BEST FILMS OF 2014-- #11: "Selma" Lives Up To Its Large Shadow

This is the first in a series of eleven posts counting down my favorite films of the year. To read about the honorable mentions, feel free to read this post here.

It seems incredible to me that, until Selma, there has not been a film about Martin Luther King Jr. There have, of course been documentaries, and there was a made-for-TV movie that I have not seen but has an incredible cast. There was also this movie made for children that HAS to not be as racist as it looks. Because it looks really, really racist. But, when it comes to major films with a theatrical release, we have not before seen one that really focuses on him. I can't be the only person who was surprised to realize this. Martin Luther King Jr. is such a prominent and important figure, you would think that he would have been the subject of multiple films by now.

But, watching Selma, I realized why this lack of films is the case. There are certain people throughout history who are not just important figures, but who are important presences. Their presence has managed to surpass the figure themselves, and trying to capture such a presence on screen is such a daunting task, that you can't blame people for not trying. It's the same reason we didn't get a film about Abraham Lincoln until 2012's Lincoln which surely would not have even been attempted if not for the people behind it: Steven Spielberg as the director, Tony Kushner as the writer, Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln himself-- if anyone could truly hope to make a film about Lincoln then it would be this pedigreed lot. But, despite the film's acclaim, I don't think that even that film managed to fully succeed. As much as I liked the film, Lincoln remains a cipher, and the film is at its best when dealing with the politics of the Congress as opposed to Lincoln himself. Despite Day-Lewis' Oscar-winning performance, and despite Day-Lewis probably coming closer to embodying Lincoln than any other actor ever will, Abraham Lincoln just comes across as utterly unportrayable. His mark on history is just too large.

Here, he looms over a young union soldier named Martin Luther King Jr.  #history

Which of course, brings us back to Selma and Martin Luther King Jr. and, unfortunately, I can't say that it doesn't suffer from the same problem. David Oyelowo (who, as you can see in the picture above, actually has a small role in Lincoln where he plays one of the only black characters...awkward) is a wonderful actor who seems to be popping up in everything recently. This year, aside from starring in Selma, he also had a small role in Interstellar and a more prominent one in A Most Violent Year. He's a very careful actor-- one who is adept at conveying his character's intellect and thought process-- you can see what the character is thinking. He's a wonderful listener. You get the sense in every performance that no decision Oyelowo makes is accidental. And he, unsurprisingly, does very good work in Selma. He captures King's cadence and tone and accent. At one point at the end, the film played a recording of what I think was the real King's voice, but I'm actually not sure. It could have been Oyelowo. That's how good his performance is. He has moments of great power, and at times is truly remarkable. But he undeniably suffers from trying play an unplayable role. He can never accurately play Martin Luther King Jr. because the role itself casts too large of a shadow. He is not just a historical figure-- he has transcended that role as a mere individual, and one cannot hope to ever match or encapsulate that. It doesn't make Oyelowo's a bad performance. It's a good performance-- a great performance even-- but we never believe that he is Martin Luther King Jr.

Oyelowo gives an impassioned speech.

But, while I didn't feel Oyelowo managed to overcome King's shadow, the film itself did, which is an incredibly impressive task. Unlike Lincoln which draws attention to its central character, Selma--through its narrative, and even through its title--manages to circumvent this problem. The film may have King as its main character, but it's not about King. It's about the events that took place in Selma, Alabama in 1965. In depicting these events, the film undeniably succeeds, and that is why it is one of the best films of the year. Director and writer Ava DuVernay, along with cinematographer Bradford Young create a remarkably unique aesthetic. Some scenes are intensely stylized; the lighting, the camera angles, the costumes all come together to create an artistic portrait of the time and the people. It's a very aware filmmaking-- the beauty of it and the careful arrangement are put at the forefront and we are conscious of the composition of the shot. But then (and here's the beautiful part) in the very next scene, the style will suddenly become more realistic. All of a sudden, the underscoring is gone. The camera is shaky. The editing is less polished, the colors are less sharply contrasting. Our awareness of the filmmaking disappears and all at once we feel like we are there in the moment-- much more so than we would have without this distinction in filmmaking, and it's used masterfully here.

Determined protestors in Selma

It is in these moments where the filmmaking shifts that the film succeeds most. Even though the film is not all that violent, the moments of violence that it does have stand out because of the contrast. When we see, for example, a shot of a line of cops standing on a bridge, we feel like we are there with the marchers standing them down. This is what makes the film so powerful. It transports us to these moments.

Another way the film stays out of King's shadow is because...and here's the secret...it's not really about King himself! He may be the main character, but the central thesis of Selma seems to be that while King was obviously a crucial figure in the civil rights movement, he could not have accomplished everything alone. As much as he has become the face of the movement, the film keeps the focus elsewhere. When King meets with Lyndon B. Johnson, Johnson often asks him why he does not stop protesting. As Johnson says, King could call off the protests in Selma and stop violence. King, of course, counters and says that if Johnson makes an executive order to give black people the unrestricted vote then that will also stop the protests. It's an important distinction-- King prompted change, but did not directly enact it, as he didn't have the power to. King doesn't actually change over the course of the film and, under Aristotelian rules of drama (sorry, is my liberal arts drama major showing?), that means that he's not the central character of the film-- Johnson is. And Johnson, as played by Tom Wilkinson, is not really a defined presence in the film. When it was announced that the usually-wonderful Wilkinson was playing LBJ-- a fascinating historical figure, there was significant Oscar buzz. Ever since the film was viewed, though, this buzz died down considerably, and I'm not surprised. For such a charismatic figure who plays such a pivotal role in the film, the usually wonderful Wilkinson doesn't really do much of anything in the film. It's never clear if he's meant to be a sympathetic presence, or an antagonistic one (more on that later).

