I Try To Predict This Year's Emmy Winners: WeeK 3, Part 4: Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Movie, Limited Series or (sigh) Special

 

I have to be honest. This is the only category I don’t want to try and pick a winner because IMHO, there are only two nominees who deserve to be here at all and even that’s stretching things. Leaving aside the Hamilton obsession, at least two of the nominated actors weren’t the strongest contenders in the Limited Series they were nominated for. For that matter two of the Hamilton actors deserved to be nominated…for different shows.  You could fill an entire category with actors I considered more worthy and still have room for Jon Boyega, who even though I didn’t respect his performance, his Golden Globe still showed he should be here. I will do my very best not to let my lack of enthusiasm seep in. It’s going to be difficult, though.

 

Thomas Brodie-Sangster, The Queen’s Gambit: 11-2. For Playing: Benny Watts, the stylish chess expert who takes Elizabeth under his wing. Pro: Under other circumstances you could just see Benny as another sportsman (though its hard to imagine any chess player with that fedora and cigarette) but Brodie-Sangster gave this role a sense of real style. Initially serving as mentor, he quickly realized Elizabeth’s potential and in the last act truly became the ally she needed to manage her ultimate triumph. It was a memorable portrayal. Con: Until Brodie-Sangster was nominated, I’m relatively certain the world figured Bill Camp was going to be in this category and a likely favorite to win it. There’s part of me that really thinks that in this case the Emmys chose flash over substance.

 

Daveed Diggs, Hamilton: 4-1. For Playing: Thomas Jefferson/Marquis De Lafayette. Pro: Diggs has become one of the biggest stars in any medium he works in – we’ve seen in Blindspotting and black-ish just to name his most obvious stops. He is one of the most gifted performers working today and he is fully worthy of recognition from the Emmys. Con: Indeed, Diggs does deserve to be nominated…for playing Frederick Douglass in The Good Lord Bird. His work there was a genuine force, taking a character who is revered through history and turning him into something of a rogue who thinks that John Brown was too radical for him. If Diggs had been nominated for that role, I’d gladly sing his praises. For recreating his stage role, I can’t in good conscience advocate for him.

 

Paapa Essiedu, I May Destroy You: 9-2. For Playing: Kwame, Arabella’s gay friend who goes through his sexual adventures and struggles with consent. Pro: I’m honestly a little shocked Essiedu isn’t ranked higher in this category. Kwame was just as important as Arabella in this series as we followed a character who experimented with his sexuality and then wondered if that experiment was really a choice. In many ways, his journey was more daring than Arabella’s because this was a character we’ve seen in few TV series at all – its rare than any series takes the idea of male’s consent as anything other than a story of the week. Essiedu deserves full credit for making this performance resonate. Con: It’s going to be a major step for the Emmys to recognize Coel for their work. It’s going to take a lot of guts for them to go even this far.

 

Jonathan Groff, Hamilton:13-2. For Playing: King George. Pro: All right, I can’t hold it in: WHAT WERE YOU THINKING EMMYS? I like Jonathan Groff; I think his work on Looking was a minor masterpiece. But seriously, you’re recognizing one of the smallest roles in a taped stage play over Donald Sutherland, Glynn Turman or Joshua Caleb Johnson? The entire academy is going to be ripped for their excess for Hamilton and I’m not even saying this is your most ridiculous nomination this year *cough- Ewan McGregor* but this is ludicrous. It is nominations like this one that truly make people question the Emmys validity. You did a great job for the lion’s share of your nominees, don’t get me wrong, but here, I can’t in good conscience even pretend to offer an argument for him. I apologize to Groff, I look forward to the day when you are nominated for a role worthy of you. This isn’t it

 

Evan Peters, Mare of Easttown: 7-2. For Playing: Colin Zabel, the out-of-town detective who becomes Mare’s unwilling partner in the murders. Pro: Colin was one of the only truly fresh-faced characters in this entire series, though like so many of the other characters, we would learn it was a mask. Peters had a devotion to the truth that not even Mare was willing to admit to, and was willing to go to her for help when he needed it. Add to this the fact that he’s been in this category several times and never won and also recreated a version of his character in Wandavision which also could’ve earned him a nomination, and its easy to see why he’s the outstanding favorite. I certainly understand why the HCA picked him over (in all honesty) much stronger competition. Con: It was a stellar performance, but as we all know, Mare of Easttown was all about the women. Is it right to honor the only male in the cast?

 

Anthony Ramos, Hamilton: 11-2. For Playing: John Laurens/Philip Hamilton. Pro: Ramos is another one of those actors whose moment truly seems to have come this year. This is the third major onscreen production that he has appeared in this year where he registered raves and he more than deserves recognition from the Emmys. Con: And I thought he’d be nominated for Best Supporting Actor…in a Drama, for his extraordinary work as Eladio in In Treatment, a caretaker who thinks he’s suffering from a bipolar disorder but turns out to have so much love in his heart. It was one of the great performances of this year, and the fact that he was nominated for Hamilton and not that is another one of those mistakes I can’t forgive the academy. Ramos is a great actor and I’m sure we’ll see him back here again. Maybe for his work in the TV adaptation of Blindspotting.

