Laying the Odds For This Year's Emmys: Week 2, Part 1: Outstanding Comedy Series

 

Unusually for me, I’m more up to date on the comedies than the dramas this year. Or maybe it’s not so unusual. Considering what this year has been like, we all needed a good laugh.

 

BEST COMEDY SERIES

 

Curb Your Enthusiasm: 19-2.  Larry David continues to do everything wrong, inappropriately, politically misbehaving and generally lunatic funny. To try and describe what happens in a season of this series is missing the point – it’s been around for twenty years for a reason. Pro: Seriously, how many performers could wear a MAGA for the sole purpose of getting privacy and make it funny? David is an artist, and there’s no point in arguing that he keeps stepping over the line – there’s never been a line; that’s the point. This series keeps coming back after long hiatuses and still seems fresh. That’s genius. Con: Given everything going on recently, a lot of people may have a problem with a comedy about a crotchety old white guy behaving very badly.

 

Dead to Me: 17-2. Jen and Judy had to deal with the ramifications of Jen’s killing of Steve in the first season finale. Then Steve’s twin brother showed up. Then Judy fell in love with a girl… who happened to be the detective investigated all of their crimes. You wouldn’t think this could be funny, but it’s a tribute to Liz Feldman and the two dazzling leads (Emmy nominees Christina Applegate and Linda Cardellini) that this series that so many (myself included) passed over on Netflix initially demonstrated that it has the staying power for true genius. Pro: Of all the series mixing comedy and drama this may be the most genius of the group. In the wrong hands, this is a cut rate Big Little Lies, but here everything that can work for laughs or winces can. Con: Only got four nominations total. Generally in order to win big at the Emmys, you need a lot more than that.

 

The Good Place: 7-1. One of the greatest series in television history completely stuck the landing. The Cockroach Club managed to save humanity, finally get to the Good Place, found out it wasn’t nearly as good as you’d think, found a way to fix that too. And after all that, everybody on the series got the ending they deserved. This is not just one of the greatest comedy series of all time; it may be the greatest merger of philosophy expressed for anyone – which is an accomplishment in itself. Pro: In what should be a fitting climax for a great series, the show got more Emmy nominations than it ever has. In an era when we are struggling so hard to determine what it means to human, this series might just be the best record. Oh, and it was really forking funny right to the end. My personal favorite. Con: Could this series be too deep for Emmy recognition? It was always funny, but maybe it’s just too cerebral to get honors in a comedy category. Which is kind of sad… but fitting for this show.

 

Insecure: 15-2.  An already brilliant series went to new levels in its fourth season. Issa and Molly spent much of the season drifting apart due to flaws in their own characters more than anything else. When it erupted at the block party the show was building, the series actually got even deeper, showing how the three central characters – Issa, Molly and Lawrence had changed over the years. Then, just when it seemed like there was happiness on the horizon for Issa at least, the ultimate heartbreak came for both her and Molly but it may have saved their friendship. Pro: I fully admit that I may be the completely wrong demographic for this series, but I personally thought it was one of the best shows of the year. The splintering of the friendship that was at the center of the series, showing true crime series for black people as an Easter egg, and so confident in its work that Issa didn’t need to talk to herself most of the year – this is an extremely confident show and exceptionally funny. Con: You have to be a series on the level of Atlanta or black-ish to really break through the Emmys record with comedies in this category. While I personally believe that it’s at that level of greatness, the fact that it took this long to finally get nominated for Best Comedy doesn’t speak well for its overall prospects.

 

The Kominsky Method: 10-1

Sandy continued to deal with the mess of his life – his daughter’s boyfriend was his age, and to his surprise they bonded – which didn’t make Mindy happy. He began to rebuild his relationship with his girlfriend, and then he got cancer. Norman actually seemed to be getting closer to normal – he finally rebuilt his relationship with his daughter and reconnected with an old love, only to flub it near the end. Throughout their friendship remained both poignant and funny. Pro: IMHO, this is one of the funniest series on Netflix, which is saying a lot. Let by the sterling performances of Michael Douglas and Alan Arkin, it would’ve been easy for this series to be the male equivalent of Grace & Frankie. But it gets bigger laughs and more realism in my opinion, and after being ignored for Best Comedy after winning at the Golden Globes last year, it more than deserves to be here. Con: It’s an old fashioned show. Granted its run by one of the true masters of the genre, but its demographic is very old. And while you’d think that might help it with the Emmys, they have a tendency to recognize hipper comedies and there are a lot of them here.

 

The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel: 5-1. Midge finally broke big…sort of. As she went on her first major tour why Shy Baldwin and became closer to superstardom, everyone else kept moving along. Abe tried to embrace his radical roots, Sophie tried to become more modern, and we said goodbye to their apartment. Joel tried to make his own way, running into more obstacles and love with a Chinese casino owner. Susie got Sophie Lennon as a client, for all the good it did here. And as the series entered the sixties, we got a look at was coming for everyone. Pro: Is it too early to project this series as one of the greatest comedies ever made? The Palladinos continue to demonstrate their mastery of the genre, and the cast continued to show why its one of the greatest assembled, even as it expanded (welcome back, Liza Weil!)  The cast was astounded they won the SAG award for Best Comedy over Fleabag. I wasn’t. 20 nominations show the Emmys haven’t forgotten. Con: There really isn’t an argument against it winning again. The thing is, last year the juggernaut was stopped by a show in its last season. Could it happen again? See below.

 

Schitt’s Creek: 4-1.  The Rose family finally got to the end of the road. David found happiness on his wedding day, Johnny tried to make things perfect for their son, and as they finally left the title town which they all hated at the beginning, the idea of departure left them feeling… well, Schitty. A heartwarming exit to a superb show. Pro: Until last year, this show on a network that no longer produces original programming any more wasn’t even a blip on Emmys radar. Now, it’s a sensation the world over, got Emmy nominations up the yin-yang and is the slight favorite to win a lot of awards. Con: Overnight success stories don’t happen that often at the Emmys, but given how rapturous the world went over Fleabag last year, that maybe changing. We’ll certainly see.

 

What We Do In the Shadows: 17-2. Yes, this is a show about three vampires who’ve lived for over a century on Staten Island. And it only gets crazier from there. Jermaine Clement is one of the most eccentric minds in comedy today and turned a series with no real names into one of the hidden gems on FX. I think it’s safe to say it’s the biggest shock of the comedy nominations. Pro: It’s weird, even by the standard of FX series, but it has a lot of pull with the Emmy voters considering it nabbed three of the seven writing nominations this year. That level of devotion indicates that it could become for the Emmys what it is on an FX: a real sleeper. Con: A vampire comedy. That’s not the kind of description that smacks of Emmys, which have trouble recognizing fantasy in the drama category. And personally, as I thought Better Things was more deserving of Emmy love, I’m inclined to dismiss it.

