Are Horror Movies Scary From A Philosophical Perspective?

 

While I don’t have a fundamental opinion about a higher power, I do have one about a similar philosophical issue. I have to believe we all have free will. The idea of predestination – that all our decisions have been mapped out in advance before we were born by some higher power – is something I can’t bring myself to endorse. And if we ever found out otherwise, I think humanity as we know it would stop functioning.

I’ve mentioned this subject before in a few of my other articles, not all of them in this series. But realizing this I think that may be a major reason I’ve had a lot of difficulty with the majority of all horror films. To be sure the blood and gore is a big factor – I’ve never had the strongest of stomachs and I don’t believe in the body horror genre – but even some of the less outwardly gory films in the genre I’ve found troubling. It wasn’t until fairly recently that I realized that my problems may be of a philosophical nature.

Over the course of my viewing experience, I’ve found that far too many horror films are deterministic. I don’t mean the evidence of certain supernatural entities such as God or the Devil, as we see in The Exorcist and so many of its ilk. And I’m not just talking about the often formulaic nature of it: most studio and franchise films have formulas and while I have issues with some of them, it has nothing to do with the formula. It’s that more than any other genre, horror has a very dark philosophical undertone that is almost entirely deterministic.

Perhaps the most obvious version of this is the teenage slasher films of the 1980s and 1990s. In all of these films – Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13^th, Texas Chainsaw Massacre -  all of the characters in these movies were basically irrelevant to the boogeyman: Freddy, Jason, Leatherface, et al. There is a cliché that character is destiny and if you were anyone other than the monster in these movies, your character’s destiny was already written. The details – the when, where and how – were all that mattered.

Almost none of the slasher movies in the 1980s or 1990s and indeed very few of the later versions – I speak mainly of the Saw franchise – are in a sense the worst kind of horror because their presence in the film only means we’re going to witness them die horribly sometime later in the film. Wes Craven would actually visit the archetype he’d helped create in Scream and if that movie hadn’t become a franchise it would have been clever.

(Interestingly a few years earlier he attempted what was a far more intriguing meta version of this in Wes Craven’s New Nightmare. Featuring Heather Langenkamp, Robert Englund and Craven all playing themselves he actually argued that he as a filmmaker had summoned Freddy Krueger by writing the first movie after a new series of killings began. Craven then actually began to write a script in which he told Langenkamp that the only way to stop Freddy was to make another movie. The script itself eventually seemed to foretell the events in the movie word for word. The film was well received critically but bombed at the box office perhaps because it was too serious. When Craven revisited the subject matter in Scream, he used an original story and developed a humorous tone.)

I find these movies troubling in more recent years because frequently whatever the nature of the monster, there’s often a darker tone that the people he’s targeting deserve to die for other reasons. I recently saw a version of this called Student Body which was barely had the energy to be a teenage slasher film. It didn’t even truly have the energy of a plot: a math teacher at a boarding school harassed a high school student, she conspires with a friend to get him fired, they sneak into the school and he kills them one by one. None of the characters are more than stick figures and when the truth is reveal the teacher expects the survivor to be grateful for a ‘character building exercise’. Somehow this is worse than the slasher movies: at least Jason Vorhees didn’t lecture the final girl about why she should be grateful he spared her.

I actually find The Cabin in the Woods Joss Whedon’s horror comedy that satirizes the genre even more deterministic. It’s not just that the cliché argues that these characters have no purpose other than to be sacrificed or even that its being bet on. It’s that the ‘happy ending’ of the movie implies that it is better for the human race to be exterminated rather than carry on with these slaughters. Joss Whedon’s series have frequently taken dark tones (I recently read an article that essentially calls him a deeply existential TV writer and I agree with that) but even the series finale of Angel argues that even if everything is meaningless, the fight still matters. The end of Cabin in the Woods essentially gives lie to that entire argument and its more upsetting than any of the blood and gore in the film.

My problems with determinism almost certainly explain why I have such a huge problem with found footage films. The very description of the genre tells you exactly what you need to know about the whole movie. Everything you really need to know about any of these films whether it is Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield or Paranormal Activity is basically told in the opening subtitle. It doesn’t really matter what happens to the cameraperson at the end of Blair Witch .or the camera men in Cloverfield: we just know they’re not there to tell the tale.

I am reminded of Hitchcock’s definition of the difference between horror and suspense and in that sense there’s absolutely no real suspense as we watch these movies. We’re seeing the film knowing the bomb has gone off; the fact the characters don’t know that they’re fighting a ticking clock is kind of irrelevant in that matter. In my opinion it’s why The Last Broadcast is a brilliant horror film and The Blair Witch Project is just a bunch of kids running around with cameras. In the former film,  the found footage is the ticking clock and the bomb doesn’t go off until the final shot.

Other variations on this that work as horror are Chronicle (which I talked about in the 2012 films series) and M. Night Shyamalan’s The Visit. In that film the biggest twist is that we think were watching a found footage movie and the reason the camera is dropped at the end is because it’s a happy ending. (I won’t give it a way because I highly recommend this one.) Both of these movies do play tricks on the genre but that actually works to its benefit. Almost every other found footage films plays into the idea – basically telling you what you’re going to get, the only question is the details.

But the version of this I find the most offensive actually has threads online. “Films where the characters do everything right but the bad guy wins anyway.” This isn’t exclusive to horror but I find it most intolerable in that genre no matter how well done the movie is. The most recent example of it – at least that I saw  - was Smile. To be clear I acknowledge that it worked on every other level I like in horror: it’s opening sequence was extraordinary, the use of the force sneaking up Sosie Bacon’s character over the course of the film, driving her closer and closer to the edge, all of the fake outs and traumatizing moments. But the final reveal at the end – which was just another variation of the hero seeming to triumph over the villain just to have turned out to be beaten by the monster – negated the whole movie.

I have a similar problem with this in horror novels as well: when after all the violence and bloodshed, the characters have either beaten the monster or at least escaped only for the fact that evil has triumphed anyway. (Nick Cutter, author of The Troup, is the most recent abuser of his trope.) Every time I read a novel like this I tend to wonder: why did we have bother with this? I almost prefer when everyone is killed at the end to this.

Now to be fair I am a huge fan of The Twilight Zone in its original version and quite a few episodes of the first two remakes. (I haven’t seen the most recent one.) But the major difference was that at the end of so many of the episode Rod Serling and his fellow writers were skilled enough with their writing and character development to make it feel like a sense of tragedy. When Burgess Meredith breaks his eyeglasses at the end of ‘Time Enough To Last’ or we realize the horror the people in It’s A Good Life will never be able to escape, the writing makes you feel a sense of pathos and sadness.

Contrast this with a series that may be the quintessential version of this kind of determinism: the 1990s remake of The Outer Limits that aired on Showtime and in syndication. Originally taking on a trope similar to the original series, it eventually began to write the stories where the twists at the end increasingly gave rise to the heroes apparent triumph being a twist to show them defeated but where those endings were just the start of mankind being doomed as a result of the heroes actions. The clearest example of this was ‘The Light Brigade’ an episode where an Earth that is losing a war against aliens sends a troop of six hundred ships to fight one battle with a ship carrying a bomb that will destroy an alien planet to turn the tide. Naturally the aliens surprise the brigade and only a single ship with the bomb and a few survivors are left, all of whom are dying of radiation poisoning.

The survivors realize the aliens have infiltrated them and are determined to complete their mission before they die. Eventually the alien is reveal and the sole human remaining kills him. He walks towards the bomb bay doors with, knowing his death is imminent. Reciting Tennyson’s famous poem, he makes it to the bomb and begins to input the code. As he does so, a blowtorch begins to burn its way in. He finished the code and the countdown begins. A figure walks in.

