Jeopardy Masters Quarterfinals Recap Conclusion

 

Anyone who’s watched the Jeopardy Masters for the last three seasons knows that it is practically a tradition to go all in on Daily Doubles no matter who finds them. There were some exception in last year’s – Victoria Groce took a more calculated approach – but the trend has been continuing this year and it’s mostly paid off.

But increasingly this year we have seen how this can backfire and in the final round of quarterfinal games, it came back to bite three separate masters. In the first game, it would end up leading to a spectacular recovery. In the second, it ended up being too high a price for two former Jeopardy greats to recover from in Double Jeopardy and ultimately determined the winner.

On a side note, on all three Daily Doubles I knew the correct response while the Masters didn’t. However, playing along at home I’ve always played by an honor code: if I didn’t get the clue previous to finding the Daily Double I didn’t wager on it so it didn’t effect my score at home. I will point this out as they come up but for now let’s get to the final two games.

 

Game 1: Victoria Groce vs. Yogesh Raut vs Isaac Hirsch

 

Note: In the leadup to the final games we saw Ken interview Isaac, who has spent much of the Masters feeling like he was suffering from ‘imposter syndrome.” Having won his second game Ken asked if he still felt it. Isaac said it hadn’t gone away. “I’m reminded of that meme from Breaking Bad’, he said jovially. “He can’t keep being allowed to get away with it!” he said in a solid Aaron Paul impression.

 

In this game Victoria and Yogesh – two of the finalists from last year’s Masters – had already qualified for the semi-finals. Isaac was still in a uncertain position.

One of the categories in the Jeopardy round had to deal with the Great British Bake-off which Victoria has previous acknowledged is her favorite show. However her first pick was in the category WORLD LEADERS. Yogesh got the first pick and then found the Daily Double. He found it early in NONFICTION and bet the 1000 points he could:

 

“This 2-word phrase from Scientology is the title of Lawrence Wright’s book at the inner workings of that church.

Yogesh figured it out: “What is Going Clear?” He was at 1800 points.

And as in previous Masters games the Daily Double came so early Victoria was able to overcome it despite her own failings in that category. She finished the round with 9600 points to Yogesh’s 5000 and Isaac’s 2200.

Victoria found the first Daily Double in OPERA a category she seemed comfortable with. She decided to go all in and bet the 10,400 points she had. This time it didn’t work out:

 

“In a Wagner opera, Woglinde, Wellgunde & Flosshilde are 3 of these magical water nymphs.

 

It was clear Victoria didn’t have it though she had the right idea: “What are the Valkyries?” I knew it at home; they were the Rhine maidens (who make their appearance in Rheingold, the first opera in Wagner’s Ring Cycle). Down to zero she went.

Victoria then made a complete recovery and by the time she found the other Daily Double in MEASURE UP!, she had 13,600 points more than before. She had learned her lesson and bet just 400 points:

 

“A 64^TH note in also music is known by this 18-letter word.”

 

First she sounded it out, then counted on her fingers: “What is a hemi demisemiquaver?” She earned her 400 points.

The last clues were a battle to see if either Isaac or Yogesh could keep Victoria from running away with the game. Neither could quite do this: Victoria finished with 16,000 points, Yogesh had 7400 points and Isaac finished with 6600. But second place did still matter as Isaac would eventually clinch if he managed to achieve it.

The Final Jeopardy category was 20^th CENTURY FICTION:

 

“The title of this 1959 work refers to a record given to graduating seniors at Ohio State University.”

 

Full disclosure: I couldn’t even come up with a title for this one.

 

Isaac’s made a guess, trying to write down: “What is The Best Years of our Lives?” I don’t know that Oscar winning Best Picture was a book first or not, and either way it didn’t matter it was still wrong. He lost 1000 points leaving him with 5600.

Next came Yogesh. He had the correct work: “What is Goodbye, Columbus?” He bet 5801 and finished with 13,201.

It was enough to clinch second place. Victoria knew the correct novel as well but wagered nothing. She won her four consecutive match and gained another 3 match points. Yogesh got 1 more, Isaac zero. He still had to wait and see.

 

Interview segment: Asked again if being on the same stage as Yogesh and Victoria had helped him get over his Jeopardy imposter syndrome Isaac said simply: ‘No. But I’d rather be a well paid imposter than a poorly paid imposter.” He then told them that his father Steve had been on the show and then used the opportunity to pitch his father coming back in a Second Chance Tournament. #BringBack Steve!” (I love this guy, for the record.)

Yogesh then told a story about one of the players he defeated in the Tournament of Champions Ben Chan. Ben apparently set up a board for his students, broke it down into teams and one team ‘who apparently didn’t care that much about their grade’, called themselves ‘Team Yogesh” Joking about the rivalry Yogesh said he didn’t know how the team that bore his name did but he said he was definitely #Team Yogesh.

Victoria, who always shouts her daughter Nora out every time she writes down Final Jeopardy responses (she did so again today) updated us about Nora’s plans. She’s now apparently about to spend a year abroad in Seoul. Ken actually went to high school not far from where Nora is going to be studying. Victoria was hoping that if they did well enough, she and her husband could fly out there at the end of the year. So far it’s looking good.

 

Game 2: Juveria Zaheer vs Matt Amodio vs Roger Craig

 

This was a rematch of the two game final of the 2025 Jeopardy Invitational which Matt had won and the second game of this years Masters, which Roger had won. Juveria and Matt had each gone on to win a game going forward; Juveria in the knockout round; Matt in the quarterfinals. A victory would guarantee a spot in the semis for any of the three players; second place for Matt or Juveria gave them a possibility at the semis. A lot was riding on this.

 

In the Jeopardy round Matt got to the Daily Double too early, finding it in U.S. PRESIDENTS after just one correct response. He bet the 1000 he was allowed:

“He signed the Gadsen Purchase.” Matt figured out it was Pierce and went up to 1800 points. The rest of the Jeopardy round was an intense back and forth between the three old foes. Juveria went into the red early with two incorrect response that cost her 1800 points in ‘I’ ON ASIA. But doing well in categories such as OVERHEARD ON TIK-TOK and IN THE RAPPERS MEMOIRS helped her recover. Matt still had the lead with 4800 points to Juveria and Roger’s 3800 points apiece.

Two clues into Double Jeopardy Roger found the first Daily Double in CROSSWORD CLUES ‘T’. Going all in, he claimed he learned this from Matt which is modest we know he perfected this. Unfortunately this has come back to bite Roger in the past, most notably in the finals of the Battle of The Decades against Ken and Brad. And it did this time too:

 

“Doctrine by which bread and wine become Christ’s blood and body (18 letters).

I figured it out. Roger didn’t though he was on the right track: “What is transmutation?” It was transubstantiation. He lost the 5400 points he had.

One clue later Matt found the other Daily Double in VICTORIAN LIT. Apparently having learned nothing from Roger’s experience two clues ago he wagered the 8000 points he had. It went just as badly:

 

“Sergeant Cuff solves the mysterious disappearance of this title item stolen under the influence of opium.

I figured it out instantly having read the book: “What is The Moonstone?” (by Wilkie Collins) Matt had no idea and as Ken said: “Juveria was now in the lead having not answered a single clue.

