There IS A Way To Measure Success in The Culture War - But Don't Expect One Side To Acknowledge It Soon

In an article I published last month I wrote that the so-called culture war, like all the war that we wage against wars is as foolish a concept as the War on Terror or the War On Drugs. What I left out was that, unlike all of these other ‘wars’ where so many of the goals are unachievable as well as what victory is, there are at least some metrics to measure whether one side is winning or losing. They are imperfect and subject to interpretation, but they at least exist in a way that almost none of the other political wars can be measured.

As I’ve mentioned countless times before and apparently will have to drive into the ground, Hollywood is a business first and anything else second. The reason this should be a positive when it comes to the culture wars is because business has a very simple standard to consider whether something is a success: whether or not it makes money.

By some standards this should be the way to truly determine whether so many of the battles in the culture war are being won in Hollywood: the bottom line. Success in Hollywood is dependent on the traditional model of New Deal liberalism: if what you do is a profit to your industry, it leads to the success of everyone around you. The rest of the problems are resolved by that success. This has been how almost everyone who becomes successful in Hollywood works: if your film/TV show/album/etc. is a huge success then you are allowed to make another. The bigger the success, the more risks you are allowed to take and the people who were in your orbit – collaborators in the process – are given my proximity to that a chance to work on projects of their own. By that metric, the people who help you with that project are allowed to go on their own, and so on.

This has been the tradition of how successful people in the industry get their career started. Martin Scorsese becomes a successful director and his screenwriter Paul Schrader is allowed to direct and write films of his own. Matthew Weiner works as a writer on The Sopranos and is allowed to make Mad Men. George Harrison success as a Beatle allows him to become a solo artist and Ravi Shankar, one of his collaborators gets his own career. And so on. The tide of success lifts up all individuals. Work is done and you are allowed to work on other projects. At  a certain point you may be able to coast based on institutional memory as you have work that isn’t as successful but as long as you make money for someone you’re allowed to work.

The problems have really become clear when the new model of the left – always predominant in Hollywood – has begun to increasingly drive the train. Much of this has been built in the same argument that drives so much of the left when it comes to any institution: the idea that it is irrevocably tainted by white supremacy, misogyny and homophobia and that it is time for the minorities to take their rightful place. This has always been something of a flawed metric as it basically argues that every successful creative force in any industry was given an in simply because they were a white male. Anyone who knows the history of Hollywood knows the blatant lie in this: being a white actor/ director/screenwriter/ or any other creative profession in the studio system didn’t make you any less an indentured servant to the studios than women or anyone else. And this system is still basically in play no matter what. Steven Spielberg and Francis Ford Coppola could not just walk up to studio boss with their first script and be handed millions of dollars to make their movie with no limitations, simply because they were white men. They had to earn their success like everyone else. In Hollywood you’re only as good as your next project and that’s been true of everybody.

I don’t pretend that there isn’t toxic masculinity or  white bias in Hollywood. But I’m not naïve enough to believe that the solution to the problem comes by simply removing all of the white male bosses and putting in female bosses, African-American bosses, Latin X Bosses, LGBTQ+ bosses et al. I’ve seen enough about the behavior of certain showrunners on set to other members of their cast – including the ones of their own identification – to know that’s not the case. For my first witness I call Ellen DeGeneres, who for all the ceilings she knocked down is  now very much considered an unpleasant person to run a show. This isn’t a white, male problem, it’s a wealth and power problem and they have the ability to reveal a person’s true nature. She was allowed to get away with it for the same reason that the Harvey Weinstein’s and Les Moonves were: she was making money for her industry and that covered up any number of sins. You could argue, I suppose, that’s a sign of true equality: a lesbian was able to prove that given the opportunity she could be as horrible a boss and colleague as her white male counterparts.

Indeed I’d argue the true measure of success in any industry is if someone who is a minority is given a position of power and influence and is just as much a failure and a monster as any white male studio boss. The problem, however, has come from the sides of the constituencies of the left who consistently argue differently that they want to define it. By those standards accusations of abuses are naturally done out of sexism, racism, homophobia et al. usually led with that battle cry: “If they were a white man…” That statement in their minds ends the argument. The fact that they have been arguing that this bad behavior in white men is something they should be held accountable for somehow doesn’t enter the equation.

This brings us to the more basic issue about numbers. I have frequently heard over the years from conservative colleagues and websites such tropes as ‘people are saying’ about certain projects that involve ‘woke’ characters for known intellectual properties involving basically any reboot of an old property. I dismiss that term out right because I know that’s hearsay. The other argument about box office or ratings being inflated for certain projects is more grounded in reality because I know studios do inflate numbers in ads or official announcements to make projects sound like they are more successful then they actually are. But by and large I dismiss these arguments because I am more inclined to believe numbers don’t lie.

The larger issue is one that has become more striking particularly when it comes to movie remakes of properties with gender/race swaps; ‘modernization’ of older properties or live action remakes of animated films and they fail. To be clear – and I always have been – I find all of these kinds of things done with any property, film or television, mostly unnecessary if unsurprising. As I’ve said before Hollywood, like all business, is concerned with making a profit. In the entertainment industry, particular film and television where revenues are shrinking across the board, the best way to do is to make a product that is appealing to the widest possible audience causing the least possible controversy.

And over the last decade in particular this has run in to the stonewall of so much of the left that is driving Hollywood in particular, demanding that the studio makes projects where they are at the center of them front and center and in the case of remakes either swapping the genders or races regardless of the flak that is drawn for doing so. It is here we clearly see the politics in play in which the institution must address these actions because they are the moral thing and not out of any other consideration. This has been clear numerous times in the 21^st century but the furor seems to have started in movies with the all-female remake of Ghostbusters.

Just as with Star Wars, comic books and really everything else, I never understood why the internet got so angry about a 1980s comedy hit that was nowhere near the funniest movie of the decade. This was not a movie that deserved a remake of any kind in my opinion mainly because it was a product of its time. This was a film that worked because of the era – in 1980s New York was such a shithole you could believe ghosts could inhabit the city and we’d just walk it off. New York is not the same place in 2016 as it was in 1984 or 1989. Flipping the genders wasn’t going to change the situation. People didn’t take Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd seriously because the subject is ridiculous. If the argument is that no one will take a supernatural threat seriously because  Kate McKinnon and Melissa McCarthy are telling me that, I can assure you I wouldn’t believe it if Adam Sandler and Chris Rock were.

Yet this film essentially became the cause celebre for the worst aspects of male bullying on the internet, which sadly is to be expected. This could have been overcome, however, had there been in a surplus of female or LGBTQ+ audience coming out to see in the theaters. That did not happen. Nor was the critical response  - legitimate critics, not internet trolls – any kinder. Ghostbusters failed because not because of toxic masculinity but because no one went to see it.

That should have been a lesson to all concerned that doing this kind of gender or race swapping on iconic properties to Hollywood was not worth the economic reward for the furor it caused. And yet, perhaps in result to the election of 2016 more than anything else, the studio system seemed more willing than it should have been to double down on this. In some cases it clearly worked, particularly for films such as Black Panther, Wonder Woman and Crazy Rich Asians. As entertainments they were very rewarding I’ll grant you.

The problem seems to have come when this new breed of filmmakers – and in some cases TV showrunners, began to take the increasing position that films based on other properties that did not work – particularly in franchises in comic book movies that were badly underperforming at the box office – were not, in fact, failing. They increasingly took the argument that many of these films –  particularly ones such as Captain Marvel or Blue Beetle that were increasingly underperforming at the box office – were somehow victims of this white misogyny of the internet. As someone who saw – unwillingly in some cases – many of these films I can tell you Captain Marvel was as good as Ant-Man: Quantumania. Which is to say it was terrible. It didn’t underperform at the box office because there was a vast conspiracy by studio heads or the industry to tank their own movie: Hollywood doesn’t want to lose money on anything. The free market ruled. They were given a wide release and the audiences hated them. You can’t get fairer than that.