MLK and LBJ meet in Selma

Luckily, the other supporting characters are more clearly defined as, once again, Selma excels when focusing on the protests and the protestors. Selma surrounds Oyelowo with an enormous ensemble, and they are key to this film's success. There are numerous characters whose names are mentioned only once, or never at all. Those whose names are mentioned are usually not given a full backstory (I was shocked at how little was actually said about James Bevel (played by Common) one of the main organizers of the Selma Voting Rights Movement. He welcomes King to Selma, and then he is mostly in the background. But this strategy actually proved remarkably effective in getting us interested in these characters, all of whom are based on real people. DuVernay constantly focuses on the crowd, and when you see the same faces focused on over and over, you become invested in them simply for their presence. What DuVernay is saying by focusing on the characters this way is that, as individuals, they were less important than the movement they helped to bring about. For example, Lorraine Toussaint played Amelia Boynton Robinson, and she has one of the most prominent roles in the film. She is always there. It felt like in every crowd shot, she was there. At one point she gives some sage advice to Coretta Scott King, and delivers one of the only speeches that is not delivered by MLK himself. So, she's definitely a presence in the film. But, and I could be wrong here, I don't think her name is ever mentioned in the movie. If it is, then I missed it and it couldn't have been said more than once or twice. The message is clear: even if Amelia Boynton Robinson is not as famous as Martin Luther King Jr., it doesn't mean she's not important (and, seeing her name in the credits made me read up on Robinson after seeing the film). While most of these small ensemble roles are played by character actors who, while possibly familiar, are not anything close to household names (such as Toussaint, Colman Domingo, and Wendell Pierce to name a few standouts), one ensemble role is played by a famous person. A very famous person. A really super famous person. The most famous person.

Oprah. It's Oprah. The famous person is Oprah. As in Oprah.

Oprah Winfrey plays Annie Cooper and you would be forgiven for thinking she must play a huge part. At the very beginning, she has a scene all to herself, and does have a somewhat pivotal role that occurs early in the film, she is mostly relegated to the background. She's in the crowd with the protestors, she has maybe two lines after the first ten minutes of the film (and that's a generous estimate). But...it's Oprah. So she's clearly important. By making her just another member of the crowd, DuVernay is once again emphasizing the importance of the film's ensemble. This is also highlighted in the film's epilogue-- one of the most powerful movie epilogues I've ever seen. While Martin Luther King Jr. gives a speech, the fates and accomplishments of various members of that speech's audience are revealed. Some of these are prominent characters who we've focused on throughout the film. But some are incredibly minor characters. One of the most striking examples of this, and how effective this approach was involved Viola Liuzzo. Viola is a character who we had seen exactly once before. She had one line, and then disappeared, not to be seen again until the epilogue. But, her epilogue line was that she was murdered just a few minutes after the speech we were hearing was given. Despite her being such a non-entity in this movie, the audience gasped. DuVernay takes every opportunity to remind us of the importance of everyone who history does not remember in the way that they remember the Martin Luther Kings and Lyndon B. Johnsons.

The only reason Selma is not higher on my list is that I wished the most prominent supporting characters were treated as well as the background characters. I've already mentioned that the portrayal of Johnson felt undefined, but I also felt that Coretta Scott King, played by Carmen Ejogo, was not well served. I actually liked Ejogo's work, but the relationship between Martin and Coretta felt very tacked on and irrelevant. With so much that the film was doing well, it severely dragged with focusing on their lives. It's a pretty well-known fact that Martin cheated on Coretta, and I think it's important to bring this up and don't object to it being included in the film, but the way that information is treated felt very tacked on. It felt irrelevant. After all, the film didn't seem to be about King, so details on his personal life felt distracting more than anything. And Oyelowo and Ejogo didn't have much chemistry. At one point, Coretta and Martin were reunited after not seeing each other in a long time and...neither seems all that emotional about this. It was a relationship that simply didn't need to be there.

Martin and Coretta

I also wish there had been more of an antagonistic presence in the film. Which...seems weird considering that racists tend to make really good antagonists, but hear me out. One possible antagonist was LBJ, but he never seemed to really be in opposition to King and, perhaps because we know he will eventually side with King and give blacks the vote, he never comes across as a clear bad guy. That would have been a really interesting choice, though-- to actually paint him as a villain at first, and then show how he turns into a good guy when he changes his mind. As I mentioned earlier, Johnson is the one who changes the most over the course of the film, so this would have made sense. But, without Johnson as a major antagonistic force, that role fell to the police force in Selma, led by Sheriff Jim Clark (Stan Houston). Clark is a bigot and a bully who is portrayed in a manner not unlike an angry boar. He's certainly an antagonist, and a dangerous and despicable one, but he never feels like a threat. He's simply not smart enough. Which leaves us with one character who I wish had been given a more prominent role in the film, and that's George Wallace. Wallace is portrayed by Tim Roth, and Roth is simply incredible. Roth's Wallace brings a level of menace and competence that is terrifying, and which Clark simply doesn't have. He's slimy. He's smart. He's cruel. He fully acknowledges his own bigotry, and it's chilling. Unfortunately, Roth only had a few scenes, but he steals every scene he's in. And it's in Roth's moments on screen that you realize what these protestors were up against. As dangerous and physically violent as the police were (and seriously, the scenes of police brutality are fittingly brutal), people like Wallace were arguably the most dangerous. King himself says at the beginning of the film that no progress could be made until black people had the vote and could get rid of people like Wallace. Roth's performance as Wallace helps us see why. Had he been given more screentime, the film would have had a more gripping antagonist, and Roth would be a contender for an Oscar nomination.

