And the Award Goes to ...

It's been four weeks of watching 14 series and 15 films in preparation for the SAG-Aftra awards.  I've been sitting so long I've gotten muscle cramps and I've been going to bed with my mind spinning.  I've heard more of the "F word" in the past month than I have in the past year and, thanks to HBO, seen more male appendages than I have in decades.  I've seen three movies where established actors were "un-aged", two movies where tragic events were made into black comedies, and lots (and lots and lots) of "based on".

Having watched everything I could (see previous post) it is time to cast my ballot.  People always ask "what was your favorite?"  It is an impossible choice given the high quality of nearly every entry.  Exceptions only for Hustlers, Dead to Me and Schitt's Creek, which were just ... bad (IMHO).  How they got nominated, I will never know.  That being said, I would pick Rocketman, Just Mercy and Joker for best films, with a serious nod to Jojo Rabbit.  Rocketman was fresh, clever and engaging in an era with far too many rock star biopics.  Just Mercy was a tender production which had me caring, deeply, for every character and on the edge of my seat -- this was lacking in many of the so-called "best" films this year.  Joker was ... riveting.  Didn't take my eyes off the screen.  Viewers shouldn't dismiss this film as "one of those DC superhero movies".  It isn't, on any level.  It fits in with one of the unofficial themes of the year by addressing mental illness, front and center.  And then there is Jojo Rabbit.  Many (many many many) people are offended by this film but I tend to think they don't get it.  The tone may be light but the Nazis still look like awful human beings.  Lastly, if you are feeling depressed by all of this, watch solid feel-good films Harriett and A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, both of which have some strong performances and terrific cinematography.

For the "best of" television and streaming series I would pick Unbelievable or Chernobyl.  Unbelievable probably had one of the biggest impacts on me personally, challenging the idea that a woman who recants a rape is lying about the attack.  The current situation in Cyprus, with the 19 year-old accuser, is now seen by me with new eyes thanks to this mini-series.  Chernobyl was the hardest to watch, in two ways.  First, it doesn't spare the horrific and cameras linger on bodies which no longer look human, flesh being eaten away by radiation, the sounds of Geiger counters clicking madly as men take on suicide missions.  It's also hard to watch because of 20/20 hindsight.  We know what happened and so much of it was avoidable, driven by the social morays of Soviet Russia, a place where failure was unacceptable.  It also resonates today, both with my recent visit to China, seeing the systemic denial of basic truths there, and with Russia as it retreats back to that time, covering up yet another nuclear accident recently in Siberia.  All of that being said, I would vote for Chernobyl as best overall production if there were such an award in this ceremony, but there isn't.  It is simply really well put together, from direction to acting to writing to, well, everything.

I digress.  But a strong theme of the year besides "It's Complicated" was to see how the past informs the present, and there are so many unlearned lessons.  Lots of politics, lots of #MeToo and two separate projects about Roger Ailes.  Familiar faces -- directors and actors.  Actors Jessie Buckley, Olivia Coleman, Brett Cullen, Robert de Niro, Mark Duplass, Scarlett Johansson, Nicole Kidman, Elizabeth Moss, Al Pacino, Margaret Qualley, Margo Robbie and Sam Rockwell each appear in two of the nominated projects with Laura Dern in a whopping three.

I do wish that the awards weren't competitive.  I wish we could say "you folks ALL did a great job" instead of saying one is better than another.  That being said, I had to make choices.  (And they will inevitably not be the actual winners as I have unique sensibilities).  For me, the most interesting thing about the list below is that there is no single film or series which dominates.  There were bright stars in every production with no single production standing out as being "the hit of the year."  For me, anyway.  Awards are announced on TNT and TBS at 8pm Sunday, January 19th.  They will additionally be streamed on People.com and EW.com.

Outstanding Actor in a TV Movie or Limited Series:  I love Mahershali Ali in everything.  Then there's Sam Rockwell, a non-dancer, who was transformative in Fosse/Verdon and very ... unique ... in Jojo Rabbit.  Russell Crowe did a great job inside the skin (and prosthetics) of a truly horrible man in a year when we saw two different takes on FOX News and Roger Ailes.  That being said, Jharrel Jerome (When They See Us) made the transition from innocent teen to long-term inmate, hardened but with hope, in a stunningly beautiful performance.  Mr. Jerome won my vote.

Outstanding Female Actor in a TV Movie or Limited Series:  Patricia Arquette or Michelle Williams will win this, but Joey King (The Act) should win.  She gets my vote not only for shaving her head but by portraying, very subtly, the complex emotions of loving and hating the woman who raises you.

Outstanding Male Actor in a Comedy Series:  Alan Arkin (The Kominsky Method).  Always.  Alan.  Arkin.

Outstanding Female Actor in a Comedy Series:  Rachel Brosnahan is consitently brilliant as Mrs. Maisel but Phoebe Waller-Bridge, who also created and wrote Fleabag, does this amazing thing where she plays a scene but does outtakes directly into the camera.  It's a hard thing to break the fourth wall and yet somehow not.  And she does it brilliantly.  Ms. Waller-Bridge wins.

Outstanding Comedy Ensemble:  The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel works because every single solitary actor brings their A-game.  Period.

Outstanding Male Actor in a Drama Series:  This one was very hard.  Both Billy Crudup and Steve Carrell enriched The Morning Show significantly (and ironically, given that this is a female driven narrative).  And there is David Harbour, whose deeply flawed daddy-figure on Stranger Things is almost impossible to define.  In the end I had to go with Steve Carrell, who not only got robbed last year for Beautiful Boy but his depiction of a nice guy with a seriously creepy streak was impeccable.  His comedy work is really good.  His drama work is shockingly great.