If anything services like Amazon, Marvel and so many other streaming services have been ridiculous patient with so many of the streaming shows that have come from Lord of the Rings; the Star Wars franchise; comic books, et al. They have been willing to stick their necks out for so many projects and are willing to give diversity to so many of these fantasy projects, knowing that they will take a shit-ton of abuse for doing so. But at a certain point, they are a business and they have to cut their losses. Columnists may whine all they want about studios giving into the vitriol of the internet by cancelling certain shows or with films but if those people choose not to watch those shows or not go to the movies, well, are they supposed to just keep making these projects and losing money solely to please a relative few? In the binary moral thinking of the left, the answer is obvious. In the real world, it’s just as obvious. And as we know those two worlds rarely, if ever, overlap.

What’s the reward for Hollywood if they make movies with an African-American Captain America and it underperforms as badly as those with white leads? What’s the point of trying to do a revisionist version of Snow White – a fairy tale collected originally in the 19^th century, as a reminder – and no one bothers to attend? If these were films that, as those on the left will argue, people actually were crying out for then by any definition the box office would have been through the roof. Instead, its clear both films are primed to be the kind of box office bombs that can kill the careers everyone associated with it – and in the past have brought down studios themselves. Yet even now there are writers – to call them a critic is a disservice to the term – who look at the failure of these big budget films that were massively promoted and say they failed because of ‘the system’. The system allowed those projects to get greenlit and produced in the first place. But in the corkscrew logic of the left, that is never the point.

I should remind everybody involved that I say this as someone who doesn’t like any of these projects to begin with and speaks of it with what I would like to think is objectivity. I’ve made my position on many of these franchises very clear over time. I don’t have a dog in this fight as a fan. As a critic, however, I do judge because by making every single film or TV show a battle for the soul of America, reviewing certain shows seems to mean that you are making a political statement. That’s funnier, frankly, than any joke in the remake of Ghostbusters and  about sixty percent of the 1984 film

So for those of you who want to argue that The Acolyte failed because of the homophobia of society, that Shang-Chi failed because America is racist, that Mrs. Marvel got canceled because of bigotry, I won’t stop you. (Mainly because I know you will anyway). You want to argue that the corporate overlords should have promoted the project, stood up for it more, and that they weren’t supportive, you will anyway. I could argue that probably even ten years ago they wouldn’t even have been greenlit. And I would argue that if these had been huge successes the corporations would have no doubt kept fighting for it.

But I can assure you that when I choose not to watch your precious film or TV show, it’s not because I’m a racist or a homophobe or a sexist but because I don’t particularly want to see it. I have free will and I can decide not to see your film or TV show. If I do see it and, like far too many films based on these properties, I find it lacking I will give you the same treatment I do if I hate a film done written or directed by white men. Believe me, I’ve seen more than enough of their projects to know they can suck as badly as yours.

And for the record, if your film bombs or your TV show gets canceled and you decide to blame the industry or any part of society for it failing, that’s your right. Don’t be surprised if you don’t get to handle another project any time soon. Your failures are not society’s failures or the industry’s failures. You were given a chance. Many people in your position – and I speak about white men as much as any group of identity politics – never get one at all. That’s how a fair society works. You want to argue it should work differently, well, that’s what the internet’s for after all.

 

 

 

Yellowjackets Episode Recap: A Normal, Boring Life

 

In the final third of Season 3 of Lost it seems like rescue has come to the survivors of Oceanic 815. A pilot claiming to have come looking for another survivor says that her freighter is just off the coast of the island and that it will take them all home. During the season finale Ben, the leader of the Others, becomes aware of this and does everything in his power to stop the survivors from calling for help. “If you do, it will be the beginning of the end,” he warns Jack repeatedly. At the climax of the episode the pilot is about to call for help when she is stabbed in the back by John Locke, who has arrived because ‘the island’ has told him that he has to do this. A stunned Jack makes it clear he’s going to make this call, despite the warnings of both of them and does. By this point, the viewer already knows that the people on the boat are not who they claim to be.

When Season 4 begins Locke learns of this from one of the other survivors. To be clear, he didn’t know this before he killed the pilot but finding a chance to use someone who is already weak – his closest friend on the island died during the effort – he pushes him to manipulate the rest of the survivors into going with him rather than staying on the beach and being rescued. This leads to the biggest divide in the survivors so far. A team of scientists then arrive and make it very clear that ‘rescuing you isn’t their first priority’.

We are at roughly the same point in the past in Season 3 of Yellowjackets when rescue looks like it has come (and I don’t think its by chance that it comes in a group of scientists.) But after watching ‘A Normal, Boring Life’ last night’s episode it’s already clear of the critical differences between this and a similar point in Lost. True, the moment rescue seemed apparent the most delusional member of the survivors Lotte put an axe in the back of one of the scientists but we already know from the previous episode, this attempt will fail. And it raises a question that probably never occurred to any fan of the show to this point, certainly not to me? Is it possible the only reason the survivors got rescued was because they didn’t have a choice in the matter? There’s a lot more to unpack of course but let’s start in the past.

From the very first minutes of Season 3, it has been clear that not only have the teenage survivors lost any sense of morality but have now become focused only on the wilderness and nothing else. We’ve seen how selfish and self-centered they’ve been so many times during the season but this point is driven home when they finally tie up Hannah, the woman who they just chased through the woods and threatened to kill and started to pepper her with questions about why nobody has come for them. The fact that they’ve killed her husband and the threat of violence is very clear to her is bad enough that they think they can just talk to her normally, but when she tells them that she doesn’t have the answers about what happened to them and they take that as a reason she can’t be trusted shows that at the end of the day how narcissistic so many of them have become. They have given in so fully to the idea of being chosen by the wilderness and their ‘specialness’ that the idea the entire world stopped when their plane fell from the sky is a concept that they can’t grasp.

For the record, if we’re going by the calendar of the show it’s at least the late summer of 1997. There’s been a presidential election, Bill Clinton is in the middle of the scandals that will threaten his presidency and there’s a very real possibility that the world is obsessed with Princess Di and Dodi Fay-Ed right now. And this isn’t an airliner going down in the middle of the Pacific Ocean; this is a prop plane with a lacrosse team going down in the Canadian wilderness. The internet and social media didn’t exist in 1996 but the idea that what happened to a small plane carrying a group of teenage girls having a life span of more than a few weeks in even the eyes of local media is ludicrous.

At this point we’re seeing the signs of a clear divide in the Yellowjackets, one that comes to a head at the end of the flashbacks. We already in the present how this will end so it’s worth pointing out that the people who are currently leading the argument to stay – Lottie, Tai and Shauna – will all eventually be among the saved. This leads to my strong suspicion that when it happens it will come only when the Yellowjackets have no way to back out of it.

As to the divide, it’s worth noting right now who wants to go back: Natalie, Travis, Van and Misty (for the moment). Natalie (Sophie Thatcher)and Travis (Kevin Alves)  as we clearly see absolutely don’t buy anything regarding the wilderness. Travis has clearly been trying to persuade the other survivors that this is just lunacy but by now he knows that he’s in the minority. This would explain why Nat and Travis kept getting drawn to each other in the present: it wasn’t just their shared trauma but the certainty that they were the sanest ones among the crazy people.

As to the ones who want to stay there are multiple ironies in play. The biggest is clearly with Tai (Jasmin Savoy Brown). In her scene with Van, who clearly wants to go home, she’s worried about what will happen if the truth comes out and the amount of lies they’ll have to tell. She’s clearly afraid about the rest of them to hold the cover story in play. Of course, as we all know, the cover story did hold for 25 years and Tai was among the most instrumental in blowing it up in the first place. There’s now a very good chance that one of the major reasons Tai and Van ended up breaking up had to do with the fact that she wanted to go home and Tai didn’t.