But, despite these faults, Selma is remarkable because it is simply so powerful. Usually, "best of the year" lists have ten entries. In this case, I made it eleven to be able to include this wonderful and all-too-timely film. Unlike the other biopics this year, Selma makes a distinct case for why it's important to hear this story now. It's a rare historical film that immediately asserts its own relevancy in any age, and I imagine it will be as poignant a few years from now as it does today. At the end of the film, we get a fantastic credits sequence which combines historical photos of the real Selma protestors with stills from the movie itself. The whole thing is set to the original song "Glory," which will surely be getting an Oscar-nomination, and has already been nominated for multiple awards. The song's lyrics bring up everything from Selma to Ferguson, and the entire sequence weaves together the events of the past and the events of the present, and made me reassess everything I had just seen on the screen. Selma is not just a biopic. It is not just a presentation of what happened in Selma, Alabama in 1965. It is a film about what is happening right now. And I imagine it will continue to be relevant for the rest of my lifetime.

BEST FILMS OF 2014: Intro and Honorable Mentions

 Last year, everyone kept talking about how it was a great year for film. And they were right. It was a year for films tackling serious issues (with varying degrees of success) and doing so with polish and professionalism. When I think about last year, I see a showcase of strong filmmaking. Standard filmmaking. Studied filmmaking. This isn’t a bad thing. After all, Casablanca, which is deservedly considered to be one of the best films of all time, succeeds in its perfect execution of well-known themes. But, quality aside, even the more innovative high-profile films of last year had a certain tendency to sit between the lines. Best Director winner Gravity may have featured never before seen technical innovations, but the story and characters were nothing new in the slightest. Best Picture winner 12 Years a Slave was a triumph in its honesty and in its perspective, but not in terms of the filmmaking itself (Michael Fassbender’s Oscar-nominated performance as the chief antagonist especially was nothing new). I feel this even extends to Her, which many would consider one of the more innovative movies to come out last year. While the concept was indeed novel, the story itself and how it progressed was nothing all that unusual. And, despite some distinctly futuristic touches, the production design was, purposefully, not meant to completely throw us off guard. Again, none of this is a bad thing. Good filmmaking is good filmmaking, and I believe that 2013 can forever be held up as a banner year in terms of quality film, done the way they should be done.

Her was seen as unconventional last year, but storywise, actually followed a fairly familiar route.

2014 is also proving to be a great year for film. But, more than that, I think this is a year for innovative film. And that’s a beautiful thing. I am struck by how clearly this year has featured films that are not only good, but take real risks. This doesn’t make these films inherently better than the best films of 2013, but they’re ones that I personally will remember many years down the road. My favorite films from this year run circles around my favorites of last year. And, frankly, I just have a lot more to say about them. This year's films were more thought-provoking, more substantial, and more concretely encouraged discussion once you left the theater. My favorite best picture nominee of last year was Philomena--a wonderfully told story that certainly had plenty to analyze, but for the most part was very straightforward. The films of this year got my brain racing. They were not just great movies, they were marvelous achievements, and they inspired me.

Fans of this blog will surely have noticed that I haven't posted anything in a long time. My last post was in August. But that's all about to change. I realized early on that, this year, it would not do to just have a single post listing my favorite films of the year. No, each one is going to get its own post. In the coming week and a half, I will release a new post every day counting down my favorite films of the year. So, keep your eye on this blog for some passionate discussion about some great movies!

I don't know about you, but Will Ferrell is excited.

Those posts will start in the new year, but before I get into my countdown, I would like to name a few honorable mentions. Because there are lots of movies I would have loved to include but which I simply didn't have room for.

Let's start with some of the more artsy films-- there are two films from this year which have been making waves for their leading performances: Mr. Turner and Still Alice. Mr. Turner stars character actor Timothy Spall, who is probably best known for playing Wormtail in the Harry Potter films, but he has been around forever, playing supporting roles with aplomb. But, in Mr. Turner, he gets a starring role as the British painter J.M.W. Turner. It's a masterful performance, which puts Spall center stage, and which won him the Best Actor award at Cannes. Turner, as played by Spall, is an absolute enigma: he is portrayed not unlike a feral pig. He's crass, he's disgusting, he's rude, he's generally rough around the edges. And yet he creates beautiful masterpieces. Director and writer Mike Leigh finds lovely contrast by plopping Turner into the world of high society. Because of his talent, he is surrounded by those who are nothing like him. He always seems out of place, but no one ever acknowledges it. It's an odd film, admittedly, and I know some critics have dismissed it as being too aimless. Nothing much happens-- there isn't exactly a plot, and we don't see much actual change in Turner as the film goes on. But there are some absolute gems in this film (one scene where a group of people talk about gooseberries was one of the funniest scenes of the year) and it is absolutely gorgeous to watch (it is a serious contender for a cinematography nod-- some shots look like they were plucked from off of one of Turner's canvases). And, of course, there's Spall. The film has kind of come and gone, and while Spall was once seen as a dark horse contender for an Oscar nomination, the competitive field seems to have left him out of the running. Watch the film and you'll understand why that's such a shame.

Timothy Spall in the performance of his career.

Julianne Moore--the leading performer in Still Alice, however, is seen as a frontrunner to actually win the Oscar, and it's obvious why. She has been handed a challenging gift of a role as Alice Howland, a professor who is undergoing early-onset Alzheimer's. It's the sort of role that makes the Oscars salivate, but Moore truly does rise to the occasion, giving an assured performance that is profoundly touching. The attention being paid to the film seems to primarily be surrounding her performance, but I feel that the film as a whole is worthwhile. It's a very powerful look at how a condition such as this can affect a family, and the movie feels very real-- you get to know not only Alice, but her entire family, and feel for them as the Alzheimer's worsens. Alec Baldwin does nice work as Alice's husband, but the true standout is Kristen Stewart, who plays one of Alice's daughters. At one point, there was some early buzz that Stewart might get Oscar consideration and I would have loved for this to have been true. 1) she's very good in the film and 2) it would finally have shut up those whose entire conception of Stewart's talent is based on her performance in the Twilight films. I've got some news for you: EVERYONE is bad in the Twilight films, but other actors have had a chance to actually demonstrate their talent elsewhere. People don't seem to want to give Stewart that chance, but they would if they saw this film. Still Alice is a remarkably real portrayal of a family in crisis, and one of the more genuinely moving and restrained films of the year.

