"Cinderella" (Amazon, 2021)

Let's be clear, I love Cinderella.  Lo-o-o-v-e it.  I have no fewer than five versions of it in my home library.  This new take is ... well ...

"Pitch Perfect" meets any given Disney show in this mash-up which ditches Rodgers and Hammerstein for a series of pop songs.  Our Cinderella of the moment clomps around in some sort of equivalent to combat boots and dreams of working as a dress designer.  She couldn't be less interested in love or, you know, the Prince.  The songs mostly work.  Des'ree's "You Gotta Be" fits perfectly, Billy Porter slays Earth, Wind and Fire's "Shining Star" and Queen's "Somebody to Love" is a showstopper.  Throughout, the choreography (thank you Ashley Wallen) is outstanding.  Unfortunately that's all there really is.  The script is lame, the jokes don't land and the technicolor costumes look like something dreamt up after playing Candy Crush on an Ecstasy trip.  The infamous dress (you know, "the" dress) doesn't fit Ms. Cabello well and throughout the ball I'm watching with discomfort to see if the petite actress pops out of the too-large bustier.  None of the characters beyond Cinderella seem to have any motivation for what they do or why they do it.  Idina Menzel's considerable talent is wasted as her evil stepmother is all over the place.  Pierce Brosnan is so convincing as an awful person that his 5th act conversion is not believable and Minnie Driver's surprising singing gifts aren't revealed until the very end.  She is left making unhappy looks and passive-aggressive comments for most of the film.  When she finally gets a monologue to explain it all it's brilliant.  And doesn't feel like it fits in this particular film.  

There are so many things wrong with this production that it is hard to pinpoint one in particular.  The attempt to modernize, feminize and humorize the whole thing generally doesn't work, with the exception of the one scene in which James Corden and his fellow mice explore their temporary humanity.  Yes, there are talking mice.  This is Disney, after all.  The bottom line is this -- nearly every successful Cinderella film has two critical elements:  Charm and Romance.  This retelling has neither.  Particularly at the end (which ends not as you might think).  It's just a clutter of modern-day references which will age faster than milk on your countertop.  Tweens may like it for five minutes but other than that, don't think this one is headed for the "best of" shelf.

"Wilderness Tips" by Margaret Atwood

This collection of ten short stories may be the most personal thing ever written by the incredible Ms. Atwood.  Set mostly in the 50s, 60s and 70s there are tales of summer camp, of romantic breakups, of women and work.  The events of the stories aren't generally extraordinary but they are bathed in Atwood's rich prose and deep internal reflection.  There is often a slightly-but-not-overwhelmingly creepy thread.  This is also a hallmark for the author.  

For fans of "Handmaid's Tale" this is more of a slice of day-to-day life, but in the hands of Margaret Atwood, it is anything but ordinary.

"The Maid of the North" by Ethel Johnston Phelps

An interesting collection of tales from around the globe highlighting smart women heroines.  Some of the women are brave, most are clever.  All of the stories have been re-written by the author, which works better for some stories than others.  Dated more than you would think for a 30 year-old book, it is very clean and to-the-point, but you lose some of the flavor of the different cultures in this white-washed re-envisioning.  It's a throwback.  Today a collection of stories like this would be gathered from the works of existing, diverse authors.  That would have been better.  

These were entertaining and short (although sometimes abruptly so) but I can't recommend it for modern readers, who demand more authenticity in their "world" tales.

"Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card

Yes, I'm late to the party but the book showed up in my Little Free Library and I needed something to read while traveling, so ...

I do know, as a librarian, this book never stayed on the shelf.  It wasn't just popular it was MASSIVELY popular, and now I get it.  Not that it's fabulous, it's not an incredible piece of great literature, but it has the kind of elements kids love and intertwines them really well.

What you will like about this story:  There is plenty of action, including videogames.  Ender is an intriguing, smart boy, and like so many protagonists in kidlit, he is an awkward outsider.  The battle scenarios are thoughtful, interesting and worth reading more than once.  The book moved and I got through it in two sittings.  Fairly engaging, I was happy to turn the page to see what would happen next. 

