Lost Rewatch on VHS: 316

 

VHS Notes: Not as much that wasn’t repeated from last week. The most significant trailer is another ad for a ‘reboot’ of Friday the 13^th that, ironically enough, ended up killing the franchise. There’s also ads for films such as Quarantine and the DVD release of Ridley Scott’s interesting (albeit flawed) Body of Lies. The biggest concentration is on the Oscars which were going to air the following Sunday. Hosted by Hugh Jackman, it was one of the most enjoyable ones both to watch and in presentation in the 21^st century, next to the ones that Steve Martin would host.

 

The episode begins in media res for the only time in Lost’s history and mirrors the opening minutes of the series. In it the inevitable has happened Jack has returned to the island. The episode then flashes back 46 hours earlier (a trick more common to J.J. Abrams’ earlier series Alias) shows us how the Oceanic 6 finally reunited, what was going on in the church and focuses entirely on Jack.

So clearly the place to begin is with Desmond. Yes I know: Henry Ian Cusick is only in the episode for ten minutes (the opening credits aren’t even finished when he storms out) and he disappears for the rest of the series save for two very brief (but critical) flashbacks in the second half of the season. And as we all know Desmond does not get on the plane and does not appear as central to the action until late in the final season. But I think there’s a big argument to looking at what’s happening from Desmond’s perspective.

First, a refresher course on Desmond. In all the Desmond-centric episodes we’ve seen, it’s been clear that he’s always believed in destiny, and it’s almost always led him wrong. He left his fiancée a week before the wedding because he thought it was calling to become a monk and then he was ‘fired’, promptly running into Penny. From that point on, he was sure Penny was his destiny but the disapproval of her father (and perhaps the guidance of Ms. Hawking) led him to think he was unworthy of her. After a stint in the military and possibly military jail, Widmore tried to convince him Penny had moved on and in order to get his honor back, he determined that he would win Widmore’s race around the world. Which led him to the island.

For three years, he was stuck in the Swan pushing a button because he had been told by sources he wasn’t sure of that it had to be done ‘to save the world’. It’s not clear if it was that accurate, but he found out the consequences when he failed to push the button – which led to the crash of Oceanic 815. A few weeks later, the hatch got blown open and he met Jack again. Then the computer was destroyed and he spent time and energy trying to fix it because he was sure if the button wasn’t pushed ‘they were all going to die’. Locke believed him because he believed in destiny and Jack thought it was ridiculous, but Desmond didn’t stick around to find out. He was determined to get off the island as fast as he could.

Except he couldn’t. He ended up back on the island and found out that Locke no longer believed in the button. He decided to help Locke – and then remembered what went wrong. Locke’s crisis of faith led to the destruction of the computer and then Desmond realized he did have a destiny – to blow the dam. Knowing that it would probably kill him, he said his last words: “I love you, Penny” and turned the key.

He spent Season 3 dealing with conflicting destinies. He’d seen that Charlie was going to die and he spent the season trying to save him, even though he knew eventually it would be futile. Then his desire to see Penny led them to the freighter and he believed that rescue was coming. He dove into the Looking Glass to save Charlie one more time, learned that Penny was looking for him – and then had watch Charlie sacrifice himself. The last image of him in Season 3 was acknowledging Charlie’s last words: “Not Penny’s Boat.”

In Season 4 Desmond’s beliefs started to change. He told everybody Charlie’s last word meant the freighter wasn’t safe. But when the time came to choose between hiding and going to the freighter Desmond chose the latter. Furthermore, even knowing the freighter might be dangerous he went with Sayid back to it – and the journey itself nearly killed him. Despite the danger Desmond stayed on it all season. At one point he told Sayid he was never going back to the island. Then rescue came and he was reunited with Penny.

There’s a reason I’m going through everything that Desmond went through the last three seasons and it has to do with the opening scenes of the episode. Jack, Sun and Ben are talking to a woman who says she can lead them back to the island. They follow her down a winding staircase to another Dharma station called the Lamp Post. Eloise Hawking speaks in vague terms about what the island is and how they can find it without actually telling them any details at all.

The old Jack would have been shouting questions at her, calling her ridiculous, saying this is crazy. The only question he asks is whether Ben knew about this and when Ben answers he asks Eloise if she’s telling the truth. (Eloise says he probably isn’t, but like everything else in this episode this doesn’t seem to ruffle her.) Everyone is in a position to get more information then they’re getting and they just gawk.

Now watch Cusick’s face during this sequence. He says nothing either, but it’s not due to lack of surprise, it’s a dawning sensation of increasing horror. Which is completely understandable given the circumstances. He’s come to find Faraday’s mother and he learns that she’s the same woman who convinced him not to marry Penny – and she seems indifferent to his presence. Then he’s climbing down a staircase and sees that goddamn logo again. He opens a door and finds himself in yet another station that, even though it’s on land in 2007, looks exactly like the one on the island and barely looks like its been taken care of any better. You can tell he’s looking for another timer somewhere. Finally he gets another vague message about the importance of the island.

Finally his patience snaps and its magnificent. I can only imagine the indifference Sun shows when she finally asks him what he’s doing here is just as maddening. But that’s nothing for when he tells Hawking why he’s here, that he got a message from her son, that she not anyone else can save them – and she doesn’t seem to even care. Then she tells him: “The island isn’t done with him” which is the last straw.

Desmond directs his speech to Jack, and his tone and behavior are a mirror image to their first meeting in Season 2. Desmond no longer believes in destiny; he thinks it’s all a crock. He tells Jack that everything that is going on ‘is a game and we’re just the pieces. Whatever they tell you to do, just ignore it.” Then he storms out. And everyone just pretends that Desmond wasn’t even there.

What makes this all the more agonizing is, of course, the fact that Desmond is right. Desmond, it’s worth noting, has a greater track record for being right than even Locke does – his faith never wavered about the button even when Locke’s did.  And unlike Locke, Desmond was always willing to put his well-being above that of the group and certainly that of the island. Desmond is wrong about who the major players are in this grand game (though at this point we assume he’s right about that too) but he is right about everyone being just pawns in it. Three years ago, Jack thought Desmond was insane. Now Desmond has every right to believe Jack is.

The interesting thing about Matthew Fox’s performance in 316 is how indifferent Jack seems to be about almost everything. I’m not just talking about Desmond’s reaction, or even his appearance, but his behavior throughout the last thirty-six hours he spends before getting on Ajira 316. It’s not until after he’s left Eloise’s office afterwards that he actually bothers to ask Ben who she is and how she knows anything. Ben answers with a parable, which every time Locke said it drove him crazy and Jack never revisits the question.

There’s a part of me, even now, that Jack thinks that when he gets on the plane he’s going to die. Some part of him hears all this nonsense and just is getting on this plane the same way he’s gotten on so many others for the weeks leading up to this. We already knew Jack wanted to die in Through the Looking Glass, maybe he thinks this is a way of killing himself in a noble cause.

He goes to see his grandfather, who seems to have tried to ‘escape’ from his nursing home. We have no idea of their past relationship (though in their scenes together Jack seems more comfortable with Ray then he ever did with Christian) but I think that Jack is there because he wants to say goodbye to a loved one and he can’t face his mother. He spends most of the episode thinking about getting drunk; then we gets home and finds Kate there, equally despairing and saying she’s going back to the island, he doesn’t ask any questions either. people who loved each other and now they can barely stand to be in each other’s presence.

There’s a similar level of indifference at the airport, not just from Jack but from almost everybody. We don’t know why Sayid is a prisoner or about the woman whose holding him, but he says nothing during the episode. There’s a look of resignation on Andrews’ face on the plane, as if he knows what is happening and is powerless to stop it. Kate is as broken on the plane as before; she doesn’t believe that the five of them being on the same plane means anything and she knows that they’re not ‘together’ any more. Sun has decided to go and see if Jin might be alive, and even though that means she may never see Ji Yeon again, she makes the sacrifice. (We never find out what Sun did in the intervening 36 hours and that’s the first domino in Sun’s increasing irrelevance to Season 5.)

