Imagine it’s January 2006. The Academy Award nominations are about to come out. Now imagine that the following rumors are making the rounds among Oscar obsessives:
– Helen Mirren is expected to be denied an Oscar nod, despite her breathtaking performance in “The Queen.”
– Most observers don’t hold out much hope that critically adored films with smaller budgets (movies such as “Pan’s Labyrinth” and “The Last King of Scotland”) will receive any nominations.
– “The Departed” is not considered a lock for multiple nominations but “Night at the Museum” is.
In that scenario, you’d say, “Stop talking crazy talk. That would never happen.”
But things like that happen every year at Emmy time. When the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences comes out with its list of nominees each July, the screams from those who know and care about the medium can be heard across the land (prepare to insert your earplugs Thursday, when this year’s list of Emmy nominees comes out).
That’s not to say the Emmys never recognize worthy work. They do. But shocking omissions and glaring oversights dominate the yearly Emmy discussion. It’s gotten to the point that the Emmys are better known for what they don’t recognize than for what they do.
The fact is, the Emmy system is broken. Unlike the film community — the members of which watch most, if not all, of the top Oscar contenders — the vast majority of people who make TV don’t watch TV. And these days, the explosion of cable programming means there’s far more TV than even the most diligent members of the academy can keep up with. Despite some tweaks to their awards-giving systems in the last few years, the Emmy powers that be refuse to truly acknowledge that these serious, systematic problems are making their awards process even more of a joke.
“Who cares?” you might ask. Sure, in the grand scheme of things, whether a particular actor, writer or director has a shiny statue to show off on the mantelpiece is not of earth-shattering importance.
But that doesn’t mean that the Emmys are of no importance. An Emmy nomination or win can give a deserving show a publicity boost and put the industry on notice that quality — not just shows with recognizable names — does get acknowledged.
But there’s more to it than that. For television to be taken seriously as an art form, the Emmys can’t be a yearly joke; the nomination announcement can’t be an event that causes the most creative, intelligent people in the industry to wince. And if the industry itself doesn’t take the Emmys seriously, thanks to an annual catalog of missteps, why should the public?
Actually, a very TV-savvy public — the very people the networks are relying on as their word-of-mouth marketers — is deeply annoyed by the Emmy process as well. Last year’s nomination list prompted nothing but frustration from the people who should be celebrating the recognition of their favorite programs. The Emmys “are a farce, plain and simple. … No wonder the ratings are lower each year,” a reader named Leonard Hamilton fumed last July on the Tribune’s Watcher Web site.
What’s frustrating about this process is that the Emmys can do a lot of good — they’ve even been known to stave off cancellation in some cases. “The Office” really broke out among the press and the public once it won a best comedy statue. “Arrested Development’s” life was surely extended by its many Emmy wins, and in “Friday Night Lights,” NBC knew it had a strong contender for multiple Emmy nominations. Hence the show’s renewal for a second season, despite low ratings.
And nobody’s saying that popular fare shouldn’t be recognized — “Lost’s” big win after its boffo first season was a thrill — but by not recognizing what’s widely acknowledged as stellar work, the Emmys threaten to make themselves irrelevant.
Here’s just a partial list of TV actors who’ve never gotten an Emmy nomination for their work on the following shows: Lauren Graham of “Gilmore Girls,” Kristen Bell of “Veronica Mars,” Mary Louise Parker of “Weeds,” Kevin Dillon of “Entourage,” Neil Patrick Harris of “How I Met Your Mother,” Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell of “Battlestar Galactica,” Jenna Fischer and John Krasinski of “The Office.”
“The Wire” is not just considered one of the greatest TV shows of all time. It’s simply a classic work of art, by any standard in any creative field. The HBO drama getting only one nomination in its four-season history is like “The Godfather” getting one measly Oscar nomination. It’s not just wrong, it shows an institutional inability (or even unwillingness) to recognize true greatness.
Same goes for “The Shield”: It’s only gotten better since Michael Chiklis got a much-deserved best dramatic actor win in 2002. But none of its writers, directors or stars — including Forest Whitaker, who had a prominent role on the show even as his “Last King of Scotland” Oscar buzz was building — was nominated for Emmys last year, after a season that critics and fans acknowledged was the show’s finest.
These programs and others are proof that television has never been better. The best storytelling on the small screen is as rich and meaningful as a great novel or an affecting film. For those of us who feel compelled to shout from the rooftops about how good the best television is, the Emmys aren’t helping. The Emmys need to decide if they’re a means of rewarding the most powerful producers, the most clout-heavy studios and the most popular shows in the industry — or if they’re truly about rewarding extraordinary achievement in a flourishing medium. The choice is simple.