Matt managed to recover from this. Roger couldn’t. Just as in the Jeopardy round of his knockout appearance he got into a hole but unlike then he couldn’t climb out of it by the end of Double Jeopardy. It was a replay of sorts of Game 1 of the Battle of the Decades Finals, only this time it meant instant elimination. Juveria and Matt spent the rest of Double Jeopardy battling for the lead. Juveria finished with 9000 points to Matt’s 8800.

The Final Jeopardy category that determined the last spot in the Finals was BRITISH HISTORY.

When New Amsterdam was taken by the British he was on the throne of England, but the city was renamed for his brother.”

 

Both Juveria and Matt wrote down: “Who is James,” then crossed it out and wrote down: “Who is Charles II?”  In both cases they made the right call. (The future James II was the Duke of York at the time, which is of course how we get New York.)  Juveria was playing to win and wagered almost everything and that made her the well-deserved victor in a close match. She gained three match points, Matt 1

 

Interview segment:  Roger was asked what he had learned from Juveria and Matt during the course of their encounters. He said that from Juveria he’d learned congeniality and how to make friends – he admitted he was a little prickly in the earlier meetings (a vibe I’ve never really gotten from Roger after more than thirteen years of watching him) and Matt has a habit of ‘pounding a Red Bull before a game…but later in the game, my heart was beating at about 200 beats per minute, so I learned I can’t handle a Red Bull.”

Interviewing Matt, Ken realized he didn’t know Matt’s origin story on Jeopardy. (This is true: during Matt’s original run Ken was not yet even a guest host on the show.) Apparently Matt’s dad is a very big Jeopardy fan but ‘only wants to experience vicariously’. So he pushed Matt’s mom to do so and after many years of trying (and failing, though Matt never says so) she said enough and his father turned his attention to Matt and after a couple of times he got a call. Ken graciously pointed out that “your dad is super vindicated in this story.” Matt went out of his way to thank him this time.

Juveria told us that she had done buzzer prep but says in life: “I’m like a doomsday prepper” and she took that model for Jeopardy for the worst case scenario ‘geo-politically or here’ She then mockingly said: “I learned about boy things like engines and freon and…gross boy stuff.”

 

 

QUARTERFINALS LEADERBOARD AFTER MAY 27^TH

 

VICTORIA GROCE: 13 MATCH POINTS (CLINCHED)

 

YOGESH RAUT: 9 MATCH POINTS (CLINCHED)

 

JUVERIA ZAHEER: 8 MATCH POINTS (CLINCHED)

 

ISAAC HIRSCH: 6 MATCH POINTS (CLINCHED)

 

MATT AMODIO: 6 MATCH POINTS (ELIMINATED)

 

ROGER CRAIG: 4 MATCH POINTS (ELIMINATED)

 

Isaac ended up advancing due to the relevant tie breaker which to this point has not been used and I was unaware of. In case of a tie the player with the most games won ends up advancing. Isaac had won two games to Matt’s one and as a result Matt left in fifth place.

 

Roger left with another $50,000 to his credit and Matt left with another $75,000. If the rules of the 2025 Masters are still in place both Matt and Roger will be invited back to the 2026 JIT. (It remains unclear whether Brad, Neilesh or Adriana will return though under the rules of last year Adriana was going to be invited back anyway.)

 

At this point I’m going to be honest and say that this year’s Masters has been more fun than last years. A large part of this is due to the set of new faces as well as some familiar veterans. The tension that was hanging over last year because of Amy Schneider’s controversial invite is nowhere present and everyone seems to be having just a bit more fun.

Furthermore with Matt gone, the last of the six original Masters is gone from this year which means that no matter how the semi-finals play out there will be a completely new face in the finals. And watching Juveria and Isaac play you see in addition to being great competitors they have a complete lack of ego and a very good sense of humor to this that makes these kinds of tournaments entertaining. It might be saying too much to call both them both lovable (though I really enjoy watching them play) but it’s definitely charming as they both seem so astonished with each victory they manage and how far they managed to make it.

And while my dream lineup of Roger, Matt and Brad facing off never came to pass in this year’s Tournament I won’t lie that I’m enjoying every moment of this new group. I can’t wait to see how Juveria reacts when she ends up playing against Yogesh and Victoria, who she has yet to face in either the knockout rounds or the quarterfinals. She’s already proven herself better then three Tournament of Champions winners and a two-time Jeopardy Master. How far can she go against these two?

I’ll be back next Wednesday to give a complete recap of the semifinals. Anything has already happened in this year’s Masters but I have a feeling we’re not out of surprises yet.

Why Was Pete Rose Banned From Baseball in The First Place? How The Greatest Controversy of the National Pastime Got Started in The First Place

 

 

As long as I’ve been a baseball fan one 0f those questions that was always debated was: should Pete Rose be allowed into  Cooperstown?

Around the time I was becoming a fan Rose had just been banned for life. I didn’t know the details at the age of 10, so it was academic. As I grew older and learned more about the game and Rose’s role in it, I heard a multitude of opinions from sportswriters, broadcasters, former player, managers and even some officials.

By the time I left college the guardrails had begun to be lowered: Rose was showing up at World Series games, was being allowed to give color commentary and by the mid 2010’s was actually casually employed by Fox for post-season games. Baseball seemed willing to forgive and forget in a way that they have yet to be willing to do for the majority of the players in the steroid era. But the Commissioner’s office remained obstinate about refuse to remove him from the ineligibility list and continuously denied his multiple appeals on the subject.

Last December Rose passed away at 83. A few weeks ago Commissioner Manfred said that the ineligibility restrictions for Cooperstown would stop after those had been banned were dead, finally allowing for Rose and several other players banned for life in.

The question will no doubt surround Hall of Fame debates for the foreseeable future and I may very well weigh in on that eventually. What I’d like to discuss now is something that has no doubt been forgotten by the current generation of fans: why did Rose get a lifetime ban from Major Leage Baseball in the first place? And perhaps more tellingly, was the punishment he received not appropriate to the original crime?

Note: As my major source material on the subject I will be using ‘Lords of the Realm’ a book by John Helyar’s story on the history of baseball which he published in 1994. The volume is mainly about the struggles between the Commissioners office, the owners and the players particularly after Marvin Miller arrived on the scene in 1966. At that point the majority of the players involved were still alive and willing to be interviewed by Heylar for the subject.

Let’s start with a given: Major League Baseball was well aware of Rose’s predilection for gambling. They knew about his problems with betting as early as 1978. One of the members of the Red’s front office said: “Pete Rose’s legs may get broken when his playing days were over.”

But in the grand tradition not just of baseball but all celebrities the game let him get away with it. The front office weren’t going to mess with a top gate attractions. Sportswriters were not going to expose a man who gave them so many good stories. The security director all but nodded and winked when he talked to him.

By the time Rose broke Cobb’s record for hits Rose had an entourage of gamblers, drug dealers and memorabilia hustlers surrounding him. He was perpetually paying off bookies by selling his own sports memorabilia. By the time he became player-manager of the Reds it was becoming too ugly to ignore.