Outstanding Female Actor in a Drama Series:  Why, oh why, are Olivia Colman and Helena Bonham Carter in the same category?  (The Crown)  Because this awards ceremony doesn't have a supporting actor category for television, only film.  It's a shame. And I have to whine, again, that Regina King (Watchmen) isn't nominated, as she would have my top vote in a minute.  I am also disappointed that Merritt Weaver didn't get a nod for Unbelievable.  I love her work in everything she does.  Elizabeth Moss is great, too, but she has won a bunch of times (deservedly) for The Handmaid's Tale.  Helena Bonham Carter wins here for a tender, delicate, and more reigned in (pun intended) portrayal of a sad, tortured woman.  Her best performance, IMHO, ever.

Outstanding Drama Ensemble:  Unbelievable should have been nominated instead of Big Little Lies, but it wasn't, so I went back and forth between Stranger Things and The Handmaid's Tale.  Both have large casts where each character plays an important role.  I ended up with Stranger Things because these kids are growing up and they are still giving 100%, a challenge as their characters age and develop.  That, and I'm not sure the show, unlike The Handmaid's Tale, has ever won.  They probably won't win here, either, but they deserve to.

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role:  Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood and The Irishman may be considered "great filmmaking" but they were hugely predictable and I wasn't able to connect with either in any meaningful way.  A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood was delightful, in great part because of Tom Hanks' spot-on portrayal of Mr. Rogers, but it was Just Mercy which had huge emotional resonance, bringing me to tears, and Jamie Foxx's performance was a significant part of that.  Bravo, sir.  You get my vote.

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role:  Margot Robbie has shown incredible range of late (Tonya Harding to Elizabeth I to Harley Quinn) and stole the show in Bombshell but Laura Dern has had a terrific year -- Little Women, Big Little Lies AND a creepily manipulative divorce lawyer in Marriage Story.  For body of work, and very overdue acknowledgement of a four decade career ... Laura Dern.

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Lead Role:  Super tough.  Taron Egerton made Rocketman, in many ways.  Adam Driver did his best work, IMHO, in Marriage Story.  Christian Bale almost made me care about car racing in Ford v Ferrari.  Almost.  But not enough.  But then there was Joker, a stunning film in which Joaquin Phoenix is seen, close-up, in nearly every shot.  I couldn't take my eyes off of him.  For this film, and body of work, Joaquin Phoenix.

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Lead Role:  Not too hard.  I was underwhelmed by Bombshell and, despite the tremendous prep by Renee Zellweger, by Judy.  Scarlett Johansson was impressive in Marriage Story but less so than her counterpart, Adam Driver, whose character seemed to have a stronger sense of self.  (IMHO her role in Jojo Rabbit was more interesting).  Lupita Nyong'o played a million levels in Us and would have been my first choice had it not been for Harriett, where Cynthia Erivo dominated, truly "becoming" the eponymous character.  Ms. Erivo edged out Ms. Nyong'o by a slim margin.

Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture:  Here is where I wish SAG/Aftra would separate Dramas from Comedies/Musicals.  Rocketman was brilliant (and, I have to say, better than the very very good Bohemian Rhapsody from last year) and I would vote for that if given the chance.  Because of the limits, however, Rocketman didn't make the cut. The irony here is that the films which were nominated didn't bowl me over much.  I'll be glad to say they are extremely well-made.  The Irishman is, of course, another gangster classic by Scorsese.  Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood is a suprisingly gore-light "fairytale" by Tarantino.  Parasite does a great job of addressing the inherent inequities of societies in a sad way but feels like it goes too far.  The oddball weak link here was Bombshell, which wasn't, IMHO, nearly as good as The Loudest Voice (same topic).  That left me with Jojo Rabbit and I was glad to cast my vote for this very weird but somehow fresh film which made me laugh, cry, and ponder.  Led by Roman Griffin Davis, an affable and smart eleven year old, every member of the cast brings something unique and special to the production.

Outstanding Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture:  This will go to Avengers but they never provide screeners so I picked Ford v Ferrari to spite them.  Of the nominees it was the one with the most complicated stunts, based on all the car action, and I'm guessing that more of these stunts were practical, rather than computer-generated, than those in Avengers.

Outstanding Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Television Series:  Glow.  Always Glow.

SAG/Aftra Nominees

It's that time of year.  I'm binging my brains out trying to watch every nominated project before casting my votes for the SAG/Aftra Awards.  So far, I have watched:  Handmaid's Tale (season three), Big Little Lies, Watchmen, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel (season three), Fleabag, When They See Us (only episode #4, Netflix was stingy), Fosse/Verdon, Dead to Me, Chernobyl, True Detective (season three), The Kominsky Method (season two), Unbelievable, The Act, Stranger Things (season three), The Morning Show, The Crown (season three), Little Women, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Rocketman, and Hustlers.  Still to come?  The Loudest Voice, Bombshell, Us, Marriage Story, Harriett, Ford v Ferrari, Parasite, Jojo Rabbit, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Judy, Just Mercy and Joker.  It's going to be a busy ten more days ...

Who will I vote for?  I have no idea, yet.  This has been a year when I found the stories to be somewhat more compelling than individual performances but that being said there are some threads which many productions have in common.  1)  "It's Complicated"  Almost without exception these shows focused heavily on complex relationships.  Characters were rarely predictable, their emotions were often hugely layered and they changed direction ... a lot.  You don't have good guys or bad guys, just people.  Sometimes they are likeable, honorable, and sometimes not.  2)  "Based on"  While none are documentaries (SAG/Aftra Awards are about acting) a good number of them are based on real events and/or people.  However, even the obviously made-up tales (Watchmen, Handmaid's Tale) have significant commentary on the politics of the times.  3)  Diversity, but not.  Women (as directors, producers and writers) and people of color are far more represented here than in the Golden Globes nominees but there are still slights.  Regina King would be my #1 "why the heck isn't she nominated?" candidate.  (Followed closely by Elizabeth Olson in Sorry for Your Loss and MJ Rodriguez in Pose)  4)  Comedic actors taking dramatic turns which really, truly work.  5)  Streaming networks aren't just impacting network television, they are essentially changing the way television shows are made.  They cover topics the networks would never cover, there is more freedom to do limited series, episode length varies widely to allow for the story rather than for commercials, bigger stars are willing to commit to an occasional 7-10 episodes rather than a full season, major players like the increased flexibility to produce outside of the Hollywood blandness machine and there is a "flow" in the storytelling which means bigger arcs rather than "wrapping it up" in 42 minutes.  In short, streaming series are more innovative and out-of-the box than anything on network.  What it all looks like ten years from now will be fascinating to see.

