Great Jeopardy Champion Says What? Seriously?

 

For the past seven days Jeopardy has been in the presence of greatness. Matt Amodio debuted last Wednesday and progressively is becoming one of the greatest champions the series has seen in nearly two years, certainly the best in the Post Alex Trebek era.

His approach has changed slowly as his wins have piled up. He has taken the approach of legendary champion James Holzhauer by starting on the $1000 clues and working his way up, searching for that elusive Daily Double. As he has play, his self-confidence has increased as in the Jeopardy round he traditionally wagers everything on those Daily Double has almost invariably been correct on them. Unlike Holzhauer, he has not been nearly reckless on his approach in Double Jeopardy; he’ll still search for the Daily Double, but when he finds them here, he’ll bet a lot more conservatively. As it is his totals have not been as enormous as a lot of champions, but they’ve been growing. Yesterday, he won $74,000, a single game total that has only been reached by three other players, two of whom were named James Holzhauer and Ken Jennings. Last night, he passed the quarter of a million dollar mark, which very few have ever reached.

Matt Amodio is truly becoming a great player. Yet for some reason, the online verse is a little irked at him for what may be the pettiest thing to hate a Jeopardy champion for. Apparently for every single response he gives in the game it itself, he always precedes it with ‘What is…”

Several things. First of all, I’ve been watching the game with an eye to detail for nearly thirty years, and I don’t think I would’ve picked up on it unless the truly anal retentive people in the Twitter-verse had found it irritated enough to mention.

Second of all, seriously? This is something to be irritated by? There have been a fair share of polarizing players on Jeopardy over the years, and you’re choosing to be irritated by the fact that he doesn’t use “Who” when he has the opportunity. I realized we lived in a nitpicking culture, but this strikes me as a truly ridiculous nit to pick.

And finally,  the most obvious reason, I have no doubt over the decades that Jeopardy has been on the air; many players have chosen this approach. That’s how the show has evolved. Whenever a date is mentioned, no one has ever gotten up in arms over the fact that contestants never phrase their response: “When is…” Geographic clues usually come up every game; does the world react that no contestant precedes there response: “Where is…”  And since How and Why aren’t real players in this game, that leaves Who and What. Is the fact that Matt has decided not to use one of the two traditional phrases for his answers really worth making a stink over? Are we that focused on everything that we have to complain that he uses one word a hundred percent of the time? I’d think people who watch the show would be more impressed that he almost never gets a clue wrong, rather than the fact that he never uses who.

What Jeopardy has always been known for – and given that we are now in an era of flux for the series, the show needs now more than ever – is great Jeopardy champions. And it is clear that Matt Amodio is very much one of them. The world should be cheering for Matt, and to be clear, that’s what the lion’s share of Jeopardy fans are doing now. I certainly am.  I want to see how far he can go, and how much he can win. If he chooses to occasionally say: “What is Henry Ford?” who are we to judge? All that really matters for a good champion is for him or her to do whatever works for them. And I don’t think anybody can argue that’s it definitely working for Matt. See you in the Tournament of Champions.

 

UPDATE: After I wrote this article, Matt won his eighth consecutive game. He did, however, get Final Jeopardy wrong. In a weird irony, the answer involved the classic Abbott and Costello routine Who’s on First and the question asked of the 5 W’s, the two that didn’t appear in the routine. He guessed: “What are where and why?” It’s actually where and when.

I guess in this case, knowing those two words would have helped him. But he won another $22,400 and is fast approaching $300,000. Keep it up Matt.

 

Better late Than Never: Wandavision Review

 

Note: In order to explain my exact feelings and problems with this series, I’m going to have to get personal with my own issues with a very specific medium and everything that has spun off from it in particular. It’s going to be longer, and it may not inspire love from a really big group of people. I can live with that.

 

I’ve never liked comic books. Not when I was ten, certainly not now. I’m not the kind of elitist that so many of my ilk are – I think that there are too many critics who’ve decided to reject anything comic book based sight unseen. But the fact, ever since I was young, I’ve always seen a flaw in them. Frankly, it’s so obvious, I’m rather surprised so few people have dwelt on it when they criticize them.

The basic problem with a comic book is the same problem with a lot of the comic strips that are still going on: they don’t end. Now it’s one thing for Peanuts and For Better or Worse to be going on, they are basically joke a day strips. But when you have a series like Superman or Wonder Woman that has been going on for decades and while the world outside has changed and the central characters haven’t aged a day, there’s a certain level of implausibility that was always hard to handle.

Even the fact that the plots for the lion’s share of the comics are the same today as they were in 1955, there’s a far bigger problem. Nobody ever dies. And I’m not talking about the fact that Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker are still the same age, give or take a few years. I’m young enough to remember the way the world basically stopped in 1992 when The Death of Superman came out. It was a huge deal. The media made a big deal of it, there was even an SNL sketch parodying the funeral. And it would’ve been a big deal – if Clark Kent and Superman hadn’t come back in about a year’s time. With no ramifications in any of the other comics.

That is when more or less I realized what all superhero comic books are: soap operas for teenagers. They tell basically the same story for years on end, there are evil twins in some cases, former loves coming back, and if a character dies, he or she will come back to life in a few months. There is no beginning, middle or end. And as someone whose entire love of entertainment is based on the idea of that, how can a comic book really be about anything?

I’ve had this feeling for the lion’s share of every comic book movie that’s come out in the last thirty years. The only exceptions have been the Christopher Nolan Batman movies. It wasn’t just that Nolan and his group of filmmakers created a world as close to one where comic books and the current world meet; it’s that there were consequences. Ras Al Ghul was just as evil as he is in the world, but he wasn’t immortal. Nolan only brought him back in the final movie in flashbacks and as a ghost. Harvey Dent became Two-Face, was killed, and not only did Nolan not bring him back; he used his death as the catalyst for The Dark Knight Returns. There were elements of some well remembered comics in quite a few of the movies, but Nolan didn’t use them as Easter eggs but rather to try and explore the real-life ramifications of how this work. There were almost no references to previous characters or alter ego; Selina Kyle never called herself Catwoman once.

No other comic book movie – certainly not in the Marvel-verse - has ever tried anything like that. All they have to try to be is entertainments. In some cases, they have succeeded immensely – Civil War and Black Panther were extraordinary well-plotted and written movies which had stirring motivations for its characters – but I didn’t really see anything like a deeper meaning. Some critics have tried to read that into them, but I can’t exactly see that logic at all. Basically, they have been the same kind of stories we get from your typical action movie – great stunt, good dialogue, some great villains – but ultimately ephemeral.

I’ve had similar obstacles with almost every comic book based TV series. The best ones have always been the animated ones – Batman: The Animated Series made the villains come to life in a way the earlier movies never had; Spiderman: The Animated Series was the most effective portrayal not only of the title characters and his villains, but basically every other Marvel crossover to that point. Unfortunately, we’re now drowning in that them, and instead of trying to be episodic they tend towards one overarching plot.

Similar obstacle impugned almost every comic book based series since. Smallville worked brilliantly for a very long time, mainly because it was focused on the life of Clark Kent and tried very hard to revise the mythology. Unfortunately, it was still locked into the comic books and we had to have endless seasons involving Lana Lang, a character who had no purpose in Superman’s mythology. And frankly, the closer Clark came to becoming Superman, the less interesting he became (though to be fair, there were a quite a few interesting stories going on).I have praised the Arrow-verse for being exceptional at times, but sadly the longer every show in the first group stayed on the air, the more trapped into formulas they became, not so comic book formulas but the recycling of the same plots, season after season. (Stargirl, please prove me wrong.) And if I’ve had some patience for DC based TV, I’ve had nearly none for Marvel. Agents of SHIELD was a complete mess the two seasons I watched it. (I’m told it got better; I’ll never check to find out.) And I barely even glanced at all the Netflix Marvel series that aired from 2015-2019.  I’m told that some were extraordinary, but given the option of watching Jessica Jones or Bloodline it wasn’t a contest.

