Filthy Rich: A Series That Lives Up to Its Name

 

I always was of the opinion that Kim Cattrall got a raw deal from Sex and The City. All of the other characters were given a chance to evolve at least a little over the course of the series; Samantha’s main job seemed to be getting used for the explosive sex scenes every episode. I’ve always felt that there was more potential in her acting that Darren Star and company refused to allow. I’m beginning to get a sense of what they could have been in Fox’s endless amusing Filthy Rich.

Cattrall plays Margaret Monreaux, the matriarch of a Christian family that is at the head of an empire that now values in the billions. The head of a daytime show Wings of a Dove, she seems to be the model of Christian faith. We know, because we’ve been watching TV regularly, that this façade is bound to crack; we just don’t know how fast. Her husband Eugene (Gerald McRaney) is involved in the crash of their private jet. The fact that their was prostitutes on it soon becomes the least of her concerns when she learns that Eugene fathered three illegitimate children – with three different women. There’s an adult website designer Ginger, single dad and MMA fighter Antonio and marijuana grower Jason, whose connection may be the fuzziest. Worst of all, he left each of them stock in the company in his will, along with his two grown children – devoted Sunshine executive Eric and fashion designer Rose.

Margaret’s reaction to all this is to try and hold on to her power and money more, aided by the family lawyer. (It’s good to see Steve Harris again). This involves the ability to piss off all her children, including the ones she raised. Eric thinks he’s entitled to the family business because of his father’s instructions, and Rose wants some independence, none. That Margaret doesn’t seem to respect her own children may explain why Eugene’s illegitimate ones are more balanced than her. Especially interesting in Ginger, who is just as skilled and manipulative a business woman as Margaret, and surprisingly nearly as educated in the gospels as the rest of her family. Of course, this leads to her trying to build her brand on the top of the Montreaux, which plays out very well.

Of course, there are always secrets for this type of series. We see in the opening minute that in the future Margaret will blow up the family house. We know that there’s the plane crash may not have been an accident. And we also know that Eugene managed to get out of it alive – and is on his way back to the family.

Now, I know Filthy Rich probably wouldn’t have gotten this kind of launch if it weren’t for the conditions besetting television production in general. And I’m not going to pretend that its anything other than a glorified comic soap opera. But a guilty pleasure can still be a pleasure.  And the fact that everybody on this series plays it just in the right balance between real people and out and out camp is more than enough joy for the messy world we seem to find ourselves in these days.  It’s not Peak TV, but its still fun, and we need fun right now.

My score: 3.5 stars.

 

Fargo's Latest Installation Shows How Far We Haven't Come

 

Even though there were only three seasons, it didn’t take much reasoning for me to consider FX’s Fargo one of the greatest series of the 2010s. With some of the most memorable villains in television history, from Billy Bob Thornton’s force of destruction Lorne Malvo to David Thewlis’ subtly venomous V.P. Varga, the series has show all levels of crime, indestructible forces, family business giving way to the corporation, the utter inevitable of the invisible hand. We’ve also seen some forces of ‘Minnesota nice’, as creator Noah Hawley has called it – the forces of good trying to find a solution to the horror that unfolds. We’ve had to wait more than three years since the end of Season 3, but looking at the first two episodes of Season 4, it’s more than worth the wait.

Creator Noah Hawley has always said that he comes to each season of Fargo with a single vision in his mind, and I have an inkling what that image might be. What if two warring crime families, in order to bring about peace, agreed to exchange the eldest children of the leader of the family? And what if though the result were inevitably slaughter, the tradition continued. In the opening sequence, we see it done with an Irish family and a Jewish one. Then after the Irish win, they trade with the Italians – the Fadda family. And now the Faddas have been at war with the African Americans in Kansas City, they do so with the head – Loy Cannon.

I don’t know what casting director had the idea of Chris Rock playing Loy, but this may be the best single decision they’ve made – and their casting has always been perfect. Cannon is not a typical mobster in the sense that any of the previous syndicates have been – he’s an entrepreneur with dreams of going legitimate. In one of the early sequences, he goes to a band with his second in command Doctor Senator (Glynn Turman in one of his greatest roles) about the idea of a new idea for purchasing: the credit card. It’s a perfect pitch, but you know from the moment they go in the door that no bank is going to take any idea from ‘a Negro’.  Cannon is basically the earliest edition of Stringer Bell and Lamont Bishop, wanting to be legitimate but having only ‘the alternate economy’ open to him.

The irony is, in the world in which Cannon lives, not of his fellow criminals are considered any more legitimate. This is made clear in a stunning sequence where Donatello Fadda is shot and is driven to a hospital. But this is a ‘respectable hospital’ and they will not admit a criminal no matter how bad his condition. This leads them to St. Bartholemew, where Josto (Jason Schwarzman, twisting his comic persona just enough) has a conversation with a chipper nurse named Oraetta Mayflower (Jessie Buckley). The conversation is fueled by drug, so its hard to tell whether Josto is being serious about his desires. But Oraetta, who we’ve already met and we know is clearly not really there, takes him seriously, and by the end of episode one, Donatello is dead and Josto is in charge.

Those of us who’ve been watching Fargo long enough know that the real problem in this world isn’t violence or sex, but impatience. Josto is now in a job that is clearly to big for him, and is facing threats from without and within. Loy wants to keep up the peace he has with Josto, but his brother, back from Italy, has no patience for anybody. Loy wants to protect his family, and he believes he can do this by becoming more powerful. We all know that never works.

It’s still a little early to try and figure out where the characters will land and where. Somewhere in the middle is Ethel Smutny, the child of a mixed race family who doesn’t know where she fits in the world and who has found the eye of the very bigoted and crazy Oraetta.  There’s ‘Rabbi’ Milligan (Ben Whishaw) who was traded himself between the Irish and the Italian and is therefore closer to Lon’s predicament than anyone else. And all around are these characters that seem like they’re just for color but always promise more. There’s the corrupt detective who suffers from Tourette’s (Jack Houston), Ethel’s convict aunt and her apparent gay lover, who just broke out of prison. The Mormon marshal determined to track them down (hello, Timothy Olyphant). You might think these characters are just there for atmosphere, but we know how Noah Hawley, much like David Simon once did, makes all the pieces matter.

Like every other installment of this show, Hawley starts Fargo with the subtitled lie: ‘This is a true story. In fairness to the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it happened.” A tribute to the Coen brothers, we know. But just as how Watchmen demonstrated last year and Lovecraft County did earlier this year, we know how much the story that Hawley is telling is particularly relevant. Ethel knows it herself, as she is the narrator who seems to be telling a report about history as she goes to and from the principals not so much because she is disrespectful, but because she is smart. When her mother tells her to go to her room, she listens. The question is: when won’t she?

