex.

A lot has changed on 42^nd Street.  The pimps that made up most of the first two seasons have disappeared. Most of the prostitutes are no longer as visible. Much of this is because of something far more deadly: the arrival of AIDS. We see this in much of the gay subculture that has been in the background of the series: a gay themed playhouse has been established, where actors use stage make up to cover their sarcomas. Bathhouse which did big business before are losing money. And there are outside factors still playing on everything. Detective Alston (Larry Gilliard) is trying to make moves to get rid of porn hubs that make up the Deuce, looking for shell corporations. Rudy (Michael Rispoli) the mobster who has been the front of so much crime is now concerned that a power struggle is coming that will lead to the rise of a new boss – John Gotti. He’s also concerned about the Ocean Park gangsters, and the drugs that they are bringing into everything.

There is little hope for those who have made any forward movement. Laurie Madison seemed to be making forward motion, going to LA at the end of Season 2. But all that means is that she’s changed one master for another, only this one is cocaine. (We see her getting out of rehab for the fifth time in the season premiere, and by the end of the episode, she’s doing lines in the ladies room.). Bobby (Chris Bauer, now wearing a hideous toupee) is concerned about catching AIDS in the premiere, but is screwing a stranger before the diagnosis comes in. And the Martino brothers (still exceptionally portrayed by James Franco) are each dealing with new struggles. Paradoxically, their roles have changed. Vincent is now closer to being a family being, and has been doing fairly well with amateur porn. Frankie is falling apart. The new reform is starting to make his job as a club owner harder, and his promising relationship with Abby has fallen into an ‘open relationship’., as she has become an activist. Yet even Abby doesn’t see the logic in how things have changed – she now rails against those who bring about censorship as violating the first amendment. She no longer fits in with the activists she once worked with.

Like all of David Simon’s series, The Deuce takes a cold and brutal look at how flawed all of our institutions are, and that so much of what we think has disappeared is wrapping its roots beneath the surface. But it’s also by far the most optimistic. Because I go to work in Times Square every day, and I can see that it’s no longer dark and seedy, and I only get accosted by Muppets.  The changes did come. And it offers whatever hope in the personal relationships, something Simon tries his best not to emphasize.  Frankie is reconnecting with his ex-wife. Alston is dating a female cop. And Irene has just begun seeing a venture capitalist who in the second episode of the series, she lays everything out on the table. Institutions may be hard to change, but people are not. Whatever hope there is for Simon’s America must rest in them.

My score: 4.5 stars.

Suppose They Gave an Emmys And I Was (Almost) Completely Satisfied?

The last couple of years, the Emmys keep getting closer and closer to satisfying me with almost all of their choices. And this year, they nearly made it perfect – or at least as perfect as anything can be considered when Game of Thrones is at the center. (We’ll get to that in a minute.)

Because I figured most of the Emmy love would be given to Game of Thrones, I focused more on the comedies this year. I actually saw six of the seven nominees in their entirety, which is a lot higher than I usually get, and realized that a lot of imagination this year was in the Comedy category. I was mostly impressed by The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, and was genuinely satisfied when it managed to take eight trophies, including Supporting awards for Tony Shalhoub and Alex Borstein. I was a little disappointed that the Palladinos didn’t win any of them, but considering how thoroughly (and delightfully) they were thanked by Shalhoub in his speech, I’m sure they’re satisfied.

I was even more delighted to see Fleabag, a series I basically binged in its entirety in the month of August. By then, I realized why Phoebe Waller-Bridge was beloved by a sizable contingent of Emmy voters, and that she deserved to win at least one award. I never in my wildest dreams expected her to take Best Actress from Julia Louis-Dreyfus, and judging from her reaction, neither did she. By that time, it was now clear that, despite paying tribute to it at the Emmys this year, there was no way in hell Veep was going to triumph for its final season. Fleabag’s triumph was remarkable even by the standards of Peak TV, and no doubt will have Amazon producer hammering down Waller-Bridge’s door demanding she do a third season despite her insistence she won’t. (Hell, if it gives another chance for Andrew Scott getting a nomination that would be enough of a reason to watch it.)

I’ll admit I was a bit disappointed that  Barry’s ‘ronny-lilly’ one of the highpoints of the TV season was basically ignored, but the competition in the directing and writing this year was so intense that there was no way someone wasn’t going to walk away disappointed. At least, Bill Hader deservedly repeated; The Good Place was shutout. But hell, there’ll be a lot more vacancies in every comedy category next year. And given its track record, I’m betting they can produce another ‘janets’.

As for Drama, well, despite everybody loathing how Game of Thrones ended, it did win Best Drama. But perhaps the backlash had consequences after all. Of it’s eleven other wins, only Peter Dinklage won in a major category. Succession, a series I am coming to admire more and more with each episode I see, took the Best Writing trophy, and in one of the bigger upsets of the night, Jason Bateman finally got an Emmy for directing an episode of Ozark. It’s now becoming clear that series is a player; Julia Garner more than deserved her Supporting Actress win.

As for the leads, much as I wanted to see Bob Odenkirk triumph, I can’t argue with the joy that filled the complex when Billy Porter managed to win for his work on Pose. Having seen his performance this season, he is one of the most incredible actors. I expect more nominations for the series as a whole. And it was rather delightful that an actress from Killing Eve ended up winning… only not the one that we expected. I’ve always felt that Jodie Comer’s work as Villanelle was one of the most frightening performances on TV I’ve ever seen. But given all the (understandable) glory given to Sandra Oh leading up to it, I naturally expected her to win. I’m glad to be proven wrong.

Limited Series actually offered some pleasant surprises. Chernobyl ended up taking ten wins, including Best Drama, Best Writing and Best Directing. Don’t get me wrong; it was an extraordinary limited series. But all the cards seemed stacked in favor of When They See Us prevailing. In all honesty, I think it was because the series – as extraordinary as it is – felt at times more like an obligation then actual entertainment. I thought that might work against it, and it mostly did. I’m not as shocked as the rest of the world is that Jharrel Jerome ended up taking Best Actor. Much I’d have liked to see Ali or Grant prevail; his work was, even by the high standards, exceptional.

The Actress awards were sort of a surprise. I wasn’t surprised Patricia Arquette won – just for which show. Her work in The Act was exquisite, but I was certain the other Patricia would prevail. But considering how good Michelle Williams was as Gwen Verdon in Fosse/Verdon, and how much the momentum was switching to her near the end, I guess they figured, they couldn’t send her home empty handed. One can hardly argue that neither balked at speaking their mind in their speeches.