 

PREDICTION: I may change channels when this category comes up, but I expect to hear Evan Peters’ name announced before I do.

 

I’ll wrap this up tomorrow…sort of.

I Try To Predict This Year's Emmy Winners: Week 3, Part 3: Outstanding Lead Actress in a Limited Series, et al

 

In all honesty, this is going to be the hardest category of the entire night to try and predict a winner. This is one of the only categories I correctly predicted all five nominees and they all gave outstanding performances. Four of them are at the center of the series they were nominated in, and all of them had extraordinary range. There is a clear front-runner among the previous awards, but as we have learned in the past those awards can sometimes count for nothing. So here I go.

 

Michaela Coel, I May Destroy You: 4-1. For Playing: Arabella, a millennial blogger/novelist whose European life takes a dark turn on a night she can’t remember…yet. Pro: There is no denying that Coel was the breakout talent of 2020. I May Destroy You was almost entirely her project and she’s been nominated for acting, producing, writing and directing. Coel went out of her way to try and make Arabella unsympathetic and as close to the antithesis of a victim that we’ve been used to in far too many procedurals, but despite her humanity managed to shine through. I imagine far too many people gave up on this series because it asked questions about consent and sexuality we say we want to talk about, but we really don’t. Coel dared to ask these questions. The odds are more than in her favor she’ll win at least one Emmy. Con: Coel has indeed been raking in the prizes from everywhere – but the lion’s share of them have been for writing and producing, not acting. I have a feeling given the way the Emmys have operated in the past that it is likely they will give her prizes in one category and consider that enough.

 

Cynthia Erivo: Genius: Aretha: 9-2. For Playing: Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul. Pro: Much as I may admonish National Geographic’s Genius series, it’s hard to ignore the talent at the center of it. And it’s always hard to ignore the incredible performances that Erivo, whose quickly become one of the greatest actress on whatever medium she appears in, as she seemed to truly inhabit this icon in a way that Geoffrey Rush and Antonio Banderas just couldn’t due in the two previous iterations of this anthology. It’s a great triumph. Con: The thing is, I actually think the Emmys are making up for a major blunder last year when they denied Erivo for giving an even greater performance in the Limited Series The Outsider which due to bumbling by HBO ended up being considered a Drama and shut Erivo out. She’d deserved to get nominated her like she did last year, don’t get me wrong, but the odds would’ve been better last year.

 

Elisabeth Olsen, Wandavision: 9-2. For Playing: Wanda Maximoff, the former Avenger who seems to have taken over an entire town to deal with her grief over a loss she can’t deal with. Pro: Olsen’s performance is at the center of this incredible show, a performance which stars off dealing with wonderful comedy and then becomes an exploration of just how deep loss and pain can take us. This is pretty dark territory for a Marvel based series and its immense credit to Olsen – who is a great actress in so many smaller independent films before becoming the Scarlet Witch – that we truly see her humanity even as she complete seems to destroy the minds of everybody in Westview. (Of course, as those of us who’ve finished the series, the operative word is ‘seems’. It is a real triumph and it is award worthy. Con: Olsen does have nearly as weak competition as Paul Bettany does. She’d really need to do mind control on the Emmy judges to make them vote for her over the competition here.

 

Anya Taylor-Joy, The Queen’s Gambit: 37-10. For Playing: Elizabeth Harmon, a young girl who becomes one of the greatest chess players in the game and tries her hardest to escape her demons. Pro: Taylor-Joy has won every award leading up to the Emmys and it’s no secret why. In an era where even the greatest performances are commanding by dialogue, so much of Taylor-Joy’s gift comes from what she doesn’t say. I spent must of the series enraptured by what was going on in that hundred yard stare. The chessboard was the only place in her life where she seemed to have complete control – and when she fell apart it was a miracle she managed to triumph. Arguably one of the great subtle performances in the last few years, she has in the space of a few short months proven that she is one of the great actresses of our time. Utterly deserves a victory. Con: In 2019, Patricia Arquette ran the table for her work in Escape at Dannemora and at the Emmys was beaten by Michelle Williams. Taylor-Joy was a sure thing as late as April, but with the arrival of Kate Winslet, all bets are off.

 

Kate Winslet, Mare of Easttown: 17-5. For Playing: Mare Sheehan, a Philadelphia detective trying to solve an unspeakable crime and deal with a horrible home life. Pro: Set aside whatever you thought about Winslet’s mastery of a Philadelphia accent (I really couldn’t tell the difference and I’m from there originally). It’s hard to argue that this wasn’t one of the most exceptional performances in Winslet’s career, which already goes back nearly thirty years. As an example of what happens you seem to peak in high school, when life has beaten you so weary your family likes your ex-husband more than you, as a grandmother who will violate the law to protect her grandchild, Winslet gave one of the darkest and most mesmerizing performances so far in 2021. The most memorable stint wasn’t the case she dealt with but rather when she finally confronted the demons in her own family, something that she had spent years avoiding. When the truth about the case was revealed – in a great twist – she was heartbroken by what she had to do but did it all the same. Winslet more than deserves to win. Con: All that said, she has won an Emmy before (nearly ten years ago to the day for Mildred Pierce) and despite the series momentum, she hasn’t quite been able to upset the Anya Taylor-Joy train yet. Emphasis on yet.