Of course, you can decide to ignore the parallels between Hawley’s 1950 Kansas City and our present, and just be entertained by the extraordinary directing, writing and acting in one of the greatest achievements in the history of the medium. It was robbed of being released for this year’s Emmys because of the conditions of the pandemic. That won’t stop it from dominating a lot of award shows for the next year. Fargo is why we watch television in the first place.

My score: 5 stars (you betcha!)

A Canadian Transplant That Puts American Medical Procedures to Shame

 

It’s been a while since TV has seen a plain old ‘normal’ medical drama in a very long time on network television or almost anywhere else. Grey’s Anatomy has been past its prime for more than half a decade, and it never cared that much about medicine. The Good Doctor is still trying to argue it’s title character life over medicine. Chicago Med is about as traditional as anything Dick Wolf produces, and The Resident is fairly bland in almost every way.

Leave to our neighbors from the north to give medicine a different kind of look by being more or less exactly the same. Transplant focuses around Bashir Hamed (Hamza Haq) who comes into York Memorial as a patient. The chief of staff earlier denied him the ability to work here, but when he shows up suffering brain trauma, Bashir saves his life by drilling a hole in his head. The chief reconsiders his options, and offers to give Bashir an internship.

Bashir is a refugee from Syria who emigrated, we later learned, because he was an enemy of the state. He worked with the regime there as doctor, but when he was caught giving vaccinations to the disenfranchised, he was label dangerous and went into exile. Now, every aspect of his life which would be easier for almost any other resident is a mess. The regime will not release his transcripts because of his past status. He has to ask a fellow friend for transcripts, but this friend is undocumented, so soon he must go on the run.

More than that, the nuances that are in American and Canadian medicine don’t translate from abroad. In an early episode, he diagnoses a woman’s bruises as ‘suspicious’ using the context that they have ‘medically’ strange origins. Unfortunately, as too many hospital dramas have shown us, suspicious has a different connotation here, and it happens the patient’s daughter was already on the equivalent of Child Services. When Bashir realizes his error, he tries to retract it, but the system has already gone into effect. And he can’t understand that while patients in Damascus were in desperate need for vaccines, he is infuriated when a patient comes in suffering from measles because his parents don’t believe in vaccines – or medicine in general.

Haq does a superb job as the lead. It’s rare that any drama gives anyone of Middle Eastern descent a sympathetic role on any show, and it helps that everyone is more suspicious of him because of his experience than his religion, which is refreshing. A lot of the other characters are, unfortunately, cut and paste from so many other medical dramas that we’ve seen over the decades – though there are some subtleties. There’s the female intern who cares too much. There’s the resident trying to handle a long commute and family difficulties – though it’s a man, not a woman. There’s a similar gender swap for the surgical resident – and she’s a lot more aggressive than Peter Benton or Christina Yang would be. Asked to perform a emergency surgery on an old man who was in a hit-and-run that killed two people, she says: “I want him to live long enough to serve every year of his sentence.”

It helps a lot for this drama that most of the actors in the cast are unknown to us; the only name that was familiar to me was John Hannah as the chief of staff, and that’s because I stuck around with Damages to the final season. None of these characters will be known to American audiences, and it will make them harder to fit into boxes.

Transplant only came to American television because the fall season is being delayed because of a medical crisis that has taken over every aspect of our lives. That said, Covid 19 has not been mentioned even once in the four episodes I’ve seen, which is refreshing – and a little disturbing.  The Canadians don’t do all television better than, say, the British can, but they can surprise us with their subtleties. I don’t know if Transplant will stick around after American entertainment returns to normal, but if it stays in Canada, I might track it down anyway on Amazon. How ironic it took a foreign country to remind us how well a traditionally American genre can be done.

My score: 3.75 stars.

 

Where Exactly Are They? We Are Who We Are Review

 

I’ve never been particularly fond of the Italian-helmed series run by HBO. I don’t mean My Brilliant Friend, which is fully committed to its time and place, but rather the mixtures between Italian and English TV. The biggest examples of this were The Young Pope and The New Pope, which were a deeply flawed series that seemed far more interested in style than anything resembling substance.

I therefore took in the knew HBO series We Are Who We Are with some misgivings – one of the executive producers was Paolo Sorrentino, the force behind those two shows. But Luca Guadagnino, the force behind the extraordinary Call Me By Your Name  was behind it, I decided it to give a chance. But I’m still not entire sure what exactly I’m seeing even two episodes in. So I’ll stick to what I’ve seen.

Fraser is an American teenager who moves to a military base in Italy when his mother (Chloe Sevigny) is transferred to take over running it. She and her wife seem like a pretty normal couple, and it’s frankly a little hard to understand what it is up with Fraser. He walks around the base- pretty much everywhere – with no really interest in communicate with anybody who even tries to be friendly with him. He has no interest in dealing with IDs, seems only to care about listening to music and getting drunk, and treats his mother alternately with disdain and closeness that is genuinely unsettling.  The only person he seems interested in is Caitlin, and even that’s strange in itself.

Caitlin is harder to pin down than that. She likes pressing boundaries with her boyfriends, spars with her father, and likes dressing up as a boy. But her approach to her menstrual cycle is very strange, as well as her relationship with her mother and her brother When Fraser sees her secret, he makes the first real effort to help her, and even that she rejects out of hand. The fact that she is African American is not even an issue, at least here.

Now I’m all for real discussions of sexuality and gender fluidity, and I’m impressed that writer Sean Conway goes out of his way not to make them – or for that matter, many of the other characters – likable. I also appreciate that this is a series about a boy and a girl that is going to be about friendship and romance will not enter the picture at all. (The key moment comes at the end of the first episode when Fraser says to Caitlin: “So what should I call you?”) And I admit that the series is exceptionally well shot and directed. The problem is, I’m still not sure if there’s anything there behind the beauty of Italy.  We Are Who We Are may say it’s moving leisurely, but it feels slow. The first two episodes were basically stories of the same period first from Fraser, then Caitlin’s point of view. I didn’t much care for this approach when it was in The Affair, but at least they managed to do it one episode.

And I’m still not sure why Guadagnino and Conway decided to set the series on a military base in Italy at all. Since the focus of so much of the show on Americans at the base rather than the Italians around it, aside from the beauty of the country, there isn’t much added. Is it to suggest a greater level of isolation that so many of these teenagers feel? That could’ve been expressed in any other country.

