Blog

  • 2014 FINAL Emmy Predictions: Lead Actress in a Comedy Series

    2014 FINAL Emmy Predictions: Lead Actress in a Comedy Series

    [maxbutton id=”3″]

    Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Veep) is going for the three peat, and I think she’s going to do it. For some odd reason, she’s been unable to submit her best for Veep. The first season she submitted the episode tears when there were clear alternatives like the Pilot and “Baseball.” The second season, she submitted the episode “Running”, which offered her some physical comedy and intoxication, but was no where near as strong as season finale “DC.” However, she still won both times. Why? Because an average Julia Louis-Dreyfus tape, is a great one in the Emmy field. In the episode “Crate”, which is along the same lines. She doesn’t have too much to do, except for the incredible bathroom scene when she discovers that she is becoming president. It seems like enough, partially in thanks to the relatively weak field of episodes.

    Her closest competition is Melissa McCarthy (Mike & Molly). Although she was snubbed last year after winning for the freshman season and being nominated once more, she comes back strong with an episode that has all the hallmarks of an Emmy winning episode. First, there’s range. It’s a surprisingly emotional episode of the series, which isn’t something you usually get from a multi-cam sitcom. The episode has a strong storyline with a beginning, middle, and end. Lastly, she has a lot of impact. You feel bad for her, and sometimes that’s all you need.

    There is some competition coming from Amy Poehler (Parks and Recreation), who is the overdue choice, and Taylor Schilling (Orange is the New Black), who would be the freshman choice. I could see it going either of those ways before going back to McCarthy, but I think Dreyfus is the safer choice here.

    1. Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Veep (“Crate”)
    2. Melissa McCarthy, Mike & Molly (“Mind Over Molly”)
    3. Amy Poehler, Parks and Recreation (“Recall Vote”)
    4. Taylor Schilling, Orange is the New Black (“Fucksgiving”)
    5. Lena Dunham, Girls (“Beach House”)
    6. Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie (“Super Greens”)

  • Emmy Spotlight: Orange is the New Black

    Emmy Spotlight: Orange is the New Black

    o-ORANGE-IS-THE-NEW-BLACK-facebook1

    Did you know that it’s the first season of Orange is the New Black that is in contention at this year’s Emmy ceremony? I sure didn’t. So go ahead and check out my absurdly belated review of season two that I totally didn’t write by accident after you finish up here. And now, let’s all reach back in our minds, to that desolate wasteland in our collective memory known as “summer 2013,” which is when the first season of Orange is the New Black aired before it was then summarily ignored by that year’s Emmys because eligibility windows.

    The first season of Orange is the New Black is a solid dramedy. It’s pretty hard at this point not to look at it comparison to the second (and I think superior) season, but I’ll try my best. What I love most about it, which I briefly touched on in my piece on season two, is that the show is a total Trojan horse. On its face it appears to be yet another show about a privileged white lady, in over her head, even more so considering it’s from Jenji Kohan, who gave us Weeds. But like that show (which I’ll argue forever is great), Orange has a much different, better, and more interesting agenda. For while Piper is certainly our entry point into the crazy world of Litchfield, it becomes evident very quickly that Kohan and company are much more interested in the characters that inhabit the prison, and in the ways that they cope with life behind bars. It’s a wonderful bait and switch, and the result is a television show that features one of the most diverse, inclusive casts in the history of the medium.

    It’s not all bait and switch, of course. The premiere episode especially is heavily focused on Piper, as it slowly transitions the audience from her comfortable upper-class existence into the harsh realities of prison life. Appropriately titled “I Wasn’t Ready,” the episode also firmly establishes the flashback structure, most reminiscent of a show like Lost, that enables the series to explore its characters in such impressive depth. While at first this exploration is reserved for Piper, it quickly extends outward. At first the characters appear to Piper, and therefore to us, as clichés. But slowly, as Piper gets to know both them and the prison better, we see that each is a complex, well-rounded individual.

    It says something about how well the rest of the season does its job that, in re-watching “I Wasn’t Ready,” Piper comes across as, frankly, grating. Similarly, the other characters come across as flat and one-note, especially as they’re introduced with their specific roles within the prison. One of the biggest benefits of the Netflix model is that we don’t need to wait thirteen or more weeks for the shading to be filled in, as we would with a typical television show. Instead, the rough sketches presented here are fleshed out as quickly as our eyes will allow.

    The show grows exponentially throughout the season, and the retrospective strangeness of the premiere suddenly seems all of a piece with the story the show is trying to tell. Insofar as the season is about Piper’s journey, then, it’s quite successful. But it’s most successful in telling the stories of the other inmates. Kate Mulgrew is a standout as Red, who runs the kitchen and makes Piper’s life hell before becoming a valuable ally. On the outside Red was herself an outsider, starved for the attention of the wives of the Russian mobsters, until she falls in with the crowd herself. Laverne Cox is excellent in a small role as Sophia, a transgender woman who committed credit card fraud to finance her surgery. And Taryn Manning gives a frequently genuinely frightening turn as Pennsatucky, an under-educated meth head in for the murder of a worker at an abortion clinic. But even the background roles, tertiary characters who might not have much bearing on the plot, but who add depth and color to the setting of the show, are memorable and even moving. Morello, Jones, Big Boo, Taystee, Poussey, and on and on—slowly but surely, nearly every single inmate becomes a living, breathing character.

    It’s somewhat disappointing, then, how heavily the season leans on Piper and Alex. It’s not that Laura Prepon is bad in the role—in fact, she’s the better of the season’s several antagonists, since her preexisting connection with Piper raises the stakes for both Piper and the audience. But with so much else going on at the prison, it can sometimes be a drag to spend so much time with arguably one of the least interesting characters, or at least, the most familiar. There isn’t very much left to learn about Piper, whereas we as an audience are seeing someone like Red, or Sophia, or Miss Claudette, for the first time. What we do learn about Piper is how she is changed by these women, and by her new circumstances; everything we learn, we learn through contrast to these other elements.

    I think part of my discomfort with the focus on Piper is also the relative lack of an overarching story, one that connects the many, many disparate threads of the season. (I’m cheating slightly by noting that season two goes a long way to fixing this, by way of introducing Vee, but hey—it does.) Pablo Schreiber’s Mendez rounds out the villains of season one, and his dealings with Daya and Tricia do bring in many of the other supporting characters, but Piper and Pennsatucky’s ultimate showdown feels very separate from much of the show, just as the rest of the show at times can feel very separate from Piper. Curiously, even though Piper is one of the few characters in season two who doesn’t interact directly with Vee, that sense of her as just another inmate actually makes the character feel more integrated into the show.

    It’s important to remember, though, that these episodes can be watched straight through in a handful of sittings (if not just one), and in many ways they are meant to be taken more as a whole than they are as a series of thirteen separate stories. Taken as such, the season becomes an examination of morality, in a sense, of the way that decisions long forgotten, or tiny indiscretions thought unnoticed, can suddenly dominate our lives. Laura Prepon plays Alex as a toxic presence throughout Piper’s life, one that simply won’t go away, while scenes with Larry and his parents create an ever larger gap between what Piper was and what she is now. Running through all of that is Pennsatucky, with her brand of pure, unbridled chaos. As for everyone else, they fall somewhere along the spectrum, each their own special shade of grey, whether we’re talking Bennett, the well-intentioned fool, or Fig, who emerges by the end of the season as a devious administrator, or Piper herself, a spoiled white girl who maybe is learning to be less so. (As an aside, Alysia Reiner is absolutely fabulous as Natalie Figueroa, always striking the perfect balance of no-nonsense and heinous bitch.)