In some ways I was surprised.  I thought that this might be a complicated tale with undercurrents of Mormonism (Orson Scott Card is openly Mormon and the books have been called propaganda for the faith).  I found neither of these things to be true.  The book is fairly simple in terms of plot and fits into the mold of most fiction of this type.  I guessed the big reveal at the end and didn't find myself thinking of any deep moral questions when it was over.  And, while there might have been Mormon themes in the story I didn't pick up anything specific even thought I was actively looking for it.  (I'm told the Speaker series is more obviously based on Mormon beliefs).  The only subtext I saw was a real question about war, its purpose and its price.  I appreciated this given the unusual times we are currently living in.

The only element I didn't care for, which has been much talked about, is the age of the character.  I worked in schools for 30+ years.  Ender is six?  Nope.  But I just ignored that.  The film, which I haven't seen, had a sixteen year-old in the lead which fits better.  In my mind, as I read the book, I just aged Ender up.

In any case, a fun and entertaining novel.  Worth it (particularly on a longer flight).

"The Inkeeper's Song" by Peter S. Beagle

I love Beagle's writing.  Its descriptive and poetic, like strolling in a museum of odd, beautiful, disturbing paintings.

This work, like so many of his, has a kind of mystical, dreamlike quality.  Things happen, of course, and the multiple points of view make for a delightful sense of perspectives (one voice is that of a sentient fox).  There is magic and symbolism and a surprise or two.  It makes for an unexpected, fresh tale.  

My only complaint is that Peter Beagle rarely follows up with sequels after taking all the time to create these rich vistas.  By all means, dig in and let yourself wander through a very different world.

"A Royal Night Out"

What a surprise.  Recorded this 2015 film on a whim, thinking it was some sort of Hallmark/Lifetime romantic fluff.  SO wrong.  "The Crown" meets "Roman Holiday" in this light-hearted tale of a young Elizabeth and Margaret taking to the streets of London during the celebration following the end of WWII.  Based on a single rumor that the two young women snuck out for a few hours on VE day this quiet little movie explores some very real issues in a beautiful, subtle way.  Director Julian Jarrold allows the camera to linger, repeatedly, on the luminous face of Sarah Gadon, playing Elizabeth.  She runs the full gamut of emotions from utter joy at her new-found freedom, to confusion over a world she has never been a part of, to a kind of deep, resigned sadness at the reality that she will never have a "normal" life.  It's gorgeous and compelling.  The script is gentle.  It makes clear how clueless the two women are but doesn't make fun of that fact.  It just allows them to find their way as best they can.  In one of the many unexpected turns Elizabeth finds her power by the end of the film.  She is a depiction of Elizabeth the real royals would approve of.  She is smart, determined and confident.  Brava.  Accurate to the period and very British, only the two actors playing the King and Queen are household names.  I can see why it slipped by unnoticed but I'm glad I found it at last.

"Mama"

Having ENTIRELY too much time on my hands, I randomly decided to compare Mama Roses, from "Gypsy", singing "Rose's Turn".  (It's a fave).  Who was the best?  This is an impossible choice, given that the greatest names of stage and screen have played the role.  And yet.  

Here is my completely, utterly subjective take on the matter.

Patti LuPone -- My number one.  At its core, this song isn't just a song, it is an expression of some pretty powerful emotions.  Patty LuPone milks that for every inch, showing a vulnerability that is not typical of this powerful, complex woman.  Rage, grief, everything, it's just out there, bleeding onto the floor.  The song doesn't end on a note, it ends in a scream.  Brava.

Tyne Daly -- With a very different take, Tyne Daly comes in at my #2.  With moves that prove she could have been the star if things had been different she starts out with sheer fury then makes a discovery ... and pivots.  During the song.  You can't take your eyes off her.

Imelda Staunton -- Hard to say what it is with this performance from an actress who typically plays much more sedate roles.  You can't put your finger on it but it's a bubbling mix of emotions which explode halfway through the song.  

Rosalind Russell -- It's Rosalind Russell!  One of the people I want to be when I grow up.  She just has to be on the list.  The vulnerability isn't really there but she pretty much chews up the scenery in every scene she's in.  There's a reason she was chosen for this film role.

Bernadette Peters -- Let's face it, Ms. Peters hits every note with precision, grace and talent.  It makes it watchable.  But the recording I saw didn't have the depth of the other performances.

Bette Midler -- Who doesn't love the Divine Miss M???  Her performance is delightful camp.  It's entertaining.  But that's it.  