So when Disney+ started its Marvel based shows earlier this year, I had as much as enthusiasm to watch them as I did to start looking at The Mandalorian last year. (At some point, I’ll probably have to get back to that series, but I’d rather binge watch all of Grey’s Anatomy first.)  Even as the Emmy talk grew exponentially louder for Wandavision and after it did so well at the MTV TV and Movie awards, I had very little desire to start down a rabbit hole I’d spent the last decade pretty much avoid. But I knew I had to. So in June, I started watching it. And honestly, I’m mostly glad I have.

The series supposedly takes place after Wanda Maximoff (Elisabeth Olsen) and Vision (Paul Bettany) were killed in the Blip that took place at the climax of Infinity War. Now, they seem to be in the town of Westview, New Jersey trying to live a ‘normal’ life. This life seems to be being lived in the terms of a sitcoms with a laugh track playing in the background as Wanda and Vision try to live like a normal married couple, without you know, revealing their superpowers. Then the kinks start in. In the pilot, set in the 1950s, Vision’s ‘boss’ starts choking and Wanda orders Vision to ‘save him’ supernaturally. In the next episode, there seems to be a burglar trying to break in the pilot. Westview is still black and white – then Wanda spots a red helicopter. At a town meeting, someone breaks a glass and red blood appears. The radio starts broadcasting directly to Wanda. And near the end of the ‘episode’ she sees someone trying to enter through the sewer. She says ‘no’ and the ‘episode’ goes back, and ends with her becoming pregnant and the world going to color.

The third episode reveals the biggest changes so far. Wanda’s pregnancy, which started the day before, advanced at such a rapid rate she was giving birth within hours. The labor pains ending up bringing the roof of the house down, and Vision literally flew over to the doctor’s house to bring him back. Wanda was visiting by her African-American neighbor Geraldine (though even I, who know almost nothing about the Marvel-verse know that’s not who she really is) who ends up helping Wanda deliver her twins. But afterwards, things got even stranger. When Vision left the house, the doctor said no one leaves. Then his neighbors told him, Wanda should be alone with his Geraldine that’s she ‘strange’ though they stopped just short of telling her why. Then Wanda mentioned she had a brother named Peter. Geraldine then says: “He was killed by Ultron, wasn’t he?” Wanda blinks a couple of times. Geraldine then says: “What happened to Pietro?” Wanda turns around, and when Vision enters the house Geraldine is gone. The last shot of the episode is of ‘Geraldine’ back in the real world with apparently every police car approaching her.

Now I know by now everybody in the world knows what’s really going on and what the secrets are. I still don’t and for the benefits of those of you who haven’t seen it yet, let me tell the reasons I really like Wandavision so far.

First of all, it’s really funny.  Paul Bettany had to be a robot as part of his act and Elisabeth Olsen had a mostly tragic history, so it’s actually wonderful to see just how good they are at comedy. As they try to explain how they are while they use their powers, there’s actually quite a lot of laughs to be mined out of this that would not be out of place in a comedy of this era – that you know, would never get made. The openings of every episode are a deliberate satire of the theme and intros to so many comedies and they’re equally entertaining. I was reminded very often the work of Darin Morgan, the satirist-deconstructionist of The X-Files and quite frankly could see quite a few of the lines being written by him. I’m well aware that the series won’t stay this way, but it’s a lot of fun.

And since I know nothing about the plotline about the comic book this is supposedly based on, I can appreciate the mystery that’s being laid out before me. It’s very clear that Wanda is doing something to manipulate this universe and that Westfield is some kind of illusion. But who exactly is controlling this illusion? Is it Wanda or is someone else trying to save her? For the first time in I don’t know how long, I actually care about what happens to the characters in a comic book movie/TV shows.

And it’s easy to see why the Emmys – who have spent the better part of their existence ignoring anything comic book based for recognition –decided to give Wandavision a whopping twenty-three nominations. Technically, every aspect of it from the cinematography to the music is brilliant, the direction is top-notch, and all of the performances are brilliant, particular as it comes to straight satire with deeper meanings underneath. The one I’m particular happy about is Kathryn Hahn’s work as ‘Agatha’, the kooky next-door neighbor who clearly knows a lot more than she’s telling. I know that Hahn’s role in this is very deep (she took the prize for Best Villain from MTV in April) but as someone who has been in awe of her work for the last decade, I really hope that she uses this to get the Emmy she has been more than owed since at least Season 4 of Parks & Rec.

Will I still like Wandavision when I get to the end? I’m honestly not sure. Comic book arcs (I’m old) are often disappointing when they’re resolved. But for the first time in a very long time, I honestly want to get the end. Wandavision is a joy to the senses and a delight even to those – like me – who want nothing to do with comic books. That being said, I’m not entirely sure I’d want to go down this path again – I’m kind of relieved The Falcon and The Winter Soldier basically got ignored.

My score: 4.5 stars.

 

 

New Rule: Stop Saying Bill Maher is On Your Side

 

 

I really don’t like have to write about the same subjects over and over. And I’ve made a noble effort over the past decade writing about television to do my level best to keep politics out of this column. That being said, considering that this subject refers to a political comedian whom both sides really don’t seem to understand, I feel I have a certain obligation to revisit this.

Over and over you see members of the conservative media try to hang on to the idea that Bill Maher should be listened to because he’s a voice on the left and he’s on their side. And the liberal media thinks Maher is an old white man who doesn’t understand how America works any more. In the classic way of punditry both sides are completely right and utterly mistaken.

I have been watching Bill Maher perform in some format or other over the past thirty years and while the world has changed dramatically, Maher’s act never has. He has always believed that democracy has never worked. He has always believed that women and the euphemisms we use for the world to try and define things have made the world worse. He doesn’t believe in religion or therapy. He doesn’t believe in families. He believes alcohol and drugs are more important the danger they cause (As he once put It ‘fun costs you”) He thinks that pornography leaves too little to the imagination these days.  And he’s never been an ally for anybody. He thought that Kennedy was a great president not for his policy, but for whom he had sex with. He felt that Clinton was pilloried, but had no sympathy for Monica.  He thinks Republicans are hypocrites and Democrats are too weak. The only thing he really believes in is the legalization of marijuana. Anything else is too much.

Maher’s cynicism is not unusual for a stand-up comedian – honestly the greatest of them all have been cynics. But it’s hardly the best formula for a late-night talk-show host. When Maher was beginning his career, with few exceptions most comedians believed in making the audience their friend and gently poked at the world. In that sense, Maher paved the way for great late night hosts like Jon Stewart and Seth Meyers.  But the world of comedy and politics has changed immensely since Maher started out. These days, the best late night comedians are still very cynical, but they have never forgotten to try and let the audience in on the joke. James Corden and Jimmy Fallon rely on it far less and when they do, they put in sugar to make the medicine go down. Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers and John Oliver acknowledge that a lot of what they do is very depressing, but they are aware enough to do so and try to offer hope with their medicine. Maher has never done that. He doesn’t even pretend that what’s he selling is medicine. It’s pure hydrochloric acid. And his audience has been drinking it for so long; they have noticed how badly it has rotted them from the inside out.

There are many on the left who consider Maher a racist or a misogynist. I don’t think he’s either. He’s a reactionary and a misanthrope. I think that may be the reason he may have so much appeal among the Fox news types and has invited so many of them on his show. They disagree completely with how the country should be handled, but Maher agrees completely with them on what’s making it bad.