It's a human. While everyone was unconscious the alien turned the ship around. The survivor has dropped his bomb on Earth.

By my count there were at least twenty to thirty similar stories that led to Earth being destroyed over the course of the more than seven seasons on the air. In each of them the actions of the selfishness, terror or just misguided thinking of the characters let to this destruction.  It’s a good point – but Rod Serling only needed to make it once in five years and knew enough to let the story play out in other fashion. The writers of The Outer Limits just seemed to be telling the same story over and over again.

Now I suppose some people – maybe those philosophically inclined  - could argue that so much of this writing, at least in the third trope, is making the argument that no matter what we do, we can not escape death. No serious person would stand by it after five Final Destination movies. It’s just lazy writing.

And that is no doubt why the horror films I like will be those of Jordan Peele, who mixes his doom with both humor and social commentary or the works of Ari Aster, who build slow dread where the characters don’t realize the situation they’re in until it’s too late or the movies in A Quiet Place which show sets of characters who refuse to give into fate and are determined to fight back. That is, for the record, why I was a fan of Day One which focused its story on a character who was already doomed before the invasion even began and who looked on what was happening a chance to make her own fate. The journey Lupita Nyong’o took towards Patsy was a triumph not because she survived making it there but because it allowed her to choose how to live and die on her own terms. Her fate was pre-ordained but she managed to still defeat on her own terms. No Final Girl has ever triumphed as thoroughly in such as a way as the final moment of that film. That was a victory of free will over destiny.

My Predictions For the 2024 Emmys Week 2 Concluded: Outstanding Supporting Actress in A Drama

 

An editorial first. I think we seriously need to consider putting quotas on the number of nominees from any given show who can be allowed for a single category. Some might say that’s unfair. But this is the fifth time in six years that the majority of nominees in this category have come from a single show. For whatever reason the Emmys can be excessive in this category, and on the rare occasions I agree with it (The White Lotus) it does seem like the Academy’s chosen to nominate everyone in the series. I couldn’t comprehend the logic behind previous dominated categories (Game of Thrones in 2019, The Handmaid’s Tale in 2021) and this year it’s just as bad. I acknowledge there can be multiple talented performers among a supporting cast but there does come a point of diminishing returns not to mention being unfair to every other drama that has the misfortune to air against them. The Emmys is going to have to visit this at some point.

And honestly just like all the previous years the controversy may be rendered moot because the frontrunner in the category is not a nominee from the series that has the glut of the nominations. But don’t think I’ve forgotten that The Morning Show has essentially robbed such premiere actresses as Kristen Scott Thomas, Sonja Sohn and Cynthia Nixon. I’ve got a list and I’m going to keep reminding you of it.

Anyone enough ranting.

Christine Baranski, The Gilded Age. Odds: 6-1. For Playing: Agnes Von Rijn, a society matron trying to deal with the changing times of  1880s New York. Pro: Few actresses have been more outstanding in the age of Peak TV and fewer still have gotten less recognition from the Emmys. Baranski went 0 for six for her incredible work as Diane Lockhart on The Good Wife, was never so much as nominated during her remarkable work as the same character on The Good Fight and was denied a win for her work on The Big Bang Theory. Now as Agnes Baranski is clearly having more fun that she’s had in her decades long career on TV. Every character on this show has incredible dialogue but every line out of Agnes’s mouth is somehow hysterical. As much as she seems determined to ignore the flow of progress (at least in her own home) she remains sometimes more ahead of the times that even she would admit. And she was given the ability for great emotion to go with it: dealing with the whirlwind romance and marriage of her younger sister, the suspense of whether or not she would come to the wedding, her being a rock when her new brother-in-law became mortally ill, and the stunning reversal of fortunes at the end of the season when at first it seemed she would be left with nothing only to be saved in a way that will change her role in the household forever. Baranski deserves to win. She deserves to win for this show. Of all the nominees in this category I’m pulling for her the most. Con: It has always been Baranski’s fate to be overshadowed in this category and in fact she lost to Maggie Smith, who played her equivalent in Downton Abbey. I think it’s going to happen here too.

Nicole Beharie, The Morning Show. Odds: 13-2. For Playing: Christina Hunter. (Note: Not having seen The Morning Show I’m going to try and speak from my perspective on the performers not their work.) Pro: Beharie has a performer I’ve had great admiration for during the last decade: she got an unfair deal from Sleepy hollow (as we have recently learned) and made a memorable impression on me in what amounted to cameos in Little Fires Everywhere and Scenes From A Marriage. She’s received more than her share of recognition for this role, being nominated by both the Critics’ Choice Awards and the Image Awards this past and joining a cast with this many talented performers – and in such a critical role to the third season – shows how well she does when thrown in the deep end. Con: It really does seem that every female supporting performer was nominated in this category with little regard for why. As is often the case, none have a real chance of winning.

Elizabeth Debicki, The Crown. Odds: 9-2. For Playing: Princess Diana, finding love after her divorce before tragedy ensues. Pro: Debicki is one of the few nominees in any of this year’s Emmys who has been dominant in the previous year’s Awards. She has already won the Golden Globe and the Critics Choice Award in this category and was the surprise winner for Outstanding Lead Actress at the SAG awards. How much of this is due to the fact that many thought she should have won last year will never be known but anyone who watched her (all too brief) appearance in the final season of The Crown knows it was just as masterful as before. In what were the final months of her life we saw that even after having left the royal family Diana could not escape either being manipulated by forces beyond her control or the press that deluged her. Whatever happiness she thought she might feel with Dodi (the series makes it clear this was a blooming romance, not the great affair some feel it was) is always under a shadow of society. From the moment she met Charles Diana was always trapped and she died under that same shadow. Debicki showed the gift of revealing that Diana was not a saint, but just as flawed and damaged as all the other characters on The Crown. In a series with countless great supporting performances, hers was one of the greatest. Con: Morgan’s decision to put Diana in the final season of The Crown was a last minute one and it shows in some ways. Debicki’s role was far more diminished than all the other performers in this category and considering the controversy of Debicki’s last episode, it may not work for her.

Greta Lee, The Morning Show. Odds: 6-1. For Playing: Stella Bak. Pro: Given her nomination for this category and her brilliant work in Past Lives it would seem Lee is having a moment. In truth the rest of the world has caught up with her. Where there is a female run TV series Lee has been there, whether to bad effect(as in Girls) or great effect (Inside Amy Schumer, Russian Doll) , She’s known for superb voice work often in undervalued series (HouseBroken) or blockbuster films (Spiderman: Across the Spiderverse). She can do drama as well as comedy and she is incredibly versatile. It’s actually kind of astonishing she hasn’t been nominated before in any other series. Con: She hasn’t been nominated by either the Gold3en Globes or Critics Choice while so many others have. This one seems very arbitrary.