Chris Colfer -- Honorable Mention.  This wasn't your typical performance but the emotional notes were there in spades.  Infinitely memorable.  Bravo.

"The Secret Garden" (2020)

Disappointing.  The 1993 version set the bar and this dark and dreary retelling is a pale by comparison.  It looks like the last movie but only on the surface.  Like so many films of late it sacrifices story-telling for visual effects (see my review on the absolutely abysmal "Wrinkle in Time" film).  The magic of the garden isn't in discovery and Mary's personal growth, it is made by digital butterflies and oversized plants with vibrant colors (and the place goes on, like, forever ... not so much a garden as a significant portion of the estate).  Necessary dialog to connect the dots on relationships is thrown out for lingering shots of unhappy people.  Almost everyone is too old.  Colin Firth (at 60) feels more like a grandfather than a father.  Edan Hayhurst and Dixie Egerickx, in the leads, are well into their teens and it shows.  They are world-wise, with no speck of the innocence which makes their lost souls so compelling.  Julie Waters, as Mrs. Medlock, is a talent wasted.  Her character comes off more as an annoying gnat than a formidable presence.  Every important element of the tale has been downgraded, with the new time-period placed inexplicably placed in 1947.  The Indian Partition is a compelling moment in history but has nothing to do with the struggles of Mary Lennox.  Added to this film is a massive fire and a dog.  The only reason for this seems to be giving Colin Firth more screentime and filmmakers who didn't understand the role of the robin who leads Mary to her redemption.  Which shows that these filmmakers didn't understand this story at all.  Stick to the 1993 version if you want tugs on your heartstrings.  This just confuses and bores.

"Emily in Paris"

This Netflix show, by the infamous Darren Star ("Sex in the City", "90210", etc) is so fluffy that it makes amusement park cotton candy look flat.  Yet, for all the volume there is little depth.  Storylines tend to focus on building Social Media and the young Emily making her superiors land elders ook bad (followed by a cutesy half-baked apology from the too innocent girl).  Like many other big hits this year it has more attention than it might have had if it wasn't a time of lockdown.  Critics have panned it, universally.  Which is a little unfair.  The acting is good, the visuals and yes, costuming, are eye-catching.  But it bugs me.  So I kept watching, trying to figure out what it was which was nagging at me.  I finally realized it.  With all the traveling I had been doing in pre-pandemic days I thought about the great care I take to respect the culture, even when that culture is challenging for me personally.  "Emily in Paris" does the complete opposite, creating a lead character who could easily be considered the ugly American.  She pushes her own agenda over the comfort levels of those around her and makes fun of the language and customs.  The French, for their part, come off pretty poorly.  Yes, Parisians have well-earned their reputation for being unwelcoming but highlighting this makes for a lot of characters you just don't care about.  I watched season one, but I'm not sure I'm up for season two.

"Home Economics"

Had I not been a fan of "Single Parents" or "Life in Pieces" this would come across as being great.  Instead, it's just okay.  It's smart funny, in the vein of those other two but the kids, for the most part, are just interchangeable duds.  Part of what made the other two series great was the back and forth between kids and adults which gave them a Peanuts vibe.  This is simply misadjusted adults trying to figure it all out, and getting much of it wrong.  Kudos to Sasheer Zamata who never misses a chance to find the funny even though she is given so little.  It's entertaining but not brilliant.  I do wish the networks would commit to the "good" instead of always switching out their sitcoms for something similar in the hopes of boosting ratings.

"Superman & Lois"

The latest incarnation of a very familar territory is enjoyable and manages to mine some new stuff.  For that, I am grateful.  I also like how the show balances the needs of each family member, including Lois, with the superhero theatrics.  There is something touching about returning to Smallville.  It humanizes a story which can be more about symbols than people.  All that being said, there is room for improvement.  The CW (or is it Greg Berlanti?) has become somewhat morose.  "Arrow" was dark, that's fine, it's a dark tale.  "Batwoman" dark?  No problem.  But the darkness has expanded.  "The Flash", which opened as the polar opposite to "Arrow", is downright bleak with a touch of sadness.  And now, in "Superman & Lois", we have a Smallville which is always overcast and grey and a Superman who is partially unshaven and struggles to find the silver lining.  It's just not what Superman is.  Superman should be bright and shiny and wholesome.  Wholesome is kind of the brand, you know?  Smallville looking like Gotham?  Wrong.  The show has enough going on for it that it can hang in there for a good while (and the CW is loathe to cancel shows) but I'm hoping as it moves forward that it finds the funny and finds the dawns because more bleak I can't take.  

