My Predictions For This Year's Emmys, Limited Series, Part 3: Outstanding Lead Actress in a Limited Series...

Nearly two months after the nominations, I still have the greatest problem with the nominees in this category. The logic behind three of the nominees fundamentally baffles me.

I find it incomprehensible that when looking at the work of three of the greatest actresses of all time in Limited Series – Jessica Chastain in Scenes from a Marriage, Michelle Pfeiffer in The First Lady and Julia Roberts in Gaslit – the Emmys in their infinite wisdom chose to nominate Lily James for Pam and Tommy and Julia Garner for Inventing Anna. The depths in the former performances were some of the greatest work on television in years, compared to the superficialities of James and Garner. Even if they didn’t want to nominate those three actresses, there were so many other second tier choices: Viola Davis, Olivia Colman for Landscapers, even Renee Zellweger for her work in The Thing about Pam if they wanted to do high-level of trash. The Emmys have bungled some acting choices in the Limited Series category over the last few years; but few times have they seemed to be doing their upmost to ignore great work over the trivial.

All right. I’ll try to be calm and measured with the odds. Here are the nominees.

 

Toni Collette, The Staircase: 13-2.

For Playing: Kathleen, the murder victim at the center of a controversial investigation. For Her: Just as with Firth’s nomination for Best Actor, I have no real objection to Collette’s presence in this category. For nearly thirty years, Collette has been one of the quietest great actresses in history, rarely getting credit for the brilliant performances she gives in so many landmark movies. When she took an Emmy for United States of Tara back in 2009, it was a shock to many who didn’t consider the series a true comedy, even though it truly was a master class for Collette in that very way. Throughout this decade, she has rarely gotten the credit she deserves for her work, even in superb limited series such as Unbelievable and now she plays several versions of a victim, seen in the varied points throughout her life that continue to demonstrates that she’s one of the actresses of our time. Against Her:  There wasn’t a lot of Emmy love for The Staircase and compared to some of the spouses who could have gotten nominations, Collette’s character had the least depth.

 

Julia Garner, Inventing Anna: 11-2.

For Playing: Anna Delvey, the German heiress and Internet sensation who engaged in a series of remarkable cons. For Her: Garner is one of the great discoveries of this decade. Ever since I became acquainted with her as the daughter of a state department employee that Matthew Rhys’ character had to slowly seduce, Garner has become an expert as playing girls wise far beyond their years.  You can understand why she would be a natural fit for the role of Anna, a character who had the appearance of a hopeless waif but the cunning of a Ruth Langmore. For all the flaws of this series, one can’t say that Garner was one of them. Viewers couldn’t believe Anna got away with what she did. Those of us who watch Garner know her characters are capable of it. Against It: Inventing Anna has the fewest Emmy nomination of the nominated Limited Series, and controversy has surrounded it since it premiered (just this week one of the victims of the real-life Delvey announced she was suing Netflix for her portrayal in this series). Plus, if the Academy wants to give an Emmy to Garner, they’ll have a far better chance to do so for her work on Ozark, which will count against her winning her.

 

Lily James, Pam and Tommy: 9-2.

For Playing: Pamela Anderson, the Baywatch bombshell who unwittingly finds herself at the center of her husband’s sex tape. For Her: Well, if you’ve seen Lily James in just about any of her other roles, it’s hard not to be impressed by this performance.  Lady Rose from Downton Abbey and Natasha from War and Peace as the most notorious example of classlessness from the 1990s? That’s impressive. How can the girl known for playing so many timid version of intelligent affection play the archetypical dumb blonde? And James is by far the best thing about this series, adding depths and dimension to someone that so many of us (me among them) accused of having only one in her acting. This is a significant accomplishment. Against Her: Of all of the celebrities and famous women who were given life to by so many actresses this year, why did the Emmys have to choose the least interesting one and certainly the one whose major story was the most trivial? James seems to have gotten nominated for the reasons far too many actors and actresses do – for disappearing into their characters. To be clear, compared to the work of Julia Roberts and Michelle Pfeiffer, that wasn’t even close the most chameleon-like. I won’t be angry if she ends up winning the Emmy, but I will be disappointed.

 

Sarah Paulson, Impeachment: American Crime Story: 7-1.

For Playing: Linda Tripp, the federal employee who betrays a friend in order to bring down Bill Clinton. For Her: In a category where I have a problem with half the nominees, Paulson’s nomination was a pleasant surprise.  As I have written in multiple articles over the past year, I thought Impeachment deserved far more love from most awards show then it ended up getting. I will admit to being a little stunned that Paulson managed to emerge the winner from the HCA awards for Best Actress in A Broadcast or Cable Limited series over so many of the actresses I listed above. But that’s not because I wasn’t in awe of her work. Controversy over the fat suit she wore aside, Paulson’s work as Tripp ranks among the finest performances this actress – one of the greatest talents of the new Golden Age for more than twenty years – has ever given. And that because as much as we see Tripp as the villain of the piece – someone who instigates a scandal and betrays a friend more out of pushing for her own self-importance rather than any real wrongdoing –  Paulson makes her come out at least partially as a victim as much as any of the women that Bill Clinton abused.  Yes, Linda Tripp had an inflated impression of her self-worth and a true misunderstanding of Clinton’s abuses. But she was used by the far right just as much as they used everybody else. I came away from Impeachment with sympathy for Linda Tripp. And considering everything she did, that’s as much a tribute to Paulson’s performance as anything else. Against Her: The HCA were the only major critical group this year to give Impeachment its due. While the Emmys did give it more recognition than I expected, the fact that it wasn’t nominated for Best Limited Series (but Pam and Tommy was? Seriously?) shows that the Emmys are less inclined to look as favorably on the third installment of American Crime Story then the previous two.  Paulson was shocked to win the Best Actress from the HCA, but it was a decent consolation prize.

 

Margaret Qualley, Maid: 5-1.

For Playing: Alex, a young mother fleeing an abusive relationship and the horrors of poverty to find a better life for herself and her daughter. For Her: Until after the nominations, I thought Qualley was an absolute lock to win the Best Actress prize. And if you saw her work in Maid, there’s no way you could disagree.  The only actress in this category who plays a fictional character (or at least a fictionalized version of one) Alex was more relatable to almost anyone in any series in this entire group of nominees. We watched Alex undergo a series of struggles that would break the spirit of a person far stronger than her, and halfway through the series it clearly seemed to do. The domestic abuse she suffered at the hands of her boyfriend paled in comparison to the Kafkaesque system of the social and legal world she had to maneuver through in order to find a better life for her daughter. And unlike any character in this category, we found ourselves rooting for her to prevail and overjoyed when she made it out. Qualley’s performance was one of the greatest of all season. Against Her: Timing. Qualley spent the first half of this year losing the Best Actress prize to last year’s big sensation, Kate Winslet for Mare of Easttown. By the time she was in a category by herself, The Dropout had premiered. Throw in the shocking lack of respect for Maid by the Emmys, and a certain win has now dropped to the possibility of a dark horse.