There is little feel-good here (with notable exceptions A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood and The Kominsky Method).  Even Mrs. Maisel goes a little dark and comedy Fleabag comes with plenty of pain.  This isn't unusual.  I remember the year of Brokeback Mountain.  After watching all the nominated films that year I desperately needed a drink.  What is interesting, and different this year is how watchable these films and series are.  You really feel compelled to binge the entire seasons of each show, and many of the productions leave you thinking, deeply, about unanswerable questions.  It is a year of smart programming, media which challenges assumptions.  And that is a good thing.

"The Other Wes Moore" by Wes Moore

An intriguing book, well-written and compelling.  Another in a long list of titles which have been on my "to read" list for far too long, this one should also be required reading.  Wes Moore, a successful man who grew up in challenging circumstances, is shocked to discover another Wes Moore, who grew up in similar circumstances but ended up very differently.  This true story involves both men, looking at snapshots of their lives.  The author attempts to track the critical turning points in the lives of him and his namesake, trying to figure out where their lives diverged, and why.  He doesn't come up with a simple answer and he shouldn't.  This is real life stuff, not fiction, and real life is messy.  Crafted carefully and built through multiple interviews with people in their lives, it is an engaging read and one with accessible prose.  The "what-if" question hangs over the entire tale and drives the narrative.  The book doesn't end so much as sum up, leaving the reader to take away what they will.  As for the author he is forever changed by this revelation, the idea that so many people are simple on a knife edge away from tragedy.  The end of the book includes a huge list of resources, organizations dedicated to intervening in the lives of young people.  The hope is clearly that an adult stepping into the course of a life might help someone move in the right direction.  Hugely worthy and very thought-provoking, I'm not sure this is a book you put down and walk away from.

"The Testaments" by Margaret Atwood

The inimatable Ms. Atwood wrote her brilliant "Handmaid's Tale" in 1985, one of my top ten books of all time.  It took 34 years to get the sequel and it is, in my humble opinion, worth it.  There was the bad 1990s film, best forgotten, and the brilliant Hulu show, which brought this important novel back to prominence.  The original story ended in ambiguity, the new novel does not.  That being said it is as rich as the first yet very different.  The setting is 15 years after the end of the first novel.  The characters include two young women -- one in Gilead and one in Canada -- as well as a familiar character, Aunt Lydia.  The three narratives intertwine to build suspense.  The details tiptoe in, providing a powerful picture of the world Gilead has created.  There are tremendous political threads but that is only the frame.  The people, the women, are at the heart of the tale.  Atwood's literary felicity is again hugely evident, as she draws strong characters and relatable stories which are layered and complex but easy to "get".  The ending, as all definitive endings do, could cause some controversy but it will make you think about the big picture.  Atwood had made it clear that she draws her inspiration from real-world events and that what some might see as an extremist society is anything but.  In a time of tremendous upheaval in the United States these days (which was clearly part of the impetus for the sequel) this book is a great reminder that we should not allow the voices of hate to become the "new normal" or allow the little attacks to pass, as they foreshadow much worse.  Not just a great novel, an important one.  Should be required reading.

Patsy and Loretta

This new Lifetime movie explores the tremendous friendship which grew between two icons of country music.  Their entire relationship took place over less than two years but was striking in how powerfully felt it was for both women.  The producers smartly put a good deal of focus on the music, allowing the hugely talented Megan Hilty and Jessie Mueller to use their fabulous voices to echo Patsy Cline and Loretta Lynn, respectively.  Megan Hilty is particularly skilled at diving into a troubled, brilliant performer.  It was easy to forget the actor under the wig and see only the star who died too young.  The music, the friendship, and the performances are admirable.  The script, however, is choppy and the timeline unclear.  Transitions are abrupt and rough.  It's as if the producers said that they they wanted to see snapshots of every important moment between the two women, so instead of natural flow you end up more with snapshots.  Nevertheless, it was an engaging two hours which left me with a significantly better understanding of this moment in history and a soft spot for the human side of two superstars.  Their daughters contributed to the development of the project, bringing needed grounding.  Worth a viewing.

"The Truths We Hold: An American Journey" by Kamala Harris

I first saw Senator Harris at the Women's March in DC.  Hearing her speak I paid attention.  It had been a lengthy day of speeches but hers stood out.  She had a clarity, a passion ... and she was smart.  Really smart.  Ever since then I have watched her career with interest, including her current run for President.  It has become defacto to release a book when you are running for President.  It is supposed to make clear to the constituency where you came from, how your beliefs formed, who you essentially "are."  In that sense this book succeeds to some degree.  The first few chapters cover Senator Harris' early life, somewhat sanitized at times but clear in that she identifies as a black woman and has tremendous family bonds.  About a third of the way in we reach the point where I became aware of her -- the 2016 march.  After that, she covers her time in the Senate, which includes a good bit of behind doors power plays.  Given her background, she was given a spot on several prestigious committees in the Senate.  This is not typical for a Freshman.  It is interesting to read what was going on behind the scenes during some of the more public events of the last few years.  The book clearly spells out what Senator Harris believes.  For this, jump to the final chapter where she sums up the core beliefs in her life.  As to the rest of the book, well ...  Senator Harris is clearly a private person.  This book could never be called a "tell-all".  But it does show off her personality fairly well.  She is hard-working and makes a point to delve deep into every issue, understanding the history as well as the current situation.  She is committed, determined to fight when she believes she is right, even if it is not popular.  She does fail, and as a rule-follower it surprised her when she didn't pass the bar the first time.  She is a boots-on, in-the-thick of things brawler.  She has a great deal of empathy and sees the big picture, using many stories not only to illustrate national concerns but to thank those of her friends and staff who pitched in on a given issue.  The problem with many of the "middle" chapters is that they read like stump speeches.  All numbers and great leaps like the discussion of big pharma and Wall Street.  The arguments are compelling but can seem impersonal.  Instead of talking in detail about the loss of her mother, she launches into a tirade about insurance.  This is typical.  The points are strong but they aren't about her, specifically.  On a weak note, many of her televised Senate hearings are recreated verbatim, which seems unnecessary.  So, no, not the most fabulous book.  But a good one if you want some insight into Senator Harris, albeit more about her work and policies than her private life.  It does make me wonder -- will we ever choose a President based on their ability to do the job, rather than whether they are someone we'd like to have a beer with?  It will be an interesting year to come.