The only one of the survivors who genuinely seems to still give a damn is Hurley. We don’t know yet how he managed to go from someone determined not to go back to the island to getting on the plane but he doesn’t seem shocked (or for that matter, thrilled) to see Jack again. He’s also appalled that Ben showed up (understandably) but when Ben asked, “Who told you to come?” Hurley for once keeps his mouth shut. And it’s worth noting he’s still the same old Hugo. He buys up the last 78 available seats and makes it very clear no one else is getting on this plane who doesn’t have too.

Much has been said that when Jack asks Ben about what will happen to the rest of the people on the plane, Ben looks surprised and says: “Who cares?” I’d like to remind you Jack has been flying planes for weeks, hoping for a crash ‘not caring what happens to anyone else on board’, according to his own words. It’s only when it’s too late for all the other passengers that he bothers to ask at all.

Indeed the only time that Jack really gets upset or angry all the way up until he gets on the plane is when he is told they have to bring Locke back and that he has to put something of his father’s with him. That this is the bridge too far for him probably has more to do with his old antagonism to Locke than anything else. Ever since Through the Looking Glass we’ve gotten the sense that Jack has finally come around to Locke’s way of thinking about everything but he still can’t let go of the rage he held towards Locke for four and a half seasons. The scene in which he stands over Locke’s grave tying his father’s shoes on it shows that Jack can’t bring himself, even after John’s death, to admit that Locke’s been right all along. He’s spent the entire episode trying to avoid Locke’s suicide note, and it’s likely because he’s tired of listening to him. And then of course Jack does read it and it’s message is simple: “I wish you had believed me.” The look on Matthew Fox’s face is brilliant. Jack had another argument with John – while Locke was in his coffin – and John still got in the last word.

The only person who can speak honestly about what’s going on is Frank. As the flight takes off, Jack hears Frank’s voice over the intercom and goes up to speak with him. Frank comes out, clean shaven and with a haircut, and then looks over the seats. Jeff Fahey is wonderful as the look on his face becomes frozen and he utters the immortal words: “We’re not going to Guam, are we?” You honestly wonder if the moment he got back in the cockpit he got on the horn and demanded to reroute back to LAX. It might have been the smart play.

I know I haven’t said a lot about Ben in this episode but honestly we spent much of it wondering what happened after he left the church. The moment he saw Desmond he knew that Penny had to be close behind. And we knew what he meant when he said he was ‘keeping a promise to an old friend’. But whatever happened clearly didn’t go according to plan because he’s calling Jack frantically, soaking wet, covered in blood and in pain. When he manages to make the flight, his arm is in a cast and his face is clearly bruised. Instantly we are terrified because we know that there is an excellent chance that the Desmond-Penny love story might have ended abruptly before he got on the plane.

We also know that we may not find out what happened to them for a while, maybe not even this season. Because near the end of the episode, Ajira begins to experience turbulence. In the shots of the Oceanics Jack’s face is the only one who looks happy: which in itself is frightening.

Then we get back to the beginning: Jack awakening in the jungle, pulling people out of precarious situations. But there’s no sign that a crash happened this time. Jack, Kate and Hurley woke up in the jungle. There’s no sign of Sayid, Sun or Ben. Jack is trying to figure out what to do next – and then a Dharma van pulls up with an A-Track playing. We see the driver get out and cock a rifle at them. All of them look up -  and we’re as stunned as they are. They’re surprised because they all thought he was dead. We’re stunned because he’s the last person we ever thought would wear a Dharma jumpsuit.

 It looks like those left behind aren’t the only one who’ve done the time warp.

Primer for 2024 Jeopardy Tournament of Champions

 

Yes I know Jeopardy fans. Tonight marks the official halfway point of Season 40 and we have yet to emerge from postseason hell. But the light at the end of the tunnel is finally beginning to appear.

In exactly one week the long, long, long awaited Tournament of Champions is finally going to occur. And it seems that there is going to be yet another format change, though at least the show has spent the last several months prepping us for it.

This year the Tournament of Champions will apparently follow the format of Champions Wild Card. We will have twenty-seven players who will meet in nine quarterfinal games. The nine winners will then face off in three semi-final matches and then we will have a two game total point affair resulting in a winner, who will receive a $250,000 and, nearly as importantly, a spot in the upcoming Jeopardy Masters Tournament which will be coming in just a few months. (I’ll be dealing with that when I get more information.)

By this point, the average Jeopardy fan could be forgiven if they had forgotten the names of some of the participants. There were far fewer super-champions this past season and as some fans might recall, there were only fourteen apparent qualifiers at the end of Season 39. Well apparently, Jeopardy has decided to go back to its original point of allowing three game winners from Season 39 to participate in the upcoming Tournament. (Of course, if they’d just done that before, as well as had their College Championship and Professors Tournament…no, we’ll save that for another article.) One last slot remains to be filled, the winner of the final leg of the Season 39 Wild Card, which we will learn on Thursday night. So with that in mind, here are the 25 players who will be participating starting next week, along with some highlights from their original appearances. I will proceed chronologically.

 

Luigi de Guzman, 5 Game Winner, $140,700

A freelance writer from Baltimore, Luigi won the final game of Season 38 and the first four of Season 39. Two of his five victories were runaways and his most impressive win, which netted him $42,400 took place on the first day the show was filmed before a full studio audience. He played impressively and was actually ahead in his sixth appearance before being defeated by…

Emmett Stanton, 3 Game Winner, $72,600

Because of his cautious wagering Emmett, who was trailing going into Final Jeopardy went on to defeat Luigi and come from behind twice to win his next two games. He was defeated by Martha Bath, who had appeared in the Art Fleming version of the show half a century earlier. (She made it to the Semi-Finals of Group 1 of the 2024 Champions Wild Card before being defeating.

 

David Sibley, 4 wins, 78,098

An episcopal priest from Walla Walla, Washington David won three of his four victories in runaway games. He looked unbeatable. But on the fifth day he met with…

 

Cris Panullo, 21 Wins, $748,286

Cris’ is the only comparable player to any of the three super-champions we had in Season 38, and in 21 games he won considerably more than Mattea Roach did in 23. He was also basically even with Matt Amodio and not far behind Amy Schneider at that point in their runs. Ironically, his original run was interrupted by the 2022 Postseason but after a month away from the buzzer he showed no rust at all. I’d say he’s the heavy favorite going into the Tournament, but we saw what happened to Matt and Mattea last season.

Sean McShane, 3 Games, $80,401

Sean has Jeopardy in his blood. His cousin Dan McShane appeared on the show way back in 2012, winning four games and winning $62,001. Dan made it to the semi-finals of the 2013 Tournament of Champions where he would compete against Keith Whitener, Kristin Morgan and Colby Burnett, all of whom would eventually become Finalists. (Colby won.)

Sean managed to win more money than his cousin but fewer games. However, he also has the credit of having faced off another superb champion in what would be his first win.

 

Ray LaLonde, 13 wins, $386,400

 

Ray managed an impressive streak by Jeopardy standards over the course of Season 39, though by the standards of players who’ve only been watching the last two years, only a middling one. 13 wins is an impressive number and he very quickly became a beloved fan-favorite during his time. Many of his wins were not runaways, Ray had to fight for many of them.

Ray is also admired for, when Jeopardy started filming this summer, saying that he would not cross the picket line. (He works in film and television and was in support of the WGA and SAG-AFTRA.) His fellow champions agreed with him and the Tournament of Champions had to be delayed as a result. (I wonder if Ken will bring this up.)

