The Fall of an Icon May Make It Impossible to Enjoy A Great Show

 

The first series that launched me into the love of great TV was Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Nearly a quarter of a century after its premiere, there’s never been a series quite like it. The incredible performances, the style and wit, and the dialogue and stories that may never be seen anywhere again. Buffy routine made the list of greatest shows of all time, it completely transformed the WB, and was one of the most beloved series of all time among its fans, which twenty years later are still legion.

I loved the show not so much because of its feminism, but because of what it stood for. There has never been a character like Buffy Summers, or Willow Rosenberg or Faith. Back then, a show would often have token female characters who were inevitably there just to end up as love interests to the lead. The idea of a show with a character like Buffy was so strong that when Twilight became a theme of pop culture, I criticized by saying: “Tara could kick Bella’s ass.”

And now, that all seems to be in doubt for me. Joss Whedon, the creative force behind Buffy, wasn’t just a brilliant writer, he also great talent and in an era where most showrunners ignored the Internet and its fan, he was willing to engage them. He seemed to one of the great forces in TV, and over the past decade, made a bold crossover into box office with The Avengers. Now, it seems clear that rather than being an outlier in the era of powerful sexual predators among the entertainment world, he was just as bad as any of them. And in some way, I think he may be worse.

 

I was aware of the sexual scandal when his ex-wife published an article lambasting him for having affairs with his many female co-stars. I may have dismissed it as sour grapes or try to ignore. I similarly avoided the scandal over his handling Justice League because, well, I didn’t care.

But it’s impossible for me to ignore Charisma Carpenter’s allegation of how Whedon treated her after her pregnancy during Season 4 of Angel. It isn’t just what Carpenter says, or how character was written out of the show, that convinces me, it’s how she was written.

When I saw the fourth season of Angel, I was just beginning my career as a TV critic and I remember being utterly blown away by it. It was one of the first totally serialized stories I had ever seen on any television series and I was sucked in week after week. But even then, there was a problem with it that, despite my best efforts I couldn’t ignore.

As the crisis begins to unfold in LA, Cordelia (Carpenter) approaches Angel’s son Connor and as a method of ‘comfort’, they have sex. This was particularly icky because via the bible of the show, Connor had been just a baby the previous season (he’d grown up in an alternate dimension where time flowed differently then this one) and she had been the surrogate mother. The fan world was appalled when it happened and it only got worse.

Cordelia was later revealed to be the evil mastermind behind the plot that was unfolding. She slept with Connor to be impregnated with his child, lured Connor into protecting her (including forcing him to kill an innocent) and eventually giving birth to a demon. After this, Cordelia went into a coma, and Carpenter didn’t say a line for the rest of the season.

At the time, I was willing to let all this slide. What I could accept was when Cordelia returned the following season seemingly alright to help Angel and then disappeared. Angel then got a phone call that she had died offscreen. I never truly forgave the series for doing this, and was actually glad when the show was canceled that season.

For a long time this really hurt my ability to watch reruns of Buffy. It was really hard to watch Cordelia strut the halls of Sunnydale High knowing that she would dead around the time most women her age graduate college. To learn that Whedon essentially did all this because he was essentially punishing her for being pregnant makes a twisted sort of sense and makes it something that I find impossible to ever forgive.

Looking back on the Buffy/Angel world as a whole, I’m beginning to think the viewers may have completely misjudged Whedon as ever being a supporter of women in the first place. There’s a recurring joke by fans of the series that any time any of the characters would be in a happy romantic relationship Whedon decided to crush it. In retrospect, I often wonder if that was his own way of sniping at the warrior women he created – they couldn’t be both fierce fighters and happy romantically.

Leaving aside Buffy’s relationships, which were always going to be problematic there have been the issues with Willow. When Willow and her fellow witch Tara became girlfriends in Season 4, it was a landmark moment for gay teens everywhere. But in Season 6, Willow used her magic to overpower Tara, causing the two of them to break up. Just as they got back together, Tara was killed by a stray bullet from one of the villains of the season, which lead Willow to become a monster bent on revenge. This storyline was, next to Cordelia’s in Season 4, considered the nadir of both series.

Xander was the everyman of the show, and while it became a joke to have him considered a ‘demon magnet’, was there a larger statement there? Xander was in love with Anya a vengeance demon turned human. He left her at the altar in another flimsy Season 6 storyline – a visitor from the future told him he would become like his father, a drunk abuser.

But the storyline I found absolutely unforgivable involved Fred Burkle, one of the most engaging characters on Angel. After two years of flirtation, she finally seemed to find happiness with Wesley, who’d gone through his own demons, metaphorical or otherwise. The very next episode she ended up inhaling magic dust and dying, with her body being taken over by an ancient hell god.

Capped with what we know about Whedon now, was this some kind of statement that these powerful, brilliant woman could not be happy as long as they tried to be heroes? No matter how hard you try, love kills you. Which is as strong an anti-woman message as any misogynist could send.

How can we watch Buffy and Angel now, knowing this about its showrunner really seemed to view the women of his series? Can you admire the art and hate the artist? This is a conflict I haven’t really had to face before, but it does hurt. Maybe the answer lies in the fanfiction that has inspired over 50,000 stories at fanfiction.net alone. Buffy was not created by Whedon alone; there were dozens of writers (many of them female) and inspiring actresses at the time. Perhaps the fans can reclaim Buffy. The verdict of any TV show is how the fans react. We’ve been rewriting storylines we hated for decades. Maybe we can write around this, too.

As for the series,  the show was always epitomized by the talents such as Sarah Michelle Gellar. Perhaps we should let her remain of this series, not the deeply flawed creator.

MY Predictions for This Year's Golden Globes, Conclusion: Movies, Limited Series and Supporting Acting

 

OUTSTANDING TV MOVIE OR LIMITED SERIES

Essentially, this is a two series race. It’ll come down to either The Undoing or The Queen’s Gambit. The Undoing was the most nominated Limited Series, and it’s from HBO, which has dominated this category over the past decade. The Queen’s Gambit has developed a huge crossover appeal and after When They See Us was shut out last year, an argument could be made Netflix was overdue in this category. I personally feel that The Undoing was the better series, but I’m going to give the barest of edges to The Queen’ Gambit.

Should Win: The Undoing.