"Where'd You Go, Bernadette?" by Maria Semple

This book wasn't at all what I thought it was.  Which is generally a good thing.  Given its popularity and the current movie I had some sense that it was either all about a mother who disappears or a tale of a woman who walks away from her marriage.  It is both.  And it isn't.  Bernadette's daughter's voice acts as an emotional anchor for the piece but there are many voices.  It is told in a unique narrative form -- through letters, emails, police reports, etc.  This kind of keeps you guessing as to what is going to happen next.  It's an interesting take on suburban life which reminded me a bit of Liane Moriarty's work.  The theme of the unhappy modern housewife has been around in literature for half a century but the current takes do great justice to our contemporary ethos.  All this being said, this isn't a dark book.  It has thoughtful, even troubling themes, but it is very much a funny tale, one that had me laughing out loud.  Not too deep but nicely engaging, I read the entire thing from cover to cover during an eight-hour flight.  Relatable and worthwhile.

"The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" by Rebecca Skloot

More lengthy travel allowed me to catch up on a lot of reading.  First up was an award-winning book which had been on my "to read" list for a long (long, long) time.  This fascinating nonfiction story is told in many layers.  There is the author, Rebecca Skloot, who took years to research and write this story.  There is the family of Henrietta Lacks, who were used and abused but never rewarded for the sacrifice which was made.  There is the medical establishment which cares nothing for the people affected by their work.  And there is Henrietta.  A woman, a mother, a wife, a cancer victim ... a force of nature.  Skloot does an incredible job of weaving these storylines into one another, showing how Henrietta was part of a family, how that family was impacted by her life and death, how doctors took from the family and never gave back.  Skloot's task, trying to track down the threads of this mystery and weave them into something which made sense, are also part of the tale.  It is through her impassioned eyes that we get to know the Lacks clan and the racial challenges faced by so many poor people of color.  Skloot doesn't spare anyone in showing how so many used pieces of Henrietta but none of them seemed to know her at all.  It's amazingly accessible reading considering the amount of scientific information covered.  It's mind-blowing and emotionally resonant.  It's not just a good book, it's downright important.  Though it was written nearly a decade ago, the themes it covers are still remarkably powerful today.  One of my top reads of the year.

New TV Season 2019

Bob Hearts Abishola.  It took three episodes.  Three episodes for that special something to click in.  That hard-to-define thing which makes Chuck Lorre's sitcoms a step above.  This show has caricature supporting characters but there is, excuse the pun, heart.  Billy Gardell and Folake Olowofoyeku are gentle, calm, and real with one another.  A timely tale for our troubled country, something which will make you smile, and think.

All Rise and Bluff City Law.  I review these two together because they are so similar -- and yet not.  Both are legal dramas with a noted liberal bent.  Both have delightfully, if not forced, diverse casts.  So much the same, but with with critical differences.  In a head-spinning flip, the NBC show (Bluff City Law) is formulaic and slow paced.  The CBS show (All Rise) is fresher and less predictable.  Bluff City Law focuses on the "big bad" of the week -- big pharma, corporate farming, hate speech, while All Rise focuses on the individuals -- the girl brought to court without pants, the young man trying to reconcile his friendship with someone who committed murder.  Bluff City Law seems creaky and left me checking email.  The fast-paced, clipped dialog of All Rise makes me sit up and take note.  A recent episode had me grabbing for a hanky (happy tears). Reminds me a little of ER's first season, when the freshman hospital show went up against Chicago Hope.  Both shows were good but guess which one won?

Mixedish.  Successful Blackish follows up on their third spinoff with a worthy prequel which continues to explore racism and self-identity in funny, smart way.

Emergence.  ABC's answer to Manifest isn't as good as Manifest and relies on far too many tropes (Twin Peaks flashing stoplights, anyone?) but has an intriguing cast, so I will hang in there for a bit.  We need to support Sci Fi on network TV.

Almost Family.  A strong cast and unique premise makes this a really good show.  Being on Fox, where everything has to be sexed up soap-opera style makes this not a good show.  Will have to see where this one goes.  It has real potential -- for good and bad.

Stumptown.  It's what you would expect.  Engaging Colbie Smulders plays a really messed up woman who gets beaten up a lot.  The supporting cast is also interesting so even though I'm tempted to delete it from the DVR queue, I haven't just yet.

Perfect Harmony.  Sister Act was better, and less insulting to southern types.

The Unicorn.  I like the cast and the quick dialog but am straining to find the funny in arch jokes about a widower starting up his dating life again.  It can be a little uncomfortable.  It stays.  For now.

Sunnyside.  As much as this improves over the Indian family sitcom it replaced, it wasn't much of an improvement.  I got through two and the "stupid" factor was just too much.  Give Diana Maria Riva a better vehicle and remember that those watching actually have a brain.

Carol's Second Act.  How many jokes can be made about old people or teachers?  This unoriginal sitcom seeks to answer this question and few others.  Flat lighting, broad acting and none of the grounding and strong cast which made Scrubs work.  This one, as predicted, was the first off my DVR.

Batwoman.  The CW has gotten good at putting together superhero shows.  This one is no exception.  Thoughtful world-building, creative crafting of the origin story, a strong cast and terrific fight choreography come together again to reveal a gritty, engaging tale.  This ain't no Metropolis folks.  Power to the ladies.

