Was The Final Season of Lost Any Good: A Comparison to Other Final Seasons From The Era

 

 

Just as before the era of Peak TV began the metric of a series finale was different from today, the metric of a final season for television shows before Peak TV started was much different – in fact, it was basically irrelevant.

This was, of course, because in the world of network TV by the time any series, drama or comedy ended up being cancelled it had become so low-rated because it was obviously past its creative peak. Even before the era began the term ‘Jump The Shark’ had already entered the lexicon of television as a sign by fans as to when, exactly, the series that they had once loved had completely gone off the rails creatively. (In what had to have been a deliberate reference one of the last episodes of The X-Files was called ‘Jump The Shark’ and was used to kill of The Lone Gunmen. It was a bitter joke because the series had lost whatever creative momentum it had years before this low point of what was already a dreadful season happened.)

What’s interesting about the Golden Age of Television is that even as the overall quality of TV dramas improved by and large the majority of the great series that aired during the era of Lost didn’t really move this metric that much. No one called the last seasons of any of the great series of this era horrible the same way the final seasons of such shows as say The X-Files but no one pretended they were works of art the way so many other series were. So before we look at the series finale of Lost, let’s look at how final seasons of other peak dramas that were contemporaries of Lost’s run (for the purpose of that essay this is the fall of 2004 to the spring of 2010) and an honest assessment of the final season creatively, absent the series finale.

The Sopranos final season had many masterclass episodes but there were also several storylines that devoted fans tired of, most notably Christopher’s heroin addiction and Vito’s trip to New Hampshire. The final season of The Wire is generally considered the weakest of the five seasons of the show, largely due to the unrealistic nature of so much of the newspaper stories and McNulty’s plot to stage scenes in Baltimore as if a serial killer were stalking the homeless. Much of the third season of Deadwood involves a troupe of theater actors and to quote one critic, the kindest thing fans say about them is that they were the set up for a fourth season we never got. Only Six Feet Under mostly manages to escape with the reputation of its final season intact: there are storylines that viewers find weak (I never liked Claire’s taking a nine-to-five job) but because it pays off with Nate’s shocking death in the final half of the season, it’s hard to argue with it.

Looking at network dramas of the period.24 is problematic given the nature of the series style but long before the eighth day came to an end I was truly thinking Jack Bauer and the show had nothing new to say or do. House was becoming erratic well before the final season and Lisa Edelstein’s exit before it began merely clinched the deal for me. The West Wing’s final season was a creative comeback for the series after more than a year and a half of creative stasis but that doesn’t change the fact that whatever creative energy it had was for snuffed out after Aaron Sorkin left at the end of Season 4.

When Lost reentered the Best Drama ranks at the Emmys for its final three seasons many if not most of the series that it shared the spotlight had mixed conclusions. Breaking Bad actually got better with each new season and the final season was why it is one of the greatest shows in history. Mad Men’s seventh season was divided in half and the split may have shaved its momentum. How much you like the final season will depend on your opinion of the series finale. And everyone agrees that Dexter lost whatever creative momentum it had by the time it reached the end of Season 4.

Some of the shows that were nominated for Best Drama during this period aren’t considered classics (True Blood and Heroes are the most obvious examples) but some actually deserve to be considered so. I thought the final season of Big Love was a perfect conclusion to that rarest of things, an underrated HBO masterpiece, and when I finally saw the final season of Damages (nearly a year after it aired) I truly thought it brought the saga of Ellen Parsons and Patty Hewes to a fitting conclusion.

The universal feeling is that The Shield ended great and I hold this. And I am among the few people who actually believe that the series finale of Battlestar Galactica was perfect and brought an end to a superb final season.

Full Disclosure: Before the final season of Lost aired I wrote a long column about my hopes and doubts for the end of the show and argued that the only mythology series that in my opinion had ever come to a satisfying conclusion was Battlestar Galactica. Like many of the controversies surrounding Lost during its run I was completely unaware how polarizing the series finale of Galactica had been. However having rewatched the series multiple times even after learned this, I’m still inclined to stick with my original opinion. We can argue about that in another book.

Now let’s look at a different metric. While few will argue that the Emmys are the definitive measure of TV quality, the fact remains that for its final season Lost received 12 Emmy nominations, the most since its first season. And  seven of those nominations were for the series finale, including Jack Bender for directing it and Darlton for writing it. Nor were those the only nominations the series finale received. Jack Bender would be nominated by the Directors Guild for directing it and the WGA nominated Darlton for writing it. We may still be divided about the series finale fourteen years later but at the time, creatively at least, certain people thought it was among the best things in 2010. That has to count for something.

Speaking from my perspective as both a TV Critic and a scholar of the Emmys I should mention that both at the time and even more so with the benefit of hindsight the nominated series and actors in the 2010 Emmys when it comes to drama (and though it is on point, comedy) are among the best in my lifetime. In its final season Lost was nominated alongside Breaking Bad and Mad Men, both of which were at their creative peaks, the first season of The Good Wife and the fourth season of Dexter, considered by many one of the greatest seasons in TV history. With the exception of True Blood (I would have nominated either Damages or Big Love in its place) this is among the most formidable lineups in history.

Matthew Fox received his only Emmy nomination for Best Actor for the final season of Lost. He lost to Bryan Cranston, who was winning his third consecutive Emmy for Breaking Bad but that’s hardly ignoble. And look at the competition he had: Michael C. Hall for Dexter, Hugh Laurie for House, Jon Hamm for Mad Men and Kyle Chandler for Friday Night Lights. Fox was nominated against five of TV greatest actors playing five of the most iconic characters in TV history. It was an honor just to be nominated.

Terry O’Quinn and Michael Emerson were also nominated for Outstanding Supporting Actor; O’Quinn for the third time, Emerson for the fourth. Aaron Paul won the first of what would be (at the time) a record setting three Emmys in this category for his work as Jesse. And Paul must have been stunned considering the caliber of the competition. In addition to O’Quinn and Emerson, he was facing John Slattery for Mad Men, Andre Braugher for Men of A Certain Age and Martin Short for an incredible turn in the third season of Damages. Paul was competing against five of the greatest actors in television history; he was as shocked as anyone when he won.

I was overjoyed, I should add to see Elizabeth Mitchell nominated for Best Guest Actress in a Drama for her work in the final season. Mitchell was competing against some formidable actress in that category: Sissy Spacek and Mary Kay Place for Big Love (Spacek’s work as a political aide was particularly riveting) Lily Tomlin for an incredible dramatic stint in Damages, Shirley Jones for the A & E drama The Cleaner and Ann-Margaret for Law and Order: SVU.

Obviously many of the other performers in Lost were worthy of nominations, particularly the actresses in the cast. But the late 2000s had always had a formidable group of actress every year and this was no exception. Kyra Sedgwick won for The Closer against Glenn Close, who’d won the previous two years for Damages, Mariska Hargitay, who’d won previously, Juliana Margulies who would deservedly win two Emmys in the next four years for her work in The Good Wife and Connie Britton, nominated for playing ‘Mrs. Coach’ in Friday Night Lights. Supporting Actress was not much easier: Archie Panjabi and Christine Baranski were both nominated for The Good Wife; Christina Hendricks and Elisabeth Moss were up for Mad Men and Rose Byrne was up for the second straight year for Damages. I could have seen Emilie De Ravin or Yunjun Kim in place of Sharon Gless for Burn Notice but I could just have easily seen Anna Gunn for Breaking Bad or Jennifer Carpenter for Dexter there as well. The competition for Emmys during this period was only slightly easier than surviving the final season of Lost.