 

Prediction: I really, really want to see The Good Place triumph after everything it’s been through. But so far, it’s looking like Maisel or Schitt’s Creek will prevail. Then again, I underestimated the Fleabag juggernaut last year too.

 

 

 

 

Better REALLY Late Than Never: The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel Season 3 Review

 

 

Yes, it mainly got shut down (albeit deservedly) by Fleabag and Barry last season, but there were still reasons to be joyful as Marvelous Mrs. Maisel won another seven Emmys last year, including a deserved repeat for Alex Borstein and a much deserved triumph for Tony Shalhoub. And the early notes would seem to indicate a possibility of a big repeat – it got another 20 nominations for Season 3. I should really call this review ‘Almost too Late’, but I’ve just started on Season 3. Need I mention its sublime?

At the end of Season 2, it seemed like Midge was finally going to break big when she was invited to tour with black singing sensation Shy Baldwin. There were similar breakthroughs for everyone else. Abe, who spent the last year thinking his work at Bell Labs was vital, learned it wasn’t and quit both there and his job at Columbia. Susie finally managed to earn the privilege of Sophie Lennon as her client (an incredible Jane Lynch, now promoted to series regular). Joel realized his relationship was over (his final one night stand with Midge notwithstanding) and decided to buy a club.

As Midge’s career unfolds, she finds herself in the position of so many women in her position – being recognized for her looks more than her act. There was conflict when Midge learned that Suzie had taken on Sophie as a client, and there’s probably going to be a lot more when she realizes just what a monster she’s taken on. Abe is trying to embrace his roots as a disruptor (his arrest after attending a Lenny Bruce show was a true milestone for him) and when Rose tried to get more money from her trust (it came as a huge shock that she wasn’t a blue blood but from an oil family in Oklahoma), she lassoed some of her daughter’s independence and ended up cutting herself off completely. This led to a truly moving moment when they learned they could no longer afford their West End apartment (which was as much a character of the series the first two seasons as all the regulars) and finally decided to move in with Joel’s parents. Who have just relocated to Queens.

Joel, in the meantime, has quickly gotten in over his head, and after finalizing his divorce, now finds himself owning a club on top of an illegal Chinese casino, apparently run by a Chinese medical student. And Susie has found herself over her head as she becomes a real agent, clashing with Ray (Sterling K. Brown, is there nothing you can’t do?) Shy’s manager who already has more layers than you could imagine.

As the world of the sixties finally begins to invade the comfortable fifties world that the series inhabited so brilliantly its first two seasons, we can see a level of change in this new world. It is met with brilliance by all the leads, particularly Brosnahan as she begins to find herself getting into bigger ponds that even she thought of, and especially Borstein as almost every line out of her mouth is a punch line. From her terror of flying for the first time to her adjustment to being on top of the world to slowly developing more confidence even as she gets bigger, Borstein is in one of the greatest roles I’ve ever seen. Like Gilmore Girls, the friendship between two woman is clearly the greatest part of the series, and it hurts more when the two are at odds than Midge’s problems with Joel.

I really don’t have any more superlatives for this series than I’ve already used. So I’ll give a private cheer to a new arrival. Liza Weil, Paris Gellar herself, showed up in the last episode I viewed as Carole Keen, the rare white woman behind the scenes of Shy’s tour.  I’m one of Weil’s biggest fans, and as someone who cringed at her work on How to Get Away with Murder, I’m thrilled to see her back – and in fine form – with the creators who brought her superstardom. Weil has appeared on every series the Palladinos have produced and every show Rhimes has worked on, and in a side by side comparison, her work with the Palladinos beats everyone one of Rhimes’ shows. (There’s also the fact she gets killed on all of them…). I really hope she sticks around on Maisel for awhile, so she get the Emmy she’s been owed since Gilmore Girls. It would be fitting.

This may be the single greatest series Amazon has put together… so far. When Season 4 finally premieres, trust me, I’ll watch a lot quicker than I did the previous three. It’s funny, nostalgic, colorful and perfect. To the Palladinos, all I have left to say is: thank you and good night!

My score: 4.75 stars.

 

 

Laying The Odds For This Year's Emmys: Week 1, Part 5: Outstanding Supporting Actress In A Drama

Helena Bonham Carter, The Crown: 9-2. For Playing: An aging and increasingly unhappy Princess Margaret. Pro: Margaret is increasingly becoming the most sympathetic character on this series, and as her marriage crumbled, her recognition crashed, and her affair was discover, perhaps what happened in the finale was inevitable. Carter is one of the greatest actress who ever lived, who has never received either an Oscar, and she more than deserves to be the favorite for an Emmy. Con: The Emmys don’t usually recognize subtleties, and they ignored Vanessa Kirby’s work, which was nominally superior. Will her elder sister as always overshadow her.

 

Laura Dern, Big Little Lies: 17-2.  For Playing: Renata, the wealthy housewife whose fortune and marriage collapse around her. Pro: Many of the greatest lines in the superb (to my mind) second season of this series belonged to Dern. (“I will not not be rich!” and her unprintable rant about her husband’s affair) She gave an intense performance, and lest we forget, she won an Emmy for playing this role when it was a limited series. Oh, and she won an Oscar this year. Maybe that will be a boost. Con: There was a lot of backlash against the second season of this show (which I still don’t get) and it was a long time ago. Somehow, I think all of that will work against her.

 

Julia Garner, Ozark: 11-2. For playing: Ruth Langmore, a teenage criminal you’d be an idiot to underestimate. Pro: It’s a little foolish to argue an actress as young as Garner has found the role of a lifetime, but whenever she’s on screen, heavyweights like Peter Mullan and Laura Linney better take cover. The fact that she deservedly won an Emmy last year for her work only proves that the best is yet to come. It’s hard to say the Emmys would be lazy to pick her again. Con: No Supporting Actress has won back to back Emmys since Anna Gunn in 2013 and 2014. Given how much tougher the competition is than last year (and that Game of Thrones isn’t dividing the vote so much) the odds of Garner prevailing are a lot harder.

 

Thandie Newton, Westworld: 17-2: For Playing: Maeve, the warrior whose only loyalty is to her survival. Pro: As the war moved into the real world, Maeve continued to fight against being a pawn by the real powers and still trying to find her place. Newton has taken on one of her greatest roles and made it her own. She did win an Emmy last time she was nominated, and her speech ruled. Con: Westworld dropped a lot in the public eye – there’s been a lot of new, better stuff out there. Hard as it may be to consider this show old hat, many voters may think so..

