Monday, September 19, 2005

The Emmys...

...are an embarrassment. I thought that the idea of the Emmys was to reward the best television performances of the past year. After watching tonight, I guess that is not the case. Instead, the Academy decided to give everything it could to the same people who always win. It was especially pathetic that Everybody Loves Raymond won so many awards, including Best Comedy Series, just because this was its final season. Note to the Academy: It was never a good show, and even if you thought it was, I can't imagine that the last season was one of the best. That is never the case, especially with a comedy series. Desperate Housewives obviously deserved to win this award and the fact that it didn't just shows how silly these awards are.

Other appalling decisions included Brad Garrett beating out Jeremy Piven for Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series. What a joke. Piven is inspired as Ari Gold, clearly the best character on Entourage, one of the most-talked about shows in the business. Meanwhile, Garrett is tall and has a deep voice. I was also extremely disappointed to see James Spader win Best Actor in a Drama Series for his role on Boston Legal. I needed an advertisement on the back of a bus today to tell me that this show was still on the air. Spader, who won last year as well, beat out Kiefer Sutherland (nominated for his role as the ultimate badass, Jack Bauer), Ian McShane (nominated for his role as the ultimate badass of the Old West, Al Swearengen), and Hugh Laurie (nominated for his role as the ultimate badass doctor, Gregory House). Do these people even bother to actually watch television?

Finally, there was Best Drama Series, a category won, ironically, by Lost. I was rooting for either 24 or Deadwood, but at least the Academy made a reasonable choice in this case. I would think that since the Academy clearly does not care about picking the best shows or best actors for its awards, it would at least consider the health of its own industry when choosing the winners. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would think that it would help to encourage increased audiences for new shows if they were Emmy Award winners. Sadly, I think at this point, anyone who owns a television knows about Everybody Loves Raymond and won't care if Doris Roberts wins her 5th Emmy or not. On the other hand, while a show like 24 might be critically acclaimed, it is not as popular as it should be with viewers. So perhaps an Emmy for Kiefer Sutherland might help keep a good show on the air. Whoops, I guess the Academy would prefer to continue having the airwaves polluted by shows like Boston Legal.


  1. zI don't think I'll ever watch again. Francis Conroy and Ian Mcshane are two of the very finest actors working in TV, film, or theater. For them to not win isn't simply egregious, it's boring. What's the point of watching a collection of speeches when the most interesting, talented, brilliant people are barred from the podium? I think the only way to avoid this kind of an "I can't get a gig at HBO, so I'll vote for shit" backlash is to separate the Emmy's into Network and Cable, like daytime and primetime. It's akward enough to put profound works of art in the same category as vehicles designed to keep you entertained while companies try to sell you shit. But when those works of art lose, the whole Emmy endeavour becomes an embarrassing celebration of mediocrity.

  2. I find myself agreeing with Lester entirely.

    BTW Rich, I thought this was your best post ever. I really enjoyed the tone of your outrage.