Shauna’s motivations (Sophie Nelisse)  are vague at this point but I’m increasingly beginning to believe that she sees this as her chance to be Jackie, unencumbered by rules. She doesn’t believe in the wilderness any more than Nat or Travis do; she just sees it as a way to be in charge. At this point whatever remaining sympathy we might have for her in the past or the present is completely gone. We know that Shauna is going to win this argument and be responsible for the deaths and almost certain cannibalism of these two innocent people for the sole reason of being the leader. It’s worth remembering that Shauna had just been given the crown the moment rescue came. This is the first time she’s had absolute power of any kind and she’s already made it clear that she has no intention of giving it up.

And in the present, it’s now very clear how deep that narcissism still runs. She has entered the home of the daughter of one of the scientists who we knows she’s killed with a knife in her hand. Then the woman comes home and she sees she has a daughter. I have little doubt at this point Shauna would have killed her and her daughter. What stops her is the sight of the woman’s wife. She clearly sense something and picks up a knife of her own. It is here we learn of a new survivor, Mari. (Hello, Hilary Swank!)

This comes as a momentary shock to Shauna because the others have thought Mari was dead. We later learn Mari faked her death and has been living a false life as the lover of the teenage survivor and it has become real. Shauna’s first reaction is telling: “Was this because you couldn’t have me?” Gone in a moment is the pretense that this is because she wants to keep her daughter and husband safe – or if she even loves them.

The conversation between the two takes up the majority of the episode in the present (yes, there’s more I’ll get to it) and it is doubtless the episode Melanie  Lynskey should submit for consideration for an Emmy. It is in this conversation we realize her darkest, deepest secret – and it’s not even that surprising. As an adult Shauna can’t get over the fact that she peaked in high school and it is impossible for her to believe that anyone else misses the glory days. When Mari tells her she has a normal, boring life and that she’s happy, Shauna dismisses the idea outright because the only time she was truly happy was when she was in the wilderness, the center of everyone’s attention. She couldn’t accept the rest of the world wouldn’t know about what had happened to them (meaning her) and she can’t accept anyone would be happy with a normal life.

So much of what has happened in the present has been set in motion by Shauna, and while we initially thought it was just by happenstance Mari makes it very clear Shauna likes blowing up her life. Shauna continues to deny it saying her daughter knows who she is and she loves her. “Now who’s lying?” Mari points out quietly.

And it’s worth noting while this is going on Callie and her father have come to the realization of just how toxic Shauna is, if not entirely how dangerous. Callie has realized it in the last episode and Jeff is beginning to realize it himself. Jeff has been willing to be led by Shauna far too much this season, so when he makes the decision first to check out of the hotel without telling his wife and then to reconnect with the Joels (where tellingly, his deal goes much better without her). There are signs he’s beginning to realize that if he wants to keep his family safe, it has to be away from their mother.

That may be the best answer for everybody. Throughout the episode Shauna continues to argue about the constant death threats against her, this time choosing to blame them all on Mari. Considering she blamed them all on Misty just two episodes ago, it’s increasingly becoming clear of just how deeply paranoid she is. And it’s clear just how crazy Shauna is well before the final moments. Even when Mari keeps telling her about everything that happened to her, including Natalie’s death and Lottie’s cult Shauna starts making excuses for it even though she wanted to have Lottie locked up in the first place. Shauna looks at all of the horrible things that are happening around her and can only see a world where she is the victim. “The only way to be safe is to be the last one alive,” she tells Mari simply. The idea that she was ever under threat in the first place is not something she will accept.

What’s becoming nearly as unsettling is that at this point in the show Misty – Misty! – is looking very much like the only survivor who still has anything resembling a moral compass. She calls Jeff to tell him where Shauna is and what happened – something that her husband had no idea about it – and asks him if he can tell her where she was when Lottie died. Showing what might for her be considered tact, she stops short of telling him what she told Shauna. When she learns how bad things are for Van she tries to be a caregiver, only to be stopped by Tai who demands they go to palliative care. Then she watches in horror as Tai tries to prepare herself to kill a dying man in an effort to keep Van alive. Misty is horrified (which is something) and gets Tai out of there before she can be caught. It’s pretty clear that she couldn’t do it for long and one wonders what she’ll think if she finds out what ‘Tai’ did in the aftermath.

At this point in Season 3 the writers are reversing our expectations of everyone we thought we knew about those who came back and that is especially true for Misty. We’re not sure what she will do in the past but her actions in the present now seem to be less of a person who is a spy and busybody and more of a woman who is, in her twisted way, trying to atone for her actions. It’s not clear yet if she’s accepted her role in Natalie’s death but it seems to becoming obvious that she is realizing that the people she’s been trying to protect all this time not only don’t appreciate her but may not be worthy of her protection. It’s still unclear at this point if Misty ever believed in the Wilderness the same way that many of the others did but she clearly took Coach Scott’s death very harshly. That may be one of the reasons why Natalie came to her in Season 1 rather than Tai or Shauna even though both were more outwardly respectable. She remembered the break in the past and she knew how dangerous both of them might be.

And at the climax in the present Shauna finally reveals to all of us how dangerous she is. In the most horrific act she’s done that can’t be excused she leaps on Miri,  bites a piece out of her, and demands she eat it. “You really are crazy,” Miri says. At this point, the only one who might still be able to deny it is Shauna herself.

Amanda Seyfried Raises Long Bright River Into A Superb Limited Series

 

The first time we meet Mickey Fitzpatrick in Peacock’s Long, Bright River she is playing a recording of Faust to her son before he goes to his school. During that episode her son Thomas (Callum Vinson) does his homework and relates the narrative of Faust and what the story is about. (I don’t know which version is so I can’t judge.) Later that day Mickey comes home to find Thomas upset, she initially assumes because of bullying. Instead Thomas tells her that he got a bad grade on the project because he got the interpretation wrong – the one his mother no doubt told him it was. Rather than admit she made a mistake Mickey tells her son that ‘stories are subject to various interpretations and you can choose her own.”

And that pretty much sums up everything we need to know about Mickey even before we get her backstory in the series. One of her cousins has a blunter interpretation: “Mickey lies.” We already know this after three episodes (the number I’ve seen to this point) but Mickey herself would simply say that’s she simply interpreting the world in the way she sees fit. What Mickey seems unable to realize is that her interpretation has basically put her where she is right now and that everyone else – including Thomas – can see the flaws in her façade.

It may tell you everything you need to know about Mickey that she is portrayed by that extraordinary actress Amanda Seyfried. Seyfried has been acting since she was fourteen and with the sole exception of her breakout performance in Mean Girls her gift has been playing characters who are wise beyond their years. This has been true in particular in work for television, from playing Lily Kane on Veronica Mars to her extraordinary work as Sarah on Big Love, the teenage daughter who only wants to get out of the mire of her polygamous family to her brief but memorable stint in Twin Peaks: The Return to her long overdue Emmy winning performance as Elizabeth Holmes in The Dropout. Her next TV role was playing an investigator in Apple TV’s acclaimed The Crowded Room and one could see her work as Mickey, a Philadelphia police officer walking the streets in the midst of the opioid epidemic trying to solve a serial killer of the ‘girls on the block’ combined with the search for her own sister Kacey (Ashleigh Cummings) who has gone missing and cut from the same cloth. Indeed I suppose some could just see this as the second season of Mare of Easttown we never got.

But there are key differences between the characters played by Kate Winslet and Seyfried. The most critical is that Mare managed to at least be the position of chief of police in her small town to acknowledge her sense of superiority. Mickey has never managed to rise above beat cop and like everything else, it’s not a position she particularly likes. We see her in early scenes with her mentor Truman (Nicholas Pinnock who teaches her everything he knows about being a cop. We also see him bust a girl with pink hair in a bodega and Mickey all but begs her to let her go. It’s not until after he does it she reveals that the girl is Kacey, her sister.