Julianne Moore and Kristen Stewart's strong performances are the foundation that holds Still Alice together.

The high number of quality films has also meant that my choices this year are decidedly predictable-- very artsy and stuff. Which means that I was left with no room for some of the bigger blockbuster films of the year-- the more commercial stuff, which I thought was truly great. Superheroes had a strong showing this year, and while Marvel seems to have a disaster coming its way with its upcoming Ant Man trainwreck, both of its offerings this year continued to expand upon its impressive franchise. Captain America II: The Winter Soldier had just the right amount of substance to make the film have important commentary, while still being the enjoyable popcorn flick we hoped it would be. Guardians of the Galaxy was an absolute revelation, which brought the Marvel film world into decidedly weirder territory--it was without a doubt one of the most enjoyable films of the year, and full of heart and humor. And it had a talking tree voiced by Vin Diesel who somehow became one of the best characters of the year.

"I am...oh gosh, what's my line again? Sorry, guys." -Vin Diesel

But my favorite superhero film of the year was actually none of those two--it was the animated Big Hero 6, which, like Guardians, features a rag-tag team of superheroes. It will probably lose the Animated Feature Oscar to the more popular The Lego Movie, but I hope this film gets at least some recognition. It is filled with a lot of heart, a lot of action, and some really great storytelling. Big Hero 6 was a huge surprise to me-- I could not have imagined I'd love it as much as I did--but it ended up being far and away my favorite kid's film of the year.

A still from either Big Hero 6 or Foxcatcher, not sure which.

But the film I was most upset did not make my best of the year list was probably Jon Favreau's Chef. I simply loved this movie, which missed out on being named one of the best of the year for the same reason it was so good-- its simplicity. The film follows renowned chef Carl Casper, a once-exciting chef on the American food scene whose recent work has been seen as derivative and less than stellar. After a breakdown where he yells at a critic (and it predictably goes viral) Carl decides to return to his roots, and tours across the country making simple food with his son and his best friend (Emjay Anthony and John Leguizamo). This s where Chef shines. It's a very personal film for Favreau, who wrote, directed, and stars in the film as Casper. The film is rather clearly based on his own life-- he was once seen as an innovative and hip upstart filmmaker and a champion of the indie film world, but who has since gone decidedly more commercial, finding success with the first two Iron Man films. And many have attacked him as "selling out," (and, let's be honest, Cowboys & Aliens was really ripped to shreds by audiences and critics alike). The film is meant to be a simple-- with Favreau simply focusing on telling a small story well. Sure, it has flaws (only Favreau would have cast Scarlett Johansson and Sofia Vergara as Jon Favreau's love interests) but it's just so charming that it's an absolutely winning film. And the best part is the food. The film obviously features many scenes where Carl prepares food, and these sequences are absolutely stunning, and truly lovingly done. We see Carl making food in his Michelin-starred restaurant, and it looks beautiful. Then we see him making a grilled cheese sandwich for his son, and it's just as beautiful. Food, like art, can bring people together. And with Chef, Favreau made one of the best films about food ever made-- it showcases the way food can bring us together. I'm a self-professed "foodie" so I will admit that this film played right into my interests, but it is undeniably worth seeing if only for the sheer enthusiasm with which is handles its subject matter, and themes of food, family, and fulfillment.

The hardworking food-truck team in Chef. This movie will make you crave a Cuban Sandwich like you won't believe.

The last film I want to mention here is The Imitation Game, the Alan Turing biopic starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Keira Knightley. Unlike the other films I've listed here, it is not one of my honorable mentions, but it is a very good film and I wanted to talk about it nonetheless. The film is a serious awards powerhouse, and I'm sure we will see it appear many times when Oscar nominations are announced. And it is a very good film. But, it strikes me as a film that would be more at home amongst last year's cinematic offerings. The Imitation Game is well made, well acted, well told, and generally well done. Turing is a fascinating historical figure and it's great that his story is being told, and being told in such a quality film (another awards contender-- the Stephen Hawking biopic The Theory of Everything is decidedly not as strong of a film, despite a strong performance from Eddie Redmayne). But, as much as I liked The Imitation Game, when I left the theater, I didn't think about it again. My thoughts about the film ended as soon as the film did. And that's why, despite the fact that it seems like a film the Oscars would gravitate towards consistently, I'm pretty convinced that The Imitation Game will end up somewhat empty-handed in terms of actual awards. It is the safe choice, but other, more innovative films are starting to emerge as the real contenders. After all, the best picture winner usually is linked with the best director category, and director Morten Tyldum has not been getting any awards recognition at all.  

The technically proficient The Imitation Game failed to to innovate, and that's why it falls short.

The Imitation Game is a great movie. I can't say anything bad about it, to be honest, but at the same time, it is not even close to being one of my favorite films of the year. And I feel that it can demonstrate what makes the films I have selected stand out. Unlike The Imitation Game, the films I will be naming and discussing in the coming days stay with you. They are films that I still think about, they are films that I continue to reassess in my mind. They are films one can watch over and over again. They are films that benefit from being discussed, and films which two people can experience in vastly different ways. They are works of art. And I'm excited to talk about them with you.

And, no, Winter's Tale will not be appearing anywhere on my list.

Here are my picks for the best films of the year:
11: Selma
10: Foxcatcher
9: Whiplash 
8: Nightcrawler 
7: Gone Girl
6: The Babadook  
5: The Grand Budapest Hotel
4: Boyhood
3: Begin Again   
2: Snowpiercer
1: Birdman      

2014 Emmy Awards: Playing It Safe in a Groundbreaking Medium

And so, another year, another Emmys. And...nothing was surprising. Breaking Bad and Modern Family won the awards for best drama and comedy respectively, just as they had last year. The Colbert Report won best variety series, just as it had last year. The Amazing Race won best reality competition program, just as it has done for all but two years in that category's existence.