 

Yogesh Raut, 3 games, $96,403

And here we see the Jeopardy producers being the bigger people. Yogesh publicly bad-mouths them on the internet and becomes the most controversial Jeopardy champion since Arthur Chu. Fellow Jeopardy players champions attack him for his comments. Jeopardy’s producers take the high road, say they’ll welcome him back to the stage – and now they’ve invited him back to the Tournament of Champions. Will he be booed when he plays in his quarterfinal match? I almost hope so.

 

Troy Meyer, 6 wins, $214,802

It says something for where Jeopardy is these days that when a player like Troy has the kind of run that would have been one of the best even five years ago, it’s barely noticed. He averages more than $35,000 wins a game but because he only won six games, it doesn’t get the credit it should. Of course he might have gotten further were it not for…

Jake  DeArruda, 3 games, $68,601

A delivery dispatcher from Vermont, Jake bears the dubious distinction of winning all three of his games and not getting a correct Final Jeopardy in any of them. To be fair, neither could anyone else. His bad luck continued in Final Jeopardy in his fourth appearance, but this time Patti Palmer got Final Jeopardy right. If he doesn’t do better in Final Jeopardy this time, his run’s going to be very short.

 

Matthew Marcus, 4 wins, $114, 200

Matthew won his first game the day after Jake lost and he won big: $42,400. He played exceptionally for all four wins that came after. He is also known for his admiration for Oscar Wilde, which led to some controversy on his fourth match, which was irrelevant to his winning the game. But a wager in his fifth math on a Daily Double dropped him out of contention behind Dan Wohl, and he went home after five.

 

Brian Henegar, 3 wins, $68,202

Poor Brian had the misfortune of earning the hatred of Jeopardy fans because he has a mustache that makes him look like Hitler. Worse, he actually was the punchline on SNL on one of the last show’s they did before the Writer’s Strike. He was actually ahead going into Final Jeopardy for Game 4 but the clue was a tough one that no one got right and his wager put him second place. I look forward to seeing you Brian. I hope you kept the mustache.

 

Stephen Webb, 8 wins, $184,881

Stephen’s total is better than it looks. Six of his eight victories were runaways but in many of them he either got Final jeopardy incorrect or didn’t have a lot of room to maneuver in his routs. He won two very impressive come from behind wins but neither got noticed as much. I actually think he could go pretty far.

 

Justin Bolsen, Winner of the High School Reunion Tournament

The only ‘special’ tournament to take place during Season 39 Justin, a semi-finalist in the 2019 Tournament of Champions played extremely well in his quarterfinal match and kind of backed into winning his semi-final. Dropping behind at the end of Game 1 of the final, he came from behind to triumph in the final to win $100,000. Justin is the first former Teen Tournament Player to participate in any Tournament at all since Leonard Cooper played for Team Austin in the Jeopardy All-Star Games in 2019 – and like Cooper at the time, Justin is currently attending Brown.

 

Melissa Klapper 3 games $59,700

Melissa’s first victory game the day after Stephen Webb was defeated. She was very lucky to have a chance in Game 3: her challenger Karen Morris had an insurmountable lead when she found the last Daily Double, lost $10,000, which put Melissa back in contention. Karen got Final Jeopardy incorrect and Melissa was able to advance. Her luck ended after she got two Daily Doubles wrong and lost a total of $8000 on them. The Daily Double giveth and it taketh away.

 

Kevin Belle, 3 Games, $42,798

With Kevin I kind of think their stretching it. None of his three victories were particularly dominant and he got three of four Final Jeopardys wrong. Though, to his credit, he lost his third game to…

 

Hannah Wilson, 8 Games, $229,801

Like Amy Schneider, Hannah Wilson is a transgender woman, something that Amy made note of during her run. Hannah didn’t get nearly as far as Amy, but she was extremely good, winning four runaways and winning $40,000 twice. She might have gotten further had it not been for…

 

Ben Chan, 9 games, $252,600

Ben won three games in early April and then the next day wasn’t there. He was suffering from Covid and could not travel for an extended period. When he returned on Hannah’s 9^th appearance, he picked up right where he left off, putting the exclamation point on a return the way he follows his name on the lectern.

All nine of his wins had been routs, which is Ken Jennings territory. Then in his tenth victory, he was in a close match for the first time against Lynn DeVito and controversy ensued. In a clue that had to deal with Shakespeare, Ben wrote down: “Who is Beatrice and Benedict?” Mayim Bialik responded it was unacceptable because the spelling was Benedick. The outrage from the net was vast even though Mayim was following the rules the show has had for forty years. They don’t penalize for misspelling unless it creates a different word, which is what happened here. Ben could go pretty far.

 

Jared Watson, 3 wins, $56,202

Jared played very well in his three wins, but got Final Jeopardy incorrect in his fourth and was defeated by…

 

Suresh Krishnan, 6 wins, $96,595

Suresh won six games and with one exception, didn’t really play well in any of them. The problem was neither did any of his opponents

 

Ben Goldstein, 5 Wins, $49,298

All right, now I get why Jared Watson is here. I’ve seen less impressive five game winners in Jeopardy but not many. Sorry, just being honest.

 

Now let’s deal with the four wild card players.

 

Josh Saak, SPADES

3 WINS, $66,405 in his original appearance. And considering Matt Amodio beat him I can see why they invited him back.

 

Emily Sands, Diamond

3 wins, $73,000 in Season 37. Under normal circumstances she’d have been invited back too.

 

Nick Cascone, CLUBS

Not entirely comfortable with a one game winner

 

Yungsheng Wang, Hearts

He was an alternate for the 2022 Tournament of Champions. Honestly he shouldn’t have had to fight to get here.

 

And finally:

Juveria Zaheer, Second Chance Winner, Wild Card Group 1

All right. Considering how dominant she was not only in her Second Chance wins but everything she did to get to the Wild Card and considering she lost to Hannah Wilson, I’m almost willing to rethink my opinion on the Second Chance Tournament.

Now there is one more player who has qualified technically, but I remain uncertain this individual will even show up. I will refrain from mentioning who he is until the Tournament actually happens.

 

For all the labor that has gone into it, I have to be honest I’m impressed even with the caliber of most of the Wild Card Winners. Many of the players in this tournament are genuinely very good at a collective level we rarely see in Tournaments of Champions. It may not have the same quantity of super-champions but there’s actually a more accurate balance then we usually get in these tournaments. Don’t get me wrong,  I still believe that whenever the next Tournament of Champions takes place, the show should go back to the original format. But I have enough fond memories of this group of players to look forward to seeing them against each other and to see who comes out on top. I have my favorites, as do you all, but I also know that accounts to nothing after the first round of play. Anyway, I will get back to you on this subject when the Tournament of Champions is underway.

Not Dead Yet Is Back For Season 2

 

In my initial review of Not Dead Yet when it premiered almost a year ago to the day was that it had the potential to be as great as Abbott Elementary clearly was after barely two seasons. Two episodes into Season 2, I can safely say that this incredible comedy has, in fact, realized that greatness and after just two episodes, shows every indication of not resting on its laurels.

The reason I am certain of this show is a classic is because even if you removed the gimmick at its center, it would still be one of the funniest shows on television. This is in part because like the astonishing Abbott Elementary and Hacks which like Not Dead Yet are centered on incredible female leads, this show has one of the best supporting casts that in a very short time has managed to fully realize the potential of the characters.

As we all know by now, Gina Rodriguez is another one of those forces of nature who commands the screen every scene she’s in. Playing Nell, the messy character still trying to find her way after the end of a messy breakup (she and her fiancé finally ended things in the Season 1 finale). Nell is still struggling for respect at her job among some of her colleagues but she is a such a lovable person that even the people who are inclined to dislike her on first glance genuinely come to respect her.

As we have seen throughout the first season, all of the characters are dealing with their own messes. Sam (Hannah Simone) is worrying that her marriage, happy after seven years, might end up being flawed because that’s when her mother’s marriage always broke up. Cricket (Angela Gibbs) who Nina met in the pilot after her husband died, has been rebuilding her life, still is as fresh as ever and is now in the process of putting herself back out there. Dennis (Josh Banday) is dealing with being the father of two adopted sons and is doting on them at what has to be considered a ridiculous pace.