 

Fiona Shaw, Killing Eve:17-2. For Playing: Carolyn, the head of the task force trying to track down Villanelle…and that’s all I’ll say. Pro:  Three seasons in, and despite everything she’s done, we’re still not sure if we can trust Carolyn’s motivations. That is in part due to the subtleties that this great actress lends in all the nuances of her work. Con: For all her gifts as an actress, I’ve always thought Shaw’s nominations have come at the expense of other, brighter lights. (I’m still wondering why they found room for her but not Rhea Seehorn) Somehow I just don’t think she’ll prevail.

 

Sarah Snook, Succession: 6-1. For Playing: Shiv, the only daughter of the Roy clan, who has a bigger set than most of her brothers. Pro: Snook submitting her name in Supporting actress instead of lead is a power play that Shiv herself would be proud of. Shiv spent most of the season trying to maneuver her father away from choosing an outsider to run the business. She demonstrated no compassion to the man she married in an affair for power – until the end, when she begged her father not to sacrifice him, thus setting up his downfall.  Snook is incredible to watch. Con: Can this undervalued actress pull out a win against a field of previous winners? She has been moving up, but just as in her family, I’d say the odds are stacked against her.

 

Meryl Streep, Big Little Lies: 15-2. For Playing: Mary Louise, the mother-in-law to end all mother-in-laws.  Pro: I’ll be honest. Within ten minutes of watching her, I thought Streep had the Emmy locked up. Her performance was one of the most exceptional ones of the entire year, and I thought she would just waltz to the Emmy. The pre-awards went against it, even though neither of the winners are eligible in this category. And I’ll level with you. I still have not seen a portrayed with some venom and depths for the entire year. She’s Meryl Streep after all. What else needs to be said? Con: She was the early favorite for much of 2019, but there have been a lot of big performances since then. Add to that all of the bad will against the show (don’t ask me why) and she may end up empty handed. But then again, she’s Meryl. She can handle it.

 

Samira Wiley,  The Handmaid’s Tale:10-1. Pro: Moira Strand, one of the keys to the rebellion. Pro: Wiley has been one of the great actress of the nee Golden Age, and her work on this series has already earned her an Emmy for Best Guest Actress in 2018. As she tries to adjust to a new life in Canada, she shows us that the world outside of Gilead is not safe. Con: Wiley’s nomination was probably the biggest surprise of a category full of them, particularly considering the depths of the supporting cast. She’s ranked near the bottom of most expert picks, and I don’t think she’ll have the same command as Whitford.

 

Prediction: My head says Carter. My heart says Streep. I’m going to go with my head, though I hope I’m wrong. That said, this is going to be a tough category to pick.

 

 

 

 

 

Laying Odds For This Year's Emmys: Week 1, Part 4: Outstanding Supporting Actor In A Drama

 

Nicholas Braun, Succession:9-1. For playing: Greg Hirsch, the Roy unloved cousin. Pro: Greg continuously takes more abuse than just about everybody on the series, which is saying a lot. The episode where he ‘broke up’ with Tom – a family member in-law who knows he’ll never be part of the inner circle – was funny because they both knew how low the ‘high stakes’ actually were in the family. Considering how little recognition he gets, it’s appealing to me Braun was acknowledged. Con: He’s just not a member of the family. As appealing as his character can be, it’s hard to see him triumphing over, say, Culkin who steals every scene he’s in.

 

Billy Crudup, The Morning Show: 5-1. For Playing: Cory Ellison, the scheming head manager of the show. Pro: Perhaps the only member of the cast who didn’t disappoint, Crudup has been one of the most undervalued character actors in the history of just about everything. He’s overdue recognition for his work, and the fact that he won Best Supporting Actor from the Broadcast Critics put him on everybody’s radar. With Jonathan Banks not nominated, the front-runner status falls to him. Con: With all of the focus on the two female leads, not enough attention may have been made to Crudup’s superb work. This is the kind of performance that falls through the cracks unless you’re really looking for it.

 

Kieran Culkin, Succession: 11-2. For Playing: Roman Roy, the youngest son of the Roy clan. Pro: Let’s be honest, at least half of what makes this series sing is watching Culkin chew the scenery and deliver the perfect one-liner to puncture whoever else is unfortunate enough to be sharing space with him. I made a huge error by not considering that he would go nominated for this year, because he’s the biggest part of the fun. He’s been moving up steadily in this category. Con: What might be called the Game of Thrones factor: with so many co-stars in this category, it could divide the vote against him. Then again, it always worked out for Peter Dinklage…

 

Mark Duplass, The Morning Show: 10-1. For Playing: Chip Black, the cynical producer of the series. Pro: Full disclosure: I’m a huge fan of the Duplass brothers. There work in the independent film industry was groundbreaking, and individually and as a pair they’ve been borne to this kind of medium.  I thought the series Togetherness was a criminally undervalued series, and Room 104 seems exactly like the kind of show an independent film anthology would make. So I was overjoyed to see him finally get nominated for his acting. Con: That being said, his nomination was probably the biggest shock of this category, and its hard to understand why Steve Carell wasn’t nominated here instead of for Best Actor. Considering he’s not even the most favored member of his cast in this category, he will probably go unrecognized again.

 

Giancarlo Esposito, Better Call Saul: 7-1. For playing: Gustavo Fring, owner of Los Pollos Hermanos/ drug cartel in Albueqerque. Pro: Gus has always been the most fascinating villain in Gilligan’s world, and watching him deal with a Salmanca family member who has been his most worthy adversary, while trying to maintain his business interest with the cartel, is among some of the greatest work he’s ever done. He has long deserved an Emmy for it. Con: With so many great actors in this cast – and let’s be honest, quite a few of them were ignored this year – it is possible that he’ll be overlooked yet again. They have so far.

 

Matthew MacFayden, Succession:13-2. For Playing: Tom, Shiv’s husband, still getting used to the idea that his wife always will consider fidelity secondary to power. Pro: Tom has the misfortune of being low enough on the food chain to know that he’s never going to be a player, not even to his wife. Which is why it really made sense that Logan was going to sacrifice him… until Shiv pleaded for him. Macfayden is part of much the humor on this show (though not all, see above,) as well as being one of the busiest character actors in all of TV. (His work in the limited series Quiz proves that out) Worthy of a nod. Con: Just like on the show, MacFayden is always going to be ignored for a brighter sun… or maybe son is the better word. I’m glad he was recognized; I don’t think he’ll win.