Lesley Manville, The Crown. Odds: 11-2. For Playing: Princess Margaret, the sister of Elizabeth coming close to the end of her life. Pro: I don’t think there’ll be much argument among fans of The Crown that by far the most tragic character during it is Margaret, a woman who was denied the love of her life because of the system in the first season and has been essentially never recovered from it. It has been heartbreaking watching the character decline, from Vanessa Kirby’s brightness and vigor to Helena Bonham-Carter’s slowly being eroded by drink and debauchery to Manville’s portrayal of a woman who has given her life to a system she never wanted to be a part of. As the final season progressed any historian knew that Margaret’s death was going to occur during it but that didn’t make it any less heartbreaking or shattering when it happened. More than any character Margaret has represented the human cost of being part of the system and it is the kind of role that Manville, one of the great character actresses in Britain, played to moving dignity even to the end. Con: Much like in real life, the actresses who have played Margaret have lost to brighter suns over the course of the series. Kirby lost to Thandiwe Newton the only year she was nominated; Carter lost to her co-star Gillian Anderson in 2021 and Julia Garner the previous year. Manville has been rising in the odds but we all know which royal princess is likely to win.

Karen Pittman, The Morning Show. Odds: 7-1. For Playing: Mia Jordan. Pro: Pittman has been extremely busy the last two years: she’s been playing supporting roles both in The Morning Show and in And Just Like That. Then apparently she went to work in a TV series The Long Long Night with her co-star Mark Duplass. Pittman was nominated for a Critics Choice Award in this category and has been one of the steady forces and utility players in a very versatile cast. Con: See previous entries.

Holland Taylor, The Morning Show. Odds: 13-2. For Playing: Cybil Richards, an executive being targeted by an investigative journalist. Pro: Of all the nominees in this category Taylor is the only one who isn’t a regular. This doesn’t shock me because Taylor has been down this road before. I well remember how she made such an impression in what was meant to be a one-episode role in The Practice that showrunner David E. Kelley expanding the role and she received two Best Supporting Actress Emmy nominations and a win in 1999 that shocked everybody including her. Taylor had been prominent in TV before (she had been the lead in the brilliant one season masterpiece The Powers That B and the intriguing The Naked Truth) but as she got older she embrace not only her seductiveness (memorably in 2 and a Half Men0 and her sexuality (The L Word) She’s worked constantly on undervalued series (Hollywood,  The Chair) and she had a brilliant role in the final season of Billions. Taylor told us her final scene on The Morning Show was this year. It’s been 25 years since she won her last Emmy. Time for a bookend. Con: See the previous nominees. But at least she can come this year with her significant other as arm candy for her nomination at the Emmys, not the other way around as it usually is. (See below if you don’t already know who that actress is.

Pro: Sorry Agnes. Sorry Margaret. Debicki wins this in a walk.

 

Now the remaining major awards.

For directing, given the scope and magnificence of the episode I think the Crimson Sky episode of Shogun wins this in a walk. I’m not as sure that it will win in writing because it’s competing against the pilot of the series. Look for the possibility of Slow Horses to take an upset.

As for Guest Actor in a Drama, I think this will come down to either Jonathan Pryce for Slow Horses or Nestor Carbonell for Shogun. Guest Actress in a Drama is definitely going to be won by one of the guest performers in Mr. and Mrs. Smith. I think it will likely go to Sarah Paulson for her work as the marriage counselor who doesn’t know the clients she’s getting. (Holland Taylor will be there to support her.)

Next week I deal with Limited Series. These are the categories I’m far the most prepped for and I will have more detailed explanations for all of them.

My Predictions for the 2024 Emmys Week 2, Day 4: Outstanding Supporting Actor in A Drama

 

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A DRAMA

Unlike many of the previous categories we have a frontrunner, albeit a slight one. But this one’s going to be trickier than usual given that one of the series has three nominees in it and another has two. We’ve seen in recent years in the Emmys that sometimes this can hurt qualified nominees (Game of Thrones, Better Call Saul) sometimes it doesn’t (Succession, The Crown) We’ll find out which is which this year. I should add that four of the nominees are among the actors I’ve admired the most over the years, particularly in television or in film. Here we go.

 

 

Tadanobu Asano, Shogun. Odds: 11-2. For Playing: Yabushige, the right hand man to Toranaga – for the moment. Pro: If there was a character who became a fan favorite during Shogun it was Yabushige. In a show where every character kept a poker face, it was often hysterical to see a character acknowledge how horrible his situation was and try to do everything he could to survive, which meant switching sides whenever possible. Asano’s work was among the comic highpoints of the show – and in the season finale, took on a note of tragedy when he realized how his lord had manipulated him, appreciated the marvel of his plan – but would still not be confided in even at death. Asano is more than deserving of a win. Con: Unlike his fellow nominees Asano doesn’t have this category to himself. And as we’ll see, there’s an excellent chance his surprise co-nominee could take enough votes to deny him the prize

Billy Crudup, The Morning Show. Odds: 5-1. For Playing: Cory Ellison, the executive producer dealing with the potential sail of the network he works on. Pro: Crudup is the only nominee in this category with a win from a previous awards show under his belt – he was the surprise winner of the Best Supporting Actor in a Drama at the Critics Choice Awards this past January, one of the few major awards Matthew MacFayden didn’t get last year. In a series with so many names in it, Crudup has been the unquestioned star, unflinching his ruthlessness, but somehow hysterical (and musical). While many have overall questioned the quality of this show, few deny the ability of Crudup to dominate the screen as Ellison. And considering that he was the last previous winner in this category on an awards show that loves to give repeats, it might pay off. Con: It has been four years since Crudup’s previous upset win in 2020 at the Emmys and many at the time questioned what was this show’s only win at the Emmys. Institutional memory may not be enough.

Mark Duplass, The Morning Show. Odds: 7-1. For Playing: Chip Black, working behind the scenes at TMS. Pro: Speaking strictly for myself I’ve been a huge admirer of Duplass as both a writer and a performer for the last decade. I’ve loved him in just about every TV series he’s done over the years, whether its his work on The League or the two short-lived series Togetherness, his guest role on The Mindy Project or Goliath, or his producing the superbly weird Room 104 anthology as well as his work for the superb Somebody Somewhere. He and his brother Jay (also criminally underrecognized for his own acting) have been the kings of independent films. I couldn’t be more thrilled that he is finally getting long, long overdue recognition for what is a relatively subtle role as Chip on The Morning Show. He more than deserves the nominations he gets. Con: Unfortunately it is the fate of a Duplass to be underappreciated and that is true on this show. One of his co-nominees are more likely to get it than him.

Jon Hamm, The Morning Show: Odds: 6-1. For Playing: Paul Marks, a billionaire CEO who becomes involved with Alex. Pro: Jon Hamm never really left television when Mad Men ended but he officially returned during 2023 and has been nominated for both his major roles. We know we shouldn’t trust Paul from the moment we meet him but it’s the gift of Hamm as a performer that we, like Alex, are lured in by his charm and good looks. We want to trust him even when we shouldn’t. But when he offers to throw UBA  lifeline some are willing to give it, even as the warning signs flare and then at the end of the season we learn all too well our first instincts were right. Hamm has this century living in the grey area, even when he’s clear evil. His rugged good looks and charm carry him. Plus you know, one Emmy out of 12 nominations? I grant the difficulty of the competition but he’s not up against Bryan Cranston this year. Con: No, he’s up against another brilliant actor who happens to have the initials B.C. Maybe he’ll have better luck in Best Limited Series (though if anything, the competition there is even worse.)  

Takehiro Hira, Shogun. Odds: 13-2. For Playing: Kazunari, trying to manipulate himself in order to rule Feudal Japan. Pro: Few suspected that Hira, among a superb ensemble would be among the nominees. But there was much to admire in Hira’s work as Kazunari, Toranaga’s chief nemesis in his fight for power. Hira was, as we saw, just as skilled at manipulation as Toranaga was and as we saw throughout much of the series he was just as capable of holding the upper hand. It was only when he decided to destroy Mariko that he was outmaneuvered. Unlike most of the other characters, Hira could return for the second season and I’d more than welcome it just to see what he does next. Con: If there’s a favorite from Shogun in this category, it’s Asano by all measure. How fitting it would be for the man who worked for power to rob his rival of support.