    When we get to the end of the season, Piper is pummeling the life out of Pennsatucky, and it’s a moment that is appropriately horrifying, and yet in a way also liberating. It’s Piper embracing prison life for all that it entails, her sign to herself that yes, she is ready. And we have Healy, who leaves Piper to die. And we have Red, down a peg, having lost her kitchen and with it her status in the prison. Perhaps it is most fitting, then, to view this first season as a collection of different stories, united by their common themes, and by their common setting. Funnily enough, the comparisons to Lost don’t seem to end with the structural similarities; there’s something to be said for the idea that Litchfield, as a closed system, is a space for the inmates, and the COs as well, to confront their own worst demons, whether they reside in their pasts or in their present.

    In closing, then, I want to especially call out the Christmas pageant that closes out the season in “Can’t Fix Crazy”. The entire sequence is wonderfully incongruous, breathtaking in its simplicity and in its beauty. When Norma breaks the silence caused by Suzanne’s forgotten lines, with her surprisingly gorgeous voice, the moment catches you off guard in the best possible way, precisely because it is so unexpected to see anything even remotely resembling unbridled joy up on that stage.

    The incongruity carries into Piper and Pennsatucky’s shiv duel out back, and I think it’s worth noting that when Piper does finally snap, it’s at Pennsatucky’s insistence that she is unworthy of God’s love, of anyone’s love at all. That exact fear has nagged at the back of Piper’s mind all season, but really, it’s the same fear that plagues every single character on the show, whether inmate or guard or administrator. For whatever reasons—the reasons don’t ultimately matter—the various residents of Litchfield are afraid that they are unworthy of love. And so the best thing about Orange is the New Black is not only its expanding scope, but its insistence on revealing these people for the human beings that they are. It’s highly entertaining and often funny, but it’s also piercing commentary on our prison system, on the way that we as a country systematically and institutionally devalue inmates who, really, have the same problems any of us has. Orange is the New Black is about finding commonality where one least expects it—commonality between inmates and free folk, between black and white, rich and poor, and any other divisive binary you can dream up. The characters and setting might be new to television, but themes aren’t, and it’s that universality that makes the show so very effective, and which has so quickly cemented it in the cultural zeitgeist. And the best thing about considering this first season on such a delay? We already know the show only gets better from here.

  • 2014 Emmy Predictions: Supporting Actor in a Drama Series

    2014 Emmy Predictions: Supporting Actor in a Drama Series

    [maxbutton id=”3″]

    The Drama Supporting Actor is a category that comes down to the episode submissions, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. The race comes down to the three contenders:

    Peter Dinklage, Game of Thrones (“The Laws of Gods and Men”): Peter Dinklage won this category for the show’s first season, with an episode that really only had one scene for him to shine. The same somewhat goes for his episode submission this year. As Tyrion stands trial for murder, he must watch as his defense is slowly chipped away until he reaches his breaking point and delivers a passionate speech condemning everyone in the room. It is really the best kind of Emmys speech. He is relentless and there are yells, gasps, and screams as he speaks. There is also a lot of gravitas in the performance. You feel bad for Tyrion. You’re on his side. Then, the episode closes on his face. The one drawback is that you have to wait for that scene… a long 50 minutes.
    Aaron Paul, Breaking Bad (“Confessions”): Aaron Paul has win this category twice. The first time was for the episode “Half Measures.” It was a bit of a watershed episode for Jesse. He must deal with drug dealers who are using children to sell drugs. His second win came from the episode “End Times,” which was one of the strongest episode submissions for a supporting actor in years. “Confessions” is similarly a watershed episode. Every single scene is just Jesse pouring out emotion whether it’s sadness, anger, or all out rage. His one hitch is that he doesn’t show up until about halfway through the episode. Although, he is on screen the entire time from that point.
    Josh Charles, The Good Wife (“Hitting the Fan”): I’m really glad that Josh Charles submitted “Hitting the Fan” opposed to “Dramatics, Your Honor.” While the latter sure is memorable, “Hitting the Fan” offers him a lot of emotion, opposed to his usual stone face. The best part of the episode is that the now iconic desk scene opens the episode. He is complete war mode and he shows it with complete rage. He also has the advantage of having consistent screen time.

    My head is telling me to go with Dinklage, my gut says it’s Charles, and my heart wants to go with Paul. This is as much of a toss up as categories get. I’m throwing a dart and landing on Aaron Paul here, but very unconfidently. If Dinklage or Charles take it, I will be just as happy.

    1. Aaron Paul (Breaking Bad)
    2. Josh Charles (Game of Thrones)
    3. Peter Dinklage (Game of Thrones)
    4. Jon Voight (Ray Donovan)
    5. Mandy Patinkin (Homeland)
    6. Jim Carter (Downton Abbey)

  • Album Review: Adult Jazz, “Gist Is”

    Album Review: Adult Jazz, “Gist Is”

    Adult_Jazz_site

    Debut albums are tricky things to assess. An artist’s first full-length is not a reliable litmus test for how their career will pan out, or in some cases, their artistic validity. But it’s the unique blend of hype and mystery that always makes debuts exciting to listen to. That lack of history combined with the concocted narrative provided by the blogs du jour makes for a first listen that’s brimming with anticipation and yet is a venture into uncharted territory. All of that makes it confusing when a band like Adult Jazz releases something like Gist Is, a debut album that’s refined and familiar but foreign in its precociousness.

    Clocking in at nearly an hour with only nine tracks, Gist Is might initially appear to be an exercise to get through. With only one song shorter than four minutes, the band certainly takes the “long player” form to heart. Quite happily, the album hardly drags, as many songs have multiple movements within them, and each song itself plays nicely into the next. These elongated structures allow for the band to really explore and wring out the most from their instruments. There is a real freedom to the interplay between the four musicians, almost bordering on (as cliché as it is to say here) jazziness. Off-kilter rhythms, especially in songs like “Am Gone”, are given dipping accents with economical bass playing, while guitar and vocals dance over top, unafraid to clash with the rhythm section or each other. Guitars and vocals take a huge amount of cues from the David Longstreth School of art rock, dangling off the edge of song structure (though perhaps Mr. Longstreth himself would push these sounds further). This means a lot of skronky electric figures (see “Donne Tongue”) and singing versions of high-wire acts (“Pigeon Skulls”). It makes for highly expressive sounding music that tests the boundaries of its focus without ever really endangering it.

    If the album has a lived-in quality to it, that may be due to the fact that it was recorded in The Black Byre, a 16th century bastle house. The slight reverb of frontman Harry Burgess’ voice at times recalls someone shouting in an empty room, and gives a special feeling of captured reality. Adding to this great “living” sound is the juxtaposition of those performances against interesting studio tricks.  The pitch-shifted vocals on “Hum,” what sounds like the tail end of a chant on “Idiot Mantra”, and the various cut-and-paste, chopped off bits and phrases found throughout make Gist Is feel like both an artifact and alive at the same time.

    Adult Jazz's Gist IsThere are a couple of things to grapple with on this album. There are some jams here that would surely rock the festival crowd. “Springful” has a wonderful palette of sounds and a killer chorus, and “Am Gone” has a lilting summery pace that anyone on Bonnaroo ‘shrooms would wave their hands to. But there’s a certain paint-by-numbers going on here. “Hum” basically could be a James Blake song; the rest of the album arguably sounds as though Grizzly Bear, The xx, and Dirty Projectors collaborated, and the similarities are easy to spot. But it usually makes for a damn good listen, and this is a debut album, so for now, who cares? Better to draw our concern to the lyrics, which are for the most part inscrutable without liner notes. Some lines do stick well, like the opening three from “Am Gone” or these from “Spook”: “and I do not have no will/and I write these songs to trick God/ and I do not take it lightly.” Burgess, who has a good, unique voice, is not afraid to stretch words with onomatopoetic license, or to repeat phrases, or to generally test the limits of the language he uses. But this can and does bloat some of the songs unnecessarily. Also, the fake patois he occasionally uses is an artistic decision that is hard to understand, and comes off as silly.