 

PREDICTION: Winslet may have momentum, but I think Taylor-Joy will continue her streak. No real bad choices though.

I Try To Predict This Year's Emmy Winners: Week 3, Part 2: Outstanding Lead Actor In A Mini Series, Movie or Special

 

I’m not going to lie: its really hard for me to work up enthusiasm for the nominees in this category. Set aside that there are only five, which is a criminally low number. You could fill an entire category of deserving nominees who weren’t selected and still have room for Jeff Daniels for The Comey Report or Bryan Cranston for Your Honor. I’m not saying that they should’ve followed the HCA’s lead and given the prize to Colman Domingo for Euphoria, but this is one of the most underwhelming categories I’ve dealt with in years. Nevertheless, for the record:

 

Paul Bettany, WandaVision: 7-2. For Playing: Vision, the robotic Avenger who finds himself in a sitcom marriage with his beloved Wanda…until he starts to question reality. Pro: Bettany gave a remarkably human performance as a robot who finds himself in a constantly changing world of sitcoms and has no problems, until he begins to suspect that his ‘wife’ has changed reality and he is trapped in it. There were moments of great poingiancy and high comedy throughout this series, which, for those who’ve followed the movies (I wasn’t one, but I paid attention) also involved the pain of grief. Add to this that Bettany is the only actor in this category who is in a nominated series and his character can quickly calculate the odds of his success. Con: The Emmys proved last year that they are willing to give statues to actors who play iconic comic book characters. But Watchmen is in a different world thematically than Wandavision.  Jeremy Irons couldn’t win in this category last year for playing Adrian Veidt; could the same prejudice work against Bettany here?

 

Hugh Grant, The Undoing: 37-10. For Playing: Jonathan Fraser, a pediatric oncologist accused of murder, with so many secrets. Pro: I really think The Undoing deserved far more nominations than it ended up getting. I think it was astonishing, even though I sincerely believe the book it was based on was far better. And the lion’s share of the reason it worked was because of the magnificent performance of Hugh Grant. In the book, it is pretty clear early on that Jonathan is guilty. The reason that I imagine so many viewers – and Grace – wanted to believe an alternative was because of the extraordinary work of Grant, who for all his behavior you can’t quite see his motivations. Add to this the fact that Grant is in the midst of a remarkable late career renaissance that has yet to reward him with any awards and the argument for him winning becomes undeniable. Con: The Undoing didn’t get a requisite amount of love from the Emmys this year. And when you consider that so many other actors in this series who we equally deserving were shut out, Grant’s chances seem slim.

 

Ewan McGregor, Halston: 4-1. For Playing: The iconic designer through his long career. Pro: McGregor has always been one of the more understated actors of our time, never received real credit for any of the subtle performances he gives and being blasted for taking on versions of iconic characters. He found a way to make this designer his own in the rare subtle portrayal from a Ryan Murphy project. Con: If I’m being honest, McGregor’s nomination is even less understandable than the two nominees from Hamilton in this category. Compared to other potential nominees – Ethan Hawke being by far the most obvious example – there was nothing really remarkable in this particular performance. I think he got robbed for his performance in Season 3 of Fargo but that’s no reason to nominate him here.

 

Lin-Manuel Miranda, Hamilton: 9-2. For Playing: ‘Alexander Hamilton...” but not the one we know from history books. Pro: This is the role that put Miranda on the map, that won him so many Tonys, including one for Best Actor. It has become one of the most legendary accomplishments in the history of Broadway, and you could make the argument it should put Miranda on the route to an EGOT. Con: There’s been backlash against every nominee for Hamilton, but it had started for Miranda long before the TV version even premiered. Like so many great successes, he’s been undergoing overexposure and I don’t think it’s going to work for him here.

 

Leslie Odom, Jr., Hamilton: 4-1. For Playing: Aaron Burr, sir. Pro: Odom was a good actor before Hamilton, but his work as Burr shot him into the stratosphere. Like Miranda he has become one of the greatest musical performers and he actually had a fairly solid TV career well before this nomination. Some could argue he’s due a win. Con: Far more – and I am among them – would argue that he shouldn’t have been nominated in the first place. There have been other projects he worked in worthy of awards. Recreating a stage performance –however iconic – doesn’t come near to meeting those standards.

 

PREDICTION: In 2019, Grant lost an Emmy for playing an outwardly charming but morally questionable character in a very crowded field. In 2021, playing an even darker character in a category where the competition is far lighter, I believe the Emmys will make up for the previous mistake.

I Attempt To Pick This Year's Emmy Winners: Outstanding Limited/Anthology Series

 

Before we get started with the final week, it’s time we address the Federalist in the room.