But the characters who are making the biggest strides are Lexi and Edward. Lexi, played by Lauren Ash, started out as the heavy on the show, but very quickly revealed that beneath her very harsh exterior was one that has had its share of bruises. Her marriage has been falling apart for a while. Her daughter’s relationship with her has been messy. And we’ve suspected that her father, who has been allowing her to run the newspaper, has not exactly been a source of warmth. (As we have seen so far this season, this is proven in spades.) In her friendship with Sam and how she helped Dennis and his husband find their sons in a heartwarming arc last season, we’ve seen that there’s a heart there. You get the feeling so much of her picking on Nell over the last two episodes has been more out of habit than any residual loathing.

Then in the season finale she met Nell’s roommate Edward (the wonderful Rick Glassman). New viewers might be forgiven for not knowing that Edward is on the spectrum. In one of the many things I love about this show, Edward acknowledged that in the Pilot and it has only been referred to once or twice ever since. He is clearly high-functioning and everyone on the series treats him with a fair amount of respect, many of them even appreciating how he speaks with no filter. One of the best jokes of Season 1 was that the blunt disdain he had for Nell was deserved because he was clearly doing much better than she was: he has a high paying job and he had a girlfriend who he spent time with. Watching him slowly come out of his comfort zone (and with him never explaining as TV does, why this was hard) has been something I can appreciate more than most viewers can. (Personal remarks over.)

Anyone Lexi loves to demean anyone she can see with a cutting remark on first glance. When she finally met Edward at the end of Season 1, not only couldn’t she do it but he was able to match her cutting remark for cutting remark which was hysterical. In the opening of Season 2 Edward came into the office to bring Nell her lunch (in typical fashion berating her for her mess) and he and Lexi met again. They again exchanged insults with the easy repartee you see in so many love stories. It came as a shock to no one when, later that same episode, Lexi tracked down Edward, threw herself at him and the two had sex. Multiple times. Edward understandably has been seeking clarity ever since, which the usually forthright Lexi cannot give him.

And the reason is because her father has just returned to the company. Brad Garrett, much like Ray Romano, has become another one of those performers who I could not stand on their Emmy winning role on Everybody Loves Raymond but whose post-Raymond work has constantly showed a range I didn’t know he had. From his wonderful dramatic stint in Season 2 of Fargo to his memorable work in the gone too soon The Crazy Ones and a broken standup in I’m Dying Up Here, there has been an edge to Garrett’s work even in the comedy series he does these days. Now he joins Not Dead Yet as Duncan Rhodes, Lexi’s father who is a giant in finance  - and you know, real life- who is so casual about how unpleasant he has then when he comes to see Nell for her to write his obituary he genuinely doesn’t seem to comprehend how horrible his actions are. (“Remember what I did for minors in my factories,” he says and yes, he makes sure Nell gets the spelling correct on that.)

It's wonderful watching Lexi,  who has been able to stand up to everyone in sight for the last year, sputter around like she has no idea what to do. Of course, the sadness is the fact that their relationship is very dysfunctional – and it’s worth noting that Duncan loves to show that. In the season premiere he befriends Nell and seems to take a shine to her. Nell, loving being the center of attention for once, is pushed reluctantly by Sam to help fix things between them. Nell then goes into Lexi’s office (which Duncan has co-opted) and over Brandy Duncan tells them their relationship has been pushing by him trying to make her do her best. He does so by picking someone he considers a complete and utter joke, praising them in front of her, and then making that person the center of attention to spur Lexi onward. Nell, of course, realizes that’s what happened here, something Duncan cheerfully acknowledges.

This is when we get to the gimmick behind the series: like Haley Joel Osment, Nell sees dead people. Whenever she’s assigned an obituary, she sees that person’s ghost and they have conversations about what it was like to be alive, things they got wrong and lessons that they hope to pass on to her. Nell is resigned to this (she’s far from happy about) but she’s managed to find a way to make it useful.

And it’s clear that this gimmick still is helping both Nell and the show. In last night’s episode, which took place on Valentine’s Day, Nell was facing her solitude and was trying to deal with the fact the ghosts in her life keeping making having a love life, shall we say, difficult. Case in point, after a meet cute at the café outside her paper she gets assigned her most recent obituary about a female senator who was a big advocate for woman’s rights. (They’re not subtle; her name is Diane.) Nell then goes to talk with the man – and Diane tells her he’s her son.

Her son, for the record, is actually there on business: he’s there to give quotes for his mother’s obituary. But the attraction is there and Nell says she’ll go to his art exhibition. Diane tells Nell everything she needs to know about her son but insists on coming along because she wants to see if her son and Nell can make a connection before she leaves this Earth. But when her son has disappeared, she tells Nell that she has to tell her son he’s a terrible artist and she encouraged his career only because she didn’t want to hurt him. (“You really are a politician!” an infuriated Nell shouts.)

To be fair, her son is a terrible artist. To be fair to him, he knows that and when she tells him, he says that he didn’t want to let his mom down. The moment is sweet but Nell knows that he is going through grief and whatever attraction they have can not be acted upon while he’s like that. They part with the possibility of them meeting again. I actually hope it works

Not Dead Yet has the absolutely perfect mix of laugh-out-loud comedy and often poignant moments which the best comedies are capable of. Rodriguez spent a lot of time being the tower of strength for everyone in her previous TV series Jane the Virgin so it’s wonderful to see her playing someone who is messy and just not put-together here. Just as in Jane, she is brilliantly supporting by an incredible cast of regulars and an exceptional about of guest actors for the ghosts she sees regularly. Nico Santos appeared in the first episode and such lights as Chelsea Handler are scheduled for appearances  later on. The series has already had Martin Mull, Ed Begley Jr. and Brittany Snow in cameos and all of them are in their bits. But the show always makes clear that it is far more about the living then it is the dead, which is just as important in a series that must have been a one-sentence pitch to ABC.

When the decade began the network comedy was supposedly on life support. With the immense critical acclaim for Abbott Elementary, Ghosts, and the revival of Night Court in the past two years, it has been clear that the genre has been given new life. Not Dead Yet is yet another sign that we don’t have to rely solely on reboots to come up with hysterical comedies for network TV. (Night Court’s a continuation.)  In its first season the ASTRA’s (formerly HCA) gave it four nominations including Best Broadcast Comedy and Best Actress for Gina Rodriguez. (It lost both awards to Abbott Elementary which was to be expected.) I won’t go so far as to call this show perfect, but when its firing on all cylinders, it reminds us of why we watch network comedies in the first place.

My score: 4.5 stars.

 

The Hypocrisy About Non-Binary Perfomers Advocating for Gender Neutral Awards

 

If you have read my column for the last couple of years you know that I am vehemently opposed to the idea of gender-neutral awards for acting. I believe my reasons are valid – that if we combine all acting categories without gender, it will exclude more performers than it will include, that it is a cosmetic change that does not address the problem of non-binary roles in Hollywood, and it doesn’t make any changes to the wide-scale problems non-binary people feel throughout the world.

It doesn’t look like any of these arguments seem to be making much of a difference: the Independent Spirit Awards has eliminated gender from its acting categories as have some major film critics’ awards though there are no signs that none of the other major awards shows in film or television have relented yet. But I have no come up with a reason that at the very least should cause some to give pause as to why, in our rush towards inclusion, we’re not bothering to ask what should be the most obvious question of all.  Let me give some background.

Leading up to last year Liv Hewson, the non-binary performer who plays the teenage Van on the brilliant series Yellowjackets, said that they were withdrawing their name from Emmy consideration because: “there’s no place for me there.” I now know how I can phrase what I wanted to say to Hewson all those months ago.