Nancy Drew.  I've only seen one episode so far but it calmed my fears about being "too dark" -- for now.  Nancy Drew has grown up.  Mom's dead, she's fighting with dad and sleeping with bad boy Ned Nickerson.  Okay, it's a little dark.  But the characters are dimensional and the mysteries well-crafted (with a nice early nod to the book series) so I might be able to hang in there for a bit.  But I'm watching it during the day.

Best Cat Stories: A Classic Collection of Cat Literature by 27 Outstanding Authors

I've been pulling unread books off my bookshelf and grabbed this one, most likely a gift from someone who knows I love cats.  On the surface, it seems fine.  Delve in, however, and it's beyond bad -- it's horrific.  The first short story wasn't written very well but had a kind of "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" vibe, so I hung in there.  After that, there was the obligatory dead cat story and some random meandering snippets from a veterinarian with no discernible storyline.  I hung in there through the use of the n-word to describe a black cat and through the butchering of Lewis Carroll (essentially mashing up all paragraphs including the words "Cheshire Cat" with no connecting passages).  But I finally bailed in the middle of one story.  It is rare that I stop reading a book.  I have pushed through many tomes I didn't care for.  In this case, I simply couldn't stomach it.  SPOILER ALERT.  In the short story, the husband rapes his wife, then kills her cat, a devoted creature who tried to stop the assault.  He turns the dead cat's fur into a ruff on a coat he gifts to his wife.  Beyond the obvious WTF reaction, I simply had enough.  I got the book out of my sight as quickly as possible.  Fortunately it is now out of print.  Good riddance. 

"The King's Pleasure: A Biographical Novel of Katharine of Aragon" by Norah Lofts

Determine to read through my impressive bookshelves, I selected this 1969 tome about Henry VIII's first wife.  Often portrayed at the end of her life, rather than in the middle, this book was refreshing in how it started truly at the beginning -- with Queen Isabella nearly giving birth to baby Katharine on horseback, in the rain, on the frontlines of war, and proceeds carefully and specifically through every event of the woman's life.  I was afraid of two things when I picked up this book -- the first being that Katharine's life would be sentimentalized.  I did not need to fear that.  Mrs. Lofts was clearly a dedicated researcher and while certain elements are fictionalized it is clear that Lofts used every letter, every recorded conversation to build up a story which was exacting in accurate detail.  This epitomized my second fear, that the novel would come off as some dusty old history book.  It does not.  The tale doesn't move, isn't a page turner, but it is a story and you do feel the emotion behind the dates and places.  It doesn't take long before you really ache for Katharine, who loved a man who loved her, then lost that man forever.  It is a rich book, and one which had me contemplating these lives well after I turned the last page.  Norah Lofts was a prolific and well-reviewed author in her day and now that I have read one of her books, I understand why.  It's not a short read but it was a perfect "big book" to sink into on these slow summer days.

Two Sentence Horror Stories

The idea is cool.  Create a shivering two sentences, tease the first at the beginning of each half-hour segment and reflect the horror at the end of the show with the second sentence.  And, while I don't particularly like gory drippy horror, I do enjoy "Twilight Zone" and other programs which creep me out.  The problem here is execution.  I'm easily scared.  I screamed during a showing of "Audrey Rose" and that was a truly terrible film.  I watched two episodes of this and wasn't even a little bit scared.  In the case of the premiere episode, I guessed the ending in the first few minutes.  There was also a concern about the choice of tales.  While I only watched the first two episodes I couldn't help but notice that there was a unifying theme -- women being abused and getting back in a kind of "Burning Bed" manner.  It wasn't so much creepy as sad.  The women's movement has come this far only to be placed back into a box of victim/cruel and crazy revenge seeker.  It didn't wow me.  The production values are strong and the acting solid but I won't be coming back for more.

Bulletproof

The CW has pushed out new fare for August, the first of which, "Bulletproof" is fairly promising.  A British import the major kudos go to lead actors Noel Clarke and Ashley Walters.  Not since the "Lethal Weapon" films has dialog been batted back and forth this well in a cop buddy-drama, adding needed humor to tough storylines.  Acting and production values across the board are excellent and for those who are action-inclined, this will be satisfying.  The premiere episode included two car chases and one significant fight.  And therein lies the challenge for me.  It's good, really good.  Characters have depth and from the get-go there are multiple stories being told.  But it's gritty and rude and a bit much for me, a lover of rom-coms and superhero shows.  It's also ~really~ British.  Not "The Crown" let's-talk-in-proper-accents-and-avoid-colloquialisms for the American audiences.  This is honest-to-goodness British talk, complete with whole phrases which can be difficult to understand.  That being said, it is worthy and for those who like action and the down-and-dirty cop shows which focus on the mean streets, this one is for you.

Best TV Shows Ever. According to Me.

Okay, just watched the finale of “Jane the Virgin” and cried my little eyes out.  Said goodbye to so many terrific shows this year. Inspired me to create a list. I like to call it “Best TV Shows Ever”.  It seriously bugs me that awards shows focus on dramas. Comedies, Sci-fi shows, etc., are often left out. Half-hour shows?  Fuggedaboutit. Network representation is also uneven. First, it was all the big three, now it is all premium cable like HBO.  Open cable networks like FX may get nods, but rarely win. So, here’s my take to balance the scale.

In my humble opinion, what makes the cut?  Shows which broke the mold in some way.  Shows which were consistently good, even smart, from top to bottom -- writing, casting, directing, acting, production values.  Also, no paid premium cable ‘cuz that’s for elitists.  If you have to pay a bunch of money to watch it then it ain’t real TV (I know, this will tick folks off, but that’s my take).  Lastly, no so-called reality shows, so no “Survivor” etc.  

