Friday, January 26, 2024

Lost Rewatch: Jughead

 

 

Desmond’s role in Season Five is significantly smaller than any other regular on the show: Henry Ian Cusick appears only in seven episodes, by far the fewest of the cast members. Yes, I know one character does appear in fewer episodes, but that character not only has more screen time but is more directly involved in the events that take place. By contrast Jughead is the only episode in Season Five where Desmond is at the center of the action; in the remaining six episodes he has only a few scenes and very little dialogue in the remainder. By contrast Nestor Carbonell and Jeff Fahey, who are not regulars, appear in more episodes and far more critical to the action.

But despite that it’s hard to watch Season Five and not feel Desmond’s significance to the story, even though he is the only character who does not appear on the island once during the action. There are many critical reasons for that, but there’s an argument that the key reason comes in the cold open.

We see Desmond running frantically in a foreign locale (it appears to be the Philippines) frantically screaming for a doctor. He then rushes back to the boat where Penny is howling in pain. At this point we only expect the worst from these things – so when we see that Penny is about to give birth, it gives us pause. And then the delivery…goes perfectly. Penny holds her son and she and Desmond embrace.

We’ve seen births on Lost before, but they’ve always been counterbalanced by action on the island that outweighs the joy of it. When Aaron was born, Boone was dying. When Ji Yeon was born in a flashforward, we followed that with Sun and Ji Yeon visiting Jin’s gravestone. In flashbacks Ben and Locke’s births ended with the death of Ben’s mother and Emily Locke immediately rejecting her son. And we know all too well what happens to pregnant women on the island. So when the next flashforward shows Desmond happily talking to his two year old son about a wonderful island (and his name is Charlie!) once again we see how apart from everyone else Desmond is. Unlike the Oceanic 6, Desmond is happier now that he left the island. (I love how we’re led to think he’s talking to Charlie about it when he starts cheering Great Britain.) And like them – and Ben, whose leading the charge – the idea of going back is repulsive. The moment Penny even hints at the idea, he scoffs: “Why would I want to go there?”

Now we know when we hear this line it’s a certainty that is going to happen, but I have to tell you that when I was watching it at home I was imploring the writers not to give in to foreshadowing. (I came away from Season Five actually thinking they were going to go against that very idea and they kept that illusion alive almost until the end of the series.) That said I knew Desmond could not be let go of entirely because of the message Dan had sent him that season. In retrospect, it’s clear there are other reasons Desmond needed to be at least tangential to the action if not directly involved.

The obvious reason is that its clear time travel is going to be critical to Season Five and Desmond is the only character whose actually done that before this season. There is also his connection to Dan and its becoming increasingly clear he is important to Season Five because of how well he understands physics. Dan is clearly taking a greater leadership role, and this episode is as much about him as Desmond.

Furthermore in 2007 Desmond, trying to pick up Faraday’s mother’s backtrail has discovered the link between him and Charles Widmore. We don’t need to be reminded of Desmond’s relationship with Widmore before, and now he’s the man’s son-in-law. And in the previous episode we saw the return of Ms. Hawking, who was helping Ben figure out how to return the island. We don’t yet know the exact connection between her and the island, but the only other character who we know has a link to her is Desmond.

The scenes in England are quite fascinating as we see yet again how relentless Desmond can be. Told that Oxford has no record of Dan Faraday, he goes to the physics department and finds the remains of Daniel’s lab. A sanitation worker tells him the dirty details about what Dan was up to, but also fills in a blank about a previous relationship.

Then Desmond finds Teresa Spencer, and its clear that she is a victim of the same time sickness that plagued Minkowski before he died, though in her case she’s still alive. It’s clear that we are made aware of existence to know that Dan abandoned her, showing yet another parallel between the two men: they both abandoned women they loved. Then Desmond learns that Widmore was funding Faraday’s research.

The next flashforward is far and away the high point of Cusick for Season Five. All but one of the episodes that were Desmond-centric have involved interactions between Widmore and him and in all of those interactions Desmond has been pleading for Widmore’s approval and Widmore is scornful of him. Not this time.

Desmond crashes into his office and Widmore is taken aback. He tells his nemesis that he has no intention of answering his questions and that he’s going to do something for him. He clearly takes Widmore by surprise when he reveals not only his connection to the boat but the funding of the research. Widmore’s questions about Penny are as close to compassionate about him as we’ve seen to this point but Desmond has no intention of giving an inch. Widmore gives in and for the first time tries to do something respectful and tell him how much danger he and Penny are in right now. Desmond’s response is full of the contempt he’s held for the man for a decade. Had this been their final interaction I would have been fine if the writers had left it that way.

The action on the island is set during the same time jump that was going on in the previous episode. Typically Lost gets rid of the last background characters in an unsentimental fashion: they are killed by a set of mines that were waiting for them by the Others. At this point in the action the only ones left on the island are the regulars here, possibly Bernard and Rose (it doesn’t seem like the show would kill them off as ignominiously as they would Frogurt) and whatever’s happened to Claire. (Hmm. Daniel Dae Kim is listed as a regular but we haven’t seen him in the action yet.)

The episode makes it clear that we are in 1954 and that the Others have just slaughtered everybody because they believe they were members of the U.S. Army. In keeping with American history, ‘Jughead’ reminds us that during the 1950s the military engaged in the testing of hydrogen bombs in the Pacific. Somehow the military found the island and The Others killed them. And just to prove how peaceful and life-affirming they are, some of them are wearing the uniforms of the soldiers they killed and carrying their weapons.

We meet Richard, who not surprisingly looks exactly the same as he did in the present. Well, it’s not surprising to the viewer or Juliet, but it comes as something of a shock to Locke and Sawyer when they see that. Juliet, unfortunately, seems to have resumed her policy of telling her friends as little as possible about what she knows. When she recognizes Cunningham and Jones as Others, she decides to talk in Latin rather than explain why and when Locke asks how old Richard is she just says: “Old.” Its times like this I get why some viewers never warmed to Juliet; she always seems to have one foot in both camps.

It doesn’t help that Locke, having stepped out of the jungle to save Sawyer and Juliet in the last episode, now seems less interested in helping them save their friends. He freezes when one of the Others escapes because ‘he’s one of my people’. When they find the camp, he is more interesting in having a conversation with Richard then helping Daniel. And he seems to spend too much time reaching out to Richard then helping the people in danger. I’ll grant you he may be thinking on how to stop the flashes and that he knows that Richard is the only person who might be able to help him.

Richard is just as unhelpful as before though it is worth noting that there are subtleties in 1954 Richard then the one we see in the present. Richard seemed to be Ben’s inferior for much of Season 3 but after The Brig, it was clear he had a larger purpose. He clearly has a larger connection to the island but it’s also clear that he’s not at the food chain. The conversation he has with Daniel says that the order to kill the soldiers came from higher up (presumably Jacob, though he never mentions him during the episode) but he also seems to have the authority to act as leader. Ellie and Widmore, however reluctantly, both listen to him and the remaining Others follow suit. He also confirms what we’ve seen in Ben and Locke’s flashbacks: that he has a role in determining who the leaders of the Others will be and that apparently allows him to leave the island and seek them out.

But that doesn’t mean he has all the answers: when Locke gives him the compass and tells him about their conversation, Richard is clearly puzzled about the time jumps and he clearly can’t believe that he would tell anybody – even himself – to give Locke the answers. When the island does jump Richard has no awareness of it happening and, just as the two previous times, he is gone when the jump finishes. The survivors seem to be skipping through time, but the natives  - who one would think had a deeper connection to the island – aren’t coming with them.