Now I know there are millions of people who love Hamilton. And I know that many of them were delighted that, particularly during this past year when Broadway was dark and we needed joy, that Disney Plus gave us a production. However, I think even they would have to be honest that the Emmys went overboard – way overboard with their recognition of it. I’d say it was the most ridiculous excess the Emmys did this year, except I spent a week dealing with eight acting nominations for The Handmaid’s Tale (and that’s before you add on the guest actors and actresses).

I’ll proceed as neutrally as I can with the acting categories. But I have to admit it’s going to be real difficult for me to restrain my bile when it comes to them.

 

OUTSTANDING LIMITED OR ANTHOLOGY SERIES

As irked as I am that the Emmys couldn’t find room for Fargo or The Good Lord Bird in this category, it is hard to withhold my excitement. In the six years I’ve been covering this category seriously, I don’t recall the race ever being this wide open. There have frequently been years with several extraordinary series competing, but more often than not there has always been an overwhelming favorite that would end up more or less sweeping all the major awards. The one exception of a sort was in 2019 and even then Chernobyl did win the lion’s share of the awards.

This year’s there are at least four serious contenders for the grand prize, and there’s an excellent argument to be made for all of them. I’m honestly not sure what will win in two weeks time. So I’ll just do my best.

 

I May Destroy You (HBO) 4-1. Pro: This was by far the most radical series of all the nominees, certainly in the darkness of its content and in just how far the journey went. Led by arguably the greatest discovery of 2020, Michaela Coel, creator, director, producer and star, we went down one of the most terrifying rabbit holes all season as Arabella tried to find out just what happened to here one night, no much she tried to look away from it. Coel and the series have won their fair share of awards this season to – from BAFTA, the Peabodys and the Independent Film Spirits first ever television awards. If Coel doesn’t win at least one Emmy in two weeks, there’s something really wrong with the process. Con: This subject may be too dark even for the viewers of Peak TV. The series and Coel haven’t been able to do very well when it came to the major Hollywood awards. Coel’s prizes are more likely to be for directing and writing.

 

Mare of Easttown (HBO): 37-10. Pro: In a way, this is the most conventional of all the nominees in this category. It’s another grand HBO project, involving a troubled detective trying to solve a twisted murder plot – the network can almost do them in their sleep by now. But to make such a broad judgment would be unfair to the cast, particularly the always magnificent Kate Winslet, who demonstrated yet again why she is probably the greatest actress working today. Throw in another extraordinary work by Jean Smart and superb performances by two of the most undervalued actors today – Evan Peters and Julianne Nicholson – and you find yourself lost in the characters and how damaged they are and how they – and the community – heal themselves. The series won the prize for Best Network/Cable Limited Series, so there is clearly prestige behind it. Con:  How many times do we have to honor HBO for what is a variation on the same series? We went through this with Sharp Objects and The Night Of. And this series doesn’t have anywhere near the scope of their previous winners Chernobyl or Watchmen. No matter how exceptional the performances, there is a sense of déjà vu here.

 

The Queen’s Gambit (Netflix): 71-20. Pro: This was the most binged series near the end of 2020 and dominated the major awards throughout the early stages of 2021. And anyone who’s seen the series can understand why. It takes one of the hardest games to try and make understandable, much less entertaining – chess – and not only makes it fascinating, but dare I say, sexy.  Led by lead actress Anya-Taylor Joy, much of the greatness in this series came from what wasn’t said. As Elizabeth journeyed through a world that seemed to do anything to bring her down – and many of these blows were self-inflicted – you found yourself enraptured by every single element. The series has taken nearly every major award to this point. And hell, it’s made chess popular. Like Elizabeth, it’s victory can’t be denied. Con: It debuted way back in November 2020, and a lot of great series have aired since then. Its loss to Wandavision at the HCA may be a sign its time has passed.

 

The Underground Railroad (Amazon): 9-2. Pro: You can’t argue we aren’t due a series like this. In an alternate world where slavery never ended, where the path to freedom was harsher than it was then, and even liberation guaranteed nothing, this is exactly the kind of project we needed as our nation continues to reckon with slavery and race. It’s a frightening series no matter what your race is and it’s definitely one you experience rather than enjoy. But its definitely one we need. Con: Of the nominees in this category, this one received the least recognition anywhere else – nothing in acting or writing and only one directing nomination. This may be a sign the Emmys don’t intend to give it its due.

 

WandaVision (Disney +) 9-2. Pro: Well, you can’t say the Emmys have a barrier to comic book based series anymore. In many ways Wandavision was truly the most imaginative of all the nominees in this category, and by far the most entertaining. Led by the exceptional work of Paul Bettany and Elisabeth Olsen in the title roles, I certainly had more fun with this series than any of the others in this category – until of course, we learned the truth. This is also a series that celebrates the wonders of television itself and its ability to bring entertainment and comfort, so we know the Emmys had a reason to love it. And considering the vast variety of fields that have already honored – from the MTV Movie and TV awards to the HCA - there’s a lot of people who love Wandavision. Con: In order to recognize a comic book based series, you really have to deal with something much bigger than just comics. And as dazzling visually and acting as this series is, thematically it doesn’t have anywhere near the power of Watchmen.