And just as in years past the Saturn awards were generous to Lost nominating the series for five awards, including best Network TV series with acting nominations for Fox, Emerson, O’Quinn and John Terry for a Guest Performance which would seem to mean they liked the series finale as well. And the series was also nominated by the Producers Guild and even the teen choice awards. (Terry O’Quinn was nominated for Best Villain an award Michael Emerson had been nominated for three years earlier. Ben must have been so mad!) Furthermore the series earned nominations for the since discontinued Scream Awards for sci-fi, receiving ten nominations. Matthew Fox took Best television performance, Evangeline Lilly was up for Best Sci-Fi actress, Holloway and Fox for Sci-Fi Actor, Yunjun Kim for Best Supporting Actress, Terry O’Quinn Best Villain. And the show even won the International Online Cinema Award for Best Episode of Drama series for The End. All of which would seem to indicate, regardless of how polarize we fans might find it, at the time critics and artists really liked both the final season and the final episode of Lost.

And the thing is no matter how many times you watch the final season of Lost, from every single creative measure, it hasn’t a lost a step. One can’t pretend it wasn’t flawed – the Temple storyline, much of what involves Widmore, Zoe – but emotionally it can be just as powerful as anything we’ve seen. It certainly works for all the actors in the cast – with the possible exceptions of Yunjun Kim and Daniel Dae Kim, whose storyline is flubbed in Season 6, everybody is doing incredible work in ways we haven’t seen. The flash-sideways gives every cast member a chance to show their ranges in ways we didn’t think possible and while some of the character arcs don’t quite pay off the cast is more than up to it. All of the cast has high points that resonate in a way that somehow even after five seasons of watching them hit heights we still haven’t seen before.

Two of the problems that so many people with the final season of lost would seem to contradict each other: that not all our questions are answered and that the answers we do get aren’t satisfying. I acknowledge that the former is an issue, though going into the final season many people said they’d be fine if many of their questions weren’t answered. And as to the latter, it is just another part of how the fanbase is somehow as broken as many of the characters we’ve spent six seasons with. Sadly it’s become something that those of us who watch mythology series face: the reality never lives up to the fun we had speculating.

That part never bothered me as much because emotionally the series brought resolution in a way that I hadn’t hoped for and that many of the series I watched during this period are incapable of doing. No one cares what happened to Tony Soprano before the cut to black because it we care about him the same way we do about Sayid Jarrah or Ben Linus. Both men are monsters but they are human in a way that Tony is not. That’s true about The Sopranos not just in the final season but as a whole: we’re sorry it’s ending but not because it’s been a lot of fun spending time with these people. (And if it is, you really need to question your definition of ‘fun’.)

To be fair, many of the other series do have an emotional resonance in the final season that make them rewarding. It’s the reason the series finale of Six Feet Under has such power; it’s why were glad to see that Bubbles has beaten his addiction and why we’re heartbroken Omar got killed in such an unflattering way; it’s why when we see the results of Shane’s ‘Family Meeting’, we’re heartbroken in a way we wouldn’t think this flawed man deserved. It’s harder to see the emotional resonance in some of the other shows of this era; I’m not sure whether I truly thought Don Draper was capable of growth when he went on his final walkabout and by the time Walter White confides to Skyler “I did it for me,” it’s an epiphany that makes us realize he’s the villain of the piece and has never been the hero. It doesn’t make the finale of Breaking Bad any less magnificent but when Walter meets his fate, we’re not really sorry about what happened to him the way we are when Jack says goodbye to Kate, knowing he’ll never see her again.

No one can watch the final season of Lost and argue it’s not as rewarding as everything else we’ve seen. As we go through the final act on the island I never cared so much about the answers to the questions but about who would live and who would die. I wanted to see if it was possible for the characters to finally realize the truth about themselves more than why they were there. And you can pretend the final season didn’t deliver on that score in so many ways: watching Sayid, after having spent much of the season not even a shell of his former self, rediscover his humanity before he sacrifices his life. Finally seeing the long awaited reunion of Sun and Jin after more than two seasons, only to see them both die in a submarine that’s sinking. Seeing Ben realize that he has given his entire life for nothing and struggling to find a path forward when all has been taking from him. Watching Richard seem horribly broken after Jacob’s death and learning in Ab Aeterno what brought him to the island and what he lost when he decided to live forever in the service of Jacob. Seeing Hurley finally become the person that was so much more than the fun guy and realizing the purpose of who he was. Watching Jack realize that his biggest problem was trying to tell people what to do, and realizing he had to follow rather than lead. Seeing that Jack-Kate-Sawyer triangle which started out as so much of the heart of the series now just ashes as the characters realized how much it had cost them. And perhaps the most heartbreaking part of it, seeing Claire the woman who seemed the symbol of innocence and birth at the start of the series, practically mad and not even sure she could be a mother to the child she gave birth to on the island. I might have had doubts about how the series ended over the years but the emotional power of all of these moments and countless more resonate in a way that break my heart and move me to tears every time I rewatch the series.

As has been said numerous times, Lost is not a show about a mysterious island but about the people. We care about the characters and we give a damn about their happiness in a way we honestly don’t about some of  the even most well-drawn characters in all of these other incredible. I watched The Sopranos and The Shield and Breaking Bad because I wanted to see the leads get what they deserved and that’s why I watched Lost too but the difference on Lost is that we wanted them to be happy. There have been few series in the era of Peak TV before or since where we watched the final season with a different metric. In so many of the other series we watched to see who would survive until the end. In the case of Lost, we wanted all of them too. That, along with everything else I mentioned, makes the final season of the show incredible.

 

 

My Predictions for the 2024 Emmys, Week 1 Concluded: Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Et Al

 

Without question the strongest collection of nominees in this genre are in this category. Two performers for whom there are no words left in the English language to describe their brilliance. A previous winner who has been one of the dominant forces in this category ever since her previous win. Two performers who have received prizes in this category from multiple awards  shows including this past year. And a first time nominee who offers the most humanity on a series where that can be scarce. I don’t envy the Emmy voters in this selection. Here are my predictions.

 

Carol Burnett, Palm Royale. Odds: 13-2. For Playing: Norma Delacorte, the queen of Palm Beach society who’s not quite dead yet. Pro: Norma was originally just going to be a coma when Palm Royale was being written – until they cast Carol Burnett to play her. And even when she was supposedly comatose Norma still stole every scene she was in. Then we got to learn her backstory and slowly but surely we saw that Norma was a monster who hated the world, hated her daughter-in-law and was controlling society beyond Palm Beach. And of course in the season finale we learned she wasn’t even Norma. Carol Burnett hasn’t gotten to play a villainess in a very long time and she made every moment she was on scene absolutely hysterical as we saw this ninety-plus year old woman in a wheelchair with an embolism try every possible way to kill Maxine and keep having her plans foiled. When you’re doing a show that is pure farce, you call Carol Burnett. Burnett just became the oldest actress nominated for an Emmy in this category, having won her seventh Emmy last year. (And is anyone as irked as I have she didn’t get nominated for bringing down Saul Goodman last year? I still am.) Con: Hard as it is to believe all of the nominees in the category are as good as Burnett and some are better. She’ll have to wait until next year.

 

Lisa Colon-Zayas, The Bear. Odds: 5-1. For Playing: Tina Marrero, trying to learn how to be a better chef. Pro: Colon-Zayas was the only nominee in this category I didn’t predict; my personal preference was for Abby Elliott. But few can deny the quiet brilliance of Colon-Zayas over the past two seasons. Initially fiery and chafing at the presence of the new chef Sydney, she managed to adapt and become one of the  more unsung characters on this show, keeping her head when all around (namely Carmy and Richie) were losing theirs. During Season 2 she tried to go on her own journey to become a better chef one that showed signs of progress as the series went on. She maintained her dignity and superb talent throughout. And unlike all of her co-stars the third season of The Bear actually did more to help her momentum then everyone else connected with it. That may help her prevail. Con: That said, if it happens it will be in the awards cycle that is to come not this one. As it is she’s the neophyte in a field of veterans, even the ones younger than her.