There are also other revelations, one of which is that we finally get confirmation of Widmore’s connection to the island. It now makes sense why, in the final flashforward of ‘The Shape of Things to Come’ as why he says to Ben: “The island is mine. It was once and it will be again.” We will never know how exactly he ended up being chosen but it’s clear he ended up on the island long before Ben was even born. And it’s now clear he was far more jittery as a teenager but just as arrogant and ruthless: he shows no hesitation at snapping the neck of a man he feels whose betrayed him, and he seems utterly willing to kill Locke until Richard pulls the gun off him. He also has the arrogance of youth; he’s sure there’s no way Locke could track him. There’s also the presence of a girl about the same age, only referred to as Ellie. Like Widmore, she has a similar vein of contempt and arrogance towards the outsiders and is clearly just as willing to kill. It’s also clear that, however she’s connected to the island, she has no conception of how important it is: when Dan tells her he’s from the future, she doesn’t believe him (and the look on her face when Sawyer confirms it is priceless).

This episode is as much about Dan as it is Desmond: he is the cause of everything Desmond is doing off the island and the only authority that people take seriously on it. At this point even Miles seems willing to defer to him, which shows how afraid he’s starting to become about what’s happening. Dan clearly seems to have an idea about when they are, and now has enough common sense to play along with the fiction that they are part of the team to disarm it. He also shows a certain amount of confidence with Ellie even at gunpoint, and it clearly unsettles her as he does it. Ellie seems to have Dan’s number when it comes to his lies, but his coolness unsettles her in a way that nothing else does. For reasons that will become painfully obvious, this will make an impression.

We also get the answer of how Richard has been following Locke his whole life. Locke told him to in 1954. But it throws into question everything we believe about John being chosen. Does his destiny only exist because he created it? Or is just as likely the island seems to be skipping throughout time to arrange for him to create it for himself? The skips the island is making don’t seem to be by chance which again makes us wonder: whose hands are on the Frozen Donkey Wheel?

Fitting with an episode about time travel, this episode ends with cliffhangers in the past, present and future. In the past Dan tells Ellie that they have to bury the Jughead bomb and if they do, everything will be fine because in fifty years the island is still there. But we also know you don’t introduce something as significant as a hydrogen bomb on a show if it isn’t going to go off at some point. The question is ‘when?” and at this point, we don’t just mean in terms of the series run.

After the flash, we get a very clear sense just how dangerous these jumps can be. There have been hints in the first three episodes that these jumps can be dangerous and Charlotte has been having symptoms throughout. Now (and critically after Dan declared his love for her) Charlotte’s nose begins spurting and she collapses unconscious in his arms. We’ve been wondering what ‘very bad things happened’ after the Oceanic 6 left and now its clear what one of them is. (Along with you know, all of the socks being killed, but we never cared about them and I’m assuming Locke left to try and save the people who could be saved.)

And then Desmond comes back to the boat, clearly wanting to put everything he’s learned behind him. Even without Widmore’s warning he doesn’t want to get involved in the craziness he spent the better part of three and a half years trying to escape. He just wants to live with his wife and son. But Desmond has always been about honor as much as love and that is one of the reasons that Penny loves him. So they make their way to Los Angeles –  not knowing that waiting for them is a man who swore to Widmore that he would kill his daughter.

And unlike almost everything else he says, Ben Linus absolutely was telling the truth.

Emmy Watch 2024 Phase 2: NAACP Image Awards

 

 

Ever since I came, admittedly very late, to the fact that the NAACP Image Awards has been covering television for decades, I have been intrigued by their nominations as well as awards. Just as I favor awards groups like the Critics Choice Awards for their selections frequently leading to me to series I would not normally watch, the Image Awards serve a similar purpose – though I should admit the two years I have been observing many of their TV nominations I’ve been more in accord with them than the Emmys at certain times. The fact that they were willing to nominate The Wonder Years, Women of the Movement, Ptolemy Grey and several critical figures connected with Better Call Saul and The Good Fight was always going to be something that would put them far more inclined to be in their good graces. No one ever did a hashtag #EmmysSoWhite but that may be more due to the fact that the Emmys started to recognize nominees of color around the time hashtags became a big deal.

I was also very intrigued to see the narrative they put forth this year as it’s pretty certain this will me the only major awards shows where The Crown and Succession are never going to be invited to the party no matter how good they are and Beef  seemed unlikely to be a presence.  (Turns out I was dead on about the former two, but wrong on the latter.) I was intrigued to see how they would do things all things considered. They did not disappoint.

I will start with comedy.

 

BEST COMEDY SERIES

Abbott Elementary and Harlem are hardly surprises. Ditto The Neighborhood. I’ve been hearing good things about UnPrisoned for a while; now I have another reason to track it down. I hadn’t heard of Survival of the Thickest, which is fairly prominent.

OUTSTANDING ACTOR IN A COMEDY

You continue to be in my good graces for nominated Dule Hill for the (sob) final season of The Wonder Years. Delroy Lindo is hardly a surprise and Cedric the Entertainer has been her the last couple of years. Ditto Mike Epps for The Upshaws, another one of those shows I’ll never get to see. Tone Bell is part of Survival.

 

OUTSTANDING ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

Each of the nominees is from one of the nominated series, a symmetry unheard of at the Emmys. I can hardly argue about Quinta Brunson and we may very well see Kerry Washington in the ranks of nominees this next year. The rest are unlikely.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A COMEDY SERIES

Mostly familiar faces. I hope someday William Stanford Davis breaks through at the Emmys for Abbott Elementary; he has the innate ability to steal every seen he’s in. Tyler James Williams, Roy Wood Jr. and Keenan Thompson are legends at this point. I will refrain on Harlem

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

Apparently the Image didn’t get the message: Ayo Edebiri is nominated for Best Supporting Actress for The Bear instead of Actress. Janelle James and Sheryl Lee Ralph no surprises. Ditto Ego Nwodim for her work on SNL.

 

OUTSTANDING DRAMA SERIES

And you’re now on my Christmas Card list for nominating Found. Snowfall may do very well here and I guess Queen Charlotte is to be expected. I think I may actually start watching Bel-Air now that I have Peacock; I’ll make up my mind on Black Cake.

 

OUTSTANDING ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES

Keep it up. Jesse L. Martin joins the ranks for The Irrational. I grant you he’ll probably lose to Damson Idris to Snowfall but I’m fine with this. Idris Elba and Forest Whitaker, I’m glad to see you getting the love you deserve and I’ll keep giving room to Jabari Banks

OUTSTANDING ACTRESS IN A DRAMA SERIES

My first problem. Why is there nothing for Shanola Hampton? You’d expect it if they nominated Found.

Angela Bassett and Queen Latifah make perfect sense and I’m more than fine with Octavia Spencer for Truth Be Told. I can see a certain logic for India Ria Amartefio for Queen Charlotte. Zoe Saldana, I just can’t see her over Hampton.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A DRAMA

You can’t have a party without Giancarlo Esposito who apparently can’t stand still for five minutes without working in TV. I’m always glad to see Wendell Pierce in the ranks and Jack Ryan should have gotten more live. Snowfall and Bel-Air being here make sense and I have little problem with a nominee from Chicago PD.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS DRAMA SERIES

Considering Nicole Beharie was nominated by the Critics Choice Awards for her role in The Morning Show she may well be considered by the Emmys. There’s a bit too much love for Queen Charlotte for my taste, but I prefer that to Grey’s Anatomy.

 

OUTSTANDING TV MOVIE, LIMITED SERIES SPECIAL

Swarm has gotten more than it’s share of recognition and I suspect Lawmen: Bass  Reeves will too. Black Girl Missing actually took the prize for Best TV Movie from the Critics Choice and I’ve seen Heist 88.