I’ll admit this series has some impressive ideas, and that may make We Are Who We Are worth sticking around for a bit further. But I have a feeling that this may be one of those series it is easier to admire than to actually like. It certainly seems this way so far.

My score: 3.25 stars.

An Emmys Unlike We've Ever Seen Before... And Hopefully Never Again

 

When it came to this years actual Emmys broadcast this year, I was inclined to quote Roger Ebert, my north star. In this case, he was quoting Samuel Johnson when he saw a dog walking on its hind legs: “While one finds it being done poorly, it is remarkable to see it done at all.” And while Jimmy Kimmel may not know that quote, one can certainly understand the sentiment given the circumstances.

I’ll admit, I spent most of the last few months unsure the Emmys, given the world we live in, was going to happen. And when it was done in an empty auditorium, with all the awards being giving virtually and all the speeches being done via Facetime,  there were so many possible ways for it to go wrong that the fact that nothing did is an achievement in itself. We heard everybody’s speeches fine, the presentations at the Staples Center and through other presenters were done well, and the show only finished two minutes over its allotted time.  But by paring everything to the bone the way they did – there were few montage sequences, few joke sequences – it mostly allowed things to concentrate on the actual awards far better than they did last year when everything just meandered.  That was an achievement, and its sad that it took a pandemic to do it.

As for the awards, they were dominated by two very different wealthy families. I expected Schitt’s Creek to do well; I didn’t expect it to make history. It won all seven of the Emmys it was up for: perhaps the first comedy to do so, and definitely the first series of any kind to do so since Angels in America in 2003. While it would’ve been nice for The Good Place to have won something on its final season, it’s hard to be upset that Schitt’s Creek did so well. Most of the actors are ones I have admired for decades, and I was over the moon to see Eugene Levy and Catherine O’Hara finally win prizes for their comic portrayals. And I was equally thrilled to see Dan Levy, a man who I have come to admire over the past few years do as well as Phoebe Waller-Bridge did last year. I’ll confess now that I’ve only see a few episodes of Schitt’s Creek in my life. Netflix, here I come.

The other wealthy family was the back-biting moguls in Succession. They also won eight Emmys this year, though most of them were in technical aspect as well as directing and writing. I was a little surprised to see Jeremy Strong triumph over Brian Cox, but in a way it was fitting. He managed to do that in Season 2 as well, and that’s a triumph.

My happiest moments were for the Limited Series awards. I don’t know how many awards Watchmen ended up taking overall – I think they topped out at 12. But I was overjoyed to see Regina King and Yahya Abdul-Mateen II  triumph for their incredible performances. I was a little surprised to see that Jean Smart ended up losing to Uzo Aduba for Mrs. America – I really thought three great performances would cancel each other out – but it was a close call, and I think she earned it. And I was grateful to see Mark Ruffalo deservedly prevail – I thought the fact that I Know This Much Is True had no other nominations would hurt his chances, but clearly they did not.

There were justifiably a lot of new winners at this years Emmys – the only person who repeated from last year was Julia Garner for Ozark, which was a shock – I really thought Helena Bonham Carter or Meryl Streep would prevail. But mostly I was happy with the results – with one real exception. I just can’t justify Zendaya winning for Euphoria. I realize she is a stunning talent and she has her fans, but compared to all the other actresses in the category – hell, compared to some of the women in Big Little Lies or Westworld or any of the other shows that were snubbed – this is one of the greatest travesties I’ve seen in years, and yes, I’m counting all the wins Game of Thrones managed.

I’m not surprised in retrospect how well HBO did – again, but how poorly Netflix did. Garner was the only major winner Emmy night, and they got shut out for the lion’s share of the Creative Arts awards. In contrast, Disney+ won several prizes for The Mandalorian, AppleTV won a Supporting Actor prize for Billy Crudup, and POP, which was the broadcasters of Schitt’s Creek had a very good night.. This may not be the best sign for Netflix, which is under scrutiny for other issues.

Of course, I have no doubt certain people will be upset at the political nature of the acceptance speeches. To which I say: So what? Look where we are all these days.  There are so many crisis going on its hard to keep track of them. Hell, it’s because of them were going to very lucky if we have a fall season at all. I’m frankly amazed that, given all the problems, our current president’s name was only mentioned once.  Everybody’s angry. The Emmys happened this way is the smallest factor of all of this.

Hell, given everything going on in the world today, I was grateful for a few mere hours to have an escape from it. So I’ll end my piece with a bit of hope. I hope that things get better enough so we have a fall season, and that we never have an Emmys in this format again. We will have new nominees next year – hell, the comedies are losing two major series – and hopefully, the world will be calmer then.

Laying The Odds For This Year's Emmys: Epilogue: Writing, Directing et al

 

I don’t normally add to this part to my work – I’ve always considering my judgment better when it came to performances rather than individual episodes – but for a change I’m going to guess what the Emmys will do for writing and directing in all three major categories, and for guest actor and actress. I’m not going to bother to lay the odds. I’m just going to give my personal preferences.

 

COMEDY

I’m willing to be, given the ostentatious production numbers and movement involved, that direction should go to one of the episodes of The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. I give the edge to ‘It’s Comedy or Cabbage’ by an inch.

For Best Comedy Writing,  despite the possibility it go to something for What We Do In The Shadows, I’m going to really cross my fingers and hope they go for the final episode of The Good Place, which was brilliant humorously, dramatically, and philosophically. Not even Schitt’s Creek could pull that off.

For Guest Actor, much as I’d like to see Luke Kirby repeat for his fine work on Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, I think it’ll go to one of the hosts of SNL. And really, it should go to Eddie Murphy, who demonstrated once again that he’s still the King. For Guest Actress, I think it’ll go to Maya Rudolph, and I’m hoping its for The Good Place rather than SNL. Though really, it’s a good group.

 

DRAMA

For Directing, my preference is for one of the episodes of The Crown, preferably Aberfan, which showed the true depths of the direction. As for Writing, I’d really like it to go to ‘Bad Choice Road’, the magnificent penultimate episode of Better Call Saul.. I’m a realist on this one. It’ll probably go to the finale of Succession, which if you’ve finished reading these blogs was a masterpiece.

For Guest Actor in A Drama, I’d like to see it go Jason Bateman for his exceptional work on The Outsider, but I think it’ll more likely go to Andrew Scott or Ron Cephas Jones, neither of which I object too. The overwhelming presumptive favorite for Guest Actrss is the incredible Cicely Tyson for How To Get Away with Murder, and it’s really hard to arge she isn’t due something. My personal preference would be for Phylicia Rashad, who really should’ve won last year..