Not long before he left office then Commissioner Peter Ueberroth called Rose on the carpet and flatly asked Rose if he was betting on baseball, which had been the capital crime since the Black Sox scandal in 1919. Rose and his attorneys basically fenced for a few hours, offering straight denials. Ueberroth didn’t press; he was about to step down and he had one mission. Declare victory and exit the game a winner. When the Times learned of the meeting and called it he said: “There’s nothing ominous and there won’t be any follow through. Essentially he left the mess on his replacement’s doorstep.

A, Bartlett Giamatti’s name is inexorably linked to everything involving Rose and that’s a tragedy because he was one of the best men ever connected to the National game. Elected President of Yale in 1977, the 39 year old Giamatti told the crowd was: “All I ever wanted to be President of was the American League.”

Giamatti was a Renaissance scholar and a die hard Red Sox fan at a time when the latter brought tragedy. He once penned a famous piece saying baseball breaks your heart. He would occasionally write brilliant highbrow pieces on baseball, once comparing Tom Seaver being traded from the Mets as similar to a fresco in the Sistine Chapel showing the expulsion of Adam and Eve.

During 1983 and 1984 Yale was involved in a horrible labor situation. During that period Bud Selig, looking for a replacement for Bowie Kuhn, had a discussion with him. Their meeting turned into an all-night discussion of the 1949 American League Pennant race which Selig had experienced as a Yankee fan. The meeting so impressed Selig that he wrote a piece recommending Giamatti as Kuhn’s replacement. Giamatti considered it but he was halfway through his tenure at Yale and he was committed to keeping his promise. Reluctantly, he turned it down.

Three years baseball came to him again, offering him a job as President of the National League. Giamatti immediately accepted: “I’m almost fifty years old and I’ve just fallen in love and run away with a gorgeous redhead with flashing eyes whose name is baseball.

Baseball, in turn, fell in love with him. Giamatti became commissioner-in—waiting and in the fall of 1989 was elected to succeed Ueberroth.

Even though Giamatti was an egghead, he had the common touch. As National League President, he sought out and had a bond with the umpires at every game he attended. He was accessible in a way previous commissioners hadn’t been. He was able to charm everybody, bringing the owners back into the discussion (Ueberroth had acted unilaterally in his decision) At owners meeting, they sat at a round table as equals. And he had the ability to build a consensus.

One of his advisers was Fay Vincent, who the same year Giamatti was named president of Yale had just been named President of Columbia. They became instant friends, drawn together by their common bond of baseball, literature and Yale. They made a half-serious pact; if Vincent was ever in a position to hire Giamatti he would do so and vice versa.

Vincent spent a lot of time working in Columbia pictures, getting them into TV syndication and setting up the joint-venture company Tri-Star. But he also had an enormous ego and a ruthless streak that led to him firing multiple executives at the company. When he was squeezed out in 1987, Giamatti hired him as deputy commissioner.

The mess fell into their lap. After Ueberroth’s denial appeared in the Times the two had a long conversation about Rose. Both men agreed their should be a full investigation; the question was how to proceed. Vincent finally suggested they get an outside investigator and hired an old friend from D.C.: John Dowd, a former prosecutor.

Dowd took the case. Within a matter of days the FBI busted a flunky in Rose’s entourage: Paul Janszen. A weight-lifter and small time dealer of steroids (no one knew in 1989 how serious that would become for baseball) Janszen was busted for drug-dealing and tax evasion. He was scared into naming names and one name was Rose

After two days of Dowd turning Janszen inside out, he let loose a small army of attorneys and gumshoes. Every aspect of his investigation had not even a touch of due process with no search wars or subpoenas involved. It got heavy handed as it went on.

Eventually Dowd’s deal got Giamatti in trouble. Another lowlife had been of help squealing on Rose but wanted a sentence reduction. Dowd drafted a letter that supposedly came from Giamatti arguing  for the man’s truthfulness. Giamatti casually scribbled his signature – without reading the document. It was a habit from his Yale days that got him into trouble. It was going to be trouble if Rose’s attorney got their hands on it – which they did.

The judge handling Rose’s hearing was furious when he learned. (It didn’t help that he was a Reds fan.) He would disclose and denounce the letter to everyone who would listen, including the press. Rose’s attorneys now had ammunition to launch a counterattack.

In May Dowd delivered his report: 225 pages and more than 2000 interviews to learn that Rose had bet on baseball. In June, just before Giamatti was scheduled to give an official hearing Rose’s attorneys sued for an injunction which was immediately granted.

All of this took a tremendous toll on Giamatti during the summer. The new commissioner was dazed by the public scrutiny, dizzy from the whirl stop meetings and was chain-smoking more than ever. He was torn between conflicting advice. Vincent wanted Rose out of baseball for good. Lou Hoynes, a critical man in baseball argued for a swifter, softer resolution. The standoff continued for two months. It was a combination of chess and chicken. Neither side wanted a trial. It would make both Rose and organized baseball look bad

Settlement talks began in August. Vincent offered first a ten year exile, then seven. Rose’s agent wanted a lighter sentence and a finding that Rose had never bet on baseball. Finally they agreed to put him on the ‘ineligible list’ It would be termed a permanent suspension. But under the rules of baseball Rose could apply for reinstatement after one year. There was also no admission of guilt.

However on August 23^rd when asked by reporters Giamatti was asked had Rose bet on baseball.

“In the absence of a hearing and therefore in absence of evidence to the contrary,” Giamatti said. “I am confronted by the factual evidence of Mr. Dowd. On the basis of that, yes, I have concluded he bet on baseball.” The agreement that had taken days to negotiate over had been casually trashed on national television.

Giamatti and Vincent congratulated each other and then went on vacation.

Eight days later, Giamatti died of a heart attack. After much discussion Vincent was named to move in immediately afterwards ostensibly as continuity, to fill out Giamatti’s term. Because Vincent had been pushing for Rose to be banned for life when Rose applied for reinstatement Vincent refused to act on it. For the rest of his life he made it very clear that Rose deserved everything he got. While the owners quickly became tired of Vincent’s frequently dictatorial like behavior, even after he was removed from office Bud Selig never did anything to allow Rose’s reinstatement occurred.

Now let us set aside the fact, for the moment, that Rose would finally confess his wrongdoing after decades of denying his role and speak in terms of hypothetical: Were the circumstance that led to Rose being banned for life from baseball fair?

There is a strong argument they were anything but. First the man who led the investigation John Dowd would gain a reputation as being the equivalent of an attack dog who denied due process if it was in the best interest of the game. Vincent would later use him to lead an investigation into George Steinbrenner that would lead to the Yankees owner being suspended from baseball for three years. When the owners read the report and realized just how much Dowd had overstepped, they were horrified – but because of their loathing of Steinbrenner they were not willing to defend him and destroyed the report. It was Dowd and Vincent’s overreach of authority in regard to the suspension of Steve Howe in 1992 that eventually led to Vincent being forced to resign as commissioner after receiving a no-confidence vote.

Second the decision to ban Rose for life was more or less done by the influence of Vincent rather than Giamatti. Because he passed away immediately afterward we have no way of knowing if he would have allowed Rose to be reinstated when he applied in 1990. Vincent influenced much of Giamatti’s thinking during the investigation but there were signs he was pulling away from his friend’s point of view before he made his announcement on TV.