"Kung Fu"

Brava, brava, brava.  Not a lot to say here but very good, very contemporary, very enjoyable.  Yes, it is not only a perfect tale for our times but a terrific remake which corrects so many mistakes of the past.  Great cast, great premise, great writing.  Terrific job.

"United States of Al"

Unlike "B Positive", which I kinda sorta like, Chuck Lorre's newest offering "United States of Al" got me right out of the gate.  It's that beautiful mix Lorre is so very very good at.  "Big Bang Theory" guy-who-doesn't-fit-in.  Check. "Mom" pendulum of funny-to-serious.  Check.  "Bob (hearts) Abishola" respect for the riches brought to our nation by immigrants.  Check Check Check.  Very worthy, very watchable, very engaging.  Only one question -- this is Chuck Lorre's fifth concurrent show running on CBS.  Does the man sleep?  Does he have clones?  Seriously ... how does he do it???

"Debris"

I like Scifi.  A lot.  So, when NBC debuted their "let's see if something like Manifest will work" I was game.  And I've hung in there.  But.  Here's the thing, it's not bad.  But it's not good.  And much like the mysteries of the show I've spent way too much time trying to get my Covid-addled mind to figure out why it doesn't work.  Sure, there are a lot of threads, perhaps too many.  And there is an unexplained leap in technology -- people transport from one location to another and that's just accepted (this isn't Trek, it's planet Earth).  But that isn't it.  The actors are good, it's a top-notch cast, and the weekly debris findings have unique and unexpected twists.  And yet.  By the first or second commercial break, I'm usually glancing at my email.  All I can say is that this show doesn't have forward motion, tension, or much energy.  When a commercial break comes for "Manifest" I'm grabbing the remote because I have to see what happens next.  That's not the case here.  It isn't an overt thing, just a subtle lack which makes the show less than it should be.

And the Award Goes To … Part Three

The Series

As mentioned, and harped on, I have an issue with (almost) every nominated series being from a streaming network, however, here are my takes.

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Television Movie or Limited Series

This is the most problematic category in the whole thing.  How do you put the moving but incredibly brief performance of Bill Camp in “The Queen’s Gambit” up against the powerhouse performance of Daveed Diggs in “Hamilton”?  And why was Daveed Diggs the only one nominated from “Hamilton”?  No Lin-Manuel Miranda?  No Leslie Odom Jr.??? And yes, Ethan Hawke got “Good Lord Bird” made but the undeniable star, the one who was the glue which made it work, was the kid, Joshua Caleb Johnson.  How is he NOT nominated???  Fortunately, there is an easy out.  Mark Ruffalo was effing BRILLIANT playing twins in “I Know This Much is True”.  As soon as I saw the first episode, he had me.  Mark Ruffalo wins.

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Television Movie or Limited Series

Kerry Washington, “Little Fires Everywhere”.  Cate Blanchett was good, Anya Taylor-Joy is an up-and-comer, but Kerry Washington carried the ball beautiful in her roundabouts with Reese Witherspoon and it was remarkably different from “Scandal”, showing vulnerabilities Olivia Pope never had.

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Drama Series

Josh O’Connor as Prince Charles for playing a role that is virtually impossible.  He got the subtlety, the pain, the ego of a man so well known that even a passing imitation is fraught with challenges.  Rege Jean-Page gets a nod here.  He manages to transcend being just too pretty, but “Bridgerton” was just too much fluff.

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Drama Series

This was challenging.  Three actors from “The Crown”, which I loved, and two from “Ozark” which I didn’t.  Gillian Anderson was brilliant as Thatcher but I take issue with her “what nationality is she” game.  She will win but it’s worth looking at the other actors.  Olivia Coleman is brilliant, always, but has won before.  And reportedly hated playing the Queen.  Which leaves Emma Corrin as Diana.  She gets it.

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Comedy Series

Nicholas Hoult in “The Great”.  He entirely consumed every scene he was in, making Peter the most intriguing and detestable creature ever seen on television.

