More “Not Boring” Than Usual:
Surprises Elevate the 2010 Primetime Emmys
As a whole, the Emmy Awards live and die on surprise: sure, there’s always favourites, but the idea that “anything can happen” is what keeps us watching a show which so often punishes us for becoming emotionally involved. For every pleasant surprise there has been soul-crushing complacency, and so we watch hoping that something will cut through the pain in order to give us some sense of hope for the legitimacy of these awards.
And while we eventually leave each evening lamenting numerous mistakes, comfortable in our superior knowledge of what is truly great in television in a given year, I don’t want that to obfuscate the moments of transcendence. Sometimes, moments come together that defy our cynical expectations, moments that find the spontaneity in the scripted or make the spontaneous feel as if it was planned all along. And while I remain the jaded critic that I was before the show began, any chance of carrying that attitude through the entirety of the show was diminished at the sight of Jon Hamm booty-dancing towards Betty White, and all but gone by the time Top Chef finally ended The Amazing Race’s reign of terror over Reality Competition program.
It was a night filled with surprises, whether in terms of who was winning the awards (with a huge number of first-time winners) or in terms of emotional moments which resulted from those winners – sure, there were hiccups along the way, and there were still a number of winners which indicated that the Emmys are still stuck in their ways, but there was enough excitement for me to designate these Emmys as “not boring.”
In fact, I’d go so far as to say they were more “not boring” than usual.
Lead Acting in a Comedy Series
August 25th, 2010
There is nothing particularly progressive about the Lead Acting awards on the comedy side: with Modern Family’s cast choosing to submit in supporting across the board, and with Lea Michele and Matthew Morrison both submitting poorly, the big comedy battle of the year really isn’t relevant here, which means that we’re left with less interesting battles.
Or, more accurately, some less heartening battles: the reality is that these awards are unlikely to go to new faces, with previous winners dominating both fields. I’d like to believe that someone like Amy Poehler or Jim Parsons could walk away with these awards, but only the latter really has a chance, and even then something big, boring, and potentially enraging stands in his way.
And Your Winner, by Submission…: Analyzing 2010’s Emmy Tapes
July 15th, 2010
Last week, I wrote a piece for Jive TV which described the next step in the Emmy Awards process, and the ways in which this post-nomination period is honestly more interesting for me than the pre-nomination period: as my Twitter followers have noted, I’m a bit obsessive about the submissions process, where the nominated series and performers choose episodes to represent their work over the past season.
It fascinates me because of how unnatural it is: performers can’t simply put together a reel of their strongest moments from throughout the season, they need to find a single representative episode (which, for supporting players, is cut down to only their scenes), and so what they choose is incredibly telling. For example, the cast of Glee have very clearly been instructed to submit episodes which feature big musical performances: Chris Colfer submitted “Laryngitis” because of the show-stopping “Rose’s Turn,” while Lea Michele submitted “Sectionals” based on her take on “Don’t Rain on My Parade.” These might not be their more consistent episodes in terms of overall material, but musically they are character-defining performances, and Glee has decided that this will be its Emmy focus. And yet, for Matthew Morrison and Jane Lynch, their submissions don’t work as well when oriented around their most show-stopping musical performances, and so sometimes a series’ approach doesn’t match with each performer.
It’s a delicate balance, and one which I think best captures the equally maddening and addictive nature of this process, which is why I will now take a closer look at the submissions strategy from a number of series: for a look at how they look as categories, and for more submissions I don’t talk about here, check out Tom O’Neill post at Gold Derby.
The Trick is to Actually Watch TV: The 2010 Emmy Nominations
July 8th, 2010
The Emmy nominations (which you can find in full here) are less a sign of what’s truly great on television and a more a sign of what the Emmy voters have actually been watching.