Third we must remember the timing of everything involve the investigation of Rose. Baseball was undergoing several major scandals. They were dealing with the fallout of a collusion scandal in which the owners were making an effort to break the free agency market. This went on during 1986-1988 and the fallout only came just around the time Ueberroth left office. There was also the issue of how cocaine had infected baseball. The day Rose broke Cobb’s hit record his teammate Dave Parker had testified before Congress about rampant cocaine use in baseball. They were also still dealing with the fallout of Al Campanis’ remarks about minority hiring in baseball in 1987. After all this and Giamatti’s death, the World Series that year was disrupted by the Lorna Prieta earthquake which postponed the Giants-Athletics series for ten days and was a final sobering comment on how horrible a year baseball had in 1989.

When one considers just how much trouble baseball would have during the 1990s perhaps one should not be shock that the sport had no desire to deal with the man who was the biggest symbol of everything that was wrong with the sport during the 1980s.

It might be an exaggeration to say that Rose was punished for the sins of Major League Baseball during this period but one can’t rule out the possibility that if Giamatti had not died long after Rose was banned, circumstances might have changed. It did manage to play out that way starting in the early 2000s and that was well before we were aware of the depths of the steroid scandal that exploded halfway through the decade. Perhaps if Giamatti had lived and a little more time had passed Rose would have been granted reinstatement the first time he applied for it. Rose could therefore be gracious and would not have taken up the attitude of denial of responsibility he did for the next two decades which was no doubt a major factor in the ban being kept in place while he was alive.

And maybe when enough time had passed – perhaps after the steroids came out – the writers might have looked at all this and realized what many fans say about Rose’s crime. That compared to all the juicing that happened Rose’s sins were venial, not mortal. And Rose would have been voted into the Hall of Fame while he was still alive.

To be clear I’m still not advocating for Rose’s induction in this article: I have yet to make up my mind one way or the other. But I do feel Rose was denied due process by major league baseball and had circumstances not played out as they did, he might have gotten reinstated and he might have been inducted normally. This isn’t a defense of Rose, either, merely an argument he was treated unfairly.

It is also, I should add, a defense of Giamatti a man who I think if he had lived could have been a great force for the national game and perhaps could have been the beacon we needed in the 1990s and beyond. More than ever I think we need men like Giamatti in the world, not just baseball but in life. Because he understood one basic truth about baseball that any fan knows: “It is designed to break your heart.”

Bella Ramsey Has Something To Say About Gender Neutral Acting Awards - And It’s Not What You’d Think

 

 

For many years at the start of this decade I spent a lot of time and energy arguing against the idea of eliminating gender as a qualification as an acting award: a cause led by such non-binary performers as Asia Kate Dillon since at least 2021.

Over the last couple of years I’ve had little to say about the subject because of the only significant development during the five years since Dillon began pressing for it within Hollywood: really nothing has happened. While certain heads of awards shows have said the right things in public, there have been no real effort to remove gender from any major awards groups. I don’t just mean the Oscars, Tonys or Emmys; I mean the Golden Globes, the SAG Awards and the Critics Choice Awards. Even the Astras, which started giving awards for TV in 2021 and were ambitious and revolutionary in how they give awards have remained loyal to the standards of gender. Indeed the only awards show of any significance to eliminate gender as a qualification has been the Independent Spirit Awards and they may have more to do with the makeup of the membership then any desire to be at the vanguard.

The more progressive members of the community may argue that this represents the refusal of ‘the system’ to reject change. I’d argue those people to consider this: among the most liberal people in the most liberal community in the world do not think that it is worth tearing down a standard that has worked perfectly well for nearly a century for what is a small portion of the population. I’m not talking about the non-binary people across the country (though how creating gender-neutral Emmys would help non-binary service people in Oklahoma or students in Mississippi is a question that Dillon or their contemporaries have ever been asked) but within the film and television industry. And not even the entire industry, but only actors, even though I assume non-binary people inhabit at some level every part of the industry from costume designing to editing to scoring. Despite what Liv Hewson might say there is a place for non-binary people in Hollywood, and if you need a shiny statue to tell you that, the problem is more with you then with the industry.

This brings me to one of the most prominent non-binary performers in Hollywood right now as well as someone who has been the target of the most open vitriol among almost any performer working today: Bella Ramsey.

Ramsey has been one of HBO’s star performers since they portrayed Lyanna starting in Season 5 of Game of Thrones, then playing Angelica on His Dark Materials. During this same period Ramsey also had a lead role on the Netflix YA series The Worst Witch and played Lady Jane Grey on the Starz drama becoming Elizabeth. Ramsey also has done voice work, notably in the title role of Hilda.

None of this was notable of controversy until Ramsey was cast as Ellie on The Last Of Us. Like Pascal and everyone else in the case of The Last of Us Ramsey received a huge amount of acclaim for their work. Then while the Emmy nominations were coming out Ramsey announced that they identified as non-binary. Then the roof fell in.

While critics have been raving about the second season of The Last of Us the fan reaction has been incredibly toxic to say the least. Much of it is formed in the kind of vague framing that so many of the worst aspects of this particular community can be. None of them say that they hate Ramsey’s work because of their gender preference or indeed the fact that Ellie has been a lesbian and is very prominently so on the series. No, it takes the form of body-shaming of the worst kind. Because the creators did nothing to ostensibly change Ellie from her portrayal on the screen –  it is still a white girl as was in the video game is it based on -  the argument has taken the form that the casting directors should have cast someone who ‘looked more like’ the avatar of Ellie on the screen. Video game players have always had a very one-dimensional view of how they think characters should look on their TVs. That casting directors for television series have always had a different standard than video games never enters the discussion.

So while the critical raves for the series have been high, gamers have been essentially review bombing the second season on websites like Rotten Tomatoes to the point that season 2 is currently ranked by fans at 44 percent. And it is very clear why these bombings are there. On imdb.com, the series is still ranked 130^th all time but the fans have been going out of their way to review bomb individual episodes to the point that many episodes rank at 6.9 or 6.3. This homophobia is not new The Last of Us. Last year’s ‘Long, Long Time’, which was ranked as one of the great episodes in television history and won multiple Emmys was essentially review bombed until it’s rating was 8.1 and again when Ellie’s sexuality was revealed in ‘Left Behind’. Nick Offerman and Storm Reid won Emmys for their work in these episodes, so it’s very clear that the homophobia in this episode was leading the charge in both cases.

The toxic masculinity of the Internet is of course nothing new for television series that are based on popular source material. One saw it with the toxic reaction to Katee Sackoff being cast as Starbuck on Battlestar Galactica, it has carried on in so much of Arrow-verse on the CW during the 2010s and it went to ridiculous standards for Rings of Power and Wheel of Time. And it is not as if actresses have been immune from misogyny in non-genre television as the vilification of Skyler in Breaking Bad has essentially driven Anna Gunn from acting. Ramsey has been caught in a perfect storm in this sense and the often far-right attitudes that are against the LGBTQ+ community across the country have been turned on them full-steam.