 

MOVIE/LIMITED SERIES

I don’t think even Dr. Manhattan could stop the writers of ‘This Extraordinary Being for winning for Watchmen, certainly for Writing. As for Direction, they might win here, but it’s just as likely it’ll be for ‘It’s Summer and We’re Running Out of Ice.” As for TV Movie, it’s a battle between Bad Education and El Camino. I give the barest of edges to the latter. They’ve got to recognize Braking Bad for something this year.

 

See you next week.

 

 

I Lay The Odds For This Years Emmys: Outstanding Supporting Actress In A Movie/Limited Series

 

The category I have the least problem with. Would I have liked to see some of the fine actresses from Little Fires Everywhere and I Know This Much Is True? Sure. But otherwise, this is a good selection. Interestingly enough, every actress in this category has already won at least one Emmy.

 

Uzo Aduba, Mrs. America: 9-2. For Playing: Shirley Chisholm, New York Congresswoman and the first African American to run for President, now being drawn into a battle for the ERA. Pro: Aduba has become one of the great talents of the new Golden Age (she’s already won two Emmys for Orange is the New Black) so there’s a certain justice to her portraying this pioneering Congresswoman whose name has already been lost to history. Her portrayal is a revelation for those who only know her as ‘Crazy Eyes’ and its easy to see that she could end up pulling an upset. Con: The fact that there are two of her co-stars in this category. It’s rare for someone to win an Emmy in any category with three nominees, and she has won before.

 

Toni Collette, Unbelievable: 4-1. For Playing: Grace Rasmussen, a hard nosed Colorado detective who begins a hunt for a serial rapist. Pro: From the moment we see Collette in the closing minutes of the second episode, we see one of the great portrayals of a policewoman in history. She knows the odds against catching the monster they’re chasing are remote – but she keeps pressing every single edge she can find until the end – and then backs away. There’s a lot less humanity in this character than so many of the others Collette has played, but paradoxically this leads to its strength. She won the Critics Prize for Supporting Actress, and it wouldn’t shock me if she won the Emmy. Con: Due to recent events, there’s been a backlash against the police procedural, even the real-life ones. Unbelievable suffered as a result, and its not hard to imagine Collette paying the prize.

 

Margo Martindale, Mrs. America: 6-1. For Playing: Bella Abzug, the memorable New York Congresswoman. Pro: If you’ve ever seen pictures of Abzug, you know there’s more than a passing resemblance between her and this incredible character actress of the New Golden Age. Martindale is one of those talents who can left depth to anybody (I put her down as one of the great actresses of the last decade) so when given a true character like Abzug, it’s hardly surprising what she can do. Never rule her out when she nominated for anything. Con: Martindale’s already won three Emmys over the last decade, and there’s probably a strong argument that this will end up working against her. Besides, she has the same problem as her fellow co-nominees.

 

Jean Smart, Watchmen: 18-5. For Playing: Laurie Blake, the former Silk Spectre, now part of the FBI anti-vigilante task force. Pro: Smart has played some hard-nosed characters before – most notably in Fargo – but nothing could prepare you for her work in Watchmen. Blake is completely sick of superheroes and vigilantes, she doesn’t have the patience for anybody, not even the plots she’s trying to unravel. If you know her backstory from the graphic novel, it’s completely understandable. If you didn’t, there’s still a lot to enjoy as she by far delivers some of the best one-liners and humor in a very dark series. She won the Supporting Actress prize from the Critics Choice (when Watchmen was still being considered an original series) and I find it very hard to see her not winning. Con: She’s been the front runner before in this category and lost to Regina King (of all people). Other than that, I can’t find a real reason she might lose.

 

Holland Taylor, Hollywood: 13-2. For Playing: Ellen Kincaid, a talent director for aspiring actresses in 1950s Hollywood. Pro: I’ve long since given up being surprised at the level of talent of this extraordinary character actress.. From the man-hungry judge in The Practice to the unlikely mother of Charlie and Alan in Two and a Half Men, Taylor has been able to show maternity and sexuality often in the same bit of dialogue. Nothing she does astonish me any more, and getting picked out from a fine group of supporting women hardly stuns me. Con: There was a lot of grief when she was picked over Patti LuPone among her own cast, and she’s got a lot of actresses against her. This is going to be a tough sell.

 

Tracey Ullman, Mrs. America:13-2. For Playing: Betty Friedan, the pioneering feminist in for the fight of her life. Pro: For those who know her only for her sketch comedy series, it always astonishes me what Ullman can accomplish when she’s given a meaty role to work with. And playing this incredible woman who can’t believe the character of the opposition she’s facing, you get a real measure of what she can do. Con: There were a lot of great female performances in this series, and Ullman, like her fellow nominees, was just a sample of what was available. And as a result, I think it’s like the three-way split will end up hurting them all.

 

PREDICTION: So who will get another trophy for their mantle? I’m betting its Jean Smart – by a hair.

 

Stay tuned next week when I wrap this up with some choices for writing and directing.

 

 

 

I Lay The Odds For This Year's Emmys: Week 3, Day 4: Outstanding Supporting Actor in Movie/Limited Series

If anything, this may be the hardest category of the night to unfold, considering that many of the heavy favorites – such as John Turturro, Jesse Plemons, and Tim Blake Nelson, of all people – didn’t get a nomination at all. Trying to figure out who’ll win is going to be tough for voters, much less the experts. But here goes

 

Yahiya Abdul-Mateen II, Watchmen: 4-1. For Playing: Cal Adar, Angela’s husband… and that’s all I’ll say.  Pro: If you haven’t seen the series, there’s very little I can give away to explain why Abdul-Mateen deserves to win. If you’ve seen the series more than once, you realize there are layers upon layers to his performance that not even the character was aware of until near the end – and then everything took on a new level. I give extra credit in my choices as to who should win based on incremental things like this, and given the layout of this category, he’s my personal favorite. Con: A lot of his performance was so mannered and understated that it’s possible a lot of voters may have missed the nuances. That might end up working against him, even though he’s surging in the polls.

 

Jovan Adepo, Watchmen: 13-2. For Playing: The young Will Reeves. Pro: I’m willing to bet almost everything that Adepo earned his nomination for the episode ‘This Extraordinary Being’ the story that told Will’s backstory viewed by Angela under the influence of Nostalgia. If that is the case, it’s really hard to argue the choice considering that this episode got a lot of nominations and may have been the greatest technical episode of the series, which given everything the show accomplishment is remarkable in itself. And learning the whole truth of Will’s past and the backstory of so much was truly remarkable performance. Con: There were a lot of good performers who deserved nominations for this series – Nelson and Don Johnson are just the more obvious of the two. And for a category that’s supposed to deal with the whole rather than an individual, I have some objections to his presence here. I don’t think it’ll work for a win.