And it’s not that TV award-giving can’t be done right. The Golden Globes, the awards given by the deeply eccentric Hollywood Foreign Press Association, manage to serve up the kind of recognition that the Emmys usually offer belatedly, if at all. In recent years, the organization (which honors both television and films) has an admirable track record of nominating or giving statues to deserving TV performers and shows before the Emmys get around to recognizing them — if they ever do.
The Peabody Awards, which reward the best of broadcasting and are administered by the University of Georgia’s journalism school, are universally respected for their serious, thoughtful choices. Here’s a partial list of programs that the 14-member Peabody committee has recognized in the past few years: “South Park” (the show has won an Emmy as best animated program, but it’s never been nominated in the best comedy category); “Battlestar Galactica”; “Friday Night Lights”; “The Wire”; “Viva Blackpool”; and even a deeply irreverent and thought-provoking episode of “The Boondocks.”
And the American Film Institute’s annual list of Top 10 TV shows resembles that of many critics — its recent lists have featured crowd-pleasing choices such as “Heroes,” “24” and “Desperate Housewives” as well as thought-provoking fare like “Veronica Mars,” “Dexter,” “Friday Night Lights” and “The Wire.”
So the fact is, it’s possible to reward both critical darlings and popular war horses — to capture the zeitgeist and to recognize worthy (and often overlooked) achievements. But in order for the Emmy folks to get it right on a regular basis, they’ll have to do something they’ve been unwilling to do: Blow up the process and start all over.
The TV academy has tweaked its procedures over the years; there’s now a blue-ribbon panel in the mix, and the Emmy folks have also taken measures to prevent the embarrassment of another 14-second performance being nominated, as Ellen Burstyn was in 2006 for her ultrabrief work on “Mrs. Harris.”
But fiddling around the edges is not going to fix the fundamental issues that hobble the Emmy process. Here are a few of the major ones:
* There’s a lot more TV than there was 20 years ago. Back in the day, there were a few big networks, PBS and a smattering of cable channels. Now there are dozens of cable and broadcast networks creating original content. Though the amount of content has ballooned and keeps expanding, the Emmys haven’t changed nearly enough to accommodate.
* For many of TV’s best shows, viewing an entire season is a must. But that’s rarely how Emmy voters see those shows. Producers and performers have the option of submitting a 250-word summary along with the episodes they submit for Emmy consideration — but is it possible to explain “Lost” (which was shut out of last year’s nominations) in 250 words or less? Not really. This kind of haphazard viewing penalizes terrific performances and story lines that are best seen in the context of an entire season.
* I’ll say it again: People who make television don’t watch television. The reason the Oscar process more or less works is because there are usually no more than a dozen or so films that are likely Oscar contenders. That’s about 30 hours of viewing, give or take. To have kept up with entire seasons of the 30-40 TV shows that could be Emmy contenders requires a time commitment that, for most TV academy members, is just not realistic. Working 18-hour days, 10 months a year does not leave a person with a lot of free time. So the maddening fact is, the TV academy is relying on the voting of people who have probably viewed very little television in the past year. Having academy members watch a bunch of nominated episodes or performances out of context — via DVDs or academy screenings — doesn’t really correct this problem.
I don’t have all the answers to this mess, but I have a few ideas worth considering:
* A statute of limitations should be enforced. TV is not like the film world — because TV is ongoing, certain shows get nominated every year, whether or not they deserve it, to the point where it becomes a joke. It’s far from ideal, but if a three-year lifetime limit means that certain shows or actors don’t have chokeholds on certain categories for years at a time, I’m willing to live with that imperfect compromise.
* Expanding the number of nominees in each category. What if there were 10 nominees in key categories, not five? Actually, introducing both a statute of limitations and an expansion of slots would reduce much of the annual Emmy complaining.
* Shunting many of the mini-series and variety/music awards to the non-televised creative arts ceremony would streamline the prime-time Emmy telecast, and moving up the nomination announcement, so that it arrives a week or two after May sweeps end, might generate more buzz and attention to the Emmys.
* Finally, the blue-ribbon panel that the academy assembles should be strengthened and possibly renamed the Committee to Prevent Embarrassment; its mission should be to make sure that critically lauded shows are given a fair shot, that important programs are seen in their entirety and that shows that TV critics and other awards-giving bodies have recognized are not continually left out of the running.
Those are just a few ideas. I’m sure there are many other changes that could help the Emmys.
But the fact remains that if the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences wants the best of this art form to be taken seriously, it has to take a serious look at the Emmys, and think hard about radically remaking them.
– – –
NOMINATED
Charlie Sheen, “Two and a Half Men”
Eva Longoria, “Desperate Housewives”
Ellen Burstyn, “Mrs. Harris”
NOT NOMINATED
Jenna Fischer, “The Office”
Neil Patrick Harris, “How I Met Your Mother”
Mary McDonnell, “Battlestar Galactica”
Mary Louise Parker, “Weeds”*
* previously nominated for “West Wing” and “Angels in America”
———-
moryan@tribune.com