 

Hannah Einbinder, Hacks. Odds: 18-5. For Playing: Ava, trying to help Deb win a job in late night. Pro: The moment Season 3 of Hacks dropped Einbinder immediately became the frontrunner in this category. And she absolutely should have won before. She has already won two HCA TV awards in this category the first two years Hacks was on the air. She took the Dorian prize for Best Supporting Performance in a Comedy last week. And if you’ve watched her work this season you know that Einbinder is willing to humiliate herself anyway possible to get a laugh, even if she doesn’t intend to do it. She’s already gotten lost in the woods, put on a caddy outfit backwards, was about to have a horrible sexual act performed on her until she learned that it was a Republican who would do it, dealt with the most awkward Christmas ever, made things better with her mother, was destroyed by Deb in the finale and then did something so unthinkable that everyone who watched it when OMFG and knows Season 4 can’t come soon enough. It is past time for Einbinder to win and this year was just another reason to show why. Con: This is an incredibly tough category and Einbinder is by far the youngest nominee in it. And it’s not exactly like any of her competition is unworthy.

 

Janelle James, Abbott Elementary. Odds: 7-1. For Playing: Ava Coleman, principal at Abbott Elementary. Pro: The one complaint about Abbott I heard was that the show didn’t put Ava in the spotlight enough. As Ava Coleman would say, she brings her spotlight with her. I certainly didn’t noticed a diminished Ava in Season 3, putting cameras everywhere, trying to be serious until dance music played out, trying to ‘win’ a school board meeting, getting into a war with her rival at the park, staging a fight at book club… you name it, Ava Coleman will do it. And as always we get to see the depths behind her, such as when Barb brought her choir to Abbott to rehearse and she saw just how badly her friends self-esteem was damaged by it. We all knows James is going to win in this category someday. Con: But it’s probably not going to be this year. No matter how many prizes James takes – and she’s already won an HCA award and an Image award – it seems to be her fate to be outshined by a brighter sun – or this year, most likely, a brighter Ava.

 

Sheryl Lee Ralph, Abbott Elementary. Odds: 11-2. For Playing: Barbara, elder stateswoman at Abbott Elementary. Pro: Barbara spent much of Season 3 dealing with Janine’s absence in her own way, frequently having issues dealing with the new library program, trying to accept that things were changing. She continued to bring the heart to this series as was seen in the episode that Ralph no doubt submitted for consideration – when she invited Gregory over to her home for Mother’s Day in order to deal with the loss of her own mother. Ralph remains the wonder she’s been for the past three seasons, sometimes behind the times, sometimes full of wisdom, always funny, always sweet. Considering that Ayo Edebiri is competing for Best Actress, Ralph might prevail if the Emmys decide to honor the most recent previous winner – and I wouldn’t mind. Con: Ralph has already won before in this category and the Emmy has more often then not been recognizing new blood with each year than they have in the past. They may decide to pass over Ralph.

 

Meryl Streep, Only Murders in the Building. Odds: 4-1. For Playing: Loretta Durkin, an unsuccessful actress on the set of a play. Pro: You wouldn’t think the greatest actress in history could play a horrible actress. Just kidding. She’s Meryl Streep! And earlier this year she realized the greatest recognition possible: she received a nomination from the People’s Choice Awards. Somewhat more seriously Streep did win a Critics Choice Award for Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy, which made her the early frontrunner in this category. And there would be a symmetry to it: she will be attending to honor her daughter Louisa Jacobson, one of the stars of the Emmy nominated drama The Gilded Age. And come on, the Emmys does owe her for not giving her the prize for Big little Lies four years ago. (I’m still bitter.)Con: The moment Hacks dropped Season 3, Einbinder jumped ahead of Streep as the favorite, and deservedly so. And honestly does she have any space left in her home for another award at this point?

 

Prediction: She’s not going to say it, but when Hannah Einbinder wins she’ll have to be thinking: “I beat Meryl!”. And honestly she deserves too.

 

Now some other awards.

Much as I would like to see Hacks win in writing or directing, I suspect that The Bear will repeat in both of those categories – deservedly so for the instant classic ‘Fishes.’

I’m not entirely sold that it will win Best Guest Actor for Jon Bernthal for The Bear. I’ll be honest I’d prefer if Bob Odenkirk won for the same show -  really they owe him big time. And given how his stint on SNL went viral, we can’t rule out a win for Ryan Gosling.

Jamie Lee Curtis is the heavy favorite for The Bear as well and I think she’s likely to win. But Maya Rudolph has triumphed in this category twice before and anyone who saw her opening monologue would know that she’s a formidable Mother too. (My personal choice is still Kaitlin Olson for Hacks but the odds are against her.

 

Next week, I start on Drama. For the record, I don’t think it’s as weak a category as my fellow pundits seem too and I look forward to defending that argument.

My Predictions For This Year's Emmys, wEEK 1, Part 4: Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy

 

It would seem that like Outstanding Actor in a Comedy, this award was spoken for as early as January. But this is a strong field and as we shall see, it’s not the same group the front-runner was competing against in January. So let’s go.

 

Lionel Boyce, The Bear. Odds: 5-1. For Playing: Marcus, a chef learning new skills while struggling with his home life. Pro: Boyce’s work on The Bear is the rare exercise in subtlety compared to so many of the other characters which is why it took many – myself included – to fully appreciate him. But in Season 2 Boyce came into his own. We learned the details of his sick mother and how much he cared for her. We saw him continue to work on his craft, most perfectly in ‘Honeydew’ where he went to Scandinavia to study a new kind of ice cream under a master chef. And when the season came to an end, his greatest triumph came on the heels of tragedy as his two worlds collided. His character has a purer heart than many of the others and its worthy of the nomination. Con: The biggest problem for Boyce is that he’s not the only nominee for The Bear in this category. And as we’ll see…

 

Paul W. Downs, Hacks. Odds: 9-2. For Playing: Jimmy, an agent struggling to get his clients what they want. Pro: As someone who thought a nomination for Downs was well overdue in this category I’m thrilled he’s been recognized. He’s not the main talent behind Hacks but he is very much a hyphenate (actor-producer-writer). And to his credit Downs’s doesn’t give Jimmy the spotlight that often. But when he does, he is magnificent and in Season 3, as he led the fight to get Deb Vance her job in late night, he did everything he could to humiliate himself. We saw him try to debase himself to get a network boss (the wonderful Helen Hunt) to talk up Deb. We saw his relationship with Kayla continue to involve and improve (though it never stopped being funny). And we would get a sign of sweetness to, particularly when he went on a Christmas trek to see the descendant of Fatty Arbuckle on false pretenses – and ended up winning a new client and melting our hearts. Downs’s deserves the respect Jimmy never gets and it is telling he’s rising in the odds. Con: It’s almost certain Hacks will win in a different category that Downs’s is nominated in – maybe even the top prize. That may be enough to keep them from giving it to him as an actor.