Series and performers are nominated for Emmys for one of two reasons: either the Academy members watched episodes carefully and saw them deserving of an award, or they looked at their ballots and chose a familiar name, a much buzzed-about series, or the first name on the ballot. And, frankly, most years the latter seemed to be their modus operandi, to the point where I’ve started to disassociate voters with any notion of television viewership – I’m not even convinced most of them own televisions.
However, for once, I’d say that the 2010 Emmy nominations seem to have been made by people who actually enjoy the medium, with plenty of evidence to demonstrate that voters actually watched many of the shows they nominated and discovered not only the most hyped elements of that series but also those elements which are truly deserving of Emmys attention. There are still plenty of examples where it’s clear that Emmy voters didn’t truly bother to watch the series in question, and all sorts of evidence which indicates that the Emmy voters suffer from a dangerously selective memory and a refusal to let go of pay cable dramedies, but the fact remains that this is the most hopeful Emmy year in recent memory.
It isn’t that every nominee is perfect, but rather that there is evidence of Academy voters sitting down in front of their television and watching more than a single episode of the shows in question, making them less like soulless arbiters of quality and more like actual television viewers – it might not stick, but for a few moments it’s nice to finally see some nominees that indicate voters aren’t so much different from us after all.
Handicapping the 2010 Emmys: Comedy Acting
June 2nd, 2010
In comedy this year, a lot depends on what shows make it big: we know that Glee and Modern Family are going to make a statement (as noted in my piece handicapping the Comedy Series race), but is it going to be a statement of “this is a great show” or a statement of “this is the greatest show since sliced bread?” The difference will largely be felt in the acting categories: both Modern Family and Glee have multiple Emmy contenders, but it’s unclear whether some of the less heralded performers will be able to rise along with the big “stars,” or whether the halo of series success won’t help them compete against some established names already entrenched in these categories.
Ultimately, I’m willing to say that there’s going to be some pretty big turnaround this year in some of these categories, but others feature quite a large number of former nominees who likely aren’t going anywhere, so it should be interesting to see how things shake out on July 8th. In the meantime, let’s take a look at the four major Comedy Acting Emmys and see where the chips lie.
March 22nd, 2010
When I watched the season premiere of the United States of Tara, the “Previously On…” segment reminded me of the intriguing plot developments that had defined the show’s first season, but it did little to capture the nuances that made the show work so well. The strength of Toni Colette’s performance, for example, was not evident in the brief scenes, and so it didn’t entirely represent the defining qualities of the show.
However, compared to the “Previously On…” segment for Nurse Jackie, the thing was bloody brilliant. If Tara’s recap failed to capture the nuances that I most enjoyed about the show, Nurse Jackie’s recap manages to capture every single thing I despised about the show’s uneven first season (except for the opening credits, which unfortunately appeared right after the recap was over). The show was always at its best when it focused on the humanity of its characters, or when it allowed a character like Merritt Wever’s Zoey charm us to death. The promo, by comparison, sold the show based on its high-stakes serialized elements which felt simultaneously undercooked and overblown.
Perhaps, though, I should be happy that the recap revealed these elements, because it meant I had no false pretenses heading into “Comfort Food;” this is the same show that it was in its first season, for better and (most certainly) for worse, and while parts of the show continue to present some subtle and effective work both in front of and behind the camera, the part of the show that’s most designed to draw us into this world remains a mess.
I don’t think I have ever been more excited to watch the Golden Globes (Tonight at 8pm on NBC), and yet at the same time I don’t think I’ve ever been so disassociated from the actual nominees.
This likely sounds strange, but it’s true: while I have been reading about the Oscar race to some degree this year, for the most part it hasn’t caught my attention as it has in years past, and I’m not sure if I could tell you without referring to a list just who is up for one of those rather unattractive trophies this year. While I should never actually take the Golden Globes seriously, especially on the television side where they simultaneously fetishize the new and combine the supporting categories together without any semblance of logic, I usually pay more attention than I have this year.