If I was disappointed about anything, it was that Deadwood: The Movie ended up losing Best TV Movie to Black Mirror: Bandersnatch.  This was a work that was never supposed to be made, and a triumph to recognize one of the greatest men to ever work in television. But as the Emmys have proven over and over again, they’re just not that sentimental. Maybe Milch can find it in him to write that fourth season now?

I didn’t think the Emmys going hostless worked nearly as well as the Oscars did. There were some humorous bits, of course, but it was messy. (And what the hell was that commentary all about?) What I did like was the way it flowed. The Emmys did for (most) of the nominees what it did for the Oscars, and gave us a chance to see some of their nominated performances. And Bryan Cranston’s opening remarks demonstrated again just how good he is at anything he does. Maybe he can host next year? And I was glad to see them pay attention to some other shows that were leaving this year. (Subtlety be damned: They acknowledged Jane the Virgin’s existence, something they couldn’t do with trophies. They didn’t acknowledge Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, but then again, they did give Rachel Bloom Emmys. Progress.)

If I have any regrets, it’s that Better Call Saul underserved Emmy-less streak continues. This time, with Game of Thrones gone, next year looks promising. Then again, the broadcast season hasn’t begun, and Succession, Pose, Stranger Things and Big Little Lies have already made big impression. But I speak with some optimism: TV’s future looks bright, now that the Song of Ice and Fire is finally sung.

Deadwood Episode Guide: Amateur Night

Written by Nick Towne & Zach Whedon

Directed by Adam Davidson

Hearst spends much of this episode, and the remainder of Season 3, trying to assume the position that Swearengen held at the end of Season 2 – the master of all events, and controller of the town. Having brought his pistoleros into town last night, he orders them to ride throughout the town as a symbol of brute force. He orders Barrett, his replacement for Captain Turner to supervise, and to beat Merrick for his actions the previous day. As he puts it: “That I authored his discomfiture should come clear only as events accumulate. He now seems determined not to communicate with anyone else in the town, as it is now clear that Tolliver was completely in the dark. When Adams comes to see him, and asks about the riders, he replies:

TOLLIVER: Tell Al as we didn’t wake to the Apocalypse I s’pose we only need fear their Winchesters.

Bullock knows that trouble is on the horizon and tells Martha the combination of the safe. He spends much of the episode holding his temper in check, and doing his best to try and live up to his badge. This comes at the most critical juncture when Morgan Earp has a series of angry interactions with one of them, which leads to Morgan killing him. Barrett tries to cause a scene, but Seth intervenes, and manages to jail him for his interference. When Johnny comes bearing Al’s message, he managed to express almost entirely what Al would say, and manages to convince the Earps to leave the camp. It doesn’t take much persuasion; the timber lease they came to work is a dud, and they don’t want any more conflict to ensue.

Al’s main problem this episode is trying to stay on top of events, and not realize how behind things he is. Commissioner Jarry returns from Yankton, and Al is agitated (though still content enough to send Adams to talk with him) and he spends much of the episode trying to deal with Wu, who is set upon in the thoroughfare, and comes in with his usual display of drawings. It is a measure of just how irritated Al is that Johnny manages to successfully interpret that Wu has 150 Chinese fighters in Custer City waiting on Al’s orders.

Hearst does everything he can to disrupt and sow discord throughout the camp. So perhaps the most important action anyone can take at this point is to act like nothing has changed. Throughout the episode, time and again, the characters do their best to act as if everything is normal. The most symbolic event involves the schoolhouse. Langrishe and his theater company have finished their purchase of the Chez Ami, which tonight they convert into the Deadwood Theatre. Langrishe goes throughout the camp promoting an ‘Amateur Night’. He goes to the bank, and charms Alma and Trixie with the information, then goes to Charlie and tells him the same. In order for this to happen, the children must walk from their old schoolhouse to the new one. Joanie spends much of the episode looking for Jane, who is sleeping off one of her alcoholic stupors. Mose encounters her in an alley, and in what is a rare display of asperity for him, shoves her and yells to get her up and dressed. She then wakes up, goes to Joanie, and because she still has the shakes (that’s what she’s telling herself) takes Joanie’s hand. Bullock finishes seeing to Barrett, and joins Martha in bringing up the rear. The entire camp stops and watches the action, with Hearst looking disturbed. To quote the script: “he observes them with brave, private resignation, that by dint of his greatness, Life and Destiny have denied him the simple joys of having to do with his fellow and their pain-in-the-balls offspring.” Al has nothing to do with it, but this is his best response - education and growth against authoritarian power and control.

Hearst is incapable of human interaction, so he does the only thing he can: he brings about destruction. This is perhaps the most clear in what he does to Aunt Lou. In the previous episode, after doing everything in her power to stop Odell from getting involved with Hearst, she makes a last, desperate effort to intervene:

AUNT LOU: I’d pay a man three weeks of my wages, Mr. Hearst, ‘rode quick to catch my son and give him this from his Mama. Searched and searched before he left, come to find it with him gone.

HEARST: Lovely garnet. It does seem a moral law we find that we seek only tardily.

AUNT LOU: Would you send someone Sir?

HEARST: My imagination resists the approach, Aunt Lou, in that however quickly he might catch Odell, until he did, the man would know he rode in service to a colored person. I’d suggest, having packed the brooch securely, we ship it to New York…

AUNT LOU: All right.

HEARST: Are you afraid that by his not receiving today the token of your love something untoward might befall Odell? Are you superstitious that way?

This is a person he claims to care about, and he treats her with barely held contempt. And while what follows is inevitable, he deals with it in one of the cruelest and most poignant scenes in the show.  Aunt Lou is teaching Richardson how to prepare and bag a ham for smoking, and Hearst enters and tells her that Odell is dead. She runs from his pathetic attempt to comfort, into the arms of Richardson, who weeps: “I’m sorry Mama”, while all she can say is: “I can’t take it, I can’t take it.” The far more telling scene comes afterward, when she continues to make supper despite Hearst’s attempt to tell her not to carry on; when he leaves with Jarry, she mutters over and over: “I’d kill you, George Hearst.” In her own way, by denying him action, she is doing what the rest of the town is trying to do.

Hearst is incapable of dealing with this. So as the entire camp (almost) gathers around to watch the Amateur Night in another great scene of unity, he does the only thing he can, and makes further plans. Jarry has come to camp with the purpose of informing Hearst that the Governor has provided soldiers with the sole purpose of voting in the upcoming elections exactly as Hearst wants. (He has also come to escape the odors of scandal of Indian agents like him, siphoning off government assistance. As Adams puts in with great irony: “If it was less than ninety cents on the dollar, you fucked generations of Indian agents to come. “ Jarry doesn’t even bother to hedge that it was less than that.)