That makes Ramsey’s comment on gender-neutral awards all the more stunning. Ramsey, it’s worth noting, has never said anything about the subject during the Emmys and all of the awards that have followed since Season 1. Ramsey is currently a front-runner for Best Actress in a Drama; this past month they were nominated for Best Actress by the Astra TV awards. So understandably their opinion on the subject was sought out by Variety. I will quote their response below:

“I don’t have the answer and I wish that there was something that was an easy way around it, but I think that it’s really important that we have a female category and a male category,” Ramsey said, adding that it’s important that ‘recognition for women in the industry is preserved.”

Even though Ramsey does not identify as a female and says being labeled as an ‘actress’ does not feel quite right, they are comfortable being put in the actress category at the Emmys for ‘The Last of Us’. At least for now.

“I have a guttural, ‘That’s not quite right instinct to (being called an actress) Ramsey said. “But I just don’t take it too seriously…it doesn’t feel like an attack on my identity.” (italics for emphasis)

A couple of other things. Dillon as of this writing is 40 and Ramsey is about to turn 22. While Dillon no doubt struggled more for acceptability in their career Ramsey has lived their entire life in a world where both in England and America, homophobia has been even more pronounced that it was a decade ago. And with due respect to Dillon, because of the greater success – and just as toxic backlash – that Ramsey and The Last of Us have been subjected to pretty much since it premiered, Ramsey would actually been entitled to be more defiant and demanding recognition than Dillon and their contemporaries. I have little doubt that Emma Corrin and Milly Alcock have undergone extraordinary backlash in their lives but none of them have had to deal with the venom of the worst aspects of humanity in the way that Ramsey has.

So the fact that Ramsey when asked the question chooses not to be defiant on the subject the way that Hewson or Dillon are is telling. To them, the argument is simple: the old standards have to go, immediately if not sooner. To Ramsey, the situation is more complicated than that. And the fact that Ramsey has the ability to see that being nominated for an award is not only not an attack on your identity but something not to be taken that seriously in the grand scheme of things shows an openness and nuance that we don’t so among LGBTQ+ community, not just in Hollywood but overall.

Ramsey doesn’t think there’s an easy answer but the idea of tearing everything down isn’t one. And by framing the subject as trying to be respectful for women in the industry is also a telling move. I’m sure that if Dillon or anyone else in this community was asked the question: “Aren’t you demand recognition for you at the expense of others, particularly women?” they would argue that this isn’t about prejudice but recognition for them. Ramsey, almost certainly because of their exposure to the worst aspects of humanity online, knows very well how little respect there is for female performers in Hollywood and knows that their comfort cannot come at the expense of other female performers.

It should be noted this diplomatic response is not going to help Ramsey with the toxic internet venom they get on an hourly basis. They have their opinion of Ramsey and nothing that they personally say will change that. And I have little doubt this will hurt Ramsey’s reputation with so many aspects of the far left part of Hollywood and other aspects of society, who will no doubt see this a betrayal of ‘the cause’ and see any sign of nuance or moderation as an excuse to cast one of their own aside. Ramsey has to have known this being a member of Gen Z and aware of the toxic nature of cancel culture on one side and the right’s misogyny on the left. So the fact that they still chose to take this position is, in a way, as bold and defiant as anything Ellie does on The Last of Us.

Now I have seen the second season of The Last of Us, save the finale which I will watch tonight. I am convinced it is one of the best shows of 2025 and worthy of Emmy nominations across the board with Ramsey a major contender for Best Actress in A Drama. Ramsey’s work is a towering force of strength that is riveting every moment they are onscreen and with all due respect to the haters out there, no one else could have brought Ellie to live like Ramsey. My standards are different from the gamers out there. I measure a performers by their acting ability, not their resemblance to an avatar who’s sole purpose is to kill zombies.

I can’t imagine the challenges that Ramsey has faced in their life, not only with their gender identity but only recently realizing that they are on the spectrum as well. That Ramsey has managed to surpass all of them and reach the pinnacle of their profession at such a young age is to be applauded; that they demonstrate the wisdom rarely seen in anyone of their generation of a simplistic approach to all aspects of society is to be celebrated as well. Ramsey acknowledges that they may change their mind down the road but I don’t object to that either because it demonstrates something one rarely sees in people of the generation: a willingness to change your mind and have multiple opinions on views rather than just one and never changing it.

Its still not clear what Hollywood is going to do on this particular subject; that they’ve done nothing yet doesn’t mean they won’t change their mind or find a way to compromise. But I would hope that going forward that they would grant the same level of weight to the opinions of Bella Ramsey as much as those of Asia Kate Dillon. I’d also hope that Dillon will also consider the opinion of Ramsey, particularly that part of ‘not taking it too seriously.” Of all the issues that non-binary people face in America, this has to be very, very low on the list when it comes to obstacles. Ramsey seems to be aware of that and I hope that those such as Dillon can realize it as well.

 

Criticizing Criticism: Video Game Adaptation Edition: Why Roger Ebert’s Argument that Video Games Were Not Art Had Validity – And Why The New York Times Recent Criticism Arguments They Were Doesn’t

 

One of the many reasons I respected and admired Roger Ebert was his willingness to not dismiss out of hand so many adaptations of pop culture into cinema the way many of his brethren seemed willing to do without even needed to see them. If it was an action movie, a comic book film, a version of a television show, even stories based on toys, if he could find some merit in the film he would praise it as such. Sometimes, I’ll be honest, that took extreme lengths: he gave raves for The Phantom Menace, both Garfield films (even Bill Murray hated them both) and adaptations of Land of the Lost and American Girl movies. But credit where its due: I can’t see contemporaries like Joel Siegel or anyone from the New Yorker even bothering to screen them, much less review them.

The only major area he was not willing to give was video games. To his dying day he refused to acknowledge that a video game could be art. As someone who was gaming long before he started to read Ebert’s reviews, I have always respected Ebert’s position – and from a critical standpoint, appreciate it.

From a purely aesthetic standpoint video games to have an artistic capability. Anyone who has seen the graphics of Donkey Kong Country, explored the world of Zelda and Mega Man and spent so much time among the world of Mario knows that from a technically standpoint video games can be visual, musical and edited masterpieces. But the standards of an art critic and a film critic (or television, for that matter) are different than those of a gamer.

Video games have always filled the position of distraction, therapy and companionship for most people, myself included. As far as I know no one has ever spent an afternoon playing Call of Duty or Street Fighter for the same reason one would spend that same period watching The Godfather or a Breaking Bad marathon. The former is always a more active form of distraction as the latter: there is a certain amount of strategizing involved but it’s not the same kind of critical thinking. I enjoy spending hours playing Earthbound or Final Fantasy and I enjoy watching Big Little Lies or Parks and Rec marathons but I also know that you’re more active in the former and slightly more passive in the latter.

More to the point they have different goals in mind. And that’s where I think Ebert’s criticism is valid. Because while today’s video games do have script’s, dialogue and plots all of them are incidental to the main point which is essentially having your avatar kill a lot of creatures onscreen with some puzzle solving in between. This may seem like a very brutal description to any gamer fan, but let’s not kid ourselves: it doesn’t matter whether you’re blasting zombies in Resident Evil, jumping on monster’s heads in the mushroom kingdom or using spells and magic in any of the Final Fantasy games. You’re their to mindlessly kill creatures and move on to the next level towards the end.