 

Ebon-Moss Bachrach, The Bear. Odds: 10-3. For Playing: Cousin Richie, a troubled man trying to find a purpose now that the restaurant he was a part of has collapsed. For Playing: Much as I loved Moss-Bachrach’s work in Season 1, I underestimated his pull with Emmy voters: he was the only acting nominee I didn’t think would win. And if anything Bachrach’s performance went to even deeper levels in Season 2 as he tried to find a way forward while he continued to show that he was incompetent. Then came his showcase episode ‘Forks’ which immediately lifted him to the top of Emmy consideration – and no doubt won him the Golden Globe and the Critics Choice Awards this January. Bachrach is the unquestioned frontrunner in this category. Con: It’s been a long time since January and momentum for The Bear has started to sputter mainly because of the mixed response to Season 3. That might be enough to kill his chance of repeating.

Paul Rudd, Only Murders in the Building. Odds: 13-2. For Playing: Ben Glenroy, an actor who died on stage – literally. Pro: How is it that Paul Rudd has been acting forever and never won anything? How did he not even get a nomination for his work on Parks and Rec. Maybe it’s because he’s such a likeable guy and such a great performer that we never give him credit for being such a good actor. When the character he was playing got killed at the end of Season 2, it was one of the show’s better in-jokes: who in their right mind would want to kill Paul Rudd? And as we learned this season, pretty much everybody. It’s more than time the Emmys – or somebody – just told him: I Love You, Man if they want to keep living with themselves in their ideal homes. (Okay, I’ll stop now.) Con: I give credit to the Emmys for finally nominating performers from this show who aren’t among the podcasters. But I also know how unlikely it is that Rudd will be able to break through where legends like Steve Martin and Martin Short have yet too.

 

Tyler James Williams, Abbott Elementary. Odds: 11-2. For Playing: Gregory a teacher dealing with a hole in his routine. For:  For all the unquestioned brilliance of Bachrach, the comic highlight in this category last year was Williams work as Gregory. After he took every prize in the book last year from the Golden Globe to the Astra award in, I thought nothing could stop him from an Emmy. And it’s not like he slacked off immensely in Season 3; if anything Williams’s got even better material to work with than in Season 2. We saw him try to move on when Janine left for district, we saw him try to deal with the fact he was cool, we saw him try to deal with a missing student, we saw him go out on a date and be jealous because Janine was sitting in a certain place at the bar with a man he considered a rival. And of course we saw him and Janine decide to date, then reject it, then decide to. Of all the actors in this category almost any episode Williams submitting was worthy of consideration. And he deserves recognition. Con: Is it possible the Emmys have moved on from Abbott? It doesn’t seem that way given that it received nine nominations but I don’t sense the love for it that I did last year. That may work against Williams the most.

 

Bowen Yang, Saturday Night Live. Odds: 7-1. For Playing: Various Characters. Pro: Yang has been one of those joys of SNL ever since he joined the cast and it must have killed him that George Santos was expelled from Congress as we were denied the privilege of seeing him keep playing him. We got to see him play Truman Capote as a benefit and almost everything else in between. Yang has been one of the great joys of SNL for a very long time and the most deserving of continued recognition. He deserves to win something…Con: It’s been a long time since a male actor managed to win an Emmy in this category for SNL, and even then (Alec Baldwin) it wasn’t a cast member. Saturday Night Live can win in many categories but not here.

 

PREDICTIONS: Much as I’d love to see Williams or Downs’ prevail, this year I think Moss-Bachrach will manage to repeat.

 

Tomorrow I wrap up the week by dealing with Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy as well as the remainder of the major comedy awards.

My Predictions for the 2024 Emmys Week 1, Day 3: Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy

 

This one will be much tougher. Two of last year’s Emmy winners will be facing off in this category and their greatest rival will be the actress who won in this category back-to-back the two previous years. One can’t ignore the prominence of an overlooked performer getting her first nomination in this category and two of Saturday Night Live’s greatest comediennes (who happen to be contemporaries and co-stars in so many things) as well. Here are my predictions.

 

Quinta Brunson, Abbott Elementary. Odds: 5-1. For Playing: Janine, a teacher at a Philadelphia school trying to balance her new job at district with her love of her former position. Pro: Brunson did deservedly win last year in this category, her second consecutive Emmy (the first of course was for writing where she is also nominated for the third straight year.) Brunson made the bold move of having Janine, the lead of her series working in a different job with different colleagues for the majority of Season 3. Seeing Janine as a fish out of water led to great moments as we saw her achieve some of the goals she’d longed to and try to balance it with her yearning to be back with her old class. Her decision to return was not a simple reset of the status quo but shown as a difficult decision that she made for a heart-melting reason. She remained wonderfully funny at every opportunity and achieved her highpoint of the season for the season 3 finale where she planned out every detail of the perfect party, had it fall apart – and ended with her realizing the love of Gregory. It was another brilliant performance that we’ve come to realize is just another day at work. Con: It’s hard to imagine anyone thinking Brunson is yesterday’s news but there may be a desire to spread the love to someone else. Also, see the other nominees.

 

Ayo Edebiri, The Bear: Odds: 19-5. For Playing: Sydney, trying to create a new restaurant on Chicago under difficult circumstances. Pro: Edebiri decided to move from Supporting to Lead Actress after Season 1. It couldn’t have been an easy choice for the performer who that same year took an Emmy in that category to the delight of the throng but in the weeks before and afterwards it was clearly working for her: she took the Golden Globe, Critics Choice Award and SAG award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy. And no one can deny she’s lost anything or indeed that she isn’t as much a lead as Jeremy Allan White. Sydney has always had a clearer vision that Carmy has, perhaps because she isn’t burdened with the kind of emotional baggage that he – or indeed most of her co-workers – are. As Season 2 progressed she found herself in a position where she was seemingly Carmy’s equal in authority but still dealing with a man who refused to delegate and demanded total authority. She clearly was committed to him because of his talent as a chef but it became clear throughout Season 2 that for all intents and purposes Carmy just views her as an underling. The fact that she was still working when the restaurant was opening – and he was locked in the freezer unable to go forward – shows the difference between them. Winning her Edebiri would become the first woman since Alison Janney to win Best Actress and Supporting Actress in a comedy for the same role and it’s hard to argue she doesn’t deserve too. Con: Of all three of last year acting winners, Edebiri is the only actress who has lost the frontrunner position since the Emmy nominations came out. As to why, see below.

 

Selena Gomez, Only Murders in the Building. Odds: 7-1. For Playing: Mabel, part of the crime solving podcast trying to solve a murder on a Broadway show. Pro: That this is Gomez’s first nomination for Murders is a mystery more difficult to solve than anything her character has in three season. (My prime suspect: Elle Fanning.) Gomez has spent the last three seasons demonstrating that she has the same comic chops as the two legends that are her co-stars. She was the biggest revelation of this series and with each season Mabel reveals new depths that keep making her more remarkable and layer that even her elder co-stars. The Emmys may merely be nominating Gomez to make up for the fact they unforgivably slighted her the first two seasons rather than anything she did in Season 3. I couldn’t care less. Either way she deserves to be with the legends in this category. Con: I think in Gomez’s case it will be an honor just to be nominated. For all the layers in her performance, well, there’s just too many great ones in this category already.