Jack Lowden, Slow Horses: Odds: 13-2. For Playing: River Cartwright, the youngest member of Slough House, still not used to his assignment. Pro: I wasn’t sure Lowden would be able to get a nomination for his incredible work, given that this is traditionally a category that often recognizes older character actors rather than young blood. But the cream rose to the top and Lowden managed to grab a nomination. Jackson Lamb may be the main lead of Slow Horses but Lowden is its action hero, always in motion, always on the front lines and inevitably ending up taking the most blows, physically, metaphorically and when it comes to Jackson Lamb, verbally. In this season he has come to the realization that his beloved grandfather, a legend in MI-6 is beginning to suffer from the first stages of dementia and become a liability for the agency – and himself. (Those who have read the books know what the inevitable fate for his grandfather will be.) Lowden is also invariably a source for a great deal of humor in this often hysterically funny series and such was the case. Good to see him here. Con: This is not going to be Lowden’s year by a long shot given the level of his competition. He can take with him that old cliché – ‘it’s an honor just to be nominated’ and with the likelihood that he will return to this front again.

Jonathan Pryce, The Crown. Odds: 6-1. For Playing: Prince Philip, the aging patriarch of the Windsor clan. Pro: Over the last few years Pryce, a veteran of nearly four decades of acting, has been enjoying a late career renaissance. He has been nominated this year for both series he has appeared in for this role and for his work in Slow Horses. In both cases he should have been nominated previously and we can blame the glut of recognition for The White House and Succession last year for excluding him. Pryce is the third actor to play Philip in the series life and his predecessors Matt Smith in the first two seasons and Tobias Menzies in the second two were both nominated in this category in their final season (Menzies won). And in a way there is the most contrast between his Philip and the ones we’ve seen in the previous two incarnation. We can’t recognize the young man who chafed against the system in the first two seasons or the man who was still trying to be a good husband and father in the next two. Now we see an old man, considering himself the safeguard of the system, even more of a relic than his wife is, refusing to acknowledge how much time has passed him and the system he represents by. Pryce has been one of our best character actors for nearly half a century and is more than overdue recognition. Con: Time has passed The Crown by as well. The reviews for the final two seasons have not been kind as they were when it was at its peak. Pryce may have a better chance of getting a win for Slow Horses – but I’ll get to that later.

Prediction: My personal preference would be for Hamm or Pryce, but I’m giving the edge to Crudup – albeit with less confidence then many of the other nominees.

 

Tomorrow I wrap up drama with Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama as well as the rest of the major categories.

My Predictions For the 2024 Emmys, Week 2, Part 3: Outstanding Lead Actress in A Drama

 

Now is as good a time as any to mention that the Astras were delayed from their broadcast last Sunday and have been postponed for the immediate future. This didn’t bother me to much in comedy because the lion’s share of the awards over the past year had the majority of favorites.

It’s a different story with drama. Given that the lion’s share of the awards for both drama and acting categories all went to Succession (with some exceptions I’ll list later) I’ve mostly been flying without a map when it comes to predicting winners. I know what Gold Derby gives the odds as but I prefer something more to hang it on than that. I was hoping that in drama at least the Astras would lend some clarity. Their postponement shot that idea to sunshine.

So in this category, like most of the others, you’ll have to deal with my best guess. And it is worth noting some of the awards in the past few months may have helped. Anyway, back to business.

Five formidable actresses with a long history in television and film compete against a relative newcomer to American audiences who made a hell of an impression. I think the winner is likely to all of us but here we go regardless.

 

Jennifer Aniston, The Morning Show. Odds: 5-1. For Playing: Alex Levy, a broadcaster at a morning show dealing with challenges professionally and personally. Pro: Aniston was the heavy favorite for the Best Actress Emmy in 2020, having won the SAG Award for Best Actress in a Drama that year. She has since lost to Zendaya twice for Euphoria which in my opinion is three times too many. Aniston was nominated for a Golden Globe, Critics Choice and SAG award this year: she lost the first two trophies to Sarah Snook and the last to Elizabeth Debicki. (More on that later) She did win the People’s Choice Award for Drama TV star of the Year. And its hard to argue that few performers have shown more range than Aniston in taking on the role of Alex, trying to deal with the takeover of her network, various scandals and even going into space. Aniston is more overdue a win than most of the other previous nominees and she has been moving up. Con: This has not been a show that has done well in the Emmys overall and the fact that it earned so many nominations this year is almost certainly due to the strike (and overkill on the Acting branch’s part) I’d like to see Aniston win eventually but I doubt it’s this year.

 

Carrie Coon, The Gilded Age. Odds: 7-1. For Playing: Bertha Russell, a New York socialite determined to shaped 1880s society to bend to her will. Pro: Much like Walton Goggins and Dominic West in the Outstanding Lead Actor category, Carrie Coon has been a force in Peak TV ever since she broke on to the scene for her work as Nora on The Leftovers. She’s was the force of good in Season 3 of Fargo and a force of evil in Season 2 of The Sinner. It’s not quite a travesty that this is only her second Emmy nomination (her career in TV only starting for intents and purposes in The Leftovers) but it does seem odd considering how much the Emmys recognizes the kinds of characters she plays. And as Bertha she takes on the role of an upstart in 19^th century New York, being shutout oddly by rich and powerful women. You wouldn’t consider Bertha a feminist the way so many other previous winners have been but she is determined to make the world bow to her will in a way that makes so many of these period dramas seem like pretenders. And she is capable of showing humanity – such as when she learns of the possibility that her husband may have betrayed her as well as being as ruthless as all men were to their children. Coon’s going to win in this category eventually. I know it. Con: Like so many of the nominees for The Gilded Age she is present mainly because of the strike that stopped so many other HBO series in their tracks. But I know she’ll be back soon, if not for this series than for the next season of The White Lotus.

 

Maya Erskine, Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Odds: 11-2. For Playing: Jane, a woman in a new marriage trying to deal with her job as a spy and a wife. Pro: I was enraptured by the work of Maya Erskine in Pen15 one of the more unsung comedies of the last few years. Erskine (along with her co-star and co-creator Anna Konkle) managed to embrace being an eighth grader so well you almost forgot she was in her thirties. But even that versatility didn’t prepare me for her work as Jane on Mr. and Mrs. Smith. In this version the wife is the more competent and stronger personality than the husband, colder and less receptive, angrier in a way that John just isn’t. As the season progressed she became more efficient and brutal – and clearly she’s headed up the ladder and he’s heading down. Her work as, if anything, more revelatory than Glover’s and since we don’t know if either of them will be back for Season 2, we might not get another chance. Con:  Of all the series in this category this show was the lightest (relatively) in tone and that rarely works for actress in this category.

 

Anna Sawai, Shogun. Odds: 10-3. For Playing: Mariko, a Japanese woman waiting for death who finds a new purpose when her lord calls her to service. Pro: This past May Sawai took the Best Performance in a Drama award from the Television Critics Association. With good reason. This series may have been set in feudal Japan, but it became clear very quickly that the women were the most fascinating characters and the ones with more power then even the men were acknowledging. Sawai’s version of Mariko was darker and edgier than the original limited series and her arc was one of the most memorable and heartbreaking in the entire series. The penultimate episode of season 1 ‘Crimson Sky has the highest ranking of Season 1 on imdb.com and with good reason, it is all about Mariko’s arrival in Osaka, her determination to make a stand, her fighting for her freedom, her near execution, her miraculous reprieve and most tragically, her meeting her fate on her own terms. Sawai’s work is arguably the best dramatic performance of the 2023-2024 season. It more than deserves a win. Con: There’s no reason against her winning – just some good reasons for her competition as well.