As the entire camps observes moments of genuine frivolity and joy (my favorite moment remains Richardson’s impressive skills at juggling, which last until Farnum sees it, and jealously orders him off the stage), the two main bosses of the camp deal with this unity in their own way.

A critical scene in this episode involves what seems at first to be something innocuous and almost a rare display of padding. The new school was built around a tree, and Joanie spends much of the episode trying to get information on who built it around the tree and why he did it. As Charlie asks:

CHARLIE: Why does she need to know where the man got to Mrs. Bullock to tell the children about the tree?

JOANIE: To finish the story.

CHARLIE: More than where the man got to once he was through, I’d think the story was of the tree and the schoolhouse built around it. I guess you’re right though. I guess children are like that, wanting to know all the information. I guess that’s how they are.

As the night progresses, Jane and Joanie discuss the question, noting one of the children has built a house in the tree.

And then Tolliver shows up. No doubt pissed at being on the outside of events (with Hearst and the camp as a whole) he dares breach the perimeter of the schoolhouse, and looks at this tree with vitriolic contempt:

“Is that a darling fucking treehouse in the precious fucking branches for the shitheel little kids to play amongst in jolly joy?”

It takes the nervous combination of Joanie, Jane and Mose to get him out of the school.

 Al, who has had his hands full during the day, allows all his workers and colleagues to attend the Amateur Night, but even though Langrishe is his friend and The Gem is deserted, he seems to regard with contempt. But in the last scene of the episode, he stands behind the bar, and softly sings the old ditty: “The Unfortunate Rake”. He sings at well, and there’s no attempt to milk it for humor. (Indeed, where as every other episode of Deadwood ends with a record of an appropriate folk ballad, this episode alone ends with Swearengen’s song, and some timely guitar.) It is the rare exposure of a gentle side of Swearengen (something Milch and his colleagues very rarely let us see) and we realize that it is something that he would not even admit to the Chief. Like Tolliver, he stands apart from the camp, but it is because he is a leader, not because he isolates himself. It is a beautiful moment, and it stands as the final one as the calm before the inevitable storm.

Laying The Odds For This Year's Emmys: Outstanding Supporting Actor and Actress in a Limited Series/Movie

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN MOVIE/MINI SERIES

Asante Blackk, When They See Us: 7-1

For playing:  Kevin Richardson as a teenager, one of the Central Park 5. Pro: Much of the most memorable work in this mini series comes from watching this children being taken off the street for reasons they can’t comprehend, being bullied into confessions, and then having to deal with mockeries of trials. Blackk’s work was particularly good as a child practically picked off the street by accident. Con: As good as Blackk was, any one of the actors playing the teenagers could have been nominated in his stead. There’s little to separate in quality when it comes to determining who the best of these actors was, and it’s hard to shake that feeling compared to some of the other performances.

Paul Dano, Escape at Dannemora: 5-1

For playing: David Sweat, an inmate suffering on the inside for killing a cop, who uses his expertise to tunnel his way out of prison. Pro: Ever since Little Miss Sunshine, Dano has been one of the most undervalued character actors working today. And as the boyish Sweat, who does everything possible to escape and then finds him being bogged down at the border because of the sloth of his fellow prisoner, was one of the most brilliant roles he has yet given. Con: I’ll be honest. Dano’s role was as much a lead as Del Toro’s was. He should be competing in the Best Actor category. That might end up hurting him. Hurting him more was that, like so many of Dano’s roles, this one was understated. He’s never gotten credit it for it before, I doubt he will now.  

John Leguizamo, When They See Us: 13-2

For playing: Raymond Santana, Sr., a devoted father who unwittingly sends his son to confess to a crime he didn’t commit, and then has to deal with a complicated aftermath when his son is released from prison. Pro: A standup comedian and performer by trade, Leguizamo stretches perhaps more than anyone else in the cast in this series. Raymond never forgives himself for abandoning his son, and when he tries to move on with his life, his family never forgives him – and his new wife never lets him forget what his son is accused of. This is perhaps the greatest revelation in the case. Con: As good as Leguizamo is, it’s hard to really say his performance is greater than, say, those of the teenagers or young adults in the cast.

Stellan Skarsgard, Chernobyl: 5-1

For paying: Boris Shcherbina, a low level bureaucrat who finds himself dealing with a crisis that he can’t even begin to comprehend. Pro: As much credit as his sons have been getting for their abilities over the last few years, it’s often been forgotten just how great an actor Skarsgard is. And in many ways, his role in Chernobyl is astonishing. As Boris himself says in the final episode, he didn’t initially think this would be a catastrophe because they sent him. He doesn’t give himself credit until the end for doing everything in his power to stopping a disaster from becoming apocalyptic. It’s a superb role. Con: The acting world tends to treat Skarsgard like the Soviet Union treated Boris. He’ll never get enough credit for what he does.

Ben Whishaw, A Very English Scandal: 37-10

For playing: Norman Scott, the lover of Jeremy Thorpe whose politician ex-lover targets him for murder. Pro: This was one of the most astonishing performances of the year. Whishaw’s work as a young man who becomes a liability was one fine work from an already brilliant actor. He’s already taken the Golden Globe and the Critics Choice award for his performance; it’s hard to see him not winning. Con: Just as in the case from Grant, Whishaw may fall victim to the fact that his series premiered over a year ago.

Michael Kenneth Williams, When They See Us: 4-1

For Playing: Bobby McCray, the father of Anton who bullies his son into confessing, and then has the most conflicted relationship with him during the trial and after prison. Pro: For nearly twenty years, Williams has been one of television’s greatest actors, from his landmark turn as Omar Little in The Wire to his wry performance in Hap and Leonard, he is a true jewel. And his work here – as a father with a criminal record, who pushes his son towards confessing, who doesn’t attend most of the trial, and who is suffering from a fatal disease when Anton gets out – is yet another example of incredible work. He’s deserved an Emmy for a very long time; it would be fitting if he won here. Con: Williams just can’t seem to catch a break with the Emmys. He’s only been nominated once, and he didn’t win.

PREDICTION

Much as I’d like to see Williams prevail, this award is Whishaw’s to lose.

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRES, MOVIE/MINI SERIES

Patricia Arquette, The Act: 4-1

For playing: Dee Dee Blanchard, a mother whose constant inflicting suffering on her daughter leads to murder. Pro: What are the odds? The two favorites in this category are two character actresses named Patricia playing mothers who use Munchausen by proxy on their daughters that leads to murder. The main differences’ Arquette’s series is true, and she ended up the victim of the ultimate crime. This was as transformative a performance for her as the one in Dannemora, and in any other year, she might go two for two. Con: For one, there’s the other Patricia (see below), and the Emmys rarely reward a person twice for acting. (And given Arquette’s luck, she may have less).