We learn that Mickey went to college, trained as an oboist, and had to drop out for reasons were not clear on yet but that we can assume had to deal with her becoming pregnant with Thomas. We know that Mickey and Kacey were orphaned when their mother died of an opium overdose, inflicted on them because their junkie father got her hooked on the drug and left them behind. We know that Mickey was basically the stickler for rules and clearly thought she was meant for greater things – something her family genuinely seems to hold against her and she makes no secret in their interactions that she does feel she’s better than them. We also know that Kacey got hooked on opioids herself, struggled with sobriety, and Mickey finally turned her over to the cops when she stole a piece of jewelry that belonged to their mother. Kacey has clearly never forgiven Mickey for that fact and Mickey has spent much of her life as a cop trying to look after her sister. As of the beginning of Long Bright River, she’s been gone for two months.

As the story begins it becomes clear that there have been a bunch of deaths among girls on the block. Ahearn thinks they’re ODs but Mickey believes their murders. Almost single-handedly she managed to push the start of an investigation into a serial killer, something that truly annoys her boss. And it’s clear by this point in the series that even this investigation into the killings is just a cover for Mickey to see if she can find out what happened to her sister.

Yet even that is not the truth. During the opening episodes Thomas has been given an assignment for a family tree something that Mickey considers ‘presumptuous’. The only member of the family she has apparently let Thomas interact with is her grandfather (John Doman) and it’s clear every time they get together that she’s only doing it for her son’s. Gee knows this very well –  in their interactions he ‘jokes’ that “she’s too good for the likes’ of the people in the bar he owns. Mickey has lots of cousins and uncles but she never lets them to interact, claiming her job gets in the way. In the third episode Thomas finally erupts at her, saying that “she lies all the time and that she never teaches me the things that matter.” Thomas is smart enough to know that his mom has been lying to him for years and it’s not because she wants to protect him from the truth but because she’s clearly ashamed of where she comes from. After a Thanksgiving dinner with the cousins (where Thomas is happier than we’ve seen him so far) he asks about the ‘girl in the pink hair’. It’s now clear that for all Mickey’s determined to protect her sister now, she’s never once told Thomas that she has one.

We know that Kacey, at least in part, has been traumatized by the circumstances that led to them being adopted by their grandparents and that was at least a partial reason for what happened to her now. In the sense that Mickey is not living on the streets or addicted to drugs she’s doing better than her sister but her cover is clearly her sense of superiority and trying interpret stories her own way. In her world she is the only person who can be fully trusted with events and everyone around it can sense it. Her family thinks she’s above them, and the people on her beat she’s trying to protect know all too well about her own agenda. When Truman was shot, she clearly cut him out of her life and only comes back to see him when she thinks she’s in danger. Even then she refuses to tell him all she knows about what’s going and follows angles that nearly get her killed without telling him. Her current landlady (Harriet Sansom Harris) thinks she’s trouble and Thomas’s father is very much out of the picture. Mickey has been able to survive as a single parent but she’s utterly unwilling to let people in – something Truman finally calls her on when something so horrible happens and she still refuses to open up about why.

This is the reason that Seyfried is absolutely perfect for the role. She has always had the ability to play performers wise beyond their age but for the first time as Mickey she’s plays someone where that’s clear a front and one that everyone else can see through. Truman tells her that she has to let the people who are there for you in and cut out the people who keep letting you down. Kacey is clearly one of the latter  - Gee tells her as much dismissively -  but Mickey’s guilt won’t allow her. So much of what is happening around here is clearly bringing up painful memories and so much trauma and she has to this point resisted telling anybody – even her own son – the truth.

Long Bright River is based on the best selling novel by Liz Moore, who is one of the head writers of the limited series. Like almost every limited series adaptation of a book on TV, I have gone in knowing nothing about it though I was aware of the book first. The series is also being created by Nikki Toscano and indeed most of the writers and directors for this limited series are female. Toscano has worked in TV for a very long time, starting procedurals such as Detroit 1-8-7,  the cult hit Revenge and her most recent project The Offer for which she wrote six episodes is one of the most highly ranked series on imdb.com. This is the first project she’s had complete creative control over and shows the steady hand of someone who lifts what should be a traditional story we’ve seen before in recent years and actually tells what I can tear my eyes away from.

We are coming close to the end of the 2024-2025 Emmy eligibility period and it remains unclear what some of the major contenders for Limited Series save for The Penguin, Disclaimer and possibly Monsters which got the vast majority of award nominations in a period by and large dominated by contenders from the previous year. It’s hard to know if Long Bright River will contend – for one thing, it is on Peacock a relatively new streamer that has yet to have an Emmy nominee in any of the major big three categories. But in recent years the streamer has upped its game across the board and this year may very well be its breakout for awards. Day of the Jackal has already been nominated for Best Drama by every major awards group so far and  Poker Face is due back for a second season in just a few weeks. Seyfried would be a worthy contender and so might Long Bright River itself. I’ll have to wait until the end of the series to make my final judgment. But unlike some of the other major contenders this year – particularly The Perfect Couple and Monsters – this is one I’m actually glad I started watching early and can’t wait to finish. That’s the benchmark of superb television.

My score: 4.25 stars.

Homicide Rewatch: Crosetti

 

Written by James Yoshimura; story by James Yoshimura & Tom Fontana

Directed by Whitney Rasnick

 

Rewatching Crosetti – one of the greatest episodes in Homicide’s storied history and arguably one of the greatest episodes in the history of television – I had reason to reflect on how, in all my years of watching television since I first saw this episode television has almost never dealt with this kind of subject, even in the greatest series ever made.

One of the most daring things about Peak TV, as any critic will tell you, is the high body count of almost every major show of that era. But having seen all of these shows and quite a few of the other contenders among this period, what’s striking is how few of those deaths came at the character’s own hand. I’m not talking about the noble sacrifices that one would see on shows like 24 or (I assume) Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead. I mean, shotgun to the head, slashing your wrists, overdosing on drugs and leaving your friends and family in a complete wreck.

In the last quarter of a century, I can count examples of this happening on one hand. Hostetler committing suicide after being accused of lying in the third season of Deadwood, Lane Pryce hanging himself at the climax of Season 5 of Mad Men, Kuttner’s body being found in Season 5 of House and Nacho deciding to kill himself rather than face death at the hands of the cartel in Better Call Saul. No other examples immediately come to mind. (If they do to my readers I welcome hearing of them.)

Television has worked around the edges quite a bit, usually in the case of physician assisted suicide and mercy killings particularly on shows like Grey’s Anatomy. And notoriously 13 Reasons Why courted controversy by focusing its first season on that very subject. But by and large suicide, particularly among regular characters on any television, is a button that most showrunners tend to shy away from. It’s understandable, done the wrong way, it can feel exploitive and its an incredibly depressing and wrenching subject to deal with. It’s almost safer to deal with the aftermath of a character being butchered by a serial killer: at least then the grief is more understandable. But how do you deal with the fact when someone you know and see everyday is gone, by their own hand and you have to deal with that gap?

Tom Fontana and David Simon are perhaps the only writers in all of Peak TV to ever try and deal with the subject in their work in television. Fontana already had in his previous series St. Elsewhere where in Season 2 Dr. Joyce Randolph ended up dead in the Er with a note that explained nothing. He would explore the subject again from many different angles in his follow-up series Oz. Simon would deal with the subject a few times in his follow-up series, most notably in Treme when John Goodman’s character, a husband and father chooses to kill himself at the end of the first season. Both writers were intelligent enough to never go out of their way to provide motivations for why these characters would do so, understanding that the real pain comes from those left behind. Homicide would deal with this issue in a few other stories during its time on the air, but never as viscerally – or brilliantly – as it did in Crosetti.

