dampfire
-
Posts
67 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by dampfire
-
-
Keegan-Michael Key is fantastic. I hope he's on another TV series soon.
Check him out on USA's Playing House. Hilarious show. And he's great on it. Plays a cop whose "jam" is the theme from Murder She Wrote.
-
2
-
-
So I'm guessing that because he didn't win for UKS, we'll be seeing Jon Hamm get his conciliatory* Don Draper Emmy tomorrow night?
*I don't mean to sound flip with this, but if Jon Hamm does win for Lead Actor, whether it was deserved or not (I haven't seen all of the performances in his category so I can't say for sure) it's going to come off as conciliatory. He's been nominated every season and hasn't won and it's one of those roles where he kind of needs at least one Emmy, just for the sake of common sense. I wonder if we'll just be seeing a Mad Men, sweep, honestly, which I'm not sure I'd enjoy. I think it's an awesome show and deserving of all the praise it's gotten, but a show sweeping at the Emmys the last year that it's eligible is just so boring and predictable. It happened with Breaking Bad last year
and it made for kind of a lackluster evening.
Talking with a friend one time about Lawrence of Arabia, my friend asked rhetorically enough, "Peter O'Toole won an Oscar for that, right?" I told my friend O'Toole hadn't. "Really? You gotta be kidding me," my friend said. "I know. Hard to believe," I said. "Then again," I added, "you have to take into account who he lost to." My friend asked, "Who?" I smiled. "Gregory Peck," I said. "To Kill a Mockingbird." My point is that these were two of the great, iconic performances of the last fifty some years. But they both happened to come in the same year.
Which reminds me of Hamm. It's easy to say he should have won an Emmy for playing Don Draper. And I'm not saying he shouldn't have. Thing was though, he had, for the most part, Bryan Cranston (Hamm's Gregory Peck) standing in his way.
True too, he lost to Damien Lewis. But it must be remembered what a cultural and critical phenomenon Homeland was in its first year. Plus Lewis's performance that year was intricately complex. He wasn't merely playing a Muslim convert and terrorist pretending to be a war hero. That his character was. But Brody was also suffering from PTSD, and he was quite legitimately (if somewhat paradoxically seeing as he was planning to strap on a suicide vest) trying to reconnect with his family. To say Brody was conflicted would be understating things wildly. It was, no doubt, an Emmy worthy performance.
The win by Jeff Daniels the next year was a shock and a surprise. He won for The Newsroom's first season (its best) when that show was shiny and new...and when MAD MEN was beginning to lose its luster. I've never been a big fan of Jeff Daniels as an actor myself, but I, personally, loved the "love it or hate it" show. And Daniels was the best I'd ever seen him. Very comfortable and convincing in the role. Most of the criticism I read at the time about the show seemed to be directed toward Sorkin...for reasons both political and stylistic. Many of the complaints when Daniels won seemed to me to be more of the "guilt by association" type. People complained about the insufferably long winded speechifying of Will McAvoy. But that seemed to me to be more "kill the messenger" criticism indirectly directed at Sorkin than it was warranted for Daniels' performance. So, yeah, while I was shocked and surprised at JD's win, I was initially kind of delighted by it. Having thought about it since, I wouldn't claim that Daniels deserved the award. But neither do I think it was quite the travesty some people did and do. It's a very good performance. Then, and through the whole of the series run. Which doesn't mean that I'm not shocked and surprised that Daniels has received three straight nominations for the role...on a show that has otherwise been pretty much ignored by the Acdemy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Perhaps the most encouraging loss of Hamm's MM run might be Kyle Chandler's 2010-2011 win for Friday Night Lights. It can easily be argued that Chandler was rewarded with an Emmy as sort of a parting gift for all the great work he'd done over the course of FNL. Many are predicting that Hamm's going to receive just such a parting gift tonight for MM. I'd be totally fine with that. It does seem somehow inconceivable that Hamm's never won an Emmy for what is undeniably one of TV's all-time iconic roles. Just saying or citing "Don Draper" means something. Wouldn't it be funny though (or perhaps painfully ironic) if Kyle Chandler were to win tonight for his shiny new show Bloodline...or if Bob Odenkirk were to win for his shiny new show Better Call Saul with its Breaking Bad (Hamm's old nemesis) bloodline?
~~~~~
The truth, it turns out, is indeed stranger than fiction!
-
I thought it was kind of convenient that the Octopus Motel was within eyesight of the church Bunchy was getting married at.
Thought the same thing at first. But it does end up making sense. Mickey's dressed up when Ray finds him. He tells Ray something like he had no intention of missing another one of his sons' weddings. Mickey holed up in that motel specifically because it was so close to the wedding site.
-
1
-
-
I initially missed this footnote to your long, firey post, dampfire, but way to go! (for me, at least) to get me to click on the article by feeding me the Jeff Goldblum hook! Heh. Great article with unique info not found in others. As a small child, my father recorded me doing impressions of TV actors on our old reel-to-reel tape recorder (long gone now), a knack I've been able to parlay into at least correctly pronouncing the names of students from up to 50 different countries who I meet in the library where I am employed. Too bad I can rarely remember the names for more than a nanosecond--another skill Tatiana excels at over most mortals.
I do wish the article had included snippets of Tatiana voicing the different characters discussed.
I will definitely be listening for hints of Goldblum's current apartments.com commercial voice ("Change your apartment; change your worrrrld") when I next hear Cosima. Or was dialect coach Nelles maybe refering to the annoying way Goldblum patronizes the centigenarian in the commercial?
On Friday Tatiana appeared briefly on Jimmy Fallon. While he did his usual gushing about how talented his guest was and seemed to have done his homework, it was not much of an interview. She did look wel
If, shapeshifter, you're a glutton for punishment, I posted something of a companion piece (to the one you responded to here) on the "Emmy" thread. It too is long and is oftentimes fiery. It's less about who reasonably could or should have been nominated, and more about who might or should win (in Tat's category). As the post in question wasn't on the OB Forum, let's just say that my advocacy for Tat was somewhat more expansive than, "Tat's the Queen ('nuf said)." People on this forum need little more explanation than that. Assuming that many on the Emmy Thread might be among the uninitiated, I felt the need to clue them into what they are missing. (August 5th posting.)
http://forums.previously.tv/topic/27757-the-annual-primetime-emmys-thread/page-2#entry1440229
Agree with you that the audio files would have been much improved with the insertion of clips from Tat on the show. They are what they are though. A discussion by the dialect coach. Interesting enough as are. And I didn't quite grasp the Goldblum link either. Waiting for the day though, be it rewatching past eps or watching next season, when the light bulb illuminates and I say to myself, "Oh! Okay. Now I get it!"
I've seen quite a few interviews with Tat, and Fallon's was probably the worst. He seemed to be faking his way through it. I actually went out of my way to watch the interview on a Friday night! Disappointed to say the least.
-
1
-
-
TPH's character is larger-than-life so I guess her performance could be considered "big" but I think it's mostly commanding. When she's in a scene, it's hard to pay attention to anyone else and it's not necessarily because of a "look at me" performance. I just thoroughly believe her. At this point she's my sentimental favorite because I do think she owns the show, which is a bit of a surprise considering it is also supposed to be a Terrence Howard vehicle. Whereas it's no surprise Viola Davis owns her show even though it is an ensemble. I do think Viola Davis might have an edge in this category for the raw power of the wig removal scene.
The feud has been discussed for a few seasons online but this was the first year where it started to get mainstream entertainment media attention. They are usually ready to kiss ass, and definitely have in the Good Wife's case, but finally someone took the online spec and wrote an article about noticing that they haven't shared a non-phone scene together in a few seasons. The Good Wife then made it worse by filming scenes that were supposed to make it look like the actresses were on set together but were clearly not and it just grew.
I don't think this is the only reason Juliana didn't get nominated. Room had to be made for newcomers. And eventually, older shows start to lose Emmy recognition.
Well, I did finally watch Empire. Mostly over last weekend. Confirmed, in part, my a priori assumptions about TPH's performance ("big...OTT...outrageous"), but also offered up plenty of the "counterbalance" I was hoping for. Sure, there's lots of Kookie Cookie on display, but there's more than enough (in a "less is more" kind of way) offsetting semi-subtlety to round out and ground the performance. Plus, any doubts I might have had about TPH being a "lead" on the show were quickly quelled. She's definitely a lead actress (ensemble cast or no). Have no real qualms about her being nominated. Commanding indeed, TPH certainly belongs among the dozen or so serious, almost interchangeable, contenders I mentioned upthread (first two lists) in the initial post of mine that you responded to, Irlandesa. TPH's performance is memorable. And exceedingly entertaining.
