The Emmy B-Team: The Scruff

Welcome to the 8^th edition of the Emmy B-Team. The idea is simple. People like to complain about the Emmy nominations. They point out snubs, never consider what was actually on the ballots*, and say the Emmy voters did a bad job picking nominees. The skeptic that I am, I wanted to find out if the Emmy picks were really that bad. So, every year, I look through the Emmy nomination ballots. I create an alternate group of non-nominated performers/episodes/shows (my “B-Team”) and compare those to the actual nominees to see which is stronger. I’ll spare you the suspense: The actual Nominees always win handily even though I go into it each time thinking this is the year the B-Team has the edge. It turns out, a couple bad snubs don’t outweigh 3-5 good picks. Instead, the B-team serves as a fun way for me to point out the biggest snubs, audit the Emmy picks more fairly, and point out some quirks in the nominating ballots.

 

*Remember, a show, person, or episode can only be nominated if it is submitted. Even if you want every episode of Ted Lasso to be nominated for writing, that won't happen, since they only submitted some of the episodes.

 

**You'd be surprised how often that actor you thought was snubbed wasn't even on the official ballot or had listed himself as a lead instead of a supporting actor.

 

I don't do every category. I don't pretend that I've seen everything or that I fully understand all the categories. I'm a one-man operation talking about hundreds of shows. I'm doing the best I can.

 

I want to make it clear what my decision means for these match ups. What I’m asking is, would I replace the Nominees list with the B-Team. That is the only thing I am testing.

 

I'll start with what I call "the scruff". It's the random categories that I like to include that don't fit in any of my major groups.

 

Indicates a show that I haven't watched this season.

# Indicates a show I've seen before, not this season.

 

Outstanding Animated Program

Nominees

• *Big Mouth “The New Me”
  *Bob's Burgers “Worms Of In-Rear-Ment”
• Genndy Tartakovsky's Primal “Plague Of Madness”
• *The Simpsons “The Dad-Feelings Limited”
• #South Park: The Pandemic Special

 

B-Team

• #The Bleepin’ Robot Chicken Archie Comics Special
• #Family Guy “Wild Wild West”
• Harley Quinn “Something Borrowed, Something Green”
• *One Day at a Time: The Politics Special
• Star Trek: Lower Decks “Crisis Point”

 

This isn’t the deepest nominating ballot for a B-Team. I definitely think Harley Quinn deserved a closer look from the voters. Everything I hear about it is great, and not in a DC fanboy way. It’s also weird to me when the only animated series to earn an Outstanding Comedy Series nomination in the modern age (Family Guy in 2009) isn’t able to snag a nomination. This is easily a win for the Nominees though. The Simpsons, South Park, and Bob’s Burgers are all powerhouses. Genndy Tatakovsky’s work is too widely respected. And Big Mouth is getting the kind of attention that BoJack Horseman didn’t get until its last season.

 

Winner: Nominees (Dominantly)

 

Outstanding Directing For A Documentary/Nonfiction Program

Nominees

• Allen v. Farrow “Episode 3”
• The Bee Gees: How Can You Mend A Broken Heart
• *Boys State
• Dick Johnson Is Dead
• The Social Dilemma
• Tina

 

B-Team

• City So Real “With All Due Respect To the Candidate”
• *Class Action Park
• Immigration Nation “Installing Fear”
• Philly D.A. “Episode 102”
• Pretend It’s a City “Cultural Affairs”
• *30 for 30 “Long Gone Summer”

 

I don’t have high investment in either list. The Nominees are more sensational with Allen v. Farrow, The Social Dilemma, and Boys State. The B-Team has a little more substance with City So Real, Immigration Nation, and Philly D.A. taking on political topics. This is a bit of a toss-up, but I know Boys State and Dick Johnson Is Dead had Oscar buzz for good reason. I’ll lean toward the Nominees.