 

Maya Rudolph, Loot. Odds: 13-2. For Playing: Molly Novak, a new billionaire trying to reconnect with the real world. Pro: I make no secret of the fact I worship Maya Rudolph. She’s had a hell of a year with the Emmys: she was nominated both for her appearance on SNL and just as deserving the instant classic musical number she did instead of her monologue. Throw in her nomination for voiceovers and she’s got four for this year. Take that Jon Hamm! Rudolph, like her soulmate Kristen Wiig, has done a lot of great work in films and TV. She was nominated for three Guest Actress Emmys for her work in The Good Place as The Judge and actually lost to herself the last year for her appearance on SNL as Kamala Harris in 2020. Indeed she’s actually won the most Emmys of all the nominees with 5 (2 for Guest Hosting SNL, three for her voice over work on Big Mouth. )  Would be excessive for her to win a sixth? Maybe. But considering she never got a nomination when she was starring on SNL (her co-star Wiig got three at the time) that she was in one of my favorite cancelled too soon series Up All Night  and that she always seems to be listed behind her co-star Tina Fey, Amy Poehler and Wiig when it comes to the talents of SNL in the 2000s, well, unlike the character she plays, she can never have too much. Con: Rudolph’s biggest problem is that she is the only nominee for her show as opposed to all of her fellow nominees who are starring in shows that are up for Best Comedy. Lone nominees rarely manage to win Emmy in any category and I don’t think it’ll happen her. Better luck for her as the Mother,

 

Jean Smart, Hacks. Odds; 17-5. For Playing: Deb Vance, trying to use her momentum to become the first woman in late night. Pro: The moment Season 3 of Hacks premiered on HBO Max Jean Smart immediately took front-runner status away from Ayo Edebiri. And anyone who watched Season 3 of one of the best shows of the decade – the equal of The Bear in quality – can’t deny she hasn’t earned it. We watched Deb go through quite a journey this year, using her fame from her special to take a swing at a job at late night. We saw her make huge personal growth, with JD as she dealt with becoming a grandmother, when she had an affair with a married man and realized the worst of it, when she made a tentative effort to reconcile with Kathy who she hadn’t seen since her sister left her for her husband and when she did what it took to get the job – by betraying the woman who helped her the most. That Smart did all of this and remained just as hysterical, profoundly deep and wrenching as she has done for two season is a tributed to one of the greatest actors in TV history. Smart has already won the TCA prize for Best Performance in a Comedy and the Dorian prize for Best Comic Lead. The momentum is strong for her third win in this category. Con: The possibility that momentum for Edebiri may be too strong as well as the overall caliber of all the nominees.

 

Kristen Wiig, Palm Royale. Odds: 6-1. For Playing: Maxine, a former pageant queen trying to make her way into the world of Palm Beach society. Pro: It took two episodes for me to understand why Maxine was trying so hard to join a club that didn’t want her as a member and once you did both she and the entire series fell into place. Wiig has been one of the most talented alums of SNL in their film career and Wiig, given the opportunity, can do drama quite well. She has the capabilities to play people who have been broken by life as well as those who will do anything for a laugh. And all of those aspects were on full display in her work as Maxine. She spent half of the show playing pure Southern gentility as well doing everything in her power to play pure farce at a way that the great Lucille Ball would tip her cap to. And the other half of the time – particularly in the season finale – you saw a woman so broken by life and knowing no matter what she does she will never be expected. Like the series itself, Wiig’s work was capable of great emotional depth as well is hysterical humor. I’ve little doubt she’ll get an Emmy for it soon. Con: ‘Soon’ probably doesn’t mean this year. As extraordinary as Wiig’s work was, too many people dismissed Palm Royale as fluff. And while that was a misjudgment, it’s not nearly as dark or deep as some of the other performances in this category.

 

PREDICTION: No bad choices in this category but I give Smart the edge by the barest of eyelashes. (And given Deb Vance, they’re probably false.)

 

Tomorrow I move on to Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy. That might not be as easy as everyone thinks it will be.

My Predictions For the 2024 Emmys, Week 1, Part 2: Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy

 

This award is the easiest one in the comedy category to predict. It’s possible one of the legends in this category may manage an upset but the odds are heavily against it. But let’s go through with it anyway.

 

Matt Berry, What We Do In The Shadows. Odds: 11-2. For Playing: Lazlo a member of a vampire clan on Staten Island. Pro: Berry has been one of the most prominent British comics of the last decade, star of the British procedural parody Toast of London and it’s spin-off Toast of Tinseltown. He has done voice work for Disenchantment and Star Wars.. He appeared in the final season of Curb Your Enthusiasm and played several roles in the Emmy nominated Fallout. It’s kind of impressive this is only his first Emmy nomination. He’s always had some glorious moments – his episode dealing with a roast in his honor led to humor and darkness -  and he’s always seemed to have a deeper sadness than some of the other characters. In what has been one of FX’s flagship comedies he’s always been a stand out. Con: Of the three performers in this category from FX comedies Berry’s role is by far the least prominent and while Shadows has been nominated for many Emmys Berry is the first actor to receive a nomination. It’s unlikely that his nomination will be enough to win.

 

Larry David, Curb Your Enthusiasm: Odds: 11-2. For Playing: Larry David, or at least the worst version of him. Pro: To call Larry David the sentimental favorite in this category is not something Larry David would want to consider himself. But he is all the same. In his thirty plus years in television, going back all the way to Seinfeld he has been twenty five times for acting, writing and producing and he’s only won twice both for Seinfeld, both thirty years ago. While David had basically built his career as a performer as a person completely unworthy of respect, admiration or even pity there’s something rather depressing about a man who has been an icon in comedy for so long who has gotten next to no recognition for it. No one thinks this will be the last we see of David in any capacity but there would be something fitting for giving him what amounts to a lifetime achievement award. Against: The Emmys has never had the best history of given awards to performers who play fictionalized versions of themselves – Jerry Seinfeld himself is the most prominent example. And for all of David and Curb’s impact on popular culture it has always been an underachiever in every major category in the Emmys. The fact that it may be the last chance to honor him will doubtless do little to change that.

 

Steve Martin, Only Murders in the Building. Odds: 6-1. For Playing: Charles-Haden Savage, the former TV detective turned podcaster and investigator. Pro: As I mentioned when I advocated for Martin’s nomination it seemed ridiculous to me that one of the most prominent comic legends of all time has never won an            Emmy for acting. (He’s also never been nominated for an Oscar but he seems to have made peace with that.) As the third season as Charles he continues to demonstrate that he has lost none of the comic edge he has maintained for more than a half century investigating a murder, dating a failed actress and eventually coming up with the solution in an all-musical episode. It was bad enough he was ignored for an Emmy nomination last year; it’s far past time he wins an Emmy. Con: He bares the same problem most of the nominees in this category have: he doesn’t happen to be Jeremy Allan White. You’d think being Steve Martin would make up for that, but apparently not.

 

Martin Short, Only Murders in the Building. Odds: 9-2. For Playing: Oliver Putnam, trying to figure out who killed an actor on the stage of his play in rehearsal. Pro: Short has been one of my favorite performers for most of my adult life and he has the benefit of being one of the greatest sketch comedy veterans who didn’t spend his formative years on Saturday Night Live. (He did spend one season which was good enough.) Short plays a more beleaguered version of Oliver than usual; in addition to everything else he wants to get his play to open successful and this murder is ruining its chances. His co-stars from SCTV Eugene Levy and Catherine O’Hara have won Emmys in recent years which would argue its time; the fact that Levy will be co-hosting the Emmys with his son this year (and will be appearing in Season 4) make another argument for sentimentality. Con: See above, as well as the understandable fact that with the incredible talent of his co-star in this category they will inevitably split the vote between them.

 

Jeremy Allan White, The Bear. Odds: 82-25. For Playing: Carmy, the troubled chef trying to open a new restaurant in Chicago. Pro: White has essentially repeated his feat of last year at the pre-Emmy awards, winning the Golden Globe, the Critics Choice Award and the SAG Award for Best Actor in a Comedy. And no matter what one thinks of The Bear in the comedy category no one will argue that White’s work has become one of the great performances in history. As Season 2 progressed everyone seemed capable of making major strides forward as an individual but Carmy remained unable to do so. We got a very close look at what made him the person he was in the instant classic Fishes but it’s also clear that he may be broken in a way that nothing can every truly fix. White has finally achieved the superstardom that we saw in eleven years on Shameless and it’s looking like he will easily repeat in this category. Con: The only real obstacle may be the tepid response to Season 3 of The Bear. Otherwise I don’t see anything standing in his way.