You are an actor who has chosen to work in an industry that is fiercely competitive and does not have a large array of roles that recognize people like you. The role of Van is that of a female, she is identified as such in the series and is played by Lauren Ambrose as an adult. You made the choice to audition for a female character, even though you don’t identify as one. You accepted the role, and the series became a success. You were willing to be praised for your work as Van even though she does not have the same gender identify you do. You were willing to be paid to play a character who does not have your gender identity as you. But to be nominated for an Emmy as an actress, that’s the line in the sand you have chosen to draw. It’s fine to betray your identity for money, but not an award? How is that not hypocrisy?

Indeed I could make this argument for almost all of the successful non-binary performers who have come to recognition and critical acclaim in TV over the past six years. Emma Corrin had no qualms about being cast as Princess Diana in Season Four of The Crown or playing Lady Chatterley in the Netflix adaptations even though both these characters are clearly women but they are non-binary. Bella Ramsey had no problem playing Lyanna on Game of Thrones, Angelica on His Dark Materials or Ellie Willaims on The Last of Us. Hell they were fine playing a young Jane Grey on Becoming Elizabeth. Milly Alcock had no problem playing Rhaenyra on House of the Dragon. All of you are fine betraying who you are fame and fortune, but the awards that’s a bridge too far. Alcock has been cast as the next Supergirl. The girl is in the name of the character. But being nominated for Best Actress makes you uncomfortable.

The one exception to this rule is Asia Kate Dillon. Dillon’s character on Billions was non-binary and the series never made them have to compromise their identity. Dillon. Dillon is entitled to some accounting because they had spend their early career playing women. Ever since Dillon has stayed on the lines on non-binary. Dillon has the right to make these arguments – but the argument should have been why did it take so long for television to have a non-binary character in the first place? That’s a legitimate cause and I will fight for that one.

Honestly if Alcock, Corrin and all the rest of these performers were so committed to being non-binary then they would only play non-binary roles from this point on. But Corrin has given no sign of changing. After publicly announced that they identified as non-binary (after, to be clear, they had already won the Golden Globe and Critics Choice for Best Actress in The Crown) Corrin could have committed to only playing non-binary characters in the future. It would have been a noble stand and I would have supported them. But that has not happened. If anything after leaving The Crown Corrin has continued to play characters who identify as female, not only in Lady Chatterley’s Lover but in My Policeman and the limited series A Murder at the end of the World. Corrin was nominated in the Best Performer by the Independent Spirit Awards even though Darby Hart is clearly a woman in the show. Isn’t that some kind of betrayal of the non-binary community? Or is it only a principled stand if you’re doing it to the ‘institution’ of awards but not the characters you play to win them?

Or is this just a larger part of disruption for disruption’s sake that seems to occupy every part of today’s institution? As I have said over and over again, getting rid of gender categories in awards show won’t do a thing to help the millions of young Americans who identify as non-binary. I guarantee you whether or not Emma Corrin or Bella Ramsey feel comfortable being nominated as an actress is in the top 100 of the priorities they are facing in the world today. If performers like Ramsey and the rest would use their position to argue for inclusion in Hollywood (which they may do, I’m not sure of how they do in their public persona) or argue for more roles for non-binary or even a category for non-binary performers I’d be fully supportive of that. I’ve actually argued that there should be separate categories breaking down the acting by the characters the actors play rather than the performer so that there could be room for non-binary performers to get recognition that way. Considering the immense popularity of House of the Dragon and Last of Us, I’m actually stunned that neither Alcock nor Ramsey did just that during the last two award cycles.

But the fact that none of these performers – not even Dillon – is willing to advocate for these even as an idea is very telling. This isn’t about the problems that people like them who aren’t famous face or inclusion or representation. It’s about them, and I don’t mean that in the pronoun sense. These stands are a classic example of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. They wanted to be recognized as so gifted that they can play characters whose genders they don’t identify as but they don’t want to have accept an award for playing that character because they don’t identify as it.  This is a kind of hypocrisy I find extremely offensive because the people like them – who aren’t famous and don’t have the advantages they do – don’t have the benefit of being able to pick and choose these kinds of battles. They often have to act to hide who they are, but they don’t get applauded for being good at it – something you’d think these people all knew.

None of this, I should mention, particularly shocks me as it is just another exaggerated example of how so much of identity politics work. Whatever minority  whether the division be based on race or religion or in this case gender identity, they want to be treated with equality but also be recognized on a special level for part of the identity. This is a circle that is impossible to square but nevertheless the world is constantly being asked to change because of it. Gender neutral awards are one of the most ridiculous examples of it, a cosmetic change where the only people it truly helps is a fraction of a fraction of the working professionals in Hollywood, but it gives the appearance of systematic change without actually making improvements. You would think that people like Corrin and Ramsey, who’ve had to labor in this system for years, would be aware that these changes don’t really benefit anyone. But as long as they get recognized, they don’t care about how. They can use their platform to claim this is triumph for people like them when its triumph only for them, period. But it makes a lot of rich liberals think that they’re making a difference. Who cares if it doesn’t change a thing?

 

What History Gets Wrong - And Right - About Andrew Johnson, Conclusion: His Complicated Legacy

 

Andrew Johnson’s ranking as a President has shifted dramatically in my lifetime. As a child in the 1980s, I remember that historians were mixed on Johnson’s Presidency; it ranked as high as the ‘near greats’ and as low as ‘below average’. Since the turn of the century Johnson is now considered a failure as a President, at the level of one of his immediate predecessors James Buchanan and his immediate successor Ulysses Grant.

I believe in Johnson’s case much of his reputation comes from the judgment of hindsight rather than previous ones. That he was too lenient on the Confederacy seems clear to present-day historians but was never clear to his contemporaries. For over a century and a half he has been accused as a failure because he blundered the goodwill Lincoln had amassed when in fact his predecessor would almost certainly have faced many of the same obstacles dealing with the Radical Republicans that Johnson did. Lincoln had spent much of the leadup to Appomattox refusing to accommodate their harsher versions of Reconstruction to the point that several of them had wanted Fremont as an alternative candidate before the war began to turn towards the Union. Throughout the Civil War, they had served as armchair generals on every step of policy. It is hard to imagine they would have shared his conciliatory vision in peacetime, considering that Johnson’s version was closer to it than men like Stevens and Benjamin Wade’s had been.

Johnson made many blunders in the year leading up to the 1866 midterms but he was guided by support for his initial decisions at the start of his term. And it’s also worth noting that the provisions for equality supported by the Radical Republicans were viewed as a bridge too far for most Northerners. Men like Stevens and Charles Sumner clearly had a vision for the future light years ahead of their contemporaries but they were still just a fragment of what even many abolitionists believed in during that time and their inability to compromise had cost much of them any possibility of higher office during the leads up to the Civil War. Even leading up to the impeachment, they spent much of their time arguing over the idea of the moderates in their own party.

That Johnson might have bungled Reconstruction does not change the fact that the version that followed is referred to by historians as Radical Reconstruction. Many of the triumphs that so many African-Americans have clung to for over a century and a half – African-Americans winning elected office, having the kind of legislative power not far removed from slavery – does not change the fact that they were a bridge too far for many of their white counterparts across the country, including the North. It also overlooks a fact that most historians do not recognize that Congress, with its supermajorities, had superseded its powers over the legislative branch and for two years decided to ignore the President.

 This legacy actually lasted far past Reconstruction. Because of the aftermath of the impeachment of Johnson, for the next half a century, few Presidents ever openly challenged Congressional leadership even when they disagreed with it. Theodore Roosevelt managed to succeed because of his immense popularity with the public, something the Old Guard of the Republican Party disliked so much they attempted to nominate Mark Hanna over him leading up to 1904. And in the aftermath of World War I Woodrow Wilson’s battles with Congress, combined to his own fallacies, led to America’s failure to enter the League of Nations. It was not until another national crisis – the Great Depression – that the executive branch would resume control over how legislation proceeded in Congress and FDR would have his own struggles with Congress during much of his term.