 

Winner: Nominees (Barely)

 

Outstanding Writing For A Nonfiction Program

Nominees

• All In: The Fight For Democracy
• Allen v. Farrow “Episode 3”
• The Bee Gees: How Can You Mend A Broken Heart
• The Social Dilemma
• Tulsa Burning: The 1921 Race Massacre

 

B-Team

• *American Oz (American Experience)
• *Class Action Park
• Dick Johnson Is Dead
• Exterminate All the Brutes “The Disturbing Confidence of Ignorance”
• *Hemingway “Episode One: A Writer (1899-1929)

 

I never know what to do about writing for this category. With all the talking heads in some, isn’t that more editing than writing? For that reason, I’m tempted to go with the B-Team for the PBS American Oz and Hemingway. Class Action Park is certainly more of a feat of editing. Dick Johnson is Dead is more direction. The Nominees have more of the buzz surrounding them. I should probably abstain from this category, but I’ll give an edge to the B-Team.

 

Winner: B-Team (Barely)

 

Outstanding Documentary Or Nonfiction Special

Nominees

• The Bee Gees: How Can You Mend A Broken Heart
• *Boys State
• Framing Britney Spears (The New York Times Presents)
• The Social Dilemma
• Tina

 

B-Team

• *Class Action Park
• Console Wars
• Sesame Street: 50 Years of Sunny Days
• Tulsa Burning: The 1921 Race Massacre
• The Vote (American Experience)

 

While I enjoyed Class Action Park, I feel like the Nominees have this. Framing Britney Spears is topical. Boys State is probably the best overall program from either group. And The Social Dilemma feels urgent.

 

Winner: Nominees (Comfortably)

 

Outstanding Documentary Or Nonfiction Series

Nominees

• Allen v. Farrow
• American Masters
• City So Real
• Pretend It's A City
• Secrets Of The Whales

 

B-Team

• *Hemingway
• Immigration Nation
• Philly D.A.
• Pride
• *30 for 30

 

Allen v. Farrow and Pretend It’s a City have HBO and Scorsese respectively. I prefer the variety of the B-Team though. Hemingway is a nice American Experience series from Ken Burns. Immigration Nation and Philly D.A. are more news-y. Pride is a nice in-depth look at the pride movement. And 30 for 30 is a reliable source of generally lighter sports docs.

 

Winner: B-Team (Comfortably)

 

Outstanding Original Music And Lyrics

Nominees

• *Bo Burnham: Inside (Song Title: Comedy)
• *The Boys “The Big Ride” (Song Title: Never Truly Vanish)
• *The Queen's Gambit “Adjournment” (Song Title: I Can't Remember Love)
• Soundtrack Of Our Lives (Song Title: The End Titles)
• *WandaVision “Breaking The Fourth Wall” (Song Title: Agatha All Along)
• *Zoey's Extraordinary Playlist “Zoey's Extraordinary Birthday” (Song Title: Crimson Love)

 

B-Team

• *Girls5Eva “Alf Musik” (Song: New York Lonely Boy”)
• *Girls5Eva “Separ8 Ways” (Song: 4 Stars)
• *Big Mouth “A Very Special 9/11 Episode” (Song: Code Switchin’)
• *Girls5Eva “Carma” (Song: I’m Afraid (Dawn’s Song of Fears))
• *SNL “Host: Maya Rudolph” (Song: Boomers Got the Vax”)
• *SNL “Host: Nick Jonas” (Song: Murder Show)

 

OK, I get Emmy voters ignoring Girls5Eva, but how do none of the SNL songs get picked? Emmy voters love SNL. The Nominees have Bo Burnham’s “Comedy”, which is the only song from Inside on the ballot. “Agatha All Along” is quite the earworm too. That’s where the strength of the Nominees end. Sure, “Crimson Love” is fun, but it’s outshadowed by all the other songs on that show. Meanwhile, the three Girls5Eva songs are bangers. Big Mouth is a surprisingly strong show for original music. I picked my two favorite SNL songs, but there were several to choose from. And I didn’t even include the Bob’s Burgers or Central Park songs on the list. Come on Emmy voters. Do better. No one knows those songs from The Boys, The Queen’s Gambit, or Soundtrack of Our Lives.