Because of these “rules” a lot of great shows don’t make the cut.  “This Is Us”?  Great show but basically “Parenthood” with a multi-racial, multi-timeline twist.  “Colombo”?  Love, love, love the character but the show was hugely formulaic and typical of the era -- no new ground.  The 1960s “Batman”?  Fun, different, but not really a pinnacle of quality.  So, no.  Every Star Trek.  Okay, some of my favorite shows, ever, but no, they don’t make the list as quality was fairly uneven.  The first series was sold as “Wagon Train” in space and Gene Roddenberry basically used that to sell his leftist politics hidden under Sci-Fi tropes.  They made a point but didn’t change the medium (IMHO). (That being said, “Star Trek:  Discovery” may break the mold.  First season was outstanding from beginning to end).  

And that’s the bottom line -- this is my list.  It’s highly subjective and you may not agree.  In which case, make your own list. ;--}

“All in the Family”  As a recent attempt to recreate the show proved, the actors really made it what it was but the writing also holds up.  A comedy about a bigot?  It worked.  It worked because of Caroll O’Connor, Jean Stapleton, Sally Struthers and Rob Reiner, along with a host of other notable cast members who humanized characters who could have been two-dimensional.  It worked because of Norman Lear, who somehow kept it on the fine wire between being shallow or being obnoxious.  Norman Lear did something no one had ever seen before and then replicated it.  Archie Bunker spewed hate but was delightfully challenged in episode after episode.  We kept coming back, either because we hated him or loved him.  It may have been the first time in history that a half-hour show had people around the country arguing over the dinner table, and it gave birth to a host of successful spin-offs which continued to challenge our idea of blacks, hispanics and women.  We need a show like this today, but no one seems able to find the alchemy which made it work the first time round.

“M*A*S*H*”  Never before had a show blended comedy and drama in such an integrated way.  That, and they did it in half an hour.  Without this, there would be no “Scrubs”, no “Mom”.  The show wasn’t perfect.  Initial attempts to replicate the irreverent tone of the film gave way to a show which had us laughing and then crying, the turns of emotion made in an instant.  A commentary on humanity and war it is still infinitely watchable today, if for nothing other than the stellar, award-winning performances.

“Barney Miller”  Early episodes tried to blend the family with the office.  That was quickly discarded and it became a single set show about cops which could only be described as “quirky”.  There was little action and while it was listed as a comedy it clearly had dramatic elements.  Subtle yet current in its assessment of the politics around it the show had an authenticity reflected by a host of characters who felt palpably real.  The show said that our world is not full of skinny pretty people and resolutions are often more grey than black and white.  It didn’t feel ground-breaking but watching it evoked a sense of connection to our daily lives.  In many ways, this show made “Night Court” possible.

“Soap”  Preceded by “Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman” this parody of soap operas confronted the modern age with a kind of honesty which was downright uncomfortable at times.  It clothed the revelations in the ridiculous storylines but the incredible cast was able to ground the silly into painful reality.  

“In Living Color”  A sketch show which far excelled “Saturday Night Live” in consistent quality.  The Wayans brothers broke a lot of boundaries in creating this show and made us think as well as laugh.  It said, clearly, that a person’s color had little to do with who they are.

“Golden Girls”  Yes, older women exist.  And have lives.  Even sexual lives.  Portrayed by some of the best ladies of film this show never failed to delight, and challenge.  “Sex in the City” wouldn’t have existed if not for this forthright tale of women friends who bared it all.

“Twin Peaks”  Weird.  Bizarre.  At times unintelligible.  And absolutely, positively nothing else like it on television, before or since.  You simply had to come back each week and sit in front of the TV to say “Whaaaaat???”  The “Psych” parody was delightful and “Stranger Things”, in a way, owes a bit of a nod to this really odd show.

“Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman”  It wasn’t particularly unique.  It was basically a soapy romance set in the 1800s, but it stood out.  First of all, the lead was a woman, and she wasn’t always likeable.  Second, it was a packed through-line.  A single episode clocked in under an hour but sometimes told three or four stories.  Lighting, costuming, every element of the show was very well-done.  Besides which, this show built on the success of “La Femme Nikita”, paving the way for “Xena”, “Star Trek Voyager”, “Dark Angel”, “Charmed” and “Veronica Mars”.  The message of the 90s was simple -- women really can carry a show. 

“Buffy, the Vampire Slayer”, “Firefly”  Joss Whedon may have his picadillos but he is simply one of the best storytellers of the modern age.  He infuses familiar themes with rich dialog and a complex balance of styles.  Some would say he is a modern Shakespeare.  The tales were old but the presentation unique and fresh.  Put simply these far-out tales somehow speak to us in a very personal way.

“West Wing”  Okay, it’s basically a liberal wet dream but the writing is smart, really smart, and the cast was stupendous.  (The direction and cinematography weren’t bad, either).  Watch it over and over (and over) and you will see something new every time.  Ending a good while back it is hauntingly resonant in today’s political times.

“Battlestar Galactica” (remake)  The original show was so bad it was good.  The remake, coming shortly after 9/11, discarded the camp, made Starbuck a woman, and reflected the new world in stark detail.  The bad guys had stronger faith than the good guys and there were real questions about whether our leads deserved to survive.  It wasn’t easy to watch but it was hard to turn off.  Oh, and that drum score made your heart beat faster through every episode.  This was one of many shows in the early 2000s which had a dramatically different tone after America suffered through a war which came home.  It painfully reflected a new vulnerability for the most powerful nation on earth and was one of the first to show anti-heroes as protagonists, a theme which continued with “The Sopranos”, “Dexter”, “Breaking Bad” and more.

“The Big Bang Theory”  A silly little comedy which was watched by millions.  Why?  A fabulous cast, smart writing, a lot of heart and yes, that impossible-to-copy alchemy.  That being said, it was the cornerstone of a Chuck Lorre empire.

“Gotham”  Beginning with “Superman” in the 1950s television has never lacked for superhero content, but this prequel brought things to a new level.  The vision of how to portray origin stories for hugely familiar characters was strong and very much fulfilled by the creative team, who created a world as rich as anyone could imagine.  Acting was top-shelf from every villain to the young man who would become Batman.  Even good guys like Jim Gordon had an edge and nothing was clear-cut in this world of moral morass.  It set a bar which few other DC or Marvel shows have managed to reach.