This doesn’t comer as a judgment or even a criticism, merely a reality. It’s a game and the object of any game is to win. And this doesn’t mean that games aren’t capable of more than that. Indeed part of the reason I agreed with Ebert’s decision that video games were not art was because I’d seen more than I’d wanted of many of the examples of video game adaptations and they were to put it mildly, horrible, both as films and not even really being faithful to the game they were inspired on.

And I don’t truly blame the filmmakers, the actors or even the studios that greenlit so many of the horrible adaptations I grew up with in the 1990s to fairly recently. All of them were trying to take what was a popular form of entertainment and turn into a movie, same as they do with books or music. The problem is, almost every video game they chose to adapt really had no story to speak of. It didn’t matter whether it was Super Mario Bros, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Doom or any others you can probably think of. Everything that works in a gaming environment isn’t going to translate to a film for all the reasons I listed above. It’s fun to have Guile beat up M. Bison or Johnny Cage beat up Sub Zero when you’re doing it but that takes two minutes at most. Trying to beat any of these fighting games in an arcade or at home can maybe take twenty minutes at most. And while all the characters have a backstory, it’s just incidental for the special moves and the background scenes. To try and make this stretch to even an hour and a half long film is going to be a bloated and disastrous idea for even the greatest screenwriter and director and I doubt that Spielberg and Lucas could manage to make that exciting. Movies can crossover well to videogames because there’s so much to do with the property. It never worked well the other way.

I never played Resident Evil, Doom or so many other of the games that Uwe Boll tried to turn into films but I can’t imagine that would have led to great art or even decent blockbusters. There’s only so many ways you can kill a zombie or aliens before it becomes redundant and that’s really all those games are. Zombie and alien movies can be exciting but they need a great story and character development behind that and again, these games are just an excuse to kill them.

The reason I didn’t judge Ebert for his assumptions was because if these films had been his only idea of what games were like, of course he’d never consider them art forms. What I found frustrating was that there are video games with intricate storylines, character development, brilliant graphic and heartbreaking twists. I should know because they’re my favorite games and if you came of age in the 1990s they might be yours as well.

Anyone who played the various games Square Soft developed over the 1990s – first with Nintendo, then Sony, knows that so many of those games were art. Final Fantasy IV and VI had all the character development, plots, swoon-worthy romances, and heartbreaking twists that one sees in so many great works of art. They reached their peak in their final vision Chrono Trigger, a time traveling, steampunk vision that nearly three decades after its release still ranks as one of the greatest video games of all time.

When Square Soft moved to Sony the games got bigger and better and not just in terms of gameplay. Final Fantasy VII was one of the seminal moments of so many gamers teenage years. Many of us remember the ad to this date, ending with “never coming to a theater near you’. The characters in this game transcended it and while Square doesn’t make direct sequels many of them have been making cameos in other Square games ever since. Other Final Fantasy’s would strain for this kind of majesty; some would succeed, some would fail but the designers did something that no filmmaker has dared: they never made the game kind of game twice.

Even what should have fundamentally been the worst kind of attempt at pandering – the Kingdom Hearts series – ranks as one of the emotionally wrenching and entertaining game series in history. It shouldn’t be, this is clearly an attempt to just crossover Disney and Square and usually these things end in being ham-handed. But this series is the exception that proves the rule. While Disney has been failing in so many other areas of its output, in the Kingdom Hearts series it realizes an emotional connection with even some of the lesser films in its repertoire. Who would have thought that the version of Tarzan and Tangled could find some kind of artistic value in them?

Yet the only attempt to try and adapt these kinds of games into film so far was Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. This computer animated game cost over $100 million to make and was true to the spirit of Final Fantasy even though there were few direct links. It is the only video game adaptation that Roger Ebert raved about, giving it 3 and a half stars. But the film bombed at the box office and to date, no one has tried to adapt a game in that world that way since.

So what Ebert had to deal with were Resident Evil sequels, Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft and so many version to try and get Mortal Kombat right it was more painful that having your heart ripped out. He died before Hollywood ever got a chance to get video games right.

Now it seems they have – and according to this week’s Times Magazine opinion piece: “I wish they hadn’t”

I would like to give the Times credit for acknowledging video games exist. Having spent decades reading their Arts and Culture section most of them think television is a passing fancy that will someday give way back to opera and ballet given how they tend to review it. And I will give some credit to Marsh, when he decides to criticize Last of Us, he doesn’t do so giving into the toxic masculinity and the body shaming of so many of the actors. (That’s a future article for the record.) But at the end of the day Marsh is no less guilty of the kind of nostalgia for a better kind of work than so many critics are – except his fellow critics would laugh at the kind of films he was praising and the gamers who saw those movies then and now would find he was insane.

He compares Uwe Boll’s House of the Dead, who he acknowledges as a notorious disreputable film maker to The Last Of Us. He acknowledges the former film had no coherent ideas and its primary motivation seemed to be cram ‘as many bare breasts, exploding corpses and nu-metal songs into one movie as the MPAA would allow.” He also acknowledge the game it was based on was not ‘a paragon of artistic merit to begin with…but even by the crude standards of the source material, Boll’s film…was equally tasteless.”

And yet he says even though he knows Last of Us superior, ‘some recess of my soul yearns for the lurid, tooled up lunacy of House of the Dead. “When was the last time you put on a movie and saw slow-motion of shots of a Star-Spangled Banner leotard dodging a sledgehammer chasing zombie?”

To be clear if that is the standard of pleasure that Marsh is in favor of, I am glad I don’t know him or his work. (This is, apparently, his first article for the Magazine.) He claims that what he wants is idiosyncrasies. He says that The Last of Us and The Witcher and Super Mario Bros and Sonic The Hedgehog are formula movies. He seems to be yearning for a simpler time when these films let artists – “and yes, hacks – attack the problem with creative abandon.” He acknowledges these films were critical reviled but that seems to be why he loves them.

He acknowledges that these video games of the past didn’t have much of a narrative that was often a liability but he claims they led the filmmakers to make ‘surprising choices. He truly seems to believe the Resident Evil series is a work of art. He seems to be upset that video games have become more sophisticated and more complex. He acknowledges that their quality has improved and then says – ‘even quality…can become boring. Where zombies swinging sledgehammers in slo-mo is the kind of thing that never gets old.”

Any one who calls themselves a critic should be appalled by what Marsh is saying here, particularly it basically goes everything critics like Ebert believed it. One wonders if Marsh thinks it was a travesty homeboys from Outer Space was canceled, thinks Michael Bey’s Transformer films are too cluttered with plot – or even if pornography these days is to hung up on sex and less on stories. Most people when they advocate for nostalgia at least tend to argue for products that were actually good at one point. I seriously doubt even the makers of the original Bob Hoskins-Dennis Hopper Super Mario Brothers film were trying to emulate Blade Runner when they made it. And one might call it original – in the sense that Pluto Nash or Jupiter Ascending were. Original doesn’t necessarily equal good as people like Ebert knew.