 

Winner: B-Team (Comfortably)

 

Outstanding Character Voice-Over Performance

Nominees

• #Jessica Walter (Archer “The Double Date”)
• *Maya Rudolph (Big Mouth “A Very Special 9/11 Episode”)
• *Stacey Abrams (black-ish: Election Special (Part 2))
• *Julie Andrews (Bridgerton “Diamond Of The First Water”)
• Tituss Burgess (Central Park “A Fish Called Snakehead”)
• Stanley Tucci (Central Park “A Fish Called Snakehead”)
• #Seth MacFarlane (Family Guy “Stewie's First Word”)

 

B-Team

• *Hank Azaria (The Simpsons “The Dad-Feelings Limited”)
• Kaley Cuoco (Harley Quinn “Something Borrowed, Something Green”)
• *H. Jon Benjamin (Bob’s Burgers “Dream A Little Bob of Bob”)
• *Dan Mintz (Bob’s Burgers “Fingers-Loose”)
• *Nancy Cartwright (The Simpsons “Wad Goals”)
• *Dan Castellaneta (The Simpsons “Do Pizza Bots Dream of Electric Guitars?”)
• *Cristela Alonzo (His Dark Materials “Æsahættr”)

 

Sure, a final Jessica Walter (RIP) nod is nice and Maya Rudolph is so much fun as the hormone monster in Big Mouth. Julie Andrews also does a lot of the tone setting for Bridgerton. She’s vital. Giving Stacey Abrams a nomination is way more political than merit based though and Tituss Burgess mostly annoys me. I’m much more excited by the B-Team. Kaley Cuoco really should be getting more attention for Harley Quinn. It also feels wrong to not have anyone from Bob’s Burgers or The Simpsons nominated. Then there’s Cristela Alonzo giving the kind of voice-performance that not a lot of shows do (CGI character in a live-action world). That’s a nice splash of variety.

 

Winner: B-Team (Comfortably)

 

Outstanding Narrator

Nominee

• Sterling K. Brown (Lincoln: Divided We Stand “The Dogs Of War”)
• *Anthony Hopkins (Mythic Quest “Everlight”)
• David Attenborough (A Perfect Planet “Volcano”)
• Sigourney Weaver (Secrets Of The Whales “Ocean Giants”)
• David Attenborough (The Year Earth Changed)

 

B-Team

• *Peter Coyote (Hemmingway “The Blank Page (1944 – 1961)”)
• Renee Elise Goldsberry (Voice of Freedom (American Experience))
• *John Hodgman (Class Action Park)
• Billy Porter (Equal)
• John Wilson (How to With John Wilson “How to Cook The Perfect Risotto”)

 

I think it’s nice to point out a stalwarts like Peter Coyote in Hemmingway. Billy Porter is a nice choice for Equal. John Wilson certainly deserves some recognition for his work on his own show. You can’t beat those Nominees though. David Attenborough, twice! Sigourney Weaver too. And Mythic Quest got Anthony Hopkins for a special episode. Those are all huge wins.

 

Winner: Nominees (Dominantly)

 

---

 

4-4 Draw

I added three categories that I haven’t included in years past, which surprisingly leveled the playing field. Perhaps this is a sign of things to come. Maybe this is the year that the B-Team actually beats the Nominees overall. I doubt it, but this is a strong showing from the B-Team, tying in fields that are normally too shallow to field a strong opposition.

Delayed Reaction: The Hunt

Premise: Liberals go hunting a select group of conservatives in a role-reversing horror comedy.