 

Amanda Seyfried, The Dropout: 69-20

For Playing: Elizabeth Holmes, the head of Theranos who cons Silicon Valley and the entire country. For Her:  Knowing the story of Elizabeth Holmes and the fraud she committed on Silicon Valley and the world of medicine, I didn’t think I could come away from The Dropout and not loathe Holmes. But the writers and most certainly Seyfried do everything in their power to make you feel empathy and – in the early episodes – sympathy for this woman. Don’t get me wrong; in the later episodes the series does an extraordinary job of making Holmes seem barely a human being (another triumph of Seyfried) but throughout the first three episodes, you see the kind of person she was before all this, how she started with good intentions, and how she may have ended up being used by the monstrous world of technology. You don’t come away from The Dropout understanding how Holmes did what she did, but maybe that’s the point. Maybe none of us can. Seyfried is also one of the greatest actresses in the history of television and movies, who has deserved an Emmy at least since she was stealing scenes as the youngest daughter at the center of Big Love. Her win at the HCA almost ensured that she will triumph in a few weeks time. Against Her: The Emmys didn’t give quite as much recognition to The Dropout as they could have (Dopesick  was at least partially responsible for that) and perhaps the Emmys sensibilities will make them reluctant to give the top prize to someone who plays a real-life sociopath who may not yet have paid for her crimes.

 

Prediction: I really want Qualley to win this one, but I have absolutely no problem with it going to Seyfried, and I think she’s the more likely winner.

 

Tomorrow I handle Supporting Actor in a Limited Series, or The White Lotus versus Dopesick.

 

My Predictions For This Year's Emmys, Limited Series, Part 2: Outstanding Lead Actor In A Limited Series...

 

I don’t know why I was slightly less enthusiastic about Best Actor in this category. Three of the nominees are ones that I predicted, and in all fairness at least two of the choices I considered – David Thewlis for Landscapers and Paul Bettany for A Very British Scandal – were long-shots. And it’s hard to argue the reasoning behind a couple of these nominees.

I think the larger issue is the presence of Sebastian Stan for Pam and Tommy over at least three more qualified nominees. Stan’s work was not at the level of Ben Foster for The Survivor or Sean Penn for Gaslit (who I didn’t consider a lead for this category, even though the HCA did. It’s unlikely he’ll prevail in a couple of weeks time, but these are the Emmys, after all. Anyway, let’s get down to business.

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR IN A LIMITED SERIES….

 

Colin Firth, The Staircase: 5-1.

For Playing: Michael Peterson, a crime novelist at the center of a constantly spiraling murder investigation. For Him: Whatever problems I have with some of the nominated series, I will never have any problem with something that has Colin Firth’s at its center. Firth has been one of the most commanding actors in history for nearly thirty years, which is particularly remarkable considering how many of his characters just seem to fade into the background. (Even his Bertie at the center of The King’s Speech wished he could do just that.) There is no project without Firth that has no merit, and such is the case with his performance in The Staircase.  Even after so many investigations, trials and retrials, documentaries and now a limited series, we are no closer to knowing the truth of Michael Peterson’s guilt. And in that sense, casting Firth was absolutely the right move because there are few actors with the potential to seem ordinary on the outside but have so much below the surface. Another triumph for Firth. Against Him: There was a lot of controversy about the fictionalized version of this series, and it very well worked against in when it came to the nominations: Firth was one of only two for the series. Like so many other nominees in this category, lack of nominations will probably work against him.

 

Andrew Garfield, Under the Banner of Heaven: 5-1.

For Playing: Jeb Pyre, a devout detective investigating a murder in Utah. For Him: Garfield was an early dark horse for a win in this category and given just how brilliant a young performer well before he starred in this series, it’s hard not to see why. Garfield is an actor capable of starring in a Marvel Movie and The Social Network in the same year. Last year alone, he could have been nominated for The Eyes of Tammy Faye as easily as Tick, Tick…Boom! (which he was) In other hands you could see the role of Jeb Pyre become just another character at the center of True Detective, sounding emotionally resonant but not saying anything. But Garfield managed to make every moment on the screen resonate and he is more than to deserving to contend. Against Him: Under The Banner of Heaven was passed over for Best Limited Series (and indeed most of the other major awards) in favor of Hulu Limited Series Pam and Tommy and The Dropout (the latter at least makes sense). And the buzz surrounded Garfield has died down quite a bit since the series debuted in April. But he’ll get another chance.

 

Oscar Isaac, Scenes from a Marriage: 13-2.

For Playing: Jonathan, a husband watching as his marriage falls apart. For Him: In all honesty, Isaac should be a lot higher up on this list. His work in Scenes from a Marriage was one of the most emotionally draining and wrenching performances of all of 2021 and much of this year. So much of the series was basically just watching Isaac and Jessica Chastain (and explain to me why she’s not nominated) tear each other down emotionally until there was nothing left. Jonathan was, unlike the original mini-series, the one who was cheated upon and who had far more to lose. You felt his pain right through the screen every time he turned to Mira. You saw that love that these two had for each other despite (and maybe because of) everything they had put each other through. And you left the series with just slightest bit of optimism that they might pull it off. Isaac was, in hindsight, the deserving winner of the HCA acting award in a Limited Series (Broadcast and Cable). When you consider what a banner year he’s been having in TV, in another world he’d be the out and out favorite. Against Him: Inexplicably, Isaac’s nomination was the only one for Scenes from a Marriage. That isn’t always the kiss of doom to an actor winning an Emmy (Mark Ruffalo pulled it off just two years for another emotional raw HBO limited series) but in Isaac’s case, compared with some of the flashier roles; it’s likely he’ll be overlooked

 

Michael Keaton, Dopesick: 10-3.

For Playing: Harry Fennix, a West Virginia doctor who becomes aware of the evils of Oxycontin from every angle imaginable. For Him: Keaton has won basically every award since Dopesick dropped this past fall, and there’s no scenario I see where he doesn’t win the Emmy. His work at Dr. Fennix, a humble West Virginia who is ensnared by Oxycontin, first by a salesman, then by an injury until he is full blown addict and then by the end of the series, offering a path out through the horrors of tragedy – was pretty much the greatest accomplishment of any actor in a Limited series. Then you consider that Keaton is one of the great actors of our time, who in the last decade has been enjoying a remarkable late career renaissance. You consider the power of all the speeches he’s given over the past year, and the utter self-deprecation and humor he has shown in every acceptance speech, and Keaton winning hits all the right marks. It’s an extraordinary performance in a great series. He’s an actor who has not received enough recognition. And his speech will be perfect. Against Him: These are the Emmys! Arbitrary and capricious might as well be their catchphrase. Last year, they ignored Ethan Hawke’s performance in The Good Lord Bird - a role that everybody connected with the Emmy thought was the sure winner – in favor of Lin-Manuel Miranda for Hamilton. Then they compounded the error by ignoring Hugh Grant and Paul Bettany for Ewan McGregor in a series I’m pretty sure nobody watched. If it’s possible for the Emmys to screw up a great triumph, they will find a way.

 

Himesh Patel, Station Eleven: 13-2.

For Playing: Jeevan, a survivor of a post-apocalyptic earth leading a theater company’s production. For Him: Patel is the relative unknown to American audiences in this category: he’s been a star of British soap operas for awhile. In recent years, he has gradually become more known in critical sensations such as Tenet and Don’t Look Up. But watching him lead the Travelling Symphony, following him through a doomed world and a romance with a woman with a deeper mission, and trying to find hope and music in a world that has little use for either, Patel was truly a revelation.  He was the least known of the nominated actors. That won’t be the truth after this year. Against Him: Station Eleven was ultimately given more recognition for its technical aspects than its actual performances. Throw in that this was a series more talked about then seen, and Patel’s chances are bleak.