Its effect was deadened when it first aired. Yet again the wizards at NBC argued that Homicide needed to put up ‘life-affirming stories’ so as a result  a storyline involving Bayliss’ relationship with Emma Zool, which took up two full episodes aired immediately after the conclusion to the ‘white cotton gloves’ murders. By the time we’re ten minutes we know that Crosetti, who until this point the viewer assumed was on vacation, is dead and has apparently been dead for some time based on the discussion of the characters. When Crosetti aired two weeks later, it was done with a subtitle before it started ‘a month ago’ so the viewer knew what was coming. To be fair Jon Polito’s name hadn’t been on the opening credits so it was safe to assume that his character was going to be written out of the show but the fact that he was on vacation one day and dead the next with no explanation was, to put it very mildly, disconcerting. As I may have mentioned I didn’t see this episode until it was rerun so I didn’t know the context until years later but it’s still an incredible display of cognitive dissonance on the part of the programmers  and insult upon injury to the character.

To the immense credit of Fontana and Yoshimura, there is nothing in the two episodes that aired immediately before Crosetti to give any indication as to how he died – he could have had a heart attack, died in an auto accident on the way back from vacation or killed in the line of duty. The impact of the episode is still powerful for the reasons I gave above: it wasn’t just that characters didn’t get killed off in 1994; it’s that they certainly didn’t kill themselves.

And few moments in the show have been more powerful then watching the harbor patrol pulling a bloated, waterlogged corpse to the sound of John Lee Hooker’s ‘I Cover The Waterfront’. Even now that we’ve been told the episode will deal with Crosetti’s death, the mind doesn’t make the obvious connection seeing the corpse even as Meldrick walks into the squad and covers for Gee, saying his partner is fighting off a cold. When Felton and Howard start joking about what’s going on between Meldrick and Crosetti, Lewis admits he’s started to think something’s wrong. But he just think he did something to hurt Steve’s feelings; he doesn’t really believe anything happened to him.

The teaser of the episode which features Bolander and Munch talking about a bird crapping on their car truly seems out of context with the rest of the episode. In hindsight it’s clear this is what the two of them were talking about before they got called to the harbor to investigate a suspicious death. Bolander’s talking about visiting his ex-wife in Santa Barbara (he’s clearly feeling a little less bitter at this point) and Munch is arguing about that divorced people don’t see each other. They look at the body who’s been in the harbor a week, Munch says “I hate these kinds of suicides”, Bolander chides him and Munch backs off. Then they realize it’s a cop.

Then we cut to Giardello’s office and Lewis jokes: “What I do?” Then he identifies the badges and medallion as belonging to Crosetti.

The power of this episode is that everyone knows exactly what happened from the beginning to the end: they just don’t want to admit it to themselves. Lewis makes it very clear that he doesn’t believe Steve killed himself and that he wants ‘to catch the son of a bitch who did this’. Munch begins to back away from his conclusion on the pier which angers Bolander no end. Giardello just says to proceed under wrongful death, which infuriates Stan. Crosetti’s name goes on the board and everyone just looks at it in shock.

Everyone is dealing with this in their own way. Howard and Felton end up investigating and closing the murder Meldrick is primary on so that he can pursue his ‘investigation’. Howard tries to ask Lewis to go out to dinner and keeps clumsily asking if he’s okay. Lewis keeps pushing her off. With Felton he’s more brutal, using the events in last year’s ‘See No Evil’ to basically bully Beau into trying to slow Bolander’s investigation down. Felton knows that this is crap but he makes a feeble effort in the episode that isn’t really committed.

Bayliss and Pembleton take on the burden of the memorial. This leads to their major interaction in the episode when they are getting cookies. It’s here Frank makes it clear that he has no intention of going to the church. “God and I are not on speaking terms.” This selfish attitude is one he keeps for most of the episode. (Wait.) The scene where Tim and Frank are buying the cookies and Frank starts pushing for a discount on them will make anyone squirm and Tim, who’s usually defers to his partner, is clearly furious at what he did. “This our friend. We don’t go retail!” he all but shouts. Frank tries to push this aside but while they’re talking, he’s trying to get out of a parking spot and he’s getting ridiculously angry. He’s actually talking about shooting the cars before he just runs out of things to say. “That silly man with his silly cookies,” Tim says resignedly.

For reasons that will become clear Andre Braugher’s work here is considered the most memorable but this is an episode pushed  by three exceptional performances. The one that is the least talked about, in my opinion, is Richard Belzer. As I’ve pointed out numerous times Belzer’s performance is usually mixed with dark comedy, hiding behind a dry poker face. Throughout the episode, it’s clear what’s going on is bothering John in a way we’ve never seen before. He backs away from his original position not so much out of pressure from Lewis but his own guilt. During the interviews of the detectives he and Bolander come away talking about the murder of Joey Winston, a five year old who his mother hung. He tries to take on more of the role of a confidante to Bolander then usual and there’s also some genuine anger about what’s happening. When Felton comes to see Munch at Lewis’ behest, he says to him: “We all want to do right by Steve.” Munch says angrily. “We all do. Problem is what’s right and what happened may not be the same thing.” He then demurs and says he tried to get Stan to back off. When Beau says it must not have worked he says: “Why do you think I’m alone?”

Throughout the episode the usually dry wit of Munch is just a bit off. In the scene where Munch introduces Tim to his brother (we’ll get to that) there’s clearly some tension between the two, which Munch is in no mood to alleviate despite Tim’s efforts to try. “Go wait in the car,” he tells him. He makes jokes about what to say in the eulogy “The point of the eulogy is to lie” he says and when they leave for the memorial and Frank stays behind he says: “Take care, Frank.” It’s here we see how much this has affected him; this case has put him through the ringer more than most and Frank’s selfish behavior is beneath contempt for him.

For Ned Beatty this may very well be his finest hour on Homicide. Bolander is trying to deal with the loss of Crosetti as much as anyone and its clearly bothering him. As he tells Munch he sat three feet away from him for years and he doesn’t know if he ever said as much as hello to him. (Crosetti and Bolander never really interacted when Jon Polito was on the show.) He tells Munch that he treated him with respect but it seems more like he’s asking him then telling him.

What no doubt angers Bolander as much as saddens him is that he clearly wants to mourn the loss of his colleague but is being pressured by everyone to investigate the death as if its murder. When Giardello comes to him, he finally unloads:

“You want me to let Crosetti’s death be a murder? A murder that can be solved. I’ll do it. I mean, my clearance rate is so low already… Everyone says I have to do right by Steve. And I keep thinking if he chose to commit suicide, what right do I have to make it go away? I don’t agree with what he did, but if that’s his final statement, should I wipe that clear just for our peace of mind?”

Giardello doesn’t answer directly giving a sweeping statement about what Italians thought should happen to a man who committing suicide. The exchange is very dark:

Bolander: The Italians are an unforgiving lot.

Giardello: Yeah, but we make great pasta. It balances out.

And the episode represents one of the greatest performance in Clark Johnson’s entire career on Homicide; he will give performances that show greater levels of depth but will almost never lay his soul as bare as he does in Crosetti. You can see him going through all five stages of grief during the episode: denial at the start, anger at Bolander for the investigation, a kind of bargaining with Giardello to try and pursue the case; despair when the autopsy reveals what everybody knows already and finally at the end of the episode, a kind of acceptance. The scene where Meldrick breaks down in tears when he learns what he’s been avoiding is superb as well as when Stan just hugs him. Lewis has been constantly moving since he learned the truth; in this moment he just goes limp and yields himself to despair.

Throughout the episode Giardello’s way of dealing with what has happened is for what he sees as his own failure. His determination to get a honor guard for Crosetti is clearly the only kind of redemption he can seek. During a sequence with Granger and Bonfather, Bonfather shows the kind of stand-up leadership by being more concerned with public relations. He thinks that if Crosetti killed himself, he should not get an honor guard. During this he and Granger discuss a detective who recently killed himself in a hotel on the block, with his blood pouring down the drain. “What’s to get upset about? He knew when he did it we’d find him like that,” Bonfather says callously. (This may sound cold even for a boss but as we’ll see Fontana isn’t that far from reality.)

