Really tired of “Impeachment is useless because it will fail” takes. Impeachment will succeed. REMOVAL will failbut that's on Republicans. At least the Democrats will have done their job and made their case.— Mark Harris (@MarkHarrisNYC) September 22, 2019
High Crimes, High Time
“Trump has already done more than enough to warrant impeachment and removal with his relentless attempts, on multiple fronts, to sabotage the counterintelligence and criminal investigation by then-special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and to conceal evidence of those attempts. ...
”The current whistleblowing allegations, however, are even worse. Unlike the allegations of conspiracy with Russia before the 2016 election, these concern Trump's actions as president, not as a private citizen, and his exercise of presidential powers over foreign policy with Ukraine. Moreover, with Russia, at least there was an attempt to get the facts through the Mueller investigation; here the White House is trying to shut down the entire inquiry from the start — depriving not just the American people, but even congressional intelligence committees, of necessary information.
“It is high time for Congress to do its duty, in the manner the framers intended. ... Congressional procrastination has probably emboldened Trump, and it risks emboldening future presidents who might turn out to be of his sorry ilk. To borrow John Dean's haunting Watergate-era metaphor once again, there is a cancer on the presidency, and cancers, if not removed, only grow.”
George Conway and Neal Katyal, “Trump has done plenty to warrant impeachment. But the Ukraine allegations are over the top,” in The Washington Post
'I Cannot Imagine a More Corrupt Act...'
I cannot imagine a more corrupt act than a President of the United States urging a foreign nation to investigate a private citizen because that person is the son of a political rival.— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) September 20, 2019
And if he promised military aid in exchange - it is off-the charts mind-blowing.
The Wall Street Journal broke the story this afternoon. Apparently on July 25, Trump, talking by phone to Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky, pushed him to aggressively investigate Hunter Biden, the son of presidential candidate Joe Biden, who once served as a board member on a Ukrainian energy company. He wanted dirt to use against Biden in the 2020 campaign. Maybe he wants it to make sure Biden won't be the candidate?
From the Washington Post:
The call is part of a broader set of facts included in the whistleblower complaint that is at the center of a showdown between the executive branch and Congress, with officials in the Trump administration refusing to divulge any information about the substance of an Aug. 12 report to the inspector general of the U.S. intelligence community.
Early Twitter reaction:
- Clint Watts: Seems we went from “No Collusion” to “All Collusion, All The Time”
- Norman Ornstein: This is impeachable now. Right now.
- Susan Hennessey: Either they impeach him for this or the constitutional remedy no longer exists.
- Kurt Eichenwald: If @ODNIgov Joseph Maguire refuses at a committee hearing to turn over the whistleblower report as required under #TitleVIIofPublicLawNo105272, @RepAdamSchiff must request the House Sergeant at Arms to immediately take Maguire into custody.
- Seth Abramson: Any Democratic politician who hems or haws in response to today's breaking news and suggests that the actions described would *not*, if proven true, be impeachable on at least five grounds is not a politician who believes in or is willing to support the rule of law in America.
Sadly, the Dem response has been weak. Again:
The Trump Admin is clearly violating federal statute by blocking the head of US Intelligence from providing Congress with a whistleblower complaint described as being of "urgent concern & credible.” The stonewalling must end. What is the President hiding? https://t.co/Yg0LqT5HMd— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) September 20, 2019
The problem is twofold: A hugely corrupt president and political party (the GOP), and an opposition unwilling to fight.
Elsewhere, around the world, kids are marching to bring attention and action to man-made climate change.
‘Only in America’
“You have an industry that was run by Jews, censored by Catholics, with an audience of Protestants. ... Only in America.”
Steven Ross, USC history professor, in the 2007 documentary “The Brothers Warner,” on the early days of Hollywood. Unfortunately, “Brothers” is a tiresome doc, since it's written-directed by Cass Warner, Harry's granddaughter, and is too much about burnishing the family rep. I could only watch about a third of it. But Ross is good as a talking head.
Baseball Team WAR: The Answers
Yankees' Mr. October, yes. Yankees' Mr. WAR? Less.
Yesterday I posted nine questions about baseball team-related WAR. Here are the answers. If you'd rather check out the questions first, without the answers, go to yesterday's post.