 

PREDICTION: In a very close category, I think The Queen’s Gambit has enough momentum to win. Don’t rule out Mare of Easttown, though.

I Attempt To Pick This Year's Emmy Winners: Outstanding Supporting Actress In A Comedy

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

Much as I would have loved to see Kathleen Turner or Mary Steenburgen in this category (considering that the latter won Best Supporting Actress from the HCA on Sunday, it wasn’t outside the realm of possibility) this is still a pretty solid category. There’s a little more excess than I would like for SNL but honestly I’m used to that by now. I think the winner is pretty clear cut, but there is a possibility of an upset in this category.

 

Aidy Bryant, Saturday Night Live: 7-1. For Playing: Various characters. Pro: I’ll be honest; I’m genuinely surprised Bryant wasn’t nominated for her work on SNL before this year. Unlike so many of the other nominees for this series, the lion’s share of Bryant’s work is more physical comedy than it is impersonation. And she is exquisite at it. I’m honestly enjoyed watching her do double acts with McKinnon in film satires over the years along with her impersonate a fourth grader on Weekend Update who clearly has a crush on Michael. Throw in the fact that over the last few years she’s been working on SNL while playing the lead on a critically acclaimed comedy (see Best Actress) and the real question is, why hasn’t been nominated before, much less won? Con: I have a sinking feeling that the nomination her is just like the one she got for Shrill, a consolation prize. Like several of her fellow nominees, she may not be coming back this year and I think this is a chance to reward her for her work

 

Hannah Einbinder, Hacks: 6-1. For Playing: Ava, a disgraced millennial comic who finds herself forced to work with Deborah Vance to save her career. Pro: When Einbinder was first nominated, I didn’t think she deserved it. When she shared in the prize for Best Supporting Actress in A Streaming Comedy, I was thrilled. Over the course of the series, Ava made a huge amount of growth, emotionally and in her relationship with Deborah (the episode where they bonded while Deb was having surgery is one of the highpoints of 2021) which you rarely see in any series, much less a comedy. We still don’t know of her backstory to fully get Ava, but we’re on her side in a way we probably weren’t at the beginning. I’m not saying Einbinder will win this year, but I expect to see her at the winners podium very soon. Con: Her early behavior may have put off a lot of judges like me. More to the point, Waddingham has a lot of momentum and it will probably be enough to give the other Hannah the win.

 

Kate McKinnon, Saturday Night Live: 13-2. For Playing: Various Characters. For Playing: Is there truly anything left to say about McKinnon’s gifts as a performer at this point? Well, I have to say the funniest thing did on SNL all year was a sequence where she essentially played herself ‘Does Anything Work?” Its one of the few times I remember her ever playing a straight woman (and to be clear, she acknowledged her sexuality very clearly in that sketch) and got as many laughs as she has for playing Elizabeth Warren or Hilary Clinton. She’s always been gifted in playing the outlandish, and as she may be leaving the series soon, it’s good to know she still has her gifts. Con: She’s already won two Emmys for her work on this series. I’m not saying any of her co-stars have a better chance, but she has earned her trophies.

 

Rosie Perez, The Flight Attendant: 13-2. For Playing: Megan, Cassie’s best friend, who just happens to be engaged in corporate espionage with the Koreans. Pro: It’s a little bit of a stretch to consider Megan Perez’s best role in years, but it’s one of the first performances I’ve seen her give where she isn’t playing some version of Rosie Perez. (Unless Perez has always known how to speak Korean and we just didn’t know.) A lot of the subplot involving Megan seems separate from the over-arching story, but it’s a testament to Perez’s gifts as a performers that she takes that and makes it really funny. And hell, the excuses she uses to fob off her way to gullible husband are hysterical enough on their own. Con: Like Cuoco and the series itself, this just seems to be Ted Lasso’s year. Perez did outstanding work, but its unlikely that she’ll be able to get anything for it.

 

Cecily Strong, Saturday Night Live: 6-1. For Playing: Various Characters. Pro: There is a very good indicator that last season was Strong’s final year (you don’t end the season playing Jeanine Pirro crooning ‘My Way’ in a bucket of wine if leaving isn’t in your future) and considering how hysterical she’s been over the years, there is a good chance she could get rewarded. Con: Strong has never truly given the kind of moments (save you know, the season finale) that lend themselves to an award the way so many others do.