 

Tituss Burgess: Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt: 11-2. For Playing: Titus Andromedon, Kimmy’s unlikely bestie. Pro: Is it a shock or not? Burgess did get the lion share of the Emmy nominations when this show was in its original run, and may be the most undervalued actor in its entire cast. He should have won at least one Emmy for his work when the series was running on Netflix, and this may be the best chance to make it up to him. Con: How many times has a comedy series or movie been acknowledged in this category at all? The Emmys has strict rules, drama in drama, comedy and comedy, and never the twain shall meet. Burgess slipped through a loophole in those unofficial rules. I don’t think it’s big enough to give him a win

 

Louis Gossett Jr., Watchmen: 9-2.  For Playing: Will Reeves in the present. Pro: Now this Will I have absolutely no problem being nominated. Gossett is one of the greatest undervalued actors in history, and watching him tell his story to his utterly flummoxed granddaughter – and realizing over the course of the series that he actually knew far less about the plot then anybody else in the show – featured Gossett doing some of his best work in a very long time. I honestly wouldn’t mind if he added an Emmy to his trophy case. Con: Too many Watchmen actors in this category and it doesn’t help matters his younger self is one of the nominees. That could really hurt his chances.

 

Dylan McDermott, Hollywood: 13-2.  For Playing: Ernie West, a gas jockey hoping to make it big. Pro: McDermott has always been one of my favorite actors, going all the way back to The Practice. It was a little shocking to see him end up under Ryan Murphy’s cast of players, but maybe not considering how his good looks have always hidden darkness. He’s never been recognized for any of his work; I wouldn’t mind him triumphing here. Con: There were a lot more deserving actors from this series alone who deserved nominations. I’m not sure McDermott has the pull to get him there.

 

Jim Parsons, Hollywood: 39-10. For Playing: Henry Wilson, an aspiring producer. Pro: We’re all so used to Parsons work as Sheldon that we’re always surprised to see that there’s a real great actor under that face. When he’s given the opportunity, he shines and he really got a good one as this repressed agents stuck trying to lead an equally repressed client acknowledge him. A real change of pace. Con: Doesn’t Parsons have enough Emmys already? He got four in 5 years for playing Sheldon Cooper. Is it necessary to give the prize to the one nominee who already has a shelf full?

 

PREDICTION: With no clear frontrunner, I’m going to give the edge to Abdul-Mahteen – then again, he probably already knows if his character will win… has won… is winning… I’ve said too much.

 

 

 

 

 

Laying The Odds For This Year's Emmys: Week 3, Part 3: Outstanding Actress in A Movie/Limited Series

 

I’m even more astonished by the Academy’s record here, not only because they only chose five nominees, but that they left some of the most obvious names out. Reese Witherspoon was ignored for her extraordinary work on Little Fires Everywhere, and they ignored both Kaitlyn Dever and Merritt Weyer for their incredible work in Unbelievable, which received nominations from practically everybody but the Emmys. Nevertheless, there are some prime candidates here.

 

Cate Blanchett, Mrs. America: 39-10. For Playing: Phyllis Schaffly, the nemesis of the ERA and feminism in general. Pro: By now, we should all know that there’s no character at all that this exceptional actress can’t play, from Elizabeth I to Katherine Hepburn to Bob Dylan. So seeing her take on the role of this character that was detestable for millions of people and show her human side in a way that you wouldn’t expect – as well as spell out the contradiction that in her opposition of the ERA she became pretty much what she was warring against – was one of her great triumphs, particularly considering this is her TV debut. If the Emmys just covered 2020, she’d be a lock. Con: But the Emmys don’t cover just this calendar year, and considering some of her competition, I’d say the odds of her winning are remote.

 

Shira Haas, Unorthodox: 4-1. For Playing: Esther Shapiro, an orthodox Jewish woman who flees her arranged marriage to start a new life abroad. Pro: The youngest nominee as well the only (relatively) unknown actress is this stories field, Haas has been working in Israeli TV for awhile. Which doesn’t make her performance any less of a revelation. As we follow Esty to Berlin as she tries to build a new life and have every aspect of her old life challenged, Haas’  work was a beacon of steadiness as tried to find a port in the storm. Con: Despite doing surprisingly well in the nomination and among a fan base, this was not the series that Netflix probably thought would be leading for consideration in this category. This may end up working against Haas in particular.

 

Regina King, Watchmen:16-5. For Playing: Angela Abar/Sister Night, the Tulsa detective vigilante at the center of a conspiracy surrounding so many of her fellow cops. Oh, and a plot to take over the world. Pro: Was there a time when King wasn’t even nominated for Emmys, much less won them? I’m reluctant to say this, having watched her extraordinary work in American Crime and The Leftovers, but this may be one of King’s greatest performances.  She spent as much of the series trying to understand the conspiracy that involved a family she didn’t even know about, only to find out she ended up causing so much of the destruction. (Believe me, it makes sense if you watch the show. Sort of.) But watching her deal with the fact that so many of the people she loved were lying to her her entire life delivering the level of humanity that this spectacular visual series needed for its heart. She already won a Best Actress Award for Watchmen. I don’t think anything other than the intervention of Dr. Manhattan could stop her from winning her. Con: Maybe they feel she’s won enough Emmys already and want to share the love. That’s really the only argument I can come up with.

 

Octavia Spencer, Self Made: 9-2. For Playing: C.J. Walker, an African American entrepreneur who became the America’s first female self-made millionaire. Pro: No one had heard of C.J. Walker before Self-Made aired. That’s true about a lot of the incredible characters Spencer has played over a long career. And watching her doing over the course of a limited series is just another of the great performance Spencer can do. Hell, it wasn’t even her most intense drama portrayal this year (see Truth Be Told). We don’t need to be reminded that Spencer is a great actress. We just have to enjoy the fruits of her labor. Con: This is the only nomination that the series got. And considering the high-level of so many of the high-profile actresses in this category, it’s going to be hard even for Spencer to stand out.