Agree with you that TPH and Viola Davis are probably the frontrunners in this category. While I admired VD's performance more, TPH's was far more enjoyable to watch. (Of the two actresses, I too will be rooting for TPH. HTGAWM just grates on me so much that I doubt that I could bring myself to root for anything even remotely associated with that trainwreck of a show...including, sadly, The Divine Ms. Davis herself!)
Deserving of a win on the basis of talent and performance as both women arguably are, it probably doesn't hurt either of their chances (not this time anyway) that they both happen to be African American...unless of course they manage, in this respect, to ironically cancel each other out of contention. This is the first time two African American actresses have been nominated for this award in the same year. Not many black actresses have been nominated in this category before: Debbie Allen, Fame (4 times), Regina Taylor, I'll Fly Away (twice), Kerry Washington, Scandal (twice), Cicely Tyson, Sweet Justice (once), and Alfre Woodard, St. Elsewhere (once). I think the relatively low number of African American actresses who have been nominated previously has less to do with specific snubs (although I'm sure there were some) than it has to do with the more general paucity of lead roles for black actresses over the years. We can hope that tendency is changing (although I, for one, am not going to hold my breath). Big picture, it's certainly time that an African American actress won this award. I'll be happy on that count should it happen on September 20th. Viola Davis and Taraji P. Henson are each more than worthy of that honor.
That, however, would be a partially ancillary reason for rewarding VD or TPH. As would be, IMO, giving the Emmy to Elizabeth Moss (a distinct possibility!) for all the fine work she's done "over the years" on Mad Men. As would be giving the award to Robin Wright simply because it's deemed to be "her turn".
Truth is, there doesn't seem to be a consensus about who should win. Juliana Marguiles won last year's Emmy (then didn't even get nominated this year). Ruth Wilson won the Golden Globe (but didn't get nominated either). Viola Davis won the SAG award, and Taraji P. Henson won the CCA. And how well do the GG, SAG, and CC awards serve as indicators about who will win the Emmy? Well, Robin Wright, Maggie Smith, and Tatiana Maslany won those three awards respectively last year, and only RW was subsequently nominated for the Emmy that Juliana Marguiles eventually won. In short, for the last seven major acting awards, there have been seven different winners. And, just to be thorough, looking at two full years of these awards (by adding the Emmy from two years ago), all that's additionally revealed is that there have been eight different winners (Clare Danes won the Emmy two years back). There's not one performance out there that's currently considered clearly the best...not, that is, if tracking the industry's major acting awards is used as the method of determination.
It's not insignificant however that both VD and TPH are nominees appearing in first year shows. They're the ones who most notably prevented Lizzie Caplan, Michelle Dockery, Juliana Marguiles, and Kerry Washington from duplicating their nominations from last year. Elizabeth Moss is new as well. But that's only because she was passed over last year. Before that ostensible slight, she was nominated three straight times (and four of the previous five times) for her role of Peggy Olsen. In Elizabeth Moss's case, everything old is new again. Tatiana Maslany's new too, but only after having been a buzz producing candidate three years running. VD and TPH, in their particular roles, are the true freshman phenoms. They're the ones making the most noise with their party crashing.
Which is fine. And fun. And fresh. For the most part. I'm all for making room for newcomers. But not necessarily, Irlandesa, simply for its own sake. When noting the exclusion of Juliana Marguiles from the roster of this year's nominees, I wrote in the second post to which you responded, "...I don't think JM's acting suddenly started to suck." That was my opinion. But the fact that she was nominated for a Golden Globe, the SAG award, and the CCA this year would seem to indicate that her work on TGW was and is still held in pretty high esteem. Don't get me wrong. I'm not sweating the fate of of Juliana Marguiles. It just seems to me that her exclusion was more arbitrary than pointed. Using the same reasoning you mentioned (Newcomers Needed), the Academy could just as easily have passed over Clare Danes or Elizabeth Moss or Robin Wright...or all of them (JM included). There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of rhyme or reason to any of it. It would just seem silly, even stupid, to have actresses of this quality sitting on the sidelines while lesser talents are vying for recognition which more appropriately and deservedly should be directed toward the hypothetical sideline sitters.
Luckily for us (the TV viewers), I don't think this is at all presently the case. While the exclusion of Juliana Marguiles may seem (even be) somewhat arbitrary, I don't see her being supplanted outright by an inferior talent in a less demanding or noteworthy role. (Well, at least I'm not willing to type "Elizabeth Moss" outside the protective cover of a set of parentheses.) As I repeatedly posited (no doubt to the point of annoyance) in the first post that you responded to, there's an embarrassment of riches currently available for consideration in this category. As far as I'm concerned, last year's slate of nominees could be wiped completely clean and all the actresses on it (plus Elizabeth Moss) could temporarily and without malice be declared persona non grata. This year's slate would hold no hint of the past. This year's true newbies (Viola Davis, Taraji P. Henson, and Tatiana Maslany) would, of course, head this year's list of nominees. Then some combination (all being preferable) of Caitriona Balfe (Outlander), Eva Green (Penny Dreadful), Keri Russell (The Americans), and Ruth Wilson (The Affair) could fill out the slate. And despite the fact that not a single repeat nominee would be represented, there would still be no need to look to the sidelines.
Am I seriously suggesting that such wholesale turnover become commonplace? Of course not. I'm not even seriously suggesting that it should have actually happened this year. I'm merely suggesting that, had it, there would have been no appreciable dropoff in the quality of performances being considered tor Best Actress in a Drama Series. The field's that fucking strong this year.
If Viola Davis, Taraji P. Henson, Elizabeth Moss, and Robin Wright all have some sort of ancillary consideration working (no matter how tenuously) for them, Clare Danes probably doesn't. Nor does she probably have much of a chance at winning. Homeland (uptick in quality this season aside) simply isn't as highly regarded as it once was, and CD's already nabbed two statuettes for playing Carrie Mathison. (Stranger things have happened though. Who knows? Maybe all the ancillary reasoning surrounding the other actresses up for the award may fragment the vote so completely that whatever solid and faithful level of support that CD might have may allow her to squeak out a win with a marginal plurality in the final tally.)
Likewise, even though I'm of the firm and unflinching belief that Tatiana Maslany should be the HANDS DOWN winner of this award, Tat probably doesn't have much of a chance either. I think her nomination was little more than a consolation prize. I think Emmy voters just got fed up with being called out for the clueless idiots they'd proved themselves to be the previous two years. And actually, I'm kind of okay with this. Having thought about it, it's pretty amazing that an actress on a comparatively low budget BBCA show somehow managed to get nominated over some truly awesome talent on the broadcast networks, on the more established cable channels, and on the even more prestigious (and critically respected by default) pay platforms. I just hope Tat's nomination wins OB a few more fans. Hope the nomination piques the curiosity of a few people out there who've been putting off checking out OB...or who simply don't follow "entertainment" news closely enough to have heard of the show or Tat's performance(s) before. (Hey, I never really realized I had BBCA on my cable lineup until I quite accidentally channel surfed my way into an episode of Doctor Who some years back.) These are people who may watch TV regularly...but don't necessarily read about it or make a concerted effort to venture outside their comfort zones to find new and exciting and interesting shows to watch (as, I'm assuming, many of us who frequent this site do)...but still might be generally interested enough in the medium to habitually watch the Emmys.
(Listen, I just binge watched Empire primarily to evaluate TPH's performance. It's most likely I wouldn't have done so -- yet anyway -- if she hadn't have been nominated in Tat's category...the only category that I truly care about, feel invested in this year.)
Obviously, an actual win for Tat would be even more beneficial for OB than the nomination alone will be. "Who the hell is she? WTF is Orphan Black?" those not previously clued in will hopefully ask. More than merely asking though, they just might follow up on the questions and find out for themselves. And, oh, what a transcendent treat they'll be in for if they do! A veritable master class in the art of acting...all amidst a fun, funny, thrilling, dark, intelligent, provocative, genre-bending, female-centric, character-driven (if nonetheless imperfect) roller coaster ride of a television series.