    Gist Is is like IKEA furniture: a collection of modern influences that, when combined, creates something that isn’t earth-shattering but is certainly stylish, and ultimately something you want to live in. Adult Jazz demonstrates a sophistication and assuredness in its sound that is worthy of repeat plays and spending serious time with.

  • Emmy Spotlight: Veep

    Emmy Spotlight: Veep

    Selina signs her book

    If at any point this essay devolves into just a running list of one-liners, I apologize. But with a show as consistently, uproariously funny as Veep, it’s nigh impossible to resist the urge to simply revel in the wonderful blue humor of Armando Ianucci’s vulgarity-ridden zingers. In the hands of the talented ensemble that fills out the cast, swearing is elevated to an art form, even if no one quite measures up to the imitable Malcom Tucker, played by Peter Capaldi on Ianucci’s The Thick of It, the BBC satire that is Veep’s precursor.

    Now in its third season, Veep has thoroughly demonstrated that it only gets better with age. With its focus on Selina Meyer’s cover presidential aspirations, this season has a stronger narrative thrust than the previous two, as it displays greater comfort with the characters and setting, and more confidence in its audience, allowing stories to unfold serially over multiple episodes. There are still elements of the series’ trademark problem-of-the-week model, but even on these outings (including a trip to Silicon Valley and a stop at a gun show in Detroit), the hijinks that the Veep’s staffers get up to have repercussions beyond the individual situations.

    Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like this is 24 or something. Beyond “Selina campaigns for president” the plot is as secondary as it ever was. But even this minor shift in the season’s structure is extremely rewarding. Now that they’ve an actual goal to work toward (as opposed to continued languishing in the uselessness of Selina’s office), we see new aspects of these by-now familiar characters.

    As ever, and even more so now, it is the characters that are Veep’s greatest strength. This is an incredibly strong ensemble, gifted in their delivery of some wickedly funny dialogue, and endlessly compatible. The characters can be paired off in basically any combination, and hilarity is guaranteed to ensue, and in fact this season sees some fruitful experimentation in this regard, especially with the running gag of Sue and Kent’s maybe-flirtation, maybe-mutual hatred. Even established character traits, such as Dan and Amy’s rivalry, come into clearer focus when they have something concrete, like the campaign manager position, to compete over.

    Of course, all of that means nothing without the performances to back it up, and it’s not overstating things to say that Veep has one of the best comedy ensembles to ever appear on television. Leading the cast as Vice President Selina Meyer, Julia Louis-Dreyfus has won two Emmys for the role and is now nominated a third time for Best Actress, and she continues to earn it a hundred times over. She is amazing with all her material, but she is best at conveying Selina’s pure, seething hatred for everything and everyone around her. Pretending to care about her staff, her constituents, even her family, is so obviously the most difficult aspect of Selina’s job, and of her personal life. Not that she pretends very often—some of the season’s biggest laughs come from Selina’s barely veiled, and sometimes not-at-all veiled, disdain for the people she is forced to interact with. (My personal favorite: Selina’s every interaction with Minna Hakkinen, whom she insists on referring to as the “ex-Prime Minister of Finland,” every time, no matter what: “In your country, people fuck snow.”)

    The rest of the cast is fantastic as well. Tony Hale is perfectly cast as Selina’s simpering personal aide, Gary, who this season suffers a shoulder injury that makes him unsuited even for his ridiculously unnecessary job as, essentially, a place for Selina to hang her purse. He’s eminently pitiable, but just annoying enough that you don’t feel bad for laughing at him. Of course, Hale has experience with this type of character, having spent four years as veritable punching bag Buster Bluth, and in many ways Gary is a toned-down variation on that same attention-starved, slightly slow-on-the-uptake, tertiary team member. Dan Reid and Anna Chlumsky are reliably funny, trading off the Everyman role while the other indulges in some neurosis or other. Scott is especially effective during Dan’s epically chaotic tenure as Selina’s campaign manager. Matt Walsh’s Matt McClintock is as endearingly bumbling as ever, but he also meet his wife (played by Kathy Najimy) and see a home life that suggests he’s not quite as pathetically useless as he appears to be at work.

    The ensemble continues to grow, as well, as Sufe Bradshaw’s Sue has an increasingly larger role, Kevin Dunn joins the regular cast as Ben, and Timothy Simons continues to steal the show as perennial punching bag Jonah. And there is also a strong cavalcade of guest stars: beside the aforementioned Najimy and Gary Cole’s Kent, Chris Meloni also gives a hilarious turn as Ray, Selina’s physical trainer/fuckbuddy, Zach Woods as Amy’s milquetoast boyfriend Ed, and Diedrich Bader as a shit-stirring campaign manager who manages to (further) turn Selina against her staff. Frankly, there isn’t a weak link in the bunch here—every single character, including the minor one-off characters who drop by for just a line or two, can be counted on to generate laughs.

    For that, credit belongs chiefly to the twisted, vulgar genius of Armando Ianucci, who truly is a poet of swear words and insults. The epithets that fly in every episode are endlessly inventive, bringing new meaning to the phrase “colorful language,” but more than that, they are backed by a witty, acerbic sense of humor (a running joke late in the season involves the First Lady’s attempted suicide), often crass (never forget: “That would be like using a croissant as a dildo”), but with such a pitch perfect ear for the bullshit nonsense of politico-speak that it always feels like smart satire, rather than cheap laughs. In fact, “feels like” is the wrong phrase. This is straight-up satire, through and through. Veep thoroughly understands the emptiness of so much of the political cycle, of the meaningless campaign slogans and press appearances. Nowhere is this better represented than in the premier episode, where the Vice President signs copies of her book, a fake smile plastered on her face. The book is called “Some New Beginnings: Our Next American Journey,” which makes no sense; it was, naturally, ghostwritten; and when Selina finally bothers to open up a page, she finds that it doesn’t make a lick of sense.

    Like all great comedy, the secret of Veep’s success is that at its core, it speaks the truth. The reality might be heightened, but Washington really is this dysfunctional, and the system really is up to its eyes in bullshit. That’s what makes the characters unrepentant awfulness so entertaining. We’ll gladly watch them bumble around because they deserve every damn bad thing that happens to them. Unfailingly, Selina and company’s plans fall to utter shit (I would call them best-laid plans, but they so rarely are), and the show not only unfailingly mines humor from it, but it pays increasing dividends too. They can’t do anything right because they are incompetent idiots, but they’re also terrible people, instinctively mean and socially illiterate. Their messes are frequently, perhaps even exclusively, of their own making, and there is never any doubt that they deserve their fate.