 

Kerry Washington, Little Fires Everywhere:9-2. For Playing: Mia Warren, an African-American single mother, who finds herself growing closer to a white teenager while struggling with questions with her own child. Pro: I’ll be honest. Before the nominations, I would’ve considered Washington a heavy favorite in this category. This may be the greatest single performance she’s ever given on TV, which given her track record is impressive.  Watching her try to keep secrets and her daughter safe, while exposing herself in ways she can’t seem to help herself from doing, she started out as extremely unsympathetic and ended up by far the character with the most personal integrity as well as being the better mother to both her actual and surrogate child. This was as gripping as TV gets. Con: When the Emmys chose to make Washington the only nominee from the series in any acting category, they demonstrated their lack of appreciation for this incredible show. Consider how little attention it got overall, I sadly think Washington’s odds are quite remote – at least for an Emmy.

 

PREDICTION: Regina King in a landslide. Blanchett and Washington will cleanup in the 2021 awards - maybe.

 

 

 

 

I Lay The Odd For This Year's Emmys: Week 3, Day 2 Outstanding Actor in A TV Movie/Limited Series

 

I’m already raising objections because for some reason two of the most likely contenders in this category: Russell Crowe, who won the Golden Globe for The Loudest Voice and Aaron Paul, who already won three Emmys for playing Jesse Pinkman, the role he recreated for El Camino, where inexplicably ignored for nominations. There are still some good contenders, but they have drawbacks. Let’s look at them.

 

Jeremy Irons, Watchmen: 9-2. For Playing: Adrian Veidt, aka Ozymandias, the Smartest Man Alive, and the man who ‘saved the world’. He’s now living in retirement… and that’s all I’ll say. Pro: There was a lot of exceptional casting throughout the series, but Irons as Veidt, a man with an ego the size of his intellect, may have been the most perfect among it. Playing a man who seems to be living a life of leisure among clones that we initially assumed her created, we soon realized just where he fit in the larger picture. And when everything came together in the finale, it was a magnificent achievement as Veidt came as close to realizing his flaws as he was capable. This was a superb performance. Con: For much of the series, Veidt’s character seemed to exist out the main plot. This was by design, of course, but it didn’t change the fact that the one certain link to the original series seemed superfluous for much of it. All of that considered, I have a feeling even those who loved his work may have trouble voting for Irons, certainly as a lead actor.

 

Hugh Jackman, Bad Education: 39-10. For Playing: Frank Tassione, the worshipped school superintendent, whose life is holding secrets that involve sexual and financial scandals. Pro: As a New Yorker, who doesn’t live that far from Roslyn where the majority of the action in this superb movie took place, I have a certain admiration for the general style and wit of this story. And though I’ve admired Jackman’s work for a long time, its really remarkable to see how well he handles the image of being a hero to his district – until he is undone by a school newspaper. This is by far the most humorous and endearing performance in the entire collection, and for that alone it deserves to be considered. Con: It’s been awhile since an actor from a TV Movie has prevailed in any of the categories. The fact that the film received only two nominations total doesn’t exactly sing out well for its chances. Jackman deserves to win, but I don’t think he will.

 

Paul Mescal, Normal People:19-5. For playing: Connell, a young man in college suffering from romantic and psychological issues. Pro: This is one of those series that snuck up on Emmy voters. It’s currently ranked pretty high on imdb.com and considering how divisive the book one, it’s a shock as well as the fact that this is Mescal’s very first performance. Every so often the Emmys picks out a fresh-faced performer who wows everybody. Could this be the year for a man who just made his debut? He’s certainly rising high among the experts. Con: The series wasn’t nominated for Best Limited Series, for all the raves. It wasn’t the highest profile project even for Hulu. And given the star quality of three of the other nominees, I find it very hard to believe Mescal can prevail.

 

Jeremy Pope, Hollywood: 9-2. For Playing: Archie Coleman, an African American screenwriter in a very different Hollywood. Pro: One heard a lot of great things about this series, Ryan Murphy’s attempt to show old-time Hollywood as we’d want it to be. And there were a lot of powerful performances in this group, Pope (more popularly known for his work on Broadway among them). An almost total unknown making a stunning debut on television and upstaging several other great potential nominees is something the Emmys only occasionally does.Pope looks on the verge of doing so. Con: Hollywood also wasn’t nominated for Best Limited Series, and there was a better case for it than Normal People. This will probably end up working against Pope.

 

Mark Ruffalo, I Know This Much is True: 18-5. For Playing: Dom and Tom Birdsey, twin brothers, one schizophrenic, one a caregiver, each living a troubled life.  Pro: Months before this series even aired, Ruffalo was considered the runaway favorite to win Best Actor, and if you’ve seen his work, its easy to see why. He plays both brothers so distinctive it’s often hard to see that they’re both being played by the same actor. Tom’s frequent ranting, Dom’s interior anger – either one would’ve been a feast for any actor. Ruffalo has always been one of the greatest actors in any medium. And it’s hard to come up with an argument for him not to win. Con: Ruffalo’s nomination was the only one that the series received. And as I indicated in Jackman’s entry, it’s going to be really hard for Ruffalo’s extraordinary performance to prevail when it’s the only nomination from its series.

 

PREDICTION: Ruffalo’s buzz may hold him over, but don’t rule out Jackman coming out ahead.

 

 

 

 

 

I Lay The Odds For This Year's Emmys: Week 3, Part 1: Outstanding Limited Series

 

I’m still not sure why with Best Drama and Comedy upgraded to eight nominees; Limited Series is still stuck at five, particularly considering that I can think of at least three other series that deserved to be nominated. But I won’t argue the point… here.

 

Little Fires Everywhere: 9-2.  Looking inside the world of two different mothers in the 1990s, one white and one black, this limited series explored the dark aspects that cover just about every part of our society – race, sex, abortion, lesbianism, career versus home. Led by two of the greatest actresses in history, this one of the great accomplishments of the year. Pro: Had the Emmys dealt with just shows that came out in 2020, this series would be the flat-out front-runner. Reese Witherspoon and Kerry Washington led a spectacular cast dealing with so many complicated relationships, particularly those involving motherhood and being different. This was a masterwork. Con: There is no logic at all as to why this series got so few nominations. But the fact that it did is going to hurt any chance it did of winning. Besides, it’s not Watchmen.

 

Mrs. America: 4-1. The story of the battle for the ERA, led by some of the great feminists on one side and Phyllis Schaffly, who would become the face of conservatism on the other. The fact that the battle is still going on even as we speak does not make it any less relevant. Pro: Not long before this series aired, Virginia ratified the ERA, finally winning the battle that Schaffly waged…sort of. That aside, like so many of the great FX produced series, it featured some of the greatest performances imaginable, starting with the extraordinary Cate Blanchett and leading to so many of television greatest actresses, the Supporting Actress category just couldn’t find room for them. This is an even more relevant series about the gender wars that have never stopped. Con: The same problem that just about every other nominated limited series would have. It’s not Watchmen.