Now as someone who suffered through that film and found the animated Super Mario Brothers film delightful and entertaining I know which one I prefer: the latter will never be mistaken for Toy Story or Shrek but it’s a lot of fun and I’m glad I saw it. Marsh may say the other film is better because it’s more original. That remark would no doubt make Bob Hoskins, who justly thought the movie killed his career in America, start to spin in his grave.

And while the kind of toxic masculinity that normally is at the center of this kind of nostalgia isn’t directly present, it is still there: the films that Marsh is celebrated, like the games they were based on, did have the kind of sexualization of female characters that were overwhelming present in the games of that period. He may not be body-shaming Bella Ramsey the way so many of his ‘bros’ online are in regard to Ellie but the fact that he tends to hold up Milla Jovovich’s sexual portrayal at the center of Resident Evil as the height of video game adaptations as a contrast is the other side of that coin. In a way one almost prefers the review bombing that is being done on Rotten Tomatoes to The Last Of Us to Marsh’s silk-gloved criticism. Essentially Marsh is saying “I may know art but I know what I like”   when he gives a tacit approval to House of The Dead over Last of Us.

I have no desire to ever read another piece of Marsh’s ever again if this is the kind of insight he brings to arts and culture. In one short piece, barely two pages long he has demonstrated a complete lack of appreciation for the artistic merit of films, television and video games. We come away with no understanding if he thinks the latter is capable of artistic merit but reading his article I’m not entirely convinced he did much gaming either, growing up or now.

But as someone who has huge respect for the artistic merit of all three and who looks at the brilliant achievements of shows like Last of Us and Fallout as the first step forward in achieving respectability in television – and to an extent sees at least an attempt to reach it with Mario and Minecraft -   as a genuine step forward for the medium I love. Do I want to see an anthology series of Final Fantasy or the cinematic equivalent of Chrono Trigger attempted now? Yes, but not just because I’m a fan of these series but because these previous examples show that Hollywood can realize the potential of these games on the big and small screen. To me those films that aired during the 1990s and early 2000s that Marsh rhapsodizes about were everything Ebert rightfully called them – and the adaptations that Marsh now despairs about are signs that the rest of Hollywood may finally be able to see in them what we gamers have known this whole time. I have little use for nostalgia even for those projects that my previous generation rhapsodizes over; that Marsh seems to yearn for the era that gave us  Jean-Claude Van Damme as Guile  and John Leguizamo as Luigi shows that his true north could not be found with an old NES Advantage.

And if this is the kind of criticism the Times wants to put front and center – I honestly prefer it if they stuck to looking down on ninety-five percent of movies and TV that come out. Better to say that The Last of Us is a terrible show then to say Doom is an underrated classic.

Homicide Rewatch: Partners

 

Written by Dave Rupel; story by Tom Fontana & Julie Martin

Directed by John McNaughton

 

A little interlude before we get started.

When Homicide was renewed for a third season, it was initially given thirteen episodes, then a few episodes in it was bumped up to twenty. This episode was the twelfth one filmed and the twelfth aired.

It’s unclear when Fontana and his colleagues knew they were going to get what was essentially a full season but it is worth noting that to this point in Season 3 the ratings had not been that high, at least by the standards of 1995. The series would average a little more than ten million viewers an episode which was third in its timeslot. No one yet knew if the series was going to be picked up for a fourth season but given how lucky the series had been to survive before, the producers had every reason to be pessimistic.

Desperate measures were called for and while I won’t reveal them until the next episode (when it will become obvious) Fontana and many of the cast and crew were never happy about it. Perhaps in acknowledgement of this Partners may be viewed as either as what the writers might have considered the kind of series that they wanted to make or perhaps a way to lure the viewing audience into a false sense of security for what it is about to come the following week. I think it could go either way – in later seasons, the writers would become expert at this bait-and-switch – but that’s only in hindsight and is simply one fan’s opinion.

There are two murders in this episode but neither are important to the plot. The major criminal story is Congressman Wade being charged with filing a false report and that’s resolved before the second act is over. What Partners is actually about is two complementary storylines: one dealing with Russert and her former partner from narcotics Doug Jones, who has just been transferred to Homicide (it’s not clear whether its Megan’s request) and how Pembleton is dealing with his suspension and how Bayliss isn’t dealing with it. In both storylines the shift commander has a critical role, though in the latter Gee’s role is subtler and more nuanced. In the former we are dealing with two people who were long time friends realizing something unpleasant; in the latter we are dealing with one man who still needs the job but won’t accept the other is his friend, despite that.

In a way the story involving Russert is a familiar one: two former partners on the force reconnecting and one learning that the other has a nasty streak. On Law & Order these kinds of stories often involved a cop being corrupt; in this case Doug is guilty of domestic abuse. But there are critical differences. The first is one of hierarchy. Megan and Doug were partners for eight years and now Doug is working for Megan as a homicide detective. He and Natalie were friends with Megan and her husband over the years and it’s clear they used to socialize, having Christmas’s together, bowling that sort of thing. They haven’t been together since Megan transferred to Homicide last year and the implication, though it’s never stated directly, was that Doug had issues with the fact that his female partner had gotten promoted over him.

It's worth remembering that in the 1980s when Doug and Megan were partners, female detectives were not just a rarity in many cities they were still considered little better than whores. (In the third season premiere, its pretty clear many of the detectives in Russert’s shift still think she slept her way to the top. At the time of Simon’s book there was only one detective out of the 36 that were working Homicide at the time) And being partnered with one was nearly as bad. Doug clearly stuck with it when the two of them were in narcotics and he claims that he knew she was going to be a good cop someday. But even in their scenes together as friends, there’s an almost casual arrogance to him around her, as if he doesn’t think he should be taken orders from a woman.

When Natalie ends up in the hospital after supposedly falling down the stairs Russert is clearly concerned more than she should be. She had a conversation with Natalie that clearly seemed odd and when she starts asking questions about how she fell and why, it’s not so much of one of a friend asking after them but a cop looking for weaknesses in the story. When she talks to Doug about it and he blows her off, she goes first to their old unit and is basically given the brushoff. It’s only when she goes to the ER and talks to Dr. Devilbiss who tells her that’s he thinks ‘her husband beats the hell out of her’ He’s been trying to months to get her to do something but she won’t press charges. Finally Megan intervenes with Doug.

Megan still pulls her punches while she basically makes it clear she wants him to report in and wants to see the therapist’s credentials she doesn’t report him to the brass herself. Then she goes to see Natalie and tells her to that she needs to get out of the house because Doug is going through something. In this case her history with the Jones’s understandably blinds her to how things usually play out if police intervention doesn’t take place – and sadly, that is more or less what we see happen. In her final scene in the episode Russert ends up going to the Jones household where there’s been a shooting. Natalie and Doug got into another argument, Doug started hitting her and Natalie shot him with his own gun in self-defense. We never learn how this plays out after this episode (though understandably the writers will soon be distracted but the best case scenario is that one or both of them end up in prison after this.

Hoffman gives another solid performance as Russert showing the many sides of her, but it is yet another occasion where in order for the show to utilize her character they have to put Russert where she wouldn’t normally be. The episode starts with her going to the crime scene of Jones’s first murder as a primary, which a shift commander wouldn’t do under normal circumstances. It doesn’t help that the entire storyline basically has nothing to do with the action in the other shift.