 

Bradley Whitford, The Handmaid’s Tale:15-2. For Playing: Joseph Lawrence, the ‘Architect’ of Gilead. Pro: Whitford is one of my favorite actors, period. And it shows the range he has to consider the three Emmys he’s won, for playing Josh on The West Wing, a cross-dresser (but that was it) on Transparent, and his work as the deeply flawed man at the center of the dystopia. Though I’m not this series biggest booster, I’m glad to see Whitford here. Con: The series has fallen lower in recognition over the past year, and I’m still not sure how Whitford could win for Guest Actor and Supporting Actor in the same season. I think that may involve a  bridge too far for Emmy voters.

 

Jeffrey Wright, Westworld: 9-1. For Playing: Bernard, the robot leading a rebellion that has since moved to the ‘real world’. Pro: Perhaps its because of his original nature, but in a way Bernard has become the conscience of this often confused series, the guiding light when all around seek war. Add to the fact that Wright has been owed an Emmy since Angels of America, and it’s a pretty strong argument for honoring him. Con: Westworld officially went off its axis in the middle of this season, according to all but the most devoted fans – it wasn’t nominated for Best Drama, for one thing – and there is a tendency of all the most loyal to get increasingly impatient with its progress. This may end up acting against Wright, unfortunately.

 

Prediction: Much as I’d like to see Esposito triumph, I think it’s more likely that Crudup will end up edging everybody else out.

 

 

Laying The Odds For This Year's Emmys: Week 2, Part 2: Outstanding Lead Actress in A Drama

 

Jennifer Aniston, The Morning Show: 9-2. For Playing: Alex Levy, the co-host of a morning show trying to rise above a scandal. Pro: Even before this series even premiered, the talk for Aniston for an Emmy was legion. Leaving aside that this was a meaty dramatic role, it was Aniston’s first appearance on series television in more than fifteen years, and Hollywood loves a comeback. Aniston’s win and speech at the SAG awards would seem to cement her position as the front runner. Con: If only real-life matched up with the legend. Morning Show received at best middling reviews from major critics, and because it was for a streaming series that has had not demonstrated its viability, the hype didn’t live up to expectations – the series was never considered a contender for Best Drama. Aniston’s edge would seem to depend entire on her personality… which is considerable.

 

Olivia Colman, The Crown: 9-2. For Playing: A more mature Queen Elizabeth II. Pro: The fact that she was taking over for a superb actress didn’t phase this veteran who won an Oscar for a (much different) portrayal of another British Monarch. As she handled the decline of the British empire, battles from within the royal family, and her own advancing age, we were reminded yet again was an exceptional actress Colman is.  She deservedly won the Golden Globe for Best Actress earlier this year, we already know how great her acceptance speeches can be, and she’s deserved an Emmy since at least the first season of Broadchurch. Con: The Golden Globes were a long time ago, and a lot of newer female performance may have diminished the inevitability around Colman’s aura.

 

Jodie Comer, Killing Eve: 13-2. For Playing: Villanelle, the eerily cheerful psychotic international assassin at the center of a major conspiracy. Pro: When Comer won the Emmy last year, it was a surprise that she managed to beat her co-star, who swept most of the previous awards. It shouldn’t have been. Comer has created one of the most unique characters in all of television, and as we spent most of Season 3 learning more about her backstory as well as the dance she’s doing with her pursuer, we remembered what a great force she is even when the series is lacking. Plus if the Emmys get lazy, she might benefit. Con:: Killing Eve took a lot of brickbats in its third season, and a lot of people did think the Emmys were a little lazier than usual in recognizing Comer over other names. This may hurt her.

 

Laura Linney, Ozark:19-5. For Playing: Wendy Byrde, the increasingly struggling wife of a money launderer getting deeper and deeper into criminal activities.  Pro: Linney has long since established herself as one of the greatest actress of all time. She’s already won four Emmys and created some truly memorable characters. Wendy Byrde, however, shows some of her deeper elements. Trying to maintain a level of normalcy in a world that is filled with criminal enterprises and increasingly coming into battle against her husband, she has lifted this series above the mire it could easily have fallen into. Odds have rising in her favor. Con: For all of Linney’s abilities, one can’t escape the feeling that this is just a variation on Skyler White and Kim Wexler. And she has hardly been lacking in recognition from the Academy.

 

Sandra Oh, Killing Eve: 13-2. For playing: Eve Polastri, the MI-6 bean counter increasingly drawn in (and drawn to) the assassin behind a series of international killings. Pro: Pundits (myself included) thought that Oh was a sure thing last year for Best Actress for playing the hunter trying to track down a killer she can’t help but be attracted to. And it’s not like Oh wasn’t due. I’ve never been the biggest Grey’s Anatomy fan, but she was entitled to something for her work on that series. Oh’s comic experience helped her find the perfect balance in this atonal series, and she more than deserves some recognition. Con: All the arguments against Comer pretty much hold against Oh. The series is considered old hat now, and that may be too late.

 

Zendaya, Euphoria: 11-2. For playing: Rue Bennett, an overmedicated, oversexed high school student.  Pro: There are a lot of people who admit that even for HBO, Euphoria is not the typical output. Focused on Rue as the link between a series of messy, visually bright and very trippy adventures, this series became one of the more surprise sensations of the network. Con: Let’s be blunt. There were at least seven or eight far more qualified actresses who deserved a nomination more than Zendaya, a performer whose appeal has always been lost on me. This nomination came as a huge shock to most critics and viewers, particularly because it was more controversial than entertaining. I think her celebrity propelled her to this nomination, and it seems unlikely she’ll be able to go any further.

 

Prediction: Colman’s been higher on the list by pundits for a lot longer than Aniston has. Add to the fact she’s long overdue, and I think she’ll just edge out Aniston and Linney.

 

 

Laying The Odds For This Year's Emmys: Week 1, Part 2: Outstanding Lead Actor In A Drama

 

Jason Bateman, Ozark: 9-2. For Playing: Marty Byrde, money launderer trying to keep his family alive in the fields of Missouri. Pro: Over the past decade, Bateman has more than shown his versatility in both comedy and drama (he’s also nominated for Guest Actor for his performance in The Outsider) and watching him go extremely against type, trying to outmaneuver a drug cartel, two criminal families and his own wife, shows just how capable he is. Ozark would not exist without him. Con:  It was a huge surprise when  Bateman triumphed as a Director last year, even for him. And people are starting to get a little tired of antiheroes. Bateman may end up suffering from fatigue.

