Best Supporting Actor 1937: Thomas Mitchell in The Hurricane

Thomas Mitchell received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Dr. Kersaint in The Hurricane.

The Hurricane is a disaster film about a destructive hurricane strikes climatically while a native fugitive Terangi (Jon Hall) tries to escape the authorities to reach his wife (Dorothy Lamour).

I must say it is interesting that Thomas Mitchell was nominated twice, twice as Best Supporting Actor in a John Ford film as a doctor who probably likes his drink just a little too much. I suppose why not have Mitchell is a supportive role as a doctor as it allows him in multiple scenes and Mitchell is an actor who almost always throws a lot of energy into a role. Also why not make him drunk, no one quite plays a drunk like Thomas Mitchell does. Also despite the roles being very very similar Mitchell does not feel like he is just repeating himself in either role.

Mitchell from his very first scene has a serious dedication to the part and brings a much needed weight to the role of the doctor. His opening scene sets the mood as he indicates the loss that will occur later on in the film. Right in Mitchell faces conveys the entire tragedy of the film's finale. His shows a genuine human loss in the doctor's eyes in this moment, as well as his history with the island, a history of a home he once loved, but was all lost in the blink of an eye. It is really a wonderful moment for Mitchell, and it is interesting as Mitchell really shows where the resolution of this man will be in the opening scene of the film.

For the rest of the film Mitchell is almost part of the scenery as the doctor of the strict governor of the region (Raymond Massey). Mitchell basically steals every scene, no that's wrong, Mitchell does not basically, he does steal every scene he is as the doctor. He just a always a perfectly lively and charming presence as the sensible doctor who tries to convince the governor that his strict ways really is not the best way to rule the people of the island. Mitchell as well flawlessly shows the understanding, and intelligence of the doctor. Mitchell manages to make the doctor always the most entertaining, interesting, and intelligent man in any room he is in.

Mitchell does also, despite the limitations on his role, make a character of the doctor who is a drunk for rather different reasons that Josiah Boone. This doctor really is a man, although he knows the people does have some desire for some greater position in life, that makes him drink his days away on the rather limited place of the island. Mitchell shows him not to be an alcoholic like Josiah Boone who was filled with uncertainty, rather Mitchell shows that Doctor Kersaint is really just a drunk since he finds that he just does not have anything better to do. Also it should be said again Mitchell is perfect at playing drunk, somehow he is comical without being over the top and cartoonish.

A great deal of the time Mitchell as the doctor must constantly be the force of wisdom and philosophy in the film. Mitchell does a great job of this actually, especially when these sort of parts can become heavy handed quite easily when in the wrong hands. Mitchell is absolutely the right hands though because there is always just a bit of sly wit behind his jabs at the governor for failing to see the right thing to do. He never makes his passionate pleas or philosophical moments boring, Mitchell always infuses power into these moments because the joy and energy that never ceases in his performance.

Mitchell really shines at the end of the film when The Hurricane finally does strike basically destroying the island. What makes Mitchell so effective here, because like the beginning of the film, he gives a much needed weight to the film but showing a real man in the situation and avoid some of the dodgy acting that can be found in the 30's. He shows the doctor truly go into action in the terrible moment bringing the seriousness of the situation into reality. His best moment comes at the end of the film where most of the actors are showing the aftermath to be bad, but Mitchell manages to really convey just how horrible the event really is. He brings to life this somber man, filled with sadness and pain over the horrendous events that transpired around him. It is in Mitchell's performance that succeeds in bringing to life the tremendous cost of the hurricane. This is very strong work from Mitchell who does far more than support the film, he anchors it.

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 1937: Joseph Schildkraut in The Life of Emile Zola

Joseph Schildkraut won his Oscar from his only Oscar nomination for portraying Captain Alfred Dreyfus in The Life of Emile Zola.

Joseph Schildkraut probably is fights Jack Palance, and Ben Johnson for the shortest performance to win an Oscar. As Captain Alfred Dreyfus first appears well into the film, and even then there is very little of him seen. He barely is even the main focuses of the scenes he is in, but nevertheless Schildkraut still makes an impact with his short performance as Dreyfus. After all although Dreyfus is a little scene character his character's troubles are the focus of the latter part of the film.