Will Win: The Queen’s Gambit

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR IN A TV MOVIE OR LIMITED SERIES

Bryan Cranston was superb in Your Honor, but the series overall was lacking. Jeff Daniels was fine in The Comey Method, but I think Trump fatigue is overwhelming. There’s a very good case for Ethan Hawke in The Good Lord Bird – he’s a great actor, it was a fine series, and he’s due – but no other nominations for the series will hurt.

I think it comes down to the two nominees for the HBO series. Mark Ruffalo gave a master class of acting in two different roles in I Know This Much is True, and he did win the Emmy last year. Hugh Grant was extraordinary in The Undoing and this would be a fine way to honor his late career renaissance. I’ll give the barest of edges to Grant, but Ruffalo has a better chance.

Should Win: Ruffalo/Grant.

Will Win: Ruffalo. (Now remind me why Chris Rock wasn’t nominated?)

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A TV MOVIE OR LIMITED SERIES

I don’t think either Daisy Edgar-Jones or Shira Haas have much of a chance. Cate Blanchett really deserves recognition for her exceptional work in Mrs. America, but I think her moment has passed.

It comes down to either Nicole Kidman or Anya Taylor-Joy. Kidman’s performance in The Undoing was the one that everybody was talking about last fall, but she’s received more than her fair share of recognition from the Globes. Taylor-Joy’s performance was a masterpiece in subtlety and she has the momentum. (Besides, this’ll make up for almost certainly losing for Emma.)

Should Win/Will Win: Taylor-Joy.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A SERIES, MOVIE OR LIMITED SERIES

Jim Parsons has no realistic chance. Brendan Gleeson gave a good performance, but again, people just want to ignore Trump everywhere. John Boyega is a dark horse.

I think this’ll come down to a showdown between Daniel Levy for Schitt’s Creek and Donald Sutherland for The Undoing. I don’t know if the momentum for Schitt’s Creek will carry over and it’s been more than seven years since an actor from any series won in this category. I’ll give the barest of edges to Sutherland, keeping in mind that these are often the categories with the biggest surprises.

Should Win: Gleeson.

Will Win: Sutherland.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A SERIES, MOVIE OR LIMITED SERIES.

In all my years of observing the Golden Globes, I honestly don’t remember the last time every nominee was from an actual television series.  That’s remarkable in itself (Though I would’ve liked to have seen Jessie Buckley here.)

The only nominee who seems completely out of the running in Cynthia Nixon for Ratched. Otherwise, there’s a good argument for the other four nominees. Garner has already won two Supporting Actress Emmys. Murphy won the Emmy last year, and the Schitt’s Creek juggernaut could carry her. Both Gillian Anderson and Helena Bonham Carter gave master classes of acting in The Crown. It’s a very close question, but I believe Anderson’s incredible work as Margaret Thatcher will carry the day.  The Globes has given trophies to actors who play Prime Minister’s before, and Anderson had an impressive track record from her time with The X-Files. Bare in mind though, this is the category where the most surprises historically come.

Should Win/Will Win: Anderson.

 

Be back Monday with my reactions to the results.

My Prediction For This Year's Golden Globes, Part 1: Best Drama and Comedy Series

 

It just seems that things keep going wrong for the Golden Globes. There was controversy over the nominations, there’s the fact that the awards will be given in a socially distance manner, and now there’s the recent controversy over fees for the show and the membership of the Hollywood Foreign Press itself. Can even the always sparkling Tina Fey and Amy Poehler make this year’s show glow? (Granted after Ricky Gervais last year, it can only go up from there.)

Controversies are not the subject of my column. I will once again try to predict this year’s winners for TV, though my track record in this regard is spotty at best. I didn’t see Succession coming last year and I completely misread the judgment on Russell Crowe and Ramy Youseff. Still, with an almost entirely new group of nominees, there’s the possibility of a lot of good choices. So here I go.

 

OUTSTANDING DRAMA SERIES

The Mandalorian just isn’t the kind of series the Golden Globes honors. They might honor Lovecraft County… but the nomination for Best Drama is the only one it got. So I think it’s going to come down to a faceoff between The Crown and Ozark.

It’s rare that any show that wins Best Drama or Comedy repeats – the last time that happened was with Boardwalk Empire. And its rarer that it happens after two or three years. Nevertheless, given the fact that it was nominated for a whopping six awards, I think this is The Crown’s to lose.

Should Win: Lovecraft County.

Will Win: The Crown

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR IN A DRAMA

This is a far trickier category to handicap as there’s a good argument to be made for every single nominee. O’Connor and Bateman seem like the likeliest candidate because their series were nominated, but there have been more than a few occasions when the winner hasn’t had a nominated show.

I really want Bob Odenkirk to win. To say he is owed is an understatement. But I think the more likely winner is going to be Matthew Rhys for his superb performance in the title role in Perry Mason. The series was vastly underrepresented, Rhys was superb in the role, and let’s be honest, the Globes should have given him a trophy for The Americans.  I think he’ll get it this year.

Should Win: Odenkirk.

Will Win: Rhys.

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A DRAMA

Killing Eve’s moment has passed, and I don’t think Sarah Paulson is worthy for Ratched. Laura Linney could prevail for Ozark, if the two nominees from The Crown cancel each other out. That said, I think it’s going to be one of them.

Colman is one of only two winners from last year with a chance to repeat, and she has a very good track record with the Hollywood Foreign Press in general. Emma Corrin’s work as Diana is superb, there is no question. But I think I’m going to give Colman the barest of edges.

Should Win: Corrin/Colman

Will Win: Colman.

 

OUTSTANDING COMEDY SERIES

The easiest prediction of the night. Much as I’d love to see Ted Lasso prevail, this is Schitt’s Creek’s time to shine. I don’t know if it can duplicate its track record at last year’s Emmys, but considering its five nominations, it’s impossible to imagine it losing. It’s just so darn nice.

Should Win/Will Win: Schitt’s Creek.

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR IN A COMEDY

This one stings a little. I’ve come to truly marvel at Ramy Youseff’s work in Ramy (yes, his win last year was not a mistake) and Jason Sudeikis’ performance in Ted Lasso is just so funny and lovable that I want him to win.

But nothing can stand in the way of the juggernaut that is Eugene Levy. And really, nothing should. He is one of the greatest comic actors in history and he deserves every trophy he gets for Schitt’s Creek. Youseff already won, and as for Sudeikis, there’s always next year.