 

Unbelievable: 9-2. The real-life story of three women, a girl whose rape was only to beginning of an excruciating experience by the criminal justice system, and two very different Colorado detectives who find themselves on the trail of a serial rapist who very well links to this one. Pro: This was perhaps the most brutal portrayal of the inequalities of the criminal justice system since American Crime. Led by three exceptional actresses giving some of the best performances of the year, it was by far one of the most relevant series to air in this season. Con: The general disregard for the police procedural the last few months is the only logical explanation I can come up with as to why this series was basically denied so many nominations, especially for Kaitlyn Dever and Merritt Weyer, who were considered shoo-ins by everyone for Best Actress nominations. The voting must have hurt it, and the fact that it aired way back in October couldn’t have helped.

 

Unorthodox: 9-2. A young ultra-Orthodox Jewish woman flees her arranged marriage and religious community to start a new life abroad. Pro: Arguably the biggest shock in the Limited Series category was this Netflix show upsetting higher profile shows.  But it explored a world that few viewers – hell, maybe even few Jewish viewers would have pursued. Well acted by a cast of virtual unknowns, it’s a definite dark horse. Con: Surprise nominees practically never win. The series is subtle and not showy, which definitely doesn’t play with a lot of voters. Besides, well see below.

 

Watchmen: 31-10.  Taking place in Tulsa in present day of the Watchmen world, where cops where costumes, where technology is far lower key, and where superheroes are just the subject of limited series on their own, this extraordinary piece of work, much like the extraordinary graphic novel it was based on, dealt with all the issues that caped crusaders couldn’t fix. Horrible things were being planned, and not even the heroes ever understood what was happening. Sounds familiar. Pro: For once, the Emmys and I are in total agreement: this Limited series more than deserved the 26 nominations – more than other program – it got. The daring visuals, the exceptional cast, the brilliant writing are frankly part and parcel with so many HBO projects. But the fact that a series based on a comic book written in the 1980s would be the most relevant piece of television in the entire season is something that I’m sure the writers didn’t expect and were hoping wouldn’t happen. The certain winner. Con:  About the only thing standing against is the fact that the Emmys don’t like given prizes to comic books. Somehow, I think they’ll overlook it.

 

PREDICTION:  Easiest one of the night. Only question is how many Emmys will this series take home. In the next few categories, I start making suggestions.

The Monsters and Ghosts Aren't The Scariest Things in Lovecraft Country

 

One of the genres that have been underplayed in the New Golden Age has been horror. Horror is played for camp value (mostly in the world of Ryan Murphy) and for sexual value (True Blood comes to mind) but there have been very few series that I’ve seen that are genuine terrifying (Evil has come the closest). Then a few weeks ago, Lovecraft County premiered, and we got not only monster horror, but the horror that is eerily appropriate to the era we are living in.

Atticus Freeman, an African American who just came back from Korea, has returned to Chicago to find out what happened to his father. Atticus is a huge sci-fi/horror buff and his relationship with his father is, shall we say, troubled. So when he receives a letter telling him that ‘they have a birthright in Lovecraft Country” he is reluctant to go searching for it. But his uncle George (Courtney B. Vance in one of his best roles) wants to find his brother and fill out ‘his guide for black people’. Accompanied by Letitia (Jurnee Smollett, a long way from Friday Night Lights) they go searching.

A lot happens, which I will detail in a minute. And they find this manor house, where they are expected, and somehow everything is fitting for them. With the exception of one manservant, no one is happy to see them, and it’s pretty clear that there’s something truly mystical and horrifying about the place, and dark rituals are easily performed. Then they find out Atticus does have a birthright, and he uses it to find his father. (It may tell you everything you need to know about the man that Montrose Freeman is played by Michael K. Williams, HBO’s John Barrymore of complicated black people.) They find him, they try to escape, but they are stopped. And then…

Let’s stop right here. If you’ve seen the trailers for Lovecraft Country, you know that it deals with otherworldly creatures, worms and demons and monsters you haven’t seen. Hell, if you’re even an amateur with horror, you know who H.P. Lovecraft was and what his stories meant.  But what if I was to tell you the most suspenseful and horrifying scenes in this series have nothing to do with those monsters?

Two of the most terrifying scenes I’ve seen in television in a long time came in the Pilot. George wants to try and find a diner for his guide. The three of them drive out there, and it’s very clear very quickly that is not the kind of town that would welcome African Americans, much less serve them a meal. George tells them to go into the restaurant. The chef and the waiters are stunned to see them, and perhaps the only reason they allowed to sit at the table and look at the menu. Letitia goes to the bathroom, and she hears the manager the phone saying he didn’t ask for them to come in. She busts out of there like a bat of hell, saying that they have to run, and they make it to their car just before the police arrive. A gunfight erupts between the two cars, and Atticus knows if they don’t get away, death is by far the least horrible thing that will happen to them. When it seems that they are on the verge of death, another car intervenes like a miracle… only the driver of that car is a key factor to the story.\

The next scene is similar in nature. They’ve stopped in the middle of a forest. And a deputy pulls them and asks them what they are doing there.  He spends the next minute taunting them, and then he tells them this is a ‘sunset county’. The kind of county where if black people are caught after sunset, it’s okay to lynch them. He tells them it’s illegal to turn around. Or speed. Then he tells them they have exactly eight minutes to make to the border. The next three were absolutely terrifying as our heroes had to drive just fast enough to get the border but not be caught speeding by the deputy behind them. They make it across the border. They start cheering. Then they see a new line of police cars. And the only reason they are saved from the fate of so many others is because they run across a bunch of monsters that don’t care what color you are before they kill you.

It doesn’t entirely shock me that one of the executive producers of this series is Jordan Peele, who’s turned being black in America into its own kind of horror. I’m not familiar with Misha Green’s previous work for television Underground, a series about the Underground Railroad that was deified by the critics until it was canceled because the network it wasn’t on didn’t want to pay for original programming any more. Lovecraft Country will scare the living bejesus out of anybody who watches it, because the ghosts and monsters and flesh-eaters are actually escapist fare for the far more frightening Jim Crow scenarios that play out time and again virtually every five minutes on this show. I dare you to watch the scene where Letitia breaks the windows of the cars that have been trying to drive her out of her neighborhood, then throws the bat on the ground, and kneels with her hands behind her back, and not feel like you’re going to be sick to your stomach.