Marcia Stephanie Blake, When they See Us:  13-2

For Playing: Linda McCray, the mother of Anton, who fights the hardest and the longest to keep her family together. Pro: In many ways, the McCray family made up the backbone of the series, and Linda had to play peacemaker, trying to keep her son’s spirits up, while explaining why her husband wouldn’t come to visit her son. Years later, she had to serve as caregiver to a rogue husband now suffering from kidney disease. One of the more solid character portrayals in the series. Con: As good as Blake was, in comparison to some of the other actresses, especially Nash and Farmiga (and to an extent, Felicity Huffman), her role was not nearly as well defined.

Patricia Clarkson, Sharp Objects: 69-20

For playing: Adora Crellin, the ice queen mother and princess of Wind Gap, whose austere manner hides darkness. Pro: Clarkson is one of the world’s greatest character actresses, and while I’m loathe to use the phrase ‘role of a lifetime’ for anybody, it’s hard to look at her work as Adora, and not consider it. Clarkson was extraordinary as one of the most terrifying maternal figures in history, a woman who didn’t have a bone of compassion in her body, who was concerned with appearances more than reality, who could tell her own daughter she never loved her – something that might have saved her life in the end. Finding out that she wasn’t the killer at the center of Sharp Objects was remarkable because you could believe her capable of anything. Winner of the Golden Globe and Critics Choice in this category, this is hers for the taking. Con: It’s been nearly a year since Sharp Objects ended. Are Emmy voters’ memories that short?

Vera Farmiga, When They See Us: 11-2

For playing: Elizabeth Lederer, the woman who ends up prosecuting the Central Park Five despite her misgivings – and more than a decade later, ends up being the force that leads to their exoneration. Pro: One of the things When They See Us illustrated was how flawed and ruthless the justice system can be. So to see Farmiga playing the only character in the prosecution with doubt, and the only one who sees where they went wrong, was brilliant work. The fact that Farmiga is one of the stealth performers of film and TV adds to her stature. Con: Bates Motel pretty much proved that Farmiga has no luck with the Emmys, even when she’s nominated. Considering the level of performances in this category, the odds are stacked against her.

Margaret Qualley, Fosse/Verdon: 7-1

For playing: Ann Renking, the muse that Bob Fosse ends up with near the end of his career – and life. Pro: Qualley was one of the great discoveries of 2019, her brilliant work in this as well as Native Son revealing that she is a true talent that will go far in whatever field she practices. And playing one of the great musical actresses of our time is no mean feat. Con: It was a shock that the voters even remembered Qualley’s work beneath the towering portrayals of Rockwell and Williams, and considering that sometimes it was hard to even know when she was there, it may just be an honor to be nominated.

Emily Watson, Chernobyl: 5-1

For playing: Ulana Khomyuk, the investigative scientist who tries to find out what caused the events leading up to Chernobyl. Pro: Watson is nearly as great an actress as Skarsgard is an actor – the sole difference being she hasn’t been doing it for nearly as long. It was a shock when we learned at the end of the series that Watson’s character was merely a composite; she did so much work making her fully dimensional and the one voice for truth in a society that stomped on any result that disagreed with the State. It’s hard not to watch her performance and not be shaken. Con: As good at Watson was, much of her work paled beneath Harris’ and Skarsgard. It seems likely that yet again, she will be ignored for more showy work.

PREDICTION

Nothing will stop Patricia Clarkson from prevailing.

See you Monday with my reactions to the winners – and to see how well I di

Laying The Odds For Emmys: Outstanding Actor and Actress in a Movie/Mini Series

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR, MOVIE/MINI SERIES

Mahershala Ali, True Detective: 11-2

For playing: Wayne Hays, a Louisiana detective, determined to find the truth behind a young girl’s abduction. Pro: This series was undeservedly shutout of most of the major categories this year, but this season redeemed True Detective. And without question, Ali’s work as Hays, trying to find the truth in three different eras – and with his memory failing – was, in my mind, the great acting performance of 2019 so far. I have no doubt it lifted him to the Oscar. Con: The True Detective bump didn’t help Matthew McCounaghey to an Emmy, and that one was more revered. Plus, this is a tougher category by far.

Benicio Del Toro, Escape at Dannemora 7-2

For Playing: Richard Matt, the convict who is the driving force behind the title escape. Pro: Del Toro’s performance was one of the more subtle of this category, playing a man who despite being a murderer was sympathized with by the men guarding him, and who masterminded an escape, but seemed more interesting in dying than leaving the country. A more measured work than so many of the others; it’s a quiet master class. Con: Much of Del Toro’s work was overshadowed by Patricia Arquette, and it’s a little weird that he’s the lead and Paul Dano, who had as much screen time, is in Supporting. That may bother some voters.

Hugh Grant, A Very English Scandal 11-2

For playing: Jeremy Thorpe, the homosexual MP who turns to murder to avoid exposure in 1970s London. Pro: Ever since Florence Foster Jenkins, Grant has been enjoying a remarkable late career renaissance, and his work is Thorpe is one of the more amazing performance in his repertoire, a man who can charm his constituency, and just as easily order a murder. His performance was at least as good as Darren Criss’ turn as Cunanan last year, and more subtle. Con: Timing: The production came out last June, and that’s a long time in the minds of Emmy voters. I’d love to see him win, but there have been a lot of great performances since then.

Jared Harris, Chernobyl 4-1

For playing: Valery Legasov, the scientist who finds himself leading the efforts to cleanup the horrors of a nuclear spill. Pro: Harris has delivered several superb performances in television this year, and his work as Legasov is particularly good as a man trying to convince a government that doesn’t want to hear about the dangers that have been unleashed. He’s deserved an Emmy since Mad Men, and this might be his best opportunity. Con: Most of Harris’ work was subdued, which isn’t the kind of thing Emmy voters give trophies for.

Jharrel Jerome, When They See Us: 18-5

For Playing: Corey Wise, the most tragic victim of the Central Park Five. Pro: Jerome gave a level to his performance that puts many Oscar winners to shame. The only actor to appear as a teenager and young adult, his change was enough to be worth recognizing. As the only one sent to adult detention, much of which he spent in solitary, Wise had by far the most grueling ordeal of the group. Jerome work is the center of the entire story, and that’s the kind of work that wins awards. Oh yeah, and it was exquisite. Con: Being the only unknown in this category could work against him.