Things were equally predictable in the acting categories. Jim Parsons won his fourth Emmy in five years for his work on The Big Bang Theory, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus won for the third year in a row. All of the acting winners in a drama series-- Bryan Cranston, Anna Gunn, Julianna Margulies, and Aaron Paul-- have won in this category before, as has Ty Burrell, who won Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series. The only actor to have not won in this category in a previous year was Allison Janney, and she's hardly a newcomer, having won multiple Emmys in the dramatic category, and even winning two Emmys in this single year alone (she also won the award for best guest actress in a drama series for Masters of Sex).

She uses this Emmy to hold her collection of rose petals.

None of this is to say that these awards are not deserving. You better believe that I cheered loudly every time Breaking Bad won anything. But, there was just a general air of familiarity, and a lack of any real surprises. Sure, I didn't predict all of the awards correctly, but the ones that I didn't predict still seemed expected. And the second that Ty Burrell won, I knew that Modern Family would take Best Comedy, even though I had guessed it would be Orange is the New Black.

It wasn't just the awards that felt safe, the whole ceremony felt generally bland. I like Seth Meyers-- it's really hard to not at least likes Seth Meyers-- but he's not exactly exciting. He was a fine host-- typically affable, and while some jokes fell flat, some were strong and in general, his opening monologue was good. Meyers was the picture of competence. His jokes were good, and generally pleasing, and he delivered them well. And that's not a bad thing. He was an enjoyable host of an enjoyable ceremony. But, there was no punch. There was no excitement. The beauty of Ellen DeGeneres hosting this year's Oscars, for example, was that she at times felt completely unscripted. With the famous/infamous star-studded selfie, and ordering pizza for the stars, there was a refreshing air of spontaneity. When Ricky Gervais hosted the Golden Globes, he was controversial, but that's because he took risks with his jokes. He really went after the celebrities in the audience in a way that had not been done before. So did Seth MacFarlane when he hosted the Oscars, but unlike Gervais, MacFarlane was an undeniable unfunny disaster, whose insults "punched down" instead of punching up. I certainly don't want more of what MacFarlane had to offer, but surely there's a middle ground between downright offensiveness and the bland performance Meyers offered. The best and most fun moments of the ceremony clearly came from the unpredictable antics of Amy Poehler, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, and Bryan Cranston.

A tuxedo! Bold choice, Meyers!

The overall blandness of the ceremony seemed especially at odds with the content that it was celebrating. It has been said repeatedly that this is a golden age of television. Meyers commented that in 1976, there were only four nominees for best drama, and all of them were cop shows. Now, we have a varied lineup of nominees--all doing something new, and all doing something interesting. This is an important step in any story-telling art form. In the nineteenth century, for example, there was a rise in theater of what are called "Well-Made Plays," which follow a very specific format. If one reads any plays from that time, you will find that they're pretty much interchangeable, with stock characters and an almost identical plot. This doesn't mean that these plays were bad. Some most definitely were, but some were able to define the format, and use the conventions to their advantage (a great example is Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest). The same thing happened in film, taking a long time for filmmakers to start taking risks with the use of film. Television is starting to do the same. On the drama side of television, for example, there use to be much more of an emphasis on episodic TV show, where each episode had a standalone plot (remember, the Law & Order franchise used to be an Emmy darling), but now, the Emmys are rewarding serial dramas more and more consistently, allowing for more chances to be taken in terms of storytelling and general series tone. Such dramas would have been seen as too risky just a few years ago, but now, they are the norm when it comes to most acclaimed drama series.

There are also risks being taken on the comedy side of things, but more to do with subject matter than anything else. The idea, for example, of setting a comedy (although, again, much could be said about whether Orange is the New Black is a comedy or a drama) in a women's prison would have been unbelievable at one point. This year's best comedy series Modern Family, which has now won the award for five years in a row, initially received great praise for its diverse cast and focus on "unconventional" families. I'm all for diversity, but as the show has gone on, it has become increasingly clear that, despite its strong cast, Modern Family is pretty much just like every other sitcom. Its storylines are pretty typical and, for the most part its characters never change. The premise of the show, for those who have not seen it, follows three branches of one extended family. The antagonist, if there is one, is Jay (Ed O'Neill), whose children Claire (Julie Bowen) and Mitchell (Jesse Tyler Ferguson) are the parents in the other two families. Jay was clearly designed to be the "stick in the mud" character. He is at odds with his somewhat eccentric stepson Manny (Rico Rodriguez) and we hear constantly about how he was not supportive of his gay son Mitchell when he was growing up. But the problem is that Modern Family strives to be pleasing. Jay can never be too much of an antagonist because the show tries to stay away from any real conflict of any kind. Jay, in fact, usually comes across as INCREDIBLY reasonable, supportive, open-minded, and level-headed-- the Jay described by his children is nothing like the one depicted to us on the show. And if he ever is at odds with Manny, he typically comes around by the end of the episode and "learns his lesson." Only to then have to learn that same lesson the very next week. Aside from the child actors who have LITERALLY grown over these five years, the characters remain pretty much in the same place they were in the pilot episode.

In short, aside from its original premise, there's no longer anything all that interesting about Modern Family. It is still a funny show-- although I have not seen any of the recent episodes, I imagine that the writing is still strong and the cast is undeniably incredible-- but, it feels like every other sitcom on the air. It's a good show, but is it the absolute best comedy on the air? In this "golden age of television?" Especially when one compares it to the truly groundbreaking Orange is the New Black, or even an unconventional show like Louie, it's pretty clear that Modern Family may be the safe choice, but I don't think anyone can actually say with certainty that it's the right one.

And so, Modern Family wins again. And while I like the show, and at one time considered myself a fan, I can't help but feel frustrated by its fifth win. Especially when a more deserving series could have easily won. Does this signal "THE END OF TELEVISION?!" Of course not. There are still some amazing and clever shows out there-- and Modern Family is one of them. And Orange is the New Black not winning best comedy does not take away from the acclaim and popularity that that series has already achieved. But the Emmys tonight served as a reminder that, even in this "golden age of television," there is still room to grow. In a few years, there will be many more series out there. And I look forward to watching both them and the more exciting awards ceremonies which will honor them.