Unfortunately though, in order for Tat to win, Emmy voters would have to vote, um, honestly and responsibly. [Pause for laughs] They'd have to take the novel approach of actually watching the salient shows, ignoring ancillary factors, and simply and objectively voting for the best performance. Which is but part of the problem. Sad to say, not that many people, Emmy voters I assume included, watch OB (which maybe has a viewership 1/10 as large as Empire does). The other part of the problem is that comparing what Tat's currently doing on OB and and what the other nominees are doing on their shows is, well, comparing apples to oranges. Judging actors based on things like the emotional and behavioral depth and breadth and complexity and verisimilitude and range and gravitas exhibited in their performances is, ideally, how voters should attempt to decide who is best. And that works more than well enough when like things are being compared. All this year's nominees, Tat included (five times over...at least), show all or some of these qualities (and others) to varying degrees in their performances. The thing is though, Tat takes the range factor to a place never before visited in the history of television (perhaps even the history of acting itself). She upsets the apple cart and leaves us glorying in her radiant and inimitable orangeness. In a way, it's patently unfair for the other actresses in Tat's category to even have to compete with her. But it's just as unfair (if not moreso) that Tat should somehow be penalized for having landed an actor's dream job...and having thereafter delivered the goods in spades...and hearts and clubs and diamonds...and in suits heretofore unseen...let alone imagined. By rights, her coronation should be a foregone conclusion...a mere formality. I don't merely think Tat's work is the best offered by an actress in a leading role this year...or over the last three years for that matter. I think her performance is TV's greatest such performance EVER.
I have little doubt that many will instinctively balk at this assessment. Sounds crazy, I know. Even to me. Or at least it did. At first. But I looked it up. And it turns out the claim isn't particularly crazy after all. I also have little doubt that many or most who will be instinctively balking at my claim won't be regular viewers of Orphan Black. If you don't watch...I dare you!!! Watch Orphan Black and find out for yourself.
Here's the list. If you see a performance on this list that you feel or believe is better than Tat's on OB, I'd like to know what it is and why you've come to that conclusion.
NOTE: Prior to 1965-1966 the Emmys were more open. Comedy and drama performances competed (for the most part) against each other. In '65-'66 separate categories were established, giving us something like (ever-evolving as the Emmys are) the awards as we know them today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primetime_Emmy_Award_for_Outstanding_Lead_Actress_in_a_Drama_Series
ETA (first): Of course, I suppose there might be a performance buried out there somewhere in the wasteland of television history that was never nominated in this category but still might be worth considering in this exercise. Seems unlikely. But it's nonetheless possible. The closest such example I can come up with off the top of my head is Lauren Graham in Gilmore Girls. Seven seasons worth of the flawed but irrepressibly charismatic Lorelai Gilmore, and all Lauren Graham got in return from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences was a heaping helping of wind pudding and fried snowballs. Surely one of the Academy's most unforgivable long-term running snubs. Lorelai Gilmore is undeniably one of TV's most beloved characters ever. Recently read an article somewhere, one of those lists, naming the 100 (or, who knows, 99?) Most Memorable or Most Influencial or Most Important or Most...SOMETHING characters since Tony Soprano. Lorelai Gilmore was ranked # 6 behind 5) The Wire's Omar Little, 4) GOT's Tyrion Lannister, 3) MM's Don Draper, 2) BB's Walter White, and 1) 30 Rock's Liz Lemon. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that I've ever seen the kind of wide ranging SCOPE to Lauren Graham's acting in GG (or, in truth, in her entire career) that I've been witnessing recently from Tat in the three short years that OB's been in existence...but I do know that Lauren Graham absolutely nailed the role of Lorelai Gilmore. It was her role of a lifetime. It's as if Lauren was born to play it. She's said as much. The Academy was not impressed. Fuck 'em.
ETA (second): Not that it matters much...but Susan Hampshire's consecutive Emmys for 1969-1970's The Forsyte Saga and 1970-1971's The First Churchills...plus Glenda Jackson's win for 1971-1972's Elizabeth R really don't belong on this list under current definitions of this category inasmuch as TFS, TFC, and ER were all mini-series. It's purely and utterly coincidental (I swear!!!) that Glenda the Great, easily the most intimidatingly magnificent (and accomplished) actress included in this rundown of past Emmy winners and nominees in this category, shouldn't really be there. Fine though...for those hardliners who insist that, hey, she won and therefore should indeed be included. I'll still take Tat. I'm sure Glenda Jackson's performance in Elizabeth R (which I haven't seen...but suddenly very much want to) was extraordinary. She played a queen (impeccably so no doubt). But Tatiana Maslany IS The Queen! On Orphan Black she plays a con artist with punk attitude who abandoned her daughter, but wants nothing more than to make things right...a paranoid soccer mom with a substance abuse problem which leads to, surprise, more problems (and hijinks galore)...an evo-devo geek lesbian scientist (with dreads) whose sexuality isn't the most interesting thing about her...a corporate ice queen (straight out of Cold Bitch Digest) who has a pencil fetish with a debilitating twist...a hopelessly endearing and endlessly put upon manicurist whose hybrid idea for a porn name turns out to be Muffins Slowikowski, Bitch Mistress of Cumalot, and whose philosophy of life is, "...in spite of everything...you can't crush the human spirit" (think Anne Frank with a pushup bra and a predilection for "open" relationships)...a transsexual thief with a ridiculous mullet...a suicidal detective...a swim coach swimming in tragedy...a German enigma with a foreboding cough...a thoroughly lovable (while just as thoroughly lethal) Ukrainian assassin (sing it: "How do you solve a problem like Helena?")...and, oh yeah, a scorpion!
-
1
-
-
I think all the rumors/backstage gossip about JM being the one who deemed her character and Kalinda wouldn't have anymore scenes together unless they are shot separately then spliced badly sunk her for this past season.
In all honesty though the character arc for Alicia this past season was all over the place.
Well, of course, there are always (or at least often) ancillary reasons why certain people get nominated or not. I agree with you that The Good Wife itself took something of a downturn this season. But I don't think JM's acting suddenly started to suck either. If Viola Davis can garner a nomination while appearing on the debacle that is HTGAWM...and if Clare Danes could nab a nom for the laughably disastrous third season of Homeland, I don't see why JM's acting should be automatically and correspondingly judged deficient simply because her show didn't entirely measure up to the high standards it had previously established for itself. Even in a down year, The Good Wife was still one of the best (if not the best) drama on network TV. Don't get me wrong. I'm not necessarily contending that JM should have received a nom this year. I'm just saying that, if she had received one, it neither would have been a surprise nor would it have been categorically undeserved.
The whole feud between Juliana Marguiles and Archie Panjabi is flat out weird. I Googled it once, and all I got was a whole lot of evasive and mysterious nothing. Nobody seems to know (or is willing to say) exactly what happened to create the rift between the two actresses. Speculation abounds. But corroboration doesn't. The feud's been going on for awhile now though. A few seasons. It wasn't adversely affecting the show exclusively this past season. JM, the star of the show and a producer of some sort, seems to take the bulk of the criticism because she's the one in a position of power. If nothing else, it all comes off as very unprofessional. I don't know. Unless Archie actually did something thoroughly unconscionable, the whole thing seems pretty petty. Might be petty enough to get JM ignored this year. But it wasn't petty enough to keep her from winning last year. Weird.
Truth be told, there's a similar feud taking place on Orphan Black. The actress who plays Alison and the actress who plays Rachel have never appeared (and, rumor has it, will never appear) in a scene together. The problem apparently surfaced when the actress playing Rachel wanted to use a Hot Glue Gun in a seduction scene in Episode 205 ("Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est"). It just so happened that the actress who plays Alison had used a Hot Glue Gun in a torture scene in Episode 106 ("Variations Under Domestication"). When the actress who plays Alison found out about the actress who plays Rachel's intentions, the former stormed into the latter's dressing room (which they were both, paradoxically, already in) and proceeded to read the latter the riot act. The totality of what was said is unknown. But several reluctant witnesses do agree that, at some point during her rant, the actress who plays Alison clearly screamed (in character no less), "Holy Doodle, it's MINE!!!"
-
5
-
-
Holy shit! Wow! Stunned!
Last year I was incensed. I kind of understood why Tat got snubbed after the first season. Genre role on a first year show on a relatively obscure network just getting into original programming. All that rot. But last year I was incensed. Plenty of people complained after the first snub. And there was a massive amount of social media and critical support last year for Tat's nomination. I read over thirty articles predicting the Emmy nominations, and Tat seemed a virtual lock. The vast majority of the critics and TV pundits predicted she'd be nominated. And even most of the remainder who cynically didn't pick her said she should be nominated. (Of course there were a couple of contrarians who argued she didn't deserve it, called the multiple character thing little more than a gimmick. But there are always naysayers for everything Just cuz.)
I didn't read nearly as many prognostications this year because it became quickly and readily apparent after reading a few more than a few that next to no one was audacious enough to believe that Tat had a legitimate shot. She might be mentioned as a long shot. Or it might be mentioned in passing that she deserved a nomination. But nobody seemed to really be campaigning hard for her. Everybody just seemed to be resigned to the fact Tat was destined to be annually ignored.