Captain Alfred Dreyfus is falsely accused and convicted of being a traitor in the French army basically because he is Jewish. Due to his limited screen time it is essential that we care for Dreyfus the moment we see him, so Schildkraut has his work cut out for him. Schildkraut meets the demands of the part and from his first scene does have a nice warm presence as Dreyfus that we can easily we sympathize with. Although it is only a glimpse, in the glimpse Schildkraut shows an honest family man who absolutely could not be guilty of anything especially not being a traitor his country.

Schildkraut brings us into Dreyfus's terrible struggle to convince people of his innocence. Schildkraut gives an entirely honest performance showing that pain, and disbelief that Dreyfus is going through. Schildkraut is absolutely heart wrenching when he is being stripped of rank, because his cries of "I am Innocent" are cries of a man desperately pleading to be believed and have his life returned to him. Schildkraut gives a passionate and moving portrait of Dreyfus in just these few moments.

Schildkraut continues to be effective as Dreyfus is being imprisoned and the sadness overwhelms him from what has happened to him. It would be common for many actors of this period to be completely unbelievable or over the top, but Schilkraut always gives a truthful performance. In just a few small reaction shots Schildkraut conveys the utter devastation of Dreyfus that has come from his imprisonment. There is not a false moment in this portrayal.

Dreyfus is finally proven innocent and released. Schildkraut is again given very little time, but still he manages to convey so well the relief, and happiness Dreyfus feels. He doesn't overplay it, but portrays the reality of this man's hope finally being rewarded. This is a good performance throughout only held by the fact he is barely in the film. It is really amazing though that Schildkraut managed to turn Dreyfus into a moving character in such limited screen time, when he could have easily been almost a non entity.

Read More

The Bastard Sons of Lee Marvin

Last Saturday was the 35th Occasional Doo Dah Parade in Pasadena.  Sort of the anti-Rose Parade.  This is a goofy affair with irreverent floats and bands and attractions.  Typical participants in the past have been the BBQ & Hibachi Marching Grill Team, the Shopping Cart Drill Team, the Bastard Sons of Lee Marvin, the Men of Leisure Synchronized Nap Team, The Marching Lumberjacks, Claude Rains 

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 1937: Roland Young in Topper

Roland Young received his only Oscar nomination for portraying the titular Cosmo Topper in Topper.

Topper tells about a stuffy rich man Topper, who his haunted by the ghosts of his care free acquaintances the Kerbys (Cary Grant, Constance Bennett).

 Roland Young is the very first case of category fraud in Best Supporting Actor as Roland Young is not supporting film. This is rather the indications of the trend that is common which is character actors in lead roles, as well as unassuming characters can commonly find themselves put in the supporting category. The film is titled Topper for a reason as it is about the stuffy Topper being basically forced to be more carefree by his ghostly friends. This is not even a case of secondary male lead, Cary Grant is not even in the film all that much and half the time he is he is only a disembodied voice.

Roland Young whole performance is pretty much made up of him being stuffy and being taken aback by his other worldly friends. The whole point of his performance really is to be funny as the proper man is forced into improper behavior by them. Young certainly is a proper enough man with his demeanor as Topper but Young actually might try to be to realistic as Topper. He is always very to the point, and underplays every situation maybe a little too much. I would rather he wouldn't overact, but maybe in reality Young's Topper is just a bit too stiff.

Not that being is stiff is the incorrect way to portray Topper, that is the point of the character, I just think there probably could have been funnier. It is actually very difficult to do the straight man right, to be comedic without ever seeming to be comedic, but Young does not really accomplish this difficult task. A straight man must somehow have the same comedic energy that matches the comedians, but at the same time never looks like he is having fun, Young certainly does not look like he is having much fun, but the underlying comedic energy never is there.

I don't want to sound too harsh because Young really is not bad as Topper he certainly fits the role, and portrays it without overacting. At the same time though this could have been a truly classic comedic performance with a greater straight man in the role. There is the occasional moment where Young does have a glint of how the performance really should have been but there really are not enough of them. He also is perfectly fine in his portrayal of Topper loosening up.Young is always consistently competent in the role, but he never really makes the part hilarious when it very well could have been.

Read More

Thanks, Mom

My mother, Marilyn, would have been 84 today. She passed away several years ago. A day doesn't go by when I don't miss her and think about her. In addition to everything else she did for me, she is responsible for my career in television.