“Jane the Virgin”  Try taking the most beloved format of television from another country and translating it into an American show which managed to balance the cheesy factor with real emotions and still honor its Hispanic roots.  They did it with incredible skill and created a show, and characters, you couldn’t help but love.  It was hugely enjoyable and profoundly important without being preachy.  Yes, it was built on what “Ugly Betty” tried to do but did it just a bit better.

“Life in Pieces”  Drawing inspiration from “Love, American Style” this smart comedy managed, week in and week out, to tell four stories in 30 minutes (actually in 22 minutes).  A stellar cast who managed to bat the one-liners around more than the balls at Wimbledon.  Fast-paced and clever.  Part of the trend of smart sitcoms but this one rose above the rest.

“Mr. Robot”  I had to bail after season two due to the extreme intensity but not because it isn’t great.  It is fricking brilliant.  With the quality of film and shot in ways which honor the most innovative filmmakers of the 1960s this ground-breaker manages to address the modern age and seriously mess with your head.  The “unreliable narrator” is hot in this day and age, but no one does it better than in this show.  Acting?  Rami Malek.  ‘Nuff said.

“Better Things”  Like “Seinfeld”, this show is about nothing.  But unlike “Seinfeld” this show is really about everything.  It is slice-of-life stuff.  Sometimes funny, sometimes sad, it mostly just “is” and Pamela Adlon’s deadpan in dealing with the latest life obstacle while putting one foot in front of the other is hugely relatable.  Low-key yet powerful, it is worth the half-hour to jump in and get real.

“Pose”  Never mind the highest LGBT casting, ever, for television OR film, the acting is simply superior and the willingness to look deep into the challenging lives of this community is not only honest, it’s brave.

Runner-Ups “Miami Vice” and MTV.  Neither progressed with the strength they started with but both, debuting in the early 80s, completely changed television.  TV became a more visceral, bold, in-your-face medium.  Editing speeds ramped up.  Good and bad became less clear.  Musical scoring began to drive narratives, creating indelible stories. 

Honorable mentions: 

• FX for pushing the envelope, and for “The Americans”. 
• The BBC for putting the ~entire~ Shakespeare canon on video in the 70s and 80s, bringing his works to the attention of millions.  And for “Monty Python”, “Absolutely Fabulous”, “Doctor Who”, “Robin Hood”, “Merlin”, "Orphan Black" and everything else delightfully British.  Even the stuff shot in Canada.
• Canada for raising the bar and creating a lot of entertaining shows with real heart.
• USA for making some of the best bro shows ever. 
• The CW for making Marvel shows which work (sorry, SyFy).
• Streaming services for “Orange is the New Black”, “Stranger Things”, “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” and “Handmaid’s Tale” and changing the face of what television "is" -- for good or bad.

It's Summer

For some reason, summer means bad.  First up is "Pandora" a CW series which makes the other summer fare look like Shakespeare.  A strange mix of "Scooby Doo" meets the original "Battlestar Galactica", this silly sci-fi tale has less script quality than that of an ABC Afterschool Special, every known stereotype and reduces a good number of female characters to two-dimensional sexual objects.  Even the stage combat is, like, really bad.  Flat plots which go nowhere and actors who look like they would rather be anywhere else round out a show so camp it inspires one to MST3K it.  I barely made it through three episodes before saying "bye-bye" on my DVR. 

After that it was the movie "Blood and Chocolate" which is based on a FABULOUS book by Annette Curtis Klause.  This film ignores so much of the book that the only recognizable elements were character names and werewolves.  Lurching in with little exposition at the beginning it changes the setting from Maryland to Bucharest (because the two have so much in common???)  The result is a muddled, dark, eastern European mess.  No clear plot, whispered and purposeless dialog and lethargic acting make the whole thing a waste.  In this case, read the book.

Lastly, because most of my shows are on hiatus, I binge-watched two Canadian series being played endlessly on Ion Life.  First was "The Listener" which has a neat concept -- a guy can read minds and helps solve crimes.  Problem was execution ... literally.  Regulars on the show were killed off willy-nilly and the setting/premise changed with every season.  None of the changes seemed to have any impact on characters, who briefly raised a glass to the dead and moved on, unhindered by, you know, feelings.  Whole plot threads were discarded and in the end the series settled into a kind of formula which was as boring as the performances (with noted exception Ennis Esmer). Lead actor Craig Olejnik might be cute but the character, or his portrayal of it, was dour.  Skip it.  This was followed by "Saving Hope" which was moderately better.  Cast and writing were stronger, and the concept -- a doctor goes into a coma and starts seeing ghosts of those who die, or are also in comas, in the hospital -- was fun and unique.  I particularly enjoyed the female focus of the show as women were often in positions of authority.  On balance, I liked the series and looked forward to new episodes with a few major caveats.  First were the "Grey's Anatomy" echoes.  Characters often don't leave, but get killed off (in fairly spectacular fashion).  There were romance storylines which didn't enhance character development at all.  The love story between the leads, in particular, was remarkably obtuse, as the actors rarely shared a screen together.  I haven't seen this much distance between two lovebirds since the final season of "Castle."  There were also the (very) detailed surgery scenes.  Producers seemed to revel in making the gore as realistic, and bloody, as possible.  I took up knitting mid-series so that I could listen and not watch (yes, I'm squeamish).  Finally, after five seasons of tender-hooks, the final episode disappointed ... greatly.  One character asks "After all of this, how can we be back here again?"  It was exactly how I felt.  Like a cheat, the series leads to a conclusion which is not fulfilled.  I stuck through it for an ending and got, well, not.  In any case Ion also needs a little wrap on the knuckles for purposely running shows like this over the hour mark by about 30 seconds, which means you lose the ending if you don't record the next episode.  Just sayin.

In any case, I'm looking forward to Fall.  Not only the return of shows I enjoy (minus too many retired favorites) but the release of DVDs, like the second season of "Star Trek:  Discovery".  Good times will come again.  Or not. 