The failures of Reconstruction are, as I mentioned, something that many historians and African-Americans tend to blame on White America for giving up on civil rights and the freedman. While there is some truth to that, it does not acknowledge what was happening the South. Johnson’s successor, Grant, vigorously supported Reconstruction  - but that almost always met that when there was chaos or disorder in the South, he would sent the military down to restore order. Once order was restored, he would withdraw the Army and before long, more civil unrest would break out. This speaks volumes to the fact that the only way the rights of the freedmen could be guaranteed was under what was essentially periodic outbreaks of martial law. This was no way to enforce equality and it was certainly no way to stop the resentment of former Confederates to accept the rights of their former slaves.

In the controversial election of 1876 Democrats more or less allowed Republican Rutherford B. Hayes – who had lost the popular vote and whose electoral majority could only have been achieved through fraud – assume the Presidency with the understanding that, once he did so, he would end Reconstruction and more or less leave the South to govern itself. Everything that followed for the next eighty years involving Jim Crow is a result of that.

What this leaves out is the idea that Reconstruction could have somehow existed in perpetuity. The general reason so many Republicans opposed the election of Samuel Tilden was the understanding that if he – or indeed, any Democrat – became President, that administration would withdraw troops and end Reconstruction as a sop to the Southern wing of the party. By 1875, most white Americans wanted to move on from the Civil War and the sole reminder of it was the constant unrest in the South. There were many other considerations to be given – a national depression had hit the nation in 1873 – and America needed to move on.

Contemporary African-Americans and revisionist historians constantly consider Reconstruction a failure and ignore the very real measure of how it was working. If the only way to ensure equality is by making a section of the country under sporadic occupation, then it’s not equality by any measure of the term. Furthermore, just how long could the state of affairs have lasted even if the Union had been more committed? Ten years? Twenty? How far into the 20^th century should America have allowed it to continue? Until the next generation of the South was ‘used’ to the military coming in every time there was a disturbance? Until the North published textbooks making it clear that the South had been on the right side of history and made sure they ‘learned’ it? Until the last survivor of the war had died? That is not remotely plausible in a free and fair society. And if you think that this would make white men less resentful of the freedmen, your opinion of human nature is more optimistic than mine.

Yes, it was wrong of the North to leave the freedman to fend for themselves, but the fact remains it was eventually going to happen. Perhaps not in 1877, but in 1887 or 1897. Equality can not be enforced at the barrel of a gun. Eventually even the most devoted practitioners of civil rights – and again, such ideas were not incredibly popularly held by most white Americans – would have had to know that they would have to cross their fingers and hope for the best. That it failed is a fact; that it could have succeeded at a time when the rest of America was clearly not ready for it is also a reality.

The horrors of Jim Crow South are manifest and have clearly left scars that have never healed and has made many contemporary African-Americans and several leftists  to argue that there was a better way. However, the only way they see this working on this site is that they should have just let the South secede as if that would have solved anything. Absent that, they have chosen to essentially harp on the fact that this proves that America was always a white supremacist nation and that they chose to let this end because they never believed in it. They frequently rant how revisionists deny slavery was the cause of Civil War while at the same time arguing that the Union never cared about African-Americans to begin with and then argue that the aftermath proves it.

In recent years they have even come to turn on those freed blacks who did everything they could to try and live in the South. Booker T. Washington has become much maligned by contemporary African-Americans because he tried to find a way of accommodation and helping his people become self-sufficient. In their minds, he is an ‘Uncle Tom’.

But what was the alternative? For the African-Americans to band together and try to fight for their rights on their own? What chance would they have had? If Jim Crow was willing to lynch and murder African-Americans because they thought they were a threat, how would they have acting if African-Americans had decided to form the 19^th century equivalent of Black Power? We saw how that ended up going in the 20^th century; what do you think would have happened within years of the Civil War?

I can imagine a more plausible scenario. After the equivalent of one such attack, outrage in the South leads those in the North – who never believed that much in black rights to begin with -  to react in horror. A horrified President Cleveland, backed by a Democratic Congress sends troops to the South – to repress African-Americans and enforce Jim Crow.

Meanwhile in the North, where black businesses are beginning to form, white America starts viewing all African-Americans with suspicion in a way they had not even during the war. How do you know that your African-Americans neighbor doesn’t haven’t a gun or isn’t using the proceeds to his Southern relatives? Trust, never a great quantity even before the War, becomes a commodity that most African-Americans are viewed with suspicion.

North and South begin to wonder why they ever fought about such a thing as slavery when it was clear all along the ‘Negro’ could never be trusted left to his own devices. Stevens and Sumner are viewed as misguided traitors and Lincoln a fool for willing to keep the war being fought as long as he did. Reconstruction is considered a failure and images of Nat Turner as campaign slogans for decades to come.

There are clearly greater consequences to be played out, I can assure you – in an America with this legacy, would Nazism find a greater sympathy – but I’ll leave it here and get back to my original point. Men like Washington embraced the idea of accommodation in the South because it was the only plausible option. It might have been a terrible one – many Negroes in the North viewed it as such – but it was the least dangerous one for African-Americans in Alabama.

Johnson’s horrible reputation these days is built on many faulty principles. His decision to turn Reconstruction to his own political benefit was clearly a horrible one from the point of view of a post-Civil War America. But other presidential campaigns have been run on similar crises; from the Whig’s campaign to defeat Van Buren in the aftermath of the panic of 1837 to FDR’s campaign against Herbert Hoover to LBJ’s manipulation of the Gulf of Tonkin to pin down Barry Goldwater in 1964 – and Nixon’s secret plan to end Vietnam for years later. For better or worse, the Presidency is an elected office and the holder of it will try to use it for whatever political advantage they can. This has been the case of nearly every campaign in history and it will not change any time soon.

Furthermore Johnson had the misfortune of being the only President in history to be the opposite party of the man of the ticket he was part of. From his swearing-in under the worst of circumstances to the day he left office, Andrew Johnson was in an enemy camp and his opponents in Congress never left him forget it. His decision to challenge them was misguided but given the makeup of both houses of Congress, confrontation was inevitable and it was always going to be disastrous.

And his impeachment – the one dubious distinction of his Presidency for 130 years – was clearly a partisan witch hunt designed by men who did not agree with his agenda and wanted to replace him with an unelected (and lame duck) member of their party. The consequences of Johnson’s acquittal may have been surrounded in corruption; the circumstances that led to it were far less savory then the history books lead us to believe.

And as a result Johnson’s stands before the war as well as the bravery he showed in staying with the Union when his state of Tennessee seceded, taking a job as military governor that could have gotten him killed on many occasions, and agreeing to sacrifice his political future in order to preserve the union, have been mostly forgotten by historians as is the fact that the Civil War ended peacefully under his watch when it could have, in fact, become a perpetual conflict. Instead, he is the caricature of a Southern racist, who was unsuited for an office he never had a chance of winning on his own, and who blundered the opportunity of Reconstruction because he did not believe in the policies of a fringe group of the opposing party.

Johnson does not deserve to be remembered as a great President, but I can’t consider him a failure the way that men like Buchanan or Hoover or Nixon clearly were. He did the best he could for a job he was ill-prepared for and managed to get our nation through what might have been the greatest crisis it has faced yet in April of 1865. Whatever failings he had during Reconstruction and in regards to civil rights should be weighed against both the mood of the nation at the time as well as the circumstances of his confrontation. Andrew Johnson was more than the sum of his failures and I hope these articles point that out.

 

 

Better Late Than Never: Season 3 Reservation Dogs

 

For reasons that I’ve never been willing to probe, it has been difficult for me to watch the final seasons of streaming series, even the ones that I have loved from the beginning. This has been true since I started making streaming series part of this column and remains so to this day. It’s even true for series that are only there for three seasons or fewer.