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Comedy Series

Since I pretty much hate “Dead to Me” and “Schitt’s Creek” I’m going for Kaley Cuoco, in “The Flight Attendant” here.  But “Schitt’s Creek” will win.

Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series

This came down to “Lovecraft Country” or “The Crown”.  Both are compelling and have top-notch casts.  “The Crown” won my vote because of its ability to remain transformative and brilliant in its fourth season.  Not many shows can keep the energy going this long.  “The Crown” not only continues strong, it grows richer and MORE relevant as time passes.  Brava, Bravo.

Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series

“The Flight Attendant” is a worthy runner-up but “The Great” wins this hands-down.  There is a kind of magic in how the dialog is batted around, making the show impossible to turn away from.  One of the most overlooked, I think, yet one of my favorites.

Outstanding Action Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Comedy or Drama Series

This was surprisingly difficult in some ways.  All five nominated series have lots and lots of kick/shoot/blow ‘em ups.  And they are all a little different from each other.  “The Boys” celebrated the grotesque, having at least one body turned inside out with every episode.  “Cobra Kai”, a spin-off of “The Karate Kid” films, has plenty of martial arts but they are run of the mill rather than inventive.  In “The Mandalorian” an incalculable number of storm troopers meet their demise.  “Lovecraft Country” allows the haunted to fight back for a change, resulting in a sloppy red mess more often than not.  My vote here, however, goes to “Westworld”.  At first a simple western they have graduated and grown up, as it were.  With the addition of Samurai they have now added swords and mix that with urban warfare in a way which is fresh and unexpected.  “Thandie Newton with a Katana” is all you need to say.  “Westworld” wins.

And the Award Goes To … Part Two

First, the films

Given that most of these films never saw the inside of a movie theatre, and likely never will, this is a watershed year in terms of “what is considered a motion picture”.  More and more we are seeing small-screen films nominated for the big awards.  These are only watched by those who have streaming services, which, contrary to popular opinion, is not the majority of Americans.  There are deep questions here about the relevance of film in the modern era … but I digress. 

Here I present my votes for the SAG-Aftra Film Acting Awards for this year.  Inevitably, less than half of these will actually win, but hey, it’s a free and open vote, so there!  (Will some disgruntled actor start yelling “Stop the Steal”???  We’ll see …)

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role

This one was easy.  Chadwick Boseman.  He was totally swallowed up by the role and virtually unrecognizable.  It’s called acting.  The huge names (Anthony Hopkins, Gary Oldman, etc) couldn’t compare to an actor “becoming” someone else.  Pure brilliance.  Rest in Power.

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role

This one was tricky.  All five women are outstanding actors and gave great performances.  It was more of elimination than selection.  This wasn’t the best Amy Adams performance, Vanessa Kirby’s pain was visceral but hard to watch, Frances McDormand was, well, Frances McDormand.  Which left Viola Davis and Carey Mulligan.  Viola Davis was stunning, compelling, but … a) she’s a powerhouse but was not the star of this film and b) she’s won a few of these and I’m a firm believer in opening the door to newcomers.  And so my vote goes to Carey Mulligan in “Promising Young Woman”.  I won’t be at all unhappy if Viola Davis wins here though.

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role

This one was pretty easy.  Daniel Kaluuya in “Judas and the Black Messiah”.  Again, unrecognizable from his previous roles.  My only complaint here is that LaKeith Stanfield should have been nominated (the aforementioned Judas).  I would have voted for him.  Arliss Howard should have been nominated, too, for his Louis B. Mayer in “Mank”.  But they weren’t nominated.  Kaluuya is a bigger name.  More on that later.

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role

And this is where I hit the wall.  It was a five-way tie.  Maria Bakalova MADE the Borat film.  Olivia Coleman turned in yet another outstanding performance which was completely different from every other role I’ve seen her play (and they were all different from each other).  Yuh-Jung Youn portrayed possibly the most complex, conflicted dutiful wife I have ever seen.  And Helena Zengel, who had very little dialog, spoke volumes in her critical role.  Leaving Glenn Close.  She has won SAG Awards but never an Oscar.  And she deserves an Oscar.  She really really does.  She’s like the Meryl Streep quality actor who everyone seems to forget about.  Yet here she is, in her 70s, still turning out brilliant performance after brilliant performance – and all of them unique and different.  Momentum at SAG might help her chances at Oscar time.  And so it goes to Glenn Close.  Although the others deserved to win, too.

Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture 

This wasn’t too hard.  “Minari”.  I liked “The Trial of the Chicago 7” and “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom a lot.  And “One Night in Miami” and “Da 5 Bloods” were homages to black lives with terrific ensemble performances.  But.  There is something about the family unit.  Something about people trying to build a better life.  In a time period of repeated losses this one spoke to me about the complexities of people who love one another but hate each other a little now and then.

Outstanding Action Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture

“Wonder Woman 1984”.  Duh.

And the Award Goes To … Part One

Before launching into my picks for the year I wanted to take a moment.  It’s just bizarre.  Most of these award-nominated productions began filming, and many wrapped, long before Covid.  And yet.  There is a theme.  A similarity.  There always is, of course, in one of those weird parallel cognition ways.  You tell me – does any of the following ring a bell?

The majority of films and shows this year have vast silences, huge vistas, small rooms, people trapped by incalculable personal loss, people who don’t fit into the world, people experiencing deep grief and isolation. 

The style is naturalistic, to the point of feeling like these were a series of documentaries, not films.  They have little structure, dialog and minimal progression.  Many can be seen more as a slice of life than a clear story.  A tremendous number are set in the recent past as if to say we need to pause and reflect to times which most of us remember.  There are always a lot history based tales, biographies, but they seem to dominate this year.  It creates an actor dilemma – play the motivation or play the person?

There are not a lot of laughs.  There never are.  I deliberately book-ended my viewing with the “fun stuff” (“WW84” and “The Great”) but even the fun stuff had dark streaks and sadness here and there. 

They are all good, of course.  Hundreds of worthy projects are culled to create this final list.  They have to be extraordinary to make the cut.  So the films and shows I liked the best aren’t necessarily THE best, they are simply what I found to be engaging.  And since that changes for everyone, given their interests and life experiences, it is truly impossible to say which film is “the best”.  Nonetheless, I’ll go there.  (Keep in mind my “favorites” are not reflected in my votes.  My final votes were for actors in films I didn’t care for.  Confused enough?  Read on …)

What I didn’t like --

Again, these aren’t bad, they just didn’t float my boat:  “Ramy”, “Schitt’s Creek”, “I May Destroy You”, “Dead to Me”, “Better Call Saul”, "Ozark" and “Cobra Kai” (okay, that last one is pretty weak …)

Brilliant but brutal --

Very glad to have watched them but felt like my guts were being ripped out:  “Pieces of a Woman”, “Judas and the Black Messiah”, “Minari”, “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom”, “Sound of Metal”, “Lovecraft Country” and “I Know This Much is True”.

“Meh” –

Definitely worth watching but were either “off” for me, personally, or simply didn’t engage, leaving me fidgety: “Da 5 Bloods”, “News of the World”, “The Father”, “The Little Things”, “One Night in Miami …”, “The Undoing”, “The Flight Attendant”, “Bridgerton”, “The Good Lord Bird”, “The Queen’s Gambit” and “Hillbilly Elegy” which I liked more than the critics but had, IMHO, low energy.  “Mank” has been nominated for the most Oscars.  I get it but felt that it's more art than substance.  And way, way, way too white.

Biggest Winner???

“Nomadland” will likely walk away with many many awards.  Deservedly so.  But seriously not my thing.

Snubs –

I was engrossed by this year’s “Fargo”, which didn’t get any nominations.  At the very least there should have been some acting nods.  Network and even cable TV is virtually non-existent, which is a shame.  There are a number of TV shows I watch regularly which move me, touch me, engross me.  MJ Rodriguez and the entire ensemble from “Pose”?  Stunning.  They shouldn’t be ignored.  And the assumption that only Dramas have real, well, Drama, continues.  Does that mean that the actors on Sci-Fi aren’t worthy?  Is Wonder Woman’s pain any less than that of Diana on “The Crown”?  How is it that “People of Earth”, “Resident Alien” and “Miracle Workers” are overlooked?  It is a bias I will never accept. 

My Faves –

Again, not the best necessarily, but the ones which I connected to the most on a personal level: “Promising Young Woman”, “Trial of the Chicago 7”, “WW84”, “Borat:  Subsequent Moviefilm”, “Hamilton”, “Westworld”, “Mrs. America”, “The Great”, “The Crown”, “Little Fires Everywhere” and “This Is Us”, which has the distinction of being the ONLY non-streaming show nominated. 