Sam Rockwell, Fosse Verdon 5-1

For Playing: Bob Fosse. Pro: For this legendary icon, life was anything but a cabaret, he was sexually abused as a child, he attempted suicide and was institutionalized after winning an Oscar, Tony and Emmy in the same year, and he was a horrible person to just about anybody who dared to love him. Rockwell is one of the most undervalued actors in history, and he seemed perfectly suited to the messy life of the genius, particularly in Episode 6, where in homage to Lenny he laid all of his life’s miseries on the table. Con: As good as Rockwell is in the series, much like Del Toro, his performance pales in comparison to that of the female lead. He may get overlooked because of it.

PREDICTION

Jerome seems to have the buzz, but I still have a gut feeling that Ali will pull it off. (Though again, no real bad choices in this category.)

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS MOVIE/MINI SERIES

Amy Adams, Sharp Objects: 5-1

For Playing: Camille Preager, the physical and emotionally scarred reported coming back to Wind Gap to find that old ghosts are still there. Pro: Just because Adams is the only actress who plays a fictional character in this category doesn’t make her performance any less of an achievement. Just wearing the makeup of the carvings her character has driven into her skin is an accomplishment in itself. Coupled by playing a woman so crippled from a childhood that she’s never been able to escape, and facing a crime that is so close to home she can’t see it was one of the most incredible performances of the season. Con: For all her incredible work, she went basically hungry during the award season running up to the Emmys, and that was before so many other brilliant performance showed up. I want to see her win, but I just can’t see it in the cards.

Patricia Arquette, Escape at Dannemora: 39-10

For playing: Joyce ‘Tilly’ Mitchell, the wife of a prison guard who begins a sexual relationship with two prisoners that leads an escape. Pro: Arquette’s transformation into Mitchell was, if anything, even more remarkable than Adams. And her performance as a woman who ambitions lead her to break the law and whose bad fortune ended with her in prison was one of the most astounding of the entire year. Critics agreed in the early stage – she won the Golden Globe, the SAG and tied with Adams for Best Actress. And that was one of two extraordinary performances she gave this year (see Supporting Actress). Until a few weeks ago, I thought she was a lock for an Emmy. Con: The race has tightened dramatically in the last month. I still think she’s got an excellent chance, but the odds have diminished.

Aunjanue Ellis, When They See Us: 7-1

For playing: Sharone Salaam, the mother of Yusef. Pro: Ellis work as a mother making the most urgent push to get her son out of a rapidly unfolding situation is one of the highlights of this series, and her work as a mother who does the most to try and support her son out of prison is particularly good. Con: The vast array of nominations for this series may have led some Emmy voters to make bad judgment calls when it came to categories. I would classify Ellis’ work as fitting more with the Supporting roles. And compared to some of the other actresses in this series, her role was far less significant.

Joey King, The Act: 13-2

For playing: Gypsy Rose Blanchard, a child who spends her life the victim of her mother’s Munchausen by Proxy, and as a result, turns to murder. Pro: In a category filled with some of the greatest actresses working today (one of whom she’s competing against) the youngest actress in this category gave one of the most remarkable turns of all playing both victim and criminal. Even in a category with tragic characters, Gypsy’s is by far the saddest, and it’s a credit to King – and a revelation – that she can stand with the best of them. Con: The Emmys has a terrible track record when it comes to recognizing teenage actors and actresses, no matter how wrenching their performances. In King’s case, it probably is an honor just to be nominated

Niecy Nash, When They See Us: 6-1

For playing: Delores Wise, Corey’s mother, who undergoes the greatest trauma of them all. Pro: Nash is one of the great television actresses in history, and one of the great pleasures of the New Golden Age has been watching her work. From a compassionate caregiver on Getting On to the ruthless salon owner on Claws, she has delighted in showing that there’s nothing she can’t do. And as much as Corey was the key character in the series, her role in the last episode, where she was the only real link she had to his old life and almost his only hope – was yet another remarkable feather to add to her cap. Con: As good as Nash is, much of her work is far more subtle than the other nominees. This may very well work against her.

Michelle Williams, Fosse/Verdon: 37-10

For playing: Gwen Verdon, the Broadway legend behind some of the greatest musicals in history – and the creative spark behind one of the greatest creative forces. Pro: I’ll be honest. Williams is one of the greatest actresses working in whatever medium she graces with her presence. And in a way, playing Marilyn Monroe was a warm-up for this iconic star that has almost entirely been forgotten except by those who love Broadway. And Williams was every bit the equal of Rockwell in this series, in the early episode was she was the star, in the middle when she was the mother, and in the end when she was trying for a comeback, and was betrayed by the person she should’ve trusted the most. It’s not her greatest performance, but it’s one of her most accomplished. The TCA agreed and gave her the award for Best Dramatic Performance.  She has the momentum. Con: It’s going to come down as to whether they think Williams or Arquette gave the more bracing performance. And unfortunately, Williams hasn’t had a lot of luck with awards in general.

PREDICTION

It’s a horse race between Arquette and Williams. Williams may manage to win by an eyelash – but watch out for Adams.

Laying The Odds For This Year;s Emmys: Outstanding Limited Series

I’ll withhold comment on the award for Best TV Movie, save for two remarks. First, if nothing else, this year should persuade the Academy to at least consider separate categories for Directing and Writing for a Movie. It may add a few more minutes to an already lengthy night, but this is the second straight year Movies have been shut out of all major categories, and that’s unreasonable, even for a category HBO has dominated.

Second, I really want Deadwood to win. It was mostly ignored by the Emmys in its all too brief time on the air, and this would be a way to make up for it. Besides, given the state of David Milch’s health, and the fact that this movie got made at all, it honestly should be a sentimental favorite, goddamn it.

OUTSTANDING LIMITED SERIES

Chernobyl: 37-10

Arguably the most frightening of the nominated series, it’s hard to know what was honestly more terrifying about it: the carnage and utter wreckage of the fallout of the nuclear incident, or how the USSR’s concerns of not looking terrible in the eyes of the world may have led to God knows how many more deaths. A bleak and frightening series, this was a high point of HBO’s year of exceptional limited series. Pro: Considering the underlying message that truth must prevail in spite of the state, this is a far more relevant period piece than almost any other series this year. Plus HBO and FX have alternated wins in the Limited Series category for the last four years. It’s their turn. Con: As brilliant as it was, this was one of the hardest things to watch on TV last year. The Academy tends to like its winners to be entertaining as well as informative.

Escape at Dannemora: 9-2

The amazingly true life story of a prison break, this was one of the more fascinating series to air this season. And its all the more remarkable considering it comes from Ben Stiller, a man definitely not known for wrenching drama. A story about two men determined to escape prison and the desperate woman trying to escape a humdrum life, this was by far had some of best lead performances at the center of it. Pro: Featuring one of the most memorable character stints at the center of it from Patricia Arquette, had the Emmys stopped at 2018, it would almost assuredly have won. As it is, it’s still one of the more dazzling pieces of work. Con: It’s been eight months since it debuted, and it did so on Showtime, a network that has a decidedly mixed track record at the Emmys. Time, like it was for so many of the characters, is the series enemy.