1. Two active players lead their current team’s all-time WAR chart—meaning, in theory, they‘re the most valuable player that team has ever had. One of them is Mike Trout with the Angels. Who is the other?
Clayton Kershaw of the Los Angeles Dodgers. That's what started this whole deep dive into bWAR. I was like, “Wait, so, by this measure, Kershaw is the best player in the long history of the Dodgers/Robins/Superbas? That covers a lot of ground.” (Insert Groucho joke.) But yes, according to the Dodgers BR team page, he's at 67.7 bWAR, which is a tick better than previous record-holder Don Drysdale's 67.1. Pee Wee Reese(!) is third (66.3), followed by Duke Snider (65.7) and Jackie Robinson (61.4). Sandy Koufax is ninth. Short career. Brief moment in the sun.
2. Two other active players are the all-time WAR leaders for an MLB team but not the one they’re currently playing for. Name them.
Evan Longoria for the Rays (49.8) and Giancarlo Stanton for the Marlins (35.5). Stanton's is the lowest WAR for any best franchise player, Longoria's second-lowest. Every other team has at least one player who accumulated 50+ WAR for them.
3. Which player in baseball history accumulated the most WAR for one team?
Walter Johnson of the Washington Senators/Minnesota Twins franchise with 164.3. Second is Willie Mays with the NY/SF Giants with 154.8. No one else is above 150.
4. Which player has the most overall WAR but didn't make the top 5 for any one team?
It's gotta be a great player who divided his time (and loyalties) between teams, right? And it is: Alex Rodriguez. He's 16th all-time in WAR with 117.8 but it's divided between the Mariners (38.1), Rangers (25.5), and Yankees (54.2). His Mariners WAR is sixth-best on that franchise, Rangers is 14th-best, Yankees 11th-best. BTW: The answer was nearly Cy Young, who is third all-time with 163.6, but most of that for a team/franchise that doesn't exist: the National League Cleveland Spiders. But he accumulated enough bWAR in eight seasons with the Red Sox (66.5) to tie Dwight Evans for fifth place. (Oh, and here's the story of my encounter with A-Rod.)
5. Thirty-one players in baseball history have accumulated 100+ WAR but only 15 managed to do so for one team. Which team has the most such 100+ WAR players? Hint: It's not the Yankees.
It's the New York/San Francisco Giants: Willie Mays (154.8), Barry Bonds (112.5), Mel Ott (107.8) and Christy Mathewson (104.0). The Yankees have three: Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle. Braves two: Hank Aaron and Kid Nichols. Senators/Twins, Tigers, Cards, BoSox, Pirates and Phillies each have one. See the chart below.
6. This is a bit convoluted. If you count the top 5 players in terms of WAR for each of the 30 MLB franchises—so 150 slots in all—only two names appear twice. One has the fourth-most WAR for one team and fifth-most for another. The second player has the most WAR for one franchise and the fifth-most for another. Name them.
Eddie Collins accumulated the fourth-most WAR in White Sox history (66.7) and fifth-most in A's history (57.3). And Randy Johnson has the fifth-most for the Mariners (39.0) and the most for the Arizona Diamondbacks (50.9).
7. Which player has the highest WAR for any expansion franchise?
George Brett's 88.7 WAR for the KC Royals is the best on any expansion franchise.
8. Here's a few for the Yankee fans and/or haters: Of the 22 numbers the team has retired, and excluding managers (Billy, Casey, Torre), who accumulated the least amount of WAR while in pinstripes?
Ready? It's Mr. October, Reggie Jackson. He managed 17.2 WAR in his five seasons with the Bronx Bombers. Second is Roger's Maris' 26.3. Both obviously had their numbers retired for other reasons: 61 for Maris, 3 for Reggie.
BTW: Haven't run the numbers yet, so take it with a grain of salt, but I assume the player who accumulated the least amount of WAR for a team and still had his number retired is Wade Boggs' two-year, end-of-career stint with the Tampa Bay Rays. His WAR for them was 1.2. Which kind of matches his #12 that they sadly retired.
9. Now reverse it: Which player accumulated the most amount of WAR for the Yankees but never had their number retired? Who's second?