 

Juno Temple, Ted Lasso: 6-1. For Playing: Keeley Hawes, supermodel who’s relationship with Jamie leads to relationships with the Richmond team she never imagined. Pro: Much like the character she plays, Temple has been around for awhile mostly considered as just a pretty face. But as the series progresses we see just the level of layers that Keeley – and Temple – both have. She has a level of self-awareness going in that a lot of the characters don’t early on. Through her friendship with Rebecca, we see how they both end up helping each other, career-wise and emotionally. And by the time both Roy and Jamie are fighting over her, we can see very clearly she is the adult in the room. A lovely and charming performance. Con: Oh, if it wasn’t for her co-nominee, she’d have a much better chance. But like Keeley, she’ll accept it with grace and humor

 

Hannah Waddingham, Ted Lasso: 9-2. For Playing: Rebecca, the new owner of Richmond Football team, who hires Ted to destroy the team…at first. Pro: We’re supposed to hate Rebecca Welton from the moment we meet her, that’s how she operates. But it doesn’t take long for us to understand the motivations behind her actions (meeting her ex-husband helps) for us to see how much life with him changed her (when we met her former best friend) and the see she’s not irredeemable (not just through knowing Ted, but how her unlikely friendship with Keeley). When she admitted everything to Ted, and he forgave her for it, it was the highpoint of the series. All of which just explains how brilliant Waddingham truly is. She took the Supporting Actress prize at the Broadcast Critics (which delightfully shocked her) and share in the Supporting Actress prize for Streaming this week (where she was more prepared, but no less entertaining.) I think there’s a contingent at the Emmys voting: ‘Make Hannah Win Again.” Con: As last Sunday proved, there may be momentum for the other Hannah in this category. Will it be Hannah’s fate to be overlooked for a younger model?

 

Prediction: This comes down basically to a battle of the Hannahs. And I strongly believe that Emmys will honor Waddingham over Einbinder.

 

Next week, I wrap it up with Limited Series…and well, Hamilton.

I Attempt to Predict This Year's Emmy Winners: Week 2, Part 4: Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A COMEDY

My only complaint with this category isn’t really with it. They found that there were room eight very funny men here but only five in the Best Actor category? No other complains. I’m not upset with any of the choices. Not upset they frontloaded it with Ted Lasso nominees. I’m not even upset with the SNL nominees. I’m still a little bitter that no one from Zoey’s Extraordinary Playlist is here, but that’s my damage. So I’ll try to pick a winner from a category full of them.

 

Carl Clemons-Hopkins, Hacks: 19-2. For Playing: Marcus, the gay, black gatekeeper of Deborah Vance’s empire. Pro: I have to tell you in all my years of watching TV, I’ve never seen a character like Marcus. There’ve rarely been characters like this – an African American gay man who has veto power over a legendary woman. What makes the performance resonate is everything Clemons-Hopkins puts into it, the cold front he shows to anybody who opposes Deborah, the patient but often stinging attitude he has towards her – and the fact that she accepts it, the fact that his mother is a beacon of support he really wishes he didn’t have to deal with, and oh yeah, trying to have a relationship when your work is all-consuming. This is incredible and often very funny. I expect to see Clemons-Hopkins making acceptance speeches in the years to come. Con: Just not this year. In addition to the fact that Hacks is basically all about the women for much of Season 1, there are a lot of other more robust comic performances in this category. Clemons-Hopkins too subtle work may not cut it this year

 

Brett Goldstein, Ted Lasso: 11-2. For Playing: Roy Kent, the aging veteran and the reluctant field leader for Richmond. Pro: Every supporting character on Ted Lasso was hysterically funny. The reason that I think Goldstein in particular has been surging over the past several weeks is because Roy Kent is basically the heart of the show. An aging man who knows his time is past on the team, who finds himself trying to figure out what’s next after retirement, who finds himself drawn to Keeley, all of these moments were sweet. And the great moment of the finale – when he gives his body in the spirit of the team – was one of the most powerful of the first season. Of course, Goldstein can also being hysterically funny and my argument for his winning was the speech he gave accepting the Supporting Actor prize for the HCA on Sunday. If he was half as entertaining on Emmy night, that would make the highlight reel. Con: Same problem with all the Ted Lasso nominees: there may be too many of them and that will end up dividing the vote. It doesn’t always happen (Modern Family has proven this) but it probably will work against Goldstein.

 

Brendan Hunt, Ted Lasso: 8-1. For Playing: The terse Coach Beard, who has few words but they always seem to be the right ones. Pro: If I have an out and out favorite from the Ted Lasso nominees, it’s Hunt. He helped create the series and has given himself the character with the fewest words and the most taciturn of personalities. But every time he delivers a line, it’s a gem. Every episode, we get a look behind the deadpan. And when he does reveal his feelings – as he most magnificently did when Ted was considering his players feelings above winning – it’s absolutely astounding to watch. Coach Beard is arguably the funniest one on the series and if I had my way, ‘Coach’ would win. Con: Well, in addition to the problem I listed for Goldstein, there’s also the problem that Hunt’s role may actually be to subtle for Emmy voters to see Hunt’s genius. One has submit a single episode to best represent an actor’s body of work, and honestly Hunt’s talent is best seen over the course of the season rather than from an individual episode. You could see how this could hurt Hunt.