 

D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, Reservation Dogs. Odds: 11-2. For Playing: Bear, a teenager living in a Navajo reservation coming to grips with adulthood. Pro: It seemed more likely going into the nominations that Devery Jacobs seemed to be the member of this outstanding ensemble to walk away with a nomination. But anyone who’s watch Woon-A-Tai over three outstanding seasons knows that he is the engine that has been driving the show. In the final season Bear went to places he didn’t think we’d see. Separated from his friends on his trip to California he ended up encountering Maximus, who happened to be a relic from the reservation. He encountered the legendary Deer Lady who drove him home to face the music. He began to make strides into adulthood when his mother found another opportunity out of state. And in the final episode he came to grips with who he was on both a spiritual and physical level. He did so with a great deal of power and often hysterical comedy that was one of the most measured performances in this category. It is worthy of an Emmy. Con: Much as I will be rooting for Woon-A-Tai in my heart on Emmy nomination, this category is filled with some of the most iconic performances of the last decade and some of the greatest comic talents of all time. We all know in our hearts the Emmy is going to go to the other Bear in this category.

 

MY PREDICTION: In theory, this category is full of worthy contenders. In practice Jeremy Allan White has had it locked up since January. Look for him to repeat.

 

Tomorrow I deal with Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy. This one’s going to be much tougher to predict.

 

 

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

 

Yes friends and neighbors we are here again. Technically this is the second Emmys we’ve had in 2024. But as we know the Emmys are there to honor the series from June 1^st to May 31^st of the calendar year. The work stoppage may have changed when the 2023 Emmys took place but not the how. What you are about to see is the predictions for the actual 2024 Emmy Awards, covering June 1^st 2023 to May 31^st of 2024.

Nothing has fundamentally changed about how I will approach the predictions from the last five years. Using the rankings at Gold Derby I will list all the nominated series and actors based on the odds that are currently given for all nominees in the major categories, save for writing and directing where I will give my personal predictions as opposed to what I actually believe will win. I will give the pros and cons for each series winning or losing, much of which I do consider based on opinion rather than fact.

Just as with last year, I will begin my predictions with comedy.

 

OUTSTANDING COMEDY SERIES

 

Abbott Elementary (ABC) Odds: 15-2. Pro: I still feel this series deserved much better from January’s Emmys then it ended up getting and Season 3 did nothing to dim its luster. Quinta Brunson continued to defy boundaries with her brilliant comedy by having Janine absent from her classroom and Abbott itself for most of the season. This led most of the supporting cast to up their already exceptional game in ways you wouldn’t expect: Jacob and Melissa’s new bond when they became roommates, Barbara dealing with how change is not always a bad thing, Gregory coming to terms with Janine’s trying to move on, Ava’s attempt to be a better teacher but not a better person and of course the fact that Gregory and Janine finally allowed the chemistry between them to ignite in the last minutes of the season finale. Abbott Elementary is such a big deal, it’s got standing room only at comic book conventions and if that’s not a sign it’s universal I don’t know what is. Con: Abbott does have the baggage of being a network series, something that the Emmys seem determined to ignore these days no matter how brilliant they are. It may very well be why it ended up losing badly last year.

 

The Bear (FX on Hulu) Odds: 39-10. Pro:  The early awards showed the momentum for The Bear had accelerated, winning the Golden Globe, the Critics Choice Awards and the SAG awards for its second season and dominating the acting awards. And there is little sign that it has diminished in quality over season 2, especially considering the incredible work on display in every episode for every character. Every lead and supporting actor got a chance to shine in episodes such as Forks and Honeydew. The ‘Fishes’ episode was considered the highpoint of Season 2 and is almost certain the dominate the writing and guest acting categories. And the series has become a phenomena that it may now be the best series on television anywhere. That would seem to be enough to put it over the top. Con: Over Season 2 there has been decided debate given the nature of The Bear whether it deserves to be considered a comedy at all. TV Guide even weighed in on the matter in the most recent issue, saying it deserved to be nominated for Emmys but not as a comedy. I don’t understand the reasoning behind this and have argued it. More telling is that the third season of The Bear dropped this summer and for the first time critics are questioning whether the series is still as good as it once was. And perhaps most tellingly both the TCA and the Dorian Awards chose to ignore it in its awards and give the majority of the awards in comedy to Hacks. The momentum The Bear’s had since February may be starting to dry up.

 

Curb Your Enthusiasm (HBO): Odds: 9-1. Pro: One of the longest running (though not consecutively) comedy series came to an end with Larry David having walked away learning – absolutely nothing. But that’s always been the point of Curb which took the mantle from Seinfeld on bad behavior and raised it exponentially. This series is the last holdover from the dawn of HBO’s programming and is also one of the least recognized ones in terms of awards. Part of this is due to the nature of the show, which is both improvised and essentially cinema verité and part of it is due to the fact that it just always seems to have been there. I imagine there are some people who expect Larry David, if he wins an Emmy, to start his acceptance speech saying: “I only ended the series for this to happen.” Curb is an accomplishment and it deserves recognition. Con: Aside from my personal enmity to all things about this show the fact is this has never been the kind of series that does well at the Emmys. Cringe comedies such as Seinfeld, The Office and almost all the work of Ricky Gervais will get nominations but rarely take the grand prize. In a way Curb barely fits the structure of comedy like The Bear but at least that series has a story. I think the Emmys will shaft the show, which is actually something the creators are expecting.

 

Hacks (MAX) Odds: 11-2. Pro: The moment Hacks dropped Season 3 the momentum for it dominating this year’s Emmys began to shift in its favor. As I mentioned the TCA and the Dorians gave it the lion’s share of its awards in comedy and having seen the third season it’s hard to argue the reasoning. Hacks remains one of the most outstanding comedies of the decade (and despite its overtones, no one questions that is a comedy unlike with The Bear). And watching it during Season 3 as Deb made her stride to become the first woman in Late Night we saw how much Deb Vance has changed and how she keeps trying to change. We’ve seen the good and the bad between her relationship with Ava and its clear these two women are soulmates, for better or worse. It works just as will with the incredible supporting cast (I’d be fine if there was a spinoff involving Jimmy and Kayla) and one of the best rosters of guest performers that rivals even The Bear.  Hacks is unquestionably one of the best shows of 2024 and its more than overdue a win in this category. Con: None really. The biggest obstacle it faces is whether it can overcome the early momentum of The Bear.

 

Only Murders in the Building (Hulu)  Odds: 13-2. Pro: If anything the writers never rest on their laurels when it comes to Murders. In Season 3 they took our trio to Broadway, surrounded them with some of the most brilliant guest actors and actresses working today (most of which received nominations) and put the entire show in theater. They were even willing to do a musical episode and stage the solution that same way. The show remains one of the funniest and best mashups of genres on any service today and the three leads, the law firm of Martin, Short and Gomez have become one of the most delightful comedy teams in history. It may be a production but you can’t deny the fun even as the bodies fall and alleys become blinder. Watching this series you’re reminded: “That’s Entertainment!” Con: While the series has won many awards for other groups (the HCA, the Critics Choice) it has mysteriously been struggling to win major prizes at the Emmys despite the legends associated with it. The show got a remarkable 23 nominations but I’ve having a hard time seeing it win in any major category. (Though when I get to the caliber of the nominees, we’ll see that’s not a mystery.)