 

It's hard to even know where to begin with this movie. It was a troubled movie in many ways. The initial 2019 was delayed out of respect for a pair of mass shooting in the U.S., given the flippant violence of this movie. I appreciate when a movie has some fully unintended connections that cause it to be delayed. Gangster Squad reshooting a climactic shootout in a movie theater right after the Aurora shooting seems smart. Delaying Collateral Damage after the term became a major talking point with 9/11 makes sense. However, making a satire about violence in the U.S. that has to avoid events of actual violence in the U.S. is a bit of a red flag. Anyway, the movie was pushed to March 13, 2020: aka the last weekend before COVID fully shut down movie theaters. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

 

The credentials behind this movie are pretty great. I'm a David Lindelof acolyte. He coproduced and cowrote the movie. Director Craig Zobel is a nice indie director who has handled uncomfortable subject matter before with Compliance and Z for Zachariah. The film was produced under the Blumhouse banner was well, which guarantees a level of technical proficiency in horror. A hell of a cast too, even with many of them as cameos.

 

I think this is a wicked fun idea. The role-reversal of stereotypical character types is an interesting idea to explore. I love the idea of killing off so many of the characters early. My friends and I had the exact response they intended: complete bafflement. We were in the middle of saying how much we liked Emma Roberts right as she was killed. I was reminding them where Justin Chatwin was from right as he's killed. When it got to Ike Barinholtz, I told myself "Rule of threes. He's fine." right before he's killed. The opening of this movie is madness and I loved it. I've never been more convinced that Betty Gilpin is a star than in this movie. She rules. It makes it even more disappointing to see her with such a weak role in The Tomorrow War. She could've kicked ass in that. The film pays off moments well too. I was prepared to revolt if no one ended up eating that grilled cheese at the end. It doesn't take much to win me over sometimes.

 

Overall, I really didn't care for this movie. Some of it was more of a physical reaction. I'm not a fan of its style of hyperviolence. It's hard to knock the movie for that. They fully intended for it to be that violent. Most of what lost me is the messaging of the movie. I didn't think this movie was very clever. Rather, it felt like it was telling me how clever it was. And cleverness without subtlety quickly turns into smugness.

 

I think the hardest thing to do is write characters who you fundamentally disagree with. Part of the reason why 30 Rock is my favorite show is for how it wrote Jack Donaghy. It's clear that the writers don't agree with him on most things, but that didn't stop them from writing favorably for him. The show genuinely understood that it wasn't about whether he was right or wrong in a scenario. It was about how he viewed a scenario versus how Liz Lemon viewed it. It's much more interesting that way.

 

The Hunt seems like it's going for something interesting. The antagonists are the liberal elites that the writers clearly agree more with in principle. The protagonists are basically Q-Anon. It walks that idea back though. You see, the only reason the rich liberals decided to hunt humans was because they were being accused of and cancelled for it anyway. And in the laziest bit of writing imaginable, the film's protagonist, Betty Gilpin wasn't the right person. Just someone with the right name. So, don't worry. You haven't actually been rooting for a Right-wing conspiracy theorist the whole time. She's just a regular person (with advanced armed forces training). No need to actually challenge any thoughts here. Those Q-Anon people still can remain abstract principles who you never have to engage with. Also, don't worry, these are clearly crazed 1% liberals, so you don't even have to see yourself in them. I would've taken a "everyone sees the error in their ways" story over this, which washes its hands clean of having to take a stance on anything.

 

Side Rant: The wrong person thing with Betty Gilpin really annoys me because they already built an out for her before that. When the hunters are picking their targets, they get to the person they think Gilpin is and her score is only a 65. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but compared to the others, it's low. They even say she's borderline. Having her be the correct person immediately makes this movie more interesting. For one, it shows the outrage drift where people look at any disagreement as black or white rather than adjusting the anger based on the size of the offense. Secondly, wouldn't it be way more effective for the movie to end with Gilpin's being like "Honestly, I was on the fence about the story originally, but you sure proved me right now"? That makes the point of the movie better than what they actually went with.