 

Sebastian Stan, Pam and Tommy: 9-2

For Playing: Tommy Lee, the rock star who gets the bright idea to make a legendary sex tape. For Him: Stan is one of the most versatile in recent years and also fairly invisible: even his roles as The Winter Soldier in the Marvel Cinematic Universe show him blending in to the background more than anything else. But as we saw in I, Tonya Stan has a gift for playing bad boys, and his work as Tommy Lee certainly gave him a chance to be front row center. Chewing the scenery was something he wasn’t used to, and playing foolish doesn’t fit in with the persona we’ve come to know. So it’s a tribute to Stan’s versatility as an actor that he managed to do so well and not make a fool of himself as a talent. Against Him: Again, I can’t comprehend the presence of Stan (and indeed almost everybody connected with Pam and Tommy at the Emmys, nor do I fully understand why Stan’s work has now raised him to Keaton’s most formidable challenger in this category. His work and Keaton’s don’t take place in the same universe and there’s no reason why he should be competing against him.

 

PREDICTION: The easiest one of the night. Keaton will take this in a walk.

 

Tomorrow, I take on Lead Actress in a Limited Series, and here I still do have a lot of issues.

My Predictions For This Years Emmys, Limited Series, Part 1: Outstanding Limited Series

 

Before I begin with the nominees for Limited Series I feel some editorializing is in order.

Ever since the era of Peak Limited Series began in earnest – I’d say it was around 2015 with the arrivals of Fargo and The People V. O.J. Simpson – I have had issues with why the Emmys which has expanded to more nominees in every other category is still at five in Limited Series. That said I tend to think that they have done an excellent job overall with their selections over that time. I haven’t always been thrilled by them – I’ll never understand why in 2017-2018, they focused so much on the traditional Godless over the extraordinary Twin Peaks, and I couldn’t fathom why they gave so many nominations to the superficial Hollywood over the more substantive Little Fires Everywhere and Unbelievable in 2019-2020 – but overall, I think they’ve done a very good job with their selections in both series and acting nominations. This year, however, I believe with every fiber of my being, the Academy dropped the ball.

I have no problem with The White Lotus and Dopesick being the leading nominees, and I actually think The Dropout should have gotten more nominations. But the nominations for Best Limited Series for Inventing Anna and Pam and Tommy strike me as the worst the Emmys have given since Limited Series became so competitive. Both series fundamentally strike me as superficial compared to some of the more daring series that aired in the last year – Gaslit, which was more or less shut out, Scenes from a Marriage and Impeachment which received almost no major recognition, and Maid was far superior and substantive especially compared to Inventing Anna. What makes this even harder to comprehend is why the Emmys saw so much in them. Neither series was particularly well regarded by critics, and there’s a pretty good argument that neither story required being told as a limited series. (It is particularly telling that while the HCA was willing to give nominations in Limited Series: Streaming to Maid, Under the Banner of Heaven and Candy, Inventing Anna did not receive a single nomination.)

The only explanation for Inventing Anna is the power of Shondaland. That’s all I can think of. That it was more fun to binge than Maid was which I guess is the standard for Netflix series these days. Pam and Tommy doesn’t compare favorably to Gaslit or Under the Banner of Heaven, and hell, The Thing about Pam was more fun. This is a major step backwards for the Emmys, one I hope they can recover from. (They can start by expanding to six nominees in this category next year.)

Anyway rant over. Let’s deal with the nominees.

 

OUTSTANDING LIMITED SERIES

 

Dopesick: 19-5.

For: If the Emmys decide – as they have had a tendency to do for the past seven seasons – to give the award for a limited series that is substantive as well as extremely high quality, then the choice among these five is clear.  Telling the story of how the creation of Oxycontin – the single-minded decision by Richard Sackler to create an epidemic in order to line Purdue Pharma’s pocket book – led to the opoid epidemic that America has been struggling with for over thirty years was one of the most riveting and haunting shows of the entire season.  Creators Danny Strong and Barry Levenson took what should have been an impossible narrative and transformed into one of the most horrifying series in recent years, showing how Oxy destroyed the lives and existences of so many communities, how Purdue did everything in its power to manipulate a broken regulatory system to keep making money, how the justice system was blocked by them at every term, and how even the destruction of the company did nothing to even harm the Sackler fortune. When Danny Strong accepted his prize for Best Limited Series from the HCA, he called upon the Justice Department to indict the Sacklers. If you knew nothing about them before this, you would come away from Dopesick demanding they be drawn and quartered. This series told a story that needed to be told and that no network wanted to touch. That it did so with some of the most powerful performances this year – led by an extraordinary Michael Keaton – was just icing on the cake. Against: Any other year, this series would be the out and out favorite to win. But when The White Lotus got twenty-three nominations, you get the feeling that the Academy might be more interested in having fun than making a point.

 

Inventing Anna: 9-2.

For: Sometimes girls just wanna have fun. And such is the case of Anna Delvey, a legendary German heiress who the social scene worshipped so much they didn’t seem to notice that she was robbing them blind in the most creative of ways. Told from the perspective of two of the greatest young actresses of the past decade on television – Julia Garner in the title role and Anna Chlumsky as the journalist telling the story – we learn just how Anna managed to pull of some cons so implausible that you wouldn’t believe them if they hadn’t actually happened. With some of the best actors working today – Anna Deavere Smith, Laverne Cox and Terry Kinney, just to name a few – the viewer is drawn into the webs that Anna spins. This is the kind of story that Shonda Rhimes, in her writing debut for Netflix spins so well.  Against: The series got three nominations altogether, the least of the five nominated series. And really the question is: how’d it get that many? On imdb.com, Inventing Anna is by far the lowest rated of the five nominees (for the record Gaslit and The Thing about Pam rank higher by fans and critics as well and its not even in the same ballpark as Maid.) Inventing Anna is the worst aspects of a Netflix series; it’s has all the makings of binge-watching, but when you get involved you realize there’s no there there. There were quite a few examples of great Netflix limited series this year that could have been nominated. I’m baffled that Inventing Anna conned the Academy.

 

Pam and Tommy: 9-2.

For: The story of the most infamous sex tape in the history of the medium, even after the internet made tapes ubiquitous. The story of Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee is one of the most infamous in the history of scandals, and with so many series trying their hardest to be about serious subjects, it’s kind of refreshing to see one on any platform that embraces bad behavior and the utter trashiness of its subject. With astonishing performances by Lily James and Sebastian Stan in the title roles and some of the most memorable creative forces (and you know, a penis you’ll never forget) Pam and Tommy delves into the lives of one of the biggest and most fun tabloid stories in years. Against: Much like with Inventing Anna, you really wonder why this story couldn’t have been told in a two-hour movie rather than an eight part limited series. I’m all for having fun and celebrating bad behavior among the elite – hell, The White Lotus was exceptional at this – but even more than Inventing Anna, I think the Emmys really went overboard with recognition for this series. There were more powerful limited series about failed marriages this year, and more interesting stories about sex scandals that became late night staples. I’m not sure what was so special about Pam and Tommy that made it more deserving then them.

 

The Dropout: 4-1.

For: If we’re going to nominate a serio-comic series about an attractive blonde woman who conned some of the most powerful people in the world, this is the series they should have given more nominations too. Because make no mistake: The Dropout is the Best Limited Series of 2022. We come away from this series no closer to understanding what makes Elizabeth Holmes tick or even if she has any recognition of what she did was wrong. But paradoxically, you come away from it with far more empathy for Holmes than you ever did Anna Delvey, which is astonishing considering the scope of her crimes. Amanda Seyfried is one of the greatest actresses in any medium, the likely frontrunner for the Emmy but it’s unfair that so many of her fellow actors in this extraordinary cast – from Naveen Andrews and William H. Macy to Sam Waterston and Laurie Metcalf – walked away with no recognition. This series is a tour de force and an object lesson in believing in a lie despite all the evidence. Against: The series is nominated against two absolute gorillas in this category, one of which tells a story of tragedy on a far grander scope.  Timing is everything.