This leads to the final minutes of the episode, the moment that will forever rank this as one of the great episodes in TV history and will no doubt haunt me until the day I leave this mortal coil. For the entire episode Frank Pembleton has acted like a selfish jerk, refusing to go the church, being considered less than human by some of his fellow detectives. Then the funeral procession, with jazz fitting for the man who loved it, walks through the street and passing by the precinct. We see Lewis look up first.

There in his dress blues is Frank Pembleton, a one man honor guard. The moment that Crosetti’s coffin passes the station, he stands at attention and salutes. The last image we see (before Crosetti’s name is erased) is Frank’s solemn face, taciturn as always but revealing so much with the eyes. After thirty years, it still chokes me up and it will do the same to anyone.

Crosetti’s death will haunt Homicide until the final episode and even past that. It’s not just that he has died; it’s that the series never even tries to give an explanation. There’s no note; no real indication from those closest to him, and whatever his friends might have thought has been obfuscated by Lewis’s efforts. And wisely the writers never try to explain it. Why should they? Murder never make any sense; why should suicide?

What matters as with everyone else on Homicide is the impact the loss of a life leaves on those around them. The biggest gap will be the loss of a man in the squad and the show will be dealing with that for this season and more many seasons to come. The emotional fallout – that’s going to start being shown later on and it never goes away.

 

Notes From The Board

 In a poll for Court TV of the 15 greatest episodes in Homicide’s history, this episode ranked 3^rd all time.

 

‘Undertaker Munch’: Whatever humor there is in this episode comes from our first meeting of Bernard Munch, played by Joey Perillo. Watching John and Bernard bicker and Bernard clearly have the advantage is frankly hysterical. Around his brother he shows little of the professionalism we see around him  “How guilty are you?” he says. “The rule is you might want to spend more on the deceased in death then you would in life.” Then he goes through his coffins as if he were discussing Chevrolets. (Fisher and Sons this ain’t.) He and John bicker about the costs before he gives him a coffin. Bayliss spends much of the episode trying to point out the fact that John’s never mentioned him to us before, points out the similarity in their professions before John tells him to shut up. When he’s gone Tim finally lets it out: “Between you and your brother. Thanksgiving at your house must be a laugh riot.” John: “One life-affirming story after another. Bernard will be mentioned again and show up from time to time for the rest of the series.

 

For all Bonfather’s coldness, his remarks and Granger’s are from David Simon’s book. In the epilogue Lieutenant Gary D’Addario (remember the name) and Sgt. Landsman are called to the scene of a detective who committed suicide, much as described her. Simon refers to it as a ‘detective’s suicide’ because one only needed to turn on the faucet to clean it up. D’Addario says: “Fuck him. He knew when he did it that we’d find it like this.

D'Addario would later say this is the only section of Simon’s book that he took exception with. “I did say it was a policeman’s suicide…but the tone which Dave (Simon) wrote it was that I was condemning his suicide, and that wasn’t the case. He was a good decent man, who was having some personal problems.

 

 

Season 41 Jeopardy Update March 2025

 

 

As I mentioned quite a few times in the leadup to the postseason for the 41^st Season of Jeopardy, the level of difficulty of Final Jeopardys from the start of the season until right up to the beginning of it have been among the most difficult in recent memory. As a result while several players qualified for the 2024 Tournament of Champions no one was able to win more than five games between September and the cutoff in December. Furthermore while Greg  Jolin and Mark Fitzpatrick were able to cross the $100,000 threshold, overall totals for champions were down across the board.

This trend continued up until the end of the year and while some players were able to win big paydays none of them could manage to win more than two games in a row. This trend didn’t show much sign of abating even with the two women who qualified for the next Tournament of Champions with Laura Faddah seeming to take it to an extreme, needing 6 wins to win more money than Ashley Chan had in four..

The post season that followed, oddly enough, seemed to break the streak. Quite a few players, such as Drew Goins and Neilesh Vinjamuri, had superb one-game totals during the Tournament of Champions but it was hard to wonder if that counted. And for every blow out by Roger Craig or Matt Amodio in the Jeopardy Invitational Tournament, there was a game where all three players were stumped after Final Jeopardy. When play resumed and on the first day back Laura Faddah won her eighth game in a runaway – but her challenger Omar Abu Reath had to climb out of a -$6000 hole in Double Jeopardy just to be around, it seemed to be more of the same.

Then Harvey Silkowitz defeated her the following day finishing with $36,800 at the end of Double Jeopardy. It was the highest score any player had managed at the end that round since the season began. Despite the fact he got Final jeopardy incorrect, it has been a harbinger of things to come. The following day James Corson won $42,000, the highest one day total a player has managed to win so far this season. We’ve been off an running ever since.

At the end of that week we witnessed the first consistently superb Jeopardy champion all season in Alex DeFrank, an inventory specialist from Brooklyn. He topped James’ total by winning $42,401 for his first victory. He couldn’t manage to do that well again but he managed to show that he was consistently good and lucky. He came from behind to win his second game on Monday  with ‘only’ $14,000. He averaged $23,000 in each of his next wins even though in both those games he failed to get Final Jeopardy correct.

However on his fifth appearance he ran into an obstacle he could not overcome Cameron Berry. He gave 16 correct response but made eight mistakes while Cameron got 27 but got only 2 wrong, including both Daily Doubles he found. At the end of Double Jeopardy Cameron had run away with it with $28,600 to Alex’s $4000.

Alex managed a moral victory in Final Jeopardy. The category was U.S CITIES. “Named for a 1775 battle, this city contains the graves of John Breckinridge and Henry Clay.” Alex knew the correct city: “What is Lexington, Kentucky?” Cameron thought it was Charleston.

In just four games Alex had won $102,400, more than Laura Faddah had won in eight. It is a certainty that he will return to play in the Tournament of Champions – and I suspect at least two players who went against him will be invited back for the Second Chance Tournament.

Cameron’s run ended the following day when he faced off against Josh Weikert, a politics professor from Collegeville, Pennsylvania. Josh led at the end of the Jeopardy round and was still ahead by Double Jeopardy’s end. But it was close and Final Jeopardy would decide it.

The category was BESTSELLERS. “It begins in the village of Juffure & ends in Arkansas more than 200 years & 7 generations later.” I had no idea which book this was but all three contestant did: “What is Roots?” For Josh it made him the new champion with $23,601.

Josh’s run has yet to come to an end as of today. He has managed to win six games and $102,002. So far he is playing like a very good Jeopardy champion, albeit not one of the super champions. It did take him six wins to cross the $100,000 threshold, which Alex managed to do in just four. But Josh has finished Double Jeopardy with $20,000 or more four times in his six victories, running away with two games and nearly running away with a third. So far in Final Jeopardy he has managed to get four out of his six responses correct and while that may not sound like much, it’s still more than any player who has qualified for either Tournament of Champions has done so far this season – and Josh’s run isn’t over yet.

Furthermore that amount in winnings is by far the most any of the four qualified players for the 2026 Tournament of Champions has managed and the most since Greg Jolin’s run ended in November. And while he doesn’t compare favorable to even the most recent super-champions he is basically running dead even with Drew Basile, who won $111,601 after six games.

I’ve considered any player who wins more than $100,000 during their run a very good Jeopardy champion, even in the era of the super-champion and as we saw during the lead-up to this year’s Tournament of Champion it was a hard number to reach. And just as in the immediate aftermath of the endless postseason of last year, within the first month of resumed play we have two Jeopardy champions who have reached that storied total.

Alex DeFrank may have ‘merely’ won four games but his $102,400 is still more than four other four game winners who went on to qualify for the 2025 Tournament of Champions and more than Amy Hummel did in five. Josh has won less money in his six victories than Greg Jolin and Allison Gross did in five but he’s also playing significantly better giving more than two correct responses in every game he’s played so far. That is a benchmark of a very good player and we can only wait to see how long it will take to end that streak.