My partner, David and I were writing spec scripts, going nowhere, not even getting read at most shows. Then one day my mother found herself playing golf

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 1937

And the Nominees Were:

Ralph Bellamy in The Awful Truth

Thomas Mitchell in The Hurricane

Joseph Schildkraut in The Life of Emile Zola

Roland Young in Topper

H.B. Warner in Lost Horizon

Read More

Comedy writers can be bad ass!

In the summer of 1990 I was broadcasting for the Tidewater Tides, the AAA affiliate of the New York Mets. It was a Sunday afternoon game and I had to read a commercial for the Day’s Inn at Military Circle – “Home to the visiting teams of the International League”. I noted that our dreaded rivals, the Columbus Clippers (Yankees ) were coming to town next and said, “Why don’t you call

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 1966: Results

5. Mako in The Sand Pebbles- Mako gives a good realistic performance. His role is limited, and his character is frankly cut off just when he is becoming interesting.

4. James Mason in Georgy Girl- Mason although has a thankless role in many ways gives a charming, and dryly comic performance, that manages to turn his character into an actual man and not just a creep as he easily could have been.

3. Robert Shaw in A Man For All Seasons- If I was giving the award to my favorite actor Shaw would take this, with close competition from Mason. Nevertheless Shaw gives a strong performance in only two scenes realizing Henry VIII's distinct personality marvelously.

2. George Segal in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?- Segal has an extremely thankless role especially compared to the flashiness of the performances around him, but Segal stays true to his part and creates an effective realistic portrait of a man in the strange situation of the film.

1. Walter Matthau in The Fortune Cookie- Walter Matthau stands on top for this with his consistently hilarious performance. Matthau never wastes a moment as his shyster lawyer deriving comedy from every facet of his character and makes the film.

Deserving Performances:
Richard Attenborough in The Sand Pebbles
Richard Crenna in The Sand Pebbles
Lee Van Cleef in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
John Hurt in A Man for All Seasons

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 1966: Robert Shaw in A Man For All Seasons

Robert Shaw received his only Oscar nomination for portraying King Henry VIII in A Man for All Seasons.

I should get it out of the way that Robert Shaw is one of my favorite actors. I have loved him in every performance of his that I have seen so far. It is one of the biggest mistakes by the academy that Shaw was only nominated once, frankly he should have been nominated at least for 73 for the Sting, 74 for The Taking Pelham One Two Three, and 75 for Jaws. If Shaw had won for any of those three great performances of his than he would have been a terrific winner. Unfortunately Shaw was only nominated once for portraying the most popular Oscar character ever King Henry VIII.

Henry was previously portrayed by Charles Laughton, and later by Richard Burton who both were nominated in the lead category for their performances as the English King. Although Burton and Shaw both portray Henry at the same time in his life, when he took over the church to marry Anne Boleyn, his portrayal has more in common with Laughton's work than Burton's excessively over the top and sometimes unconvincing performance in Anne of the Thousand Days. Shaw like Laughton focuses on the sort of the spoiled brat personality one can develop over having been given anything he has ever wanted in life as well as being able to do anything he has ever wanted to do.

Unlike Laughton though Shaw is supporting and only has three scenes in which he appears one very very briefly  from far away, but his second scene certainly is his most important. The moment comes as Henry unexpectedly comes to visit his new chancellor Thomas Moore (Paul Scofield) to see if Moore has changed his mind over Henry's decision to marry Anne Boleyn. Shaw knows how to portray Henry and from his first moment coming in through the shine of the sun you know that this man is King. Shaw has an undeniable presence on screen which he exploits perfectly as Henry. There is no question this man is charge his voice his broad manner, Shaw makes Henry a man of absolute sway.

Shaw has a childlike enthusiasm in the role which absolutely represents his portrayal of Henry. He is always childish which Shaw turns into a believable trait of Henry that suggests his history as always a man of wealth and power. Shaw always shows Henry always showing his power pretty much just for fun at times, of course he can act loud, even obnoxious whenever he wants. Shaw shows that Henry is always aware of the fact that he can act this way and no one can say anything about it. Shaw has a constant fun loving quality that is perfect for the immaturity in Henry. Interestingly though Shaw successfully always brings an undercurrent of threatening instability in Henry.