 

The White Lotus: 16-5.

For: We almost never see Limited Series nominated, much less win the Emmy for pure entertainment value – I think the last one to do so was Big Little Lies, another HBO behemoth with a big talent behind the camera and great actors in front of it. There are two fundamental differences between the two – most of the names connected with Lies were bigger, the story a bit darker, and the lead characters infinitely more likable. But The White Lotus revels in the bad behavior of the very rich, who walk away from their vacations saying they’ve learned deep life lessons but all of them being basically superficial. It’s the help that suffers, sometimes paying with their life. The White Lotus is as much a screed about the rich and powerful as Succession is but infinitely more fun to watch. I may not agree with basically the entire cast being nominated by the Emmys (we’ll get to that) but it was entertaining to watch so many great actors behave so badly. I was overjoyed when the show was renewed for a second season; I’ll be thrilled if (just as at the HCA where it took five prizes) it wins big for its first. Against: Is The White Lotus too much fun for the Emmys to give the grand prize too? Historically, humorously themed limited series do not do well when it comes to the big prize (even Big Little Lies was fundamentally serious at its core). It did get over twenty nominations, but as we’ve learned over the years at Emmys; just because you’re the most nominated show, doesn’t necessarily mean you win the grand prize.

 

PREDICTION: It comes down to a battle between Dopesick and The White Lotus. Given the number of nominations and the fact that HBO has a far better track record in this category than any streaming network, I will give the edge to The White Lotus.

 

Tomorrow I tackled with marginally more enthusiasm, Best Actor in A Limited Series.

 

Possible Contestants For A Jeopardy 40th Anniversary Tournament: Part 5 of a Continuing Series

 

As we move closer to the present day with these articles, many of the entrants become less hypothetical. Given their records in both regular and tournament play,  they become less possibilities for future tournaments and more certainties. With the sole exception of the first person I’ll discuss, it’s pretty clear why the next group of players are certain to appear in this tournament

 

Kerry Greene

I feel slightly uncertain about Kerry’s appearance among the next five selections. It’s not that she’s not a great player; it’s whether she’s great enough.  Kerry Greene is the only one of this group that didn’t make it to the All-Star Games in 2019 and, as is the case with so many of the players I listed above, it’s hard to understand why.

Kerry’s run began on April Fool’s Day of 2015 when she defeated Michael Bilow, who in three days won $96,000. (His score would be high enough to qualify for the tournament of Champions that fall. ) After winning her first game, Kerry managed to win a total of six games and $146,598. These wins were not easy wins; in three of them she was trailing at the end of Double Jeopardy and ended up coming from behind in Final Jeopardy. In another, she was lucky to prevail when her opponent lost big on a Daily Double late in Double Jeopardy.  Still, at the time, she was only the fifth female contestant to have won more than five games.

She managed to play brilliant in her quarterfinal in the Tournament of Champions and came from behind the semi-final. Unfortunately in the Finals, she had the bad luck to play two of the greatest Jeopardy champions in history (both of whom will be discussed below). She finished third and won $50,000. Unlike her fellow finalists, she was not asked back to the All-Star Games even though her record was better than quite a few of the people who were asked back.

But because Kerry did so well in her initial run and had such a good track record in that Tournament, I think she’s earned the right to return. However, I think her odds have been diminished mostly because of the next player on this list.

 

Alex Jacob

The day after Kerry Greene, Alex Jacob won his first Jeopardy match. No one knew at the time that it was the beginning of one of the most remarkable runs in the show’s history.

Superficially, Alex’s initial run doesn’t seem that impressive. He won ‘only’ six games and his total of $149,802 is virtually identically to Kerry Greene’s. The big difference is, Alex won four of his games in runaways and his payoffs were not as big as they could have been because he was never that good in Final Jeopardy (he got five of the seven in his first run incorrect). But in almost all of his appearances, he was in command from beginning to end, mostly because of his tendency to start at the bottom of the categories searching for the Daily Doubles, almost always betting everything on them, and making them pay off. His approach resembled Roger Craig, who had more success with Final Jeopardy.

All that said, with his relatively low win total and winnings, Alex wasn’t the favorite going into the Tournament of Champions. But he dominated the quarterfinal and semi-final matches and his performance in the finals, according to Alex Trebek, was the most dominant that he had ever seen. Alex Jacob was modest all the way through: ahead in both Final Jeopardys, in his responses he congratulated his opponents in his first win and everybody on the show on his second. He was visibly moved as he was congratulated for winning his $250,000.

Considering the level of talent available in the All-Star Games, it says a lot about the high opinion that another of the greatest Jeopardy champions of all time, Buzzy Cohen (who we will also discuss below) chose him as his first selection in the draft, calling him one of the most dominant players of all time. Alex more than proved his value in his Team’s first match, mostly outplaying Brad Rutter until the second half of the Jeopardy round of Game 1, and utterly dominated him when they met in the Double Jeopardy round of Game 2. The fact that Team Buzzy couldn’t win that match was not his fault. In the wild card match, he showed similar brilliance against Roger Craig and Pam Mueller in the Jeopardy round of Game 1 and was doing just as well in Double Jeopardy of Game 2 when he finally ran out of luck on the Daily Doubles.  Even with that in mind, he was arguably the most dominant player of the entire tournament to that point (and perhaps a little after.)

Alex Jacob is one of the greatest players of all time, full stop. I can’t foresee any tournament where we don’t see him again.

 

Matt Jackson

It says a lot for the ability of Alex Jacob that in the finals of the 2015 Tournament of Champions, he completely dominated Matt Jackson, a player who earlier that year had taken his place among the all-time greats.

Matt Jackson’s record at the beginning of the season is one of the greatest in history. He managed to win thirteen games, which at the time was the third highest number in history. He also won $411,000, which was the fourth highest amount won in regular play to that point. (Julia Collins was the third and David Madden the second, and neither had won nearly that much by that point in their runs.)

Matt went into the Tournament of Champions the overwhelming favorite and indeed in his quarterfinal and semi-final match; he dazzled the opposition, winning both games in runaways.  But when he ended up going against Alex Jacob in the Finals, he met a player he just couldn’t get past though it was not for lack of trying. Alex was just too good and neither the Daily Double nor Final Jeopardy worked in Matt’s favor. He finished in second place and won $100,000.

There was revenge of a sort in the All-Star Games.  Matt was the third pick overall in the draft and ended up being chosen by Ken Jennings himself, who called him one of the greatest players of all time. Matt more than proved his worth in his first appearance in the Double Jeopardy round of Match 2 where he utterly dominated Roger Craig and Seth Wilson (see below for the latter). By the end of his round, Team Ken had $37,500, nearly three times their nearest teams’ opponent. When Matt came in for Final Jeopardy in the second game, it was almost irrelevant what his response was (he gave the correct one anyway) Team Ken was in the finals – where Alex Jacob’s team could not reach.

In the Double Jeopardy round of Game 1 of the Finals, Matt spent almost the entire round going head to head with another all time great Larissa Kelly. He managed to fight off her early big lead and move Team Ken ahead of Team Brad by the end of Double Jeopardy. Only total dominance by Brad Rutter in the Double Jeopardy round of the climatic game erased any chance of victory for Team Ken in the finals. Matt Jackson’s correct response was superfluous and his team shared in $300,000 in winnings for second place.