Myself included.
That's how I managed to miss the news about Tat's nomination. I didn't think she had a chance. Last year I couldn't wait to find out if she was nominated. This year I didn't merely not bother to find out who was nominated, I flat out forgot the nominations were coming out. Somehow the news eluded me until yesterday (Saturday) when my sestra told me.
Truth is, I've never cared that much about the Emmys. Sure, there have always been shows and performers I've rooted for on both subjective and objective levels. I'm happy when one of my favorites is nominated or wins. And I like it when the best (in my estimation) are recognized as such. But I've never really been upset by snubs or wrongful recognition. Mostly a chuckle and shrug reaction. Whatever you say Academy of Television Arts and Sciences...whatever you say.
But last year was different. For the first time ever, I was actually pissed. But more than merely pissed really. I was (to repeat) incensed. That wasn't a snub. It was an example of abject ignorance in (in)action. It called pointedly into question the validity and legitimacy of the award. Ignoring the obvious rendered not merely the conclusion, but the premise ridiculous. Picking the best actress from a list of actresses that didn't include the best actress was an exercise in absurdity. My argument all along last year wasn't that Tat should be nominated, but that she should win. The nomination should have been a given.
Same argument this year. But I don't really think it's going to bother me that much if (when?) she doesn't win. This nomination is, in a strange way, an insult. A backhanded compliment at best. It implies that the Emmy voters had previously been aware of Tat's existence, but just hadn't considered her past performance(s) Emmy worthy. Huh? Ignorance is a less embarrassing excuse than piss poor judgement.
Nonetheless...I'm happy about about the nomination. Not as ecstatic as I would have been last year...but happy.
The competition is formidable:
Taraji P. Henson (Empire)
Claire Danes (Homeland)
Viola Davis (How to Get Away with Murder)
Tatiana Maslany (Orphan Black)
Elisabeth Moss (Mad Men)
Robin Wright (House of Cards)Haven't seen Empire yet. But I like TJH. I imagine her performance being big, big, big, sometimes OTT, and generally deliciously outrageous. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) Have nothing intrinsically against such a performance unless there's no nuanced counterbalance (vulnerability, insecurity, tenderness...or somesuch) to it. She won the CCA, so she's a definite contendah...although she's not quite as imposing as she would be if Empire itself was storming the Emmys with a load of nominations.
Claire Danes is always a threat. Past winner (twice) of this award. Great, great actress. Inarguably. Even though it's a couple of years since CD won for her role of Carrie Mathison, Juliana Margulies won last year after she and Alicia Florrick took a two year hiatus from victory. So it can happen.
Viola Davis (SAG winner) is spectacular (especially when in "emotional wreck" mode) in HTGAWM. But the show, otherwise, sucks. It's a-fucking-bysmal. The Academy loves "movie stars" though. And rewarding them with awards for "lowering" themselves to TV encourages other movie stars to follow suit (or so I suppose the thinking goes). Hey, I'll admit it. VD's the main reason I started watching HTGAWM. And she's the main reason I followed it through to the end. That...and I have a hard time giving up on a mystery once I'm involved in it. No matter how torturous the viewing process is. And, believe me, it was at times truly torturous.
Tat. The Queen. 'Nuf said.
Nothing against Elizabeth Moss. She's a fine actress (if far from a favorite of mine.) If a lead actress had to be named from Mad Men, she'd be the one. But who's kidding who? Jon Hamm's the lead on that show, and everyone else is a supporting player. Peggy almost disappears from the story at times, and she's seldom the main focus. That said, EM may well win. She's been nominated a bunch of times. Mad Men is done (and wants to buy the world a Coke). Both Moss and Hamm may be in for sort of "career achievement" awards for their stellar work on this iconic show.Don't subscribe to Netflix, so I'm obviously not a regular viewer of House of Cards. I've seen some eps. And Robin Wright's good. As she usually is in just about everything. She's been nominated for an Emmy every season that HOC has been around. So I have no informed reason to believe she isn't worthy of another nomination. And who knows, with those noms stacking up, the Emmy voters just might think it's time to fork an Emmy over. Additionally, she does kind of have that "movie star" rationale I mentioned when discussing Viola Davis working for her too. One problem I potentially have with RW is that, like Elizabeth Moss (and possibly TPH), she's not her show's outright lead. And unlike, say, Keri Russell and Ruth Wilson who are pretty much 50/50 co-leads with Matthew Rhys and Dominic West respectively, I'm guessing that the split with Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright on HOC is something closer to 70/30. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that RW, EM, and TPH shouldn't be nominated because their shows aren't primarily about their characters. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be ignored in the analysis either.
And what about Keri Russell and Ruth Wilson? Well, as far as I'm concerned, they were snubbed. And by "snubbed" I mean they should have been nominated.
Keri Russell's in the same boat Tat just left. And it's nearly as hyperbolically criminal what the Academy is doing to her as it was what they were doing to Tat. More in a way. The Americans (one of the best shows on TV...snubbed, snubbed, snubbed) is on FX. We at least know that the Academy is aware of the network. Glenn Close (Damages on FX) was snagging multiple noms and statuettes for this very award just a few years back. Tat on BBCA has been toiling away in Bumfuck, Egypt by comparison.
Ruth Wilson as Alison Bailey in The Affair (for which she won this year's Golden Globe) is at such a remove from Luther's unforgettable Alice Morgan that RW proves her acting chops right there. If anyone comes anywhere close to working as hard as Tat does on OB, Ruth Wilson does so on The Affair. If you're not familiar with the show, it's essentially told from two disparate points of view -- Alison's and Noah's (Dominic West). For the 25 to 30 minutes that eps are in Alison's POV, RW is in each and every scene. When the eps are in Noah's POV, RW appears quite often (Alison and Noah are having an affair after all). So RW's probably averaging about 40 minutes of screentime per ep. Something similar to Tat. (Of course Tat's probably the only actor ever to occasionally log more screentime than the show itself does. If, for instance, the dinner scene in the season finale lasted 3 minutes, Tat would log 12 minutes of screentime by playing 4 parts in a 3 minute scene: 3 x 4 = 12.) Additionally, RW really has to play two parts. She has to play Alison the way Noah sees her. And she has to play Alison the way she sees herself. And trust me, the two Alisons are different...sometimes subtly and sometimes drastically so. Plus there's a more limited objective element to the story in which RW has to play yet another iteration of Alison. Her performance is remarkable. More internalized and exuded than openly expressed. Heartbreaking in many ways. The show itself is both fascinating and frustrating. Unfortunately, Alison and Noah (Noah especially) aren't particularly likable. And while I enjoy the show, I can see how others might find it boring or confusing...or both.
Part of the problem we have here (and it's a good problem to have) is that there's an embarrassment of riches available in this Emmy category. Consider the following list:
Caitriona Balfe (Outlander)
Eva Green (Penny Dreadful)
Juliana Margulies (The Good Wife)
Tatiana Maslany (Orphan Black)
Keri Russell (The Americans)
Ruth Wilson (The Affair)Substitute this list for the list of actual nominees, and I don't think there would be any appreciable diminishment in the quality of the performances being considered for the Emmy. (I actually prefer this list...mostly because these are performances and shows that I personally, subjectively like, love, or admire to varying degrees. That is not to say, however, that this list doesn't stand up to scrupulous objective scrutiny. It does. It most certainly does!)
Caitriona Balfe is a glorious revelation in Outlander. If you haven't seen her yet, do so ASAP. She's positively gorgeous and extremely and undeniably talented. She oftentimes reminds me of Cate Blanchett. Which is not to say that she has consistently exhibited that kind of consummate talent...yet. (Only Tat herself, among all the actresses being discussed here, is indisputably in Cate the Great's league.) But Caitriona Balfe is pretty fucking brilliant...already.
If the single best bit of acting over the last (Emmy Calendar) year by man, woman, cat, dog, or kid (or scorpion...sorry, Pupok) were to be cited, I don't think it's at all unlikely that Eva Green's turn in the seance scene in Penny Dreadful would be tapped #1 (with a bullet). The only problem I have with EG is that the first season of PD (the season eligible for this round of the Emmys) was only eight eps long. And there are several eps in which Eva barely appears. The eps though which squarely center on her character, Vannessa Ives, are nothing short of spellbinding. Read an article somewhere in which the writer essentially posited that whenever Eva appears in a scene the other actors on the show (and there are some good ones) might just as well take coffee breaks because none (not one) of the potentially seven billion viewers of this show could possibly focus on anyone other than Eva in those scenes. Eva Green is (at times) that powerfully magnetic in PD.