Shaw is terrific in his scene with Scofield as the two men talk over the pressing issue of the marriage and the troubles with church. Shaw is great as he constantly tries to stay friendly as Henry in the scene. He always has a certain smile and warmth toward Thomas that shows that they certainly are friends, but Shaw has just the right degree of uncertainty in his performance to show that Henry knows his friend might not be on his side for once. Shaw is particularly great when he goes on the attack, but it is fast and almost unexpected as his look goes from the of friendship to hatred just from the mentioning of the former chancellor who Henry feels betrayed him. It is a careful simple threat to Thomas which he darts in the middle of the conversation between the warmth, Shaw pulls this off flawlessly.

After this Shaw has one more scene at the wedding with he and Anne Boleyn. Again Shaw is superb in showing the lust in Henry's eyes he has for his eyes. There is passion, and an obvious expectations of much pleasure for himself in just this short moment, which Shaw pulls of brilliantly. Frankly Shaw shows more depth for this relationship with Anne in his single scene than Richard Burton did in the whole of Anne of the Thousand Days. At the end of the scene though he is interrupted as he thinks he sees Thomas. A short moment but an effective one showing that really Henry really did believe Thomas was a friend, and desperately wanted his friend to see things his way.

Shaw is truly quite great in this basically two scene performance. He completely realizes Henry VIII as a character in the film. In his two scenes he seizes control and shows the power of Henry creating the proper impact on the film he needs to. In his few moments he flawlessly creates the antagonist of the film who is almost always working his will off screen and through other men. I actually with there had been more of his Henry VIII. After watching his performance here I actually wish Shaw had gotten a film where he had been the lead as Henry VIII because of what he does with the character despite his extremely limited time. In any case this is a terrific supporting turn that more than fulfills his duties as King Henry.

Read More

My Nerdist Writers Panel podcast is now up

Hello, from Santa Barbara where I'm speaking at a writers conference at UCSB.  Last month I participated in a very worthwhile program -- the Nerdist Writers Panel.   On the panel with me was Bill Lawrence (SCRUBS, COUGAR TOWN), and Richard Hatem (GRIMM).   It was a GREAT session.  Everyone was funny and informative -- even me at times.  

The podcast of that session is now available along with

Read More

Does Frasier make too much money?

Friday Questions sometimes spark much  heated debate. Such is the case with our first Q. This was originally posted last Friday in the comments section (where you should file yours). Many responses followed. Join the fun.
Craig asked the lightening rod question.

How is Frasier so wealthy??
He seems to spend at will and is never wanting for anything. He is a semi successful radio guy,

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 1966: Walter Matthau in The Fortune Cookie

Walter Matthau won his Oscar from his first nomination for portraying William 'Whiplash Willie' Gingrinch in The Fortune Cookie.

The Fortune Cookie tells about a football cameraman Harry Hinkle (Jack Lemmon) who is tackled on the field, and reluctantly agrees to fake severe injury to make money from a liability suit started by his shyster lawyer brother in law. 

I do not want to be misunderstood from my first two reviews of Walter Matthau's lead performances that were nominated. One which I really did not care for and the other I thought was only okay. I like Walter Matthau, but he strangely was only nominated in the lead when he played a character much much older than himself for whatever reason, and I am not crazy about Matthau old man mannerisms which strangely drove both of those performances. Walter Matthau though here portrays a character that is suppose to be basically his actual age, and there are no unneeded mannerisms to be seen.

Matthau portrays the brother in law shyster lawyer who pushes hard for the lawsuit. Walter Matthau has sometimes been argued as a lead in this film, and there certainly can be a case for that as he is the driving force of the film, and there are plenty of scenes where he is the central character. I do not mind this placement though as there is another identifiable lead in Jack Lemmon, and there are certainly many scenes where Matthau does not appear. He could really be placed in either category and I really would not mind. I really do not mind though because part of the reason Matthau even stands out the most in scenes where he is not even the focus is because just how good he is as Whiplash Willie.

Matthau is another Oscar winning performance that disputes the idea that the academy never rewards comedic performance, or at least never rewards straightly comedic performances. As with the likes of Peter Ustinov's second win, and Kevin Kline's win, Matthau is another winner who never stops going for laughs with his performance.  Matthau absolutely makes the film with his performances as the lawyer who comes up with the trumped up lawsuit to make himself rich. Matthau never tries for a moment to show that old Willie is anything more than a shyster, he wants to make a buck and that is all there is to right down the line.