 And if you’ve followed his act all these years, you shouldn’t be surprised. He thought the Clarence Thomas confirmation was an act – but not because he believed Anita Hill. That didn’t change twenty-five years later; he’s fine with sexual harassment charges being taken more seriously – as long as it doesn’t affect an old friend. (He advocated for Al Franken to run for President in 2018 and when one of his female guests suggested he was mistaken, he talked over her.) He thinks that the Hollywood blockbuster is destroying America – and that the Oscars are too depressing. He’s all for the LGBTQ community having rights – as long as they don’t ask for political power, because he doesn’t fit the rest of America is ever going to accept them. He preferred smokers to children – until recently when he thought we should shame the obese the same way we shame the smokers out of existence. And you should never apologize, because that’s a sign of weakness. Of course Maher hates the idea of cancel culture; he was a victim of it before we ever knew the term.

Ultimately Maher’s politics are as cynical as any on the right. He doesn’t want Republicans to have power. If you are black, Latino, LGBTQ+  or a woman, your demands shouldn’t be too loud because that will scare away the blue-collar, Middle America ‘swing voter’ who he still thinks will vote Democrat. The fact that he thinks Democrats are too weak to make change and wouldn’t have the power to do so if they could is irrelevant. There’s an old saying: “It’s not enough that I win. My enemies must also lose.” Maher only believes in the latter.

Bill Maher is an old, white man. He’s been an old, white man in his routine since he was in his twenties. He thinks politics are failures, the people who follow politics are failures and that America is the biggest failure of all – except, of course, for his audience. This is the exact definition of the kind of broadcasting conservatism specializes in. Maher has been arguing for decades that everything that has been oppressing America for decades is what’s wrong with this generation – they’re just too soft. As anyone who’s been following the internet for a long time, that’s been a subtle tactic of the right. I’m actually surprised he has been so anti-Trump – as he actually admitted in a standup special a few years back, Trump is not only authentic in the way most politicians aren’t (as Maher sees it, of course) He has the exact aggressive,  ‘plain speaking’ ways that Maher has been advocating for in his entire career. Maybe the only reason Maher couldn’t advocate for Trump was because of his party affiliation; if Trump had run as a Democrat, he might’ve campaigned for him. Hell, every comedian and his brother wanted him to run as a joke.

In his spirit, Maher is no different from Rush Limbaugh or so many others of the Fox News types. He’s an angry white man who complains to everybody that certain people are ruining America. The difference is, he doesn’t really believe that any politician can fix it or even that America’s worth fixing. When the Republicans are in power, he calls them hypocrites and liars destroying America and the Democrats aren’t doing enough to stop them. When the Democrats are in power, he says that they’re too weak and that they’ve embraced too many characteristics of the Republicans. (He even once said: ‘Democrats are the new Republicans.’) He thinks the people trying to make social changes are helping Republicans win. He never sees the contradiction.

Maher doesn’t deserve to be quoted by the right or excoriated by the progressives. He doesn’t care about either of you enough to be worth it. I actually feel sorry for him sometimes. I’ve never seen him associated with a wife or girlfriend and we know very well he has no interest in having a family. He doesn’t seem to care much about television or movies. Even his fellow late-night show hosts have no use for him (he’s been treating a lot of them disdainfully) All he does is perform. That’s all he has.  But I can’t feel any more empathy for him then I could for Christopher Hitchens and his like. He doesn’t think there’s anything waiting for him after death, so why should he give a damn about making the world a better place or even trying to be a nice person? The world’s screwed, there’s nothing waiting for me, why should I bother to change? And if that’s his point of view, there’s no point in trying to change it. Maher long ago once said that the nature of God is just that he’s a prick. And honestly, that’s a better summary of the man than I could ever hope to write.

My Reviews of Guest Hosts for Jeopardy, Continued

 

George Stephanopoulos: Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.

After so many weeks of decent hosts, it was perhaps inevitable that we’d get another soft-spoken, practically dull journalist as our guest host. George turned the volume down to pretty much half strength the entire time he was guest-hosting. It’s the first time since Steve Whitaker that I really didn’t think the host was going through the motions. I practically dosed off during some of them.

Which really is a shame because this week there were actually some very competitive, high caliber matches with some pretty big payouts and surprising finishes. Indeed, this week had some of the biggest payout we’ve had in quite some time. And the fact George honestly seemed to diminish all this by his mere presence really tells you just how subdued his manner was and his whole approach could be.

The best thing you can say about Stephanopoulos’ stint is that it was short. He was gone after a week. Maybe that’s only due to the fact the season is nearing its end that will be the approach going forward. Whatever the reason, he’s the first host I’m glad left since Aaron Rodgers’ stint ended in April.

My score: 2 stars.

 

Robin Roberts: And we’re back on track.

Now as we quickly approach this season’s end, the stints are getting shorter and shorter. While that was a blessing when it came to Stephanopoulos, I will be incredibly sad when it comes time for his colleague at ABC to leave the dais.

Because Robin Roberts has the kind of joie de vivre that Mayim Bialik and Savannah Guthrie more than demonstrated, and just like the former she’s clearly enjoying herself. Whether its opening with anecdotes about how she loved watching Jeopardy when she was at ESPN (and how one particularly colleague always cleaned her clock at Final Jeopardy) or the real spirit she seems to have with the contestants and some of the clues themselves. When the answer to one of the clues in tonight’s game was: “What is a robin?” her reaction was priceless: “Why are you looking at me?” She seems to actually be dismayed when contestants get clues wrong she clearly knows and overjoyed when they hit it big on a Daily Double. And just like last week there have been some thrilling matches and some great champions. Unlike last week, she seems more delighted when the contestants win than several previous winners – maybe more than even Bialik or Buzzy Cohen.

I’m well aware that Roberts is far too busy to consider making this a full time gig. But I really wish she’d at least think it over. She wouldn’t have to go that far from her day job, after all.

My score: 4.5 stars.

 

I’ll be back at the end of the season with reviews of the final three hosts, followed by some general commentary and of course, rankings.

 

This Trip To Paradise is Anything But: The White Lotus Review

 

 

For much of the 21^st Century writer-director Mike White has been one of the leading lights of independent films, from the dark comedy Chuck & Buck, the wistful The Good Girl and the impressive Beatriz at Dinner, he as also balanced them with some unlikely blockbusters – honestly, it’s kind of hard to imagine he’s the same man who wrote School of Rock and Nacho Libre.

He’s also been one of the more intriguing TV writers, going back to his years in the first seasons of Dawson’s Creek. He worked on Freaks and Geeks and Pasadena, two of the more fascinating failures in TV history. But by far his most intriguing series was Enlightened, a very dark comedy for HBO. Featuring Laura Dern in one of her first truly great roles for television, she played a self-destructive woman who became determined to lead a better life, even if that meant destroying the company she worked for and the family she was a part of. A series that was unlike even those that HBO was capable of; it was critically worshipped and basically rejected for mass consumption. Dern earned an Emmy nod and her second Golden Globe, but the series was cancelled after two seasons.

Nearly a decade after the series premiere, White has returned to HBO with a comical look at the limited series. The White Lotus deals with a tropical resort in Hawaii where the guests received the best in luxury. Unfortunately for the staff, if these are the kinds of guests that the resort has to deal with on a regular basis, you wonder why they haven’t all had some kind of collapse before.

For the guests this week are the people you wouldn’t want to spent five minutes on an elevator with but are exactly the kind of people who end up talking to you nonstop on an eleven hour flight from New York to Berlin. There’s Shane and Rachel (Jake Lacy and Alexandra Daddario) a couple who are on their honeymoon, but Shane seems far more concerned about not getting the room he wanted then having sex with his wife. Rachel, who is trying to build a career in journalism, can’t understand why her husband cares so much about this and is even less sympathetic to her career.