 

Imelda Staunton, The Crown. Odds: 4-1.For Playing: Queen Elizabeth II, facing the fifth decade of her reign in a world that increasingly has left her – and the institution it represents – behind. Pro: In her second and  last season on The Crown as a regular Claire Foy won Best Actress in a Drama for playing Elizabeth. In her second and last season on The Crown Olivia Colman won Best Actress in a Drama for playing Elizabeth. Now it is Staunton’s second and last season and we all know the Emmys is about history. More to the point Staunton absolutely should have been nominated for Outstanding Actress in a Drama last year (nominating Elisabeth Moss was a huge blunder) and this will be the last chance to honor The Crown in any category. And strictly speaking from the critical lens Staunton, perhaps more in her portrayal of Elizabeth than any other character during the course of this series, best demonstrates how much ‘the system’ erodes year after year, decade after decade, the ability of the individual to change it to become part of it. It’s been hard to watch Staunton over the last two seasons because we remember the earlier version who wanted to change the system as a young woman and now is so locked into it that she’s essentially a figurine gathering dust with peeling paint. We don’t see the Queen die at the end of the series: the institution has sapped her of all her force. It’s riveting performance and the fact that Staunton’s moving up in the odds shows voters think so as well. Con: There’s been quite a bit of backlash against the final two seasons of The Crown and Staunton more than any other performer has taken the brunt of it, rather than being seen as a natural outgrowth of Morgan’s story. More to the point two of the major dramatic choices that Morgan used in the final season involved Elizabeth having conversations with ghosts, something that was polarizing. This will hurt Staunton more than any other nominee for The Crown.

 

Reese Witherspoon, The Morning Show. Odds: 7-1. For Playing: Bradley Jackson, the co-anchor at a network morning show. Pro: I make no secret that I’m one of Witherspoon’s biggest fans when it comes to TV and I think she’s been underappreciated by her work by the Emmys over the past five years. I’m still bitter that she was in three incredible series in 2019-2020 – The Morning Show, Big Little Lies and Little Fires Everywhere – and somehow went 0 for 3. The Emmys have been making up for it: this is her second straight nomination for this show and just as with Aniston, it’s been fascinating to watch her work. Witherspoon has aged into one of the most brilliant actresses  and TV has done her a great service the past decade. It’s long past time she gets a win. Con: But if anyone from this series is going to win in this category it’s going to be Aniston. Witherspoon has never gotten as much recognition for this series as so many of her co-stars have: she’s only gotten one Golden Globe nomination and one SAG nomination. Like so many of the brilliant shows she’s been a part of it, it seems Reese’s fate to be eclipsed by a brighter sun.

Prediction: Save an upset by Staunton, Sawai walks to this one easily.

 

Tomorrow I will deal with Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama. Things are going to get tricky there for me.

My Prediction for the 2024 Emmys Week 2, Part 2: Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama

 

Four of the greatest acting talents in TV history plus two of the most brilliant international actors of all time equals the most thrilling category of this group. It’s likely we all know the winner in advance but it’s worth closer analysis.

 

Idris Elba, Hijack. Odds: 7-1. For Playing: Sam Nelson, a passenger on a plane that’s just been taken over by terrorists. Pro: Stringer Bell. John Luther. Nelson Mandela. Heimdall. Macavity (okay, we’ll forget about that one.). Elba has been ignored by the Emmys for his breakthrough role but thankfully not for his other iconic one: he’s been nominated for four Best Actors in a Limited Series or TV movie for that one. But somehow one of the greatest actors of this century – full stop – has yet to receive an Emmy. And in Hijack he actually gets to do something he’s rarely gotten to do in all his years of TV acting – play an action hero. Elba has been a favorite of millions for 20 years (!) and its long past time he was honored. Con: Unfortunately Elba’s nomination is the only one Hijack got and there’s an argument the Emmys got it wrong. Many would have preferred to see either Cosmo Jarvis or Morgan Spector in this category. It’s not going to be his year.

 

Donald Glover, Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Odds: 5-1.For Playing: John, trying to deal with his new job and his new partner in their career in espionage. Pro: Glover takes on a role that is very different from his ones in Community and Atlanta, a character who starts out as an action hero and a romantic lead. Glover as always then undercuts his character by showing that he’s not nearly as skilled as his new wife at the job and that so much of their marriage, which starts out great, quickly begins to fall apart because of their various differences. Glover continues to show his range as a performer, demonstrating a new level of depth and darkness that those of us who saw him Atlanta knew he was capable of but this time in a different more international setting. Glover has been one of the great talents in television history for nearly two decades as he joins the ranks of actors who have been nominated for acting in both a drama and a comedy. He deserves to join the few who have won in both categories. Con: It’s not like Glover is exactly lacking in recognition from the Emmys – he has won Best Lead Actor in a Comedy and has received multiple nominations for writing as well. And as the only previous winner of an Emmy in this category the Emmys might want to give it to a different face.

 

Walton Goggins, Fallout. Odds: 13-2. For Playing: Cooper Howard/The Ghoul, the reluctant monstrous guide in a post-apocalyptic world. Pro: Goggins has been part of some of the greatest television shows in history from The Shield and Justified to Vice Principals and The Righteous Gemstones. He’s starred in some of the best  limited series of recent years, most recently George & Tammy. So how in the name of all that’s holy is the only the second Emmy nomination he’s ever gotten? (It’s not even the biggest robbery in this category.) Here he gets two play closer to a hero than he’s ever done in twenty years of superb work on TV. He gets to do everything we’ve seen him do in TV, be an action hero, show his comic side, show his heart, show his dramatic side. And he has to do in an unrecognizable face mask, though the series is nice enough to show what he looked like before he became an irradiated monster. Goggins has been one of the greatest talents in TV history. He really deserves to win. Con: Awards shows haven’t treated Goggins any more fairly than the world of Fallout has treated his character. Bit on the plus side the series is coming back for a second season which means he’ll almost certainly have more bites at the apple.

 

Gary Oldman, Slow Horses. 0dds: 4-1.For Playing: Jackson Lamb, the slovenly legend of Slough House reluctantly leading his team of misfit agents through another crisis in MI-6. Pro: Oldman is the only performer in this category who received nominations in other awards shows over the past year, earning both a Golden Globe and BAFTA nomination for Best Actor. And is something that I’ve been watching Oldman all my life and that he’s been actor for even longer and I ‘ve never seen him having for fun than he has playing Jackson, a man who has absolutely no f’s left to give, who puts up a façade of not caring for anybody or anything but has compassion in his heart for the agents in his care and who is the hero we need and asked for in these trouble times. It is fitting the man who has giving life to such iconic characters as Commissioner Gordon and George Smiley has taken this role on and he clearly revels in another, slightly less known, iconic character. And we did see some of the sad parts of his life as well this season when he revealed the truth to Catherine Standish about what happened to her husband and caused a break in a decades long friendship. Oldman was the overwhelming favorite in this category until Shogun joined the ranks of the Best Drama series. He could still prevail. Con: The Emmys have only recently discovered Slow Horses and they did so in a period when all of last year’s nominees are ineligible. Oldman’s good enough that he’ll be around for a while, the question is will the Emmys consider it?