 

OUTSTANDING ACTOR IN A TV MOVIE, LIMITED SERIES OR SPECIAL

I’m thrilled to see Lance Reddick recognized for his final performance in The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial. And there is no awards show that can give enough recognition to either Samuel L. Jackson or Courtney B. Vance (though Secret Invasion is not the kind of think that works.) Always glad to see Bryan Tyree Henry in the mix, even for a mess like Class of ’09. Keith Powers for A Perfect Find – this is because of the strike right.

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A TV MOVIE, LIMITED SERIES OR SPECIAL.

I didn’t expect to find Ali Wong here. Dominique Fishback, of course, but not Wong. Let’s let that go. Gabrielle Union, hmm. Lot of TV movies.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR, TV MOVIE, LIMITED SERIES, SPECIAL

This is more logical. Damon Idris and Don Cheadle make sense and Full Circle never got the praise it deserves. But the fact that two of the best supporting performances of the year in Fellow Travelers were ignored for two TV movies, not thrilled.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS, TV MOVIE, LIMITED SERIES, SPECIAL

Aja Naomi King will be included for Lessons in Chemistry and I’m thrilled to see CCH Pounder and MJ Rodriguez here. I’ll let the rest go.

 

OUTSTANDING GET PERFORAMCE

I will not argue with Ayo Edebiri, Roy Wood Jr, Michael B. Jordan (for SNL) or Giancarlo Esposito. I do question as to why Taraji P. Henson isn’t here.

 

WRITING COMEDY

No question about Abbott Elementary or Swarm. Survival of the Thickest is logical by extension. I guess Disney counts more than say, Harlem or UnPrisoned.

 

WRITING DRAMA

I guess Beef crosses all racial boundaries. Thrilled that Found is here, not surprised Shonda Rhimes is here (for Queen Charlotte). Bel-Air and Black Cake but not Snowfall.

 

DIRECTING DRAMA

Power Book II: Ghost is here twice (though it was absent from most of the rest of the categories) Snowfall has two nods and Godfather of Harlem one.

 

DIRECTING COMEDY

Swarm and UnPrisoned are here, as is Survival and The Upshaws. Glad to see Grand Crew got recognized on its way out the door.

 

All in all, an intriguing group of nominees though I suspect it is because of the strike this year that there are fewer than usual and a bigger reliance on TV movies than I’ve seen in years past. UnPrisoned is now high on my to-do list in the year to come and I should probably track down Bass Reeves as its been doing well in the Critics Awards. (Though oddly enough David Oyelowo, whose been getting a lot of recognition was not nominated by the Images.)

In the next couple of days I will get to the People’s Choice Awards which are more interesting then they usually are.

Thursday, January 25, 2024

Constant Reader Book of the Month January 2024: This Golden State

 

1.No one can know your real name.

2. Don’t stay in one place too long.

3.If you sense anything is wrong, go immediately to the meeting spot.

4.Keeping our family together is everything.

5.We wish we could tell you who we are, but we can’t. Please – do not ask.

 

At the start of Sidney Lumet’s Running On Empty, the Pope family is about their home and their youngest son takes the family dog and leaves him on the street. We don’t know yet the details of why the Popes family is doing this, but it’s immediately clear that this has happened countless times before.

I don’t know if Marit Weisenberg, the author of This Golden State,  a book which basically starts the same way and has a plot that mirrors it, saw the movie at some point. What is clear from her book is that Poppy, the narrator of the story, never has and even she had she would envy the Pope family. At least they are allowed to have dogs or  possessions – or even know why they have to keep running in the first place

When the book begins Poppy is leaving yet another high school with the instructions from her father that they are about to move again. Poppy is about to turn eighteen and she has been on the road her entire life. She is resentful and upset at the way her life is lived, angry beyond words and it takes only a few pages to learn why.

Her parents have been doing this her entire life, never staying in the same place for more than a few months, always going to a new place, never explaining anything. They have no access to technology, they can’t use Wi-Fi, they can only go to places like the library under their father’s strict guard and never take any books out. They only communicate through flip phones that are at least fifteen years old. Poppy has been going to school in so many states she’s practically lost count, only for a few weeks or a couple of months at most, always lying about who she is, never allowed to bring people home, never staying anywhere long enough to even make friends in the first place. The life of Poppy and her eight year old sister is so shut in that she tells stories of them fighting over catalogs in order to deal with boredom.

This would be bad enough as it but they have no idea why they are living this way in the first place. The set of rules that I mentioned at the start of the book are facts that their parents have drilled into their heads instead of anything resembling an explanation to them. Emma, who is eight years old, can already repeat it without thinking. Their control over this is so great that they have never even told their children their real names (they are only referred to as Mom and Dad during the novel and I will do the same)

As the book begins they are moving to California for reasons that Poppy doesn’t understand but doesn’t bother to question because she knows she will get no answer. By this point Poppy has become in addition to the normal level of teenage rebellion, starting to genuinely become frustrated about what will happen when she turns eighteen this summer. Her father always deflects when the question is asked – he has done this for years. Finally when they reach their destination Poppy learns about a summer course at STEM that she wants to take. Poppy has learned by now that to never ask for anything for herself, so he is understandably stunned when she is allowed to do so.

Poppy spends the summer in an advanced math course taught by a Russian ex-patriot named Professor Alexiev. Alexiev is only thirty and she very quickly sees how talented Poppy is, something that dismays Poppy as much as it gives her hope. She also meets a young man named Harry Addison, who is immensely well-know to the students in the class but not Poppy. Poppy’s first impression is that he is something of a dilettante, and she wants to avoid him even more when she learns that he is the son of one of the most ambitious prosecutors in the state. That Harrison is attracted to her is something she ignores because if friends are never possible, love is even more forbidden, even if she had the time to do so.

But she learns that Harrison is interested in her, mainly because she doesn’t know who he is. She does everything she can to avoid it, but in the middle of the summer, someone from a tech company that deals with genetics offers her a free DNA test. This is an opportunity to get the answers she’s been looking for without having to go through the stonewall that are her parents so she steals one and Harrison notices. Because he doesn’t ask any questions she takes the test, figuring it will lead nowhere. For obvious reasons, it does.

Now I will leave the general plot from Poppy’s perspective and look it from her parents. Neither of them are very well defined in the book, and that may be design: Poppy knows nothing about who her parents were and even less about who they are. She is understandably rebellious and frustrated but given everything you might ask why she never considers the idea of simply running away.

The obvious answer is she is so removed from technology and her father controls so much of the money and identities that she could not do it easily. But the larger point is that even now Poppy has been so indoctrinated into her parents – and mostly her father’s mindset – that even the idea of absence from her family for more than  a few minutes throws her into a state of terror and panic. She knows how horrible her life is but she also knows if she dares to ask for anything she will be shut down.

We eventually learn that Harrison, for all his privilege, lives under the immense pressure of an aggressive mother and has been raised by an abusive father. Weisenberg does this deliberately because Harrison recognizes when the truth comes out just how abused Poppy has been, to the point that the idea of leaving her family is something that she can’t even begin to take seriously.

Now I come back to rule number 4. The idea that ‘family is everything’ has been drilled so hard into Poppy and Emma’s heads that they don’t even bother to question that there’s anything else but it. Both children are incredible clever and talented – Poppy has a great mind, particularly for figures, Emma can read above her level and is an immensely talented dancer.  But Poppy is very aware that, if things continue to go the way they are, the two of them will never realize their potential because of how their parents have forced them to live their lives.

There is also the fact that her parents both seem to see them as the same children they were when they were born. On Poppy’s eighteenth birthday, her father reminds her of how she looked when she was a baby, something Poppy doesn’t know because they have never taken pictures. “Would it still feel right to have my dad greet me on my birthday and talk about me as if I were in pigtails?” she thinks. The presents she gets are reflective of that – it is a blank notebook with an elephant on it. “Because I was obsessed with elephants once and my family still thought I was eight.” Poppy’s response is: “I’ll add it to my collection” – most of which has been left behind when they are forced to move.