Then there’s Tanya, a woman who has come to scatter her mom’s ashes arrives with a terrible backache, can’t see a masseuse, goes through some kind of therapy with the staff, and leaves the experience with a tremendous crush on her and demands every moment of her time. Jennifer Coolidge steals every scene she’s in.

Then there are the Mossbachers. Nicole (Connie Britton) is a CEO of a major tech company who seems determined to control every aspect of her family’s vacation. Mark (Steve Zahn) starts the show thinking he has testicular cancer and then tries to use every element of having, and then not having it on his son and daughter, who really don’t seem to care and honestly don’t seem to appreciate anything. Quinn is stuck in the closet and always looking at his screen and college-age Olivia and her bestie Paula seem utterly oblivious to anything except getting high and not even caring if they get caught by their parents.

You really feel enormous sympathy for the staff, especially Armond the concierge (Murray Bartlett). He is so focused on getting everybody what they need he doesn’t notice his newest trainee is in active labor in the first episode. (“I just thought she was chunky!” is his response.)We learn that he has been five years sober, but considering the pressure everybody (especially Shane and his family) are putting on him, we can hardly blame him when he finds a bag the girls’ stash of drugs and starts snorting. If I had to deal with people like Shane and Tanya, I’d really need a drink.

And unlike so many of the limited series that we’re used to from HBO, The White Lotus is blissfully funny in showing how these people (who despite their apparent liberalism, are clearly part of the one percent) are as spoiled, entitled and utterly detached from their surroundings as they can be. And they don’t seem to care how they come off; when Olivia tells her mother if she’s root for a company that destroys the social construct because the CEO’s a woman, Nicole says: “No, you should root for the company because the CEO’s your mom.” This after she gives a lecture to Rachel about how she supports women, then she learns about a piece she wrote and says she thought it was a hatchet job. Given everything we’re coming to learn about Nicole, I think the article was accurate.

The series is so delightful; you almost wish the opening scene – where we learn that someone at the resort will be killed – didn’t have to be central to the story. It seems a weight that The White Lotus. Then again, it might work for this show, because this might be the first whodunit where you’re actually rooting for most of these unpleasant people to get killed. (We also know that Shane is in the airport alone and doesn’t want to say where his wife is. She may be the only guest I hope isn’t in the coffin.)

I’ll actually go further. White has announced that The White Lotus will be a one-shot. I hope he can be convinced otherwise. You could actually see this as an anthology series, each new season with a different and equally unpleasant bunch of guests that poor Armond and the staff have to deal with. Maybe there wouldn’t be a murder, but at least bad publicity. Hey, it’s better than a second season of Mare of Easttown.

My score: 4.5 stars.

Why I'm Actually Looking Forward to the reboot of The Wonder Years

 

I have repeatedly made clear that I think that the main reason network television is in dire straits is because they keep trying to reboot existing properties rather than come up with new series. That being said, I wouldn’t mind if the networks did reboot certain series – mainly ones that were ahead of their time and could have more scope now. Wiseguy was a series decades ahead of its time and if the right people were to bring it back, I think it could work brilliantly no matter who played the lead. Similarly Quantum Leap – which would use sci-fi to take a daring look at our history and was canceled before its creators could end it properly – would be extraordinary if it were moved to a modern setting. I know we have a lot of time-traveling series, but what made that show great was how it looked at history through the lives of ordinary people, something that we could use now more than ever.

I also know the real reason that so many people are angry about all the reboots these days – and it really has nothing to do with their quality then or now. I’ll probably get burned in effigy in some circles for saying this, but Magnum P.I.  was just a cute caper series, not St. Elsewhere or Moonlighting.  But make Higgins a woman and it’s like they decided to colorize Casablanca.  The Equalizer was little better than 1980s pulp, and I don’t think people would be furious if Brendan Gleeson was playing the lead role instead of Queen Latifah. They’ll howl and scream about not having original plots, but these stories flew on the characters charisma rather than brilliant writing. To change the series means you have to look at it differently. And no one wants to accept that something in the past might not have been as brilliant as it was when you were younger.

This brings me to ABC’s remake of The Wonder Years this fall, this time done with an African American family. Again the usual outrage about how you’re destroying a precious icon. The reason that I actually think this version could be at least more imaginative than so many remakes is that it actually could cover the territory that, to be honest, the original series barely touched at all.

Now to be clear, I loved The Wonder Years. There have been few series at the time or even now that have been more radical then when it premiered after the 1988 Super Bowl. It looked at childhood in a way that no series had ever done, the awkwardness, the struggles of first love, the difficulty of getting along with your parents and it was more than willing to deal with serious issues than any comedy series before. One of the most moving storylines involved Kevin and his relationship with his math teacher that ending with one of the most powerful moments I remember ever seeing before. It was painful and it was earnest and it showed us that childhood was never as much fun as we remember it when were adults. That may have been the reason that it was never a hit series the same way The Cosby Show and The Simpsons or indeed the lion’s share of ABC’s other comedies of that era. It was lucky to get the six seasons.

What The Wonder Years wasn’t was a story of growing up in the 1960s. It was about growing up while the 1960s happened. That’s why when Daniel Stern in his opening monologue mentioned Denny McLain winning 30 games and not Bobby Kennedy being shot or the chaos at Chicago or even Tommie Smith and Carlos Leon’s stand at the ’68 Olympics.  Oh sure, Kevin’s sister was very clearly a flower child and a hippie but let’s not forget she quickly she disappeared from the show after season 1 and was mainly used for comic effect from then on. I remember a storyline about a protest in the Vietnam War during high school, but I’m pretty sure Kevin was more concerned about it appearing on his permanent record than actually taking a stand. Nixon came up a few times and they may have mentioned Woodstock, but honestly in the Arnold household the biggest generational conflict we usually saw about the sixties had to do with the father not liking the Beatles.  I don’t remember an African-American character. I sure as hell don’t remember an African-American regular.

I have a feeling that a lot of the popularity of The Wonder Years came from a certain group of people who wanted to remember sixties culture but not have to deal with the chaos. They wanted to hear the music but not hear the protests, see clips of The Smothers Brothers, but not have to find out why the series got cancelled. In other words, the nostalgia factor was in effect; this was not the 1960s of Huey Newton but rather Sally Draper.

There was a series about the real sixties going on contemporaneously on ABC.  It was called China Beach and if anything, it was more radical than The Wonder Years. It took place at a nurse station in Vietnam starting in 1967. The series confronted the war dead on, mostly from the perspective of the doctors and nurses who had to patch up the wounded, but also from those of the soldiers, the women who supervised and the ‘caregivers’ – one of whom was an actual prostitute.  (One of the actors, Robert Picardo, would appear memorably in both series; as Kevin’s gym coach on The Wonder Years, and as a doctor on China Beach. He did his best comic work and dramatic work, respectively.)  One of its episodes – ‘Tet 68’ – was once considered by TV Guide as one of the 100 greatest episodes in Television History. It looked at the perspective of the offensive from every angle, and ended with the accidental death of a series regular. Everything about the 1960s was here, not just the music or Vietnam, but issues of race, gender, the protests against the war and the counterculture, and in the final season, how so many of them looked back on that time. Most of the cast – including Dana Delany, who deservedly won two Best Actress Emmys – would never do better work. But the series was always struggle for survival, and in the fall of 1991, it was cancelled. Showrunner John Wells would be a part of many brilliant series over the next twenty years, but would never do anything as different for broadcast TV ever again.

China Beach has basically disappeared from the memories of the public consciousness.  So in its own way has The Wonder Years. It’s been out of syndication for more than twenty years; it wasn’t released on DVD until decades after it debuted, and it's nearly impossible to find streaming. I have a feeling that’s the main reason people are upset that it’s being rebooted, particularly in this fashion.