 

Nick Mohammed, Ted Lasso: 17-2. For Playing: Nate Shelley, the waterboy who ends up being the new coach’s greatest asset. Pro: If we were basing the winner of this category on terms of personal arc, one could see a real argument for Mohammed. Nate spends much of the first season utterly being the punching bag (and he’s clearly used to it) except for Ted. Nate clearly knows football and he sees the potential that Ted might miss and Ted sees the potential in him. As the season goes on, Nick clearly grows not just career-wise but emotionally and how he ends up in the finale is truly one of the series triumphs. And if you’re going to reward a guy for sight gags, it’s hard not to argue for Nate the Great. Con: I don’t like repeated myself, but such is how the Emmys tend to work. Too many nominees split the vote and it’s probably going to hurt Mohammed. Of course, Nate would probably understand that the best of any of the characters on Ted Lasso.

 

Paul Reiser, The Kominsky Method: 17-2. For Playing: Marty, the really much-older fiancée of Mindy, Sandy’s daughter. Pro: Reiser is a TV comedy icon, and honestly deserves a special prize for making himself looking older and uglier than he does is real life. Marty’s character was a true to joy to watch through Season 2 and 3 of The Kominsky Method, from the fact his fiancé’s parents got him so much better than Mindy did to the ridiculousness of his dream to the realization as to just how horrible a mother he has (Sandy put it best when he said to him: “You never had a chance.”)  Brought a special kind of laughter. Add to this the fact he somehow walked away from Mad About You without an Emmy to show for it, and he is ridiculously due a prize. Con: He’s not even this category clearest sentimental favorite. It just seems to be Reiser’s lot in life to be overlooked by the Emmys, just as it was Marty’s lot to lead a lonely and sad life. Marty got a happy ending, though. It’s likely not going to come this year for Reiser.

 

Jeremy Swift, Ted Lasso: 19-2. Pro: Higgins, Rebecca’s constantly browbeaten assistant. Pro: It would be easy enough to just consider Swift another characters whose put upon attitude is the sole purpose of his existence. (Lawrence has had characters like this in all his series) But, as with everybody else on this show, Higgins has layers. He has by far the most secure family life of all of the characters – his wife loves him unequivocally and says the things in private he can’t in public. He knows that he bears guilt for why Rebecca is here and why she’s doing what she does. And as the series goes on, he develops a backbone we didn’t see but clearly always did. When he finally shows it to Rebecca, it probably shocks her to the point that nothing else would. The scene where she apologizes for how she’s treated everybody – but especially Higgins - was actually moving, and it wouldn’t have worked without Swift. Higgins is funny, sweet, and sometimes more lovable than even Ted. That’s an achievement. Con: I won’t repeat myself, and even there were fewer nominees, the kind of character Swift plays usually doesn’t win. I think Higgins would accept that.

 

Kenan Thompson, Saturday Night Live: 5-1. For Playing: Various Characters. Pro: When your fellow cast member and nominee in this category makes it clear he wants Thompson to win, you can understand how much the man is loved. Honestly I have watched Kenan Thompson perform for almost thirty years, all the way back to this on Nickelodeon, and while I have spent a lot of my time in these articles raging against SNL nominees presence in this category at all, I find it utterly outrageous that Thompson has spent twenty years on SNL and never won an Emmys. It’s almost as heartbreaking as Amy Poehler’s track record with them. Considering that and Thompson’s body of work on SNL – where he does not so much command the screen as generate laughs just from being in the background – than you realize it is more than his time. Con: Actors in SNL have a notoriously poor track record in the Supporting categories and anything, an even worse one in the Acting categories at all. (And honestly, the only reason the previous winner may have been exhaustion with the former president than any real ability.) That may not help.

 

Bowen Yang, Saturday Night Live: 5-1. For Playing: Various Characters. Pro: Yang is the first Asian-American cast member of SNL of any real significance. Watching his performances, particularly on Weekend Update (he memorably played ‘The Iceberg’ earlier this year) you can see his true genius. But for all that, his nomination may have hinged on a far more serious note. After the hate crimes that left several Asian-Americans dead in Georgia – the climax of a rash that have played America this year – Yang came out on Weekend Update – and did something that I’ve never seen an SNL performer do – give a heartfelt, impassioned speech bracketed with two simple words: ‘Do More!” It was one of the most moving moments I’ve ever seen on the series. And capped with his work in general, he deserved it. Con: Leaving aside the track record I listed above, Yang said that he wanted anyone who might vote for him to vote for Thompson. I don’t know how seriously voters will take him, but it does imply how little this award means to him personally. I’m not sure that’ll help his cause.

 

PREDICTION: This could be Thompson’s year at last, but watching out for Goldstein on the outside.

I Attempt To Predict This Years Emmys: Week 2, Part 3: Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

I still think there’s a really argument for more than five nominees in this category. I’m still immensely irked not to see Jane Levy here – the HCA more than demonstrated that she was a winning possibility – but unlike the previous category, it’s not like there are any bad choices here.