 

Finally, this movie does fail on the very thing it promised. The hunt sucks. Like, I know this is a heightened story. I don't need any of it to be plausible. So make the hunt actually thought out. The people being hunted mostly die immediately. Others get picked up by Croatian military quickly. Just have a facility that's difficult to escape. Have the hunters give the huntees the Harrison Bergeron treatment so it isn't a level playing field. Just structure it like a safari hunt. Show the story from both perspectives. Let us get in the heads of everyone. Make it so that even if you removed the political satire, it's still a fun movie about a hunt. For example, without the class commentary in Ready or Not, it's still fun to see the bride turn the tables and try to survive. No one wants a movie that is satire first. Especially if it's not very clever, the jokes are lazy, and no attempt is made to challenge any ideas.

 

I'm actually quite shocked that the ratings for this movie are as high as they are. This feels like a 18% on RottenTomatoes, not a 58%. The C+ CinemaScore seems high as well. I would've thought the switcheroo about the cast deaths early would've turned people off. People hate being tricked. Look at Cabin in the Woods. That's a genuinely great movie and it got a C CinemaScore because people went in thinking it would be a more traditional slasher movie. Why didn't this happen with The Hunt? I try not to read many reviews before writing these reactions, but I'm very curious to see what other people say about this movie. Did they think the hunt part actually was effective? Did they find the satire to be smarter than I did? Perhaps it's a selection bias. Maybe a lot of incisive critics knew it wasn't for them and they left it to the BloodyDisgustings of the world who would give it slightly positive nods for the gore alone. Regardless, I thought this was just about the worst version of the movie possible. 

 

Verdict: Strongly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Slumdog Millionaire

Premise: A poor Indian man improbably becomes a Who Wants to Be a Millionaire champion.

 

I've been unfair to this movie for a lot of years. I looked at its success as taking away from The Dark Knight. And, it is true that Slumdog Millionaire won all the Oscars that year, but The Dark Knight wasn't even nominated. I really should be mad at The Reader instead. Anyway, that snub did lead to the "Dark Knight rule"* the next year, expanding the Best Picture nomination field with its own set of unintended consequences. It wasn't just the Dark Knight thing though that bothered me. Slumdog Millionaire was the last truly dominant Best Picture winner. It won Director, Screenplay, Score, Song, Sound Mixing, Cinematography, and Film Editing. And I think had they known that he was going to stick around this long, they would've nominated Dev Patel too. That puts it in rarified air. Only 7 movies have won more than Oscars than Slumdog Millionaire, and they are almost all classics. When I finally saw Slumdog Millionaire sometime in 2009, I was expecting something a lot better. The movie was fine, but it didn't blow me away. It sort of felt like Oscar voters just feeling guilty about the way poor Indians lived.

 

*The Academy refuses to recognize it by this name, but we know why it happened then.

 

In the years since, I think it's been assumed that I hated the movie since I have all these bugaboos about it. I didn't. Honestly, I barely even remembered it. So, I decided to rewatch it to see how my opinions are changed. However, I remain as indifferent to the movie as before. It's a slightly more accessible City of God, as far as I'm concerned, and the poor street child in India thing has been done better since with another Dev Patel movie: Lion. Slumdog Millionaire is good. As someone who plays weekly pub trivia, I do relate to a story about figuring out how a person knows an answer: the crazier the connection, the better. Dev Patel and Freida Pinto have pretty obvious star potential in it. I appreciate that closing credits song and dance sequence a lot more this time. And there is something amazingly evocative about the title "Slumdog Millionaire". It's a shame that it's taken on a somewhat racist connotation over the years, but I think it would've entered the lexicon regardless of what it's about. That's a great title.

 

So no, I definitely don't hate the movie. I'm just not a huge fan. It's a reasonably effective movie. I think the credits sequence won it the Oscar. That's the part that got me pumped, not the actual ending to the film. That then annoys me, because I wonder why no actual Bollywood films have broken through since then. It still feels a bit like its success is tied to voters being like "Oh my, is that how people really have to live in India?" I know what's not the movie's fault, but it is annoying.