Pitcher Red Ruffing tallied 57.3 bWAR for the Yankees from 1931 to 1946, which is the eighth-most in Yankees history—better than, among others, Whitey Ford, Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettite and Ron Guidry. But they didn't retire numbers much back then. Gehrig's was the first in MLB history, in 1939, and the Yankees did about one a decade after that: Ruth in ‘48, DiMaggio in ’52, Mantle in ‘69. Then it was off to the races; but Ruffing was generally overlooked. Plus the number he wore for most of his Yankee career, #15, was retired in 1979 when Thurman Munson died in a plane crash.
As for second-most Yankees WAR with no retired number? That’s A-Rod again. Unless attitudes toward him soften, I imagine A-Rod will be the greatest modern player to never have his number retired by any team he played on.
Here's a chart of the top three players in terms of bWAR in each MLB team's history, as sorted by first player WAR. Some head-scratchers in there:
|TEAM||PLAYER 1||WAR||PLAYER 2||WAR||PLAYER 3||WAR|
|Minnesota Twins||Walter Johnson||164.3||Rod Carew||63.8||Harmon Killebrew||60.5|
|San Francisco Giants||Willie Mays||154.8||Barry Bonds||112.5||Mel Ott||107.8|
|Detroit Tigers||Ty Cobb||144.8||Al Kaline||92.8||Charlie Gehringer||80.7|
|Atlanta Braves||Hank Aaron||142.5||Kid Nichols||107.2||Warren Spahn||98.9|
|New York Yankees||Babe Ruth||142.4||Lou Gehrig||112.4||Mickey Mantle||110.3|
|St. Louis Cardinals||Stan Musial||128.2||Rogers Hornbsby||91.4||Bob Gibson||89.1|
|Boston Red Sox||Ted Williams||123.1||Carl Yastrzemski||96.4||Roger Clemens||80.8|
|Pittsburgh Pirates||Honus Wagner||120.1||Roberto Clemente||94.5||Paul Waner||68.2|
|Philadelphia Phillies||Mike Schmidt||106.8||Robin Roberts||71.7||Steve Carlton||69.4|
|Baltimore Orioles||Cal Ripken Jr.||95.9||Brooks Robinson||78.4||Jim Palmer||68.4|
|Kansas City Royals||George Brett||88.7||Kevin Appier||47.0||Amos Otis||40.8|
|Chicago Cubs||Cap Anson||84.7||Ron Santo||72.1||Ryne Sandberg||68.1|
|Cleveland Indians||Nap Lajoie||80.0||Tris Speaker||74.2||Bob Feller||63.4|
|Houston Astros||Jeff Bagwell||79.9||Craig Biggio||65.5||Jose Cruz||51.4|
|New York Mets||Tom Seaver||78.8||David Wright||50.4||Dwight Gooden||46.3|
|Cincinnati Reds||Pete Rose||78.1||Johnny Bench||75.2||Barry Larkin||70.4|
|Oakland Athletics||Eddie Plank||77.4||Rickey Henderson||72.7||Lefty Grove||64.9|
|Milwaukee Brewers||Robin Yount||77.3||Paul Molitor||60.0||Ryan Braun||47.7|
|Chicago White Sox||Luke Appling||74.5||Ted Lyons||70.7||Frank Thomas||68.3|
|Los Angeles Angels||Mike Trout||72.6||Chuck Finley||51.8||Jim Fregosi||45.9|
|Seattle Mariners||Ken Griffey Jr.||70.6||Edgar Martinez||68.4||Ichiro Suzuki||56.2|
|San Diego Padres||Tony Gwynn||69.2||Dave Winfield||32.0||Jake Peavy||26.8|
|Los Angeles Dodgers||Clayton Kershaw||67.7||Don Drysdale||67.1||Pee Wee Reese||66.3|
|Colorado Rockies||Todd Helton||61.2||Larry Walker||48.3||Troy Tulowitzki||39.4|
|Toronto Blue Jays||Dave Stieb||56.7||Roy Halladay||48.0||Tony Fernandez||37.5|
|Washington Nationals||Gary Carter||55.8||Tim Raines||49.2||Andre Dawson||48.4|
|Arizona Diamondbacks||Randy Johnson||50.9||Paul Goldschmidt||40.3||Brandon Webb||31.1|
|Texas Rangers||Ivan Rodriguez||50.1||Rafael Palmeiro||44.6||Adrian Beltre||43.2|
|Tampa Bay Rays||Evan Longoria||49.8||Ben Zobrist||36.0||Carl Crawford||35.6|
|Miami Marlins||Giancarlo Stanton||35.5||Hanley Ramirez||26.9||Josh Johnson||25.7|
Let me know if you notice any errors.