 

Palm Royale (Apple TV): Odds: 10-1. Pro: I essentially binge-watched this entire series over the course of less than a month which tells you how quickly I became enraptured by it. This is a joyful, romp of a period piece that is one of the most brilliant satires I’ve seen on any service in a long time and is powered by some of the greatest comic actresses and actress altogether in at least a decade. Kristen Wiig is delightful as Maxine Delacorte Simmons who makes herself almost an heir to Lucille Ball in her work. She is backed by one of the great supporting casts I’ve ever seen, from Alison Janney and Ricky Martin, all the way down to Julia Duffy and Mindy Cohn. (And yes, apparently Carol Burnett can still be funny even in a coma.) There are deep issues at the center of Palm Royale but its by far the most fun of any of the shows in this category. I look forward to Season 2. Con: Apparently just being fun doesn’t seem to count to get you an Emmy these days. This is assured more of a comedy than The Bear is and its definitely more stylish but everything does have to have a deeper meaning to these days. Farce rarely prevails.

 

Reservation Dogs (FX on Hulu): Odds: 19-2. Pro: FINALLY! The Emmys chose to recognize one of the most brilliant series of the last decade with multiple nominations. It’s no secret that Reservation Dogs has been one of the most critically acclaimed series of this decade, nominated every season it was on the air by the TCA and the Peabodys. This year it took a Peabody award for its final season and was also recognized as Best Unsung Series by the Dorians. Using its story of four Navajo teens on an Oklahoma reservation Sterlin Harjo expanded his universe to show the stories of the elders in every connotation in its final season, showed the backstories of some of the minor characters and the major ones and in its final episode ‘Dig’ showed how much the Res Dogs had grown and changed over their journey, physical and spiritual. It did so in a way that was often incredibly moving and hysterically funny all at the same time. Its my sleeper in this category. Con: The fact that it’s taken until its final season to be recognized in this category shows some of the Emmys blinders even in an era of diversity (though to be clear this year’s nominees showed how far they’ve come). It’s frequently been a poorer cousin to many of the brilliant FX brand comedies, two of which are in this category. I want it to win. I’m enough of a realist to know it won’t happen.

 

What We Do In The Shadows (FX) Odds: 9-1. Pro: Shadows has been nominated for its third consecutive season (stretching over five years) and as it enters its final stretch for nominations, it remains one of the most delightful satires and tributes to the supernatural in recent years. Led by one of the most dynamic comedic casts Taiki Waititi’s second nominated series in this category has far more of the eccentricity we’ve come to expect from his extraordinary career. It has been one of the great utility players for comedy over the last several years and it deserves a win at some point. Con: It’s not happening this year. Leaving aside that both of the FX series in this category are at a far deeper level than Shadows can be the silly nature of Shadows has not been the type of series the Emmys has recognized for comedy over the last decade in particular. Shadows is dark atmospherically but its shiny and fun. Not the Emmys brand these days.

 

Prediction: Much as I will be rooting for Reservation Dogs, I think this comes down to the two powerhouses: The Bear and Hacks. I think that the habit of the Emmys to go with repeaters will carry The Bear to a win but the disagreements about  and the fact that it might be Hacks turn – could carry the latter show to victory. (Sorry for the cloudiness. The acting categories will be clearer.)

 

Tomorrow I will deal with Best Lead Actor in a Comedy.

Constant Reader August 2024 (Adult) The Writing Retreat by Julia Bartz

 

 

Over the last couple of years I’ve had occasion to watch the dark satire The Menu. (Spoilers ahead for the entire film.) The movie deals with a group of one percenters who have been invited to an exclusive dinner at an island resort where one of the greatest chefs of all time Julian (Ralph Fiennes) has invited some of his guests for a special meal.

As the film progresses Julian reveals that he has darker plans for the guests he’s invited. The courses he serves continuously take on a darker edge as he makes it very clear that none of the people invited are going to leave this establishment alive. On the surface, this is well-acted, dark satire about eating, the wealthy and the privileged. I say on the surface because the more often I’ve watched the film, I’ve realized not only is it far more shallow than it appears but when one considers the subtext – which is out in the open -  whatever message the writers are trying to say is not only botched but completely tone-deaf.

Let’s set aside the fact that Julian told everyone who was invited that they were going to die when they come and not only did no one take it seriously, the one person who did wanted to because it would be worth it if he could experience Julian’s cooking. The guest he invited (Anya Taylor-Joy) is a highly paid escort who Julian talks to with affection and opens himself up too. He decides to offer her the greatest gift – instead of dying with the patrons, she can die with the staff. When Taylor-Joy naturally says there is no difference Julian says: “Of course there is. Isn’t there?” And as one his kitchen says: “Yes chef!”

Now consider what that means. Julian has persuaded all of the people who have worked in the industry who now work for him that they can get revenge – and that revenge is to commit mass suicide. The moment they say this is the most horrifying moment in the film because it makes clear that for all of these chefs have essentially been brainwashed into kill. Julian is clearly as much a monster as all the people he has invited to die, and it’s worth noting that even the people he’s chosen to die are more or less there for arbitrary reasons. In perhaps the most unsettling case the film star (John Leguizamo) who’s come here for the first time wants to know why he’s been chosen. Julian tells him that on one of the few days off he had he went to see one of his films and it was terrible. That’s why he deserves to die. Leguizamo’s character starred in a bad movie. Julian doesn’t blame the writers, director or marketing staff: he blames the talent. Just as frightening is when Leguizamo’s date tells him that’s she innocent she’s in college. Julian pauses and asks where she went to college. When she tells him Brown, he basically dismisses her too.

That’s hardly the most offensive thing Julian does in the film: as was mentioned in a film review, at one point he compares himself to Martin Luther King in his suffering. The African-American guests realize the irony but are too terrified to do anything. And it’s clear he’s also a sexual predator: one of his female chefs tells the assembled (cheerfully) that he tried to screw her and that she rejected his sexual advances for months. She seems just as willing to die for him as anyone else. His maiter’d (Hong Chau) is threatened by the interest Julian takes in Anya-Taylor Joy’s character and when she goes to bathroom, Chau tries to kill her for ‘taking her place’. Taylor-Joy tries to find out why she wants to die for him, but she kills her by mistake.

And by the end of the movie it’s clear Julian is a snob and elitist who has no compassion for anyone or even the working class: he’s just as much a subject of the one percent as everyone else. There’s no difference between how the guests and service people die: the restaurant is essentially blown up with everybody inside it. I’m not sure what the message from The Menu is supposed to be but charitably, the film is the story of a deranged cult leader, a racist and sexual predator, who has convinced dozens of working class people to kill themselves for some vague greater good. I find it hard to understand how any of this is entertainment, certainly not comedy.

I’ve wanted to right about the flaws in The Menu for awhile and then earlier this month I started reading The Writing Retreat by Julia Bartz.  According to the book jacket Bartz is a practicing therapist and this is her first novel. And I devoured it in less than a week.

I mention The Menu because of an old quote of Truffaut about how the best way to criticize a movie is to make another movie. This isn’t the same thing; The Writing Retreat is only a novel (so far) but it takes so many of the precepts at the center of The Menu, does them infinitely better, uses a different set of characters that reveal the flaws of the film and asks far more frightening questions – which Bartz is more than willing to answer her share – and most importantly by having all of the major characters women, asks deeper and more unsettling questions that will linger after you turn the final page. And she does in a novel that is also terrifying and hysterically funny often in the same page.

The novel is told from the perspective of Alex, a thirty year old woman who has all but given up any idea of being a published writer. At the start of the book she’s going to a book party of her friend Ursula, who has just gotten her first book published. Alex is terrified she will encounter her former roommate and best friend Wren, who has just become a published author in her own right. Just seeing Wren there forces her to leave the party, get drunk and engage in a sexual encounter with a colleague that ends horrifically.