Have I made Lovecraft Country sound unwatchable? Then you’re probably not its target audience. Even if you’re not, it’s hard not to be awed by the power of the writing and the performance, particularly the African-American actresses led by Smollett playing characters I guarantee you haven’t seen in a TV show in a very long time. There are family dynamics and a secret birthright and evil people everywhere. This is a triumph for horror.

 My only complaint – and it’s a minor one – is the incogriguity with so much of the music.  I’m not sure why we needed to hear ‘Movin on Up’ in the opening of the second episode followed by music from the twenties and the sixties often in the same episode. But maybe there’s a point to that.  That there’s a certain kind of music that’s common to any era.

My score: 4.75 stars.

Laying The Odds For This Year's Emmys: Week 2, Part 5: Outstanding Supporting Actress In A Comedy

 

Alex Borstein, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel: 9-2. For Playing: Suzie  Myerson, Midge’s agent, trying to grow into a much bigger pond as her client does.  Pro: Have you seen her performance? Every line out of her mouth in a gem. Even when she’s trying to be serious, she’s hysterical. And watching as Suzie realized what the world outside of New York was, as she tried to deal with Sophie’s demands – which were even more arduous than just trying to make it big in the first place – made me love her even more. The fact that she took the Broadcast Critics award gives her an edge she frankly doesn’t need. I know she’s won two years running, but if the Emmys were to give her another prize it wouldn’t be laziness. Con: Will the Emmys decide to give a trophy to a new face in this category? That’s hard to say – there’ve been a lot of repeats for Supporting Actress in a Comedy over the past fifteen years – but they’ve been showing growth, and that might work against Borstein.

 

D’Arcy Carden, The Good Place: 13-2. For Playing: Janet, the all-knowing being that all sides want on their side. Pro: A question that not even Janet could answer: why wasn’t Carden nominated after last year’s incredible, Emmy-nominated ‘Janets’? That’s not to say her work wasn’t just as impressive this year – not only did she repeat her role as the ‘bad Janet’ who led a rebellion, she played every single permutation of Janet for a couple of episodes. If that doesn’t represent Carden’s incredible versatility, skill and humor – it can’t be easy to deliver that hysterical dialogue in a perfectly pleasant tone all the time – I don’t know what is. Carden has deserved an Emmy more than anyone in the case – yes, even more than Ted Danson. I want her to win. Badly. Con: I’m trying really hard to find an argument against her, and the best I can do is that the laziness in the Emmys will lead to pick Borstein again. But as I said above, she deserves it.

 

Betty Gilpin, GLOW: 9-1. For Playing: Debbie Eagan/Liberty Belle, the heroine of the Gorgeous Ladies of wrestling. Pro: I’ve been a fan of Gilpin ever since she came on my radar in the back half of Nurse Jackie, and I can say that her work on this criminally undervalued series is some of the best she’s ever done. Trying to balance a divorced woman, a mom, a rising star, and a producer, all while trying to work out the prickly relationships particularly with Rose, is one of the most ambitious characters on any forum. She’s remarkable. Con: The same problems she’s had every year. For whatever reason, GLOW just doesn’t seem to register with the Academy the same way it does with fans. It may be because its an ensemble series, which doesn’t work well for the Emmys, but its never gotten the love it deserves. And that can only hurt Gilpin.

 

Marin Hinkle, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel: 9-1. For Playing: Rose, Midge’s mother who is increasingly put upon now that her husband is trying for independence to. Con: If it were just for her lines about constantly being pressed by every element of her life – her daughter, her husband, her in-laws – Hinkle would be outstanding. But every season we seem to unearth another layer to Ruth. When we saw that she came from Oklahoma, was an oil heiress, and tried to reach for her independence, that was remarkable. The fact that it led to another great level of jokes was even more impressive. She’s deserved an Emmy at least since Once & Again. I think she’s earned it. Con: Alex Borstein. For whatever reason, the splitting of votes in this category hasn’t helped Hinkle one bit. Her character is quietly hysterical in the way that Borstein’s is loudly so. I think that’ll work against her.

 

Kate McKinnon, Saturday Night Live: 15-2. For Playing: Various Characters. Pro: The political sway of SNL has helped McKinnon; she’s just as gifted at playing Rudy Giuliani and Lindsay Graham as she is Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elizabeth Warren. Even as the show fell backward into the social distancing era, she remained hysterical to watch. I grant you she has two Emmys already, but given how political this year is, it might help her triumph again. Con: The new normal affected Saturday Night Live the most, so she had a lot fewer performances – and opportunities - to demonstrate her gifts. I don’t think this is her year.

 

Annie Murphy, Schitt’s Creek: 5-1. For Playing: Alexis Rose, the out of water daughter in town. Pro: This is the series that helped Murphy break big and become a star. To be able to compete and register with a cast this good is remarkable. Alexis isn’t as ostentatious as her parents or as daring as her brother- she’s just funny. And for a series that has a cast this big, that’s impressive. Con: Of all the actors who are cresting on the Schitt’s Creek wave, Murphy faces by far the most formidable lineup, and that’s without counting Alex Borstein. She might pull off an upset, but it’s been a long time since a comedy series won even three of the four acting Emmys.

 

Yvonne Orji, Insecure. 8-1. For Playing: Molly, a businesswoman trying to make a relationship work at the cost of nearly everything else. Pro: I’m not sure whether I’m happier that Carden or Orji was nominated this year. Molly went through an even more painful arc than Issa did – focusing so much on her relationship with Andrew that she completely broke her relationship with Issa, and then going even further with so many other relationship that it was hard to like her near the end of the season. Then after she was reunited with Issa for the worst possible reason, she tried to fix thing with Andrew – but it was too late. So she turned back to Issa.  Her performance had layers that a lot of dramas don’t have, but she was funny consistently. Con: You needed to study the length of Orji’s work throughout Season 4 to truly get the depths of her performance – which doesn’t really fit in to the submission process for the Emmys the way a lot of the other nominees can. This will probably work against her, but she’ll be back

 

Cecily Strong, Saturday Night Live: 10-1. For Playing: Various Characters. Pro: Strong has always been one of the more undervalued performers in the formidable cast. With the exception of Jeanine Pirro – which sadly, doesn’t show her at her best – the lion’s share of her characters aren’t famous. But when she shines, she’s like a diamond. A lot of times her characters are elements of normalcy in the zaniness, and that’s a quality that deserves to be recognized.  Con: Kate McKinnon.  Usually when SNL gets nominated in this category, it’s the more versatile and omnipresent performers who win. It’s worked against Strong before, and I have a feeling it will here too.

 

PREDICTION: Still want to see Carden win, and she might pull an upset. Otherwise, look for Borstein to add yet another trophy to her mantle.