 

Sterling K. Brown, This is Us: 13-2. For Playing: The increasingly put upon father and son Randall Pierson. Pro: Had more than his share of episodes which demonstrated he has lost none of his edge. Seeing him suffer a breakdown after a robbery, finally go to therapy, dealing with an alternate world where Jack survived the fire, and finally have a major split with Kevin over Rebecca’s treatment, Brown continues to demonstrate, he is one of television’s best actor. (And this wasn’t even his biggest show.) Con: The fact that This is Us wasn’t nominated for Best Drama shows that voters are starting to tire a little of the Pearson clan, and they may think Brown has been honored enough by the Emmys

 

Steve Carell, The Morning Show: 13-2. For playing: Mitch Kessler, the scandal ridden anchor at the title series. Pro: For those who have been watching his hit comedies and from The Office, Carell’s shift to a fallen icon trying to rebuild himself was a revelation. And for those who really thing it was a travesty that the Emmys never recognized him over seven years for Best Comedy, they may want to finally honor him here. Con: I think its fairly safe to say that Carell’s nomination (as a lead, no less) was one of the biggest shocks of a nomination process that shut out a lot of people. And considering that much of the attention was on the female leads, I don’t think there’s enough momentum to give Carell the win.

 

Brian Cox, Succession: 39-10. For Playing: Logan Roy, the still commanding patriarch at the head of a multimedia empire. Pro: Cox’s work was magnificent this season as he dealt with a scandal that threatened to bring down his empire, saw his marriage crash at his eightieth birthday, sacrificed the son (but not before a brutal dressing down) and actually seemed proud at his betrayal in the last minute. Cox is one of the greatest actors to ever appear onscreen, and his triumph at the Golden Globes would seem to ensure him a victory. Con: Just like the second season of the show, it may be possible that his son may take the prize out of his hands.

 

Billy Porter, Pose: 11-2. For Playing: Ballroom impresario (and HIV positive) Pray Tell. Pro: In my opinion, Porter’s second season of Pose was even better than his first, as he reached a level of rage that was not uncommon for HIV patients in the ‘80s (or now for that matter), dealt with problems in his stage family, and yet found a way to find love and move on. He’s the first actor in a long time that I wouldn’t mind seeing win twice in a row. Con: No actor since Bryan Cranston has won even two Emmys in a row in the past decade, and as brilliant as Porter is, the Emmys are more inclined to share the wealth these days.

 

Jeremy Strong, Succession: 4-1. For Playing: Kendall Roy, the son now trying to get back into his father’s good graces after plotting to unseat him in the first season. Pro: Watching Strong trying to get back into the good graces of a man who may have none was a fascinating balancing act, as he did everything to try and get his father’s favor, only in the final episode to be told he’ll be thrown to the wolves – and this his father never believed in him. So in the last five minutes, he pulled the ultimate betrayal – arguably the most shocking moments of the past year. Strong’s triumph at the Broadcast Critics indicates he is favored by some. Con: Two lead actors in a drama generally tends to cancel each other out, and it is very possible (and somewhat fitting) Cox and Strong may do that here.

 

Prediction: Baring a repeat by Porter, I give the barest of edges to Cox. He’s been due one of these since his stint in Deadwood. (Now remind me again why Bob Odenkirk wasn’t nominated?)

Laying The Odds For The Emmys: Week 1, Outstanding Drama Series

Last year, as though of you who are loyal followers to my reviews may recall, I attempted to alter my usual way of trying to predict the Emmys. Combining an methodology from Entertainment Weekly and the predictions of the website Gold Derby,  I decided to try and combine my thoughts with the odds of the show actually winning. It may have actually been a greater influence that last time. My predictions were generally more accurate than they’ve been for the previous several years.

So, to see if I have the same luck as last time, I’m going to try and duplicate it. For the next three weeks, I will go category by category through all of the major candidates for the Drama, Comedy and Limited Series awards. Considering the scattershot matter I did it before, and the fact that Game of Thrones and Veep are gone, there could some major shifts in how things go. Assuming of course, the Emmys actually happens.

Like last year, I’ll start with the Dramas

 

BEST DRAMA

 

Better Call Saul: 8-1

As Jimmy finally began to embrace the destiny that will lead to Heisenberg and then to Omaha, Saul became a series nearly as good as Breaking Bad. With Jimmy finally realize how much in the dirt he’ll have to get, the question is not just which characters who aren’t part of the sequel will end up – especially Kim and Nacho. Pro: This is the fifth season of Saul, and as Emmy historians know, it was in Season 5 that Breaking Bad finally broke through and won for Best Drama. The fact that the series managed to finally get writing and directing nods would seem to indicate the Emmys are taking it more seriously. But then again…Con: Bob Odenkirk and Jonathan Banks inexplicably were left out of the nominations after being there for the last four years. Throw in the fact that El Camino got shut out in a similar trajectory, and it may be this isn’t the year to honor Bad and its tangents.

 

The Crown: 13-2

As the series moved into its new cast and England moves into the sixties and seventies, The Crown actually began to take on more of a broader scope than just Elizabeth. For the first time, we got a much closer look at the men and the family, and many of the finest moments of the drama came when we saw Philip accept his aging, and Charles begin to fight his place in the world. Pro: Considering that the series shifted to an entirely new cast and remained as brilliant as ever, one could make the argument that this is the time The Crown officially entered the pantheon of great drama. The fact that it took the top prize from the SAG awards would be a sign of that. Con: For all of the awards it has managed to win in its first two seasons, the show has never quite been able to cross into the bigger prizes at the Emmys. It just may not have the maneuvering for it.

 

The Handmaid’s Tale: 9-1

The battle for Gilead took on new levels as June led her charge aided by the architect of Gilead, who like so many other things turned out to be the opposite of what was predicted. Other soldiers readied on both sides. Pro: This is still, sad to say, a very relevant series, and the fact that Margaret Atwood chose to write another book to wrap it up shows that it still has pulling power. Con: Maybe it’s just the world we live in now, but I think a lot of people are getting tired of dystopia. Handmaid’s fatigue was setting in long before our current crisis, and I think the Emmys went to old habits to nominate it.

 

Killing Eve:9-1

The series about the hunt between a psychopathic assassin and her beleaguered MI-5 tracker – and the erotic attraction that leads them to hunt, kill and try to screw each other, often in the same few minutes – has become one of the biggest hits across the globe. Pro: This is still one of the most superbly acted, and female led shows on any platform. Comer and Oh are two of the best actresses working today, and their domination of the Actress awards last year was one of the biggest joys. Con: Even the most dedicated fans of the series thought that Eve flagged a lot last year, and its renomination for Best Drama came as something of a shock. Something tells me that’s all they’ll get.

 

The Mandalorian: 8-1

Set in the world of Star Wars – though when and where is anybody’s guess -  the series deals with the title character giving up his sense of loyalty to try and protect a child who may be the key to the future of the galaxy. Pro: This was one of the biggest hits of the 2019-2020 season, and it definitely put Disney+ on the map. It’s nomination for Best Drama was one of the biggest shocks of the Emmy season, and who knows how many Star Wars fans are out there? Con: This is a show on a network that just came into existence, and sci-fi (unless it hides it origin, like Lost) has never scored well with the Emmys. Throw in the fact that there were no acting, directing or writing nods, and I don’t think the show has much of a chance.