    And yet, Armando Ianucci and his team never fall from the tightrope they walk every episode—Selina and her team remain loveable underdogs, even (and perhaps especially) in their most insensitive, idiotic, blundering moments. Nothing encapsulates this idea better than the finale, where we see Selina’s staff briefly excel in their new roles, before failing spectacularly and expectedly. “Crate,” the first part of the season finale, ends with POTUS stepping down, and Selina becomes president through basically no effort of her own—and to boot she basically cheers on FLOTUS’s dubious mental health and welcomes her latest suicide attempt—and the moment somehow actually comes off as triumphant, with her Gary manically celebrating in the ladies’ room (nosebleed notwithstanding). That she’s supposed to be having a meaningful, serious conversation with two immigrants could not be less important to her, and after getting the news of her impending promotion, she has a shit-eating grin plastered to her face the entire time. That’s politics, and that’s Veep, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

     

  • Emmy Spotlight: True Detective

    Emmy Spotlight: True Detective

    Matthew-McConaughey

    Can you believe that we’re far enough past True Detective’s finale to have already arrived at the True Detective backlash? Neither can I, but here we are nonetheless. In the words of the ever-quotable Gawker Media, Nic Pizzolatto is a schmuck, and he probably also hates women? Pizzolatto mostly disregards that criticism, and mostly he does this for good reason. True Detective tells a story of violence against women—systemic, socially engrained, physical, sexual, and emotional violence against women. From beginning to end, the implication is that it the capacity for this violence is basically in the soil of the godforsaken Louisiana that the show depicts.

    The crime that sets this whole chain of events in motion, in 1995, is like something out of Hannibal, and is unlike any case Marty Hart or Rust Cohle have worked on before. Their investigation leads them down a dark, twisting path, until they appear to catch their man, and Hart shoots him dead in anger. But in 2002 it becomes clear that this is not the case, and Cohle spends the next decade trying to unravel the mystery. Like the audience he becomes bogged down in mythology, in ideas of the Yellow King and Carcosa, and it drives him half-mad. And in the intervening time, we watch each man in fits and glimpses, always comparing them to each other, watching as the case, or else their inherent natures, chips away bit by bit at their souls.

    It goes without saying, then, that True Detective is relentlessly dark, and not just in terms of the violent crimes that Hart and Cohle investigate. These men have dark lives, as well. Rust Cohle is divorced, and has recently lost his young daughter, and has turned to a Nietzschean, nihilist philosophy, refusing to recognize any meaning to life or the world around him. Marty Hart is a womanizing bastard, a perennial philanderer, and a misogynist hypocrite. Through some awful twist of fate, it is these men who are charged with the investigation of a serial murderer who abducts and horribly maims children. But True Detective is less interested in being a mystery about this killer’s identity than it is in being a portrait of these two men across the nearly two decades that their investigation spans. This doesn’t become immediately obvious to us until the end of the seventh episode, “After You’ve Gone,” when Errol Childress, he of the scarred neck and spaghetti monster ears, is more or less dropped into our laps. Much of the finale, “Form and Void,” is then devoted to Hart and Cohle retracing their steps, explaining how the clues they’ve been presented with do, indeed, lead to the Childress clan. I highly doubt that anyone could have arrived at this conclusion on his own, through careful study of the show, not least because the most essential clues are not given until after the killer’s identity is confirmed.

    If you are watching True Detective expecting the thrill of clues coming together and solving a mystery, then “Form and Void” is your Lost moment, a crushing disappointment at the realization that your expectations not only have not been met, but were in fact way off base to begin with. If you were watching with more interest to form and style, to the performances being given, and to the character studies being carried out, then you perhaps are more pleased with the final product than you would have expected at the beginning. By and large I fall into the second camp, and that is owing to several key components.

    First and foremost is Cary Joji Fukunaga’s wonderful direction. True Detective is a formal rarity in television, with all eight installments by the same writer and director. The result is a consistency of tone and vision that is almost completely unparalleled—the only other example I can think of is Breaking Bad, which is all the more impressive considering it achieves that consistency over many more episodes, with many more writers and directors in the room. There is hardly a shot in these eight episodes that is not utterly breathtaking. More than anything else, Fukunaga achieves the perfect atmosphere for this story, a hard-boiled Southern Gothic detective yarn, with the requisite strong imagery that goes with those vastly different territories. His instinct for framing is unmatched, and there are countless images throughout that will stay with you for a very long time. There are many wide shots, industrialized landscapes with billowing plumes of smog that never seem too symbolic. The lighting, as well, is excellent, leaving everything in murky shadow or else this bitter orange light—and all this is contrasted with the bright, lush green landscapes of the Louisiana swamplands, including the fields where eventually we arrive at Carcosa itself.

    Another component, briefly mentioned before we get to the meat and potatoes here, is T-Bone Burnett’s excellent music curation, along with the opening tune and credit sequence, all of which capture the Creole vibe of the show’s setting, as well as the more haunting aspects of the narrative. Particularly with the songs that close out each episode, Burnett picks some killer cues that keep us thoroughly, emotionally engaged.

    And finally we have the lead actors, Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey, each in his own way thoroughly unlikely to be found in this sort of project, and yet each perfectly suited to his role. McConaughey especially is a revelation here, at the beginning of his so-called “McConnaissance,” imbuing this difficult character with a vital spark of humanity that is necessary to make the constant dorm-room philosophizing remotely bearable, let alone believable. In McConaughey’s hands, Rust Cohle becomes a real man, irreparably damaged by grief, whereas he easily could have become a noir cliché. The same is true of Harrelson, whose Marty Hart is as clichéd a hard-boiled detective as they come, and yet remains relatable to the audience even in his most horrible moments. Both actors commit fully to the idea that they are not portraying good men, and that level of understanding is crucial to the performances they give. This is their show, and they steal it, both rightly nominated for Lead Actor this year.

    As for the rest of the “main cast,” they don’t get much to do. Michael Potts and Tory Kittles play the detectives who have taken over the Carcosa case in 2012, and while they are named, you’ll be hard-pressed to remember the names. Michelle Monaghan has the next-largest role, as Margaret Hart. Credit where it’s due: Maggie is a stronger character than many critics would have you believe, but the fact remains that there simply isn’t enough here to make much of a judgment on her one way or the other, especially toward the end of the season, where she serves only to drive conflict between the two men. The argument here is that this is a closed-perspective show, telling the story from Cohle and Hart’s points of view, to the exclusion of other perspectives. That’s a fine argument, but there are multiple scenes throughout the season that are from Maggie’s point of view, and they sort of torpedo that argument.

    In a story about wanton violence toward women, whether physical or emotional, it’s completely legitimate for female characters to function as objects, or as reference points for the male characters. This is something that happens fairly often in literature—I’m reminded most strongly of James Salter’s short story “American Express”—and it only really becomes problematic here when Pizzolatto opens his mouth about it. (I guess maybe he is a little bit of a schmuck after all.) But I don’t find it to be a fundamental problem with the show the way that other critics, chief among them Emily Nussbaum of The New Yorker, have. When toward the end of the season, Maggie seduces Rust, for the sole purpose of hurting Marty, it’s easy to read Rust’s angered reaction as misogynist, as the narrative reducing Maggie to a sex object. And yes, she is being used to create conflict between the two men. But it’s much more rewarding to read the scene as a damnation of both men, as a way of equating Cohle with Hart, even though Cohle sees himself as better than Hart is. Assuming that Maggie’s portrayal here is negative or misogynist or anti-feminist is, frankly, lazy. Yes, it’s a problem that the character eventually exists only to drive a wedge between Hart and Cohle, but the script, and more so Monaghan’s performance, ensure that it’s the men who are at fault.

    Really, the plot is the weakest part of the whole affair here. It’s overly complicated, especially considering that the human elements of the story are foregrounded in the climax, and it’s all too easy to tune in and out of the (rather convoluted) specifics of Hart and Cohle’s investigation. That Cohle more or less cracks the case off-screen is a big red flag. Each episode has hugely interesting set pieces, especially those concerned with Hart’s home life. His relationship to his wife and daughters is consistently contrasted with the dead girls he investigates, and ideas of virginity and patriarchy are fully explored through Marty’s various experiences and, yes, his bad decisions with regard to women. No one should walk away thinking that True Detective endorses his behavior—but yes, it would be nice if Monaghan had a bit more to work with.