Poppy’s father completely misses the delivery. As the book goes on, it becomes very clear that both Poppy’s parents have been seeing what they want to see about their children their entire lives. And it is that which truly makes them horrible parents – and horrible people.

I will speak in vague terms of the truth of Poppy’s parents and the reason they are running. What I will say is that while Poppy thinks it is a truly monstrous thing, in the grand scheme of things it is very insignificant. The crime took place in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and involved Poppy’s mother being connected to a ‘terrorist group.’ Poppy’s mother comes from a very wealthy family. Her father was a family friend, and as we have been led to believe has military training. There was a crime to be sure, but her mother’s involvement was minimal and her father merely guilty of bad judgment. It is the kind of crime that could easily be beaten in court if you have assets and her family does and is clearly willing to protect.

We also get the feeling that all of the moving Poppy’s family has done over the years has had more to do with her father’s paranoia than any actual threat. This is completely rational. The crime is not the kind that commands a massive task force, and it was twenty years ago. There is no Inspector Javert chasing them from state to state. All of these are the things that any rational person would think of, and Poppy’s parents are not stupid.

So why are they always running? Late in the novel when Poppy learns the truth, her mother tells her they are doing it because of their family. But it’s clear that’s a lie they’ve been telling themselves for so long that they believe it. There are several reasons that seem more likely.

The first, as long as they keep running, Poppy’s parents never have to face the consequences of their actions. This is far more important to her father than her mother; as we find out late in the novel his entire reason for doing this is built on a house of cards that he does not want to do anything to upset.

The second is that they want to maintain the illusion that time has stood still. We eventually learn that her mother has a very great ability to maintain the idea she has complete control over things and that in fact she enjoyed part of what was happening. Perhaps as long as they keep moving she is living some kind of vicarious thrill. Her father, who has always believed in protection and safety from this training, can keep up his attitude as the savior of the people he loves – an illusion which keeps getting thinner. That’s also why they never tell their children who they are and what they’ve done: they want to maintain the illusion and by not asking the questions, they can stay who they are.

And third as long as they keep running, they never have to face reality. For all their repeating of how family is everything, neither parent seems able to face the fact that at some point, the child has to leave the parent. Late in the novel Poppy asks directly what the plans for her future are. Her father says simply: “There isn’t one.” Poppy realizes that her life would eventually be three adults raising Emma. And what happens when Emma grows up?

The thing is, and it doesn’t even occur to Poppy late in the novel, is that none of this had to happen. Her parents are guilty of crimes, not her, not Emma. Even a life in foster care would have had steadiness and consistently that her life on the run has been. And as we learn there were other people in both of their lives they could have left their children to even if they had wanted to either stop running or even turn themselves in and face the consequences. At the very least, if they explained who they were and why, they would not have had to face the inevitable consequences of simple childhood curiosity. And it’s because of those very reasons that, by the novel, Poppy’s family finally faces the danger they have avoided for decades.

By the end of the novel, as is always the case, they are about to run again even before that danger comes. I will not reveal how the final chapters play out, though considering how these stories tend to in fiction, you may have an idea already. It is melancholy and bittersweet, but that is par for the course for these kinds of stories.

It does come down to rule number four, as it has throughout the book. What I will say is that by the end of the novel, we now know for sure that Poppy has learned that’s not true, but there’s a lot of doubt as to whether her parents have – or  if they ever will.

Did We Ever Get True Detective Right? Night Country Is Another Argument That We Didn't

 

 

When True Detective came out in January of 2014, it seemed like a breath of fresh air, what the world of Peak TV could and should look like in an era that was transitioning after the departure of Breaking Bad the previous September. In December of 2014, in what would be their end of year retrospective, the magazine Entertainment Weekly aired side by side two retrospectives of Season 1: one defending it as a masterpiece, the other calling an utter and complete failure. The fact that in that same issue the magazine listed the scene where Matthew McConaughey says “Time is a flat circle’ the best scene in all of 2014 reflects the polarizing nature of the show.

I remember having similar feelings. Looking at my initial review, I thought that the first episodes indicated a potential masterpiece and I hailed the performances of Harrelson and McConaughey as some of the best work I’d seen in TV in a long time. However, when I looked at my top ten list for 2014 True Detective wasn’t even on it. That in itself means nothing – among the series I considered superior that year were MTV’s Faking It and the first season of The Mindy Project – but it does reflect how much my opinion had changed since the start of the year that I don’t even remember thinking twice about including it.

Now, as we commemorate the tenth anniversary of its debut, I’m starting to wonder if critics like myself got it wrong from the start about the show. I do appreciate what it did for the limited series genre; it’s debut along with Fargo in 2014 jolted a medium that really didn’t exist (certainly not out of the confines of HBO) into what has now essentially become the golden age of Limited Series. I didn’t even bother to cover them back in 2014 when I was doing blow-by-blows for awards show such as the Emmys; now because they are so vital to the industry I find myself constantly wondering which I should watch. And while many aspects of TV are in transition, few would dispute the Limited Series remains at peak valued. When the HCA can find twelve candidates to nominated for Best Limited Series on Broadcast, Cable and Streaming and yet somehow not include among them White House Plumbers, George and Tammy, The Patient and Love and Death, then I’d say we’ll be fine there for a while to come.

But ten years later, I’m starting to wonder what there was about True Detective that so many people – I include myself – really thought was so incredible. I acknowledge that technically so many parts of it were magnificent: the brilliant camera work and direction by Cary Jo Fujikawa, the mood set by the music of T-Bone Burnett and the masterful performances by the two leads. But all of this seem to be window dressing to a story that at the end of the day really doesn’t have anything we hadn’t already seen before a hundred times.

Ritualistic pose of a naked woman, turns out to be a prostitute? Pretty sure Criminal Minds or Law & Order: SVU does it at least three times a season and wraps it up in an hour. Two partners, one a family man, one with a very dark past and mindset? That’s not that different from the set-up from Lethal Weapon, though Mel Gibson was not nearly as philosophical about his darkness and more suicidal than Cohle is. Detective who seems to have a knack for profiling bizarre cases? That’s how Fox Mulder started out, and it’s basically the definition of so many criminal profilers. (In fact Cohle in both philosophy and eerie ability to see things not that far removed from Frank Black in Millennium.)  And when it comes to the reason Hart and Cohle were estranged, it was the cliché we’ve seen so many times before: Hart’s wife had sex with Cohle and the two had a fight over it. Even the idea of two former partners getting back together to solve a case they thought they had, that’s the plot of so many films I don’t even have to bother to list them all, you can probably think of them without trying.

What is unique in the first season was Nic Pizzolato starting a pattern of a setup with supernatural overtones that he never pays off on. You get the feeling with him that the mystery part of the procedural – which is, for all intents and purpose all True Detective, is the least interesting part to him. That wouldn’t necessarily be a flaw if he were at least willing to follow through with it at the end. But after a season of building up the possibility of the supernatural, he reveals that the killers was human and traditional all along. I’m actually more shocked that Pizzolato was appalled so many people got the idea this was supernatural when he’d spent six episodes implying it. And that tone basically held clear in all subsequent versions.

What’s really shocking, considering how anticlimactic most fans found the end of Season 1 was just how high the expectations were going forward. Don’t get me wrong: the second season was absolutely horrible and more than deserves all the scorn it got at the time and today. I’m also relatively unsure it would have worked had it come under a different brand. But I still don’t know why so many people thought considering how mediocre the story was, why the second season, which is essentially the same type of story, albeit more in LA, was such a disappointment.