I think the reason for this is that I don’t need to justify watching them based on some sort of hyper-critical assessment of the nominees. Instead, I can simply tell people that I desire to see Ricky Gervais stand in front of a ballroom filled with drunk or almost-drunk celebrities (or celebrities whose sobriety makes them stand out) and ridicule them for three hours. And if anyone actually questions whether that is worth their television viewing time, then I would tend to believe they are even crazier than the Hollywood Foreign Press Association.
However, since I’m going to be watching the show anyways, I figured I should at least remind myself who is nominated, and since I was doing that anyways I figured I should make some predictions on the television side (along with some less-detailed predictions on the film side). So, after the break, we play the fun game of “Guess what the Hollywood Foreign Press Association will do this year!”
Credits where Credits Are (or Aren’t) Due:
Why Nurse Jackie has the Worst Credits Sequence in Television
January 3rd, 2010
When you write about television as much as I do, there are always ideas for posts floating around in your head – you get to the point where you can’t watch something without constructing a post around it, which can be somewhat daunting when you watch as much television as I do. However, through episode reviews and Twitter, most of those ideas get to the surface, which is usually enough to satiate my critical appetite enough to keep them from overpowering the rest of my life.
However, I don’t think I’ve ever quite said enough about one particular subject, because every time I think about it my blood figuratively boils. And so when Daniel Fienberg and Alan Sepinwall prompted a discussion on Twitter this afternoon about opening credits sequences (in particular the apparently quite good opening to FOX’s Human Target, debuting later this month), I knew it was finally the chance to discuss in further detail the degree to which I despise and loathe the opening credits sequence to Showtime’s Nurse Jackie.
And how, while I understand why Alan would lament the loss of the credits sequence to both supposed audience impatience and shorter running times, there are some shows where all the opening credits do is hearken back to an identity that the show is either no longer associated with or, worse yet, was never associated with to begin with.
July 6th, 2009
As a medical drama airing on a network where 12-13 episode seasons are the norm, Nurse Jackie is in a very weird little position. On the one hand, like all medical dramas, there is a sense that its ongoing storyline isn’t necessarily going to change or evolve in each episode, and its procedural setting will result in storylines that only appear for a single week. On the other hand, as a show with a shortened season, there is an expectation that things will move with a bit more purpose, and that “filler” won’t be as necessary.
To an extent, I would argue that “Daffodil” is the most basic episode yet, one that features a couple of new pairings for the show and offers an interesting parallel but doesn’t seem to do anything with it. This is the first time we’ve seen a night shift episode, and yet it didn’t feel like a particularly novel setup, and the show’s balance of comedy and drama is more than a bit out of whack right now.
It was an entertaining half hour, driven by Jackie’s personal dilemma and some well-drafted characters, but it seemed just a bit too random and, ultimately, basic for me to suggest that it did enough to advance things forward or show us something new.
June 29th, 2009
When a show introduces a protagonist who has small children, and appears interested in investigating their family dynamic, there are really only two choices. One is to dehumanize them entirely, turning them into an amalgamated responsibility that influences them in some way, while the other involves taking them and turning them into an additional commentary on the protagonist’s behaviour. Medium, for example, had Allison’s kids begin as a sign of a normal life she wasn’t able to lead thanks to her ability, but eventually morphed into a scenario where all of her daughter’s inherited her psychic abilities. It’s really the only way a show can run for any period of time while still acknowledging the way the children age and act differently on a regular basis.
What we see in “School Nurse” is the use of Grace as less a mirror and more a potential burden on Jackie, a test of her ability to turn her back on her family. Grace’s anxiety over the world raises a lot of the usual questions facing a mother who is drifting away from her home life to some degree, but it also touches on the idea of knowing, and of being able to somehow sense that unrest that Jackie has tried to keep hidden.
It’s a worthwhile point of interest for the show, and a sign that there are no intentions of using the children as just an object; as long as they keep things subtle and nuanced, I’d say that the show is in fine form.