    Basically, the show is at its best when it’s not concerned directly with the detective work, whether that’s when we’re exploring the characters’ lives outside of work, in the fantastically directed chase sequence that closes out “Who Goes There,” a long, unbroken carnage that is certainly the highlight of the season, or in the rip-roaring climax that briefly becomes a supernatural showdown of epic proportions. It’s impossible to overstate how magnificently tense the final confrontation with Childress, there in Carcosa. It’s no stretch to accuse the show of teasing occult or supernatural elements that it never quite delivers on, but in this sequence, those elements are out in full force nonetheless. The set design of Carcosa is staggering, and the way that Hart and Cohle make their way into this literal heart of darkness is a perfect ending to the long, strange journey that has led them there.

    That said, I have a quibble—neither of them dies, despite grievous injuries that probably should have killed one or both of them. That instead both Hart and Cohle survive this long ordeal is somewhat beyond belief, but is nevertheless in line with the story that Pizzolatto ultimately tells. They survive precisely so that they can realize the folly of their actions, of their belief systems. Yes, this is a story in which our heroes, such as they are, are made to learn something. It’s a weirdly warm and fuzzy ending, and while it doesn’t come out of left field—in fact it’s well supported from the very beginning—it does subvert audience expectations, and that can often feel like the same thing. Mostly this is a case of Pizzolatto being a Writer with a capital-W, used to writing a complete work and letting it stand for itself. Television is a different animal, and while we can now in retrospect view it as a creative whole, we’ll always have those six weeks of rabid speculation that was, at best, misguided. At worst, it was an utter waste of time.

    So the show is not perfect. I think at times its reach exceeds its grasp, especially in the later episodes. Moreover, the show ends up telling a simpler story—in which it tracks the progress of two very damaged men over nearly twenty years—than it purports to at first; you can look to the degree of disappointment in the show’s finale as proof positive of this. It certainly would have been helpful if Pizzolatto had tipped his hand earlier with regard to this. Instead, as with The Killing over on AMC, a series of clues turn out to be red herrings, and the mystery itself turns out to be almost beside the point. There’s nothing wrong with that—but when your show is called True Detective and you’re laying out clues like crazy anyway, it might be helpful to give your viewers a heads up.

    But by and large this is a very good series. It starkly portrays the very worst aspects of human nature, and does so unflinchingly, but it also makes a strong argument against nihilism, against the resigned acceptance of this world as a cruel, random place. It leaves us with our notion of good and evil intact, and perhaps even reinforced. You could watch it on mute and it would still be gorgeous, if nothing else. The narrative is long and winding, too much so, with occasionally too inflated a sense of self-importance, but the script is nonetheless effective in its smaller moments, and each episode has several sequences that are truly great television. For the atmospherics and direction alone, True Detective is a stellar achievement; that the other elements all occasionally align as well is even better, and more than enough to forgive its few failures.

  • Movie Review: The Giver

    Movie Review: The Giver

    Screen-Shot-2014-06-25-at-1.30.21-PM

    I first read Lois Lowry’s The Giver in eighth grade, at which time the YA classic was already ten years old. I have not read it since, and I purposely did not re-read it in advance of watching Philip Noyce’s film adaptation for this review. That said, the book had on me, like it did on so many, a very strong impact. In many ways The Giver is the progenitor of the modern YA novel, and indeed it shares many of the characteristics of later works such as The Hunger Games.

    My goal in not re-reading it, then, was to go in to this film with as little expectation as possible. I have a strong emotional memory of the book, but many of the specifics have long been lost on me. I therefore suspect that I enjoyed the film more than most, because despite my limited memory of the source material, I also suspect that the adaptation here is by and large one giant missed opportunity.

    For whatever reason, one specific moment from the novel stands out in my memory: Jonas uses the word “starving” to indicate the degree of his hunger, and is scolded by an authority figure (precisely whom, I don’t remember)—after all, in this world no one is starving, and the Elders have worked very hard to ensure that. For Jonas to say that he is starving is therefore flippant, and totally disregards the effort that attained this utopia. While in the film, Katie Holmes’s Mother admonishes Jonas multiple times for his “precision of language,” this specific scene is entirely absent, along with almost any world-building that I certainly remember being in the book.

    We are told constantly how perfect and idealized the world of The Giver is, but the screenplay doesn’t go to many lengths to actually demonstrate this bizarre society. We are launched right into Jonas’s “graduation,” with little sense of his friendship with Fiona (Odeya Rush) and Asher (Cameron Monaghan), or of his home life with Mother and Father (Alexander Skarsgård), or of how society functions in this world, beyond the most superficial level. From there we move too quickly into Jonas’s training, where the film then spends the bulk of its second act.

    Fortunately the second act is also the film’s best, owing in large part to Jeff Bridges’ performance as the Giver. You see, Jonas is special among his peers, and is selected not for one the many standard occupations assigned to new adults, but instead is selected to be the “Receiver of Memory.” What this means is that, eventually, Jonas will be solely entrusted with the knowledge of human history, and therefore with the reason for the Community’s very strictly regulated society. So it’s down to the previous Receiver to train Jonas for this very important role. We learn along the way that there was a Receiver in between, Rosemary, who is played by Taylor Swift, but appears so briefly as to make very little impact on the plot or on the audience. Rosemary is a symbol, of the Giver’s grief, and of the cruelty of what Jonas is being asked to do—but she is not a character, and Swift is asked to do very little acting.

    Jonas’ training is depicted through flashbacks, intercut with conversations between him and the Giver. Jeff Bridges and Brenton Thwaites (about whom more in a moment) have an easy chemistry here, and their mentor/learner relationship is a vivid and ultimately moving one. When toward the end of the film, the Giver tells Jonas that he loves him, we feel that, and so does Thwaites, who gives a remarkably understated reaction, mixing pride, relief, sadness, and admiration in a most beautiful way. This is the central relationship of the film, and so we need to spend as much time on as it as we do. In fact, I’d have liked to see much more of it.

    Beyond Jonas’s slow discovery of the things that have been removed from society—colors, music, love, envy, war, violence—the plot of the film is rather thin, centering on an infant, Gabriel, who has been designated “uncertain”, meaning that he will not immediately be assigned to a family unit. What this really means, as we and Jonas eventually learn, is that Gabriel will be killed. This understandably is the last straw for Jonas, who leaves his training early and travels with Gabriel beyond what is called “the boundary of memory,” both to save the infants life, and to restore memory to all of society.

    In other words, this is fairly typical, dystopian YA stuff—a young protagonist singled out from his peers, given responsibility undue his age, who rises to the challenge, uncovers misdeeds among the establishment, and rebels. It was revolutionary in 1993, but now it seems a pale imitation of The Hunger Games. That’s mainly because of the screenplay, which does not do nearly enough to explore the themes and emotions that the source material engages with. Bridges, along with Meryl Streep as the Chief Elder, lend the film an appropriate sense of gravity, but neither is able to save a script that is seemingly unwilling to challenge its audience with any truly tough ideas. There is an attempt here to boil the material down to a “love conquers all” sort of story, and that’s just weak. Given Bridges’s long involvement with this project and his reported passion for the novel, one wonders why more of that does not translate to the screen.

    It’s a shame, too, because the movie is certainly competently made, and at times is truly beautiful. Philip Noyce has an elegant way of staging scenes, especially during the long middle section that is comprised mainly of Jonas and the Giver talking to each other. The film’s use of color, extremely important to the narrative, is nothing short of fantastic, as the lack or presence of color becomes narrative shorthand that is used to great effect, especially toward the film’s climax. Similarly, the flashes of memories that Jonas experiences benefit from the transition to the screen, as Noyce employs real-world history to demonstrate both humanity’s capacity for violence and our capacity for love and triumph over adversity. Marco Beltrami’s score is not particularly inventive, but it does a great job of underscoring the film’s most emotional scenes.