Fosse/Verdon: 9-2

The brilliant story of two legends in musical theater, told from the voice of their child, this may be the least serious of the nominated series. Which doesn’t make any less important. Telling the story of Bob Fosse, warts and all one of the most brilliant creative minds who could handle failure only slightly less well than success, was equally matched by the story of Gwen Verdon, an ignobly forgotten legend of Broadway, who the series makes clear was just as important to Fosse’s success as the man himself. A series with two of the most brilliant tour de forces of the entire year. Pro: It features two of our greatest actors today playing two of the most iconic figures in Broadway history, and it goes to great lengths to show just how brilliant – and how flawed –they were. Con: This was by far the most erratic of the nominated series, with brilliant episodes mixed with deeply flawed ones. The actors may triumph, the series probably won’t

Sharp Objects: 9-2

The only work of fiction among the nominated series, this adaptation of Gillian Flynn’s first best seller was one of the most wrenching experiences of them all. More than that, it was by far the most female centric, featuring searing performances by Amy Adams and Patricia Clarkson as a mother and daughter who never loved each other, and whose destructive behavior led to sickness, abuse, and the most horrific crimes of all. The murders at the center of the story almost paled compared to the carnage of the mother and daughters. Pro: Featuring some of the greatest performances by actresses all year, this series demonstrated that you don’t need a true story to show horrible things. And it’s clearly lasted with the academy. Con: It aired more than a year ago, and considering the length of the novel it was based on, it really suffered from padding more than any other series on the list.

When They See Us: 82-25

Ava Duvernay took one of the most horrible miscarriages of the justice system – the arrest and conviction of the Central Park Five – and turned it into a look at some of the greatest horrors in life – police investigation, the justice system, incarceration and post-prison life. These was one of the most unsettling series all year, and the fact that it ended with some of the police refusing to admit they’d done anything wrong  - and the implied criticism of the President – remains one of the most terrifying things yet. Pro:  This series bore the hallmarks of one of the great accomplishment in television – American Crime, a series that took a bleak, uncompromising look at America today. The fact that When They See Us takes place thirty years ago doesn’t make it any less relevant or necessary viewing. Con: As brilliant as the acting, directing and writing were, a lot of the time the series was harder to watch than all the other nominees. (This was one of American Crime’s biggest problems as well. It’s extraordinary, but that doesn’t necessarily mesh with entertaining.

PREDICTION

I’d honestly prefer to see Sharp Objects win, but I expect When They See Us too. Though honestly, no losers in this category. (They should still have more than five nominees, though.)

Laying the Odds For The Emmys: Outstanding Supporting Actor and Actress, Comedy

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR, COMEDY

Alan Arkin, The Kominsky Method: 9-2

For playing: Norman, the put upon agent/best friend to Sandy. Pro: Many of the funniest moments in this series gave from the deadpan delivery of Arkin, as well the majority of the poignant moments as well. Becoming a widower, dealing with his constantly relapsing daughter, trying to find a good reason not to kill himself – you wouldn’t think anyone could make this funny, but this acting legend could and did. It’s hard to believe that it took until Little Miss Sunshine for Hollywood to realize how great he is. The sentimental favorite. Con: A lot of the momentum for The Kominsky Method has disappeared – it wasn’t nominated for Best Comedy, after all – and it might end up hurting Arkin’s chance.

Anthony Carrigan, Barry: 13-2

For Playing: Noho Hank, the ambitious but clueless Armenian gangster in LA. Pro: Carrigan delivers so many of the series best jokes, and is so much a wannabe that he can’t see how frequently he is being outmatched. The fact that he managed to survive the massacre at the end of Season 2 seemed to surprise even him. I think he deserves at least to be nominated. Con: With the vote likely to be split three way among Barry fans, and so many of his jokes being subtle compared to the veterans in the group, Carrigan very likely will get lost in the shuffle.

Tony Hale, Veep: 11-2

For playing: Gary, Selina’s most loyal aide. Pro: Hale by far was the most consistent performer, even in the last two seasons. His devotion to Selina was total, which made his ultimate fate – when she sacrificed him for her own good without much of a second thought – all the more tragic. His love, however, remained unrequited. He was by far, the best performer. Con: He’s already won twice for this show, and its been more than five years since his last win. Unfortunately, like so many in Veep’s orbit, he may well be pushed back for a brighter sun.

Stephen Root, Barry: 13-2

For playing: Monroe Fuchs, Barry’s handler, and this season, his betrayer. Pro: Root has always been one of the great actors of any series he’s in, and he has some superb moments in Barry. So many of the biggest laughs from ‘ronny lily’ came from his shouts and reactions. But as he tried to deal with what he saw as Barry’s betrayal, he led his protégé into a series of truly horrid action worthy of Vince Gilligan, frankly. Plus, this is his first nomination. Can you believe it? Pro: Root isn’t even the most established character actor in his series. I don’t think he can quite pull it off.

Tony Shalhoub, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel: 10-3

For playing: Abe, Midge’s increasingly beleaguered father. Pro: This was a hard season for Abe. He learned his daughter was a comedian and that his son worked for the CIA. He learned his dream job at Bell Labs was a joke. He learned his colleagues at Columbia didn’t like him. And then, in the season finale, he made an even bigger change in his life than even his daughter had. And he did all this being funny in as deadpan a way as possible. He was extraordinary, and the SAGs agreed – he was named Best Actor in a Comedy. The front-runner. Con: He didn’t win last year. Really, that’s the only argument against him I can come up with.

Henry Winkler, Barry: 5-1

For playing: Gene, the acting group’s teacher. Pro: Just like Hader, he was better this year. As he spent much of the season grieving his lover’s disappearance, he seemed to be rebuilding a better connection with Barry. Then in the last two episodes, he found his lover’s body, he was framed for her murder, and in the last minute of the episode, he remembered something that is sure to change the series for ever. Last year, he won out of sentimentality. This year, he could win because he deserves it. Con: Sentiment fro Hale or the split among his fellow Barry nominees could seriously hurt his chances.

PREDICTION

I never really agreed with Shalhoub winning for Monk. When he wins this year, I think he’ll more than be entitled to it.