 

Hiroyuki Sanada, Shogun. Odds: 10-3.For Playing: Toranaga, a Japanese feudal lord trying to find a way against his fellow regents who are trying to destroy him. Pro: The new imagining of Shogun would not have been possible with Sanada, one of the most iconic actors in Japan. He helped get it made and was walking around the set with his dog-eared copy of the book at all times. And his work as Toranaga was without question one of the highpoints of 2024, an incredible tour de force of a performance in more ways than one. We saw Toranaga play a man who seemed forced into his events, reluctantly seeking power, manipulating those around him, appearing to be a man emotionally dead. We saw in his penultimate appearance that it was merely an act and then in the final episode we learned the true nature of his character and it was troubling the man we thought a reluctant hero was in fact as ruthless, manipulative and bloodthirsty as all the people he’d pretended he disdained. It was one of the great works of art of 2024 worthy of an Emmy. Con: The only argument may be the fact that FX chose to submit this show in the Best Drama category could work against him.

 

Dominic West, The Crown. Odds: 11-2. For Playing: Prince Charles, heir to the throne trying to convince the world that he can marry the woman he loves and not undo the monarchy. Pro:  His first Emmy nomination. Can you believe it? How is the man who created the iconic Jimmy McNulty and has been part of so many of the most undervalued series of all time on both sides of the Atlantic – The Hour and The Affair are just the most obvious examples – has only received his first nomination for The Crown. And he should have been nominated last year. In taking on the role of the aging and increasingly impatient Prince Charles West gets to do something we rarely get see him do: speak with his natural accent. Watching him play Charles as he tries to prepare to rule a decaying monarchy and try to find a way to marry the woman he’s loved his whole life and wants to see queen, West continues the grand tradition of superb, deep performances on this master class of a series. West never hesitates to shows the worst sides of Charles’s character – his harsh judgment of his ex-wife, his frustration at being stuck as a placeholder, and his happiness at the end of the series when he finally achieves one of his goals. Considering that his predecessor in this role Josh O’Connor received an Emmy for this when he was nominated, it might bid well for one of the great actors of our time. Con: The last two seasons of The Crown have drawn far harsher criticism then the first four, fairly or unfairly. West has been flagging in momentum since the awards season started and has dropped considerably. It looks, just like the character he plays, West will have to wait for his time.

 

PREDICTION: Much as I’d like to see West or Oldman win, look for Sanada to take this in a battle that is far easier than the one his character had to wage to become Shogun.

 

Tomorrow I deal with Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama. This one could be trickier than it looks.

My Predictions For the 2024 Emmys Week 2, Part 1: Outstanding Drama Series

 

Before we get started I’ve mentioned repeatedly over the last year that the Emmys when it comes to drama is in a period of transition. Because two of the greatest series in history – Better Call Saul and Succession – concluded last year, because of the work stoppage and because of the gaps that increasingly come between seasons of television, it’s not clear how many of the nominees in this category will return to it in the future. The Crown is the only nominee for Best Drama that was nominated in this category before and it has come to an end this season. The Morning Show, while it has been nominated for numerous acting awards, only this year was nominated for Best Drama. And while many, if not most of the six remaining nominees either had strong freshman seasons or have flown under the radar for their run, one wonders how many of them would have been nominated were it not for the strike.

The glut of previous nominees in this category started in June when House of the Dragon came back for its second season. Other previous nominees such as The Diplomat and Squid Game will debut by the end of 2024 and it is a near certainty that shows that dominated this category over the past two years such as The White Lotus, Severance, Yellowjackets and  The Last of Us will have aired their new seasons by the time we are considering nominations for next year. Whether any of these nominees will be here when they get around to airing new seasons will be a question for the future. Speaking strictly for myself, however, having seen several of them over the last few months they are worthy contenders for nominations this year and I hope to see many of them back in years to come. So let’s start in this category.

 

OUTSTANDING DRAMA SERIES

 

3 Body Problem (Netflix) Odds:10-1. Pro: I’ll say this for David Benioff and D.B. Weiss they don’t do things by halves. Their next major project after leaving Game of Thrones behind was another sci-fi trilogy that many had thought was unfilmable: Liu Caixin’s Remembrance of Earth’s Past. And they went from the far past to the often distant future to deal with the possibility of an extra terrestrial invasion that will come within half a century and deals with multiple timelines. It would be so much easier just to do Thrones spin-offs. But they took it on and they managed to adapt it to Netflix. They didn’t walk away from the ambitious contours of the novel and they picked and chose the sections that they thought would resonate. And they’ve started work on what will likely be a long term ambitious goal. Con: A lot of people think that this nominee is the donkey of the category; it is the only nominated series with no corresponding acting, writing or directing nominations. And I’m pretty sure no one’s forgiven them for the series finale of Game of Thrones yet and may not until 2450.

 

The Crown (Netflix) Odds: 6-1. Pro: One of Netflix’s most outstanding and consistently brilliant series came to a conclusion this year not with Elizabeth’s death but with a coming of the new era. The series spent its final season with the monarchy finally accepting the relationship of Charles and Camilla, the repercussions of Diana’s  death and the inevitable losses that come with age, particularly the demise of the most consistently tragic character Margaret. But even as the monarchy moved to the new millennium, it showed that it – and Britain itself – was as much a prisoner of its past as all the players in the royal family themselves to be. Peter Morgan has brilliantly used the saga of the monarchy to show the broken nature of England the same way that David Simon used how the drug war has destroyed Baltimore and by extension, the American dream. And he has done so in a way that features some of the most consistently brilliant writing, directing and acting that has been seen on any platform in the last decade. The Crown has been a triumph and a win would be worthy achievement. Con: The closer that Morgan has approached the present day, the harsher the criticism for his masterwork has become both in his native England and her in America. While I don’t think that’s fair, in the final season he made some very questionable choices in his writing style that went against much of the realism that we had seen in the previous five seasons. Combined with the general feeling that the show has already taken its fair share of awards, the Emmys may well feel it doesn’t need one more grand prize.

 

Fallout (Amazon) Odds: 9-1. Pro: Until Borderlands bombed last month, it seemed like Hollywood had finally started to get video game adaptations right, first with its incredible retelling of The Last of Us, now with its brilliant satirical reimaging of this classic game. Telling an alternate store of the past to reflect the world of the videogame, this was by far the most visually arresting nominee in this category and it was filled with some incredible performances by some of our greatest actors from Ella Purnell and Walton Goggins on down. The future in Fallout’s world may not be brilliant, the future for the series, particularly with awards, looks golden. Con: It’s not yet clear if the Emmys is yet in a place to give awards for video game adaptations. Other awards show are more willing: Pedro Pascal won more than his share of awards last year and The Last of Us did win many acting Emmys. But whether the Emmys is willing to do so for this is a harder sell.

 

The Gilded Age (HBO) Odds: 9-1. Pro: As someone who has been one of this series biggest cheerleaders since it debuted back in January of 2022 few people were more overjoyed than I too see this brilliant period piece of 1880s New York enter the pantheon of Emmy nominees this year. Looking at the battle between the old and new guard of New York society through a battle of the Metropolitan Opera house was another of the masterstrokes of this season. Watching the battle over unions in the railroad as well as the problems African-Americans faced in the post-Reconstruction South showed parallels to battles we are still fighting today – and may never truly win. And perhaps most brilliantly Gilded Age represents a major transition from the era of the White Male Antihero by making almost every major character in this story fighting for power a scheming, brilliant female trying to maneuver behind the scenes. Considering that this series has some of the greatest actresses all doing some of the best work in long and storied careers in television and mixed with exceptional newcomers this is a glorious addition to the HBO pantheon as well as Peak TV. Con: Despite everything I’ve said, I can’t help but think the only reason The Gilded Age is here is because none of the three of last year HBO nominated dramas were eligible. The Gilded Age in my opinion is superior to several of them (definitely Euphoria and possibly House of the Dragon) but because it doesn’t look or sound like an HBO drama (it could just as easily be on PBS considering the almost complete absence of the sex, violence and profanity that we’ve come to expect from this network) there has been a tendency to undervalue it. Much as I’d like it to win, I don’t think it has a real chance.