 

Ozark: 11-2

As the schemes grew deeper for the Byrde family, the more they began to war with each other. Marty and Wendy found that their worst foes were not the Langmores or the Snells but rather each other. As the series grew to its conclusion, there’s no telling who will survive. Pros: Ozark has become one of the major sleeper hits for Netflix over the last year. As good as I think it is, not even I thought it would tie for the lead in nominations for a Drama and dominate the writing category. There could be pull for it. Cons: For all its strengths no one seriously considers the series one of Netflix’s signature series. That could definitely work against it.

 

Stranger Things: 19-2

The world of Hawkins seemed to finally be normal… and then, Billy the lifeguard disappeared. The Russians came to rival them, the party had a new enemy to fight, and this time the costs may have higher than we’ve ever seen. Yet it was still a fun ride most of the way. Pro: This may be the most imaginative and fun series the Emmys has nominated in years and an argument could be made that it is really due. The fact that the Peabodys as well as the People’s Choice chose to consider it one of the best series of the year would seem to argue that it has pull even now. Con: Hard as it may be to consider Stranger Things old hat, it did seem to pull a little less love than usual. The fact that none of its nominations were for acting or writing is not a great sign for it.

 

Succession: 4-1

As Roman’s attempt at the coup backfired and Logan tried to build up the company to be to big to fail, the battle for power at the company took on new levels as  MeToo  caught up with then and began to undermine them across the country and in DC. It ended with Logan finally deciding to sacrifice his oldest – and then he turned the tables. This is one of the most gripping dramas of our time, and we need it now more than ever. Pro: Everything points to this being the year of Succession. It triumphed at the Golden Globes and the Broadcast Critics, it received 18 nominations, tying for the lead, and it certainly has the forward momentum. Con: With everything we hear about the Murdoch family, is the Hollywood establishment really ready to recognize a series, however loosely based on them, for Best Drama?

 

Prediction: Much as I’d like to think that it will finally be the year the Emmys call for Saul,  the signs are leaning far more towards Succession, especially after the last ten minutes of Season 2.

 

 

 

Better Late Than Never: The Mandalorian And My Feelings of Star Wars

 

Note: In order to explain my exact feelings and problems with this series, I’m going to have to get personal with my own issues with movies in general and Star Wars in particular. It’s going to be longer, and it may not inspire love from certain members of the cinema world. I can live with that.

 

I’m going to say something that needs to be clear up front: I never really liked Star Wars. Let’s start with the fact that when it came into existence, it pretty much destroyed the way films were made in Hollywood and did damage to the role of the critic that has never truly recovered.

Setting that aside, I’ve never much liked it as a film or a franchise.  The more often I see even the original trilogy, I find it hard to figure out what so many people see in it now, and even back then. The effects are great, sure. But the dialogue has been, and always be, the most wooden of any popular film in history. It’s a matter of public record that the cast hated the dialogue and had to do rewriting of it just to make it tolerable to say. Hell, Alec Guinness, one of the great actors of all time, considered this the nadir of his career; even though it’s the role he’s most remembered for.

And the problems with Star Wars seem to be unique compared even to other film franchises or blockbusters. Steven Spielberg’s big budget movies are almost always about something, as well as being entertaining. You could find something dramatic in Close Encounters, the Indiana Jones series, and ET; something that made you feel you’d seen a movie. Christopher Nolan’s reimagining of the Batman gave it a real world bite, as well as some of the most indelible acting performances of the past decade. And many of the Marvel movies – I’m thinking mainly of the Captain America franchise – had ideas about our current society that resonated, but not so obviously that you couldn’t enjoy the film for its effects and fun.

The Star Wars franchise has always been about – well, Star Wars. There’s discussion of something called the Force, which after nine whole movies no one has come close to giving an explanation of or for, a lot of battles with light sabers – which frankly Errol Flynn and Cary Elwes would laugh at when seen in action - and a lot of weird looking aliens and awesome special effects. That’s it. I have yet to see a fully developed character in any of the nine movies, and I have yet to hear any dialogue that doesn’t make an amateur screenwriter wince. Yet somehow, it has inspired an entire universe and a rabid bunch of fans that seem to have a lavish devotion to it, even though they haven’t really liked any of the movies in nearly forty years.

What hold does Star Wars have over so many people? I remember the anticipation that everybody had over The Phantom Menace for nearly a year. To quote a book I read: “It made $430 million, though you’d be hard pressed to find anybody who actually liked it.” Every subsequent prequel or sequel has made billions world wide, and yet that statement seems to be true for every film. Are people really just going to these movies to bitch about them online?

Somehow, every single project that is connected to Star Wars, no matter how remotely or awful, creates a great disturbance in the Force, i.e., online. As someone who never had much patience for anything connected with it, I was happy to observe from afar. This became impossible last month, however.

When The Mandalorian premiered on Disney+ last November, I ignored it like I had everything else about Star Wars for the past twenty years. It was on a service I had no interest in getting about a character I didn’t care about. I was a little alarmed to see it ranked by imdb.com as the 108^th greatest show ever made a few weeks ago – that’s higher than 30 Rock, Parks & Recreation and Mad Men (though granted it is after just one season) – but still, not my problem. Then it got 15 Emmy nominations, including Best Drama. Now it was my problem. I found an FYC DVD collection on Ebay, and bought it cheap.

Normally, when I’m looking at a series that I’ve ignored, there’s a certain genuine anticipation, the fact that I’m either going to see what all the fuss is about or find a hidden gem. I’ve felt that way about a lot of streaming series, most of which I’ve listed in the Better Late Than Never columns. With The Mandalorian, it wasn’t so much anticipation as it was dread. Sort of like the feeling I was about to get root canal, only they would start going through the nose. Still, I felt an obligation. Having seen the first three episodes, I really do wish it had been root canal. Without anesthetic.

The Pilot, which for most series explains the universe you’re in and the nature of the central characters did almost the complete opposite. We meet the Mandalorian (the writers have never given him a name) go to an ice planet, break up a bar fight where a creature is being tortured, kills everyone in the bar, and then reveals the only reason he did it was to get the creature as bounty. He then takes him back to his ship, which is haunted by an ice creature along the way, encased the subject in carbonite when he tries to escape, and returns to whatever planet he’s on. His interplanetary bondsman (for a lack of a better term) pays him, and when the Mandalorian asks for a bigger job, gets one that involves what are obviously remnants of the Empire. (Even I recognized the storm troopers.) He is given the vaguest possible terms for what he is trying to catch, and is told dead or alive. He goes to the planet and has to go through a long process of riding a hostile creature, surviving a shootout with the help of a bounty hunting droid, and getting his creature, which is apparently a child.