    Which brings us to the rest of the acting. It’s standard of the YA film adaptation genre—because at this point it really is its own genre—to pepper the supporting cast with recognizable, talented adult actors, and that’s the case here as well. Bridges, Streep, Skarsgård, and Holmes each play their parts effectively, but none save Bridges have quite enough material to give the characters any dimension, despite their best efforts. But they’re only there to support the film’s true stars, typically a trio or more of teenagers (or approximations thereof).

    Here, the film’s undoubted lead role is that of Jonas, played here by Brenton Thwaites, who is sure to become a household name sooner or later based on his striking good looks if nothing else. He carries the role admirably enough, but is essentially playing the same note, that of wide-eyed wonderment, throughout. It’s a good note, and appropriate enough to the character, but again, one wishes for a slightly deeper dive into the character. There are a few moments where Thwaites does excel however, mainly with Bridges as his scene partner. He’s also a gifted comedian—I would watch him make faces at babies all day long—but understandably is not given many opportunities to exercise that particular acting muscle here. Similarly, Rush and Monaghan’s characters have very specific narrative roles to fill, and beyond acting out those requirements, there is nothing else done with Fiona or Asher.

    That’s really the problem with the whole film—it’s paint-by-numbers YA, when it should feel as revelatory and revolutionary as Lowry’s novel did, and still does. It’s difficult to know to what extent to fault the actors, to what extend to fault the script, and to what extent we should simply fault the Weinsteins. An examination of a utopian society that nonetheless murders babies who aren’t up to snuff is inherently fascinating—here it’s almost boring. And while the ending is mostly faithful to the novel as I recall it, the film doesn’t earn its ambiguity, especially as it also doesn’t make any sense. It achieves its emotional goal well enough, but why on earth should Jonas’s action have the effect it does? The best science fiction explains its technology, but here we’re asked to assume an awful lot. I’m not sure how Lowry handles this in the novel, and maybe it goes unexplained there as well, but here in the film, it’s one of those endings that works just until you give it even the slightest thought.

    The Giver, as a novel, remains an essential treatise on the complexities of the world, and of growing up, of the importance of feelings even when they are bad or destructive. It is for many readers their first exposure to the idea that passion is a double-edged sword, but that to have either edge you must have both. It is impossible to eliminate the bad from this world, and in the attempt to do so, you risk becoming that bad yourself. The film gestures at all of these ideas, but it does so in the most streamlined, Hollywood-ized way possible, without giving the ideas proper weight or consideration, the way I know its source material does, even years after reading it.

    The movie’s hovering around 28% on Rotten Tomatoes as I write this. It’s not as bad as all that. As a film, The Giver’s biggest crime is that it does not live up to the promise of its concept. That’s a pretty central failure, though, and so it spills out and poisons other aspects of the production, as well. You’ll undoubtedly enjoy it as you watch it, especially if you are nostalgic for the book, as even I am. But it will not stay with you for very long after you leave the theatre. Unlike a film like Catching Fire, which vastly improves upon and elevates its source material, The Giver stumbles, simplifying concepts that resist simplification, and making a very forgettable film as a result.

  • Creative Arts Emmys Live Blog

    Creative Arts Emmys Live Blog

    Emmy-Awards-key-art

    The Creative Arts Emmys are tonight! I will be live blogging the winners, my opinions, and what I think it means for the main ceremony! Check out our Emmy predictions here!

    [liveblog]

     

  • Emmy Spotlight: Silicon Valley

    Emmy Spotlight: Silicon Valley

    Silicon-Valley-1x05

    For people of a certain generation, the works of Mike Judge in general, and the film Office Space in particular, are something of a cultural milestone. In fact, Office Space has defined for me (and likely for you, too) my entire approach to corporate culture, and also the restaurant business, and frankly just what it is like to spend the bulk of your waking time doing a job that you, at best, tolerate for a paycheck that, at best, will stretch just far enough to cover your meager expenses. If that sounds terrible, that’s because it is. Welcome to America.

    Skewering corporate culture is nothing new, and it wasn’t when Office Space came out either, but I would argue that Office Space does it best, and especially does it best for the office life of the nineties. In mocking the ridiculous complexities of office culture, Office Space also became engrained within our culture. You’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone born after 1980, give or take, who doesn’t immediately recognize TPS reports, that red Swingline stapler, a case of the Mondays, pieces of flare, or good lord, even a Jump to Conclusions mat. When we’re laughing at Office Space, we’re laughing at ourselves, but we still go to work, day in and day out.

    It’s of course too soon to tell if Silicon Valley will become engrained in the popular culture in the same way, but all of the ingredients are there. Silicon Valley tech culture has almost certainly crossed the line into self-parody, in a world where even goddamn Snapchat is worth billions of dollars, and Silicon Valley captures the height of this nonsense more or less perfectly. At the fictional tech company Hooli, the offices are candy colored, with toys and gadgets and distractions galore, and no one appears to actually be doing any work. And as for the “incubator” that houses our heroes’ startup venture, it’s a house owned by do-nothing rich dude Erlich Bachman. This is a world where ideas rule above all else, but even the ideas are empty, one vapid proposal after the next, purporting to “make the world a better place,” even if it’s something really fucking stupid like Human Heater, the gadget that lowers your gas bill by heating up the top layer of your skin using microwaves.

    The satire is spot on, then, but it quickly becomes apparent that, like much of Judge’s work, Silicon Valley is two separate beasts, with an equal share of the humor coming from the sort of juvenile, bro-y gross-out humor one would find on Beavis and Butthead or, yes, even in Office Space. Silicon Valley’s greatest strength is in its unfailing ability to land a joke. The season is fairly compact, at only eight half-hour episodes, but each episode is remarkably dense with one-liners, runners, and situational comedy. As great as the satire is, it needs this more functional and reliable brand of comedy to prop it up, and Judge and company have struck the necessary balance. I dare you not laugh at the extended, pseudo-mathematical discussion of “optimal tip to tip efficiency” in the finale episode of the same name (which, you definitely want to read this totally NSFW journal article). It’s as though twelve-year old boys somehow went and got doctoral degrees.

    All that said, like any freshman comedy there are issues, though the raw strength of the comedy here suggests that they’ll iron themselves out. Firstly, considering the season’s brevity, it takes forever to really get going with what is a fairly simply plot. It takes until the third episode for the show to catch up with its own promotional materials, and while the pilot is very funny, and lays necessary groundwork about the world of the show, it’s also undeniably heavy on exposition. The characters, similarly, tend to be slightly one-note, though again, that note is often funny. Thomas Middleditch is a fine leading man, playing neurotic yet charming with aplomb, and his Richard is quirky enough to keep from being a boring straight man to the cast of much, much more colorful characters.

    Perhaps the best of the regular bunch is T.J. Miller’s Erlich, who is a do-nothing slacker who sees himself as the Woz to Richard’s Jobs (or is that the other way around?). Either way, beyond bluster and bravado he brings nothing to the table as far as Pied Piper goes, and yet it’s precisely those qualities that make him such a memorably funny character. Also great is Zach Woods, who plays Jared as though Richard were on several different types of drugs simultaneously, just this wired, anxious people-pleaser who doesn’t seem to have acquired a single social skill in two-plus decades of life. Woods has been ubiquitous this past television season, with very good reason—his deadpan delivery and knack for physical comedy make him an invaluable part of the ensemble.