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS, COMEDY

Alex Borstein, Marvelous Mrs. Maisel: 5-1

For playing: Susie Myerseon, Midge’s manager. Pro: Susie has always provided a lot of the laughs on this series as she tried to negotiate her only client through a mess of her own making. Loyal and steadfast despite everything, her belligerence ended up landing her nemesis as a new client. Borstein is one of the funniest women working today, and of the this very long list, she’s the only one with an award to her credit – she won the Critics Choice for Best Supporting Actress. I actually wouldn’t mind her repeating. Con: Hard to come up with an argument against her win, except that a lot of funny performances have come since Season 2 premiered. Of course, that was true last year too, and she still won.

Anna Chlumsky, Veep: 13-2

For playing: Amy, Selina’s aide/Jonah’s campaign manager. Pro: By far, the most vitriolic and ambitious character on a series full of them, Amy sacrificed family for career without hesitation, then came to get her client within an eyelash of the presidency – and was horrified when that became possible. She’s one of the few members of the cast who was never acknowledged by the Emmys; this is her last chance. Con: As good as Chlumsky is, there have always been actresses as good or better in this category. Sad to say, Amy’s probably due for more disappointment.

Sian Clifford, Fleabag: 17-2

For playing: Claire, the older sister. Pro: So many of the funniest moments on this series came from Clifford’s forever put upon sister, who seemed stuck in a truly horrible marriage, but was utterly unwilling to end it. Over and over, she sacrificed everything for her own happiness – until the finale, when she finally realized that she could give it up. Another great lady. Con: What could keep her from winning? Oh, right…

Olivia Colman, Fleabag: 5-1

For: Godmother. Pro: Colman has been one of my favorite actresses for a while, but I’ve seen her play someone so cheerfully unpleasant as this overly unctuous, sexual artist willing to woo the title character’s parent at the funeral. Every word she uttered seemed fraught with whipped cream laced with knives, incapable of being happy, unless her soon to be stepdaughters weren’t. I figured Colman was a shoo-in for an Emmy when she took over playing Queen Elizabeth this year. She may well get it a year early. And really, she’s deserved to win since Broadchurch. Con: It’s really, really difficult to win an Oscar and an Emmy in the same year – it’s only happened twice. Will that stigma end up blocking her chance?

Betty Gilpin, GLOW: 19-2

For playing: Debbie Egan/Liberty Belle. Pro: Gilpin is by far the most astonishing woman on a cast full of great actresses, and watching her try to climb the ladder and become a producer, while still raw from her divorce, led to some funny moments. And in the best moment of the series so far – when she criticized Ruth for not bestowing a sexual favor on her boss – is all the more relevant today. Con: GLOW’s moment in the sun seems to have passed really quickly. It’s unlikely Gilpin can climb the ladder.

Sarah Goldberg, Barry: 8-1

For playing: Sally, aspiring actress/Barry’s girlfriend. Pro: Sally went on a harrowing journey of her own this season, trying to face the fact of her abusive husband in an acting exercise that eventually had her face her truth, which led to a possible break – which led to her realizing that lies are easier… for everyone. It was a master class. Con: I think she has the hardest row to hoe in this entire category, particularly because she wasn’t in some of the bigger episodes this season.

Marin Hinkle, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel: 9-1

For playing: Rose, Midge’s mother. Pro: Rose went on a quest for liberation this year, traveling to Paris with her husband, and finding acceptance for her daughter’s role, while still trying to find her a husband. Hinkle has been one of TV’s hidden gems for nearly twenty years, and she has a delightful gift for being able to make people laugh. I was delighted that the Emmys finally decided to acknowledge her. Con: Considering that the Emmys had to expand to eight nominees in this category just to honor her, and that there’s someone just as funny from her series in this category, I’d say the odds against are grim.

Kate McKinnon, Saturday Night Live: 8-1

For playing: Various characters. Pro: It’s taken me a long time to accept that performers in sketch comedy deserve at least as much recognition as series actors do. McKinnon has been able to gradually sell me on this. Watching her play such various characters as Janine Pirro and Ruth Bader Ginsburg has convinced me that she is as worthy as anyone else. Con: She’s won twice before, and a lot of the momentum that SNL has had has been blunted over the past year. That will almost certainly affect her chances here.

GUEST ACTOR AND ACTRESS

This is a trickier field to navigate because SNL hosts – and in some cases, guest performers – have basically dominated these categories for the last three years.

In Guest Actor, I would like to see Peter MacNicol triumph for Veep  - his work is particularly caustic, but I’ve been an admirer of his work and drama and comedy for years – but I think it’s more likely to go to an SNL star. I’d like to see John Mulaney triumph – his host was one of the high points of the entire season – but I think it more likely it’ll go to Robert DeNiro for his work as Robert Mueller. (Why wasn’t Ben Stiller nominated?)

In Guest Actress, for a change I don’t think SNL will prevail here. I’d like to see Maya Rudolph win for her sterling work as The Judge on The Good Place, but I’m more inclined to see that this will go to one of the guest actresses from Fleabag. I think it’s more likely to be the wondrous Kristen Scott Thomas for her incredible monologue on just how hard it is to be a woman.

As for Directing, I will weigh in. I think it’s more likely that one of the more technically advanced episodes of the season will prevail here, either ‘ronny/lily on Barry or ‘Janets’ for The Good Place. Considering just how much work went into the latter episode, I’ll give the barest of edges to that. Writing is going to be a bitch. So many good choices in this group. I’d like to see ‘Janets’ win, but I’m going to give the barest of edges to episode 2.1 of Fleabag. Phoebe Waller-Bridge deserves to triumph for something, and besides, this was a masterpiece.

Laying The Odds For This Year's Emmys: Outstanding Comedy Actor and Actress

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR, COMEDY

Anthony Anderson, black-ish: 7-1

For playing: ‘Dre’ Johnson, the patriarch of the Johnson clan. Pro: Five years into black-ish’s run, Anderson continues to show why he is one of the greatest comic actors ever working. He is long past due some recognition by the Emmys (some of whom think he should’ve gotten acknowledged for The Shield), and he may one of the best fathers in all of TV. Con: Even though the family of black-ish continues the grow, and the series has lost none of its comic edge, it may have missed its opportunity, and that will probably weigh against Anderson

Don Cheadle, Black Monday: 13-2

For playing: Maurice Monroe, the coked-up, ever-scheming broker at the center of the 1987 Stock Exchange meltdown. Pro: For all the criticism of the series – and I was one of the big ones – one can’t deny Cheadle’s incredible ability to be both the cold-blooded, utterly scheming conniver, and yet at the end of the first season, the only one with a moral compass. Cheadle is one of the greatest actors of any medium, and he deserves some recognition. Con: Black Monday was in many ways the typical Showtime comedy – emphasizing extremes and disgusts for laughs – and the Emmys has had trouble recognizing the good ones. Which, in all candor, Black Monday isn’t one.