 

The Morning Show (Apple TV) Odds: 8-1. Pro: After two years of getting many of its leads nominated but never getting a nomination for the top prize, this brilliant drama set in a daytime show finally got recognized for Best Drama. And it’s been waiting for a while: this is a series that has combined a mixture of some of the greatest performers, almost all of them the greatest actresses and character actress of our time with a recognition of the real world that by far most of the dramas today and even in Peak TV basically choose to ignore. For all its arguments of being compared to lesser Aaron Sorkin, the show takes a far more realistic look at the world than Studio 60 and The Newsroom did and with a female gaze that he hasn’t been able to master on TV in a long time. And its not always a pretty picture, particularly when it comes to the reality of TV news in a world that is being dominated by the wealthy. The show dominated many of the major nominations from the Golden Globes to the Critics Choice to even the People’s Choice Awards. It might well be time. Con: It has to be said most of the Emmy winning series throughout the last decade in this category don’t take place in present day America. From Game of Thrones to The Handmaid’s Tale to The Crown, the Emmys don’t like recognizing the present and if they do it’s through the very wealthy such as Succession rather than the modern world like This is Us or Better Call Saul. This isn’t the show that the Emmys give the grand prize too.

 

Mr. and Mrs. Smith (Amazon) Odds: 7-1. Pro: Of the series nominated for their freshman season this show is by far the most best mainly because it has vastly abandoned any real resemblance to its source material. Donald Glover’s follow-up series to Atlanta is a similar mix of genres (comedy, drama, thriller, domestic piece) and both he and co-lead Maya Erskine are incredible as the title married couple who work for ‘a company’ on missions and marriage. The series follows them on a series of increasingly bizarre missions that quickly become background to the conflicts in their personalities and eventually their marriage. Using a vast array of some of the greatest actors of the era in guest roles with the same brilliance that we have seen on Poker Face the series has built one of the most remarkable worlds in TV I’ve seen so far this year. It has been renewed for a second season though it is still unclear if Glover and Erskine will be back for the next season. Regardless it is one of the best new shows of the year and one of the best series of 2024. Con: But will that be enough to get it over the top? Historically the Emmys have a hard time recognizing series that don’t easily fit in the drama category. One could just as easily see Mr. and Mrs. Smith in the comedy category (it would certainly fit better than some might say The Bear does) and it might very well be a ‘fail’ for this show.

 

Shogun (FX) Odds: 4-1. Pro: Many might have questioned the idea to remake one of the landmark miniseries of the 1980s for the modern era. The first episode was enough for any rational person to discount that idea. By completely changing the context of the show from looking from the white perspective to entirely the Japanese the writers and directors completely reinvented what a historical epic could look like for television. Cast almost entirely with Japanese actors in every role, Shogun gave us from the top down some of the greatest performances of 2024, from Hiroyuki Sanada in the title role to Anna Sawai as Mariko, who has quickly become embraced as one of the great performances this year. Both are deservedly heavy favorites to win in this category. Just as important, in my opinion, would be the long overdue recognition of FX in this category. For nearly a quarter of a century FX has been second only to HBO when it comes to being the most consistent producer of great dramas, from The Shield to Damages to Justified to The Americans yet despite winning multiple acting awards it has never won the top prize. FX was the most nominated network this year, topping even Netflix and HBO. It is time for the network to be crowned for its rule. Con: The fact that FX chose to renew Shogun for a second season and decided to submit it in the drama category instead of Limited Series this spring didn’t sit well with a lot of people. That may count against it.

 

Slow Horses (Apple TV) Odds: 7-1. Pro: Over the spring and summer I’ve had the great joy to have found this wonderful British spy drama which, like the island of misfit toys that work at Slough House, has the great capacity to outperform the expectations set on it. Led by the incomparable Gary Oldman in a role where he is clearly having more fun that he has in all his year as an actor as Jackson Lamb, this sly and engaging thriller looks at the world of modern London and constantly shows that without the people British Intelligence considers failures, Britain would have succumbed to terrorists attacks years ago. It took a while for the Emmys to discover the joys of this series. I hope they never walk away from it. Con: I’m not entirely sure whether Slow Horses presence here is due to the fact that other series (Severance is the most obvious one) are absent. This is one of those great shows that traditionally gets recognized when the other ‘great shows’ aren’t around. Fitting for the title characters.

 

Prediction: I still don’t know how they’ll do a second season but I know Shogun deserves to win and that it will.

 

Tomorrow I deal with Outstanding Actor in a Drama. Some of my all-time favorite performers are in this category. I’ll have fun.

The Disruption Series Coda: One Year Later, Was It All Worth It?

 

 

I realize that over the last several months the national attention has been understandably focused on more pressing matters. But I wanted to give an update about how Hollywood is doing after the labor stoppage that took up so much of 2023. I wrote what I called the Disruption Series in which I laid out many of the basic flaws behind the strike, the flawed reasoning behind and the stupidity that I thought was being used by the strikers.

Well I just want to let my readers know that after nearly a year, the rewards are finally starting to be seen by those hard working, salt of the earth people who did so much for so little. Mandy Moore told the media that she received her most recent residual check for This is Us from Hulu.

For 3 cents.

There are many questions that arise from this –  many of which have to do with whether someone actually spent money on postage for a check like this – but I have to say a large part of me thinks, and I say this with no irony at all, that all the people who spent the summer of 2023 on the pickets line are getting exactly what they deserved.

When the WGA went on a walkout last May and SAG-AFTRA about a month later, it was framed by some in the media, some progressive websites and most of all those on the picket line as a battle of David Vs. Goliath, the powerless against the powerful, the working man versus the one percent. I could never view it as anything other than how so many would describe the MLB strike that disrupted first the 1994 season and then made sure there was no World Series: as a battle of millionaires versus billionaires. I’ll be honest when I saw a headline in Daily Kos calling Fran Drescher, the President of SAG-AFTRA as ‘the new face of organized labor’, it said more about the left’s perception of the world than what was actually happening. Their idea of someone representing the blue-collar union was a millionaire actress from Hollywood who’d been born in New York City. Fran Drescher never was a blue collar worker, she just played one on TV – and it made her a millionaire.

I’ve often thought that certain parts of our society only have the influence they have over the political world because of the disproportionate amount of energy it is given by it. This is true of Hollywood more than any part of our society, and has been the case before social media, cable news and even the polarization of politics beginning. In nearly a century there has never been any sign that any single celebrity much less Hollywood as a whole has the ability to sway even the state of California into voting one way or the other, much less swinging an election. And I believe at some level everyone in the political world knows this is a reality but is making too much money using it for fundraising to end the illusion now.

The alternative is that both political parties have no true perception of Hollywood, which I can’t entirely rule out. The Republican belief that Hollywood is chasing a ‘woke ideology’ in order to corrupt the next generation is as wrong as the Democratic belief that the values of Hollywood products are reflective of America. Hollywood is a business like any other and whatever casting or writing decisions it has done is only done for the benefit of the bottom line.