With winning total just over $600,000 Matt Jackson has one of the highest winning totals won by any Jeopardy player in history. As with Alex Jacob, it seems inevitable that we will see him again.

 

Buzzy Cohen

I was surprised to hear Buzzy Cohen referred to as a ‘controversial’ Jeopardy player.  There are many adjectives that I associate with him, but he never did anything offensive or derogatory.

Buzzy’s run began after he defeated Andrew Pau, who won six games and just over $170,000.  Buzzy was able to win less than that in nine games, but that doesn’t change the fact of how impressive he was. For one thing, due to a three week hiatus which took up most of May of 2016 (the Teachers Tournament, followed by the Powers Player Week) he might have had some rust. For another, his four last wins were all runaways which allowed him to engage in some mockery of Alex in Final Jeopardy for each win. (Maybe some fans were angered by this; as we all know, Alex Trebek never minded being made fun of.

After that Buzzy had a long wait until the Tournament of Champions – nearly a year and a half before the 2017 Tournament began. He got off to a fast start in his quarterfinal match and squeaked out a win in his semi-final. Then he, Alan Lin and Austin Rogers engaged quite a bit of clowning in the finals for the cameras while all three were deadly serious in front of them. In a brutal fight, Buzzy managed to come out the winner.

Invited back less than two years later for the All-Star Games, Buzzy was named one of the team captains for the battle. He made excellent choices for his teammates (Alex Jacob and Jennifer Giles), played brilliant in the Double Jeopardy round of Game 1, but couldn’t come through with a correct Final Jeopardy to earn an automatic spot in the Finals.  In the wild-card match, he was again brilliant in Double Jeopardy in the first game, and the fact that he couldn’t come up with a correct response for Final Jeopardy didn’t have any affect on the outcome (Alex’s wager on a Daily Double had put them out of the running) His team shared in a prize of $75,000.

So why is Buzzy controversial? Because he doesn’t take the sacred cows of Jeopardy seriously? Because he mocked Trebek, and in interview segments bragged about ‘putting Ken and Brad out to pasture’? Because in interview segments both Alan Lin and Austin Rogers mocked him back. I never sensed any menace in their tones; Jeopardy champions may be competitive by nature but there’s little menace or meanness to it.  Buzzy Cohen is one of the most charming and brilliant Jeopardy players of all time (and for the record, I found his hosting of the most recent Tournament of Champions nearly perfect.)  I want to see him as much for his play and what he says.

 

Seth Wilson

And sometimes the all time greats never get their due. Such was the case for Seth Wilson who might just be the winningest Jeopardy champion you’ve forgotten.

At the beginning of the 2016-17 season, Seth Wilson put together one of the most impressive Jeopardy streaks to that point. He managed to win twelve games, something that only five players to that point had managed to do. (I’ve already mentioned all of them, and Ken Jennings you know about. He lost his thirteenth because he bet too conservatively in Final Jeopardy. He had won $265,002 and impressive amount. But when the Tournament of Champions took place the next November, he’d been forgotten. Because at the beginning of the 2017-2018 season Austin Rogers had stolen his audience – and the Internet – by winning twelve games and $411,000.

To be fair, Austin was by far a superior player to Seth when it came to Daily Doubles and Final Jeopardy’s. And it didn’t help Seth’s case as one of the all time greatest when his run in the Tournament of Champions ended in the quarterfinals, particularly in a match where he trailed Lisa Schlitt (who we’ll discuss in the next entry) all the way.

There was a possibility for redemption when Seth was one of the players participating in the All-Star Games and was drafted by Julia Collins. But Seth’s work was not enough help his team prevail. In the Double Jeopardy round of Game 1, Matt Jackson ran rings around him. And while Seth played brilliantly in the Jeopardy round of Game 2, putting his Team in the lead, Ken Jennings would demolish it by the end of the first category in Double Jeopardy. By the time that round was over, the audience knew what would become clear to team Julia just a few minutes later: Team Julia was going home first, sharing in $50,000.

It’s rare for Jeopardy champion this good lost his place in the show’s history this quickly. But fans forget and the show almost never does. Seth will be back to get another chance. How far he will get is another story.

 

To Be Continued….

 

My Predictions For This Year's Emmys, Drama Concluded: Outstanding Supporting ACtress in a Drama et al

 

Would I have preferred to see Millie Bobby Brown or some of the deserving ladies from This is Us nominated? Of course. But all things considered with only one exception, this is a superb group of actress.  I have a couple of overwhelming preferences in this category and there are some I’d like to see win because I admire their work. So let’s begin.

 

Patricia Arquette, Severance: 17-2.

For Playing: Miss Cobel, the disapproving department head at Lumon. For Her: I think Arquette is truly one of the great actresses in television history. I’m glad she won an Emmy in 2019, but I’d have preferred that she had won for her previous collaboration with Ben Stiller Escape at Dannemora. Just as she does here, Arquette disappears behind a hair cut and makeup and plays someone unlike her previous characters – someone in authority, someone untrustworthy, someone who when she appears as Mark’s next door neighbor you are automatically suspicious of and not surprised. No one at Lumon is trustworthy, but Cobel is fundamentally frightening at how brittle and uncaring she seems to everybody. It’s a master class of villainy and some of Arquette’s best work. Against Her: Arquette was one of the few cast members of Severance not to win an acting award at the HCA a couple of weeks ago. And there is a general consensus that there are younger nominees in this category who have a better chance. This will not be Arquette’s year.

 

Julia Garner, Ozark: 5-1.

For Playing: Ruth Langmore, the teenage associate of the Byrdes involved in their final act. For Her: Garner is, in my opinion, the only thing of any value in Ozark. I may not have been thrilled by both of her Emmy wins, but I understood why. For all the world-weariness we see in Ruth throughout the series, even though she’s lost everything she loved and held dear because of her association with the Byrdes, she has been their most loyal soldier throughout the run. Was it because of some desire to be part of the Byrde family instead of her own? She should have known better. Because when it came to preserving her life at the cost of their own safety in the finale, the Byrdes didn’t hesitate at putting themselves first. Her final moments onscreen – where she displayed the brutal realism she showed throughout even facing her death – are the kind of thing that typically wins Emmys. Its small wonder Garner is still the favorite. Against Her: In a major upset, Garner lost Best Supporting Actress in a Streaming Drama to Sadie Sink in Stranger Things, someone who wasn’t even nominated by the Emmys this year. Given that this category has far stronger nominees and many actresses who have won more awards the past year, Garner’s momentum may well be fading.

 

Jung Ho-Yeon, Squid Game: 13-2.

For Playing: Kang Sae-Byeok, the teenage pickpocket playing to save her family. For Her: Ho-Yeon was actually an even bigger upset when she took Best Actress at the SAG awards this year over Sarah Snook and Jennifer Anniston, among others. But if you watch the series, it’s no secret why she won. Kang comes off as battle-scarred and utterly unsentimental throughout the first half of the series, refusing to trust anybody in the game, not willing to help. Then when she is forced to play marbles with her life on the line, she has a conversation about the reason she’s here and what’s she playing for. Her opponent throws the match upon hearing it, and it scars her. She received a clearly near fatal injury in the next-to-last game which she does her best to hide. Seong, given a chance to take her life, does everything he can to save her and her inevitable death is even more tragic as a result because she was the only player who had a purely good reason for everything she did. Like the character she plays, Ho-Yeon deserves a win. Against Her: There are a lot of good nominees in this category, and several of them have deserved victory longer than we even knew about Squid Game.

 

Christina Ricci, Yellowjackets: 17-2.