I thought the third season was a huge improvement: that one did make my top ten list of 2019. (Don’t judge me that highly; Chernobyl wasn’t on that list.) I still believe the work of Mahershala Ali was worthy of an Emmy and that Stephen Dorff and Carmen Ejogo were robbed of nominations. But the fundamental flaws were still there and that’s because it was too close to the first version. It only worked at all because it managed to rise and fall on the work of Ali but there were still basically all the same flaws that were there and even less of a payout at the end.

What becomes increasingly frustrating with each new season of True Detective is how much better other limited series are at not only making a compelling mystery, but also building character around it and a compelling ending. HBO alone has in the decade since True Detective debuted given us The Night of, Big Little Lies (the first season) Sharp Objects, The Undoing, and Mare of Easttown. Yes the murder at the center of each show was a jumping off-point for a character study but none of these series forgot the murder mattered and they went out of their way to make the solution resonate. By contrast Pizzolato basically seemed to spend three seasons having a lot of intense cinematography and editing, around some deep, mostly misogynistic philosophies and the solution matters nothing to the protagonists and apparently less to the creator.

All of which is a roundabout way of wondering that when I got around to watching the first two episodes of  Night Country, the fourth season of True Detective, I wasn’t sure whether to be optimistic or expect more of the same. To be sure, it wants you to believe that it’s going to be in a completely different vein of the three previous seasons. (Officially it’s not even part of that series, it’s based on it though Pizzolato, Harrelson and McConaughey are among the executive producers.)

It has a different creative force: Issa Lopez, who wrote and directed all six episodes. It’s set in Alaska in December, right after the sun sets for the last time in the year and it’s just within range of the Arctic Circle. Considering that all three seasons were essentially set mostly in sun-drenched, often desert locales, that’s a decent move forward. And unlike all three incarnations where female characters were either victims or sex objects, Night Country has a primarily female cast. Jodie Foster is making her TV debut in nearly a half century of acting as Chief Danvers, Kali Reis plays Deputy Navarro, a woman of color in a region of the county where she stands out even more and a powerhouse talent such as Fiona Shaw, looking both frail and powerful. I want to believe that this version of True Detective has learned from its mistakes and has found a way to deliver a compelling narrative that corrects all those flaws. But I have been down this road too many times before, and it’s hard to ignore the fact that, at least in the first two episodes, while there have been many changes, they all seem to be more atmospheric rather than dealing with the flaws at the center of every incarnation including the first.

The set up in the first two episodes at least has a certain level of difference. The series begins with the sun about to go down and were in an Alaskan station where a bunch of men are going through was appears to be unwinding after a hard day’s work. Then in the midst of their dining, one of the men begins to have a seizure and says: “She’s here.” Then the power goes out. Three days later the supply man drives up to find the station deserted, except for a tongue.

Danvers is called to the station when it is found deserted and spends the first episode trying to figure out if the eight men in the station have just gone missing or are dead. Navarro shows up when she learns about the tongue and  she believes the tongue has to do with an indigenous activist who was brutally murdered six years ago with her tongue cut out and never found. The two have a history and Danvers tells her to get lost. Naturally she then begins to pursue the activist’s death with her new favorite, a young policeman who is married, has a toddler son – and happens to be the son of the former chief who still works there (John Hawkes). She then uses him to go into his father’s house and steal files on the case under false pretenses and when his father finds out, he slaps him and berates him.

Eventually the bodies are found on the ice, frozen together, naked and showing signs of self-harm. Their clothes are found several feet away, neatly folded. The local authority from Anchorage (Christopher Eccleston) shows up and claims jurisdiction. Danvers refuses to bend, reads the regulations and wants the body thawed. She then takes over the ice rink for it to happen.

Navarro continues to pursue the case starting by talking to the woman who found them (Shaw). We saw her see a ghost lead her on to the ice, something she was very aware of and tells Navarro when she sees her. She is quite open when it comes to discussing both the dead and the spiritual. Both Danvers and Navarro realize there is a link between a tattoo on the body and one that one the coat of one of the victims. Clarke was that man, and he was apparently having an affair with her.

All of this, naturally, is discussed with the tenor we get with every season of True Detective. People speak in portentous tones about the afterlife, there are hints of supernatural as well as the discussion of the dead. And it is this, more than anything, that convinces me that all of the changes that have made are merely window dressing for the same old story the show has been telling for ten years.

Because while the climate and genders for the leads have been reversed, nothing is fundamentally different. Danvers and Navarro were formerly allies who clashed on an old investigation and are no longer speaking. Both women have sex with whoever they want indiscriminately; Danvers has sex with the Anchorage chief who was her old boss and, surprise, surprise, was her ex-husband. Both Navarro and Danvers are haunted by traumas from their past; Navarro is deeply spiritual, Danvers ruthlessly agnostic. Both are hated throughout their community – and it has nothing to do with toxic masculinity, the women hate Danvers as much as the men do. Danvers has a daughter who is a lesbian and also indigenous and has no use for her wanting to embrace her native culture. She treats her detectives as if they were disposable: Navarro has the habits that Powell did, and it’s clear that she is just as willing to use him up as it sees fit. If you’re going to change True Detective, you have to do more than just flip the genders of the protagonists to cure the problem: psychologically and mentally, they are essentially the same as, well, every male protagonist of True Detective.

Worse still is the maddening decision to argue that there is something spiritual and supernatural around all of the killings. We’ve seen since the first season: we’re showing a series of murders with the bodies positioned a certain way, there’s imagery that seems to indicate something bigger is at play, and there is discussion about subjects about bigger forces and the universe. And inevitably it is revealed that the killings are the subject of something far more mundane that, at the end of the day, is not merely anticlimactic but something the writers are barely interested in. The most I’m willing to say about Night Country is at least it’s willing to hedge its bets: there is discussion about not mistaking mental health for the supernatural and there is a very real possibility the killer is human and has merely gone insane. But that doesn’t change the fact that all of this is still telling a very long story about what could be solved in forty-five minutes on CSI.

And hell, we even have the presence of a famous actor around the same time they are competing for an Oscar and hoping to win an Emmy. Now with Foster it may be a different story – she already has two Oscars and the odds of her getting a third for Nyad are remote. There’s also the fact that Foster is at least doing more of a tweaking of her most famous character Clarice Starling and that she has been playing variations on this kind of character for a very long time. And because Foster is incapable of giving a bad performance and frequently being able to raise subpar material above the standards, she is by far the best thing about Night Country.

But again, how is that different from any previous season? Even the best seasons of True Detective asked you take the extraordinary acting above writing that involved deep-sounding dialogue surrounding a ritualistic mystery. At this point, I would be asking for more from True Detective, but Night Country essentially argues that no matter how much you changed the writers or leads, it has the same problem.

It doesn’t help that this is also the tenth anniversary of Fargo which is an infinitely better anthology series with far greater rewards then just being about a single crime. Fargo finished its fifth season the same week Night Country premiered and has already been nominated for Best Limited Series by the Golden Globes and Critics Choice awards. The great thing about Fargo is that Noah Hawley uses the story of a procedural to never tell the same story twice. There have been links between individual seasons (genuine ones, not Easter eggs like the kinds we sometimes get in True Detective) but each time Hawley and the wonderful casts he assembles are using crime to tell far larger stories about place, time, and the rise and fall of different elements not only of crime but society. He also leans more into the mystical in a way True Detective never does but he doesn’t necessarily bother with a logical or illogical explanation. But because this is the atmosphere of Fargo that weirdness is part of the point and charm.

Night Country, by contrast, continues the horrible condition of wanting to be about grand themes but rather just telling a mundane procedural. It doesn’t bother me so much that Lopez, like Pizzolato, won’t pick a lane but that she thinks this is one.

