2005 Emmy Nominations
July 14, 2005
Let’s start this nice and proper, with no nastiness, cynicism, or abject puzzlement intended. Okay, maybe some cynicism, but you’ll see why in a second. The game is simple, an audience participation TV Q&A, a matter of physical arm movement up and down to the questions I’m about to ask. First question, for everybody in the audience today, those of you who watch, and like, “Desperate Housewives” and “Lost”, raise your hand. Okay, I see many hands, enthusiastic and strong, suggesting maybe that the TV Academy got their nominations right this year. Second question, for everybody still in the audience today, those of you who watch, and still tolerate, “Will and Grace” and “The West Wing”, please raise your hand now. Please? Do I have any callers? Hmm, maybe those stodgy, repetitive slackers on the Academy did get it wrong, again, when they announced the nominations on Thursday for the 57th Annual Emmy Awards, to much skepticism, and critical bashing. The criticism is warranted, for, though every year the Emmy nods bring small surprises (hooray, they finally realized “Scrubs” is a good show), they are always rife with bad choices from once popular shows that nobody, least of all the people who know what good TV is, watch anymore. Our mock Q&A suggests that the 15 nominations for “Desperate Housewives” is a nice high and respectable number for a first season sensation that was a critical and commercial success (ditto “Lost’s” 12 nods), but how on Earth does a shrill, boring, uncreative, and four-years-past-its-prime comedy like “Will and Grace”, which hemorrhages viewers in the millions each year, record an equally high 15 nods, and the running-on-campaign-fumes of last years ‘West Wing’ still snag a Best Drama nomination? Either somebody at NBC is sweetening the absent-minded codgers at the Academy with special peacock shaped brownies with the desperate phrase “Remember Us, Your Needy Friends, NBC”, or the senile voters simply sample a few new shows, nominate the obvious greats (“Deadwood”, “24”, “Arrested Development”), and fill out the rest with last years less original nominees (“Will and Grace”, “The West Wing”, “Everybody Loves Raymond”), much to the dismay of fans who hoped the landmark ‘04-’05 TV season would compel the Emmy voters to think outside the box, but that’s always too much to ask of this loony bunch.
Before I deal with the many snubs this year, there actually is some good to be discussed, and it has to start with ABC’s two-headed beast of “Desperate Housewives” and “Lost”, two of the best shows of last year. From the start, I think everybody knew “Lost” was special, with its brilliant flashback character development, adventurous and puzzling mysteries, and stunning location photography, and the 12 nominations, tops for a drama show, would suggest that on September 18th, just before season two starts, and just after season one is released on DVD, it’ll be the show to beat. I’d say the same for ‘Housewives’, if it weren’t for the weird love the Academy showers on “Will and Grace”, but failing a complete mental breakdown, ‘Housewives’ will probably prevail over the tired NBC comedy, with Teri Hatcher a likely winner for Best Actress. Their stiffest competition will come from last years champ, and my favorite comedy, “Arrested Development”, Fox’s hilarious, free-form, one-camera masterpiece, nominated for 11 awards, including sorry-for-the-snub-last-year nods to Jason Bateman, and Jessica Walter as Bluth family matriarch Lucille. The 13 nods to the final season of “Everybody Loves Raymond” worries me a bit, since the Academy tends to get all mushy with past favorites it knows it’ll never get to nominate again, and even though ‘Ray’ was still the top form, it seems like a third or fourth banana this year compared to “Arrested Development”, “Desperate Housewives”, and the welcome nod to NBC’s wonderful medical comedy “Scrubs”.
In the drama category, “Lost” will face tough competition from HBO’s great and gritty western “Deadwood”, a mucky, profane, and utterly compelling story of American birth that snagged 11 nominations for its second season, including retribution to Ian McShane, who was brutally snubbed last year for his peerless performance as TV’s best character, Al Swearengen. That the Emmy’s continue to ignore HBO’s even-better “The Wire”, in favor of the dwindling and depressing “Six Feet Under” really bugs me, but the inclusion of “Deadwood” in top categories is awards-nominating done right. In its fourth season, Fox’s still-exciting “24” was rewarded with 11 nominations, including another Best Actor nom for Kiefer Sutherland as Jack Bauer, but if the Academy failed to award the show three years running, nothing suggests to me they’re likely to change their minds against slightly better shows like “Deadwood” and “Lost”. I have no problem with that, just as long as token nominee ‘West Wing’ gets shut out, because really, even though last year was an improvement, thanks in part to Jimmy Smits and Supporting Actor nominee Alan Alda (what a year, coupled with the same nod at the Oscars for “The Aviator”), it’s not the Best Drama on TV. It once was, about four or five years ago, but not anymore, so lets move on already.
I couldn’t count the snubs on this years nominations list if I had ten hands, an abacus for each, but nothing comes as more of a shock than Matthew Fox not getting the Best Actor nod as “Lost’s” primary hero. Of that great ensemble cast, each character as vital as the next, Fox was the unquestioned standout, and to not reward his brilliantly conflicted performance as Jack, a doctor uncomfortable with the leadership role his fellow castaways immediately bestow on him, would be like “24” without a Sutherland nomination, almost unthinkable. It’s nice to see Terry O’Quinn and Naveen Andrews singled out for Supporting Actor nods, but only two of an expansive and impressive lot like this (what, not one woman?) is a very bad showing. Other notable acting snubs this year include a bogus missed-nod to “24’s” powerful and creepy Shohreh Aghdashloo as terrorist matriarch Dina Araz, “The Shield’s” ruthless season 4 villain Anthony Anderson (ditto Michael Chiklis, though I guess he should be punished for “Fantastic Four” somehow), “Deadwood’s” Timothy Olyphant, Molly Parker, Powers Booth, and Robin Weigert, “Arrested Development’s” Will Arnett and David Cross, and “Entourage’s” Kevin Dillon, though the nod to Jeremy Piven is a welcome surprise. And while I know “King of Queens” will never get the respect it deserves, there is no show on TV now that I like to watch more in syndication, including “The Simpsons”, “Seinfeld” and “Futurama”, than Kevin James’ very funny, conventional sitcom, a show that I’d love to see get a Best Comedy nomination, but probably never will. I could go on, but I’ll sum up how inconsistent the Academy is with one fact, that Jay Leno, the grand shill of late night TV, is nominated for Best Individual Performance for a Variety Series but not David Letterman or Conan O’Brien, while Dave and Conan’s shows are up for Best Variety Series, but not Leno’s ‘Tonight Show’. If that makes any sense, than maybe I’m not paying enough attention, but you’ll forgive my lack of focus, because, like always, this years Emmy nominations have left me tired and sleepy.
by Adam Suraf