And the main reason I think The Wonder Years might be a good reboot is because it wouldn’t be able to ignore the chaos of the sixties that the Arnold family was basically able to. Winnie Cooper never had to burn her bra. Wayne Arnold never had to worry about going to Canada to escape the draft. And Kevin sure as hell never had to deal with decisions about busing. (Or if he did, I don’t recall.)

The 1960s were about race. And in an atmosphere where we can’t even agree where America was ever racist to begin with, I can see why a lot of people wouldn’t want to see this version of The Wonder Years premiere. Now, if the series had been about an African American family in the 1960s and was simply called My Race through Childhood (or something similarly innocuous), I have a feeling the outrage wouldn’t be nearly as pronounced. Those same people would be annoyed, but since it’s not a cherished 1980s property, they can disregard it.  There have been series like that in the past; most memorably I’ll Fly Away and In the Heat of the Night so we know original ideas like that are viable. Hell, Chris Rock did a story almost like this for UPN called Everybody Hates Chris and nobody screamed that he was ruined their memories of the 1970s.

But this isn’t the 1990s or even the 2000s. You need a brand to get remade. No one really cares about the actual The Wonder Years; I reckon a lot of the people who are pissed even watched it when it was on the air. They’re just changing another thing about the past. The fact that it is actually dealing with an aspect of the past they don’t want to look at may not even be relevant. The actual quality of the show is irrelevant. It’s just another talking point.

Will this new version of The Wonder Years work? I honestly don’t know. But it’s the kind of reboot I would argue for. The previous version succeeded more as a work of nostalgia. The reboot would actually be relevant – no one can say that looking at what it was like to be a black child, then or now, doesn’t matter – and it would be doing so by holding up a mirror to so many of the social constructs that the typical comedy or drama takes for granted. There’s a better argument for this version now than there ever was for the original then. And I’m pretty sure in both, the music will be great.

 

 

The Television Critics Association Nominations Are Out!

 

Ever since I became aware of the TCA a few years ago, I’ve been impressed by their ability to nominate series that the Emmys are unlikely to nominate and if they do, more frequently than not, don’t win. I have spent the last month salivating for the times they would finally get around to it. Last night, the nominations were announced and while the collective group isn’t quite as impressive as the Hollywood Critics Association last week, it’s still a formidable group.

Indeed, one of their more impressive accomplishments was deciding that they should include more nominees in each category. Where they have been locked on five or six for most their career, in 2021 they’ve expanded to eight nominees per category which actually leaves a lot of room.

In individual achievement in Drama, as has been the case the last few years, limited series dominated. Michaela Coel, Anya Taylor-Joy, Kate Winslet and Elizabeth Olsen duplicated their feats at the Emmys. But imagine my joy to see Ethan Hawke recognized for his superb performance in The Good Lord Bird. And a lot of people are going to be thrilled to see Thosu Mdubu acknowledged for The Underground Railroad. I’m glad to see that MJ Rodriguez is among their ranks for her superb performance in Pose and I think there’ll be some shouting to see Omar Sy recognized for the beloved Lupin.

As for Individual Achievement in Comedy, it was similar dominated by female performers. Kaley Cuoco and Jean Smart were here, but there are going to be people just as happy to see Renee Elise Goldsberry for Girls5Eva and Maya Erskine for Pen15. (Having just started to watch the series, I admit I’ll probably be won.) Ted Lasso got two nods, both deserved, for Jason Sudeikis and Hannah Waddingham. I’m less sure about Bo Burnham being here for his Netflix special, but Mythic Quest fans will be glad to see Charlotte Nicdao.

Outstanding New Program has a lot contenders from every field – Hacks, The Flight Attendant and Ted Lasso from comedy, the inevitable acknowledgment of Bridgerton  and the less likely acknowledgement of Starz P-Valley  and I May Destroy You, Mare of Easttown and Wandavision. (We’re still not sure whether the latter two will become drama series.)

As you’d expect in achievement in Movie, Miniseries or Specials, the last three series are mentioned here, as is The Queen’s Gambit. But imagine my joy to The Good Lord Bird here. People will also be glad to see It’s A Sin. Not thrilled about Bo Burnham, but at least there’s no Hamilton.

Outstanding Achievement in Drama features many of the usual suspects – Bridgerton, The Crown, The Handmaid’s Tale, Lovecraft Country, The Mandalorian and Pose. But there is some variety – P-Valley is also present as well as the alternate history space drama For All Mankind. Comedy has some of the usual suspects to – The Flight Attendant, Hacks, Pen15 and of course, Ted Lasso. But imagine my delight to see not only Zoey’s Extraordinary Playlist but Superstore represented. There will be similar elation in some circles to see Girls5Eva and mythic Quest here.

And hell, they were willing to go to nine nominees for achievement in variety, talk and sketch. Here are the usual suspects – SNL, The Daily Show, John Oliver, and Stephen Colbert. But wait – here’s Seth Meyers! And Desus and Mero! And A Black Lady Sketch Show! And Ziwe, one of the most radical series to air this year. And Amber Ruffin was nominated, and I said what?!

Program of the Year is a broad category and its hard to argue with any of the choices – Ted Lasso for the comedies, I May Destroy You, The Queen’s Gambit, The Underground Railroad, Wandavision and Mare of Easttown  complete the Limited Series. I’m still not sold on Hacks, and it’s going to be really hard to sell me on Bridgerton – especially considering that The Crown isn’t here.

I’ve left aside the other categories – News and Information is a mixed bag, though its hard to argue with Allen V. Farrow, I’ll be Gone in the Dark and Frontline and 60 Minutes. I ignore reality in principle, but I am glad to see Couples Therapy recognized. And aside from Sesame Street and Baby-Sitter’s Club, I know nothing about any of the Youth programs nominated. But overall it’s a solid group, recognizing quite a few shows that got overlooked by the Emmys and refusing to honor some of the show that didn’t really deserve it. Would I have liked to see Fargo or Cruel Summer here? Obviously. But the HCA handled that particular part well.  I don’t know when they’ll meet, but I can’t wait to see who they choose. Groups like this make me proud of my choice of careers.

My (Mostly) Positive Reactions To This Year's Emmy Nominations, Conclusion: Outstanding Movie, Limited Series or Special

 

All right. I admit I, like the rest of us, have gotten used to the acting categories in Best TV Movie, Limited Series or Special being dominated by the Limited Series category over the past five years.  And I also realize the huge reception the filmed version of Hamilton got last year. That being said, I find it excessive to the extreme as to just how overboard the Emmys decided to recognize Hamilton’s cast, especially when you consider not only how many other great performances and series there were this year, but how many of those same actors could have just easily been recognized in other series, comedy drama or even other limited series. That’s not saying the Limited Series nominations were entirely that much better, but there were a lot of great nominees that were ignobly forgotten.

That being said, let’s go forward.

 

BEST LIMITED SERIES

I advocated for I May Destroy You, The Queen’s Gambit and Wandavision. I understand the logic of picking Mare of Easttown over The Undoing, even though I’m not entirely happy about it. And its hard to argue with The Underground Railroad. I just really don’t understand why the Emmys couldn’t have found room for Fargo or The Good Lord Bird

 

BEST ACTOR IN A TV MOVIE, LIMITED SERIES OR SPECIAL

And this is where I truly get outraged. Hugh Grant and Paul Bettany are the only candidates that, in my mind, truly deserve to be here.  There are those who will advocate very strongly for Lin-Manuel Miranda and Leslie Odom, Jr. for Hamilton; I just can’t bring myself to be one of them. And I’m truly appalled that Ewan McGregor was recognized for Halston, yet another series in the Ryan Murphy oeuvre. Nothing for Chris Rock? Nothing for Bryan Cranston? Hell, Ethan Hawke was the odds on favorite to win and he, like everyone else in the series was ignored. This truly speaks of travesty not to mention reason number 3102 that they should open the category to six nominees.

