My Reactions To This Year's Golden Globes: Actually, I'm Fine With Most of them

 

 

It can often be frustrating to watch the Golden Globes in regards to television. They have a tendency to nominate series of the moment, rather than the best performers of the year. But every so often, they will correct many of the lapses the Emmys frequently make. These are the awards that were willing to honor The Americans and The Shield  when The Emmys failed too, Gina Rodriguez and Rachel Bloom, who the Emmys never even nominated, and will often pay tribute to series that have never gotten their full due from the Emmys, such as Sons of Anarchy, House of Cards, and my personal favorite, Mr. Robot.

And even in a year where the Hollywood Foreign Press was under far closer scrutiny than it often is, in my humble opinion, they actually got the awards for television almost completely right. The fact that I actually managed to predict correctly the lion’s share of the winners is only a happy coincidence.

I knew The Crown was going to do very well, but I didn’t expect it was going to run the table. I knew it would win Best Drama and that Gillian Anderson would carry the day for her extraordinary work as Margaret Thatcher, and I figured that Emma Corrin had a good chance of winning for portraying a young Princess Diana. I just didn’t believe that Josh O’Connor would prevail for Best Actor, not because he didn’t deserve it, but because it’s been a very long time since the Globes gave this many awards to a Drama. (They more frequently give them to Limited Series; three years ago, Big Little Lies won three of the four acting awards.)

And I pretty much expected that The Queen’s Gambit was going to do very well. (Yes, it was a great night for Netflix.) Anya Taylor-Joy was superb in her work, and even though she was probably surprised at her victory, I wasn’t. This is a superb series that may lead the way at next year’s Emmys. (Though the Broadcast Critics may show more deference to other performance…but we’ll get to that later in the week.)

I’m glad that Schitt’s Creek prevailed and I’m also glad to see Catherine O’Hara manage to win (and honestly, her speech was the most entertaining of the night, as she seemed to bring her own orchestra). But I’m overjoyed that the HFPA was willing to recognize Jason Sudeikis for his incredibly fun work in the title role as Ted Lasso. And while his victory speech may have been scattered (Don Cheadle’s expression has already gone viral) I prefer to think he was channeling the character he plays to perfection.

And I’m glad to see Mark Ruffalo finally win something in the Best Actor category for his incredible dual performance in I Know This Much Is True. Make no mistake this was a very crowded field, with some truly masterful performances most of which will give the Emmys judges a hard choice this coming year.

The only win that I wasn’t really thrilled about was John Boyega’s victory for Small Axe. He’s a great actor, but I’m still not convinced that this is the kind of thing that is television as opposed to motion pictures. (The LA Film Critics gave the series its trophy for Best Picture, which set off a controversy on its own.) But still, considering how good most of the choices were as opposed to, well, most years I’ve been covering this, I’ve rarely been more satisfied with the actual results.

I’m more than willing to admit the ceremony itself was something of a mess. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler did their very best, but it was hard to ignore the various elephants in the room from the last month. That said, the way they were willing to pay tribute to the winner of the Carol Burnett Award – Norman Lear, a man for whom no adjectives at this point seem sufficient -  was very touching. And it was incredibly powerful to see this 99 year old icon -  who won an Emmy just a few months ago and is still working! – thoughtfully pay tribute to all the partners he’s had over the decades as well as his family. And the way he was willing to pay tribute to Burnett herself was one of the most powerful moments of the night. I had tears in my eyes.

Hopefully, by this time next year, things will be normal enough that we can get back to a normal awards show. Also hopefully, the HFPA will make the changes it needs to on the inside but keep making the same great choices it did this year.

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

OUTSTANDING TV MOVIE OR LIMITED SERIES

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

Should Win: The Undoing.

Will Win: The Queen’s Gambit

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR IN A TV MOVIE OR LIMITED SERIES

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

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

Should Win: Ruffalo/Grant.

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

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A TV MOVIE OR LIMITED SERIES

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

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

Should Win/Will Win: Taylor-Joy.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A SERIES, MOVIE OR LIMITED SERIES

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

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

Should Win: Gleeson.

Will Win: Sutherland.

 

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

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

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

Should Win/Will Win: Anderson.

 

Be back Monday with my reactions to the results.

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

 

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

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

 

OUTSTANDING DRAMA SERIES

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

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

Should Win: Lovecraft County.

Will Win: The Crown

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR IN A DRAMA

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

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

Should Win: Odenkirk.

Will Win: Rhys.

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A DRAMA

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

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

Should Win: Corrin/Colman

Will Win: Colman.

 

OUTSTANDING COMEDY SERIES

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

Should Win/Will Win: Schitt’s Creek.

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR IN A COMEDY

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

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

Should Win: Sudeikis.

Will Win: Levy.

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

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

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

Should Win: Levy.

Will Win: O’Hara.

 

Be back tomorrow with Limited Series and the Supporting Awards.

Better Late Than Never: The Crown Season 4 Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

My score: 5 stars.

A Refreshing Look At A Tired Genre: Clarice Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

My score: 3.75 stars.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

My score: 4.75 stars.