Matthau simply is hilarious in the role from beginning to end. From his first scene Matthau is comedic gold as the rather amoral lawyer. Much of the humor that comes from his performance are some of his small reactions especially his brilliant look he makes after hearing that Lemmon's character had a previous injury that he could use for his own purposes in a new lawsuit. Matthau has a perfect devilish smile here as Willie that shows Willie's way of finding someway to benefit and exploit just about anything that comes his way anyway that he can. Even though Willie is completely amoral Matthau can't help but make Willie likable, there is just something absolutely endearing about Matthau's portrayal.

Matthau has a constant energy in the role that makes him the best part of every scene, even when has only a couple of lines Matthau still steals the scene, that is simply how enjoyable he is as Willie. Every moment Matthau is an enthusiastic presence and coming out with a terrific line, or reaction every chance he gets. Matthau is hilarious in his whole realization of every part of Willie's plan in every advance and set back Matthau never stops being funny in showing every trick that Willie has up his sleeve. What I like about Matthau's performance is that he always shows that Willie is the smartest man always in the room, even if he uses his intelligence so poorly.

I must say actually that I don't know if Matthau are a great pair actually since in both this and the Odd Couple Matthau absolutely steals the show, not that Lemmon is bad he is good as well actually, but Matthau definitely is the one that you remember from their scenes together. I suppose it really is not Lemmon's fault so much here because Matthau absolutely controls their scenes together, and I suppose one could attest it to Matthau just being absolutely on in his performance here. Matthau never has a wasted scene, or moment in his performance every scene he brings the humor he needs to in the role. As I watched the film I only wanted more of Matthau as Willie he just that entertaining in the role. It is a great performance that always succeeds.

Read More

The speech that launched our career

My writing partner and I were bouncing around trying to get freelance assignments early in our career. We were pitching and writing any show we could get. We got hired to write a back-up script for a pilot that didn’t go. We did two episodes of a series that was canceled in five weeks. But then we lucked out and got a MASH assignment. It was the episode where a gas heater blows up and

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 1966: George Segal in Who Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

George Segal received his only Oscar nomination so far for portraying Nick in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?.

George Segal has really the thankless role of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. There are the two bickering alcoholic, and pratically certifiably insane Martha (Elizabeth Taylor), and George (Richard Burton), than there is Nick's wife Honey (Sandy Dennis) who gets to go quite off her rocker after she drinks too much. All three of those get to constantly show off and attempt to upstage each other at every turn, George Segal as Nick though is calmest and the sanest of them all. He never becomes raving drunk, or just plain raving. Segal has to be the straight man of the film, he always stays as the most sensible of the four even though he gets deep into the dark web created by Martha and George.

Nick is a new professor of the college where George has long been, and Martha is the daughter of the president of the University. He and his wife visit Martha and George after a faculty party for a night of drinking and some terrible games. In these early scenes, particularly when he first walks in, Segal shows what would probably be the reaction of any normal person witnessing Martha and George first hand. He perfectly conveys the very awkward feelings Nick has over the entire situation. He has the whole embarrassment, discomfort as one would expect, but as well an attempt to pleasant and outgoing with his college, and the daughter of his new boss.

Segal shows that Nick is in just one unpleasant situation from beginning to end and really does not know exactly how to respond to Martha and George. Early on Segal has Nick desperately trying to be a pleasant guest joking at Martha's jokes at George's expense as well as trying to be friendly at the same time with George as they have a "pleasant" conversation with one another. Segal never tries to upstage Burton as George, nor should he since Nick is really in way over his head with the man. Instead Segal portrays a entirely realistic portrait of a man dealing with an intellectual lunatic. Segal in his own way does match Burton's performance not by trying to be his equal but instead properly keep Nick as the rather confused man he should be.

His and Burton's scenes together are quite effective because Segal shows Nick really trying to have some sort of friendship or camaraderie with this man by telling about his personal story particularly about he and his wife. Segal shows Nick trying desperately to be casual with George, and the two do have a particular dynamic that works well. Segal always acts the fool in a completely realistic fashion, and not by showing that Nick is dumb, but that he simply is not George. He honestly shows a man just trying to be friendly never even suspecting the fact that the man he is talking to is only measuring and looking for weaknesses in him to exploit later if needed.