Ted Danson, The Good Place: 9-2

For playing, Michael, the otherworldly being from the afterlife, who may be the only one who can save humanity. Pro: Danson has long since established himself as one of the true legends of television, someone who is a master of both comedy and drama. And Michael may be one of the greatest roles he’s ever played. A creature who’s spent eternity trying to torment humanity, who has somehow managed to find a way to realize that it may be worth saving, Michael stands as one of the most amazing characters to come out of TV this decade. Plus, its been a real long time since Danson was on the podium. I think he’s earned it. Con: In a perfect world, Danson would have nothing between him and the Emmy. But as The Good Place would be the first to tell you, this is far from a perfect world. Other suns may have eclipsed him.

Michael Douglas, The Kominsky Method: 9-2

For playing: Sandy Kominsky, aging acting legend/teacher. Pro: Douglas has been around such a long time (longer, even, than Danson) that we tend to forget just how brilliant a comic actor he is. The Kominsky Method was one of the more entertaining comedies last year, mainly because of Douglas’ superb turn as a man dealing with age and obsolescence, trying to help his best friend deal with his wife’s death, finding love with someone age-appropriate, and dealing with his prostate. It was a marvelous turn, well deserving of the Golden Globe he won earlier this year. Con: A lot of time has passed, and The Kominsky Method, which also took the Golden Globe for Best Comedy, has lost a lot of its forward momentum. It wasn’t really given the nominations it deserved, and that might end up hurting Douglas’ chances.

Bill Hader, Barry: 10-3

For playing: Barry Block/Berkman, acting student/contract killer. Pro: I really dropped the ball saying that Hader didn’t deserve the Emmy last year. And I can say with certainty, he deserves it just as much as he did last year, if not more. Dealing with the guilt of killing the detective chasing him, trying to get out of the life he was in, while being pursued by the cops, training an army, and then being betrayed by one of his closets friends. And that’s before you consider ‘ronny-lily’, where he was at the center, or the finale, in which all of his chickens came home to roost – and a level of carnage that would’ve been big for Game of Thrones unfolding. He deserves to be the favorite. Con: Will the Emmys choose to recognize someone a little older, and just as funny? There are a lot of deserving nominees in this category.

Eugene Levy, Schitt’s Creek: 11-2

For playing: Johnny Rose, the patriarch of the family. Pro: It comes as one of the biggest shocks in my life that somehow this is Levy, one of the greatest comic actors in history, first Emmy nomination. He’s been making people laugh since SCTV and in this project – literally a family affair – he continues to demonstrate that he’s one of the greatest. If there was a sentimental favorite in this category, it’s him. Con: If there’s one thing I’ve come to learn with certainty, the Emmys are not generally sentimental. Levy may have to say: “It’s an honor just to be nominated.” Knowing him, he’ll make that funny.

PREDICTION

I’d like to see Danson finally win, but I think the odds are that Hader will repeat. And in a rarity, I’m actually okay with that.

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A COMEDU

Christina Applegate, Dead to Me: 7-1

For playing: Jen, a tightly wound widow. Pro: Applegate has been one of the great and original comic voices of my lifetime, never playing the same type of character twice. And her nomination over so many other brilliant actresses (including several on Netflix) was one of the nicer joys of this year. I’m always glad to see her competing. Con: That said, surprise nominees at the Emmys don’t usually win. And Applegate has a lot of bad luck at the Emmys (even though she did win once). I just don’t see her prevailing here

Rachel Brosnahan, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel: 9-2

For playing: Midge, the title housewife/standup comedienne  Pro: Everything Brosnahan did last year, she did just as well this year.  As she tried to pursue a career where she was being blackballed, going to Paris, the Catskills, and on TV; inadvertently coming out to her father (it actually might have been easier in the alternative) and trying to dance between her not quite ex-husband and a new suitor, Brosnahan remained as delightful. The awards people agree – she won just about every award between last year’s Emmys and this one. I’m not sure why she isn’t the favorite. Con: Oh, right. Julia Louis-Dreyfus. I still believe Brosnahan deserves it, but I’m the minority.

Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Veep: 17-5

For playing: Selina Meyer, the once and former president. Pro: For better or worse (and on this show, it’s always worse) the Emmys love her. And I have to admit, if the final episode of the series is the one she submitted, it’s the one to go out on. To see that her ruthless ambition, so brutal she would walk over her own daughter to get the presidency, pay off – and yet still end up with nothing – was incredible. Plus, given everything that happened with her health, could the six time winner be a sentimental favorite? Con: She didn’t win last year, and she lost to Phoebe Waller-Bridge at the TCA awards. Would that be enough to deny her one more win?

Natasha Lyonne, Russian Doll: 13-2

For playing: Nadia, a video game designer turning 36 again… and again… and again. Pro: Like so many former film actresses, Lyonne has found the perfect place to work in TV. Working in concert with Amy Poehler, she stars and has created a dazzling puzzle box of a series, and created one of the most truly original characters on television. Trying to deal with dying over and over, trying to determine a pattern was both terribly funny and moving. Not a lot of women in this category could do this. Con: Is it too much and too dark for the Emmys to reward? I’d say she might prevail for writing, but there’s another hyphenate we have to talk about who may stop her

Catherine O’Hara, Schitt’s Creek: 6-1

For Playing: Moira Rose. Pro: If anything, O’Hara’s even more deserving of an Emmy than Levy is. Same background, same great history, same total lack of recognition from the Emmys. (Though if you saw For Your Consideration, maybe they did it for a reason.) O’Hara is another one of favorite actresses, and for those of us who saw her at the Critics Choice awards with Levy, she’s lost none of her touch. Con: In addition to not being named Julia, she’s also on a series that was basically ignored by the Emmys until now. Sentimental favorite, but the Emmys… well, see Eugene Levy

Phoebe Waller-Bridge: Fleabag: 9-2

For: Title role… whatever that is. Pro: Waller-Bridge, the hyphenated hyphenate, created an incredible comedy even by the comparison of other hyphenates. The self-aware, hard drinking sexually robust found religion – well, a hot priest – realized that there was a good person, and helped everybody find happiness, except sadly, herself. There has definitely been momentum building for her the last month. She took every imaginable prize from the TCAs in August. Combined with her work on Killing Eve, if she doesn’t get at least one Emmy, there is no justice. Con: Like Brosnahan, the only argument against her is that she’s the wrong hyphenated actress. But of the nominees in this category, she’s the most likely to be the spoiler.

PREDICTION

Likely that Louis-Dreyfus will run the table, but don’t rule out an upset by either Brosnahan or Waller-Bridge (particularly the latter)