It has been this way for me particularly when it comes to comedy series. Much as I loved Dead to Me, I still have not finished its second season. During the pandemic I basically binged every episode of the first two season of Hulu’s Pen15 but when the creators said they would be stopping after the last seven episodes I haven’t watched them since. The third season of Ramy debuted two years ago, and it may very well be the last one; I still haven’t watched it. And I never saw a single episode of the final season of Ted Lasso (though according to some critics I didn’t miss much)

I have had difficulties saying goodbye to cable and broadcast series as well, I should admit: the final season of This is Us is still on my DVR, unlikely to ever be watched and I just couldn’t bring myself to watch the last few episodes of Better Things. Is it just about being unable to let go of something you loved? As long as the series is streaming and you haven’t watched it, that means it is going on forever, at least in your head. Perhaps that is why it has taken me so long to get around to the final season of the extraordinary Hulu-FX collaboration Reservation Dogs a show that I put on my top ten list of 2022 and considering the second season nearly as remarkable. While the Emmys have yet to ever consider it for anything, my fellow critics have been more than generous to it: the Critics’ Choice have nominated both the series and many of the cast members for the last two years, including this one.

Finally this week I managed to get to the first three episodes of Season 3. Much of it is atypical (as far as anything that this series does could be considered typical) but it has dealt with the consequences of the Res Dogs trip to California in which they kept their promise to Daniel and finally seemed able to move on. Of course, this involved them getting their car stolen and losing all their money so naturally Bear (D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai) had to call his mother who sent their aunt to pick them up. Naturally this involved a series of Ubers, a meeting with White Jesus, and a failed attempt for Daniel to reconnect with his father (so far). But near the end of the first episode Daniel had another encounter with his spirit guide who continued yet again to give him an incoherent set of instructions. This time there were consequences: he got left behind on the bus headed back home.

The two episodes that followed (the only ones I’ve seen so far) essentially focused on Bear as he went on what was his trip to get home. Wandering through the desert he finally lost patience with his spirit guide, who has never been helpful and was even less so now. The spirit guide seemed hurt and departed (though I have little doubt we’ll see him again).

Most of the next episode dealt with his interaction with an old survivalist named Maximus (it was a matter of time before Graham Greene showed up on this series). Clearly delusional, convinced in the arrival of ‘the sky people’, Maximus seemed to be some kind of spiritual father on this long journey. We never learned what happened to Maximus, but there’s a clear parallel between him and some of the other indigenous people we’ve met over the last two seasons; there’s an argument that he is just the most extreme version of what happened if Zahn McClarnon’s deputy had been less grounded then he was. Near the end of the episode, police and a medical aide arrive to pick him up and he sees them as the Sky People he’s been looking for. As he leaves Daniel says: “Maximus. I believe you” and its unclear if this is Stockholm Syndrome or he truly does feel something.

The third episode almost seems like it is something of a spin-off and indeed, there may have been plans for it. Titled ‘Deer Lady’, it deals with the title character who the indigenous people seemed to consider an urban legend and that is what Bear thinks until he walks into a diner where she was clearly waiting for him. She had already ordered two pies. Bear needs a moment before he realizes who she is and he thinks she is there to kill him, even though she reassures him that is not her purpose but merely to take him home.

Much of the episode deals with flashbacks to the young Deer Lady and the home for Native Americans that she spent some time in. Run by missionaries who clearly are abusive and hard to fathom (much of their language often sounds garbled) she befriends a young boy who tells her that the only way they leave ‘is through the cemetery’. Later on we see her meeting a handsome young man who she is told is a monster and where we clearly see has that capability. That night Deer Lady makes a break for freedom and while she is leaving she runs into a deer who speaks to her. The flashback ends with the nun who chased after her being butchered.

Deer Lady’s journey takes her to the house of an old man where she tells Bear to stay outside. Deer Lady knocks on the door and this man lets her in, turns his back to her and looks through his photos. Slowly she walks up to him, stands over him and then stabs him multiple times. She emerges from the house with a speck of blood on the coat she is wearing. Bear says nothing about it. Only when he is about to leave her when they return to the reservation does he ask if she killed a man. Her last words to him are: “I killed a wolf in human form.” Bear nods and smiles. The last images of the episode are photos of the children’s home with the young man front and center and the gravestone of that same young boy she met saying: “Killed By Wolves in Human Form.”

There has been discussion by the head of FX that there was originally a plan for Reservation Dogs to run for five seasons but that showrunner Sterlin Harjo made the decision to end it after just three. I have little doubt that this will disappoint the show’s fans but perhaps it is the right call. For all the problems we’ve had with shows not running as long as they used too (something that was one of the bugs about the work stoppage in Hollywood last year) it has done something that even the best cable series and some streaming series have done over the first decade and that’s go on far past their expiration date. At a certain point you wish that someone would pull the plug on shows like Grey’s Anatomy or Law & Order SVU or that the first version of The Walking Dead could have come to an end years before it became, well, zombified. You want to leave your audience wanting more rather than feel like you’ve overstayed your welcome. Barry and Atlanta certainly did, even though the executives likely would have wished their creators kept the show going past their final seasons in the past year. Chuck Lorre made the right call when he ended The Kominsky Method after three seasons and I suspect Harjo did the same here.

Reservation Dogs was an important show because, like Atlanta and Abbott Elementary, it gives voice to a group that rarely gets its due in popular culture beyond the cliché. When AMC greenlit Dark Winds in 2022, it made it clear that there is a market for these kinds of stories and that they have the ability to reach a larger audience. And the fact that Reservation Dogs could often be screamingly, hysterically funny while showing you a part of the world we might not know existed, leaves me hopeful that there will be more of these stories in the future.

As for its chances at the Emmys this summer, this will be a year of transition with Barry, Ted Lasso and The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel’s runs all over as well as the departure of former contenders such as Dead to Me and Atlanta. Considering that there will be fewer new shows to compete for 2024 this year’s nominations, like the ones that occurred in 2021, may very well leave some vacancies that might recognize shows that would otherwise fall under the radar. We will obviously have to wait and see how the year plays out, but there’s little argument the final season of Reservation Dogs can stand on its own in that regard, at least so far. And it would be fitting for a series that I will be sorry to finish and say goodbye too.

My score: 5 stars.

 

What History Gets Wrong - And Right - About Andrew Johnson, Part 6: How The Impeachment Had Nothing to Do With High Crimes OR Misdemeanors

 

I remember in the winter of 1998 when the votes were being counting for the impeachment of Bill Clinton the discussion of how historic an occasion this one. The fact that Clinton had become only the second President in history to be impeached naturally led to mention of Andrew Johnson and how the model for his trial in the Senate was going to be the model Congress went through in the weeks and months to come.

I don’t know if they talked to any historians about the circumstances that led to Johnson’s impeachment – cable news was far more focused on the how then the why – but if they had they would have realized the irony was far greater than the parallels. The Radical Republicans had been wanted to impeach Johnson since at least 1866 not because they believed Johnson was corrupt or treasonous but because they disagreed with his politics. The pretense that they used to start the process was a pretense to get at the President they disliked. And unlike Clinton’s impeachment, which was considered pure theater almost from the start, the Radical Republicans was more dire: for all intents and purposes, they were attempting a show trial in order to enact what amounted to a coup d’etat.

In retrospect the Tenure of Office Act could not have been more blatantly designed to impeach Andrew Johnson if it had in fact been given that name going forward. The irony is the accusations of the Radical Republicans for impeachment amounted to Johnson abusing the power of his office when the Tenure of Office Act was a far more blatant abuse than Johnson ever did. The decision for the hiring and firing of Cabinet officials is solely the business of the executive branch. The Senate can advise and consent when it comes to approval of the President’s nominees but they have no say as to whether the President can fire any head of the Cabinet.  And given the exact wording of the bill, it was clearly done so that Johnson – who had asked all of Lincoln’s cabinet to stay on after the assassination – could not remove them. I have little doubt that if Johnson had not chosen to challenge this act – which he had vetoed and they had overridden as a rebuke to him – they would have repealed it after Johnson’s Presidency. It was merely done to bait Johnson so they would have an excuse to remove him from power.