For Playing: Misty, the busybody nurse trying to get the bottom of the blackmail scheme of her ‘friends’. For Her: You get the feeling the moment we meet Misty that this is the character that Ricci has been waiting her entire career to play. Wednesday Addams all grown up, this is someone the survivors utterly don’t trust and are inclined to believed the worst in. From what we see the young version of her do and what she does trying to help, it’s impossible not to think they’re right. Ricci utterly dominates the screen in every scene she’s in and we know all the horrible things we see her do – for good reasons – are the tip of the iceberg with her. Setting all that aside, Ricci has been one of my favorite actresses since I was a child and I really want her to win. Against Her: There are just so many great nominees in this category! Quite a few of whom have been acting as long as Ricci, some of whom are also currently child stars. I know in my heart Ricci will one day win an Emmy for Yellowjackets. It’s just not going to be this year.

 

Rhea Seehorn, Better Call Saul: 7-1.

For Playing: Kim Wexler, the brilliant attorney increasingly ‘breaking bad’ when it comes to conning her former boss. For Her: Finally! I realize the Emmys have a really hard time nominating the women in Vince Gilligan series, but did they have to wait until the penultimate season to finally give the breakout sensation of one of the greatest series of all time her first nomination? Of course I’m not biased when I say I want Seehorn to win the Emmy this year, and I don’t really have to argue that hard to give a reason. Like every character we met on Better Call Saul, Kim Wexler was not what she seemed on the surface. Initially a brilliant utterly ethical attorney, with each successive season she revealed her potential for darker exploits until this season she basically led Jimmy (her soulmate) in the out and out plan to destroy her former boss and mentor.  None of us will forget the moment when, given the choice between helping untold sufferers and going forward with a con, she drove off the road to go on with the con. She did end up paying for it (oh, she’s earned the right to be the favorite for next year right now) but we will never forget any moment Seehorn was on the screen. I was over the moon when she finally took her first award for Supporting Actress from the HCA earlier this month (over many of the favorites in this category!) and I know momentum and the debt the Emmys owe her may be just enough to put the greatest actress I’ve met in years over the top. Against Her: Is all of the momentum (and the great buzz for the second half of the final season) enough to put Seehorn over so many of the other brilliant, earlier award winners this year?

 

J Smith-Cameron, Succession: 10-1.

For Playing: Gerri Kellman, the loyal put upon counsel for Waystar, reaching positions she didn’t think possible. For Playing: If there is any actor from Succession I want to see win an Emmy without any conditions, its Smith-Cameron. It’s not just that, in almost every scene she’s in, she almost always the adult in the room. It’s the fact that Smith-Cameron has been, quietly, one of the great character actresses working for years. (Those of you who read my original Emmy predictions are aware that I pushed for her nomination ahead of Snook’s.) Usually she plays quiet and restrained characters, as in her most famous role prior to this, the quiet mother of Daniel in Rectify, one of the quietly best series I’ve ever watched.  She has an inner calmness and dignity that comes through in all her roles, and in a series where dignity is not a commodity, Gerri manages to hold on to it in the most trying of circumstances. Her character, in my opinion, is the only one who deserves to run Waystar. And I think Smith-Cameron deserves an Emmy for it. Against Her: Being restrained doesn’t usually get you an Emmy, and considering the level of outrage and obscenities that everyone else on the series is known for her, you can understand why it’s remarkable Smith-Cameron earned a nomination in the first place.

 

Sarah Snook, Succession: 11-2.

For Playing: Shiv, the daughter of the Roys trying to take what she thinks is hers in the struggle for power. For Her: Shiv is a character who started out with some principles, but was more than willing to shed them all and throw anyone – including her husband – under the bus to get what she wants. As much as anyone can be in this family, you get the feeling Shiv feels she’s the closest to Logan when it comes to getting Waystar and she does have his darkest qualities. Snook can often be one of the best reasons to watch this series and in the early stages of this year; she managed to lock herself as the favorite, taking both the Golden Globe and the Critics Choice awards. Snook would seem to be the outside favorite. Against Her: The fact that she lost at the SAG awards and especially at the HCA awards shows that the momentum may be soft. The fact that Julia Garner is still predicted as the front runner despite her awards means that she may never had had much to begin with.

 

Sydney Sweeney, Euphoria: 9-1.

For Playing: Cassie, a teenager increasingly finding herself in too many compromising positions. For Her: I may not like the characters Sweeney plays (we’ll get to this when he deal with The White Lotus) but the Emmys sure do. I’m less certain as to why her character got more love of awards shows this cycle then the rest of the cast (I’m just grateful Eric Dane wasn’t included) but it seems the overwhelming theme that followed her this season was betrayal. Betraying her best friend with her ex-boyfriend in the bathroom of a New Year’s Eve party. Refusing to come clean about her secrets time and again. Finally getting involved in a hysterical breakdown and brutal fight (that MTV considered the best of the year) and coming away with an uncertain future after the play. Sweeney showed a fair amount of range that demonstrates what a superb actress she could be. Against Her: I’m not going to lie here, while I can understand Zendaya’s nomination, if not agree with it, Sweeney’s is inexplicable based more on love for Euphoria than anything else. Compared to so many of the actresses in this category, she’s a lightweight.

 

PREDICTION: I think that there’s an excellent chance Seehorn will come out on this with an Emmy, based on past history. (Anna Gunn finally took an Emmy at this exact point in Breaking Bad’s) But I’m also aware there might be enough momentum for Garner or Snook to win. I’m rooting for Seehorn, but Snook might prevail by an eyelash.

 

As I said when it came to Best Guest Actor and Actress regarding the nominations last year, all of the actors and actresses are in series I can’t find the strength to care about. I do, however, care far more about writing and directing.

Based on earlier awards, I think that Best Director will go either to Severance or Yellowjackets. Considering that the Emmys tend to recognize spectacle over cleverness, it is likely to be the latter. I won’t rule out Squid Game, though, for that same reason.

As for writing, I really want it to go to Better Call Saul for the mid-season finale, but I am a realist and accept that it is far more likely to go to Succession, probably the season finale. Then again, considering the HCA gave this one to This is Us, the bells might not say that it will win.

 

Next week, I wrap it up with Best Limited Series. (Still not thrilled with a lot of the choices.)

 

 

My Predictions For This Year's Emmys: Drama, Part 4: Outstanding Supporting Actor in A Drama

While still not thrilled with the absence of anyone from Better Call Saul or This is Us (many of whom had their last chance to be nominated this year), I’m somewhat happier with the eight nominated actors than I was a month ago. Many of them gave exceptional performances, and despite the clear frontrunner given the general number of awards given out, I think the race is more open than you’d think. Here is my opinion and predictions.

 

Nicholas Braun, Succession: 19-2

For Playing: Cousin Greg, the eternally put upon weak sister of the Roy clan. For Him: It’s difficult to consider any member of this horrid family being considered ‘beloved’, but at the very least, Greg’s eternal weakness in the face of all this bloodthirstiness around him gives Braun some of the most hysterical and brilliant lines. Considering the back and forth between him and Tom (the one person that Tom comfortably can bully) always leads to highlights, the fact that he’s always reaching far beyond the grasp – and the outside possibility that in the finale he may have actually managed to find upward mobility – does mean that there might be more to him than meets the eye. Against Him: Braun never seems to get the appreciation from the Emmys that his cousins do. All of them keep winning awards and he only gets nominated. Of the three Succession nominees in this category, he is the least likely to win. Well, that’s sort of fitting, considering the lot of the character he plays.