As the new season begins after the long night of the Hollywood strikes I am now with the benefit of having more choices of what to watch on Sunday nights. My first choice will be Monsieur Spade and then I will follow up with the promising Showtime series The Women in the Wall (watch this space for the review). As for Night Country, I’ll DVR and watch it with the hope that their might be some long-term improvements but I’m about as optimistic about that as, well, almost all of the characters in True Detective. Jodie Foster is magnificent to be sure, but after ten years of this, I think I deserve more than that in my Peak TV, I guess when it comes to the idea True Detective can change,  the show’s whole universe is, to paraphrase Rust Cohle, just one big ghetto. And I don’t have to spend time in it than I have too.

My score: 2.5 stars.

 

Wednesday, January 24, 2024

Hollywood's Relationship With British Actors Wasn't Always Special, Part 1: Introduction and The 'British Invasion'

 

Last night when I wrote about the complicated history Hollywood has with female directors, I mentioned that I was thinking of writing an article about the Oscars xenophobic attitude towards foreigners. I now think I know the best way to write that article – and I think it’s worth looking at it from a perspective few would consider and fewer still might actually consider bigotry.

Given the current attitude of awards shows across the board in the 21st century to give great, if not enormous amount of recognition in film and television to British actors, writers and directors to the point where some online think Hollywood is bigoted towards the English over minority groups, it might come as a shock to many that not only was that not always the case, but for at least the first half century of the Oscars existence, British writers and performers were not only considered outsiders to the industry, but their nominations and victories an offense to the order of the studio system, the men who controlled the industry and the Academy voters.

I realize this may seem a bizarre place to consider bigotry and many are rolling their eyes at the concept even to hear it. But the evidence does seem apparent when you look at the history of the major talents who are among those noted for being the most frequent among those ignored by the Oscars. Often the fact that Cary Grant and Alfred Hitchcock, two of the greatest talents in the history of Hollywood, never won Academy Awards is a sign of how moronic the Academy is. And it should be. Grant was one of the greatest movie stars in history and Hitchcock one of the greatest directors of all time. Grant got exactly two nominations, neither for a performance anywhere near considered his best work, and Hitchcock got a grand total of five nominations, none of them for Vertigo, North By Northwest, Notorious, Strangers on a Train…do I need to keep going? They were beloved by the industry and fans at the time; could the fact both men spoke with an accent have been at least part of the reason they got shafted year after year?

Then there’s the sad fact that the performers with the worst record with the Oscars are almost all British. Deborah Kerr holds the record for both Best Actress nominations without win, she was nominated six times and never won once. Considering that in three of the films she was nominated for – From Here to Eternity, The King and I, and Separate Tables – there was at least one other nominee who won an Oscar, it’s hard not to see this a reflection on here. The two male actors who have the worst record with the Academy were also from the United Kingdom: Richard Burton, who went 0 for 7 and Peter O’Toole, who went 0 for 8. (They were nominated against each other for their roles in Beckett; I’ll get to that in a later piece in this series.) Burton was one of the most famous stars in Hollywood for twenty years and O’Toole created some of the most iconic roles in film; it’s hard to see how they kept getting ignored.

Now it is worth noting part of the reason the Oscars have had a difficult time getting along with the British performer and writer was a combination of snobbery on one end. But there was, at least while the studio system was in existence and quite a while beyond that, a firm resistance towards the acting and directing of some of the greatest talents in history. And it’s hard not to see a  kind of very deep Anglophobia here which represents a very specific type of Hollywood was considered an ‘American’ institution that had the same bigotry towards outsiders then. Was it as obvious as their attitude towards African-Americans, women and other minorities? Of course not. But there’s something kind of insidious about looking down on people whose only difference between you and them is the accent they have.

So this series will deal with the problematic history between the Oscars and the Brits. And the place start, fittingly, is after World War II.

 

It’s worth noting that during the early years of the Oscars the English actors and writers had this way of looking down on Hollywood that was apparent almost from the start. Charles Laughton, the first British performer to win an Academy Award for Best Actor (The Private Life of Henry VIII) wasn’t at the ceremony to accept the award and never gave any sign he appreciated it. He never showed up for any of his other nominations or wins either.

This in itself was far from unusual; in the era when attendance to the Oscars was not mandatory, many of the biggest names in Hollywood basically chose to give the Oscars a pass. Katherine Hepburn never came to the Oscars for any of the twelve nominations or four wins she received; Spencer Tracy stopped showing up after his second win, and prominent actors like Paul Newman and Marlon Brando barely showed up for many of their nominations or wins (even before Brando decided to decline his Oscar for The Godfather.) But the English performers often showed a special sign of contempt. George Bernard Shaw won an Academy Award for Best Original Story for Pygmalion (an award that was phased out by the 1950s) and regarded it with disdain. “It’s absurd they give me such a prize; it’s like honoring George for being King of England,” he said after winning. (Shaw, for the record, was the first man to win both an Academy Award and a Nobel Prize.)

On the other end, some recipients were too grateful. When Greer Garson won her first Oscar for Mrs. Miniver, she started her speech with: “I am practically unprepared,” and then gave the longest speech in the history of the Oscars. (There’s debate as to how long; the estimate is it was at least ten minutes.) It not only became the subject of parody, but Garson’s speech was why the Oscars established the rule that you could only speak for thirty seconds after winning in the first place.

Still for most of the first eighteen years of Hollywood, the Oscars and the British performers mostly got along. But in 1946, the first full year after World War II ended, that began to change.

1946 was probably the first year Hollywood and more importantly American Critics became aware of movies outside the borders of the United States. Children of Paradise, the French film that is rumored to always be playing somewhere in France to this day, was released in the states and became a sensation. Open City, Roberto Rossellini example of neo-realism had a similar reaction. But the biggest player was the U.K. and two very specific talents.

David Lean had come to the attention of Hollywood with In Which We Serve, a British War Film which had been nominated for Best Picture in 1943. But his official launch to the ranks of great filmmakers came with Brief Encounter, his movie about two forty-ish married people who begin a flirtation that is close to an affair. Lean would spend the next decade being a pain in Britain before he won Hollywood’s acceptance. The movie won Best Feature at Cannes in 1946.

The bigger noise came from Laurence Olivier. Oliver had been part of the studio system for a while – he had received his first two Oscar nominations for Wuthering Heights and Rebecca and was considered one of the major leading men at the time. In 1944, he began working on an adaption of Henry V. Primarily organized to rally the British at home, it became one of the most popular films IN Britain though it was more admired then seen.

When awards season began the trouble started. The National Board of Review gave Best Picture to Henry V and Best Actor to Olivier. Olivier also won Best Actor from the New York Film Critics. Celia Johnson won Best Actress for Brief Encounter.

It is not as though Hollywood was lacking for great movies in 1946. Among the major contenders that year were The Best Years of Our Lives, the first real film to deal with the consequences of soldiers coming home to war, The Yearling, an adaptation that launched the careers of Gregory Peck and Jane Wyman to box office and critical success and It’s A Wonderful Life. There were also minor masterpieces such as The Killers, Notorious and The Razor’s Edges. But the Oscars had been a club exclusive for Hollywood and American made films and the bosses and gossip columnists were outraged that these ‘foreigners’ were crashing the party.

The mood did not improve when the nominations came out. Henry V was nominated for Best Picture which infuriated among others the notorious prickly David O. Selznick who was angry his film Duel in The Sun was ignored. Oliver was nominated for Best Actor and Johnson for Best Actress. David Lean received his first nomination for Best Director and Best Screenplay. That actually made people angrier then the nomination of Henry V. Children of Paradise and Open City also got nominated for writing awards and The Seventh Veil, another British film that had introduced the world to James Mason, was nominated for Best Original Screenplay as well.