And to be clear, they would have been doing so in what amounted to a kangaroo court. The next in line for the Presidency, with the Vice Presidency vacant, was the President pro tempore of the Senate. That position was held by Ben Wade, one of their own. This fact actually hurt whatever chances for impeachment were possible: the moderate branch of the party did not agree with Johnson but making Ben Wade President was a bridge too far.

Aggravating the problem was Johnson’s relationship with Edwin Stanton, Lincoln’s Secretary of War. Stanton was a dyspeptic man to work with on a good day and even Lincoln had difficult relations with him. Stanton was also working in combination with Grant to undermine the president’s Southern policy from within. Johnson considered firing him but he respected him too much. Stanton did not want Johnson to appoint his successor.

In the first impeachment inquiry, there seemed to be no grounds and when a federal court released Jefferson Davis on bail on May 13^th, the House Committee investigated whether Johnson was impeding the prosecution. After learning Johnson wanted Davis tried, a bipartisan majority voted down impeachment charges and the committee adjourned in June.

Later that month Johnson and Stanton battled over whether the military officers in command of the South could override the newly appointed civil authorities. Johnson’s got the Attorney general to back the position he could not and then tried to pin Stanton’s position down on it. Stanton evaded the issue. After Congress reconvened the next month, it passed a Reconstruction Act supporting the civil authorities and then overrode his veto. This legislation was, if anything, more designed to remove Johnson’s authority saying the President could not control the Army in the South.

Johnson decided to fire Stanton and relieve one of his military commanders Philip Sheridan. Johnson was deterred initially over a strong objection by General Grant but on August 5^th he demanded Stanton’s resignation. Stanton refused to resign with Congress out of session. Johnson suspended him, pending the next meeting of Congress and named Grant his temporary replacement, something he did reluctantly. He also issued a proclamation pardoning most Confederates, exempting those who held office or served in federal office before the war had breached their oaths. The off-year elections generally went Democratic, with voters in Ohio, Connecticut and Minnesota turning down propositions for African-American suffrage.

Despite this rebuke at the polls, when Congress met again in November the Judiciary committee reversed itself and passed a resolution of impeachment against Johnson. It failed by a margin of 108 against to 57 in favor. In the aftermath Johnson notified Congress of Stanton’s suspension. In January of 1869, the Senate disapproved and reinstated Stanton, contending the President had violated the Tenure of Office Act. Johnson promptly dismissed Stanton and appointed Lorenzo Thomas to replace him. Stanton refused to leave his office and on February 24, 1868, the House impeached the President for intentionally violating the Tenure of Office Act.

It's hard not to look at how things played out to see that Congress had designed these actions in order to play on Johnson’s break with them over Reconstruction. Regardless of what you may think of Johnson’s actions regarding the management of Reconstruction, the fact remains that Congress led by men such as Butler and Stevens had decided to usurp his authority and put it in place of their own. This was overreach but it was done by the legislative branch not the executive.

They were enabled by Stanton, who was one of the more vehement opponents of Johnson’s policy regarding Reconstruction and who it could be argued was exceeding his authority as well. Johnson had wanted to dismiss Stanton for a long time and replacement with General Sherman and with the Tenure of Office Act in place, he chose to flaunt his disregard for Johnson knowing he was protected. Even Lincoln’s cabinet was divided about Johnson’s decision: William Seward argued against it, but Salmon P. Chase – who had served as Treasury Secretary and now served as Chief Justice offered support for Johnson’s actions. Considering that Stanton was also in poor health after seven years in office as well as suffering from poor finances, it might have been in Stanton’s best interest to step down; indeed he died just two years after Johnson fired him. But his stubbornness and intractability – problems he held throughout his tenure in public life – made him refuse to give in.

The day after Johnson attempted to replace Stanton, the House Select Committee on Reconstruction released a report recommend Johnson be impeached on high crimes and misdemeanors. It passed 126-47.

After the vote Stevens submitted a pair of resolutions creating a two-person committee tasked with presenting to the Senate bar the impeachment resolution that had been passed and creating a seven person committee to prepare a report articles of impeachment. The House approve 126-42, on a strictly party line vote. Schuyler Colfax, Speaker of the House, appointed John Bingham and Stevens to the two person committee and Bingham, Stevens and George Boutwell to the seven person committee. (Bingham and Stevens had all been members of the House Select Committee on reconstruction.) Stevens later described the subcommittee’s approach as reflective of its members egotism: he witnessed each member individually write their own articles of impeachment, the committee then sorting through the resulting articles and aggregating them together.

They would eventually create eight articles, which might have been a misstep as they all focused on Johnson’s actions with Stanton. The ninth accused him of violating the Command of Army act when he had supposedly pressured General William Emory to ignore Grant as acting secretary and instead take orders from Johnson.

When the debate took place on March 2, House Republicans were disappointed how badly constructed the articles were produced and reduced the nine articles to seven. Stevens was infuriated that the committee had been too gentle with Johnson saying that they had omitted many crimes about Johnson imperiling the governing structure of the United States. That the context of these articles were based primarily on Congress’ own overreach was an irony that Stevens either did not see or chose to ignore as he delivered vituperative remarks on these justified charges that needed to be approved to remove the ‘unfortunate man’ occupying the presidency.

On March 5, the trial began in the Senate. Boutwell, Butler and Stevens were essentially the prosecutors and William Evarts, Benjamin Curtis and the former Attorney General were his defense counsel. Chase was the presiding judge. The defense relied on the provision of the tenure of office act that made it applicable only to appointees of the current administration and therefore did not apply to Stanton because Lincoln had appointed him. His counsel insisted that he make no appearance at the trial, nor public comment on it. Instead, he maneuvered behind the scenes to gain an acquittal.

Senators were reluctant to impeach because Wade was a lame duck and was considered too radical for many Americans. Among other things Wade supported woman’s suffrage which most Radicals did not support. And as many Senators expected Grant to run for the Republican nomination in 1868 and therefore take the White House, they did not want Wade to impede that.

On May 16^th, the Senate voted on the eleventh article of impeachment, accusing Johnson of firing Stanton. The vote was 35 guilty, 19 not guilty. Ten Republicans voted Not Guilty. The Senate adjourned for the Republican National Convention where Grant received their nomination for President. When they returned on May 26, the Senate voted on the second and third articles and received the same results. Johnson’s opponents, led by a bitter Stevens, gave up and dismissed proceedings. Stanton relinquished his office and as Johnson had promised, he appointed the respected John Schofield as his replacement. At the time and later allegations were made of bribery. Benjamin Butler investigated but could find no proof.

Two months later Johnson sought renomination at the Democratic National Convention. Still popular among Southern Whites, he issued a pardon ending the possibility of criminal proceedings against any Confederate not already indicted. On the first ballot, he was second only to former representative George Pendleton, his Democratic opponent for Vice President in 1864. His support mostly came from the South and dwindled away as the ballots passed. After 22 ballots, former New York Governor Horatio Seymour was nominated. That November Grant would defeat Seymour for the Presidency, mainly because African-American voters in the South gave him the margin of victory. Johnson did little campaigning.

In his first message to Congress Grant urged the repeal of the Tenure of Office act but it was not repealed until Grover Cleveland’s election in 1884. Cleveland was a supporter of civil service and wanted to repeal the spoils system, a policy that had led to much corruption for more than sixty years. When he suspended hundreds of office holders for cause, Senate committees request information from Cabinet members regarding the reasons for the suspensions. Cleveland refused to provide it, in early 1886 explaining that this position impinged on the independence of the executive. It was formerly repealed the next year.

In the epilogue I will deal with the ramifications of Johnson’s Presidency, the flaws behind so much of the ideas of Radical Reconstruction and the true consequences of the impeachment.