 

Billy Crudup, The Morning Show: 8-1.

For Playing: Cory Ellison, the newly promoted head of network. For Him: Crudup was the upset winner back in 2020, the only winner from The Morning Show in fact. And even though his character is fundamentally disliked by everybody who has to deal with him, you have to deal with him because he’s the boss, and that means going along with him, even when he sings. Crudup is, like so many in this category, a brilliant character actor who has the ability to draw your attention even when so many brighter lights are on the screen. Just as he shocked everybody last year, he could do it again this year. Against Him: The shine is off The Morning Show (if it was ever on it). It was clear when Severance dominated the Emmy nominations that the once bright show wasn’t even the best streaming drama on Apple anymore. Crudup’s chance of repeating has fallen far lower than the odds should give him.

 

Kieran Culkin, Succession: 9-2

For Playing: Roman, the youngest of the Roys who keeps getting increasingly in hot water. For Him: Roman is the most openly unpleasant of all the Roy children (my opinion anyway) as well as the most hysterical. There’s never a way he can’t put somebody down; never a situation he can’t infinitely make worse. Even when he’s trying to comfort Kendall after he makes a startling admission to him in the season finale, he invariably makes it all about him. And he keeps going out of his way to make his situation worse – whether with his ‘pics’ to the much older family counsel he’s having an affair with, and his seeming inability to have been damaged the most by his father. Culkin is always entertaining, and that was manifestly clear when he won the Supporting Actor prize at the Broadcast Critics awards and gave a speech that very easily could have come from Logan’s mouth. The Emmys could give him the award to see just what he’ll do when he wins. Against Him: Culkin was in this exact situation two years ago and ended up losing to Billy Crudup. The Critics Choice has been the only award he’s one this year – he lost the Golden Globes and earlier this month, he was upset by Giancarlo Esposito for the HCA Award in Broadcast and Cable. I think the support for him is softer than it looks.

 

Park Hae-Soo, Squid Game: 9-1.

For Playing: Cho Sang-woo, the pride of his hometown now the most desperate player in the game. For Playing: At first Cho seems like the most rational and realistic character in the series – he leads the initial vote to get out alive. Then he spends much of the next few episodes as the apparent leader. But as the series continues, you begin to see all that as part of a man who wants to win and will do anything to do that. With each successive game he becomes more and more ruthless, committing cold-blooded murder in the penultimate episode. In the final episode, he seems to recognize what he has become and in his last action, earns back a piece of his soul. This is a remarkable performance the kind that should get awards. Against Him: There is another remarkable co-star of his in this category who managed to win a Golden Globe for his work (see below). Perhaps more importantly, to get the full measure of Hae-Soo’s performance you have to see the entire series to appreciate it. I have a feeling that will work against him far more as well as the tough competition in this category.

 

Matthew MacFayden, Succession: 11-2.

For Playing, Tom, the Roy-in-law who is increasingly unhappy with his part in the machinations of his family. For Him: There was talk of Caligula throughout Season 3, and it looked very much in the season finale that Tom finally realized where the power in the Roy family was and betrayed the wife who has never had any respect for him. There might be a chance that Tom was the clear ‘winner’ of Season 3. For that reason, MacFayden has been moving up in the odds in awards preference. And it’s not hard to see why. Tom’s character isn’t strictly speaking, likable, but giving everything he’s had to go through leading up to and since his wedding of Shiv, he’s by far the easier character to root for. And every time he ends up in the same scene with Cousin Greg, its magic, something even someone like me who doesn’t like the series can admit. If we’re going to give an acting award to someone in Succession, can’t we give it to someone who did something none of the Roy family would ever do, and earn it? Against Him: MacFayden was in this exact scenario last year.  Having the vote in this category split three ways almost always works against TV series (Game of Thrones the only recent exception). That could end up with Tom getting screwed again.

 

John Turturro, Severance: 8-1.

For Playing: Irving, the least liked member of his team, who is going through more struggles due to undergoing the process early. For Him: Turturro is one of the greatest and most underrated actors in history. He has somehow starred in some of the greatest films in history and never gotten an Oscar nomination. He has worked in a lot of great television and only gotten a single Emmy nomination (he lost Best Actor to Riz Ahmed, his co-lead in The Night Of) And the cast of Severance has such a great ensemble (the HCA nominated four actors in this category) that it would be easy for him to get lost in it. But Turturro managed to prevail last week because his Irving, like all his characters, has more depth than you want to admit. Like so many of the characters Turturro is famous for playing, Irving is a gadfly barely tolerated in his work life. The audience is inclined to quickly dislike him. And yet we see how much Irving is struggling and we see it early. We see how much of his work is a brave face and how much he doesn’t seem to fit in anywhere.  Like most Turturro characters, he wins you over almost against your will. Purely for sentimental reasons, I’d really like to see him win this year. Against Him: The Emmys, as we all know, has never been sentimental particularly when it comes to Peak TV. How many times did Jonathan Banks lose to Peter Dinklage? The Emmys showed zero towards Michael K. Williams, even after he passed away last year.  I’d hope the award might be enough to push him over the top, but there are a lot of great character actors in this field.

 

Christopher Walken, Severance: 19-2

For Playing: Burt, from a different part of Lumon, who increasingly finds himself in Irving’s orbit. For Him: Walken has been such a fixture of the cultural landscape for so long – often more cliché than anything else – that we too often forget how great an actor he is when it comes to showing humanity. He gets a chance to do as Burt, another aging member of Lumon, part of a department that is scorned by the team Irving is on, someone struggling for respect. Walken gets to show emotions and range we too often forget him capable of – several of them more emotionally surprising than the plot twists on Severance – and in a cast full of great actors, Walken proves again why he’s one of the greatest of them all. Against Him: Walken’s role in the series was less essential to the larger story than Turturro or indeed several other characters. And unlike Turturro, he has received a lot of recognition from awards shows. I suspect the nomination will be enough.

 

Oh Yeong-su, Squid Game: 6-1.

For Playing: Oh Il-nam, a dying old man who plays the game because of a tumor in his head. For Him: Yeong-su was the surprising winner of a Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor this March, and having seen the full extent of his work in Squid Game it’s clear why. His character has a fuller range than almost anyone other than Jung-Jae – he seems wise beyond his year, with better advice than more players, then starting losing cognition and in his final game, seems to lose all touch with reality. Watching Seong sadly cheat him in order to survive was moving, as was his final moment – until the series finale when you realized just what a performance it was. This was a triumph in a series full of great moments, and he could be a spoiler. Against Him: The Golden Globes have a particular black mark against them this year, and there are many good American veteran actors in this category (see above) That may be too much for Yeong-su, like the character he seemed to play, to overcome.

 

PREDICTION: With the awards all over the place, I think it comes down to one of three – Culkin, Turturro or Yeong-su. I will hope for one of the latter two (particularly Turturro) but I will lean towards Culkin this time.

 

Tomorrow I finish with Supporting Actress in a Drama and some ephemera.

 

My Predictions For This Year's Emmys, Drama, Part 3: Outstanding Lead Actress In A Drama

 

Anyone who remembers the angry posts that I wrote in the aftermath of this year’s Emmys nominations remembers how generally hostile I was to this particular group of nominees in particular.  The major reasons were the inclusion of Zendaya (which was inevitable, despite my rabid denials) and the exclusion of Mandy Moore, which makes no sense at all. While I acknowledge the overall quality of most of the nominees in this category – the lion’s share of who were in the HCA nominations this year – Moore’s exclusion, like those of the entire cast of This is Us remains inconceivable. This was illustrated even further at the TCA, which ignored Euphoria in its nominations altogether, but gave Moore the prize for Best Dramatic Performance. This is an exclusion that, like similar ones for The Good Wife and Justified, will rank as the Emmy greatest blunders.  End of rant.