This may seem linear and coherent, but I spent the entire pilot wondering whether  I was hearing a foreign language or something that had been translated from English to a foreign language and then back again. The vocabulary was barely comprehensible, character development was non-existent, and I suppose I was supposed to be in awe of the CGI and shootouts. I wasn’t. Primarily because I watch TV to get away from these kinds of things.

The second episode ‘The Child’ was a little better, mainly because so much of it was done with either no dialogue or most of it translated into subtitles. We saw Jawas pick his ship clean, he went hunting after them, was blown off the ship, had to make a bargain to get his parts back, and then had to go on a hunt for ‘The Egg’. He hunted a creature known as a mudhorn, and only managed to survive by help from the child. He gives the Egg back to the Jawas (and boy, that was an anticlimax; they get a Mandalorian to go grocery shopping for them?) and he flies back to his home planet.

‘The Sin’ was the third episode, and by now, a very clear picture of what this series is was coming, and was confirmed by the end of the episode. The Mandalorian returns with his bounty, asks what they’re going to do with the creature, is pushed back by his client, goes to his clan where his fortune is used to put together armor, and he is berated by them for helping the Empire. He goes to his bondsman, wants another job, is about to fly off, and well, you can probably guess what happens next.

Two things occurred to me very clearly. First is that for a TV show in any era, The Mandalorian is moving god-awful slow.  Vince Gilligan or Sam Esmail would’ve been able to get us this far in one episode, never mind three. You’d think considering that the episodes are 30-40 minutes in length, there’d be a desire to keep things moving efficiently. Jon Favreau and the rest of his writers apparently see no need to do so, but even by the standards of Star Wars, this is a glacial pace.

But that doesn’t matter because halfway through the second episode, I realized what The Mandalorian is. It’s not a TV show. It’s not a tribute to Star Wars. It’s a video game. Every aspect of the plot so far has reminded very clearly of the missions of a video game. Fight, find bounty, fly ship, story unfolds, sequence where you meet new characters, shootout, obtain mission goal, shootout, mission goal… that’s what this show is. And they give away the game by not giving the central character a name. They call him Mando, which sounds what some kind of fan would type in when naming his character!

And because this is a video game, and not a show that depends on a narrative, you don’t need character development or a clear storyline. It also helps you get over the fact that the central character in just three episodes has a higher body count than Tony Soprano or Walter White managed personally the entirety of their series. He’s a video game character, and all your avatars have to do is shoot people.

Now, I should state up front than I don’t blame any of the actors who have taken roles in this series. Carl Weathers hasn’t had a regular job since Apollo Creed was killed off. Nick Nolte has always danced to the beat of his own drummer, and to be honest his presence in the first two episodes was the best thing about the series. As for Werner Herzog, it’s hard finding imposing actors with the right voice for the Empire these days, and hell, he’s gotta find a way to make money for his next movie.

But Jon Favreau?  With your work on Iron Man, you revolutionized what the comic book movie was capable of. Marvel doesn’t exist without you. And you take over Star Wars and this is what you come up with? Tony Stark would laugh at how wooden these characters are.

And the Emmys nominating this for Best Drama makes even less sense. It doesn’t have the inner humanity that Battlestar Galactica did (and they mostly ignored it when it was on the air) or the utter charm that Stranger Things does. Hell, I’d rather have seen Westworld nominated for Best Drama. The show may be byzantine as all hell, but no one can argue it’s unoriginal. The Emmys goes out of its way to nominate dramas that are at least about human being with characters we can care about. The Mandalorian seems to be a basic grab to get the Star Wars base to watch the Emmys this year. That is the only logical reason I can see for the staff to have nominated it over Pose or Big Little Lies or This is Us or any of a dozen different shows.

But much like Roger Ebert must’ve felt when he lambasted Transformers or Twilight, I know this review isn’t for the connoisseur of great television. It has great CGI and laser shots and Baby Yoda. For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they’ll like. For me, I think I’ll just go through the rest of Ozark. It may be an imitation of better shows, but at least it’s trying to tell a story. The Mandalorian is pure popcorn. This is not the dramas the Emmys were looking for, and they really should’ve moved along.

My score: 1 star.

Better Late Than Never: Dead To Me

 

In a way, it seems I’ve known Christina Applegate and Linda Cardellini all my life. I’ve been more familiar with Applegate as Married…With Children always seemed to be background noise throughout my formative years, so much so that I didn’t quite realize how satiric it was. Applegate has always engaged me since then, whether it was as the beleaguered new mother in the criminally undervalued Up All Night or as the attractive amnesiac in Samantha Who? Her work has always been brilliant but never recognized with the same smash as her early years.

Cardellini has always been there differently. I never watched Freaks and Geeks so I missed her breakthrough performance, but she’s always been a constant presence. She was one of the best things about the second half of ER’s run, and I was impressed by her as one of Don Draper’s more intriguing flings in Season 6 of Mad Men.

I never had time to fit Dead to Me into my schedule, but with the world on hiatus and the Emmys coming up, I figured I decided to at least look at it. I got into it so quickly that I watched the first season two episodes at a time, which as my fellow Constant Viewers know for me is the equivalent of binge-watching. I’m now into the second season, so here’s what I think.

For those of you who haven’t had the time, Dead to Me centers on two women who meet in a grief counseling session: Jen (Applegate) a woman who lost her husband six months ago in a hit and run, and is incredibly angry about it – though not just because her husband is dead, and Judy (Cardellini) a woman who shows up after her fourth miscarriage caused her to break up with her long time boyfriend Steve (James Marsden). The two of them become, after a lot of back and forth, close friends – pretty much the only one Jen has. But we learn very quickly it’s built on a lie and guilt – Jen was the driver who ran over her husband.

Much of the first seasons deals with Judy trying to help Jen move on, something that is hard for both of them, and keeps circling around Jen’s trying to mislead the investigation into the hit and run – which becomes complicated when she has a relationship with a former detective. Eventually, when Jen is at her absolute nadir, Judy finally confesses to the crime to her. She tries to put up walls both mentally and physically, but there are consequences. The biggest of which leads to Jen killing Steve in the last moments of the Season 1 finale – and then calling Judy.

Season 2 begins the day after with Jen and Judy trying to restore some level of normalcy, something which arouses suspicion among everybody, especially Jen’s children and more importantly, the police already suspicious given every story that the two women have told. It doesn’t help that they keep telling different stories; Jen filing for a restraining order, and Judy is now back in her house, and Judy having turned Steve into the authorities for money laundering, which worries everybody in Steve’s family – including the just arrived Ben, Steve’s ‘semi-identical twin’ (Marsden again), who seems a little nicer than his brother…but then, Steve seemed nice at first, and he was working for the Greek Mafia.