As of today four players have earned their spots in the next Tournament of Champions: Ashley Chan, Laura Faddah, Alex DeFrank and Josh Weikert. A fifth Bill McKinney is a borderline case with 3 wins and $46,800. We won’t know if he qualifies until at least the end of this season and possibly later but two other three games winners – Weckiai Rannilla and Allison Gross – did manage to earn slots in the Tournament of Champions last year with less.

Still in little more than two months of regular season play we have five qualifiers for the next Tournament of Champions. That’s pretty good even considering this year’s postseason was not nearly as long. I’ll be back with more when Josh’s streak comes to an end.

 

2025 Emmy Watch Phase 2, Part 1: What The UK TV Nominations Might Tell Us About The Emmy Nominations

 

 

Phase One of the Awards that can potentially give insight into this year’s Emmys ended in late February with the SAG Awards. We now begin Phase 2 which I have usually used smaller critics groups to parse the idea.

In the recent past I have tried to rely on more American based shows such as the MTV TV & Movie Awards and the People’s Choice Awards. But the former never aired last year and the latter has yet to schedule any nominations at all. (It’s conceivable the recent wildfires in LA may well have had a similar effect.) So I’m going to go to a somewhat unlikely place to try and comprehend America TV: England.

BAFTA has been giving television nominations along with movies and anyone who has watched Peak TV knows the overlap between the two over the past decade. Most of is related to streaming services such as Netflix’s relationship with The Crown and Bridgerton and Apple TV’s recent extraordinary series Slow Horses. There has also often been an overlap between the limited series of Peak TV and combined with both the number of British performers in American series as well as the International Award there are possibilities for insight into what the Emmys may do in just over three months.

So with that in mind let’s take a look at the BAFTA nominations for television which were revealed earlier today.

LEADING ACTRESS

Several of the series mentioned were contenders for last year such as Mr. Bates Vs. The Post Office. However two nominees do suggest a possibility: Lola Petticrew for the FX/Hulu limited series Say Nothing which as we shall see is on the short list of Emmy nominations for limited series and Marisa Abela for her work on the underrated HBO drama Industry. The latter was nominated for Best Drama by the Critics Choice Awards this past December. While it has a slight chance for nominations, considering that such powerhouses as The White Lotus and The Last Of Us will no doubt dominate the Emmy nominations, it is highly unlikely.

LEADING ACTOR

Richard Gadd, unsurprisingly, is nominated in this category for Baby Reindeer and Gary Oldman is here for Slow Horses. It is likely one or the other will triumph.

There are some interesting side notes. David Tennant has been nominated in this category for Rivals a series which has become a critical hit on Hulu and Martin Freeman has been nominated for his work in the BBC one series The Responder.

 

SUPPORTING ACTOR

Here are three genuine possibilities for nominations. Jonathan Pryce and Christopher Chung have been nominated for their work in Slow Horses. (Jack Lowden isn’t here, which is odd considering that he has already been nominated by the Golden Globes.) Damian Lewis has been nominated for the most recent installment in Wolf Hall and given that series popularity in connection with Masterpiece Theater, he may be a dark horse for a nomination. Lewis, of course, has been part of many American dramas and has received nominations for A Spy Among Friends just two years ago.

 

SUPPORTING ACTRESS.

Little surprise to see Jessica Gunning and Nava Mau nominated for Baby Reindeer as Gunning has dominated the awards circuit this past year and Mau has won more than her share. Maxine Peake is nominating for Say Nothing, which may well work in her favor. None of the others are likely contenders.

 

FEMALE PERFORMANCE INA  COMEDY

None that are likely to contend though there are some interesting nominees. Anjana Vasan is nominated for the cult sensation We are Lady Parts. Nicola Coughlan, who is known for her work on Bridgerton is nominated for the show Big Mood and Lolly Adefope was nominated for the now cancelled HBO/Sky collaboration The Franchise.

 

MALE PERFORMANCE IN A COMEDY

The only series I recognize is the failed Netflix mythology comedy Kaos for which Nabhaan Rizwan is nominated.

 

DRAMA SERIES

Wolf Hall: The Mirror in the Light will like contend for Best Limited Series and fans of Supacell will be glad to see it here.

 

LIMITED DRAMA

Both of the major contenders were from last year: Baby Reindeer and Mr. Bates Vs. The Post Office. Fans of One Day will be intrigued to see it here.

 

Those who are fans of reality TV will be pleased to see The Traitors n contention in that category. And considering it did with the Emmy for Best Reality show this past year I guess BAFTA acknowledges reality to.

 

International

Two of the contenders are among the bigger nominees from last year: Shogun and Night Country. Say Nothing is nominated for International which would seem to give a slight push for its chances. If you’re a fan of Colin From Accounts it’s here as well.

 

Bridgerton fans will be glad to see that ‘THE’ carriage scene where Colin admits his feelings for Penelope is among the contenders for Memorable Moment. Three of the other contenders are fictional – including Mr. Bates Vs. The Post Office and Rivals and two others are non-fictional. You’d think they’d have something for Donny’s breakdown onstage in Baby Reindeer but it has gotten more than its share of nominations.

I’ll now deal with some of the craft nominations.

Directing has contenders from Baby Reindeer, We Are Lady Parts and Wolf Hall. Writing in comedy has a nomination for Brett Goldstein for his work for Shrinking and a writing nomination for We Are Lady Parts. Drama nominates Mr. Bates, Baby Reindeer – and Industry.

As for technical nominations as you might expect House of The Dragon has more than its share of these and I am pleased to see nominations for Day of The Jackal and Masters of The Air. (I’m actually kind of surprising the former isn’t up for more awards considering its popularity across the pond. Maybe the BBC can’t find Peacock either.)

There are many nominations for Slow Horses, Rivals and Shogun among the technical nominations, a couple for Black Doves (which also didn’t have much of an imprint with BAFTA) There are a few nominations for quiet sensations like Mary & George and Sweetpea. (I guess they can find Starz.)

Overall Slow Horses and Rivals have the most nominations apiece with 6 while Say Nothing finished with four and Industry managed to get three. Considering how many British actors are in House of the Dragon its striking it walked away with only technical nominations. Then again this is a series that tends to honor only British Actors and creative forces. The rest of the UK – well, there are some other awards shows and I may follow up on that later on.

Clearly the series that are most benefited by this are Slow Horses and Say Nothing. In a perfect world Industry which is a better series than House of The Dragon and far more of a contender for Best Drama then White Lotus would earn a nomination for Best Drama from the Emmys. But since when have the Emmys ever gone for merit when it comes to HBO? (In an unrelated subject take as much time filming Season 3 of Euphoria as you need.) Wolf Hall remains a dark horse in the Emmy race down the road but we’ll have to wait and see. I’ve been meaning to look at the current season of Horses soon and now I have an imperative to get to Say Nothing which was already contending for casting and WGA awards.

Irish Film and Television have their nominations and since I’m already there…

Bad Sisters got a whopping six nominations: Best Drama, Best Director, Best Actress for Sharon Horgan, Best Supporting Actor for Michale Smiley,  Best Supporting Actress nods for Fiona Shaw and Eve Hewson. Shaw was nominated by the Critics Choice Awards and Horgan was nominated for Best Actress in 2023 by the Emmys.

And as you’d expect for a series that had to do with the Troubles Say Nothing was dominant with nominations in every major category. Lola Petticrew was nominated here as she was at BAFTA but rather than nominate Maxine Peake for Supporting Actress, Hazel Doupe was nominated ins stead. How ironic of all the performers nominated it is more likely the American in the cast Elisabeth Moss is the most likely nominee

Over all the Irish TV Awards seem more likely to have contenders among the Emmys that the BAFTAs will. Day of the Jackal is nominated for Directing and Writing, Colin Farrell is up for Lead Actor in a Drama and he contends against Andrew Scott for Ripley. Michael Fassbender is also present for his work in the Showtime Drama The Agency. Anthony Boyle is nominated both for Say Nothing and his work in Masters of the Air. Nicola Coughlan was nominated for Best Actress for Bridgerton. Even 3-Body Problem has a contender in Liam Cunningham for Supporting Actor.