Baseball Team WAR: The Quiz
Over the weekend I did a deep dive into the team pages of Baseball Reference. I like their team pages. At the top, they list all the numbers retired by that team (Mariners have two, Edgar and Junior, while the Yankees lead the pack with 22, which I won't bother to list here), as well as the best players in that franchise's history by bWAR (Wins Above Replacement as calculated by Baseball Reference). Babe Ruth, for example, is tops on the Yankees team page, but not with his overall WAR (182.4), just the WAR he accumulated with the Yankees (142.6). The rest he accumulated with the Boston Red Sox as both hitter and pitcher (19.3 and 20.6), and with the Boston Braves in his final truncated season after the Yankees cut him loose (-0.1).
You get the idea.
Anyway, I was on one team's page and I was surprised by who led that team in WAR. It was an active players for original-16 team. It made me wonder how many active players have accumulated the most WAR in their team's history.
That's the thought that led to the deep dive. It also led to these trivia questions. I‘ll post answers tomorrow.
- Two active players lead their current team’s all-time WAR chart—meaning, in theory, they‘re the most valuable player that team has ever had. One of them is Mike Trout with the Angels. Who is the other?
- HINT: It’s an NL team.
- HINT: He made his MLB debut in 2008.
- Two other active players are the all-time WAR leaders for an MLB team but not the one they‘re currently playing for. Name them.
- HINT: One started in the AL, won rookie of the year, and now plays for an NL team.
- HINT: The other started in the NL, was a recent MVP, and now plays for an AL team.
- Which player in baseball history accumulated the most WAR for one team?
- HINT: The franchise is no longer in the same city, nor has the same name, as when he pitched for them.
- Which player has the most overall WAR but didn’t make the top 5 for any one team?
- HINT: He played for three teams—all in the American League.
- HINT: I once had a memorable run-in with him. Well, memorable to me.
- Thirty-one players in baseball history have accumulated 100+ WAR but only 15 managed to do so for one team. Which team has the most such 100+ WAR players?
- HINT: It's not the Yankees.
- HINT: They switched cities in the 20th century.
- This is a bit tough and convoluted. If you count the top 5 players in terms of WAR for each of the 30 MLB franchises—so 150 slots in all—only two names appear twice. One has the fourth-most WAR for one team and fifth-most for another. The second player has the most WAR for one franchise and the fifth-most for another. Name them.
- HINT: One player began his career in the first decade of the 20th century, and the other ended his career in the first decade of the 21st century.
- HINT: The modern player is a pitcher.
- Which player has the highest WAR for any expansion franchise?
- The team is tied for the most World Series titles by any expansion franchise.
- Here's a few for the Yankee fans and/or haters: Of the 22 numbers the team has retired, and excluding managers (Billy, Casey, Torre), who accumulated the least amount of WAR while in pinstripes?
- HINT: His number is also retired by another team.
- HINT: The two retired numbers aren't the same.
- Now reverse it: Which player accumulated the most amount of WAR for the Yankees but never had their number retired? Who's second?
- HINT: The first player's most-used number was retired by the Yankees for another player in the 1970s.
- HINT: The second player had to switch numbers when he joined the Yankees, because the iconic number he wore had long been retired by the Yankees.
See you tomorrow.
UPDATE: Here are the answers .
Movie Review: Other Men's Women (1931)
Apparently they were down with OPP in the 1930s, too. At least at Warner Bros.
In the clunkily titled “Other Men’s Women,” Loretta Young-elopee Grant Withers plays Bill White, a raconteur for the railroad who has a girl in every station. We first see him stepping off a slow-moving train and ducking into a station diner for three eggs and double entendres with the waitress. He’s counting all the while. Counting what? Double entendres? No. Train cars, we soon realize. So he knows when to get back on board. Like a lot of early Warner Bros. leads, he also has a catchphrase. Offering a stick of gum, he says “Have a little chew on me.” He must say it 10 times in the first 10 minutes.
He also drinks too much, carouses, and is tossed out of his flat by a stuttering female landlord, whose stutter he makes fun of. Plus he’s trying to avoid Marie (Joan Blondell), one of his dames. Not sure why.