 

Aidy Bryant, Shrill: 9-2. For Playing: Annie Easton, a woman trying to change her life without changing her body. Pro: I’ll admit when I first learned of Bryant’s nomination I thought it was similar to Thompson for Best Actor. In hindsight, however, I think giving Bryant this nomination was a different kind of reaction from the Emmys – an attempt to right a wrong. Because Shrill was a series that was much loved and laughed at by a lot of people, entertaining and heartfelt and angry too. And given how busy Bryant is – and frankly, how funny she is – she most likely should’ve got a nomination for this role before. But given how crowded the Best Comedy Actress has been, they probably couldn’t fit her in until now. Do I still wish Jane Levy was here? Yes. But Bryant deserved to be recognized. Con: Sadly Bryant has the exact obverse problem as the other brilliant Hulu series that was nominated for Best Comedy, Pen 15: no nominations anywhere else. And frankly, you need a base to work with to get recognition. (Which doesn’t mean Bryant won’t elsewhere.)

 

Kaley Cuoco, The Flight Attendant: 39-10. For Playing: Cassie Bowden, a heavy drinking, heavy partying flight attendant whose one-night stand with a passenger ends in a bloody death – and is just the start of her problems. Pro: For twelve years, Kaley Cuoco did something truly remarkable: she appeared on one of the biggest critical and popular sitcoms in network history and never truly got credit for it. Everyone seemed to get a nomination from the Emmys but her. She took a rest of about five minutes before taking the lead in by far the darkest and most mesmerizing role of her career: a flight attendant who wakes up in the middle of murder, gets involved in the world of espionage and spies, and keeps hurting everybody around her while never quite being sober. This is the kind of role that most actresses spend their careers dreaming of. The fact that it’s also the complete opposite of Penny on The Big Bang Theory testifies just how much of a great actress she is – and how little we appreciated it then. Con: Timing, timing, timing. When The Flight Attendant began its run on the end of year awards shows, Cuoco had the misfortune of going against Catherine O’Hara finishing her sweep of awards for her extraordinary work on Schitt’s Creek. Once it was done, she was the front-runner… until May when Hacks debuted on the same service The Flight Attendant did no less. There is a possibility she’ll win, but it’s just as likely she will be once again overlooked by another comic legend giving another extraordinary performance. There’s always Season 2.

 

Allison Janney, Mom: 9-2. For Playing: Bonnie, the recovering alcoholic, drug addict trying to keep sober and her marriage going. Pro: I can’t really think of another word other than ‘legend’ to describe Allison Janney. This is the second iconic character that she’s created in the past twenty years – a woman who struggles to get through despite her best efforts. The fact that Mom managed to be successful in its final season without the presence of co-lead Anna Faris was in a large part to the series’ confidence in Janney. The series became more of an ensemble piece the longer it was on the air, but she always made it sing. The fact that the show ended before it could say a proper goodbye might be a reason to give her one more prize. Con: At this point, I think even Janney herself would say: “I have more than enough awards at this point in my life, thank you.” With seven Emmys total – two alone for Mom - I think rewarding again would be a little excessive.

 

Tracee Ellis Ross, black-ish: 9-2. For Playing: ‘Bow’ Johnson, the force of calm and frustration as the African-American mother of a family of five. Pro: Ross has been one of the greatest comic actresseses the past several years on black-ish and actually has a longer link back to a hit comedy series of the past and an interesting spinoff of this series that was unfortunately cancelled. Ross has always been a barrel of laughs, trying to restrain her husband’s excesses, her mother-in-law’s built in disappointment of her, and so many struggles with her children. Even in the era of Peak TV, there haven’t been enough characters like Rainbow Johnson, which is a loss… but then there aren’t a lot of actresses like Ross either. She deserves to win. Con: Sadly, Ross probably missed her best chance in 2017 when she was the Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Comedy/Musical. The fact that the prize went to Julia-Louis Dreyfus for the sixth consecutive year was another reason I couldn’t take the Emmys that seriously. There have been too many great performers in this category since, and I don’t think she’ll ever prevail.

 

Jean Smart, Hacks: 31-10. For Playing: Deborah Vance, a Las Vegas legend forced to reevaluate her act as she turns seventy. Pro: Jean Smart is one of the greatest actresses in television history. Every five or six years, TV remembers that and gives her a great role to play. To say that Deborah is that role is a bit of an exaggeration considering she was nominated for Best Supporting Actress in A Limited Series this year and last. (Seriously, she should own stock in HBO.)  Even when I wasn’t sure of this series greatness, I was utterly won by the power and humor of Smart’s work. I’d be hard pressed to consider even her greatest role in the last five years. But it is the first time that she has ever received a nomination for playing the lead. And if you’ve seen just the last two major roles she had for HBO, then you realize what a truly remarkable turn this is for her. It’s not even the funniest role she’s ever played. But as much as Deborah herself would make a joke of the term, it is the role of a lifetime for her. Last year the Emmys took the opportunity to recognize two of comedy’s all time legends with awards for appearing in a truly great show. It makes perfect sense that they would do the same here. Con: It seems a little unfair to consider anything about Hacks conventional, but there are some who might argue that compared some of the previous winners the last few years (leaving out that most of them were Julia-Louis Dreyfus) some might consider it a bit clichéd. Not me.

 

Prediction: Cuoco might be able to pull out an upset, but I think the odds are the voters will make the Smart choice. (That’s a line Deborah Vance would appreciate.)