Honorable Mentions for Buckets O Blood –

Winner: “Lovecraft Country” (I only got through half of it and had to call it quits).  Runner Ups:  “The Boys”, “Da 5 Bloods” and “Westworld”.

Honorable Mentions for Royal Sexcapades –

“Bridgerton” has all the chatter but “The Great” wins here.  Not only are the “encounters” more, um, non-traditional in “The Great” but there are more of them, including an impressive number before the credits roll on most episodes. 

Enough said.  Read on, in posts above, my picks for the SAG-Aftra Awards this year. 

"Young Rock" and "Kenan"

NBC has a new Tuesday night line-up featuring two sitcoms worthy of a watch.  The first is "Young Rock" the story of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.  Full of the ego and attitude Mr. Johnson cultivates in his public persona it was a little hard to take at first but the format, taking a theme and featuring how it impacted his life as he grew up, works.  The actors playing Johnson at different ages shine and points are made well without being moralistic.  It's funny yet grounded.  I suspect it will grow on me.

The second show, "Kenan" is also grounded, showing popular SNL performer Kenan Thompson in a very different role.  He's not ridiculous.  He has daughters, a job, a loss he is struggling with.  It could be a real launching pad for the actor to move on to other things but the first episode had many cringe-worthy moments.  It will be interesting to see, over time, if the show settles and is able to balance the comedy with the family elements.  To his credit the supporting cast is terrific -- from the smart-aleck daughters to brilliant addition of Don Johnson who is like peanut butter to Kenan's jelly.  I'm also thrilled to see Kimrie Lewis, who I adored in "Single Parents".  The show didn't exactly stick the landing but there is promise.  I'll keep watching for now.

The CW

I've finally figured out one of the problems with the CW shows.  I watch the CW more than any other network.  I love a good superhero show because they can be both engaging and escapist.  The CW has done well with the Arrowverse, creating depth in each series and providing a fresh take with every show.  And yet, while I love the shows, I find they kind of fade for me.  They start out great and then they just, kind of lose steam??? 

After I watched "The Flash" premiere I finally figured it out.  It is, to some degree, the revolving casts.  More than most shows (with the exception of maybe "Grey's Anatomy") the CW shows have a constant changeover in actors.  One might think it keeps the stories fresh, which could be true to some degree, but it also distances the viewer.  I love to connect not only to the story but to the characters.  I want to love them or hate them and I look forward to seeing them every week, discovering, along with them, the challenges and joys they encounter.  When I'm constantly trying to get to know a new set of characters I get tired.  And I stop caring.  Who is Allegra?  Don't really know.  And she's not growing on me.  Some new faces do -- I've come to like Cecile, but that took two years.  Will Allegra be around that long?  Probably not.  All of the Arrowverse shows tend to cycle through multiple major players every year.  

So, my two bits for the producers out there.  Find the humanity in your heroes and let us connect to that.  If a character is peripheral, so be it.  Just don't highlight someone and then walk away.  It's not good storytelling.

"Resident Alien"

Syfy has had a troubled past in creating shows of quality.  So, much to my surprise, "Resident Alien" is delightful.  It is complex and layered and unexpected.  Honestly, I only watched it initally because of Alan Tudyk.  I would pretty much watch Alan Tudyk in anything.  He doesn't disappoint here.  Playing an alien with less than honorable intentions he is stranded on Earth with little love or understanding of humans.  Things happen.  It is almost impossible to cover all the elements of this show which goes way beyond the word "quirky".  It is Science Fiction, Horror, Comedy, Drama and has a touch of Romance.  The characters are taken straight out of the original "Fargo" and their weirdness is barely eclipsed by Tudyk, who is hysterical in his efforts to mimic human facial expressions and speech patterns.  Definitely a male-produced show the women are thankfully "real" and varied.  At first it was almost too strange but it has grown on me with every week and quickly become "that show I have to watch" the next day after I record it.  A special shout-out to Judah Prehn who steals every scene he is in (which is not easy with Tudyk) and don't fast-forward through the credits.  The cartoon diagrams of "what to do" and "what not to do" will leave you giggling all night.  Bravo to Syfy for finally coming up with a winner.