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.

OITNB had a floating timeline, which is relatively uncommon on live action TV shows (with the exception of soaps), but never bothered me too much. Every season takes place roughly in the present day, so if it’s 2018/2019 in S7, S1 is retconned as taking place in 2016/2017. I totally see how this would bug people, though, because OITNB isn’t The Simpsons or a comic book series. But the writers and producers wanted to keep the show relevant to current day issues, which I understand as well.

I think Polly knows what she and Larry did was wrong. IIRC, Piper had Neri throw a burning bag of poop outside Polly’s house when she found out about the affair, and Polly responded by saying, “I deserved that.” I think her clear reluctance to go to the dinner stemmed from understanding, perhaps more than Piper and Larry, that there are some things a friendship cannot recover from. She slept with her best friend’s fiancé while she was in prison, and is now having a child with him. For as much as Piper claims to have moved on and become a new person, that can’t not sting. Their friendship as it once was is over, and every future interaction is likely to be stained by bad history.

I like Zelda, and being that this is the last season and the writers probably wanted some closure on Piper’s relationship with Larry and Polly, I understand her suggestion for Piper to call them. In real life, however, this would be a horrible idea after everything that happened between them. The dinner was super awkward and I cringed the whole way through it. Sometimes you just have to accept that the bridge is burned and moved on.

Agreed. I thought it was particularly cruel in previous years when the final two were left on the runway and Heidi would tell the runner-up "you're out." One year (Sean Kelly vs. Amanda Valentine), she actually emphasized how close the voting was and that Amanda barely lost. Sometimes it's better just not to know, especially with such a big prize package at stake. Loved DvF as a guest judge. I always prefer fashion designers, or people in the fashion industry, as judges because they can give critiques other than "I would wear that / I would not wear that." A solid return to form after the weak Lifetime years. Keep it up, PR!

This is her sixth (and fourth consecutive) Tony nomination. I read that she is the first actor in history to earn four Tony nominations in a row. Go, Laurie!

The grand prize is $100,000. Winners of reality television shows usually can't collect their prizes until the show actually airs, so she has been waiting a long time, and after taxes she will have significantly less money. There were more good collections than there usually are on a Project Runway finale, and I would have been OK with several outcomes. When Michelle and Dmitry were both spared elimination last week, I figured the judges wanted one of them to win, but I was rooting for Irina. She had a few missteps throughout the competition, but had more high scores overall than anyone else. I love her craftsmanship and how focused and driven she is. Even without the win, I trust she will be fine; she's very talented and is one of the few PR alums who still shows regularly at NYFW. On a very sad note, her mother passed away from cancer less than a year after this episode was taped--Irina posted about it on Instagram. She was only 56. Overall, I am relieved Project Runway All Stars has come to an end, and hope Bravo doesn't rush to revive it. Seven seasons over eight years was much too much, and watered down the value of the PR brand. If the show does come back, I hope it's with a new judging panel, and that they only do one season every few years.

I cannot imagine a scenario in which Irina is not the next designer eliminated. Even if she produces the most beautiful garment of the season, the judges will make up a reason to send her home. They love Michelle, Anthony Ryan and Dmitry are their golden boys, and they will want one international designer in the finals. When it comes to actually awarding the win, however, I am not as convinced as some that Michelle has it locked up. I have always seen All Stars as a way to give a big check to a fan favorite by any contrived means necessary, and I don't think Michelle has ever been particularly popular with the fans. Moreover, she's a woman; with the exception of Dom, all other All Stars winner have been men. (I think Dom won, in part, because she was the only original recipe PR winner who competed on All Stars 5, and previous winners always win again on this show when they are up against non-winners). My hunch is that Dmitry or Anthony Ryan will take it again, but I wouldn't mind a Michelle win. Her style is not for everyone, but I do think she is talented. Her winning collection from S11 is one of my favorites in the show's history (along with Irina's, as a matter of fact).

Both this season and All Stars 6 (filmed summer 2016, aired winter - spring 2018) sat in the can for a long time. It's a strange choice to make for a design competition, because trends change so quickly. One episode in and I think Dmitry has a strong chance of winning the competition again. If not him, Anthony Ryan, Seth Aaron, or Sean; this panel clearly favors male designers. I like Irina's designs very much, but am surprised to see her back. She was on All Stars 3 and was in the top three or the winner of several challenges. She was sent home for her first bottom three appearance, for a design that was the guest judge's favorite. Irina was very vocal about how unfair it was when it all went down, and it did seem like the judges were just looking for any excuse to get rid of her. Wonder how far she makes it this time.

This season was filmed in the summer of 2017.

Laurie Metcalf received a Critics Choice nomination for Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series for The Conners. Nominated in the same category is her real life daughter Zoe Perry for Young Sheldon.