Not sure why Juliana Margulies (defending champ) wasn't nominated. Her show might have taken a bit of a dip...but she didn't. She did what she always does. She excelled.
Tat's the Queen ('nuf said).
And I just touched on the phenomenal work Keri Russell and Ruth Wilson are doing.
An embarrassment of riches indeed!
And just to emphasize this claim to the point of near exhaustion, let me add a third list. While these women might not have absolutely, unequivocally deserved an Emmy nod or nomination, they certainly warranted serious consideration:
Nicole Beharie (Sleepy Hollow)
Lizzie Caplan (Masters of Sex)
Vera Farmiga (Bates Motel)
Diane Kruger (The Bridge)
Rose McIver (iZombie)
Katey Sagal (Sons of Anarchy)I find Nicole Beharie, Caitriona Balfe, and Tat the most exciting actresses on TV...inasmuch as, for me, they're discoveries. Their work on their current shows is really the first time any of them registered on my radar. All the other actresses (save Rose McIver) have histories, have resumes about which I was previously aware. NB, CB, and Tat are, so to (mis)speak, just beginning. I see (or hope to see) even greater things than they're currently showing us in their futures. Which is exciting. Despite its great cast (Tom Mison, Lyndie Greenwood, Orlando Bloom, John Fucking Noble, et al), it's Nicole Beharie who compels me to watch Sleepy Hollow (a relative trifle of a show that's not my typical cup of tea). She seems such a natural actress to me. Her work comes off as effortless (although I'm sure it's not). In her role as Abbie Mills, she's funny, she's adorable, she's haunted, she's badass. In short, she's sublime (with an edge). If you've never seen the film American Violet, Nicole Beharie's performance will, I assure you, make doing so well worth your while.
Love Lizzie Caplan. She was nominated last year. This time she wasn't. Didn't see any significant dropoff in her sophomore efforts as Virginia Johnson on Masters of Sex. If anything, LC upped her game. There are just so many great performances to contend with though, that Lizzie finds herself on the outside looking in this time around. That simple.
Slogged my way through the first two seasons of Bates Motel, but couldn't bring myself to continue with it this season. Certainly wasn't because of Vera Farmiga though. She's been uniformly great throughout all of the series that I've so far seen. I may eventually catch up.
Diane Kruger gives an amazing performance in her far too underappreciated (and now cancelled) series The Bridge. I'll miss the show. And I'll miss Sonya Cross, the traumatized but dogged detective with Asperger's Syndrome that DK plays.
If you haven't seen iZombie, at least give it a try. Rose McIver plays a dedicated, no-nonsense doctor (Liv Moore) who is turned into a zombie. Sort of. She actually lives in half zombie/half human limbo. She gets a job as a coroner so she can more easily (and comparatively harmlessly) satisfy her craving for human brains. What she finds out though is that, after consuming a particular person's brain matter, she temporarily takes on aspects of that person's personality and sporadically accesses (in flashes) that person's memories. Because many of the brains she's eating belong to victims of crimes, Liv becomes something of a sleuth. (None of this is overly spoilerish because it's all revealed in the first ep. It's less a "reveal" in the show than it's the premise of the show.) What's relevant here is that the premise affords RM a lot of latitude in giving her performance. Room for a lot of variety. What results is oftentimes funny, sometimes frightening, and frequently touching. Was really surprised how much I liked this show. Rose McIver's the main reason I did.
I've never seen Sons of Anarchy, but that's primarily because I missed out on the beginning of the series. Same thing with Justified. (Gotta start shows, especially serialized ones, at the beginning.) I hear great things about these series, and I hope to one day catch up on both of them. Katey Sagal is mentioned as a snub just about every year. Mostly by the rabid fanbase of the show. It reminds me of Clone Club in many ways. So I'm going to take the fanbase's assertion on faith...in a show of solidarity. From everything I've heard (from fans and critics alike), KS rocks it as Gemma Teller Morrow.
I'll mention Kerry Washington as well, mainly because she's been nominated (arguably deservedly) the last two years. She's created quite a character in Olivia Pope. And for that she should be lauded. But Scandal itself has turned itself into such a hot steaming mess of...well, goo, that it's distressing just to think about it.
Finally, Emmy Rossum. I know she's moved over to the comedy side of the ledger. But in doing so she's managed to prove that she can get fucked and fucked and fucked and fucked and fucked again with both comedic and dramatic aplomb. Now, that's range. Five seasons worth of the extraordinary and exquisite Fiona Gallagher is a gift from the acting gods so valuable and precious that it shouldn't be so cavalierly dismissed. Hey, Academy! Your fucking award is named for this woman! Couldn't you have acted accordingly...just once at least? You're fucking shameless!
I hope I've made my point.
~~~
Bummed that Broad City didn't get a nom. Abbi or Ilana either.
Same goes for Rectify and Aden Young. Maybe the best show and the best male performance on TV right now...and nobody seems to know about it. (What I'm talking about here is that neither Young nor the show seem to be getting any significant mention when snubs are enumerated.)
I've never seen The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, but it seems strange to me that its star, Ellie Kemper, didn't get nominated...but the show did.
Gina Rodriguez? How come?
Query: If Keri Russell and Matthew Rhys showed up hand in hand and NAKED (as the War was Cold) on the Red Carpet at the Emmys...would the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences notice?
~~~
Read this on the Entertainment Weekly site:
Do they have two Emmys ready for Sarah Paulson? She earned a nomination for playing conjoined twins on American Horror Story.For an OB fan this immediately prompts the urge to start conjuring "six emmy" jokes about Tat. But, hey, those types of jokes have been plentifully circulating for three years now. What I loved about this is that Sarah Paulson's the first person I became aware of who referred to Tat as The Queen. Sarah's a huge OB fan. She was on that "Kick Ass Women" panel with Tat at ComCon last year. What with her playing conjoined twins on AHS this year, I can just imagine Sarah picking Tat's brain big time about playing multiple characters before and after that panel.
The truth, it turns out, is indeed stranger than fiction!
~~~
Interesting article (with audio files) about Tat's accent and dialect coach. He discusses how he and Tat approached and arrived at the clones' voices. Do you ever see Cosima and think of Jeff Goldblum? Perhaps you should.
http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2015/05/how-tatiana-maslany-nails-her-accents-on-orphan-black/
-
1
-
-
Probably the most logical assumption, what with Helena apparently moving in with the Hendrixes in this upcoming ep. Previews and trailers and episode synopses though are notorious for sometimes being (quite intentionally) misleading. But who knows? It could be Luisa...Pouchy's niece. She and Donnie seemed to have had kind of a weird vibe going on between them in the last ep. Donnie, I think, took her aback a bit when he started speaking Portuguese. True, he mangled the language pretty badly. But at least he made the effort. Luisa may have been oddly touched by the gesture. Donnie at his most goofily lovable. What girl could resist? Or, hey! Maybe it's Marci!
-
Dropping this here. A truly passionate analysis of Delphine (especially in light of 301) I happened across (via reddit) on the IMDB forums. While I might not agree with everything BuffySummers-2 has to say, I do agree with a helluvalot of it. Agreement or disagreement aside, the content of the post is undeniably thought provoking. Much of the discussion it prompted on IMDB was pretty good too.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2234222/board/flat/242988024
"I think many posters are really misreading Delphine"
by BuffySummers-2
» Thu Apr 23 2015 15:01:25I think people are misreading Delphine, especially her scene with the post-op, bed-ridden Rachel.
The question most often asked on the board is "Which clone are you most like?" My answer is an unqualified "Cosima". No hesitation.
But, if asked "Which character's behavior makes the most sense to you?", right now, that answer is "Delphine."
We weren't seeing callous sadistic torture from Delphine in the scene in question, we were seeing a long-frightened, almost captive woman who had, perhaps for years, been carefully top-toeing around others and had finally reached her breaking point.
I believe she fell in love with Cosima (no one was there to see or hear her sobbing outside Felix's apartment), but she was not in love with her when she was ordered to sleep with her. After her first act of not just sleeping with a woman, but sleeping with a woman she had just met, she was crying because she felt confused (she felt something and hadn't expected to), felt guilty (she knew she was lying to Cosima and using her), and (let's not mince words) she surely felt like a whore.
People have also questioned her qualifications to run Dyad; she's young yes, but she wouldn't be the first brilliant scientist with strong emotional ties to one of the Leda clones in charge of Dyad. She recognizes what Leekie did not: in order to protect Cosima and her sisters from Rachel, she must try to remain objective.
