Thursday, July 06, 2006

Boo, Hiss

The King is dead, long live the King. The 2006 Emmy Nominations were announced today, and “Grey’s Anatomy” has officially supplanted “Lost” as the bandwagon everybody wants to jump on. I don’t get it. I’ve watched “Grey’s” and I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this show before. I think it was called “ER Meets Ally McBeal.”

Perhaps it’s all just some cruel joke being perpetrated by the Dharma Initiative, but “Lost,” last year’s Drama winner, was notably absent from this year’s list of series contenders. The show’s sole acting nod went to Henry Ian Cusick (better known as “Desmond”) in the Guest Actor category. (I predict Cusick will make the leap to Supporting or Lead next year—the dude is riveting.)

I feel like I watch a lot of TV and am therefore an excellent judge of the supremacy of “Lost,” but we don’t have cable, so it’s possible that actors from “Huff” and “Six Feet Under” are actually more deserving than Matthew Fox, Naveen Andrews or Terry O’Quinn. But I doubt it. I offer up O’Quinn’s flashback episode, which according to the clock next to our television set ran a full hour, but felt like 20 minutes, that’s how much you love watching this guy on screen.

I confess that I will miss “The West Wing” and its alternate political universe, which has placated Democrats during the entire Bush administration. I was looking forward to Jimmy Smits as my placebo president. But Best Drama Series? Martin Sheen as Best Actor?

Enough with the lifetime achievement nominations. Or the hey-it’s-a-movie-star-slumming-on-TV nominations. Or the we’re-sorry-you-got-canceled nominations (Except "Everwood." Emmy does not mourn "Everwood." So many bones to pick, so little time.)

Of course, if we played by my rules, there would be no Best Actress category in either comedy or drama—I believe only three of these ladies will be returning for the 2006-2007 season. Which might have made room for “Gilmore Girls’” Lauren Graham. Emmy does have its traditions, the annual omission of Graham being one of its finest.

It’s not like Emmy doesn’t recognize obscure, little-watched programs. Witness the love for “Arrested Development,” “The Comeback” and even, for god’s sake, “Out of Practice.” So why the cold shoulder for “Gilmore”? I suspect voters simply can’t decide between Comedy or Drama. As if Graham’s slow burn during the whole my-fiancee-just-discovered-he-has-a-daughter-and-he-doesn't-want-me-to-meet-her storyline was the least bit funny.

As a consolation prize, Emmy could at least throw a Supporting bone to “Gilmore” matriarch Kelly Bishop, perhaps in lieu of fellow golden girls Blythe Danner or Candice Bergen (see movie-star-slumming rule).

I ask myself, why do I care? To paraphrase Bogie in “Casablanca,” in the grand scheme of things, the Emmy Awards don’t amount to a hill of beans. Pretty, rich people get to take home a gold statue. It’s like winning employee of the year, only the paychecks are bigger and the clothes are better.

In the end, I guess I’m looking for a little personal validation. On Tuesdays, I could be volunteering at a soup kitchen or teaching kids to read. But I prefer to hang out with the quirky residents of Stars Hollow. On Wednesdays, I could be organizing my closets or writing that collection of best selling essays. But I choose to strand myself on a mysterious island. On Mondays, I could call my Dad, but he won’t pick up during “24.” I want Emmy to tell me that I have chosen wisely, that I’m not frittering my time away on worthless drivel but truly outstanding “art.”

I see that “Dancing With the Stars” is up for Best Choreography. That’s what I’m talking about.


Post a Comment

<< Home