On Oscar Night, the response was muted. The Seventh Veil won Best Original Screenplay and Oliver received an Honorary award for his achievements. But the Oscars and the bosses were clearly hoping this was a one-off. They were wrong.

The next year David Lean was back for Great Expectations, which among its other nominations was for Best Picture. Another major contender for nomination was Black Narcissus which reintroduced the Academy to Michael Powell. The films won Oscars for Art Decoration and Cinematography (Great Expectations for black and white; Black Narcissus for color.)  I should also mention the Oscars had decided to show how enlightened they were by giving three Academy Awards to Song of The South.

In 1948 things came to a head. Oliver was back with his adaptation of Hamlet and as Olivier began winning every Best Actor award in sight, and the film won Best Picture from the New York Film Critics, the Oscars were coming face to face with the fact they’d have to give this ‘Brit’ – who had not attended their ceremonies since 1940 – an Oscar. Just as annoying was the fact that Michael Powell was back with a just as brilliant masterpiece The Red Shoes. This film, set in the world of ballet, has held up better than Hamlet and clearly is one of the great films of all time.

That did not change the fact that when both of these films were among the major nominees for 1948 – Hamlet got six nominations; The Red Shoes got five – the Hollywood system was royally pissed at the idea of recognizing them. They focused their attention on The Snake Pit and Johnny Belinda, which were among the major contenders from the studio. In typical Hollywood fashion, they ignored the unquestioned masterpiece Treasure of The Sierra Madre which is one of the greatest films ever made. (It currently ranks #150 on imdb.com)

You sometimes wonder about the studio system in that when it came to most of the Oscars they actually got it right. Sierra Madre won Best Director and Best Screenplay for John Huston and Walter Huston took a prize for Best Supporting Actor. And yes Bogart did not get nominated for Best Actor, which is ridiculous. He might actually have been able to beat Olivier, which was what they wanted.

Still everybody was sure that Johnny Belinda would prevail on Oscar night, so the bosses accepted it when Olivier won Best Actor. Then came Best Picture and the winner was – Hamlet. There was noted sounds of surprise and disappointment in the theater and in the days to come, Olivier was the victim of a lot of outrage from the trades.

Olivier’s reputation with Hollywood never truly recovered after this. He would be nominated for six more Oscars in his career, two of them for his work in other Shakespearean adaptations Richard III (1956) and Othello (1965). But Hollywood never got over the win and they treated him with disdain. He responded by never coming back to the Oscars until 1978, when he was given a lifetime achievement award.

As for the ‘British Invasion’, it was basically over by 1949. Carol Reed was nominated for Best Director for The Fallen Idol but that was basically it. David Lean would not be recognized among the great directors until he came to Hollywood and began to work within the system. There is some debate among scholars whether his epics, which finally got him the Oscars films like Brief Encounter and Great Expectations did not, were actually lesser films. As we shall see in the next article in this series, it did little to improve his opinion among certain critics.

In the next article, I will deal with the next wave which began in the 1960s – when the British Invasion music was happening as well. As we’ll see, there was a similar amount of handwringing by the old guard there too.

Tuesday, January 23, 2024

The Academy Awards Complicated (And Far Too Often Problematic) History With Female Directors: A Forty Year Retrospective

 

Today Justine Triet, the director of Anatomy of a Fall joined an exclusive club. She became only the sixth director in the nearly 100 year history of the Academy Awards to be nominated for direction an international film that received a corresponding nomination for Best Picture. The others include Costas Gavras for Z, Roberto Bengini for Life is Beautiful, Ang Lee for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Michael Haneke for Amore and Bong Joon Ho for Parasite. Triet is the first female director to be nominated for directing an international film since 1976 when Lina Wertmuller became the first woman nominated for directing in Academy history for Seven Beauties. However that film was not nominated for Best Picture.

I mention all of this because I know how Hollywood and the media work and I am certain that Triet’s remarkable accomplishment will, at best, get a few mentions at the bottom of the pages of all of the entertainment journals and websites today, tomorrow and well past the Oscars next month. Because the big story in Hollywood today is how Greta Gerwig was snubbed by the Oscars for directing Barbie even though the film was nominated for eight other awards including Best Picture. The fact that Gerwig was nominated for producing and writing the film will be overlooked in the long saga of how another woman director was ignored. I imagine there will be some who will argue that Triet’s nomination was done so the Oscars could say they nominated a female director but ignore Gerwig. The possibility that Anatomy of A Fall is  a better film will not enter into the discussion at all because everybody saw Barbie and ‘no one’ saw Anatomy of A Fall. That the film took Best International Film and Best Screenplay at the Golden Globes and Barbie was basically ignored by them will do nothing to convince these people of the toxic sexism in Hollywood.

There’s a longer story to be told about the xenophobia that has always plagued the Oscars and has always regulated films that are not made in America to second class at best. I might end up writing that article someday. But the thing is, I am a student of Academy Award history and I also know all too well that these arguments of toxic sexism when it comes to female directors in Hollywood are anything but without merit. And since we have reached what is a dubious milestone in Hollywood history this same year, I think it’s worth discussing the very messed-up history of the Oscars when it comes to female directors, whether it comes to ignoring them out right, the industry’s attitude when they win and how even their victories often come at the expense of other minorities.

In 1983 Yentl was one of the big winners at the Golden Globes. It won Best Picture (Comedy or Musical) and Barbra Streisand made history by becoming the first female to win Best Director.

Streisand’s win was against very formidable competition. Among them were Mike Nichols for Silkwood, Ingmar Bergman for Fanny and Alexander and James L. Brooks for Terms of Endearment. The latter film had won Best Drama, Best Actress for Shirley MacLaine, Best Supporting Actor for Jack Nicholson and Best Screenplay. The fact that Streisand had beaten Brooks was a shakeup to the industry and a Best Director nomination seemed inevitable.

But when the Oscar nominations were announced, Streisand wasn’t nominated. Not just for directing, but anything. She has written, produced and starred in the film and been completely ignored. There had been criticism about Streisand and the movie – critics called it a passion project – but it was impossible to look at it as anything but a personal affront to Streisand and female directors in general.

The idea of the hyphenate was just become popular in 1983 and there were many critics who considered even the men who did these projects somewhat egomaniacal. In the four years prior Warren Beatty had become the first person since Orson Welles to be nominated for starring, writing, directing and producing a movie – twice. But he had won nothing for Heaven Can Wait and while Reds had won him Best Director, in a huge upset Best Picture went to Chariots of Fire. Woody Allen had been getting more recognition in this field; in 1977, he had won Best Director and Screenplay for Annie Hall but when he hadn’t shown up to accept the Oscars, Hollywood took the snub personally. (He was nominated for more Oscar than anyone in history; he never showed up for any of the nominations.) So at the time people might have been more inclined to consider the snubs for Streisand a sign that they believed performers like her were egomaniacs.

That became a lot harder eight years later when she directed The Prince of Tides. Unlike with Yentl, she was nominated by the Directors Guild and because the film was also widely acclaimed it seemed certain that she would get a nomination. The day of the nominations Prince of Tides was nominated for Best Picture and six other Oscars – but Streisand was ignored for directing (and acting, though fewer people noticed.)

This time it was impossible to ignore the sexism involved. And sadly much of this overshadowed what was a more significant accomplishment. John Singleton had become the first African-American ever to be nominated for both Best Director and Best Screenplay. While this was understandably celebrated in many circles, this became part of what would be an unfortunate pattern going forward the next thirty years – the Oscars trading one identity group against another.