Because of everything that unfolded in the previous episode States Attorney Maggie Conroy is being forced to prosecute Wade for filing a false police report. She clearly doesn’t want to do this –  this is not a case either the department or the city of Baltimore want to pursue – but as we see the media has seized upon the story so she feels she has to. It’s not clear whether she believes the denials of Commissioner Harris of there not being a quid pro quo but she also knows that the defense is going to move for a speedy trial and that means putting Frank Pembleton on the stand – something that clearly makes Harris nervous.

Much of this part of the storyline is actually quite amusing as we watch Frank Pembleton at home, playing the role of domestic. It’s funny to see Frank, washing dishes, asking Mary what she wants for dinner and just as amusing to see him committing to be a house husband as much as being a detective. This is the first time we’ve seen Ami Brabson since her debut in Season 1 (though we’ve heard Frank mention her a lot) and she’s quite a lot of fun in this episode as its clear she’s the only person in the world Frank will listen to. It’s fun watching her diplomatically try to say that she has no faith in her husband’s cooking abilities and after he burns dinner for the second straight night, she says they have to go out for a long dinner and a long talk. (Mary Pembleton may be the first cop’s wife in history who wants her husband to spend more time at the office.)

But in a sense Frank is dealing with a moral quandary. He knows that if he goes into court and tells the truth – that he made the deal to Wade at the express consent of Harris – it might very well bring down the entire department. It’s not clear if he wants to do this or whether he’s just pissed at being forced to compromise his ethics.

When Gee goes to see him before he is about to testify he makes it clear he plans to do so. Giardello says truthfully he doesn’t care for the bosses either but he also knows that this is as much about Frank’s ego as the truth. Frank tries to shame him by saying that the two of them aren’t friends. Giardello actually goes softer and acknowledges that. “It pisses me off that you say what you say and do what you do,” he admits. But he makes clear he tolerates because Frank does the one important thing: “He changes names from red to black.” That is the only standard Giardello has for a good detective.

It's still not clear if Frank actually hears him – there’s a long pause when he’s asked the direct question by Wade’s lawyer and it’s clear by the expression on the various bosses faces that no one is sure what he’s going to say. But Frank takes the humble and says that he did it on his own initiative. However he remains true to himself. When Harris tries to indicate approval of him, Frank in a relatively diplomatic way tells him to go to hell. He recognizes Harris’ posturing of wanting to appeal to his race as pure posturing, laughs off the idea of ‘the ends justifies the means’ and refuses the carrot of the promotion he’s being offered. Frank makes it clear in a very Pembleton like way that he doesn’t trust Harris and he will not be an ally to him in the future. It’s not clear if Harris takes this personally or not but later episodes will suggest that he might have been willing to take revenge out on Gee’s shift in subtle ways. (We’ll get the first hint of that later this season.)

While all this is going on Bayliss is acting like a rudderless ship. He’s ranting at Maria Delgado for reporting the story, he’s asking Gee for a new partner, and when Frank comes to the Waterfront (having burnt dinner) he starts trying to get him to come back to the squad. When he goes out on a call, he ends up partnering with Lewis and while Emma Zoole is clearly in the background, Meldrick is just as dangerous to be around.

Iterally. Meldrick decides to drive to the crime scene and for the first time we see him behind the wheel. He drives to a crime scene like Dale Ernhardt with no regard for the rules of the road and it’s hysterical to see how terrified Bayliss is. When he hits one of the cars getting there, Bayliss ends up getting a bloody head and collapses. This leads to another funny exchange where Scheiner says to put him in the van to the morgue. Meldrick now ends up dealing with the PBA lawyer because he was both speeding and now wearing his seatbelt.

This is our first encounter with a PBA rep and while much of its funny there are darker implications. Asked how to get out of trouble she tells him to reply at the end of every answer “I’m not sure.” “Technically it’s not a lie,” she reminds him. It’s funny because Meldrick is clearly nervous about losing his job. It’s less funny when you realize that this is very much how PBA attorneys will manage to get many detectives out of far more dire straits over the years. (This will become clear the next time we see Monica Murphy on the show in far darker circumstances.)

Eventually Frank comes back to the unit to discuss the case Bayliss is investigating. We rarely see Frank this awkward towards Gee about the direction to take the case and finally Frank admits: “you’re gonna make me ask.” Giardello says: “Yes.” Frank sighs: “Can I have my badge back?” Gee doesn’t answer but pushes back the cover of a book where Frank’s gun and badge are waiting. “Besides Bayliss needs a partner.” He pulls back the shades where Bayliss is clearly looking on.

Hanging overall of this is the grand opening of the Waterfront, which is finally about to happen. Munch spends most of the episode: trying to bring in his fellow detectives. Much of this leads to humorous moments: him persuading Bolander to skip WWF, trying to get Howard to bring good looking girls, etc. But it also leads to some heartwarming moments. When Frank comes to the bar to talk to Tim, he orders a drink. When Frank pays for it Tim says he’ll put it on his tab. Frank denies it so Bayliss takes the 5 dollar bill and puts it in a corner of a picture. It will still be there when the series ends.

The first official customer is Stan Bolander. He asks for a vodka martini. As one Bayliss, Lewis and Munch start to prepare for a drink for him in antics. Bolander than asks for another to follow it.

The last scene of the episode is the grand opening and we see the Waterfront filled, mostly we assume with cops and their friends. Tim is drunk, trying to hug Frank and he won’t have it, Howard brings in a bunch of women, Bayliss and Lewis start arguing about the speeding incident. But Munch holds up a glass and says a word of thanks at everybody who came out to support us after all our efforts. He might as well be saying it to all the fans who have stuck with the show so far. The last shot is seeing Bolander, dancing in place at his table. It’s a sweet, warm moment – which we’ll need to get through the rest of the season.

NOTES FROM THE BOARD:

 

“Detective Munch”: His best line comes when he, Bayliss and Lewis are waiting for the bar to open and they’re alarmed because it’s 9 pm and nobody’s there.

Lewis: Well, people get started late.

Munch: “Yeah, they’re probably watching The X-Files.”

Richard Belzer, it should be mentioned, was a huge fan of the show and would actually appear on it in Season 5.

Future Inmate: Robert Clohessy, who plays Doug Jones, had actually worked with Tom Fontana before on St. Elsewhere as a guest star. He’d previously appeared in the final season of Hill Street Blues and it other series such as Nick & Hilary, Jake and the Fatman and would appear on NYPD Blue the same year. His breakthrough would be on OZ but he would actually play a corrections officer, Sean Murphy one of the few characters on that series to have a moral compass basically from beginning to end. Since then he has been a regular guest actor in every series in the Law & Order franchise and the short lived cop drama New Amsterdam. His next major role was Alderman Neary on the first two seasons of Boardwalk Empire. But his biggest role by far has been as Sid Gormley on Blue Bloods which he played for all fourteen season it was on the air.

This episode also marks the first real appearance of Peggy Yates as Maria Delgado one of the recurring TV reporters who appears as part of the media we see on a recurring basis. Usually they will be seen on the screen as part of the Baltimore local television station. We’ll be seeing a lot more of them in the episodes to come, though never in a way to notice.