 

The weird thing is, it's hard for me to find an Oscar win I strongly wish went in another direction that year. I don't love any of the other Best Picture nominees. I mean, maybe Milk would've been a nice winner. It would be nice for David Fincher to have a Best Director Oscar, but The Curious Case of Benjamin Button isn't one of my favorites of his. And, if I'm looking at it as a career Oscar, then Danny Boyle has earned it for his career just as much as Fincher. I could possibly argue Doubt for screenplay. But it's not a year where I felt like Slumdog Millionaire's success was taking away from something great. It was just a weak year and it took advantage.

 

In other words, I think I still have the same irritations about Slumdog Millionaire that I had before the rewatch. At least now I know that my indifference to the movie in general is warranted. It's the quickest we've forgotten any Best Picture winner in recent memory.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, & Her Lover

Premise: The wife of a crime boss carries on an affair under his nose at the restaurant he owns.

 

The list of NC-17 rated movies that made real money in the U.S. box office is limited but interesting. They seem to come in two categories: movies that never cared about the MPAA rating and movies that gave up on getting an R-rating. I remember Shame (#9 on the list) working to get the rating down, but the MPAA penis rules are too strict. I don't think Last Tango in Paris (#1 on the list) ever worried about its rating. I suspect Paul Verhoeven never even thought about what the Showgirls (#2) rating would be until he finished it. Given all the TV edits of the film, I'm surprised he didn't agree to an R-cut. Or maybe that would've been impossible, because they'd be left with a 15-minute film. Kids (#5) surely earned street cred with its rating. I've been conditioned to think of NC-17 as one step away from porn, but looking at the list, there are a lot of movies I'm actually pretty curious to see. It's more accurate to say the top NC-17 movies are mostly passion projects that the filmmakers didn't feel like compromising on.

 

I'm pretty sure the only reason I'm aware of The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, & Her Lover is due to its infamy as one of the most successful NC-17 movies. Well, that and the memorable title. I didn't know what to expect from it. Compared to most R movies, the main difference with this movie is that it shows some more penis. Otherwise, it's hard to point to this being any more violent than a Scorsese movie.

 

It's a pretty audacious film. I loved the cinematography and overall look of the movie. Much of the movie is filmed with long panning shots, going left or right across giant soundstage rooms. There are maybe 5 rooms in the entire movie and the whole thing looks like it was shot in a dressed-up airplane hangar. The ceilings are so high and the look is so stagey that I half expected to see stagehands dressed in black to pop in to redress the room for the next scene. It's all very hypnotic: the stylish production design, the patient and steady camera movement, and the operatic music. This movie is so damn confident that I nearly fell in love with it.

There is one big impediment though, and it's not accidental. Michael Gambon as the titular Thief is a lot to deal with. That is an ugly character who won't shut the hell up. His presence is such an assault that, as much as I was transfixed by the rest of the movie, I wanted to turn it off, just to shut him up. That's intentional. The movie is about his comeuppance, and I do have to hate him for it to work. For me, it tips the scales a little too much. It's like salt on my popcorn. I love a lot of salt, but there is a tipping point where it's too much and ruins the whole bowl. That's this movie: delicious popcorn with too much salt.

 

Good cast overall though. Gambon plays the Thief too well, basically. Helen Mirren is nice as the Wife. I forget how much she got naked earlier in her career and how much she likes doing cockney accents. Alan Howard as "Her Lover" is fine. The Cook, Richard Bohringer, isn't as prominent as the title suggests. It was fun seeing some other now familiar faces in smaller roles. Tim Roth is in there. Alex Kingston is a glorified extra, which was very confusing. I kept waiting for her to have more to do, only to remember that she was a 26-year-old nobody at the time this was made.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Quick Reaction: McCabe & Mrs. Miller

For something considered one of the great Westerns, I sure had a hard time getting into this. Warren Beatty and Julie Christie are good in the lead roles. The Robert Altman flourishes are nice. All the Leonard Cohen songs gave it an interesting feel. I'm sure it was a great inversion of the Western genre in 1971. I've seen enough Unforgivens and Deadwoods at this point though that that aspect doesn't seem as fresh. Warren Beatty doesn't disappear into the role as much as I'd like. Even with the big beard he somehow still looked baby-faced. This isn't the era for him. Not a bad movie by any stretch. Just one I couldn't get into. Thus, I continue my search for a favorite Robert Altman movie.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Free State of Jones

Premise: A Mississippi man starts a revolt against the Confederacy in his local county.