Two years later the sexism could not be ignored. When Jane Campion’s The Piano came out it became one of the most acclaimed films of 1993, a triumph for the unknown New Zealand director, the debut of Anna Paquin and the stunning work of Holly Hunter. It was loved by millions. Then the critics awards started to come and the problems started.

The National Board of Review, LA Critics and New York Film Critics all gave Best Picture to Schindler’s List. All three also gave the Best Director and Screenplay prizes to The Piano. This baffled many Hollywood observers  but they were angrier that Steven Spielberg had been robbed rather than The Piano.

This began what became a toxic backlash against both the film and Campion and particular. Even after she became only the second woman in Oscar history to be nominated for Best Director, there was a rage that this upstart young ‘woman’ might take the Oscar from the beloved Steven Spielberg who had ‘paid his dues.’ The arguments had little to do with the quality of both films – both movies are works of art in my opinion – and the level of toxicity and back-scratching that takes place in Hollywood around Oscar season. Campion becoming the first woman to win an Academy Award for writing should have been a significant moment but it was lost in the coronation of both Spielberg and Schindler’s List.

A decade later, no one seemed that upset when Sofia Coppola managed to get nominated for three Oscars for Lost in Translation, including directing and screenplay. And no one objected that much when she lost to Peter Jackson for Best Director – it was Lord of The Rings year and it was Coppola’s second film. In a sense there may have been a certain amount of forgiveness here – Sofia had been ostracized by the community for her horrible performance in The Godfather III. The term ‘nepo baby’ didn’t exist in 1990, but it’s hard not to think of it applying in that case. Sofia Coppola has spent the next decade out of the public eye and was beginning to show promise as a great creative force in her own right. The fact that her second film is considered one of the masterpieces of the 21st century didn’t hurt.

The independent film industry at this point was beginning to flourish in a way it never had and female directors and writers were getting opportunities that would have been impossible twenty years earlier. This became clear in 2008, when three women were nominated for Best Original Screenplay. Diablo Cody won for Juno, but Tamara Jenkins was nominated for her brilliant dark comedy The Savages and Nancy Oliver for her quiet film Lars and the Real Girl. That same year Sarah Polley made her directorial debut for the brilliant dark movie of Away from Her and was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay. The times were changing.

The next year Kathryn Bigelow finally managed to do what Streisand, Campion and Coppola couldn’t: win an Oscar for Best Director. I have to say even now I’m not entirely sure if Bigelow won the Oscar for other reasons. For one, she was the ex-wife of James Cameron who had been nominated for Best Director for Avatar which had just become the highest grossing film of all time, outgrossing Cameron’s Titanic. Hollywood had been pissed when it his acceptance speech Cameron had shouted: “I’m the king of the world!” Throughout the awards season, The Hurt Locker had won the critics’ awards but Avatar was the popular favorite. Part of me still wonders if they gave the Best Director and Best Picture not so much out of her individual achievement, which was considerable, and as a thumb in the eye to Cameron saying, “these are the kind of films we like recognizing, not the ones you make.”

It did not help that The Hurt Locker an independent film had not been highly regarded by the Spirits, the major awards show for independent films. Neither Bigelow nor the movie was nominated for Best Picture. Indeed, the big winner that year had been Precious, which had taken five Spirits including Best Director and Screenplay for Lee Daniels. Daniels, like Bigelow, was nominated for Best Director, but the film won Best Screenplay instead. Geoffrey Fletcher was the first African-American to win for Best Screenplay, which was also significant.

The next decade showed more significant progress that the Oscars had in the previous eighty when it came to nominated minorities and women in writing and directing awards. But it is worth noting that one still came at the expense of the other – and often no one noticed the exclusion.

In 2012, the Hollywood community was outraged when Argo was nominated for Best Picture but Ben Affleck was not nominated for Best Director. Somehow it was missed that Affleck’s exclusion was just one of several oddities that same year – including that Kathryn Bigelow, who had been one of the heavy favorites for Best Director for Zero Dark Thirty, had also been ignored. I remember many people being angry about Affleck’s exclusion; I don’t remember a similar level of it for Bigelow. Most likely that is because she, like Tom Hooper and Quentin Tarantino, who had also been among the notable snubs, had won before. That year Ang Lee won for Life of Pi, becoming the first Asian to win Best Director.

Five years later Greta Gerwig became the first woman since Bigelow to be nominated for Best Director for her direction of Lady Bird. That she went home empty handed didn’t seem a snub to many but rather the start of a long history. There had been wins of greater significance that same night. Jordan Peele had become the first African-American to win Best Original Screenplay for Get Out and Guillermo Del Toro had won Best Director for The Shape of Water. Del Toro’s win would be  the fifth time in six years a Mexican-born director won in that category between 2013 and 2018: Alfonso Cuaron had won for Gravity in 2013, Alejandro G. Iñárritu had won back to back for Birdman and The Revenant and Cuaron would win again the following year for Roma.

In 2019 things started to get strange. Little Women was nominated for Best Picture but Gerwig was not among the nominees for Best Director even though the film received eight nominations. She lost Best adapted screenplay to Taika Waititi for JoJo Rabbit but the big story that night was Parasite become the first international film in Oscar history to win Best Picture. Bong Joon-Ho became the second Asian to win Best Director and the first to win Best Original Screenplay.

Over the next two years female directors have had incredible triumphs at the Oscars and no one noticed. In 2021, Chloe Zhao became the first Asian-American woman to win Best Director. Emerald Fennell became the first to win Best Original Screenplay. Because we were all in lockdown and recovering from the events of the election and the aftermath, no one was watching the Oscars and those who did were upset that the late Chadwick Boseman hadn’t won Best Actor. The next year Jane Campion finally won Best Director and Sian Heder took Best Screenplay for CODA. All anyone was talking about the next day was Will Smith slapping Chris Rock. People did notice in 2022 when no women were nominated for Best Director and many seemed more upset that Sarah Polley had not been nominated for Best Director for Women Talking. She won for Best Adapted Screenplay, the third consecutive year that happened. Last year was also the year of Everything Everywhere All At Once as well as the greatest year for Asian actors and creative forces in film to that point. I also remember people being pissed that Angela Bassett lost to Jamie Lee Curtis.

The Oscar nominations for this year represent yet another incredibly diverse field, most notably when it comes to African-Americans in acting and writing as well as the first ever nominee of indigenous ancestry. Because these are the Oscars they will point to the level of diversity and inclusion this year. Because this is America there will be just as much written if not more about who is left out.

As a student of Hollywood and the Oscars, I think the former argument holds more merit. I know that given the great love in the industry for Barbie the arguments won’t be made in that sense. It won’t be helped by the fact that this year SAG-AFTRA is giving its lifetime achievement award to none other Barbra Streisand. (You can’t script this kind of stuff.)

I may have sounded like much of this is a critique of how the Oscars works. On the contrary, I believe the last decade has shown many signs of progress that would have been unthinkable when Yentl came out. I don’t pretend there isn’t a long way to go – the Oscars keep slipping up when it comes to diversity in its acting nominees – but it’s hard not to look at the nominated directors and writers over the last fifteen years, not merely when it comes to women but every identity group and not see the slow but the steady hand of progress.

Think of it this way: Martin Scorsese received his tenth Oscar nomination for Best Director for Killers of the Flower Moon. (I’ll be honest that’s still fewer than he deserves, but that’s another story.) When Taxi Driver was nominated for Best Picture, he was ignored for Best Director (not for the first time) for Wertmuller for Seven Beauties. While he might have felt personally upset at being snubbed, he of all people would have appreciated the significance of her being nominated. The industry has changed in many way since his most recent nomination and while he would not like many of them, I think he would consider the progress that we could be arguing about which female director was included and which was excluded something that we could all be grateful for.