Months after her first encounter with Cosima when Delphine was torturing Rachel, she told Rachel "I'm you", but this was manipulation and acting plain and simple, no different than the roles Sarah and Alison were playing. The tables had finally turned and needing answers ASAP, Delphine needed to make sure Rachel believed that she had two choices: answer Delphine's questions like a "good girl", or suffer and die. She was acting like Rachel (flaunting power and being sadistic) to get Rachel to talk. Delphine was nothing like Rachel in terms of her motivation*. If Delphine's suspicions had been wrong, if Rachel hadn't known anything about "Helsinki", or if "Helsinki" was a way to protect the Leda clones from the Castor Clones, Delphine would have been wracked with guilt. Even knowing that she was correct, once "Helsinki" was aborted, I imagine Delphine likely became violently ill from her actions in Rachel's recovery room.
Delphine may have appeared calm, but she wasn't coldly interrogating and torturing Rachel, she was boiling with rage. She knew Cosima was in imminent danger. She knew all the clones and their loved ones were in imminent danger. She was mad as hell and needed answers NOW.
That wasn't cold sadistic torture, that was fury. Delphine was furious.
Furious at the monster she believed murdered her former lover and their mutual mentor Dr. Leekie. (Delphine was correct; he was by far the lesser of the two evils).
Furious at the monster who plays cool but is actually a reckless impulsive disaster who was going to mutilate Sarah when simply (repeatedly) asking Sarah (over months) to donate eggs for an in vitro treatment with a surrogate would likely have eventually gotten her exactly what she wanted without harming anyone.
Furious at the monster who smashed Kyra's bone marrow in a pointless and cruel hissy fit. Bone marrow extraction is excruciatingly painful, dangerous, and when the donor is a child, cannot be repeated for months. When Rachel smashed the bone marrow (and in light of Helsinki we can safely assume that was not a bluff), Rachel knew she was murdering Cosima and Delphine knows that as well.
Furious at the monster who shares Cosima's face but none of her warmth.
Furious at the monster who pulled her away from Cosima even though Cosima was dying and she was the best qualified person to treat her. Delphine is very smart (and usually right), I think Delphine was crying in the elevator (end of season 2) over her transfer because she sensed the danger Cosima was in and felt helpless to do anything to stop it. She believed Rachel murdered Leekie; who could protect Cosima and her now? There was no logical reason for Rachel to send Delphine away; that transfer smacked of red flags that Rachel was up to no good but she was powerless to stop her. When we see Delphine interrogating Rachel in her hospital bed, she was perhaps for the first time ever in her life taking that power back.
Delphine was furious.
There is a lot of Greek mythology in the names on this show. I'm not the first to notice the similarity between the name "Delphine" and the "Oracle of Delphi": I think Delphine is able to accurately read situations and predict what is going on around her with greater accuracy than most. (As an aside, this is personally my favorite trope, so as much as I care for Delphine and like Évelyne Brochu, I wouldn't be surprised if her insightful nature leads directly her death at the end of the season. But I digress...).
Marion sent Delphine to Toronto to avoid another Helsinki and believed that putting on a show for Ferdinand would accomplish that. Delphine correctly recognized this was a fool's errand; if Marion was worried about another Helsinki, Delphine realized Marion was too late and it was already in motion. Though we did not see Marion, Delphine trusts her and I believe we in the audience can also trust her at this point as she is the mother to a Leda clone. No matter how much Marion loves money (and I think it's quite clear that Marion simply adores money and power) she doesn't seem like a psychopath; her love of her daughter is going to be the driving force behind all her actions. Unless Sarah (and of course it would be Sarah) does something that puts her daughter in danger, her allegiance will be to the Leda clones. Her daughter was the only 2nd generation Leda clone to survive, she was born with a disability, and now Marion knows her daughter has a life expectancy of 30 years max unless Cosima figures out how to cure the auto-immune disease that is killing them. While Marion hoped to smooth things over and avoid another Helsinki, I think Delphine saw the bigger picture. She recognized that Rachel felt no loyalty to her sisters, put the pieces together and accurately recognized that Helsinki was already in motion and could only have been ordered directly by Rachel. She NEEDED to know how to stop it.
~~~~~
Put yourself in Delphine's shoes in that room with Rachel:
Sarah is a loose cannon. She was, at the moment, alone with Ferdinand pretending to Rachel (badly, and major props to Tatiana Maslany for having Sarah get Rachel's attitude right but her walk wrong). Sarah was so preoccupied with Helena (I'm amazed she wasn't busted in Delphine's new office the moment she started talking about Helena) that she couldn't grasp the gravity of the situation she and her sisters were in until the plan for Alison's murder was spelled out for her. Delphine's appeals for Sarah to focus on the big picture had fallen on deaf ears. Delphine suspected she needed to know exactly who was in on "Helsinki:Toronto Edition" NOW and she was right. She believed needed to get information out of Rachel by any means necessary ASAP and she was right, 10 minutes later and Alison, her husband, and her children(!!!!!) would have been dead.
Despite what she was told by the doctor and Marion, Ferdinand's behavior led Delphine to suspect that Rachel personally had ordered "Helsinki" in Toronto and that it was already in motion. She knows what that means:
Delphine knows Cosima, her lover, is on Rachel's kill list.
Scott is surely on the kill list.
Any of their mutual friends might have been on the kill list.
Anyone in the surrounding labs would be killed.
Sarah is on the kill list.
Felix is on the kill list.
Mrs. S is on the kill list.
Alison, her husband and their children(!) are on the kill list.
All of the remaining clones friends, parents, lovers, spouses, and adopted children(!) or siblings might be on the kill list or already dead. I'm now very suspicious of Rachel's involvement in Jennifer Fitzsimmons' rapid decline; a near-Olympic (more Greek) class swimmer would be way too likely to be photographed and recognized by anyone who ever went to school with any of the clones. Was she "induced" too? Anyone who was even physically close to the Leda clones would have be "collateral" deaths.
Leekie was a celebrity! No one knows he was shot in Donnie's Taurus and buried in Alison's garage. Both Delphine and Marion believe Rachel executed him. Ferdinand's comments strongly imply that Marian Bowles and her daughter were on that kill list, too.
Last, and perhaps genuinely least important at that moment, Delphine surely knows damn well that she is right at the top of Rachel's kill list.
Delphine was furious. Can you blame her? Really?
How kind and gentle would you be with the monster who you suspected currently had a hit out on you and your lover? How gentle would you be if you suspected that there were hit men on your friends' doorsteps as you were speaking to the monster who ordered the hit?
Delphine had one chance to stop a mass execution. She, as always, did what she needed to do. She needed to physically hurt Rachel while her guard was down and she was too disorientated from the brain injury, the surgery and massive amounts of painkillers to think of anything resembling a convincing lie or merely stall for time until Alison and her family were dead.
~~~~~
I know the consensus seems to be shock, disgust or "I'm not buying it" at Delphine and her actions in Rachel's hospital room.
I know the new hair style and her break-up with Cosima feeds the perception that Delphine is as cruel as Rachel was.
Some posters even think there are other clones and that we have seen multiple "Delphine"s. (I'm going all in on "No Way" to that hypothesis.)
I disagree. Strongly.
I think Delphine was as desperate as Sarah, but while Sarah's growing worry over Helena and understandable panic over Alison almost got her busted and Alison and her whole family murdered, Delphine's fury and knowledge of the situation gave her the resolve to remain calm and focused in this crisis. That was not the day to worry about Helena (oh look, more Greek along with the "face to launch a thousand ships"), that was the day to focus on the big picture or every Leda clone and anyone emotionally or merely physically close to them could be dead within 24 hours. She broke up with Cosima after it was made explicitly clear that NO ONE could afford to "play favorites" in light of the immediate danger Leda was in. She was right, she did need to love all of Cosima's sisters equally. On that day, she couldn't visit Cosima and hold her hand, she needed to focus on Sarah in order to protect Sarah from herself and save Alison, Donnie, and their children(!!!! Honestly!!!!!!!!!) who were only moments away from certain execution.
Delphine was put in charge of Dyad and she isn't shying away from that responsibility. While I suspect her separation from Cosima won't last and may put her and all the clones in danger as well as compromising her judgement just as much as Leekie's parental love of Rachel blinded him to the fact that she was a psychopath, in the season three premiere her unwavering focus was solely on keeping all the Leda sisters alive. Marion put her in charge, and under Delphine's watch, Rachel's reign of unchecked murder sprees (anyone else suspect she also ordered the 2006 massacre?) are over.