That night Ursula calls her and tells her about a writing retreat that is being planned by Roza Vallo, a personal idol of Alex since she was thirteen. We read a New York Times Magazine article and we learn Roza is a horror novelists that merges Gothic horror with erotic sex as well as queer themes. She broke on to the scene at nineteen and gaps have come between each published novel: there was one of twelve years between her last two and the last one was nine years ago. Rosa has announced a month-long retreat for four authors under thirty in her upstate New York mansion in the Adirondacks  Her first line in the interview is: “People think I’m a witch,” and she cheerfully says she’s a bad one. That’s the clearest foreshadowing of who Roza is, though in the context of this novel it’s not a sign of the paranormal.

Alex ends up getting invited to the retreat thanks to Ursula, but she doesn’t mention she hasn’t written anything in nearly a year. She doesn’t know that’s about to be the least of her problems.

As she arrives at the retreat she learns the history of Blackbriar, the nearly 200 year old mansion that Roza purchased and has refurbished. Like any good horror novel, the mansion has a sordid history. It was owned by a wealthy industrialist who fell in love with a much younger waitress and married her. She was part of the spiritualist community and as part of her channeling, claiming to have contacted a demon named Lamia, who wanted to channel a ‘great commission’ through her. Her colleagues left, there was a snowstorm and when the staff returned, Horace was eviscerated bed and Daphne was in the basement, her body burned beyond recognition – with three completed paintings nearby.

Alex very quickly meets the four other women who were invited: Poppy, who comes in with Alex, Keira, the only woman of color at the retreat, Taylor a young woman form Atlanta – and Wren, who was also invited. The warning signs start coming fast and furious: we’re told in advance cell coverage is spotty, the wi-fi quickly dies the moment everyone gets to the mansion, they drive to a very isolated space and the friendly drivers who tells everybody who comes there warns them about the big snowfalls that come sporadically.

We also meet two members of Roza’s staff: Yana, her assistant and Chitra, her chef. Neither seems particularly happy to be working for one of the greatest authors of her generation. That’s the other warning sign: Roza, for all her feminism and being a member of the MeToo generation has never hired BIPOC above the assistant level.

Roza doesn’t appear until dinner that night. And she makes it clear immediately that this is not going to be a friendly retreat. She demands that if they have any novels their working on they scrap them, and that they’re going to write a new novel in the next thirty days. There are limits of 3000 words a day that can’t be broken, they will meet every day to criticize everyone else’s work and they will be serving as an editor. Roza will meet with each of them individually but only joins them for dinner occasionally.

It's telling that at the start of the retreat Alex thinks her biggest problem is the presence of Wren, who she complains about to her friends at the retreat as to why their friendship shattered. I won’t reveal it her, but it’s clear that Wren still sees herself as the wronged party and has no interest in letting bygones be bygones.

Soon, however, there are larger concerns for Alex. She begins to have strangely erotic dreams that involve lesbian encounters. (Alex believes she is heterosexual at the start of the novel.) Wren seems determined to use the retreat as a feud. Roza’s meetings with Alex take on the less idea of inspiration and become more surface then anything. And it’s clear that Roza seems to enjoy pitting the women of this retreat each other, engaging in gamesmanship – or perhaps the more accurate word is ‘gameswomanship’ Roza seems to enjoy pitting the woman against each other, claiming it leads to creativity. But before the retreat is half over, we realize her cruelty when she drugs everyone in the retreat without their consent – with LSD.

The day after everyone wakes up there has been a massive snowstorm and it seems like one of the women has walked out into the snow. And now I will start to grow vague because you should find the rest of the secrets by yourself.

Because The Writing Retreat involves a horror novelist, you may find yourself expecting supernatural overtones and while they are there, that is not the story Bartz is interesting in telling. It probably won’t surprise you to know that Roza is not who she seems to be and while I won’t give everything away, the references I’ve made to The Menu, Chef Julian and the staff of his restaurant might give you a hint as to the kind of person Roza is. The difference is that Roza is a lesbian and a woman of prominence but as we learn the true backstory of how Roza Lazlo became Roza Lazlo, we realize the nature of her nature in a way The Menu never tapped with Julian – and Bartz is fully aware of the implications and doesn’t shy away from them.

Late in the novel a terrified Alex listens to Roza explain exactly who she is. She claims to have a calling -  ‘a creative midwife’ she says. When Alex in disbelief that she’s described herself an editor, Roza dismisses the idea. But Roza is an editor. By the time she reveals it we see that Roza has the kind of personality of an editor: she takes people who are gifted, breaks them beyond recognition, and makes them serve her even after she’s done so. That is the definition of editing of a personality. Another word would be ‘grooming’ and its very clear by this point that’s exactly what Roza has been doing to all of those around her.

There’s also a question that Bartz implies but doesn’t state; something about the feminist movement and the role of woman overall. What’s happened has taken place over years, decades even and its only until now that people have become suspicious. Did Roza Lazlo get away with everything she’s done because she was a woman? Did male society think her incapable because of toxic masculinity and did female society think her incapable because she was a public ally and therefore someone who deserved the benefit of the doubt?

Now if I’ve made this novel sound to grim, I should also mention that The Writing Retreat is also a brilliant meld of many genres: locked room mystery, satire, and of course horror.  This is a novel that has so many winks to Stephen King you probably would lose count, including the fact that all four versions of the archetypes he illustrated in Danse Macabre – the Werewolf, the Vampire, the Thing Without a Name and The Ghost – are all on display in some form as the novel progresses. None of them are in the supernatural context, I need to make that clear, but it seems that way to Alex.

Bartz pays tribute to other authors as this novel progresses and the one I’m reminded of the most is Peter Straub, King’s colleague and occasional collaborator who also wrote some of the best horror and suspense novels I’ve ever read. His best work frequently had a sexual undertone, most notably Ghost Story, If You Could See Me Now and Floating Dragon and there’s a clear sexual nature in so much of what happens that it's a fitting tribute.

Of course other readers will remember King’s series of horror stories about writers as well: you’ll be reminded not only of Misery and The Dark Half, but also Bag of Bones and Secret Window, Secret Garden. The difference is, of course, that all of the major characters are women which as we all know King has had a lot of trouble get right over his long career. That Bartz has managed to hit all of these tones – again, in her first published novel – is astounding to me. And it’s clear Bartz has done her homework, the dedication to the novel is to her sister “who’s always up for a scary movie.” This book was published last year. I can only assume the movie and TV deals have already starting pouring in.

And it’s clear how much of Bartz’s training as a therapist is in this book: all of the characters are damaged in their own way – and in some cases have been damaged beyond repair by other characters. The Writing Retreat looks at the world women face but doesn’t have blinders as to how women can frequently be as toxic to themselves as the rest of the world can be. There’s an implication that Roza seeks out women who have experienced trauma in their lives because they are easy to manipulate and break. By the time the book is over, it’s clear that was one of the key purposes of the retreat as well. Roza is a sexual predator and it’s clear she’s as much a monster as the men she’s been targeting all her lives. And just like all the rich male ones her fame and public persona have protected her just as much.

I rarely have the joy of discovering the first novel of a writer that is as perfect as this. And I think the best way to close this review is to take Bartz and use some of the most famous closing lines in the history of Stephen King’s writing and paraphrase them to describe my feelings towards her.

I hope Julia Bartz has a long and successful career.

I hope she becomes as a great writer as the ones I’ve mentioned.

I hope she didn’t have to live through an experience like Alex to get this novel published.

I hope.