    The rest of the cast is good for one-liners, or else to bounce lines off the main characters, but they hardly register beyond that, even when the writers give them the occasional B-plot. Again, it’s not that Martin Starr, Kumail Nanjiani and Josh Brener aren’t funny, just that they don’t really serve a purpose as anything other than joke machines. And as long as the jokes are funny, great! It’s not like we love Office Space for its deep, nuanced characterization. But at least when the plot wheels did turn, there was enough to make us care, where about Peter’s relationship with Jennifer Aniston, or Milton’s desire to burn down the office, or what have you. Here, Amanda Crew’s Monica might as well not be on the show at all, and her “romance” with Richard is yawn inducing, seemingly there for demographic pandering and little else. Since she’s practically the only woman on the show, that’s doubly damning.

    While we’re talking about the cast, deserving of special mention is Christopher Evan Welch, whose performance as Peter Gregory is delightfully odd, a collection of strange mannerisms and non-sequiturs that feel perfectly emblematic of this bizarre tech culture. Welch tragically died after filming scenes for the first five episodes, and the character is only mentioned for the remainder of the season. It’s a shame we don’t get to see more of him, because he is sublimely hilarious.

    So there are certainly some kinks to work out, but at the end of the day, Silicon Valley succeeds in making you laugh, if at nothing else, and for a comedy, especially a freshman comedy, that’s worth at least 80% of the battle. Since they’ll be forced to retool at least partly in the wake of Welch’s passing, I think we’ll see some useful cast shuffling, hopefully some higher stakes and more thoughtful plotting. The raw material is there, it’s just waiting to be shaped into something with a little more, well, shape. That takes time, and it’s time that I’m willing to give.

  • Spoon – “They Want My Soul” Album Review

    Spoon – “They Want My Soul” Album Review

    spoon001hires I was on Tumblr the other day when I saw this post called the “Anatomy of Music”. It listed different genres and it gave the general (and very funny) structures of the songs that are associated with them. Indie music was comprised of banjo, twentysomething problems, faster banjo and it made me think of the state we’re in now of indie rock being grouped as just “the genre that The Lumineers share” and no newcomers look for other bands except what’s played on the radio. That’s where this album can hopefully change all of that because They Want My Soul is perfect for being the new staple in the indie rock savant’s collection.

    They Want My Soul starts off with the medium-paced single “Rent I Pay” that takes blues to the next level and instead of talking about the twentysomething problems that make indie rock repetitive, it talks more about problems with insomnia, not finding peace and how everything comes back to you no matter what you do, problems in the now rather than the plight of teenage romantics. We then get into the beautifully slow “Inside Out” which shows a bit of the psychedelic side with minimal guitar, soft synthetic harp and a pushed back “mmm” that rides the whole track with the with the treble-reduced production. “Rainy Taxi” has a bassline that makes you remember why Spoon grooved with simplicity and a drum riff that keeps you feeling badass, like walking into a wedding reception and you have more life than the groom. The single “Do You” still has to be my favorite song off of this release. Everything about is brilliantly paced, the triple Britt Daniels’ voices work off of each other gracefully, the little do do dos and hm mm mms paired with the reverberated flute make a dreamy ending that people will try to replicate.

    0015303d“Knock Knock Knock” has the dark piano, acoustic guitar, ethereal phasing moans and subtle drum groove (paired with an equally sublte flanger) that slowly reveals a tired friendship. “Outlier” is more a instrumental that has a jazz background akin to that of a heist film, and the title track is a hilarious Randy Newman/Sonic the Hedgehog soundtrack sounding song about paranoia that has Daniel shrieking about how card sharks, street preachers, sellers, palm readers, post-sermon socialites, park enchanters in skin tights, educated folk singers and even Jonathan Fisk (from the album Kill the Moonlight) all want his soul. “I Just Don’t Understand”, “Let Me Be Mine” and “New York Kiss” all end the album in different ways, a blues track with enough soul to be a Black Keys track, a traditional indie rock track, and a synthpop track that combines Cut Copy and the traditional sound with glitches and production tricks.

    Final Verdict: This is one of the best indie rock albums I’ve heard in a long time and it is the first perfect indie rock album I’ve heard this year. The production tricks are the ones I’ve come to expect from Spoon’s earlier work on Transference while still maintaining an accessible collection of songs that are friendly to all ears. While nothing is as crazy with experimentation as “The Mystery Zone” or “Who Makes Your Money”, They Want My Soul doesn’t need it and its heartfelt soul from Britt Daniels and company is a breath of fresh air in this age of Imagine Dragons hardness and Parachute softness. This’ll be on blast forever at my place.

  • 2014 Emmy Predictions: Supporting Actress in a Drama Series

    2014 Emmy Predictions: Supporting Actress in a Drama Series

    Featured Supporting Actress Drama

    Best Supporting Actress in a Drama Series is a category with a lot of great performances, but one is pretty much a lock to win. With the episode submission “Ozymandias” and the buzz of the final season, last year’s winner Anna Gunn (Breaking Bad) is a near shoe-in for a win.

    However, the dark horse in this category is a surprising one. Joanne Froggatt (Downton Abbey) was a surprise nominee for some, but others (those who still watch Downton Abbey) were sure that she would get in, and I see why. Her episode submission (Episode 4.2 in the U.S. and Episode 4.3 in the U.K.) involves a controversial rape scene that gives her some really strong and heartbreaking material.

    While Christine Baranski has a watershed episode dealing with the death of Will, I think she should have instead submitted the less emotional “Outside the Bubble”, which offers her more screen time and a great storyline.

    Supporting Actress Drama

    [maxbutton id=”3″]
     
    1. Anna Gunn, Breaking Bad (“Ozymandias”)
    2. Joanne Froggatt, Downton Abbey (“Episode 4.2”)
    3. Christine Baranski, The Good Wife (“The Last Call”)
    4. Maggie Smith, Downton Abbey (“Episode 4.8”)
    5. Christina Hendricks, Mad Men (“The Strategy”)
    6. Lena Headey, Game of Thrones (“The Lion and the Rose”)

  • 2014 Emmy Predictions: Guest Actress in a Drama Series

    2014 Emmy Predictions: Guest Actress in a Drama Series

    Featured Drama Supporting ActressIf you asked me two months ago who would win Guest Actress in a Drama Series, I would have put all my money on Allison Janney (Masters of Sex) for her masterful portrayal of a sexually frustrated housewife. However, after watching the tapes, it looks like there is another contender trying to stab her in the back (I very carefully chose this wording).

    This is a category where the loudest performance often wins. From Ann Margaret for Law & Order: SVU to Sally Field for ER, it seems like if you play a heightened character, then you are due. This year, almost every single performance is extremely understated, except Kate Burton (Scandal).

    SPOILER ALERT FOR SCANDAL! In her episode submission, entitled “A Door Marked Exit,” she murders her gay cheating husband in the first scene by stabbing him repeatedly in the back. If that doesn’t get a voters attention, then I don’t know what will. Then, throughout the episode she cries and screams her way through a cover-up for said gruesome murder. END SPOILER.

    It’s just the type of performance that wins this category. Another consideration is that Janney is also nominated in the Supporting Comedy Actress category for Mom (see our predictions here). The judging panels will be different, however if voters think there’s enough Janney to go around, they may be inclined to mark the clear alternative.