The scenario I’ve played out could just as easily describe that of one that could be played serious (like on Big Little Lies) or camp (like Desperate Housewives). It’s hard to imagine it being played out both seriously and for big laughs, which is something that showrunner Liz Feldman has done extremely well. Much of the outright absurdity goes to the brilliant work of the two leads. Both Applegate and Cardellini are playing their traditional TV personas against type. Applegate is known for playing nurturing characters; Jen is anything but. From the moment we meet Jen, she is pissed off at the world, and her husband being killed was just the latest in a long line of assaults. Her husband was having an affair with another woman before he died, and he hadn’t touched her because she’d had a double mastectomy as a preventative to breast cancer.  She likes listening to heavy metal in her car to relax, and her children have picked up on her anger. One was busted for selling drugs in Season 1, and is now demanding to drive. The younger son is a little nicer, but lives in a slightly more delusional world. She’s hostile towards her colleagues at work, which makes things hard because she’s working for her mother-in-law Lorna (Valerie Mahaffey, in excellent form), who really loved Ted.

Cardellini, by contrast, has a history of playing characters more grounded in reality, which Judy is not. Perhaps it’s how she works to get away from all the pain in her life, but she has this constant desire to fix things, no matter how dangerous. She has a tendency to ‘shoot from the lip’ – she went to the police twice to confess, and stopped herself at the last minute. She is an artistic persona – she’s a fairly good painter – but part of her always seems to be a little deluded. Steve puts it best when he says: “Where she goes, chaos follows.”… which it makes it weird when we learn from Ben that this was originally said about Steve.

Both Applegate and Cardellini are extraordinary in their roles, more than deserving of the Emmy nominations they received a few weeks ago. The series is also very original and very funny, and it’s certainly worthy of the Emmy nomination it got for Best Comedy. If you’re looking for a Netflix comedy that isn’t as mind-bending as Russian Doll or as formulaic as Grace & Frankie can sometimes be, Dead to Me is a real tonic. Though you might want to get on the band wagon fast – like Russian Doll and The Kominsky Method, it’s scheduled to end after its third season. I really wish Feldman and company weren’t that devoted to finishing it up quickly – I wouldn’t mind watching four or five more years – but then again, maybe that’s the right number for a series with this kind of plot.

My score: 4.75 stars.

 

Innocence Has Nothing To Do With It: The Verdict on HBO's Perry Mason

 

 

Just after the opening titles for the season finale of HBO’s brilliant reimagining of Perry Mason, we see a scene that anyone even remotely familiar with the series knows of. Perry has the man who orchestrated the crime – in this case, the very corrupt Detective Ennis – on the stand, and he interrogates him as to the nature of the crime we know he’s committed. We even see a recap of the crime being played out as the cross examination goes on. But there’s something different. Mason keeps getting angrier as he presses him, and Ennis doesn’t break. And near the climax, a man rises from the galleries and yells: “It’s not gonna work.” A desperate Perry yells out: “I’m not done yet!” and then the screen flashes to the war council, making it clear that this has all been a practice run. The DA then says something that no one in the 1950s show would ever say: “No one ever confesses on the stand.”

The corruption that has been at the root of the new Perry Mason basically permeates the final episode as well. Perry, remember, passed the bar by cribbing the answers from someone who already took it. And he’s still far more cynical than we’d ever believe. He doesn’t want to put his client on the stand because he thinks she’s crazy, and considering her behavior in the last two episodes, where she seemed certain that her dead child would be resurrected by Sister Alice (more on that later), it’s hard not to think that way. The only one who still believes in her is Della Street, and even he is questioning whether all of this is a crusade against the man’s way of persecuting a woman.

And indeed, the deceit that fills every inch of this show was everywhere on the finale.  Emily Dodson was not acquitted, but rather set free because of a mistrial. The mistrial was caused, in part, because Perry played into the corruption of the system, and arranged to have a juror bribed. The fact that two other jurors actually believed in Perry’s case doesn’t change the fact as to how he ended up ‘winning’ his first case. And there is resolution but very little redemption. Detective Ennis is ultimately murdered by his partner because he doesn’t want to see anything traced back to him, even taking money he’s just been bribed with moments before.  The church that basically laid the groundwork for all of the evils that followed is being prosecuted for its crimes, but most of the main players have already disappeared. And even Emily, after all she’s been through, is as corruptible as anyone else – she signs on with the church that she knows abducted and killed her son, and is now claiming to have resurrected him. The possibility is very strong that she has either been driven insane or is just another con.

And yet when all of this over, Perry tracks down Sister Alice who after her failed resurrection has left the church she helped found. We know from flashbacks to her that her church was born on corruption – she was whored out by her mother as a girl on the road, and that’s just as likely to be the start of the horrors that her mother was capable of. After everything that happened, Alice (Sister no longer) still wants to believe in something, and tries to convince that there might be something to it. Perry may not believe in resurrection, but at the very end there is a sign that he has found some measure of peace, as he takes the piece of twine that he found in little Charlie’s eyes in the pilot, and casts it into the ocean air.

HBO’s Perry Mason is one of the more astonishing achievement they’ve managed post Game of Thrones. One could argue that they are jumping on a different franchise, but I defy anyone to find any link between the characters in the series and the 1950s version. Matthew Rhys plays the lead with frustration, cynicism and inner turmoil that Raymond Burr, for all his skills could never come close to matching. Juliet Rylance is incredible as Della Street, the secretary who basically kept E.B. Jonathan a float, and now more demonstrates that she is really the bedrock he will depend on, intending to be an attorney in her own right. (We also got an answer as to why, for more than half a century, Perry and Della were never a thing. Della clearly bats for the other team, and has no problem appearing as a beard for her fellow colleagues who must by the necessity of the era remain closeted.). And watching Chris Chalk as Paul Drake, a black man who is angry but not an angry black man, proved that he is a far better investigator than Perry could have ever hoped to be in his past career. This is a cast that can propel this series for years to come. I will hope that Shea Whigham, magnificent as Paul Strickland, Perry’s colleague and the only one who has no room for Perry’s bullshit, will appear in some fashion going forward. And when we finally heard the classic theme music at the end of the season – the theme that fans have delighted to for decades - it didn’t feel like a throwback or an Easter egg. It felt like something the show has earned, possibly creating a whole new world for fans to discover. This is the Perry Mason this era needs, a Mason who doesn’t believe in his clients’ innocence any more than the average viewer would now.

My score: 4.75 stars.