The Penguin has nominations for cinematography and House of The Dragon has been nominated for Costumes. 3 Body Problem is up for Editing and strangely enough Shogun for Visual Effects. (The Crafts Awards don’t differentiate between film and television, no doubt more fixed on the Best work of Irish people working in the industry, which is why the editors for Bad Sisters and Say Nothing are contending against Paddington in Peru.) For the record they got a casting award creating and the Oscars are still a few years away.

Bad Sisters was a contender for many Emmys for its first season and may very well contend again. Day of the Jackal has been nominated for the majority of the Best Drama awards so far and this would seem to boost its prominence. Will the nominations from Britain and Ireland combined with its American footprint be enough to push Say Nothing into what is basically a wide open Emmy race for nominations in the limited series category? We will see.

I’ll be back some time in April when I have news on the Peabodys and the TCA the next part of Phase Two.

The 2025 Jeopardy Masters is Making Several Changes - All For The Better

 

We are fast approaching the five year mark since the passing of Alex Trebek, a period which has had more controversy, changes and upheavals in nearly every aspect of Jeopardy then the previous 35. Those of you who have read my articles about this know that my opinion about this has never changed: that the actual gameplay and the champions are always enough to overwhelm what we hear behind the scenes. All things considered, I believe I have been proven correct by this assumption.

One of the more inspired changes by the producers has been the Jeopardy Masters, a prime time event that takes place during the month of May and has featured some of the greatest Jeopardy champions to ever play the game. That doesn’t mean the first two were not each shrouded in controversy.

The inaugural one was a mild one: with the notable exception of James Holzhauer, all of the participant had their runs during the first season where Alex Trebek was no longer the host. Given the quality of all five few could complain.

The sophomore edition was more complicated. That year saw the first Jeopardy Invitational Tournament which was won by Victoria Groce. With one slot still be filled the choice was left to producer Michael Davies who handled it, shall we say, clumsily. He announced that it would be Amy Schneider, who had been the runner-up in the Invitational. Furthermore he made it clear that he knew it would be controversial but he didn’t care: he was doing this solely to bring in ratings. Amy had to address the issue when she was interviewed the first time on the Masters, which she did with more grace then the producer did.

As we entered the lead-up for the 2025 Masters it seems the show was facing a different issue. For reasons that are not yet disclosed but may become clear in the days to come, James Holzhauer made it clear he could not participate. Considering not only his prominence among the all time Jeopardy greats but his presence both in the Masters as a player – he won the first one and finished third in the second – as well as his gifts for showmanship, this might have been a blow too hard for the fledgling spin-off to survive.

Faced with that possibility the producers have clearly come up with a new way of dealing with. The 2025 Jeopardy Masters are now scheduled to start on April 30^th. However this year, nine former Jeopardy greats instead of six will be participating. In addition to Neilesh Vinjamuri, this year’s winner of the Tournament of Champions and Matt Amodio, a two-time Jeopardy Master who won this year’s Jeopardy Invitational, the producers have decided to invite back the two runners-up in both the Tournament of Champions and the Jeopardy Masters. For the 2025 TOC, those would be Adriana Havemeyer and Isaac Hirsch, for the 2025 JIT, Roger Craig and Juveria Zaheer. (I’ll get to the ninth in a moment.)

There’s already some expression of disappointment online. Unlike last season when I had some real issues with Amy Schneider’s being invited back, not only don’t I share them I think that all of these changes are ones that can only benefit the Jeopardy Masters long-term. And I’ll explain my reasoning.

First as a long-time Jeopardy fan and a super-tournament fan as well,  the more former Jeopardy greats are in any such Tournament the more it will certainly guarantee I tune it. I’m positive most long-time fans feel the same way.

Second, and more importantly in the case of three of the players who are being invited back, no one can argue that they are watering down the strength of the competition by doing so. Adriana won 15 games last year, the most any player has managed since Ray Lalonde’s 13 game streak in December 2022-January 2023. She is as much a Jeopardy Master as Mattea Roach and Matt Amodio and deserves the chance to play among them. Isaac Hirsch, in addition to his nine wins and $212,000, has a clear showmanship to him that one has come to expect from those like Sam Buttrey and Andrew He.

And I don’t need to make an argument as to why Roger Craig being in the Jeopardy Masters is a good idea. I’ve already written at least two articles on the subject. I was pulling for him to win the JIT more than any other player and when I heard that they were planning a Jeopardy Wild Card pick, I wanted the producers to find any technicality possible to put Roger Craig in the Tournament. Now that he’s been picked, I’m even more thrilled because he’s going to go up against fellow worthies, among them Matt Amodio, Isaac and Adriana.

Third, there are more than a few chances for rivalries to pay off. You know that you want to see a rematch between Isaac, Adriana and Neilesh and we probably want to see Juveria Zaheer face off against Matt and Roger again. There are also chances of rivalries between them and some of the Masters as well. In the case of Victoria Groce, I’d like to see her face off against Juveria, in part because they are two sides of the same Jeopardy coin when it came to getting here.

Fourth  – and this may seem like heresy – I actually think it would be good if James Holzhauer sat this Masters out. No disrespect to the self-described game show villain but James had a habit of being for so many of his Masters games a little too good. This was certainly true in the inaugural one. It was less so in the second (he learned that hard way against both Yogesh Raut and Victoria) but he was still way too good in so many of his matches. For the long term future of the Masters – and I want it to have one – it can only benefit from not having one single player dominate the entire event. James came very close to winning back-to-back Masters and I think that could have affected viewership negatively too. I argued in favor of that when Victoria won last year, and it’s just as true today.

And finally, there’s the identity of the 9^th member of the Masters. The original Jeopardy Master. Yes, Jeopardy fans its happening: for the first time in the post Trebek era Brad Rutter will be taking the Alex Trebek stage.

Don’t kid yourself if you don’t think that every Jeopardy fan since the Masters was created has been asking this same question: “Where is Brad Rutter?”  This is the winningest player in Jeopardy and game show history. This is a player who we’ve all wanted to see face off against Amy Schneider and Mattea Roach.

Well, we won’t be granted that but as a more than adequate consolation prize we will see him face off against Roger Craig, Adriana Havemeyer and Matt Amodio. We will see him face off against his co-star from The Chase Victoria ‘The Queen’ Groce. We will get to see Ken Jennings ask questions of Brad – and don’t say you don’t want to hear that back and forth. Anyone who loves Jeopardy knows that for fifteen years we watched Brad and Ken face off against each other for Jeopardy supremacy and Brad always won. Roger Craig knows that first hand, he had a front row seat to that in the Battle of the Decades. (I want to see their rematch in particular.)

Brad, of course, will not use the mantle of ‘Game Show Villain’ – it never suited him - but considering how much of his career on Jeopardy was mixed with Ken Jennings I want to see these old rivals interact. And one more thing that I’m sure Ken or Brad will bring up. From his first appearance on the Jeopardy stage in 2000 until the Jeopardy All-Star Games in 2019 Brad Rutter was the only player in Jeopardy history who never lost a game. (Well, to a human.) Only two people ever beat him. One is now the host; the other isn’t going to be attending this year. I want to see if the streak holds or if it doesn’t, who gets to notch a victory against Brad?

I’m not sure if the Jeopardy Masters has been around long enough for purists to exist or whether they’ll start nitpicking already. Myself, I could give a damn. This lineup of players already is one of the most satisfying I’ve seen for any Tournament in  years, going back to the Battle of the Decades. It has a fifty percent increase in the number of participants which means it’s going to be at least fifty percent more entertaining. April 30^th can’t come nearly soon enough for me and for fans of Jeopardy both past and present, I’m guessing they feel the same.