~~~~~
Did the writers' plans for Delphine change over the seasons? Sure. Quite plausible. Mark was supposed to be killed off halfway through the second season. Now Ari Millen is playing all the Castor clones. I don't disagree that Delphine has changed, but I think she has seen and experienced enough to justify the fury we saw in 3x01. She was always supposed to be a brilliant scientist (her prior PhD was revealed in the first season). She was always able to keep secrets. She (the character) was always able to act (crying over the imaginary breakup with her fictional boyfriend). She was always manipulative but was never cruel. She was always loyal to Aldous Leekie, but not so loyal as to reveal the existence of Kyra. She was instinctively protective of Kyra, and might not have even revealed the existence of "Sarah Manning" if she had known that no one knew "Sarah Manning" existed. I was not sure I believed that she had fallen in romantic love with Cosima at the end of the first season, but I did believe she was going to be Cosima's protective loyal ally. To see Delphine act convincingly and manipulative Rachel into confessing her part in Helsinki in order to protect Cosima is perfectly in character and no worse than Sarah's shoe job on Ferdinand. It's certainly far less bad than Sarah nearly strangling Ferdinand to death (not that I can blame her) before getting him to call off the hit on Alison and her family (that was just plain stupid). In that hospital room, Delphine's protective instinct ("Don't mother me") gave her the strength to focus on what was needed, and she was motivated by both that and pure fury (I keep using the word because it is the only one that fits, and fittingly is more Greek) at Rachel for the murder of Aldous and the attempted murder of Cosima, and it was completely in character with everything we've seen so far.
I'm not sure what was planned for Delphine when she was added to the show, and I agree that having her soon run Dyad was probably not part of her original story arc. I'm not sure how soon the actors know what the writers have planned for them but, approve or disapprove of Delphine's methods, IMHO, based on the the writing and the actresses' performances to date, her actions in 3x01 were in character.
~~~~~~~
*Knowing about Helsinki, I feel quite comfortable saying that Rachel is a psychopath (psychopathy is my area of study and Rachel's psychopathy/sociopathy will be addressed in another blessedly shorter post).
So now Rachel is a psychopath with even more damage to her orbital prefrontal cortex. Great. :-/ Her attending physician, Dr. Mengele, was not incorrect: we cannot predict the extent of Rachel's brain damage. That pencil went in horrifyingly far. It was too far to the center to directly puncture Broca's, and she wasn't struggling with grammar so Wernicke's seems unaffected, but there was a lot of blood on that pencil. Bleeding and swelling (or a clot) could cause temporary or permanent impairment. She also hit the back of her head with a lot of force. There was concussive damage to her occipital lobe as well. Depending on the amount of bleeding, swelling and the adjustment to only having one eye, Rachel may spend the entire season merely relearning to walk. We don't know if Rachel heals the way Helena or Kyra seem to, but if not she could conceivably be out of commission all season. Sarah may have to pretend to be Rachel again, and she may have to spend a great deal more time in the only place from which she has ever needed rescue: Rachel's apartment.
~~~~~
Should be an interesting season.
-
2
-
-
My only speculation for season 3 is that Helena will kill Mrs S.
Noooooooo. Sure, Mrs. S. traded Helena to Castor, but she did it for Kira, which I think Helena will understand and be able to forgive. Plus, Helena killed a number of the clones, including the German clone, yet she's been accepted into Clone Club. Finally, I want MDK on my tv screen.
Additionally, Sarah shot and thought she killed Helena. "I shot you! You were dead! You were dead!" Sarah screams when the twins are finally reunited in Rachel's bathroom of horrors. "Yes, you did," Helena replies pretty matter-of-factly...considering she's just killed Daniel, is covered in blood, and is approaching with a knife. " It's a miracle," she says. "We were meant to be together." And where does she go with this? Helena goes in for a hug. A hug!
Gracie tried to kill Helena too. A lame attempt admittedly. Helena simply goes limp, plays possum...then proceeds to pounce on Gracie from behind as the poor, clueless girl attempts to make her exit. Does Helena kill her though? No way. She merely puts Gracie to sleep. Then, a few eps later at Art's, Helena charecterizes Gracie thusly: "I became roommates to a very good girl...She had a crisis of faith." Helena doesn't even bother to mention that this "good girl" also tried to kill her once.
So Helena has shown she's more than capable of forgiveness. (I mean, she's forgiving people who tried to KILL her!). She seems to have little trouble understanding Sarah's and Gracie's respective motivations. So, it seems to me she'll understand why Mrs. S. did what she did. Consequently, I'd bet that Helena does forgive her (especially considering Kira's safety and well-being figured largely into S.'s decision). Which doesn't unequivocally mean she will forgive Mrs. S. Whatever and however much Helena suffers while in captivity may well have significant bearing on how she ultimately responds to Mrs.S.'s transgressions. Assuming, of course, that Helena get out alive. dun-dun-dun!
-
2
-
-
Does IFC count?
Sure, IFC counts. Just not as much as AMC would have. AMC is probably the prestige non-premium cable network. Breaking Bad. Mad Men, The Walking Dead...Better Call Saul. Lots of awards, critical acclaim, and big ratings. IFC, as a network, seems somewhat more similar to BBCA itself in terms of popularity and clout. Regardless, at least there will be a marathon running somewhere for those who may not have (or realize they have) access to BBCA. Every little bit helps.
While the simulcast hasn't been promoted quite as heavily as I might have liked, the promotion hasn't been nonexistant either. Can't exactly say they've been hitting it hard, hard, hard...but, hey, I did even see an OB ad on ESPN. So, there's that. It's out there.
Fingers crossed (like a double helix). Just hoping the simulcast leads to the once and future ratings bump our amazing little show deserves.
-
Good news. Obviously. The more exposure the better.
I do hope however that AMC takes things a step further and runs an OB marathon (on AMC itself) immediately prior to the simulcast of the S3 premier. While it will be helpful to make 301 more available, the episode sans the context of S1 and S2 will probably be more than a little bit confusing to a first time viewer. It will be interesting as well to see how and how heavily the simulcast is promoted on Sundance, WE, IFC, BBCA, and, most importantly, AMC. Anything that gets people to watch 301 and catch up with OB/TatTatTatTatTat...(be it before or after 301) is a good thing.
-
6
-
-
Watched the first few eps of this show last year and liked it well enough...even though this type of supernatural fare is far from my preferred cup of tea. For some reason though I stopped watching without really making a conscious decision to do so. Missed a couple eps or something and never really felt compelled to catch up.
Until later that is.
Orphan Black's probably my favorite current show (mainly because of Tatiana Maslany's tour de force). So, when Emmy nom time came around, I found myself reading more than my fair share of "prognostication" articles about who would or should or could be nominated. More often than I might have expected, Nicole Beharie's name popped up as something of a darkhorse...a delightful outside possibility.
Cut to SDCC where Tatiana was appearing on a "Kickass Women" panel. She's the reason I watched the panel online. But, as it so happened, Nicole was on the panel too. And she impressed me. Reminded me of how much I liked her in those first few eps of SH that I had seen. Made a mental note to catch up with the show when I got a chance. And I got the chance (OnDeMand) and took it.
She's great. I love her. Actually, while I find many of the "supernatural" aspects of the series pretty silly, I think the acting is, across the board, top flight. Mison is excellent and engaging. Really like Lyndie Greenwood. And John Noble is, well, John FUCKING Noble! But Nicole is, for me, easily the cast MVP. She's why I bothered to catch up with this show and why I'm watcing this season.
Can even tell you when she really nabbed me. That scene when Abby and Ichabod are in the park watching baseball. Abby finds herself waxing nostalgic/poetic about the game in historical context, about the game as America's traditional national pasttime. And as she winds down in her shared reverie about the game being passed down from generation to generation her (Abby's) delivery s l o w s as she realizes that, believe it though she might, what she's been saying has been said thousands of times before AND THAT Ichabod probably has no idea WTF she's talking about. "...generashun to generashun." It's not merely that that's how Nicole chose to deliver the line. It's that that's how Abby, suddenly self aware, chose to say it. I fell in love with both the actress and the character at that moment. A nothing moment...that Nicole made endearingly, amusingly beautiful.
-
2
-
-
Haven't seen this show, but heard how great the lead is.
Like another poster stated, SciFi and horror gets no emmy love.
Only exception I can recall, is when Gillian on Anderson won Lead Actress in the late 90's.
Hard to argue with that. And I'm not about to. It's a shame.
The biggest irony here is that labeling OB first and foremost "sci-fi" is pretty misleading. It's really more a thriller. And moreso even than that, it's a grounded, contemporary, multi-dimensionally character driven story. (Plus it's fucking funny!) The sci-fi elements (so far at least) have been, for the most part, peripheral and ancillary. And, insofar as it is sci-fi, it's not at all fantastical.