Good news: His colleague Jack (Regis Toomey) has offered to let him stay at his place, further out of town, with his wife, Lily (Mary Astor of “Maltese Falcon” fame), and a handyman, Peg-Leg (J. Farrell MacDonald), who, yes, has a literal peg leg. At one point Peg-Leg and Lily are arguing over who should use the shovel to turn the earth for her sweet-pea garden. Peg-Leg wants to help but can’t really use the shovel, which is about when Bill offers his services. Then we see the result: Bill turning the earth, Peg-Leg following behind and poking a hole in the ground, into which Lily plants her seeds. Everyone is useful. Nice scene.
Bad news: The longer he stays the more he and Lily flirt; and one day, when Jack is gone, she’s sewing a button onto his shirt, he feigns to dance with her, and we get this exchange.
Bill: Say, I think you‘re the swellest girl in the world.
Lily: Oh, you’re a dear. And just for that I'm gonna give you a little kiss.
At which point both suddenly realize the depths of their longing for each other. She moves off, he pesters, he grabs and demands to know how she feels, she admits, they kiss.
And to think, it all began with “Say, I think you’re the swellest girl in the world.” Sign of a true lothario: making that line work.
When Jack returns, he senses something wrong—his wife is pale and Bill isn’t around. In fact, he’s already fled. But they’re still colleagues, so Jack sees him. By the time Bill confesses to kissing Lily, Jack thinks it’s worse. They fight, Jack gets the worst of it, and his head hits a rail. Result?
“He’s blind,” Lily says. “Stone blind.”
Now we’re in melodrama territory. A character can’t go blind—let alone stone blind—at the end of the second act without it being a melodrama.
As for the final act? Bill is still working on the railroad, now partnering with his friend Ed (James Cagney, fourth-billed in his third film), when the rains come. A flood might wash away the bridge, so Bill decides to take a train, loaded with cement, and drive it onto the bridge to weigh it down. Or something. Ah, but Jack overhears and stumbles to do the job himself. Now they’re fighting over who gets to sacrifice himself. Jack, blinded, wins this one. He drives the train onto the bridge, a wave comes, the bridge collapses, there goes that.
To sum up, Jack lets Bill stay at his place, and Bill repays him by:
- cuckolding him
- blinding him
- floating the idea that kills him
You’d think this wouldn’t lead to a happy ending but you’d be underestimating Hollywood’s capacity for such things. At the end, we get a refrain of the opening. Train pulls up, Bill, counting cars, goes into EATS, and now Lily is there, too. They’re happy to see each other. They make small talk. She asks him to come see her sometime. He makes it back to the train, and, as he’s running along the top, jumps up and down in excitement.
“Other Men’s Women” was written by playwright/actress Maude Fulton and directed by William “Wild Bill” Wellman. We get a few good shots—like when Jack feels his way toward the train that will lead to his sacrificial death—but no memorable lines. Withers isn’t bad but you get why he didn’t last as a leading man. He played big, and often goofy, and not exactly smoldering. Blondell is underused and Cagney criminally so, but we do get to see him dance lightly across the screen. He and Withers also have a nice bit talking atop the train cars, and, without looking, stooping for low bridges because they know the route so well.
As stated, it’s Cagney third movie role. In his fifth, also for Wellman, they made movie history.
Movie Review: Late Night (2019)
What a disappointment.
I get why screenwriter/star Mindy Kaling created up-and-comer Molly Patel (Kaling), who gets a dream job writing for iconic female late-night host Katherine Newbury (Emma Thompson), since Kaling was an intern for Conan O’Brien and the sole woman and person of color on the writing staff of “The Office” back in 2005. She knows this stuff.
I just don’t get why the female late-night host. If Kaling was a rarity in writing rooms, Newbury didn’t exist. Not in the early ’90s, when her show supposedly started, and not today, when all the late-night slots are taken by Stephen, Seth, two Jimmys and a James. If you’re riffing on the sexism of the industry, as this movie does, why create a character that makes the industry seem progressive in comparison?