When this baby robot grows up, it will win the 94th Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Guest Actor in a Drama Series.

2014 Emmys: Award Predictions

As you probably know, this Monday is the Primetime Emmy Awards. It's a really fun ceremony and tends to be one of the more unpredictable awards shows. I've already talked about this year's Emmys, but below, here is my official rundown of all of the main categories-- including who I think will win. As always, I'm choosing what I think the winner WILL be, as opposed to who I want it to be.

And, if you want to see which shows I wish I were talking about, be sure to check out my list of shows which I wish the Emmys would have recognized. Enjoy my predictions, and be sure to share yours in the comments!

Outstanding Drama Series:

Breaking Bad

Downton Abbey

Game of Thrones

House of Cards

Mad Men

True Detective

This is a battle between the old and the new. Two series are competing for this award. One (Breaking Bad) is an acclaimed series which has finished its run, the other (True Detective) is a brand new series which arrived with a lot of fanfare. When Breaking Bad aired its final episode “Felina,” I thought it would be absolutely unbeatable, but True Detective has built up a lot of momentum. To the point that this category is no longer the certainty it once was.

That being said, I still think Breaking Bad is the favorite by a longshot. Remember, the reaction to the final season was not just “That was great!” it was “THAT WAS THE GREATEST SERIES OF ALL TIME!” And while True Detective has undoubtedly received high praise, it has not quite received that level of praise. Sure, the Breaking Bad finale was a long time ago, but it is still the most talked about show of the season. For it to not win this year seems inconceivable. True Detective has a chance, certainly, but it’s a slight one.

Any other series here could really just give up now. They’re great shows, but this is just not their year.

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series:

Lizzy Caplan as Virginia Johnson—Masters of Sex

Claire Danes as Carrie Mathison—Homeland

Michelle Dockery as Lady Mary Crawley—Downton Abbey

Julianna Margulies as Alicia Florrick—The Good Wife

Kerry Washington as Olivia Pope—Scandal

Robin Wright as Claire Underwood—House of Cards

This is possibly the most contested major category of the year, to the point that there really isn’t a favorite. Claire Danes has won the past few years, and could win again this year, but there’s also a lot of support for Juliana Margulies, Kerry Washington, and Robin Wright. And I really have no idea who will win—it could be any of those four. So, sorry Michelle Dockery but you’re really not in this race at all, and Lizzy Caplan, you maybe could have been a contender if the Emmy voters had responded more favorably to Masters of Sex.

Again, of the four, I really have no idea. I know a lot of people are predicting a win for Wright, but I don’t see it. The most talked about performance of the show is Kevin Spacey’s, and given that a win for him is unlikely (more on that in the next category) I don’t see Wright winning when Spacey does not. Washington definitely has a chance, but I feel like she had more buzz last year, and still did not win. This year, the buzz for Scandal had seriously diminished, so I think it’ll be between Danes and Margulies. Margulies—a former winner in this category—actually failed to get a nomination last year, and possibly only just narrowly made the nominations this year. But, now that she actually is a nominee, maybe people will start paying more attention to her performance. While it didn’t crack the Best Drama Series nominees, The Good Wife had what many consider to be its best season ever, and that might be the boost Margulies needs to dethrone Danes. Margulies is my pick, but again, any of these four could win and I wouldn’t be surprised.

Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series:

Bryan Cranston as Walter White—Breaking Bad

Jeff Daniels as Will McAvoy—The Newsroom

Jon Hamm as Don Draper—Mad Men

Woody Harrelson as Martin Hart—True Detective

Matthew McConaughey as Rustin Cohle—True Detective

Kevin Spacey as Frank Underwood—House of Cards

Oh boy, this is a tough one. Much like the Best Drama Series category, this one is going to come down to Breaking Bad and True Detective. Bryan Cranston’s performance as Walter White has been heralded as one of the greatest in television history, and the episode he’s nominated for (“Ozymandias”) was the absolute right choice. It seems inconceivable that they would not give him this award one last time (especially since he has not won for the past couple of years).

But, just like True Detective might have enough momentum to win Best Drama Series, we have True Detective’s star Matthew McConaughey, who is basically the human embodiment of momentum. The Emmys love when movie stars do television—especially movie stars who just won an Oscar. And while I pretty confidently believe that Breaking Bad will win best drama, I cannot stand so firmly in my convictions here. I really want to believe that it will be Cranston, but as time has gone on, McConaughey seems more and more likely. He’s my prediction to win, and I hate myself for it. I’m hoping that I’m wrong and Cranston wins the award that is rightfully his.

Or maybe they’ll just not know what to do, panic, and give it to Jeff fucking Daniels again. Even though nobody wants that.

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series:

Christine Baranski as Diane Lockhart—The Good Wife

Joanne Froggatt as Anna Bates—Downton Abbey

Anna Gunn as Skyler White—Breaking Bad

Lena Headey as Cersei Lannister—Game of Thrones

Christina Hendricks as Joan Harris—Mad Men

Maggie Smith as Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham—Downton Abbey

It’s an interesting lineup here. Maggie Smith and Christina Hendricks would have been contenders at one point, but have since lost a lot of buzz (I’m hoping that the outstanding Hendricks might win one day—although, she might have to wait for Mad Men’s final season of eligibility given how the Emmys have been going). There has been some buzz for Christine Baranski—another actress who has been nominated a lot but never won for her work on The Good Wife, but it seems far and away as if this award will go to Anna Gunn. What with True Detective’s rise in momentum, she is actually Breaking Bad’s most certain award of the night.