Cloning's possible. It's been done. As far as we know, it hasn't been done (and can't be done) with humans yet. But it can be argued that a good part of the reason for that has less to do with scientific feasibility than it has to do with other mitigating factors. Ethical issues and religious opposition are but two.
If, however, human cloning had been enthusiastically greenlighted by TPTB as a scientific priority (think Kennedy's call for a manned moon landing...or Salk's polio vaccine...or even the Manhattan Project), I think it's not at all impossible that human clones would already exist.
That, of course, is where OB comes in. With a twist. Instead of Sarah, Alison, Cosima, Helena, Rachel, et al being the prioritized "products" of an openly sanctioned scientific venture, their collective existence is the result of something decidedly more clandestine.
I'm not really a dedicated sci-fi fan. By that I mean that I don't go out of my way to search it out. Nothing against it. And no qualms about giving it a try. With OB, I'm sure as hell glad I did.
I do though have a question for any among you who are involved and immersed more comprehensively in the sci-fi genre. As but a self-professed fence-sitting sampler myself, when I think of sci-fi, I generally (but certainly not exclusively) think of things that are futuristic or other-worldly. What I find particularly intriguing about OB is that its sci-fi elements are significantly and pointedly rooted in the PAST. How common is this in sci-fi?
Lastly, MRB, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying (or even implying) that Tat is more worthy of an Emmy nom or win because OB is essentially sci-fi lite. Just sayin' that, sadly, she'd probably have a slightly better shot if she didn't have to contend with that bias.
I feel for those of you more diehard sci-fi fans who have, no doubt, cynically reconciled yourselves to the fact that Emmy love for anything even remotely identified as sci-fi would immediately register on Mulder's and Scully's radar and prompt an exhaustive X-Files investigation.
Scully: Did you watch the Emmys last night, Mulder? Some actress who's in a sci-fi series actually won an Emmy. And her name. Strange. Tat...Tati...Tatya Something. Sounds alien.
Mulder: It doesn't just sound alien, Scully. It IS alien. Canadian. Pack your bag. We're going to Hollywood. The invasion's already begun! And things are about to get much, much worse.
Scully: I don't understand. How could things get worse than an alien invasion?
Mulder: Meryl Streep's position of preeminence may be in serious jeopardy!
Myself, I wouldn't care if Tat was playing a dozen hybrid aliens in a dystopian society in the distant future...on a dying planet...in a galaxy far, far away. In such a scenario, if Tat was doing anything close to what she's doing currently on OB, her tacit claim to an Emmy WIN would be every bit as indisputable as it is now. It is (to repeat) just so ironic that whatever pretzel-logic it is that feeds and fuels the "Academy's" prejudice and aversion to sci-fi (and other genres)...has, in truth, next to no bearing on OB...or, even less so, on Tatianna Maslany's transcendent performance(s).
-
1
-
-
What? What the... WTF!!!
When I scrolled down the list (on some site or another) of Best Actress Nominees, I really did think it was a mere formality. I thought her name, a foregone conclusion, would be there. Despite the reservations and misgivings so many had expressed beforehand. But it wasn't there. Her name, it wasn't there.
Pissed? I am. And was. I was, but I wasn't immediately. Because my initial impulse after perusing that list was...to laugh. It was so damn absurd that I couldn't help myself.
And to tell you the truth, I was almost (but only almost) as pissed that Keri Russell didn't get nominated either. As far as I'm concerned, Tat, Keri, and Eva Green (Penny Dreadful) gave this year's top performances in this category. And none, alas, was even nominated.
Talking to my sister a couple weeks back, I told her that I'd actually be more pissed if Tat got nominated and didn't win than I would be if she didn't get nominated at all. A nomination would put her officially on the radar. Once on the radar, how then could her clear and present eminence be ignored? And I'll stand by that (pissed though still I am).
I mean, at least I can muddle through the rationale leading to no nom. BBCA: obscure with no real rep or track record. Genre bias. Cult status and comparatively meager ratings numbers. Hollywood politics. The a priori assumption that the multiple character turn would be, had to be more gimmick than genius.
Last year, while disappointed (pissed!), I at least understood why what happened happened. The rationale. Just figured that, after last year's uproar (from fans and critics alike), the Emmy voters might kind of collectively find themselves wondering what all the clamor was about and say to themselves, "Um, hey, maybe we oughta actually watch this show before we dismiss...what's her name again?"
Yeah, right.
Seriously though. After hearing and reading all the gushing raves about Tat's performance(s), why oh why wouldn't you want to find out if these audacious claims were valid...in any way? If such a thing as this were actually happening in the here and now...why wouldn't you want to see it for yourself? And fuck simply watching in order to make a fair and objective assessment. Pure selfishness would seem motivation enough. Why willingly (obstinately) miss a miracle?
Trying to explain this miracle to a friend recently, I somewhat desperately told her to reimagine The L Word. Not so much the show itself. Not the specifics, but the "Who's your favorite Beatle?" character dynamics. Then I told her to imagine a show on which Bette and Tina and Alice and Dana and Shane and Jenny and Helena and Max (and others) are all played by the same actress. I told her to imagine that and to imagine it working beyond her wildest imaginings. If she could somehow manage to imagine that, I told her, then she might begin to understand the miracle that is Tatiana Maslany.
There's a lot of crap on TV. But I wouldn't be the first to acknowledge that we're also living in something of a television golden age. With that in mind, I'm going to easily resist the temptation to bash any of the actual nominees. Kudos and congrats to Robin and Julianna and Claire and Kerry and Michelle and Lizzy. Stellar work all. Truly. This, as is, is one kick-ass list.
But this is not a matter of who should be bumped off the list to make room for Tat (and Keri and Eva). Could be any or all of them. Because to me this, again, really isn't as much about the nominations as it's about who should win. And who should win is obvious. To all but the oblivious.
I've seen The Godfather. And Robert De Niro in Raging Bull. And Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice. I saw Bryan Cranston pull Walter White out of Hal Wilkerson's ass, then Heisenberg out of Walter White's. And I've watched The Wire more times than I'm willing to comfortably admit. Now I have the honor and opportunity to watch Tatianna Maslany on Orphan Black.
What's there to be pissed about?
Well...don't get me started.
PDA: Apparently Penny Dreadful wasn't eligible for or didn't submit to the Emmys this year. Something, something,something about not enough eps having aired before the Emmy cutoff date. Or somethng. Therefore, my above comments about Eva Green being snubbed too don't really apply. My bad.
-
3
-
The Annual Primetime Emmys - General Discussion
in The Primetime Emmy Awards (Emmys)
· Edited by dampfire
I watched HTGAWM. For Viola Davis. And she's spectacular. Which would be fine if she was carrying her show on her back in anywhere close to the way that Tatiana Maslany does Orphan Black. But VD doesn't. Half the show's about her students (Annalise Keating's a high powered criminal attorney/law professor) and just about everything about those students (none of whom is played by an even competent actor) is not merely not very good...but horrible. The cases Keating takes are ridiculous and are resolved in a manner that would make Perry Mason's work look subtle and intricate and nuanced (and needlessly ethical). And the season long murder mystery that comprises the ongoing story arc is even more ridiculous than Keating's typical cases are. HTGAWM is atrocious. Viola Davis reading the phone book (great idea vb68!) during those periods designated in the script for other characters would markedly improve the show.
I'm glad Viola won (seriously!)...for the reasons she focused on in her amazing speech. About fucking time! The fact that she's a phenomenal actress helped, and her "movie star" status with Oscar nom cred didn't hurt either. Should she, objectively speaking, have won though? Well, um, no. She nabbed the statuette and the woman who should have won got herself a can of beans as a symbolic tribute.
Am I bitter? Not at all. Predicted (way back upthread) that either VD or TPH would win. Unless a tidal wave of Mad Men support developed, and Elizabeth Moss Hammed it up and snagged the award for MM career achievement. The nom was Tat's consolation prize. Who'da ever thunk she'd score a can of beans on top of that? Helena will be stoked! Road trip!
ETA: And way to go VD for giving a shout out to my girl Nicole Beharie when reciting her litany of noteworthy African American actresses currently on the scene. When the noms first came out, I posted on the OB forum: "I find Nicole Beharie, Caitriona Balfe, and Tat the most exciting actresses on TV...inasmuch as, for me, they're discoveries. Their work on their current shows is really the first time any of them has registered on my radar. They are, so to (mis)speak, just beginning. I see (or hope to see) even greater things than they're currently showing us in their futures. Which is exciting."