You needn’t worry: this isn’t going to be another political article. I’m merely using the fact that both sides of the political spectrum have made Hollywood so much the focus of their own agendas – however diametrically opposite they are – that the people who work in it genuinely believe that they have more power and influence than they actually do. They have been persuaded by this by so many of the other industries that have sprung up to support Hollywood over the years: the publicity industry, the media that covers Hollywood and of course the criticism industry of which I am a part of. Because so many spheres of influence have been built around the people who work behind the screen and perform in front of it, they naturally have come to assume that they are more important to America (and to an extent the world) then they actually are.

And because of that self-importance they believe they should receive appropriate compensation. But their idea of appropriate compensation is completely out of context with everyone else’s. I have little doubt that one of the major factors that led so many of the creative forces to go out on strike was so much of Covid and how that did much to financially alter an industry that was already becoming shaky. In this they were fundamentally the victims of their own press – and much of our selfishness.

As I wrote in an article last year at the height of the strike:

Like everyone else I was bored and kept finding ways to fill my time and watched a lot of television. However, I chose not to spend these months in relative isolation catching up on all of the series I had spent much of the past years ignoring.

There was no reason I couldn’t have watched all of Schitt’s Creek or The Handmaid’s Tale; seen all of Ozark or looked at Peaky Blinders; watched all of The Morning Show or even both seasons of Succession. But I did not want too. I wanted the series I liked to come back.

Perhaps it speaks to both my privilege and a certain defect in my character that while so many people were suffering and dying and my family managed to get away untouched by Covid until well after we all had been vaccinated that during this period of lockdown, my greatest source of frustration was that so many series I liked or wanted to see were being postponed. I was upset that the fourth season of Fargo, The Undoing and The Good Lord Bird were all pushed back until the fall rather than debuting in the spring and summer when they had been promised. I was aggravated that because of Covid I was likely going to have to wait at least a year for the final season of Better Call Saul. And I was incredibly pissed that the broadcast season of 2020 was so piecemeal because no one was able to film back then.

I mention my inherent selfishness to demonstrate that, even in the midst of what was essentially a watershed moment in global history, my greatest concerns were whether the fifth season of This is Us was going to air. I don’t pretend to be remotely proud of this fact; I mention only to demonstrate that, at a certain level, I’m willing to bet that more than a few of my readers were at a similar level of impatience and selfishness and like me, never gave the respect to so many of the actors and creative forces who, in the summer of 2020, would begin to reopen Hollywood so that the rest of America and the world would have something to entertain themselves with. I don’t know if I ever asked myself once during that period whether I should be grateful that so many people were putting their lives in danger so I could watch Big Sky  or Ted Lasso. Did any of us think to do that? I grant you the world was exploding well beyond that and there were far bigger problems to deal with, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves. We spent a lot of time taking for granted what a lot of actors were doing back then. Did we just think that they were all so wealthy that they didn’t deserve our gratitude?

 

Now is the time where I mention that so much of what the strike was built on was the perception that because these streaming services are multi-billion dollar corporations, the creative forces made the assumption that there were billions that they were being cheated out of by these corporations. This showed a naivete that didn’t bare out what was going on well before that: by 2020 Netflix was suffering huge financial losses mainly because it had been inflated its numbers for years.

In the decade since streaming became an industry there is no evidence that any of the five major services or any others doing so have made a profit or even broken even at it. Hulu has not merged with FX and then Disney because the former two companies were doing so well. And it’s telling that two of the richest industries in the world are among the biggest makers in streaming TV: Amazon and Apple are probably two of the few businesses in the world that can afford to lose a fortune on movies and TV. If you really think their stock went up even a hundredth of a point when Marvelous Mrs. Maisel or Ted Lasso won Emmys you really don’t understand how businesses work – and it’s conceivable the people who went on strike last year didn’t either.

And its worth remembering none of the people who were on the pickets line were exactly starving for income or had been cheated when they made their deals with Netflix or Amazon. Shawn Ryan didn’t get zero dollars for writing The Night Agent and he certainly wasn’t stupid enough to do it for nothing. Nor was he in danger of going broke the way so many of the other people on the picket line were. Most of the people who were the loudest voices were rich already. They just wanted to be richer.

As for those writers who wanted more job security, is there any job in the world that guarantees you that? Most of us live from paycheck to paycheck and have many jobs in our lifetime. Most of us don’t have fallback positions the way that the writers in this industry do. I think the average observer would kill to work for a show in Hollywood even for one season. That these people didn’t think that was good enough shows their privilege, not the businesses they work for.

And much as they might want to argue otherwise, the writers and actors were not the victims of the system of Hollywood. I will save my sympathy for all the hundreds of thousands of people who had jobs in the film and television industry but didn’t have the benefit of being part of a union or having the luxury of going on strike the way say Bryan Cranston or David Simon did. The hairdressers, the caterer, the makeup artists, the gaffers, the best boys, all the people who work for very little money and depending on Hollywood sets being active for them to survive. Did anyone who was striking give a thought to all of the thousands of people they were causing to go into poverty or unemployment while they were marching demanding residuals for the checks they are now getting (for three cents, remember?)

The question was rhetorical. Because as you might remember Drew Barrymore in September said she was beginning her talk show again without guild approval. She said she couldn’t think of the union, she had to think of the people who worked for her and who were depending on her to make ends meet. You know, the real working people.

And both Hollywood and the left crucified her on social media until she relented and agreed not to make her show. That showed the hypocrisy of both the strikers and their political allies, particularly how selfish they really were. They would make multiple demonstrations of it before the strike came to an end but this showed their true colors better than anything. It demonstrated that they were not the Joe Hills of the world but the John Galt’s, the job creators who believed selfishness and self-interest were virtues. This was, I should mention, another sign that so many people who claim leftist politics in Hollywood only wear it on their sleeves: in truth they viewed themselves as indispensable.

If nothing else the residual checks that they thought for being just three cents should tell them one more lesson that clearly didn’t learn. For all the argument they will make about Hollywood being about art and the industry being more about content, the fact remains that to the consumer everything you do is only content. You might be willing to spill your life’s blood into something and be enraged that the company you produce it for doesn’t appreciate it, but at the end of the day, that’s how the rest of the world sees it. You spend your life into something that the rest of us only watch or enjoy if we have the time to see it and if we are willing to pay for it. The fact that you are receiving so little for it in residuals isn’t because the company is cheating you; it’s because in reality, that’s how many people are watching it. The bubble you live in makes you think are essential and vital to the world. The reality has always been much more different than that.

So the question I ask it: was it worth it? You went on strike for months, hurting an industry that was already financially shaky. In doing so, you hurt the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of lower—paid workers who depending on your shows their income and no doubt did damage to their families. And for all of that effort, you’re literally only getting pennies more. You can try to blame this on the corporate CEO or the executives but it’s not really their fault. It’s because you believed your own media, stayed in your own bubble and truly thought that what you created mattered. The villain of this story was always going to be a public that wants to be entertained but wants to pay as little as possible. The public that is cutting its cord to cable, doesn’t want to subscribe to streaming services and doesn’t even want to buy televisions any more. I realize that you couldn’t blame them in public because without them, you’re just a bunch of people who emote in front of cameras or write words for those people and you can’t afford to lose them. But I think you have to accept that what they think and do and pay for matters a lot more to your wellbeing than what you do will ever truly matter to them. They survived when you went on strike this time. The next time you chose to do so, your industry might not.