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A TV MOVIE, LIMITED SERIES OR SPECIAL

Well, I can’t in good conscience argue against of the nominees here, seeing as I made arguments for all of them.  Michaela Coel, Cynthia Erivo, Elisabeth Olsen, Anya Taylor-Joy and Kate Winslet more than earned their places here. Would I have preferred to see Nicole Kidman over Erivo? Sure. But it could be worse. Zendaya could be here again.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A TV MOVIE, LIMITED SERIES OR SPECIAL

And here comes the outrage again. Did we really need three actors from Hamilton here? Jonathan Groff galls me in particular because I’m not even sure the fans of the show remember his part.  I’ll admit to be a little less irked that Anthony Ramos is present, because frankly he was slighted for In Treatment. And while I’d rather see him here for The Good Lord Bird, I can live with Daveed Diggs presence.

It’s not that the other three supporting nominees make much sense either. I have mixed feelings about John Boyega not being here for Small Axe and I can’t say I’m sorry Brendan Gleeson was ignored for The Comey Method. (I guess even the Emmys figures one actor playing Trump was enough.) But where the hell is Donald Sutherland? I was expected that no one from Fargo would be here, but how the hell did one of the best actors giving one of his best performances get ignored to? It’s daffling.

I kind of expected to see Evan Peters here for his work Mare of Easttown.  And considering that he had an even more complicated role than Coel, it makes sense to see Paapa Essiedu here for I May Destroy You.  I’m just having a hard time wrapping my head around why Thomas Brodie was nominated instead of Bill Camp for The Queen’s Gambit. The best explanation I can come up with is that his character for more active and dialogue driven than Camp’s more subtle performance. Still it’s kind of baffling.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A TV MOVIE, LIMITED SERIES OR SPECIAL

I have absolutely no problem with Kathryn Hahn for WandaVision and even less of one for Julianne Nicholson or Jean Smart for Mare of Easttown.  I will admit to a certain amount of surprise seeing Moses Ingram nominated instead of Marielle Heller for The Queen’s Gambit – it’s not that Ingram’s performance wasn’t well done or indeed critical to the show, but Heller had dominated much of the early nominations from other groups.

Frankly, I would have been happier to see Heller nominated instead of yet again two nominees from Hamilton. I have nothing against Renee Elise Goldberry – I loved her work in The Good Wife and Evil and she probably should’ve earned a nomination for Girls5eva – but she and Soo are taking nominations away from more qualified actresses like Jessie Buckley or Hope Davis. I know I won’t win this argument.

 

But I’ll be honest; the reason I’m a little less irked at so many of the nominations is because of the Hollywood Critics Associations TV nominations that came out last Thursday. As I mentioned in a series of ecstatic columns, they did a superb job in listing some of the best drama, comedies and limited series this year. I said that if the Emmys did their job a quarter as well as they did, I would be content. It was closer to a fifth, but that’s a lot better than they’ve done in recent years.

In a month, I’ll be doing by best to try and predict how the brand new HCA and the Emmys will give out their major awards this year. I look forward to doing so, and as always, to be proven wrong. Stay tuned.

My (Mostly) Positive Reactions To This Year's Emmy Nominations, Part 2: The Comedies

 

Comedy was more of a mixed bag than dramas, but that’s usually the case with me. I’ve actually been catching up on quite a few of them and I’m impressed by more than I thought I was. Here are my reactions

 

OUTSTANDING COMEDY SERIES

I wanted The Flight Attendant, The Kominsky Method, black-ish and Ted Lasso to be here and they are. Having gotten through more than half a season of Hacks, I’m improved my opinion of it and it more than deserves the fifteen nominations it ended up getting. I’ll be reviewing Pen15 later on; given its track record with other critics groups, I’m okay with it being here. And I understand the love that there is for Cobra Kai, though I would much rather have seen Breeders.

It’s the presence of Emily in Paris that galls me the most. At best a pedestrian Netflix series, it is lacking in comparison to so many of the Netflix shows in this category.  I can not for the life of me understand why Zoey’s Extraordinary Playlist was, for all intents and purposes, shutout of the major nominations. Hell, Mom or Shameless would’ve been better choices.

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR IN A COMEDY SERIES

I don’t know if anything can stop Jason Sudeikis from triumphing. Anthony Anderson and Michael Douglas deserve to be here, and I predicted William H. Macy and Keenan Thompson would be. Maybe I’m disappointed that they could only find room for five nominees in this category. Couldn’t they have found room for Martin Freeman?

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

No problem with Kaley Cuoco or Jean Smart. Glad to see Allison Janney and Tracee Ellis Ross back in the ranks.

Aidy Bryant for Shrill really seems out of left field. I have nothing against Bryant or her series – it’s been quietly well reviewed for awhile. Mainly I’m just truly appalled that Jane Levy got utterly skunked it what may be her only chance. Hell, I’d rather have seen Daisy Haggard or Lena Waithe. (Sigh)

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A COMEDY

You could only find five nominees for the leads, but you found eight and seven respectively for Supporting? I know the pickings are slim, but still…

I suppose I should complain here about the utter domination of this category by Ted Lasso the same way The Handmaid’s Tale did in this categories equivalent for drama. Here’s the thing: having seen Season 1 and marveled in the greatness of all of the performances, I really can’t. I wanted Brett Goldstein and Brendan Hunt to be nominated; they were great. But Jeremy Swift’s performance as Higgins was a joy to behold as was Nick Mohammed’s work as the shy assistant who becomes the mastermind of the team. I never want to be greedy when it comes to flooding a category, even when it is with a series I love. My failure to list them doesn’t mean I’m any less glad to see them here.

I was glad to see Paul Reiser chosen for The Kominsky Method (thrilled actually) and I’m fine with Keenan Thompson and Bowen Yang’s nods for SNL.  I don’t think I’ve given him enough credit for his work over the last couple of years. And after watching the last couple of episodes of Hacks I’m actually more than good with Carl Clemons-Hopkins nod. I’m just a little disappointed that for all the good choices here, they just couldn’t find room for Alex Newell or indeed anybody connected with Zoey’s Extraordinary Playlist. Was it binary issues or the fact that series was cancelled? I just don’t know.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

Again absolutely no problem with Hannah Waddingham or Juno Temple for their superlative work on Ted Lasso. Grateful to see Rosie Perez here for The Flight Attendant. And after watching a little more of Hacks I’m actually coming to admire Hannah Einbinder’s work as Ana. And I don’t have a problem with Kate McKinnon getting nominated.

It’s the other two actresses from SNL I have problems with. I have no difficulties with Cecily Strong or Aidy Bryant as performers on the series, but it still seems kind of arbitrary at this point. Bryant in particular seems to be getting too much love from the Academy this year. Or maybe I’m just peeved that Zosia Mamet and Kathleen Turner weren’t nominated.

 

I’m a little less perturbed with the nominations than before (I’ll give my exact reason in the final column) but I am really getting irked by the fact that SNL basically seems to control the Guest Actor and Actress in a Comedy category. Do I have a problem with Dan Levy, Maya Rudolph and Kristin Wiig? But I think Dave Chapelle is pushing it a bit, and I think even Alec Baldwin’s tired of being nominated for playing Trump. (And for the record, you nominated every male who hosted SNL this year; you couldn’t have nominated Keegan Michael Key or John Mulaney?) That being said, I’m glad to see Issa Rae and Yvette Nicole Brown for A Black Lady Sketch Show, Morgan Freeman as himself in The Kominsky Method and Bernadette Peters. At least somebody got nominated for Zoey’s Extraordinary Playlist.

I’ll be back tomorrow to deal with Limited Series, or perhaps I should add Movie or Variety Special to the category. The voters this year certainly did, and I’m really not happy about it.

My (Mostly) Positive Reaction To This Year's Emmy Nominations, Part 1: Drama

 

For those of you who are familiar with the columns I write this time of year, you are no doubt familiar with my general tone. I express how, as always, my grand hopes for the Emmy nominations were dashed, that they tend to once again go with the familiar rather than quality and how they seem slouching towards obsolescence.

Except… that really didn’t happen this year.

Perhaps it was inevitable in a year when so many of the major winners from previous years were ineligible, either because they came to an end or were forced to delay filming because of the pandemic. But even allowing for that, I really expecting the Emmys to do what they always do, double down on previous mistakes. And to be sure, there was a certain amount of that, particularly with series like The Handmaid’s Tale and The Mandalorian.

But there was far less of it than their usually is. The lion’s share of the new nominees were actually fairly intriguing ones. And though quite a few of the series were familiar faces, quite a few of them – such as This is Us and Pose – were unjustly overlooked last year. And there was a lot of room for growth in the comedy categories with some of the greatest joys of the last year justifiably getting a lot of nominations.

And it was a remarkable showing for minorities across the board, absolutely shattering records in almost every category. I mean, it was probably inevitable this would happen when series like Lovecraft Country and Pose dominate the nominations but this is a truly impressive feat by the Emmys. I frankly am in awe oft this year.

Don’t get me wrong. There were the usual number of mistakes and imbalances. Pen15 and Cobra Kai joined the Best Comedy list with no corresponding acting nominations. And it’s still clear that the balances with so many of the acting categories are way out of sync – five Best Acting in a Comedy nominees, but eight in Best Supporting Actor for a Comedy? And I still have my share of issues with the Best Limited Series categories and how Hamilton has basically crashed the party. But given the nominated series and actors, I’m a lot happier than I have been for a very long time.

So let’s begin at the beginning with Dramas

 

OUTSTANDING DRAMA SERIES

I badly wanted Lovecraft Country, Pose, This is Us and especially The Crown to be here and they’re well among the most dominant series. I’m not exactly thrilled to see The Mandalorian, The Handmaid’s Tale and Bridgerton here, but given the prior lists of nominations leading up to the Emmys, it would’ve been far more surprising if they weren’t here. The Boys actually seems to be the odd series out the group – against from Best Writing there were no other nominations. This may actually be the first time I thought HBO is underrepresented – couldn’t they have found room for Perry Mason or In Treatment? Well, at least they basically shut out Ratched. I guess I have to start watch Bridgerton now. (Sigh).

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR IN A DRAMA

Wow. Four African-American nominees. I honestly didn’t think I’d see the day. And five of the six nominees are more than qualified. That’s even rarer. Josh O’Connor, Sterling K. Brown, Billy Porter, Matthew Rhys and Jonathan Majors were all incredible. I must admit that I’m still not under the aura of Rege-Jean Page, but I’m at least comforted that he is Bridgerton’s only acting nominees. Would I have liked to see Aldis Hodge and/or Kevin Bacon here? Obviously. But it could’ve been worse. There’s no Pedro Pascal which would’ve galled me.

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A DRAMA

Again five out of six, pretty good for the Emmys. No one would argue with either Emma Corrin or Olivia Colman for The Crown. And I’m overjoyed that Uzo Adba, Jurnee Smollett and especially MJ Rodriguez are here. I’m not really shocked that Elisabeth Moss is present; I think she has become this category's Meryl Streep this last ten years. I’m not lying; I would’ve liked to see Mandy Moore around, but not bad.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A DRAMA

This is actually the first really mixed bag. I’m overjoyed to see Michael Kenneth Williams, John Lithgow, Chris Sullivan and Tobias Menzies. It starts getting tricky after that.

I’m always glad to see Giancarlo Esposito getting nominated for anything; I’m just kind of miffed that it’s for The Mandalorian (still, it is the series only major acting nominations). But it’s the over sharing for The Handmaid’s Tale. Don’t get me wrong, I love Bradley Whitford and Joseph Fiennes but this is becoming overkill. Couldn’t they have nominated either of male leads from In Treatment (though be fair, Anthony Ramos is not without love from the Emmys this year)? Or John Carroll Lynch from Big Sky? I really don’t like the idea of The Handmaid’s Tale becoming the new Game of Thrones – a concern that becomes more valid in the next category.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A DRAMA

See what I mean? To be fair, two series control this category, and while everyone expected Gillian Anderson and Helena Bonham Carter to be here for The Crown, maybe Emerald Fennell getting nominated for playing Camilla Parker-Bowles was a little overreaching? (Maybe people felt guilty that she didn’t get anything from the Oscars earlier this year?)

And here we are with four actresses from The Handmaid’s Tale. Again, I love Ann Dowd and Yvonne Strahovski, but this is bordering on lunacy. There are a lot of great actresses out there. Not all have them are in just one or two series. Couldn’t we have nominated some of them from This is Us or Big Sky? Couldn’t we have nominated Tatiana Maslany for Perry Mason?  Or Dominique Jackson for Pose?

Annajue Ellis over Wunmi Mosaku in Lovecraft County seems arbitrary unless you consider the incredible work of art that was in ‘I Am’, arguably the most spellbinding episode of the series. Hard to argue if that episode was submitted.

 

It’s going to be a real tight race for Best Drama with three series each with more than twenty nominations (something I haven’t seen in a long time.)

Final thoughts on Guest Actors and Actresses: Overjoyed with Courtney B. Vance getting acknowledged for Lovecraft Country and Charles Dance for playing Lord Mountbatten in The Crown. I’m glad to see Timothy Olyphant nominated for anything; even The Mandalorian. I’m glad to see Don Cheadle get nominated for a decent series. Carl Weathers, well, he deserves a nomination for something.

Guest Actress: No problem with Phylicia Rashad for This is Us and Claire Foy being back for The Crown. Glad to see Alexis Bledel get nominated for anything; even The Handmaid’s Tale. At least there’s only one nominee for Ratched.

 

I’ll be back dealing with Comedy tomorrow which wasn’t bad either honestly.

Why Combining The Acting Categories in the Emmys Would Be A Horrible Idea

 

 

I’ve been pondering this column for the past couple of weeks. Part of the reason I haven’t written it is because I’ve been so busy. More accurately, what I’m about to say is not going to make popular in certain circles and may get me more than my share of angry posts. That being said, I think the theory behind what I’m about to say is sound. So here goes.

Two weeks ago, the Emmy made the announcement that they were ‘considering’ the possibility of letting acting nominees who didn’t identify as a specific gender be nominated under the title Best Performer. One of the people who has been spearheading this argument is Asia Kate Dillon, the nonbinary performer who has challenged the acting circles by saying that making a performer have to compete in a gender-specific category is old-fashioned and that Awards shows like the Emmys should adapt this kind of method. In 2017, the MTV Movie and TV Awards adapted this kind of method in their awards.

Let me begin by saying I greatly admire Dillon. Their performance in Billions is one of the great master classes in acting on one of the great series on TV today. And I think that is a travesty not only that Dillon has been shutout by the Emmys but that the entire cast from Paul Giamatti to Maggie Siff and David Costabile is another travesty in a long line of similar shutout throughout the Emmys history. (I have a theory, though, as to just why Dillon has been ignored which I’ll get to later in this column.) So I can understand their frustration. That said, I strongly believe that trying to adapt any group that gives awards – but especially the Emmys – would be a total and utter disaster that would end up excluding far more people that it could potentially include and that in the end would not live up to the challenge Dillon and their colleagues have set forward.