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series:

Jim Carter as Charles Carson—Downton Abbey

Josh Charles as Will Gardner—The Good Wife

Peter Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister—Game of Thrones

Mandy Patinkin as Saul Berenson—Homeland

Aaron Paul as Jesse Pinkman—Breaking Bad

Jon Voight as Mickey Donovan—Ray Donovan

Another contested category. It seems likely that Aaron Paul will win for his performance as Jesse Pinkman—he’s the favorite, and is my prediction. But, last year, there was a huge upset when Bobby Cannavale won, and there could be another upset here. If anyone unseats Paul, it would be either Josh Charles or Jon Voight (who keeps winning awards for his performance despite the fact that everyone’s reaction to Ray Donovan is a perfect “Meh.”) Bet on Paul to win, but an upset is not without the realm of possibility.

Outstanding Comedy Series:

The Big Bang Theory

Louie

Modern Family

Orange is the New Black

Silicon Valley

Veep

Modern Family has won this award every year it has been on the air, and as the incumbent, seems like a strong contender to win again. But, in this case, its many wins are probably the best case for why Modern Family will not win in this category again this year. It’s too stale at this point, and the Emmy voters will want to vary it up. This could be seen last year, when it failed to win the supporting actor and actress awards that it used to dominate. Now, it’s time for another comedy to be given this award.

While Louie definitely has its supporters, it’s never going to be mainstream enough to win this award. And Silicon Valley should just feel lucky to be nominated, to be honest (not speaking at all to its quality, just in terms of buzz). This leaves the Emmys with three options for what will win Best Comedy Series.

On one hand it could be The Big Bang Theory.

• Pros: it is by far the most popular comedy out of all the nominees. Reruns of this show on TBS get better ratings than some of the other nominees. And the Emmys clearly love it, having awarded the Best Actor Emmy to Jim Parsons three thousand times.
• Cons: If this show is declared the best comedy on television, then it will merit the death of all comedy and we will be forced to live in a humorless world where laughter is forbidden. This may seem like hyperbole. It is not. The Big Bang Theory is so jaw-droppingly not funny…I just…I just don’t get it. This show’s popularity makes me cry if I think about it too much. It just can’t win. It just can’t. Please. Please do not let this show win. If it wins, I might have to stop watching television.

So, hopefully it won’t be that show. Perhaps it will be Veep.

• Pros: The show is already an Emmy darling, wining multiple awards and featuring a fantastic cast, fantastic writing, and all-around universal acclaim. It’s probably the safest choice of the nominees.
• Cons: It has been around too long. For a show to be rewarded by the Emmys, it needs to either be new, or something has to have happened to change its status. For example, The Office unseated Everybody Loves Raymond for Outstanding Comedy series in 2006 for its second season (also known as the first season that it was good because the first season doesn’t count). It was then unseated by 30 Rock, which won for its first season and then continued to win for three years, until it was unseated by Modern Family for its first season. If Veep had an exceptionally remarkable season, then maybe it would have more of a chance, but it didn’t. This previous season was, generally, just as good as its previous ones. So, there’s nothing to distinguish this particular season enough to allow it to defeat Modern Family.

Which means that the most likely winner in this category, and my prediction for the win, is Orange is the New Black.

• Pros: It’s a new show. It’s an acclaimed new show. It’s a groundbreaking acclaimed new show. It’s a groundbreaking acclaimed new show that has already picked up a few Emmys at the Creative Arts Emmy Awards. It will almost definitely win this award on Monday.
• Cons: If anything is working against Orange is the New Black, it’s the fact that it’s just not that funny. Granted, some scenes are laugh out loud hilarious, but if you were to consider this series as a whole, it’s tough to classify it as a comedy as opposed to a drama. The other nominees are more easily defined as comedies (with the exception of The Big Bang Theory which can only be defined as a Kafkaesque torture device created as part of some sort of social experiment to see if people can be convinced something is funny just because there’s a laugh track). But, while it may not be definitively a comedy, Orange is the New Black is 100% a great show. It has the best chance of winning, and it will absolutely deserve it.

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy Series:

Lena Dunham as Hannah Horvath—Girls

Edie Falco as Jackie Peyton—Nurse Jackie

Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Selina Meyer—Veep

Melissa McCarthy as Molly Flynn—Mike & Molly

Amy Poehler as Leslie Knope—Parks and Recreation

Taylor Schilling as Piper Chapman—Orange is the New Black

Julia Louis-Dreyfus has won this award for the past two years, and many seem to think she’s going to win a third time. It could definitely happen. However, the Emmy voters are usually very inconsistent in this category in particular. Julia Louis-Dreyfus is the first consecutive winner in this category since Patricia Heaton won in 2000 and 2001, which means there were ten whole years without a single repeat winner. Louis-Dreyfus is the frontrunner, but I think it’s likely she might be dethroned. The question is, by who?

The likeliest actresses to take this award from Louis-Dreyfus are Amy Poehler and Taylor Schilling. This is Poehler’s fifth nomination and she still has not won, despite near-universal acclaim for her performance. Fresh off of a Golden Globe win (unbelievably, the first major acting award she has won in her career), this might be Poehler’s year to finally get her due. Schilling’s chances have less to do with her performance, and more to do with the show as a whole. Don’t get me wrong, I like Schilling, and I think she does great work on Orange is the New Black, but I don’t think anyone would consider her performance to be the standout within that cast. Unlike Poehler and Louis-Dreyfus, the show doesn’t hinge on her performance. It all depends on how Emmy voters react to the series—if they decide to show universal love to Orange is the New Black, then Schilling will undoubtedly benefit from it. Even though her performance is far from the most comedic on this list.

Eie Falco has had her day in the sun and an Emmy win for her seems incredibly unlikely, but the Emmys do love her and she should never be counted out. Melissa McCarthy, however, can be counted out—she no longer has the Oscar-nominee buzz that she had when she won previously. At one point, I would have thought that Lena Dunham would be a strong contender here. I am not a fan of her or of her show, but the show is undeniably hers, and she certainly has the acclaim to pull off a win. But, the fact that Girls failed to crack the Best Comedy category (surprisingly losing its spot to fellow HBO show Silicon Valley) shows that The Emmys are not as nuts about Girls as, for example, the Golden Globes. The show’s lack of a nomination leaves Dunham all but out of the running.

Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series:

Louis C.K. as Louie—Louie

Don Cheadle as Marty Kaan—House of Lies

Ricky Gervais as Derek Noakes—Derek

Matt LeBlanc as himself—Episodes

William H. Macy as Frank Gallagher—Shameless

Jim Parsons as Sheldon Cooper—The Big Bang Theory

Words cannot express how much I do not want Jim Parsons to win this award. It’s nothing against him personally—in fact, I think he’s a wonderful actor and I look forward to seeing him in other projects—but The Big Bang Theory is just not a good show, and it frustrates me that he has won so many times for it when there are so many better shows which could be rewarded. But, the sad thing is, I don’t see any of the other nominees here being able to unseat him. If you look at the nominees, you’ll notice that only Parsons and Louis C.K. are on shows which are nominated in the other major categories. And that is a big boost for both of them. As wonderful as Don Cheadle is, Emmy voters are not going to rally behind House of Lies, and it’s going to make it tough for him to win such a major award. Same goes for Matt LeBlanc, and DEFINITELY goes for Ricky Gervais, who managed to get nominated for Derek purely because the Emmys will nominate him for anything.

William H. Macy is a bit of a wildcard—up until this year, Shameless was entered as a drama, and Macy failed to get nominated there. Switching categories helped him gain a nomination, will it help him get a win? Possibly, but not probably. The best hope to defeat Parsons is Louis C.K. Many have called for C.K. to win, but the truth is that he’s not much of an actor. He’s a wonderful comedian, but the strength of Louie is in its writing, directing, and C.K.’s overall artistic vision. He would be the first to admit that he’s not much of an actor (and, in fact, there’s an episode of Louie where he talks about his poor acting skills). He’s certainly competent, but he’s not really Best Actor quality. He could win just because The Emmys love Louie. But, let’s be honest. It’s going to be Jim Parsons. Again.

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series:

Mayim Bialik as Amy Farrah Fowler—The Big Bang Theory

Julie Bowen as Claire Dunphy—Modern Family

Anna Chlumsky as Amy Brookheimer—Veep

Allison Janney as Bonnie Plunkett—Mom

Kate McKinnon as various characters—Saturday Night Live

Kate Mulgrew as Galina “Red” Reznikov—Orange is the New Black

This is an especially tough category, as last year’s winner Merritt Wever is not even nominated. While it is great to see Kate McKinnon nominated, she’s not going to win. Things don’t look great for Julie Bowen either. She’s the only person who has won this award before (although Allison Janney has approximately five thousand Emmys in other categories) but, as I’ve already mentioned, the Emmys’ adoration of Modern Family has cooled considerably, and her chances of winning seem low. Repeat nominees Mayim Bialik and Anna Chlumsky definitely have a chance here, but they’re not the frontrunners.

This award will either go to Janney or Kate Mulgrew, and there are points to be made for both of them. Most people are saying this award will go to Janney. She certainly is a great actress (probably because of the training she received in college. Whatever college she attended must be super great and any actors who graduate from there must be really, really talented) and has won a ton of Emmys in the past. In fact, she has already won an Emmy this year, being awarded the Emmy for Best Guest Actress in a Drama Series for Masters of Sex. If she wins this year, it’ll be a two-Emmy year for Janney. The only thing working against her is the fact that Mom didn’t do that well in the nominations, and so the votes she receives are going to be coming from people who don’t necessarily love the show that she’s on. Conversely, she’s going up against Mulgrew, who is on the show that will probably win Best Comedy (and who, surprisingly, is the only cast member from that show to be in this category). Mulgrew is exceptional on Orange is the New Black, delivering a career-reviving performance and has plenty of opportunities to show off both her comedic and dramatic chops. To me, she seems like the natural favorite to win here, but most other oddsmakers are predicting that Janney will win it. Maybe they know something I don’t know. I’m going to go ahead and predict that Janney will win. But if Mulgrew wins, then I’ll go ahead and say “I knew it!” anyway.

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series:

Fred Armisen as various characters—Portlandia

Andre Braugher as Raymond Holt—Brooklyn Nine-Nine

Ty Burrell as Phil Dunphy—Modern Family

Adam Driver as Adam Sackler—Girls

Jesse Tyler Ferguson as Mitchell Pritchett—Modern Family

Tony Hale as Gary Walsh—Veep

Much like with the supporting actress in a comedy series category, it’s a two-horse race. After Tony Hale won last year, the Modern Family actors lost all of the momentum they had built up, and it seems unlikely that either Ty Burrell or Jesse Tyler Ferguson will  be able to pull off a win (although, Ferguson definitely has his fans, considering he has yet to win in this category). Another longshot is Adam Driver of Girls, and even more of a longshot is Fred Armisen, as sketch comedy actors rarely actually win the award.

This leaves last year’s winner, Hale, and newcomer Andre Braugher. Both are wonderful, and I’ve seen other commentators be totally split on who will win—it seems like it’s a 50/50 shot here. Personally, I think it would be exciting if Braugher won here, and Janney won in the Supporting Actress category—as the winners would be two veterans who are the only nominees for their new series. And it would be great for Braugher to win because it would give more attention to the wonderful and fun Brooklyn Nine Nine. Hale has a definite shot at a repeat win, but I’m giving a slight edge to Braugher.

Anyway, those are my predictions. We could see a total sweep in both the drama and comedy categories, depending on how well Breaking Bad and Orange is the New Black do. We’ll find out soon. Be sure to watch the Emmys on Monday! Oh, and while I usually don’t know much about the miniseries categories, bet on The Normal Heart to do really well. It’s definitely going to dominate.