Another pivotal aspect of his performance though in his depiction of Nick's relationship with his wife. He and Dennis really do not have a great chemistry so to speak, it is not obvious that they should be together, instead the two actors show that it is obvious that they are have been forced to be together. There actually interactions are always short and always take a backseat to Martha and George but the two actors do realize Nick, and Honey's troubled history incredibly well. Segal does show that Nick does have affection for his wife, but there is always a constant frustrations within his portrayal. Segal shows that these frustrations perfectly represent the pains Nick feels over the lack of a strong basis for their marriage. Segal never overplays the trouble in the marriage instead, again, realistically presents an undercurrent of regret in Nick over his imperfect marriage.

Segal actually is quite good throughout the film as Nick is slowly worn down by night with Martha and George, and by drink. Segal is effective in portraying Nick drunkenness. He really is perfect actually because he honestly portrays through the night the way the drink wears down on Nick. He never for a moment overplays this instead going all the way through showing a man becoming sick by drink. Segal is always excellent in showing Nick's frustrations with the night as he recognizes he is basically being used by Martha and George. He again acts a beacon of reality in the film emphasizes the complete distress of learning the truth of the two as well as having had to be used by both of them as well. At the end of the film Nick is his own sort of mess that Segal realizes. Nick is over his head the entire film, and it has its very own effect on his that ends well in depression and frustration. This is strong work by George Segal, Nick is the least flashy part, but Segal still makes his own memorable impression in the film, by being the only person who seems to keep his head on his shoulders, and even he comes close to losing it. It is his down the line realistic performance that absolutely has the right dynamic within the group and really makes the film work.

Read More

Google and Facebook piss me off!

Playwright and theater director, George S. Kaufman went back to see a musical he had directed some months before. Afterwards, he sent a note to the cast that read: Rehearsal tomorrow at 10 AM to remove all the improvements.

Can I send the same note to Blogger? And Facebook?

Warning:  I'm cranky. 

Recently, Blogger (operated by Google) flipped to a new interface. Why? I didn’t ask

Read More

Best Supporting Actor 1966: Mako in The Sand Pebbles

Mako received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Po-han in The Sand Pebbles.

It is strange that Mako was the one who received the nomination for this film and not Richard Attenborough who gives a very memorable performance as a U.S. Navy mate who begins a tragic relationship with a native woman in China, and even won the golden globe for his performance. I suppose the academy just has never cared for Attenborough as an actor for some strange reason. Instead they chose to nominate Mako in his role as Po-han one of the Chinese who work in the engine room on the ship.

Po-han is just one of the Chinese who work on the ship until Steve McQueen's machinist Holman takes him under his wing. Mako is fine early on showing a sympathetic face to Holman. He just wants to help Holman unlike some of the other Chinese who like to do things their way. Most of his early scenes make of just small reactions of concern, and surprise while dealing with Holman. Mako is entirely realistic, but really he does not make too much of an impression either.

After Holman brings him under his wing Mako gets some more substantial scenes such as when Holman teaches him to run the ship's engine. Mako again is appropriately realistic, and is actually quite effective in showing Po-han's learning. He also has a low key charm in his performance that does make Po-han endearing in his own small way. This is still not incredible work by Mako but it is absolutely solid since it fulfills the role completely.

Mako continues his portrayal in the same fashion as Po-han boxes one of the racist men on the ship. He is again good, properly realistic, and we can easily sympathize with him through Mako's likable portrayal. Again it is not a whole lot but it also is all that the film asks of him. Po-han is not a tremendous role, but Mako really is perfect in the role.

 He does his very best to be a character not just a stereotype as he easily could have been, and we most certainly feel for him all too well in his final scene. It is a good supporting performance not the best in the film, and certainly not the most memorable. After all Mako gets cut off just as his character is really becoming interesting, nevertheless Mako does absolutely fulfill his role, and deserves credit for doing so.

Read More

My response to your respone on VEEP

Some great non-partisan debate on today’s post. Thanks so much for all the comments. Let me respond to your responses.

I still believe it’s necessary to reveal which side of the aisle the Veep is on, not so much because I want the show to be about issues but because it really helps us define her character. Republicans and Democrats have very different worldviews. And you could say, yes,

Read More

My vote on VEEP