Should Win: Sudeikis.

Will Win: Levy.

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

And this one hurts even more. I really would like to see Kaley Cuoco win a prize for something – she was about the only person connected with The Big Bang Theory who never won anything. And really, I marvel at Jane Levy’s well, extraordinary, work on Zoey’s Extraordinary Playlist.

But just as was the case in Best Actor, I don’t think anything can prevent Catherine O’Hara from taking the prize. She’s a national treasure, though not nearly as recognized as much as her co-star Levy is, and she’s deserve to win something even longer. (They even satirized it once.) She doesn’t need consideration. She’s got this.

Should Win: Levy.

Will Win: O’Hara.

 

Be back tomorrow with Limited Series and the Supporting Awards.

Better Late Than Never: The Crown Season 4 Review

 

Among the many, many achievements of Netflix’s magnificent series The Crown is that it manages something that very few series – even in the age of Peak TV ---  manage to accomplish. It shows how the flaws in each generation get passed down from father to son, or as in the case of this season, mother to son. As the series progresses into the 1980s, the show shifts its focus from Elizabeth and Philip (Olivia Colman and Tobias Menzies are still extraordinary) to the troubled Prince Charles. I had doubts about Josh O’Connor being nominated as a Lead Actor in the Golden Globes and Critics Choice, but after watching the first two episodes, I have changed my mind.

As the heir to the throne, Charles has always been under tremendous pressure from his parents, finding only solace from his grandfather Lord Mountbatten (who, as in history, was assassinated in the season premiere) and his sister Anne. At first, one wondered if some of this was mere historical memory – Edward VIII was the last Prince of Wales, and they all remember how badly that ended. But as the series progresses, I have come to wonder: did his parents ever love him in the first place? I have seen almost no scenes where they respect his wishes or treat him with anything resembling love. Even in a time of great trauma, when his grandfather was killed, Philip offered the barest amount of comfort one could, and practically no affection. When you consider the first two seasons of the series, when Philip chafed at his role and the institutions around it by the protocols, and just how much Margaret suffered, having to give up the man she loved and being trapped in a disastrous marriage, you would think they would feel some measure of empathy for the situation Charles is caught in. But now that they are the elder generation, they not only see no problem in the same pressure to their children, they don’t even mention the irony in private.

Indeed, the longer the series airs, the more detached from reality the royal family seems to be. This was perhaps most magnificently portrayed in the second episode: ‘The Balmoral Test’. Margaret Thatcher has come to the power, and faces some of the greatest challenges with her new policies. Elizabeth seems to admire her achievements, and continues to demonstrate her own canny skill. (Thatcher is impressed in private as to how well she predicted her cabinet.) But Thatcher is the first Prime Minister who not only is not impressed with the trappings of royalty, but is actually appalled when she is invited to Scotland and watches the rituals that the royal family indulges in. For the past three seasons, the viewer has been so ingrained in the royal family’s behaviors that it’s a great feat of the series to look at it from Thatcher – who was of working class origin – and she just how archaic and out-of-touch it truly seems.  When Thatcher has her final meeting with the Queen, it is the first time we have seen the Prime Minister look at the Queen  as not something to be respected but as part of the problem. (Gillian Anderson, one of television greatest actresses, is so spot-on as Thatcher that she makes you realize just how much of a pastiche Meryl Streep’s work in The Iron Lady was.)

The great irony is, the next in line has realized as much as Thatcher just how behind the times his family and the throne are. Privately raging at the way his family has kept him away from Camilla, Charles finds himself (partially because of her urging) into reluctantly wooing Diana Spencer. In the same episode that Thatcher ‘failed’ the Balmoral Test, Diana undoubtedly passed it. We now realize just from appearances that Charles never loved Diana, but his parents thought she was ‘suitable’. He has objections that he relates to both Camilla and his sister, but he realizes has to go through with it. The fact that audience knows just how doomed the relationship is gives a new level considering that we now know it never had a chance. It was literally ‘a made for TV event’ from beginning to end.

I don’t think there’s been a series since the days of Mad Men to achieve what The Crown is doing now: reveal just how clear the generation and society gap truly can be. The fact that one did it in 1960s America and the other does it in English royalty makes even more astonishing. It is helped by the incredible work of the entire cast, which is astonishing considering we were so sympathetic to Colman’s portrayal just last season. Now the most empathetic performances are those of O’Connor as Charles and the incredible Emma Corrin as Diana.  In the tradition of the series, Season 5 (whenever it happens) will feature a new cast with Lesley Manville moving in as Elizabeth as he approaches old age and Dominic West and Elizabeth Debicki taking the reigns as Charles and Diana. This may be Netflix’s single greatest achievement – and yes, I say this for a network that created Orange is the New Black and Stranger Things. One almost wishes that creator Peter Morgan wasn’t so determined to end the series at Season 6 – whenever I hear a story about Brexit or Harry and Meghan Markle, I can’t help but wonder: what could his writers do with it?

Note: Yes, it’s still rated TV-MA and no, I still don’t know why. There is some harsh language and nudity, but seriously, if James Bond movies are being released as PG-13, I can’t think of a reason a teenager wouldn’t be able to watch this without being corrupted.

My score: 5 stars.

A Refreshing Look At A Tired Genre: Clarice Review

 

A confession before we begin: I never much cared for The Silence of the Lambs. Yes, I’m fully aware that without much of the profile-based procedural wouldn’t exist (which wouldn’t have been a great loss, IMHO) and there’s a very good chance that Dana Scully’s character would never have evolved the same way (which would have been a huge loss) but for all the brilliance of the performances and the direction, I’m not sure the world has become a better place because of it. Hannibal Lecter was played to death after Ridley Scott’s mess of a sequel and we’ve seen so many series based on serial killers that the idea has practically become banal and has no doubt led to the true crime obsession that has followed in its wake.  Maybe the brilliant Hannibal was a work of art, but having never watched it, I can’t say one way or the other. So I really didn’t think I’d have any used for CBS’ Clarice, a series which follows Clarice Starling a year after her experience with Buffalo Bill and Dr. Lecter.

However, I didn’t realize just how just how show runners Alex Kurtzman and Jenny Lumet would approach this new series. This show takes place in the early 1990s, when people still think those who profile are just as crazy as the criminals they’re chasing. And in the case of Clarice, they might very well be correct. Clarice is still going through what seems to be PTSD and is definitely a strong sense of denial as we see in the opening therapy session she’s going through in the Pilot. She gets drawn back in to the field reluctantly when Catherine Martin’s mother (now the Attorney General with even more ambition beyond this) puts her back in against her will to help a unit to try and chase down serial killers.

The team she’s apart of is very prickly towards her. DI Krendler (Michael Cudlitz, playing a variation of the authority figure he did so well in Southland) doesn’t think she has any business being in the field. How much of this is distrust of Quantico, her inexperience or ingrained sexism is still not clear. Her other teammates, Shaan Trapathi (Kal Penn) and especially counter-sniper Esquivel are more inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt, which she’s still not entirely willing to give them.

The crimes the Bureau is called in to investigation are, like so many of the other procedurals these days, more or less conventional, and to an extent, not entirely believable. (When Clarice catches the killer in the Pilot and reveals that he’s part of a conspiracy, Krendler tells her to tell the media that the killings were the work of a serial killer. The implication seems to be that this is more comforting to the world than the idea of a conspiracy, which is borderline laughable in any context, even in the early ‘90s.) What makes the series work – so far – has been the superb performance of Rebecca Breeds in the title role. She has Jodie Foster’s accent and mannerism from the movie almost down perfectly, but what makes her character interesting is something that I’m pretty sure has never been explored in any follow-up to the book or movie – just how much trauma Starling went through with her experiences. We see Catherine Martin a couple of times in the Pilot, and her mother tells her that she’s in terrible shape and Starling has refused to talk with her since saving her life – the implication being that the ordeal has scarred nearly as badly. This is something that I’ve never seen on any procedural dealing with killers – most of these shows focus so much on the murderer and the investigators that almost no attention is paid to the victims.  And at the very least, it’s a more intriguing picture than the ones we get.

Now, to be clear, I’m not entire sure if Clarice can manage to keep working. The series uses far too many montages and flashbacks to emphasize Starling’s state of mind throughout the episode. I’m sure it’s meant to show a state of confusion; it looks like Terence Malick is behind the camera. And I’m not sure if this series intends to resolve the cases once their over, though it is a change of pace from the killer-of-the-week approach. But after drowning in the conventional CBS’ procedural for decades, it is refreshing to see that somebody is willing to take a different approach to darkness and madness. At the very least, it’s a good time-filler until Evil returns. (It was renewed CBS, right?)

My score: 3.75 stars.

 

Craig of the Creek: A Perfect Blend of Animation and Imagination

 

In my many columns over the last few years, I believe the field I have given the least attention to is animation. This isn’t because I don’t appreciate it – I do – or that there isn’t a lot of good animated programs out there – there definitely are – it’s just because I don’t have enough time to pay attention all of the great series out there.

But over the years I have grown increasingly fond of the animated series that show up on Cartoon Network. I will admit that I never appreciated some of the early original gems – Powerpuff Girls and Dexter’s Laboratory were in their own way, minor masterpieces that I hope this new generations finds – but over the last few years, I have come to appreciate many of the gems that have come out. These include not just the critically acclaimed Adventure Time and Steven Universe, but many of the less heralded series. I had a lot of trouble appreciating Teen Titans GO!, mainly because, like many others I had fond memories of an early incarnation, but over the past few years I have come to love it. This is a series that not only bites the hand that feeds them on so many occasions – the Batman led ‘TV Knight’ episodes are little gems – but have over the years expanded to take swings at a lot of other targets, from the cartoon format they inhabit to various other franchises. (‘Space Adventure’ took a lot of great swings as both the Star Trek and Star Wars universes in a way that I think fans of both franchises could admire.) I’ve always been fond of The Amazing World of Gumball, which takes the idea of ‘What if The Simpsons took place in a world where everybody was a different animal?” and has expanded into many glorious parodies. (In one great episodes, they poked fun not only at the world of the Final Fantasy video game series but the entire culture of gaming itself, something that has been a recurring theme on the show.)

But during the last few weeks, I have become particularly fond of a series that has a certain parody but is more interesting in a real world. Craig of the Creek, by comparison to some of the other cartoons, has a more realistic view. Craig is a young boy, who with his fiends JP and Kelsey go on adventures in an untamed wilderness in a creek. This world is run by ninjas, archers, and has places like Cardboard City and the Kingdom of the Overpass. But while this world is completely real to all the children, the series makes no effort – like say, Muppet Babies did – to pretend that these worlds are actually realistic. They all look like things that eight to twelve-year olds have painstakingly built and while they see them as real, they all go to their homes at the end of the day. Even more amazingly, these children clearly live in the world of today – they have cell phones and read mangas, but they are fully committed to the imagination of this world with an innocence that is not only missing from so many TV shows, but also so many children’s shows. There’s something so pure in the way Craig says ‘Whoa’ when he discovers something he hasn’t known before, and it fills me with joy.

And the plots can be just so simple and heartwarming. In an episode I saw recently ‘Sleepover at J.P.’s, J.P. invites Craig and Kelsey to his home for a sleepover and is ultra focused on staying up to watch a late night TV series clearly modeled on SNL. The group then gets involved in a game of flashlight tag at the Creek, much to J.P.’s increased dismay. Finally, when they have all been taken prisoner and J.P. gets mad, Craig understandably wants to know why he needs to see this show so badly. J.P.’s answer is heartbreaking – he wants his friends to meet his mother, and this show is one of the few times he gets to spend with her. (We learn she’s an airplane pilot and that’s why she’s frequent absent for long periods.) When eventually they manage to get home, the cartoon ends on one of the more moving sights I’ve seen in any program recently – Craig gets a mac and cheese he’s made for his mom, and we see the TV on, unwatched while the friends have an animated conversations with J.P’s mother.

I suppose I should mention that Craig is an African-American child, and indeed that a majority of the characters in this series are either African or Asian Amer0can. In a way, I recognize the significance of this – there have been far too little representation of minority characters on animated series even in the past few years. But in another, more important way, it doesn’t matter at all. Craig at the Creek remembers what it was like to be a child and get simple pleasure of make-believe fights, eating junk food and when a blizzard meant no school. It even remembers what it was like when you got to old to comfortably play like this any more. Children should watch Craig of the Creek to see how they should spend their childhood. Adults should watch it for sentimental reasons. This is a gem.

My score: 4.75 stars.

Couldn't Streaming Find More Room For Jeopardy?

 

I have mentioned in numerous articles how much I love Jeopardy. And, given that it’s one of the most popular game shows in history, one would think that this new world of streaming television could find room for it in its seemingly endless archives. But it’s always been tricky finding the series on line – which presents an interesting problem.

Given how quickly everything seems to end up on YouTube these days, one would’ve thought there would be a record of Jeopardy going back at least twenty years. And while you can find a lot of recordings of old episodes and more recent tournaments, it’s a lot less than you’d think. Like almost everything else on that server, what you find is piecemeal and with few complete games. I realize that’s perhaps inevitable for so many of the shows back in the twentieth century, but in this millennium where everything seems to end up online; you’d expect to see more.

Other streaming services, like Netflix and Hulu, have not exactly stepped up to meet the demand. Hulu has had only a handful of episodes in the course of a career, and Netflix only started to pick up Jeopardy games in the past three years. Even here, there’s little continuity. For a few months, you could get the season premiere of the last twenty years, along with the odd tournament. Then a few months later, you’d get some championship runs of some local competitors along with some more recent tournaments.

Now, I realize Netflix’s appeal has always been, in part, due to its ability to keep its run of the TV and movies relatively fresh. And I know that there might not be enough space or demand for every single episode of Jeopardy.  (Considering how much room they have for all of their original programming makes me seriously doubt that statement, but I’ll let it go for now.)

So I’ll propose a compromise. Why not put online every Tournament of Champions from the series inception til the current day? That would come to roughly 7000 minutes of playing time, or about 116 and a half hours. While that might seem like a lot, it’s slightly less time than the entire run of Law and Order: SVU or Criminal Minds, never mind all the episodes of Doctor Who they’ve got lying around. I have a feeling there might be more interest in that than seeing some of the more depraved serial killers on record, and its definitely more family friendly.  Plus in a world where so much of our energy is messed in reality TV with people who have the celebrity lifespan of a fruit fly, it would be nice to have somewhere people who had accomplished something by having knowledge. I’d rather as many people knew of Eddie Timanus’ accomplishments than of the non-accomplishments of any Kardashian.

And perhaps we could also have a record of all of the special tournaments that Jeopardy has had over its run. I listed most of the ones in a previous article, but perhaps we could put online Super Jeopardy, the show’s first prime time big tournament way back in 1990 as well the 10^th Anniversary Tournament of 1993. Knowing our history is nice, and knowing Jeopardy’s history would be even nicer. It would be another 75 hours, which is just a little less than half the amount of time you would spend on Blue Bloods, which has been on Netflix for a lot longer. (Hell, you could compare Tom Selleck’s mustache to Alex Trebek’s just for fun.)

I make this argument not so much as a Jeopardy fan – though I am one, no question – but as a fan of preserving TV heritage in general. I argue for the release on DVD of Classic TV many years ago, and now that streaming services have been willing to carry the ball, I think it is in the interest of the medium as a whole to carry the torch. Jeopardy is one of the great accomplishments in TV history, and now that Alex is gone, there should be some kind of record of his – and of the great champions that he so enjoyed sharing the stage with. If we can spare all that bandwidth for every incarnation of The Walking Dead, surely we can do it for Jeopardy.

.

It's Not Spoilers If They're Retelling the Same Story

 

Last night, I accidentally saw the last few minutes of Riverdale. I was a fan of the show early on, but halfway through the third season, I got sick of the series, mainly because it was just way too dark even for my taste, and I was starting to find the storytelling repetitive. I accidentally tuned in to the last few minutes of what was probably going to be the premiere of Season 5 in a pre-pandemic world, and this was what I saw.

The story had jumped ahead seven years. No doubt this was to handle the departure of cast members Skeet Ulrich and Marisol Nichols along with having to avoid the problem of whatever happens when a series set with it’s main cast in high school graduates.  Most of the cast was back in Riverdale, which was now a ghost town more or less under the thumb of Veronica’s father, crime boss Hiram Lodge. If this sounds familiar, you’re not alone: this was the basic storyline of Season 3 of the show – which was the result of most of Season 2. And it ended with another murder, which no doubt be the start of another string of serial killings, which started the show in the first place.

This has been a continuous flaw of so many broadcast television shows these days. The ones that aren’t procedurals or remakes/reboots of old series are literally replaying the same storylines over and over again. This, sadly, has become a real problem with the lion’s share of the series under Greg Berlanti’s purview the last several years. Not so much that the characters will face the same villain over repeated seasons (though that has happened more than a few times) but that the characters, whether they be Oliver Queen or Kara Danvers, will follow the exact same matter of fighting them. And far too many other network shows (I’m thinking mainly of series such as Blindspot or The Resident) follow much the same pattern.

The networks still don’t seem to have learned the lesson that, paradoxically, helped lead the Golden Age of Television. The main reason geniuses like David Chase, David Milch and Shawn Ryan left network television for pay and basic cable wasn’t so much that they were sick and tired of not being able to use profanity and violence but because they were sick of having to stick within the boundaries of formulaic television, that nothing fundamentally could change from week to week. We may be starting to get sick of antiheroes, but one can’t accuse Mad Men or The Americans of having the same kind of story from week to week or even season to season.

The model that network television seems to be going for is, sadly, Shonda Rhimes’ approach: the best way to deal with binging an entire series at once is to pile on the twists so fast you never have time to think. What no one seems to have learned from her approach is that, when you cut down the bone, Rhimes’ series are just as formulaic as CSI or Law & Order: SVU.

Every year on Scandal, Rhimes would have Olivia Pope and her gladiators fight against B613 and usually Chief of Staff Cyrus Beene. The struggle would take all season, many lives would be lost, and when it was over, they would defeat them – and by early the following season at the absolute latest, both of them would be back where they were before. She didn’t even have the guts to try and destroy the former in the finale; she had Rowan testify before Congress about what he’s done, and the implication was, he wouldn’t pay for it. It just seemed to make the entire series a waste of time.

But maybe we shouldn’t have been that surprised. Even before B613 appeared on the scene, in the first season, Olivia had to deal with a murder that could bring down the republic that was orchestrated by ‘Charlie’ and Billy Chambers, the vice president’s chief of staff. Chambers and Charlie were both revealed and presumed dead. The next season, the major story of the back half involved a mole who was revealing government secrets. Near the end of the season, we learned Charlie was the go-between and Billy Chambers was the mole. Maybe it was supposed to be the ultimate twist, but how it played out was that nothing that happened in the first season mattered. And that’s the approach that Rhimes and her acolytes have carried out, and that most of network television seems to have modeled itself after.

Much as I’d like to blame all of this on Rhimes, however, I don’t think its entirely her fault. I think a fair amount of the blame can be traced back to one of the greatest series of all times: The X-Files.  Now don’t get me wrong, I still consider it a masterpiece. But there was a fundamental flaw in how its mythology worked: no matter how great the revelations were every mytharc episode, by the two or three part episode, nothing would change. You’d think discovering a man who had the power to heal with the touch of a hand or a chess prodigy who could read people’s minds or a frigging UFO off the coast of Africa with religious texts inscribed in it would have some effect on the world. But when it was over, the only people who seemed to have any knowledge of it were Mulder and Scully, and they would just move on to the next monster of the week.

To be fair, many of the writers of this series learned their lesson. Howard Gordon and Vince Gilligan would learn their lessons and create several of the greatest serialized dramas of all time. (Gordon would eventually write for 24, a broadcast show that didn’t rely on the same kind of formula). A few others would collaborate on Fringe, another broadcast show that took its mythology completely seriously. But what network executives seemed to take away was creating series that would follow the same formula with the same villains in the shadows never to be defeated or ‘brought into the light’ as Rhimes’ Olivia Pope would say over and over without actually doing it.

Network television has been undergoing major drops in its ratings throughout the last decade. There hasn’t entirely been a drop in quality; there have been a series of brilliant comedies and even a few great dramas, such as The Good Wife and Parenthood that learned how to operate without a formula or to change it when things started getting stale. But if broadcast television is to have any hope of reversing the drop that keeps happening year in and year out, they have to start breaking the formulas rather than rebooting them. Another Equalizer will not save TV. Another American Crime might.

I Have Measured Out My Life in Jeopardy Tournaments: A Rare Personal Reflection

 

Throughout the years I have often referred to my great love of Jeopardy. Every year or so, I mention that the series has been a constant in my life since childhood, that the champions were at one time more familiar to me than actual friends, and how much the late Alex Trebek has meant to me. What I have not really gone into is how much certain elements of the show have always appealed to me and have, in their own way, been a calendar.

I have mentioned on occasion how special I find the Tournaments Jeopardy seems to have every few years to commemorate champions of years past.  What I’ve left out is how I measure them. Ever since the Million Dollar Masters in 2002, I have gone through the process of recording almost every celebration of Jeopardy over the years and making a schedule to rewatch them. These include the Ultimate Tournament of Champions in 2005, The Battle of the Decades in 2014, The Jeopardy All Star Tournament in 2019 and last years Prime Time: Jeopardy: Greatest of all Time.

And over the years, I have set up schedules to watch them. I start with the Million Dollar Masters in early January. Then in February, I begin watching the Ultimate Tournament of Champions. (It was the most complex and involved 76 games played over the better part of four months.) In the summer, usually after the series goes on hiatus, I watch the Battle of The Decades, which took place over five weeks. And I close out the year by rewatching the All Star Tournament.

I have never in all the years of recording considering binge watching any of these tournaments. That has always gone against what seemed to be the rules of the show. You got one episode a day; why should I change it now that I have it all on tape? (I’ve never been much for binge watching in the first place, so why should I violate my code now). Besides, it’s never been about playing along. It’s about appreciate the skill of truly talented players. Not just those who have become famous over the past few years, like Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter, but the pioneers who made the series what it was over the years. Men and women like Frank Spangenberg, Eddie Tumanus (the first blind five day champion) and Robin Carroll, to later sensations like Austin Rogers and James Holzhauer. It also is fun to see the categories that have made the series what it is, and which you’d never find on any other show. I don’t know where else you’d see categories like THOSE DARN ETRUSCANS, GRANDSON OF WOOD, GHASTLY OPERATIC DEMISES and one of those perennial favorites, BEFORE & AFTER. Does anyone even remember that this was originally a Wheel of Fortune category before Jeopardy perfected it?

In a way, this series has helped measure the seasons of my life, more than the actual calendars. There are two ways in which I view the passage of the year: award shows and Jeopardy tournaments. And both have gotten me through some difficult periods, particularly in the last four years. Indeed, during the past year, I measured the scope of the pandemic and when I hoped it would be over based on when I watched my tournaments. Way back last March, I really hoped the lockdown would be over when I finished the Ultimate Tournament of Champions in late May. Oh, how naïve I was.

And of course, as I watch it this year, my thoughts will turn to Alex. I think, as much as anything else, these tournaments brought out the very best in Alex Trebek. He didn’t really associate with champions outside of Jeopardy (or so he said) so I can’t help but think that these tournaments served as a reunion with old friends with him. His ability to interview contestants was one of his greatest strengths, and in every tournament (including the annual Tournaments Of Champions) he always seemed to be interested in the good ways winning had affected these contestant lives. He would make comments about things that they had done in the years they’d been gone – jobs that they gotten, books that they written, how their lives had changed. More than anything else, he made sure that the show was all about the champions, though he really seemed to be having as much as fun as they were. It will be hard watching these tournaments knowing Alex is no longer there, but it will also serve as a reminder as to how great he was.

Today, as I begin to rewatch the Ultimate Tournament of Champions, many thoughts will cross my mind. What will the world be like when I finish it in three months? What will Jeopardy be like in the future? And more than anything, how much of an icon Alex Trebek is, was and always will be. He may be gone, but as long as these tournaments and his shows are replayed, we always have a record of legacy. (Of course, I have thoughts on how streaming services choose to show, but I’ll save that for another article.)

 

Can This Nice Guy Finish First: Better late Than Never Ted Lasso

 

Lawrence’s biggest fans. I truly believe that show was the best comedy series of the 2000s – I’d  compare it favorably over Everybody Loves Raymond and Will & Grace without blinking. He’s had some inspired shows in the past ten years – the very funny, if admittedly poorly titled Cougar Town, and the undervalued and underwatched Ground Floor and Life Sentence. It took me awhile to sign on to watching Ted Lasso his latest venture (I’ll explain why in a moment) but after a plethora of nominations from the Golden Globes and Broadcast Critics I signed on. I’m so glad I did.

Rebecca Welton (Hannah Waddingham) has just divorced a billionaire British media mogul. Among the many things she has won in his divorce is his beloved soccer team. She sacked the legendary coach, and in its place hires Ted Lasso (Jason Sudekis) the head of a very minor Kansas American football champion more known for his viral celebration dance than his success. Ted really isn’t sure why he’s been hired as he knows nothing about British football. But what he lacks for her understanding of the game, he more than makes up for in enthusiasm and pure cheerfulness. There is nothing that can mute his optimism and spirit, and considering how hostile the press, the fans, and his own players bear him, that’s perhaps his greatest asset.  What Ted doesn’t know is that Rebecca for the express purpose of failing spectacularly and destroying the team that her cheating husband loved more than life.

It is easy to think Ted, with his southern accent and apparent foolishness as just another idiot. But the key word is ‘apparent’. Ted is smarter than anybody (with the possible exception of his loyal assistant Coach Beard, wonderfully played by Brendan Hunt) would give him credit for. He has a good understanding of how people think, and I don’t know any sport coach who  has knowledge of Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography, which he uses to gently to put down a pesky reporter. He loves everybody and everything. He is nice when he know it might hurt him, and doesn’t care even when his own players like superstar Jamie Start and veteran Roy Kent treat him like dirt. And he’s great at winning people over; he instantly makes friends with a local gaffer Nathan, who is amazed that anybody is paying attention to him and tries his best to set up a good report with Jamie’s supermodel wife (Juno Temple is remarkable). Even though Rebecca wants so desperately to keep him at arms length, she can’t help but be impressed when he brings her ‘biscuits’ every morning. She tries to get her assistant to find out where he gets them from, not knowing Ted bakes them himself every night before he goes to best. There are hints that Ted is still suffering a bit – his wife and son have not come overseas with him, and the implication is great that their marriage is in trouble.

You don’t need to know about football or soccer or, heck sports at all, to love Ted Lasso. In typical Lawrence fashion, there are so many quick fire jokes going back and forth that the replay value is immense – some of them, like Ted’s reaction when he learns how many countries are in the United Kingdom, is one of the most brilliant political jokes I’ve heard in a very long time. The entire cast is superb, but full credit must be given to the impressive Jason Sudeikis. His work has always been below my radar, even when he was at his peak on Saturday Night Live, but this is one of the very lead performances I’ve seen in a comedy in a very long time. I didn’t know how long I’d have to wait to see a performance that was so centered around a truly nice person since Kidding was cancelled last year, but Sudeikis is more than up to the challenged. The series and the man are already on my short list for this year’s Emmys.

I have been very reluctant to watch anything on Apple TV, perhaps because of my own failures in ability to access it. But when I finally found myself available to do so and watch this exceptional comedy, they won me over. I’m so glad this show was renewed for two more seasons (Lawrence has always had to struggle for every new season of every other show he’s had on TV) and maybe I’ll be willing give some of their other shows a chance. Hell, maybe I’ll even like The Morning Show.

My score: 4.75 stars.

The SAG Nominations Came Out Yesterday...And I'm Actually Good With Them

 

It’s rare that I choose to comment on the Screen Actors Guild Nominations for Television. This is partially because they are not as extensive as the Critics Choice or even the Golden Globes, but its also because they have a nasty habit of giving the awards to the same people and series over and over again. Alec Baldwin won the prize for Best Actor five consecutive years and they were nearly as excessive for Orange is the New Black.

That said, they’ve been doing a much better job the last few years – recognizing just exceptional series as Stranger Things, This is Us and The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. And when I saw the listed nominees, in a rarity, I was a little happier with them than I was with the Golden Globes this year.

Ensemble in a Drama again featured four of last year’s best – The Crown, Ozark, Lovecraft County and Better Call Saul. I’m slightly more judgmental about Bridgerton, but you can’t have everything. Four of the nominees for Best Actor in a Drama were also good choices – Jason Bateman, Bob Odenkirk, Josh O’Connor and Sterling K. Brown. I‘m a little doubtful about Rege-Jean Page, but what can you can say? Is it wrong that all five nominees for Best Actress are from two series?  It’s hard to make that argument when you consider the work of the three women in The Crown and Laura Linney and Julia Garner in Ozark.

I’m also fully on board with four of the five nominees in the Best Comedy Ensemble- The Flight Attendant, Schitt’s Creek and Ted Lasso are superb, and I’m very gratified to see Dead to Me recognized. At this point, I may have to reevaluate my opinion on The Great. I have no problem at all with any of the five nominees for Best Actress in a Comedy – indeed, I’m overjoyed that both Christina Applegate and Linda Cardellini were recognized for their superlative to work on Dead to Me. Best Actor is a little more problematic, but I’m fine with four of the five nominees and its becoming increasingly clear that I now have to give more latitude to Nicholas Hoult.

And if anything, the nominees in Best TV Movie and Limited Series are better choices than the Golden Globes. Hugh Grant, Ethan Hawke and Mark Ruffalo are extraordinary in their work, and I’m glad to see Bill Camp acknowledged for his subtle work in The Queen’s Gambit. Would I have rather seen Daveed Diggs nominated for his work as Frederick Douglass in The Good Lord Bird than in Hamilton? Sure, but at least he’s been acknowledged for something. No Chris Rock, but Fargo never had much luck in the SAGs. All five choices for Best Actress are just as good and I’m over the moon that they recognized Kerry Washington for Little Fires Everywhere and made up for the Globes snub of Michaela Coel in I May Destroy You.. This list truly has five of the best performances of the past year.

I’ve even fine with the nominations in Stunt Ensemble in a Comedy or Drama. This is where The Mandalorian should be getting recognition as well as Westworld. Personally though, I’m rooting for Lovecraft Country.

After years of being stuck doing repeats, it finally seems the SAG awards may finally be getting a grip on how to give awards. Even it does duplicate last year’s winner of The Crown and give a lot of to Schitt’s Creek, it will be showing a range that the Hollywood Foreign Press doesn’t have this year. Hell, maybe next year we can talk about expanding to Best Ensemble in a Limited Series or Movie. It wouldn’t add that much time to an award shows that usually clocks in at two hours.

My Reactions To This Year's Golden Globe Nominations: Part 2, Limited Series/Supporting Awards

 

 

BEST TV LIMITED SERIES OR MOVIE

 It was inevitable, given the vast array of Limited Series that were brilliant this year, that there were going to be disappointments.  Rarely, however, have I felt more let down. I’m glad to see The Undoing and The Queen’s Gambit nominated, and I can understand the logic behind Normal People and Unorthodox. But I wished they make up their minds about whether Small Axe is a movie or TV.

And now I’ll vent. Nothing for Fargo or Little Fires Everywhere or even I May Destroy You?. Almost nothing for The Good Lord Bird or Miss America?  The Globes usually does much better for Limited Series than the Emmys does. But then again, they completely ignored Watchmen last year, so maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.

 

BEST ACTOR IN A LIMITED SERIES, ANTHOLOGY SERIES OR TV MOVIE

I have fewer qualms with this category. Hugh Grant and Mark Ruffalo fully deserve to be here, as does Ethan Hawke. I basically have no problem with Bryan Cranston or even Jeff Daniels, But couldn’t they have found room for Chris Rock’s incredible work in Fargo. Or Hugh Jackman’s superb performance in Bad Education?

 

BEST ACTRESS IN LIMITED SERIES, ANTHOLOGY SERIES OR TV MOVIE

Again mostly okay. Cate Blanchett, Nicole Kidman and Anya Taylor-Joy more than deserve to be here, and an argument can be made for Shira Haas and Daisy Edgar-Jones.

I’m disappointed by the continued shut out of Reese Witherspoon and Kerry Washington’s work on Little Fires Everywhere, and Michaela Coel searing work on I May Destroy You may be the most egregious snub of the entire Golden Globes. I think that will generate the most outrage.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

No problem with Daniel Levy or Donald Sutherland. I can see the argument for Brendan Gleeson for The Comey Rule, though I real thought Trump fatigue would’ve set in by now. Jim Parsons makes a certain amount of sense for Hollywood, though it is odd he’s the only nominee.

John Boyega was nominated as a lead by the Broadcast Critics for Small Axe, so I’m not sure why he’s listed as Supporting here. More to the point, I question his presence at all with the superb number of supporting performances in Fargo or The Good Lord Bird that were entirely ignored in this category. Hell, Mahershala Ali deserves it more. This is a really weird call.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

For a change, all of the nominees in this category are from series, Drama or Comedy.. I have no problem with Gillian Anderson or Helena Bonham Carter’s nominations for The Crown or Annie Murphy’s for Schitt’s Creek.  Considering she’s won the last two Supporting Actress in a Drama Emmys, it seems fitting that Julia Garner is here for Ozark.

Cynthia Nixon’s presence for Ratched  really doesn’t satisfy at all. I would much rather have seen Rhea Seehorn for Better Call Saul or Cynthia Erivo for The Outsider would’ve been a better choice. Hell, any of the fine actresses in Mrs. America would’ve been a better call. What does the Golden Globes have for Ryan Murphy?

 

I’ll be back in a few weeks to discuss who deserves to win and who will.

My Reactions To This Year's Golden Globe Nominations, Part 1

 

The Golden Globes nominations for television are always hard to figure out. More often than not, they tend to recognize what is a current sensation rather than seasoned performers. And often if they recognize you in your first season, they may never acknowledge you again. Even when they do, there rarely seems to be a consensus between the acting and the series.

You got a certain feeling with this year's nominations as well. There were a lot of good choices, don’t get me wrong. But the scattershot nature of the process really seemed to be in affect today, particularly in stark contrast to the nominations of the Broadcast Critics two weeks ago.

I’ll elaborate as we go through the choices.

 

BEST TV SERIES – DRAMA

It’s hard to argue that The Crown, Ozark and Lovecraft Country don’t belong here. But the remaining two nominations make less sense. The Mandalorian was a big deal… last year. And considering the lion’s share of its work is technical, I don’t think it deserves to be recognized in this category.

And I really don’t understand why Ratched, Netflix’s prequel to One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest is being recognized instead of Better Call Saul, This is Us or Perry Mason, all of which were superior programs. We’ll get to the other flaws in the nominations as we go.

 

BEST ACTOR IN A TV DRAMA

This is better by a bit. Bob Odenkirk, Matthew Rhys and Jason Bateman more than deserved to be considered for their work, and I actually don’t have a problem with Al Pacino being recognized for Hunters.

I’m still of two minds about Josh O’Connor’s nomination. His work on The Crow is superb, no question. But I still believe it falls more in the supporting category than a lead. Why couldn’t they have nomination Jonathan Majors for Lovecraft Countyr or Sterling Brown for This is Us instead?

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A DRAMA

I have no problem with Olivia Colman or Emma Corrin’s nominations for The Crown. Laura Linney more than deserved to be recognized for Ozark.  I can see the logic in nominating Jodie Comer, though I really feel the moment for Killing Eve has passed.

Again, I don’t see why Sarah Paulson deserved to get nominated for Ratched. I’d much rather have seen Jormee Smollett for Lovecraft Country or Sandra Oh or Claire Danes. This seems one of the Golden Globes weirder choices.

 

BEST COMEDY SERIES

Now we’re getting even more off track. I have no problem with Schitt’s Creek or Ted Lasso getting nominated, and there’s been enough buzz for The Flight Attendant.

But Emily in Paris? That’s not even the best comedy on Netflix. Dead to Me was shutout, and they didn’t acknowledge Insecure or Zoey’s Extraordinary Playlist.  And they considered The Great better than the second season of Ramy? That’s almost offensive. And that does seem weird that What We Do in the Shadows was completely ignored

 

BEST ACTOR IN A COMEDY

Eugene Levy, Ramy Youseff and Jason Sudeikis I have no problem with. I still don’t understand why Don Cheadle keeps getting nominated for Showtime series that aren’t really that good, but I’ll let it go.

And I’m not at all thrilled with the recognition given to Nicholas Hoult for The Great. Where the hell is Anthony Anderson or Jim Carrey? This is ridiculous.

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

A little better. Catherine O’Hara more than deserves to be here, and I’m glad to see Kaley Cuoco nominated. And Jane Levy being recognized for her work is, well, extraordinary.

But Lily Collins over Christina Applegate and Linda Cardellini? What the hell? And Elle Fanning doesn’t even deserve to be considered in the same sentence as Issa Rae or Pamela Adlon. This is not great at all.

 

Be back tomorrow when I deal with Limited Series and Supporting Awards.