And why make her British? And starchy and out-of-touch? Yes, apparently off-camera Johnny Carson was abrupt and unavailable, but on-camera he was the epitome of sly charm—and we don’t see that from Newbury. Yes, Carson got famously out-of-touch near the end of his 30-year reign, leading to Dana Carvey’s blistering “I did not know that ... Wild, weird stuff...” imitation, so I guess that’s a good avenue to explore, but you need the other elements. You need someone who seems funny. Was Ellen DeGeneres too busy for the role? Lily Tomlin? How about Julia Louis-Dreyfus or Tina Fey—aged 10 years? Thompson’s a pro but I saw nothing about her character that would make me think she’d been a national comic treasure for almost 30 years.
Not very PC
I must’ve seen the trailer a zillion times during the Seattle International Film Festival. It was playing the Centerpiece Gala, a prestigious slot, but the more I saw the trailer the more I worried. That’s the best they’ve got? What’s in this not-very-funny trailer?
Yep. “Late Night” is supposed to be about funny people and it’s not very funny.
Newbury gets off some zingers but overall she’s entitled and out-of-touch. She thinks she doesn’t have to keep up-to-date to keep an audience. New writers are told: Nothing happened after 1995, not the internet, and certainly not social media, so don’t mention any of that. Plus she’s sexist. Her writing staff consists of eight Yalie white men. Her personal assistant, Brad (Denis O’Hare), tells her, “I think you have a problem with living female writers on your staff,” and when it becomes an issue, he’s ordered to find her one. And there, across his desk, is Molly Patel, who works at a chemical plant, and has never done standup or comedy writing of any kind; she’s just a fan of the show. But she gets the gig. Because she’s a woman.
Also because she gets off this line.
Brad: A TV writer’s room is ... It’s not very PC. It can be a pretty masculine environment.
Molly: Oh, I saw most of the writers. I’m not overly worried about masculinity.
It’s one of the movie’s last funny lines.
That sets it all up. Molly is young, non-white, kinda hip; Newbury is old, very white, and decidedly unhip; and the movie’s trajectory is for Newbury to open up enough to Molly’s ideas to save both of their careers.
Except the stuff Molly comes up with? The worst. We get a recurring on-the-street bit called “Katherine Newbury: White Savoir,” where she helps two black dudes hail a cab, a fat woman buy clothes (I think), and some other dude get fries by complaining on social media. This is what turns the show from soporific into “a viral sensation.” I remember my father used to complain about movies in which some fictional Broadway show would get a standing ovation opening night when it was so bad it would probably close in a week, and this is the modern version of that. Even if people got the joke, and there isn't much of one, Newbury would be skewered more than celebrated for “White Savoir.”
As for that politically incorrect writers room? I wish. These guys are sweethearts. There’s a cute monologue writer (Reid Scott of “VEEP”), an older, empathetic, I’ll-be-fired-any-day-now dude (Max Casella), a lothario (Hugh Dancy), a fat guy (Paul Walter Hauser), and some non-descripts. At one point, they wonder over this “diversity hire” but they kind of whisper it. Mostly they’re there to support Molly. When a story breaks that Katherine slept with the lothario, cheating on her Parkinson’s-ridden husband Walter (John Lithgow), they all seem shocked. They soul search. “I thought she really loved Walter,” says the “VEEP” dude, betrayed. It comes off more like a consciousness-raising session.
You like us again; you really like us again
The story about the affair sets up our third act. Katherine takes a sabbatical, then says she’ll return to hand over the show over to the douchey standup the network wants (Ike Barinholtz); Molly says no, she should acknowledge the affair and fight for her show. They argue. Molly’s fired. “VEEP” dude shows up at her house to buck her up. Then Katherine does what Molly suggested, wins back the crowd, wins over the network president (Amy Ryan), keeps the job, and shows up at Molly’s new apartment to woo her back. A year later, everything’s hunky dory.
I didn’t like anybody in it. No, not true. I mostly didn’t like our female leads. It’s basically another example of female storytellers (Kaling and director Nisha Ganatra) giving us flawed, unsympathetic female characters and sympathetic, supportive male ones. Which is fine, but the flaws should be interesting. “Late Night” sets up the usual false dichotomy of Hollywood films: High culture is snooty so let’s wallow in the YouTube muck. These are our only two options.
O’Hare, who’s been in everything, is good, as is Casella. I particularly liked Lithgow’s Walter. There’s a scene when Molly attends a party at Katherine’s and finds Walter upstairs alone playing the piano. She listens. They talk. It’s nice. I didn’t want to leave that room.