So, with the effort of neutrality, I will try to predict the odds of the nominees in this category.

 

Jodie Comer, Killing Eve: 6-1.

For Playing: Villanelle, an assassin whose path to reformation leads her back to the gang of 12 and Eve. For Her: Comer has by far been the sensation of this series, playing one of the most frightening characters in television history. As she spent much of the final season of this series trying desperately to turn away from her actions, only to be dragged back in – how reluctantly is always hard to say with Villanelle – we got a taste of how she went from a relative unknown to one of the biggest stars in recent years. Viewers were outraged at the fate of her character in the finale. Perhaps an Emmy would make it up to them? Against Her: Comer’s win in 2018 was a huge upset and she has never seriously contended since then (though admittedly the category has featured several extraordinary actresses and characters). I have a feeling that Comer will end up just being there for the party this year.

 

Laura Linney, Ozark: 9-2.

For Playing: Wendy Byrde, dealing with the consequences of her corruption to her life and her family. For Her: Let’s deal with the obvious: Linney is one of the greatest actresses in history who you can never stop watching no matter what project she’s a part of. She has been one of the great forces on television for years, having won four Emmys for four different projects.  Best Actress in a Drama is one of the few categories she’s never been rewarded for, and as much as I actively dislike Ozark, none of that is because of Linney. Her character has been part of the biggest arc of anyone in the series, from a wife unwillingly drawn in to her husband’s schemes to a character as ruthless and bloodthirsty as he is. And even when you think she’s protecting her family – as she was at a critical point nearly the series’ end - you couldn’t tell how much of it was an act. In the character of Wendy Byrde, she may have created a character as close to the antiheroine as we have ever seen in recent years – she was what everybody accused Skyler White’s character of being. As Ozark sails off to the sunset, there’s an argument she deserves a prize. The fact that she took a trophy from the HCA awards for Streaming indicates she might have the momentum. Against Her: Linney only managed to tie Britt Lower of Severance for Best Actress, and that was the only award Ozark managed to win. There has never been a lot of enthusiasm to giving this series awards and considering that Linney does have four Emmys already, voters may be less inclined to give her the big prize.

 

Melanie Lynskey, Yellowjackets: 39-10.

For Playing: Shauna, the survivor of a plane crash, trying to deal with the crises with someone who knows about her past and a marriage that is imploding on both ends. For Her: I’ll be honest here: the only actress in this category who I really give a damn about and want to see win is Lynskey. Part of it is because, like the character she plays, Lynskey had so much potential as a child actress and then spent so much time hiding. She’s been slowly been revealing her gifts in the last several years on TV, but Yellowjackets gives her the first great role she’s had in decades. Unlike her co-stars Ricci (who was nominated) and Juliette Lewis (who should have been), Lynskey doesn’t chew the scenery. Shauna’s been pretending that she isn’t as damaged as her friends and we spend much of the first season that she truly is, watching her learn about her husband’s affair by having one with a total stranger, showing her utter dislike for her teenage daughter, and spending as much time as possible denying the death of her best friend in the aftermath and trying to participate in the new reality. It is a masterclass. And the indications in the pre-Emmys awards have shown just how much the critics love her work – in a shock, she took Best Actress at the Critics Choice in March and managed to upset Zendaya herself at the Broadcast and Cable TV awards at the HCA a few weeks ago. The odds show just how much she’s closed the gap between her and Zendaya and I think she might be able to pull it off. Against Her: Yellowjackets has been a critical and popular sensation, but not the smash popular and cultural hit that Euphoria has been.  Could the Emmys decide to honor a current young adult star over a former one?

 

Sandra Oh, Killing Eve: 13-2.

For Playing: Eve, an MI6 agent making one last effort to bring down an international organization and dealing with her complication relationship with its former assassin. For Her: Let’s be honest: Oh is way overdue recognition from the Emmys. I may not have liked Christina Yang on Grey’s Anatomy, but I don’t think it was fair she went 0 for 5 from the Emmys either. (And seriously? Losing to Blythe Danner for Huff? Twice?) Everyone expected her to win the Emmy the year Killing Eve premiered and she won every award leading up to it but the Emmy. (I’m pretty sure even Jodie Comer expected Oh to win.) And now it’s her last chance for her to take home a prize for her work as the forever put upon Eve who has lost almost everything because of Villanelle but just can’t quit her. There’s a good argument for Oh to prevail. Against Her: Killing Eve’s moment has passed; the series was not nominated for Best Drama for its final season, and the nominations for the two leads were the only major ones the series received this year.  Considering that and the general frustration fans felt with the series finale, Oh’s best opportunity for an Emmy has probably passed. (Then again, we can always hope The Chair, a Netflix comedy where she was quite brilliant, is renewed for another season.)

 

Reese Witherspoon, The Morning Show: 7-1.

For Playing: Bradley Jackson, the head anchor at a TV morning show dealing with a world – and a network – in crisis. For her: I’m the first person to argue that Witherspoon is overdue recognition from the Emmys; just two years ago I was outraged when, though she was the part of three series that received Emmy nominations for their female stars that somehow Witherspoon got no recognition for any of them. And in all honesty, I was always more of the opinion that Witherspoon’s work on The Morning Show was more deserving of a nomination or a win then her co-star Jennifer Aniston who seemed to win more praise for her return to series TV then the actual quality of her performance. Witherspoon is more than due a win. Against Her: Witherspoon’s nomination was by far the biggest surprise among the nominated actresses in this category and honestly, the fact that she was nominated over Mandy Moore is one of those most obvious blunders the Emmys made. Much as I want to see her win an Emmy for something, I don’t think she has a realistic chance.

 

Zendaya, Euphoria: 37-10.

For Playing: Rue, a teenage addict heading full-on to suicide and determined not to change. For Her: I don’t like Euphoria. I especially don’t like Zendaya’s work in Euphoria. And just for the record, a lot of critics online and in print didn’t like her or Season 2 of Euphoria. But even those of who don’t admire her work can’t help be shocked at her range. There were things in her performance I hated as a critic, but seeing her literally run from her problems, go through the agony of withdrawal and face the reality of who she is and was, is the kind of performance that is powerful. Almost before Season 2 ended, Zendaya was the out and out favorite for a second Emmy. And we all know the Emmys believe in narrative more than the quality of the performance. Against Her: The only award that Zendaya has won for her work was the MTV Movie and TV awards. Lynskey and Linney have been dominating the awards leading up to the Emmys, she wasn’t even nominated by the TCA and it says a lot that Mandy Moore and Britt Lower have been receiving more awards in the last month then she has. The narrowness of the odds between her and Lynskey right now show just how much the race has changed. The institutional memory of the Emmys – honoring winners from the previous season – may be all that saves her, and that almost always applies to winners whose series' air in consecutive years, not in consecutive seasons. And for the record, no lead actress has won multiple Emmys for the same show since Juliana Marguilies in 2012 and 2013 for Homeland. That’s a hell of a gap in recent history.

 

PREDICTION: While I won’t rule out the possibility that momentum will carry Zendaya over the top, recent evidence suggests that Lynskey has the buzz and the awards to get her on the stage in a few weeks.

 

Tomorrow, I cover Best Supporting Actor in A Drama, where despite the absence of anyone from Better Call Saul, I actually care about a bit more than when the nominations came out.