    Although Janney gets to cry in her episode, Burton’s submission is all out madness. I still have Janney out front. Despite everything I said so far, she still has momentum on her side. However, don’t be surprised to see Scandal take yet another acting category.
    [maxbutton id=”3″]
    Guest Actress Drama FINAL
    1. Allison Janney, Masters of Sex (“Brand New World”)
    2. Kate Burton, Scandal (“A Door Marked Exit”)
    3. Jane Fonda, The Newsroom (“Red Team III”)
    4. Kate Mara, House of Cards (“Chapter 14”)
    5. Diana Rigg, Game of Thrones (“The Lion and the Rose”)
    6. Margo Martindale, The Americans (“Behind the Red Door”)

  • 2014 in Television (Mid-Year Review Hangout)

    2014 in Television (Mid-Year Review Hangout)

    Screen Shot 2014-08-05 at 9.34.56 PM
    Karl, Brooke, and Craig discuss the year in television so far including on air and on Netflix. They also talk about the upcoming fall lineup and those pesky Emmys!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQNbB-ANis

  • 2014 Emmy Predictions: TV Movie

    2014 Emmy Predictions: TV Movie

    Featured TV MovieThis is by far the easiest category to predict. The Normal Heart is pretty much running this race unopposed. It did extremely well in the nominations with 16, leading all TV movies, and it did receive critical acclaim.

    If there is a very unlikely upset, it would probably be Sherlock: His Last Vow. There’s no question that the show is extremely popular and it interestingly (and wisely) submitted a single installment as a film.

    [maxbutton id=”3″]
    TV Movie FINAL1. The Normal Heart
    2. Sherlock: His Last Vow
    3. The Trip to Bountiful
    4. Killing Kennedy
    5. Muhammad Ali’s Greatest Fight

  • Emmy Spotlight: The Normal Heart

    Emmy Spotlight: The Normal Heart

    the normal heart

    The Normal Heart arrives on HBO with somewhat lofty expectations, and yet, being a Ryan Murphy production, I wouldn’t blame anyone for approaching it with a healthy measure of skepticism, as well. It’s in many ways a spiritual sequel to Angels in America, another adaptation by HBO of another well-regarded period piece about the AIDS crisis. The Normal Heart has quite a bit in common with that miniseries, but where Angels used the religious and the supernatural to underpin the melodrama at its core, The Normal Heart has no such crutch. As a result, and as is unsurprising for a Ryan Murphy joint, what we get is an often uneven, and yet often incredibly moving, piece of melodrama that occasionally transcends those trappings, and becomes plain drama.

    The film is written by Larry Kramer, based on his 1985 play, and many of its issues can be traced back to the source material. Its subject matter is firmly in Murphy’s wheelhouse, and is in many ways perfectly suited to his directorial style. There is a great sense of atmosphere, of time and place; Murphy, with considerable assistance from Kramer, perfectly captures the gay experience of the eighties, and best of all, presents multiple gay perspectives within the film. It’s obviously very personal material for Murphy, and for the most part his best instincts are on display here.

    Like most of his work it tends toward melodrama, and this is not always to the film’s benefit, especially when the script also tends toward the didactic. Much of the dialogue, and at times entire scenes, feel less like drama, and more like actors quoting from Wikipedia. It can at times be overbearing, too over the nose. But at other times, there is a raw power to the material, and at these times, it’s Murphy’s direction that is largely to thank. He is not a showy director here, and is generally content to leave the camera still, to pick a frame and hold it and let the actors do their work. What he does not do is let it feel like a filmed play; there is a filmic quality to the movie, a liveliness and a gravity. When the material isn’t getting in its own way, the direction is quite good, and is some of the best I think we’ve seen from him. I haven’t seen Eat Pray Love, but based solely on this film, I’d be interested in more feature work from Murphy, especially to see him directing other people’s scripts.

    Since the film is based on a stage play, the big draw here is the actors, and the strength they bring to talky, showy roles. The casting is impeccable and the performances are uniformly strong. Mark Ruffalo plays Ned Weeks, the firebrand gay author at the center of the play, and he is a phenomenal leading man, simply a powerhouse from beginning to end. Ned is a neurotic, almost self-loathing character, but he is also cocky, overbearing, too quick to anger, and too impulsive to really lead the crusade that he thinks he’s leading. He is an extremely difficult character to like, and Ruffalo doesn’t try to make him likeable. Instead he makes him human.

    None of the other actors gets quite so much to do as Ruffalo, but they each shine in one or two showcase scenes. Taylor Kitsch is restrained and barely recognizable as Bruce, the closeted leader of Gay Men’s Health Crisis, while Jim Parsons turns it up to eleven as Tommy, the self-described “Southern bitch”. Both deliver in key emotional scenes, Kitsch especially, when Bruce gets into a fistfight with Ned, then throws a television crew’s camera out the window. Alfred Molina is excellent as Ned’s brother Ben, who nominally wants to be an ally, but who finds it difficult to really understand his gay brother.

    Strangely enough the weakest link in the cast is Julia Roberts, though I would be quicker to blame an underwritten character than her acting ability. She is arresting in her scenes, delivering her lines with a fiery passion, but it’s her scenes more than any others that most cross the line into didactic territory. Her confrontation with the funding panel at the National Institutes of Health towards the film’s end is the most egregious example, as she spouts factoids about the AIDS crisis, her volume ever increasing. It’s meant to be emotionally affecting, a crowning moment for a doomed cause, but it comes off instead as preaching, nearly as pandering, and that damages the overall effect of the scene.

    The true star of the film, however, is Matt Bomer, as Felix Turner. Nestled in among all of the messaging and the melodrama is a brilliant, real, poignant, and moving love story, and it’s this that makes The Normal Heart truly special. Bomer and Ruffalo have tremendous chemistry, but it’s Bomer especially who sells the tragedy of their relationship. Beyond the physical aspects of watching Felix slowly waste away as he succumbs to the disease, Bomer also fully embodies the mental and emotional toll that AIDS takes on the character. There is an undercurrent of fear, of anger, that runs throughout the film, and in that sense, Ned and Felix are essentially two sides of one coin. It makes sense, then, that the larger political story being told revolves around the small love story between them. It’s a smart if risky structural decision, but thanks to Ruffalo and Bomer, that risk pays dividends. The film would not work at all without them.

    Ultimately, The Normal Heart suffers in retrospect because of the progress that has been made with regards to AIDS specifically, and with the gay community in general. In many ways the story it’s telling feels like ancient history; there is an entire subset of the gay community today that has no concept at all of the AIDS crisis, and there is a growing set that has little concept of gay discrimination at all. What was groundbreaking in 1985 is now obvious, and what worked on the stage then doesn’t necessarily play as well on the screen now.

    That said, the story is still important, one that deserves to be told. It’s hard not to grow angry when, after we pan out from Ned, alone at Yale’s “Gay Week,” a title card informs us that Ronald Reagan first publicly mentioned AIDS in 1985, and promised to make it a funding priority, before cutting AIDS funding by 11%; and further, that to date more than 36 million people worldwide have died of HIV/AIDS. Daily, 6,000 people are newly infected. This is a story that needs to be told. It’s a reminder that needs to be made. The Normal Heart wants to be an important film, and while it doesn’t always succeed in that regard, the effort itself is admirable. And even if it does preach too much, even if the education gets in the way of the drama, there is such a strong core in Ned and Felix’s love affair that the scenes that don’t quite work can sort of fall by the wayside. Like most of Murphy’s work, it is best enjoyed in the moment—but what a beautiful moment it is.

    The Normal Heart is nominated for 16 awards including Best TV Movie, Best Lead Actor in a Miniseries/TV Movie (Mark Ruffalo), and Best Supporting Actor in a Miniseries/TV Movie (Matt Bomer).

     
    [maxbutton id=”3″]
     
    Check out our Emmy predictions here!
    Like us on Facebook!