Let’s start with the most obvious problem. If we were to combine the Outstanding Actor and Actress into the same category, how many nominees would there be? This has been a problem the Emmys has always been challenged by and never responded well to. They stayed at four nominees for the first half of their existence, only moved up to five in late 1980s, and it was only until 2006 that they were willing to nominate as many as six actors per category. Getting them to the current number of seven took another decade.

So I can assure you there will be a long argument and debate as to how many actors will be in each category and in the end the number will make nobody happy. It probably won’t be thirteen or fourteen (then there’ll be debate about the integrity of the process) and no matter how large it is, everyone will just bitch and moan about how many people are being left out. This kind of complaint is nothing new, of course (I’ve made something of a career about it) but I have a feeling the criticism will be far pointed in this case. Because nobody how much they argue it’s for the sake of inclusion, a lot of actors are going to be left out.

And I can make some pretty educated guesses as to who would feel the pinch first: African-American actresses and actors. I make this judgment, like the others in this article, on the Emmys history.

Let’s engage in some hypotheticals: let’s assume this ‘Best Lead Performance’ and ‘Best Supporting Performance’ had been put into practice at the beginning of this century. Let’s give them a little more latitude and say that ten actors of either gender were included.

In 2013, Kerry Washington became the first African American Actress nominated for Best Actress in a Drama in the century and certainly awhile before that. Now consider the level of competition of the other nominated series in 2013. What are the odds that Washington would’ve managed to get nominated had she not only had to compete against such talent as Claire Danes for Homeland, Elisabeth Moss for Mad Men, Michelle Dockery for Downton Abbey  and Robin Wright for House of Cards, but also the male leads in that series who were, if anything, just as formidable. Add that Bryan Cranston was there and Washington’s breakthrough becomes a near impossibility. (The only reason Washington was nominated in the first place was because there were seven nominees for Best Actress.)

 For all the progress that has been made the last decade, the Emmys have been historically known for ignoring any actors of color.  Viola Davis might have broken through two years later, but in the scenario I think the odds against her actually winning are still remote.

I’d make a similar argument when it came to African-American actor, but the records already poor enough. Between Andre Braugher’s win for Homicide in 1998 and Sterling K. Brown’s victory in 2017, I’m relatively certain the only other African-American nominee for Best Actor was in fact Braugher for Gideon’s Crossing in 2001, a nomination that in itself was rather fluky.  The Emmys has a really bad track record when it comes to recognizing minority actors in general – that’s one of the things that the era of Peak TV hasn’t changed until the last five years. Had this kind of system been around then I think the hashtag #EmmysSoWhite would’ve started trending before Twitter even existed.

And that’s just the problem with the nominations. If this process had existed when Peak TV started in 2000, I’m willing to bet it would have taken the rest of the decade before we saw a woman win Best Lead Performance in a Drama. Remember this was the age of the antihero. What are the odds that any of the actresses in that period could get nominated, much less triumph, against a lineup of James Gandolfini, Michael Chiklis, Kiefer Sutherland, Jon Hamm and Bryan Cranston? Alison Janney and Sally Field wouldn’t have a prayer. I think it unlikely that Glenn Close’s dual triumphs in the incredible underwatched Damages would have taken place. Even Edie Falco would have a hard time winning in that field.

I’m less sure this kind of problem would’ve happened in the Comedy category – some of the great comedic performances of the last twenty years were by female actresses – and I can see Patricia Heaton, Jennifer Aniston, Tina Fey and even Edie Falco – for Nurse Jackie - prevailing. There might’ve been backlash on that part for awhile, but I’ll leave that aside for now

Then there’s the problem we’d have when Supporting Performances were considered. Asia, I really think your lack of nominations is less to do which category you belong in than the fact that you’re not a cast member of Game of Thrones. And no, I’m not just using this series as a hobby force; this has been a problem for as long as I can remember. Ten years ago, the Supporting categories were dominated by The West Wing and The Sopranos. Before that, it was NYPD Blue and ER. Hell, we’ve already had a Supporting category where all the nominees were in one series – when Hill Street Blues was on the air. So, this wouldn’t change much.

I imagine all of these arguments would meet with the challenge: “Things are different now.” Problem is, people like Dillon are looking for the Emmys to represent social change when they barely meet their core mission of recognizing the best in television. Don’t get me wrong; as much as I bitch about them, I love the Emmys. But I’ve long since given up on them being able to even nominate the right series, much less give them to the right people.

Because the Emmys are fundamentally conservative. Not socially, but in their habits. I’ve mentioned tongue-in-cheek that the best way to win an Emmy is to have won the year before, and if you look at their history it’s not much of an exaggeration. Does anyone realistically believe Julia-Louis Dreyfus deserved six Best Actress Emmys in a row? Any more than Helen Hunt deserved four in a row for Mad About You? Hell, even James Spader admitted that at least one of his wins for Boston Legal seemed a mistake. How many times have Emmy winners seemed shocked at their victory? It’s because realistically, they shouldn’t have won.

The Emmys doesn’t lead when it comes to honoring television. At best, it follows. When The Sopranos broke every rule of how TV should be done, that year the Academy gave the lion’s share of its awards to The Practice. The Sopranos didn’t win until its fifth season, and I’m sure even David Chase would’ve acknowledged its best years were behind it by then. The Emmys rarely recognize the groundbreaking series when they deserve to be, if they do at all. Their record with minorities has improved the last several years, but is still fairly atrocious. And while they have a slightly better record when it comes to the LGBTQ+ community, actors like Jim Parsons and Jane Lynch weren’t honored for playing gay characters. Given the choice between honoring a gay actor for playing a gay man or a straight actor for playing a gay man, they are far more likely to honor the latter. (Eric Stonestreet won two Emmys for Modern Family. Jesse Tyler Ferguson won zero.)

All of which is a roundabout way of saying even they were meet every accommodation that Dillon and his ilk would meet nothing would change. Actors like Dillon or Alex Newell might get nominated in this new system, but they’d never win. In all honesty, I think they’d have a more realistic chance in the current system. It might not be ideal, but it wouldn’t throw things out of alignment for everybody else.

That’s assuming, of course, that the Emmys would actually do. I may just be cynical but I suspect they’re saying “we’re open to the idea” is a way of throwing a constituency a bone without having to change their rules at all. I’ve mentioned how reluctant the Emmys are to just changing the number of nominees in any given category; they really don’t want to open this can of worms.

And by the wire, if the LGBTQ community presses this, it’s just going to make the Academy more resistant. They hate people who even suggest the system is flawed. Think I’m joking? When Orange is the New Black came out in 2013, it revolutionized how television was done much the same way The Sopranos did, particularly when it came to actresses of color. The writers however objected that they were put in the comedy category even though they received fifteen nominations. Reluctantly, they moved into the Drama category the following year and Jenni Kojan and the other writers made an argument that the Emmys should divide categories into half-hour and hour-long series. The Emmys said they’d ‘consider it’. Nothing came of it. I don’t think it was a coincidence that Orange was not a serious Emmy contender for the remaining five years it was on the air, even though it won three consecutive SAG awards for Best Comedy ensemble.

The Emmys say they’re okay with this idea now because it doesn’t cost them anything. To actually do something – that’s going to piss off a lot of executives and studio people. And all of this will change nothing. If anything, it’ll be harder for non-binary actors to get nominated than it is now.

I don’t expect to be regarded with love for certain communities.  Just to be clear, I am all for more LGBTQ roles in every aspect of film and television and I really believe there does need to be much, much more inclusivity in every part of it. But that won’t start by getting group like the Emmys to change their rules. That’s where you end it.