 

How do you make a story about a white guy leading a group of slaves and poor farmers in a revolt and not make it come off like a White Savior movie? And what if that white guy is the only movie star in the movie? That's the challenge of a movie like Free State of Jones. It's the passion project of director Gary Ross and covers aspects of the Reconstruction Era South that haven't been that explored in film after a pair of the earliest blockbusters were about it (The Birth of a Nation, Gone With the Wind). The movie is certainly less of a white savior narrative than I thought it would be from trailers. Plenty of prominent supporting roles got to black actors like Mahershala Ali and Gugu Mbatha-Raw. Newton Knight's (Matthew McConaughey) reasons for leading a rebellion aren't painted as purely righteous. While he is anti-slavery, he also fights the Confederacy for economic reasons (troops overtaxing small farms mostly).

 

I think this movie mostly avoids egregious white savior pitfalls. I do wish that it was a bit more of an ensemble, looking through Ali and Mbatha-Raw's eyes more often rather than a late era McConnaisance star movie. My bigger issues were unrelated to that. This movie sort of sputters to the end. After the Civil War has ended, it struggles to shift to a new set of problems that aren't as interesting. The complications of Reconstruction are messy and sometimes discrete. When following an hour of warfare, it's hard to make it feel as immediate onscreen.

 

The flash forwards to his great grandson were an unexpected inclusion. They are clumsily mixed in at times, but they serve as a good reminder of the long tail of this racism. It does miss the mark some though. His great grandson reads as fully white on screen, despite his lineage. So, it turns the civil rights debate into a story about how racism was so bad that two practically white people couldn't even marry. It's strange for the movie to be like "OK, in case all this discrimination against black people doesn't convince you of how bad racism was, look what it did to this guy who looks like he's the captain of a rugby team."

 

I did like the movie overall. It's a different angle for a familiar story. A lot of it was like watching a version of The Patriot that didn't sidestep the whole race discussion. It's a really good cast. I didn't even mention Keri Russell and Sean Bridgers. I'd love to see more movies about this general topic.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Freaks

Premise: A trapeze artist at a carnival tries to marry then murder a dwarf working there who recently came into a lot of money.

 

This is a really fascinating movie to track historically. Over the 90 years since it was made, it's been reassessed many times, but people continue to struggle with how to talk about it. It is a horror movie. The horror is motivated by the physical appearance of the "freaks". Even the kindest view of the movie has to note the freakshow aspect of the movie. Yet, the movie has been noted for its kind treatment of the characters. Even though the theatrical poster had the insulting tagline "Can a full-grown woman truly love a midget?", the content of the movie is very sympathetic to the variously disabled people. I'd love to come to this talking about how evolved I am or whatever, but I'll admit that I paused the movie to watch something else while I was eating. I suck too.

 

I wasn't prepared to see this much nuance in a movie so old. It really does treat all the characters like people, even while the film openly gawks at aspects of them physically. It looks most negatively at the "regular" people who try to take advantage of the others. Apparently, there is a lost 90-minute version of this that pushes the limits more. That would be interesting to see as well. All that matters now is this 64-minute cut that was deemed "less shocking".

 

This is a movie that's more interesting to watch academically than for entertainment. Even at a hair over an hour the story feels padded. Entire sequences only exist to show off what makes one of the people weird. I worry about seeing any unofficial remakes of this, because I suspect they'll feel even more exploitative.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend