ThatsDarling

I feel like every iteration of Project Runway gets criticized for its judging panel, and I think this has to do, in part, with permanent judges having the responsibility of justifying the producers' agenda, even when it's at odds with the quality of work being shown. It's a reality show first and foremost, and creating a gripping storyline, catering to specific demographics, or simply generating buzz is generally considered more important than pure design quality. I was not a fan of Zac's during his time as a permanent judge -- I often found his critiques biased, mean spirited, and not particularly helpful during the Lifetime era, though I thought he came across rather well during this guest appearance. I think this has to do with him being better in small doses and not being all that invested in the outcome (Laurence is the only finalist he knew previously, and that was six years ago), allowing him to provide commentary with less bias.

One of the first Oscar races I followed closely was the year Gabourey Sidibe was nominated for Precious. I thought she was handily the best in her category, but she was never seriously discussed as a potential winner (the Oscar eventually went to Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side). Young actresses win Oscars regularly, but they usually have an It Girl narrative (not many black actresses are given that treatment by the industry/media to begin with, let alone those who are dark-skinned and plus size). The way she and Carey Mulligan were discussed by the press during that season was night and day. More recently, I would argue that Alfre Woodard should have been nominated and won for Clemency (a small, brilliant film that deserved a passion push like To Leslie received this year) and that both Tessa Thompson and Ruth Negga were overlooked for Passing.

Ugh, Jennifer Lawrence's win for Silver Linings Playbook is one of my least favorites in the history of the category. Emmanuelle Riva was so much better in Amour; that Oscar was all about celebrating the It Girl of the moment instead of the work. Lawrence was obnoxious on the campaign trail, too, joking about Riva, an 85-year-old woman, being no match for her and saying that fellow nominee Quvenzhané Wallis should "give the alphabet its letters back." As for Viola Davis, I don't think she is perceived as over-awarded by the Academy, but nomination voting favors passion over consensus, and there was much speculation on the awards forums that she would miss out as her type of role was unlikely to generate #1 votes on ballots. Other Oscar favorites like Amy Adams, Emma Thompson, Nicole Kidman, and Cate Blanchett (who missed last year for Nightmare Alley) still sometimes miss out, even after scoring big precursor nominations.

I don't understand the assertion that Viola Davis, who has won every industry acting award and is likely to become an EGOT next month, is somehow less connected than Riseborough, a low-key character actress who works largely in independent film. Aggressive awards campaigns are par for the course, unfortunately, but we are conditioned to accept them in the form of paid for magazine covers, roundtable placements, luncheons, and For Your Consideration ads. Some of the backlash is undoubtedly from the big studios who spent millions of dollars to position their actresses for Oscar nominations and came up short. They are angry that they lost out to a peer-backed campaign with a shoestring budget. It feels very elitist to me. There is also a whole cottage industry that has formed around awards season -- the pundits narrow the projected contenders down to 7-8 by fall and spend the next few months predicting which combination will land Oscar nods. Riseborough, despite her rave reviews for To Leslie, was not part of this conversation until very recently, and even then many of the prognosticators were not taking her seriously due to the smallness of her film and the lack of a big studio push. There is, I think, a bitterness there that she was nominated without their support. If Viola Davis and/or Danielle Deadwyler should have been nominated, why could they not have taken the place of Ana de Armas or Michelle Williams? The latter two campaigned heavily as well (with big studio backing); Blonde is not nearly as well received critically as To Leslie, while Michelle Williams did not get Riseborough's level of rave notices and is borderline supporting in her film. The impulse is to push out the least famous of the nominees, which I don't think is right.

Neville to Louise: "Our brother Aaaron died." I understand this expository dialogue was for the benefit of the audience, who has no idea who Aaron is, but there had to be another way to get this across without Nelville having to clarify to his sister that Aaron was their brother. It reminds me of an early episode in which Jackie told Becky "I know things have been difficult for you since your husband passed away."

Now he knows how the lost girls from season one of The Facts of Life feel. I think this is just a change in billing and Fishman will return for a series of brief, intermittent appearances later in S5.

I do remember that, as well as Jennifer Lawrence making fun of fellow nominee Emmanuelle Riva's age (she was 85 when she received her Best Actress nomination for Amour) and Quvenzhané Wallis's name. It was so rude, especially considering she was by that point the frontrunner to win over them for what I thought was a highly overpraised performance in Silver Linings Playbook. Jessica Chastain was wonderful in Eyes of Tammy Faye and I was so happy to see her win. Her speech was beautiful -- I appreciated her thoughtfulness, graciousness in honoring her fellow nominees, and that she chose to spotlight LGBTQ rights and suicide prevention.

The moment I heard Jackie speak, I thought "there is no way this actress is not Katey Sagal's daughter in real life." Their voices and rhythms of speech are so similar.

I've seen Laurie Metcalf in other recent projects, including several of her Tony-nominated stage performances, and consider her to be one of our most inventive, compelling, and versatile performers. If my only exposure to her was the role of Jackie Harris on The Conners, however, I would be singing a different tune. Admittedly, the writing for her character is weak, but her performance is too broad for my liking. When an actor goes as over the top as Metcalf often does here, the direction is also to blame; I think there is a collective misunderstanding of what made the character interesting on the original show, and what viewers find entertaining.

I don't remember the Conners being as gross on the original series, either. Storing beef jerky in the toilet and comments on how bad the couch smells? Ugh.

Lecy Goranson was terrific on original recipe Roseanne--one of the most realistic portrayals of a teenager I've ever seen on a sitcom. Her work may have been a little too realistic to garner much attention, however, and the Becky character did not have the hook of Sara Gilbert's sarcastic, anti-cheerleader Darlene. I can't say I'm as enthusiastic about what she's doing on The Conners, though this show isn't much of an acting showcase for anyone. Would still be nice to see her get a little more of the screen time that is currently allotted to Darlene.

The cast is too big, and the frequent additions of recurring characters gives me the impression that the writers are not sure where to take the show, so they are throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. I'm not holding my breath for a toned down Jackie. Laurie Metcalf said recently in an interview that she was given permission to play the character as broad as possible, and was taking advantage of it "because Jackie is a broad character...She's crazy." Metcalf is one of our finest actors, but every performer needs a director who can modulate their work, and she's not getting it on The Conners. Knowing what she's capable of and seeing her play a walking exclamation point every week is a shame, but I suppose she's laughing all the way to the bank.

The previews made such a big deal about Darlene being with child, I suspected it was a red herring. My hunch is that she will end up pregnant before the end of the season; the chance of naturally conceiving during perimenopause is quite low, but it's still possible, especially in sitcom world. I doubt the writers would have emphasized how much Darlene and Ben wanted a child together if they did not intend for it to happen down the line. It's odd to me that the go-to storyline for many family sitcoms is for the female lead to become pregnant at some point, even if she is in her forties and already has nearly grown children. A pregnancy is only good for so many episodes worth of story telling, and when the baby arrives, it is difficult to significantly incorporate them into the plot, unless you age them by five or so years during a summer hiatus (it would actually not surprise me if these writers did this).

I haven't rewatched the original series in years, but if I recall correctly, Becky was initially the daughter with whom Roseanne shared the closer and more specific relationship. The idea that Darlene was a Roseanne in training wasn't developed until she was older and her passion shifted from sports to writing. During the time Roseanne worked at Wellman's, I think she would have been more likely to brag about Becky, though the current writers insist that Darlene was always the golden child of the Conner family. I agree with you about Mark; it's always a gamble to give a child actor a role that relies heavily on dialogue, in which register they're more likely to come across as mannered or forced. The show seems less interested in him as a character than it is as a concept. Nice to see Louise given more to do this week, though I wish half of her screen time hadn't been spent with Harris as a scene partner; the latter's line readings tend to be one-note and familiar, and I've never been able to invest in her character. Segments involving the youngest generation of the family tend to be the weakest, IMO.

I know this adds another continuity problem to a series riddled with them, but I'm glad they've retconned Jerry. He was a baby at the end of original recipe Roseanne, never factored significantly into any plot lines, and was away on a fishing boat during the first season of the revival. Why continue with the concept that the Conners had four kids if the youngest is never going to appear? Casual viewers are probably unaware that Dan and Roseanne even had another son after DJ. I'm not crazy about the choice to move Mary in with her aunts; there are too many characters already, and I tend to find scenes centering on the youngest Conners to be weak. The writing and direction for Mark and Mary is sitcommy in a way that it wasn't for the child actors on the original show, and I found myself wishing they would be sidelined to focus on the adults last night.