Orphan Black

You know a show is binge-worthy when you simply have to watch the next episode, and the next, and the next.  Orphan Black met that bar and exceeded it.  I stayed up late and watched all five seasons in less than a week.  It was an emotional roller-coaster which had me on the edge of my seat.  Reminiscent of Frankenstein, La Femme Nikita, Breaking Bad, anything from Michael Crichton and a book called "The House of the Scorpion" the show is in no way derivative.  It is engaging, surprising and not nearly as bleak as I expected.  We begin the tale with Sarah, a punk street kid and con woman, who sees a woman who looks just like her in a train station, only to see that same woman step in front of a train moment later.  Sarah, being the practical sort, takes the woman's purse and plunges into a life far different from her own, discovering along the way a network of clones who are identical to her in looks but completely different in lives and personalities.  There are, of course, the big evil corporations, the ethically bankrupt scientists, etc., but the bigger questions of the series focus around nurture and nature, what makes a family and how to find the strength to survive.  It's kind of brilliant and the major kudos go to Tatiana Maslany, the lead actor who is responsible for portraying some dozen clones.  As many have noted her work is incredibly impressive.  It's not just that the characters are very distinct, you quickly forget that this is the same actor portraying all of them.  At times the women have to impersonate one another.  Even this is specific -- the impersonations are slightly imperfect, and are clearly the original character "playing" the woman she is pretending to be.  The CGI is also terrific and in scenes where there are multiple clones it is easy to slip into the storyline without a single thought that this is the same person playing multiple roles.  The show isn't perfect.  Not every clone is fully realized.  The needed humor in one storyline sometimes becomes too much.  Characters seem to change gears quickly and extending the show through five seasons meant an unending list of bad guys trying to do in the women.  Season four, in particular, became hugely dark and fairly gross.  In the midst of it all, however, is a growing bond of sisterhood and of redemption for those whose circumstances made them into monsters.  It's a compelling tale and a show worthy of the many awards heaped upon it.  Go ahead, binge it.  You know you want to.

Good Trouble

I loved "The Fosters" so I wasn't sure where they would go with this spin-off which focuses on "new adults" Callie and Mariana Adams Foster.  The girls have graduated college and are living in Los Angeles.  Callie, fresh out of law school, is clerking with a conservative judge, and Mariana, who went to MIT, is navigating minefields at an innovative tech company.  SPOILERS AHEAD.  The news is mostly good.  Creators have found the core realities to existence for 20 somethings.  Callie and Mariana struggle with money, with work, with relationships.  Like the members of the co-op they live in, issues of identity and their roles in the world are paramount.  Like "The Fosters", most of the events are realistic and well-portrayed.  Guest stars from the original family are frequent and provide a nice grounding to that sense of being a little lost which is so constant with the girls.  The new cast deeply enriches the narrative, particularly Zuri Adele as a rebel with a real cause, Alice Kwan who plays a lesbian in search of herself and a real partner, Emma Hunton as a body positive blogger who paradoxically doesn't always value herself and Josh Pence as the adult in the room who struggles with unimaginable loss.  Rounding out the cast are many solid actors who go far beyond the stereotypes -- a hot bisexual artist who wants to be known for his work, a judge who often surprises, a gay lover who wants to be first on his boyfriend's list.  One challenging thing to navigate is structure of the show.  Most episodes begin with a "now" moment and most of what you see after that is a lead up to the final moment you saw at the beginning.  This isn't made clear from any kind of titling and you just have to get used to it.  Aside from that and the girls having a LOT of "the sex" (what is this, "Sex in the Other City"?) as well as Maia Mitchell and Sherri Saum having become shockingly thin, the show is engaging and compelling.  I binge-watched the first season (thank you Freeform) and look forward to season two.

"What Alice Forgot" by Liane Moriarty

A delightful surprise.  Having torn through a book I took on vacation my cousin offered this treasure, which I managed to read in four days despite the heavy page count.  Australian author Liane Moriarty (sister to Jaclyn Moriarty, a YA author whose "A Corner of White" I really loved) apparently writes a lot about suburban wives and mothers.  This book, where a power soccer mom loses her memory of the past 10 years, brings up great questions about identity, relationships and family.  Intriguing in its slow reveal of Alice's past, it brings in different perspectives including that of Alice's sister and her surrogate mother figure.  These outside voices aren't critical to the narrative but they round out a tale which is accessible and yet not black and white.  They help to make the point that relationships around us, be they family or lovers, are often unexpected and complex.  I really liked the idea that life simply doesn't go where you point it, which is something I have said for years.  The bigger questions -- who stays with you on the ride and whether you can roll with the curves, is one left to the reader to decide.  I liked the concept here and a book which had me thinking a lot about how we move forward.

Blood & Treasure

I tried, I really did.  Four weeks of predictable, massively derivative episodes which had the energy of a slow Sunday afternoon (imagine Indiana Jones mixed with a soap opera, or, you know, the 2nd Indiana Jones film).  Too skinny actors who seemed to be either bored or embarrassed to be working on the project. As each episode progressed I became restless, checking email or news on my phone.  This show made me ache for the recently cancelled Whiskey Cavalier, which had some charm and humor that didn't fall flat.  Don't.  Just.  Don't. 

A Discovery of Witches

Haven't read the books by Deborah Harkness which this is based on but the tale is familiar.  Neophite witch discovers she has more power than she knows and manages to fall for an ancient, sensitive vampire (he only eats deer, really!).  In the meantime, werewolves/demons, whatever, have some issues with this new hookup.  Pacing is slow and very British (this is a BBC offering) and there is much talk and little action.  When there is action the special effects are sadly inferior, looking more like the over-the-top stuff from mockumentary "What We Do in the Dark" than a serious effort to create magic.  What saves the series is very yummy Matthew Goode, whose lingering looks make me downright melty.  Will the series survive?  I'm not sure.  For now, I'm willing to spend a week ogling.